Full Text
Appendix A Solicitation of Views Package and Responses ---PAGE BREAK--- Planning Department 201 1 Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kalispell.comlplanning May 8, 2015 Dave Dedman, Chief Kalispell Fire Department 201 1 St Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear Mr. Dedman: RE: Tiger Grant Application — Environmental Assessment Consultation The City of Kalispell as lead agency in concert with the Flathead County Economic Development Authority (FCEDA) is submitting a grant proposal under the TIGER Discretionary Grant Program for the fiscal year 2015. This is part ofthe National Infrastructure Investments Program as administered by the US Department of Transportation. This project will effectively transform the previously existing Knife River gravel pit and concrete batch plant into a modern rail-industrial park campus. This project is estimated to cost approximately $20.8 million and is planned to be constructed over a 14 month period. Ultimately, rail service would terminate at the US Highway 2 Bridge. The city will then transform the existing rail grade through Kalispell and the rail bridge over US 2 into a multi-use trail. Up to an additional 4 crossroads would also be planned connecting Center Street with Idaho (US 2) to the north. This portion ofthe project is estimated to cost approximately $5 million. A more in-depth project description, discussion of historical uses, discussion of environmental concerns and project maps are attached. This environmental assessment is an update of a previously conducted assessment in 2013. For the purposes of an environmental review would you please comment on any impacts both positive and negative, associated with this project within your jurisdiction for the area(s) listed below? Also, please list conditions that you feel would mitigate any negative impacts or accentuate any positive impacts. If you are aware of other issues of concern associated with this project, comments are also welcome. In addition, if separate permits or permitting is required please comment accordingly. Please comment on the impacts related to the following: • Hazardous Materials • Public Safety PLANNING FOR. THE FUTURI ---PAGE BREAK--- Please comment by May 29, 2015 in writing or via email at tientz@kalispelLcorn. Ifwe have not heard from you by that date, we will assume that your office does not have any concerns. If you need more information, do not hesitate to contact this office immediately. Sincerely, Tom Jentz Environmental Certif’ing Officer Attachments: Project Description Project area maps 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Planning Department 201 1 St Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kalispell.comlplanning May 8,2015 Montana Department ofFish, Wildlife & Parks Resource Assessment Unit P.O. Box 200701 Helena, MT 59620-0701 To whom it may concern: RE: Tiger Grant Application — Environmental Assessment Consultation The City of Kalispell as lead agency in concert with the Flathead County Economic Development Authority (FCEDA) is submitting a grant proposal under the TIGER Discretionary Grant Program for the fiscal year 2015. This is part ofthe National Infrastructure Investments Program as administered by the US Department of Transportation. This project will effectively transform the previously existing Knife River gravel pit and concrete batch plant into a modern rail-industrial park campus. This project is estimated to cost approximately $20.8 million and is planned to be constructed over a 14 month period. Ultimately, rail service would terminate at the US Highway 2 Bridge. The city will then transform the existing rail grade through Kalispell and the rail bridge over US 2 into a multi-use trail. Up to an additional 4 crossroads would also be planned connecting Center Street with Idaho (US 2) to the north. This portion ofthe project is estimated to cost approximately $5 million. A more in-depth project description, discussion of historical uses, discussion of environmental concerns and project maps are attached. This environmental assessment is an update of a previously conducted assessment in 2013. For the purposes of an environmental review would you please comment on any impacts both positive and negative, associated with this project within your jurisdiction for the area(s) listed below? Also, please list conditions that you feel would mitigate any negative impacts or accentuate any positive impacts. If you are aware of other issues of concern associated with this project, comments are also welcome. In addition, if separate permits or permitting is required please comment accordingly. Please comment on the impacts related to the following: PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE . Parks and Recreation ---PAGE BREAK--- Please comment by May 29, 2015 in writing or via email at [EMAIL REDACTED]. Ifwe have not heard from you by that date, we will assume that your office does not have any concerns. If you need more information, do not hesitate to contact this office immediately. Sincerely, Tom Jentz Environmental Certifying Officer Attachments: Project Description Project area maps 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Planning Department 201 1 St Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kaIispeI1.comJp1annin May 8, 2015 Montana Environmental Quality Control Todd Everts, Director P.O. Box 201704 Helena, MT 59620-1704 Dear Mr. Everts: RE: Tiger Grant Application — Environmental Assessment Consultation The City of Kalispell as lead agency in concert with the Flathead County Economic Development Authority (FCEDA) is submitting a grant proposal under the TIGER Discretionary Grant Program for the fiscal year 2015. This is part ofthe National Infrastructure Investments Program as administered by the US Department of Transportation. This project will effectively transform the previously existing Knife River gravel pit and concrete batch plant into a modern rail-industrial park campus. This project is estimated to cost approximately $20.8 million and is planned to be constructed over a 14 month period. Ultimately, rail service would terminate at the US Highway 2 Bridge. The city will then transform the existing rail grade through Kalispell and the rail bridge over US 2 into a multi-use trail. Up to an additional 4 crossroads would also be planned connecting Center Street with Idaho (US 2) to the north. This portion ofthe project is estimated to cost approximately $5 million. A more in-depth project description, discussion of historical uses, discussion of environmental concerns and project maps are attached. This environmental assessment is an update of a previously conducted assessment in 2013. For the purposes of an environmental review would you please comment on any impacts both positive and negative, associated with this project within your jurisdiction for the area(s) listed below? Also, please list conditions that you feel would mitigate any negative impacts or accentuate any positive impacts. If you are aware of other issues of concern associated with this project, comments are also welcome. In addition, if separate permits or permitting is required please comment accordingly. PLANNiNG FOR THE FUTURI ---PAGE BREAK--- Please comment by May 29, 2015 in writing or via email at [EMAIL REDACTED]. Ifwe have not heard from you by that date, we will assume that your office does not have any concerns. If you need more information, do not hesitate to contact this office immediately. Sincerely, Tom Jentz Environmental Certiiy’ing Officer Attachments: Project Description Project area maps 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Planning Department 201 1 Avenue East Kalispefi, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kalispell.comJplanning May 8,2015 Mark Deleray, Biologist Montana Department Fish, Wildlife & Parks 490 Meridian Road Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear Mr. Deleray: RE: Tiger Grant Application — Environmental Assessment Consultation The City of Kalispell as lead agency in concert with the Flathead County Economic Development Authority (FCEDA) is submitting a grant proposal under the TIGER Discretionary Grant Program for the fiscal year 2015. This is part ofthe National Infrastructure Investments Program as administered by the US Department of Transportation. This project will effectively transform the previously existing Knife River gravel pit and concrete batch plant into a modem rail-industrial park campus. This project is estimated to cost approximately $20.8 million and is planned to be constructed over a 14 month period. Ultimately, rail service would terminate at the US Highway 2 Bridge. The city will then transform the existing rail grade through Kalispell and the rail bridge over US 2 into a multi-use trail. Up to an additional 4 crossroads would also be planned connecting Center Street with Idaho (US 2) to the north. This portion ofthe project is estimated to cost approximately $5 million. A more in-depth project description, discussion of historical uses, discussion of environmental concerns and project maps are attached. This environmental assessment is an update of a previously conducted assessment in 2013. For the purposes of an environmental review would you please comment on any impacts both positive and negative, associated with this project within your jurisdiction for the area(s) listed below? Also, please list conditions that you feel would mitigate any negative impacts or accentuate any positive impacts. If you are aware of other issues of concern associated with this project, comments are also welcome. In addition, if separate permits or permitting is required please comment accordingly. Please comment on the impacts related to the following: • Parks & Recreation • Threatened and Endangered Species PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE ---PAGE BREAK--- Please comment by May 29, 2015 in writing or via email at tjentz(kalispe1l.com. Ifwe have not heard from you by that date, we will assume that your office does not have any concerns. If you need more information, do not hesitate to contact this office immediately. Sincerely, Tom Jentz Environmental Certifying Officer Attachments: Project Description Project area maps 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Planning Department 201 1 Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kalispell.com/planning May 8, 2015 Jed Fisher, Director Flathead County Parks Department 1257 Willow Glen Drive Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear Mr. Fisher: RE: Tiger Grant Application — Environmental Assessment Consultation The City of Kalispell as lead agency in concert with the Flathead County Economic Development Authority (FCEDA) is submitting a grant proposal under the TIGER Discretionary Grant Program for the fiscal year 2015. This is part of the National Infrastructure Investments Program as administered by the US Department of Transportation. This project will effectively transform the previously existing Knife River gravel pit and concrete batch plant into a modern rail-industrial park campus. This project is estimated to cost approximately $20.8 million and is planned to be constructed over a 14 month period. Ultimately, rail service would terminate at the US Highway 2 Bridge. The city will then transform the existing rail grade through Kalispell and the rail bridge over US 2 into a multi-use trail. Up to an additional 4 crossroads would also be planned connecting Center Street with Idaho (US 2) to the north. This portion ofthe project is estimated to cost approximately $5 million. A more in-depth project description, discussion of historical uses, discussion of environmental concerns and project maps are attached. This environmental assessment is an update of a previously conducted assessment in 2013. For the purposes of an environmental review would you please comment on any impacts both positive and negative, associated with this project within your jurisdiction for the area(s) listed below? Also, please list conditions that you feel would mitigate any negative impacts or accentuate any positive impacts. If you are aware of other issues of concern associated with this project, comments are also welcome. In addition, if separate permits or permitting is required please comment accordingly. Please comment on the impacts related to the following: PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE .fiANA..LJ . Parks and Recreation ---PAGE BREAK--- Please comment by May 29, 2015 in writing or via email at [EMAIL REDACTED]. Ifwe have not heard from you by that date, we will assume that your office does not have any concerns. If you need more information, do not hesitate to contact this office immediately. Sincerely, Tom Jentz Environmental Certifjing Officer Attachments: Project Description Project area maps 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Planning Department 201 1 st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.ka1ispefl.coniJp1annin May 8,2015 B.J. Grieve, Director Flathead County Planning Dept. 1035 1st Avenue West Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear Mr. Grieve: RE: Tiger Grant Application — Environmental Assessment Consultation The City of Kalispell as lead agency in concert with the Flathead County Economic Development Authority (FCEDA) is submitting a grant proposal under the TIGER Discretionary Grant Program for the fiscal year 2015. This is part ofthe National Infrastructure Investments Program as administered by the US Department of Transportation. This project will effectively transform the previously existing Knife River gravel pit and concrete batch plant into a modern rail-industrial park campus. This project is estimated to cost approximately $20.8 million and is planned to be constructed over a 14 month period. Ultimately, rail service would terminate at the US Highway 2 Bridge. The city will then transform the existing rail grade through Kalispell and the rail bridge over US 2 into a multi-use trail. Up to an additional 4 crossroads would also be planned connecting Center Street with Idaho (US 2) to the north. This portion ofthe project is estimated to cost approximately $5 million. A more in-depth project description, discussion ofhistorical uses, discussion of environmental concerns and project maps are attached. This environmental assessment is an update of a previously conducted assessment in 2013. For the purposes of an environmental review would you please comment on any impacts both positive and negative, associated with this project within your jurisdiction for the area(s) listed below? Also, please list conditions that you feel would mitigate any negative impacts or accentuate any positive impacts. If you are aware of other issues of concern associated with this project, comments are also welcome. In addition, if separate permits or permitting is required please comment accordingly. Please comment on the impacts related to the following: . Community Impacts PLANNING FOR Thi! FUTUIU! . Environmental Justice ---PAGE BREAK--- Please comment by May 29, 2015 in writing or via email at [EMAIL REDACTED]. Ifwe have not heard from you by that date, we will assume that your office does not have any concerns. If you need more information, do not hesitate to contact this office immediately. Sincerely, Tom Jentz Environmental Certifying Officer Attachments: Project Description Project area maps 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Planning Department 201 1 St Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kalispe11.comJp1annin May 8, 2015 Susie Turner, Director Kalispell Public Works Department 201 1st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear Ms. Turner: RE: Tiger Grant Application — Environmental Assessment Consultation The City of Kalispell as lead agency in concert with the Flathead County Economic Development Authority (FCEDA) is submitting a grant proposal under the TIGER Discretionary Grant Program for the fiscal year 2015. This is part ofthe National Infrastructure Investments Program as administered by the US Department ofTransportation. This project will effectively transform the previously existing Knife River gravel pit and concrete batch plant into a modern rail-industrial park campus. This project is estimated to cost approximately $20.8 million and is planned to be constructed over a 14 month period. Ultimately, rail service would terminate at the US Highway 2 Bridge. The city will then transform the existing rail grade through Kalispell and the rail bridge over US 2 into a multi-use trail. Up to an additional 4 crossroads would also be planned connecting Center Street with Idaho (US 2) to the north. This portion of the project is estimated to cost approximately $5 million. A more in-depth project description, discussion ofhistorical uses, discussion of environmental concerns and project maps are attached. This environmental assessment is an update of a previously conducted assessment in 2013. For the purposes of an environmental review would you please comment on any impacts both positive and negative, associated with this project within your jurisdiction for the area(s) listed below? Also, please list conditions that you feel would mitigate any negative impacts or accentuate any positive impacts. If you are aware of other issues of concern associated with this project, comments are also welcome. In addition, if separate permits or permitting is required please comment accordingly. Please comment on the impacts related to the following: PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE . Water Quality — Drinking water resources impacted ---PAGE BREAK--- Please comment by May 29, 2015 in writing or via email at [EMAIL REDACTED]. Ifwe have not heard from you by that date, we will assume that your office does not have any concerns. If you need more information, do not hesitate to contact this office immediately. Sincerely, Tom Jentz Environmental Certifying Officer Attachments: Project Description Project area maps 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Planning Department 201 ls Avenue East Kalispell,, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kalispell.comlplanning May 8, 2015 Tom Jentz, Director Kalispell Planning & Building Dept. 201 1 st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear Mr. Jentz: RE: Tiger Grant Application — Environmental Assessment Consultation The City of Kalispell as lead agency in concert with the Flathead County Economic Development Authority (FCEDA) is submitting a grant proposal under the TIGER Discretionary Grant Program for the fiscal year 2015. This is part ofthe National Infrastructure Investments Program as administered by the US Department of Transportation. This project will effectively transform the previously existing Knife River gravel pit and concrete batch plant into a modem rail-industrial park campus. This project is estimated to cost approximately $20.8 million and is planned to be constructed over a 14 month period. Ultimately, rail service would terminate at the US Highway 2 Bridge. The city will then transform the existing rail grade through Kalispell and the rail bridge over US 2 into a multi-use trail. Up to an additional 4 crossroads would also be planned connecting Center Street with Idaho (US 2) to the north. This portion ofthe project is estimated to cost approximately $5 million. A more in-depth project description, discussion of historical uses, discussion of environmental concerns and project maps are attached. This environmental assessment is an update of a previously conducted assessment in 2013. For the purposes of an environmental review would you please comment on any impacts both positive and negative, associated with this project within your jurisdiction for the area(s) listed below? Also, please list conditions that you feel would mitigate any negative impacts or accentuate any positive impacts. If you are aware of other issues of concern associated with this project, comments are also welcome. In addition, if separate permits or permitting is required please comment accordingly. Please comment on the impacts related to the following: • Noise & Vibration • Hazardous Materials • Floodplain FOR THE FUTURE ---PAGE BREAK--- • Community Impacts or Environmental Justice • Navigable Waters • Public Safety • Cumulative Impacts • Indirect Impacts Please comment by May 29, 2015 in writing or via email at [EMAIL REDACTED]. Ifwe have not heard from you by that date, we will assume that your office does not have any concerns. If you need more information, do not hesitate to contact this office immediately. Sincerely, Tom Jentz Environmental Certifying Officer Attachments: Project Description Project area maps 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Planning Department 201 1 Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kaJispeILcom/pIannin May 8, 2015 Chad Fincher, Director Kalispell Parks & Recreation Dept. 201 1 st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear Mr. Fincher: RE: Tiger Grant Application — Environmental Assessment Consultation The City of Kalispell as lead agency in concert with the Flathead County Economic Development Authority (FCEDA) is submitting a grant proposal under the TIGER Discretionary Grant Program for the fiscal year 2015. This is part ofthe National Infrastructure Investments Program as administered by the US Department of Transportation. This project will effectively transform the previously existing Knife River gravel pit and concrete batch plant into a modern rail-industrial park campus. This project is estimated to cost approximately $20.8 million and is planned to be constructed over a 14 month period. Ultimately, rail service would terminate at the US Highway 2 Bridge. The city will then transform the existing rail grade through Kalispell and the rail bridge over US 2 into a multi-use trail. Up to an additional 4 crossroads would also be planned connecting Center Street with Idaho (US 2) to the north. This portion ofthe project is estimated to cost approximately $5 million. A more in-depth project description, discussion of historical uses, discussion of environmental concerns and project maps are attached. This environmental assessment is an update of a previously conducted assessment in 2013. For the purposes of an environmental review would you please comment on any impacts both positive and negative, associated with this project within your jurisdiction for the area(s) listed below? Also, please list conditions that you feel would mitigate any negative impacts or accentuate any positive impacts. If you are aware of other issues of concern associated with this project, comments are also welcome. In addition, if separate permits or permitting is required please comment accordingly. Please comment on the impacts related to the following: PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE . Parks & Recreation ---PAGE BREAK--- Please comment by May 29, 2015 in writing or via email at [EMAIL REDACTED]. Ifwe have not heard from you by that date, we will assume that your office does not have any concerns. If you need more information, do not hesitate to contact this office immediately. Sincerely, Tom Jentz Environmental Certifying Officer Attachments: Project Description Project area maps 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Planning Department 201 1 Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kalispell.com/planning May 8, 2015 Tim Bodurtha US Fish & Wildlife Service Creston Fish Hatchery 780 Creston Fish Hatchery Road Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear IVIr. Bodurtha: RE: Tiger Grant Application — Environmental Assessment Consultation The City of Kalispell as lead agency in concert with the Flathead County Economic Development Authority (FCEDA) is submitting a grant proposal under the TIGER Discretionary Grant Program for the fiscal year 2015. This is part ofthe National Infrastructure Investments Program as administered by the US Department of Transportation. This project will effectively transform the previously existing Knife River gravel pit and concrete batch plant into a modern rail-industrial park campus. This project is estimated to cost approximately $20.8 million and is planned to be constructed over a 14 month period. Ultimately, rail service would terminate at the US Highway 2 Bridge. The city will then transform the existing rail grade through Kalispell and the rail bridge over US 2 into a multi-use trail. Up to an additional 4 crossroads would also be planned connecting Center Street with Idaho (US 2) to the north. This portion ofthe project is estimated to cost approximately $5 million. A more in-depth project description, discussion of historical uses, discussion of environmental concerns and project maps are attached. This environmental assessment is an update of a previously conducted assessment in 2013. For the purposes of an environmental review would you please comment on any impacts both positive and negative, associated with this project within your jurisdiction for the area(s) listed below? Also, please list conditions that you feel would mitigate any negative impacts or accentuate any positive impacts. If you are aware of other issues of concern associated with this project, comments are also welcome. In addition, if separate permits or permitting is required please comment accordingly. Please comment on the impacts related to the following: • Wetlands • Critical Habitat PLANNING FOR. THE FUTURE ---PAGE BREAK--- • Endangered Species Please comment by May 29, 2015 in writing or via email at [EMAIL REDACTED]. Ifwe have not heard from you by that date, we will assume that your office does not have any concerns. If you need more information, do not hesitate to contact this office immediately. Sincerely, Tom Jentz Environmental Certifying Officer Attachments: Project Description Project area maps 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Planning Department 201 1 st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kalispell.comlplanning May 8, 2015 Bob Vosen District Construction Engineer MT Department ofTransportation P.O. Box 7308 Kalispell, MT 59904 Dear Mr. Vosen: RE: Tiger Grant Application — Environmental Assessment Consultation The City of Kalispell as lead agency in concert with the Flathead County Economic Development Authority (FCEDA) is submitting a grant proposal under the TIGER Discretionary Grant Program for the fiscal year 2015. This is part ofthe National Infrastructure Investments Program as administered by the US Department of Transportation. This project will effectively transform the previously existing Knife River gravel pit and concrete batch plant into a modem rail-industrial park campus. This project is estimated to cost approximately $20.8 million and is planned to be constructed over a 14 month period. Ultimately, rail service would terminate at the US Highway 2 Bridge. The city will then transform the existing rail grade through Kalispell and the rail bridge over US 2 into a multi-use trail. Up to an additional 4 crossroads would also be planned connecting Center Street with Idaho (US 2) to the north. This portion of the project is estimated to cost approximately $5 million. A more in-depth project description, discussion ofhistorical uses, discussion of environmental concerns and project maps are attached. This environmental assessment is an update of a previously conducted assessment in 2013. For the purposes of an environmental review would you please comment on any impacts both positive and negative, associated with this project within your jurisdiction for the area(s) listed below? Also, please list conditions that you feel would mitigate any negative impacts or accentuate any positive impacts. If you are aware of other issues of concern associated with this project, comments are also welcome. In addition, if separate permits or permitting is required please comment accordingly. Please comment on the impacts related to the following: PL4NtJING FOR THE FUTURI . Transportation ---PAGE BREAK--- Please comment by May 29, 2015 in writing or via email at tjentz(dkalispe1l.com. Ifwe have not heard from you by that date, we will assume that your office does not have any concerns. If you need more information, do not hesitate to contact this office immediately. Sincerely, Tom Jentz Environmental Certifying Officer Attachments: Project Description Project area maps 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Planning Department 201 1 st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kalispelLcomJplanning May 8, 2015 Montana DEQ Tom Ellerhoff P.O. Box 200901 Helena, MT 59620-0901 Dear Mr. Ellerhoffi RE: Tiger Grant Application — Environmental Assessment Consultation The City of Kalispell as lead agency in concert with the Flathead County Economic Development Authority (FCEDA) is submitting a grant proposal under the TIGER Discretionary Grant Program for the fiscal year 2015. This is part ofthe National Infrastructure Investments Program as administered by the US Department of Transportation. This project will effectively transform the previously existing Knife River gravel pit and concrete batch plant into a modem rail-industrial park campus. This project is estimated to cost approximately $20.8 million and is planned to be constructed over a 14 month period. Ultimately, rail service would terminate at the US Highway 2 Bridge. The city will then transform the existing rail grade through Kalispell and the rail bridge over US 2 into a multi-use trail. Up to an additional 4 crossroads would also be planned connecting Center Street with Idaho (US 2) to the north. This portion ofthe project is estimated to cost approximately $5 million. A more in-depth project description, discussion of historical uses, discussion of environmental concerns and project maps are attached. This environmental assessment is an update of a previously conducted assessment in 2013. For the purposes of an environmental review would you please comment on any impacts both positive and negative, associated with this project within your jurisdiction for the area(s) listed below? Also, please list conditions that you feel would mitigate any negative impacts or accentuate any positive impacts. If you are aware of other issues of concern associated with this project, comments are also welcome. In addition, if separate permits or permitting is required please comment accordingly. Please comment on the impacts related to the following: • Air Quality • Water Quality PlANNING FOR THE FUTURE ---PAGE BREAK--- Please comment by May 29, 2015 in writing or via email at [EMAIL REDACTED]. Ifwe have not heard from you by that date, we will assume that your office does not have any concerns. If you need more information, do not hesitate to contact this office immediately. Sincerely, Tom Jentz Environmental Certifying Officer Attachments: Project Description Project area maps 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Planning Department 201 [St Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kaHspeII.com/p1annine May 8, 2015 US Fish & Wildlife Service Sub-Office Coordinator 2900 Avenue North, Room 301 Billings, MT 59101 To whom it may concern: RE: Tiger Grant Application — Environmental Assessment Consultation The City of Kalispell as lead agency in concert with the Flathead County Economic Development Authority (FCEDA) is submitting a grant proposal under the TIGER Discretionary Grant Program for the fiscal year 2015. This is part ofthe National Infrastructure Investments Program as administered by the US Department of Transportation. This project will effectively transform the previously existing Knife River gravel pit and concrete batch plant into a modern rail-industrial park campus. This project is estimated to cost approximately $20.8 million and is planned to be constructed over a 14 month period. Ultimately, rail service would terminate at the US Highway 2 Bridge. The city will then transform the existing rail grade through Kalispell and the rail bridge over US 2 into a multi-use trail. Up to an additional 4 crossroads would also be planned connecting Center Street with Idaho (US 2) to the north. This portion ofthe project is estimated to cost approximately $5 million. A more in-depth project description, discussion of historical uses, discussion of environmental concerns and project maps are attached. This environmental assessment is an update of a previously conducted assessment in 2013. For the purposes of an environmental review would you please comment on any impacts both positive and negative, associated with this project within your jurisdiction for the area(s) listed below? Also, please list conditions that you feel would mitigate any negative impacts or accentuate any positive impacts. Ifyou are aware of other issues of concern associated with this project, comments are also welcome. In addition, if separate permits or permitting is required please comment accordingly. Please comment on the impacts related to the following: • Wetlands • Critical Habitat & Endangered Species PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE ---PAGE BREAK--- Please comment by May 29, 2015 in writing or via email at [EMAIL REDACTED]. Ifwe have not heard from you by that date, we will assume that your office does not have any concerns. If you need more information, do not hesitate to contact this office immediately. Sincerely, Tom Jentz Environmental Certifying Officer Attachments: Project Description Project area maps 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Planning Department 201 1 Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kalispell.comlplanning May 8, 2015 Joe Russell, Director Flathead County Health Department 1035 1 st Avenue West Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear Mr. Russell: RE: Tiger Grant Application — Environmental Assessment Consultation The City of Kalispell as lead agency in concert with the Flathead County Economic Development Authority (FCEDA) is submitting a grant proposal under the TIGER Discretionary Grant Program for the fiscal year 2015. This is part ofthe National Infrastructure Investments Program as administered by the US Department of Transportation. This project will effectively transform the previously existing Knife River gravel pit and concrete batch plant into a modern rail-industrial park campus. This project is estimated to cost approximately $20.8 million and is planned to be constructed over a 14 month period. Ultimately, rail service would terminate at the US Highway 2 Bridge. The city will then transform the existing rail grade through Kalispell and the rail bridge over US 2 into a multi-use trail. Up to an additional 4 crossroads would also be planned connecting Center Street with Idaho (US 2) to the north. This portion ofthe project is estimated to cost approximately $5 million. A more in-depth project description, discussion ofhistorical uses, discussion of environmental concerns and project maps are attached. This environmental assessment is an update of a previously conducted assessment in 2013. For the purposes of an environmental review would you please comment on any impacts both positive and negative, associated with this project within your jurisdiction for the area(s) listed below? Also, please list conditions that you feel would mitigate any negative impacts or accentuate any positive impacts. If you are aware of other issues of concern associated with this project, comments are also welcome. In addition, if separate permits or permitting is required please comment accordingly. Please comment on the impacts related to the following: FOR TH FUTURE Air Quality ---PAGE BREAK--- Please comment by May 29, 2015 in writing or via email at tjentzkalispe1l.coni Ifwe have not heard from you by that date, we will assume that your office does not have any concerns. If you need more information, do not hesitate to contact this office immediately. Sincerely, Tom Jentz Environmental Certifying Officer Attachments: Project Description Project area maps 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Planning Department 201 [St Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kaIispeH.comJp1annin May 8,2015 Cindy Mulaney Flathead County DES 625 TimberwoifParkway Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear Ms. Mulaney: RE: Tiger Grant Application — Environmental Assessment Consultation The City of Kalispell as lead agency in concert with the Flathead County Economic Development Authority (FCEDA) is submitting a grant proposal under the TIGER Discretionary Grant Program for the fiscal year 2015. This is part of the National Infrastructure Investments Program as administered by the US Department of Transportation. This project will effectively transform the previously existing Knife River gravel pit and concrete batch plant into a modern rail-industrial park campus. This project is estimated to cost approximately $20.8 million and is planned to be constructed over a 14 month period. Ultimately, rail service would terminate at the US Highway 2 Bridge. The city will then transform the existing rail grade through Kalispell and the rail bridge over US 2 into a multi-use trail. Up to an additional 4 crossroads would also be planned connecting Center Street with Idaho (US 2) to the north. This portion ofthe project is estimated to cost approximately $5 million. A more in-depth project description, discussion of historical uses, discussion of environmental concerns and project maps are attached. This environmental assessment is an update of a previously conducted assessment in 2013. For the purposes of an environmental review would you please comment on any impacts both positive and negative, associated with this project within your jurisdiction for the area(s) listed below? Also, please list conditions that you feel would mitigate any negative impacts or accentuate any positive impacts. If you are aware ofother issues of concern associated with this project, comments are also welcome. In addition, if separate permits or permitting is required please comment accordingly. Please comment on the impacts related to the following: PLANNING FOR. THE FUTURE - . Hazardous Materials ---PAGE BREAK--- Please comment by May 29, 2015 in writing or via email at [EMAIL REDACTED]. Ifwe have not heard from you by that date, we will assume that your office does not have any concerns. If you need more information, do not hesitate to contact this office immediately. Sincerely, Tom Jentz Environmental Certifjing Officer Attachments: Project Description Project area maps 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Planning Department 201 1 st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.ka1ispe1LcomJp1annin May 8, 2015 Dave Prunty, Director Flathead County Public Works 4098 Hwy 93 South Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear Mr. Prunty: RE: Tiger Grant Application — Environmental Assessment Consultation The City of Kalispell as lead agency in concert with the Flathead County Economic Development Authority (FCEDA) is submitting a grant proposal under the TIGER Discretionary Grant Program for the fiscal year 2015. This is part ofthe National Infrastructure Investments Program as administered by the US Department of Transportation. This project will effectively transform the previously existing Knife River gravel pit and concrete batch plant into a modern rail-industrial park campus. This project is estimated to cost approximately $20.8 million and is planned to be constructed over a 14 month period. Ultimately, rail service would terminate at the US Highway 2 Bridge. The city will then transform the existing rail grade through Kalispell and the rail bridge over US 2 into a multi-use trail. Up to an additional 4 crossroads would also be planned connecting Center Street with Idaho (US 2) to the north. This portion ofthe project is estimated to cost approximately $5 million. A more in-depth project description, discussion ofhistorical uses, discussion of environmental concerns and project maps are attached. This environmental assessment is an update of a previously conducted assessment in 2013. For the purposes of an environmental review would you please comment on any impacts both positive and negative, associated with this project within your jurisdiction for the area(s) listed below? Also, please list conditions that you feel would mitigate any negative impacts or accentuate any positive impacts. If you are aware of other issues of concern associated with this project, comments are also welcome. In addition, if separate permits or permitting is required please comment accordingly. Please comment on the impacts related to the following: • Transportation • Waste and Hazardous Waste PLANNiNG FOR. THE FUTtJRI ---PAGE BREAK--- Please comment by May 29, 2015 in writing or via email at [EMAIL REDACTED]. Ifwe have not heard from you by that date, we will assume that your office does not have any concerns. If you need more information, do not hesitate to contact this office immediately. Sincerely, Tom Jentz Environmental Certifying Officer Attachments: Project Description Project area maps 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Planning Department 201 1 st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kalispell.conilplanning May 8, 2015 Mark Flatau Superintendent of Schools Kalispell School District 5 233 1 st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear Mr. Flatau: RE: Tiger Grant Application — Environmental Assessment Consultation The City of Kalispell as lead agency in concert with the Flathead County Economic Development Authority (FCEDA) is submitting a grant proposal under the TIGER Discretionary Grant Program for the fiscal year 2015. This is part ofthe National Infrastructure Investments Program as administered by the US Department of Transportation. This project will effectively transform the previously existing Knife River gravel pit and concrete batch plant into a modern rail-industrial park campus. This project is estimated to cost approximately $20.8 million and is planned to be constructed over a 14 month period. Ultimately, rail service would terminate at the US Highway 2 Bridge. The city will then transform the existing rail grade through Kalispell and the rail bridge over US 2 into a multi-use trail. Up to an additional 4 crossroads would also be planned connecting Center Street with Idaho (US 2) to the north. This portion ofthe project is estimated to cost approximately $5 million. A more in-depth project description, discussion of historical uses, discussion of environmental concerns and project maps are attached. This environmental assessment is an update of a previously conducted assessment in 2013. For the purposes of an environmental review would you please comment on any impacts both positive and negative, associated with this project within your jurisdiction for the area(s) listed below? Also, please list conditions that you feel would mitigate any negative impacts or accentuate any positive impacts. If you are aware of other issues of concern associated with this project, comments are also welcome. In addition, if separate permits or permitting is required please comment accordingly. Please comment on the impacts related to the following: PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE • Schools ---PAGE BREAK--- Please comment by May 29, 2015 in writing or via email at [EMAIL REDACTED]. Ifwe have not heard from you by that date, we will assume that your office does not have any concerns. If you need more information, do not hesitate to contact this office immediately. Sincerely, Tom Jentz Environmental Certifying Officer Attachments: Project Description Project area maps 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Planning Department 201 [St Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.ka1ispe1I.comJp1annin May 8, 2015 Patti Mason Flathead Conservation District 141 Interstate Lane Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear Ms. Mason: RE: Tiger Grant Application — Environmental Assessment Consultation The City of Kalispell as lead agency in concert with the Flathead County Economic Development Authority (FCEDA) is submitting a grant proposal under the TIGER Discretionary Grant Program for the fiscal year 2015. This is part of the National Infrastructure Investments Program as administered by the US Department of Transportation. This project will effectively transform the previously existing Knife River gravel pit and concrete batch plant into a modern rail-industrial park campus. This project is estimated to cost approximately $20.8 million and is planned to be constructed over a 14 month period. Ultimately, rail service would terminate at the US Highway 2 Bridge. The city will then transform the existing rail grade through Kalispell and the rail bridge over US 2 into a multi-use trail. Up to an additional 4 crossroads would also be planned connecting Center Street with Idaho (US 2) to the north. This portion ofthe project is estimated to cost approximately $5 million. A more in-depth project description, discussion of historical uses, discussion of environmental concerns and project maps are attached. This environmental assessment is an update of a previously conducted assessment in 2013. For the purposes of an environmental review would you please comment on any impacts both positive and negative, associated with this project within your jurisdiction for the area(s) listed below? Also, please list conditions that you feel would mitigate any negative impacts or accentuate any positive impacts. If you are aware of other issues of concern associated with this project, comments are also welcome. In addition, if separate permits or permitting is required please comment accordingly. Please comment on the impacts related to the following: PLANMING FOR. THE FUTURE ,J’4i.L4’1.LV • Farmlands ---PAGE BREAK--- Please comment by May 29, 2015 in writing or via email at [EMAIL REDACTED]. Ifwe have not heard from you by that date, we will assume that your office does not have any concerns. If you need more information, do not hesitate to contact this office immediately. Sincerely, Tom Jentz Environmental Certifying Officer Attachments: Project Description Project area maps 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Planning Department 201 Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kaIispeIl.comJp1annin May 8, 2015 Montana Department ofNatural Resources and Conservation P.O. Box 201601 Helena, MT 59620-1601 To whom it may concern: RE: Tiger Grant Application — Environmental Assessment Consultation The City of Kalispell as lead agency in concert with the Flathead County Economic Development Authority (FCEDA) is submitting a grant proposal under the TIGER Discretionary Grant Program for the fiscal year 2015. This is part ofthe National Infrastructure Investments Program as administered by the US Department of Transportation. This project will effectively transform the previously existing Knife River gravel pit and concrete batch plant into a modern rail-industrial park campus. This project is estimated to cost approximately $20.8 million and is planned to be constructed over a 14 month period. Ultimately, rail service would terminate at the US Highway 2 Bridge. The city will then transform the existing rail grade through Kalispell and the rail bridge over US 2 into a multi-use trail. Up to an additional 4 crossroads would also be planned connecting Center Street with Idaho (US 2) to the north. This portion ofthe project is estimated to cost approximately $5 million. A more in-depth project description, discussion of historical uses, discussion of environmental concerns and project maps are attached. This environmental assessment is an update of a previously conducted assessment in 2013. For the purposes of an environmental review would you please comment on any impacts both positive and negative, associated with this project within your jurisdiction for the area(s) listed below? Also, please list conditions that you feel would mitigate any negative impacts or accentuate any positive impacts. If you are aware ofother issues of concern associated with this project, comments are also welcome. In addition, if separate permits or permitting is required please comment accordingly. PLANNING FOR THt FUThR1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Please comment by May 29, 2015 in writing or via email at [EMAIL REDACTED]. Ifwe have not heard from you by that date, we will assume that your office does not have any concerns. If you need more information, do not hesitate to contact this office immediately. Sincerely, Tom Jentz Environmental Certifjing Officer Attachments; Project Description Project area maps 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Planning Department 201 l Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.ka1ispeILcomJp1annin May 8, 2015 US EPA 10 West 15 th Street, Ste 3200 Montana Office, Federal Building Helena, MT 59626 To whom it may concern: RE: Tiger Grant Application — Environmental Assessment Consultation The City of Kalispell as lead agency in concert with the Flathead County Economic Development Authority (FCEDA) is submitting a grant proposal under the TIGER Discretionary Grant Program for the fiscal year 2015. This is part of the National Infrastructure Investments Program as administered by the US Department of Transportation. This project will effectively transform the previously existing Knife River gravel pit and concrete batch plant into a modern rail-industrial park campus. This project is estimated to cost approximately $20.8 million and is planned to be constructed over a 14 month period. Ultimately, rail service would terminate at the US Highway 2 Bridge. The city will then transform the existing rail grade through Kalispell and the rail bridge over US 2 into a multi-use trail. Up to an additional 4 crossroads would also be planned connecting Center Street with Idaho (US 2) to the north. This portion ofthe project is estimated to cost approximately $5 million. A more in-depth project description, discussion of historical uses, discussion of environmental concerns and project maps are attached. This environmental assessment is an update of a previously conducted assessment in 2013. For the purposes of an environmental review would you please comment on any impacts both positive and negative, associated with this project within your jurisdiction for the area(s) listed below? Also, please list conditions that you feel would mitigate any negative impacts or accentuate any positive impacts. If you are aware of other issues of concern associated with this project, comments are also welcome. In addition, if separate permits or permitting is required please comment accordingly. Please comment on the impacts related to the following: PLANNING FOR TH1 FUTT.JRI Air Quality ---PAGE BREAK--- Please comment by May 29, 2015 in writing or via email at [EMAIL REDACTED]. If we have not heard from you by that date, we will assume that your office does not have any concerns. If you need more information, do not hesitate to contact this office immediately. Sincerely, Tom Jentz Environmental Certif,’ing Officer Attachments: Project Description Project area maps 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Planning Department 201 1 st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kalispell.comlplanning May 8, 2015 Tom Jentz, Director Kalispell Planning & Building Dept. 201 1 st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear Mr. Jentz: RE: Tiger Grant Application — Environmental Assessment Consultation The City of Kalispell as lead agency in concert with the Flathead County Economic Development Authority (FCEDA) is submitting a grant proposal under the TIGER Discretionary Grant Program for the fiscal year 2015. This is part ofthe National Infrastructure Investments Program as administered by the US Department of Transportation. This project will effectively transform the previously existing Knife River gravel pit and concrete batch plant into a modern rail-industrial park campus. This project is estimated to cost approximately $20.8 million and is planned to be constructed over a 14 month period. Ultimately, rail service would terminate at the US Highway 2 Bridge. The city will then transform the existing rail grade through Kalispeil and the rail bridge over US 2 into a multi-use trail. Up to an additional 4 crossroads would also be planned connecting Center Street with Idaho (US 2) to the north. This portion ofthe project is estimated to cost approximately $5 million. A more in-depth project description, discussion of historical uses, discussion of environmental concerns and project maps are attached. This environmental assessment is an update of a previously conducted assessment in 2013. For the purposes of an environmental review would you please comment on any impacts both positive and negative, associated with this project within your jurisdiction for the area(s) listed below? Also, please list conditions that you feel would mitigate any negative impacts or accentuate any positive impacts. If you are aware of other issues of concern associated with this project, comments are also welcome. In addition, if separate permits or permitting is required please comment accordingly. Please comment on the impacts related to the following: • Noise &Vibration • Hazardous Materials • Floodplain PLANNING IOR THE FUTUIUE ---PAGE BREAK--- • Community Impacts or Environmental Justice • Navigable Waters • Public Safety • Cumulative Impacts • Indirect Impacts Please comment by May 29, 2015 in writing or via email at [EMAIL REDACTED]. Ifwe have not heard from you by that date, we will assume that your office does not have any concerns. If you need more information, do not hesitate to contact this office immediately. Sincerely, Tom Jentz Environmental Certifying Officer Attachments: Project Description Project area maps 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. KALISPELL/FCEDA RAIL INDUSTRIAL CAMPUS Detailed Project Summary: This project involves two related actions that form a single project. The first component for purposes of this review is a $20.8 million investment in rail, road and utility infrastructure to develop the 40 acre Kalispell/FCEDA Rail Park for tenants, leveraging the area’s access to the BNSF rail line, resulting in job creation and the more efficient use of both public and private resources. An estimated $10 million investment of TIGER funds in this existing project will leverage $10.8 million in local funds (Flathead County Economic Development Authority (FCEDA) and City of Kalispell) to develop this recently purchased property. The TIGER grant funds would accelerate the development of the rail park by leveraging county funds as well as potential city and private investment in the project creating a location for existing businesses to consolidate and increase rail traffic use. Additionally, new and relocating businesses from outside of Montana have expressed an interest in locating in the park to improve efficiencies and cut costs while expanding their rail use. CENEX Grain and Harvest is anticipated to be the first tenant relocating from their downtown Kalispell location moving their grain handling facilities, fertilizer distribution plant, offices and a key card gas station. Transload capacity will be developed in the park which will allow single car or partial car delivery of freight in and out of the Flathead. It is anticipated that other potential uses will include bulk propane and fuel storage and distribution, agricultural and timber product manufacturing and shipping, general freight delivery and other industrial uses which need rail access to conduct their business. The project involves several key components including rail work, road work and utility extensions. First, one rail will be extended into the proposed rail park. The rail line would leave the mainline north of the park and enter on the east side of the park traversing westerly from the existing BNSF line a distance of 1,300 ft. with up to 6 additional parallel sidings for car storage which will add an additional 9,100 ft. of track. The total new track in the park is approximately 10,400 linear feet. Outside of the proposed rail park approximately 3,300 feet of new rail is proposed to be located within the existing BNSF railroad R/W that runs on the east side of the proposed rail park. A new rail line would parallel the existing mainline from just south of the rail bridge over the Stillwater River and end just north of the rail bridge over US Highway 2. This extra rail line would allow for additional car storage and provide a run around for engines. In terms of road work, the access coming in off of US Highway 2 at the Flathead Drive intersection and extending north along Flathead Drive approximately 2,100 feet into the rail park will need to be upgraded to accommodate truck traffic. This access point will serve as the primary entrance to the rail park. A traffic signal is proposed at the US 2 and Flathead Drive intersection. Approval from the Montana Department of Transportation is required for the intersection and signal work. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 Finally, Kalispell city water and sewer would be extended to the site from adjacent lines in order to address sewage disposal and the adequate provision of both fire flow and domestic water consumption. This would include approximately 4,600 feet of sewer main, 8,600 feet of water main, and 17 hydrants. There is no land acquisition proposed in this project. Location and Existing Land Uses: The site is located in an area of mixed commercial, residential and heavy industrial land uses. Whitefish Stage Road, a minor arterial, marks the western boundary of the proposed rail park. A small stretch of the Stillwater River flows near the northwestern boundary for a distance of 500 feet. Significant industrial uses (Glacier Stone and Klingler Lumber) as well as a BNSF siding form the northern boundary of the proposed rail park. The BNSF Railroad and Flathead Drive, a local county road, form the eastern boundary. Oregon Street forms a portion of the southern boundary. The site has been annexed into the City of Kalispell and has access to all local services including municipal police and fire service, garbage pickup and access to sewer and water. The legal description of the site is parcels 1-7 of Certificate of Survey No. 18380 in Section 8, Township 28N, Range 21W, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. The land surface has been dramatically altered by past gravel mining operations over the past 80 years. The site underwent significant restoration work in 2012 as part of the required closing and decommissioning work overseen by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality with the official end of the existing gravel operations at the site. The site currently exists as a flat plain with a hillside rising approximately 40 feet along the south face marking the transition of the end of gravel extraction. No permanent water features are on the site. Unconfined ground water is present at depths of 20 feet below ground surface. Land cover consists of large expanses of exposed gravel and soil which has been seeded to grasses. A BNSF rail line parallels the east side of the site and a spur line extends from east to west on land immediately north of the proposed rail park. Historical Uses: First American Title Company has provided a history of the owners and uses of the property involved in this assessment. The property (Tracts 1-7 of COS 18380) was quit claimed to a David McGinnis in 1891 shortly after the patent was recorded. He owned the property until his death, when it was distributed as part of his estate in 1954. During that time frame, there was a recorded lease referring to the “McGinnis Gravel Pit” in 1930. There was also easements recorded in 1915 referencing a mill pond and dam bridge, although it is not clear if the pond and bridge were on this property or an adjacent parcel, and there is no indication of these structures on site today. Subsequent to 1954, there are various documents indicating the continued use of the property as a gravel pit, including an agreement with the state in 1966 for removal of gravel ---PAGE BREAK--- and other material, a transfer of ownership to McElroy and Wilken (a gravel/construction company) in 1983, and that company’s merger with JTL construction in 2003. Environmental Concerns: The site abuts the KRY State CECRA (Superfund) Facility in Kalispell. This site is being remediated pursuant to a judicial abatement order under the authority of the CERCA Program. The Montana DEQ issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for the KRY facility in June 2008 (DEQ 2008) which included remedial actions to be undertaken. In October 2009 the DEQ issued a Remedial Action Work Plan (RAWP, DEQ 2009) for the KRY Facility that describes the implementation of the remedy. By October 2010 the DEQ determined that the soil excavation at the KRY site were complete. Contaminated groundwater still exists at the KRY facility and remediation of soil and groundwater is anticipated to continue at the KRY site for several years. Questions or concerns about the remediation process associated with the KRY facility should be directed to Travis Erny, of the Montana DEQ. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was completed on January 1, 2011 by Knife River, the owner at that time. Subsequent to that a Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment was completed for the site on November 3, 2011. The assessments identified approximately $28,000 worth of restoration activities that needed to be addressed. Identified issues included: • Petroleum hydrocarbons originating near the onsite truck repair facilities on the west side of the site. • Sump sediments at the truck repair shop. • Asbestos and lead based paint associated with on-site buildings remaining of the site after the cessation of gravel processing and extraction. • Potential ground water contaminates from the adjacent KRY State CECRA (super fund) facility have migrated onto the northeastern corner of the site based on adjacent monitoring well data. The first three activities were completed prior to FECDA taking ownership in 2012. No cleanup was perused relative to the concerns with the contaminants associated with the adjacent KRY CECRA facility because the remediation of these contaminants on the proposed site are being remediated under the direction of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in accordance with the Record of Decision for the KRY site. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 2. CONVERSION OF EXISTING RAIL AND BRIDGE TO TRAIL Detailed Project Summary: The second portion of this project involves the development of an 8,300 foot long multi-purpose pedestrian-bike trail along the existing BN Rail Road R/W. With the development of the Glacier Rail Industrial Park and the relocation of rail users off of the existing track through Kalispell, the rails, ties and other associated rail road improvements will be removed by Burlington Northern Santa Fee Railroad. The rail bridge over US 2 will have all railroad apparatus removed but the bridge will remain. The City of Kalispell will convert the abandoned railroad corridor into a multi-purpose pedestrian-bike corridor. The existing railroad R/W varies from 25 feet to 100 feet in width. The trail would be approximately 10-12 feet in average width, have an asphalt or concrete surface and incorporate pedestrian level lighting and signage. There are presently 6 at grade crossings. At each location where vehicles will cross the trail, pedestrian crossing safety components will be utilized including bulb outs to shorten the crossing length for pedestrians and bikes and pedestrian activated crossing lights. The bridge over US 2 will have a safety inspection, have new decking installed, will incorporate security side rails/fencing where it crosses US 2 and have pedestrian scale lighting. In addition up to 4 cross streets could be developed as new development pressure dictates in such locations as 6th, 7th and 8th Avenues West or in the area of 5th Avenue East to improve vehicle and pedestrian circulation. The street connections would extend from Center Street up to Idaho (US 2) and would include the extension of water and sewer, sidewalk and boulevard. The trail will terminate on the east end just beyond the US 2 rail bridge at the intersection of Flathead Drive and US 2 with a pedestrian crossing facility to be incorporated with the associated construction of the new traffic light at Flathead Drive and US 2. The western terminus of the trail will be the west side of Meridian Road. At this point the proposed trail will join the existing Meridian Trail extending 7 miles west to Kila, MT; 10 miles south to Somers, MT or 4 miles north along the proposed US Highway 93 Bypass trail to North Kalispell. Existing and Historical Land Uses: This rail corridor has been an active rail facility since the Great Northern Railroad entered the Flathead Valley in 1892. The Kalispell Line became a branch line in 1904 when the main line was re-routed up through Whitefish. The 6 block section of rail line from First Ave. East to Fifth Ave. West was reconstructed and moved approximately 300 feet to the north in 1986 to allow the construction of the Kalispell Center Mall. Environmental Concerns: Because of the active use as a rail corridor, the City will utilize its Brownfields Program to conduct phase 1 and phase 2 studies to determine what if any potential contamination exits associated with past rail use and then pursue remediation. It is the City’s intent to ultimately ---PAGE BREAK--- grade and cap the rail bed with a trail. Structural development will be limited to placement of signs, lighting, benches and vegetative plantings along the trail. With street development, work would be limited to grading, trenching for sewer and water work and associated utilities along with paving, curb and sidewalk work and boulevard landscaping. The connector streets will be put in in concert with adjacent private redevelopment. ---PAGE BREAK--- Kalispell/FCEDA Rail Industrial Park Environmental Assessment Agency Contact List May 23, 2013 US EPA 10 West 15th Street, Ste 3200 Montana Office, Federal Bldg. Helena, MT 59626 MT Dept. Fish, Wildlife & Parks Resource Assessment Unit P.O. Box 200701 Helena, MT 59620-0701 MT DEQ Tom Ellerhoff P.O. Box 200901 Helena, MT 59620-0901 MT DNRC P.O. Box 201601 Helena, MT 59620-1601 Montana Env. Quality Council Todd Everts, Director P.O. Box 201704 Helena, MT 59620-1704 MT State Historic Preservation Mark Baumler, Pres. Officer P.O. Box 201202 Helena, MT 59620-1202 Patti Mason Flathead Conservation Dist. 141 Interstate Lane Kalispell, MT 59901 US Fish & Wildlife Service Sub-Office Coordinator 2900 4th Ave. North, Room 301 Billings, MT 59101 Bob Vosen District Construction Eng. MDT P.O. Box 7308 Kalispell, MT 59904-0308 Darlene Schottle, Superintendent of Schools Kalispell School District 5 233 1st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Susie Turner, Director Kalispell Public Works Dept. 201 First Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 BJ Grieve, Director Flathead County Planning Dept. 1035 1st Avenue West Kalispell, MT 59901 Dave Prunty, Director Flathead County Public Works 4098 Hwy 93 South Kalispell, MT 59901 Mark Deleray, Biologist MT Dept. Fish, Wildlife & Parks 490 Meridian Road Kalispell, MT 59901 Tim Bodurtha US Fish and Wildlife Service Creston Fish Hatchery 780 Creston Fish Hatchery Road Kalispell, MT 59901 Cindy Mulaney Flathead County DES 625 Timberwolf Parkway Kalispell, MT 59901 Tom Jentz, Director Kalispell Planning Dept. 201 First Avenue East Kalispell. MT 59901 Dave Dedman, Chief Kalispell Fire Department 201 First Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Joe Russell, Director Flathead County Health Dept. 1035 1st Avenue West Kalispell, MT 59901 Jed Fisher Flathead County Parks Dept. 1257 Willow Glen Drive Kalispell, MT 59901 Mike Baker, Director Kalispell parks Dept. 201 First Avenue East, Kalispell, MT 59901 ---PAGE BREAK--- US EPA 10 West 15th Street, Ste 3200 Montana Office, Federal Bldg. Helena, MT 59626 MT Dept. Fish, Wildlife & Parks Resource Assessment Unit P.O. Box 200701 Helena, MT 59620-0701 MT DEQ Tom Ellerhoff P.O. Box 200901 Helena, MT 59620-0901 MT DNRC P.O. Box 201601 Helena, MT 59620-1601 Montana Env. Quality Council Todd Everts, Director P.O. Box 201704 Helena, MT 59620-1704 MT State Historic Preservation Mark Baumler, Pres. Officer P.O. Box 201202 Helena, MT 59620-1202 Larry Van Rinsum Flathead Conservation Dist. 133 Interstate Lane Kalispell, MT 59901 US Fish & Wildlife Service Sub-Office Coordinator 2900 4th Ave. North, Room 301 Billings, MT 59101 Bob Vosen District Construction Eng MDT P.O. Box 7308 Kalispell, MT 59904-0308 Darlene Schottle, Supt. of Schools Kalispell School District 5 233 1st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Susie Turner, Director Kalispell Public Works Dept. 201 First Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 BJ Grieve, Director Flathead County Planning Dept. 1035 1st Avenue West Kalispell, MT 59901 Dave Prunty, Director Flathead County Public Works 4098 Hwy 93 South Kalispell, MT 59901 Mark Deleray, Biologist MT Dept. Fish, Wildlife & Parks 490 Meridian Road Kalispell, MT 59901 Ben Conrad US Fish and Wildlife Service Creston Fish Hatchery 780 Creston Fish Hatchery Road Kalispell, MT 59901 Cindy Mulaney Flathead County DES 625 Timberwolf Parkway Kalispell, MT 59901 Tom Jentz, Director Kalispell Planning Dept. 201 First Avenue East Kalispell. MT 59901 Dave Dedman, Chief Kalispell Fire Department 201 First Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Joe Russell, Director Flathead County Health Dept. 1035 1st Avenue West Kalispell, MT 59901 Jed Fisher Flathead County Parks Dept. 1257 Willow Glen Drive Kalispell, MT 59901 Mike Baker, Director Kalispell parks Dept. 201 First Avenue East, Kalispell, MT 59901 ---PAGE BREAK--- -i’86u?-1 environment, 6 ef% people” Montana Department of EWV1ROMENTALQUAliTY Tracy Stone-Mannin, Director P. 0. Box 200901 • Helena. MT 59620-0901 • (406) 444-2544 • Website: www.deq.mt.gov June 20, 2013 Mr. Tom Jentz flj JUN 24 2013 LuJ City of Kalispell Planning Department 201 1st Avenue East AUSPtL P1:NMNG DEPARTMENT Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear Mr. Jentz: Thank you for the opportunity to review the TIGER Discretionary Grant Program proposal outlined in your letter of May 23, 2013. In response, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality offers the following comments. Nonpoint Source issues: The proximity to the Stiliwater River and regional history of contaminant/pollutant discharges to ground water need to be considered in the context of the rail industrial park best management practices (BMP). In early phases of the transition, construction and storm water BMPs will need to be in place to prevent pollution, particularly sediment, from reaching the Stillwater River. Spill mitigation and consideration of the pathways of infiltration to ground water will need to be considered in the context of fuel storage, fuel transfer, and areas of contaminant/pollutant transfer such as fueling stations. BMPs will need to be in place to ensure ground water contamination does not impact the Stillwater River and that all beneficial uses continue to be supported. Please contact Robert Ray at [EMAIL REDACTED] with any further nonpoint source concerns. Air Resources Management Bureau (ARMB’): The Kalispell area, including the location of the proposed industrial park, is classified as a nonattainment area for course particulate matter or PM 10 air pollution. PM 10 nonattainment areas are defined as areas that have violated the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM 10. The legal boundary of the Kalispell PM 10 nonattainment area is defined at http://deg.rnt.gov/AirOual ARMB regulates industrial sources of air pollution and not the project site itself. Because the proposed industrial park falls within the PM 10 nonattainment area boundary, any industrial source of air pollution subject to permitting and intending to locate within the proposed industrial park would be required to demonstrate that the proposed source will not cause or contribute to further violations of the PM 10 NAAQS. Also, a source locating within the industrial park would be subject to more stringent regulatory requirements such as application of the highest Enforcement Division . Permitting & Compliance Division Planning, Prevention & Assistance Division • Remediation Division ---PAGE BREAK--- Mr. Tom Jentz June 20, 2013 Page 2 of2 performing PM 10 emission controls and/or PM 10 emissions offsets in the area to ensure ongoing compliance with the PM 10 NAAQS. If you have questions or would like more specific information related to air quality regulatory requirements in nonattainment areas, please contact Stephen Coe at (406) 782-2689 ext. 209 or scoe(Zirnt.gov. If you have questions specific to air quality permitting, please contact Ed Warner at (406) 444-2467 or ewarner(rnt.gov. Industrial and Energy Minerals Bureau: Based on the information provided, this project will impact two permitted Opencut Mine Sites: Permit #1878 — Knife River, McElroy and Wilken Inc. Pack Site, and Permit #1909 — Knife River Wilcox Site. After review of our files, it does not appear that there has been a request for bond release for either of these sites, so they are still considered active permits. However, the identified post-mine land use for both sites is commercial/industrial. For additional information, please contact Ed Coleman at (406) 444-4973 or ecoleman(ämt.gov. Water Protection Bureau (WPB): The proposed project may require a construction storm water permit if the permitting threshold is reached. The enclosed WPB Fact Sheet will allow you to plan permit needs according to your site conditions. If, after reviewing the Fact Sheet, you determine that your project may require further consultation with WPB staff, please call (406) 444-3080. Sincerely, ,b&-1 Bonnie Lovelace Regulatory Affairs Manager Director’s Office (406) 444-1760 enclosure ---PAGE BREAK--- Fact Sheet Water Quality Permits for Construction Related Activities Water Protection Bureau Montana Department of Environmental Quality MPDES Storm Water Permit: Construction related activities that result in greater than one acre of disturbance and may generate storm water runoff from the construction site during the life of the project must obtain authorization prior to initiation of the construction activity. For purposes of this regulation, construction activities include clearing, grading, excavation, and stockpiling or placement of earthen materials. Routine maintenance activities that disturb less than 5 areas and do not change the original configuration of the site are not subject to this regulation. The owner or operator is required to develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan These discharges are covered under a general permit (MTR1 0000). Coverage under the general permit is effective upon receipt of a completed NOT package (application, storm water pollution prevention plan, and fee). MPDES Construction Dewatering: Non-storm water discharges of sediment laden water from coffer dams, trenches, pipeline construction, excavation pits, borrow areas, well development or other activities that is discharged to state waters, including irrigation canals, drainage ditches and wetlands, are prohibited unless authorized by the Department. Typically, these activities are authorized under the Department’s general permit for construction dewatering (MTGO70000). Under most conditions the permittee is required to construct and operate some form of treatment to remove turbidity and sediment to meet state water quality standards. The discharge of ground water that contains petroleum contaminates or other wastes must be authorized and comply with the requirements of the Department’s petroleum clean up general permit (MTG790000 or MTX3 0000) prior to discharge to state surface or ground water. These permits are typically issued within 30 days of receipt of a completed application. Short-term water quality standard for turbidity (31 Montana water quality standards prohibit the increase in sediment or turbidity above specific amounts in state surface waters. A Section 318 authorization provides a short-term turbidity standard for activities that are conducted in state waters and may cause disturbance of the streambed sediments. A 318 authorization is typically processed in 7 to 21 days but may require longer review for complexity or environmentally sensitive areas. 401 Certification: Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act is administered by the US Army Corps of Engineers; these permits are for dredge and fill in waters of the US, including wetlands. Please contact the Corps at (406) 441-1375. The Department provides CWA 401 certification of 404 projects and works directly with the Corps on these issues. A joint application form is used. General Information Fees: All of the above permits require the applicant to pay a fee prior to Department review of the application. The fee varies depending on the type of permit and complexity of the project. A fee schedule is available upon request at (406) 444-3080, or on the Departments website at: www.deq .mt.gov ---PAGE BREAK--- Tom Jentz From: Deleray, Mark Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 9:09 AM To: Tom Jentz Cc: Vore, John; Abbrescia, Martha Subject: Tiger Grant application-Environmental Assessment Consultation Dear Mr. Jentz, Thank you for providing opportunity to comment on potential impacts to Park and Recreation; Threatened and Endangered Species associated with the proposed Tiger Grant Application. The most significant fish and wildlife habitat at the site is the Stillwater River corridor along the west and northwest edge of the property. This riparian area provides important habitat and migration corridor for numerous fish and wildlife species. The Stillwater River and riparian corridor is part of the much larger and interconnected Flathead River basin. Within this basin, fish and wildlife species are able to readily move. Maintaining the integrity of this area is important to preserving those resources. As the project moves forward, any protection or expansion of the riparian buffer along these edges will help protect the habitat from development and activities on the site. There are no federally listed fish and wildlife species on or near the project area, and no wildlife species of concern that we are aware of. We do not expect direct impacts to threatened or endangered species by the conversion of the site from a gravel pit to a rail yard. If you have questions or require additional information regarding my comments, please contact me. Sincerely, Mark Deleray Mark Deleray Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks Fisheries Biologist 490 N. Meridian Rd. Kalispell, MT 59901 (406) 751-4543 mdeleraycmt.gov 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Community FieaWi Services Flathead City-County Health DeDartment 7514110 FAX7514111 Environmenl Health Services 1035 First Ave. West Kahspelt, MT 59901 7514130 FAX 7514131 (406) 751-8101 FAX 751-8102 Family Planning Services www.fiatheadhealth.org 7514150 FAX7S1-8151 V. HomeHealth Services 7514800 FAX7514807 WlCSeces 751.8170 FAX 7514171 V Animal SheIr 752-1310 FAX 752-1546 June 18, 2013 Tom Jentz, Environmental Certifying Officer City of Kalispell, Planning Department 201 First Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Re: Tiger Grant Application — Knife River Gravel Pit Dear Toni, I have reviewed the information provided regarding the Tiger Grant Application for the Knife River site and have the following comments: • This property is in the Kalispell Air Pollution Control District administered by the Health Department. • The project as proposed complies with the regulations and removes some ongoing compliance matters on this site. • This project may remove two emission sources located in higher population density areas in Kalispell and relocate them to this site — an area zoned industrial with lower population densities. Good luck with the grant application. The Health Department is certainly supportive. Please call me if you have any questions regarding this matter. Russell,..H*” th Officer Providing quality public health services to eisure the conditions for a healthy community Pub&Realth P7Ote ---PAGE BREAK--- Big Sky. Big Land. BigHistor Montana historical Society May 29, 2013 Tom Jentz City of Kalispell Planning Department 201 1 st Ave East Kalispell MT 59901 RE: TIGER GRANT APPLICATION-KNIFE RIVER GRAVEL PIT TO MODERN RAIL-INDUSTRIAL PARK CAMPUS. SHPO Project #:[PHONE REDACTED] Dear Mr. Jentz: I have conducted a cultural resource file search for the above-cited project located in Section 8 T28N R21W. According to our records there have been a few previously recorded sites within the designated search locale. In addition to the sites there have been a few previously conducted cultural resource inventories done in the areas. I’ve attached a list of these sites and reports. If you would like any further information regarding these sites or reports you may contact me at the number listed below. It is SHPO’s position that any structure over fifty years of age is considered historic and is potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. If any structures are to be altered on this property and are over fifty years old we would recommend that they be recorded and a determination of their eligibility be made. If this project involves a federal agency, it may constitute a federal undertaking subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. As such it will be important for you to coordinate efforts in the further consideration of impacts to cultural resources through the federal agency for consultation with our office. If you have any further questions or comments you may contact me at (406) 444-7767 or by e-mail at [EMAIL REDACTED]. I have attached an invoice for the file search. Thank you for consulting with us. Sincerely, Damon Murdo Cultural Records Manager State Historic Preservation Office File: US/DOT/2013 r rj i Historic Preservation ii Museum [Ri JUN 03 2013 Outreach &Inte.rprelation Publications Research Center APELLPL;NNNG DEPARTMENT 225 North Roberts Street P.O. Box 201201 He1ena MT 59620-1201 (406) 444-2694 (406) 444-2696 FAX rnontanahistoricalsociety.org ---PAGE BREAK--- I Big Sky. BigLand.BigHistory STAlEHISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE Montana Cultural Resource Information Systems cis Township, Range, Section Report Historical Society Site # Twp Rng Sec Qs 245180218 28 N 21W 8 NE 248110675 28 N 21W 8 SW 24FW0709 28 N 21W 8 248185715 28 N 2111 8 24FW1225 28 N 21W 8 24FN8350 28 N 21W 8 24FN0683 28 N 21W 8 Report Date: 05/29/2013 Site Typel Site Type 2 Time Period Owner NR Status Niatoric Energy Wiatoric Trash Dump Niatoric Period Stats Owned undetermined navelnnmenr Wiatorit District Null Historic Wnre Than One Private NW Liated nec-ada Wiatoric Wesidence Null Hiaturic Wnre Than One Private NW Liated nec-ac8e Historic Reaidence Null Historic Wure Than One Private WW Liated nec-a Ac Wiatnric Null 1900-1909 Private NE Liated Ceeerery/Nrava Wiatnric Wailroad Null Historic Wnre Than One Private CD ne-ade Wistoric Weaidence Null Hieturic Wnre Than One Private NE Listed ---PAGE BREAK--- BigSk BigLand.BigHistor STA TE HISTORIC PRESERVA TION OFFICE Niontana Cultural Resource Annotated Bibliography System Historical Society CRABS Township, Range, Section Report Report Dote: 05/29/2013 Township:28 N Range:21W Section:8 HARTMANN GLEN ET AL. / /1985 A CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT OF BPA’S PROPOSED INTERTIE DEVELOPMENT AND USE, LAKE ROOSEVELT, LAKE PEND OREILLE, LAKE KOOCANUSA, DWORSHAK RESERVOIR, AND HUNGRY HORSE RESERVOIR (DRAFT) CRABS Document Number: LN 6 5205 Agency Document Number: Townahip:28 N Range:21W Section:8 MCKAY L. / /2 001 MONTMA MAINSTREETS: A GUIDE TO HISTORIC KALISPELL IN FLATHEAD COUNTY MONTANA CRABS Document Number: FH 6’ 24468 Ag2ncy Document Number: MHS PRESS 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- Tom Jentz From: David Prunty <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 1:42 PM To: ‘[EMAIL REDACTED] Subject: Tiger Grant Application - Rail Park - Hi Tom: Please accept this email with my comments for the proposed Rail Park based upon your letter dated May 23, 2013. Previously I met with Bill Buxton, KU Engineering, on this project. Bill provided a map very similar to the ones included in your letter. His map showed some internal roads within the Park that will be connecting to County maintained roads on the south, west and east side of the site. The area of most concern that Bill and I discussed is the intersection of Montclair Dr. and Highway 2. Your attached narrative discusses the installation of a light at this intersection. This will be a needed improvement to this intersection. We also discussed the intersection of Montclair and Nicholson Drive in this area. I asked that they look at this intersection since the distance from the intersection of Montclair/Highway 2 intersection is in close proximity. Bill also mentioned there might be a chance of moving this access point to the park to the south and building an access road in the area of the western entrance to the old WalMart. This could be a good option to alleviate the issue of Nicholson Drive so close to the Montclair/Highway 2 intersection. Another issue of note is on Whitefish Stage. The map from KU shows two internal roads accessing Whitefish Stage. The Kalispell City Limit is south of these new roads by a few hundred feet. It is my understanding that the Park will be annexed into the city limits. It would be prudent for Kalispell to take this stretch of Whitefish Stage that will be south of the southern internal road into the city also. Whitefish Stage currently alternates between City and County jurisdiction up to Reserve Drive. While we work extremely well with the City Street Department it is a confusing issue when it comes to maintenance of who is responsible for which stretch of the roadway. The map shows a small southern protrusion of the site boundary for access to E Oregon and then on the east boundary it comes very close to the road again up to Montclair Drive. It may be beneficial to look at this area just like the Whitefish Stage area such that the City should take maintenance control of this stretch of roadway. We would work with the City Street Department as we do with other roads for maintenance requirements but this stretch should also be looked at for annexation in to the City. It appears from the KU map that the internal roads will all access County roads. There are two on the west side accessing Whitefish Stage, one of the south accessing E Oregon and two on the east side (one accessing E Oregon and one accessing Flathead Drive). The contractor will need to apply for approach permits from the Road Department. The engineer should evaluate these approaches to assure compliance with our specifications. The permit is available on-line under the Road Department on Flathead County’s website. There doesn’t appear to be any issues with solid waste removal that I am aware of. The tenants of the park will either have City hauled refuse or contractor hauled so there isn’t any concerns from the Solid Waste District. Hazardous waste generated from their operations is governed by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and the generators of such waste will need to comply with DEQ rules regarding it’s transportation and disposal. Thanks again for the opportunity to comment and I hope you are successful in this project. It appears to be a very important part of the economic growth of our area. Good luck! Dave Prunty Public Works Director Flathead County 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Road & Bridge [PHONE REDACTED] Solid Waste [PHONE REDACTED] 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- SUPERINTENDENT Darlene Schottle Ed.D. Phone (406)751-3434 ASST. SUPERINTENDENT Dan Zorn EcI.D. Phone ([PHONE REDACTED] HUMAN RESOURCES Karen Glasser Phone (406)751-3444 SPECIAL PROJECTS Chris Bilant Phone (406)751-3408 May29, 2013 Mr. Tom Jentz City of Kalispell Planning Department 201 1 st Avenue East Kalsipell, MT 59901 Re: Tiger Grant Application — Knife River gravel pit project Dear Mr. Jentz, Please accept this letter as an indication of Kalispell School District 5’s full support for the City of Kalispell and the Flathead County Economic Development Authority’s (FCEDA) joint grant application to secure funding for the transformation of the existing Knife River gravel pit and concrete batch plant into a modem rail-industrial park campus. Thank you for your continued efforts to make Kalispell a better place. Sincerely, Darlene Schottle Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools 233 1 st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 (406)751-3434 Kalispell Public Schools 233 1st Ave. East - Kalispell, Montana 59901 Phone: (406)751-3400 Fax (406)751-3416 ---PAGE BREAK--- KAUSPELL UNIT POLSON FIELD OFFICE 635 Timberwoff Parkway, Suite 2, KaHpeH, MT 5990 P0 Box 640, Poison, MT 59860 Pnonc (406 224i 1-’ix (406) 751 22b6 Phone (40o S83 3960 Bax (406) b83 1b74 RE: Letter of Support -Kalispell TIGER Grant Application Dear Ms. Thompson: The Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) whole-heartedly supports the City of Kalispell’sTIGERS:grantapplication to develop a rail-industrial park on what was previously the Knife River Gravel facility. The DNRC is an adjoining property ownerto thesite,andwe anticipate there will be many benefits to.the entire Flathead Valley area’s community and economy if redevelopment of the former gravel pit site were to occur. A properly designed and sited rail industrial facility in this location may offer new life to the adjacent properties with applicable inputfrom neighboring owners. It would allow a centrally located piece of property in ourcommunitytobe puttoa new long-term use, create jobs, and potentially allow for theshifting of Kalispelrs rail emphasis to a central site which matches rail access with highwa:y access, occurring in a locationthatis planned for and designed to grow. Wewould certainly took forward to working with you as appropriate on this valuable community project. In closing, if you have any questions or need any additional assistance, please do not hesitateto contact me. Sincerely, 41.,/ >t 4 1} I1 L— Stephen i. Ftye Area Manager, Northwestern Land Office Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION NORTHWESTERN;LAND OFFICE STEVE 8ULLOcR, GOVERNOR STATE OF MONTANA May 17, 2013 Ms. Katharine Thompson, M,P.A, Community Development Manager Community Development Department City of Kalispelt 201 First Ave. East Kalispell, MT 59901 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER’ ---PAGE BREAK--- • - KALISPELL PoLIcE DEPARTMENT 312 1 AVE EAST — P0 Box 1997— KALISPELL, MT 59903 TELEPHONE (406) 758-7780 — FAx (406) 758-7799 E-MAIL - [EMAIL REDACTED] Strirnig to Exceed Expectations’ June 22, 2016 Tom Jentz Environmental Certifying Officer Kalispell Planning Director 201 1 5t Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear Mr. Jentz: The Kalispell Police Department strongly supports the local proposal for the TIGER Discretionary Grant Program to create an industrial rail park. • As part of this project, rail tracks, travelling through downtown Kalispell would be removed and replaced with a multi-use pedestrian path. Other than an occasional supply train, the rail gets very little traffic and is a very • difficult area to police. The area adjacent to the rail is overrun by weeds, and other unmanaged vegetation. Because of the limited traffic and overgrown vegetation, this area attracts transients who set up makeshift camps in the area, creating an appearance of an unsafe environment and leaving behind mounds of trash. In this rail track area litter is abundant, graffiti is common place and people congregate to consume illegal substances. The rail track abuts the back side of commercial businesses and storage units where we experience a high frequency of break-ins, theft and vandalism. This overrun area provides cover for criminals approaching and leaving the area. One of the businesses served by the rail is an agricultural supply retailer which also maintains several agricultural silos. These silos provide bulk sales service to local farmers and as a result large trucks transport product to and from this location in the heart of Kalispell. The location is on the edge of a residential neighborhood adjacent to a major retail mall. It is also along a major arterial leading to the city’s largest high school. Transported products include grain and fertilizer. These trucks add to congestion, at times closing lanes of traffic during harvest, and carry potentially hazardous materials. Another very positive impact of this project would be the added crossroads. Additional crossroads would have a major impact on improving traffic flow through the downtown area as it would disperse traffic that is currently bottlenecked to just a handful of rail crossings. The removal of the rail tracks from the heart of Kalispell, creation of a multi-use pedestrian trail and construction of a rail park would positively affect crime rates, safety and blight in the Kalispell area. This project has the full support of the Kalispell Police Department! Sincerely, Roger asset Chief of Police ROGER NASSEr, CHIEF OF POLICE ---PAGE BREAK--- United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Montana Field Office 585 Shepard Way Helena, Montana 5960 1-6287 Phone: (406) 449-5225 Fax: (406) 449-5339 File: M29 Public May 29, 2015 06E1 l000-2015-TA-025 1 Tom Jentz Planning Department 2011 St Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear Mr. Jentz: This is in response to your May 8, 2015, letter requesting U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) comment regarding potential impacts to wetlands, and threatened and endangered species relative to the proposed Flathead County Rail Park and Multi-use Path in Kalispell, Montana. This project would be partially funded by a federal TIGER Discretionary Grant. The proposed project would develop a 40 acre rail park for tenants, through development of rail, road, and utility infrastructure, leveraging the site’s access to the BNSF rail line. Additionally, the City of Kalispell would convert the existing rail grade through Kalispell and the rail bridge over US Highway 2 into a multi-use trail. Up to an additional four crossroads would also be planned to connect Center Street with US Highway 2 to the north. Your letter, project summary, and site plans were received at our office on May 18, 2015. We offer the following comments under the authority of and in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 U.S.C 703 et seq.), as amended, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA; 16 U.S.C. 668-668d, 54 Stat. 250), as amended, Executive Order 13186 Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, and the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 etseq.), as amended. The federally-listed TIE species that may occur in Flathead County are the threatened bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and designated critical habitat, Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) and critical habitat, grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), Spalding’s campion (Silene spaldingii), and yellow-billed cuckoo (western population; Coccyzus americanus). Candidate species meltwater lednian stonefly (Lednia tumana) and whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) also may occur in Flathead County. Given the information described in your letter and accompanying materials, we do not anticipate adverse effects to threatened, endangered, or candidate species or critical habitat to result from proposed project implementation within the designated project area. This project should be re-analyzed if new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or designated or proposed critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this letter, ifthe action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an ---PAGE BREAK--- effect to a listed species or designated or proposed critical habitat that was not considered in this letter, and if a new species is listed or critical habitat is designated that may be affected by this project. We recommend coordination with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks at 1420 East Sixth Ave., P.O. Box 200701, Helena, Montana 59620-0701, (406) 444-2535 and the Montana Natural Heritage Program, 1515 East 6th Avenue, Box 201800, Helena, Montana 59620-1800, (406) 444-5354. Both of these agencies may be able to provide updated, site-specific information regarding eagle and other raptor nests, as well as all other fish, wildlife, and sensitive plant resources occurring in the proposed project areas. If wetlands are impacted by this proposal, Corps of Engineers Section 404 permits may be required. The Service suggests any proposed or future project be designed to avoid and minimize impacts to wetland areas, stream channels and surrounding vegetation to the greatest extent possible. Direct, indirect and cumulative impacts, along with future activities required to maintain these improvements, should be analyzed. If work is proposed to take place during the breeding season and may result in take of migratory birds, their eggs, or active nests, the Service recommends that the project proponent take all practicable measures to avoid and minimize take, such as maintaining adequate buffers, to protect the birds until the young have fledged. Active nests may not be removed. The Service appreciates your efforts to incorporate fish and wildlife resource concerns, including threatened and endangered species, into your project planning. If you have questions or comments related to this issue, please contact Mike McGrath at or (406) 449-5225, extension 201. Sincerely, for Jodi L. Bush Field Supervisor ---PAGE BREAK--- DEQ Montana Department of Environmental Quality May 29, 2015 Tom Jentz Environmental Certifying Officer City of KalispeH Planning Department 201 Avenue East Kalispelt, MT 59901 RE: TIGER Grant Application — Environmental Assessment Consultation Dear Mr. Jentz: Thank you for providing the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) the opportunity to comment on your TIGER Grant Application. Please consider the following comments in planning for the proposed project and grant application. The project will need construction storm water permits for site disturbances >1 acre. When working on the railroad grade near and at the bridge will most likely require 318 permit coverage (temporary increase in stream turbidity> and possibly 404 permit coverage (working within the stream corridor). In tandem, a construction dewatering permit may be needed. If redevelopment includes hooking up to the City of Kalispell sewer system please work with the city on any pretreatment program that the WWTP requires. The site could also impact the city of Kalispefl MS4 system by hooking up to current discharge channels and increasing or decreasing impervious surfaces within the MS4 boundary. This project is consistent with the identified reasonably anticipated future use of the area surrounding the KRY Site. However, the property is not “adjacent” to the KRY Site; rather, the northeastern portion of the gravel pit property falls within the boundary of the KRY Site, a group of three Comprehensive Environmental Cleanup and Responsibility Act (CECRA) facilities. As the KRY Site is being remediated pursuant to a judicial abatement order under the authority of the CECRA program, a person not subject to the judicial order may not conduct any remedial activities on any part of the Facility without written permission from DEO. (see § 75-10711(9), MCA and ARM 17.55.110). Currently, the rail park project team has been coordinating with DEQ’s State Superfund (CECRA) program on work within the KRY Site boundary to ensure compliance with § 75-10-711(9), MCA and ARM 17.55.110. It is important that this level of coordination continue to ensure that redevelopment of the gravel pit property does not negatively impact the ongoing cleanup work at the KRY Site. Steve Bullock. Governor I Tom Livers, Director PD. Box 200901 1 Helena, MT 59620-0901 (406) 444-2544 ---PAGE BREAK--- Tom ientz May 29, 2015 Page 2 of 3 Additional comments for clarity and accuracy are provided below: Location and Existing Land Uses: • The discussion of the project site includes a substantial portion of the KRY Site that is outside of the gravel pit area. The text indicates that this area has been annexed into the City of Kalispell. DEQ’s State Superfund (CECRA) program is not aware that the property currently owned by BNSF Railway Company and the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) has been annexed into the City of Kalispell. If these properties have been annexed, please confirm and provide details of when the annexation occurred. If not, please revise the project description to more accurately depict the rail park project area. • Environmental Concerns: • The state superfund (CECRA) facility is referred to as the “KRY Site.” • The Record of Decision (ROD) is DEQ’s final decision on the remedy for cleaning up the KRY Site. The other pertinent decision document is the June 2013 Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) document, which identifies changes to the ROD. The listed Remedial Action Work Plan is simply a document that provides a roadmap for implementation of the ROD, but is not a decision document on its own. • DEQ did not determine that the soil excavations at the KRY Site were complete. Rather, BNSF completed the lead-contaminated soil excavation and offsite disposal portion of the ROD remedy in November 2010. Additional and larger-scale excavations were conducted in subsequent years. DEQ has not yet made a determination that all soil excavation necessary at the KRY Site is complete. • Please replace Moriah Bucy with Travis Erny as the KRY Site contact for the DEQ State Superfund program. Travis is the current assigned project officer on behalf of DEQ and Moriah Bucy is his supervisor. Travis may be contacted at [EMAIL REDACTED] or [PHONE REDACTED]. DEQ’s experience with abandoned rail lines and other rails-to-trails projects indicates that active and abandoned rail lines may contain soil contamination from poly-aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), petroleum, and metals (particularly arsenic). DEQ recommends assessing the rail line for these constituents. Also, attached is a list of all petroleum storage tanks release sites identified in DEQ’s database within a one-mile radius of the intersection of Highway 93 and the rail line. Our current database cannot search along a linear feature, but we have included the street addresses and geographic coordinates for the sites. This list contains both active and resolved petroleum releases, as identified by the “resolved date” column. Because the rail line serviced current and former commercial/industrial portions of Kalispell, other sources of contamination may exist along the rail line that may or may not be identified on this ---PAGE BREAK--- Tom Jentz May 29, 2015 Page 3 of 3 list. Several petroleum bulk plants are known to have operated along the rail line in this area. If petroleum contamination is discovered during construction of this project, please report it to DEQ’s release reporting Policy at: http:/Jdeg.mt.gov/enf/Reports/SpillPolicy 2012.pdf. Finally, since the DEQ will be reviewing environmental documents, any additional comments will be addressed in the review of the preliminary engineering report, plans, and specifications for the proposed project and issuing a permit for construction. Emily Gillespie will be the review engineer for this project if you have any additional questions or concerns [EMAIL REDACTED] or [PHONE REDACTED]. Sin 7, / / I ç.ij’ onnieLovelace Regulatory Affairs Manager Director’s Office (406) 444-1760 REF# 15-062 End: List of Petroleum Storage Tanks Water Protection Fact Sheet ---PAGE BREAK--- Fact Sheet Water Quality Permits for Construction Related Activities Water Protection Bureau Montana Department of Environmental Quality MPDES Storm Water Permit: Construction related activities that result in greater than one acre of disturbance and may generate storm water runoff from the construction site during the life of the project must obtain authorization prior to initiation of the construction activity. For purposes ofthis regulation, construction activities include clearing, grading, excavation, and stockpiling or placement of earthen materials. Routine maintenance activities that disturb less than 5 areas and do not change the original configuration ofthe site are not subject to this regulation. The owner or operator is required to develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan These discharges are covered under a general permit (MTR 10000). Coverage under the general permit is effective upon receipt of a completed NOT package (application, storm water pollution prevention plan, and fee). MPDES Construction Dewatering: Non-storm water discharges of sediment laden water from coffer dams, trenches, pipeline construction, excavation pits, borrow areas, well development or other activities that is discharged to state waters, including irrigation canals, drainage ditches and wetlands, are prohibited unless authorized by the Department. Typically, these activities are authorized under the Department’s general permit for construction dewatering (MTGO70000). Under most conditions the pennittee is required to construct and operate some form of treatment to remove turbidity and sediment to meet state water quality standards. The discharge of ground water that contains petroleum contaminates or other wastes must be authorized and comply with the requirements of the Department’s petroleum clean up general permit (MTG790000 or MTX30000) prior to discharge to state surface or ground water. These permits are typically issued within 30 days of receipt of a completed application. Short-term water quality standard for turbidity (31 Montana water quality standards prohibit the increase in sediment or turbidity above specific amounts in state surface waters. A Section 318 authorization provides a short-term turbidity standard for activities that are conducted in state waters and may cause disturbance of the streambed sediments. A 318 authorization is typically processed in 7 to 21 days but may require longer review for complexity or environmentally sensitive areas. 401 Certification: Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act is administered by the US Army Corps of Engineers; these permits are for dredge and fill in waters of the US, including wetlands. Please contact the Corps at (406) 441-1375. The Department provides CWA 401 certification of 404 projects and works directly with the Corps on these issues. A joint application form is used. General Information Fees: All of the above permits require the applicant to pay afee prior to Department review of the application. The fee varies depending on the type ofpermit and complexity of the project. A fee schedule is available upon request at (406) 444-3080, or on the Departments website at: www.deq.mt.gov ---PAGE BREAK--- 3021f 12/11!19981IOIOEIDAHOST LKAUSPELLI 19L:? ..09 4178 31512004j727 E Idaho St KaIispe!I 48.20393 -114.30414 0.22 I I 3498 6/9!200981 WOODLAND PARK DR KALISPELL 48.200263 114.298703I O.28 9/17/2003 514 E Washington St KALISPELLt 48204322 -114308046! 0.39j 22411 8/16/2011185 5TH AVENUE EAST N KALISPELLj 48:201496j -119!..0 0.401 3130 85 5TH AVENUE EAST N KALJSPELL 4820i496 -[PHONE REDACTED] 040k 3205f 5/30/200785 5TH AVENUE EAST N KALISPELL 48.201496J -[PHONE REDACTED] 0.40j icEtR3r&wrtKEN1N2or 26t57T 1T412 0441 LFRMERTEDUCMOTOR27& “ ITCr 4W2Oi2F” 2O64 5S4TFFAVENUEEAn’r RA[1SPEE[ 42U0735t 4TRAVER1JE EATW L1SPEU 42375 T1t3t38253 1Y4 i27T4T20D 55TWAVUATW AL1PELU 4 . h42 47 A UUMEN27 EiART A[1PEUE *8 US2 1 flON4372 3482 fltYO3 ,AuPELr Nowa3r#4 42 1113T2TJD J3[f 0.52 I T4E 2B1TFrAV/E os 4114 71772UT 2 AL1PEII MM1[NU1PMNT42W’ 449 fl_] KALE[URATED#1!2F 1825 1S14 RAL1PLU 8TW fl 3037 72JtJ?2TTSVEE RAr?SWELL 22TT3W 3481 712O11iSTAVEE RA[1SPEIi n.86l S47 1I2OTVE . 4I1 .ANTNAt2 W2 AUFELU IBULK PLANT #1166 670 150 ERR KALISPELL 48.20038, -114.31395j 0.72 OIE ZZZ[Z!!EL ZZZZ! Z1L - 3021 !RYGG FORD SALES #1867 D,4JLYINTERLAKE #4 t WOODLAND QUIKSTOP #3498 ILASER SCHOOL #4177 MEOT MAINTI!NANi-iOF #2241 S 1#3130 MDOT MAINTENANCE SHOP #3205 ---PAGE BREAK--- MT HIGHWAY 35 501 3RDAVE E 213 MAIN ST# 217 1600 Block of US Hwy 93 S 120 W IDAHO ST 120W IDAHO ST 100 RAILROAD ST E 185 RAILROAD ST W 10/3/1995 825 6TH AVE E KALISPELL KALISPELL Kalispell KALISPELL KALISPELL KALISPELL KALISPELL 4t$2IJ43I -114,3ThZb U.1’4 :74t 0.781 48 192741 -114 29793 48.193657{ -114.307178 48.196756111 -[PHONE REDACTED] 48195841 -114.31194 48.2015741 -114.316835 4L1bbZ -114.31zU1I U.J3 I LI-tLL N lVl3Ifl t & vv ioano t KIiIU 1SPELL 7130/2012 US HIGHWAY 93 & US HIGHWAY 2 KALISPELL 1i/2i2Y07USRFg1iWi2 &1JSHihwáy 93 K1r 2/171199412 MAIN ST 307 1ST AVE E KALISPELL — tCOEtEGE472 4L7T27nt1rAVEE {7o2w2 ESTIGEATMD3T)”#4202 421J2 IMDOT SUBWAY #4016 40161 MONTANA KALISPELL #1685 1685 GLACIER BUILDING #1 558 1558 2/24/1 994 1 Z1 !HARBINGER HOUSE #2505 j 25051 2/24/1995 MAWVo9Nii — r I#2288 1 22881 1/30/1995 rTRUST #3724 3724 1/1211993 QUITY sUNVNiN STORE #2839 . 4/15/1996 STORE #2939 2939 WRANGLER OIL INC IDATAFLEET #695 669 48.20204 -[PHONE REDACTED] 48202 48.19859944 -[PHONE REDACTED] 48.196066671 -[PHONE REDACTED] POLSON !CITY OF KALISPELL FRED ZAVODNY #4069 CLASSICAL GAS #338 0.801 0.82 0.82 0.82 48.201574 48.1999525 CLASSICAL GAS #2716 KALISPELL BULK PLANT THORNTON OIL #671 BULK PLANT EAST #4402 CELESTE G GRAHAM #2681 4069 338 2716 671 4402 2681 -114.316835 -[PHONE REDACTED] 0.82 0.83 5/20/2009 420 1ST AVE E KALISPELL 48.19507389 -[PHONE REDACTED] 0.83 343 MAIN ST KALISPELL 48.19507 -114.31201 0.86 343 MAIN ST KALISPELL 48.19507 -114.31201 0.86 180 RAILROAD STE KALISPELL 48.19963 -114.31725 0.88 HOLIDAY STATION STORE 279 #4iO7 41O7 W/12/2011 1 1278 E LISPELL 48.199725 48.191485 -114.317401 -114.301714 0.88 0.89 -114.28321 0.91 4821177 L ---PAGE BREAK--- “F #4169 4169 2I20!2007 1278 US HIGHWAY 2 E KALISPELL 48.21 177f -114.28321 0.91 3 (Parking Lot) #4349 4349 L 12129/20141135 2ND AVE W KALISPELL 48.196871 -114.31653471 0.941 LD A ANMIRN SHOP#2040 — - 2040 512011994 1 412NDAVEW - KALISPELL 481968146i -[PHONE REDACTED] O94 IOLES COUNTRY STORE 5 #1589 15891 8/23/1993235 W IDAHO ST KALISPELL 48.201417 -[PHONE REDACTED] 0.95 —r —1 OLES COUNTRY STORE #4118 41181 235W IDAHO ST KALISPELL 48.201417 -114.319566 0.951 . KAYE STEVENS #2563 25631 5/15/1999130 7TH STE KALISPELL 48 .l 9222 J -1i43o9797 O.96 IFLOANN J COLE #1345 13451 11/4/1991704 2ND AVE E IKALISPELL 48.1914793 -114.307902 0.971 . . . . f. . COLIN & BILL ANDREW #1205 1205 9/10/1992238W CENTER ST KALISPELL 48.1980321 -114,318318 0.971 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1035 First Ave West Kali5pell, MI 59901 [PHONE REDACTED] [PHONE REDACTED] pIarningweb:?)flathead.mIgov W1 fIathead.mt.gov/panningzonin May 28, 2015 The Honorable Anthony Foxx, Secretary U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 RE: Glacier Rail Park/Kalispell Core Area Development and Trail Dear Mr. Foxx, On behalf of the Flathead County Planning and Zoning Office, I am sending this letter in support of the Glacier Rail Park!Kalispell Core Area Development and Trail application, for which the City of Kalispell and the Flathead County Economic Development Authority is requesting National Infrastructure Investments (TIGER 7) grant funding. The proposed eastern ingress/egress to the park will provide a boost to the Evergreen community adjacent to the City of Kalispell. New and enhanced employment opportunities would benefit the entire community. Brownfield development surrounded by existing highways, commercial uses and rail lines and near air services and residential development is extraordinarily efficient. Increased traffic in a developed commercial area is good for existing retail, foodservice and lodging businesses. Spin-off and symbiotic businesses that re-purpose existing vacant commercial real estate adjacent to the park could help revitalize and refresh the Evergreen community. The proposed trail using the soon to be abandoned rail right-of-way will connect the communities ofEvergreen and Kalispell and provide an important pedestrian link between neighborhoods, jobs and services. All ofthese things and more are possible benefits of the proposed rail park. Sincerely, BJ Grieve, AICP®, CFM® Planning Director ---PAGE BREAK--- Tom Jentz From: Aceituno, Kevin <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 8:56 AM To: Tom Jentz Subject: TIGER Grant Application - Environmental Assessment Consultation Hello Tom, Our office received your letter regarding the TIGER Grant Application. Thank you for reaching out and providing the proposed details of your project. At this time we do not have any comments on the application. However, if the application is approved and the project moves forward we would expect the U.S. Department of Transportation to fulfill their obligations, as outlined in the Endangered Species Act, on activities that may affect listed species. As a side note, Tim Bordutha is no longer in this office. He retired from federal service in December of 2014. Beginning in August, 2015 correspondence to this office can be addressed to our incoming Supervisor, Ben Conard. Thank you again for contacting us, and good luck with the project. Sincerely, Kevin Aceituno Kevin Aceituno Fish and Wildlife Biologist Montana Ecological Services Suboffice 780 Creston Hatchery Road Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-6871 Fax: (406) 758-6887 Email: Kevin Aceitunovs.gov 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Flathead City-County Heafth DeDartment 1035 First Ave. West Kallspell, MT 59901 (406) 751-8101 FAX 7514102 Community Health Services 751.8110 FAXY5l8l1l Environmental Health Services 751-8130 FAX 751-8131 Family Planni Seivices 751-8150 FAX751-8151 Home Health Services 751-6800 FAX 751-6807 WIG Services 751-8170 FAX 751-8171 Animal Shelter 752-1 310 FAX 752-1546 May 21,2015 Tom Jentz, Environmental Certifying Officer City ofKalispell, Planning Department 201 First Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Re: Tiger Grant Application — Knife River Gravel Pit — Industrial Campus Dear Tom, I have reviewed the information provided regarding the Tiger Grant Application for the Knife River site and have the following comments: • This property is in the Kalispell Air Pollution Control District administered by the Health Department. • The project as proposed complies with the regulations and removes some ongoing compliance matters on this site. • This project mayremove two emission sources located in higher population density areas in Kalispell and relocate them to this site — an area zoned industrial with lower population densities. Good luck with the grant application. The Health Department is certainly supportive. Please call me if you have any questions regarding this matter. 0 PublicBealth Providing qualitypublic health services to ensure the conditionsfor a healthy community. ---PAGE BREAK--- Tom Jentz From: David Prunty <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 10:39 AM To: Tom Jentz Subject: Rail Park HI Tom: Good to talk with you yesterday for the by-pass mtg. Always fun to be part of the dog and pony show! In reviewing the report for the rail park I have a few minor comments. For transportation issues the only road impacted that is under Flathead County Road and Bridge jurisdiction is Flathead Drive. I don’t think any issues are apparent at this point. I’m sure there will be improvements to a current AASHTO standard or City of Kal standard which as long as we have an opportunity to review/comment I’m sure it will be acceptable. I have heard one comment about the light at the bottom of the hill on Hwy 2 and concerns with winter road conditions for vehicles headed east bound. Handled through maintenance in my opinion but could be interesting on bad days when conditions are just right. Solid waste would be handled by the City or contract hauler from what I understand so I don’t think there are any issues there. Our facility does NOT handle any form of commercial hazardous waste so any businesses would need to contract with an appropriate company to handle that material. We do have a one day event for small quantity haz waste producers in the spring and companies who meet that condition would be welcome to participate in that event. Good luck with the TIGER grant Dave Prunty Public Works Director Flathead County Road & Bridge [PHONE REDACTED] Solid Waste [PHONE REDACTED] 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Big Sky. Big Land. Big History Montana Historieal Soeiety May 19, 2015 Tom Jentz City of Kalispell Planning Department 201 1 5t Ave East Kalispell MT 59901 RE: TIGER GRANT APPLICATION-ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CONSULTATION-KNIFE RIVER GRAVEL PIT TO RAIL-INDUSTRIAL PARK CAMPUS. SHPO Project #:[PHONE REDACTED] Dear Mr. Jentz: I have conducted a cultural resource file search for the above-cited project located in Section 8 T28N R21W. According to our records there have been a few previously recorded sites within the designated search locale. In addition to the sites there have been a few previously conducted cultural resource inventories done in the areas. I’ve attached a list of these sites and reports. If you would like any further information regarding these sites or reports you may contact me at the number listed below. It is SHPO’s position that any structure over fifty years of age is considered historic and is potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Site 24FH0350 is the historic Great Northern Railroad, which has been determined eligible for listing on the National Register. If the railroad or any other structures are to be altered on this property, and are over fifty years old, we would recommend that they be recorded and a determination of their eligibility be made. If this project involves a federal agency, it may constitute a federal undertaking subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. As such it will be important for you to coordinate efforts in the further consideration of impacts to cultural resources through the federal agency for consultation with our office. If you have any further questions or comments you may contact me at (406) 444-7767 or by e-mail at [EMAIL REDACTED]. I have attached an invoice for the file search. Thank you for consulting with us. Sincerely, Damon Murdo Cultural Records Manager State Historic Preservation Office File: US/OTHER/2015 Histoic Preservation Museum Outreach & Interpretation Publications Research Center 225 North Roberts Street P.O. Box 201201 Helena, MT 59620-1201 (406) 444-2694 (406) 444-2696 FAX montanahistoricalsociety.org ---PAGE BREAK--- Tom Jentz From: BJ Grieve <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 2:32 PM To: Tom Jentz Subject: Tiger Grant Appluication EA Consultation Hi Tom Got your request for comment on the TIGER grant EA. In previous years, we’ve sent a letter of support stating that the eastern ingress/egress will be a boost to the Evergreen community. Your referral asks for “comment on any impacts both positive and negative, associated with this project...” Since the project and location are the same, would an updated version of our previous letter of support be appropriate? Or are letters of support something that comes at a different point in your process and now you’re seeking comment on impacts only related to Community Impacts and Environmental Justice? BJ Grieve, AICP®, CFM® Planning Director Flathead County Planning & Zoning 1035 First Avenue West Kalispell, MT 59901-5607 Phone: [PHONE REDACTED] Fax: [PHONE REDACTED] Any communications with the Flathead County Planning and Zoning Office are subject to relevant State and Federal public record and information laws and regulations, and may be disclosed without further notice to you. 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- KALISPELL FIRE DEPARTMENT Dave Dedman — Fire Chief P0 Box 1997 Jon Campbell — Assistant Fire Chief 312 First Avenue East Cec Lee — Executive Secretary Kalispell, Montana 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7760 FAX: (406) 758-7777 Thursday, May 14, 2015 Tom Jentz, Environmental Certifying Officer City of Kalispell 201 1 st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear Mr. Jentz: RE: Tiger Grant Application — Rail — industrial park campus. As part of my review of this project I found the following positive aspects in relation to Hazardous Materials and Public Safety. • The removal of the train tracks and rail traffic through the center of Kalispell eliminates the chance of there being a response delay due to rail traffic bisecting the roadways used for response. • The removal of limited hazardous materials generally stored at the CHS retail outlets. The retail use and sale of these materials is not of concern however the bulk storage of these materials within the general public area is. • The location specified for this project removes the storage of materials away from the general populous and concentrates it into one limited access area. • Limits the amount of truck traffic needed for deliveries with in the downtown core area of the city of Kalispell. • Storage of hazardous materials will fall under updated fire code and regulations providing for a less dangerous storage facility in comparison to the current retail facilities. • This storage would require more restrictive fire and life safety codes and fire flows as associated with bulk storage of hazardous goods and flammable liquids and other materials. Required fire flow is available to the site and upon the fire departments review at the time of building permit issuance for each building or facility they will be required to install fire protection as needed or as deemed necessary according to the adopted fire code in affect at that time. • Allows for proper planning of infrastructure needed if an event does occur helping us mitigate that situation. “Protecting our community with the highest level ofprofessionalisna” ---PAGE BREAK--- With proper planning and fire code review I feel that this project will be a great benefit to the citizens of Kalispell. Sincerely, Dave Dedman, Fire Chief “Protecting our community with the highest level ofprofessionalism.” ---PAGE BREAK--- Montana Department of Transportation Michael T. Tooley, Director 270? Prospect Avenue Steve Bu/lock, Governor PC Box 20100? May 13, 2015 He/ena MT59o20-?001 r” fl ‘7 r27 r” Kim Morisaki ‘ u ‘i tE Flathead County Econ Devel Authority 314 Main Street /:.zY 1 3 2015 Kalispell, MT 59901 AL1SELL PL’NN!NG DEPARThiLi Subject: Glacier Rail Park (Formerly Kalispell Rail Park) - US 2 MDT Comments — TIS and updated TIS Dear Kim, The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) staff has reviewed the Traffic Impact Study, dated April 2015, and updated information sent by Kathy Harris. The documents provided captured all the discussion items from previous meetings. We have the following comments: Traffic Signal 1. A formal stand-alone traffic signal warrant study must be completed for the proposed signal at Flathead Dr. /Woodland Park Dr. Idaho St (US I have attached the draft guidance for the traffic signal warrant studies. The warrant studies must have the MDT Traffic & Safety Engineer’s concurrence prior to installation. Coordinating Comments: 1. The Developer must submit design plans for the approaches for MDT review, comment and if appropriate approval. The review and approval of the design plans may take multiple iterations. 2. Prior to initiating any work within MDT right-of-way, the Developer must: o Schedule a preconstruction meeting with the MDT Kalispell Staff to discuss construction related activities and coordination. o Submit a traffic control plan to the Kalispell Office for MDT approval. 3. The Developer or any party performing work on the behalf of the Developer within MDT’s right-of-way may need to enter into a construction agreement with the Kalispell Office prior to beginning construction. 4. The Developer may need to provide full time construction inspection and certification during construction by qualified staff. If required by the Kalispell Office the Developer will need to provide Construction inspection reports upon MDT request during construction and will need to provide all construction inspection reports upon completion of the project. The MDT Kalispell Office will assign staff to provide construction inspection oversight. Policy, Program & Performance Analysis Bureau Rail, Transit and Planning Division Phone: (406) 4443423 An Equal Opportunity Employer 711: (800) 335—7592 Fax: (406) 444—7671 Web Page: ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. MDT cannot issue the approach permits until all other environmental clearances are obtained for the proposed Development. If you have any questions concerning these comments please contact me at (406)444-9456 or email at diev(mt.gov. Sinc rely, /Jean A. Riley, P.E. Transportation Planning Engineer Policy, Program & Performance Analysis Bureau Attachments: Current programmed signal timings Copies: Ed Toavs, P.E. — Missoula District Office James Freyholtz, P.E. — Kalispell Traffic Engineer Danielle Bolan, P.E. — Traffic Engineer Stan Brelin, P.E. — Traffic and Safety Bureau Mike Tierney — Policy, Program & Performance Analysis Bureau Tom Jentz — Kalispell Planning & Building Directo Kathy Harris - KU File ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Signal Warrant Studies Traffic signal warrant studies are a type of engineering study used to determine whether traffic signal control is a feasible and a recommended treatment to address an existing or anticipated safety and/or operational issue. The study determines whether the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) warrants for traffic signal control are at least minimally satisfied. The report will justify the treatment by determining if overall safety and/or operations will be improved by providing traffic signal control. If traffic signal control is a justified treatment then, in addition, the study will determine phasing and other operational characteristics of the proposed traffic signal control. A typical traffic signal warrant study will consist of the following: • Description of existing conditions. - • Discussion of traffic data collected and used in the study. • Crash history. . • Discussion of MUTCD Warrants for traffic signal control. • Discussion of capacity analysis both current and future “do-nothing” conditions and, if warranted, the capacity of traffic signal control (typically the assumed year of traffic signal turn on and the design year). • Additional computations if additional phasing (for example protected left turn phase) is considered. . • Roundabout analysis as required. • Conclusions if needed - • Recommendation. , • Additional information such apecial site conditions, new policy directives, equipment needs, phasing (as needed), etc. that ed attention • If trafflc signal control is recommended there will be a concurrence signature from the Traffic and Safety Engineer. No concurrence from the Traffic and Safety Engineer is required if traffic signal control is not recommended. ---PAGE BREAK--- 201 1st Avenue East, P.O. Box 1997, Kalispell, MT 59903 –Phone (406)758-7720 – Fax (406)758-7831 www.kalispell.com March 4, 2016 Mike Brodie, PE KLJ 1845 Highway 93 South Kalispell, MT 59901 Re: Glacier Rail Park Mike, The revised construction drawings, design reports, and other included submittals received March 1, 2016 for the Glacier Rail Park are hereby approved contingent on the following items: 1. Prior to Final Plat, all Conditions listed in the Preliminary Plat shall be satisfied. 2. Prior to Final Plat, record drawings of the approved plans shall be submitted in both hard copy and digital formats. The coordinate systems used in the record drawings shall be Montana State Plane – International Foot for horizontal coordinates with corresponding elevations in NAVD 88. 3. A deviation to plan coordinate system requirement as defined in Section 3.4.7.E is approved contingent upon the delivery of record drawings as specified in item 2 above. 4. A deviation to the Horizontal Location of valves and manhole covers as defined in Section 3.3.6 is approved. The deviation to the standards is deemed necessary to maintain adequate separation between the City of Kalispell infrastructure and an Evergreen water main. 5. A deviation to the noise emission limits for generators as specified in section 3.3.12.D is approved. The deviation to the standards is deemed acceptable for an industrial park with a separation from residents of more than 600 feet. 6. A deviation to the short-term infiltration requirement maximum of 20 in/hr and long-term infiltration rate of 10 in/hr as defined in Section 4.6.3.B.V.c are approved. Contingent upon approval, the Property Owner(s) shall be responsible to maintain pretreatment devices to ensure pollutant removal is adequate to prevent groundwater contamination. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2 of 2 7. A deviation to the minimum setback requirement from ponds to property lines of 20 feet as specified in Section 4.7.8.B.IV is approved. Contingent upon approval of this deviation, the Property Owner(s) shall be responsible to protect adjacent properties and infrastructure from damage associated with stormwater storage in the pond. 8. A deviation to the Non-Flooded width of 16 feet as required in Section 4.8.6.A is approved allowing 15 feet of non-flooded width per the Engineer’s evaluation. 9. A deviation to the maximum grade requirement for access roads of 8% as specified in Section 4.10.1.H.d is approved. Contingent upon approval of this deviation the Property Owner(s) shall be responsible to maintain the pond using the proposed access road with a 10% grade. If modifications to the access road is necessary, the modifications shall be submitted to Public Works for review and approval prior to construction. The above listed deviations are the only deviations approved for this project (outside of MDEQ deviation requests). Any deviation to the standards beyond the approved deviations in this letter shall be submitted to this department for review and approval prior to construction. Approval does not relieve you, nor the contractor from designing or constructing this project in accordance with the standards currently in effect. Modification to these approved plans shall be submitted and approved by this department prior to construction. If more than 18 months lapse before completing construction, plans and specifications must be resubmitted and approved before construction continues. Please contact Mark Crowley at 249-2485 to set up a pre-construction meeting prior to beginning construction. At project completion, please provide the City with record drawings. We look forward to working with you on this project. Sincerely, Keith Haskins, PE Senior Civil Engineer [PHONE REDACTED] cc: Emily Gillespie, PE, Montana Department of Environmental Quality Mark Crowley – City Construction Manager ---PAGE BREAK--- KALISPELL FIRE DEPARTMENT “Protecting our community with the highest level of professionalism.” Dave Dedman – Fire Chief Jon Campbell – Assistant Fire Chief Cec Lee – Executive Secretary PO Box 1997 312 First Avenue East Kalispell, Montana 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7760 FAX: (406) 758-7777 Friday, February 19, 2016 Mike Brodie KLJ engineering 1830 3rd Ave. E, Suite 202 Kalispell MT 59901 Re: Glacier Rail Park Fire Flows Dear Mike, After review and our correspondence on 2/19/2016 I find the fire flow rating of 3000 GPM acceptable for the Glacier Rail Park project. Interior sprinkling of future structures is required as per International Fire Code 2012 and International building code 2012 or current adopted code at time of future construction. If you have any additional questions please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Dave Dedman, Fire Chief City of Kalispell ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B Noise and Vibration Study ---PAGE BREAK--- March 7, 2017 Mr. Mark Rohweder KLJ 1830 3rd Avenue East, Suite 202 Kalispell, MT 59901-5578 Re: Glacier Rail Park REVISED Noise and Vibration Analysis BSA Project #16118 Dear Mark: Big Sky Acoustics, LLC (BSA) has revised the Noise and Vibration Analysis for the Glacier Rail Park in Kalispell, Montana. The analysis was completed per the Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidelines. This revised report summarizes the analysis, and incorporates FTA’s comments on the draft version. If you have any questions concerning this report, please do not hesitate to call me at (406) 457- 0407 or email me at [EMAIL REDACTED]. Sincerely, Sean Connolly BIG SKY ACOUSTICS, LLC ---PAGE BREAK--- GLACIER RAIL PARK NOISE AND VIBRATION ANALYSIS Prepared for: KLJ 1830 3rd Avenue East Suite 202 Kalispell, MT 59901 Completed by: March 7, 2017 ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park Big Sky Acoustics, LLC Noise and Vibration Analysis i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Big Sky Acoustics, LLC (BSA) completed a Detailed Noise Analysis and General Vibration Assessment for the Glacier Rail Park Project in Kalispell, Montana. The study was completed per the Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidelines (FTA 2006). The Project would develop a 40-acre industrial rail park, and remove approximately 2 miles of tracks south from the site to Downtown, to construct the Kalispell Pedestrian Trail. The Rail Park is located in an industrial area with surrounding commercial, residential and industrial uses (Figure CHS Kalispell would relocate their grain handling facilities, fertilizer distribution plant and offices from Downtown, and other industrial tenants that need rail access would be considered. To serve the Rail Park, a rail line would be extended from the mainline north traversing westerly with up to six parallel sidings. For point noise sources, such as rail crossing signals and railcar loading/coupling, noise levels typically decrease by approximately 6 dBA every time the distance between the source and receiver is doubled, depending on the characteristics of the source and the conditions over the path that the noise travels. For line noise sources, such as trains passing along a track, the divergence is approximately 3 dBA per doubling of distance. The reduction in noise levels can be increased if a solid barrier or natural topography blocks the line of sight between the source and receiver. Noise levels are quantified using units of decibels (dB). Humans typically have reduced hearing sensitivity at low frequencies compared with their response at high frequencies. The weighting” of noise levels, or A-weighted decibels (dBA), closely correlates to the frequency response of normal human hearing. For environmental noise studies, noise levels are typically described using A-weighted equivalent noise levels, Leq, during a certain time period. The day- night average noise level, Ldn, is a single number descriptor that represents the constantly varying sound level during a continuous 24-hour period. The Sound Exposure Level (SEL) describes a receiver’s cumulative noise exposure from a single noise event. Noise receivers of interest located within 1,000 feet of the Rail Park were identified for the analysis, including residences, churches and hotels (Table 3-1 and Figure In June 2016, BSA completed baseline noise level measurements to quantify the existing ambient noise levels at the closest receivers to the existing mainline and proposed Rail Park. The results of the 24-hour noise level measurement at Location 1 are summarized in Graph 4-1. Based on the measured hourly Leq data, the existing Ldn is 56 dBA. Short-term noise level measurements (each 15 to 20 minutes in duration) were completed during the morning, afternoon and evening hours at Locations 3 through 6 (Figure As shown in Table 4-2, the short-term calculated Ldn values ranged from 50-59 dBA. Ldn values between 50 and 55 dBA are typical for small city or suburban areas, and values between Ldn 55 and 60 dBA are typical for urban residential areas (Harris 1998). ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park Big Sky Acoustics, LLC Noise and Vibration Analysis ii Section 5.0 documents the FTA noise impact criteria for the identified Category 2 – residential and hotel receivers and the Category 3 – church receivers. Section 6.0 documents the reference SELs and noise source assumptions used for the noise analysis. The noise impact assessment is included in Section 7.0. BSA developed the noise prediction and contouring model using the Cadna-A noise prediction software. The noise impact results for the receivers are listed in Tables 7-2 through 7-5. The current cumulative noise levels, on days that the trains operate on the existing mainline, are between Ldn 52 and 60 dBA (Table 7-2). The Cadna-A noise contours for the current train operations on the mainline are shown on Figure 2. The Project cumulative noise levels, on days that trains would operate in the Rail Park and on the mainline, are calculated to be between Ldn 53 and 63 dBA (Table 7-3). The dominant noise sources for the Project are predicted to be the Rail Park activities and the train horns at the Flathead Drive/East Oregon Lane crossing (Figure The topography in the area and large buildings have a significant effect on how the sound travels in the vicinity of the proposed Rail Park. The approximate 40 to 60 foot high ridge between the Rail Park site and the Southern Neighborhood acts as a barrier to reduce noise. To determine if noise impacts would occur at Category 2 receivers, the cumulative Project Ldn was compared to the current cumulative Ldn due to train noise. As shown in Table 7-4 and on Figure 3, a portion of receiver Locations 2 and 4 Town and Country Trailer Court and the Northeast Neighborhood 1) are predicted to be moderately impacted. The noise impacts at Locations 2 and 4 are primarily due to the train horns used at the Flathead Drive/East Oregon Lane crossing, and the impacted receivers represent the residences located closest to the crossing (Figure No noise impacts were predicted for the Category 3 church receivers. Although two Moderate noise impacts are predicted for the Project, the impacts are not near FTA’s Severe Impact range (Figure 5-1), and therefore, the need for mitigation is low. Also, since trains are already active on the exiting mainline, the noise of locomotives, coupling of railcars, train horns and other rail-related noise sources already influence the impacted receivers. Hence, the public reaction to the Project noise is expected to be less than if the Project introduced a new noise source to the area. Although noise impacts are predicted on days the trains operate to move product out of the Rail Park, train operations are expected to be infrequent (up to 12 days per month) and during the daytime hours. Therefore, although noise impacts are predicted, the need for mitigation is not strong per the FTA guidelines (FTA 2006). Since noise impacts were predicted, mitigation was considered. To reduce the noise of locomotive-mounted horns, wayside horns could be installed at the Flathead Drive/East Oregon Lane crossing. Wayside horns are mounted on poles and are not as loud as locomotive-mounted horns (Figure 8-1). However, as discussed in Section 7.4, mitigation may not be required (FTA 2006). As documented in Section 9.0, a General Vibration Assessment was also completed for the Project (FTA 2006). Ground vibrations at receivers located within 300 feet of the Rail Park and mainline tracks, and the additional siding track between US 2 and the Stillwater River, were assessed. No vibration impacts were predicted for the Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park Big Sky Acoustics, LLC Noise and Vibration Analysis iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE OF iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 NOISE TERMINOLOGY 2 3.0 RECEIVERS OF INTEREST 3 4.0 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT 4 4.1 24-HOUR MEASUREMENT 5 4.2 SHORT-TERM NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS 8 5.0 NOISE IMPACT CRITERIA 9 5.1 CATEGORY 2 RECEIVERS 9 5.2 CATEGORY 3 RECEIVERS 10 6.0 PROJECT NOISE ANALYSIS 11 6.1 REFERENCE SOUND EXPOSURE LEVELS 11 6.2 PROJECT NOISE SOURCE ASSUMPTIONS USED FOR ANALYSIS 12 7.0 NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 13 7.1 13 7.2 CURRENT NOISE LEVELS AT CATEGORY 2 15 7.3 PROJECT NOISE LEVELS AT CATEGORY 2 RECEIVERS 16 7.4 NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT AT CATEGORY 2 RECEIVERS 17 7.5 NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT AT CATEGORY 3 RECEIVERS 18 8.0 NOISE MITIGATION 18 9.0 GENERAL VIBRATION ASSESSMENT 19 10.0 CONCLUSION 21 11.0 REFERENCES 22 12.0 STANDARD OF CARE 23 ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park Big Sky Acoustics, LLC Noise and Vibration Analysis iv TABLES TABLE 3-1 NOISE RECEIVERS OF INTEREST WITHIN 1,000 FEET TABLE 3-2 SHORT-TERM MEASURED AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS, JUNE 1-2, 2016 TABLE 6-1 FTA SOURCE REFERENCE SELS AT 50 FEET TABLE 6-2 SUMMARY OF ASSUMPTIONS USED FOR NOISE STUDY TABLE 7-1 COMPARISON OF FTA AND CADNA-A PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS TABLE 7-2 CALCULATED CURRENT TRAIN OPERATIONAL NOISE-CUMULATIVE LDN AT CATEGORY 2 RECEIVERS TABLE 7-3 CALCULATED PROJECT TRAIN OPERATIONAL NOISE-CUMULATIVE LDN AT CATEGORY 2 RECEIVERS TABLE 7-4 CHANGE IN CUMULATIVE LDN AND IMPACT AT CATEGORY 2 RECEIVERS TABLE 7-5 CHANGE IN TRAIN LEQ(H) AND IMPACT AT CATEGORY 3 RECEIVERS TABLE 8-1 NOISE CONTOURS FOR TYPICAL WAYSIDE HORNS TABLE 9-1 FTA ADJUSTMENT FACTORS FOR GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION TABLE 9-2 SUMMARY OF GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION ASSESSMENT GRAPH GRAPH 4-1 LOCATION 1—24-HOUR AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS, JUNE 1-2, 2016 FIGURES FIGURE 1 GLACIER RAIL PARK SITE AND NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS FIGURE 2 CURRENT TRAIN NOISE: RECEIVER LOCATIONS AND LDN NOISE CONTOURS (DBA) FIGURE 3 PROJECT TRAIN NOISE: RECEIVER LOCATIONS AND LDN NOISE CONTOURS (DBA) FIGURE 5-1 FTA NOISE IMPACT CRITERIA BASED ON INCREASE OF CUMULATIVE LDN NOISE LEVELS FOR CATEGORY 2 LAND USES FIGURE 5-2 FTA NOISE IMPACT CRITERIA BASED ON LEQ(H) NOISE LEVELS FOR CATEGORY 3 LAND USES ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park Big Sky Acoustics, LLC Noise and Vibration Analysis Page 1 of 23 1.0 INTRODUCTION Big Sky Acoustics, LLC (BSA) completed a Detailed Noise Analysis and General Vibration Assessment for the Glacier Rail Park Project in Kalispell, Montana. The study was completed per the Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidelines (FTA 2006). This report documents the Project noise sources, noise receivers, existing and predicted noise levels, noise and vibration impacts and potential mitigation due to the proposed train operations. The Glacier Rail Park Project would develop a 40-acre industrial tracks park, and remove approximately 2 miles of tracks and six tracks/street crossings south from the site to Downtown Kalispell. Removing the tracks would allow for the development of the Kalispell Trail, a 10 foot wide pedestrian trail along the former Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) right of way. The Glacier Rail Park was annexed into the city of Kalispell in 2014, and is zoned I-2, Heavy Industrial. The Rail Park location was originally a gravel extraction facility, and more recently, a concrete batch plant. The site has been graded and restored to a level condition, with a 40 to 60 foot tall hill forming the southwestern boundary resulting from the gravel pit operations. This hill provides a topographic separation and buffer for the residential neighborhood to the south. The proposed Rail Park would be located in an area containing mixed commercial, residential and industrial land uses (Figure 1, attached). Glacier Stone Supply, Klingler Lumber, a BNSF siding, and the Kalispell Pole and Timber, Reliance Refining Company and Yale Oil Corporation facilities (known as the KRY Superfund site), border the site to the north. Residential (single family and mobile homes), commercial (hotels and retail businesses) and light industrial (Pacific Steel and Northwest Truck Repair) uses are located northeast and east of the site, between East Oregon Lane, Flathead Drive, the BNSF mainline and US Highway 2. The Greenwood Village Mobile Homes and a residential neighborhood with two churches, border the site to the south. Whitefish Stage Road and the Stillwater River form the west and northwest boundaries. CHS Kalispell would relocate their grain handling facilities, fertilizer distribution plant and offices from Downtown Kalispell to Lot 2 in the central portion of the Rail Park (Figure Other industrial uses that need track access are being considered for Lots 1, 3 and 4. To serve the Rail Park, a track line would be extended from the mainline north of the park, traversing westerly for 925 feet with up to six parallel sidings for car storage, adding an additional 7,100 feet of track. Outside of the Rail Park, approximately 3,300 feet of new tracks are proposed to parallel the existing mainline from just south of the tracks bridge over the Stillwater River and end just north of the tracks bridge over US Highway 2. This extra siding track would allow for additional car storage and provide room for a train engine run around. WATCO Companies Mission Mountain Railroad (MMRR) currently operates on the existing mainline, providing service to CHS, Pacific Steel, and others, approximately 12 days per month. ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park Big Sky Acoustics, LLC Noise and Vibration Analysis Page 2 of 23 2.0 NOISE TERMINOLOGY Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound, and can be intermittent or continuous, steady or impulsive, stationary or transient. Noise levels heard by humans and animals are dependent on several variables, including distance and ground cover between the source and receiver and atmospheric conditions. Perception of noise is affected by intensity, frequency, pitch and duration. For point noise sources, such as tracks crossing signals and railcar loading/coupling, noise levels typically decrease by approximately 6 dBA every time the distance between the source and receiver is doubled, depending on the characteristics of the source and the conditions over the path that the noise travels. For line noise sources, such as trains passing along a track, the divergence is approximately 3 dBA per doubling of distance. The reduction in noise levels can be increased if a solid barrier or natural topography blocks the line of sight between the source and receiver. Noise levels are quantified using units of decibels (dB). Humans typically have reduced hearing sensitivity at low frequencies compared with their response at high frequencies. The weighting” of noise levels, or A-weighted decibels (dBA), closely correlates to the frequency response of normal human hearing. Decibels are logarithmic values, and therefore, the combined noise level of two 50 dBA noise sources is 53 dBA, not 100 dBA. For environmental noise studies, noise levels are typically described using A-weighted equivalent noise levels, Leq, during a certain time period. The Leq metric is useful because it uses a single number, similar to an average, to describe the constantly fluctuating instantaneous noise levels at a receiver location during a period of time, and accounts for all of the noises and quiet periods that occur during that time period. The Lmax metric denotes the maximum sound level recorded during a measurement period. The Sound Exposure Level (SEL) describes a receiver’s cumulative noise exposure from a single noise event. The ambient noise at a receiver location in a given environment is the all-encompassing sound associated with that environment, and is due to the combination of noise sources from many directions, near and far, including the noise source of interest. The 90th percentile-exceeded noise level, L90, is a metric that indicates the single noise level that is exceeded during 90 percent of a measurement period although the actual instantaneous noise levels fluctuate continuously. The L90 noise level can be considered the ambient noise level, and is often near the low end of the instantaneous noise levels during a measurement period. It typically does not include the influence of discrete noises of short duration, such as bird chirps, dog barks, car and train horns, etc. If a continuous noise is audible at a measurement location, such as an industrial fan or engine, typically it is that noise that determines the L90 of a measurement period even though other noise sources may be briefly audible and occasionally louder than the equipment during the same measurement period. The day-night average noise level, Ldn, is a single number descriptor that represents the constantly varying sound level during a continuous 24-hour period. The Ldn can be determined using 24 consecutive one-hour Leq noise levels, or estimated using the measured Leq noise levels ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park Big Sky Acoustics, LLC Noise and Vibration Analysis Page 3 of 23 from the source of interest and FTA calculations. 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. 3.0 RECEIVERS OF INTEREST Per the FTA guidelines for rail yards with an unobstructed line-of-sight to noise receivers of interest, the screening distance of 1,000 feet was used for the analysis. FTA also has three land use categories for impact analyses; Category 1 – land where quiet is an essential element outdoor amphitheaters, concert pavilions, historic landmarks, recording studios, etc.), Category 2 – residences and buildings where people normally sleep (including hospitals and hotels), and Category 3 – institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use churches, schools, libraries, museums, parks, etc.). Dense residential areas are clustered by proximity to Project noise sources, and buildings such as churches, hotels and isolated residences, are evaluated as separate receivers of interest (FTA 2006). Table 3-1 and Figure 1 list the identified receivers, including single- and multi-family residences, mobile homes, hotels and churches, surrounding the Rail Park, and the mainline extending north from US 2 to the Stillwater River. The proposed Project would not include train operations south and west of US 2, and the existing tracks through Downtown Kalispell would be removed and converted to the Kalispell Trail. Therefore, since the noise sources are being removed, the area south and west of US 2 and Downtown Kalispell are not located in the Project impact area, and were not evaluated for the Detailed Noise Analysis or General Vibration Assessment. ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park Big Sky Acoustics, LLC Noise and Vibration Analysis Page 4 of 23 Table 3-1: Noise Receivers of Interest within 1,000 feet FTA Land Use Category Identifier Specific Use Approx. Number of Receivers Corresponding Noise Measurement Location # Project Adjacencies Distance/Direction of Receiver to Closest Adjacency 2 Northwest Neighborhood Single-family 18 3 Rail Park 425 feet northwest Northeast Neighborhood 1 Single-family & mobile homes 13 4 BNSF mainline 75 feet west Northeast Neighborhood 2 Single-family 25 4 BNSF mainline 80 feet east Town and Country Trailer Court Mobile homes 11 Rail Park BNSF mainline 210 feet east 93 feet east Flathead Drive Residence– North Single-family 1 5 BNSF mainline 190 feet east Flathead Drive Residence– South Single-family 1 5 BNSF mainline 160 feet east Greenwood Village Mobile Home Park Mobile homes 65 5 Rail Park BNSF mainline 60 feet south 190 feet west Southern Neighborhood Single-family, multi-family & mobile homes 70 1 6 Rail Park Rail Park 20 feet south 10 feet south La Quinta Inn Hotel/Motel 1 4 BNSF mainline 560 feet east Alpine Inn Hotel/Motel 1 5 BNSF mainline 310 feet east 3 Shining Mountain Science Church/Religious 1 6 Rail Park 380 feet south Seventh-Day Adventist Community Church/Religious 1 6 Rail Park 310 feet south Note: Because data was not collected at Location 2, results were extrapolated based on measured data for Locations 4 & 5. Source: Google Maps 2016 4.0 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT On June 1-2, 2016, BSA completed baseline noise level measurements for the Project. The ambient daytime and nighttime noise level measurements were completed at five locations indicated on Figure 1, and were intended to document the existing ambient noise levels, prior to the Rail Park operations. A long-term 24-hour noise level measurement was completed at Location 1, and short-term noise level measurements (each 15 to 20 minutes in duration) were completed during the morning, afternoon and evening hours at Locations 3 through 6. An additional 24-measurement was planned for the Town and Country Trailer Court (Location but due to equipment failure, no data was recorded. However, the other five measurement locations adequately documented the ambient noise level conditions in this area. The measurement locations were intended to quantify the existing ambient noise levels at the closest receivers to the existing mainline and proposed Rail Park. Existing train operations were recorded during the 24-hour measurement at Location 1. Mid- afternoon on June 1st (from approximately 1510 to 1530 hours) a MMRR locomotive proceeded south on the BNRR mainline blowing the horn multiple times, crossing through the Flathead ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park Big Sky Acoustics, LLC Noise and Vibration Analysis Page 5 of 23 Drive intersection twice, coupling two railcars at Pacific Steel and exiting north along the mainline. Noise level measurements were conducted by BSA in general accordance with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) S12.18-1994, Procedures for Outdoor Measurement of Sound Pressure Level (ANSI 1994). BSA conducted the noise level measurements using Larson Davis Model 831 and CEL 593 Type I Sound Level Meters with preamplifiers, and 0.5-inch diameter microphone. The meters were calibrated prior to and after each measurement period using a CEL Instruments Model 284/2 Acoustical Calibrator. The sound level meters were set to “fast” response. were used over the microphones, and the microphones were approximately 5 feet above the ground surface at each measurement location. Weather data during the noise level measurements were recorded at Glacier Park International Airport, and downloaded from weather underground (www.wunderground.com). The atmospheric conditions were favorable for noise level measurements, with temperatures ranging from 51–76 ºF, 65–70% average humidity, and 6–10 mph wind speeds, gusting to 18 mph from the south. 4.1 24-hour Measurement The 24-hour measurement Location 1 represented the northeast portion Southern Neighborhood (Table 3-1) and is the closest residence south of the central portion of the Rail Park site, where CHS would be located on Lot 2 (Figure The measurement location is on the north side of the 40-foot high ridge overlooking the Rail Park, as shown in the following pictures. 24-hour Measurement Location 1 Southern Neighborhood – Northeast Location 1: View to southeast of the single-family residence, located at the northeast corner of the Southern Neighborhood. Location 1: From the northeast corner of the Southern Neighborhood, looking north at the Rail Park, Klingler Lumber and the BNSF siding. ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park Big Sky Acoustics, LLC Noise and Vibration Analysis Page 6 of 23 The long-term noise level measurement at Location 1 was completed from 1300 hours on Wednesday, June 1st to 1300 hours on Thursday, June 2nd, to document the ambient noise level conditions (Figure The noise levels were measured in 1-minute and 1-hour increments during the measurement period, and the sound level meter recorded audio clips during high noise events and every hour. The Lmax recorded noise sources included the train horn blasts, loud pickup trucks, and aircraft. Common noise sources recorded every hour included a constant daytime drone from the Klingler Lumber equipment, distant traffic, crickets and birds. The results of the ambient noise level measurement at Location 1 are summarized in Graph 4-1. The Leq ranged from 40 to 59 dBA and L90 ranged from 36 to 56 dBA. Based on the measured hourly Leq data, the existing Ldn is 56 dBA, which is typical for urban residential areas (Harris 1998). ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park Big Sky Acoustics, LLC Noise and Vibration Analysis Page 7 of 23 Graph 4-1: Location 1—24-hour Ambient Noise Levels June 1-2, 2016 ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park Big Sky Acoustics, LLC Noise and Vibration Analysis Page 8 of 23 4.2 Short-term Noise Level Measurements Short-term noise level measurements (each 15 to 20 minutes in duration) were completed during the morning, afternoon and evening hours at each measurement Locations 3 through 6. These measurements were representative of the noise receivers of interest listed in Table 3-1, identified as the Northwest Neighborhood, Northeast Neighborhoods 1 & 2, Flathead Drive Residences, Greenwood Village Mobile Home Park, the northwest corner of the Southern Neighborhood, as well as the church and hotel receivers (Figure The short-term measurement locations are shown in the following pictures. Short-term Measurement Locations 3 – 6 Location 3: From Northwest Neighborhood, looking south toward the Stillwater River and Rail Park (blocked by vegetation). Location 4: From Northeast Neighborhood 1, looking south at the BNSF mainline and Pacific Steel. Also representative of Northeast Neighborhood 2. Location 5: From Greenwood Village Mobile Home Park, looking north at Northwest Truck Repair, the Rail Park (partially blocked by terrain), and the BNSF mainline to the east. Location 6: From the northwest corner of the Southern Neighborhood, looking northeast at the Rail Park and Klingler Lumber. ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park Big Sky Acoustics, LLC Noise and Vibration Analysis Page 9 of 23 The results of the short-term ambient noise level measurements at Locations 3 through 6 are summarized in Table 4-2. The dominant noise sources noted during the measurements are listed in the table and varied based on the measurement location. BSA used the measured Leq data and FTA calculations to estimate the Ldn for each location. Ldn values between 50 and 55 dBA are typical for small city or suburban areas, and values between Ldn 55 and 60 dBA are typical for urban residential areas (Harris 1998). Table 4-2: Short-term Measured Ambient Noise Levels June 1-2, 2016 Meas. Location Receiver Identifier and Location (Figure 1 & Table 3-1) Leq or L90 data Morning (dBA) Midday (dBA) Night (dBA) Calculated1 Ldn (dBA) Dominant Noise Sources during Measurement 3 Northwest Neighborhood (Southeast corner of Park Street & Riverside Drive) Leq: 54 54 43 52 Glacier Stone operations (metal impacts & back up alarms), vehicles on Whitefish Stage Road and Riverside Drive, distant aircraft 4 Northeast Neighborhoods 1 & 2 (Flathead Drive adjacent to BNRR spur and mainline) Leq: 54 56 42 52 Pacific Steel operations, drilling on KRY site, vehicle traffic 5 Greenwood Village Mobile Home Park (South of East Oregon Lane) Leq: 62 60 49 59 Vehicles on East Oregon Lane and in Greenwood Village, PA system announcement, aircraft, distant traffic 6 Southern Neighborhood (Northwest corner, east of Whitefish Stage Road) Leq: 53 50 41 50 Vehicles on Whitefish Stage Road, distant traffic, Klinger Lumber operations Note: 1BSA used the measured Leq data and FTA calculations to estimate the Ldn for each measurement. 5.0 NOISE IMPACT CRITERIA 5.1 Category 2 Receivers FTA Category 2 land uses include buildings where people normally sleep, such as residences and hotels. As listed in Table 3-1, the land uses near the Rail Park are predominantly Category 2. The FTA noise impact criteria for Category 2 land uses are shown on Figure 5-1 (FTA 2006). The criteria are based on the relative increase in cumulative Ldn noise levels due to the Project compared to the existing cumulative Ldn noise levels at a receiver location. ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park Big Sky Acoustics, LLC Noise and Vibration Analysis Page 10 of 23 Figure 5-1: FTA Noise Impact Criteria Based on Increase of Cumulative Ldn Noise Levels for Category 2 Land Uses Source: FTA 2006 5.2 Category 3 Receivers FTA Category 3 land uses are institutional uses with primary daytime and evening use, such as schools, churches and recreational facilities. As listed in Table 3-1 and on Figure 1, there are two churches located in the Southern Neighborhood within 1,000 feet of the proposed Rail Park. Other Category 3 receivers are located outside the 1,000-foot Project impact area (Google Maps 2016). The FTA noise impact criteria for Category 3 land uses are based on the Leq(h) of the noisiest hour of transit/train-related activity. Impacts are determined by comparing the existing Leq(h) to the Project Leq(h) using the Chart shown on Figure 5-2 (FTA 2006). ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park Big Sky Acoustics, LLC Noise and Vibration Analysis Page 11 of 23 Figure 5-2: FTA Noise Impact Criteria Based on Leq(h) Noise Levels for Category 3 Land Uses Source: FTA 2006 6.0 PROJECT NOISE ANALYSIS 6.1 Reference Sound Exposure Levels Project noise sources were identified for operations on the existing mainline, and for the proposed train operations of the Rail Park and new additional BNSF siding track between US 2 and the Stillwater River. Onsite transportation and equipment noise sources were not evaluated since the full extent of the Rail Park operations for Lots 1, 3 and 4 have not been determined. However, it is anticipated that the Project train operations would continue to be the dominate noise sources in the Rail Park. Vehicle traffic projections on nearby roads are documented in the Glacier Rail Park Traffic Noise Study (KLJ 2015), and it is anticipated that existing noise levels generated by roadway traffic and other sources outside the Rail Park would not change as a result of the Project. Table 6-1 lists the noise source Sound Exposure Levels (SELs) for the train noise sources used in the Detailed Noise Analysis. ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park Big Sky Acoustics, LLC Noise and Vibration Analysis Page 12 of 23 Table 6-1: FTA Source Reference SELs at 50 feet Source Reference SEL (dBA) Approximate Lmax (dBA) Assumptions Rail cars 82 80 At 50 mph1 Locomotive – diesel 92 88 At 50 mph1 Locomotive horn 113 110 At grade crossing Rail yard & shops2 118 - From center of site, 20 train movements in peak activity hour, including locomotive, coupling, loading & unloading activities Note: 1 For the noise analysis, SEL noise levels were adjusted to reflect 10 mph Class 1 train speed (KLJ 2016a). 2 The FTA reference SEL is typical for a peak hour of operation of a typical rail yard. Source: FTA 2006 According to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), trains must sound their horns for a minimum of 15 seconds and a maximum of 20 seconds in advance of all at grade crossings. The horns must continue until the lead car occupies the crossing (FRA 2006). At 10 mph, the horn sounding distance to the Flathead Drive crossing would be between 220 and 290 feet to meet the 15 to 20 second requirement, respectively. Therefore, BSA included train horns as a noise source within approximately 290 feet on each side of the Flathead Drive/East Oregon Lane crossing. 6.2 Project Noise Source Assumptions Used for Analysis It is the understanding of BSA that train operations for the existing CHS facility include using one MMRR locomotive to move 24 train cars during the busiest times of year, which are August and December (CHS 2016). In the busy months, one to three full trains per month are moved on the BNSF mainline from CHS. It takes approximately 8-hours to load 24 cars using the CHS locomotive, then the MMRR locomotive comes south into Kalispell, takes approximately 1.5 hours to couple the railcars, and then moves the train north out of town on the mainline. Therefore, the northbound and southbound trips by MMRR occur during separate daytime hours (0700 to 2200 hours). At other times of year, the CHS operations typically move single cars onto MMRR trains two to four times per month (CHS 2016). On average, MMRR currently operates 12 trains per month, providing service to CHS, Pacific Steel and others. For the new Rail Park operations, CHS does not anticipate the need for additional trains or locomotives, but when the new facility is at full capacity, an additional 5 to 6 railcars could be added to the current trains moved by MMRR, which would be approximately 30 railcars per train. At the new Rail Park, the MMRR locomotive could pass through the Flathead Drive/East Oregon Lane crossing up to three times an hour as it moves railcars into position, for two daytime hours (KLJ 2016a). The assumptions used for the noise predictions are summarized in Table 6-2. The noise predictions are based on the conservative assumption that all equipment and operations listed would be occurring simultaneously, representing a peak day of operation for CHS. ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park Big Sky Acoustics, LLC Noise and Vibration Analysis Page 13 of 23 Table 6-2: Summary of Assumptions Used for Noise Study Condition Assumptions Existing BNSF Mainline • Locomotive and railcars travel at 10 mph. • Train horn sounds within 290 feet of each side of the Flathead Drive crossing for 15-20 seconds. • Train horn sounds during the southbound trip and during the northbound trip during separate hours of the day. • One locomotive and 24 railcars travel on the mainline. • Locomotive and railcars travel southbound during one hour and return northbound during another hour during the day (0700 to 2200 hours). • No train operations occur at night (2200 to 0700 hours). • MMRR operates an average of 12 days in Kalispell per month for CHS, Pacific Steel and others. Proposed Project • Locomotive and railcars travel at 10 mph. • Train horn sounds within 290 feet of each side of the Flathead Drive/East Oregon Lane crossing for 15-20 seconds. • Train horn sounds three times during two separate hours of the day (KLJ 2016a). • One locomotive and 30 railcars travel on the mainline (KLJ 2016a). • Locomotive and railcars travel southbound during one hour and return northbound during another hour during the day (0700 to 2200 hours). • One train moves within the Rail Park for loading of cars by CHS during 8 hours of the day (0700 to 2200 hours). • MMRR operates an average of 12 days in Kalispell per month for CHS, Pacific Steel and others. • No train operations south and west of US 2 into Downtown Kalispell. Tracks would be decommissioned and replaced with the Kalispell Pedestrian Trail. 7.0 NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 7.1 Calculations The basis of predicting the train operational noise was the FTA calculations (FTA 2006) using the noise source data listed in Table 6-1 and the assumptions listed in Table 6-2. However, the FTA calculations do not provide a method to predict noise levels across complex topography like the Glacier Rail Park site and vicinity. Therefore, BSA developed a noise model for the Project using Cadna-A Version 4.6 noise prediction software from DataKustik. Cadna-A uses algorithms from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Standard 9613-2, Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoors, Part 2: General Method of Calculation (ISO 1996). This standard specifies the calculations to determine the reduction in noise levels due to the distance between the noise source and the receiver, the effect of the ground on the propagation of sound, and the effectiveness of natural barriers due to grade or man-made barriers. Topographic elevations of the Project and vicinity were provided by KLJ and input to the Cadna-A model (KLJ 2016b), as well as aerial photographic data. ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park Big Sky Acoustics, LLC Noise and Vibration Analysis Page 14 of 23 To verify that the predicted noise levels from the Cadna-A model were reasonably consistent with the FTA calculations, BSA calculated the Leq(h) noise levels of the Project noise sources in Cadna-A for a simple flat, hard ground condition, and compared the levels to those predicted using FTA calculations. In Cadna-A, the train noise sources were modeled as moving points along a line. The results are listed in Table 7-1. The Cadna-A model is within 0 to 1 dBA of the FTA calculations for flat ground. Therefore, the Cadna-A model is comparable to the FTA calculations, and BSA used the model to contour the Project noise sources. Table 7-1: Comparison of FTA and Cadna-A Predicted Nosie Levels Source Conditions Distance Predicted Leq(h) from FTA at 50 ft (dBA) Predicted Leq(h) from Cadna-A at 50 ft (dBA) Locomotive • SEL 92 dBA at 50 ft. • 1 locomotive per hr • 10 mph 50 ft 62 62 500 ft 52 53 1,000 ft 49 49 Railcar • SEL 82 dBA at 50 ft • 1 train per hr • 24 cars per train • 10 mph 50 ft 51 51 500 ft 41 42 1,000 ft 38 38 Locomotive horn • SEL 113 dBA at 50 ft • 1 train per hr • 10 mph 50 ft 77 77 500 ft 67 68 1,000 ft 64 64 Rail yard • SEL 118 dBA at 50 ft • 1 train per hr • 10 mph 50 ft 69 70 500 ft 59 60 1,000 ft 56 57 Please note, calculations per ISO 9613-2 used in the Cadna-A software conservatively assume that atmospheric conditions are favorable for noise propagation, but atmospheric conditions can vary dramatically at large distances between a noise source and a receiver. Therefore, the estimated noise levels presented in this report should be assumed to be average noise levels, and temporary significant positive and negative deviations from the averages can occur (Harris 1998). Favorable atmospheric conditions for noise propagation mean that a light wind is blowing from a source to a receiver and a well-developed temperature inversion is in place. ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park Big Sky Acoustics, LLC Noise and Vibration Analysis Page 15 of 23 7.2 Current Noise Levels at Category 2 Receivers Since the noise level measurements did not capture a MMRR trip passing by the Rail Park site to the current CHS Downtown location (Section 4.0), BSA calculated the current train operations based on the assumptions listed in Table 6-2. The results for the Category 2 receivers residential areas and hotels) are listed in Table 7-2. The current cumulative noise levels, on days that the trains operate on the existing mainline, are between Ldn 50 and 60 dBA. Ldn values between Ldn 50 and 55 dBA are typical for small city/suburban areas and values between Ldn 55 and 60 and typical for urban residential areas (Harris 1998). Please note, since the Ldn metric is based on the noise levels during a 24-hour period, the predicted train noise levels are applicable only on the days that trains operate. Table 7-2: Calculated Current Train Operational Noise – Cumulative Ldn at Category 2 Receivers Receiver Location Receiver Identifier (Figure 1 & Table 3-1) Measured Ldn Calculated Current Train Ldn Calculated Current Cumulative Ldn 1 1 Southern Neighborhood (Northeast corner) 56 42 56 2 Town and Country Trailer Court 55 58 60 3 Northwest Neighborhood 52 42 52 4 Northeast Neighborhoods 1 & 2 52 56 58 5 Greenwood Village Mobile Home Park 59 49 59 6 Southern Neighborhood (Northwest corner) 50 37 50 7 Flathead Drive Residence – North 59 49 59 8 Flathead Drive Residence – South 59 48 59 9 Alpine Inn 59 48 59 10 La Quinta Inn 52 44 53 Note: 1Calculated assuming one train per hour for 2-hours during a 24-hour period (Section 6.0). The Cadna-A noise contours for the current train operations on the mainline are shown on Figure 2 (attached). The topography in the area and large buildings has a significant effect on how the sound travels in the vicinity of the proposed Rail Park. As shown on Figure 2, the highest noise levels are near the Flathead Drive crossing due to the horns, and the approximate 40 to 60 foot high ridge between the Rail Park site and the Southern Neighborhood acts as a barrier to reduce noise on the south side of the ridge. ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park Big Sky Acoustics, LLC Noise and Vibration Analysis Page 16 of 23 7.3 Project Noise Levels at Category 2 Receivers BSA calculated noise levels at Category 2 receivers residential areas and hotels) due to the train operations associated with the proposed Rail Park based on the assumptions listed in Table 6-2. The results are listed in Table 7-3. The Project cumulative noise levels, on days that trains operate in the Rail Park and on the mainline, are between Ldn 53 and 63 dBA. The dominant noise sources for the Project are predicted to be the Rail Park activities and the train horns at the Flathead Drive/East Oregon Lane crossing. As discussed in Section 6.0, the Rail Park noise levels would occur on one to three days per month, with August and December being CHS’ busiest months of the year. Please note, since the Ldn metric is based on the noise levels during a 24-hour period, the predicted train noise levels are applicable only on the days that trains operate. Table 7-3: Calculated Project Train Operational Noise – Cumulative Ldn at Category 2 Receivers Receiver Location Receiver Identifier (Figure 1 & Table 3-1) Measured Ldn Calculated Project Train Ldn Calculated Project Cumulative Ldn 1 1 Southern Neighborhood (Northeast corner) 56 49 57 2 Town and Country Trailer Court 55 62 63 3 Northwest Neighborhood 52 46 53 4 Northeast Neighborhoods 1 & 2 52 59 60 5 Greenwood Village Mobile Home Park 59 50 60 6 Southern Neighborhood (Northwest corner) 50 49 53 7 Flathead Drive Residence – North 59 53 60 8 Flathead Drive Residence – South 59 49 59 9 Alpine Inn 59 52 60 10 La Quinta Inn 52 48 54 Note: 1Calculated assuming Rail Park operations=8 hours/day, one train/hour on mainline, train horn=2 hours/day, daytime hours only (Section 6.0). The noise contours for the proposed Project are shown on Figure 3 (attached). The highest noise levels are near the Flathead Drive/East Oregon Lane crossing due to the train horns, and the Rail Park activities. Also, the 40 to 60 foot high ridge along the southern Rail Park property line acts as a barrier to the Southern Neighborhood and reduces the Project noise south of the ridge. ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park Big Sky Acoustics, LLC Noise and Vibration Analysis Page 17 of 23 7.4 Noise Impact Assessment at Category 2 Receivers To determine if noise impacts would occur at Category 2 receivers, the cumulative Project Ldn due to train noise was compared to the current cumulative Ldn due to train noise. The FTA impact criteria graph (Figure 5-1) was then used to determine the severity of the predicted impact, if any. As shown in Table 7-4 and on Figure 3, a portion of Locations 2 and 4 Town and Country Trailer Court and the Northeast Neighborhood 1) are predicted to be moderately impacted per FTA guidelines. The noise impacts at Locations 2 and 4 are primarily due to the train horns used at the Flathead Drive/East Oregon Lane crossing, and the impacted receivers represent the residences located closest to the crossing (Figure Since noise impacts were predicted, BSA evaluated potential mitigation measures, which are discussed in Section 8.0. Please note, although no noise impacts are predicted in the other neighborhoods or hotels using the FTA criteria, Project noise would still be audible at the receiver locations, just as train noise from the existing mainline operations is currently audible in the vicinity of the site. Table 7-4: Change in Cumulative Ldn and Impact at Category 2 Receivers Receiver Location Receiver Identifier (Figure 1 & Table 3-1) Calculated Current Cumulative Ldn Calculated Project Cumulative Ldn Change in Cumulative Ldn FTA Impact (Fig 5-1) Number of Impacted Receivers (Figure 3) 1 Southern Neighborhood (Northeast corner) 56 57 +1 None 0 2 Town and Country Trailer Court 60 63 +3 Moderate 4 3 Northwest Neighborhood 52 53 +1 None 0 4 Northeast Neighborhoods 1 & 2 58 60 +2 Moderate 13 5 Greenwood Village Mobile Home Park 59 60 +1 None 0 6 Southern Neighborhood (Northwest corner) 50 53 +3 None 0 7 Flathead Drive Residence – North 59 60 +1 None 0 8 Flathead Drive Residence – South 59 59 0 None 0 9 Alpine Inn 59 60 +1 None 0 10 La Quinta Inn 53 54 +1 None 0 Total Number of Impacted Receivers: 17 Although two Moderate noise impacts are predicted due to the Project, the impacts are not in FTA’s Severe Impact range (Figure 5-1). At Location 2, predicted increase in Project noise levels from 60 to 63 dBA is 1 dBA above the No Impact range. At Location 4, the predicted increase from 58 to 60 dBA is on the Figure 5-1 graph line between the No Impact and Moderate Impact ranges. According to the FTA, the need for mitigation is strongest when Moderate impacts approach the Severe range, and the need for mitigation is less when the predicted Moderate noise impacts are near the No Impact range (FTA 2006). ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park Big Sky Acoustics, LLC Noise and Vibration Analysis Page 18 of 23 Also, since trains are already active on the exiting mainline, the noise of locomotives, coupling of railcars, train horns and other rail-related noise sources already influence the impacted receivers. Hence, the public reaction to the Project noise is expected to be less than if the Project introduced a new noise source to the area (FTA 2006). Although noise impacts are predicted on the days the trains operate to move product out of the Rail Park, train operations are expected to be infrequent. Train operations are expected to occur on up to 12 days per month, not every day, with the busiest months typically August and December. On days when train operations do occur, the noise sources are active during the daytime hours, not at night when people tend to be more sensitive to noise (KLJ 2016c). Therefore, although noise impacts are predicted, the need for mitigation is not strong per the FTA guidelines (FTA 2006). 7.5 Noise Impact Assessment at Category 3 Receivers To determine if noise impacts are predicted at the two Category 3 church receivers located in the Southern Neighborhood (Table 3-1 and Figure the Leq(h) noise level due to existing train operations was compared to the Leq(h) of the proposed Project train operations. The same noise sources and assumptions described in Section 6.0, were used to calculate the Leq(h) values. One receiver is used to represent both churches in the Southern Neighborhood (Figure The results are summarized in Table 7-5. No noise impacts are predicted at the churches. Table 7-5: Change in Train Leq(h) and Impact at the Category 3 Receiver Receiver Identifier (Figure 1 & Table 3-1) Calculated Current Train Leq Calculated Project Train Leq FTA Impact (Figure 5-2) • Shining Mountain Science • Seventh-Day Adventist Community 46 50 None 8.0 NOISE MITIGATION Since noise impacts were predicted at residences, mitigation was considered. The predicted noise impacts are primarily due to the horns blowing at the Flathead Drive/East Oregon Lane Crossing in order to enter and exit the proposed Rail Park (Section 7.4). To reduce the noise of the locomotive-mounted horns, wayside horns could be installed at the crossing. Wayside horns are mounted on poles at the crossing, with one directional horn focusing the noise toward the road on each side of the crossing, and are not as loud as locomotive- mounted horns. The noise contours of wayside horns are much smaller than compared to locomotive-mounted horns, as shown on Figure 8-1. According to FTA, a wayside horn system at a crossing costs approximately $50,000 (FTA 2006), and the Flathead Drive/East Oregon Lane crossing would need two wayside horn systems to accommodate the roadway configuration. ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park Big Sky Acoustics, LLC Noise and Vibration Analysis Page 19 of 23 Figure 8-1: Noise Contours for Typical Wayside Horns Source: Redden 2005 Because the noise of wayside horns are focused on the roads at the crossing and not mounted on trains approaching the crossing, horn noise is less in the surrounding area. Therefore, wayside horns could be used to reduce or eliminate the Project noise impacts. However, as discussed in Section 7.4, the need for mitigation is not strong per FTA guidelines (FTA 2006). 9.0 GENERAL VIBRATION ASSESSMENT A General Vibration Assessment was completed for the Project according to FTA procedures (FTA 2006). Ground vibrations at the receivers located within 300 feet of the Rail Park and mainline tracks, and the additional siding track between US 2 and the Stillwater River, were assessed. Since train operations would be decommissioned along the Kalispell Trail, vibration impacts were not assessed from US 2 south and west into Downtown Kalispell. The FTA procedures include determining: • The appropriate ground-borne vibration criteria, based on type of receiver and how often trains pass-by the location, • A reference vibration velocity level, based on the type of train and the distance between the receiver and the track, and • Various adjustments to the ground-borne vibration for the train speed, track conditions, geologic conditions, and building construction. The receivers located closest to the tracks of the Project are residences, which are FTA Category 2 receivers. Because the train activities in the Rail Park and on the mainline occur up to 12 days per month, BSA used the infrequent events vibration velocity level criteria of 80 VdB. BSA also ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park Big Sky Acoustics, LLC Noise and Vibration Analysis Page 20 of 23 used the reference vibration velocity levels vs. distance data for locomotive powered freight train criteria. The distances are taken from the track centerline, and related to a 50 mph speed. Table 9-1 shows BSA’s adjustments that were used for the General Vibration Assessment. The total adjustment to the reference vibration velocity levels is -8 dB. Table 9-1: FTA Adjustment Factors for Ground-Borne Vibration Factor Comments Adjustment to Reference Vibration Velocity Levels Speed Typical train speed is 10 mph, not 50 mph -14 dB Vehicle with stiff suspension Assumed suspension of Project locomotives and railcars was not resilient +8 dB Jointed track Existing mainline tracks are bolted, not welded +5 dB Normal propagation in soil Silty river bottom area, not rock 0 dB Coupling to wood-frame house Most residences appear to be wood framed -5 dB Floor-to-floor attenuation Most residences appear to be single level -2 dB Total: -8 dB Table 9-2 summarizes the vibration assessment for the receivers within 300 feet of the train tracks. No vibration impacts are predicted for the Project. Table 9-2: Summary of Ground-Borne Vibration Assessment Location Infrequent Event Criteria Distance to Closest Track Reference Vibration Velocity Level Total Adjustments Predicted Vibration Velocity Level at Receiver 1 80 VdB 180 ft 72 VdB -8 dB 64 VdB 2 80 VdB 93 ft 78 VdB -8 dB 70 VdB 4 80 VdB 75 ft 81 VdB -8 dB 73 VdB 5 80 VdB 190 ft 71 VdB -8 dB 63 VdB 6 80 VdB 150 ft 74 VdB -8 dB 66 VdB 7 80 VdB 190 ft 71 VdB -8 dB 63 VdB 8 80 VdB 160 ft 73 VdB -8 dB 61 VdB ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park Big Sky Acoustics, LLC Noise and Vibration Analysis Page 21 of 23 10.0 CONCLUSION BSA completed a Detailed Noise Analysis and General Vibration Assessment for the Glacier Rail Park Project in Kalispell, Montana (Figure The Project would develop a 40-acre industrial rail park, and remove approximately 2 miles of tracks south from the site to Downtown, in order to develop the Kalispell Pedestrian Trail. CHS Kalispell would relocate from Downtown, and other industrial tenants that need rail access are being considered. Noise receivers of interest located within 1,000 feet of the Project impact areas were identified for the analysis, including residences, churches and hotels (Table 3-1 and Figure In June 2016, BSA completed baseline noise level measurements to quantify the existing ambient noise levels at the closest receivers to the existing mainline and proposed Rail Park. The results of the 24-hour noise level measurement at Location 1 are summarized in Graph 4-1. Based on the measured hourly Leq data, the existing Ldn is 56 dBA. Short-term noise level measurements (each 15 to 20 minutes in duration) were completed during the morning, afternoon and evening hours at Locations 3 through 6 (Figure As shown in Table 4-2, the short-term calculated Ldn values ranged from 50-59 dBA. Ldn values between 50 and 55 dBA are typical for small city or suburban areas, and values between Ldn 55 and 60 dBA are typical for urban residential areas (Harris 1998). BSA developed the noise prediction and contouring model using the Cadna-A noise prediction software. The noise impact results for the receivers are listed in Tables 7-2 through 7-5. The current cumulative noise levels, on days that the trains operate on the existing mainline, are between Ldn 52 and 60 dBA (Table 7-2 and Figure The proposed Project cumulative noise levels, on days that trains operate in the Rail Park and on the mainline, are calculated to be between Ldn 53 and 63 dBA (Table 7-3). The dominant noise sources for the proposed Project are predicted to be the Rail Park activities and the train horns at the Flathead Drive/East Oregon Lane crossing (Figure The topography in the area and large buildings have a significant effect on how the sound travels in the vicinity of the proposed Rail Park. The approximate 40 to 60 foot high ridge between the Rail Park site and the Southern Neighborhood acts as a barrier to reduce noise. To determine if noise impacts would occur at Category 2 receivers, the cumulative Project Ldn was compared to the current cumulative Ldn due to train noise. As shown in Table 7-4 and on Figure 3, a portion of receiver Locations 2 and 4 Town and Country Trailer Court and the Northeast Neighborhood 1) are predicted to be moderately impacted. The noise impacts at Locations 2 and 4 are primarily due to the train horns used at the Flathead Drive/East Oregon Lane crossing, and the impacted receivers represent the residences located closest to the crossing (Figure No noise impacts were predicted for the Category 3 church receivers. Although two Moderate noise impacts are predicted for the Project, the impacts are not near FTA’s Severe Impact range (Figure 5-1), and therefore, the need for mitigation is low. Also, since trains are already active on the exiting mainline, the noise of locomotives, coupling of railcars, train horns and other rail-related noise sources already influence the impacted receivers. Hence, the public reaction to the Project noise is expected to be less than if the Project ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park Big Sky Acoustics, LLC Noise and Vibration Analysis Page 22 of 23 introduced a new noise source to the area. Although noise impacts are predicted on days the trains operate to move product out of the Rail Park, train operations are expected to be infrequent (up to 12 days per month) and during the daytime hours. Therefore, although noise impacts are predicted, the need for mitigation is not strong per the FTA guidelines (FTA 2006). Since noise impacts were predicted, mitigation was considered. To reduce the noise of locomotive-mounted horns, wayside horns could be installed at the Flathead Drive/East Oregon Lane crossing. Wayside horns are mounted on poles and are not as loud as locomotive-mounted horns (Figure 8-1). However, as discussed in Section 7.4, mitigation may not be required (FTA 2006). As documented in Section 9.0, a General Vibration Assessment was also completed for the Project (FTA 2006). No vibration impacts were predicted for the Project. 11.0 REFERENCES American National Standard Institute (ANSI). 1994. Procedures for Outdoor Measurement of Sound Pressure Level. Designation: S12.18-1994. (Reaffirmed 1999). CHS. 2016. Email from Mark Lalum of CHS describing tracks operations for existing CHS facility. June 22. Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 2006. Train Horn Rule Fact Sheet. December. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. FTA-VA-90-1003-06. Google Maps. 2016. Online search of receiver locations at Harris, ed., 1998. Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control. Acoustical Society of America. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 1996. Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoors, Part 2: General Method of Calculation. Designation: 9613-2. KLJ. 2015. Glacier Rail Park Traffic Impact Study. KLJ. 2016a. Personal communication with Mark Rohweder, KLJ Project Manager, regarding the Project train operations. June 1. KLJ. 2016b. AutoCAD drawings of existing topography and new topography in the Glacier Rail Park provided via email from Mike Brodie of KLJ. June 20, 28 and 29. KLJ 2016c. Email from Mark Rohweder regarding MMRR operations. June 21. ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park Big Sky Acoustics, LLC Noise and Vibration Analysis Page 23 of 23 Redden, John W.P. 2005. Hanson-Wilson, Inc. Is train horn noise a problem in your town? American Public Works Associations (APWA). www.apwa.net. September. Viewed June 28, 2016. 12.0 STANDARD OF CARE To complete this report, BSA has endeavored to perform its services consistent with the professional skill and care ordinarily provided by acoustical consultants practicing in similar markets and under similar project conditions. BSA is fully experienced and properly qualified to perform acoustical consulting services. However, acoustical consulting services as offered and engaged in by BSA does not include “engineering” or “practice of engineering” or the “practice or offer to practice engineering” as these phrases are defined under Montana law. BSA makes no warranty, either expressed or implied, as to the professional services it has rendered to complete this report. For the completion of this report, BSA has used data provided by CHS Kalispell, KLJ and MMRR in performing its services and is entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness thereof. Therefore, if the information and assumptions used to create this report change, then the noise analysis and the recommended noise control measures may need to be reevaluated. ---PAGE BREAK--- FIGURES ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C Traffic Study ---PAGE BREAK--- Final Update to Traffic Impact Study Glacier Rail Park (Formerly FCEDA Rail Park) July 2015 ---PAGE BREAK--- Certification I hereby certify that this traffic impact study for the Glacier Rail Park in Kalispell, MT was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered professional engineer under the laws of the State of Montana. July 31, 2015 J Harris, P.E., PTOE Date This document was originally issued and sealed by J Harris Registration Number PE-7272 on July 31, 2015 and the original document is stored at KLJ in Helena, MT. ---PAGE BREAK--- \\hlna-files01\P\City\MT\Kalispell\15414035 Core-Rail Redevelopment Project Task Orders\Environmental Assessment (TO #10)\Working Documents\Submittals\Appendix C Traffic Study.docx Page 1 of 8 Executive Summary The Glacier Rail Park proposes to redevelop 40 acres within the City of Kalispell, Montana under the direction of Flathead County Economic Development Authority (FCEDA). This report updates the recommendations for site access to the area’s primary east-west highway, US Highway 2, a National Highway System route and serves to conclude the 2013 Traffic Impact Study for the site. This report supersedes the April 2015 Traffic Update. The primary site access is recommended at the existing intersection of Flathead Drive and US 2 with secondary access into the site from the existing intersection of Montclair Drive and US 2. The Flathead Drive location is proposed to be a signalized, four-way intersection providing separate left turn lanes for all approaches and full accessibility. This concept has received unofficial concurrence from the City of Kalispell and the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) and, based upon development of (future) construction design documents, is considered the preferred alternate for Glacier Rail Park access. Background The proposed Glacier Rail Park will develop a 40-acre former gravel pit into an industrial use site, providing a modal transfer point between heavy rail to trucks. The development ultimately plans to terminate the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) rail lines that extend south into the center of Kalispell and provide additional spur lines to serve the newly-developed industrial sites. The site is currently accessed from Whitefish Stage Road on the west, East Oregon Lane on the east/south and Montclair Drive to the east. A vicinity map is provided in Figure 1. ---PAGE BREAK--- \\hlna-files01\P\City\MT\Kalispell\15414035 Core-Rail Redevelopment Project Task Orders\Environmental Assessment (TO #10)\Working Documents\Submittals\Appendix C Traffic Study.docx Page 2 of 8 2013 Traffic Impact Study A 2013 Traffic Impact Study (2013 TIS) was prepared to assess site-generated impacts to the existing transportation system. 2013 peak hour traffic counts are shown in Figure 2. Figure 2: 2013 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (Vehicles per Hour (VPH)) Trip generation (from the 2013 TIS) for two of the proposed Glacier Rail Park parcels is shown in Table 1. Consistent with industrial facilities, site trip generation does not assume any reductions for internal, pass-by or diverted trips. The site traffic is expected to consist of a large percentage of trucks, delivering materials to the rail park. One of the commercial tenants, Cenex Harvest States (CHS) generates a very short peak season. Currently, the CHS facility averages 20-30 trucks per day but may swell to 550-700 trucks per day during the peak weeks during harvest season. Similar to the current location, the road network is not designed to handle this very-brief, peak period-but will address average daily needs. ---PAGE BREAK--- \\hlna-files01\P\City\MT\Kalispell\15414035 Core-Rail Redevelopment Project Task Orders\Environmental Assessment (TO #10)\Working Documents\Submittals\Appendix C Traffic Study.docx Page 3 of 8 Non-truck trips will be able to access the site from Whitefish Stage Road and East Oregon Lane. Truck access entering the rail park is expected to be restricted to the east, using the Montclair Drive rail crossing. US 2 can be reached by exiting the rail park at Montclair and continuing east to US 2 or turning south at Flathead Drive which also intersects US 2. Truck trip distribution (to and from the site) was conservatively assigned with a 70% east origin (traveling east on US 2 toward US 35) and a 30% west origin (traveling west on US 2 which also leads to US 93). The trucks are assumed to enter the site with 65% entering at Montclair (from US 2) and the remaining 35% at Flathead Drive, with 30% from the west and 5% from the east. 2013 Traffic Impact Study Updates The proposed signal at Flathead/US 2 is anticipated to attract existing trips that currently use the Montclair/US 2 intersection: 30% of the current outbound and inbound left turns are assumed to shift from Montclair to the Flathead/US 2 intersection. The existing Flathead/US 2 intersection currently restricts the Woodland Park Drive or south leg (northbound direction) to a right-turn-only via a raised concrete channelization island. The City and MDT concurred that installing signal control could allow left and through travel by removing the median. The remaining analysis assumes the median will be removed and a left turn lane will be striped in the available pavement width. The left turn lane will utilize existing pavement and will not be rebuilt to a city or state standard without funding (outside the Glacier Park development). This analysis assumes existing northbound travel patterns will change to 25% left (westbound) turns and 75% right (eastbound) turns. Table 1 ITE Trip Generation PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Trip Distribution Total Primary Trips (vph) ITE Code Land Use Ind. Variable (Acres) Peak Hr Trip Gen. Avg. Rate Total Peak Hr Trips Internal % /Trips Passby % /Trips Primar y Trips (new) Enter Exit Enter Exit 110 General Light Industrial Northwest Drywall 3.0 7.26 22 0% /0 0% /0 22 22% 78% 5 17 110 General Light Industrial CHS 6.6 7.26 48 0% /0 0% /0 48 22% 78% 11 37 TOTAL 16 54 ---PAGE BREAK--- \\hlna-files01\P\City\MT\Kalispell\15414035 Core-Rail Redevelopment Project Task Orders\Environmental Assessment (TO #10)\Working Documents\Submittals\Appendix C Traffic Study.docx Page 4 of 8 Figures 3 and 4 show the PM Peak hour turning movement volumes with the site improvements (from Table with the Montclair re-assignments and with the change at Woodland Park Drive (to allow both left and right turns). Figure 3 shows average PM peak hour volumes and Figure 4 shows approximate PM peak hour volumes during the peak harvest season in late summer. Figure 3: 2013 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes with Site-Generated Traffic ---PAGE BREAK--- \\hlna-files01\P\City\MT\Kalispell\15414035 Core-Rail Redevelopment Project Task Orders\Environmental Assessment (TO #10)\Working Documents\Submittals\Appendix C Traffic Study.docx Page 5 of 8 Figure 4: 2013 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes with Site at Harvest ---PAGE BREAK--- \\hlna-files01\P\City\MT\Kalispell\15414035 Core-Rail Redevelopment Project Task Orders\Environmental Assessment (TO #10)\Working Documents\Submittals\Appendix C Traffic Study.docx Page 6 of 8 Glacier Rail Park Access US 2 Access US 2, as the regional highway, is expected to provide the key link for truck access to and from Glacier Rail Park. A meeting was held on March 18, 2015 to review US 2 intersection concepts with state and local agencies. The remainder of this document is based upon recommendations and discussions at that meeting (refer to Appendix A for minutes). Four intersection concepts (included in Appendix B) were discussed with meeting attendees all concurring that the preferred US 2 access is at Flathead Drive as shown in Figure 5. The three remaining concepts produced poor intersection geometrics which could result in vehicle delays and congestion on both US 2 and on Montclair, the potential for crashes and have private land acquisition issues. A comparison of the four alternatives is provided in Appendix C. Figure 5: Preferred Site Access: US 2 and Flathead Drive Intersection with Truck Turning Alignments N Woodland Park Dr. ---PAGE BREAK--- \\hlna-files01\P\City\MT\Kalispell\15414035 Core-Rail Redevelopment Project Task Orders\Environmental Assessment (TO #10)\Working Documents\Submittals\Appendix C Traffic Study.docx Page 7 of 8 US 2/Flathead Drive Capacity Analysis With site-generated traffic, the Flathead Drive (north) approach would operate at a Level-of-Service (LOS) F under existing stop control with average intersection delays reaching 530 seconds and unmeasurable queues. An actuated signal at the intersection improves operations to LOS B with the site generated traffic and reduces average vehicle delay to 18.1 seconds with 95th percentile queue under 120 feet except for the eastbound through movement which exceeds 350 feet. LOS B can be expected with three-phase signal operation (with a protected/permitted westbound left turn phase) and a 65 second cycle length without providing pedestrian crossing times. Capacity analyses are contained in Appendix D. Signal timing that provides full pedestrian crossing times will increase average vehicle delay to 22.9 seconds with 95th percentile queue under 161 feet except for the eastbound through movement which exceeds 350 feet. LOS C can be expected with three-phase signal operation (with a protected/permitted westbound left turn phase) and a 95 second cycle length. The proposed signal should be actuated to meet varying travel demands and minimze queuing for the eastbound through movement. US 2/Flathead Drive Signal Warrant Analysis The US 2/Flathead intersection satisfies 2009 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) as follows: • Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume is satisfied under condition B for speeds on the major road exceeding 40 mph. • Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume is satisfied with ten of the hours being satisfied for the 70% factor with speeds on the major street exceeding 40 mph. • Warrant’s 1 and 2 were satisfied using the existing data (without the addition of the site traffic) from the 2013 traffic report. • Warrant 3, Peak Hour is satisfied for the intersection with the site-generated traffic with harvest from the new Glacier Rail Park, which the MUTCD notes is be applied to unique land uses. Installing an actuated traffic signal at US 2, Flathead Drive and Woodland Park Drive is recommended. Installation of this traffic control would be expected to affect travel patterns and speeds, and therefore a speed zone study should be considered by MDT after installation of the signal and opening of the Glacier Rail Park for operations. ---PAGE BREAK--- \\hlna-files01\P\City\MT\Kalispell\15414035 Core-Rail Redevelopment Project Task Orders\Environmental Assessment (TO #10)\Working Documents\Submittals\Appendix C Traffic Study.docx Page 8 of 8 Roadway Improvements This section summarizes the recommendations for road improvements to mitigate access into the Glacier Rail Park site and does not address internal, site roads. Flathead Drive/US 2 Intersection: • Design and install a traffic signal with Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS), pedestrian count-down timers and pedestrian accessibility. The traffic signal is expected to be constructed by the Glacier Rail Park development but owned and operated by MDT, as it is located on a MDT facility. Signal hardware should match MDT standards for signal poles, cabinets, controllers and advance flashers (if needed). Signal design would need to be provided by the developer and would need to receive MDT acceptance prior to any construction and should address utility relocations. • An approach permit is not needed as the existing intersection is located at two public road approaches onto US 2. • Review intersection sight distance and determine if advance signal warning (signs or flashers) is needed. If required, provide advance warning devices on US 2. • Replace existing US 2 lighting that is removed by these intersection improvements. • Rebuild four corners (of intersection) to provide curb returns for WB-67 trucks, to provide accessible sidewalks at the intersection and address drainage. (Note sidewalks are not required for roadways but the intersection should be able to accommodate future sidewalks, if built by others). • Revise north approach to provide a separate left turn lane. Review right-of-way to determine if additional land is required, which would be purchased in the name of MDT or in the name of the County as Flathead Drive is a county road. • Revise west approach to provide longer eastbound, left turn lane (design will be limited by the railroad overpass pier and abutments located west on US • Provide 160 foot westbound left turn lane. • All meeting attendees agreed that the south approach to the intersection would desirably be changed from a right-turn only condition to allow left and possibly through traffic movements. To avoid park land impact restrictions, the existing pavement will be modified, but not rebuilt. It should be noted that the current Woodland Park Drive has tight curvature, which would remain. MDT strongly desires a northbound, left turn lane be added. Montclair Drive/US 2 Intersection: • Modify west (Montclair) approach to provide for entering trucks (from westbound US 2 to westbound Montclair) • No safety improvements are planned at US 2/Montclair. • After Glacier Rail Park is open and operational, it was agreed that if crashes occur that are related to Glacier Rail Park trucks, that intersection traffic movements could be restricted. Montclair Drive/Flathead Drive intersection (east of rail tracks): • Rebuild intersection to allow for truck turning movements. • Railroad crossing treatment(s) will be determined in future. Flathead Drive (east of rail tracks) • Verify existing roadway meets County Standards for HS-20 vehicle loading. ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Study Flathead County Rail Park Kalispell, Montana Prepared for Flathead County Economic Development Association Prepared by KLJ July 2013 KLJ Project # 15413003 ---PAGE BREAK--- Flathead County Rail Park Traffic Impact Study KLJ Page 1 This document(s) was originally issued and sealed by Gabriel J Schell, Registration Number PE- 6879 on XXXX, XXX and the original documents are stored at Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson, Bismarck, ND. This media should not be considered a certified document. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this traffic impact study for the Flathead County Rail Park in Kalispell, MT was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered professional engineer under the laws of the State of Montana. Robert Shannon P.E. Date This document was originally issued and sealed by Robert Shannon Registration Number PE‐16861 on 7/XX/13 and the original document is stored at KLJ in Bismarck, ND. ---PAGE BREAK--- Flathead County Rail Park Traffic Impact Study KLJ Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE 5 2.0 2013 BASE CONDITIONS 2.1 Existing Roadways 8 2.2 Background Traffic Volumes 9 2.3 2013 Background Capacity Analysis 9 2.4 Crash 15 3.0 2013 BASE PLUS SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 Assigned Trip Calculations 17 3.2 2013 Background Plus Site Capacity Analysis 21 4.0 RAILROAD CROSSINGS 4.1 Montclair Drive 27 5.0 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS AND COST 5.1 Recommended Improvements 30 5.2 Estimated Costs 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- Flathead County Rail Park Traffic Impact Study KLJ Page 3 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Project Location Map 6 Figure 2 – Site 7 Figure 3 – Montclair Drive looking east at the railroad crossing 8 Figure 4 – US‐2 @ Flathead Drive 8 Figure 5 – 2013 Background Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts 10 Figure 6 – Signal Warrant 3 Graph with Data Point of Flathead Drive and US‐2/Idaho Street reflecting westbound left turns as the minor street 13 Figure 7 – 2010‐2012 Crash Locations 16 Figure 8 – 2013 Background Plus Site Total Peak Hour Trips 19 Figure 9 – 2013 Background Plus Site Total Peak Hour Harvest Trips 20 Figure 10 – Signal Warrant 3 Graph with Data Point of Montclair Drive and US‐2/Idaho Street 23 Figure 11 – Existing Geometry for Montclair Drive and US‐2/Idaho Street 24 Figure 12 – Recommended Geometry for Montclair Drive and US‐2/Idaho Street 24 Figure 13 – Existing Geometry for Flathead Drive and US‐2/Idaho Street 25 Figure 14 – Recommended Geometry for Flathead Drive and US‐2/Idaho Street 26 Figure 15‐ Existing Railroad Crossing on Montclair Drive 27 Figure 16 – Existing Geometry for Montclair Drive and Railroad 29 Figure 17 – Recommended Geometry for Montclair Drive and Railroad Crossing 29 Figure 18 – Example of Railroad Crossing with Lights, Gates, and Bells 30 Figure 19‐ Recommended Improvements 32 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Existing Lane Configuration 9 Table 2 – Level of Service Control Delay 11 Table 3 – 2013 Background Traffic Capacity Results 11 Table 4 – Summary of Crashes 15 Table 5 – ITE Trip Generation 17 Table 6 – 2013 Background Plus Site without Improvements Traffic Capacity 21 Table 7 – 2013 Background Plus Site with Improvements Traffic Capacity Results 22 Table 8 – Planning Level Cost Estimates 33 LIST OF APPENDICIES Appendix A: 2013 Background Traffic Volumes Appendix B: 2013 Background Capacity Analysis Worksheets Appendix C: 2013 Background Signal Warrant Analysis Worksheets Appendix D: 2013 Background Plus Site Capacity Analysis Worksheets Appendix E: 2013 Background Plus Site Signal Warrant Analysis Worksheets Appendix F: Planning Level Cost Estimate Assumptions ---PAGE BREAK--- Flathead County Rail Park Traffic Impact Study KLJ Page 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to document the results of a traffic impact study conducted for the proposed Rail Park in Kalispell, MT. The proposed development will be located on Montclair Drive immediately south of the existing rail park. The main access to the state highway system will be through the intersection of Montclair Drive and US‐2/Idaho Street. In general, the property within the vicinity of the proposed site is largely light industrial with some residential uses south of the Rail Park. The traffic study will consider the following scenarios: 2013 Background, 2013 Background Plus Site, which adds traffic from the rail park development. The study recommendations are made for each analysis period in terms of safety, access and capacity for the study area. Findings: 2013 Background Scenario o The intersection of Flathead Drive and US‐2/Idaho Street currently meets MUTCD traffic signal warrants 1, 2, and 4. o With existing geometry LOS C is met for all movements and intersections overall, except for eastbound left turns from Montclair Drive onto US‐2/Idaho Street, which is LOS F. 2013 Background Plus Site Scenario o With site development the intersection of Montclair Drive and US‐2/Idaho Street experiences LOS F. Installing a signal is recommended. o With below recommended improvements all intersections achieve LOS A. o For safe railroad crossing and to avoid vehicles on the railroad, lights, gates, and bells should be added to the new railroad spur at‐grade railroad crossing on Montclair Drive. Recommendations: Install an actuated coordinated traffic signal at intersection of Flathead Drive and US‐2/Idaho Street. o Include an eastbound/westbound protected left turn phase at the signal. o Construct northbound left and through travel lane to allow for those movements Revise stop control to yield control on Montclair Drive at the railroad crossing and add advance railroad crossing signing on Montclair Drive, Oregon Lane, and Flathead Drive Widen the approximately 24 feet for pavement at the existing railroad crossing on Montclair Drive to approximately 40 feet. Move intersection of Montclair Drive and US‐2/Idaho Street approximately 100 feet further south. o Construct eastbound right turn lane with 100 feet of full width turn bay length, plus an 8:1 taper. Install an actuated coordinated traffic signal at intersection of Montclair Drive and US‐2/Idaho Street. Install railroad crossing on Montclair Drive for three new spurs with full complement of lights, gates, and bells. ---PAGE BREAK--- Flathead County Rail Park Traffic Impact Study KLJ Page 5 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE The purpose of this report is to document the results of a traffic impact study conducted for the proposed Flathead County Rail Park expansion in Kalispell, MT. The goals of this study are to assess the traffic impacts associated with the development and identify the level of off‐site access and traffic control improvements required to service the project, provide a technically sound basis to identify/negotiate mitigation requirements in response to off‐site traffic impacts and to provide the site engineer input on the proposed access plan, internal site circulation and truck access. The proposed development will be located at Flathead County Rail Park south of the access road between Whitefish Stage and the BNSF rail line. The site includes Northwest Drywall with a railroad spur north of the access road, and CHS grain elevators plus four additional railroad spurs south of the access road. Access to CHS will be provided via a driveway on Oregon Lane with a secondary access on the west side of the site also on Oregon Lane. The following intersections will be studied due to their proximity to the proposed development: Montclair Drive and US 2/Idaho Street Flathead Drive and US 2/Idaho Street Montclair Drive and Flathead Drive Montclair Drive and Oregon Lane Montclair Drive and site access road Whitefish Stage and site access road The traffic study will consider the following scenarios: 2013 Background, 2013 Background Plus Site, 2018 (5 year growth) Background, 2018 Background Plus Site. The study recommendations are made for each analysis period in terms of safety, access and capacity for the study area. Existing roadways and the proposed development location can be found in Figure 1, Project Location Map. Figure 2, Site Plan shows the layout of development and rail lines associated with the rail park development. Capacity analysis conducted at study intersections were based on the “Highway Capacity Manual” (HCM 2010) published by the Transportation Research Board (TRB). Site trips were generated according to the methods outlined in the “Trip Generation 8th Edition” and “Trip Generation Handbook 2nd Edition” both published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 8 was the capacity software used in the analysis. ---PAGE BREAK--- KLJ Page 6 Figure 1: Project Location Map ---PAGE BREAK--- KLJ Page 7 Figure 2: Site Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Flathead County Rail Park Traffic Impact Study KLJ Page 8 2.0 2013 BASE CONDITIONS The 2013 base condition will analyze the existing roadway network, background traffic and the surrounding area adjacent to the development to provide a basis of comparison to the build alternative. 2.1 Existing Roadways Montclair Drive is an east‐west local street north of the proposed site. The two‐way road consists of a 24‐ foot paved 2‐lane section with no striping or painted markings. Montclair Drive has an existing at‐grade railroad crossing with stop signs (shown below) between Flathead Drive and Oregon Lane. Montclair Drive is the main point of access off of US Highway 2 for the existing rail park. The speed limit on Montclair Drive is 25 MPH. Figure 3: Montclair Drive looking east at the railroad crossing US Highway 2 or Idaho Street is an east‐west principal arterial east and south of the rail park site. The street has a 4‐lane cross‐section with a grass center median and left turn lanes at intersections. There are street lights and curb and gutter on the approximately 100 feet of right‐of‐way. The posted speed limit is 45 mph through the project area. The intersections on Montclair Drive and Flathead Drive are two‐way stops with free movements on US Highway 2. Figure 4: US-2 @ Flathead Drive looking west Flathead Drive and Oregon Lane are parallel north‐south streets east of the proposed development. They run on either side of the elevated BNSF rail line. Both are paved streets with approximately 24 feet of pavement with no striping. The posted speed limit on both streets is 25 mph. The secondary access point for the FCEDA rail park site is on Oregon Lane. ---PAGE BREAK--- Flathead County Rail Park Traffic Impact Study KLJ Page 9 Whitefish Stage is a local north‐south street on the west of the rail park site. It is a paved road with 2‐3 foot shoulders and no curb. It has approximately 30 feet of striped pavement with no turn lanes. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. The site access road connects through the site to Whitefish Stage. The site access road for lack of a proper name is a dirt and gravel road that runs east‐west through the property connecting to Whitefish Stage and Montclair Drive. This dirt road is approximately 30 feet wide and includes a few speed bumps. There are currently a few businesses that use the road to access their facilities including Klingler Lumber. A summary of the existing lane configurations at the study intersections is provided in Table 1, Existing Lane Configuration. Included are the full width turn bay when turn lanes are present. 2.2 Background Traffic Volumes To evaluate the current traffic volumes on the area roadways, the most recent AADT (Annual Average Daily Traffic) was compiled from the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) traffic volume maps and from PM peak hour movement counts collected in April 2013. See Figure 5, 2013 Background Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for the 2013 peak hour turning movements. See Appendix A for the 2013 background traffic volume worksheets. 2.3 2013 Background Capacity Analysis The study intersections were analyzed using existing geometry, existing traffic control and the 2013 peak hour volumes. A LOS (Level of Service) was determined for each study intersection to assess how the intersections are currently operating in terms of capacity. Table 1 Existing Lane Configuration Intersection Intersection Approach Traffic Control Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Montclair Drive and US 2/Idaho Street LTR LTR L(75’), T,T,TR(250’) L(75’), T,TR EB/WB Stop Flathead Drive and US 2/Idaho Street L(75’), T,TR L(175’), T,TR R LTR NB/SB Stop Montclair Drive and Flathead Drive LTR LTR LTR ‐ NB Stop Montclair Drive and Oregon Lane LTR LTR LTR ‐ NB Stop Montclair Drive and site access road LTR ‐ LTR LTR EB Stop Whitefish Stage and site access road ‐ LTR LTR LTR WB Stop Notes: L= Left‐turn lane; T = Through lane; R = Right‐turn lane; LT, LR, TR, LTR = Shared lanes (xxx’) = Full width turn bay length ---PAGE BREAK--- KLJ Page 10 Figure 5: 2013 Background Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts ---PAGE BREAK--- Flathead County Rail Park Traffic Impact Study KLJ Page 11 LOS (Level of Service) Concepts1 LOS for an AWSC (all‐way stop‐controlled) or a TWSC (two‐way stop‐controlled) intersection is determined by the computed or measured control delay. LOS for an AWSC intersection is defined for each approach as well as for the intersection as a whole. LOS for a TWSC intersection is defined for each minor movement and is not defined for the intersection as a whole. The LOS criteria for stop‐controlled intersections and unsignalized intersections are somewhat different from the criteria for signalized intersections primarily because different transportation facilities create different driver perceptions. The expectation is that a signalized intersection is designed to carry higher traffic volumes and experience greater delay than an unsignalized intersection. Please refer to Table 2, Level of Service Control Delay for a control delay range expressed as seconds of delay per vehicle and the corresponding LOS letter grade. None of the six intersections analyzed are signalized. The following is a summary of the 2013 capacity analysis results for each study intersection. Please refer to Table 3, 2013 Background Traffic Capacity Results for the LOS at each approach and for the intersection overall. See Appendix B for the 2013 background traffic capacity analysis worksheets. Montclair Drive and US 2/Idaho Street While this intersection operates at an overall LOS B it experiences significant delay at the eastbound and westbound approaches, both are LOS F, with 53 eastbound left turns in the PM peak experiencing on average almost 300 seconds of delay. 1 Discussion in the Level of Service Concepts section is taken from: “Highway Capacity Manual”, Transportation Research Board, 2000, Chapters 10, 17. Table 2 Level of Service Control Delay LOS Signalized Intersections (s/veh) AWSC/TWSC Intersections (s/veh) A 0‐10 0‐10 B >10‐20 >10‐15 C >20‐35 >15‐25 D >35‐55 >25‐35 E >55‐80 >35‐50 F >80 >50 Table 3 2013 Background Traffic Capacity Results Intersection Lane Geometry Traffic Control Level Of Service/ Delay (seconds) Overall Intersection Approach EB WB NB SB Montclair Drive and US 2/Idaho Street Existing EB/WB Stop B 11.7 F 296.8 F 100.6 ‐ ‐ Flathead Drive and US 2/Idaho Street Existing NB/SB Stop A 4.4 ‐ ‐ 3.9 C 22.3 B 11.6 Montclair Drive and Flathead Drive Existing NB Stop A 1.0 ‐ ‐ A 9.1 ‐ Montclair Drive and Oregon Lane Existing NB Stop A 5.5 ‐ ‐ A 8.8 ‐ Montclair Drive and site access road Existing EB Stop A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Whitefish Stage and site access road Existing WB Stop A 0.2 ‐ C 15.3 ‐ ‐ ---PAGE BREAK--- Flathead County Rail Park Traffic Impact Study KLJ Page 12 Flathead Drive and US 2/Idaho Street This intersection is unique in that the northbound approach has only a right out option, forcing all 276 northbound vehicles in the peak hour to turn right. This reduces the delay the northbound approach experiences which operates at a LOS C. It is also virtually impossible for a southbound vehicle to make any movement other than turn right. No southbound left turns or through movements were observed during peak hour counts. Montclair Drive and Flathead Drive At this T‐intersection, only the northbound approach is stop controlled and currently operates at a LOS A. There are only a few northbound left‐turns in the peak hour and it is in the middle of the LOS A range. Montclair Drive and Oregon Lane and Railroad Crossing At this T‐intersection, only the northbound approach is stop controlled and currently operates at a LOS A. However, there are stop signs at the railroad crossing. Many vehicle observe this stop sign and come to a complete stop before crossing the railroad, others do not. There are no gates, bells, or lights at this at‐grade railroad crossing. Eastbound vehicles observing this stop sign block this intersection to all movements, which is not ideal. Part of this planned rail park project is to remove trains from this existing railroad line through Kalispell. The track will be removed south of US‐2. It will not be removed across Montclair Drive and this section may still be used for train car storage. It is anticipated that this section of the track will rarely be used and never during peak traffic hours. These changes mean that there will be virtually no conflicts between trains and vehicles at this crossing, therefore, no additional safety improvements like lights and gates will be necessary. Removing the stop signs and widening the railroad crossing will allow for larger trucks with higher turning radius to maneuver from Oregon Lane to Montclair. All approaches currently operate at or above LOS A with existing traffic and existing traffic control devices. Recommended Changes to Geometry: Remove railroad stop control and widen at‐grade crossing to accommodate trucks with a high turning radius. Montclair Drive and site access road The site access road serves few PM peak hour trips. Most trips are employees leaving the rail park. This intersection has such low peak hour volumes that no delay is measurable. It operates at a LOS A for all approaches. Whitefish Stage and site access road Whitefish stage provides an important north south connection between US‐2/Idaho Street and West Reserve Drive. Whitefish Stage carries a considerable number of vehicles in the PM peak hour; however the site access road serves few vehicles therefore this intersection experiences little delay. It operates at a LOS A overall and LOC for the westbound approach. Signal Warrant Analysis Signal Warrant analysis was considered at the above mentioned intersections, however only the two intersections on US‐2 at Montclair Drive and Flathead Drive have traffic volumes high enough to meet warrants and analysis was performed for those intersections using existing traffic data and guidance from the 2009 MUTCD. The analysis was conducted to determine whether installation of a new traffic control signal is currently justified. The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants does not necessitate that a traffic control signal ---PAGE BREAK--- Flathead County Rail Park Traffic Impact Study KLJ Page 13 be installed. If additional data were required, reasonable judgment was used to determine the estimated volumes. See Appendix C for the 2013 background signal warrant analysis worksheets. The following warrants from the MUTCD were analyzed: Warrant 1 – Eight‐Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 6 – Coordinated Signal System Warrant 2 – Four‐Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 7 – Crash Experience Warrant 3 – Peak Hour Warrant 8 – Roadway Network Warrant 4 – Pedestrian Volume Warrant 9 – Intersection Near a Grade Crossing Warrant 5 – School Crossing The intersection of Flathead Drive and US‐2/Idaho Street currently meets signal warrants. It meets warrants 1, 2, and 3 based on eight hour, four hour, and peak hour vehicular volume with the northbound right turns from Woodland Park Drive (See Appendix However, there is a free‐flow right turn lane for Woodland Park Drive traffic therefore, the right turns should not be considered in the signal warrant. Additionally the 265 peak hour westbound left turns conflict with the 1026 eastbound through and right turn movements. Signal warrant analysis often excludes right turns on the minor street as the vehicles making these turn movements may not be subject to the delay caused by waiting for gaps in the major street traffic. This intersection is unique in that all northbound approach vehicles are forced to turn right. Still, if we remove all right turn vehicles from the minor street, the intersection still meets signal warrant 3. However, MUTCD does allow you to consider the westbound left turns as the minor approach and the eastbound opposing traffic would be the total to use as the major street traffic. The high number of westbound left turn conflicting with the eastbound vehicles is enough to meet signal warrants. See Figure 6 for the signal warrant 3 graph with all minor street traffic removed. Recommended Changes to Geometry: Install an actuated traffic signal at the intersection of Flathead Drive and US‐2/Idaho Street. Figure 6: Signal Warrant 3 Graph with Data Point for Flathead Drive and US-2/Idaho Street reflecting westbound left turns as the minor street ---PAGE BREAK--- Flathead County Rail Park Traffic Impact Study KLJ Page 14 It should be noted even with the extreme proximity to the at‐grade railroad crossing at both intersections of Montclair Drive and Flathead Drive and Montclair Drive and Oregon Lane that signal warrant 9 does not apply. The MUTCD states, “The Intersection Near a Grade Crossing signal warrant is intended for use at a location where none of the conditions described in the other eight traffic signal warrants are met, but the proximity to the intersection of a grade crossing on an intersection approach controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal.” In this case, the intersection of the at‐grade crossing on Montclair Drive is not controlled by a stop or yield sign, therefore signal warrant 9 does not apply to these intersections. Widening the existing at‐grade railroad crossing is recommended to accommodate large trucks turning through the railroad crossing. ---PAGE BREAK--- Flathead County Rail Park Traffic Impact Study KLJ Page 15 2.4 Crash Analysis A 3‐year crash history was analyzed from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2012 for the study area to determine any crash patterns and possible countermeasures. See Table 4, Summary of Crashes for a summary of crashes at each intersection where a crash occurred. A crash rate per million entering vehicles (MEV) was calculated for any intersection where a crash occurred. Table 4 Summary of Crashes Location Number of Collisions Crash Rate (MEV) Collision Type1 Collision Severity2 HO RA RE SS ‐ Same SS ‐ Opp LT O Fatal InjA InjB PDO Montclair Drive and US 2/Idaho Street 17 0.61 2 7 6 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 1 1 3 12 Flathead Drive and US 2/Idaho Street 11 0.37 1 ‐ 10 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 2 7 Montclair Drive and Flathead Drive 0 0.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Montclair Drive and Oregon Lane 0 0.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Montclair Drive and site access road 0 0.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Whitefish Stage and site access road 0 0.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Collision Type1: HO ‐ Head On, RA ‐ Right Angle, RE ‐ Rear End, SS‐Same ‐ Sideswipe Same Direction, SS‐Opp ‐ Sideswipe Opposite Direction, LT ‐ Left Turn, O – Other Collision Severity2: Fatal ‐ Fatality, InjA ‐ Incapacitating Injury, InjB ‐ Non‐Incapacitating Injury, PDO ‐ Property Damage Only A crash rate (MEV) above 1.0 usually indicates a crash issue. All of the intersections had a score lower than 1.0. There were only crashes at the two intersections on US‐2/Idaho Street. The intersection of Montclair Drive and US‐2/Idaho Street had 17 crashes in the three years from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2012. One of those crashes was a fatal pedestrian crash that occurred at night. This intersection averages over 5 crashes per year, however it is not above the threshold to meet traffic signal warrant 7 because rear end crashes are not susceptible to correction with a signal. Also no known safety alternatives have been tried to reduce crashes at this intersection, therefore the signal warrant 7 is not met. The intersection of Flathead Drive and US‐2/Idaho Street had 11 crashes and no fatalities in the three years from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2012. There were four rear‐end crashes that resulted in eight injuries. None of the crashes indicated a problem with sight distance or geometry at the study intersections. Figure 7, 2010‐2012 Crash Locations is a map with a red dot indicating each crash on the map. ---PAGE BREAK--- Flathead County Rail Park Traffic Impact Study KLJ Page 16 Figure 7: 2010-2012 Crash Locations ---PAGE BREAK--- Flathead County Rail Park Traffic Impact Study KLJ Page 17 3.0 2013 BASE PLUS SITE CONDITIONS The 2013 background plus site (or full‐build) condition includes the traffic generated by the proposed FCEDA Rail Park development. The development would consist of two light industrial operations, Northwest Drywall on 3 acres and CHS with grain elevators on an additional 6.6 acres. 3.1 Assigned Trip Calculations Traffic volumes for the study intersections under the 2013 background plus site scenario were developed using the following method. The existing 2013 traffic was established as the background traffic near the development. Traffic generated by the proposed development was estimated using the 2008 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation 8th Edition. This resource was used to estimate the peak hourly trips. The ITE development type, independent variable, number of trips and directional distribution of said trips can be found in Table 5, ITE Trip Generation. The trips generated from the ITE manual are the total number of peak hour trips that would access the site. No portion of these would be internal trips (generated trips that do not access the major street system), pass‐by trips (pulled existing traffic off the adjacent road between the origin and destination of the original trip) or diverted trips (attracted from traffic on roadways within the vicinity of the generator but require a diversion from that roadway to another roadway to gain access to the site due to the nature of the businesses). The total number of trips generated was compared to the information gathered from the planned facilities. Both Northwest Drywall and CHS provided some information pertaining to the number of trips their sites will generate as well as the number of trucks estimated to access their sites. Both companies anticipate 10‐20 PM peak hour trips, with an additional two to five trucks in the peak hour. Again, this information is consistent with the ITE trip generation rates used. Trip distribution was based on existing traffic on each road as well as logical routes to access US‐2/Idaho Street. The existing traffic on routes to and from the new rail park site influenced which roads the traffic generated Table 5 ITE Trip Generation PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Trip Distribution Total Primary Trips ITE Code Land Use Ind. Variable (Acres) Peak Hr Trip Gen. Avg. Rate Total Peak Hr Trips Internal % /Trips Passby % /Trips Primary Trips (new) Enter Exit Enter Exit 110 General Light Industrial Northwest Drywall 3.0 7.26 22 0% /0 0% /0 22 22% 78% 5 17 110 General Light Industrial CHS 6.6 7.26 48 0% /0 0% /0 48 22% 78% 11 37 TOTAL 16 54 ---PAGE BREAK--- Flathead County Rail Park Traffic Impact Study KLJ Page 18 from the site would use to access the site. Many new trips will use Montclair, as existing trips do, to access US‐ 2/Idaho Street and then travel to their final destination. The macro level traffic distribution was converted to turning movement percentages at each study intersection in order to apply the new trips generated by the proposed development onto the existing roadway network. These trips were added onto the baseline traffic to create the 2013 Background Plus Site Traffic volumes that were used in the analysis. See Figure 8, 2013 Background Plus Site Total Peak Hour Trips for the estimated 2013 traffic upon full build of the proposed development. The exception to the trip generation rates occurs during the peak harvest season. The CHS facility and grain elevators average 20 to 30 trucks per day throughout most of the year; however during the peak harvest season the number swells to 550 to 700 trucks per day that will need to access the site. This is a large increase in the number of trips entering and exiting the site. While most of these trucks will try to avoid PM peak hour times, there will certainly some added peak hour truck trips in the harvest peak season. Most of the trucks will be entering Kalispell via State Highway 35 and then US‐2, but some will be entering through US‐93 and then on US‐ 2. See Figure 9, 2013 Background Plus Site Total Peak Hour Harvest Trips for the estimated 2013 traffic upon full build of the proposed development during the peak harvest season. ---PAGE BREAK--- KLJ Page 19 Figure 8: 2013 Background Plus Site Total Peak Hour Trips ---PAGE BREAK--- KLJ Page 20 Figure 9: 2013 Background Plus Site Total Peak Hour Harvest Trips ---PAGE BREAK--- Flathead County Rail Park Traffic Impact Study KLJ Page 21 3.2 2013 Background Plus Site Capacity Analysis The study intersections were analyzed with the projected 2013 background plus site traffic volumes. The analysis produces the same results, however, when the peak harvest season traffic is assumed. Without geometric improvements, the only intersection that experiences a LOS worse than C is Montclair Drive and US‐2/Idaho Street. That intersection experiences LOS F when the proposed development is added to existing geometry and traffic control. In fact, the delay on the eastbound approach is so great that the software cannot calculate the delay. The following is a summary of the 2013 background plus site capacity analysis results without improvement for each study intersection. Please refer to Table 6, 2013 Background Plus Site without Improvements Traffic Capacity Results for the LOS at each approach and for the intersection overall. See Appendix D for the 2013 background plus site capacity analysis worksheets. Geometric and traffic control device improvements were developed for the intersection of Montclair Drive and US‐2/Idaho Street until a LOS C was attained. The full width turn bay length for each auxiliary lane was set as the 95th percentile storage length for either the turn lane or the adjacent through lane, whichever was longer. A traffic signal was also proposed at the intersection of Flathead Drive and US‐2/Idaho Street. This intersection meets warrants today. While adding a signal will not reduce the overall intersection delay or improve the already LOS A, it will reduce the delay for some westbound left turns and northbound and southbound approaches improve to LOS A, while still maintaining a LOS A for the overall intersection. The geometric changes at this intersection also included adding a shared left/through lane to the northbound approach, which would change some trips from right turns (the only movement currently allowed) to through or left turns. The following is a summary of the 2013 background plus site capacity analysis results for each study intersection. Please refer to Table 7, 2013 Background Plus Site with Improvements Traffic Capacity Table 6 2013 Background Plus Site without Improvements Traffic Capacity Results Intersection Lane Geometry Traffic Control Level Of Service/ Delay (seconds) Overall Intersection Approach EB WB NB SB Montclair Drive and US 2/Idaho Street Existing EB/WB Stop F 533.0 F error F 107.5 ‐ ‐ Flathead Drive and US 2/Idaho Street Existing NB/SB Stop A 4.5 ‐ ‐ 3.9 C 22.3 B 11.7 Montclair Drive and Flathead Drive Existing NB Stop A 0.8 ‐ ‐ A 9.9 ‐ Montclair Drive and Oregon Lane Existing NB Stop A 6.0 ‐ ‐ A 9.4 ‐ Montclair Drive and site access road Existing EB Stop A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Whitefish Stage and site access road Existing WB Stop A 0.3 ‐ C 15.6 ‐ ‐ ---PAGE BREAK--- Flathead County Rail Park Traffic Impact Study KLJ Page 22 Results for the LOS at each approach and for the intersection overall. See Appendix D for the 2013 background plus site capacity analysis worksheets. Montclair Drive and US‐2/Idaho Street The intersection experiences LOS F with the additional trips from the planned development. Increased traffic to the eastbound approach pushed the LOS above the F threshold and signal warrants 2 and 3 are met. Figure 10, Signal Warrant 2 Graph with Data Point of Montclair Drive and US-2/Idaho Street, shows that with the rail park development this intersection meets traffic signal warrants. A right turn pocket is also recommended at this intersection and to allow for adequate geometric space for Montclair Drive to be perpendicular at the intersection it is recommended that the location be moved south approximately 100 feet. This will allow for a better connection to Nicholson Drive and for a 100 foot long right turn pocket to be included in the intersection design. Table 7 2013 Background Plus Site with Improvements Traffic Capacity Results Intersection Lane Geometry Traffic Control Level Of Service/ Delay (seconds) Overall Intersection Approach EB WB NB SB Montclair Drive and US 2/Idaho Street Revised Signalized A 6.2 B 15.1 B 12.5 A 5.9 A 5.4 Flathead Drive and US 2/Idaho Street Revised Signalized A 9.0 B 13.9 A 5.2 A 6.0 A 0.5 Montclair Drive and Flathead Drive Existing NB Stop A 0.8 ‐ ‐ A 9.9 ‐ Montclair Drive and Oregon Lane Existing NB Stop A 6.0 ‐ ‐ A 9.4 ‐ Montclair Drive and site access road Existing EB Stop A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Whitefish Stage and site access road Existing WB Stop A 0.3 ‐ C 15.6 ‐ ‐ ---PAGE BREAK--- Flathead County Rail Park Traffic Impact Study KLJ Page 23 Figure 10: Signal Warrant 2 Graph with Data Point of Montclair Drive and US-2/Idaho Street (with right turns removed) Recommended Changes to Geometry: Move intersection approximately 100 further south. Construct eastbound right turn lane with 100’ of full width turn bay length. Install an actuated coordinated traffic signal. Figures 11 and 12, Existing and Recommended Geometry of Montclair Drive and US-2/Idaho Street show what the intersection looks like today and what the recommended signalized intersection may look like. ---PAGE BREAK--- Flathead County Rail Park Traffic Impact Study KLJ Page 24 Figure 11: Existing Geometry of Montclair Drive and US-2/Idaho Street Figure 12: Recommended Geometry of Montclair Drive and US-2/Idaho Street ---PAGE BREAK--- Flathead County Rail Park Traffic Impact Study KLJ Page 25 Flathead Drive and US‐2/Idaho Street The LOS at this intersection would be A with or without a traffic signal. This intersection meets signal warrants today and adding a signal would decrease delay on the northbound and southbound approaches. A traffic signal would also allow for northbound left turn and through movements. With the planned development this intersection would add a few southbound right turns and some of those vehicles will be large trucks. The recommended signal should include protected and permitted left turns on the eastbound and westbound movements. The high volume of westbound left turns will be facilitated by a protected green phase at the signal. It should also be noted that the recommended traffic signals Montclair Drive and Flathead Drive will have more than one half mile spacing between them on US‐2/Idaho Street. Recommended Changes to Geometry: Install an actuated coordinated traffic signal. Including an eastbound/westbound protected left turn phase at the signal. Construct northbound left and through travel lane to allow for those movements. Figures 13 and 14, Existing and Recommended Geometry of Flathead Drive and US-2/Idaho Street show what the intersection looks like today and what the recommended signalized intersection may look like. Figure 13: Existing Geometry of Flathead Drive and US-2/Idaho Street ---PAGE BREAK--- Flathead County Rail Park Traffic Impact Study KLJ Page 26 Figure 14: Recommended Geometry of Flathead Drive and US-2/Idaho Street Other Intersections The existing geometry is adequate for all other intersection analyzed. No other intersection improvements are recommended. Signal Warrant Analysis Signal Warrant analysis was performed at the above mentioned intersections using background plus site traffic data and guidance from the 2009 MUTCD. The analysis was conducted to determine whether installation of a new traffic control signal would be justified. The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants does not necessitate that a traffic control signal be installed. If additional data were required, reasonable judgment was used to determine the estimated volumes. See Appendix E for the background plus site signal warrant analysis worksheets. The intersections of Montclair Drive and US‐2/Idaho Street and Flathead Drive and US‐2/Idaho Street both meet signal warrants with the proposed development. The intersection of Montclair Drive and US‐ 2/Idaho Street would experience LOS F without the signal and LOS A with the signal as shown in Tables 6 and 7. A traffic signal is shown at this location in Figure 12. The proposed signal at Flathead Drive and US‐2/Idaho Street is warranted even without the traffic associated with the proposed development. MDT and the City of Kalispell are recommended to work toward installing a signal at this location immediately. It may be beneficial to determine a cost sharing agreement between all benefited parties for the cost of the modifications at this intersection. ---PAGE BREAK--- Flathead County Rail Park Traffic Impact Study KLJ Page 27 4.0 RAILROAD CROSSINGS In 2011 there was a vehicle train crash on the BNSF Railroad line at an at‐grade railroad crossing in Flathead County. Reducing the number of at‐grade railroad crossings will reduce the train/vehicle conflict point and may help reduce the number of collisions with trains. The rail park development will potentially allow for BNSF to close six existing at‐grade railroad crossings in Kalispell. 4.1 Montclair Drive There is an existing BNSF rail line crossing on Montclair Drive between Flathead Drive and Oregon Lane. This existing railroad crossing is stop controlled. A photo of this railroad crossing is below in Figure 15. Figure 15: Existing Railroad Crossing on Montclair Drive Being stop controlled is problematic because vehicles stopping at this railroad crossing will block traffic entering and exiting on both Flathead Drive and Oregon Lane. Therefore, it is recommended that the stop control be removed. Again, signal warrant 9 does not apply to the conditions at this railroad crossing. Recommended traffic control includes replace the STOP signs with YIELD signs, add lights, bells, gates, and advanced warning signs. A main part of the rail park development is to move the CHS facility with its accompanying rail line from downtown Kalispell to the rail park, thus remove the rail line and several at‐grade railroad crossings from Kalispell. The site plan shown in Figure 2 indicates that three new railroad spurs will be added to the rail park to accommodate the CHS rail facility. All three of these railroad spurs will be active and will need to cross Montclair Drive. The existing rail line across Montclair Drive will also be maintained to use as storage down to US‐2. This means that there will be four at‐grade rail crossings on Montclair Drive in about the space of 150 feet. While there will be four railroad crossings they will all be short spurs used for storage. They will not be active mainline traffic. In fact, the existing line will be used for train car storage very rarely and never is peak traffic times. It shouldn’t pose an issue for traffic on Montclair Drive. There is a possibility of trucks ---PAGE BREAK--- Flathead County Rail Park Traffic Impact Study KLJ Page 28 exiting the rail park and doing a virtual turn form northbound Oregon Lane to southbound Flathead Drive. While this will be seldom it is recommended that Montclair Drive at the existing railroad crossing be widened to accommodate this potential truck movement. Recommended Changes to Geometry: Revise stop control to yield control on Montclair Drive at the railroad crossing Widen the approximately 24 feet for pavement at the existing railroad crossing on Montclair Drive to approximately 40 feet Install railroad crossing on Montclair Drive for three new spurs with full complement of lights, gates, crossbucks, and bells. Install advanced railroad crossing signs on Montclair Drive and Oregon Lane as well as Flathead Drive The three planned new railroad spurs immediately west of Oregon Lane will cross Montclair Drive and to help ensure safety at these railroad crossings it is recommended that a full complement of lights, gates, crossbucks, and bells be installed to prevent any vehicles from entering the railroad right‐of‐way while a train is approaching. The Federal Highway Administration’s Railroad‐Highway Grade Crossing Handbook (2007) states that automatic gates and lights should be considered any time there is an average of 20 or more trains a day. The three active spurs will most likely total more than 20 train per day at this crossing, therefore gates are recommended. This safety feature can be accommodated west of Oregon Lane and will not prevent vehicles on Montclair Drive from accessing Oregon Lane, which is the major movement at this intersection. Recommended Changes to Geometry: Install railroad crossing on Montclair Drive for three new spurs with full complement of lights, gates, crossbucks, and bells. Figures 16 and 17, Existing and Recommended Geometry of Montclair Drive at-grade railroad crossings show what the area looks like today and what the recommended improvements may looks like. ---PAGE BREAK--- Flathead County Rail Park Traffic Impact Study KLJ Page 29 Figure 16: Existing Geometry of Montclair Drive and Railroad Crossing Figure 17: Recommended Geometry of Montclair Drive and Railroad Crossings ---PAGE BREAK--- Flathead County Rail Park Traffic Impact Study KLJ Page 30 Figure 18 is an example photograph of a railroad crossing with lights, gates, crossbucks, and bells installed prevent vehicles from accessing the tracks when a train is approaching. Figure 18: Example of Railroad Crossing with Lights, Gates, Crossbucks, and Bells ---PAGE BREAK--- Flathead County Rail Park Traffic Impact Study KLJ Page 31 5.0 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS AND COSTS 5.1 Recommended Improvements There were several recommendations made throughout this report. They are all listed below and can be found in the executive summary at the beginning of this as well. Recommendations: Install an actuated coordinated traffic signal at intersection of Flathead Drive and US‐2/Idaho Street. o Include an eastbound/westbound protected left turn phase at the signal. o Construct northbound left and through travel lane to allow for those movements Revise stop control to yield control on Montclair Drive at the railroad crossing and add advance railroad crossing signing on Montclair Drive, Oregon Lane, and Flathead Drive Widen the approximately 24 feet for pavement at the existing railroad crossing on Montclair Drive to approximately 40 feet. Move intersection of Montclair Drive and US‐2/Idaho Street approximately 100 feet further south. o Construct eastbound right turn lane with 100 feet of full width turn bay length, plus an 8:1 taper. Install an actuated coordinated traffic signal at intersection of Montclair Drive and US‐2/Idaho Street. Install railroad crossing on Montclair Drive for three new spurs with full complement of lights, gates, and bells. Figure 19, Recommended Improvements is map of the rail park study area showing recommended improvements. ---PAGE BREAK--- Flathead County Rail Park Traffic Impact Study KLJ Page 32 Figure 19: Recommended Improvements 5.2 Estimated Costs The objective of this traffic study is to understand the impact the proposed rail park development will have on the surrounding transportation system and to recommend improvements to accommodate the increase in traffic or to lessen the impact. To better understand the recommended improvements we have included planning level cost estimates. The recommended transportation improvements discussed above have not been survey or designed and the cost estimates do not reflect that level of detail. Rather the cost estimates are a best guess dollar value based on similar projects completed recently. The costs also include a 20% contingency for unforeseen expenditures associated with the improvements. See Appendix F for planning level cost estimate assumptions. Table 8 Planning Level Cost Estimates # Improvement Cost 1 *Install signal at Flathead Dr. and US‐2 *$300,000 2 Remove Stop control on Montclair Dr at RR $1,000 3 Widen railroad crossing on Montclair Dr $10,000 4 Move and realign Montclair Dr and US‐2 $270,000 5 Install signal at Montclair Dr. and US‐2 $300,000 6 Install lights, gates, bells at new RR crossing $1,500,000 7 New pavement for site access roads $450,000 Total $2,831,000 *Not a necessary improvement for the rail park development **All Costs are in 2013 US Dollars ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX A 2013 Base Traffic Volumes ---PAGE BREAK--- US‐2 / Idaho and Montclair Date 4‐16‐13 Adjusted Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Total 5:00 13 282 1 0 0 2 1 280 9 17 0 19 624 5:15 23 298 1 0 0 0 0 309 10 11 0 5 657 5:30 17 215 1 0 0 0 0 263 17 0 0 18 531 5:45 13 219 0 0 0 0 0 203 11 6 0 10 462 Total 66 1014 3 0 0 2 1 1055 47 34 0 52 2274 From North From East From South From West US‐2 Access US‐2 Montclair US‐2 / Idaho and Montclair Date 4‐17‐13 Adjusted Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Total 5:00 9 0 0 2 204 57 56 0 0 19 224 3 574 5:15 4 0 0 1 216 78 94 0 0 18 291 3 705 5:30 9 0 0 3 183 65 72 0 0 18 222 4 576 5:45 3 0 0 0 192 65 54 0 0 17 217 1 549 Total 25 0 0 6 795 265 276 0 0 72 954 11 2404 Flathead Dr US‐2 Park Dr US‐2 From North From East From South From West US‐2 / Idaho and Montclair Date 4‐18‐13 Adjusted Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Total 5:00 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 6 0 0 15 5:15 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 4 0 1 14 5:30 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 3 0 0 14 5:45 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 4 0 0 14 Total 3 13 0 0 0 0 0 12 11 17 0 1 57 Montclair Site Access Montclair Site Access From North From East From South From West Whitefish Stage and Site Access Date 4‐17‐13 Adjusted Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Total 5:00 0 84 1 2 0 1 1 104 0 0 0 0 193 5:15 0 87 0 2 0 1 3 101 0 0 0 0 194 5:30 0 84 0 0 0 3 0 104 0 0 0 0 191 5:45 0 87 0 1 0 1 0 101 0 0 0 0 190 Total 0 342 1 5 0 6 4 410 0 0 0 0 768 Whitefish Stage Site Access Whitefish Stage Site Access From North From East From South From West ---PAGE BREAK--- US‐2 / Idaho and Montclair Date 4‐17‐13 Adjusted Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Total 5:00 0 0 0 0 15 5 0 0 0 2 17 0 39 5:15 0 0 0 0 24 0 1 0 2 3 14 0 44 5:30 0 0 0 0 22 3 2 0 1 0 14 0 42 5:45 0 0 0 0 22 3 2 0 1 0 14 0 42 Total 0 0 0 0 83 11 5 0 4 5 59 0 167 Flathead Dr Montclair Flathead Dr Montclair From North From East From South From West NOT COUNTED Adjusted Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Total 5:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 20 67 40 0 3 6 24 0 160 Montclair Oregon Montclair From North From East From South From West ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX B 2013 Background Capacity Analysis Worksheets ---PAGE BREAK--- Intersection Capacity Utilization 2: US 2 & Montclair 7/2/2013 Baseline 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 53 0 34 2 0 0 47 1055 1 3 1015 68 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 87 0 0 2 0 47 1055 1 3 1015 68 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 0 1734 0 0 1805 0 1805 3618 1615 1805 3618 1615 Ped Intf Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No Yes Yes Reference Time 0.0 0.0 3.1 35.0 0.1 0.2 33.7 5.1 Adj Reference Time 0.0 0.0 8.0 39.0 8.0 8.0 37.7 9.1 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 0 1933 0 1220 120 1809 120 1809 Reference Time A 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.2 46.9 35.0 3.0 33.7 Adj Saturation B (vph 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA Reference Time B 11.5 14.0 8.1 8.1 NA NA NA NA Reference Time 5.4 0.2 46.9 33.7 Adj Reference Time 9.4 8.0 50.9 37.7 Split Option Ref Time Combined 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.1 3.1 35.0 0.2 33.7 Ref Time Seperate 3.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 3.1 35.0 0.2 33.7 Reference Time 6.0 6.0 0.1 0.1 35.0 35.0 33.7 33.7 Adj Reference Time 10.0 10.0 8.0 8.0 39.0 39.0 37.7 37.7 Summary EB WB NE SW Combined Protected Option NA 47.0 Permitted Option 9.4 50.9 Split Option 18.0 76.7 Minimum 9.4 47.0 56.4 Right Turns NER SWR Adj Reference Time 8.0 9.1 Cross Thru Ref Time 9.4 8.0 Oncoming Left Ref Time 8.0 8.0 Combined 25.4 25.1 Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.0% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Intersection Capacity Utilization 6: Flathead & Montclair 7/2/2013 Baseline 8 Report Page 2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 59 5 11 83 4 5 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing Free Right No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 64 0 0 94 9 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.99 0.85 0.95 0.99 0.90 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 1878 0 0 1889 1703 0 Ped Intf Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No No Reference Time 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time 0.0 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 1878 0 690 114 Reference Time A 4.1 0.0 16.3 9.5 Adj Saturation B (vph 1878 0 0 NA Reference Time B 4.1 8.7 14.0 NA Reference Time 4.1 14.0 Adj Reference Time 8.1 18.0 Split Option Ref Time Combined 4.1 0.0 6.0 0.6 Ref Time Seperate 3.8 0.7 5.2 0.3 Reference Time 4.1 6.0 6.0 0.6 Adj Reference Time 8.1 10.0 10.0 8.0 Summary EB WB NB Combined Protected Option NA NA Permitted Option 18.0 Err Split Option 18.1 8.0 Minimum 18.0 8.0 26.0 Right Turns Adj Reference Time Cross Thru Ref Time Oncoming Left Ref Time Combined Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.6% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Intersection Capacity Utilization 8: Access/Montclair 7/2/2013 Baseline 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 1 17 11 12 13 3 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing Free Right No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 18 23 0 16 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 1.00 0.92 0.85 0.93 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 0 1895 1751 0 1772 0 Ped Intf Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No No Reference Time 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time 0.0 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 0 1051 1751 118 Reference Time A 0.0 2.1 1.6 16.3 Adj Saturation B (vph 0 0 1751 NA Reference Time B 8.1 9.1 1.6 NA Reference Time 2.1 1.6 Adj Reference Time 8.0 8.0 Split Option Ref Time Combined 0.0 1.1 1.6 1.1 Ref Time Seperate 0.1 1.1 0.8 0.9 Reference Time 1.1 1.1 1.6 1.1 Adj Reference Time 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Summary EB WB SB Combined Protected Option NA NA Permitted Option 8.0 Err Split Option 16.0 8.0 Minimum 8.0 8.0 16.0 Right Turns Adj Reference Time Cross Thru Ref Time Oncoming Left Ref Time Combined Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Intersection Capacity Utilization 9: Oregon & Montclair 7/2/2013 Baseline 8 Report Page 4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 24 6 67 20 3 40 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing Free Right No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 30 0 0 87 43 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.97 0.85 0.95 0.96 0.86 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 1843 0 0 1827 1629 0 Ped Intf Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No No Reference Time 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time 0.0 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 1843 0 146 109 Reference Time A 2.0 0.0 71.3 47.5 Adj Saturation B (vph 1843 0 0 NA Reference Time B 2.0 12.5 13.7 NA Reference Time 2.0 13.7 Adj Reference Time 8.0 17.7 Split Option Ref Time Combined 2.0 0.0 5.7 3.2 Ref Time Seperate 1.6 4.5 1.3 0.2 Reference Time 2.0 5.7 5.7 3.2 Adj Reference Time 8.0 9.7 9.7 8.0 Summary EB WB NB Combined Protected Option NA NA Permitted Option 17.7 Err Split Option 17.7 8.0 Minimum 17.7 8.0 25.7 Right Turns Adj Reference Time Cross Thru Ref Time Oncoming Left Ref Time Combined Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.4% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Intersection Capacity Utilization 13: Park Dr/Flathead Dr & US 2 7/2/2013 Baseline 8 Report Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 11 954 72 265 795 6 0 0 276 0 0 25 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 11 954 72 265 795 6 0 0 276 0 25 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.85 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 1805 3618 1615 1805 3618 1615 0 1900 1615 0 1615 0 Ped Intf Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed Yes Yes No No Reference Time 0.7 31.6 5.3 17.6 26.4 0.4 20.5 0.0 Adj Reference Time 8.0 35.6 9.3 21.6 30.4 8.0 24.5 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 120 1809 120 1809 0 1900 0 1615 Reference Time A 11.0 31.6 264.3 26.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 Adj Saturation B (vph NA NA NA NA 0 1900 0 1615 Reference Time B NA NA NA NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 Reference Time 31.6 264.3 0.0 1.9 Adj Reference Time 35.6 268.3 8.0 8.0 Split Option Ref Time Combined 0.7 31.6 17.6 26.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 Ref Time Seperate 0.7 31.6 17.6 26.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Reference Time 31.6 31.6 26.4 26.4 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.9 Adj Reference Time 35.6 35.6 30.4 30.4 0.0 0.0 8.0 8.0 Summary EB WB NB SB Combined Protected Option 57.3 NA Permitted Option 268.3 8.0 Split Option 66.0 8.0 Minimum 57.3 8.0 65.3 Right Turns EBR WBR NBR Adj Reference Time 9.3 8.0 24.5 Cross Thru Ref Time 8.0 0.0 35.6 Oncoming Left Ref Time 21.6 8.0 8.0 Combined 39.0 16.0 68.2 Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.8% ICU Level of Service B Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Intersection Capacity Utilization 17: Whitefish Stage & Oregon 7/2/2013 Baseline 8 Report Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 27 0 0 27 0 0 27 0 0 27 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 0.93 0.85 0.95 0.93 0.85 0.95 0.93 0.85 0.95 0.93 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 0 1775 0 0 1775 0 0 1775 0 0 1775 0 Ped Intf Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No No No Reference Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 0 1351 0 1351 0 1351 0 1351 Reference Time A 0.0 2.4 0.0 2.4 0.0 2.4 0.0 2.4 Adj Saturation B (vph 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reference Time B 8.6 9.8 8.6 9.8 8.6 9.8 8.6 9.8 Reference Time 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 Adj Reference Time 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Split Option Ref Time Combined 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.8 Ref Time Seperate 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 Reference Time 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 Adj Reference Time 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Summary EB WB NB SB Combined Protected Option NA NA Permitted Option 8.0 8.0 Split Option 16.0 16.0 Minimum 8.0 8.0 16.0 Right Turns Adj Reference Time Cross Thru Ref Time Oncoming Left Ref Time Combined Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Intersection Capacity Utilization 19: Whitefish Stage 7/2/2013 Baseline 8 Report Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 1805 3618 1615 1805 3618 1615 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 Ped Intf Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed Yes Yes Yes Yes Reference Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 120 1809 120 1809 120 1900 120 1900 Reference Time A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Adj Saturation B (vph 0 3618 0 3618 0 1900 0 1900 Reference Time B 8.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 Reference Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Split Option Ref Time Combined 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ref Time Seperate 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Reference Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Summary EB WB NB SB Combined Protected Option 16.0 16.0 Permitted Option 8.0 8.0 Split Option 0.0 0.0 Minimum 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turns EBR WBR NBR SBR Adj Reference Time 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Cross Thru Ref Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Oncoming Left Ref Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Combined 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 0.0% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Intersection Capacity Utilization 21: Whitefish Stage & Access 7/2/2013 Baseline 8 Report Page 8 Movement NBT NBR SBL SBT SWL SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 410 4 1 342 6 5 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing Free Right No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 414 0 0 343 11 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 1897 0 0 1900 1722 0 Ped Intf Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No No Reference Time 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time 0.0 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 1897 0 1825 115 Reference Time A 26.2 0.0 22.6 11.5 Adj Saturation B (vph NA NA NA NA Reference Time B NA NA NA NA Reference Time 26.2 22.6 Adj Reference Time 30.2 26.6 Split Option Ref Time Combined 26.2 0.0 21.7 0.8 Ref Time Seperate 25.9 0.1 21.6 0.4 Reference Time 26.2 21.7 21.7 0.8 Adj Reference Time 30.2 25.7 25.7 8.0 Summary NB SB SW Combined Protected Option NA NA Permitted Option 30.2 Err Split Option 55.9 8.0 Minimum 30.2 8.0 38.2 Right Turns Adj Reference Time Cross Thru Ref Time Oncoming Left Ref Time Combined Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.8% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C 2013 Background Signal Warrant Analysis Worksheets ---PAGE BREAK--- Warrants Volume Information Analyst Thomas McMurtry Agency/Co KLJ Date Performed 5/13/2013 Project ID FCEDA TIS East/West Street US 2 File Name Warrant Flathead 2013 Intersection Jurisdiction Units U.S. Customary Time Period Analyzed North/South Street Flathead Dr Major Street East-West Project Description FCEDA TIS Warrant 1 Warrant 2 Warrant 3 Volume Summary Major Street Lanes 2+ Minor Street Lanes 1 Speed 45 Population 10000+ Hours Major Volume Minor Volume Total Volume 1A (70%) 1A (56%) 1B (70%) 1B (56%) 2 (70%) 3A (70%) 3B (70%) 07-08 1180 80 1290 No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes 08-09 1230 90 1350 No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 09-10 1080 80 1190 No No Yes Yes Yes No No 10-11 1200 90 1320 No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 11-12 1420 100 1560 No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 12-13 1630 120 1790 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 13-14 1740 230 1990 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 14-15 1740 230 1990 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 15-16 1960 260 2240 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 16-17 2080 270 2370 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 17-18 2110 280 2410 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 18-19 1640 220 1880 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Totals 19010 2050 21380 7 10 12 12 12 0 11 Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.5 Generated: 7/2/2013 12:29 PM Page 1 of 1 Warrants Volume 7/2/2013 file:///C:/Users/thomasmcmurtry/AppData/Local/Temp/w2kAFF4.tmp ---PAGE BREAK--- Warrants Summary Information Analyst Thomas McMurtry Agency/Co KLJ Date Performed 5/13/2013 Project ID FCEDA TIS East/West Street US 2 File Name Warrant Flathead 2013 Intersection Jurisdiction Units U.S. Customary Time Period Analyzed North/South Street Flathead Dr Major Street East-West Project Description FCEDA TIS General Roadway Network Major Street Speed (mph) 45 Nearest Signal (ft) 1760 Crashes (per year) 4 Population < 10,000 Coordinated Signal System Adequate Trials of Alternatives Two Major Routes Weekend Count 5-yr Growth Factor 0 Geometry and Traffic EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Lane usage L T R L T R R LTR Vehicle Volume Averages (vph) 5 692 43 162 678 2 0 0 170 0 0 26 Peds (ped/h) / Gaps (gaps/h) 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Delay (s/veh) / (veh-hr) 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Warrant 1: Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume 1 A. Minimum Vehicular Volumes (Both major approaches --and-- higher minor approach) 1 B. Interruption of Continuous Traffic (Both major approaches --and-- higher minor approach) 1 80% Vehicular --and-- Interruption Volumes (Both major approaches --and-- higher minor approach) Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume 2 A. Four-Hour Vehicular Volumes (Both major approaches --and-- higher minor approach) Warrant 3: Peak Hour 3 A. Peak-Hour Conditions (Minor delay --and-- minor volume --and-- total volume ) 3 B. Peak- Hour Vehicular Volumes (Both major approaches --and-- higher minor approach) Warrant 4: Pedestrian Volume 4 A. Four Hour Volumes 4 B. One-Hour Volumes Warrant 5: School Crossing 5. Student Volumes --and-- 5. Gaps Same Period Warrant 6: Coordinated Signal System 6. Degree of Platooning (Predominant direction or both directions) Warrant 7: Crash Experience 7 A. Adequate trials of alternatives, observance and enforcement failed --and-- 7 B. Reported crashes susceptible to correction by signal (12-month period) --and-- 7 C. 80% Volumes for Warrants 1A, 1B 4 are satisfied Page 1 of 2 Warrants Summary 7/2/2013 file:///C:/Users/thomasmcmurtry/AppData/Local/Temp/w2kD071.tmp ---PAGE BREAK--- Warrant 8: Roadway Network 8 A. Weekday Volume (Peak hour total --and-- projected warrants 1, 2 or 3) 8 B. Weekend Volume (Five hours total) Warrant 9: Grade Crossing 9 A. Grade Crossing within 140 ft --and-- 9 B. Peak-Hour Vehicular Volumes Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.5 Generated: 7/2/2013 12:38 PM Page 2 of 2 Warrants Summary 7/2/2013 file:///C:/Users/thomasmcmurtry/AppData/Local/Temp/w2kD071.tmp ---PAGE BREAK--- Warrants Volume Information Analyst Thomas McMurtry Agency/Co KLJ Date Performed 5/13/2013 Project ID FCEDA TIS East/West Street Montclair File Name Warrant Montclair 2013 Intersection Jurisdiction Units U.S. Customary Time Period Analyzed North/South Street US 2 Major Street North-South Project Description FCEDA TIS Warrant 1 Warrant 2 Warrant 3 Volume Summary Major Street Lanes 2+ Minor Street Lanes 1 Speed 45 Population 10000+ Hours Major Volume Minor Volume Total Volume 1A (70%) 1A (56%) 1B (70%) 1B (56%) 2 (70%) 3A (70%) 3B (70%) 07-08 980 40 1020 No No No No No No No 08-09 1030 40 1070 No No No No No No No 09-10 880 40 920 No No No No No No No 10-11 1010 40 1050 No No No No No No No 11-12 1180 60 1240 No No Yes Yes No No No 12-13 1340 70 1410 No No Yes Yes Yes No No 13-14 1810 70 1880 No No Yes Yes Yes No No 14-15 1810 70 1880 No No Yes Yes Yes No No 15-16 2020 80 2100 No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes 16-17 2160 80 2240 No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes 17-18 2200 80 2280 No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes 18-19 1700 70 1770 No No Yes Yes Yes No No Totals 18120 740 18860 0 0 8 8 7 0 3 Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.5 Generated: 7/2/2013 12:33 PM Page 1 of 1 Warrants Volume 7/2/2013 file:///C:/Users/thomasmcmurtry/AppData/Local/Temp/w2kB0FE.tmp ---PAGE BREAK--- Warrants Summary Information Analyst Thomas McMurtry Agency/Co KLJ Date Performed 5/13/2013 Project ID FCEDA TIS East/West Street Montclair File Name Warrant Montclair 2013 Intersection Jurisdiction Units U.S. Customary Time Period Analyzed North/South Street US 2 Major Street North-South Project Description FCEDA TIS General Roadway Network Major Street Speed (mph) 45 Nearest Signal (ft) 695 Crashes (per year) 6 Population < 10,000 Coordinated Signal System Adequate Trials of Alternatives Two Major Routes Weekend Count 5-yr Growth Factor 0 Geometry and Traffic EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane usage LTR LTR L T R L T R Vehicle Volume Averages (vph) 39 0 22 0 0 0 31 683 0 0 738 56 Peds (ped/h) / Gaps (gaps/h) 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Delay (s/veh) / (veh-hr) 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Warrant 1: Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume 1 A. Minimum Vehicular Volumes (Both major approaches --and-- higher minor approach) 1 B. Interruption of Continuous Traffic (Both major approaches --and-- higher minor approach) 1 80% Vehicular --and-- Interruption Volumes (Both major approaches --and-- higher minor approach) Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume 2 A. Four-Hour Vehicular Volumes (Both major approaches --and-- higher minor approach) Warrant 3: Peak Hour 3 A. Peak-Hour Conditions (Minor delay --and-- minor volume --and-- total volume ) 3 B. Peak- Hour Vehicular Volumes (Both major approaches --and-- higher minor approach) Warrant 4: Pedestrian Volume 4 A. Four Hour Volumes 4 B. One-Hour Volumes Warrant 5: School Crossing 5. Student Volumes --and-- 5. Gaps Same Period Warrant 6: Coordinated Signal System 6. Degree of Platooning (Predominant direction or both directions) Warrant 7: Crash Experience 7 A. Adequate trials of alternatives, observance and enforcement failed --and-- 7 B. Reported crashes susceptible to correction by signal (12-month period) --and-- 7 C. 80% Volumes for Warrants 1A, 1B 4 are satisfied Page 1 of 2 Warrants Summary 7/2/2013 file:///C:/Users/thomasmcmurtry/AppData/Local/Temp/w2kB0FF.tmp ---PAGE BREAK--- Warrant 8: Roadway Network 8 A. Weekday Volume (Peak hour total --and-- projected warrants 1, 2 or 3) 8 B. Weekend Volume (Five hours total) Warrant 9: Grade Crossing 9 A. Grade Crossing within 140 ft --and-- 9 B. Peak-Hour Vehicular Volumes Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.5 Generated: 7/2/2013 12:32 PM Page 2 of 2 Warrants Summary 7/2/2013 file:///C:/Users/thomasmcmurtry/AppData/Local/Temp/w2kB0FF.tmp ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX D 2013 Background Plus Site Capacity Analysis Worksheets ---PAGE BREAK--- Intersection Capacity Utilization 2: US 2 & Montclair 7/2/2013 2013 plus off peak site 5/14/2013 Baseline 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 82 0 42 2 0 0 48 1055 1 3 1015 80 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 124 0 0 2 0 48 1055 1 3 1015 80 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 0.92 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 0 1744 0 0 1805 0 1805 3618 1615 1805 3618 1615 Ped Intf Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No Yes Yes Reference Time 0.0 0.0 3.2 35.0 0.1 0.2 33.7 5.9 Adj Reference Time 0.0 0.0 8.0 39.0 8.0 8.0 37.7 9.9 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 0 1935 0 1314 120 1809 120 1809 Reference Time A 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.2 47.9 35.0 3.0 33.7 Adj Saturation B (vph 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA Reference Time B 13.5 16.5 8.1 8.1 NA NA NA NA Reference Time 7.7 0.2 47.9 33.7 Adj Reference Time 11.7 8.0 51.9 37.7 Split Option Ref Time Combined 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.1 3.2 35.0 0.2 33.7 Ref Time Seperate 5.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 3.2 35.0 0.2 33.7 Reference Time 8.5 8.5 0.1 0.1 35.0 35.0 33.7 33.7 Adj Reference Time 12.5 12.5 8.0 8.0 39.0 39.0 37.7 37.7 Summary EB WB NE SW Combined Protected Option NA 47.0 Permitted Option 11.7 51.9 Split Option 20.5 76.7 Minimum 11.7 47.0 58.7 Right Turns NER SWR Adj Reference Time 8.0 9.9 Cross Thru Ref Time 11.7 8.0 Oncoming Left Ref Time 8.0 8.0 Combined 27.7 25.9 Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.9% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Intersection Capacity Utilization 6: Flathead & Montclair 7/2/2013 2013 plus off peak site 5/14/2013 Baseline 8 Report Page 2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 96 10 11 96 4 5 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing Free Right No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 106 0 0 107 9 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.99 0.85 0.95 0.99 0.90 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 1873 0 0 1890 1703 0 Ped Intf Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No No Reference Time 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time 0.0 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 1873 0 751 114 Reference Time A 6.8 0.0 17.1 9.5 Adj Saturation B (vph 1873 0 0 NA Reference Time B 6.8 8.7 14.8 NA Reference Time 6.8 14.8 Adj Reference Time 10.8 18.8 Split Option Ref Time Combined 6.8 0.0 6.8 0.6 Ref Time Seperate 6.2 0.7 6.1 0.3 Reference Time 6.8 6.8 6.8 0.6 Adj Reference Time 10.8 10.8 10.8 8.0 Summary EB WB NB Combined Protected Option NA NA Permitted Option 18.8 Err Split Option 21.6 8.0 Minimum 18.8 8.0 26.8 Right Turns Adj Reference Time Cross Thru Ref Time Oncoming Left Ref Time Combined Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.3% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Intersection Capacity Utilization 8: Access/Montclair 7/2/2013 2013 plus off peak site 5/14/2013 Baseline 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 1 29 14 12 13 3 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing Free Right No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 30 26 0 16 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 1.00 0.93 0.85 0.93 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 0 1897 1768 0 1772 0 Ped Intf Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No No Reference Time 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time 0.0 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 0 1285 1768 118 Reference Time A 0.0 2.8 1.8 16.3 Adj Saturation B (vph 0 0 1768 NA Reference Time B 8.1 9.9 1.8 NA Reference Time 2.8 1.8 Adj Reference Time 8.0 8.0 Split Option Ref Time Combined 0.0 1.9 1.8 1.1 Ref Time Seperate 0.1 1.8 0.9 0.9 Reference Time 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.1 Adj Reference Time 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Summary EB WB SB Combined Protected Option NA NA Permitted Option 8.0 Err Split Option 16.0 8.0 Minimum 8.0 8.0 16.0 Right Turns Adj Reference Time Cross Thru Ref Time Oncoming Left Ref Time Combined Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Intersection Capacity Utilization 9: Oregon & Montclair 7/2/2013 2013 plus off peak site 5/14/2013 Baseline 8 Report Page 4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 36 6 77 23 3 70 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing Free Right No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 42 0 0 100 73 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.98 0.85 0.95 0.96 0.85 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 1859 0 0 1827 1623 0 Ped Intf Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No No Reference Time 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time 0.0 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 1859 0 146 108 Reference Time A 2.7 0.0 81.9 80.9 Adj Saturation B (vph 1859 0 0 NA Reference Time B 2.7 13.1 14.6 NA Reference Time 2.7 14.6 Adj Reference Time 8.0 18.6 Split Option Ref Time Combined 2.7 0.0 6.6 5.4 Ref Time Seperate 2.3 5.1 1.5 0.2 Reference Time 2.7 6.6 6.6 5.4 Adj Reference Time 8.0 10.6 10.6 9.4 Summary EB WB NB Combined Protected Option NA NA Permitted Option 18.6 Err Split Option 18.6 9.4 Minimum 18.6 9.4 28.0 Right Turns Adj Reference Time Cross Thru Ref Time Oncoming Left Ref Time Combined Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 23.3% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Intersection Capacity Utilization 13: Park Dr/Flathead Dr & US 2 7/2/2013 2013 plus off peak site 5/14/2013 Baseline 8 Report Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 11 954 72 265 795 6 0 0 276 0 0 30 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 11 954 72 265 795 6 0 0 276 0 30 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.85 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 1805 3618 1615 1805 3618 1615 0 0 1615 0 1615 0 Ped Intf Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed Yes Yes No No Reference Time 0.7 31.6 5.3 17.6 26.4 0.4 20.5 0.0 Adj Reference Time 8.0 35.6 9.3 21.6 30.4 8.0 24.5 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 120 1809 120 1809 0 0 0 1615 Reference Time A 11.0 31.6 264.3 26.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 Adj Saturation B (vph NA NA NA NA 0 0 0 1615 Reference Time B NA NA NA NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 Reference Time 31.6 264.3 0.0 2.2 Adj Reference Time 35.6 268.3 8.0 8.0 Split Option Ref Time Combined 0.7 31.6 17.6 26.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 Ref Time Seperate 0.7 31.6 17.6 26.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Reference Time 31.6 31.6 26.4 26.4 0.0 0.0 2.2 2.2 Adj Reference Time 35.6 35.6 30.4 30.4 0.0 0.0 8.0 8.0 Summary EB WB NB SB Combined Protected Option 57.3 NA Permitted Option 268.3 8.0 Split Option 66.0 8.0 Minimum 57.3 8.0 65.3 Right Turns EBR WBR NBR Adj Reference Time 9.3 8.0 24.5 Cross Thru Ref Time 8.0 0.0 35.6 Oncoming Left Ref Time 21.6 8.0 8.0 Combined 39.0 16.0 68.2 Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.8% ICU Level of Service B Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Intersection Capacity Utilization 17: Whitefish Stage & Oregon 7/2/2013 2013 plus off peak site 5/14/2013 Baseline 8 Report Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 27 0 0 27 0 0 27 0 0 27 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 0.93 0.85 0.95 0.93 0.85 0.95 0.93 0.85 0.95 0.93 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 0 1775 0 0 1775 0 0 1775 0 0 1775 0 Ped Intf Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No No No Reference Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 0 1351 0 1351 0 1351 0 1351 Reference Time A 0.0 2.4 0.0 2.4 0.0 2.4 0.0 2.4 Adj Saturation B (vph 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reference Time B 8.6 9.8 8.6 9.8 8.6 9.8 8.6 9.8 Reference Time 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 Adj Reference Time 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Split Option Ref Time Combined 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.8 Ref Time Seperate 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 Reference Time 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 Adj Reference Time 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Summary EB WB NB SB Combined Protected Option NA NA Permitted Option 8.0 8.0 Split Option 16.0 16.0 Minimum 8.0 8.0 16.0 Right Turns Adj Reference Time Cross Thru Ref Time Oncoming Left Ref Time Combined Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Intersection Capacity Utilization 19: Whitefish Stage 7/2/2013 2013 plus off peak site 5/14/2013 Baseline 8 Report Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 1805 3618 1615 1805 3618 1615 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 Ped Intf Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed Yes Yes Yes Yes Reference Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 120 1809 120 1809 120 1900 120 1900 Reference Time A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Adj Saturation B (vph 0 3618 0 3618 0 1900 0 1900 Reference Time B 8.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 Reference Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Split Option Ref Time Combined 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ref Time Seperate 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Reference Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Summary EB WB NB SB Combined Protected Option 16.0 16.0 Permitted Option 8.0 8.0 Split Option 0.0 0.0 Minimum 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turns EBR WBR NBR SBR Adj Reference Time 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Cross Thru Ref Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Oncoming Left Ref Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Combined 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 0.0% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Intersection Capacity Utilization 21: Whitefish Stage & Access 7/2/2013 2013 plus off peak site 5/14/2013 Baseline 8 Report Page 8 Movement NBT NBR SBL SBT SWL SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 410 6 1 342 9 7 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing Free Right No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 416 0 0 343 16 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 1896 0 0 1900 1725 0 Ped Intf Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No No Reference Time 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time 0.0 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 1896 0 1825 115 Reference Time A 26.3 0.0 22.6 16.7 Adj Saturation B (vph NA NA NA NA Reference Time B NA NA NA NA Reference Time 26.3 22.6 Adj Reference Time 30.3 26.6 Split Option Ref Time Combined 26.3 0.0 21.7 1.1 Ref Time Seperate 26.0 0.1 21.6 0.6 Reference Time 26.3 21.7 21.7 1.1 Adj Reference Time 30.3 25.7 25.7 8.0 Summary NB SB SW Combined Protected Option NA NA Permitted Option 30.3 Err Split Option 56.0 8.0 Minimum 30.3 8.0 38.3 Right Turns Adj Reference Time Cross Thru Ref Time Oncoming Left Ref Time Combined Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.9% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Intersection Capacity Utilization 2: US 2 & Montclair 7/2/2013 2013 plus off peak site with improvements 5/14/2013 Baseline 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 82 0 42 2 0 0 48 1055 1 3 1015 80 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 82 42 0 2 0 48 1055 1 3 1015 80 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 0 1805 1615 0 1805 0 1805 3618 1615 1805 3618 1615 Ped Intf Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No Yes Yes Reference Time 3.1 0.0 3.2 35.0 0.1 0.2 33.7 5.9 Adj Reference Time 8.0 0.0 8.0 39.0 8.0 8.0 37.7 9.9 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 0 1925 0 [PHONE REDACTED] 120 1809 Reference Time A 0.0 5.1 0.0 2.0 47.9 35.0 3.0 33.7 Adj Saturation B (vph 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA Reference Time B 13.5 13.5 8.1 8.1 NA NA NA NA Reference Time 5.1 2.0 47.9 33.7 Adj Reference Time 9.1 8.0 51.9 37.7 Split Option Ref Time Combined 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.1 3.2 35.0 0.2 33.7 Ref Time Seperate 5.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 3.2 35.0 0.2 33.7 Reference Time 5.5 5.5 0.1 0.1 35.0 35.0 33.7 33.7 Adj Reference Time 9.5 9.5 8.0 8.0 39.0 39.0 37.7 37.7 Summary EB WB NE SW Combined Protected Option NA 47.0 Permitted Option 9.1 51.9 Split Option 17.5 76.7 Minimum 9.1 47.0 56.1 Right Turns EBR NER SWR Adj Reference Time 8.0 8.0 9.9 Cross Thru Ref Time 37.7 9.1 8.0 Oncoming Left Ref Time 8.0 8.0 8.0 Combined 53.7 25.1 25.9 Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.8% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Intersection Capacity Utilization 6: Flathead & Montclair 7/2/2013 2013 plus off peak site with improvements 5/14/2013 Baseline 8 Report Page 2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 96 10 11 96 4 5 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing Free Right No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 106 0 0 107 9 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.99 0.85 0.95 0.99 0.90 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 1873 0 0 1890 1703 0 Ped Intf Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No No Reference Time 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time 0.0 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 1873 0 751 114 Reference Time A 6.8 0.0 17.1 9.5 Adj Saturation B (vph 1873 0 0 NA Reference Time B 6.8 8.7 14.8 NA Reference Time 6.8 14.8 Adj Reference Time 10.8 18.8 Split Option Ref Time Combined 6.8 0.0 6.8 0.6 Ref Time Seperate 6.2 0.7 6.1 0.3 Reference Time 6.8 6.8 6.8 0.6 Adj Reference Time 10.8 10.8 10.8 8.0 Summary EB WB NB Combined Protected Option NA NA Permitted Option 18.8 Err Split Option 21.6 8.0 Minimum 18.8 8.0 26.8 Right Turns Adj Reference Time Cross Thru Ref Time Oncoming Left Ref Time Combined Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.3% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Intersection Capacity Utilization 8: Access/Montclair 7/2/2013 2013 plus off peak site with improvements 5/14/2013 Baseline 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 1 29 14 12 13 3 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing Free Right No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 30 26 0 16 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 1.00 0.93 0.85 0.93 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 0 1897 1768 0 1772 0 Ped Intf Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No No Reference Time 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time 0.0 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 0 1285 1768 118 Reference Time A 0.0 2.8 1.8 16.3 Adj Saturation B (vph 0 0 1768 NA Reference Time B 8.1 9.9 1.8 NA Reference Time 2.8 1.8 Adj Reference Time 8.0 8.0 Split Option Ref Time Combined 0.0 1.9 1.8 1.1 Ref Time Seperate 0.1 1.8 0.9 0.9 Reference Time 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.1 Adj Reference Time 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Summary EB WB SB Combined Protected Option NA NA Permitted Option 8.0 Err Split Option 16.0 8.0 Minimum 8.0 8.0 16.0 Right Turns Adj Reference Time Cross Thru Ref Time Oncoming Left Ref Time Combined Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Intersection Capacity Utilization 9: Oregon & Montclair 7/2/2013 2013 plus off peak site with improvements 5/14/2013 Baseline 8 Report Page 4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 36 6 77 23 3 70 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing Free Right No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 42 0 0 100 73 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.98 0.85 0.95 0.96 0.85 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 1859 0 0 1827 1623 0 Ped Intf Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No No Reference Time 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time 0.0 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 1859 0 146 108 Reference Time A 2.7 0.0 81.9 80.9 Adj Saturation B (vph 1859 0 0 NA Reference Time B 2.7 13.1 14.6 NA Reference Time 2.7 14.6 Adj Reference Time 8.0 18.6 Split Option Ref Time Combined 2.7 0.0 6.6 5.4 Ref Time Seperate 2.3 5.1 1.5 0.2 Reference Time 2.7 6.6 6.6 5.4 Adj Reference Time 8.0 10.6 10.6 9.4 Summary EB WB NB Combined Protected Option NA NA Permitted Option 18.6 Err Split Option 18.6 9.4 Minimum 18.6 9.4 28.0 Right Turns Adj Reference Time Cross Thru Ref Time Oncoming Left Ref Time Combined Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 23.3% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Intersection Capacity Utilization 13: Park Dr/Flathead Dr & US 2 7/2/2013 2013 plus off peak site with improvements 5/14/2013 Baseline 8 Report Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 11 954 72 265 795 6 0 0 276 0 0 30 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 11 954 72 265 795 6 0 0 276 0 30 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.85 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 1805 3618 1615 1805 3618 1615 0 1900 1615 0 1615 0 Ped Intf Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed Yes Yes No No Reference Time 0.7 31.6 5.3 17.6 26.4 0.4 20.5 0.0 Adj Reference Time 8.0 35.6 9.3 21.6 30.4 8.0 24.5 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 120 1809 120 1809 0 1900 0 1615 Reference Time A 11.0 31.6 264.3 26.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 Adj Saturation B (vph NA NA NA NA 0 1900 0 1615 Reference Time B NA NA NA NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 Reference Time 31.6 264.3 0.0 2.2 Adj Reference Time 35.6 268.3 8.0 8.0 Split Option Ref Time Combined 0.7 31.6 17.6 26.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 Ref Time Seperate 0.7 31.6 17.6 26.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Reference Time 31.6 31.6 26.4 26.4 0.0 0.0 2.2 2.2 Adj Reference Time 35.6 35.6 30.4 30.4 0.0 0.0 8.0 8.0 Summary EB WB NB SB Combined Protected Option 57.3 NA Permitted Option 268.3 8.0 Split Option 66.0 8.0 Minimum 57.3 8.0 65.3 Right Turns EBR WBR NBR Adj Reference Time 9.3 8.0 24.5 Cross Thru Ref Time 8.0 0.0 35.6 Oncoming Left Ref Time 21.6 8.0 8.0 Combined 39.0 16.0 68.2 Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.8% ICU Level of Service B Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Intersection Capacity Utilization 17: Whitefish Stage & Oregon 7/2/2013 2013 plus off peak site with improvements 5/14/2013 Baseline 8 Report Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 27 0 0 27 0 0 27 0 0 27 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 0.93 0.85 0.95 0.93 0.85 0.95 0.93 0.85 0.95 0.93 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 0 1775 0 0 1775 0 0 1775 0 0 1775 0 Ped Intf Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No No No Reference Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 0 1351 0 1351 0 1351 0 1351 Reference Time A 0.0 2.4 0.0 2.4 0.0 2.4 0.0 2.4 Adj Saturation B (vph 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reference Time B 8.6 9.8 8.6 9.8 8.6 9.8 8.6 9.8 Reference Time 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 Adj Reference Time 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Split Option Ref Time Combined 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.8 Ref Time Seperate 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 Reference Time 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 Adj Reference Time 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Summary EB WB NB SB Combined Protected Option NA NA Permitted Option 8.0 8.0 Split Option 16.0 16.0 Minimum 8.0 8.0 16.0 Right Turns Adj Reference Time Cross Thru Ref Time Oncoming Left Ref Time Combined Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Intersection Capacity Utilization 19: Whitefish Stage 7/2/2013 2013 plus off peak site with improvements 5/14/2013 Baseline 8 Report Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing Free Right No No No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 1805 3618 1615 1805 3618 1615 1805 1900 1615 1805 1900 1615 Ped Intf Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed Yes Yes Yes Yes Reference Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 120 1809 120 1809 120 1900 120 1900 Reference Time A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Adj Saturation B (vph 0 3618 0 3618 0 1900 0 1900 Reference Time B 8.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 Reference Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Split Option Ref Time Combined 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ref Time Seperate 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Reference Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Summary EB WB NB SB Combined Protected Option 16.0 16.0 Permitted Option 8.0 8.0 Split Option 0.0 0.0 Minimum 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turns EBR WBR NBR SBR Adj Reference Time 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Cross Thru Ref Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Oncoming Left Ref Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Combined 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 0.0% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Intersection Capacity Utilization 21: Whitefish Stage & Access 7/2/2013 2013 plus off peak site with improvements 5/14/2013 Baseline 8 Report Page 8 Movement NBT NBR SBL SBT SWL SWR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 410 6 1 342 9 7 Pedestrians Ped Button Pedestrian Timing Free Right No No Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lost Time 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Green 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Refr Cycle Length 120 120 120 120 120 120 Volume Combined (vph) 416 0 0 343 16 0 Lane Utilization Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Factor (vph) 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.85 Saturated Flow (vph) 1896 0 0 1900 1725 0 Ped Intf Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Frequency 0.00 0.00 0.00 Protected Option Allowed No No No Reference Time 0.0 0.0 Adj Reference Time 0.0 0.0 Permitted Option Adj Saturation A (vph) 1896 0 1825 115 Reference Time A 26.3 0.0 22.6 16.7 Adj Saturation B (vph NA NA NA NA Reference Time B NA NA NA NA Reference Time 26.3 22.6 Adj Reference Time 30.3 26.6 Split Option Ref Time Combined 26.3 0.0 21.7 1.1 Ref Time Seperate 26.0 0.1 21.6 0.6 Reference Time 26.3 21.7 21.7 1.1 Adj Reference Time 30.3 25.7 25.7 8.0 Summary NB SB SW Combined Protected Option NA NA Permitted Option 30.3 Err Split Option 56.0 8.0 Minimum 30.3 8.0 38.3 Right Turns Adj Reference Time Cross Thru Ref Time Oncoming Left Ref Time Combined Intersection Summary Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.9% ICU Level of Service A Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX E 2013 Background Plus Site Signal Warrants Analysis Worksheets ---PAGE BREAK--- Warrants Volume Information Analyst Thomas McMurtry Agency/Co KLJ Date Performed 5/13/2013 Project ID FCEDA TIS East/West Street Montclair File Name Warrant Montclair 2013 plus site Intersection Jurisdiction Units U.S. Customary Time Period Analyzed North/South Street US 2 Major Street North-South Project Description FCEDA TIS Warrant 1 Warrant 2 Warrant 3 Volume Summary Major Street Lanes 2+ Minor Street Lanes 1 Speed 45 Population 10000+ Hours Major Volume Minor Volume Total Volume 1A (70%) 1A (56%) 1B (70%) 1B (56%) 2 (70%) 3A (70%) 3B (70%) 07-08 980 40 1020 No No No No No No No 08-09 1030 40 1070 No No No No No No No 09-10 880 40 920 No No No No No No No 10-11 1010 40 1050 No No No No No No No 11-12 1180 60 1240 No No Yes Yes No No No 12-13 1350 80 1430 No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes 13-14 1810 80 1890 No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes 14-15 1810 80 1890 No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes 15-16 2030 90 2120 No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 16-17 2170 124 2294 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 17-18 2210 124 2334 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 18-19 1720 80 1800 No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Totals 18180 878 19058 2 3 8 8 7 0 7 Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.5 Generated: 7/2/2013 12:40 PM Page 1 of 1 Warrants Volume 7/2/2013 file:///C:/Users/thomasmcmurtry/AppData/Local/Temp/w2k7843.tmp ---PAGE BREAK--- Warrants Summary Information Analyst Thomas McMurtry Agency/Co KLJ Date Performed 5/13/2013 Project ID FCEDA TIS East/West Street Montclair File Name Warrant Montclair 2013 plus site Intersection Jurisdiction Units U.S. Customary Time Period Analyzed North/South Street US 2 Major Street North-South Project Description FCEDA TIS General Roadway Network Major Street Speed (mph) 45 Nearest Signal (ft) 695 Crashes (per year) 6 Population < 10,000 Coordinated Signal System Adequate Trials of Alternatives Two Major Routes Weekend Count 5-yr Growth Factor 0 Geometry and Traffic EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 Lane usage LTR LTR L T R L TR Vehicle Volume Averages (vph) 48 0 24 0 0 0 31 683 0 0 738 61 Peds (ped/h) / Gaps (gaps/h) 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Delay (s/veh) / (veh-hr) 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Warrant 1: Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume 1 A. Minimum Vehicular Volumes (Both major approaches --and-- higher minor approach) 1 B. Interruption of Continuous Traffic (Both major approaches --and-- higher minor approach) 1 80% Vehicular --and-- Interruption Volumes (Both major approaches --and-- higher minor approach) Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume 2 A. Four-Hour Vehicular Volumes (Both major approaches --and-- higher minor approach) Warrant 3: Peak Hour 3 A. Peak-Hour Conditions (Minor delay --and-- minor volume --and-- total volume ) 3 B. Peak- Hour Vehicular Volumes (Both major approaches --and-- higher minor approach) Warrant 4: Pedestrian Volume 4 A. Four Hour Volumes 4 B. One-Hour Volumes Warrant 5: School Crossing 5. Student Volumes --and-- 5. Gaps Same Period Warrant 6: Coordinated Signal System 6. Degree of Platooning (Predominant direction or both directions) Warrant 7: Crash Experience 7 A. Adequate trials of alternatives, observance and enforcement failed --and-- 7 B. Reported crashes susceptible to correction by signal (12-month period) --and-- Page 1 of 2 Warrants Summary 7/2/2013 file:///C:/Users/thomasmcmurtry/AppData/Local/Temp/w2k7844.tmp ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 C. 80% Volumes for Warrants 1A, 1B 4 are satisfied Warrant 8: Roadway Network 8 A. Weekday Volume (Peak hour total --and-- projected warrants 1, 2 or 3) 8 B. Weekend Volume (Five hours total) Warrant 9: Grade Crossing 9 A. Grade Crossing within 140 ft --and-- 9 B. Peak-Hour Vehicular Volumes Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.5 Generated: 7/2/2013 12:42 PM Page 2 of 2 Warrants Summary 7/2/2013 file:///C:/Users/thomasmcmurtry/AppData/Local/Temp/w2k7844.tmp ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX F Planning Level Cost Estimate Assumptions ---PAGE BREAK--- Planning Level Cost Estimate Assumptions 1. The planning level cost estimate of installing a traffic signal was assumed to be $250,000. This was based on recently completed project and other published costs. A 25% contingency or $50,000 was added to the total cost. 2. Traffic signs are usually $100‐$300 each and there will be some labor to remove the old signs and install the new ones. A round cost of $1,000 was used. 3. Widening this intersection was assumed to use cover an area of about 2,000 square feet (50’x40’) with pavement at about $2 per square foot. Then there is also the cost of replacing the rail, which was estimated at $3,000‐$,4000 for a total around $8,000 a 20% contingency was added the planning level cost was rounded to $10,000 4. Realigning this intersection will impact the Office Max property, we calculated that about 0.20 acres would be required for a cost of $20,000. About one half mile of Montclair would have to be reconstructed for about $50,000. Then the intersection of US‐2 would have to be moved, we estimated that would cost $100,000 to $150,000. We added a 20% contingency for a grand total around $270,000. 5. Same as the signal above, the planning level cost estimate of installing a traffic signal was assumed to be $250,000. This was based on recently completed project and other published costs. A 25% contingency or $50,000 was added to the total cost. 6. Recently installed gates for at‐grade railroad crossing vary in cost. Gate cost estimates are between $175,000 and $250,000. Plus we have the lights, crossbucks, bells, electrical work, and advanced signs. We estimate the cost to be $1,000,000 to $2,000,000. $1,500,000 was used for this planning estimate. 7. We assumed $100,000 per mile of new two way roadway. We assumed these roads will be between 30‐40 feet wide and have a depth appropriate to accommodate heavy trucks. 3.75 miles of new roadway will be needed. We added a 20% contingency for a total of $450,000. Table 8 Planning Level Cost Estimates # Improvement Cost 1 *Install signal at Flathead Dr. and US‐2 *$300,000 2 Remove Stop control on Montclair Dr at RR $1,000 3 Widen railroad crossing on Montclair Dr $10,000 4 Move and realign Montclair Dr and US‐2 $270,000 5 Install signal at Montclair Dr. and US‐2 $300,000 6 Install lights, gates, bells at new RR crossing $1,500,000 7 New pavement for site access roads $450,000 Total $2,831,000 *Not a necessary improvement for the rail park development **All Costs are in 2013 US Dollars ---PAGE BREAK--- Memorandum Date: 12/20/2016 To: City of Kalispell From: Steve Grabill; Traffic Engineer; KLJ RE: Kalispell Trail and Complete Streets Traffic Analysis Remarks Kalispell Trail and Complete Streets A traffic analysis was performed to examine potential impacts related to each of the eight potential street connections that were considered along the abandoned rail bed and across the Kalispell Trail. These street connections options are listed below, and the potential traffic‐related impacts are in the following subsections of this Report. West Center Street (Meridian Court) to 2nd Street West 8th Avenue WN to West Center Street at 7th Avenue West 8th Avenue WN to West Center Street at 8th Avenue West 6th Avenue WN to West Center Street 4th Avenue WN to Kalispell Center Mall Access 3rd Avenue WN to Kalispell Center Mall Access 2nd Avenue WN to Kalispell Center Mall Access 1st Avenue WN to Kalispell Center Mall Access Whitefish Stage Road (7th Avenue EN) to Woodland Avenue with Trail Option General Traffic Assumptions The most current year of traffic data available in the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) Interactive Traffic Map was 2015. While these volumes will change over time, it was assumed that traffic increases over time in this part of town will be minimal. This is due to this area of town being largely developed. Further, there is likely to be some reduction of traffic on through corridors in Kalispell due to the recently completed west bypass. Year 2015 traffic volumes present on key corridors in the area are shown in Table 1. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2 of 9 Table 1, Year 2015 Average Daily Traffic Volumes With the exceptions of US 93/Main Street and Meridian Road, all other crossings of the Kalispell Trail carry under 6500 ADT. This is a strong indicator that any future connection across the Kalispell Trail will also carry under 6500 ADT. That traffic volume is readily carried by a two‐lane road facility, with addition of turn lanes possibly needed. For the purposes of this Report, it is assumed that new connection options would need additional right turn only lanes at locations where the new connection options intersect either Center Street or US Highway 2. Currently, left turn lanes exist along the entire segment of Center Street from 5th Avenue West to 3rd Avenue East. It is assumed that any connection options selected outside this segment of Center Street will require addition of left turn lanes on Center Street. These additional turn lanes are listed as potential changes in traffic and traffic control in the following section of the Report. West Center Street (Meridian Court) to 2nd Street West This connection option would not result in an additional crossing across the Kalispell Trail. Benefits and impacts associated with this option include the following: Benefits: Improved connectivity for the local street system Potential Changes in Traffic and Traffic Control: Increased traffic on the Meridian Court cul‐de‐sac ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 3 of 9 Given minimal connectivity and low traffic volumes expected with this option, addition of turn lanes is not anticipated. Impacts: More westbound through volumes on West Center Street, resulting in a reduction in Level of Service (LOS) at the West Center Street/South Meridian Road intersection Traffic Related Conclusions: While this option may have beneficial impacts to local street connectivity and convenience, the benefits are limited compared to impacts at the cul‐de‐sac and West Center Street/South Meridian Road intersection. 8th Avenue WN to West Center Street at 7th Avenue West This connection would result in a new crossing of the Kalispell Trail. Due to its location between 5th Avenue WN and Meridian Road, it is anticipated that this connection would reduce traffic at both the 5th Avenue WN and Meridian Road crossings. However, the zig‐zag alignment of this connection option would limit use of the alignment generally to persons traveling from SE to NW or vice versa. Benefits: Improved connectivity for the local street system Reduced traffic congestion on US 5th Avenue WN and on Meridian Road Potential Changes in Traffic and Traffic Control: Increased traffic on 7th Avenue W. south of W. Center Street Increased traffic on 8th Avenue WN south of US Highway 2 A new right turn lane may be needed on 8th Avenue WN where it intersects US Highway 2 A new right turn lane may be needed on 7th Avenue W where it intersects W. Center Street A new left turn lane would be needed on W. Center Street where it intersects the new connection Traffic control would include north‐south stop control (and future signalization if or when warranted) for connection traffic at the US Highway 2 and W. Center Street intersections, and east‐ west stop control for all other roads intersecting the new connection. Impacts: Existing boulevard green spaces would be reduced due to addition of turn lanes The north most access into the parking lot located in the southeast quadrant of the 8th Avenue WN/US Highway 2 intersection may need to be closed due to its close proximity to US Highway 2 Existing diagonal on‐street parking located on the east side of 8th Avenue WN and south of W. Montana Street would need to be eliminated The intersection skew where US Highway 2 intersects 8th Avenue WN may need to be corrected, resulting in minor losses in parking. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 4 of 9 Traffic Related Conclusions: Curvilinear alignment reduces the desirability and anticipated traffic use of this option. While this option may have beneficial impacts to local street connectivity and convenience, the benefits are limited compared to impacts associated with turn lane additions, access and removal of on‐ street parking. 8th Avenue WN to West Center Street at 8th Avenue West This connection would result in a new crossing of the Kalispell Trail. Due to its location between 5th Avenue WN and Meridian Road, it is anticipated that this connection would reduce traffic at both the 5th Avenue WN and Meridian Road crossings. Benefits: Improved connectivity for the local street system Reduced traffic congestion on US 5th Avenue WN and on Meridian Road Potential Changes in Traffic and Traffic Control: Increased traffic on 8th Avenue W. south of W. Center Street Increased traffic on 8th Avenue WN south of US Highway 2 A new right turn lane may be needed on 8th Avenue WN where it intersects US Highway 2 A new right turn lane may be needed on 8th Avenue W where it intersects W. Center Street A new left turn lane would be needed on W. Center Street where it intersects the new connection Traffic control would include north‐south stop control (and future signalization if or when warranted) for connection traffic at the US Highway 2 and W. Center Street intersections, and east‐ west stop control for all other roads intersecting the new connection. Impacts: The north most access into the parking lot located in the southeast quadrant of the 8th Avenue WN/US Highway 2 intersection may need to be closed due to its close proximity to US Highway 2 The intersection skew where US Highway 2 intersects 8th Avenue WN may need to be corrected, resulting in minor losses in parking. Traffic Related Conclusions: While this option may have beneficial impacts to local street connectivity and convenience, the benefits are limited compared to impacts associated with turn lane additions. 6th Avenue WN to West Center Street This connection would result in a new crossing of the Kalispell Trail. Due to its location near 5th Avenue WN, it is anticipated that this connection would reduce traffic at the 5th Avenue WN crossing. Benefits: ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 5 of 9 Improved connectivity for the local street system Reduced traffic congestion on US 5th Avenue WN Potential Changes in Traffic and Traffic Control: Increased traffic on 6th Avenue W. south of W. Center Street Increased traffic on 6th Avenue WN south of US Highway 2 A new right turn lane may be needed on 6th Avenue WN where it intersects US Highway 2 A new right turn lane may be needed on 6th Avenue W where it intersects W. Center Street A new left turn lane would be needed on W. Center Street where it intersects the new connection 6th Avenue WN would stop for both US Highway 2 and West Center Street. Traffic signals could be considered in the future if warranted. Impacts: The accesses into the parking lots located immediately south of the 6th Avenue WN/US Highway 2 intersection may need to be closed due to their close proximity to US Highway 2 Traffic Related Conclusions: While this option may have beneficial impacts to local street connectivity and convenience, the benefits are limited compared to impacts associated with turn lane additions and access. Additionally, proximity to 5th Avenue WN limit the use and benefit of this option. 4th Avenue WN to Kalispell Center Mall Access This connection would result in a new crossing of the Kalispell Trail. Due to its location near 5th Avenue WN, it is anticipated that this connection would primarily reduce traffic on 5th Avenue WN. The new connection to the parking lot would be offset from a major aisle in the parking lot, but this could be accommodated with some revisions to the parking lot. Benefits: Improved connectivity for the local street system Reduced traffic congestion on US 5th Avenue WN Potential Changes in Traffic and Traffic Control: Increased traffic on 4th Avenue WN between US Highway 2 and the Mall parking lot A new right turn lane may be needed on 4th Avenue WN where it intersects US Highway 2 Railroad Street West would stop for 4th Avenue West. Other streets would need to be monitored to determine whether other changes in traffic control are warranted. Impacts: The access into the parking lot located in the southeast quadrant of the 4th Avenue NW/US Highway 2 intersection may need to be closed due to its close proximity to US Highway 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 6 of 9 The Mall parking lot may need to be modified to address the offset between 4th Avenue W. and a major aisle in the parking lot Traffic Related Conclusions: This option would improve local street connectivity and convenience between the Mall parking lot and streets to the north, while reducing traffic volumes on 5th Avenue WN. Homes and businesses along 4th Avenue WN will be adversely impacted due to higher traffic levels in front of their properties. 3rd Avenue WN to Kalispell Center Mall Access This connection would result in a new crossing of the Kalispell Trail. Due to its location between 5th Avenue WN and US Highway 93/Main Street, it is anticipated that this connection would reduce traffic on both 5th Avenue WN and US Highway 93/Main Street. Traffic entering the Mall access road would need to turn left or right to access the Mall parking lots. Benefits: Improved connectivity for the local street system Reduced traffic congestion on US 5th Avenue West and US Highway 93/Main Street Potential Changes in Traffic and Traffic Control: Increased traffic on 3rd Avenue WN between US Highway 2 and the Mall parking lot A new right turn lane may be needed on 3rd Avenue WN where it intersects US Highway 2 Intersecting streets would need to be monitored to determine whether other changes in traffic control are warranted. This option may require changes to the one‐way Mall parking lot configurations on either side of 3rd Avenue WN Sight distances at the intersection of 3rd Avenue WN and the Kalispell Trail are obstructed by existing buildings. The proximity between the Mall access drive and the Kalispell Trail would make it difficult to control this intersection by stopping the vehicular traffic. Impacts: Homes and businesses along 3rd Avenue WN will be adversely impacted due to higher traffic levels in front of their properties. Traffic Related Conclusions: This option would improve local street connectivity and convenience between the Mall parking lot and streets to the north, while reducing traffic volumes on 5th Avenue WN and US Highway 93/Main Street. Safety challenges associated with visibility at the intersection of 3rd Avenue WN and the Kalispell Trail limit the feasibility of this option. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 7 of 9 2nd Avenue WN to Kalispell Center Mall Access This connection would result in a new crossing of the Kalispell Trail. Due to its location between 5th Avenue WN and US Highway 93/Main Street, it is anticipated that this connection would reduce traffic on both 5th Avenue WN and US Highway 93/Main Street. Traffic entering the Mall access road would need to turn left or right to access the Mall parking lots. Benefits: Improved connectivity for the local street system Reduced traffic congestion on US 5th Avenue WN and US Highway 93/Main Street Potential Changes in Traffic and Traffic Control: Increased traffic on 2nd Avenue WN between US Highway 2 and the Mall parking lot A new right turn lane may be needed on 2nd Avenue WN where it intersects US Highway 2 This option may require changes to the one‐way Mall parking lot configurations on either side of 2nd Avenue WN Local streets would need to be monitored to determine whether other changes in traffic control are warranted. Impacts: The access into the parking lot located in the southeast quadrant of the 2nd Avenue WN/US Highway 2 intersection may need to be closed due to its close proximity to US Highway 2 This option may require changes to the one‐way Mall parking lot configurations on either side of 2nd Avenue WN Traffic Related Conclusions: This option would improve local street connectivity and convenience between the Mall parking lot and streets to the north, while reducing traffic volumes on 5th Avenue WN and US Highway 93/Main Street. Homes and businesses along 2nd Avenue WN will be adversely impacted due to higher traffic levels in front of their properties. 1st Avenue WN to Kalispell Center Mall Access This connection would result in a new crossing of the Kalispell Trail. Due to its location near US Highway 93/Main Street, it is anticipated that this connection would reduce traffic on US Highway 93/Main Street. Due to the one‐way configuration of the Mall parking lot, traffic entering the Mall parking lot would need to turn right unless Mall parking lot configuration were revised. Benefits: Improved connectivity for the local street system Reduced traffic congestion on US Highway 93/Main Street ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 8 of 9 Potential Changes in Traffic and Traffic Control: Increased traffic on 1st Avenue WN between US Highway 2 and the Mall parking lot A new right turn lane may be needed on 1st Avenue WN where it intersects US Highway 2 This option may require changes to the one‐way Mall parking lot configurations on either side of 1st Avenue WN Local streets would need to be monitored to determine whether other changes in traffic control are warranted. Impacts: The accesses into the parking lots located immediately south of the 1st Avenue WN/US Highway 2 intersection may need to be closed due to their close proximity to US Highway 2 This option may require changes to the one‐way Mall parking lot configurations on either side of 1st Avenue WN Traffic Related Conclusions: This option would improve local street connectivity and convenience between the Mall parking lot and streets to the north, while reducing traffic volumes on US Highway 93/Main Street. Homes and businesses along 1st Avenue WN will be adversely impacted due to higher traffic levels in front of their properties. Whitefish Stage Road (7th Avenue EN) to Woodland Avenue with Trail Option This connection would result in a new crossing of the Kalispell Trail and is the east most connection option being considered. Due to its location near 4th Avenue EN, it is anticipated that this connection would primarily reduce traffic on 4th Avenue EN. Benefits: Improved connectivity for the local and regional street system Reduced traffic congestion on US 4th Avenue EN Potential Changes in Traffic and Traffic Control: Increased traffic would be most notable on the two block segment of 7th Avenue EN between US Highway 2 and where the road ends just north of the Kalispell Trail A new right turn lane may be needed on 7th Avenue EN where it intersects US Highway 2 Design efforts may need to address/avoid potential skew between the new connection and the Kalispell Trail The intersection of Woodland Avenue and E. Center Street would become a Tee intersection. Traffic control needs would require further analysis, but may result in E. Center Street stopping for Woodland Avenue Impacts: ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 9 of 9 Parallel and perpendicular parking immediately south of the 7th Avenue EN/US Highway 2 intersection may need to be eliminated due to its close proximity to US Highway 2 Perpendicular parking starting about 210 feet south the 7th Avenue EN/US Highway 2 intersection may need to be eliminated due to higher traffic on 7th Avenue EN and potential concerns with safety Traffic Related Conclusions: This option would improve local and regional street connectivity and convenience on the east side of Kalispell, while reducing traffic volumes on 4th Avenue EN. Both Woodland Avenue and Whitefish Stage Road (7th Avenue EN) offer significant connectivity to the south and north, which indicate this connection may offer increased benefit when compared to other connections. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D Cost Benefit Analysis ---PAGE BREAK--- Current Status/ Base line (No Build) & Problem to be Addressed Change to Baseline/ Alternatives Type of Impacts Population Affected by Impacts Economic Benefit Summary of Results ( Mill $ 2015) Reference in BCA write up Tab in Spreadsheet Reduced VMT on highways and roadways Vehicle drivers Monetized value of reduced truck miles generating fuel savings Estimated $7 million of fuel savings Pages 14 Table 8 Detailed Savings Gallons & MT CO2 Reduced pollutant emissio Local, state, region and national populations Monetized value of emission reductions Estimated $1.4 million in reduced emissions Page 14 Table 8 Detailed Savings Gallons & MT CO2 Improved efficiency in freight modal choice by switching freight to rail vs. truck Freight Shippers utilizing the Rail Park Monetized value of reduced operational costs to shippers Estimated $7 million operational costs savings to shippers Page 15 Table 9 Operational Savings Reduced road maintenance cost due to the reduction of VMT on highways Government Monetized value of reduced road maintenance costs to due to reduced VMT Estimated $6 million of Road maintenance savings to states and regions Page 16 Table 10 Road Maintenance Reduced potential fatalities on highways General public Monetized value of the reduction of potential fatalities on roadways to due to reduced VMT Estimated $11 million of reduced fatalities from reduction of Vehicle Miles Traveled Page 17 Table 11 Collision Costs Reduction in potential fatalities at six Downtown at-grade crossings General public Monetized value of the reduction of potential fatalities at six at-grade rail crossings Estimated $10 million of reduced fatalities from the closure of six at- grade crossings Page 17 Table 12 Collision Costs Reduction in potential pedestrian fatalities in core area General public Monetized value of the reduction of potential pedestrian fatalities at in core area Estimated $10 million of reduced pedestrian fatalities due to a safe separated trail to walk Page 18 Table 13 Pedestrian Fatality costs Project Matrix for Glacier Rail Park/Kalispell Core Area Development and Trail Project Build a Rail Park to consolidate rail loading and unloading into one location (rail hub). Thus will allow the conversion of currently long-haul truck trips to be converted to short truck trips supporting the local area and long distant rail hauls of the associated cargo. Build a trail to transform Kalispell into a walkable community by connecting the isolated populations to work and daily activity centers. This will be accomplished by removing and relocating the current core area rail users to the new rail park. Post opening of the new rail park, the rail line running through the Core Area will be abandoned and replaced with a trail that connects east and west Kalispell. It will also include the closure of six at-grade rail crossings that limit safe transportation options to daily activities in Kalispell's core area. Lack of Transportation options for freight and people in Kalispell, MT. This includes the lack of a centralized cost-effective/ efficient Rail loading/ unloading hub in Flathead Co. The use inefficient long haul trucking as the primarily modal option causes inefficient and costly routing of freight into and out of the region. The current rail facilities do not have the capacity to meet current and future cargo demands In addition, a current rail line passing through the Core Area of Kalispell, bifurcates downtown. This increases the safety risk of the residents and visitors as they attempt to cross this active line on a daily basis. ---PAGE BREAK--- Calendar Year Total Direct Beneficiaries (Reduction in Truck VMT) Total Benefits (2015$) Total Initial Costs & Residual Maintenance Costs (2015$) Undiscounted Net Benfits (2015$) Discounted Net Benefits 2015 $0 ($2,042,081) $0 ($2,042,081) ($2,042,081) 2016 $0 ($15,469,464) $0 ($15,469,464) ($14,457,443) 2017 1,560,000 $1,970,715 ($2,407,355) $0 ($436,640) ($349,561) 2018 1,560,000 $1,970,715 ($3,407,355) $0 ($1,436,640) ($1,141,164) 1 2019 1,606,800 $3,431,801 ($54,400) $3,377,401 $2,609,509 2 2020 1,655,004 $3,461,882 ($54,400) $3,407,482 $2,463,736 3 2021 1,704,654 $3,492,865 ($54,400) $3,438,465 $2,326,114 4 2022 1,755,794 $3,524,778 ($54,400) $3,470,378 $2,196,097 5 2023 1,808,468 $3,557,648 ($54,400) $3,503,248 $2,075,185 6 2024 1,862,722 $3,591,504 ($54,400) $3,537,104 $1,960,885 7 2025 1,918,603 $3,626,376 ($54,400) $3,571,976 $1,853,417 8 2026 1,976,161 $3,662,293 ($54,400) $3,607,893 $1,752,362 9 2027 2,035,446 $3,699,289 ($54,400) $3,644,889 $1,657,323 10 2028 2,096,510 $3,737,394 ($54,400) $3,682,994 $1,568,604 11 2029 2,159,405 $3,776,643 ($54,400) $3,722,243 $1,484,514 12 2030 2,224,187 $3,817,069 ($54,400) $3,762,669 $1,405,400 13 2031 2,290,913 $3,858,707 ($54,400) $3,804,307 $1,330,957 14 2032 2,359,640 $3,901,595 ($54,400) $3,847,195 $1,260,230 15 2033 2,430,429 $3,945,770 ($54,400) $3,891,370 $1,194,966 16 2034 2,503,342 $3,991,270 ($54,400) $3,936,870 $1,132,899 17 2035 2,578,442 $4,038,134 ($54,400) $3,983,734 $1,075,137 18 2036 2,655,796 $4,086,405 ($54,400) $4,032,005 $1,020,118 19 2037 2,735,469 $4,136,124 ($54,400) $4,081,724 $968,978 20 2038 2,817,534 $4,187,334 ($54,400) $4,132,934 $920,180 21 2039 2,902,060 $4,240,081 $17,406,535 ($54,400) $21,592,216 $4,305,855 Total 49,197,377 $83,706,390 ($5,919,720) ($1,088,000) $55,052,054 $18,572,215 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D Cost-Benefit Selection Criteria Summary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 A B C D E F G J K L M N Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 3% Quality of Life Converting current rail line going through Downtown to trail Property Values/ Noise Mitigation not calculated Quality of Life Fuel savings due to reduced miles traveled by cargo using Rail Park vs. Truck Gallons of fuel saved 2.6 million gallons of fuel saved by reducing miles traveled with modal shift to Rail 2,977,469 $ 4,730,461 $ 8% 13% Economic Competiveness Operational cost savings Savings of rail transport vs. truck transport 249 million ton miles @$0.071 savings per mile (truck/ barge vs. rail) 7,453,055 $ 11,841,059 $ 20% 32% State of Good Repair Reduction of maintenance on US Roads & Hwys, Consistent with State and Regional Plans Maintenance, preservation and upgrade savings of Highways 49 million VTM reduced off the highways 2,483,315 $ 3,945,373 $ 7% 11% Environmental SustainabilityEnvironmental Benefits from Reduced Emissions CO2 cost savings 22,408 metric tons of CO2 saved 920,932 $ 920,932 $ 2% 2% Safety Closing of 6 rail crossings in Downtown Kalispell Fatality cost savings of 1.1 fatalities $10.7 million saved 5,365,761 $ 8,131,428 $ 63% 63% Safety Reduced fatalities from reduction of VMT Fatality cost savings of 1.1 fatalities $10.2 million saved 5,139,806 $ 7,789,008 $ 37,005,362 $ 57,557,725 $ Safety Reduction of of pedestrian fatalities in Core Area upon completion of Trail Fatality cost savings of 3.4 fatalities $31.5 million saved 12,665,024 $ 20,199,463 $ ($18,433,147) ($14,652,909) $37,005,362 57,557,725 $ 18,572,215 $ 42,904,816 $ - $ - $ Benefit to Cost Ratio 2:1 4:1 2.0 3.9 check digits Monetized Value Total Cost Benefit to Cost Ratio Analysis Total Benefits Net Present Value Selection Criteria Description Inputs Value ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D Cost-Benefit Cost Benefit Summary 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U C ( K) Year Calendar Year non-CO2 Benefits Non-CO2 Costs Net non-CO2 Benefits (C+D) 7% NPV net non CO2 Benefits (E/1.07^A)) 3% NPV net non CO2 Benefits (E/1.03^A)) CO2 Reduced (Metric Tons) 3% SCC ( 2013$) Undiscounted CO2 Costs Avg SCC (H*I) NPV CO2 Costs @ 3% Avg SCC (J/1.03^A)) 7% NPV Total Benefits (F+K) 3% NPV Total Benefits (G+K) 7% NPV non CO2 Benefits (C/1.07^A)) 7% NPV non CO2 Cost (D/1.07^A)) NPV7% Benefit + NPV Co2 O+K 3% NPV non CO2 Benefits (C/1.03^A)) 3% NPV non CO2 Cost (D/1.03^A)) NPV3% Benefit + NPV Co2 S+K 0 2015 $0 (2,042,081) $ ($2,042,081) ($2,042,081) ($2,042,081) 0 44.00 $ $0 $0 ($2,042,081) ($2,042,081) $0 ($2,042,081) $0 $0 ($2,042,081) $0 1 2016 $0 (15,469,464) $ ($15,469,464) ($14,457,443) ($14,036,352) 0 45.00 $ $0 $0 ($14,457,443) ($14,036,352) $0 ($14,457,443) $0 $0 ($15,018,897) $0 2 2017 $1,970,715 (2,407,355) ($436,640) ($381,379) ($359,486) 734 46.00 $ $33,755 $31,817 ($349,561) ($327,669) $1,721,298 ($2,102,677) $1,753,116 $1,857,587 ($2,269,163) $1,889,405 3 2018 $1,970,715 (3,407,355) ($1,436,640) ($1,172,727) ($1,073,211) 734 47.00 $ $34,489 $31,562 ($1,141,164) ($1,041,649) $1,608,690 ($2,781,417) $1,640,252 $1,803,483 ($3,118,213) $1,835,045 4 2019 $3,431,801 (54,400) $3,377,401 $2,576,603 $2,289,279 756 49.00 $ $37,035 $32,905 $2,609,509 $2,322,184 $2,618,105 ($41,501) $2,651,010 $3,049,111 ($48,334) $3,082,016 5 2020 $3,461,882 (54,400) $3,407,482 $2,429,488 $2,095,697 778 51.00 $ $39,703 $34,248 $2,463,736 $2,129,946 $2,468,274 ($38,786) $2,502,522 $2,986,250 ($46,926) $3,020,498 6 2021 $3,492,865 (54,400) $3,438,465 $2,291,194 $1,918,839 802 52.00 $ $41,696 $34,920 $2,326,114 $1,953,759 $2,327,444 ($36,249) $2,362,363 $2,925,220 ($45,559) $2,960,139 7 2022 $3,524,778 (54,400) $3,470,378 $2,161,177 $1,757,235 826 52.00 $ $42,947 $34,920 $2,196,097 $1,792,154 $2,195,054 ($33,878) $2,229,974 $2,865,967 ($44,232) $2,900,887 8 2023 $3,557,648 (54,400) $3,503,248 $2,038,922 $1,609,544 851 54.00 $ $45,937 $36,263 $2,075,185 $1,645,807 $2,070,583 ($31,661) $2,106,846 $2,808,440 ($42,944) $2,844,703 9 2024 $3,591,504 (54,400) $3,537,104 $1,923,950 $1,474,548 876 55.00 $ $48,191 $36,935 $1,960,885 $1,511,482 $1,953,540 ($29,590) $1,990,475 $2,752,589 ($41,693) $2,789,523 10 2025 $3,626,376 (54,400) $3,571,976 $1,815,811 $1,351,134 902 56.00 $ $50,539 $37,606 $1,853,417 $1,388,740 $1,843,465 ($27,654) $1,881,072 $2,698,364 ($40,479) $2,735,970 11 2026 $3,662,293 (54,400) $3,607,893 $1,714,084 $1,238,291 930 57.00 $ $52,985 $38,278 $1,752,362 $1,276,568 $1,739,929 ($25,845) $1,778,207 $2,645,719 ($39,300) $2,683,996 12 2027 $3,699,289 (54,400) $3,644,889 $1,618,374 $1,135,095 957 58.00 $ $55,532 $38,949 $1,657,323 $1,174,044 $1,642,529 ($24,154) $1,681,478 $2,594,607 ($38,155) $2,633,556 13 2028 $3,737,394 (54,400) $3,682,994 $1,528,312 $1,040,706 986 60.00 $ $59,170 $40,292 $1,568,604 $1,080,998 $1,550,886 ($22,574) $1,591,178 $2,544,984 ($37,044) $2,585,276 14 2029 $3,776,643 (54,400) $3,722,243 $1,443,550 $954,357 1016 61.00 $ $61,961 $40,964 $1,484,514 $995,320 $1,464,647 ($21,097) $1,505,611 $2,496,806 ($35,965) $2,537,769 15 2030 $3,817,069 (54,400) $3,762,669 $1,363,764 $875,348 1046 62.00 $ $64,866 $41,635 $1,405,400 $916,984 $1,383,481 ($19,717) $1,425,117 $2,450,031 ($34,917) $2,491,666 16 2031 $3,858,707 (54,400) $3,804,307 $1,288,651 $803,044 1078 63.00 $ $67,890 $42,307 $1,330,957 $845,351 $1,307,078 ($18,427) $1,349,385 $2,404,619 ($33,900) $2,446,926 17 2032 $3,901,595 (54,400) $3,847,195 $1,217,923 $736,864 1110 63.00 $ $69,927 $42,307 $1,260,230 $779,171 $1,235,145 ($17,222) $1,277,452 $2,360,529 ($32,913) $2,402,836 18 2033 $3,945,770 (54,400) $3,891,370 $1,151,316 $676,277 1143 65.00 $ $74,311 $43,650 $1,194,966 $719,927 $1,167,411 ($16,095) $1,211,061 $2,317,724 ($31,954) $2,361,374 19 2034 $3,991,270 (54,400) $3,936,870 $1,088,577 $620,800 1178 66.00 $ $77,718 $44,321 $1,132,899 $665,122 $1,103,619 ($15,042) $1,147,941 $2,276,165 ($31,024) $2,320,487 20 2035 $4,038,134 (54,400) $3,983,734 $1,029,473 $569,994 1213 68.00 $ $82,475 $45,665 $1,075,137 $615,659 $1,043,531 ($14,058) $1,089,195 $2,235,817 ($30,120) $2,281,482 21 2036 $4,086,405 (54,400) $4,032,005 $973,782 $523,456 1249 69.00 $ $86,199 $46,336 $1,020,118 $569,792 $986,920 ($13,138) $1,033,256 $2,196,644 ($29,243) $2,242,980 22 2037 $4,136,124 (54,400) $4,081,724 $921,299 $480,819 1287 71.00 $ $91,358 $47,679 $968,978 $528,498 $933,578 ($12,279) $981,257 $2,158,612 ($28,391) $2,206,291 23 2038 $4,187,334 (54,400) $4,132,934 $871,830 $441,749 1325 72.00 $ $95,424 $48,351 $920,180 $490,099 $883,305 ($11,476) $931,656 $2,121,688 ($27,564) $2,170,038 24 2039 $4,240,081 17,352,135 $21,592,216 $4,256,832 $2,094,079 1365 73.00 $ $99,652 $49,022 $4,305,855 $2,143,102 $835,918 $3,420,915 $884,940 $2,085,839 $8,536,101 $2,134,861 Total $83,706,390 (7,062,120) $76,644,270 $17,651,283 $7,176,024 23,142 $1,413,762 $920,932 $18,572,215 $8,096,956 $36,084,430 ($18,433,147) $37,005,362 $56,636,793 ($14,652,909) $57,557,725 B/C Ratio 7% 2.01 3% 3.93 NPV 7% $18,572,215 3% $42,904,816 Cost Benefit Summary ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D Cost-Benefit Assumptions Year # Year Expected Yearly Cost (Construction and Maint.) -2/-3 2012/2013 -$1,191,531 Prior Year expenditure detail -1 2014 -$109,550 $ (1,301,081) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total 2012 2013 2014 2015 Grant Funds 0 2015 -$741,000 Planning 175,000.00 $ 60,000.00 $ 60,000.00 $ 36,000.00 $ Willdan 175,000.00 $ EPA 1 2016 -$15,469,464 Phase 1a- Planning 175,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 36,000 $ 331,000 $ Property Purchase/PE 856,151.00 $ 29,800.00 $ 49,550.00 $ x EDA and KLJ 60,000.00 $ State of Montana BSTF (1:1 Match) 2 2017 -$2,407,355 Environmental 70,580.00 $ EPA Brownfield ESAs 856,151.00 $ EDA 3 2018 -$3,407,355 -$23,326,255 Phase 1b- Property Purchase/ PE/ E 926,731 $ 29,800 $ 49,550 $ 36,000 $ 1,042,081 $ Engineering x x x 705,000.00 $ KLJ 70,580.00 $ EPA 4 2019 -$54,400 1,161,731.00 $ Total Grant Funds State and Federal 5 2020 -$54,400 Phase 1c- Final Design and Eng. 705,000 $ 705,000 $ Totals 1,101,731.00 $ 89,800.00 $ 109,550.00 $ 741,000.00 $ 2,044,093.00 $ 6 2021 -$54,400 7 2022 -$54,400 Phase 2 (TIGER FY2015 request) - $ - $ 15,469,464 $ 2,352,955 $ 3,352,955 $ - $ - $ - $ 21,175,374 $ 21,880,374 $ 8 2023 -$54,400 73% 11% 16% 0% 0% 0% 9 2024 -$54,400 Cash Outflow of Project 1,101,731 $ 89,800 $ 109,550 $ 741,000 $ 15,469,464 $ 2,352,955 $ 3,352,955 $ - $ - $ - $ 23,253,455 $ 10 2025 -$54,400 11 2026 -$54,400 Total Phase I 2,042,081 $ 12 2027 -$54,400 3,352,955 $ $3,352,955 13 2028 -$54,400 14 2029 -$54,400 3,352,955 $ 15 2030 -$54,400 16 2031 -$54,400 Allocation of costs # months Timeline Montly expediture 17 2032 -$54,400 Rail 15,469,464 $ 9 mo Mar 16 to Dec 16 18 2033 -$54,400 Trail 4,705,910 $ 12 mo July 17 to Jun 18 392,159 $ 19 2034 -$54,400 Contingency 1,000,000 $ 2018 20 2035 -$54,400 21,175,374 $ 21 2036 -$54,400 22 2037 -$54,400 23 2038 -$54,400 24 2039 -$54,400 Construction + Maint Costs -$24,468,655 Residual value 17,406,535 $ Net cost after Residual value (7,062,120.10) $ 54,400 $ $54,400 Road Maintenance Costs Saved by using Rail $0.12 cost/ per mile diverted off roads Referecne: WSDOT Cost Benefit Reduced operating costs to cargo owner to use Rail vs. Truck Rail vs truck transportation rate per ton mile ( $0.071* ton miles) 0.071 $ per ton mile Reference: WSDOT Cost Benefit Study Miles per gallon by mode Calculations Truck 6 mpg fuel usage Tons miles moved per gallon Rail 640 ton miles per gallon http://www.iwla.org/index.php?ht=a/GetDocumentAction/i/7799 Truck 160 ton miles per gallon assumes truck is 4 times less efficient than rail Barge 576 ton miles per gallon Fuel cost $2.73 per gallon source: Desiel price: average Rocky Moutains week of 4/27/2015 ( all grades) http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_gnd_dcus_r40_w.htm Calculation - Truck Rate ($0.10) - Rail Rate ($0.029) x Average Tons per Truck (20) x Distance x (The estimated annual number of truck trips shifting to rail as a result of the project). Assumptions Estimated Cash Outflow for Glacier Rail Park/Kalispell Core Area Development and Trail Project Annual Maintenance est by KLJ eng Avoided Maintenance Costs - By diverting trucks off the roadways and onto the railroads, the public can benefit form reductions in highway maintenance costs. The value of every truck mile diverted to rail saves $0.12/ mile Calculation - Total truck mileage per year x $0.12 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D Cost-Benefit Detailed Benefits 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Year Calendar Year Highway maintenance cost savings using rail vs truck Reduced severity of accidents due to crossing closures Reduced severity of accidents due to VMT reduction Reduction of Pedestrian fatalities due to the completion of the Trail Savings in operational cost of switching to rail Fuel saved GHG reduced* Highway maintenance cost savings using rail vs truck Reduced severity of accidents due to crossing closures Reduced severity of accidents due to VMT reduction Reduction of Pedestrian fatalities due to the completion of the Trail Savings in operational cost of switching to rail Fuel saved Highway maintence cost savings using rail vs truck Reduced severity of accidents due to crossing closures Reduced severity of accidents due to VMT reduction Reduction of Pedestrian fatalities due to the completion of the Trail Savings in operational cost of switching to rail Fuel saved (C/1.07^A)) (D/1.07^A)) (E/1.07^A)) (F/1.07^A)) (C/1.03^A)) (D/1.03^A)) (E/1.03^A)) (F/1.03^A)) 0 2015 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 2016 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2 2017 $187,200 $509,339 $487,890 $561,834 $224,451 $1,970,715 $163,508 $444,876 $426,142 $0 $490,728 $196,044 $176,454 $480,101 $459,883 $0 $529,583 $211,566 3 2018 $187,200 $509,339 $487,890 $561,834 $224,451 $1,970,715 $152,811 $415,772 $398,264 $0 $458,624 $183,219 $171,315 $466,117 $446,489 $0 $514,158 $205,404 4 2019 $192,816 $509,339 $487,890 $1,431,882 $578,689 $231,184 $3,431,801 $147,098 $388,572 $372,209 $1,092,376 $441,479 $176,369 $171,315 $452,541 $433,484 $1,272,209 $514,158 $205,404 5 2020 $198,600 $509,339 $487,890 $1,431,882 $596,050 $238,120 $3,461,882 $141,599 $363,152 $347,859 $1,020,912 $424,975 $169,776 $171,315 $439,360 $420,859 $1,235,154 $514,158 $205,404 6 2021 $204,558 $509,339 $487,890 $1,431,882 $613,932 $245,263 $3,492,865 $136,306 $339,394 $325,102 $954,124 $409,089 $163,429 $171,315 $426,563 $408,601 $1,199,179 $514,158 $205,404 7 2022 $210,695 $509,339 $487,890 $1,431,882 $632,350 $252,621 $3,524,778 $131,210 $317,191 $303,834 $891,704 $393,796 $157,320 $171,315 $414,139 $396,700 $1,164,251 $514,158 $205,404 8 2023 $217,016 $509,339 $487,890 $1,431,882 $651,320 $260,200 $3,557,648 $126,305 $296,440 $283,957 $833,368 $379,074 $151,439 $171,315 $402,077 $385,145 $1,130,341 $514,158 $205,404 9 2024 $223,527 $509,339 $487,890 $1,431,882 $670,860 $268,006 $3,591,504 $121,584 $277,047 $265,380 $778,849 $364,903 $145,778 $171,315 $390,366 $373,927 $1,097,418 $514,158 $205,404 10 2025 $230,232 $509,339 $487,890 $1,431,882 $690,985 $276,046 $3,626,376 $117,038 $258,922 $248,019 $727,896 $351,262 $140,328 $171,315 $378,996 $363,036 $1,065,455 $514,158 $205,404 11 2026 $237,139 $509,339 $487,890 $1,431,882 $711,715 $284,328 $3,662,293 $112,663 $241,983 $231,793 $680,277 $338,131 $135,082 $171,315 $367,957 $352,462 $1,034,422 $514,158 $205,404 12 2027 $244,254 $509,339 $487,890 $1,431,882 $733,066 $292,857 $3,699,289 $108,451 $226,153 $216,629 $635,773 $325,490 $130,032 $171,315 $357,240 $342,197 $1,004,293 $514,158 $205,404 13 2028 $251,581 $509,339 $487,890 $1,431,882 $755,058 $301,643 $3,737,394 $104,397 $211,358 $202,457 $594,180 $313,322 $125,171 $171,315 $346,835 $332,230 $975,042 $514,158 $205,404 14 2029 $259,129 $509,339 $487,890 $1,431,882 $777,710 $310,692 $3,776,643 $100,495 $197,530 $189,212 $555,309 $301,609 $120,492 $171,315 $336,733 $322,553 $946,643 $514,158 $205,404 15 2030 $266,902 $509,339 $487,890 $1,431,882 $801,041 $320,013 $3,817,069 $96,738 $184,608 $176,834 $518,980 $290,334 $115,988 $171,315 $326,925 $313,158 $919,071 $514,158 $205,404 16 2031 $274,910 $509,339 $487,890 $1,431,882 $825,073 $329,614 $3,858,707 $93,121 $172,531 $165,265 $485,028 $279,481 $111,652 $171,315 $317,403 $304,037 $892,302 $514,158 $205,404 17 2032 $283,157 $509,339 $487,890 $1,431,882 $849,825 $339,502 $3,901,595 $89,640 $161,244 $154,454 $453,297 $269,033 $107,478 $171,315 $308,158 $295,182 $866,312 $514,158 $205,404 18 2033 $291,652 $509,339 $487,890 $1,431,882 $875,320 $349,687 $3,945,770 $86,289 $150,695 $144,349 $423,642 $258,975 $103,460 $171,315 $299,183 $286,584 $841,080 $514,158 $205,404 19 2034 $300,401 $509,339 $487,890 $1,431,882 $901,579 $360,178 $3,991,270 $83,063 $140,836 $134,906 $395,927 $249,294 $99,592 $171,315 $290,469 $278,237 $816,582 $514,158 $205,404 20 2035 $309,413 $509,339 $487,890 $1,431,882 $928,627 $370,983 $4,038,134 $79,958 $131,623 $126,080 $370,026 $239,975 $95,869 $171,315 $282,009 $270,133 $792,798 $514,158 $205,404 21 2036 $318,695 $509,339 $487,890 $1,431,882 $956,485 $382,112 $4,086,405 $76,969 $123,012 $117,832 $345,818 $231,004 $92,285 $171,315 $273,795 $262,265 $769,707 $514,158 $205,404 22 2037 $328,256 $509,339 $487,890 $1,431,882 $985,180 $393,576 $4,136,124 $74,092 $114,965 $110,123 $323,195 $222,368 $88,835 $171,315 $265,820 $254,626 $747,289 $514,158 $205,404 23 2038 $338,104 $509,339 $487,890 $1,431,882 $1,014,735 $405,383 $4,187,334 $71,322 $107,443 $102,919 $302,051 $214,055 $85,514 $171,315 $258,078 $247,210 $725,523 $514,158 $205,404 24 2039 $348,247 $509,339 $487,890 $1,431,882 $1,045,177 $417,545 $4,240,081 $68,656 $100,414 $96,186 $282,291 $206,053 $82,318 $171,315 $250,561 $240,010 $704,391 $514,158 $205,404 $5,716,485 $11,205,458 $10,733,589 $30,069,526 $17,156,612 $6,854,005 $0 $81,735,675 $2,483,315 $5,365,761 $5,139,806 $12,665,024 $7,453,055 $2,977,469 $3,945,373 $8,131,428 $7,789,008 $20,199,463 $11,841,059 $4,730,461 $36,084,430 $56,636,793 cost ben summary co2 savings $920,932 920,932 $ check summary $37,005,362 $57,557,725 GHG Reduction to traffic improvements due to avialability of Rail service = Metric Tons Annual Social benefit of reduced accidents ( from Collision costs worksheet) 997,229 $ See Fuel savings above Assumptions Sum of PV Sum of PV *this will be added on the summary page Detailed Benefits before SCC Total Benefits before SCC PV PV Reductions due to modal change to rail ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D Cost-Benefit Detailed Savings 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA AB AC AD AE AF AG AH AI AJ AK AL AM AN AO AP AQ AR AS AT AU AV AW AX AY AZ Year # Year Rate of growth Total Tons Tons/ truck # Trucks Travel distance in Miles RT/ truck Total Truck Miles Total Ton miles Total Gallons of Truck Fuel used Tons/ barge # barges Travel distance RT in Miles/ barge Total Barge Miles Total Ton miles Total Gallons of Rail Fuel used Total Miles Total tons miles Total Fuel used in Gallons on Current Routing Reduction of 520 truck miles per truck of trucks Reduction in total gallons of fuel used by Truck Reduction in total Truck ton miles Reduction of 930 miles per barge of barge Reduction in total gallons of fuel used by Barge Reduction in total barge ton miles Tons/ railcar # railcars Total Additional rail ton miles Increased Travel distance in Miles/ railcar Total additional Rail Miles Total Additional Gallons of Rail Fuel used Reduction in miles Reduction in Ton miles Net Reduction in gallons of fuel used Reduction in operation cost based upon differential rate/ mile rail vs truck Total reduction in mode ton miles Total gallons save by moving cargo by rail vs truck Fuel savings due to modal change to rail Co2 savings@ 20 lbs/ gal CO2 in MT Social cost of Carbon Total $ saved in Social cost of Carbon +E*D10 25.86 +C/+D 624 Total tons * miles 6 mpg) 1500 930 +L * +M Total tons * miles See Q24 +I +P +R 520 mpg * miles 930 100 C/ W9 =+Y10*Z10*AB10 1292 0.071 $ miles +O-H @$2.731 / gal +AH*20 lbs +AJ/2240 MT only OW, empty bac 6 only OW, empty back 2005 ok 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 39.00 $ 2011 40.00 $ 2012 41.00 $ 2013 ok - - 0 43.00 $ 2014 77,580 3,000 624 1,872,000 48,409,920 312,000 51.7 930 48,100 72,149,400 125,259 1,920,100 120,559,320 437,259 - 0 44.00 $ $0 Base Year 2015 0 77,580 3,000 624 1,872,000 48,409,920 312,000 51.7 930 48,100 72,149,400 125,259 1,920,100 120,559,320 437,259 - - - $ - - - 0 45.00 $ $0 2015 0 1 2016 0 77,580 3,000 624 1,872,000 48,409,920 312,000 51.7 930 48,100 72,149,400 112,733 1,920,100 120,559,320 424,733 - - - $ - - - 0 46.00 $ $0 2016 1 1 year facility opens2 2017 77,580 3,000 624 1,872,000 48,409,920 312,000 51.7 930 48,100 72,149,400 112,733 1,920,100 120,559,320 424,733 1,560,000 126,068 20,170,800 48,100 112,733 72,149,400 776 (100,233,360) -1292 (1,002,334) (156,615) 605,766 (7,913,160) 82,186 561,834 $ (7,913,160) 82,186 $224,451 1,643,726 734 47.00 $ $34,489 2017 2 2 3 2018 77,580 3,000 624 1,872,000 48,409,920 312,000 51.7 930 48,100 72,149,400 112,733 1,920,100 120,559,320 424,733 1,560,000 126,068 20,170,800 48,100 112,733 72,149,400 776 (100,233,360) -1292 (1,002,334) (156,615) 605,766 (7,913,160) 82,186 561,834 $ (7,913,160) 82,186 $224,451 1,643,726 734 49.00 $ $35,957 2018 3 3 4 2019 3% 79,907 3,090 624 1,928,160 49,862,218 321,360 53.3 930 49,543 74,313,882 116,115 1,977,703 124,176,100 437,475 1,606,800 129,850 20,775,924 49,543 116,115 74,313,882 799 (103,240,361) -1292 (1,032,404) (161,313) 623,939 (8,150,555) 84,652 578,689 $ (8,150,555) 84,652 $231,184 1,693,038 756 51.00 $ $38,547 2019 4 4 5 2020 3% 82,305 3,183 624 1,986,005 51,358,084 331,001 54.9 930 51,029 76,543,298 119,599 2,037,034 127,901,383 450,600 1,655,004 133,745 21,399,202 51,029 119,599 76,543,298 823 (106,337,572) -1292 (1,063,376) (166,152) 642,657 (8,395,071) 87,191 596,050 $ (8,395,071) 87,191 $238,120 1,743,829 778 52.00 $ $40,482 2020 5 5 6 2021 3% 84,774 3,278 624 2,045,585 52,898,827 340,931 56.5 930 52,560 78,839,597 123,187 2,098,145 131,738,424 464,118 1,704,654 137,757 22,041,178 52,560 123,187 78,839,597 848 (109,527,699) -1292 (1,095,277) (171,137) 661,937 (8,646,924) 89,807 613,932 $ (8,646,924) 89,807 $245,263 1,796,144 802 52.00 $ $41,696 2021 6 6 7 2022 3% 87,317 3,377 624 2,106,952 54,485,791 351,159 58.2 930 54,137 81,204,785 126,882 2,161,089 135,690,577 478,041 1,755,794 141,890 22,702,413 54,137 126,882 81,204,785 873 (112,813,530) -1292 (1,128,135) (176,271) 681,795 (8,906,331) 92,501 632,350 $ (8,906,331) 92,501 $252,621 1,850,028 826 54.00 $ $44,599 2022 7 7 8 2023 3% 89,936 3,478 624 2,170,161 56,120,365 361,694 60.0 930 55,761 83,640,929 130,689 2,225,922 139,761,294 492,382 1,808,468 146,147 23,383,485 55,761 130,689 83,640,929 899 (116,197,936) -1292 (1,161,979) (181,559) 702,249 (9,173,521) 95,276 651,320 $ (9,173,521) 95,276 $260,200 1,905,529 851 55.00 $ $46,788 2023 8 8 9 2024 3% 92,635 3,582 624 2,235,266 57,803,976 372,544 61.8 930 57,433 86,150,157 134,610 2,292,699 143,954,133 507,154 1,862,722 150,531 24,084,990 57,433 134,610 86,150,157 926 (119,683,874) -1292 (1,196,839) (187,006) 723,316 (9,448,727) 98,135 670,860 $ (9,448,727) 98,135 $268,006 1,962,695 876 56.00 $ $49,067 2024 9 9 10 2025 3% 95,414 3,690 624 2,302,324 59,538,095 383,721 63.6 930 59,156 88,734,661 138,648 2,361,480 148,272,757 522,369 1,918,603 155,047 24,807,540 59,156 138,648 88,734,661 954 (123,274,390) -1292 (1,232,744) (192,616) 745,016 (9,732,189) 101,079 690,985 $ (9,732,189) 101,079 $276,046 2,021,576 902 57.00 $ $51,442 2025 10 10 11 2026 3% 98,276 3,800 624 2,371,394 61,324,238 395,232 65.5 930 60,931 91,396,701 142,807 2,432,325 152,720,940 538,040 1,976,161 159,699 25,551,766 60,931 142,807 91,396,701 983 (126,972,622) -1292 (1,269,726) (198,395) 767,366 (10,024,154) 104,111 711,715 $ (10,024,154) 104,111 $284,328 2,082,223 930 58.00 $ $53,915 2026 11 11 12 2027 3% 101,224 3,914 624 2,442,535 63,163,965 407,089 67.5 930 62,759 94,138,602 147,092 2,505,294 157,302,568 554,181 2,035,446 164,489 26,318,319 62,759 147,092 94,138,602 1012 (130,781,800) -1292 (1,307,818) (204,347) 790,387 (10,324,879) 107,234 733,066 $ (10,324,879) 107,234 $292,857 2,144,690 957 60.00 $ $57,447 2027 12 12 13 2028 3% 104,261 4,032 624 2,515,811 65,058,884 419,302 69.5 930 64,642 96,962,760 151,504 2,580,453 162,021,645 570,806 2,096,510 169,424 27,107,869 64,642 151,504 96,962,760 1043 (134,705,254) -1292 (1,347,053) (210,477) 814,099 (10,634,625) 110,452 755,058 $ (10,634,625) 110,452 $301,643 2,209,031 986 61.00 $ $60,157 2028 13 13 14 2029 3% 107,389 4,153 624 2,591,286 67,010,651 431,881 71.6 930 66,581 99,871,643 156,049 2,657,867 166,882,294 587,930 2,159,405 174,507 27,921,105 66,581 156,049 99,871,643 1074 (138,746,412) -1292 (1,387,464) (216,791) 838,522 (10,953,664) 113,765 777,710 $ (10,953,664) 113,765 $310,692 2,275,302 1016 62.00 $ $62,977 2029 14 14 15 2030 3% 110,611 4,277 624 2,669,024 69,020,970 444,837 73.7 930 68,579 102,867,793 160,731 2,737,603 171,888,763 605,568 2,224,187 179,742 28,758,738 68,579 160,731 102,867,793 1106 (142,908,804) -1292 (1,429,088) (223,295) 863,677 (11,282,274) 117,178 801,041 $ (11,282,274) 117,178 $320,013 2,343,561 1046 63.00 $ $65,913 2030 15 15 16 2031 3% 113,929 4,406 624 2,749,095 71,091,600 458,183 76.0 930 70,636 105,953,826 165,553 2,819,731 177,045,426 623,735 2,290,913 185,134 29,621,500 70,636 165,553 105,953,826 1139 (147,196,068) -1292 (1,471,961) (229,994) 889,588 (11,620,742) 120,693 825,073 $ (11,620,742) 120,693 $329,614 2,413,867 1078 63.00 $ $67,890 2031 16 16 17 2032 3% 117,347 4,538 624 2,831,568 73,224,348 471,928 78.2 930 72,755 109,132,441 170,519 2,904,323 182,356,789 642,447 2,359,640 190,688 30,510,145 72,755 170,519 109,132,441 1173 (151,611,950) -1292 (1,516,120) (236,894) 916,275 (11,969,365) 124,314 849,825 $ (11,969,365) 124,314 $339,502 2,486,283 1110 65.00 $ $72,147 2032 17 17 18 2033 3% 120,867 4,674 624 2,916,515 75,421,078 486,086 80.6 930 74,938 112,406,414 175,635 2,991,453 187,827,492 661,721 2,430,429 196,409 31,425,449 74,938 175,635 112,406,414 1209 (156,160,309) -1292 (1,561,603) (244,000) 943,764 (12,328,445) 128,044 875,320 $ (12,328,445) 128,044 $349,687 2,560,872 1143 66.00 $ $75,454 2033 18 18 19 2034 3% 124,493 4,814 624 3,004,010 77,683,710 500,668 83.0 930 77,186 115,778,607 180,904 3,081,196 193,462,317 681,572 2,503,342 202,301 32,368,213 77,186 180,904 115,778,607 1245 (160,845,118) -1292 (1,608,451) (251,320) 972,077 (12,698,299) 131,885 901,579 $ (12,698,299) 131,885 $360,178 2,637,698 1178 67.00 $ $78,895 2034 19 19 20 2035 3% 128,228 4,959 624 3,094,131 80,014,222 515,688 85.5 930 79,501 119,251,965 186,331 3,173,632 199,266,187 702,020 2,578,442 208,370 33,339,259 79,501 186,331 119,251,965 1282 (165,670,472) -1292 (1,656,705) (258,860) 1,001,239 (13,079,248) 135,841 928,627 $ (13,079,248) 135,841 $370,983 2,716,829 1213 68.00 $ $82,475 2035 20 20 21 2036 3% 132,075 5,107 624 3,186,955 82,414,648 531,159 88.0 930 81,886 122,829,524 191,921 3,268,841 205,244,172 723,080 2,655,796 214,621 34,339,437 81,886 191,921 122,829,524 1321 (170,640,586) -1292 (1,706,406) (266,626) 1,031,276 (13,471,625) 139,917 956,485 $ (13,471,625) 139,917 $382,112 2,798,334 1249 69.00 $ $86,199 2036 21 21 22 2037 3% 136,037 5,261 624 3,282,563 84,887,088 547,094 90.7 930 84,343 126,514,410 197,679 3,366,906 211,401,497 744,773 2,735,469 221,060 35,369,620 84,343 197,679 126,514,410 1360 (175,759,803) -1292 (1,757,598) (274,625) 1,062,214 (13,875,774) 144,114 985,180 $ (13,875,774) 144,114 $393,576 2,882,284 1287 71.00 $ $91,358 2037 22 22 23 2038 3% 140,118 5,418 624 3,381,040 87,433,700 563,507 93.4 930 86,873 130,309,842 203,609 3,467,913 217,743,542 767,116 2,817,534 227,692 36,430,708 86,873 203,609 130,309,842 1401 (181,032,598) -1292 (1,810,326) (282,863) 1,094,081 (14,292,047) 148,438 1,014,735 $ (14,292,047) 148,438 $405,383 2,968,752 1325 72.00 $ $95,424 2038 23 23 24 2039 3% 144,322 5,581 624 3,482,471 90,056,711 580,412 96.2 930 89,479 134,219,137 209,717 3,571,951 224,275,849 790,129 2,902,060 234,523 37,523,630 89,479 209,717 134,219,137 1443 (186,463,576) -1292 (1,864,636) (291,349) 1,126,903 (14,720,809) 152,891 1,045,177 $ (14,720,809) 152,891 $417,545 3,057,815 1365 73.00 $ $99,652 2039 24 - Total from 2015 for 24 years 19,103,909 2,591,892 17,718,447 $ (249,555,588) 2,591,892 $7,078,456 51,837,834 23,142 1,432,969 $ 62,780,853 1,623,512,851 Total for 24 years forward 2016-2039 + base 2015 year 49,197,377 3,975,763 636,122,088 1,516,907 3,555,250 2,275,359,776 23,690 (3,060,804,093) 19,103,909 17,718,447 $ (249,555,588) 2,591,892 $ 7,078,456 $ 51,837,834 $ 23,142 $ 1,391 $ 1,432,969 $ saved on highway Notes: Diesel price: average Rocky Moutains week of 4/27/15 2.73 $ Value of the trucker's time has not been calculated in this BCA Social cost of Carbon MT rail park assumed to open 1/2018, Estimated loads were developed based on 300 annual rail cars from moving from Lewiston to Seattle with the associated trucks from Lake Co to Lewiston In the future the move would by truck to Kalispell and rail from the Kalispell Rail Park to Seattle. Reduction in Truck miles with converting to rail from Kalispell Change due to conversion to delivery to Kalispell Rail Park vs. Lewiston, ID Current mode Grain / other truck to lewiston Savings from modal change from Truck to Rail Transportation SCC Calculations at 3% Calculation of Fuel savings Increase in Rail Miles Kalispell to Portland with conversion of current trucks delivering to Kalispell not Lewiston,ID Current Barge Miles Grain/ Other On truck from Lake Co ( Polson), MT to Lewiston to barge to PDX Grain/ Other Barge from Lewiston to PDX Current Routing a combo truck and Barge ( with truck to Lewiston) Reduction in Barge miles with converting to rail from Kalispell Railroad opens 1/1/2017 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D Cost-Benefit Collision Costs Page 9 Collision Type Current est. accident costs AIS Level Severity Fraction of VSL Unit value ($2013)* Conversation of Montana Traffic Accident Count by KABCO Current Annual social cost of Accidents Estimated reduction in injuries by 70 % per Insurance Inst Estimated Annual accident costs savings AIS 0 no injury $0 $0 AIS 1 Minor 0.003 $28,200 $0 $0 $0 AIS 2 Moderate 0.047 $441,800 $0 $0 $0 AIS 3 Serious 0.105 $987,000 $0 $0 $0 AIS 4 Severe 0.266 $2,500,400 $0 $0 $0 AIS 5 Critical 0.593 $5,574,200 $0 $0 $0 AIS 6 reduction VMT Unsurvivable 1.000 $9,400,000 0.051903 0 $487,890 $341,523 $487,890 AIS 6 due to crossing closure Unsurvivable 1.000 $9,400,000 0.054185 0 $509,339 $356,537 $509,339 Property Damage Only $3,285 $0 $0 $0 $997,229 $698,061 $997,229 *TIGER BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS (BCA) RESOURCE GUIDE updated 3/27/2015 annual savings Montana Traffic Fatalities Per 100 Million miles traveled on Roads 2.11 Annual Total Truck miles reduced over the 22 years 49,197,377 /22 2,459,869 Total Truck miles divided by 100 million miles 0.491973773 0.024598689 Estimated Fatalities Per 100 miles travel based upon Montana's experience 1.04 0.051903233 2013 Unsurvivable value $9,400,000 Annual life savings based upon reduced truck mileage $487,890.39 1.14 22 years after opening in yr 3. $10,733,589 Crossing MP City County Rank within County with 33 crossings Predictive Collision Train Speed # Tracks AADT Lanes 059375E 1226.70 Meridian Rd Kalispell Flathead 22 0.009105 10 mph 1 Main 10482 2 059374X 1226.30 5th Ave NW Kalispell Flathead 21 0.008358 10 mph 1 Main 7611 2 059373R 1226.10 Main St ((US 93) Kalispell Flathead 4 0.021198 5 mph 1 Main 25833 5 099099N 1225.93 1st Ave E (US723) Kalispell Flathead 33 0.000145 10 mph 2 Main 6409 3 059372J 1225.79 3rd Ave NE Kalispell Flathead 23 0.007626 10 mph 1 Main + 1 I 5422 4 059371C 1225.70 4th Ave NE Kalispell Flathead 24 0.007753 10 mph 1 Main 5761 2 Six crossings have an annual predictive collision rate of 0.054185 Total Predictive Collisions 0.054185 20 yrs 1.0837 20 yrs 10,186,780 $ Source: http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov U.S. DOT-Crossing inventory information as of 4/28/2015 http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/webaps/default.aspx post abandment and trail construction Conversion of Collision statistics based upon 100 Million miles travel by truck Conversion of Collision statistics based upon 100 Million miles travel by truck Total lives saved over 22 years RAILROAD CROSSING SAFETY Road Dollars saved Annual Average Effect on Accidents with conversion to rail ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D Cost-Benefit Road Maintenance Year Truck Miles saved Maintenance rate/ mile Total savings No Build Total Miles No Build Total Maintenance Cost Decrease in Maintenance Costs with full conversation to rail of the grain shipments $ 0.12 2014 - 0.12 $ - 1,872,000 224,640 $ - $ 2015 - 0.12 $ - 1,872,000 224,640 $ 2016 - 0.12 $ - 1,872,000 224,640 $ 2017 1,560,000 0.12 $ 187,200 1,872,000 224,640 $ 187,200 $ 2018 1,560,000 0.12 $ 187,200 $ 1,872,000 224,640 $ 187,200 $ 2019 1,606,800 0.12 $ 192,816 $ 1,928,160 231,379 $ 192,816 $ 2020 1,655,004 0.12 $ 198,600 $ 1,986,005 238,321 $ 198,600 $ 2021 1,704,654 0.12 $ 204,558 $ 2,045,585 245,470 $ 204,558 $ 2022 1,755,794 0.12 $ 210,695 $ 2,106,952 252,834 $ 210,695 $ 2023 1,808,468 0.12 $ 217,016 $ 2,170,161 260,419 $ 217,016 $ 2024 1,862,722 0.12 $ 223,527 $ 2,235,266 268,232 $ 223,527 $ 2025 1,918,603 0.12 $ 230,232 $ 2,302,324 276,279 $ 230,232 $ 2026 1,976,161 0.12 $ 237,139 $ 2,371,394 284,567 $ 237,139 $ 2027 2,035,446 0.12 $ 244,254 $ 2,442,535 293,104 $ 244,254 $ 2028 2,096,510 0.12 $ 251,581 $ 2,515,811 301,897 $ 251,581 $ 2029 2,159,405 0.12 $ 259,129 $ 2,591,286 310,954 $ 259,129 $ 2030 2,224,187 0.12 $ 266,902 $ 2,669,024 320,283 $ 266,902 $ 2031 2,290,913 0.12 $ 274,910 $ 2,749,095 329,891 $ 274,910 $ 2032 2,359,640 0.12 $ 283,157 $ 2,831,568 339,788 $ 283,157 $ 2033 2,430,429 0.12 $ 291,652 $ 2,916,515 349,982 $ 291,652 $ 2034 2,503,342 0.12 $ 300,401 $ 3,004,010 360,481 $ 300,401 $ 2035 2,578,442 0.12 $ 309,413 $ 3,094,131 371,296 $ 309,413 $ 2036 2,655,796 0.12 $ 318,695 $ 3,186,955 382,435 $ 318,695 $ 2037 2,735,469 0.12 $ 328,256 $ 3,282,563 393,908 $ 328,256 $ 2038 2,817,534 0.12 $ 338,104 $ 3,381,040 405,725 $ 338,104 $ 2039 2,902,060 0.12 $ 348,247 $ 3,482,471 417,897 $ 348,247 $ 49,197,377 5,903,685 $ 5,903,685 $ Decreased road maintenance due to construction of Phase II and conversion to rail ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D Cost-Benefit Pedestrian Fatalities Collision Type Current est. accident costs Effect on Accidents with addition of trail AIS Level Severity Fraction of VSL Unit value ($2013)* Conversation of Montana Traffic Trips Current Annual social cost of Accidents Estimated Annual accident costs savings AIS 6 reduction conflict of pedestrian and vehicles by building the trail Unsurvivable 1.000 $9,400,000 0.152328 $1,431,882 $1,431,882 $1,431,882 $1,431,882 *TIGER BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS (BCA) RESOURCE GUIDE updated 3/27/2015 annual savings Kalispel Traffic Fatalities Per 1 Million trips traveled 0.0435 Annual Total Potential vehicle Trip/ pedestrian interactions reduced over the 25 years 87,472,506 /25 3,498,900 Total Total trips divided by 1 million trips 87.47250642 3.498900257 Estimated Fatalities Per 1 million trips travel based upon Kalispell's experience 3.81 0.152327891 2013 Unsurvivable value $9,400,000 $1,431,882 3.35 $31,501,408 Conversion of Collision statistics based upon 100 Million miles travel by truck Conversion of Collision statistics based upon Daily Average Trips in the Center St. in Downtown Core Total lives saved over 20 years after completion of the trail Dollars saved Annual life savings based upon reduced trips ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D Cost-Benefit Gallons & MT CO2 Total gallons save by reduction in modal shift Fuel savings due to reduced VMT CO2 Reduced (Metric Tons) @$2.731 / gal 2015 - $0 2016 - $0 2017 82,186 $328,745 2018 82,186 $224,[PHONE REDACTED] 84,652 $231,[PHONE REDACTED] 87,191 $238,[PHONE REDACTED] 89,807 $245,[PHONE REDACTED] 92,501 $252,[PHONE REDACTED] 95,276 $260,[PHONE REDACTED] 98,135 $268,[PHONE REDACTED] 101,079 $276,[PHONE REDACTED] 104,111 $284,[PHONE REDACTED] 107,234 $292,[PHONE REDACTED] 110,452 $301,[PHONE REDACTED] 113,765 $310,692 1,016 2030 117,178 $320,013 1,046 2031 120,693 $329,614 1,078 2032 124,314 $339,502 1,110 2033 128,044 $349,687 1,143 2034 131,885 $360,178 1,178 2035 135,841 $370,983 1,213 2036 139,917 $382,112 1,249 2037 144,114 $393,576 1,287 2038 148,438 $405,383 1,325 2039 152,891 $417,545 1,365 Total 2,591,892 $7,182,751 22,408 Notes: Diesel price: average Rocky Mountains week of 4/27/2015 (all grades) Source: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_gnd_dcus_r40_w.htm The Rail Park is assumed to open 1/2018 $2.73 average price Year Gallons and CO2 MT Saved due to shift in mode ---PAGE BREAK--- Phase I-a Phase I-b Phase I-c Phase II Total Planning Property Purchase/ PE/ENV Final Engineering Construction Total Total Total Total Project to date Planning 331,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 331,000 $ Property Purchase/ PE 1,042,081 $ - $ 1,042,081 $ Environmental- does not include City in-kind - $ Engineering 705,000 $ - $ 705,000 $ - $ - $ Trail 4,705,910 $ 4,705,910 $ Road and Rail 15,469,464 $ 15,469,464 $ - $ Risk Management 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ - $ Subtotal Construction 331,000 $ 1,042,081 $ 705,000 $ 21,175,374 $ 23,253,455 $ Total Cost 331,000 $ 1,042,081 $ 705,000 $ 21,175,374 $ 23,253,455 $ ok 21,880,374 $ Glacier Rail Park/Kalispell Core Area Development and Trail Project Total Project Cost Description ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D Cost-Benefit Remaining Capital Value Expected Life Total Project Cost Remaining Life Proporation at 20 years after project completed Remaining Capital Value 80 - $ 75% - $ 100 19,191,455 $ 78% 14,969,335 $ 30 4,062,000 $ 60% 2,437,200 $ 17,406,535 $ 23,253,455 $ 17,406,535 $ 0.566666667 17 ---PAGE BREAK--- Year Total ton miles on rail after opening of rail park saving / mile Reduction in operation cost based upon differential rate/ mile rail vs truck Portland, OR $ 0.071 2014 0.071 $ 2015 0.071 $ 2016 0.071 $ 2017 7,913,160 0.071 $ 561,834 $ 2018 7,913,160 0.071 $ 561,834 $ 2019 8,150,555 0.071 $ 578,689 $ 2020 8,395,071 0.071 $ 596,050 $ 2021 8,646,924 0.071 $ 613,932 $ 2022 8,906,331 0.071 $ 632,350 $ 2023 9,173,521 0.071 $ 651,320 $ 2024 9,448,727 0.071 $ 670,860 $ 2025 9,732,189 0.071 $ 690,985 $ 2026 10,024,154 0.071 $ 711,715 $ 2027 10,324,879 0.071 $ 733,066 $ 2028 10,634,625 0.071 $ 755,058 $ 2029 10,953,664 0.071 $ 777,710 $ 2030 11,282,274 0.071 $ 801,041 $ 2031 11,620,742 0.071 $ 825,073 $ 2032 11,969,365 0.071 $ 849,825 $ 2033 12,328,445 0.071 $ 875,320 $ 2034 12,698,299 0.071 $ 901,579 $ 2035 13,079,248 0.071 $ 928,627 $ 2036 13,471,625 0.071 $ 956,485 $ 2037 13,875,774 0.071 $ 985,180 $ 2038 14,292,047 0.071 $ 1,014,735 $ 2039 14,720,809 0.071 $ 1,045,177 $ 249,555,588 17,718,447 $ Decreased Operational Costs due to construction of Phase II and coversion to rail in Kalispell, MT ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D Cost-Benefit Project Budget Amount in Millions Status $ 0.5 Committed 6.2 $ Committed 4.5 $ Committed 21.2 $ 10.0 $ Requested 21.2 $ $10.0 47% $11.2 53% $21.2 100% in Millions $19.5 92% $1.1 5% $0.6 3% $21.2 100% Project Funding Phase II in Millions % TIGER VII Request $10.0 47% Local Match $11.2 53% $21.2 100% Construction Purpose Construction Construction Construction Total Project Cost ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D Cost-Benefit Schedule Rail Park Project Schedule Task Rail Park- Trail Project Schedule and Task Details Approved/Complete REVIEW-Rail Park Categorical Exclusion Worksheet (FRA) Apr-15 APPROVAL-Preliminary Rail Design & Operation Plan (BNSF) Apr-15 APPROVAL-Traffic Design Concept and Location (Montana DOT) COMPLETED-Construction Documents for Rail Park Jun-15 SUBMITTED-Trail Categorical Exclusion Worksheet (USDOT) Sep-15 Approval-Water Design (City of Kalispell and Montana DEQ) Approval-Sewer and Storm Water Design (City of Kalispell and Montana DEQ) APPROVAL-Traffic Design Construction Documents (Montana DOT) BID-Construction of Rail Park Sep-15 RECEIVE- Notice of Award from the US DOT Sep-15 SIGN- Lease with CHS Sep-15 BEGIN- Rail Abandonment and Rail Banking Process Sep-15 RECEIVE- TIGER VII funds from US DOT Jan-16 SIGNED-Rail Park Construction Contract Feb-16 BEGIN-Rail Park Construction Mar-16 BEGIN-CHS Facility Construction Mar-16 COMPLETE- Environmental Site Assessments for Trail Jul-16 COMPLETE-Construction of Rail Park Dec-16 COMPLETE-CHS Facility Construction and Relocation Dec-16 Rail Park opens Jan 17 COMPLETE- Rail Abandonment and Rail Banking Process Jan-17 COMPLETE-Trail Property Acquisition Feb-17 COMPLETE-Final Design and Construction Documents for Trail Feb-17 BID-Construction Costs of Trail Mar-17 AWARD- Contract for Trail Construction May-17 OBLIGATED- All TIGER Funds Jun-17 REMOVE Track Jun-17 TRAIL Construction (180 days) July 2017 – June 2018 COMPLETE- Complete Street Extensions and Upgrade Pedestrian Crossings Jun-18 2015 2016 2017 2018 Planning/ PE Environmental- Trail FE Rail Park Construction Trail Construction 17 Months Construction 42 Months Construction 42 Apr-15 Jun-15 Sep-15 Sep-15 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix E Market Analysis and Feasibility Study ---PAGE BREAK--- INDUSTRIAL RAIL PARK MARKET ANALYSIS Flathead County Economic Development Authority Kalispell, MT Prepared for: FCEDA Kalispell, MT May 2013 Project # 4612020 This study was funded in partnership with the Montana Department of Commerce, Big Sky Trust Fund ---PAGE BREAK--- i I P a g e Industrial Rail Park Market Analysis FCEDA May 2013 Contents Acknowledgements - 1 - Overview - 1 - Competitive Assessment - 1 - Transportation Connections - 3 - Similar Industrial Parks - 3 - Economic Trends - 5 - Financial Feasibility - 8 - Comparative Sites - 9 - Cultivation of Partnerships - 11 - Target Industry Identification - 11 - Freight Flow Analysis - 12 - Montana Rail Exports - 13 - Montana Commodity Exports - 16 - Freight Shipment through Montana - 18 - Canadian Imports & Exports - 20 - Identification of Specific Leads for Recruitment - 24 - Project Funding Development - 24 - Public Option Funding - 25 - Private Option Funding - 25 - Identification of Appropriate Operating - 25 - Deed Restrictions and Development Agreements - 26 - Owner/Lease Agreements - 27 - ---PAGE BREAK--- ii I P a g e Industrial Rail Park Market Analysis FCEDA May 2013 Zoning Requirements - 27 - Community Rail Spur - 27 - Transload Operator - 27 - Recommendations - 28 - TABLES Table 1: Rail Park Site Information - 3 - Table 2: Economic Trends for Flathead County - 5 - Table 3: Top 20 Private Employers, 2012 - 6 - Table 4: FVCC Academic Year 2011-2012 Graduates (Top Degree Earners) - 7 - Table 5: Estimated Project Costs (Planning-Level Only) - 8 - Table 6: Comparative Industrial and Warehouse Sites - 10 - Table 7: Industry Employment Changes (2000 – 2010) - 12 - Table 8: Montana Rail Freight Movements (2011 – 2040) - 14 - Table 9: Commodity Exports within and out of Montana (2011 – 2040) - 17 - Table 10: Leads for Rail Industrial Park - 24 - ---PAGE BREAK--- iii I P a g e Industrial Rail Park Market Analysis FCEDA May 2013 FIGURES Figure 1: FCEDA/BNSF Site Property and Existing Utilities - 2 - Figure 2: Identified Regional Industrial Parks - 4 - Figure 3: Percent of Degree Earners Supporting Manufacturing/Industry - 7 - Figure 4: Preliminary Site Layout - 9 - Figure 5: Freight Tonnage Shipped from Montana by Mode (2011) - 13 - Figure 6: Montana Rail Exports (2011) - 14 - Figure 7: Montana Rail Exports (2020) - 15 - Figure 8: Montana Rail Exports (2030) - 15 - Figure 9: Montana Rail Exports (2040) - 16 - Figure 10: Rail Shipments Through Kalispell, Montana (2011) - 18 - Figure 11: Rail Shipments Through Kalispell, Montana (2020) - 19 - Figure 12: Rail Shipments Through Kalispell, Montana (2030) - 19 - Figure 13: Rail Shipments Through Kalispell, Montana (2040) - 20 - Figure 14: Rail Imports and Exports to Canada (2011) - 21 - Figure 15: Rail Imports and Exports to Canada (2020) - 21 - Figure 16: Rail Imports and Exports to Canada (2030) - 22 - Figure 17: Rail Imports and Exports to Canada (2040) - 22 - Figure 18: Top Six Rail Exports from Montana to Canada - 23 - Figure 19: Top Six Rail Imports to Montana from Canada - 23 - Figure 20: Operating Model for Lease or Sale Sites - 26 - ---PAGE BREAK--- - 1 - I P a g e Industrial Rail Park Market Analysis FCEDA May 2013 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Staff from Montana West Economic Development (MWED), board members from Flathead County Economic Development Authority (FCEDA) and the City of Kalispell have provided critical information and input throughout the market analysis. Their assistance was instrumental in completing this project. In addition, BNSF and Mission Mountain rail companies have been willing, supportive partners of the project and will continue to be a valuable resource moving forward. OVERVIEW FCEDA is assessing the potential to develop a rail-served industrial park to enhance the long-term vision for economic and job growth in Flathead County. The potential industrial park will serve as a place for manufacturers to produce and distribute goods via rail. Currently, FCEDA owns a 40 acre parcel, Figure 1, which is located on the east side of Kalispell and west of Highway 2, east of Whitefish Stage Road and south of the Stillwater/Flathead Rivers. In addition, BNSF owns approximately 55 acres of land adjacent to the FCEDA property that will be used in conjunction with FCEDA’s parcel to create a larger rail park and thus a more feasible site to attract new businesses and relocate existing businesses out of downtown Kalispell. A feasibility analysis will also be provided as an addendum to this report. The feasibility analysis will provide information about infrastructure and rail costs needed to improve the site as well as map and rail-park layouts for site specific properties. COMPETITIVE ASSESSMENT FCEDA’s site contains approximately 40 acres of industrial zoned land, which is located in Flathead County, and shown in Figure 1. The site is not located in Kalispell city boundaries; although preliminary annexation discussions are occurring between the City and FCEDA representatives. The property is the former McElroy and Wilken Gravel pit that has been reclaimed. The property sits adjacent to a State Super Fund site designated as the KRY Site and 0.7 acres of the property in the northeast corner is fenced and controlled by MT DEQ for use of their Land Treatment Plant in the ongoing cleanup process for the KRY Site. Remediation for environmental impacts is not required for the property other than the 0.7 acres previously identified. BNSF’s property contains approximately 32 acres directly north and adjacent to the FCEDA parcel. BNSF is currently remediating some site specific contaminants on their property. The existing rail has been removed to help with cleanup and this opportunity presents a unique prospect to combine both properties into one site consisting of 72 acres for rail-served industries. The advantage of moving forward as a combined site may allow BNSF to restructure their rail layout to accommodate a joint park. ---PAGE BREAK--- - 2 - I P a g e Industrial Rail Park Market Analysis FCEDA May 2013 FIGURE 1: FCEDA/BNSF SITE PROPERTY AND EXISTING UTILITIES ---PAGE BREAK--- - 3 - I P a g e Industrial Rail Park Market Analysis FCEDA May 2013 An additional six acres may be available within the BNSF property depending upon the current owners (Glacier Stone, Klinger Lumber and David Wilkins) potential lease/ownership agreement with BNSF. If the six acres become viable, the total rail park acreage could increase to nearly 80 acres. Acquiring or involving other potential parcels within the same land area as FCEDA and BNSF could increase the park’s total acreage to more than 92 acres. Table 1 displays a summary of site specific information. TABLE 1: RAIL PARK SITE INFORMATION Acreage 40 - FCEDA 32 - BNSF 20 - Other 92 – Total Environmental Concerns 0.7 acres (KYR site); no environmental impact to FCEDA site Zoning Industrial Water Availability Yes Transportation Access Yes Sewer Availability Yes T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o n n e c t i o n s Transportation routes include Oregon Lane to the south, Montclair Drive to the east and Whitefish Stage to the west. Whitefish Stage is a classified as a minor arterial and could support truck traffic; however, a more viable truck route into the site is US Highway 2, which is 1/10 miles southeast of the site via Montclair Drive and provides access to Kalispell’s and Flathead County’s truck freight network. US Highway 93 is approximately one mile west of the site via Oregon Lane. Both highways provide truck freight access making it a viable location for a transload facility. Interstate 90 is approximately 110 miles south of the site by automobile. Interstate 15 is approximately 160 miles east of the site by automobile. BNSF and Mission Mountain service the site with rail and have long-term plans to improve the functionality of the site. A separate traffic impact analysis (TIA) will need to be conducted to determine improvements to the transportation network surrounding the site. The improvements should be coordinated with the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) to ensure all state and federal regulations pertaining to access on US Highway 2 are implemented efficiently. S i m i l a r I n d u s t r i a l P a r k s FCEDA’s industrial park is one of four industrial parks located within a 100-mile radius of Kalispell. Figure 2 shows known industrial parks in Montana and Idaho; however, this may not be a comprehensive list as some industrial parks may not have been identified. FCEDA’s site has the potential to service the entire Flathead Valley and could become one of only two ports to ship items via rail into Canada; the Port of Northern Montana in Shelby currently ships to Lethbridge, Canada. Because FCEDA’s site will be reserved for rail-served only customers, it increases the marketing viability for potential BNSF and Mission Mountain customers. ---PAGE BREAK--- - 4 - I P a g e Industrial Rail Park Market Analysis FCEDA May 2013 FIGURE 2: IDENTIFIED REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL PARKS ---PAGE BREAK--- - 5 - I P a g e Industrial Rail Park Market Analysis FCEDA May 2013 E c o n o m i c T r e n d s Table 2 displays the economic trends for Flathead County. The trends indicate that the while unemployment remains high at 9.2 percent and has not changed significantly since 2010; the labor force and annual employment continue to increase or remain steady. The 12.1 percent increase in labor force and 5.0 percent increase in annual employment during the past decade indicate businesses are hiring and that the Flathead Valley business climate is improving. Moreover, the number of people unemployed has decreased nearly 19 percent and the unemployment rate has decreased 2 percent since 2010. BASED ON RECENT TRENDS, THE POTENTIAL IS INCREASING FOR THE INDUSTRIAL RAIL PARK TO CREATE SUPPORT NEW INDUSTRIES ESPECIALLY AS MANUFACTURING AND OTHER RAIL-ORIENTED INDUSTRIES RECOVER FROM THE RECESSION AND EXPAND OPERATIONS. ---PAGE BREAK--- - 6 - I P a g e Industrial Rail Park Market Analysis FCEDA May 2013 Table 3 shows the top private employers by employees, indicating that service-oriented professions continue to be the largest employers. However, Plum Creek and Applied Materials are large scale lumber and manufacturing companies that lend credence that these industry types can thrive in the Valley. TABLE 2: ECONOMIC TRENDS FOR FLATHEAD COUNTY 2000 2010 2012 Percent Change (2000-2010) Percent Change (2010-2012) Population 74,741 90,928 92,867 21.7 2.1 Median Household Income $34,466 $44,998 N/A 30.6† N/A Labor Force 39,328 44,086 43,897 12.1 -0.4 Annual Employment 37,264 39,127 39,873 5.0 1.9 Unemployment 2,064 4,959 4,024 140.3 -18.9 Unemployment Rate 5.2 11.2 9.2 6.0 -2.0 Sources: 2000 US Census; 2010 ACS 5-year estimates; Montana Department of Labor and Industry, Research and Analysis Bureau; Development Alliance †Not adjusted for inflation ---PAGE BREAK--- - 7 - I P a g e Industrial Rail Park Market Analysis FCEDA May 2013 TABLE 3: TOP 20 PRIVATE EMPLOYERS, 2012 Business Employees Kalispell Regional Medical Center 2,282 Plum Creek 685 Teletech 550 Whitefish Mountain Resort 525*/80 LC Staffing Service 450 National Flood Services 437 Applied Materials 400 Wal-Mart 390 Burlington Northern 375 North Valley Hospital 348 Immanuel Lutheran Home 267 Glacier Bancorp, Inc. 252 The Lodge at Whitefish Lake 235*/120 Costco 232 Western Building Center 180 Flathead Electric Co-op 159 Lowes 145*/135 Source: Montana West Economic Development Table 4 identifies the top 10 Associate of Applied Science (AAS) degrees and the top 5 Certificate of Applied Science (CAS) degrees with from Flathead Valley Community College (FVCC) for year 2011-2012. Data indicates that degree earners such as Welding and Inspection Technology (19), Heavy Equipment Operator (17), Electrical Technology Small Business Management HVAC and Cabinet and Furniture Technology are graduates that can support manufacturing and industries associated with rail. Moreover, Table 4 indicates that more than 50 percent of all AAS graduates and CAS graduates have a degree that could service manufacturing, agricultural/forestry and rail-oriented industries. Should potential businesses want to relocate or start-up in the rail park, they would have a ready and available pool of human capital to meet and expand business needs. ---PAGE BREAK--- - 8 - I P a g e Industrial Rail Park Market Analysis FCEDA May 2013 TABLE 4: FVCC ACADEMIC YEAR 2011-2012 GRADUATES (TOP DEGREE EARNERS) Major Graduates Associate of Arts 102 Associate of Science 96 Associate of Applied Science (AAS) Practical Nursing AAS 27 Welding and Inspection Technology AAS 19 Culinary Arts AAS 12 Medical Assistant AAS 11 Electrical Technology AAS 9 Natural Resources Conservation & Management AAS 8 Graphic Design AAS 7 Information Technology AAS 7 Substance Abuse Counseling AA 7 Accounting Technology AAS 6 Medical Administrative Assistant AAS 6 Small Business Management AAS 6 Surgical Technology AAS 6 Certificate of Applied Science (CAS) Heavy Equipment Operator CAS 17 Medical Coding CAS 9 Heating, Ventilation, & Air Conditioning (HVAC) CAS 5 3D Jewelry Design and Production CAS 4 Cabinet and Furniture Technology CAS 3 Source: Flathead Valley Community College FIGURE 3: PERCENT OF DEGREE EARNERS SUPPORTING MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRY Source: Flathead Valley Community College 55% 53% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% AAS Degrees CAS Degrees Other Degree Earners Manufacturing /Industry ---PAGE BREAK--- - 9 - I P a g e Industrial Rail Park Market Analysis FCEDA May 2013 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY The financial feasibility aspect of the rail park is currently being studied in conjunction with the City of Kalispell, who is conducting a separate study regarding the costs associated with relocating businesses out of downtown and into the industrial park. These two efforts will be combined to produce a detailed financial feasibility report outlining the funds needed to improve and relocate businesses to the rail park. However, a planning-level cost estimate that outlines site improvements has been created and is outlined in Table 5. The total project cost is estimated to be $14,500,000 (in 2013 dollars). A preliminary site layout map is displayed in Figure 4 and includes preliminary track layouts as shown on site. The map also includes eight site pads for future development; however, the site layout may change depending upon business and industry preferences and layout requirements. The pads range in size from 13.4 acres to 2.4 acres. TABLE 5: ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS (PLANNING-LEVEL ONLY) Item Description Information Unit Cost Railroad 16,800 Feet of New Rail l.s. $8,450,000 Roadway and Traffic Improvements 4,200 Feet of Roadway, Traffic Signal l.s. $3,050,000 Electric and Gas Electric and Gas Service to Facility l.s. $450,000 Wastewater Wastewater Service to Facility l.s. $1,400,000 Water Water Service to Facility l.s. $1,150,000 Total Estimated Cost - - $14,500,000 ---PAGE BREAK--- - 10 - I P a g e Industrial Rail Park Market Analysis FCEDA May 2013 FIGURE 4: PRELIMINARY SITE LAYOUT ---PAGE BREAK--- - 11 - I P a g e Industrial Rail Park Market Analysis FCEDA May 2013 C o m p a r a t i v e S i t e s However, several industrial and warehouse sites throughout the Flathead Valley were researched as a comparative. Table 6 displays the comparative sites that would be similar to the sites at FCEDA’s rail park. However, FCEDA’s sites will have direct access to rail siding, which will likely be a significant advantage as compared to some sites listed below. Building sale prices range from $37.00 - $106.48 per square foot, while acreage sale prices range from $95,000 - $522,727 per acre. Lease prices for buildings range from $0.001 - $0.397 per square foot of building space. The lease prices do not necessarily reflect market prices for buildings nor are they an accurate representation of land lease prices. Rather, the lease rates indicate a market that is waiting to rebound by offering low rates to attract potential businesses. FCEDA should not necessarily be concerned with the low lease rates because most industries targeted for the rail park will need access to rail; therefore, FCEDA’s site offers a service not available to other properties. The sale prices do suggest a competitive market for industrial uses; FCEDA’s pricing needs to account for current market rates. TABLE 6: COMPARATIVE INDUSTRIAL AND WAREHOUSE SITES Site Type Sale Price Lease Rate Building Square Feet (SF) Price per SF/Acre Address (Zip Code 59901) Industrial $950,000.00 - 10,000 $95.00 (SF) 75 Alder Drive Industrial - $1,250.00 3,150 $0.397 (SF) 56 3rd Avenue West North Warehouse $595,000.00 - N/A N/A 2155 US-2 East Warehouse $575,000.00 - > 5400 $106.48 (SF) 525 8th Street East Industrial - $6.00 6,000 $0.001 (SF) 460 Ash Road Industrial - $6.00 6,000 $0.001 (SF) 980 Demersville Road Industrial - $5.75 1,200 $0.005 (SF) 426 Snowline Lane Industrial - $6.00 2,500 $0.002 (SF) 430 Snowline Lane Warehouse $475,000.00 - N/A N/A 55 4th Avenue West North Warehouse $750,000.00 - 20,000 2 (acres) $37.50 (SF) $375,000 (acre) 2741 Us Highway 93 South Warehouse $349,000.00 - 4,000 $87.25 (SF) 19 6th Avenue West Warehouse $295,000.00 - 1.74 (acres) $169,540.23 (acre) 66 & 68 8th Avenue West North Warehouse $345,000.00 - 0.66 (acres) $522,727.27 (acre) 707 West Center Street Warehouse $190,000.00 - 2 (acres) $95,000.00 (acre) 1900 Mt Highway 35 Industrial $950,000.00 - 10,000 $95.00 (SF) 75 Alder Drive Source: Montana Site Selector (http://www.montanasiteselector.com/northwestmontana) ---PAGE BREAK--- - 12 - I P a g e Industrial Rail Park Market Analysis FCEDA May 2013 CULTIVATION OF PARTNERSHIPS Currently, MWED and FCEDA have been cultivating partnerships with BNSF, Mission Mountain, and the City of Kalispell to create a viable industrials park. However, additional groups such as Flathead Valley Community College, Kalispell Chamber of Commerce and Flathead Regional Business Center, Gallatin County Planning Department, MDT, should be brought into the process as the park develops into a feasible site plan. Including these groups and establishing partnerships not only extends MWED’s and FCEDA’s marketing outreach for potential businesses, but it opens new avenues for site development options and funding. The Chamber of Commerce’s new Manufacturing Alliance is a resource that should be utilized as this project moves forward. The Alliance will likely involve key members of the manufacturing and agricultural/forestry industries that could benefit from the new rail industrial park. MWED and FCEDA should develop contacts within the Alliance to help attract businesses and explain the benefits of expanding or relocating to the park. TARGET INDUSTRY IDENTIFICATION Identifying suitable employers to locate to the rail industrial park is critical to the park’s success. Employers and businesses must recognize the importance of rail service to their business plan; however, MWED and FCEDA also recognize that job creation is the highest priority for creating the industrial park. Therefore, a balance of rail-oriented businesses that can create jobs will be the target industry. Depending upon the site layout, a business that does not require rail may be suitable to locate within the park as long as the site does not have rail siding. ---PAGE BREAK--- - 13 - I P a g e Industrial Rail Park Market Analysis FCEDA May 2013 Table 7 displays the change in employment for the top ten industries in Flathead County. The data indicates that while manufacturing declined 39 percent during the past decade, growth in employment suggests that manufacturing may experience the largest employment gains. While the fastest growing sectors are service oriented – Health Care; Arts, Entertainment and Recreations; Finance and Insurance; and Administrative and Waste Services – manufacturing and agricultural/forestry businesses should still be targeted for the park. Most, if not all, service-oriented businesses do not have an operating model that requires rail or service to rail whereas manufacturing and agricultural/forestry businesses depend upon rail to move goods. Therefore, MWED and FCEDA should focus their efforts on attracting those industries as well as emerging industries such as health care and pharmaceuticals, which are estimated to need future rail service to ship goods cross-country. ---PAGE BREAK--- - 14 - I P a g e Industrial Rail Park Market Analysis FCEDA May 2013 TABLE 7: INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT CHANGES (2000 – 2010) NAICS Code Industry Average Annual Employment (2000) Average Annual Employment (2010) # Change % Change 44 Retail Trade 4,678 5,504 826 17.7 62 Health Care and Social Assistance 3,229 5,125 1,896 58.7 72 Accommodation and Food Services 4,062 4,830 768 18.9 31 Manufacturing 3,880 2,366 -1,514 -39.0 23 Construction 2,144 2,364 220 10.3 56 Administrative and Waste Services 1,712 2,275 563 32.9 52 Finance and Insurance 1,100 1,596 496 45.1 81 Other Services (ex. Public admin) 1,209 1,450 241 19.9 54 Professional and Technical Services 1,172 1,345 173 14.8 71 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 857 1,279 422 49.2 Source: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages; MT Dept of Labor and Industry, Research and Analysis Bureau F r e i g h t F l o w A n a l y s i s National rail freight trends were studied to determine target industries for the rail park. Freight analysis data from the Freight Analysis Framework (FAF) were used to track and identify future shipping trends. The FAF integrates data from a variety of sources to create a comprehensive picture of freight movement among states and major metropolitan areas by all modes of transportation. ---PAGE BREAK--- - 15 - I P a g e Industrial Rail Park Market Analysis FCEDA May 2013 Figure 5 shows freight shipped by mode. Data was reviewed geographically to determine which freight movements might use rail lines in Kalispell. In 2011 Montana ranked 31st of the 50 states in total freight shipped with more than 215,000,000 tons; 28 percent (60,000,000 tons) was shipped via rail. Most of the tonnage was shipped to neighboring states in the northern US. ---PAGE BREAK--- - 16 - I P a g e Industrial Rail Park Market Analysis FCEDA May 2013 FIGURE 5: FREIGHT TONNAGE SHIPPED FROM MONTANA BY MODE (2011) Montana Rail Exports Table 8 and Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9 show rail freight tonnage exports from Montana from year 2011 to year 2040. States were clustered and others ignore in order to group freight movements more efficiently. Note that some intrastate shipments stay within Montana. All values are measured in 1,000 tons of freight annually. For example, a value of 4,567 is equal to 4,567,000 tons per year. The following maps show rail freight flows over time that impact Kalispell; again values show total tons of freight annually. All the maps show the United States with major rail lines. The general conclusion is that rail freight shipments to the west will grow as fast as rail freight toward the upper Midwest. However freight movements to the west will remain relatively unchanged while freight movements toward the upper Midwest peak in 2020 and decline through 2040. FCEDA should use this information when marketing to industries to determine if their commodities and goods can be exported to the west as well as to the upper Midwest. Truck, 31.2% Rail, 27.9% Air, 0.01% Multiple Modes, 3.3% Pipeline, 33.7% Other, 3.9% ---PAGE BREAK--- - 17 - I P a g e Industrial Rail Park Market Analysis FCEDA May 2013 TABLE 8: MONTANA RAIL FREIGHT MOVEMENTS (2011 – 2040) Year Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Montana Intrastate Minnesota North Dakota South Dakota Wisconsin Illinois Indiana Iowa Kentucky Michigan Missouri Ohio Oregon Washington Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia Arkansas California Colorado Kansas Nebraska Nevada New Mexico Oklahoma Texas Utah Idaho Wyoming 2011 3,232 27,372 4,784 19,595 232 4,938 2020 4,697 31,250 4,130 21,552 351 5,461 2030 6,133 25,455 3,213 18,821 430 5,910 2040 7,918 21,616 3,057 18,515 525 6,757 Source: Freight Analysis Framework Version 3 (FAF3); unit of measure for weight is thousand tons FIGURE 6: MONTANA RAIL EXPORTS (2011) Source: Freight Analysis Framework Version 3 (FAF3) ---PAGE BREAK--- - 18 - I P a g e Industrial Rail Park Market Analysis FCEDA May 2013 FIGURE 7: MONTANA RAIL EXPORTS (2020) Source: Freight Analysis Framework Version 3 (FAF3) FIGURE 8: MONTANA RAIL EXPORTS (2030) Source: Freight Analysis Framework Version 3 (FAF3) ---PAGE BREAK--- - 19 - I P a g e Industrial Rail Park Market Analysis FCEDA May 2013 FIGURE 9: MONTANA RAIL EXPORTS (2040) Source: Freight Analysis Framework Version 3 (FAF3) Montana Commodity Exports THE TOP COMMODITIES SHIPPED WITHIN MONTANA AS WELL AS THE TOP COMMODITIES SHIPPED OUT OF STATE ARE LISTED IN ---PAGE BREAK--- - 20 - I P a g e Industrial Rail Park Market Analysis FCEDA May 2013 Table 9. The FAF data does not drill down into specific regions or cities across the state; data is only collected for the entire State of Montana. Therefore, while wood products, metallic ores and miscellaneous manufactured products are not within the top five commodities for the state, they are likely the top export commodities for the Flathead Valley based on the region’s economic and natural resources. Commodities such as electronics and pharmaceuticals were not identified as a top rail shipment in year 2011, but are projected to be the fifth and seventh largest freight commodities shipped within Montana in year 2040. Machinery will continue to be a top export commodity within and from Montana and should continue to spur manufacturing in the Valley. Moreover, shipment of live animals/fish, precision instruments (firearms), mixed freight and articles-base metal may provide additional growth for transload operations at the park. ---PAGE BREAK--- - 21 - I P a g e Industrial Rail Park Market Analysis FCEDA May 2013 TABLE 9: COMMODITY EXPORTS WITHIN AND OUT OF MONTANA (2011 – 2040) Intrastate Exports within Montana Exports from Montana to Other States Commodity 2011 2040 Commodity 2011 2040 Coal-n.e.c. $8,645 $20,984 Coal-n.e.c. $9,827 $8,965 Machinery $3,485 $9,045 Crude petroleum $7,773 $10,793 Gasoline $2,959 $3,293 Live animals/fish $5,782 $12,029 Fuel oils $2,338 $2,490 Cereal grains $4,037 $5,942 Mixed freight $1,034 $2,245 Machinery $3,697 $14,844 Crude petroleum $768 Mixed freight $1,357 $2,774 Unknown $783 $1,984 Metallic ores $972 Motorized vehicles $638 Wood prods. $787 Wood prods. $425 Articles-base metal $644 Other foodstuffs $780 $1,352 Misc. mfg. prods. $463 Electronics $2,316 Precision Instruments $3,845 Pharmaceuticals $2,114 Electronics $2,246 Live animals/fish $1,286 Articles-base metal $2,085 Meat/seafood $1,955 All Commodities $29,150 $61,289 All Commodities $43,252 $79,891 Source: Freight Analysis Framework Version 3 (FAF3); unit of measure for value is million U.S. dollars (current A summary of the top five commodity exports within and out of Montana are listed below for years 2011 and 2040. Within Montana Out of Montana 2011 2040 2011 2040 1. Coal-n.e.c. 1. Coal-n.e.c. 1. Coal-n.e.c. 1. Machinery 2. Machinery 2. Machinery 2. Crude petroleum 2. Live animals/fish 3. Gasoline 3. Gasoline 3. Live animals/fish 3. Crude petroleum 4. Fuel oils 4. Fuel oils 4. Cereal grains 4. Coal-n.e.c. 5. Mixed freight 5. Electronics 5. Machinery 5. Cereal grains ---PAGE BREAK--- - 22 - I P a g e Industrial Rail Park Market Analysis FCEDA May 2013 Freight Shipment through Montana The largest freight movement that has the potential to directly impact Kalispell is the transportation between the northern central states of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin and the northwestern states of Oregon and Washington. Rail traffic from the central states to the west coast is expected to grow dramatically. By 2040, more than 75 million tons of freight per year is expected to be transported by rail from the northern central states through Montana to the northwest as shown in Figure 10, Figure 11, Figure 12 and Figure 13. The largest freight movement impacting Kalispell is from the northern central states to the west coast. A summary of the top five commodities making this trip for years 2011 and 2040 are listed below. Commodity Exports through Montana 2011 2040 1. Cereal grains 1. Cereal grains 2. Other ag products 2. Other ag products 3. Gravel 3. Gravel 4. Animal feed 4. Animal feed 5. Other food stuffs 5. Alcoholic beverages FIGURE 10: RAIL SHIPMENTS THROUGH KALISPELL, MONTANA (2011) Source: Freight Analysis Framework Version 3 (FAF3) ---PAGE BREAK--- - 23 - I P a g e Industrial Rail Park Market Analysis FCEDA May 2013 FIGURE 11: RAIL SHIPMENTS THROUGH KALISPELL, MONTANA (2020) Source: Freight Analysis Framework Version 3 (FAF3) FIGURE 12: RAIL SHIPMENTS THROUGH KALISPELL, MONTANA (2030) Source: Freight Analysis Framework Version 3 (FAF3) ---PAGE BREAK--- - 24 - I P a g e Industrial Rail Park Market Analysis FCEDA May 2013 FIGURE 13: RAIL SHIPMENTS THROUGH KALISPELL, MONTANA (2040) Source: Freight Analysis Framework Version 3 (FAF3) C a n a d i a n I m p o r t s & E x p o r t s There is a growing amount of freight that is moved on rail between the United State and Canada through Montana. Below are maps showing the amount of freight that is imported and exported on rail between Montana and Canada. All measures are in 1000 tons of freight annually. These figures represent rail freight shipped through Montana, even though Montana might not be the point of origin. It includes products loaded on trains in other states that cross the border into Montana. The US imports about 1,200,000 more tons annually than it exports, however the trend is expected to change in the future as shown in Figure 14,Figure 15,Figure 16, andFigure 17. By 2040, the US is expected to have larger rail exports to Canada than rail imports. Again all measures include only freight entering and exiting the US on rail through the State of Montana. Exports are expected to almost quadruple in the next 30 years as trade increases dramatically. Imports grow almost as rapidly, while only a handful of products are shipped through Montana. The top six commodities exported and imported are displayed in Figure 18 andFigure 19. A signficiant break was evident in the tonnage shipped for the top six commodities. Coal imports are expected to grow significantly more than the other top commodities over the next 30 years. Two export commodities, non-metalic minerals (sand, gravel, cement, stone, clay) and metallic ores (aluninum, copper, gold, iron) comprise the majority of exports. However, in year 2040 they are projected to represent 94 percent of all rail exports through Montana. FCEDA should focus on industries as potential tenants that could mine/create the commodities. ---PAGE BREAK--- - 25 - I P a g e Industrial Rail Park Market Analysis FCEDA May 2013 FIGURE 14: RAIL IMPORTS AND EXPORTS TO CANADA (2011) Source: Freight Analysis Framework Version 3 (FAF3) FIGURE 15: RAIL IMPORTS AND EXPORTS TO CANADA (2020) Source: Freight Analysis Framework Version 3 (FAF3) ---PAGE BREAK--- - 26 - I P a g e Industrial Rail Park Market Analysis FCEDA May 2013 FIGURE 16: RAIL IMPORTS AND EXPORTS TO CANADA (2030) Source: Freight Analysis Framework Version 3 (FAF3) FIGURE 17: RAIL IMPORTS AND EXPORTS TO CANADA (2040) Source: Freight Analysis Framework Version 3 (FAF3) ---PAGE BREAK--- - 27 - I P a g e Industrial Rail Park Market Analysis FCEDA May 2013 FIGURE 18: TOP SIX RAIL EXPORTS FROM MONTANA TO CANADA FIGURE 19: TOP SIX RAIL IMPORTS TO MONTANA FROM CANADA 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 Tonnage in Thousands 2011 2020 2030 2040 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 Tonnage in Thousands 2011 2020 2030 2040 ---PAGE BREAK--- - 28 - I P a g e Industrial Rail Park Market Analysis FCEDA May 2013 IDENTIFICATION OF SPECIFIC LEADS FOR RECRUITMENT Specific leads for recruitment are summarized in Table 10. The preliminary list is a starting point to begin marketing to businesses in target industries. As the project progresses, potential tenants will be identified and analyzed per available site and business requirements. Specific industries should only include those that require rail service or service rail-oriented businesses. The industrial park is not intended for businesses or commercial enterprises that ship via truck only. TABLE 10: LEADS FOR RAIL INDUSTRIAL PARK Business Industry Type Potential for Relocation/Expansion Blackwell Enterprises Construction/Trusses Medium Cenex Harvest States Agriculture/Fertilizer High Cold Front Cabins Housing Low Welding Oil Tank Construction Low Fastenal Construction Medium Glacier Stone Landscaping Stone Medium Great Northern Ag Agriculture/Pulses Medium HE Simpson Lumber High Northwest Drywall Construction/Drywall High PROJECT FUNDING DEVELOPMENT Several options including private and public funding mechanisms exist for site improvements to the rail-served industrial park. A combination of both private and public options should be implemented to ensure the success and viability of the park. If only one option is implemented, the success of the park hinges on that entity making investment decisions; however, combining public and private funds ensures all parties are interested and vested in the park’s success. MWED has a detailed outline of public grants, loan programs and other assistance opportunities, which are listed below, to help bring new industries or relocate existing businesses to the park. Private options are also included and should be utilized whenever feasible. Tax increment finance (TIF) districts are likely to be the most economical funding mechanism to develop the rail park’s basic infrastructure (roads, water, sewer). However, KLJ recommends waiting until the State Legislature convenes in April 2013 before moving forward with implementing a TIF district as state laws regarding TIF application are currently being changed. ---PAGE BREAK--- - 29 - I P a g e Industrial Rail Park Market Analysis FCEDA May 2013 EDA grants for public infrastructure and economic development facilities are another option to finance improvement costs. Currently, the funding request deadlines are June 13, 2013 for funding cycle 4 of FY 2013; and September 13, 2013 for funding cycle 1 of FY 2014. Should MWED and FCEDA choose to pursue EDA assistance the Feasibility Analysis with improvement costs will be critical to the grant application and solicitation. P u b l i c O p t i o n F u n d i n g Workforce Training Grant Programs Relocation Grant Programs Montana Board of Investment Finance and Loan Programs Tradeshow Assistance Tax Credits, Abatements and Exemptions Federal Loan and Grant Sources (EDA) Tax Increment Finance Districts (TIF) Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Grants P r i v a t e O p t i o n F u n d i n g Land-Owner Investment Rail Company Investment Lease-to-Own Programs IDENTIFICATION OF APPROPRIATE OPERATING MODEL The operating model, which is shown in Figure 20, should include a mix of both lease and owner- occupied units to provide a flexible environment for changing economies. The ability to lease property allows FCEDA to adapt to businesses that may leave or change when new technologies become available or when new businesses relocate to the Flathead Valley. While no specific formula of what percentage of sites should be owned versus leased, FCEDA should consider the dynamics of what the organization wants to accomplish. KLJ recommends as least 25 percent of the sites or acreage should be reserved for leases. This provides businesses and industries, which do not want to own land, the ability to locate within the park without having to worry about land costs and associated taxes. Lease-only sites also provide potential start-up businesses with an opportunity to that would not be afforded to them if the business had to purchase land. Because FCEDA wants to encourage job creation, lease-only sites offer an excellent avenue to spur new businesses associated with rail. KLJ recommends at least 50 percent of the sites or acreage should be reserved for owner occupied sites. This provides FCEDA and the City of Kalispell with an increased tax base, but also provides future businesses the long-term commitment of staying with the park. Additionally, industries that own land are more likely to see that the park succeeds as they have invested their own time and money. In turn, these businesses tend to be engaged with marketing and recruiting other potential businesses that will enhance the long-term viability of the park. ---PAGE BREAK--- - 30 - I P a g e Industrial Rail Park Market Analysis FCEDA May 2013 FIGURE 20: OPERATING MODEL FOR LEASE OR SALE SITES All sites should be reserved for rail-only businesses; the exception may be for one or two parcels that don’t have access to rail siding or a need for large shipments. However, FCEDA should be aware that selling or leasing non-rail-served industries may comprise the intent of the park and the future operability of sites should businesses relocate or close. The issue arises when owner- occupied sites sell property or when lease-only sites remain unused for an extended period. It is not a problem when the park first opens, but occurs 5, 10 or 20 years after the industrial park first opened its doors. Several options exist for ensuring the intent of the park specifically targets and retains rail-served industries well into the future. D e e d R e s t r i c t i o n s a n d D e v e l o p m e n t A g r e e m e n t s FCEDA can place restrictions on the sale of land that only allow rail-oriented businesses to locate in the park thus preserving the intent of the rail park should future sales occur between multiple owners. FCEDA can also create specific language using a development agreement between a future property owner and the City of Kalispell specifying rail-served industries only be allowed to operate within the park. The development agreement could require future businesses to produce documents showing the number of potential rail carload shipments or an agreement with BNSF or Mission Mountain to ship materials. Failure to produce such information would allow FCEDA to deny the sale/lease of the property to a business. Owner Occupied 50% Lease Only 25% Other/Combo 25% Recommended Division of Owner/Lease Sites ---PAGE BREAK--- - 31 - I P a g e Industrial Rail Park Market Analysis FCEDA May 2013 O w n e r / L e a s e A g r e e m e n t s Owner and lease agreements are similar to development agreements, which specify what businesses can locate within the rail park. However, the owner and lease agreements should also include a right of first refusal (ROFR) and right of first offer (ROFO). These two mechanisms allow rail-served industries or railroad companies to be given preferential treatment should land become available. A ROFR would specify that a land owner be required to offer to sell the land at a fixed price to FCEDA or BNSF before he/she sells the land to another business or property owner. If FCEDA declined to buy the land, the current owner could sell to any entity for the same fixed price. A ROFO would require a property owner to negotiate a deal with FCEDA or BNSF; should the deal collapse, the property owner would be free to begin negotiations with another entity without price restrictions. Z o n i n g R e q u i r e m e n t s The City of Kalispell could delineate through its zoning code two options to encourage and/or restrict uses to rail-served industries only. The first option would be to zone the land as I-2 Heavy Industrial with a planned unit development (PUD) overlay. The PUD would specify terms and conditions that must be met before building in the park; this is usually done in conjunction with a development agreement. The second option is to create a rail-only industrial zone that would apply to FCEDA’s and BNSF’s property. This option may be more cumbersome and time-consuming than the first option, but it could specific that specific uses only be allowed to operate while prohibiting other non-rail-served businesses from operating. C o m m u n i t y R a i l S p u r A community rail spur should be developed within the park for sites that do not have direct access to rail siding. The spur could also service businesses and industries located throughout the Flathead Valley, but do not have access to rail. Preliminary site drawings will include a community spur; although if BNSF and Mission Mountain provide overwhelming evidence to the contrary then a community spur may not be needed. T r a n s l o a d O p e r a t o r Transloading is the transfer of goods and commodities via different transportation modes such as truck to rail, rail to truck, truck to barge or a combination of any mode. A qualified transloader at the park has the potential to improve revenue for FCEDA as FCEDA should lease out operations on a term-limit (i.e. five years). This provides FCEDA and BNSF to find a new transloader should the current operator fail to provide quality and efficient service. Additionally, a transloader that has previous experience tends to have a comprehensive understanding of what is needed to service an industrial park that has on-site shipping as well as off-site (community spur) needs. Transload operations also allow businesses without direct access to rail to ship goods via multiple modes. ---PAGE BREAK--- - 32 - I P a g e Industrial Rail Park Market Analysis FCEDA May 2013 RECOMMENDATIONS MWED and FCEDA should pursue industries such as lumber companies, scrap steel, and other grain elevators/agricultural uses. In addition, industries related to creating machinery and other precision instruments should be targeted for the rail park. Emerging technologies such as electronics and pharmaceuticals and metallic ores/non-metallic minerals may be viable industries to locate within the park as long as they can prove a need for rail shipments. If they cannot prove a need for rail service, the business should not be allowed. Businesses that would utilize transload facilities are important to target because of their need to ship materials via truck and rail. Example industries that could utilize transload facilities are big box retailers, large good producers (recreational toys such as ATVs, boats, snowmobiles), and liquid/petroleum products. Creating a rail park with a transload operator will help stimulate rail freight movements for the Flathead County and thus improve economic development potential for the entire Flathead Valley. More importantly, the transload operator will market freight shipments to potential businesses as a viable and economical option. For sale and for lease I sites should be created to foster a mix of relocation or expansion options for potential businesses. While no “one size fits all” financial model can be established in terms of the number of sale versus lease sites, FCEDA should reserve at least 25 percent of the sites for each option. FCEDA should work with the City of Kalispell and BNSF to create development agreements, deed restrictions or similar owner/lease agreements to foster rail-only industry development within the park. Should a site become available that does not have access to rail siding, a potential non-rail oriented business could occupy the site. However, the site may provide a rail-oriented business, may only need rail service a couple times a year, a perfect opportunity without having to pay a premium for rail siding. A community spur should be created for industries throughout the Flathead Valley. While not all businesses may be able to locate within the park, they may need rail service. In addition, as the Valley continues to grow, some industries may only have a need for shipping rail without having to have direct access to rail siding on a daily, weekly or schedule. FCEDA should lease out transload operations to a qualified transloader that has previous experience loading and unloading rail cars as well as loading truck shipments onto rail and vice versa. A qualified transloader will improve efficiency at the park, thus improving relations with businesses in the park as well as businesses throughout the area. Because FCEDA owns the property, a lease with a potential transloader is the preferred operating model as it will allow multimodal shipments throughout the Flathead Valley thus providing service to businesses that would otherwise not have access to rail. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix F Section 106 Coordination ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- U.S. Department 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE of Transportation Washington, DC 20590 Federal Railroad Administration February 22, 2017 Mark Baumler, Ph. D. State Historic Preservation Officer Montana State Historic Preservation Office 1301 East Lockey Avenue Helena, MT 59620 Re: Glacier Rail Park/ Kalispell Core Area Development and Trail Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana Continuation of Section 106 Consultation Identification of Historic Properties and Determination of Effects Dear Dr. Baumler: The purpose of this letter is to continue consultation with your office for the Glacier Rail Park/ Kalispell Core Area Development and Trail Project (Project) under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations at 36 CFR Part 800. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is providing grant funding to the City of Kalispell (City) for the Project. The federal funding constitutes an undertaking in accordance with Section 106. FRA initiated Section 106 consultation for the Project with your office in correspondence dated March 15, 2016. FRA is conducting Section 106 review in coordination with the development of an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The following two reports are enclosed for your review: Class III Cultural Resource Investigations of the Glacier Rail Park in Kalispell, Montana, Phase I: Parcels A & B (hereafter referred to as Phase I Survey) Section 106 Cultural Resources Inventory for the TIGER VII Glacier Rail Park Trail Project, City of Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana (hereafter referred to as Phase II Survey) Cultural resource investigations for the Project were conducted by two consultants hired by the City and in two phases that focus on two separate Areas of Potential Effect (APE). The Phase I APE consists of the 40-acres where the rail park (Parcel A) will be constructed and a .5-acre parcel (Parcel B) to the south that is proposed for road widening and the installation of a traffic light. The Phase II APE consists of a two- mile section of BNSF Railway railroad tracks that the City proposes to remove, once construction of the rail park is complete and operational, rail traffic is moved off the line, and the rail line is abandoned through a future process which the City will coordinate with BNSF and the Surface Transportation Board. This second phase will establish a pedestrian/bicycle trail along the abandoned railroad right-of-way, and will provide an overall benefit to transportation and public safety in the downtown area of Kalispell. The findings of the two reports are summarized below. ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park/ Kalispell Core Area Development and Trail 2 PHASE I SURVEY FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS The Phase I Survey 40.5-acre APE only assessed the potential for direct effects to historic properties. Two resources were identified within in the direct APE, and neither was determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP): Site Number Site Type NRHP Status Effects Determination F1 Quonset Hut (ca. 1960) Not Eligible N/A 24FH0219 Former oil refinery. Structure and trash midden (destroyed) Not Eligible N/A In order to assess the potential for indirect effects to historic properties, FRA undertook its own analysis using supplemental information provided by the City. In addition to the Phase I Survey, the City provided ages of the of structures adjacent to the direct APE (Enclosure photos and descriptions of direct APE adjacent properties (Enclosure a 360-degree view video from the direct APE; and a noise and vibration study (which is required as part of the NEPA analysis). The FRA staff who performed the assessment of indirect effects meets the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Architectural History. The direct APE’s Parcel A is bordered by the following: roads and industry, including the site of the former Kalispell Pole & Timber Company, an active lumber yard, and the remainder of Site 24FH0219 that is not within the direct APE to the north; roads and residential buildings to the south; East Oregon Lane, commercial and industrial businesses and Burlington Northern railroad tracks to the east (a.k.a. Great Northern Railroad, site 24FH0350); a secondary highway to the west; and roads and undeveloped land located within the floodplain of the Stillwater River along the northwest corner. Because most of the development under the first phase of the Project will occur within the middle of the 40-acre Parcel A and the surrounding area is moderately developed, the indirect APE was limited to adjacent properties. The only building, structure, object, district, or site that is at least 50 years old and visible from the direct APE’s Parcel A is the NRHP-eligible Great Northern Railway (24FH0350). This historic property is an actively used freight rail, and physically separated from the Parcel A direct APE by a berm and road. The historic context and description of Site 24FH030 is presented in the Phase II Survey. As stated in the Phase II Survey: “The site retains all elements of integrity, in particular design, workmanship, location, feeling, and association...Setting and material integrity are still present but in less magnitude as modern signage, the presence of the Kalispell Center Mall, and other modifications in the growth of the City have obscured or replaced ancillary facilities and resources. As Caywood (1987:3) states, “the qualities that make this site significant are not dependent upon the retention of the original site setting”. Introduction of new freight rail lines in Parcel A that are visible, but do not directly impact 24FH0350, would not diminish any aspects of integrity that qualify this property for the NRHP. The proposed Project would be compatible with the location, feeling, and association of 24H0350 as both are freight rail lines, and would have no impact on design or workmanship. Therefore, in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.4, FRA has determined that the proposed project would have no adverse effect to site 24FH0350. ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park/ Kalispell Core Area Development and Trail 3 The direct APE’s .5-acre Parcel B is bordered by Flathead Drive to the north and west; U.S. Highway 2 and utility infrastructure to the south; and commercial businesses to the east. The proposed work within Parcel B includes street improvements. Due to the limited scope of the proposed undertaking, the indirect APE is limited to properties that are adjacent to the direct APE. There are no buildings, structures, objects, districts, or sites that are at least 50 years old adjacent to the direct APE’s Parcel B. PHASE II SURVEY FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS In total, 23 resources (1 archaeological, 22 architectural) were identified in the Phase II Survey. Only one historic property, the Great Northern Railroad (24FH0350), is within the direct APE. Three previously recorded historic properties were identified in the indirect APE adjacent to the direct APE: the Kalispell Flour Mill (24FH0704), the Great Northern Railway Depot (24FH0697), and the Flathead Wholesale Grocery (24FH0693). FRA has determined that the remaining 19 identified resources were not eligible for the NRHP. Based on the enclosed Phase II Survey and in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.5, FRA has determined that the proposed Project would have an adverse effect to the following four historic properties: the Great Northern Railroad, the Kalispell Flour Mill, the Great Northern Railway Depot, and the Flathead Wholesale Grocery. A summary of the identified historic properties and FRA’s determinations of effects is provided in the table below. Site Number Site Type NRHP Status Effects Determination 24FH0350 Great Northern Railway Eligible – SHPO Consensus Adverse Effect 65 8th Ave. - 24FH1285 Ca. 1968 commercial Not Eligible N/A 640 W. Montana St. - 24FH1291 Ca. 1965 commercial Not Eligible N/A 54 6th Ave. - 24FH1284 Ca. 1920 residence Not Eligible N/A 915 W. Center St. - 24FH1296 Ca. 1947 residence Not Eligible N/A 735 W. Center St. - 24FH1294 Ca. 1964 Auto Equip Service Not Eligible N/A 707 W. Center St. - 24FH1293 Ca. 1946 flex warehouse Not Eligible N/A ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park/ Kalispell Core Area Development and Trail 4 647 W. Center St. - 24FH1292 Ca. 1950 warehouse Not Eligible N/A 506 W. Center St.- 24FH0704 Kalispell Four Mill NRHP - Listed Adverse Effect 50 1st Ave.- 24FH0689 Destroyed Not Eligible N/A 55 1st Ave.- 24FH0688 Continental Oil Company Warehouse and Garage Not Eligible N/A 20 N. Main – 24FH0460 Destroyed Not Eligible N/A 52 N. Main - 24FH1283 Ca. 1930 restaurant Not Eligible N/A 15 E. Center St.- 24FH0697 Great Northern Railway Depot NRHP - Listed Adverse Effect 101 E. Center St.- 24FH0693 Flathead Wholesale Grocery NRHP - Listed Adverse Effect 4th Ave NE Ca. 1949 service garage Not Eligible N/A 427 E. Center St. - 24FH1286 Ca. 1945 residence Not Eligible N/A 503 E. Center St. - 24FH1287 Ca. 1937 residence Not Eligible N/A 507 E. Center St. - 24FH1288 Ca. 1909 residence Not Eligible N/A 511 E. Center St. - 24FH1289 Ca. 1950 residence Not Eligible N/A Woodland Park - 24FH0675 – Eastside Historic District Ca. 1911 Historic District – NRHP Listed No Adverse Effect ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park/ Kalispell Core Area Development and Trail 6 enc: Class III Cultural Resource Investigations of the Glacier Rail Park in Kalispell, Montana, Phase I: Parcels A & B Section 106 Cultural Resources Inventory for the TIGER VII Glacier Rail Park Trail Project, City of Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana Map of Rail Park Adjacent Properties Photographs and Descriptions of Rail Park Adjacent Properties CRABS Form (Trail) ---PAGE BREAK--- Date: Thursday, August 04, 2016 4:24:58 PM Attachments: image002.png image003.png image004.png image005.png image006.png image007.png From: Katharine Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 10:39 AM To: Mark Rohweder <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: FW: Proposed APE - Kalispell Rail Park and Trail FYI From: Bush, Jessica [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 8:45 AM To: Squires, Larry (FTA) <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Shick, Laura (FRA) <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Katharine Thompson <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; 'Kim Morisaki' <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Tom Jentz <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; 'Gil Jordan' <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; 'Pamela Carbonari' <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: Proposed APE - Kalispell Rail Park and Trail Hi Larry, We at SHPO have reviewed the APE for this project and have no concerns or comments. Thanks, and have a great week! Jessica Bush, M.A. Review and Compliance Officer State Historic Preservation Office Montana Historical Society P.O. Box 201201 /1301 E. Lockey Avenue Helena, MT 59620-1201 [EMAIL REDACTED] [PHONE REDACTED] www.montanahistoricalsociety.org See what’s going on, follow us on Social Media: From: Squires, Larry (FTA) [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] ---PAGE BREAK--- Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 2:02 PM To: Shick, Laura (FRA); Katharine Thompson ([EMAIL REDACTED]); Bush, Jessica; 'Kim Morisaki'; 'Tom Jentz'; 'Gil Jordan'; 'Pamela Carbonari' Subject: RE: Proposed APE - Kalispell Rail Park and Trail Thank you, Laura. To clarify, it is one APE – two map(s) for the purpose of presenting the undertaking and APE at an adequate scale for review. Given the scale and nature of the proposed undertaking, the proposed APE captures the potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts. As discussed during the “kick-off” meeting, the proposed APE should include all locations for all elements of the undertaking, including staging of construction equipment; all locations where the undertaking may result in disturbance of the ground; all locations from which elements of the undertaking structures or land disturbance) may be visible or audible; all locations where the activity may result in changes in traffic patterns, land use, public access, etc.; and all areas where there may be indirect as well as direct effects, e.g. later in time, removed in distance. Although the APE need not be a single area and need not always have hard and fast boundaries, and there may be different APEs for different effects of an undertaking, the scale and nature, scope and magnitude, of the proposed undertaking suggests that the potential for impacts, direct and indirect, will be limited to the existing railroad ROW, project area, and, to a lesser or greater extent depending on the activity, adjacent parcels/blocks/neighborhoods. However, any suggestions or recommendations to help improve would be greatly welcomed. Larry Squires From: Shick, Laura (FRA) Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 12:42 PM To: Squires, Larry (FTA); Katharine Thompson ([EMAIL REDACTED]); [EMAIL REDACTED]; 'Kim Morisaki'; 'Tom Jentz'; 'Gil Jordan'; 'Pamela Carbonari' Subject: RE: Proposed APE - Kalispell Rail Park and Trail Hi Larry, Could you briefly describe how the limits of the proposed indirect APEs were chosen? Thanks, Laura From: Squires, Larry (FTA) Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 2:36 PM To: Katharine Thompson ([EMAIL REDACTED]); [EMAIL REDACTED]; Shick, Laura (FRA); 'Kim Morisaki'; 'Tom Jentz'; 'Gil Jordan'; 'Pamela Carbonari' Subject: Proposed APE - Kalispell Rail Park and Trail Hello, ---PAGE BREAK--- I hope all is well. Please find attached, the proposed Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the City of Kalispell, Glacier Rail Park and Core Area Trail project. Attached are 2 APE maps, one each for the Phase I Rail Park and Phase II Trail. We hope, to the maximum extent practicable, to have captured the feedback provided at the “kick- off” meeting held on May 10, 2016. Please provide any further suggestions or recommendations regarding the APEs to Katharine and I, and we will work to incorporate your input into the Section 106 consultation process moving forward. Similarly, if you do not have any further comments regarding the APEs, please let us know. If I may provide any further assistance, please advise. Thank you, Larry Squires [PHONE REDACTED] Jessica Aasand KLJ - West Fargo [PHONE REDACTED] Ext. 5812 Direct ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park/Kalispell Core Area Trail Section 106 Consultation – Kick-off Meeting May 10, 2016 1:00PM EST/11:00AM MT AGENDA 1. Introductions 2. Section 106 Process Step 1: Initiate the Section 106 process Step 2: Identify historic properties Step 3: Assess adverse effects Step 4: Resolve adverse effects 3. Glacier Rail Park and Trial Project Purpose and Need Project Description Phase I (Glacier Rail Park) Phase II (Kalispell Core Area Trail) 4. Discuss Proposed Area(s) of Potential Effect (APE) 5. Next Steps Reach consensus on APE(s) Identify historic properties Determine effects Resolve any adverse effects through development of a Memorandum of Agreement 6. Other items ---PAGE BREAK--- Section 106 Process Step 1: Initiate the Section 106 process Step 2: Identify historic properties Step 3: Assess adverse effects Step 4: Resolve adverse effects ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park and Trail The Project Project Sponsor(s): City of Kalispell, MT Flathead County Economic Development Authority Funding ($22 million project): USDOT TIGER Grant Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) City of Kalispell FCEDA Other funding sources Project Phases: Glacier Rail Park (Phase I) Kalispell Trail (Phase II) ---PAGE BREAK--- Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community T028N R021W T028N R022W S05 S06 S07 S08 S17 S18 S01 S12 S13 Rail Removal (orange) Path Construction (green) Proposed Watermain Proposed Rail Location Rail Location Proposed Road Improvements Proposed Stormwater Pond Rail Terminus Exisiting Stormwater Retention Pond Proposed Stormwater Pond 0 500 1,000 250 Feet µ Rail Removal and Path Contruction Proposed Rail Track Existing Track Mainline Proposed Sidewalk Proposed Road Improvements Proposed Watermain Possible Complete Streets Rail Removal Rail Park Project Area Trail and Potential Complete Streets Project Area DRAFT ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park and Trail The Purpose To improve, increase and enhance local and regional access to rail while providing a compatible mix of industrial, commercial and residential land uses within the City of Kalispell, Flathead County The Need To foster community revitalization To spur economic development To remove/replace the rail lines bisecting the City of Kalispell To increase efficiency of traffic operations To reduce roadway congestion and delays associated with rail To increase safety of local roadways To provide safe bicycle and pedestrian travel options ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park and Trail Phase I – Glacier Rail Park 40-acre industrial rail park 14,000 feet of track relocation and replacement 1 to 2 miles of ingress and egress Roadway access and signalization improvements Utility Improvements, e.g. water, sewer, storm-water ---PAGE BREAK--- Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community 9TH AVENUE EN RIVERSIDE DR 4TH AVENUE EN CALIFORNIA ST 1ST AVENUE EN 8TH AVENUE EN WOODLAND PARK DR 6TH AVENUE EN 5TH AVENUE EN OREGON ST 3RD AVENUE EN 2ND AVENUE EN WHITEFISH STAGE RD FLATHEAD DR T028N R021W S05 S06 S07 S08 0 250 500 125 Feet Proposed Rail Track Existing Track Mainline Proposed Watermain Proposed Road Improvements & Location of Traffic Signal Proposed Stormwater Pond Proposed Road Improvements µ Rail Terminus Existing Track Mainline Proposed Road Improvements Existing Stormwater Retention Pond Trail and Potential Complete Streets Project Area Proposed Watermain Proposed Sidewalk Proposed Rail Track Rail Park Project Area Proposed Stormwater Pond Proposed Sidewalk DRAFT ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park and Trail Phase II – Kalispell Core Area Trail Burlington Northern – Santa Fe Rail (BNSF) rail abandonment Track removal Replace rail with public use pedestrian & bicycle trail Add 2 to 4 north-south street connections bisecting trail Complete streets improvements at several locations ---PAGE BREAK--- Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community £ ¤ 2 £ ¤ 93 4TH AVENUE WEST MARKET PLACE ST 4TH AVENUE EN CALIFORNIA ST 8TH AVENUE EN S. MERIDIAN RD 1ST STREET EAST 1ST STREET WEST 3RD AVENUE EAST E CENTER STREET 6TH AVENUE EN 5TH AVENUE EN 4TH AVENUE WN FLATHEAD DR WOODLAND AV 1ST AVENUE EAST 3RD AVENUE EN 5TH AVENUE WEST 6TH AVENUE WN W CENTER STREET 1ST AVENUE EN 1ST AVENUE WN 2ND AVENUE WN 3RD AVENUE WN 2ND AVENUE EN N MAIN ST WOODLAND PARK DR 4TH AVENUE EAST OREGON ST APPLEWAY DR 5TH AVENUE WN WHITEFISH STAGE RD HWY 2 N. MERIDIAN RD MONTANA ST 3RD AVENUE WEST 2ND AVENUE WEST 1ST AVENUE WEST 6TH AVENUE WEST 8TH AVENUE WEST T028N R021W T028N R022W S07 S08 S17 S18 S12 S13 0 275 550 137.5 Feet Path Construction (green) Rail Removal (orange) µ Proposed Path and Rail Possible Complete Streets Rail Removal Rail Park Project Area Trail and Potential Complete Streets Project Area DRAFT ---PAGE BREAK--- Defining the APE Account for indirect and direct effects, including: Locations of all ground-disturbing activities Locations from which the undertaking may be visible or audible Physical destruction or alteration of historic properties ---PAGE BREAK--- Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community 9TH AVENUE EN RIVERSIDE DR 4TH AVENUE EN CALIFORNIA ST 1ST AVENUE EN 8TH AVENUE EN WOODLAND PARK DR 6TH AVENUE EN 5TH AVENUE EN OREGON ST 3RD AVENUE EN 2ND AVENUE EN WHITEFISH STAGE RD FLATHEAD DR T028N R021W S05 S06 S07 S08 0 250 500 125 Feet Proposed Rail Track Existing Track Mainline Proposed Watermain Proposed Road Improvements & Location of Traffic Signal Proposed Stormwater Pond Proposed Road Improvements µ Rail Terminus Existing Track Mainline Proposed Road Improvements Existing Stormwater Retention Pond Trail and Potential Complete Streets Project Area Proposed Watermain Proposed Sidewalk Proposed Rail Track Rail Park Project Area Proposed Stormwater Pond Proposed Sidewalk DRAFT ---PAGE BREAK--- Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community £ ¤ 2 £ ¤ 93 4TH AVENUE WEST MARKET PLACE ST 4TH AVENUE EN CALIFORNIA ST 8TH AVENUE EN S. MERIDIAN RD 1ST STREET EAST 1ST STREET WEST 3RD AVENUE EAST E CENTER STREET 6TH AVENUE EN 5TH AVENUE EN 4TH AVENUE WN FLATHEAD DR WOODLAND AV 1ST AVENUE EAST 3RD AVENUE EN 5TH AVENUE WEST 6TH AVENUE WN W CENTER STREET 1ST AVENUE EN 1ST AVENUE WN 2ND AVENUE WN 3RD AVENUE WN 2ND AVENUE EN N MAIN ST WOODLAND PARK DR 4TH AVENUE EAST OREGON ST APPLEWAY DR 5TH AVENUE WN WHITEFISH STAGE RD HWY 2 N. MERIDIAN RD MONTANA ST 3RD AVENUE WEST 2ND AVENUE WEST 1ST AVENUE WEST 6TH AVENUE WEST 8TH AVENUE WEST T028N R021W T028N R022W S07 S08 S17 S18 S12 S13 0 275 550 137.5 Feet Path Construction (green) Rail Removal (orange) µ Proposed Path and Rail Possible Complete Streets Rail Removal Rail Park Project Area Trail and Potential Complete Streets Project Area DRAFT ---PAGE BREAK--- Next Steps Reach consensus on APE(s) Identify historic properties Determine effects Resolve any adverse effects (Memorandum of Agreement) ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park and Trail Contacts Larry Squires Environmental Protection Specialist Federal Railroad Administration [EMAIL REDACTED] [PHONE REDACTED] Or, Katharine Thompson Community Development Manager City of Kalispell [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix G Draft Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement ---PAGE BREAK--- MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AMONG THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION THE MONTANA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER AND THE CITY OF KALISPELL, MONTANA REGARDING THE GLACIER RAIL PARK/KALISPELL CORE AREA DEVELOPMENT AND TRAIL PROJECT KALISPELL, FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA WHEREAS, the City of Kalispell, Montana, (City) proposes to construct the Glacier Rail Park/Kalispell Core Area Development and Trail Project (Project or Undertaking) located in the City of Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana; and WHEREAS, the Project consists of the following two phases: construction and operation of the new Glacier Rail Park (Rail Park), which will include 10,000 linear feet of new rail to serve industrial users in the rail park and provide a new rail turnaround adjacent to the rail park allowing for the removal of the original track in Kalispell; improvements to access roads on the north and east sides of the new Rail Park, traffic signal and road improvements for truck access to Montana Highway 2, and utilities to each lot in the Rail Park to provide access to City water and sewer, power, gas and fiber optics (herein after referred to as Phase and a rail-to-trail component known as the Kalispell Trail, which will include the removal of nearly two miles of existing rail line from milepost 1225.19 to the west side of Meridian Street at milepost 1226.79, conversion of the existing rail bridge to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian use, construction of a public use recreational trail in the abandoned railroad right-of-way (ROW), and the construction of two complete street connections in the Kalispell Core Area (herein after referred to as Phase II); and WHEREAS, Phase I of the Project must be constructed and operational, with rail traffic moved off the existing rail line, the existing rail line abandoned by BNSF Railway Co. (the owner of the rail line) through a process involving the Surface Transportation Board (STB), and the ROW acquired by the City, before the City can construct Phase II of the Project; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) has selected the City to receive Fiscal Year 2015 grant funding for construction of the Project (both Phase I and Phase II) under its Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Program, and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), an operating administration of USDOT, is administering the TIGER grant; and WHEREAS the Project is an “Undertaking” under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (54 U.S.C. § 306108) (“Section 106”) and FRA is the lead federal agency responsible for compliance with Section 106 and its implementing regulations promulgated by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) (36 CFR Part 800) for the Project; and ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 WHEREAS, FRA, in a letter dated March 15, 2016, initiated Section 106 consultation with the Montana State Historic Officer (MT SHPO) as required by the Section 106 regulations and FRA has continued to consult with MT SHPO through the subsequent steps of the Section 106 process; and WHEREAS, FRA proposed an area of potential effects (APE), as defined in 36 CFR § 800.16(d), to account for direct and indirect effects of both Phase I and Phase II of the Project, and MT SHPO concurred with the APE in an email dated May 23, 2016; and WHEREAS, in letters dated May 16, 2016, FRA notified the following federally- recognized Native American tribes about the Project and invited them to consult: the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation, Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Reservation of Montana, Crow Tribe of Montana, Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, and Blackfeet Nation; of those contacted, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation responded in a letter dated June 28, 2016 indicating that it was not aware of any sites of interest in the APE and expressed approval of the Project; and none of the other tribes responded; and WHEREAS, FRA, in emails sent on April 26, 2016, February 23, 2017, and March 10, 2017, invited the Northwest Montana Historical Society (Historical Society), the Kalispell Business Improvement District (KBID), the Flathead County Economic Development Authority (FCEDA), and the Great Northern Railway Historical Society to participate in Section 106 consultation, and the Historical Society, KBID, and FCEDA accepted the invitation to consult and declined the invitation to consult; and WHEREAS, FRA has invited the City to sign this Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) as an Invited Signatory because the City would be the recipient of the TIGER funding and, as such, would have responsibility for implementing mitigation commitments specified herein, and the City has accepted; and WHEREAS, FRA has invited the Historical Society to sign this MOA as an Invited Signatory because it may have responsibility for assisting the City in implementing certain mitigation commitments specified herein, and the Historical Society has accepted; and WHEREAS, FRA has invited KBID and FCEDA to participate in this MOA as Concurring Parties, and KBID has accepted to be a Concurring Party and FCEDA will remain a Consulting Party; and WHEREAS, in a letter dated April 5, 2017 and as allowable under the Section 106 regulations at 36 800.2(a)(2), STB designated FRA as the lead federal agency to fulfil STB’s and FRA’s collective Section 106 responsibilities with regard to the portion of the BNSF-owned rail line that is the subject of the rail-to-trail phase of the Project; and ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 WHEREAS, STB remains responsible for Section 106 compliance for its abandonment action regarding the portion of the BNSF-owned rail line that is not part of the TIGER project; and WHEREAS, has invited STB to sign this MOA as an Invited Signatory and STB has accepted; and WHEREAS, the City’s consultants conducted cultural resources investigations for both phases of the Project, which resulted in two reports (Class III Cultural Resource Investigations of the Glacier Rail Park in Kalispell, Montana, Phase I, Parcels A&B, Historical Discoveries, March 2016; Section 106 Cultural Resources Inventory, Glacier Rail Park/Kalispell Core Area Development and Trail Project City of Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana, Rabbitbrush Archaeological Services, LLC, December 2016); and WHEREAS, FRA has identified historic archaeological and architectural properties in the APE which include the following architectural properties listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP): the Woodland Park - Eastside Historic District, the Great Northern Railroad, the Kalispell Flour Mill, the Great Northern Railway Depot, and the Flathead Wholesale Grocery, and FRA presented its findings in a letter to MT SHPO dated February 22, 2017 and MT SHPO concurred with FRA’s findings in a letter dated March 14, 2017; and WHEREAS, FRA, as documented its letter of February 22, 2017, has determined that Phase I of the Project will have No Effect on historic properties and Phase II of the Project will have No Adverse Effect on Woodland Park - Eastside Historic District, and MT SHPO concurred with these determinations in its letter of March 14, 2017; and WHEREAS, FRA, as documented in its letter of February 22, 2017, has determined that Phase II of the Project will have an adverse effect on the Great Northern Railroad and on the Kalispell Flour Mill, the Great Northern Railway Depot, and the Flathead Wholesale Grocery, which are three architectural properties adjacent to the railroad ROW and were historically associated with the Great Northern Railroad, and MT SHPO concurred with FRA’s adverse effect determination in its letter of March 14, 2017; and WHEREAS, based on the information contained in the aforementioned reports and because all ground-disturbing activities necessary to construct the Project will occur in areas disturbed by previous construction, FRA has determined that no further archaeological investigations are necessary for the Project; and WHEREAS, in accordance with 36 CFR § 800.6(a)(1), FRA notified the ACHP on April 12, 2017 of its adverse effect determination with specified documentation utilizing ACHP’s e106 notification system, and ACHP responded to FRA in a letter dated April 19, 2017, that it has chosen not to participate in the consultation pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.6(a)(1)(iii); and NOW, THEREFORE, FRA, MT SHPO, the City, STB, and the Historical ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 Society (each, a Signatory and together the Signatories) agree that the Undertaking will be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations in order to take into account the effect of the Undertaking on historic properties. STIPULATIONS FRA and the City will ensure that the following measures are carried out: I. PERSONNEL QUALIFICATION STANDARDS The City will ensure that all historic preservation and documentation work is carried out by or under the direct supervision of a person or persons meeting at a minimum the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for Historians or Architectural Historians (48 FR 44738-9). III. MITIGATION A. The following mitigation measures are required as part of FRA’s approval of the Project: 1. Interpretive Signage The Historical Society will review its collection to determine if it has information relevant to the history of the Great Northern Railroad and the importance the railroad played in the development and history of the City of Kalispell and surrounding region. If available, the Historical Society will provide the information identified in Stipulation III.A.1(a) to the City for the City’s use, at its discretion, in developing narrative and/or pictorial content for the interpretive signage (see Stipulation III.A.3). The City will develop narrative and pictorial content for and install interpretive signage at the following locations along the Kalispell Trail (see Attachment A for a map of the proposed signage locations): i. South of milepost 1225.19 and at the north end of the bridge crossing Highway 93. This sign will mark the trailhead and provide an introduction to the Kalispell Trail, including a history of when rail service first came to the Kalispell area in the late 1880s and an explanation of when and why a new rail route 11 years later resulted in moving service to a spur line. ii. Flathead Electric Coop Substation, located roughly at the northwestern edge of Woodland Park. This sign will highlight the ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 contributions of the Conrad Family as a founding family of the Kalispell community. iii. Depot Park. This sign will highlight the history of the extant former Great Northern Railway Depot. iv. Former location of the Flathead Lake Cherry Growers Association Warehouse, located at 20 North Main Street. This sign will highlight the important role of the railroad in shipping sweet cherries and the historic importance of this agricultural product in the regional economy, with the railroad, beginning in 1910, advertising the area for settlement based on its potential for growing fruit in the temperate climate and Flathead County becoming the fourth largest sweet cherry producing region in the country by the 1940s. v. Grain Elevators located at 505 West Center Street. This sign will highlight the history of the extant structures and the historic importance of agriculture in the regional economy. vi. Roughly at Meridian Street north of West Center Street and south of Appleway. This sign will highlight the history of the timber industry as well as the mill and log pond formerly located in this area. The City will provide drafts of the narrative and pictorial content of each sign to the Signatories and Concurring Party for review and comment in accordance with Stipulation IV. 2. Retention in Place of a Segment of Railroad Track The City will retain approximately 60 feet of railroad track in place at Depot Park, to highlight the historic association between the former railroad the Great Northern Railway Depot. Planting of Cherry Trees The City will plant cherry trees interspersed along the Kalispell Trail, with emphasis in the former location of the Flathead Lake Cherry Growers Association Warehouse at 20 North Main Street. B. Additional optional mitigation measures. Subject to the availability of future funding and public support, the City may implement one or more of the following mitigation measures: ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 1. Acquisition of a decommissioned a rail car to be placed on the segment of track that is retained in place adjacent to Depot Park (see Stipulation III.A.2). 2. Commissioning for the design and installation of public artwork, to be placed along the Kalispell Trail, that is reflective of the City’s railroading history. 3. Commissioning for the design and installation of a water feature(s), such as a fountain or splash park, to be located along the Kalispell Trail. 4. The City will provide drafts of the design of the public artwork and water feature(s) to the Signatories and Concurring Party for review and comment in accordance with Stipulation IV. IV. PREPARATION AND REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS The Signatories and Concurring Party agree to provide comments on all documents and materials arising from this MOA to the City within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving the submission. If the City does not receive comments from the other parties within the thirty (30) calendar-day review period, the City may assume that the non- responding party has no comments or objections. Where necessary, the City will consult with any responding party to ensure it appropriately considers all comments received within the thirty (30) calendar-day review period before implementing the mitigation measure. V. EFFECTIVE DATE This MOA will be effective as of the date of its execution by all Signatories. VI. DURATION This MOA will expire if its terms are not carried out within ten (10) years from the date of its execution. Prior to such time, FRA and the City may consult with the other Signatories to reconsider the terms of the MOA and amend it in accordance with Stipulation X below. VII. POST-REVIEW CHANGES If the City proposes changes to the Project that may result in additional or new effects on historic properties, the City will notify FRA and MT SHPO of such changes. Before the City takes any action that may result in additional or new effects on historic properties, FRA, MT SHPO, the City, and other consulting parties as appropriate, will consult to determine the appropriate course of action. VIII. POST-REVIEW DISCOVERIES If properties are discovered during Project construction that may be historically significant or unanticipated effects on historic properties are identified, FRA and ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 the City will comply with 36 CFR § 800.13 by consulting with MT SHPO and, if applicable, federally recognized tribal organizations that may attach religious and/or cultural significance to the affected property; and by developing and implementing avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures with the concurrence of MT SHPO and, if applicable, federally recognized tribal organizations. VIII. MONITORING AND REPORTING Each year following the execution of this MOA until it expires or is terminated, the City will provide the other Signatories and Concurring Party a summary report detailing work undertaken pursuant to the MOA’s terms. This report will include any scheduling changes proposed, any problems encountered, and any disputes or objections received in the City’s efforts to carry out the terms of this MOA. IX. ADOPTABILITY In the event that another federal agency not initially a party to this MOA receives an application for funding, license, permit or other approval for the Project as described in this MOA, that agency may fulfill its Section 106 responsibilities by notifying the Signatories that it concurs with the terms of this MOA and that it intends to rely on this MOA. X. DISPUTE RESOLUTION Should any Signatory or Concurring Party to this MOA object at any time to the manner in which the terms of this MOA are implemented, it will notify FRA in writing and FRA will then consult with that party to resolve the objection. If FRA determines that such objection cannot be resolved within thirty (30) calendar days, FRA will: A. Forward all documentation relevant to the dispute, including FRA’s proposed resolution, to the ACHP with a copy to the other Signatories and Concurring Party to this MOA, and request that the ACHP provide FRA with its advice on the resolution of the objection within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving the documentation. B. If the ACHP does not provide its advice regarding the dispute within the thirty (30) calendar day time period, FRA may make a decision on the dispute and proceed accordingly. C. FRA will document its decision in a written response to the objection that takes into account any timely comments regarding the dispute from the Signatories and Concurring Party and will provide the ACHP, Signatories, and Concurring Party with a copy of such written response. D. FRA may then proceed according to its decision. ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 E. The Signatories remain responsible for carrying out all other actions subject to the terms of this MOA that are not the subject of the dispute. XI. AMENDMENTS This MOA may be amended when such an amendment is agreed to in writing by all Signatories. The amendment will be effective on the date a copy signed by all of the Signatories is filed with ACHP. XII. TERMINATION If any Signatory to this MOA determines that its terms will not or cannot be carried out, that Signatory will immediately consult with the other Signatories to attempt to develop an amendment per Stipulation XI, above. If within thirty (30) calendar days (or another time period agreed to by all Signatories) an amendment cannot be reached, any Signatory may terminate the MOA upon written notification to the other Signatories. Once the MOA is terminated, and prior to work continuing on the undertaking, FRA must either execute an MOA pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.6, or request, take into account, and respond to the comments of the ACHP under 36 CFR § 800.7. FRA will notify the Signatories of its course of action. Execution of this MOA by FRA and MT SHPO and implementation of its terms evidence that FRA has taken into account the effects of this undertaking on historic properties and afforded ACHP an opportunity to comment. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AMONG THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION THE MONTANA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER AND THE CITY OF KALISPELL, MONTANA REGARDING THE GLACIER RAIL PARK/KALISPELL CORE AREA DEVELOPMENT AND TRAIL PROJECT KALISPELL, FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION (Signatory) By: Date: Marlys Osterhues Division Chief, Environmental & Corridor Planning Division Office of Railroad Policy and Development MONTANA STATION HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE (Signatory) By: Date: Mark Baumler State Historic Preservation Officer CITY OF KALISPELL (Invited Signatory) By: Date: Doug Russell Kalispell City Manager ---PAGE BREAK--- 10 NORTHWEST MONTANA HISTORICAL SOCIETY (Invited Signatory) By: Date: Jacob Thomas Executive Director SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD (Invited Signatory) By: Date Vicki Rutson Director, Office of Environmental Analysis KALISPELL BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (Concurring Party) By: Date Pamela J. Carbonari Coordinator ---PAGE BREAK--- I- I- I- I- I- I- 28N 28N 21W 22W Service Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed ² I- InterpretiveSignage 0 0.5 0.25 Miles Proposed Location of Interpretive Signage along the Kalispell Trail - Section 106 MOA Attachment A iv. Location of the former Flathead Lake Cherry Growers Association Warehouse, located at 20 North Main St. Highlight the important role of the railroad in shipping sweet cherries and the historic importance of this agricultural product in the regional economy, beginning in 1910, advertising the area for settlement based on its potential for growing fruit in the temperate climate and Flathead County becoming the fourth largest sweet cherry producing region in the country by the 1940's. i. Mark the Trailhead and provide an introduction to the Kalispell Trail, including a history of when rail service first came to the Kalispell area in the late 1800's and an explanation of when and why a rew rail route 11 years later resulted in moving service to a spur line. ii. Highlight the contributions of the Conrad Family as a founding family of the Kalispell Community iii. Highlight the history of the extant former Great Northern Railway Depot. v. Highlight the history of the three extant grain elevators and the historic importance of agriculture in the regional economy. vi. Highlight the history of the timber industry as well as the mill and log pond fomerly located in this area ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix H Public Outreach ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park and Kalispell Trail Environmental Assessment July 2016 1 1 . 1 P u b l i c E n g a g e m e n t By way of background it is important to note that this TIGER project is the result of a robust public engagement process and to this writing continues to be informed by public involvement. The City of Kalispell was awarded an EPA Brownfields Area-Wide Planning grant in 2010 and worked for two years with the local community and stakeholders to identify the needs and priorities for its railroad corridor area. This area, referred to now as the Core Area, is some 265-acres including 1,100 parcels and 450 property owners. The area stretches to the city limits east to west and reaches north to Washington Street and south to First Street. The city met one-on-one with one hundred thirty-nine individual property owners in the Core Area and key stakeholders during this planning period documenting their individual perspectives and interests in meetings that averaged an hour each. Further we performed the following outreach efforts: mailed seven quarterly newsletters to Core Area property owners and anyone who expressed interest from 2011 through 2012. The mailing list included 475 addresses; Convened and met with a group of nine community volunteers, the Core Area Steering Committee, to vet concepts and receive feedback for a year; Presented to all community and service organizations available including Kalispell Chamber of Commerce Executive Committee, Kalispell Rotary (Morning and Noon Clubs), Kalispell Convention and Visitor Bureau, Kalispell Tourism Business Improvement District Board, Kalispell Downtown Association, Kalispell Business Improvement District Board, Kalispell Parking Commission, Montana West Economic Development, Kalispell Public Schools, Kalispell Job Service Employers Committee, Flathead Valley Community College, Flathead County Library Foundation Board, Flathead County Fair Board, Flathead County Economic Development Authority, Community Development Block Grant Public Needs Assessment Hearing, Montana’s federal delegation, and others. Most of these organizations received more than one presentation over the two-year period. In each of these meetings a formal presentation was given followed by a group question and answer session; Set-up public information booths at events including Picnic in the Park (summer event held at Depot Park in the Core Area) and Flathead County Fair; Advertised and conducted two open house format events with large scale maps with the public invited to participate by discussing the plan, asking questions and sharing their views with City staff individually; Presented to 220 community members at a paid luncheon for the Kalispell Chamber of Commerce. This presentation was filmed and then played on the City’s government access channel and available on demand through the City website for six months; and No fewer than 15 media stories in print, radio and television provided information throughout the community. The comments gathered in the Core Area planning process were into a planning document and expert consultants were utilized to create visual depictions of the type of redevelopment voiced by the community. Additionally, a feasibility study was conducted. Once drafted the Core Area Plan was presented for review to the Core Area Steering Committee, Kalispell Urban Renewal Agency, Kalispell Planning Board and then to City Council which adopted the plan unanimously in December 2012 as an amendment to the City’s existing growth policy. Immediately following this action, the City formed the Core Area Tax Increment Finance (TIF) district to provide a means for local financial support of the ambitious Core Area Plan. This USDOT TIGER grant is based entirely on the Core Area Plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park and Kalispell Trail Environmental Assessment July 2016 2 In 2013, 2014 and 2015 the City applied to the US Department of Transportation for a Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant and was awarded in 2015. Through each of the three application processes the City continued to reach out to the community for input and specifically for letters of commitment and support for the TIGER grant. The City submitted seventy-two (72) letters of support with its 2015 application. As a continuation of its highly successful public outreach efforts and in support of this Environmental Assessment the City has conducted the following outreach with surveys specifically seeking public input on the TIGER project beginning in 2016: Created an online survey available on the City website and publicized via social and traditional media; Set-up public information booths and provided surveys at events including Picnic in the Park and ThursdayFest! (summer events held in a City park in the Core Area) and the Flathead County Fair—including a survey for young children to draw a picture of what they want the trail to look like; Held open-house format meetings with surveys available and opportunities to discuss the project with City staff members individually; ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park and Kalispell Trail Environmental Assessment July 2016 3 Presented to community members at their meetings with formal presentations followed by group question and answer periods with survey responses collected. The 2016 survey process yielded 344 total surveys (plus 11 kids’ surveys). Surveys asked respondents to provide their priorities on complete street connections to be built with the results as follows: Meridian Court 40.12% 8th Ave WN 59.83% 6th Ave WN 49.13% 4th Ave WN 37.21% 3rd Ave WN 36.63% 2nd Ave WN 33.43% 1st Ave WN 34.59% Woodland Ave North 68.90% The survey also inquired about the community’s priorities for amenities along the new trail with the following responses: The chart below documents the community group meetings, events and mailing through which the TIGER grant project was presented and discussed following the TIGER grant award announcement in the fall of 2015. Included is the meeting date, number of attendees and staff who presented. This list includes roughly 50 separate meetings or events over the course of seventeen months. Bathrooms 54.36% Benches 66.86% Dedicated Bike Lane 52.91% Drinking Fountain/Water Stations 37.50% Grassy Boulevard 47.38% Interpretive Signs 18.90% Lighting 70.64% Pedestrian Activated Street Crossings 37.21% Pet Waste Stations 47.97% Picnic Areas 28.20% Public Art 33.43% Trailheads 21.80% Trail Surface – Concrete – Asphalt – Gravel Asphalt: 41.86% Concrete: 18.02% Gravel: 5.23% Asphalt/Concrete: 1.45% Asphalt/Gravel: .58% Concrete/Gravel: 0% Any/Mix: .58% Marked but Not Specified: 4.07% Trash Cans 71.80% Trees 77.33% Other 7.56% ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park and Kalispell Trail Environmental Assessment July 2016 4 Community Group or Event Meeting Date Staff Presenting # in Attendance Kalispell Morning Rotary 03/09/2017 Tom Jentz 60 Flathead County Economic Development Authority 03/08/2017 Kim Morisaki, Katharine Thompson, Tom Jentz 15 Kalispell Kiwanis Club 03/08/2017 Tom Jentz 8 Flathead Conservation Roundtable 03/08/2017 Katharine Thompson 6 Glacier Bank Leadership Staff 03/07/2017 Tom Jentz 40 Free The Seeds Community Event, 03/04/2017 Katharine Thompson 6 Flathead County Economic Development Authority 02/08/2017 Kim Morisaki, Katharine Thompson 10 Flathead County Economic Development Authority Board 01/11/2017 Kim Morisaki, Katharine Thompson, Tom Jentz 11 Montana West Economic Development Annual Meeting 12/14/2016 Kim Morisaki 120 Flathead County Economic Development Authority 12/07/2016 Kim Morisaki, Katharine Thompson, Tom Jentz 8 Kalispell Kiwanis 12/01/2016 Tom Jentz 12 Annual CDBG Public Needs Assessment Hearing 11/03/2016 Krista Lammers 30 Flathead County Economic Development Authority 11/02/2016 Kim Morisaki, Katharine Thompson 10 Flathead County Economic Development Authority 10/07/2016 Kim Morisaki, Tom Jentz 10 Leadership Flathead 10/04/2016 Kim Morisaki, Katharine Thompson 35 ImagineIf Library Board of Directors and Foundation Board 09/20/2016 Tom Jentz, Katharine Thompson, Kim Morisaki 22 ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park and Kalispell Trail Environmental Assessment July 2016 5 Kalispell Business Improvement District Board Presentation 09/07/2016 Katharine Thompson 4 Flathead County Economic Development Authority Board Meeting 09/07/2016 Kim Morisaki, Katharine Thompson 15 Kalispell Business Network International Group 08/31/2016 Urban Renewal Agency Chairman Marc Rold 12 TIGER Project Trail & Complete Streets Open House 08/25/2016 Tom Jentz, Katharine Thompson, Jarod Nygren, Krista Lammers 5 TIGER Project Trail & Complete Streets Open House 08/24/2016 Tom Jentz, Katharine Thompson, Jarod Nygren, Krista Lammers 2 Picnic in the Park 08/24/2016 Jarod Nygren 50 City Architectural Review Committee 08/23/2016 Tom Jentz, Jarod Nygren 6 Kalispell Kiwanis 08/20/2016 Tom Jentz 11 Northwest Montana Fair Booth – Flathead County Fairgrounds 08/19/2016 Tom Jentz, Katharine Thompson, Jarod Nygren, Kim Morisaki 125 NEPA Outreach – KGEZ Interview 08/19/2016 Katharine Thompson Flathead Valley Northwest Montana Fair Booth – Flathead County Fairgrounds 08/18/2016 Tom Jentz, Katharine Thompson, Jarod Nygren, Kim Morisaki 103 Northwest Montana Fair Booth – Flathead County Fairgrounds 08/17/2016 Tom Jentz, Katharine Thompson, Jarod Nygren, Kim Morisaki 38 Thursday!Fest Booth Lawn @ Museum at Central School 08/11/2016 Krista Lammers 18 Core Area Summer Newsletter 08/10/2016 Mailed Katharine Thompson, Tom Jentz, Jarod Nygren, Krista Lammers 475 Kalispell Urban Renewal Agency 08/09/2016 Tom Jentz, Katharine Thompson 5 Kalispell Downtown Association Board 08/09/2016 Katharine Thompson 12 Kalispell Lions Club 07/10/2016 Tom Jentz 11 ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park and Kalispell Trail Environmental Assessment July 2016 6 Meeting with Food Bank – Prospective sites relating to TIGER development 07/07/2016 Katharine Thompson, Tom Jentz 2 Evergreen Chamber of Commerce Luncheon 06/29/2016 Tom Jentz, Katharine Thompson, Kim Morisaki 14 Kalispell Chamber of Commerce Luncheon 06/21/2016 Tom Jentz, Katharine Thompson, Kim Morisaki, Mark Lalum, Eric Peterson 200 Flathead County Economic Development Authority Board 06/01/2016 Kim Morisaki, Katharine Thompson 12 Montana Housing Conference Kalispell Red Lion 05/23/2016 Tom Jentz, Katharine Thompson 30 Whitefish Chamber of Commerce Presentation 05/18/2016 Katharine Thompson, Kim Morisaki 20 Flathead County Economic Development Authority Board 05/04/2016 Kim Morisaki, Katharine Thompson 10 Montana Congressional Delegation (Sen Daines, Tester, Congressman Zinke) 04/20/2016 Katharine Thompson 3 Flathead County Economic Development Authority Board 04/06/2016 Kim Morisaki, Katharine Thompson 10 Flathead County Economic Development Authority Board 03/02/2016 Kim Morisaki, Katharine Thompson 10 Kalispell Daybreak Rotary 02/18/2016 Kim Morisaki, Katharine Thompson 45 Flathead County Economic Development Authority 02/03/2016 Kim Morisaki, Katharine Thompson 13 City of Kalispell Staff—Public Works and Parks Departments 12/03/2015 Tom Jentz, Katharine Thompson 45 Flathead County Economic Development Authority Board 12/02/2015 Kim Morisaki 14 Kalispell Kiwanis 12/01/2015 Tom Jentz 12 Montana West Economic Development Annual Meeting 11/18/2015 Kim Morisaki 200 Flathead County Economic Development Authority 11/04/2015 Kim Morisaki, Katharine Thompson 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- Glacier Rail Park and Kalispell Trail Environmental Assessment July 2016 7 TIGER Grant Award Media Event at CHS Grain Elevators with Senator Tester and Congressman Zinke 10/30/2015 Senator Jon Tester, Congressman Ryan Zinke 75 The public was deeply involved in the creation of the planning document that is the basis for this TIGER project and has been intentionally included since the TIGER grant was awarded to the City of Kalispell. This model for project outreach is the cornerstone of the project’s success in meeting the needs of the Kalispell community. ---PAGE BREAK--- Kalispell Core and Rail Redevelopment Presentation and Survey Summary Kalispell Chamber of Commerce Lunch June 21, 2016 Attendance: 220 people Presentation: Tom Jentz, Katharine Thompson, Kim Morisaki and Mark Lalum gave a 30 minute presentation on the Kalispell Core and Rail Redevelopment Project to inform the community where the project was to date and allow community members to ask questions. Tom Jentz, City of Kalispell, provided a summary of the history of the CRR Project and outlined the benefits of the Kalispell Center Mall’s announcement of their plan to invest in a new 40,000 square foot addition to their retail facility in the Core Area. Kim Morisaki, Flathead County Economic Development Authority, reviewed the rail park history, the infrastructure that will be supported by TIGER funding and the organization’s plan to include Team Track and Transloading Services at the completed Rail Park. Mark Lalum, General Manager of Cenex Harvest States, outlined the company’s plan to invest in a $12 MM facility at the new Glacier Rail Park when the infrastructure there is installed, resulting in the consolidation and relocation of their three facilities currently located on or near the rail tracks in the Kalispell Core Area. Finally Katharine Thompson provided information to the assembled group about the NEPA process and the Environmental Assessment being conducted currently as part of the process for TIGER funding to be obligated to the larger project. The community was invited to view the new website about the project that could be found at www.KalispellCoreandRail.com and to complete surveys provided to each attendee. Tom Jentz fielded questions from the audience at the end of the presentation. One question from the public enquired what elected officials intend to do to increase the number of liquor licenses available to food and beverage establishments inside the Kalispell City limits. Survey Results: 56 total responses Question 1: How do you feel about the removal of the old rail line in Kalispell and its replacement with a walk/bike trail? 1- Doesn’t Affect Me 1 Respondents choose 2- 0 Respondents choose 3- Might Use It 1 Respondent choose 4- 8 Respondents choose 5- Can’t Wait! 45 Respondents choose Question 2: What type of business/development would you like to see along the trail? Respondents suggested variations of the following entities: Restaurants/Bars/Bakeries/Cafes/Nightlife/Sidewalk Dining/Brewery Shops/Retail/Boutiques/Specialty/Outlets Office space/Multi-use/Tech business space/Parking Farmers Market/Local Products Apartments/Residential/Multi-Family/Townhouses ---PAGE BREAK--- Parks/Bike Rental System/ Live music venue/Art Galleries/Trees and Landscaping/Library Question 3: What businesses do you know that might be interested in locating in or gaining rail access through Glacier Rail Park? Question 4: What businesses do you know that might be interested in locating along the trail? Keller Williams Realty, Chris Fraser Northwest Montana Association of Realtors Tamarack Brew Pub Kalispell Farmer’s Market Question 5: If your business is located in the Core Area, in what ways to you see the trail benefitting you? More exposure to foot traffic. Increased visibility. Question 6: Are you or your community group interested in participating in designing the trail? Contributing to the trail? Very interested in the building and construction. We would love to be involved. The local Boy Scout District is interested. Question 7: Is there anything else you would like to share with us? We need easier access to alcohol licenses for new restaurants. Bringing people downtown, making the downtown area more appealing and attract business back to the center of the community. Very excited for this project’s growth and happy to see it moving forward. Connect Woodland Park to Whitefish Stage, 5th Ave. East to 5 Ave. EN, 7th Ave. West to 7th Ave. WN, and 8th Ave. to 8th Ave. WN. Very disappointed that elected officials refused to comment on very valid question regarding liquor license. It is critical to connect north Kalispell to this development via walking/biking trail. Hutton Ranch/KidSports is too geographically separated now. I like this and think it will be successful. Bike travel will only increase and catering to this via creation of safe traffic corridors is essential. Would love to see ImagineIf Library as an anchor/meaningful focal point for the project. Great work. Keep it up! Where are the access points to the trail for pedestrians/cyclists? Activities/attractions for youth? Keep them engaged. ---PAGE BREAK--- Kalispell Core and Rail Redevelopment Presentation and Survey Summary Evergreen Chamber of Commerce Lunch June 29, 2016 Attendance: 65 people Presentation: Katharine Thompson and Kim Morisaki gave a 30 minute presentation on the Kalispell Core and Rail Redevelopment Project to inform the community where the project was to date and allow community members to ask questions. Katharine Thompson, City of Kalispell, provided a summary of the history of the CRR Project information to the assembled group. She also outlined the NEPA process and the Environmental Assessment being conducted currently as part of the process for TIGER funding to be obligated to the larger project. Kim Morisaki, Flathead County Economic Development Authority, reviewed the rail park history, the infrastructure that will be supported by TIGER funding and the organization’s plan to include Team Track and Transloading Services at the completed Rail Park. She also outlined the CHS’s plan to invest in a $12 MM facility at the new Glacier Rail Park when the infrastructure there is installed, resulting in the consolidation and relocation of their three facilities currently located on or near the rail tracks in the Kalispell Core Area. The community was invited to view the new website about the project that could be found at www.KalispellCoreandRail.com and to complete surveys provided to each attendee. The presenters fielded questions from the audience at the end of the presentation. Survey Results: 18 total responses Question 1: How do you feel about the removal of the old rail line in Kalispell and its replacement with a walk/bike trail? 1 Doesn’t Affect Me 0 Respondents choose 2 0 Respondents choose 3 Might Use It 2 Respondents choose 4 5 Respondents choose 5 Can’t Wait! 10 Respondents choose 6 No response 1 Respondent skipped Question 1 Question 2: What type of business/development would you like to see along the trail? Respondents suggested variations of the following entities: Restaurants/Bars/Fun Downtown, Safe area/ Trader Joe’s!/Gastropubs Shops/Retail/Boutiques/Hospitality/Resort Performing Arts Venue High Density Housing/Mixed Residential Community Use Area ---PAGE BREAK--- Parking High Speed internet Artist Coops/Artisans/Mom and Pops Professional Services Question 3: What businesses do you know that might be interested in locating in or gaining rail access through Glacier Rail Park? Redneck Meats Montana Rifle Company Will do some leg work. Pro-Build WBC Distribution Question 4: What businesses do you know that might be interested in locating along the trail? Tesla Supercharger Depends on parking Bike Stores/Skate shops Question 5: If your business is located in the Core Area, in what ways to you see the trail benefitting you? Out-of-town vistas Overall appeal and foot traffic. New small businesses in need of our accounting services. Question 6: Are you or your community group interested in participating in designing the trail? Contributing to the trail? Design Always willing to help. Please email information. Absolutely. Rails to Trails. Question 7: Is there anything else you would like to share with us? Great step forward! Montana Sky Networks is local and hopes to provide high speed internet and IT services for all incoming business. Very exciting development for the entire area. Coming from Missoula I’m very excited to see development and more business. Excited for this. Indirectly. If it brings in new growth that would be a better opportunity to sell furniture.