Studies and Reports - CHAPTER TWO

ALTERNATIVES

The examination of alternatives is of critical importance to the environmental review process and serves to establish the conclusion that a suitable alternative that limits the impact of a project has not been dismissed from consideration. Generally, when a proposed project has the potential for significant impacts, a wide range of alternatives should be considered to avoid or minimize potential impacts. In selecting alternatives for environmental review, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recommends applying a test of reasonableness and practicality. According to FAA Order 5050.4A Airport Environmental Handbook, the Environmental Assessment (EA) shouldÉ Òevaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reason for their having been eliminated.Ó

This chapter provides an explanation of the evaluation process that was utilized to select the study area and within that study area, an acceptable location of the proposed Kentucky TriModal Transpark (KTT), as well as a description of the development alternatives that are fully evaluated in the Environmental Assessment (EA).

SUMMARY OF SITE SELECTION PROCESS

Preliminary Site Evaluation

In 1998, the Preliminary Site Evaluation and Market Strategy Study (PSEMSS) was conducted by the HNTB Corporation for the Warren County Fiscal Court. This study provided a preliminary assessment of the proposed projectÕs economic impact potential and physical feasibility, while outlining issues for further study, and identifying areas for potential site location. Work on this element of study was documented in two reports: Preliminary Site Evaluation and Market Strategy Study Report (PSEMSS), July 1998, and The Addendum to the Site Evaluation and Market Strategy Study, March 1999.

In 1998, the fiscal court of Warren County, Kentucky established the Inter-Modal Transportation Authority, Inc. (ITA) to plan for the continued economic growth for Warren County and surrounding counties in the area. The ITA was the moving force to encourage the Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and other political leaders to provide a grant to the ITA to study concept feasibility, select a site, construct, and ultimately operate a Òmulti-modal economic engineÓ for the south central area of Kentucky.

The primary market area that was identified for the proposed KTT represents a region of South Central Kentucky that is anticipated to be the principal labor market and economic impact area for the facility. The region was assumed to generally include those Kentucky counties within 50 miles of Bowling Green and encompasses a nineteen county region. The counties were selected to balance the labor market area with the potential market areas for air cargo, commercial airline service, and general aviation service. The counties included in the Primary Market Area are shown on Figure2-1 and are identified below.


Insert Figure 2-1

Adair Cumberland Hart Monroe Taylor
Allen Edmonson Larue Muhlenberg Todd
Barren Grayson Logan Ohio Warren
Butler Green Metcalfe Simpson

Ten of the nineteen counties included within the primary market area collectively comprise the region of the Barren River Area Development District (BRADD). This agency is responsible for promoting economic growth and development in the ten county region. The counties included in the BRADD are Allen, Barren, Butler, Edmonson, Hart, Logan, Metcalf, Monroe, Simpson, and Warren.

Four of the primary market area counties are included within the Appalachian Region of the United States. These counties include Adair, Cumberland, Green, and Larue are located on the eastern edge of the primary service area. Appalachia is considered to be a region with special transportation, economic, and human development needs. Because of its steep terrain, Appalachia has typically struggled to develop efficient transportation systems and services.

The focal point for the region, however, is represented by Warren County and the City of Bowling Green. A comparison of both population and employment data from 1996 for the nineteen county region is provided in Table 2-1. This comparison illustrates the degree to which Warren County and the City of Bowling Green serve as both a population and employment center with over 80,000 residents and 50,000 employees.

Table 2-1
County Population/Employment



Warren County was selected as the primary search area for the location of the proposed KTT because its demographic, economic, and infrastructure attributes. In addition to being the population and employment center of the region, Warren County is the intersection for interstates and other National Highway System (NHS) roads. Warren CountyÕs highway facilities include: I-65; the William Natcher, Cumberland, and Western Kentucky Parkways; and other principal arterials. Warren County also is centrally located with regard to the regionÕs two existing rail lines ø CSX Transportation (CSXT) and R.J. Corman Railroad Company/Memphis Line (RJCM).

The PSEMSS identified five initial screening factors that were considered in the selection of candidate study areas within or near Warren County. They were:

Topographical Features ø The topography of candidate areas was evaluated in terms of the airport and related development, aircraft approaches, and potentially hazardous off-site and topographic conditions. The recommended study area should be able to support a north- northeast to south-southwest runway. The study area should be able to support a corridor that would accommodate the FAA-required protection areas. In addition, the potential study area should be able to accommodate large areas of business/commercial development with a minimum of site preparation.

Rail Access - Candidate areas were evaluated for relative access to adequate rail service. Proximity to an existing rail line is important to the shipping of bulk material and ensuring the intermodal nature of the proposed facility. The potential study area should be within one-half mile from an existing line.

Highway Access ø Candidate areas were evaluated for relative access to four-lane highways, Interstates, and Parkway systems. Highway access is one of the most critical features in siting the proposed facility to facilitate truck transport of cargo to and from the site. The potential study area should be within one-half mile of a major four-lane highway.

In-Place Development Constraints ø Candidate areas were evaluated for their ability to accommodate the generic site layout, considering the existing development and land usage. The purpose is to identify and assess the possible extent of displacement/relocation of existing facilities due to the construction of the proposed facility. This factor applies to such facilities as utility lines, underground pipelines, roads, businesses, homes, and incorporated areas.

Proximity to Incorporated Residential Areas- Candidate areas were evaluated for potential impacts of the proposed facility on established communities in close proximity to their locations.

Based on the preliminary screening factors, seven candidate study areas were identified for screening in the PSEMSS. (See page 2-6) These areas are identified on Figure 2-2 and include:


Insert Figure 2-2

Alvaton Area. This area lies in the southeastern part of Warren County and is centered on a point that is approximately two miles due north of the intersection of US 231 and KY 872.

Hadley Area. This area lies in the western part of Warren County on the south side of the William Natcher Parkway and is centered on a point that is approximately two miles south of the Lewis Chapel area.

KY 101/Pondsville Area. This area lies in the eastern part of Warren County, east of KY 101 and north of Kentucky Highway 1297.

Interstate 65 (I-65)/Cumberland Parkway Area. This area lies in the extreme northeast part of Warren County and the western part of Barren County. This area is located north of US 68/Kentucky 80, east of KY 259, and both north and south of the Cumberland Parkway.

Oakland/Smiths Grove Area. This area is found in the north-central part of Warren County.

South Union Area. This area lies in the southwest part of Warren County, the northwest part of Simpson County, and the northeast part of Logan County. This area is west of US 68/KY 80 and south of KY 240.

Woodburn Area. This area lies in the south-central part of Warren County, near the Simpson County line. This area is centered on a point that is approximately 3.2 miles east of US 31W and two miles north of the Warren-Simpson County line.

Based on the results of the preliminary screening conducted in the PSEMSS, three areas were chosen for further analysis. These areas were the I-65/Cumberland Parkway Area, the Oakland/Smiths Grove Area, and the South Union Area. These areas were then evaluated based on potential environmental impacts as part of the PSEMSS. This evaluation was based on secondary source information. No field investigations were conducted of the three sites. Based on this cursory review, the PSEMSS concluded that there were no environmental factors that would prevent development in any of these potential search areas.

Site Selection: Phase I

In July of 1999, the Inter-Modal Transportation Authority, Inc (ITA) contracted Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) to assist them with project development activities by performing a study area selection and benefit/cost analyses. The area selection process continued where the PSEMSS left off and included three levels of analysis. The first level of analysis included a more detailed review of the seven initial areas that were originally screened in the PSEMSS and the selection of those areas that met the minimum standards for development. The major selection criteria were the same as those included in the PSEMSS, namely topographical features, rail access, highway access, in-place development constraints, and proximity to incorporated residential areas. The existing Bowling Green-Warren County Regional Airport was added to the original seven areas for comparative purposes. The results of this evaluation are documented in the report, Working Paper #2 Initial Site Area Review.

Results of Initial Site Area Review

Based on this initial site area review, three areas, in addition to the existing Bowling Green- Warren County Regional Airport, were eliminated from further consideration as viable sites for the KTT. The areas eliminated and the factors resulting in this decision are summarized below: Alvaton Area: This location has poor rail access and would require construction of several miles of track, bridges, and grade crossings. In addition, this site lacks direct access to a four- lane highway system.

Hadley Area: Potential development within this location would be greatly constrained by the area topography. A central ridge system, generally running east-west, limits the ability of the area to be able to accommodate a north-northeast to south-southeast runway. Gasper River and Belcher Creek run through this area and would also constrain development. Rail access is poor and would require the construction of several miles of track, including the construction of bridges and several grade crossings to extend a spur to this area. This area also does not have direct access to a four-lane highway.

KY 101/Pondsville Area: This area was eliminated because of its poor rail and highway access, as well as in-place development constraints. Over five miles of track would need to extend rail access to this area, including a bridge crossing at I-65 and a grade crossing at US 68/KY80. There is no direct four-lane highway access to this area. In addition, the area has several roads that confine development potential.

Bowling Green-Warren County Regional Airport: The Bowling Green-Warren County Regional Airport was eliminated as a viable alternative for the development of the KTT for several reasons. First, the location of the airport has numerous constraints that make it unsuitable for the proposed KTT. The overall density of the development surrounding the existing airport make it extremely difficult to obtain the additional acreage required to support the proposed multimodal transportation facilities and business/commerce park features that have been proposed for the KTT. Additionally, the lack of proximity to an existing rail line is not considered suitable and the existing traffic volumes and operational levels of service of adjoining roadways would be problematic for handling the additional traffic volumes anticipated to be generated by the area.

Second, as is discussed in the Purpose and Need Section of this report, the Bowling Green- Warren County Regional Airport presented four primary reasons related to existing airside facilities that warranted the construction of an improved airport. These included: Despite the overall unsuitability of the existing Bowling Green-Warren County Regional Airport as a development option for the KTT, this area was carried forward as the basis of the No Build Alternative in the subsequent evaluation of airport development alternatives.

The remaining four areas were considered for further evaluation. These included the I-65/ Cumberland Area, the Oakland-Smiths Grove Area, and the South Union Area which were originally selected in the PSEMSS. In addition to these sites, the Woodburn Site, which had been eliminated in the PSEMSS, was found to have sufficient merit to be included for further consideration.

Site Selection: Phase II

During the second level of analysis for the area selection process, the four candidate areas were subjected to more detailed investigations and a site was selected. This analysis is documented in the report, Working Paper #3 Evaluation of Candidate Sites. The four candidate areas, which are shown on Figure 2-3, were referred to as color-coded areas during this evaluation. The four areas and their color designations are: The first step in the evaluation process involved verifying the absence of any factors that would eliminate the area from further consideration. These factors included severe impacts to environmental features, such as large wetland areas, unique geologic areas, or large floodplain areas. No limiting factors were initially identified for any of the four candidate areas.

During the second step of the evaluation process, detailed environmental information was obtained for each area through coordination with resource agencies and secondary source information. Using this information, the four candidate locations were independently ranked for criteria included in three major categories which were: 1) Social and Environmental Issues; 2) Site Development Suitability; and 3) Service and Operational Potential. The rankings used were: 5- Excellent, 4-Good, 3-Fair, 2-Poor, and 1-Very Poor. Each of these rankings was then combined to reach an overall site ranking. This ranking resulted in the recommendation of a finalist area. The criteria that were included in the categories that were evaluated are identified on Table 2-2.





Insert Figure 2-3

Table 2-2
Site Evaluation Matrix
Kentucky Tri-Modal Transpark







Table 2-3 presents the combined summary of the ratings established for each of the four candidate areas. In this summary tabulation, each criterion is given an equal weighting (i.e. Social and Environmental Factors, Site Development Suitability, and Service and Operational Potential each contribute equally to the resulting rating). The Yellow Study Area is shown to have the highest total rating of 3.7, followed by the Green (3.4), Blue (3.2), and Orange (3.2) Areas.
Table 2-3
Combined Rankings of Candidate Areas
Kentucky TriModal Transpark


The Yellow Study Area ranked highest (best) in all three of the categories examined. The Green Area scored lowest in the Social and Environmental Category and less favorably than the Yellow Area in the other categories. The Blue Area scored relatively low in the Service and Operational Potential category, due in part to the distance of this site from I-65. The Orange Area scored relatively low in the Site Development Suitability category, due to the high number of karst areas at this location.

As previously noted, the combined rankings for all of the areas equally weigh each of the three evaluation criteria. Although the study team agreed that assigning an equal weighting to each evaluation criterion was fair, it could be argued that one criterion may be more important than another. To test the ranking of the areas with emphasis given to one particular evaluation criterion (Social and Environmental, Site Development Suitability, or Service and Operational Potential), the areas were ranked with the emphasized criterion receiving a double weighting, making that criterion carry the same weighting as the other two criteria combined. The results of the rankings of the alternatives when each of the three criteria were assigned a double weighting indicated that the relative order of the areas remained largely consistent with only slight variations occurring in the order of the bottom two areas, Blue and Orange. In each of the rankings, the Yellow Study Area received the highest score. Based on the results of this evaluation, the Yellow Study Area was recommended for the proposed KTT and would be considered for the proposed build alternatives.


Yellow Study Area Evaluation

The Yellow Study Area was thoroughly evaluated based on environmental considerations to ensure that there were no severe environmental factors that would preclude development within the Yellow Study Area, such as large wetlands areas, historic sites, archaeological sites, or floodplains. This evaluation included limited field investigations, as well as coordination with federal, state, and local resource agencies. The results of this evaluation are detailed in Working Paper #5 Yellow Study Area Evaluation. Based on the detailed evaluation of the Yellow Study Area, it was determined that there were no severe environmental constraints within the Yellow Study Area that would preclude development there. The report noted several areas of concern that would need to be studied in further detail and that would affect site master planning. These included: These factors are to be further evaluated as part of this Environmental Assessment.

PUBLIC AND AGENCY COORDINATION DURING THE SITE SELECTION PROCESS

Throughout the study area evaluation and selection process, there were public meetings and extensive coordination with resource agencies. Public meetings were held in the vicinity of each of the four candidate areas that were evaluated (I-65/Cumberland Area, Oakland-Smiths Grove Area, South Union Area, and Woodburn Area), as well as each of the surrounding counties (Barren, Logan, Allen, Simpson, Butler, and Edmonton) A total of fifteen (15) public meetings have been held to date. Through this coordination, environmental information for the areas was obtained and input was received from the public and agencies that was utilized in the selection of the recommended area for the KTT. This process is detailed in Appendix H that includes a summary of the Public Involvement Process.

AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

Four reasonable alternatives were evaluated for the proposed airport development. These alternatives include three build alternatives that would occur within the Yellow Study Area. In addition, a No Build Alternative was considered that would consider the continued utilization of the existing Bowling Green-Warren County Regional Airport. Each alternative includes: a 7,000-foot by 150-foot runway; a 500-foot wide Runway Safety Area (RSA); a 2,500-foot long Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) at each end; high intensity runway lighting (HIRL); Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Runway Alignment Indicator Lights (MALSR); Medium Intensity Taxiway Lighting (MITL); Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL); Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPI); parallel taxiway; terminal building and other aviation related uses. Each alternative includes the identification of additional acreage with the Yellow Study Area that will be developed as a business/commerce park. The number of acres identified for the aviation related development and the business/commerce park vary for each alternative because the configuration of the alternative runway alignments altered the property within the Yellow Study Area available for other development. In addition, each alternative was adjusted to avoid taking residences where possible, which also affected the acreage.

This EA details the potential environmental impacts associated with alternative runway alignments. Environmental features within the entire Yellow Study Area have been identified and are discussed in this EA. This information will be utilized in the design of the business/commerce park for the Yellow Study Area and the preparation of the necessary environmental permits for the development of the business/commerce park. The environmental impacts associated with each of the airport alternatives are presented in detail in Chapter Four, Environmental Consequences. The airport alternatives are identified on Table 2-4.

Table 2-4
Characteristics of Airport Alternatives

ALTERNATIVE
FEATURES A F T
Runway Orientation Southwest to Northeast Southwest to Northeast North to South
Runway Length 7,000 Ft. 7,000 Ft. 7,000 Ft.
Acreage for Aviation Related Development 1,667 Acres 1,962 Acres 1,435 Acres
Acreage for Business/Commerce Park and Buffer Areas 2,320 Acres 2,220 Acres 2,644 Acres
Total Acreage 3,987 Acres 4,182 Acres 4,079 Acres

In addition to the airport alternatives, a No Build Alternative also was evaluated. This alternative assumes that a new airport is not developed and that the existing Bowling Green-Warren County Regional Airport will continue to be utilized.

While these four alternatives are discussed in detail throughout the EA, numerous variations of these runway alignments were also considered. According to the FAAÕs Airport Environmental Handbook, a test of reasonableness and practicality should be applied to identify alternatives that warrant further study. These alternatives were eliminated from further study due to such factors as: site constraints, including existing roadways and the CSX rail line; direction of prevailing winds; the prevalence of sink holes; proximity to schools located just west of the Yellow Study Area; the location of historic structures; proximity to Oakland and other established communities; or other environmental factors that made them less desirable than the three Build Alternatives selected for further study. Each of the three Build Alternatives which were selected for further study are viable alternatives; none have operational limitations that would make them unsuitable for implementation. Each of the runway alternatives is discussed in greater detail in the following section.

Alternative A: This alternative, which is shown on Figure 2-4, includes a 7,000-foot long by 150-foot wide runway with a southwest to northeast orientation. This AlternativeÕs western most boundaries are approximately one-half mile to the east of the City of Bowling GreenÕs eastern municipal boundary. The proposed 7,000-foot runway alignment allows enough reserve acreage for a 150-foot wide runway surface, a 500-foot wide Runway Safety Area (RSA) and a 2,500-foot long Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) at each end. This alternative includes approximately 3,987 acres, of which 1,667 acres will be utilized for aviation related development including the runway, airport facilities, and open space. The remaining acreage (approximately 2,320 acres) would potentially be utilized for the business/commerce park and buffer areas. This assumes that the entire 2,320 acres designated for the business/commerce park are acquired and developed. Since the business/commerce park will not be a federally sponsored project, the land that is acquired for the park is purchased through negotiation with individual landowners. Therefore, the amount and configuration of land that is acquired for the business/commerce park is dependent on the willingness of landowners to sell their property. The blue shading on Figure 2-6 highlights the area identified for the aviation related development while the red shading shows the area that is identified for the business/commerce park and buffer areas.

Alternative F: This alternative includes a 7,000-foot runway also having a southwest to northeast orientation, as shown on Figure 2-5. Its western boundaries lie approximately one-half mile east of the existing Bowling Green municipal boundaries on the corner of US31W and US 68/KY 80. This siteÕs eastern boundaries connect to the City of OaklandÕs western municipal boundaries. Alternative FÕs 7,000-foot runway alignment allows enough reserve acreage for a 150-foot wide runway surface, a 500-foot wide Runway Safety Area (RSA), and a 2,500-foot long Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) at each runway end. This alternative is south of Alternative A and requires approximately
Insert Figure 2-4

Insert Figure 2-5

4,182 acres, of which 1,962 acres will be utilized for aviation related development and 2,220 acres would potentially be utilized for the business/commerce park and buffer areas. This assumes that the entire 2,220 acres identified for the business/commerce park will be acquired and developed. The area shown in blue shading on Figure 2-7 will be utilized for the aviation related development and the area shown in red shading will be utilized for the business/commerce park and buffer areas.

Alternative T: This alternative, which is shown on Figure 2-6, includes a 7,000-foot long by 150-foot wide runway with a north-south orientation. Alternative TÕs 7,000-foot runway alignment allows enough reserve acreage for a 150-foot wide runway surface, a 500-foot wide Runway Safety Area (RSA), and a 2,500-foot Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) at each runway end. This alternative requires approximately 4,079 acres, of which approximately 1,435 acres will be utilized for aviation related development and 2,644 acres would potentially be utilized for the business/commerce park and buffer areas. This assumes that the entire 2,644 acres that are identified for the business/commerce park are acquired and developed. The aviation related development will occur in the area shaded in blue on Figure 2-8 and the business/commerce park will be developed in the area shaded in red.

No Build Alternative: The No Build or ÒDo-NothingÓ Alternative was evaluated pursuant to the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulation Section 1502.14 (d). With the No Build Alternative, the existing Bowling Green-Warren County Regional Airport will continue to be utilized as it is.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Chapter Four will detail the potential impacts related to each of the development alternatives as well as the No Build Alternative. Potential impacts for each runway alternative are summarized in Table 2-5. A preliminary analysis indicates that the development impacts from Alternative A, F, and T are relatively similar. The potential development impacts include: social impacts/relocations; construction-related air quality impacts; water quality impacts; historic resources impacts, possible threatened and endangered species impacts; farmlands impacts; and construction impacts. The No Build Alternative has potential impacts to noise and compatible land use.


Insert Figure 2-


Table 2-5
Potential Impacts of the Project Alternatives
ALTERNATIVES
Potential Impacts Alternative A Alternative F Alternative T No Build Alternative
Wind Coverage No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact
Noise (Operational) No Impact No Impact No Impact Impact
Noise (Construction) Impact Impact Impact No Impact
Compatible Land Use No Impact No Impact No Impact Impact
Social Impacts
Relocations Impact Impact Impact No Impact
Alteration of Surface Patterns Impact Impact Impact No Impact
Community Disruption Impact Impact Impact No Impact
Disruption of Development No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact
Changes in Employment Positive Impact Positive Impact Positive Impact No Impact
Environmental Justice No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact
Induced Socioeconomic Impacts
Shifts in Population Movement Impact Impact Impact No Impact
Changes in Public Service Demands Impact Impact Impact Impact
Changes in Business and Economic Activity Positive Impact Positive Impact Positive Impact No Impact
Air Quality (Operational) No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact
Air Quality (Construction) Minor Impact Minor Impact Minor Impact No Impact
Water Quality Potential Impact Potential Impact Potential Impact No Impact
Section 4(f) Lands No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact
Cultural Resources Potential Potential Impact Potential Impact Potential Impact No Impact
Biotic Communities Potential Impact Potential Impact Potential Impact No Impact
Threatened and Endangered Species Potential Impact Potential Impact Potential Impact No Impact
Wetlands No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact
Floodplains No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact
Wild and Scenic Rivers No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact
Farmlands Impact Impact Impact No Impact
Energy/Natural Resources No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact
Light Emissions No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact
Solid Waste Impacts No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact
Construction Impacts Potential Impacts Potential Impacts Potential Impacts No Impact
Section 4(f) lands include public parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges. Impacts to historic sites, which are also considered Section 4(f) lands, are included under Cultural Resources.

Note: This table addresses potential impacts resulting from the proposed runway alternatives. Potential impacts from the business/commerce park are generally discussed in Chapter 4, ÒEnvironmental Consequences.Ó

APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND PERMITS

Alternatives A, F, and T will require the same permits and invoke the same applicable laws. Permits and regulations that will apply to these alternatives include: Permitting requirements are discussed in greater detail in Chapters Four, ÒEnvironmental ConsequencesÓ and Chapter Five, ÒEnvironmental Consequences/Other Considerations.Ó Section 4(f) lands include public parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges. Impacts to historic sites, which are also considered Section 4(f) lands, are included under Cultural Resources.



Chapter 3