Studies and Reports - CHAPTER FOUR

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This chapter presents an assessment of the environmental impacts for the three potential development alternatives, as well as the No-Build Alternative for the proposed airport component of the Kentucky TriModal Transpark (KTT). Potential environmental impact categories were evaluated in accordance with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 5050.4A. FAA 5050.4A requires that twenty (20) impact categories be evaluated as part of the Environmental Assessment (EA). The four alternatives discussed in this chapter are as follows:

Alternative Aø Alternative A includes the development of a 7,000-foot long by 150- foot wide runway with a southwest to northeast orientation. 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.

Alternative F ø This alternative includes a 7,000-foot long by 150-foot wide runway also having a southwest to northeast orientation. 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 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.

Alternative T - This alternative 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.

No Build Alternative ø 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. The No Build Alternative serves as a baseline for comparison of the potential development related impacts associated with the other three Build Alternatives.

This Environmental Assessment (EA) examines in detail the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed runway alternatives. The environmental impacts associated with the business/commerce park component of the KTT cannot be evaluated in as great of detail at this time because the design for the park has not been completed. However, environmental information on the entire Yellow Study Area is provided in this EA that will be utilized in the design of the development plan for the KTT to ensure that sensitive environmental areas will be avoided. This information will also be utilized in the preparation of environmental permits that will be required for the development of the business/commerce park.

The twenty (20) environmental impact categories evaluated in this EA are:
Comments from government agencies who have jurisdiction in these areas are contained in Appendix B. In addition, an evaluation of the alternative runway layouts is provided to compare the alternative runway alignments based on expansion potential, wind coverage, proximity to noise sensitive areas, airspace issues, and runway protection impacts. A description of the 20 required categories and the potential for impact in each is contained in the following sections.

NOISE

According to FAA Order 5050.4A, a noise analysis using day-night average sound level (DNL) noise metrics is needed in the EA for airports with operational projections exceeding 90,000 annual adjusted propeller, or 700 adjusted jet, operations during the period covered by the EA. The airport is projected to reach over 93,000 annual operations by the year 2019. Therefore, noise analysis is required as part of this EA.

The FAAÕs Integrated Noise Model (INM), Version 6.0, was used to evaluate existing (1999) and future (2019) noise impacts at the proposed airport. The following subsections summarize the physics and measurement of noise, the history of the FAAÕs approach, the noise modeling analysis performed, the general assumptions used during the modeling process, and the noise impacts for the existing base case (1999) and for 2019 impacts for each alternative.

Physics and Measurement of Noise

Noise is typically defined as an unwanted sound. Sound and noise are thus physically the same with the difference being determined by the opinion of the receiver. As a sound source vibrates, it introduces vibrations into the air, causing fluctuations in the atmospheric pressure.

Sound is measured by its pressure or energy. The unit of measure for this sound energy is known as a decibel (dB). A decibel is a unit that measures the difference between atmospheric pressure with no sound and the total pressure with the sound. Decibels are logarithmic and, therefore, cannot be added to produce a total. For example, two 70 dB sound sources added together produce a total sound energy of 73 dB. When the decibel count goes up by ten, the perceived sound is two times as loud. The decibel scale from zero to 120 covers most of the range of everyday sounds, as shown in Table 4-1. Two important factors that influence noise perception are frequency and duration. Frequency reflects the pitch of the sound, measured in cycles per second, or Hertz. Duration refers to the length of a particular noise event, such as an aircraft flyover, or a series of events.

TABLE 4-1
COMMON SOUND LEVELS


DECIBELS COMMON AIRCRAFT SOUND LEVEL COMMON SOUND LEVELS
110 B-747 Takeoff Rock Band
100 DC10 Takeoff Gas Lawn Mower at 3 feet
90 B-727 Takeoff Garbage Disposal at 3 feet
80 Lear Jet Takeoff Shouting at 3 feet
Regional Jet Takeoff
70 DASH-8 Takeoff Normal Speech at 3 feet
60 DASH-6 Takeoff Large Business Office
50 Piper Twin Comanche Takeoff Dishwasher Next Room
40 Conference Room
30 Bedroom at Night
20 Recording Studio
10 Threshold of Hearing


Use of DNL as Standard Descriptor for Aviation Noise
In 1979, the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act required the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to designate a single methodology for measuring and describing noise. In 1981, the FAA formally adopted day-night average sound level (DNL) as the single system for determining exposure of individuals to airport noise. According to the FAA, DNL is the most widely accepted descriptor for aviation noise based on the following characteristics:
DNL is the 24-hour average sound level, in decibels, obtained from the accumulation of all sound events. This includes the addition of a 10-decibel penalty for sounds occurring at night between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. The weighting of night time events accounts for the usual increased interfering effects of noise during the night, when ambient levels are lower and people are trying to sleep.

Noise Contour Generation

Noise contours presented in the following sections were generated using the Integrated Noise Model (INM) Version 6.0. This model is the FAAÕs state-of-the-art approved computer model that is used to predict the noise impacts that occur as a result of aircraft operations. The INM program will predict the values or contours of equal noise exposure for select points on the ground. The FAA currently requires that three different DNL levels (65, 70, and 75 DNL) be modeled. Noise-sensitive land uses, such as residences, hospitals, libraries, and schools, are generally considered unacceptable for noise levels greater than 75 DNL. A sound level over 65 DNL, but less than 75 DNL, is normally considered unacceptable for residential land uses. Such uses can be made acceptable with proper noise insulation techniques. Table 4-2 presents the sound levels at which there may be Òeffects of noise on peopleÓ as developed by the 1980 Federal Interagency Committee on noise.


Insert Table 4-2

Noise Modeling Assumptions

Data from a number of sources are required in order to use the INM in the analysis of aircraft noise. The necessary data used in generating the noise contours include aircraft activity levels, fleet mix, flight track utilization patterns, and time of operation. The general assumptions used in developing the noise contours are as follows: Noise Impacts

Build Alternatives: Activity levels and operational characteristics were input into the FAAÕs INM Version 6.0 to generate DNL contours for the runway development alternatives. There are no aircraft operational differences between Alternatives A, F, and T regarding future activity and conditions. To evaluate the impact of aircraft noise on sensitive land uses, the noise contours generated by the INM were overlaid on the project map. Figures 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3 show the future 2019 noise contours with the three alternative runway alternatives. The 65 DNL contour is contained within the property to be acquired for all alternatives. No residential properties or other unacceptable land uses will be contained within the 65 DNL or greater contour for either Alternatives A or F. Under Alternative T, the 65 DNL extends northward outside of the boundaries of the Yellow Study Area, however, there are no residential properties or other noise sensitive land uses contained within the 65 DNL or greater contour which extends outside the Yellow Study Area. Therefore, none of the Build Alternatives will result in unacceptable noise impacts. In addition, the noise analysis indicated that there would be no noise impacts to Mammoth Cave National Park (MCNP) under any of the proposed alternatives. Although there are no laws that prohibit over flights of MCNP, the preferred alternative, Alternative ÒTÓ, will protect against over flights of the Park. Additional restrictions could be explored in the future,

Insert Figure 4-1

Insert Figure 4-2

Insert Figure 4-3

with FAA involvement, to provide additional protection against the noise of potential over flights.

No Build Alternative: As detailed in Chapter 1, ÒPurpose and Need,Ó there are currently noise impacts at the existing Bowling Green-Warren County Regional Airport. A noise impact analysis for the existing airport indicated that in 1999, approximately 320 single-family residential units were within the 65 DNL noise contour. The 1999 65 DNL contour contains approximately 1,500 acres. By 2019, with the addition of commercial service activity, as well as the projected increase in general aviation activity, the 65 DNL or greater noise contour is expected to increase to more than 1,870 acres and contain approximately 420 single-family units. Therefore, the No Build Alternative will result in unacceptable noise impacts.

Noise Impacts (Construction-Related)

Noise impacts during the construction phase will be temporary in all areas. Noise impacts will include noise from construction equipment and from construction-related heavy trucks. Noise impacts will be minimized by inclusion of equipment noise limit specifications and a complete set of criteria for maximum allowable construction noise levels in the construction contract documents. Periodic inspection and penalty provisions will assure contractor compliance with criteria. In addition, contractors will comply with local ordinances regulating construction noise. Noise abatement measures will be used to minimize, to the greatest extent feasible, construction related noise outside the construction limits.

COMPATIBLE LAND USE

FAA Order 5050.4A indicates that the compatibility of existing and planned land uses in the vicinity of an airport is usually associated with the extent of noise impacts related to that airport. Table 4-3 presents DNL noise levels and respective land use compatibility as determined by the FAA.

Build Alternatives

Based on the findings of the noise analysis conducted for the proposed airport, no significant incompatible land use impacts are evident for any of the Build Alternatives.

No Build Alternative

Based on the noise impact analysis that was performed for the existing Bowling Green-Warren County Regional Airport, there are an extensive number of incompatible land uses that have been developed around the existing airport. With the increase in aircraft operations that are projected for year 2019, the number of incompatible land uses within the 65 DNL or greater contour are projected to increase.


Insert Table 4-3

Insert Table 4-3 page 2

SOCIAL IMPACTS/ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Social Impacts

A social impact analysis was conducted as part of the EA to determine the effects of airport development on the human environment. The types of social impact that are typically evaluated are: These five areas were evaluated in relation to the alternatives for the proposed airport.

Relocation of Businesses or Residences

Build Alternatives: Each of the Build Alternatives will require the acquisition of residential structures. Alternative A will require the acquisition of approximately 18 residential structures for the aviation related development. Alternative F will require the acquisition of 10 residential structures for the aviation related development. Alternative T will require the acquisition of 37 residential structures for the aviation related development.

Provisions of the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646) will be followed for all land acquisition and residential relocation that would be undertaken for the aviation related development should federal funding become available. Requirements of this Act include:
Business/Commerce Park Impacts. With the implementation of Alternative A, the development of the business/commerce park could affect an additional 37 residences. With the implementation of Alternative F, the business/commerce park could affect an additional 46 residences. Under Alternative T, the development of the business/commerce park could impact an additional 27 residences.

It is not anticipated that there will be difficulties for displaced families to find replacement housing within Warren County. An Internet search of available housing within the Bowling Green-Warren County area that was conducted in February 2001 indicated that there were 451 single- family houses available for purchase. As indicated in Table 4-4, these houses were available in a range of prices.
Table 4-4
Available Single-Family Houses Within the Bowling Green-Warren County Area
(As of February, 2001)

Price Ranges Available Houses
0-$75,000 50
$76,000-$150,000 244
$151,000-$300,000 127
> $301,000 30
Source: Internet


The total number of families being displaced by the KTT as a result of the airport and the business/commerce park varies between 55 residences (Alternative A) and 74 residences (Alternative T). Because the KTT would be developed in phases, the number of families actually seeking replacement housing at one time would be less than these numbers. Assuming that the number of available houses within the Bowling Green-Warren County area does not fluctuate greatly from year to year, the individuals displaced by the KTT would have no difficulty finding suitable replacement housing within the immediate vicinity.

No Build Alternative: The No Build Alternative will have no relocation impacts, as it would maintain the status quo.

Alteration of Surface Transportation Patterns

Build Alternatives: Each of the Build Alternatives, Alternatives A, F, and T would require the closure and/or relocation of a portion of Freeport Road, which is a secondary road. Because this roadway provides access to the residences along Freeport Road, a portion of this road would be required after the proposed KTT is implemented. Access to these homes would be coordinated with Warren County. Based on initial runway configurations, there are no distinguishable differences in the anticipated impacts of surface transportation patterns among the three Build Alternatives.

No Build Alternative: There will be no alteration of surface transportation patterns with the No Build Alternative.

Business/Commerce Park: The development of the business/commerce park will be closely coordinated with planned and programmed highway improvements in the region. As was previously noted, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet currently has a number of planned and programmed improvements in the vicinity of the Yellow Study Area that will help to effectively meet the transportation demands for both the business/commerce park and the proposed airport. It is anticipated that new access points along existing highways will be required to access the site. The specific changes to the existing and proposed roadways that are required as a result of the implementation of the business/commerce park component of the KTT project will be dependent on the final design configuration of the park. All new roadway projects will be coordinated with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet and the Federal Highway Administration, as necessary. Additionally, traffic impacts associated with the proposed new development will be reviewed under the development plan approval process of the City-County Planning Commission of Warren County.

Disruption of Established Communities

Build Alternatives: It is anticipated that 18 residential buildings will be acquired as a result of the aviation related development if Alternative A is implemented. The implementation of Alternative F will require the acquisition of 10 residential structures for the aviation related development and the implementation of Alternative T will require the acquisition of 37 residences for the aviation related development. The residences that will be affected by the implementation of each of the Build Alternatives are scattered throughout the Yellow Study Area and are generally located along rural roads. Established communities within the Yellow Study Area, such as the City of Oakland and the Freeport area, were identified during project development and have been avoided. However, there are several areas throughout the Yellow Study Area where houses are relatively close together and pocket neighborhoods have developed. These include an area along Glasgow Road with six homes and an area of seven homes along Loving Road. As with typical rural communities, many of the residents within the Yellow Study Area have lived in the area for many years and have forged bonds with the surrounding residents. In planning each of the alternatives, consideration was given to avoiding residences where possible. However, each alternative bisects Freeport Road and alternate ingress and egress routes will be provided. The impacts of each Build Alternative on the community are as follows:

Alternative A

There will be disruptions to the rural community of the Yellow Study Area as a result of the displacement of 18 residences under Alternative A. There are no impacts to pocket neighborhoods or other closely clustered residential areas as a result of the alternative. Alternative A is ranked second among the Build Alternatives based on its impacts to the rural community.

Alternative F

There will be disruptions to the rural community of the Yellow Study Area as a result of the displacement of 10 residences under Alternative F. No pocket neighborhoods or other closely clustered residential areas will be disrupted as a result of this alternative. Alternative F has the least impact on the rural community among the three Build Alternatives.

Alternative T

There will be impacts to the rural community of the Yellow Study Area as a result of the displacement of 37 residences. This alternative also will require the relocation of six homes along Glasgow Road and seven homes along Loving Road, which comprise pocket neighborhoods. Of the three Build Alternatives, Alternative T has the greatest impacts to the rural community.

In summary, each of the Build Alternatives will result in disruption of the established rural community as a result of the residential displacements. The majority of these displacements are residences that are located along rural roads and are not strongly connected to neighborhoods. Alternative T would also impact two small clusters of houses along Glasgow Road and Loving Road that could be considered pocket neighborhoods due to the close proximity of the houses. Careful consideration has been given to minimizing disruptions to communities during project planning by avoiding clusters of residents along roadways or near intersections and avoiding incorporated communities, such as the City of Oakland. As previously stated in the Relocations Section, the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 will apply to all residential locations that occur for the airport development, if federal funding is utilized.
No Build Alternative

There will not be disruptions of established communities as a result of the No Build Alternative.

Business/Commerce Park

With the development of the business/commerce park in the Yellow Study Area, there will be additional impacts to the rural community. Under Alternative A, there will be an additional displacement of 37 residences as a result of the business/commerce park development, including six residences along Glasgow Road that comprise a pocket neighborhood. Under Alternative F, an additional 46 residences will be displaced as a result of the business/commerce park, including six homes along Glasgow Road that comprise a pocket neighborhood. Under Alternative T, the development of the business/commerce park will result in the additional displacement of 27 residences.

Disruption of Orderly, Planned Development

Build Alternatives and Business/Commerce Park: Development Alternatives A, F, and T will not disrupt planned development adjacent to the study area. The implementation of Alternative A would result in the acquisition of a total 3,987 acres, of which 1,667 acres are required for the aviation related development and 2,320 acres are required for the business/commerce park related development. The implementation of Alternative F would result in the acquisition of a total of 4,182 acres, of which 1,962 are required for aviation related development and 2,220 are required for the business/commerce park. With the implementation of Alternative T, a total of 4,079 acres would be acquired, of which 1,435 are required for the aviation related development and 2,644 are required for the business/commerce park related development.

None of the Build Alternatives will disrupt planned development within or directly adjacent to the Yellow Study Area because at this time there are no planned developments within or directly adjacent to the Yellow Study Area. The land required under each of the Alternatives is primarily zoned for agricultural use. The development of the airport and business/commerce park would require a rezoning. Rezoning will be conducted through the Planning Commission for approval (Letter from Andrew G. Gillies, Executive Director of the City-County Planning Commission, Dated November 22, 2000, included in Appendix C). To receive approval for the rezoning the KTT must be consistent with the land use policies in Warren CountyÕs Comprehensive Plan. Because the KTT will be thoroughly coordinated with the Planning Commission, as well as the Barren River Area Development District (BRADD) and other planning agencies, there will be no disruptions to future planning efforts in the area by any of the development alternatives.

No Build Alternative: The No Build Alternative is not consistent with the data contained in the Airport Master Plan Update for the existing Bowling Green-Warren County Airport. Based on the existing aviation fleet currently utilizing the Bowling Green-Warren County Regional Airport, a 7,000øfoot runway is needed in order to accommodate 75 percent of the fleet of aircraft currently operating at 90 percent of their useful load. While the current runway length of 6,500 feet can accommodate these aircraft, it does not provide for required runway safety areas or an optimal level of operating efficiency, since these aircraft cannot operate at higher payloads. Therefore, the existing 6,500-foot runway does not provide required safety areas and, in addition, is inadequate to meet the existing and projected needs of the airport. Due to incompatible land uses located off each runway end, the existing airport has no potential to expand beyond its current runway length. Therefore, the No Build Alternative would not be consistent with aircraft projections included in the existing Airport Master Plan Update.

Changes in Employment

Build Alternatives: A Benefit-Cost Analysis and Economic Impact Analysis was prepared for the Kentucky TriModal Transpark project that determined the aviation related employment impacts. Currently, the number of people who work at the existing Bowling Green-Warren County Regional Airport varies between 40 and 50 people. Since the airport is severely constrained, little or no additional growth is possible.

With the construction of an enhanced replacement airport, it is estimated that approximately 240 new jobs would be created by the year 2010, 870 new jobs would be created by the year 2020, and 1,530 new jobs would be created by the year 2030, as shown on Table 4-5.

The increase in operations related airport employment will be the same with the implementation of any of the Build Alternatives, resulting in a positive economic impact. Alternatives A, F, and T would create a temporary increase in employment related to the proposed airport construction, also resulting in a positive economic impact. The increases in construction related employment would be the same with each Build Alternative.

Table 4-5
Net Airport Impacts
Excludes Business/Commerce Park Impacts
(Constant year 2000 price levels)

Year
2010 2020 2030 % Change 2010-2030
Jobs 240 870 1,530 18.60%
Annual GRP1 $15,800,000 $74,290,000 $106,320,000 17.45%
Annual Wages $7,470,000 $32,920,000 $66,760,000 12.60%

1 GRP ø Gross Regional Product
Note: These impacts assume that the KTT opens in the year 2005
Source: Benefit-Cost & Economic Impact Analysis, prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates, 1999

No Build Alternative: There would be no changes in employment as a result of the No Build Alternative since status quo would be maintained.

Business/Commerce Park: In the Benefit-Cost and Economic Impact Analysis, the potential economic impacts of the business/commerce park also were evaluated. The business/commerce park related impacts comprise a vast majority of the total KTT, impacts, versus the airport- related impacts. By 2010, estimated job impacts from the business/commerce park would be 1,640. New jobs from the business/commerce park would increase to 5,160 in 2020 and 6,020 in 2030 as shown in Table 4-6.

Table 4-6
Net Business/Commerce Park Impacts
Excludes Airport-Related Impacts
(Constant year 2000 price levels)

Year
2010 2020 2030 % Change 2010-2030
Jobs 1,640 5,160 6,020 37.44%
Annual GRP1 $106,900,000 $438,860,000 $640,030,000 20.05%
Annual Wages $50,510,000 $194,440,000 $263,250,000 23.74%

1GRP ø Gross Regional Product
Note: These impacts assume that the KTT opens in the year 2005

Source: Benefit-Cost & Economic Impact Analysis, prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates, 1999

Environmental Justice

On April 15, 1997 the Department of Transportation (DOT) released DOT Order 5680.1 to comply with the Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations. This Order requires DOT to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their policies or programs on minorities or low-income populations. Environmental Justice must be considered in all phases of planning. It is essential that any potential impacts to minority and low-income populations are identified early in the planning process so that they can be considered during the evaluation of project alternatives. The DOT Order defines Òlow incomeÓ as a Òperson whose median household income is at or below the Department of Health and Human ServiceÕs guidelines.Ó Minority groups within certain areas can be identified through U.S. Census data. Disproportionate impacts to the minority population within the study area, not the size of the minority population is the basis for Environmental Justice. For example, a very small minority of low-income population in the study area does not eliminate the possibility of a disproportionately high or adverse effect of a proposed action affecting this population.

Build Alternatives and Business/Commerce Park: The Yellow Study Area is comprised of portions of three United States Census Tract Blocks. Therefore, the block data (which is the smallest area available from the U.S. Census Bureau) is the best available estimate of site demographic characteristics. Table 4-7 shows the U.S. Census BureauÕs estimated data for year 2000 based on projected population growth and sample surveys. Figure 4-7 depicts the location of the census tracts, as well as a summary of key demographic data.

Table 4-7
Yellow Study Area Census Block Groups Summary

Block Number Total Population Projection 2000 2000 Estimated Minorities % Minorities
16001 979 205 20.97
16002 1,101 118 10.75
17005 1,002 151 15.05
Warren County 88,873 8,710 9.80
Kentucky 3,987,499 338,937 8.50
Block Number 2000 Estimated Persons in Poverty % Persons in Poverty % of Acreage in Yellow Study Area
16001 140 14.30 33.58
16002 161 14.60 29.48
17005 147 14.70 16.08
Warren County 13,533 15.23 N/A
Kentucky 546,287 13.70 N/A
Source: U.S. Census Projected Data Estimates

Table 4-7 indicates that a higher than average percentage of minorities live within the three block groups. However, it is important to note that this information relates to the entire census block and should not imply that the same proportion actually is present and potentially affected by development in the Yellow Study Area. One-third or less of each of these blocks are encompassed within the Yellow Study Area. In comparing the percentage of persons with income below the poverty level within the study area, it is apparent that the area remains consistent with the rest of Warren County, as well as Kentucky.

As a result of the public involvement process and through coordination with local officials, areas with minority groups within the Yellow Study Area were identified and efforts were made throughout the development of the project alternatives to ensure that these areas were not adversely affected. Special meetings were held with the minority residents from the Freeport Road area to inform them about the project and to incorporate their concerns into the project development process. These meetings are documented in the Public Involvement Program that is included as Appendix I. To ensure that the project will not result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income residents within the Yellow Study Area, further coordination with these groups will take place throughout project design.

No Build Alternative: There would be no Environmental Justice impacts as a result of the No Build Alternative.

INDUCED SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS/SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Induced socioeconomic impacts and secondary and cumulative impacts are evaluated in an EA to adequately assess the economic consequences and social ramifications of various development alternatives. These secondary and cumulative impacts on surrounding communities include shifts in patterns of population movement and growth, changes in public service demands, and changes in business and economic activity. Potential induced socioeconomic impacts are discussed below.

Shifts in Patterns of Population Movement

Build Alternatives: The development of the airport will result in shifts in patterns of population movement as a result of the new jobs that would be created. As a result of the airport development, it is anticipated that 240 new jobs would be created by 2010, 870 new jobs by 2020, and 1,530 new jobs by 2030. It is anticipated that individuals currently living within the primary market area for the KTT would take many of these jobs. Many of these individuals would be able to commute to the KTT and would not need new housing. However, the creation of new jobs by the new airport may induce cumulative and indirect impacts such as the demand for new housing and commercial establishments in the vicinity of the KTT.

Business/Commerce Park: There also is a potential for shifts in population movement to occur in the vicinity of the Yellow Study Area as a result of the anticipated job creation of the business/commerce park development. As described in the ÒChanges in EmploymentÓ section of this chapter, by the year 2010, business/commerce park would result in a total of 1,640 new jobs. The number of new jobs from the business/commerce park is projected to increase to 5,160 in 2020 and 6,020 in 2030. The large number of new jobs that would be created by the business/commerce park, particularly in years 2020 and 2030 would likely necessitate the construction of additional housing and service industries within close vicinity to the KTT.

Additional development in the vicinity of the KTT will likely require rezoning of land. As part of the rezoning process, any future development plans must be consistent with Warren CountyÕs land use policies and must incorporate appropriate environmental control, thereby minimizing potential environmental impacts.

No Build Alternative: There would be no shifts in patterns of population movement as a result of the No Build Alternative.

Changes in Public Service Demands

Build Alternatives and Business/Commerce Park: The area to be included within the proposed Kentucky TriModal Transpark (KTT) will be annexed by the City of Bowling Green and all utility services will be extended to the site. The Western Kentucky Gas Company will provide natural gas to the site. A four-inch line is available 3,500 feet west of the site. The Warren Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation (RECC) will provide electricity to the site. The Warren County Water District will provide water to the site. An eight-inch line is available along US 68. The expansion of the utilities will be in conformance with existing city codes and will be adequate to meet the future demands of the KTT. Water supply and wastewater treatment are discussed in detail in the Water Quality/Water Supply section of this chapter.

To provide public safety services at the KTT, sub-station sites will be provided for both fire and police departments at the KTT. This will ensure better service and less response time to the KTT and adjacent areas.

Bristow Elementary School, Warren East Middle School, and Warren East High School service the Yellow Study Area. None of the Build Alternatives would affect a school property. The only effects are transportation related. Any impacts to school bus routes as a result of the development of the airport and business/commerce park will be coordinated with the school district.

The impacts to public services will be the same with the implementation of each Build Alternative. The impacts to public services as a result of the business/commerce park are the same regardless of which Build Alternative is implemented.

No Build Alternative: There would be no impacts to public service demands as a result of the No Build Alternative.

Changes in Business and Economic Activity

Build Alternatives: Impacts to business and economic activity resulting from the proposed relocated airport could vary greatly based on property allotted for aviation related development and the ability of the Inter-Modal Transportation Authority, Inc. (ITA) to attract tenants. The Benefit-Cost and Economic Impact Analysis that was prepared for the KTT concluded that the primary economic impacts of the new airport would be those resulting from new airport jobs that would be created. These impacts were previously discussed in the ÒEmployment ImpactsÓ section. As a result of the new airport jobs, there would be an increase in the Gross Regional Product (GRP) and annual wages, which are shown on Table 4-5. There would also be economic impacts as a result of new businesses that may be attracted as a result of the airport development, including aircraft service and repair businesses or other related operations. In addition, there would be short-term positive economic benefits resulting from the construction of the facility, which would result in short-term construction related employment with corresponding increases to the GRP and annual wages. The economic impacts of each of the Build Alternatives, however, would be the same.

No Build Alternative: Under the No Build Alternative, the future number of aircraft operations that the existing Bowling Green-Warren County Regional Airport could handle would be limited. Because the Airport is closely linked with the local economy, the inability of the Airport to handle future aviation demand would have a negative impact on business and economic growth in the Bowling Green-Warren County area.

Business/Commerce Park: The development of the business/commerce park will stimulate economic growth in Warren County by providing land for business and industrial development. Currently, land available for business and industrial development within Warren County is very limited. There are several industrial parks within Warren County; however, they have little available acreage for new businesses.

In addition, the business/commerce park will result in significant economic impacts to the region through job creation. As indicated in the ÒEmployment ImpactsÓ section, the business/commerce park will result in 1,640 new jobs by the year 2010. By the years 2020 and 2030, the business/commerce park will create an estimated 5,160 and 6,020 new jobs, respectively. These additional jobs have a corresponding impact to the annual Gross Regional Product (GRP) and annual wages, as shown on Table 4-6. In addition to these positive economic impacts, the construction of the business/commerce park also will result in short-term job creation, as well as increased GRP and wages.

AIR QUALITY

Section 176 (c) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 states that no Federal agency shall engage in, support in any way or provide financial assistance for, license or permit, or approve any activity which does not conform to a State Implementation Plan. State Implementation Plans are established by individual states to control areawide air pollution and achieve attainment with the National Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria pollutants. The NAAQS contained in the Federal Clean Air Act, as amended by the United States Congress in 1970, 1977, and 1990 are permitted levels for pollutants which must be met in order for a region to be in attainment for that pollutant. NAAQS standards are established for Carbon Monoxide (CO), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Lead (Pb), Ozone (O3), and Particulate Matter (PM10). It is FAAÕs responsibility to assure that Federal airport actions conform to State Plans for controlling areawide air pollution impacts. FAA Order 5050.4A, ÒAirport Environmental Handbook,Ó requires that an air quality analysis be conducted if the proposed action does not conform to an approved state implementation plan for controlling area-wide air pollution impacts such as indirect source review. The Commonwealth of Kentucky does not have indirect source review. FAA Order 5050.4A states that in states without indirect source review, a general aviation airport with less than 180,000 forecasted general aviation operations does not require an air quality analysis because adverse air quality impacts are not likely.

Build Alternatives

Because the proposed airport will have less than 180,000 general aviation operations, air quality impacts as a result of the airport are not likely. A detailed air quality analysis was not required for this Environmental Assessment based on FAA Order 5050.4A.

Due to concerns raised by Mammoth Cave National Park (MCNP) regarding potential air quality impacts of the entire KTT development on MCNP, emissions and dispersion modeling will be conducted as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), if federal involvement occurs with this project. The Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System developed jointly by the Federal Aviation Administration and the U.S. Air Force will be utilized. This model will include emissions from automobile, industrial, and aircraft operations on the proposed KTT and will provide an estimation of how the project will impact air quality in the region, including MCNP.

The 1982 Airport Act requires that Airport Improvement Program applications for projects involving airport location, runway location, or major runway extension shall not be approved unless the governor of the state in which the project is located, designed, constructed, and operated certifies that the project is in compliance with the applicable air and water quality standards. This certification will be sought when a federal sponsor is identified for this project.

The Yellow Study Area is contained within Warren County, Kentucky, which is currently in compliance with each of the NAAQS standards for each of the criteria pollutants. However, the Yellow Study Area may be classified as an ozone nonattainment area upon implementation of the eight- hour ozone standard (see letters from Heinz J. Mueller, Chief of the Office of Environmental Assessment for USEPA, Region 4, dated October 24, 2000 and John E. Hornback, Director, Kentucky Division of Air Quality, dated November 6, 2000 included in Appendix C). If the attainment status of the Yellow Study Area changes, a more detailed air quality analysis would be required before federal funding could be obtained.

No Build Alternative: No air quality impacts will occur as a result of the No Build Alternative. However, if the attainment status of the region changes, an air quality analysis would be required to obtain federal funding for any project at the existing airport.

Business/Commerce Park: Any businesses that located in the business/commerce park will be required to obtain any necessary permits from the Kentucky Division for Air Quality and perform any required analyses, including any required analysis of potential impacts on the Mammoth Cave Class I air quality area. Because light industrial and service industries are anticipated to locate at the KTT, air quality impacts are not expected to occur as a result of the activities of the business/commerce park.

Air Quality Construction Impacts

Build Alternatives and Business/Commerce Park: The construction of a major project, such as a new airport with a business/commerce park, will to create an increase in airborne dust and other construction related particulates. To minimize any adverse air quality effects during construction, the following general mitigation measures will be implemented: Mitigation measures will be consistent with regulation 401 KAR 63:010, which set forth standards for particulate emission control. Further coordination with the Division for Air Quality will be conducted during project design to determine whether the facility will be required to apply for and obtain a construction/operating permit. Any companies that intend to construct and operate a business in the proposed business/commerce park will be required to apply for and obtain a permit before construction may begin.

No Build Alternative: There would be no construction related impacts to air quality as a result of the No Build Alternative.

WATER QUALITY/WATER SUPPLY

Water Quality

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977, provides the authority to establish water quality standards, control discharges into surface and subsurface waters, develop waste treatment plans and practices, and issue permits for discharges (Section 402) and for dredged or fill material (Section 404). In compliance with this Act, improvements must meet state water quality standards, as well as any Federal, state, and local permit requirements. In addition, the 1982 Airport Act requires that federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP) applications for projects involving airport location, runway location, or a major runway extension shall not be approved unless the governor of the state in which the project is located certifies that there is Òreasonable assuranceÓ that the project will be located, designed, constructed, and operated in compliance with all applicable water quality standards.

In order to establish a Òreasonable assurance,Ó consultation has been undertaken with regulating and permitting agencies throughout project planning to identify any potential impacts to water quality. Water quality issues within the Yellow Study Area, as well as Warren County, are amplified by the karst geology. In non-karst areas, natural filtration occurs during typical overland runoff and surface stream conveyance. However, there are no surface streams within the Yellow Study Area and this natural filtration is limited in karst areas. Therefore, pollutants originating within the project area can quickly and seriously affect water quality of the Graham Springs Basin (GSB) and the Barren River. Although groundwater sampling results suggest that GSB is already impacted by agricultural activities in the watershed, the sensitive cave ecosystems and the karst hydrology require that groundwater be protected. Protection of groundwater within the Yellow Study Area will be a major emphasis in the design and development plan. In the next phase of the study, dye studies and groundwater monitoring will be conducted in order to determine baseline groundwater quality and drainage routes. Groundwater monitoring will be continued during project construction and implementation to ensure that no degradation of the water quality occurs.

Build Alternatives and Business/Commerce Park: Each of the Build Alternatives and the business/commerce park will increase paved area within the watershed and increase sediment in stormwater runoff , especially during construction. There is no difference in the level of impact between any of the Build Alternatives. Also, there will be potential to introduce additional pollutants into the groundwater system, such as deicing fluids, fuel, other petroleum products, tire residue, solvents, and degreasers. All of these pollutants can harm cave inhabitants. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) originating from petroleum products may cause additional problems in underground conduits by forming toxic and explosive fumes. Increased pavement may alter runoff rates into the underground system. Increased sediment has the potential to cause sinkhole plugging. Together these factors could cause sinkhole collapse and flooding, in addition to altering habitat for cave organisms. To minimize these effects, it is important to try to maintain runoff rates similar to existing (pre-development) conditions.

Structural and non-structural practices will be required to minimize pollutants from entering the system. It is recommended that all streets, parking lots, and developed areas will have curbs and a storm sewer system. While undeveloped areas on the Yellow Study Area can drain into existing sinkholes, all urban stormwater runoff should be directed into a storm water system. The storm sewer system will then direct all the storm water to one large sand filter-wetland treatment areas. Treated water would then be directed via a large-diameter well directly into one of the large cave streams. This would greatly facilitate storm water monitoring since it would only have to be monitored at one location. The facilities of the KTT will need to apply for a General Permit for storm water runoff due to construction and a KPDES permit due to operation. (See Letter from Timothy Kuryla, EIS Coordinator, Kentucky Division of Water, dated November 30, 2000, included in Appendix C).

If storm water drainage is directed toward a sinkhole, the Division of Water indicated that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency may require an Underground Injection Control (UIC) Permit and the activity could be classified as a Class V well. Further coordination on storm water discharges will be undertaken with Region IV of the Environmental Protection Agency during the development of the Master Plan and the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In addition, a Groundwater Protection Plan (GPP) needs to be prepared for the facilities on the KTT, as required by 401 KAR 5:037. Groundwater protection will be addressed during the development of the project. (See Letter from Timothy Kuryla, EIS Coordinator, Kentucky Division of Water, dated November 30, 2000, included in Appendix C).

During construction, Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be utilized to prevent nonpoint source pollution and, thereby, control stormwater runoff and sediment damage to water quality and aquatic habitat. The development of the BMP will be coordinated with the Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District, the Division of Conservation of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, or the Kentucky Division of Water. (See Letter from Timothy Kuryla, EIS Coordinator, Kentucky Division of Water, dated November 30, 2000, included in Appendix C).

In addition to a storm sewer system, other structural practices which will be utilized to minimize contamination of ground water include detention basins, sand filters, grease trap inlets, and grass filters. Non-structural practices which will also be utilized to minimize ground water contamination include maintenance of vegetative areas around sinkholes, erosion control, housekeeping practices, spill prevention and response plans, and review of operations protocols to ensure minimization of pollutants.

Because petroleum products (fuel, lubricants), or hazardous or toxic materials (de-icers) are to be stored the opportunity exists for a spill that could reach groundwater. The Division of Water requires the storage areas are to be designed so that petroleum, or toxic or hazardous material spills cannot: Spill control on at the KTT will be addressed in the development of the EIS and Master Plan. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may require that a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan is developed to address how petroleum products, or hazardous or toxic materials are to be handled or stored.

Wastewater

The Yellow Study Area will be served by the wastewater collection and treatment system of the City of Bowling Green. Records of the Kentucky Division of Water indicate that the Bowling Green wastewater treatment plant has a design capacity of 10.6 million gallons and an average daily production of 7.0 million gallons per day and is therefore at 66 percent of design capacity. The Division of Water does not anticipate a wastewater treatment problem as a result of any of the Build Alternatives or the proposed business/commerce park, but this is dependent on whether proposed users are hydrophilic and on the volume and type of process wastewater that the parkÕs tenants produce.

The Yellow Study Area is within the area covered by the Bowling Green wastewater treatment facility plan (WWTFP) or Ò201Ó plan, CWA Section 201, 33 USC sec. 1281) funded (SAI KY79-2202) and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Division of Water and prepared in April 1976. An update to this plan was prepared and approved August 23, 1990 (The State Planning & Assessment Report). To determine whether the proposed project will require updating the WWTFP, a wastewater demand analysis will need to be prepared as part of the development process. If addition wastewater infrastructure is required for the KTT, the WWTFP will need to be updated if the Division of Water is to approve plans and specifications for the KTT. (See Letter from Timothy Kuryla, EIS Coordinator, Kentucky Division of Water, dated November 30, 2000, included in Appendix C).

If process wastewater is to be discharged, the airport and each user must notify directly, or indirectly through the Airport, the City of Bowling Green of the intention to discharge process wastewater. Such notification is a requirement of the CityÕs sewer use ordinance and its Kentucky Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (KPDES) permit. The process wastewater must be compatible (pretreated as required) with the treatment capability of the Bowling Green wastewater treatment plant and be in conformance with applicable pretreatment standards.

If process wastewater is to be treated and discharged directly, then the Division of Water will need information on the types of process wastewater. The Division must approve plans and specifications for the treatment system before construction may begin. (See Letter from Timothy Kuryla, EIS Coordinator, Kentucky Division of Water, dated November 30, 2000, included in Appendix C).

Water Supply

Build Alternatives and Business/Commerce Park: The Yellow Study Area is served by the water treatment and distribution system of the City of Bowling Green. The Kentucky Division of Water indicated that the Bowling Green water treatment plant is currently at 72.1 percent of its design capacity and that the City of Bowling Green was recently awarded monies to expand the Bowling Green plant capacity from its design capacity of 22.5 million gallons per day to 30.0 million gallons per day. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the additional water supply demands for any of the Build Alternatives or the business/commerce park facilities of the KTT will result in a water supply problem. Further analysis will be conducted during the development plan. If the proposed project will require additional water infrastructure, then the proposed project must be brought before the Warren County Water Supply Planning Council (WCWSPC) for consideration. A water demand analysis will need to be conducted to determine if the water infrastructure of the proposed KTT requires amendment of the existing Warren County Water Supply Plan (WCWSP).

No Build Alternative: The No Build Alternative would not result in impacts to water quality, water supply, or wastewater treatment facilities, however, discharges should be inspected and, if necessary, brought up to current regulations.


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECTION 4(F) LANDS

In 1966, Congress passed the Department of Transportation Act containing a provision for the protection and preservation of the NationÕs public parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and its significant historic sites. This provision of the Act has become known as Section 4(f). Since the late 1960Õs, Section 4(f) has undergone numerous court tests that have further refined and clarified its meaning and intent. As a result, Section 4(f) has become recognized as a powerful statement of the importance Congress has given for the conservation of these specified resources. Congress directed that the Secretary of Transportation shall not approve any federally sponsored program or project which requires the use of land in these protected areas unless it can be demonstrated that there is no prudent and feasible alternative.

A ÒuseÓ of the land occurs 1) when land from a Section 4(f) site is acquired for a transportation project, 2) when there is an occupancy of land that is adverse in terms of the statuteÕs preservationist purposes, or 3) when the proximity impacts of the transportation project on the Section 4(f) site, without acquisition of land, are so great that the purposes for which the Section 4(f) site exists are substantially impaired. In addition, a transportation project located near or adjacent to a Section 4(f) site can make a Òconstructive useÓ of that site even though there is no occupancy of the site by the project. A constructive use of the Section 4(f) site can occur when the capability to perform any of the siteÕs vital functions is substantially impaired by the proximity impacts from a transportation project.

To determine the presence of publicly owned parks, recreation areas or wildlife and waterfowl refuges (historic resources are discussed in the Cultural Resources section) coordination and interviews were conducted with the following jurisdictional authorities: the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources; the Kentucky Department of Parks; the Kentucky Division of Forestry; the Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission; the National Park Service; the Natural Resources Conservation Service; the Warren County Parks and Recreation Department; and the Barren County, Edmonson County, Logan County and Simpson County Judge/Executive Offices.

Build Alternatives and Business/Commerce Park: There are four parks within close proximity to the Yellow Study Area. The potential impacts of the KTT on these parks are discussed below.

Mammoth Cave National Park (MCNP): The Yellow Study Area is located approximately eight miles southwest of MCNP as shown on Figure 3-7. MCNP is a 52,830-acre national park, World Heritage Site and Biosphere Reserve. It is located principally in Edmonson County, which is north of the study area. It is the most visited tourist attraction in Kentucky with more than two million guests per year. In addition to the attraction offered by the worldÕs longest cave system, MCNP offers recreational opportunities, scenic rivers, hardwood forests, and protected wildlife habitat.

Based on current scientific data, the Yellow Study Area is within the Graham Springs drainage basin and is not connected to MCNP, which is located upstream of the Yellow Study Area and outside of the Graham Springs Basin. Therefore, none of the Build Alternatives or the business/commerce park are anticipated to have impacts on endangered species, biotic communities, wetlands, and water quality within the park. However, further investigations, including dye studies, will be conducted during the Environmental Impact Study to examine the potential for threatened and endangered species to occur within the caves of the Yellow Study Area. If subsequent investigations show a connection between the caves under the Yellow Study Area and the Mammoth Cave system, appropriate adjustments in design will be made and mitigation measures to protect endangered species will be implemented.

As previously stated, no air quality impacts to MCNP are anticipated as a result of the airport. Because of concerns raised by MCNP regarding potential air quality impacts of the KTT development on the park, additional air quality analyses will be conducted during the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) when federal involvement with this project occurs.

There are no constructive use impacts or indirect impacts to MCNP anticipated as a result of any of the Build Alternatives. The potential for these impacts will be further analyzed during the EIS as additional air and water quality analyses are performed.

Bristow Community Park: This site, which is shown on Figure 3-7, is a 5.0 acre limited use, fenced park with two baseball fields, a basketball court, and mixed- use playground equipment. It is located off US 31 W/US 68 just south of the US 31W and US 68 intersection, approximately three-quarter mile west of the Yellow Study Area. No direct or indirect effects to this park from the proposed Build Alternatives or the business/commerce park will occur. In addition, there will be no constructive use impacts to Bristow Community Park as a result of the KTT development.

Ephram White Park (proposed): This site is located of KY 526 near Warren East High School, approximately one-half mile from the Yellow Study Area, as is shown on Figure 3-7. This is a planned 143-acre multiple-use facility. It is scheduled to provide many recreational amenities including ten baseball fields, soccer and football fields, an aquatic center, roller hockey rinks, archery range, community center and hiking/biking trails. It will not be directly or indirectly affected by any of the proposed Build Alternatives or business/commerce park. In addition, there will be no constructive use impacts as a result of the airport and business/commerce park development.

Oakland Elementary School Recreation Fields: This site, which is shown on Figure 3-7, is located approximately one-half mile east of the eastern study boundary of the Yellow Study Area. It has a recreational area which includes one baseball field, one basketball court and limited playground equipment. There will be no direct or indirect impacts to this recreational area as a result of the proposed Build Alternatives or business/commerce park. In addition, there will be no constructive use impacts to the Oakland Elementary School Recreation Fields as a result of the airport and business/commerce park development.

No Build Alternative: There would be no impacts to Section 4(f) lands as a result of the No Build Alternative.

HISTORICAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, provides for the preservation of properties which are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In addition, Section 106 of the NHPA directs the heads of Federal agencies, Federal departments, or independent agencies which have direct or indirect jurisdiction over a Federal or federally assisted undertaking to Òtake into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register.Ó

The Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 provides for the survey, recovery, and preservation of significant scientific, prehistorical, historical, archaeological, or paleontological data when such data may be destroyed or irreparable lost due to a Federal, federally licensed, or federally funded project.

A reconnaissance study of historical properties was conducted through archival research, review of maps and a Master List of Kentucky Survey Sites provided by the Kentucky Heritage Council, field survey and documentation, and the completion of inventory forms. The results of this survey are documented in a separate report entitled, Cultural/Historical Resources Survey Technical Memorandum. This study was intended to conform to the guidelines of the Kentucky Heritage Council in order to identify any properties within the Yellow Study Area that are on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or are potentially eligible for the NRHP.

Build Alternatives: The properties that are either on the NRHP or are likely candidates for the NRHP within and adjacent to the land to be acquired for the aviation development under each Build Alternative are identified in the following sections. Each property is identified by a survey number, which corresponds with the site location shown on the project mapping. There are no known archaeological sites located on the property to be acquired for the airport development. An archaeological survey of the affected property will be conducted to identify any archaeological sites that are potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP during the next phase of project development. In addition, the project will conform with the provisions of the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act related to any human remains that might be found during construction. If cultural resources are uncovered during construction, the ITA will halt construction, in accordance with the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974.

Alternative A: Currently, there are no properties listed in the NRHP within the area to be acquired for the aviation development. However, there are two properties that are potentially eligible for the National Register: Mizpah Church Cemetery (WSA-0), located on Mizpah Road, and the Davenport Farm (WSA-5,6,7), located at10166 Louisville Road.

There are five properties that are listed in the NRHP which are adjacent to the area to be acquired for aviation development and which could be impacted by the proposed development. These properties include: the Smith-Middleton House (Wa-7), located at 11545 Louisville Road; the Peyton Cooke House, Forest Home (Wa-8), located at 1056 Lower Oakland Road; located at 10683 Louisville Road, the Samuel Murrell Stage Coach Stop (Wa-10), located at 9737 Louisville Road; the Andrew Wardlaw House (Wa-11), located at 212 Mizpah Road; and the Garnett Bryant House (Wa-16), located at 1188 Mizpah Road. (See Figure 4-4). In addition, there is one potentially eligible property adjacent to the area to be acquired for aviation development. This site is the Sandy A. Gossam House, Brodway (Wa-9).

Alternative F: There are no properties eligible for or currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places within the land to be acquired for the airport development.

There are five properties that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places that are adjacent to the land to be acquired for the airport development. These sites are: the Smith- Middleton House (Wa-7), located at 11545 Louisville Road; the Peyton Cooke House, Forest Home (Wa-8), located at 1056 Lower Oakland Road; the Samuel Murrell Stage Coach Stop (Wa-10), located at 9737 Louisville Road; the Andrew Wardlaw House (Wa-11), located at 212 Mizpah Road; and the Garnett Bryant House (Wa-16), located at 1188 Mizpah Road. In addition, there are three properties that are potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP that are adjacent to the area to be acquired for the airport development. These sites include: the Davenport Farm (WSA-5,6,7), located at10166 Louisville Road; the Sandy A. Gossom House, Brodway (Wa-9), located at 10683 Louisville Road; and Hall Home (WSA-236), located at 11251 Louisville Road. (See Figure 4-5)

Alternative T: There are no properties eligible for or currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places within the land to be acquired for the airport development.

Currently, there are three properties that are listed in the NRHP that are adjacent to the area to be acquired for the airport. These properties include: the Samuel Murrell Stage Coach Stop (Wa- 10), located at 9737 Louisville Road; the Andrew Wardlaw House (Wa-11), located at 212 Mizpah Road; and the Garnett Bryant House (Wa-16), located at 1188 Mizpah Road.

Two properties that are adjacent to the property to be acquired for the airport development are potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP. These properties are: the Davenport Farm (WSA- 5,6,7), located at10166 Louisville Road; and the Sandy A. Gossom House, Brodway (Wa-9), located at 10683 Louisville Road. (See Figure 4-6)

Further research and investigations into the boundaries for nomination or re-nomination to the NRHP will be conducted based on the development of the historic contexts, agriculture and archaeology in accordance with Section 106 when a federal sponsor is identified.

Business/Commerce Park: Since the business/commerce park is not using federal funding, it is not subject to the provisions of Section 106. However, an archaeological survey will be required of the affected property prior to construction. There are two known archaeological sites within the Yellow Study Area. One site is located on the north side of the CSX rail line near the eastern boundary and the other is located on a property that has been listed in the NHRP, the Peyton Cooke House, or Forest Home.

Insert Figure 4-4

Insert Figure 4-5

Insert Figure 4-6

No Build Alternative: The No Build Alternative would not result in any impacts to cultural resources.

BIOTIC COMMUNITIES

Biotic communities refer to plant and animal species and their associated habitats. In accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the proposed KTT project is being coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and with all state agencies having administration over wildlife resources where proposed project affects water resources, including wetlands, groundwater, streams, or any other body of water. If the project would not affect water resources, but would impact other biotic communities, these impacts will be evaluated throughout project planning and appropriate mitigation measures will be integrated into the design of the project that will minimize any potential impacts to wildlife habitat.

Impacts to Faunal Biotic Communities

Build Alternatives/Commerce and Industrial Park: Faunal biotic communities of the Yellow Study Area include those above ground (terrestrial) and those within the cave system (trologibitic). There is less than 10 acres of natural faunal habitat within the Yellow Study Area. These areas include primarily fencerows. Each of the Build Alternatives and the business/commerce park would result in minimal impacts to faunal habitat. The potential impacts to cave fauna are discussed in the discussion of the Kentucky cave shrimp that follows in the Endangered and Threatened Species of Flora and Fauna section.

No Build Alternative: There would be minimal impacts to faunal biotic communities as a result of the No Build Alternative.

Impacts to Flora Biotic Communities

Build Alternatives and Business/Commerce Park: The area land use is predominantly agricultural including row crops, hay, and pasture. Non-agricultural habitats make up a small minority of the total site acreage and are confined to fencerows, hedgerows, wooded to partially wooded sinkholes, weedy sinkholes, road and railroad rights-of-way and a single wooded knob near the west end of the area. A vegetation survey was performed for the Yellow Study Area and 180 species were recorded, almost all of which are common. The only exceptions were the EggertÕs sunflower and a single Tansy rosinweed (Silphium pinnatifidum). The latter is a prairie species that was found in a small (15 by 25 foot) patch of little bluestem grass (Schizachyrium scoparium), a species also associated with the prairies that occupied most of pre-settlement Warren County. The rosinweed is listed by the Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission (KSNPC) as a species of special concern.

Alternative T will impact a patch of little bluestem grass located near the intersection of US 31 and US 68/80. This small prairie remnant is not protected by law but could provide a natural interpretative area if undisturbed. Impacts to the EggertÕs sunflower as a result of the project alternatives are discussed in the next section. All other impacts to vegetation as a result of the Build Alternatives and the business/commerce park would only be to common species.

No Build Alternative: There would be no impacts to vegetation as a result of the No Build Alternative.

ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES OF FLORA AND FAUNA

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as Amended, requires each Federal agency to insure that Òany action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agencyÉis not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species which is determined by the Secretary, after consultation as appropriate with the affected States, to be critical, unless such agency has granted an exemption for such action by CommitteeÉÓ Further, Section 7a(3) requires that Òeach Federal agency shall confer with the Secretary on any agency action which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under Section 7 or results in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed to be designated for such species.Ó

Based on historic ranges and more recent observations, at least four federally listed species have some reasonable probability of occurring within the general area of the site: the Kentucky cave shrimp (Palaemonias ganteri), the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), the gray bat (M. grisescens), and EggertÕs sunflower (Helianthus eggertii).

Two additional federally listed plants, Prices potato bean (Apios priceana) and Running buffalo clover (Trifolium stoloniferum) historically could have occurred here but no recent observations have been reported from the Bristow or adjacent U.S.G.S. quadrangle maps.

Because several years may elapse between planning and construction on a project of this size, it is possible that other species could be federally listed before it is constructed. To determine if there were any proposed species nearing listing, all of the regional U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) offices that could affect Kentucky were contacted: Asheville, North Carolina; Cookeville, Tennessee; Jackson, Mississippi; and Columbia, Missouri. As a result of these calls, HallÕs bulrush (Schoneoplectus halli) was added to the list of species to be searched for. This species is likely to be listed within the next year. It occurs in temporary pond-wet sinkhole habitats that are found within the Yellow Study Area.

Also under consideration for federal listing are a number of species of cave beetles in the genus Pseudanophthalmus. A timetable for listing these species is uncertain, but several could occur within the Graham Springs caverns beneath the site.

The Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission (KSNPC) lists more than 40 species, mostly plants, that occur in Warren County and have some probability of occurring in the Bristow- Oakland area. All of these species were searched for on the site.

Of the approximately 45 species listed at the state and federal level, only three were actually observed on the site. Two federally listed species, the gray bat (federally endangered) and EggertÕs sunflower (federally threatened); and the blind cave crayfish (Orconectes pellucidus), state special concern. The following sections identify the potential impacts and mitigation recommended for each of the endangered species.

Build Alternatives and Business/Commerce Park

Kentucky Cave Shrimp

Field investigations were completed to determine if the Kentucky cave shrimp (Palaemonias ganteri) inhabits the Graham Springs system. The species is currently known to inhabit nine groundwater basins within the Mammoth Cave National Park region, both east and southwest of the park boundaries. The two westernmost basins are Double Sink and Turnhole Spring (Leitheuser 1988).

Graham Springs basin (GSB), which occurs in the Yellow Study Area) is less than two miles south of Double Sink Basin and shares a common boundary with the Turnhole Springs Basin (TSB). In at least one location, Madison Spring, base flow goes to both GSB and TSB and during high flows, and the common boundary has been shown to shift (Quinlan 1976). Crumps Cave is located in the eastern third of the GSB less than three miles from the TSB. The large size of Crumps Cave and its proximity to the TSB have led several authors to conclude that much of the upper TSB was at one time part of the GSB (Wells 1973; Quinlan and Ewers 1981). Because of these current and historic connections, the possibility of the shrimp occurring in the GSB seemed plausible. All of the known populations, however, are found in base level, underground streams that flow into a relatively short reach of the Green River. It is not known from any system that flows into the Barren River, as does Graham Spring, and the Kentucky Cave Shrimp Recovery Plan does not list the GSB as part of the possible distribution range (Leitheuser 1988).

In summary, the cave shrimp has not been found outside the Mammoth Cave area where all the groundwater systems discharge to the Green River, and GSB is not listed as part of the Òpresent possible distributionÓ in the US Fish and Wildlife ServiceÕs Cave Shrimp Recovery Plan (Leitheuser 1988). In addition, the habitat beneath the Yellow Study Area is not consistent with habitat areas where cave shrimp are known to occur. Habitat for cave shrimp predominantly occurs in the base level drainage, i.e., in quiet, silt-bottomed pools subject to seasonal sedimentation (Barr and Kuehne 1971; Bouchard 1979). Shrimp feed on a mixture of insects, microcrustaceans, bacteria, and fungi that colonize in fine to medium sands. Substrates that are predominantly silt and clay are unacceptable as habitat for the cave shrimp and both Mill Cave and Wolf Sink within the Yellow Study Area have substrates that are either exposed rock or silt and clay (Leitheuser 1988). The sole reason for searching for the cave shrimp in the GSB is that the shrimp has been found in the Turnhole Spring Basin and a portion of the upper end of the TSB was at one time part of the GSB. This historical connection presents the possibility, even if very low, that the shrimp may have colonized the GSB sometime in the distant past.

During the field investigations of Mill Cave and Wolf Sink in the fall of 2000, no evidence of Kentucky cave shrimp was found. In addition, it was observed that neither Mill Cave nor Wolf Sink provided an optimum habitat for the cave shrimp. Both stream sections searched had relatively high mud banks and soft silt substrate resulting from more than a century of farming in the overlying sinkhole plain. These substrates provide poor to impossible habitat for cave shrimp. In addition, this portion of the GSB also differs from the Mammoth Cave area in that the cave in the GSB is a single large conduit with no high water or side channels that would provide refuge to the cave shrimp in times of flooding. While these differences in habitat do not preclude the occurrence of the cave shrimp in the GSB, they do make the probability much lower. It is possible that the shrimp may occur in a lower portion of the GSB that has not yet been investigated. Further investigations, including dye studies, will be conducted during the Environmental Impact Study, if this project becomes a major federal action, to further examine the potential for the cave shrimp to occur within the caves of the Yellow Study Area.

Impacts and Mitigation: Potential impacts to Kentucky cave shrimp, if it were to be found eventually, would be very similar to impacts to the blind cave crayfish and other aquatic cave fauna. Impacts could take several forms: (i) acute toxicity from a large concentration of a pollutant, (ii) more subtle impacts associated with cumulative body burdens, (iii) interference with reproduction, or (iv) the food chain.

Surface spills of a toxic substance that could find their way into the underground flow would be the most obvious of impacts. Spills have occurred in the Turnhole basin along I-65 that resulted in a massive crayfish kill in 1979 (Lisowski 1980). The introduction of any substance in sufficient quantities that would be directly toxic or interfere physically with oxygen exchange at the gill surface could result in a significant or total loss of organisms. Cave shrimp, because they occur in the lower end of the underground stream systems are more susceptible to local extinction than are blind crayfish, which may occur throughout the system. It is highly unlikely that a point source spill would affect an entire underground system and thus unaffected portions could provide recolonizers once the toxic substance had dissipated.

More subtle long-term impacts could affect both species. Introduction of sub-lethal levels of pollutants over time could result in cumulative tissue concentrations that could retard growth, interfere with reproduction, or eventually reach toxic levels. Growth rates of troglobities (cave organisms) are extremely slow because most cave systems are food limited and cold. This results in increased longevity and delayed sexual maturity. Increased longevity also allows an extended period for the accumulation of metals or other potentially toxic materials within the body (Barr 1985).

Many species have declined over time not due to outright mortality but rather from a reduction or failure of reproduction. Cave species are particularly susceptible to this type of loss. Reproductive rates are normally low because of food limitations and eggs may be resorbed during periods of low food availability (Leitheuser 1988). Reproduction in blind cave species, such as the cave shrimp, also depends on the sexes locating one another by the detection of chemical pheromones in the water column. Any substance introduced into the system that would interfere with mate detection could result in lowered reproductive rates.

Since cave ecosystems are food limited, any introduction of a substance that would further limit food production could depress or eliminate other species up the food chain. Both crayfish and cave shrimp are primarily detritus feeders. Organic detritus washed into the underground system is used by bacteria, fungi, and protozoans as food. Crayfish and shrimp feed on this detrital layer on the sediment surface, ingesting sand, silt, detritus and the organisms that have colonized the detritus. They derive most of their energy by digesting these Òcolonizers.Ó Any foreign substance that would inhibit the populations of the colonizers would reduce the food supply. Secondarily, any pollutant taken up by the colonizers would become part of the food ingested by higher organisms. A great deal of the gut contents of crayfish and shrimp is inorganic sediment because of their non-discriminate feeding methods. This ingestion of sediment exposes such feeders to pollutants that may be adsorbed onto detritus or fine silt and clay particles.

While cave ecosystems are food limited, too much of a good thing can also be detrimental. The use of de-icers at airports has produced severe water quality problems at many airports. The primary cause of water pollution from the use of de-icers depends on the type used. Glycol based de-icers, while having a relatively low toxicity, are a food source for bacteria and some fungi. Where the de-icer reaches a stream, it provides an almost unlimited food source and bacterial populations greatly increase, utilizing most or all of the available dissolved oxygen. While the glycol itself is not particularly toxic, de-icers normally contain additives that are toxic (Cornell 1999). A second type of de-icer used on runways has a urea base that undergoes bacterial mediated hydrolysis to produce ammonia.

Whether either of these two types of de-icer would find its way into the underground stream system would depend on several factors. The most important would be the directness of the route. Stormwater containing de-icer would probably be broken down in the soil if the water slowly percolated through the soil column. Where soils are thin and a fissure in the limestone allows rapid drainage, then pollution problems could develop.

All airport alternatives have approximately the same potential to impact cave fauna. Mitigation of impact will be accomplished by following the strict guidelines outlined by Warren County. Contamination of the underground stream system would come from a variety of sources: spills, water or sewer line breaks and storm water runoff from contaminated surfaces. Specific mitigation measures require a review of all existing federal, state, and local regulations that apply to the storage and transport of potential pollutants, preparation of spill prevention and contingency plans and the detailed engineering design of collection, containment and treatment of on-site generated pollutants. All of which will be addressed during design and development.

Spill prevention in a karst area is paramount. In shallow groundwater systems such as Graham Spring, containment may not be timely enough or completely effective. Surface to stream connections may be nearly direct and rapid underground flow can quickly disperse a pollutant downstream. Road and road-railroad intersections, traffic routing and road design will consider the potential for truck accidents. Furthermore, Mammoth Cave has an example of a progressive spill response program. It consists, in part, of mapping of the Turnhole Springs Basin and the pathways a spill may take into and within the Karst features. Emergency response personnel, such as the local fire departments, have and are familiar with these maps so quick action can be taken to address spills. A similar approach should be taken in the Graham Springs Basin.

Construction of water and sewer lines should be monitored to assure proper pipe bedding and backfilling. Tap-ons are a potential source of leaks and should be inspected and testing. Sewer system design should consider the location, design and contingency power for all pump stations. Oversizing the collection system to handle infiltration would also help prevent manhole overflows.

The collection of storm water runoff from potentially contaminated surfaces such as deicing pads and fueling areas should be addressed in the airport design. If treatment is provided on-site, the design and location of the discharge should receive special attention and may require piping to the Barren River. On-site pretreatment and discharge to the sewer system is another option if the volume is not too large. Under either option the construction of a detention-equalization pond may be required. Its location and design should consider underlying rock structural strength and an impervious lining.

Blind Cave Crayfish

The blind cave crayfish, Orconectes pellucidus, is listed as a special concern species by the KSNPC. A special concern taxon is one that will be monitored because (a) it exists in a limited geographic area, (b) it may become threatened or endangered due to modification or destruction of habitat, (c) certain characteristics or requirements make it especially vulnerable to specific pressures, (d) experienced researchers have identified other factors that may jeopardize it, or (e) it is thought to be rare or declining but insufficient information exists for assignment to the threatened or endangered status categories. Orconectes pellucidus is listed primarily because it has limited range, it is found only in an eight-county area of Kentucky and Tennessee. Based on field investigations conducted during the period extending between August and October of 2000, the blind cave crayfish was found to be common to abundant at both the Wolf Sink and Mill Cave sites within the Yellow Study Area.

Impacts and Mitigation: Potential impacts to the blind cave crayfish would be the same for each Build Alternative and mitigation measures that will be implemented to minimize these impacts and are the same as those that were discussed for the Kentucky cave shrimp above.

Endangered Bats

Two federally endangered bats, the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and the gray bat (M. grisecens) may occur within the Yellow Study Area. Two types of potential bat habitat exist on the area: caves and upland hardwood forest. Intensive agriculture occupies most of the site, so the latter habitat is limited to a single wooded knob and a few large wooded sinkholes. Caves are used by both species mentioned but at varying times of the year. The gray bat may use a cave year- round, as a summer maternity site or as a temporary late summer-early fall roost. Indiana bats may use caves as winter hibernacula or as temporary, ÒswarmingÓ sites in the late summer or early fall. Indiana bat maternity colonies are found in hardwood forest containing shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), white oaks (Quercus alba) or other hardwoods greater than 10 inches diameter breast height that provide suitable bark retention as dead snags.

Both Mill Cave and Wolf Sink were searched for bats, signs of bat usage, or the presence of suitable habitat during field investigations conducted in August 2000. During the field investigation, no colonies of endangered bats were observed. In addition it was determined that neither Mill Cave nor Wolf Sink provide suitable bat habitat because the walls of both caves are wet and both flood to the ceiling periodically.

Impacts and Mitigation: No colonies of endangered bats were observed, no suitable cave habitat was identified, and no maternity habitat was found on the Yellow Study Area, therefore, no impacts to either endangered bat species are foreseen as a result of the proposed Build Alternatives and business/commerce park.

EggertÕs Sunflower

EggertÕs sunflower ((Helianthus eggertii) is a federally threatened plant that occurs in barrens/woodland ecosystems. The general habitat for EggertÕs sunflower has been desribed by Jones (1991) as follows: Òmost collections from the Interior Low Plateau come from areas with rolling topography, and are from barrens or similar habitats along woodland edges and roadsides. The plants are typically found in full sun or partial shade, often in open fields or in thickets along woodland borders with other tall herbs and small trees.Ó

During field investigations conducted during Summer and Fall, 2000, all non-row crop areas of the Yellow Study Area were searched for EggertÕs sunflower as well as other state and federally listed plants. Fence rows, roadsides, railroad rights-of-way, and all sinkholes containing natural vegetation of the Yellow Study Area were investigated.

As a result of the field investigation, EggertÕs sunflower was found scattered along approximately 4,000 feet of the CSX railroad right-of-way. The majority of the plants were located between the grade crossing at Wolf Sink and the next crossing to the east, a distance of about 2,000 feet (see Figure 3-9). A few individual plants and a number of small colonies were found on both sides of the tracks. None occurred more than 15 feet from the edge of the ballast and none were found on adjacent property. The largest colony was located on a cut-bank on the south side of the tracks; it contained more than 50 plants and covered 30-40 feet of the right-of- way.

The sunflower was first observed on September 8, and the plants were in full bloom. Dr. Ronald L. Jones of Eastern Kentucky University verified the identification. Dr. Jones, under contract to the USFWS, had prepared a status survey report on this species in 1991 for the Asheville, North Carolina, field office (Jones 1991). At that time, H. eggertii was known to be found in only three Kentucky counties: Barren, Edmonson, and Hart. Two of these counties, Barren and Edmonson, are adjacent to Warren County and a known population exists on the Barren-Edmonson County line approximately 14 miles from the Yellow Study Area. The discovery of this population along the CSX tracks is the first recorded for Warren County.

A few of the colonies were growing on Baxter cherty silt loam, a soil associated with large sinkholes, but the majority were located on Hammack silt loam. The latter is the predominate soil over most of the gently rolling agricultural area on the eastern half of this study area. Both soils are deep, well drained, and neutral to strongly acid. The topography and soils are similar to those described by Jones (1991) for typical EggertÕs sunflower habitat.

The presence of EggertÕs sunflower on the railroad and not on any of the remaining 4,500-plus acres of private land surveyed is not surprising. Even though some of the right-of-way is mowed and/or sprayed, the fringes may be the least disturbed historically and may still support some species that were present when the tracks were laid.

Impacts and Mitigation: Current development plans for the Build Alternatives do not indicate any changes in rail line location and thus no impacts to EggertÕs sunflower are anticipated for any of the Build Alternatives. The location of new sidings or spurs in the future for the proposed business/commerce park will avoid the sunflower locations and may require a new survey to be conducted if several years have elapsed.

The present distribution of EggertÕs sunflower along the railroad tracks does not require any action so long as no disturbance is planned. The addition of more sidings and/or spurs to serve the business/commerce park area would require planning to avoid the current colonies. Since new plants could be established from seed if a period of time elapses, an update survey will be conducted to map sunflower locations before construction begins. If the use of an area that contains sunflower plants is unavoidable, then consultation with the USFWS will be required to plan mitigation measures.

Remaining Listed Species

Neither PriceÕs potato bean or Running buffalo clover were found in the Yellow Study Area. Therefore, the proposed Build Alternatives and the business/commerce park will not impact either of these plant species. Potential habitat existed for both species in limited locations such as wooded sinkholes. PriceÕs potato bean historically occurred in Warren County but is currently known in only three Kentucky counties: Livingston, Lyon, and Trigg. Running buffalo clover is associated with partial shade and periodic disturbance such as grazing or mowing. While its original range extended to the Missouri-Kansas border, its present Kentucky distribution extends no farther west than Jefferson and Nelson Counties. Additional investigations during design in April and May would be required to definitely eliminate this species from further consideration.

HallÕs bulrush is an obligate wetland annual with specific habitat requirements. It occurs along the edges of sinkhole ponds, low areas in crop fields that may flood periodically (including sinkholes) and sand ponds. It is usually found on bare soil where fluctuating water levels prevent the establishment of competing species (McKenzie 1998). The seeds are long-lived in the soil- seed bank and, depending on water conditions, the plant may not be present for several years, only to reappear when conditions are right.

Several sinkholes in existing row-crop fields appear to be potential habitat. The sinkholes are at times row-cropped but also retain enough rain to sometimes drown out crops. A number of non- farmed sinkholes are wet, but develop a dense herbaceous cover of both annuals and perennials that would crowd out the bulrush.

HallÕs bulrush is a widespread but rare plant. Its range extends from Oklahoma to Michigan and south to Georgia, but it may occur in only one or a few sites in each state. In Kentucky, it is currently known from a single farmed sinkhole in Christian County. It was not present in the Yellow Study Area during the late summer and fall of 2000, and the probability of it occurring in the future is extremely low.

No Build Alternative: There would be no impacts to threatened or endangered plant and animal species as a result of the No Build Alternative.

WETLANDS

A project is considered to affect wetlands if it involves development in a wetlands area; dredging, filling, draining, channeling, diking, impounding, or otherwise directly impacting a wetlands area; disturbing the water table of an area in which a wetlands is located; or indirectly affecting a wetlands by impacting regions upstream or downstream or inducing secondary development.

Build Alternatives and Business/Commerce Park

Additional coordination with the U.S. COE will be conducted during the next phase of this project to ascertain the jurisdictional status of the potential wetland areas identified in Working Paper #5, ÒYellow Study Area Evaluation.Ó Because all of the areas within the Yellow Study Area that were identified as potential wetlands in Working Paper #5 are not connected to navigable waters, it is anticipated that they will not be considered to be jurisdictional wetlands by the U.S. Corps of Engineers (US COE). If all of the wetlands within the Yellow Study Area are found to be ÒisolatedÓ wetlands and not jurisdictional, there will be no wetland impacts as a result of the development of the Build Alternatives and the business/commerce park.

If the US COE determines that the areas identified in Working Paper #5 are potential wetlands, there would still be no wetland areas impacted by the airport portion of the KTT under the preferred alternative, Alternative ÒTÓ. Efforts would be made to avoid any wetlands during the development of the business/commerce park and to mitigate any wetlands that could not be avoided.

No Build Alternative: There would be no impacts to wetlands as a result of the No Build Alternative.

FLOODPLAINS

Floodplains are defined in Executive Order 11988, ÒFloodplain ManagementÓ as Òthe lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters including flood prone areas of offshore islands, including at a minimum that area subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year,Ó (i.e., the area that would be inundated by a 100-year flood). In accordance with E.O. 11988, Federal agencies must Òtake action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains.Ó DOT Order 5650.2, ÒFloodplain Management Protection,Ó which implements the executive order establishes a policy to avoid taking an action within a 100-year floodplain where practicable. If there is no reasonable alternative to a proposed action that would encroach within the limits of the 100-year floodplain, then appropriate mitigation measures must be considered. There is no 100-year flood plain within the Yellow Study Area.

Build Alternatives and Business/Commerce Park

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapping, there are no 100- year floodplain areas within the Yellow Study Area. In addition, the Staff Engineer for the City- County Planning Commission verified that the Yellow Study Area is not within a floodplain and that no special Flood Hazard Areas are located within the delineated site. (See Letter from Joe Smith, P.E., City-County Planning Commission of Warren County, dated November 20, 2000 included in Appendix C). Therefore, this factor does not affect the Build Alternatives or the business/commerce park.

No Build Alternative

There would be no flood plain impacts as a result of the No Build Alternative.

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

The proposed project is located inland, and is not located within a coastal area. The coastal zone management program contained in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration regulations does not apply to the proposed project.

COASTAL BARRIERS

The Coastal Barriers Resources Act of 1982, PL 97-348 (CBRA), prohibits, with some exceptions, federal financial assistance for development within the Coastal Barrier Resources System, consisting of undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. This act does not apply to the proposed KTT Project because it is not located within a coastal area.

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act describes those river areas eligible to be included in a system afforded protection under the Act as free flowing and possessing Òoutstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geological, fish and wildlife, cultural, or other similar values.Ó

Build Alternatives and Business/Commerce Park

Based on coordination with the Kentucky Division of Water, it was determined that there are not any wild and scenic rivers located in the project area. Therefore, there will be no direct impacts to Wild and Scenic Rivers as a result of any of the Build Alternatives or the business/commerce park. (See Letter from Morgan Jones, dated October 24, 2000, included in Appendix C)

The Green River, from RM 207.7 to RM 181.7 (entirely within the boundaries of Mammoth Cave National Park), was designated a Wild River by the Kentucky General Assembly. However, there will not be impacts to this river as a result of this project because this river segment is located upstream of the Yellow Study Area. Furthermore, Graham Springs Basin, below Yellow Study Area, discharges into the Barren River. The Barren River confluence with the Green River is well downstream of Mammoth Cave National Park.

The Barren River from RM0, confluence with the Green River, to RM 31, below Bowling Green is listed on the 1982 Nationwide Rivers Inventory as being a potential candidate for National Wild and Scenic Rivers Designation. If the status of this river segment changes before this project is implemented, coordination will be conducted with the Department of the Interior and an assessment will be conducted of the potential impacts to this river segment.

No Build Alternative: There would be no impacts to Wild and Scenic Rivers as a result of the No Build Alternative.

FARMLANDS

In accordance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA), P.L. 9798, Federal agencies are directed to use criteria developed by the Department of Agriculture (USDA) for identifying the effects of Federal programs on the rezoning farmland to nonagricultural uses. In addition, Federal agencies are directed to identify and take into account the adverse effects of Federal programs on the preservation of farmland, to consider appropriate alternative actions that could lessen adverse effects, and to assure that such Federal programs, to the extent practicable, are compatible with state and local government programs, as well as private programs to protect farmland. Prime farmland is defined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as that land which has the soil depth, slope and composition to sustain high yield crop production economically, while using acceptable farming methods. According to the Warren County NRCS office, prime farmland soils which meet this definition include: Baxter silt loam (BaB); Crider silt loam (CRB); Elk silt loam (ElB); Hammack silt lasm (HaB); Nicholoson silt loam (NhA); Nolin silt loam (No) and Nolin silt variant (NoV); Pembroke silt loam (PeA and PeB); and Wellston silt loam (WeB). Wherever these soil types are found within slopes of 0% to 6%, they constitute a prime farmland component. Land not subject to protection includes areas already in or committed to urban development.

Farmland is still an abundant resource in Warren County. Of the CountyÕs total land area of 350,419 acres, 284,560 acres, or approximately 81%, is considered farmland. Average county farm size is 140 acres and average project farm size 116 acres. Although it is by far the largest land use type, farming employs less than 1000 of the countyÕs approximately 46,000 available civilian labor force and generates only $15,000,000 or about 1.2% of the countyÕs $1,204,400,000 in total annual wages.

Total cash receipts from farm receipts reached $63,000,000 in 1998, with receipts from livestock approximately 18% higher than receipts from crops. According to the most recent issue of the Kentucky Agricultural Statistics publication, Warren CountyÕs chief cash crop is burley tobacco and chief livestock is cattle. Major crops grown in the project site are corn, soybeans, and wheat. Total crop receipts in 1998 were $28,000,000 and total livestock receipts were $35,000,000. In 1998, Warren County led the State in cattle production.

Recognizing traditional farm practices of crop rotation and land management, it is estimated that approximately 60% of available farmland is placed in production in a given year. If agricultural production in Warren County were divided between its top cash producers, burley tobacco production at 41% of receipts, and cattle production at 59% of receipts, total annual farm cash receipts would equate to an average annual production value of approximately $412 per acre (this value is artificially high due to tobacco quotas which are not considered in this calculation). Using the Òbest caseÓ representative value, farmland revenue and rezoning have been estimated by Alternative as follows:

Build Alternatives

Alternative A

The portion of the Yellow Study Area dedicated to airport purposes with the implementation of Alternative A consists of approximately 1,667 acres. Of this area, 1,471 acres are prime farmland and 184 acres are considered soils of statewide and local importance. Ninety-nine percent of the area to be used for the airport in Alternative A falls within the two agricultural designations. Utilizing the U.S. Department of AgricultureÕs Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form (Form AD-1006), and following coordination with the Natural Resource Conservation Service (see Appendix H), the airport element of Alternative A achieved a total points rating of 178 from a possible 260. Ratings above 160 are considered serious, therefore, airport development as proposed in Alternative A would be expected to result in adverse farmland impacts. During the final design phase of the airport and its contingent amenities, specific consideration will be given to measures to reduce project impacts on farmland losses wherever feasible.


Alternative F

That portion of the Yellow Study Area dedicated to airport purposes for Alternative F consists of approximately 1,962 acres. Of this area, 1,757 acres is comprised of prime farmland and 204 acres are considered soils of statewide and local importance. Nearly 100% of the area proposed for airport use falls within these two agricultural land designations. Utilizing the U.S. Department of AgricultureÕs Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form (Form AD-1006), and following coordination with the Natural Resource Conservation Service (See Appendix H), the airport element of Alternative F achieved a total points rating of 184 out of a possible 260. Therefore, adverse farmland impacts are anticipated with this land rezoning as well. Ratings above 160 are considered serious and subject to mitigation considerations. Therefore, during the final design phase of the airport and its contingent amenities, specific consideration will be given to measures to reduce project impacts on farmland losses wherever feasible.

Alternative T

With the implementation of Alternative T, that portion of the Yellow Study Area dedicated to airport purposes consists of approximately 1,435 acres. Of this area 1,089 acres are comprised of prime farmland and 144 acres of soils of statewide or local importance. Land in these two categories comprises approximately 86% of the airport site. Utilizing the U.S. Department of AgricultureÕs Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form (Form AD-1006), and following coordination with the Natural Resource Conservation Service (see Appendix H), the airport element of Alternate T achieved a total points rating of 171 from a possible 260. Ratings above 160 are considered serious, therefore, airport development as proposed in Alternate T would be expected to result in adverse farmland impacts. During the final design phase of the airport and its contingent amenities, specific consideration will be given to measures to reduce project impacts on farmland losses wherever feasible.

The more disproportionate impact of the proposed undertaking is considered to be at a more local scale involving individual farm operations. The smaller farm operations (>116 acres) that are not acquired entirely will likely have insufficient remainders to support continued farm operations. The larger farm tracts (<140 acres) that suffer partial takes will incur reduced production and revenues and their continued, long-term viability will be jeopardized. Some of the remainder tracts may become desirable for residential, commercial or other non-farm development, that could increase unit land value, but farming activities will significantly decline over time throughout the project site.

These localized farm impacts are generally equal for Alternatives A, F, and T and none has a clear advantage over another in terms of project consequences to county or local farm viability, productivity and incomes, agricultural stabilization, and farm-to-market enterprises. Alternative T may be perceived to be somewhat better because it requires less prime farmland and has the lowest relative Farmland Conversion Impact Rating.

However, during the design phase of the project, specific consideration will be given to measures that may reduce impacts to individual farms and to total farmland losses irrespective of which airport alternative is chosen. This could be accomplished through site layout configurations that take into consideration specific farm property boundaries with the objective of leaving intact as many of the operational farmsteads as possible. In addition, areas that are to be acquired as buffer zones or not slated for initial development could be leased back to active farm operators for provisional use. Consideration will be given to first utilizing the less productive, less arable portions of the area for non-compatible development. Other innovative concepts that might produce farmland conservation without compromising project objectives and requirements will also be explored during the final design and construction phases.

No Build Alternative

There would be no impacts to prime and unique farmlands as a result of the No Build Alternative.

Business/Commerce Park

With the development of the remainder of the Yellow Study Area as a business/commerce park, further rezoning of farmland will occur. It is estimated that an additional 2,332 acres of farmland will be rezoned to business/commerce park uses with the implementation of Alternative A. An additional 2,221 acres of farmland will be rezoned for the business/commerce park with the implementation of Alternative F and an additional 2,869 acres of farmland will be rezoned for the business/commerce park with the implementation of Alternative T. These estimates are conservative and assume a complete build-out of the business/commerce park component of the KTT. Nearly all of the individual farms with the Yellow Study Area will be negatively affected. Between $1,483,000 and $1,640,000 in gross, total farm revenues, representing between 2.4% and 2.6% of Warren CountyÕs total annual farm revenues, would be lost following complete development of the Yellow Study Area depending on which Build Alternative is selected. However, on a countywide/regional scale, the farm revenue impacts and the land rezoning is relatively minor since 81%, or nearly 285,000 acres of Warren County is available for agricultural production. The farmland rezoning required by the airport and business/commerce park represents a net loss of less than 2% of the available farmland in the county, no more than 3.5% of the countyÕs prime farmland, and less than 3% of the total annual cash receipts from agricultural production. Therefore, the projectÕs overall impact on county/regional agricultural productivity is not significant.

As previously discussed, specific consideration will be given to measures that may reduce impacts to individual farms and to total farm losses during the design and development of the business/commerce park. This can be achieved through site layout configurations that leave intact as many operational farms as possible and leasing back land for agricultural use that is not slated for initial development.


ENERGY SUPPLY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

The effects of airport development on the energy supply typically relate to amount of energy required for: The effects of airport development on natural resources typically relate to basic materials, such as gravel, fill dirt, etc., that are required for construction.

Build Alternatives and Business/Commerce Park

The amount of additional energy required to support stationary facilities at the proposed airport is expected to be insignificant relative to the energy that is currently expended at the existing Bowling Green-Warren County Regional Airport regardless of whether Alternative A, F, or T is implemented. With the development of the business/commerce park in the Yellow Study Area, additional energy will be required to support the office and light industrial users within the park. However, it is anticipated that the local power company, Warren Rural Electric Corporation Commission (RECC), will have no difficulty in meeting the projected energy demands of the proposed aviation facilities or the tenants of the industrial park.

There would be little change in aircraft or ground vehicle fuel consumption related to the relocation of the existing Bowling Green-Warren County Regional Airport to the KTT. It is anticipated that increases in fuel consumption experienced by aircraft and ground vehicles that access the relocated airport from destinations west of the existing airport would be offset by the fuel savings realized by aircraft and ground vehicles that access the relocated airport from destinations east of the existing airport.

The proposed aviation related development and the business/commerce park development in the KTT would require the use of natural resources such as gravel and fill dirt that are available within a reasonable distance of the Yellow Study Area.

No Build Alternative

There would be no impacts to energy supply or natural resources as a result of the No Build Alternative.

LIGHT EMISSIONS


Build Alternatives

Light emissions caused by airport-related lighting can create an annoyance to residents in the vicinity of an airport. The development of a new airport would involve the addition of airport lighting. Lighting requirements are the same for each of the Build Alternatives. New airfield lighting would consist of the following lighting for the proposed runway and taxiway: Existing residences within close proximity to t