Studies and Reports - CHAPTER FIVE

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/ OTHER CONSIDERATIONS


The purpose of this chapter is to evaluate areas of impact that may not have been addressed in the categories outlined in FAAÕs Order 5050.4A, Airport Environmental Handbook. In addition, environmental concerns, as discussed in Chapter 4 are summarized. Specifically, the following four areas were examined:
Each of these issues is described in detail below.

POSSIBLE CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE PROPOSED ACTION AND APPLICABLE GOVERNMENTAL OBJECTIVES

The proposed KTT project is consistent with the objectives of the Federal, state, and local plans. To ensure that the KTT is consistent with the Warren County Comprehensive Plan, the development of the KTT will achieve the land use policies outlined in Part III- the Policy Plan of the Warren County Comprehensive Plan. These policies are included as Appendix C.

The proposed KTT has the potential to induce secondary and cumulative impacts. The employment projections for the proposed business/commerce park and airport were estimated in the Benefit-Cost and Economic Impact Analysis that was prepared for the KTT. These projections were included in Chapter 4, ÒEnvironmental Consequences,Ó within the ÒChanges in EmploymentÓ section. This analysis forecasted that the development of the airport and business/commerce park would result in 6,030 new jobs by the year 2020. While many of these new jobs may be taken by individuals currently residing within the primary market area for the KTT, the new jobs that are created may result in an increased demand for additional housing within the project area, as well as retail, service, and other commercial businesses. This additional development will have impacts on the area surrounding the Yellow Study Area. In addition, the possible development of a new interchange with I-65 also will result in indirect and secondary impacts from development that may occur in the vicinity of the interchange. To minimize potential indirect and secondary impacts, the planning of the KTT and any related highway projects (a new interchange with I-65 or new access road) will be undertaken in close coordination with the City-County Planning Commission of Warren County and other state and local agencies that can influence future growth and can incorporate environmental protection controls into all development.

INCONSISTENCY WITH APPROVED STATE OR LOCAL PLANS OR LAWS

Based on a review of State and local plans and laws and coordination with State agencies, the proposed project is in accordance with State and local planning efforts and laws.

MEANS TO MITIGATE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Review of the proposed project does not indicate the existence of unmitigatable impacts. Several areas have been identified which could have potential impacts that would require mitigation. These areas include: Detailed information regarding these areas of impact is contained in Chapter 4, ÒEnvironmental Consequences.Ó The impacts and potential mitigation strategies are summarized below.

Secondary/Cumulative Impact

The proposed KTT, including both the proposed airport and the business/commerce park, is anticipated to result in a significant number of new jobs. The new jobs created for the both the airport and the business/commerce park by 2020 were estimated in the Benefit-Cost Analysis to be between 490 for the ÒLowÓ development scenario, 2,860 for the ÒMediumÓ development scenario, and 6,030 for the ÒLargeÓ scenario. The indirect and cumulative impacts resulting from this influx of new jobs could include the construction of additional housing and commercial establishments in the vicinity of the KTT. Additional development in the vicinity of the KTT will require a re-zoning of land currently zoned ÔAgricultureÕ. Any future development must be consistent with Warren CountyÕs land use polices and must incorporate appropriate environmental protection control, thereby minimizing potential environmental impacts.

Relocations

Each of the Build Alternatives will require the acquisition of residential structures. Alternative A will require the acquisition of approximately 18 residences for the aviation related development and an additional 37 residences could be affected by the business/commerce park. Alternative F will require the acquisition of 10 residences for the aviation related development and an additional 46 residences could be affected by the business/commerce park. Alternative T will require the acquisition of 37 residences for the aviation related development and an additional 27 residences may be impacted by the business/commerce park.

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 required for the aviation related development if it receives federal funding. Requirements of the Act include: Construction-Related Air Quality Impacts

The construction of the proposed KTT has the potential to create an increase in airborne dust and other construction-related particulates. The minimize adverse air quality impacts during construction, the following general mitigation measures should 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 of Air Quality will be conducted during the development and design of the airport and the business/commerce park to determine whether the facility will be required to apply for and obtain a construction/operating permit.

Construction-Related Noise Impacts

Noise impacts during the construction phase would be temporary. Noise impacts will include noise from construction equipment and construction-related heavy trucks. Any local ordinances regulating noise will be followed to minimize construction noise impacts. Also, construction 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 inspections and penalty provisions will assure contractor compliance with criteria. Noise abatement measures will be used to minimize, to the greatest extent feasible, construction-related noise outside the construction limits.

Water Quality/Water Supply

Water Quality

Due to the karst geology within the Yellow Study Area, pollutants originating within the project area could quickly affect water quality of the Graham Springs Basin (GSB) and the Barren River. Each of the Build Alternatives and the business/commerce park will increase paved area within the watershed, increase sediment in stormwater runoff (especially during construction), and could have the 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. Increased pavement areas have the potential to increase 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 alleviate these effects, it will be important to maintain runoff rates similar to existing (pre-development) conditions and apply good engineering practices through design and construction.

Structural and non-structural practices will be utilized to control pollutants from entering the system. All streets, parking lots, and developed areas will have curbs and a storm sewer system. While undeveloped portions in the Yellow Study Area can drain into existing sinkholes, all urban stormwater runoff will be directed into a storm water system. The storm sewer system will then direct all the storm water to several large sand filter-wetland treatment areas. Treated water will then be directed via large-diameter wells directly into the large cave streams. This will facilitate storm water monitoring. The facilities of the KTT will 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 project design. 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 project design. (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 to protect 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 during project design and development. As required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan will be developed to address how petroleum products, or hazardous or toxic materials are to be handled or stored.

Wastewater

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 project design. If additional wastewater infrastructure is required for the KTT, the WWTFP will be updated so the Division of Water can 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).

Water Supply

The proposed project will require additional water infrastructure, therefore the proposed project will be brought before the Warren County Water Supply Planning Council (WCWSPC) for consideration. A water demand analysis will be conducted to determine if the water infrastructure of the proposed KTT requires amendment of the existing Warren County Water Supply Plan (WCWSP).

As wastewater will be discharged, the airport and each industrial user will 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 will be compatible (pretreated as required) with the treatment capability of the Bowling Green wastewater treatment plant and be in conformance with applicable pretreatment standards.

When process wastewater is to be treated and discharged directly, the Division of Water will be furnished 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).

Cultural Resources

Several historic resources have been identified within the Yellow Study Area that are listed or are potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Further research and investigations into the boundaries for nomination or renomination to the NRHP will be conducted based on developments of historic contexts and criteria in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act when a federal sponsor is identified.

The ITA has undertaken significant efforts to identify, understand and protect cultural resources that may be affected by the KTT. The report prepared for the ITA by Logsdon & Logsdon Architects reflects an analysis of the entire Yellow Study Area, plus areas adjacent to and outside the official 6600-acre study area. This work was done prior to any alternatives being considered in order to facilitate the avoidance of historic structures and archaeological sites. The ITA has committed to avoidance of historic structures and archaeological sites. The ITA has committed to ongoing reviews and inspections by qualified professionals throughout design and construction of the KTT to monitor current conditions, to ensure the avoidance of sensitive cultural resources where possible, to identify appropriate mitigation impacts that cannot be avoided, and to monitor any geological changes as they may appear during construction.

Because there is no federal action at the current time, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) (the Kentucky Heritage Council) declined to formally review the Cultural/Historical Resources Survey Report prepared for this project. However, a representative of the SHPO did participate in a field review with Donna Logsdon of Logsdon and Logsdon Architects and informally verified the area of potential effect of the project and the historic structures that would be affected by each of the runway alternatives. Once the project becomes a federal action, the Section 106 process can officially be initiated, and the SHPO will provide formal review comments on the cultural resource documentation for the project.

Based on Logsdon and LogsdonÕs preliminary investigations, there are no properties currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) within the land area to be acquired for the aviation component of the KTT under the recommended runway alternative (Alternative ÒTÓ). There are three properties that are listed in the NRHP within the land area to be acquired for the airport. These properties include: the Samuel Murrell Stage Coach Stop located on Louisville Road; the Andrew Wardlaw House, located on Mizpah Road; and the Garnett Bryant House, also located on Mizpah Road. In addition, there are two NRHP-eligible properties adjacent to the property to be acquired for the airport development. These properties are the Davenport Farm and the Sandy A. Gossom House. When federal involvement occurs for this project, further research and investigations will be conducted for each of these structures to determine their boundaries for nomination or re-nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. Moreover, completion of the Section 106 process for the proposed airport development will include a full identification and assessment of properties that may be affected by the federal action, as well as consultation with the SHPO, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and other interested parties who request the status of Òconsulting partiesÓ in that process.

The project also will conform with the provisions of the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act related to any human remains that might be found during construction. In addition the ITA is committed to halting construction if cultural resources are uncovered, in accordance with the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Based on field investigations conducted as part of the Environmental Assessment, the blind crayfish, Orconectes pellucidus, which is listed as a special concern species by the KSNPC, was found to occur on the Yellow Study Area and EggertÕs Sunflower (Helianthus eggertii), which is a federally threatened plant, also was identified on the Yellow Study Area. The Kentucky cave shrimp was not identified within the Yellow Study Area during field investigations. However, the Kentucky cave shrimp could occur on the Yellow Study Area in a lower portion of the Graham Springs Basin (GSB). The mitigation measures for potential impacts to the blind cave crayfish and EggertÕs Sunflower are detailed below.

Kentucky Cave Shrimp and Blind Cave Crayfish

All Build Alternatives have approximately the same potential to impact cave fauna. Mitigation of potential impacts to the Kentucky cave shrimp and blind cave crayfish will be accomplished by following the strict guidelines outlined by Warren County and consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Contamination of the underground stream system could 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. Mitigation measures that will be included with development design are discussed below.

Spill Prevention: Spill prevention in a karst area is paramount. A progressive spill response program consisting in part, of mapping of the Graham Springs Basin (GSB) and the pathways a spill may take, will be developed similar to the program that has been implemented by Mammoth Cave. Emergency response personnel, along with the local fire departments will have and be familiar with these maps so quick action can be taken to address spills.

Collection of Storm Water Runoff: The collection of storm water runoff from potentially contaminated surfaces such as deicing pads and fueling areas will be addressed in the airport design. When treatment is provided on-site, the design and location of the discharge will receive special attention and require piping to the Barren River. The construction of a detention- equalization pond will be required. Its location and design will consider underlying rock structural strength and feature an impervious lining.

EggertÕs Sunflower

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 updated survey should be conducted to map sunflower location 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

Farmlands

Each of the airport alternatives will result in adverse impacts to farmlands. The portion of the Yellow Study Area dedicated to aviation related development with the implementation of Alternative A is approximately 1,667 acres. Of this area, 1,471 acres are prime farmland and 184 acres are considered soils of statewide and local importance. The portion of the Yellow Study Area dedicated to airport purposes for Alternative F consists of approximately 1,961 acres. Of this area, 1,757 acres is comprised of prime farmland and 204 acres are considered soils of statewide and local importance. With the implementation of Alternative T, the 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.

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 under Alternative A. With the implementation of Alternative F, an additional 2,221 acres will be rezoned from agricultural to business/commerce park uses. The implementation of Alternative T will result in the rezoning of 2,869 acres of farmland for the development of the business/commerce park.

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 are not slated for initial development, could be leased back to active farm operators. Consideration should be given to first utilizing the less productive, less arable portions of the site for 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.

Construction Impacts

To ensure that site development minimizes potential impacts to the underground karst, and that there are no significant problems resulting from construction in the karst area, the following site development recommendations will be incorporated into the project.

Surface and Subsurface Drainage Control

Geotechnical and environmental considerations require unique surface and subsurface drainage control. Site development will include the use of the natural internal drainage system to handle storm water events. It is important to limit the amount of particulates, soil particles and other material from entering any sinkhole on site, particularly one that is needed for storm water control. Therefore, surface water runoff velocity will be slowed prior to discharge into sinkholes to allow some of the particulates to Òsettle outÓ. This can be accomplished by directing runoff through a series of detention basins or check dikes.

A sinkhole used to direct water into the subsurface drainage system can also be modified to provide temporary surface water detention. A perforated riser (filtered standpipe) can be inserted into the sinkhole throat, that allows for slow infiltration during storm events but allows greater infiltration rates during major storm events. By providing detention, even for small flows, the storm water control/detention basins system can also provide environmental safeguards against accidental release of contaminants to the subsurface flow conduits. The emergency response team would have some time to address a release of liquids before they reach the subsurface drainage system.

It is possible for new dropouts to occur, especially in areas of ponded water. To minimize this potential, only lined ponds are being considered. New filtered standpipes and repair of drops may be required to maintain surface drainage control.

Significant Òno-buildÓ or open space buffer zones will be provided around any sinkhole or karst feature that is known to be directly connected to any of the three trunk drainage conduit routes. Some minor construction, particularly for the development of these buffer zones for recreational purposes, walking trails, jogging trails, nature trails, and their support structures; or, for wetland mitigation or enhancement is acceptable in these areas.

All storm water, sanitary sewers, water, and sewer lines will be constructed watertight. PVC pipe (or similar materials) will be utilized for small connector pipes. Sewers greater than 10 inches in diameter will have their routes carefully evaluated during construction. Tap-ons are a potential source of leaks and should be inspected and tested. Where appropriate the cradle materials may need to be modified by over excavating and backfilling with selected-engineered fill.

Any ponds or lakes that are created should not be located any closer than 50 feet from a major structure. If a pond must be located closer than 50 feet to a structure, the pond design will include the use of an artificial liner and a collection system below the liner. All roof drains will be either connected to a storm water sewer system or directed onto splash blocks, which direct the runoff away from the buildings. The use of heavily landscaped areas adjacent to structures will be discouraged. Where they must be used, they should either be lined with an impermeable membrane or an under-drain should be installed to drain to the storm water system. Watering of these landscaped areas over time could open karst features next to a structure.

Earthwork and Site Grading

Generally, the site soils are suitable for development. In most areas, limestone rock is expected at depths of greater than eight feet. Generally, the site soils become more plastic with depth. Providing large flat areas for development will require considerable site grading and will expose these more plastic materials. To provide a stable roadbase, or non-swelling floor slab subgrade, these materials may require stabilization.

Sinkholes and soft areas will likely be exposed during extensive excavations. The site contractor will be made aware of this potential and be prepared to follow specific site modification techniques. There are two different treatment options for sinkholes encountered during construction. Typically, concrete plugs are used for small sinkhole throats when the sinkhole is near the finished subgrade elevation. The inverted filter technique is used for larger sinkholes or when the rock surface is significantly below finished sub-grade elevation.

Although it is not expected that rock will be encountered at depths shallower than eight feet, boulders and floaters are expected. Rock fragments with dimensions greater than 12 inches thick and 36 inches wide, must be discarded unless fill depths in excess of five feet are expected. Special placement practices are required for these larger rock fragments.

Foundation Support and Settlement

Due to the site topography, individual development larger than about 100,000 square feet will likely require extensive site grading, resulting in areas within a single structure with 20 or more feet of fill and 10 more feet of cut. While this is very common, it does require engineering analyses to determine the impact of potential differential settlement for buildings supported on the soil. Extreme care will be taken when initiating the backfilling of any depression to be sure that all soft or organic material has been removed. If a throat is identified it will require treatment as described in the previous section.

Blasting

Large excavations greater than 10 feet deep may encounter rock and require blasting. Extreme care will be taken when blasting is used, to minimize damage to any existing underground drainage paths that may exist. Grading plans will limit excavation depths and blasting as much as possible. Any planned blasting will be evaluated for potential impact to the trunk drainage routes.


DEGREE OF CONTROVERSY ON ENVIRONMENTAL GROUNDS

Analysis for the 20 environmental categories required by FAA 5050.4A is discussed in Chapter 4, ÒEnvironmental Consequences.Ó Based on these analyses and the public comments received to date on this project, several environmental categories are found to have potential impacts from the proposed airport development and the business/commerce park development. These include: Social and Economic Impacts; Secondary and Cumulative Impacts; Relocations; Water Quality; Threatened and Endangered Species; Cultural Resources; and Farmlands. While economic impacts from the proposed airport development and business/commerce park are positive for the region, as well as the immediate area, the other potential impacts are negative and will require mitigation. Mitigation measures to minimize these impacts have been identified in this document and will be incorporated into the project design.


Table of Contents