1

ENVIRONMENTALEVALUATION

(ShortFormEnvironmentalAssessment)for

AIRPORTDEVELOPMENTPROJECTS

FEDERALAVIATIONADMINISTRATION

MEMPHISAIRPORTSDISTRICTOFFICE-SOUTHERNREGIONAIRPORTSDIVISION

AirportName:MemphisInternationalAirport(MEM)_____________________________________AirportLocation:2491WinchesterRoad,Memphis,TN38116______________________________ProposedProject:FedExMEMHRelocations,Project#8648976Date:October26,2017__________________________________________________________

ThisEnvironmentalAssessmentbecomesaFederaldocumentwhenevaluatedandsignedbytheresponsibleFAAofficial.ResponsibleFAAOfficial: Date:

2

FAAMEM-ADO,SOUTHERNREGIONAIRPORTSDIVISIONENVIRONMENTALEVALUATIONFORM

FORSHORTENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTSTheShortFormEnvironmentalAssessment(EA)isbasedupontheguidanceinFederalAviationAdministration(FAA)Order5050.4B,"NationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct,ImplementingInstructionsforAirportProjects"orsubsequentrevisions,whichincorporatestheCouncilonEnvironmentalQuality's(CEQ)regulationsforimplementingtheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA),aswellastheUSDepartmentofTransportationenvironmentalregulations(includingFAAOrder1050.1Eorsubsequentrevisions),andmanyotherfederalstatutesandregulationsdesignedtoprotecttheNation'snatural,historic,cultural,andarcheologicalresources.ThisversionoftheShortFormEAshouldbeusedonlyforprojectsatfederallyobligatedairportsthatfallwithintheboundariesoftheMemphisAirportsDistrictOffice(MEM-ADO).TheShortFormEAisintendedtobeusedwhenaprojectcannotbecategoricallyexcluded(CATEX)fromformalEA,butwhentheenvironmentalimpactsoftheproposedprojectareexpectedtobeinsignificantandadetailedEAwouldnotbeappropriate.Accordingly,thisformisintendedtomeettheintentofashortEAwhilesatisfyingtheregulatoryrequirementsofanEA.PropercompletionoftheShortFormEAwouldallowtheFAAtodeterminewhethertheproposedairportdevelopmentprojectcanbeprocessedwithashortEA,orwhetheramoredetailedEAmustbeprepared.TheMEM-ADOnormallyintendstouseaproperlycompletedShortFormEAtosupportaFindingofNoSignificantImpact(FONSI).ApplicabilityTheShortFormEAshouldbeusedifthesponsor’sproposedprojectmeetsthefollowingtwo(2)criteria:

1)TheproposedprojectisanormallycategoricallyexcludedactionthatmayincludeextraordinarycircumstanceslistedinTable6-3,paragraph702.aofOrder5050.4BortheairportactionisonethatnormallyrequiresanEAbutinvolvementwith,orimpactsto,theextraordinarycircumstancesarenotnotableinnumberordegreeofimpact,andthatanysignificantimpactscanbemitigatedbelowthelevelofsignificance,perOrder5050.4B,Table7.1.

2)TheproposedprojectmustfallunderoneofthefollowingcategoriesofFederalAirportsProgramactionsnotedwithanasterisk(*):

(a)Approvalofanairportlocation(newairport). *(b)Approvalofaprojectonanairportlayoutplan(ALP).

*(c)Approvaloffederalfundingforairportdevelopment. *(d)Requestsforconveyanceofgovernmentland. *(e)Approvalofreleaseofairportland. *(f)Approvaloftheuseofpassengerfacilitycharges(PFC).

*(g)Approvalofdevelopmentorconstructiononafederallyobligatedairport.

3

DoanyoftheselistedFederalAirportsprogramaction(s),2(b)-(g),applytoyourproject?Yes__X__No**_____If“yes,”listthemhere(therecanbemorethanone).(b)2(b)ApprovalofaprojectonanALP. 2(g)Approvalofdevelopmentorconstructiononafederallyobligatedairport. ________________________________________________________________________If“no,”see(**)below.

**Iftheproposedprojectdoesnotmeet1)or2)above,i.e.,oneormoreanswerstothequestionsresultedina(**),donotcompletethisForm.Rather,contacttheEnvironmentalProtectionSpecialistattheMemphisAirportsDistrictOfficeforadditionalguidance.InstructionsPriortopreparinganyNEPAdocumentation,includingtheShortFormEA,theMEM-ADOencouragesyoutocontacttheEnvironmentalProtectionSpecialistorProgramManagertoensurethattheShortFormEAistheproperFormforyourproposedaction.CompletedformswithoutpriorMEM-ADOconcurrencemayresultinapprovaldelaysorrejectedNEPAdocumentation.TocompletetheForm,thepreparershoulddescribetheproposedprojectandprovideinformationonanypotentialimpactsoftheproposedproject.Accordingly,itwillbenecessaryforthepreparertohaveknowledgeoftheenvironmentalfeaturesoftheairport.Inaddition,whilethepreparershouldhaveknowledgeoftheairportandassociatedfeatures,correspondencewithfederal,state,andlocalregulatoryagenciesshouldbecompleted,whenappropriate,toensurethatprotectedenvironmentalresourcesareidentifiedinthestudyarea.Incaseswhereregulatoryagencycoordinationisappropriate,thepreparershouldsubmitaprojectdescriptionanddrawingtotheEnvironmentalProtectionSpecialistforconcurrencepriortosubmittingtheprojectproposaltooutsideagencies.Correspondencefromfederal,state,andlocalagencies,projectplansormaps,orsecondaryenvironmentalstudiesshouldbeincludedasanappendixtothisform.ItisimportanttonotethatinadditiontofulfillingtherequirementsofNEPAthroughthisevaluationprocess,theFAAisresponsibleforensuringthatairportdevelopmentprojectscomplywiththemanylawsandordersadministeredbytheagenciesprotectingenvironmentalresources.Theformisnotmeanttobeastand-alonedocument.Rather,itisintendedtobeusedinconjunctionwithapplicableorders,laws,andguidancedocuments,andinconsultationwiththeappropriateresourceagencies.

4

Completethefollowinginformation:

1. ProjectLocation:AirportName:_MemphisInternationalAirport__________________________________________AirportAddress:_2491WinchesterRoad______________________________________________City:_Memphis__________________County:_Shelby______________State:_Tennessee______

2. AirportSponsorInformation:PointofContact:_JamesHay,DirectorofDevelopment,Memphis-ShelbyCountyAirportAuthorityAddress:_2491WinchesterRoad,Suite113,Memphis,TN________________________________Telephone:_901.922.8224__________________Fax:__901.922.8211________________________E-mail:__jamesh@mscaa.com_______________________________________________________

3. EvaluationFormPreparerInformation:PointofContact:_CharlesPace,NewFieldsEngineeringandEnvironmental,LLC________________Address:_3230MaidenLane,Suite3Manchester,MD21102______________________________Telephone:_4432916185__________________Fax:__443.744.2591________________________E-mail:cpace@newfields.com_______________________________________________________

4. ProposedDevelopmentAction(describeALLassociatedprojectsthatareinvolved):

FedEx Express (FedEx) is proposing a project to update and modernize its facilities at theMemphisInternationalAirport(MEM)inMemphis,Tennessee(proposedprojectorproposedaction).Figure1inAppendixBshowstheairportlocation.Anoutdatedpackagesortingfacilitywould be replaced with facilities specifically designed to accommodate modernized, moreefficientequipmentcompatiblewith its currentaircraft fleet.At its core, thepurposeof theproject is to replace operations, structures and equipment that are approaching the end oftheiruseful lifewithmodernoperations,structuresandequipmentto improvetheefficiencyof FedEx’s business processes. New structureswould be constructed using green buildingstandards to the extent feasible to limit environmental impacts. The project would beconstructedinPhasesasfundingbecomesavailable.First,buildings1-23wouldbedemolishedandtheslabsremoved.Next,FedExwouldconstructthefacilitieslistedbelow.Finally,afterthe Secondary 25 sorting facility becomes operational, the Secondary 1-4 would bedemolished.

UndertheProposedDevelopmentAction,FedExwoulddeconstructordemolish24outdatedstructures atMEM and construct several new facilities. The structures to be demolished ordeconstructedare:

1. Hangar#6(Building2879)2. Hangar#7(Building2837)3. Admin(Building2861)4. GSE(Building3099)5. SouthwideA6. SouthwideB7. SouthwideC

5

8. SouthwideD9. SouthwideE10. SouthwideF11. SouthwideG12. Building286013. Building287814. Building288415. Building287516. Building285517. Building282518. Building283819. Building285220. Building38021. Building38222. Building282623. Building285424. NorthSecondary1-4

Undertheproposedaction,FedExwouldconstructthefollowingnewfacilities:

1. Secondary 25 Building – The Secondary 25 sorting facility would have a footprint of

approximately 328,000 sq. ft. The buildingwould be 90-100 feet tall and consist of fourlevelsofsortconveyors,processequipmentandofficespace.Theexteriorofthebuildingwouldconsistofinsulatedmetalpanels,translucentwallpanes,anddynamicglazing.Plansare to have the building LEED-certified. The structurewould be built south of SprankelAvenue and north of the North Input structure, and would replace the existing NorthSecondary1-4facility.ItssiteencompassesallofthecurrentHangar7andAdminBuildingsites,andpartoftheHangar6site.

2. Matrix/Secondary 25 Bridge – This would be a new 25,000 sq. ft. conveyor (box truss)bridgeextendingfromtheexistingEastandWestMatrixtothenewSecondary25building.The Matrix/Secondary 25 Bridge would be conditioned and enclosed with the sameexteriormaterialsystemastheothernewfacilities.

3. BulkTruckLoad(BTL)Building–Thiswouldbeanew,65,000sq.ft.buildingandcontainanautomatedsortsystem.Thebuildingwouldbeapproximately50-60feettallandconsistoftwolevelsofsortconveyors,processequipmentandofficespace.TheBTLbuildingwouldbe enclosed with the same exterior material system as described for the Secondary 25building,andisalsoplannedtobeLEED-certified.

4. Secondary25/BTLBridge–Thiswouldbeanewconveyor(boxtruss)bridge,approximately10,000sq.ft.thatextendsfromtheSecondarySortBuildingtothenewBTLBuilding.TheSecondary 25/BTL Bridge would be conditioned and enclosed with the same exteriormaterialsystemasthenewfacilities.

5. Ground Support Equipment (GSE) Maintenance Facility – This would be a new, 6,000square-foot facility used formaintenanceof ground support equipment (GSE). Designofthenewstructure isnotyetcomplete,but itwouldbeasinglestoryofnomorethan30feetinheight.Itwouldbeanopenspacewithaslabfloor,andwouldincludesomestorage

6

oflubricantsandotheritemsusedforroutinepreventativemaintenanceoftheGSEvehiclefleet,especiallyoilchanges,andalsoforminorrepairs.

OncetheSecondary25andBTLfacilitiesandsortsystemsarefullyoperational,FedExwoulddeconstruct/demolish the North Secondary 1-4 (2899) facility down to slab level, totalingapproximately 167,000 sq. ft. At this time FedEx has noplans regarding the remaining slab.The structures that would be demolished or deconstructed, and the proposed newlyconstructedstructuresareshownonFigure2inAppendixB.

To guide the demolition and deconstruction process, FedEx and its contractors would firstprepareaDemolition/DeconstructionWasteManagementPlancertifiedundertheLeadershipin Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification program. The 24 structures andassociatedslabswouldbeassessed for thepotential to recycle thebuildingmaterials to theextentfeasible,andthoseportionsofthestructureswouldbedeconstructedtomaintainthevalue of the recycled materials. Materials with no recycled value would be assessed forhazardous materials content and disposed of in an appropriate landfill. The demolition,deconstruction, and construction contractors would employ industry-standard bestmanagementpractices(BMPs)thatwouldminimizeenvironmentalandhumanhealthimpactstothemaximumextentfeasible.

5.DescribethePurposeofandNeedfortheProject:

a. PurposeThepurposeoftheproposedprojectistoupgradeandmodernizetheFedExMemphisWorldHub, which has developed over a 44-year period. During that time, technology and sortsystems have improved exponentially, security demands have increased, competition hasincreased, and upgrading andmodernization have become a necessity to sustain theMEMposition as FedEx’s premier hub. The proposed action would modernize package sortingfacilitiesandimprovetrafficflowthroughtheFedExMemphishub.Overallefficiencywouldbeimproved at MEM by eliminating outdated, inefficient facilities, some of which have beenvacant for many years, and establishing new staging areas, which would segregate truckmovementsfromtheflowofgroundserviceequipment.TheSecondary25facilitywouldbedesignedtooptimizetheconfigurationofthesortsystem,maximizingefficiency.ItwouldreplacetheSecondary1-4,afacilitythatFedExtookoverandretrofitteddecadesago.ThefacilityissmallandpresentssignificantchallengestoprocessingthemanytypesofthecontainersthatarenowusedinFedExaircraft.

Theproposedactionwouldalsobedesigned toallowmoreefficient flowofgroundsupportvehicles within the sort and loading areas, reducing congestion. Use of the two bridgesdescribed above, for example, would allowmore efficient flow by allowing GSE vehicles totravelbelowthebridgeswhileparcelsaremovedonconveyorbeltsoverthebridgetothenextfacility. The project would be designed to LEED standards, increasing employee comfort byimproving lighting and climate control, while minimizing environmental impacts. Any new

7

structureswouldusemodernbuildingmaterialsandsortingequipmentthatwouldcontributetoan increase inoperationalandenergyefficiencyandreliabilityofoperationscomparedtothepresentconfiguration.

b. Need

MEM is currently thepremierhub for FedExoperationsworldwide. FedExprocesses severalmillionparcelsperdayatMEMduringpeakseason,and loads,unloads,andservicesseveralhundred aircraft and vehicles operating from the airport daily. FedEx current facilities areoperatingatmaximumcapacityduringpeakperiods,suchasthedaysleadinguptotheholidayperiodinDecember.TheexistingSecondary1-4buildingandequipmentaredecadesoldandpresent ongoing challenges for the processing of cargo from all types of FedEx aircraft.Upgrades are needed in order to improve the efficiency and reliability of operations. Theproposedprojectwouldalso increaseworker comfort andproductivity, leading to improvedemployeeretention.

6.AlternativestotheProject:Describeanyotherreasonableactionsthatmayfeasiblysubstitutefortheproposedproject,andincludeadescriptionofthe“NoAction”alternative.Iftherearenofeasibleorreasonablealternativestotheproposedproject,explainwhy:

Alt.#1:NoactionalternativewasconsideredinthisEAfortheproject.NoActionAlternative:Under theNoActionAlternative the demolition, deconstruction, andnew construction activities described previously would not occur, and the efficiency andimprovements of the proposed actionwould not be realized resulting in a potential shift involumestootherairports.Explanation:Potentialalternativestotheprojectcould includeadifferentproject locationorchanges in the design layout (i.e. in the number of structures demolished or deconstructedand/or a change in the number of structures constructed). Within the Memphis airport,locatingthenewsecondarysortbuildinganywhereelsewithintheFedExHuborreconfiguringthedesignwouldcauseprocessingtimestoincreaseratherthandecrease,whichunderminestheprimarygoalof theproject.Theproposedaction isanoptimaldesign forbetterutilizingavailable land and increasing reliability and efficiency of operations, especially at peakoperationperiods.Theproposedactionalsobetterutilizesavailableland,andasshownbelow,public health or environmental impacts from the proposed action would be negligible;therefore,theproposedactionistheonlyalternativeconsideredinthisShortFormEA.

7.Describetheaffectedenvironmentoftheprojectarea(terrainfeatures,levelofurbanization,sensitivepopulations,etc).Attachamapordrawingoftheareawiththelocation(s)oftheproposedaction(s)identified.Attachment?Yes___X__No_______

TheworkisplannedwithinFedEx’scomplexinthenorthernportionoftheairport,whichhasbeenusedforFedExoperationssince1973.TheexistingstructuresandtheapproximatelocationoftheproposednewfacilitiesareshowninFigure2ofAppendixB.Asistypicalforlargeurbanairports,theprojectareaischaracterizedbycommercialorindustriallanduses

8

consistingofcommercialwarehousebuildings,airplanehangars,smallerbuildings,androads,taxiways,andrunways.Therearenonaturaloruniquefeatureswithintheairportproperty.Smallareasoflandscapingareadjacenttoornearsomeofthebuildingstargetedfordemolition,andHurricaneCreekrunsascloseas100feetfrombuildingsthataretargetedfordemolition.HurricaneCreekextendsundertheairportthroughatunnelbeforeemerginginaconcrete-linedchannelneartheSouthwidebuildings.ItthenentersamorenaturalchannelasitleavestheairportpropertyandjoinsNonconnahCreekabout2,000feetnorthoftheprojectarea.OtherthantheNonconnahCreekcorridor,theareaoutsidetheairportisdominatedbyparkinglotsandlargecommercialandindustrialfacilities.

8.EnvironmentalConsequences–SpecialImpactCategories(refertocorrespondingsectionsin5050.4Bor1050.1E,orsubsequentrevisions,formoreinformationanddirectiontocompleteeachcategory,includingdiscussionsofThresholdsofSignificanceTable7-1).(1)NOISE

1)DoestheproposalrequireanoiseanalysisperOrder1050.1E,AppendixA?Explain.(Note:NoisesensitivelandusesaredefinedinTable1ofFARPart150).Yes____No__X__2)If“yes,”determinewhethertheproposedprojectislikelytohaveasignificantimpactonnoiselevelsovernoisesensitiveareaswithintheDNL65dBAnoisecontour.Theproposedprojectwouldnotincreasegroundorairoperationsandthereforewouldhavenolong-termadverseeffectonairportoperationsornoiselevels.Noisegeneratedbybuildingdemolitionandremovalwouldbelocalized,shortterm,andtemporary.Thisnoisewouldbesecondarytotheexistingnoisesourcesintheprojectarea,whichincludeairportoperations,aircraft traffic, freight-handling equipment, and nearby roads and highways. Additionally,becausetheareaiszonedforanairport,nosensitivereceptorsareneartheprojectarea.Thenearestsensitivereceptorismorethan0.75milefromtheprojectarea.

(2)COMPATIBLELANDUSE

(a)Wouldtheproposedprojectresultinother(besidesnoise)impactsexceedingthresholdsofsignificancethathavelanduseramifications,suchasdisruptionofcommunities,relocationofresidencesorbusinesses,orimpactnaturalresourceareas?Explain.No. Theproposedproject area is locatedonairportpropertywithin theAirportOperationsArea (AOA),andno landusewouldchangeasa resultof theproject.Areasaffectedby theprojectarecurrently inuseforprovidinggroundsupportforFedExoperations,andthatusewould not change with the completion of the project. There would be no disruption ofcommunitiesorrelocationofbusinessesorresidences.(b)WouldtheproposedprojectbelocatednearorcreateawildlifehazardasdefinedinFAAAdvisoryCircular150/5200-33B"HazardousWildlifeAttractantsonorNearAirports"?Explain.Theproposedproject,at its fullest, involvesremovalof24outdatedstructuresatMEMandtheconstructionofseveralnewstructuresonthesiteofsomeoftheremovedstructures.The

9

projectwould not create a newwildlife hazard or exacerbate an existingwildlife hazard atMEM.

(3)SOCIALIMPACTS (a)Wouldtheproposedprojectcauserelocationofanyhomesorbusinesses?Yes____

No__X__Explain. No.TheproposedprojectareaislocatedonMEMairportpropertyentirelywithinFedEx’s

portionoftheAOA;therefore,therewouldbenodisruptionofcommunitiesorrelocationofbusinessesorresidences.

(b)If“yes,”describetheavailabilityofadequaterelocationfacilities

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________(c)Wouldtheproposedprojectcauseanalterationinsurfacetrafficpatterns,orcauseanoticeableincreaseinsurfacetrafficcongestion?Explain.Localtrafficwouldnotbenoticeablyincreasedduetoairportconstructiontraffic.

(4)INDUCEDSOCIOECONOMICIMPACTS

Wouldtheproposedprojectcauseinduced,orsecondary,socioeconomicimpactstosurroundingcommunities,suchaschangebusinessandeconomicactivityinacommunity;impactpublicservicedemands;induceshiftsinpopulationmovementandgrowth,etc.?Yes____No__X__Explain:Adverseimpactsarenotexpectedbecausetheproposedactionwouldaffectinternalairport conditions only and is not expected to change business or economic activity in thecommunity. The planned work would likely have a beneficial socioeconomic effect duringconstructionbecauseofemploymentofconstructionworkersfordemolition,deconstructionand construction activities, and because of purchases of supplies and services from localbusinessesfortheplannedwork.Furthermore,theproposedactionwouldallowfortheHubtocontinueasapremierhub in theFedExnetwork, contributing toeconomichealthof thegreaterMemphisarea.

(5)AIRQUALITY

(a)Doestheproposedprojecthavethepotentialtoincreaseairsideorlandsidecapacity,includinganincreaseincapacitytohandlesurfacevehicles?ExplainTheprojectwouldnot increase landsideorairsidecapacity,asFedEx isnotaddingflightsorincreasinggroundvehicleactivityinrelationtothisproject.(b)Identifywhethertheprojectareaisinanon-attainmentormaintenanceareaforanyofthecriteriaairpollutantshavingNationalAmbientAirQualityStandards(NAAQS)established

10

undertheCleanAirActAmendments(CAAA),andidentifywhichpollutant(s)apply.Iftheproposedprojectisinanattainmentarea,nofurtherairqualityanalysisisneeded;skiptoitem(6).SeeEPAGreenBookatwww.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbkforcurrentattainmentareas.AsofJuly25,2016,theCountyisinattainmentwithallfederalairqualitystandards,thoughitisinmaintenancestatusfor8-hourozoneandcarbonmonoxide(CO).(c)Isanairqualityanalysisneededwithregardtoindirectsourcereviewrequirementsorlevelsofaircraftactivity(SeeOrder1050.1Eandthe1997FAAHandbook"AirQualityProceduresforCivilianAirportsandAirForceBases").Explain.If“yes,”complywithstaterequirements.ThestateofTennesseedoesnotrequireindirectsourcereview.(d)(1)Wouldtheproposedactionbean“exemptedaction,”asdefinedin40C.F.RPart51.853(c)(2)oftheGeneralConformityRule?Ifexempt,skiptoitem(6).Listexemptionclaimed.The project does not meet the definition of actions that are exempt under the GeneralConformityRule(40CodeofFederalRegulations[CFR]93.153[c][2]).(d)(2)Wouldtheincreaseintheemissionleveloftheregulatedairpollutantsforwhichtheprojectareaisinnon-attainmentormaintenanceexceedthedeminimisstandards?Yes_____No__X___AnairqualityanalysisusingtheAirportConstructionInventoryTool(ACEIT),version1.0wasperformed for the proposed action. Estimates were produced for emissions from engine-poweredconstructionequipment,workercommutes,materialtransport,fugitivedustduringdemolitionandconstruction(particulatematterlessthan10microns[PM10]andlessthan2.5microns[PM2.5]),andevaporative/volatilizationemissions.A Level 1 assessment, which provides a conservative estimate, was first performed todetermine if detailed modeling inputs were required to refine the data. The estimatedemissionswerewell belowdeminimis thresholds,with the exceptionof carbonmonoxide.Investigation of the default parameters indicated that the assumed value for vehiclemilestravelled (VMT)associatedwith the commutingof constructionemployeeswas significantlyhigherthanisanticipatedfortheproject.TheconstructionoftheSecondary25andBulkTruckLoad (BTL) buildings were the largest contributors. Using default values the Level 1assessment assumed that greater than 1,700 employees would commute a round tripdistance of 40 miles daily for the calculation of VMT. However, the maximum number ofemployees fortheproposedactionwouldbe1,000employeesperday.Therefore, theVMTparametersfortheSecondary25andBTLbuildingswereadjustedtoreflectamorerealisticrepresentationofcommutermiles.Emissions were calculated on an annual basis to represent air quality throughout thedemolition/deconstruction/construction period for the proposed project. The regulatory de

11

minimis thresholds are in terms of annual emissions (tons per year). The year 2022 wasselectedasthetestyearbecauseitisscheduledtobethelastcompleteyear(JanuarythroughDecember) of the proposed action. Tasks that are scheduled for less than one year wereprojectedonanannualbasistorepresentconservativeestimatesofemissions.Emissions from demolition of buildings and slabs were calculated based on buildingdimensionsandthecostoftheproject.Ceilingandroofthicknesswasassumedtobe2feettocalculateopenspaceheight.Thisapproachoverestimatesemissions,asthemodelcalculatesthe volume of construction material per floor based on the building’s square footage andceiling/roof thickness. Project costs for demolition activities were apportioned based onannualsquarefootageorapplicabletimeframes.TheACEITmodelestimatesemissionsfrombuildingconstructionbasedonsizecategoriesandproject costs. Thereare four size categories for general building construction. The categorythat was most representative of each individual building was selected. Project costs forconstructionactivitieswereapportionedbasedonapplicabletimeframesofconstructionforeachbuilding.AdetailedinventoryofestimatedemissionscausedbyprojectdemolitionandconstructionisattachedasAppendixC.Thecalculatedemissionsforozoneprecursors(nitrogenoxides[NOx]and volatile organic compounds [VOC]), CO, PM10, and PM2.5 were below the applicableGeneralConformitydeminimisthresholdsestablishedbytheCleanAirAct(40CFR93.153[b]).The projected emissions of CO are predominantly driven by employees commuting to theprojectsite.Theanalysisconductedwaspurposelydriventocapturethegreatestpotentialforimpact,resultinginaconservativeestimateofemissions.ProjectEmissionsofCriteriaAirPollutantsandDeMinimisThresholds VOC

(TPY)NOx(TPY)

CO(TPY)

PM10

(TPY)PM2.5(TPY)

SO2(TPY)

DeMinimisThreshold1 100 100 100 1002 1002 1002ProjectEmissions 6.19 12.5 89.9 1.72 0.69 0.09CO–carbonmonoxideNOx–nitrogenoxidesPM10–particulatematterlessthan10micronsindiameterPM2.5–particulatematterlessthan2.5micronsindiameterSO2–sulfurdioxideTPY–tonsperyearVOC–volatileorganiccompounds140CFR93.153(b)(2)–Standardsformaintenanceareas2Thresholdsforparticulateareshownfordemonstrationpurposes.ShelbyCountyisinattainmentforPM10andPM2.5.(d)(3)If“no,”wouldtheproposedprojectcauseaviolationofanyNAAQS,delaytheattainmentofanyNAAQS,orworsenanyexistingNAAQSviolation?Explain.Conformance with the State Implementation Plan (SIP), as described below, indicatescompliancewiththeNAAQSforozone,VOCs,NOx,CO,PM10,PM2.5,andSO2.

12

(d)(4)WouldtheproposedprojectconformtotheStateImplementationPlan(SIP)approvedbythestateairqualityresourceagency?Explain,andprovidesupportingdocumentation.Theproject ispresumed to conform to theSIP since the calculatedemissionsarebelowdeminimislevels.Acompleteemissionsinventoryisavailableforreview.

(6)WATERQUALITYDescribethepotentialoftheproposedprojecttoimpactwaterquality,includinggroundwater,surfacewaterbodies,anypublicwatersupplysystems,etc.Providedocumentationofconsultationwithagencieshavingjurisdictionoversuchwaterbodiesasapplicable.Tworeceivingstreamsare inthevicinityoftheprojectarea.NonconnahCreek is locatedtothenorthoftheprojectarea,approximately1,500feetawayatitsclosestpoint,andflowstothewesttoMcKellarLakeandtheMississippiRiver.HurricaneCreekflowsfromthesouthtonorthunderMEManddischarges intoNonconnahCreek.Stormwater fromtheprojectareaflowsintothesetworeceivingwatersasfollows:

o HurricaneCreekDrainageArea:§ Existing: Admin building 2861, Hangar #6, Hangar #7, GSE Building 3099,

SouthwideA,B,C,D,E,FandG,andBuildings2884,2838and2852.§ New:Secondary25.

o NonconnahCreekDrainageArea:

§ Existing:Buildings2860,2878,2875,2855,and2825.§ New:BulkTruckLoadFacility.

No part of the project would be conducted within the receiving waters; however, bothdrainage areas contain storm drains that convey stormwater to the identified receivingwaters. As required by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitTN0067351, stormwater discharges to Nonconnah and Hurricane Creeks are currentlyregulated and FedEx maintains a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), whichrequires inspections at least every 72 hours by a Level 1 certified inspector to minimizeimpactstowaterresources.Priortocommencementofdemolitionorconstructionactivities,FedExwouldsubmitacompletedandsignedNoticeofIntent(NOI)forConstructionActivity-Stormwater Discharges to the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation(TDEC) Division of Water Resources. FedEx would also develop and submit a site-specificSWPPPwiththeNOI.1Duringdemolition,deconstruction, and construction, the following stepswouldbe taken tominimize thepotential forpollutants (sediment,buildingmaterials, trash, anddebris) tobedischargedtothestormsewer:

2InformationforConstructionActivity-StormwaterDischargepermittinginTennesseecanbefoundathttps://www.tn.gov/environment/article/permit-water-stormwater-permitting-program.

13

• Install sediment controls such as filter bermsand silt fences around stormdrains tocaptureandretainmobilizeddebrisandsediment.Suchdeviceswouldbeperiodicallyinspectedand retainedmaterialwouldbe removed tomaintainproperoperationofthecontrols.

• Minimizedustgenerationthroughtheapplicationofwaterorotherdustsuppressiontechniques.

• Minimizestockpilesofmaterial.

Theproposedprojectwouldnotincreasetheamountofimperviousarea.Thus,therewouldbenoincreasetostormwaterrunofffromtheprojectarea.Thebuildingshavebeensurveyedfor hazardous material; any identified hazardous material would be removed prior todemolition.All of theplanneddemolitionand constructionwork is locatedwithin currentlyrecognized and regulated drainage basins. The Tennessee Department of Environment andConservationwouldbenotifiedofdemolition,deconstruction,andconstructionactivitywithinthesedrainagebasins;therefore,noviolationsofanywaterqualitystandardsareexpected.

(7)DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATIONSECTION303/4(f)TheproposedprojectwouldadverselyaffectfourSection4(f)propertiesthatarepotentiallyeligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historical Places (NRHP). As shown in theattached Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation (Appendix D), the proposed undertakingwould altercharacteristicsofthehistoricpropertiesthatrenderthempotentiallyeligiblefortheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces.Itistheopinionoftheconsultantsthattheproposedprojectwouldhave an adverse effect on the potentially eligible properties addressed in this historicresourcessurveythroughdemolition,whichwouldconstituteauseofSection4(f)propertiesintheprojectarea.

(8)HISTORIC,ARCHITECTURAL,ARCHEOLOGICAL,ANDCULTURALRESOURCES

(a)DescribeanyimpacttheproposedprojectmighthaveonanypropertiesinoreligibleforinclusionintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces.Providejustificationforyourresponse,andincludearecordofyourconsultationwiththeStateHistoricPreservationOfficer(SHPO),ifapplicable(attachcorrespondencewithSHPO).AreviewoftheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces(NRHP)databaseshowsthenearestrecordedhistoricpropertyasGraceland,whichislocatedapproximately3.5milessouthwestoftheprojectsite.SeetheattachedNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesMap,Figure3inAppendixB.Theproposedprojectwouldhavenoimpactstothishistoricsite.AreviewoftheTennesseeHistoricalCommission(THC)databaseshowszerorecordsfoundwithintheprojectareaora1-milebufferaroundtheprojectareashowninFigure4inAppendixB.InadditiontothereviewofpropertiesrecordedintheNRHPandtheTHCinventory,anhistoricresourcessurvey,siteinvestigation,andarchivalresearchwerecompletedonthe24propertiesscheduledfordemolitionordeconstructioninthescopeofworkfortheproject.TheinvestigationandresearcharedetailedintheattachedDraftSection4(f)Evaluation(AppendixD).

14

ThreepropertiesassociatedwiththeWorldWarIIeraMemphisArmyAirFieldweredeterminedtoexceedthe50-yearthresholdestablishedbytheNationalHistoricPreservationActof1966(NHPA)andarepotentiallyeligiblefortheNRHP.Twoofthesestructures,HangarNo.6(Building2879)andHangarNo.7(Building2837),appeartobeeligibleunderbothCriterionAandCriterionC.TheyaresignificantunderCriterionAbasedontheirassociationwiththedomesticwareffortandtherapiddevelopmentoftheArmyAirCorpsandArmyAirForcesduringWorldWarII,whichledtotheestablishmentoftheU.S.AirForcein1947.TheyarealsosignificantunderCriterionCbasedontherarityofextantwoodhangarsfromtheWorldWarIIeraandtheunique,asymmetricaldesignandtrussedwallconstructiondetail.Althoughbothhangarsweremodifiedbeginningin1973,bothstructuresappeartoretainenoughintegritytobepotentiallyeligiblefortheNRHP.Theremainingproperty,theBoilerRoom(2838),appearstobepotentiallyeligibleunderCriterionA,basedonitsassociationwiththedomesticwareffort,therapiddevelopmentoftheArmyAirCorpsandArmyAirForcesduringWorldWarII,anditsroleasasupportstructuretoHangarNo.6(2879)andHangarNo.7(2837).Sinceonlyminormodificationshavebeenmadetothisstructureovertime,itretainsitsintegrity.OneadditionalpropertyassociatedwiththeMemphisArmyAirFieldiscurrentlyidentifiedasthePaintShop(2852)andwasdeterminedtoexceedthe50-yearthreshold.Theoriginalfunctionofthisbuildingisunknown,andthebuildinghasbeenheavilymodified,furtherobscuringitsoriginaluse.Asaresult,thisbuildingdoesnotappeartobeeligiblefortheNRHP.FollowingtherelocationofFedExtoMemphisin1973,thecompanyconstructedanewAdministrationBuildingconnectingHangarNo.6andHangarNo.7.ThisstructureretainsahighlevelofintegrityinrelationtotheearlyyearsofFedExoperationsinMemphisandthedevelopmentofaircargotransportation.ThisstructureispotentiallyeligibleforlistingintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesasadistrictbasedonCriterionAunderCriteriaConsiderationG.ThisrecommendationisbasedontheassociationofthesebuildingswiththeexponentialgrowthofFedExanditsimpactonlocalandnationaleconomies,aswellasinternationalbusiness.TheexceptionalimportanceofthepropertyisdemonstratedbythefactthattherearenootherknownpropertiesrepresentativeofearlyFedExoperationsinthecommunity,state,ornation.ThereisalsoaGSEHydrogenTestFacility(2884)thatwasinitiallyconsideredtobepotentiallyeligiblefortheNRHPbasedonCriterionAunderCriteriaConsiderationG,whichaddressespropertiesthathaveachievedsignificancewithinthepast50years.Althoughthispropertywasconstructedin2014,itwasconstructedaspartofatrialprogramtotestthefeasibilityofusinghydrogencell-poweredgroundsupportvehicles.However,FedExretiredallthehydrogen-fueledGSEvehiclesandendedthetrialprogrambecausethevehiclesprovedtobeunreliable,andthefillingstationwasnolongerneeded.Givenitsage,itappearstobeunalteredfromitsoriginalconfigurationandretainanexceptionallyhighlevelofintegrity.DuetopreliminaryconsultationwiththeFAAandtheTN-SHPO,thisstructurewasnotrecommendedtobepotentiallyeligiblefortheNRHP.

15

Theremaining18propertiesdidnotmeetthe50-yearthresholdorappeartopossessextraordinarysignificanceunderCriterionConsiderationG.Asaresult,thesepropertieswererecommendedtobeineligiblefortheNRHP.(b)Describewhetherthereisreasontobelievethatsignificantscientific,prehistoric,historic,archeological,orpaleontologicalresourceswouldbelostordestroyedasaresultoftheproposedproject.Includearecordofconsultationwithpersonsororganizationswithrelevantexpertise,includingtheSHPO,ifapplicable.Basedonafieldsurveyandliteraturereviewofavailablehistoricresourcesandaerialimagecollections,thehistoricresourcesdiscussedintheprevioussectionwouldbeadverselyaffectedthroughdemolition.ItislikelythatHangarNo.6(2879)andHangarNo.7(2837)aretheonlyremainingexamplesofthisunique,asymmetricalhangardesignandtrussedwallconstructiondetail.TheBoilerRoom(2838),whichhasfunctionedasanactiveandongoingsupportstructuretothehangerfacilitiessinceWorldWarII,wouldbelostordestroyedthroughthedemolitionofthesestructures.FedExandtheMemphis-ShelbyCountyAirportAuthoritywouldconsultwiththeFAA,theTennesseeHistoricalCommissionandotherappropriatehistoricalresourceagenciesandexpertstodetermineappropriatemethodsfordocumentinganypotentiallyeligiblehistoricalresourcesthatwouldbedemolishedordeconstructedduringtheproposedproject.TheproposedmitigationwouldlikelyincludethecompletionofHistoricAmericanBuildingSurvey(HABS)LevelIIdocumentation.SeetheHistoricResourcesSurveyandtheDraftSection4(f)Evaluation(AppendixD)foramorecompletediscussionofpotentialadverseeffectstohistoricresources.

(9)BIOTICCOMMUNITIES

Describethepotentialoftheproposedprojecttodirectlyorindirectlyimpactplantcommunitiesand/orthedisplacementofwildlife.ThisanswershouldalsoreferenceSection6,WaterQuality,ifjurisdictionalwaterbodiesarepresent.TheproposedprojectisentirelywithintheMEMandwouldnotdirectlyorindirectlyimpactplantcommunitiesordisplacewildlife.AquaticplantandwildlifecommunitiesinHurricaneandNonconnahCreekswouldbeprotectedbymeasuresrequiredundertheprojectSWPPP,asdescribedinSection6.

(10)FEDERALandSTATE-LISTEDENDANGEREDANDTHREATENEDSPECIES

Wouldtheproposedprojectimpactanyfederally-orstate-listedorproposedendangeredorthreatenedspeciesoffloraandfauna,orimpactcriticalhabitat?Explain,anddiscussandattachrecordsofconsultationeffortswithjurisdictionalagencies,ifapplicable.Impacts are not expected because no occurrences or habitat for federally or state listedspecies are known to exist in or near the project area. The TDEC database shows no statelistedspeciesintheprojectarea.StormwaterrunoffintheprojectareaenterstheNonconnahCreekDrainage,which has seven known listed specieswithin the drainage.With thewater

16

quality protections required under the site SWPPP, however, there would be no effect onwaterqualityinthecreekandnoimpacttolistedspecies.Thoughnolistedspeciesareknowntooccurintheprojectarea,FedExwouldtakestandardprecautions to protect wildlife during project construction. These include, for instance,consultingwith TDEC or theUS Fish&Wildlife Service prior to removing any trees greaterthan3inchesindiametertoensureavianandbatspeciesarenotadverselyaffected.

(11)WETLANDS

Doestheproposedprojectinvolvethemodificationofdelineatedwetlands(Delineationsmustbeperformedbyapersoncertifiedinwetlandsdelineation)?Providedocumentationofconsultationwithagencieshavingjurisdictionoverwetlandsandincludewetlandinventorymapswhenappropriate.Satelliteimageryandafieldcheckconfirmednopresenceofwetlandswithintheprojectarea.Wetlands exist along Nonconnah Creek and Hurricane Creek but not in the vicinity of theprojectarea.WithenactmentofindustrystandardBMPs,theprojectasproposedwouldhavenodirectorindirectimpactonwetlands.

(12)FLOODPLAINS

(a)Wouldtheproposedprojectbelocatedin,orwoulditencroachupon,any100-yearfloodplains,asdesignatedbytheFederalEmergencyManagementAgency(FEMA)?Yes_____No__X__(b)Wouldtheproposedprojectbelocatedina500-yearfloodplain,asdesignatedbyFEMA?Yes_____No__X__(c)If“yes,”istheproposedprojectconsidereda"criticalaction",asdefinedintheWaterResourcesCouncilFloodplainManagementGuidelines?(seeFRVol.43,No.29,2/10/78)Yes____No____(d)YoumustattachthecorrespondingFEMAFloodInsuranceRateMap(FIRM)orotherdocumentationshowingtheprojectarea.Mapattached?Yes__X__No______If“no,”whynot?TheFEMAFloodInsuranceRateMapfortheareaisattachedasFigure5inAppendixB.(e)Iftheproposedprojectwouldcauseanencroachmentofabasefloodplain(thebasefloodplainisthe100-yearfloodplainfornon-criticalactionsandthe500-yearfloodplainforcriticalactions),whatmeasureswouldbetakentoprovideanopportunityforearlypublicreview,inaccordancewithOrder1050.1E,AppendixA,Section9.2.c?Theprojectareaisnotwithina100-yearor500-yearfloodplain,asdesignatedbyFEMA.

(13)COASTALZONEMANAGEMENTPROGRAM

17

(a)Wouldtheproposedprojectoccurin,oraffect,acoastalzone,asdefinedbyastate'sCoastalZoneManagementPlan(CZMP)?Explain.TheprojectisnotlocatedwithinaCZMP.(b)If“yes,”istheprojectconsistentwiththeState'sCZMP?Explain.Ifapplicable,attachthesponsor'sconsistencycertificationandthestate'sconcurrenceofthatcertification.Earlycoordinationisrecommended.Notapplicable.

(14)COASTALBARRIERS

IsthelocationoftheproposedprojectwithintheCoastalBarrierResourcesSystem,asdelineatedbytheUSFishandWildlifeService(FWS)orFEMAcoastalbarriermaps?Explain.TheprojectisnotlocatedwithintheCoastalBarrierResourcesSystem.

(15)WILDANDSCENICRIVERSWouldtheproposedprojectaffectanyportionofthefree-flowingcharacteristicsofaWildandScenicRiveroraStudyRiver,oranyadjacentareasthatarepartofsuchrivers,listedontheWildandScenicRiversInventory?Consultthe(regional)NationalParksService(NPS),U.S.ForestService(FS),orotherappropriatefederalauthorityforinformation.Earlyconsultationisrecommended.According to theNationalRivers Inventory (NRI)databaseaccessedon theNPSwebsite,noNRIriversorriversegmentsdesignatedaspartoftheNationalWildandScenicRiverSystemoccurwithinShelbyCounty.

(16)FARMLAND

(a)Wouldtheproposedprojectinvolvetheuseoffederalfinancialassistanceorconversionoffederalgovernmentland?ExplainThe project would not involve use of federal financial assistance or conversion of federalgovernmentland.(b)If“yes”woulditconvertfarmlandprotectedbytheFarmlandProtectionPolicyAct(FPPA)(primeoruniquefarmland)tonon-agriculturaluses?Yes_____No__X___(c)If“yes,”determinetheextentofproject-relatedfarmlandimpactsbycompleting(andsubmittingtotheNaturalResourcesConservationService)the"FarmlandConversionImpactRatingForm"(NRCSFormAD1006).Coordinatewiththestateorlocalagriculturalauthorities.Explainyourresponse,andattachtheFormAD1006,ifapplicable.Theproposedprojectwouldnotinvolveacquisitionorconversionoffarmland.

(17)ENERGYSUPPLYANDNATURALRESOURCES

18

Whateffectwouldtheproposedprojecthaveonenergyorothernaturalresourceconsumption?Woulddemandexceedsupply?Explain.Lettersfromlocalpublicutilitiesandsuppliersregardingtheirabilitiestoprovideenergyandresourcesneededforlargeprojectsmaybenecessary.Theproposedprojectisexpectedtoresultinanimmaterialchangeinenergyusecomparedtopresentconditionsduetoanexpectedincreaseingroundoperationsefficiencyandreductionindevelopedsquarefootageattheairport. Newbuildingswouldalsobeconsiderablymoreenergyefficientcomparedtothosethatwouldberemoved.

(18)LIGHTEMISSIONS

Wouldtheproposedprojecthavethepotentialforairport-relatedlightingimpactsonnearbyresidents?Explain,and,ifnecessary,provideamapdepictingthelocationofresidencesintheairportvicinityinrelationtotheproposedlightingsystem.Theprojectwouldhavenoeffectonoff-airportlightinglevels.

(19)SOLIDWASTE

Wouldtheproposedprojectgeneratesolidwaste?Yes__X___No_____If“yes,”arelocaldisposalfacilitiescapableofhandlingtheadditionalvolumesofwasteresultingfromtheproject?Explain.The solid waste generated during the proposed project would be disposed of at a landfillcapableofreceivingtheamountandtypeofwasteproducedduringthedemolitionprocess,includingwastecontaminatedwithasbestosorotherhazardousmaterial.Allmaterialswouldbe evaluated for their potential to be recycled or reused, but an estimated 270,000 cubicyards (conservative preliminary estimate) of non-recyclablewastewould be created duringdemolition. The project construction contractor would determine the classification of allwastestreams, includingUniversalWasteandHazardousWasteperTDECSWMRules0400-12-01.12 and 0400-12-01.03(b), and secure an agreement with one or more local wastedisposalcompanyand the landfill(s) thatwould receive thewaste.Theprojectarchitecturalcontractorhasidentifiedthefollowingfirmsasthewastedisposalcontractorsfortheproject.

• WasteManagementMemphis–750HatcherCir.,Memphis•(901)362-8950• RepublicServices/AlliedServices–3840HomewoodRd,Memphis•(901)794-3800• E-PLEX/E-BOX–10636SheltonRoad,Collierville,TN38017•(901)850-9996

Thesecompaniesstatedthatsufficientspace innearby landfillswasavailabletoreceivethewaste,thoughtheexactlandfillswerenotyetidentified.ThisinformationwouldbeprovidedtotheFAAwhenitisavailable.

(20)CONSTRUCTIONIMPACTS

Wouldconstructionoftheproposedproject:1)increaseambientnoiselevelsduetoequipmentoperation;2)degradelocalairqualityduetodust,equipmentexhaustsand

19

burningdebris;3)deterioratewaterqualitywhenerosionandpollutantrunoffoccur;4)ordisruptoff-siteandlocaltrafficpatterns?Explain.1)_ Impactsoftheproposedprojectwouldallbedemolition,deconstructionorconstructionrelated,andthereforethediscussionofimpactsunderalltechnicalareasinthisdocumentarefocused on impacts that would occur during demolition, deconstruction, and construction.Demolition,deconstructionandconstructionof theprojectcouldresult inminorshort-termimpacts to noise due to the use of heavy equipment operation, but would be kept to aminimum by employing appropriate BMPs. No noise-sensitive areas are in the project’simmediatevicinityandtheprojectisnotanticipatedtoaffecttheairport’snoisecontours.2)Potentialdemolition,deconstructionandconstruction-relatedimpactsarediscussedintheprevious Air Quality Section. The demolition, deconstruction and construction activitiesassociatedwiththeprojectcouldresultinminorshort-termimpactstoairqualityduetotheuse of heavy equipment operation, but would be kept to a minimum by employingappropriate BMPs, including use of water spray or other dust control methods to controlfugitivedustemissions.Newgrounddisturbanceandburningofdebrisarenotanticipated.Ifdisposalofbrushortrees/treelimbsisneeded,woodwastewouldbedisposedofbychipping,grinding,orcompostingratherthanopenburning.3)_ Withtheimplementationof industrystandardBMPs,suchascontrollingrunoffthroughimplementation of a SWPPP, project-related demolition, deconstruction, and constructionwould create negligible impacts. Contractors would implement BMPs such as Installingsediment controls such as filter berms and silt fences around storm drains to capture andretain mobilized debris and sediment. Such devices would be periodically inspected andretainedmaterialwouldberemovedtomaintainproperoperationofthecontrols.4)__ Project-related construction traffic would be minor compared to present traffic andwouldnotcauseadegradationofservice.

(21)OTHERCONSIDERATIONS

(a)Istheproposedprojectlikelytobehighlycontroversialonenvironmentalgrounds?Explain.Theproposedprojectwouldbecontainedentirelywithinhighlydisturbedgroundsandwouldresultinimprovedworkingconditions.InOctober2016,theMemphis-ShelbyCountyAirportAuthority contacted theappropriategoverningagencies and shared information concerningtheproposedprojectandallbutoneagencyconcurredwiththeconclusionsof thisEA.TheTennessee Historical Commission requested additional information regarding potentialimpactstohistoricalresources,whichhasbeenprovidedandisincludedinthisdocumentasAppendixD.FAAwouldcontinuetoworkwiththeHistoricalCommissiontoreachagreementontheimpactassessment,andonappropriatemitigationforsuchimpacts.Lettersfromtheconcurring agencies are attached in Appendix A. Project construction and operationwouldresult innegligible impacts; therefore, it isunlikely tobeconsideredhighlycontroversialonenvironmentalgrounds.

20

(b)Istheproposedprojectlikelytobeinconsistentwithanyfederal,stateorlocallaworadministrativedeterminationrelatingtotheenvironment?Explain.Theproposedprojectisnotlikelytobeinconsistentwithafederal,state,orlocallaworadministrativedeterminationrelatedtotheenvironment.(c)Istheproposedprojectreasonablyconsistentwithplans,goals,policies,orcontrolsthathavebeenadoptedfortheareainwhichtheairportislocated?ExplainTheproposedprojectwouldnotchangetheuseorcharacteroftheprojectsiteorsurroundingareaandwouldbeconsistentwithexistinglanduseplans,goals,policies,andzoning.

(22)HAZARDOUSSITES/MATERIALSWouldtheproposedprojectrequiretheuseoflandthatmaycontainhazardoussubstancesormaybecontaminated?Explainyourresponseanddescribehowsuchlandwasevaluatedforhazardoussubstancecontamination.Earlyconsultationwithappropriateexpertiseagencies(e.g.,USEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA),EPA-certifiedstateandlocalgovernments)isrecommended.The projectwould generate a large volume ofwaste, some ofwhichwould be consideredhazardouswaste, especially asbestos (Chrysotile) containingmaterials (ACMs), which couldcontaminate the project site and surrounding properties if not handled properly. Otherpotential contaminants include: lead-based paint; CFC’s from refrigerant in HVAC systems;andmercuryandPCBsfromlightfixtures(seeSection4.4ofAppendixEforamorecompletelist of hazardous waste streams that are likely to be encountered during demolition). Asshown in theprojecthazardousmaterials study (AppendixE),FedExconductedahazardousmaterials investigation that involved analyzing 210 bulk samples from19 of the structures,showingthatatleast10buildingscontainasbestos.Severalotherbuildingsarepresumedtocontain asbestos. As buildings are dismantled and demolished, further samples would betaken as materials are uncovered to assess presence and level of hazardous materials.Contractorswouldassumethatasbestoscontaminationispresentunlesstestsconfirmanon-detectablelevel.Location andquantity ofACMswould be verified in the field by thedemolition contractor.Removalanddisposalofasbestoscontainingmaterialswouldbedone in conformancewithapplicablesafetyandenvironmentalregulations,aswellasBMPs.Non-friableACMselectedfor removal would be removed as a Class II abatement operation pursuant to 29 CFR1926.1101; friable ACMs would be removed prior to demolition. Shelby County HealthDepartment – Air Pollution Control (SCHD-APC), the local authority for enforcement of theNational Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), also regulates theremovalofCategoryIInonfriableasbestosmaterials(Transite)priortodemolition.CategoryInon-friable materials may be demolished with structures. These materials include roofing,confirmed or presumed, and vinyl tiles with mastic. Tiles and mastic, if demolished withstructure,wouldnecessitate landfilldisposalofdemolitionsubstrate.Acost-benefitanalysiswouldweightheadvantagesofabatementofCategory Imaterialsordemolition inplaceofmaterials.

21

FedExand/oritsconstructioncontractorwouldalsoberesponsibleforfilingrequirednoticesforallhazardouswastedisposal, including filinganoticeofasbestosdemolitionwithSCHD-APC. A notification is required for the removal, renovation and/or demolition of asbestoswherequantitiesexceed260linearfeetormoreofpipes,160squarefeetormoreonotherfacilitycomponents,or35cubicfeetormoreofffacilitycomponentswherethelengthorareacould not bemeasured previously. Notification to SCHD-APC is required of any demolitioneven if there is no asbestos. Exemptions include nonfriable asbestos containing materials,packings,gaskets,resilientfloorcoveringandasphaltroofingproductsthatwhendry,cannotbecrumbled,pulverizedorreducedtopowderbyhandpressure.AcompletedNotificationofAsbestosDemolitionorRenovationApplicationmustbesubmittedat least10workingdaysbeforetheasbestosstrippingorremovalworkbegins.

Most concrete pads beneath the 23 demolished structures would be removed. Removedconcrete would be evaluated for construction waste recycling. The area needed forconstruction of the new facilities would require pouring new pads for the structure. Theconstruction contractor would test the soil underneath each facility for potentialcontaminationandtakeappropriatecleanupactionifneeded.Threeactiveundergroundstoragetanksarelocatedintheprojectarea(FacilityID9-792140,9-792231, and 9-792707). Before any UST is moved or disturbed the TDECMemphis FieldOffice would be notified. If one of the active tanks is damaged during demolition orconstruction, notification would be provided to the Memphis Field Office UndergroundStorageTankDivisionwithin72hoursandappropriate remedial actions taken immediately.ThecontactfortheUSTDivisionisJeffPhillipsat(901)371-3032

(23)PERMITS

Listallrequiredpermitsfortheproposedproject.Indicatewhetheranydifficultiesareanticipatedinobtainingtherequiredpermits.ShelbyCountyairregulationsrequireaconstructionpermitforemissionunitsthathavethepotentialtoemitmorethan5tonsofNOxperday. Theprojectmayrequireaconstructionpermit if the final design includes equipment that would trigger this requirement. Wheninstallation is complete and equipment becomes operational, the emission unit and anyapplicablerequirementswouldbeincorporatedintotheexistingTitleVAirPermitNo.00664-01TV.FedExholdsNPDESPermitTN0067351,whichcoversthedischargeofstormwaterfromvarious outfalls located throughout the FedEx facility. All of the planned demolition andconstructionwork is locatedwithincurrently recognizedandregulateddrainagebasins.TheTennesseeDepartmentof EnvironmentandConservationwouldbenotifiedof constructionactivitywithinthesedrainagebasins.NOTE:Eventhoughtheairportsponsorhas/shallobtainoneormorepermitsfromtheappropriatefederal,state,and/orlocalagenciesfortheproposedproject,initiationofsuchprojectshallNOTbeapproveduntilFAAhasissueditsenvironmentaldetermination.

(24)ENVIRONMENTALJUSTICE

22

Wouldtheproposedprojectimpactminorityand/orlow-incomepopulations?Considerhumanhealth,social,economic,andenvironmentalissuesinyourevaluation.Explain.

Theprojectasproposedwouldhavenoimpactonanyresidence.Theclosestresidenceis0.75milefromtheprojectsite.Allnearbyresidencesareclosertoactivehighwaysorrunwaysthantotheprojectarea;therefore,noresidencewouldbeaffectedbydemolitionorconstructionactivities. The project would generate a substantial number of jobs for the demolition,deconstruction, and new construction activities, and would not reduce permanentemployment at the airport. The project is not expected to create human health, social,economic,orhealthissues;therefore,itwouldnotresultinenvironmentaljusticeimpacts.

(25)CUMULATIVEIMPACTS

When considered together with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable futuredevelopment projects on or off the airport, federal or non-federal, would the proposedprojectproducea cumulativeeffectonanyof theenvironmental impact categories above?Youshouldconsiderprojectsthatareconnected,cumulativeandsimilar(commontimingandgeography).Providea listofsuchprojectsconsidered.ForpurposesofthisEvaluationForm,generallyuse3yearsforpastprojectsand5yearsforfutureforeseeableprojects.

Ingeneral,operationsatMEMhavedecreasedconsiderablyinrecentyears.Thetotalnumberofpassengersmovingthoughtheairportperyearhasdeclinedsteadilysince2010,frommorethan10millionpassengersthatyeartojustunder3.8millionpassengersin2015.Therefore,when comparing presentwith past operations, cumulative impacts from airport operationshave reduced considerably. The reduction in passenger traffic at the airport has had asecondaryeffecton surroundingbusinessesaswell, and ingeneraleconomicactivity in theareawasnegativelyaffectedbythereductioninpassengertraffic.

MEMremainsthebusiestcargoairportinthecountry;FedExmayfurtherupgradeitsfacilitiesatMEMasbudgetisavailableandeconomicsjustify.Potentialactionsmayincluderemovalofcertain aging equipment and buildings and providing flexibility for possible futureimprovements. Plans for FedEx’sGoldenTriangleRampprojectwere recently confirmedbyFedExmanagement, though the exact timing for construction is still uncertain. TheGoldenTriangleRampprojectwouldaddsevennewgatesatthewestendofFedEx’sfacilities,aswellasanewmaintenancebuildingandanemergencygenerator.MSCAA isplanningother improvementsatMEMaswell, following its long-term,multi-yearmodernizationplan. Themultiphaseplan includesmovingwalkways,wider corridors, largerboardingareas,higherceilingsandnaturallighting.Theplanwouldconsolidateairline,retailand foodandbeverageoperations inConcourseB. Theproject includes the removalof thesouth ends of the A and C Concourses to allow for unobstructed access by aircraft to theentireBConcourse.TheendoftheAConcoursehasbeenremovedandtherepavingoftheconstructionareahasbeencompleted.ThetimingoftheremovaloftheendofConcourseCwoulddependonthefinaldesignplansfortheBConcourse.Theairportiscurrentlyreviewingdesignoptions.Theentireprojectwouldtakeanestimated5-7yearstocomplete

23

MSCAA is also planning the construction of a consolidated rental car facility on a 48-acrevacant lot across Airport Boulevard from the main passenger terminal. The facility wouldincludeconstructionofsixbuildingsforrentalcarvehicleservice,maintenance,carwashing,fueling,andadministration.The lot isa formerresidentialdevelopmentthatwaspurchasedand cleared byMSCAAduring a past expansion of the airport.Other planned projects thathave been reviewedor are under review for environmental impacts include a consolidatedglycol collection pad, located between the parallel runways just north of ShelbyDrive, andreplacement airfield maintenance, warehouse, operations and police facility, also locatedbetweentheparallelrunwaysonLouisCarruthersRoad,northofShelbyDrive.SeparateNEPA compliance documents have been submitted for theGolden Triangle Rampproject.SeparateNEPAcompliancedocumentswouldbepreparedtherentalcarfacility,andotherfutureimprovementprojectssubsequentlyapprovedbyFedExorMSCAAmanagementover thenext 2 to 10 years. Eachwould include an analysis of its potential contribution tocumulative impacts in combinationwith theRelocationprojectandotherpast,presentandreasonablyforeseeableprojects.

Therearenootherknownoranticipated largefederalornonfederalprojects locatedwithinthe area that would produce a cumulative effect on the environment in the project area.Similarly, there areno known cumulative impacts in the region towhich theprojectwouldcontribute.

TheRelocationsprojectwouldbecontainedentirelywithinFedEx’sportionoftheairport,andwouldnot createnew infrastructure thatwouldhave a growth-inducing effect. There is nosensitive or critical habitat in the immediate area, and no land use conflicts would occurbecause the area is zoned for airport use. The proposed action would have no adverseimpacts on habitat or land use, and therefore its contribution to any ongoing or futurecumulativeimpactsinthosetechnicalareasisnegligible.

Therefore,when considered togetherwith other past, present, and reasonably foreseeablefuturedevelopmentprojectsonorofftheairport,federalornon-federal,theproposedactionisunlikelytoproduceacumulativeeffectonpublichealthortheenvironment.

10.MITIGATION

(a)Describethosemitigationmeasurestobetakentoavoidcreationofsignificantimpactstoaparticularresourceasaresultoftheproposedproject,andincludeadiscussionofanyimpactsthatcannotbemitigated,orthatcannotbemitigatedbelowthethresholdofsignificance(See5050.4B&1050.1E,AppendixA).WiththeincorporationofstandardBMPsandthedocumentationofhistoricresourcesdescribedinSection8,noimpactswouldoccurasaresultofapprovaloftheproject,andthereforenoadditionalmitigationisneeded.(b)Provideadescriptionoftheresourcesthatareinoradjacenttotheprojectareathatmustbeavoidedduringconstruction.Note:Themitigationmeasuresshouldbeincorporatedintotheproject’sdesigndocuments.

24

TheworkisplannedwithinFedEx’scomplexinthenorthernportionoftheairport,whichhasbeenusedforFedExoperationssince1973.As is typical for largeurbanairports, theprojectarea is characterized by commercial or industrial land uses consisting of commercialwarehouse buildings, airplane hangars, smaller buildings, and roads, taxiways, and runways.Therearenonaturaloruniquefeatureswithintheairportproperty.SmallareasoflandscapingareadjacenttoornearsomeofthebuildingstargetedfordemolitionandHurricaneCreekrunsas close as 100 feet from buildings that are targeted for demolition. Hurricane Creek runsunder the airport in a tunnel before coming to light in a concrete-lined channel near theSouthwidebuildings. It thenenters amorenatural channel as it leaves the airport propertyand joins Nonconnah Creek about 2,000 feet north of the project area. Other than theNonconnahCreekcorridor,theareaoutsidetheairportisdominatedbyparkinglotsandlargecommercial and industrial facilities. Nowork is plannedwithin or near any natural feature.HurricaneCreekandNonconnahCreekwouldbeavoidedandprotectedthroughthemeasuresrequiredby theprojectSWPPP,suchas installingwattles topreventsediment fromwashingintoHurricaneCreek;therefore,noadditionalmitigationisrequired.

11.PUBLICINVOLVEMENT

Describewhateffortswouldbemadetoinvolvethepublicwiththisproposedproject.Discusstheappropriatenessofholdingpublicmeetingsand/orpublichearings,makingthedraftdocumentavailableforpubliccomment,orthepreparationofapublicinvolvementplan,etc.FAApublicinvolvementguidelinesrequiretheprojectsponsor,theMemphis-ShelbyCountyAirportAuthority,toadvertiseaNoticeofAvailabilityoftheDraftEnvironmentalAssessmentandaNoticeofOpportunityforaPublicHearing.Thisnoticewaspublishedon{InsertDate2}inthelocalnewspaperofrecord,TheCommercialAppeal,givinginterestedparties30daystocommentontheEAand/ortorequestapublichearing.Dependingonthecommentsreceived,FAAmayrevisetheDraftEAandissueaFinalEA,andholdapublichearingontheproject.

2NotetoReviewer:thedateofthepublicnoticeforreleaseoftheEAwillbeupdatedafterFAAapprovesthereleaseoftheEAtothegeneralpublic.

25

12.PREPARERCERTIFICATIONIcertifythattheinformationIhaveprovidedaboveis,tothebestofmyknowledge,correct.______________________________________________________________SignatureDate___________________________________________________________________Name,Title___________________________________________________________________Affiliation13.AIPORTSPONSORCERTIFICATIONIcertifythattheinformationIhaveprovidedaboveis,tothebestofmyknowledge,correct.Ialsorecognizeandagreethatnoconstructionactivity,includingbutnotlimitedtositepreparation,demolition,orlanddisturbance,shallproceedfortheaboveproposedproject(s)untilFAAissuesafinalenvironmentaldecisionfortheproposedproject(s),anduntilcompliancewithallotherapplicableFAAapprovalactions(e.g.,ALPapproval,airspaceapproval,grantapproval)hasoccurred.___________________________________________________________________SignatureDate________________________________________________________________________Name,Title________________________________________________________________________Affiliation

26

Note:ThispagetobecompletedbyFAAonly14.FAADECISION:Havingreviewedtheaboveinformation,certifiedbytheresponsibleairportofficial,itistheFAAdecisionthattheproposedproject(s)ofdevelopmentwarrantsenvironmentalprocessingasindicatedbelow.

TheproposeddevelopmentactionhasbeenfoundtoqualifyforaShortEnvironmentalAssessment.

TheproposeddevelopmentactionexhibitsconditionsthatrequirethepreparationofadetailedEnvironmentalAssessment(EA).

ThefollowingadditionaldocumentationisnecessaryforFAAtoperformacompleteenvironmentalevaluationoftheproposedproject:____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*ActionReviewed/Recommendedby:

________________________________________________________(FAAEnvironmentalSpecialist) Date

*Approved: _________________________________________________________ (FAAApprovingOfficial)Date*TheaboveFAAapprovalonlysignifiesthattheproposeddevelopmentaction(s),asdescribedbytheinformationprovidedinthisEvaluationForm,initiallyappearstoqualifyfortheindicatedenvironmentalprocessingaction.ThismaybesubjecttochangeaftermoredetailedinformationismadeknowntotheFAAbyfurtheranalysis,orthoughadditionalfederal,state,localorpublicinput,etc.

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GISUser Community

±0 4 82Miles

0 4 82Kilometers

MEMH Transformation Project

LegendProject Location

Memphis, Shelby Co., TN

Tennessee

Project Location

Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map

MEMH Transformation Project Figure 2: Project ±0 0.5 10.25

Miles

0 0.5 10.25Kilometers

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, ©OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, Source: Esri,DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

±0 1 20.5Miles

0 1 20.5Kilometers

MEMH Transformation Project

LegendProject LocationGraceland

Figure 3: NRHP Graceland

GracelandReference Number: 91001585Resource Type: DistrictAddress: 3764 Elvis Presley Blvd.Memphis, Shelby Co., TennesseeCertification Date: 19911107Contributing Buildings: 11Contributing Objects: 0Contributing Sites: 2Contributing Structures: 5Distance to Project: 3.5 miles

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, ©OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

±0 0.4 0.80.2Miles

0 0.4 0.80.2Kilometers

MEMH Transformation ProjectFigure 4: THC No Records Found

No Historical Records Returned

FEMA, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/AirbusDS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and theGIS User Community

±0 1 20.5Miles

0 1 20.5Kilometers

MEMH Transformation Project

LegendProject Location0.2%AE, FLOODWAYA, AE, AH, AOAREA NOT INCLUDEDX PROTECTED BY LEVEE

Figure 5: FEMA Map

C Air Emissions Inventory Report

AppendixCFedExExpressMEMOperationsEfficiencyImprovementProject

AirEmissionsInventoryReport

Introduction

FedExExpress (FedEx)hasproposed to increase theefficiencyof operations at theMemphisInternational Airport (MEM) in Memphis, TN by eliminating older, inefficient structures;establishing new staging areas; modifying existing building interiors; and, constructing newbuildings. ThisAir Emissions Inventory Report (Inventory) was performed as part of NationalEnvironmental PolicyAct (NEPA)documentation for the FedExMemphisHubTransformationproject. Emissions were estimated from all activities (Table 1), associated with theTransformationproject thatwouldgenerateemissionsduringdemolition,deconstructionandconstructionactivities.Theproposedactionwouldnotincreaseairsideorlandsidecapacity,andwould result in a reduction of developed square footage at MEM; as such, emissions fromoperationswouldnotincrease.

This Inventory is provided as an appendix to the Environmental Evaluation (Short FormEnvironmentalAssessment)forthisproject.TheInventoryisintendedtosatisfytheairqualityrequirements established by NEPA. The analysis herein was performed to evaluate theenvironmentalconsequencesoftheprojectwithrespecttoairquality.

RegulatoryApplicability

The NEPA Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions (Order 5050.4B) developed by U.S.Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) provides SignificantImpact Thresholds for resource categories in Table 7-1 (FAA 2006). Shelby County, TN, is inattainment with all National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), though it is inmaintenance status for ozone and carbon monoxide (CO). The emissions inventory wasperformedtodeterminewhetherornottheprojectwouldcauseorcontributetoaviolationoftheNAAQSforcriteriaairpollutants.

TheGeneralConformityRuleforFederalActions(40CodeofFederalRegulations[CFR]93.153)presumesthataprojectconformswiththeStateImplementationPlan(SIP)ifitisanexemptedactivity or projected emissions are considered de minimis. This project does not meet thedefinitionofactionsthatareexemptundertheGeneralConformityRule(40CFR93.153[c][2]).Consequently, it was necessary to calculate emissions of ozone precursors and carbonmonoxidetodeterminewhetherornottheemissionswerebelowthethresholdsestablishedbythe General Conformity Rule (40 CFR 93.153[b]). These threshold rates are specific toattainment status (i.e. non-attainment and maintenance areas). Emissions below thesethresholdvaluesareconsidereddeminimisandGeneralConformityapplies.Inadditiontothemaintenanceareacriteriapollutants (ozoneandcarbonmonoxide),particulateemissionsandsulfurdioxidewerealsocalculatedaspartoftheemissionsinventory.

AppendixCFedExExpressMEMOperationsEfficiencyImprovementProject

P a g e |2

AirEmissionsInventoryAssumptionsandInputs

An air quality analysiswas performed using the Airport Construction Inventory Tool (ACEIT),version1.0.ALevel1assessment,whichprovidesaconservativeestimate,wasperformedtodetermine if detailed program inputs were required to refine the data. Emissions sourcesduring the demolition/deconstruction/construction phase include worker commutes, on-sitemotorizedvehicleuse,useoftrucksfordeliveryofsuppliesandremovalofdebris,andfugitivedust generatedbydemolition and construction activities.Deconstruction is assumed tohavethe same or fewer emissions as demolition, and therefore all deconstruction is modeled asdemolition, which is a conservative assumption that tends to overstate actual emissions.Therefore,forthepurposeofthisanalysis,deconstructionactivitiesareanalyzedasdemolitionactivities.

Fuel characteristics and associated emission factors are influenced by region, season andambienttemperature.ACEITusestheprojectlocation,theseasonthattheproposedactionwillbe performed, and the ambient temperatures to determine applicable emission factors. TheACEITdatabasecontainsregionaldatabycounty,includingShelbyCounty,TN.Emissionswerecalculated on an annual basis to represent air quality throughout the demolition andconstruction period. The regulatory deminimis thresholds are in terms of annual emissions(tons per year). The year 2022was selected as it is scheduled to be the last complete year(JanuarythroughDecember)ofthedemolitionandconstructionphasesoftheproposedaction.Timelinetasksthatarescheduledforlessthanoneyearwereprojectedonanannualbasistorepresentconservativeestimatesofemissions.AveragemonthlytemperatureswereobtainedfromtheNationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration(NOAA)website(NOAA2017).

Emissions from the demolition and construction activitieswere calculated based on buildingdimensionsandthecostoftheproject.ALevel1assessmentusesdefaultvaluesforfueltypeand equipment, basedon construction activity categories. The followingACEIT Project Typeswereselectedtocorrespondwitheachactivity:Demolition–Building;Demolition–Concrete;andBuilding.The“Building”ProjectType is furtherdefinedbythesizeof thestructuretobeconstructed.Selectionsweremadebasedonthemostrepresentativesizeofthefouravailablecategories.

Equipmenttypesfordemolitionactivitiesincludedexcavators,pickuptrucks,skid-steerloaders,generator sets, and dump trucks, all fueled by diesel. Equipment types for constructionactivities included the aforementioned equipment, aswell as backhoes, fork trucks,materialdeliveryvehicles,lifts,cranes,andequipmentassociatedwithconcreteconstruction.ACEITalsoincludesvehicleemissionsfromgasolineenginesforconstructionemployeescommutingtothejobsiteandassumes30milesroundtrip.

Ceilingandroofthicknesswereassumedtobe2feetinordertocalculateopenspaceheight.Projectcostsfordemolitionactivitieswereapportionedbasedonannualsquarefootagetobe

AppendixCFedExExpressMEMOperationsEfficiencyImprovementProject

P a g e |3

demolished, or applicable timeframes. Project costs for construction activities wereapportionedbasedonapplicabletimeframesofconstructionforeachbuilding.

ACEIT calculates emissions for non-road, on-road and fugitive emissions. Constructionequipmenttypicallyfallsunderthecategoryofnon-roadsources,whileon-roadsourcesincludeemployeescommutingtoandfromworkandmaterialtransporttrucksoperatingonhighwaysandroadways.Fugitiveemissionsarethosethatdonotpassthroughastack,vehicleexhaustpipe, or similar opening and are separated into two broad categories in the ACEIT program:dust (particulatematter) and evaporative/volatilization emissions. The source of emissions isprimarilyvehicleexhaust(non-roadandon-road)forthisproject; fugitiveemissionsconsistedprimarilyofparticulatematter.

TheLevel1assessmentresultedinemissionslessthanthedeminimisthresholdsforallNAAQScriteria emissions except carbon monoxide. Investigation of the default parameters for theLevel1assessmentindicatedthatvehiclemilestravelled(VMT)associatedwiththecommutingofconstructionemployeeswassignificantlyhigherthanisanticipatedfortheproposedaction.The construction of the Secondary 25 and Bulk Truck Load (BTL) buildings were the largestcontributors. The Level 1modelprojected that greater than1,700employeesperdaywouldcommuteadefaultroundtripdistanceof40milesdailyduringthedemolitionandconstructionphasesoftheproposedaction,butthemaximumnumberofemployeesfortheprojectwouldbe1,000employeesperday.

Therefore, a limited Level 2 analysis was conducted for CO emissions, using timeline andprojecteddailyconstructionworkerdatasuppliedbyFedEx;thisadjustedtheVMTparametersfortheSecondary25andBTLbuildingstoreflectamorerealisticrepresentationofcommutermiles.ItisimportanttonotethattheACEITrawdataoutputfortheLevel2COassessmentstillshowsmore than1,000employeesdue to internalalgorithms;however, theemission factorsarebasedonVMTandnotonthenumberofemployees.

EmissionsInventoryResults

Emissions were calculated for ozone precursors (nitrogen oxides [NOx] and volatile organiccompounds [VOC]) and CO to determine if the emissions were de minimis. Particulate andsulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions were also calculated. The ACEIT output data are availableelectronically for reviewandshowdetailedemissionscalculationsand inputs specific toeachactivity,aswellasemissionfactorsandactivityrates.Estimateswereproducedforemissionsfromengine-poweredconstructionequipment,workercommutes,material transport, fugitivedust(particulatematterlessthan10microns[PM10]andlessthan2.5microns[PM2.5])duringdemolition and construction, and evaporative/volatilization sources. ACEIT default emissionfactors originate from several sources including EPA’s NONROAD® model; EPA’s MOVES®model;AP-42,5thEdition(EPA1995);and,engineeringexperience.ThecalculatedemissionsarepresentedinTable1.

AppendixCFedExExpressMEMOperationsEfficiencyImprovementProject

P a g e |4

TheACEITprogramperformsonerunperbuildinginthesame“ProjectType”(i.e.demolitionofbuildings, demolition of concrete, building construction, taxiways, etc.). In some cases, themodelwassetuptorundemolitionofbuildingsandslabstogether;however,themajorityoftheprojectsweresetuptorunasingleprojecttype.ProjecttypesarelistedinTable1.

Table1.TotalProjectEmissionsCriteriaAirPollutants

VOC NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 SO2ProjectType Project ShortTonsDemolition-Building Hangar#6(2879) 0.0373 0.2803 0.4755 0.0199 0.0185 0.0011Demolition-Building Hangar#7(2837) 0.0299 0.1896 0.4365 0.0136 0.0127 0.0009Demolition-Building Admin(2861) 0.0158 0.1935 0.2307 0.0114 0.0108 0.0007Demolition-Building GSE(3099) 0.0329 0.2457 0.4197 0.0174 0.0162 0.0010Demolition-Building Southwide'A' 0.0199 0.1488 0.2552 0.0106 0.0098 0.0006Demolition-Building Southwide'B' 0.0281 0.2092 0.3561 0.0148 0.0138 0.0008Demolition-Building Southwide'C' 0.0135 0.0993 0.1724 0.0070 0.0065 0.0004Demolition-Building Southwide'D' 0.0158 0.1173 0.2006 0.0083 0.0077 0.0005Demolition-Building Southwide'E' 0.0279 0.2075 0.3554 0.0147 0.0137 0.0008Demolition-Building Southwide'F' 0.0102 0.0752 0.1278 0.0053 0.0049 0.0003Demolition-Building Southwide'G' 0.0292 0.2165 0.3730 0.0153 0.0143 0.0009Demolition-Building 2825 0.0199 0.1485 0.2551 0.0106 0.0098 0.0006Demolition-Building 2838 0.0024 0.0142 0.0265 0.0009 0.0009 0.0001Demolition-Building 2852 0.0023 0.0137 0.0262 0.0009 0.0008 0.0000Demolition-Building 2855 0.0114 0.0830 0.1449 0.0058 0.0054 0.0003Demolition-Building 2860 0.0037 0.0233 0.0441 0.0016 0.0015 0.0001Demolition-Building 2875 0.0188 0.1414 0.2383 0.0100 0.0094 0.0006Demolition-Building 2878 0.0136 0.1008 0.1730 0.0071 0.0066 0.0004Demolition-Building 2884 0.0028 0.0161 0.0342 0.0010 0.0010 0.0001Construction-Building TugRepairShop 0.1053 0.6021 0.6002 0.0633 0.0449 0.0022Demolition-Slab Hangar#6 0.0147 0.0627 0.2061 0.0413 0.0030 0.0003Demolition-Slab Hangar#7 0.0141 0.0585 0.2047 0.0401 0.0028 0.0003Demolition-Slab Admin 0.0093 0.0287 0.1943 0.0311 0.0014 0.0002Demolition-Slab GSE3099 0.0127 0.0503 0.2018 0.0376 0.0024 0.0003Demolition-Slab Building2825 0.0120 0.0456 0.2002 0.0362 0.0022 0.0003Demolition-Slab Building2838 0.0059 0.0078 0.1871 0.0248 0.0005 0.0001Demolition-Slab Building2852 0.0059 0.0078 0.1871 0.0248 0.0005 0.0001Demolition-Slab Building2855 0.0085 0.0242 0.1928 0.0297 0.0012 0.0002Demolition-Slab Building2875 0.0087 0.0255 0.1932 0.0301 0.0013 0.0002Demolition-Slab Building2878 0.0095 0.0303 0.1949 0.0316 0.0015 0.0002Demolition-Slab Building2860 0.0062 0.0097 0.1878 0.0253 0.0005 0.0001Demolition-Slab Building2884 0.0060 0.0084 0.1873 0.0249 0.0005 0.0001Demolition-Slab SouthwideA 0.0102 0.0347 0.1964 0.0329 0.0017 0.0002Demolition-Slab SouthwideB 0.0121 0.0463 0.2004 0.0364 0.0022 0.0003

AppendixCFedExExpressMEMOperationsEfficiencyImprovementProject

P a g e |5

CriteriaAirPollutants

VOC NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 SO2ProjectType Project ShortTonsDemolition-Slab SouthwideC 0.0087 0.0251 0.1931 0.0300 0.0013 0.0002Demolition-Slab SouthwideD 0.0092 0.0285 0.1942 0.0310 0.0014 0.0002Demolition-Slab SouthwideE 0.0121 0.0463 0.2004 0.0364 0.0022 0.0003Demolition-Slab SouthwideF 0.0078 0.0200 0.1913 0.0284 0.0010 0.0002Demolition-Slab SouthwideG 0.0123 0.0479 0.2010 0.0369 0.0023 0.0003Demolition-SlabandBuilding Building380 0.0082 0.0176 0.1985 0.0248 0.0009 0.0002Demolition-SlabandBuilding Building382 0.0066 0.0080 0.1941 0.0241 0.0004 0.0001Demolition-SlabandBuilding Building2826 0.0308 0.1526 0.2600 0.0348 0.0081 0.0006Demolition-SlabandBuilding Building2854 0.0083 0.0178 0.1986 0.0249 0.0009 0.0002Construction-Building Secondary25 2.9494 5.8078 51.9489 0.6177 0.3081 0.0550Construction-Building BulkTruckLoad 2.2284 2.2312 35.9706 0.2246 0.1196 0.0130Demolition-Building Secondary1-4 0.4710 1.7599 1.6223 0.0954 0.0879 0.0085

Total(shorttons) 6.33 13.73 99.05 1.90 0.77 0.094Total(tons) 5.74 12.45 89.86 1.72 0.69 0.085

CO–carbonmonoxideNOx–nitrogenoxidesPM10–particulatematterlessthan10micronsindiameterPM2.5–particulatematterlessthan2.5micronsindiameterSo2–sulfurdioxideTPY–tonsperyearVOC–volatileorganiccompounds

Thecalculatedemissionsforozoneprecursors(NOxandVOCs),CO,PM10,PM2.5,andSO2werebelowtheapplicableGeneralConformitydeminimisthresholdsestablishedbytheCleanAirAct(40 CFR 93.853(b)), as shown in Table 2 below. site. The analysis conducted was purposelydriven to capture the greatest potential for impact, resulting in a conservative estimate ofemissions.

Table2.DeMinimisThresholdsandEmissionInventoryResultsVOC(TPY)

NOx(TPY)

CO(TPY)

PM10(TPY)

PM2.5(TPY)

SO2(TPY)

DeMinimisThreshold1 100 100 100 1002 1002 1002ProjectEmissions 5.74 12.45 89.86 1.72 0.69 0.085CO–carbonmonoxideNOx–nitrogenoxidesPM10–particulatematterlessthan10micronsindiameterPM2.5–particulatematterlessthan2.5micronsindiameterTPY–tonsperyearVOC–volatileorganiccompounds140CFR93.853(b)(2)–Standardsformaintenanceareas2Thresholdsforparticulateareshownfordemonstrationpurposes.ShelbyCountyisinattainmentforPM10andPM2.5.

AppendixCFedExExpressMEMOperationsEfficiencyImprovementProject

P a g e |6

Conclusions

TheregulatoryreviewconductedforFederalExpress’MEMTransformation/RelocationProjectdeterminedthattheprojectisnotanexemptedactionundertheGeneralConformityRule(40CFR 93.153[c][2]). Consequently, an air quality analysis was performed to determine ifemissionsofozoneprecursorsandcarbonmonoxidewerebelowtheGeneralConformityRule’sthresholdvaluesforthesepollutants (40CFR93.153[b])and,thuspresumedtoconform.Theairqualityanalysis,performedusingtheFAA’sACEITprogram,determinedthattheprojectedemissionswerebelowthresholdvalues.TheprojectispresumedtoconformwiththeSIPand,therefore,willnotcauseorcontributetoaviolationofthe8-hourozoneorCONAAQS.

ReferencesU.S.EnvironmentalProtection(EPA)."CompilationofAirPollutantEmissionFactors(AP-42),5thEdition."1995.FederalAviationAdministration(FAA)."NationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA)ImplementingInstructionsfor

AirportActions(Order5050.4B)."2006.NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration(NOAA).NationalCentersforEnvironmentalInformation.2017.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov(accessedSeptember11,2017).

D and 4(f) Evaluation

HISTORICANDARCHITECTURALASSESSMENTPURSUANTTO36CFRPART800ANDSECTION4(F)EVALUATION

FORTHEPROPOSEDFEDEXMEMHTRANSFORMATIONPROJECT,PROJECT#8648976,ATTHEMEMPHISINTERNATIONALAIRPORT

SHELBYCOUNTY

October2017Preparedby:DawnChapmanAshlock,PhDCircaArchaeologyandHistoricPreservation5710OgeecheeRoad,Suite200-286Savannah,GA31405Phone(912)272-1425

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page1

HISTORICANDARCHITECTURALASSESSMENTPURSUANTTO36CFRPART800ANDSECTION4(F)EVALUATION

FORTHEPROPOSEDFEDEXMEMHTRANSFORMATIONS,PROJECT#8648976,ATTHEMEMPHISINTERNATIONALAIRPORT

SHELBYCOUNTY

MANAGEMENTSUMMARY

FedEx,withapprovalbytheFederalAviationAdministration(FAA),isproposingtodeconstructordemolish24structuresandconstructseveralnewfacilitiesattheMemphisInternationalAirportinMemphis,ShelbyCounty.TheprojectareaislocatedonthesouthsideofDemocratRoadalongthenorthernboundaryofthesecureairportfacility.

DuetotherequirementforFAAapprovalfortheproposedundertaking,complianceisrequiredwithSection106oftheNationalHistoricPreservationActof1966andtheDepartmentofTransportationActof1966,asamended.RegulationsdealingwiththeimplementationoftheNationalHistoricPreservationActarecodifiedat36CFRPart800,andthosepertainingtotheDepartmentofTransportationActof1966arecodifiedat23CFRPart774.

Thelegislationrequiresprojectsreceivingfederalfundingorapprovaltoidentifyanyhistoricpropertieswithintheprojectareaorinthevicinity.Forthepurposesofthislegislation,historicsignificanceisdefinedasthosepropertiesthatarelistedinoreligibleforlistingintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces.Theregulationspertainingtothecriteriaforeligibilityarecodifiedat36CFRPart60.4.Ifhistoricresourcesareidentified,thelegislationrequiresagenciestodetermineiftheproposedprojectwouldaffectthehistoricresourcesandiftheeffectwouldbeadverse.Iftheproposedundertakingwouldhaveanadverseeffecttoanhistoricproperty,theNationalHistoricPreservationActrequirestheagencytoprovidetheAdvisoryCouncilonHistoricPreservation,anindependentfederalagency,anopportunitytocommentontheeffect.DuetothelocationoftheproposedundertakingonpropertyownedbytheMemphis-ShelbyCountyAirportAuthorityandadministeredbytheFAA,theDepartmentofTransportationActrequirestheagencytocompleteaSection4(f)evaluationoftheproposedundertaking.

Pursuantto36CFRPart800.4and23CFRPart774,culturalresourceconsultantscompletedanhistoricalsurveyoftheareaofpotentialeffect(APE)fortheproposedFedExTransformationsprojectin2016.Thefindingsofthissurveyarepresentedinthisreport.TheconsultantsidentifiedthreeWorldWarIIerastructures,whichwereconstructedcirca1943.Althoughthetwomilitaryaircrafthangarshavebeenalteredovertime,particularlyontheinterior,itistheopinionoftheconsultantsthattheyarepotentiallyeligibleforlistingontheNationalRegisterofHistoricplacesduetotheuniquedesignofthesestructuresandtheirassociationwithWorldWarIIeradevelopmentoftheArmyAirCorpsintotheArmyAirForces,andtheU.S.AirForcefollowingthewar.TheotherWorldWarIIerastructureisafreestandingBoilerRoomthatservedthetwoexistinghangarsandathirdhangarthatwasdemolishedbetween1994and

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page2

1997.TheconsultantsalsoidentifiedanofficebuildingconstructedbyFedExin1973asthecompany’sfirstpurposebuiltheadquarters.ItispotentiallyeligiblebasedonCriterionAunderCriteriaConsiderationG,duetoitsassociationwiththeearlyhistoryofFedEx.The2016surveydidnotidentifyanyadditionalresourcesthatwerelistedorpotentiallyeligibleforlistingwithintheAPE.

NoNationalRegister-listedpropertiesarelocatedwithintheprojectarea.ThenearestNationalRegisterlistedpropertyisGraceland.ThispropertywasconsideredtobeoutsidetheAPE,becausetheprojectareawasnotvisiblefromthepropertyduetoitslocationinaheavilywoodedresidentialneighborhood,3.5milessouthwestoftheproposedundertaking.TheconsultantsalsoidentifiedthreestructuresinthevicinityoftheAPEthatwerepotentiallyeligibleandmeritedfurtherresearch.Twowerecirca1950single-familyresidenceswestoftheAPE,andtheotherwasacommercialstructureconstructedeastoftheAPEin1958.Noneofthesestructureswereincludedinthissurvey.Eachwaslocatedapproximately1.25milesfromtheAPE,whichwasnotvisiblefromtheirlocationsduetothepositionofmulti-laneroadsandcommercialandindustrialdevelopments.

Pursuantto26CFRPart800.5,theconsultantsappliedthecriteriaofeffecttotheproposedundertaking.Itistheopinionoftheconsultantsthattheproject,ascurrentlydesigned,wouldhaveanadverseeffectontheWorldWarIIerastructuresandtheFedExAdministrationBuilding.Asaresult,theconsultantspreparedaSection4(f)evaluationpertherequirementsoftheDepartmentofTransportationActof1966,asamended.ThespecificationsoftheproposedprojectwouldconstituteausewithinthemeaningofSection4(f)duetothedemolitionofthe4(f)propertiesandthepermanentincorporationofthesiteofthesepropertiesintotheproposedFedExSecondary25sortfacility.Pursuantto23CFRPart774.13(d)(5)ofSection4(f)oftheU.S.DepartmentofTransportationAct,whenSection4(f)resourcesareidentifiedthatwillrequirepermanentincorporation,theOfficialwithJurisdiction(OWJ)fortheresourcemustbenotifiedandconcurinwritingtotheSection4(f)use.WhenNationalRegisterlistedoreligiblepropertiesareidentifiedasSection4(f)resources,theOWJistheStateHistoricPreservationOfficer.Inordertodocumentcompliancewith23CFRPart774.13(d)(5),awrittenagreementisrequiredfortheprojectfileshowingthattheOWJconcurswiththepermanentincorporationoftheSection4(f)resource.

ThishistoricresourcessurveyreportprovidesinformationaboutthesurveyprocessundertakenbyFAA,FedEx,andculturalresourceconsultants,aswellasadetailedreportoftheirfindingsanddeterminationsforuseinconjunctionwiththeaccompanyingSection4(f)evaluation.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page3

TABLEOFCONTENTS

MANAGEMENTSUMMARY.....................................................................................................1

DESCRIPTIONOFTHEPROPOSEDUNDERTAKING....................................................................6

PUBLICPARTICIPATION.........................................................................................................11NATIVEAMERICANTRIBALCONSULTATIONLIST...................................................................................11SHELBYCOUNTYANDMEMPHISPUBLICPARTICIPATIONLIST..................................................................11PROPERTYOWNERS.......................................................................................................................11

HISTORICRESOURCESSURVEY..............................................................................................12METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................................12RESULTS......................................................................................................................................13INVENTORY...................................................................................................................................15

HISTORICALCONTEXT...........................................................................................................24WORLDWARIIBUILDINGS................................................................................................................25History..................................................................................................................................25ArchitecturalDescription......................................................................................................27

SOUTHWIDECENTERBUILDINGS.......................................................................................................31History..................................................................................................................................31ArchitecturalDescription......................................................................................................31

TENNESSEEAIRNATIONALGUARD(TANG)BUILDINGS..........................................................................32History..................................................................................................................................32ArchitecturalDescription......................................................................................................33

FEDEXBUILDINGS..........................................................................................................................35History..................................................................................................................................35ArchitecturalDescription......................................................................................................37

DETERMINATIONOFELIGIBILITY...........................................................................................40WORLDWARIIMILITARYAIRCRAFTHANGARSANDBOILERROOM.........................................................40EvaluationofCriterionA.......................................................................................................40AssessmentofIntegrityunderCriterionC............................................................................40StatementofSignificance.....................................................................................................42

FEDEXADMINISTRATIONBUILDINGANDADAPTIVEREUSEOFWORLDWARIIERABUILDINGS.........................43EvaluationofCriterionA,underCriteriaConsiderationG....................................................43AssessmentofIntegrityunderCriterionA............................................................................44StatementofSignificance.....................................................................................................45

DOCUMENTATIONOFEFFECTS.............................................................................................46

SECTION4(F)DETERMINATION.............................................................................................49

CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................................49

BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................................................51

FIGURES................................................................................................................................53FIGURE1:SITEVICINITYMAP..........................................................................................................53

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page4

FIGURE2:SITELOCATIONSMAP......................................................................................................54FIGURE3:TN-SHPOSURVEYMAPANDAERIALVIEWDEPICTINGTHELOCATIONSOFTHREEPROPERTIESIDENTIFIEDBYTDOTHISTORIANS.THETWOCIRCA1950SINGLE-FAMILYRESIDENCESAREINDICATEDINGREENANDTHE1958COMMERCIALBUILDINGEASTIFTHEAIRPORTISINDICATEDINYELLOW..............................................55FIGURE4:NATIONALREGISTEROFHISTORICPLACESMAP.....................................................................56FIGURE5:FEDEXRAMPPLANDEPICTINGTHELOCATIONANDBOUNDARYOFTHEAPE.................................57FIGURE6:EXTERIOROFHANGARNO.7(2837)SHOWINGWESTANDSOUTHFACADES...............................58FIGURE7:INTERIOROFHANGARNO.7(2837)SHOWINGTHESOUTHWALLANDTHESOUTHERNPORTIONOFTHEEASTWALL....................................................................................................................................58FIGURE8:EXTERIOROFBOILERROOM(2838)SHOWINGSOUTHANDWESTFACADES.................................59FIGURE9:INTERIOROFBOILERROOM(2838)SHOWINGENTRANCETOUNDERGROUNDUTILITYCORRIDORLEADINGTOHANGARNO.7(2837).................................................................................................59FIGURE10:AERIALIMAGEOFMEMPHISARMYAIRFIELDTOWARDTHEEAST.PHOTOGRAPHTAKENONOCTOBER22,1943....................................................................................................................................60FIGURE11:INTERIOROFOBH-2HANGARINMADRAS,OREGONSHOWINGWALLFRAMINGSYSTEM..............60FIGURE12:DRAWINGNO.N-17-310.3SHOWINGA.T.C.HANGARBIRCHWOODTYPE,ELEVATION,SECTIONANDDETAILS................................................................................................................................61FIGURE13:DRAWINGNO.T250,DATEDAUGUST13,1973,SHOWINGREFLECTEDCEILINGPLANANDBUILDINGSECTIONOFHANGARNO.6(2879)....................................................................................61FIGURE14:INTERIOROFWESTHALFOFHANGARNO.6TOWARDNORTHEASTSHOWINGCONCRETEBLOCKOFFICEBLOCKDIVIDINGTHEORIGINALHANGARSPACE.....................................................................................62FIGURE15:DRAWINGNO.1,DATEDAUGUST2,1973,SHOWINGNORTHELEVATIONSOFHANGARNO.6(2879)ANDHANGARNO.7(2837)................................................................................................62FIGURE16:DRAWINGNO.2,DATEDMAY29,1973,SHOWINGNORTHELEVATIONOFHANGARNO.8,EASTELEVATIONSOFHANGARNO.6(2879)ANDHANGARNO.8,ANDWESTELEVATIONSOFHANGARNO.7(2873).......................................................................................................................................63FIGURE17:NORTHFAÇADEOFADMINISTRATIONBUILDING(2861)CIRCA1973......................................63FIGURE18:SOUTHFAÇADEOFADMINISTRATIONBUILDING(2861)SHOWINGORIGINALFAÇADE,CIRCA1973...................................................................................................................................................64FIGURE19:PLANOFADMINISTRATIONBUILDING(2861)SHOWINGADDITIONSCIRCA1973.......................64FIGURE20:NORTHFAÇADEOFADMINISTRATIONBUILDING(2861)SHOWINGADDITIONSCIRCA1987ANDCIRCA1988.................................................................................................................................65FIGURE21:EASTFAÇADEOFADMINISTRATIONBUILDING(2861)SHOWINGADDITIONSCIRCA1987ANDCIRCA1988..........................................................................................................................................65FIGURE22:MAINFLOORPLANOFADMINISTRATIONBUILDING(2861)SHOWINGADDITIONSCIRCA1987.....66FIGURE23:SECONDFLOORPLANOFADMINISTRATIONBUILDING(2861)SHOWINGADDITIONSCIRCA1987..66FIGURE24:PLANOFADMINISTRATIONBUILDINGADDITIONCIRCA1988(2861)......................................67FIGURE25:LOBBYOFADMINISTRATIONBUILDING(2861)SHOWINGADDITIONCIRCA1988.......................67FIGURE26:TYPICALCONFERENCEROOMOFADMINISTRATIONBUILDING(2861)......................................68FIGURE27:TYPICALOFFICEINADMINISTRATIONBUILDING(2861)........................................................68FIGURE28:FEDEXRAMPPLANDEPICTINGTHELOCATIONANDBOUNDARYOFTHEPROPOSEDMEMPHISARMYAIRFIELDHISTORICDISTRICT...........................................................................................................69FIGURE29:FEDEXRAMPPLANDEPICTINGTHELOCATIONANDBOUNDARYOFTHEPROPOSEDFEDEXHISTORIC

DISTRICT......................................................................................................................................70

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page5

ATTACHMENTS.....................................................................................................................71ATTACHMENT1:SECTION106REVIEW,NATIONALHISTORICPRESERVATIONACTOF1966........72ATTACHMENT2:ELIGIBILITYCRITERIAOFTHENATIONALREGISTEROFHISTORICPLACES...........74ATTACHMENT3:TDOTNATIONALREGISTEROFHISTORICPLACESSUMMARYSHEET..................75ATTACHMENT4:CRITERIAOFADVERSEEFFECT............................................................................76ATTACHMENT5:TDOTSECTION4(F)SUMMARYSHEET................................................................78

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page6

DESCRIPTIONOFTHEPROPOSEDUNDERTAKING

FedExExpress(FedEx)isproposingaprojecttoupdateandmodernizeitsfacilitiesattheMemphisInternationalAirport(MEM)inMemphis,Tennessee.Figure1showstheairportlocation.Anoutdatedpackagesortingfacilitywouldbereplacedwithfacilitiesspecificallydesignedtoaccommodatemodernized,moreefficientequipment.Atitscore,thepurposeoftheprojectistoreplaceoperations,structuresandequipmentthatareapproachingtheendoftheirusefullifewithmodernoperations,structuresandequipmenttoimprovetheefficiencyofFedEx’sbusinessprocesses.Newstructureswouldbeconstructedusinggreenbuildingstandardstotheextentpossibletolimitenvironmentalimpacts.

UnderstandingtheScopeoftheFedExMemphisWorldHub

InordertounderstandthesignificanceoftheproposedprojectandthereasonswhyFedExhasproposedtoconstructanewsecondarysortfacilityonthelocationoftheSection4(f)propertiesdiscussedinthisevaluation,itisusefultobrieflyaddressthescopeofFedExoperationsattheMemphisInternationalAirport(MEM).ThisuniquefacilityhasbeenthecenterofFedExoperationsthroughouttheworldsince1973.AlthoughregionaloperationshavebeenaugmentedthroughtheconstructionofregionalHubsthroughouttheworld,thisfacilityremainsthecoreofallFedExoperationsandisdifferentiatedfromregionalfacilitieswiththedesignationastheSuperHub.TheoperationalsystemthatmovesnearlyallpackagestoacentralhubbeforetransportingthemtotheirfinaldestinationisthecornerstoneoftheentireFedExbusinessmodelandhasrevolutionizedtheindustry.AlthoughthemajorityofpackagesarriveatthisfacilityonflightsfromoneoftheregionalHubsinordertobesortedandredirectedtotheirfinaldestination,italsoservesasaregionalHubbyacceptingpackagesfromMemphisandthesurroundingregion,whichoccurviatruckandtractor-trailerreceivingdocksknownastheBulkTruckLoad(BTL).Thepackagesareunloaded,screened,andtransferredtotheMainandSecondarySortfacilitiesonconveyorbeltsandbridgeconstructedoverSprankelAvenue.Oncepackagesaresorted,theyaretransferredtoeachofthedepartingflightsusingtugsorgroundsupportequipment(GSE).

ThescopeofthisfacilityanditsimportancetoFedExoperationsandsecondarybusinessoperationsthroughouttheworldisdifficulttoadequatelyconvey.TheSuperHub(Hub)employsover10,000people,isover880acresinsize,andhasthecapacitytoparkmorethan165aircraftatatime,whichequatestooneaircraftlandingevery40secondsduringpeakoperations.TheHubhandlesapproximately150flightsinandoutduringitsnightsortand90duringitsdaysortoperations.Inadditiontoaircargo,theHubreceivescargofromapproximately130truckseachnight,makingtheBTLanintegralpartofoperationsatthisfacility.Thenightsorthandlesanaverageof1.3millionpackages,andthedaysortaverages500,000to600,000packages.Mostofthesepackagesarriveanddepartwithinthreehours.ThismeansthattheMemphisInternationalAirportisthebusiestairportintheworldbetween10pmand4am.ThelongstandingimportanceofthisHubtoFedExandotherbusinessoperationsisdemonstratedbythefactthatMemphisandHongKonghavebeenthebusiestaircargofacilitiesintheworldformorethantwodecades.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page7

TheeconomicimpactoftheMemphisInternationalAirportandFedExoperationswererecentlystudiedbytheSparksBureauofBusiness&EconomicResearchattheUniversityofMemphis.Intheir2016report,theystatedthatthe“MemphisInternationalAirportcontinuestobethesinglemostimportantpublicinfrastructureinvestmentavailabletosupporteconomicactivityintheMid-South.”1ThatsamestudyemphasizedtheimportanceoftheHubingeneratingthateconomicactivity,notingthatcargoaircraftoperationsmadeup60percentofallairoperationsatMEMand99percentofthatcargoishandledbyFedEx.Whenconsideringthedirect,indirect,andinducedeffectsofthisoperationandthe4.8billionpoundsofaircargoprocessedinthisfacility,theresearchersestimatedthattheFedExcargooperationshaveresultedin$14.1billionintheproductionofgoodsandservices,laborincomeofover$3.5billion,61,517fullandpart-timejobs,approximately$740millioninstateandlocaltaxes;and$9.5billionincargorevenue.

Foroverfourdecades,FedExhasinvestedinthisfacilityandotheradministrativeoperationsfacilitiesinMemphis.ThefacilitybeganasseveralrepurposedWorldWarIIbuildings,TennesseeAirNationalGuardstructures,andanewlyconstructedFedExAdministrationBuilding.Ithasbeendesignedanddevelopedovertheyearstoaccommodatethetrafficflownecessaryforemployees,trucks,GSE,andaircrafttooperateinthisfacility.Astheavailablelandinthesecureairportfacilityhasdecreased,ithasbecomeincreasinglyimportanttoupgradeexistingfacilitiesandmaximizeoperationalefficiency,whichhasleddirectlytotheproposedproject.

ProjectDetails

UndertheProposedDevelopmentAction,FedExwoulddeconstructordemolish24outdatedstructuresthatarelocatedinthemiddleoftheir880acreHubatMEMandarenotcurrentlyaccessiblebythepublicinordertoconstructseveralnewfacilities.Atitscore,thepurposeoftheprojectistoreplaceoperations,structuresandequipmentthatareapproachingtheendoftheirusefullifewithmodernoperations,structuresandequipmenttoimprovetheefficiencyofFedEx’sbusinessprocesses.Newstructureswouldbebuiltusinggreenbuildingstandardstotheextentfeasibletolimitenvironmentalimpacts.Theprojectwouldbeconstructedinphasesasfundingbecomesavailable.Initially,buildings1-23wouldbedemolishedandtheslabsremoved.Next,FedExwouldconstructthefacilitieslistedbelow.Finally,aftertheSecondary25sortingfacilitybecomesoperational,theSecondary1-4wouldbedemolished.

Thestructurestobedemolishedordeconstructedare:

1. Hangar#6(Building2879)2. Hangar#7(Building2837)3. Admin(Building2861)4. GSE(Building3099)

1 University of Memphis, Sparks Bureau of Business and Economic Research (http://www.memphis.edu/sbber/reports.php, 2016).

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page8

5. SouthwideA6. SouthwideB7. SouthwideC8. SouthwideD9. SouthwideE10. SouthwideF11. SouthwideG12. Building286013. Building287814. Building288415. Building287516. Building285517. Building282518. Building283819. Building285220. Building38021. Building38222. Building282623. Building285424. NorthSecondary1-4

Afterdemolitionofbuildings1-23listedabove,andremovaloftheassociatedslabs,FedExwouldconstructseveralnewfacilitiesandimproveexistingfacilitiesinordertomodernizefacilitiesandequipmentandimproveefficiency.

Undertheproposedaction,FedExwouldconstructthefollowingnewfacilities:

1. Secondary25Building–TheSecondary25sortingfacilitywouldhaveafootprintofapproximately328,000sq.ft.Thebuildingwouldbe90-100feettallandconsistoffourlevelsofsortconveyors,processequipment,andofficespace.Theexteriorofthebuildingwouldconsistofinsulatedmetalpanels,translucentwallpanes,anddynamicglazing.PlansaretohavethebuildingLEED-certified.ThestructurewouldbebuiltsouthofSprankelAvenueandnorthoftheNorthInputstructure,andwouldreplacetheexistingNorthSecondary1-4facility.ItssiteencompassesallofthecurrentHangar7andAdminBuildingsites,andpartoftheHangar6site.

2. Matrix/Secondary25Bridge–Thiswouldbeanew25,000sq.ft.conveyor(boxtruss)bridgeextendingfromtheexistingEastandWestMatrixtothenewSecondary25building.TheMatrix/Secondary25Bridgewouldbeconditionedandenclosedwiththesameexteriormaterialsystemastheothernewfacilities.

3. BulkTruckLoad(BTL)Building–Thiswouldbeanew,65,000sq.ft.buildingandcontainanautomatedsortsystem.Thebuildingwouldbeapproximately50-60feettallandconsistoftwolevelsofsortconveyors,processequipmentandofficespace.TheBTL

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page9

buildingwouldbeenclosedwiththesameexteriormaterialsystemasdescribedfortheSecondary25building.

4. Secondary25/BTLBridge–Thiswouldbeanewconveyor(boxtruss)bridge,approximately10,000sq.ft.thatextendsfromtheSecondarySortBuildingtothenewBTLBuilding.TheSecondary25/BTLBridgewouldbeconditionedandenclosedwiththesameexteriormaterialsystemasthenewfacilities.

5. GroundSupportEquipment(GSE)MaintenanceFacility–Thiswouldbeanew,6,000square-footfacilityusedformaintenanceofgroundsupportequipment(GSE).Designofthenewstructureisnotyetcomplete,butitwouldbeasinglestoryofnomorethan30feetinheight.Itwouldbeanopenspacewithaslabfloor,andwouldincludesomestorageoflubricantsandotheritemsusedforroutinepreventativemaintenanceoftheGSEvehiclefleet,especiallyoilchanges,andalsoforminorrepairs.

OncetheSecondary25andBTLfacilitiesandsortsystemsarefullyoperational,FedExwoulddeconstruct/demolishtheNorthSecondary1-4(2899)facilitydowntoslablevel,totalingapproximately167,000sq.ft.AtthistimeFedExhasnoplansregardingtheremainingslab.Thestructuresthatwouldbedemolishedordeconstructed,andtheproposednewlyconstructedstructuresareshownonFigure2.

Toguidethedemolitionanddeconstructionprocess,FedExanditscontractorswouldfirstprepareaDemolition/DeconstructionWasteManagementPlancertifiedundertheLeadershipinEnergyandEnvironmentalDesign(LEED)certificationprogram.The24structuresandassociatedslabswouldbeassessedforthepotentialtorecyclethebuildingmaterialstotheextentfeasible,andthoseportionsofthestructureswouldbedeconstructedtomaintainthevalueoftherecycledmaterials.Materialswithnorecycledvaluewouldbeassessedforhazardousmaterialscontentanddisposedofinanappropriatelandfill.Thedemolition,deconstruction,andconstructioncontractorswouldemployindustry-standardbestmanagementpractices(BMPs)thatwouldminimizeenvironmentalandhumanhealthimpactstothemaximumextentfeasible.

ThepurposeoftheprojectistoupgradeandmodernizetheFedExMemphisWorldHub,whichhasdevelopedovera44-yearperiod.Duringthattime,technologyandsortsystemshaveimprovedexponentially,securitydemandshaveincreased,competitionhasincreased,andupgradingandmodernizationhavebecomeanecessitytosustaintheMEMpositionasFedEx’spremierhub.TheproposedactionwouldmodernizepackagesortingfacilitiesandimprovetrafficflowthroughtheFedExMemphishub.Thesortbuildingsintheareaatissuearethe“heart”oftheFedExHub,andoverdecadestheincrediblegrowthanddevelopmentattheHubhasradiatedoutwardfromthatheart.TheproposedSecondary25sortbuildingmustbebuiltintheproposedlocation,becauseithastoremainattheheartoftheFedExHubadjacenttotheprimarysortbuilding.OverallefficiencywouldbeimprovedatMEMbyeliminatingoutdated,inefficientfacilities,someofwhichhavebeenvacantformanyyears,andestablishingnewstagingareas,whichwouldsegregatetruckmovementsfromtheflowofgroundserviceequipment.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page10

ThesiteplanisdividedbySprankelAvenuewithemployeeaccess/securitycheckpointsandtruckaccess,staging,andloadingareaslocatednorthofthisroad.Theexistingsortfacilityislocatedsouthofthisroadnearthecenterofthesite.TheexistingBulkTruckLoadareaandassociatedaccessroadswouldbeexpandedintotheadjacentspacetothewest,whichiscurrentlyoccupiedbythevacantTANGandSouthwideCenterofficebuildings.Thisisareasonablelocationfortheseoperations,becauseitprovidesdirectaccesstoDemocratRoad,whichdefinesthenorthernboundaryofthesecureairportfacilityandiscontiguoustosimilarexistingoperations.ThislocationalsolimitstheamountofvehiculartrafficintotheFedExfacility,whichminimizesthepotentialfortractortrailersandotherstreetlegalvehiclesfromoperatingincloseproximitytotheGroundSupportEquipment(GSE)necessarytotransportsortedpackagestoaircraft,whichimprovesemployeesafety.TheSecondary25sortfacilitywouldbelocatednorthwestoftheexistingprimaryandsecondarysortfacilityinanareacurrentlyoccupiedbyHangarNo.6andHangarNo.7,theBoilerRoom,andtheAdministrationBuilding.Thisistherequiredlocationfortheseoperations,becausetheoperationsplannedforthisstructurewouldneedtofunctionasanintegralpartoftheexistingsortoperations.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page11

PUBLICPARTICIPATION

NATIVEAMERICANTRIBALCONSULTATIONLIST

FAAhasinitiatedconsultationwithnineNativeAmericantribesorrepresentatives,bynotifyingeachoftheprojectdescriptionandaskingiftheywouldliketoparticipateintheSection106reviewprocessasaconsultingparty.

DavidCook,KialegeeTribalTownKarenBrunso,TheChickasawNationRobinDushane,EasternShawneeTribeofOklahomaKimJumper,ShawneeTribeEricOosahwee-Voss,UnitedKeetoowahBandofCherokeeIndiansCorainLowe-Zepeda,Muscogee(Creek)NationEverettBandy,QuapawTribeofOklahomaEmmanSpain,ThlopthloccoTribalTownDanielRagle,ChoctawNationofOklahoma

TheEnvironmentalDivisionoftheTennesseeDepartmentofTransportationpreparedandmaintainsalistofhistoricgroupsandothersuchorganizationsbycounty,whichmightbeinterestedinconsultingonproposedprojects.Accordingtothislist,therearetwelveindividuals,organizations,andhistoricalsocietieslocatedinShelbyCounty.Eachhavebeennotifiedoftheprojectdescriptionandaskediftheywouldliketocommentontheproposedproject.

SHELBYCOUNTYANDMEMPHISPUBLICPARTICIPATIONLIST

JimmyOgle,ShelbyCountyHistorianMemphisAreaAssociationofGovernmentsMayorMarkLuttrell,ShelbyCountyCeceliaFranklin,AssociationforthePreservationofTennesseeAntiquitiesRickCopeland,MemphisandShelbyCountyDivisionofPlanningandDevelopmentJudyPeiser,CenterforSouthernFolkloreLauraTodd,ShelbyCountyHistoricalCommissionCarolPerel,WestTennesseeHistoricalSocietyJuneWest,MemphisHeritage,Inc.JimmyMcNeil,DepartmentoftheArmyCorpsofEngineers,MemphisDistrictMayorJimStrickland,CityofMemphisBrianBacchus,MemphisLandmarksCommission

PROPERTYOWNERS

Memphis-ShelbyCountyAirportAuthority2491WinchesterRoadMemphis,Tennessee38116(901)398-8375

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page12

HISTORICRESOURCESSURVEY

METHODOLOGY

FederallawsrequiretheFAAtocomplywithSection106oftheNationalHistoricPreservationActof1966,includingamendmentseffectiveAugust5,2004(Attachment1).ThislegislationrequirestheFAAtoidentifyanypropertiesofhistoricsignificanceaffectedbyproposedundertaking,includingabovegroundbuildings,structures,objects,orhistoricsites,aswellasbelowgroundarchaeologicalsites.Forthepurposesofthislegislation,propertieswithhistoricsignificancearedefinedasthosethathavebeenlistedintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesorareeligibleforinclusionintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces(Attachments2and3).

InordertocomplywithSection106oftheNationalHistoricPreservationActof1966asamended,consultantssurveyedtheareaofpotentialeffect(APE)forthisprojectincompliancewith36CFRPart800regulations.TheAPEofapotentialundertakingisdefinedin36CFRPart800.16(d)as“thegeographicareaorareaswithinwhichanundertakingmaydirectlyorindirectlycausechangesinthecharacteroruseofhistoricproperties,ifanysuchpropertiesexist.Theareaofpotentialeffectsisinfluencedbythescaleandnatureofanundertakingandmaybedifferentfordifferentkindsofeffectscausedbytheundertaking.”ThesurveyareaforthisprojectincludedtheentireAPE,aswellashistoricpropertiesintheprojectvicinitythatmaybeaffectedbychangesinairquality,noiselevels,setting,andlanduse(Attachment4).

ThepurposeofthissurveywastoidentifyresourcescurrentlylistedintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesorthosethatarepotentiallyeligibleforinclusionintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces(Attachments2and3).Inordertoidentifyalllisted,eligible,andpotentiallyeligibleproperties,thesurveyincludedtwocomponents:aliteraturereviewandrecordssearchandafieldsurvey.DawnChapmanAshlockconductedtheliteraturereviewandrecordssearchbetweenMay2,2016andJune15,2016,andDawnChapmanAshlockandPhillipAshlockIIcompletedthefieldstudybetweenMay9,2016andMay13,2016.ThesemethodscontributedtoathoroughevaluationofeachpropertywithrespecttotheCriteriaandCriteriaConsiderations,aswellastheidentificationofpotentialintegrityissues.

TheliteraturereviewincludedresearchintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces,thestatehistoricresourcesinventorycollectedandmaintainedbytheTennesseeHistoricalCommission,andhistoricaerialphotographandtopographicmapcollectionstodevelopatimelinefortheconstructionofeachoftheaffectedproperties.Twoadditionalsources,whichwereintegraltotheproductionofthishistoricresourcessurvey,includetwopublicationsspearheadedbytheAirForceAirCombatCommand(ACC)andfundedbytheACCandtheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)LegacyResourceManagementProgram.2JulieL.Webster’sthoroughresearchandanalysisofmilitaryaircrafthangarsinthepossessionoftheDepartmentofDefenseprovidedthefoundationofthisprogram.3Thispublicationwasinitiallyunavailableforincorporationinto

2 Julie L. Webster and Gordon L. Cohen, “Military Aircraft Hangars: Footprints through a Century of Flight,” CRM Vol. 24, No. 3 (2001): 29-31. 3 Julie L. Webster, Historical and Architectural Overview of Military Aircraft Hangars: A General

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page13

thisreport,becauseithadnotbeenformallyreviewedbytheArmyCorpsofEngineersandreleasedforpublicdistribution.TheconsultantscoordinatedwiththeArmyCorpsofEngineersConstructionEngineeringResearchLaboratoryinChampaign,Illinoistoexpeditethereviewprocess,andthereportwasreleasedtothepubliconJune15,2016.AnothersourcethatwaspivotaltothedevelopmentofthehistoricalcontextwasJayneAaron’sexpansionupontheWebsterpublicationin2011toincludemilitaryaircrafthangarsinthepossessionoftheReservesandNationalGuardinstallations.4

Inadditiontothesesurveys,theconsultantscompletedapedestriansurveyoftheprojectareatoidentifyandphotographeachofthe24propertiesscheduledfordemolitionintheproposedscopeofworktodeterminetheirlocation,physicalcondition,andintegrity.

ForallhistoricpropertiesidentifiedintheAPEandthosebeyondtheAPEthatmaybeadverselyaffectedbytheproposedundertaking,theU.S.DOTActof1966requiresthecompletionofaSection4(f)evaluationincompliancewith23CFRPart774regulations.ThisevaluationestablishedtherequirementforprojectsreceivingfundingorrequiringapprovalbyanagencyoftheDepartmentofTransportationtoconsiderhistoricpropertiesinalltransportationdevelopmentprojects.Beforefundingorapprovingatransportationdevelopmentproject,theFAAmustfirstestablishwhetherornotthereareSection4(f)propertiesintheAPE.Ifso,theFAAmusteitherdeterminethattheimpactsaredeminimisorcompleteaSection4(f)evaluation.Forthepurposesofthislegislation,ademinimisimpactisonethatwillnotadverselyaffecttheactivities,features,orattributesofanhistoricproperty.Iftheimpactisnotdeminimis,theSection4(f)evaluationmustbecompletedinordertoidentifyafeasibleandprudentalternativeandensurethatallpossibleplanningtominimizeharmhasoccurred.IfaSection4(f)evaluationidentifiesafeasibleandprudentalternativethathasnoeffectonanhistoricproperty,thisalternativemustbeselected.Ifnoneofthealternativesareprudentandfeasible,theFAAmustselectthealternativethatminimizestheadverseeffecttohehistoricproperties.

RESULTS

ConsultantsaccessedthesurveyrecordsoftheTennesseeStateHistoricPreservationOffice(TN-SHPO)todetermineifanypreviousarchitecturalsurveyshadidentifiedanyhistoricpropertiesinthearea.TheTN-SHPOhasconductedasurveyofthisportionofShelbyCounty,andnoNationalRegister-listedpropertiesoreligiblepropertieswerepreviouslyidentifiedwithintheprojectarea.ThenearestNationalRegisterlistedpropertyisGraceland,whichislocated3.5milessouthwestoftheprojectareainalargeresidentialneighborhood(Figure4).ThispropertywasconsideredtobeoutsidetheAPE,becausetheprojectareawasnotvisiblefromGracelandduetoitslocationinaheavilywoodedresidentialneighborhood3.5miles

History, Thematic Typology, and Inventory of Aircraft Hangars Constructed on Department of Defense Installations (Champaign, Illinois: United States Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, 1999). 4 Jayne Aaron, Historical and Architectural Overview of Aircraft Hangars of the Reserves and National Guard Installations from World War I through the Cold War, (Air Force Air Combat Command, 2011).

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page14

southwestoftheprojectarea.ThenearestpotentiallyeligiblepropertiesidentifiedintheTNHistoricalCommissionViewerwerelocatedapproximately1.25mileswestoftheprojectareaandconsistoftwocirca1950single-familydwellings.SY20479islocatedinanindustrialareawestofPloughBoulevard,whichisafourlanedividedhighwayformingthewesternboundaryoftheairportcomplex.SY20480wasalsoasingle-familydwellinglocatedadjacenttothepreviouspropertyintheindustrialarea,butithasbeendemolishedsincethemostrecentTN-SHPOsurveyofthisarea.SY20479wasconsideredtobeoutsidetheAPE,becausetheprojectareaisnotvisiblefromthispropertyduetothelocationofanindustrialbuildinglocatedat2250ByrnStreet.Inaddition,theareabetweentheindustrialdevelopmentandtheprojectareaisobscuredbyPloughBoulevardandapproximately0.9milesofaircraftstaging,loading,andfuelingareasattheFedExMemphisAirportHUB.ThenextnearestpotentiallyeligiblepropertyidentifiedintheTNHistoricalCommissionViewerisa1958commercialstructurelocatedapproximately1.5milesnortheastoftheprojectareaattheintersectionofPearsonRoadandLamarAvenue.Thisproperty,SY35345,wasconsideredtobeoutsidetheAPE,becausetheprojectareaisnotvisiblefromtheproperty.Itisseparatedfromtheprojectareabynumerousbuildingsinalow-riseindustrialdevelopment,DemocratRoad,TchulahomaRoad,andthenortheastportionoftheMemphisInternationalAirportandtheFedExramp,whichincludesthelowtomid-riseMemphisAirRouteTrafficControlCenterandtheeasternFedExemployeesecurityandtrainingfacilities(Figure3).

Asaresult,theconsultantslimitedtheAPEtotheareatobeincludedintheproposedproject(Figure5).DemocratRoaddefinestheboundaryonthenorthsideoftheAPE.HurricaneCreek,IndependentDrive,andRepublicanDrivedefinetheboundaryontheeast.SprankelAvenueandtheGSElanessouthofHangarNo.6andtheNorthSecondarySort1-4definetheboundaryonthesouth.TheGSElaneswestoftheNorthSecondarySort1-4andHangarNo.7,SprankelAvenue,TangStreet,TechnocratLane,theGSElaneswestandnorthofBuilding2878andBuilding2860,andSouthwideDrivedefinetheboundaryonthewest.

ConsultantsperformedafieldsurveyoftheAPEbetweenMay9,2016andMay13,2016.ThisfieldsurveylocatedandphotographedallpropertiesintheAPEtobedemolishedintheproposedundertakingandidentifiedanddocumentedallpotentiallyeligiblehistoricpropertiesintheAPE.AlthoughtheprimaryobjectiveofthesurveywastodeterminethepotentialforNationalRegistereligibilityofanyindividualresourcesorhistoricdistrictsinthearea,italsocollectedinformationonthesetting,structuralcondition,history,andintegrityofeachofthepotentiallyeligiblehistoricproperties.Intotal,thefieldsurveyinventoried24properties,collectingvaryinglevelsofinformationdependingonthedateofconstruction,integrity,andhistoryofeachproperty.ThisincludedtheSouthwideCenterbuildings,TANGbuildings,FedExgroundsupportequipment(GSE)hydrogenfuelingstation,FedExAdministrationBuilding,FedExpaintshop,andtheWorldWarIImilitaryaircrafthangarsandassociatedBoilerRoom.

TheconsultantsdidnotbelievethattheSouthwideCenterbuildingsortheFedExpaintshopmettheeligibilityrequirementsforinclusionontheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces.AlthoughtheydidnotbelievethattheTANGbuildingsortheFedExGSEhydrogentestfacilitymettheeligibilityrequirements,theygatheredadditionalinformationforthesebuildingsdue

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page15

tothepossibilitythattheymaybeconsideredpotentiallyeligibleunderCriterionConsiderationG.Attheconclusionofthefieldsurvey,theconsultantsbelievedthattheFedExAdministrationBuildinghadthepotentialtomeettheeligibilityrequirementsunderCriteriaConsiderationG.Asaresult,interiorandexteriorphotographsweretakenofthebuildingandadditionalinformationwascollected.DuetotheageanduniquedesignoftheWorldWarIImilitaryaircrafthangarsandassociatedBoilerRoom,theconsultantsbelievedthatalloftheWorldWarIIerastructuresmettheeligibilityrequirementsforinclusionontheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces.

INVENTORY

ThefollowingisaninventoryofallbuildingslocatedwithintheAPEtobedemolishedintheproposedundertaking.Thebuildingsfallintofourgroups,thoseconstructedbythefederalgovernment,SouthwideDevelopmentCompany,Inc.,theTennesseeAirNationalGuard,andFedEx.Anhistoricalcontextandassessmentisprovidedforeachofthesebuildinggroupsfollowingtheinventory.

BuildingNumber

Description Photograph(Noneofthechartedpropertieswerepreviouslysurveyed)

2879 HangarNo.6Date:circa1943North-South:222ftEast-West213ftHeight:65ftFloors:2-3Foundation:concreteslabandCMUWalls:woodframeandwoodsidingcoveredwithmetalwallpanelsRoof:woodbowtrusswithbuilt-uproof

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page16

2837 HangarNo.7Date:circa1943North-South:206ftEast-West213ftHeight:65ftFloors:2-3Foundation:concreteslabandCMUWalls:woodframeandwoodsidingcoveredwithmetalwallpanelsRoof:woodbowtrusswithbuilt-uproof

2838 BoilerRoomDate:circa1943North-South:35ftEast-West58ftHeight:32ftFloors:1Foundation:concreteslabWalls:concretemasonryunitRoof:metaltrusses,purlins,androofpanels

2852 PaintShopDate:circa1945-1956North-South:42ftEast-West50ftHeight:20ftFloors:1Foundation:concreteslabWalls:woodframeandpressedboardsidingRoof:woodjoistswithmembraneroof

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page17

SouthwideA SouthwideCenterBuildingADate:circa1972North-South:100ftEast-West242ftHeight:15ftFloors:1Foundation:concreteslabWalls:typicalcondition10’6”widex14’6”highprecastconcretepanelsRoof:metalbarjoistswithmetalroofdeckandbuilt-uproof

2861 AdministrationBuildingDate:1973-1975,additionsin1987and1988North-South:98ftEast-West197ftHeight:45ftFloors:3Foundation:concreteslabandfootingsWalls:concretemasonryunitwithbrickveneer,curtainwallRoof:steelbarjoists,metalroofdeck,andbuilt-uproof

SouthwideB SouthwideCenterBuildingBDate:1974North-South:100ftEast-West338ftHeight:15ftFloors:1Foundation:concreteslabWalls:typicalcondition10’6”widex14’6”highprecastconcretepanelsRoof:metalbarjoistswithmetalroofdeckandbuilt-uproof

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page18

SouthwideC SouthwideCenterBuildingCDate:1974North-South:90ftEast-West181ftHeight:15ftFloors:1Foundation:concreteslabWalls:typicalcondition10’6”widex14’6”highprecastconcretepanelsRoof:woodbeamsandpurlinswithplywooddeckingandbuilt-uproof

SouthwideD SouthwideCenterBuildingDDate:1974North-South:90ftEast-West212ftHeight:15ftFloors:1Foundation:concreteslabWalls:typicalcondition10’6”widex14’6”highprecastconcretepanelsRoof:woodbeamsandpurlinswithplywooddeckingandbuilt-uproof

SouthwideE SouthwideCenterBuildingEDate:1974North-South:100ftEast-West338ftHeight:15ftFloors:1Foundation:concreteslabWalls:typicalcondition10’6”widex14’6”highprecastconcretepanelsRoof:woodbeamsandpurlinswithplywooddeckingandbuilt-uproof

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page19

SouthwideF SouthwideCenterBuildingFDate:1974North-South:100ftEast-West121ftHeight:15ftFloors:1Foundation:concreteslabWalls:typicalcondition10’6”widex14’6”highprecastconcretepanelsRoof:woodbeamsandpurlinswithplywooddeckingandbuilt-uproof

NSS1-4 NorthSecondarySort1-4Date:circa1974,addition1980North-South:140ftEast-West850ftHeight:40ftFloors:1Foundation:concreteslabWalls:metalframeandwallpanelsRoof:metalframeandroofpanels

380 TennesseeAirNationalGuardAmmunitionStorageDate:circa1975-1980North-South:42ftEast-West12ftHeight:12ftFloors:1Foundation:concreteslabWalls:castconcreteRoof:castconcretewithmetalcap

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page20

382 TennesseeAirNationalGuardAmmunitionStorageDate:circa1975-1980North-South:7ftEast-West7ftHeight:12ftFloors:1Foundation:concreteslabWalls:castconcreteRoof:castconcretewithmetalcap

SouthwideG SouthwideCenterBuildingGDate:circa1977-1980North-South:90ftEast-West390ftHeight:15ftFloors:1Foundation:concreteslabWalls:typicalcondition10’6”widex14’6”highprecastconcretepanelsRoof:woodbeamsandpurlinswithplywooddeckingandbuilt-uproof

3099 GSEMaintenanceDate:circa1980-1981North-South:165ftEast-West225ftHeight:40ftFloors:1Foundation:concreteslabWalls:metalframeandwallpanels,curtainwallRoof:metaljoistsandroofpanels

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page21

2825 TennesseeAirNationalGuardCompositeSquadronOperationsFacilityDate:1985North-South:226ftEast-West147ftHeight:45ftFloors:2Foundation:concreteslabWalls:concretemasonryunitandbrickveneer,Alucobondpanels,curtainwallRoof:steelbarjoistsorIbeams,metalroofdeck,andbuilt-uproof

2826 GarageDate:circa1985-1986North-South:200ftEast-West70ftHeight:15ftFloors:1Foundation:concreteslabWalls:metalframeandwallpanelsRoof:metaljoistsandroofpanels

2878 ADALCivilEngineeringMaintenanceComplexDate:circa1985-1990,addition1995North-South:169ftEast-West122ftHeight:20ftFloors:1Foundation:concreteslabWalls:concretemasonryunit,brick,metalwallpanelRoof:metaljoistsanddeckwithbuilt-uproof

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page22

2875 TennesseeAirNationalGuardCompositeBuildingDate:1989North-South:177ftEast-West142ftHeight:40ftFloors:1Foundation:concreteslabWalls:6”metalstudwithbrickveneer,curtainwallRoof:Pitched-steelI-beams,metalroofdeckandmetalroof.Flat-steelbarjoists,metalroofdeck,andelastomericroofmembrane

2855 TennesseeAirNationalGuardC-141FlightSimulationFacilityDate:1995North-South:139ftEast-West112ftHeight:45ftFloors:1Foundation:concreteslabWalls:CMUwithbrickveneer,structuralsteel,4”metalstudwithaluminumwallpanelsRoof:steelbarjoists,metalroofdeck,andelastomericroofmembrane

2860 OpenStorageShedDate:circa1994-1997North-South:31ftEast-West118ftHeight:12ftFloors:1Foundation:concretefootingsWalls:metalframeandwallpanelsRoof:metaljoistsandroofpanels

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page23

2854 StorageBuildingDate:circa1997-2003North-South:32ftEast-West20ftHeight:15ftFloors:1Foundation:concreteslabWalls:metalframeandwallpanelsRoof:metaljoistsandroofpanels

2884 GSEHydrogenTestFacilityDate:2014North-South:43ftEast-West59ftHeight:45ftFloors:n/aFoundation:concreteslabWalls:n/aRoof:n/a

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page24

HISTORICALCONTEXT

TheproposedprojectislocatedinsouthMemphisalongthenorthernextentsoftheMemphisInternationalAirportproperty,whichisownedbytheMemphis-ShelbyCountyAirportAuthority.TheprojectareaisinthenorthcentralportionoftheFedExRamp.ThisareaisboundedbyPloughBoulevardonthewest,DemocratRoadonthenorth,andTchulahomaRoadontheeast.ThesouthernboundaryisformedbyRunway9/27anditsassociatedtaxiways.Thesurroundingareasconsistofcommercialandindustrialbuildings.Mid-twentiethcenturyresidentialneighborhoodsarelocatedbehindthesecommercialandindustrialproperties,buttheseneighborhoodsaretransitioningtocommercialandindustrialusesandareshieldedfromviewoftheAPEbythecommercialandindustrialbuildings,multi-laneroads,existingFedExaircraftstaging,loading,andfuelingareas,andexistingFedExemployeesecurityandtrainingfacilities.

ThebeginningsoftheaviationindustryinMemphis,Tennesseearosein1927underthedirectionofMemphiscitymayor,WatkinsOverton,whoestablishedtheMunicipalAirportPlanningCommission.InitialobjectivesofthenewlydevelopedcommissionincludedtheselectionofasuitablelocationtoconstructthenewMemphisAirportbeingproposed.ThecommissionsettledonatractoflandapproximatelysevenmilesfromdowntownMemphis,knownasWardFarm,whichencompassednearly200acrestoallowforpotentialfutureexpansionsofaviationactivitiesandgrowthintheruralcountryside.TheMemphisMunicipalAirportwasoriginallymadeupofasodairfieldandrunwayincludingthreehangarsforaircraft.ThefacilityopenedandwasdedicatedonJune14,1929,servicingupwardsof15passengersdailywithinthecomingyearbywayoftwomajorairlineservices,ChicagoandSouthernAirlinesandAmericanAirlines.In1938,thedemandsaccompanyinganincreaseinpassengersgavewaytothedevelopmentofacontemporaryterminalfortheMemphisAirport.5

UponentranceoftheUnitedStatesinWorldWarII,theMemphisAirportandMemphisAirFieldwereplacedunderthecommandandcontroloftheU.S.ArmywhereU.S.ArmyAirForceoperationswereconductedinsupportofthewar.Thisactivitydelayedfurtherdevelopmentandexpansionofcommercialaviationoperationsuntil1947whenmilitarypresenceandtroopswerewithdrawn,allowingonceagainthegrowthofcommercialairlineoperationsinthepost-warera.In1956,anewMemphisAirportPlanningCommissionwasformedandsettothetaskofengineeringanewstate-of-the-artterminaltoaccommodategrowth.Inthefollowingyears,theMemphisMunicipalAirportunderwentaseriesofnamechanges,asaresultofnew“JetAge”technologyandexpansionintheaviationindustry.1963usheredinarenamingtotheMemphisMetropolitanAirport,andeventuallyevolvedtointernationalstatusin1969withasubsequentrenamingasMemphisInternationalAirporttoaccountforitsaccommodationofinternationalpassengersandcargo.ThecreationoftheMemphis-ShelbyCountyAirportAuthorityalsooccurredin1969inanefforttomanagetherapidexpansionofaviationinMemphis.

5 FlyMemphis.com,“AirportHistory.”http://www.flymemphis.com/Airport-History.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page25

In1973,MemphisInternationalAirportrealizedthisdevelopmentandexpansionofaviationasaresultofthefoundingofFedExwhenthecompanybasedthecenteroftheircargoandshippingoperationsontheMemphisAirFieldalongwithanAdministrationBuildingandsortingfacility.Fedex’s24/7operations,alongwithamassivepackage-sortingcomplex,ultimatelyidentifiedasaSuperHUB,wouldplacetheMemphisInternationalAirportasaworld-classaviationfacilityholdingtherecordasthebusiestcargoairportintheworldfrom1992to2009.ThisrecordhasonlyrecentlybeensurpassedgloballybyHongKong,andMemphisremainsnumberonedomesticallyforaircargoshipments.In2004,theAirportAuthorityfortheMemphisInternationalAirportnegotiatedalandexchangeinvolvingFedExandtheTennesseeAirNationalGuard(TANG).ThisexchangeprovidedcriticalspaceforfacilitiesinthesoutheastcorneroftheairfieldtooperatethelargeC-5GalaxytransportaircraftusedinmissionsbytheAirForce,andsubsequentlyopenedupavailablespaceforFedExtoexpandoperationsinthenorthernportionoftheairportfacility.6

ItistheopinionoftheconsultantsthatthecommercialandindustrialpropertiesadjacenttotheFedExRampandtheresidentialneighborhoodslocatedbehindthemdidnotappeartobepotentiallyeligibleforlistingintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesanddidnotmeritfurtherevaluationforNRHPeligibilityforreasonssuchas:

§ Structuresdidnotmeetthe50yearagerequirementforeligibility;§ Alterationsanddeteriorationhaddamagedtheintegrityoftheresources;§ Structureswerenotknowntopossessarchitecturalsignificance;and/or§ Structureswerenotknowntopossesshistoricalsignificance.

WORLDWARIIBUILDINGS

History

ArmyAirCorpsandArmyAirForces,Military,UnitedStates,1939to1945

WorldWarIIwasanimportantperiodinthedevelopmentintheuseofaircraftintheUnitedStates(U.S.)armedforces.Duringthistime,theU.S.ArmyAirCorps(AAC)expandedexponentiallyandtransitionedintotheU.S.ArmyAirForces(AAF),whichpavedthewayfortheestablishmentoftheU.S.AirForceasanindependentbranchofthearmedforcesfollowingWorldWarII.Inearly1939,PresidentRooseveltproposedtheexpansionoftheAirCorps,whichconsistedofonly25,000personneland525aircraft7beforethewar.Overthenextsix

6 Historic Memphis, Historic Memphis Airport… in Vintage Photos and Postcards. http://historic-memphis.com/memphis-historic/airport/airport.html7JulieL.Webster,HistoricalandArchitecturalOverviewofMilitaryAircraftHangars:AGeneralHistory,ThematicTypology,andInventoryofAircraftHangarsConstructedonDepartmentofDefenseInstallations(Champaign,Illinois:UnitedStatesArmyConstructionEngineeringResearchLaboratory,1999),4-16.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page26

years,theU.S.governmentwouldspendmorethan$3.1billionexpandingthenumberofpersonnel,aircraft,andsupportfacilities.8

ArmyAirCorpsExpansionandConstructionPrograms

TherewerefourphasesofexpansioninthesizeandstrengthofAmericanairpowerbeforeandduringthewar.ThefirstoccurredinApril1939,priortotheGermaninvasionofPolandinAugustofthatyear,whenCongressauthorizedtheexpansionoftheAACtoinclude24groups,whichincluded48,200personneland6,000aircraft.Bythesummerof1940,itwasclearthattheselevelswouldnotbesufficientiftheU.S.enteredthewar.Intheautumnof1940,CongressauthorizedtheexpansionoftheAACtoinclude54combatgroups,including50,000aircraftandanadditional50,000aircrafteachyearforthedurationofthewar.Inthespringof1941,theAACwasexpandedtoinclude84combatgroups,whichwereintendedtobeoperationalbythesummerof1942.ShortlybeforetheU.S.enteredthewarinDecember1941,followingtheJapaneseattackonPearlHarbor,CongressauthorizedtheexpansionoftheAACtoanastounding239groups.9Beforetheimplementationofthisplan,itwasrevisedafinaltimetoinclude273groups.10Theseauthorizationsamountedtoanincreaseofapproximately1140%between1939and1943.Theexpansioninairpowernecessitatedacorrespondingincreaseinthenumberoftacticalairfields,trainingfacilities,anddepotfacilities,whereaircraftwouldbestored,repaired,andmodified.

EventhoughCongressultimatelyauthorized$3.1billiontofundtheexpansion,constructionstruggledtokeepupwiththeexpansioninpersonnelandaircraft.Inordertoexpeditetheprocess,theConstructionDivisionoftheQuartermasterCorpsdeterminedthatallnon-technicalconstructionshouldbeconsideredtemporaryinnature.11

Inthemidstoftheimplementationofthe24-GroupPlanattheendof1940,allAACconstructionprojectswereofficiallytransferredfromtheConstructionDivisiontotheArmyCorpsofEngineers(ACE).12TheACEcontinuedtousemanyofthestandardizedplansestablishedbytheConstructionDivisionandreaffirmedthepolicyoftemporaryplansforallnon-technicalconstruction.13Whenthenextphaseofconstructionbeganforthe54-GroupPlan,8Webster,4-16.9JeroldE.Brown,WhereEaglesLand:PlanningandDevelopmentofU.S.ArmyAirfields,1910-1941(NewYork:GreenwoodPress,1990),116.10JulieL.Webster,HistoricalandArchitecturalOverviewofMilitaryAircraftHangars:AGeneralHistory,ThematicTypology,andInventoryofAircraftHangarsConstructedonDepartmentofDefenseInstallations(Champaign,Illinois:UnitedStatesArmyConstructionEngineeringResearchLaboratory,1999),4-2.11FrankFutrell,“TheDevelopmentofBaseFacilities,”inTheArmyAirForcesinWorldWarII,vol.VI,ed.WesleyFrankCravenandJamesLeaCate,127-128.12JulieL.Webster,HistoricalandArchitecturalOverviewofMilitaryAircraftHangars:AGeneralHistory,ThematicTypology,andInventoryofAircraftHangarsConstructedonDepartmentofDefenseInstallations(Champaign,Illinois:UnitedStatesArmyConstructionEngineeringResearchLaboratory,1999),Webster,4-5.13RobertMueller,AirForceBases:ActiveAirForceBaseswithintheU.S.A.on17September1982

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page27

mostofthetacticalfieldswerequicklyestablishedthroughtheacquisitionofcivilairfieldsandtheallocationof$100milliontomakeimprovementsandothermodificationsat400ofthesefields.Beginninginthespringof1941,the84-GroupPlanwasimplementedwiththefocusremainingonestablishingnewtraininganddepotfacilities.14

ArmyAirForcesExpansionandConstructionPrograms

InJune1941,theWarDepartmentestablishedtheAAF.AlthoughitremainedapartoftheArmy,itbegantofunctionasanindependentbranchofthearmedforces,withanequalstandingontheGeneralStaffastheotherbranches.15Intheautumnof1941,Congressapprovedthe239-GroupPlan.WithinaweekoftheattackonPearlHarbor,theproposalemergedthatwouldincreasetheAAFtoitslargestsize,the273-GroupPlan,eventhoughitwouldnotbeformallyapproveduntillate1942.16Similartothepreviousexpansions,theconstructionprojectsassociatedwiththefinalphaseofconstructionwerelessfocusedontacticalfacilitiesandmorefocusedontraininganddepotfacilitiesthatproducedpilots,flightcrews,andaircraftfordeploymentsoverseas.Ataboutthesametimethatthe273-GroupPlanwasinplace,AAFconstructionprojectsintheU.S.slowedtoahalt,andthegovernmentbegandisposingofexcessproperties,becausethemajorityofAAFpersonnelandaircraftweredeployedoverseasbytheendof1943.

BasedontheplacementoftheMemphisArmyAirFieldattheMemphisMunicipalAirport,itislikelythatthisairfieldwasestablishedasapartofthe54-GroupPlaninlate1940,whentheAACusedexistingcivilairfieldstoexpeditetheconstructionoftacticalfields.ThiswouldplacetheMemphisArmyAirFieldamongagroupofapproximately400tacticalfieldsintendedtobeoperationalasquicklyaspossibleinordertoprotectthehomefront.

ArchitecturalDescription

TherearethreepropertytypesassociatedwiththeresourcesinthisHistoricResourcesSurvey.TheprimarypropertytypeisavariantoftheOBH-2andA.T.C.BirchwoodHangartypes.Threeofthesehangars(Figures6and7)wereconstructedinalineorientedeasttowestinthenortheastcorneroftheMemphisArmyAirfieldduringWorldWarIIbetween1940andOctober22,1943,whentheyappearinanaerialphotooftheairfield(Figure10).TheyweredesignatedasHangarNo.6(2879),HangarNo.7(2837),andHangarNo.8.Thewesternmostofthesestructures,HangarNo.8,wasdemolishedinthemid1990s,andtheotherpropertytypeservedinasupportcapacitytothehangars.Itisafree-standingBoilerRoom(2838)(Figures8and9)locatednorthofHangarNo.7(2837)ontheoppositesideofSprankelAvenueandisconnectedtoHangarNo.7(2837)byanundergroundutilitycorridor(Figure10).Asthiswasoriginallythe

(Washington,DC:OfficeofAirForceHistory,1989),127-128.14FrankFutrell,“TheDevelopmentofBaseFacilities,”inTheArmyAirForcesinWorldWarII,vol.VI,ed.WesleyFrankCravenandJamesLeaCate,137-141.15BillYenne,TheHistoryoftheU.S.AirForce(NewYork:ExeterBooks,1984),26.16FrankFutrell,“TheDevelopmentofBaseFacilities,”inTheArmyAirForcesinWorldWarII,vol.VI,ed.WesleyFrankCravenandJamesLeaCate,131-132and135-137.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page28

centralhangar,itislikelythatthisutilitycorridorintersectedwithanotheronethatconnectedeachofthehangars.

TheArmyconstructedtwotypesofwoodhangarsthatmayberelatedtoHangarNo.6(2879)andHangarNo.7(2837).ThearchitecturaldetailsaremostcloselyrelatedtotheOBH-2hangars(Figure11),whilethescaleofthehangersisconsistentwiththeA.T.C.Birchwoodhangars(Figure12).ElevenbowstringtrussesformtheroofstructuresofHangarNo.6(2879)andHangarNo.7(2837)andbearonsingle-lacedwoodtrusscolumnsalongthenorthandsouthwallsofthehangar(Figures7and13).Therooftrussandassociatedcolumnassembliesarestabilizedlaterallybydouble-laced,horizontalwoodtrusseslocatednearthecenterandatthetopofthenorthandsouthwalls.Theeastandwestwallshaveslidingdoorsthatoriginallyopenedtothenorthintodoorpocketsthatflanktheeastandwestendsofatwo-storyofficeblock,creatinganasymmetricalfacadeontheeastandwestsidesofthehangar.Thewalloppositetheofficeblockhas10bays,witheachcontainingthreelevelsoffour,double-hungwindows.Intotal,thiswallofthehangaroriginallyhad120double-hungwindowswith9over9liteconfigurations(Figure7).TheseconstructiondetailsaremostcloselyrelatedtotheOBH-2hangar(Figure11).ThescaleofHangarNo.6(2879)andHangarNo.7(2837)issignificantlylargerthantheOBH-2hangarsandismorecloselyalignedwiththeA.T.C.Birchwoodhangars,whichencloseapproximately40,000sq.ft.(Figure12).ThemostnotabledifferencebetweentheMemphisArmyAirFieldhangarsandtheA.T.C.Birchwoodhangarsistheplacementoftheofficeblock.TheA.T.C.Birchwoodhangarsevenlydividetheofficespacealongeachsideofthehangar.Thiscreatesasimplebuttress,whichprovideslateralsupportforthewallsbearingtheloadofthebowstringarchrooftrusses.Italsoallowsthedoorateachendofthebuildingtoopenfromthecenterandslideintosymmetricaldoorpocketsattheendofeachofficeblock.IntheabsenceofanofficeblockonthenorthandsouthsidesoftheMemphisArmyAirFieldhangars,theloadbearingwallsonthesesidesofthebuildingrequiredadditionalbearingcapacityandlateralstability.Inthiscase,single-lacedwoodtrusscolumnscarrytheadditionalload,anddouble-laced,horizontalwoodtrussesprovidelateralstability.Inaddition,HangarNo.6(2879)andHangarNo.7(2837)havetensionrodsthatstabilizethetopofthenorthandsouthwallsandpreventtheoutwardthrustofthebowstringarchfromdeflectingthenorthandsouthwalls.

Accordingtoananalysisoftheuseoftimberproductsduringthewar,softwoodlumberaccountedfor83%oftotaloutput.In1942,atapproximatelythesametimethattheairfieldwasbeingconstructed,75%ofsoftwoodlumberwasusedforconstruction.Basedonthisdata,itislikelythatthewoodusedtoconstructthehangarswasaclear-grainedsoftwood,suchasaDouglasFir.17Definitivematerialstestingandanalysisshouldbeemployedtoverifythespeciesofwoodusedandconfirmthepotentialforararematerialsapplicationassociatedwithaneconomicthemeduringwartimeconstruction.

17BenMeyerHuey,“ProblemsfortimberproductsprocurementduringWorldWarII,1941to1945,”(Thesis,UniversityofMontana,1951),36.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page29

TheBoilerRoom(2838)isasupportstructureforHangarNo.6(2879)andHangarNo.7(2837)andappearsintheaerialimagedatedOctober22,1943.Itislikelythatthebuildingwasconstructedatthesametimeasthehangers.Thebuildingisconstructedofconcreteblockwithacorrugatedmetalroof.Themostsignificantcharacter-definingfeatureonitsexterioristhe6-liteawningwindows.ItisconnectedtoHangarNo.7(2837)byanundergroundutilitycorridor(Figure9)thatisorientednorthtosouthandpassesunderSprankelAvenue.SincethisutilitycorridorconnectstoHangarNo.7(2837),whichwasoriginallythecentralhangar,itislikelythatthisutilitycorridorintersectedwithanotheronethatconnectedeachofthehangars.

Significance

Thesignificanceofaircrafthangarsinrelationtotheoverallhistoryofmilitaryaviationcannotbeoverstated.WebsterandCohenreferredtoaircrafthangarsasthe“alpha”buildingtypeonanymilitaryairfieldandsuggestedthattheentirehistoryofmilitaryaviationcanbegleanedfromtheform,function,andstyleofthisbuildingtype.18InWebster’sseminalhistoriccontextstatement,shedevelopedanoverviewthatallowsmilitaryandcivilianculturalresourcemanagerstoevaluatethesignificanceofspecificaircrafthangarsinawidercontext.OneofthemoststrikingaspectsofthisworkinrelationtoHangarNo.6(2879)andHangarNo.7(2837)attheMemphisArmyAirFieldistherelativerarityofwoodframeconstructioninextantWorldWarIIeramilitaryaircrafthangars.Thissurvey,conductedin1999,revealedthatonly2%ofthehistoricmilitaryaircrafthangarsinthepossessionoftheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)wereconstructedofwood.19Thesenumbershavecontinuedtodiminishintheensuingeighteenyears.Whenconsideringonlythewoodhangarsconstructedwithabowstringarch,the1999surveyidentifiedseventeenstructureswiththreeplantypes:SquadronOBH-2,A.T.C.Birchwood,andwoodBowstringTrusshangarswithanunspecifiedplantype.TherewerethreeremainingSquadronOBH-2hangars,twelveA.T.C.Birchwoodhangars,andtwounspecifiedplantypes.

Ananalysisofthecurrentstatusofeachhangarindicatesthat100%oftheSquadronOBH-2hangarsidentifiedin1999remain,while42%oftheA.T.C.Birchwoodhangarshavebeendemolishedordestroyedbyfire,andatleast50%oftheunspecifiedplantypeshavebeendemolished.Thisreducedthenumberofwoodbowstringtrusshangarsbyaminimumof35%.ThisdataisparticularlyimportantintheevaluationofsignificanceofHangarNo.6(2879)andHangarNo.7(2837),becauseWebsterarguesthatthesignificanceofaparticularhangar“mayrestonthefactthatitistheearliest,bestorlastexistingexampleofatype,”20whichcanonlybeassessedinthecontextofanational-levelsurvey.Shecontinuestostate“itmaybefeasible

18JulieL.WebsterandGordonL.Cohen,“MilitaryAircraftHangars:FootprintsthroughaCenturyofFlight,”CRMVol.24,No.3(2001):29-31.19 Julie L. Webster, Historical and Architectural Overview of Military Aircraft Hangars: A General History, Thematic Typology, and Inventory of Aircraft Hangars Constructed on Department of Defense Installations (Champaign, Illinois: United States Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, 1999), 7-6. 20 Webster, 7-1.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page30

SquadronOBH-2,PlanNo.117/6-3,FirstUseUnknown

Base DateBuildingNo. Status StatusDate

Wright-PattersonAFB,OH 1943 30148 Extant 10/2015NASFallon,NV 1944 4(5) Extant 5/25/2014NASWhidbeyIsland,WA 1942 112 Extant 3/2016A.T.C.BirchwoodType202'x200',PlanNo.Varies,FirstKnownUseMid-1940s

Base DateBuildingNo. Status StatusDate

ElmendorfAFB,AK WWII n/a Extant 6/2016ElmendorfAux.,AK(EarecksonAFS) Unknown 502 Extant 9/16/2014ElmendorfAux.,AK(EarecksonAFS) Unknown 521 Extant 9/16/2014ElmendorfAux.,AK(GalenaAirport) WWII 1428 Demolished 7/4/2005ElmendorfAux.,AK(GalenaAirport) WWII 1551 Demolished 7/4/2005Ft.Wainwright,AK WWII 3008 Demolished 2014Ft.Wainwright,AK WWII 3005 Demolished 2014Ft.Wainwright,AK WWII 2085 Demolished 7/21/2005MountainHomeAFB,ID 1943 201 Extant 5/9/2015MountainHomeAFB,ID 1943 204 Extant 5/9/2015MountainHomeAFB,ID 1943 205 Extant 5/9/2015MountainHomeAFB,ID 1943 208 Extant 5/9/2015WoodBowstringTruss,PlanNo.Unknown,FirstUseUnknown

Base DateBuildingNo. Status StatusDate

Offutt WWII 321 Unknown UnknownFt.McPherson,GA(Ft.Gillem) 1942 922 Demolished 2/2002Table1:ExcerptfromWebster’s1999surveyofmilitaryaircrafthangarsonDoDinstallationslistingWorldWarIIerahangarsconstructedwithawoodbowstringtrussroofstructure.Thelistissortedbyplantypeandincludesinformationontheinstallation,thedateofconstruction,thebuildingnumber,itsstatus,andthedatethatthisstatuswasconfirmedthroughaerialimagery.

andjustifiabletousedocumentationofthenation’sbestexampleofahangartypetorepresenttheremainingexamplesforpurposesofmitigation.”21Inconclusion,Websterrecommendedthatthe“bestsurvivingexampleofeachmajoraircrafthangartypeonU.S.militaryinstallationsbeidentified…andthattheseprimeexamplesthenbedocumentedaccordingtotheLevelIIprotocolsspecifiedbytheHistoricAmericanBuildingsSurvey(HABS).”Giventhatthisresearchdidnotidentifyanyotherhangarswithasimilarasymmetricalfloorplanortrusscolumn

21 Julie L. Webster, Historical and Architectural Overview of Military Aircraft Hangars: A General History, Thematic Typology, and Inventory of Aircraft Hangars Constructed on Department of Defense Installations (Champaign, Illinois: United States Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, 1999), 7-2.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page31

constructionasHangarNo.6(2879)andHangarNo.7(2837),itisreasonabletosuggestthatWebster’srecommendationsareconsideredpriortothedemolitionofthesestructures.

TheBoilerRoom(2838)appearstobepotentiallyeligibleunderCriterionA,basedonitsassociationwiththedomesticwareffort,therapiddevelopmentoftheArmyAirCorpsandArmyAirForcesduringWorldWarII,anditsroleasasupportstructuretoHangarNo.6(2879)andHangarNo.7(2837).Sinceonlyminormodificationshavebeenmadetothisstructureovertime,itretainsasignificantamountofintegrity.

SOUTHWIDECENTERBUILDINGS

History

TheSouthwideDevelopmentCompany,Inc.hiredarchitectKeithS.KaystodesignaseriesofcommercialbuildingsonthesouthsideofDemocratRoadin1972.SurvivingdrawingsindicatethatKays,whoremainsapracticingarchitectinMemphisandcurrentlyservesastheChairmanoftheLandmarksCommission,completeddrawingsforthesebuildingsbetween1972and1977.ThepurposeofthebuildingswastoprovideleasablecommercialspaceinthedevelopingareabetweenMemphisandwhatwasknownastheInternationalAirport,andthecompanyconstructedtheSouthwideCenterBuildingsasleasedcommercialunits.Thesevenbuildings,namedBuildingAthroughG,wereconstructedbetween1972and1980.TheoriginaldrawingsindicatethattheplansforBuildingAwerecompletedin1972,andtheplansforBuildingsBthroughFwerecompletedin1974.Althoughtherearenodrawingsavailablethatindicatetheconstructiondateofthefinalbuildinginthiscomplex,BuildingG,areviewofaerialimagesandtopographicmapsshowthatitwasconstructedbetween1977and1980.

ArchitecturalDescription

TheSouthwideCenterbuildingsaresinglestorycommercialbuildingscontainingmultipleunitswithbothofficeandwarehousespace.Theexteriorofthebuildingsconformedtoasimilardesign,whichincludedexteriorwallsconstructedof10’6”wideby14’6”highprecastconcretepanelswitha5”recessedhorizontalband9’7”abovethefoundation.Thislinedefinestheopeningsoftherecessedentriesonthefrontfaçadeandtheroll-updoorsontherearfaçade.TheroofstructureofBuildingsAandBarecomposedofmetalbarjoists,ametalroofdeck,andabuilt-uproof.Theroofstructureoftheremainingbuildingsiscomposedofwoodbeamsandpurlins,plywooddecking,andabuilt-uproof.Ontheinterior,thebuildingsconformtooneoftwobuildingtypes.ThefirstgroupincludesBuildingsA,B,E,andG,whichwereconstructedwith24’widebaysthatcanbesubdividedintovaryingsizedunits.ThesecondgroupincludesBuildingsC,D,andFandwasconstructedwith15’bays,resultinginthepotentialforsmallerunits.

ItistheopinionoftheconsultantsthattheSouthwideCenterbuildingsdonotappeartobepotentiallyeligibleforlistingintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesanddidnotmeritfurtherevaluationforNRHPeligibilityforthefollowingreasons.Thestructuresdidnotmeetthe50

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page32

yearagerequirementforeligibility,arenotarchitecturallysignificant,anddonotpossessanyhistoricalsignificance.

TENNESSEEAIRNATIONALGUARD(TANG)BUILDINGS

History

TheTennesseeAirNationalGuard(TANG)tracesitsearliestoriginsbacktotheFirstSquadron,AirService,TennesseeNationalGuardrecognizedformallybyAdjutantGeneralBaxterSweeneyonOctober1,1920.Continuingthroughthepost-WWIera,thefirstaircraftsquadroninTennesseewasfederallyrecognizedandorganizedasthe136thAirObservationSquadrononDecember4,1921,eventuallybeingre-designatedasthe105thAirObservationSquadrononJuly20,1923.

TheprogressionofmilitaryaviationthroughWWIIledtoadvancementsinaviationandtheestablishmentofdesignatedAirNationalGuardunitswithmissionspecialtiesincludingthe155thFighterSquadronformallyrecognizedfederallyonDecember23,1946inMemphis,Tennessee.In1951,theunitwastransferredtoShawAFB,SouthCarolina,andre-designatedaTacticalReconnaissanceSquadron(TRC).By1953,the155thTacticalReconnaissanceSquadronwasreturnedtostatecontrolinTennesseeandfirmlyestablishedabaseofoperationsattheMemphisAirNationalGuardBase(ANGB).OnApril1,1961,the155thTacticalReconnaissanceSquadronreachedasignificanttransitioninoperationsthatbeganwiththeattachmenttoaparentunitknownasthe164thAirTransportationGroup(Heavy)usheringinaneweraforthe155thinmilitaryairliftcapabilityandare-designationtoitsnewunit,the164thAirTransportationSquadron(Heavy).Eventuallytheunittransitionedtobecalledthe164thMilitaryAirliftGroup(MAG)intothepost-Vietnamerauntiltheunitwasre-designatedasthe164thTacticalAirliftGroup(TAG).FollowingoperationsinDesertStorm/Shieldintheearly1990stheunitwasre-designatedagaininApril1992asthe164thAirliftGroup(AG)stillbasedoutofMemphis.In1995,theunittookonitscurrentre-designationasthe164thAirliftWing(AW).

TheTennesseeAirNationalGuard(TANG)incoordinationwiththeMemphisAirportAuthorityandFedExconductedalandexchangeinSeptember2004resultingintherelocationofallMemphisTANGfacilitiestothesoutheasternsectionoftheMemphisAirfield.Thistransitionofspaceenablednewconstructionoffacilitiesforthe164thAirliftWing(AW)toaccommodatethemostrecentaircraftintheiroperationalreadinessinventoryknownastheC-5Galaxy.ThededicationsofthesenewTANGfacilitiesoccurredinSeptember2008andarecurrentlyoccupiedbythe164thAirliftWing.22

22 Air National Guard, Unit History of the 164th Airlift Wing. http://www.164aw.ang.af.mil/Units/.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page33

ArchitecturalDescription

FourteenofthebuildingsincludedinthissurveywereusedorconstructedbyTANGduringtheiroccupancyoftheprojectareasouthofDemocratRoad.HangarNo.6,HangarNo.7,andtheBoilerRoomwereassumedbyTANGfollowingWorldWarII.AAFfacilitiesofthetypeconstructedattheMemphisAirFieldweretypicallyonlypartiallyoccupiedandincreasinglyemptyinthefinaltwoyearsofthewar.79AAFairfieldsweredisposedofin1944and1945.Inexcessof150otherairfieldswere“mothballed”anddisposedofattheendofthewar,23reducingthetotalnumberofairfieldsbynearlyonehalf.Duetoanincompletechainoftitle,itisnotclearwhentheMemphisArmyAirFieldwastransferredtotheTennesseeAirNationalGuard(TANG),butitmostlikelyoccurredin1944or1945.SincethefunctionoftheairfieldwouldhavebeenfairlyconsistentwhenoperatedbytheAAFandtheTANG,itismorelikelythatmodificationstothefacilitiesontheairfieldwouldhavebeenminimalduringtheseyears.TheremainingelevenbuildingswereconstructedbyTANGforuseatthislocationbeginningintheearly1960sandendingwiththelandexchangewiththeMemphisAirportAuthorityin2004.

ThebuildingcurrentlyknownastheFedExPaintShop(2852)wasconstructedbyTANGbetween1945and1956.Althoughthisstructurewasdeterminedtoexceedthefifty-yearthreshold,theoriginalfunctionofthebuildingisunknown,andthebuildinghasbeenheavilymodified,furtherobscuringitsoriginaluse.Asaresult,thisbuildingdoesnotappeartobepotentiallyeligiblefortheNRHP.

TANGconstructedtheoriginalportionofthebuildingcurrentlyknownastheNorthSecondarySort1-4in1974.Theoriginalfunctionofthebuildingisunknown,butitsrelativeproximitytoaircrafthangars,taxiways,andrunwayssuggestthatitmayhavebeeninvolvedwithaircraftmaintenanceandoperations.Thisisalsosupportedbytheutilitariannatureofitsconstruction,whichutilizesametalframe,wallpanels,androofpanels.Sincethisbuildingdoesnotexceedthefifty-yearthresholdforeligibilityfortheNRHPanddoesnotappeartobesignificantbasedonitsarchitectureorassociationwithsignificanteventsorpersons,thisbuildingdoesnotappeartobepotentiallyeligiblefortheNRHP.

Buildings380and382wereconstructedbyTANGbetween1975and1980foruseasammunitionstoragefacilities.Sincethesebuildingsdonotexceedthefifty-yearthresholdforeligibilityfortheNRHPandarenotknowntopossessexceptionalsignificancebasedontheirarchitectureorassociationwithsignificanteventsorpersons,theydonotappeartobepotentiallyeligiblefortheNRHP.

In1985,TANGcommissionedthedesignandconstructionoftheCompositeSquadronOperationsFacility(2825).ThisbuildingwasdesignedbyWalkJones&FrancisMah,Inc.ofMemphisTennesseetosupportTANGoperations.Sincethisbuildingdoesnotexceedthefifty-yearthresholdforeligibilityfortheNRHPandisnotknowntopossessexceptionalsignificancebasedonitsarchitectureorassociationwithsignificanteventsorpersons,thisbuildingdoesnotappeartobepotentiallyeligiblefortheNRHP.23 Webster, 4-16.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page34

TANGconstructedthebuildingcurrentlyknownasBuilding2826between1985and1986.Theoriginalfunctionofthebuildingisunknown,buttheincorporationofthirteenoverheaddoorsalongthewestfacadesuggeststhatitmayhavebeeninvolvedwithvehiclemaintenanceoperationsandstorage.Thisisalsosupportedbytheutilitariannatureofitsconstruction,whichutilizesaprefabricatedmetalframeandmetalwallandroofpanels.Sincethisbuildingdoesnotexceedthefifty-yearthresholdforeligibilityfortheNRHPanddoesnotappeartobesignificantbasedonitsarchitectureorassociationwithsignificanteventsorpersons,thisbuildingdoesnotappeartobepotentiallyeligiblefortheNRHP.

TheADALCivilEngineeringMaintenanceComplex(2878)wasconstructedbyTANGbetween1985and1990,withanadditionconstructedin1995.ThePickeringFirm,Inc.ofMemphis,Tennesseeprovidedbotharchitectureandengineeringservicesforthedesignofthisbuilding,whichwasintendedtosupportTANGmaintenanceoperations.Sincethisbuildingdoesnotexceedthefifty-yearthresholdforeligibilityfortheNRHPandisnotknowntopossessexceptionalsignificancebasedonitsarchitectureorassociationwithsignificanteventsorpersons,thisbuildingdoesnotappeartobepotentiallyeligiblefortheNRHP.

In1989,TANGcommissionedthedesignandconstructionoftheCompositeBuilding(2875).ThisbuildingwasdesignedbyTaylorGardnerMontgomeryArchitectsofMemphisTennesseetosupportTANGpersonnel,includingfoodserviceandmedicalfacilities.Sincethisbuildingdoesnotexceedthefifty-yearthresholdforeligibilityfortheNRHPandisnotknowntopossessexceptionalsignificancebasedonitsarchitectureorassociationwithsignificanteventsorpersons,thisbuildingdoesnotappeartobepotentiallyeligiblefortheNRHP.

TheC-141FlightSimulationFacility(2855)wasconstructedbyTANGin1995tosupportC-141flightcrewtrainingoperations.Sincethisbuildingdoesnotexceedthefifty-yearthresholdforeligibilityfortheNRHPandisnotknowntopossessexceptionalsignificancebasedonitsarchitectureorassociationwithsignificanteventsorpersons,thisbuildingdoesnotappeartobepotentiallyeligiblefortheNRHP.

Between1994and1997,TANGconstructedtheopenstorageshedcurrentlyknownasBuilding2860.Sincethisbuildingdoesnotexceedthefifty-yearthresholdforeligibilityfortheNRHPanddoesnotappeartobesignificantbasedonitsarchitectureorassociationwithsignificanteventsorpersons,thisbuildingdoesnotappeartobepotentiallyeligiblefortheNRHP.

TANGconstructedthebuildingcurrentlyknownasBuilding2854between1997and2003.Theoriginalfunctionofthebuildingisunknown,butitsprefabricatedmetalframeandmetalwallandroofpanelssuggestautilitarianfunction.Sincethisbuildingdoesnotexceedthefifty-yearthresholdforeligibilityfortheNRHPanddoesnotappeartobesignificantbasedonitsarchitectureorassociationwithsignificanteventsorpersons,thisbuildingdoesnotappeartobepotentiallyeligiblefortheNRHP.

ItistheopinionoftheconsultantsthattheelevenbuildingsconstructedbyTANGdonotappeartobepotentiallyeligibleforlistingintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesanddidnotmeritfurtherevaluationforNRHPeligibilityforthefollowingreasons.Thestructuresdidnot

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page35

meetthe50yearagerequirementforeligibility,arenotarchitecturallysignificant,anddonotpossessexceptionalhistoricalsignificancethatwouldmakethebuildingspotentiallyeligibleunderCriteriaConsiderationG.

FEDEXBUILDINGS

History

FedExwasfoundedastheFederalExpressCorporationinJuneof1971inLittleRock,Arkansas.EffortstosecureanareacapableofsupportingaircargooperationsonthescaleSmithenvisionedweresoughtout,andultimatelythesiteoftheformerMemphisArmyAirfieldandTennesseeAirNationalGuardfacilities(TANG)provedsuitabletoserveasthebaseofoperationsfortheyoungstartupcompany.Asaresult,founderandCEO,FredSmith,decidedtorelocateFederalExpressCorp.tohishometown,Memphis,Tennessee,shortlyafteritsinception,andofficiallycommencedoperationsonApril17,1973.

FederalExpressbeganrenovationsandmodificationsoftheformerMemphisArmyAirfieldandTennesseeAirNationalGuardfacilities(TANG)inordertoaccommodatetheswiftexpansionoftheaircargooperationsofthecompany.Thesebuildingalterationsmarkedthefirsttimestructuresassociatedwiththeairfield,andTANGfacilitiesweremodifiedtoservedifferentfunctions.Insupportofthegrowingbusinessandexpansionofshippingservicesin1975,FederalExpressinstalledthefirstshipmentdropboxesforcustomersinaseriesofstrategicallyplacedlocationsfacilitatinganewmeansofpackagedropshipthatdidnotrequirecustomerstogotoaFederalExpressofficeinordertoshippackages.Duringthistime,FederalExpressalsosuccessfullylobbiedtheU.S.Congress,whichledtothepassingofPublicLaw95-163in1977bythe95thU.S.Congress.ThislegislationamendedtheFederalAviationActof1958andpavedthewayforcargoairlines,includingFederalExpress,toemploytheuseoflargeraircraft,usheringinthepurchaseandintroductiontotheFedExfleetofsevenBoeing727aircrafteachcapableofcarrying40,000poundsofcargo.

In1978,FederalExpressbecameapublicallytradedcompanyandwaslistedontheNewYorkStockExchangewiththetickersymbolFDX.Between1980and1981,FederalExpressexpandedoperationsandopenedtheaircargofacilityknownastheSuperHubneartheMemphisInternationalAirport.AnotherrevolutionaryachievementcameintheformofFedEx’sdevelopmentandintegrationofcomputer-basedsystemstosupportshipmentautomationbetween1979-1984.ThedevelopmentofCOSMOS(Customer,Operations,andServicesMasterOnlineSystem),DADS(DigitallyAssistedDispatchSystem),andPowerShip®(ThefirstPC-basedautomatedshippingsystemeverdeveloped)wereintegraladvancementspropellingthegrowthofFedExandadvancingthecompanyintothedigitalageatanearlystage.

By1983,FedExbecamethefirstcompanyintheU.S.toattain$1billioninrevenuewhilebarringanymergersandacquisitionswithinthefirstdecadeofformation.Duringtheearly1980s,FederalExpressalsoexpandedoperationsinternationally,beginningdeliverytoCanada,Asia,andthroughoutthePacific.In1994,FederalExpressofficiallylaunchedthebrand“FedEx”andthroughthedurationofthe1990smadesignificantadvancementstoitsdigitaltracking

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page36

processesandonlinepresence,enablingservicetocustomersthroughtheInternetviafedex.com.

In1998,FedExformedFDXCorp.afteracquisitionofCaliberSystems,Inc.andtransformedintoamegatransportationconglomeratevaluedatupwardsof$16billion,expandingoperationsinthegroundfreightandless-than-truckload(LTL)transportationandcargodeliverysectors.FedExroundedoutthedecadeofthe1990sbyaddingahubinParis,FranceandexpandingoperationsinEurope.By2000,FedExunderwentanamechangefromFDXtoFedExCorporationandsubsidiarycompanieswereformedanddesignatedaccordingtopurpose,suchasFedExExpress,FedExGround,FedExGlobalLogistics,FedExCustomCritical,andFedExServicestooperateindependentlyofeachotherwhileservingacollectivegoalintheshippingandcargoindustry.

FedExExpressenteredintoacooperatingpublic-privatesolesourcecontractagreementwiththeU.S.PostalServicein2001servicingconveyanceofallPriorityMailandExpressMail.In2007,theU.S.PostalServiceextendedtheinitialcontractthrough2013.SubsequentlyFedExwonasecondcontracttocontinueservicesthrough2020,whichwasextendedagainthrough2024.ThiscurrentlymakestheU.S.PostalServicethelargestcustomerofFedExExpress.

Duringthefirstdecadeofthemillennium(2000-2010),FedExcontinuedtogrowandexpandbusinessandoperationsinthegroundfreightandinternationalaircargosectors,aswellasadoptingenergyefficientgreenpolicies,includingtheintroductionofhybrid-electrictrucksin2003,andall-electrictrucksin2010forU.S.parceldeliveryservice.In2004,FedExCorp.acquiredKinko’s,givingFedExnewaccesstoall1,200extantretaillocationsandprovidingcustomerswithadditionalconveniencesinparcelshipment.

In2008,FedExcontinuedtoexpanditsaircargofleetwiththeadditionofBoeing757aircraft,alsosettingrecordsasthefirstdevotedU.S.aircargocarriertoaddtheworld’slargestcargoaircraftwithtwin-engines,theBoeing777,toitsfleet.Additionallyin2013,FedExaddedtheBoeing767-300Freighteraircrafttoitsfleet,enhancingdeliverycapabilitiesdomesticallywhilereducingfuelcostsandsupportingenergyefficiency.FedExcurrentlyhasasignificantvarietyofaircraftthatcarryoutairoperationsinitsfleetinadditiontotheselargerseriesplanes,includingAirbusA300,McDonnellDC10,Boeing727,andsmalleraircraftliketheCessna208.

From2010tothepresentFedExhasexpandeditsinternationaloperationsandmadesignificantadvancementsinshipping,e-commerceandbusinesstechnology,laboratorytestingofpackageshipmentsthroughFedExTechConnect(2013),aswellasdomesticandinternationalcompanyacquisitionsincludingTNTExpress(2016),GENCO(2015),BongoInternational(2014),OpekSp.zo.o.(2012),RapidãoCometa(2011),allowingFedExtoforeveralterthewaygoodsareshippedande-commerceservicesareprovidedglobally.Overthelastfourdecades,FedExhasrevolutionizedthewaycargomovesthroughouttheworld.24

24 “Time Flies: The FedEx Timeline,” FedEx, accessed June 20, 2016, http://about.van.fedex.com/our-story/history-timeline/timeline/.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page37

ArchitecturalDescription

EighteenofthestructuresincludedinthissurveywereusedorconstructedbyFedExduringtheiroccupancyoftheprojectareasouthofDemocratRoad.HangarNo.6,HangarNo.7,theBoilerRoom,thePaintShop,andtheNorthSecondarySort1-4wereassumedfromTANGfollowingtherelocationofFedExtotheMemphisInternationalAirportin1973.TheSouthwideCenterbuildingsweregraduallyincorporatedintotheFedExfacilitybeginninginthelate1970s,withaplanfortheuseofallsevenofthestructuresbythemid1980s.FedExbuiltthreeofthebuildingsforcompanyoperations,includingtheAdministrationBuilding(2861),theGSEMaintenanceBuilding(3099),andtheGSEHydrogenTestFacility(2884).TheremainingbuildingswereassumedfromTANGfollowingthelandtransferwiththeMemphisAirportAuthorityin2004.

ThefirstbuildingstobeusedandalteredbyFedExwithintheprojectareaincludeHangarNo.6,HangarNo.7,theBoilerRoom,andthePaintShop.ThemostsignificantalterationstothesebuildingscorrespondtotheperiodofusebytheFedExCorporationfrom1973to1991.WhenFedExrelocatedtoMemphisin1973,thecompanyimmediatelyinitiatedthedesignandconstructiononanewAdministrationBuilding,whichconnectedtothenortheastcornerofHangarNo.7(2837)andthenorthwestcornerofHangarNo.6(2879).TheyalsocompletedanextensiverenovationofHangarNo.6(2879)includingtheconstructionofatwo-storyconcreteblockofficebuildingorientednorthtosouththroughthecenterofthehangar(Figure14).TheconstructiondrawingsforthesemodificationsweredatedFebruary1973,withrevisionsextendingthroughOctober1977.WhileHangarNo.6(2879)andthenewAdministrativeBuildingwouldultimatelyhousemostadministrativeactivities,theactiveconstructionprojectsinthesetwobuildingsmadeHangarNo.7(2837)theprimaryofficefacilityforthefirsttwoyearsthatFedExwasoperatinginMemphis.InadditiontothealterationsmadetotheinteriorofHangarNo.6(2879),alterationsweremadetotheexteriorofallthreehangars(Figures15and16).Whilethesemodificationsalteredtheappearanceofthesestructuresfromtheexterior,anassessmentoftheinteriorrevealedthattheywereadditiveandreversibleinnature.Theremovaloftheseelementswouldexposeamajorityofthecharacterdefiningfeaturesofthesestructures.TheBoilerRoomseemstohavebeenalmostentirelyunalteredbyFedExduringtheiruseofthestructure,withtheexceptionofupgradesandreplacementofselectedmechanicalequipmentinstalledinthisfacility.Incontrast,theutilitarianwoodbuildingknownasthePaintShophasbeenheavilyaltered,whichhasobscureditsoriginaluse.

ThefirstbuildingconstructedbyFedExattheMemphisInternationalAirportwastheAdministrationBuilding(2861)(Figures17and18),whichthecompanycommissionedMenzer/Lindy&Associatestodesignin1972toserveasthefirstpurposebuiltcorporateheadquarters.TheconstructiondrawingsforthesemodificationsweredatedFebruary1973.AlthoughrevisiondatesextendthroughOctober1977,themajorityofdrawingrevisionsoccurredbyOctober1974.ThisbuildingremainedinactiveusebyFedExthroughtheconstructionoftheFedExExpressWorldHeadquartersin2004.Atthattime,thecompanyconsolidatedmostadministrativefunctionsintothecurrentcorporatecampuslocatedat3680HacksCrossRoadinMemphis,Tennessee.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page38

Asconstructedintheearly1970s,theAdministrationBuildingwasathree-storybrickbuildingwithupperfloorsthatcantileveredoverthemainlevelonboththenorthandsouthfacades.Thehorizontalproportionsofthebuildingwereaccentuatedbybandsofcurtainwallthatextendedalongtheentirelengthoftheeachfloorleveloftheprimaryfacades.Theglassfillednorthandsouthfacadescontrastedwiththeeastandwestfacades,whichwerecomposedentirelyofbrick.Theprimaryentrancewaslocatedatthecenterofthenorthfaçadeandledtoacentralstairtowerandalongitudinalcorridoroneachlevel(Figure19).Themainlevelofthebuildinghousedcomputerroomsandaflightadministrationarea.Thesecondfloorwasprimarilycomposedoflargeopenworkareas.Theuseofthethirdfloorwasdividedwithopenworkareasintheeastsideofthebuildingandexecutiveofficespaceandconferencerooms(Figures26and27)inthewestsideofthebuildingwasconstructedonaconcreteslabwithwallscomposedofacombinationofcurtainwallsandconcretemasonryunitswithabrickveneer.Eachfloorlevelwasconstructedofconcreteslabssupportedbysteelbeamsandbarjoists.Theroofwasconstructedofametalroofdecksupportedbysteelbarjoists.

In1987,FedExhiredarchitectPaulD.GillespieofMemphis,Tennesseetoaddontothebuilding,substantiallyalteringthefloorplanofeachlevelandtheappearanceofthenorthfaçadeofthestructure(Figures20and21).Thethree-storyadditionrequiredthedemolitionoftheoriginalfaçadeandtheadditionoftworowsofofficesalongalongitudinalcorridorthatextendedtheentirelengthofthenorthfaçade(Figures22and23).Theresultingnorthfaçadeissimilartotheoriginalsouthfaçade,withtheexceptionoftheuseofnarrowerbandsofcurtainwallalongeachlevel,reducingtheamountofglassonthisfaçadeandincreasingthemasonrymass.Thisadditionwasalsoconstructedonaconcreteslabwithwallscomposedofacombinationofcurtainwallsandconcretemasonryunitswithabrickveneer.Eachfloorlevelwasconstructedofconcreteslabssupportedbysteelbeamsandbarjoists.Theroofwasconstructedofametalroofdecksupportedbysteelbarjoists.

Thisalterationwasfollowedbythedesignandconstructionofasingle-storysecurityscreeningareain1988abuttingtheeastfacadeofthepreviousadditionandthenorthfaçadeofHangarNo.6(Figures21,24,and25).Thenorthandeastfaçadesofthisadditionwerecomposedofcurtainwallsandconcretemasonryunitswithbrickveneer.Theotherconstructiondetailsforthisadditionconformedtothedetailingofthepreviousaddition.

AlthoughtheAdministrationBuildingdoesnotmeettherequirementsofthefifty-yearthresholdforeligibilityfortheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces,itistheopinionoftheconsultantsthattheAdministrationBuildingretainsahighlevelofintegrityinassociationwiththeearlyyearsofFedExoperationsinMemphisandthedevelopmentofaircargotransportation.Therefore,itistheopinionoftheconsultantsthatthesestructuresarepotentiallyeligibleforlistingintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesbasedonCriterionAunderCriteriaConsiderationG.ThisrecommendationisbasedontheassociationofthisbuildingwiththeexponentialgrowthofFedExanditsinfluenceonlocalandnationaleconomies,aswellasinternationalbusiness.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page39

ThesecondbuildingconstructedbyFedExinthecurrentprojectareawastheGSEMaintenanceBuilding(3099),whichwasconstructedbetween1980and1981asamaintenancefacilityforgroundsupportequipmentandoperations.Itisametalframestructurecladwithmetalwallandroofpanels.Sincethisbuildingdoesnotexceedthefifty-yearthresholdforeligibilityfortheNRHPandisnotknowntobesignificantbasedonitsarchitectureorassociationwithsignificanteventsorpersons,thisbuildingdoesnotappeartobepotentiallyeligiblefortheNRHP.

ThefinalstructurebuiltbyFedExinthecurrentprojectareawastheGSEHydrogenTestFacility(2884)incoordinationwiththeU.S.DepartmentofEnergyFuelCellTechnologiesOffice(FCTO),PlugPower,Inc.andCharlatteAmerica.Thepropertyisdesignedandconstructedtosupporttheworld’sfirstzeroemissions,hydrogenfuelcell-poweredgroundsupportequipment(GSE).Inthispartnership,theU.S.DepartmentofEnergyawardedFedExa$2.5millionmatchingfundsgranttoexploretheuseofcleanenergyinthetransportationsector.25CharlatteAmericaconstructedthefifteenhydrogenfuelcell-poweredGSEs,andPlugPowerconstructedthesupportinghydrogenfuelcellsthatwereintegratedintotheCharlatteAmericaGSEsandtheGSEHydrogenTestFacility.ThisfacilityisoneofthefirstofthistypeinthenationandisthefirstforuseinairportGSE.TheinitiativecommencedonApril9,2015andwasexpectedtolasttwoyears.26

TheGSEHydrogenTestFacilitycontainshydrogenstorage,transmission,andpumpingequipment.ItisboundedonthewestbySouthwideDriveandonthenorth,east,andwestsidesbytheconcreteslabthatunderliesthefacility.Theequipmentinstalledinthislocationconsistsofaverticalstoragetank,twohydrogenfuelpumps,andassociatedequipmentandpiping.Thetwohydrogenfuelpumpsarelocatedsouthofthehydrogenstoragetank.Theconcreteslabissurroundedbyarowofprotectivebollardsonallsides.Therearehorizontalpanelsthatconnectthebollardsonthewestandthewesternportionofthenorthandsouthsidesofthefacility.ThepumpsarelocatedinlinewiththebollardsandhorizontalpanelssothattheyareaccessibletovehiculartrafficonSouthwideDrive.

TheGSEHydrogenTestFacility(2884)wasinitiallyconsideredpotentiallyeligiblefortheNRHPunderCriteriaConsiderationG,whichaddressespropertiesthathaveachievedsignificancewithinthepastfiftyyears.Althoughthispropertywasconstructedin2014,itwasdesignedtofueltheworld’sfirsthydrogencell-poweredgroundsupportvehicles.Ithasnotbeenalteredfromitsoriginalconfigurationandretainsanexceptionallyhighlevelofintegrity.Forthisreason,additionalresearchwasconductedonthispropertytoprovidetheinformationnecessarytodetermineitseligibilitybasedonitsearlyimplementationofalternativefuel

25U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.“World’sFirstFuelCellCargoTrucksDeployedatU.S.Airport.”AccessedJune2,2016.http://energy.gov/eere/articles/worlds-first-fuel-cell-cargo-trucks-deployed-us-airport.

26FedEx“FedExWorkswithUSDOE,PlugPowerInc.&CharlatteAmericatoRolloutWorld’sFirstZeroEmissions,HydrogenFuelCellGroundSupportEquipment.”AccessedJune2,2016.http://about.van.fedex.com/newsroom/global-english/fedex-works-with-us-doe-plugpower-inc-charlatteamerica-to-rollout-worlds-first-zero-emissions-hydrogen-fuel-cell-ground-support-equipment/.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page40

systemsinairtransportationandaircargoservices.DuetopreliminaryconsultationwithFAAandtheTN-SHPO,theconsultantshavenotrecommendedthispropertyaspotentiallyeligibleunderCriteriaConsiderationGduetothetemporarynatureofitsuse.

DETERMINATIONOFELIGIBILITY

WORLDWARIIMILITARYAIRCRAFTHANGARSANDBOILERROOM

EvaluationofCriterionA

PropertiescanbeeligiblefortheNationalRegisteriftheyareassociatedwitheventsthathavemadeasignificantcontributiontothebroadpatternsofourhistory.TheWorldWarIImilitaryaircrafthangarsandassociatedBoilerRoomwereconstructedasapartoftheexponentialexpansionandtransitionoftheU.S.ArmyAirCorpsintotheU.S.ArmyAirForcesduringthewar,whichpavedthewayfortheestablishmentoftheU.S.AirForceasanindependentbranchofthearmedforcesfollowingWorldWarII.WithinthecontextofthedevelopmentofAmericanairpower,theMemphisArmyAirFieldwaslikelyontheforefrontofthisgrowthinthe54-GroupPlanestablishedinlate1940,whentheAACusedexistingcivilairfieldstoexpeditetheconstructionoftacticalfields.ThiswouldplacetheMemphisArmyAirFieldamongagroupofapproximately400tacticalfieldsnationwidethatwereintendedtobeoperationalasquicklyaspossibleinordertoprotectthehomefront.Giventhesignificanceofaircrafthangarstotheoperationsofamilitaryairfield,HangarNo.6,HangarNo.7,andtheassociatedBoilerRoomarecloselyassociatedwiththehistoriccontextandrepresentativeofthesignificantroleofthesestructuresonthehomefrontduringWorldWarII.DuetotheassociationofthesestructureswithWorldWarIIaviation,itistheopinionoftheconsultantsthattheHangarNo.6,HangarNo.7,andtheBoilerRoomarepotentiallyeligiblefortheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesasadistrictbasedonCriterionA.

AssessmentofIntegrityunderCriterionC

ElementofIntegrity

LevelofIntegrity

Assessment

Location High HangarNo.6,HangarNo.7,andtheBoilerRoomremainintheiroriginallyconstructedlocations.Theselocationsremainassociatedwithaviationoperations.

Design High Thecharacterdefiningfeaturesofthehangarsremainintact.Theseincludetheasymmetricalplan,woodbowtrussroofstructure,single-lacedwoodtrusscolumnsalongthenorthandsouthwallsofthehangarbays,and120double-hungwindowsthatdominateeachofthesouthfacades.Thealterationstotheexteriorsincludetheinstallationofmetalwallpanelsoverthe

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page41

originalwoodsidingandwindows,whicharepotentiallyreversibleinnature.TheBoilerRoom,whichservedthetwoexistinghangarsandathirdhangarthatwasdemolishedbetween1994and1997,retainsitsoriginaldesign,jalousiewindows,andhistoricmechanicalsystems.Noadditionshavebeenmadetothestructure.

Setting Medium HangarNo.6,HangarNo.7,andtheBoilerRoomremainonthesameparcelastheMemphisAirField.Thesurroundingareahasbeendevelopedandmodernizedtoaccountformodernmilitaryandcommercialaircargooperations.Thedevelopmentonthisparcelremainsinuseasanaviationsupportfacility.

Materials High TheoriginalmaterialsusedtoconstructthecharacterdefiningfeaturesofHangarNo.6andHangarNo.7arerelativelyintact,includingtheoriginalwoodroofandwallframing,woodsiding,woodwindows,metalcladhangardoorsandhardware,andsomemechanicalsystems.Thesematerialscontributesubstantiallytotheintegrityandsignificanceofthesestructures,asonly2%ofthehistoricmilitaryaircrafthangarsinthepossessionoftheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)in1998wereconstructedofwood.Whenconsideringthehangarsconstructedwithawoodbowstringtruss,therewereonlyseventeeninexistencein1998inthenation.Thesenumbershavesincedeclined,resultinginonlyelevenknownextantstructuresremainingintheU.S.asof2016.TherelativerarityofwoodframeconstructioninextantWorldWarIIeramilitaryaircrafthangarscontributesubstantiallytothesignificanceofthesebuildings.TheBoilerRoom,withitsconcretemasonryunit(CMU)walls,metaltrussesandpurlins,metalroofpanels,andjalousiewindows,hasnotbeenaltered.Nearlyalloriginalmaterialsremainintactwiththeexceptionofthoseaffectedbyregularmaintenance.

Workmanship Medium Theunique,asymmetricaldesignofHangarNo.6andHangarNo.7demonstratesahighlevelofworkmanshipbytheunknownarchitectorengineer.TheiranonymitydoesnotdiminishthesignificanceoftheuniquemodificationsmadetostandarddesignsoftheeratoconstructthehangarsattheMemphisAirField.Thedesignerrelocatedthemulti-storyofficeandstorageblocks,typicallyusedtosupportand

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page42

buttressbothendsofthebowtrussinstandarddesigns,doublingthewidthoftheofficeandstorageblockonthenorthsideofthehangarsandallowingtheinstallationof120double-hungwindowsonthesouthfaçadethatincreasedambientlightinginthehangarbays.Thisalsoalteredtheslidinghangardoors,whichthenopenednorthintoarecessattheendoftheofficeandstorageblock.TheBoilerRoomdemonstratesahighlevelofworkmanshipinthedesignandconstructionoforiginalmechanicalsystemsthatremaininplace.

Feeling Medium TheappearanceoftheexteriorsofHangarNo.6andHangarNo.7areiconicandeasilyidentifiableasaircrafthangars,whichcontributetothefeelingandidentityoftheareaasanaviationsupportfacility.Theexposedoriginalmaterialsontheinteriorsalsocontributetotheperceptionoftheiroriginaluseasaircrafthangars.Thisfeelingisfurtherenhancedbythecontinueduseofthehangarbaysinsupportofaviationoperations.ThepartialsubdivisionofthehangarbayinHangarNo.6withaconcretemasonryunitofficeblockdiminishes,butdoesnotobscure,theoriginalproportionsofthischaracterdefininginteriorspace.ThefeelinginvokedbytheBoilerRoomisconsistentwithitsutilitariannatureandissupportedbytheintactmechanicalsystemsinstalledinthebuildingandthetunnelsaccessingtheadjacenthangars.Thebuildingsretainahighleveloforiginaldesignfeatures,whichcontributetothefeelingofamilitaryairfield.

Association High HangarNo.6,HangarNo.7,andtheBoilerRoomarecloselyassociatedwiththehistoriccontextofWorldWarIIerasitesinTennesseeandthenation’swartimeaviationhistoryandremainclearrepresentationsofthesignificantroleofthesestructuresonthehomefrontduringWorldWarII.

StatementofSignificance

ItistheopinionoftheconsultantsthatHangarNo.6,HangarNo.7,andtheBoilerRoomretainasignificantlevelofintegrity.Therefore,itistheopinionoftheconsultantsthatthesestructuresarepotentiallyeligibleforlistingintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesunderCriterionA.ThisopinionisbasedontheirassociationwiththeexponentialexpansionandtransitionoftheU.S.ArmyAirCorpsintotheU.S.ArmyAirForcesduringWorldWarII,whichpavedthewayfortheestablishmentoftheU.S.AirForceasanindependentbranchofthearmedforcesfollowingthewar,aswellastherepresentationofthedomesticwareffort.In

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page43

addition,itistheopinionoftheconsultantsthatthesestructuresarepotentiallyeligibleforlistingunderCriterionCduetotheirunique,asymmetricaldesignandtherarityofextantwoodbowtrusshangarsinthenation.

TheproposedNationalRegisterBoundaryfortheWorldWarIIerapropertiesincludesthefootprintofHangarNo.6,HangarNo.7,andtheBoilerRoom,aswellastheportionofSprankelAvenueseparatingtheBoilerRoomfromthehangars,becauseitoverliestheutilitycorridorusedtoconnectthesestructures.Theareadefinedbythisboundarycontainsapproximately3.85acres.TheproposedboundarydoesnotincludetheFedExAdministrationBuilding,whichisassessedforeligibilityinthefollowingsection(Figure28).

FEDEXADMINISTRATIONBUILDINGANDADAPTIVEREUSEOFWORLDWARIIERABUILDINGS

EvaluationofCriterionA,underCriteriaConsiderationG

PropertiescanbeeligiblefortheNationalRegisteriftheyareassociatedwitheventsthathavemadeasignificantcontributiontothebroadpatternsofourhistory.TheFedExAdministrationBuildingwasconstructedasthefirstpurposebuiltcorporateheadquartersforthecompanyandwasinitiatedatthetimethatthecompanyrelocatedfromLittleRock,ArkansastoMemphis,Tennesseein1973.TheconstructionofthebuildingconnectedHangarNo.6andHangarNo.7,creatingamixed-useoperationsfacilitythatincorporatedadministrativefunctions,flightcrewquarters,flightmanagementoperations,andaircraftandgroundsupportequipmentmaintenance.ThisfacilityutilizednewconstructionandadaptivereuseofexistingWorldWarIIerastructurestosupportoperationsfortheyoungstartupcompany,formingthecoreofFedEx’searlybusinessoperationsinMemphis.GiventheexponentialgrowthofFedExanditsimpactonlocalandnationaleconomies,aswellasinternationalbusiness,thecompanyhasforeverinfluencedaircargooperations,parcelshipments,andthewayinwhiche-commerceservicesareprovidedglobally.TheexceptionalimportanceofthefacilityisdemonstratedbythefactthattherearenootherknownpropertiesrepresentativeofearlyFedExoperationsinthecommunity,state,ornation.DuetotheassociationofthesestructureswiththeearlyhistoryofFedEx,itistheopinionoftheconsultantsthattheAdministrationBuilding,HangarNo.6,HangarNo.7,andtheBoilerRoomarepotentiallyeligiblefortheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesasadistrictbasedonCriterionAunderCriteriaConsiderationG.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page44

AssessmentofIntegrityunderCriterionA

ElementofIntegrity

LevelofIntegrity

Assessment

Location High TheAdministrationBuilding,HangarNo.6,HangarNo.7,andtheBoilerRoomremainintheiroriginallyconstructedlocations.TheselocationsareconsistentwiththoseinplaceduringtheearlyyearsofFedExoperationsinMemphis.

Design Medium ThecharacterdefiningfeaturesoftheoriginalAdministrationBuildingasconstructedin1973havebeenaltered.Theoriginalnorthfaçadewasdemolishedandreplacedwiththeconstructionofathree-storyadditionin1987,whichwasdetailedinsimilarmannertotheoriginaldesignofthesouthfaçade.In1988,asecondalterationoccurredwiththeadditionofasingle-storysecurityscreeningareaattheeastendofthepreviousadditiontothenorthfaçade.DuetotheadaptivereuseoftheWorldWarIIerabuildings,therewereseveralinterioralterationstoHangarNo.6andHangarNo.7.Thesearelimitedtothealterationofpartitionwallsintheofficeandstorageblocksandtheconstructionofatwo-storyconcretemasonryunit(CMU)officeblockinthehangarbayofHangarNo.6.Exterioralterationswerelimitedtotheinstallationofmetalwallpanelstotheexteriorofeachofthehangars.ThedesignofthesebuildingsisconsistentwiththeappearanceofthestructuresduringtheearlyyearsofFedExoperationsinMemphis.

Setting Medium TheAdministrationBuilding,HangarNo.6,HangarNo.7,andtheBoilerRoomremainonthesameparcelastheMemphisInternationalAirportwhenFedExrelocatedtoMemphisin1973.Althoughthesurroundingareahasbeenfurtherdevelopedandmodernizedtoaccountformodernmilitaryandcommercialaircargooperations,thedevelopmentisconsistentwiththeuseofthisareaasanaviationsupportfacilityduringtheearlyyearsofFedExoperationsinMemphis.

Materials High Allexteriormaterialsrelatedtotheconditionofthebuildingscirca1988remainintact,includingthebrickveneerandcurtain

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page45

wallsandmetalwallpanels.Theplanoftheinteriorshasbeenalteredoverthelastthreedecades,buttheexteriorisconsistentwiththeappearanceofthestructuresduringtheearlyyearsofFedExoperationsinMemphis.

Workmanship Medium TheworkmanshipoftheAdministrationBuildingandthealterationstoHangarNo.6andHangarNo.7isconsistentwiththetechnology,aesthetics,andconstructionpracticesprevalentduringtheperiodassociatedwiththeearlyyearsofFedExoperationsinMemphis.

Feeling Medium ThecontinuityintheuseanddesignoftheAdministrationBuilding,HangarNo.6,HangarNo.7,andtheBoilerRoomexpressesafeelingofearlyFedExoperationsinMemphis.TheretentionofthehistoricdesignandsettingalsocontributestothefeelingofearlyFedExoperationsatthisfacility.

Association High TheFedExAdministrationBuildingandalterationstoHangarNo.6andHangarNo.7wereconstructedasthefirstcorporateheadquartersandoperationsfacilityforthecompany.TheimportanceofFedExanditsimpactonlocalandnationaleconomies,aswellasthechangesthatthecompanyhasmadetoglobalaircargooperations,parcelshipments,ande-commerceservices.TheexceptionalimportanceofthispropertyisduetoitsassociationwiththehistorictrendinthedevelopmentofaircargotransportationandthefactthattherearenootherknownpropertiesrepresentativeofearlyFedExbusinessoperationsinthecommunity,state,ornation.

StatementofSignificance

ItistheopinionoftheconsultantsthatthecorporateheadquartersandoperationsfacilitycreatedbytheconstructionoftheAdministrationBuildingconnectingHangarNo.6andHangarNo.7,andtheassociatedBoilerRoomretainasignificantlevelofintegrityinrelationtotheearlyyearsofFedExoperationsinMemphisandthedevelopmentofaircargotransportation.Therefore,itistheopinionoftheconsultantsthatthesestructuresarepotentiallyeligibleforlistingintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesasadistrictbasedonCriterionAunderCriteriaConsiderationG.ThisrecommendationisbasedontheassociationofthesebuildingswiththeexponentialgrowthofFedExanditsimpactonlocalandnationaleconomies,aswellasinternationalbusiness.Theexceptionalimportanceofthepropertyisdemonstratedbythefact

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page46

thattherearenootherknownpropertiesrepresentativeofearlyFedExoperationsinthecommunity,state,ornation.

TheproposedNationalRegisterDistrictBoundaryfortheFedExerapropertiescontainsapproximately4.3acres.ThedistrictasdefinedbythisboundaryincludesthefootprintoftheAdministrationBuilding,HangarNo.6,HangarNo.7,andtheBoilerRoom,aswellastheportionofSprankelAveseparatingtheBoilerRoomfromthehangarsandAdministrationBuilding,becauseitoverliestheutilitycorridorusedtoconnectthesestructures(Figure29).

DOCUMENTATIONOFEFFECTS

Theconsultantsappliedthecriteriaofeffectasfoundin36CFRPart800.5fortheproposedprojecttothepotentiallyeligiblepropertieswithintheprojectarea.Therearetwodifferentpotentialeligibilitydeterminationsaddressedinthissurvey.OneincludesonlytheWorldWarIIerabuildingsbasedonCriteriaAandC.TheotherincludesthebuildingsassociatedwithearlyFedExoperationsintheprojectareabasedonCriterionAunderCriteriaConsiderationG.Sincethefootprintsofeachofthesepotentialdistrictsasdefinedintheprevioussectionarenearlyidentical,thisdocumentationofeffectswilladdressbothdistrictsinthesamediscussion.TheproposedprojectascurrentlydefinedwouldrequirethedemolitionofthepotentiallyeligiblepropertiesintheproposedMemphisAirFieldhistoricdistrictandtheproposedFedExhistoricdistricttoenabletheconstructionofanewSecondarySort25facility.BecausetheproposedFedExTransformationsprojectwouldaltercharacteristicsofthehistoricpropertiesthatqualifyorrenderthempotentiallyeligiblefortheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces.Itistheopinionoftheconsultantsthattheproposedprojectwouldhaveanadverseeffectonthepotentiallyeligiblepropertiesaddressedinthishistoricresourcessurvey.

Section106

36CFRPart800.5AssessmentofAdverseEffects

(a)ApplyCriteriaofAdverseEffect

InconsultationwiththeSHPO/THPOandanyIndiantribeorNativeHawaiianorganizationthatattachesreligiousandculturalsignificancetoidentifiedhistoricproperties,theAgencyofficialshallapplythecriteriaofadverseeffecttohistoricpropertieswithintheareaofpotentialeffects.TheAgencyOfficialshallconsideranyviewsconcerningsucheffects,whichhavebeenprovidedbyconsultingpartiesandthepublic.

(1)CriteriaofAdverseEffect

Anadverseeffectisfoundwhenanundertakingmayalter,directlyorindirectly,anyofthecharacteristicsofahistoricpropertythatqualifythepropertyforinclusionintheNationalRegisterinamannerthatwoulddiminishtheintegrityoftheproperty’slocation,design,setting,materials,workmanship,feeling,or

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page47

association.Considerationshallbegiventoallqualifyingcharacteristicsofahistoricproperty,includingthosethatmayhavebeenidentifiedsubsequenttotheoriginalevaluationoftheproperty’seligibilityfortheNationalRegister.Adverseeffectsmayincludereasonablyforeseeableeffectscausedbytheundertakingthatmayoccurlaterintime,befartherremovedindistanceorbecumulative.

(2)ExamplesofAdverseEffects

AnundertakingisconsideredtohaveanAdverseEffectwhentheeffectonahistoricpropertymaydiminishtheintegrityoftheproperty’slocation,design,setting,materials,workmanship,feeling,orassociation.Adverseeffectsonhistoricpropertiesinclude,butarenotlimitedto:

(i)Physicaldestructionofordamagetoallorpartoftheproperty;

ThehistoricresourcescontainedinthepotentialMemphisAirFieldhistoricdistrictarepotentiallyeligibleforlistingintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesbasedonCriterionAduetotheirassociationwiththehistoriccontextofWorldWarIIerasitesinTennesseeandthenation’swartimeaviationhistoryandremainclearrepresentationsofthesignificantroleofthesestructuresonthehomefrontduringWorldWarII.TheseresourcesarealsopotentiallyeligibleunderCriterionCduetotheirunique,asymmetricaldesignandtherarityofextantwoodbowtrusshangarsintheUnitedStates.ThehistoricresourcescontainedinthepotentialFedExhistoricdistrictarepotentiallyeligibleforlistingintheNationalRegisterbasedonCriterionAunderCriteriaConsiderationG.ThisrecommendationisbasedontheassociationofthesepropertieswiththeexponentialgrowthofFedExanditsimpactonlocalandnationaleconomies,aswellasinternationalbusiness.TheexceptionalimportanceofthesepropertiesisdemonstratedbythefactthattherearenootherknownpropertiesrepresentativeofearlyFedExoperationsinthecommunity,state,ornation.Sincetheproposedprojectwouldresultinthedemolitionofallhistoricpropertiesineachofthepotentialdistricts,itistheopinionoftheconsultantsthattheproposedprojectwouldconstituteanadverseeffecttothehistoricproperties.

(ii)Alterationofaproperty,includingrestoration,rehabilitation,repair,maintenance,stabilization,hazardousmaterialremediationandprovisionofhandicappedaccess,thatisnotconsistentwiththeSecretary’sStandardsfortheTreatmentofHistoricProperties(36CFRPart68)andapplicableguidelines;

Theproposedprojectwouldrequirethedemolitionofthehistoricpropertiesineachoftheproposedhistoricdistricts.Becausethe

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page48

proposedprojectwouldalterthehistoricpropertiesinawaythatisinconsistentwiththeSecretaryoftheInterior’sStandardsfortheTreatmentofHistoricProperties,theproposedundertakingwouldconstituteanadverseeffect.

(iii)Removalofthepropertyfromitshistoriclocation

Theproposedprojectwouldresultintheremovalofthepropertyfromitshistoriclocationthroughdemolitionandthereforetheproposedundertakingwouldconstituteanadverseeffect.

(iv)Changeofthecharacteroftheproperty’suseorphysicalfeatureswithintheproperty’ssettingthatcontributetoitshistoricsignificance;

TheproposedprojectwouldresultinsignificantalterationtothephysicalfeaturesandsettingofpropertieswithintheAPEthroughdemolition,andthereforeitistheopinionoftheconsultantsthattheproposedundertakingwouldconstituteanadverseeffect.

(v)Introductionofvisual,atmospheric,oraudibleelementsthatdiminishtheintegrityoftheproperty’ssignificanthistoricfeatures;

Theproposedundertakingwouldresultintheintroductionofvisual,atmospheric,oraudibleelementsthatwoulddiminishtheintegrityoftheproperty’ssignificantfeaturesthroughtheprocessofdemolition.Therefore,itistheopinionoftheconsultantsthattheproposedundertakingwouldconstituteanadverseeffecttovisual,atmospheric,oraudibleelementswithintheAPE.

(vi)Neglectofapropertywhichcausesitsdeterioration,exceptwheresuchneglectordeteriorationarerecognizedqualitiesorapropertyofreligiousandculturalsignificancetoanIndiantribeorNativeHawaiianorganization;and

TheproposedundertakingwouldnotcauseneglectanddeteriorationofthepropertieswithintheAPEduetotheprocessofdemolition.Therefore,itistheopinionoftheconsultantsthattheproposedundertakingwouldnotconstituteanadverseeffectrelatedspecificallytotheneglectordeteriorationofhistoricpropertieswithintheAPE.

(vii)Transfer,lease,orsaleofpropertyoutofFederalownershiporcontrolwithoutadequateandlegallyenforceablerestrictionsorconditionstoensurelong-termpreservationoftheproperty'shistoricsignificance.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page49

Theproposedundertakingwouldnotresultinthetransfer,lease,orsaleofthepropertyorremoveitfromFederalcontrol.Therefore,itistheopinionoftheconsultantsthattheproposedundertakingwouldnothaveanadverseeffectrelatedtoownershiporcontrolofthepotentiallyeligiblepropertieswithintheAPE.

SECTION4(F)DETERMINATION

FedExinitiatedaprojecttoupdateandmodernizeitsfacilitiesattheMemphisInternationalAirport(MEM)inMemphis,Tennessee.Thepurposeandneedoftheprojectistoreplaceanobsoletepackagesortingfacilitywithfacilitiesspecificallydesignedtoaccommodatemodernizedequipmentcompatiblewiththeircurrentaircraftfleet.Afterdemolitionof23ofthebuildingsandremovaloftheassociatedslabs,FedExwouldconstructseveralnewfacilitiesandimproveexistingfacilitiesinordertomodernizeequipmentandimproveefficiency.OncetheSecondary25andBulkTruckLoadfacilitiesandsortsystemsarefullyoperational,FedExwoulddeconstruct/demolishthefinalbuildingdowntoslablevel.ThisdemolitionoffourSection4(f)propertiesfromwithintheproposedNationalRegisterHistoricDistrictboundedpropertyconstitutesaSection4(f)“use”ofanhistoricproperty.ThistypeofuseinvolvesthepermanentincorporationoftheSection4(f)resourcesaspartofatransportationproject.Asaresult,theproposedprojectwillrequireaSection4(f)evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

FedEx,withapprovalbytheFederalAviationAdministration(FAA),isproposingtodeconstructordemolish24structuresandconstructseveralnewfacilitiesattheMemphisInternationalAirportinMemphis,ShelbyCounty.TheprojectareaislocatedonthesouthsideofDemocratRoadalongthenorthernboundaryofthesecureairportfacility.

Pursuantto36CFRPart800.4and23CFRPart774,culturalresourceconsultantscompletedanhistoricalsurveyoftheareaofpotentialeffect(APE)fortheproposedFedExTransformationsprojectin2016.Thefindingsofthissurveywerepresentedinthisreport.TheconsultantsidentifiedthreeWorldWarIIerastructures,whichwereconstructedcirca1943.Althoughthetwomilitaryaircrafthangarshavebeenalteredovertime,particularlyontheinterior,itistheopinionoftheconsultantsthattheyarepotentiallyeligibleforlistingontheNationalRegisterofHistoricplacesduetotheuniquedesignofthesestructures.TheotherWorldWarIIerastructureisafreestandingBoilerRoomthatservedthetwoexistinghangarsandathirdhangarthatwasdemolishedbetween1994and1997.TheconsultantsalsoidentifiedanofficebuildingconstructedbyFedExin1973asthecompany’sfirstpurposebuiltheadquarters.ItispotentiallyeligiblebasedonCriterionAunderCriteriaConsiderationG,duetoitsassociationwiththeearlyhistoryofFedEx.The2016surveydidnotidentifyanyadditionalresourcesthatwerelistedorpotentiallyeligibleforlistingwithintheAPE.

Pursuantto26CFRPart800.5,theconsultantsappliedthecriteriaofeffecttotheproposedundertaking.Itistheopinionoftheconsultantsthattheproject,ascurrentlydesigned,wouldhaveanadverseeffectontheWorldWarIIerastructuresandtheFedExAdministration

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page50

Building.Asaresult,theconsultantspreparedaSection4(f)evaluationpertherequirementsoftheDepartmentofTransportationActof1966,asamended.ThespecificationsoftheproposedprojectwouldconstituteausewithinthemeaningofSection4(f)duetothedemolitionofthe4(f)propertiesandthepermanentincorporationofthesiteofthesepropertiesintotheproposedSecondary25FedExsortfacility.Pursuantto23CFRPart774.13(d)(5)ofSection4(f)oftheU.S.DepartmentofTransportationAct,whenSection4(f)resourcesareidentifiedthatwillrequirepermanentincorporation,theOfficialwithJurisdiction(OWJ)fortheresourcemustbenotifiedandconcurinwritingtotheSection4(f)use.WhenNationalRegisterlistedoreligiblepropertiesareidentifiedasSection4(f)resources,theOWJistheStateHistoricPreservationOfficer.Inordertodocumentcompliancewith23CFRPart774.13(d)(5),awrittenagreementisrequiredfortheprojectfileshowingthattheOWJconcurswiththepermanentincorporationoftheSection4(f)resource.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page51

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aaron,Jayne.HistoricalandArchitecturalOverviewofAircraftHangarsoftheReservesandNationalGuardInstallationsfromWorldWarIthroughtheColdWar.AirForceAirCombatCommand,2011.

AirNationalGuard,“UnitHistoryofthe164thAirliftWing.”http://www.164aw.ang.af.mil/Units/.

AirfieldsDatabase.“WW2MilitaryAirfieldsincludingAuxiliariesandSupportfieldsNewJersey-Tennessee.” AccessedJune20,2016.http://www.airfieldsdatabase.com/ww2/WW2%20R27a%20NJ-TN.htm.

ArmyCorpsofEngineers.DrawingNo.N-17-310.3showingA.T.C.Hangar,BirchwoodType,Elevation,SectionandDetails.

Brown,JeroldE.WhereEaglesLand:PlanningandDevelopmentofU.S.ArmyAirfields,1910-1941.NewYork:GreenwoodPress,1990.

FedEx.DrawingNo.1,datedAugust2,1973,showingNorthElevationsofHangarNo.6(2879)andHangarNo.7(2837).

FedEx.DrawingNo.2,datedMay29,1973,showingNorthElevationofHangarNo.8,EastElevationsofHangarNo.6(2879)andHangarNo.8,andWestElevationsofHangarNo.7(2873)andHangarNo.8.

FedEx.DrawingNo.T250,datedAugust13,1973,showingReflectedCeilingPlanandBuildingSectionofHangarNo.6(2879).

FedEx“FedExWorkswithUSDOE,PlugPowerInc.&CharlatteAmericatoRolloutWorld’sFirstZeroEmissions,HydrogenFuelCellGroundSupportEquipment.”AccessedJune2,2016.http://about.van.fedex.com/newsroom/global-english/fedex-works-with-us-doe-plugpower-inc-charlatteamerica-to-rollout-worlds-first-zero-emissions-hydrogen-fuel-cell-ground-support-equipment/.

FedEx.“TimeFlies:TheFedExTimeline.”AccessedJune20,2016.http://about.van.fedex.com/our-story/history-timeline/timeline/.

FlyMemphis.com,“AirportHistory.”http://www.flymemphis.com/Airport-History.

Futrell,Frank.“TheDevelopmentofBaseFacilities.”InTheArmyAirForcesinWorldWarII,vol.VI,editedbyWesleyFrankCravenandJamesLeaCate,119-170.Chicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress,1983.

HistoricMemphis,“HistoricMemphisAirport…inVintagePhotosandPostcards”.http://historic-memphis.com/memphis-historic/airport/airport.html.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page52

Huey,BenMeyer.“ProblemsfortimberproductsprocurementduringWorldWarII,1941to1945,”Thesis,UniversityofMontana,1951.

Mueller,Robert.AirForceBases:ActiveAirForceBaseswithintheU.S.A.on17September1982.Washington, DC:OfficeofAirForceHistory,1989.

Shetty,KamalaI.andR.JohnHansman.CurrentandHistoricalTrendsinGeneralAviationintheUnitedStates.Cambridge,Massachusetts:MITInternationalCenterforAirTransportation,2012.

Shorack,Ted.“Madrasairportseekslistingforhangar:ThebuildingwasusedforB-17planesin1943.”BendBulletin,December17,2014.AccessedJune20,2016.http://www.bendbulletin.com/slideShows?layout=2&storyId=2694949&currSlide=1.

U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.“World’sFirstFuelCellCargoTrucksDeployedatU.S.Airport.”AccessedJune2,2016.http://energy.gov/eere/articles/worlds-first-fuel-cell-cargo-trucks-deployed-us-airport.

Webster,JulieL.andGordonL.Cohen.“MilitaryAircraftHangars:FootprintsthroughaCenturyofFlight.”CRMVol.24,No.3(2001):29-31.

Webster,JulieL.HistoricalandArchitecturalOverviewofMilitaryAircraftHangars:AGeneralHistory,ThematicTypology,andInventoryofAircraftHangarsConstructedonDepartmentofDefenseInstallations.Champaign,Illinois:UnitedStatesArmyConstructionEngineeringResearchLaboratory,1999.

Yenne,Bill.TheHistoryoftheU.S.AirForce.NewYork:ExeterBooks,1984.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page53

FIGURES

Figure1:SiteVicinityMap.

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GISUser Community

±0 4 82Miles

0 4 82Kilometers

LegendProject Location

)HG([�MEM+ Relocations�Memphis, Shelby�Co., TN

Tennessee

Project Location

)LJXUH����Site Vicinity Map

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page54

Figure2:SiteLocationsMap.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page55

Figure3:TN-SHPOsurveymapandaerialviewdepictingthelocationsofthreepropertiesidentifiedbyTDOThistorians.Thetwocirca1950single-familyresidencesareindicatedingreenandthe1958commercialbuildingeastiftheairportisindicatedinyellow.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page56

Figure4:NationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesMap.

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, ©OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, Source: Esri,DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

±0 1 20.5Miles

0 1 20.5Kilometers

LegendProject Location

Graceland

)HG([�MEM+ Relocations�)LJXUH����1ational Register of Historic Places

Graceland

Reference Number: 91001585Resource Type: DistrictAddress: 3764 Elvis Presley Blvd.Memphis, Shelby Co., TennesseeCertification Date: 19911107Contributing Buildings: 11Contributing Objects: 0Contributing Sites: 2Contributing Structures: 5

Distance to Project: 3.5 miles

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page57

Figure5:FedExRampPlandepictingthelocationandboundaryoftheAPE.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page58

Figure6:ExteriorofHangarNo.7(2837)showingwestandsouthfacades.

Figure7:InteriorofHangarNo.7(2837)showingthesouthwallandthesouthernportionoftheeastwall.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page59

Figure8:ExteriorofBoilerRoom(2838)showingsouthandwestfacades.

Figure9:InteriorofBoilerRoom(2838)showingentrancetoundergroundutilitycorridorleadingtoHangarNo.7(2837).

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page60

Figure10:AerialimageofMemphisArmyAirFieldtowardtheeast.PhotographtakenonOctober22,1943.27

Figure11:InteriorofOBH-2HangarinMadras,Oregonshowingwallframingsystem.28

27“WW2MilitaryAirfieldsincludingAuxiliariesandSupportfieldsNewJersey-Tennessee,”AirfieldsDatabase,accessedJune20,2016,http://www.airfieldsdatabase.com/ww2/WW2%20R27a%20NJ-TN.htm.28TedShorack,“Madrasairportseekslistingforhangar:ThebuildingwasusedforB-17planesin1943,”

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page61

Figure12:DrawingNo.N-17-310.3showingA.T.C.HangarBirchwoodType,Elevation,SectionandDetails.29

Figure13:DrawingNo.T250,datedAugust13,1973,showingReflectedCeilingPlanandBuildingSectionofHangarNo.6(2879).30

BendBulletin,December17,2014,accessedJune20,2016,http://www.bendbulletin.com/ slideShows?layout=2&storyId=2694949&currSlide=1.29ArmyCorpsofEngineers,DrawingNo.N-17-310.3showingA.T.C.Hangar,BirchwoodType,Elevation,SectionandDetails.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page62

Figure14:InteriorofwesthalfofHangarNo.6towardnortheastshowingconcreteblockofficeblockdividingtheoriginalhangarspace.

Figure15:DrawingNo.1,datedAugust2,1973,showingNorthElevationsofHangarNo.6(2879)andHangarNo.7(2837).31

30FedEx,DrawingNo.T250,datedAugust13,1973,showingReflectedCeilingPlanandBuildingSectionofHangarNo.6(2879).31FedEx,DrawingNo.1,datedAugust2,1973,showingNorthElevationsofHangarNo.6(2879)and

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page63

Figure16:DrawingNo.2,datedMay29,1973,showingNorthElevationofHangarNo.8,EastElevationsofHangarNo.6(2879)andHangarNo.8,andWestElevationsofHangarNo.7(2873).

Figure17:NorthFaçadeofAdministrationBuilding(2861)circa1973.

HangarNo.7(2837).

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page64

Figure18:SouthFaçadeofAdministrationBuilding(2861)showingoriginalfaçade,circa1973.

Figure19:PlanofAdministrationBuilding(2861)showingadditionscirca1973.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page65

Figure20:NorthFaçadeofAdministrationBuilding(2861)showingadditionscirca1987andcirca1988.

Figure21:EastFaçadeofAdministrationBuilding(2861)showingadditionscirca1987andcirca1988.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page66

Figure22:MainFloorPlanofAdministrationBuilding(2861)showingadditionscirca1987.

Figure23:SecondFloorPlanofAdministrationBuilding(2861)showingadditionscirca1987.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page67

Figure24:PlanofAdministrationBuildingAdditioncirca1988(2861).

Figure25:LobbyofAdministrationBuilding(2861)showingadditioncirca1988.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page68

Figure26:TypicalConferenceRoomofAdministrationBuilding(2861).

Figure27:TypicalOfficeinAdministrationBuilding(2861).

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page69

Figure28:FedExRampPlandepicting(withredoutline)thelocationandboundaryoftheproposedMemphisArmyAirFieldHistoricDistrict.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page70

Figure29:FedExRampPlandepicting(withredoutline)thelocationandboundaryoftheproposedFedExHistoricDistrict.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page71

ATTACHMENTS

Section106Review,NationalHistoricPreservationActof1966

EligibilityCriteriaoftheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces

NationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces,TDOTSummarySheet

CriteriaofAdverseEffects,Codifiedat36CFRPart800.5

Section4(f),TDOTActOf1966,TDOTSummarySheet

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page72

ATTACHMENT1:SECTION106REVIEW,NATIONALHISTORICPRESERVATIONACTOF1966

Section106oftheNationalHistoricPreservationActrequiresthatFederalagenciesconsiderwhateffectstheiractionsand/oractionstheymayassist,permit,orlicense,mayhaveonhistoricproperties,andthattheygivetheAdvisoryCouncilonHistoricPreservation(Council)a“reasonableopportunitytocomment”onsuchactions.TheCouncilisanindependentFederalagency.ItsroleinthereviewofactionsunderSection106istoencourageagenciestoconsider,andwherefeasible,adoptmeasuresthatwillpreservehistoricpropertiesthatwouldotherwisebedamagedordestroyed.TheCouncil’sregulations,entitled“ProtectionofHistoricProperties”(36CFRPart800)governtheSection106process.TheCouncildoesnothavetheauthoritytorequireagenciestohaltorabandonprojectsthatwillaffecthistoricproperties.

Section106appliestopropertiesthathavebeenlistedintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces(NRHP),propertiesthathavebeendeterminedtobeeligibleforinclusionintheNRHP,andpropertiesthatmaybeeligiblebuthavenotyetbeenevaluated.IfapropertyhasnotyetbeennominatedtotheNRHPordeterminedeligibleforinclusion,itistheresponsibilityoftheFederalagencyinvolvedtoascertainitseligibility.

TheCouncil’sregulationsaresetforthinaprocessconsistingoffourbasicstepswhichareasfollows:

1. InitiateSection106Process:TheFederalagencyresponsiblefortheactionestablishestheundertaking,determineswhethertheundertakinghasthepotentialtoaffecthistoricproperties(i.e.,propertieslistedinoreligibleforlistingintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces),andidentifiestheappropriateStateHistoricPreservationOfficer(SHPO)orTribalHistoricPreservationOfficer(THPO).Atthistime,theagencyplanstoinvolvethepublicandidentifyotherconsultingparties.

2. IdentifyHistoricProperties:Iftheagency’sundertakinghasthepotentialtoaffecthistoricproperties,theagencydeterminesthescopeofappropriateidentificationeffortsandproceedstoidentifyhistoricpropertieswithintheareaofpotentialeffects.Identificationinvolvesassessingtheadequacyofexistingsurveydata,inventories,andotherinformationonthearea’shistoricproperties.ThisprocessmayalsoincludeconductingfurtherstudiesasnecessaryandconsultingwiththeSHPO/THPO,consultingparties,localgovernments,andotherinterestedparties.IfpropertiesarediscoveredthatmaybeeligiblefortheNationalRegister,buthavenotbeenlistedordeterminedeligibleforlisting,theagencyconsultswiththeSHPO/THPOand,ifneeded,theKeeperoftheNationalRegistertodeterminetheeligibilitystatusoftheproperty.

3. AssessAdverseEffects:Theagency,inconsultationwiththeSHPO/THPO,assessesthepotentialeffectstohistoricpropertiesaffectedbytheundertaking.Theagencyatthistimewilldeterminethattheactionwillhave“noadverseeffect”oran“adverseeffect”onhistoricproperties.Consultingpartiesandinterestedmembersofthepublicareinformedofthesefindings.

4. Theregulationsprovidespecificcriteriafordeterminingwhetheranactionwillhaveaneffect,andwhetherthateffectwillbeadverse.Generally,iftheactionmayalterthe

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page73

characteristicsthatmakeapropertyeligiblefortheNationalRegister,itisrecognizedthattheundertakingwillhaveaneffect.Ifthosealterationsmaybedetrimentaltotheproperty’scharacteristics,includingrelevantqualitiesoftheproperty’senvironmentoruse,theeffectsarerecognizedas“adverse.”

5. ResolveAdverseEffects:TheagencyconsultswiththeSHPO/THPOandothers,includingconsultingpartiesandmembersofthepublic.TheCouncilmaychoosetoparticipateinconsultation,particularlyundercircumstanceswheretherearesubstantialimpactstohistoricproperties,whenacasepresentsimportantquestionsaboutinterpretation,orifthereisthepotentialforproceduralproblems.ConsultationusuallyresultsinaMemorandumofAgreement(MOA).

Ifagreementcannotbereached,theagency,SHPO/THPO,orCouncilmayterminateconsultation.IftheSHPO/THPOterminatesconsultation,theagencyandtheCouncilmayconcludetheMOAwithoutSHPO/THPOinvolvement.IftheSHPO/THPOterminatesconsultationandtheundertakingisonoraffectinghistoricpropertiesontriballands,theCouncilmustprovideformalcomments.TheagencymustrequestCouncilcommentsifnoagreementcanbereached.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page74

ATTACHMENT2:ELIGIBILITYCRITERIAOFTHENATIONALREGISTEROFHISTORICPLACES

ThequalityofsignificanceinAmericanhistory,architecture,archaeology,andcultureispresentindistricts,sites,buildings,structures,andobjectsthatpossessintegrityoflocation,design,setting,materials,workmanship,feeling,andassociation,and:

• CRITERIONA.thatareassociatedwitheventsthathavemadeasignificantcontributiontothebroadpatternsofourhistory(history);or

• CRITERIONB.thatareassociatedwiththelivesofpersonssignificantinourpast(person);or

• CRITERIONC.thatembodythedistinctivecharacteristicofatype,period,ormethodofconstructionorthatrepresenttheworkofamaster,orthatpossesshighartisticvalues,orthatcomponentsmaylackindividualdistinction(architecture);or

• CRITERIOND.thathaveyielded,ormaybelikelytoyield,informationimportantinprehistoryorhistory(archaeology).

Ordinarily,cemeteries;birthplacesorgravesofhistoricalfigures;propertiesownedbyreligiousinstitutionsorusedforreligiouspurposes;structuresthathavebeenmovedfromtheiroriginallocations;reconstructedhistoricbuildings;propertiesprimarilycommemorativeinnature;andpropertiesthathaveachievedsignificancewithinthepast50yearsarenotconsideredeligiblefortheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces;however,suchpropertieswillqualifyiftheyareintegralpartsofhistoricdistrictsthatdomeetthecriteriaoriftheyfallwithinthefollowingcategories:

• EXCEPTIONA.areligiouspropertyderivingprimarysignificancefromarchitecturalorartisticdistinctionorhistoricalimportance;or

• EXCEPTIONB.abuildingorstructureremovedfromitsoriginallocationbutwhichissignificantprimarilyforarchitecturalvalue,orwhichisthesurvivingstructuremostimportantlyassociatedwithahistoricpersonorevent;or

• EXCEPTIONC.abirthplaceorgraveofahistoricalfigureofoutstandingimportanceifthereisnootherappropriatesiteorbuildingdirectlyassociatedwithhisproductivelife;or

• EXCEPTIOND.acemeterywhichderivesitsprimarysignificancefromgravesorpersonsoftranscendentimportance,fromage,fromdistinctivedesignfeatures,orfromassociationwithhistoricevents;or

• EXCEPTIONE.areconstructedbuildingwhenaccuratelyexecutedinasuitableenvironmentandpresentedinadignifiedmanneraspartofarestorationmasterplan,andwhennootherbuildingorstructurewiththesameassociationhassurvived;or

• EXCEPTIONF.apropertyprimarilycommemorativeinintentifdesign,age,tradition,orsymbolicvaluehasinvesteditwithitsownhistoricalsignificance;or

• EXCEPTIONG.apropertyachievingsignificancewithinthepast50yearsifitisofexceptionalimportance.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page75

ATTACHMENT3:TDOTNATIONALREGISTEROFHISTORICPLACESSUMMARYSHEET

WhatistheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces?

TheNationalRegister,maintainedbytheKeeperoftheRegisterwithintheNationalParkService,DepartmentoftheInterior,isthenation’sofficiallistofdistricts,buildings,sites,structures,andobjectssignificantinAmericanhistory,architecture,archeology,engineering,andculture.

Whatarethebenefitsandrestrictionsoflisting?

Inadditiontohonorificrecognition,listingintheNationalRegisterresultsinthefollowingbenefitsforhistoricproperties:

• Section106providesforconsiderationofNationalRegisterlistedoreligiblepropertiesinplanningforFederal,federallylicensed,andfederallyassistedprojects;

• Eligibilityforcertaintaxprovisionsforthecertifiedrehabilitationofincome-producingNationalRegisterstructuressuchascommercial,industrial,orrentalresidentialbuildings;

• ConsiderationofhistoricvaluesinthedecisiontoissueasurfaceminingpermitwherecoalislocatedinaccordancewiththeSurfaceMiningControlActof1977;and

• QualificationofFederalgrantsforhistoricpreservation,whenfundsareavailable.

DoesNationalRegisterdesignationplaceanyadditionalburdensorobligationsonthepropertyowner?

OwnersofprivatepropertylistedintheNationalRegisterarefreetomaintain,manage,ordisposeoftheirpropertyastheychoose,providedthatnoFederalmoneysareinvolved.

HowisapropertynominatedtotheNationalRegister?

ThefirststepisfortheownertocontacttheTennesseeStateHistoricPreservationOffice(TN-SHPO),CloverBottomMansion,2941LebanonRoad,Nashville,TN37243-0442;615-532-1558.Ordinarily,privateindividuals(orpaidconsultants)preparenominationforms.TheTN-SHPOsubmitsthesenominationstoaStateReviewBoard,whichmeetsthreetimesayear.ThisbodyreviewsthenominationsandvotestorecommendordenyNationalRegisterlisting.Ifapproved,theTN-SHPOsubmitsthenominationtotheKeeperoftheRegisterinWashington,D.C.forconsiderationforlisting.TheKeeper’sOfficehas45daystoreviewthenomination,anditsdecisionregardingNationalRegisterlistingisfinal.

Howlongdoesthenominationprocesstake?

Theprocessvariesbuttypicallytakesbetweeneightandtwelvemonths.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page76

ATTACHMENT4:CRITERIAOFADVERSEEFFECT

Regulationscodifiedat36CFRPart800requireFederalagenciestoassesstheirimpactstohistoricresources.Theregulationsprovidespecificcriteriafordeterminingwhetheranactionwillhaveaneffect,andwhetherthateffectwillbeadverse.Thesecriteriaaregivenbelow.

36CFRPart800.5AssessmentofAdverseEffects

(a)ApplyCriteriaofAdverseEffect.InconsultationwiththeSHPO/THPOandanyIndiantribeorNativeHawaiianorganizationthatattachesreligiousandculturalsignificancetoidentifiedhistoricproperties,theAgencyOfficialshallapplythecriteriaofadverseeffecttohistoricpropertieswithintheareaofpotentialeffects.TheAgencyOfficialshallconsideranyviewsconcerningsucheffects,whichhavebeenprovidedbyconsultingpartiesandthepublic.

(1)Criteriaofadverseeffect.Anadverseeffectisfoundwhenanundertakingmayalter,directlyorindirectly,anyofthecharacteristicsofahistoricpropertythatqualifythepropertyforinclusionintheNationalRegisterinamannerthatwoulddiminishtheintegrityoftheproperty’slocation,design,setting,materials,workmanship,feeling,orassociation.Considerationshallbegiventoallqualifyingcharacteristicsofahistoricproperty,includingthosethatmayhavebeenidentifiedsubsequenttotheoriginalevaluationoftheproperty’seligibilityfortheNationalRegister.Adverseeffectsmayincludereasonablyforeseeableeffectscausedbytheundertakingthatmayoccurlaterintime,befartherremovedindistanceorbecumulative.

(2)Examplesofadverseeffects.Adverseeffectsonhistoricpropertiesinclude,butarenotlimitedto:

(i)Physicaldestructionofordamagetoallorpartoftheproperty;

(ii)Alterationofaproperty,includingrestoration,rehabilitation,repair,maintenance,stabilization,hazardousmaterialremediationandprovisionofhandicappedaccessthatisnotconsistentwiththeSecretary’sStandardsfortheTreatmentofHistoricPropertiesandapplicableguidelines;

(iii)Removalofthepropertyfromitshistoriclocation;

(iv)Changeofthecharacteroftheproperty’suseorofphysicalfeatureswithintheproperty’ssettingthatcontributetoitshistoricsignificance;

(v)Introductionofvisual,atmosphericoraudibleelementsthatdiminishtheintegrityoftheproperty’ssignificanthistoricfeatures;

(vi)Neglectofapropertywhichcausesitsdeterioration,exceptwheresuchneglectanddeteriorationarerecognizedqualitiesofapropertyofreligiousandculturalsignificancetoanIndiantribeorNativeHawaiianorganization;and

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page77

(vii)Transfer,leaseorsaleofpropertyoutofFederalownershiporcontrolwithoutadequateandlegallyenforceablerestrictionsorconditionstoensurelong-termpreservationoftheproperty’shistoricsignificance.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page78

ATTACHMENT5:TDOTSECTION4(F)SUMMARYSHEET

WHATISSECTION4(f)?Codifiedat49CFRPart303,"Section4(f)"referstoasectionoftheU.S.DepartmentofTransportationActwhichgivesspecialconsiderationtotheuseofparkandrecreationlands,wildlifeandwaterfowlrefuges,andhistoricsitesbyFederallyassistedtransportationprojects.Section4(f)appliesonlytothoseprojectsusingfundsfromtheU.S.DepartmentofTransportation.Thelawstates:

(c)TheSecretarymayapproveatransportationprogramorproject(otherthananyprojectforaparkroadorparkwayundersection204oftitle23)requiringtheuseofpubliclyownedlandofapublicpark,recreationarea,orwildlifeandwaterfowlrefugeofnational,State,orlocalsignificance,orlandofanhistoricsiteofnational,State,orlocalsignificance(asdeterminedbytheFederal,State,orlocalofficialshavingjurisdictionoverthepark,area,refuge,orsite)onlyif-

(1)thereisnoprudentorfeasiblealternativetousingthatland;and

(2)theprogramorprojectincludesallpossibleplanningtominimizeharmtothepark,recreationarea,wildlifeandwaterfowlrefuge,orhistoricsiteresultingfromtheuse.

WHATISTHESECTION4(f)PROCESSFORHISTORICPROPERTIES?Tobeconsidered"historic,"apropertymusteitherbelistedintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesorbedeterminedeligibleforsuchlistingbytheKeeperoftheRegisterortheStateHistoricPreservationOfficer(SHPO).

Onanyproject,theprimaryobjectiveistodevelopadesignthatdoesnothaveSection4(f)involvement.Ifsuchadesignisnotpossible,thentheSection4(f)documentationispreparedandcirculated.Suchdocumentationiscirculatedtoallappropriateagenciesorgroups(consistentwiththeSection106processandtheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct),andasapplicable,totheU.S.DepartmentoftheInterior,HousingandUrbanDevelopment,andAgriculture.ItisalsocirculatedtotheagencyhavingauthorityovertheSection4(f)property.Forhistoricproperties,suchagenciesaretheSHPOandtheAdvisoryCouncilonHistoricPreservation(ACHP).Afterreviewofanycommentsreceived,thefinalSection4(f)documentationissenttotheFederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA)whichdeterminesiftherequirementsoftheSection4(f)statutearemet.Iftherequirementsaresatisfied,thentheFHWAwillapprovetheuseoftheSection4(f)property.

HOWARESECTION4(f)ANDSECTION106RELATED?Section106isaprovisionoftheNationalHistoricPreservationActof1966,whichrequiresallfederalagenciestoconsidertheeffectsoftheirprojectsonhistoricpropertiesandtoprovidetheAdvisoryCouncilonHistoricPreservation(ACHP)anopportunitytocommentonthoseeffects.TheACHPhaspromulgatedregulationsat36CFRPart800thatdescribetheproceduresthatagenciesmustfollowinordertocomplywithSection106.ManyoftheSection106documentationrequirementsoverlaptheSection4(f)documentationrequirementsforhistoricproperties.Forthisreason,forprojectshavinga4(f)useofahistoricsite,thedocumentationforSection106andSection4(f)isusually

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,HistoricResourcesSurvey,Page79

combinedintoonedocumentandcirculatedtotheappropriategroupsdescribedabove.TheconsentofneithertheSHPOnortheACHPisnecessaryforFHWAtoapproveaSection4(f)use,butFHWAgivesgreatconsiderationtocommentsfromtheseagencies.

DOCUMENTATIONOFEFFECTPURSUANTTO36CFR800ANDSECTION4(F)EVALUATION

FORTHEPROPOSEDFEDEXMEMHTRANSFORMATIONPROJECT,PROJECT#8648976,ATTHEMEMPHISINTERNATIONALAIRPORT

SHELBYCOUNTY

October2017

Preparedby:DawnChapmanAshlock,PhDCircaArchaeologyandHistoricPreservation5710OgeecheeRoad,Suite200-286Savannah,GA31405Phone(912)272-1425

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page1

HISTORICANDARCHITECTURALASSESSMENTPURSUANTTO36CFR800ANDSECTION4(F)EVALUATION

FORTHEPROPOSEDFEDEXMEMHTRANSFORMATIONPROJECT,PROJECT#8648976,ATTHEMEMPHISINTERNATIONALAIRPORT

SHELBYCOUNTY

MANAGEMENTSUMMARY

FedEx,withapprovalbytheFederalAviationAdministration(FAA),isproposingtodeconstructordemolish24structuresandconstructseveralnewfacilitiesattheMemphisInternationalAirportinMemphis,ShelbyCounty.TheprojectareaislocatedonthesouthsideofDemocratRoadalongthenorthernboundaryofthesecureairportfacility.

Pursuantto36CFRPart800.4and23CFRPart774,culturalresourceconsultantscompletedanhistoricalsurveyoftheareaofpotentialeffect(APE)fortheproposedFedExTransformationprojectin2016.Thefindingsofthissurveyarepresentedinthisreport.TheconsultantsidentifiedthreeWorldWarIIerastructures,whichwereconstructedcirca1943.Althoughthetwomilitaryaircrafthangarshavebeenalteredovertime,particularlyontheinterior,itistheopinionoftheconsultantsthattheyarepotentiallyeligibleforlistingontheNationalRegisterofHistoricplacesduetotheuniquedesignofthesestructuresandtheirassociationwithWorldWarIIaviation.TheotherWorldWarIIerastructureisafreestandingBoilerRoomthatservedthetwoexistinghangarsandathirdhangarthatwasdemolishedbetween1994and1997.TheconsultantsalsoidentifiedanofficebuildingconstructedbyFedExin1973andalteredin1987and1988asthecompany’sfirstpurposebuiltheadquarters.ItispotentiallyeligiblebasedonCriterionAunderCriteriaConsiderationG,duetoitsassociationwiththeearlyhistoryofFedEx.

Pursuantto26CFRPart800.5,theconsultantsappliedthecriteriaofeffecttotheproposedundertaking.Itistheopinionoftheconsultantsthattheproject,ascurrentlydesigned,wouldhaveanadverseeffectontheWorldWarIIerastructuresandtheFedExAdministrationBuilding.Asaresult,theconsultantspreparedaSection4(f)IndividualEvaluationpertherequirementsoftheDepartmentofTransportationActof1966,asamended.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page2

TABLEOFCONTENTS

MANAGEMENTSUMMARY.....................................................................................................1

TABLEOFCONTENTS...............................................................................................................2

STATEMENTOFDETERMINATION...........................................................................................4

PROJECTDESCRIPTION............................................................................................................6

AVOIDANCEALTERNATIVES..................................................................................................10AVOIDANCEALTERNATIVE#1:..........................................................................................................11AVOIDANCEALTERNATIVE#2:..........................................................................................................11AVOIDANCEALTERNATIVE#3:..........................................................................................................12AVOIDANCEALTERNATIVE#4:..........................................................................................................13

SURVEYMETHODOLOGY.......................................................................................................15METHODS....................................................................................................................................15RESULTS......................................................................................................................................16

PUBLICPARTICIPATION.........................................................................................................19NATIVEAMERICANTRIBALCONSULTATIONLIST...................................................................................19SHELBYCOUNTYANDMEMPHISPUBLICPARTICIPATIONLIST..................................................................19PROPERTYOWNERS.......................................................................................................................19

DESCRIPTIONOFPROPOSEDMEMPHISARMYAIRFIELDHISTORICDISTRICT........................20

DESCRIPTIONOFPROPOSEDFEDEXHISTORICDISTRICT........................................................20

EFFECTSTOTHEPROPOSEDMEMPHISAIRFIELDANDFEDEXHISTORICDISTRICTS................21

DOCUMENTATIONOFEFFECT...............................................................................................22APPLICABILITYOFSECTION4(F)EVALUATION......................................................................................25ALTERNATIVESANDMITIGATION.......................................................................................................25AVOIDANCEALTERNATIVE#1:..........................................................................................................26AVOIDANCEALTERNATIVE#2:..........................................................................................................26AVOIDANCEALTERNATIVE#3:..........................................................................................................27AVOIDANCEALTERNATIVE#4:..........................................................................................................28MEASURESTOAVOID,MINIMIZEORMITIGATEHARM..........................................................................29

COORDINATION....................................................................................................................29

CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................................30

BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................................................31

FIGURES................................................................................................................................32FIGURE1:SITEVICINITYMAP..........................................................................................................32FIGURE2:SITELOCATIONSMAP......................................................................................................33FIGURE3:FEDEXRAMPPLANMAPTOILLUSTRATEAVOIDANCEALTERNATIVE#1.......................................34FIGURE4:FEDEXRAMPPLANDEPICTINGTHELOCATIONOFAVOIDANCEALTERNATIVE#2...........................34

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page3

FIGURE5:FEDEXRAMPPLANDEPICTINGTHELOCATIONOFAVOIDANCEALTERNATIVE#3...........................35FIGURE6:FEDEXRAMPPLANDEPICTINGTHELOCATIONOFAVOIDANCEALTERNATIVE#4...........................35FIGURE7:NATIONALREGISTEROFHISTORICPLACESMAP.....................................................................36FIGURE8:TN-SHPOSURVEYMAPANDAERIALVIEWDEPICTINGTHELOCATIONSOFTHREEPROPERTIESIDENTIFIEDBYTDOTHISTORIANS.THETWOCIRCA1950SINGLE-FAMILYRESIDENCESAREINDICATEDINGREENANDTHE1958COMMERCIALBUILDINGEASTIFTHEAIRPORTISINDICATEDINYELLOW..............................................37FIGURE9:FEDEXRAMPPLANDEPICTINGTHELOCATIONANDBOUNDARYOFTHEAPE.................................38FIGURE10:FEDEXRAMPPLANDEPICTINGTHELOCATIONANDBOUNDARYOFTHEPROPOSEDMEMPHISARMYAIRFIELDHISTORICDISTRICT...........................................................................................................39FIGURE11:FEDEXRAMPPLANDEPICTINGTHELOCATIONANDBOUNDARYOFTHEPROPOSEDFEDEXHISTORICDISTRICT......................................................................................................................................40

ATTACHMENTS.....................................................................................................................41ATTACHMENT1:SECTION106REVIEW,NATIONALHISTORICPRESERVATIONACTOF1966........42ATTACHMENT2:ELIGIBILITYCRITERIAOFTHENATIONALREGISTEROFHISTORICPLACES...........44ATTACHMENT3:TDOTNATIONALREGISTEROFHISTORICPLACESSUMMARYSHEET..................45ATTACHMENT4:CRITERIAOFADVERSEEFFECT............................................................................46ATTACHMENT5:TDOTSECTION4(F)SUMMARYSHEET................................................................48

SHPOCORRESPONDENCE......................................................................................................50

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page4

STATEMENTOFDETERMINATION

FedEx,withapprovalbytheFederalAviationAdministration(FAA),isproposingtodeconstructordemolish24structuresandconstructseveralnewfacilitiesattheMemphisInternationalAirportinMemphis,ShelbyCounty.TheprojectareaislocatedonthesouthsideofDemocratRoadalongthenorthernboundaryofthesecureairportfacility.

DuetotherequirementforFAAapprovalfortheproposedundertaking,complianceisrequiredwithSection106oftheNationalHistoricPreservationActof1966andtheDepartmentofTransportationActof1966,asamended.RegulationsdealingwiththeimplementationoftheNationalHistoricPreservationActarecodifiedat36CFRPart800,andthosepertainingtotheDepartmentofTransportationActof1966arecodifiedat23CFRPart774.

Thelegislationrequiresprojectsreceivingfederalfundingorapprovaltoidentifyanyhistoricpropertieswithintheprojectareaorinthevicinity.Forthepurposesofthislegislation,historicsignificanceisdefinedasthosepropertiesthatarelistedinoreligibleforlistingintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces.Theregulationspertainingtothecriteriaforeligibilityarecodifiedat36CFRPart60.4.Ifhistoricresourcesareidentified,thelegislationrequiresagenciestodetermineiftheproposedprojectwouldaffectthehistoricresourcesandiftheeffectwouldbeadverse.Iftheproposedundertakingwouldhaveanadverseeffecttoanhistoricproperty,theNationalHistoricPreservationActrequirestheagencytoprovidetheAdvisoryCouncilonHistoricPreservation(anindependentfederalagency)anopportunitytocommentontheeffect.DuetothelocationoftheproposedundertakingonpropertyownedbytheMemphis-ShelbyCountyAirportAuthorityandadministeredbytheFAA,theDepartmentofTransportationActrequirestheagencytocompleteaSection4(f)evaluationoftheproposedundertaking.

Pursuantto36CFRPart800.4and23CFRPart774,culturalresourceconsultantscompletedanhistoricalsurveyoftheareaofpotentialeffect(APE)fortheproposedFedExTransformationprojectin2016.Thefindingsofthissurveyarepresentedinthisreport.TheconsultantsidentifiedthreeWorldWarIIerastructures,whichwereconstructedcirca1943.Althoughthetwomilitaryaircrafthangarshavebeenalteredovertime,particularlyontheinterior,itistheopinionoftheconsultantsthattheyarepotentiallyeligibleforlistingontheNationalRegisterofHistoricplacesduetotheuniquedesignofthesestructuresandtheirassociationwithWorldWarIIaviation.TheotherWorldWarIIerastructureisafreestandingBoilerRoomthatservedthetwoexistinghangarsandathirdhangarthatwasdemolishedbetween1994and1997.TheconsultantsalsoidentifiedanofficebuildingconstructedbyFedExin1973asthecompany’sfirstpurposebuiltheadquarters.ItispotentiallyeligiblebasedonCriterionAunderCriteriaConsiderationG,duetoitsassociationwiththeearlyhistoryofFedEx.The2016surveydidnotidentifyanyadditionalresourcesthatwerelistedorpotentiallyeligibleforlistingwithintheAPE.

NoNationalRegister-listedpropertiesarelocatedwithintheprojectarea.ThenearestNationalRegisterlistedpropertyisGraceland.ThispropertywasconsideredtobeoutsidetheAPE,becausetheprojectareawasnotvisiblefromthepropertyduetoitslocationinaheavilywoodedresidentialneighborhood,3.5milessouthwestoftheproposedundertaking.TheconsultantsalsoidentifiedthreestructuresinthevicinityoftheAPEthatwerepotentially

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page5

eligibleandmeritedfurtherresearch.Twowerecirca1950single-familyresidenceswestoftheAPE,andtheotherwasacommercialstructureconstructedeastoftheAPEin1958.Noneofthesestructureswereincludedinthissurvey.Theywerelocatedapproximately1.25milesfromtheAPE,whichwasnotvisiblefromtheirlocationsduetothepositionofmulti-laneroadsandcommercialandindustrialdevelopments.

Pursuantto26CFRPart800.5,theconsultantsappliedthecriteriaofeffecttotheproposedundertaking.Itistheopinionoftheconsultantsthattheproject,ascurrentlydesigned,wouldhaveanadverseeffectontheWorldWarIIerastructuresandtheFedExAdministrationbuilding.Asaresult,theconsultantspreparedaSection4(f)evaluationpertherequirementsoftheDepartmentofTransportationActof1966,asamended.ThespecificationsoftheproposedprojectwouldconstituteausewithinthemeaningofSection4(f)duetothedemolitionofthe4(f)propertiesandthepermanentincorporationofthesiteofthesepropertiesintotheproposedSecondary25FedExsortfacility.Pursuantto23CFRPart774.13(d)(5)ofSection4(f)oftheU.S.DepartmentofTransportationAct,whenSection4(f)propertiesareidentifiedthatwillrequirepermanentincorporation,theOfficialwithJurisdiction(OWJ)fortheresourcemustbenotifiedandconcurinwritingtotheSection4(f)use.WhenNationalRegisterlistedoreligiblepropertiesareidentifiedasSection4(f)properties,theOWJistheStateHistoricPreservationOfficer.Inordertodocumentcompliancewith23CFRPart774.13(d)(5),awrittenagreementisrequiredfortheprojectfileshowingthattheOWJconcurswiththepermanentincorporationoftheSection4(f)resource.

ThisdocumenthasbeenpreparedinconsultationwiththeTN-SHPOandwillbeprovidedtotheTN-SHPO,thefederallyrecognizedNativeAmericanTribes,ShelbyCountyandMemphisPublicParticipationList,andthepropertyownerforcomment.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page6

PROJECTDESCRIPTION

FedExExpress(FedEx)isproposingaprojecttoupdateandmodernizeitsfacilitiesattheMemphisInternationalAirport(MEM)inMemphis,Tennessee.Figure1showstheairportlocation.Anoutdatedpackagesortingfacilitywouldbereplacedwithfacilitiesspecificallydesignedtoaccommodatemodernized,moreefficientequipment.Atitscore,thepurposeoftheprojectistoreplaceoperations,structuresandequipmentthatareapproachingtheendoftheirusefullifewithmodernoperations,structuresandequipmenttoimprovetheefficiencyofFedEx’sbusinessprocesses.Newstructureswouldbeconstructedusinggreenbuildingstandardstotheextentfeasibletolimitenvironmentalimpacts.

UnderstandingtheScopeoftheFedExMemphisWorldHub

InordertounderstandthesignificanceoftheproposedprojectandthereasonswhyFedExhasproposedtoconstructanewsecondarysortfacilityonthelocationoftheSection4(f)propertiesdiscussedinthisevaluation,itisusefultobrieflyaddressthescopeofFedExoperationsattheMemphisInternationalAirport(MEM).ThisuniquefacilityhasbeenthecenterofFedExoperationsthroughouttheworldsince1973.AlthoughregionaloperationshavebeenaugmentedthroughtheconstructionofregionalHubsthroughouttheworld,thisfacilityremainsthecoreofallFedExoperationsandisdifferentiatedfromregionalfacilitieswiththedesignationastheSuperHub.TheoperationalsystemthatmovesnearlyallpackagestoacentralhubbeforetransportingthemtotheirfinaldestinationisthecornerstoneoftheentireFedExbusinessmodelandhasrevolutionizedtheindustry.AlthoughthemajorityofpackagesarriveatthisfacilityonflightsfromoneoftheregionalHubsinordertobesortedandredirectedtotheirfinaldestination,italsoservesasaregionalHubbyacceptingpackagesfromMemphisandthesurroundingregion,whichoccurviatruckandtractor-trailerreceivingdocksknownastheBulkTruckLoad(BTL).Thepackagesareunloaded,screened,andtransferredtotheMainandSecondarySortfacilitiesonconveyorbeltsandbridgeconstructedoverSprankelAvenue.Oncepackagesaresorted,theyaretransferredtoeachofthedepartingflightsusingtugsorgroundsupportequipment(GSE).

ThescopeofthisfacilityanditsimportancetoFedExoperationsandsecondarybusinessoperationsthroughouttheworldisdifficulttoadequatelyconvey.TheSuperHub(Hub)employsover10,000people,isover880acresinsize,andhasthecapacitytoparkmorethan165aircraftatatime,whichequatestooneaircraftlandingevery40secondsduringpeakoperations.TheHubhandlesapproximately150flightsinandoutduringitsnightsortand90duringitsdaysortoperations.Inadditiontoaircargo,theHubreceivescargofromapproximately130truckseachnight,makingtheBTLanintegralpartofoperationsatthisfacility.Thenightsorthandlesanaverageof1.3millionpackages(andduringpeakseasonseveralmillion),andthedaysortaverages500,000to600,000packages.Mostofthesepackagesarriveanddepartwithinthreehours.ThismeansthattheMemphisInternationalAirportisthebusiestairportintheworldbetween10pmand4am.ThelongstandingimportanceofthisHubtoFedExandotherbusinessoperationsisdemonstratedbythefactthat

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page7

MemphisandHongKonghavebeenthebusiestaircargofacilitiesintheworldformorethantwodecades.

TheeconomicimpactoftheMemphisInternationalAirportandFedExoperationswererecentlystudiedbytheSparksBureauofBusiness&EconomicResearchattheUniversityofMemphis.Intheir2016report,theystatedthatthe“MemphisInternationalAirportcontinuestobethesinglemostimportantpublicinfrastructureinvestmentavailabletosupporteconomicactivityintheMid-South.”1ThatsamestudyemphasizedtheimportanceoftheHubingeneratingthateconomicactivity,notingthatcargoaircraftoperationsmadeup60percentofallairoperationsatMEMand99percentofthatcargoishandledbyFedEx.Whenconsideringthedirect,indirect,andinducedeffectsofthisoperationandthe4.8billionpoundsofaircargoprocessedinthisfacility,theresearchersestimatedthattheFedExcargooperationshaveresultedin$14.1billionintheproductionofgoodsandservices,laborincomeofover$3.5billion,61,517fullandpart-timejobs,approximately$740millioninstateandlocaltaxes;and$9.5billionincargorevenue.

Foroverfourdecades,FedExhasinvestedinthisfacilityandotheradministrativeoperationsfacilitiesinMemphis.ThefacilitybeganasseveralrepurposedWorldWarIIbuildings,TennesseeAirNationalGuardstructures,andanewlyconstructedFedExAdministrationBuilding.Ithasbeendesignedanddevelopedovertheyearstoaccommodatethetrafficflownecessaryforemployees,trucks,GSE,andaircrafttooperateinthisfacility.Astheavailablelandinthesecureairportfacilityhasdecreased,ithasbecomeincreasinglyimportanttoupgradeexistingfacilitiesandmaximizeoperationalefficiency,whichhasleddirectlytotheproposedproject.

ProjectDetails

UndertheProposedDevelopmentAction,FedExwoulddeconstructordemolish24outdatedstructuresthatarelocatedinthemiddleoftheir880acreHubatMEMandarenotcurrentlyaccessiblebythepublicinordertoconstructseveralnewfacilities.Atitscore,thepurposeoftheprojectistoreplaceoperations,structuresandequipmentthatareapproachingtheendoftheirusefullifewithmodernoperations,structuresandequipmenttoimprovetheefficiencyofFedEx’sbusinessprocesses.Additionally,thenewstructureswouldbeconstructedusinggreenbuildingstandardstotheextentfeasibletolimitenvironmentalimpacts.Theprojectwouldbeconstructedinphasesasfundingbecomesavailable.Initially,buildings1-23wouldbedemolishedandtheslabsremoved.Next,FedExwouldconstructthefacilitieslistedbelow.Finally,aftertheSecondary25sortingfacilitybecomesoperational,theSecondary1-4wouldbedemolished.

Thestructurestobedemolishedordeconstructedare:

1. Hangar#6(Building2879)2. Hangar#7(Building2837)

1 University of Memphis, Sparks Bureau of Business and Economic Research (http://www.memphis.edu/sbber/reports.php, 2016).

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page8

3. Admin(Building2861)4. GSE(Building3099)5. SouthwideA6. SouthwideB7. SouthwideC8. SouthwideD9. SouthwideE10. SouthwideF11. SouthwideG12. Building286013. Building287814. Building288415. Building287516. Building285517. Building282518. Building283819. Building285220. Building38021. Building38222. Building282623. Building285424. NorthSecondary1-4

Afterdemolitionofbuildings1-23listedabove,andremovaloftheassociatedslabs,FedExwouldconstructseveralnewfacilitiesandimproveexistingfacilitiesinordertomodernizefacilitiesandequipmentandimproveefficiency.

Undertheproposedaction,FedExwouldconstructthefollowingnewfacilities:

1. Secondary25Building–TheSecondary25sortingfacilitywouldhaveafootprintofapproximately328,000sq.ft.Thebuildingwouldbe90-100feettallandconsistoffourlevelsofsortconveyors,processequipment,andofficespace.Theexteriorofthebuildingwouldconsistofinsulatedmetalpanels,translucentwallpanes,anddynamicglazing.PlansaretohavethebuildingLEED-certified.ThestructurewouldbebuiltsouthofSprankelAvenueandnorthoftheNorthInputstructure,andwouldreplacetheexistingNorthSecondary1-4facility.ItssiteencompassesallofthecurrentHangar7andAdminBuildingsites,andpartoftheHangar6site.

2. Matrix/Secondary25Bridge–Thiswouldbeanew25,000sq.ft.conveyor(boxtruss)bridgeextendingfromtheexistingEastandWestMatrixtothenewSecondary25building.TheMatrix/Secondary25Bridgewouldbeconditionedandenclosedwiththesameexteriormaterialsystemastheothernewfacilities.

3. BulkTruckLoad(BTL)Building–Thiswouldbeanew,65,000sq.ft.buildingandcontainanautomatedsortsystem.Thebuildingwouldbeapproximately50-60feettalland

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page9

consistoftwolevelsofsortconveyors,processequipmentandofficespace.TheBTLbuildingwouldbeenclosedwiththesameexteriormaterialsystemasdescribedfortheSecondary25building.

4. Secondary25/BTLBridge–Thiswouldbeanewconveyor(boxtruss)bridge,approximately10,000sq.ft.thatextendsfromtheSecondarySortBuildingtothenewBTLBuilding.TheSecondary25/BTLBridgewouldbeconditionedandenclosedwiththesameexteriormaterialsystemasthenewfacilities.

5. GroundSupportEquipment(GSE)MaintenanceFacility–Thiswouldbeanew,6,000square-footfacilityusedformaintenanceofgroundsupportequipment(GSE).Designofthenewstructureisnotyetcomplete,butitwouldbeasinglestoryofnomorethan30feetinheight.Itwouldbeanopenspacewithaslabfloor,andwouldincludesomestorageoflubricantsandotheritemsusedforroutinepreventativemaintenanceoftheGSEvehiclefleet,especiallyoilchanges,andalsoforminorrepairs.

OncetheSecondary25andBTLfacilitiesandsortsystemsarefullyoperational,FedExwoulddeconstruct/demolishtheNorthSecondary1-4(2899)facilitydowntoslablevel,totalingapproximately167,000sq.ft.AtthistimeFedExhasnoplansregardingtheremainingslab.Thestructuresthatwouldbedemolishedordeconstructed,andtheproposednewlyconstructedstructuresareshownonFigure2.

Toguidethedemolitionanddeconstructionprocess,FedExanditscontractorswouldfirstprepareaDemolition/DeconstructionWasteManagementPlancertifiedundertheLeadershipinEnergyandEnvironmentalDesign(LEED)certificationprogram.The24structuresandassociatedslabswouldbeassessedforthepotentialtorecyclethebuildingmaterialstotheextentfeasible,andthoseportionsofthestructureswouldbedeconstructedtomaintainthevalueoftherecycledmaterials.Materialswithnorecycledvaluewouldbeassessedforhazardousmaterialscontentanddisposedofinanappropriatelandfill.Thedemolition,deconstruction,andconstructioncontractorswouldemployindustry-standardbestmanagementpractices(BMPs)thatwouldminimizeenvironmentalandhumanhealthimpactstothemaximumextentfeasible.

ThepurposeoftheproposedprojectistoupgradeandmodernizetheFedExMemphisWorldHub,whichhasdevelopedovera44-yearperiod.Duringthattime,technologyandsortsystemshaveimprovedexponentially,securitydemandshaveincreased,competitionhasincreased,andupgradingandmodernizationhavebecomeanecessitytosustaintheMEMpositionasFedEx’spremierhub.TheproposedactionwouldmodernizepackagesortingfacilitiesandimprovetrafficflowthroughtheFedExMemphishub.Thesortbuildingsintheareaatissuearethe“heart”oftheFedExHub,andoverdecadestheincrediblegrowthanddevelopmentattheHubhasradiatedoutwardfromthatheart.TheproposedSecondary25sortbuildingmustbebuiltintheproposedlocation,becauseithastoremainattheheartoftheFedExHubadjacenttotheprimarysortbuilding.OverallefficiencywouldbeimprovedatMEMbyeliminatingoutdated,inefficientfacilities,someofwhichhavebeenvacantformanyyears,andestablishingnew

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page10

stagingareas,whichwouldsegregatetruckmovementsfromtheflowofgroundserviceequipment.

ThesiteplanisdividedbySprankelAvenuewithemployeeaccess/securitycheckpointsandtruckaccess,staging,andloadingareaslocatednorthofthisroad.Theexistingsortfacilityislocatedsouthofthisroadnearthecenterofthesite.TheexistingBulkTruckLoadareaandassociatedaccessroadswouldbeexpandedintotheadjacentspacetothewest,whichiscurrentlyoccupiedbythevacantTANGandSouthwideCenterofficebuildings.Thisisareasonablelocationfortheseoperations,becauseitprovidesdirectaccesstoDemocratRoad,whichdefinesthenorthernboundaryofthesecureairportfacilityandiscontiguoustosimilarexistingoperations.ThislocationalsolimitstheamountofvehiculartrafficintotheFedExfacility,whichminimizesthepotentialfortractortrailersandotherstreetlegalvehiclesfromoperatingincloseproximitytotheGroundSupportEquipment(GSE)necessarytotransportsortedpackagestoaircraft,whichimprovesemployeesafety.TheSecondary25sortfacilitywouldbelocatednorthwestoftheexistingprimaryandsecondarysortfacilityinanareacurrentlyoccupiedbyHangarNo.6andHangarNo.7,theBoilerRoom,andtheAdministrationBuilding.Thisistherequiredlocationfortheseoperations,becausetheoperationsplannedforthisstructurewouldneedtofunctionasanintegralpartoftheexistingsortoperations.

AVOIDANCEALTERNATIVES

ASection4(f)evaluationmustdemonstratethatavoidancealternativestotheprojectunderconsiderationhavebeenevaluated.Specifically,theevaluationmustincludeadiscussionthatwillultimatelysupportadeterminationofwhetherornotanavoidancealternativeisfeasibleandprudentinthefinalevaluation.

Afinaldeterminationthatnofeasibleandprudentavoidancealternativesexistiswithhelduntilafterthedraftevaluationhasbeencirculatedtotheappropriateagenciesandallissueshavebeenappropriatelyevaluated.ThefinaldeterminationmaybemadeinthefinalevaluationorintheRecordofDecision(ROD)ortheFindingofNoSignificantImpact(FONSI).

Thisdiscussionoffeasibilityandprudencemustcomplywiththeregulatorycriterialocatedinthedefinitionof"feasibleandprudentavoidancealternative"in23CFR774.17.Thesecriteriaspecifythatanalternativeisnotfeasibleifitcannotbebuiltasamatterofsoundengineeringjudgment.AlthoughtheAvoidanceAlternativesdescribedinthisSection4(f)evaluationappeartobefeasibleasdefinedbytheDepartmentofTransportationActof1966,asamended,thereareseveralaspectsoftheprudentdeterminationcriteriawhichsuggestthatthefollowingavoidancealternativesmaynotbeconsideredtobeprudent,includingwhetheranalternative:

• compromisestheprojecttoadegreethatitisunreasonabletoproceedwiththeprojectinlightofitsstatedpurposeandneed;

• resultsinunacceptableoperationalproblems;• causessevereeconomicimpacts;

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page11

• resultsinadditionalconstructionoroperationalcostsofanextraordinarymagnitude;or• causesotheruniqueproblemsorimpactsofanextraordinarymagnitude.

Ifitappearsthatthefinalevaluationmayconcludethatthereisnoavoidancealternativethatisfeasibleandprudent,thenthedraftevaluationshouldalsoprovidealeastoverallharmanalysisoftheremainingalternativesunderconsideration.Thisisdonebybalancing,orcomparing,thealternativesunderconsiderationintermsofthesevenfactorsspecifiedin23CFR774.3(c).FHWAcanonlyapprovethealternativethatisfoundtocausetheleastoverallharmafterconsiderationofthesefactors.ThebasisforanddeterminationofwhichalternativeresultsintheleastoverallharmwillbedocumentedinthefinalSection4(f)evaluation.

AVOIDANCEALTERNATIVE#1:

Inordertominimizeadverseeffectstopotentiallyeligiblehistoricstructures,ano-buildalternativewasinvestigated(Figure3).Thisalternativedoesnotappeartobefeasibleorprudent,becauseitwouldrequireFedExtocontinuetooperateinanoutdatedandinadequatesortfacility.Thisfacilitywasdesignedandimplementedovera44-yearperiod,anditisnolongerabletoadapttoadvancementsintechnologyandsortsystems,whichhaveimprovedsignificantlyinthelastfourdecades.ThefacilitymustbereplacedinordertomaintainoperationsattheMemphisHubwellintothefuture.Inaddition,FedExmustmaintainoperationsintheexistingsecondarysortbuildinguntilareplacementfacilityisconstructedandoperational.Theno-buildalternativewouldalsorequirethefollowingactions,whichwouldresultinadditionalconstructionandoperationalcostsofanextraordinarymagnitude:

• TheoveralllayoutoftheHubwouldhavetoberedesigned;• Otherareaswouldhavetoberepurposedormoved;• Trafficflowswouldbedisruptedandneedtoberedesigned;• “Sunkcosts”inpreviouslydevelopedfacilitieswouldbelost;or• FedExwouldhavetoabandontheproposedprojectatMemphisandinvestin

modernizationandupgradesatoneofitsotherU.S.hubs,whichwouldhaveasevereadverseeconomicimpactontheMemphismetropolitanarea,causingseveredisruptiontoestablishedcommunitiesthatdependontheFedExHubforemployment,aswellasbusinesseswhoinmanycaseshaveinvestedheavilyinfacilitiesinMemphistobelocatedneartheHub.

AVOIDANCEALTERNATIVE#2:

Inordertominimizeadverseeffectstopotentiallyeligiblehistoricstructures,alternatelocationsfortheSecondary25sortfacilitywest,south,andeastoftheexistingsortfacilitywereinvestigated(Figure4).Thesealternatelocationsdidnotappeartobefeasibleorprudentforthefollowingreasons:

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page12

• Eachiscurrentlyusedforaircraftstaging,fueling,andloading.Assuch,therearespeciallyengineeredandconstructedgates,ramps,andfuelingequipmenttosupporttheseoperations.Alteringthesefacilitieswouldresultinadditionalconstructionandoperationalcostsofanextraordinarymagnitude.

• Duetotheirpositionrelativetotheexistingsortfacilityandcargointakearea,eachofthealternativelocationswouldcompromisetheprojecttoadegreethatitisunreasonabletoproceedwiththeprojectinlightofitsstatedpurposeandneedandwouldresultinunacceptableoperationalproblems.Theprimaryobjectiveofthisprojectistoreplaceoutdatedfacilitiesandequipment,whichwouldimprovetheefficiencyofthefacilityinreceivingandprocessingpackages.ItisessentialtotheoverallprojectgoalsthatthenewBulkTruckLoadareaandassociatedsortfacilityalignwiththeoperationalflowoftheexistingprimarysortandHub.ThelocationoftheSecondary25sortfacilitywest,south,oreastoftheexistingsortfacilitywouldnotaccomplishthisgoal.

AVOIDANCEALTERNATIVE#3:

Inordertominimizeadverseeffectstopotentiallyeligiblehistoricstructures,alternatelocationsfortheBulkTruckLoadareaandSecondary25sortfacilitywereinvestigatednorthofSprankelAvenue(Figure5).Inthisdesignscheme,theBulkTruckLoadareawouldbelocatedintheareacurrentlyoccupiedbythevacantSouthwidebuildings,andthesortfacilitywouldbelocatedintheareaofthevacantTANGstructures.Thisalternativedoesnotappeartobefeasibleorprudent,becausetheareaisnotlargeenoughtoaccommodatethetrucktraffic,staging,andloadingfacilities,aswellasasafeandoperationallysoundsortfacilityforthefollowingreasons:

• BasedonthedesigncriteriaoftheSecondary25sortfacility,thenecessarysquarefootageandproportionsofthebuildingfootprintfortheproposedfacilitywouldexceedthespaceavailableintheareaoftheexistingTANGbuildings.Inordertoconstructasortfacilityinthislocation,FedExwouldneedtorelocatetheexistingBulkTruckLoadareatotheareacurrentlyoccupiedbytheSouthwideCenterbuildings,whichwouldreduceornearlyeliminatethecurrenttruckandtractor-traileraccessandstagingareasnecessarytoutilizetheBulkTruckLoadareasanddeliverpackagestothesortfacility.ThislocationwouldalsoleavenoremainingspacetoconstructthenewBTLfacility.Thisalternativewouldcompromisetheprojecttoadegreethatitisunreasonabletoproceedwiththeprojectinlightofitsstatedpurposeandneedandwouldresultinunacceptableoperationalproblems.

• Itwouldalsoposeasafetyhazardbylimitingthemaneuverabilityofdeliverytrucksandtractor-trailerswhencorneringandturningaroundonsite.ByconstructinganewBulkTruckLoadareainthevicinityoftheexistingSouthwideCenterbuildingswithoutexpandingtheassociatedaccessandstagingareas,theaccessroadswouldbeoverutilized,causingtrafficcongestionthatwouldlimittheeffectivenessofthenewBulk

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page13

TruckLoadareaandSecondary25sortfacilitytotheextentthattheprojectwouldnotbefinanciallyviable.Thisalternativewouldresultinadditionalconstructionandoperationalcostsofanextraordinarymagnitude.

• Thislocationwouldalsobeoperationallyunsound,becauseitwouldseparatetheSecondary25sortfacilityontheoppositesideofSprankelAvenue.Inorderforthesortequipmentandassemblylinetomeetoperationalrequirements,thenewsortfacilitymustbelocatedadjacenttotheexistingsortfacilityandcontiguouswiththecargointakearea.Thisalternativewoulditwouldcompromisetheprojecttoadegreethatitisunreasonabletoproceedwiththeprojectinlightofitsstatedpurposeandneedandresultinunacceptableoperationalproblems.

AVOIDANCEALTERNATIVE#4:

Inordertominimizetheadverseeffectstopotentiallyeligiblehistoricstructures,analternatelocationfortheBulkTruckLoadareaandSecondary25sortfacilitywasinvestigatednorthofDemocratRoadandsouthofNonconnahCreekinanareacurrentlyusedforemployeeparking(Figure6).Thisareaislocatedacrossalargepublicroadoutsideoftheperimeterofthesecureairportfacility.Thisdesignschemedoesnotappeartobefeasibleorprudentforthefollowingreasons:

• BasedonthedesigncriteriaoftheSecondary25sortfacility,thenecessarysquarefootageandproportionsofthebuildingfootprintfortheproposedfacilitywouldexceedthespaceavailableintheareaoftheexistingemployeeparkingarea.Inordertoconstructasortfacilityinthislocation,FedExwouldneedtoexpandbeyondtheareaoftheexistingparkinglot,whichisproblematic,asitisboundedonthenorthandeastbyNonconnahandHurricaneCreeks.Asaresult,thisalternativewouldcompromisetheprojecttoadegreethatitisunreasonabletoproceedwiththeprojectinlightofitsstatedpurposeandneedandwouldresultinunacceptableoperationalproblems.

• BylocatingtheBulkTruckLoadandSecondary25sortfacilityoutsideoftheLevel1Securityportionoftheairportfacility,allpackagesandpersonneltransferredtothisunsecuredBulkTruckLoadandSecondary25sortfacilitywouldneedtobeprocessedthroughsecurityscreeningwhenbothexitingandenteringtheLevel1securezone.Statistically,eachtimeapersonorobjectleavesandreturnstothesecurearea,thereisanopportunityforasecurityfailure.ThiswouldbeoperationallyunsoundandwouldreducetheeffectivenessofthenewBulkTruckLoadareaandSecondary25sortfacilitytotheextentthattheprojectwouldnotbeoperationallyorfinanciallyviable.InordertoincorporatethisareaintotheLevel1Securityportionoftheairportfacility,thefollowingactionswouldneedtooccur:

1. Theairportwouldneedtoexerciseeminentdomaintoincorporateaminimumof0.5mileofDemocratRoad,whichisa4-laneroadwithacenterturninglanethatprovidesaccessfromthisareatotheadjacentinterstatehighway,intotheLevel1Securityarea.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page14

2. RelocationofDemocratRoadaroundthenorthsideofthenewBulkTruckLoadareaandSecondary25sortfacility,whichisunlikelytobeapprovedgiventhepotentialimpacttoNonconnahandHurricaneCreeks.

3. Thislocationwouldalsobeoperationallyunsound,becauseitwouldseparatetheSecondary25sortfacilityontheoppositesideofSprankelAvenue.Inorderforthesortequipmentandassemblylinetomeetoperationalrequirements,thenewsortfacilitymustbelocatedadjacenttotheexistingsortfacilityandcontiguouswiththecargointakearea.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page15

SURVEYMETHODOLOGY

METHODS

FederallawsrequiretheFAAtocomplywithSection106oftheNationalHistoricPreservationActof1966,includingamendmentseffectiveAugust5,2004(Attachment1).ThislegislationrequirestheFAAtoidentifyanypropertiesofhistoricsignificanceaffectedbyproposedundertaking,includingabovegroundbuildings,structures,objects,orhistoricsites,aswellasbelowgroundarchaeologicalsites.Forthepurposesofthislegislation,propertieswithhistoricsignificancearedefinedasthosethathavebeenlistedintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesorareeligibleforinclusionintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces(Attachments2and3).

InordertocomplywithSection106oftheNationalHistoricPreservationActof1966asamended,consultantssurveyedtheareaofpotentialeffect(APE)forthisprojectincompliancewith36CFRPart800regulations.TheAPEofapotentialundertakingisdefinedin36CFRPart800.16(d)as“thegeographicareaorareaswithinwhichanundertakingmaydirectlyorindirectlycausechangesinthecharacteroruseofhistoricproperties,ifanysuchpropertiesexist.Theareaofpotentialeffectsisinfluencedbythescaleandnatureofanundertakingandmaybedifferentfordifferentkindsofeffectscausedbytheundertaking.”ThesurveyareaforthisprojectincludedtheentireAPE,aswellashistoricpropertiesintheprojectvicinitythatmaybeaffectedbychangesinairquality,noiselevels,setting,andlanduse(Attachment4).

ThepurposeofthissurveywastoidentifyresourcescurrentlylistedintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesorthosethatarepotentiallyeligibleforinclusionintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces(Attachments2and3).Inordertoidentifyalllisted,eligible,andpotentiallyeligibleproperties,thesurveyincludedtwocomponents:aliteraturereviewandrecordssearchandafieldsurvey.DawnChapmanAshlockconductedtheliteraturereviewandrecordssearchbetweenMay2,2016andJune15,2016,andDawnChapmanAshlockandPhillipAshlockIIcompletedthefieldstudybetweenMay9,2016andMay13,2016.ThesemethodscontributedtoathoroughevaluationofeachpropertywithrespecttotheCriteriaandCriteriaConsiderations,aswellastheidentificationofpotentialintegrityissues.

TheliteraturereviewincludedresearchintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces,thestatehistoricresourcesinventorycollectedandmaintainedbytheTennesseeHistoricalCommission,andhistoricaerialphotographandtopographicmapcollectionstodevelopatimelinefortheconstructionofeachoftheaffectedproperties.Twoadditionalsources,whichwereintegraltotheproductionofthehistoricresourcessurvey(HistoricResourcesSurvey)andthisSection4(f)evaluation,includetwopublicationsspearheadedbytheAirForceAirCombatCommand(ACC)andfundedbytheACCandtheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)LegacyResourceManagementProgram.2JulieL.Webster’sthoroughresearchandanalysisofmilitaryaircrafthangarsinthepossessionoftheDepartmentofDefenseprovidedthefoundationofthisprogram.3This

2 Julie L. Webster and Gordon L. Cohen, “Military Aircraft Hangars: Footprints through a Century of Flight,” CRM Vol. 24, No. 3 (2001): 29-31. 3 Julie L. Webster, Historical and Architectural Overview of Military Aircraft Hangars: A General

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page16

publicationwasinitiallyunavailableforincorporationintothisreport,becauseithadnotbeenformallyreviewedbytheArmyCorpsofEngineersandreleasedforpublicdistribution.TheconsultantscoordinatedwiththeArmyCorpsofEngineersConstructionEngineeringResearchLaboratoryinChampaign,Illinoistoexpeditethereviewprocess,andthereportwasreleasedtothepubliconJune15,2016.AnothersourcethatwaspivotaltothedevelopmentofthehistoricalcontextwasJayneAaron’sexpansionupontheWebsterpublicationin2011toincludemilitaryaircrafthangarsinthepossessionoftheReservesandNationalGuardinstallations.4

Inadditiontothesesurveys,theconsultantscompletedapedestriansurveyoftheprojectareatoidentifyandphotographeachofthe24propertiesscheduledfordemolitionintheproposedscopeofworktodeterminetheirlocation,physicalcondition,andintegrity.

ForallhistoricpropertiesidentifiedintheAPEandthosebeyondtheAPEthatmaybeadverselyaffectedbytheproposedundertaking,theU.S.DOTActof1966requiresthecompletionofaSection4(f)evaluationincompliancewith23CFRPart774regulations.ThisevaluationestablishedtherequirementforprojectsreceivingfundingorrequiringapprovalbyanagencyoftheDepartmentofTransportationtoconsiderhistoricpropertiesinalltransportationdevelopmentprojects.Beforefundingorapprovingatransportationdevelopmentproject,theFAAmustfirstestablishwhetherornotthereareSection4(f)propertiesintheAPE.Ifso,theFAAmusteitherdeterminethattheimpactsaredeminimisorcompleteaSection4(f)evaluation.Forthepurposesofthislegislation,ademinimisimpactisonethatwouldnotadverselyaffecttheactivities,features,orattributesofanhistoricproperty.Iftheimpactisnotdeminimis,theSection4(f)evaluationmustbecompletedinordertoidentifyafeasibleandprudentalternativeandensurethatallpossibleplanningtominimizeharmhasoccurred.IfaSection4(f)evaluationidentifiesafeasibleandprudentalternativethathasnoeffectonanhistoricproperty,thisalternativemustbeselected.Ifnoneofthealternativesareprudentandfeasible,theFAAmustselectthealternativethatminimizestheadverseeffecttohehistoricproperties.

RESULTS

ConsultantsaccessedthesurveyrecordsoftheTennesseeStateHistoricPreservationOffice(TN-SHPO)todetermineifanypreviousarchitecturalsurveyshadidentifiedanyhistoricpropertiesinthearea.TheTN-SHPOhasconductedasurveyofthisportionofShelbyCounty,andnoNationalRegister-listedpropertiesoreligiblepropertieswerepreviouslyidentifiedwithintheprojectarea.ThenearestNationalRegisterlistedpropertyisGraceland,whichislocated3.5milessouthwestoftheprojectareainalargeresidentialneighborhood(Figure7).ThispropertywasconsideredtobeoutsidetheAPE,becausetheprojectareawasnotvisiblefromGracelandduetoitslocationinaheavilywoodedresidentialneighborhood3.5miles

History, Thematic Typology, and Inventory of Aircraft Hangars Constructed on Department of Defense Installations (Champaign, Illinois: United States Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, 1999). 4 Jayne Aaron, Historical and Architectural Overview of Aircraft Hangars of the Reserves and National Guard Installations from World War I through the Cold War, (Air Force Air Combat Command, 2011).

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page17

southwestoftheprojectarea.ThenearestpotentiallyeligiblepropertiesidentifiedintheTNHistoricalCommissionViewerwerelocatedapproximately1.25mileswestoftheprojectareaandconsistoftwocirca1950single-familydwellings.SY20479islocatedinanindustrialareawestofPloughBoulevard,whichisafourlanedividedhighwayformingthewesternboundaryoftheairportcomplex.SY20480wasalsoasingle-familydwellinglocatedadjacenttothepreviouspropertyintheindustrialarea,butithasbeendemolishedsincethemostrecentTN-SHPOsurveyofthisarea.SY20479wasconsideredtobeoutsidetheAPE,becausetheprojectareaisnotvisiblefromthispropertyduetothelocationofanindustrialbuildinglocatedat2250ByrnStreet.Inaddition,theareabetweentheindustrialdevelopmentandtheprojectareaisobscuredbyPloughBoulevardandapproximately0.9milesofaircraftstaging,loading,andfuelingareasattheFedExMemphisAirportHub.ThenextnearestpotentiallyeligiblepropertyidentifiedintheTNHistoricalCommissionViewerisa1958commercialstructurelocatedapproximately1.5milesnortheastoftheprojectareaattheintersectionofPearsonRoadandLamarAvenue.Thisproperty,SY35345,wasconsideredtobeoutsidetheAPE,becausetheprojectareaisnotvisiblefromtheproperty.Itisseparatedfromtheprojectareabynumerousbuildingsinalow-riseindustrialdevelopment,DemocratRoad,TchulahomaRoad,andthenortheastportionoftheMemphisInternationalAirportandtheFedExramp,whichincludesthelowtomid-riseMemphisAirRouteTrafficControlCenterandtheeasternFedExemployeesecurityandtrainingfacilities(Figure8).

Asaresult,theconsultantslimitedtheAPEtotheareatobeincludedintheproposedproject(Figure9).DemocratRoaddefinestheboundaryonthenorthsideoftheAPE.HurricaneCreek,IndependentDrive,andRepublicanDrivedefinetheboundaryontheeast.SprankelAvenueandtheGSElanessouthofHangarNo.6andtheNorthSecondarySort1-4definetheboundaryonthesouth.TheGSElaneswestoftheNorthSecondarySort1-4andHangarNo.7,SprankelAvenue,TangStreet,TechnocratLane,theGSElaneswestandnorthofBuilding2878andBuilding2860,andSouthwideDrivedefinetheboundaryonthewest.

ConsultantsperformedafieldsurveyoftheAPEbetweenMay9,2016andMay13,2016.ThisfieldsurveylocatedandphotographedallpropertiesintheAPEtobedemolishedintheproposedundertakingandidentifiedanddocumentedallpotentiallyeligiblehistoricpropertiesintheAPE.AlthoughtheprimaryobjectiveofthesurveywastodeterminethepotentialforNationalRegistereligibilityofanyindividualresourcesorhistoricdistrictsinthearea,italsocollectedinformationonthesetting,structuralcondition,history,andintegrityofeachofthepotentiallyeligiblehistoricproperties.Intotal,thefieldsurveyinventoried24properties,collectingvaryinglevelsofinformationdependingonthedateofconstruction,integrity,andhistoryofeachproperty.ThisincludedtheSouthwideCenterbuildings,TANGbuildings,FedExgroundsupportequipment(GSE)hydrogenfuelingstation,FedExAdministrationBuilding,FedExpaintshop,andtheWorldWarIImilitaryaircrafthangarsandassociatedBoilerRoom.

TheconsultantsdidnotbelievethattheSouthwideCenterbuildingsortheFedExpaintshopmettheeligibilityrequirementsforinclusionontheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces.AlthoughtheydidnotbelievethattheTANGbuildingsortheFedExGSEhydrogentestfacilitymettheeligibilityrequirements,theygatheredadditionalinformationforthesebuildingsdue

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page18

tothepossibilitythattheymaybeconsideredpotentiallyeligibleunderCriterionConsiderationG.Attheconclusionofthefieldsurvey,theconsultantsbelievedthattheFedExAdministrationBuildinghadthepotentialtomeettheeligibilityrequirementsunderCriteriaConsiderationG.Asaresult,interiorandexteriorphotographsweretakenofthebuildingandadditionalinformationwascollected.DuetotheageanduniquedesignoftheWorldWarIImilitaryaircrafthangarsandassociatedBoilerRoom,theconsultantsbelievedthatalloftheWorldWarIIerastructuresmettheeligibilityrequirementsforinclusionontheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page19

PUBLICPARTICIPATION

NATIVEAMERICANTRIBALCONSULTATIONLIST

FAAhasinitiatedconsultationwithnineNativeAmericantribesorrepresentatives,bynotifyingeachoftheprojectdescriptionandaskingiftheywouldliketoparticipateintheSection106reviewprocessasaconsultingparty.

DavidCook,KialegeeTribalTownKarenBrunso,TheChickasawNationRobinDushane,EasternShawneeTribeofOklahomaKimJumper,ShawneeTribeEricOosahwee-Voss,UnitedKeetoowahBandofCherokeeIndiansCorainLowe-Zepeda,Muscogee(Creek)NationEverettBandy,QuapawTribeofOklahomaEmmanSpain,ThlopthloccoTribalTownDanielRagle,ChoctawNationofOklahoma

TheEnvironmentalDivisionoftheTennesseeDepartmentofTransportationpreparedandmaintainsalistofhistoricgroupsandothersuchorganizationsbycounty,whichmightbeinterestedinconsultingonproposedprojects.Accordingtothislist,therearetwelveindividuals,organizations,andhistoricalsocietieslocatedinShelbyCounty.Eachhavebeennotifiedoftheprojectdescriptionandaskediftheywouldliketocommentontheproposedproject.

SHELBYCOUNTYANDMEMPHISPUBLICPARTICIPATIONLIST

JimmyOgle,ShelbyCountyHistorianMemphisAreaAssociationofGovernmentsMayorMarkLuttrell,ShelbyCountyCeceliaFranklin,AssociationforthePreservationofTennesseeAntiquitiesRickCopeland,MemphisandShelbyCountyDivisionofPlanningandDevelopmentJudyPeiser,CenterforSouthernFolkloreLauraTodd,ShelbyCountyHistoricalCommissionCarolPerel,WestTennesseeHistoricalSocietyJuneWest,MemphisHeritage,Inc.JimmyMcNeil,DepartmentoftheArmyCorpsofEngineers,MemphisDistrictMayorJimStrickland,CityofMemphisBrianBacchus,MemphisLandmarksCommission

PROPERTYOWNERS

Memphis-ShelbyCountyAirportAuthority2491WinchesterRoadMemphis,Tennessee38116(901)398-8375

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page20

DESCRIPTIONOFPROPOSEDMEMPHISARMYAIRFIELDHISTORICDISTRICT

TheproposedMemphisArmyAirFieldHistoricDistrictwasestablishedintheassociatedHistoricResourcesSurvey.Adetaileddescriptionoftheproposedhistoricdistrictboundaryisincludedinthisevaluation(Figure10).AccordingtotheHistoricResourcesSurvey,thedistrictispotentiallyeligibleforlistingontheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesunderCriteriaAandC.TherecommendationofeligibilityunderCriterionAisbasedontheassociationoftheSection4(f)propertiesintheproposeddistrictwiththeexponentialexpansionandtransitionoftheU.S.ArmyAirCorpsintotheU.S.ArmyAirForcesduringWorldWarII,whichpavedthewayfortheestablishmentoftheU.S.AirForceasanindependentbranchofthearmedforcesfollowingthewar,aswellastherepresentationofthedomesticwareffort.Inaddition,itistherecommendationoftheconsultantsthattheSection4(f)propertiesintheproposeddistrictarepotentiallyeligibleforlistingunderCriterionCduetotheirunique,asymmetricaldesignandtherarityofextantwoodbowtrusshangarsintheUnitedStates.

HistoricpropertiesarepotentiallycontributingpropertiestoaproposedNationalRegisterHistoricDistrictiftheyareassociatedwiththehistoricthemeoreventsusedtodefinethedistrictanddatetotheperiodofsignificance.WithinthecontextofthedevelopmentofAmericanairpower,theMemphisArmyAirFieldwaslikelyontheforefrontofthisgrowthinthe54-GroupPlanestablishedinlate1940,whentheAACusedexistingcivilairfieldstoexpeditetheconstructionoftacticalfields.ThiswouldplacetheMemphisArmyAirFieldamongagroupofapproximately400tacticalfieldsnationwidethatwereintendedtobeoperationalasquicklyaspossibleinordertoprotectthehomefront.ThecontributingpropertiesoftheproposedMemphisArmyAirFieldHistoricDistrictincludedtwoWorldWarIImilitaryaircrafthangars,andoneassociatedBoilerRoom.Giventhesignificanceofaircrafthangarstotheoperationsofamilitaryairfield,HangarNo.6,HangarNo.7,andtheassociatedBoilerRoomarecloselyassociatedwiththehistoriccontextandrepresentativeofthesignificantroleofthesestructuresonthehomefrontduringWorldWarII.ItistheopinionoftheconsultantsthatHangarNo.6,HangarNo.7,andtheBoilerRoomwereconstructedin1943andretainasignificantlevelofintegrity,makingthempotentiallyeligiblefortheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaceswithintheproposeddistrict.

TheproposedNationalRegisterBoundaryfortheWorldWarIIerapropertiesincludesthefootprintofHangarNo.6,HangarNo.7,andtheBoilerRoom,aswellastheportionofSprankelAvenueseparatingtheBoilerRoomfromthehangars,becauseitoverliestheutilitycorridorusedtoconnectthesestructures.Theareadefinedbythisboundarycontainsapproximately3.85acres.TheproposedboundarydoesnotincludetheFedExAdminbuilding,whichisassessedforeligibilityinthefollowingsection.

DESCRIPTIONOFPROPOSEDFEDEXHISTORICDISTRICT

TheproposedFedExHistoricDistrictwasestablishedintheassociatedHistoricResourcesSurvey.Adetaileddescriptionoftheproposedhistoricdistrictboundaryisincludedinthisevaluation(Figure11).AccordingtotheHistoricResourcesSurvey,thedistrictispotentiallyeligibleforlistingontheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesunderCriterionA.The

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page21

recommendationofeligibilitybasedonCriterionAunderCriteriaConsiderationGisbasedontheassociationoftheSection4(f)propertiesintheproposeddistrictwiththeearlyyearsofFedExoperationsinMemphisandthedevelopmentofaircargotransportation.

HistoricpropertiesarepotentiallycontributingpropertiestoaproposedNationalRegisterHistoricDistrictiftheyareassociatedwiththehistoricthemeoreventsusedtodefinethedistrictanddatetotheperiodofsignificance.ThecontributingpropertiesoftheproposedFedExHistoricDistrictincludedtheAdministrationBuilding,twoWorldWarIImilitaryaircrafthangars,andoneassociatedBoilerRoom.ItistheopinionoftheconsultantsthatthecorporateheadquartersandoperationsfacilitycreatedbytheconstructionoftheAdministrationBuildingconnectingHangarNo.6andHangarNo.7,andtheassociatedBoilerRoomretainintegrityandaresignificantbasedontheassociationofthesebuildingswiththeextraordinarygrowthofFedExanditsimpactonlocalandnationaleconomies,aswellasinternationalbusiness.TheexceptionalimportanceoftheSection4(f)propertiesisdemonstratedbythefactthattherearenootherknownpropertiesrepresentativeofearlyFedExoperationsinthecommunity,state,ornation.

TheproposedNationalRegisterDistrictBoundaryfortheFedExerapropertiescontainsapproximately4.3acres.ThedistrictasdefinedbythisboundaryincludesthefootprintoftheAdministrationBuilding,HangarNo.6,HangarNo.7,andtheBoilerRoom,aswellastheportionofSprankelAvenueseparatingtheBoilerRoomfromthehangarsandAdministrationBuilding,becauseitoverliestheutilitycorridorusedtoconnectthesestructures.

EFFECTSTOTHEPROPOSEDMEMPHISAIRFIELDANDFEDEXHISTORICDISTRICTS

FedExhasinitiatedaprogramtoupdateandmodernizeitsfacilitiesattheMemphisInternationalAirport(MEM)inMemphis,Tennessee.AnoutdatedpackagesortingfacilitywouldbereplacedwithfacilitiesspecificallydesignedtoaccommodatemodernizedequipmentandimproveefficiencyattheHub.

UndertheProposedDevelopmentAction,FedExwoulddeconstructordemolishfourSection4(f)propertiesatMEMandconstructseveralnewfacilities.TheSection4(f)propertiestobedemolishedordeconstructedare:

1. Hangar#6(Building2879)2. Hangar#7(Building2837)3. Admin(Building2861)4. Building2838

Afterdemolitionofthebuildingslistedaboveandremovaloftheassociatedslabs,FedExwouldconstructseveralnewfacilitiesandimproveexistingfacilitiesinordertomodernizeequipmentandimproveefficiency.

OncetheSecondary25andBulkTruckLoadfacilitiesandsortsystemsarefullyoperational,FedExwoulddeconstruct/demolishBays1-4oftheNorthSecondarySort(2899)facilitydownto

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page22

slablevel.Thestructuresthatwouldbedemolishedordeconstructed,andtheproposednewlyconstructedstructuresareshownonFigure2.

DOCUMENTATIONOFEFFECT

Theconsultantsappliedthecriteriaofeffectasfoundin36CFRPart800.5fortheproposedprojecttothepotentiallyeligiblepropertieswithintheprojectarea.Therearetwodifferentpotentialeligibilitydeterminationsaddressedinthissurvey.OneincludesonlytheWorldWarIIerabuildingsbasedonCriteriaAandC.TheotherincludesthebuildingsassociatedwithearlyFedExoperationsintheprojectareabasedonCriterionAunderCriteriaConsiderationG.Sincethefootprintsofeachofthesepotentialdistrictsasdefinedintheprevioussectionarenearlyidentical,thisdocumentationofeffectswilladdressbothdistrictsinthesamediscussion.TheproposedprojectascurrentlydefinedwouldrequirethedemolitionofthepotentiallyeligiblepropertiesintheproposedMemphisArmyAirFieldhistoricdistrictandtheproposedFedExhistoricdistricttoenabletheconstructionofanewSecondarySort25facility.BecausetheproposedFedExTransformationprojectwouldaltercharacteristicsofthehistoricpropertiesthatqualifyorrenderthempotentiallyeligiblefortheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces.ItistheopinionoftheconsultantsthattheproposedprojectwouldhaveanadverseeffectonthepotentiallyeligiblepropertiesaddressedinthisSection4(f)evaluation.

Section106

36CFRPart800.5AssessmentofAdverseEffects

(a)ApplyCriteriaofAdverseEffect

InconsultationwiththeSHPO/THPOandanyIndiantribeorNativeHawaiianorganizationthatattachesreligiousandculturalsignificancetoidentifiedhistoricproperties,theAgencyofficialshallapplythecriteriaofadverseeffecttohistoricpropertieswithintheareaofpotentialeffects.TheAgencyOfficialshallconsideranyviewsconcerningsucheffects,whichhavebeenprovidedbyconsultingpartiesandthepublic.

(1)CriteriaofAdverseEffect

Anadverseeffectisfoundwhenanundertakingmayalter,directlyorindirectly,anyofthecharacteristicsofahistoricpropertythatqualifythepropertyforinclusionintheNationalRegisterinamannerthatwoulddiminishtheintegrityoftheproperty’slocation,design,setting,materials,workmanship,feeling,orassociation.Considerationshallbegiventoallqualifyingcharacteristicsofahistoricproperty,includingthosethatmayhavebeenidentifiedsubsequenttotheoriginalevaluationoftheproperty’seligibilityfortheNationalRegister.Adverseeffectsmayincludereasonablyforeseeableeffectscausedbytheundertakingthatmayoccurlaterintime,befartherremovedindistanceorbecumulative.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page23

(2)ExamplesofAdverseEffects

AnundertakingisconsideredtohaveanAdverseEffectwhentheeffectonahistoricpropertymaydiminishtheintegrityoftheproperty’slocation,design,setting,materials,workmanship,feeling,orassociation.Adverseeffectsonhistoricpropertiesinclude,butarenotlimitedto:

(i)Physicaldestructionofordamagetoallorpartoftheproperty;

ThehistoricresourcescontainedinthepotentialMemphisArmyAirFieldhistoricdistrictarepotentiallyeligibleforlistingintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesbasedonCriterionAduetotheirassociationwiththehistoriccontextofWorldWarIIerasitesinTennesseeandthenation’swartimeaviationhistoryandremainclearrepresentationsofthesignificantroleofthesestructuresonthehomefrontduringWorldWarII.TheseresourcesarealsopotentiallyeligibleunderCriterionCduetotheirunique,asymmetricaldesignandtherarityofextantwoodbowtrusshangarsintheUnitedStates.ThehistoricresourcescontainedinthepotentialFedExhistoricdistrictarepotentiallyeligibleforlistingintheNationalRegisterbasedonCriterionAunderCriteriaConsiderationG.ThisrecommendationisbasedontheassociationofthesepropertieswiththeexponentialgrowthofFedExanditsimpactonlocalandnationaleconomies,aswellasinternationalbusiness.TheexceptionalimportanceofthesepropertiesisdemonstratedbythefactthattherearenootherknownpropertiesrepresentativeofearlyFedExoperationsinthecommunity,state,ornation.Sincetheproposedprojectwouldresultinthedemolitionofallhistoricpropertiesineachofthepotentialdistricts,itistheopinionoftheconsultantsthattheproposedprojectwouldconstituteanadverseeffecttothehistoricproperties.

(ii)Alterationofaproperty,includingrestoration,rehabilitation,repair,maintenance,stabilization,hazardousmaterialremediationandprovisionofhandicappedaccess,thatisnotconsistentwiththeSecretary’sStandardsfortheTreatmentofHistoricProperties(36CFRPart68)andapplicableguidelines;

Theproposedprojectwouldrequirethedemolitionofthehistoricpropertiesineachoftheproposedhistoricdistricts.BecausetheproposedprojectwouldalterthehistoricpropertiesinawaythatisinconsistentwiththeSecretaryoftheInterior’sStandardsfortheTreatmentofHistoricProperties,theproposedundertakingwouldconstituteanadverseeffect.

(iii)Removalofthepropertyfromitshistoriclocation

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page24

Theproposedprojectwouldresultintheremovalofthepropertyfromitshistoriclocationthroughdemolitionandthereforetheproposedundertakingwouldconstituteanadverseeffect.

(iv)Changeofthecharacteroftheproperty’suseorphysicalfeatureswithintheproperty’ssettingthatcontributetoitshistoricsignificance;

TheproposedprojectwouldresultinsignificantalterationtothephysicalfeaturesandsettingofpropertieswithintheAPEthroughdemolition,andthereforeitistheopinionoftheconsultantsthattheproposedundertakingwouldconstituteanadverseeffect.

(v)Introductionofvisual,atmospheric,oraudibleelementsthatdiminishtheintegrityoftheproperty’ssignificanthistoricfeatures;

Theproposedundertakingwouldresultintheintroductionofvisual,atmospheric,oraudibleelementsthatwoulddiminishtheintegrityoftheproperty’ssignificantfeaturesthroughtheprocessofdemolition.Therefore,itistheopinionoftheconsultantsthattheproposedundertakingwouldconstituteanadverseeffecttovisual,atmospheric,oraudibleelementswithintheAPE.

(vi)Neglectofapropertywhichcausesitsdeterioration,exceptwheresuchneglectordeteriorationarerecognizedqualitiesorapropertyofreligiousandculturalsignificancetoanIndiantribeorNativeHawaiianorganization;and

TheproposedundertakingwouldnotcauseneglectanddeteriorationofthepropertieswithintheAPEduetotheprocessofdemolition.Therefore,itistheopinionoftheconsultantsthattheproposedundertakingwouldnotconstituteanadverseeffectrelatedspecificallytotheneglectordeteriorationofhistoricpropertieswithintheAPE.

(vii)Transfer,lease,orsaleofpropertyoutofFederalownershiporcontrolwithoutadequateandlegallyenforceablerestrictionsorconditionstoensurelong-termpreservationoftheproperty'shistoricsignificance.

Theproposedundertakingwouldnotresultinthetransfer,lease,orsaleofthepropertyorremoveitfromFederalcontrol.Therefore,itistheopinionoftheconsultantsthattheproposedundertakingwouldnothaveanadverseeffectrelatedtoownershiporcontrolofthepotentiallyeligiblepropertieswithintheAPE.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page25

APPLICABILITYOFSECTION4(F)EVALUATION

FedExinitiatedaprojecttoupdateandmodernizeitsfacilitiesattheMemphisInternationalAirport(MEM)inMemphis,Tennessee.ThepurposeandneedoftheprojectistoreplaceanoutdatedandoperationallyinadequatepackagesortingfacilitywithmodernizedfacilitiesandequipmentinordertoincreaseefficiencyattheHub.Afterdemolitionof23ofthebuildingsandremovaloftheassociatedslabs,FedExwouldconstructseveralnewfacilitiesandimproveexistingfacilitiesinordertomodernizeequipmentandimproveefficiency.OncetheSecondary25andBulkTruckLoadfacilitiesandsortsystemsarefullyoperational,FedExwoulddeconstruct/demolishthefinalbuildingdowntoslablevel.ThisdemolitionoffourSection4(f)propertiesfromwithintheproposedNationalRegisterHistoricDistrictboundedpropertyconstitutesaSection4(f)“use”ofanhistoricproperty.ThistypeofuseinvolvesthepermanentincorporationoftheSection4(f)propertiesaspartofatransportationproject.Asaresult,theproposedprojectwillrequireaSection4(f)evaluation.

TherearefiveexistingNationwideProgrammaticSection4(f)evaluationsthatcanbeusedinplaceofindividualevaluationsforparticulartypesoftransportationprojectsandspecificuses.ThebenefitofusingaprogrammaticevaluationisthatitreducestheamountoftimenecessarytocompletetheSection4(f)process.Anindividualevaluationrequiresadraft,acommentorcirculationperiod,andfinaldraft.ThisisbecausetheframeworkandbasicapproachofindividualevaluationshavenotpreviouslybeencirculatedandagreeduponbytheUSDepartmentoftheInterior(DOI)inamannersimilartoprogrammaticevaluations.Programmaticevaluationsareusuallyapprovedmuchfasterthanindividualevaluations.ItistheopinionoftheconsultantsthattheproposedprojectdoesnotmeettherequirementsnecessarytouseanexistingNationwideProgrammaticSection4(f)evaluation.Asaresult,thefollowingdocumentationisstructuredaccordingtotherequirementsoftheindividualevaluationprocess.Thosecriteriaareasfollows:

INDIVIDUALEVALUATION

RegardlessofwhethertheSection4(f)evaluationisprocessedindependentlyorasasubsectionofaNEPAdocument,theprojectsponsormustsubmitadraftthat(1)identifiesandevaluatesavoidancealternativesand(2)identifiesandevaluatesmeasurestominimizeharmtotheSection4(f)property.ThisSection4(f)evaluationfulfillstheserequirementsinthefollowingsections.

ALTERNATIVESANDMITIGATION

InordertocomplywithregulationsofSection4(f),FedExconsideredfouralternativestoavoidimpactingSection4(f)propertieslocatedintheAPE,includingano-buildalternativeandthreealternatelocations.Sincethealternativesdonotappeartobeprudentandfeasible,theconsultanthasalsoworkedtomitigatetheimpactthattheproposedprojectwouldhaveontheSection4(f)properties.Theproposedalternativesandmitigationareoutlinedbelow.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page26

AVOIDANCEALTERNATIVE#1:

Inordertominimizeadverseeffectstopotentiallyeligiblehistoricstructures,ano-buildalternativewasinvestigated(Figure3).Thisalternativedoesnotappeartobefeasibleorprudent,becauseitwouldrequireFedExtocontinuetooperateinanoutdatedandinadequatesortfacility.Thisfacilitywasdesignedandimplementedovera44-yearperiod,anditisnolongerabletoadapttoadvancementsintechnologyandsortsystems,whichhaveimprovedsignificantlyinthelastfourdecades.ThefacilitymustbereplacedinordertomaintainoperationsattheMemphisHubwellintothefuture.Inaddition,FedExmustmaintainoperationsintheexistingsecondarysortbuildinguntilareplacementfacilityisconstructedandoperational.Theno-buildalternativewouldalsorequirethefollowingactions,whichwouldresultinadditionalconstructionandoperationalcostsofanextraordinarymagnitude:

• TheoveralllayoutoftheHubwouldhavetoberedesigned;• Otherareaswouldhavetoberepurposedormoved;• Trafficflowswouldbedisruptedandneedtoberedesigned;• “Sunkcosts”inpreviouslydevelopedfacilitieswouldbelost;or• FedExwouldhavetoabandontheproposedprojectatMemphisandinvestin

modernizationandupgradesatoneofitsotherU.S.hubs,whichwouldhaveasevereadverseeconomicimpactontheMemphismetropolitanarea,causingseveredisruptiontoestablishedcommunitiesthatdependontheFedExHubforemployment,aswellasbusinesseswhoinmanycaseshaveinvestedheavilyinfacilitiesinMemphistobelocatedneartheHub.

AVOIDANCEALTERNATIVE#2:

Inordertominimizeadverseeffectstopotentiallyeligiblehistoricstructures,alternatelocationsfortheSecondary25sortfacilitywest,south,andeastoftheexistingsortfacilitywereinvestigated(Figure4).Thesealternatelocationsdidnotappeartobefeasibleorprudentforthefollowingreasons:

• Eachiscurrentlyusedforaircraftstaging,fueling,andloading.Assuch,therearespeciallyengineeredandconstructedgates,ramps,andfuelingequipmenttosupporttheseoperations.Alteringthesefacilitieswouldresultinadditionalconstructionandoperationalcostsofanextraordinarymagnitude.

• Duetotheirpositionrelativetotheexistingsortfacilityandcargointakearea,eachofthealternativelocationswouldcompromisetheprojecttoadegreethatitisunreasonabletoproceedwiththeprojectinlightofitsstatedpurposeandneedandwouldresultinunacceptableoperationalproblems.Theprimaryobjectiveofthisprojectistoreplaceoutdatedfacilitiesandequipment,whichwillimprovetheefficiencyofthefacilityinreceivingandprocessingpackages.Itisessentialtotheoverallprojectgoals

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page27

thatthenewBulkTruckLoadareaandassociatedsortfacilityalignwiththeoperationalflowoftheexistingprimarysortandHub.ThelocationoftheSecondary25sortfacilitywest,south,oreastoftheexistingsortfacilitywouldnotaccomplishthisgoal.

AVOIDANCEALTERNATIVE#3:

Inordertominimizeadverseeffectstopotentiallyeligiblehistoricstructures,alternatelocationsfortheBulkTruckLoadareaandSecondary25sortfacilitywereinvestigatednorthofSprankelAvenue(Figure5).Inthisdesignscheme,theBulkTruckLoadareawouldbelocatedintheareacurrentlyoccupiedbythevacantSouthwidebuildings,andthesortfacilitywouldbelocatedintheareaofthevacantTANGstructures.Thisalternativedoesnotappeartobefeasibleorprudent,becausetheareaisnotlargeenoughtoaccommodatethetrucktraffic,staging,andloadingfacilities,aswellasasafeandoperationallysoundsortfacilityforthefollowingreasons:

• BasedonthedesigncriteriaoftheSecondary25sortfacility,thenecessarysquarefootageandproportionsofthebuildingfootprintfortheproposedfacilitywouldexceedthespaceavailableintheareaoftheexistingTANGbuildings.Inordertoconstructasortfacilityinthislocation,FedExwouldneedtorelocatetheexistingBulkTruckLoadareatotheareacurrentlyoccupiedbytheSouthwideCenterbuildings,whichwouldreduceornearlyeliminatethecurrenttruckandtractor-traileraccessandstagingareasnecessarytoutilizetheBulkTruckLoadareasanddeliverpackagestothesortfacility.ThislocationwouldalsoleavenoremainingspacetoconstructthenewBTLfacility.Thisalternativewouldcompromisetheprojecttoadegreethatitisunreasonabletoproceedwiththeprojectinlightofitsstatedpurposeandneedandwouldresultinunacceptableoperationalproblems.

• Itwouldalsoposeasafetyhazardbylimitingthemaneuverabilityofdeliverytrucksandtractor-trailerswhencorneringandturningaroundonsite.ByconstructinganewBulkTruckLoadareainthevicinityoftheexistingSouthwideCenterbuildingswithoutexpandingtheassociatedaccessandstagingareas,theaccessroadswouldbeoverutilized,causingtrafficcongestionthatwouldlimittheeffectivenessofthenewBulkTruckLoadareaandSecondary25sortfacilitytotheextentthattheprojectwouldnotbefinanciallyviable.Thisalternativewouldresultinadditionalconstructionandoperationalcostsofanextraordinarymagnitude.

• Thislocationwouldalsobeoperationallyunsound,becauseitwouldseparatetheSecondary25sortfacilityontheoppositesideofSprankelAvenue.Inorderforthesortequipmentandassemblylinetomeetoperationalrequirements,thenewsortfacilitymustbelocatedadjacenttotheexistingsortfacilityandcontiguouswiththecargointakearea.Thisalternativewoulditwouldcompromisetheprojecttoadegreethatitisunreasonabletoproceedwiththeprojectinlightofitsstatedpurposeandneedandresultinunacceptableoperationalproblems.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page28

AVOIDANCEALTERNATIVE#4:

Inordertominimizetheadverseeffectstopotentiallyeligiblehistoricstructures,analternatelocationfortheBulkTruckLoadareaandSecondary25sortfacilitywasinvestigatednorthofDemocratRoadandsouthofNonconnahCreekinanareacurrentlyusedforemployeeparking(Figure6).Thisareaislocatedacrossalargepublicroadoutsideoftheperimeterofthesecureairportfacility.Thisdesignschemedoesnotappeartobefeasibleorprudentforthefollowingreasons:

• BasedonthedesigncriteriaoftheSecondary25sortfacility,thenecessarysquarefootageandproportionsofthebuildingfootprintfortheproposedfacilitywouldexceedthespaceavailableintheareaoftheexistingemployeeparkingarea.Inordertoconstructasortfacilityinthislocation,FedExwouldneedtoexpandbeyondtheareaoftheexistingparkinglot,whichisproblematic,asitisboundedonthenorthandeastbyNonconnahandHurricaneCreeks.Asaresult,thisalternativewouldcompromisetheprojecttoadegreethatitisunreasonabletoproceedwiththeprojectinlightofitsstatedpurposeandneedandwouldresultinunacceptableoperationalproblems.

• BylocatingtheBulkTruckLoadandSecondary25sortfacilityoutsideoftheLevel1Securityportionoftheairportfacility,allpackagesandpersonneltransferredtothisunsecuredBulkTruckLoadandSecondary25sortfacilitywouldneedtobeprocessedthroughsecurityscreeningwhenbothexitingandenteringtheLevel1securezone.Statistically,eachtimeapersonorobjectleavesandreturnstothesecurearea,thereisanopportunityforasecurityfailure.ThiswouldbeoperationallyunsoundandwouldreducetheeffectivenessofthenewBulkTruckLoadareaandSecondary25sortfacilitytotheextentthattheprojectwouldnotbeoperationallyorfinanciallyviable.InordertoincorporatethisareaintotheLevel1Securityportionoftheairportfacility,thefollowingactionswouldneedtooccur:

1. Theairportwouldneedtoexerciseeminentdomaintoincorporateaminimumof0.5mileofDemocratRoad,whichisa4-laneroadwithacenterturninglanethatprovidesaccessfromthisareatotheadjacentinterstatehighway,intotheLevel1Securityarea.

2. RelocationofDemocratRoadaroundthenorthsideofthenewBulkTruckLoadareaandSecondary25sortfacility,whichisunlikelytobeapprovedgiventhepotentialimpacttoNonconnahandHurricaneCreeks.

3. Thislocationwouldalsobeoperationallyunsound,becauseitwouldseparatetheSecondary25sortfacilityontheoppositesideofSprankelAvenue.Inorderforthesortequipmentandassemblylinetomeetoperationalrequirements,thenewsortfacilitymustbelocatedadjacenttotheexistingsortfacilityandcontiguouswiththecargointakearea.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page29

MEASURESTOAVOID,MINIMIZEORMITIGATEHARM

TheSection4(f)propertieslocatedwithintheboundariesoftheproposedMemphisArmyAirFieldHistoricDistrictandproposedFedExHistoricDistrictwouldbeadverselyaffectediftheproposedprojectisconstructed.TheundertakingwouldadverselyaffectthepropertyandwouldconstituteapermanentincorporationofthesestructuresintothesiteoftheSecondary25sortfacility.Inanefforttoavoid,minimize,ormitigatetheimpactofproposedprojecttothehistoricproperty,andtofollowtherequirementsofSection4(f)oftheU.S.DepartmentofTransportationActof1966,asamended,andSection106oftheNationalHistoricPreservationActof1966,asamended,FedExhasdesignedthealternativesinamannerintendedtoavoidorminimizeimpactstothehistoricpropertywithintheprojectarea.

Duetothepotentiallackofprudentalternativestotheproposedfacilityimprovements,FedExseeksapprovaltomitigatetheadverseeffectstothepotentiallyeligiblestructurescausedbytheirdemolitionthroughthecompletionofHistoricAmericanBuildingsSurvey(HABS)LevelIIdocumentationoftheeligiblestructuresinaccordancewiththeU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineersrecommendationsformilitaryaircrafthangarsandsupportingstructures.Inareportdocumentinganationalsurveyandassessmentofhistoricmilitaryaircrafthangars,Websterarguesthatthesignificanceofaparticularhangar“mayrestonthefactthatitistheearliest,bestorlastexistingexampleofatype.”5Shecontinuestostatethat“itmaybefeasibleandjustifiabletousedocumentationofthenation’sbestexampleofahangartypetorepresenttheremainingexamplesforpurposesofmitigation.”6Inconclusion,Websteralsorecommendedthatthe“bestsurvivingexampleofeachmajoraircrafthangartypeonU.S.militaryinstallationsbeidentified…andthattheseprimeexamplesthenbedocumentedaccordingtotheLevelIIprotocolsspecifiedbytheHistoricAmericanBuildingsSurvey(HABS).”GiventhatthisresearchdidnotidentifyanyotherhangarswithasimilarasymmetricalfloorplanortrusscolumnconstructionasHangarNo.6(2879)andHangarNo.7(2837),itisreasonabletosuggestthatWebster’srecommendationsareconsideredpriortothedemolitionofthesestructures.7

IftheAdminbuildingisalsodeterminedtobeeligibleduetoitsassociationwithearlyFedExhistory,asimilarmitigationplanisproposedtomitigatetheadverseeffectcausedbyitsdemolition.

COORDINATION

5 Julie L. Webster, Historical and Architectural Overview of Military Aircraft Hangars: A General, History, Thematic Typology, and Inventory of Aircraft Hangars Constructed on Department of Defense Installations (Champaign, Illinois: United States Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, 1999), 7-1. 6 Webster, 7-2. 7 Jayne Aaron. Historical and Architectural Overview of Aircraft Hangars of the Reserves and National Guard Installations from World War I through the Cold War. (Air Force Air Combat Command, 2011).

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page30

Thecoordinationsectionofthisevaluationreflectstheoutcomesofthediscussionsinvolvingavoidancealternatives,impactstoSection4(f)properties,andmitigationmeasures,aswellasadiscussionofsignificanceanduseoftheSection4(f)properties.AsofthedateofthisdraftSection4(f)evaluation,theFAAhasconsultedwiththeTN-SHPO,whichistheofficialwithjurisdiction(OWJ)fortheproposedundertaking.ArecordofpreviouscorrespondencehasbeenincludedintheSHPOCorrespondencesection.RevisionshavebeenincorporatedintothisdraftSection4(f)evaluationbasedonpreviouscoordinationandconsultation.

InordertomeettherequirementsforcoordinationunderSection4(f),thisdraftevaluationshouldbemadeavailabletotheOWJ,theDOI,andtheotherappropriatepartieslistedforcoordinationandcommentforaperiodof45days.Ifcommentsarenotreceivedwithin15daysofthecommentdeadline,alackofobjectionmaybeassumedandtheprocessmayproceedtoaFinalEvaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Basedupontheaboveconsiderations,thereispotentiallynofeasibleandprudentalternativetotheuseoftheSection4(f)propertieslocatedintheAPEoftheproposedundertakingandtheproposedactionincludesallpossibleplanningtominimizeharmtotheSection4(f)propertiesresultingfromsuchuse.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page31

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aaron,Jayne.HistoricalandArchitecturalOverviewofAircraftHangarsoftheReservesandNationalGuardInstallationsfromWorldWarIthroughtheColdWar.AirForceAirCombatCommand,2011.

Webster,JulieL.HistoricalandArchitecturalOverviewofMilitaryAircraftHangars:AGeneralHistory,ThematicTypology,andInventoryofAircraftHangarsConstructedonDepartmentofDefenseInstallations.Champaign,Illinois:UnitedStatesArmyConstructionEngineeringResearchLaboratory,1999.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page32

FIGURES

Figure1:SiteVicinityMap.

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GISUser Community

±0 4 82Miles

0 4 82Kilometers

LegendProject Location

)HG([�MEM+ Relocations�Memphis, Shelby�Co., TN

Tennessee

Project Location

)LJXUH����Site Vicinity Map

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page33

Figure2:SiteLocationsMap.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page34

Figure3:FedExRampPlanmaptoillustrateAvoidanceAlternative#1.

Figure4:FedExRampPlandepictingthelocationofAvoidanceAlternative#2.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page35

Figure5:FedExRampPlandepictingthelocationofAvoidanceAlternative#3.

Figure6:FedExRampPlandepictingthelocationofAvoidanceAlternative#4.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page36

Figure7:NationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesMap.

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, ©OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, Source: Esri,DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

±0 1 20.5Miles

0 1 20.5Kilometers

LegendProject Location

Graceland

)HG([�MEM+ Relocations�)LJXUH����1ational Register of Historic Places

Graceland

Reference Number: 91001585Resource Type: DistrictAddress: 3764 Elvis Presley Blvd.Memphis, Shelby Co., TennesseeCertification Date: 19911107Contributing Buildings: 11Contributing Objects: 0Contributing Sites: 2Contributing Structures: 5

Distance to Project: 3.5 miles

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page37

Figure8:TN-SHPOsurveymapandaerialviewdepictingthelocationsofthreepropertiesidentifiedbyTDOThistorians.Thetwocirca1950single-familyresidencesareindicatedingreenandthe1958commercialbuildingeastiftheairportisindicatedinyellow.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page38

Figure9:FedExRampPlandepictingthelocationandboundaryoftheAPE(depictedwitharedoutline).

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page39

Figure10:FedExRampPlandepicting(withredoutline)thelocationandboundaryoftheproposedMemphisArmyAirFieldHistoricDistrict.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page40

Figure11:FedExRampPlandepicting(withredoutline)thelocationandboundaryoftheproposedFedExHistoricDistrict.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page41

ATTACHMENTS

Section106Review,NationalHistoricPreservationActof1966

EligibilityCriteriaoftheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces

NationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces,TDOTSummarySheet

CriteriaofAdverseEffects,Codifiedat36CFRPart800.5

Section4(f),TDOTActOf1966,TDOTSummarySheet

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page42

ATTACHMENT1:SECTION106REVIEW,NATIONALHISTORICPRESERVATIONACTOF1966

Section106oftheNationalHistoricPreservationActrequiresthatFederalagenciesconsiderwhateffectstheiractionsand/oractionstheymayassist,permit,orlicense,mayhaveonhistoricproperties,andthattheygivetheAdvisoryCouncilonHistoricPreservation(Council)a“reasonableopportunitytocomment”onsuchactions.TheCouncilisanindependentFederalagency.ItsroleinthereviewofactionsunderSection106istoencourageagenciestoconsider,andwherefeasible,adoptmeasuresthatwillpreservehistoricpropertiesthatwouldotherwisebedamagedordestroyed.TheCouncil’sregulations,entitled“ProtectionofHistoricProperties”(36CFRPart800)governtheSection106process.TheCouncildoesnothavetheauthoritytorequireagenciestohaltorabandonprojectsthatwillaffecthistoricproperties.

Section106appliestopropertiesthathavebeenlistedintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces(NRHP),propertiesthathavebeendeterminedtobeeligibleforinclusionintheNRHP,andpropertiesthatmaybeeligiblebuthavenotyetbeenevaluated.IfapropertyhasnotyetbeennominatedtotheNRHPordeterminedeligibleforinclusion,itistheresponsibilityoftheFederalagencyinvolvedtoascertainitseligibility.

TheCouncil’sregulationsaresetforthinaprocessconsistingoffourbasicstepswhichareasfollows:

1. InitiateSection106Process:TheFederalagencyresponsiblefortheactionestablishestheundertaking,determineswhethertheundertakinghasthepotentialtoaffecthistoricproperties(i.e.,propertieslistedinoreligibleforlistingintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces),andidentifiestheappropriateStateHistoricPreservationOfficer(SHPO)orTribalHistoricPreservationOfficer(THPO).Atthistime,theagencyplanstoinvolvethepublicandidentifyotherconsultingparties.

2. IdentifyHistoricProperties:Iftheagency’sundertakinghasthepotentialtoaffecthistoricproperties,theagencydeterminesthescopeofappropriateidentificationeffortsandproceedstoidentifyhistoricpropertieswithintheareaofpotentialeffects.Identificationinvolvesassessingtheadequacyofexistingsurveydata,inventories,andotherinformationonthearea’shistoricproperties.ThisprocessmayalsoincludeconductingfurtherstudiesasnecessaryandconsultingwiththeSHPO/THPO,consultingparties,localgovernments,andotherinterestedparties.IfpropertiesarediscoveredthatmaybeeligiblefortheNationalRegister,buthavenotbeenlistedordeterminedeligibleforlisting,theagencyconsultswiththeSHPO/THPOand,ifneeded,theKeeperoftheNationalRegistertodeterminetheeligibilitystatusoftheproperty.

3. AssessAdverseEffects:Theagency,inconsultationwiththeSHPO/THPO,assessesthepotentialeffectstohistoricpropertiesaffectedbytheundertaking.Theagencyatthistimewilldeterminethattheactionwillhave“noadverseeffect”oran“adverseeffect”onhistoricproperties.Consultingpartiesandinterestedmembersofthepublicareinformedofthesefindings.

4. Theregulationsprovidespecificcriteriafordeterminingwhetheranactionwillhaveaneffect,andwhetherthateffectwillbeadverse.Generally,iftheactionmayalterthe

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page43

characteristicsthatmakeapropertyeligiblefortheNationalRegister,itisrecognizedthattheundertakingwillhaveaneffect.Ifthosealterationsmaybedetrimentaltotheproperty’scharacteristics,includingrelevantqualitiesoftheproperty’senvironmentoruse,theeffectsarerecognizedas“adverse.”

5. ResolveAdverseEffects:TheagencyconsultswiththeSHPO/THPOandothers,includingconsultingpartiesandmembersofthepublic.TheCouncilmaychoosetoparticipateinconsultation,particularlyundercircumstanceswheretherearesubstantialimpactstohistoricproperties,whenacasepresentsimportantquestionsaboutinterpretation,orifthereisthepotentialforproceduralproblems.ConsultationusuallyresultsinaMemorandumofAgreement(MOA).

Ifagreementcannotbereached,theagency,SHPO/THPO,orCouncilmayterminateconsultation.IftheSHPO/THPOterminatesconsultation,theagencyandtheCouncilmayconcludetheMOAwithoutSHPO/THPOinvolvement.IftheSHPO/THPOterminatesconsultationandtheundertakingisonoraffectinghistoricpropertiesontriballands,theCouncilmustprovideformalcomments.TheagencymustrequestCouncilcommentsifnoagreementcanbereached.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page44

ATTACHMENT2:ELIGIBILITYCRITERIAOFTHENATIONALREGISTEROFHISTORICPLACES

ThequalityofsignificanceinAmericanhistory,architecture,archaeology,andcultureispresentindistricts,sites,buildings,structures,andobjectsthatpossessintegrityoflocation,design,setting,materials,workmanship,feeling,andassociation,and:

• CRITERIONA.thatareassociatedwitheventsthathavemadeasignificantcontributiontothebroadpatternsofourhistory(history);or

• CRITERIONB.thatareassociatedwiththelivesofpersonssignificantinourpast(person);or

• CRITERIONC.thatembodythedistinctivecharacteristicofatype,period,ormethodofconstructionorthatrepresenttheworkofamaster,orthatpossesshighartisticvalues,orthatcomponentsmaylackindividualdistinction(architecture);or

• CRITERIOND.thathaveyielded,ormaybelikelytoyield,informationimportantinprehistoryorhistory(archaeology).

Ordinarily,cemeteries;birthplacesorgravesofhistoricalfigures;propertiesownedbyreligiousinstitutionsorusedforreligiouspurposes;structuresthathavebeenmovedfromtheiroriginallocations;reconstructedhistoricbuildings;propertiesprimarilycommemorativeinnature;andpropertiesthathaveachievedsignificancewithinthepast50yearsarenotconsideredeligiblefortheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces;however,suchpropertieswillqualifyiftheyareintegralpartsofhistoricdistrictsthatdomeetthecriteriaoriftheyfallwithinthefollowingcategories:

• EXCEPTIONA.areligiouspropertyderivingprimarysignificancefromarchitecturalorartisticdistinctionorhistoricalimportance;or

• EXCEPTIONB.abuildingorstructureremovedfromitsoriginallocationbutwhichissignificantprimarilyforarchitecturalvalue,orwhichisthesurvivingstructuremostimportantlyassociatedwithahistoricpersonorevent;or

• EXCEPTIONC.abirthplaceorgraveofahistoricalfigureofoutstandingimportanceifthereisnootherappropriatesiteorbuildingdirectlyassociatedwithhisproductivelife;or

• EXCEPTIOND.acemeterywhichderivesitsprimarysignificancefromgravesorpersonsoftranscendentimportance,fromage,fromdistinctivedesignfeatures,orfromassociationwithhistoricevents;or

• EXCEPTIONE.areconstructedbuildingwhenaccuratelyexecutedinasuitableenvironmentandpresentedinadignifiedmanneraspartofarestorationmasterplan,andwhennootherbuildingorstructurewiththesameassociationhassurvived;or

• EXCEPTIONF.apropertyprimarilycommemorativeinintentifdesign,age,tradition,orsymbolicvaluehasinvesteditwithitsownhistoricalsignificance;or

• EXCEPTIONG.apropertyachievingsignificancewithinthepast50yearsifitisofexceptionalimportance.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page45

ATTACHMENT3:TDOTNATIONALREGISTEROFHISTORICPLACESSUMMARYSHEET

WhatistheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces?

TheNationalRegister,maintainedbytheKeeperoftheRegisterwithintheNationalParkService,DepartmentoftheInterior,isthenation’sofficiallistofdistricts,buildings,sites,structures,andobjectssignificantinAmericanhistory,architecture,archeology,engineering,andculture.

Whatarethebenefitsandrestrictionsoflisting?

Inadditiontohonorificrecognition,listingintheNationalRegisterresultsinthefollowingbenefitsforhistoricproperties:

• Section106providesforconsiderationofNationalRegisterlistedoreligiblepropertiesinplanningforFederal,federallylicensed,andfederallyassistedprojects;

• Eligibilityforcertaintaxprovisionsforthecertifiedrehabilitationofincome-producingNationalRegisterstructuressuchascommercial,industrial,orrentalresidentialbuildings;

• ConsiderationofhistoricvaluesinthedecisiontoissueasurfaceminingpermitwherecoalislocatedinaccordancewiththeSurfaceMiningControlActof1977;and

• QualificationofFederalgrantsforhistoricpreservation,whenfundsareavailable.

DoesNationalRegisterdesignationplaceanyadditionalburdensorobligationsonthepropertyowner?

OwnersofprivatepropertylistedintheNationalRegisterarefreetomaintain,manage,ordisposeoftheirpropertyastheychoose,providedthatnoFederalmoneysareinvolved.

HowisapropertynominatedtotheNationalRegister?

ThefirststepisfortheownertocontacttheTennesseeStateHistoricPreservationOffice(TN-SHPO),CloverBottomMansion,2941LebanonRoad,Nashville,TN37243-0442;615-532-1558.Ordinarily,privateindividuals(orpaidconsultants)preparenominationforms.TheTN-SHPOsubmitsthesenominationstoaStateReviewBoard,whichmeetsthreetimesayear.ThisbodyreviewsthenominationsandvotestorecommendordenyNationalRegisterlisting.Ifapproved,theTN-SHPOsubmitsthenominationtotheKeeperoftheRegisterinWashington,D.C.forconsiderationforlisting.TheKeeper’sOfficehas45daystoreviewthenomination,anditsdecisionregardingNationalRegisterlistingisfinal.

Howlongdoesthenominationprocesstake?

Theprocessvariesbuttypicallytakesbetweeneightandtwelvemonths.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page46

ATTACHMENT4:CRITERIAOFADVERSEEFFECT

Regulationscodifiedat36CFRPart800requireFederalagenciestoassesstheirimpactstohistoricresources.Theregulationsprovidespecificcriteriafordeterminingwhetheranactionwillhaveaneffect,andwhetherthateffectwillbeadverse.Thesecriteriaaregivenbelow.

36CFRPart800.5AssessmentofAdverseEffects

(a)ApplyCriteriaofAdverseEffect.InconsultationwiththeSHPO/THPOandanyIndiantribeorNativeHawaiianorganizationthatattachesreligiousandculturalsignificancetoidentifiedhistoricproperties,theAgencyOfficialshallapplythecriteriaofadverseeffecttohistoricpropertieswithintheareaofpotentialeffects.TheAgencyOfficialshallconsideranyviewsconcerningsucheffects,whichhavebeenprovidedbyconsultingpartiesandthepublic.

(1)Criteriaofadverseeffect.Anadverseeffectisfoundwhenanundertakingmayalter,directlyorindirectly,anyofthecharacteristicsofahistoricpropertythatqualifythepropertyforinclusionintheNationalRegisterinamannerthatwoulddiminishtheintegrityoftheproperty’slocation,design,setting,materials,workmanship,feeling,orassociation.Considerationshallbegiventoallqualifyingcharacteristicsofahistoricproperty,includingthosethatmayhavebeenidentifiedsubsequenttotheoriginalevaluationoftheproperty’seligibilityfortheNationalRegister.Adverseeffectsmayincludereasonablyforeseeableeffectscausedbytheundertakingthatmayoccurlaterintime,befartherremovedindistanceorbecumulative.

(2)Examplesofadverseeffects.Adverseeffectsonhistoricpropertiesinclude,butarenotlimitedto:

(i)Physicaldestructionofordamagetoallorpartoftheproperty;

(ii)Alterationofaproperty,includingrestoration,rehabilitation,repair,maintenance,stabilization,hazardousmaterialremediationandprovisionofhandicappedaccessthatisnotconsistentwiththeSecretary’sStandardsfortheTreatmentofHistoricPropertiesandapplicableguidelines;

(iii)Removalofthepropertyfromitshistoriclocation;

(iv)Changeofthecharacteroftheproperty’suseorofphysicalfeatureswithintheproperty’ssettingthatcontributetoitshistoricsignificance;

(v)Introductionofvisual,atmosphericoraudibleelementsthatdiminishtheintegrityoftheproperty’ssignificanthistoricfeatures;

(vi)Neglectofapropertywhichcausesitsdeterioration,exceptwheresuchneglectanddeteriorationarerecognizedqualitiesofapropertyofreligiousandculturalsignificancetoanIndiantribeorNativeHawaiianorganization;and

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page47

(vii)Transfer,leaseorsaleofpropertyoutofFederalownershiporcontrolwithoutadequateandlegallyenforceablerestrictionsorconditionstoensurelong-termpreservationoftheproperty’shistoricsignificance.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page48

ATTACHMENT5:TDOTSECTION4(F)SUMMARYSHEET

WHATISSECTION4(f)?Codifiedat49CFRPart303,"Section4(f)"referstoasectionoftheU.S.DepartmentofTransportationActwhichgivesspecialconsiderationtotheuseofparkandrecreationlands,wildlifeandwaterfowlrefuges,andhistoricsitesbyFederallyassistedtransportationprojects.Section4(f)appliesonlytothoseprojectsusingfundsfromtheU.S.DepartmentofTransportation.Thelawstates:

(c)TheSecretarymayapproveatransportationprogramorproject(otherthananyprojectforaparkroadorparkwayundersection204oftitle23)requiringtheuseofpubliclyownedlandofapublicpark,recreationarea,orwildlifeandwaterfowlrefugeofnational,State,orlocalsignificance,orlandofanhistoricsiteofnational,State,orlocalsignificance(asdeterminedbytheFederal,State,orlocalofficialshavingjurisdictionoverthepark,area,refuge,orsite)onlyif-

(1)thereisnoprudentorfeasiblealternativetousingthatland;and

(2)theprogramorprojectincludesallpossibleplanningtominimizeharmtothepark,recreationarea,wildlifeandwaterfowlrefuge,orhistoricsiteresultingfromtheuse.

WHATISTHESECTION4(f)PROCESSFORHISTORICPROPERTIES?Tobeconsidered"historic,"apropertymusteitherbelistedintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesorbedeterminedeligibleforsuchlistingbytheKeeperoftheRegisterortheStateHistoricPreservationOfficer(SHPO).

Onanyproject,theprimaryobjectiveistodevelopadesignthatdoesnothaveSection4(f)involvement.Ifsuchadesignisnotpossible,thentheSection4(f)documentationispreparedandcirculated.Suchdocumentationiscirculatedtoallappropriateagenciesorgroups(consistentwiththeSection106processandtheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct),andasapplicable,totheU.S.DepartmentoftheInterior,HousingandUrbanDevelopment,andAgriculture.ItisalsocirculatedtotheagencyhavingauthorityovertheSection4(f)property.Forhistoricproperties,suchagenciesaretheSHPOandtheAdvisoryCouncilonHistoricPreservation(ACHP).Afterreviewofanycommentsreceived,thefinalSection4(f)documentationissenttotheFederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA)whichdeterminesiftherequirementsoftheSection4(f)statutearemet.Iftherequirementsaresatisfied,thentheFHWAwillapprovetheuseoftheSection4(f)property.

HOWARESECTION4(f)ANDSECTION106RELATED?Section106isaprovisionoftheNationalHistoricPreservationActof1966,whichrequiresallfederalagenciestoconsidertheeffectsoftheirprojectsonhistoricpropertiesandtoprovidetheAdvisoryCouncilonHistoricPreservation(ACHP)anopportunitytocommentonthoseeffects.TheACHPhaspromulgatedregulationsat36CFRPart800thatdescribetheproceduresthatagenciesmustfollowinordertocomplywithSection106.ManyoftheSection106documentationrequirementsoverlaptheSection4(f)documentationrequirementsforhistoricproperties.Forthisreason,forprojectshavinga4(f)useofahistoricsite,thedocumentationforSection106andSection4(f)isusually

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page49

combinedintoonedocumentandcirculatedtotheappropriategroupsdescribedabove.TheconsentofneithertheSHPOnortheACHPisnecessaryforFHWAtoapproveaSection4(f)use,butFHWAgivesgreatconsiderationtocommentsfromtheseagencies.

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page50

SHPOCORRESPONDENCE

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page51

May$23,$2017$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$FedEx$MEMH$Relocations,$Project$8648976,$Memphis,$TN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$1/3$$

TENNESSEE HISTORICAL COMMISSION

STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 2941 LEBANON PIKE

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37243-0442 OFFICE: (615) 532-1550

www.tnhistoricalcommission.org May 23, 2017 Ms. Kristi Ashley Environmental Specialist FAA, Memphis Airports District Office 2600 Thousand Oaks Blvd., STE 2250 Memphis, TN 38118-2462 RE: FAA / Federal Aviation Administration, FedEx MEMH Relocations, Project #8648976, Memphis, Shelby County, TN $Dear$Ms.$Ashley,$$Our$office$has$reviewed$the$revised$Environmental$Assessment.$Below$are$our$comments$on$the$revised$report.$$

1. Between$this$draft$and$the$original$draft,$our$office$agrees$that$the$hangers$and$boiler$room$are$eligible$as$a$complex,$although$the$description$between$the$two$drafts$should$be$combined$into$a$clear$eligibility$assessment$with$a$definitive$assessment$of$eligibility,$photos,$and$a$clear$National$Register$boundary$map.$$

2. The$document$still$does$not$contain$the$“historic$resource$survey”$mentioned$in$the$first$draft$or$an$assessment$of$the$complex$as$a$whole,$particularly$in$reference$to$FedEx’s$potential$for$exceptional$significance.$$The$document$vaguely$mentions$potential$significance$for$only$Hangar$7$due$to$Fed$Ex’s$early$operations,$which$should$be$firmed$up$with$an$explanation$as$to$why$or$why$not$the$other$airport$properties$are$not$eligible$as$a$Fed$Ex$complex,$because$either$they$do$not$retain$integrity$due$to$alterations$or$additions,$or$that$they$do$not$reflect$the$history$of$Fed$Ex.$$From$page$13$of$the$report:$$

There$were$two$recurring$oral$histories$pertaining$to$the$hangars$that$should$be$investigated$further.$It$is$possible$that$Fred$Smith’s$first$office$in$Memphis$was$located$in$Hangar$7$and$the$hangar$was$used$as$the$first$sorting$facility.$This$is$certainly$plausible$given$that$Hangar$6$was$under$construction$at$the$time.$If#true,#Hangar#7#would#be#potentially#significant#through#its#association#with#early#FedEx#operations.#$

3. Effects$to$historic$resources$are$defined$within$the$Section$106$regulations$available$here$at$http://www.achp.gov/regsWrev04.pdf.$The$most$pertinent$regulations$are$below:$

$§$800.5$Assessment$of$adverse$effects$$

$

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page52

May$23,$2017$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$FedEx$MEMH$Relocations,$Project$8648976,$Memphis,$TN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$2/3$$

$(1) Criteria$of$adverse$effect.$An$adverse$effect$is$found$when$an$undertaking$may$alter,$directly$or$

indirectly,$any$of$the$characteristics$of$a$historic$property$that$qualify$the$property$for$inclusion$in$the$National$Register$in#a#manner#that#would#diminish#the#integrity#of#the#property's#location,#design,#setting,#materials,#workmanship,#feeling,#or#association.$Consideration$shall$be$given$to$all$qualifying$characteristics$of$a$historic$property,$including$those$that$may$have$been$identified$subsequent$to$the$original$evaluation$of$the$property's$eligibility$for$the$National$Register.$$$

(2) Adverse$effects$may$include$reasonably$foreseeable$effects$caused$by$the$undertaking$that$may$occur$later$in$time,$be$farther$removed$in$distance$or$be$cumulative.$(2)$Examples$of$adverse$effects.$Adverse$effects$on$historic$properties$include,$but$are$not$limited$to:#(i)#Physical#destruction#of#or#damage#to#all#or#part#of#the#property#(ii)$Alteration$of$a$property,$including$restoration,$rehabilitation,$repair,$maintenance,$stabilization,$hazardous$material$remediation$and$provision$of$handicapped$access,$that$is$not$consistent$with$the$Secretary’s$Standards$for$the$Treatment$of$Historic$Properties$(36$CFR$part$68)$and$applicable$guidelines;$(iii)$Removal$of$the$property$from$its$historic$location;$(iv)$Change$of$the$character$of$the$property’s$use$or$of$physical$features$within$the$property's$setting$that$contribute$to$its$historic$significance;$(v)$Introduction$of$visual,$atmospheric$or$audible$elements$that$diminish$the$integrity$of$the$property's$significant$historic$features;$(vi)$Neglect$of$a$property$which$causes$its$deterioration,$except$where$such$neglect$and$deterioration$are$recognized$qualities$of$a$property$of$religious$and$cultural$significance$to$an$Indian$tribe$or$Native$Hawaiian$organization;$and$(vii)$Transfer,$lease,$or$sale$of$property$out$of$Federal$ownership$or$control$without$adequate$and$legally$enforceable$restrictions$or$conditions$to$ensure$longWterm$preservation$of$the$property's$historic$significance.$

$Therefore,#demolition#is#not#something#that#can#be#mitigated#into#a#no#adverse#effect#and#thus#a#de#minimis#Section#4(f)#use.#$

$4. Section$4(f)$requires$a$serious$look$at$avoidance$alternatives.$$At$its$most$basic$level$a$Section$

4(f)$assessment$needs:$$• To$clearly$define$the$historic$property$(the$clear$eligibility$assessment$and$NR$

boundaries$as$mentioned$previously).$$$• Describe$the$avoidance$alternatives$evaluated$(example$for$a$road$project:$1.$Not$

building$road,$2.$Move$the$road$to$the$south$away$from$the$historic$property,$3.$Decrease$the$crossWsection$to$avoid$taking$the$historic$property).$

• Describe$why$or$why$not$the$avoidance$alternatives$are$prudent$and$feasible.$$$• Perhaps$one$of$your$avoidance$alternatives$would$not$be$an$adverse$effect$because$it$

avoids$demolition$through$adaptive$reuse,$renovation,$etc.$o The$report$would$provide$a$clear$description$of$why$it$was$not$adversely$

affecting$the$property$based$on$Section$106$regulations.$o Then$the$project$could$be$processed$as$a$de$minimis$Section$4(f)$use.$

• If$you$have$justified$that$your$avoidance$alternatives$are$not$prudent$and$feasible,$you$must$choose$the$one$with$the$least$overall$harm$and$show$that$all$possible$planning$went$into$avoiding$adverse$effects$to$historic$resources.$$$

• Minimization$efforts$must$be$evaluated$and$finally,$mitigation$measures$identified$such$as,$the$archival$documentation$and$any$other$creative$measures$to$mitigate$the$loss$of$the$historic$resources.$

ShelbyCounty,FedExMEMHTransformationProject,Section4(f)Evaluation,Page53

May$23,$2017$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$FedEx$MEMH$Relocations,$Project$8648976,$Memphis,$TN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$3/3$$$$A$tutorial$on$Section$4(f)$is$at$the$following$link.$$It$simply$leads$through$the$entire$process$with$the$draft$and$final$4(f)$documents:$$https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/section4f/default.aspx$$Thank$you$for$your$continued$cooperation.$If$you$have$any$questions$please$contact$Casey$Lee$at$Casey.Lee@tn.gov$or$615W253W3163.$$Sincerely,$$$$$E.$Patrick$McIntyre,$Jr.$Executive$Director$and$$State$Historic$Preservation$Officer$$EPM/cjl$

$

E

Limited Environmental Study NESHAP ACM, Pb, & Waste Streams

For Renovation of Specified Structures

3131 Democrat Memphis, Shelby Co, Tennessee

EI Project Number 16-113

May 11, 2016

Prepared for:

FedEx Environmental Engineering 3620 Hacks Cross Road, Bldg. B, 2nd Floor

Memphis, Tennessee 38125

Limited Environmental Study ACM, Pb, and Waste Stream

Specified Structures MEM Facility, FedEx

EnviroRem, Inc. i Project Number 16-113

Table of Contents

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 11.1 General Site Information ............................................................................................................ 1

2.0 INTRODUCTION TO LIMITED ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY ......................................... 22.1 Report Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 22.2 Scope of Report ........................................................................................................................... 22.3 Notable Assumptions in Report Preparation ............................................................................ 22.4 Limitations and Exceptions of Report ....................................................................................... 22.5 Special Terms, Conditions, & User Reliance ............................................................................ 3

3.0 PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................ 4Project Location and Legal Description.................................................................................... 4

4.0 FIELD INSPECTION ................................................................................................................. 44.1 Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs) .................................................................................... 44.2 Damaged Painted Surfaces (Lead)............................................................................................. 94.3 Moisture Intrusions ................................................................................................................... 104.4 Hazardous Wastes ..................................................................................................................... 10

5.0 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................... 13

Limited Environmental Study ACM, Pb, and Waste Stream

Specified Structures MEM Facility, FedEx

EnviroRem, Inc. Project Number 16-113

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 General Site Information

Project Information: Site Information: Specified Structures as noted 3131 Democrat Road Memphis, Tennessee Shelby County Consultant Information: Project Site Contact: EnviroRem, Inc. 1715 Lochearn Road Memphis, Tennessee 38116 Client Information: Telephone: (901) 345-0000 Federal Express Corporation Fax: (901)345-0015 Mr. Jamal Mansour Inspection Date: April 19-22, 2016 3620 Hacks Cross Road, Bldg. B, 2nd Floor Site Assessor: Will D. Brown Memphis, Tennessee 38125

Environmental Professional Statement: I declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in § 312.10 part of 40 CFR 312. We have the specific qualifications based on education, training and experience to assess a property of the nature, history and setting of the subject property.

Will D. Brown ______________________________ Will D. Brown, VP Consulting Services Environmental Professional Licensed Asbestos Inspector, Mgmt. Planner, Project Designer Licensed Lead Inspector, EPA RRP Trainer

Limited Environmental Study ACM, Pb, and Waste Stream

Specified Structures MEM Facility, FedEx

EnviroRem, Inc. Project Number 16-113

2.0 INTRODUCTION TO LIMITED ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY

2.1 Report Purpose

The purpose of this study was to identify suspect asbestos containing materials and asbestos containing materials (ACM), identify damaged painted surfaces that may constitute a secondary waste stream, generally screen for moisture intrusion sources, and inventory general wastes that may be hazardous materials for disposal purposes. This survey was conducted in general accordance of the NESHAP regulation and to assist in NEPA permitting application.

2.2 Scope of Report

Limited asbestos screening (LAS) survey consisting of the identification of suspect asbestos containing materials (ACMs) in accessible areas and the collection and laboratory analysis of bulk samples. The scope of the survey was intended to be consistent with the ASTM E 2308-05: Standard Guide for Limited Asbestos Screens of Buildings. The LAS was performed to identify the presence of readily accessible suspect ACM and to develop recommendations as to the necessity for more thorough survey and/or an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) program. The LAS attempted to sample each homogeneous area or fully characterize each suspect material. Any untested potential ACM is considered suspect until tested and proven otherwise.

oversight by NESHAP. Generally screen for moisture intrusion sources and visually assess impact. Categorize potential waste streams that may constitute a hazardous waste under regulatory definition.

2.3 Notable Assumptions in Report Preparation

A truly randomized sample selection process was not utilized due to selective nature of the proposed demolition scope of work. Samples were collected to refine suspect materials that to date have been unsampled and/or unpublished.

2.4 Limitations and Exceptions of Report

EI, its officers, employees, nor subsidiaries, makes no representation of warranty that the discoverable past or current operations at the property are, or have ever been, in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local codes, regulations and laws. This document does not warrant against any future operations or conditions, nor does it warrant against conditions or operations present of a type or at a location not investigated. Regardless of the conclusions stated in this report, EI is not responsible for consequences or conditions arising from facts not fully disclosed to EI during the investigation.

An independent laboratory provided the analytical data referenced in this report, and is assumed to be correct and accurate unless obviously contradicted by EI conclusions or other credible referenced sources reviewed during the assessment. EI, nor its employees or subsidiaries, shall not be liable for any such firms failure to make relevant files or documents properly available, to properly index files, or otherwise to fairly to maintain or produce accurate or complete records.

The Environmental Professional Statement in Section 1.1 of this report does not certify the findings contained in this report and is not a legal opinion of such Environmental Professional (EP). The EP

Limited Environmental Study ACM, Pb, and Waste Stream

Specified Structures MEM Facility, FedEx

EnviroRem, Inc. Project Number 16-113

statement is intended to documeninvolved in the performance of the assessment and that the activities performed by, or under the supervision, of, the EP were performed in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312 per the methodology in ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-13 and the scope of work for this investigation.

Other limitations and exceptions that are specific to the scope of this report may be found in corresponding sections.

2.5 Special Terms, Conditions, & User Reliance

This report is for the use and benefit of, and may be relied upon by Federal Express Corporation, and any of its affiliates, and third parties authorized in writing by client and EnviroRem, including the lender in connection with a secured financing of the property, and their successive assignees. Any downstream user of this investigation agrees by accepting this document that any use or reliance on this document shall be limited by the exceptions and limitations in this report, and with the acknowledgement that actual site conditions may change with time, and that hidden conditions may exist on the subjective property that were not identified during the investigation. Any use or distribution of this report to additional third parties, without the express written permission of EI, is at the sole risk and expense of such users. This report while not a bidding document is intended to assist in the planning and execution of planned renovations.

EnviroRem makes no other claim or representation to any third party beyond that this investigation has used the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by environmental consultants in the investigation and preparation of this report and in the collection of data and information related to. No other guaranty is applied to any third party, either expressed or implied. EnviroRemto use or rely on this report with reference to any acts or omissions shall be limited to a total aggregate maximum of $2,000 or the agreed contract amount for the performance of this investigation, whichever is greater, unless otherwise agreed upon in writing by EnviroRem and said third party user.

If no pre-existing contract or Master Services Agreement exists, the terms and limitations of this report shall serve as the binding contractual document upon delivery.

Limited Environmental Study ACM, Pb, and Waste Stream

Specified Structures MEM Facility, FedEx

EnviroRem, Inc. Project Number 16-113

3.0 PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION

Project Location and Legal Description

The subject property is located within the AOC control area and is accessed from 3131 Democrat Road, Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee. Site photography, collected during the course of this investigation (if any), and is provided in Appendices if available.

The propert previous use as the former Tennessee Air National Guard (TANG) facility and current control by FedEx has led to data gaps in known construction history. Structures vary greatly from building to building and were assessed individually. Most structures have undergone significant modern renovations in their history, but some specified relic finishes were discovered.

4.0 FIELD INSPECTION

The following sections contain summaries of visual and physical observations of the subject property on the day of the site investigation.

4.1 Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs)

EnviroRem conducted a Limited Asbestos Survey (LAS) of the property for suspect ACM. Bulk samples were collected from all suspect regulated friable, Category I, and Category II non-friable materials as they were encountered in the facility in support of prior reports, if available. Bulk sampling methods were in general accordance with procedures outlined in ASTM Standard Practice E 2308-05, Standard Guide for Limited Asbestos Screens of Buildings. It should be noted that suspect ACM that has not been identified in this report may be located within walls (i.e. plumbing chases in bathrooms), ceiling cavities and other non-accessible areas. Precaution should be used in relation to these currently unidentified materials until proper sampling and analysis have determined the asbestos content. Substrates of identified type may be excluded as considered homogenous with prior sampled types.

ACM bulk samples were analyzed using polarized light microscopy (PLM) methodology in accordance with the EPA Method 600/M4-82-020 and 600/R-93/116. National Econ Corporation, located in Memphis, Tennessee performed the PLM analysis of the samples. Laboratory analytical reports can be found in Appendices.

When analysis of floor tile or other resin-bound non-friable material by EPA PLM methodology yields negative results for the presence of asbestos, alternative methods of identification such as Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) may be prudent. Analysis of such materials by PLM using EPA Method 600/M4-82-020 (December 1982) may yield false-negative results because of method limitations in separating closely bound fibers from matrix material and in detecting fibers of small length and/or diameter. TEM confirmation, although recommended, was not performed.

EI submitted two hundred and ten (210) bulk samples, representing one hundred seventy-four (174) suspect materials.

The sampled suspect ACM and the results of PLM analyses are summarized below. Material type is considered homogenous across structure.

Limited Environmental Study ACM, Pb, and Waste Stream

Specified Structures MEM Facility, FedEx

EnviroRem, Inc. Project Number 16-113

ACM SURVEY RESULTS Sample Series.

Material Location Friable Condition Analytical Results

A-R Roofing Southwide A No G NDA-DCT Grid Ceiling Tile Southwide A Yes G NDA-DWC Drywall Composite Southwide A Yes G NDA-CB Vinyl Cove Trim/Mastic Southwide A No G NDA-VT 12x12 VCT/Mastic Southwide A No G ND

GSE-DCT Grid Ceiling Tile GSE 3099 Yes G NDGSE-DWC Drywall Composite GSE 3099 Yes G ND

GSE-CB Vinyl Cove base/Mastic GSE 3099 No G NDGSE-RV Roll Vinyl Flooring GSE 3099 No G ND

3040-DCT Grid Ceiling Tile 3040 Yes G ND3040-DWC Drywall Composite 3040 Yes G ND

3040-CB Vinyl Cove base/Mastic 3040 No G ND3040-VT 12x12 Black

VCT/Mastic 3040 No G ND

3040-VT 12x12 White VCT/Mastic

3040 No G ND

3055-R Asphalt Roofing 3055 No G ND3055-DCT Grid Ceiling Tile 3055 Yes G ND3055-DWC Drywall Composite 3055 Yes G ND

3055-CB Vinyl Cove base/Mastic 3055 No G ND

3055-RT Rubber Tile/Mastic 3055 No G ND3055-VT 12x12 VCT/Mastic 3055 No G ND

3140-DCT Grid Ceiling Tile 3140 Yes G ND3140-DWC Drywall Composite 3140 Yes G ND

3140-CB Vinyl Cove base/Mastic 3140 No G ND3140-VT 12x12 VCT/Mastic 3140 No G ND3140-RV Roll Vinyl

Flooring/Mastic 3140 No G ND

3318-DCT Grid Ceiling Tile 3318 Yes G ND3318-DWC Drywall Composite 3318 Yes G ND

3318-VT 12x12 Vinyl Tile/Black Mastic

3318 No G ND

3318-CB Vinyl Cove base/Mastic 3318 No G ND3505-DCT Grid Ceiling Tile 3505 Yes G ND3505-DWC Drywall Composite 3505 Yes G ND

3505-CB Vinyl Cove base/Mastic 3505 No G ND3505-VT 12x12 Vinyl Tile/Black

Mastic 3505 No G ND

B-VT 12x12 Vinyl Tile/Black Mastic

Southwide B No G 7-8% Chrysotile

B-DCT Grid Ceiling Tile Southwide B Yes G NDB-DWC Drywall Composite Southwide B Yes G NDB-CB Vinyl Cove base/Mastic Southwide B No G NDB-R Roofing Southwide B No G NDC-R Roofing Southwide C No G ND

Limited Environmental Study ACM, Pb, and Waste Stream

Specified Structures MEM Facility, FedEx

EnviroRem, Inc. Project Number 16-113

ACM SURVEY RESULTS Sample Series.

Material Location Friable Condition Analytical Results

C-DCT Grid Ceiling Tile Southwide C Yes G NDC-DWC Drywall Composite Southwide C Yes G NDC-CB Vinyl Cove base/Mastic Southwide C No G NDC-VT 12x12 VCT/Black

Mastic Southwide C No G 12%

Chrysotile D-R Roofing Southwide D No G ND

D-PC Popcorn Ceiling Texture Southwide D Yes G NDD-DCT Grid Ceiling Tile Southwide D Yes G NDD-DWC Drywall Composite Southwide D Yes G NDD-CB Vinyl Cove base/Mastic Southwide D No G NDD-VT 12x12 VCT/Black

Mastic Southwide D No G 7% Chrysotile

E-R Roofing Southwide E No G NDE-DWC Drywall Composite Southwide E Yes G NDE-DCT Grid Ceiling Tile Southwide E Yes G NDE-CB Vinyl Cove base/Mastic Southwide E No G ND

E-VT1 White 12x12/Yellow Mastic

Southwide E No G ND

E-VT2 Grey 12x12/Yellow Mastic

Southwide E No G ND

E-VT3 Black 12x12/Yellow Mastic

Southwide E No G ND

G-R Roofing Southwide G No G NDG-DCT Grid Ceiling Tile Southwide G Yes G NDG-DWC Drywall Composite Southwide G Yes G NDG-CB Vinyl Cove base/Mastic Southwide G No G NDG-VT 12x12 VCT/Black

Mastic Southwide G No G 3-5%

Chrysotile 2878-R Roofing 2878 No G ND

2878-DCT Grid Ceiling Tile 2878 Yes G ND2878-DWC Drywall Composite 2878 Yes G ND

2878-CB Vinyl Cove base/Mastic 2878 No G ND2878-VT VCT/Mastic 2878 No G ND2838-TSI Boiler Insulation 2838 Yes D ND

2808-DCT Grid Ceiling Tile 2808 Yes G ND2808-WG Vulcanized Caulking 2808 No G ND2808-CB Vinyl Cove base/Mastic 2808 No G ND2808-VT VCT/Mastic 2808 No G ND2825-R Roofing 2825 No G ND

2825-DCT Grid Ceiling Tile 2825 Yes G ND2825-DWC Drywall Composite 2825 Yes G ND

2825-CB Vinyl Cove base/Mastic 2825 No G ND2825-VT VCT/Black Mastic 2825 No G ND2852-R Roofing 2852 No G ND2852-T 2852 No G 40-50%

Chrysotile2852-FB Fiberboard Panels 2852 (Interior) No G 60%

Chrysotile

Limited Environmental Study ACM, Pb, and Waste Stream

Specified Structures MEM Facility, FedEx

EnviroRem, Inc. Project Number 16-113

ACM SURVEY RESULTS Sample Series.

Material Location Friable Condition Analytical Results

2852-WG Window Glazing 2852 No G ND2875-R Roofing 2875 No G ND

2875-DCT Grid Ceiling Tile 2875 Yes G ND2875-DWC Drywall Composite 2875 Yes G ND

2875-CB Vinyl Cove base/Mastic 2875 No G ND2875-VT VCT/Black Mastic 2875 No G ND2855-R Roofing 2855 No G ND

2855-TSI Silicate TSI 2855 (Attic) Yes G ND2855-DCT Grid Ceiling Tile 2855 Yes G ND2855-DWC Drywall Composite 2855 Yes G ND

2855-CB Vinyl Cove base/Mastic 2855 No G ND2855-VT White VCT/Yellow

Mastic2855 No G ND

2855-VT Black VCT 2855 No G ND2903-CB Vinyl Cove base/Mastic 2903 No G ND2903-VT VCT/Black Mastic 2903 No G NDAD-DCT Grid Ceiling Tile Administration Yes G NDAD-DWC Drywall Composite Administration Yes G ND

AD-CB Vinyl Cove base/Mastic Administration No G NDAD-VT VCT/Black Mastic Administration No G 7-8%

Chrysotile H6-DCT Grid Ceiling Tile Hangar 6 Yes G NDH6-DWC Drywall Composite Hangar 6 Yes G NDH6-CB Vinyl Cove base/Mastic Hangar 6 No G NDH6-VT VCT/Black Mastic Hangar 6 No G 7% Chrysotile

H7-DCT Grid Ceiling Tile Hangar 7 Yes G NDH7-DWC Drywall Composite Hangar 7 Yes G NDH7-CB Vinyl Cove base/Mastic Hangar 7 No G NDH7-VT VCT/Mastic (Layered) Hangar 7 No G 15-18%

Chrysotile NA Not Analyzed ND No Asbestos Detected NS Not Sampled SF Square Feet LF Linear Feet

Limited Environmental Study ACM, Pb, and Waste Stream

Specified Structures MEM Facility, FedEx

EnviroRem, Inc. Project Number 16-113

Findings:

Confirmed ACMs are as follows: Corrugated Transite Roofing Building 2838 Transite Siding Building 2852 Fiberboard interior sheeting Building 2852 Vinyl Tile on Black Mastic Southwide B, C, D, G, Administration, Hangar 6 & 7

Presumed ACMs are as follows: Roofing Hangar 6, 7, Admin, Southwide F, 2808, 2903, 3040, GSE,

3140, & 3505

Non-suspect Materials are as follows: Fiberglass TSI Modern Fiberglass pipe insulations located throughout the study

area. Fiberglass Batt Insulations Commercial Batt insulations located through the study area.

Concealed areas to be investigated with selective demolition: Pipe insulations Wet-wall cavities of structures in study area.

Cat. I and Cat. II Non-friable ACMs, if elected for removal, shall be removed as a Class II abatement operation pursuant to 29 CFR 1926.1101.

According to NESHAPs regulation, friable ACMs shall be removed prior to demolition of a structure or abatement activities, if greater than 160 LF or 260 SF. Shelby County Health Department Air Pollution Control (SCHD-APC), the local authority of NESHAP, also regulates the removal of Category II non-friable asbestos materials (Transite) prior to demolition.

Category I non-friable materials may be demolished with structures. These materials include roofing, confirmed or presumed, and vinyl tiles with mastic. Tiles and mastic, if demolished with structure, shall necessitate landfill disposal of demolition substrate. Cost-benefit analysis should be considered to weigh the advantages of abatement of Cat. I materials or demolition in place of materials.

Both abatement and demolition activities shall occur under full 10-day notification to SCHD-APC pursuant to NESHAP regulations.

All ACMs and quantities thereof shall be verified in the field by prospective bidders.

Limited Environmental Study ACM, Pb, and Waste Stream

Specified Structures MEM Facility, FedEx

EnviroRem, Inc. Project Number 16-113

4.2 Damaged Painted Surfaces (Lead)

Potential lead based paint (LBP) was assessed and sampled based on current published regulatory guidance for the demolition setting of whole buildings.

The US EPA has stated that solid architectural components coated with LBP are less likely to be hazardous because of the small ratio of lead paint to total waste mass. The US Army conducted a study which concluded that whole-building demolition debris is not likely to exceed the toxicity characteristic standard for lead if it is handled as a single, whole waste stream and disposed of all together. Whole-building demolition is therefore considered a non-hazardous waste with regard to lead.

Furthermore, to meet the NES

migrate from the work area. As such, surfaces with noted delamination of paint surfaces were bulk sampled for lead concentration to determine if such paints are lead based, 0.5% or greater by weight. Bulk samples were collected in the field during site reconnaissance and submitted to EMSL St. Louis, under chain of custody, for analysis by flame atomic absorption via EPA method 7000B.

Damaged paints and their lead concentration are as follows.

Building Location Material Sample No. Result TLA 2903 2nd Floor Stairwell Ceiling Paint TLA 0.055% Pb 2825 Northwest Foyer Southeast Wall 2825 <0.013% Pb Hangar 7 East Hangar Door Green Door Paint H7 4.0% Pb

Findings:

Of the observed damaged painted surfaces that may delaminate during demolition, the East hangar door of Hangar 7 is finished with LBP. It is recommended that scaling surface of door be repainted with latex

Selected personnel repairing surfaces to good condition should be familiar with the OSHA 29 CFR 1926.62 standard.

Limited Environmental Study ACM, Pb, and Waste Stream

Specified Structures MEM Facility, FedEx

EnviroRem, Inc. Project Number 16-113

4.3 Moisture Intrusions

General moisture intrusion survey was conducted of structures with escort personnel of Brock. Brock performs general maintenance activities for the facility including corrective measures for minor intrusions in active buildings, such as stained ceiling tiles. These materials were submitted for repair as discovered under standard operating procedure.

The following table summarizes visual inspection of buildings, apparent source vector of moisture, and visible indication of microbial colonization. Minor intrusions are not reported due to maintenance activity unless distribution is wide spread throughout structure.

Building Area Source Vector Suspect Microbial, notes Hangar 7 2nd Floor West Unknown No, mitigation underway to address Admin 3rd Floor Roof No, vacant building syndrome (humidity

damage) Hangar 6 2nd floor hangar Roof No, vacant building syndrome Southwide B Throughout Roof No, minor dispersed ceiling tile staining Southwide D Throughout Roof/Open

Doorways No, moderate damage due to high humidity in 50% of structure.

2825 Northwest Foyer Skylight seal Yes, localized substrate damage from long term intrusion

2825 Command Center Subgrade No, long term flooding of crawlspace has led to failure of flooring system.

2855 Throughout Roof No, long term vacant building syndrome 2875 Cafeteria Skylight Yes, chronic intrusion source with deteriorating

substrates 2875 Office areas Roof Yes, chronic intrusion with uncontrolled

humidity 2878 Southeast office Roof Yes, vapor barrier intrusion behind wallpaper

4.4 Hazardous Wastes

Hazardous waste survey was conducted in during site reconnaissance to ascertain potential waste streams that could generate hazardous materials during the course of demolition or renovation. Materials that will be utilized for their intended purpose generally will not constitute a hazardous waste stream unless disposed in their existing condition, such as retail packaged paints. Materials moved from one location to anotpresence of such a material necessarily generate a hazard. The disposal of such materials would warrant special consideration however under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

The bulk material noted in the study area that could generate hazardous waste streams are categorized as Universal Wastes. Universal wastes are widely utilized in residential and commercial applications and handling such materials are routine during demolition activities.

Limited Environmental Study ACM, Pb, and Waste Stream

Specified Structures MEM Facility, FedEx

EnviroRem, Inc. Project Number 16-113

The following table summarizes location, material, and potential waste stream of observed materials that may form a hazardous waste during demolition or renovation activities.

Location Material Use Potential Hazard Throughout Facility

Fluorescent Bulb Lighting Hg (Universal Waste)

Throughout Facility

Mercury Vapor Bulb

Lighting Hg (Universal Waste)

Throughout Facility

Lighting Ballasts Lighting PCB or Petroleum (Universal Waste)

Throughout Facility

Refrigerant HVAC CFCs

Throughout Facility

Back-up Batteries Lighting Pb, pH, RCRA 8 (Universal Waste)

Throughout Facility

Electronics Waste Routine RCRA 8 (E-Waste)

Throughout Facility

Thermostats HVAC Hg or E-Waste (Universal Waste)

Admin, Southwide C, D, 3040 ARTC, GSE 3099

Hydraulic Fluid Elevator, Maintenance

Petroleum, PCB

Southwide C, Retail Paints Maintenance RCRA 8, Petroleum Southwide E Fuel Generator Petroleum Southwide E Cleaning Products Maintenance pH2826 Crushed Bulbs Maintenance Hg2838, 2852 Water Treatment Maintenance pH2878 Pad mount

transformer Electrical PCB, Mineral Oil

2884 Hydrogen Fuel Fuel Not listed as toxic (note cryogenic hazard)

Materials of note should be destined for recycling or specialized disposal activities during demolition activities. Refer to applicable DOT, EPA, and OSHA regulations.

Limited Environmental Study ACM, Pb, and Waste Stream

Specified Structures MEM Facility, FedEx

EnviroRem, Inc. Project Number 16-113

REFERENCES

ASTM E1527-13, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2013

ASTM International. Standard Guide for Readily Observable Mold and Conditions Conducive to Mold in Commercial Buildings: Baseline Survey Process, ASTM Designation E 2418-06. March 2006.

ASTM International. Standard Guide for Limited Asbestos Screens of Buildings, ASTM Designation E 2308-05. August 2005.

OSHA Archives. MAX EUBANK ROOFING COMPANY, INC. and THE NATIONAL ROOFING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION,Petitioners, v THE UNITED STATES THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH ADMINISTRATION. No. 94-40793.

EPA Document. Applicability of the Asbestos NESHAP to Roofing Removal Operations. EPA 340-8-94-001, August 1994.

US EPA. 1993. Applicability of RCRA disposal requirements to lead-based paint abatement wastes. Final Report. Technical Programs Branch, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. March 1993.

US Dept. of the Army. US Army Environmental Hygiene Agency. Interim Final Report. Lead-based paint contaminated debris waste characterization study No. 27-26-JK44-92. May 1993.

Limited Environmental Study ACM, Pb, and Waste Stream

Specified Structures MEM Facility, FedEx

EnviroRem, Inc. Project Number 16-113

5.0 APPENDICES

EnviroRem, Inc. Consulting Division

Phase I & II ESA, Mold, Lead, ACM, OSHA & IH Consultants

1715 Lochearn Road . Memphis, Tennessee 38116 Telephone: 901.345.0000 Fax: 901.345.0015

Lab Data Interpretation

The following laboratory sheets provide raw data as provided to EI. This information is summarized in the preceding report and lab data sheets are provided as reference material for technical personnel as needed.

Asbestos Labs

microscopy analysis. Content percentages will display regulated asbestiform fiber types in the -

Sample Identifier

Asbestos sample numbers follow the general pattern of X-Y-Z. X represents the building identifier, typically street number or assigned naming, of where the sample was collected. Y

vinyl tile. Z will be unique for the X-Y combination as the sequential sample number of collected materials.

Samples that contain greater than 1.0% asbestos

defined as Asbestos Containing pursuant to EPA definition. Asbestiform fibers identified

asbestos co -

Refer to NIST document EPA/600/R-93/116 for technical methodology.

Lead Labs

Lead data sheets present raw quantification data of analysis of lead based paints by Flame Atomic Absorption via Method 7000B. Data sheets display to the left inspector sample

will be displayed of lead detected by gas chromatography leading to mass spectrometer. The EPA defines lead based paint as paints containing 0.5% or greater by weight lead.

As such samples with numbers to the far right of <0.5% are not defined as lead based.