Revised 2/2/15

ENVIRONMENTAL

EVALUATION

(Short Form Environmental Assessment)

for

AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

PROJECTS

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

MEMPHIS AIRPORTS DISTRICT OFFICE-SOUTHERN REGION AIRPORTS DIVISION

Airport Name: Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority_________________________________ Airport Location: 2491 Winchester Road, Memphis Tennessee 38116________________________ Proposed Project: Consolidated Rental Car Maintenance Facility____________________________ Date: November 28, 2016 This Environmental Assessment becomes a Federal document when evaluated and signed by the responsible FAA official. Responsible FAA Official: Date:

Revised 2/2/15

FAA MEM-ADO, SOUTHERN REGIONAIRPORTS DIVISION

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION FORM

FOR SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS The Short Form Environmental Assessment (EA), is based upon the guidance in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 5050.4B, "National Environmental Policy Act, Implementing Instructions for Airport Projects" or subsequent revisions, which incorporates the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as well as the US Department of Transportation environmental regulations (including FAA Order 1050.1E or subsequent revisions), and many other federal statutes and regulations designed to protect the Nation's natural, historic, cultural, and archeological resources. This version of the short form EA should be used only for projects at federally obligated airports that fall within the boundaries of the Memphis Airports District Office (MEM-ADO). The Short Form EA is intended to be used when a project cannot be categorically excluded (CATEX) from formal environmental assessment, but when the environmental impacts of the proposed project are expected to be insignificant and a detailed EA would not be appropriate. Accordingly, this form is intended to meet the intent of a short EA while satisfying the regulatory requirements of an EA. Proper completion of the Short Form EA would allow the FAA to determine whether the proposed airport development project can be processed with a short EA, or whether a more detailed EA must be prepared. The MEM-ADO normally intends to use a properly completed Short Form EA to support a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Applicability The Short Form EA should be used if the sponsor’s proposed project meets the following two (2)

criteria:

1) The proposed project is a normally categorically excluded action that may include extraordinary circumstances Table 6-3; paragraph 702.a. or the airport action is one that normally requires an EA but involvement with, or impacts to, the extraordinary circumstances are not notable in number or degree of impact, and that any significant impacts can be mitigated below the level of significance, 5050.4B, Table 7.1.

2) The proposed project must fall under one of the following categories of Federal Airports Program actions noted with an asterisk (*):

(a) Approval of an airport location (new airport). *(b) Approval of a project on an airport layout plan (ALP).

*(c) Approval of federal funding for airport development. *(d) Requests for conveyance of government land. *(e) Approval of release of airport land. *(f) Approval of the use of passenger facility charges (PFC).

*(g) Approval of development or construction on a federally obligated airport.

Revised 2/2/15

Do any of these listed Federal Airports program action(s), 2(b) - (g), apply to your project? Yes X No** _____ If “yes,” list them here (there can be more than one). 2 (g) Approval of development or construction on a federally obligated airport. If “no,” see (*) below.

** If the proposed project does not meet 1) or 2) above, i.e., one or more answers to the

questions resulted in a (**), do not complete this Form. Rather, contact the Environmental

Protection Specialist at the Memphis Airports District Office for additional guidance.

Instructions Prior to preparing any NEPA documentation, including the Short Form EA, the MEM-ADO encourages you to contact the Environmental Protection Specialist or Program Manager to ensure that the Short Form EA is the proper Form for your proposed action. Completed forms without prior MEM-ADO concurrence may result in approval delays or rejected NEPA documentation. To complete the Form, the preparer should describe the proposed project and provide information on any potential impacts of the proposed project. Accordingly, it will be necessary for the preparer to have knowledge of the environmental features of the airport. In addition, while the preparer should have knowledge of the airport and associated features, correspondence with federal, state, and local regulatory agencies should be completed, when appropriate, to ensure that protected environmental resources are identified in the study area. In cases where regulatory agency coordination is appropriate, the preparer should submit a project description and drawing to the Environmental Protection Specialist for concurrence prior to submitting the project proposal to outside agencies. Correspondence from federal, state, and local agencies, project plans or maps, or secondary environmental studies, should be included as an appendix to this form. It is important to note that in addition to fulfilling the requirements of NEPA through this evaluation process, the FAA is responsible for ensuring that airport development projects comply with the many laws and orders administered by the agencies protecting environmental resources. The Form is not meant to be a stand-alone document. Rather, it is intended to be used in conjunction with applicable Orders, laws, and guidance documents, and in consultation with the appropriate resource agencies.

Revised 2/2/15

Complete the following information: 1. Project Location: Airport Name: Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority Airport Address: 2491 Winchester Road, Memphis TN 38116 City: Memphis County: Shelby State: Tennessee 2. Airport Sponsor Information: Point of Contact: James Hay Address: 2491 Winchester Road, Suite 113 Memphis TN 38116 Telephone: 901.922.8224 Fax: 901.922.8211 E-mail: jamesh@mscaa.com 3. Evaluation Form Preparer Information: Point of Contact: Deborah Wilson, Kimley-Horn Address: 2 Sun Court, Suite 450 Peachtree Corners GA 30092 Telephone: 678 502 1882 Fax: 919 677 2050 E-mail: Debbie.wilson@kimley-horn.com 4. Proposed Development Action (describe ALL associated projects that are involved): The proposed action includes six buildings for rental car vehicle service, maintenance, car washing, fueling, and administration. The overall size of the proposed development is 48 acres, and the property is owned by the Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority (MSCAA). The site is the only site large enough to contain all of the maintenance facilities for rental car agencies on one continuous land parcel. The land was the former Windwoods residential subdivision until the 1980s. The property is bounded on the north by Rushmore Avenue, on the east by Airways Boulevard, on the south by Victoria Avenue, and on the west by the existing MSCAA property line. See Figure 1 in Appendix B (Figures). As a result of public outreach and coordination with the City of Memphis, the following commitments have been made for the proposed project. A 100-foot landscape zone on the north west, and south sides of the project is included to provide a vegetated buffer. Existing mature trees will be retained in this area. The proposed project will include a meandering pedestrian walkway with low-level ambient lighting to provide a walking trail along the periphery of the development. This area will be designed to flow through the existing mature trees and existing topography of western portion of the proposed site. The Airport Sponsor has also offered to install wood cedar fencing with gates along the western property line. The proposed project will not be open to the public, will be oriented to the east and will be accessed only from Airways Boulevard. Five former residential streets (Ravenden Street, Florette Drive, Scottie Drive, Stallion Street, and Days Road) will be closed by the City of Memphis. Rushmore Road and Victoria Road will remain open public city streets. Pedestrian sidewalks will be upgraded along the street frontages of the proposed project. 5. Describe the Purpose of and Need for the Project: The existing rental car facility and garage (Ground Transportation Center) on the north side of the Memphis International Airport terminal opened in 2013. Vehicle maintenance currently occurs on the north side of Democrat Road on existing MSCAA property. See the enclosed figure. For efficient operations, the rental car maintenance facility needs to be closer to the Ground

Revised 2/2/15

Transportation Center, and the proposed location is the only MSCAA-owned site in the airport vicinity that is large enough to provide consolidated maintenance facilities on one continuous parcel of land that are not within the Runway Protection Zone for Runway 9-27. The land currently occupied by the existing rental car facilities, north of Democrat Road, does not have a planned use once the existing facilities are demolished. 6. Alternatives to the Project: Describe any other reasonable actions that may feasibly substitute for the proposed project, and include a description of the “No Action” alternative. If there are no

feasible or reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, explain why: Alt #1 N/A Alt #2 N/A No Action Alt. The existing rental car vehicle maintenance facilities are located on Democrat Boulevard on parcels that are shown on the 2010 Master Plan Update for general aviation use. No specific plans for general aviation use are known. Under the No Action alternative, rental car maintenance services would continue on multiple parcels that do not provide efficient or convenient access to the Ground Transportation Center, and would not provide opportunities for future development. See Figure 2 in Appendix B. Explanation The only other MSCAA-owned parcels in proximity to the Ground Transportation Center that are large enough to provide consolidated maintenance facilities are located near E. Brooks Road and Airways Boulevard. The parcels are bisected by Days Creek and are located in the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) for Runway 9-27. Because of the location of Days Creek and because the parcels are located within the RPZ, these parcels were not analyzed further as a potential site for the proposed project. 7. Describe the affected environment of the project area (terrain features, level of urbanization, sensitive populations, etc). Attach a map or drawing of the area with the location(s) of the proposed action(s) identified. Attachment? Yes X See Appendix B No_______ The project area includes a residential area and an elementary school to the west of the proposed site, commercial uses on the north, Memphis International Airport and other aviation uses on the east, and commercial uses on the south. The area is level due to the existing land uses, and the proposed project would be located on MSCAA-owned property. There will be no impact to terrain, level of urbanization, or sensitive populations. 8. Environmental Consequences – Special Impact Categories (refer to corresponding sections in 5050.4B or 1050.1E, or subsequent revisions, for more information and direction to complete each category, including discussions of Thresholds of Significance Table 7-1).

Revised 2/2/15

(1) NOISE a) Does the proposal require a noise analysis per Order 1050.1E, Appendix A? Explain. (Note: Noise sensitive land uses are defined in Table 1 of FAR Part 150). Yes ____ No X Per Order 1050.1F Appendix B, a noise analysis is not required because “the description of

current noise conditions is usually confined to aircraft noise” (para. B-1.3). The proposed project would not change aircraft operations (e.g., flight tracks, fleet mix, runway use, time of day, etc.) or induce new or different aircraft operations. The vegetated buffer to be included on the west side of the proposed site will provide mitigation during construction, and in the operation of the proposed facility, to reduce the effects of noise on the ambient environment. See the technical study summary in Appendix C. b) If “yes,” determine whether the proposed project is likely to have a significant impact on noise levels over noise sensitive areas within the DNL 65 dBA noise contour. Not applicable.

(2) COMPATIBLE LAND USE

a) Would the proposed project result in other (besides noise) impacts exceeding thresholds of significance that have land use ramifications, such as disruption of communities, relocation of residences or businesses, or impact natural resource areas? Explain. The proposed project will not result in impacts exceeding thresholds of significance. There will be no disruptions of existing communities, relocations, or impacts to natural resource areas as a result of the proposed project. b) Would the proposed project be located near or create a wildlife hazard as defined in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33, "Wildlife Hazards on and Near Airports"? Explain. The proposed project is not located near a wildlife hazard and will not create such a hazard.

(3) SOCIAL IMPACTS

a) Would the proposed project cause relocation of any homes or businesses? Yes____ No X Explain.

The proposed project would be built on MSCAA-owned property that was formerly used as a

residential subdivision. The residences were demolished in the 1990s and there are no relocations associated with the proposed project. Traffic to and from the proposed project will be from Airways Boulevard only. Victoria Avenue and Rushmore Street will remain open public streets to provide access for nearby residents to Airways Boulevard.

b) If “yes,” describe the availability of adequate relocation facilities Not Applicable.

Revised 2/2/15

c) Would the proposed project cause an alteration in surface traffic patterns, or cause a noticeable increase in surface traffic congestion? Explain. Access to and from the proposed project would be from Airways Boulevard, an existing roadway. There will be no alteration in surface transportation patterns resulting from the proposed project, and traffic volumes will not change substantially.

(4) INDUCED SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS

Would the proposed project cause induced, or secondary, socioeconomic impacts to surrounding communities, such as change business and economic activity in a community; impact public service demands; induce shifts in population movement and growth, etc.? Yes____ No X Explain The proposed project would not cause induced or secondary impacts to the surrounding communities. The proposed project site is on currently undeveloped land and would not result in changes in business and economic activity or in shifts in population movement and growth. Public service demands will be the same as for the existing maintenance facilities on Democrat Boulevard. As necessary, procedures would be implemented to minimize construction-related, temporary, adverse impacts.

(5) AIR QUALITY

a) Will the project/action cause or create a reasonably foreseeable emissions increase? Explain.

Yes, construction of the proposed project will result in emissions during the construction period. These emissions would be short-term and temporary, and are attributable to the construction vehicles/equipment (e.g., graders, scrapers, trucks, etc.) and construction processes (e.g., land-clearing, building construction, landscaping, etc.). The impacts would be minimized by the use of appropriate Best Management Practices. See the technical study summary in Appendix C. b) Identify whether the project area is in a non-attainment or maintenance area for any of the criteria air pollutants having National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) established under the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA), and identify which pollutant(s) apply. See EPA Green Book at www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk for current attainment areas.

The proposed project is located in Shelby County which is currently an area designated as “nonattainment” for the 8-hour O3 standard and “maintenance” for the CO standard. Table 2 of

the Air Quality Technical Report summarizes and provides additional information regarding the EPA-designated nonattainment status for the county. c) Would the proposed action be an “exempted action,” as defined in 40 C.F.R Part

51.853(c)(2) of the General Conformity Rule? If exempt, skip to item (6). List exemption claimed.

The proposed project it not exempt.

d) Would the increase in the emission level of the regulated air pollutants for which the project area is in non-attainment or maintenance exceed the de minimis standards? Yes _____ No__X

See the letter from the Shelby County Health Department in Appendix A (Stakeholder Letters)

Revised 2/2/15

e) If “yes,” would the proposed project cause a violation of any NAAQS, delay the attainment of any NAAQS, or worsen any existing NAAQS violation? Explain. Not Applicable. f) Would the proposed project conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) approved by the state air quality resource agency? Explain, and provide supporting documentation. Yes, the project conforms to the SIP because the emissions are well within the applicable “de-minimis” levels.

g) Were other analyses required during agency/public scoping and coordination?

There are no specific agency requirements pertaining to this air quality assessment.

(6) WATER QUALITY

Describe the potential of the proposed project to impact water quality, including ground water, surface water bodies, any public water supply systems, etc. Provide documentation of consultation with agencies having jurisdiction over such water bodies as applicable. Jurisdictional waters of the United States (U.S.) are defined by 33 CFR Part 328.3(b) and are protected by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). No jurisdictional waters of the U.S., wetlands, or public water supply systems were observed within the project study area or on National Wetland Inventory mapping. Therefore, it is recommended that the proposed project would have no effect to water resources or to water quality. See Figure 3 in Appendix B, and the technical study summary in Appendix C. The US Fish and Wildlife Service letter (see Appendix A) indicates that “best management

practices should be utilized throughout the entire construction project to minimize runoff of sediment and other contaminants into unknown tributary that flows into Days Creek.” MSCAA

will require such best management practices during construction of the proposed project.

(7) DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECTION 303/4(f)

Does the proposed project require the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance, or land of an historic site of national, state, or local significance? Provide justification for your response. Include concurrence of appropriate officials having jurisdiction over such land regarding the use determination. The proposed project does not require the use of any Section 303/4(f) property. The property is owned by MSCAA and is not a public park, recreation area or wildlife/waterfowl refuge. The July 14, 2016 letter from the State Historic Preservation Officer states that there are no National Register of Historic Places listed or eligible properties affected” by the Proposed Project. See

Appendix A.

Revised 2/2/15

(8) HISTORIC, ARCHITECTURAL, ARCHEOLOGICAL, AND CULTURAL

RESOURCES

a) Describe any impact the proposed project might have on any properties in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Provide justification for your response, and include a record of your consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), if applicable (attach correspondence with SHPO). The July 14, 2016 letter from the State Historic Preservation Officer states that there are no National Register of Historic Places listed or eligible properties affected” by the Proposed

Project. See Appendix A. b) Describe whether there is reason to believe that significant scientific, prehistoric, historic, archeological, or paleontological resources would be lost or destroyed as a result of the proposed project. Include a record of consultation with persons or organizations with relevant expertise, including the SHPO, if applicable. The July 14, 2016 letter from the State Historic Preservation Officer states that there are no National Register of Historic Places listed or eligible properties affected” by the Proposed

Project. See Appendix A. As requested, if any archaeological remains are discovered during ground disturbance or construction, the MSCAA will contact the Tennessee Historical Commission to determine what further action, if any, is needed to comply with Section 106.

(9) BIOTIC COMMUNITIES

Describe the potential of the proposed project to directly or indirectly impact plant communities and/or the displacement of wildlife. This answer should also reference Section 6, Water Quality, if jurisdictional water bodies are present. The proposed site has maintained areas with turf grass and planted ornamental trees. The proposed project will not directly or indirectly impact plant communities or displace wildlife. No jurisdictional water bodies are present on the proposed site.

(10) FEDERAL and STATE-LISTED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES

Would the proposed project impact any federally- or state-listed or proposed endangered or threatened species of flora and fauna, or impact critical habitat? Explain, and discuss and attach records of consultation efforts with jurisdictional agencies, if applicable. In compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the proposed project must identify the presence of threatened and endangered species and their designated critical habitat as well as evaluating project impacts. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s

(USFWS) Information, Planning and Conservation (IPAC) online database, the federally-protected species listed in the vicinity of the project area are the threatened Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). The project area

Revised 2/2/15

does not contain suitable habitat for the northern long-eared bat. See the technical study summary in Appendix C and the US Fish and Wildlife Service letter in Appendix A. The September 2016 US Fish and Wildlife Service letter recommends “that disturbance of

suitable roosting habitat be avoided and minimized to the greatest extent possible”. See

Appendix A. Coordination in November 2015 between staffs of US Fish and Wildlife Service and MSCAA concluded that “the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) would not expect federally listed forest dwelling bats to utilize this area for roosting and we approve the removal of the trees at any time. We in the Tennessee FWS office have determined that the proposed activity is not expected to result in significant impacts to threatened or endangered species or their critical habitats.” See the US Fish and Wildlife Service-MSCAA e-mails in Appendix A. Therefore, a determination of no affect to listed species has been made for the proposed project. No critical habitat has been designated in the project vicinity, therefore, it is recommended that the proposed project would have no effect to designated critical habitat. The proposed project limits contain no suitable foraging or nesting habitat for the bald eagle and the project is not anticipated to result in “take”, as defined under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

Based on the existing site conditions, suitable contiguous large forest habitat for migratory bird nests was not observed on the project site. Therefore, it is recommended that the proposed project would have no effect on migratory birds. See the technical study summary in Appendix C.

(11) WETLANDS

Does the proposed project involve the modification of delineated wetlands (Delineations must be performed by a person certified in wetlands delineation)? Provide documentation of consultation with agencies having jurisdiction over wetlands and include wetland inventory maps when appropriate. Based on review of National Wetland Inventory maps and field review, no wetlands are located on the proposed project site. US Fish and Wildlife Service indicated that “Information

available to the Service does not indicate that wetlands exist in the vicinity of the proposed project.” See the US Fish and Wildlife Service letter in Appendix A, Figure 4 in Appendix B, and the technical study summary in Appendix C.

(12) FLOODPLAINS

a) Would the proposed project be located in, or would it encroach upon, any 100-year floodplains, as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)? Yes_____ No_X___ b) Would the proposed project be located in a 500-year floodplain, as designated by FEMA? Yes_____ No___X__ c) If “yes,” is the proposed project considered a "critical action", as defined in the Water Resources Council Floodplain Management Guidelines? (see FR Vol. 43, No. 29, 2/10/78) Yes____ No____

Revised 2/2/15

d) You must attach the corresponding FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) or other documentation showing the project area. Map attached? Yes__X___ No______ If “no,” why

not? See the Floodplains map in Appendix B, and the technical study summary in Appendix C. e) If the proposed project would cause an encroachment of a base floodplain (the base floodplain is the 100-year floodplain for non-critical actions and the 500-year floodplain for critical actions), what measures would be taken to provide an opportunity for early public review, in accordance with Order 1050.1E, Appendix A, Section 9.2.c? Not applicable.

(13) COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

a) Would the proposed project occur in, or affect, a coastal zone, as defined by a state's Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP)? Explain. There are no coastal zones in Tennessee and therefore is not regulated by the Coastal Zone Management Program. b) If “yes,” is the project consistent with the State's CZMP? Explain. If applicable, attach the

sponsor's consistency certification and the state's concurrence of that certification. Early coordination is recommended. Not applicable.

(14) COASTAL BARRIERS

Is the location of the proposed project within the Coastal Barrier Resources System, as delineated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or FEMA coastal barrier maps? Explain. Tennessee is not a coastal state and is not located within the Coastal Barrier Resources System.

(15) WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

Would the proposed project affect any portion of the free-flowing characteristics of a Wild and Scenic River or a Study River, or any adjacent areas that are part of such rivers, listed on the Wild and Scenic Rivers Inventory? Consult the (regional) National Parks Service (NPS), U.S. Forest Service (FS), or other appropriate federal authority for information. Early consultation is recommended. The Obed River is the only river in Tennessee that is a Wild and Scenic River. The Obed River is not located in Shelby County. See correspondence from TN Department of Environment & Conservation, Water Resources, in Appendix A.

Revised 2/2/15

(16) FARMLAND

a) Would the proposed project involve the use of federal financial assistance or conversion of federal government land? Explain. The proposed project will not involve the use of federal financial assistance. The proposed project site is located on MSCAA property and no farmland conversion will be required. b) If “yes” would it convert farmland protected by the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)

(prime or unique farmland) to non-agricultural uses? Yes_____ No___ Not applicable. c) If “yes,” determine the extent of project-related farmland impacts by completing (and submitting to the Natural Resources Conservation Service) the "Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form" (NRCS Form AD 1006). Coordinate with the state or local agricultural authorities. Explain your response, and attach the Form AD 1006, if applicable. Not applicable.

(17) ENERGY SUPPLY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

What effect would the proposed project have on energy or other natural resource consumption? Would demand exceed supply? Explain. Letters from local public utilities and suppliers regarding their abilities to provide energy and resources needed for large projects may be The proposed project would not result in the consumption of energy resources that are in short supply. Energy demands will be the same as for the existing maintenance facilities on Democrat Boulevard. Energy required for construction will be a temporary and short-term need.

(18) LIGHT EMISSIONS

Would the proposed project have the potential for airport-related lighting impacts on nearby residents? Explain, and, if necessary, provide a map depicting the location of residences in the airport vicinity in relation to the proposed lighting system. The lights from the proposed project that would be nearest to the residential area located along Boeingshire Drive would be 140’ linear feet from the closest adjacent property at the northwest

corner of the proposed site and 730 linear feet from the furthest adjacent property at the southwest corner of the proposed site. See Figure 5 in Appendix B. MSCAA has included a vegetated buffer in the plans for the proposed project to keep the project oriented to Airways Boulevard to the east, and away from the residential area to the west.

Revised 2/2/15

(19) SOLID WASTE

Would the proposed project generate solid waste? Yes__X__ No_____ If “yes,” are local disposal facilities capable of handling the additional volumes of waste

resulting from the project? Explain. The September 15, 2016 e-mail from the TN Department of Environment & Conservation, Division of Solid Waste Management, states that, “The data searches indicate that there should be no environmental impact from solid waste or hazardous waste activities.” See the e-mail response in Appendix A. Proper disposal methods will be used to dispose of solid waste generated by the proposed project.

(20) CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS

Would construction of the proposed project: 1) increase ambient noise levels due to equipment operation; 2) degrade local air quality due to dust, equipment exhausts and burning debris; 3) deteriorate water quality when erosion and pollutant runoff occur; 4) or disrupt off-site and local traffic patterns? Explain. a) Construction of the proposed project could result in short-term and minor noise impacts

from operation of heavy equipment. MSCAA has committed to minimizing construction noise by use of appropriate best management practices. As described in Section 1 (Noise), the proposed project would not change aircraft operations (e.g., flight tracks, fleet mix, runway use, time of day, etc.) or induce new or different aircraft operations. The vegetated buffer to be included on the west side of the proposed site will provide mitigation during construction, and in the operation of the proposed facility, to reduce the effects of noise on the ambient environment.

b) Construction of the proposed project could result in short-term and minor, impacts to air quality. These impacts would be mitigated through the use of appropriate BMPs. Section 5 (Air Quality) discloses that the proposed project conforms to the State Implementation Plan because the emissions are well within the applicable “de-minimis” levels. The proposed project would not equal or exceed the applicable General Conformity de minimis thresholds established by the Clean Air Act.

c) The proposed project could result in short term, minor, impacts to water quality. Those impacts would be mitigated through use of appropriate BMPs as defined by the MEM Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Section 6 (Water Quality) disclosed that impacts to water quality from the proposed project are not anticipated.

d) Construction of the proposed project could result in short-term disruption to local traffic patterns. Any impacts would be minimal. Because all access to the proposed project site will be located on Airways Boulevard, impacts from changes to traffic patterns will be localized.

Revised 2/2/15

(21) OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

a) Is the proposed project likely to be highly controversial on environmental grounds? Explain. The proposed project is not likely to be highly controversial on environmental grounds. As described in Section 11 below, MSCAA held two neighborhood meetings with the public on August 25, 2015 and September 8, 2015. Letters from federal and state agencies are included in Appendix A and indicate that there are no impacts associated with the proposed project. The vegetative buffer, walking trail, and fencing commitments resulted from discussions at the August 25, 2015 meeting. See Section 11 below. b) Is the proposed project likely to be inconsistent with any federal, state or local law or administrative determination relating to the environment? Explain. The proposed project site is located on MSCAA property in an area reserved for future development by the 2010 Master Plan Update. The project is consistent with future plans, goals, policies, zoning, and local controls. The proposed project has been discussed with staff from the City of Memphis’ Engineering and City Planning Divisions, and no rezoning is required. MSCAA received approval from the City of Memphis for use of a Planned Development in a residential zone. c) Is the proposed project reasonably consistent with plans, goals, policies, or controls that have been adopted for the area in which the airport is located? Explain. The proposed project is consistent with the plans, goals, and policies of: the 2010 Master Plan Update for Memphis International Airport, the Long Range Transportation Plan (adopted by the Memphis Metropolitan Planning Organization), the FY 2017-20 Transportation Improvement Program (adopted by the Memphis Metropolitan Planning Organization), Greenprint 2015/2040 (adopted by Shelby County and the City of Memphis), and the Memphis Aerotropolis Airport City Master Plan (funded by a US Department of Housing and Urban Development Challenge Grant).

(22) HAZARDOUS SITES/MATERIALS

Would the proposed project require the use of land that may contain hazardous substances or may be contaminated? Explain your response and describe how such land was evaluated for hazardous substance contamination. Early consultation with appropriate expertise agencies (e.g., US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), EPA-certified state and local governments) is recommended. Based on an August 31, 2016 review of the following sources. there are no underground storage tanks, or RCRA or CERCLIS sites on or in the vicinity of the proposed project site: Tennessee Department of Environment & Conservation. UST Data and Reports. Tennessee UST Facilities. US Environmental Protection Agency. Envirofacts. CERCLIS Search Results.

Revised 2/2/15

US Environmental Protection Agency. Envirofacts. RCRAInfo Search Results. (23) PERMITS

List all required permits for the proposed project. Indicate whether any difficulties are anticipated in obtaining the required permits.

The following permits are needed for the proposed project: General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activities (CGP) and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). See the letter in Appendix A from the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Resources. NOTE: Even though the airport sponsor has/shall obtain one or more permits from the appropriate federal, state, and/or local agencies for the proposed project, initiation of such project shall NOT be approved until FAA has issued its environmental determination.

(24) ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Would the proposed project impact minority and/or low-income populations? Consider human health, social, economic, and environmental issues in your evaluation. Explain. Construction will occur only on MSCAA-owned property. The proposed project would not displace any minority and/or low income populations, and would have no effects on access to nearby residential areas. The proposed project will provide opportunities for construction-related jobs during construction, and those jobs could result in a positive impact on the nearby community.

(25) CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

When considered together with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development projects on or off the airport, federal or non-federal, would the proposed project produce a cumulative effect on any of the environmental impact categories above? You should consider projects that are connected, cumulative and similar (common timing and geography). Provide a list of such projects considered. For purposes of this Evaluation Form, generally use 3 years for past projects and 5 years for future foreseeable projects.

As disclosed in this Short Form Environmental Assessment, there would be negligible environmental impacts from the proposed project. As a result, the cumulative impact of the proposed project, when combined with other past, present, and future actions, is collectively minimal. The proposed project is a result of the 2013 opening by MSCAA of the consolidated rental car facility near the Memphis International Airport passenger terminal, and the need to have the rental maintenance facility close to the rental car facility.

Projects completed by MSCAA in the recent past are: Taxiway Victor construction, Ground Transportation Center/Quick Turnaround facility, terminal apron replacement, demolition of the

Revised 2/2/15

south end of Concourse A, demolition of Regency Hotel and Suites, and Runway 18R/35L EMAS installation. Current/soon to be started projects are: perimeter fence replacement, perimeter intrusion detection system, and passenger boarding bridge relocation/refurbish. Foreseeable Future projects identified by MSCAA are: Airfield Maintenance & Operations support facility, glycol de-ice pads, De-Ice glycol controls facility , and terminal modernization of Concourse B. The cumulative impact of the above past/present/reasonably foreseeable projects is collectively minimal. Reasonably foreseeable and nearby federal and state actions include modifications to the existing I-240 interchange at Airways Boulevard. The interchange is located about 1.0 mile from the proposed project, and construction letting is scheduled by the Tennessee Department of Transportation for August 2018. This project would result in temporary construction impacts (noise, air quality, water quality) in the vicinity, and would be constructed after the proposed project would be completed. The Memphis MPO Transportation Improvement Program also includes a long range project that would widen Interstate 240 for six miles from Interstate 55 to Interstate 40. The southern end of the proposed widening project is located about 2.4 miles from the proposed project.

As necessary, procedure to minimize potential adverse impacts from construction of these projects would be implemented by the Tennessee Department of Transportation.

In addition, a US Housing and Urban Development Community Challenge Grant was used by the City of Memphis and the Memphis Chamber of Commerce to prepare a master plan for a 50-square mile area around the Memphis-Shelby County International Airport. The master plan was completed in 2014. Implementation of the master plan is proposed in phases through 2050 for development of airport-support, commercial and industrial areas and logistics. Impacts of development will be based on detailed development plans which are not yet available.

10. MITIGATION

(a) Describe those mitigation measures to be taken to avoid creation of significant impacts to a particular resource as a result of the proposed project, and include a discussion of any impacts that cannot be mitigated, or that cannot be mitigated below the threshold of significance (See 5050.4B & 1050.1F). (b) Provide a description of the resources that are in or adjacent to the project area that must be avoided during construction. Note: The mitigation measures should be incorporated into the project’s design documents. A residential subdivision is located west of the proposed project site. The subdivision is not located on airport property and would have a 100-foot vegetated buffer to separate the nearby

Revised 2/2/15

residences from the proposed site. There are no other resources that must be avoided during construction, and no other mitigation is included in the proposed project.

11. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Describe what efforts would be made to involve the public with this proposed project. Discuss the appropriateness of holding public meetings and/or public hearings, making the draft document available for public comment, or the preparation of a public involvement plan, etc. Two neighborhood meetings relating to the proposed project were held on August 25, 2015 and September 8, 2015. Thirty-four (34) attendees signed in for the August 25 meeting and 13 attendees signed in for the September 9 meeting. Topics discussed at the meetings included:

Victoria Avenue and Rushmore Street will remain open to maintain access from the adjacent neighborhood along Boeingshire Drive to Airways Boulevard.

All access to and from the proposed project will only be from Airways Boulevard. Vehicles associated with the proposed project will not have access to Victoria Avenue or Rushmore Street.

The MSCAA goal for the proposed project is to provide increased amenities to local residents, including a landscaped buffer zone on the west side of the proposed project, maintaining as much of the current terrain and existing trees as possible; a landscaped buffer zone along Victoria Avenue and Rushmore Street to provide a visual screen of the proposed project; a meandering pedestrian walkway with low-level ambient lighting that would provide a walking trail along the perimeter of the proposed project; and wooden cedar fencing with gates along the western property line common with residents whose properties have frontage along Boeingshire Drive or Rushmore Street.

Fueling stations for the proposed project would be installed to meet all applicable agency requirements, and would be located as far to the east of the site as possible, in order to increase the separation between the nearby residents and the fueling facilities.

The site for the proposed project was selected because it is the only MSCAA-owned site with enough area to consolidate maintenance functions for the rental car agencies on a single continuous parcel of land.

The September 8, 2015 meeting was not required by the City of Memphis or any other agency. It was held to address the concerns and issues that were discussed at the August 25 meeting. MSCAA will make the draft Short Form Environmental Assessment available for public review at the MSCAA offices, and will hold a public meeting on January 10, 2017, following FAA release of this Short Form Environmental Assessment. The meeting will provide the public an opportunity to discuss the proposed project and its environmental impacts.

Revised 2/2/15

12. PREPARER CERTIFICATION I certify that the information I have provided above is, to the best of my knowledge, correct. _________________________________________________ _____________ Signature Date Deborah L. Wilson, Project Manager Name, Title Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Affiliation 13. AIPORT SPONSOR CERTIFICATION I certify that the information I have provided above is, to the best of my knowledge, correct. I also recognize and agree that no construction activity, including but not limited to site preparation, demolition, or land disturbance, shall proceed for the above proposed project(s) until FAA issues a final environmental decision for the proposed project(s), and until compliance with all other applicable FAA approval actions (e.g., ALP approval, airspace approval, grant approval) has occurred. _________________________________________________ __________________ Signature Date ________________________________________________________________________ Name, Title ________________________________________________________________________ Affiliation

Revised 2/2/15

Note: This page to be completed by FAA only

14. FAA DECISION: Having reviewed the above information, certified by the responsible airport official, it is the FAA decision that the proposed project(s) of development warrants environmental processing as indicated below.

The proposed development action has been found to qualify for a Short Environmental Assessment.

The proposed development action exhibits conditions that require the preparation of a detailed Environmental Assessment (EA).

The following additional documentation is necessary for FAA to perform a complete environmental evaluation of the proposed project: ____________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Action Reviewed/Recommended by:

__________________________________________ ______________ (FAA Environmental Specialist) Date

*Approved: __________________________________________ _______________ (FAA Approving Official) Date * The above FAA approval only signifies that the proposed development action(s), as described by the information provided in this Evaluation Form, initially appears to qualify for the indicated environmental processing action. This may be subject to change after more detailed information is made known to the FAA by further analysis, or though additional federal, state, local or public input, etc.

Revised 2/2/15

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Stakeholder Letters

Shelby County Health Department United States Army Corps of Engineers TDEC Division of Water Resources State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) – Tennessee Historical Commission TDEC – Division of Solid Waste Management TDEC – Division of Underground Storage Tanks U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Appendix B – Figures

1 – Proposed Location – Consolidated Rental Car Maintenance 2 – Location Map of Existing and Proposed Facilities 3 – National Wetlands Inventory Map 4 – FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map 5 – Lighting Plan Appendix C – Technical Study Summaries

Noise Air Quality Water Quality, Biotic Communities, Endangered and Threatened Species, Wetlands, Floodplains

 

 

APPENDIX A

Stakeholder Letters

Shelby County Health Department

United States Army Corps of Engineers

Tennessee Department of Environment & Conservation (TDEC) -

Division of Water Resources

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) – Tennessee Historical Commission

Tennessee Department of Environment & Conservation (TDEC) - Division of Solid Waste Management

Tennessee Department of Environment & Conservation (TDEC) - Division of Underground Storage Tanks

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Emails between U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and MSCAA Staff Members

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

 

 

 

 

 

1

Wilson, Debbie

Subject: MSCAA REQUEST FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION

From: Norma Branch [mailto:Norma.Branch@tn.gov]Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 10:16 AMTo: James Hay <JHay@flymemphis.com>Cc: Herb Nicholson <Herb.Nicholson@tn.gov>; John Boatright <John.Boatright@tn.gov>Subject: MSCAA REQUEST FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION

Hi Mr. Hay,

Herb Nicholson asked us to review information concerning a tract of property which will be used to construct a carmaintenance facility near the MSCAA. The following information was gathered:

1. Mr. John Boatright, with the Solid Waste Group, reviewed the area in question and found no activity pertainingto solid waste.

2. Ms. Norma Branch, with the Hazardous Waste Group, reviewed the area in question and found one site that hadan association with hazardous waste. The site was:

Wilkenson Sign, Inc.2106 Ravenden Rd. 38116Memphis, TN 38116EPA ID Number: TND048323380

According to the EPA RCRAInfo Database, this site had only one initial notification on 11/19/1980. No otheractivity for the site was included. This usually means that the site was in the initial group of facilities that weregiven EPA ID numbers right after the law went into effect. If there was no other activity there afterwards (i.e.inspections, annual notices), then usually nothing happened there that would impact the environment.

The data searches indicate that there should be no environmental impact from solid waste or hazardous waste activities.

Norma

Norma L. Branch | TDEC - Environmental Consultant Division of Solid Waste Management Memphis Environmental Field Office 8383 Wolf Lake Drive Bartlett, Tennessee 38133-4119 Office: (901) 371-3017 Email: Norma.Branch@tn.gov

2

Tell us how we’re doing! Please take 5-10 minutes to complete Customer Service Survey at http://tn.gov/environment/article/contact-tdec-customer-service-form

1

Wilson, Debbie

Subject: FW: Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority Airport tree removal

From: Robbie Sykes [mailto:robbie_sykes@fws.gov]Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 11:39 AMTo: Lori Morris <LMorris@flymemphis.com>Cc: Jason Hull <JHull@flymemphis.com>Subject: RE: Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority Airport tree removal

Lori,

Service personnel have reviewed Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority’s proposed construction of a newConsolidated Rental Car facility located near the southwest corner of Airways Boulevard and Winchester Road in ShelbyCounty, Tennessee. In order to construct the facility, several trees would need to be removed from the projectsite. According to your correspondence, the site was surveyed on November 19, 2015, for appropriate roosting habitatof the Indiana and northern long-eared bats. No trees or snags exhibiting the needed roosting characteristics for thesetwo species were observed. Therefore, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) would not expect federally listed forestdwelling bats to utilize this area for roosting and we approve the removal of the trees at any time.

We in the Tennessee FWS office have determined that the proposed activity is not expected to result in significantimpacts to threatened or endangered species or their critical habitats. Obligations under the Endangered Species Actmust be reconsidered if 1) new information reveals impacts of the proposed action that may affect listed species orcritical habitat in a manner not previously considered, 2) the proposed action is subsequently modified to includeactivities which were not considered during this consultation, or 3) new species are listed or critical habitat designatedthat might be affected by the proposed action.

Thank you for your efforts to address our concerns about the potential for impacts to the Indiana and northern long-eared bats. Feel free to contact me with any questions.

Robbie SykesFish and Wildlife BiologistU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service446 Neal StreetCookeville, TN 38501(tele. 931/525-4979)(fax. 931/528-7075)

From: Lori Morris [mailto:LMorris@flymemphis.com]Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:03 AMTo: Robbie Sykes <robbie_sykes@fws.gov>Cc: Jason Hull <JHull@flymemphis.com>Subject: Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority Airport tree removal

Hi Robby,

The Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority will be starting construction on our new Consolidated Rental Car facilityin the Summer of 2016. Due to this project, we will need to remove several trees from the area. Yesterday I walked the

2

facility location to visually inspect the trees that will be removed and found no trees with loose bark. I did find a fewtrees that we dead or dying, but the bark on those trees was still tight to the tree and in good condition.

Please see attached location aerial map as well as several pictures of representative trees found at the site. If you haveany questions or require any additional information, please don’t hesitate to let me know.

Lori MorrisManager of Environmental Service2491 Winchester Road, Suite 113Memphis,TN 38116 -3856P: 901-922-8754flymemphis.com

From: Robbie Sykes [mailto:robbie_sykes@fws.gov]Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 4:03 PMTo: Lori MorrisSubject: Memphis_Shleby County Airport Authority Dewitt Spain Airport tree removal

Lori,

Thank you for your email dated June 16, 2014, to David Pelren indicating Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority'sneed to remove several trees from the Dewitt Spain Airport property along the N/NE property boundary. The recentPhotoslope Survey identified trees on this portion of the property as a nuisance due to the fact that they are penetratingthe approach slope of 20:1, which is required to be clear for approaching aircraft. The trees in the area were evaluated,and they all appear to be healthy with tight bark. Therefore, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) would not expectIndiana bats to utilize this area for roosting and we approve the removal of the tree at any time..

We in the Tennessee FWS office have determined that the proposed activity is not expected to result in significantimpacts to threatened or endangered species or their critical habitats. Obligations under the Endangered Species Actmust be reconsidered if 1) new information reveals impacts of the proposed action that may affect listed species orcritical habitat in a manner not previously considered, 2) the proposed action is subsequently modified to includeactivities which were not considered during this consultation, or 3) new species are listed or critical habitat designatedthat might be affected by the proposed action.

As a final note, please be aware that there is a species that may be affected by similar projects if trees are not clearedprior to April 2015. You may be aware that the northern long-eared bat (Myotisseptentrionalis) was proposed for listing as endangered in October 2013. Initially, it was thought that the listing decisionwould be announced by October 2014, however it has recently be postponed to April 2015. Be aware that if trees willbe cleared after listing of the species, potential effects to the northern long-eared bat should be coordinated with us inorder to develop measures needed to address those effects. Please note that this species uses even smaller trees forroosting than does the Indiana bat (i.e., three inches or greater in diameter, as opposed to five inches for the Indianabat).

Thank you for your efforts to address our concerns about the potential for impacts to the Indiana bat. Feel free tocontact me with any questions.

Robbie SykesFish and Wildlife BiologistU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

3

446 Neal StreetCookeville, TN 38501(tele. 931/525-4979)(fax. 931/528-7075)

MEM Airport Project

Tree Removal near the SW corner of Airways Blvd. and Winchester.

Trees to be removed from site: 141 Deciduous and 65 Evergreen Trees to be preserved onsite: 96 Deciduous and 29 Evergreen Trees to be added as part of the new project: 91 Deciduous and 86 Evergreen

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX B

Figures

 

1 – Location – Proposed Location

2 – Location Map of Existing and Proposed Facilities

3 – National Wetland Inventory Map

4 – Floodplains

5 – Lighting Plan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1: PROPOSED LOCATION

CONSOLIDATED RENTAL CAR MAINTENANCE

FACILITY

Study Area

Legend

EXISTING MAINTENANCE SITE

PROPOSED SITE

EXISTING RENTAL CAR GARAGE

Figure 2: Location Map of Existing and Proposed Facilities

Legend

Figure 3: National Wetlands Inventory Map

Legend

Figure 4: FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map

LegendProposed Site Area

LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE

Symbol Label Qty WattsCatalog Number Description

P1 8 280

P2 1 560

P3 17 1120

P4 31 2240

BEACON#VP-L-96NB-280-5K-T3

BEACON#VP-L-96NB-280-5K-T3

BEACON#VP-L-96NB-560-5K-T4HSS-90

BEACON#VP-L-96NB-560-5K-T5W

Lamp

LED

LED

LED

LED

Mounting

FULL CUT-OFF LEDAREA LIGHT ON 30'POLE.

30' POLE MOUNTON 4' CONCRETEBASE PER DETAIL

BELOW

TWO FULL CUT-OFFLED AREA LIGHTS ON

TWO FULL CUT-OFFLED AREA LIGHTS ON30' POLE. HOUSESIDE SHIELD ONEACH FIXTURE

FOUR TWIN HEADFULL CUT-OFF LEDAREA LIGHTS ON 30'

30' POLE MOUNTON 4' CONCRETEBASE PER DETAIL

BELOW

30' POLE MOUNTON 4' CONCRETEBASE PER DETAIL

BELOW

30' POLE MOUNTON 4' CONCRETEBASE PER DETAIL

BELOW

W1

C1

42 136BEACON#TRVD-60NB-136-T4 LED

FULL CUT-OFF LEDWALL PAK

WALL/FACADEMOUNT +14'-0"

AFG

60 110BEACON#EDR-48NB-110W-T5QN LED

FULL CUT-OFF LEDCANOPY LIGHT

SURFACE UNDERCANOPY

Figure 5: Lighting Plan

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX C

Technical Study Summaries

Noise

Air Quality

Water Quality, Biotic Communities, Endangered and Threatened Species, Wetlands and Floodplains

Short Form Environmental Assessment – Noise Assessment   

Memphis International Airport, ConRAC Maintenance Facility  

Prepared by KB Environmental Sciences, Inc. September 1, 2016 

I. Purpose 

KB Environmental Sciences has prepared a qualitative assessment of noise for the proposed consolidated rental  car  (ConRAC) maintenance  facility  at Memphis  International Airport  (MEM). Also  included  are responses to the items in the MEM ADO Short Form EA Noise Section. See Figure 1 for an illustration of the project plans and surrounding community.  

II. Assessment 

The potential concerns regarding noise associated with the proposed facility are related to construction activity and operation of the facility. Of note, this facility will not have any effect on the airport’s noise contours (i.e., Day Night Average Sound Levels) which are used by FAA to determine the significance of noise impacts for a NEPA assessment. That is, the proposed project would not change aircraft operations (e.g., flight tracks, fleet mix, runway use, time of day, etc.) or induce new or different aircraft operations at MEM.  

The EA Affected Environment identifies noise‐sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the project (i.e., homes along Boeingshire Drive and Winchester Elementary School). In this area, noise from aircraft operating on nearby Runway 18R‐36R and other runways at MEM has an effect on the ambient noise environment. Roadway  traffic noise  from Airways Blvd., Winchester Road, and  Interstate 55 also  contribute  to  the ambient noise environment.  

Noise impacts during construction will be sporadic and short‐term. Construction activities are expected to occur for 14 months starting in April of 2017 and ending in May of 2018. The following Best Practices can be used to further minimize noise during construction: 

Locate construction equipment and material staging areas away from sensitive receptors.  

Route  construction  traffic  and  haul  routes  along  roads  in  non‐noise‐sensitive  areas  where possible. 

Whenever possible, conduct all construction activities during the daytime and during weekdays. 

Require contractors to use best available control technologies to limit excessive equipment noise and vibration. 

If practical, erect temporary noise barriers between noisy activities and noise‐sensitive receptors. 

Adequately notify the public of construction operations and schedules. 

Potential impacts during the operation of the facility would include noise from automobiles on the site, car wash facilities, vehicle maintenance shops, and associated activities. The project includes a landscaped buffer  and  berms  along  the  perimeter  of  the  facility  to  help minimize  these  effects.  The  adjoining stormwater management area also provides additional buffer distance between the facility and homes on the east side of Boeingshire Drive. This combination of landscaping and the distance from the proposed project to the nearby homes and school would serve to reduce noise. Further measures, such as limiting evening  and  night‐time operations  at  the  facility,  could be  considered  –  but  are not  expected  to be necessary. 

 

III. EA Short Form Material Below are answers to the questions  from the MEM ADO EA Short Form  (note that we referenced the current Order 1050.1F).  

1) Does the proposal require a noise analysis per Order 1050.1E, Appendix A? Explain. (Note:  Noise sensitive land uses are defined in Table 1 of FAR Part 150). Yes __ No   X  Per Order 1050.1F Appendix B, a noise analysis  is not required because “the description of current noise conditions is usually confined to aircraft noise” (para. B‐1.3). The proposed project would not change aircraft operations (e.g., flight tracks, fleet mix, runway use, time of day, etc.) or induce new or different aircraft operations. Noise mitigation would be included during construction, and  in the operation of the proposed facility, to reduce the effects of noise on the ambient environment.      2) If “yes,” determine whether the proposed project  is  likely to have a significant  impact on noise levels over noise sensitive areas within the DNL 65 dBA noise contour.  Not applicable.  

 

FIGURE 1. ConRAC Maintenance Facility ‐ Conceptual Site Plan 

 

MEMPHIS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT

  Prepared by: 

KB Environmental Sciences, Inc.  

Prepared for: 

Kimley Horn.  

 

 

August 12, 2016

Memphis International Airport Air Quality Technical Report

August 2016 Page 1

1.AIRQUALITY

This  report  discusses  the  analysis  and  presents  the  findings  of  an  air  quality  assessment  that  was performed  for  the  proposed  consolidated  rental  car  (CONRAC)  maintenance  facility  at  Memphis International  Airport  (MEM),  located  in  Shelby  County,  Tennessee.  The  schedule  for  the  CONRAC maintenance facility indicates that construction activities would occur for 14 months starting in April of 2017 and ending in May of 2018. 

 2.AFFECTEDENVIRONMENT

This section  includes  information on existing air quality conditions  in and around the vicinity of MEM, including  the  regulatory  agencies  involved  in  the  management  of  air  quality,  relevant  air  quality regulations, and the attainment/non‐attainment status of Shelby County. 

2.1   Regulatory Agencies 

The  management  of  air  quality  conditions  in  Tennessee,  including  the  area  around  MEM,  is  the responsibility of federal, state, regional, and local governmental air quality regulatory agencies. Under the federal  Clean Air Act  (CAA),  the U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency  (EPA)  establishes  the  guiding principles  and  policies  for  protecting  air  quality  conditions  throughout  the  nation.  EPA’s  primary responsibilities  in this area  include promulgating the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which define ambient concentrations for criteria air pollutants that are considered safe for public health, welfare and the environment, as well as approving State Implementation Plans (SIPs). A SIP outlines the agreements that an individual state intends to use to clean up an area(s) with poor air quality conditions.  The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the primary agency involved in, and responsible for, ensuring that air quality impacts associated with proposed airport projects adhere to the reporting and disclosure requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as well as the General Conformity rule of the  CAA.  On  the  state  level,  the  Tennessee  Department  of  Environment  &  Conservation  (TDEC)  is responsible  for enforcing  the CAA  including compliance with  the NAAQS,  the  issuance of air emission source permits, monitoring of air quality conditions, and assisting in the preparation of the SIP.  At the local level, the Shelby County Pollution Control Section (SCPCS) is directed to maintain the purity of the air resources in Shelby County, and to protect the health, and general welfare of its citizens. The SCPCS establishes requirements to monitor air pollution sources through the issuance of construction and operating permits. The SCPCS also works closely with the Memphis Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to  improve air quality  in the area. The Memphis MPO  is responsible for developing a  long  long‐range Regional Transportation Plan  (RTP) and short‐range Transportation  Improvement Plan  (TIP)  that must conform to the air quality goals established in the SIP. 

2.2   National Ambient Air quality Standards 

Pursuant  to  the  requirements of  the CAA,  the EPA establishes, enforces, and periodically  reviews  the NAAQS. The NAAQS are set to safeguard public health and environmental welfare against the detrimental effects of ambient air pollution and are defined as primary and/or secondary standards. Primary NAAQS are health‐based standards geared toward protecting sensitive or at‐risk portions of the population such as asthmatics,  children, and  the elderly.  Secondary NAAQS are welfare oriented and are designed  to prevent decreased visibility and damage  to animals, vegetation, and physical  structures. NAAQS have been established for six common air pollutants, referred to as criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM) which includes particulate matter 

Memphis International Airport Air Quality Technical Report

August 2016 Page 2

with a diameter of 10 microns or  less  (PM10) and a diameter of 2.5 microns or  less  (PM2.5), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Nitrogen oxides  (NOx) and volatile organic compound  (VOC) emissions are precursors to ozone formation. The NAAQS are listed in Table 1.  

Table 1: National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant Primary/ 

Secondary Averaging Time  Level  Form 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Primary 

8‐hour 9 ppm Not to be exceeded more than once per year 1‐hour 35 ppm

Lead (Pb)  Primary and Secondary 

Rolling 3 month average 

0.15 µg/m3

(1)  Not to be exceeded 

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)  Primary  1‐hour  100 ppb 

98th percentile of 1‐hour daily maximum concentrations, averaged over 3 years 

Primary and Secondary  Annual  53 ppb(2)  Annual Mean 

Ozone (O3) Primary and Secondary  8‐hour  0.070 ppm(3) 

Annual fourth‐highest daily maximum 8‐hour concentration, 

averaged over 3 years Particulate Matter 

PM2.5 Primary  Annual  12 µg/m3  annual mean, averaged over 3 

years 

Secondary  Annual  15 µg/m3  annual mean, averaged over 3 years 

Primary and Secondary  24‐hour  35 µg/m3  98th percentile, averaged over 3 

years PM10 

Primary and Secondary  24‐hour  150 µg/m3 

Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 

years Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 

Primary  1‐hour  75 ppb(4) 99th percentile of 1‐hour daily maximum concentrations, averaged over 3 years 

Secondary  3‐hour  0.5 ppm  Not to be exceeded more than once per year 

Notes: ppb = parts per billion, ppm = parts per million, and µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter of air. (1)  In  areas  designated  nonattainment  for  the  Pb  standards  prior  to  the  promulgation  of  the  current  (2008)  standards,  and  for  which implementation plans to attain or maintain the current (2008) standards have not been submitted and approved, the previous standards (1.5 µg/m3 as a calendar quarter average) also remain in effect. (2) The level of the annual NO2 standard is 0.053 ppm. It is shown here in terms of ppb for the purposes of clearer comparison to the 1‐hour standard level.   (3) Final rule signed October 1, 2015, and effective December 28, 2015. The previous (2008) O3 standards additionally remain in effect in some areas. Revocation of the previous (2008) O3 standards and transitioning to the current (2015) standards will be addressed in the implementation rule for the current standards. (4) The  previous SO2 standards (0.14 ppm 24‐hour and 0.03 ppm annual) will additionally remain in effect in certain areas: (1) any area for which it is not yet 1 year since the effective date of designation under the current (2010) standards, and (2)any area for which implementation plans providing for attainment of the current (2010) standard have not been submitted and approved and which is designated nonattainment under the previous SO2 standards or is not meeting the requirements of a SIP call under the previous SO2 standards (40 CFR 50.4(3)), A SIP call is an EPA action requiring a state to resubmit all or part of its State Implementation Plan to demonstrate attainment of the require NAAQS.. Source: EPA, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) at https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table, June 2016. 

2.3   Attainment/Nonattainment Status 

The EPA designates areas as either meeting (attainment) or not meeting (nonattainment) the NAAQS. An area with measured  pollutant  concentrations which  are  lower  than  the  NAAQS  is  designated  as  an 

Memphis International Airport Air Quality Technical Report

August 2016 Page 3

attainment area and an area with pollutant concentrations  that exceed  the NAAQS  is designated as a nonattainment area. Once a nonattainment area meets  the NAAQS and  the additional  re‐designation requirements in the CAA, the EPA will designate the area as a maintenance area. Ozone nonattainment areas  are  further  classified  as  extreme,  severe,  moderate,  or  marginal.  An  area  is  designated  as unclassifiable  when  there  is  a  lack  of  sufficient  data  to  form  the  basis  of  an  attainment  status determination.   The CAA requires states to develop a general plan to attain and/or maintain the primary and secondary NAAQS  in all areas of the country and to develop a specific plan to attain the standards for each area designated nonattainment for a NAAQS. These plans, known as SIPs, are developed by state and local air quality management agencies and submitted to the EPA for approval. MEM is located in Shelby County which is currently an area designated as “nonattainment” for the 8‐hour O3 standard and “maintenance” for  the  CO  standard.  Table  2  summarizes  and  provides  additional  information  regarding  the  EPA‐designated nonattainment status for the county.   

Table 2: EPA Designated Nonattainment/Maintenance Status

County, State  Pollutant  Area Name/State  Classification County NA 

Part/Whole?(1) 

Shelby County, Tennessee 

8‐Hr Ozone (2008)  Memphis, TN‐MS‐AR  Nonattainment ‐ Marginal  Whole 

CO (1971)  Memphis, TN  Maintenance ‐Moderate  Whole 

Notes:  (1) The column "County NA Part/Whole" indicates whether only a part of the county or the whole county is designated nonattainment.  

Source: EPA, Green Book https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo_tn.html. 

2.4   General Conformity Requirements

The General  Conformity Rule of  the  federal CAA prohibits  federal  agencies  (including  the  FAA)  from permitting or funding projects that do not conform to an applicable SIP. The General Conformity Rule applies only to areas that are designated nonattainment or maintenance.   Under  the  General  Conformity  Rule,  project‐related  emissions  of  the  applicable nonattainment/maintenance pollutants are compared  to de‐minimis  level  thresholds.  If  the emissions exceed  the  thresholds, a  formal Conformity Determination  is  required  to demonstrate  that  the action conforms to the applicable SIP. Conversely, if project‐related emissions are below the de‐minimis levels the project  is assumed to conform to the SIP. Because the Proposed Project would occur  in an NAAQS nonattainment and maintenance area, the General Conformity Rule of the CAA applies. The applicable General Conformity de‐minimis levels for Shelby County are presented in Table 3.  

Table 3: General Conformity de-minimis Thresholds Pollutant Tons/Year

Ozone (VOC)  100 Ozone (NOx) 100

CO 100Notes: EPA, De Minimis  Levels, https://www.epa.gov/general‐conformity/de‐minimis‐emission‐levels. 

2.5   Transportation Conformity Requirements 

Memphis International Airport Air Quality Technical Report

August 2016 Page 4

The CAA also contains a Transportation Conformity Rule that functions similarly to the General Conformity Rule. The Transportation Conformity Rule restricts federal funding to highway or transportation projects that do not conform to an applicable SIP. The responsibility of transportation conformity determination is vested in the Federal highway Administration (FHWA) and state Department of Transportation (DOT). The proposed project at MEM  is not subject to the Transportation Conformity Rule because  it  is not a roadway/highway  project  that  requires  approval,  funding  or would  be  implemented  by  the  Federal Highway Administration or Federal Transit Administration. 

3.ENVIRONMENTALCONSEQUENCES

To evaluate the impact of the CONRAC maintenance facility, an emissions inventory was prepared for the construction‐related  activities  that would  occur  from  April  of  2017  through May  of  2018.   Notably, construction activities would be  temporary and variable depending on  the  type, duration and  level of activity.  Further,  while  these  emissions  occur  predominantly  in  the  engine  exhaust  of  construction equipment and vehicles  (e.g.,  scrapers, dozers, delivery  trucks, etc.), emissions are also attributed  to fugitive dust produced from construction materials staging, soil handling, and un‐stabilized land and wind erosion.  Construction equipment  typically utilized  in  airport projects  is  comprised of both on‐road  (i.e.,  road‐licensed) and non‐road equipment (i.e., off‐road) vehicles and equipment. The former category of vehicles are used for the transport and delivery of supplies, material and equipment to and from the site, and also include  construction  worker  vehicles.  The  latter  categories  of  equipment  are  operated  on‐site  for activities such as soil/material handling, site clearing and grubbing.  For the evaluation of the proposed development of the CONRAC maintenance facility at MEM, the Airport Construction Emissions  Inventory Tool  (ACEIT) was used.1 Project‐specific details  such as  construction activities,  construction  footprints  and  costs were  used  in  the  ACEIT  to  estimate  equipment/vehicles activity data (e.g., equipment mixes/times). Default emission factors were also assigned based on location and type of project. The default factors used by ACEIT are derived from EPA‐approved emissions models for  both  non‐road  construction  equipment  (i.e.,  NONROAD)  and  on‐road  vehicles  (i.e.,  MOVES). NONROAD provides emission factors for off‐road equipment/vehicles (e.g., dozers, tractors, loaders, etc.) and MOVES is used to develop emission factors for on‐road vehicles (e.g., passenger cars, delivery trucks, etc.). Both exhaust and fugitive (e.g., evaporative) emission factors were developed using these models for incorporation into ACEIT. Table 4 presents the construction activities and schedules associated with each proposed action Alternative.   

Table 4: Construction Activities and Footprint Construction Activity Area (square feet)

Site Work 1,954,102

Demolition 366,029

Parking Lots 972,432

Buildings 50,408Source: Memphis International Airport, 2016.

Construction emissions associated with the development of the CONRAC maintenance facility at MEM are presented in Table 5. As shown, the total emissions associated with construction activities are well below 

1 Transportation Research Board, ACRP Report 102, Guidance for Estimating Airport Construction Emissions, http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/acrp/acrp_rpt_102.pdf. 

Memphis International Airport Air Quality Technical Report

August 2016 Page 5

the  de‐minimis  threshold  of  100  tons  per  year  for  NOx,  VOC,  and  CO.  Therefore,  a  Conformity 

Determination is not required and the Proposed Project is presumed to comply with the SIP. 

Table 5: Construction Emissions (tons)

Source 2017  2018 

CO  VOC  NOx  SO2  PM10  PM2.5  CO  VOC  NOx  SO2  PM10  PM2.5 

Non‐Road  35  11  38  <1  3  3  20  6  21  <1  2  2 

On‐Road  7  1  2  <1  <1  <1  4  1  1  <1  <1  <1 

Fugitive  <1  23  <1  <1  5  ‐‐  <1  13  <1  <1  3  ‐‐ 

Total  42  35  40  <1  9  3  24  20  22  <1  5  2 

de‐minimis O3  ‐‐  100  100  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐  100  100  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐ de‐minimis CO  100  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐  100  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐ 

Exceeds de‐minimis (Yes/No)  No  No  No  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐  No  No  No  ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐ 

Note: Values may reflect rounding. 

Emissions  from  construction  activities would be  further  reduced by  employing  standard  construction procedures which include: 

Reducing exposed erodible surface areas;  Covering  exposed  surface  areas with  pavement  or  vegetation  in  an  expeditious manner  and 

periodic watering;  Reducing equipment idling times;   Reducing vehicles speeds onsite;  Ensuring contractor knowledge of appropriate fugitive dust and equipment exhaust controls;   Use of low‐ or zero‐emissions equipment;  Use of covered haul trucks during materials transportation; and  Suspending construction activities during high‐wind conditions. 

4.RESPONSESTOTHEAIRQUALITYQUESTIONSOFTHESHORTFORMEA

Memphis International Airport Air Quality Technical Report

August 2016 Page 6

The  following  section  addresses  the  air  quality  questions  in  the  Short  Form  EA  associated with  the Proposed Project. For ease of understanding, questions are presented in bold and the responses follow. 

(a) Does the proposed project have the potential to increase airside or landside capacity, including an 

increase in capacity to handle surface vehicles? Explain. 

The Proposed Project will not increase airside or landside capacity; therefore, an operational emissions inventory was not performed. 

(b) Identify whether the project area is in a non‐attainment or maintenance area for any of the criteria 

air pollutants having National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) established under the Clean Air 

Act  Amendments  (CAAA),  and  identify which  pollutant(s)  apply.    If  the  proposed  project  is  in  an 

attainment area, no  further air quality analysis  is needed;  skip  to  item  (6). See EPA Green Book at 

www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk  for current attainment areas.   

The  Proposed  Project  is  located  in  Shelby  County  which  is  currently  an  area  designated  as “nonattainment” for the 8‐hour O3 standard and “maintenance” for the CO standard. Table 2 of the Air Quality  report  summarizes  and  provides  additional  information  regarding  the  EPA‐designated nonattainment status for the county. 

(c)  Is an air quality analysis needed with  regard  to  indirect source  review  requirements or  levels of 

aircraft activity (See Order 1050.1E and the 1997 FAA Handbook "Air Quality Procedures for Civilian 

Airports and Air Force Bases").  Explain.  If “yes,” comply with state requirements. 

The  Proposed  Project  will  not  affect  levels  of  aircraft  activity;  however,  indirect  sources  such  as construction activities associated with the development of the CONRAC maintenance facility at MEM were assessed. Results are presented in Table 5 of the AQ Report. 

(d)(1) Would the proposed action be an “exempted action,” as defined in 40 C.F.R Part 51.853(c)(2) of 

the General Conformity Rule?  If exempt, skip to item (6).  List exemption claimed.   

The Proposed Project isn’t an exempted action. 

(d)(2) Would the increase in the emission level of the regulated air pollutants for which the project area 

is in non‐attainment or maintenance exceed the de minimis standards?  Yes _____ No__X___  

Construction emissions associated with the development of the CONRAC maintenance facility at MEM are presented in Table 5 of the Air Quality Report. As shown, the total emissions associated with construction activities are well below the de‐minimis threshold of 100 tons per year for NOx, VOC, and CO. Therefore, a Conformity Determination is not required and the Proposed Project is presumed to comply with the SIP. 

(d)(3) If “no,” would the proposed project cause a violation of any NAAQS, delay the attainment of any 

NAAQS, or worsen any existing NAAQS violation?  Explain. 

Memphis International Airport Air Quality Technical Report

August 2016 Page 7

The Proposed Project is presumed to not cause a violation of the NAAQS. 

(d)(4) Would the proposed project conform to the State  Implementation Plan (SIP) approved by the 

state air quality resource agency?  Explain, and provide supporting documentation. 

Construction emissions associated with the development of the CONRAC maintenance facility at MEM are well below the de‐minimis threshold of 100 tons per year for NOx, VOC, and CO. Therefore, a Conformity Determination is not required and the Proposed Project is presumed to comply with the SIP. 

kimley-horn.com 2 Sun Court, Suite 450, Peachtree Corners, GA 30092 770-825-0744

Ecological Review Memorandum

July 2016

Eric Martin, PWS, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

The existing rental car facility and garage (Ground Transportation Center) on the north side of the Memphis International Airport terminal opened in 2013. Vehicle maintenance currently occurs on the north side of Democrat Road on existing Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority (MSCAA) property. For efficient operations the rental car maintenance facility needs to be closer to the Ground Transportation Center, and the proposed location is the only MSCAA-owned site in the airport vicinity that is large enough to provide consolidated maintenance facilities on one continuous parcel of land. In addition, the airport’s major tenant requires more land for expansion near their facility on the north side of Democrat Road, and that expansion was included in the airport’s 2008 master plan. The following memorandum was prepared to describe site conditions and the absence of ecological resource impacts for the environmental review. Project Description

The proposed action includes six buildings for rental car vehicle service, maintenance, car washing, fueling, and administration. The overall size of the proposed development is 48 acres, and the property is owned by the MSCAA. The property is bounded on the north by Rushmore Avenue, on the east by Airways Boulevard, on the south by Victoria Avenue, and on the west by the existing MSCAA property line. A landscape zone in all directions is included for the periphery of the buildings to provide a vegetated buffer. Existing mature trees will be retained in this area. The landscape zone will be 100 feet wide along Rushmore Avenue and Victoria Avenue. The proposed project will include a pedestrian walkway with low-level ambient lighting to provide a walking trail along the periphery of the development. The facility will not be open to the public, will oriented to the east and will be accessed only from Airways Boulevard. Five former residential streets (Ravenden Street, Florette Drive, Scottie Drive, Stallion Street, and Days Road) will be closed by the City of Memphis. Rushmore Road and Victoria Road will remain open public city streets. Pedestrian sidewalks will be upgraded along the street frontages of the proposed project.

Existing Conditions

The land was the former Windwoods residential subdivision until the 1980s. The entire study area had been completely developed with residential buildings, parking areas, residential roads and driveways, landscaping with maintained turf grasses, and utilities that are surrounded by developed properties. The study area no longer contains residential homes, leaving the remaining infrastructure and maintained areas with turf grass and ornamental trees. These areas were deemed to be of very low-quality due to the areas being artificially planted and maintained and the presence of the developed properties in adjoining areas.

Page 2

kimley-horn.com 2 Sun Court, Suite 450, Peachtree Corners, GA 30092 770-825-0744

Protected Species

In compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the proposed project must identify the presence of threatened and endangered species and their designated critical habitat as well as evaluating project impacts. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Information, Planning and Conservation (IPAC) online database, the federally-protected species listed in the vicinity of the project area are the threatened Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). The project area does not contain suitable habitat for either of the IPAC species. Therefore, it is recommended that the proposed project would have no effect on protected species. No critical habitat has been designated in the project vicinity, therefore, it is recommended that the proposed project would have no effect to designated critical habitat. The proposed project limits contain no suitable foraging or nesting habitat for the bald eagle and the project is not anticipated to result in “take”, as defined under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Based on the existing site conditions, suitable contiguous large forest habitat for migratory bird nests is not observed on the project site. Therefore, it is recommended that the proposed project would have no effect on migratory birds. Water Resources

Jurisdictional waters of the United States (U.S.) are defined by 33 CFR Part 328.3(b) and are protected by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). No jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or wetlands were observed within the project study area or on National Wetland Inventory mapping. Therefore, it is recommended that the proposed project would have no effect to water resources.

Due to the absence of ecological resources and natural habitats, no environmental permits, variances, commitments, or mitigation measures are needed for the proposed project.

The following page includes site photographs depicting existing conditions and lack of suitable protected species habitats.

Page 3

kimley-horn.com 2 Sun Court, Suite 450, Peachtree Corners, GA 30092 770-825-0744