Item G2
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONE~
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: 4/18/01
Division: County Administrator
Bulk Item: Yes
No X
Department: Airports
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Presentation of the Key West International Airport Runway Safety
Area Study by Mil Reisert of the URS Corp,
ITEM BACKGROUND: The Federal Aviation Administration directed us to undertake this study to
determine the feasibility of providing runway safety areas (overruns) at each end of the runway,
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: The BOCC approved the URS Professional Service
Order to begin the study on 5/11100.
CONTRACVAGREEMENTCHANGES: N~
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Because of environmental constraints, it appears to be impractical
to provide an extensive overrun on the ends of the runway, However an EMAS (Engineered Material
Arresting System) appears to be a very viable alternative,
TOTAL COST:
N/A
BUDGETED: Yes NI A No
COST TO COUNTY: NI A
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes
No X AMOUNTPERMONTH_ Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty NI A OMB/Purchasing NI A
Risk Management NI A
DEPARTMENT APPROVAL:
~+t
Peter 1. Horton, KWIA, Mgr,
DOCUMENTATION:
Included X To Follow
Not Required_
DISPOSITION:
AGENDA ITEM #;-I,L
Revised 2/27/01
~'1'?
..-
RUNWAY SAFETY AREA STUDY
KEY WEST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
FLORIDA KEYS MARATHON AIRPORT
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
-
-
-
ORDER NO. 5200.8
-
Prepared by:
URS
-
MARCH,2001
-
-
G,~
RUNWAY SAFETY AREA STUDY
KEY WEST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
FLORIDA KEYS MARATHON AIRPORT
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
ORDER NO. 5200.8
Prepared by:
URS
MARCH, 2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE/EVALUATION "....",.".".,.,...".....,.,",."."..," 1
CONSIDERATION IN EVALUATING ALTERNATIVES ."..."'.'..'''''.'' 2
EVALUATION OF ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.", "..',. . , 3 & 4
ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING & MITIGATION .,.,.,.""".,..,.,,",.., 5
ANTICIPATED MITIGATION COSTS ",.",.,.."...".,..",.,',.,",... 6
CONCLUSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ,..""".,.,..",.,..,' 7
FINDINGS ."."".,.,.".."..,..",."....".."..,""",.,",.,. 8
1
N:\URS\deidresICS03743.11 \0 I0226loc.wpd
APPENDIX
EXHIBIT A - Runway Safety Area Data Sheets - EYW
EXHIBIT B - Runway Safety Area Data Sheets - MTH
EXHIBIT C - South Florida Water Management District Coordination - EYW
EXHIBIT D - Declared Distance Calculating - EYW
EXHIBIT E - Airline coordination letters to Exhibit D
EXHIBIT F - EMAS Calculation - RIW 27 End - EYW
EXHIBIT G - Airport Layout Plan - EYW
EXHIBIT H - Jeppesen Charts - EYW
FIGURE 1 - Runway Safety Area - R/W 9 End - EYW
FIGURE 2 - Runway Safety Area - R/W 27 End - EYW
FIGURE 3 - RSA Environmental Evaluation - RIW 27 End - EYW
FIGURE 4 - RSA Environmental Evaluation - R/W 9 End - EYW
11
N :IURSldeidresIC503743.11 \0 J 0226toc.wpd
RUNWAY SAFETY AREA STUDY
KEY WEST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
FLORIDA KEYS MARATHON AIRPORT
PURPOSE:
The Runway Safety Area (RSA) Study is being accomplished to determine if RSA's for the
Monroe County Airports (Key West International and Florida Keys Marathon Airports) can
be established to meet the standards of AC150/5300-13 Airport Design, This report is
required by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 5200.8. The purpose of the study
is for the FAA to recommend RSA Improvements that could, in their judgement be
accomplished to improve safety of aircraft operations at the airports. At Key West
International, the RSA improvements, if any, would be included in the proposed runway
resurfacing project.
EVALUATION:
The completed forms in Appendix I of Order 5200.8 Runway Safety Area Program show
that the Florida Keys Marathon Airport (MTH) presently meets the RSA requirements while
the Key West International Airport (EYW) does not. Therefore the study will concentrate
solely on the latter airport's needs. (see Exhibits A & B)
The existing critical aircraft at (EYW) is the ATR-72 Flown by American Eagle which
requires an Airport Category of Bill; however, the airport is shown as a C category on the
Jeppesen approach charts, In addition, Comair has proposed to start service to the airport
in the near future with the Canadair Regional Jet. This model of aircraft requires the
airport be designated OIL The Bill category requires a RSA of 300' wide and 600' long
while the 011 category requires a RSA of 500'x1000, Therefore, both existing and
proposed RSA's are discussed in the study,
Due to the length of time required to get a determination from the permitting agencies, not
only are both RSA's addressed, but also possible short term and long term solutions in an
attempt to improve existing conditions, The following determinations specified in the Order
5200-8 will be evaluated and recommended, as applicable:
1, The existing RSA meets the current standards contained in AC 150/5300-13,
2, The existing RSA does not meet standards but it is practicable to improve
the RSA so that it will meet current standards.
1
N :IURS\deidresIC503743.IIIO 1 0226toc.wpd
3. The existing RSA can be improved to enhance safety, but the RSA will still
not meet current standards,
4. The existing RSA does not meet current standards, and it is not practicable
to improve the RSA,
CONSIDERATIONS IN EVALUATING ALTERNATIVES INCLUDE:
a.) A research of incidents/accidents involving aircraft utilizing the RSA provides the
following:
1, 1995 - Cape Air Cessna 402 - Baggage door opened - .:t 300' off east end
of runway little damage - no injury,
2. 1989 - EAL - B-727 - Short landing to Runway 9 Approach - slight damage -
no injury,
3. 1982 - Private - Cessna Skymaster - engine problem - stopped .:t 600' off
east end of runway - gear damage - no injury.
4, 1979 - Air Florida - B-737 - ran off west end - slight damage - no injury.
b.) This is a one-runway airport with a non-precision approach to Runway 9, The
existing design aircraft is the ATR-72 and future design aircraft (scheduled for April
2001) is the Canadair, Current passenger enplaned are 298,124 and operations
126,959. Year 2010 forecasts are 429,558 for enplaned passengers and 158,825
operations both of which exceed the capacity of the terminal facilities, All weather
use of the runway is .:t 95% and IFR :t 5%, Runway 9 utilization is :t 95% and
Runway 27 :t 5%,
c.) The RSA compliance is shown on the included exhibits, The west end has a RSA
of 110' in length while the east end varies from 210' to 400', (see Figures 1 & 2)
d.) The RSA on the west end is primarily a salt pond approximately 2' to 4' in depth,
The RSA on the east end is mangroves, wetlands and associated endangered
species which may utilize such habitats. (see Figures 3 & 4)
e,) The climate conditions are very favorable with low visibility limited both in
occurrences and length of time. IFR weather is typical to a tropical climate,
f.) Both Runway 9 and 27 have a VASI installation with REILS and a non-precision
VOR straight in approach to Runway 9, (see Exhibits G & H)
2
N :\URS\deidresICS03743.11 \01 0226toc.wpd
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
a.) Relocation, shifting or realignment of the runway is not a realistic alternative due
to lack of land available and the environmentally sensitive adjacent property.
b.) Existing runway length is minimal for the present aircraft operations and therefore
could not realistically be reduced in length,
c,) A combination of (a) and (b) above is not realistic due to the above mentioned
conditions.
d.) Declared distances calculations have been considered (see Exhibits D & E). The
results of these calculations have been coordinated with Comair, American Eagle
and Continental Express Airlines. The results range from ceasing operations to off-
loading passengers, neither of which are acceptable to the airline or airport
management
e.) Engineered Materials Arresting Systems (EMAS) has been investigated and is
further discussed in the conclusion section of this report, (see Exhibit F),
EVALUATION OF ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
In order to evaluate the requirements of FAA Order 5200.8/ Runway Safety Area Program
at Key West International Airport (KWIA), URS Corporation has evaluated proposed
runway safety areas (RSA) to document existing environmental conditions and anticipated
impacts from the proposed project Two alternative RSAs have been evaluated, The first
proposed RSA would extend 600' from the end of the runway and 150' north and south of
the centerline of the runway at both the east and west end of the runway; total area
approximately 8.2 acres in size. The second proposed RSA would extend 1,000' from the
end of the runway and 250' north and south of the centerline of the runway at both the east
and west end of the runway; total area approximately 23 acres in size,
The existing natural communities were mapped on color aerial photographs (1 "=300') of
the study area. Copies of these aerials are provided in Figures 3 and 4, Each habitat was
then classified using the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System
(FLUCFCS/FDOT 1999) and the U,S, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Classification
of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin, et al., 1979).
N:\URS\deidres\C503743.11 \KWIAl RSAdoc
3
East RSA
Three (3) land uses and vegetative communities would be impacted by the East End RSA
including airport (811), exposed rock with marsh grasses (731), and mangrove swamp
(612), (Table 1 and Figure 3). The airport consists of the approximately 25' wide cleared
and disturbed area adjacent to the perimeter of the runway and all of the airport facilities,
The exposed rock with marsh grasses is the transition zone between the airport and the
mangrove wetlands. While surface water may not be present for much of the year, water
levels are near the ground surface and ground cover is dominated by hydrophytic
herbaceous vegetation including seashore saltgrass (Distich/is spicta), saltwort (Batis
maritima), sea oxeye (Borrichia arborescens and B. frutescens), sea purslane (Sesuvium
portu/acastrum), and glasswort (Sa/cornia bige/ovil). The mangrove swamps comprise most
of the East RSA and extend well beyond the RSA to the east The mangroves are
dominated by red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle) which grow in shallow tidal waters with
stands of black mangrove (Avicennia germinans) and white mangrove (Laguncu/aria
racemosa) at higher elevations. Various species of nuisance/exotic vegetation also appear
in the RSA including Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthefo/ius) and Australian pine
(Casuarina equisetifolia). In addition, the larger RSA would extend outside the current
airport property and would require land acquisition,
Table 1 - East RSA Land Uses and Vegetative Communities
612 Estuarine, 3.1
Intertidal,
Forested, Broad-
leaved Ever reen
731 Exposed E2EM1 Estuarine, 0,8 0.9
Rock with Intertidal,
Marsh Emergent,
Grasses Persistent
811 Airport 0,2 0.7
Total 4,1 11,5
N:\URS\deidres\C503743.11 \KWIAI RSAdoc
4
West RSA
Six (6) land uses and vegetative communities would be impacted by the West End RSA
including exposed rock with marsh grasses (731), bays and estuaries (Salt Ponds) (540),
mangrove swamp (612), Brazilian pepper/Australian pine (422/437), road and highway
(814), and open land (190), (Table 2 and Figure 4). The exposed rock with marsh grasses
is the transition zone between the airport and the mangrove wetlands, While surface water
may not be present for much of the year, water levels are near the ground surface and
ground cover is dominated by hydrophytic herbaceous vegetation including seashore
saltgrass (Distichlis spicta), saltwort (Batis maritima), sea oxeye (Borrichia arborescens and
B, frutescens), sea purslane (Sesuvium portu/acastrum), and glasswort (Sa/cornia
bige/ovil). The lakes present in the West RSA are Salt Ponds consisting of open water. No
bathymetric data is available, but depths appear to vary from less than l' to approximately
4'under high tide or extreme rainfall events. The Salt Ponds are connected to other Salt
Ponds via culverts and ditches, Mangrove swamps surround the Salt Ponds and are
dominated by black mangrove (Avicennia germinans) with stands of white mangrove
(Laguncu/aria racemosa) at higher elevations, Various species of nuisance/exotic
vegetation also appear in the RSA including Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthefo/ius)
and Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifo/ia), An airport access road traverses the West
RSA; it is approximately 20' wide and connects to Government Road, West of the access
road is a large area of inactive cleared open land,
Table 2 - West RSA land Uses and Vegetative Communities
540 Bays and E10W Estuarine, 1.8 2,8
Estuaries Subtidal, Open
Water
612 Mangrove E2F03 Estuarine, 1.5 3.4
Swamp Intertidal,
Forested, Broad-
leaved Ever reen
731 Exposed E2EM1 Estuarine, 0.6 0.9
Rock with Intertidal,
Marsh Emergent,
Grasses Persistent
190 Open Land 0,1 2,0
N:\URS\deidres\CS03743.11 \KWIAl RSAdoc
5
422/437 Brazilian - - - 2,2
Pepper/Austr
alian Pine
814 Roads and - - 0,1 0.2
Highwavs
Total 4,1 11,5
ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING AND MITIGATION
Several agencies regulate wetlands within the project area. These agencies include the
U,S, Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP), and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). Other
agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the U,S, Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC), and the Florida Department of
Community Affairs (DCA) review and comment on wetland permitting. It is currently
anticipated that the following environmental permits would be required for this project:
Permit
Environmental Resource Permit (ERP)
Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permit
Local Construction Permit
Issuina Aaencv
SFWMD
USACOE
DCA
The complexity of the permitting process will depend greatly on the degree of the impact
to jurisdictional wetland areas, Based on the assumed impacts identified above, it is
anticipated the USACOE will require an Individual Permit. An Individual Permit will involve
compliance with the 404(b)(1) guidelines, including verification that all impacts have first
been avoided to the greatest extent possible, then unavoidable impacts have been
minimized to the greatest extent possible, and finally that unavoidable impacts have been
mitigated in the form of wetlands creation, restoration, and/or enhancement. SFWMD has
indicated by letter dated January 10, 2001 (see Attached), that it will be involved in the
permitting process. SFWMD will require an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP)
because the proposed project will result in impacts to Waters of the State. Based on the
anticipated impacts identified above, it is expected that an Individual Permit would be
required with mitigation for wetland impacts, These specific issues would be determined
during the permitting process,
In accordance with Chapter 62-302,700 F ,A. C, (see Attached), the waters of Key West are
a designated Outstanding Florida Waters and Outstanding National Resource Waters as
N:\URS\deidres\CS03743.11 \KWIAI RSAdoc
6
a result of being located in the Key West Wildlife Refuge, Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary, and designated Special Waters. As a result these areas are afforded the
highest protection in regards to degradation of water quality, It also appears that the Salt
Ponds located at the KWIA receive the same protection, placing greater permitting
restrictions on them. As of February 28, 2001 the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACOE) has not responded to our request made last year for input to the study
Mitigation for USACOE is anticipated to be at a 1:1 ratio (acres created: acres impacted)
for open water and 2: 1 for wetland impacts or the equivalent of the impacted wetland's
Functional Unit Values. This would require creating approximately three acres of open
water and 30 acres of wetlands for the 1000' x 500' RSAs, Mitigation for SFWMD is
anticipated to be higher than for the USACOE; in the range of 40 to 90 acres of wetland
creation. Long-term monitoring, maintenance of mitigation areas in perpetuity, and the
placement of conservation easements over mitigation areas are expected requirements
of both the USACOE and SFWMD.
ANTICIPATED MITIGATION COSTS
Costs associated with the projected mitigation are difficult to determine at this time, It
would include engineering and permitting costs, project construction and possibly land
acquisition. Using the Florida Department of Transportation's cost of $ 75,000 per acre
for Florida Department of Environmental Permitting mitigation costs (land, design,
construction costs) the RSA's projected cost might be 3 - 6,75 million dollars.
Considerable additional effort would have to be expanded to arrive at a more accurate
figure; and this could only be accomplished once the permitting process has been initiated
and mitigation requirements established by the permitting agencies,
CONCLUSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
In view of the proposed use of regional jets at KWIA, the preferred alternative of a 1000'
x 500' RSA was evaluated, Based on this environmental evaluation construction of the
East and West RSAs - which would involve filling, leveling, and compacting of the ground -
would result in approximately 18 acres of impact to jurisdictional wetland areas (11 acres
at the East End RSA and 7 acres at the West End RSA), Jurisdictional limits of wetlands
have not been verified by permitting agencies and are only estimated for the purposes of
this study.
In addition to the above mentioned mitigation scenarios, it appears the East 1000' x 500'
RSA would extend outside the current airport property. This would have to be defined
more clearly through field surveys; then, either more land would have to be acquired or the
RSA size reduced. The West RSA would require fill of the salt ponds and adjacent
mangrove habitat, an issue that would raise serious concerns with the permitting agencies
and the environmental community as a whole,
N :\URS\deidres\C503 743.11 \KWIA1 RSAdoc
7
FINDINGS:
Based on the foregoing data as a result of investigations, consideration and information
provided in Order 5200-8 Runway Safety Area Program, the following findings appear to
be appropriate:
1. Pursue environmental/wetlands mitigation to provide RSA of 116' width and
200' from end of the runway on the east end using an engineered materials
arresting system (EMAS) starting 50' from the runway end. (See Exhibit F
from Engineered Arresting System Corp.). Total cost is estimated at $ 2
million. If the RSA was extended to 400' (350' EMAS) estimated total
mitigation and construction total cost is $ 4 million and to 460' (410' EMAS)
total estimated mitigation and construction cost is $ 5 million.
2. Based on the primary landing and take-off from Runway 9 approximately
95% of the time and the highly sensitive concerns involving the adjacent salt
pond, it appears nothing could reasonably be done on the west end RSA.
3. Mitigation of the entire RSA (500'x1000') on the east end would require
mitigation of:t 70 acres at a cost estimated up to $ 10 million.
4. A partial increase in the east end RSA by matching the area north of the
runway centerline (210') with the south area (400') for a complete 400' length
and 300' to 500' width RSA. The 300' wide RSA is estimated at a total cost
of $ 1,000,000, the 500' wide RSA is estimated at $ 1,500,000 total cost.
5. To accomplish the task in either 3 or 4 above may require 3-5 years for the
permitting, mitigation and construction of the RSA. Therefore it appears
nothing significant could be accomplished before initiating the Canadair
operations. However, the past record of incidents/accidents does not seem
to indicate an urgency or reason to prevent aircraft operations at this time.
If the operations are approved by the airlines FAA Principal Operating
Inspector.
It is understood that after review of this study the Federal Aviation Administration will
determine the requirements for the Runway Safety Areas Improvement if any, at Key West
International Airport prior to approving the runway resurfacing project.
N:IURSldeidresIC503743.1110l0327f.wpd
8
5200.8
Appendix 1
Runway Form
10/01/99
Locid:1 EYW
Region:1 50
Airport: I KEY WEST INTERNATIONAL
City/State: I KEY WEST
~ ADO:loRL
Runway Ends:1 9 I 27
Actual RSA Length:
Actual RSA Width:
RSA Grade (+/- 5%):
Dimensional Uniformity:
Runway:1 9 - 27
Length:~808
Width:
Part 139: 0
CRITICAL AIRCRAFT: gS
Approach category:~
Design Group:Q==.J
d Dllt"R+1iR:iltioR
Currently Meets Standards 0 0
Practicable to Meet Standards 0 0
Can be Improved But Will Not Meet Standards 0 0
Not Practicable to Improve QU 0
Date of Determination (month/year):1 1l/001
Visibility Minimums:1723/4mil~
PUBLISHED RUNWAY
SAFETY AREA STANDARDS:
Length:~
Width:~
~ 'ilRRlld Imprt'''"m''Rt$
RSA to Design Standards Obtainable: 0 0
Runway Realignment or Relocation: 0 0
Shift Runway From Present Alignment 0 0
Use Declared Distances: 0 0
Use EMAS: lID ~
Other: 0 0
121
Scheduled Completion (year):~
Remaining Costs:~
Uniformity Comments:
Improvement Comments:
R/W 27 end 116' x 210' with EMAS
EXHIBIT RAR
10/01/99
5200.8
Appendix 1
Object Form
Locid:1 EYW
Runway Safety Area Data Sheet
Airportl KEY WEST INTERNATIONAL
Region:~
City/State:1 KEY WEST
FL
ADo:1 ORL I
RUNWAY 9-27 eng
1000' ...
210' 1000
110'
~
'0
----------------- 400) ~
Runway S fety A,ea ~
L th
Object Identification Object Location Object Status - TRUE/FALSE
'0 0 .. t:D
>c .. .. .. - .. .. c
Rwy <1>0 <1>10 :;s 2i1 ~ .~~
No. T }'fie Name Ruy End Dist UR UR Dist 'O~ c () CD .- () Owner
End .. c .. 0 c ~.~ .<= c'E
~.: Uti I! I!M t:D ~o
lX: ... ... :i: U
1 NAVAl) VASI 9 700' L 300' T F T T F "'JlIN' 'Y
2 NAVAl) VASI 27 300' ()R 'J1 F rp rp ];' 'v
-
JUL. -jl' 00 (MON) 09:4i
ASO~600 AIRPORTS DIVISION
TEL:40430567JO
P,001/00:
RuJWi8Y BarMy A~ Data Sh4!let
0612612000
Loaid:C MTH 1 Airpart:[MAAATHCN
City/stat8:IMARATH~
Runway: [ 07/25
Ll!InSlh:WOO8
Width: 100
Pert 139: 0
~ 1
I FL I
RunwBy Appro. ~nd5: I
ACwal RSA L.engtt\:
Actul!lll RaPt. Width:
RSA Grade:
Dlmenslon~1 Unlfonnlty:
Raglon: I "SO 1
AOO:~ O~l.. 1
07 L 25 --1
300 300
150 '\50
0 D
0 0
CRmCAL AIRCRAFT;
Appruooh 0_:1 a I
Design Group: II
BRA D t I tic
Visibility Mlnlmt./mli:1 >=3/~ mil.
- e Af'm 1'8 aQ
Currently Meets StllfldardS @) @
prw;t;cabl8 10 Mfit Sblndardl 0 0
Can be ImprQved But Will Not Meet Standards 0 0
Nat Practicable to Improve 0 0
Oats of Determination (monWyoar):
STANDARD RUNWAY
SAFETY AIUA:
l8noU"l ~I
Width: 150
~ iI""1I!I mnrn\Mf1'lRl"t
RSA to DCHiign Stllnaards Obt8lnebfe: 0 0
RurTNllY Realignment or Relocation: 0 (]
Shift Runway Fram Present Alignment 0 0
Use DeGlervd Distances: 0 0
Use EMAS: 0 0
OthBr; D 0
eJ
d I
bI
Scheduled Completion (year): I - I
Rem.lning Coal1I: $0
Uniformity Comments:
Improvement Commenla:
EXHIBIT -B-
08/17/00 09:46 fAA JU5~o~oU71 n~~~ri
JUL. -31' OO(~lONl 09:48 ASO.600 AIRPORTS DIVISION
.0:
09 l. III LAP'M
i
n
fi.
~
~~ ,~
I
t:: C I
, i
i
~ S'
B
~ 1:1
...
I )( i
I
i
tI) ~
( =-
ca J
l. :c
.
z
i
z 2
0 0 I
i i
~ I
~ i I
i I
8- OT
< ~
0
~
:!:l
~
, l~O
&iqoeUUa::!
I
0 "C 1:
l.e i
ct 1i
w w
ntIW IoIQtH en ID
(~ ~ ~
98l.pUtE ~ ~
i 0\ e,q/8u8J;l f! ~
I.IJ ~
8fq113U8J ~ ::>
'I ~
P91eoo,~ IoU ~
aa UBO ~
U;;
1.I01PUl'\=, ~ ~
,(0 p8Xt~ ~ !!:
';; ~ 0
C =
~
!i ...J ....
.6 - 0 ~
.. ~
1 a
'D
II .fi
i
0
..... ~
l~
l! ~ fJ)
g :I ~
i ~ ~
El. ~
j 0 Q
Ii ~ ~
8 ~ ~ j
d ..- N
Ol:
TEL:4043056730
P. 003/00~
MTH - 071211
UJ..,J,..)/U..L .:J..~..L ..L..i...Vv .i.......~
~~'\tR M"'I:-
lJ.~~~l.i1~~
g~"~
.... _, .' _ _ ,~..-1
~}.,,'~</&'
os." ,;,;:;,,~~'"
, . .).
.
SOUTH FlORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
3301 Gun Club Road, West Palm Beach. Florida 3..~06 . (561) 686-8800 . FL WAlS 1-800-4.,'2.2045 . TOD (561) 6l)7.257~
Mailing Address: P,O. I30x 24680, Wl.'st Palm Beach, FL 334164680 . www.:ofwmd.gov
. .
Environmental Resource Regulation Department
[?D~~
(--;::~ (~~ ~S<'.'7
\ '-"', '-' I.L - -' :!
'-.,.J "'_./ _' -'
January 10, 2001
JOB NO;
Mr. George Feher
URS Corporation
7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway
Tampa, Florida 33607-1462
FiLE toeA TiC~\!: ________...
~,,~ \l~ III ~.L
Dear Mr. Feher:
Subject:
Key West International Airport, Runway Safety Area Study, Monroe
County
District staff has completed a review of the letter and plans received November 13,
2000 along with the e-mail message received January 2,2001 regarding the above-
referenced project.
The appropriate State agency responsible for the review of an Environmental Resource
Permit (ERP) application would be the South Florida Water Management District. An
application to conduct the proposed activity would be reviewed as an Individual ERP.
This application package would require documentation indicating how avoidance and
minimization of wetland impacts was addressed as well as a secondary and cumulative
impacts analysis.
Once minimization and avoidance of wetland impacts is adequately addressed and
secondary and cumulative impacts identified, a mitigation plan can then be reviewed.
Please be aware that the proposed mitigation ratios contained within your
correspondence (1 :1 for open water, 2:1 for mangrove impacts) are significantly lower
than required by the Basis of Review. Mitigation ratios will be determined during the
permitting process onoe the impact area has been thoroughly reviewed and the type of
mitigation proposed is identified, but should be in accordance with guidelines set forth
in the Districfs Basis of Review.
A determination as to the permittability of the proposed project will require further
information regarding the quality of the proposed impact area. This additional
information should include, but would not be limited to providing information related to
listed species utilization of the area and water quality benefits derived from the wetland
community.
EXHIBIT .C.
CtWT./lNING BUAIW
EXECUTIVE OITIl:t:
Mi<:h.~d Collj,,~. UI/I i... '''''
MiC'h~,d D. Minton, V;rt' Cluri"l!rttu
Mitchell W. l'Ierl;er
Vera M. C~rter
Gerardo B. F...rn,mdez
Palrick J. Glea!lOn
Nkola~ J. Gutierrez, Jr,
Ilarkley R. Thomtlln
Trudi K William~
Frank R. Finch, (11:::., E.tCl:Ilhl11.' (lm'dlll"
"'nles E. Bluunt. C1,i4 ",. S",/f
v~ ~v v. :"-:~;>:/vv
"7
;...'
~.~~~:::/
..'
.,.,......;f
Mr. George Feher
KWIA Runway Safety Area Study
January 10, 2001
Page 2 of 2
. .. ....
. .., . .~...
, '..~
~
Should you have any further questions. please contact Ron Peekstok at (561) 682-
6956.
Sincerely,
i?ra~~
Anita R. Bain
Sr. Supervising Environmental Analyst
Natural Resource Management Department
~ George Feher
~ 01/02/01 05:13 PM
To: rpeeksto@sfwmd,gov
cc: Mil ReisertlMiami/URSCorp@URSCORP, hortonp@maiLstate.fLus
Subject: KWIA - RSA Study
To: Ron Peekstok, SWFWMDI West Palm Beach
Reference: Key West International Airport (KWIA), Runway Safety Area Study (RSA Study)
Dear Ron,
This is a reminder that we have not yet received comments from the District on the faxed package
submitted on November 10, 2000 for the above referenced project. However, since that submittal, we
have been requested by the FAA to enlarge the RSA from the 300' x 600' size we submitted to 500' wide
by 1000' long, This would be needed to meet the safety requirements of a different aircraft mix than
currently serving the airport. This is also expected to increase wetland impacts from the previous
estimate of 8 acres to around 10-12 acres,
As a reminder, we are requesting the District's opinion whether the project is permittable, what type of
mitigation may be required by the District and what type of permit application should be submitted. Please
respond ASAP since we are now beyond our original deadline for completing the study.
Thank you for your cooperation.
George G, Feher
URS 1 Tampa, PI
(813) 286 - 1711
CAN ADAIR REGIONAL JET
SERIES 100/200
Aircraft-Specific Parameters
Maximum Seating Capacity (Pax)
Maximum Design Taxi Weight (Lbs.)
Maximum Design Landing Weight (Lbs,)
Maximum Design Takeoff Weight (Lbs,)
Operating Empty Weight (Lbs.)
Maximum Design Zero Fuel Weight (Lbs,)
Usable Fuel (Gal.)
Maximum Payload
Planning Parameters
Single Passenger and Bags (Lbs,)
Maximum Hottest Day (F)(August)
Density Altitude on Hottest Day @ Sea Level (Ft.)
Constrained Runway (Declared Distances)
TORA
TODA
ASDA
LDA
Series 1001200
50
21,636
44,700
47,450
30,265
42,200
1,400
11,935
200
89,9
1,970
Runway 9
4,800
4,800
4,410
3,920
Runway 27
4,800
4,800
4,310
3,920
Maximum Aircraft Takeoff Weight Limitations (@ Constrained Runway Length of 4,300'
Series 100 Series 200
43,000 44,000
42,500 44,000
41,400 42,000
39,400 40,250
38,000 38,000 @ 4,500
Standard Day (15C/59F)
Standard Day + BC (23CI73F)
Standard Day + 15C (30C/86F)
Standard Day + 20C (35C/95F)
Standard Day + 30C (45C/113F)
Minimum Landing Distance wl4S-Degree Flaps
Series 100/200
Landing Weight (Lbs_)
36,000
37,000
38,000
39,000
40,000
41,000
42,000
43,000
44,000
45,000
46,000
47,000
EXHIBIT -D-
Runway Length (Ft.)
4,000
4,100
4,200
4,300
4,350
4,400
4,500
4,600
4,650
4,750
4;800
4,900
September 26,2000
Mr. Brandon Helm
Flight Operations Analyst
Com air Airlines
P.O. Box 75021
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport
Cincinnati, Ohio 45275
Reference:
Balanced Field Runway Requirements for Regional Jet Service at Key West
International Airport
Dear Mr. Helm:
As a follow-on action to our telephone discussions earlier today, we hereby request your
assistance in determining the potential of Comair Airline's use of 50-70 passenger Regional Jets
at Key West International Airport (EYW). This request in very similar to previous questions posed
by Mr. Mil Reisert of our firm in October of 1999 regarding the potential for reduced payload
operations by your existing turboprop fleet when declared distance criteria is applied at EYW.
We have recently developed new declared distance data for Runway 9/27 using revised
assessments of existing Runway Safety Area (RSA) deficiencies beyond each end of the runway.
As you know, the land areas beyond each end of the runway are not of sufficient size to
accommodate the development of the required FAA 300-foot wide by 600-foot long RSA. As
such, the landing thresholds for Runways 9 and 27 should be displaced inward 490 feet and 390
respectively. The resulting declared distances would be as follows:
Runway 9 Runway 27
TORA 4,800' TORA 4,800'
TODA 4,800' TODA 4,800'
ASDA 4,410' ASDA 4,310'
LDA 3,920' LDA 3,920'
We request your assistance in verifying that Com air Airlines operations using 50- to 70- seat
Regional Jets may be severely restricted or precluded with limited payload and/or operational
range to and from EYW when applying declared distance criteria. Also, we would like to know if
there is any payload limits without the declared distance criteria.
Please contact me with any questions and/or comments at (813) 286-1711.
Sincerely,
URS Corporation
Michael L Thompson, AICP
Sr. Airport Planner
C: Mr. Mel Reisert - URS Corporation
Mr. Fred Nielsen - URS Corporation
URS Southern Project File: C500003897.07
EXHIBIT wEw
Oct-07-99 lO:32A
P.uz
Octoher 7, 1999
Me. Mel Reisert
URS Greiner Woodward Clyde Company
5805 Northwest 1 I'" St Suite 340
Miami, FL 33126-2053
L>elfr Me. Reist.-rt:
As per your request, we've completed a detailed analysis pertaining to the proposed reduction of the
nmway at Key West from 4800' to a declared distance of 4100'. lllis analysis was hased on a single flight
with normal operdtions into c.lry or wet conditions during sununer and winter lle~sons, The findings with
each scenario are as follows,
Summer: Departure based on daily high temperature of 89 degrees with a reliability factor of 85 percent
and a 0 kt wind component.
Runway 9 (ASDA) 4500'
Runway 27 (ASDA) 4400'
3 inconvenienced pax
5 inconvenienced pax
Winter: L>eparture based on daily high temperaTUre of 75 degrees with a reliability factor of 85 pcrcent
und a 0 kt wind componenl.
Runway 9 (ASPA) 4500'
Runway 27 (ASDA) 4400'
J inconvenienced pax
5 inconvenienced pal(
Landing Was hased on the Landing di.~tance available (LDA) of 4 J 00 for both Nnways. 'This will
significantly reduce the maximum allowable landing weight As a result of this reduction, 10 to 11
pa$$cmgers will be inconvenienced.
Based on this analysis, Comair strongly opposes finy reduction in length of the Key West runway. The
reduction would force us to reduce the number ofpasst.-ngers attempting to use the Key West uirport for
departure by 3 to 5 passengers, Arrival:; would be reduced by JO to II pasllengeI"li. If you require any
further information ur analysis please feel free to contact Comair for assistance.
Sincerely, .
~~
Rrandon lIelm
Flight Operations Analyst
Comair Airlines
Continental
Connection
October 22, 1999
Key West International Aixport
Attn: Edward Sands
3491 South R.oosevelt Blvd.
Key West. Florida 33040
OperaTed by:
Gulfstream Infernational Airlines Inc.
1550 S. W, 43rd Street
Ft. lauderdale. FL 33315
Tel: (954) 359-8043
Dear Mr. Edward Sands;
REF: Airport reduction of runway length
Our company bas received notice tbat sometime in the first quarter of next year, the Key West International
Airpon may have to reduce the Imvfing I1II1way length 10 4100 feet and willlJave a finished length of 4500,
I have attached a Takeoff and Landing Data Card on our Beech 1900-C series aircraft. Note the required
Takeoff distance at 16.600 is 4500. To takeofJat with 4100 feet would reduce our load canying capacity by
1,000 pounds (5 passengers and their bags).
This is the second major issue to e1fect our service into Key West International Airport The first issue is
the Joss of Category C for the NDB. We are now forced to use tadar vectors to the 071 bearing of the Fish
Hook NDS to let down visually. We do DOl have an approved instrument approach until the Category C for
the NOB is re-established. Key Wesl International is IeSbicted to VFR use.
We call upon your authority and in1luence to correct these issues. Our airline is proud to serve Key West
but this service may have to be reduced unless we gel relief from these issues. The present runway length is
bolh safe and adequate for landing and take-otf.
Sincerely:
:!tMas~ .
Vice President, Director of Operations
cc: Tom Cooper, Sr J Ptesidenl
~OUTIN~& REQUEST<0
To:~E'S'~r-
Please...
DRead
o Handle
o Approve
And...
D Forward
D Return
D Keep or Recycle
D Review with Me From: 4r. /J;J1fo..."
( Poat"~7M4e3M tItS ) Date: '01 ~?fc;q
~
30 ~- - :J.&, J - Va 17
IJ
~.
--
(DnAil
..Delta Connection"
October 30, 2000
Mr, Michael L. Thompson, AICP
Sr. Airport Planner
URS Corporation
7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway
Tampa FL, 33607-1462
Dear Mr. Thompson:
As per yoW' request we have reviewed the use of our 50 seat CRJl 00/200 and future 70 seat CRJ700 Regional
Jets at Key West In1emational Airport (EYW). The Key West Airport is certified for A, B and C approach
categories. The 50 seat CRJI 00/200 is certified for approach category D. This precludes the CRJlOOI200
from operating into the Key West Airport at this time. If a furture change occurs which would allow us to
operate the CRJlOOI2oo into Key West, we would still be severely restricted on payload with the current
runway configuration.
Pending certification for the 70 seat CRJ700 is targeted for approach category C. This will allow us
to operate into Key West. Comair will primarily operate this aircraft from Key West to our Southern
Hub in Orlando, Preliminary analysis of the CRJ700 indicates this aircraft will be able to carry 70
passengers to Orlando under normal conditions, If the proposed declared distance is implemented at
Key West, we would not be able to operate the CRJ700 into the Key West Airport.
Comair intends to operate an all jet fleet by December 200 I. Based on this analysis, if the Key West
(EYW) Airport is required to implement the proposed declared distance, Comair would no longer be
able to serve the Key West Airport, For this reason, Comair strongly opposes any reduction in length
of the Key West runway. Even with the currentIength, we face many operational concerns with the
introduction of Jet service to the Key West Airport
Please contact me with any questions and/or comments at (859) 767-2398
Sincerely,
~1JL
Brandon Helm
Flight Operations Performance Analyst
P.O. Box 75021 . CINCINNATI, OHIO 45275 . 606-767-2550
February 20, 2001
Dear Mil,
Following is a summary of the preliminary performance modeling results for
runway 9-27 at Key West. Note these are truly preliminary, as bed sizes are
based on limited data for some of these aircraft.
RSA length needed to get 70 knots for air carrier aircraft is estimated at
460 feet. This includes 50 feet between the runway end and the beginning of
the arrestor bed.
For the existing 210 foot RSA space an arrestor bed 150 feet long by 116'
wide could be installed after grading (raising grade to get out of the tidal
area, establishing a centerline crown and 1 to 1.5% side slope) and paving
from the runway end to 210 feet. Following is the estimate maximum runway
exit speed performance based on ESCO's computer simulation:
* 53 knots for a 50 seat CRJ(at 47,000 lbs., similar weight to
ATR-72
and ATR-42, Dash-8 in use at Key West)
* 48 knots for a Gulfstream business jet (at 75,000 lbs., similar
to
max t-o weight for the heavier CRJ-70)
* 46 knots for a Saab 340 (at 22,500 lbs. similar weight to EMB-120
in
use at Key West)
* 43 knots for Beech
All stated performance is based on no reverse thrust and a braking friction
coefficient on the pavement between the runway end and the arrestor bed of
0.25. With reverse thrust and typical wet pavement friction available,
performance would be even better, exceeding 50 knots for all the above.
Cost for the 150' by 116' arrestor (based on a 100' wide runway) would be
approximately $70 per square foot, or $1,220,000 plus site prep costs. This
figure includes production, shipping, installation and finishing of the
arrestor bed. Site prep would consist of
* the grading and paving discussed above
* moving any junction boxes outside the bed foot print
* modifying any lights in the bed to have two frangible points, one
at
the base surface and one at the arrestor bed surface
* constructing a concrete beam across the front of the arrestor bed
on
which a debris deflector (supplied by ESCO) would be mounted
* 3" drop off from concrete beam to level of paving immediately
behind
it, where first row of blocks is placed. This reduces the "step" going into
the arrestor bed to provide a smooth transition for an overrunning aircraft.
I hope the above information is helpful. If you have any questions, please
do not hesitate to contact either Lou DeRose (516)-873-0198
lpderose@optonline.net <mailto:lpderose@optonline.net> or me. We
appreciate your interest in our product.
Best regards,
G. Kent Thompson, P.E.
Director, Airport Engineering & Sales
EMAS Division
Engineered Arresting Systems Corp.
Phone (610)-595-2840 x25
Fax (610)-595-2842
EXHIBIT -F-
o
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
Advisory
Circular
Subject: Engineered Materials Arresting Systems
(EMAS) for Aircraft OveffiJns
AC No: 150/5220-22
Chsl1&:e:
1. PURPOSE. This :id...i:;ory cil'cultlr (AC) t;omains
standards for th~ planning, dc:>ign, and installation of
Engineered MSlena13 Arrestmg Systems (EMAS) in
runway safety areas. Engineered MateriaJs means high
energy absorbing materiah of :sclected stn;ngth, whicb
will reliably and predictably c1'U5h under the weight of
an airer;lft,
2. BACKGROUND. Aircraft can and do overrun
the ends of runways, sometimes with disastrou8 r=ult:;.
An overrun occurs when an llircrllft pas"cs beyond the
eno of a runway during :in aborted takeoff or while
bndillg. The majority of such overruns by air carrier
aiccr:ltt come to rest within 1000 fect of the runway
cnd and between the extended edges of thc ruoway.
Data on aircraft overruns Ovcr a 12-ycar period from
1975 to 1987 indicate that a large llUljQrity of all
overruns (appl'Ol<imatc:ly 90%) oecur at cx:it spccw of
70 knotS Or ICIl5 (ReferenCE: 7, Appendix 2). In order to
minimize the hazards of overruns, the Federal Aviation
Atlministration (FAA) incocporated into airport design
,;t:md:mis the conoept of :l :!:lfety area beYlmtl the
runway end. To meet the standard:s, thc SlIfcty aLCi1
must be capable. under normal (dry) conditions, of
~uprort\ng aircr..tt th;lt ovcnun the tun way without
c3U!o:ing stC\.lctucal dam;lge to the llicerlJfl or injury to its
occupants. Beaides enhancing airport !iafcty, thc safety
arc:!. provide!> greater llcceMibility for emergency
equipment alicr an overrun incident. Then; Ilre ml!ny
runw.llY~, Pilcticularly thost: COl1sQ1!cted prior [0 the
adoption of the sufety :!.rea standard.~. Wh"TC:: natuml
obstacles (bollies of water or sharp drop-ofTs), local
development (roads and raikoads), or environmental
constraints (wetland encroachment), make thc
COMlcuction of II standard snf~ty area impracticable.
Thac have been accidents at Some: of these airports
wbcn~ the ability to stop an overrunning aircraft within
the ruow;ay snfc:ty are;a would have prevented major
dam3El" Co :\ireraft and injurie9 to p3sseng~r;j.
Date: 8/21/98
initiated by: AAS-IOO
Recognizing the: diffiCUIric:i associated with achieving
11 ~tandard safety area at QU airports, the: FAA
umkrtook research programs on the use of VariULL~
materials for arresting systems and, in conjunction
with industry, conducted a series of field tests utilizing
an insuumemed Boeing 727 aircraft. A$ a result of the
data obtained from these tcst programs, the Port
AUlhority of New York and New Jersey (PANYINJ), in
[997, installed an EMAS sompri:iCd of cellular cement
on (he Runway 4R safety area lit John f. Kennedy
[ntemacional Airport. Thill prototype system is bClng
monitored to provide infonnation on system longevity.
3. APPLICATION. At some alrport.~.
reconstruction of a runway requires its safety 3rC;llS to
be brought up to current standards to the extent
practicable. Of course, confonnance with current
SlD.nd4rd3 i~ <ksicnbJc at all airport.~, even when not
requin:d by regulation. OccnsionaUy, however, it may
not be practicable to achieve a standard safety area as
;;pecificd m Table::; 3-1, 3-2. and 3-3 or
AC 150/5300-13, tUrpon Desfgn, In these situations.
Appendix 14, Df!clared Disrances. of that AC provides
an alternative means of enhancing safety. The
declared distaoct; illte:mative allows an airpoG owner to
ucclm-e what portiolU of an operatIonal runway arc
available to :5ati~f)r the aircraft's acceleratc-stop and
landing distance rc:quiremems. wllh runway beyond
these "dcclarc:d distances" available liS runway safcty
ilrcu. However, the use: of declared distances at some
airports may result in the inlJbility to aCCommodate;:
aircraft that are currently in use at that airport. In such
a ::ituation, in;;talling an EMAS may be another way of
ellhancinz; safcty. An EMAS is NOT II substi[Ute for,
nor equivalcnt co, any kngth or width of runway safery
arca and does not affect declared distance: calculations
An EMAS is also not intcnded to meet the: ddiniclOn of
a stop way as provided in AC 150/5300-13.
--...--..,;.4;.
-JVI 01 -L,.iU UL..L. L...-rL..U
AC 150/5220-22
The guidelines llnd standards contained herein arc
recommended by the FAA for the design of EMAS.
This AC is not mandatory and does not constitute a
regulation. it is issued for guidanc~ purposes and to
outline u method of compliance. One may elect 10
follow an alternate method. provided it is also found by
the Federal Avjntion Administration (FAA) to bc an
acceptable means of complying with Title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR). Chapter I, FAA.
Therefore. mandatory ttllTUi such as .shall" or "must"
used herein apply oaly to those who seek to
demonstrate compliance by use of the specific method
described by lhis AC, or for those for whom the WIC of
these guidelines is mandatory. such as tbose installing
an EMAS funded under Federal grant assistance
progr.l.ms.
4. RF.T.ATEO READING MATERIAL.
Appendix 2 contains a listing of docwnents with
supplemental material relating to EMAS. These
um;umcnts comain cenain information on materials
evaluated. as well as design. construction. and testing
procedures utilized to date, Testing and data
previously generated under FAA studies referenced in
Appendix 2 may be used as input to an E1vlAS design
withaur further justification.
5. PLANNING CHARTS. Thc purpose of
Figures AI-l through AI-4 is to allow a preliminary
analysis. providing sufficient information to determine
whether to proceed with a detailed engineering design
of an uptimum EMAS installation. They are intended
(Q be used as a preliminary screening tool only. They
3IT nor sufficient for final design, which mu~t be
customized for each in.~tallation. The charts illll~trate
estimated EMAS stopping distance capabilitie~ for
various aircraft types. The design used in each chart is
optimized ~pccifically for the aircraft noted un tht:
chart anti assumes the availability of brakes and
reverse thrust. It should be noted that the absence of
either would result in longer stopping distances.
3.. Example 1. Assumc a candidate runway ha~
a runway safety area that extends 500 feet beyond the
end or [he n.lnway and the design aircraft is Q DC-9 (or
similar). Figure A I-I shows that an EMAS 500 feel ill
Itngth (including a 100' jet blast buffer) is capable of
Slopping 3 DC-9 within thc confines of lhe sy:item at
runway eXIt speeds of up to 94 knots.
b. Example Z. Assume the same runway safety
area but assume the design aireratl is a DC-IO (or
Similar). F!gll~~ Al-] shows an Er.1AS of [he same
1cn<;~h. but d;;~igned for lurger au-craft. ca:o ..;wp UlO:
2
u"LlU ,
Ul'\.J LH'-.L.. I I 'LH. \.Jl...-.l- T L
........J.UGUIUJLJl.!+ J/1LJ
8/21/98
DC-IO within the confines of the system at runway exit
speeds of up to 72 knots.
6. SYSTEM DESIGN REQUIREMENTS. For
purposes of cksign. the EMAS can be considered fixed
by it~ function and frangible since it is designed to fail
at a specified impact load.. Therefore, an EMAS is not
con~idcred an obstruction under 14 CFR Part 77
Objects Affecring Navigable Airspace. The followin~
system design requirements shall prevail for all EMAS
installations.
a. Concept. All EMAS is designed (0 stop an
overrunning aircraft by exerting predictable
deceleration forces on its landing gear as the EMAS
material crusb~s. It must be designed to minimize the
pOlcntil:l1 for structural damage to aircraft, since such
damage could result in injuries to passengers and/or
affect the predictability of deceleration forces.
b. Location. An EMAS is localed beyond tbe
end of the runway, centered on the e~tended runway
centerline. It will usually begin at some distance from
the end of the runway to avoid damage due to jel blast
and short landi.ngs (Figure I). This distance will vary
tlcpending on the available area and the EMAS
materials.
c, Desi.gn Method. An EMAS design Shllll be
supported by a validated da<;ign method, which can
predict the performance of the system. The design
aircraft is deftned liS that aircraft using the llll50eiated
runway that imposes the greatest demanu upon the
EMAS. To the extent practicable, however, the EMAS
design should cOllSider the range of aircraft expected to
operate on the runway. In some instances, this may be
preferable to optimizing the EMAS for the design
aircraft The design method shall be derived from field
or laboratory tests. Testing may be based on passage of
either an actual aircraft or equivalent single wheel load
through a test bed. The design must consider multiple
aircraft paramet~, including but not necessarily
limited to allowable aircraft gear load.~. gear
configuration, tire conbiet pressure, aircraft center of
gravity. and aircraft speed. The model m~t calculate
imposed aircraft gear loads. g-forces on aircraft
OCcuplUlts, deceleration rBles, limI stopping dislances
wilhin the arresting system. Any rebound of the
crushed material that may serve 10 Iessell its
effectiveness must be con$idcrcd.
d. Operation. The EMAS shall be a passive
system.
SENT BY:216-622-2428
; 12-23-~~
AC 150/5220-22
Opu,'ation.s: Land Airporrs Serving Cenain Air
Carriar..r. To meet ~ intent of thili regulacion,
IIppruach light standards must be designed to fail at
two points. The flIllt point of frangibility ~haJ.I be zero
to three incbe:s <UJQVC the top of the EMAS. The
second point of friUlgibility shall be; l;ero to t.hree
inches above the expected residual depth of the EMAS
after p3S.Use of the; dC3ign ilirclllft.
t Drainage. The IiMAs shall be designed such
lhal water will not accumulate on its surface or any
portion of the runway or runw:!y safety an.....
m. Jet Blast. The EMAS shall be desLBnc:d and
conslnlctcd so mat it will not be damaged by expected
jet blast.
n. RepaJr. The EMAS must be designed to be
repaired to a usable coodition within 45 days uf ~c by
tbe design aircraft at the design entrance speed. It
sbould be Doted that this is a dCsllZI\ requirement only-
not an operntional requirement.
7. MATERIAL QUALIFICATION. The material
comprising the EMAS shall have the following
requirements and characteristics:
s. Material Strength and Deformntion
RequircOlenl.i. Materials must meet a force YS.
defannation profile within limit:; having been shown to
assure uniform crushing charactcristics, and tberdurc,
predictable re:ipoosc to an RLfcraft entering the
arresting system,
b. Material Charocteristic!. The materials
cumprisin~ lhe EMAS must:
(1) Be wutcr.rcstsram 1O (he CXlCm [bat the
presence of waccr docs not affect system perfonnance.
(2) Not attract vermin, birds, or other
crcatu.ro:::s .
(J) H~ non-sparking.
(4) Be non-flammabk
(5) Not promote combustion.
(6) Not emit toxic fumes or malodorous
fumes in a fire environment after installation.
(7) Not support unintended pl.1nt growth with
proper treatment.
<i
9:58
URS GREINER CLEVE~
tllJ2878591;# 4/19
8/21/98
(8) Have constant strength and density
characteristics during all climatic conditions within a
temperature range appropriatc for the locale as
specified by thc airport owner.
(9) Be: fC3ist1iJ][ [0 detertoration due to:
(a) Salt.
fluids.
(b) Typical aircraft aod runway deicing
(e) Aircraft fuels. hydraulic fluids, and
lubricating oils,
(d) Sunlight..
(~) Water.
(I) Freeze/thaw. if installed where
freezing is possible.
(g) Blowtug sand.
8. DESIGN PROPOSAL tlUBMITTAL. The
EMAS dc3ign sh~ll be: submitted to the FAA. Officc of
Airport Safety and Standards, through [he responsible
FAA Airports Regional or Disaict Office, for review
QIJd approval and shall be ~ertificd as meeting all me
rcqulrcmeot:J of thi:! AC. The; submiHal shall im;IU(1c
all design 113sumptioru; and data utili7ed in its
development as well as proposed construction
procedure;; and techniqucs.
9. INSTALLATION.
a_ Mll~eril" Conformllnce Requireml!l1ts. A
material ~;unpling and testing prognun shall be
elOtablu.h.,d to verify that all materials are In
conformance with the previously qualified force vs.
deformation profile/limits. The sampling and t<:sting
progmm must be submittc=d to and approvo:d by the
FAA, Office of AiLport Safety and Slambrds.
Materials failmg to meet requ1ccmants based on thc
testing program !ihall not be used..
b. Construction. A qualiry assurance program,
submitted to and approved by the FAA. Office of
Airport Safety and Standards. shall be implemented to
erulure that construction is in accordonc<: with the
approved desi!m.
10. MARKING. An EMAS is marked as .10 area
unusable for landing. takeoff, and taxIIng with yellow
chevrons in accordance with AC 150/5340- \.
Standards for Airport Markings.
~O'I 01 .LIU ULL L~LU
.1L-LLl-JJ,
J'LlJ ,
8/21/98
11. MAINTENANCE. An inspection and
maintenance program, submitted to and approved by
the FAA, Utlice of Airport Safety and Standards, shall
be cscnblishcd and carried om by the airport sponsor to
ensure original specified density and strength are
lTh"liotained mroughout the operating life of the EMAS.
The program shall include any necessary procedures
for prcvcnri ve malntenallce: and unscheduled repairs,
particularly to weamerproofing layenl. Airpon
pCr:5onnc:l must be notified that the EMAS is designed
10 fail undcr load and that precautions should be taken
when aelivilit:s require penonnel to be on, or vehicles
and pcrsonnel to be near, the EMAS.
12. AIRCRAFT RESCUE AND FIRE FIGHTING
(ARFF).
a. Access. A9 required by paragraph 611, an
I::MAS is capable of supporting typical ARFF
()lM.~
DA VID L BENNETT
Director of A.irport S:lf..ty :>nd StAndards
UI\.J Ul\.L II ~Ll\. LLL v L ~
U1LlLOf0001;" )/10
AC 150/5220-22
equipment However. as the sides of lhe; system arc
typically steeply sJoped, and the system will be severely
runcd after an aU-craft arrestment, ARFF vehicles so
equipped should be shifted into all-wheel-drive prior to
entering and maneuvering upon an EMAS.
b. Tactics. Any Hre present after the arrestment
of an aircraft will be three-dimensional due to the
rutting and breakup of the EMAS materiaL A dual-
agent attack and/or other {actics appropriate to this
type of ruc should be employed.
13. NOTIFICATION. Upon InStallatiun of an
EMAS, its length, width, and location 3hall be
included 8S 8 remark in the Airport/Faciliry Directory,
The followin~ i" an cl'iamplc: of 1I typical entry:
"Engineered
400'L l( 150'W,
runway 16."
Materials Arresting
located at departure
Sy:mm,
end of
5 (and 6)
SENT BY:216-6LL-L~L8
8/2 1/98
It:I
:J:
~
><.:1
:ii
00..
cnW
LL1~
00'
0%
a.C)
ez:::-
::J~
ll.c
CJ~
Zu..
Zfi3
ZCI.I
:f':l
a.~
Q
....
I-
o
Z
'vi
ll.z:
~Q
Q~
~8
i~
o~
~~
~~
g5
~S
g~
"'w
U
wll>
<Ii ~ lU
~....ll.
O-N
:z
C)
Z
~
~
m
ad
uiW
..ccn
-0::
Ow
cng>
· - UJ
O~~
C~I-
II tn
~~
C):t:
I-
~
::J
~
~
~
;12-LJ-~~' ~:Q~
UK~ GKclNtK LLCVc4
APPENDIX 1 - PLANNING CHARTS.
.. . . . . . .
.... .. .. . .. . 00 .. .. . .. .. : .. . .. .. .. ~ . - - . .. 0.' . .. . . .. of .. . .. .. .. ._ _ .. .. . ..
.. . . .. . .
..................... .. . -.......... ............ -.. -.....
. .. . .. . ..
. .. .. . .. . ..
.. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .... .................................................
. .. .. .. . .. ..
, . .
............. ..................... ""
. , .
. , ,
........... ..... .................
, ,
.. . .. .. - _f. .. .. . . .0. .. . .. .. .. " . .. .. . . , .. . . . . ,. . ..
. . . . .
a
N
~
o
..-
..-
C>
o
..-
C>
en
o
<X)
o
r--
o
CD
C>
l.O
(SlOU)f) a33dS llX3 A VMNn~ wnwrxV'w
o
""
OluL~/tl5~1;# 6/18
AC 150/5220-22
Appendix I
o
o
IX)
o
o
r-
o
a
<0
~
w
W
lJ..
-
o
o
l()
Woe-
...1.
~~
....<
<w
>0::
<::;)
L5~
D::-
ctLl.
>-
t-
W
LL
<{
(J)
>-
<(
3:
:z
::I
0::
o
o
~
o
o
C"1
C>
o
N
S~T BY:21ti-tiLL-L428
; 12-LJ-l:jl:j
AC 150/5220-22
Appendix 1
Ii)
x
~
>-0
:i~
00..
cnlij
WUJ
(t:l,
02
o...t!I
~-
::JffI
0...0
CJ~
Zu.
-0
Zw
ZlIJ
:3;)
a.~
o
t-
t-
O
Z
a.;~
:;5;0
;t;::
CO
-z
\.20
a:u
~~
;11_
-' -
~~
~l-
i;>~
gz
~O
~O
<n",
g~
-'Ill
Uu
~~
tno
Wu.
""DC
~~~
I- .
Q~'"
:<:
l
~
Z
S2
~
m
~
uiw
.ccn
-c::
oOW
00>
~ ~UJ
t-.Q)a:
NQ
.......Nt-
CDucn
3:~
"J:
t-
~
~
:!
~
::
lU:UU
u~s G~tINCK CLtVt~
.. .........
.. .. .. .. .. .. "." .. .. .. .. ".. . .. .. .. .. .. 0" .. .. .. .. .. "".. .. .. .. .. - I .. .. .. .. .. "." .. .. .. .. .. "... .. .. .. .. .
. .
. ,
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. '"' .. ..
. .
. .
.. .. .. .. ..
.................................................................. ..
.. .. .. . ..
. . .
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. - .. .. .. - .. .. ..
. . .
.. .. .. ..
...................................................... ..
.. .. .. ..
.
.. .. .. .. .. .. I.. . .. .. .. _ ~ .. .. .. .. . ""0 .. .. .. .. .. .'.. .. _ ..
.. - . .
.. , .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. - .. I.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. ". .. .. .. . _ ".. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .............0.. _ .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .... ..
o
N
,..-
o
'r""
~
o
o
~
o
()')
o
OJ
o
,.......
o
CO
o
lO
(SJOU)f) 033dS 1.IX3 A VMNn~ II\InIlUIX~W
o
"'f
tllJ2878531;# 7/19
8/21/98
a
o
co
o
a
.......
o
o
w
---
t-
ill
UJ
u..
-
w
~
m
<
:::!N
<( I
>~
<<(
U1W
a::C:=
<1:::)
~~
w-
u.LL
<
tn
~
<
~
=>
~
8
U)
o
o
'<t
8
M
o
o
N
~U~l 01 'L!U-ULL-L~LO
8/21198
10
%
a..
~
>-Cl
..J~
ZOl(
00..
Cl)l&.I
UJ:
(J),
Oz
D...~
~(I.)
~W
o..Q
C)~
Zu.
-Q
Zw
2UJ
j::l
n.~
o
~
....
o
:z
-lIS
~~
013
-z
!eo
"0
~~
~Z
o~
~~
D..~
~~
~z
-(0
ff)~
g~
gw
5~
ffio
--~~
en w
ILl D..
l- . .
g-'"
e"
Z
~
~
Q]
~
uiw
.oW
-0:::
c::>>w
00>
~ ~UJ
O~~
o~t-
II UJ
s:~
C):::r:
t-
:E
::J
~
-
><
<(
::
T J. L.. G.U LlLJ' 1 V - U V t
Ul\...J Ul\..L 1 J '(LJ\. L,LL'" L '
VLUGV/Uuult~ U/lu
. . .. .. .. .. .
........................ I"" -.... ....... ...... "....................... 0."......... '."......
.. .. . ..
.............. t.............................
- - -
. . ,
,..".................................... ..
- . .
. .. .. .
. - .. .. . .. "0" . .. .. . . ; .. . .. .. . .00 . . .. .. .. 00" .. .. .. ..
.. . .. . . .. ~ . .. .. - .. . : . . . . . .0. . .. .. .. .. .:.. . .. . .. . : . . ..
. .. . .
.. . . . . .. ".. .. . . . . .. .. .. . . .. ...- .. .. .. .. .. 00.. .. . .. .. . , .. .. .. . . ."0 .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. to .. .
o
~
~
o
.-
T"""
o
o
..-
o
m
o
CO
o
f'..
o
CO
o
ll)
(SlOU)f) G33dS llX3 A "MNn~ wnwlxvw
o
~
AC 150/5220-22
Appendix I
o
o
00
o
o
t--
o
o
(0
j::'
ill
W
LL.
-
o
o
10
W
-..I
Q)
<{(")
....J I
;;:~
><
~W
~a::
~::J
<{C)
~u::
W
LL.
<
en
>-
~
:z
:::::l
a::
o
o
'q"
8
("')
o
o
N
3
~~~i nT.L1U-ULL-L~LO
AC 150/5220-22
Appcndil( I
0(')
;z;
a..
~
).-<:>
~~
o a..
(J)w
&IJ~
U],
0%
a..<'
0:-
:Jffl
0..0
c)o::
Z~
-0
Zw
z(I)
~::>
a..~
o
...
t-
O
Z
'lfl
"'-z
~2
oiS
-z
~8
~ll.
~3
~3
~.1i
<(oJ
"'1-
s.~
8z
-0
~@
~~
..J.1i
~IW
e
VI
uJ...
.. cr IX
~~lt
.... .
O~N
Z
4
(!)
Z
-
~
~
en
~
.w
~(/)
-~
Ow
","0>
"l:t ~ W
,.....Qo::
m~1-
II tn
3:::J
O~
.....
==
::J
~
i
,1L-Lu-uu, lU-Ul,
.. , .. ..
. ~ .. .. .. .. '\ .. .. .. .. .. .. , .. .. .. .. .. ...- .. .. .. .. .. .... ..
UK~ liKe II'itK lLL v t.-1
. . .
..... f.......... "00......... ".0..........
.. .. .. -
.. . . .. .. .. ~ .. .. .. .. . . : .. .. .. .. .. .. ," .. .. .. .. .. -0" .. .. .. .. ..
......... .. -;............:.......... .:... ........ .:...........:....
. ,
........ .............. '..........
. .
.. .. .. .. .. .. ~ .. .. .. .. .. .. ~ .. .. .. . .. ..:. .. .. .. .. .. .:.. .. .. .. .. .. ~ .. .. .. .. .. ..:.
.......... - I... _......,.........
- .
............................ ..
. .
. -0 . ~ .. .. .. ._.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. "" .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. _ . .. .
.. .. .. .. ..
o
N
r-
o
r-
..-
o
o
r-
o
Ol
<::>
lX)
<::>
I'-
o
<D
o
LO
(SJOUlI) 033dS .llX3 ^ VMNn~ WnWIX\f1lV
<::>
V
o
o
co
o
o
r--
o
o
co
o
o
l.O
o
o
~
o
o
('t)
o
o
C\.l
010L~(tl531;# 8/18
812 1198
i="
LU
UJ
LL
-
UJ
..J
lD
:5'1
- -
~<(
<tW
L:jo::
0::::2
ct(!)
~u:
w
u..
<(
en
>-
ct
~
:z;
::J
~
SeNT tw: :!1ti-ti:!:!-:!4:!tl
; 1:!-~;j-l:1l:1
1U:Ol
u~s G~cINc~ CLEVE~
BI32878S81;#10/18
8/2119&
AC 150/52Z0-22
Appendix 2
APPENDIX 2. RELATED READlNG MATERIAL.
This appendix contains a listing of documents with supplemental material relating to the subject of EMAS. These
documents contain certain infor-rtUtion on D1l1rcnol.:i evaluated lU wcll /U design, cODStrucllon. acd lesting procedures
utilized to date. These publications may be obtained from the National Technical Infomuuion Sc[Vice (NTIS).
Springfield, VA 22151,
1. DOTIFAA/PM-87/27. Soft Ground Arresting Systerru. Final Report-Sept 1986 - AUi. 1987. published Aug. 1987
by R.F, Cook, Univcr.lal Energy SY3tcms. {oc., Dayton, OH.
1. 2. DOT/FANCT-93/4, Soft Ground Arroting Sy.rte:ms far Commercial Aircraft - Imcrim Report-Feb. 1993 by
Robert Cook.
3. DOTIFANCT-9J/SO, Soft Ground Arrf!:Jtirrg SYSfems for Airporrs - Final Report - Dec. 1993 by Jim White. Sat~h
K. A~W31, and Robert Cook,
4. Draft Report - DOTIF ANCT -95, Pndiminary Soft Ground ArreslOr Design for JFK International Airporl . Mlifch
1995.
S. Draft Test Report - Soft Ground Arresting System Using Cellular Concrete _ Nov. 1994.
6. DOTIFANAOV 90-1 - Location afCommerctal Aircraft Accidentsflncidents R.elative,.to Runways. July1990.
7. UDR-TR-8B-07. Cook, R.F., F:valUQffon Q{ a Foam Arrestor Bed for A.ircraft. Safety OvIV'rUJt Areas, Univel"'::ity of
Dayton Rc:search Institute, Dayton, Ohio. 1988.
1 (and 2)
Ii... .
'I
Ie
I Ii II
~i ~ ~.. I ;!; ~ 'Ii g
l! If ! Sd t ii ~ i ! l!
~ ~; 5 ii~ ~I 5 ~ I ~ E
~ !; I I~. !!; il ~ i ~ 'Ii
j .~. ~ ~. I ~ i"!
!a ~!~ ~ n! ei !5; ; I B
!~ si! U !e! ~! il~ ~ ! s I~
~. !;~ i8 ~13 91 I~! s ~ ~ is
~g !i~ aW ~ ! ii 8~! ~ ~ i !!
h II! ,i; h
tin Illq dill_ill
i II ! 1111111 ; ! ; Ii! ; II:
i ! I ! ! III1 ! ! j ; IIIII .:
II
. ._.......5
1-.........-------- ,
;1
~1
_21
II
II
~II
'C:11
Ii
<I!
II
. II
~II
li~i
~ .
......
:!~~
E" ~~~
. ~J ~~;
, ~~ I.
!~~:.:&~Ic! J VI Iq I
· ~~ ~! I d I
II ~ n & fie ; II ~ ~ ;1 ~ ~: I
~ ii. II ~ ~ .11. Ii ~
~ I 31 : I ~ II a ill
~i: f i! f i ~ ~ 'Ii !; 3 ill
~'I:le 5 In; g I :?!!: 'I v! il il ·
ge i S 0 < I ~I a I
!~ hI; i q; I g:~11 n i~ I~n
:; Uu II II I II""
\' i i i. I i J J
ils Ii % = n q · . II II II . I i J J
Jill Ii % = H II' Ii I H H:: : :: ~
~II H :ill i
0\1 ..~,
1>-" ~ S S i g
~i: ! . - - I ! ~ I I I
~'~!i~ !I'i~ ,I i L !!il II
I. Ii II ! Ii h III h !i I n PI I,
I i5~i iii~i I
z __
I!
It
II~
!Z t ';1~
... ~J1 .
i ij-1<lJ!
o . l~la
...... ~ -...
:: lliz f
g ) Jf.ll
i~ ii!i!i
.-'~.!!
... jhiOl!
~ [.tl~'15~ I
u ~ i~81
a ','~~!t
.,< '.Ilo'
...
Co) ..
0 ~
.
Co) E-4
- 1-1
.. l:Q
1-1
a a
'<
...
..
'<
<t....to-..
.....Ie-..
u.. 0::: '
<to.
1-'0 III 1 0:
V\<C>-..-s N
LU 0::: ~ .
3: 0:::
>- 0:::
LU VI
:lIl:: <t
~..
o
z
, Is
I i
.l
!~
_:il
H
.".,
U
!j
.lIi
II
1"
'EJ
~1
0'"
~j
c.
~i
vii
o.
i~
U
.J~
~
~
z
w
In
!~
w
, g:
..
u ~
.0
....
~
o
z
Is
I
0.
0.
..lI
!~
liJ
'S.,
Jj!
~=
!g
.lI..:
~i
11
~J
"'15
""
0:2
~l
c.
~2
"'0>
.2~
1..
3i
:;1
~
i
il
\ ~
LJ
.....
t-
~
t-
'"
w
3: 3:
>->
LU W
:lIl:: :00::
<t<t
..... I
u.. VI
Q..
I-'C) 1 0:
~ ~ ~
3:1:0
>-0
LU%
:lIl:: iN
:! co
~ -
i
.. ~
w ...
~ u
z .
W .
In =
W~~
a..o~
a. - ~
W ...
, ...
:: ~ g
~ 1
!
.....
t-
~
t-
~~
3:3:<
1:~
:lIl:::OO::
an
...
i ~ ..
i:, - _~o
~ .; "S ;::
f ...~o
! :
i
.. ~
w ...
~ u
t
: I
5 l
~ N
i N
..,
g
1
!~ ~
.. ~ CD
; N ..u.J:l
~ --\:il- at
,. Ii!..o:: -c Jl
S ~t.>-l:
f '<.a u
~
..
Q.
Q.
c(
"
CD
'"
'"
N
~ ..=
< N
W! ...15 OM~JI.'
Ii
c
'ti
III
j ~~~ 1
t'(I;E
Cl --
~ ~:~
C'!
N_
~~ ~
~. ~
.sic,
.S 0
~ ...
N
--: CIa C"4
-Q:!!",
~~u..,.,
w. ...115 OICjJIII
I')
~
..
ii;
Q.
'(
.
~!~
~H
~:~
...
-<
...
o
Z
'"
~
~
~
I')
~
..
ii;
c
CD
-E
~
..
o
-0
..,
.!!!
>
b
o
an
~:2
_ 0
c~
.."
::2 C
- III
t-ClO
"'0
~z
m",
c-
.- ...
~~
= CD
U .~
.."
o C
L ..
-< ::2
ICl -
:xt-
",'"
i~
01
t-
:I:
C>
;:
c
CD
-E
Ii
c
"
ftl
CD
~
t-
:I:
~
a::
c
CD
-E
Ii
c
'ti
III
CD
~
..
o
co
..
o
co
~
>
b
o
an
o
-
.!!!
>
o
o
an
~
c c.
~ . "'-c
::2" ::2_
.::g ':i
:I:" ... "
C> eWe
;:fU~<<I
g' ~ .= ~
._> ~>
..~3:=3:
05 ~ u ~
i~~~ ~~. ~
ICl ftl" Ill"
:X~c~c
"" c: ... c: ...
i&~&~
ok
0'"
~~
:E
z
o
"
J
7.~
0....
0'"
...~
l:; .
.'"
......
>-'"
~e
'"
;.,
..:
0..
'(
..
00>
=:l
_0';__-
o
o~~
II) ,~ :5
o
;
u
'"
U
!,J!i-
i..!",,~
:::;:<11(
o
~
C>
::e
C>
::!
C>
~
C>
~
C>
..
C>
"
..
><
...
..
..
"
~
Cl
o
z
~
o
;
u
'"
U
;< "
i to..
" ~
o
co
...
i~: 2 0 Q
~
s
>
~
~
"'
;;/
;
-
!:; c(
~ z
b
...
an
V
!
I
!
~
.
o
~
!::
... ...~
"'0 c(
:JI N ;;: Z
-<~
Cl
z
<;
z
:5
:;
,:.
:r
..,
:;;:
'"
...
...
;<
~
"
k
....
.. ...~:
:l ~ ;;: c(z
-< ~
;<
~
"
I
c
E
"
<
v
0( III U Q
~
"
~
ca"'ZQ ..
.
=
.
io4
H
I%l
H
=
=
~
~
I;
II
~
~
E
~
~
i
,
~
:t' ~
~ 0
" .
~
....
~~
o
~
'"
j~ ~ 2 ~ Q
-< 10 u
z
II
~
o
l:;
.;;
",
.;;
.0
",
.;;
",
~
.;;
..
~
.;;
....
'?
~
~
J!
~
~
:&
E
v
3
i
~
v
c;:E_ao ~c
oi
~
15
z
II
t
.~
!r
i1
U
ltj
~j
l-j
1"
1!J
&:15
,"
u:Jl
~j
~~
~i
oJ!
-.::
1;
.u
"'I
is
I :
I i
lJ
~
15
z
II
!
a.
,~
!'"
;1
""u
Ii
Jl.::
~j
11
1!J
~1
U3!
~j
It:.
~1:
...i
oJ!
i~
U
:;1
~
:;
0:
0(
j
15
z
<(t-.
-' c-.
LL.
2
III ..
~~":" j
a.CD-
111- ~
., Oo :I
.. Oo
.e ~
~ ~
1
!
Ii;
w VI -:
3:3: ~ N
>->
LL1w
:lo:::lo::
<(0-
-'
LL.
,~ 1
....0:::
V)V)~
LL1o...
3:C)
>-
LLI
:lo::
2
~~- i
a. . v
a.CD-
- ~
~ g: i
:: ~
o
2 g
Ii; ~
w~
3:3:~
>- > C'l
LL1w
:lo:::lo::
Iii
> >-
B2 i
;:) ~
IIlI ..
;:,.
;, .., ~ 0 - ~
.., z ,
:<: ... :s "i:: ... -< i
u ~ 6 ...
~ ... ~ ~ ~ z
.;, :1l '0 '0 v
0 d !
.. CD CD ~
0..- "' It'l It'l
an U
i
.., .., -~ I
C'l ,. ~ ~~ ~
. ..
ii:i j~ ~ .. ~ 0
CD e ..
- ~ 0
-
.., ..,
i ~ ~ ...
~ ~ i&; e g
i ... ~ It'l
~ ;! .2
~ u
i::'
.~~
I" <( ,~
- Q 0
t~..o
c .
-I
c:
...
.a
...
....
w
...
C)
c:
1
u
c:
~
N":: t...
. '<).. ;
C'lE,,_
,." ::t)o.":-
!t'!o
""'0
:i II)
~ U") ~o
;{l"'":l~1')
s ......._".....
~ ... ~C'4
l:;
"
>-
... ~
... .
~
C'l
...
...
~
Wl tlII.lS OM:lJ...
i
:?-
..
~
~ <
" ...
. u
~
...
~tl
_i <( ,~
Qo
t~:
~
"
(5
.J:
"
c:
III
>
a..
Ill:
::)
a:l
~
- .
~;c ~
~ I~:::.
ES'
'- II 0
,S 0
~ II)
-
u
III
...
:c
o
o
It'l
1
I
~ ~ _50
i....s~:
~...~o
~
>-
w
"
...~
"'z
~ .
~
u
:i:
~
0(
51
on
i
...
...
~
"I ..15 0IrI:l11..
Iii
> >-
III. ~
Ill:
;:) *
IIlI
~ ;;
. ... ~ 0 - ~
00. Z
o~ :s ... ... -< ;
).. :!!:::. 6 0. ,., z
Ie :;; i' ~ ~
i 0 0 v
0 3
:::i 0 :f; d " 0 .., ~
III I') "' It'l It'l
.... U
C'4 ..
~
~ g..- ~
on
..0 ~
j~ :i: .. .. 0
o[,~ .. ~
0
0'" ~
).. 11):::' .. ,.
"'-
)...-
~
...
..
>-
~
"'
C) ...
Z ...,
Q ~ -<
-- ;;:,
Z 0 z
:s .0
~ .
,.:. ~
:z: :1l ~
~~ C) "
<
"' c
... i
;, .., on
.., u
:z: ... . ~
u ~ ~..! "-
~ ~ ~
-0 i
.. ~
c ;; 5
. . .. 0
1 ; ~ 0( '" u
~Cl c::t_za oc
)..
III
~~-~~
0...
00.
II)~
-~
o
I')
..
o
0...
.. ~
-'"
0'" ..
~~ >-
-r- ~
"'
or- C) "i::
...., z
-.., Q ...,
--
0 0- z 0
0", :s
..; -on .
~ an
0'" i'
...!; ,.:. i
:z:
0'" C) ..
...::; <
"'
...
'"
0
0
...:i
~..! ..
-0 ~
. ..
.. i ;;
~ ~ ..
.3c! ~
~ ~
~
~
..- 0'"'
~ 0:;:
~~
J
.E
E
v
;;
~
:z:
5
0( '"
u 0
ca_za oc
It
.... -':f.~:;'. ~_~;fv
., .,
~
f
T"""
Q)
I.-
::J
0>
i.L..
<
w
a:
<
6Q
LLZ
<w
C/')C')
~
~
Z
::>
a:
~
.
,
,
.1
I
" .
I
,
. ~,,~.
, "'00J-~
~ .. :J/If.. '. ~..
. ..', .
~_....
1
.~...' .
l1i
~
<
>-
t-
W
u..
<(
eno
~z
~w
z~
:J
~
C)
z
-
t-
en
-
><
w
-
....
0::
o
0..)-
O::c
;(::)
..Jt;w
<(<(CI)<(
Zw::)
o~cCl)
-<(z~
!;i~:3~
ZwC)w
O::LLZ....
W<(-CI)
....CI)....<(
Z~~W
-:;,..,0)(
....iw
(/)z
w::)
3:~
>-
W
~
~z
E
(I)
-
en
~
en
C
.2
~-
(l)C'll
en (.)
~l;::
't'(;)
C en
oC'llC'll
-I-
. U
C'll en
"0
. ,- E
~ ... ...
.20
L1.L1.
"0
C
C'll
...
(I)
>
o
U
(I)
n;
(.)
en
en
(I)
en
en
C'll
l-
e>
.c
en
...
C'll
:E
en.c
c.~
E ~
C'll~
~ (.)
enO
(1)0::
>"0
0(1)_
... en ...
0)00
Cc.c.
IV >< ...
:Ew<(
, I I
N..........
.....M.....
co...... co
~ "
,'"
CD
l' ~
~
en
.-
LL
y';..
~!~;
,r
-
r ;~
t=
o
0..)-
g:;o
<(::)
t-
~cnW
<(cn
z~::)<(
oo::ocn
_<(zO::
!ci: <(0
z~..Jz
o::WC)W
WLLZt-
I-<(-cn
Zcnt;w
-~X~
I-;:W
(/)Z
W::)
~o::
>
w
~
E
.!
II)
1;
c
o
Qi';
II)ftJ
::).g
" .-
c II)
ftJII)
..J.!!
ftJo
,,11)
'C E
o ...
-0
LLLL
"
C
ftJ
...
~
o
III Q)
Q) c:
III a:
III
ftJ c:
t5 ,~
.s:: E
III ....
... III
ftJ ::::J
:i <(
III .s:: III ~ III
Q.~ Q) 8. ~
E ~ 'C Q. ~
ftJ ~ ftJ Q) .s::
~ (.) .a a.. C)
en 0 III c: .-
Q) 0::: w ftJ J:
> " ,- "C
O "C "C c: :: c:
Q) c: ftJ N
a, III 1:: ftJ..J ftJ ftJ
c: &.0 III c:r:n III
ftJ >< e->.Q) I ~
:iW<~OQ.,..... 0
lIMO:::
N" 1 "'It
~~O _'
(O~~oo:t~Noo:t
COIt)~~a;
..,.
~
~
C)
.-
LL