PSO 08/09-49 09/19/2009DANNY L. KOLHAGE
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
DATE: September 22, 2009
TO: Peter Horton, Director
of Airports
VIA: Bevette Moore, Director
of Operations ,
r
FROM: Isabel C. DeSantis, D. C.
At the August 19, 2009, Board of County Commissioners meeting, the Board granted
approval of Purchase Service Order No. 08/09-49 with URS to provide an Environmental
Assessment for Runway Relocation and Extension at the Marathon Airport.
Attached hereto is a duplicate original of the subject document for your handling. Should
you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office.
cc: County Attorney
Finance
File
.,No,
To:
PURCHASE
PURCHASE / SERVICE ORDER
FOR
MONROE COUNTY
URS Purchase Service Order No. 08/09-49
Re: PSA Agreement, Dated: 4-1-07 Resolution
Project Name: Environmental Assessment for Runway Relocation and Extension at MTH
Description of Services:
Multiple of Direct Salaries
Lump Sum
X
Days to Complete
(See Attached Scope of Services)
Reimbursable Expense
450 Fee this Service Order $ 497,526.00
Payment for Services shall be in their entirety as per PSO. �
Prepared by:
c
Milford A. Reisert
Date: e�,P �"'1
Accepted by:
Carlos Garcia
rn
Recommended by: --- -
rn ;Vj
C)
rn
Ln Q
Cz
Date:
Approved by:
F •
i6�. •1q
c-' T.
T-r .. 9
, KOLHAGE
-.Date -�-RECEPSOTIONISnPW
DOC
SCOPE OF SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE
RELOCATION AND EXTENSION OF RUNWAY 7/25
AT THE
FLORIDA KEYS — MARATHON AIRPORT
Prepared by
URS Corporation
June 19, 2009
The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners and its staff (COUNTY) have proposed runway
improvements at the Florida Keys - Marathon Airport (MTH) which require environmental analysis,
coordination, and documentation which conform to the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 1050.1 E and Order 5050.4B. This environmental
analysis and documentation will be accomplished in the form of an Environmental Assessment (EA).
This Scope of Services sets forth the work efforts required to prepare the Draft and Final EA for the proposed
runway improvements (defined below). These improvements will be the focus of the EA and subject to the
analysis of purpose and need, alternatives and environmental impacts.
A. Relocation of Runway 7/25 to Meet Runway to Taxiway Separation Requirements
The Runway 7/25 centerline is located 200 feet from the centerline of Taxiway A, which is the
full-length parallel taxiway serving Runway 7/25. The required separation distance for an
Airport Reference Code (ARC) B-II airport is 240 feet. Because the current runway -to -
taxiway separation distance does not meet FAA design standards for ARC B-11, the proposed
airport improvement project includes shifting Runway 7/25 to the north 40 feet to provide the
required separation at MTH.
B. Extend Runway 7/25
The Proposed Project would provide an additional 700 feet of usable runway length at MTH.
The existing Runway 07/25 is 5,008 feet in length and has 400-foot paved overruns located
beyond each runway end. The project would relocate the Runway 25 threshold 300 feet to
the northeast. However, the Runway 25 landing threshold would remain at its current
location. The Runway 7 threshold would be relocated 400 feet to the southwest and be
available for landing and take -off operations. The project would provide a usable runway
length of 5,708 feet.
DRAFT 6/19/2009 Page 1 of 23
The Proposed Project is not expected to induce aircraft operations. Discussions with airport
management and the Fixed Base Operator(FBO) indicate that airport users, primarily turbine
aircraft operators, have expressed a need for additional runway length to reduce operational
restrictions and that increased activity and/or the introduction of new or larger aircraft types is
not anticipated.
Part A: PROJECT DEFINITION AND IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Task Al Early Notification
An informational package about the proposed runway improvements at MTH and the preparation of the EA
study will be prepared and distributed to applicable Federal, state, and local agencies and organizations to
solicit information relevant to the project and to help focus the EA study. A project mailing list will be
developed and maintained throughout the course of the study.
Product: Early Notification Letters to Agencies, Project Mailing List.
Primary Responsibility: URS.
Task A2 EA Introduction Chapter
An introductory chapter for the EA will be prepared under this task. It will include a brief description of the
proposed project, an overview of the EA process, and a summary of the forecasts of aviation activity at MTH
within the time frame analyzed in the EA. The EA will use the most recent FAA -issued terminal area forecasts
of aviation activity at MTH. This Scope of Services does not include the development of forecasts or any
efforts required to obtain FAA approval of revised forecasts. The Introduction chapter of the EA will be
submitted for preliminary review to the FAA and the COUNTY concurrent with the Purpose and Need Working
Paper described in Task A3.
Task A3 Definition of Purpose and Need
The purpose and need for the proposed project will be documented in this task. The effort will identify what
problems or shortfalls will be alleviated by the runway relocation and runway extension projects and
summarize the need for the project in a clear and concise statement. The project's purpose will be limited to
those actions identified by the FAA as requiring environmental analysis and processing.
In regard to the runway extension, this task will consist of evaluating the COUNTY's previous planning studies,
and any other pertinent documentation that may be available. URS assumes that the COUNTY and its Fixed
Base Operators will provide necessary supporting information from current or potential MTH airport users, fuel
sale tickets, and other airport records documenting the need for additional runway length at MTH for general
aviation aircraft. URS will assist the COUNTY in its discussions with the FBOs and/or aircraft operators during
data collection efforts. URS will review and compile the information collected and conduct independent
runway length analyses for certain aircraft or a "family" of general aviation aircraft and define the operational
DRAFT 6/19/2009 Page 2 of 23
restrictions imposed by current runway length at MTH. It is URS' understanding that a return of commercial
service at MTH is not contemplated by the COUNTY as justification for the proposed runway extension. The
objective of this task is to provide assurance to the FAA and the public as to the need for the proposed project;
however, URS cannot guarantee sufficient documentation to justify additional runway length at MTH.
The Preliminary Draft Purpose and Need chapter of the EA will be provided to the COUNTY and FAA for
review. Fifteen printed (15) copies of the Introduction and Purpose and Need Working Paper document will be
provided (10 COUNTY, 2 FAA, 3 URS). The COUNTY and FAA will review and approve the content of the
Introduction and Purpose and Need chapters prior to the evaluation of alternatives in Task A4. This Scope of
Services anticipates one (1) round of review and comment by the COUNTY and FAA.
Product: Preliminary Draft Introduction and Purpose and Need chapters of the EA.
Primary Responsibility: URS.
Task A4 Alternatives Analysis
This task will identify and assess the viability of reasonable alternatives for meeting required runway -to -
taxiway design standards and improving safety at the airport. This task will also identify and assess
reasonable alternatives for reducing operational restriction on aircraft imposed by runway length.
Because the proposed runway relocation project would impact habitat and resources regulated by federal,
state, and local jurisdictions, the analysis will also evaluate alternatives that reduce environmental impacts
(e.g., clearing vegetation in wetlands and/or clearing upland hardwood hammock habitat) to the greatest
extent possible. As required under §404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act, these evaluations will be used to
identify the least environmentally- damaging practicable alternative. Alternatives that may reduce
environmental impact would include a Modification to Standards for the Runway Object Free Area (OFA) that
would eliminate vegetation clearing requirements.
The feasibility and practicality of all reasonable on- and off -site alternatives will be examined through a
multiple -level screening process. The first level will evaluate the alternative's ability to fulfill the Purpose and
Need criteria established and approved in Task A3. Only those alternatives that meet all of the level one
criteria will be evaluated in the second level, which will consider environmental impacts. Those alternatives
that meet the second level criteria will then be evaluated using operational, constructability, and costs criteria.
For project scoping purposes, it is anticipated that the on -site alternatives to be retained for detailed evaluation
in subsequent portions of the EA will include the No -Action Alternative and up to two (2) potential Runway 7/25
configurations.
The results of the review and analyses identified above will be documented in a Preliminary Draft Alternatives
chapter of the EA. The alternatives will be clearly and concisely compared in text, tabular and graphic form. A
comprehensive discussion will be provided that will describe the reasoning for retaining or eliminating each
alternative for further evaluation. Fifteen (15) copies of the document will be provided (10 COUNTY, 3 FAA, 2
URS). The COUNTY and FAA will review and approve the alternatives analysis prior to the detailed analysis
DRAFT 6/19/2009 Page 3 of 23
of environmental impacts in Part B of this Scope of Services. This Scope of Services anticipates one (1) round
of review and comment by the COUNTY and FAA.
Product: Preliminary Draft Alternatives Analysis chapter.
Primary Responsibility: URS
Task A Public Information Meeting
One (1) Public Information Meeting (PIM) will be conducted following the completion of Task A4. This PIM will
be designed to explain the EA process, describe the need for the project and alternatives proposed for
examination in the EA. The COUNTY will solicit public input and comments at the PIM. The format of the PIM
will be an informal workshop with maps and diagrams depicting the proposed projects and handouts providing
summary information. Up to six (6) URS Team members will attend and participate in this meeting.
URS will prepare a newspaper notice for the PIM and be responsible for publication of the notice at least two
weeks prior to the PIM. URS will also be responsible for costs associated with providing the meeting room
facilities and equipment including chairs, tables, and easels. URS will provide one (1) court stenographers for
the meeting to record and transcribe verbal comments.
PART B: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Task B1 Affected Environment
This task will involve data collection and field investigations necessary to identify and describe the background
conditions from which environmental impacts of the proposed projects will be compared. Both on -site and off -
site conditions will be identified. The COUNTY will provide URS with any available pertinent studies to ensure
the consistency of data. Background information will be gathered as necessary and appropriate for various
disciplines such as noise, land use, demographics, Section 4(f) resources, historical resources, biotic
communities, wetlands, endangered and threatened species, and hazardous materials. The scope of the
information will reflect the potential area of impacts associated with the proposed runway project. A computer -
based Geographic Information System (GIS) exhibit based upon digital information provided by the COUNTY
will be updated and developed as part of this task for the subsequent evaluation of impacts in Task B2.
Information gathered during this task will be concisely summarized in the EA document.
Task B1.1 Study Area Definition and Mapping
URS will develop Study Area boundaries suitable for describing existing conditions and the subsequent
evaluation of potential environmental impacts (i.e., biological, noise, and socio-economic impacts). The Study
Areas will be coordinated with the COUNTY and FAA prior to URS commencing with detailed data acquisition
efforts. For this Scope of Services, the boundaries of the Study Area are generally anticipated to encompass
an area based on the limits of physical disturbance associated with each of the "build alternatives" and a larger
area subject to noise and other indirect impacts.
DRAFT 6/19/2009 Page 4 of 23
This Scope of Services anticipates using existing electronic base maps and digital aerial files provided by the
COUNTY or as obtained through third -party sources (i.e., FDOT). The purchase of new mapping or aerial
photography by URS is not included in this Scope of Services. URS will update and revise, as necessary, the
existing computer -based Geographic Information System (GIS) based upon any additional information
provided by the COUNTY and supplemental data obtained in the field as part of the EA process. This GIS
mapping/database system will be used to describe existing conditions in the Study Area and for the
subsequent evaluation of impacts in Task B2. Finished graphics of digital maps and physical maps at the
largest possible scale for report purposes will be used as base maps throughout the study. A windshield
survey by one (1) URS staff member will be conducted to verify features and land uses in the Study Area.
Product. Updated base maps of the Study Area to be used throughout the EA.
Primary Responsibility: URS.
Task B1.2 Description of the Affected Environment
As required by FAA Orders 5050.413 and 1050.1 E, NEPA and CEQ, URS will prepare a concise description of
the EA Study Area. The affected environment will be described by the following:
■ Location map, vicinity map, Airport Layout Plan, existing land use and zoning maps;
Graphics and descriptions of existing aircraft noise impacts; land uses including affected residential
areas; public parks; wildlife and waterfowl refuges; designated areas of critical habitat; upland
habitats; wetlands; floodplains; farmlands; recreation areas; and recorded historic and archaeological
sites, and,
■ Future planned developments and activities in the Study Area.
Product: Preparation of graphics and a brief summary describing the affected environment for use in the EA.
Primary Responsibility: URS.
Task B1.2.1 Aircraft Noise
URS will utilize the base year (2008) aircraft noise exposure contours and impact estimates contained in the
Noise Screening Assessment — The Florida Keys Marathon Airport, dated May 2009 to describe existing
conditions related to aircraft noise. Refinements or updates to the land use base maps described in Task B1.1
will be reviewed to determine if updates to the noise impact estimates are necessary. If necessary, URS will
update the noise impact estimates to reflect the most recent land use maps. The development of supplemental
noise analyses is not anticipated in this Scope of Services.
DRAFT 6/19/2009 Page 5 of 23
Task 131.2.2 Air Quality
URS will describe baseline air quality conditions in the Study Area. URS will conduct appropriate research
and document the Monroe County's current status in regard to National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) and any local air quality regulations or State Implementation Plan (SIP). URS will also summarize
any ambient air quality monitoring data in or near the Study Area, and describe common sources of air
emissions on an airport. An inventory of air emissions and an NAAQS assessment for MTH will not be
prepared because general aviation operations are less than 180,000 per year and the airport has less than 1.3
million annual enplanements.
Task 131.2.3 Historic and Archaeological Resources
Because the proposed construction would occur on airport property and mostly involve previously disturbed
land, direct impacts to historic or archaeological resources are not anticipated. However, land clearing
activities may occur in areas not previously studied and aircraft noise impacts may have potential to cause
indirect impacts to off -airport areas that may contain historic resources. Also, based on recent NEPA projects
in Monroe County, it is likely that Tribal coordination during the EA will produce a request for a Cultural
Resource Assessment. Under this task, URS will prepare an inventory of historic architectural and
archaeological resources within the Areas of Potential Effect (APEs) established for the EA. [The APE is the
geographic area within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use
of historic properties.] URS' work under this task will consist of literature searches, on -site reconnaissance
and/or inventory efforts, agency and Tribal coordination, and the preparation of graphics and narrative
materials for inclusion in the EA.
Literature Search — URS will conduct a literature search at the Florida Bureau of Historic Preservation (BHP),
the Monroe County Planning Department, and the City of Marathon to obtain information for historic, historic
architectural, and archaeological resources within the APEs. An architectural historian and archeologist will
make one (1) two-day trip to Tallahassee to research BHP records. URS also will conduct a review of local
records and conduct field visits during one (1) two-day trip to Monroe County for the reconnaissance -level
survey discussed below.
Reconnaissance -Level Inventory — URS will conduct a reconnaissance -level inventory of the APEs to
determine whether the status of any listed resources and to identify any additional resources within the APE
that are potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP. An architectural historian and archaeologist will make one
(1) two-day trip to Marathon. Following the literature search and reconnaissance -level inventory, URS will
prepare a report and identify whether any resources: (1) are listed in the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP); (2) have been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP; (3) have been determined not eligible for
the NRHP; (4) appear to be potentially eligible for NRHP listing and therefore would merit receiving an
intensive -level inventory, or; (5) do not appear to be potentially eligible for NRHP listing and therefore would
not merit receiving an intensive -level inventory. The report will include recommendations about what further
work should be done, if any, at the intensive -level inventory.
This Scope of Services does not include intensive -level inventories of historic and/or archaeological resources
(i.e., documenting and recording a new historic district) or conducting subsurface archaeological
DRAFT 6/19/2009 Page 6 of 23
investigations. If the literature search, field reconnaissance, or agency consultations determines that
intensive -level historic or historic architectural inventories are necessary or that intensive archaeological
surveys and/or subsurface investigations are needed, the work will be accomplished under a Supplemental
Agreement.
Task B1.2.4 Wetlands and Habitats
URS will determine the boundaries of wetlands within the biological Study Area. These determinations will be
undertaken using the guidelines found within Chapter 62-340 Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) -
Delineation of the Landward Extent of Wetlands and Surface Waters and the Interim Regional Supplement to
the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers 2008). URS will field map wetland boundaries using GPS handsets, but will not provide a formal
boundary survey and legal description of the wetland. URS does not anticipate submitting the wetland
boundary information to the federal and state regulatory agencies for a formal jurisdictional determination.
Field surveys of the affected area will be conducted to identify wetlands in the project areas and potential
impacts to those wetlands as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed action and the
development alternatives. Two environmental specialists will accomplish one (1) two-day trip to MTH field
evaluate the study area, identify wetland boundaries, meet with local resource agencies, and characterize
habitat and habitat values. URS will coordinate the wetland boundaries and information with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD).
Biotic communities, including dominant vegetative communities and general wildlife communities that exist on
the airport will be assessed and documented. It is anticipated that the majority of information regarding biotic
communities on the airport property will be obtained from the COUNTY, state and Federal resource agencies,
and from qualitative field investigations and assessments performed by URS. Lists of animal species known
or having the potential to occur in the areas will be presented in the EA. This task does not include seasonal
assessments of the project area for specific flowering plant species or seasonal animal species, nor does it
include such sampling methods as field trap, drift nets, etc. for the collection of mammals, birds, reptiles,
amphibians, or invertebrates.
Task B2 Environmental Consequences
This task involves the technical analyses of the direct and indirect environmental effects of the proposed
improvements and other reasonable alternatives for the specific impact categories listed in FAA Orders
5050.413 and 1050.1 E. For each impact category, one of the following courses of action will be followed in
determining the scope of material to be prepared by URS for the EA:
DRAFT 6/19/2009 Page 7 of 23
If analysis indicates negligible impacts, or the impacts are not significant, a brief but complete
statement to this effect, including the reasons and reference to the appropriate section(s) of FAA
Orders 1050.1 E and 5050.413, will be prepared for the EA.
If initial analysis indicates the potential for substantial or significant impact, URS will perform
appropriate analyses, document the impact, and propose mitigation measures that may be used to
reduce the impacts below the threshold of significance.
Task B2.1 Wetlands
Potential impacts to wetlands (e.g., mangrove swamp) and/or wetland habitat as a result of the construction
and operation of the proposed project and reasonable alternatives will be quantified using the Uniform
Mitigation Assessment Methodology (UMAM) in accordance with Chapter 62-345 F.A.C. Coordination with the
USACE, the SFWMD, and other appropriate agencies will take place as described in Part C of this Scope of
Services to confirm the presence of wetlands, their general boundaries, relative habitat values, and UMAM
scores proposed by URS. In context of federal and state wetland regulation programs, potential mitigation
measures will be identified and discussed. This Scope of Services does not include the preparation of state or
Federal wetland permit applications.
Product: Description of wetland impacts of the alternatives under study.
Primary Responsibility: URS.
Task B2.2 Biotic Communities
The potential impacts to wildlife and plant communities due to the construction and operation of the proposed
improvements and alternatives will be quantified and compared to determine the extent of impacts of each
alternative. The results will be coordinated with appropriate Federal, state, and local agencies, including the
US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC).
Product: Description of biotic community impacts of the alternatives under study.
Primary Responsibility: URS.
Task B2.3 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Because the proposed project would modify wetland and/or estuarine habitat through land clearing, an
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) assessment will be prepared to support FAA's consultation with NOAA National
Marine Fisheries Service. The EFH assessment will include a review of scientific literature concerning habitat
and species potentially affected by the project; an analysis of individual and cumulative impacts to EHF; an
analysis of potential impacts to federally managed and associated species (by life history stage); a
determination of potential effect; and potential mitigation to minimize and offset project impacts.
Product: Assessment of potential impact to Essential Fish Habitat.
DRAFT 6/19/2009 Page 8 of 23
Primary Responsibilitv: URS.
Task B2.4 Endangered and Threatened Species
URS will assess the biological Study Area for the presence of protected species. The assessment will be
conducted using procedures found within the FWC -Wildlife Methodology Guidelines (1988). This task will
include coordination with the FWC, FWS, and the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) for the purpose of
obtaining existing information on the documented presence of protected species within and adjacent to the
project area.
The effect of the proposed project and alternatives upon Federal and state -listed plants and animals and their
habitats will be evaluated as part of this task. URS shall develop a Biological Assessment for federally listed
species which may be impacted by the proposed project. This Biological Assessment shall conform to the
guidelines found within the USFWS/NMFS, Endangered Species Consultation Handbook (Final, March 1998)
and shall include the following information:
• A description of the proposed action (i.e., proposed project),
• A description of the specific area that may be affected by the action (i.e., project area and potentially
areas adjacent to the project area),
• A description of the listed species or critical habitat that may be affected by the action,
• A description of the manner in which the action may affect any listed species or critical habitat,
• An analysis of any cumulative effects on the listed species,
• Relevant reports/information, including information collected during field reviews of the action area,
etc., and
• Potential conservation measures which may be undertaken to ensure the continued existence of listed
species which may be affected by the action.
Formal (Section 7) consultations with the FWS and/or the FWC are not included as part of this task.
Product: Description of endangered species impacts of the alternatives under study.
Primaa Responsibility: URS.
Task B2.5 Water Quality
The effects of the alternatives under study upon stormwater and groundwater quality and quantity during
construction and operation of the proposed project and alternatives will be examined in this task. The analysis
will include an estimation of changes in stormwater runoff volumes, methods to control peak flow, and
methods to mitigate potential water quality impacts. Measures to ensure compliance with FAA AC 150/5370-
DRAFT 6/19/2009 Page 9 of 23
10C, Standards for Specifying Construction at Airports, as well as state or local water quality regulations and
current stormwater management and permitting requirements will be discussed. In addition, a qualitative
evaluation of potential impacts to water supplies and wastewater treatment facilities will also be conducted.
Potential water quality construction impacts will be described and any mitigation measures considered
necessary will be identified. These may include commonly -accepted or project specific erosion control
practices, stormwater runoff detention methods, and Best Management Practices (BMP's). The provisions
and applicability for construction mitigation contained in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-10C will also be
discussed. A qualitative discussion of the cumulative impacts of MTH development and other development
proposals in the vicinity will be prepared. This scope does not include detailed hydrological studies or design,
water quality sampling programs, or predictive pollutant loading studies.
Product. Description of water quality impacts of the alternatives under study.
Primary Responsibility: URS.
Task 132.6 Floodplains
The proposed project's (and alternatives) involvement with designated 100-year floodplains will be determined
in compliance with Executive Order 11988. Such areas will be identified through Federal Emergency
Management Administration (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The evaluation will consider the direct and
indirect potential of the alternatives under study to impact floodplains. In addition, the requirements of
applicable state and local regulations will be identified and discussed. Where 100-year flood plain/floodway
impacts are determined to occur, conceptual mitigation measures will be developed by URS and included in
the EA. This task does not include development of detailed floodplain analysis or mitigation plans.
Product: Description of floodplain impacts of the alternatives under study.
Primary Responsibility: URS.
Task 132.7 Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste
Because sites containing hazardous materials can have an impact on soils, surface water, groundwater and
air quality, URS will provide information on what is known about these areas located on or immediately
adjacent to the proposed project, should they exist. This information will be used to help determine what
effect, if any, the proposed project and alternatives would have on these sites. This assessment will involve
the following:
• Environmental agency electronic database survey,
• Review of historical aerial photos and maps,
DRAFT 6/19/2009 Page 10 of 23
• Interviews with knowledgeable parties, and
• A one -day visual survey of the project area by URS personnel.
Using this information, the absence or presence of areas involving hazardous substances and/or
environmental contamination within the area disturbed by the alternatives under study will be evaluated. In
this way, the concerns over potential costs, conflicts, and environmental impacts associated with hazardous
materials and contaminated sites can be addressed to the level required by the FAA for an EA document.
The potential impacts of the proposed improvements upon solid waste will be determined as required in FAA
Orders 5050.413 and 1050.1 E. Consultation with local officials will be made to determine the capacity of
existing and proposed solid waste disposal facilities and their ability to accommodate the estimated solid
wastes that would be generated by construction of the proposed runway improvements. URS will analyze the
airport's conformity with current FAA guidelines contained in FAA AC 150/ 5200-33, Hazardous Wildlife
Attractants On orNearAirports, by locating a runway within 10,000 feet of an active sanitary landfill. URS will
coordinate with the Monroe County Department of Solid Waste to document the potential for any impact and to
resolve any conflicts that may arise from the proposed project or its alternatives.
Product. Description of hazardous materials and solid waste impacts.
Primary Responsibility: URS.
Task B2.8 Historic, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources
The tasks associated with identifying and mitigating the environmental effects of the proposed project and its
reasonable alternatives upon historic architectural and archaeological resources will be completed pursuant to
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and its implementing regulations,
36 CFR 800: Protection of Historic Properties. This Scope anticipates that URS' historic and archaeological
efforts will consist of: documentation of resources; assisting FAA in its impact analysis; assisting FAA in its
Section 106 coordination and consultation.
TASK B.2.8.1: Historic Architectural Resources
URS will undertake an assessment of effects to determine if the proposed project or reasonable alternatives
would result in adverse effects (36 CFR 800.5) on NRHP-listed or eligible resources within the project's APE
for historic architectural resources. The assessment of effects will also include a preliminary analysis of other
proposed project alternatives and mitigation measures, and the analysis of these measures for any potential to
adversely affect historic properties within the APE.
As necessary, the adverse effect criteria (36 CFR 800.5 a.1 and 2) will be applied to each NRHP-listed or
eligible historic architectural resources within the APE. The effects assessment will be provided to the FAA for
coordination with the BHP and any interested parties. Following review of comments, the URS will prepare a
final assessment of effects report for NRHP-listed and eligible historic architectural resources.
DRAFT 6/19/2009 Page 11 of 23
TASK B.2.8.2: Archaeological Resources
URS will undertake an assessment of effects to determine if the proposed project or reasonable alternatives
would result in adverse effects (36 CFR 800.5) on NRHP-listed or eligible archaeological resources. The
effects assessment will be prepared in a draft narrative summary report, with appropriate graphic display, and
provided to FAA, the BHP, and any interested parties. Following review of comments, the URS will prepare a
final assessment of effects report for NRHP-listed and eligible archaeological resources.
URS will summarize the results of the historic and archaeological effect reports, agency coordination, and
public involvement efforts within the EA.
Mitigation of Adverse Effects Not Included - This Scope of Services does not include mitigation efforts to
avoid or minimize adverse effects to historic or archaeological resources. Such mitigation typically involves
agency and interested party coordination and development of a Memorandum of Agreement. If mitigation is
necessary to complete the Section 106 coordination process or to finalize the EA, the work will be
accomplished under a Supplemental Agreement.
Task 132.9 DOT Section 4(f) Resources
An analysis of potential impacts to DOT Section 4(f) resources, as well as DOI Section 6(f) (Land & Water
Conservation Fund Lands), will be conducted as a part of the EA. Such properties located within the Study
Area will be identified, described and potential impacts to them evaluated in regard to potential direct and
indirect impacts. If impacts are expected to occur, appropriate avoidance alternatives and potential mitigation
measures will be identified. Consideration will be given to potential uses of Section 4(f) lands including direct
use (such as through acquisition or demolition) and constructive use (such as increased noise levels or
changes in access). Because use of Section 4(f) resources is not anticipated, preparation of a formal Section
4(f) analysis is not included in this Scope of Services.
Product. Description of DOT Section 4(0 impacts.
Primar r�Responsibility: URS.
Task B2.10 Noise Impacts
Noise exposure contours and associated data for the 65, 70, and 75 DNL contours for years 2011 and 2016
will be prepared for the proposed project and alternatives. Appropriate changes in flight tracks associated with
each additional alternative scenario will be prepared for inclusion in the EA. For the proposed project, URS
will revise and refine the future (years 2011 and 2016) aircraft noise exposure contours and impact estimates
contained in the recently completed Noise Screening Assessment— The Florida Keys Marathon Airport, dated
May 2009.
B.2.10.1 Refine and Develop Future Conditions Aircraft DNL Contours and Noise Exposure Estimates
DRAFT 6/19/2009 Page 12 of 23
Revised and refined DNL contours for the proposed project and alternatives will be developed in increments of
65, 70, and 75 DNL for the each of the study years. The DNL 65, 70 and 75 dBA contours will be incorporated
by URS into the (updated) GIS land use database. The noise exposure in terms of population, housing units
and area by land use type will be updated within the DNL 65, 70 and 75 dBA contour ranges as part of this
task.
Noise contours for the No -Action Alternative using the airport's existing runway configuration and the proposed
project will be updated. Based on the Alternatives Analysis conducted, noise contours will be developed for up
to two (2) additional alternatives. Each additional alternative will be compared to the No -Action Alternative for
the same time period, and the net increase or decrease in population, housing units, and area by land use
type will be identified.
B.2.10.2 Refine and Develop Future Conditions Aircraft DNL Difference Contours
Difference contours will be generated to identify noise sensitive areas where there are increases in noise
exposure of DNL 1.5 dBA within the DNL 65 dBA contour. If such areas occur, contours will be developed to
depict noise sensitive areas located between the DNL 60 and 65 dBA contours that would experience
increases in noise exposure of DNL 3.0 dBA. Contours for the proposed project and additional alternatives,
relative to the future No Action Alternative, will be developed for each study year.
The DNL 1.5, and 3.0 dBA difference contours will be incorporated into the GIS database and noise -sensitive
land uses within the DNL 1.5 and 3.0 dBA difference contours will be identified. Significant noise impacts in
terms of population, housing units and area by land use type will be estimated for noise sensitive areas within
the DNL 65 dBA contour experiencing a DNL 1.5 increase. Information about the 3-dBA increases will be
presented for disclosure purposes only.
B.2.10.3 Conduct Future Conditions Aircraft Noise Grid -Point Analysis
Grid -point locations for noise -sensitive land uses will be analyzed for the future condition No -Action
Alternative, proposed project, and additional alternatives for each of the study years. The INM grid analysis
feature will be used to compute site -specific DNL for the average annual day condition. Tables of site -specific
results will be prepared.
Product: Revising and refining the noise screening assessment for inclusion in the EA. Conduct noise
analyses for additional alternatives as necessary.
Primary Responsibility: URS.
Task B2.11 Compatible Land Use
This task involves quantifying noise exposure by combining the noise contour analysis prepared in Task B.10
with the GIS database. From the database, URS will prepare an analysis of the potential noise impacts of the
proposed project and alternatives retained for detailed analysis on surrounding land uses. Noise impacts will
DRAFT 6/19/2009 Page 13 of 23
be based on the findings of Task B2.10, Noise. Land use compatibility not associated with airport noise will be
evaluated and addressed under the applicable tasks for the individual FAA Order 1050.1 E impact categories.
Quantification of impacts over noise sensitive land uses within the DNL 65 dBA noise contour will be assessed
and will include a calculation of impacts on housing units, population, and other noise sensitive land uses,
such as schools, churches, and nursing homes. Sensitive land uses, including residential, educational, health,
and religious structures and sites per FAA Order 5050.413 Section 1.9.n, will be quantified according to the
numbers impacted. Potential impacts will be evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 150 Land Use
Compatibility Guidelines and FAA Order 1050.1 E, Appendix A, paragraph 14.3.
As per FAA AC 1050.1 E, Appendix. A, paragraph 14.4g, noise sensitive sites will be evaluated according to
the three conditions described below for the existing condition, the project implementation year, and five years
after project build -out:
1. Noise -sensitive sites newly included in the 65 DNL noise contour of the development
alternatives.
2. Noise -sensitive sites previously included in the 65 DNL contour of the No -Action Alternative
which are projected to receive increased noise levels of DNL 1.5 dBA or more with the "Build
Alternatives".
3. If the conditions in items 1 or 2 above are met, the EA will also evaluate noise -sensitive sites
previously included in the 60 DNL contour of the No -Action Alternative which are projected to
receive increased noise levels of DNL 3.0 dBA or more with the "Build Alternatives".
The quantity of noise -sensitive land uses (residential, schools, churches, and nursing homes) within the DNL
65 dB contour affected by each alternative will also be considered. For vacant land, the zoning laws of the
county and/or municipalities involved will be examined to determine if the alternatives would be compatible
with the existing zoning ordinances. Similar comparisons will be made with comprehensive plans and known
development projects which have been endorsed by local governments. If required, land use mitigation
actions will be identified and recommended as necessary for each of the alternatives.
Product. Description of land use impacts of the alternatives. Recommended land use mitigation actions.
Primary Responsibility. URS.
Task B2.12 Social Impacts
Relocation
It is not anticipated that the alternatives under study would result in the need to relocate any homes or
businesses. The EA document will include a brief but complete statement to this effect, including the reasoning
leading to a conclusion of no impact and reference to the appropriate section(s) of FAA Orders 1050.1 E and
5050.413.
DRAFT 6/19/2009 Page 14 of 23
Product: Description of potential social impacts as a result of the alternatives under study.
Primary Responsibility: URS.
Community Disruption
It is not anticipated that the alternatives under study would result in the disruption of existing communities,
conflicts with community development plans or the alteration of surface transportation patterns. The EA
document will include a brief but complete statement to this effect, including the reasoning leading to a
conclusion of no impact and reference to the appropriate section(s) of FAA Orders 1050.1 E and 5050.413.
Product: Description of social impacts of the alternatives under study.
Primary Responsibility: URS.
Environmental Justice
Impacts of the alternatives will be assessed with regard to compliance with Federal Environmental Justice
guidelines (Executive Order 12898) to determine if there would be a disproportionate adverse impact to
minority and low-income populations as a result of implementation of any of the alternatives under study
(including the No -Action Alternative), and to quantify these impacts, should they occur.
The results of the noise and land use analyses, as well as the analyses conducted for other applicable impact
categories, will be used as the basis for this determination. Public participation from the Public Information
Meeting and the Public Hearing (see Section B4.2) will be used as an important resource in identifying and
defining potential minority and low-income communities and their particular concerns regarding the
alternatives under study.
Product: Description of environmental justice issues associated with the alternatives understudy.
Primary Responsibility: URS.
Task B2.13 Induced Socioeconomic Impacts
The social and economic impacts resulting from the proposed project and reasonable alternatives will be
determined in this task. Potential changes with regard to neighborhoods, community cohesion, and social
groups such as the elderly, handicapped, minority and ethnic groups will be analyzed. The discussion of
secondary impacts will distinguish between anticipated trends that result from the proposed project and trends
that would take place irrespective of the proposed project.
The potential for applicable induced socioeconomic impacts to the extent that they are influenced by the
operation of the airport will be assessed. The analysis will concentrate on the effect of projected changes as a
DRAFT 6/19/2009 Page 15 of 23
result of the proposed improvements. The impact analysis will consider both beneficial as well as adverse
induced economic impacts, changes in the economic structure of the area (including effects on the tax base
from relocation of homes/businesses), economic opportunities and potential displacements resulting from
shifts in economic demand. Issues regarding land use development, potential growth areas, and compatibility
with existing, planned land use will be examined both with and without the proposed project. General overall
impacts to population, employment, and regional growth patterns will be identified as appropriate.
Product: Description of induced socioeconomic impacts of the alternatives under study.
Primary Responsibility: URS.
Task B2.14 Air Quality
Since the proposed runway improvement project under study would not change the number of airport
operations, only a qualitative discussion of air quality conditions related to airport operations will be required.
Based on a preliminary evaluation, an emissions inventory and impact analysis is not anticipated for aircraft
and construction activities since the general aviation airport is expected to generate less than 180,000 annual
operations during the study period. As such, no dispersion modeling of emissions or formal General
Conformity Determination is anticipated for this EA. However, potential operational and construction -related
air quality impacts of the proposed project and its alternatives will be considered and addressed qualitatively in
the EA for NEPA disclosure purposes.
Product: Description of air quality impacts of the alternatives under study.
Primary Responsibility: URS.
Task B2.15 Coastal Zone Management Program and Coastal Barriers
An evaluation will be accomplished to determine the project's consistency with the State of Florida Coastal
Zone Management Program, the Federal Coastal Barriers Resource Act of 1982, and the Coastal Barrier
Improvement Act of 1990. Coordination will be accomplished with the State of Florida Department of
Environmental Protection office to determine the extent of involvement with coastal zones and barriers.
Product: Description of coastal zone management and barrier impacts of the alternatives under study.
Primary Responsibility: URS.
Task B2.16 Farmland
It is not anticipated that the alternatives under study would impact any farmlands that have been identified or
designated as Prime, Unique or of Statewide importance. Further, because the property at MTH was acquired
prior to 1984 for airport purposes, it would not be subject to the provisions of the Farmland Protection Policy
Act (FPPA). URS will confirm and document the applicability of the FPPA.
DRAFT 6/19/2009 Page 16 of 23
Product. Description of farmland impacts of the alternatives under study.
Primary Responsibility: URS.
Task 132.17 Energy Supply and Natural Resources
The impacts of the alternatives under study will be compared with regard to energy supplies and natural
resources. This includes the effects on energy utilization, electrical requirements and the use of any resources
which may be in limited supply. The analysis will also include an assessment of the use of such items as oil,
gas, and mineral or other natural resource reserves.
Product: Description of energy supply and natural resource impacts of the alternatives under study.
Primary Responsibility: URS.
Task 132.18 Light Emissions
URS will describe changes in airfield lighting and the potential to create a nuisance or potential for intrusion of
additional light emissions in areas sensitive to human and wildlife.
Product: Description of light emission impacts of the alternatives under study.
Primary Responsibility: URS.
Task 132.19 Construction Impacts
Construction impacts will be described and any recommended mitigation measures will be identified. These
may include such measures as erosion control practices, stormwater runoff detention methods, construction
equipment noise reduction controls and the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP's). The
provisions and applicability for construction mitigation contained in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-10C,
Standards for Specifying Construction at Airports, will also be discussed. The potential for construction
activities to impact all of the environmental categories will be summarized and incorporated into this
evaluation.
Product: Description of construction impacts of the alternatives under study.
Primary Responsibility: URS.
Task 132.20 Cumulative Impacts / Other Considerations
The cumulative impacts of recent and future MTH improvements, when coupled with other major existing or
planned projects within the Study Area will be discussed in this task for the appropriate impact categories.
This discussion will be limited to those major development actions that could potentially have a
social/environmental affect on lands within the Study Area. Wherever possible, quantitative analyses and
DRAFT 6/19/2009 Page 17 of 23
disclosure of potential cumulative impacts will be presented. However, in some instances, only a qualitative
discussion of the potential positive and negative consequences of cumulative actions will be provided.
Other environmental considerations which may be applicable or pertinent to the proposed improvements and
the proposed project's relationship to other plans, directives, and goals of the County will be discussed.
Product: Description of Cumulative Impacts and other considerations/issues of the alternatives under study.
Primaa Responsibility: URS.
Task B3 Draft EA Report Preparation
Task B3.1 Preliminary Draft EA
URS will document the results of the project coordination and analyses in a Preliminary Draft EA to be
submitted to the COUNTY and FAA for review and comment. The Preliminary Draft EA will be organized in a
format consistent with FAA Orders 1050.1 E and 5050.413. This task includes document preparation be
technical specialists, editorial reviews, word processing, graphics preparation, and Quality Assurance/Quality
Control review. Twelve (12) hard copies and fifteen (15) electronic copies (PDF format) of the document will
be provided (7 COUNTY, 2 FAA, 3 URS).
Product: Preliminary Draft EA
Primaa Responsibility. URS.
Task B3.2 Draft EA Preparation
COUNTY and FAA comments on the Preliminary Draft EA will be incorporated into a Draft EA document. This
task includes document revisions, word processing, graphics preparation, and Quality Assurance/Quality
Control review. URS will provide up to 50 printed copies of the Draft EA document for distribution (15
COUNTY, 5 FAA, 5 URS, and 25 copies for distribution to Federal, state and local agencies and the general
public). This Scope of Services anticipates producing fifty (50) CDs containing an electronic copy of the Draft
EA in PDF format.
Product: Draft EA
Primary Responsibility: URS.
DRAFT 6/19/2009 Page 18 of 23
Task B4 Public Involvement
A public involvement program will be implemented to allow interested agencies, groups and individuals the
opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EA. The following tasks will be undertaken to promote public
involvement.
Task B4.1 Mailing List
A mailing list will be assembled and continuously updated based on URS's list for early notification letters and
information provided by the COUNTY. The list will include Federal, state and local agencies, elected officials,
organizations, interest groups and attendees of project meetings. The list will be maintained throughout the
course of the study.
Task B4.2 Public Information Meeting / Public Hearing
URS will assist the COUNTY in conducting a combined Public Information Workshop (PIW) / Public Hearing to
be held no less than 30 days after the publication of the Draft EA. The objective of the PIW/ Public Hearing
will be to present the results of the environmental impact analysis and the findings of the Draft EA and provide
opportunity for the public to comment on the Draft EA.
URS will provide one (1) court stenographer to record a verbatim transcript of the oral comments submitted
during the PIW and Public Hearing. Written comments and private verbal comments will be accepted anytime
during the PIW and Public Hearing.
URS will coordinate the timely advertising for public notification at least 30 days prior to the PIW/Public
Hearing. URS will prepare advertisements for the PIW/Public Hearing and be responsible for costs associated
with publishing the advertisements in a local newspaper. URS will also be responsible for costs associated
with providing the meeting facility and equipment including chairs, tables, easels, and audio/video equipment.
Up to six (6) URS representatives will participate in the joint PIW/Public Hearing.
Product: Conduct of a PIW/ Public Hearing
Primary Responsibility: URS.
Task B5 Draft EA Comment Analysis
URS will compile all comments received during the public involvement process and on the Draft EA, including
letters, comment forms, and court reporter transcripts. Comment submittals will be inventoried through a
computerized database system. All comments will be reviewed, summarized, and cross-referenced to the
commenter. The comments and responses will be organized into a format to be included within an appendix
to the Final EA.
URS will prepare draft responses to all summarized comments received from the PIW/Public Hearing as well
as agency review of the Draft EA. The COUNTY and FAA will review all comments, taking into account and
DRAFT 6/19/2009 Page 19 of 23
evaluating URS's draft responses for disposition. It is expected that in general, comments will require one of
two types of action. Either the matter has been discussed adequately in the Draft EA or it has not been
discussed adequately. In the former case, URS will draft a brief but complete explanation of the adequacy of
the Draft EA with respect to the comment, with a reference to the appropriate section(s) of the Draft EA. In the
latter case, URS will recommend, and perform if so directed by thee COUNTY and FAA, necessary additional
investigations or studies and/or prepare additional or modified material for inclusion in the Final EA in
response to the comment. Any additional investigations or studies and the preparation of additional materials,
if significantly beyond that contemplated and budgeted, may be conducted through a Supplemental
Agreement. In the event the additional studies or investigations are prepared by others, URS will be
responsible for supervision of its adequacy and recommending to the COUNTY and FAA an appropriate
response to the comment. The COUNTY and FAA will oversee this process and approve the substantive
issues that will receive responses. The FAA will determine the adequacy of all responses.
Product: Draft EA Comment Database with responses
Primary Responsibility: URS.
Task Bfi Final FA Report Preparation
Task B6.1 Preliminary Final EA
URS will update and revise the Draft EA document to convert it to a Preliminary Final EA. Necessary revisions
will be included into the text and additional sections, such as the summary of the Public Hearing, the
comment/response appendices and additional analyses which are within the Scope of Services. This task
includes the technical specialist document preparation, word processing, graphics preparation, and Quality
Assurance/Quality Control review. Twelve (12) hard copies and fifteen (15) electronic copies (PDF format) of
the document will be provided (7 COUNTY, 2 FAA, 3 URS) for review and comment.
Product: Preliminary Final EA
Primary Responsibility: URS.
Task B6.2 Final EA Preparation
COUNTY and FAA comments on the Preliminary Final EA will be incorporated into the Final EA document.
This task includes the technical specialist document preparation, word processing, graphics preparation, and
Quality Assurance/Quality Control review. Thirty (30) copies of the Final EA will be provided (20 COUNTY, 5
FAA, 5 URS). URS shall also prepare all text, tables and graphics of the Final EA document in electronic
(PDF) format. This Scope of Services anticipates producing twenty-five (25) CDROMs containing the Final
EA.
Product: Final EA
Primary Responsibility: URS.
DRAFT 6/19/2009 Page 20 of 23
PART C: MEETINGS AND COORDINATION
Task C1 Project Team Meetings, Presentation, and Coordination
This task includes preparation for and participation in meetings with the COUNTY and the FAA, along with
general coordination with the COUNTY and FAA staffs in regard to project development strategies, purpose of
and need for the proposed airport improvements, alternatives to be considered and analyzed in the EA,
selection of the preferred alternative, design features of the proposed improvements, mitigation for
unavoidable impacts, discussion of draft documentation, and preparation for public meetings and agency
meetings.
URS will arrange and participate in up to three (3) project team meetings as part of this task. It is anticipated
within this Scope of Services that these meetings will be distributed as follows: two (2) meetings with
representatives of the FAA and/or COUNTY in Monroe County, Florida, with three (3) members of the URS
Team attending; and one (1) meeting with the FAA and COUNTY, in the Orlando Airports District Office (ADO)
in Orlando, Florida with three (3) members of the URS Team attending.
Task C2 Resource Agency Meetings, Presentations, and Coordination
URS proposes to develop a working relationship with key agencies and coordinate with the agencies
throughout the course of the study. This task includes preparation for and participation in project information
and coordination meetings and teleconferences with the USACE, SFWMD, USFWS, NMFS, FFWCC, and
other regulatory and commenting agencies. URS will prepare appropriate handouts, graphics, and boards
needed for meetings.
URS will participate in up to three teleconference calls with the FAA, COUNTY, and agencies. Up to three (3)
members of the URS Team will also participate in three (3) meetings with the listed agencies in Key West, FL
(2 meetings) or West Palm Beach, FL (1 meeting) to discuss the project, purpose and need, alternatives,
projected project impacts, and/or proposed mitigation.
PART D: PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Task D1 Project Management
This task involves the contractual, costing, administrative and managerial activities necessary to implement
and oversee the project. It includes the development of draft and final scopes of services and cost estimates,
preparation and processing of contract documents, the routine coordination and management of the project,
preparation of monthly project progress reports, meeting minutes preparation, subcontractor coordination,
MTH and FAA coordination, and project management plan preparation and updates.
DRAFT 6/19/2009 Page 21 of 23
Task D2 Project Management Plan and Quality Assurance Plan
Following notice to proceed, URS will develop a Project Execution Plan (PXP) for implementing the project.
Included will be the development of a specific staffing plan, project files, and project -specific Quality
Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) procedures.
Products: Project Management Plan, Quality Assurance Plan, Progress Reports, Schedules, Scopes, Cost
Estimates.
Primary Responsibility: URS.
PART E ACTIVITIES NOT INCLUDED IN SCOPE OF SERVICES
The following actions are not included in this Scope of Services. These activities may be provided under the
provisions of an additional or separate Professional Service Order:
• Detailed analysis of any off -site alternatives
• Business or agency meetings in excess of the number specified in this Scope of Services
• Public meetings in excess of the number specified in this Scope of Services
• Additional analysis beyond those specified in this Scope of Services or the requirements of FAA
Orders 1050.1 E and 5050.413
• Formal Section 7 consultation with the FWS
• Chemical or biological water quality sampling and analysis
• Preparation of a Memorandum of Agreement between the COUNTY, FAA, and SHPO and
preparation of mitigation plans for adverse effects on historic properties and/or cultural resources.
• Formal Phase 1 or Phase 2 environmental assessments related to hazardous materials
• A formal Section 303(c) analysis and statement
• Air quality dispersion modeling or General Conformity Determination
• Additional analyses of comments on the Draft EA beyond that contemplated in this Scope of Services
or analysis of or responses to more than 150 comment letters
• The development of conservation, management or restoration plans or guidelines, or listed species
relocation plans or guidelines, associated with conservation measures
DRAFT 6/19/2009 Page 22 of 23
• USFWS or Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) Incidental take permits or
relocation permits for any protected species
• Preparation of topographic surveys for design purposes.
• Engineering design, construction oversight activities, or bid process services.
DRAFT 6/19/2009 Page 23 of 23
Marathon - Florida Keys Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Relocation and Extension
FEE ESTIMATE
— -
PdnclpaNn4:harga
Project Manager
Sr PlannedEng
Pro( Planner/Eng
Jr Planner/Enj
GIS Tachnlcian
CARD Techniclm
AdmInN9P
Project
Project
Project
Task
Description
SAnr
5200
Slhr
5200
S/hr
$150
Slhr
$100
Slhr
$85
S/hr
$75
S/hr
$85
Slhr
$60
Total tabor
Total
Grand
Houn
Cost
Hours
I Cost
Hours
I Cost
Hours I
Cost
Hours
I Cost
Hours
I Cost
Hours
I Cost
Hours
Cost
Hours
Cost
Expenses
Total
Part A: Project Definition and Alternatives
Al Early Notification
4
$800
2
$300
12
$1.200
4
$340
8
$480
30
$3.120
$160
$3,280
A2 EA Introduction Chapter
4
$800
4
s600
24
$2.400
4
$340
8
$680
4
$240
48
$5,060
$5.060
A3 Definition of Purpose 5 Need
2
$400
8
$1,600
40
$6.000
16
$1,600
32
$2.720
6
S360
104
$12,680
$246
$12.926
A4 Alternatives Analysis
4
$800
16
$3,200
72
$10,800
100
$10,000
80
$6.800
12
$900
24
$2.040
12
$720
320
$35.260
$314
$35.574
A5 Public Information Meeting
6
$1.200
32
$6,4D0
24
$3,600
40
S4,000
8
$No
8
$600
8
$680
8
$480
134
$17,640
$9.740
$27,380
Subtotal PartA
12
$2,400
64
$12,800
142
$21.300
192
$19,200
124
$10,540
20
$1,500
44
$3,740
38
$21280
636
$73,760
$10,460
$84,220
Part B: Environmental Assessment
B/ Affected Environment
B1.1 Study Area Definition and Mapping
2
$400
4
$600
2
$200
16
$1.200
12
$1.020
36
$3.420
$8
$3,428
Bl,2 DescnPtlon of the Affected Environment
4
$800
80
$12.000
80
$8.000
20
$1.700
16
$1,200
16
$1.360
4
$240
220
$25.300
$3,273
$28.573
B1.2.1 Aircraft Noise
2
$300
4
$400
16
$1.360
8
$600
2
$120
32
$2,780
$2,780
B1.2.2 Air Duality
1
$200
6
$900
12
$1.200
8
$680
2
$120
29
$3.100
$3,100
B1.2.3 Histonc/Archaeological Resources
2
$400
80
$12,000
16
$1,600
12
$1,020
16
S7,200
4
$240
130
$16,460
$3,253
$19.713
B1.2.4 Wetlands and Habitats
2
$400
8
$1.200
64
$6,400
12
$900
2
.5120
88
$9,020
$1,496
$10,516
Subtotal B1
0
$0
11
$2,200
180
$27,000
178
$17,800
56
$4.760
68
$5,100
28
$2,380
14
$940
535
$60,080
$8,030
$68.110
B2 Environmental Consequences
82.1 Wetlands
2
$400
10
$1,500
32
$3,200
16
$1,360
12
$900
72
$7,360
$60
$7,420
82.2 Biotic Communities
10
$1,500
20
$2,000
12
$1.020
8
$600
50
$5.120
$21
$5,141
82.3 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
8
$1,600
16
$2.400
32
$3,200
12
$1.020
♦
$300
72
$8,520
$25
$8,545
B2.4 Endangered B Threatened Species
8
$1.600
16
$2,400
50
$5.000
16
$1.360
90
$10.360
$66
$10.426
82.5 Water Quality
2
$400
16
$2,400
24
$2,400
16
$1.360
8
$680
66
$7.240
$14
$7.254
82.6 Fkedplains
2
$400
4
$800
16
$1.600
8
S680
4
$340
34
$3.620
St
$3.621
B2.7 Hazardous Materials/Solid Waste
2
$400
8
$1,200
16
$1,600
4
$300
30
S3,500
$53
$3.553
B2.8 HistodtlArchaeological Resources
B2.8.1 Historic Ancilecalral Resources
2
$400
16
S2,400
8
S800
4
$340
16
$1,200
46
$5,140
$74
$5,214
82.8.2 Miueological Resources
1
$200
16
$2.400
2
$200
19
$2,800
$61
$2,861
82.9 DOT Section 4(0 Resources
2
$400
4
$600
12
$1,200
4
$300
22
$2,500
$1
S2.501
92.10 Noise Impacts
82.10.1 Refire and Develop Future Noise Contours
1
$200
4
$8W
8
$800
20
$1,700
8
$600
41
S3,900
$3
$3,903
52.10.2 Refire and Develop Future Difference Contours
1
$200
4
$6W
8
S800
16
$1.360
12
$900
41
$3,8W
$6
$3.566
82.10.3 Conduct Future Grid Analysis
2
$400
6
$9W
12
$1.200
24
$2.040
10
$750
54
S5.290
$21
$5,311
B2.11 Compatible Land Use
1
$200
2
$300
4
$400
8
$680
16
$1.200
31
$2,780
$8
$2,788
B2.12 Social Impacts
1
$200
2
$300
2
$200
12
$1.020
17
$1,720
$3
$1,723
82.13 Induced Socioeconomic Impacts
1
$200
2
$300
4
$400
12
$1.020
19
$1.920
$3
$1.923
B2.14 Air Quality
4
$800
8
$1.200
24
$2,400
12
$1,020
48
$5,420
$30
$5.450
82.15 Coastal Zone Management/Coastal Barriers
2
$400
4
$600
4
$400
12
$1,020
22
$2.420
$3
$2,423
82.16 Farmland
1
$150
2
$200
3
$350
$350
B2.17 Energy Supply 5 Natural Resources
1
$200
4
$600
6
$600
2
$170
13
$1.570
$1,570
82.18 Light Emissions
2
$300
8
$600
8
$900
$900
B2.19 Construction Impacts
2
$400
4
$600
12
$1.200
2
$170
8
$680
28
$3.050
$3,050
B2.20 Cumulative Impacts/Other Considerations
2
KW
4
$600
16
$1,600
2
$170
4
$340
28
$3.110
$5
$3.115
B2.21 Conceptual Mitgation Plan
2
$400
16
52.400
24
$2,400
20
$1,700
8
$600
2
$170
♦
$240
76
$7.910
$16
$7,926
Subtotal 82
0
$0
49
s9,*"
to
32BAN
344
33111,11111111
a8
$19,210
102
$7,650
26
52,210
4
$240
930
$100,360
$473
$100,833
B3 Draft EA Report Preparation
63.3 Pra9oioa[y Daft EA
2
$400
40
$8.000
60
$9.000
16
$1.600
8
$680
24
$1,800
8
$880
120
$7,200
278
$29.360
$1.981
$31.341
83.2 Doff EA Preparation
2
S400
32
$6.400
32
$4.800
12
$1,200
40
33.400
16
S1,Y00
8
$680
180
$10.800
322
$28.880
$7,737
$36.617
Subtotal 95
4
$800
72
$14,400
92
$13,900
28
$2,800
48
$4.080
40
$3.000
16
$1,360
300
$18,000
600
$58.240
$9,717
$67.967
6/192009 I Marathon EA Fee Proposal 090618.xis
Marathon - Florida Keys Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Relocation and Extension
FEE ESTIMATE
uau:
aurw v, zuus
Pnncipal+n-Charge
P
act Manager
Sr PlanneNEn
P
PliumedEn
Jr Planner/Eng
GIS TechnicAn
CADD Technician
AdmInIWP
Project
Project
Project
Task
Descdptlon
6thr
$200
flhr
$200
b/hr
6160
$0rr
$100
sou
so
$01r
675
$Mr
s86
$Rrr
$60
Total Labor
TOW
brand
Hours
Cost
Hours
Cost
Hours
Coat
I Hours
Coat
Hours
Coat
Hours
Cost
Hours
Cat
Hours
I Coat
Hours
I Coat
Eq.-
Total
B4 Public Involvement
B4.1 Mailing List
2
$400
2
$200
4
$340
12
$720
20
$1,660
$10
$1670
84.2 Public Information Mestmg/Public Hearing
4
$800
40
$8.000
48
$7.200
60
$6.000
24
$2,040
12
$900
8
11im
16
$960
212
$26.580
$11,860
$38440
Subtotal B4
4
$800
42
$8.400
48
$7,200
62
$6,200
28
$2,380
12
$ON
a
$660
28
$1,680
232
$28,240
$11,870
$40,110
BS Draft EA Comment Analysis
Draft EA Comment Analysis
4
$800
32
$6,400
40
$6,000
60
$6,000
40
$3 400
12
$900
4
$240
192
$23.740
$40
$23 780
Subtotal B5
4
$800
32
$6AW
40
$6.000
60
$6.000
40
$3,400
12
$900
0
$0
4
$240
192
$23,740
S40
$23,780
06 Final EA Report Preparation
B6.1 Preliminary Final EA Preparation
2
3400
24
$4,8W
24
$3,500
32
$3,200
24
$2,040
16
$1,200
4
$340
80
$4 800
206
$20.380
$2 474
$22.854
B6.2 Final FA Preparation
2
$400
20
$4.000
16
$2.400
24
$2.400
44
$3.740
8
s800
4
$340
120
$7 200
238
$21,080
$3 208
$24.288
Subtotal 136
4
$800
M
ft.800
40
$6,000
S6
$11,600
68
66M
24
$1.800
8
$680
200
$12AW
444
$41,460
$5,682
$47,142
Subtotal Pang
16
$3,200
260
$60,000
579
$86,860
728
$72,800
466
09.610
268
$191360
86
$7,310
550-
__$33,000 _
_ 2933
$312,120
$35.813
$347,933
Part C: Meetings and Coordination
C1 Project Team Meetings
14
S2,11W
40
$8.000
40
$6.000
4
$340
6
$360
104
$17.500
$4,440
$21,940
C2 Resource Agency Meetings
40
S8,000
54
$8,100
24
$2.400
8
$800
4
$340
6
$360
136
$19,800
$5,956
$25.756
Subtotal PartC
14
$2,800
80
$16,000
94
$14,100
24
$2,400
0
i0
8
$600
8
$680
12
$720
240
$37.300
$10,396
$47.696
Part D: Project Management
C1 Project Management
8
$1,600
48
$9,600
40
$2400
96
$13,600
$80
$13.680
C2 Project Management Plan I QAQC Plan
8
$1.600
16
$1,600
8
$480
32
$3.6W
$317
$3.997
Subtotal Part D
8
$1,600
S6
$11,200
0
$0
16
$1,600
0
$0
0
$0
0
s0
48
$2,880
128
$17,280
$397
$17,677
Project Total
50
$10.000
450
$90,000
815
$122,250
960
$96.000
590
$S0,160
286
$21,450
138
$11,730
648
$38,880
3937
$440,460
$57,066
$497,526
6/19/2009 Marathon EA Fee Proposal 090618.xis
Marathon - Florida Keys Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Relocation and Extension
Travel Cost Detail
Al R ..
Al
r .«• «
wR„w �•.R.�.
.21
Ems.«. ...,.
• R.m
..d.
,R......b.r.
.1 R—
BI .„..�......»
113 1...M.
U.
.,..,.... � R..
m c�s..».•..••�
.21
ul o,...,..a»..
...t
WE.A«. d
• .
o.
� �.... a o.
»
:
.
s"o ,:
•
ua 12 1
» »
tr]
.,m
I .rR.uTun4wq.
] em
a ]
t ,
I 3to.
b,
i .�t«r. Wup.n.n.in
lO.00M
Pr Kt T-1
W.—
i
$1.098
f100
»
f0
f
Marathon - Florida Keys Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Relocation and Extension
Production Cost Detail
.N.:.,y.., .NN�...4.t,tN...
Al
A. aA.MN
BI Sa
�•'�� N....I., tN N. t
F,„ —,a,�,,,,.�,,.,a.
t .e......N...bN�..
,.
a f....N...
,, EtrN SNp.,r.W..Nwt..
c.4.t»tN.mou�c.Ne.Nw n m cNNNr uttrN�
New+u NN W, e a u N t» m t w t M . nN e a
Mt wYgl�n �+ tv
3 PWcf.ann..in N...rpV,efc W.fy i5ov w , 350 350 t
NNN.IM N,. f,» W NN N N N N
uuryW
aN E. Comr..n.tn 3C0
l f.N E3.RywNm Nro t]ro t3. w tx Su N ro t5a . 35
N » fttlN
fW
Nv
W
NO
u..
3 0..wolq�p fY.trq. 3C0 ro ,5 ro tv ro ,.
�� t N N
r.n v:hMa.f.n.Own+
t Rq.a tl.rnv.nnry Nv
3 pqq ibuanw.. M]WOC ir.n ]» „u N „3 13 N ,I. t3 to 3o tm t
t�m.t..nv tW ,t3 N t4 Nt NN ,» N
tN,
Projt Tool S1. St3 "F 1M N fm1 fB3v film flly
31) S•
Marathon - Florida Keys Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Relocation and Extension
Other Direct Costs
IRE,NB YnCfIFOIRP. «wIIBGloRlYRos eaBRTRawnm rwTBBB� F 111iR
B.RG
ptnyuan SIMW IRiBW 1RIRW N IYW N N
C� WI I I C. ICOB!
10lu
Pin B: PraRu dnwan Ana M�null.n
I EMry Rnsselm m iA
G w�mnm �n]Nw t
] Mnnwrrd 6Rwa e �
! wwc „irPcmylm Sttttry I w t! ww I t S =
W
�
It Bep w �^a ra Alacyq 3 N
3 ['wwpew�rl G.]naaM Enrrmmwx I woo 13 W
I wOuwy
wttmuwuwrcprJ R�wv��r � 16
os vwowaSwnwxRt SWq�I Bt w w w IFIi w wti w w
• Ergvpwp Bln�ar�]Spost 3
5 MwIV QI� t N
B ht ��w R�tovut
B3 nrm�.+ayrRlR yiwut t
I N�.m R�wnus
� NnR�It�tl]
IBI FN BFwIry Fwr Rm�CdbuF
10 2Rwn wl Mrry FWn OMwCvwt
a] CmwYeY W Vu
t iuuF CN4uryor .12
�B N0
1 Nmmmc]nPnBs
n MWry
� Zu�Yngm�aK:wMY BrM�
li E�rpy BygryBNw+Rot
Is Lqn Fmso�
.t u�wSnr YliFSeaOYurCwsriR�� A L�r w11]InnR� 3
fNRSeWu w N N w w W w w
oY u RgaS PnPwwai
NI MnipFry WIG
I [!rwG nFprFtlm
Mstu� u w w N w w N w w
t Ysigw�twww
3 PJBCYNnufo14wlpTlK Wn9 t ilw w 3 w?o0 Ica wv ] ro]
s.aa+en vw wN w.w1 w NI w u.wB w
! GCwxwn MtIFFY
LMGLumr+MYY��
G bPFn PiwtrWm LdoW Bs
1 RWmIvyILwGPnpvFus�
I w
S iw1G PnFRFlm
awN w w N N
w
wta
f
try]
w
]'
w
wt
u
wn9v
s.,w]
10l0
w
MC: SNWOS W fmsNrbn
<I PgwT.w�tw+ty. B
Q RruFw yBp wxwN t fro ! n
ww w
n
IwB
NN
B: ny.nlww.�..
m F�=xew.�w.�.n nMlo..oc PM, }5
amwa rao w w w w u1 w w w
n]
Pr TOW :T7m Ifs MG NBB 13H Mt50 w
S1]930
MONTGOMERY
CONSULTING GROUP
PLANNING 0 CONSULTING
Trampatathm Aviation • 1nfiasbuctura
Ms. Bevette Moore
County of Monroe, Florida
Key West International Airport
3491 S. Roosevelt Blvd.
Key West, Florida 33040
June 23, 2009
09-3002
Sent via e-mail to Bevette-Moore@MonroeCoun -FL.
ty Gov
Reference: Independent Fee Estimate - Florida Keys Ma
rathon arathon Airport
Environmental Assessment for the Relocation and Extensio
n of Runway 7-25
Dear Ms. Moore:
We have performed an independent fee estimate for professional services associated with the above
referenced project at the Florida Keys Marathon Airport. The independent estimate is based on the
scope of work narrative dated 19 June 2009 and the pro -forma fee proposal format provided by your
consultant (URS Corp.).
We have submitted a breakdown of the labor -hour estimate
s, and other costs (including travel,
production and out-of-pocket expenses) for our review. B •
ende y Based on the estimates prepared, our
independent nt estimate of the professional services fees and other costs for Parts
A. B, C, and D of the
Environmental Assessment in the scope of services is $508,258.
Our analysis provides one approach to completing the scope o •
hourlyp g p f work for the project. Your consultant's
rates may vary based on level of expertise and associated d salaries for each labor category.We
would
recommend that you not compare fees for each subtask bu
t compare the overall fee calculated for
the project. Should our independent estimate be subs ' substantially different from your consultants
(greater/lesser than 10%), we will need to ascertain additional
details of the project. Please note that we
assumed a project duration of approximately 15 months.
Please feel free to contact me at (407) 539-7030, extension 15 at your convenience to discuss this
independent estimate. We have enjoyed this opportunity to provide services to Monroe County.
Yours very truly,
(,Jk1z( 4R)
Monty Gettys
President
Enclosures: Independent Fee Estimate Detail (8 pages)
341 N. Maitland Avenu*, Suite 340
Maitland, Florida 32751
Tel 407.539.7030
Fax 407.539.7035
www.mcgi-us.com
Marathon - Florida Keys Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Relocation and '
INDEPENDENT FEE ESTIMATE Extension
_.._.- Part A: Project DelMdgon and Aftnmuws
���
-
-
At IEallotiAcalion
-� 2- --
—
-—
�...�.
--
i EA Introduction
_..._ udbn Chapter
$400
4
i720
4
_: w sew _.
_ _ 0
_ .._
T-
_� $o
U----=-
$O
0._.
_ _
---
r _ --- - - -- -- _ -
A3 Definition of Pu
----- se b ��
o
-
_ s0
-
8
- - --
1
i .440
- - - -.. _
12
_ _. --
- - i1,800
- - ---
4
- -- ---
_ .
-
4
_.
suo
- - so
.__ .,. --
0
0
--
SO
- -- - r
2
i120
--
- 12
:1,840
- -_ ___. _
=�
._.
A4 iAltemat" Anays�
2
i400
: - 18
i2,880
24
- ----
.__- =3,800 _ __.
a
. —.—,
_-- i1_000
_ --
8
i880
0
- -- -
- -8
�0 -
- .
2
- _
i120
.- - - - _ -- - -
,840
_ _ _ _
i138
fi4,Ks
_..
AS Public Infom�atbn Meeting
0
s0
8
i1,440
24
i3.800
_
24
$3,000
----
1 g
--- - -- _ _. _...
1, �0 0
_,.^ _a0_- -
1d.
__;... $1,280 _
2.
i
_ _ _ 120 _
76
-
il,tle0
- _ - 0
;2.�
------
_�
i12,320
Subtotal Part A;
8
12
s1,600
t6
$2,880
16
i2,400
16
i2,000
_ .
16
$1,360
0
1
s0
16
12
$1,280
2
i120
ta0
$10.800
;all
- — _
i11,817
!Part 8: Envirorwnentel Asiessment
$2 ,M
52
i! 3a0
a0
i12
fit
K
$3 740
0
$0
if160
2
=120
86
$11,320
it 075
$20 3l5
81 'Affected Envirorenera
52
=4 1a0
10
ia00
302
S387a0
=13
u
B1.1Study Area Definition and Mapping
p
$O
B1.2 f0escriptlon of the Affected Environment
0
SO
4
$720
24
i3,600
0
SO
8
iea0
24
=2.040
16
i1,290
81.2.1;AircraR Noise
0
8
i1,440
_
2
i1,800 _
0
so
s
$=
16
$1.360 �
1a
�
2
i120
78
'
81.2.21Air Quality
0
so
a
i1,440
4
$Goo
4
i500
12
_
$1.020
18
t =1.380
0
$1.280
i
2
120
62
i6,680
i8/2
i7,372
81.2.3�Historic/Ar�chaeobgicai Resources `
0
so
4
s720
a
o
t0
8
il,000
046
$o
0
$a
120
iS,040
i332
i5,372
81.2.4;WsWnds and Habitats
sp
e
i1,440 _ _:.
.._ _
=12,000
80
i10,000
0
SO
a
i840
2
i120
i2.480
ill
i2,572
1- ._._. ..
Subtotal 81:
0
so
a
$1,44o
40
- �000
40
_ .
_ __._.
i5 000
0
.. _ _....
S0.
p
0
- so
...
,
s1.2ao
_
2
$120
186
0
...
i3,368
- ... ._ _
i2d.Z06
82 jEnvironawnW C onsegwnces
0
=0
4p
_
=7,200
.1a0
iZ4,000
132
: iti,i00
28
_ .
i2.3a0
!K
. �
K760
18
i1,280 i
.
2
-
=120
106
i13,840
_ . _
t1
.
:15,743
...
_ _
82.1 'i1Mstlands
_ .
.... __- _-.
72
$5,7a0
12
i7�
1.328
i7.312
iaa,fi32
82.2 ' Bbtie Cwnmunities
0
so
�_ 4
; . $720
16
_
_ $2 400
�_ -
d _
i1 ��
-
4
i340
0
- i
So
_
82.3 iEssential Fish Habitat Assessment
p
i0
2
: -
;- - $1.200
a
i1,00o
_ _
4
_-
$340
p
a
i640
;
0
so
�3,S400
so
$5.100
_.. _.. _. _ . t
132.4 `Endangered i Threatened Species
$0
2
$360
__. _ . _ .:
a
_
s1.200
_
8
, .
$1.000
_ _ _...
a
_ _
i680
_.
o
$0
8
$640
0
$O
30
i40
so
- .._
t3s4o
82.5 VllaterQuality ,
0
to2
s36o
a
$1.200
a
i1,000
_
16
_.. _. —_
$1.360
p
so
_.
e
, _ _._$640
0
$o
3a
s3,eao
_ __
so
_.
s3,8ao
-
82.8lFloodplains
0
$p
8
i1200
tf
$1,000
2
i170
$O
8
_
= 0
42
i4,560
SO
..__
$4.560
82.7 Hazardous Materials Solid Waste
0
0
SO
2
_
8
$1,200
4
iS00
--
4
=340
0
$p
i0
8
i84O
0
SO
28
:3,370
f0
i3,370
._._ ..
-
B2 8 i HistoriclArchaeolog icai Resources
SO
$360
a
; $1.200
16
.
S2
_._ ...
4
i320
0
22
S2,720
s0
- . _
B2.8.1 Historic Atd1edural Resources
$O
s0
_.. _.
-
;
0
4
tS00
0
w
�
.220
....
so
_... _ .
i4.220
82.82[Archeeobgicy Resources
0
o
$O
2
i380 -
8
. - 1,200
8 -_
_ _
i1,000 _ �
0
SO
0
so
rr
B2 l DOT Section 4 Resources
s0
. 2
i360
a
r s1
_a
s1.000
_.
00
a
0
ZO
26
i3,200
so
i3,?00
82.1 o i Noise Impacts
o
$o
2
i38o ;
a
_� .?oo
8
sl.000
o
_
$o
o
$o
8
sa4o
o
so
t3,2oo
so
i3.2oo
92.10.1Refine and Develop Future N Oise Contours ;
0
�
$a
,.. so
__. __.. _
$0
_ ..
_ .
�
-
i320 I
.. _ - .
0
-
SO
22
i2,880
:0
- -
i2,880
32.10. Refine and Develop Future Difference Conti
$0
i360
a
i1,200
18
S2,000
0
SO
so
-
_
-
32.10-. Conduct Future cwa Analysis
p
o
s0
2
t38o
a
$1.200
18
$2.000
o
$o
24
�.� ,
u,o4o
0
SO
p
so
so
iS.d00
i5.fh00
82.11 ! Compatible land use
_
0
so
s0
2
i38o
a
_� .Z00
1 d
s2.000 _ ....
o
0
16
_
1,380 �
o
o
u
so
t5 eoo
.
$o
$5.600
82.121 Social knpacxs
0
2
=360
a
$1.200
__..._ :.
0
i0
12
i1,020
1 a
$1.360
0
,
'
i0
42
i4,120
i0
i4,920
B2.13 j Induced Socioeconomic knpacts
s0
2
$360
8
$1.200
p
t0
16
$1.380
0
`
0
$3,14o
so
=3.040
0
SO
• 2
s3so
a
31,200
0
¢p
a
stsao
4
o
; $340
o
s0
!
0
SO
30
i3,2d0
$O
i3,260
_
so
o
so
0
18
$2,240
s0
$2.240
Pmperod by. MomSomery Coaadtu8 C,..P, I..
Prtpered on: June 23, 2009
LABOR DETAIL A SLIkOdARY - I
Indeptudent Fee Eamwe for Marathon Airport En%imnmaW Asstumta.xhs
Marathon - Florida Keys Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Relocation and Extension
INDEPENDENT FEE ESTIMATE
82.14 Air Quality
!
_
82.15 ; Coastal Zone M ana�ement/CoA" Barriers
0
$0 .
- 2
i360 �
• . __ ._ .- _
; .
:. ------
_.----
a
$1.000
- --
0
0
to
_ .
i2,880
�
.�.
i2,tta0
_ . _ - - . _- ... _ ,. _ ' 320
0 $o 2 i360 a - _ _ 0 SO
8 i1,2oo 4
_.._.. _; s�,000 0 so 0
82.18 ' Farmland _ _._ .. _ ..
82.17 i EnergySupply
PPy i Natural Resources
o
s0
2
s36o _
_4
idoo
e
0
_
s0
p
$0
SO
4
i3 ,
- .
o
$0
u,e8o
so
52,880
82.18 i Light Emissions
p
s0
2
i360
4
i800
0
0 s
D
so
0
_ .
0
0
$0
0
$0
6
:�
sQ
$980
82.19 i Construction Impacts
0
s0
2
Z360
4
:600
Q
i0
0
S0
0
0
. 0
'
p
so
6
io60
$O
it160
g 2.20 `Cumulative k►4)SCWOther Considerations
0
0
SO
2
_ - � ....
�
_ id00
8
._ _...
i1,000
_
0
SO
p
-.$0
�
$O
0
4
SO
p
$O
6
s�0
i0
ita80
.. _ ..- _
82.21 !Conceptual Nation Plan
$0
2
s3
a
$1,Zoo
a
il,000
o
$o
Q
so
i320
p
$0 _
�a
i2,2so
;o
$2,280
0
$0
2
i360
_. _.. . _
8
;1,700
0
_
so
q
$o
-
4
. ---- - -
280
so
22
$2 aao
so
�.� .
subtotal e:
8� ! Drag EA Report Preparation
o
i0
_9• _
184
...
i27,i00
1a4
.
i20,aoo
78
it,630
o
K
$0
i7140
16
it$'
. - _ ...
p
SO
26
_ iZ,840
_
$O
i2,840
83.1 `Prelirrminary Draft EA
=
__•_ ..
100
_
i2.000
0
i0
KO
i78,8T0
$0
-
03.2 Draft EA Preparation
4
i800
80
i14.400
80
-
$12,000
24
:3,000
24
i2,040
`
Subtotal 93
2
i400
24
i4,320
24
i3,600
24
-
i3,000
_..
24
�,040
0
SO
s0
_ i1.2 SO
}
2�
$1,440
2 52
i34 080
$1872
i36,832
B4 !Public Invotvement
a
i1,:00
104
i1�t,72o
too
i1i,i00
N
- i8,000
4a
i4.080
0
i0
18
i1,280
24
i1,440
138
6,
i1 080
i3 970
.
i20,050
114.1 Mailing List
3 2
i2,680
48
i2,880
380
ii1,040
$6,842
ii8,882
84.2 ;Pubic Information McOWWPublic Hearin0
_.
0
8
$0
$1,600
4
$720
0
i0
0
io
8
ieeo
o
$0
0
s0
Subtotal 64:
8
$1,600
40
$7.200 j
40
i61000 t
24
...
$3,000
24
i2 040
p
s0
40
;
i3,Z00
8
i240
16
$1.64 0
i1,a50
86 Drag EA Comment Analysis
i7.l20
40
ii,000
24
=3,000
32
i2,7g0
p
i0
40
i3.200
12
i480
184
i23,520
tW,645
i33,165
Draft EA Comment Analysis
•
$720
200
i 2a,180
itl,taa
04,415
Subtotal
4
4
$800
i800
24
24
i4,320 .:.
i4,Z20
40
40
i6,000
���
40
5,000
16
i1.380
0
SO
16
i i 1,280 ►
24
$1,440
154
i20,200
.
88 !Final EA R_rt Pre�ar�tfon
- -
,
=6,000
1 a
i1,ii0
0
i0
1 t
it
2 4
184
i2.021
i22,221
86.1 1 Prelirnin� Final EA Preparation
4
Y
40
-•�- �..
;
20,200
j i _
=2,0.
:22,221
88.2+FinalEAPro�anHbn - --
2
i400
.
I
4 ___ _ _ ___--...__-.-_---
7{/
u�/{/
__
'�__.
i5.000_^ _
40
__
__?3400 -
24
-.__-.---
i2.040
+
40
Epp
24
$1,440
_
_ Subtotal Be.
_ - -
s_
-
_ �....
- 0
_ i7,Z00 _ 24
i3 600
-
_?4.
_i3.000 -
-24
-.040
- 0
��
- - _ -
! i1,280
18
-
24
._
252
-
i 0, ____
1
i ,BOd
i30,076
Subtotal P
Part 6
- .
24
, -
K 00
- -80 -
i42
-- - ; 4a
--�- il.i00 _'
' '
.__. _
:_ is,000
-
k -
K 440 - -
r
24
__ - , .
i2,040
_.
i8
_ _, _ r -_
i4.4t0
i1,4�0
164
- $18 060
_._`
$2.745
i21,705
ULM
i81 o ao2 _ - ..- _ ._ _ _ _...__ _ t2�uo
Part C: Meetln i88 i00 472 $6! 000 2i8 - 7 - _ _.
2 184 i13 t140 318 `:
40t _!18 040
su 881
-C1_- Project Team Meeti�n s
40
.
� _ _-
-----
�
i25280 1
'
144
2320
' iu4 830
2! 71
i31 101
-- - -
.. so
i8,000 i11400
C2 Resource -- -- _ _ _ - - - ---- - ; - - ---- - --- - - -- i6,000 _ 40 i5 000 40 - _ - - ---- - - _ -
--r- _ ..- 2
32 $3,400 40
i6 00 40 - - 4 �•� i3,200 !
-+ 6
- - -- - -- - -
Subtotal Part C;
72
.4
14
120
i7,200
21 800 '
32-
72
i4,800
24
i3,000
24
i2.040
24
i2,040
- -
24
_ -
1' 020
- -
6
-- $360
i360
_... 310 _ -
206
--$42,400
$5.877 -
i46 77
Part D: Pr
Project IlAarta0ernent
i10 800
i4
ii 000
U
48
i4 080
i4
!
i6120
i27.760
=5R154
i32,o14
C1 tProject Management (15 months assumed);60
12
i720
fig
701602111,030
1 1!0
$12.000 120 t21.600 0 t0 0 $0 $p 0
C2 IPro�ect (Management Plan / QAQC Plan ' 0
Subtotal Part D!
36
7
i ,200
36
$6.480
0
t0
0
0
sp
p
$0
0
$0
120
i7,200
300
$40-800
$5.763
i46.563
>K
i1l.200
168
:2a,oaio
o
io
0
i0
0
0
o
t0
p
,
e
i48o
ao
it4,id0
i2o
i14,180
Pr4ect Total.
2"
i40 800
i70
r
o
128
i71880
380
$94.960
ii,783
i80.743
i120 i00
744
i111 i00
688
i73 S00
374
i31 7>10 '.
212
$18 020 !
432
�
i34
284
$17 us
3518
$448,518
U9.7ai
Ima Sam
Preparrd by .- Monigoarcry Coasuldng Group, Inc.
Prtpr w on: June 23, 2009
LABOR DETAIi, A SUMMARY. 2
Indepeodea Fa Estiauto for Marathon Airport Em-mumemal ASSCzU0WLXh
Marathon - Florida Keys Airport
Environmental Assessment for RunwayRelocation • canon and Extension
Travel Cost Detail
INDEPENDENT FEE ESTIMATE
Pad A:oOMMon All ernatl
�_�
and „.s —�----
A1 Notification
I -- --- $500
..- - - -- - - 1 $55 I
A2 EA Introduction Chapter - _ _ _ - -- _ -- - - ` _- 1 $18 , }
$o
1 _.
i $0 $ -- -- - - - - - - - .- - - -- _ _ $0 i $759
$o _ o - t $o �. $0
A3 _t Definition of Purpose Need --- $0 . S0 -T __ ..._ _ - _.-
_ 3 Z1,500 2 i110 _
3
A4 Attematives _ . _ . _. i108 . _ $0 0 _.
$500 3 _ SO $
3 '
1 $55
0
AS PubNc Information T - - - - _ _
Mesb 6 ' $3,000 2 $110
6 $900
$0
-� $0 _.� $0 $759
Subtotal Part A • fi00 0 �- - ---;------ - -- _ . _ -; - t108 - - -- $0 - - - - -- - - - - ---
_r
- -- - -
Part 8: Environmental Assessment �' ' =1� 1 . _-.-
334
_.. _ _ ... _ $0 $6,074
B1 Alf ec-bd Envi ronn t ;
B 1.1 j Studer Area Definition and M - - -- - _ - - - - _.
. i
-- _..aPPt 1 $500 $55
1
B 1.2 ; De tan of the Affected Environment i 150 .2- -
B + $0 _ _ 302 SO i $0 i785
1 $18 SU
1.2.1 AircraR Noise _ _ _ ._... $0
$0 $0 r
.2.2 j - -- t - - ___ _._ ___� ___ __ _. _ - _ - - --
i Qum.. $0 $0 I "�" - _ $0 SO s0 1 $0 i0
B1.2.3 Historic/ `Resources 4 - - - ___._... _� __-_____ _ $0 -- $0 __ .__ ____ _ $0__--- - - _ _ SO - $0 _ _ f ____ __ ._
__ -
_-- $2 000 '
2
81.2.4 Wetlands and Habitats 2 - 1' --_ -- - -- - -- - _- _ _ -- i216 - 6 _. - _ $108 - , - - - _t - _ $0 _- - _. _....._ ----__._
$110 4 $G00 6 �_ $0 $O
$ �000 t - -
1 $0
$ T --- _ _ 3�034
55
Subtotal 81'
2
$300
--- - $220 i0 i SU $1.571
4 $144 $72
j _ - $1,0
B2 Env - --- :4.3Z _
Ironrnerkal Consegw -� --. ___.... _ =0
82.1 (Wetlands -- - - . -_..
_1
so $0 _
82.2 Biotic Communities $� $0
r.
-__ $o S0 _.
B2.3 ;Essential Fish Habitat Assessment- --_ ---__- r __. ----- _ ____ s0 $0 $0 +
-
-----�— $o $0 -- - -t- - --- --- - -- -- --- _ _ $0 _ __._ $o
- --- -- -
B2.4 __ _.___...- - - -- - -TEndan�n�d b Threatened S�scies _ `- $0 -; - f $0 -- 7- ---- _ _ $0 ___ -- _ .-- $0---_ i- - ___.___ - E0 _ __ _ __--- - $O $O
82.5 i Water Quauty - - _ __ _ _.__ -._ _ _-- ----__ . __.. �_- -- ' _ ___.-_ _ $0 ; _ $o - _ . _ . _ . _ -- _ -- -- _. __ _- ... _ ' $0
82.6 Floodplruns $0 i ' $0 $0 $00 - _ _ - _ - - �� - --- -
. _ $0 $0
Hazardous Materials / Soliso
d - -
_ .._. Ma Waste $0 __ _ _ _ - _ _ -_ _. _ _ $� _ - _ _ _ _ -- $0 1 $p 0
_ . -
HistoncJ so
-
_ -. _ Resources $o $0 $0 so $o
82.8.1 so _ i S0
.f
II
Historic Arcttectural Resources $0 t , $0 $0
' SO
_-- - - --
----_ $0
82.8. $o
21Arrhaeolopical Resources _- - T--- --__. _ __ $0 __._._ _ ___. _. ___._ __ $0--- + - - - $0 $o
$o
_ _..
- - - - -+ $0 - - - _----so---- - $0
BZ.B DOT Section 4�f Resouross -+- - $� _ ____�__ $0 _- ,--- $0 $0 t4. _ - -- $�
��
- $0 +
_ -- - - _--
_ -
B2.10lNoise Impacts _-_ _ - - _- -- $
$o
:. $0 0 $0 ' $o - - .. t 0 0
•10.1�Refine and Develop Future Noise Contours , $0 p a0 . - - $0 $0 _.o .
$ T $
2.10.Refins and Oevolop Futuro DiNirencs Contours _ _ __-- _-__--.__-- - $0 - __` so
$0___ $0
- - - $0 $o - _ -- - , -- -- --- - $0 . _ $o
$o '
_._
$o - $o
.10.$Conduct Future Grid _. ._..._ ......_ _. .._1. _ _ _ _ _..._ $0 -- -
__.._ . .
30
- - -�! t $0 ! s0
_Land Use ' _ �._ 30.._ _ _ $� $0 $0
1 $0 � $O
- _ -_ ,..
B2.12 !Social Impacts ; - - -----T-- s0 - --�- - $0 $0 $0 $0 + $0 $0
82.I 'Induced Socioeconomic lm _ - __- --- _ - i ° `$� _- _ ____ _ $0 ' _ _� $0 _ $0 -T _ .. -- -.- -
_. _ _P $o $o ----- - - - - -- - - - - - --0- so
Prepared by _ --- --1 --- $0 _ — _._—__---- __— _ _� _._ . _ _ .._ - $0 _
P - Montgomery Consulting Grog, Inc. - - - _ _— $0 __— ! — SO—_ _______ __� _.-so __-- - ---- -__._ _ 1 $0
Prepared on: June 23, 2009 - - - _ _! _ s0 --. - _ - _$° ---
TRAVEL-3
Marathon = Florida Keys Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Relocation and Extension
Travel Cost Detail
INDEPENDENT FEE ESTIMATE
82.14 fAir Quality-
,C
B2.15oastal
I Zone Mana�em _ entlCouW BarTlerS
$0
------ _ . __
_
$0
$O
r-_ aU
82.16 Farmland
$ ----
$0
-- -- _ _
I
... - - - - - -
$p
-- - ...
_
$0 ---
$o
j
B2.17Energy. SUppl�r b Natural Resources
$o
_
$o
$0
-
$0$0-
- - _ __ --
_�
$0
-
__ ...._.
_.
82.18 ' Vt Emissions __----------
$o
__ $o
-
iso
$0..
_ -
$0 _.... _
so
-
-
i $o
--- — _ - - -- �-___
82.19 i Construction Im acts $O
Cum
02.20 ulative Im
--_ $o
$0 ._
�_---
,_-._
$0
$0
_
_ $o
`$0
- --- -- $0 -►---
$0-__
$0 t
_ ._._ �.
$p
- ---- - -- - --
$0
+
__ L- $o
- --- _
_ `-_Considerations
82.21 (Conceptual Mitigation Plan -
$p
- - -s ___----_----
0
$0
- .___._
.�
---------
$0
---._-_--{
-
---- -_ ---
__$0
_ _-. ___ _ ._ _ -
$0
_ $� -
I SO
_ _____--__-._ - -
--- --$0
a.. Subtotal 62 '
_ so
_-
so
so
-
-
83 4Drag EA Repott reparation
P
__- -
.
___ _ -. _ ..__
s�-_ - -_
_.. . :-__ _ _$0 _
i0
i
83.1 Proaminary Oran EA
-- -
-
_ -
- -so.-
83.2 Draft EAroti
_-
-
$0
,
$0
_ .. __.
'
$0
_
t
SO
_. _ _
$
$o
f
s3
- -- - _ 84
_.IPubk In owmn
- - . .__.. so
I
$0
t
$08ubtoai
-$o
_ -----
$0 --
84.1
_ } 'Mai List
_ _
--$o
-
-
-_ _ -� -.
-...
_ s0
I
i
84.2 P�Itc Information Meeb H
nplPublic earin
_ -� ....
$O
s s3,000 3
- ----- ----
,. ..__....
$165
_
6
So
_.
_
_ _._ .._.__. -
ao .
_ __ ._ _-s-
s0
f
' $0
subtotal e4�
t- _ -- -- --_._-
I $3 000 ;��
- . -
__ ___ 6
$216 .
12
__ - .... - - - •- -
$0
$o
$0
omment
Analysis
2
_ .$216_
_
$216
=0
Drag EA Comment Analysis
-- _ _ - -----
$1 000
_...
s55
1
Subtotal I
Bii
s1.000
- -_ _--
$3oo
, 4
_
--
$72
_ 4 _ . _ - _ _--_ - _ _-$0
_
i
$0
j
I
$0
_- 4 )Final EA Report Pnpaation
r
t7 2
-- _ _-- - - -
r
SO
-
(
SO
0
6.- i _ .... _n Final EA
_ ._ . ._- __
86.1 Prslimiprof--,-
$0_ -
- --- - -
r
-t ------
- --- -
- - - _-- _ __ : --
- ----
-- -
- fi
--- - -
$
86.2 _ Final EA Pro�aration ,
- --
$0
$0-
t
$0
$0 ..
$0
$0
$p
Subtotal si
-
4
$0
30$0 -_-
$0se
Parts
i---
22i
sobtobd
y
$oi44o
-
$oTart
OMHO
C 1 � p �� � and Coordination
me Team Meetings.
esouroe
6 --- �
6 $330 --
$3,000
3 $165
.T
Subtotal Part C `
+Part D Pro wt Management
$6 000
sou
P ed Manage
D1 -j �'0f meat
-
D2 ( Project Ma _. ment P
.. � / QAQC Plan �
8 000
� �
-8 S 40
r _. __.... _
. . -tan
- - - - - - - -- - _ - Subtotal Part 131
s0
$4 000
$O
_ s440
Project Total,
Prepared by: Montgomery Consulting Group, Inc.
$23 000
s1 70fi
Prepared on: June 23, 2009
_ $900
9 $324 12 $216 _..__�_
-- 3.----
-- - �� 6 $216 ---f - 12 _ $216 - 3 -r - $300 i $� -- - _ $0
-- - - - - -;- - -+- -- _ $0
$432 '
$600 $0 $0
$0-.8 $288 - - - - - - - f $0 - _ -- - -so-
- - _- --- -
_... a 144 - 4
- -_ -. -
$0 30 _.-.
_ $0
-?0
_ . - _ i $0 T SO
$o -- _ $23t $0
TRAVEL - 4
$0
--so
so,
s0
$0
_..._so
$0 _
$0
_ s0 _
so
$0
so
$0
$4.497
s1,s71 _
- $1.i71 -
so
so
$0
_ $5,070
_i4,347 _
SL
$4.872
$0
Marathon - Florida Keys Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Relocation and Extension
Production Cost Detail
INDEPENDENT FEE ESTIMATE
Part A: Pro)at DNInluon and Awnativss
-
Al Earl Notificagon r
-_
Y ,
-
250
--
$50
_
-
t_-
A2 I EA Introduction C ,
-- _ _..
-
--
A3 _ 1 Definition of purpose b Need t
-----
---
- 150
- _ _ --- _
$30 30
_
- -_ -- - - -- _- -__
_ $� _ -
s18
- _ -- -
0
_ _ _ - -�
30
_ - -- $12
- - 0 $0 0
—_ -_ _ _
� �
_ _. i s23
-
_
$0 _. _.�
-- -a -
'
$0
- --
_ _ _: _ _ 5
$138
- ___
0
_.
_ .__$0. -
- s18a.
----
- - -- - -
A4 !AksmativesAnal sis
-
i
-_ _..
_
s30
___ _-�_-
30
__ _
-- - $18
s18_.
30
_ �___
s12-
_ _ - __�
__- i23 __.�..._.-
_`
- -
-Q
!
- , -
__ _ -- -
-- 5�----
- --o--
- - _
- - - -
�0
°
- - 2
2
$55
__ __..
$55
0
_. -
$0
$138
AS Public Information Meeting
250
:. _ ....
$50
0
- I ..
a
_.30
s12
30 ' s23
0
$0
-
$°
2
--
$0
_ _s138
I
Sub#otd Part A
'
s1l0
$o
=64
o
$o
$36
o I $0
!
t
0
_
$0
0
$0
2
$55
s55
0
0
$o
$0
s138
Part B: Envkonnd
_. _.-.
s�
so
$105
B1 �ARicbd Envir nwffl I
_ ;
;
$3ii
s0
$705
B1.1 1 Study Area Defhtion and
--M_. I
- -�-
,_
0
$o
6_� •? YDeacn-pti� of the Affected Environment
-- - - -
50
- -
$10
-
--�-- _ _ -
- - --- _
__. $�_
- - -f._ ..� .- -- -
.. _ ..'. _
.- $0 .- .
_ , -0
_�o
_ '
i28
81.2.1 AitcraR Noise
_ . ...
{
__- _
50
___r_-_._�
10
_ _--..___.__
50
- - -_- -- --
i30
--sm � -- �—
50 --
° $0 �_
r-- - - - - a .
_
- ' -
$0
,.
0
_.
$0-.
_..
i28
0
0
$0
$28
--..
81.2.2lAir Quality
+
81.2.3 HistoridArchasaoacal Resources
50
s10
s30
0
0
$0
_
SO
0 $0
!
0 $0
0
p
i
$0
0
$0
1
s28
.
0
$0
$0
i68
81.2.4 Wetlands and Habitats
50
$10
5o
s3o
0
$°
0 '
i $0
0
$0
p
$0
1
' $28
0
_
_
- -= Subtotal
50
s10
_.__
sli0
0 $0
0
{
►
$0
$o
0
0
$0
t0
1
$28
$
s68
-
B2 iEnvl
62.1
- - --
---- -
- ---.
_.., :1i0 - y
=0
;
- f
1
s28
0
$0
i0
-
82 2 'Biotic Communities
- - _
0
$0
-_�
. _-.-_._._ -
- -
.
so
0 0
r -_.
0
--
_ --- -
- -
- - --
_
i xi
-
...
82.3 I Essential Fish Habitat i
0
$0
$0
_... __ - ._.-
—
0 ! $0 0
i
_..-.._. _ _ _.
-
$0
_..--. _
--
0 -
$0
- - - _
0
- - _
$0
_ __ _ _ .-
0
$0
-
0
- -
82.4 j Endanpend b Threaten patios j
Threatened S
0
$0
$0
0
$0
..
0 $0
i
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0
$0
82.5 t Water quality !so
$o
$o
a
$o
0. $0
p
$o
0
$0
;
0
$0
82.6 ' ns i
---- -
0
$0
$0
.-
$0
0 i $0
0
$0
0
$0
0
! $0
$0
BZ.7 i H atandous Materials / Solid te
- -
-- _�. _.
_ __._
$0
_ _____ _ --•
0 ;
_ __ _ _. _
$0
_._ _
0
�_-.---•-._-__ ... _.�__ -.___ .
__.__--
0 i
$0
so
82.8 ,Historic/ Resources
_�
_: _ $0
-_ -- - ----_ - -- --- _—__
0 ___
$0
0
-
0
$0
_
0
- -
0
_
$0
$0 -
82.8.1 i Historic Arcitectural R
_. _. esour�ces '
T
_ - _ -
-
_ $0 -_
- --
__ -_ 0 $0
°
-_
$o
- --- --
- - -
- ----
--- g0 -
$0
- -----
82.8.2 !Archie ; ..
_ oloQical Resources
U
0
$0
$0
. _ $O
p
$0
-
0 -
i . $0
- -
-- t _
_- - =
$0
0 -
0
$�
$0
0 ,
_
$0
0
$0
_ -
82.8 ,'DOT Section 4(f) Resources
'
0
$o
0
$o
0
$o
0 � $0
0
#
b0 �
0
$0
0
0
$o .
°
$o
0
82.10 Noise Impacts
2.10. Refine }
$0
$0
°
0
$U
$0
0 i $0
i
0
I
0
$0
0
$0
$0
o
0
$0
so
and Dsvebp Future Noise Contours f
!
0 $0
0
`
$0
0
$0
$0
.10Refins and Develop Future Difference Cont-----�-
' -`------
_- --$Q
--
$0
�- _-T
0
- $O -_ T-
0 --- _
$0
- ---� _ .----$Q -_ __
-_ 0 __
----
'
--
-$0
---
$o
0
o
$0
0
$0
$0
-
.10.Conduct Future Grid Analysis
--- - - --- --
- -----__
0
_--_
-
$0
-- - _ ..
0
-_ . $o -
$o
0
_ _-
__...___ _ _•_
$� . _.. 0 � $0 _
_ __
o _
- -
_ I - $0
rt _ -- - - - ..
--- _
0
_ _ _ -
- - - _ ...
$0
t . -
°.
$o _
$o '
_ . _ o
�o _.. _ _
$o
-- -_
82.11 i C - Pa. Use
- , om tibls Land
!
----
°
- -
S°
--
-- ---- --
_ _--
-- - -
a0 _
_ ° $0
_ . - _ -- _--
°
--- -
-
as
�
. - -
$O
. - _.. _
_ _ -
- -- - f
$0
_ -
$o
._ ---
82.12 ' Social impacts
0
.
$°
0
�� .
o
$0
0 I a0
- . __
s°_
- . - _-
o
-
s0
-$0
-
$0 _
$0
_ - --
82.13 ; Induced Socioeconomic Impacts i
0
$0
$0
0
$o
o $o
o
$0
0
$0
o
$0
°
$0
$O
Prepared by: Montgomery Consulting Group, Inc.
0
$0
0
$0
0 $0
0
so
0
$0
0
°
$0
$0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
S0
Prepared on: June 23, 2009
PRODUCTION - S
Marathon - Florida Keys Airport
Environmental Assessment for RunwayRelocation
lion and Extension
Production Cost Detail
INDEPENDENT FEE ESTIMATE
B2.14 'Air Quality
U S0
0 b0 ;
0 $0 i
B2.15 , Coastal UCoastal _ . __ _. _ . _ _ . SD $ 0
--�-- - - -Zones Mara man Barriers , 0 $0 0 ° + 0 $0
$0 0
$0 r
B2.16 : F - -_ 0 - _- -- - _ __— _ - - 0 i Farmland _�_ _.. _._.-__-_ _._ .�____ _ _.___-- $0 0 _ _$0 __ _ _ $p ° � ° $0 t $O
---- _- _ o $o -_ _-- - -- — . -- _. _ _ . _. - - - - $0 0 0 ° $o
82.17 ! Ene _ _
- $o $0 ° $o
- - - _ _ - - - ..- - -- --- - - --- 0
rQy S 8 Natural Resources 0 —'-- -- - $0 $0
, $0
1 'Qht Emissions i 0 _____ ____.� ___ _ _.. $0 _ ^. 0 _ _- $0-- __ ___. 0 _ _ -' _-- _
_ _ $0 0 - --
$0 -- _ .so 0 -- _ _ -
0
82.18 Conatrudion Imps _ .. - - - _ _ -.._
_ 0 $p 0 $0
1.
0 $0 0 $0
0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 _. I �0 $0 0 $0 $0
82.20 !Cumulative im $0 0 $0 0 $p 0
pads/Other considerations t o
$0 0
so 0
$o o �
B2.21 ;Conceptual Mitigation plan $0 $0 ( _ o ' ap 0 $0 0 $0
0
0 0 $0 0 $0 j 0 s0 $o $o
- - subtotal 1121 0 $o $o $o
_ - - - ° _ i0 _ _ 0 t ' b $0 ° $o ° $o
B3 j-Draft so
EJ►1�erstlon ; — --_ -- - - _ �_ _ so
- -- ° o
83.1 Preliminery Draft EA , ------ - - --- — --
T � $0 0 $0 $0
2250 5450 _.._ _ — - - - --
375 �� $225
75
83.2 'Draft EA Preparation ; — - - . _ $30
• ��_ 75 $56 12
,.. _ _ 7500 $1 500 1250 i750 250 - _ _ _ ._ _ r. _ _ - - - -- - -- -- t - .. $330 __: _ 20 _ __ $40 $1,227
$100 250 88 i
12
Subtolal83 $750 $1,li0 1t2i _
_ - _
$130 3Z6 - _ _. ____.� i
s�7i asa t so So
i24t 62 $62 62 ; i
2s $s8s � $hoo $3 72s
B4 Pubik Involvement , ..
wrrrerrt ,016 70
$'34
B4.1 Mailing Ust 4 t _ i4,l
$o 0 $0 0
' P.O. 0 ! ,
84.2 ; Pubk Information _ 200 _ _
_ _ u1�Hc Haan .__ - --- -; - -- - 50 -- __ _ _ _ 0-- i. i38 0 $O 0 $o j o $o o f $o $10
- �- --- - ---- __ _ _ $o
Subtotal B4 ` — - - __
s3o $so __ $3a _
- �- —
86 ,Draft EA Conurant _-»: � $0
-, $0 $128
Draft EA Comment --
,
An*sas 1 2250 + $450 0-
p - —
Bt !Final Subtotal as $o $ $o 0 $o _ T -
pia ,
nal EA Report on ( t0 t0 $0 $0 $4i0
136.1 ' Prrlimina Final EA =
on ► 2250 $4 � ! _rY Final b 375 $225 75 +
_ Pnpara .. ,
t
86.2 !Final EA P lion 4500 _ _.._ _. .__... _. _------- ._.. S56 15 +. $15 15 ,
r--- — Vie-__ $800 750 __ 12 20 +
- - $450 $60 $1,251
150-- 150 5113 � i $105 5330 Sqp - _...._ ---
_..___, Subtotal Btu $1,3i0 i — — _ $2 __ 25 _ -- 25
_ _ 75 + S30 30 10 $688 ;
— $00 -; - - f - -
SubtoW Pa -- . -$3,9110 .— $ + +----- --__ T- _ —$315 -- _ _ $3 7i1
sue
Part C:1t#eetings and Coondinatlon $460 $107 $74! $ 200
C1 Project Team Meetings
300 $�
' $18 30 $12 30 $23 0 i b0 f } ,
_ !
C2 Resource Meetings I ° $0 65 0 !
Subtotal 300 t18 30 $12 30 23 0 { 0 $0 6 1 �0 278
P Port $120 '. $3t $24 ! S $0 6 $165 0 $0 $278
-- _art D: Pro1i Ma"gement $0 $330
D1 Project meet $0 bill
Management
sw
100 — _
- - - - --0
D2 ;Project Man -- _
100 ;
Management Plan / QAQC
Plan 100 $20
� $20
50 $38 ° -�--
0 _ $0
- ---_ ---
0 �-- $0 �— 15 I $413 0 $550
0 $0 t- _ _—_
Subk" Part D, _-.._ _ � __— --- _� -- --- _ -- . __ _ _ _ _ - - ---� -- - $� .. _ _ _ -.
$20
! 0so
1
o '
$0 $0 - - - _ . $413 20
— $rho
P Total' $4 200 i1 9d0 $ 320 `
300 i
Prepared try: Montgomery• Con:uldng Group, Inc. $107 $7,0 $3 $230 $11
Prepared on: June 23, 2009
PRODUCTION - 6
Marathon a Florida Keys Airport
Environmental Assessment for RunwayRelocation ocat�on and Extension
Oth
er Direct Costs
INDEPENDENT FEE ESTIMATE
..
Part -
: Project DeftW n and Aliernatiws .... _ ... -
Al ! Early Notification
0 $0
EA Introduction C i 0 0 $0° $0 100 $49 $0 0 $0
A2
° 0
$ ;
haPter 0 0
A3 Definition of P 1 . $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 i
tirposs b Nesd $0 0 0 $49
_ 0 $0 0 $0 } --- -- . - . - -- -_ _ _ _ 0
A4 �Ahe�tives Anal sis 1 -- __._ F ... _ $G __ _ -._. ---- - - __
0 $p 0
$0
0
- -- - ----- -- -- ° _- S0 -- o
A5 Public information Meeting f 1 - -`_-------- - - - - ° - -- - - $0 --° -- - $° _ __ - _ f 0--
----~. $750 30 1$ _ - _._._.__. $o _ $o
o $o so
- -- ;
-- -- -- -- -- ,050 Y_ _ _ 1 $1.500 -- ° i $0 loco o $o - -� - - ° - - $o - -
Subtotal Part A - _ -_-- _
$750 _____-- -
$1 060 $� - - - - _ _ `_ -
Part B: Envi $0 f .. $750 _ _ _ _ . - _ --
$539
,636
. _ .._ r+a�nW II1aNssn�ent
B1 iAtRectisd Enrlronment l _
' $7i0 � $0
B1.1 'Study Area Defirti
- _lion and Mapping 0
0 $0 0 ! '
-
81.2 Description of the Affected Environment 0 $0 0 $0 $0 50 $25 10 $80 0 $0 o $0 1
05
81.2.1rcraR Noise 0 - _ - ---- o - __...._._ �� __-...- _ $600 _ 50 __._ _i2 __ 0
-T
_ ___
— - --- so $0 0 -}- -- -- -- ---- ao $o
° $s2s
. 1 1-- 0
--- - - --
r
81 �- __... _ _. .2.2'Air---_._�. -_--- --- _ _._---_ ;------____--; -------.------ $0 - ._- ° � $0 � 5 S0 .T ° --
-- �- _ - o $o - - - _ _ _ -
��_
o $o _-_ - - --
-
81.2.3 (Histonc/An _ _ _ .. _ _ _ _ _ __---_ _ _ 0 _- _ -_ _ _ . _ _ _ . _.__ __.. _
Resources i - - -`_ ° ___ -----$ -- --_ Y -_ $25 0 Y $265
• $o
0 -._ o
°
$0 0 $o $o -- _--- - $o $25
0 $0
81.2.4' - - - VNetiands and Habitats _.__ _ v _ - - 50 $25 30
$ $o
° $o ( _._ .. -- $0 o
- i 0 S0 0 $240 $o $265
. _ _ $o o a0 ; $25 0
Subtotal6l $0 - _ 30 t $240 0 $0 0 $o 65
f io
B2 Envlronntal $ -
- - � - - - - - Da!s!gu"es T
so
B2.1 �W,0 ands
0 $0
- - - , $0
82.2 I Biotic Comm -t ___ - — - -
unities ' 0 $0 p ___ -
so
-- _ -- - -
82.3���UFis�hHabitat ---. - _ 0 - _ $0 _ _ - 0 -- -' -- $° - 0 i $0 ° $0 . _ -. - $0 _ $
0 - - _�
_
Assessment - - _ - ___._ _
. -- _- J
82.4 I Endar►Qered b Threatened Species - - __ __ _ __ ° __ _-- _-- _ _ -_ _ $0 ___ - -_- _ , $0 0 - _
Q
f - - $0
Water SO $0 _ $0 -- - - - -► -_- - ..-. _ ._. - - �0 .
_ ..1 uaNty 0 - i 1 $0 $0
-� 0 0
l ,
0
B2.6IFlood So 0 $0 0 .. $O 0 ! ! $0 0 $0 0 S0 $0
plains o $o $ _ 0 $0
0
so o
B2.7 ! H 1
$o
' 0
Hazardous Materials Solid Waste
$0 p
0 i � $o $o
o $o
82.8 i Historic/ R - - $0 - $0 $0 , $0
° $O 0 $0
Resources ° p + to o $o $0 $o
0 $p 0 $0 0
Arcitec WnW Resources - __�_ - --- ---- - - _- _ -- _ -- -
_ $o T $a
a
B2.8. - - - - ° --- - - - - ° $0 -- ° __ _ so 0 -- _ - °. - $0 - _ - ° $0 - _ o.. ao _ _ $o
2+ _ Resources �- -- - _ --- - ---$o 0 --- S0 o t
- _ - o $o - -- ----_ -- --- --- - S0 $o i
--
82.9 j DOT Section 4 Resources -- - . _ _ __ _ _ -rt._ . _ _.___ - - -
_.. _.. _��.._._.... 0 $0 0 - ---- -- - _ --- ----
$0 0
r-_ °
$o � o
- -_
$o 0
_ $o _ _0
82.10 ;Noise Impacts $0 p _ .. _ _ _ � _ ..
° $o
$o p
$o o $o 0 $o j -
2.10. Retire and Develop Future Noise Contours r _ _ 0 $0 0 $0 0 �0 0 _
0 $0 _ j $0 $0
0
tt $� $° 0 $0 0 $0 p $ j
.10.�J Refine and De Futuro I t $0 , 0
0 $0
Dtflbnenoe Contour t 0
- -. - $0 ; 0
$0
2.10.3 Conduct Future Grid sis 0 . - $0 0 $0 p $0 0 , $o $0
--t----- fix___ t $0 0 $0 p $0 0 _ $Q ; $0 $Q
82.11 ' - - - -- - -- _ -- - --
^ Compatible Land Use _ p -_-- $0 _ _ 0 _ $0 -- --
-- 0
--
__ _ -� - --- $0 0 --_ — _ - $o $0
- _ _ -- - $0 _------ SO -- - --- - -- - ._ . $0
.
.
82.12 ,W Impacc;ts 0 - _. __ _ ___ __._ __._ 0 _ _ _ -_ _-- ___—_ ---_
-- - - - -- - - - -- -- - - - -- $o o ° $o ° ° --i S0 --T ___ $ o $0 -� °
$0
B2.13 , ----- �-- -_- - - -- _--- -- _
Induced Socioeconomic tmPacts p - -- . - - -- S� -- _ $0 __ : ° $0 p
_�
$0 $0 0 - $0
0 _. __
_ 0
__
s $0 0 0 ---- $0 -- $o
0
$0 0 $0 i 0 $o $o
Prepared by: Montgomery Consulting Group Inc.
Prepared on: June 23, 2009 -
OTHER DIRECT COSTS - 7
Marathon = Florida Keys Airport
Environmental Assessment for RunwayRelocation
ton and Extension
Other Direct Costs
INDEPENDENT FEE ESTIMATE
82.14 iAir Quality
B2.15 Coastal Zone Management/Coastal Barriers
0
-
$0 1
0
$0
{
82.16 !Farmland
T _..
0
$0
S0
0
0
$0
so
0
$0
_
$o
0
`
} $0
j
0
$0
0
$0
0
$0 {
0
!
82.17 Enerr Suomi b Natural Resources
0
$0
p
$ 0
0
$0
o
a�
0
t
so
_ .
-0
$0
0
$0 !
$0
$0
B2.18� Emissions
0
SO
---_.�__.__.-- _
_____
__: _- _. _
0
_�.
I $0 0
_._____ _ _._-_.__
$0
_ ___._� ______
0
_ _._ ___-_
i
$0
82.1 struc;tion Impacts ,
- --- _-- _
82.20 Cumulagv�e Imw� Considerations
0
$0
- 0
----___
.
$ __T_
- -- 0
_
0 0
__ _ --- --
0
- - ---
$0
0
0
-- -- a0 _-_�_
$0
- $0
0..
_ _..._
0
- _ - _ _
---a� --
-__
82.21 Conceptual Mitigation Plan
p
0
$0
$0
q
0
0
$ 0 ; .
__
so
0
-
-
$o
i .----
o j
__--
. �0
-- -- -
� --
o ao
f
- 0
°
.- $0
$0
I
0
0
S�
- - $o .-.
$ 0
Subtota182
t
$0
$ 0
0
$o _ ._
o
$p
_ .- ..
so
o ;
..
A0. _
°
$o
0
$o
0
$0
00
83 Draft EA Report preparation
$0
$0
$0
$0
� Prolimin Draft
83.2 ' Draft EA P
$0
-
- 0
,___.
. -
0
----
$�
0
$p
_ _
$245
bon--
$0
00
-T---
- _-
_ -_
50
$400
�
$645
_ . - - --- -- Subtotal 631
-.
84 Pubik Inv awment '
_ - -_ -
$0
---- ---__
-_
•
- _
$0
_ __
_
I $0
500
- _ -
--- i
245 - ' -
$4�o r
__ 0
__
$O
p
$0
_
0 .
- - - --- ---
_ _. _ $
245 --
84.1 'Mailing List
0
fi
-----
so
B4.2 Pubic Information Meeti 0
nglPutc Hearn
1
$0
$750
0
b0
$1,050
0
1
$q
_. _ _ ..
$1,500
0
- _ _ ..
0
�
$0
_..-
�
0
$�
0
$0
0
$ 0
0
t q
$o
Subtotal B4
B6 !Draft EA Comment I
_ Analysis
$7t+o
__
$1,Oi0
_.. _._.__._ .
_ ��
_.._ _
-
( $0
- ' _
1000
_ .
'
$490
$4�0
$4 ...
60
i430
:460
1
i $750
i760
0
$0
$5 020
Draft EA CommentAnalysis
n s
0
- --- - - -
- _
- - -
_ _ _
_ -- _ _
-{-
_ ___ --
r
$0
K020
-
__- - - ---
. Subtotal BS�
--_
_ _ ...
0
-
$C
- - -- _
-
$o
0
- _
.
_ ; $p --T
.
$ 0
0
! p
0
- _. _ -- - - ----
- _ - . -
$o _ - - -
- -
o
_ --
-
$o
-- - - - -- - - --
o
-
_ _r_
$o
_ '
+
°
-�
$o
$o
-
-t- - _
06 ;Final EA Re p p
__ _P _.
_+
r
_ ___-
_____
_--___--
----
-_--
-- $ u
$a
_
- -
0
- s -
- _ _ .
_
$o
B6.1 }Pr"minary Final EA Proparation I
o
$0
q
$o
'
_--
B6.2 ; Final EA Preparation
1
0
$0
p
$0
o
0
$0
.. _
$0
0
-
�. $0
50o
5245
50
$400
SO ;
0
$645
• Subtotal Bid
SuPart Bbtotal
i0
$0
.
i
0
_
$0
$0
500
i4slo
0
$0
$400
0
$0
1
0
i -
$0
i0
Meetinps and Coordination ^-
$Ts0
i800
_
$1 t17
$2 M
$0
$750 i
$0
$its
$8347
C1 ;ProLedTeam Meetings
-. _p
_ _
$0
0
_-_ -_
j
.�_ . _ -_
C2 Resource Agency Meetings
_
0
$o
•- __---____�
o
_._$ _ -
p
_- _-
_
100
-
- - ;r{g
-
�
- -- -
Subtotal Part C
$o
i i
$0
..
,_
$p
0
$0
_
$ p
. _ 100
i4..._ .
60
! $480
_
0
r
$0 !
0
$0
5529
Part D: Pro �eet ManaSernerk
!
$,i
$!i0
$0
$0
$1 Oii
D1 Project Man !
agement
._ _ _ . t
- --
o
$o
o
$o
�.._
$0
'
'
D2 Project Management _ Plan / QAQC Plan
0
$0
p
0
. _ _ . _
---_ . ._ .
$o
. _ _. - _ .
Soo ...
.$245 _12
r - -- !
o
$0 '
i
0
$0
$341
Subtotal Part D�
$0 _ .
$0
_- �0 .. _
0 _
_ $0
--
0
- - -
$0
- _
0
__ _
__ _- _
- -so I
- $o - -
-
T_
__
$Oi
_ -•'- -
_
$0
$0
i341
- _ Protect otai j
T
$1.i00
$21100
,
13.000
t!M
_----
Prepared by: Montgomery Consulting Group. Inc.
Prepared on: June 23.2009
OTHER DIRECT COSTS - 8
14A31