Item C05
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
MEETING DATE: 5/17/00
5/18/00
DIVISION: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BULK ITEM: YES
DEPARTMENT: AIRPORTS
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval of Purchase/Service Order with URS Greiner Woodward Clyde to provide Runway
Safety Evaluations for the Key West International and Marathon Airports.
ITEM BACKGROUND: This study addresses requirements of Federal Aviation Administration Order 5200.8. (attached)
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: None on this item,
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
TOTAL COST: $49,000.00
BUDGETED: Yes
COST TO AIRPORT: None - FAA funding 90%, Florida Dept. Transportation funding 5%.
COST TO PASSENGER FACILITY CHARGE: 5% - $2,450.00
COST TO COUNTY: None
REVENUE PRODUCING: No
AMOUNT PER MONTHNEAR:
APPROVED BY: County Attorney X
OMB/Purchasing X
Risk Management X
AIRPORT DIRECTOR APPROVAL
DOCUMENTATION: Included X
To Follow
Not Required
AGENDA ITEM #
1-(,6
DISPOSITION:
Ibev
APB
_ -J!"
MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CONTRACT SUMMARY
Contract #
Contract with: URS Greiner Woodward Clyde
Effective Date: Execution
Expiration Date: 540 days
Contract Purpose/Description: Provide Runway Safety Area Evaluations for the Key West International Airport,
and the Marathon Airport.
Contract Manager: Bevette Moore
(name)
# 5195
(Ext. )
Airports - Stop # 5
(Department/Courier Stop)
for BOCC meeting on: 5/17/00
Agenda Deadline: 5/3/00
CONTRACT COSTS
Total Dollar Value of Contract: 49,000.00 Current Year Portion: - 36,000.00
Budgeted? Yes Account Codes: 404-63030-530490-GAKA27
Grant: 90% Federal Aviation Administration, 5% Florida Dept. Transportation
County Match: 5% Passenger Facility Charge Revenue
ADDITIONAL COSTS
Estimated Ongoing Costs: N/A For:
(not included in dollar value above) (eg. maintenance, utilities, janitorial, salaries, etc.)
CONTRACT REVIEW
Date In
Changes
Needed
Yes No
Reviewer
Date Out
Risk tx1anagement
O~.IPUr~ing
A;UJ/co
:LI Z. <<+/ 00
~ 7{; (flJ
J-//-EJ H)
Ai 2.b; 00
d'^ .::t.J 2.. If/IX:>
$.imaJ
~~D:::>
Airports Director
County Attorney
Comments:
PURCHASE I SERVICE ORDER
FOR
MONROE COUNTY
To: URS Greiner Woodward Clyde
Purchase Service Order No. 99/00-8
Re: PSA Agreement, Dated 7-1-96
Resolution No,
Project Name: Key West International and Marathon Ailllort Runway Safety Areas
Description of Services:
Provide Runway Safety Area Evaluation and Recommendation as provided for in
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 5200.8 Runway Safety Area Program
Including Environmental Evaluation as Required by Effected Agencies.
(See attached Scope of Services)
Multiple of Direct Salaries
Lump Sum
x
Reimbursable Expense
Days to Complete
540
Fee this Service Order $ 49.000,00
Payment for Services shall be in their entirety as per PSA, as amended.
pre~~
Milford A. Reisert
Recommended by:
t?ru
Date:
~/2'-e:?t:?'
Date:
4-\~-oo
a:>
Accepted by:
C~l~~ ?f~
4/; ~ I :;)Cl:JC)
I I
Approved by:
--
Date:
Date:
N :\DEIDRESIC502520. 5 510004 I 2.\VPD
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Feasibility Study
To Address Federal Aviation Administration Order 5200.8
For the Evaluation of Runway Safety Area
at
Key West International Airport
Monroe County, Florida
Introduction
The purpose of this Scope is to provide input and conduct a feasibility study for addressing the
requirements of FAA Order 5200.8 / Runway Safety Area Program (Order/RSA Program) at Key
West International Airport (KWIA). The Order requires that Airports address the requirements of
the Order "to the extent practicable".
The intent of this Scope is to provide the itemized requirements of the FAA order including an
overview of environmental conditions in the study area, adequate in scope, to address the
requirements of the Order. In addition, the Scope includes coordination with environmental
permitting and regulatory agencies, concerned citizens groups and the Monroe County BOCC to
obtain their comments on the developed RSA Program, The entire airport area is of significant
environmental concern.
URS Greiner Woodward Clyde (Consultant) shall provide the following Environmental Services:
Task 1 :RSA Inventory
Collect environmental data for existing conditions at KWIA. Data will focus on natural systems,
land use and vegetative cover. This may include review of USGS Color Infrared Quarter
Quandrangle Maps and Monroe County blueline aerial photography to determine extent of natural
systems within the study area. On-site fieldwork shall be preformed to verify existing conditions.
A map shall be prepared showing vegetative cover based on the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms
Classification System (FLUCFCS).
Task 2: RSA Determination
Based on data collected in Task I. Consultant shall make a determination as to the applicability of
Order 5200.8, Review shall include the Alternatives listed in Paragraph 8 (b) and Appendix 2 of the
Order. Consultant shall prepare up to five (5) exhibits for evaluation of environmental impacts as
outlined in Appendix 2, Par 3 (a-e) and determine the followings:
a. Determine if declared distances have been or could be implemented to obtain the
RSA.
-
b. Determine whether it is practical to improve a safety are to meet current standards.
NIDEIDRES\CS02S20.SS\000412.WPD
2
c. Determine if the existing RSA can be improved to enhance safety, but will not meet
current standards,
d. Determine if the existing RSA does not meet current standards, and it is not
practicable to improve to RSA.
Task 3: Coordination
Consultant shall present the most feasible alternatives to environmental permitting agencies for their
review and comments, Agencies shall include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), the South Florida Water Management
District (SFWMD), and the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). In addition Consultant shall
be available to make one (1) presentation to the general public or a concerned citizen group (Le,
Saltpond Coalition) and one (1) presentation to the Monroe County BOCC.
Items Specifically Not Included
· Detailed field investigation for protected species,
. Preparation of an Environmental Audit.
. Preparation of an Environmental Assessment.
· Preparation of environmental permit applications.
Task 4: Alternative Investigation
This task would include the following:
a. Relocation, shifting or realignment of the runway,
b. Reduction in runway length and not effect operations of existing or future aircraft.
c. A combination of runway relocation, shifting, grading, realignment or reduction.
d, Declared distarices
e, Engineered Materials Arresting Systems
Task 5: Consideration in Assessing Alternatives
a. Land Acquisition, grading requirements as well as environmental conditions will be
examined.
b. Any incremental gains will be obtained whenever possible.
c. An Appropriate balance may be achieved by allocating a greater portioI1 of RSA to
one runway end when any navaid provides vertical guidance is available.
d. Predominant runway use by air carrier aircraft and related RSA.
NIDEIDRESICS02S20.SSI000412WPD
3
e, History and likelihood of aircraft undershoots.
f. Prepare declared distance calculations,
g. Use of engineered materials arresting system.
Task 6: Complete RSA report forms for submission to FAA ADO
N:\DEIDRESIC50:!S20.SSIOOO412.WPD
4
MAN-HOUR AND FEE ESTIMATE
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
FOR THE EVALUATION OF THE RUNWAY SAFETY AREAS7RSAl
I I
KEY WEST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
I
I I
TASK MAN-HOURS
Proiect Sr. Enviro. CADD Word Total
Manger Enviro. Scientist Tech. Processina
1: RSA Inventory 8 8 32 16 4 68
2: RSA Determinations 30 20 20 40 16 99
3: Coordination 16 60 32 32 20 160
4: Alternative Investioation 32 4 8 12 8 68
",'
5: Alternative Assessment 24 4 6 38
6: ReDort to FAA 24 6 10 8 52
Total Man-hours 134 102 92 116 56 485
Hourlv Billino Rate $ 120.00 $ 100.00 $ 55.00 $ 80,00 $ 45.00
Sub Total labor $ 16,080 $ 10,200 $ 5,060 $ 9,280 $ 2,520 $ 43,140
EXPENSES Unit Unit Cost Qualitv Total
Airfare Ea. $ 460.00 9 $ 3,850
Rental Car Ea. $ 65.00 10 $ 650
Lodcinc Ea. $ 180.00 5 $ 650
Meals etc. Per Man-Dav $ 35.00 10 $ 350
Field Supplies Lump sum $ 1.00 25 $ 125
Printino Costs Lump sum $ 1.00 300 $ 300
Misc. (Phone, Photos, etc.) Lump sum $ 1.00 100 $ 100
Sub Total Expenses $ 6,025
Proiect Total $ 49,165
USE $ 49,000
~
U.S, Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
ORLANDO AIRPORTS DISTRICT OFFICE
5950 Hazeltine National Dr" Suite 400
Orlando, Florida 32822-5024
Phone: (407) 812-6331 Fax: (407) 812-6978
March 16, 2000
Mr. Peter Horton
Director of Airports
Key West International Airport
3491 S. Roosevelt Boulevard
Key West, Florida 33040
D IECIEDVIE n
MAR 2 1 2000 U
Dear Mr. Horton:
RE: Key West International Airport; Key West, Florida
Marathon Airport; Marathon, Florida
Runway Safety Area Analyses
FAA Order 5200.8, Runway Safety Area Program (enclosed) was issued on October 1,
1999. It requires a runway safety area (RSA) determination be made for each runway
used by air carriers at Part 139 airports and/or located at a federally-obligated airport by
June 30, 2000. It is our understanding, however, that this date may be changed to
September 30,2000.
Key West International and Marathon both have non-standard runway safety areas. In
order for us to make well-informed RSA determinations for these two sites, we need
you to submit the information outlined in Appendix 2 of the enclosed order. This is
especially critical for Key West International, as you will be requesting discretionary
funding for the rehabilitation of this runway in fiscal year 2000,
If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely, . ~i
C:.k,u'~H,~ O. k' '/Lt[7!-.
~ \ l v ./ - U
\\Len~ifer A. Ganley, P,E.
Program Manager
1 Enclosure
cc:
Terry Beacham, FDOT/1
Mil Riesert, URS Griener
-->""
PARTNERS IN CREATING TOMORROW'S AIRPORTS +
ORDER
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
5200.8
SUBJ: RUNWAY SAFETY AREA PROGRAM
1. PURPOSE.
This order establishes
a. The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Runway Safety Area (RSA) Program
and
b. The procedures that FAA employees will follow in implementing that program.
2. DISTRIBUTION.
This order is distributed to the division level in the Office of Airport Safety and Standards and
the Office of Airport Planning and Programming; to the division level in the regional Flight.
Standards, Airway Facilities, and Air Traffic Divisions; to the branch level in the regional
Airports Divisions; and a standard distribution to all Airport District Offices.
3. EFFECTIVE DATE. October 1, 1999
4. BACKGROUND.
The RSA is an integral part of the runway environment. RSA dimensions are established in
AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design and are based on the Airport Reference Code (ARC). The
RSA is intended to provide a measure of safety in the event of an aircraft's excursion from the
runway by significantly reducing the extent of personal injury and aircraft damage during
overruns, undershoots and veer-ofts.
5. OBJECTIVE
The objective of the Runway Safety Area Program is that all RSAs at federally obligated
airports and all RSAs at airports certificated under 14 Code of Federal regulations (CFR)
part 139 shall conform to the standards contained in AC 150/5300-13 Airport Design, to the
extent practicable.
6. RESPONSIBILITY AND DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY.
a. The Regional Airports Division Manager ensures that the program is implemented in
accordance with the procedures provided in this directive.
b. The Regional Airports Division Manager approves all RSA determinations required by
Paragraph 8.0 of this order. This authority may be delegated to the ADO Manager, only
when it is determined practicable to obtain the RSA.
Dist: A-W(AS/AP)-2; A-X (FS/AF/AT)-2); A-X(AS)-3; A-FAS-O (STD)
Initiated by AAS-31 0
--
..>t"
5200,8
10/01/99
7. RSA INVENTORY.
Each regional airports division shall collect and maintain data on the RSA for each runway
at federally obligated airports and airports certificated under part 139 within their
geographic purview. The data will include the current width of each RSA and the length that
the RSA extends beyond each runway end. The data will also contain the standards that
apply to each RSA at the airport. In addition, all objects within the area that comprises a
standard RSA shall be documented. Appendix 1, Runway Safety Area Database, provides
a format for this data collection.
8. RSA DETERMINATIONS.
a. Supporting Documentation. The region/ADO shall prepare documentation for each
RSA. Appendix 2, Supporting Documentation for RSA Determinations, provides guidance
that must be adhered to in preparing this documentation. The Regional Airports Division
will decide the level of detail required for all planning, environmental, and engineering
factors that are to be incorporated in analyzing the practicable alternatives. The objective
is to assure that accurate and complete information supports the decision making. process
on RSA determinations.
(1) For an RSA that does not meet current standards, the Regional Airports Division
Manager will make a determination as required in paragraph 8b, based on this
documentation.
(2) Determinations are based on the best, current, available information. However,
information that becomes available at a later date can effect changes or revisions to a
determination and, as a result, updates the determination. For example, the final
determination may depend on the outcome of an Environmental Assessment process.
Until that outcome is known, a determination is made on the best, current, available
information.
(3) Although for data collection purposes it is convenient to describe the RSA in terms
of runway ends, the determination shall be made for the entire RSA, Le., both runway ends
as well as the full width.
b. Determination. The Regional Airports Division Manager shall review the data collected
for each RSA in Paragraph 7, along with supporting documentation prepared by the
region/ADO for that RSA, and make one of the following determinations:
(1) The existing RSA meets the current standards contained in AC 150/5300-13.
(2) The existing RSA does not meet standards but it is practicable to improve the RSA
so that it will meet current standards.
(3) The existing RSA can be improved to enhance safety, but the RSA will still not meet
current standards.
(4) The existing RSA does not meet current standards, and it is not practicable to
improve the RSA.
c. Form of Determination. The RSA determination will be signed and dated by the
Regional Airports Division Manager and kept on file along with the supporting
documentation in the regional office or ADO. The determination and its date will also be
included in the RSA database. See Appendix 1._ -:..r
Page 2
10/01/99
5200.8
d. Revision to Determination. If new information becomes available, the Regional
Airports Division Manager may issue a revised determination. The revised determination
shall be in a form required by Paragraph 8(c) and supported by documentation required by
Paragraph 8(a). The date of the revised determination shall be recorded in the RSA
database.
9. TIMING OF DATA COLLECTION AND DETERMINATION.
The RSA inventory and RSA determinations specified in paragraph 7 and 8 will be
completed in accordance with the following schedule:
a. For runways used by air carriers at airports certificated under 14 CFR Part 139,
the RSA inventory and determination will be completed by June 30, 2000.
b. For all other runways at federally obligated airports, the RSA inventory and
determination can be done at any time, but will normally be done during the master
planning process. However, the inventory and determination must be completed prior to
any project for runway construction, reconstruction, or significant expansion that involv~s
Federal funds. . . .
10. IMPLEMENTATION OF RSA IMPROVEMENTS.
a. A project to improve an RSA in accordance with the determination made in Paragraph
8 may be initiated at any time.
b. Whenever a project for a runway involves construction, reconstruction (includes
overlays), or significant expansion, the project shall also provide for
improving the RSA in accordance with the determination made in Paragraph 8.
Reconstruction and significant expansion are construed as any project that results in
changing the capability of the airport or the load-bearing strength of the pavement,
restores the original design life of the pavement, or changes the actual or potential design
aircraft use.
(1) The requirement to upgrade RSA under Paragraph 10b is applicable at part
139 airports regardless of the funding source for the runway project.
(2) The requirement to upgrade RSA under Paragraph 10b is applicable at federally
obligated airport, if Federal or Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) funds are used for the
project.
11. OVERSIGHT.
The Airport Office of Safety and Standards (AAS) is the office of primary interest.
This office may selectively review RSA analyses or the entire program on a periodic basis
to assure consistency. The office also provides consulting and guidance in judging the
merits of a specific alternative,
Cl)/f ~
David L. Bennett
Director of Airport Safety and Standards
Page 3
10/01/99
5200.8
Appendix 1
Appendix 1. RUNWAY SAFETY AREA DATA BASE
A national data base that is accessible on the Intranet is being developed as part of this
program. The following pages provide sample copies of the formats to be used for entering
RSA information into this data base, The electronic version of this Appendix, along with
accompanying instructions, is available on the FAA intranet and is to be used for transmitting
the above information, As AAS-100 and AAS-300 gain experience in using the data that are
collected through these forms, modifications and/or clarifications may be necessary. The
latest version of this Appendix will always be found on the Intranet.
-:...-
Page 1
5200.8
Appendix 1
Runway Form
Locid:1
Airport: I
City/State:1
10/01/99
, Region:1
c:::J ADO:I
Runway Ends:/
Actual RSA Length
Actual RSA Width
RSA Grade (+/- 5%) 0 0
Dimensional Unifonnity: 0 0
Runway:1
Length:w
Width:
Part 139: 0
CRITICAL AIRCRAFT:
Approach category:c=J
Design Group:~
Visibility Minimums:l
PUBLISHED RUNWAY
SAFETY AREA STANDARDS:
Length:c=J
Width:c.:==:=J
Unifonnity Comments:
- ~~^ O~t,.rq:a;q.,tioA
Currently Meets Standards 0 0
Practicable to Meet Standards 0 0
Can be Improved But Will Not Meet Standards 0 0
Not Practicable to Improve 0 0
Date of Detennination (month/year):1 I
,... PliRRQQ Im~PJ"'im'iRt8 0
RSA to Design Standards Obtainable: 0
Runway Realignment or Relocation: 0 0
Shift Runway From Present Alignment 0 0
Use Declared Distances: 0 0
Use EMAS: 0 0
Other: 0 0
Scheduled Completion (year):c=J
Remaining costs:c.:==:=J
Improvement Comments:
Page 2
10/01/99
5200.8
Appendix 1
Object Form
Locid:1
R unw.lY S.lf8ty Aru D .It .I Shut
Alrport:1
CilyISt.lte:1
Region:L-.j
AD o:[=::J
RUNWAY ng
~
.
J:
-
...
--- - - - ------ - - - -- i
Runway S l1f!ty Aru ..
Ltt th
Obiecrt Identi1ication Obiecrt Loc.ltion Object St.ltus
... 0 .. E~
:o.c .. .... ..
Rwy "'0 J.:;6 ;g .!!,! !
No. Type Name Ally &ld Oist UR UR Oist ....15 ~~ "" ~g Ow ne r It
&ld .~ 5 c:
I! c ._ %
...... IX ... l!M X U
...
--page 3
- ~
10/01/99
5200.8
Appendix 2
Appendix 2. Supporting Documentation for RSA Determinations
1. GENERAL.
RSA determinations must be supported by documentation that provides the rationale upon
which the determination was based. The extent of the documentation will vary, depending
upon the circumstances. For example, in cases where the RSA already meets the current
standards through a traditional graded area surrounding the runway a simple statement to this
effect will suffice. Where declared distances have been implemented to obtain the RSA, the
documentation would contain a statement to this effect and also identify the graded area that
exists beyond each runway end. In contrast, in cases where it is not practicable to improve a
safety area to meet current standards, the documentation must address the alternatives that
were considered and explain the reasons why one was selected over the others.
2. CONSIDERATIONS IN EVALUATING ALTERNATIVES. .'
In evaluating alternatives for obtaining or improving RSAs, there are many factors that could
affect the viability of the alternative. What may be viable at one airport may not be viable at
another. Factors to be considered include:
a. Historical records of airport accidents/incidents.
b. The airport plans as reflected in current and forecast volume of passengers, number
of operations, design aircraft and percent runway use, both for all weather and IFR
operations,
c. The extent to which the existing RSA complies with the standard. High performance
aircraft, operating at higher loads and speeds have greater requirements than small, low
performance aircraft.
d. Site constraints. These include, for example, precipitous terrain drop-off, the
existence of bodies of water, wetlands, a major highway, a railroad at a runway end,
etc.
e. Weather and climatic conditions. These include conditions such as low visibility,
rain, snow, and ice and the frequency of these conditions. Overruns on contaminated
runways constitute a significant percentage of runway excursions.
f. Availability of visual and electronic aids for landing.
3. ALTERNATIVES TO BE CONSIDERED.
The first alternative to be considered in every case is constructing the traditional graded area
surrounding the runway. Where it is not practicable to obtain the entire safety area in this
manner, as much as possible should be obtained. Then, the following alternatives shall be
addressed in the supporting documentation. The applicability of these alternatives will vary,
depending on the location.
a. Relocation, shifting, or realignment of the runway.
b. Reduction in runway length where the existing runway length
exceeds that which is required for the existing or projected design aircraft,
-. -..JO"'
Page 1
5200.8
Appendix 2
10/01/99
c. A combination of runway relocation, shifting, grading,
realignment, or reduction
d. Declared distances.
e. Engineered Materials Arresting Systems (EMAS).
4. CONSIDERATIONS IN ASSESSING ALTERNATIVES.
When making determinations about the practicability of obtaining the RSA, the first attempt
shall consist of investigating fully the possibility of obtaining RSA that meets the current
standards through a traditional graded area surrounding the runway. Land acquisition, grading
" requirements as well as environmental conditions must be examined. Any portion of land that
will increase the RSA, even if it is but an incremental increase (see Paragraph 4a below) and
will not result in meeting the standard fully, is preferable and will serve as a starting pOint for
the consideration of additional alternatives (see paragraphs 4b through 4f below).
a. Incremental gains must be obtained whenever possible. The gain may be relatively very
little, but any gain is valuable. The following example illustrates this. , .' '
The design standard for an RSA beyond the runway end, 1,000' by 500', is not met. The,
dimensions are 300' by 500' on each of the ends. By filling and grading, another 200'
could be gained on one end. This should be accomplished as an incremental gain, even
though it will not provide the design standard. Other alternatives (see Paragraphs 4b through
4f below) would then be considered for obtaining the remainder of the safety area.
300'
additional 200' by
filling and grading
500'
b. When obtaining a standard RSA is not practicable through traditional means (e.g. land
acquisition, grading, fill, etc.), alternatives must be explored. During some types of projects, it
may be feasible to relocate, realign, shift, or change a runway in such a way that the RSA may
be obtained. It is recognized that the costs of this kind of adjustment may be justified only in
an extensive project, but the concept should be evaluated to determine if it is a practicable
alternative.
Page 2
_ -:.::r
10/01/99
5200.8
Appendix 2
c. Another alternative to be addressed is a reduction in runway length. This is a viable option
if the current critical aircraft requires less than what is presently available, or the use of other
runways, if available, will accommodate the larger aircraft.
d. When considering the configuration of RSA, if the total RSA area available is less that the
total required to meet the design standard, an appropriate balance may be achieved by
allocating a greater portion of RSA to one runway end. The factors to consider in this
allocation are: navaids (ILS, PAPI, PLASI, VASls), which provide vertical guidance and lessen
the likelihood of an undershoot; predominant direction of runway use by air carrier aircraft, and
. historical data on overruns on the runway. For example, the total available RSA below is
1400'. Because there is an ILS for air carrier use, a determination is made to allocate 900' to
the departure end of this runway and 500' to the approach end of the runway
6,~
~OOO'
.............
500' 500' 900'
ILS is located on this end of the runway
e. Declared distances present another alternative that may provide an acceptable
means of providing RSA. This requires a thorough understanding of user needs and
views, since their cooperation is an integral factor in selecting this alternative. However,
the airport, in conjunction with FAA, will determine the final disposition of this type of situation.
f. At any time, when it is not practicable to obtain a safety area that meets current standards,
consideration should be given to enhancing the safety of the area beyond the runway end
with the installation of EMAS. The AC 150/5220-22, Engineered Materials Arresting
Systems (EMAS) for Aircraft Overruns, pertaining to the installation and use of EMAS,
provides details on design to be considered in determining feasibility of this alternative.
-
~ j,o
Page 3
5200.8
Appendix 2
10/01/99
g. When it is not practicable to obtain an RSA that meets current standards through the
measures identified in Paragraphs 4a through 4e, the feasibility of increasing the size of the
RSA by including additional land parcels should be considered, even if their inclusion will result
in an RSA with an irregular shape. This alternative should be explored, irrespective of a
decision to install EMAS in the RSA. For example, the design standard for an RSA beyond the
runway end is not met. However, a parcel of land is available and would lengthen the RSA on
one side only. This should be accomplished and noted in the comment section provided in the
database. The following example illustrates this.
300' 250'
/
additional
irregularly-
shaped
piece that ." .
will extend
the RSA
on one
side
500'
at this
point.
- ~
J*
Page 4