The URL can be used to link to this page

item C2 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY MEETING DATE: 04/17/03 DIVISION: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BULK ITEM: No DEPARTMENT: AIRPORTS AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Presentation by URS of the Runway Safety Area (RSA) Feasibility Study for Key West International Airport. ITEM BACKGROUND: Pursuant to FAA order 5200.8 and direction from the Airports District Office, the RSA Feasibility Study was commissioned. Please note that this study has a short and concise (2 and a half pages) executiye summary starting on page 1 of the document. Also please be adyised that as per the Board direction from the April 2002 BOCC meeting in Key West, this study only addresses the Runway Safety Area, not any runway expansion or additional runway. The need for additional runway is discussed in the Master Plan presentation, which follows this item on the agenda. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: The BOCC approved the URS Professional Service Order (PSO) for this study on 9/18/02. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval to submit the study to the FAA. As we predicted in our own RSA study, (reYiewed and approyed by the BOCC on 4/18/01) the cost of the enyironmental mitigation is extremely high. Please review the study (or at least the executive summary), listen to the presentation, and allow us to present it to the FAA with any modifications or suggestions from the Board. TOTAL COST: N/A BUDGETED: N/A COST TO COUNTY: N/A REVENUE PRODUCING: N/A AMOUNT PER MONTH/YEAR: N/A APPROVED BY: County Attomey N/A OMB/Purchasing N/A Risk Management N/A DIRECTOR APPROVAL t<r& Peter J. Horton DOCUMENTATION: Included X To Follow Not Required AGENDA ITEM # ~ zrl.Z DISPOSITION: /pjh I -lit' - KEY WEST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT RUNWAY SAFETY AREA FEASIBILITY STUDY RUNWAY SAFETY AREA FEASIBiliTY STUDY Key West International Airport Monroe County, Florida Prepared for: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners and the Federal Aviation Administration Prepared by: - URS URS Corporation Miami, Florida Tampa, Florida March 2003 TABLE.OF CONTENTS 1.0 Execut;ye Summary...................... .......... .......... .... ............................ .............. ................. ..... ......... ...... 1 2.0 Introduction ..... .......... ......... ...... ........................ ...... ............. ......... .......... ........ ....... .......... .... ............ .....4 3.0 Purpose and Scope of the Study... ....... ................................ ........ ........... .................... ........... .............5 4.0 Airport Information ..... .... ..... .... ...... ... ..... .... ..... ................. .......... ... ........ ..... ............... ....... ......... .... ........6 4.1 Key West International Airport.... ..... ........ .... ....... ....... ................. ....... ................. ............. .......6 4.2 Airport Actiyity......................................................................................................................... 6 4.3 Airport Master Plan Update. ........................... ............. ........ .... ................ ........... ..... ..... ..........7 5.0 KWIA Runway Safety Area Requirements................ ............ .... ............... ......... ....... ...... .......... .... ....... 8 5.1 RSA Definition and Purpose......... ..... ...... ....... ...... ........ ................. ............ ......... ...... ..............8 5.2 RSA Design Standards ......... ..................... .................... .................... ............. .............. .........8 5.3 Existing and Proposed RSA Dimensions ...............................................................................9 5.4 F M RSA Implementation ... .......... ........... ............. ....... .................. .......... ........ ...... ................ 9 5.5 Proposed Runway Safety Area Improyements .................................................................... 10 5.6 Runway Object Free Area Considerations...........................................................................10 5.7 Project Alternatives...................... ......... ........ .......... ............. ........... .... ............... ........... ....... 11 5.8 Estimated RSA Construction Cost ....................................................................................... 11 5.9 Anticipated Project Impacts.... ..... .............. ...................... .................. ..... ............. ......... ........ 11 6.0 Agency Coordination........................ ............ .................. ....... ...... ............. .... ........ ....... .... .... .............. 13 6.1 Agency Contact and Coordination.. ................ ........ ....... .................................. ......... ............ 13 6.2 Agency Issues and Concerns........ ................. ..... ....... ....................... ........ .......... ........ ......... 13 7.0 Conceptual Mitigation Strategies and Costs ..................................................................................... 17 7.1 Permits and Approyals ........... .............. ..................... ..... ....... ............................ ............. ...... 17 7.1.1 State Permits and Approval ................................................................................. 17 7.1.2 Federal Permits and Approvals............................................................................ 17 7.2 Anticipated Project Impact Analysis ..................................................................................... 17 7.3 Anticipated Mitigation Ratios.. ......... .............. .......................................... ........ ..... ................ 19 7.4 Potential Mitigation Opportunities..... .... ........................ ....... ................................ ........... ......20 7.5 Mitigation Cost Estimates........ .......... ....... .............. ........ ...... .............. .... .......... .................... 21 7.6 Potential Mitigation Opportunities.. ......... .............. ........ .............. ......... .............. ...................23 8.0 Mitigation Opportunity Analysis .... ............................... ............... ............ ....... ........................ ...... ......41 9.0 Conclusion....... ... ....................... ............. .............. ....... ........ ....... .......... ........... ..................... .............46 Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Runway Safety Area Requirements Agency Coordination Cost Estimates Other Considerations KWIA Existing Habitat Photographs W:\ 12637802_KWIA RSA\Feasibility\Rpt.doc3l26103 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study LIST OF TABLES 4.2-1 Aircraft Operations and Enplanements 5.3-1 Runway Safety Area Dimensions - Existing and Proposed 5.9-1 Potential Standard RSA Wetland Impacts 6.1-1 Agency Contact and Coordination 7.3-1 Range of Potential Mitigation Acreage that could be Required by SFWMD 7.3-2 Projected Wetland Impacts and Potential Mitigation Acreages 8.1-1 Potential Mitigation Site Evaluation Matrix 4.1-1 4.1-2 5.3-1 5.3-2 5.3-3 5.5-1 5.5-2 5.9-1 7.2-1 7.6-1 7.6-2 7.6-3 7.6-4 7.6-5 7.6-6 7.6-7 7.6-8 7.6-9 7.6-10 7.6-11 7.6-12 7.6-13 7.6-14 7.6-15 7.6-16 7.6-17 7.6-18 7.6-19 LIST OF FIGURES Vicinity Map Airfield Layout Runway 9 Safety Area Requirements Runway 9-27 Safety Area Requirements Runway 27 Safety Area Requirements Proposed RSA on Runway 9 End Proposed RSA on Runway 27 End Proposed RSA and Impact Areas Habitat Quality Designations Potential Mitigation Sites Creation / Restoration on Airport Property Creation / Restoration on City of Key West Property and Monroe County Property Cow Key Road Remoyal North Boca Chica Restoration USFWS Key Deer Refuge Road Remoyal Sugarloaf Loop Road Removal and Limestone Quarry Restoration Summerland Key Bridge Removal Cudjoe Key Limestone Mine Restoration Cudjoe Key Canal Restoration Spain Bouleyard Culvert and Fill Remoyal Key Deer Refuge Dredge Hole Restoration Finger Fill Remoyal Habitat for Humanity Site Restoration Western Big Pine Dredge Hole Restoration Key Deer Refuge Limestone Pit Restoration No Name Key Limestone Pit Restoration Ohio Key Mangroye Restoration Nature View Property Restoration W:\ 12637802_KWIA RSA\Feasibility\Apt.doc3l26103 ii Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study - )"'C'> - - 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ,.. 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (County) and the Federal AYiation Administration (FAA) are evaluating the practicability of proYiding a standard Runway Safety Area (RSA) for Runway 9/27 at the Key West International Airport (KWIA). The RSA is a graded and grassed area around the runway payement that proYides support for an aircraft in the eyent of an excursion from the runway without causing structural damage to the aircraft or injury to their occupants. The existing RSA does not meet FAA requirements and design standards. The existing RSA is approximately 300 feet wide along the length of the runway. The existing RSA extends approximately 110 feet beyond the end of Runway 9. Beyond the end of Runway 27 end, the existing RSA length yaries from 210 feet to 400 feet. The required RSA dimensions, based on current operations, are 500 feet wide by 1 ,000 feet beyond each runway end. FAA regulations require that the County study how it can meet the RSA design standards. The FAA will then eyaluate and make a determination of the practicability of proYiding a standard RSA at the airport. The purpose of this study is to provide information for the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners and the Federal AYiation Administration to determine the enYironmental feasibility and practicability of proYiding a standard RSA at the KWIA. The study will identify potential permitting issues and identify conceptual mitigation strategies and projected costs associated with the proposed RSA deyelopment. Giyen the airport's physical setting, the scope of this feasibility study is focused on the potential to obtain necessary wetland-related enYironmental permits and the probable magnitude and cost of wetland mitigation. The feasibility study includes coordination with select Federal and state agencies to identify potential permit issues and probable mitigation requirements. A summary of the findings and conclusion is presented below: Development of a Conceptual Mitigation Strategy · The development of conceptual mitigation strategies first identified potential direct impacts to wetland resources at the airport resulting from the construction of the standard RSA. The impacts were discussed with regulatory and commenting agencies through a series of meetings and site Yisits to identify potential permit issues and probable mitigation requirements. · A list of potential mitigation sites was prepared through the reYiew of aerial photographs and maps. Coordination with local resource agency representatiYes and organizations was then conducted to identify additional potential mitigation opportunities. A field reconnaissance was also conducted to reYiew accessible sites and identify additional sites. · The list of potential mitigation projects was coordinated with regulatory and commenting agencies to further discuss issues and probable mitigation requirements. The result of this effort allowed URS to develop conceptual mitigation strategies and preliminary mitigation costs for consideration by Monroe County and the Federal AYiation Administration_ W:\ 12637802_KWIA RSA\Feasibility\Rpt.doc3l26103 1 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study RSA Project Impact Issues · The RSA project would impact substantial mangroye community and open water habitat on Key West. Approximately 24.9 acres of wetlands will be directly impacted. Salt pond habitats are considered to be a unique resource on Key West. · For the permit application process, the regulatory and commenting agencies will require a detailed analysis of alternatiyes that first ayoid and then minimize impacts to the wetland habitats, including consideration of a No-Action alternatiye. · The regulatory and commenting agencies indicated that cumulatiye and secondary impacts will likely be significant issues to be addressed during any subsequent NEPA environmental studies and permit application process. · The RSA project and proposed mitigation will require the remoyal of the abandoned bunker located west of the runway. This action will require approyal from the State Historic Preservation Officer. · Potential impacts to protected species, wildlife, Essential Fish Habitat, and migratory birds are of concern to the regulatory and commenting agencies. · Potential impacts to water quality and hydrology in the salt ponds are of concern to the regulatory and commenting agencies. · Federal participation in the proposed RSA project will require the preparation of an Enyironmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement. Mitigation Issues · It is estimated that 77.8 acres of wetland creation/restoration may be required for the direct impacts of the proposed RSA project. Detailed habitat eyaluations and related impact studies will proYide the basis for final mitigation ratios, which could vary from the probable ratios deyeloped for this study. · The regulatory and commenting agencies are interested in maximizing on-site mitigation before considering off-site options. Physical constraints limit on-site opportunities. It has been determined that off-site mitigation is needed to satisfy probable mitigation requirements. · Regulatory agencies may seek higher ratios for off-site mitigation than on-site mitigation. · The deyelopment of a conceptual mitigation strategy found that a single site suitable to proYide all of the projected mitigation is not ayailable in the Yicinity of the airport. The mitigation strategy inyolyes a number of smaller projects located throughout the lower Keys. · Ten mitigation sites on public land were identified. The land to the north of the airport where some mitigation is proposed is owned by the County but leased to the City of Key West. Other public-owned mitigation sites are under County or federal ownership. Agreements will be required for the County to conduct mitigation on the leased property and federal property. · Eight mitigation sites are privately owned and would require acquisition. · One potential mitigation site (the Habitat for Humanity site) has known enyironmental concerns. Additional investigation is needed to determine if the liability and costs for any hazardous material clean-up would be prohibitiye. · Eighteen sites with approximately 108 acres of wetland creation potential and 5.4 acres of wetland enhancement were identified. Mitigation on sites considered to have high and moderate potential for use would yield approximately 61.3 acres of mitigation credit toward the 77.8 acres estimated to be needed. W:\12637802_KWIARSA\Feasibility\Rpt.doc3l26/03 2 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study . Three sites considered to have low potential, primarily due to possible acquisition issues and environmental liability, would collectiYely haye an additional 52.3 acres of wetland creation credit potential. The North Boca Chica site, with approximately 41.5 acres of potential mitigation, would proYide the best option for providing additional mitigation. However, discussions with regulatory agencies indicate that this land has been considered on other mitigation projects, but acquisition issues were not resolyed. - Probable Project Costs . The total projected construction cost for the standard RSA at KWIA, including design and construction phase fees, is $9,161,200. . Land acquisition costs for the mitigation sites were deyeloped from the Monroe County Property Appraiser's Office records, with a 30 percent increase added to the County's Just Valuation estimates. Detailed appraisals may indicate fair market values higher than estimated in this study. The acquisition costs include estimated incidental costs (Le., appraisals, surveys, etc.) but not potential additional costs for negotiated settlements or potential imminent domain acquisitions. . Mitigation cost estimates were based on conceptual excayation, clearing and grubbing, and re-yegetation requirements for each mitigation project. The costs include consideration of potential design, permitting and construction phase fees. . The total projected cost of all the mitigation projects identified is $14,376,400. . The total projected cost of the RSA construction, land acquisition, and mitigation projects is $23,537,600. -- W:\ 12637802_KWIA RSA\Feasibility\Rpt.doc3l26/03 3 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study -- 2.0 INTRODUCTION ,- 2.0 INTRODUCTION The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (County) and the Federal Ayiation Administration (FAA) are eyaluating the feasibility and practicability of proYiding a standard Runway Safety Area (RSA) for Runway 9/27 at Key West International Airport (KWIA). The RSA is an improyed area around the runway that provides support for an aircraft without causing structural damage to the aircraft or injury to their occupants in the event of an excursion from the payed runway surface. The existing RSA does not meet FAA requirements and design standards due to the existence of salt ponds and mangroyes beyond each end and along the northern edge of the runway. The RSA is an integral part of the runway environment, and numerous instances at other airports involying runway excursions, including incidents with fatalities, underscore the importance of haYing an adequate RSA. The stable surface helps an aircraft come to a stop while minimizing structural damage and the potential for injury or loss of life in the event of a runway excursion. Of importance is the RSA proYided at each end of the runway, where most excursions tend to occur. The RSA also proYides a surface around the runway suitable for the moyement of firefighting and emergency vehicles. -- W:\ 12637B02_KWIA RSA\Feasibility\Rpt.doc3l26103 4 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study .... .- 3.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY 3.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY The purpose of the study is to proYide information for the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners and the FAA to make a determination of the practicability of providing a standard RSA at KWIA. Safety is FAA's highest priority in the ay;ation system, and a determination of practicability is based primarily on whether the proYision of a standard RSA is either technically feasible and/or financially feasible. If the FAA's decision is that a standard RSA is not practicable, then an eyaluation of other options to proYide an additional RSA will be conducted. The intent of this study is to identify potential permitting issues and identify conceptual mitigation strategies and costs associated with the proposed RSA development. Given the airport's physical setting, the scope of this feasibility study is focused on the potential to obtain necessary wetland-related enYironmental permits and the probable magnitude and cost of mitigation. The feasibility study includes coordination with select Federal and state agencies to identify potential permit issues and probable mitigation requirements. The environmental resources of concem in this study will be generally limited to the natural enYironment (Le., mangroyes, salt ponds, wetlands, and protected species). The resources will be identified and quantified generally through available aerial photography and the understanding of the site and from project personnel haYing field experience at the airport and in the lower Keys area. Impacts will generally be quantified by the area (acreage) impacted. The enYironmental analysis conducted for this study does not include detailed biological or habitat studies, surveys for protected species, water quality studies, cultural resource assessments, and site- specific wetland delineation and surveys, or preparation of detailed mitigation plans. The enYironmental analysis does not include consideration of air quality impacts, aircraft noise impacts, social impacts, or economic impacts. These are customarily addressed in a formal Environmental Assessment or EnYironmentallmpact Statement. /"" In the case that the County and FAA decide to implement a standard RSA, the County's request for federal assistance to improye the RSA will require a detailed reYiew of enYironmental impacts under the National EnYironmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Reasonable altematiyes, including a No-Action Altematiye, would be thoroughly examined in the NEPA reYiew process. As such, this feasibility study does not proYide an impact analysis on whether the proposed standard RSA improyement would trigger any thresholds of significance per FAA guidance (FAA Orders 5050.4A and 1050.1 D) or other applicable laws and regulations. --" W:\ 12637802_KW IA RSA\Feasibilily\Rpt.doc3l26103 5 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study "'.- ... ... ....... 4.0 AIRPORT INFORMATION ,..." 4.0 AIRPORT INFORMATION 4.1 Key West International Airport KWIA provides airfield, terminal, and support facilities for scheduled commercial flights, air charter/taxi operations, air cargo, and general aviation operations. The location of the airport is shown in Figure 4.1-1, and the layout of airfield facilities are depicted in Figure 4.1-2. KWIA is a critical component of the transportation network serving south Monroe County and the City of Key West. The community relies on aviation for the shipment of goods and major means of trayel. Seventy percent of passenger traffic at KWIA is tourism-related (KWIA Draft Master Plan Update, 2003). The total annual economic impact of an airport to its community is a combination of direct and indirect impacts associated with the provision and use of aviation services as well as the multiplier effect associated with the re-spending of money in the area. The total annual economic impact of KWIA is $806 million, of which $260 million is paid in earnings to 12,288 jobs (Florida Aviation System Plan, 2000). 4.2 Airport Activity The number of aircraft operations (take-offs and landing) and annual passenger enplanements for 2001, 2011, and 2020, as published in the current FAA Terminal Area Forecast, are presented in Table 4.2-1. As shown, the level of aircraft operations and the number of commercial passengers are expected to increase substantially over the next 20-year period. During peak months in 2001, approximately 349 aircraft operations were generated daily at the airport. Average daily operations during peak months are expected to reach 419 by 2021 (URS Corporation, 2003). TABLE 4.2-1 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AND ENPLANEMENTS 2001 2011 2020 97,517 102,413 111 ,413 5.0 8.8 280,376 342,493 414,372 22.2 21.0 Source: Federal Aviation Administration, Terminal Area Forecast. 2003. W:\ 12637802_KW IA RSA \Feasibility\Rpt.doc3127103 6 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study A variety of commercial and general aviation aircraft operate at KWIA. Commercial air carrier aircraft operating at the airport include small commuter aircraft and larger aircraft, such as the turbo-prop ATR-72 and the turbine-powered regional jet (CRJ-700). These turbine aircraft are more demanding (e.g., approach speed) and can carry 50 to 70 passengers. A wide yariety of general ayiation aircraft, including high-performance business jets, also use the airport on a regular basis. CRJ-700 Regional Jet at KWIA 4.3 Airport Master Plan Update Monroe County, with assistance from the FAA, is currently in the process of updating the Airport Master Plan for KWIA. The Master Plan has been completed and will be submitted to the County for their approval in April 2003. The Master Plan will proYide a long-term plan for airport improvements necessary to meet future ayiation demand. The airport Master Plan was previously updated in 1986 and reyised in August 1992. W:\ 12637802_KW IA RSA \FeasibilitylRpt.doc3127103 7 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study .., ... ,;; .., ~ ... ~ ... 0 i q .. .= '" -- 5- ~ a; :f ~ 0 F! (I) ~ :J a; In < ~ < (I) ~ ~ ~ ? -'; Gulf of Mexico KEY WEST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ATLANTIC OCEAN Key West International Airport RSA Feasibility Study VICINITY MAP FIGURE: 4.1-1 2.DWG 03/13/03 Ul > , -I "tl o Z CJ ) I --1 uS I I I _\1 I I ~ I i rii ~ 0 ~ I 0 ~ I G) ::j z > ~ '" ;;j ;c r ~ I I :0 ~ I :0 > > :!l "tl fTl ::l ;c ;c '" 0 ~ I ~ al "tl Ei :0 G) 8 "tl -I I 0 0 fTl :I: -< :0 :0 "tl "tl (J "tl>' '> -I -I > :0 Z >:l:~ ." '> al al rii 0 0 i :0> "tl "tl C C :l: "tl 0 ;>;;Ul :0 "tl r= r= '" '" I > 0 :0 (J :0 CJ 0 Z ~ ~ 0 z Z -I I ~ G) G) , 5; I Z '" ~ I Ul > , -I "tl 0 Z CJ I I '" I I 0 I 0 I I I o .Z ;:!;;>;;:l: Ul"'> -1-<:0 ~~;;j (")(J)F ~-IO <e:. ~ Vh ..... ~ i"" 5" - :c CD en .., ~ i" ~ :::r. CD <n 0'< Ji=e en >i c =i-... ~"C o .., - )> - :lD "T1 m r- C r- )> -< o c: ....J \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \" ", \" ", ............ ,~ ", ", ".... ...."" ,...::::--_- --- f;:J -- -- - - 5.0 KWIA RUNWAY SAFETY AREA REQUIREMENTS 5.0 KWIA RUNWAY SAFETY AREA REQUIREMENTS 5.1 RSA Definition and Purpose An RSA is defined in the FAA Adyisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13, Airport Design, as: "A defined surface surrounding the runway prepared or suitable for reducing the risk of damage to airplanes in the event of an undershoot, oyershoot, or excursion from the runway." The rationale for the RSA is to provide a stable surface around the payed runway that will enhance the safety of passengers by supporting an aircraft which may depart the runway. An additional safety-related purpose is to proYide greater accessibility for firefighting and emergency rescue vehicles during such incidents. 5.2 RSA Design Standards RSA dimensions are dependent on the airport's Airport Reference Code (ARC). The ARC for an airport is based on the approach speed and wingspan of Critical Aircraft operating at the airport. Airplanes operating at higher speeds require increased safety allowances for speed and reduced decision time. As such, the RSA requirements increase as the ARC increases. KWIA RSA Requirements - The ARC for KWIA is C-1I1. This is based on Approach Category C (CRJ- 700 Regional Jet) and Airplane Design Group III (Dash 8). The required RSA dimensions for the C-1I1 ARC is 500 feet wide by 1,000 feet beyond each runway end. Appendix A contains the applicable reference table from FAA AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design. The initial planning criteria and agency coordination conducted for this study referenced a D-III ARC based on the CRJ-200 Regional Jet that was in service at KWIA in 2002. The planning criteria for the Airport Master Plan Update was subsequently reyised to ARC C-1I1 since the CRJ-200 no longer serves the airport. The change in the ARC does not affect the RSA dimensions or requirements for this study as they are the same for both Approach Category C and D aircraft. In the past, the FAA could issue a Modification of Standards if an RSA did not meet dimensional standards as long as an acceptable level of safety was proYided. FAA AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design, Change 7, dated October 1, 2002, states that Modification of Standards no longer apply to Runway Safety Areas. RSA Construction Requirements - FAA AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design, requires that the RSA be: 1. Cleared and graded and haye no potentially hazardous ruts, humps, depressions, or other surface variations; 2. Drained to prevent water accumulation; W:\ 12637802_KW IA RSA\Feasibility\Rpt.doc3l26103 8 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study 3. Capable, under dry conditions, to support equipment (including rescue and fire fighting vehicles) and the occasional passage of aircraft without causing structural damage to the aircraft; and 4. Free of objects, except for those required by function. 5.3 Existing and Proposed RSA Dimensions The existing RSA at the airport does not meet the dimensional requirements for the current C-1I1 ARC. The existing RSA and the required RSA are shown in Figures 5.3-1, 5.3-2, and 5.3-3. Table 5.3-1 summarizes the dimensions of the required, existing, and proposed RSA. It is important to note that the RSA improyement project considered in this feasibility study is required for current airport operations and are needed to meet current safety standards. TABLE 5.3-1 RUNWAY SAFETY AREA DIMENSIONS - EXISTING AND PROPOSED 300' +/- yaries 300' W x 110' L +/- Runwa 27 End 500' W x 1,000' L 300' W x 210' - 400' L +/_ Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13; URS Corporation, 2002. 500' 500' W x 1,000' L 500' W x 1,000' l 5.4 FAA RSA Implementation Design - FAA AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design, specifies the dimensions, gradients, and particulars of a RSA as applied to different ARC classifications. Certification - Federal Ayiation Regulations (FAR) Part 139, Certification and Operations: Land Airports Serving Certain Air Carriers, proYides certification requirements for airports with scheduled commercial passenger service (14 CFR 139). KWIA currently holds a Part 139 certificate and must comply with the requirements of the certification program. FAR Part 139.309 requires that each certificate holder proYide and maintain safety areas for runways and taxiways. In the case of KWIA, the existing RSA configuration has been grandfathered by the FAA; howeyer, a planned runway resurfacing project requires that airport studies now meet RSA standards. FAR Part 139 references the Airport Design circular for the configuration and maintenance of safety areas. RSA Program - The FAA has aggressively restated its long-standing policy to bring safety areas up to standard by the issuance of FAA Order 5200.8, Runway Safety Area Program, in October 1999. The order establishes procedures to ensure that all RSAs at federally obligated airports and Part 139 certificated airports conform to the standards in FAA AC 150/5300-13, to the extent practicable. The program calls for an inventory of RSAs at each airport and a determination of compliance for each RSA. W:\ 12637802_KWIA RSA\Feasibility\Rpt_d0c3/26103 9 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study ~ ., ..., .,; '" Ii: /' ~ III :E ~ f: ~ ~ ::J ! ~ € ~ ~ '" /' -'; LEGEND N - v/~ AIRPORT PROPERTY UNE REQUIRED RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA) REQUIRED RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA (ROFA) 300 I o 300 ---- ---- EXISTING RUNWAY SAFETY AREA GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET Key West International Airport RSA Feasibility Study RUNWA Y 9 SAFETY AREA REQUIREMENTS FIGURE: 5.3-1 ~ o ri I .., ori '" c;: /' ~ lD X 1:5 f ~ ~ ::J ! ~ 0:: ~ ... :I: ~ '" /' -'; LEGEND N - ---- AIRPORT PROPERTY UNE REQUIRED RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA) REQUIRED RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA (ROFA) 300 --- 300 I o v/~ EXISTING RUNWAY SAFETY AREA GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET . ~ '\ - _~ i ',~--- ,,- i I.~"':~ .:::...". Key West International Airport RSA Feasibility Study RUNWAY 9-27 SAFETY AREA REQUIREMENTS FIGURE: 5.3-2 ..-"""-_._-,-........~---~,~- ~ o n I ", ---- .,; '" 5- ---- ~ m :;: 1j 5" ~ ~ ::J ~ Uli ~ ... ~ ~ ....- -? LEGEND N - AIRPORT PROPERTY UNE REQUIRED RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA) REQUIRED RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA (ROFA) 300 I o 300 v/~ GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET EXISTING RUNWAY SAFETY AREA Key West International Airport RSA Feasibility Study RUNWAY 27 SAFETY AREA REQUIREMENTS FIGURE: 5.3-3 In regard to RSA determinations, the order states: "When making determinations about the practicability of obtaining the RSA, the first attempt shall consist of inyestigating fully the possibility of obtaining an RSA that meets the current standards through a traditional graded area surrounding the runway." (FAA Order 5200.8). A Runway Safety Area Study was prepared in March of 2001 for KWIA. However, the FAA has requested further inyestigation of the feasibility of implementing a standard RSA at KWIA. That request has resulted in the preparation of this study. 5.5 Proposed Runway Safety Area Improvements The proposed improvements to the RSA considered in this study consist of constructing a standard, graded RSA conforming to the design standards contained in FAA AC 150/5300-13. The dimension of /' the RSA would be 500 feet wide and extend 1 ,000 feet beyond each runway end. A diagram of the proposed RSA improyements is shown on Figures 5.5-1 and 5.5-2. 5.6 Runway Object Free Area Considerations The C-III ARC also affects the implementation of the airport's runway Object Free Area (OFA). The OFA is an "area on the ground centered on a runway, taxiway, or taxilane centerline provided to enhance the safety of aircraft operations by having the area free of objects, except for objects that need to be located in the OFA for air naYigation or aircraft ground maneuvering purposes" (FAA AC 150/5300-13). For a C-1I1 ARC, the requirement for the runway OFA is 800 feet wide (centered on the runway centerline) and 1,000 feet beyond the each runway end. Buildings, structures, trees, and brush are usually removed from the OFA. There are no fill or grade requirements for the OFA. At KWIA, the impact of implementing the runway OFA would be the additional clearing of approximately 14 acres of trees and brush. The area would be comprised of approximately 11.5 acres of mangroye and 2.5 acres of Brazilian pepper and Australian pine. It is anticipated that the clearing of trees and brush would be accomplished manually without the use of heayy equipment in wetlands. The effect, however, would be the remoyal of some habitat proYided by the trees and yegetation in the OFA. In order to minimize impacts at KWIA in regard to proposed safety improyements, the FAA is willing to consider a Modification of Standards to the OFA to allow the OFA at the same dimensions as the required RSA, proYided that the County proYides documentation that the reduced OF A has an acceptable leyel of safety. The result would be an OFA that is 500 feet wide by 1,000 feet in length beyond each runway end. The modification of the OFA is proposed since the OFA is a land clearance requirement, as opposed to the grading and construction requirement of an RSA that is needed to support an aircraft in the event of a runway excursion. The approval of the Modification of Standards would require an FAA finding that the proposed modification is safe for the specific site and conditions. W:\ 12637802_KW IA RSA\FeasibUity\Rpt.doc3l26103 10 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study Scale Yaries LEGEND N .. . Runway Safety Area *-' 'dt Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study Key West International Airport Proposed RSA on Runway 9 End Figure: 5.5-1 Scale Yaries LEGEND ----. N . Runway Safety Area ~ ~, Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study Key West International Airport Proposed RSA on Runway 27 End Figure: 5.5-2 5.7 Project Alternatiyes In accordance with the Runway Safety Area Program and the FAA's priority commitment to safety, the FAA must first make a determination about the practicability of obtaining a RSA that meets design standards through a traditional graded area around the runway. As such, the scope of this study is limited to consideration of the standard RSA. If it is found that the standard RSA is not practicable, the FAA may then eyaluate options and alternatiyes that would improye safety at theKWIA through a non-standard RSA. During the course of any NEPA- related enyironmental documentation and permit application process, a detailed eyaluation of alternatives, including the No-Action Alternative, would be conducted. 5.8 Estimated RSA Construction Cost The estimated probable construction cost for the standard RSA at KWIA is $9,161,200 (URS, 2003). This amount includes probable costs for construction, design fees, and construction phase services. This cost estimate does not include mitigation. Mitigation costs will be discussed in subsequent sections of this report. A copy of the RSA construction cost estimate is included in Appendix C. 5.9 Anticipated Project Impacts Three wetland types would be impacted by the construction of the RSA: mangroye wetlands, salt ponds, and exposed cap rock. The impacts would be caused by grading and filling actiyities associated with the development of the RSA. The construction of a standard RSA at the KWIA is projected to impact approximately 24.9 acres of wetlands. The 24.9 acres identified differs from the 31.0 acres referenced in the Master Plan Update and the materials prepared at the outset of this study. During the course of this feasibility study, coordination and a site yisit was conducted with the South Florida Water Management District. Based on discussions with District staff, an area of exposed rock along the north side of the runway would likely not be considered wetland. As such, approximately 6.1 acres of land classified as Exposed Rock/Marsh Grass wetland was reclassified as non-wetland airport property. It should be noted that a comprehensiye delineation and inventory of wetland resources on airport property has not been conducted. The potential wetland impacts identified for this study were delineated from aerial photography and verified on the ground. Formal delineations and approvals by permitting agencies will be required for the permit application process. Table 5.9-1 summarizes the anticipated wetland impacts. Figure 5.9-1 shows the locations of the wetlands and their Florida land Use, Cover, and Forms Classifications (FLUCFCS) designations. W:\ 12637802_KWIA RSA\Feasibility\Rpt.doc3l27/03 11 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study TABLE 5.9-1 POTENTIAL STANDARD RSA WETLAND IMPACTS Bays and Estuaries Mangroye Swamps Exposed Rock/Marsh Grass Total Source: URS Corporation, 2003. 540 612 731 3.9 17.3 3.7 24.9 W:\ 12637802_KWIA RSA\Feasibility\Rpt.doc3l26103 12 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study -I CD CD '-I en (II ~ .., " 0 - - (II - ~ N U) 0"".0.0 ~ ~ - - N 0 N 0 Oc:(I)..... . . . OO~C .... ~ .....d-~ (II (I) ~z '-I ,,~ ~~ (I)" t ~ -I .0 0 Ul Ul '-I Ul I\) I\) 0 ~O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Co N m ~ O~ .0..... .... .....~ (I)..... 0 . N-~" ~~!:I.o ." 0 U)~!;~ o ..... ~-IZO 0(1)0-1 .0 ..... 11111 0 CD CD '-I m (J1 ~~ ~ ~ Ul ~ ~ 1\)<0 ~ ~ ~ I\) 1\)0 ......... ~ '-I :;0 ~ G) ~ ~ ~ ~lD 0 ~ "'0 ~ h " ~ !~ 1""1 Z U) U) U) :;0 - ~ ~rn8~~ ~~ 0 :;0 ..... "'0 0 :I: ~i~ "'0"'" <;; -"'0 Z"'O :I: ~"'O~ 1""1..... ~ :;0 ~U)rn ......... ~ ~ U) :I: I I I I I :.:.:.:.:. I .:.:.:.:.: I .......... .......... :.:.:.:.:. I I g~ "lJ> :;0 :;0 IT'I ~ :;O"lJ C IT'I :!S :;01T'l 0"lJ Z 8 lJ) :;0 ~> iT!:;O ~ ::I "lJ ~~ nO :;0 z ~ ::I> -< tJ C) -I ~ ~2 f6 "lJ"lJ > "lJ >:;0 :;0 :;0 :;0 no :;0 f;, C ~ NC Z "lJ -If;, ~z n ~ 0 IT'I n IT'I~ -I :;0 :;0 iT! ;B -< -I ~ -< to 0 ~ ~ C 5 c 9 z ~ Z IT'I IT'I C) > > lJ) :;0 IT'I > ., G) c ::u r'Tl (J1 . (() I ~ DESIGN BY: URS Carpcnlon SauI'Iem ____ 70l50w..t CowNoI v.. ~Fl~ No.OOOO<lOO2 . KEY PROPOSED RSA AND IMPACT AREAS WEST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT RUNWAY SAFETY AREA FEASIBILITY STUDY DAlE ~s 6.0 AGENCY COORDINATION 6.0 AGENCY COORDINATION 6.1 Agency Contact and Coordination It was recognized at an early stage of this study that the deyelopment of a standard RSA could haye substantial wetland impacts. Consequently, input from permitting and commenting agencies would be of paramount importance as to the feasibility of this project. To that end, agency coordination was initiated early and maintained throughout the study. Key eyents and dates are listed in Table 6.1-1. 6.2 Agency Issues and Concerns Key topics that eyolyed from these coordination efforts are summarized below. The issues and concerns were considered in the formulation of conceptual mitigation strategies. However, certain requests for detailed impact studies and alternatiyes analyses are beyond the scope of the current study. These would haye to be definit;yely addressed in any subsequent action (NEPA ENEIS and resource permit applications) for the RSA project. A summary of the agency issues and concerns is presented below. AlternatiYes to Ayoid I Minimize Impacts The need to first ayoid and then minimize potential impacts to the salt ponds and wetland resources are critical to the permitting process. All of the participating Agencies reiterated the need to eyaluate alternatiyes to the proposed action that ayoid or minimize impacts. If no alternatives are considered feasible or practicable, then the applicant will need to document the reason that alternatiyes with lesser impacts were not selected. The intent of the agency's alternative reYiew process is to ayoid and minimize resource impacts to the greatest extent practicable. During the course of this study, it was noted that the FAA, by regulation, must first fully eyaluate the practicability of the standard RSA before a less-than-standard RSA can be considered. If it is determined that the standard RSA is not practicable, then the FAA will eyaluate ayailable options to proYide additional RSA at the KWIA and improye safety. In any case, the detailed eyaluation of alternatiyes would be required for any subsequent NEPA documentation and permit application process. Secondary and Cumulatiye Impacts In addition to the alternatives analyses, cumulatiye impacts would likely be a significant topic in the project's eyaluation during the NEPA and permit application process. Although the proposed RSA is needed for existing conditions and has independent utility from other potential airport deyelopment projects, the participating agencies were concerned with potential secondary and cumulatiye impacts, which may include: extension of the runway, increased flight operations and aircraft size, influx of tourists, and the resultant demands that might be placed on the City's infrastructure. Other concerns were the isolation of wetlands and water quality impacts. W:\ 12637802_KWIA RSAIFeasibility\Rpt.dOC3l26103 13 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study TABLE 6.1-1 AGENCY CONTACT AND COORDINATION 07-17-02 9-26-02 10-09-02 10-10-02 10-17-02 10-23-02 10-28-02 11-07-02 11-20-02 12-05-02 01-13-03 01-16-03 01-29-03 through 01-31-03 01-31-03 02-20-03 3-04-03 City of Key West provides Monroe County copy of Resolution 20-222 encouraging Monroe County to address runwa safe issues. URS provides invitation letters and a "Project Information Package" to the following agencies as preparation for a pre-application meeting in October 2002. . U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) . U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) . National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) . South Florida Water Mana ement District SFWMD An agency coordination meeting was held at the SFWMD office in West Palm Beach, Florida. Attendees included: . ACOE by teleconference . NMFS . FWS . SFWMD . FAA . URS Purpose of meeting was to discuss the proposed project and scope of the feasibility study and to initiate dialogue on potential impacts and conceptual mitigation strategies. The agencies were invited to provide' comments and concerns related to the ro osed ro.ect. Meetin minutes and related materials are in endix B. ACOE rovides comments on 10-09-02 meetin be-mail. USFWS and URS conduct field reviews of KWIA ro e . URS provides informational packet to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Atlanta, GA and Marathon, FL offices. NMFS rovides comments on the 10-09-02 meetin b mail. SFWMD rovides comments on the 10-09-02 meetin b mail. EPA rovides comments on the 10-23-02 acket b mail. An agency coordination meeting and site visit was conducted at KWIA. The attendees were: . ACOE . FWS . NMFS . FAA . KWIA . URS The purpose of the meeting was to review the submitted agency comments and URS responses; conduct a field review of the proposed impact site; and further discuss conceptual mitigation strategies. URS was to subsequently identi conce tual miti ation strate ies. Meetin minutes and related materials are included in A . endix B. URS contacts by letter the Florida Division of Historical Resources concerning potential removal of bunker located on ai ort ro ert . URS contacts b hone the above a enc and discusses limitations for removin the bunker. URS meets with representatives and staff of Monroe County, the City of Key West, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Key Deer Refuge, and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to identify and review potential mitigation sites. Telephone contact is made with additional agencies and organizations regarding potential miti ation 0 ortunities. SFWMD conducts ro.ect site visit at KWIA. An agency coordination meeting was held at the SFWMD office in West Palm Beach, Florida. URS provides a handout of potential mitigation sites. Attendees included: . ACOE by teleconference . NMFS by teleconference . SFWMD . FAA . URS Purpose of meeting was to present and discuss the preliminary conceptual mitigation projects and strategies (Le., miti ation ratios for the RSA ro.ect. Meetin minutes and related materials are included in A endix B. City of Key West provides URS suggested habitat and water quality projects the City would like to see im lemented. 14 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study W:\ 12637802_KWIA RSA\Feasibility\Apt.doc3l26103 Unique Salt Pond Habitat The agencies and the City of Key West indicated the RSA would impact the last remaining salt ponds in Key West. The salt ponds are considered a unique and valuable natural resource in the City of Key West. Mangroyes and Open Water Habitat The RSA project would impact the last substantial mangroye and open water habitat on Key West. Impacts to these habitats would require extensive mitigation, preferably as close to the impact area as possible. ProYiding off-site mitigation and mitigation at locations seyeral keys up from Key West would be considered if it was demonstrated that on-site mitigation will be fully utilized. Essential Fish Habitat / Habitat of Special Concern / National Marine Sanctuary The NMFS identified the wetlands affected by the proposed RSA project as Essential Fish Habitat and a Habitat of Special Concern. The NMFS expressed concern over potential impacts to these designated areas and related fisheries resources. Additional studies would be required to evaluate potential impacts to the affected resources. Endangered Species Based on early project coordination and field reYiews, it is unlikely the RSA project would have an adyerse impact on listed protected species. Although impacts are not expected to occur, more detailed fieldwork would haye to be conducted to establish the potential for occurrence of (or lack of) the following species: · Rice Rat (Oryzomys palustris natator argentatus), Federal status = Endangered; · Lower Keys Rabbit (a.k.a., marsh rabbit) (Sylvilagus palustris hefnen) Federal status = Endangered; and · Stock Island Tree Snail (Orthalicus reses (not including nesadryas)), Federal Status = Threatened Local and Migratory Birds Concern for habitat loss and its potential effect on bird communities was expressed. The project will need to be eyaluated for potential impacts to local and migratory bird species. Water Quality/Hydrology The effect the RSA may have on the hydrology and water quality of surrounding wetlands and salt ponds is of concern to the permitting agencies. These issues will haye to be addressed in detail if the project advances. Additionally, the designation of the Florida Keys as an Area of Critical State Concern and as having Outstanding Florida Waters provides an emphasis on maintaining water quality in the Florida Keys area. W:\ 12637802_KWIA RSAIFeasibility\Rpt.doc3l26103 15 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study Apparent Lack of Mitigation Sites and Opportunities Based on conversations with seyeral key land holding agencies, there is an apparent shortage of uplands available for sale to use as wetland mitigation sites. Since land is a scarce commodity in the Keys and commands a high price per acre, large-scale mitigation projects may be cost-prohibitiye. East Martello Battery Bunker The RSA project would haye the potential to impact a portion of the East Martello Battery Bunker. The bunker is a Cold War-era missile command bunker that is on property deeded to the County from the Department of Defense. According to the quitclaim deed (dated August 8, 2000) transferring the federal property to the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners, the property is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. In the agreement, the County agrees to preserve and maintain the attributes that contribute to the eligibility of the East Martello Battery Bunker. The significance of the bunker and its eligibility status would haye to be determined in subsequent studies. Remoyal or alteration of the bunker would require coordination with and approval from the State Historic Preservation Officer. Early coordination with the Florida Department of State, DiYision of Historic Resources indicates that the agency has a "strong feeling" toward preservation of the bunker due to its importance to the State's military history. The agency would prefer alternatiyes that would ayoid and/or minimize impacts to the bunker. The agency may consider a proposal to alter or remoye the bunker if strong justification is presented for the RSA and environmental mitigation needs. The justification should address ayoidance and minimization issues. The agency could not comment on the likelihood of approyalldisapproyal of a proposal until formal coordination and a detailed plan and study is presented. W:\ 12637802_KWIA RSA\Feasibility\Rpt.doc3l26103 16 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study 7.0 CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION STRATEGIES AND COSTS 7.0 CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION STRATEGIES AND COSTS 7.1 Permits and Approyals 7.1.1 State Permits and Approval The construction of a standard RSA would require approyal from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) in the form of an EnYironmental Resource Permit (ERP) for wetland impacts, surface water management, and water quality issues. Additionally, approyal from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (TIITF) will be required for any of the proposed mitigation sites that inyolye state-owned submerged lands. State agencies that would haye an opportunity to comment on the ERP application include the Florida Department of EnYironmental Protection (Coastal Zone Consistency), Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (Protected Species), and the Florida Division of Historical Resources. Local agencies and the public would also have the opportunity to comment on the permit application and draft permit. 7.1.2 Federal Permits and Approvals Wetland impacts associated with the proposed project would require a Section 404 dredge and fill permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Federal agencies that would have an opportunity to comment on the permit application include the U.S. EnYironmental Protection Agency (wetland Impacts and water quality), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Protected Species), National Marine Fisheries Services (Essential Fish Habitat), and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (Potential Impacts to the Sanctuary). Other state and local agencies, as well as the public, would also have the opportunity to comment on the permit application and draft permit. 7.2 Anticipated Project Impact Analysis Three distinctly different wetland types would be impacted by the construction of the RSA: mangroye wetlands, salt ponds, and exposed cap rock. The construction of a standard RSA at KWIA is projected to impact approximately 24.9 acres of wetlands. The 24.9 acres identified differs from the 31.0 acres referenced in the Master Plan Update and the materials prepared at the outset of this study. During the course of this feasibility study, coordination and a site Yisit was conducted with the South Florida Water Management District. Based on discussions with District staff, an area of exposed rock along the north side of the runway would likely not be considered wetland. As such, approximately 6.1 acres of land classified as Exposed Rock/Marsh Grass wetland was reclassified as non-wetland airport property. It should be noted that a comprehensiye delineation and inyentory of wetland resources on airport property has not been conducted to date, nor approyed by permitting agencies. The potential wetland impacts identified for this study were delineated from aerial photography and yerified on the ground. Approximately 17.3 acres of mangrove wetlands (FLUCFCS Code 612) would be impacted by the proposed RSA project. These wetlands occur to the east, west, and north of the existing runway. Because of safety concerns, Monroe County has received a permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to trim and alter mangroves north of the runway and the east-west approaches to the runway. In addition, this permit allows for line-of-sight clearing and trimming of all vegetation to W:\ 12637802_KWIA RSAIFeasibility\Rpt.doc3l26103 17 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study proYide unrestricted Yisibility from the airport control tower to the West Apron and the Yicinity of the west runway. A mature mangroye swamp is located directly east of Runway 27. This area is dominated by black (Avicennia germinans), white (Laguncularia racemosa), and red mangroyes (Rhizophora mangle) that yary from 12 to 30 feet in height. Mangroves located on the western edge of this swamp have been trimmed to approximately 3 to 4 feet in height. A scrub mangroye system located to the west of Runway 9 has also been trimmed to approximately 3 to 4 feet in height. Mangroyes located to the north of the runway haye been altered with the permission of DEP to a height of less than 1 foot. Salt ponds (FLUCFCS Code 540) are located to the north and west of the existing runway. The salt pond areas that would be impacted by the RSA project are open water areas typically surrounded by small mangroyes. The salt ponds located to the north of the runway is tidally connected to the Riyiera Canal and thus Cow Key Channel, while the salt pond located immediately to the west of Runway 9 is an isolated system and likely is subjected to tidal flushing only during storm tides. Approximately 3.9 acres of salt pond wetlands would be impacted by the proposed RSA project. Areas of exposed cap rock (FLUCFCS Code 731) yegetated with patches of salt grass (Monanthochloe Iittoralis) are located at the runway ends and in pockets along the north edge of the runway. These areas are infrequently inundated by tides and offer little diversity of habitat. Approximately 3.7 acres of exposed cap rock would be impacted by the proposed project. As part of this feasibility study, the wetland resources at KWIA haye been identified and generally categorized as being of high, medium or low quality by URS enyironmental scientists. Consensus and agreement by permitting agencies would be required on this matter and would be coordinated through the permitting process. Mangrove wetlands that have only been trimmed for safety reasons in the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) and that proYide the best habitat for wildlife haye been designated as being of high quality. Currently, these yary in height from 12 to 30 feet. Mangrove wetlands that haye been trimmed to a minimum height of approximately 2 feet aboye the ground haye been designated as medium quality. Mangroye wetlands that haye been trimmed to the ground haye been designated as low quality. Open water salt pond wetlands that support diyerse wetland yegetation such as mangrove and seagrass communities haye been designated as high quality, while salt pond wetlands that lack diyersity have been designated as medium quality. Tidally influenced areas of cap rock that support patches of wetland grasses haye been designated as being of low quality. See Figure 7.2-1 for habitat quality designations. Photographs of the mangrove and salt pond system are included in Appendix E. Detailed assessments of habitat yalues haye not been conducted as part of this study but would be conducted as part of the NEPA documentation and permit application process. Additionally, secondary impacts have not been addressed in detail in this study but would also be addressed through the NEPA review and permit application process. W:\ 12637802_KW IA RSA\Feasibility\Rpt.dOC3l26/03 18 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study - ~ --- ~.~ ...~~c;, ..iSJ'\RS4 '~o,~fY S7UDJ\~..("..It!",,\FJG 7.~ ....."V 0.3/1.3/....... .. III x C5 x ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ fTl o C ~ o ~ * -i 0 -i .., "V > -tOll 0lI ..... eft Ul . - r 0- - (II - t N co (') r- ;:g;:g ~ ~ . - - N N 0 OC ~P'I . . . 0(') C 1"'1 r- t P'I~ -!; -i en r:: z ~ ..... :. z a~ c II "V t - -t ;:g t 0 VI VI ..... VI N N 0 .0 ~ ~ t.. ~ t.. Co N m ~ (')c.. ;:gP'l r- P'I~ > enP'l (") 0 ;:0 1"'1 !Jl CD CD - - ~ - .....eftUl VI-~ -NO ~- NCO NO ......... ~ ..... :::o;e:(i)!;';!i~>mo ~ ~ ~ ~ (i) ~ C!~ ~ I ~~rn~~~ ~i o :::0 ""DO g~fTl""D ~ ;ll; ~ 2 z~ x ~""D~fTl!:a ~ :::j(/)-......... ~ z rn ~ x I "ll> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~"ll c: ", ~ O"ll Z ~ iii "ll ;;l~ l :::I ~ 00 ;0 z :::I> -< ", G'l -i is! 0 "ll 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f'i c: "ll 0 NC: Z "ll oz 0 l ~ !il z~ -i -i ~ "'> ;a -< -< tD ~ III c: C ~ 5 z ~ Z ", ", fh > ~ ~ .,., G) c ;0 ("Tl -.....J . tv I ~ URSCorpanIl6Dn~ 1JIIS 7850 WMt eo..m.v c_____ T~. FL 33607-1482 No. 00000OO2 KEY WEST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT RUNWAY SAFETY AREA FEASIBILITY STUDY HABITAT QUALITY DESIGNATIONS DAlE AEVlSIDNS 7.3 Anticipated Mitigation Ratios Mitigation ratios that are typically required by the SFWMD to compensate for unayoidable wetland impacts are found in the District's Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permits (SFWMD, 2002). Pursuant to the criteria in this document, acceptable ratios of wetland creation/restoration for impacts to mangroye wetlands range from 2:1 to 5:1; and 1.5:1 to 4:1 for impacts to salt ponds and cap rock wetlands. Acceptable ratios for enhancement of wetlands range from 4:1 to 20:1, while acceptable ratios for wetland preservation range from 20:1 to 60:1. See Table 7.3-1 for ranges of wetland creation mitigation acreages that may be required for the proposed project. TABLE 7.3-1 RANGE OF POTENTIAL MITIGATION ACREAGE THAT COULD BE REQUIRED BY SFWMD 2:1 5:1 1.5:1 4:1 1.5:1 4:1 4:1 20:1 17.3 34.6 86.5 69.2 346 3.9 5.9 15.6 15.6 78 3.7 5.6 14.8 14.8 74 Totals 24.9 34.6 86.5 5.6 14.8 5.9 15.6 99.6 498 Source: URS Corporation, 2003. During an agency coordination meeting held on February 20, 2003, with the Water Management District, USACE and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and Water Management District staff gaye general guidance on what may be considered acceptable ratios for impacts to mangrove wetlands. However, formal agreement on ratios will be deyeloped during a subsequent permit application process. The Water Management District staff indicated that, based on current information, a 5:1 ratio for high quality mangrove areas, a 3:1 ratio for medium quality mangrove areas, and a 2:1 ratio for low quality mangroye areas may be acceptable if the impacts are deemed unayoidable (see Table 7.3-2). At the meeting, the Water Management District staff did not offer specific information on what would be considered acceptable ratios for salt pond or cap rock wetlands. Both the Water Management District and USACE noted the unique habitat represented by the salt ponds. The uniqueness of the salt ponds will be a consideration when discussing appropriate mitigation ratios during the permit application process. Based on guidance found in the Water Management District's Basis of ReYiew, and best ayailable information, URS proposes a mitigation ratio of 3:1 for high quality salt ponds, 2:1 for medium quality salt ponds, and 1.5:1 for cap rock wetlands. These proposed ratios along with the ratios suggested by the Water Management District for mangroye impacts are used as a basis to determine if adequate potential mitigation opportunities exist to compensate for the proposed impacts. Based on the ratios assumed by URS, approximately 77.8 acres of wetland creation would be required to compensate for the anticipated direct impacts. Table 7.3-2 summarizes the amount of wetland creation needed using these assumed ratios. These amounts are without the mitigation that might be required for W:\ 12637802_KWIA RSA\Feasibility\Rpt.doc3l26103 19 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study secondary impacts. Secondary impacts haye not been quantified to date and most likely would only be identified during the NEPA documentation or permitting process. The USACE would require a functional eyaluation of wetland impacts and proposed mitigation to determine the amount of mitigation required for unayoidable wetland impacts. The type of functional analysis to be applied to this project would be determined and implemented in the application process; therefore, potential mitigation requirements of the USACE were assumed for this study. Experience with other wetland projects indicates that the final mitigation acreages required by USACE is generally similar to mitigation acreages required by Florida's Water Management Districts. Consequently, for this analysis, it was assumed that the amount of mitigation required by a Section 404 permit will be the same as required by the SFWMD. TABLE 7.3-2 PROJECTED WETLAND IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION ACREAGES Subtotal Man rove 17.3 Salt Pond Hi h 1.7 1.5:1- 4:1 3:1 (540) Medium 2.2 1.5:1 - 4:1 2:1 Subtotal Salt Pond 3.9 Cap Rock Wetland 731 Low 3.7 1.5:1 - 4:1 1.5:1 Subtotal Cap Rock 3.7 Totals 24.9 * Ratios found in the SFWMD " Basis of Reyiew of ERP Permits" ** Based on agency input at pre-application meetings All acreages are preliminary and subject to change 62.7 5.1 4.4 9.5 5.6 5.6 77.8 7.4 Potential Mitigation Opportunities URS has been tasked with exploring conceptual mitigation options to compensate for unayoidable wetland impacts. Potential mitigation sites were identified and mapped through the reyiew of aerial photography of the lower Keys, site Yisits, and meetings and conyersations with land management agencies. These sites were located, identified, mapped, and acreages calculated on aerial photographs ranging in scale from 1" = 100' to 1" = 500'. Sites that were readily accessible were field eyaluated from January 29 to 31, 2003 for suitability and the type of mitigation that may be developed. Agencies and organizations contacted concerning potential mitigation opportunities included the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Key Deer Refuge, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC), Florida Keys Restoration Trust Fund, Nature Conservancy, the Monroe County Land Authority, and the City of Key West. Agency and organization contacts should be maintained W:\ 12637802_KWIA RSA\Feasibility\Rpt.doc3l26103 20 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study throughout the course of the RSA deyelopment process to continuously update the list of potential mitigation sites and to evaluate additional mitigation sites as new opportunities may arise. To date, eighteen potential mitigation sites have been identified throughout the lower Keys, from Key West to Ohio Key. These sites represent approximately 108 acres of potential wetland creation and 5.4 acres of potential wetland enhancement. The potential enhancement areas would result in approximately 5.4 acres of actual creation credit based on an ayerage mitigation enhancement ratio credit of 10:1. In general, these sites could proYide flexibility as to the type of mitigation (salt marsh, mangroye, open water) deyeloped. It should be noted that detailed field studies will be required to refine and deyelop the final mitigation options and the deyelopment of detailed mitigation plans. Potential mitigation options eyaluated for the identified sites includes the creation or restoration of wetlands through the removal of old runways, fill material, blimp pads, road fill, dredge spoil, and disturbed uplands. Other options eyaluated included the enhancement of existing wetlands by filling dredge holes to a depth suitable for wetland yegetation and the enhancement of existing degraded wetlands through the addition of channels and/or culyerts to increase tidal flushing. These scenarios would also include the planting of mitigation sites with wetland vegetation to initiate habitat establishment and the remoyal of nuisance and exotic species to further enhance desirable biotic communities. Restoration of Iimerock mines are assumed to be in the form of fill removal along the outer edges of the pit rim to increase the amount of tidally influenced wetland habitat located adjacent to the pits. Restoration and/or enhancement directly inside the pits would be dependent on the quality of water found inside the pits and the ayailability of suitable fill material. 7.5 Mitigation Cost Estimates As part of the site eyaluation process, approximate land acquisition costs (where applicable) and approximate mitigation construction costs were developed for each site. These costs should be interpreted as a generalized, broad-brush projection of costs that will require closer scrutiny should the RSA project progress to a more refined stage. Acquisition costs were based on probable land yalues based on Just Valuation data obtained from the Monroe County Property Appraisers Office in February 2003. These yalues were adjusted upwards by 30 percent for planning purposes. General assumed costs associated with property acquisition (e.g., appraisals, surveys, legal fees) were added to the land yalue to generate total probable acquisition costs. The preparation of appraisals during the course of a subsequent land acquisition program will generate detailed estimates of fair market yalue that may be higher than the Just Valuation yalues determined by the County Property Appraiser. The estimates of probable land acquisition costs do not include potential additional costs for negotiated settlements or potential eminent domain acquisitions. Construction costs were projected using unit prices that have applied to similar projects undertaken in the Keys and include allowances for design, permitting, and mobilization. Volumes of material to be excavated were based on assumed existing elevations of 5 feet NGVD for areas that were developed for residential/business uses and 4 feet NGVD for areas that contain fill and spoil with no additional associated development. Because mangrove wetlands comprise the majority of the proposed impact, W:\ 12637802_KWIA RSA\Feasibility\Rpt.doc3l26103 21 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study mitigation construction cost was calculated (except where noted) assuming that 70 percent to 85 percent of the constructed mitigation would be mangrove wetlands and the remainder would be salt marsh wetlands. Construction and land acquisition cost summaries for each site are found in Table 7.5-1. Information for the cost estimates is also provided in Appendix C. TABLE 7.5-1 PROBABLE LAND ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS -POTENTIAL MITIGATION SITES 1.Creation/Restoration on Ai ort Pro e N/A $723,300 $723,300 2.Creation/Restoration on City of Key West Leased and Owned Pro e N/A $1,273,300 $1,273,300 3. Cow Ke Road Removal $731,400 $487,800 $1,219,200 4. North Boca Chica Restoration $701,900 $3,644,800 $4,346,700 5. USFWS Key Deer Refuge Road Removal N/A $165,000 $165,000 6. Sugarloaf Loop Road Removal and Limestone Quarry Restoration $1,224,400 $594,700 $1,819,100 7. Summerland Key Bridge Removal N/A $61,700 $61,700 8. Cudjoe Key Limestone Mine Restoration $1,090,700 $708,200 $1,798,900 9. Cudjoe Key Canal Restoration $74,800 $123,500 $198,300 10. Spain Blvd. Culverts and Fill Removal N/A $62,100 $62,100 11. Key Deer Refuge Dredge Hole Restoration N/A $86,800 $86,800 12. Fin er Fill Removal N/A $24,600 $24,600 13. Habitat for Humani Site $143,700 $491,300 $635,000 14. Westem Big Pine Dredge Hole Restoration N/A $283,200 $283,200 15. Key Deer Refuge Limestone Pit N/A $264,900 $264,900 16. No Name Key Limestone Mine $159,300 $425,800 $585,100 17. Ohio Key Mangrove Restoration N/A $407,800 $407,800 18. Nature View Property Restoration $285,300 $136,100 $421 ,400 Totals $4,411 ,500 $9,964,900 $14,376,400 Notes: (1 ) Land acquisition and mitigation costs include incidental and associated costs (Le., design, appraisals, permitting, and surveys). Please refer to Appendix C for detailed information on the cost estimates. Land acquisition cost not based on detailed appraisals required for acquisition. Project costs do not include long-term maintenance costs borne by the County. (2) (3) N/A = Not Applicable. W:\ 12637802_KWIA RSA\Feasibility\Rpt.doc3l26/03 22 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study 7.6 Potential Mitigation Opportunities The following is the list of potential mitigation sites and descriptions of mitigation options that might be performed at these sites. It should be noted that acreages and costs assigned to each of these sites are approximate and subject to change. 1. Creation/Restoration on Airport Property Project Location: The project is located at KWIA (see Figure 7.6-1.) Proposed Mitigation: Approximately 7 acres of disturbed uplands located on airport property haye been identified that could be used for wetland mitigation (see Figure 7.6-2.) This includes 5.4 acres of upland located west of Runway 9 at the abandoned missile bunker site (the bunker dates from the Cold War era) and 1.6 acres of disturbed upland located north of the proposed RSA along the salt ponds. The bunker may be eligible for inclusion to the National Register of Historical Places and coordination with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) will be required prior to removal of the bunker from the site. These uplands could be scraped down to create a combination of open water, salt marsh, and mangroye wetlands. A minimum of 5 acres of salt pond habitat would be created in this area to keep all salt pond creation areas adjacent to the impact site. A detailed hydrographical study would be required prior to design of this mitigation option. Project Benefits: Approximately 7 acres of on-site wetland creation/restoration. Site can be configured to maximize salt pond/ mangroye wetland mitigation. Increased circulation within the salt ponds. Project Constraints: Coordination with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to obtain approyal for removing the bunker site. Consideration of impacts to preYious mitigation projects performed in the vicinity of this site since those acreages would also have to be mitigated. Project Costs: Probable Land Acquisition Cost: N/A Probable Mitigation Construction Cost: $723,800 Total Project Cost: $723,300 W:\ 12637802_KWIA RSA\Feasibility\Rpt.doc3l26103 23 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study I -6 o (j; ~ " '" W -.J 00 o " I ~ "C "2- n- ~ ~. C 3" en x 0- r o " ~ o' " I s: ll> "C 3 x 0- "'tJ o - (I) :J !:!: !. s: a: CC l>> !:!: o :J en ::;: (I) o " (I) '< :0== en (I) )>!e. -:J 3- "C(I) ... ... o :J <!. (I) -. 3 0 (I) :J :J!. -)> o _. ... "C o ... - r , .:f.ll. m a. ,^ a. CD CD )'<..r;:r .ene: :J (') ';:j' cd ~ en e: 3 ~3 ..- CD. ...... ...., m ~-:, ~.,. ~. ~":-----m ~ot;c ..... . ...,.;::;:: +>- . (')- ';:j'CD ' '., ~'~'lP. ,<.<Ii\;;:~- "i~." Of" )? -I ,0 al.. . ';;n (CP' ';:j' ;r go 2 1\I ... ~ I\) o 8 "TI o _. cc c ; - ...., Q, .... z ~:i~~ CD..........'....."..'..... ..... .... . "-,,; -.... . ~...3 .',c." . ., CD ..... 0> w 1; m ; -+. ^o CD:!. '<0 z+~ B ii ~ ~u. J N <0 a ....: 0 CI) ('II ... ~ ~ j ... I'll c:n ::::I ... u:: .c ~ If t: o Q, ... :.ill) - -I: ca Q) 5 E .- Q) - > cao I: ... "'Q, SE ..5- -<C lI)U) Q)a:: 3= >- Q) ~ ~ ~ <1l~ 5 ~ -g III a:ctl <(;:) c: "O~"Oc:o:::; ~ <( 3l .Q al .- > 0 a; a; ~ 5-.i g- .2>:5 & Glctl....:!:ctl 0 InrD ~ Q) Q, o ... ll. - ... o Q, ... :.i I: o I: o :;::: ca ... o - lI) Q) a:: - I: o :;::: ca Q) ... o ... .. E 11 .. ;;: l! <:' " .2 ! s .. l! al E I s i ii. ... I s' 01 ... ~ :i II 0' ~ :z: 2. Creation/Restoration on Property Leased or Owned by the City of Key West Project Location: A review of property records indicates the City of Key West has a thirty-year lease from the Monroe County Land Authority on 46.5 acres of land north of the airport. Additionally, the City owns an abandoned missile site located north of the airport (see Figure 7.6-1). Proposed Mitigation: Within the leased property, approximately 11.5 acres of disturbed uplands could be conyerted/restored to wetlands (see Figure 7.6-3). This includes 5.3 acres that appears to be a former runway and 6.2 acres of area that contains a former blimp pad that is currently being used as a fill stockpile site. A minimum of 5 acres of this mitigation would be designated as salt ponds to maximize on- site salt pond mitigation. Coordination with the City of Key West would be required to utilize this leased area for mitigation purposes. A former missile site located to the north of the airport and on property owned by the City of Key West could also proYide up to 3.6 acres of potential mitigation (see Figure 7.6-3). This area appears to be preYiously filled wetlands that could be returned to wetland grade as mitigation. The proposed mitigation would remoye the fill associated with the outer "ring" and finger fills. Preliminary conversations with the City of Key West Planning Department and the Engineering Department indicate the City desires to keep this land for its own use. In addition, the FAA has several radio antennas currently occupy the site. Additional coordination with the owner would haye to be conducted to identify if the designated portions of this site could be used for airport mitigation. Project Benefits: 15.1 acres of on-site wetland and salt pond creation/restoration. Increases wetland habitat within the salt pond ecosystem. Project Constraints: An agreement with the City of Key West would be required to utilize this area. Project Cost: Probable Land Acquisition Cost: N/A Probable Mitigation Construction Cost: $1,273,300 Total Project Cost: $1,273,300 W:\ 12637802_KW IA RSA\Feasibility\Apt.doc3l26103 24 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study ~. R C") cD r--: !! ~ ::::J tJl i.i: ~ 1: o Q. ... <In - -c C'll Q) 5 E .- Q) - > C'll 0 C ... ~Q. -E .5- -<r: 1nU) Q)a: == :>- Q) ~ . oot :;: " c C'll ~ Q) Q. o ... D. - In ~~ ;>.Q) Q)Q. ~~ _D- o>. ~c .- ::::J 00 cO o Q) c 0 .2 ~ -0 t!::lE o - In Q) a: - c o :;::: C'll Q) ... o >. aI ~~ :l: aI aI C "0"0 l/) tf aI 3 3 .~ "O~"Ooo ...J Gl<(Glmm .=>.~oa; ~ g. Q) Co f1);t: 8. DD~D C'l o o N >: ... III :J ... ,g If ... .. E i . ;: ! I ~ c .2 ! s ! al ~ i s j I i' ... ~ i ~ 0' .9- :i: 3. Cow Key Road Removal, Stock Island Project Location: This project is located on Stock Island approximately 2 miles east of KWIA (see Figure 7.6-1). Proposed Mitigation: A road owned by Monroe County is constructed on a fill peninsula that connects Stock Island to Cow Key. The road continues onto privately owned property on Cow Key and trayerses a mangrove wetland. Additionally, just south of Stock Island a finger fill peninsula abuts the road and proceeds west into the Cow Key Channel (see Figure 7.6-4). This project would consist of the complete remoyal of the road that connects Stock Island and Cow Key and remoyal of 600 linear feet of roadway from a mangrove swamp on Cow Key. The project would also include the removal of the 1,800-foot-long finger fill that extends from the road to the west. In addition acquisition of the priyately held Cow Key could be used as preservation credit. Project Benefits: 5.6 acres of restoration of open water/bay habitat and mangroye wetlands. Additionally the road removal would allow flushing of a 3-acre open water area that is currently impounded. Project Constraints: Area is under priyate ownership and approximately 38 acres would need to be acquired to resolve property access issues. Remoyal of the finger fill may be unpopular with waterfront property owners located to the north of the site due to the shelter it provides from south winds. Project Cost: Probable Land Acquisition Cost: $731,400 Probable Mitigation Construction Cost: $487,800 Total Project Cost: $1,219,200 W:\ 12637802_KWIA RSA\Feasibility\Rpt.doc3l26103 25 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study ...~. . 1 - Mangrove 2 - Scrub Mangrove 3 - Saltmarsh 4 - Buttonwoods 5 - Hammocks 6 - Pine lands 7 - Exotics 8 - Developed 9 - Freshwater Hardwoods 10 - Freshwater Pine 11 - Freshwater Marsh 12 - Grasslands 13 - Water 16 - RidgelHammock 17 - Dune CJ Proposed Mitigation Area Habitat Boundary Location Map ,:11 " 'l ""c,,~' '~.r\ . ~,.-! r ., } .~ ~, A .:;~~' ,,. .,.; 1 Saddlabunch Kays Boca Chlca Kay Key West International Airport RSA Improvements Cow Key Road Removal Figure 7.6.4 W_E 300 S Feet 300 150 February, 2003 URS H :\proJacts\ 12637802_kw\Appllcallons\mxdlmltlg_.asto.atlon8_.avlsad.mxd 4. North Boca Chica Restoration, Boca Chica Key Project Location: This project is located on a priyately owned parcel on the northwest corner of Boca Chica Naval Air Station. The site is located approximately 1 mile north of U.S. 1 at Mile Marker 7 (see Figure 7.6-1). Proposed Mitigation: The area appears to haye been dredged to create finger fills and canals. The fill appears to haye been deposited in wetlands to bring the area to grade for residential deyelopment. Material from the finger fills could be used to backfill the canals and dredged areas to grades that would support salt marsh/mangroye habitat (see Figure 7.6-5). Additionally, a finger fill jetty could be remoyed to enhance tidal flushing to the newly restored area. The area is surrounded by U.S. Navy property with access only through Navy controlled gates. Project Benefits: 40 acres of salt marsh/mangroye swamp restoration 15 acres of open water/dredged bottom enhancement Project Constraints: Area is under private ownership and access is through U.S. Navy property. Coordination with the U.S. Nayy and acquisition of property would be required. Discussions with agencies show that preYious attempts to acquire this property for mitigation purposed have been unsuccessful. Project Cost: Probable Land Acquisition Cost: $701,900 Probable Mitigation Construction Cost: $3,644,800 Total Project Cost: $4,346,700 W:\ 12637802_KWIA RSA\FeasibilityIRpt.doc3l26103 26 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study Location Map .'" '''; ... " .;;;;,'~~' . -..-'",," ~;#1 ,~t. .'.1-.;> Saddlabunch Keys ~ Boca Chlca Kay Kay Wast CJ Proposed Mitigation Area Habitat Boundary Key West International Airport RSA Improvements North Boca Chica Restoration Figure 7.6.5 w. s 300 150 300 Feet February, 2003 URS H :\proJects\ 12637802_kw\Appllcatlons\mxdlmltlg_restoratlons_revlsed.mxd 5. USFWS Key Deer Refuge Road Remoyal, Sugarloaf Keys Project Location: This project is located in the lower Sugarloaf Keys along old State Road 4A on property that has been purchased by the Key Deer Refuge and blocked to yehicular traffic. The site is located approximately 2 miles south of U.S. 1 between Mile Markers 14 and 15 (see Figure 7.6-1) Proposed Mitigation: The project would result in the remoyal of approximately 1,750 feet of old State Road 4A from mangroye wetlands on property owned by the Key Deer Refuge (see Figure 7.6-6). The Refuge would support this project; howeyer, Refuge staff indicates that a boardwalk would haye to be constructed to maintain public access to refuge property to the west since this area is commonly used as a nature trail. Project Benefits: Approximately 1.5 acres of mangrove swamp restoration and increased flushing in the existing mangroye swamp. The property is under public ownership and would not haye to be acquired. Project Constraints: Construction of a boardwalk. Project Cost: Probable Land Acquisition Cost: N/A Probable Mitigation Construction Cost: $165,000 Total Project Cost: $165,000 W:\ 12637802_KWIA RSA\Feasibility\Rpt.doc3l26103 27 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study 1 - Mangrove 2 - Scrub Mangrove 3 - Saltmarsh 4 - Buttonwoods 5 - Hammocks 6 - Pinelands 7 - Exotics 8 - Developed 9 - Freshwater Hardwoods 10 - Freshwater Pine 11 - Freshwater Marsh 12 - Grasslands 13 - Water 16 - RidgelHammock 17 - Dune CI Proposed Mitigation Area Habitat Boundary Location Map ~ ,,~"" ... .~,-~; ~', """~ ~A' ~ d' ~ " ~. ',", , )IJ'" \' "'{ 1iJi~' ,,,,' <; -.', - - ~ ~ l-.. . . ):", Saddlabunch Kaya ~ Boca Chlca Kay Kay Wast ''I \l Key West International Airport RSA Improvements USFWS Key Deer Refuge Road Removal Figure 7.6.6 w. 300 . Fee' 300 150 February, 2003 URS H:\proJacta\12637802_kw\Appllcallona\mxd\mltlg_rastor81lonB_ravlaad.mxd 6. Sugarloaf Loop Road Removal and Limestone Quarry Restoration, Sugarloaf Keys Project Location: This project is located approximately 1 mile east of the intersection of County Road 939 and 939A on Lower Sugarloaf Key (see Figure 7.6-1). Proposed Mitigation: The project would remove portions of a privately owned loop road from mangroye wetlands. The road has limited, blocked access due to USFWS refuge property. Approximately 4,650 linear feet of road could be removed from the mangroye swamps. Portions of the loop road located in uplands would be left in place. Additionally, edges of a limerock quarry located adjacent to the road could be scraped down and conyerted to salt marsh/mangrove wetlands (see Figure 7.6-7). Project Benefits: Approximately 4.2 acres mangroye swamp restoration from the road remoyal. Approximately 3.2 acres of salt marsh/mangroye wetland restoration at the limerock quarry. Potential preservation of 204 acres of property through land acquisition associated with the project. Project Constraints: The site is under priyate ownership and would need to be acquired. Approximately 204 acres of property might need to be acquired to obtain rights to the road and resolve property access issues. Project Cost: Probable Land Acquisition Cost: $1,224,400 Probable Mitigation Construction Cost: $594,700 Total Project Cost: $1,819,100 W:\ 12637802_KW IA RSA\Feasibility\Apt.doc3l26103 28 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study 1 - Mangrove 2 - Scrub Mangrove 3 - Saltmarsh 4 - Buttonwoods 5 - Hammocks 6 - Pinelands 7 - Exotics 8 - Developed 9 - Freshwater Hardwoods 10 - Freshwater Pine 11 - Freshwater Marsh 12 - Grasslands 13 - Water 16 - RidgeJHammock 17 - Dune CJ Proposed Mitigation Area Habitat Boundary ';i'~ Location Map '.>) " j , 6- .,.~ Key We.. Boce Chlca Key Key West International Airport RSA Improvements Sugarloaf Loop Road Removal and Limestone Quarry Restoration W.E S Figure 7.6.7 600 300 600 Feet February, 2003 URS H :\proJects\ 12637802_kwlAppllcatlons\mxd\mltlg_restoratlone_revlsad.mxd 7. Summerland Key Bridge Remoyal, Summerland Key Project Location: This project is located off of Niles Road approximately 2 miles north of U.S. 1 at Mile Marker 25 (see Figure 7.6-1). Proposed Mitigation: This project would result in the removal of a wooden bridge that connects Summerland Key to Wahoo Key (see Figure 7.6-8). Fill associated with the bridge pads and approaches would also be remoyed. The property is owned by the USFWS and FFWCC. Key Deer Refuge staff recommended this project. Project Benefits: Enhancement of 3,100 sq. ft. of bay bottom and remoyal of 0.08 acres of fill from mangroye wetlands. The site is under public ownership and would not require acquisition. Project Constraints: Access to the site is over a poorly maintained road. Project Cost Probable Land Acquisition Cost: N/A Probable Mitigation Construction Cost: $61,700 Total Project Cost: $61,700 W:\ 12637802_KWIA RSA\Feasibility\Rpt.doc3l26J03 29 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study Location Map " 1 - Mangrove 2 - Scrub Mangrove 3 - Saltmarsh 4 - Buttonwoods 5 - Hammocks 6 - Pinelands 7 - Exotics 8 - Developed 9 - Freshwater Hardwoods 10 - Freshwater Pine 11 - Freshwater Marsh 12 - Grasslands 13 - Water 16 - RidgelHammock 17 - Dune r--I Proposed ~ Mitigation Area Habitat Boundary Key West International Airport RSA Improvements Summerland Key Bridge Removal Figure 7.6.8 W*E S 100 50 100 Feet February, 2003 URS H :\projects\12637802_kw\Appllcatlons\mxd\mltlg_r..toratlons_revlsed.mxd 8. Cudjoe Key Limestone Mine Restoration, Cudjoe Key Project Location: This limerock mine consisting of two adjacent pits is located on Cudjoe Key approximately 1.5 miles north of U.S. 1 on Balloon Road (see Figure 7.6-1). Proposed Mitigation: The outer edges of the two pits could be restored back to salt marsh/mangrove wetland habitats (see Figure 7.6-9). Wetland creation areas would be along the outer edges of the pits where fill could be remoyed to create wetland grades. Water quality testing should be performed in the pits to determine the acceptability of opening the pits to tidal flushing. Rock barriers surrounding the pits could be remoyed to enhance tidal flushing within existing degraded salVmarsh mangrove wetlands that are showing evidence of hypersalinity. Project Benefits: Approximately 8 acres of salt marsh/mangroye wetland restoration. Approximately 10 acres of salt marsh/mangroye wetland enhancement. Project Constraints: The site is under priyate ownership and would haye to be acquired. Project Cost: Probable Land Acquisition Cost: $1,090,700 Probable Mitigation Construction Cost: $708,200 Total Project Cost: $1,788,900 W:\ 12637802_KWIA RSA\FeasibilityIRpt.doc3/26103 30 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study 1 - Mangrove 2 - Scrub Mangrove 3 - Saltmarsh 4 - Buttonwoods 5 - Hammocks 6 - Pinelands 7 - Exotics 8 - Developed 9 - Freshwater Hardwoods 10 - Freshwater Pine 11 - Freshwater Marsh 12 - Grasslands 13 - Water 16 - RidgelHammock 17 - Dune CJ Proposed Mitigation Area Habitat Boundary Location Map 3 ,\ Key West International Airport RSA Improvements Cudjoe Key Limestone Mine Restoration Wf,B S Figure 7.6.9 300 150 300 Feet February, 2003 URS H :\proJects\ 12637802_kw\Appllcatlona\mxd\m1t19_reatoratlon&_revlaed.mxd 9. Cudjoe Key Canal Restoration, Cudjoe Key Project Location: This vacant parcel is located south of U.S. 1 approximately 1 mile east of Balloon Road between Mile Markers 21 and 22 (see Figure 7.6-1). Proposed Mitigation: A canal located on the property was apparently neyer opened to the gulf. This canal could be filled and grades brought back to salt marsh/mangrove wetland eleyations (see Figure 7.6-10). Additionally, the adjoining fill areas could be scraped down to create a salt marsh/ mangroye wetland. Project Benefits: Approximately 0.67 acres of salt marsh/mangroye wetland restoration. Approximately 0.05 acres of wetland enhancement. Project Constraints: Area is under priyate ownership and would have to be acquired. Project Cost: Probable Land Acquisition Cost: $74,800.00 Probable Mitigation Construction Cost: $123,500 Total Project Cost: $198,300 W:\ 12637802_KWIA RSA\FeasibilityIRpt.doc3l26103 31 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study 1 - Mangrove 2 - Scrub Mangrove 3 - Saltmarsh 4 - Buttonwoods 5 - Hammocks 6 - Pinelands 7 - Exotics 8 - Developed 9 - Freshwater Hardwoods 10 - Freshwater Pine 11 - Freshwater Marsh 12 - Grasslands 13 - Water 16 - RidgeJHammock 17 - Dune CJ Proposed Mitigation Area Habitat Boundary Location Map , i ,\ Key West International Airport RSA Improvements Cudjoe Key Canal Restoration Figure 7.6.10 W+E S 100 50 100 Feet H :\proJects\ 12637802_kw\Appllcallons\mxd\mltlg_restoratloM_revlssd.mxd February, 2003 URS 10. Spain Boulevard Culverts and Fill Removal, Cudjoe Key Project Location: Spain Boulevard is a county-maintained road and the main access road for a subdiyision located on northern Cudjoe Key. It intersects with Balloon Road is approximately 1 mile north of U.S. 1 (see Figure 7.6-1). Proposed Mitigation: The road is a fill peninsula that has essentially seyered the tidal connection between the mangrove/open water wetlands lying north and south of the road. The mangroye wetland located north of the road shows signs of hyper-saline conditions as eyidenced by dead and dying mangroves. Additional culyerts could be placed beneath Spain Bouleyard to enhance tidal flushing in the impounded mangroye wetland lying north of the road. Additionally, finger fills located along Spain Bouleyard could be remoyed to restore salt marsh wetlands (see Figure 7.6-11). Project Benefits: Approximately 0.38 acres of salt marsh/mangrove wetland restoration. Approximately 23 acres of mangrove wetland enhancement through the placement of culyerts to enhance tidal flushing to decrease hyper-saline conditions. Project Constraints: None. Project Cost: Probable Land Acquisition Cost: N/ A Probable Mitigation Construction Cost: $62,100 Total Project Cost: $62,100 W:\ 12637802_KWIA RSA\Feasibility\Rpt.doc3l26103 32 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study 1 - Mangrove 2 - Scrub Mangrove 3 - Saltmarsh 4 - Buttonwoods 5 - Hammocks 6 - Pinelands 7 - Exotics 8 - Developed 9 - Freshwater Hardwoods 10 - Freshwater Pine 11 - Freshwater Marsh 12 - Grasslands 13 - Water 16 - RidgeJHammock 17 - Dune CJ Proposed Mitigation Area Habitat Boundary Location Map '\ , ,~ Key West International Airport RSA Improvements Spain Boulevard Culvert and Fill Removal Figure 7.6.11 W.E s ~o 100 200 Feet February, 2003 ~ H:lproJecls\ 12637802_kwlApp/lcallons\mXdlmltlg_restorslIOnB3SVISed.mxd 11. Key Deer Refuge Dredge Hole Restoration, Cudjoe Key Project Location: This area is located on the northeastern shore of Cudjoe Key on property owned by the Key Deer Refuge. The site is accessed off of Balloon Road and is located approximately 2 mile north of U.S. 1 between Mile Markers 21 and 22 (see Figure 7.6-1). A dredge hole on the site (see Figure 7.6-12) could be restored by placing adjacent spoil material back into the dredge hole to restore mangroye/salt marsh wetland grade. This project was recommended by Key Deer Refuge staff. Project Benefits: Approximately 0.79 acres of salt marsh/mangrove wetland restoration and approximately 0.50 acres of salt marsh/mangrove wetland enhancement. Area is under public ownership and would not require acquisition. Project Constraints: Access to site is oyer poorly maintained road. Additional fill material may be needed to complete the restoration if on-site spoil material is inadequate. Project Cost: Probable Land Acquisition Cost: N/A Probable Mitigation Construction Cost: $86,800 Total Project Cost: $86,800 W:\ 12637802_KWIA RSA\Feasibility\Rpt.doc3l26103 33 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study 1 - Mangrove 2 - Scrub Mangrove 3 - Saltmarsh 4 - Buttonwoods 5 - Hammocks 6 - Pinelands 7 - Exotics 8 - Developed 9 - Freshwater Hardwoods 10- Freshwater Pine 11 - Freshwater Marsh 12 - Grasslands 13 - Water 16 - RidgeJHammock 17 - Dune CJ Proposed Mitigation Area Habitat Boundary Location Map -\ -''t. j )1 " Key West International Airport RSA Improvements Key Deer Refuge Dredge Hole Restoration Figure 7.6.12 W.E S 150 75 150 Fee' February, 2003 URS H :\projects\ 12637802_kw\Appllcatlons\mxd\mltlg_rsslorallonB_rsvlsed.mxd 12. Finger Fill Removal, Middle Torch Key Project Location: This project is located along Dorn Road on the fill peninsula between Middle and Big Torch Keys (see Figure 7.6-1). Proposed Mitigation: A 450-linear-foot finger fill road (see Figure 7.6-13) could be removed and the area restored back to salt marsh wetlands. It appears that the fill road is located on state-owned submerged lands; however, ownership of the road has not been verified. Project Benefits: Approximately 0.31 acres of salt marsh/open water restoration. Project Constraints: Possible private ownership of the road. Project Cost: Probable Land Acquisition Cost: N/A (if land and road are publicly owned) Probable Mitigation Construction Cost: $24,600 Total Project Cost: $24,600 W:\ 12637602_KWIA ASAIFeasibilityIRpl.doc3J26103 34 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study 1 - Mangrove 2 - Scrub Mangrove 3 - Saltmarsh 4 - Buttonwoods 5 - Hammocks 6 - Pinelands 7 - Exotics 8 - Developed 9 - Freshwater Hardwoods 10 - Freshwater Pine 11 - Freshwater Marsh 12 - Grasslands 13 - Water 16 - RldgelHammock 17 - Dune CJ Proposed Mitigation Area Habitat Boundary '~'7tj 'e\ Key West International Airport RSA Improvements Finger Fill Removal W_E . Figure 7.6.13 100 50 100 Feet February, 2003 URS H :\projsc1s\ 12637802_kwlAppllcallons\mxdlmlllg_rsslor81lons_ravlssd.mxd 13. Habitat for Humanity Site Restoration, Middle Torch Key Project Location: This project site is located off of Pieces of Eight Road approximately 2 miles north of U.S. 1 at Mile Marker 28 (see Figure 7.6-1). Proposed Mitigation: A property located on Middle Torch Key was acquired by Habitat for Humanity to construct affordable housing. However, the site may not be appropriate for development because of its previous use as a dump site. The site could be restored back to salt marsh/mangrove wetlands if the area can be cleared of dumped material and graded to original contours. (see Figure 7.6-14). Project Benefits: Approximately 5.2 acres of salt marsh/mangrove wetland creation and enhancement. Project Constraints: It is unknown what materials have been dumped at this site. Additional site reviews and assessments would be required to determine potential environmental concerns and liabilities associated with this site. Potential cost associated with dump clean up prior to wetland creation may preclude use of this site. Project Cost: Probable Land Acquisition Cost: $143,700 Probable Mitigation Construction Cost: $491,300 (Does not include potential clean-up and remediation. ) Total Project Cost: $635,000 W:\ 12637602_KWIA ASAIFeasibilily\Rpl.doc3J26103 35 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study 1 - Mangrove 2 - Scrub Mangrove 3 - Saltmarsh 4 - Buttonwoods 5 - Hammocks 6 - Pinelands 7 - Exotics 8 - Developed 9 - Freshwater Hardwoods 10 - Freshwater Pine 11 - Freshwater Marsh 12 - Grasslands 13 - Water 16 - RidgelHammock 17 - Dune CJ Proposed Mitigation Area Habitat Boundary Location Map T\ Key West International Airport RSA Improvements Habitat For Humanity Site Restoration Figure 7.6.14 W+E 100 50 100 Feet February, 2003 URS H:\proJscta\ 12637802_kwlAppllcallons\mxdlmlllg_raslor81lona_ravlaad.mxd 14. Western Big Pine Dredge Hole Restoration, Big Pine Key Project Location: This project is located on the far western shoreline of Big Pine Key on both side of U.S. 1 near Mile Marker 29 (see Figure 7.6-1). Proposed Mitigation: A 0.50-acre dredge hole located on Key Deer Refuge property (see Figure 7.6-15) could be restored back to salt marsh/mangrove wetlands. Additionally there appears to be an opportunity to scrape down 2.4 acres of disturbed uplands belonging to the Refuge on both sides of U.S. 1 to create mangrove/salt marsh wetlands. The Key Deer Refuge staff recommends this project. Some additional upland property may be available for conversion directly adjacent to the dredge hole however public ownership would need to be verified. Project Benefits: Approximately 2.4 acres of salt marsh/mangrove wetland creation and approximately 0.50 acres of wetland enhancement. Area is under public ownership and would not require acquisition. Project Constraints: This area is used by live-aboard boaters to access Big Pine Key; however, the refuge wants to discourage this use. Project Cost: Probable Land Acquisition Cost: N/ A Probable Mitigation Construction Cost: $283,200 Total Project Cost: $283,200 W:' 12637802_KWIA ASAIFeasibilily\Rpt.doc3J26103 36 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study Location Map :... 1 - Mangrove 2 - Scrub Mangrove 3 - Saltmarsh 4 - Buttonwoods 5 - Hammocks 6 - Plnelands 7 - Exotics 8 - Developed 9 - Freshwater Hardwoods 10 - Freshwater Pine 11 - Freshwater Marsh 12 - Grasslands 13 - Water 16 - RldgelHammock 17 - Dune 150 75 W_E 150 S Feet CJ Proposed Mitigation Area Habitat Boundary Key West International Airport RSA Improvements Western Big Pine Dredge Hole Restoration Figure 7.6.15 February, 2003 URS H:\projacta\ 12637802_kwlAppllcallons\mxdlmlllg_rsalor81lons_ravlaad.mxd 15. Key Deer Refuge Limestone Pit Restoration, Big Pine Key Project Location: This borrow pit is located to the west of U.S. 1 on the southeast side of Big Pine Key at Mile Marker 32 (see Figure 7.6-1). Proposed Mitigation: The borrow pit, which is located on Key Deer Refuge property, could be restored back to salt marsh/mangrove wetlands (see Figure 7.6-16). The northern end of the pit would be available to scrape down to create salt marsh/mangrove wetlands. This project was recommended by Key Deer Refuge staff. Project Benefits: Approximately 3.8 acres salt marsh/mangrove wetland restoration. The area is under public ownership and would not require acquisition. Project Constraints: None. Project Cost: Probable Land Acquisition Cost: N/ A Probable Mitigation Construction Cost: $264,900 Total Project Cost: $264,900 W:\ 12637802_KWIA RSAIFeasibilily\Rpt.doc3J26/03 37 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study Location Map Jr 1. ~ 1 - Mangrove 2 - Scrub Mangrove 3 - Saltmarsh 4 - Buttonwoods 5 - Hammocks 6 - Pinelands 7 - Exotics 8 - Developed 9 - Freshwater Hardwoods 10 - Freshwater Pine 11 - Freshwater Marsh 12 - Grasslands 13 - Water 16 - RidgelHammock 17 - Dune "":,., .. ";':~~'~ CJ Proposed Mitigation Area Habitat Boundary Key West International Airport RSA Improvements Key Deer Refuge Limestone Pit Restoration Figure 7.6.16 W_E 150 75 150 S Feet February,2003 URS H:\projacts\ 12637802_kwlAppllcallons\mxdlmlllg_raalor81lons_ravlsad.mxd 16. No Name Key Limestone Pit Restoration, No Name Key Project Location: This limerock mine is located on the northwest portion of No Name Key to the west of Spanish Channel Drive (see Figure 7.6-1). Proposed Mitigation: Portions of an existing Iimerock mine (see Figure 7.6-17) could be restored back to salt marsh/mangrove wetlands by scraping down existing pit edges to wetland grade. Additionally, disturbed wetlands adjacent to the mine could be enhanced by removing a rock sill to increasing tidal flushing. This property is privately owned and currently offered on the market for sale. Project Benefits: Approximately 4.3 acres of salt marsh/mangrove wetland restoration Approximately 5.3 acres of salt marsh/mangrove wetland enhancement Project Constraints: Area is under private ownership and would require acquisition. Project Cost Probable Land Acquisition Cost: $159,300 Probable Mitigation Construction Cost: $425,800 Total Project Cost: $585,1 00 W:\ 12637802_KWIA ASAIFeasibilily\Rpt.doc3J26103 38 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study 1 - Mangrove 2 - Scrub Mangrove 3 - Saltmarsh 4 - Buttonwoods 5 - Hammocks 6 - Pinelands 7 - Exotics 8 - Developed 9 - Freshwater Hardwoods 10 - Freshwater Pine 11 - Freshwater Marsh 12 - Grasslands 13 - Water 16 - RidgelHammock 17 - Dune CJ Proposed Mitigation Area Habitat Boundary Location Map " . T\' Key West International Airport RSA Improvements No Name Key Limestone Pit Restoration Figure 7.6.17 W+E 150 75 150 Feel February, 2003 URS H :\proJacts\ 12637802_kwlAppllcatlons\mxdlmlllg_ra81or81lons_ravlsad.mxd 17. Ohio Key Mangrove Restoration, Ohio Key Project Location: This project is located adjacent to and south of U.S. 1 at Mile Marker 39 on Ohio Key (see Figure 7.6-1). Proposed Mitigation: 4.1 acres of filled mangrove wetlands located on Key Deer Refuge property could be scraped down to wetland grade and restored to mangrove swamp (see Figure 7.6-18). This area is also currently infested with nuisance vegetation species that could spread to other adjacent areas. This project was recommended by Key Deer Refuge staff. Project Benefits: 4.1 acres of mangrove swamp restoration. The site is located on public property and would not require acquisition. Project Constraints: None. Project Cost: Probable Land Acquisition Cost: N/ A Probable Mitigation Construction Cost: $407,800 Total Project Cost: $407,800 W:\ 12637802_KWIA RSAIFeasibilitylRpt.doc3J26103 39 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study , \ Bahia Honda* KS~ ,'" ;'if" 1 - Mangrove 2 - Scrub Mangrove 3 - Saltmarsh 4 - Buttonwoods 5 - Hammocks 6 - Pinelands 7 - Exotics 8 - Developed 9 - Freshwater Hardwoods 10- Freshwater Pine 11 - Freshwater Marsh 12 - Grasslands 13 - Water 16 - RldgelHammock 17 - Dune CJ Proposed Mitigation Area Habitat Boundary Key West International Airport RSA Improvements Ohio Key Mangrove Restoration Figure 7.6.18 W_B 150 75 150 S Feet February. 2003 URS H :\projac1s\ 12637802_kwlAppllcallons\mxdlmlllg_raslor81lons_rsvlsad .mxd 18. Nature View Property Restoration Project Location: The property is located adjacent to KWIA, approximately one-quarter mile east of the runway. The property fronts Roosevelt Boulevard (see Figure 7.6.19). Proposed Mitigation: The 8.8 acre site has approximately 1.5 acres of uplands that appear to be former mangrove wetlands. The fill material would be removed from the site and the area restored to a mangrove dominated wetland. Project Benefits: Restoration of approximately 1.5 acres of mangrove wetlands within the salt pond habitat. Project Constraints: The property is under private ownership and would have to be acquired. Project Cost: Probable Land Acquisition Cost: $285,300 Probable Mitigation Construction Cost: $136,100 Total Project Cost: $421,400 W:\ 12637802_KWIA ASAIFeasibilily\Rpl.doc3J26103 40 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study ,..- ~. ! 3i , ~u. en ~ l') cD 0 0 ...: ('II >; Q) 0 ... ... '" III N ::J :l en ..a u:: ~ If 1:: o Q. ... <0 - -c ca Q) g e .- Q) -> ca 0 c ... "'Q. .!e .5- -cc 0U) ~a: >- Q) ~ >. al ~~ 3: al al c: "" l/) rEal 55 ~ "l!?"oo...J lI><(lI>lDlD .~ >. U) "0 Cii ~ 5-Q) 8.1I>:!: :g,. ~~ e'e-~ e ol:iIo c o :;:::: ca ... o - o Q) a: ~ Q) Q. o ... a. ~ :> Q) ... ::J - ca Z 11 E i .. '> ! , c: g ! ~ ! al ;;; i j j j i5. f i' ... .. ~ i ~ 2' .!!' :z: 8.0 MITIGATION OPPORTUNITY ANALYSIS 8.0 MITIGATION OPPORTUNITY ANALYSIS Finding appropriate mitigation in the lower Keys for a project such as the proposed RSA improvement project presents several challenges. By far the greatest challenge is finding appropriate large parcels of property on which to perform mitigation. Available undeveloped upland properties are increasingly rare in the lower Keys and may command a premium price for acquisition. Many available parcels are also too small to incorporate all the mitigation required into one site, making acquisition of multiple, non- contiguous parcels necessary. In addition, many of the undeveloped upland parcels are vegetated with native tropical hardwood hammocks, a habitat type that is becoming threatened throughout the Keys due to development. Because of the rarity of tropical hardwood hammocks this study concentrated on identifying parcels with disturbed uplands that do not contain native plant communities. There are numerous opportunities to obtain wetland parcels for preservation, however regulatory agencies would accept this type of mitigation only after all available creation, restoration, and enhancement opportunities have been exhausted. Another challenge is finding available mitigation in proximity to the project site. Generally, regulatory agencies consulted for this study prefer to have all impacts mitigated on-site. When mitigation is proposed at an off-site location, agencies may seek slightly higher ratios since the mitigation would benefit wetlands at sites other than where the impact occurs. Because of the intense development in the Key West area, approximately 24 percent of the total mitigation that is anticipated to be required for the project could be constructed within 2 miles of the project area. The majority of the mitigation opportunities identified by this study are between 14 and 39 miles from the project site. In order to identify the amount of mitigation that can reasonably be assumed to be available for the RSA project, the identified potential mitigation sites have been ranked into groupings based upon their likelihood of availability for use, their size and site conditions, and the benefits obtained through their use in a mitigation program (see Table 8.1-1.) Projects that have generally been ranked as a high potential for use include those under public ownership where acquisition of the project area is not anticipated. It should be noted that use of USFWS parcels have the support of local staff, however, these projects must receive final approval by the USFWS headquarters. Projects that have a moderate likelihood of availability include privately held parcels that have no known acquisition constraints or are under public ownership but have other constraints. Projects that have a low likelihood are mostly under private ownership and have potential land acquisition or other issues that may affect the ability to obtain the property for mitigation. Based on feedback from the SFWMD and ACOE, the Cow Key road removal and the North Boca Chica sites may have a low probability for acquisition because previous attempts by others to acquire the properties for mitigation purposes have not been successful. In addition to acquisition issues, the Habitat for Humanity site may have environmental constraints and liabilities that limit the utility of the site for mitigation purposes. W:\ 12637802_KWIA RSAIFeasibilityIRpt.doc3/26103 41 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C') "!. ~ <Xl 0 0 0 (II) <Xl <0 f'-. N C') C') '<:t f'-. CO ~ T'"" II) C\l <Xl <0 0 f'-. C\l C\l '<:t <Xl C\l <0 ClO ffi- ffi- ffi- ffi- ffi- ffi- ffi- ..... 0 "0 "0 "0 "0 .... "0 .... 0 0 0 0 0 0 'CU 0 0 0 0 0 0 (!} (!} (!} (!} a.. (!} LL ~ Z ~ Z ~ Z ~ Z ~ Z ~ Z ~ Z Q) Q) Q) >< ~ (U (U (U :i: :i: :i: .... .... .... iE 0) Q) Q) Q) 0 0 0 !;;: I "0 "0 "0 ...J ...J ...J 0 0 0 ~ :?:: :?:: :?:: Z 0 Q) Q) Q) ~ ~ ~ ~ (U (U (U .... .... .... -~ .gl .~ Q) Q) Q) ::J I I I "0 "0 "0 0 0 0 ...J :?:: :?:: :?:: <C .....> .w Q) Q) Q) "":W - - (U ell ell ~ ~ ~ ClOI- .... .... .... W- Q) Q) .gl .~ Q) .~ ...JU) "0 "0 I I "0 I 0 0 0 mZ :?:: :?:: :?:: <CO 1-- !;;: :i: :i: :i: :i: :i: ~ CJ 0 0 0 0 0 E ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J Z ~ ...J <C j:: Z w ~ LO ~ ~ LO ~ f'-. f'-. I- C! 0 0 0 0 Z 0 Z Z ci z C! "": C. o r....: '<:t C\i <Xl M <Xl ci C') ci <Xl o ClO '<:t cci ..... '" o o ~ ~ "C! exi, ~ :0 'in '" Q) ~ C/l a: <( ~ I gj CXI '" '" <0 ~ ~ T'"" -.:i .2 :0 ::3 a.. .2 :0 ::3 a.. .2 :0 ::3 a.. _2 :0 ::3 a.. .Q :0 ::3 a.. .2 :0 ::3 a.. g .0 ::3 a.. .~~ Q) >.Q)cO.... ~ C1J_-gQ) _ m"O Q)Q)c > Q)Q)OQ)>'=~ell~~ ....tCQ)Q)Q)~OQ)~O~Q)O)IO~LL>~~>~ oQ)........-O::3-C ........0::3Q). ""0 Q)....o m .~_O_Q)OO_~~-O~O -O)"O~Q)EEmE~ I....."" :?::--c_>-Q) ::3(0) 0 ~....CIJQ) Q)~E ~ellCIJQ)~~U....cQ)E>'Q)1- a..~~ ~ ~ O:?::~~ 0 ~~~~~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C":!. ~ ,.... 0 0 0 0 0 N C') <X> 0> q ,.... C":!. ~ M I"- 0> ,.... LO LO C\/ <X> ,.... N C\!. ":. ~ <X> <0 <0 0> C\/ M LO ,.... W- ,.... '<t uS ,.... ,.... ,.... W- W- W- W- W- W- W- 0 "C "C ..... "C "C "C "C "C 0 0 "cu 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CJ CJ Ll.. CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CI) CI) CI) CI) - - CU CU ~ CO CO .c ~ ~ ..... ..... ..... ..... CI) CI) .2> CI) CI) Z "C "C I Z Z "C "C 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ CI) CI) CI) - CU - >< .c .c .c CO =: =: CO ..... ..... ..... ~ Ol .2> .2> CI) CI) 0 0 CI) ~ I I I "C "C .....J .....J "C 0 0 0 :!: ~ ~ ~ Z CI) CI) 0 (I) - CU ~ tn .c .c .c .c CO .c .c ::>> ..... ..... 0> .2> .2> .2> CI) Ol CI) .2> :J ... I I I I "C I "C I 0 0 ..J 0 ~ ~ <( LL ,..> CO .w CI) CI) ""=w :t:;.c =: cu =: .c =: cu .c co~ Co> ..... ..... w- (1).- 0 CI) 0 .2> 0 CI) .2> -,en -:r: .....J "C .....J I .....J "C I 0 0 0 mZ ~ ~ <0 Q. ~- (I) ~ - f! =: =: .c =: ~ ~ =: =: " 0 0 .2> 0 0 0 E (I) .....J .....J I .....J Z Z .....J .....J "tJ :!: 0 ..J ~ < i= z w ~ ~ C') ~ C') LO ~ CO ~ ,.... LO C\i q CO 0 Z Z ci z 0 z cwi Do LO ,.... <X> '<t ,.....: g ~ ~ 8 ""! C') ..; l!? '<t ci en cO M "": o l!? .2 :0 :J ll. CI) cu > .;:: ll. cO f-,' ~ 'is '0; " Ql ~ rn a: 0( ~ , ~ co .... '" <0 N - :;: CI) - CO > .;:: ll. CI) - CO > ";:: ll. .2 :0 :J ll. CI) CI) ca n; > > OC 4C ll. ll. .2 :0 :J ll. >. CI) >. ::::C:::-t _CI)CI) oCl)a. >.~ e o ll. >'CI)CI) ~'E-CI) ~..... "C c: .v.u co ~ CI) CI) CO ..... CI) ::::C:::oCl)oo>E oCl)CI)Ol"C>C:COt CI)~c:~a:Oco~eC:O:JCOO~>CI) oCl) co EZ~CI)- -oEa.CI)> .~ ~ 0> a. ..1.. E ~ >. CI) a: CI) '" "S "S "C E :J 0 CI) 0 ._ CI) a: a: VJ 0 () 8::J cn.3a:Z .....J::::C::: m >. c:=: c: CI) OCl)>.O ::::C:::(tj~>t~.!! Cl)c:.....CI)a.CI).....m ocoo..... 0- '6'()~:Je~{!. :J Cl)cuQ...CI) () a:Z a: >< a: !<< ~ z o !<< ::::> ..J <( .....> .w ~w co.... w- ..J(/) mZ <CO ....- !;( C) E ~ ..J <( i= z W t- O a.. o o C\l_ 0> ..... "!. ..... fh ... o LL(]) - (ij~ ;::(]) s::'8 S~ o a. ;:~ 02 -I o o o u) C") <D fh "0 o o (!} ..... '(ij LL o 0 o 0 t-- en cD 0 '<t 0 C") N -.:i U; fh 0 ..... '(ij LL :: o ..J :: o ..J :: o ..J L: o~ I ~ 2 <D Lci (]) Ci.i > .;:: 0... L: oQ> I L: 0> I L: L: .Q> .Q> I I (]) - CU ..... (]) "0 o ~ :: o --I :: o --I :: o --I ~ 2 ID ..... C\l Lci o '<t (]) Ci.i > .;:: 0... (]) Ci.i > .;:: 0... 0>- CU(]) iD' CU LL :t::: g.t:: en ~"O> c(])a::lCl)- ~OECi.iCU:t::: cuS ::0: :t:::ECI)L:uo o (]) .o:J t:: .- I- o 0: CUI oF-. I 2""' It! ..... - o (J) (]) ..... u CU (]) :0 J!! '(ij > CU 0> C '5 .:;; :a >- .0 "0 (]) Ci.i 'S u (ij u (]) ..... CU "0 c CU (J) (]) ..... u CU c o ~ (]) ..... u o . -0 'E:+= (]) ~ (ij- .~ 55 :J E tT(]) (]) u (]) c (ij~ c c E (]) :J..... 00 u..... cCU (])>- E.o (])(]) U.t:: C (J) CU C -E .2 (])Ci.i (])O> L:+= :: 'E ~cu SCi.i "oc (])(]) ~~ (J) U (]) C u~ <(C .. (]) co o Lt) (J) (]) - o 2 ci> C 00.. :J o ..... 0> L: U CU (]) .~ L: - .~ >- :!: :0 CU ..... .U) (]) "0 - o ..... (]) "0 ..... o .~ "0 (]) ~ C CU ..... (]) ..... CU (J) (]) - U5 C o += .u) 'S tT U CU (]) "0 :J "0 .~ "0 (]) - Jg (J) - (J) o U - U (]) '0' ..... 0... a) Ci.i E 'x o ..... a. a. CU (]) ..... CU (J) (]) 0> CU (]) U CU C o += CU ~ ~ '" o o ~ ~ 't! cO I ~ :a 'iij us ~ (/) a: <( ~ ~' CD .... &l ~ 3: As previously indicated, based on assumed wetland mitigation ratios approximately 77.8 acres of wetland creation credits will likely be needed to mitigate the proposed impacts. The analysis shows that there is a high potential for approximately 18.5 acres of creation credits that may be available for the proposed project. In addition, there is a moderate potential for approximately 42.8 acres of creation credits area that may be available. If combined, the total available acreages of the high and moderate potential projects represent approximately 79 percent (61.3 acres) of the total amount of projected mitigation needed as compensation for the construction of the standard RSA. Mitigation cost of the combined high and medium potential projects is approximately $8,175,500. The analysis shows that approximately 52.3 acres of wetland creation credit would be on properties with a low potential to be available for the proposed project. If all potential mitigation sites listed with a high and moderate potential for use were utilized for the proposed project, a balance of 16.4 additional creation credit acres would still be needed to satisfy the projected mitigation scenarios. Based on the available acreage of the sites with low potential for use, the acquisition of the North Boca Chica site would be crucial to meeting the projected mitigation requirements because the other two listed sites would not offer enough mitigation to satisfy the assumptions. W:\ 12637802_KWIA ASAIFeasibilitylRpt.doc3l26103 45 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study 9.0 CONCLUSION 9.0 CONCLUSION Based on consultation with the involved regulatory and commenting agencies and in URS' professional opinion, the probable mitigation required for the proposed standard RSA at KWIA is estimated to be 77.8 acres of wetland creation/restoration. This estimate allows for the identification of conceptual mitigation strategies and opportunities in the airport vicinity and the lower Keys. An evaluation of the conceptual mitigation projects identified in this study provides some early indication of benefits, issues, probability, and costs. The environmental review process and eventual permit application process would result in detailed analyses of alternatives, habitat evaluation studies, and related studies that would provide a basis for final mitigation ratios. As such, the current study identifies the probable ratios, but it should be noted that the final approved mitigation ratios could vary. The development of conceptual mitigation projects strives to maximize on-site mitigation. The limitations of available suitable land within the salt ponds require that additional mitigation be conducted off-site. As discussed, the nature of the physical environment and land development in the lower Keys results in several small mitigation projects over a large geographic area. The approach involves acquiring the needed parcels, or in the case of public lands, obtaining agreements to conduct the mitigation. Permitting for these small projects can be approached from an overall perspective; however, each conceptual project would need detailed mitigation and design plans. The results of the study identified conceptual mitigation projects that collectively should satisfy anticipated mitigation requirements. However, some issues (Le., land acquisition, environmental site conditions) could limit the land available to conduct the amount of mitigation that may be required. Other issues, such as potential cost, are a consideration to funding agencies and an opinion of the significance of the potential costs is not offered in this study. A summary of the mitigation strategy, issues, and costs related to the proposed standard RSA is presented below: Development of a Conceptual Mitigation Strategy . The development of conceptual mitigation strategies first identified potential direct impacts to wetland resources at the airport resulting from the construction of the standard RSA. The impacts were discussed with regulatory and commenting agencies through a series of meetings and site visits to identify potential permit issues and probable mitigation requirements. . A list of potential mitigation sites was prepared through the review of aerial photographs and maps. Coordination with local resource agency representatives and organizations was then conducted to identify additional potential mitigation opportunities. A field reconnaissance was also conducted to review accessible sites and identify additional sites. . The list of potential mitigation projects was coordinated with regulatory and commenting agencies to further discuss issues and probable mitigation requirements. The result of this effort allowed URS to develop conceptual mitigation strategies and W:\ 12637802_KWIA RSAIFeasibilitylRpt.doc3l26103 46 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study probable mitigation costs for consideration by Monroe County and the Federal Aviation Administration. RSA Project Impact Issues · The RSA project would impact substantial mangrove community and open water habitat on Key West. Approximately 24.9 acres of wetlands will be impacted. Salt pond habitats are considered to be a unique resource on Key West. · For the permit application process, the regulatory and commenting agencies will require a detailed analysis of alternatives that first avoid and then minimize impacts to the wetland habitats, including consideration of a No-Action alternative. · The regulatory and commenting agencies indicated that cumulative and secondary impacts will likely be significant issues to be addressed during any subsequent NEPA environmental studies and permit application process. · The RSA project and proposed mitigation will require the removal of the abandoned military bunker located west of the runway. This action will require approval from the State Historic Preservation Officer. · Potential impacts to protected species, wildlife, Essential Fish Habitat, and migratory birds are of concern to the regulatory and commenting agencies. · Potential impacts to water quality and hydrology in the salt ponds are of concern to the regulatory and commenting agencies. · Federal participation in the proposed RSA project will require the preparation of an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement. Mitigation Issues · It is estimated that 77.8 acres of wetland creation/restoration may be required for the direct impacts of the proposed RSA project. Detailed habitat evaluations and related impact studies will provide the basis for final mitigation ratios, which could vary from the probable ratios developed for this study. · The regulatory and commenting agencies are interested in maximizing on-site mitigation before considering off-site options. Physical constraints limit on-site opportunities. It has been determined that off-site mitigation is needed to satisfy probable mitigation requirements. · Regulatory agencies may seek higher ratios for off-site mitigation than on-site mitigation. · The development of a conceptual mitigation strategy found that a single site suitable to provide all of the projected mitigation is not available in the vicinity of the airport. The mitigation strategy involves a number of smaller projects located throughout the lower Keys. · Ten mitigation sites on public land were identified. The land to the north of the airport where some mitigation is proposed is owned by the County but leased to the City of Key West. Other public-owned mitigation sites are under County or federal ownership. Agreements will be required for the County to conduct mitigation on the leased property and federal property. · Eight mitigation sites are privately owned and would require acquisition. · One potential mitigation site (the Habitat for Humanity site) has known environmental concerns. Additional investigation is needed to determine if the liability and costs for any hazardous material clean-up would be prohibitive. W:\ 12637802_KWIA RSAIFeasibility\Rpt.doc3J26103 47 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study s Eighteen sites with approximately 108 acres of wetland creation potential and 5.4 acres of wetland enhancement were identified. Mitigation on sites considered to have high and moderate potential for use would yield approximately 61.3 acres of mitigation credit toward the 77.8 acres estimated to be needed. . Three sites considered to have low potential, primarily due to possible acquisition issues and environmental liability, would collectively have an additional 52.3 acres of wetland creation credit potential. The North Boca Chica site, with approximately 41.5 acres of potential mitigation, would provide the best option for providing additional mitigation. However, discussions with regulatory agencies indicate that this land has been considered on other mitigation projects, but acquisition issues were not resolved. Probable Project Costs . The total projected construction cost for the standard RSA at KWIA, including design and construction phase fees, is $9,161,200. . Land acquisition costs for the mitigation sites were developed from the Monroe County Property Appraiser's Office records, with a 30 percent increase added to the County's Just Valuation estimates. Detailed appraisals may indicate fair market values higher than estimated in this study. The acquisition costs include estimated incidental costs (Le., appraisals, surveys, etc.) but not potential additional costs for negotiated settlements or potential imminent domain acquisitions. . Mitigation cost estimates were based on conceptual excavation, clearing and grubbing, and re-vegetation requirements for each project. The costs include consideration of potential design, permitting and construction phase fees. . The total projected cost of all the mitigation projects identified is $14,376,400. . The total projected cost of the RSA construction, land acquisition, and mitigation projects is $23,537,600. W:\ 12637602_KWIA ASAIFeasibility\Rpt.doc3J26103 48 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study REFERENCES Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 2002. Airport Design, Change 7, Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Federal Aviation Administration, October 1, 2002. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 1985. Airport Environmental Handbook, Order 5050.4A, Federal Aviation Administration, October 8, 1985. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 1986. Policies & Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, Order 1050.1 D Change 4, Federal Aviation Administration, December 5, 1986. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 1999. Runway Safety Area Program, Order 5200.8, Federal Aviation Administration, October 1, 1999. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 2003. Terminal Area Forecast. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Federal Aviation Regulations Part 139, Certification and Operations: Land Airports Serving Certain Air Carriers. 14 CFR Part 139. Florida Department of Transportation, 2002. Aviation System Plan. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended. 42 U.S.C. 94321 et seq. (1988) URS Corporation, 2003. Key West International Airport Master Plan, Draft, March 2003. W:\ 12637802_KWIA ASAIFeasibilily\Rpl.doc3J26103 49 Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study APPENDIX A RUNWAY SAFETY AREA REQUIREMENTS 10/1/02 AC 150/5300-13 CHG 7 Chapter 3. RUNWAY DESIGN ,,~ . .. . . .. - 300. INTRODUCTION. - This' chapkr" p~ts .C - -- standards for runways and runway associated elements such as shoulders, blast pads, runway safetY areas, obstacle free zones (OFZ), object free areas (OFA), clearways, and stopways. Tables 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 present the standard widths and lengths for nmway and runway associated elements. Also included are design standards and reconunendations for rescue and firefighting access roads. At neW airports, the RSA and ROF A lengths and the RPZ location standards are tied to runway ends. At existing constrained airports, these aiteria may, on it case-by-case basis, be applied with respect to declared distances ends. See appendix 14. 301. RUNWAY'LltNGTIL AC 150/5325-4 and airplane flight manuals provide guidance on runway lengths for airport design, including declared distance lengths. The computer program cited in appendix 11 may be used to determine the recommended nmway length for - airport design. 302. RUNWAY WIDTIL Tables 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 present runway width standards which consider operations conducted during reduced visibility. 303. RUNWAY SHOULDERS. Runway shoulders provide resistance to blast erosion and - accOmmodate the passage of maintenance and emergency equipment and the occasional passage of an aitplane veering fiom the runway. Tables 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 present runway shoulder width standards. A natural surface, e.g., turf, nonnally _ reduces the possibility of soil erosion and engine ingestion of foreign objects. Soil with turf not suitable for this purpose requires a stabilized or low cost paved surface. Refer to chapter 8 for further discussion. Figure 3-1 depicts runway shoulders. 304. RUNWAY BLAST PAD. Runway blast pads provide blast erosion protection beyond runway ends. Tables 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 contain the standard length and width for blast pads for takeoff operations requiring blast erosion control. Refer to chapter 8 for further discussion. Figure 3-1 depicts runway blast pads. 305. RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA). The runway safety area is centered on the runway centerline. Tables 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 present runway safety area dimensional standards. Figure 3-1 depicts the runway safety area. Appendix 8 discusses the runway safety area's evolution. . ". . . - - -. . _. .. "" --. . . . ." , .. .....,. - ;.. '-" ~ .-: . a. ' 'Design StandardS. The runway safety area shall be: (1) cleared and graded and have no potentially hazardous ruts, humps, depressions, or other swface variations; (2) drained by grading or storm sewers to prevent water accumulation; (3) capable, under dry conditions, of supporting snow removal equipment, aircraft rescue and firefighting equipment, and the occasional passage of aircraft without causiitg stiUcturaldaniage to the aircraft; and (4) free of objects, except for objects that need to be located in the runway safety area because of their fimction. Objects higher than 3 inches (7.6 em) above grade should be constructed, to the extent practicable, on low impact resistant supports (frangible mounted structures) of the lowest practical height with the frangible point no higher than 3 inches (7.6 em) above grade. Other objects, such as manholes, should be constructed at grade. In. no case should. their height exceed 3 inches (7.6 cm) above grade. b. Construction Standards. Compaction of runway safety areas shall be to FAA specification P-152 found inAC 150/5370-10. c. Sub-standard RSAs. RSA standards cannot be modified or waived like other airport design standards. The dimensional standards remain in effect regardless of the preseneeofnatw"al or man-made objects or surface conditions that might create a hazard to aircraft' that leave the runway surfaCe. 'Fadlities, including NA V AIDs, that would not normally be permitted in an RSA should not be installed inside the standard RSA dimensions even when the RSA doeS not meet standards in other respects. A continuous evaluation of all practicable alternatives for improving each sub-standard RSA is required until it meets all standards for grade, compaction, and object frangibility. FAA Order 5200.8, Runway Safety Area Program, explains the process for conducting this evaluation. Each FAA regional Airports division manager has a written determination of the best practicable altemative(s) for improving each RSA. Therefore, runway and RSA improvement projects must comply with the determination of the FAA regional Airports division manager. 21 AC 150/5300-13CHG6., , 9130/00 Table 3-3. Runway design standards for aircraft approach categories C & D (Refer also to Appendix 16 for the establishment of new approaches) , AIRPLANE DESIGN GROUP ITEM DIM' I I n I ill IV I V I VI Runway Length A - Refer to paragraph 301 - .. " Runway Width _.- . . ' B ,. - 100 ft 100ft 100 tt1 '150 ft 150 ft 200 ft 30m 30m 30m2 45m 45m 60m Runway sliOUIaCr,Width3 ' .'_. ..~'. ' , 10 ft ' 10 ft 20ft' ,-- . ' -2Hr' "35 ft 40FT ..... . 3m 3m 6m2 705m 10.5m 12M Runway Blast,P.ad Width , 120 ft 120 ft 140 tt1' "200 ft 220 ft 280ft ' " 36m 36m 42m2 60m 66m 84m Runway Blast Pad length 100 ft 150 ft 200 ft 200 ft 400 ft 400ft 30m 45m 60m 60m 120m 120m Runway Safety Area Width4 C 500 ft 500 ft 500 ft 500 ft 500 ft 500 ft 150m 150m 150m 150m 150m 150m Runway Safety Area P 1,000 ft 1,000 ft 1,000 ft 1,000 ft 1,000 ft 1,000 ft Len2th Bevond RW En<f 300m 300m 300m 300m 300m 300m Obstacle Free Zone - Refer to paragraph 306 - Width and len2th Runway Object Free Area Q 800 ft 800 ft 800 ft 800 ft 800 ft 800 ft Width 240m 240m 240m 240m 240 240 Runway Object Free Area R 1000 ft 1000 ft 1000 ft 1000 ft 1,000 ft 1000 ft Lenlrth. Beyond RW EndS 300m 300m 300m 300m 300m 300 11 Letters correspond to the dimensions on figures 2-1 and 2-3. 21 For Airplane Design Group m serving airplanes with maximum certificated takeoff weight greater than 150,000 pounds (68100 kg), the standard runway width is 150 feet (45 m). the shoulder width is 25 feet (7.5 m), udthe runway blast pad width is 200 feet (60 m). 31 Design Groups V and VI normally require stabilized or paved shoulder surfaces. 41 For Airport Reference Code C-I and C-lI, a runway safety area width of 400 feet (120 m) is permissible. For runways designed after 2/28/83 to serve Aircraft Approach Category D, the runway safety area width increases 20 feet (6, m) for each 1,000 feet (300 m) of airport elevation above MSL. Refer to paragraph 305. 51 The runway safety area and runway object free area lengths begin at each runway end when stopway is not provided. When stopway is provided, these lengths begin at the stopway end. Source: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 2002. Airport Design, Change 7, Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Federal Aviation Administration, October 1, 2002. 26 11110/94 Chap 3 ," ....~, IUcn u,. 1f..cr.'~L .Are.eef _M'/ / 'M . ....ue. J L.." 'LA" I . ~. . I . I au..AY un", A.fA I . I nbcruau ,."r.,., I SECTION A. A Figure 3-1. Runway safety area AC 150/5300-13 CHG 4 MOULIn 27 9f29189 AC.150/5300-13 FAR PART n APPROAC ~ MAX'M.M -: PEANITTEO, Ft.A PART llRFAtE 1~K N. "NET.. n.N ..- .....ACH ,-" J ,. SURFACE PERMITTE 0 MAXIMUM GAAOE CHANGE! 2% PElt 100 n.130.) USE VERTICAL CUAVE LONGITUDINAL GRADE EXTENDED RUNWAY I '-T' r- RUNWAY SAFETY AREA WIDTH j MAXIMUM +5% J TRANSITIONS BETWEEN DIFFERENT GRADIENTS SHOULD 8E WARPED SMOOTHLY. TRANSVERSE GRADE Figure 5-5. Runw~y safety area grade limitations beyond 200 feet (60 m) from the runway end Chap 5 55 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-offs. 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 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. 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 involves 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. ClV1~ 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:! City/State: I 10/01/99 Region:1 ADO:I Runway: I Length:W Width: Part 139: 0 CRITICAL AIRCRAFT: Approach category:c=] Design Group:c=] Visibility Minimums:1 PUBLISHED RUNWAY SAFETY AREA STANDARDS: Length:c=] Width:c=] Uniformity Comments: Runway Ends: I Actual RSA Length: Actual RSA Width: RSA Grade (+/- 5%): 0 Dimensional Uniformity: 0 o o ElSA D t . t' Q Qrmll:}i1 Ion 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 Determination (month/year):1 I - Plilr:lned Impro\lements RSA to Design Standards Obtainable: 0 0 Runway Realignment or Relocation: 0 0 Shift Runway From Present Alignment: 0 0 Use Declared Distances: 0 0 Use EMAS: 0 0 Other: 0 0 Scheduled Completion (year):c=] Remaining costs:c=] Improvement Comments: Page 2 10/01/99 5200.8 Appendix 1 Object Form \...OCid:1 ~~n!lli'!V;$~ti!t~('Atea Data Sheet Ai~port' City/state:! ~eGiQI'l:l AD,off ,JluijW~Y f~, MGtl) ,~ .. r ::= ... J- ..~, '" ;... ~, - ,~, ,~, '- "'~ - - - lIiiii :~. - '- ~ '~~~~~~ ,~w N~a " t. Q~~,Ct:J'(f~ri_1iq~tiQn ,:g.~J~,~:\.z.~~!r~' dbje# st~!!Js .': ;: " ~ "0 !A D::~ :>- l:: OJ .:;':-:~-, c.'- 4> ,,0 OJ OJ :Ei !A '-"~ RWY a> 1Q ~ No Type ,Name ~,y "J;h'iF,tiis;t- 4'6 :\;iRP~' ,;p'~ oa :;:;'.. O:ijme~ ~,~ e,;,~ ,:~,,:~-:~" ,C ~ c .ii<'g '2\8 II 0 ~ ~C;; ,;c "ii '" 0: :E" 0.:< f+-, 8' , ,,' , 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, 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 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. 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. Page 4 - ~'~ ",;'" ...,;;;,;, '-, ,'::' .;.. APPENDIX 8 AGENCY COORDINATION ", ,,"'- " --URS' .' . . ,30 E4 September 26, 2002 David Rackley National Marine Fisheries Service 219 Fort Johnson Rd. Charleston, SC 29412-9110 RE: RUNWAY SAFETY AREA FEASIBILITY STUDY KEY WEST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA . .-.... ~. 'I ( ;. ; ~ 1: j!. _~ ~ .~ 1 Dear Mr. Rackley: C"'!.', ~ -'. '. -......... .- On behalf of the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (County) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), URS Corporation is conducting a feasibility study for providing a standard Runway Safety Area (RSA) for Runway 9/27 at the Key West International Airport (Airport). A standard RSAis an area around_a runway that consists of a graded surface. suitable for reducing the risk of aircraft-damage in the event. of an undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from the paved runway surface. The existing RSA at the Airport does not meet FAA requirements and design standards. At this time, the County and FAA are investigating the feasibility of providing a -full, standard RSA at the Airport. Given the airport's physical setting, the scope of this feasibility study is focused on the potential to obtain necessary environmental permits and the probable magnitude and cost of potential wetland mitigation. As you have previously discussed with Mr. George Feher-ofURS; the ability to identify permit issues and evaluate conceptual mitigation 'scenarios depends greatly on your agency's early input and consultation. In this regard, we look forward to your attendance at a meeting on October 9,.2002,at the South Florida. Water Management District's West Palm Beach office, located at 3301 Gun Club Road. The meeting is scheduled for 1 :30 p.m. Other agencies, including the US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Army Corps of Engineers, and the FAA, have been invited to attend. '- For your information, I have enclosed ,an attachment that depicts an overview of the standard RSA proposed at the airport. - We will provide additional diagrams and information at our meeting for your consideration and input on permit issues and probable mitigation requirements. URS Corporation 7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, Fl 33607-1462 Tel: 813.286.1711 Fax: 813,287.8591 Mr. David Rackley September 26. 2002 Page 2 We appreciate your tjme, and ,consultation on this m~tter. Sincerely. URS CORPORATION ~J:- Peter M. Green, AICP Project Manager Enclosure Copy: Mr. Peter Horton, Monroe CountylKey West International Airport (wI enclosure) Mr. Bart Vernace, Federal Aviation Administration (wI enclosure) Mr. Mil Reisert, URS Corporation (wI enclosure) Mr. George Feher, URS Corporation (wI enclosure) " - URS September 26. 2002: Allen Webb~,~~ Fish and Wildlife Biologist South Florida Ecological Services Office 1339 20th Street Vero Beach, FI 32960 - 3559 RE: RUNWAY SAFETY AREA FEASIBILITY STUDY KEY WEST INTERNATIONAlAtRPORT ~,,;-nF: " MONROI:COUNTY,'FLORIDA ,...~ Dear Mr. Webb: On behalf of the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (County) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), URSCorporation is conducting a feasibility study for providing ,a standard Runway Safety Area (RSA) for Runway 9/27 at the Key West- International Airport (Airport). A standard RSA is an area around a runway that consists of a graded surface suitable for reducing the risk of aircraft damage in the event of an undershoot, overshoot; or- excursion from the paved runway surface. The existing RSA at the Airport does not meet FAA requirements and design standards. At this time, the County and FAA are investigating the feasibility of providing a full, standard RSAat the Airport. Given the airport's physical setting, the scope of this feasibility study is focused on the potential to obtain necessary environmental- permits and the probable magnitude and cost of potential wetland mitigation. As you have previously discussed with Mr. George Feher of URS, the ability to identify permit issues and evaluate conceptual mitigation scenarios depends greatly on your agency's early input and consultation. In -this regard, we look~, forward. to your attendance at a meeting on October 9,2002, at the South Florida Water Management District's West Palm Beach office, located at 3301 Gun Club Road. - The meeting is scheduled for 1 :30 p.m. Other agencies, including the US Fish and Wildlife Service; US Army Corps of Engineers, and the FAA, have been invited to attend. -",~ For your information, I have enclosed an attachment that depicts an overview of the standard RSA proposed at the airport. We will provide additional diagrams and information at our meeting for your consideration and input on permit issues and probable mitigation requirements. -- URS Corporation 7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, FL 33607-1462 Tel: 813.286.1711 Fax: 813.287.8591 Mr. Allen Webb September 26, 2002 Page 2 We appreciate your time and consultation on this matter. Sincerely, URS CORPORATION Enclosure Copy: Mr. Peter Horton, Monroe CountylKey West International Airport (wi enclosure) Mr. Bart Vernace, Federal Aviation Administration (wi enclosure) Mr. Mil Reisert, URS Corporation (wi enclosure) Mr. George Feher, URS Corporation (wi enclosure) URS.... _. . Septemb~rc26" 2q~?: Anita R. Bain - ". . .' '. .. . Sr. Supervising Environmental Analyst Natural Resources Managern~nt. [Jepartment South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 L ~ ~-.. ~:..:-~ RE: RUNWAY SAFETY AREA FEASIBILITY STUDY KEY WEST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA Dear Ms. Bain: On behalf of the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (County) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), URS Corporation is conducting a feasibility study for providing a standard _ Runway Safety Area (RSA) for Runway 9/27 at the Key West International Airport (Airport). A standard RSA is an area around a runway that consists of a graded surface suitable for reducing the risk of aircraft damage in the event of an undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from the paved runway surface. The existing RSA at the Airport does not meet FAA requirements and design standards. ...... At this time, the County and FAA are investigating the feasibility of providing a full, standard RSA at the Airport. Given the airport's physical setting, the scope of this feasibility study is focused on the potential to obtain necessary environmental permits and the probable magnitude and cost of potential wetland mitigation. As you have previously discussed with Mr. George Feher of URS, the ability to identify permit issues and evaluate conceptual mitigation scenarios depends greatly on your agency's early input and consultation. In this regard, we look forward to our meeting on October 9, 2002, at the District's West Palm Beach office. It is our understanding that the meeting .is scheduled for 1 :30 p.m. Other state and federal agencies, including the US Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the FAA, have been invited to attend. ..<- For your information, I have enclosed an attachment that depicts an overview of the standard RSA proposed at the airport. We will provide additional diagrams and information at our meeting for your consideration and input on permit issues and probable mitigation requirements. URS Corporation 7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, FL 33607-1462 Tel: 813.286,1711 Fax: 813.287.8591 Ms. Anita R. Bain Septem~~_2E?, 2002 Page 2. We appreciate your time and consultationon thi~ ~atter. Sincerely, URS CORPORATION Peter M. Green, AICP Project Manager Enclosure Copy: Mr. Peter Horton, Monroe CountylKey West International Airport (wI enclosure). Mr. Bart Vernace', Federal Aviation Administration, (wI enclosure) .. . --. .. . . , Mr. Mil Reisert, URS Corporation (wI enclosure) Mr. George Feher, URS Corporation (wI enclosure) URS September 26, 2002 Paul Kruger US Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Division Miami Field Office Suite 104 11420 North Kendall Drive Miami, Florida 33176-1039 RE: RUNWAY SAFETY AREA FEASIBILITY STUDY KEY WEST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA Dear Mr. Kruger: On behalf of the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (County) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), URS Corporation is conducting a feasibility study for providing a standard Runway Safety Area (RSA) for Runway 9/27 at the Key West International Airport (Airport). A standard RSA is an area around a runway that consists of a graded surface suitable for reducing the risk of aircraft damage in the event of an undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from the paved runway surface. The existing RSA at the Airport does not meet FAA requirements and design standards. At this time, the County and FAA are investigating the feasibility of providing a full, standard RSA at the Airport. Given the airport's physical setting, the scope of this feasibility study is focused on the potential to obtain necessary. environmental permits and the probable magnitude and cost of potential wetland mitigation. As you have previously discussed with Mr. George Feher of URS, the ability to identify permit issues and evaluate conceptual mitigation scenarios depends greatly on your agency's early input and consultation. In this regard, we look forward to your attendance at a meeting on October 9,2002, at the South Florida Water Management District's West Palm Beach office, located at 3301 Gun Club Road. The meeting is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. Other agencies, including the US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the FAA, have been invited to attend. For your information, I have enclosed an attachment that depicts an overview of the standard RSA proposed at the airport. We will provide additional diagrams and information at our meeting for your consideration and input on permit issues and probable mitigation requirements. URS Corporation 7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, FL 33607-1462 Tel: 813.286.1711 Fax: 813.287.8591 Mr. Paul Kruger ,. September 26,' 2002 . Page 2- We appreciate yourtirneand consultation on this matter. Sincerely, URS CORPORATION Peter M. Green, AICP . Project Manager Enclosure Copy: Mr. Peter Horton, Monroe. CountylKey West International Airport (wI enclosure) Mr. Bart Vernace; Federal Aviation Administration (wI enclosUre) Mr. Mil Reisert, URS Corporation (wI enclosure) Mr. George Feher, URS Corporation (wI enclosure) URS September-26,2002 Andrew -Gude Fish and Wildlife Biologist : US Fish :and Wildlife,Service -- - --", Key Deer Visitors Center Winn Dixie Plaza Big Pine Key, Florida 33043 RE: RUNWAY SAFETY AREA FEASIBILITY STUDY KEY WEST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA Dear Mr. Gude: On behalf of the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (County):and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), URS Corporation is conducting a feasibility study for providing a standard Runway Safety Area (RSA) for Runway 9/27 at the Key West International Airport (Airport). A standard RSA -is an area 'around a runway that consists of a graded surface suitable for reducing the risk of aircraft damage in.the event of an undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from the paved runway surface. The existing RSA at the Airport does not meet FAA requirements and design standards. At this time, the County and FAA are investigating the feasibility of providing -a futl, standard RSA at the Airport. Given the airport's physicaL setting, the 'scopeof'lhis feasibility study is focused on the potential to obtain necessary environmental permits and the probable magnitude and cost of potential wetland mitigation. As you have previously discussed with Mr. George Feher of URS, the ability to identify permit issues and evaluate conceptual mitigation scenarios depends -greatly on your agency's early input and consultation. In this regard, we look forward to your attendance at a meeting on October 9,2002, at the South Florida,Water Management District's West Palm Beach office, located- at 3301 Gun Club Road.:~-The meeting 'is scheduled for 1:30 p.m~ Other agencies, including the US Army Corps of Engineers, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the FAA, have been invited to attend. For your information, I have enclosed an attachment that depicts an overview of'the standard RSA proposed at the airport. We will provide additional diagrams and information at our meeting for your consideration and input on permit issues and probable mitigation requirements. URS Corporation 7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, FL 33607-1462 Tel: 813.286.1711 Fax: 813.287.8591 Mr. Andrew Gude - September,26, 2002 Page 2 -- We appreciate your time and consultation on this matter. Sincerely, URS CORPORATION Enclosure Copy: Mr. Peter Horton, Monroe CountylKey West International Airport (wi enclosure) Mr. Bart Vernace, Federal Aviation Administration (wi enclosure) Mr. Mil Reisert, URS Corporation (wi enclosure) URS September 26, 2002 Ms. Audra Livergood National Marine Fish~ries Service 11420 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 103 Mif3mi,Florida 33176 RE: RUNWAY SAFETY AREA FEASIBILITY STUDY KEY WEST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA;. Dear Mr. Rackley: On behalf of the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (County) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), URS Corporation is col)duding a feasibility study for providing a standard Runway. Safety Area (RSA) for Runway 9/27 at the Key West International Airport (Airport). A standard RSA is an area around a runway that consists of a graded surface suitable for reducing the risk of aircraft damage in the event of an undershoot, overshoot,. or excursion from the paved runway surface. The existing RSA at the Airport does not meet FAA requirements and design standards. At this time, the County and FAA are investigating the feasibility of providing a full, standard RSA at the Airport. Given the airport's physical setting, the scope of this feasibility study is focused on the potential to obtain necessary environmental permits and the probable magnitude and cost of potential wetland mitigation. As. you have previously disCussed with Mr. George Feher of URS, the ability to identify permit issues and evaluate conceptual mitigation scenarios depends greatly on your agency's early input and cons~ltation. In this regard, we look forward to your attendance at a meeting on Odober9, 2002, at the South Florida Water Management Distrid's West Palm Beach office, located at 3301 Gun Club Road. The meetrng is scheduled for 1 :30 p.m. Other agencies, including the US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Army Corps of Engineers, and the FAA, have been invited to attend. For your information, I have enclosed an attachment that depids an overview of the standard RSA proposed at the airport. We will provide additional diagrams and information at our meeting for your consideration and input on permit issues and probable mitigation requirements. URS Corporation 7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, Fl 33607-1462 Tel: 813.286.1711 Fax: 813,287,8591 Ms. Audra Live~good September 26,2002 Page 2 . ...- - .- We appreciate yourtirneandeonsultationori this matter. Sincerely, URS CORPORATION .m-~ ~~n, AICP Project Manager "- Enclosure Copy: Mr. Peter Horton, Monroe CountylKeyWest International Airpo_rt (wI enclosure) Mr. Bart Vernace, Federal Aviation Administration (wI enclosure) Mr. Mil Reisert, URS Corporation (wI enclosure) Mr. George Feher, URS Corporation (wI enclosure) URS # 30 A '2- October 23, 2002 Chris Hoberg, EAD-13 US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 61 Forsyth Street. SW Atlanta, GA 30303-8960 RE: RUNWAY SAFETY AREA FEASIBILITY STUDY KEY WEST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA Dear Mr. Hoberg: On behalf of the Monroe Counly Board of Counly Commissioners (Counly) and the Federal Aviation AdminiStration (FAA), URS Corporation is conducting a feasibility study lot- Providing a standard Runway Safely Area (RSA) lot- Runway 9/27 at the Key Westlntemational Airport (Airport). A RSA is an area around a runway that consiSts of a graded surface suitable for reducing the risk of aircraft damage in the event of an undershoot, overshoof, or excursion from the paved runway surface. The existing RSA at the Airport does not meet FAA reqUirements and design standards. Given the airport's physical setting, the scope of thiS feasibility study is focUSed on the potential to obtain necessary environmental permits and. the Probable magnitude and cost of potential Wetland mitigation. The abilily to identify permit issues and evaluate conceptual mitigation scenarios depends greally on YOur agency's input and consultation. We would appreciate your agency's review and earty comment Specifically regarding permit iSsues and probeble mitigation requirements. For your information, I have enclosed a Project Information Package that provides an overview of the standard RSA proposed at the airport and potential wetland fill impacts. Sincerely, We appreciate YOur time and consultalion on this matter. Please call if you have any questions. URS CORPORATION ~!/;- Senior Airport Environmental Planner Enclosure Copy: Mr. Peter Horton, Monroe County/Key West International Airport Ms. Virginia lane, Federal Aviation Administration Mr. Mil Reisert, URS Corporation Mr. George Feher, URS Corporation URS Corporation 7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, FL 33607-1462 Tel: 813.286.1711 Fax: 813.287.8591 URS October 23, 2002 Mr. Bill Kruczynski US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Post Office Box 500368 Marathon, Florida 33050 RE: RUNWAY SAFETY AREA FEASIBILITY STUDY KEY WEST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA Dear Mr. Kruczynski: On behalf of the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (County) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), URS Corporation is conducting a feasibility study for providing a standard Runway Safety Area (RSA) for Runway 9/27 at the Key West International Airport (Airport). A RSA is an area around a runway that consists of a graded surface suitable for reducing the risk of aircraft damage in the event of an undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from the paved runway surface. The existing RSA at the Airport does not meet FAA requirements and design standards. Given the airport's physical setting, the scope of this feasibility study is focused on the potential to obtain necessary environmental permits and the probable magnitude and cost of potential wetland mitigation. The ability to identify permit issues and evaluate conceptual mitigation scenarios depends greatly on your agency's input and consultation. We would appreciate your agency's review and early comment, specifically regarding permit issues and probable mitigation requirements. For your information, I have enclosed a Project Information Package that provides an overview of the standard RSA proposed at the airport and potential wetland fill impacts. . We appreciate your time and consultation on this matter. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, URS CORPORATION ~l?-- Senior Airport Environmental Planner Enclosure Copy: Mr. Peter Horton, Monroe County/Key West International Airport Ms. Virginia Lane, Federal Aviation Administration Mr. Mil Reisert, URS Corporation Mr. George Feher, URS Corporation URS Corporation 7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, FL 33607-1462 Tel: 813.286.1711 Fax: 813.287.8591 '.,'" ,,~ PROJECT INFORMATION PACKAGE Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study Key West International Airport Key West, Florida Prepared on behalf of the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners and the Federal Aviation Administration by URS Corporation October 2002 " TABLE OF 'CONTENTS Section PaQe 1 .0 INTRODUCTION........ ............... ............. ............... ........................................................... .............. ..1 2.0 AIR PORT IN FORMATION ................ ............... ....... ......................................................... ................1 2.1 Key West International Airport.............................................................................................1 2.2 Airport Activity....... ......................... ............... ............................................... ........ ...... .... ......1 2.3 Airport Master Plan Update.. ...................................................... ...... ...... .......................... ...2 3.0 KEY WEST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT RUNWAY SAFETY AREA REQUIREMENTS...............2 3.1 Runway Safety Area Definition ............................................................. .............. .............. ...2 3.2 Runway Safety Area Design Standards ..............................................................................2 3.2.1 Runway Safety Area Dimensional Requirements ..................................................2 3.2.2 Runway Safety Area Construction Requirements ..................................................3 3.3 Existing and Proposed Runway Safety Area Dimensions...................................................3 3.4 FAA Runway Safety Area Implementation ..........................................................................4 4.0 PROPOSED 1M PROVEM ENTS ................................... ................................. ................ ................ ...4 4.1 Provide Standard Runway Safety Area...............................................................................4 4.2 Runway Object Free Area Considerations ..........................................................................5 Appendix A Runway Safety Area Design Standards LIST OF TABLES ~ PaQe 2.3-1 3.3-1 4.1-1 Aircraft Operations and Enplanements ........ ....... ......... ............. ....... ............ ............ .......... .........2 Runway Safety Area Dimensions - Existing and Proposed........................................................3 Potential Standard Runway Safety Area Wetland Impacts .........................................................5 LIST OF FIGURES FiQure Follows PaQe 2.1-1 2.1-2 3.3-1 3.3-2 3.3-3 4.1-1 Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................................. 1 Airfield Layout............................................................................................................................. . 1 Runway 9 Safety Area Requirements.. ... ....... ........... .......... ......... ............ ...... ............................. 3 Runway 9/27 Safety Area Requirements...... ................... ............... ............ ..... ................ ........... 3 Runway 27 Safety Area Requirements .................... ......................... ......... ............ ............ .........3 Preliminary Projected Impacts.......... ......... .............. ........... .......... .......... .............. ....... ........... ..... 4 - W:\ 12637802_KWIA ASAlrsa_agency handout,doc 10lO8I02 1.0 Introduction The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (County) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are evaluating the feasibility of providing a standard Runway Safety Area (RSA) for Runway 9/27 at the Key West International Airport (KWIA). The RSA is an area around the runway that provides for aircraft support in the event of an excursion from the paved runway surface. The existing RSA does not meet FM requirements and design standards. The RSA is an integral part of the runway environment, and numerous instances at other airports, including recent incidents with fatalities, underscore the importance of having an adequate RSA. The stable surface helps an aircraft come to a stop while minimizing structural damage and/or resultant injury. Of importance is the RSA provided at each end of the runway, where most excursions tend to occur. The RSA also provides a surface suitable for the movement of emergency vehicles. Given the airport's physical setting, the scope of this feasibility study is focused on the potential to obtain necessary environmental permits and the probable magnitude and cost of mitigation. The feasibility study includes coordination with select federal and state agencies to identify potential permit issues and probable mitigation requirements. An evaluation will then be made of Possible mitigation scenarios and costs. The results will provide information for a determination by the FAA of the feasibility of providing a standard RSA. 2.0 Airport Information 2.1 Kev West International AirDort KW/A is a critical component of the transportation network serving south Monroe County and the City of Key West. The community relies on aviation as a major means of travel and for the shipment of goods. Seventy percent of passenger traffic at KWIA is tourism-related. The total annual economic impact of an airport to its community is a combination of direct and indirect impacts associated with the provision and use of aviation services as well as the multiplier effect associated with the re-spending of money in the area. The total annual economic impact of KW/A is $806 million, of which $260 million is paid in earnings to 12,288 jObs (Florida Aviation System Plan, 2000). The airport provides airfield, terminal, and support facilities for scheduled commercial flights, air charter/taxi operations, air cargo, and general aviation operations. The location of the airport is shown in Figure 2.1-1 and the layout of airfield facilities are depicted in Figure 2.1-2. 2.2 AirDort Activity The number 01 aircraft operations (take-offs and landing) and annual passenger enplanements for 2001, 2011, and 2020 are presented in Table 2.3-1. As shown, the level of aircraft operations and the number of commercial passengers are expected to increase substantially over the next 20-year period. During peak months in 2001, approximately 349 aircraft operations were generated daily at the airport. Average daily operations during peak months are expected to reach 419 by 2021 (URS Corporation, 2002). W:\12637802_KWIA ASA\ts/Lagency handoUl.doc 10108102 1 '" '" .;; o '" o ...... ,... ~ ~ ~ "j ;::j C> ~ l!! ii'i :E x ~ o i2 Vl ~ ::J ii'i ~ ~ -< ~ Vl ~ >- w 7- -'; Gulf of Mexico KEY WEST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ATLANTIC OCEAN Key West International Airport RSA Feasibility Study VICINITY MAP FIGURE: 2.1-1 C,) E::z z~ ~C,) E:lo ~ \ \ \ ~ ~8 ;;,. Z.o ~I ~i h !i "- 0 ~ ~ ~ I 0 I ~ I .. ~ z '" ~ C,) 0 C,) E:: z :s e-.; ~ () ~ "; ~~I!ll oi~~~8~ Z CL. Q. l &: CD -< 8~~~~~~ --l ~ " ! 010 d I TABLE 2.3-1 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AND ENPLANEMENTS 20.8 28.9 A variety of commercial and general aviation aircraft operate at KWIA. Commercial air carrier aircraft operating at the airport include small commuter aircraft and the turbo-prop A TR-72. Air carrier operations using regional jets. (CRJ-200 and CRJ-700) have recently been introduced to the airport. These aircraft are more demaading (e4;., approacb speed) and can carry .sD..t<>-..70-J)aSS8nger.&. 2.3 Airport Master Plan Update The County, with assistance from the FAA, is currently in the process of updating the Airport Master Plan for KWIA. The master plan will provide a long-term plan for airport improvements necessary to meet future aviation demand. That airport master plan was previously updated in 1986. 3~O Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Requirements 3.1 Runway Safety Area Definition An RSA is defined in the FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13, Airport Design, as: "A defined surface surrounding the runway prepared or suitable for reducing the risk of damage to airplanes in the event of an undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from the runway." 3.2 Runway Safetv Area Desian Standards 3.2.1 Runway Safety Area Dimensional Requirements RSA dimensions are dependent on the airport's Airport Reference Code (ARC). The ARC is based on the approach speed and wingspan of Critical Aircraft operating at the airport. Airplanes operating at higher speeds require increased safety allowances for speed and reduced decision time. As such, the RSA requirements increase as the ARC increases. The ARC for KWIA is D-II!. This is based on Approach Category D (CRJ-200 Regional Jet) and Airplane Design Group III (Dash 8). The required RSA dimensions for the D-III ARC is 500 feet wide by 1,000 feet beyond each runway end. Appendix A contains the applicable reference table from FAA AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design. W:\12637802_KWIA ASAIrsa_agency handout.doc 10I08I02 2 3.2.2 Runway Safety Area Construction Requirements FAA AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design, requires that the RSA be: 1. Cleared and graded and have no potentially hazardous ruts, humps, depressions, or other surface variations; 2. Drained to prevent water accumulation; 3. Capable, under dry conditions, to support equipment (including rescue and fire fighting vehicles) and the occasional passage of aircraft without causing structural damage to the aircraft; and 4. Free of objects, except for those required by function. 3.3 ExistinQ: anctPr'olHJIII !lrt~lilut:1wa";SafetvAfeaDimewdOl'l$ The existing RSA at the airport does not meet the dimensional requirements for the current D-III ARC. The existing RSA and the required RSA are shown in Figures 3.3-1, 3.3-2, and 3.3-3. Table 3.3-1 summarizes the dimensions of the required, existing, and proposed RSA. It is important to note that the RSA improvement project considered in this feasibility study is required for airport operations. TABLE 3.3-1 RUNWAY SAFETY AREA DIMENSIONS - EXISTING AND PROPOSED 300' +/- 300' W x 110' L +/- Runwa 27 End 500' W x 1,000' L 300' W x 210' - 400' L +/- Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13; URS Corporation, 2002. 500' 500' W x 1,000' L 500' W x 1,000' L 3.4 FAA Runwav Safety Area Implementation Design FAA AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design, specifies the dimensions, gradients, and particulars of a RSA as applied to different ARC classifications. Certification Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 139, Certification and Operations: Land Airports Serving Certain Air Carriers, provides certification requirements for airports with scheduled commercial passenger service (14 CFR 139). KWIA currently holds a Part 139 certificate and must comply with the requirements of the certification program. W:\12637602_KWIA ASAIrsa_agency handout,doc 10I08I02 3 ~ "! 'I ,.., ,.; " ~ ffi I ~ ~ ~ ::J ~ Oli '" ~ w ~ ~ " ./ -'; LEGEND ---- AIRPORT PROPERTY UNE REQUIRED RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA) REQUIRED RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA (ROFA) EXISllNG RUNWAY SAFETY AREA 300 0 300 I --- v/~ N ~ GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET Key West International Airport RSA Feasibility Study RUNWAY 9 SAFETY AREA REQUIREMENTS FIGURE: 3.3-1 " ~ N I .., ..; " li: / ~ m :;: 1:l t ~ ~ ::J ! i1i € ~ ~ >< /' -'; LEGEND N ~ v/~ AIRPORT PROPERTY UNE REQUIRED RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA) REQUIRED RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA (ROfA) EXISTING RUNWAY SAFETY AREA 300 0 300 I ---- GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET Key West International Airport RSA Feasibility Study RUNWA Y 9-27 SAFETY AREA REQUIREMENTS FIGURE: 3.3-2 - ~ o ,.; I .., ,.; '" 5- ~ m X i':i t jji 5 ! ~ '" ~ ~ ~ >< ./ -'; v/~ AIRPORT PROPERTY UNE REQUIRED RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA) REQUIRED RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA (ROF A) EXIS11NG RUNWAY SAFETY AREA N ~ LEGEND ---- 300 0 300 I GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET Key West International Airport RSA Feasibility Study RUNWAY 27 SAFETY AREA REQUIREMENTS FIGURE: 3.3-3 FAR Part 139.309 requires that" each certificate holder provide and maintain safety areas for runways and taxiways. In the case of KWIA, the existing RSA configuration has been grandfathered by the FAA; however, changes in operations and a planned resurfacing project require that the RSA meet current standards. FAR Part 139 references the Airport Design circular for the configuration and maintenance of safety areas. RSA Program The FAA has aggressively restated its long-standing policy to bring safety areas up to standard by the issuance of FAA Order 5200.8, Runway Safety Area Program, in October 1999. The order establishes procedures to ensure that all RSAs at federally obligated airports and Part 139 certificated airports confonn to the standards in FAA AC 150/5300-13, to the extent practicable. The program calls for an inventory of RSAs at each airport and a detennination of compliance for each RSA. In regard to RSA determinations, the order statos: "When making determinations about the practicability of obtaining the RSA, the first attempt shall consist of investigating fully the possibility of obtaining an RSA that meets the current standards through a traditional graded area surrounding the runway. n (FAA Order 5200.8). A Runway Safety Area Study was prepared in March of 2001 for the airport. However, the FAA has requested further investigation of the feasibility of implementing a standard RSA at KWIA. That request has resulted in the preparation of this study. 4.0 Proposed Improvements 4.1 Provide Standard RSA The proposed improvements to the RSA considered in this study consist of constructing a standard, graded RSA. The dimensions would be 500 feet wide and extend 1,000 feet beyond each runway end. A diagram depicting the proposed RSA improvements is depicted in Figure 4.1-1. The proposal would require the placement of fill material into wetlands adjacent to the. existing runway infrastructure. The proposal will have the potential to impact approximately 31 acres of wetlands. The subject wetlands are classified under the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) as bays and estuaries, mangrove swamp; and exposed rock with marsh grasses. Anticipated wetland impacts, by type, are presented in Table 4.1-1. The dominant natural features adjacent to the airfield are salt ponds. The salt ponds, which have been modified over the years by residential, commercial, military, and transportation development, are highly variable in regards to water quality (e.g., salinity, temperature). Salt ponds that would be involved with the RSA are either isolated, thus rainfall supplied, or tidally influenced if connected to the Riviera Canal or existing culverts. W:\12637802_KWIA ASAIrsa_agency handout,doc 10I06I02 4 ......_'IYSJUDl'I~"...'~'~~IO/IlJ~>> "'"'\ 1 : ~ .. . - . . ; 1= ~ ;: ~ . ..... CO ..... t.I N N NC>>(,aCoNo. CII (Ii ...., 011 ~ ~ cD :;:~ ~;:;O NO ~ ~ Ij~~I~~!~ ~ l!i Cl ~ ~ ~ ~! i I ~ l ~ ~~ >i ~ <Il ijj ....... ~ ~ :I: I I II I! ~ : j;l::* I I I ~~ n i ! ~ ! ~ q ~> -< fJ a -4 !:ll 22 ~ l!! i ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ i a ~ ,.,! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .,.. I ===-..- IIIIS =-c:-_ KEY WEST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT RUNWAY SAFETY AREA FEASIBIUTY STUDY ATTACH"ENT A ..'" TABLE 4.1-1 POTENTIAL STANDARD RSA WETLAND IMPACTS The designation of the Florida Keys as an Area of Critical State Concern and as having Outstanding Florida Waters provides an emphasis on maintaining water quality in the Florida Keys area. These issues are an essential part of the planning process associated with the RSA study. It should be noted that a comprehensive delineation and inventory of wetland resources on airport property has not been conducted. The potential wetland impacts identified above are calculated from aerial photography. Over the years, individual projects have resulted in the delineation of wetlands in specific areas on the airport. 4.2 Runwav Obiect Free Area Considerations The D-III ARC also affects the implementation of the airport's Runway Object Free Area (OFA). The OFA is an "area on the ground centered on a runway, taxiway, or taxilane centerline provided to enhance the safety of aircraft operations by having the area free of objects, except for objects that need to be located in the OFA for air navigation or aircraft ground maneuvering purposes" (FAA AC 150/5300-13). For a D-III ARC, the requirement for the runway OFA is 800 feet wide (centered on the runway centerline) and 1,000 feet beyond the each runway end. Buildings, structures, trees, and brush are usually removed from the OFA. There are no fill or grade requirements for the OFA. At KWIA, the impact of implementing the runway OFA would be the additional clearing of approximately 14 acres of trees and brush. The area would be comprised of approximately 11.5 acres of mangrove and 2.5 acres of Brazilian pepper and Australian pine. It is anticipated that the clearing of trees and brush would be accomplished manually without the use of heavy equipment in wetlands. The effect, however, would be the removal of some habitat provided by the trees and vegetation in the OFA. In order to minimize impacts at KWIA in regard to proposed safety improvements, the FAA is willing to consider a Modification of Standards to the OFA to allow the OFA at the same dimensions as the required RSA, provided that the County provides documentation that the reduced OFA has an acceptable level of safety. The result would be an OFA that is 500 feet wide by 1,000 feet in length beyond each runway end. W:\12637802_KWIA ASA\1sa_agency handout.doc 10/08102 5 The modification of the OFA is proposed since the OFA is a land clearance requirement, as opposed to the grading and construction requirement of an RSA that is needed to support an aircraft in the event of a runway excursion. Th.e Modification of Standards would require an FAA finding that the proposed modification is safe for the specific site and conditions. In the case of RSAs, FAA AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design, states that a Modification of Standards is not allowed for RSA dimensional standards. W:\12637802_KWIA RSA\rsa_agency handout.doc 10I08I02 6 . -'..~-- -, ~~- :.- APPENDIX A - RUNWAY SAFETY AREA DESIGN STANDARDS AC 1501S3()()..13 CHG 6" 9l3OlOO Table 3-3. Ranway design standards for alrttaft approada categories C " D (Refer also to Appea.dix 16 for thustablisbment ohew approaches) ~ AIRPLANE DESIGN GROUP ITEM DIM' . I , n , m , IV , V I VI Runway Length A - Refce to paragraph 301 - .. .. Runway Width .., . ' B .- -'100ft 100 ft l00~ . ISO ft ISO ft 200 ft 30m 30m 30m2 45m 45m 60m Runway ShoUJiIer.W-Mltb' , ,. ,lOft ' 10ft 20 ft' -- . ' -2S1f 35 ft 40Fr ..... . 3m 3m 6m2 705m 10.5 m 12M RunwayBlast,hd Width , 120 ft 120 ft 140~ - -'-:fOO ft 220ft 280ft . . . 36m 36m 42m2 60m 66m 84m Runway Blast Pad length 100 ft 150 ft 200 ft 200 ft 400ft 400ft 30m 45m 60m 60m 120m 120m Runway Safety Area Width4 C 500ft 500 ft 500 It 500ft 500 ft 500 ft 150m 150m 150m 150m 150m 150m Rwtway Safety Area P 1,000 ft 1,000 ft 1,000 ft 1,000 ft 1,000 ft 1,000 ft Len - dRWW 300m 300m 300m 300m 300m 300m Obstacle Free Zone - Ke ce to paragraph 306 - Width and len2th Runway Object Free Area Q 800 ft 800ft 800 ft 800 ft 800 ft 800 ft Width 240m 240m 240m 240m 240 240 Ruriway Object Free Area R 1000 ft 1000 ft 1000 ft 1000 ft 1,000 ft 1000 ft LeOlrthBevond RW W 300m 300m 300 m 300m 300m 300 11 Letters c:onespood to the dimensions on figures 2-1 and 2-3. 41 For Airplane Design Group m serving airp1anc:s with maximum cc:rtific:ated takeoff weight ~ than lSO,OOO pounds (68 100 kg). the standard nmway width is 150 feet (45 m), the shoulder width is 2S feet (15 m),udthc runway blast"pad width is 200 feet (60 m). . Design Groups V and VI normally require stabilizul or paved shoulder surfaces. For Airport Refermce Code C-I and C-II. a runway safety area width of 400 feet (120 m) is permissible. For runways designed after 2/28/83 to serve Aircraft Approach Category D, the runway safety area width incn:ases 20 feet (6 m) for each 1,000 feet (300 m) of airport elevation above MSL Refce to paragraph 305. ' 21 31 51 TIle runway safety area and runway object free area lengths begin at each runway end when stopway is not provided. When stopway is provided, these lengths begin at the stopway end. f,t>. A M vi :;0{'1 L:i {,:c..., \....... I so /S"3ob - r~ (c:c..a '''30<. 7), A', V'fovt-- O~:5~t'\ w 1-002, 26 \- 0:: w l- f/) o 0:: w U Z <( C Z W l- I- <( 1::: o Co >-.~ 't:l<( ::1_ -ns f/)c: >-0 - '- .- - =ns ..0 c: .- ... I/) Q) ns_ Q) c: 1..1..- <(iii f/) Q) o:::i: >- Q) ~ (j) Q) ~ N - OQ) O.~ N:t= <Ji0 '-0 Q)2 :8~ UI..1.. Oen c a itifii ......u (\J a O..J 0> 0> .~ .~ Q)<V Q) Q) 2~ ..J 1..1.. ..c U (\J Q) co .s (\J a... .j \) ~ ~ \t ~~i .,~,. ~ .i:':'i ->: ,:" ~ bf..l "'") "\ ,:;.... I;);; CT \ r <50 ,'<.' I ...., \ M l ;-~ I ~ I';:!;,,- t"f <JJ ~ '~ ~ c-J '.D ..... I t;.~ ,..j; {'I..0 I";>-- ff'lVl ~ ~ . <;'1 ,;-- {(J ~~ ! /'(I. () '..\1 :> --, ~ ~ ').. ~ C ~;~ , ~ .... ,of' ~ ~ () t.lo '- '.,!)- '::}' r.J '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~ ~ E \t ~~ ~ I ~ ~. V). f~ U~ ,J. ~ :[' t~ ~ 2 ~ Vj ~ d '" V1 N d ..... d )L W ....... -."s .~ Pi ~ ~ rl ~s , \.U r-- .", C0 J. I) ~\j o ~ 'i-. /~ f:) -4t \~ '- --,,} lJ. (l ::; ~ ~~ " . \-' .l,. .... ''1-, ." ",,' ." .:. ,.,. .'t- :".:. ("-~ \)-,. ('() to ........ .: ;/) /:::? .;) ~ \l~ '0 ~/~ ~. c: a ~ '- a a. '- a () en cr :::J ~ ,,-...c-, URS Meeting Documentation Project: Key West International Airport - RSA Feasibility Study Meeting Dateffime: October 9, 2002 Meeting Location: South Florida Water Management District Office West Palm Beach Florida Attendees: Anita Bain, South Florida Water Management District Kevin Dickson, South Florida Water Management District Ron Peekstok, South Florida Water Management District Andrew Gude, US Fish and Wildlife Service Allen Webb, US Fish and Wildlife Service Jocelyn~afaZsla., National Marine Fisheries Service Paul Kruger, US Army Corps of Engineers (by telephone) VicA.lld~rs,pn, US Army Corps of Engineers (by telephone) Bart Vernace, Federal Aviation Administration Virginia Lane, Federal Aviation Administration Mil Reisert, URS Corporation George Feher, URS Corporation Peter Green, URS Corporation Authored By: Peter Green, URS Corporation Subject: Pre-Application Consultation Meeting for Proposed RSA Improvements The following is a summary of topics discussed: 1. The FAA opened the meeting with a brief introduction of the feasibility study and purpose of meeting. The FAA is evaluating the substandard Runway Safety Area (RSA) at the Key West International Airport (KWIA) in response to a planned runway maintenance overlay. The project under consideration is the construction of a standard RSA. The purpose of the project is to improve safety at the airport for existing operations. The RSA had been grandfathered under FAR Part 139. However, FAA Order 5200.8 requires that the proposed runway pavement overlay shall also provide for improving the RSA in accordance with the FAA's determination of the practicability of meeting RSA standards. The feasibility study will include a series of meetings to discuss permit issues and probable mitigation requirements. 2. URS presented a brief overview of the proposed RSA project and scope of the feasibility study. The RSA improvements are required based on the airport's Airport Reference Code (ARC). The current ARC is D-III. The dimensions of the standard RSA for ARC D-III is 500' wide by 1,000' beyond each runway end. The potential impact of the RSA footprint is approximately 31 acres, as estimated from aerial photographs and knowledge ofthe site. October 11, 2002 J:\Key West\RSA Feasibility Study\Agency Coordination\Meeting Notes 10_09 _02.doc - . The Runway Object Free Area (OF A) is an area around the runway to be kept free of objects higher than the elevation of the RSA. The area of wetlands inside the OFA is approximately 14 acres. The trees/vegetation can be either topped or cleared. It is anticipated that clearing would be conducted manually without heavy machinery. It was noted that other man-made features are located in the OFA (e.g., buildings). The FAA may consider a Modification to Standards for the OF A to reduce the width to 500' to match the RSA footprint. FAA noted that a Modification of Standards will require a study to document that the reduced OF A will provide adequate safety. The purpose of the feasibility study is to develop and evaluate information relative to permitting and probable mitigation requirements and costs. The input and comment from the agencies represented at the meeting is essential for the development of mitigation scenarios. The findings of the report will be used by the FAA in determining the practicability of providing a standard RSA. 3. The issues of airport capacity and potential future runway extensions were discussed. It was noted that the RSA project at hand is a safety issue for current operations and is not connected with any future development at the airport and that the project itself would not allow larger aircraft to use the airport. 4. It was noted by the FAA that any proposal for a future runway extension or airport expansion would need to be justified and would be subject to its own environmental review and permit process. 5. It was noted by agency representatives that issues related to avoidance and minimization need to be addressed before mitigation can be considered. 6. The USFWS noted the importance and value of the large mangrove forest located on the east end of the airport. This forest would be severely impacted by the proposed RSA project. It was asked if it was possible to only have an RSA on one end. The need to provide a RSA for take-offs and landings, and how that required a RSA on both ends, was discussed. 7. It was asked if the runway could be shifted to the west to reduce/avoid impacts to the mangrove forest located east of the runway. It was noted that a high school and residential areas area located to west of the airport would likely incur impacts from a shift in the runway thresholds. 8. The SFWMD noted that the presentation of the footprint and estimate of 3 I acres of impact presented did not include secondary impacts. It was acknowledged that the permit process will require consideration of secondary impacts. 9. A voidance was cited as the primary concern among agency representatives present at the meeting. 10. The Marsh rabbit and Silver rice rat were discussed. USFWS noted that if the project involved these species, it will increase the complexity/difficulty of obtaining environmental permits and approvals. II. The lack of large tracts of land and potential mitigation sites was noted by agency representatives. The need to look for on-site or nearby mitigation alternatives was discussed. The possibility of looking at nearby keys was mentioned as a possible strategy. The concept of mitigating on Key West would be the preferred scenario. 12. A brief discussion of some previous on-airport mitigation projects and potential projects took place. Most mitigation projects in the vicinity of the airport would require cooperation and consent of the City of Key West. 13. The need to consider hydrology and water quality was discussed. Portions of the salt ponds are tidally influenced through canals/culverts and other portions are dependent on rainfall. 14. Mitigation scenarios for this magnitude of impact (3 I acres) would likely require a combination of methods that may include: creation, restoration, enhancement, and exotic species removal. 15. Potential impacts to migratory species is an issue of concern. 16. The issue of other technologies that would reduce the RSA footprint was brought up by agency representatives. In particular the use of Engineered Materials Arresting Systems (EMAS) and a smaller RSA footprint. EMAS was Page 2 of3 discussed as a technology used at several other airports. The cost of construction and maintenance was noted. The FAA is designing an EMAS project for use at the Fort Lauderdale airport. It was noted that the EMAS is not considered a way to meet RSA standards, but a method to enhance safety if a standard RSA could not be achieved. 17. It was asked what other alternatives, including the "do-nothing" alternative, were being considered. The FAA stated that the feasibility study does not include alternatives. The task at hand is to evaluate the feasibility of achieving the standard RSA. If it is determined that the standard RSA is not feasible, then additional study of methods to enhance safety can be considered. In addition to environmental issues, the FAA said cost will be one of the factors considered in deciding ifthe standard RSA is practicable. 18. A discussion of alternatives mentioned the relocation of commercial activity to the Marathon Airport. Airfield configuration would not meet design criteria for runway-to- taxiway separation at the Marathon Airport. 19. A discussion of airline flights and economics took place. It was asked if the airlines can satisfy demand with smaller aircraft that may have lesser runway and/or RSA requirements. The intent is to balance environmental economics with airline economics. It was noted that the large number of tourists using the airport come to Key West to enjoy the environment. The FAA stated that it cannot regulate the type of aircraft operating at an airport, if that aircraft operates safely. Planes flying into the airport that may need additional runway length have to offload fuel or passengers to meet landing or take-off requirements. Currently, some flights cannot fill all available seats in order to meet weight limits. 20. The RSA and runway needs for smaller aircraft was briefly discussed. The basis for determining airport design criteria and ARC is based on the Critical Aircraft, which is the most demanding aircraft having at least 500 annual operations at the airport. It was noted that most of the smaller aircraft (single-engine) operating at the airport could operate on 4,800 or less, but the safety requirements are based on critical aircraft. 21. The FAA Airport Design manual shows that the 500' width and 1,000' length beyond each runway end is required for all C and D aircraft approach categories and design groups. However, the RSA width can be reduced to 400 feet for C-I and C-II ARCs. 22. It was requested again that consideration be given to the economics and aircraft operations. The possibility of using smaller aircraft and reducing the RSA footprint should be a consideration. 23. It was acknowledged that the proposed RSA will affect some prior mitigation areas. This should be considered in the development of mitigation scenarios. 24. A brief discussion of possible mitigation options included mention of coordination with personnel at the Key West Naval Air Station (Boca Chica), City of Key West, and other environmental organizations. 25. It was recommended by SFWMD that URS/FAA consolidate and consider issues discussed. Agency representatives will submit written comments/issues/questions to URS within 30 days. 26. Tentative date for next meeting is December 4 or December 5, 2002 at the Key West Airport. URS will coordinate and send out confirmation letters. This is my understanding of the matters discussed. soon as possible at (813) 675-6556. ~J- If there are any discrepancies or omissions, please contact me as "' Peter M. Green U RS Corporation Page 3 of3 f....~-.. ~ PauI.E.Kruger@saj02. usace.army.mil 10/10/02 11:48 AM To: george_feher@urscorp.com, peter.J}reen@urscorp.com cc: Subject: FW: Questions Incident to the 9 Oct 02, meeting for the KW Airpor t Runway Feasibility Study -----Original Message----- From: Kruger, Paul E SAJ Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 11:37 AM To: 'peter_green@urs.corp'; George Feher (E-mail) Cc: Studt, John F SAJ; Anderson, Victor B SAJ; Anita Bain (E-mail); Annalise Mannix-Ladmer (E-mail); Audra Uvergood (E-mail); Bill Kruczynski (E-mail); Billy Causey (E-mail); Andrew Gude (E-mail); David Rackley (E-mail); Fritz Wettstein (E-mail); Gus Rios (E-mail); Jeannette Hobbs (E-mail); Laurie A. Mc Hargue Ph. D. (E-mail); Mark Rosch (E-mail); Ralph Gouldy (E-mail); Randy Grau (E-mail); Rickey Ruebsamen (E-mail) Subject: Questions Inddent to the 9 Oct 02, meeting for the KW Airport Runway Feasibility Study Mr. Feher, Mr. Green,- Per your request for written questions from the participating agencies, (subsequest to the recommendation of Ms, Bain SFWMD), the following questions/observations below are submitted. The Corps wishes to preface the questions with a few observations and remarks. This email expands visibility of the proposed project to agencies and individuals who may be able to contribute to a circumspect analysis of the project. The Corps is neither for or against any project. This project proposes to impact 31 acres of saltmarsh, mangrove and unique salt pond habitat. Corps sequencing, (as mentioned yesterday), must consider: avoidance of impact to the aquatic environment; minimization of unavoidable impacts and; mitigation for only those impacts which are unavoidable. This Corps response to your request for input recommending mitigation alternatives/options;- does not imply a permit may be issued for this project and; it does not imply a permit may not be issued for the project. This email is intended to further the dialog established yesterday and to facilitate written responses by the applicant to questions raised. 1. The project's stated purpose was to bring the airport into compliance with FAA regulations. Please state this purpose and any other secondary purposes or benefits associated with project including; current passenger capacity, anticipated increases in take offs and landings, change in aircraft types and the relation of this to potential secondary and cumulative impacts to the aquatic environment. This includes connections to vessels which may mean more ship traffic in the KVV harbor. 2. Please identify the encroachments into the FAA clear zone (private buildings which the applicant does not intend to have removed) by location and name of owner. Please state why these obstructions would be allowed to remain. 3, Please discuss Engineer Materials Arresting Systems to slow aircraft over shoots and describe why or why not these might be used in combination with a minimized project to achieve a similar safety factor. 4, (I believe) URS & FAA said the clear zone (in length) would remain the same if smaller planes were used. Please document this statement. 5, Four over shoots were reported in the last 20 years at the KW airport. Please identify the causes of these and relate the incidents to technology, weather, human error. Please state any changes which have taken place to preclude there occurence and/or; relate any technology which is available but has not been installed which might preclude simila incidents. 6. The Corps supports the SFWMD's observation that no opportunities for the mitigation of direct impacts are currently known. The unique habitat of the salts ponds may not be replicated at another site. 7. In addition to direct impacts the Corps believes secondary and cumulative impacts regarding this project are potentially more serious than direct impacts. The Corps understands the current passenger total to be between 200k to 300k per year. The airport expansion may double this passenger total. A change in the Cuban government may further increase air traffic in the future. These potential threat to the aquatic environment, involving the full specturm of effluent, developmenUgrowth, boat groundings in seagrass and coral, and other activities should be addressed. 8, A complete analysis of alternatives involving the Marathon Airport should be considered. Also the no action scenario should be detailed. What will happen if the permit is not issued? 9. In addition to the types of mitigation proposed by the applicant, (exotic removal, creation, enhancement and restoration) for direct impacts;- the applicant should consider acquistion of land for restoration. 10. No proposal for mitigation of secondary/cumulative impacts was presented. The Corps requests the applicant consider a "head tax/user impact fee" based on a per person utilization. For example, a $1.00 start and landing fee per passenger. This dollar could be provided to the Florida Keys Environmental Restoratin Trust Fund (FKERTF) to acquire, enhance, restore, and create wetland and marine resources. the funds would used to off-set secondary and cumulative impacts to the unique and fragile habitats and ecological systems of the Florida Keys. These include; the National Marine Sancutary, terrestrial wetlands, seagrass beds, coral, water quality projects, etc. The Corps would propose a consumer price index tied increase per year or a percentage increase to accont for inflation over time. The FKERTF is administer by the Audubon Society and has had achieved significant success over a number of years. Please consider the above and propose mechanisms for mitigation of the significant secondary and cumulative impacts associated with the project. 11. The project impacts previous accomplished restoration sites and an area of fresh water lens. Additional mitigation may be required for these areas. Please consider a proposal for mitigation of these resources. 12. Please include impacts to the existing hydrology and how the project would affect adjoining areas. Thank for your time in consideration of the above. Please let me know if I need to clarify any issues raised. Paul Kruger Monroe County Team Leader .,......~O'C'Q", ." ~ '" ~.. 1- =l!J: Co . ~ ';~ . ~ .0 .,....rrs Of ..+ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Southeast Regional Office 9721 Executive Center Drive North St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 October 28, 2002 Messrs. George Feher and Peter Green URS Corporation 7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, Florida 33607-1462 r6>fE{(. . ~Un\\y/!J. 15ff\\O lJ1lL5-.."-;..t=::1 ' I.:::::tlYl f NO~~_~ 20021 URS Dear Messrs. Feher and Green: This responds to your request that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) provide comments in response to the October 9, 2002, pre-application meeting concerning the Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study for Key West International Airport in Monroe County, Florida. According to information provided at the pre-application meeting, the proposed project could directly impact, by filling, 31 acres identified as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). Categories of EFH found within the project area may include scrub/shrub mangroves, estuarine emergent wetlands, intertidal flats, seagrasses, and coral and hardbottom reef habitats. Several of these categories of EFH have also been designated as Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) by the SAFMC. HAPC's are subsets of EFH that are rare, particularly susceptible to human-induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally stressed area. Federally managed species associated with mangrove, seagrass, and wetland habitat include postlarval, juvenile, and adult gray, lane and schoolmaster snappers; juvenile Goliath grouper and mutton snapper; and adult white grunt. Detailed information on the snapper/grouper complex (containing ten families and 73 species), shrimp, and other Federally managed fisheries and their EFH is provided in the 1998 amendment of the Fishery Management Plans for the South Atlantic region prepared by the SAFMC. The 1998 generic amendment was prepared in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA). Relevant information that may be of use in addressing requirements of the MSFCMA is enclosed. Pursuant to the MSFCMA, Federal agencies are to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any activity they propose fund, permit, or undertake may have an adverse impact on designated EFH. Should the responsible Federal agency determine that the action may adversely affect EFH, an EFH assessment should be prepared and submitted to NOAA Fisheries in order to initiate the EFH consultation ~.~ /~:\ (.J ~.",.,.~,.,.~~ process. The EFH assessment may be incorporated in the National Environmental Policy Act document prepared for the project. At a minimum, the EFH assessment should include the following information: - L A description of the proposed action; 2. An analysis ofthe individual and cumulative impacts ofthe action on EFH, Federally managed species, and associated species by life history stage; 3. The Federal Aviation Administration or lead Federal agency's views regarding the effects of the action on EFH; and 4. Any mitigation proposed to minimize and offset adverse project impacts to EFH. In addition, we recommend that you include the following information in the assessment: 1. A detailed analysis of alternatives to the proposed action including the use of Engineering Materials Arresting Systems, a smaller-scale project, a combination of both the aforementioned alternati ves, use of the Marathon and Miami International Airports, and the no action alternative; 2. Information regarding the purpose or need to impact wetlands, efforts to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to the wetlands, and measures that would be implemented to offset (compensate for) unavoidable impacts to EFH and other habitats and living marine resources; and 3. A review of pertinent scientific literature concerning specific habitats and species that may be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed action, and potential short-term and long-term effects on these habitats and species. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. Related correspondence should be addressed to the attention of Ms. Jocelyn Karazsia at our Miami Office. She may be reached at 11420 North Kendall Drive, Suite #103, Miami, Florida 33176, or by telephone at (305) 595-8352. Sincerely, --------- ~ \~ -\\-. kc.c\L~\ ~Ul_ Andreas Mager, Jr. Assistant Regional Administrator Habitat Conservation Division Enclosure cc: EP A, Marathon DEP, Marathon FFWCC, Tallahassee FWS, Big Pine Key F/SER4 F/SER45 Karazsia (w/enclosure) URS Corp., Miami (w/enclosure) FAA, Orlando (w/enclosure) SFWMD CaE, Miami Essential Fish Habitat: A Marine Fish Habitat Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies South Atlantic Region ~-~~ A~..\ ~.~ 11 ~ l ~ G- <J ."'<1<~ if "''''ENT of cdf National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat Conservation Division Southeast Regional Office 9721 Executive Center Drive North St. Petersburg, FL 33702 727/570-5317 February 1999 (revised 10/01) -' Executive Summary The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) set forth a new mandate for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), regional fishery management councils (FMC), and other Federal agencies to identify and protect important marine and anadromous fish habitat. The EFH provisions of the MSFCMA support one of the Nation 's overall marine resource management goals - maintaining sustainable fisheries. Essential to achieving this goal is the maintenance of suitable marine fishery habitat quality and quantity. The FMCs, with assistance from NMFS, have delineated "essential fish habitat" (EFH) for Federally managed species. As new FMPs are developed, EFH for newly managed species will be defined as well. Federal action agencies which fund, permit, or carry out activities that may adversely affect EFH are required to consult with NMFS regarding the potential impacts of their actions on EFH, and respond in writing to NMFS or FMC recommendations. In addition, NMFS and the FMCs may comment on and make recommendations to any state agency on their activities which may affect EFH. Measures recommended by NMFS or an FMC to protect EFH are advisory, not proscriptive. On December 19, 1997, interim final rules were published in the Federal Register (Vol. 62, No. 244) which specify procedures for implementation of the EFH provisions of the MSFCMA. The rules, in two subparts, address requirements for fishery management plan (FMP) amendment, and detail the coordination, consultation, and recommendation requirements of the MSFCMA. Within the area encompassed by the NMFS Southeast Region, EFH has been identified for hundreds of marine species covered by 20 FMPs, under the auspices of the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, or Caribbean FMC or the NMFS. Generic FMP amendments delineating EFH for species managed by the three FMCs and NMFS were completed in early 1999. In addition, EFH for some species managed by the Mid-Atlantic FMC have been identified and include various coastal and offshore waters as far south as the Florida Keys. Wherever possible, NMFS intends to use existing interagency coordination processes to fulfill EFH consUltatIOns Tor--peCleral agency actIOns ttiat may -aavetsely-affecrEFtI~ovldea-c~rtatn1e-gularorr-- -------- specifications are met, EFH consultations will be incorporated into interagency procedures established under the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, or other applicable statutes. If existing processes cannot adequately address EFH consultation requirements, appropriate new procedures should be developed in cooperation with the NMFS. Programmatic consultations may be implemented or General Concurrences may be developed when program or project impacts are individually and cumulatively minimal in nature. Moreover, NMFS will work closely with Federal agencies on programs requiring either expanded or abbreviated individual project consultations. An effective, interagency EFH consultation process is vital to ensure that Federal actions are consistent with the MSFCMA resource management goals. The NMFS will strive to work with action agencies to foster an understanding of EFH consultation requirements and identify the most efficient interagency mechanisms to fulfill agency responsibilities. ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT: - A Marine Fish Habitat Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies Introduction This document has been prepared by the Southeast Regional Office of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to provide an overview of the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) provisions of the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) and implementing regulations. The following pages provide a brief legislative and regulatory background. introduce the concept of EFH. and describe consultation requirements. Consistent with elements of the NMFS's National Habitat Plan, Strategic Plan. and Habitat Conservation Policy, this document is intended to: provide a mechanism for information exchange; foster interagency discussion and problem-solving; . and enhance communication and coordination among the NMFS. regional fishery management councils (FMC), and affected state and Federal agencies. Ultimately. improved interagency coordination and consultation will enhance the ability of the agencies. working cooperatively. to sustain healthy and productive marine fishery habitats. Legislative and Regulatory Background The 1996 amendments to the MSFCMA (excerpted at Appendix 1) set forth a new mandate to identify and protect important marine and anadromous fisheries habitat. NMFS and the FMCs, with assistance from NMFS, are required to delineate EFH in fishery management plans (FMP) or FMP amendments for all Federally managed fisheries. Federal action agencies which fund. permit, or carry out activities that may adversely affect EFH are required to consult with NMFS regarding potential adverse impacts of their actions on EFH. and respond in writing to NMFSand FMC recommendations. In addition, NMFS is directed to comment on any state agency activities that would impact EFH. The purpose of addressing habitat in this act is to further one of the Nation's important marine resource management goals - maintaining sustainable fisheries. Achieving this goal requires the long-term maintenance of suitable marine fishery habitat quality and quantity. Measures recommended to protect EFH by NMFS or an FMC are advisory, not proscriptive. An effective EFH consultation process .is vital to ensuring that Federal actions are consistent with the MSFCMA resource management goals. Guidance and procedures for implementing the 1996 amendments of the MSFCMA were provided through interim final rules established by the NMFS in 1997 (50 CFR Sections 600.805 - 600.930). These rules specify that FMP amendments be prepared to describe and identify EFH and identify appropriate actions to conserve and enhance those habitats. In addition, the rules establish procedures to promote the protection of EFH through interagency coordination and consultation on proposed Federal and state actions. EFH Designation The MSFCMA requires that EFH be identified for all fisheries which are Federally managed. This includes species managed by the FMCs under Federal FMPs, as well as those managed by the NMFS under FMPs developed by the Secretary of Commerce. Applicable FMP authorities for the Atlantic coast segment of the NMFS Southeast Region. along with some of the species covered by the FMPs of the South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic FMCs, are listed in Appendix 2. Species listed are those for which data were adequate to define and map EFH. The listed species under each FMC's authorities collectively occur throughout the areas managed by the South Atlantic FMC, therefore, inclusion of those species, for which life history data are limited would not encompass a greater geographic area. Inclusion of species managed by the Mid-Atlantic FMC is necessary because EFH for some species managed by that council has been identified to extend as far south as the Florida Keys in the South Atlantic area. Similar information is provided jn Appendix 3 for billfish and other highly migratory species directly managed by the NMFS. EFH is defined in the MSFCMA as "...those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity." The rules promulgated by the NMFS in 1997 further clarify EFH with the following definitions: waters - aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish where appropriate; substrate - sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities; necessary - the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species' contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity - stages representing a species' full life cycle. EFH may be a subset of all areas occupied by a species. Acknowledging that the amount of information available for EFH determinations will vary for the different life stages of each species, the rules direct the FMCsto use the best information available, to take a risk averse approach to designations, and to be increasingly specific and narrow in their delineations as more refined information becomes available. The areas designated as EFH by the South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic FMCs are generalized in Appendix 4. Additional sources of information, useful for preparing EFH assessments, and to further one's understanding of EFH designations and Federally managed fishery resources are available through the NMFS and FMCs. Appendix 9 provides citations for published Fishery Management Plan amendments and identifies web sites containing information on the MSFCMA, the NMFS interim final rules for the implementation of EFH designation and consultation provisions, and data on specific managed fisheries and associated habitats. NMFS and FMC points of contact are identified in Appendix 10. The rules also direct FMCs to consider a second, more limited habitat designation for each species in addition to EFH. Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs) are described in the rules as subsets of EFH which are rare, particularly susceptible to human-induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally stressed area. In general, HAPC include high value intertidal and estuarine habitats, offshore areas of high habitat value or vertical relief, and habitats used for migration, spawning, and rearing of fish and shellfish. Areas identified as RAPC by the NMFS and the FMCs are presented in Appendix 5. For a complete description of designated HAPCs the reader should reference EFH amendments of the Councils and NMFS. HAPCs are not afforded any additional regulatory protection under the MSFCMA; however, Federal actions with potential adverse impacts to RAPCs will be more carefully scrutinized during the consultation process and will be subject to more stringent EFH conservation recommendations. Designating the spatial and seasonal extent of EFH has taken careful and deliberate consideration by NMFS and the FMCs. The effort to identify and delineate EFH in the various fishery management plans was a rigorous process that involved advice and input by numerous state and Federal agencies and the public at large. The South Atlantic FMC has produced a generic management plan amendment to define and designate EFH for all of its managed fisheries. The Mid-Atlantic FMC and NMFS have prepared multiple FMPs/amendments to identify EFH withing their respective authorities. Reference may be made to Appendices 6 through 8 for summaries of many of [he Federally-manged species and the associated categories of EFH for each life stage based on information provided by the FMCs (note, information for all species and all life stages is not available). These three appendices are intended to provide a summary of habitat and geographic information on species managed by the South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic FMCs, as well as for highly migratory species managed by the NMFS, where EFH has been identified for the managed species within oceanic, coastal, and estuarine habitats of the southeastern U.S. To review a definitive description of. EFH, the reader should refer to each of the FMP amendments for a species-specific descriptions of EFH. Besides delineating EFH, the FlMP amendments produced by NMFS and each council identifies and describes potential threats to EFH, which include threats from development, fishing, or any other sources. Also identified are recommend EFH conservation and enhancement measures. Guidelines used in the development of EFH amendment sections for each of these issues are included in the EFH rules. FMCs and NMFS also are required to implement management measures to minimize, to the extent practicable, any adverse impacts to EFH caused by fishing gears. Those measures can include area closures, gear restrictions, seasonal restrictions, and other measures designed to avoid or minimize degradation of EFH attributable to fishing activities. The councils have imposed various protective measures on some of the fisheries under their jurisdiction and are coordinating with the NMFS to identify research necessary to determine where additional conservation measures might be appropriate. EFH Consultations In the regulatory cqntext, one of the most important provisions of the MSFCMA for conserving fish habitat is that which requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS when any activity proposed to be permitted, funded, or undertaken by a Federal agency may have adverse affects on designated EFH. The consultation requirements in the MSFCMA direct Federal agencies to consult with NMFS when any of their activities may have an adverse affect on EFH. The EFH rules define an adverse affect as "any impact which reduces quality and/or quantity of EFH...[and] may include direct (e.g., contamination or physical disruption), indirect (e.g., loss of prey, reduction in species' fecundity), site-specific or habitat wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions. " The consultation provisions have caused some concern among Federal action agencies regarding potential increases in workload and the regulatory burden on the public. NMFS has addressed these concerns in the EFH rules by emphasizing and encouraging the use of existing environmental' review processes and time frames. Provided the specifications outlined in the rules are met, EFH consultations should be incorporated into interagency procedures previously established under the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, or other applicable statutes. To incorporate EFH consultations into coordination, consultation and/or environmental review procedures already required by other statutes, three criteria must be met: (1) The existing process must provide NMFS with timely notification of the action; (2) Notification of the action must include an EFH Assessment of the impacts of the proposed action as outlined in the EFH rules; and (3) NMFS must have completed a written .finding that the existing coordination process satisfies the requirements of the MSFCMA. An EFH Assessment is a review of the proposed project and its potential impacts to EFH. As set forth in the rules, EFH Assessments must include: (1) a description of the proposed action; (2) an analysis of the effects, including cumulative effects, of the action on EFH, the managed species, and associated species by life history stage; (3) the Federal agency's views regarding the effects of the action on EFH; and (4) proposed mitigation, if applicable. If appropriate, the assessment should also include the results of an on-site inspection, the views of recognized experts on the habitat or species affects, a literature review, an analysis of alternatives to the proposed action, and any other relevant information. Once NMFS learns of a Federal or state activity that may have an adverse effect on EFH, NMFS is required to develop EFH conservation recommendations for the activity, even if consultation has not been initiated by the action agency. These recommendations may include measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or otherwise offset adverse effects on EFH and are to be provided to the action agency in a timely manner. The MSFCMA also authorizes FMCs to comment on Federal and state projects, and directs FMCs to comment on any project which may substantially impact EFH. The MSFCMA requires that Federal agencies respond to EFH conservation recommendations of the NMFS and FMCs in writing and within 30 days. Consultations may be conducted through programmatic, general concurrence, or project specific mechanisms. Evaluation at a programmatic level may be appropriate when.sufficient infonnation is available to develop EFH conservation recommendations and address all reasonably foreseeable ad verse impacts under a particular program area. General Concurrences can be utilized for categories of similar activities having minimal individual and cumulative impacts. Programmatic and General Concurrence consultations minimize the need for individual project consultation in most cases because NMFS has determined that the actions will likely result in no more than minimal adverse effects, and conservation measures would be implemented. For example, NMFS might agree to a General Concurrence for the construction of docks or piers which, with incorporation of design or siting constraints, would minimally affect Federally managed fishery resources and their habitats. Consultations at a project-specific level are required when critical decisions are made at the project implementation stage, or when sufficiently detailed infonnation for development of EFH conservation recommendations does not exist at the programmatic level. To facilitate project-specific consultations, NMFS and the action agency should discuss how existing review or coordination processes can be used to accomplish EFH consultation. With agreement on how existing coordination mechanisms will be used, the NMFS will transmit afindings letter to the action agency describing the conduct of EFH consultation within existing project review frameworks. Project specific consultations must follow either the abbreviated or expanded procedures. Abbreviated consultations allow NMFS to quickly determine whether, and to what degree, a Federal action may adversely impact EFH, and should be used when impacts to EFH are expected to be minor. For example, the abbreviated consultation procedure would be used when the adverse effect of an action or proposed action could be alleviated through minor design or operational modifications, or the inclusion of measures to offset unavoidable adverse impacts. Expanded consultations allow NMFS and a Federal action agency the maximum opportunity to work together in the review of an activity's impact on EFH and the development of EFH conservation recommendations. Expanded consultation procedures must be used for Federal actions that would result in substantial adverse effects to EFH. Federal action agencies are encouraged to contact NMFS at the earliest opportunity to discuss whether the adverse effect of a proposed action makes expanded consultation appropriate. In addition, it may be determined after review of an abbreviated consultation that a greater level of review and analysis would be appropriate and that review through expanded consultation procedures should be employed. Expanded consultation procedures provide additional time for the development of conservation recommendations. and may be appropriate for actions such as the construction of large marinas or port facilities and activities subject to preparation of an environmental impact statement. The MSFCMA mandates that a Federal action agency must respond in writing to EFH conservation recommendations from NMFS and FMCs within 30 days of receiving those recommendations. The rules require that such a response be provided at least 10 days prior to final approval of the action, if a decision by the Federal agency is required in fewer than 30 days. The response must include a description of measures proposed by the agency for avoiding, mitigating, or offsetting the impact of the activity on EFH. In the case of a response that is inconsistent with NMFS conservation recommendations, the agency must explain its reasons for not following the recommendations, including the scientific rationale for any disagreements with NMFS over the anticipated effects of the proposed action and the measures needed to offset such effects. The regulations provide an important opportunity to resolve critical and outstanding EFH issues prior to ,an action agency rendering a final decision. When an agency decision is inconsistent with NMFS conservation recommendations, the NMFS Assistant Administrator may request a meeting with the head of the action agency to further discuss the project and achieve a greater level protection of EFH and Federally managed fisheries. The process for higher level review of proposed actions is not specified in the regulations, rather it is to be addressed on an agency-by-agency basis. In keeping with NMFS's effort to minimize the regulatory burden ofEFHconsultation requirements, review by the Assistant Administrator and action agency representative should be streamlined and highly focused. Conclusion The EFH mandates of the MSFCMA represent an integration of fishery management and habitat management by stressing the dependency of healthy, productive fisheries on the maintenance of viable and diverse estuarine and marine ecosystems. Federal action agencies are required to consult with the NMFS whenever a construction, permitting, funding, or other action may adversely affect EFH. The EFH consultation process will ensure that Federal agencies explicitly consider the effects of their actions on important habitats, with the goal of supporting the sustainable management of marine fisheries. The NMFS is committed to working with Federal and state agencies to implement these mandates effectively and efficiently, with the ultimate goal of sustaining of the Nation's fishery resources. Comments, questions, and suggested reVlSlons may be directed to Rickey Ruebsamen (EFH Coordinator), 9721 Executive Center Drive, N. St. Petersburg, FL 33702; phone: 727/570-5317; email: ric.ruebsamen@noaa.gov. Appendix 1. Selected Text from the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (As Amended Through October 11. 1996) 16 U.S.e. 1854 note, 1855 M-S Act ~~ 304 note, ~ 305 SEe. 305. OTHER REQUIREMENTS AND AUTHORITY 104-297 16 U.S.e. 1855 (b) FISH HABITAT. (1) (A) The Secretary shall. within 6 months of the date of enactment of the Sustainable Fisheries Act, establish by regulation guidelines to assist the Councils in the description and identification of essential fish habitat in fishery management plans (including adverse impacts on such habitat) and in the consideration of actions to ensure the conservation. and enhancement of such habitat. The Secretary shall set forth a schedule for the amendment of fishery management plans to include the identification of essential fish habitat and for the review and updating of such identifications based on new scientific evidence or other relevant information. (B) The Secretary, in consultation with participants in the fishery, shall provide each Council with recommendations and information regarding each fishery under that Council's authority to assist it in the identification of essential fish habitat, the adverse impacts on that habitat. and the actions that should be considered to ensure the conservation and enhancement of that habitat. (C) The Secretary shall review programs administered by the Department of Commerce and ensure that any relevant programs further the conservation and enhancement of essential fish habitat. (D) The Secretary shall coordinate with and provide information to other Federal agencies to further the conservation and enhancement of essential fish habitat. (2) Each Federal agency shall consult with the Secretary with respect to any action authorized. funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken, by such agency that may adversely affect any essential fish habitat identified under this Act. (3) Each Council-- (A) may comment on and make recommendations to the Secretary and any Federal or State agency concerning any activity authorized. funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized. funded. or undertaken, by any Federal or State agency that, in the view of the Council, may affect the habitat, including essential fish habitat, of a fishery resource under its authority; and (B) shall comment on and make recommendations to the Secretary and any Federal or State agency concerning any such activity that, in the view of the Council. is likely to substantially affect the habitat, including essential fish habitat, of an anadromous fishery resource under its authority. (4) (A) If the Secretary receives information from a Councilor Federal or State agency or determines from other sources that an action authorized, funded, or undertaken. or proposed to be authorized. funded. or undertaken, by any State or Federal agency would adversely affect any essential fish habitat identified under this Act. the Secretary shall recommend to such agency measures that can be taken by such agency to conserve such habitat. (B) Within 30 days after receiving a recommendation under subparagraph (A), a Federal agency shall provide a detailed response in writing to any Council commenting under paragraph (3) and the Secretary regarding the matter. The response shall include a description of measures proposed by the agency for avoiding. mitigating, or offsetting the impact of the activity on such habitat. In the case of a response that is inconsistent with the recommendations of the Secretary. the Federal agency shall explain its reasons for not following the rec0mmendations. Appendix 2. Fishery Management Plans and Managed Species for the South Atlantic Region. SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL Shrimp Fishery Management Plan brown shrimp - Farfantepenaeus aztecus pink shrimp - F. duorarum rock shrimp - Sicyonia brevirostris royal red shrimp - Pleoticus robustus white shrimp - Litopellaeus setiferus Red Drum Fishery Management Plan red drum - Sciaenops ocellatus Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan blackfin snapper - Lutjanus buccanella blueline tilefish - Caulolatilus microps gray snapper - L griseus greater amberjack - Seriola dumerili jewfish -Epinephelusitajara mutton snapper - L analis red porgy - PagnlS pagrus red snapper - L campechanus scamp - Mycteroperca phenax silk snapper - L vivanus snowy grouper - E. niveatus speckled hind - E. drummondhayi vermilion snapper - Rhomboplites aurorubens yellowedge grouper - E. flavolimbatus warsaw grouper - E. nigritllS white grunt - Haemulon plumieri wreckfish - Polyprion americanus Coastal Migratory Pelagics Fishery Management Plan dolphin - Coryphaenll hippurus cobia - Rachycentron canadum king mackerel - ScomberomonlS cavalla Spanish mackerel - S. lnaculatus Golden Crab Fishery Management Plan golden crab - Chaceonfenneri Spiny Lobster Fishery Management Plan spiny lobster - PanulinlS argus Coral and Coral Reef Fishery Management Plan varied coral species and coral reef communities comprised of several hundred species Calico Scallop Fishery Management Plan calico scallop - Argopecten gibbus MID-A TLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan black sea bass - Centropristlls striata scup - Stenotomlls chrysops summer flounder - Paralichthys delltatlts Bluefish Fishery Management Plan bluefish - Pomatomus saltatrix Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery Management Plan ocean quahog - Artica islalldica surfclam - Spisula solidissima Atlantic Mackerel, Squid. and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan Atlantic butterfish - Peprilus triacanthus Atlantic mackerel - Scomber scombrus long finned squidf - Loligo peciles short finned squid - lllex illecebrosus Dogfish Fishery Management Plan spiny dogfish - Squalus acanthias Appendix 3. Species Managed under the Federally-Implemented Fishery Management Plans. NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Billfish blue marlin - Makaira nigricans longbill spearfish - Tetrapturus pfluegeri sailfish - Istiophorus platypterus white marlin - T. albidus Swordfish swordfish - Xiphias gladius Tuna albacore - ThUll/IUS alalunga Atlantic bigeye - T. obesus Atlantic yellow fin - T. albacares skipjack - Katsuwonus pelamis western Atlantic bluefin - T. thYllnus Sharks /_, Atlantic angel shark - Squatilla dumerili Atlantic shaIlmose shark - Rhizoprionodon terraenovae basking shark - Cetorhinus maximus bigeye sand tiger - Odontaspis lIorollhai bigeye sixgill shark - Hexallchus vitulus bigeye thresher shark - Alopias superciliosus bignose shark - Carcharlzilllls allimus blacknose shark - C. acrOIlOlllS blacktip shark - C. lill/ballls blue shark - Priollace glauca bonnetheaa - Sphyma liburo bull shark - C. Jellcas Sharks (cont.) Caribbean reef shark - C. perezi Caribbean sharpnose shark - R. porosus common thresher shark - A. vulpinus dusky shark - C. obscurus finetooth shark - C. isodon Galapagos shark - C. galapagensis great hammerhead - S. mokarran lemon shark - Negaprion brevirostris longfin malm shark - lsurus paueus narrowtooth shark - C. braehyurus night shark - C. signatus nurse shark- Ginglymostoma cirratum oceanic whitetip shark - C. longimanus porbeagle shark - Lamna nasus sandbar shark - C. plumbeus sand tiger shark - O. taurus scalloped hammerhead - S. lewini sharpnose sevengill shark - Heptranchias perlo shortfin mako shark -1. oxyrinehus silky shark - C. faleiformis sixgill shark - H. griseus smalIlail shark - C. porosus smooth hammerhead - S. zygaena spinner shark - C. brevipinna Tiger shark - Galeocerdo euvied whale shark - Rhinoeodon typus white shark - Careharodon carcharias Appendix 4. Essential Fish Habitat Identified in Fishery Management Plan Amendments of the South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. (Generally, EFH for species managed under the NMFS Billfish and Highly Migratory Species plans falls within the marine and estuarine water column habitats designated by the councils) South Atlantic FMC Estuarine areas Estuarine emergent wetlands Estuarine scrub/shrub mangroves Submerged aquatic vegetation Oyster reefs & shell banks Intertidal flats Palustrine emergent & forested wetlands Aquatic beds Estuarine water column Marine areas Live/Hard bottoms Coral & coral reefs ArtificiaIlmanmade reefs Sargassum Water column Mid-Atlantic FMC Estuarine areas Seagrass Creeks Mud bottom Estuarine water column Marine areas Water column " .- Appendix 5. Geographically Defined Habitat Areas of Particular Concern Identified in Fishery Management Plan Amendments Affecting the South Atlantic Area. South Atlantic Area-wide Council-designated artificial reef special management zones Hermatypic coral habitat and reefs Hard bottoms Hoyt Hills Sargassum habitat State-designated areas of importance to managed species Submerged aquatic vegetation North Carolina Big Rock Bogue Sound Pamlico Sound at Hatteras/Okracoke Islands Capes Hatteras. Fear and Lookout (sandy shoals) New River The Ten Fathom Ledge The Point South Carolina Broad River Charleston Bump Hurl Rocks S, Atlantic (cont) Geor!!ia Florida Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary Biscayne Bay Blake Plateau (manganese outcroppings) Biscayne National Park Card Sound Florida Bay Jupiter Inlet Point Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Mangrove habitat Marathon Hump Oculina Bank The Wall (Florida Keys) Phragmatopoma (worm) reefs Appendix 6. Summary of EFH Requirements for Species Managed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. eggs larvae postlarvae/j uvenile subadults E adults M Penaeid HAPC - tidal inlets & state nursery and overwintering habitats Life Stage Species Brown shrimp EFH identified from NC - FL Keys White shrimp EFH identified from NC - St. Lucie Inlet, FL Pink shrimp EFH identified from NC and FL Rock shrimp EFH identified from NC - FL Keys Royal red shrimp EFH identified from ~C - FL eggs larvae postlarvae/juvenile sub adults E adults eggs larvae postlarvae/juvenile subadults E adults adults adults Ecosvstem EFH Marine (M) demersal 13.7 - 110 m M planktonic <110 m Estuarine (E) marsh edge, SA V, tidal creeks, inner marsh mud bottoms, marsh edge <110 m, silt sand, muddy sand M M M E nearshore & 6.1 - 24.4 m, demersal <24.4 m, planktonic mud/peat marsh edge, SA V, marsh ponds, inner marsh mud/peat marsh edge, SA V, marsh ponds, inner marsh <27 m, soft mud M M M E 3.7 - 16 m, demersal planktonic <16 m SA V, sand/shell substrate SA V, sand/shell substrate <100 m; hard sand/shell substrate M terrigenous and biogenic sand. 18 - 182 m M mud/sand sub~trate 180 - 730 m Red drum EFH identified from NC - FL Keys tidal inlets, planktonic tidal inlets, planktonic mud bottoms, SA V, marsh/water interface mud bottoms, oyster reef, mangrove inlets & surf zone - 50 m; mud bottoms, oyster reefs Red drum HAPC . tidal inlets & state nursery habitats, spawning sites & SA V eggs larvae postlarvae/juvenile subadults E adults M M E MiE Snowy grouper EFH identified from eggsllarvae M pelagic NC -FL adults M < 180 111, boulders & relief features YelIowedge grouper EFH identified from eggs/larvae M pelagic NC - FL adults M 190 - 220 m, rocky outcrops & hardbottom Warsaw grouper EFH identified from eggs M pelagic NC - FL Keys adults M 76 - 219 m, cliffs, notches & rocky ledges Appendix 6 Continued. Species Life Stage Scamp EFH identified from adults NC-FL Appendix 6 Continued. Ecosystem EFH M 20 - 100m, hardbottoms, rock outcrops Species Life Sta~e Ecosystem EFH Golden tilefish EFHidentified from adults M burrows in rough bottom; 76 - 457 m NC - FL Snapper-Grouper RAPe - hardbottom, mangrove, SA V, oyster/shell, inlets, state nursery areas,5argassum, coral, The Point, Ten Fathom Ledge, & Big Rock (NC); Chalreston Bump (SC); Blake Plateau & Oculina Bank (FL); Hoyt Hills King mackerel EFH identified from juvenile M pelagic, S. Atlantic Bight NC - FL adults M pelagic, S. Atlantic Bight Spanish mackerel EFH identified from larvae M offshore <50 m NC - FL juvenile MIE offshore, beach, estuarine adults M pelagic Cobia EFH identified from eggs M pelagic NC - FL larvae MlE estuarine & shelf postlarvaeljuvenile MIE estuarine & shelf adults MlE coastal & shelf Dolphin EFH identified from NC - FL larvae M epipelagic, Sargasswll postlarvaeljuvenile M epipelagic, Sargassum adults M epipelagic Coastal Migratory Pelagic RAPC - Capes Lookout, Fear, & Hatteras sandy shoals; The Point, Ten Fathom Ledge, Big Rock (NC); Charleston Bump & Hurl Rocks (SC); The Point, The Hump, Marathon Hump, & The Wall (FL); worm reefs, hardbottom,Sargassum, Bogue Sound, New River, Broad River Golden crab EFH identified from NC - FL adults M mud, dead coral, pebble; 367 - 549 m Spiny lobster EFH identified from FL larvae MIE planktonic juvenile MlE sponge, algae, coral, hardbottom adults MIE sponge, algae. coral, hardbottom, crevices Spiny lobster RAPC - Florida & Biscayne Bays, Card Sound, corallhardbottom (Jupiter Inlet - Dry Tortugas) Coral EFH identified from M Nt A FL Coral HAPC - Ten Fathom Ledge, Big Rock & The Point (NC); Hurl Rocks &Charleston Bump (SC); Gray's Reef NMS (GA); FL Keys NMS, Biscayne NP, Biscayne Bay, Oculina Banks & hardbottom/worm reefs (FL) Calico scallops EFH identified from NC - FL adults M shell. hard sand, gravel; 13 - 94 m Appendix 7. Summary ofEFH Requirements for Species Managed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Species Bluefish EFH identified from North Carolina - FL Keys Life Stage Ecosystem EFH larvae juveniles M > 15 m to Gulf Stream through Key West FJM as above and estuaries from Albemarle Sound, NC through St Johns River, FL FJM shore to Gulf Stream through Key West and estuaries from Albemarle Sound, NC through Indian River, FL adult Spiny dogfish EFH identified from NC - FL juvenile adult M M shelf waters from 10 - 400 m shelf waters from 10 - 450 m Summer flounder EFH identified from NC-GA larvae/juvenile FJM shelf waters and estuaries from Albemarle Sound., NC through St. Andrew/Simon Sounds adult FJM as above Submerged aquatic vegetation is RAPC for larval and juvenile summer flounder. Appendix 8. Summary of EFH Requirements for High Migratory Species Managed by the National Marine Fisheries Service. South Atlantic Soecies Offshore Albacore tuna Atlantic bigeye tuna Atlantic bluefin tuna Atlantic skipjack tuna Atlantic yellowfin tuna Swordfish Blue marlin White marlin Offshore Oceanic whitetip shark Bigeye thresher shark Coastal/Inshore Species Florida Onlv Great hammerhead shark Nurse shark Blacktip shark Florida - Georl!ia Bull shark Florida - South Carolina Lemon shark Blacknose shark Life Stage adult Juvenile/adult Eggs/larvae Juvenile/subadult Adults Eggsllarvae Juvenile to adult Eggs/larvae Juvenile to adult Eggs/larvae Juvenile/subadult Adults Eggs/larvae Juvenile Adult EFH Blake Plateau & Spur area (FL), > 100m isobath same as above nearshore to 200 m isobath nearshore, S of 27 0 N as above and Blake Plateau S of 28.25 0 N, 200 m isobath to EEZ as above, 25 - 200 m isobath S of 28.25 0 N, 200 m isobath to EEZ N of 31 0 N, 500 to 2000 m isobath; Blake Plateau S of Hatteras, 200 m isobath to EEZ S to 31.50 N, 25 - 2000 m isobath, and S of29 0 N from 100m to EEZ 100 to 2000 m isobath or EEZ S of29.50 N, 100 m isobath to EEZ S to 30.750 N and S of 300 N, 200 to 2000 m isobath orEEZ S to 33.50 N, 100 - 2000 m; 320 to 30.750 N, 100 m to 780 W; and S of29.50 N, 100 m to 50 mi. or EEZ Juvenile S to 25.250 N, 200 - 2000 m isobath (EEZ off FL) Appendix 8 Continued. South Atlantic Soecies EFH Early juvenile Late juvenile Adult All stages Juvenile/adult Juvenile/adult Juvenile Adult Juvenile Juvenile Adult Juvenile Life Stage Charleston Bump 320 to 260 N, 200 m to EEZ 360 to 300 N, 200 m to EEZ 36.50 to 340 N, 200 - 2000 m isobaths coastal waters to 100m, S of 300 N S of 30.5 0 N, shoreline to 25 m isobath S to 28.50 N, coastal waters to 25 m isobath Outer Banks, NC, shore to 200 m; 300 to 28.50 N, coastal waters to 50 m isobath S of320 N. inlets. estuaries. waters < 25 m FL Bull's Bay. SC to 280 N & S of25,50 N. inlets. estuaries. waters < 25 m 310 to 300 N & S of 27C' N. inlets. estuaries. waters < 25 m SC - Cape CJ.I1averai. to 25 III Finetooth shark Florida - North Carolina Scalloped hammerhead shark Dusky shark Adult All stages Juvenile Adults Juvenile Adult St. Augustine to Canaveral, FL. coastal water to 25 m 330 to 300 N, coastal waters to 25 m shoreline to 200 m isobath S to 280 N. 25 - 200 m isobaths S to 330 N and S of 300 N, inlets. estuaries. waters < 200 m S to 280 N. 25 to 200 m isobaths Sandbar shark Juvenile S to 27.5 0 N. coastal waters to 25 m Adult coastal waters to 50 m. HAPe for this species idelltified for Pamlico SOUlld adjacent to HaUeras and Ocracoke Islands and offshore. Spinner shark Tiger shark Sand tiger shark Appendix 8 Continued. South Atlantic Species Florida - North Carolina Bonnethead shark Atlantic sharpnose shark Early juvenile Juvenile/adult Early juvenile Late juvenile Adult Juvenile Adult Life Stag:e Juvenile Adult Juvenile Adult S of 32.25 0 N. coastal waters to 25 m 30.70 to 28.50 N, coastal waters to 200 m S to Canaveral, coastal waters to 200 m shore to 100 m. except GA to Cape Lookout. where EFHis between 25 - 100m S to Ft Lauderdale, coastal to Gulf Stream S to Cape Canaveral, coastal water to 25 m St. Augustine to Canaveral, FL, coastal water to 25 m EFH Cape Fear NC to W. Palm Beach FL, inlets, estuaries, waters <25 m Cape Fear NC - Cape Canaveral FL, inlets, estuaries & shallow coastal waters Daytona Beach - Cape Hatteras, bays and waters to 25 m NC & St. Augustine - C. Canaveral, to 100 m isobath Appendix 9. Sources of EFH and Related Resource Information. Fishery Management Plan Amendments Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1998. Amendment I to the bluefish fishery management plan. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Dover. DE. 2 vols. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1998. Amendment 8 to the Atlantic mackerel, squid. and butterfish fishery management plan. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Dover, DE. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1998. Amendment 12 to the Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fishery management plan. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Dover. DE. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1998. Amendment 12 to the summer flounder. scup, and black sea bass fishery management plan. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Dover. DE. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999. Amendment 1 to the Atlantic biIlfish fishery management plan amendment. National Marine Fisheries Service. Silver Spring. MD. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999. Fishery management plan for Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and sharks. National Marine Fisheries Service. Silver Spring. MD. 2 vols. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1998. Final habitat plan for the South Atlantic region: Essential Fish Habitat requirements for Fishery Management Plans of the South Atlantic fishery Management Council: The Shrimp Fishery Management Plan. The Red Drum Fishery Management Plan. The Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan. The Coastal Migratory Pelagics Fishery Management Plan. The Golden Crab Fishery Management Plan. The Spiny Lobster Fishery Management Plan, The Coral. Coral Reefs. and Live/Hard Bottom Habitat Fishery Management Plan, and The Calico Scallop Fishery Management Plan. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Charleston. SC. EFH Related Web Sites South Atlantic FMC & EFH amendment Mid-Atlantic FMC EFH Rules NMFS Southeast Region Highly migratory pelagic and billfish EFH amendments http://www.safme.noaa.gov http://www.mafme.orgfmid-atlanticlmafme.htm htto:/Iwww.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitatletb http://caldera.sero.nmfs.IHw htto:llwww.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/Final.html Appendix 10. Points of Contact for Essential Fish Habitat Activities from North Carolina through Florida along the South Atlantic Coastal Area. National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Region Andreas Mager, Jr. (Asst Regional Administrator) National Marine Fisheries Service 9721 Executive Center Drive, N. St. Petersburg. FL 33702 727/570-5317 andv.mager@noaa.gov Rickey Ruebsamen (EFH Coordinator) National Marine Fisheries Service 9721 Executive Center Drive, N. St. Petersburg, FL 33702 727/570-5317 ric.ruebsamen@noaa.gov Local Office David Rackley (North/South Carolina, Georgia. Florida East Coast) National Marine Fisheries Service Charleston Laboratory 219 Fort Johnson Road Charleston. SC 29412-9110 (843) 762-8574 david.raeklev@noaa.gov South Atlantic Fishery Management Council Executive Director South Atlantic Fishery Management Council I Southpark Circle Southpark Building. Suite 306 Charleston. SC 29407-4699 843/571-4366 safmc@noaa.l?ov EFH Point of Contact Roger Pugliese 843/571-4366 roger.pugliese@noaa.gov Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council Executive Director Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council Room 2115, Federal Building Dover. Delaware 19901 Thomas B. Hoff 302/674-2331 xI5 tom.hoff@noaa.lwv EFH Point of Contact o$,,~~R ^Lttt .s~ '> "" \ Tc< ~g~..:' ;~~ ......, ~~-..; ~-;.~. " Eb Y"/).' t'~ - ./-~ i;f OSf~, jIIH'~\''>''~'"'' . . . ~ SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 3301 Gun Club Road. West Palm Beach. Florida 33406. (561) 686-8800 . FL WATS 1-800-432-2045. TDD (561) 697-2574 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 24680. West Palm Beach. FL 33416-4680' www.sfwmd.gov CON 24-06 lRl~ ~llW\Q) NOV 1 4 ZOOZ Environmental Resource Regulation November 7, 2002 URS Mr. George Feher URS Corporation 7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, Florida 33607-1462 Dear Mr.Feher: SUBJECT: Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area, Monroe County The staff has reviewed the information provided during the October 8, 2002 l110eting held at the South Florida Water Management District (District) office in West Palm Beach regarding the above-referenced project. The project site is located within. or adjacent to Outstanding Florida Waters, an Aquatic Preserve, an Area of Critical State Concern and is proposed to impact unique habitat within the Salt Pond area. The District offers the following comments regarding this proposal; 1. Prior to formally discussing mitigation options related to project development the applicant must demonstrate that avoidance andlor minimization of wetland impacts has been implemented to the greatest extent possible. The proposal presented during the October 8, 2002 meeting and indicated on the exhibits provided depict the standard Runway Safety Area (RSA) that the FAA desires to achieve. District staff is aware that the desired footprint for a RSA has flexibility (Ft. Lauderdale Airport) and may be reduced due to surrounding land uses and characteristics. District staff requests that the FAA define the least impactive alternative utilizing standard construction techniques. 2. Will additional lighting be required within the RSA? If so, please demonstrate that this lighting is down-shielded to ensure that light is retained within the boundaries of the site. Please be aware that any increased lighting will require that the effects of this lighting on wildlife be evaluated. 3. Developmentof the RSAs, as proposed, will directly impact sensitive mangrove, salt pond and herbaceous wetlands communities. Additionally, secondary impacts associated with the development, including buffer encroachments and fragmentation will require quantification. Cumulative impacts must be addressed as well. Also, numerous mitigation/environmental enhancement projects have been completed within the salt ponds. The salt pond area provides GOVERN/NG BOARD EXECUTNE OFFiCE Trudi K. Williams. P.E.. e1uJir Lennart E. Lindahl, P.E.. Vice-e1uJir Pamela Brooks-Thomas Michael Collins Hugh M. English Gerardo B. Fernandez Patrick I. Gleason. Ph.D..P.G. Nicolas I. Gutierrez. Ir.. Esq. Harldey R. Thornton Henry Dean. Executive Director Mr. George Feher Runway Safety Area November 7, 2002 Page 2 of 4 unique wetland functions. Functions provided must be evaluated and a mitigation plan be developed within close proximity to the impact area designed to offset impacts to the functions provided by these wetland communities. Time lag and risk must be factored into any mitigation plan developed. What mitigation options have been identified to offset these direct, secondary and cumulative impacts? 4. District staff has concerns related to potential impacts to listed species, including migratory species that may be incurred with project development. Please provide the following information: .A.. P163Se provid0 information r01ative t-o the potential impacts to internationally migrating bird species that migrate yearly to/from the northern United States and Canada to/from the Caribbean, Central and South America. In addition, please provide any known information regarding the flight pattern(s) of the bird species that may utilize this area as part of their migratory route. B. Please provide information relative to the potential impacts to local wetland dependent species that migrate daily within the region. Please provide any known information regarding the flight pattern of wetland dependent bird species that may cross the area, specifically, birds utilizing identified colonial roosting and rookery sites and their known relationship to known wetland forage habitat. C. Please address any potential direct or secondary impacts to listed bird species resulting from the proposed project. Please identify how these impacts will be offset. 5. Additional impervious areas will require water quality treatment. Please identify the methods of water quality treatment, location for these facilities and identify additional wetland impacts resulting from the stormwater management areas. 6. How will proposed salt pond impacts effect groundwater recharge, storage, offsite impacts related to loss of storage and local hydrology? Mr. George Feher Runway Safety Area November 7, 2002 Page 3 of 4 The following comments relate specifically to potential alternative designs discussed at the October 8, 2002 meeting to address avoidance and/or minimization of wetland impacts. 7. District staff, during a previous meeting, was informed that larger jets are not proposed to be utilized at this location. However, several weeks ago Key West International Airport announced new direct-connect flights from out-of-state. Additionally, FAA stated during the meeting that they could not restrict or limit the flights or types of airlines utilizing this facility. If the runway safety area is constructed in accordance with the plan, what limitations could be placed on this facility to prevent the utilization of the RSA as a runway extension for larger or more fully loaded aircraft? In turn, what limitations could be imposed to enSl1re that fntl]re ~lrport ct~m:mct~ would not necessitate additional runway safety improvements? 8. Please provide an evaluation detailing the reasons why Marathon Airport could not be modified to provide the safety features desired while resulting in less impacts than the current proposal. 9. During the October 8, 2002 meeting privately owned structures/development where identified within the RSA. How will these facilities impact the ability for KWIA to effectively implement RSA improvements? It appears that hardened structures and development would be more damaging, both to the airlines and people located within the structures, than the vegetation proposed for destruction. Please define the flexibility FAA has in determining variances to their guidelines. 10. Discussions regarding the Engineering Materials Arresting Systems (EMAS) material utilization for aircraft safety indicated that this material would serve the safety function desired, could be placed in a much smaller area resulting in a minimization of wetland impacts and restrict the RSA from being used as a runway extension. FAA stated that, if damaged, the material was expensive to repair. Has consideration been given to passing this repair expense on to the air carrier causing the damage? Mr. George Feher Runway Safety Area November 7, 2002 Page 4 of 4 Should you have any questions, please call Ron Peekstok at 561-682-6956. Please include a copy of the enclosed ''Transmittal Form for Requested Information" to each of the required copies of the requested information. Sincerely, tJdL4? ~~ Anita R. Bain Senior Supervising Environmental Analyst Natural Resource Management Division C: Monroe County - Ralph Gouldy ACOE - Marathon, Miami FDCA - Rebecca Jetton FDEP - Ed Barham NOAA, NMFS - St. Petersburg, Miami FWS - Big Pine Key, Vero Beach APPUCA~T TRANS.MrrTAL FORM FOR REQUESTED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (One copy of this form must be included with the 5 sets of informationsu~mitted concerning a pending permit application for an Environmental Resource. Surface Water Management or Water Use Permit.) '. -- . For submittal addresses. see page 2. Application #: '. ERO. swO wuO s Project Name: Project Location: c.ounty Reviewer's Name: Date: Information included in .response: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. IT ./R_ . Additional o o o o o o o o o o Revised o o o o o o o o o o Respondent Signature Page 1 of 2 us. nsu 6 ""II.DUFE SERVICE ~ '1L . l .~~ . ~~ "",.."'l....T"".\~ United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE South Florida Ecological Services Office 1339 20th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 November 15,2002 r:.:....::::':-....' '.. .":'.' i;l~ij~D:-" \....~ l.'.' .". t\ l:~ tbV .....~,'.., '.0 .~. NOV -;;~~O; -\ URS George G. Feher URS Corporation 7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, Florida 33607-1462 Dear Mr. Feher: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) appreciates the opportunity to discuss the proposed Runway Safety Area (RSA) project proposed for the Key West International Airport (EYW). The Service will work closely with you, URS staff, Monroe County, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to achieve airfield management needs while protecting federally listed species and important saltmarsh, mangrove, and saltpond habitats. The following is a summary of questions, suggestions, and ideas, which may help you choose other available options for the project. 1. If the no action alternative were to be pursued, would the FAA continue to authorize airport operations? 2. If the project as proposed were not to be pursued, could the airport continue to provide commercial service by accommodating smaller planes that would not need the additional RSA to function within FAA regulations? 3. Iflarger planes could not land here due to the lack of suitable RSAs, could the FAA downgrade the EYW'Airport Reference Code to reflect the current airfield design and still accommodate smaller commercial aircraft? Would this be an option for the FAA; and if not, why? 4. Will the proposed RSAs increase commercial passenger jet traffic, size of aircraft, and the size of the loads that the current planes can carry? Would the proposed RSAs allow larger jets to land in Key West? 5. Are there currently buildings or other structures in the proposed RSAs or clear zones, which would be allowed to remain? George G. Feher November 15,2002 Page 2 6. While the airport cannot dictate that a certain type of plane cannot land at the airport, can the FAA regulate the size or payload of the planes that do land here? Is the FAA obligated to provide RSAs for all type of planes that want to land here? 7. Currently there isa trend for airlines to trim their fleets, restructure routes, and resize aircraft to stay competitive. Is the FAA's safety program bound by accommodating the current airline market based on plane size? If left to free market forces, could the airline industry fill the niche for Key West, even if only smaller planes are authorized to land in Key West? Is the FAA bound to the current ARC status or could they change the status to accommodate smaller planes within the current air field and existing RSAs? 8. The presence or,absence of Lower Keys marsh rabbits and silver rice rats on the EYW property must be conclusively determined. URS should contact Craig Faulhaber, the current Lower Keys marsh rabbit researcher, at 305-872-9412 or 305-515-0280. 9. Explore and develop alternative options to the current proposed RSA plans. These alternative techniques should strive to avoid impacts, and when avoidance cannot be accomplished, they should strive to minimize impacts to saltmarsh, mangrove, and saltpond habitats, yet still allow the EYW to meet some FAA RSA goals. 10. Consider avoiding direct impacts to existing bodies of water and mangrove stands by incorporating these features into the RSA specifications. 11. Consider proposing the RSA project in already scarified areas around the airfield, or in areas of lesser habitat quality. 12. Consider designing the project in a way such that mangrove-dominated weltands are not filled, but are left in place to provide critical ecological functions. The mangroves could be managed by foliage trimming so as to achieve a partial goal of the RSA. 13. Consider not filling salt ponds or saltmarshes but working around these to achieve a partial RSA in areas that are currently scarified or have minimal quality wetlands. 14. Explore the option of minimizing the proposed project footprint to exclude the large impact area to the dense mangrove stand on the east end of the runway. 1':; C:om:lnp.r ~hiftlng thp. nmwl'lY to thp. wP.~t_ whp.rp. thp.rp. l'lrp. Ip.~~p.r lmpl'l~t~ to ml'lnerovp.~_ while still achieving a partial RSA, and without compromising approach runway protection zones. George G. Feher November 15, 2002 Page 3 16. Explore newer technologies in aircraft overshoot arresting systems, which would not directly impact wetland habitats. 17. Develop a suite of both onsite and offsite mitigation options (e.g., restoration, enhancement, exotic removal, land acquisition, etc.) after exhausting the options available for avoiding and minimizing wetland impacts. 18. Include effects of airfield operations on the protected bald eagle and its nest and fledgling. You may also want to coordinate this effort with other airports in Monroe County. I hope these suggestions and ideas will give you greater flexibility in developing a successful project proposal. Thank you for your cooperation and effort in protecting the Florida Keys environment. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Allen Webb at (772) 562-3909, extension 246, or Andrew Gude at (305) 872-5563. Sincerelyy~ursJ lA ~11 Assistant Field Supervisor South Florida Ecological Services Office cc: Corps of Engineers, Miami, FL (Paul Kruger) South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL (Anita Bain, Ron Peekstock) Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando, FL (Virginia Lane, Bart Vemace) v~(<.'iO sr-4~ i ^ t, i~Ta~ ~ ... "'+ ..l :/'",( PRO~~c, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 4 ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 61 FORSYTH STREET ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303-8960 ~ pp'~~~\1I'~ l \ \ November 20, 2002 Mr. Peter M. Green Senior Airport Environmental Planner URS Corporation 7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, FL 33607-1462 SUBJ: Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study; Key West In~rnati()naIAirport; Monroe County, FL Dear Mr. Green: Pursuant to Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (BPA) has reviewed the referenced feasibility study for the Key West International Airport (KWIA) prepared by URS Corporation on behalf of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners. This study evaluates the feasibility of extending Runway Safety Areas (RSAs) at both ends of the existing runway to meet FAA standards. Such extension would impact wetlands and other sensitive natural areas associated with the Florida Keys. Please note that we will not be able to attend the December 5, 2002, agency meeting but wish to offer the following preliminary comments and questions: ~ Operational Pro1ections - What is the basis for the projected increase in operations from 2001 to 2011 (11.8% increase) to 2020 (18.1 % increase)? ~ Wetlands - We note that 31 acres of wetlands (page 4 classifies wetlands as "bays and estuaries, mangrove swamp; exposed rock with marsh grasses") are predicted to be lost if the proposed project is implemented. More specifically, the proposed extension of the RSAs to meet FAA standards would impact mangroves on the eastern end (Runway 27) of the runway and open water habitat on the western end (Runway 9). This Key West Salt Ponds aquatic system provides important habitat for water fowl and wading birds and is only one of two remaining natural systems in Key West. We preliminarily agree that the 31-acre quantification is accurate and believe such acreage is substantive for a limited landscape, such as Key West. The runway Object Free Areas (OFAs) would normally increase the cleared area beyond the RSA dimensions (to 800' x 1000' in this case), which would result in an additional 11.5 acres of cleared wetlands. However, the document suggests that FAA may elect to modify that requirement and limit the OFA to the RSA dimensions. The final document should clarify that requirement and also depict the wetlands located within the 800' x 1000' dimensions in Figure 4.1-1. If the 11.5 acres are cleared, EP A would consider the wetland losses for this proposal to be 42.5 acres Internet Address (URL) . http://www.epagov RecycledIRecyclable . Printed with Vegetable oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30"1. Postconsumer) 2 (31 ac + 11.5 ac). Although not grubbed, the 11.5 acres are included in the wetland loss total due to the loss of habitat values incurred through clearing. ~ Alternatives - Alternatives to expand RSAs appear to be limited on either end of the runway. Since the present document is a feasibility study, various options should still be explored and disclosed in the final document. We also note that page 4 indicates that FAA Order 5200.8 states that: When making determinations about the practicability of obtaining the RSA, the first attempt shall consist of investigating fully the possibility of obtaining an RSA that meets the current standards through a traditional graded area surrounding the runway. It is unclear if there are any FAA exemptions or modifications to FAA Order 5200.8 for sensitive natural areas (e.g., are there any non-traditional options to grading the area to avoid or minimize losses to sensitive natural areas?). The final document should discuss this. Such options and exemptions, however, should not compromise airport runway safety. ~ Mitigation - If the project is pursued and given that alternatives to avoid sensitive natural areas appear limited and FAA exemptions unclear, mitigation must be considered. EPA suggests that any such mitigation be greater than 1: 1 and be provided onsite, or at least in the lower Florida Keys. However, we are not aware of sites large enough for such mitigation in the Keys. What type of mitigation and at what sites would the airport Sponsor offer to compensate for losses to mangroves, Key West Salt Ponds and other lost/affected resources due to the proposal? In summary, EP A has concerns with the proposed project due to the quantity and quality of the wetlands and other natural resources that would be lost on either end of the KWIA runway. As a feasibility study, various options should still be explored and disclosed in the final document that would not compromise airport runway safety. If the proposal is pursued, mitigation for wetlands and Key West Salt Ponds should be coordinated with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and EP A. We were pleased to provide these early review comments on the feasibility study and request a copy of the final document. Should you have questions regarding these comments, please contact Chris Hoberg (404/562-9619)ofmy--staft:..for ov-er~II questions or Dr. \ViIliam Kruczynski (305/743-0537) in Marathon, Florida of the EP A Region 4 Water Management Division regarding specific wetland questions. Sincerely, ~~v~J-yJh( cc: Virginia Lane: FAA - Orlando, PI... Jackie Sweatt-Essick: FAA - Atlanta, GA Heinz J. Mueller, Chief Office of Environmental Assessment Environmental Accountability Division >t 8 ~~ 000 ~~ ~~ 00=3< ~~~ ~t;j< <z t:s O<~ uET2~ t)<~ z>t~ ~~~ ~t:~ <<00 ~~ <>t ~~ ~ a)" ....- (]) CU .o:J(]) o-.c _ 0._ O(])O og- co'o OO(]) (]) 0) <<1 .2 .!; <i5 :1='0.... 0.... c _alo o O)~ .t: (]) al -....0) (/) C'- co:!::: _'(jj E c(/)- (]):Jo Eo- (/)(/) (]).- 0 0)'0 0 al(])(]) ~~:o ::;E:!:::cu c.o .....- 0 (]) '0 .... aico. ;:>al'O >_c cu~al :g.o m o .... :J - a.(/) u._(/) .c <( .- -00- :Jo:~ o_c oocu(]) (])(])E .c....c -<(a - .... CU >-.- -> 'o(])C <i51a(]) .coo(]) 0) >-s cal>- +=->- (]) >.- (])CC E:J(]) 0:'0 CU '0 .- 0(]).B ;~>-. (/) a. '0 t:: c020 0....(/)0. a. 0. CU .~ (/)(]) <( (]) .c 0)_ ....-cCU c c.t: c ----CUO c~ o.+=- o a. (]) CU .- x.... c ai(])o.Q5 ....'0 (])- 8.clij.E <5~>-u; occ(]) oom53: o:~O>- ::> a. (]) ~ ooo(]) ;-;c.c (])alo- :2:=:Eai > 0)'0 <( occoo c..:a; al 0: (])(])<{'o Q5E<{.... > u.cu >(])(])'o !BS.c~ c_l-- (]) 0 . (/) E (]) m CU E (/).- - 000)0 o e-~ c 0) 0.:J ~.Q c -- ._ (]) (/) ~ :=.ccc .QI-o(]) - .- E o . ai (]) ..... C\I 0)- (])O+=- a. .c 0'- E I- C\I E .- UJ en z o a. en w [t ~~ _ '0 ~'o ~~.,m o.....c,.-(I)c::J .~ a.:!::: ',... tl).o al '0 := t:: t:'Ci):S '0 (]) (]) ~,~ (I) .SQ C(/)O ",,0'0 al 8. ~ up::: 1::: (I) Q50'05~OO) 0) 0. <5 +== .S .g. ~ 5i(])g~as~~ (/).c al :J i C") a. ~ I- c ~(,) ";' c a. .....:. :.::. a: tl) 0 .Q (])<C<CcC:O~ > _ '- C") '" o <: OOa:.Q c: LO E 0.~_<<1 (1)0 <5 E - al 'S: CJ) LO ..... ._ t:: (]) <( 9) ,.- .!; Oo<C...._t:::lij(]) -a. alO_.c .SQ'~ >- Q5 e-:J - <(-'o'_oc "0 - (]) <J) ~ .~ .- (])~'(Uu.'OO'o '0000 c c: ~~ . 0. +== >-.- as 0'- 0) cucu'O-J(/)>c '0 E := ~ Ui'S: e +== <J) <J) c.- c: '0 a. (]) (/)-:J:Jo<C (]) o Co: 0"'- ~ E 0.- (]) - <C (]) 0-,o....~.....>C\1 ....(/)....(/)(1)......>0 a. (]) CU al !:l. U. <J) 0 <J) 3: 'Oc (/) 0 C (/) C\I .c .- (]) - >-alc'O'O.ca)" .....(])-(])c:(])- o~ (/) E as:;: E Q5 <J)(])cu<J)C:oo.o (/).c(])....o<J)....o o - '0 '-.- a...... - e- -'S: 5- 1ti (/) !B 0 :J al 0 (]) .0 (/) a. 0 c..~'-'-$:cd'-Q) (])~~<{1:::,o~S .c al = <C,~ c x - 1-(/):=u.""alWal I- Z UJ := := o o >- o z w CJ <( I- Z w. :EO :=z o o ..... (/)~ ~ >-- '-' ~(ij c<5t::<{L: ~.... (])cOoo:= .cu~ :2 - e- 0: >- (/) (/) 'co o .- (]) CU Q5 >- o ai al.c:= O)CU:!:: cu:!::Ol-cc:=(/) (])-c :J(])c<J) (/)'0.-......... (/):Jo (]) .... (/) .....- .clZ-g5i~CU(]).g I- 0 ai - o.S > -.....>-(/)0 uicoalC-U;>- >-.- 0.:= :J ~.... g CU'O <5 c l:::J ~(]) :=$ 0 2 ~-cc e' 5 '3.!; (]) 0'- m (]) ~m<{Sai<5(/)E o....<{,o'C_CU(]) 'Ou. c-'(U a...... {gc(])o~o'O,g cal.c>-CU....c>- (])~_ (]) O'co al:!::: ... - (/)_.0.... ~= '" ~ .- (]) - .0 .c 0 c al cu .c ~ .- -.~:J~c-olZ Call:: al al o.~ (]) 2..... (]) >-0)- al 0 ....0 >-c (]).... 0 (]) c 0 (]).- 0) 0 cu > 0.....1at::al-.... 0+== 0 (/) 8.E?;-,m <J)O(/)alo.cu(])cu ~2'2.....:J'O'(U(])>- .cu;CUO(/)(ij(/)c,al >-(]) ~ 0.'0::; O)(/):= ='O.c (]) ..._.!; (]) c CUc 0~00'O:J 0'- <J) c.o:J c.-.... .t: '0 .c 0 cu ~ cu > (]) .B(])-Oo.(/).ce.c .SQ~ ~ (]) al O)C 0.:::: .c:J.-.coc(])oo _(/)E-<J)'N(/)(/)O _ ~.- c.o'- (]) as .c al ,,,.!; 0) _ E '0 (/) ~ > E'(jj 3'c'(jj m Q5 :;;::cuo(])E'E-~""> .......c_'O .....alO <5as-ot -+==co '05iCUo.. (]) _ E -~ t:: ....o(])CUO 'S a. '0 (]) e- g <5 (]) S 'co ....(])g-(]) .SQ (/) '0 0 S m.!; (/) 0) <( ~_.2.!; -....o-(/) ~.!; c.~ :J >-= ,m .~ (]) 'S:'3: ~ E .c+==_....~ -Ooalcu _CU<J).c.... cu >-'0 0 ~ "0 ~ c.. (ij 'co .~'O<{ 5 c e 00 +== ~ o.(/)o:al.... (/) ....:J _~(])~o 5i'2.c0~ Eall-<J)- (]) 0) .c.... >~ui-,g e_cQ5'O o.(/)(])-(]) ECE(ij(/) .- :8 <J) .... ~ <(~~o>. oo(]).... -Q5 0: 0. o.?;-_ o E'- cu '0 t:: .- ~ (/) (]) 0 t:: a. ,SQ ~o.o~- o.'~ 0. 0 o al.~ (])'~ ...._cu(/)o o.C(])alo. (])....(]) <J)l:::Jo(]) ~ 5:2.!; ~ 5$.... .~(/)o. e-~ 0 -c <J) ~ ai (]) L: ._ (/) (/) (])~_"5'O (/) cu(])(])....~'OE.=!(]) (])(/)~::;cc:Jg<5 sma. 0 .- al 0'- E 0) - ::; i::>> (/) (/) '0 .SQ co.. o.c m ~c.c 5 :g . >-:0 cu >- cu I- as (/)....:J<J)-~ 'E occuoo~-- _0'0 CCU"'c>- (/):e c.!;.- 0 'Oc (]) cu CU~O_'O"" EE := :J ~ ~ ~'co 8 c (]) ~ (/) 'o~ cu c (]) e t5 (/)............ 0.'- (/).-.- o <( (]) 0.'0 <J) (ij >.c e- <( S .c''E g> +== 5i := ..: :Ju.O:!:::CUCUCo.!!2o a. >- := .c (]) .- (]) .0 'Os C'O ~oO<<1(/) lij (])':;:al<J):!::: _o.:Jm.c ~>'O_0(/)00" ~ (]) c.~ ~ 0)_ al > ~ (/) Oc cu 00 _.!; (/) (]) .B (/) '" '0 .- .c ..... .~ m lZ ~ c S - (/) (]) ~a.oal(])~-.B5S '0 E e- (/) 0)'0 0 (/) +== C .... 0 :J - C C C _ 0.- a. 0 a. '$ m cu:8 ~ ~ .2 (])O(/)C(/)(/)CUo.c:l= ~:E:S~ ~:g~.5 8~ w o o <( 00 ::> "OC\I $0 ttlO "OC\I =0. ttI..- Eo W"- ,.- c >-<c CU(])OO (/)~o: "O(])'O .~S (]) e_(/) o.CU8. -(/)0 (/)c.... CUoo. 0._ ~ ai (]) O.....c u.(])- a. _ alO:; ~~ 0 <{al.c '- ;!::: (ij~:= c'- ._ cu .... E'O 0 Q5C.c I-al:!::: <{!B:= <( c - u.(])< (]) E ~- .c(]) _c _ cu_ ?;-a. .- c t:: .~ (]) 0 - a. 0........ cu (])'- t:: 0) <{ oc- o.<J)al ....(/)C .- (/) 0 cu CU.- o.ai .B c c ..... (/).- (]) '2(])C CU(/)-+ol O)al_O ~ ~ m'~ co;:> .... _ .!; > a. ClO ..- '5 CD Cl ttI Q. 8 "0 i- ttI E E ::l (J) C CD E E o () <( ~ "0 ::l ti5 ~ :0 'en as CD lL <( (J) a: ,;::; Ul CD := >- CD ll<: .,,-: ..., ~ ~~ ~~ 000 ~~ 10-0410-04 00=< ~=~ CfJt;j~ 51~9 O<~ u~~ ~<~ u~~ ~~2S ~t:~ <<00 ~~ j~ ~ I- Z w :E :E o o > o Z w CJ c:r: I- Z w. :!EO :!EZ o o w en Z o D- en w a: .~ c CD .... .;;; Ul 0 w<<l-CD EOUl.c CD >. "E :: .... .0 <<l <<l .9d>-g= . -Ul<<lCD~ "O<<l_>CD CD OCl) o(ij ~<<loi5..Ul a.C-;;C'O EOo<<l_ a. .- 0 CD CD -<(. Cii .... ~ Ul 00_ .- LL :;::: Ul CD ~O'5C- CD-O &,.0 .c<<l::!:Ula 'O~Ot:=CD 0....<(-00 CD Ul e- 0 - CD - .- <<l i....~<<lc :;:::LL::JCD<<l +== - C".c Ul COCD-CD CD .~ .... Ul"O "0 .0 .... <<l.- '- 0 CD 0) > 55 >.:2 c ~ CD<<l~.Q .o3:0Ul5 - c 0 <<l.- CD::J=UlCii >. 0:: 'S; <<l 0 ~CD~~:E <<l=<(<("8 .cCLLCDE !9:2CD~"O O=::.cLLCD .~ 3: - _ Ul .0 CD u)"00 o 0 .- CD a. o~mEE z a..c0 a. C\I ~g CD ~"E gC\l~c <<l~{g-g ~'>"':"O'~ 0 ~ 0 ~ <<l 'E "0 .... CD .- "0 ~ - C - CD <( CD .~ <<l !9 "5 +== Cf 0 Ul 0 0 .c <<l E 0 0 C .c ._ CD CD - .9 3: CD .~ 3: 0 ::J '0 g....I'-O.........c_OUl<<l <<l m CDO O-@ 0 <<l<(.c a. - '> 0)"0"0 .... CD =: 0 E Ul:>C"''''<<l"O <<l0 E 0 <<l~.l!::"O <<l'::: Ui CD 0 ~ '8-<3 {g :a ~ ~ t ~ g> cD .!::- .o-c....c.-"O o Ul .~ CD E ~ <<l 'cu += ~ ~ >':2 C g>CD <<l E 0 c.... 0) c-O<<l.cc _oa..... <<l C'-.c_.Q 0"0 0 E 0 .... 0 Cii 0 0 Ul _ (ij (ij .;: - ~~~CD255~~"5.E~ 5 ~:s~ ~.s~.c.g ~ (ij ...:""OE . Ul"OC<<lU>-g CD'5"O~"O CD_ CD >.~ <<l :2 (!) <(.- (ij.c 0 Cii 0 C (;) UlC C Cl)Q) "0 I- CD CD Ul .... = o co.... '- CD o 0.-a <<l 0 C 04:;:!::: <<l o"OCii.....-"OCD_"-'<<lUl - l;:;.- '- Ul.... Ul.c<( ,,,~ O"'>O<(<<lCDo) ~.... C "0 <( e. "0.....- CD .0 CD Ul C_"_CI) C a.E~ <<l E CD~~oq:~!9~Cii ~:!:: o CDC") Ul_.c= 0= "0<("0..-.. c-- . <<l- <(CI)CD I O)OjOUlCD....C: <( 0:: LL g .~ 'Ci) Ul C ~ ~ ::J i- LL_ CDC") 0 CD ~.Q't::(ij~= CD o=!Q="O-=i5 ~_.!:::C .c C >. 0 .E t:= "E C __ 0 ::J '5 -0.010 O<<lo.....cC"c ....- +== ..- (I) a. 0) 0 <<l 0 CD <<l CD <<l "0 .... .c .!:: (I) 3: ._ .... .... > .g ~ ~ -;; <<l .:: ~ C Cii .!!2 :: CD'_'_::J CD.... 0 <<l::J::J<( 0 3:"0>0 CDCD-....- CD o 0 E.!:: Cii .c - :i CD ~ CI) :0' J: E a.U (;) '0 (j) Ul = CD 0:: 0 .... <<l_ ~ 0 "0 oC_"5 <(UlOo <(~CD3: LL"OEUl CD_<<lC .cCCO -<<l"O+== o.Q C g 'ECi<<l.... .- C. C (;) Ul<<lO.o C (1)+== 0 (I).c <<l CD E-gUl .c.c-CD o.Q >. = <<l .c .c >. o 3: -.c OUl"O,> cO)~:> . CD C 0 CD.~ CD '5 E Cii <<l .c=CD(;)E -::J.... CD >..0 CD CD .... :PCD>UlO C-<<l<<l- CD~.c~"O "0.- 0 a.. CD .- 0.- 3: CD_"O":O UlCDCCD= <<lCCDC<<l ~o-3:CD a.. N.~ o.c w o U <( CI) ::::> "OC\l .!o alO "O~ =0 ca~ Eo w~ C\I 'O"Eci >'<<lCl) ;!:"OO:: :c~- <<l _ <<l OUlC +== <<l.Q o :!:: <<l-"O ....0"0 C.2<<l CD(;)CD =c"O 0'- 'Oo~ cO.... 0- c. +==CDO <<l-- c.cUl .- <<l CD E.Q> L... ~.- CDOCii -~c CD a. .... "O_CD <<l0:!::: CDc<<l ~Ul"" <<l'- CD E=::= _0 "0-_ C .<<l <<l <( Ul CDCI)~ -0::0 ~"O.Q -....c ~<<lCD CD"O.c C_ -<<l~ Ul_ ::JUl E<<lLL <( OJ CD <(.~ = LL"O _ .- <( CD~CI) ~ i5.. 0:: c>. ~:8a; 'L: ~ (ij 0._ Ul O)Ul.o .... cCDE~ .- "0 0 .- (;)"OoE ~ C C 'Ci) .... <<l._ <<l <(Ul"O Ul '0 CD CD> -OUl '~.c ::J.~ (l)UlCD.c -.....co <<lCD_<<l ::!:>.co .... 0 0)- CD .-- ",':::Eo ....<<l CD .~ 0 CD '0' O)....Ul.... c'cu ~ a. W3:-"O lZ.Q'O~ ::J Ul C'E go>. .- ._ - .c C "0 Ul 3: .- CD E .... E . UlCDO<<lO m (;) >..c - _ >..c =:: ~ o..CI)3:3:~ w o U <( CI) ::::> C o +== <<l o o 0t ~O ~.g. c<<l ....>. CD.... :!:::CD <<l> .... CD . CD_!9 .c<<lUl 'O~g .c.o.... ......-.- '- Ul <<l 3:<<la. 0) CD CD c- .... o CD "0 -.oc <<l _ <<l "0 0 _ CDCCD .... >. 0 CD<<lC :2E<<l Ul C C....CD OO'E o >.._ c<<l<<l .Q E E a.EC o CD.Q C-- <<l ~~ CDUl<<l .oCD(;) >.;:; .~ <<l -c E(j)o CI)>"O <(~CD :2:om W.c.o iC\l _0 alO 'C~ =0 ca~ Eo w~ ("tj Ul = c.!:: Q; ~ <<l CD .~ ::JUl.c(ij .Q.- - C . t:= Ul 0) 0 <( <<l'- c.-- a..c t: g>~ <<ll-(I)....~ O)ci ~ .9 ~ .~ CI) 00 C _ -cr: 0- <<l (1)'- <<l .~ CD .... f!? X E .c <<l CD .- =':::Ul>E CDO(j)5- -.c'-o(l) <<l_~ CD .cO)tUUl;;:: ::CO:2ij o CD -= I- '- <<l - '"~ 0 -~50Q; ~ - '0, a. E -CD(I)EE CDO....a.O Cii-5>'Oo ~CDc-eCD Ul....EtU::J.c ::J>. __ == ~ CD '0 .~ .9.Q g ::J CD 'E Cii 'Ci) ~ g> tUEcctU CD 0 o.-.c E"5+=!9O UltU~CD(I) tU '0 ~ == 3: C 'Ci) ~ >. -"OCo.c 55 - 0'-"0 E5og>CD E3:'E~g O.:::~_~ 0~0!9'> ~ec.CD(I) I-'cu.s ~.!!2 :2. _"0 0) CD C Ul CD::J ~~ ;=:'(1) CD 3: cUl 0(1) NC .... tU tU- (l)c. OlD"": CD=c .c<<lCD -EE :2Ul,$ tU:!::: <<l UlCD(;) <(EUl <( .- LL<<l.c Ul- c6CD'E CI)=CD O::cE ::J 'cu ~ -Eo ~CD"O CD .... CD ="OUl (I) - <<l .c::JCD 0_ :=.3:0.. w o U <( CI) ::J "OC\l .!O alO 'C~ =0 ca~ Eo w~ o::i CD = Ul .- CD "0 .c.cc O-<<l :2Ciiu 3:UlCD ;:::5= ~+==o e~'E 'cu ~;; (ij0J)i! 0- E~~ o2~oo _Ul ro ~ ~ t:=O(l)'O Oo.c C\l a. 10::: CD .!::- ~ 0) <<l Ul C al <<l'- a.. CDCD~ =-CD C Cii Ul o 0)'::: "Oc~ CD'- 0 Ul ;u.!:: ro.c <<l .c_Ul Ul-- .- ~.~ .~ e (ij ~'cu 5 .... O)'r;. o.~ 0)' C"O .... .Ql C CD Ulro.c CDEI- "0(1) t::"O . o t:= c. (;) ~ '-o~ ~ E'cu Q 8 "0 ~ ca E E ;:] (J) "E CD E E o () <( ~ "0 ;:] en ~ :0 'iij ca CD u. <( (J) a: ~ '" CD ~ >. Q) ~ ...., ~ !5~ ~~ 000 ~~ ..... ..... 00=3< ~=~ ~;j< <z t:8 o<~ u~< ~<~ ~~~ ~~..... ~t:~ <<00 ~~ <~ ~~ ~ w en Z o D. en w a: ~U -E~ Cf)'O 3:(]) 0.... s:::.'- Cf) :J _0' CU (]) :J .... C.!a CU"O E C c: (]) .~ >- Cl)CU Q) 3: Qc 1:::2 Os:::. e.o '- CU <:((]) ~-g u..g. Q) (]) s:::.,C I-s:::. - . 0) Cf) C .92 (]) ....- o~ 0)0 (])o ~q o or- s:::."O OC CU CU Os:::."'; ....-- a."O CU a..- .... cu3:~ (]) (:) '(i1 coo SQLO a.(])"O .: s:::. C CU_CU I- Z w :E :E o o >- o Z w C) <C I- Z w. :EO :Ez o o 3: o 05 ,C "0 (]) "0 'S;: o .... a. .!a ~ ~ (]) s:::. - - '0 C cu .... '0 C CU . >-~ cu-- 3::; S:~ .... 0 ~z - oeD s:::.~ ~E (])CU ~"O iij~ ue 'iij '(i1 (])E s:::.0) 1-00 r:..: ('1)>- "'cu I 3: CCc CU:J '0.... .;:: (]) os:::. -- u.._ ....0 <i:"O I~ CJ) - ",Cf) O>(]) or-3: (]) s:::. - ~ Cf) C o 'en .... :J ~ (]) >- CU 3: C :J .... - Cf) cu a. C o C o ~ E o - .E .... cu Q) Q)~ C '0 >- ccu (]) 3: "OC (]):J 0.... c- Q)o .;:: "0 Q)C a.(]) x_ (])Cf) _cu OQ) =C a.o Q)- s:::.c I-Q) E -(]) (])> ~cu >a.. .;:: Q) Cf) e:,s:::. .~ - .... 0> =.a _(])C Cf) - .- CU = 0 ~ez .lll: ~ . en '(i1 "0 cuQ)(]) cs:::.t Cf) I- 0 Cf) a. (]) . (]) uCf).... I E ~ t\I~cu oo,CE CJ)ecu or- a. "0 >- cu 3: C :J a: o - 0) C '5 C SQ t o s:::. Cf) cu Q) '0 cu E - ..Q '0. Q) s:::. I- r..: t\I '" coeD Cf)0) Q)CU .!: E ;::cu :(("0 ciij .... .... .$~ ~'(i1 w.... \g O>~ 00 CJ) . or- 0> - - cu ~o '(i1 .!: Q)~ s:::. -:>. ~cu s:::.3: 3: 5 '0.... ~'O (])'O a.c o (]) ....- g~ "O(]) (]):::: 0)0 CU'O O)(]) O)-a; . cu>Cf) ,C cu.92 Q)........ .c :: .2- t- 1U .!: "00 ~.:z .q- CU . cuQ)'O cs:::.~ ~ I- 0 (]) .a. U r; ~ .: 3: Q) <(cO) (])2cu a.(])E cu s:::. cu U-'O ~5~ Cf).... CJ)cu~ ~ 3:'(i1 Q) Cf) 0_.... (ij Cf)~,gcu Q) - (]).... :-E- >- 0 0) :; ~ .- OCf) Co,CCf) ...:CUOCU(]) ~ ~ c;.c 0 = '0 U):J00(])~:J SQ~o~o>cuo Q) Q).E cu = .!a ~ ==g.$Q)15.e- .!: ~- S -g:c ~ ~E.9 ~o 3:'E tQ).$U)~>-.c 0:2 C cu a. 0'1 0 a. (]) (]) ~ 0 ..Q .- (])U):2a..-0~ ....CUo Q)C> ~ ~.!: ...: g 15 '0 (])o..Q)e-(])~ 3: .c.... a._ (ij . - Q) C >-- .$~Q)C(])C~ o a.~ CU.lll:. CU._ ,g.:-a;ES.$c U)cu....:JQ)cu(]) ....~'O.c >05 (]) . (]) C ~CU.....oU) > cuo>.cL.:"OC o(])Q)s:::..coc(]) ....,... -0::::' "0 :J -= ~ cu .- -0 U)'- o_s:::.(]).cccuo u.. cu _ == 3: cu.c.!: w o U <( en => iC\l ....0 alO "OC\I =0 al~ Eo w~ LO >- CU E'O (]) >-c s:::. Q)O - .c .- - Q) _~co Q)c(]):J o .- ~ "0 c,C....(]) .- Eo..... Cf) 0 U)Ro-...; C""-U)- o >- >-.- cu .- C 0) <( 0 ~ cu ..Q en .: 5oga:cu x'::'.c'O.9 Q)(])O(])Q) >-.c .$ ~ 0) ~~oa.cuE cQ)co 2 ~ ~ a.~ cO~~Q) .Q) cD" .... - .~ Cf)....:;'OE (]) :J 0 .- "0 ~ Cf) Q) .!: .c - .- ~ E g>CiS ~ e- 0 e.Q~:J; .c~_a.c -.c -Q)CU *gg~~ CEU) .- 'E...:U)~'O =0<(0U) Q).... --U) oo>c;;-~..Q ............'-~'- 3g.9~.E .Q a. g Q) CiS :::: Q) - >-.- .- > cu - "O_Q)""c(]) U)0Cf)> .- > Q) C 0 ::: .!: = 2 a. - _ C -CQ) OOU) (]).- (]) "O~ .... ........a. a.Q)U) c:2'O o U) C +:;Co cuOo. .Q) 0 _ --- .- C cu EcuCf) cutQ) ....o.c o a.- -E~ (]) .- s:::. U)C- :JCU"O ....U)o 0.- 0 - -- Q) - Cf) U) .... -Q)(]) ~3:"O :t:: C :J >- :J U)(])U) '0 ~.- cc~ CUo...: -"O(]) oc.c .lll:CUt o-:J SQ'Ou.. ~.$:>' 1-0"0 cu:J ....- . _ U) . 'O(])>-~ .$ O)~ ~ g~p-~ _>-U).c C=CU(]) (])cuQ)..... E '0 - 0- E (]) ~ 'c o a._ :J U ~ .!: cu ~U)~ -6om Ccu(]) .2 ~= . ~ .- - Q) (:007)5 Q)~~.... U) .- - (]) ,C'O:Cs:::. o'Ocuo U) s:::. C bC(])CU ~.2 :J _ ,0:::; ~ .2' cu :c.:: o)C'O u..:e:JQ) enE(])~ Q)Q)~,g .cs:::. a. .......... . Q) cn"""c'- ~.E3:(]) a.U)0,C a.(])c- :J+:;.lll:0 U)'- >- C U)S+->- a.t C cu oo~E Ua.:;U) a.o"O Q)oQ)c s:::.o....o I-cCUo. w o U <( en => "OC\I .so alO "OC\I ='0 al~ E-- ,0 w~ cO >- ~ U; .a::: cu 0.... O>~~&~ C'lo-LOE c--.q-(]) Q)Q)cu.q-~ ~1-s:::.=0Q) cu Cf)-en 0. .Q)Q)_ ....g~~o ~o.Q~.$ Eo-goo :J 00 .- .!: Jg ct\I.$ocu Q)~cu-Q) .cQ)"O"O.c -~a.Q)-a:> ~E:Jo.c~ ~._C(])OO :,::;"xSQ~,C (") Cf) e a. Q)"o GI co..... Q) 5l' Q) a. (]).!a .... a. ECU0Cf)~ Q) U) cu C .- c~EQ)~ SQ O)Eo o.or-cQ)o co'oc- Q) ~ O)SQ ~ CDc5a.0 0).- cQ) ~ c-(]) 0 ~~=CD-; Cf) 5- - 0'1.- cuwoc.c a._t Q)I- _CUCU~ . 0= o.cuor- 0> e Cf) o.~ 'cocu'Ot\I E':"O .... :Jcu~o>cu c '0 cu,c 9? .... a.E .,.. ~cu(]) (]) I-,g a.~= ...: cu Cf) ~ .- .... U)=_ ~ (]) ..... 0 _ ... > ...., Q) C.lll: .92 .!: .: Q) 0 05'E"Ot:o ,Ccuc:J('I) Cf)O)cuoo a.Q)=Q)- ........ .c.lll: OCf)~-o UooCf)O Q) CU.;:: "0 t\I .c EO. (]) ~ C _ U) _ (]) Cf) .- (]) U) Q) O~oCD~ cu .- E"O (]) a.~ C,C 8 .5 :; ~ ~ Q) "0 - E (ij a.'c ~ O:J+:;....O al ~OCo- E 'C'O.$UCiS E oCa.oQ)o~ _as .c_ c>-Q)I-(])....c 0........ ;::.GI .- cu cu ui ~, E :g-goo ~ g "OoQ)CUU)() cu 0'0' 0. U) <( E ~ a..5 ~ ~ "0 :3 Ci5 ~ :0 In as GI u. <( en a: -.:: en Ql == ~ ~ -- -'-j w o U <( en :J "OC\I .so alO "OC\I =0 as~ Eo w~ " > 8~ ~~ 000 ~~ ~~ 00=3< ~es~ ~oo~ <0 t:~ o<~ u~~ ><1Jil u>~ ~~~ ~t:~ <<00 ~~ <> ~~ ~ w en Z o a. en w a: .... Q) .... .00 ....EQ) .E~~ (ij "0 .~ +::$al c:(/)..... Q)alO '00.... a.~a5 Q).EE ;;Q)a. Cl.c: .Q .!; I- ~ "0 . <D ::Jal"O (3.0.... c:::JCI) .- 0 .c: tf;;5 <D'- ..... 3::=c: >-(/)0 <DC: a. ~.Q ::J 0]i'E -<DQ) <D...."Ot::: ::J0C:0 .!2'~ ~ e- 5 E~'(ij (/) .Q _ <D ....a.o.c: .9'OC:::: ~..... (/) al _ 0';;; (/) (/)--<D _c:c:+:: '" CI) CI) = = E E'o <D.c: <D al :=(/)c:- (/) = al <D al c'iJ o.~ ....-c:(/) O(/)<D"O o~_c: C\I~oJ2 (/) o +:: (/) *- 15.;:: Oc:$ >-_ 0 (j)=al (ij:=(ij (/)<(.c: Q)(/)~ .c:a:al -::<Da o .c: .- -1-1ii "0 .... Q) .Q) .... ~ a. '500 O'e-Q) ~ '(ij -= (/)<D.... .- .c: CI) g~~ -- c: "- e.U) 0 a.::J>. 'E >-:t:: <D"o Ea5[ Cl)t::al >::JO OO<D a.;::: (/) Ealal ....<D .- 0.... <(.~ g (/) al._ a:"O ~ c:"O "OalC: . <D(/)Eal~ (/).... 0 o<D<Da. g. 01"0 .~ ....c:<Dal a.<DoCl) <D(/)::J.c: .c:(/)"O- I- [.!; '0 01 c: .... 'S;: Q) o.cQ5 g>>- ~~;; <D alE ~.-: e 0 ~ CI) 'E 01"0 al-.c:<D:;:'C: a.a5I-Ea5~ .~ E cD a E (ij .c:c:........a..... -.... ::J.- 0 0 Q)CI)'5>_o ^>.....c:<D"O ~o CI)>c: ::JClCl)OCl)al-o o c: .c: .- "0 Q) "Oal~1ii..:~(/) >-.0.- ::J c: al (/) al::JoO'<D....<D EO;: al.2 01-0 C:<Dal<D=m"O .Q ;; -= -= ~ (/) al (/) C:'~ 0 0 c: ~ C:._al- ._~ [CI) <D J!3 E ~32 xCl(/)al2c:::J Q)c:m~"O'Oo ~jg 0;; ~c:~ ooc:_ ::J(/) e- <( .- .~ ~ e CI) '(ij . Q5 c S OlE -.c:<D--> <Dal~_<Dal+:: ~ B 2 &;; .8 ~ I- Z w :E :E o o > o Z w CJ <C I- Z w. :EO :EZ o o CI)~J!3 .c:O>CI)o =T-~C: al c: al <D .c:'- E > -(/) al "O(/).c:.c: $ ~ .2 (/) o Cl.c: - C:C::=a5 Cl)OQ)E .oO(/) (/)oE 32Q)OCl)cD ::J1ii.c:>(/) 0_00::J .c: (/) 0 01_ (/) "0 - - (/) :t::<D<D~::J ~:t::~oE oc:.....- a.:J Q)"O m ~ CI) (ij fa .!; c:;;(/)<(:!: o>-~<(al ;;.o'Eu.~ al "0._ CI) 0 (ij $ al.c: a. :i!: al c I- .~ ::J 0 . al '5 g>~ E-5 CI) .... en 0 .- (/) Q) ._ -= .c: ::J"O 01 CI) := Q) (/) ~ 1ii >- .c:~(/)....:= - >.- Q) 0 o 2:';; a. ~ ::....00U) ~~:::.90 a."O ::J.c: ;, m.!; m.~."!:: ....Q)....:=o .c: .!; al >-.c: :t::-,::(/)Q)'5 3: '(ij <(;; al >- ~ (/) :0 a 'u) .- al ~:t:: CI) ::JE'; 0Q5.c: .~ a.- "0"0$ "Oc:al c: al ::J al(/)(ij m.!!2 ~ (/)"0 0 ~2- al(/)(/) c: <( .- ala. "0 (/) w c: ~zjg ~c1ii C:Q)>- ....::J"O $ O'::J (ij~Ui< "O.oQ)(/) ~~-=a: ,S >- -0 "E <DC: al "OalQ)"O -c:a.c: al.-oal .c:"Oo- -<D(/)(/) "OE<Dal $.....c:Cl ool-c: c: 't: . +:: Q)Q)(/)C: .0 a. c: Q) "0 <D.Q E -.o1ii~ ::J "0 0 a. ,g'S=E (/) 0 8::;: ::::=alO c: OQ) c:a. <D~g. .c:-.c: -0= g> ~ '3: .- <( ~ 1ii o '.c: ~~3: .;;; Q5 . CI):2"O .~ ~~ 1ii0,S r:::oCl) Q5Q)"O -.0 CI) ('0. (ij "0.0 "0 .....'S"O~ OO-(/) .!a .c: 5 .!a (/)(/).c:- ~~(/)o alooC: c: a..- (/) al.~ (ij'- Q) <( c: ."!:: a>c:Q)E -OOCl) a..c: (/) E_c:a. oalO<D O....+::.c: alo- <(:i!:al:= w o o <( (/) :::> "'0(\/ ~o alO "'0(\/ =0 al~ Eo w~ 00 .!a <( ~~ Q)E .c:"O -"0 1iial <(~ (/) .- a:~ .... "00. .... alO "0- c: (/) al c: Ui.Q ala. 010 .!; Q5 "O.c: 'S;: 15 0..... 0..0 1iia ;;~ ~~ ll.'U) . <DC:"O .c:o$ -Oal >-c:::J .o<D(ij ~;;~ .!; ~ Q) E.o.o ....al"O $~S Cl)oo "Oal:= .!a a. <( ."!:: 15 (/) :=c:a: Cl)c .c:o -.- - c: al .- 01 f1J+::i <D'- '5 E <D- 1ii0 .... (/) -"0 (/)0 c: .c: 0- .- Q) 1iiE .2> Q) :t::::o Eal - 0 al+:: ::JO a.~ Q)a. 0>- c:_ 0.0 Oal _C: 00 c:(/) oal .- Q) - .... al .... .2<D al"O . >.- c: <D(/)o C:._ Cl)o:t:: .c: O.!a 1-=5- . := 0 "0 >- al $"0"0 0::Jc: C:Uial c>-~ Q)~c: E:O'O E'- ::J ogJo o ~.!; <D .c: -- . >-c:_c: .....<Dc:o ~Eal+:: ~ <D.2 ~ (/)00.0 0C:a.- a.alal(/) o.c: ~ ....c:Q).... a.<D;; 0 c: ~ ..... o c: "."0 +:: .Q J!3 c: al-Oal Clalal- .- <D a...... :t::....EO E ~._ c: 'Oal"O~ > Q)'- (/) o.....!a ~ E '5 ::J ::::..<D....O' +'0".... 0 0 <D .2 :::. ~ .c:-C:<D -00"0 o ~._.- --1ii~ a..:oo .- c: - 0 ."!:: al (/)"0 "OoCl)_ "O=....::J al a."O 0 c: a. c: .c: -alal(/) w o o <( (/) :J ~(\/ ...0 alO "'0 (\/ ==0 as~ E-- ,0 w~ cri Q) 0 ~ CI) ~ (/) G: J2 ;; =<D ~ :c I- ::J(/)<Da.l- a: E-.....E (/)w ::J m "0 al ....: >-~ .Q ::J al x <DCl3:::::;ll. c:-O'a.CI) ..I... _lDE....c:al"O w_ O<D"Oc: -g (/) .~ ll. ~.t:: ::J oe-~ .aloll. ~ 0 ::J a a.U: Ui (/) 0 "';? +:: ....<D CI) ::J .....<DCUal .c:.... o.c: - N a._ I- c:1-~~m.9a .Q . <D ::J - "0 +:: 1ii~~c:g>Q)~ 8 01-- O._~ 0"'0 +:: c: al e?"O > -(/) ,.:. .- Q) .... CI) c: 0 :0" E ~ ~ a.J2 a.~ E .........-...."OQ) E .Ea.~CI)c:.o(ij ::l -(/)oa.al c(l) ~~oal~32Q) "E O>-C:al::JE ~ a.J!3 fa OUi 8 c: E eoo"Oo....o 0 a.[=a.~q~.5 0 OEa.al....Oc: Z .- al.o Y.l- "0 W I "'0 ::l Ci5 ~ :is '(i; as Q) u. <( (I) II: ~ CIl Q) ~ >- Q) ~ .:..; CI) c:.c: 0- +=16 ~(/) Eo E[ -E 0._ c: .... 0<D .- .c: 1ii- ::J 0 - "0 alc: ~al <D(/) .c:"O _c: (/)J2 <D- "O<D ::J := (3(/) c: (/) .- 0 >-- "OQ) ::J.c: -- (/)- >-CI) -(/) :515 'u) 0 al- Q) <D ;~ ;;'aj -> o al . Q) <D a.(/):t:: 0.!!2 (/) o 01- (/) CI) 0 _CI) <D al .~ .c:....o I-Uia. w o o <( (/) :J a5M .c:r--Q) :=~;; en.!; x (t) <D ,S....:= "0100 ro.... Cl)c:I .c:0 "OU~ Cl)Q)_ ~(/)a5 o 'E .0 Q) ~ crj 0. co .9::iE~ ~ o>'CD 15 a.~.o -: .:.... (5 0) al.:i. c: 8? "OxC: <Dalal 21- 0 al "0 CI) .oal~ (/) Q) .... ~:li= ~ .....- ::J Cl-~ c: c: 0<( O]!; (/)Q)al Q)"O CI) 1iiCl).c: Ci5~rc "O.c:(/) <D - 0 'E~g ::J~c <DalCl) .c: a..c: 1-:t::1- ~(\/ ...0 alO "'O~ =0 as~ Eo w~ ci ~ ~~ ~~ 000 ~~ ~~ 00=3< ~=~ z~< ~ooz <0 f:~ O<~ u~~ ~<~ ~~~ ~~~ ~f:~ <<00 ~~ <~ ~~ ~ w en Z o a. en w a:: o - -0 g. 10' ~:;::~(;a. ttl~~3:-0 E-.- '0- o~(I)(I)2:' eoE.oaittl -'0 (I) 00 C/) C/)1::.c;0C/) "ittl+:>~~ (1)'0 (I) ttl C/)(I) 0(1) C/).c(l) I:: e~~:2'E(I) a.a.C/):JoE O)E:coE:;:: I:: .- - 3: - "0 (I) I:: _ U 0 :J.o-C/)lL..c 0) I:: . 0 a.. '5> I::ttl1::ttl(l)1:: .- 0 0 a..c (I) -g U .g..~ I- a; ,2lL. ttl ~..;.c .... a.. I:: t.." C/) - Oct ttlttl 0"" - _-g0.E ~-=-ttlO-'O au.$~~2 0) lL. 0 .....~ 0 =0.. (l)C/)e(l) (I) -'0''0 0.= (1)(1).... _0 .0 0) a. I:: ttl 0 >.ns (I).Qo (I) ttl.c:cai-.o E U'- 0) ttl >. .2>:;:: (I) C g .~aq:~ -g 0 .- - - '0 ai'o (I) 0) (3":::;; . O)ttl~I::I::...I- '- lL. ~ 'C .- 0 0 :+-'E- .... 0 :J '0 3:.!!t (I).!!2(3~l::e -0 0) '0 I:: 0 a. (I) I:: .....- '0 .- ....(I)O-(I)ai(l) .- C/) - 1:: I:: O).c :J C/) >.0;;:::;::- O'ttl ttl:::: (1)'-"" l!? a.. a. (I) '0 E.E t- Z w :E :E o (.) 'Ottl>: .... 1::'0.... .... '0 - ttl.- ttl C/) > I:: (I) ....0:J ttl .... I:: 0 ttlC/)(I)-o.... ttl(l)oC/).o ..!..:JlL.I::(I)(I)....>.o~ttl -g'O.2" (I) ttlai ~ 0 0:J 0 (I)~.$ ttlO s.cen 3: a.ns 1::-g:J.c-o +-- -(I) -0(1) 0"" C/)-_ttl (I) '0 (I) '0 I:: n; .... >.:;::;........ - (j) 0 a. 3: (I) .c .-.... a. ttl (I) I:: -0 I:: E C/) - C/) ns 0-0 (j);;:::.c ttl._ 0-- (I):J 0 E-.::= 0- 0.1::-.2 C/):;::; (I) ai -(I)..:::.:J "->.:t::l::ttl> (1):2 C/) _ - C/) 0 (I) .....0 I:: 0 0):;:: ....:J 0 ~ttl'O 3: C/).E.... 0)0:;::; ttl o 0 ttl C/) I:: (I) C/) ttl _ (1)'0 (I) 'E- :; '0 3: a. .Q .0 a. l!? I:: - C/) E I:: C/) En;~ C/).... 0 :J.!!2~ ttl.... - 0'" C/)ol:: 01::"" (l)0:J ''''O'-.-z ttlU.- 0'- >0.. - 0..; cDS ~ g>(I) 0,(1)'0 0 E.~ C/)'O 0 .... _ .- -.c ttl.c (I) ttl 'O.c . E 1::.(1) "* (I)~ 8:--. (l)1-:;::,g : ~ ~.!!2 ttl 2' (I).c:J (I) (I) C/) . ~ (1)'-'0 ttl I:: ~a. .... I- E '0 -g en ~ '0 C/) lL.1- ttl ~~ ttl (I) cDui:JI::-'O(I)l::ttl .c_0'O.c 0(1) 0 ttl g I:: _'Q) l!?a: C/) 0 (I) g:;; I:: ~ -0 C/) .- .s! .$ 0 0 W ttl (j) E 0 _ jg:J ~ai (I)'Q) ~'c.6:rf.c.o (I) (I)'~ I:: 0 .t ~ 3:.~ a. (I) '0 E C/) C/) '0 (I) ~ ~~.cn; e (j) ~~ ~:J 8.1:: (I) cD;U-o.cI-E ~E1::I-~: e ~Iii .!:: I:: I:: (I) . C/) _ :J.... ...,... a.;;::: 0 :J'-O=C/)(I)=C/)- '.~.... '-0 0' ns 0 ~ ~ l:: ttll:: ~ ~ g (I) '0 B, C/) ~ E gL~ ~ 2 fr 8 ~:;::; en ~ ~'0 ~ >- (.) Z W CJ <C I- Z w. :EO :EZ o (.) (1)-0 '01:: .2ttl gt:: .- 0 _ a. .~ .~ ~ (I) ._ .c ....- ttl_ I:: ttl (I) C/) 0_ C/)O I:: .!!t 00 .- .... aia. 0)1:: :;::0 'E 1a _ 0) 0;2 gE .- .... -0 ttl._ :J .... - a. ttll::ui ~O(l) 'Oo~ I:: (I) :J ttl::::o _(I)C/) I:: _ l!? (I) 0.... E I:: (I) a.oai .Q:;::3: (l)e_ > (I) I:: (I) '0 (I) '0.- 0 (I) ~.~ .c0'O I-ottl '0 C/) I:: I:: (I).Q (l)C/)ai '0 -;:.c(l) 0) (1)(1)_:;:: ~ ai (; 'E .- 3:- c...c '0 (; EC/)l!?::: 8 l!?'s ffi 0- 0'0 ttl-(I)a. 0....0 C/)ttl(l).... 5l!?.oa. 'S; ttl >. ttl (l)l::ttl.... o.ttlE~ !!l -g g '0 o ttl:;:: g ttlC/)ttloui a. (1).2> (I) (I) E~.tc/)o :::C/)Ettl:; ~g(ij~o '0':;:: I:: a.. ~ ,-cae .'- a.....:;::C/)(I) 0.- ttl C/) (l)Ci)'O (I) (I) ~l!?~ns-S w o U ct en ::> alC\l ...0 alO "0 C\I ==0 al~ E2> w~ ,.... ,.... (1)1:: -So .6: ~ '0.2 (1)- E~ ....ttl .g~ (l)E a.(j) (1)0. .0(1) 'O.c '5; ~ ~ C/) I:: .~ 0 '0 :;:: :J ttl -- C/) I:: -(I) ~E '0, ~ 00 0-0 ....- ~~ .cl:: '0 E(I) (I) =1:: ~e (1)'- OE: (I) .;ct ~o.. ow I::Z 1:: -0 (I) ui E(I)C/) E ~ ~ 0:J0 u8o. co ~ '0 III Ql C) al a. '0 I:: ttl >. 0) o oui -Om >..... .cttl 0) 0) I:: I:: ~:~ .- 0 ~'5' (I) ttl -So ,g~ C/)ttl 0:2 ttl :J 0.0 "~ 3: - (I) 0 '0(1) :J .~ _0 go. 'Q) ~ C/)- ttl 3: ~o o...c 8 "0 ~ al E E ::::J en 'E Ql E E o o <( ~ "0 ::::J en ~ :c 'w al Ql u.. <( en a: -.:: Ul Ql 3: >. Ql ~ -:-: ...., w o U ct en => "OC\I .so alO "O~ =0 al~ E-- ,0 w~ C\I ,.... ;>4 ~~ 000 ~~ ~~ 00=3< ~es~ ~CI)< <z t:9 o<E-ol u~~ ;>4<~ u;>4E-ol ~E-ol~ "'t:E-ol <<00 ~~ ~~ ~ - . en en - c -.- 0 o 0> >, .- c<l>c(ii .2 ~ CU ,g --co. CU en.- a. .2c'Ocu CUO<l>_ >.- -.- (iioE 0>::J.... lij .- '0 c~ca. :o::E8'O <l>lij<l>c =::J.ocu c a. '0 U) .- CD - - 'Oo::Jw CDCO~ Qio::W 'Ooen '0'0 0 ~ c_cu~ o co.:.:=- OCDEen CDE=:: .0 a.cu 0'-'- ="Q;E> ::>.$~ 'OCDO- c'Oa.~ cu'O_c '0 cO CDcucE (5.$~g cocu.... en CU ::J .;:; .- 0.- C EE~ CD .- CD - E'O'O c E.$~ ocu=O' o .9- S CD 0<1> en ~+=-'O.o I-~<C~ >,I '0 .... LL c ~W CU en= ~ en .!!l '0 lij ~ ~ 'oCULLen -0 <1>_ ~o~~.~ ~O<l>(ii() 0.0:0:: c.... 0>'0 en cD.. CD CD'- CU 0 '0 .... c CD 0> <C .t: .~ E +:; 5r::J CD CU .t: '0 I -ECD<C--oE -::<1>- - '0 CU en '0 CU a..-.t: () .!: 0 E '0 '0 en "5 >, en lij c CD CD 0 .CU cen.... 0 ,oen.... -E';::CU<l>CDC .;:;ogCl)() CUc,>.oO [eC;;:5~e~~~~<': a. _>,<(CU _en .CU~ Co CD 0>.0 CI) _ en en.$ CD ::J ._.t:c -OCD-CU>O --=(ii= > CU~ CU't::- CU - = _ 0 .~O 0;;:: .0 .t: E 0>- :is c .... .... - CU CU o ~ ~ CU ::J a. g>{g .t: I D.. - CD I ()O CU .- - LL '0 c CD -- .t: t:: W .- E 0 .t: _ - E ~ _ en o ~.!!l c Coo E 0 CU ;'g E~~;S 2'-:g ~<C~ c .-.- CU CD'- .t: en :=: .~ . '2~~E o>::~-g 0 o(iifr o .- 0 CD CU '0 .0 cu.o 0>:1:: "'== 00..~en~52+:;'E.$.o..::: ~ g.=o 8} ~.g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CI) LL :E z "CC\j CDO iijo ~~ ~~ CDO ...J~ - _0 o CU . _ a. c E:.:- CD-- E-en 0:: a.C<l> 00'- "Q;.- > >(ii~ CD::J- 'O-CU CU_ CD>C .t:CDCD ~'OE .- Q) c ~.- 0 ...- .... ~ '0';:; CD c '0= CD .- CU en-- c CD c 0'0 CD o <( 5- . CD- .0 'enen _en.oc =s:.~ ::J 0 ;> 0> en .- 'O.$>.~ c CU c._ CU~CUa. 'Oenca. C'- CU (5.2"i :t::::: c(iioE .!!l .2>::J Qi _:t:::::'O a. ~Eg'O E(ijoc ::Jcu E-.o- o a. CI) o CD '0- CDo:;W .t:co~ 1-8::w '0 C CU .... '0 CD ::J a. .t:g'05 :t::::::::~c, ::cu .t: ~~~jgE CU.t:-O::J '0 '0 :>. (!) C, gce<l> en CU 0>= - cu:a5==~:C en::::J>:: 'O::J- '0'0 CU .-:; C'O '-'0 a.cucf?cu enencu~'O '0 en cD a. c &e=cucu cuO>CCL: cCU en cu<l>>....a. E en.2..$ a. - _enCU ~ g? ~ CUE li5 lijE!;;.-c Qi 0>J!! 0 0 'Oc_o:=: CDCU~i3::J LLEa.enE CI) LL :E z "CC\j $g alC\j ~co CDC\j :a; 0 ...J~ C\i CD '0 ::J "0 .!: '0 :; o .t: en - c CD E en en en en CU C IO LL.+=- WCU CD E .t:o -- - c E'- ::JO> .5'~ .!: 0 E'a CU- - <C= '0 <l>c .ocu '0- -CI) ::J_ ow ::~ Ew . E en.-: en- ~~ en CD CU.- > I LL..... Wlij - cc <(CD .E 'OC CDO - .... 0'- c ~ en EE CD E::J <1>0' .!::: CD ::Jen 0'.0 . ~ ~~ E >, g CD c._ ECU(ii en.!:.2 en '0 0.. CD a. ~oCU CU ::J.'!:: I'OE LLc.... w8~ '0 CD __ ~C:- 0 CD -co en ~ >cut5 '0- '0 :s E ..c:'- ~ g ~ '" ~-_... -......CD C ::J ==:!:: .... CD CU uEcu- OCD CD c::J....>. c.t: ~ 0 {g .0 0 - .~ g-g~ ~ ~ g> '~I '0 CU - '0 ~ =0 .- LL Q) - :I: Q) ac Ca E w enCULLa. EO> 00 o::Jwen <1>-- a.:g c '0 '0.... '0 en E.~o<l> <cen-g~o a.-gc~ c~cuocu CD'- 0 0 0._. _ a. a. .s::. '-0 +=->IoE - CDo en cu_ LL .....- - = CU en .;:; ->,w 0._ O-CDCU <cg cg c O..c: '0 - CD c 0 '0 .2 .!!l:: 5 e 0> O:S .... -eno,,, CDcuc5a. .9->, - '00.-_ (; CU en en CD lij .-:t::::: - en c o.~ CD LL. Qi 0 E f? CD CU CU 0 0> CD '0 CU >. '0 c a.E ~~ .s::. CD c ~ <C <c._ en en I- LL = <C CU ""::C\i M ~ CI) LL ::;;: Z "CC\j ~g "C~ '-co ~~ CDO ...J~ ("t) - c E ~ en~ en'- <1>- en en en :: CUCD I';:; LL~ W- c~ <Cc CD 'E 'Oc .$0 O.!::: C > enc _CD c_ CD c ECD CD ::J ....0'. .- CD- ::Jenen O'.cc ~::JO en.- E >, (ii CDcO ECU= encl5: en.- CU CD'O_ en <1>'- en-E CUO.... I::JCD LL-ga. WO'O _o~ ~ CD_ O.cCl) .- '0- .'!::-W 'O::J~ '00<1., <C::W CD .s::. - CD '0 .2.. 0- c c .- ::J E o en >,en - CU en .s::.en -CU '0 CD C.s::. <1>- E.!: Ec 00 0'- CD(ii .... E CD .... :: 0 - - c c.- .2 0> :t:::::c :g .~ cu.Q co -- CI) LL :E z o:i co ~ '6 <0 CD 01 al a. CD .s::. - o - en g? +=- CU c .... CD - lij - o en 8 ~"C CU ~ c E CU E '0 j ~C/J '(ij C _ CD CD E '0 E <C8 ~l "C j (;,j ~ :0 '(jj al CD U. c( C/J a: ~ Ul CD 3:: >- CD ~ -, "CC\j ~g ~~ CDC\j :s::..... CDO ...J~ j>f ~~ 000 j>f~ ~~ 00=< ~~~ ~<~ ~ 0 ~!:lf:: c 01ij -o~ O~~C> 0 ~iI>1! 1ij Iii~ --~c ~ N~ ~Q) 0. U ~ .;::: -:::: 0 .- en Q) ... _ ~ E en Q)Q) ~o -E",o.Q)'O en-... ~ ~- "'c -o."~E.cC~~>-~-g ~<~Ell::;;~ :::.-E80"'50.o.,.", ~;..!,: g> ~ ~oj; C E-o--o 01ij ~a: '5!!l ~ ... IS w:;; oj; -0 (; -g lii $ Iii 1l :;; 0 0 "lii J!! ~~"'a~ alii ~"';;~~5~~~1ij~ <~~~E~~;; 1l~-oO~2g",,,,~~ -~0050~ ~gCOW~~0>-C~ ~ ~" ~o 5"-"!-O-C1ij~J!!0 ~ ~ -5;; ~ ~ 0 1D a: - ~ ~ '" 1Il 0 ~ ~-~EenoQ)~ Q)-~-enc~D...o.~ <~- .0><( >C-."0"__ ~~OQ)-o~_ =~Q)Q)~",-~~~c ~c~ "'''' oO~Eo.Eco_",o ~~~~g ~~g!Eg>~~(;c~ o o(;i ~ '" .~... _ en E Q).s; t:: Q) ~.Q Q) l>: .5 C C " C !l! " {'l 0.- ~ = " ~o 0 ~ C~D'O~~~c"'Q)"''Oo.en~'''Q) 2mE~C"'~,,~.o~cag>~-oE ~"'OO-Ec-E'Oo",~_ Q)... o<("'o--Q)0~-3>en>EQ)en. '" CE-~>Q)O"'_Q)Q)DOI 'Oen"'Q)"'~"'-en~cs~o~o.o Q)(ij -E'- EO"'>~'_Q)c",oc en~aQ)~~"'o[I(;i~i"'OE~O 00. Q) .~ ... "tJ +:; _ E '0 ~ 0 ~ <( 0 O-::::OOcgc "'__ ~ i ~ (ij '" '" _ ._ C\I C') co '0 ..... Q) C) III a.. 8 ~ ~ III E E ;:] en 'E Q) E ~ o ! "0 ;:) Ci:i ~:is 'fii III Q) U. <( en a: ~ tfJ Q) ~ >. Q) ::.:: -- .:.; ;>4 ~~ 000 ~~ 00=3< ~=~ ~F;j~ <0 ~~ o<~ u~~ ;>4<~ U;>4~ z~ tS~~ <<00 ~~ ~~ ~ o (I)-<<l .~ ~ Q) .'!: <( O:J.ll::Q)<( .- (I) <<l ~ LL Cii(l)E.E- N .- Q) t .- >."0.0 0 E-c a. 'c ~ <<l <( .= .- <<l Q) en <<l E (I) Cii a: C "O-E:Jl::J<<l C .- - ~ <<l;:~<<lCii Q) 0> Q) -g <( g~ii)~en <<l<<l:J(I)a: ~~E<<l(ij g C <( Ol C -:.. <<l Q) <( .~ :8 E .c LL l::J.- !13 0> ".. .- "0 10.;; C>Q)>"o~ 'Ci) ~.c e <<l e ~ ~ -:. a. Q) Il.. ~Q)~'O:2cu :g;:~>.~~ <<l00:!::~q:: J: =0. ii) (I).oOa ;-c~B-~ _o-;;(I)cu o.8oogCl> (I)(I)-f!;;:::..- (I) ~ (ij a. a. <1:l ~~;;Q)o~ e55i-ECD5 0."0 <5 '0 -E ex: i::'co.co ~ 0<<lQ)0~~ -"O.c;;Q)o ~Q)-<<l~O 5,.~ ~.~ ~ ~ Q) C.- E 0 ~OlE~oCD Q) 0 'c ~ c"O .c 0 .- Q) <<l ~ I-~E"OoO -Q) - o.ll:: Q) c"oQ)<<l -E"OBCao(l)E _C;;:::"O o <<l.c C e- ~ Ol.$ Ol <<l o.:J 0 .~ 'E 'Ci) t) <( ~~Q)Q)~<( (I) & -E -E I- LL Q)(ij'OQ) .Q) -E"EQ)~<(-E cQ)E~en.c ~ E 0 5.~.Q .- C (I) 0 <<l.c (!)oQ)-c;: .'~ Ca CD:8 C C C .c .- 0 Q;Q)gO):gc o ~'_-.c <<l 0 C c:' <<l ;; 0.- Ol;: Q) <<l O.~;; Ol~ E ~~'E'~ ~ 0 <<l .g - .~ a. 'E E 0 E .- 'C 0 - ~ 0 Q) o.-(I)Q)-"O <<l~ 8i ~.> (I)-Q)"'OO .- <<l - C ;; ~ o Q).o.- 0.0. =~<<l<(oo .g (I).g<(~; . a. Q) ~ LL Q).- C ~ ~ a. Q) -E >..Q "" (I) Q) .c 0"0 - .~ .- .c - Q) .a <<l >. (ij - >. - (I).~ :;::;;"O.o<<l>.E Q)cc"O~:!::~ .cQ)<<lQ)<<l=Q) ':::<5!!2(1)~,QO) o a. <<l:J (I) "0 >. a > (I) 0 <<lQ) <<l _<(O~ ~ ~- a..8 en<( '; "fi <<l a. 0 '-:J en <<l~a:-E (I) "0 C ~ _ 0 ai<<l>' <( <<l 0 ....."O>.>~<<l - "'Q)<<lQ)oE <( Q) g Q)-"...-- LL ~ .- Q) "E <<l >.c - l::J "0 ~ Cii .c Q).Q 5 g.~ 5 C Q) 0> N-(I)l::J ~"'_.cc .Q _'- 0 Q) C a: 0 0._ '" - .- - (I) E - ~.- - <5 t (I) - .~ a. :J '-"0 a. l::J "E (I) 0 0 Q) <<l::;:; o E.~ Q) - C <<l Q) - a. (I) -E :J C _ E "E ~ <<l l::J .= "0 .= :J (I) Q) .Q C ~ Q) 0 Ol C ~ ~ <( "0 ii) > Cii <<l 0 E a. C ~ l::J'- Q) C Q);; . Ol,g :0 Q) e ~ (I) ~ (ij ~ :J <<l ~ E o.Co.o.Q) Q)~"Ol::J OlarE:J E g. <<l E Q) E -E LL Q) Q; .~ ~ ~ .g- Ol Q) ~ .- ~ C\/ :Q Q) -E -g -g 1ij <<l..2 .~ -E ~ 5i . g 0.= Cii <<l :J ii) ~ 0 ~"E~~~C\/~Cii:5~goU~ :J Q) 0 '- as l::J.c Q) LL :J.c <<l C g E > gJ ~ Q) - ~ - (I) - o..Q '5 o.<<l.c 0 Q;~<(-~ >'0'0!2 Eo o - 0..0 > > :!:: - .-:J >.- <<l .$ 0 0 en <<l = Q) _.... 'iijQ):5o"E-~a:(I):f!:Jui(l)t) > Q) <<l Q) 0 0.-,- X"O 0 <<l C E~- o.xO (I) <<l::::~"O~~ 0 O <<l E Q) Q):!:: Q) <<l - Q).- '" 0 -.::..- .o~-(I)O~-"O -~(I)l::Jii)=:.c<((I)<<l:J~:5~ .8 '0 g C Q) Ol X >. 0 .c "0 g Q) ~ ~ ~ E <<l Cii C Q) 0) 'C <( Q) ~ C .Qo. ~Q).CQ)-t)en~<<l;;:::~ a: .8 ~ ~ 0,-5:5 ~ is a: ~ "fi ~ ii) t o a. ~ <( 0, C ;; .c .2> (ij C o ;; '5 "0(1) <<l<( Q)en ~a: o i:o .-- <5g> C.- l::J.E :;,g> OQ) ~.= <(5- en~ a:_ Q)O .cC -0 '0"0 C (I) 0"E U~ :J C ~S c(I) o C 00l Q)'Ci) .cQ) 1-"0 := ('. .!2 <( . Q) >.:5 enc.cc_ a:;:-<<l0 Q) .g .~ - (I) .c .c<<lo _ (I).'!: .c Q) .~ '0, ;: ; :::: .cCl::J~Q) :!::;;Q)<<lQ) ;: a'~ ;: .c "O=~<<l:: Q) (I) Q) Q) <<l . ~.- .....o.c"O '5 .c (I) Q) - Q) 0':::;:: (I) ~ Cii Q) <<l .c <<l .- :J ~.cOlQ):J- Q) - .- a: 0' <<l .o~= .~~ 0l<<l<<lQ)= C ~ .c - .- Q) ;; ii) -'Ci) ;:.0 .c C ~ Q) Ol Q) .2> 0 :J.c C:!:: -E(I)-;;i5 (ijQ)5i'O.c= C l::J (I) .2> ;: .Q Q) .8 Q) :c C :!::(I)"o'CQ)O :gmQ)~gJOl <<l o.:Q C Q) .~ -.~:JoE ~ g ~ ..8 .~ ,g> "0 Q) - o c- C Q) Q) ~ :J <<l0' (I) Q) 0(1) <<l.o . o.:J(I) E(I)C .- >..Q Q)C- ><<lB ;;c= <<l'- a. S~ g. E-_ :J 0.- o:JE "O"O~ CCQ) <<l80. aQ)"O ~.o ~ <<l "0 _ "O-en C:J_ OOW ~;:~ (I).$W ~ 0 ~ o <<l . Q)o.~ ~ E'- '5 .- ;; 0>- ;: COQ) .- (1).- "0'- > ~(I)Q) <<l >. ~ Ol (ij _ Q)c<<l ~<<l"E .$"OQ) CQ)E Q)=c E<<lo EO) .= 0"0 > U<(5i Ol ~Q) Q).c 0 Q)-- C E Ol"O .Q Q)'E 2 Cii:!:::Jg Ol(l)O_ EC\/ g EOcDo <<l~gQ) :J ~Q).o o..~E= Q)Q)E;: 0.00(1) CEOQ) o Q) _ ._ 00=0 Q)Q);:C -"'(I)Q) <<l.... Q) Ol ~ Q)._ <<l <<l.c Ol a >-Q)(I) . Q) Q; Cii .~ t5 "O~'::'~<<l C<((I)_.o <<l c<<l"O 0..0'::'Q) o<(:;::::;(I)~ 'Q)en ~C"O > a: ._ 0 C Q)"O:!:::;::::;<<l "0 ~ E ~_ - <<l _'_ :J = l::J <<l :!:: a. ;: ~ .a E .~ ~ii)g.~i::' .aQ)0-<<l (I) :5 g '0 .~ ~~o_E =0 c= :O-~Q)~ 'Ci)~-Eo. <<l'- C a. Q) Q)OlOO"O -2.ll::Q)'- Q)<<lo>~ ~~;:~a. (I) >.c :!::<<l ]50. 'Ci) "0 :!:: m~ E -<<lQ) .!2 0) a. .cl::J"O - aC 'O<(<<l ten;: <<l a: Q) 0."0 '> (l)CaQ) <<l"O~ "Oc<<l Q)<<l- o._C O:~ Q)Q)C ~:Je l::J (!?'> Q):JC .0 a. Q) <5.8~ CQ)- = l::J .c .- <<l Ol ;:E:J (I) 0 C(I)~ <<l .- :5 o.g"Oui c'- Q) o .!2 Cii (l)Q) '- 0_ 0 CiiQ):Jo Ol"O E ~ ;;Q)~o. 'E :5 .E C "0 - Q).Q Q)-.oCii =ai :>.:Q.Q _"O:Jo. Q):JOo. Ot);:<<l <Xl _ '5 <Xl Q) 0> III a. 0 "0 0 -g(\l 0 "0 Q)(\I Q)(\I :2 -0 :2 QjO :2 -0 III 0 00 III 0 ~ 0C\j ~ ~ ~ 0C\j CD~ CD I:::: CD~ =- =- =- en Q)- en Q)- en Q)- ...J ...J ...J C\/ >. 'i - ~l::J Q) "0 -cO) ~ Q)c(I) <<lc(I).o<<lQ) Q)4!? o Eo:J .coo.cc~"O.ll::o.'O ~ ~ a.;; E (I) _ .Q ~ <<l'> .!2 ..Q 0 '5 'iij.Q~.$ O(ijoo.oe....Q)- ~ g~Q)g .5Q.(I)5g[0.-ga;~ > "0;; Q) E a. e .cQ) LL;; E (l)c <<l "0 ;;::: U c'5"O Ol E 0.1-' <<l._ 0 Ol C ;; Q) <<l"O Q) f!.- (I)"E . ~gQ);;~~ 5i (I) "0 <( .c - Q) :J Q) (I) o'E .c 0 Q) 0."0 g,g ui~-g~ e E-g;; ~ 5 E C'~ P o..~ :!::;: <<l ~ Q) Q) 0 g <<l - - .- .Q Q) - -EOo.-"O_>'Q)I-~Q) a.:!: .'!: (I) E-' C -' .c '" <<l C l::J - :J - - C .- _ ui Ol.o (I) (I):J Q) C:J c~ <<l"O <<l.~ 0 Q)E Q) <<l ~E~Q)EU -c0S"OX-;;E> - Q) '" 0 '" Q) 0 .- <<l .:2 ~ ~ 'g"fi c ~ ~ .s 0) Cii a. u 5 i:'.c eno,O(l)<<l..Q "Ec;:~Q)[E<<l~8 a:C(I)0oCii~ -Q)<<l(l) Eoo"O Q) <<l-g: O.Q ~ ~~:J ~..Qo.~ 8"E~ ~ .cE__C-> ;:0' _ '-""'Ill - ~OQ);;(I)C ~Q)cQ)"O"OOE -oQ)O)<<l~S<<lel::J:J.o'.c-(I)CQ)cE >"..0.Q)'" .-Q) -_::::<<l....0~ -;;>E:::::Jl::J>O)(I) (I)-O-O-w C 'Ci) 0'- :J 0' Q) 5i - Q) :J ;: 0 0) 0 Cii Q) C :J >..0 Q) (I)....... 0.:2 E"O - ;: <<l j;i 1: EQ)o.... ~(I)cE> Q)"o -;;Q) a. (I) Q) <<l 0l'5 ~ 0 0 0 l::J a. Q) Q) Q)'- E ..Q - 0 "O.~ O'"O:s 0 a.~ 0 C (l)Q).o E E Q)O<<lC"OQ)"O'" "'-Ol _0 ><<l.oO:J~<<lOlC<<l~Q)-.cii)<<lO 0.~0-- ;;Q)..'o>(I)--.c.... Q)EQ)Q)O=Q)'-Q)~~Q)Q)>'-' .... O_.c(l)~;:.oE.o<<lo."O"O.oE~~ S. "0 ~ en ~ :0 '(j) III Q) IL <:( W a: ~ (/J Q) ('t'j ~ >. Q) ::.:: -- ., en Q) 'g a.. en- c: (ij ~ Q) :;::;oE ~~g.c o O)m .Q 0.'- > ai oEQ)E - 0)"0 ..... "OC:-o $ '0 ~h: CU :J .~._ -(20) ~c:a.c: en '--.t: ';: Em'5.Q Q).- > (5 00"0_ C:Q)Q) o a...... Q) "en......t: .... :J - en'OoQ) CU$c:'O .t: en.-._ -=Q)~ (ijo'O..... -->-0. en en CUQ) 'O'OEen .- CU CU ~ o.ai ~ .- E .t: a.. 0._ _ Q)'O .-.cc: .......'Ocu ':;(j) ~o- o~~ c:mw ~'o ~ cuQ)Q) en a....: Q)en_ .- ~~ ~o.~ en~~ '0 0)..... Q)'- - -ECU .sa 'P"< 'E -....Q) .9aE -'OC: ~Q)2 a. en '> E = c: .- 0 Q) --- cu_c: :;::; 0 Q) . C:cu:Jen Q) a. C'" en oEQ)Q) 0..- en g O)o.c ..... c: :Ja. .- c: en c: "E.Q ~ 0 cuaicu~ O):J 0 ~ (ij .!: = en >"0 a. -Q)Q)o. ~'O'O~ E Q) :J.- ="OE Ecuc:..... 0a;0Q) 0"000. _en O)Q)Eni ocu ~.t:2.g Ui'm Q)ca~ ~..... .t:.....E~Q)Ec:ECU -0)0_ ~Q)en o.E-..... cu~ 0:S:::c - ~"O c:cu_ Q)>-o_=..lo::o.Q) >--"':J :;::; (ij ~ a 0 >-1: ~ ~ 5 (ij 0 (/) a .21:;::; cD Q) '- '0;;= :J _ .....ai ~-g c:~ Q) >-g 5 E Q) cu cu'>= E..... :;::;Q)aien(ijoO) ~ CU'E..... Q)~ o..C:ai 0 Eo '0 .!21E 19 ~ Q) 'E = ~ - (/)oencuenO) c en - cu 0) Q) ._ .- '0 cu '0 C ~ Q)._ E Q)cu=.$cuo......g..... :g a. en 'c Q) - c: a.'0) > E Q) ::::>.c 5.Q en.t: 2 .- '0 c: ,Q :;::; ai '0 ::: a. (ij Q) ..... (ij '0 E.: 0 Q):;::; o.Q)o"O ......o~ enc:en.t: cuoQ)cu cu.$"E~ ~ c:c= a. Q) 0._ c:.......__._ a: o..c .....Q) 'E. Q)'O) ~ Q)C: .t:"O=..... '00 -Q) 0 Q) C:'5 en ._ "0 _ .t:Q)Q)C:"Oen:sc:"O ~o.""'.QC:2C:CUa -~Q)aicuo~m+:: Q) .t: E _ >-._ _ Q) .~ '0 -:; ..... ~ cu 0)'Ci) ~ -C:'-o>Ec:~ cu CU.t: - _ 'N 1;.._ c: CD +:::t: c: 0 ai.- Q) ~ ..... Q) ~.- C:.t::;::..lo:: 0 C:~>-5""'_:JOC: .Q(ij= ~ Q) en en 2..lo:: ai 0 cu c: 1ii .~ "E "0 .9 E o'O..lo:: 0.0:0 c: a. .....-Q)>--Q) CU._ o .9 ai c:.t: 0....:- ~.t: - .....cuO)en':::;:O....'en !: en 0) = "0 (ij.!: c: . 'O-Q)_..... -0 Q) E'OQ)'-.2en:;::; 'OCU .-,...o-ocu .- a. ai > -::: -'0 0 _ ~E.t:20)~~-=~ . ..... .- - a. c: '0 cu c: ai a. (ij m Q) '0 c: ~'c ~:t: Q) E .- en (ij Q) cu 0 0 {il m.$ g~ ~g.~8~.t: a: & ~a.. ..... '0 ~ m o :: ~ (/) ~(\I QjO o~ ~t:: ~~ Q)~ ....I --- 0.'- C:!!3Q)Q) cuo.t:m en[-.t: mEE- ......- 0 ~ "O~.::: 0 '0 cu O).t: cu '0 c: >- Q)c:+=:s ~o:;c: Q)OenQ) -Q)Q)"O a.. en ..... ._ o c: Q) -g€ CUcu +::Q) ~a (ij~ 5(ij :;::;.2 'Og; "0_ cuen o~ =(/) .~ a: cD 'Ec:~ .$CU't: oai:J o..t: en '0-'0 c: '0 Q) CU Q) en .....0 ~ .$c:~ cuQ)O) ~.ca> E:2:n .9gm en.t: E O)en..... .!:.= ~ "E . CU CU~.t: 0)_ _ ~ g.;: 'EenQ) Q) ::: :; Eo'O E [2 8 .~ en >- :!:: Q) .t: - (ij 'OE :J.....c:o ~ $ cu.::: Q)CUenO) ai ~.~.!: ~o~-s Q)enOen .: '0 ~ ~ 5-oQ)en .t:en_ ~a;Q)~u.i =E=o.cu ';: Q) ..... E ~ en .t: .E.- cu CU;'C:'O_ ~:t:::.Q a ~ CU'Eai:a5E ~~g~Q) .Q .; -- (ij cu ~~'Ec:a Q)"'Q)oE o.Q)E:;::; .~ a: ai ~ ~ (ij-E~cu~ C:Q)->-> ~ E ~:s E .- ai cu c: 0 ~ ~ g.~ en o :: ~ (/) It) ~~ <110 0(\1 ~~ ~~ Q)~ ....I co ~ '6 CD Q) 0) <II 0. 8 ~ i?:' <II E E ;:] en 'E Q) E ~ {) <( ~ -g en ~ :0 'iij <II Q) LL <( en a: ~ Q) ::: >- Q) ? ...., ~ ~~ ~==: 000 ~~ 1-4 1-4 00=3< ~=~ ~tij< <z t:9 o<~ u~~ ~<~ ~~~ ~~1-4 '-'t:~ <<00 ~~ ~~ ~~ ==: Clio CCOl~ :8 g!.~'s; .!2tU"E~ ::s.c tU- Ol-OltU ~~~E CDE(/)CD --CDE .0 tU.- c ~~-gE '3. ~ "U) 'S; a. C '0 C tUtU~~ E5S~ ~+=Q)::s. CD 0 CO'"(/) O.! . ~ ~ 50CD.oo wOE::sO "E'O+=(/)o. 8 (/).!2 ~ c g-g:6tU~ C :6 Cii.~ ~ .- Q) "0 = ....E'OCDa. CD Q)-a. iii'05gtU ~ C'en"O ~ s::tUCI)cE CC"OO.... 0.2.... 0 CI) '0CiiO CD a. _0"0.0'0 oOQ)=c - C .- tU E CD'-~- (I).cE(j)(f.) S:'$iiiW tUCI)Q)~~ (1)>"0 W '::'(I)cE. "o~CI)oo) :a::C~"u)6 E (I) ::s "00' Q)CD =~ tU::s (j)(/) 0>> c "ritU Q) - (/) _o(/) OCDCI) C(/)O .!2 ::; E _oa. 00 tU(I)5 a..c .- E-Cii .- c 0 ai:C'3. .Q (I) a. ~E~ "OO'E ~'t:.... >>Q)CD .ca.a. ~~~ E"O~ (I):; C oOtU o.~~ Ol(/)CD .~.~'S; "0"0 CD ea2.= Ol(/)tU ~ ai E _oCl) c 'en E (1)oc E- 0 E E.: 0"0 > ()~~ .fl c;-.. 0>> _tUOl o a. 0 CDEo :t::.- .... Q)(I)'O (/)~~ _(/) O:t::- tUotU a. .8 EQ)- .- 01 '0 "O~c CotU g,"U) CI) :::cD~ tU 01.... (/)....0 "OtU"U) CD.c_ (/)00 o~(/) a.....(/) EQ)o o.CiiC; =~- .- "0 ~c-g ~::JCii 00- ::c....(I) 01.... o ~ ~ (f.) i(\l -0 alo 0(\1 lDt:: =~ Q)~ ...J <ri >- - "U).!9tUEg .... 0 ~ "'.~ ;O::CI)C"'.o - .~o ::J E ::J =........::J(/) .~ ~ a. tU 8 (I) tU-;;<-....,o'O t:: .... C 0 - (1)(/)Q)-0= oOE"O-== .... g. a.$ >-ai (1)....0(/)-g(/) "0 a. (I) CI) _ 0 C.c > ::J (/) a. ::So Q) O'"c 0 ":::S'O~o"" C (/) .- a. Q) >- ~ .!2 Cii CD E 5 a. Ol.Q :6 (1)........C:t:: > - 'co .- "U) "0 tuCii "O::sc a.>"U)5'~tU . >-Q)O_"O.c<( ~ == E ~ .92 00. :> 0 ~ 'co C w 5::C~~(j)~Z .... . tu (1)"O >>CD -<(>--tU.c tu<(o=''''~- 5LL.... .~cCii .- a._'-::J "0 ~Q)a.CI)::J....c "0:6 tu a; 5f (ij ::s ~>-'O-""c:> .oC--o:> .... tUtU=.-CD .E "0 t:: 8 == ~ 'S; <(~o-<("OCI) (f.) 0 a. (I) <( tu .... a: = g.:6 LL CI) g c~(/)CiiQ):6~ tu .- ai ~:6 .... E _. .... 0 o (/) 0$ c- c COtUo"OO ~.2 CI) +='en (I) .: ::J'~ .....c C CI) > "0 '5 .- CI) C C (l)c O'"Q)x(l) CD ~8~cu(l):6.9 "0 (I) (/) "0 CI) &.:a.c_ ot::'- 0 .... c 0.00)"0 (I) &....- .c'- ::s ::s _tU"So _ (I) _.c .fl.c(l)(/) C--"O CD-.oC EtUtUtU Q) g> m .:= >.- (/) tu ECii~C:3 a. Cii 0 .: Ea.-tU .- 0 CI) 0 ~=="C ~ ~.~ c tUot::tU (/).: 0 0 >>tUa. tU(I)....= == .- tu c:6tUCD ::s....(I)- ....o.ctU _ ..... ...... "'C tUtu-O c';:: tu E .2$$ E c ~';::tuoo "0 0 .... 0'- "Oc CD o(/) tUOlo.tuC CD'- 0 tu .... ~ 0= ~ ::s _==Q) -'0"0 .2(j)CD<((j) .9(1)'O~.c E(I).....t:: (/) a."O::S 'O=xCD- cu';: CD (/) CD Ol CD 0.: CD <( (/) a.::s ....(f.)000'" .Ea::60.~ c !;! 8> ~ 0l:C (I) CD>> ::s tu =o.~CI).o:6= 0 CD(/) ~c~'O"O'O.2~== .o~ ~.2:2S.E:; c ~'O~ (/)0Q) ~::J (/)OOO-C tU_==c'Oo(/)co+=E::JtU =="O_'O'Oo~O(/)tu 8E _ Q) ~ Q) <( >- = 0 C .~.... Q)>> 01 (/) "" 0 . Q).: (/).Q = 0 (/)"0 (j) co'" C CD.c tu.- _ - .... c '-a.>::J-_ tUtU::SCDOt::<<; i E ~ g ~ Cii '0 ~'E ~ E>~ &. (/) Ea...:c..!-.c(/)tu=-.!2~....;;:. -(I)tUO-CD:>. - E'co'''' (/) 0 > t:: .,!. 01 o.+.-"Cii C 0 = == ::JcQ)o::Jc>-(I).cg!-_CDC .2 (I) == a. 0 15 :: <<; == CD 5 ~ ::; 2 > cu 0.: E CI) 0 (/) .0..- =="S- ~(/)::C~EE.!9~:ao~ _::::~ a.(j) c tu - (1).c == 0.- CD E tU.2 tu .~ 0 C (/).c .21 C >>x::s :6 ~ Ol....+=O--;;::::J(I)~(I)- "0 .~ ~tU~-E,OlQ) ....:6'5 >>.5~"O .... .... 0 .... = C .c (I).c tu tu ::J tu ::J tu .Q E - .;:: - .c - - :> c;-.. (/) CD c;-.. "0 - (/) Q) - ::s ~ - .;;:: (/) :>.:= C - (/) Cii'-- g"O E- :>.- C tu (I) tUE ::=.c:6.E c"O=-: CD:6 2 C:3 o"~ CI) s--- C CI) ....~o C tu.:- (/) E (/)"Otu(/)o-o=co tU.....Q) Q) (I) tu .- tu (/) .... (I) :QE~3=2"U):Qg"E~tU~~g~ .::. o.~ >- g <( .::. -; 8 0 <( '0 &.;: 0. .!2 - = (I) .... <( (/)._ 0 tu (f.) tu E 0 E o .~ "S ~ '5 LL ~ :6 tu 0. a: .Q._ C._ o ~ ~ (f.) "0 Q)(\I -0 alo 0(\1 Ci>t:: =~ Q)~ ...J r--: .9 0) (/) "Om ::J $~ai"U) .- 0::J c~oE =>tu- (1)(/)"O(/) .c(l)CQ) - C tu.~ >-= <( ;:: ~.~ <('co Q) .LL (/) _C(I)t:: tu .2 .c &. 5,12 .- .: CI) (/) . tu Cii 'en ~ .c "0 .92 .....Q (/)(/)-.c tu.- Q) == == :6 Cii >- ~o (j) ~ __a.CI) (/)-Oa. ::J~o(/) "0(1)-0 .~ .....c- Q) tU.!2 ~ C (/) ==.;:: 'E<( 0 'co . ~:6 (l)le:6a} :6m.flo .T""' (I) C >-c':':= u;.- cu Q) ::S(/)E~ .2 ~ .c >.....c(/) Q)0l0_ .... c'- C a. o.c (I) "OO==E $(/)(I)c 0(1) (/).... cCii8g! ~ Ci5 "fi 8> (/) .~ C 01 o C en +== tuO- (1)_ ::s .... "0 (/) CD.~ ~ :6 '6 .~ . 0l0.c- .~ E == ~ =CD'Oo S.oCD!5- CD.._: ... "00(/)0. ccCI)_ o "Oc +=!;!(/)Q) tU::JCI)l:: ::so....::s aio.ao >t::tUCD (I) 0 Q).c a.- - :a .: ~ c Q)<(CI)tU "OclU:6 '- 0 (/) (/) >.c (1)_ E-=.co a.~_tu CDtUQ)E' (/) ~ :0 .- tu>>>(/) ~.co(/) a. == 0..92 o ~ ~ (f.) C o ~ tu a. CD (/) >> tu == 'x S I o "'i't::: >-0 tUa. ==.: 5<( .... C -0 C.c Q)- :Q ~ -tu '5~ ~Q) .- .c 01- c- .- tu "OQ) .2::s o(/) .~ .!2 . C .!90l C.- .- (/) tu (I) '::'"0 ~tu o (/) 0'- -cD ~o .- C ~s .c .!2 0."0 i(\l -0 alo 0(\1 lDt:: =~ Q)~ ...J ex:> o ::2: ~ (f.) "0 - (/) ::s_ OC ==(1) <(E (f.)~ a: '5 '00'" (I)~ (/)>> 0_ a.= 0:0 .....- a. 01 (1)c .ctu -~ -'0 Oc .!9tu 'E (I) ._ '0 -tu Q).... .c0l -- cQ) .- CI) EE ~.... .!9~ Oc .~ tu .0"0 0Q) '0> cO tUE (/)Q) (1).... .... (I) .a.o 00 2- "U)~ =tu <(.c "0 ~(I).... ~~; >-.- - _.c:= Q)~.o Cii~tu .~"O CD o.~ :6 01+= '0 .~ ~ ~ -'0'" lE.Q;.~ E....(/) C\/ ~ .~ g~~ C\/ E g 8 -CI)- coEQ)"O Q).... a. (/) i- .c 0 CI) al O-.c E (I) - E 8~~ ~ Q) Us :: 5i :6(1)0 E 01 ::;::c E .~ '0 - Q) ~ "') a> CXl ~ 15 o ~ Q) Cl al a.. "0 Q)(\I -0 alo 0(\1 lDt:: =~ Q)~ ...J C 0 o Q) 1aa_o .Q 0 ~ a ~oQ)Ci) '00>E OC~:J ~OQ)O o 0.:0 .: _0COO 01::'5.>- -OQ)C ~e-oco :J'- 0 L.. CTCOCO~ Q)Q)Cc ~=co:J ~~~..: .- "0 Q) o 0)._ 12 c c >'0 o 0 e C 0-;; o.g .~ co 5 '0 <(~~C <( Q) 0 0 . u..~!E~.{g ~Q)'8"OCo -~E<("O ....... en u.. <( a ...... '-_"Ou-_ Q ~~~Q)0 ~~.aE&.=<C ~o~~Oe..:~ co L.. 0.!2_ >C~9.EQ)Q)0 ~=~0=~5 .......... '"E_ 0._ ~ < Q) co co::r: 1ii CI.) ..... 0 "O.c:: . 0 ~ =:l ~ co C _ ~;;::: z.....< 0l!l!2Q)'C ~~oZ~~e'i~ ~.....O_o. ~- o<~<~~_ ~O U 0~'O .__ >c 'EEa Q)0 u < r.:l ~ g. 0 Q) "0 ~ Z.......~ Q)-Q).cQ)c ...... Q) C - 0 co r.:l ~ ~ > = C co.;:: r'" r.:l L.. Q).: co Q) co 'wi r-4 ~ 0.'0 CO.c a::: > <<CI.)~.5-g~:-c~ CI.) <( co - Q) .Q 'c ....... en 0 .9 :; '0 'E ":;.......a:~.c::'02L.. ~~~......'E~'OSCi)* Q):J.o 0 Q)"O E-=c;Q)~c Q) 0 C.c:: 0 ._ IIJ c."O .5 - _ 0 ~ E Q) co.!: "0 co 0- C E.c:: Q).c:: ~Q)co:t::~<c#..: Q) "E "0 ~ 0.<( w .~ co Q) "0 0 U- Q) 'O.c L.. Q) L.. >-.!: Q) 1ii 0 1ii o.:t:: (j) ==.c::Eoc:o"O Q) - Q) 0 .Q .- '5 O~.aQ;Cii~O) - co ::Q c. Q) ;;:: .: :::!;~:JOO)Q)~ ~~~~!2=_ >- :0 'Ci) o L.. 0 o 0. '0 Q) 0) 0 ~.!: ~ .... "0 Cd .. co Q) 0.= ='6~ ~ (j)Uc~ -E . ~ '+- co'OQ)O OQ)L.._ L..(j):J0 0'000 L.. .- 0 0 00COQ) -CQ).c:: ~g.o:: ~Q)o.E o.aCQ) COC::Q:O o co :J'- _OO~ cenoo o <C 0 0. 0::2: Q) 0 -WO)Q) o COL.. gQ)E~ L..:5 co C 0- "O:J co "0 L.. 0 o.Q)ou ~ ~::: Q) enEco <CcoQ)e: ::2:"OEo WQ)Q)~ o 0 0)._ :; 0) .!: ~ .0 .~ ~ ~ .5 co ~o~Q) <Xl ...... '0 ...... ...... 0) OJ <<I a.. Q) ~ ('-. ~ ::r: Q) L.. Q) _ 0)_ ...: L.. ~ J!l 0 0 co O.!: .-. .(tj.(tj E CO-::Q C Q)_ 0.0. .;:: C :J .- 5.0 co Q) Q) ~ Q) 0 0 '0 .- .c L.. L.. 1ii1a~Q)1iiE;00Q) 00:: No;;; g.~ e Q)-Q):E= .0:::._", E-- _ O)~';:: 0.._ <( l!l ~ 0) 0) C :J ~ Q) !: en 0'0 C .~ .;:: (ij co .0 'E a: <( C 'Ci) :J lE.;:: E::Q co Q) <( ~ ~ co CQ)0:J .c::u..Xo.O .- 1ii'- 0 C - . Q) L.. ~ E = O'~ '0 5 0 .9 .~ W - 1ii 15 .!: E 'Ci) ~ c Co Q)(/)=Q):!:0c !20 = ~ "O'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '0>.: 0).0::: Q) Q) Q) '0 x L.. co CLU1ii'OL..CQ)~CQ) .- - co co >- co Q) .c:: ~ E~.~ ~~ ~ E~-; O)Q).!:'O co g C Q) c_ ~Ui~5~ 0.2=2 5 ~~,*;'co.5 CO,j ~ Q) .Q Ol 0 Q) ~ '0 ~ ~~ ~ 0C__ C COoCi)Q) 0+::Ci;CO.cCO"OEco. :J~L..00+:;Q)COOX ~L..~Q)E~~'OOQ) b~.(tj= 8 "'0 ~ as E E ::3 rn .... c:: 0) E 5 t) c( ~ -s. "'0 ::3 en ~ :c "gj 0) u.. c( en a: ~ '" (J) 3: >- 0) ~ ~ o ::2: a: (/) ]l~ <<10 o~ Oil::::: :1::...... 0)...... ..J o ..... ~ @~ ~= 000 ~~ -- 00=< ~e3.:l ~oo~ <0 r:- o<~ u~~ ~<~ u~~ ~E-4~ ~r:~ <<00 ~~ ~~ ~~ = >- - .:; Ut:: al 0 Ce- B< .~ "0 > Q) alCii tUo, .2 Q) ...- OC -- .~ al .L:c f/)O c+:: .- al Sz C OQ) O.L: - (L.S c(f/) I-t:: -0 ene- ~'(ij Q)... 008 lJ..f/) al- Q)f/) ...al c(~ - ... alO c- 'E _f/) ...c( Q)c( 1-lJ.. c('O c(C lJ.. al . Q)alC .L:Cii.!!1 1-'011. ~ >- - :~ 0~-g'O o '0 g_alc 5_~ (\J~Eal +::alf/) ~-f/)>- aloal c,f/).;:::t::: cOO'...::Jo::J.~ :a:o.$ ~e'O.9'O ECalc.L:alcal o al ::J Q) - - '- t:: o -- f/)0-0.L: 0 -"'f/)e>> 1::::0. alal>Q)al.....cs... C a. ..n 0 .- g>.Qo_"-B...al .- 0) - al E al 0) 0) ~ ~ S.L: 0 Q5 '0 .S 'O-=-ali~:2~g Q)al"Oo~f/)cQ) o.CO 0 C+::::J o 0.;::.L:~ 0 C;;:: -+::of/)<XlOOc ~ al en f/) ~ Q) 0 .- Q) C .- "E >- '0 ..: e "o.....co-::Jf/)O Q)oco.$C3Q)- ...;O~alc~~ al_>- E.-- ::>. al (j) <i.'x 0 >- Q) :!:::"'O ... - 0 f/) Q) ... .~ Q) f/) <: ... tU ~ al 'Ogt)S2&f/)O~ al'OalQ)alcQ)+:: C 0 ~..c'O.Q f/)':; o ... ... - Q) '0 al '- +::o.O~f/)Q)o'O .~ 0 - al '0' Q) al >-Q) .CI)....L:- al f/).L: f/)'" 0._ al _'OI-"OgCl)c5 o,g . 53'-.L: - +:: f/) _ f/) ... f/) I- . al enQ)a;-c ~CI) al E >~Q)""':":;'" 0 o-~+::ElJ..+::~c f!?al_cQ)c(o",o 0.2t::~ cl- al'OU - en 0._ al c( '0 Q) Q) ~ 1a e- '0 0. c( Q) Cii '0' lJ..en~a 5i~1ij~ 0.. o - c<>> ._ f/) Q)al f/)f!? alo Q) C o~ Co .- co '0 . Q)"- - ..- 0- .!:l ..- 0"- "'0 0.(\J ~ 0 C'. --- .....- Q) oOf/) -Oal f/) (\J CI) '0 E 0 ~ e'S -~ Q) f/) 0 .L:c"- -oa) .~+:::~ -al- al"'O .L:Q)(\J :> 0.0 >O(\J c( 11. W en :::> "OC\I 010 iiio o~ ~o OlC\l ~....... C])~ ...J~ O~ f/)f/)C '- tU Q) f/)f/)E "E.- C :ace 0) B .:; CalC '5.2 CI) <<S:!:... ~c53 'Oal::J C::JCT al CT Q) -'Of/) ~al.c o 0.::J -Ef/) Q).- ~ Cii'Oal ~ ~.S 0'5= ::: ~s alalQ)0 :t:::c'Of/) .c.- C Q) al E .- 0 .L:='Oe Q)f!?f!?o. -o.Q)C .c "00 al 0)._ ._ ~.s~Cii ::: "E 0 .2 ....aloo. O)O)CI)c, .S ~.c al 1:J~=;t: ... C.- E ~CI)~... Cl)EQ)CI) "'Ef/)c' f/)0Q)'O c".L: C Q)~I- al E . . ~ E~~.~ 0--> ogg~ f/)u Q) '0 Cl)o.o~o= C>- Q)>- :o::E-o- c.~ alCl) O)Q) '0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ~j5 ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~'O"tien f/) 0 . f/).!:::.S Q) ~ ~ "0 '5 Q)a: ~'OCi)~.c f/)....... '" ~ ~ ~ c Q) e C >-.:; g> E ~..c"fi Q) e 0.Q).L: O)al ~ e'5.$,.!.. g::J O)O)Q) E- C ~> C,al ~(I) f/) f/) [a a;~o alE ~ 5 E ~ f/) CI) Q) ai" -E o.c ca: "O-.L: > a. f/) f"Eo-::J-.$ e-.~al '0 _f/).-.;;;: ~....... f/) 5 ::J-:=- 0 C f/) CI) f/) v, ,.. .... >- '" _ ,.. Q) f/) al Q) f/).- C o.CI) C f/);;: al.L:.c'O -';:: f/)_ Q) E= Q) 0 > c-'O C '0) al e ~x'-_ E+::o8 O)~ c.!!1 ~ .a 0).0' Q) :g 0 CI) al ... C ... al _ f/).L: ... "0 ::J - - ::J Q)'c 0) Q) ~ o Q) f/) a. Q) 0 ,... f/) CT Cii'- al _ _ f/) "0 ... '0 f/) ~ (\J ~ al ". al ~ e 'E- Q) C al Q) 0 >-> f/) > E.;:: ::J.- "'alEf/)o.f/)alQ)'O"'Q)alO- o oe"E~.L:co8"'cOal al ~:5 a. a. al C - 0 _ 0'- al ... "-al'S;O 'O::Jcl1.al~E 0 (I).c>'" Q) ca: o_:t:::+::;=.~- _= ~o.=al__tU.coQ)cQ) al f/) 8 Q) ~ en '0 S en ~ o...Q .~ :5al...:5=c(c:C__Q)Q)CiiC Q)f/)"O:!::alc(Q)al~c5:>oal o-g Q)-.2lJ.. E.L::> al >->:Een c_f/)f/):!::_CI)...>t::-..:-.c..: ~000Q)_Q) OCf/)C::Jf/) Q) '0) 0.- Q) Q) f/) lii ~o.o Q) al f/) Q) ~ ~ ~ ~ g. E :g ~ ~ .~ .~ ~ 5-.~ ~ tU +:: C Q) - o a. f/) :t::: '0 C al al CI) < Q) CI) ... lJ.. CD ~ '0 C\I ~ - o . CI)'O .~ Q) .c_ oO >-C al~ ~ al Cf/) ::J'O a:c Q).!!1 ='0) O)~ .S 0 '0- ...- alO O)al Q)c' "'E f/)'- -- C al Q)C E.Q E:t::: 0'0 o~ Ol 0) aI 0.. c( ~ f/) en 'OlJ..Q) Q)5 a: CI) - - .L: .- .L:"'al.L:C_f/) Q)oal.L::::Q)_c 'O.L:'- Q)-.- E.2 CI) --.L:-f/) E::J o.E 5"0 ~ 0_= 0 Q).- ~C -o~'Oo'O'O OQ;' O)C'O 00 C;;-~f/)~O)altU.!!lO ~.c ~ 0 ~ C.S al~ alf/)al_Q)-"O OQ)'-IOCEQ)CX -== .Q)Q).L:alo f/)'" "-E...I--o al '0 C ..- .- C Q) Q)'-_::J::J 0 Q)<Xl ......oal8CTCEQ) C(aloc'O~oQ).L: Q)~o.Q -'0"'- Q) O..-:t::: Q) al c'S C 8 ... Q) X '0 =.L: Q) 0":2 "0 lJ...L: '0 -EQ)- . - - 0 al ..: >-.- ....~ ~ ~Q)oc~:g'OCii aI :c f/) <Xl al Q) 0 c( .L: ~ E Oaloc~Een-_E ~ ~.- 0 a: >- ~ ~ >-o.^::......o :!::o....<;:: alCw::J.....-Q)..._ ~ ~.- 5 f/) 0'0= al f/) CD C ~'0 f!? '0 ~ 0 0 '0 ~ 2alc'OaQ)-:2ao Q) E Q) S - >-c( ::J _ 0 "'E 0'0) allJ.. 0'0) <( j5g'5~~EO~~~ "0 ~ en ~ :c '0 aI CD U. <( en a: -.::: VI Q) c.; :s: >. Q) ::.c ...- .;.; c( -gC\l c( -gC\l ...0 ...0 11. a10 11. a10 W o~ W o~ ~o ~o en ~~ en ~~ ::> Q)~ :::> Ol~ ...J~ ...J~ ~ j>I @~ ~=: 000 ~~ -- 00=3< ~e~ ;oo~ <0 t:- o<~ U~< j>I<~ Uj>le: ~~~ t.:lt:~ <<00 ~~ <j>I ~~ =: - "0 <(Cll C"O Q..~_J!!~ LUg.g~:; ,j......c>o 0) a. Ol 0) .!: (u.!a ~ :5 CI) ~:5..cC~ ~.E~:g~ (uCl)'-:""O'<<1 CI)~al~~ ~ ~~.~~ Cll-..-O)..c 1'J~....'+- LOC+CllO ~J!! CI)CI) "-Q)al~~ ~3:..-ala; ;:::~~LO:5 --CI)' c>> . ..... 0) ..- 0 C ......0).............._ ~:2alO)~(u ~~LO:5"o~ 0) 0 . ~- 0 ....OC\l~j9..c 5, "0 ~ .0 .9 Ol .- '3 0) .0 CI) :J LLO.o:JCI)e .!: 3: .9 c,..Q :5 0) ..c - - o C . ot .- 0 -a. Cll.... :J'- -Cll Cll 0) >..c 0)_ ~'<<1 -<( .9 en "OCI: .$"0 'E (u ="0 Cl)c .- Cll >-Ui -gCll -Ol Cl)C >-.- -- .- C :cO) .- E ~~ 0)0. -E 0)._ ..c _ -0 '0>- O)~ 0...0 Ocll 00 CI):;:; 0) 0 ..c~ 1-0.. 6 o cu'- M C C (ij ~ OCll.... o 'w E.g LOO)C....Cll ..- 0)0 ....'OE-o J!! 0'- ~ ~ :JC"O:J.... eCO)'<<1Cll .- cll ..c C N UOI- cll i::'CI) 'O..c o"EenO)Cll Cl)Cll"OOO) .- "0 .... C - >CCllO)cll "OCll"OCI)O) <(-530)() <(CI)_...._ <( <( CI) o....c LL en C ~ .!;2) CI)~ CI: .!;2) - E :: UJ "f-o .... 5"0)0Cll~ ._ 0l"O CI)..c ~. '<<1 .!: t :g -;; ~ .Q 3: &. =0 C cll :!::..Q........O't: "0 - .- cll:;:; :J 0.E ~ 0l'5 CI) EO)O)~5~ 0:5:5'003: Cl)CI)o 0)0) C cO) O):t: O:J O'<<1~o)cll"" :;:;--C't:O) 0.. CI) "0 .- :J ..c EI:::O)CCI)- 0) .~.~ '(is 0 ~ ~:g~ECI)Cll oQ....~'O~ - t 0 CI).5l::Q "EO"O"O.o:J Clle-O)(uOO Ol'- :E "0 0) 3: ~oq:"OC"O_ OCllCllcll .E~EtiE:5 Co ~~_ -_ - t:n CIj 0 .- :- 0) ~ 0 "0 _cll I::: ex:~""OOl..c:J C 0) cll ..c.- '- cll - . - - en ~ Cl)C- S 1:::~~CI)~OlCll-::Q E c~:g ~ ttl~ocCI)~c:5:J =_oO)_t:nQ ~-C~Cll"OO)CI)O O)C:;:;..ccllSO I:::ttl:J<<1O)Cll~CI)..c 0) 0.._ 0';:": '0-,'-,... CI) 0........ -:J CI) .oCl)Oc'5ttl~OS--~CllOl~O~ oO)CI)-cE _Cll~~--OC~O) -....:J"O- ~CI)~D "OCll_O)"O> (uo..OO)~I:::~~~~~O:;CI)CI) 0) O)O)~CI)O)!~I:::'O-,S~E<<1co::Q3:~ 0..:5~..Q0l~~80Cl)~ocg-;;~0~ 0.. 0) ~ ~ cll ~ _ ~ 1);) 0) 0.. 0) ..c ..c ,g? CllO>-_o..~O~~~~CI)>OCl)CI)~cll Cl)C"O"O-CllCll,v_ttlO)C:;:;-CI)_CCI) <(~:J"O~..c~iQi.c:~~~oco>- en tic_- _CI)Cll-aC--O):;:;Cll CI:~>-CllO):g~~~~~E~~~EE3: "O~~i0'<<1=~~-~0)....~~B0)5 cc'O....cUi~~CJ)~I:::~O~-ox.... !:J~..QOooOttlSE~<(;~~"OO)t x .... cll o..~ . Q _ >. ~ D . I::: E - "0 0 O)O)O)XCllottl~~oE<(oo....~c~ O..c-O)O)OCl)~;)CJ)~LLOI:::O-Cll- _ - cll 0):> C\I I::: -..; CI) >- C\I >- - cll Cl)'O~.o:>LOQ~t:nSttlCLOc:2~~O) '" _. .... - _ .1::: '^ Q) - .... - 0 0 CI) ;"O-=-O)ttl ~~~-O)->I--- :;:;c~Ui~"ES~ttlO)ttl~"E~Cll.-:..aE CllO)E"OEOECIj~~bCllOo)O~Oe E (j) :J:;:J ~ ex: CI) ~ 0) :5 -;; ~ ..c 0.. .$:5gog~0en~~Cll(j)~0)0)0)gE ~~"O~"OLL~SSS~:5LL(u(u(uen8 Ci1 :;:; C 0) - o 0.. - o .::t!. o J!! "0 cO) C o:5c cll ~ (j).2 C "5 Ol -00. :;:; ~ ~:;:;.!: 'E .:2 ~ i::' -<(E:;:;Cll cll .- C :J en Ci1 E .- -CI::J_E 5r"O - 0 = o .... ar- 0) c~o~c. 8535E~ 0) - 0 0...- -CI)O)o> CllO)..cO)e ~..c->o. cll-cO) ~co"O.9 0.::t!.0)"O ~ "0 ....o..c en ...CD ........, CllCl)3:Olal 0.. ~ c;'E "E ..Q C:JO O)!!}:;:;co >CI)O) 0) ~80)a;.o _O)Eo- ~~~~~ >-.0 CI) E CI) 'QoC\lE'~ ........0 0 Ui 0..0 8 C >-:0 C\I _ ~ ~53.n~Cll ,Q CI) (j) CI) ~ ~ ~ .~ .0 .~.~ 0 0) OlE OlOlCll _0)0)0)0).0 0)<<10'<<1'<<1"0 ..c....O)........O) I-tictit),g? - C 0) .... cll 0.. 0.. cll en ..c - "0 C cll C o ~ Ol . :;:;"0 'E .$ 010 C C .- 0) "0.... (ucll OlCl) 0)0) .... :!:::: CI)CI) -c Co 0)._ E<<1 E .!;2) o:t:: UE CI) >-c ~cll :00. 'w "0 ."!::': ~~ E -cllO) .!a Q) a. ..c"O"O - ~ C 'O<(cll ten 3: cll CI: 0) a. "0 'S; CI)....O) cll~= "Occll O)cll- 0.- C ..Q:~ enO)c ~:Je "0 ~'s; O):JC .0 a. 0) 0.9~ CO)- ="O..c .- cll Ol 3:E:J CI) 0 53 .!a ..c 0.5~en c'- 0) o .!a '<<1 :g ~~'30 .21 "0 E ~ ~~o E~- C - 0 "0 - 0) .- 0)-.0'<<1 =~"Oo j9 "0 '3 ~.- O):JO CUi 3: cll .9 <( . CI) <C "0 0) 0) u. 0) l;; '" '0 en..c 0 > .... '"' '"' >-- .- "0 0) '<<1 ..c 0) 0) "0 - '<<153:20)~(u~'3:g E"O ~ 0,::: 3: 0) 0 CI) (j)~ .$O)oO)CI)Cll..c3:~..cCll Ci1=-E- 0.0 ~o~ CI)-;:o ~ _._O)c-c.-.$o a. cll-.oO- c'-_"Oo ..c .... _ .- cll 0) 0 CI) 0) C .... - cll CI) '<<1 .... (u'- '<<1 _ cll 0.. C 0) :J Ol 0 <<1 cll CI) 0) 0.. E'- ~ 0) Ol..c CI) "0 0) > 0.. ~ 0) 3::;:; 3: C C :5 'o,cll C E~ -'E- - 0) 0 0 CI) .2 ..c ~.... cll o.Q.. _ -g ~<<1 0 0 ~..c~ oE~ 0) Cll....Ol:J"oO)O::.oCll:J cll:;:; CI) >:J.v ,^ "0 "0 .- 0) > CI) 0 V~ 0) cu E ~:2 ~ .... 5 - Ui :g ~:;~Cll1; ..E:;:;(j)O)e :; <<1 cll '<<1 .... CI)..c ~:::: ~ :J 0.. C 0) ..c 0.. >- Ol:;:; 0 0 o _ 0) 0) :J'- .... >- CI) Cl)O)cCI).o~oEo~Cl) ::: .~ :J ti "0 cll C _ CI) .... 01Ji CI) Cl) c:2 0) 0 5~-g .5l c 5 Ol cll 0 0) 0) 0.. 0) - eO):;:; Ol..-_ ~~en 1; ~ o..CI)o..~..LLCll-t....:t: "OE ..-....-- Olcll 0)._ <(CO)CI)cllOc:;:. :5 0 0) a.. cll 3: .$ ..c e- cll CI) = ~ ~ w :5 ..Q 'w ~ '(is E ..Q "ON "'ON <( $0 <( $0 a.. alO a.. alO w o~ w o~ ...0 ...0 en ~~ en Q)N :J ::> :s::..... Q)'- Q)'- .....,- .....,- ..,f LO <Xl '0 (.'") ,- Q) OJ al a. 8 "0 ~ al E E ::I en C Q) E E o () <( ~ "0 ::I en ~ :.c 'i(j Q) u. <( en a: .;:; '" Q) 3: >- Q) ~ -:-: -, - co ...... '0 '<t ...... Ol C) as a.. >c ~t; tI.:lo >c~ E::_ r... ~ < "'.._~ ~~~ ~<o ~t:E= ~'O . 0<< ~ ~~ 'O~ u~~ C ::10 ~(/)(/)w 'OJ!! cCi)o m'O'Oc. Q)-O (/)._Q)c....,o >c < ~ (/) Q) _ ~._ E ::I 0 0 C u ~&.:=(/)='OO(/)a..UCU Z >c r-"Z 0 Q).Q:o 'Oc ....0. ~:: >- Q) ~ .....s:::.._ a.cuEo ~ r-" - 0._ ~ ~ CU E C/}.... .~ rlol ~ ~ Q) '0 .,.. Q) '0 0.S2 _ < .n -~r-".s:::. "'-Q)o_(/)._ < < tI.:l - ~'S CU .... _ CU Q) C/} C/} tI.:l ~ E~ ~~ig 8.3::j~ >C~:=l:Tai 'Q)~eiD'~~ <~ >c~ E -g -5 ~ ~ 5 a.~ ;; ~ Q) CU (/) ~=:= ~-g.,!::'O g>-~::I:;::;ai-cu:=c o.'!::........ (/).s:::.:!:: (/)'0 CU OE 5<'0-;>,'0 Q).s:::. ~ (/) ~ (/) -~ 'S E (j) a ai .S2 CU~Q) oQ)-_cu. .c"'.... .s:::.ECU(j)'_, <Q)cuQ)(/)::I(/):="EC/} a...s:::......s:::.(/)o>, 0....; -::I-cocu....o-' UJ .9 ai - .2 '0 := .E 0 en ~ c 0 0..- c c Q) .... L." Q) .... '0 CU::l o.c Q) CU::lQ)coc....._'OQ) E '0 .s:::. Q) (/) ;;::: 1:: ai _ .~ E t5 <5 (jj 5 ~ &,.2>5 c ::I .~'O .s:::. .;;:: - .... ''!::E.s:::. W (/) 0 c ~ cu c '(ij (/) .Ea.CUQ)>._ -c Q) - o c (/) - c Q) E E o o ~ cu E E ::I C/} < a.. w C/} :J UN Olo iiio o~ ~o Q)~ ~...... ~...... 8 "0 ~ as E E :::J en 'E Q) E E o o { "0 :::J (j) ~ :a 'iij as Q) LL <( rn a: .,:; 8l 3: >- Q) ~ .:..; CD j>4 ~~ ~~ 000 ~~ 00=3< ~es~ ~oo~ <0 fi:- o<~ u~~ j>4<~ Uj>4~ ~~~ ~fi:~ <<00 ~~ ~~ ~ -0 (]) - lU :l -(ij 0> C(]) .!!l.!!l (]) .1::: ~.o ~~~ ~(])~ :C;:.s:::CJ) s;:::-O: (])'Cti(ij =~5 - CJ) .- lUo::a ~"O"O CJ)'-lU o:lU(]) "0"0 (]) C._ .s:::lU> --0 0Ct),- ClUo. 'S;: ~.8 e CJ) Ct) o.a: C E"O.2 '0 as a _"00 "OC'- (])lU(]) =_.s::: .- Ct) '0 ElUc E'Cti (]) O.s:::.s::: 0_- Ct)"O - .- (]) ~ ~c.o ~.- lU u.. E.Q (])iD'O .s:::05~ .... 'C 0. -0 (]) :It:: ~o :lo. c..: (])lU .o(]) O.~ ;0 ,-.s::: (])- ~iiJ (])O >- +::(]) lU:l E.~ (])- _c -0 lUO 5~ +::~ o u.. ('0. lU(])~ O.s::: 0 c -.- (])'C'Cti =SiD .....00. -~o CJ) ~ CJ) ::> T"" (]) enc lU'- x E en'E iD . :O_05~ ~ 1U 'C 0. +:: 5 t:: .: o,-OlU ~ 'co e- (]) a. (])'co = 'OE(])..... c lU.s::: 0 en-- .!!l (]) Cl g ~ .s::: .~ 'C CJ)~2:c a::::~lU "E ~ en'~ ~~~!1 c.o=iS, lU lU.:._ -ElU;;:: en:l(])'- lUen.cS 'Cti~""'C .c 0. . (]) - -t:: c ~ ~ &,.2> lU.~.: ~ E'ElUlU .!!l 8 ~ ~ c -- o 32 0= .- :l C ~ 'Cti 0'- _ .~ ~ ~ 1U Eenen5 CD 5 ~.: ....._.... ctS (])'CtiC.s::: 'C,-(])o ... (]) l::.- '"~ o.:l.s::: :!::oo~ .~ - .c 'C ::: (]) (ij ~ :l'- _ enelUC :; (]) =.2 o.Een'O (])E(])C .ooa2 00-0 _ (]) 0._ -'C'-~ 0._ (]) CJ) c>= (])OlUO: '-o.E- ~oenlU >-05 'C (]) C .- (]):l+::::: enclU'C o .- 'C 'C o.'EolU OOE(]) 0.0 E=('o. ent:: O'C en lU&,0(])5 _ '- 0 (])._ 0'- lU C 'Cti (])lU...... _ .~ (]) .... - :l o .000 0.= (]) C (]) o 'C '- (]) 32 'S: - ..... .c:l~:l..... -O<DO<( :!::oen~LL "OC\I .!o alO o~ ....Il) <1>..... =-- Q)..... ...I..... CJ) ~ CJ) ::> "OC\I .!o alO o~ ....Il) <1>..... =-- <1>..... ......... C\i .t::(]) lU.c '- - 0_ (]) .: lU t:: .c lU=o;' .8 'C e-.o en(])<('C "0 .~ (]) (]) as E.s:::.~ O'-....E (])$ '- '- (]) . (]) c'C!1- .- (]) (]) c (]) .~"O o>-(]) ._ lU lU '- 'Cti.cClU CD en.2 lU 'C (]) Cl';:: '0~ ~$ c.: >-';:: OlU.oO O(])enC ~ ~ 5'~ lU .- (]) .5 <Ii ~ "0 '--(])'C 0. C 0. (]) (])(])o- .c E t:: .~ -(]) o. en .: 00. 0 t:: '-:l en 0 .c 0- 0. en 0. 0, (]) :l lU .: c,-en'ClU (])OCC(]) -ClUlU.c >-'5 0 (]) - ~ a 1U''C ~ C-~o:l :l'Cco_ '-C:l(])lU (])lU,-o.c ~ ~ .~~ ~ .- (]) - (]) '- ~ ~ .!!l (j) e ~ g ~ 0: 'co '0 'C :t:: ~:C;:a;-'C o >- .- lU C J!! w ~ 'e lU (]) lU(])'_ =~'EE~ O;~ELL -'C '-0 (]) (])lU50.c :J'- '-..... "0 0 (]) (]) '- (])~=~S Ci5o'OEoc .s::: 'C (]) en ._ -g~'$.ma lU~'-lUO -LLo'Cc _(])-OlU g.c~E(]) "O':;oE.o "SSO 8.!!l 88~~= en -c=32 (])en(])+:::l c~Ci5eno '~J@ (j) -g ;: ('0. '- (]) 0: lU ('0. >- (])-t::cO:::.c ~~ 00..2> ~ ~ lU.1:::,-enO~ ;; ~<(~.~ g CJ) ~ CJ) ::> - lU 'C (]) o lU a. (]) '- Cl c '05 .0 - (]) (]) ;;:: a. o '- a. o .0 '- :l . -en -- lU c .- (]) e E (]) (]) E> E e 00. o E (]).- .c~ :::CJ) lUo: ='C 'C(]) (]).'- -':; OCT c (]) (]) '- .00 'C!!l -lU g~ .s:::- ~~ "OC\I .!o alO o~ ....Il) <1>..... =-- <1>..... ......... c<:i t:: o 0. .~ (]) _.c c- ~ Ci5 '- =::. :llU 0,- '-0 S:;: 'C.1::: (])O .: lU :lo. o-lU (])O '-(]) .!!l en _lU ~~ .~O oc ~.- . 2'-o~ cCe- (]) ElU .- E lU (])(])(]) >'C.s::: o(])- '-0. 0 ..... :lO .5 'C ~ ~ .~ +:: CJ)'O.~ o:C(]) "0:='0 ~~~ o 'C lU o.c.c elU~ o.enlU (])cc .c.2.2 ....~~ ci(])(]) zg.g. '0:2>- (]):l(]) NO~ - '0 ;: c .~ (]) ('0. ~ e= ~c (])"O'-lU EclUo ElUo_ o_cen oO:::~05 (]) <'ll .~ en5en,- lU.: ~ ~ ~lUlU'- o--lU c 0 0.- ._(])-~ enNco ~.- (])- CJ)enl::(ij -:l o:~o~ "OlU(])CJ) ~J:;=O: &, 05 'Cti "0 o ';:'= ~ o.(])enO (]) 0 'C a. .c~lUe('o. -Ct).20.t) en(])(])(]) ~ ~= =;: CJ) ~ CJ) ::> "OC\I .!o alO o~ ....Il) <1>..... =...... <1>..... ...I..... .,:j :2 :l o ~ ~!1 CJ)C o:~ "O(]) (]).: en :l OCT o.(]) o '- o..~ (])]5 ='0, 'Oa '- en- :::"0 .5 a -(]) (])'C .s:::lU ~c, :c05 :::(]) ~ E en '- ~:g .~c .olU O'C 'C~ Co lUE ~~ '- :l(]) '0.0 :lO '- - t)(]) > ~~ o (]) (]) -.0 ~ m!1t::g LL,-,-enog. '00~~.g.0 .~-o~ glU ~ ~ .0 (]) .~ '- (]) C c O:E.o,-.clUlU >-'EO~;enCi5 lU ~ iU"0 lU (]) 'C ~ .- "" c 032 C cc>oc>:l :l(])cooo..: 0: (]):l__'-(]) 'C .0 o:(]) ~ ~ ~:2 (])- oen en ~.c ~ en._ c IX) o ....- ~ lU - 0 ..... o.(]).~LL ~ ~ 015 e~=(])~:E'01l) o..s::: 'S: .s::: (]) 'C C '; (]) >-(])o .s:::!1(])ui"'-E~:ir -oo.-LL 00. .~ .~J!! ~ '0 ~ 'C .c .0 0..0 (]) en ~ :::oc(]):o'o~ ~ 0 .- en 0 0.0 LL 'C C .~ lU '- (]) -lUOOo.(]) 'Cti (]) E :>...... (]) = 0.5 (]).o en.s::: - o-'-cb"O-Ci5 ; .!!l .8 en as 'Cti > ,-.c _lU"O.c ~ lU-"OOC-> !1'Cti~lUg~O o -0 cCJ) o:r: (]) CD 0.0 0 0.'- ...: :0'>0 - .a O(])'-~CC(]) ~ o.~ 0 lU- t::O(])LL+::olU O:r:en lU,-en 0. '-000- '- ~ -.- en 0 'C? cd (]) lU'55Q5 =~.c~oo.> O~'O~:Een~ (]) .c - .~ en(]) (]).o :;32 -:l 00 .5~ en.s::: '-0 (]).- .c.c 'O~ '- en o (]) en c 00 CN '5'- =lU :l(]) .00 >- '- ('0. :;:: o.~ CenlU ~~ E '- CJ) (]) 50:'- (])'C.8 '-(])'C (])en(]) .co~ ; 0. 0 ,-2- ~ 0. (ij 8 "0 ~ al E E :l en 'E E E o o <( { "0 :l li5 ~ .c in al U. <( en a:: 0:::; '" ~ >- ? ...., CJ) ~ CJ) :::> "OC\I <1>0 a;o o~ ....Il) <1>..... =-- <1>..... ...I..... ..0 - o C o > ~ ~~.g ~~'5 ooo~ ~~~ ~~O oo=<~ ~e3~~ ~00<:J <Ze f: 9'0 O<~ u~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~f:~ <<00 ~~ ~~ ~ ui '0 .... <> Q)<> c= <<1<<1 o ~ ....:J .8Q) <<I.... ....<<1 Q) CI) 0._ o C t::Q) oE 0.Q) .... .... '(ij ':; cO' <~ (ij....CI) ....<<1.-- .E:iugl CI) 0 a: C .~ :e < C ~<<IQ)<'OOQ) e....u= o.~ Q) <<I ocOO) -<<ICC '0 - Q).- Q)CI)CDai ...... c:..... '- <. J:: Q) <>....cc e-- <<I 0.2 .- ~ t:: '0 - <<IeoQ)e Q)oo.CI)Q) ~ .iij .iij ~ ~ - .... o 0 - Q) 0 CI) ~ '0< - _C/) .!: < ~ a: <<I<_Q) t::LLCI)'O Q) Q) .- C'-' o~c~~ <<I-<<I....Q) _ co.. o..c <<1<<1 Q) 0'0 =o.c-c Q)t::::-g.!9 ai 00. 0 ai 0 -....'00)- ~.(ij ~ :5 "E 'OQ)>.o~ C = <<10.< _ c- << < 0. .... .!9 < "CC\l ~O alO o~ ~LO Q)~ =-- Q)~ ...J~ cO CI)<. '0 _ <<I-OCl) o.~ U m o<<lQ)_ o.CI)o- ooc< <c E+:: 0)'- 0).... e .- C:'0 .m Q) ~Q)Q)Q)0. .......CI)'O'OO Q)~ .c=: 1-- .Q) ~-c =<<1 LiE <<1_ ~UJ -Q) K~ C>. oQ) 'O~ Q)Q) CI).c <<1- .oQ) Cl)C: .- Q) Q)CI) -c::Q << ~ '(j) C/) ~ .oa:Q) - O).c Q)c- ~~.8 o.'x -g e Q) .... 0.Q)Q) o.c=: .01-0 .... - :J 'CI) -CI)<< E e Q) o o..c oE:::: Q)'-'- .c<c -C/)Q) aia:> .c Q) -'0- 'OQ)c ....Q) .m.:; E gO'Q)o Q)>c Q)....OO .0 0 o.+:: 32JQE~ :J <.>.c~ C'-'- 5!J. <<1.0 0.= 0 g ....... ....0'0'0<<1 Q)0....C/) '(j) C Q) Q) >.:> .... ~ a: .c.8 g ~.cc:> O(ij 0) -E ~ .0 .0 ~ 0 ~ CI) E .!: < '"~ CI) Q) g> E e Q) -g Ua: -g -g Q)N.... 0 ~<.~ Q) Q) 0 _ E ::Q .- ....-Q) ....~:>- C 0 Q) CU '0 _ '(ij .... :> '0 Q) 0;;::: ....C<.Q)l::O.... .8 <<I CI) "E E Q).~ :J <<I '(ij '0 ~_CI)Q)Q)~ooo_ cCI)<l:: .....cQ)-C Q).m<:J~.E-.cCl)Q) ....:JLLo- :J-:J.... -0 Q)oQ)<<Ioai:5 CU....Q).c-.cQ)-_o CI) Q).c-~.Q....,o CI) .-....- O)Q) C <>CI).~ 0 Q);;:::o......... c:t:: - Q)..t:: E'~ '>. < <.c :JQ)oo.!9-gE;;~.!9 U;: 0 < "CC\l 's!0 alO o~ ~LO Q)~ =-- Q)~ ...J~ r...: - :OQ) ~.o ....- .c= CI)=: ....CI) <<IQ)_ E .- '0 E Cl)Q).... >>0.Q) Q)CI)o. ~'O'O .... Q) C Q) - <.Q) oeco 'OQ)<<Ie ~.g.!: 0. _....'Oc c Q) Q).2 Q)>CI)ai E= m 0 ECI)....= 0'0'00. UC'Oo. <>~.c9 Cl)t::"E{!?1D Co~O<<lu; EooEtb CI) o.::Q ~ 0 >> :J...... C') ~~,g~o .... w CI) .... C\I Q) C/) Q)..... =:Q)a:=:"<t 3=:::>3'P _c _C\1 oo-oc~ Q)CI)Q)~, g ~.!: :5 8 Q)Q)EoC') Cl)0Q)Q)- .0 .- _ .c < <<I"" c '0 .- .c < "CC\l 's!o alO o~ ~LO Q)~ =-- Q)~ ...J~ (X) < _C/) oa: >''0 Q) - .... .c~<e-<<ICI) Q)._ c <<ICO Q)Q)CDO =.c0Q) o-c.o -aiOc '0 0<<1 Q) < - 0 :t::C/)5C1) Ea:oc = 0 CI)'E S~ .- <''0 Co 0 -gco.CD -~<<I.c Cl)CI)Q)_ >.<<1....0 ~ 0)<<1 ~ .oc~o .-.- <<1- CI) '0 .... Q) <<I'S: e.o ~ e.;;; '0 Q)0."'Q) .c_'Oai -OC:J _ >><<1_ O_CI)< 0.:0 Q) Q) o < =ai~= c _ .8CDCI)'O CI):::'OQ) C<<l<<l.c o Q) o..~ +::CI)Eg 0. Q)'- E 0.c'O Q) 1-'- 0 > 00 .- > 0 aiui <0 <<1<.;:: c 0.C/) - C o a: CI) < Q) - 0' < ijlC\l ....0 alO o~ ~LO Q)~ =-- Q)~ ...J~ oi <Xl ,... '0 <0 ,... Q) Ol III Q. 8 "C ~ al E E ::I en "E Q) E E o () c( ~ So "C ::I en ~ :c 'iij al Q) U. c( en a: ,;::; tJl Q) 3: >- Q) ~ .- ., >c ~~ ~~ 000 ~~ -- 00=3< ~E9~ ioo~ <0 t:- O<~ u~i >c<~ ~>c~ ~~- ~t:~ <<00 ~~ ~~ ~ Q) .J:: - ~3: ~o .....= <<l<<l E= -- CiSCii (1)_ .8 ~.!!i (I) ~ <<l _(1)0 o Cii 0) [~<( E~en '-.J:: a: Q)1:l<( .~ C <( EOu. .- 0. C.:!: Q) .- <<l E E(I)o o 1:l (I) -c_ Q)<<lQ) > - Q) E~E (1)00 1:l.....- - o)~ ~C O<<l ~Ew "0 C <<l ~:>. Q)o Oc <<lC]) to) ~ ..... (I) Q) ....:E <<l Q) 51:l .- C (I)<<l Cot:: Q)<<l E ..... .- 0 1:l..... 1i(cu c])c E <<l ot:: _0 Q)Q. >0. <<l~ .J::(I) -0 '3: ~ <(<<l en (I) a:~ "00 .....C]) <<lC "0(1) c- <<lC -Q) (l)E 1:lC]) Q) ..... (1)'- o ~ a.C". o 0> (I) ..........0> a.C])(j Q) "0 .- ....<<l.J:: ...........C]) 1-0)> '5 (l)Q) Q) (I) 'C~ 0_ .00) o)c C.. ..<<l (I)..... 'x 8- Q)..... . .88~ (I).!:.2 o :>. Cii <<l..c 0 a. .- E~:g .- C Q) -<<la. ~ Cii (I) .!: C]) <( "O>en O)oa: C ..... .- 0) Q) "OC.J:: .- <<l - gEE ~ 1:l .!: Q)C(I) "O<<lQ) -0; CD :; c-Cii 0<<lC]) 03:_ en a: en => iC\l ..0 a10 o~ ...10 CD..... :t:-- CD..... .......... ci .,.... "0 C <<l -:>. C])o o C <<lQ) to) ~ ..... (1)0> ....:E <<lo> 51:l .- C (I)<<l Cot:: Q)<<l E ..... .- 0 "0..... ii(CU Q) C E<<l ot:: _0 C])a. >a. <<l ~ .J::(I) -0 '3: ~ <(<<l en (I) a:~ "00 ..... 0> <<l C 1:l(l) c- <<l C -Q) (I) E "OQ) Q) ..... (1)'- o ~ a.C". 00>(1) ..........Q) a.0>(j Q) 1:l .- .J::<<l.J:: I-.....Q) 0)> >.0 "0(1) <<l<<l Q)C]) ..... ..... CiS<<l c.!: .- ..... 00 C]) - '~1:l 0- ..... Q) a.'- t <( .- en<<l a:~ Q)- .J::"Oc . - >. O)~O~ .!: ..... CiS (I)<<l~ o(l)C" a.<<l_ eQ)~ a.(ij:c CD 1:l <<l "OC]).J:: .-.- ~ (I):t: C]) c.....(I) o<<l(l) " 0 C]) '-" (1)_ en a: en => "OC\I ~o a10 o~ ...10 CD..... =-- CD..... .......... .,.... .,.... - o C]) :0 <<l a. <<l o 0> o <<l t ~ (I) 1:l C ~...: o C ..... 0> O)E <<la. (1)'5 ~C" .- 0> ~:>. C"o ~c <<lC]) at: ~ Q) Q) ~E 0C]) C1:l .2l C (I) <<l O>ot:: 1:l<<l <((j en .!: a:<<l "OC .....<<l <<l0) 1:lc C._ <<It:: -0 (1)0. C])a. .J::~ 1-(1) o - <( LL Q)O > Q) e.J:: 0)- c- <<l 0 E.J:: C])~ g 3: 1:l 0> Q).J:: ..... - 00) -c Q)'- ..... 0 ~ ~ (l)1:l <<l ~ Q)>. E.o ~t:: .00 .- a. (I) ..... (1)-- o <<l a.Q) <<l.J:: . (1)::<( .....<<len ~(I)a: 000> >.<<l.J:: 1:l a.- ~Eo Cii -~.J:: >.c'\5 :5 .;:: .;;: :C<<l> '- Q) 0> (l)o.J:: <<l _ ~Cii.J:: (I)~O .- .0 Cii ~~E C]) 0> > - (ij en'~ ~-c15 _~o_ .J:: ..c :;::; ... 01:lg.8 ~Q)~(I) (I)=-<<l >.;;:: - <<l-<<lo 3: 0.2 (I) cO)o) <<lo>.Qc .!: (ij 8 'E -(I)C])E ~ 1:l - .- __ c: as .::: e .!2 .2 C]) a.Ci) ~ 0) . C])3:0~c;j =1:l~.Ea: 0) Q).> >. Q) .!: Cii 0 .0 .J:: ~.!: 0. 1:l :: a.EOO>O o 0 _ 0)_ 0.1:lQ)~~ .....~~<<lo) ~ea.E~ 'en 0) C C]) t:: C C .- ..c <<l o <<lot::Ci) a. o E j!2 >. <<l en a: en => iC\l ..0 a10 o~ ...10 CD..... =-- CD..... .......... C\I .,.... "0 C <<l ~:>. Q)o Oc <<lC]) to) ~ ..... (l)Q) ....:E <<lC]) 5"0 .- C (I)<<l c_ Q)(ij E ..... .- 0 "0..... Ci) 'cu Q)C E<<l ot:: _0 Q)a. >a. <<l~ .J::(I) -0 ~~ <(<<l en (I) a:~ "00 .....C]) <<l C "0(1) c- <<lC -C]) (l)E "OQ) Q) ..... (1)'- o~ a.C". e~~ a.C])(j Q) "0 .- .J::<<l.J:: I- o~ -C- ~._ <<l ..c<(E en en 'c ~ a:'E (1)- (ij.~ Q) E"fij ~ .:!: Q..J:: m <<l 0 .....Q)1:l o > 0> (I) .~ !E 1:l.J::..... co<<l 0<<l0 a.o(l) --:>. <<lc])+:: (I)(I)C O)Q)~ C =:; . =1:lo(l) ;;::cC])"O _~.....c Oo<<l.!2 C....._Ci) .....<<l<<l3: ~ 0)= .- .!: (I) ~ (I)~<<l= C.....Q)<<l OO.....~ 0~<<lC" en a: en => "OC\I ~o a10 o~ ...10 CD..... :t:-- CD.... .......... M .,.... (I) - C C]) E Q) ..... '5 C" C]) ..... CiS C . 0..... .- <<l (1)- C ~ Q)~ E'- ._0 ~~ Q)O Q)(I) E'> 01:l -<( Q)t: >.~ <<l<l) .J::C]) =0 3:1:: <(0 en.g. a:oq:: '*~ 1:lLL cQ) ~.J:: (1)- "O.!: 0>"0 ~.~ a. :t: 00 ..... Q) a. 0. Q)(I) .J::(I) I-<<l - o Q) 'e' ~ 0.- "O.8Q) C])<<l.J:: ~~:: Q.<<lO e-1:l a.~c C]) a. C]) .J::Eu; -.- <<l O)Q)C]) _!: 0) C]) .~ (ij.J:: .~ a; ~ C.J:: 0 'E; "0 _1:lc o~~ Co (I) OCQ) ..'- > 8-0 e Q)cO) .J::oS --... Q) "E E :>. .Q 'g, ~ <<l 0.- C 3: xOQ)c w.E"02 en a: en => "OC\I ~O a10 o~ ...10 CD.... =-- CD.... ......... ..,f .,.... (I) 1:lC]) O>.$g <(=.!2o> en 0)~:2 a::S(I)~ "'C..........~ .....:coQ) <<len<<l1:l 1:l 0. ~ C . E- <<l "0 .- 0 Cii ~ CiS .!: 0> .- 1:l C]) 1:l 8 0> ='en (I) 0 1:l cO)O> a8:S1a -Q)e:>. ~..cQ)= :;::; C c.~ '5 <<l ~"E o '-J'Q) .!a (I) 0 0 ot:: C - a. <<lgCiS(I) (j a.:;::; Q) .....OC(I) 'cu ..... Q) ~ 1:l0>01:l c= Q.C <<l0C])<<l (l)Q).J::...J ..... .....- c])O(l)U; 0) '$ <<l 1: ~ .o.J:: 0)-= [~Jj~ _.2 C]) 0 (I) o <<l.J::1:l 0 ~~~a:5 C]) - ~ (ij~:>'~a. (I) _ <<l.o <<l 0> (I) 3: c.... ~c '-J ~E2.8a ~g> ~ '> "fi -.~ <<l ~"fie Q)<<lQ. .J:: - 0. 3: ~ <<l _(1)0) ~ O>.!: 3: ~ .!a Q)3:g =enCi .8~E >.00 <<l ..... 0 3: 0)_ ca~(I) ~EoQ) ..... = C ~ .8'3: 2 -(I)"Oc 0)0 C 0 C<<l<<l:;::; E a. - 0 .- E <( 0> ~ .- en 0 .....Ci;a:Ci Q) (I) CiS :>. :2~t:<<l (I) - <<l 3: 5~Q.c 0<<l<<l2 en a: en => iN ..0 a10 o~ ...10 CD.... =-- CD.... ......... Lri .,.... co ..... 15 ..... .... CD C) aI a. 8 "0 ~ aI E E ::;] (J) 'E CD E E o o <( { "0 ::;] en ~ :0 'iij III CD u.. <( (J) a: -.:::; tIl CD 3: >- CD :.::: -- .:.; ~ ~~ oo~ ~o ~~ I-ooll-ool 00=3< ~es~ ~oo~ <0 f:E: 0<< u~~ ~<~ u~~ z~z ~f:E: <<00 ~~ ~~ ~ - o ~ :c ca o +:: o ca .... a.fIl (I) 5 ..c: '- ::"5. 00 c .... 0(1) ._ ..c: -- ca 0 .~ 01 E.~ .... .... (I) (I) - "0 (1).- 'OfIl ca5 (I) 0 ':':'CI) ca .... E.E "OCI) c.o ca<( CI)(/) 'tUa: ;j"O - .... ca ca >"0 CI) C -ca fIl_ ;j fIl E ca <(01 <( .~ u..:2 CI) > ..c:e ~a. - o -ca 00. ,gE fIl'- ....>, CI)- >- 00 ~ ~.- ca"O ....- eo .- c ca"O c- .- ;j fIlO (I) ~ '0, ..c: 00 o:E c ~ ..c: ~ g fIl . -E~ .... (I) ca (I) en :!:: ~ >,.0 Cl)fIlca c Ol..c: Cl)c"o .Q~~ a.CI):;::; x .... CI) w<<i~ (/) ~ (/) ::> "iC\l ..0 alO o~ ~LO (J)~ ~-.. (J)~ ..J~ <ri .- "0 C !!! -"0 o c 5 ca ~~ .- 0 .oE E(I) 0.... 00 ca+:: ....0 Cl)x "0(1) "0 ...: c c o CI) oE CI) .~ g fIlca CI)..c: '- c ~CI) - cac ~:8 ce 00 .- - -fIl ca(l) 01.... :201 E.~ -"0 ca ;j ;j- -0 a. c . CI)'- c o - 0 c fIl.- o"O:!:: o o.~ ..c:;j CI) as tT ~E~ "0 C (I)~ ~ =1j5 ~.Q g> ~ ~.......- 0) 'E- 0 u; c x ;j'_ CI) (I) ca.!:::! :!::..:-..c:E ~ ffi ~:~ OE(j)E "o(I)~"O cOcac ca~_ca $..c:OOl '0 ffi as .~ c ~ '0 o c'" 5 '0 = .Q +:: ;;: o - '- '" .0 e.~ 0 _o;j_ ou;gCl) $~ca:o 'S - '0 !!! fIl C, ~ '(ij ca~-:iU . g.fIl~fIl~ Q)505~ > +:: E:;:; a. (l)a.(I)a.E 00.... 0._ (/) ~ (/) ::> "0<( C(/) caa: $"E ~ ca -"0 . ~C<( (I)~(/) _fila: fIlca- ;j Ol ca E c 5 <('0:2 <( '> '0 u..0'O CI) Ci ca ..c: _ 01 - o.~ ~ '0 5~'> +::=0 ca.o .... Ncaa. 'E~o 'c 0 fIl .- e c E a. 0 'OCI)+:: C ..c: a. ca_O - .... (1)0(1) Oc..c: COO ca._ '0-01 .- ca C o c._ >.- .... caECI) ....'0 0(1)- -_fIl fIl CI) C '0"00 ....caO ~(I)~ (I)~o ....ca- .EE~ "iC\l ..0 alO o~ ~LO (J)~ ~-.. (J)~ ..J~ r-...: ..... c .Q 'tU ;j- -c ~ (I) . ." ;j fIl '" tT fIl "OCI)CI) (l)fIlO ~.ge -fila. (I) >. c 'Oco <(ca:;:; . c ~ '0'- = (I) '0 a. -(1)0. Ooca c__ fIl .....- .- '0 E Olc.... cOCl) .- 0 a. U;CI)'O CI) .0 C C '0 ca 'OS- CO(/) ca~jjj (l)fIl~ ~.~w Cl)g~ '0 a. CI) cafllc .o'O~ 01 $ CI) c 0'- .- (I) > '0_(1) ....0.... ca...._ Ola.ca ~o'E --(I) coE (l)cac E a. 0 E E.!:: 0'- > Ooffi co ~ '0 co ~ (J) OJ al Q. "0 t:: (I) 0 --== OCCl) (l)CI)fIl '0 .....- ....5= a.oCl) Cl)CI)'tU =:5c Cc'O 0.-.... . (/)0l0~ cOc 5=0;j .- 01 0 0 e~:::o CI):;::: c (I) a.'O ~ 0 oc>c 'OcaOo (I)-(/)"'" '_ fIl (ij .c::: l;c CI) ...... C ca .......- fIlcafll o:!::Et:: fIl'O;jO -coe- g ca >- '(ij ==CI) .... (I) C>>"': CI) Cl)caca..c: 'O(I)~o .:! 32 g.:5 o ca .... ._ .E.oa.~ 8 "tl ~ al E E :3 C/J C (J) E E o () <( ~ "tl :3 en ~ :0 en al (J) ~ <( C/J a: ~ Ul (J) ~ >. (J) ::.:: -- .:.; (/) ~ (/) ::> "iC\l ..0 alO o~ ~U) (J)~ ~-.. (J)~ ..J~ co .- URS , 30 A 2- November 13. 2002 Mr. Bill Kruczynski US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Post Office Box 500368 Marathon, Florida 33050 RE: PREAPPLlCA TION MEETING AND SITE VISIT RUNWAY SAFETY AREA FEASIBILITY STUDY KEY WEST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA Dear Mr. Kruczynski: A pre-application meeting and site visit will be conducted to further discuss the feasibility of implementing the proposed improvements to the Runway Safety Area at the Key West International Airport. The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss the proposed project, permitting issues and concerns, and the development of conceptual mitigation strategies. A review of the project site will be conducted. The meeting will be held at the Key West International Airport at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 5, 2002. The meeting will convene in the Board Room located in the administrative offices in the passenger terminal building. The airport is located at 3491 S. Roosevelt Boulevard, Key West Florida. An agenda and summary of agency comments will be sent to you prior to the meeting. We appreciate your time and consultation on this matter. Sincerely, URS CORPORATION ~e!;L Peter M. Green. AICP Senior Airport Environmental Planner Copy: Mr. Peter Horton, Monroe County/Key West International Airport Ms. Virginia Lane, Federal Aviation Administration Mr. Mil Reisert, URS Corporation Mr. George Feher, URS Corporation URS Corporation 7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, Fl 33607-1462 Tel: 813.286.1711 Fax: 813.287.8591 URS November 13, 2002 Andrew Gude Fish and Wildlife Biologist US Fish and Wildlife Service Key Deer Visitors Center Winn Dixie Plaza Big Pine Key, Florida 33043 RE: PREAPPlICA TION MEETING AND SITE VISIT RUNWAY SAFETY AREA FEASIBILITY STUDY KEY WEST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA Dear Mr. Gude: A pre-application meeting and site visit will be conducted to further discuss the feasibility of implementing the proposed improvements to the Runway Safety Area at the Key West International Airport The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss the proposed project, permitting issues and concerns, and the development of conceptual mitigation strategies. A review of the project site will be conducted. The meeting will be held at the Key West International Airport at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 5, 2002. The meeting will convene in the Board Room located in the administrative offices in the passenger terminal building. The airport is located at 3491 S. Roosevelt Boulevard, Key West Florida. An agenda and summary of agency comments will be sent to you prior to the meeting. We appreciate your time and consultation on this matter. Sincerely, URS CORPORATION ~ Senior Airport Environmental Planner Copy: Mr. Peter Horton, Monroe County/Key West International Airport Ms. Virginia Lane, Federal Aviation Administration Mr. Mil Reisert, URS Corporation Mr. George Feher, URS Corporation URS Corporation 7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, Fl 33607-1462 Tel: 813.286.1711 Fax: 813.287.8591 URS November 13, 2002 Anita R. Bain Sr. Supervising Environmental Analyst Natural Resources Management Department South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 RE: PREAPPLlCA TION MEETING AND SITE VISIT RUNWAY SAFETY AREA FEASIBILITY STUDY KEY WEST INTERNA nONAL AIRPORT MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA Dear Ms. Bain: A pre-application meeting and site visit will be conducted to further discuss the feasibility of implementing the proposed improvements to the Runway Safety Area at the Key West International Airport. The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss the proposed project, permitting issues and concerns, and the development of conceptual mitigation strategies. A review of the project site will be conducted. The meeting will be held at the Key West International Airport at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 5, 2002. The meeting will convene in the Board Room located in the administrative offices in the passenger terminal building. The airport is located at 3491 S. Roosevelt Boulevard, Key West Florida. An agenda and summary of agency comments will be sent to you prior to the meeting. We appreciate your time and consultation on this matter. Sincerely, URS CORPORATION ~e!t- Peter M. Green, AICP Senior Airport Environmental Planner Copy: Mr. Peter Horton, Monroe County/Key West International Airport Ms. Virginia lane, Federal Aviation Administration Mr. Mil Reisert, URS Corporation Mr. George Feher, URS Corporation URS Corporation 7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, FL 33607-1462 Tel: 813.286.1711 Fax: 813.287.8591 URS November 13, 2002 Paul Kruger US Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Division, Miami Field Office Suite 104 11420 North Kendall Drive Miami, Florida 33176-1039 RE: PREAPPLlCA TION MEETING AND SITE VISIT RUNWAY SAFETY AREA FEASIBILITY STUDY KEY WEST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA Dear Mr. Kruger: A pre-application meeting and site visit will be conducted to further discuss the feasibility of implementing the proposed improvements to the Runway Safety Area at the Key West International Airport. The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss the proposed project, permitting issues and concerns, and the development of conceptual mitigation strategies. A review ofthe project site will be conducted. The meeting will be held at the Key West International Airport at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 5, 2002. The meeting will convene in the Board Room located in the administrative offices in the passenger terminal building. The airport is located at 3491 S. Roosevelt Boulevard, Key West Florida. An agenda and summary of agency comments will be sent to you prior to the meeting. We appreciate your time and consultation on this matter. Sincerely, URS CORPORATION Peter M. Green, AICP Senior Airport Environmental Planner Copy: Mr. Peter Horton, Monroe County/Key West International Airport Ms. Virginia Lane, Federal Aviation Administration Mr. Mil Reisert, URS Corporation Mr. George Feher, URS Corporation URS Corporation 7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, FL 33607-1462 Tel: 813.286.1711 Fax: 813.287.8591 '- URS November 13, 2002 Ms. Jocelyn Karazsia National Marine Fisheries Service 11420 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 103 Miami, Florida 33176 RE: PREAPPLlCA TION MEETING AND SITE VISIT RUNWAY SAFETY AREA FEASIBILITY STUDY KEY WESTINTERNA TIONAL AIRPORT MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA Dear Ms. Karazsia: A pre-application meeting and site visit will be conducted to further discuss the feasibility of implementing the proposed improvements to the Runway Safety Area at the Key West International Airport. The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss the proposed project, permitting issues and concerns, and the development of conceptual mitigation strategies. A review of the project site will be conducted. The meeting will be held at the Key West International Airport at 1 :00 p.m. on Thursday, December 5, 2002. The meeting will convene in the Board Room located in the administrative offices in the passenger terminal building. The airport is located at 3491 S. Roosevelt Boulevard, Key West Florida. An agenda and summary of agency comments will be sent to you prior to the meeting. We appreciate your time and consultation on this matter. Sincerely, URS CORPORATION fll1ttet- Peter M. Green, AICP Senior Airport Environmental Planner Copy: Mr. Peter Horton, Monroe County/Key West International Airport Ms. Virginia Lane, Federal Aviation Administration Mr. Mil Reisert, URS Corporation Mr. George Feher, URS Corporation URS Corporation 7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, FL 33607-1462 Tel: 813.286.1711 Fax: 813.287.8591 URS November 13. 2002 Allen Webb Fish and Wildlife Biologist South Florida Ecological Services Office 1339 20th Street Vero Beach, FI 32960 - 3559 RE: PREAPPLlCATION MEETING AND SITE VISIT RUNWAY SAFETY AREA FEASIBILITY STUDY KEY WEST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA Dear Mr. Webb: A pre-application meeting and site visit will be conducted to further discuss the feasibility of implementing the proposed improvements to the Runway Safety Area at the Key West International Airport. The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss the proposed project, permitting issues and concerns, and the development of conceptual mitigation strategies. A review of the project site will be conducted. The meeting will be held at the Key West International Airport at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 5, 2002. The meeting will convene in the Board Room located in the administrative offices in the passenger terminal building. The airport is located at 3491 S. Roosevelt Boulevard, Key West Florida. An agenda and summary of agency comments will be sent to you prior to the meeting. We appreciate your time and consultation on this matter. Sincerely. URS CORPORATION ~~ Peter M. Green, AICP Senior Airport Environmental Planner Copy: Mr. Peter Horton, Monroe County/Key West International Airport Ms. Virginia Lan~, Federal Aviation Administration Mr. Mil Reisert, URS Corporation Mr. George Feher, URS Corporation URS Corporation 7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, FL 33607-1462 Tel: 813.286.1711 Fax: 813.287.8591 . .- -.:<< w 1.- m o 0::: -w t.) z c:( c -.:z w 1= c:( 1:: o Co >..!:: -gc:( ....- mIV c >'0 :!:+:i 0- IV :9c (/) "- IV.! CI) c LL- c:(Ui Cl)CI) 0:::3: >. CI) :x: -", -e o a. ... :.;( n; c: N.Q 0..... Om NE -Q) tOe ...- Q)..... ..aC/) E Q) Q)3;: 0>- Q) Q) O~ c: o . . :p Q) m .....0 mo 0-1 OJ OJ ~.s Q)..... Q) Q) ~~ ~ ~ 00 r() - i:. fY'\ - ...., ~rl-r/) .......... . , ('(f l r-.J " f.r-" ,,~t.J ~ ~ I I? '2 ~("() u1 u- V) x: ~~~~ ~ c: o :;::; ~ o a. ... o () U) ~ => '<, J.,' F: URS Meeting Documentation Project: Key West International Airport - RSA Feasibility Study Meeting DatelTime: De~ember 5, 2002 /1 :00 p.m. EST Meeting Location: Key West International Airport Key West, Florida Attendees: Andrew Gude, US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Jocelyn Karazsia, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Paul Kruger, US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) Bart Vernace, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Virginia Lane, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Peter Horton, Key West International Airport (KWIA) George Feher, URS Corporation (URS) Peter Green, URS Corporation (URS) Authored By: Peter Green, URS Corporation George G. Feher, URS Corporation ..... Subject: Field Review Meeting for Proposed RSA Improvements The following is a summary of topics discussed: 1. URS opened the meeting with a brief overview of the project and a summary of issues identified in the agency comment letters. 2. USACOE questioned the purpose of the RSA project and expressed concern about a potential future runway extension within the proposed RSA. The concern was related to USACOE desire to evaluate a complete proposal and avoid fragmenting a project for permitting purposes. If a runway extension is planned, the USACOE recommends submitting all projects in one application. It was discussed that the RSA project has independent utility and is needed for existing airport operations. It was acknowledged by Mr. Horton that additional runway length is being considered in the update of the airport master plan to address operational issues, but that the RSA project is a currently needed improvement to address safety. It was noted that plans for an extension have not been approved locally and there is no established time frame for pursuing the extension. It was further noted by FAA by that linking the needed RSA project with a runway extension could unnecessarily delay the NEPA and permit process for the safety improvements. Mr. Horton stated that any proposal for additional runway length would have to be reviewed on its own merits; and that such projects must first be approved by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) before such a project can begin. USACOE said that a permit for the RSA will very likely include restrictions on future use and development of the RSA. In addition, on-site mitigation would place further restriction on the airport property. These may include, but not be limited to, a Conservation Easement (CE) in perpetuity over the mitigation area to limit land use, long-term monitoring of associated mitigation to guarantee that success criteria have been met and possible other restrictions. J:\Key West\RSA Feasibility Study\Agency Coordination\Meeting Notes 12_05_ 02.doc i'. j,-;,.. f ~ ;",.---, 3. USACOE said that secondary impacts related to the fill project and cumulative impacts related to increased passengers are a significant concern. It was noted by the FAA that the RSA project would not induce demand or alter the operation of the airport. URS noted that secondary impacts would be addressed in the NEPA environmental review and permit application process. 4. USACOE mentioned that the Navy is currently addressing a similar project at Boca Chica Naval Air Station. The Navy's consultant will likely propose a safety area that will support hydric vegetation. The RSA for the Key West International Airport should evaluate designing the RSA so that aircraft and equipment is supported but that wetland grasses, or other herbaceous vegetation (only) would be allowed to vegetate the RSA The proposal could be presented as a wetland conversion as opposed to a wetland taking. USACOE stated they could not guarantee that credit for such action would be given by all federal or state agencies involved in the permitting process. FAA said they would check with their environmental staff to see if this is an acceptable option. URS indicated the plan would also have to be acceptable to State permitting agencies. 5. FWS asked that alternatives be evaluated to avoid or reduce wetland and habitat impacts. It was noted by URS that the scope of the study and FAA requirements are to first evaluate the standard RSA NMFS and USACOE stated that alternatives need to be considered and well documented. 6. During the course of discussion, FWS, NMFS, and USACOE stated that on-site mitigation of impacts is strongly preferred. If off-site mitigation would be presented. it would only be considered in the lower keys. 7. The discussion adjourned and the attendees conducted a field review of the proposed RSA impact areas. · This included the east approach to the runway, primarily the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) with its trimmed mangroves, · The northern 250 ft. wide area comprised of trimmed mangroves, caprock covered by saltgrass, and open water with seagrass, and · The west approach to the runway comprised of shallow salt ponds and uplands in the RPZ. The most sensitive area from the standpoint of impacts would be the open water and associated seagrass community. After the field review, the attendees reassembled in the airport conference room for further discussion. A summary of the matters discussed included: · Try to maintain hyrdic vegetation in the fill area on east end of the runway. · Consider "relocating" the small pond located off of the west end of the runway. ....~ · Consider connecting small isolated ponds. Consider connecting ponds to the east and north of the airport with the ponds on the west side of the airport through a continuously wet, permanent connection along the north side of the runway. This will improve flows and possibly a net increase in salt pond area (See attached aerial). · Try to have as much mitigation as possible on-site (in the salt ponds) before considering off-site mitigation. · Check with the Navy's consultant to obtain information on promoting hydric vegetation in a RSA · Consider removing the abandoned runway and blimp pad fill north of the runway as mitigation. There is a question of ownership that will have to be addressed and such an effort will most likely involve the City of Key West. · The Florida Keys Environmental Restoration Trust Fund may be an option for some mitigation. However, FWS and NMFS may not consider use of the FKERTF as adequate mitigation. · Consider seagrass restoration as one method of achieving mitigation. 2 hi ,. [. . The permit process for the standard RSA will need to address a No-Action Alternative; potential of project to increase capacity; and address other alternatives and why they were not selected. All items have to be well documented. . This is my understanding of the matters discussed. If there are any discrepancies or omissions, please contact me as soon as possible at (813) 675-6556. p~b-- 11~z- URS Corporation 3 ._.. ~_.s.a "uo-.fr rTuDt...._d',~.... IO/C/'w: ......tlI .......'" ~~~ 'j! '. .. , '\, ......, ; '"'~ """ :- ~a~ ,/. ~ .. - ~ ~ ~ 0,. '" '" ~tp~Cli~ -......;..ac.. !1 '" ... ... ;ONe. !':,. ~. .. It" :., .;t.'or.; 1~. ":F-':.: .. .... .. - .. - --... . . '" '=- .-c. > .... ~ , , 'jlo: .,.' :::'-l.... j"\' ~ "'. .... '..f!- . -.'... , ,h ,~;. : ~;\, . 1:' ..... /1':;-, ...- ...... "'0 ~ '" .... 4t'~F,'>;.. . ..'-: ...... ...... .', .,..,. . ~~ ...- ~~7i::' ,.... , ,~'.,i:(;:- ~ i!~ ~~! ~! ~ ;~~a!~ ~~ a ::v .,,0 :r: g l2 ~ J!':I Q '" ~ ~ iii~ J ~Jl:I""- ~ ~ .'-~ .>j; '" : J 't:,:,. '. (:!ir' . r' ~\ 1:':1 , ~~ . ..," .~ . 1, ; ,: 'f.os: ;~;\ :.:\', I , , I I I . . I :. .~~: I I , , I - ~ . U ~~ i I g ~ '.i~. ", .}.\' rJo J ~ ~ " ;lil 22 ... " Ii ;" " ~~ ~ ~ ~ Hi 1!J z n ~J .. J ~ e :lI ... t-<' ... R ~ i c: " - J :'i; z ~ ... ~~:'.;'~. ,-'. ~ " .. ~ .. , '. j.' : tt: :!I P ,. I !! .. --- ~$.~ KEY WEST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT RUNWAY SAFETY ,AREA , FEASIBILITY STUDY ATTACHt.lon: A ...." a. .. "Jocelyn Karazsia" <Jocelyn.Karazsia@no aa.gov> To: Peter_Green@urscorp.com cc: Subject: Re: Key West RSA Mitigation Meeting 02119/0308:01 AM Hi Peter, Thanks for your response to my inquiry regarding the alternatives analysis. I look forward to reviewing the document when it becomes available. The natural gas pipeline meeting that I had scheduled for Thursday 20 Feb has been postponed. Therefore, I will be able to participate in the Key West RSA meeting via teleconference. At your convenience, please provide the dial-in information. Thanks, Jocelyn Peter_Green@URSCorp.com wrote: > Jocelyn, > > The NOAA Fisheries comments and input you had provided at the October 9, > 2002 and December 5, 2002 meetings, as well as the comments and information > provided the NOAA Fisheries letter dated October 28, 2002, are significant > and will be given due consideration during the course of the Runway Safety > Area (RSA) Feasibility Study. We understand that the position of NOAA is > that the Federal Aviation Administration and Monroe County include a > detailed analysis of alternatives to avoid and/or minimize impacts to the > salt pond system and mangrove habitat at the Key West Airport, including a > no-action alternative. Further, you had requested that the analysis > document why certain alternatives are considered not practicable or are not > being considered. > > As discussed in our meetings and in the response to agency comments > distributed at the December 5, 2002 meeting, the FAA must first make a > determination about the practicability of obtaining a RSA that meets design > standards through a traditional graded area around the runway. Safety is > FAA's highest priority in the aviation system, and a determination of > practicability is based primarily on whether the provision of a RSA is > either technically feasible and/or financially feasible. The scope of the > current study is limited to evaluating the feasibility of obtaining > environmental permits and identifying probable mitigation strategies and > costs for a standard RSA. If the FAA's decision is that a standard RSA is > not practicable, then an evaluation of other options to provide additional > RSA will be conducted. > > In any case, the County's request for federal assistance to improve the RSA > will require a detailed review of environmental impacts under the National > Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Reasonable alternatives, including the > no-action alternative, would be thoroughly examined in the NEPA review > process. > > The meeting on February 20, 2003, is to present and discuss the preliminary > mitigation strategies developed by URS for the standard RSA. The > discussion will include the opportunities and constraints of on-site > mitigation and off-site mitigation. The intent is to continue dialogue > with the involved agencies and to obtain additional feedback as URS > prepares the FeaSibility Study for submission to the FAA and County. > > Peter > > Peter M. Green, AICP > Sr. Airport Environmental Planner > URS CORPORATION > 7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway > Tampa, Florida 33607-1462 > Office 813.286.1711 > Direct 813.675.6556 > Fax 813.636.2400 > peter_green@urscorp.com > > - - - Copy of Original Message > "Jocelyn > > Karazsia II To: > <Peter_Green@URSCorp.Corn> > <Jocelyn. Karazsia cc: > andrew_gude@fws.gov, jocelyn.Karazsia@noaa.gov, > @noaa.gov> > Paul.E.Kruger@saj02.usace.arrny.mil, > George_Feher@URSCorp.com, > Virginia Lane/ASO/FAA@FAA > 01/27/2003 04:35 > Mitigation Meeting > PM > > Hi Peter, > > Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the Feb 20 meeting, due to a > scheduling conflict. > > On October 28, 2002 and at the December 5, 2002 on-site meeting, NOAA > Fisheries requested a detailed analysis of alternatives to the proposed > action including the use of Engineering Materials Arresting Systems, a > smaller-scale project, a combination of both the aforementioned > alternatives, use of the Marathon and Miami International Airports, and > the no action alternative. Will this be discussed at the February 20 > meeting? If these alternatives are not practicable, we again request > that you provide supporting documentation for our review. Please provide > NOAA Fisheries with a status of your review of the requested > information. Subject: Re: Key West RSA ~- > > Thanks, > > Jocelyn L. Karazsia > Ecologist > NOAA Fisheries > Habitat Conservation > > > > > Miami Field Office Original Message ----- From: <Peter_Green@URSCorp.com> Date: Monday, January 27, 2003 3:33 pm Subject: Key West RSA Mitigation Meeting > > > Andrew 1 Jocelyn 1 Paul: > > > > This note is to confirm a meeting at the SFWMD District office in > > West Palm > > Beam on February 20th at 1:30 p.m. The purpose of the meeting is to > > present and discuss mitigation strategies being evaluated for the > > RunwaySafety Area feasibility study. We will provide information > > and project > > drawings in advance of the meeting. > > > > > > > > > > Peter M. Green, AICP > > Sr. Airport Environmental Planner > > URS CORPORATION > > 7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway > > Tampa, Florida 33607-1462 > > Office 813.286.1711 > > Direct 813.675.6556 > > Fax 813.636.2400 > > peter_green@urscorp.com Jocelyn.Karazsia. vel .' 03/04/0301 :30 PM To: PetecGreen@URSCorp.com cc: Jocelyn.Karazsia@noaa.gov, Paul.E.Kruger@saj02.usace.army.mil Subject: Re: Comments - Key West Airport RSAs ~ ~ Andrew_Gude@fws.go v Peter, I saw a draft of what NMFS sent regarding the last meeting in West Palm on the Key West Airport RSAs. In short, the Service supports NMFS's points and position. If you have any questions please phone. Thank you. Andrew Greiff Gude U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biologist Ecological Services Big pine Key subOffice P.O. Box 510, Big pine Key, Florida Keys 33043-0510 Phone 305.872.5563, Fax 305.872.3469 Andrew_Gude@FWS.Gov http://verobeach.fws.gov/ ... ' 0: -w ~ o 0: W o z <( -0 z w -S - ... o a. >-.: "0<( ::1_ -1tI t/)c >-0 -.- s1iS .ac - ... (I)CI) 1tI_ If.!: <(0 t/)CI) 0:3: >- ~ - C (]) E a> 0) CUcu C-o CU.- ~o QiU:: M- - ocu.c 0>0 C\I>CU - CU ala> 0-0 C\I .- ~o..s CU u:: CU :J a.. .....c _ .0'5(1) a>oa> Ll..u>:5: c o ..~ (])CU 1Uo 0.3 0) 0) ~:e a> (]) (])(]) ::a:::a: (]) o = o ~ 0" ~ - o .;:: u; is \0 LL ~ 2 ... C .Q 1U .... o a. .... o U (/) a: ::J POTENTIAL MITIGATION SITES FOR RSA IMPROVEMENTS KEY WEST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners and the Federal Aviation Administration are evaluating the feasibility of providing a standard Runway Safety Area (RSA) for Runway 9/27 at the Key West International Airport (KWIA). Construction of a standard RSA at Key West International Airport will impact approximately 31 acres of wetlands. Impacts have been separated by wetland type and quality of wetland. Table 1 summarizes the anticipated wetland impacts. - Mangrove wetlands that have not been trimmed for safety reasons have been designated as high quality, mangrove wetlands that have been trimmed to a minimum of 2 feet in height have been designated as medium quality, and mangrove wetlands that have been trimmed to the ground have been designated as low quality. Open water salt pond wetlands that support diverse wetland vegetation have been designated as high quality, while salt pond wetlands that lack vegetation diversity have been designated as medium quality. Tidally influenced areas of cap rock that support some grasses have been designated as low quality. As part of this feasibility study URS has been tasked with exploring potential mitigation options to compensate for the wetland impacts. URS has identified 17 potential mitigation sites representing approximately 103 acres of potential wetland creation and 54 acres of potential wetland enhancement (See Table 2 for a summary of acreage provided by each site). These sites are located throughout the lower Keys from Key West to Ohio Key. See Figure 1 for general site locations. In general these sites will provide flexibility as to the type of mitigation (salt marsh, mangrove, open water) performed. Potential mitigation sites were identified and mapped through review of aerial photography of the lower keys and meetings and conversations with land management agencies. Agencies contacted concerning potential mitigation opportunities included the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Key Deer Refuge, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC), the Florida Keys Restoration Trust Fund, the Nature Conservancy, the Monroe County Land Authority, and the City of Key West. Potential sites were located, identified, and mapped and acreages were calculated on aerial photographs ranging in scale from 1:100 to 1:500. Sites that were readily accessible were visited and evaluated for suitability. Potential mitigation at the majority of the sites includes restoration of former wetlands by fill removal and replanting or the enhancement of existing wetlands by the filling of dredge holes or enhancement of tidal flushing. Restoration of borrow pits and limestone mines is assumed to be in the form of removal of fill along the pit edges to create wetland habitat. Filling of the open water portions of the pits to reestablish salt marsh and mangrove wetlands was not considered due to limitations on the availability of large amounts of suitable fill material. The following is a list of potential sites and descriptions of potential mitigation that can be performed at these sites: Kev West 1. Airport Property Restoration - Approximately 7 acres of disturbed uplands located on airport property are available to be used for wetland mitigation (see Figure 2). This includes 5.4 acres of upland located west of Runway 9 at the missile bunker site and 1.6 acres of disturbed upland located north of the proposed RSA along the salt ponds. These uplands are proposed to be scraped down to create a combination of open water, salt marsh, and mangrove wetlands. W:\ 12637802_ KWIA RSA\M~igation\Rpt.doc\2/18/03 1 t:: 0_ (I) a. 0 Q) .= Q) ~ <('0' CI) .... ceelll. oc- '.- 0 c ..- - .- Q) Q) ~Cti E .... .- C ::J~....Q) .2> ~ 2 5 ll.-c.... eel - a. +::(j)E CQ)_ 2$<( ~ >. CI) Q)e: ~ ~ c;:) : ~ ! I ~ . ~ ""1'- 0 ~ i i, ~ ~ ~ 'j ~ f ~ " a ~ \Q ~ % f ~ c::? ~ ~ p ~I (l ~ <C z - :E :J w 0:: D.. o cO ... ! >- [t: <C 1i Z gj"- i :J w [t: Q. S o N N e ~ j tn u: ~ 1::: o Co .. .- U) <C_ -c CUG) c e .2 G) 1a> c e "Co Se c_ =<C U)CJ) ~a: >- ~ c o i .. o '0 G) a: ~ 8- o .. a. 1::: o Co .. <( ~ E 1 1 ~I ~ C o .. l! .s : ~I :S' ~ - ~ l5 ~ 'a Q. !, ~ ~ i .~ .9- % - ~ ~ to to "0 "0 C C ::l ::l o 0 ~lD lD (()U E 8..~ ~ e.... :r: a.. a.. o Project Benefits: 7 acres of on-site wetland creation/restoration. Increased circulation within the salt ponds. Project Constr~ints: Coordination with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to obtain approval to impact the bunker site. Cost: TBD 2. City of Key West Property Restoration Approximately 11.5 acres of disturbed uplands controlled by the City of Key West and located on the northeast property boundary of the airport can be restored to wetlands (see Figure 3). This includes 5.3 acres that appear to be a former runway and 6.2 acres of area that are currently being used as a fill stockpile. A review of property records indicates that this area is leased to the City of Key West by Monroe County. A former missile site located to the north of the airport and located on property controlled by the City of Key West could also provide up to 8.2 acres of potential mitigation. This area appears to be previously filled wetlands that could be returned to wetland grade as mitigation. This site has not been included in the list of available sites since several radio antennas currently occupy portions of the site, and it is unknown how many actual acres may be available. Coordination with the City may identify some fill removal in portions of the missile site. Project Benefits: 11.5 acres of on-site wetland creation/restoration. Increases wetland habitat within the salt ponds. Project Constraints: An agreement with the City of Key West will be required to utilize these sites. Cost: TBD Stock Island 3. Cow Key Road Removal This project consists of the removal of a 1,1 OO-linear-foot section of roadway that connects Stock Island and Cow Key and removal of 600 linear feet of roadway from a mangrove swamp on Cow Key. The project also includes the removal of a 1,800-foot-long finger fill that extends from the road to the west (see Figure 4). Project Benefits: 5.6 acres of restoration of open water/bay habitat and mangrove wetlands. Additionally the road removal will allow flushing of a 3-acre open water area that is currently impounded. Project Constraints: Area is under private ownership and will need to be acquired. Removal of the finger fill may be unpopular with adjacent waterfront property owners due to the shelter it provides from south winds. Cost: TBD Boca Chica 4. North Boca Chica Restoration This project consists of the restoration of a dredged and filled wetland back to salt marsh/mangrove habitat in an area located on the northwest corner of Boca Chica Naval Air Station (see Figure 5). The area appears to have been filled and dredged to create finger fills and canals either for residential development or military use. Material from the finger fills could be used to return the canals and dredge area back to salt marsh/mangrove swamp grade. The finger fills would be removed back to wetland grade. Additionally, a finger fill jetty would be removed to enhance tidal flushing. W:I 12637802_ KW1A RSAIMitigationIRpt.doc\2/18/03 2 ~. I "Ii ~u. C') 0 0 ('I) N ! ~ ~ III ::::I ::I C) ... .c u: ~ .f >- cr: <C Z :2: :J w cr: a.. c 0 ;:: t:: CU "'" 0 0 c. - "'" 0 ~0 CI) - a: -c CUCl) >- S E t:: CI) .- CI) c. - > CUo e c "'" "'"c. Q. .!E - ..5- 0 CI) -~ == 0cn ~a: >- ~ >- ~ '0 ~ (3 ~ ~ as as u u c: c: ;:] ;:] u 0 0 lI) lI) ~o 19 g..~ :0 0:: 0:: ~ o -." ... " E l "> !I '" . c o .. l! S !I ~ ~ " ~ c o j G. i_ ~~ S ~ 13 '" i II oe .9- :i: Location Map.. ,l Sugarloaf ~ Key "" ~, J~ :LlFtl, ~ ~~~~-~,- Key West - 1 - Mangrove 2 - Scrub Mangrove 3 - Saltmarsh 4 - Buttonwoods 5 - Hammocks 6 - Pinelands 7 - Exotics 8 - Developed 9 - Freshwater Hardwoods 10 - Freshwater Pine 11 - Freshwater Marsh 12 - Grasslands 13 - Water 16 - Ridge/Hammock 17-Dune Habitat Boundary Key West International Airport RSA Improvements Cow Key Road Removal Figure 4 PRELlMINARYw. 300 150 0 300 S Feel CJ Proposed Project Boundary February, 2003 URS H:\projects\ 12637802_kwlApplications\mxdlmitig_restorations _revised.mxd Location Map ... - "'''' Sull"rIoaf ""- Key ~ -' J~ .LIR 11. "1 j ~ I/Y"' ~,.."...... ....~ Boca Chlca Key Key West - ,- - ..- - - Habitat Boundary Key West International Airport RSA Improvements North Boca Chica Restoration Figure 5 PRELlMINARYw+E ~ 1W ~ S Fee' ,....... Proposed 1....-.1 Project Boundary February, 2003 URS H:lprojects\ 12637802_kw\Applioations\mxdlmitig_restorations_revised.mxd Project Benefits: 40 acres of salt marsh/mangrove swamp restoration 15 acres of open water/dredged bottom enhancement Project Constraints: Area is thought to be under private ownership; however, access is through U.S. Navy property. Acquisition of property is required. Cost: TBD Suaarloaf Kevs 5. USFWS Key Deer Refuge Road Removal The project would result in the removal of approximately 1,750 feet of old State Road 4A from mangrove wetlands on property owned by the Key Deer Refuge (see Figure 6). This project is advocated by the refuge; however, refuge staff indicate that a boardwalk would have to be constructed to maintain public access to portions of the refuge property. Project Benefits: 1.5 acres of mangrove swamp restoration. The property is under public ownership and would not have to be acquired. Project Constraints: Construction of a boardwalk. Cost: TBD 6. Sugarloaf Loop Road Removal and Limestone Quarry Restoration The project consists of the removal of portions of a privately owned loop road from mangrove wetlands. The road has limited blocked access due to USFWS refuge property. Approximately 4,650 linear feet of road could be removed from mangrove swamps. Portions of the loop road located in uplands would be left in place. Additionally, edges of a limestone quarry located adjacent to the road could be scraped down and converted to salt marsh/mangrove wetlands (see Figure 7). Project Benefits: 4.2 acres mangrove swamp restoration from the road removal. 3.2 acres of salt marsh/mangrove wetland restoration at the limestone quarry. Project Constraints: The site is under private ownership and will need to be acquired. A large amount of property may have to be acquired to obtain rights to the road. Cost: TBD Summerland Kev 7. Summerland Key Bridge Removal This project would result in the removal of a wooden bridge that connects Summerland Key to Wahoo Key (see Figure 8). Fill associated with the bridge pads and approaches would also be removed. The property is owned by the USFWS and FFWCC. This project was recommended by Key Deer Refuge staff. Project Benefits: Enhancement of 3,100 square feet of bay bottom and removal of 0.08 acre of fill from mangrove wetlands. The site is under public ownership and will not require acquisition. Project Constraints: Access to the site is over a poorly maintained road. Cost: TBD W:I 12637802_ KWIA RSAIMitigationIRpt.doc\2/18/03 3 1 - Mangrove 2 - Scrub Mangrove 3 - Saltmarsh 4 - Buttonwoods 5 - Hammocks 6 - Pinelands 7 - Exotics 8 - Developed 9 - Freshwater Hardwoods 10 - Freshwater Pine 11 - Freshwater Marsh 12 - Grasslands 13 - Water 16 - Ridge/Hammock 17 - Dune CJ Proposed Project Boundary Habitat Boundary ~ Sugarloaf location Map. ~ Key ""'" J.,. /~1J~ ~~~ ~_"OO~. " 10 Key West International Airport RSA Improvements USFWS Key Deer Refuge Road Removal Figure 6 PRELIMINARY w. 300 150 0 3CH) S Feet February, 2003 URS H:\projects\ 12637802_kw\Applications\mxd\mitig~restoralions _revised.mxd 1 . Mangrove 2. Scrub Mangrove 3 . Saltmarsh 4 . Buttonwoods 5. Hammocks 6 . Pinelands 7 . Exotics 8 . Developed 9 . Freshwater Hardwoods 10. Freshwater Pine 11 . Freshwater Marsh 12. Grasslands 13. Water 16. RidgelHammock 17 - Dune CJ Proposed Project Boundary Habitat Boundary Location Map ... It Key West International Airport RSA Improvements Sugarloaf Loop Road Removal and Limestone Quarry Restoration Figure 7 PRELlMINARYw+ 600 300 0 600 S Feel February, 2003 URS rl:\projecls\ 12637802_kw\Applications\mxdlmitig_restorations _revised.mxd 1 . Mangrove 2 . Scrub Mangrove 3 . Saltmarsh 4 . Buttonwoods 5 - Hammocks 6 . Pinelands 7 . Exotics 8 . Developed 9 . Freshwater Hardwoods 10 . Freshwater Pine 11 . Freshwater Marsh 12 - Grasslands 13 - Water 16 - RidgelHammock 17 - Dune CJ Proposed Project Boundary Habitat Boundary Location Map If ,\ - - - - - - ,.- ,..- - - Key West International Airport RSA Improvements Summerland Key Bridge Removal Figure 8 PRELIMINARY w1fr 100 50 100 S Fee' .- URS February, 2003 - H:lprojecls\ 12637802_kw\Applications\mxd\mitig_restorations _revised.mxd Cudioe Kev 8. CudjQe Key Limestone Mine Restoration Two limestone pits on Cudjoe Key could be restored back to salt marsh/mangrove wetland habitats (see Figure 9). Wetland creation areas would be along the edges of the pits where fill could be removed to create wetland grades. Rock barriers surrounding the pits could be removed to enhance tidal flushing within existing salt/marsh mangrove wetlands. Project Benefits: 8 acres of salt marsh/mangrove wetland restoration. 10 acres of salt marsh/mangrove wetland enhancement. Project Constraints: The site is under private ownership and will have to be acquired. 9. Cudjoe Key Canal Restoration A canal on Cudjoe Key that was never opened to the gulf could be filled and grades brought back to salt marsh/mangrove wetland elevations (see Figure 10). Additionally, adjoining fill could be scraped down to create a salt marsh/ mangrove wetland. Project Benefits: 0.67 acre of salt marsh/mangrove wetland restoration. 0.05 acre of wetland enhancement. Project Constraints: Area is under private ownership and would have to be acquired. Cost: TBD 10. Spain Boulevard Culverts and Fill Removal Spain Boulevard is a county-maintained road and the main access road for a subdivision located on northern Cudjoe Key (see Figure 11). The road is a fill peninsula that has severed the tidal connection between the mangrove/open water wetlands lying north and south of the road. The mangrove wetland located north of the road shows signs of hyper saline conditions as evidenced by dead and dying mangroves. Culverts could be placed beneath Spain Boulevard to enhance tidal flushing in the impounded mangrove wetland lying north of the road. Additionally, finger fills located along Spain Boulevard could be removed to restore salt marsh wetlands. Project Benefits: 0.38 acre of salt marsh/mangrove wetland restoration. 23 acres of mangrove wetland enhancement. Project Constraints: A water utility line may be located underneath the road. Work would be performed within the county road right-of-way. Cost: TBD 11. Key Deer Refuge Dredge Hole Restoration A dredge hole located on Key Deer Refuge property (see Figure 12) could be restored by placing adjacent spoil material back into the dredge hole to restore mangrove/salt marsh wetland grade. This project was recommended by Key Deer Refuge staff. Project Benefits: 0.79 acre of salt marsh/mangrove wetland restoration and 0.50 acre of salt marsh/mangrove wetland enhancement. Area is under public ownership and would not require acquisition. W:\ 12637802_ KWlA RSA\MitigationIRpt.doc\2/18/03 4 1 - Mangrove 2 - Scrub Mangrove 3 - Saltmarsh 4 - Buttonwoods 5 - Hammocks 6 . Pinelands 7 . Exotics 8 - Developed 9 - Freshwater Hardwoods 10 - Freshwater Pine 11 . Freshwater Marsh 12 - Grasslands 13 - Water 16 - Ridge/Hammock 17 . Dune CJ Proposed Project Boundary Habitat Boundary Location Map f ,.. - r- , Key West International Airport RSA Improvements Cudjoe Key Limestone Mine Restoration Figure 9 PRELlMINARYw. 300 150 0 300 S Feet February, 2003 URS H:\projects\ 12637802_kw\Applicationslmxd\mitig_restorations_revised.mxd J I 1 . Mangrove 2 . Scrub Mangrove 3 - Saltmarsh 4 - Buttonwoods 5 - Hammocks 6 - Pinelands 7 - Exotics 8 - Developed 9 - Freshwater Hardwoods 10 - Freshwater Pine 11 - Freshwater Marsh 12 - Grasslands 13 - Water 16 - Ridge/Hammock 17 - Dune CJ Proposed Project Boundary Habitat Boundary Key West International Airport RSA Improvements Cudjoe Key Canal Restoration Figure 10 ~n PRELIMINARY WW" S 100 50 100 Feet February, 2003 URS H:\projecls\ 12637802_kwlApplioations\mxcl\mitig_restorations _revised.mxd Location Map . " - ,... - .- .... .... I - I ... - 1 . Mangrove 2 . Scrub Mangrove 3. Saltmarsh 4. Buttonwoods 5. Hammocks 6 . Pinelands 7 . Exotics 8 - Developed 9 - Freshwater Hardwoods 10 - Freshwater Pine 11 . Freshwater Marsh 12 - Grasslands 13 - Water 16 - RidgelHammock 17 - Dune ,.... I'- - ~ ,....., Proposed ........ Project Boundary Key West International Airport RSA Improvements Spain Boulevard Culvert and Fill Removal Figure 11 PRELIMINARY w. s 200 100 200 Fee' Habitat Boundary URS - February, 2003 H:\projects\ 12637802_kwlApplications\mxdlmitig_reslorations _revised.mxd 1 - Mangrove 2 - Scrub Mangrove 3 - Saltmarsh 4 - Buttonwoods 5. Hammocks 6 - Pinelands 7 - Exotics 8 - Developed 9 - Freshwater Hardwoods 10 - Freshwater Pine 11 - Freshwater Marsh 12 - Grasslands 13 - Water 16 - RidgelHammock 17 - Dune CJ Proposed Project Boundary Habitat Boundary Key West International Airport RSA Improvements Key Deer Refuge Dredge Hole Restoration Figure 12 ~ PRELIMINARY WW" s 150 75 150 Fee' February, 2003 URS H:lprojects' 12637802_kw\Applications\mxdlmitig_restorations_revised.mxd ,.-. Project Constraints: Access to site is over poorly maintained road. Additional materials may be needed to complete the restoration if on-site spoil material is inadequate. Cost: TBD - Middle Torch Kev 12. Finger Fill Removal - A 450-linear-foot finger fill road located along Dorn road between Middle and Big Torch Keys (See Figure 13) could be removed and the area restored back to salt marsh wetlands. It appears the fill road is located on state owned submerged lands; however, ownership of the road has not been verified. Project Benefits: 0.31 acre of salt marsh restoration. Project Constraints: Acquisition of the road if privately held. - Cost: TBD 13. Habitat for Humanity Dump Site Restoration A dumpsite owned by Habitat for Humanity (see Figure 14) could be restored back to salt marsh/mangrove wetlands. The site was acquired by Habitat for Humanity to construct affordable housing; however, the site may not be appropriate for housing because of its previous use as a dump. Project Benefits: 5.2 acres of salt marsh/mangrove wetland creation and enhancement. Project Constraints: It is unknown what materials have been dumped at this site. Dump clean up prior to wetland creation may preclude consideration of this site. - , Cost: TBD Bia Pine Kev - 14. Western Big Pine Dredge Hole Restoration A 0.5o-acre dredge hole located on Key Deer Refuge property (see Figure 15) could be restored back to salt marsh/mangrove wetlands. Additionally there is an opportunity to scrape down 2.4 acres of disturbed uplands belonging to the refuge on both sides of U.S. 1 to create mangrove/salt marsh wetlands. The Key Deer Refuge staff recommends this project; however, it is unclear how much upland property would be available for conversion directly adjacent to the dredge hole because the public ownership boundary is unclear. - ~ Project Benefits: 2.4 acres of salt marsh/mangrove wetland creation and 0.50 acre of wetland enhancement. Area is under public ownership and would not require acquisition. - Project Constraints: This area is used by live-aboard boaters to access Big Pine; however, the refuge wants to discourage this use. \0 -- Cost: TBD 15. Key Deer Refuge Borrow Pit Restoration - A borrow pit located on Key Deer Refuge property could be restored back to salt marsh/mangrove wetlands (see Figure 16). The northern end of the pit would be available to scrape down to create salt marsh/mangrove wetlands. This project was recommended by Key Deer Refuge Staff. - - W:\ 12637802_ KW1A RSA\Mitigation\Rpt.doc\2/18/03 5 .. I j 1 - Mangrove 2 - Scrub Mangrove 3 - Saltmarsh 4 - Buttonwoods 5 - Hammocks 6 - Pinelands 7 - Exotics 8 - Developed 9 - Freshwater Hardwoods 10 - Freshwater Pine 11 - Freshwater Marsh 12 - Grasslands 13 - Water 16 - Ridge/Hammock 17 - Dune CJ Proposed Project Boundary Habitat Boundary Location Map f 4 ,\ Key West International Airport RSA Improvements Finger Fill Removal Figure 13 ~. PRELIMINARY WW" 100 50 0 100 S Fee' February, 2003 URS H:\projecls\ 12637802_kwlApplioations\mxdlmitig_,eslorations_revised.mxd -- ~:l:'-' _~''-\j,(; - - ,- , r - - 1 - Mangrove 2 - Scrub Mangrove 3 - Saltmarsh 4 - Buttonwoods 5 - Hammocks 6. Pinelands 7 - Exotics 8 - Developed 9 - Freshwater Hardwoods 10 - Freshwater Pine 11 - Freshwater Marsh 12 - Grasslands 13 - Water 16 - RidgelHammock 17 - Dune - \. - - r--I Proposed ~ Project Boundary Key West International Airport RSA Improvements Figure 14 PRELIMINARY 100 50 0 100 Feet wifr s Habitat Boundary Habitat For Hummanity Dump Site Restoration URS February. 2003 H:\projeots\ 12637l102_kw\Applications\mxdlmitig3estorations _revised.mxd 1 - Mangrove 2 - Scrub Mangrove 3 - Saltmarsh 4 - Buttonwoods 5 - Hammocks 6 - Pinelands 7 - Exotics 8 - Developed 9 - Freshwater Hardwoods 10 - Freshwater Pine 11 - Freshwater Marsh 12 - Grasslands 13 - Water 16 - RidgelHammock 17 - Dune CJ Proposed Project Boundary Habitat Boundary ,:f,;,~:J,:.:,_~~.'" Location Map ~ '\ ,\ Key West International Airport RSA Improvements Western Big Pine Dredge Hole Restoration Figure 15 PRELIMINARY 150 75 150 Fee' w+ s H:\projecls\ 12637802_kw\Applicationslrnxdlmitig3estorations _revised.mxd February, 2003 URS '. 1 - Mangrove 2 - Scrub Mangrove 3 - Saltmarsh 4 - Buttonwoods 5 - Hammocks 6 - Pinelands 7 - Exotics 8 - Developed 9 - Freshwater Hardwoods 10 - Freshwater Pine 11 - Freshwater Marsh 12 - Grasslands 13 - Water 16 - Ridge/Hammock 17 - Dune Location Map '" ,.. - r- - - - I. - - Key West International Airport RSA Improvements Key Deer Refuge Borrow Pit Restoration Figure 16 PRELIMINARY 150 75 0 150 Fee' w. s - ,-~~:\. CJ Proposed Project Boundary Habitat Boundary URS February I 2003 - H:\projects\ 12637802_kw\Applications\mxd\miti9_restorations _revised.mxd .. Project Benefits: 3.8 acres salt marsh/mangrove wetland restoration. Area is under public ownership and would not require acquisition. Project Constraints: None. Cost: TBD No Name Kev 16. No Name Key Limestone Pit Restoration Portions of an existing limestone mine located on the northwest corner of No Name Key (See Figure 17) could be restored back to salt marsh/mangrove wetlands by scraping down existing pit edges to wetland grade. Additionally, disturbed wetlands adjacent to the mine could be enhanced by increasing tidal flushing and wetland plantings. This property is privately owned and currently for sale. Project Benefits: 4.3 acres of salt marsh/mangrove wetland restoration 5.3 acres of salt marsh/mangrove wetland enhancement Project Constraints: Area is under private ownership and would require acquisition. Cost: TBD Ohio Kev 17. Ohio Key Mangrove Restoration - 4.1 acres of filled mangrove wetlands located on Key Deer Refuge property could be restored to mangrove swamp (see Figure 18). This project was recommended by Key Deer Refuge staff. Project Benefits: 4.1 acres of mangrove swamp restoration. The site is located on public property and would not require acquisition. Project Constraints: None. Cost: TBD Total Potential Wetland Creation Available: 103 acres Total Potential Wetland Enhancement Available: 54 acres Total Estimated Creation Needed to Mitigate for RSA Impacts: 52 acres W:I 12637802_ KWIA RSAIMitigationIRpt.docI2/18/03 6 1 - Mangrove 2 - Scrub Mangrove 3 - Saltmarsh 4 - Buttonwoods 5 - Hammocks 6 - Pinelands 7 - Exotics 8 - Developed 9 - Freshwater Hardwoods 10 - Freshwater Pine 11 . Freshwater Marsh 12 - Grasslands 13 - Water 16 - Ridge/Hammock 17 - Dune .,;,.,1 r-I Proposed L.....I Project Boundary Key West International Airport RSA Improvements No Name Key Limestone Pit Restoration Figure 17 PRELIMINARY 150 75 0 150 Feet w. s Habitat Boundary February, 2003 URS H:\projects\ 12637802_kwlApplicationslrnxdlmitig_restoralions 3evised.mxd 1 - Mangrove 2 - Scrub Mangrove 3 - Saltmarsh 4 - Buttonwoods 5 - Hammocks 6 - Pinelands 7 - Exotics 8 - Developed 9 - Freshwater Hardwoods 10 - Freshwater Pine 11 - Freshwater Marsh 12 - Grasslands 13 - Water 16 - Ridge/Hammock 17 - Dune CJ Proposed Project Boundary Habitat Boundary Key West International Airport RSA Improvements Ohio Key Mangrove Restoration Figure 18 PRELIMINARY 150 75 0 150 Fee' wfjr s February, 2003 URS H:\projects\ 12637802_kwlApplicationslrnxdlmitig_restorations _revised.mxd TABLE 1 WETLAND IMPACTS AND MITIGATION ACREAGES KEY WEST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT RSAIMPROVEMENTS ..- Man Hi h Man Medium Man rove Low Salt Pond Hi h Salt Pond Medium Cap Rock Wetland 731 Low 9.80 1:1 9.8 Totals 31 52 * Ratios were developed using guidance found in the South Florida Water Management District Basis of Review For Environmental Resource Permits. ,....... ,-- ,... ~ - ,... ..- ;-- W:\ 12637802_ KWIA RSA\Mitigation\Rpt.doc\2118/03 7 TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL MITIGATION SITES KEY WEST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT RSAIMPROVEMENTS 0 2. 11.2 0 5.6 0 40.0 15.0 1.5 0 7.4 0 .08 .07 8.0 10.0 9. 0.7 0.05 0.4 23.0 0.8 0.5 0.3 0 5.2 0 2.4 0.5 3.8 0 4.3 5.3 4.1 0 103 54 W:\ 12637802_ KWIA RSA\Mitigation\Rpt.doc\2/18/03 8 URS Meeting Documentation Project: Key West International Airport - Runway Safety Area (RSA) Feasibility Study Meeting Date: February 20, 2003 Meeting Location: South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) West Palm Beach, Florida Attendees: Mr. Ron Peekstok (SFWMD) Ms. Anita Bain (SFWMD) Ms. Virginia Lane (Federal Aviation Administration I FAA) Mr. Peter Green (URS) Mr. Ted Murray (URS) Mr. George G. Feher (Environmental Consultant) By teleconference: Ms. Jocelyn Karazsia (National Marine Fisheries Service I NMFS) Mr. Paul Kruger (Army Corps of Engineers I ACOE) Authored By: Mr. George G. Feher Mr. Peter Green Mr. Ted Murray Subject: Wetlands Mitigation for the RSA Study Distribution: Project Files Attendees An updated Study overview had been previously provided by mail to the attendees. This was used as the basis of our discussions. The following is a summary of topics discussed: Study Overview and Update . Mr. Green opened the meeting with a brief overview of the current status of the Study and efforts to find mitigation land for approximately 31 acres of anticipated wetland impacts. . URS had contacted several governmental agencies during the past two months for mitigation opportunities and the purpose of the meeting is to to present preliminary findings and obtain input as to their suitability for this study. . FAA stated the previously discussed "wet RSA" - one that could sustain wetland vegetation - is not feasible since it would not meet their engineering safety criteria; therefore, it will no longer be considered. C:\Do<:wnems and SettingslggfIMy DocwnentslO2-27-03\Key West AicportIRSA Mitigation Study\Meeting ofOZ-20-03 SFWMD.doc Mitigation Requirements and Assumptions · Mr. Feher discussed how existing habitats on the Airport have been field evaluated and ranked as to High, Medium and Low quality. This was based on professional judgment considering such factors as available perching, roosting and feeding opportunities for birds; faunal trails through the mangroves; evidence of crustaceans and other invertebrates in the substrate; seagrass diversity in the salt ponds, flushing and hyper / hypo-salinity; but, also taking into consideration the recent trimming and alteration to mangroves (FDEP permitted) for the long-term safe operation of the Airport. All of the evaluation assumptions will be presented in the final study document. · The COE stated it would consider the trimmed and altered mangroves as if they were in their previous untrimmed state; therefore of high quality wetlands. · Both the NMFS and ACOE indicated a more scientific approach would be required in the permit application; perhaps Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedures (WRAP), or EWRAP. NMFS stated it would send copy of EWRAP to URS. · All agencies reiterated their previous position that the mangrove and salt pond communities located on the Airport are considered as unique to the region; being the last such habitats of size remaining in the City of Key West. The Applicant will have to demonstrate in the permit application that all efforts have been done to avoid and minimize wetland impacts to the greatest extent practicable prior to the agencies being able to consider a mitigation plan. · All agencies reiterated their previous position that wetland mitigation is first desirable adjacent to the impact area, preferably on Airport property or contiguous lands; then proceed up-the-keys to a reasonable distance. · Both SFWMD and the ACOE are also interested in the potential hydrologic impact the RSA may have on the surrounding salt ponds; this will have to be addressed in future studies as the RSA proposal progresses. · SFWMD stated the mitigation ratios for creation and restoration presented to-date by URS are on the low end of the spectrum; in all likelihood higher ratios will be required during the permitting process. If enhancement will be proposed, ratios would also be in the higher ranges. Also, the application would have to address secondary impacts. · SFWMD suggested as conceptual mitigation ratios for mangroves: a 3:1 to 5:1 ratio for high quality, a 3:1 ratio for medium quality, and 2:1 for the trimmed (low quality) mangrove wetlands. Usually they do not accept a 1: 1 ratio for any of the mangrove communities; only if they are extremely infested with exotic or nuisance species. · All agencies stressed the need to evaluate cumulative impacts of habitat loss in the area and secondary impacts that could result from the RSA improvements. FAA Page 2 of 4 stated the FHW A has a web site that provides guidelines for addressing cumulative impacts; this might be a good starting point. Presentation of Conceptual Mitigation Projects . Mr. Murray presented the mitigation sites and options listed in the meeting handout. Each of the 17 sites was discussed in detail. Some of the mitigation could be provided on Airport property, but the most promising opportunities would be on the land north of (he Airport. . The Study identified the best opportunities for mitigation on the land north of the Airport that is either owned or leased by the City of Key West; including, the old blimp pads and remnant runways, the area being used by the City as a stockpile site for excavated material, and the abandoned Hawk Missile Site. However, this would require considerable coordination with the City. . ACOE stated the farther removed the proposed mitigation is from the Airport the higher the mitigation ratios could become. . Mr. Murray presented the concept of acquisition and preservation of private property. SFWMD stated this might be considered as an option; probably at a 20:1 ratio. This could be a component of the total mitigation package; would need a Management Plan and a Conservation Easement. NMFS stated it would be a last resort option for them. Discussion of Mitigation Strategies . The Cow Key Site: SFWMD believes the City tried to obtain that parcel for mitigation but could not come to a resolution with the owner. URS should investigate. The ACOE expressed concern about releasing degraded water once the fill was removed, thereby lowering water quality in the adjacent wetlands. . The North Boca Chica Site: ACOE indicated this site may be problematic due to land costs and access. . The Key Deer Site: ACOE was in favor of the proposed road removal. . The Key Deer Refuge Borrow Pit Site: SFWMD indicated some of this property may already be under construction as a mitigation site. . ACOE listed some of the commenting agencies that may affect the permitting process: the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the NMFS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) for Coastal Zone Consistency, and the City of Key West. Conclusions . URS is expecting to complete the Study by the end of March. Page 3 of 4 . FAA will review the document and make a determination as to the feasibility of a standard RSA. . FAA indicated the next step might be the NEPA process; an Environmental Assessment or possibly a full Environmental Impact Statement, and/or the submittal of a permit application. END OF MINUTES Page 4 of 4 URS Meeting Documentation Project: Key West International Airport - Runway Safety Area (RSA) Feasibility Study .IVI.eeting Date: JaDuary 31 ,"200~ Meeting Location: Office of Monroe County Land Authority City of Key West, Florida Attendees: Mr. Mark Rosch, Executive Director, Monroe County Land Authority Mr. George G. Feher, URS Corporation / Tampa Authored By: George G. Feher, Sr. Environmental Scientist Subject: Mitigation opportunities on County owned land. Distribution: Project Files The following is a summary of topics discussed: · Mr. Feher opened the meeting with a brief oveNiew of the Study and the need to find mitigation land for approximately 31 acres of anticipated wetland impacts; primarily for mangroves, salt ponds and herbaceous wetlands. The Study is seeking primarily impacted uplands that could be converted to the above mentioned wetland habitats. · Mr. Rosch discussed the following sites: - The Cow Key property I indicated is in private ownership, - The Berg property was recently acquired by the City next to 1800 Atlantic Ave. condos. There may be some opportunities there; discuss with the City, - The George Deviglous (sp?) property was also acquired by the City, - The Chetkin (sp?) property on Big Pine Key has about 2 acres that could be scraped down, and Summerland Key at MM 25 has a piece of county land that is being looked at by a private entity for mitigation. In addition we should contact Laurie McHargue with the County on Plantation Key for additional information (305) 852-7112. END OF MINUTES C:lI>cJcumonts and Seuingslggl\My DocumentslWorl: rUes 02-27-03\Key West AitponIRSA Mitigation StudyIMeeting of 01-31-03 M Roch.doc URS Meeting Documentation Project: Key West International Airport - Runway Safety Area (RSA) Feasibility Study Meeting Date: January 29, 2003 Meeting Location: Office of the Assistant City Manager City of Key West, Florida Attendees: Mr. John Jones, Assistant City Manager Mr. Ty Symroski, City Planner Mr. George G. Feher, URS Corporation / Tampa Authored By: George G. Feher, Sr. Environmental Scientist Distribution: Mitigation opportunities on City owned land. Project Files Subject: The following is a summary of topics discussed: . Mr. Feher opened the meeting with a brief overview of the Study and the need to find mitigation land for approximately 31 acres of anticipated wetland impacts; primarily for mangroves, salt ponds and herbaceous wetlands. The Study is seeking primarily impacted uplands that could be converted to the above mentioned wetland habitats. . Mr. Jones indicated the City's desire to cooperate with the Airport; he also invited Mr. Ty Symroski (City Planner) and Ms. Annalise Mannix-Lachner (Manager Engineering Services) to attend. Ms. Mannix-Lachner could not attend, but a meeting was scheduled with her for later that day. . Mr. Feher indicated the Study sees considerable opportunities for mitigation on the land north of the Airport; including the old blimp pads and remnant runways, the area being used by the City as a stockpile site for excavated material and the abandoned Hawk Missile Site. . Mr. Symroski stated his opinion that the City had lost a considerable area of upland habitat to development and it should retain as much of existing upland habitat as possible. Consequently, he is not in favor of converting the remaining uplands into wetlands. In his opinion the City should concentrate on an "ecosystem" approach to restoration of upland and freshwater wetlands. In addition, improving the existing stormwater systems and cleaning out retention ponds should be pursued. C:\Documcnts and Settingslggf\My Docwrents\02-27-Q3\Key West AiIportIRSA Mitigation Study\Meeting of 01-29-03 I Iones.do<: · Mr. Symroski indicated that the land north of the Airport - where the abandoned blimp pad and runway is located - is owned by the City and that the City has plans to use it as a "passive park". He also stated that the abandoned Hawk Missile Site conveyed by the Navy to the City should be retained as a historical landmark representing the "coastal defenses of the cold war". It should not be removed for wetland mitigation. · Mr. Feher inquired as to the lift station located south of Government Rd.; Mr. Jones indicated it isa functioning system (recentiy'repaired) and can not be removed to create wetlands. · Mr. Symroski indicated he has a number of stormwater improvement projects in mind and would provide URS a map with their locations. END OF MINUTES Page 2 of2 <;:::.---;-' ltp~~~~[Q) ~AR 0 ~ 200~ URS ;-ii 1/,epASJ vM ..J~ l: 0<- CII.;;~ b-<'Ci/C,e' / ~y. -11 p,{~'-.;\. I. ~ ei &' f . ... ..v' -\' (\,0<'"'-- f s~~.. 'r), f V \ 9--e- ') ~ j_ x ~ ~. K'- ..__ . l~,f...- p. ~\~. _ J ~./-, J...) -\ o^- fA ~ ..,.... f; . -'II r . *' t-- \-e- .) " (!- " (') -1."- 0 /(~( ~. . ..1"<> (J ~ ~-~ ;z- \, "'-" _ ~ 4 +.~"':Z _ .....:t> ..... OJ ~ -t. '2.. ~ ~ ~;.X' '? ":r.. -'l;~ ",S ~ --"<". '^... ~ '" '^ ...- ~ ~~ ~... >~~ :..., ~ ~~ .'\" d:-..... ~ ~ , Y"', '" ~I.~ '\~~\'0 \y;f" ~~\ 4'17 ~~-") ~ ;/ .......... /j " ./ ',,-~--....---- '} ~,'\- ~ ~ ~ ", ~ t- '$ \;l ... '-e. ~ Q <.."l I~ ~ ~ ~"; ~"\I II( ~~~ '"' ~ ~ {~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ N0- --.. ......, " ~.~ ~ '. r { ~--{...;~ _ ~... t:J '\ ~ ~ .., . I ~ : ~ { } ~ 04 (\. ........-.{'I-~ "" ~ u '- "'-v.....~'\l O'~ . ~ . -;:. '; Q 1 ~ ~ ~\ ~ ,~ .,. '0 '<. .JL~~'"~ " ~ ~ <l .P ~ ~...... t OJ l \J . ~, -------... .-.../"-..,t ~ 1/ ~ .['... ~ 'I" \J-""" ~ " ".r I -,._~\ ~ ~ '\ 1\ - ':. [) \ / I, " ",,<J ""I '--/ ':;''f::'<:;.c 'to. ':l'llJl. ~ ~ ~ "t' ~ '1- '\ 1 "t\ '" 0, ( :s" .~ ... 'It ,. ~ , ,,-,",~~q: '-/:.,"" ~ X' .\ .<>1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ......x -i ~ ~ ~ ~~\i.,"~ ~ .....$"> ...,.. q" ~ F::,. ~).~\J:'~ ..... -:; " . j ~ , -Ii {,":;;e, ~ ... '~~ 'o:....~~ f~'t- '" .r-. l-\:",~ I r-" / ~ ~ : "-i j t .1 ~ It ~ , -.c . ~ ~"t I s'>.~v "\ ~~ ,,:} -a ~ ~ i .~~ ~ ." ~l!e<, r)l "~~"'- ... h",ll{ \:--.-.:n,,;r. ~ (~~ d~ 0 ~.~ ~~~ l\J /--.... :~. ~~;-......- ~~3 , ~ ~ 1 (~ I ~~ 'j \ ~J1i / \.............,.; '-<') '\ ~~ ,<.\"'<\ q' ~t-~ ~ }'b", <l oJ'1- ~~ ~ il . "~ ~ "i: ~~~ ~ ~ "' '< ~ ,or ... ... ~ ), ~ ~ .~ ~v 2 ~;--lt) J ~ .. G <::: '- ')~Il~-r""" :; r. '" S ~ "< ."z '1--...( '-1 " ,,~~......... ~ T a c'._...s> ~ <:jq-xli)'l- ".o!, <:\( -' ...".... 7"" '" -) /~ ~~ <> 't-- v ~ ~ '" .~ -..r 'til " ., " 6 ~ ~ ~ t "'u" ; ..'& 'l: ~~'\. <i( ~~ "l~ -..? ~ '.oJ ~"" '-1 '"' ~'-;( 'l < \l ,:,~.t. ~. ~,~ ~ :~ ( ! ",'i.. ... " ~ \: ~ ... ~ ,\~1-\!; l! I:> I "\( ).. ''\.. ~ l-- ~ ~....';r .. I '? 'f,. ."".. ", ',~ '" f ").( ~ ." ~\(:~i~ ~, ~ ~ "< (~ I, ~~~f~ oJ ~ '<; ~ ~ .... " URS Meeting Documentation Project: Key West International Airport - Runway Safety Area (RSA) Feasibility Study Meeting Date: October 17, 2002 Meeting Location: Key West International Airport City of Key West, Florida Attendees: Mr. Andrew G. Gude, US Fish and Wildlife Service Mr. George G. Feher, URS Corporation I Tampa Authored By: George G. Feher, Sr. Environmental Scientist Subject: Field review of proposed RSA site Distribution: Project Files The following is a summary of topics discussed: . Mr. Gude and myself filed-reviewed the entire area where the proposed RSA footprint would be located; traveling first to the eastern end of the runway, then along the northern portion, and finally investigating the western approach, the salt ponds and the bunker location. . Although Mr. Gude did not think the site contained habitat of suitably high quality for either the rice rat or the marsh rabbit, he did indicate that a more qualified expert specializing in these species would have to review the area. . He also mentioned that feral cats living wild in such habitats usually decimate such populations. END OF MINUTES J:\Key WestIRSA Feasibility StudylAgeney CoordinationlMeeting of 10-17-02 A Gude.doc URS CORPORA TION RECORD OF CONVERSATION DATE: 1/16/03 RECORDED By: Ted Murray TALKED WITH: Jeannette Hobb JOB No: 12637802.00001 OWNER CLIENT: Monroe County OF: Florida Keys Restoration TF NATURE OF CALL: INCOMING 9 OUTGOING 9 MEETING 9 ROUTE To: INFORMATION ACTION SUBJECT OF CONVERSATION: Potential Mitigation Sites In the I,ower Keys ITEMS DISCUSSED: The project at KWIA was described and Jeannette was asked if she had a list of potential mitigation projects in the lower Keys. She stated that she did not maintain a list, however she referred to the "Sugarloaf School Mitigation Options" document as a list of potential projects. The list was reviewed with her and the completed projects were deleted from the list. She indicated that there were few saltwater restoration and/or creation projects available in the lower Keys and that most of these types of projects were found in the upper Keys. She indicated that Chris Burgh of the Nature Conservancy and Phil Prank of the Key Deer Refuge would be good contracts to explore additional projects. URS CORPORA TION RECORD OF CONVERSATION DATE: 1/23/03 RECORDED By: Ted Murray TALKED WITH: Randy Grau JOB No: 12637802.00001 OWNER CLIENT: Monroe County OF: FFWCC NATURE OF CALL: INCOMING 9 OUTGOING 9 MEETING 9 ROUTE To: INFORMATION ACTION SUBJECT OF CONVERSATION: MITIGATION OPTIONS IN TAR I.OWER KRYS ITEMS DISCUSSED: Mr. Grau stated that the Commission does not have any potential mitigation/enhancement projects that would meet our needs. He indicated that there is a road on Cow Key that could be removed to restore a mangrove area. He indicated that the road was currently under private ownership. URS CORPORA TION RECORD OF CONVERSATION DATE: 1/23/03 JOB No: 12637802.00001 RECORDED By: Ted Murray OWNER CLIENT: Monroe County TALKED WITH: Chris Burgh OF: Nature Conservancy NATURE OF CALL: INCOMING 9 OUTGOING 9 MEETING 9 ROUTE To: INFORMATION ACTION SUBJECT OF CONVERSATION: MTTTGA TTON OPPORTTJNTTffiS TN THR LOWER KRYS ITEMS DISCUSSED: Mr. Burgh stated that he deals primarily with invasive species issues and that there were limited opportunities in the area since most invasive problems were associated with upland or freshwater wetlands. Potential projects that he was familiar with included placing culverts beneath Watson and Key Deer Blvds on Big Pine to enhance tidal flushing, he also indicated that a small Nature Conservancy property on Big Pine could use restoration. He indicated that the old US 1 property on Saddlebunch Key may be an alternative for road removal, however USFWS would like to retain portion of the road for hiking and bike access. He suggested contacting Phil Frank with the Key Deer Refuge for more information. Mr. Burgh called back later with two other potential projects. First would be approximately 2 acres of invasive species removal on Stock Island near the hospital and landfill, and secondly was the removal of a berm near the County Jail to enhance flushing of the area. He also suggested contacting Randy Grau with the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. URS CORPORA TION RECORD OF CONVERSATION DATE: 1/24/03 RECORDED By: Ted Murray TALKED WITH: Phil Frank NATURE OF CALL: JOB No: 12637802.00001 OWNER CLIENT: Monroe County OF: Key Deer Refuge INCOMING 9 OUTGOING 9 MEETING 9 ROUTE To: INFORMATION ACTION SUBJECT OF CONVERSATION: MTTWATTON OPPORTTJNTTTRS ON KRY DRRR RRFTTGR PROPERTY ITEMS DISCUSSED: Mr. Frank stated that there was some opportunity to perform mitigation on property within the refuge boundary. He indicated that prior to committing refuge property he would need permission from USFWS. He indicated that he has about 5 acres of disturbed upland that can be converted to wetland. He also indicated that there is 40 acres on Cudjoe Key that is owned by the City of Key West that could be restored and enhanced. Mr. Frank also stated that there are numerous wetland properties that the refuge would like to acquire and manage and volunteered to contact SFWMD to determine if they would accept this type of acquisition as mitigation. A meeting at the refuge was set for Friday, January 31,2003 to discuss mitigation opportunities on refuge property. . Ms. Mannix-Lachner provided Mr. Feher a copy of the City's Master Drainage Plan. END OF MINUTES Page 2 of2 URS Meeting Documentation Project: Key West International Airport - Runway Safety Area (RSA) Feasibility Study Meeting Date: January 31 , 2003 Meeting Location: Key West International Airport City of Key West, Florida Attendees: Mr. Ron Peekstok, SFWMD Mr. Rob Robbins, SFWMD Mr. Peter Horton, KWIA Mr. George G. Feher, URS Corporation I Tampa Authored By: George G. Feher, Sr. Environmental Scientist Subject: Field review of proposed RSA site Distribution: Project Files The following is a summary of topics discussed: · District personnel and myself field-reviewed the entire area where the proposed RSA footprint would be located; traveling first to the eastern end of the runway, then along the northern portion, and finally investigating the western approach, the salt ponds and the bunker location. · Mr. Feher explained the rationale for URS's ranking the various habitats as being of High, Medium or Low quality; that those terms will be used in the RSA Feasibility Study. · District personnel acknowledged the rationale but will withhold final judgment as to acceptance until they had a chance to study the project in more detail. END OF MINUTES }:lKey WestlRSA Feasibility StudylAgency CoordinationlMeeting of 01-31-03 SFWMD.doc URS Meeting Documentation Project: Key West International Airport - Runway Safety Area (RSA) Feasibility Study Meeting pate: JanuaIY 29...L20Q3 _ ~ Meeting Location: Office of the City Engineer City of Key West, Florida Attendees: Ms. Annalise Mannix-Lachner, P.E. (Manager Engineering Services) Mr. George G. Feher, URS Corporation / Tampa Authored By: George G. Feher, Sr. Environmental Scientist Distribution: Mitigation opportunities on City owned land. Project Files Subject: The following is a summary of topics discussed: . Mr. Feher opened the meeting with a brief overview of the Study and the need to find mitigation land for approximately 31 acres of anticipated wetland impacts; primarily for mangroves, salt ponds and herbaceous wetlands. The Study is seeking primarily impacted uplands that could be converted to the above mentioned wetland habitats. . Mr. Feher indicated the Study sees considerable opportunities for mitigation on the land north of the Airport; the old blimp pads and remnant runways, including the area being used by the City as a stockpile site for excavated material and the abandoned Hawk Missile Site. . Ms. Mannix-Lachner indicated that the land north of the Airport - where the abandoned blimp pad and runway is located - is owned by the City and that the City has plans to use it for recreational development. It is not available for wetland mitigation. . Ms. Mannix-Lachner stated the City would be more interested in having the existing stormwater systems improved and cleaning out retention ponds to improve water quality in the City. These include outfall improvements to Riviera canal and many other canals, various canal maintenance dredging projects, dredging of the MacDonald Ave. pond, and dredging Garrison Bight to remove built up sediment, to name a few. C:\DocumcnlS and SettiDgslggfIMy DocllID'ntslWork FIles 02-27-03\Key West AiIportIRSA Mitigation StudyIMeeling ofOI-29-Q3 A Mannix.doc ~,-.........~,.:.....;-...,....;o,.._~f"',"-,,""1.-o...~.t"''''-'''~-~'"''''''___~''''''~_'':''':~~'''-';.1i"I,oo''''4;-_~''''........"'~~.....;...,'<Y,_-..'t~,...~.-.,.~-'I"'...............""~.~_"'__.........,._;.._"._:,~..............,;;~.'....:.-i...~,.'~""'_....._~~.,-~l.,;;;.o.'.~--"""'<l."'......~,.~..:_~r.:_.:~.:L.,~.~.~~~~:~:-.~,,_~ ..=~,:::.:_j . .. .,-,', c ,..-.,.., ->.... <~ "', .:"-:,,,,"',' _"_ ... ',",; ":""'_' .,'.. .... ....-..., . . ..i.. ' .. ." '._".;.',.~. .....,.. _,-' """'...."~,,..~... J-i-: .<.... .c.,.; "<, .,- "-"_' '. _ ~. '-'_" ',w -. ci....:,.:.'_.... .. . _ . _'. URS January 13, 2003 Mr. Scott Edwards Florida Division of Historical Reources 500 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 RE: FEASIBILITY STUDY RUNWAY SAFETY AREA IMPROVEMENTS KEY WEST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA Dear Mr. Edwards: As discussed, the Federal Aviation Administration and Monroe County Board of County Commissioners are preparing a study to determine the feasibility of providing a standard Runway Safety Area (RSA) at the Key West International Airport. The RSA is critical for passenger safety in its function to support aircraft in the event of an overrun or short landing on a runway. The RSA is typically a level grassed area surrounding a runway. The goal of the feasibility study is to identifY the issues and likely mitigation requirements associated with implementing the standard RSA at the airport. The RSA project would involve an abandoned military bunker on property that had been transferred from the US Department of Defense to the County for airport use. The deed transferring the property includes reference to the bunker being eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The bunker, part of a Cold War-era missile site, would be affected by construction and proposed mitigation if the standard RSA was implemented. I have enclosed a diagram showing the location of the bunker, information on the RSA project, and photographs of the bunker's exterior and interior. Note that the missile launch pads and associated fill material have been removed. We would appreciate your preliminary opinion as to the probable importance of the structure in regards to eligibility status and what would likely be required for documentation, coordination, or mitigation if the bunker was to be affected or removed as part of the proposed RSA project. If the decision is made to pursue the standard RSA, the FAA will initiate detailed environmental studies and coordination on this matter under the National Environmental Policy Act. We appreciate your input on this very important public safety matter. Please call me at (813) 675-6556 if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, URS Corporation 7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa. FL 33607-1462 Tel: 813.286.1711 Fax: 813.287.8591 'Bv~~ E:~~ (1't?Ic:.AL ') B,~"-ETt. ~et. (-ry~,- ') Wf; -- ~~ ;::;" 'Eu~\t...at.. ~1EttJ~ (1)'l'I~L-. ) : ,.3 , , " ~ -..-,., ...."....._-.~.. '.--::-~.. . .~~.~- . .. . .. 4 .,...-... '_.....'-......:.~~...........".. - I . " .! ",,;.,' f. t Ii J ~I II ,;,\ ' . 1'1 . '~, '~,i ~~ TN-reyu~ URS - . .. -.... . Page 1 of 1 Project/Job Number: 12637802.00000 Contact Report of: Peter Green ~ Incoming Telephone D Visit D Outgoing Telephone Date of Contact: January 16,2003 Follow-up Date: Agency or Company & Florida Division of Historical Resources Address: 500 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399 Phone: 850-245-6333 I Fax: 850-245-6437 I E-mail: Person( s) Contacted & Mr. Scott Edwards Title(s): Purpose: Discuss the agency's view of the bunker and the proposed RSA project. Discussion: 1. The agency has a "strong feeling" toward preservation of the bunker. 2. The agency would prefer RSA alternatives that would avoid and/or minimize impacts to the bunker. 3. The agency cited the bunker's importance to the State's military history. 4. The agency may consider a proposal to alter or remove the bunker if strong justification is presented for RSA and environmental mitigation needs. Justification should address avoidance and minimization issues. 5. The agency could not really comment on the likelihood of approvaVdisapproval of a proposal until formal coordination and a detailed planand study is presented. Action: Continue discussions with the agency. Copies to: Virginia Lane (FAA); Mil Reisert, George Feher. Mark Easley, Howard Klien (URS) Revised: October 23. 2002 tttSl tv\~(tTELLD b A' r l t::.R~ '"'" QUITCLAIM DEED MONROE COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS FILE '1 2 1 1 9 7 2 BK.l 666 PG.2 4 5 1 RCD Dee 19 2000 09:55AM DANNY L KOLHAGE, CLERK STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF MONROE ) I. TIDS QUITCLAIM DEED, made this the 8' T~ day of 11 (); lJ 5 T. 2000, between the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, also referred to as the Government, acting by and through the Secretary of the Navy, Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, under and pursuant to the powers and authority of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States, and pursuant to provisions of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, approved June 30, 1949, (63 Stat.377), as amended, and 49 U.S.C. Sections 47151 - 47153 (formally known as the Surplus Property Act of 1944 (58 Stat. 765), as amended), a delegation from the Administrator of General Services to the Secretary of Defense and subsequent delegation to the Secretary of the Navy, and regulations and orders promulgated thereunder, party of the first part, as GRANTOR, and Monroe County Board of County Commissioners, as GRANTEE, a public agency created, operated, and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Florida, and designated by the State of Florida as the public agency to operate, maintain and develop public airports. ll. WITNESSETH, for and in consideration of the assumption by the GRANTEE of all th~. obligations and the GRANTEE's covenant to abide by and agreement to take the Property subject to all terms, reservations, restrictions, conditions and covenants, all as set out in this Quitclaim Deed (hereinafter referred to as the Deed), the GRANTOR has released and quitclaimed to the GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, without warranty, express or implied, under and subject to the obligations, terms, reservations, restrictions, conditions, and covenants, all as hereinafter expressed and set out, all right, title, interest, claim, and demand which the GRANTOR has in and to that certain Property situated, lying and being in the County of Monroe, in the State of Florida, formerly known as East Martello Battery, Naval Air Station, Key West, Florida, and described in detail in EXHIBIT "A" hereof, for the use stated therein (hereinafter referred to as the "Property"), including a non-exclusive use ingress and egress easement to the Property over Government Road. m. WHEREAS, all the Property hereby conveyed has heretofore been declared surplus to the needs of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, is presently under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Navy, is available for disposal and its disposal has been heretofore authorized by the Secretary of the Navy, acting pursuant to the above referred to laws, regulations and orders. IV. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same, together with all and singular the appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest or claim 1 ..... STANDARD ARCHITECTUAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION COVENANT for TRANSFERRED PROPERTY XXX. Grantee hereby covenants on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns, to the Florida State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to preserve and maintain East Martello Battery Bunker, located in the County of Monroe, State of Florida, in a manner that preserves and maintains the attributes that contribute to the eligibility of the East Martello Battery Bunker, of which said real property is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Such attributes include exterior features (including facades and fenestration, scale, color, materials, and mass), interior features detennined significant by the Florida SHPO, and views from, to, and across the Property. Property being more particularly described as a parcel of land located in Monroe County, Key West, Florida, and being more particularly described as follows: EAST MARTELW BATTERY SITE A parcel of land located in Section 4, Township 68 South, Range 25 East, on the Island of Key West, Monroe County, Florida and being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCE at the Northwest comer of the United States Government East Martello Tower Military Reservation as shown on a map recorded in Plat Book I at Page 31 of the Public Records of Monroe County, Florida and said point also being the Southwest comer of Lot 11, Block 2, "RESUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 2, KEY ESTATES", according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 3, at page 101 of the Public Records of Monroe County, Florida; THENCE N 77035'02" E along the Southerly Line of said "RESUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 2, KEY ESTATES", for 682.99 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S 12028'00" E, and leaving the said Southerly Line of Key Estates a distance of 432.00 feet; THENCE N 77032'00" E, a distance of 530.00 feet; THENCE S 12028'00" E, a distance of 668.00 feet; THENCE N 79051 '00" E, a distance of 1352.60 feet; THENCE N 01045'00" W, a distance of631.97 feet to the Southerly Line ofa 50 foot wide easement; THENCE meander the said Southerly Line of the easement for the following twelve (12) metes and bounds; THENCE S 89030'10" W, a distance of335.85 feet; THENCE N 88058'38" W, a distance of204.30 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the left, having: a radius of 475.00 feet, a central angle of 17032'43", a chord bearing ofS 82015'00" Wand a chord length of 144.89 feet; THENCE along the arc of said curve, an arc length of 145.46 feet to the point of tangency of said curve; THENCE S 73028'38" W, a distance of 124.00 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the right, having: a radius of225.00 feet, a central angle of 10037'07", a chord bearing of S 78047' 12" W and a chord length of 41.64 feet; THENCE along the arc of said curve, an arc length of 41.70 feet to the point of tangency of said curve; THENCE S 84005'45" W, a distance of 122.92 feet; THENCE S 81053'40" W, a distance of236.06 feet to a point on a curve to the right, having: a . radius of 1025.00 feet, a central angle of 17026'59", a chord bearing of ttJ ":Q ::O::H ., r-< I-'gg m;: OlN Ol.... '1:1.... ~\O N...J ~N ..... \0 , . , ... N 89022' 51" W and a chord length of 31 0.96 feet; THENCE along the arc of said curve, an arc length of 312.17 feet to the point of tangency of said curve; THENCE N 80039'21" W, a distance of 56.37 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the right, having: a radius of 425.00 feet, a central angle of20039'05", a chord bearing of N 70019'49" W and a chord length of 152.36 feet; THENCE along the arc of said curve, an arc length of 153.18 feet to the point of tangency of said curve; THENCE N 60000' IT' W, a distance of288.91 feet; THENCE N 23006'58" W, a distance of 13.06 feet; THENCE S 77035'02" W, and along a portion of the Southerly Line of said plat of Key Estates a distance of 104.80 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Parcel contains 1,153,719 square feet or 26.49 acres, more or less. 1. The East Martello Battery Bunker will be preserved and maintained in accordance with the Secretary ofInterior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (National Park Service). No construction, alteration, rehabilitation, remodeling, demolition, disturbance of the ground surface, or other actions shall be undertaken or permitted to be undertaken that would materially affect the integrity or appearance of the attributes described above without the prior written permission of the Florida State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and signed by a fully authorized representative thereof. 2. Upon acquisition of the Property, the Grantee will take prompt action to secure the property from the elements, vandalism, and arson, and will undertake any stabilization that may be required to prevent deterioration. Grantee will make every effort to retain or reuse, to the extent practicable, the historic structure. 3. In the event that archeological materials are encountered during construction or ground disturbing activities, work shall cease in the immediate area until the SHPO is consulted and provides written permission to recommence work. Should the SHPO require, as a condition of the granting of such permission, that the Grantee conduct archeological survey data recovery operations or other activities designed to mitigate the potential adverse effect of the proposed activity on the archeological resources the Grantee shall at his/her/its own expense conduct such activities in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeological Documentation (48 FR 447344-37) and such standards and guidelines as the SHPO may specify, including, but not limited to, standards and guidelines for research design, field work, analysis, preparation and dissemination of reports, disposition of artifacts and other materials, consultation with Native American or other organization, and re-interment of human remams. 4. The Grantee will allow the Florida SHPO or hislher designee, at all reasonable times and upon reasonable advance notice the Grantee, to inspect East Martello Battery Bunker in order to ascertain whether the Grantee is complying with the conditions of this preservation covenant. 5. The Grantee will provide the Florida SHPO with a written summary of actions to be taken to implement the provisions of this preservation covenant with one (1) year after the effective date of the transfer of East Martello Battery Bunker. Similar reports will be submitted to the Florida SHPO, with a copy to the Navy. ttl~ ~H -t:"'4 ~aa 01- Ol~ 0lt\J ~ "t:J~ ~lO N-..J ~t\J lD e -. 6. Failure of the Florida SHPO to exercise any right or remedy granted under this covenant shall not have the effect of waiving or limiting the exercise by the Florida SHPO or any other right or remedy or the invocation of such right or remedy at any other time. 7. In the event of a violation of this covenant, and in addition to any remedy now or hereafter provided by law, the Florida SHPO may, following reasonable notice to Grantee, institute suit to enjoin said violation or to require the restoration of East Martello Battery Bunker. The successful party shall be entitled to recover all costs or expenses incurred in connection with such a suit, including all court costs and attorney's fees. . This covenant is binding on Grantee, its successors, and assigns, in perpetuity. The restrictions, stipulations and covenants contained herein shall be inserted by Gran~, its successors and assigns, verbatim or by express reference in any deed or other legal instrument by which it divests itself of either the fee simple title or any lesser estate in East Martello Battery Bunker, or any part thereof. MONROE COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS ttl "'I:J- ::>0::1-( -t:"'4 ~aa 01-- Ol~ 0lt\J ~ "t:J~ ~lO N-..J ~t\J m ~ APPENDIX C COST ESTIMATES KEY WEST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Master Plan Update - Capitallmprovemenf Plan Runway Safety Areas (Option 2) ~ .. DescriptiOn I faCtors Cost Item Totals Cumulative Totals ~ $6,662,640 $6,662,640 I CONTlNGENOES Change Order Contingency 10% $666,264 $666,264 $7,328,903 'ESCALATION Number of Years Annual Inflation 4.0% CONSTRU~TION ~BTOTAl $~,328',903 MANAGEMENT COSTS Force Account n/a Project Management 4.5% $329,801 Construction Manaaement 6% $439.734 esign Svcs. During Construction 4.5% $329,801 Design Fees 10% $732,890 $1,832,226 $9,161,129 OlHER COSTS Land Purchase (0 acres) SUNey Fees Is Utility Relocations Allow $9,161,129 PROJECT TOTAL $9,161 ,129 I 3/26/2003 - 2:21 PM Book2! URS-DKC Page 1 of 1 OeIcdplion Qucmllty UnIts Dale : 26-Mar-03 Toe: 1:54PM File : KW MPU INt Ell. Type : CONCEPlUAL EslImaIor : WWS UnIt Price Cost ~:~END~~E~ Owner: KEY WEST INTERNATlONAL AIRPORT Control.: C5-00004059.13 00001 1W(9)iMOBlUZE INt 9 - SAFETV AREA lis $5,000.00 $5,000 Printed all :55 PM on 312f3f2003 Book2 AL T 2 Sheet 2016 Quantlly UniII Date : 26-Mc:w-ll3 lime: 1:54 PM File : I(W MPU 'I.W Est. Type : CONCEPlUAL &IImakx: WWS UnIt Pdc:e Colt Project: RW END TREAlMENTS Owner: KEY WEST INIBlNA110NAl AIRPORT ConIIoI . : ClHlOOO4059.13 00001 >>>>>>>>>>>>:RW 9 SUB TOTAL CON11NGENCY 15'1. $1.901,786 $285,268 >>>>>>>>>>>>: RW 9 TOTAL 2,187,054 Printed at 1 :55 PM on 3/2612003 Book2 AL T 2 Sheet Sol 6 SAFETY AREA - fNl27 <<<< >>>> fNl9 - SAFETY AREA ; "~C;_:;..:',~ :~;:'_:/J1~~~~ti~~,~~:~!~:'j'~fti ~ "('-:-' 1'foIec:t: RW END lREATMENIS Owner: KEY WEST INlERNAnONAL AIRPORT ConIroI . : C5-OOOO4059.13 00001 ~ Quantity UnIts _MOBlI.IZE . ~OFAlROPERAnONS . -, .-.. , ' SAFEtY AREA - 1M' 27 lis 11.$ 9.2 AC 11.SAC 9.2AC ''-S11IIPI'tNG cm~~~C1C REMOVAL 13,213 CY 8,129 CV 5,084 CY 9,259 CY 9,259 CY 39,290 CYn 584 CYN 3/3,706 CvN 39.290 CYN 500JlllO SF Cut 6ff$ueFiI . Place and coi'rlwct ~nsIle ROe grac:lEl, 1opsol grass _PAVING - RU~AY NONE 1 UN lUN 'NONE 1 UN BIclstPad PCIIIlng 2.fl' Aspt\dt 1'1" BOse 28.000 SF _SHOUlDERS 1 UN NONE Printed all :55 PM on 3/2612003 Book2 AL T 2 Date : 26-Mar-G3 lIm.: 1:54 PM Ale: KW MPU fNI Ell. Type : CONCEPlUAL .&ImaIor: wws UnIt PIle. Cost $5,000.00 $23.000.00 $4,468.75 $8.19 $9.20 $47.34 $0.00 $0.00 $113,594.44 $0.00 $5,000 $23.000 $59.AOl $117,479 $85,185 $1,860,017 $0 $0 $113,594 $0 Sheet4of6 Project: rN/ END TREATMENtS Owner: KEY WEST INTERNAlIONAL AIRPORT ConlroI . : C!HlllOlM059.13 l1OOO1 Date : 26-Mar-03 11m.: 1:54 PM Ale : KW MI'U RW Est. Type: CONCEPlUAl EIlImator: wws Unit PIk:e Colt _MARICINGS ~ QucmtIIy Un/Is NON!: 1 UN $Q.QO NONE 1 UN $0.110 _STORM DRAINAGE _UGH11NG <<<<<<<<<<<<. RW 21 <<<<<<<<<<<<.RW 21 Printed at 1:55 PM on 3/26/2003 $46,000.00 SUB TOTAl CONTINGENCY 15'1. TOTAL Book2 AL T 2 $0 $0 $46,000 $0 $2,309,611 $346,452 2,656,128 Sheet 5016 Date : 26-Mar-03 lime: 1:54 PM Ale: KW MPU 1M Est. Type : CONCEP'lUAL EdmaIor: WWS Unlt Price Cost Plolect: RW END TREAlMENTS Owner: KEY WEST INTERNAllONAL AllPORT Contnll . : C5-GOOO4059.13 00001 ~ Qucmllly Units _MOBILIZE SAfElY AREA - tlOfll'M I Is $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000 $23.000 1M 27 MAIN1ENANCE OF AIR OPERAllONS lIS Moln1enance of AIr Operaflons lIS 1M 27 ClEARING ~MANGROVES - PREVlOUSl Y ClUdIED 01S $0.00 $0 1M 27 S11IIPPlNG Vlldlor llIIa REMOVAL 5,867 CY $6.90 $4O,4lIO 4' strWlg Muck Removal 6,867 CY OCY RW 27 EARfHWORK - S1RlP SnE a PREP FOR FIll 8,889 CY $9.20 $81,n8 SfIfp SIte & Prep for fill figure moving 6' of material from onslle to ons 4110.000 Sf 8,889 CY 1M 27 EARTHWORK QUANlllY baled on III volume 27,778 CYn $51.55 $1,431.879 cut OCYN 0ffsI1e FIll 27,778 CYN Place and compact onslle 27,778 CYN Fine grade, topsoil grass 4110.000 Sf <<<<<<<<<<<<. 1M 27 SUB TOTAL $1,582,137 CON11NGENCY 15'l1. $237,321 <<<<<<<<<<<<. RW 27 TOTAL 1 ,819,457 Printed all :55 PM on 3/2612003 Book2 AL T 2 Sheel6of6 FEB-27-2003 THU 09:06 AN NO CO PROPERTY APPRAISER 305 295 3955 P. 01 MONROE COUNTRY PROPERTY ApPRAISER P. O. BOX 1176 KEY WEST, FLORIDA 33040 PHONE 305-292-9420 ERVIN A. HIGGS. C.P.A.-CRA TELECOPY IMPORTANT NOTICE: PLEASE bEUVER THE FOLLOWING MATERIALS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO: FROM: DATE: TIME: Mr. Peter Green 8i II Cormack 2/2712003 8:15 AM MESSAGE: 2 NLltnber of pages, including this cover page. If you need more information feel free to contact me If transmission is incomplete or illegible, please notify us immediately at 305-292-3420 Our Fax number is 305-295-3955 The information contained in this fax message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient. YOLl are hereby notified that any dissimulation. distribution or copy is strictly prohibited. If you have received this fax itJ error, please notify us by phone at the number above. Please retLlrtJ any fax received by you in error to the above address. Thank you. Member ProfeSSional Appraisers Association of Florida - Florida ASSociation of Property Appraisers International Association of Assessing Officers - National Association of Review Appraisers fEB-27-2003 THU 09:08 AN NO CO PROPERTY APPRAISER 305 295 3955 P. 02 THESE JUST VALUES ARE FROM THE 2002 TAX ROLL AK NUMBER 2002 ,JUST VALUE 1158046 $ 135,785 { COW KEY ROAD 1158003 $ 396,115 1155705 $ 141,030 { BOCA CHICA 1155713 $ 345,745 1152412 $ 54,429 SUGARLOAF KEY 1152382 $ 292.493 ,- 1152331 $ 196,965 1152161 $ 110,622 1152323 $ 25,612 1151904 $ 58,361 1152315 $ 6,612 1152421 $ 36,736 1147729 $ 8,345 { CUDJOE KEY I.IMERocK 1147737 $ 10,102 1226823 $ 31,000 -( CUDJOE KEY CANAL 1142042 $ 39.445 { HABITAT FOR HUMANITY 1142069 $ 1,544 1127051 $ 72,573 { NO NAME KEY Cow Key Road Removal Tract 1 Land Survey Appraisal (1) / Review (1) Legal Relocation MovIng Administration Phase I ESA t.4scelIaneous T_ Total (rounded up) $691,470 $8,800 $11,250 $7,200 $0 $0 $7,600 $5,000 $0 $731 320 $731,400 North Boca Chlc:a RnorBUon Tract 1 Land Survey I\ppfaIsal (2) / Review (1) Legal Relocation MovIng Administration Phase I ESA MIscellaneous T_ Total (rounded up) $632,808 $17,600 $20,000 $14,400 $0 $0 $9,500 $7,500 $0 $701 808 $701,900 SUMMARY OF PROBABLE LAND ACQUISITION COSTS Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study Key West International Airport March 2003 URS Sugarloaf Loop Road Tract 1 Tract 2 Tract 3 Tract 4 Tract 5 Tract 6 Tract 7 Tract 8 Total $70,758 $380,241 $256,055 $143,809 $33,296 $75,869 $8,596 $47,757 $1,016,379 $3,600 $3,600 $3,600 $3,600 $3,600 $3,600 $3,600 $3,600 $28,800 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $60,000 $7,200 $7,200 $7,200 $7,200 $7,200 $7,200 $7,200 $7,200 $57,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,700 $5,700 $5,700 $5,700 $5,700 $5,700 $5,700 $5,700 $45,600 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $16,000 $0 $96 758 $406241 $282 055 $169809 $59 $101,869 $34 596 $73 757 $1 24 379 $1,224,400 Land Survey Appraisal (1)/ Review (1) Legal Relocation Moving Administration Phase I ESA MIscellaneous Total Total (rounded up) Cudjoe Key Umarock Mine Total Land Survey Appraisal (2) / Review (1) Legal Relocation MovIng Administration Phase I ESA MisceUaneous Total Total (rounded up) Tract 1 $10,849 $8,000 $20,000 $18,000 $0 $0 $11,400 $7,500 $75749 Tract 2' $950,000 $8,000 $20,000 $18,000 $0 $0 $11,400 $7,500 $960,849 . Tract 2 value adjusted based on 1999 sales data. $16,000 $40,000 $36,000 $0 $0 $22,800 $15,000 $0 $1090649 $1,090,700 $1014900 CUdjoe Key Canal RestoraUon Tract 1 Total $40,300 $3,600 $7,500 $10,800 $0 $0 $7,600 $5,000 $0 $0 $74 800 $74,800 Total $53,286 $6,400 $20,000 $28,800 $0 $0 $15.200 $20,000 $0 $0 $143,686 $143,700 1012 Land Survey AppraIsal (1) / Review (1) Legal Relocation Moving Adminlslralion Phase I ESA Miscellaneous Total Total (rounded up) $40,300 $3,600 $7,500 $10,800 $0 $0 $7,600 $5,000 $74 800 Habitat For Humanity Site Tract 1 Land Survey Appraisal (2) / Review (1) Legal Relocation Moving Administration Phase I ESA Miscellaneous Total Total (rounded up) $53,286 $6,400 $20,000 $28,800 $0 $0 $15,200 $20,000 $143,686 w;\12637802_KWIA ASA\Feasbilily Report\KYW lAND COST DEA Ediled.lds No Name Key lImerock ..... Tract 1 Land Survey Appraisal (2) I Review (1) Legal Relocation Moving Administration Phase I ESA MisceHaneous Total Tollll (rounded up) $94,345 $8,000 $20,000 $18,000 $0 $0 $11 ,400 $7,500 $159 245 $159,300 Nature View Property R.storallon Land' Survey Appraisal (t) I Review (1) Legal Relocation Moving Administration Phase I ESA _aneous Total Tollll (rounded up) $250,000 . Land value obtained from an appraisal daled 9/2712001, $2,000 $7,500 $7,200 $5,000 $1,000 $7,600 $5,000 $285.300 $285,300 Assumptions and Notes: 1. Probable land values based on Just Valuation data obtained from the Monroe County Property Appraisers Office (February 2003), 2. Just Valuation llI1lOIJnts adjusted upward by 30% for planning purposes. 3. Just Valuation and adjustments may differ from appraised value and asking price by land owners, 4. Land costs assume pun:hase of entire paroel as noted on tax plats. Detailed land acquisition plans may Identify potential for partial takings or addilionalland requirements, 5. Incidental costs and services are assumed and may vary based on fee quotes to be provided at a fulure dale if acquisition is implemented, w:\12637B02_KWIA RSA\Feasbilily ReporN<YW LAND COST DEA Ediled.x1s 20f2 c o :;::: tU I- o - en CP a: - c 0.... :;:::# m-u o~ >-e t:Q. CP a. o I- Q. t: o a. l- e( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO '<t ('II 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0> CO 0> II) ci ci ci ci cO ci cO M cO cO Iti 0 0 0 0 CO '<t ..... '<t 0 !z 0 0 C!- O t'I Il) ('II cq, CO '<t II) c5 ui ...... as .,f ui CO r:. .0 g ('II ::) ...... ...... (') an CO ~ ~ 0 '<t ,.... Z ~ ~ '<t {h {h {h {h {h {h (I) {h {h (h (I) 0 Il) 0 0 0 0 tU tU 0 ..... 0 0 0 0 - - ci M .0 ci cO ci 0 0 w 0 0 ...... ~ ~ 0 0 0 a: C\i a> c -u D- O CP I- = 0- (,) z ~ I- ::) I- Q. - en {h {h {h {h {h {h C 0 () ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 q 0 0 ci 0 0 CO 0 0 0 ci 0 ~ <( .0 <<!. 0 e\i (') Il) ::) t'I C\i CO a ...... ..... ~ en en u. () >- <( Z ...J ...J ...J <( () w ::) a; g a; c: g 0 c: ~ Z 0 2 0 '" :0::- n in ~ c: 2 c: 0 '" 0 u 0 in 0 a: () c: '0 0 S c: 0 t/) '" .Q 0 ~ .J:l '0 '0 0 W 0> Q 0 S ~ ...... "C 0 'E c: '" co a! .~ c: ...... Q) C> 0 E '" () C> ~ lii c: c: Q) =' m :0 '" '0 E C> '0 .J:l Q) a! Z. =' > ~ .~ c: 2 e 0 a! :0 <'5 Il) en :e C> ...... Ql ::E "C c: D- c: '0 =' c: c: a! c: "C "Q c: Ql I- a! 0 ::E 0 c: '0 2 a; 0 C> C> ~ C> ~ a! c: 2 ~ Q) c: c: c: ~ c: "in u. ~ .fa > E C> in "S E a! :0 'in - Ql 0 c: IT Q) 0 x a! 0 Q) 0 0 a: en iI 5 w a: ::::: 0 () <( o o o o Ct) ~ ('II ,.... (I) - a. ~ 'C CP 'C C ~ o I- - iU - o ~ - (,) CP 0- I- Q. (') o o ~ ~ x o a. a. ~ o a. Ql a: ~ :0 "in a! Q) U. <( en a: <( ~ ::.::: I t'I o 10 ..... C') co t'I ...... - ~ c o :;:; <<l ... o - en (I) a: 'C o :;:; <<l ~C'\I O:tt: ~g (1)._ 0.0 ED: D.. - en (I) 3: >- (I) ~ - o ~ (3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Xl ~ C'\I ci ci .0 ci ci ci .0 ci cri cD .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C\l (') c:i ~ j::: Ii) C"i !z 0 0 o. 0 0 0 0 <0 CD <0 ~ "l:t ~ .0- ~ .0- M M ~ t\i CD .0- 0 oj C'\I ;:) ~ ~ C\l ~ (') ,...~ C\l Ii) Ii) ~ C"'f 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... ~ C") z ,... <I: CO C'\I~ .... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ en- ~ ~ ~ en- 0 Ii) 0 0 0 0 0 0 <<l <<l 0 ..... 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - ci M .0 ci ci cO ci ci 0 0 w 0 0 0 ,.... ~ l- I- 0 0 0 0 <0 a: t\i oj M .0- c '0 a. 0 CD ... :;:; "0 CJ Z ::s ... ;:) ... D.. - en ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ci 0 0 ci q 0 0 0 M 0 0 q 0 Ii) C\i 0 (; .0 Ii) C\i <0 0 ..... 0 C\l ;:) ~ C\l C\l M 0 ,.... ... .r:: >- .r:: Z en u. u. 0 0 0 0 ....I ....I ....I <( al 0 <( al ;:) W W S .s (ij c: B 0 +:i c: 0 Z 0 2 0 U> ~ 1$ 1ii i= c: 1ii 2 c: 0 0 a. n 0 1ii 0 a: 0 c: 15 2 c: 0 0 1ii 0 0 ';{!. (/) +:i 15 0 W .0 0 0> 0 g ,.... C U> rf. ~ -0 (J) 'E c: '0 U> (Xl al Q) (J) c: ..... (J) 0 ~ E U> 'C OJ (J) a. 0 OJ (J) lii c: 0 en c: (J) 3 m :0 c: .r:: U> 15 E OJ .0 f! U> (J) al 0 ~ ::J lii > ';{!. .~ c: 'E e 0 al 2 '5 <'5 w :2 Ii) (J) :2 Cii OJ ~ :0 -0 c: .... c: a.. c: 15 :; c: 0 c: (ij al c: -0 0 c: (J) I- al 13 en :2 0 c: n 0 ~ ~ (ij 0 OJ ~ OJ OJ al c: OJ 2 2 > c: .!: .!: c: ~ c: U> 0 (J) 1ii > ~ OJ 1ii .5 E u. ~ lii al 'E :0 .00 c: ~ c: cr (J) .... 0 (J) 0 al al 0 (J) 0 ~ a: U'i u: (3 0 w 0:: 0:: :2 Cl 0 o o c:i o C") C"'f ,... C'\I~ .... en- - 0. ::s '"0 CD '"0 C ::s o ... - Cii - o I- - CJ CD "0' ... D.. "i > o E cp(W) a::u: 'C_ as () o cp a: "0 >-"" cpa.. ~ :: o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 C! 0 0 . ci ci ci ci ci .0 C\i ci 10 0 0 0 10 c:i C'l CO ;::: 0 cO !z C\l "l 0 <<!. C'l 0 ,... ,.... 0> ~ CD a:i ,.... .0 ,.... ..,f 0) as r-: c5 M .... ~ 0 0 ..,. 10 CO a) 0 C'l ,.... N .... ~ (W) N .... fh fh fh fh fh fh fh 0 fh fh fh fh 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 as as 0 ,.... 0 0 0 0 0 - - ci M .0 ci ci cD ci 0 0 W 0 0 0 ,.... ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 a: t\i ai .0 c - 0 () 0.. ~ cp I- 0' z :J "" ~ "" a.. - C/I fh fh fh fh fh fh fh C 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ci 0 0 0 ci 0 0 0 ci 0 C! 0 .0 <( ci C\l 0 ci ,.... C'l C') ~ t\i C'l c5 ..,. a 10 I- 0 .c >- .c Z en u. u. 0 0 ..J ..J ..J <( <Il 0 <Il ~ W w lii .s lii c .s 0 c ~ Z 0 2 0 I/) n t) ~ c - S c 0 I/) 0 u 0 0 a: 0 I/) c 15 0 2 c 0 f/) t) 02 0 <f. w .0 0 15 0> Q 0 2 ~ ,.... "0 t) 0 'E c co <Il Q; C ,... 0> 0 I/) oc 01 01 0 01 E e ~ c c C 0> ::l /Xl :c ti I/) 15 E 01 0 .0 0> o~ <Il ~ ::l 0> > ~ c 2 e 0 <Il =c c'5 I- 10 Ci5 :e ~ 01 ,... 0> ::2 "0 C a. c 15 ::l C (ij C <Il C "0 0 C 0> I- <Il ::2 0 c U ::l 02 ~ 0 ~ 0 01 01 0 ~ 01 <Il :;::::; C S 0> C C C ~ C Ow 0 ~ .~ Q; E 01 0:; E u. <Il :0 I/) - 0> Qj ~ Ow C 0- 0> 0 <Il 0 0> 0 0 a: en u: C3 ~ w a:: ::E 0 0 <( o o c:i o N a) .... C'!. .... o - Co :J 'C cp 'C C :J o "" - "i - o ~ t) cp '0 "" a.. c o +:: ~ o .... en CD-=t a:=lt: CU.... U U - CD .c _ 00 ... Bo.. o m .c t: o Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ICl 0 ICl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C\l C') <0 0 C'i ci ci ci ci ci ci .0 ci ci ci Lti .0 ci <Xi ci oi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0> 0 <0 ex> ,... ~ ex> 0 !z 0 ICl ICl C!- o 0 0 "'- <0 ex> C") <0 ICl 0>. 0 C\i r-: U; c? C\i c? ...... c? c? co a; M .0 ~ CD ;:) ~ ...... C') ~ ....: ICl ICl cD C') <<!. ...... C') ~ ~ 0 ...... en -=t ::!: C") C") < N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0- ~ ~ ~ ~ 0- 0 ICl 0 0 0 0 ICl 0 0 0 as CU 0 ,... 0 0 0 0 ex> 0 0 0 .... .... ci M .0 ci ci cO ..t ci ci ci 0 0 w 0 0 0 0 <0 ...... l- t- 0 0 0 0 C\l. C\i a; c? .0 c .... a: ...... u a. 0 CD +:: ~ u 0' Z :J ... ;:) ... 0.. .... en ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ci 0 ~ 0 ci 0 0 0 ci 0 0 <Xi Co! ci 0 Co! 0 Co! 0 ex> 0 0> 0 0 cO C') < ...... 0 0 ...... r-: ,... ...... ;:) C\l. ...... C? C\i ..,f 0 a C') ...... ~ .c >- .c 0 .c Z en LL LL 0 0 LL 0 0 ..J ..J ..J < III 0 ..J III <( III ;:) W W W S .9 S c:: .9 0 c:: :g z ,2 S 0 1Il '0 1Il ~ c:: 'lii S c:: 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 1Il a: c:: '0 S c:: 0 0 0 0 :$! rn 1Il U '0 0 w .c 0> 0 S ...... c <( <Il :$! 'C CD 0 'E CD '0 <Il ex> c:: c:: ...... III li5 a. CD Q) ~ 0 E <Il .;:: Cl CD a. 0 OJ ~ Iii c:: 0 en c:: CD :c c:: <Ii .c <Il '0 E Cl ::J 10 .c e 0 <Il Q) III '0 > :$! 'E c:: z- ::J 'E c:: Iii e 0 III 2 :a <'5 CD :2 ICl :n :2 en w u. Cl ...... :c 'C c:: ~ <( - c:: ~ a.. c:: '0 :; c:: 0 c:: CD tii III c:: 'C 0 c:: CD I- III U 0 ~ a. en :2 0 c:: t5 ~ tii 0 Cl ~ ~ Cl :;; III c:: Cl 2 'C Cl 2 'lE > c:: c:: c:: .!: ~ c:: 0 Q) 'lii > Q) Cl 'lii E LL ~ .~ III .c ai E 'E :c 'lE '5 c:: ~ Iii a; c:: 0- Q) - 0 Q) 0 III III 0 Q) 0 0 a: u; u: C3 0 W 10 c:l c:: c:: :2 0 0 <( o o d o ,... cD -=t C") ~ 0- - Q, :J "C CD "C C :J o ... - 'ii .... o I- .... u CD '0 ... 0.. ia > o E CD a: 'tJ1t) 8# a:e:; CD.!!!. g-e liD. a: en 3: LL. en :J 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ii) 0 Ii) 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 ,... Ii) ,... 0 .0 ci ci ci ci cO ~ o:i C\I 0 0 0 0 an ,... (') <0 cci !z .- C\I 0 q N ('II C\I Ii) It) c<i N C\i N It) cD 0) 0 Q) ::) .- ,... f1i .- .- C\I :% o:i 0 0 z CD :E ,.... ,.... <( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ en- ~ ~ ~ en- 0 Ii) 0 0 0 0 0 <<l <<l 0 ,... 0 0 0 0 0 - - ci c? .0 ci cO N ci 0 0 w 0 0 .- .- l- I- 0 0 0 it N 0) c - (,) 11. 0 CD l- t; '0 z ::s ~ ::) ~ D. - en ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 ci 0 0 ci 0 0 ci 0 0 0 0 ci <( ci 0 ci ci 0 Ii) C\I Ii) "'" ": ::) c- ..r: Z en u.. u.. u.. 0 ...J ...J ...J ~ U ...J ea ::) W Iii ~ ]j c ,g 0 c U z .Q 2 0 '" '0 Iii f c ... E c .Q '" 0 0 0 '0 u '" it c '0 0 2 c 0 Iii 0 0 <f. U) U '0 w .c OJ C 0 2 <f. .- u Iii 'E c to ea CD c .- Q) c 0 '" 'C C> 0 U C> E l!? ~ c += c Q) .a m :c 0 '" '0 E C> .c E Q) ea 0 ~ :::I > :--e "E c 2 (; '" 0 0 ea 'i5 c a Ii) CD :E <i5 .- :e 0 c ll. U U c '0 :::I C C ea c u 0 Q) I- ea ..It: :E .Q c U c 0 Iii ~ ~ 0 C> C> ~ C> 10 ea c == 2 Q) c c c J;:! c '(ij 0 u.. ~ .~ > 'E E C> Iii '5 E ea :c ... ~ ea "(ij c 0- Q) 0 Q) 0 ea 0 Q) 0 0 c: en u:: 0 w m a:: :E 0 U ~ o o ci o o u) CD ,.... en- - c. ::s 'tJ CD 'tJ C ::s o ~ - ia - o l- e:; CD .0' ~ D. c o .. ta ... o - en CD a: ~ ... ta ::J o CD c o - en CD E :::i~ "'U ;~ _ 0 ~Q: o E CD a: " ta o a: 0- o o ...J - ta o i: ta C) ::J en 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C') to C') 0 0 . to 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 at) CO ,.... ~ 0 CD r-.: ci ci ci ci ci ci N oj ci C') 0 0 0 0 0 CX) ,..: CX) ~ cry 0 ci !z ~ to 0 ~ 0 CX) 0 .... CO C') ~ at) r-: M C\i ari C\i c5 c-..~ aj c5 ..,f ..,f 0 :;) ,.... C') C') to ,.... ,.... C\l en 0 C') .... t\!. ~ 0) ,.... .... ('I) ~ .... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (It ~ ~ ~ ~ (It 0 to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "i ta 0 ,.... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - ci M to ci ci cO ci ci ci 0 0 w 0 0 0 0 0 ,.... t- t- O 0 0 0 0 CO a: C\i M a> ari ari c 'U n- O CD ... .. a u Z ::J ... :;) ... D. - en ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c 0 (J ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ci 0 0 0 ci 0 0 ai 0 ci ~ 0 0 ~ to ci to ci ~ ci 0 co 0 ,.... ,.... 0 :;) ..,f ,.... ari M 0 to ... .c () >- .c () .c Z (J) u. u. 0 0 (,) ....I ....I ....I a:l <( '() a:l <( <<l :;) W W W (ij Ii (ij c Ii 0 c n z 0 2 0 '" n iii Ii: c iii 2 c .Q 0 0 iii 0 a: '0 () c '0 .E c 0 0 ~ 0 ::l! (/) '" c '0 0 w .c 0 0 m 0 0 S 2 ::l! ,.... "0 iii 0 E CX) c .~ Q) c ,.... Q) a:l Ol 0 '" Q) Ol Q) () Ol E Ol > Q) Iii 0 c c c Q) ::; to c :c ti .c '" '0 os Ol e .c l!1 g? a:l '0 .?:- ::l! 'E c E :> Q) a:l E 0 a:l 2 '5 w ~ ... :2 to di :2 Ci5 Ol ,.... :c c "0 ~ - c D- c '0 ::; 0 c c (ij (ij a:l c "0 0 C Q) t- U a:l 0 :> (J) :2 0 c U 0 (ij (,) Ol ~ 0 Ol Ol ~ <<l "" C Ol 2 2 > c c .~ c ~ c "in 0 Q) ~ iii .~ > di E Ol iii "3 u. <<l C E c ~ Iii :c "in c 0- Q) - 0 0 Q) <<l III 0 Q) 0 0 a: en u: () U w 3;: 0: 0: :2 0 () <( 0 0 ci 0 .... en .... ~ .... (It - 0- ::J " CD " C ::J 0 ... - as - 0 t- - u CD .0 ... D. 'ii > o E CI) a: CI) C) "tJ..... '': :u: m- CJ ;>'CI) CI)'- ~ e "CQ. c: CO i: CI) E E ::s en 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 eX) ~ t'! ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ~ ci cD 0 0 0 0 0 <0 OX) 0 0 ,.... I- 0 ~ ~ 0 C\/ C') CO 0 C') ..... Il) z c5 ...... ...... M .,; Il) cD ,.: .....- U!. ;:) C') 0 ~ 0 ,.... == '<:I' Z CO c( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0- 0 Il) 0 0 0 0 0 'ii CO 0 ..... 0 0 0 0 0 - - ci M tti ci ci cD ci 0 0 w 0 0 0 ...... l- I- 0 0 0 0 a: c5 M 0) c: - C') 0 CJ a.. n CI) l- e z ::s ... ;:) ... Q. - IIJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c: 0 (.) ~ ~ 0 0 0 <0 ...... 0 0 ...... 0 0 C') c( ~ C') ..... ;:) 0 I- .c () >- .c Z en u. u. 0 0 -' -' -' III c( () III ;:) W W ~ Iii :s s c .s 0 c 13 z 0 .5 0 u Ul J= u; .5 c 0 a.. 0 0 a: () '" c '0 0 c 0 0 0 ~ en 13 '0 0 w C>> Q 2 cfl ...... u; eX) E .~ c ...... OJ 01 0 E OJ () 01 (ij 0 c c OJ lD c :c '" '0 E 01 e .0 OJ III Z. E ;:, > ~ .~ c lii C; e 0 III :c Il) > W 01 ...... OJ ::!: 0 :e c '0 c a.. c E ;:, 0 c C III C '0 0 C Q) OJ l- n III 0 ::!: 0 c U 0 II: 0 ~ III C 01 2 01 ~ 01 2 :;> OJ OJ C C C ~ C ";;; 01 U. ~ u; .~ E 01 u; "5 III :c ";;; '0 - C ~ C 0- ~ 0 0 OJ III 0 OJ 0 0 Ci5 u: () 0 w a:: ::!: 0 () < o o ci o ":. ,.... co 0- - Q. ::s "C CI) "C c: ::s o ... - 'ii - o I- - CJ CI) .0 ... Q. e o :j; as ... o - III ID a: ID .5 ~~ ID_ e CJ o .!!!. ';2 ~Q. :J >- ID ~ ID o :c ::s o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co ~ 0 ('l 0 0 0 0 0 0 q 0 0 ~ "! C\I 0 O! ci ci ci .0 ci ci r::: ci cD ..; <0 ci ci 0 0 0 co 0 0 ~ co C\I 0 ..... I- 0 U) U) ~ C\I. ~ ,.... to 0) co co U) I'- co C\i ,..: C\i ,.... <0 <0 ai co ai M aJ 0 co z ~ C\I iii' to co co ()) oS :) C!- o co ,.... 0) :E ~ ""~ cl: ..... V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) 0- V) V) V) V) 0- 0 U) 0 U) 0 0 0 0 as as 0 I'- 0 co 0 0 0 0 - - ci M .0 ..; ci <0 ci ci 0 0 w 0 0 <0 ,.... ... ... 0 0 C\I. iX C\i ,.... .0 e - 0 CJ A- ID I- ~ .0' z ::s ... :) ... Q. - III V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) e 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ci 0 0 0 ci 0 ..; q 0 ci ci q 0 .... to cl: ,.... 0 0 0 .... ~ .... ()) :) C\i U) .... ai C\i a to I- .s:::. >- .s:::. Z en u. u. u. 0 () 0 -l -l -l -l ca () cl: ca :) w w lii Ii lii c Ii 0 c U z 0 2 0 CIl ~ Cii i= c Cii .5 c 0 0 A- n 0 0 . () CIl a: c a 2 c 0 0 Cii 0 0 ~ tn t5 a 0 W ..c ()) 0 2 .... 0 CIl ~ ~ "0 (]) Cii 0 1: '0 co c lii c ,.... (]) ca (]) 0 CIl .>:: 0. () 0> E ~ :u c( en c (]) CIl a 0> ~ ID (]) .s:::. (]) E ca <:> .?:- 0. !!? > ~ 'e c 2 >- ca e 0 ca :a I- ::E U) CD ::E Ci5 0> :e ~ c( c ~ a.. c lii ca c a ~ ~ (]) c ::E 0 "0 0 C (]) I- 0. 0 en ~ c ~ :8 lii 0 ~ ~ 0> 0> ca C 0> 2 > C "0 C c J::! c 'w 0 (]) ~ (]) cD > E E 0> Cii "5 E u. ..c ca :0 'w c :u 1ii 0 0- (]) 0 X ca ca 0 (]) 0 0 a: i:i) u: ID C) w 0::: 0::: ::E 0 () <( o o ci o 0) oS 0) to: .- 0- - a.. ::s "C ID "C e ::s o ... - 'ii - o ... - CJ ID '0 ... Q. - c o ;: <<l ... o - tI) CD a:~ Gi- c CJ <<l CD 0.0' ... ~D. ~ CD o :c ::s o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <0 <Xl 0 o::t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (') (') (') 0 0 ci ori ci ci ori ci ci ci C\i ci N ci cO ex) ci r-: 0 C\l 0 0 0> 0 0 0 C\l <0 <Xl <0 C\l 0 ~ 0 <0 10 0 (') C\l. 0 0 ~. (') 0 ~ ~ <Xl C\I N N M M ~ m ..,f ~ ..,f C'!. N ..,f .0 ..,f C\I ::J 10 ~ ~ ~ ..... txS 0 ,... CO 0) :E ,... <C (/7 (/7 (/7 (/7 (/7 (/7 (/7 (/7 (/7 (/7 0- (/7 (/7 (/7 (/7 0- 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 <<l <<l 0 ..... 0 0 <Xl 0 0 0 0 0 - - ci M ori ci ~ ci ci cO ci ci 0 0 w 0 0 0 0 <0 ~ l- I- 0 0 0 "!. 0 a: N M ~ m .0 c '0 11. 0 CD I- ~ '0 Z ::s ... ::J ... D. - tI) (/7 (/7 (/7 (/7 (/7 (/7 (/7 (/7 (/7 (/7 C 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ci 0 0 q ci ci q ci q q C\l cO 0 ci ~ 0 0 ..... 0 ..... ..... 0 (') ::J ..... ..... ..... m ~ 0 I- .c .c 0 >- 0 .c Z en u. u. (,) u. 0 (,) ...J ...J ...J as ...J as <C 0 <C as ::J w W w ~ ai ~ !l 19 c: .9 0 c: 13 z 0 ~ 0 tIl ? 13 tIl t: c: ::s c: "2 tIl -= 0 0 (,) 0 0 tIl a: ::s c: '0 0 -= c: 0 en tIl ~ 0 ~ .0 '0 0 w 0 0> 0 0 <C tIl ~ ~ ..... "t:l a> 0 'E c: a> "0 tIl <Xl as ~ a. a> c: :s- a> "C ~ Cl a. 0 E tIl a> 0 Cl ~ ~ (,) c: en c: a> ::s al c: ai :0 .c tIl '0 E Cl 0 ~ 0 .0 f! a> as .?:- c: ::s > '#- "e c: 2 'E a> 0 as e as '6 w u. :2: 10 ~ :2: Ci5 Cl ~ :0 c: ~ <C "t:l - c: ~ a. c: '0 ::; 0 a> c: c: ai as c: "t:l 0 ~ :2: "2 c: a> I- t5 a. as 0 en c: 13 0 ai (,) ~ Cl ~ Cl Cl a; as :;::: c: Cl 2 2 > a> c: "t:l c: c: .S ~ c: (ij 0 ~ U; a> .~ > E Cl U; ":; E u. .0 ai as 'E :0 - c: ~ a; ~ "Cij c: CT a> 0 0 a> as as 0 a> 0 0 0: en u: 0 al CJ U w a: a: :2 0 0 <C o o o o ('I) txS 0) ,... 0- - 0.. ::s 'tJ CD 'tJ C ::s o ... - 'ii - o I- - CJ CD '0' ... D. 'ii > o E (I) a: u: '00 c..... as# 11)- 1:: g (1)_ ~ 2 ::SO. o 'ti ~ m c '(ij a. en 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 C\l ..... IX) co ci Lei ci ci ci an C\i cO ..t cx:i 0 ..... 0 ~ 0 C\l ~ 10 ~ C\l ~ 10 C\l 0 ..... ~ (") ..... CO) z as ~ as N co cD r-: .....- 0 ::::I ~ ~ 0 ~ N 0 o:t Z CD ~ c( fh fh fh fh fh fh 0- fh fh fh 0- 0 10 0 0 0 0 as 'ii 0 ..... 0 0 0 0 - - ci M Lei ci cO ci 0 0 W <0 0 ~ .... .... 0 C\l 0 oj c - a: 0 (J D.. (I) ~ :;:: 0' (J Z ::s ... ::::I ... 0. - II) fh fh fh fh fh fh C 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 c( ..... 10 ~ 0 C\l (") ::::I a ~ () >- .c Z 11. 11. 11. 0 ...J ...J ...J <( () III ::::I W ~ ai ~ B ai c B 0 c ~ Z 0 2 0 ~ 'lii i= 'lii 2 c 0 D.. 0 'lii 0 a: () c a c 0 0 0 0 ;,l! en :;= a 0 w 0 0> 0 2 ;,l! ~ ~ 'lii 0 E in IX) (") (j; c ~ <D ?< 0 E 0;:: 01 () 01 <0 :u c c <D R :0 Ul a E 01 [l) .c ~ III ~ ~ ::I ;,l! oE c <'5 e 0 III Ul '6 10 (j; :E 01 ~ t:: :0 "0 C a. c <D :; III C > C C "0 0 c "5 (]) I- III 0 :E 0 c ti 0 () 0 01 ~ 01 ~ III :;= C 01 2 000 <D c of: of: ~ c S 11. ~ :u III E :0 01 'lii '5 0 000 c 0- Ul - 0 <D X III 0 <D 0 0 c en u: [) w a: :E Cl () <( o o ci o ..... N CD 0- - a. ::s '0 (I) '0 C ::s o ... - 'ii - o .... - (J (I) .0 ... 0. >- CI) ::.::: .r::: u L. o I- ~ "OC\! "0..... ~:tt: - ...:u as CI) ~'o ED: CI) a: u: L. CI) Cl C u: 0 0 0 0 It) 0 It) 0 0 0 0 . 0 I"- It) I"- 0 . u) ci ci a:i N c? I"- It) 0 an ~ 0 CD c:i !z C') I"- 0 C\! m 0 ..... .0 ..... e>i e>i M It) ~ .... ui ~ ~~ 0 ..... z C\! ~ c:( fh fh fh fh fh fh (,I) fh fh fh (,I) 0 It) 0 0 0 0 as as 0 I"- 0 0 0 0 - - ci c? u) ci cO ci 0 0 w 0 0 .... l- I- 0 0 0 a: e>i 0> c U Q. 0 CI) .. ... u 0' z ::J L. ~ L. Q. - en fh fh fh fh fh fh C 0 (J ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ci 0 0 ci ci 0 0 ci ci 0 ci c:( 0 It) It) ~ .... .... e>i 0 ... >- .c Z CJ) u.. u.. 0 0 -I -I -I <( 0 as ~ w tii :g tii c :g 0 c n z 0 2 0 en U iii i= c iii 2 c 0 0 Q. U 0 iii 0 a: 0 c 0 0 2 c 0 iii 0 0 ::\! en n 0 0 W ..a m C 0 2 ::\! .... u iii 0 E c eX) as ~ c .... Q) 0 en -;:: Ol 0 Ol E l!? (ij c c Q) ::J CD :c en 0 E Ol ..a Q) as '0 ~ ::J > ::\! .~ c 2 (5 e 0 as =0 It) Ci5 :e Ol .... Q) :E u C D- C 0 ::J C C as c u 0 c Q) I- as 0 :E 0 c ~ 0 ~ 0 Ol Ol ~ Ol ~ as :;::: c 2 0 Q) c c > c ~ c '00 u.. ~ .~ ~ Ol iii 'S E as :c '00 0 C tT Q) - 0 Q) x as 0 Q) 0 0 a: en u::: (3 w 0: :::E 0 0 <( o o c:i o CD o:i' C\! (,I) - Q. ::J "0 CI) "0 c ::J o L. - iii - o I- - u CI) '0 L. Q. c o :;::; <- CD ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ex> m 0 co . 10 0 0 0 0 0 It) 10 0 <0 ,.... r....: ci ci cO aD ci 0 r....: a> a> cD ex> 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 10 <0 (') ~ ... C\I 0 ex> ~ It) 10 C\I ex> ..- (') a> as C\i (') 0 as ci ci ,.... :;) (') ,....~ ... ... ~ cD 0 ~ It) z co ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0- ~ ~ ~ 0- 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 <<l <<l 0 "- 0 0 0 0 0 - - ci M aD ci <ci ci ci 0 0 w 0 0 <D ... t- t- o 0 0 a: C\i a> ..0 c - 0 u a.. CD ... t; 0" z :J ~ :;) ~ Q. - III ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c 0 (,) ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ci 0 q M 10 .,f c( ci ci 0 ci 10 ~ ... ~ ~ :;) ex> cD (') a ... >- .r:. Z en u. u. 0 0 0 ..J ..J ..J <( 0 <( al :;) w Iii :g Iii c :g 0 c 1$ z 0 2 0 Ul U 'lii i= c 'lii 2 c :8 0 a.. 0 'lii 0 a: 0 0 c 15 2 c 0 0 'lii 0 0 ~ Ul n 15 0 w .c m C 0 Ul 2 ~ ... "0 <D 'lii 0 C c "5 ex> lD c ..... <D al <D 0 Ul oc Ol a. 0 Ol E <D :u c en c <D ::; lD :0 .r:. Ul 15 E Ol .0 Ul <D al 13 Z. ::s :u > ~ 'E c 0 0 al 2 'i5 <'5 :2 C, 10 Q; :2 Ci5 ... :e "0 - C ll.. C 15 ::::J C c Iii al C "0 0 C <D ... al en :2 0 c n oQ ~ 0 ~ 0 Ol al ;:; C Ol 1ii Ol Ol 2 <D c 05 c c ~ c o(ii 0 ~ (ij > E E Ol 'lii os E u. al :0 '(ii ~ c 0- <D - 0 <D al al 0 <D 0 0 a: (f.j u: (5 w a:: a:: :2 0 0 <( o o o o co cD co 0- - c.. :J '0 CD '0 C :J o ~ - 16 - o t- - u CD '0 ~ Q. c o :;::: ca .. o - en G) a: SM en; ~O C G) ca .- E 2 ~c. J: .. o - - ca - jj ca J: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... l'1 0 ClO ci .0 ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ..n ..t ci c; ci ci 0 ..... 10 0 0 en 0 0 <D '<t ..... (0 0 !z 0 co C\I 0 0 ..... e\!. 0 '<t U) '<t ~ ~ ..... .... C\i .....- ri LCi cD ~ ..; LCi to.: .... cO co <D ri 0) ;:) '<t C') ~ M '<t 10 '<t '<i' 0 C\I ~ C\I M :!: M U) <( (Ft (Ft (Ft (Ft (Ft (Ft (Ft (Ft (Ft (Ft 0 (Ft (Ft (Ft (Ft 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 ca to 0 ..... 0 0 0 co 0 0 0 0 - - ci M .0 ci ci ..t ci <0 ci ci 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 <D ~ l- t- 0 0 0 0 e\!. - a: C\i ri 0) ~ LCi C (J 11. 0 CD :;::: I- (J '0 Z ~ .. ;:) .. c. - en (Ft (Ft (Ft (Ft (Ft (Ft (Ft (Ft (Ft (Ft C 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ci 0 q ci 0 q 0 ci q 0 q ..t 0 ci .0 0 '<t <( ~ ~ 10 ~ '<t_ ~ 0 ~ .....0 ;:) C\i ~ 0) ~ a C') I- .c 0 .c >- .c Z en LL LL 0 LL 0 0 0 -l -l -l <II <( -l <II 0 <( <II ;:) W W w ai :s ai c: :s oQ c: 0 Z 0 .E 0 '" :g '" ~ c: u; 2 c: 0 0 u 0 u; 0 a: 0 c: '0 0 2 c: 0 (/) u; oQ 0 ~ .c 0 '0 0 w en Q 0 <( '" 2 ~ ~ "0 CD u; 0 'E c: CD '0 co <II :u a. CD c: ~ CD ~ 0 E '" 0;:: CD 0> a. 0 0> ~ :u 0 c: en c: CD :::J m c: :c ai .c '" '0 == 0> 0 e! .c 0 [!! CD <II ~ 'E :::J c: > ~ .~ c: 2 <II e 0 <II =a <'5 CD 10 en w LL :E 0> ~ CD :E :c c: "0 ~ <( c: a. c: '0 ::; .2 c: CD c: ai <II c: "0 0 3: :E 0 c: CD I- 0 <II a. 0 CJ) c: U 0 ai 0 0> 0> >. ~ 0> ~ <II +:: c: 2 I- 0> 2 > CD c: c: "0 c: c: ~ c: O(jj 0 LL ~ u; .~ CD ai > E ~ 0> u; os E .c <II :c - c: :u ai ~ O(jj c: e- CD 0 0 CD <II <II 0 CD 0 0 a: i:i5 u: 0 0 m ~ w a: a: :E 0 0 <( o o ci o o an M U) o - c. ~ 'C G) 'C C ::s o .. - 'ii - o I- - (J G) .0 .. c. e o :;:: (IS I- o - en CI) a: CI) '0 J:q- CI)"- 0'1=11: '0- CI) ~ I- ._ C 0 CI) I- ell. i:i: .~ m e I- CI) - en CI) 3: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO 0 LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "- m m co ci ci ci ci ci .n ci iii .n -> T'"" T'"" uf C\I (') (') ~ cw; 0 T'"" 00 Z 00 ::!!: ..- ~ <( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... ~ ~ ~ ... 0 LO 0 0 0 0 0 (IS co 0 "- 0 0 0 0 0 - - ci M .n ci cD ci ci 0 0 w 0 0 CD T'"" .... .... 0 0 0 it: en ai .0- e - u 11. 0 CI) :;:: t- U '0 Z ::s l- =>> l- ll. - en ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ci 0 0 ci 0 ci C! 0 ci 0 0 LO m T'"" <D LO C\i <D ci C!. =>> <:\i en .- 0 C\I t- .s:: 0 >- .s:: Z 0 u. u. 0 0 as ...J ...J c( 0 <( as =>> w w tii :g :s c: .s 0 c: ~ Z 0 2 0 ~ U Ui t: 2 c: '" 0 0 Ui 0 it: 0 c: '0 c: 0 0 .Q 0 :$! en 0 w '0 '0 m Q '" .E :$! .- Q) 0 c .0 '" <Xl a; c: .- Q) Q) 0 E Q) .C C) a. 0 C) 0 Iii c: en c: Q) c: m :c .s:: '" '0 E C) ~ .c ~ Q) as ~ > :$! .~ c: C :J as e 0 as U ~ LO W :E C) .- CD :E c: :e "0 - c: 11. c: 0 :J c: c: tii as c: "0 0 c: ~ CD t- as 0 en ::2: 0 c: t5 0 0 C) ~ C) C) ~ as +> 2 c: C) 2 c: .~ .~ c: ~ c: "Cii Ui Q) ~ Iii ~ C) Ui '3 u. as C :c .Cii c: ~ c: 0" 0 0 Q) as as 0 Q) 0 0 0 i:i) i:i: [5 w a: a: ::2: 0 0 c( o o c:i o ~ cw; 00 ~ ... - c. ::s '0 CI) '0 e ::s o I- - 1ii - o .... - u CI) .0 l- ll. c o ; ca a- o ... en Q) a: Q) .5 :E Q)1l) c..... o'**' "''0 en Q) Q).- ~ ~ ...JD.. Q) Cl ~ - Q) a: a- Q) Q) C >- Q) ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 ex) '<t C'I ci ci ci ci ci ci 0 0) cO 0) U; 0 0 0 LO a; 0 (') <0 0 !z 0 LO O. 0> (\j CD ~ C':!. ~ ,.... N ,,- ~ .0 .0 N C'I <D C;; M CO ::) '<t ~ o:i' (\j (') ~ o:i' 0 ~ ,.... Z CD == ..... C'I <( (h (h (h 0 (h (h (h 0- (h (h (h 0- 0 LO 0 0 0 0 0 ca ca 0 " 0 0 0 0 0 ... ... ci M .0 ci cO ci ci 0 0 W 0 0 a; ~ l- t- 0 0 0 a: N a) .0 c ... 0 (,) D- Q) ; .- t- (,) 0 Z ~ a- ::) a- D.. ... en 0 (h (h 0 (h 0 (h C 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ci 0 0 .0 0 ci C! 0 ci 0 (\j C! (\j <( ~ 0 0 ci (') ~ "!. ::) N (\j ..f 0 (\j ~ t- O >- ~ Z en LL LL 0 0 ....I ....I ....I <( 0 <( al ::) w Iii ~ 2 ~ c "Q c 0 Z 0 2 0 <II :;::; iii p- o t: c 2 c 0 <II 0 :u 0 iii 0 a: 0 c 15 0 $ c: 0 0 0 '# C/) <II c: n 15 w .c 0> 0 0 C ~ $ ':.'!. ~ '0 0 "E c Oi en ex) al ~ 01 c: ~ Ql <D 0 E en ;:: 01 0 01 <D :a c > 15 c: Ql :s CD :0 ~ en E 01 .c f'? <D al 0 .?;- ::l > ':.'!. "~ c: 2 C; al e 0 al :0 :E LO <D :E en :e 01 ~ '0 - c: D- c 15 ::l c: c: Iii al C '0 "Q CD t- al en :E 0 c c 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 01 01 ~ 01 01 al :;::; c 2 <D "~ C c: .~ ~ c "in 0 .~ > E 01 iii "5 E LL 1ii al "E :0 "in <D - 0 Ql ~ al al 0 c: 0- <D 0 0 0: en u:: U w a:: a:: :E c 0 <( o o ci o en o:i' CD C'I 0- - Q. ~ " Q) " C ~ o a- - a; ... o t- ... (,) Q) '0 a- D.. c o :;::; CIS I- o ... en Q) a: Q) .~ :SCD Q)..... c'" on ... Q) en ._ Q) 0 E l- ._ n. ...J >- Q) :::.::: Q) E CIS z o z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ci u'i ci ci u'i ci ci ci ci ci 0 u'i cO oi ci N 0 (\I 0 0 C\i 0 0 r-- co to 0 ~ C\i 0 I- 0 <0 o. 0 C\!. 0 0 t') 0 t') 10 Z C\i u) .... M ai .... u) M u) ~ ..... C\i c5 M ai 0 ::l t') .... 0 "'" 10 10 10 an 0 (\I .... ~ co co c( (101 10 <h <h <h <h <h <h <h <h <h <h 0- <h <h <h <h 0- 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 CIS 'ii 0 r-- 0 0 to 0 0 0 0 0 ... ... ci M u'i ci ..t ci ci <0 ci ci 0 0 w 0 0 0 0 co .... .... .... 0 0 0 (\I. 0 a: C\i M .... u) u) c ... u a.. 0 Q) I- :;::; .0 u Z ::s I- ::l l- n. ... en <h <h <h <h <h <h <h <h <h <h C 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i= 0 ci 0 0 ci 0 0 u'i 0 cO z ~ 0 ci ~ 0 ~ ~ "'" ~ t') c( .... 10. 0 .... O'l. .... .... to .... "'". ::l (\I as 0 .... .... t') .... I- .c .c .c >- 0 .c Z en u.. u.. 0 u.. 0 0 0 ....I ....I ....I <Il ....I <Il <Il 0 < <Il ::l W W W W ~ <ii c :g 0 c t5 z 0 E 0 Ul U Ul fi: c iii 2 c 0 0 0 iii 0 a: u 0 c '0 E c 0 0 0 0 >!!. U) Ul t5 '0 0 W .0 O'l 0 E .... a < Ul >!!. -0 a> 0 'E a> '0 Ul to C .~ C. C .... a> <Il a> 0 Ul a> ?:: c. 0 Cl E a> (ij 0 Cl en c a> :; co c <Ii ~ .c Ul '0 E Cl e 0 Ul a> <Il t5 Ul > >!!. '~ c Z. 'E c a> (ij e 0 <Il 2 :0 w Ql I- ::2: 10 Ql ::2: en u.. Cl .... :0 c ~ < ~ C D- C '0 :; 0 a> <ii c <ii <Il C -0 ,2 c Ql I- U ~ c. ::] 0 en ::2: ,2 c t5 ~ <ii 0 >- 0 1ii Cl 1ii <Il C Cl 2 I- Cl E > C -0 C C ~ C Ul 0 Ql iii Ql Gi > E Cl "5 E u.. ~ .0 <Ii <Il E :0 '(jj Ul c 1ii c 0- a> 0 0 (ij 1ii ~ <Il <Il 0 a> 0 0 II: U5 u: 0 co Cl 3 w 0:: 0:: ::2: 0 0 < o o o o ..... an co 10 0- - a. ::s '0 Q) '0 C ::s o I- - 'ii ... o .... ... u Q) '0 l- n. c o ;:: a:l ... o - I/) CD 0:1"- CD"" >* 0- ... u O).~ c 0 a:l ... ::c.. >- CD ~ .2 .i: o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co co ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C') 10 m co ci ci ci ci ci l.'.i ci N <D M to r--: 0 0 10 0 0 co co C') co co !z 0 0 C\/ 0 0 ~ ~ C\/ C\/ m N CIi cD M cD CIi as N c5 as c5 I"- ;:) C') 0 .... cO "<t "<t 10 ~ ,.: 0 C\/ CD Z 0 ~ N ~ <( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ en- ~ ~ ~ en- 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 a:l iii 0 "- 0 0 0 0 0 - - ci M to ci ci <D ci 0 0 w 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 a: CIi M oj c - 0 (.) a.. CD I- ;:: 0' u Z :J ... ;:) ... c.. - I/) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 l.'.i ci 0 a:i z ~ 0 ci ~ 0 0 <( .... C!!. .... -- 0 ...J ...J ...J as <( 0 as ;:) W W Iii :g Iii c: :g 0 c: n z .2 S 0 Ul 0 Ul J:: c: .... S c: 02 Ul 0 a.. 0 0 0 0 Ul a: 2 c: '0 0 c: 0 U) U; 0 0 'if.. .c ~ '0 w 0 m C 0 2 :::!! ~ u U; 0 'E c: co as CD c: .... CD 0 E Ul ";:: CD Ol 0 Ol CD a; 0 c: c: CD :; m c: :0 Ul '0 E Ol 0 ~ .c CD :::!! oE as ~ :J > c: 2 c: & e 0 as U W 10 CD ~ en :e Ol ~ c: u c: a. c: '0 :J 0 c: c: as c: u 0 c: ~ 0 CD I- U as .2 ~ c: 15 ~ Iii 0 Ol Ol as > c: Ol 2 10 2 CD c: c: c: ~ c: Oiij 0 U. ~ U; .~ > E Ol U; os E as :0 .... 0 c: CD 0 as .iij c: 0- CD 0 X 0 CD 0 0 a: i:i5 u: 0 (3 w a:: ~ c 0 <( o o ci o CO ,.: o ~ en- - c.. :J '0 CD '0 C :J o ... - iii - o ~ - U CD 0' ... c.. c o :;:: CO ... o - I/) (I) a:: co ~; (1)- 0.(,) o CI) ...- Q. e ::Q. CI) :; (I) ... :s - CO Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 <0 C') 0 'l:t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 '<t '<t 0 'l:t 0 .0 0 0 0 C\i 0 ..j ai ..j 0 0 C\I 0 0 0 C') '<t ,..:: C\I 0 0 0 u; !z 0 <0 10 0 0 <Xl 10 G) '<t .-- 0 C') (W) C\i' C\i' M ai .0 cD 'l:t M cD ,..: .0 ~ ::;) <0 a) .-- .-- ..... <Xl 0 C\I .... :::E CO N <C 'l:t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 CO CO W 0 ...... 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 0 M .0 0 0 cD 0 0 0 a: 0 0 0 .... .... .... 0 0 0 Do C\i' M ai c - (,) t- O CI) Z :;:: a ::;) (,) :s ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... Q. - I/) c ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 (J ~ 0 0 0 0 0 C\i 0 C1 0 0 C1 C1 ...... ..j .... 0 0 .... ..... en 10 ::;) ...... ..... ci <0 0 ..... t- .c. () >- .c. Z en u. u. 0 0 ...J ...J ...J ltl <C () ltl ::;) W W ~ ~ 19 c .9 0 c 13 0 S Z III 13 III C ;n 2 c 0 0 0 0 ;n 0 r;: 13 () c '0 2 c 0 a: ;n :8 0 -;!!. '0 0 0 .c 0 en U) 0 2 -;!!. .... W "0 ;n 0 'E c <Xl C Cii c ..... CD as 0 ~ E III .C CD OJ () OJ E? Ca 0 c '0 c CD ::) CD c :0 III E OJ l!! .c CD ltl "0 ~ > -;!!. .~ c 'E ::) 0 0 ltl 2 '6 w ~ 0, 10 CD ~ Ci5 ..... :0 c "0 c a. c '0 ::; 0 c c as c "0 0 C CD I- 1:5 ltl 0 ~ 0 c t5 ,g (ij 0 OJ ~ OJ ~ as c OJ S 2 > CD C C C ~ C 'w 0 u. 1a III .~ ltl ~ OJ ;n '5 E c 0 :0 'w c c:r CD - 0 0 CD x ltl 0 CD 0 0 a: i:i) u: () [5 w a: ~ 0 () <C o o o o -=t .... C'i 'l:t o - 0. :s "C CI) "C C :s o ... - 'ii - o .... - (,) CI) .0 ... Q. APPENDIX D OTHER CONSIDERATIONS _ Cheryl Smith City Clerk THE CITY OF KEY WEST P. O. BOX 1409 . KEY WES1; flORIDA 33041-1409 WW\v.keywestcity.com 5~5 Angela Street (305) 292-8193 Fax (305) 292-8133 RECEIVED' JUl 1 9 2002 \~\~i IBY:~ July 17, 2002 Peter Horton Airport Manager Key West International Airport 3491 S. Roosevelt Blvd Key West. FL 33040 Dear Mr. Horton: EnClosed is a copy of Resolution No. 02-222, encouraging Monroe County to address'runwaYsafety issues and to prepare the necessary environmental studies; Encouraging the Federal Aviation Administration to consider allocating a portion of mitigation fimds to acquire Salt Ponds property held in private ownership, that passed at a regular Key West City Commission meeting on July 16, 2002. CS/mpd Enclosure Res ""()2.222 Key to the Caribbean - A verage yearly temperature 770 F. RESOLUTION NO. 02..:.222 A RESOLuTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KEY WEST, FLORIDA, ENCOURAGING MONROE COUNTY TO ADDRESS RUNNAY SAFETY ISSUES AND TO PREPARE THE NECESSARY ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES; ENCOURAGING THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION TO CONSIDER ALLOCATING A PORTION OF MITIGATION FUNDS TO ACQUIRE SALT PONDS PROPERTY HELD IN PRIVATE OWNERSHIP; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFl~CTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the City Commielsion, in the interest of public safety, desires that Monroe County determine finally the issue of airport runway safety. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF KEY WEST, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: That Monroe County is hereby encouraged to address runway safety issues and to prepare necessary environmental studies therefore. Section 2: That the Federal Aviation Administration 'is hereby . . encouraged to consider allocating a portion of mitigation funds to acquire Salt Ponds property held in private ownership. Section 3: 'That this ~esolution shall go into effect immediately upon its passage and adoption and authentication by the signature of the presiding offi8er and the Clerk of the Commission. Passed and adppted by the City Commission at a meeting held this 16th day of Ju1y I 2002. Authenticated by the presiding officer and Clerk of the Commission on Filed with the APPENDIX E KWIA EXISTING HABITAT PHOTOGRAPHS Photo: Location: Habitat Type: FLUCFCS Classification: Habitat Quality: 1 East end of RSA, looking east at the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). Mangrove Swamps 612 High Photo: Location: 2 Northeast corner of RSA, looking south at the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). Mangrove Swamps 612 Medium Habitat Type: FLUCFCS Classification: Habitat Quality: . Key West International Airport RSA Feasibility Study AIRPORT SITE PHOTOS TYPICAL EXISTING HABITATS PHOTO DATE: JANUARY 30, 2003 URS Photo: Location: 3 Northeast corner of RSA, looking west at Object Free Area recently trimmed of mangroves along the north side of the runway. Mangrove Swamps 612 Low Habitat Type: FLUCFCS Classification: Habitat Quality: .: .. ~ \:",1' " .p.t Photo: Location: Habitat Type: FLUCFCS Classification: Habitat Quality: 4 North side of RSA, looking east along edge of runway. Airport 811 Low . Key West International Airport RSA Feasibility Study AIRPORT SITE PHOTOS TYPICAL EXISTING HABITATS PHOTO DATE: JANUARY 30, 2003 URS Photo: Location: Habitat Type: FLUCFCS Classification: Habitat Quality: 5 North side of RSA, looking north at small salt pond. Bays and Estuaries (Salt ponds) 540 Medium Photo: Location: Habitat Type: FLUCFCS Classification: Habitat Quality: 6 North side of RSA, looking northeast at large salt pond. Bays and Estuaries (Salt ponds) 540 High . Key West International Airport RSA Feasibility Study AIRPORT SITE PHOTOS TYPICAL EXISTING HABITATS PHOTO DATE: JANUARY 30, 2003 URS Photo: Location: Habitat Type: FLUCFCS Classification: Habitat Quality: 7 At northwest RSA limit; north of runway, looking east at maintained area. Exposed rock with marsh grasses 731 Low . Key West International Airport RSA Feasibility Study AIRPORT SITE PHOTOS TYPICAL EXISTING HABITATS PHOTO DATE: JANUARY 30, 2003 URS Key West International Airport To: Commissioner David Rice From: Peter J. Horton, Mgr. KWIA Date: 04/17/03 Subject: : Number of seats/Number of days that Regional Jets would have to block. seats if our runway remained at it's current length. You have asked me to research the above question. The following are the results of that research: Data from the National Weather Service (NWS) indicates that Key West averages temperatures of 90 degrees or higher for 49 days of the year (13.4% of the time). Under these temperature conditions, the weight penalty for the CRJ 700 (ASA to Atlanta) is 25 of 70 seats blocked. The weight penalty for the EMS 135 (ComAir to Orlando) is 12 of 37 seats. CC. Mayor and Commissioners County Administrator Key West I ntemational Airport To: From: Date: Subject: : Commissioner Sonny MCCOY~..\ ~ Peter J. Horton, Mgr. KWIA ~'t"\ 4/11/03 Runway Safety Area (RSA) Study You have asked me for a recommendation for a compromise proposal to be presented to the FAA instead of moving forward with full SOD' x 1000' RSA at the ends of each runway (RIW). My recommendation is as follows: THE EAST END (towards South Roosevelt Blvd.): This is the approach to RNV 27 and the departure end for RNV9. It is a mangrove swamp area that has high environmental value and therefore a high ratio of mitigation. My recommendation for this area is to install the full Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS) area that we recommended two years ago (BOCC 4/18/01). The foot print of this RSA using EMAS would be 116' x 460' and would be equal to an area of less than 2 acres of wetland habitat that would have to be mitigated. The estimated cost for mitigation and construction is $5 million. THE WEST END (towards the High School): This is the approach to RIW 9 and the departure end for RNV 27. This area contains a small brackishlfresh water pond that is L shaped and extends from directly in front of the runway to the north side of the runway. My recommendation is that we install a conventional RSA of 300' x 600' in this area by moving the pond away from the end of the runway, and expanding it along the north side to a size that satisfies the mitigation ratio. The foot print of this RSA would equal less that 3.5 acres that would have to be mitigated. As discussed, we have not yet worked up an estimate of costs for this work, but I believe that your estimate of $2 to $3 million sounds reasonable. CC. Mayor and Commissioners County Administrator ~II ~ ;p ocr: tD n n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1_< W ~ ~ [ ~' :;; " = = I_ ... ..--. 1- ~ N '8 , 0 ~ -.. ,.... N ~ ~ -. . _ -.. I~~f~ ~gr. ~!f[~i~fg I m ~ m g C 0,,- ~ ~~f~[~~s s ~ I ~ ~ > ~ ~ r~5?~' nx[ - ;)l if ~ a !" rr ~ ~ ,.. ~ i ::: 8 ~ ~ ~'8'8'8'8~ IJI 1..1 oc 8815 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 8 ~ ~ ~ "8 -- 8 8 ~ '8 ~ ~ 8 ~ o <"') ;;j ~ .1--1---- .... '" '8 --~ - n tll '" ~ ~ .. tll ~ ;r t ~ n :i ~ ~ f :r tl' a II n t :i t ~ \Ogg~ b b c ~ g g g ... ~ ~ N ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ :::; '" ~ --. --- --. --1-.- -- -- ,-!-_ __I--- N "" o ~ N "" "" o .= ~ 8 -- --I--. --1-.- ~ o '8 o "" o '" 8 ~ = ~ ~ '" 8 N "" o ~ .. -- "" o '8 o -- --" - N "" "" o .0 ~ 8 ------- N ~ J~ ~~ ~ 8 8 u_ --- - ~- "-1---- -- I--- N 8 ~ - ----1---. N ~ ~ N "" o ~ ~ ~ N "" = ~ "" o ~ N ~ ~ N "" = ~ ~ ~ i f9 lS ~ ~ .~ - 1--- --- ! _.~ I I 1, t R' il' I ~ ~ II U ~ g f ~' 2- 3: Iii' ~ X' < "" o ~ :s ~ ~ ~ ~ '8 '" ~ > ~ ~it.~ ~ a Iii' = e" >- ; ~ ! r ~' ?i ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ r: $J f ~ 5' Z " ;::: ;)l $J ,tll -l CIl ,... j g ~ ; 8 ~ ~ ~ "" 0: v. el "" 0: ~ "" 0: "el "" 0: v. '" ... "" 0: v. '" - ----~.._~-'" ~ ... ~ ~ ~ ~ "" 0: v. el ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ..--- --.- -1--- - --- :::; '" ~ -I--. --~ _ ~ '8 - - ... r i I 2- i I l ~ ~ ~ ~ :::; '" ~ :::; i j ,t ~ :::; '" ~ "" 0: v. el '" 0: v. el '" 0: v. '" --- ---- ~ ... "" "8 ~;;: ..... '" w el t .- - +--1-- f.- --- "" 0: v. el "" 0: ~ ... "" 0: v. '" ... "" 0: ~ '" ;. ~ s ~ II" i f ~ a I i i l > :Ii ~ ~ ~, ~ -l ~ ~ ~ :l! ~ 2 ': !t ~ [ l! l! f r f a ! i' ~. g ." ~, ~ .... '" ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ... .... ... ..... o <::> .... ." w .... t :: --~ ---- ... "8 ..... t ----1-- _ .. "8 .... ~ ... "8 .... w t ... "8 .... w t .. "8 i .. ~ t ~ ~ ~ ::: ~ ~ ~T~'.- III + I ~ of I I n .e, ), i j u. . Jli ... -.. ~ w t ... ~ .... w t ... ~ .... ~ ... "8 .... ~ ... "8 .... w t ... "8 .... ~ ;;1! ~... I ~ ~ ~ ~ i. g ~ s " [ !i i r ~ ! i f ~ P:o ~ r g ~: f ~ i i ~ .... .. <::> ." .... t ... .. <::> ." ... t ... ~ ." ... ... ... .... ~ ." ... ... ... .... :g ." ... t i ." ... ... ... ... ~ ." ... ... ... ... ~ ." ... t ... ~ ." .... ... ... .... :g ." ... ... ... .... :g ." ... ... ... .... :g i ." .~ t > ." ." a ." a. S' ~ :;l !:f~~~I[ rnth- fiii~ [f~~J f :r ... .. jJI ~ ~ "" ~ 1; i g i ) ~ ~ ~ eN. ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ :s 8 ~ ~ 8 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... N b ".....1 .. '" '" '" 00 ~ ~ '" o '" N p; ~ ~ ~ i w ... ;::; ~ ~ ... ... o -.. \:: ::! 0 ~ ~ .... .... o ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ Oil ~ V. N ... .... "" '" o Co '" ~ t;: 00 0.. ~ ;; o ~ ~ ~ ~ .. r:l ~ a ~ ~ ... .... II <; ~ ~ . :;: ... ~ v. '" i;: i ~ .... .... o w .... ... ... !" ~ 00 o w ~ ~ ".....J V, .... N '" '" <> '" ... '" ~ i: :;; ~ v; ... '8 ~ " .... ~ ... N ;::; o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .P e ~ g ~ ~ ~ ,0 ~ 5t 8 ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .P ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ --- -. o ~ ... v. ~ ;j 8 ~ ~ ~ -_!. ,0 -g ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ,0 ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ _ J5 \:: ~ ~ .... .VI ~ i I 8 ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ Ii ~ fi la I ~ J I if t I, t ~ :r - i I i ~ _ CIl ~ i- II ~ I~ .~ a CIl i- ~ .. i ; ~ 1 ~ Ii I ... ~ t ~ a i I ~ i t ~ ir r I ~ ~ t ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ "Cl .... .... ~ - ~~ ::J ., 0.0 We... o~ .c::.~ .... CIl ~ - ~ = f t ~ ir f I ~ I ~ 1!:..;::; ir i I ~ ~ t ~ ~ i ~ :x-o o o I'd 1-3 t%j o r I ~ w ........ ...... \0 ........ o w i f ~ !' f ~ lir II: ( ~ ::::! I\) o o W > ~ " ~. " Ii c: :;; :J n Co W o .j:>. 'd~;t~ a ll' a Ir ~ g' f 0 ~ ~." ! 6'" ti ~ '0 n 9 == II c If a. n a o ~ n o 'Q '" ... :;;: &; co o '" if .g '" 0 00 ~1: i: ~i: ~ ~ g: o '" ;. n o 'Q '" 0 Co ~ ~ :;;;: ~ i: ~ ~ ~ o' ---- '" if o 'Q \0 ~o . ~... co _... ~ k f co ... 0 co_ o ~ \0 ... .. &; __ co o '" ;. n o 'Q o 'C '" 0 00 ~ ~ .. "'- b\ ~ N :: ~ ~ O---f-=-t-- '" ~ \0 ~ .. ~ o -- '" if o 'Q o ~~ '" - i.A"N '" '" ... 0 o ~~ '" - U,N '" '" ... 0 o ~~ '" - U,N "'~ ... 0 o " ~ ~ II g' ... !1. ~' t...l t ~ s ~ ~ '" 1...1 i...t ... '" '" "t ~ o 'Q '" 0 .00 ~1: ~ 0 ~ ~~ ~ ~ 00 \,.01 0 -...t C5\ co -f--I--- n_ o ~ o '0 '" 0 Do ~1: :;0\- &; ~b: co ...... o ~ n o 'Q '" 0 00 ~1: .. "'- 0.. V. N :: e ~ o '" i o 'Q o ~ ~ 1;: :;;;: ~- 0.. V. N = ~ ~ o '" i '" 0 .00 ~ b i: 0\_ ~ u, N :: ~ ~ o 'Q o '" ;. n o 'Q o ~1;: '" - t.......... ellS ~ :;;: '" co _1_ 00 i f ~ .g .. l c; :::b: '" - ~N ...lS 0- ::ll i 1" If 1" -.. 11 !:j P.lS . ~ ~ .-+--_ l._ = I i ! ! i i I I o ~ ... ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ k .... '" '" ~ ~ ~ o '" ;:3 ~ t '" '" '" : ~ ~ o '" s td ~ ~ ~ ~ o e ~ ~ ~ '" .~ ~ ~ ~ ~--- l'l -l ~ ~ ~ > '" t"" '" ~ ~ ... :< ~ ~ ~ i ~ l:l ~ ... '" :... o v. .. .. ~ 8 8 ~ ~ ~ '" 1; .~ i:: ~ ~ ~ .. 1:: .... ... ;.. ... .. .: .. 0 .N ~ 00 Ii: t: ~ u. e o '" N b: i o '" '" ~ ~ ~ 00 v. ." '" '" 00 .... ~ ~ f--- ~ '" ~ .. .... ~ ~ .... '" ::: ~ ... : '" u. eJ g ~ ~ ~ .... 1.. .. '" u. '" ... .... Go ~ U. '" ... .. 1.. '" '" u. eJ .'" ri u. eJ - ----- ---- '" 1.. '" '" u. eJ '" . ~ ~ ~ [ ~ z if ~ l i r ~ j ~' ... I ~ > i HH n n : If i iU i! !t: H i_~. It- H Hc' i-~'l I~ ! i ! ~ ~I ~ ilSc li' 1 ! ! ~ ~ J. ~ fo ~c !l !l... -~ I: il V' _~ .~, ii~ "I, ~~-s-gt")[ 'l! ~Q~ ~ ~~ - ~;; ~~~'~'l&.~ 6 1l~H':;; ire! i;:> l!l if C3:c!;'q 2! r~~~ ~~ q ~ I ~ I ~ g Cl ~ ~ ~ f I ~ f f f f 3 g'! ; ~ g ... ... 8 ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ;: ... g '" ... ... i ~ ~ ... ut ~~i:a~ ~ ... ~ : ~ ~ ~ =11.11<- I ! I f i I i I I g ~ f a ~ ~ ... @ @ ~ ~ ~ ~ @ @ @ ... ;::l 1.0 - '" o 8 ~ N ... @ @ @ t ... .------ - ~ 8 @ @ -----.- --- '" @ 8 @ @ --+--f- - ... ~ ~ lS ~ 8 ~ '" N 8 ~ ... 8 ~ 8 8 ~ ~ ... v. '" 8 ~ ~ ~ ... lS ~ 8 ~ o 00 '" ... @ ... ~ ~ 8 ~ @ ~ ~ @ @ 8 "8 ~ @ @ @ 8 @ ~ 8 @ ~ ~ @ 10 lS @ ~ ~ 8 10 ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ . I Iii I I fll I I W II f f II f i n 1: '" . r -l I: s- f i :l !' ::! u: 2! ~... i ~ i I ... lei f ~ e~f~ 1 <>fl~ e~f~ ~ e~l~ 1 ell; r-. ~ "Cl .... .... ~ ,,- c: ~ a"'l we::. O('D .j:>.n ..... C'I.l ~ - ~ = 8 ~ elf~ e~f~ elf ~ erf~ eiI~ elf ~ eiff~ .. i f ~ .. if f ~ I- ~ .... C U 8 @ E c "l l- t> t u .... · ,f ; J : f a- i l' I ~ ~ o o w ~ -1 0 il II n' ! . Ii!. ~ !:' '" i I' .. " II' c: ~ :J Q. '" Ii' W I' J 0 ~ i ~ 1 ~ i I .. if I ~ ll: ~ f ~ ~ ;:j 0 '$. '$. if '" ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ f ~ .. '" 0 '#. '$. if .... ~ ~ f ~ .. '" 0 '$. '$. if .. lSlS f~ ~ ~ if ~ (": ~ lS lS ~ ~ "0 .... ... ~~ilo ~ ,,- c: ~ :J .. ~ ~ if t ~ ~~. OtD ~f') ... rI.l ~;iI~ I-C: - ~ = lSlS f~ ~ ~ if i:: lSlS f~ ~~if . :J:oI ~~ff~ c 0 ~ t-3 t<:I C lSlS f~ w ~~f 0: ....... ..... \0 lSlS f~ ....... 0 ~ ~ i ::; w ~~iff~ :SlS f~ ~ ~ if ;0 : f w i\3 ::::! ~ o o w