Item G1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
MEETING DATE: 10/19/05
DIVISION: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BULK ITEM: No. Time Approx. piease.
DEPARTMENT: AIRPORTS
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Presentation by Peter Green from the URS Corp. concerning the Environmental
Assessment (EA) for Runway Safety Area (RSA) Improvements to the Key West International Airport.
fTEM BACKGROUND: Five RSA alternatives will be discussed.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT SOCC ACTION. URS Professional Service Order (PSG) for the RSA EA was approved by the
Board on 08/18J2004.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the recommended preferred alternative (400 Foot RSA Width with Minimal
EMAS Length at East End, Non-Standard RSA at West End, see fig. 3.7-1)
TOTAL COST: N/A
BUDGETED: N/A
COST TO AIRPORT: NJA
COST TO PFC: N/A
COST TO COUNTY: NJA
SOURCE OF FUNDS: N/A
REVENUE PRODUCING: N/A
AMOUNT PER MONTHJYEAR N/A
APPROVED BY: County Attorney X
OMS/Purchasing X
Risk. Management X
KEY WEST AIRPORT DIRECTOR APPROVAL
(~-
DOCUMENTATION: Included X
To Follow
Not Required
AGENDA ITEM #
DISPOSITION'
Ipjh
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Paqe
3.0 ALTERNATIVES ANAL YS IS ....................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1.1 Scope of Alternatives Analysis ...........................................................................3-1
3.1.2 Alternatives Analysis and NEPA.........................................................................3-1
3.2 ALTERNATIVES SCREENING PROCESS..................................................................... 3-2
3.2.1 Level 1 Analysis: Purpose and Need................................................................. 3-2
3.2.2 Level 2 Analysis: Environmental Impacts ..........................................................3-3
3.2.3 Level 3 Analysis: Constructability, Cost and Maintenance of Service............... 3-4
3.3 PRELIMINARY ACTION ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED............................................. 3-5
3.3.1 Off-Site / Operational Alternatives.............................................. ........................ 3-5
3.3.2 On-Site "Build" Alternatives................................................................................. 3-5
3.4 LEVEL 1 SCREENING EVALUATION ............................................................................3-6
3.4.1 Off-Site / Operational Alternatives ......................................................................3-6
3.4.2 On-Site Build Alternatives................................................................................... 3-7
3.5 LEVEL 2 SCREENING EVALUATION ............................................................................3-9
3.5.1 Wetland Impacts and Mitigation........................................................................ 3-1 0
3.6 LEVEL 3 SCREENING EVALUATION ..........................................................................3-18
3.6.1 Constructability ................................................................................................. 3-18
3.6.2 Comparative Cost Considerations ....................................................................3-18
3.6.3 Maintenance of Service.................................................................................... 3-24
3.6.4 Level 3 Screening Summary............................................................................. 3-24
3.7 BEST ALTERNATIVE TO ENHANCE SAFETY ............................................................3-25
3.7.1 Environmental Screening.................................................................................. 3-25
3.7.2 Cost and Operational Screening....................................................................... 3-28
3.8 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND RETAINED FOR DETAILED ANAL YSIS.........3-31
3.9 PREFERRED ALTERNATiVE....................................................................................... 3-31
3.10 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .............................................................3-31
3.11 LISTING OF FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS CONSIDERED .........................3-33
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativesIS_3.0.doc9/1/2005
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
LIST OF TABLES
3.4-1 Three-Level Alternatives Screening Analysis Summary
3.5-1 Potential Wetland Impacts by Alternative and Habitat Type
3.5-2 Potential Wetland Impacts and Assumed Mitigation Requirements
3.5-3 Potential Mitigation at Selected Sites
3.5-4 Potential Mitigation at Selected Sites (All Sites Available)
3.5-5 Potential Mitigation at Selected Sites (Without Sites Ranked Low Likelihood for Use)
3.5-6 Potential Floodplain Impacts
3.6-1 Preliminary EMAS Performance Estimates
3.6-2 Standard RSA and Standard EMAS Estimated Development Costs
3.6-3 Non-Standard RSA and Non-Standard EMAS Estimated Development Costs
3.6-4 Summary of Multi-Level Screening Evaluation
3.7-1 Additional Alternatives Screening Analysis Summary
3.7-2 Potential Wetland Impacts of Additional Alternatives
3.7-3 Estimated Development Costs Of Additional Alternatives
3-10-1 Summary of Potential Environmental Consequences
LIST OF FIGURES
3.3-1 Preliminary Action Alternatives Considered
3.5-1 Wetlands Located In Detailed Study Area
3.5-2 Location of Potential Mitigation Sites
3.5-3 Location of East Martello Battery Bunker
3.6-1 Decision Flow Chart for Evaluating EMAS And RSA Improvements
3.6-2 Maximum Feasible RSA Improvement Cost
3.7-1 Additional Action Alternatives Considered
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativesIS_3.0.doc9/1/2005
ii
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
SECTION 3.0
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.1.1 Scope of Alternatives Analysis
This section of the Environmental Assessment (EA) summarizes the screening analysis conducted to
identify a range of reasonable and practicable alternatives for full evaluation in this EA, and provides a
summary comparison of the projected environmental consequences associated with each of the
alternatives. Other sections of this Environmental Assessment (EA) provide the description of the
Purpose and Need for the proposed project, as well as baseline environmental information for the
proposed project site.
This analysis does not contain an evaluation of alternatives for Connected Actions. Connected Actions
previously identified in the Purpose and Need section of this EA are considered to be incidental to the
Proposed Project; that is, they would not occur without the implementation of the Proposed Project.
Therefore, they are not subject to either the purpose and need or alternatives evaluation. However, the
potential environmental impacts will be considered as part of the Proposed Project in Section 5 -
Environmental Consequences. In addition, this alternatives analysis does not present an evaluation of
other potential development projects depicted on the Airport Layout Plan (ALP). These projects have
independent utility from the Proposed Project and mayor may not be implemented by the Monroe County
Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) within the time frame of this study. These projects, if
implemented, would need to be justified and evaluated on independent grounds. The cumulative impact
of these other projects will be considered in Section 5 - Environmental Consequences.
3.1.2 Alternatives Analysis and NEPA
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) stipulate that alternatives are the heart of the environmental impact evaluation process.
Those regulations require that the Federal decision-maker perform the following tasks:
· "Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and, for alternatives
which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been
eliminated."
· "Devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail, including the Proposed
Action, so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits."
· "Include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency."
· "Include the alternative of no action."
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativesIS_3.0.doc9/1/2005
3-1
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
The stated purpose and need for the improvements to the airport's Runway Safety Area (RSA) are to
provide an RSA that meets FAA design standards (to the greatest extent practicable) to improve safety
for arriving and departing passengers and aircraft at Key West International Airport (KWIA), while
maintaining the utility and benefits of the airport to the citizens of Monroe County. Reasonable
alternatives that accomplish the stated purpose and need for the project will be identified and evaluated in
this EA to satisfy NEPA requirements.
The BOCC's responsibility in this process is to: 1) disclose and evaluate potential environmental impacts
that may result from the Proposed Project and retained alternatives, and 2) evaluate the ability of the
Proposed Project and retained alternatives to improve safety for arriving and departing passengers and
aircraft.
3.2 ALTERNATIVES SCREENING PROCESS
Federal and FAA guidelines concerning the environmental review process require that a range of
reasonable, feasible and prudent, and practicable action alternatives that might accomplish the objectives
of a proposed project be identified and evaluated, along with the No-Action Alternative. Such an
examination ensures that an alternative that addresses the project's purpose and that might enhance
environmental quality, or have a less detrimental effect, has not been prematurely dismissed from
consideration.
The alternatives screening process for the proposed RSA project used a three-level evaluation process
that first considered the purpose and need for the proposed project and alternatives (Level 1 screening).
Those alternatives that did not meet the purpose and need were eliminated from further consideration.
As the alternatives evaluation proceeded through the Level 2 analysis, alternatives that did not meet key
environmental criteria, or were expected to have substantial environmental impact, were eliminated from
further study. Alternatives retained after the Level 2 analysis were then evaluated in terms of
constructability, cost, and operational evaluation criteria. At the conclusion of the Level 3 evaluation,
those alternatives that remained were identified for detailed analysis in subsequent chapters of this EA.
3.2.1 Level 1 Analysis: Purpose and Need
The first level of analysis evaluated whether an alternative addressed the safety issue identified at KWIA.
The criterion for this Level 1 analysis was whether an alternative provides an RSA that meets FAA design
standards (to the greatest extent practicable) to improve safety for arriving and departing passengers and
aircraft at KWIA, while maintaining the utility and benefits of the airport to the citizens of Monroe County.
For this analysis, several alternatives meet FAA design standards and several do not meet standards but
improve safety at KWIA.
BOCC and public expectations regarding the utility and benefits provided by the airport is an important
criterion. Alternatives that would substantially reduce the utility and benefit of the airport were considered
to be less desirable than those having no effect on long-term utility and benefit.
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativesIS_3.0.doc9/1/2005
3-2
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
3.2.2 Level 2 Analysis: Environmental Impacts
This aspect of the screening process focused on potential impacts to selected environmental resources
that are protected under special purpose environmental laws and/or that contain specific provisions for
the avoidance and minimization of impacts. Level 2 evaluation criteria are discussed below.
3.2.2.1
Wetlands
Executive Order 11990 states that Federal agencies should avoid to the extent possible the long- and
short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands and to avoid direct
or indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative. Impacts
should only be allowed if there is no practicable alternative to a proposed project, and the proposed
project includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands.
In keeping with the direction provided in Executive Order 11990, as well as that provided in DOT Order
5660.1A, Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, and Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean
Water Act, this analysis evaluates each of the alternatives based on the approximate acreage and type of
wetlands potentially impacted and the ability to mitigate the impacts. Alternatives having lesser impacts
were considered more prudent and feasible than those generating greater impacts.
3.2.2.2
Floodplains
Executive Order 11988 directs Federal agencies to "take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to
minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the
natural and beneficial values served by floodplains..." The Executive Order and DOT Order 5650.2
establish a policy for FAA to avoid taking an action within a 1 OO-year floodplain where practicable. Every
effort must be made to minimize the potential risks to human safety and property damage and the
adverse impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values. In keeping with these policies, this analysis
evaluates each of the alternatives based on the approximate acreage of 1 OO-year floodplains that would
be impacted. Alternatives that would result in no impacts or less impacts to floodplains were considered
more prudent and feasible than those with greater impacts.
3.2.2.3
Historic and Archaeological Resources
Historic and archaeological resources are protected under several Federal laws. The most applicable to
the Proposed Project are the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Archaeological and
Historic Preservation Act of 1974. Both laws require Federal agencies implementing Federal actions to
take into consideration historic and archaeological resources included in or eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places. In keeping with the direction provided in these laws, this analysis
evaluates each of the alternatives based on the potential to result in direct or indirect impacts to historic
and archaeological resources. Alternatives that would result in no impacts, or less impacts, to these
resources were considered to be more prudent and feasible than those resulting in greater impacts.
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativesIS_3.0.doc9/1/2005
3-3
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
3.2.2.4
Public Recreation Area Impacts
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (recodified at 49 U.S.C. Section 303(c)) provides
protection for special properties, including significant publicly owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife and
waterfowl refuges, or any significant historic sites. Section 4(f) prevents the approval of a proposed
Federal action that requires the use of these special properties unless no feasible and prudent alternative
exists and unless the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the resource resulting
from such use. The analysis will identify any Section 4(f) resources (i.e., public parks, recreation area, or
refuges) having potential to be directly affected by each alternative. Alternatives that would result in no
impacts or less impacts are considered to be more prudent and feasible than those alternatives that
would result in impacts.
3.2.2.5
Threatened and Endangered Species
Section 7(a) (2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended, requires that all Federal
agencies are to undertake programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species, and are
prohibited from authorizing, funding, or carrying out, in the U.S. or upon the high seas, any action that
would jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of "critical habitat." The analysis will identify and consider the potential of each alternative to
involve listed threatened and endangered species. Those alternatives that would result involve no
protected species, or fewer protected species, are considered to be more prudent and feasible than those
alternatives resulting in impacts.
3.2.3 Level 3 Analysis: Constructability, Cost and Maintenance of Service
This level of the alternatives screening analysis was designed to determine which alternatives were
considered to be feasible and prudent in light of construction, cost, and operational considerations.
Alternatives considered feasible and prudent were retained for subsequent detailed analysis in this EA.
The following presents the Level 3 criteria used in the screening process.
3.2.3.1
Constructability
Construction on and around a runway has the potential to impact airfield infrastructure and operations.
Consideration is given to the complexity of staging, phasing, and construction activities and the
coordination and integration of the Proposed Project with aviation operations and other ongoing
development projects. Alternatives having higher potential for adverse constructability issues are
considered to be less feasible and prudent than those that result in fewer construction impacts.
3.2.3.2
Comparative Cost Considerations
The evaluation of estimated development cost is an important element in determining the feasibility and
practicability of an alternative. FAA Order 5200.9, Financial Feasibility and Equivalency of Runway
Safety Area Improvements and Engineered Material Arresting Systems (FAA, 2004d), provides guidance
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativesIS_3.0.doc9/1/2005
3-4
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
for determining the best financially feasible alternatives for RSA improvements and provides the basis for
comparing RSA improvement alternatives when considering development and mitigation costs.
3.2.3.3
Maintenance of Service
This criterion considers whether or not an alternative would have an adverse effect on the level of service
provided to the traveling public, both long-term and during construction. This would include effects on
convenience, number and types of flights offered at KWIA, and/or increased of delay. This would also
include the use of non-airline and private aircraft at KWIA.
3.3 PRELIMINARY ACTION ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The following sections describe the preliminary action alternatives considered for evaluation in the
screening analysis. There are several categories of alternatives that have the potential to satisfy the
Purpose and Need for the project. These alternatives, generally divided into off-site and on-site
alternatives, are summarized below.
3.3.1 Off-Site I Operational Alternatives
Off-site alternatives consist of those alternative actions that examine shifts in technologies and/or activity.
For this analysis, the following two alternatives were identified:
Use of Other Airports - This alternative consists of the use of other area airports to reduce the size of
the standard RSA required at KWIA. Under this alternative, airlines and certain private operators would
shift operations by aircraft having an approach speed of 121 knots or higher (Aircraft Approach Category
"c" or higher) to the Marathon Airport or the NAF Key West at Boca Chica. This alternative would reduce
the standard RSA to 300 feet wide and 600 feet beyond each runway end if a B-II ARC could be realized
for the airport. The current ARC is C-1I1.
Use of Smaller Aircraft - This alternative consists of limiting aircraft operations at KWIA to smaller
aircraft to reduce the size of the standard RSA required. Under this alternative, airlines and private
operators would not be allowed to operate aircraft at KWIA having an approach speed of 121 knots or
higher (Aircraft Approach Category "c" or higher). Although legal means to enforce this alternative are
not available, this alternative would presumably reduce the RSA requirement to a lower standard size
(300 feet wide and 600 feet beyond each runway end if a B-II ARC could be achieved).
3.3.2 On-Site "Build" Alternatives
Potential on-site alternatives identified for this analysis generally included "build" alternatives that either
satisfy FAA design standards or employ other options (i.e., use of a non-standard RSA or EMAS) to
improve safety to the greatest extent practicable. The potential alternatives are presented in two groups -
those that would provide standard FAA RSA dimensions, and those that would provide non-standard FAA
dimensions. A description of each on-site "build" alternative is provided in Figure 3.3-1.
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativesIS_3.0.doc9/1/2005
3-5
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
c
w
0::
w
C
(jj
Z
o
o
'"
w
>
i=
;;~
<"i0::
WW
0::1-
:J..J
C)<C
-z
LLO
i=
o
<C
~
<C
z
:E
::::;
W
0::
0..
,00g
Co
o
o~
-<
"'
'"
~
-<
i=
z
W
f-
:r ~
LL
o
"'
'"
l/)
s::::
o
'iij
s::::
Q)
E
Q
~
0::
'E
~
s::::
,s
Vl
I
s::::
~
~
s::::
III
'E
~
s::::
,s
Vl
,s::::
'6
's:
e
0...
~
'O:l
III
E
,s
q:
Co
o
o
,00g
Q)C=
..c.- ;,;::::
~~2
-g"5 ~
Q) ~ E
-60.8
~~o
1OQ)-o
~-g~c
.~~ 2~
........ow"'O
Q) C c c
2~88
8,*~~
LOn:: "'
-0 -0"'
ct"S ~
mooO)
O)2-:s:cu
6 <{ <{ .~
1i5=j=~~
20 Q).~
acuJ::2
D.....I-c
D.2 ."m
...--- co co E
<( ";:: Q) Q)
(f) Q) 0)..0
n:::Cc-o
()~ c
"2coro
roOl ~
-g .~ ~ ~
2 -0 "(jj .3
~roa 2
Ow 1:::: 17.i
.~ Q) 0 Q)
t5 E .f;- g'
2"'0 <:::;( C
w:J -"m
6~~-o
() D Q)
oC1jg~
2D:::LO 0..
"' ~ 0
.- Q) co '-
(/)..c- 0..
B1-2g-
~ >-0 Q)
.;;:: ~ >- -g
1Ocoo
E 2.~.~
Q) > ~
~ 0)"'0 co
co c <(";::
.~ t5 <( "*
~ .~ LE E
Q) 0
-0 ~
.~ =5
D.ffi
0-
~ >-
>-ro
~ ~
C :J
:J ~
~ Q)
OlO
C :J
:.;:::::;-0
"' Q)
.x "-
Q)-O
Q)"
.cO
~'"
0",
ui:
cl-
Q)
.c-o
o c
ro Q)
Q)>-
~ro
;~
22
a .c
00
aro
~~Q)
>-ro
Q)Q)
-ro:Q
E '"
.~~
<l~
<la
roo
OlLO
c-o
.~ ~
-oOl
c c
ro 0
Ll-
row
'02 .
~8~
"000_:;=
C~a
8'0 co_
Q)",'"
.;;:: <( ~
~~~
ill -0 E
~~.~
~ ~ 8:
I-",ro
Co
o
o~
-<
"'
'"
~
-<
i=
z
W
f-
o
"-
>-'
LL
o
"'
N
Co
o
o~
,00g
uf .8 -g
~C?J~
"' n:: <l
~O)E
O).~ 8
c~
E.~o
OlQ)-o
=Q)2c
-OJ::OO
w.......2:E
'E g'1i5-g
"m.c 6 8
~Q)o
0-0 Q)
6.~~~
:.;::::::;Q)"'05
g~~ ~
(j)"'05ro
~ TI ~ .~
..c.~.Q "'0
~ ~Q)
-g @ ~ .~
rom(/)2
........u<(c
C-(f)"cu
Q):::::ln:::E
~ ~ '" Q)
>cQ)..o
CUOC-o
0..:.;::::::; Q) C
>. () ..c co
~.sl- (/)-
c~......~
200 ~.3
Q) 4- ~
.c a~
........u:iDtJ
Ol >- LO
CCU4-Q)
~ .~ ~ g'
~ ~ a3.~
~.~ ~ ~
Q)"'O.= ........
'- CO:::::l co
.S ~ g"B.
0""-0 '- 0
~~:5Q.
~ ~-~ g-
~"m"2 ~
~-5~TI
~ ~2.~-
~ 8:~~
........cu..cQ)
roro~ro
~ ~ ~~
I-SE~
o
c:
I
"'
W
'"
I
f-
o
W
o
:5
o "-
c: "'
I 0
"'
w
'"
I
f-
o
W
o
:5
"-
"'
o
.EBBS
Q) -g "g--o-m
:g(/)<(~4-
>:::::l ro...--
~~ 0 ~ a5_
-8~ro~~
>.0"-..0..0
ro5.2-o:!2
5........ (/)"3 :::::l
3ffi"E~~
~ E ro > >
:5~~~g
'0 ~tJ2~
fU'<( ~ iJ
~ ~ ~ g-~
Q) 2 >.tt:: cD
:5c~9Tci
2~rn~~
66-8:;;-m
~:5~~~
~ '0 ~"~~-
Q) ~"~ -g Q)
..c 0-0 ro..o
........tQ)--O
0)0..00"3
"5 D- 32 '; ~
l2-o6::c.i..c
~ffi5~g
iJ >.~ ~ ~
s~:gro~
~2~~~
~-5:5.0~
~~~~t
4- -g f- 0) 8-
o ~ en:2i"~
~~~~~
~..cEn:::~
oo,~ ro
() ffi"S ill ~
"~ :;: ~ -g ~
roUJ<(O~
En::: U) Q) ~
~"En:::go
ro~~~~
~~~Q)2
f- tJ (/) n::: "m
-<
"'
'"
~
-<
i=
z
W
f-
o
"-
tti:
~-~-
Ww
~~
"'",
~:)
~~
Ww
00
~~
'!2",
00
it <9
0<:;
~~
fO~
8-
(/)- -8 -g
~C?J~
"' n:: <l
~O)E
O)"~ 8
c~
E"~'O
OlQ)-o
=Q)2c
-o..c ()"Q
Q3........2~
'E ~tJ-g
"m"c 6 8
~Q)o
0-0 Q)
6"~~~
:.;::::::;Q)-o5
g~~ ~
Q3-o5ro
~ TI ~ "~
..c"~"Q -0
~ ~Q)
-g @ ~ "~
rom(/)2
........-o<(c
c - U)"m
Q):::::ln:::E
~ ~ '" Q)
>cQ)..o
roOC-O
0..:.;::::::; Q) C
>. () ..c ro
~.sf- (/)-
c~......~
200 ~.3
Q) 4- ~
.c a~
........u:iDtJ
Ol >- LO
Cro4-Q)
~ "~ ~ g'
~ ~ ffi"~
~"~ ~ ~
Q) -0"=........
"- ro:::::l ro
"S ~ g"B.
0""-0 "- 0
~~:5Q.
~~-~ ~
~"m"E ~
~-5~TI
~ ~ .0 "~-
~ 8:~~
........ro..cQ)
mm~ro
~ ~ ~~
f- ":;: E ~
u
.g
;:;,
<'i
v
~
'"
i
~
t
'i'
J;
<(
w
~
ii
"
i'
s
c
w
0::
w
C
(jj
Z
o
o
'"
w
>
i=
;;~
<"i0::
WW
0::1-
:J..J
C)<C
-z
LLO
i=
o
<C
~
<C
z
:E
::::;
W
0::
0..
,DOS
~ i:l ~ i:l
,OG~ ~- I~
" ~ I~ ~ ~ ~
,ODS N ~
~
-< -<
"' "'
'" '"
~ ~
-< -<
i= i=
z z
w W
f- f-
0 0
"- "-
tt
5~JL
v-M.,....
UJ~:::
~~~-
~-~
;;::;~ t
:;;:c:(::::! t t
~~:; 0 0
0 zz-< 0 '" '"
-<-<w '" .. ..
c: f-f-U ..
(f)~Z
I OO~
"'
w ~~5
'"
I
f- ~~~
0
W ~~~
U
:5 ","-<
"- :1;N~
"' "'~
is
.E.8~~1ijED
~ ~:s ~.g g ~-
.~ :J ~ ~ ~ -ffi ~
Q.~a3n::.2iJro
E ~ -g g -g 9 .~
>- ~ ~.= Co ~ 2
~ Q)<CoroD..
3~~~~~ ~
~~~O~Qj~
:5fUro~-a2:g
oQ.-g.2"S~6
fU co en 0..-_ 5:
~51j5"25(")w
a32~~~i~
..c........oro:.;:::::;CUQ)
o a3 c t5 ~.~ :5
~~~C1j~2E
o~~n::tt::~~
(/) ..c.~ >. 0 co c
-0........ 'tJ I Q) co
:go~~~.o~
(/)(/)cucn2::g-a
~ .Q ~ E -g is 9
........to-acu5Q)
g~ 5: ~ O)~ ~
.~ -o~ ~~ ~;
~a3~~~~~
"'0 >. 0) Q) '- Q) Q)
s~~~.2g2
~2~~~~E;
ro-5~5~-a<:;t-
E CO..c en co g >.
~~~~ fU-g~
'0 6.0_ ~ ~ ~ ,~
en ~2..c c . ~
U5..oc........rot "-
"00 ..c ~ ~ ~ 8. ~
8 g.~ ~ : ~ ~
~:::::l . C Q)..D
Q) 0- >..- ..c
:6(}j~~=s:::;~
~n::<(3~~O
Q)2~'-n::c.:
~ co 0) g (/)
:6-~~~~~+-'
~ ~ rn .~ 8 ~ 5 2
~-
uf .8 -g
E<et5 c
2 if) co ,g
~n::: D..:t=
(/) 0l5-g
O).~ () 0
~~o~
.c >< -
O)Q)"'O..o
~~~~
-........:::::lO
~ g~ E
.-.- c"'O
co C 0 c
4-Q)oCU
Ou
c .~ ~ -g
:8Q)-o~
g~~ ~
(j)"'05ro
~ TI ~ ,~
..c.~.Q "'0
~ ~Q)
-g @ ~ ,~
roroWjg
........"'0 <( ,~
c-(fJ co
Q):::::ln:::E
~ ~ '" Q)
>cQ)..D
COOeD
0..:.;:::::; Q) C
>. () ..c CO
~.sl- (/)-
c~......~
200 ~.3
Q) 4- ~
.c D~
........u:iDw
OJ >- CO
CC04-Q)
~ .~ ~ g'
~ ~ a3.~
~.~ ~ ~
Q) -0.=........
'- CO:::::l CO
S ~ g.B.
0""-0 '- 0
~~:5Q.
~~-~ ~
~.m"E ~
~-5~~
~ 2~=-
~ 0. ro
Q) 0..Q).;::
........COJ::Q)
~ro~~
~.~ ~~
~ ~
~ a~ ~ ~ a~ ~
~-
~ i:l k:J i:l
,ODS
,ODS
'0 CO fU ~ ~ g--o- ~
-0 .~ 5: I- .~ w ~ ~
a3~2u:ia3Eo~
wroQ)(/)E-oW-o
~~:5~iJ~~Q)
~ .w 5 ~ =5 .~ ~ ~
~ ..a .;:: ~ .~ ~ <{ g-
CO -0........ C Q) 2: '-
Q)~~~C1j..aw~
:Q5:~2n:::g~co
5: U) L().~ Q) 6........ Q)
~~(f)~~5:'O~
4-w~,- .~cg
8 -0 10.2 fU..a g .-
L()rog-o~og-ro-
~ -g :;; ~ 2 -m ~ .~
O)~~w~~~1o
6 ~ o.~ ~ U) :5 E
1i51--m~~~~~
2 >-~:go,wS-o
8~U)6~~u:i~
DC<{5:Q)................CO
..---22:U):5-g~E
<{Q)W<{O)co.Yo
~~:5aJ.Q~~~c
"E~:5Q)~81Oo~
~ a3.~:5~ ~ fU~-g
2 W ~ -g.~ a3 ~ g 8
(/) ~ .~ ~ Q. CD 2 t5 ~
~Q)Q)~~&~6-g
~::2~:gt-;O~
g CO 8 ~ 6 8..~ ~ E
l:; U) L() (/) 5:.= 1ij CO
~~-o4-""""<{ o..:g,~
8w~~2~~6~
'0 -0 0) ~ 0 O;t::: 5: ,c
2~.Q;;~~~~~
.~ 2 Q) N '0 .2 .~ :8 'm
C(/)Q)roJ::Q)coE
8 CO ~ 6 ~ ~ .Ql ~ ~
Q) -0 55:e 5: .g ~ <{ -0
.;;:: ~ -0 <{ D.. -0 U) C
~fU~-g~~~n:::-
Jg~~<'(~~2-~~
~ 2 ~ . -g ~.m C 0
~:5 ~~~ ~EE~
'08~6~~CO
-g ~ :g .g- -;; -0 .~
Q)..a6<{c:J-o
~ ~ 5: ~ ~ ~.~
Q)oQ)Og-(/)jg
:5 ~ ~ ~ ~ .Q .~
........CDOrooE
COQ)L()4-'-Q)
Q)........4-Q)2(/)Q)
:Q ~ ~ ~ .m <{ ..a
!~~g6,~~
~ :5 5: ~.w
~1oC1jco~~~-
o con::~_(/) C:s
~~"E:g6~g
C CO:::::l 0.......... '-
~C1j~ ~.~ -o-w
6~w ~~~ ~
::: ~ ~ .Q -;. 0 .~
~ 1-~.8w~
~ ~-o ~ (/) ~-o
8~~iJ.8co~
..--- 2 0 :5 ~ ~ .6.
<{Q)w:Qc2:0
~ ~ ~ 5:.~ W 8:
"EocoC1j-o~co
co-g~n::Q)""""Q)
-gQ)2:Q)..a'O-g
~ww~~co
CO ~ :5 >- ~ :8 .~_
.~ E .~ ~ ~ ~ ~
O................CQ)xQ)
2co62..aQ)1O
wU)OQ)U)Q)E
c<{-oJ::<{:5_
8aJ~~aJ:5~
'O"E~J::Q)S~
~ ~ ! g:5 ~
.w ~ Q) ~ -g u:i 0..
6w2Q)co05c
o COD:5Q)..2OQ
~ -g ~ O)"8D'O:g
~co-g.QOI"---o6
cfUcocoQ)1OQ)o
~ ~ g~ g >- g ~
~2~~~~t5~
~ :5 2 ~& 2 8 ~
<{'O Q);t:::-o CO
LE J:: ~ ~ ~ .~
........ u.g.= 5:-0
~ .~ 8: ~ ~ ~
-= C1j ~ .~:8 2
~n::..a~ ~.~
~~~_(/)<{ E
~-oo6U)Q)
C ~ 5: e-n::..a
2 w ~ .m ~ -g
O)Q).Q Q) C CO
~~~:5Q)(/)-
~ oj ~ .8:5_ ~
Q):QiJ(/)~o
:5!:5.8~E
4-Q):Q-oo(/)
~25:~-m~
-g 8 C1j .~ ~ ~
~ ~ n:: ~ U) .~
........cQ)Q)<{-O
~ ~~ ~ aJ ~
~ .Q ~ ~ :5 .~
<(~",,,,~~
aJ22~~~
-o8Q)~:8Q)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
2 ~ ~ aJ ~ .~
~~g~Ero-
g 5: ~ :;; :5 .~
:g-g~ ~S1OE
:JQ)~
t5 -5 g~ 2 ~
6~~8~-o
~1o~~~~
(/)~:Qa3~~
~ro22~5
6 ~ ~& ~ ~ c
~aJ~62~~
.;;:: :J e- Q) Q) -g
~~~~:5~8
~ ro Q) 0 .~~ ~
~ .~ ~ CO i 8 ~
~b~.E~~~
u
.g
;:;,
<'i
v
~
'"
i
~
t
'i'
J;
<(
w
~
ii
"
i'
s
c
w
0::
w
C
(jj
Z
o
o
'"
w
>
i=
;;~
<"i0::
WW
0::1-
:J..J
C)<C
-z
LLO
i=
o
<C
~
<C
z
:E
::::;
W
0::
0..
~ ~ ~
~
-<
-< -< "'
"' "' '"
'" '" ~
~ ~ -<
-< -< i=
i= i= z
z z w
w W f-
f- f- 0
0 0 "-
"- "-
~
~ 0
~ ~ '"
""
0
0 0 '"
'" '" ""
"" ""
~
l/)
s::::
o
'iij
s::::
Q)
E
Q
Vl
~
lJ.J
~
s::::
III
~
0::
'E
~
s::::
,s
Vl
I
s::::
~
,s::::
'6
's:
e
0...
~
'.Q
III
E
,s
q:
~
,DOS
~61ijo
~I~i~
; .~ .2 1i5 -g
g-g-eS8
ro ro Q)
~ fU-g~~
:Q51'J:Q5
:::::l C en :::::l 0
o2coE
5Q).Ql5ro
ro :5 ~ ~ .~
:5o~2~
<(-aQ)()c
~a3~~jg
-a t5 :g C1j .~
ro~6n::E
-gQ)55Q)
~:5C1j~~
~ ~n::~~_
c >.~ I- (/)
~~I-.g~
~Q) >-00
152 ~.~ E
0.8 3 6, ~
co ~ ~"w g'
~ .~ :5 ~ .~
~~~E~
.~ ~ ~ ~ ~
8-gQ)~ g.
~ ~~ ~- 8:
.~ ~ M di ~
a3 :::::l 0)-0 "'0
........'-Cc:::::l
..Q2 Q)iJ roo
o....c c _ c
E ~ Q) , .-
ooxffi-ro-
()..c Q) ~";::
:f g~.~ ~
~.Q!2' arE
o~~Z3~
~ g,.~ -5 2
<i ~ .~ 2 ~
~~~ 8:5
!-Q)O<(O
~
~ ~ ~ ~ .Q ~
o,.g ~ aJ @-o
C <( D () .~
~o~~~--
<( 4- 0 (/) Q).~
(f)W..r=.Q)..cw
0::-0........-0................
(5 ~ ~.~ E ~
,2c-o.$=
a2U)cuj4=
0(/)<(0........-0
<Dc2::.;::::::;OQ)
Q) .Ql W ~ .2 1:5
~ ~ "E .g, ~ ~
~;~~ro5
..c Q) co () >. ()
:;; E 1i5.~ ~ '0
~ ~ co ~ 3 ~ ,g
:E~~aj~g:g
.~ -a ~.;;:: :5 -t5 6
Ch a3 ~ ~ .~ 6 ~
n::w .2~~:g
(5 ~1ijro @-..a 5:
~Q)2~::::g~
D..c.-........ 4- :::::l
g~~Q)~~~
o 0)"'0 '- -
~ <{ .~ 3 .~ ~ -g
-g ~ -a fU .Ql:g'~
~~E~~~~
~l-02y)Ch~
~~~Egn::~
E <( ..0 '0 .= 5: -a
co - co Q) C
~E~~E~:-
:5 6-g~ g-:5_~
~~~Q)w~g
~ gmE;~-t5
:Jo~roQ)EQ)
~ Q..~ -a 6, ~ g'
> (/) 0) Q)"w t:,~
Q) co Q):g Q) co co
:S-0106-oU)-o
~a3oQ.~~2
"- ..c Q)..o~,CO
Jg"ill~..oow~
co52::gw~2
~~8:;5~:8:
1-........<(5COOCO
~
~
.~~~~ ~~~
-g Q) ! ~ .~ "- ~
Q)1OQ)rocooO)
~U)2 -o"illro
<( 0 U) Q) t: .g
~2: 0 <( 10 co 0..
~ W ~ aJ .~ U) ~
3B,~~2~E
~ a3 g~ ~w "--
EE.Q~Q)~~
'OE~2~~~
B,:!; ~ ~.~ ~ I
cEMx_-2u:i
~"2 ~ ~.~ 0..(5
Q)COQ)..cQ)cc
E-g1O:;102~
"- 2 .~ ~ E ~ I"-
:: % 2 s ~ .g,1o
~ ~ 8:-0 ~ ~ fO
;~~a3oo~
o 0 Q) >. 2i.~ :::::l
~6ro~E~~~
o~~ 3 8 .E~
..c=-O"-4-CO)(f)
~ ~ ~~ 0 ~:E ill
5 .~ co ........ "@ -g co -g
C1j~'O 5g 8 ~~
D::~1a~~~~~
"2C~~6~~2
~ ~ 8 ~ 0 ~ .g g
.0~~LO~E~~
(f) S 0 ~ ::g co .Ql ~
CO"-51O:::::lc~O
Q)-5~g ~:;-o 0
~ ~ ~ :;; ~ .~ ~ .~
2-o4-Q)ocooE
0.. 6 ~ ~ :g ~ .g- .E
~ iD'2: ~ ~ ~ ~"@
~~~~<(Q)E:g
I"- co co U)..o 0.. 6
Q)(")EU)D::-oo,,-
:S ~:!; <( 5 C W ~
~~ EaJ ~ co_E ~
2 .~ ~ Q) Q) ~ ~ .~
roXI-..cE:::::lCC
.~ ~ -0 :; -0- g .~ ~
~ g-a3~~~~~
.E~C1j ~ fOE ~~~
D-~ D:: -6 ~ ~.~ ~ ~
~LO"2~2ro~EO)
x"--~::g..cU)-O~ro
Q) ~ C ;5 ~ <( Q) t: .g
r;::g~5~aJ~~~
~;5~:E 6 Q) 2<(~
2 ~ ~.~ iD'~ 8:aJ::-
Q)U)o-o..ooco Q)
ED:: Q.:ill~ 6 Q) ~ 5)
4-Q)Q),+;-("):.;::::::;-g(f)5
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~g ~ ~
-0, 0 C ........ x .- >
a3 ~~ ~.~ ~ ~- ~~
~-g~-62E26.2
E :::::l:.c ~ o..E co:.;::::::; 0
,,-.8 I- Q) g-s E ~ I"-
:: =E:;:;-~ -g . ~.g, 10
~ ~2 ...:2~~~ fO
4- :::::lX ........05
8~8 8~-5 ~(f) 3
~~~~~~E~~~
o~..o65108cE~
E 5 ~ .~ <( ~ '0 .Q g ~
~ fO~ 6~~-o:gt~
<(~..c~"2J2~62i3
U)2~w~~2~~-g
D::Q)50C2:W:O<::=co
"2E<(E~W6co~2
C04-U)~ '..c052o
-g ~ ~ ~ 6 -0, Q) ~ .m ~
~~~5~~~co6,~
co ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ .~ .~ 6
~ ~ ~ ~ en .~ 5 ~ ~ ~
.~ 1i5 ~ ~ ~.~ ~.~ 5.E
0..1i) ~ E ~ co:g ~.g-.E
-oQ)Q)4-..c4-Q)coco
:J~oOillO(f)EQ)"@
00 fO-O 10 6 <( Q) E:g
50_5 a3 5:';::::::;U)..o 0..6
Q)Nc .!2D::-oO"-
.;;::: >. 2 -5 a3 ro 5 cwo..
~~~~g-~~co_E~
2 .~ ~ 10 E E Q) ~ ~ .~
ro x 0 (f) ........ .- E :::::l C C
(f) 2..cE ~ 5 _t5.Ql~
~ ~~~.~~~~~~
u
.g
;:;,
<'i
v
~
'"
i
~
t
'i'
J;
<(
w
~
ii
"
i'
s
c
w
0::
w
C
(jj
Z
o
o
'"
w
>
i=
~<C
MZ
<"i0::
WW
0::1-
:J..J
C)<C
-Z
LLO
i=
o
<C
~
<C
Z
:E
::::;
W
0::
0..
-<
"'
'"
~
-<
i=
z
W
f-
a
"-
t
o
'"
..
j
~
.~ro1ij -5 ro~ co <{ ~ <{
-g ~.g ~ ~ :g .~ LE 9 ~
..ill.o co (/)"'0 :::::l"'O >.~ Y:
~ ~ 6, ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ -0 10
r;~.~ ~ ~~~ rn.E~
5: aJ ~ .~ .0 2 "m ~ 2 ~
3..ctE:g~E~a3Tci
.............o.....:::::lW >E........
~ ~.g-S ~ C1j ~ fU ~-g
:: -. ~ ~ ~ n:: -g ~ .~ co
~ ~:5 ~ .~ ~ co 2 ~ g,
o,.~ g- 2 ill c (/f~ <{ iJ
c .~........ 0.. Q) Q) ~........ (f) c
Q)Ew........<+-..c:::::l4-D::l2
~ roE ~8::_g~~o
:5 '0 ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ a3 ~ c
.E 6.g,.~ ~ 0 Q) -m ~ ~
Q)~~~ g-m ~5 ~ ~
2 ~ ~ :;; :: ~ .~ E ~ ~
8 .~ ..0 ~ Q) if) -0 C ~ ~
L()..c,-~2<(2o.......2
o~~~8aJ.~C1j~ ~
:5 >. ~ ~ <D Q) g- n::: ..0 .x
:g ~ co "0.~:5 Q."2 -6 ~
5: c~~roo g-roo D..
Ch 2 2: ~ .~ c Q) ~ ~ ~
n::: E~::- 2~~ U?:5.~
~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ g~
-g-g~ 3<{ ~ro-ro~ ~
-ffi ~ .~ I ~ E 2 ~ ~ 2-
m co o..(/jUJ:: roo........ 0..
Q) ~.Q ~ ~ ~ E ~ .~ .~
:Q..c.........:::t::. c :==g o..C
>........ co co. 4- 0.. 0
2 -0 :s ~ 17.i fU'-o 0..:5 ~
O"6,g........c52rog'-
:g ~ 6 co ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ .g,
6.0 ~ [U<{ ~ Er-C1j~
5~:.c~ .:5 0 en::: ()
Q) ('I) I- :::::l 2 4- () ,g '- .~
~~-o~~~o~~~~
~roa3=;~a328~t5~
~ .~ U5 c"'O 17.i () ~ E Q) Q)
ro~ro:ecQ)2..aQ)5:5
~ 8: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .S ~ E
I- ro:5~~:5 8 ~ ~E ~
t
o
'"
..
~
j
~
o ill ~.~ Q) "'0 Q) 4-
4- Q) Q)..c..c c..c 0
15..~rof-""'" ro~-o .
Q) L().~ . g(/)o .ill C
~~2-g~g-g2~
~~8:~~~~~~
cu-scucu"'OQ)Q)oo
~O"'OQ)<t=65o~
2~2~~'-~~~
Q) if) ~:.~ ~ ~ "'0 ~
:5 n::: "'0 cu .E cu :J E
a ~ ~ ~ .g, '- ~ ~ cu
..c ~ 5 2: ~ .2 ~ (/) .~
g~Clj~~~ ~2~
~ Co n::: 0, t :g Q) ~ .~
~~~a32-2~(/)~
~2~~.CO~~Clj ~
4-..c:;:;-E~~5n:::~
~ ~ 2 :~ ~ (/) ~ ~ "'0
; Q) 8 E .8 .~.~ c ~
~~~~ ~~~:5~-
4-'-..oO........CU4- :s
o Q) c"'O ~D"'O-........
..c"'OoQ) DQ)O
:55:J:.;::::::;c"'OLO..o2
:g >. 0 .!2 .Ql Q)"'O '- 00
5~~:rg~~~~~
<(c........~",oO)O)Q)cu
if) :::::l:g.-"'O C t: c
n::: '- 5..c Q) co 0 cu.co
"E :5 Clj ~ ~ .~ 1i5 if) -0
~'On::: fU'~~2~~
~ Cii ro 5 ~ ~ 8 w .~
OO~Cii2ro........<D~2
cu 0 6 Q) if) Cii-Clj:: ~
Q)Q)--..c<(>n:::ocu
~ ~ .~ ~ aJ ~"E 6 ~
o cu -.::: 0 cu._ :::::l
0.......... Q)"'O cI"'01l0
:g 2 ~ a3: .0 ~ .~-
68 ~~~2 % ~~
5 D ~ Q).:;: ~ ~ Q) .ill
Q)0-TEQ)2..Y: :5cu
:s~2:5 D..D<(..c E
E ~ ~ -g .Q := ~ ~ ~
.illE........o-rocuo Q)
co .~ a ~ ~ fU'~ >- ~
~8:~~'2~~~E
~cuc(")82328
~
(Jj
'"
;;'
i=
z
W
f-
o
"-
t
o
'"
..
j
~
OOJ
0-0
(f):J
Ole;
c.~
iJ -
a3~
xCii
OJ~
'"
,,;E
"'-
5<=
2~
OJO
.e'"
~ <l
~E
a a
.eO
g'O
OJ -0 .
~~.Q
:52:g
.2~8
~a
OJ 0 OJ
2Q)::O
8~~
co-a
4-6E
a 5 '"
:5(/)c
"'0 c.-
.~2~
Clj~~
n::: <(.~
-oUJ'"
ro n:: E
-g5~
",OJ-o
oocc
cu~ cu_
OJf-- "'
-0 II!
.~ .~
0..fU'2
"'0500
_C
:J:J OJ
a~Ol
5.e '"
.~ ~.~
~ -0
E~~
Jg ~.~
'" -" a
.~........ 0..
~2 ~
u
.g
;:;,
<'i
v
~
'"
i
~
t
'i'
J;
<(
w
'"
~
"
,:i
i'
s
Although the RSA encompasses the entire runway, the identification of alternatives are generally
described by improvements proposed for each runway end. The width of each alternative described is
assumed to be consistent for the length of the runway, except where noted. To further assist public
understanding of the alternatives, they are described in terms of constructed elements at the physical
ends of Runway 9/27, rather than in terms of the departure and arrival ends of specific runway
operational status (e.g., departure end of Runway 27, etc.).
3.4 LEVEL 1 SCREENING EVALUATION
The Level 1 analysis focused on the ability of each alternative to satisfy the purpose and need for the
proposed RSA project. Each alternative was evaluated to determine whether the alternative should be
carried forward for additional evaluation. Those alternatives that did not meet purpose and need criteria
were eliminated from further consideration. Table 3.4-1 summarizes Level 1 screening evaluation for
each alternative.
3.4.1 Off-Site I Operational Alternatives
Use of Other Airports
With respect to the use of other airports (e.g., Marathon Airport), it should be noted that the airline
industry was deregulated by the United States Congress in 1978. As a result of this legislation, airlines
are free to choose which markets they wish to operate from. The FAA and local governments have no
authority to specify which airports airlines must use. Therefore, there is no legal means of forcing airlines
or aircraft to use other airports.
Shifting larger commercial and private aircraft operations from KWIA to Marathon Airport would require
passengers traveling to or from Key West to make a 47-mile trip (each way) by car or some form of public
transportation. This alternative would substantially reduce the convenient access to commercial service
currently enjoyed by the people of Key West and visitors to south Monroe County. Given the annual
number of commercial passenger enplanements at KWIA (approximately 238,946 in 2003), the
establishment of regular bus and/or shuttle service between the Marathon Airport and KWIA would also
be expected to increase traffic on US Highway 1. The Marathon Airport is currently an ARC B-II airport.
Transferring the larger commercial and private would, in turn, require substantial improvements to the
Marathon Airport to meet design standards for Aircraft Design Group C and higher aircraft.
Joint-use of the Navy facility was previously evaluated by Monroe County in the Feasibility Study and
Cost Benefit Analysis of Joint Use of Boca Chica (NAS) (Greiner, 1995). Shifting the operations of such
aircraft to NAF Key West at Boca Chica is not feasible due to ongoing military use of that facility and the
past lack of interest on the part of the military for establishing joint-use facilities.
In either case, the alternative of using other area airports to supplement KWIA would not meet the
purpose of the Proposed Project and was not considered further in this screening analysis.
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativesIS_3.0.doc9/1/2005
3-6
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
>-
0:::
<C
2:
2:
::::>
tJ)
~
tJ)
>-
...J
<C
2
<C
C)
2
....2
,w
'OtW
MO:::
wU
...JtJ)
l::/ltJ)
~~
i=
<C
2
0:::
w
I-
...J
<C
...J
W
>
W
...J
,
W
w
0:::
:I:
I-
('-.
c
'iij
0..
-- ~ ('-" -g
en l.... Q) 0
~ ~:c ':
() __ co: ro
~c~ ~
"'C.Q> 0
aJ!ii<l: 0
~ ~.Q c
~:2:!ii :s
Ui -g ~ .~
-g '[:2: -0
III .- aJ '*
+:; .~::c ()
~~5 .3
~~o ~ 00 0
~~z >- z z z
CO"<T (/) (/) (/) 0 0
~~~ ~ ~ z z
~ ~ 0 ~
('(j &:l Z >-
Ii!
N5jlll
...JEu
Wcl'Cl
>00..
~'$ .E
c
W
(/) 0
~ Z
('-.
t5
III
0..
E
(/)
aJ
e
:J
o
(/)
aJ
0:::
III
u
'6>
..Q
o
aJ
III
.r::
u
~
-0
C
III
U
.~
~
I
('-.
(/)
t5
III
0..
E
III
aJ
~
C
o
~
aJ
U
aJ
0:::
.52
:n
:J
0...
o
Z
('-.
C
aJ
E
aJ
2:
o
>
c
(/)
aJ
'0
aJ
0..
CI)
-0
~
aJ
Ol
C
III
-0
C
W
-0
C
III
-0
aJ
C
aJ
!ii
aJ
..c
I-
('-.
1ii
o
U
aJ
:n
'w
III
aJ
LL
E ('-.
:J (/)
E ~
~ .x en
('-. ,g Ul ~ ~
~ g ~ ~ .~
!!!. ~.s ~ CI)
>-U--WO
~C~1i)Q)
..QaJUOU
2 EaJu:ii
2 g- g.~ ~
1i)Q)Ucn~
6~~~ro
U 0:':;0:2:
Z'l'Cl
_ c
.- 0
..,..Q .-
...JS1;U)
W C.J'" ~
> :J CIl III
w-.Q Q.U)
...JlIlO-
c-o
<3 ~
>-
0:::
<C
2:
2:
=>
UJ
~
UJ
>-
...J
<C
_z
c<C
We>
=>z
z-
-z
I-w
Zw
00:::
Uu
;:UJ
'UJ
-.:t:w
M>
W-
...JI-
m<C
<CZ
1-0:::
w
I-
...J
<C
...J
W
>
W
...J
,
W
w
0:::
:I:
I-
('-.
e
III
0..
_ ~ ('. g
~ U ~ i;::
t;~~ Co
~C~ ~
"'C.Q> 0
aJ!ii<l: 0
~ ~.Q c
~:2:!ii :s
Ui -g ~ .~
-g '[:2: -0
III .- aJ '*
+:; .~::c ()
~~5 .3
en
aJ
>-
en
aJ
>-
en
aJ
>-
en
aJ
>-
en
aJ
>-
Ii!
N5jlll
...JEu
Wel'Cl
>00..
~ '$.E
e
W
o 0
z z
o 0
z z
o 0
z z
o 0
z z
o 0
z z
('-.
t5
III
c..
E
aJ
()
::;
o
en
aJ
0:::
III
.~
0>
..Q
o
aJ
III
.r::
()
~
-0
e
III
()
.~
~
I
('-.
en
t5
III
c..
E
III
aJ
~
e
o
~
aJ
U
aJ
0:::
.~
:n
:J
0...
o
Z
o
Z
o
Z
o
Z
o
Z
('-.
C
aJ
E
aJ
>
o
>
e
en
aJ
'0
aJ
c..
CI)
-0
~
aJ
0>
e
III
-0
e
W
-0
e
III
-0
aJ
e
aJ
!ii
aJ
..c
I-
Ole
e 0
~ ~ en .~ U
U1coQ)"'C2
;;;;>-g~
:2: 8
Ole
e 0
";;:: :.;::::;
~"-:(J):J()
COOQ)"'C2
T"""N>-l....1i)
YH/7 g e
.- 0
:2: ()
Ole
e 0
~ ~ en .~ U
f'..NQ)"'C2
T"""N>-l....1i)
YH/7 g e
:2: 8
Ole
e 0
~ ~ en .~ U
olJ')Q)"'C2
NN>-l....1i)
YH/7 g e
~ 8
Ole
e 0
~ ~ en .~ U
U1NQ)"'C2
~~>-o1i)
e e
:2: 8
('-.
1ii
o
U
aJ
:n
'w
III
aJ
LL
E ('-.
:J en
E ~
~ .x en
('-. ,g Ul ~ ~
~ g ~ ~ .~
!!!. ~.s ~ CI)
>.u__W 0
~c~1i)Q)
..Q aJUO ()
2 E aJ U :ii
2 g- g.~ ~
w(i)Uw ~
6 ~ ~ ~ co
U 0:':;0 :2:
Z'l'Cl
:.:e
C") :.c ,2
...JS1;~
~ g :u iil
W-.Q Q.U)
...JlIlO-
e-o
o e
Ul'Cl
L!)
o
o
N
(f)
0::
:J
Q)
~
::l
o
(f)
(/)
Q)
(/)
o
e-
::l
0..
Q)
>
~
Co
0..
E
o
u
Q)
e
Qj
(/)
ell
..Q
~
o
-
....
e
Q)
E
(/)
(/)
Q)
(/)
(/)
<(
]j
e
Q)
E
e
e
.:;:
e
W
e
(/)
'w
>-
ro
e
ell
-0
Q)
'co
Q)
-0
~
o
-
c~
o ::l
.- -
t5 0
<(....
, -0
o e
Z ell
N
Use of Smaller Aircraft
Approximately 35 percent of existing operations at KWIA are by Category C aircraft. These types of
aircraft at KWIA include the Canadair Regional Jet (CRJ-700) (seating 70 passengers) and certain large
general aviation jet aircraft. Only a few aircraft within Categories A and B are used for commercial
operations. Category B commercial aircraft serving KWIA include the Beech 1900 (seating 19
passengers) and the A TR-72 (seating 60 to 70 passengers). Other smaller commercial aircraft include
the Cessna 402, Piper Navaho, Cessna 421, and Cessna Caravan - each of which can accommodate
twelve or fewer passengers.
The FAA and airport operator do not dictate what aircraft use an airport or what aircraft are assigned to
air carrier routes. However, an airport operator can impose some operational restrictions. The
restrictions are usually based on runway pavement strength limitations and are imposed to preserve
integrity of airfield infrastructure. At KWIA, operations by commercial aircraft using the airport are not
constrained by pavement strength. Thus, this alternative could not legally be implemented.
Restricting aircraft operations at KWIA to aircraft of Category "A" or "B" would severely limit the number of
passengers per flight and/or the range of destinations that could be effectively and efficiently served.
Such a restriction would dramatically reduce the utility and benefits of the airport to Monroe County
citizens. This alternative would not meet the purpose of the proposed and was not considered further in
this screening analysis.
3.4.2
On-Site Build Alternatives
3.4.2.1
Alternatives Providing Standard RSA Dimensions
Standard RSA I Standard RSA
This alternative would meet FAA design standards and would maintain the current utility of the airport.
This alternative was carried forward into the Level 2 screening analysis.
Shorten Runwav to Provide Standard RSA at Both Ends
This alternative would result in a 2,801-foot runway that severely limits the size of aircraft that could utilize
the airport. It would limit commercial service into KWIA to aircraft such as such as the Cessna 402, Piper
Navaho, Cessna 421, and Cessna Caravan. This alternative would not meet the project purpose and
was not carried forward in the screening analysis.
Displace Thresholds on Both Ends Usinq Onlv Existinq Runwav Pavement (Declared Distances)
This alternative would substantially reduce landing and take-off lengths. Landing length would be 2,801
feet. Take-off distance would be 3,801 feet and would severely limit the size of aircraft that could utilize
the airport. It would limit commercial service into KWIA to aircraft such as such as the Cessna 402, Piper
Navaho, Cessna 421, and Cessna Caravan. This alternative would not meet the project purpose and
was not carried forward in the screening analysis.
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativesIS_3.0.doc9/1/2005
3-7
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
Displace Thresholds on Both Ends Usinq Existinq Runwav Pavement and Non-Wetland Areas at
Both Runwav Ends (Declared Distances)
This alternative would substantially reduce landing and take-off lengths. Landing distance available
would be approximately 3,111 feet. Take-off distance to the east would be approximately 4,011 feet and
take-off distance to the west would be approximately 3,901 feet. This alternative would severely limit the
size of aircraft that could utilize the airport. It would limit commercial service into KWIA to aircraft such as
such as the Cessna 402, Piper Navaho, Cessna 421, and Cessna Caravan. This alternative would not
meet the project purpose and was not carried forward in the screening analysis.
Standard RSA West End I Standard EMAS East End
This alternative would meet applicable FAA design standards and would maintain the current utility of the
airport. This alternative was carried forward into the Level 2 screening analysis.
Standard EMAS West End I Standard RSA East End
This alternative would meet applicable FAA design standards and would maintain the current utility of the
airport. This alternative was carried forward into the Level 2 screening analysis.
Standard EMAS Both Ends
This alternative would meet applicable FAA design standards and would maintain the current utility of the
airport. This alternative was carried forward into the Level 2 screening analysis.
3.4.2.2
Alternatives Providing Non-Standard RSA Dimensions
ALP Alternative
This alternative would maintain the current utility of the airport but would not meet FAA design standards
to the greatest extent practicable by only providing 300-foot RSA width at each runway end. The EMAS
footprint for this alternative was formulated using the A TR-72 as the Critical Aircraft and would not apply
to current operating conditions. This alternative was not carried forward into the Level 2 screening
analysis.
ALP Alternative with Standard-Lenqth EMAS
This alternative would maintain the current utility of the airport but would not meet FAA design standards
to the greatest extent practicable by only providing 300-foot RSA width at each runway end. This
alternative was not carried forward into the Level 2 screening analysis.
Standard RSA Width with Minimal EMAS Lenqth at Both Ends
This alternative would meet applicable FAA design standards for RSA width and would maintain the
current utility of the airport. The EMAS configuration would be non-standard in size, but would be
designed to meet aircraft arresting performance standards. This alternative was carried forward into the
Level 2 screening analysis.
Reduced Midfield RSA Width with Minimal EMAS LenQth at Both Ends
This alternative would maintain the current utility of the airport and may meet FAA design standards to
the greatest extent practicable considering regulatory requirements. RSA standard width would not be
maintained along the entire width of the runway. This is proposed since RSA beyond each end of the
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativesIS_3.0.doc9/1/2005
3-8
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
runway may be considered more critical than that provided near midpoint of the runway. The EMAS
configuration would be non-standard in size, but would be designed to meet aircraft arresting
performance standards. This alternative was carried forward into the Level 2 screening analysis.
Standard RSA Width with Minimal EMAS Lenqth at East End, Non-Standard RSA at West End
This alternative would maintain the current utility of the airport and may meet FAA design standards to
the extent practicable considering regulatory requirements. The EMAS configuration would be non-
standard in size, but would be designed to meet aircraft arresting performance standards. The non-
standard RSA would meet the requirement for RSA length for landings, but not for take-offs. This
alternative was carried forward into the Level 2 screening analysis.
Reduced Midfield RSA Width with Minimal EMAS LenQth at East End, Non-Standard RSA at West
End
This alternative would maintain the current utility of the airport and may meet FAA design standards to
the extent practicable considering regulatory requirements. The EMAS configuration would be non-
standard in size, but would be designed to meet aircraft arresting performance standards. The non-
standard RSA would meet the requirement for RSA length for landings, but not for take-offs. This
alternative was carried forward into the Level 2 screening analysis.
Non-Standard RSA at Both Runwav Ends
This alternative would maintain the current utility of the airport but would not meet FAA design standards
to the greatest extent practicable. The large number of aircraft operations at the airport (approximately
95 percent landing/departing to the east) would appear to require use of a standard RSA or EMAS
designed to arrest aircraft departing the runway at 70 knots on the east end of the runway to provide an
adequate level of safety. Since this alternative appears to provide less than an adequate level of safety
on the Runway 27 end, this alternative was not carried forward into the Level 2 screening analysis.
3.4.3 No-Action Alternative
The No-Action Alternative would not involve improvements to the existing RSA or actions other than
routine maintenance. The No-Action Alternative would not satisfy the purpose and need for the project.
However, this alternative has been retained for detailed analysis in subsequent chapters of this Draft EA
for baseline comparative purposes and to disclose any potential environmental impacts without
implementation of the Proposed Project in accordance with CEQ regulations.
3.5 LEVEL 2 SCREENING EVALUATION
This Level 2 evaluation considered key environmental issues related to those alternatives carried forward
from the Level 1 evaluation. Each alternative was evaluated in light of the applicable Level 2 criteria.
Those Level 2 alternatives that would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts were
retained for evaluation in the Level 3 screening analysis. Table 3.4-1 summarizes the findings of the
Level 2 screening evaluation.
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativesIS_3.0.doc9/1/2005
3-9
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
3.5.1 Wetland Impacts and Mitigation
Alternatives retained for Level 2 screening were evaluated for potential wetland impacts and potential
mitigation opportunities. For the screening evaluation, wetlands at the project site were delineated and
classified in accordance with Federal and state guidelines; the delineated wetlands were reviewed by the
US Army Corps of Engineers and South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) representatives;
and the delineated wetlands were mapped by professional surveyors. Individual construction footprints
were then used to identify potential wetland impacts of each alternative. Once potential impacts were
identified, potential mitigation requirements were developed. Potential mitigation sites and opportunities
available on-site (within the salt pond system on Key West) and off-site (on other keys in the Lower Keys)
were evaluated in their ability to provide viable mitigation for each alternative. The result of this analysis
identified those alternatives having, or not having, potential for implementation based on impacts and
mitigation.
3.5.1.1
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). The construction of any of the "build" alternatives
would require approval from SFWMD in the form of an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) for wetland
impacts, surface water management, and water quality issues. Additionally, approval from the Board of
Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund will be required for any of the proposed mitigation sites
that involve state-owned submerged lands. Federal, state, and local agencies, as well as the public,
would have the opportunity to comment on the permit applications and draft permits.
The USACE and SFWMD wetland resource permit processes require the applicant to demonstrate
avoidance and impact minimization to the greatest extent possible prior to discussion mitigation. As
such, the need to first avoid and then minimize potential impacts to the salt ponds and wetland resources
are critical to the permitting process. This alternatives analysis evaluates environmental impacts and
mitigation feasibility (Level 2 analysis) and evaluate safety, cost, and operational effects (Level 3
analysis) to identify alternatives that meet the purpose of the project while minimizing wetland impacts to
the extent practicable.
3.5.1.2
Potential Wetland Impacts
A Detailed Study Area (DSA) was developed to identify and compare direct wetland impacts associated
with each alternative. The DSA encompassed an area that includes the footprint (limits of construction)
for all alternatives considered in the Level 2 evaluation. Wetlands within the DSA are comprised of open
water systems, mangrove forest, and exposed rock with marsh grasses. Wetlands within the DSA were
delineated in accordance with guidelines found within Delineation of the Landward Extent of Wetlands
and Surface Waters (Florida Administrative Code) and the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987). The delineated wetlands were surveyed and
the boundary data was entered into a Geographic Information System (GIS) to allow a detailed tabulation
of potential impacts, by wetland type, for each alternative. The wetland boundary survey has been
submitted to SFWMD and USACE for official approval. The impact areas included the limits of
construction identified for each RSA alternative. Limits of construction include an alternative's RSA
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativesIS_3.0.doc9/1/2005
3-10
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
footprint and additional impact areas for slopes, grading, etc. Figure 3.5-1 depicts the location of
wetlands in the DSA and Table 3.5-1 provides a summary of potential wetland impacts for each
alternative.
TABLE 3.5-1
POTENTIAL WETLAND IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE AND HABITAT TYPE
540 612 731
E1 UBL; E2SS3N/P; E2EM1 P;
E1 RBL; E2US3P;
E1AB3L E2F03N/P E2RS1 P
Alternatives Providing Standard RSA Dimensions or Standard EMAS
Standard RSA at Both Ends 4.8 17.3 2.4
Standard RSA West End / Standard
EMAS East End
Standard EMAS West End /
Standard RSA East End
Standard EMAS Both Ends 3.8 12.2 2.4
Alternatives Providing Non-Standard RSA Dimensions
Standard RSA Width with Minimal
EMAS Length Both Ends
Reduced Mid-Field RSA Width with
Minimal EMAS Length Both Ends
Standard RSA Width with Minimal
EMAS Length at East End / Non-
Standard RSA at West End
Reduced Mid-Field RSA Width with
Minimal EMAS Length at East End /
Non-Standard RSA at West End
No-Action
Source: URS Corporation, 2005.
FLUCFCS Code
USFWS Classification
4.4
24.5
19.8
13.0
2.4
4.2
16.5
2.4
23.1
18.4
3.6
7.7
2.4
13.7
2.0
6.8
1.0
9.8
3.7
9.2
2.4
15.3
2.1
8.3
1.0
11.4
None
None
None
None
A review of the wetland impact estimates indicate that the alternatives providing standard RSA
dimensions would generate greater impacts (ranging from 18.4 to 24.5 acres) than the alternatives
providing non-standard dimensions (impacts range from 9.8 acres to 15.3 acres).
3.5.1.3
Potential A vailable Mitigation
Potential MitiQation Requirements
Mitigation for the potential wetland impacts, by alternative, was developed based on early coordination
with regulatory agencies and mitigation typically required by the US Army Corps of Engineers and South
Florida Water Management District for unavoidable wetland impacts. The basis for identifying possible
mitigation requirements included the need, at a minimum, to provide in-kind creation of an equivalent
acreage of wetlands and habitats impacted by each alternative. The remainder of the mitigation could be
accomplished through restoration and/or enhancement. Possible mitigation requirements were estimated
to be: 5:1 for high quality mangrove areas; 3:1 for medium quality mangrove areas; 2:1 for low quality
mangrove areas; 3:1 for high quality salt ponds; 2:1 for medium quality salt ponds; and, 1.5:1 for cap rock
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativesIS_3.0.doc9/1/2005
3-11
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
z+w
s
>.
(;;
>. -g
(;; :J
""0 0
C [!]
:J '"
o Q)
[!] ~
e- >.
Q) ""0
a. :J
e U5
CL ""0
t:: ~
.~ ~ "C
<( 0 c
~D~
~ ~
~-S.E
3~m)l.:I
:~....
L!) Q)
N J!.
o
5'
"<t
co
W
o
LL
o
::J
-'
~
N
<D
w
o
LL
o
::J
-'
~
Q. oS
E .3'
III .y
5: ()
w 0
OJ [t:
-g.->Cil""O.-
~~~~~~
>-.1'1:1 eM 0.. (tI
CO ~ CO r-.: x o::l:
m~2::='w~
(f)
OJ
.~
:J
11)
W
III
V3~V AanlS a311V13a NI
a31V~Ol SaNVl13M
,.~:~~:!~l~~~:J~L ~
c;;
r--
W
o
LL
o
::J
-'
~
(f)
OJ
(f)
(f)
III
(5
.c
(f)
ro
:;;;
pXW.llaM-eSP\Suo!le:l!ldd~s:l!IO!8\lsaM1<.a)l\:H
wetlands. These proposed ratios were used as a basis to determine if adequate potential mitigation
opportunities exist to compensate for the proposed impacts.
Site-specific mitigation for the alternative selected as the Preferred Alternative will be determined during
the joint SFWMD/USACE permit application process using the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method
(UMAM). 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 the USACE will
be the same as required by the SFWMD. Based on detailed review of potential impact of each
alternative, by wetland and habitat type, assumed mitigation requirements were identified. Table 3.5-2
presents a summary of wetland impacts and assumed mitigation requirements for each alternative.
These mitigation requirements are limited to direct wetland impacts and do not include mitigation that
might be required for other potential secondary impacts (i.e., water quality). Secondary impacts will be
identified and addressed, as appropriate, for each impact category discussed in Section 5 (Environmental
Consequences) of this EA.
TABLE 3.5-2
POTENTIAL WETLAND IMPACTS AND ASSUMED MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
Alternatives Providing Standard RSA Dimensions or Standard EMAS
Standard RSA at Both Ends 24.5 82.1
Standard RSA West End / Standard EMAS East
End
Standard EMAS West End / Standard RSA East
End
Standard EMAS Both Ends 18.4
Alternatives Providing Non-Standard RSA Dimensions
Standard RSA Width with Minimal EMAS Length
Both Ends
Reduced Mid-Field RSA Width with Minimal
EMAS Length Both Ends
Standard RSA Width with Minimal EMAS Length
at East End / Non-Standard RSA at West End
Reduced Mid-Field RSA Width with Minimal
EMAS Length at East End / Non-Standard RSA
at West End
No-Action
Source: URS Corporation, 2005.
19.8
59.4
23.1
76.3
53.6
13.7
33.6
9.8
24.9
15.3
38.3
11.4
29.6
None
None
Potential MitiQation Sites
In the Key West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study (URS, 2003b), potential
mitigation sites were identified and mapped through the review of aerial photography of the lower Keys,
site visits, and meetings and conversations with land management agencies. Eighteen potential
mitigation sites were identified throughout the lower Keys, from Key West to Ohio Key. These sites
represent approximately 109 acres of potential wetland creation and 5.6 acres of potential wetland
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativesIS_3.0.doc9/1/2005
3-12
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
enhancement. The potential enhancement areas would result in approximately 5.6 acres of actual
creation credit based on an average mitigation enhancement ratio credit of 10: 1. In general, these sites
provide flexibility as to the type of mitigation (salt marsh, mangrove, open water) developed.
Potential mitigation options evaluated for the identified sites include the creation or restoration of
wetlands through the removal of fill material, road beds, dredge spoil, and disturbed uplands. Other
options evaluated included the enhancement of existing wetlands by filling dredge holes to a depth
suitable for re-establishing wetland vegetation and the enhancement of existing degraded wetlands
through the addition of channels and/or culverts to increase tidal flushing. These scenarios would also
include the planting of mitigation sites with native wetland vegetation to initiate habitat establishment and
the removal of nuisance and exotic species to further enhance desirable biotic communities. Restoration
of lime rock 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 mine pits would be dependent on the quality of water found inside the pits
and the availability of suitable fill material.
The location of the potential mitigation sites are shown in Figure 3.5-2. Table 3.5-3 lists the sites and the
approximate amount of mitigation (by type) available at each site. Potential mitigation available on
airport property varies by alternative. An alternative having a larger footprint reduces potential on-site
mitigation.
TABLE 3.5-3
POTENTIAL MITIGATION AT SELECTED SITES
1 Creation/Restoration on Airport Property
2 Creation/Restoration on City of Key West Leased
and Owned Property
3 Cow Key Road Removal
4 North Boca Chica Restoration
5 USFWS Key Deer Refuge Road Removal
6 Sugarloaf Loop Road Removal and Limestone
Quarry Restoration
7 Summerland Key Bridge Removal
8 Cudjoe Key Limestone Mine Restoration
9 Cudjoe Key Canal Restoration
10 Spain Blvd. Culverts and Fill Removal
11 Key Deer Refuge Dredge Hole Restoration
12 Finger Fill Removal
13 Habitat for Humanity Site
14 Western Big Pine Dredge Hole Restoration
15 Key Deer Refuge Limestone Pit
16 No Name Key Limestone Mine
17 Ohio Key Mangrove Restoration
18 Nature View Property Restoration
10.0 to 13.5
15
5.6
40
1.5
15
7.4
0.08
8
0.7
0.4
0.8
0.3
5.2
2.4
3.8
4.3
4.1
0.07
10
0.05
23
0.5
0.5
5.3
1.5
TOTALS
109.58 to
113.08
55.92
Source: URS, 2005.
Note: The amount of on-airport wetland creation dependent on alternative selected.
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativesIS_3.0.doc9/2/2005
3-13
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
Z-9"E
3~nElI:l
53115 N011'v'El1111I\I
1'v'11N310d :10 NOI1'v'OOl
'o'3l.l'o' A.13:l'o'S A'o'MNnl.l 'o'l.l0:l
.lN3IA1SS3SS'o'1'o'.lN3IA1NOl.lIAN3
.ll.lOdl.lI'o' l'o'NOI.l 'o'Nl.l3.lNI .lS3M A3>l
SOlalSO 'jdJ'pXWS8jIS uOlj861111AJ 181jU8jOd)0 uOlj8JOl '(:-st: 8Jn61.:JIPXW\SUOlj8Jlldd\f\9Lj?j?OO(:l\\f:::J11Jorul\rllUI-jS8Milejj\sperOJdlH
MitiQation Opportunity Analysis
Finding appropriate mitigation in the lower Keys for the alternatives presents several challenges. By far
the greatest challenge is finding appropriate large parcels of property on which to perform mitigation.
Large undeveloped upland properties are increasingly rare in the lower Keys. Available parcels are
generally small and would require multiple parcels to conduct necessary mitigation. 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.
Another challenge is locating available mitigation sites on or in proximity of the airport. Early coordination
with regulatory agencies identifies the preference to have impacts mitigated on-site or within proximity of
the impact area. Because of the intense development in the Key West area, only a portion of the total
mitigation that is anticipated to be required could be constructed within 2 miles of the project area. The
majority of the mitigation opportunities identified are between 14 and 39 miles from the airport.
In order to identify the amount of mitigation that can reasonably be assumed to be available, the Key
West International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study identified potential mitigation sites and
ranked them into groups based upon their likelihood of availability for use, their size and site conditions,
and the benefits obtained through their use in a mitigation program. Projects that ranked as a high
potential for use include those under public ownership where acquisition of the project area is not
anticipated. 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. As discussed in the Key West
International Airport Runway Safety Area Feasibility Study, the Cow Key road removal and the North
Boca Chica sites 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.
3.5.1.4 Viability of Available Mitigation
Key considerations in evaluating the viability of available mitigation include proximity to the impact area
and likely availability of mitigation sites. Based on the potential available mitigation sites, two analyses
were conducted. First, the potential to provide mitigation for each alternative was evaluated assuming all
of the potential sites were available and priority was given to sites in proximity of the airport. Second,
potential mitigation for each alternative eliminated the three sites previously ranked as having low
likelihood of availability (Cow Key road removal, North Boca Chica, and Habitat for Humanity); priority
was given to sites in proximity of the airport; and the next closest site was skipped if the subsequent
site(s) resulted in final mitigation being closer to acreage needed. This last step is predicated on the
assumption that an entire parcel would need to be acquired for mitigation purposes.
In the first case, it is likely that one-to-one creation of mangrove wetlands and salt pond habitat could be
accommodated within the salt pond system through the use of property owned by Monroe County and
property currently leased from the County by the City of Key West. The remaining mitigation would occur
in a sequential pattern northward from Key West to Cudjoe Key. In this case, it appears that all of the
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativesIS_3.0.doc9/2/2005
3-14
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
direct wetland impacts alternatives could be mitigated. Table 3.5-4 summarizes the amount of potential
mitigation by site for each alternative, assuming all sites are available.
In the second case, one-to-one creation of mangrove wetlands and salt pond habitat could be
accommodated for each alternative within the salt pond system through the use of property owned by
Monroe County and property currently leased from the County by the City of Key West. However, the
removal of three potential sites that ranked low in a prior study shows the remaining mitigation would
occur in a sequential pattern northward from Key West to Ohio Key for the following alternatives:
"Standard RSA at Both Ends;" "Standard RSA West End / Standard EMAS East End," and "Standard
EMAS West End / Standard RSA East End." This is primarily due to the loss of approximately 41.5 acres
of potential mitigation area at the North Boca Chica site. The removal of the three low-ranking sites also
show that sufficient mitigation property would not be available for two alternatives - "Standard RSA at
Both Ends" and "Standard EMAS West End / Standard RSA East End." Table 3.5-5 summarizes the
amount of potential mitigation by site for each alternative, assuming the three low ranking sites are not
available.
3.5.1.5 Wetland Findings and Conclusion
The potential impact to wetlands resulting from the proposed RSA improvement project requires Federal
and state permits. The permit application process requires a demonstration that efforts to avoid and
minimize wetland impacts be taken to the greatest extent practicable. This effort must balance the public
safety needs of the project with environmental protection. The fact that alternatives meeting FAA design
standards are available, and that these alternatives would generate lesser impacts than the "standard"
RSA, is it concluded that the "Standard RSA at Both Ends" alternative would not gain permit authority to
impact wetlands. This alternative was removed from further consideration.
An evaluation of potential mitigation requirements and opportunities show that mitigation is available for
the proposed RSA improvement project. However, when considering the availability of potential
mitigation sites, two alternatives would not meet projected mitigation needs. Due to the potential lack of
mitigation sites, the "Standard RSA at Both Ends" and "Standard EMAS West End / Standard RSA East
End" alternatives were removed from further consideration.
3.5.2 Floodplain Involvement
All of the alternatives considered in the Level 2 analysis are located entirely within a 1 DO-year floodplain
as defined by Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The
flood elevations for the 1 DO-year floodplain encompassing the DSA are based on tides and storm surges.
The proposed RSA improvements for each alternative include construction within low-lying wetlands and
salt ponds. Portions of the each RSA alternative are currently established. Table 3.5-6 provides
information on the total RSA footprint associated with each alternative (which includes existing runway
pavement and RSA) and the area of construction within wetlands and salt ponds.
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativesIS_3.0.doc9/1/2005
3-15
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
~
~
cO
::c
~ ~ ~
a cO ~
~ ~
N
~
~
oi
~ ~
a cO
W
...I
m
::5
<C ::c ~
;;:
'"
W
I-
(jj ~ ~
...I ~
...I a cO ~
~
'"
W
I-
'1cn ~ ~
"10 N
<'>w
WI-
...10
mW
~iil ~ ~
'" ~ ~
I- a cO ~ ~
<C
z
0
i=
<C ~
Cl N ~
E
:;:
...I
<C
i= ~ ~
Z ~
W a cO ~
I-
0
0..
;= ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
a cO ~ ~ "'
;= ~
~ ~ ;= ~ M ~ ~ ~ M
a a
~ 6 N 6 6 6 cO
0 00
-~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 M N ~ 00 M
~r0 ~ 00 a
a~ cO ~ ~ "' 6 6 6 6 6 cO N oi "
5 5~ ~ ro ~ aJ ~.g i~.g ~
L H i J ! ~ d U~ :~ ~ ~ i~ ~ lU~ ~ ~ ~
~i~~~~5&~5S~~~i~~~5~~~~~ &~~~~~S ~5
~=~~~>~~~ro~~~~~~~~~~E~~aJ~~~c~~EE ~~
.~ 0 .~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ -€ 0 ~ ~ g, E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ & ~~ ~ E ~ ~ aJ ~ ~ ~ ~ aJ ~ 0
~~~G~~&8~&~&~&68~8&~~~~~&~~~~~3~~6&
~ c"""!"<;f- UJ <.0
~ ;:::: r-
~
;"
00
fi
00 ~ ~
::j gj ~
>
a
oi
M
~
00 M ~
et g;j ~
>
~
s:i
a
cO
~
~ ~ ~
gj 0: ~
>
~
oi
00
cO
00 ~ ~
::j ::j ~
>
a
gj
M
~
00 ~ ~
et 8 ~
>
~
s:i
00
~
M M ~
~ ~ ~
>
~
s:i
M
~
M ~ ~
"" ~ ~
>
a
~
N
::2
N ~
g &j ~
>
a
~
~ ~.~ ~ ".
~ u
~
.", s~U ~
.0( Z
c
c jii 0
0 ro
Ii '"
'"
~ ~
~ roc- :1i
0 .~
" '"
~
u
c
.~
'"
~
~
~
~
::c
~
"'
a
cr;
~
N ~
~
w
'"
:J
a:
o
LL
C
o
o
:I:
::::;
W
~
::::;
S
o
..J
C
W
~
Z
~
'"
W
I-
(jj
"'I-
u'l:J
MO
~E
~~
1-",
W
I-
(jj
C
W
I-
o
W
..J
W
'"
I-
<C
z
o
i=
<C
Cl
E
:;:
..J
<C
i=
z
W
I-
o
0..
~
oi
~
"'
~ ~
~
~
~
"'
a
cr;
~
N
~
N
~
~
a
~
00
6
~
a
6
~
~
~
"'
a
cr;
~
6
~
N
~
N
~
~
~
~
"'
a
cr;
~
N
;=
~
~
a
~
00
6
~
a
6
~
~
~
"'
a
cr;
~
6
~
N
~ ~
~<(
z
~
a
6
M
N
~
6
~
a
6
""
Z
;=
o
-~
~r0
a~
<(
z
00
6
gs~~
aDZ
<(
z
~
~
~
"'
~
6
~
6
~
M
6
M
6
""
z
~
~
N
~
~
N
~
~
N
~
~
N
~
6
~
N
00
oi
00
oi
00
oi
00
oi
00
oi
M
00
"
:;:
M
00
"
,..,
~
M
00
"
:;:
M
cO
M
"
5 5~ ~ ro ~ aJ ~.g i~.g ~
.~ .~~~f ~ ~~~~c5 _ ~ ~ roi~ aJ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 :;; ~ ~ ~3.~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~.~ S ~ ~ ~.~ ~ :5 ~
~i~~~~5&~5S~~~i~~~5~~~~~ ~~~~~~s ~5
~=~~~>~aJ~ro~~~~~~~~~~E~~aJ~~~c~~EE ~~
.~ 0 .~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ .c 0 ~ ~ g, E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ & ~~ ~ E ~ ~ aJ ~ ~ ~ ~ aJ ~ 0
~~~G~~&8~&~&~&68~8&~~~~~&~~~~~3~~6&
~ c"""!"<;f- UJ <.0
~ ;:::: r-
~
;"
~
~
<D
~~~
RjRj~
a
oi
~
<D
;~~
~
s:i
a
cO
~
~~~
~~~
~
oi
~
"'
~~~
a
gj
~
:<i
~~~
~~~
~
s:i
~
~
~~o
t2~z
~
s:i
00
~
g~~
a
~
~
~
~ .0
~~z
a
~
j~.~~~
~~i!~
,Utli
:2:<:(<:(:2:.......
~.B ~ ~
c ro f-
.0:';::
~ '"
~
u
c
.~
'"
TABLE 3.5-6
POTENTIAL FLOODPLAIN IMPACTS
Alternatives Providing Standard RSA Dimensions or Equivalent EMAS
Standard RSA at Both Ends 80.0 24.5
Standard RSA West End / Standard EMAS East
End
Standard EMAS West End / Standard RSA East
End
Standard EMAS Both Ends 70.8
Alternatives Providing Non-Standard RSA Dimensions
Standard RSA Width with Minimal EMAS Length
Both Ends
Reduced Mid-Field RSA Width with Minimal
EMAS Length Both Ends
Standard RSA Width with Minimal EMAS Length
at East End / Non-Standard RSA at West End
Reduced Mid-Field RSA Width with Minimal
EMAS Length at East End / Non-Standard RSA
at West End
No-Action
Source: URS Corporation, 2005.
75.3
19.8
75.5
23.1
18.4
64.8
13.7
59.7
9.8
67.4
15.3
62.5
11.4
None
None
As shown in Table 3.5-6, the size of the overall footprint varies by 17.5 acres and the construction in low-
lying wetland areas ranges from 9.8 acres to 24.5 acres. Each alternative consists of similar grading and
or installation of EMAS at or near existing grade level. None of the alternatives include construction of
buildings, enclosures, or other above-grade facilities. Based on the coastal nature of the floodplain
(inundations caused by tides and storm surges), there should be no material difference among the
alternatives in regard to potential net loss of flood storage capacity, increase in flood elevations, or
increased risk of injury. As such, the potential impact to floodplains does not identify any alternatives as
being more, or less, preferable than the other.
3.5.3 Historic and Archaeological Resources
Coordination with the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, the Florida Master
Site File indicates one recorded historic resource is located within the Proposed Project area. The East
Martello Battery, located at the west end of the DSA, was determined National Register-eligible as a
World War II coastal defense site in 1995 (but no boundaries were established at that time). The
inventory entry noted that: "It is estimated to have been built in the early 1940's and was used as an Army
Coastal Defense Battery. It is composed of reinforced concrete covered with earth. It is currently
covered with thick tropical vegetation and is abandoned." Identification of a boundary for the resource is
currently being coordinated with the Division of Historical Resources. The location of the East Martello
Battery Bunker (and proposed National Register boundary) is depicted in Figure 3.5-3.
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativesIS_3.0.doc9/1/2005
3-16
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
NMENT ROAD
x x
~.
."
/
/" .
. ...-..-....
\~.
(
)
L T POND
I. --
....r------
-'
SMA1HERS BEACH 1/-:;"-
---;;:::.-- ::::_~ ~(
---;::::.-- -----'-- '\ I (
_:::::::~=:"::::::......... __~::::::==::::":.,/.........-- )) I
__/ -- _--_,~ -:/-;:..~----- '/ II I
____---- '" -:// I(
_---;;:::.-;:..---- \~ 1// ll...1-1
--::::::::::::::::.::.- ,::::;/ ::::.....-
--~:::::~:::.--- ~
--:::::~:::---
::::::::::::.::::.--
----
t
LEGEND
Airport Propert Line
Proposed NR Boundary
600
o
600
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
/~.. ~~i:'~
.fI ~~' .' ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
-1..1' ~l KEY WEST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
~ 1_ FOR A RUNWAY SAFETY AREA
LOCATION OF
EAST MARTELLO BATTERY BUNKER
FIGURE
3.5-3
RSA alternatives that do not extend into the proposed National Register boundary should not have an
adverse effect upon the Battery because such alternatives would not directly or indirectly alter any of the
characteristics of the resource that qualified it for listing in the National Register, in a manner that would
diminish the integrity of its location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Two
alternatives ("Standard RSA at Both Ends" and "Standard RSA West End / Standard EMAS East End")
would extend into the proposed National Register boundary and physically encroach onto the bunker
structure. The other alternatives considered in this Level 2 evaluation would not extend onto the
proposed National Register boundary or encroach on the historic resource. Since the "Standard RSA at
Both Ends" and "Standard RSA West End / Standard EMAS East End" alternatives involve direct impacts
to a resource eligible for National register listing, these alternatives are considered less prudent than the
other alternatives and were removed from further analysis.
3.5.4 Public Recreation Area Impacts
The proposed RSA improvements will be conducted on existing KWIA property and would not impact any
recreation areas or facilities accessible by the public. There would be no material difference among the
alternatives in regard to potential recreation area impacts. As such, no alternative was identified as being
more, or less, preferable than the other.
3.5.5 Threatened and Endangered Species
Coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) shows the proposed improvements to the RSA at the KWIA would not increase risk of adverse
impact to any federally-listed endangered or threatened species or critical habitat. Unforeseen impacts to
federally-listed species are anticipated to be insignificant. This finding is based on the maximum RSA
footprint considered in this analysis ("Standard RSA at Both Ends"). Since all other alternatives are
smaller in area, there should be no material difference among the alternatives in regard to potential
impact on endangered or threatened species.
3.5.6 Level 2 Screening Summary
Based on the Level 2 screening evaluation, three alternatives were removed from consideration based on
environmental factors. Table 3.4-1, previously referenced, summarizes the findings and outcome of the
Level 2 screening evaluation. A summary of alternatives removed from further consideration and those
retained for Level 3 screening are listed as follows:
Alternatives Removed From Further Screeninq
. Standard RSA at Both Ends
. Standard RSA West End / Standard EMAS East End
. Standard EMAS West End / Standard RSA East End
Alternatives Retained for Level 3 Screeninq
o Standard EMAS Both Ends
o Standard RSA Width with Minimal EMAS Length Both Ends
o Reduced Mid-Field RSA Width with Minimal EMAS Length Both Ends
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativesIS_3.0.doc9/1/2005
3-17
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
o Standard RSA Width with Minimal EMAS Length at East End / Non-Standard RSA at
West End
o Reduced Mid-Field RSA Width with Minimal EMAS Length at East End / Non-Standard
RSA at West End
o No-Action
3.6 LEVEL 3 SCREENING EVALUATION
Each alternative that was carried forward from the Level 2 screening process was then evaluated in light
of the Level 3 criteria for a determination of whether the alternative would be carried forward for full
environmental impact evaluation in the EA. Level 3 alternatives that did not involve excessive
development cost impacts (including potential mitigation costs) and/or would not result in unreasonable
adverse impacts to the airport's level of service to the public were retained for evaluation in the EA. Table
3.4-1, previously referenced, summarizes the Level 3 screening analysis for each considered alternative.
3.6.1 Constructability
The "build" alternatives considered in the Level 3 evaluation involve construction of graded RSA surfaces
and installation of EMAS arrestor bed(s) in low-lying wetland and salt pond aquatic environments. The
RSA footprints vary in size by alternative; however, the alternatives differ little in way of construction
issues and/or constraints. All of the alternatives require construction adjacent to, and under the approach
to, an active air carrier runway. All of the alternatives would involve essentially the same construction
methods, sequencing, and safety-related measures. Issues common to each alternative during
construction include work in an environmentally sensitive environment; maintenance of safety; and
minimizing impacts on airfield operations. Since the construction methods and conditions are expected to
be essentially the same for each alternative, no alternative was identified as being more, or less,
preferable than the other.
3.6.2 Comparative Cost Considerations
The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the installation of RSA alternatives in accordance with Federal
Aviation Administration Order 5200.9, Financial Feasibility and Equivalency of Runway Safety Area
Improvements and Engineered Material Arresting Systems (FAA, 2004). The following provides a
discussion of the methodology, RSA improvement cost considerations, and findings.
3.6.2.1
Methodology
The method prescribed in FAA Order 5200.9 allows a comparison of various RSA improvement
alternatives that use EMAS and determines the maximum financial feasible cost for RSA improvements,
whether they involve EMAS or not. The guidance uses Standard EMAS installation as a benchmark for
comparing and determining the best financially feasible alternative for RSA improvements. The
evaluation process considers the size of a Standard EMAS based on design aircraft; determines the
maximum feasible cost for improving the RSA; considers the lifecycle cost of the Standard EMAS and a
standard RSA; costs of Non-Standard EMAS and RSA alternatives; and, identifies the best financially
feasible alternative. A life cycle cost comparison between EMAS and a standard RSA is appropriate
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativesIS_3.0.doc9/1/2005
3-18
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
when the RSA can either be improved to standards or to an equivalent level of safety using EMAS. Life
cycle cost comparison is not appropriate for comparing non-standard RSA improvements with a non-
standard EMAS installation (FAA, 2004). The evaluation process is depicted in Figure 3.6-1. The
methodology was applied to the alternatives retained after the Level 2 screening evaluation.
FIGURE 3.6-1 - DECISION FLOW CHART FOR EVALUATING EMAS
AND RSA IMPROVEMENTS.
Detennine the maXlmum
takeoff wei ght of tile
cle$ign aircraft
RSA LCC
Esti mate the life cycle cost
of any alternative that
resu lis in a standard RSA
Determ ine the length of
the EMAS bed for the
des i 9 n aircraft
EMAS LCC
Estimate the life cycle cost
(LeC) of implementi ng a
standard EMAS
Standa rd EMAS is the best Yes
linane ia lIy feasi ble
alternative.
It is not financial!;' reasil>le to
improve the RSA to standards or
to an equiva lenllevel of safety
with E MAS. Implement the best
alternative for enhanc;ing safety
that does not exceed the
maxim um fe;lsjbJ" COSI for
improving _ RSA.
Determine the maximum
lina ncially feasible cost for
improvi ng the RSA
Yes
Standard RSA is the best
financially feasible
a lte-rnative.
Source: FAA, 2004d.
3.6.2.2
KWIA Design Aircraft and EMAS Bed Requirements
The EMAS manufacturer was contacted for EMAS arrestor bed needs at KWIA based on the
performance characteristics of the design air carrier aircraft using airport on a regular basis. The
following design aircraft were used for the determination of EMAS arrestor bed and corresponding RSA
size: Canadair Regional Jet (CRJ-700 modeled as the Gulfstream G-III); the ATR-72 (modeled as the
ERJ-145); and, the Dash-8.
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativesIS_3.0.doc9/1/2005
3-19
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
Preliminary performance EMAS bed configurations were identified for the four scenarios defined in Table
3.6-1. For each EMAS option, a RSA width of 500 feet was applied to maintain a RSA that meets FAA
standards to the greatest extent practicable. A copy of the preliminary performance and cost estimates
are included in Appendix A.
TABLE 3.6-1
PRELIMINARY EMAS PERFORMANCE ESTIMATES
Minimal EMAS - (Poor
Braking / No reverse
Thrust)
300
375 Lx 500 W
Provides for 70 knot (kts) runway
exit speeds for design aircraft.
Provides only for runway exit
speed of low to mid 50 kts for
design aircraft.
Provides for 70 knot kts runway
exit speeds for design aircraft.
Based on poor braking (0.25
braking coefficient), no reverse
thrust, 50 ft lead-in.
Provides for 70 kts runway exit
speeds for design aircraft. Based
on wet pavement braking (0.35
braking coefficient), reverse
thrust, and 50 ft lead-in.
Standard EMAS
Minimal EMAS East
End (within Existing
Runway 27 End RSA)
250
600 L x 500 W
175
210 Lx500W
Minimal EMAS - (Wet
Pavement Braking /
Reverse Thrust)
250
325 L x 500 W
Source: Engineered Arrest Systems Corporation, 2004.
Note: 1. Width of all EMAS arrestor beds listed in table is 120 feet.
The Standard EMAS installation provides a level of safety that is generally equivalent to a full RSA
constructed to the standards of Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 for overruns. It also provides an
acceptable level of safety for undershoots. Studies have shown that a standard EMAS installation will
arrest 90 percent of overruns and accommodate 90 percent of undershoots.
The minimal EMAS configuration within the existing Runway 27 RSA was not considered in this
evaluation as it only provides adequate stopping for the design aircraft exiting the runway at
approximately 50 to 55 knots. The desired capability is stopping a design aircraft departing the runway at
70 knots.
The minimal EMAS based on "wet pavement/reverse thrust" braking conditions was not selected as the
non-standard in this screening evaluation. The similar "poor braking" condition was recommended as the
non-standard EMAS configuration for this screening evaluation as it provides an increased level of safety
in a more demanding emergency condition.
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativesIS_3.0.doc9/1/2005
3-20
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
3.6.2.3
Calculation of Maximum Feasible Cost for RSA Improvements
The calculation of maximum financially feasible cost limits was performed in accordance with the
guidelines contained in FAA Order 5200.9. The Order contains two charts that provide a method for
determining maximum feasible costs for RSA improvements. The first chart provides an estimate of
EMAS bed length on the basis of the weight of the critical aircraft for a runway. The second chart uses
the estimated Standard EMAS arrestor bed length (derived from the first chart) and a sliding scale to
determine the maximum feasible cost for RSA improvements. The maximum feasible cost represents
construction costs, land acquisition costs, environmental mitigation costs, and other related costs (i.e.,
engineering fees) necessary to complete the project on both ends and along the full length of the runway.
In lieu of using the referenced chart to determine Standard EMAS bed length, the EMAS manufacturer
was contacted and the Standard EMAS arrestor bed length at KWIA was estimated by the manufacturer
using computer models and KWIA-specific data. The Standard EMAS bed length (250 feet) was entered
into the chart to determine maximum feasible cost (see Figure 3.6-2). The indicated maximum feasible
cost is $10,877,000 for a 150-foot wide runway. Since the runway at KWIA is 100 feet wide, the cost is
multiplied by a factor of 0.67. The resulting maximum feasible cost indicated in the chart for RSA
improvements at KWIA is $7,286,000.
Based on past construction experience at KWIA, it was recommended that the maximum feasible cost be
adjusted to reflect current construction pricing (based on 2005 pricing guidelines) and the overall higher
cost of construction in Key West. Adjusting to current construction pricing involved a review of inflation
and cost escalations in the southeastern U.S. experienced since the publication of Order 5200.9 in March
2004. A factor of 8.7 percent was applied to the $7,286,000 to the maximum feasible cost, resulting in a
cost (adjusted for inflation) of $7,919,882. Adjusting this amount to account for local conditions was
recommended due to increased construction costs associated with transport of heavier bulk materials
and equipment to KWIA and increased travel time and per diem rates for construction crews. A factor of
30 percent was applied to $7,919,882, resulting in a maximum feasible cost (adjusted for inflation and
local conditions) of $1 0,296,000 (rounded).
3.6.2.4
RSA Improvement Cost Comparison
Cost Comparison for Achievinq Standard RSA and Standard EMAS
In accordance with FAA Order 5200.9, estimates for alternatives that provide standard RSA and EMAS
dimensions are considered first to determine if meeting Standard RSA requirements or providing an
equivalent level of safety is feasible at KWIA. Development costs for these two alternatives are
presented in Table 3.6-2. The development costs estimates include projected construction costs, land
acquisition costs, environmental mitigation costs, and other related costs (i.e., engineering fees). Life
cycle cost (expressed as present worth) includes initial development cost, annual EMAS arrestor bed
maintenance costs, and EMAS arrestor bed replacement in year 10. Life cycle cost calculations are
contained in Appendix A. It should be noted that the "Standard RSA at Both Ends" alternative (removed
from further consideration in the Level 2 screening evaluation) is included here only for cost comparison
purposes.
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativesIS_3.0.doc9/1/2005
3-21
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
FIGURE 3.6-2 - MAXIMUM FEASIBLE RSA AND EMAS DEVELOPMENT COST
Maximum Feasible RSA Improvement Cost
30,000
25,000
0-
g 20,000
~
J!I
(II
0 15,000
0
E
::I
E
'x 10,000
C'Il
::!!!:
5,000
0
100
200
300 400
EMAS Bed Length
500
600
Notes:
1. Maximum feasible cost applies to both runway ends and the full width of the entire RSA. (See
paragraph Be)
2. This chart assumes the runway is 150 feet wide. Multiply the maximum cost by 0.67 where the
runway is less than 150 feet wide and 1.33 where the runway is 200 feet wide
3. EMAS bed length does not include the setback from the runway end.
4. Use the EMAS bed length for one end of the runway only (not the total length for both ends)
Source: FAA Order 4200.9
Standard EMAS Bed 250'L x 120'W
Maximum Cost = $10,877,000 x 0.67 = $7,286,000
Adjusted Maximum Cost = $10,296,000
(Adjusted for inflation (8.7%) and location (30%)
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativesIS_3.0.doc9/1/2005
3-22
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
TABLE 3.6-2
STANDARD RSA AND STANDARD EMAS ESTIMATED COSTS
Standard RSA at Both Ends
Standard EMAS Both Ends
Source: URS Corporation, 2005.
Notes: 1. Development costs reflect 2005 dollars.
2. Development costs include construction, land acquisition, mitigation, and professional fees.
3. "Standard RSA at Both Ends" previously removed from consideration in Level 2 screening evaluation, but
included for comparative purposes per FAA Order 5200.9.
Based on the estimates, the life cycle costs for the "Standard RSA Both Ends" and "Standard EMAS Both
Ends" alternatives both substantially exceed the maximum feasible cost of $10,296,000 for developing a
standard RSA or EMAS at KWIA. Therefore, it is not financially feasible to improve the RSA to meet
standards or to an equivalent level of safety using EMAS. As such, the "Standard EMAS Both Ends"
alternative is removed from further consideration and not carried forward for detailed study in the EA. As
noted previously, the "Standard RSA at Both Ends" alternative was removed from consideration in the
Level 2 screening evaluation.
Cost Comparison for Achievinq Non-Standard RSA and Non-Standard EMAS
Since alternatives providing a standard RSA or equivalent level of safety using EMAS are not financially
feasible, the next step outlined in FAA Order 5200.9 is to evaluate alternatives that enhance safety
(including EMAS) while not exceeding the maximum feasible cost. Based on the construction and
mitigation cost estimates developed for the remaining alternatives (see Table 3.6-3), the estimated
development costs of each remaining alternative also substantially exceed the maximum feasible cost
established for improving the RSA at KWIA. Therefore, implementation of these 'build" alternatives is not
considered financially feasible. The alternatives are removed from further consideration and are not
carried forward for detailed study in the EA.
TABLE 3.6-3
NON-STANDARD RSA AND NON-STANDARD EMAS ESTIMATED COSTS
Standard RSA Width with Minimal EMAS
Length Both Ends
Reduced Mid-Field RSA Width with Minimal
EMAS Length Both Ends
Standard RSA Width with Minimal EMAS
Length at East End / Non-Standard RSA at
West End
Reduced Mid-Field RSA Width with Minimal
EMAS Length at East End / Non-Standard
RSA at West End
$20,622,297
$17,571,791
$18,086,812
$15,541,695
Source: URS Corporation, 2005.
Notes: 1. Development costs reflect 2005 dollars.
2. Development costs include construction, land acquisition, mitigation, and professional
fees.
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativesIS_3.0.doc9/1/2005
3-23
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
3.6.3 Maintenance of Service
The "build" alternatives involve similar grading and EMAS construction adjacent to, and under the
approaches to, an active air carrier runway. Full use of the runway for general aviation and air carrier
activity may be temporarily affected during construction. However, this could be minimized by scheduling
construction for nighttime hours (after the last commercial flight). Construction on, or adjacent to, an
active runway could require periodic runway closure or the use of temporary displaced thresholds to
ensure safety. This could have short-term effects on the level of service provided to the traveling public if
airlines (and private aircraft owners) have to adjust schedules and/or impose temporary weight
restrictions. In practice, these interruptions are minimized though construction staging and scheduling
work to reduce impacts to commercial flight schedules. Long-term, the "build" alternatives considered at
KWIA will have no effect on the level of service other than providing an improved level of safety.
Since construction methods and conditions are expected to be essentially the same for each alternative,
no alternative was identified as being more, or less, preferable than the other in regard to maintaining an
acceptable level of service.
3.6.4 Level 3 Screening Summary
Based on the Level 3 screening evaluation, all of the "build" alternatives were removed from
consideration based on cost comparison factors. Table 3.4-1, previously referenced, summarizes the
Level 3 screening evaluation findings and recommendations. The alternatives removed from further
consideration are listed below. Table 3.6-4 summarizes the overall outcome of the multi-level screening
evaluation by depicting which alternatives passed, or did not pass, each screening level. The only
alternative to be retained throughout the multi-level screening analysis is the No-Action Alternative.
Alternatives Removed From Consideration
o Standard EMAS Both Ends
o Standard RSA Width with Minimal EMAS Length Both Ends
o Reduced Mid-Field RSA Width with Minimal EMAS Length Both Ends
o Standard RSA Width with Minimal EMAS Length at East End / Non-Standard RSA at
West End
o Reduced Mid-Field RSA Width with Minimal EMAS Length at East End / Non-Standard
RSA at West End
Alternatives Retained
o No-Action
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativesIS_3.0.doc9/1/2005
3-24
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
TABLE 3.6.4
SUMMARY OF MULTI-LEVEL SCREENING EV ALUA TION
Use of Smaller Aircraft
Standard RSA/Standard RSA
Shorten Runway to Provide Standard
RSA at Both Ends
Displace Thresholds on Both Ends
Using Only Existing Runway
Pavement (Declared Distances)
Displace Thresholds on Both Ends
Using Existing Runway Pavement
and Non-Wetland Areas (Declared
Distances)
Standard RSA West End / Standard
EMAS East End
Standard EMAS West End / Standard
RSA East End
Standard EMAS Both Ends
Standard RSA Width with Minimal
EMAS Length Both Ends
Reduced Mid-Field RSA Width with
Minimal EMAS Length Both Ends
Airport Layout Plan (ALP) Alternative
ALP Alternative with Minimal EMAS
Length at Both Ends
Standard RSA Width with Minimal
EMAS Length at East End / Non-
Standard RSA at West End
Reduced Mid-Field RSA Width with
Minimal EMAS Length at East End /
Non-Standard RSA at West End
Non-Standard EMAS at Both Runway
Ends
No-Action
Source: URS Corporation, 2003.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
No
No
No
No
N/A N/A No
N/A No
N/A No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
_ Alternative carried forward.
_ Alternative NOT carried forward
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativeslTable 3_6_ 4.docI9/2/2005
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
3.7 BEST ALTERNATIVE TO ENHANCE SAFETY
When it is not financially feasible to improve an RSA to standards or to an equivalent level safety with
EMAS, Order 5200.9 directs airport sponsors to implement the best alternative for enhancing safety that
does not exceed the maximum financially feasible cost for improving the RSA. In this case, all
reasonable alternatives that met the purpose and need for the project and did not have substantial
environmental impacts and issues were eliminated from further consideration based on excessive cost.
This supplemental analysis considers additional non-standard alternatives that may have the best
potential to enhance safety and would not exceed the maximum financially feasible cost.
Additional alternatives were identified to enhance safety at KWIA. These include one previously
considered alternative that did not meet purpose and need and four additional alternatives not previously
considered. The additional alternatives listed below and further defined in Figure 3.7-1.
. ALP Alternative with Standard-Length EMAS (previously considered)
. ALP Alternative with Non-Standard EMAS at East End (new)
. 400-Foot RSA Width with Minimal EMAS at East End, Non-Standard RSA at West End (new)
. Shift Runway with Reduced RSA Width, Minimal EMAS at East End, Non-Standard RSA at West
End (new)
. EMAS within Existing RSA East End Only (new)
3.7.1 Environmental Screening
The additional alternatives were not subject to the original Level 1 (Purpose and Need) analysis.
However, the additional alternatives were subjected to environmental, cost, and operational screening
similar to the Level 2 and Level 3 evaluations. A summary of the screening evaluation is provided below.
A summary of the screening evaluation for the additional alternatives is provided in Table 3.7-1.
3.7.1.1
Wetland Impacts and Mitigation
The potential wetland impacts associated with each additional alternative are detailed in Table 3.7-2. A
review of the impact estimates indicates that the additional alternatives would generate ranging from 1.5
acres to 8.6 acres. Based on a review of potential impacts by wetland and habitat type, assumed
mitigation requirements were identified. Table 3.7-2 also presents a summary of assumed mitigation
requirements for each alternative.
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativesIS_3.0.doc9/1/2005
3-25
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
l/)
s::::
0
'-
~
Q)
,$
Q
Vl
~
c ~
w s::::
0:: III
w
C <:(
(jj Vl
z 0::
0
0 'E
'"
w ~
>
~~ s::::
":z ~
"'0:: Vl
WW I
0::1- s::::
:J..J
C)<C ~
iLi5
i= s::::
~ ~
..J 's:
<C
z e
0
i= 0...
i5 ~
C
<C
'.Q
III
E
,s
-
<:(
-
III
s::::
0
'.Q
~
<:(
t
o
'"
.,.
~
,DOS
-g-51L8~~
~2~~:S~
Q) 8:: 0 Co c.~
~ <(: UJ E ro-
..c ~ Q) <( 0...;::
.......~22:~Q)
ro2awxro
:s<{55~~E
~OO~:S~
.92:;..c:g~-o
C1j"E~2S2
n:::~.92 D..uj ~
g 2 ~ .Q 2 E
6~aJ~~8
55 .~-a 2':: '0 c
~~~ 6 ~-g~
cOro........"'O
rn ill 2 .~ ~ ~ 6
~~~~2~~
~ c-
"'0"'0 Q) 0..0
c"'S Q) .:5 () co
co ~ 5) .~ 0) Q) ~
:5 5: 10 .!; ..0 E
~-g~~15-aro
> Q) Q) 0.."'3 c
C1jtJ~~~~~
n::: ~ ~ ~ ~ (/) .~
g ~.~ ~.~.Q ~
8 ~.g, ~ ~ ~.~
('I) 0 ~ >..gl (/) Q)
Q)<("'Oro~<(..o
EUJW5LJUJLJ
mn:::52~n::~
Q)~OQ)05uf
~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~
~~~-~~~ 2
<(_c........ 17.i
~ Q) cO ~ g--6 Q)
~:5-g ffiw~ ~
c co 0....."-
Q)O-Q)........Ocu
:6-aoJE-gt5-o
~~~ro5,~2
~ g.~ ~ .~ co "[
co 2 0)"'0"'0 (f) 0
~ ~~.~ -g ~ 8:
I- co 00....0 W co
,ODS
~
f(>
(Jj
'" (Jj
<;' '"
F <;'
z
w F
f- Z
a w
(L f-
a
(L
t;:
o
'"
.,.
~
,ODS
"'0 Q)<::= (/)-0
a3:5~8~g
t5 'O.=..c :::::l:';::::::;
Q)-oro~~iJ
5a3C~C6
~.........~o 8 ()
~~~~~~
co ._ co
..c Q) Y) E::g 5:
o,:5"E'-6~
~ 10 .~~ 5: co
<( "@ co Q) ~ .~
~~~~2"@
O........OOc
g Q.g-Q.~2
6~w2C1j.ffi
55:!2EwD:::E
Q) ;5 -a .~ ~ ~
E 5: ~., C-o
m =5.~ ~ ~ ~
Q) c Q)-........ ..
:5..Q2-a-g-g-~
-gU)"@-g..a.;:!
ro<(..o,,-,-o
:5aJo~~E
~ "E -m .~ ~ ~
ro,-~roO)
<(-gro........U)~
~ 2 U) ~ <{ .~
........(/)<(........2:-0
o C2: ....._w Q)
~~w~~1O
8 co ~ ~:::::.~
('1).....- 002
~ ~ ~ I .Q ~
m ~ .~ 2 ~ Q)
~IQ.~~~
~ w()
~ ~.Q F:: ~.~
~~~1OE~-
~ ~.g [Us W
5001" . E
Q)-g()2-5~
~Qi:::I-~ ~.2-g
co.......... ~ t5
.....Q) O)Q)CO
~ ~ r;~ -g E
.~ E ~ ~~ 8
~~2~~'O
~
~
.2 ~ ~ ~ -m .~~ E '0
~~~~~i2'02g
~~E-o:SQ)g-gg~
Q)__~~~1O~-55~~~
fU:g<{5:~bCD~O()
5: :J U) <{ .= 2:; 5: () .92
3~n::~aJ~.....~~~
~ <{ ~ Q) E .Ql.~ ~ -0 ~
EU)f-..c: ~~ E co-s E
'O~~f-.9f~o-g~co
EE~.g~~;;~~~
~o 5: 0 E 0.. Q) 2 0 Q)
.92 ~ 1D .~ :~ .~ ~ ~:g .~
Q)-{g2cEQ)2..o~c
~ 3 D .~ ~ E o..:g <{ .m
o 0 ~ Q) 0 8-15 is U) E
1ii~~~6tJC5:n::~
2 "6 -0 EWE .~ ~ ~ -g
8 c ~ 15 ro -g .~ 5: c co
:: E 5: ~ ~ .g, -g ~ E ~-
o Q) 6..o~ ~.924- _:J
E w:;::;........-"'==-o-o8-gt5
:g..c:~ro5:-o~L()..o~
5:~~2fU~~-go~
Ch co :.c .m ~ 0 0) co tJ 0)
n:: ~ ~ =;= 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ .~
-0 2 .- 0 Q) t: .0...Q co ~
~~;5-g::co~Q)U)-o
~ ::::: .~ co 0 ~ ~ 2 ~ W
tJ 0 = ~ -g 2: ........ 8 W .~
C CD ~o Q)W .....-<0 Q) 0
Oc Q)o........ C ~<{..c: Q.
cQ)6n::~coQ)U)""""0..
co()--<{Q)~5:n::'Oco
~~~o~:g~"Ec~
.~ i ~ :; :;; 2 -{g ~ -B
Q. Q) ~ ~ 6 ~ ~ 2 ~ .~_
:g 2 () E ~.Q c C{J ~ co
:J D >. Q) ..0 10 .:::t::. c .;::
o D co .= L() ..... D ~ Q) 2
5: D 5: 6-1"-- 6,1"-- E co
.~ ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ 10 <{ E ~
10 2 Q) 6,2 8 >.2 s: ~
~ ~ E .00 ~ .~ ~ g 2
~.x '0 ~.x ~ S ~ r; ~
.~ ~=E ~ ~-o ~ ~ ~ E
~g-~Eg-a3E328
>-
t;
o
E
LJ
W
o
2
11)
c
o
()
W
Ll
LJ
:J
o
5
ro
oS
Q)............. Q)_- I 0
..c:coE..c:coc........
f- -g ~ :; .~ ~ 0
>.. -0 t: ~ 15 co .;::
coS COs Eo 0..
~ ~~ uj:= c =5
2Q)2:15:;~~
Q)..owcQ)co-
E:gc.:::t::.t5g<{
4- :J co L() co 0..U)
~ ~ ~ ~ E g-n::
~1D~""""8~.2
Q)22~'Of-(/)
~~ ~1O-g g~+-,
-;'~:3 >. t5 ~ ~ ~
cococo2-o.....5:
~ E ~ ~ ~ 8 .~ ~
..c: ~~ 2 0 Q) ~ ~
=s.92oQ)():O ........
.~ U) ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~
Ch ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
n::w .t 0 'U5~
15"2<{ ~5: ~w~
o co U) Q) (/) .- (/) 0
2; ~ ~ -o.Q ~ 15 ~
g U? ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~
.~ ~.~.~ ~ ~ 6 ~
112 <{ Q) c ~ E 5: .5
~ .::.~ 5: ~ fU ~
w~~~~-g~Ch
E2'E(/)Q)co2n::
.x 0..= t E (/)- Q) >.
~.~ ~ 2- -0- ~ :: ~
g- ~ ~ .m ~ -g 0 m
~~~~E~-gwl1
~ 5~ (/) ~
.~ ~ ~ 8- ~ ~~ ~
~ ~ ~ tJ ~ .~ 5: ~
~-g2E~-oE-g
0Q)~€w2cCO
5: tJ ........ 0 Q) .~ 0 :g
.~ ~ '0 -0 :S g. <{ .2
~ ~ -g ~ '0 8:~ ~
CD ........ ~ .~ 6 co -0 E
~ 6 ~~~~ Co ~
.~ Ch ~ -0 ~ -B ~ ~
~ n:: E ~ ~ .~ tJ .ill
<(
UJ .
~~
E~
E~
(/)LJ
~~
~ ~
>-
o ro
<'iE
E:~
=E
~~
W ro
15""
<l LJ
2~
!g 5
~~
E1;
LJ<'i
~g
W~
(/)<(
iI!UJ
<let:
(/)0)
.- c
Q):.;:::::;
> (/)
:.;:::::; .x
:g w
w~
~~
(/)E
:.c~
1-5
u
.g
;:,
",'
v
~
'"
~
.i9,
0;
~
J
<(
'"
~
~
<(
w
<(
w
<(
(/)
~
~
"
*
.c;
c
w
0::
w
C
(jj
Z
o
o
'"
w
>
~~
":z
"'0::
WW
0::1-
:J..J
C)<C
iLi5
i=
~
..J
<C
z
o
i=
i5
c
<C
E~~o fU
2~:~~
~~ ~ ~ 2
E::g ffi-<:t-'Q
.~ ;5 w c 6
~5Q)~:;:::;
-o--5:s~
~~~()..Q
~Q)Q)
0........ ..c '-
........wc........u
W ~ ~ .~ e",
Q)'-"'-'CU
5: >.2 c (/)
~ g"cu 0
~E:l:;Et5
........:::::l(/) Q)
'- c 0 c
E ~8:;; 6
Q)~Q)c()
Q)._..o co >.
4-~::g-g~
gs ~ 6 Q) .x
N~517.i2
~o>.roo
Q)ccuQ)........
15 .Q ~ ~ ~
E t :::::l........ 0
.~ g ~ 6 ~
~<{ ~<{~
co ~o~ ~
fU~Q)oQ)
~ 22:;;.s
2~gs~ g
Q)........GJQ)"-
.:: a >. E ::g
~-g286
Q)Q)~c5
:5 ~ .~ ~ .~
;t::: Q) D.. Q) 15
E Q) 0.. > ~ .
en ..c <( 2i Q) (/)
~~c~~t
~ (/).Q........ ~::;;
-g12~l-o
~JQroJQ .-55
:.;::::::; ill U5 o....c Q)
~ 5:.~ ~~:S
G:i~U)E.92-o
~ 2~ fUfU~
.~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
~E.222-g
(Jj
'"
;;'
F
z
W
f-
a
"-
z
a
F
o
>-w
~~
zz
::>w
"':;;
~~
z;i
~
~
ro~ o~~ (/)-
.~ g.~ ~ ........- ~
C .:: co -g 1:5
8~.2~~E
-g :5 ~ .~ ~ ~
~g-:gD..~g'
co 17.i 6 Q) co.~
~.8 <l~ ~.g
'--oo"'52:Q)
~~:~~~
~ .~.~ ~:5 2-
~~~ 5'0 ~
'-"'0 co ill C co
~~~2~~
.............uDQ):::::l
o-5;~~~~
"'0 Q) ~"'O Q).-
Ct:O)CQ)--
Q)ro ro..cro
W U) ~ ~ ~ .~
co <( "0.. 0 ~ 10
~ 2'~:: 5 E
:5~~2:Q~
-grol-o.2-o
~~ .55 ~~
~~-5C1j:5 2i
Q)~.2n::fU'5
Q) -0","
~6~~SO .
M ~ 10 2 ~ ~.Q
~:::::l>.(/)Q)t5~
Q) .Q) co c C :::::l -g
~~g2:s~8
.~ ~ '- <{ -g 8 ~
8:~:S ~ ~~ ~
co ~.2~::g ~
-g~t~fU6ro
~ 2: 2i ~ ~ 5: .~
Q)w~32~-g
~ :5 ........ -a Q) :8 .~
o g~ ~:5 ~ ~
5: ~ 2 (/) '0 (/) "-
(fjEro8-g(fj~
n:: E 5,-5j~n::~
~ :~ "~ ~ ~ ~ -g
I-E-005:cro
<(
~ ~
S a
z f-
::> 0
"'f-W
0Zf-
ZW'"
~~~
~;i8
.2~~
~~o
~~~
~~~
[;~~
~(fj~
~~~
:5:5
~ --"
~~~
0, ~ '" .
~~Q)1ij
~322
:5 .8 ~ "m
""'..c (") c
:= -S ~ "~
Q)c-o-o
2Q)"'5Q)
8~~~
o;:;t.....co
4-Q)OC
~~:g~
~ [U~~-
"'1"~~
Ch 2 ~ "~
n::Q)~~
~~~(5
-005:-0
c-c= C
~"o ~~
I 0.. > I
c-6-So
~"E ~ ~
~~~~
~ro~~
Q.Q) ~c
-o2roQ)
~8~~
5: D 2"s
Q) 0-T Q) 0-
";;:: >.:5 ~
~2o 6,
2 "~ =E "~
~2~~
~ ~2 ~
u
.g
;:,
",'
v
~
'"
~
.i9,
0;
~
J
<(
'"
~
~
<(
W
<(
W
<(
(fJ
~
~
"
*
.c;
TABLE 3.7-1
ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES SCREENING ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Wetlands Impacted (acres) 7.7 5.7 8.6 1.5 6.9
Anticipated Mitigation (acres) 23.9 15.5 22.9 4.5 17.6
Viable Mitigation Available? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Located within 1 DO-year floodplain? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Environmental
Impacts Historic and Archaeological Resources Impact? No No No No No
Public Recreation Area Impacts? No No No No No
Threatened and Endangered Species No No No No No
Involvement?
Constructability Issues? No No No No No
Co nstructa bi Iity Development Cost (millions) $12.3 $11.1 $12.4 $7.0 $15.6
Life Cycle Cost (millions) $16.8 $15.0 $16.2 $9.2 $18.2
and Operational Does LC Cost Exceed Maximum Feasible Cost? Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Issues Maintenance of Service Issues? No No No No No
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativesIS_3.0.doc9/1/2005
3-26
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
TABLE 3.7-2
POTENTIAL WETLAND IMPACTS OF ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES
FLUCFCS Code 540 612 731
E1 UBL; E2SS3N/P; E2EM1 P;
USFWS Classification E1 RBL; E2F03N/P E2US3P;
E1AB3L E2RS1P
ALP Alternative with 1.7 6.0 0.0 7.7 23.9
Standard EMAS
ALP Alternative with Non- 1.6 4.1 0.0 5.7 15.5
Standard EMAS
400-Foot RSA Width with
Minimal EMAS at East End, 1.8 6.3 0.5 8.6 22.9
Non-Standard RSA at West
End
EMAS within Existing RSA 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.5 4.5
East End Only
Shift Runway with Reduced
RSA Width, Minimal EMAS 1.9 4.4 0.6 6.9 17.6
at East End, Non-Standard
RSA at West End
Source: URS Corporation, 2005.
For the additional alternatives, one-to-one creation of mangrove wetlands and salt pond habitat could be
accommodated within the salt pond system through the use of property owned by Monroe County and
property currently leased from the County by the City of Key West. Assumed compensatory mitigation
could also be accomplished within the salt pond system. For these alternatives, potential mitigation sites
and opportunities were considered available and feasible.
3.7.1.2
Floodplain Involvement
All of the additional alternatives are located entirely within a 1 DO-year floodplain. Based on the coastal
nature of the floodplain (inundations caused by tides and storm surges), there should be no material
difference among the alternatives in regard to potential net loss of flood storage capacity, increase in
flood elevations, or increased risk of injury. As such, the potential impact to floodplains does not identify
any of the additional alternatives as being more, or less, preferable than the other.
3.7.1.3
Historic and Archaeological Resources
The additional alternatives would not extend onto the proposed National Register boundary or encroach
on the historic resource discussed in Section 3.5.3. No alternative was identified as being more, or less,
preferable than the other.
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativesIS_3.0.doc9/1/2005
3-27
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
3.7.1.4
Public Recreation Area Impacts
The additional alternatives will be conducted on existing KWIA property and would not impact any
recreation areas or facilities accessible by the public. No alternative was identified as being more, or
less, preferable than the other.
3.7.1.5
Threatened and Endangered Species
The additional alternatives are not expected to increase risk of adverse impact to any federally-listed
endangered or threatened species or critical habitat. Unforeseen impacts to federally-listed species are
anticipated to be insignificant. There should be no material difference among the additional alternatives
in regard to potential impact on endangered or threatened species.
3.7.2 Cost and Operational Screening
The additional alternatives were subjected to constructability, cost, and maintenance of service
screening. A summary of the screening evaluation is provided below.
3.7.2.1
Constructability
Most of the additional alternatives have RSA footprints that vary in size; however, the alternatives differ
little in way of construction issues and/or constraints. The "Shift Runway" alternative requires
construction of new runway pavement, modification of connector taxiways, and relocation of pavement
edge lighting and threshold lighting systems. The construction of a new runway pavement section in
addition to RSA and EMAS installations is more complicated than the other additional alternatives
considered. However, the "Shift Runway" alternative could be accomplished with standard construction
practices and techniques and would not pose a substantial problem from a constructability standpoint.
Since the construction methods and conditions are expected to be essentially the same for each
alternative, no alternative was identified as being more, or less, preferable than the other.
3.7.2.2
Comparative Cost Considerations
The development cost of each additional alternative was evaluated to determine which alternative could
best enhance safety while not exceeding the adjusted maximum feasible cost established in Section
3.6.2.3. Based on the development costs presented in Table 3.7-3, only one alternative ("EMAS within
Existing RSA East End Only") did not exceed the adjusted maximum feasible cost of $10,296,000. In
accordance with Order 5200.9, implementation of the additional 'build" alternatives that exceed the
maximum feasible cost were not considered financially feasible.
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativesIS_3.0.doc9/1/2005
3-28
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
TABLE 3.7-3
ESTIMATED COSTS OF ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES
ALP Alternative with Standard EMAS
ALP Alternative with Non-Standard EMAS
400-Foot RSA Width with Non-Standard
EMAS at East End, Non-Standard RSA at
West End
EMAS within Existing RSA East End Only
Shift Runway with Reduced RSA Width,
Minimal EMAS at East End, Non-Standard
RSA at West End
$12,307,754
$11,119,011
$12,396,303
$6,966,773
$15,596,878
Source:
Notes:
URS Corporation, 2005.
1. Development costs reflect 2005 dollars.
2. Development costs include construction, land acquisition, mitigation, and
professional fees.
The "EMAS within Existing RSA East End Only" alternative, provides a small Non-Standard EMAS
arrestor bed on the east end of the runway that would provide stopping performance for the design
aircraft departing the runway at speeds of approximately 55 knots or less. Although this meets the
minimum performance standard considered by the FAA for a Non-Standard EMAS installation, it does not
address other substantial RSA deficiencies, including lack of RSA width along the runway and lack of an
RSA on the west end of the runway. In this case, the projected $6.96 million development cost would
only provide minimal improvement and benefit over existing conditions. For this reason, this alternative
was removed from further consideration.
If the only financially feasible alternative would not provide meaningful improvement or benefit, the
alternatives with next highest cost that provide meaningful improvement or benefit required further
examination. Consultation with the FAA indicated that special consideration may be given to a situation
where agency guidance regarding financial feasibility would not provide meaningful improvement or
benefit. In this case, the FAA could implement an alternative that had development costs higher than the
identified maximum feasible cost.
As shown above, three alternatives have development costs that grouped closely in the $11.1 to $12.4
million range. These alternatives ("ALP Alternative with Non-Standard EMAS" - $11.1 Million; "ALP
Alternative with Standard EMAS" - $12.3 Million; and, "400-Foot RSA Width with Non-Standard EMAS at
East End, Non-Standard RSA at West End" - $12.4 million) provide EMAS on the east end of the runway,
improved RSA length on the west end of the runway, and in one case, improved RSA width along
sections of the runway.
The primary difference between the two "ALP" alternatives and the "400-Foot RSA Width" alternative is
that the "ALP" alternatives provide a 300-foot wide RSA width along the entire length of the runway and
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativesIS_3.0.doc9/1/2005
3-29
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
the "400-Foot RSA Width" alternative, as the name implies, provides a 400-foot wide RSA at each end of
the runway. The 400-foot wide RSA would meet standard for ARC C-I and C-II aircraft, which includes
the CRJ-700 regional jet in service at KWIA. The 300-foot width would meet standards for ARC B-II
aircraft, which includes mostly general aviation aircraft. Given the $1.3 million difference in cost between
the "ALP" alternatives and the "400-Foot RSA Width" alternative, the "400-Foot RSA Width with Non-
Standard EMAS at East End, Non-Standard RSA at West End" would provide greater improvement and
benefit for close to the same cost. As such, the "ALP" alternatives were removed from further
consideration and the "400-Foot RSA Width with Non-Standard EMAS at East End, Non-Standard RSA at
West End" was retained for further analysis.
The although the "Shift Runway with Reduced RSA Width, Minimal EMAS at East End, Non-Standard
RSA at West End" alternative, at $15.6 million, would provide additional improvement and benefit, it was
not considered feasible due to the increased cost associated with runway construction.
3.7.2.3
Maintenance of Service
Since construction methods and conditions are expected to be essentially the same for each additional
alternative, no alternative was identified as being more, or less, preferable than the other in regard to
maintaining an acceptable level of service.
3.7.2.4
Other Considerations
The "Shift Runway with Reduced RSA Width, Minimal EMAS at East End, Non-Standard RSA at West
End" would produce a slight westerly shift in aircraft noise exposure contours at KWIA. Although the
actual shift in the noise contours would be minimal in nature, the public perception associated with
changes in landing and take-off profiles and aircraft noise would likely be controversial based on
extensive prior public involvement input associated with RSA improvements and other projects at KWIA.
Monroe County had previously prepared a Part 150 noise compatibility study and is currently
implementing a noise abatement program that includes installing noise attenuation insulation in certain
residences around the airport. Implementation of this alternative would involve a detailed noise analysis,
an update of the Part 150 study, and possibly modification of the noise abatement program. Given the
prior public opposition and lack of local government support for this alternative, it was removed from
further consideration.
3.7.2.5
Additional Alternative Screening Summary
Based on the additional alternative screening evaluation, only one of the additional "build" alternatives
was retained for consideration in the EA. Table 3.7-1 summarizes the screening evaluation findings and
recommendations. The alternatives removed from further consideration are listed below. The
alternatives retained for detailed evaluation in the EA are the No-Action Alternative and the "400-Foot
RSA Width with Minimal EMAS at East End, Non-Standard RSA at West End."
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativesIS_3.0.doc9/1/2005
3-30
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
Alternatives Removed From Consideration
o ALP Alternative with Standard EMAS
o ALP Alternative with Non-Standard EMAS
o EMAS within Existing RSA East End Only
o Shifted Runway with Reduced RSA Width, Minimal EMAS at East End, Non-Standard
RSA at West End
Alternatives Retained
o 400-Foot RSA Width with Minimal EMAS at East End, Non-Standard RSA at West End
o No-Action
3.8 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND RETAINED FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS
Alternatives that were retained for detailed study in this EA include the following:
. 400-Foot RSA Width with Minimal EMAS at East End, Non-Standard RSA at West End
. No-Action Alternative
In accordance with CEQ regulations, the No-Action Alternative has been retained for detailed analysis in
subsequent chapters of this Draft EA for baseline comparative purposes and to disclose any potential
environmental impacts without implementation of the Proposed Project.
3.9 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Alternatives for accomplishing the objectives of the proposed RSA improvement project have been
evaluated as part of this EA. After consideration of purpose and need, potential environmental impacts,
and cost and constructability issues, the "400-Foot RSA Width with Minimal EMAS at East End, Non-
Standard RSA at West End" alternative represents the BOCC's Preferred Alternative. For reference
throughout the remainder of this EA, the Preferred Alternative will be referred to as the Proposed Project.
3.10 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Table 3.10-1 provides a summary of potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of
the No-Action Alternative and the "400-Foot RSA Width with Minimal EMAS at East End, Non-Standard
RSA at West End" Alternative (Preferred Alternative). These findings are to be discussed in detail in
Chapter 5.0, Environmental Consequences, of this Draft EA.
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativesIS_3.0.doc9/1/2005
3-31
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
TABLE 3.10-1
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Noise No impacts
Air Quality No impacts
Coastal Resources No impacts
Compatible Land Use No impacts
Construction Impacts No impacts
DOT Section 4(f) No impacts
Farmland No impacts
Fish, Wildlife and Plants
No impacts
Floodplains
No impact
Hazardous Materials, Pollution
Prevention and Solid Waste
No impact
Historic Architectural, Archaeological and
Cultural Resources
No impact
Light Emissions and Visual Impacts
No impact
Natural Resources and Energy
No impact
Secondary (Induced) Impacts
No impacts
Socioeconomic, Environmental Justice
and Children's Health
No impacts
Water Quality
No impacts
Wetlands
No impacts
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Source: URS Corporation, 2005.
No impacts
No aircraft noise impacts. Temporary increase in
noise from equipment and vehicles may occur during
construction. Some construction may occur at night to
avoid service disruption
No change in activity anticipated. Minor and
temporary emissions from equipment during
construction.
Project located in a CZM area. No substantial impacts
anticipated.
No direct impact since project is located on airport
property. No indirect impacts identified.
Direct and indirect impacts expected during
construction. Measures available to minimize adverse
effects during construction.
No direct/indirect impacts to Section 4(f) resources.
No impacts to prime or unique farmlands. Project site
is not subject to FPPA.
Proposed Project involves conversion of 1.8 acres of
open water habitat, 6.3 acres of mangroves, and 0.5
acre of exposed rock with marsh grass. Some habitat
for common species converted to airport use. No
material effect on federally protected species is
anticipated.
Project will be located within a 1 DO-year regulatory
base floodplain. Project would include measures to
minimize harm. Impact not expected to be substantial.
Involvement with contaminated sites or increase in use
of hazardous materials not anticipated. Minor and
temporary increase in construction/demolition waste
expected during construction.
No direct or indirect impact anticipated.
No change in airfield lighting. No substantial changes
to landscape and views. Temporary light annoyance
may occur during night construction activities.
No substantial impacts to natural resources or energy
demand/supplies expected.
No substantial long-term impacts anticipated. Short-
term impacts from increased employment and
spending during construction.
No substantial direct/indirect social or socioeconomic
impacts anticipated. No disproportionate impact to
minority or low-income populations. No schools, day
care facilities or children's facilities affected.
Temporary and short-term impacts during construction
possible, but minimized through best management
practices. Increased storm water runoff expected from
new impervious surfaces; however, project design
could include measures to attenuate flows. Changes
in type and character of potential pollutants and
loadings not expected to change substantially
compared to No-Action condition.
Proposed Project impacts 8.6 acre jurisdictional
wetlands. Mitigation required to compensate and
offset wetland losses.
No im acts.
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativesIS_3.0.doc9/1/2005
3-32
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
3.11 LISTING OF FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS CONSIDERED
The following is a list of Federal laws and regulations considered in the preparation of this EA:
Federal Laws, Statutes:
Subtitle VII, Title 49 U.S. Code - "Aviation Programs" [Section 40101 et seq.] recodified from, and formerly known as
the "Federal Aviation Act of 1958'" as amended (P.L. 85-726).
The Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (P. L. 97-248).
A viation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990.
Airport and Airway Revenue Act of 1987 (P. L. 100-223, Title IV).
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ("NEPA" P.L. 91-190; 42 U.S.C. 4321).
The Clean Air Act of 1977 (as amended by P.L. 91-604).
The Noise Control Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-574; 42 U.S.C. 4901).
The Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (P.L. 96-193; 49 U.S.C. App.2101).
Section 303, Title 49 U.S. Code (formerly known as Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966).
Section 106, National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 [Po L. 89-665; 16 U.s.C. 470(f)].
The Archaeological and Historic Data Preservation Act of 1974 (P.L. 86-253, as amended by P.L. 93-291,16 U.s.C.
469).
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (P.L. 85-624; 16 U.S.C. 661, 664 note, 1008 note).
Section 404, Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments for 1972 (P.L. 92-500; 33 U.S.C. 1344), as amended
by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-217; 33 U.S.C. 1251).
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (P.L. 91 528; 42 U.S.C. 4601).
Farmland Protection Policy Act (P.L. 97-98 and 7 CFR Part 658).
Section 201(a), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-579; 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-580; 42 U.S.C. 6901, et seq. (as amended by the Solid
Waste Disposal Act of 1980 (P. L. 96-482); and the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (P. L. 98-
616).
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA").
Community Environmental Resource Facilitation Act ("CERFA"), October 1992.
Executive Orders:
Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment (dated May 13, 1971).
Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management (43 FR 6030) and Order DOT 5650.2 - Floodplain Management and
Protection (dated April 23, 1979).
Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands and Order DOT 5660.1A, Preservation of the Nation's Wetlands
(dated August 24, 1978).
President's 1979 Environmental Message Directive on Wild and Scenic Rivers (dated August 2, 1979).
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativesIS_3.0.doc9/1/2005
3-33
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
Executive Order 11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality (dated March 4, 1970).
Executive Order 11296, Flood Hazard Evaluation Guidelines.
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations.
Federal Regulations:
40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 CEQ implementation of NEPA procedural provIsions establishes uniform procedures,
terminology, and standards for implementing the procedural requirements of NEPA's section 102(2).
36 CFR Part 800 (39 FR 3365, January 25, 1974, and 51 FR 31115, September 2, 1986), Protection of Historic
Properlies.
7 CFR Part 657 (43 FR 4030, January 31, 1978), Prime and Unique Farmlands.
49 CFR Part 24 (March 2, 1989), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Properly Acquisition for Federal and
Federally Assisted Programs.
Federal Aviation Regulations ("FARs" - 14 CFR Chapter I).
Part 36:
Part 75:
Part 77:
Part 91:
Part 97:
Part 139:
Part 150:
Part 151:
Part 152:
Part 153:
Part 154:
Part 155:
Part 157:
Part 169:
Noise Standards Type and Airworthiness Certificates
Establishment of Jet Routes and Area High Routes
Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace
General Operations and Flight Rules
Standard I nstrument Approach Procedures
Airport Operations Specifications
Airport Noise Compatibility Planning
Federal Aid to Airports
Airport Aid Program
Acquisition of U.S. Land for Public Airports
Acquisition of U.S. Land for Public Airports under the Airport and Airway
Development Act of 1970
Release of Airport Property from Surplus Property Disposal Restrictions
Notice of Construction, Alteration, Activation and Deactivation's of Airports
Expenditures of Federal Funds for Non-Military Airports or Air Navigational
Facilities Thereon
FAAIDOT Orders:
DOT Order 5610.IC, Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (44 FR 56420, October 1, 1979), and Order
DOT 5610.1C, Change 1, (July 13,1982).
DOT Order 5660.1, Preservation of the Nation's Wetlands.
FAA Order 1050.1 E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures.
FAA Order 5050AA, Airporl Environmental Handbook.
FAA Order 5200.5A, FAA Guidance Concerning Sanitary Landfills On or Near Airporls.
FAA Order 5200.8, Runway Safety Area Program.
FAA Order 5200.9, Financial Feasibility and Equivalency of Runway Safety Area Improvements and Engineered
Material Arresting Systems
AC 150/5000:
FAA Advisory Circulars:
Airporl Planning
3-34
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativesIS_3.0.doc9/1/2005
AC 150/5020:
AC 150/5370:
AC 150/5390:
AC 150/5150:
AC 150/51 00-16A:
AC 150/152:
AC 150/5070-6A:
AC 91-53:
AC 70/7460-21:
AC 150/157:
AC 150/153:
AC 150/154:
AC 150/2169:
Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airporls
Airporl Construction
Heliporls
Surplus Airporl Properly Conveyance Programs
Federal-Aid Airporl Program
Airporl Aid Program
Airporl Master Plans
Noise Abatement Deparlure Profile
Proposed Construction or Alteration of Objects That May Affect the Navigable Airspace
Notice of Construction, Alteration, Activation and Deactivation of Airporls
Acquisition of US. Land for Public Airporls
Acquisition of US. Land for Public Airporls Under the Airporl and Airway Development Act of
1970
Expenditures of Federal Funds for Nonmilitary Airporls or Air Navigational Facilities Thereon
3-35
Key West International Airport
Environmental Assessment for Runway Safety Area
W:112004476_Key West EAIS-3 AlternativesIS_3.0.doc9/1/2005
APPENDIX A
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION SUPPORTING INFORMATION
This Appendix includes environmental impact, mitigation, and construction cost information relative to the
identification and screening of RSA improvements alternatives. The contents of this Appendix are listed
below.
Appendix A-1
Appendix A-2
Appendix A-3
Preliminary EMAS Performance and Cost Estimates
Construction and Mitigation Cost Summary
Life Cycle Cost Estimates
APPENDIX A-1
PRELIMINARY EMAS PERFORMANCE AND COST ESTIMATES
ESCO
EMAS
PRELIMINARY PERFORMANCE & COST
ESTIMATES
FOR
Key West International
Airport
N ovem ber 8, 2004
Engineered Arresting Systems Corporation
Key West Proposal 11-8-04
Eiv1AS::l
Preliminarv Performance & Costin!! Estimates:
Airport:
Kev West International
Location:
Kev West, FL
Runway:
9-27
Runway Dimensions:
4,801 ft 10m!: x 100 ft wide
Elevation:
4 ft above sea level
RSA slope(s):
Assume zero slope
Option #1:
*$2.5 Million for EMAS materials & installation (excluding any site preparation costs)
Cost Estimate
(Per System)
Please note site preparation consists of runway shoulder type paving of sufficient strength to
support an occasional aircraft passage. The site prep dimensions recommended for this
EMAS system would be 600' long x 150' wide.
(*Cost estimate based on FY05 costs)
250' long x 120' wide EMAS arrestor bed (plus 350' long setback/lead-in ramp)
Size:
Suggested total site prep area = 600' long x 150' wide (150' width to allow room for vehicle access)
*See attached sketch for typical EMAS configuration.
Performance
Estimate:
Runway exit speeds of 70 knots or higher for A TR-72 (modeled as ERJ-145), CRJ-700
(modeled as G-III), ERJ-135, and Dash-8. The performance for the Beech-1900 will be in
the low 60's. Please note that the Beech-1900 is not considered a larger air carrier as it
only has a maximum seating capacity of 19 passengers. The performance for the
Beech-1900 should be more favorable with the use of reverse thrust.
Notes:
(1) EMAS performances shown above were derived from an FAA validated computer program.
(2) Based on design case using poor braking (0.25 braking coefficient) and no reverse thrust.
Engineered Arresting Systems Corporation
Key West Proposal 11-8-04
Eiv1AS::l
Qpli on #2:
Cost Estimate
(Per System)
Size:
Performance
Estimate:
Notes:
*$1.8 Million for EMAS materials & installation (excluding any site preparation costs)
Please note site preparation consists of runway shoulder type paving of sufficient strength to
support an occasional aircraft passage. The site prep dimensions recommended for this
EMAS system would be 210' long x 150' wide.
(*Cost estimate based on FY05 costs)
175' long x 120' wide EMAS arrestor bed (plus 35' long setback/lead-in ramp)
Suggested total site prep area = 210' long x 150' wide (150' width to allow room for vehicle access)
*See attached sketch for typical EMAS configuration.
Runway exit speeds of low to mid 50 knots for A TR-72 (modeled as ERJ-145), CRJ-700
(modeled as G-III), ERJ-135, and Dash-8. The performance for the Beech-1900 will be in
the low 40's. Please note that the Beech-1900 is not considered a larger air carrier as it
only has a maximum seating capacity of 19 passengers. The performance for the
Beech-1900 should be more favorable with the use of reverse thrust.
(1) EMAS performances shown above were derived from an FAA validated computer program.
(2) Based on design case using poor braking (0.25 braking coefficient) and no reverse thrust.
Engineered Arresting Systems Corporation
Key West Proposal 11-8-04
Eiv1AS::l
Tvpical EMAS Confif!uration
TYPiCAL PLAN VIEW
....
R lJNWAY SA.FETY AR EA LE N G TH
....
ARRESTOR BED
t
:I:
l-
e)
:i
;;:
s:
:z
::::J
=
t
S IDE STEPS
TYPICAL ELEVATION VIEW
LEAD I N RAMP
'"
/ DEBfll S DEfLECTOR
OVlfl CO NCAHE: 13l"AA'!
-------
----1--
BASE" SUFI FACE /
;-' A.fI RESTOR SED
h
SlOE STEPS
TYPI CAL S ECTi 0 N
AfI RfSTOIl ijl;;~
$ T~rpeO S!O ES
..: / PROVI DE I\Rff ACCESS
. A~O PASSE~G!Fl: EGA E&S
BAS~ SlJllfAC~ /
Engineered Arresting Systems Corporation
Key West Proposal 11-8-04
Eiv1AS::l
ESCO
EMAS
PRELIMINARY PERFORMANCE & COST
ESTIMATES
FOR
Key West International
Airport
Tuesday, December 14,2004
Engineered Arresting Systems Corporation
Key West Proposal 12-14-04.doc
Eiv1AS::l
Preliminarv Performance & Costin!! Estimates:
Airport:
Kev West International
Location:
Kev West. FL
Runway:
9-27
Runway Dimensions:
4.801 ft 10m!: x 100 ft wide
Elevation:
4 ft above sea level
RSA slope(s):
Assume zero slope
Option #1:
*$3.0 Million for EMAS materials & installation (excluding site preparation costs)
Cost Estimate
(Per System)
Please note site preparation consists of runway shoulder type paving of sufficient
strength to support an occasional aircraft passage. The site prep dimensions
recommended for this EMAS system would be 350' long x 150' wide.
*Cost estimate based on FY05 costs
300' long x 120' wide EMAS arrestor bed (plus 50' long setback/lead-in ramp)
Size:
Suggested total site prep area = 300' long x 150' wide (150' width to allow room
for vehicle access)
*See attached sketch for typical EMAS configuration.
Performance
Estimate:
Runway exit speeds of70 knots or higher for ATR-72 (modeled as ERJ-145),
CRJ-700 (modeled as G-III), ERJ-135, and Dash-8. The performance for the
Beech-1900 will be in the low 60's. Please note that the Beech-1900 is not
considered a large air carrier as it only has a maximum seating capacity of 19
passengers. The performance for the Beech-1900 should be more favorable with
the use of reverse thrust.
Notes:
(1) EMAS performances shown above were derived from an FAA validated computer
program.
(2) Based on design case using poor braking (0.25 braking coefficient) and no reverse
thrust.
Engineered Arresting Systems Corporation
Key West Proposal 12-14-04.doc
Eiv1AS::l
Opti on #2:
*$2.5 Million for EMAS materials & installation (excluding any site preparation
costs)
Cost Estimate
(Per System)
Please note site preparation consists of runway shoulder type paving of sufficient
strength to support an occasional aircraft passage. The site prep dimensions
recommended for this EMAS system would be 300' long x 150' wide.
*Cost estimate based on FY05 costs
250' long x 120' wide EMAS arrestor bed (plus 50' long setback/lead-in ramp)
Size:
Suggested total site prep area = 300' long x 150' wide (150' width to allow room
for vehicle access)
*See attached sketch for typical EMAS configuration.
Performance
Estimate:
Runway exit speeds of70 knots or higher for ATR-72 (modeled as ERJ-145),
CRJ-700 (modeled as G-III), ERJ-135, Dash-8 and Beech-1900. Please note the
Beech-1900 is not considered a large air carrier as it only has a max. seating
capacity of 19 passengers.
Notes:
(1) EMAS performances shown above were derived from an FAA validated computer
ro ram.
(2) Based on design case using braking on wet pavement (0.35 braking coefficient) and
full reverse thrust.
Summary
In accordance with FAA Order 5200.9, a standard 70-knot EMAS system provides a level of
safety equivalent to a standard 1000' RSA. Preliminary performance assessments for each
aircraft, modeled under the typical design case, indicate that a standard 70-knot EMAS would be
around 350 feet in length (50 ' setback, 300' bed) versus the 1000' standard RSA dimension. It is
therefore reasonable to conclude that EMAS, installed at each runway end, could significantly
reduce the environmental impact to the existing salt pond, mangroves and wetlands beyond the
runway ends, versus the potential damage that would occur if obtaining standard 1000' RSA
dimensions.
ESCO has also provided some preliminary performance predictions for a 70-knot system using
braking on wet pavement (0.35 braking coefficient) and full reverse thrust. Although this is not
Engineered Arresting Systems Corporation
Key West Proposal 12-14-04.doc
Eiv1AS::l
the typical EMAS design case, ESCO includes such information for the airport and FAA's
consideration when making final RSA determinations.
Tvpical EMAS Confif!uration
TYPiCAL PLAN VIEW
.... R lJNWAY SA.FETY AR EA LE N G TH ,...
t
:I:
l-
e)
ARRESTOR BED :i
;;:
s:
:z
::::J
0::
t
S IDE STEPS
TYPICAL ELEVATION VIEW
lEAD I N RAMP
~
/ DfBfllS DEFUCTOR
OVEll CO NCRHE BE"AM
---
-----(---
BAS!f" SU'FI FACE ..--#
/ All RESTOR sm
h
SlOE STEPS
TYPI CAl S ECT~ 0 N
~ RfSTOR 5~~
$ f-=pr~o SiD ES
. / PRO VI DE I\RFf AG G ESS
. AND PAS SE~GEFl: EGfI t&S
BASI; SURfACE; /
Engineered Arresting Systems Corporation
Key West Proposal 12-14-04.doc
Eiv1AS::l
APPENDIX A-2
CONSTRUCTION AND MITIGATION COST SUMMARY
>
e::::
<t
2:
2:
::::>
tJ)
I-
tJ)
o
U
z c:
o 0
,"":_U
NI-
'<t
<tc)
~i=
aJ:iE
<to
I-Z
<t
Z
o
i=
U
::::>
e::::
I-
tJ)
Z
o
U
00
o
N
o
00
N_
(")
N
t/7
co
00
N
(")
00
I'-
"<t
..-
t/7
N
N
0)
CO
0)
"<t
00
t/7
<t
C/)
0:::
"'0
.....
ell
"'0
c:
ell
en
~
C/)
0:::
"'0
.....
ell
"'0
c:
ell
en
CO
(")
00
0)
IJ')
00
IJ')
N
t/7
I'-
IJ')
0)
00
o
N
I'-
t/7
0)
I'-
00
o
IJ')
CO_
00
..-
t/7
CJ)
"'0
c:
UJ
..c:
-
o
a:l
C/)
<t
~
UJ
"'0
.....
ell
"'0
c:
ell
en
I'-
0)
N
N
N
CO
o
N
t/7
..-
I'-
0)
0)
IJ')
"<t
t/7
CO
N
..-
(")
N
o
CO
..-
t/7
CJ)
"'0
c:
UJ
..c:
-
o
a:l
..c:
-
Ol
c:
0)
...J
C/)
<t
~
UJ
ell
E
c:
~
..c:
-
.~
..c:
-
"'0
s:
<t
C/)
0:::
"'0
.....
ell
"'0
c:
ell
en
..-
0)
I'-
..-
I'-
IJ')
I'-
..-
t/7
CO
00
I'-
o
(")
00
N
t/7
IJ')
o
o
..-
"<t
I'-
"<t
..-
t/7
CJ)
"'0
c:
UJ
..c:
-
o
a:l
..c:
-
Ol
c:
0)
...J
C/)
<t
~
UJ
ell
E
c:
~
..c:
-
.~
..c:
-
"'0
s:
<t
C/)
0:::
:Q
0)
u:::
I
:Q
~
"'0
0)
t)
::J
"'0
0)
0:::
I
c:
o
Z
--
"'0
c:
UJ
-
CJ)
ell
UJ
-
ell
..c:
-
Ol
c:
0)
...J
C/)
<t
~
UJ
ell
E
c:
~"'O
..c: c:
_UJ
.~ 1il
..c: 0)
'5S
s: ell
<t<t
c/)c/)
0:::0:::
"'0 "'0
..... .....
ell ell
"'0 "'0
c: c:
ell ell
en en
N
..-
00
CO
00
o
00
..-
t/7
I'-
IJ')
(")
CO
00
(")
CO
t/7
IJ')
IJ')
"<t_
O
o
I'-
..-
..-
t/7
-
CJ)
ell
UJ
-
ell
..c:
-
Ol
c:
0)
...J
C/)
<t
~
UJ
ell
E
c:
~-g
..c:UJ
-
.~ 1il
0)
S
..c:
-
"'0
s: ell
<t<t
C/)C/)
0:::0:::
"'O"E
~.g;
LL c:
I ell
"'0 -
~CJ?
c:
"'0 0
~Z
::J--
"'0"'0
0) c:
O:::UJ
IJ')
0)
CO
..-
"<t
IJ')
IJ')
..-
t/7
..-
I'-
0)
..-
N
IJ')
t/7
"<t
N
I'-
0)
..-
"<t_
O
..-
t/7
"<t
IJ')
I'-
I'-
-0
~(")
UN
iU~
-
o
I-
..-
I'-
0)
IJ')
C:I'-
01'-
+:: N-
Cllt/7
Cl
E
2:
c:
0(")
+::00
(..)1'-
::J..-
...(")
~tilJ')
> c: -
~8~
.....
0)
-
<(
ell
c:
o
E
"'0
"'0
~
C/)
<t
~
UJ
"'0
.....
ell
"'0
c:
ell
en
..c:
-
.~
0)
>
:;:::::;
ell
c:
.....
0)
-
<(
a...
...J
<t
..-
..-
o
0)
..-
..-
..-
..-
t/7
..-
I'-
0)
IJ')
I'-
I'-
N
t/7
o
"<t
o
(")
"<t
(")
00
t/7
I
c:
o
Z
--
"'0
c:
UJ
-
CJ)
ell
UJ
C/)
<t
~
UJ
"E
ell
"'0
c:
ell
en
I
c:
o
Z
..c:
-
.~
0)
>
:;:::::;
ell
c:
.....
0)
-
<(
a...
...J
<t
-
ell
..c:
-
Ol
c:
0)
...J
C/)
<t
~
UJ
ell
E
c:
~"'O
..c: c:
_UJ
.~ 1il
..c: 0)
'5S
s: ell
<t<t
C/)C/)
0:::0:::
"'0"'0
~ Co
::J"'O
"'0 c:
0) ell
0::: en
(")
o
(")
CO
0)
(")
N
..-
t/7
..-
I'-
0)
IJ')
I'-
I'-
N
t/7
N
(")
(")
o
N
CO
0)
t/7
(")
I'-
I'-
CO
CO
0)
CO
t/7
..-
I'-
IJ')
N
"<t
..-
t/7
N
o
CO_
..-
"<t
IJ')
IJ')
t/7
~
c:
o
"'0
c:
UJ
-
CJ)
ell
UJ
<t
C/)
0:::
c:
..c:
-
.~
C/)
<t
~
UJ
-
ell
<t
C/)
0:::
"E
ell
"'0
c:
ell
en
I
c:
o
Z
"'0
c:
UJ
-
CJ)
ell
UJ
-
ell
C/)
<t
~
UJ
ell
E
c:
~
'-'
>-
ell
$:
c:
::J ---
o:::-g
"'OUJ
0)-
~ CJ)
..c: 0)
C/)S
00
I'-
00
CO
0)
IJ')
IJ')
..-
t/7
..-
I'-
0)
IJ')
I'-
I'-
N
t/7
I'-
o
0)
o
N
00
N
..-
t/7
L[)
o
o
N
CJ)
0:::
:J
Q)
()
::;
o
CJ)
APPENDIX A-3
LIFE CYCLE COST ESTIMATES
C'lS
CD
"-
<(
~
CD
....
C'lS
CJ)t::
U) ~ 0
.- C'lS a.
U) ~ "-
~ .-
(05<(
or- s:::1l:: C'lS
M <C "- s:::
I 0 0
<C J: .... +:;
.., - C'lS
W :r... s::: s:::
...J 0 CD "-
3: E CD
OJ -
<C I II> s:::
.., II>
l- s::: CD -
Q) II> II>
II> CD
U) <( s
Q)
:r... ~
a.. C'lS
- CD
s::: ~
CD
E
s:::
0
"-
>
s:::
W
0 0 c.o .... 0 0) 0) c.o N 0 ~ c.o 0) 0 N r-- .... c.o ~ c.n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
..c:: 0 N M "": ~ c.o ~ ~ r-- c.n N c.o c.n 00 C! M N M r-- c.n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
t: to r-- M r-- oi cO r-- to r-- .... ci to oi N ~ oi M cO ci to ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci Lt"i
0 M 0) 00 N ~ .... 0 00 r-- r-- ro c.n N 00 ~ 0 r-- 0) 00 0; <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> N
:s: 00 00 ....- N_ ~ ~ M c.n_ 0)_ ....- r-- c.n_ M M_ M_ M_ ....- c.o_ ~
0)- c.o- .... N 0- 00- c.o- .... N ~ M- OO- r-- c.o- c.n .... M N ~ 0- ,....
.... c.n M M M M N N N N N 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ en
c: 00 <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> r-- <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> q
Q.) c.n- c.n-
(/) ,....
Q.) N <>'> M
C: <>'> <>'>
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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
to ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci cO ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci oq:
M 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 c.n 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 M
.... 00 .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... N .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... r--
- (/) 0)- 0)- 0)- 0)- 0)- 0)- 0)- 0)- 0)- 0)- 0- 0)- 0)- 0)- 0)- 0)- 0)- 0)- 0)- 0)- d
0 c.n M M M M M M M M M N M M M M M M M M M 0'>
U 00 <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> N <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> r--
c.n- ~ ,...:
- N ~ M
.. <>'> <>'> <>'>
~
Vi
c;;
- V1 '0
. E I-
- QJ
E ~
. QJ
>
0 V1
E 9- QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ -0 QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ
u u u u u u u u u QJ u u u u u u u u u
~ .s c c c c c c c c c CO c c c c c c c c c
ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro
<( c c c c c c c c c (/) c c c c c c c c c
(/) QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ <( .8l QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ
0::: .~ .~ .~ .~ .~ .~ .~ .~ E ::2: c .~ .~ .~ .~ .~ .~ .~ .~
U ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro "(ij w "(ij ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro
::2: ::2: ::2: ::2: ::2: ::2: ::2: ::2: ::2: QJ ::2: ::2: ::2: ::2: ::2: ::2: ::2: ::2: ::2:
2 (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) u (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/)
t1 ro
c <( <( <( <( <( <( <( <( <( 9- <( <( <( <( <( <( <( <( <(
0 ::2: ::2: ::2: ::2: ::2: ::2: ::2: ::2: ::2: QJ ::2: ::2: ::2: ::2: ::2: ::2: ::2: ::2: ::2:
u w w w w w w w w w 0::: w w w w w w w w w
..... 0 ~ N M .... c.n c.o r-- 00 0) 0 ~ N M .... c.n c.o r-- 00 0) 0 ~ N M .... c.n c.o r-- 00 0) 0
'" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N N N N N N N M
Q.)
>-
..c::
t:
0 B 0 c.o M 0) 0 M r-- 0 0) M 0 0 00 r-- c.o 0) c.n c.n r-- 0) N N 0) c.o
:s: .... ~ .... .... ~ .... ....
0 .... M c.o N M c.o N N M 00 c.n .... c.n r-- N 00 c.o c.n c.o 00 ~ c.n 0 r-- .... N 0 0 0 ~
.... u 0 M r-- ro c.o ~ c.o N 00 .... 0 r-- .... :;;: 00 c.o M ~ 0) r-- c.n .... N ~ 0) 00 r-- c.o c.n .... M
c: '" C! 0) 00 r-- r-- c.o c.o c.n c.n c.n .... .... M M M M N N N N N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Q.) I.J... ~ ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci
(/)
Q.)
C:
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
..c:: 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
t: cO ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci cO
0 0 <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> <>'> 0
:s: N N
a- d
.... 00 00
c: N N
Q.) M- M
(/)
Q.) N N
C: <>'> <>'>
0 0
0 0
cO cO
0 0
- .... N N
(/) a- d
0 00 00
U N_ N
M M
- N N
.. <>'> <>'>
.
~ Vi
. c;;
- V1 '0
. E I-
QJ
- E
. QJ
>
0
E 9-
~ .s
<(
(/)
0:::
U
2
t1
c
0
U
..... 0 ~ N M .... c.n c.o r-- 00 0) 0 ~ N M .... c.n c.o r-- 00 0) 0 ~ N M .... c.n c.o r-- 00 0) 0
'" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N N N N N N N M
Q.)
>-
<II
X
....
'ai
c
Q)
..Q
1ii
0
u
;:;1
'"
Q)
:n
'"
'::::
""0
0
0:
u
0
0
";fi r-- .E
0 C!
0 <II
,...: ~
0::
C')
C
0
U
Q)
~
<II
"iij
2 >-
(ij
'" c
0::: <(
.... <II
c: Q)
:::l >
0 ~
u c
(/) 2
is :;;:
C')
0
x
Q)
I-
<(
UJ
:;;:
UJ
<(
(/)
g;;
1ii
~
>-
Q)
~
-,