Item F1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
MEETING DATE: 12/21105
DIVISION: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BULK ITEM: No, Time Approximate - A.M.
DEPARTMENT: AIRPORTS
STAFF CONTACT PERSON: Peter Horton
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Presentation by Mike Thompson, of URS, concerning the Marathon Airport Master Plan.
ITEM BACKGROUND: The Federal Aviation Administration has not approved the Marathon Airport Master Plan due to th
Runway/Taxiway separation issue. The FAA wishes a recommendation from the County to resolve RW/TW separation
noncompliance. The FAA will not accept a recommendation of 'no action'.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT SOCC ACTION: Approval to submit Passenger Facility Charge Application # 5,1/2/01, and
Passenger Facility Charge Application # 8, 10/15103.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: N/A
TOTAL COST: N/ A
BUDGETED: NIA
COST TO AIRPORT: N/A
COST TO PFC: N/A
COST TO COUNTY: N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS: ~A
REVENUE PRODUCING: N/A
AMOUNT PER MONTH /YEAR:
APPROVED BY: County Attorney N/A
OMB/Purchasing N/A
Risk Management N/A
AIRPORT DIRECTOR APPROVAL
'~~H
Peter J. Horton
DOCUMENTATION: Included X
Not Required
AGENDA ITEM #
DISPOSITION:
/bev
APB
FLORIDA KEYS
MARATHON AIRPORT
AIRFIELD DESIGN ALTERNATIVE STUDY
PREPARED FOR
MONROE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OPERATOR OF
FLORIDA KEYS
MARATHON AIRPORT
PREPARED BY
URS
November, 2005
AIRFIELD DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
Florida Keys Marathon Airport Marathon, Florida
November, 2005
Introduction
The alternative airfield development analysis described in this report attempts to identify and quantify
various runway/taxiway configurations that, if constructed, would possibly eliminate or mitigate one or
more non-standard airport design conditions at the Florida Keys Marathon Airport.
Historical Background
The Florida Keys Marathon Airport is a "Public-Owned", "Public Use" airport licensed by the Florida
Department of Transportation. Until 2003, the airport served as a limited F.AR. Part 139 Air Carrier
Airport providing scheduled air service to residents of the lower and middle Florida Keys.
The existing airfield layout and geometric centerline separations are the result of several modifications
and improvements made to the single-runway landing strip originally developed in 1943 by the U.S. Navy
to serve their training needs during World War II. A full-length parallel taxiway (Taxiway Alpha or "A") was
constructed along the southeast ("south") side of the runway and has a runway-to-taxiway centerline
separation distance of 150 feet. At the request of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA), the runway
was subsequently relocated 50 feet to the northwest ("north") to provide the current centerline separation
of 200 feet and the runway pavement was reduced to its current width of 100 feet.
Federal Aviation Administration Airport Design Criteria
Airport facilities are typically designed for a specific aircraft known as the "design" aircraft, which is the
most operationally and/or physically demanding aircraft to make substantial use of the airport. The design
aircraft is used to establish the dimensional requirements for safety parameters such as lateral clearance
for runways, taxiways and aircraft parking positions, and obstacle clearances. In some cases, the design
aircraft may be selected to represent the most demanding from the consideration of airfield geometric
design such as largest anticipated wingspan or tail height. Other considerations may be include the
various landing gear configuration of certain aircraft and its affect on the load bearing capabilities of
various runway and taxiways pavements, apron areas and/or aircraft parking hardstands.
For the purposes of assessing alternative airfield development alternatives at the airport that would fully
satisfy FAA design standards, the proposed airfield improvements follow the design criteria prescribed in
the FAA's Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design, (Changes 1 through 9 inclusive).
The Airport Design Circular prescribes the FAA's Airport Reference Coding (ARC) system that is used to
relate airport design criteria to the operational and physical characteristics of the airplanes intended to
operate at the airport. The ARC has two components relating to the airport design aircraft. The first
component, designated by a letter, is the Aircraft Approach Category and relates to aircraft approach
speed (operational characteristic). The second component, designated by a Roman numeral, is the
Airplane Design Group and relates to airplane wingspan (physical characteristic). Generally, runway
standards are related to aircraft approach speed, airplane wingspan, and designated or planned
instrument approach capabilities.
The airport is currently designated as having Airport Reference Code (ARC) B-11 airfield design geometry
that typically accommodates aircraft having design characteristics that include landing approach speeds
of 91 knots or more, but less than 121 knots and wingspans of 49 feet, but not including 79 feet. Current
FAA airport design standards require that ARC B-Il airports provide a minimum runway-to-taxiway
centerline separation of 240 feet. The existing runway-ta-taxiway centerline separation is 200 feet and is
therefore does not satisfy current FAA design standards.
In an effort to formerly address these non-standard conditions, the FAA has approved the following
Modifications to FAA Airport Design Standards for the Florida Keys Marathon Airport:
1. Runway to Taxiway Separation at 200 feet. FAA approved by letter dated May 18, 1983.
2. No Aircraft with More Than 38_5 'Overhang FAA approved by letter dated May 18,1983.
3. Prior Permission Required For Aircraft Greater Than 79' Wingspan Exception Number: FAR-
139-94-ASO-04
4. Obstruction Lighting Within Transitional Zones Will Not Be Required Outside of 250 Feet Each
Side Of Runway Centerline FAA approved by letter dated February 1, 1994
Alternative Airfield Development Analysis
The following sections of this Study report describe three potential airfield development alternatives that,
if undertaken, would serve to remedy existing nonstandard airport design conditions that are primarily
rated to the non-standard runway-to-taxiway centerline separation. Airfield development three scenarios
developed as part of thiS Study are described as Alternatives 2, 3 and 4. Each development scenario
attempts to fully accommodate Airplane Design Group (ADG) II taxiway and taxilane separation
standards that provide the required minimum runway-to-taxiway centerline separation of 240 feeL A
fourth "Null" or "Do Nothing" alternative (Alternative 1) was also examined. Each airfield development
scenario is depicted at the end of this Study report.
For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that all existing and future apron taxilanes under the direct
control of the airport's two Fixed Base Operators (FBOs) Marathon Jet Center and Paradise Jet Support
would be marked, striped and configured to fully accommodate unrestricted taxi operations by aircraft
having ADG II characteristics. This assumption requires that certain existing aircraft tie-down spaces will
be eliminated to accommodate the unrestricted airport taxi movement of aircraft having B-II wingspan
characteristics. The resultant financial and/or operational impacts that might be imposed upon each FBO
as a direct result of these actions are unknown. For example, if the FBO revenues are increased as a
direct result of the servicing of larger 8-11 business jet aircraft, the financial revenues may serve to offset
the loss of tie-down revenue. For the purpose of this Study, only the anticipated loss of tie-down revenue
is considered.
Considerations for Potential Environmental Impacts
Tree Impacts Requirinq Clearinq and Grubbinq
As part of Alternatives 3 and 4, preliminary cost estimates were developed that represent anticipated
tree removal, clearing and grubbing required to fully satisfy FAA design cri.teria. For the purposes of
cost estimating, tree replacement was calculated assuming a tree density of one tree (with a trunk
diameter of greater than 4 inches) per four square feet of hammock. These tree clearing actions
however, could be in conflict with existing Monroe County Code as cited as General Ordinances of the
County, Chapter 9.5 Land Use Regulations, Article VII Land Use Districts, Divis;on 8 Environmental
Standards, Sections 9.5-346 and 347, TransplantaUon Plan and Open Space Requirements
respectively with regard to maintaining at least 80% of the existing hardwood hammock as open space.
It should be emphasized that the cost estimates provided in this document are solely for tree removal
and relocation costs.
2
0)......
0-
I..... ro
C If)
o ':l
:2:
Q)CQC])Q)I.....4-\.-l....c
c:O......Ol.....Q)OOOo
..... ::J ..c: +-' - ....... .-
Et5Ut"O-c(/)--ro
l....Q)o::JQ)o::JcUrn
wU')-b(j)o-ooQ)ro:;:;
+-'...0 Q} 2 C E E a..-
~~Ewn.coroQ)EE
o '+- ...... E "0 (f) CD I.... -- -r-
.....o~O~-gE~6~
,.-..., Q.) E'.&.' TI .- (IJ Q.) ~ C1J
~+-' c-o.......-oI....fT'l
<(C\J(/J l.....O)C w.....
-=="Oc '" co co::> ('IJ C Olm
0::::: ", -0;;. 0 :.;::::. ..c
:::>_ roE ~ -{g ~ ~ t5 .~ "E :::
<nc+-'~('IJO)-G:i
>. <D C'O ('IJ (/)"'0 E;e:-: E
g> f; 25 w C\J ~ ._ E l{) ::J
o-~~~S-oc..8~
l.i=ro -r-<oQ) .....
"0 - Ol 0 .~ I..... cn (f) -r- \U
O::J ......>I'"'\o.........(/)
..c: 4- '';::; >...L.. C0
.....oEcno 0.::J
ill..... t)1.....(f)ocn'+--
~ Q..c I.... Q)o
~E~ ~gQ..I....Q)U')
....... ...... I..... EO>' 0)'-
Co.o OCO-CC/)
. C - >..
IDO- <(:J>'coro-
EIDcQ) .'+-.DOl-CO
(j) > :J ~ LL Q) -0 Q.. (l) C
~~ rn ~L.CiE 80E:
(j} '+- ..,..., <<::t ....., >.. C . -
if) ....... C0 en..;:::: en.- ...c
(j)(\joco I C.......o .......
<( 3:....... N .- ill Q) _
C c(jJco~l-o.oo
o:2OJ(f)I..... Q)Q)"'OO(f)
:;:;<(Et!=Q)C/)(oo+-'Q)
ro-==...co+--'C/) -CC/)(j)
0) 0::::: C/) 0 g- co en ~ co 0
:;:::::>~""'...el-CEQ)D...
'-..0 .......0 0 l.... l....
2(/)00"00 +=O(f)iXi::J
cut)~C(f)g:.cQ)Q..
E ro Q) 0) -~:J I- .~ ~
oD..Q)Q)"D()4-0 . Co.......
:-!:::E..cc~~Q)~::J1.....
c '-..... ............... C/) v, +-' 0
:J -0 C '5 CJ) 0 0 en ll..
Ciii2Cf)ClJE-tll .
IDC\Jl.....roWCO""'C'IJ-oc
..c ...... :J OJ l:J 0 C'IJ ..c. c 0
....... (1) CT'';:::; o..c....... CO:;:::;
C/) ~ Q)--E (f)_ +-' 0) C/) ClJ
IDI....I.... (lJ-O.......(j)-l....o
NO - C4-(/)
...c 4- >-. c :J 4- Q) +-'
=:::uO(J)ClJOO,-~
::J~,.........OQ)EO.EL
C-C- ......
ro 5:::JOm('IJ>,Q)u,
-0 IDE 0-0- l....>c"O
'C ~ E .,g C/) ~ m 2 m .~
o~U?ro~,...,+-'(j)OlC:J
LL -- LL ...... W . Q) c: 0 0-
:J Q) E >.. ~ () co:;::: Q}
'+- O"~...c .D Q) Cl) E ('IJ I....
o~co"""'Q.) .......c GJQ)
..cum os...
Q)C-r-Q)t-Q)S:C......{)'O
.....o:;rc (f) O(f)~
ro -~ E ....."" .- ....... .~-
+-,-....- (f)..J.....................c:
if.Iro-<- I.... O('IJ{J
(J) "'. I.... Q) (]) co 0) ro ('IJ
Q)~(r')2 ........o't:~ 0...... 0
.c .- I"-- Q) ro ::J. .- E Q} ......
t- E (f)"o $: .8 if) E ._ s: ~
C
o
-
ro
-,;:::::
::2:
-0
C
ro
......
Q)
$:
mU'+-+-'Q)I...,"OID
,..... Q) 0 (/) 0)::1-.0
.... .- >. 0 (IJ 0 :J
_2 ~ +-' (.) I.... 4- 0--0
+-'ccQ)lDQ)5::J
co OJ T5 J: > .c (f) 0
WE ~ > t- C\J +-' U) 5:
(1)4-
c~(])(/)...eoo+-,
Q)ECi)I-Q}{J~
+-'~ 0 Cl>C>
(J) C 0 I.... I.... 0 ;;.
ll) (/) 0 ...c ....... l....
~ ~ -g 6 g I- ~E
>.. ~ ro :.;:; '+- 0 -- Q)
Q) Q) () m e 0 ~ _!:::::!
~ -0 0 g> .Q 1"--. _ (I)
Q):g Q) E ro-r- C C
...eEl.... _-r-O
'+- .-
+-' mme-r-~Q)
o"Oc ~ ';;: -- w -~ .n
_ ...... C ro >.,..J (tI
m +-' ..., ::J ~ 0" I-
>.1....(/)~c2()ro
c(})coccoroa.
::J5:oo...roE-oE
o 0 +-' Q) o'x co,."
o ,." \0 C ;s:. 0 co {) ;::
...... 0) -- (V) I.... - ()
Q) ...c. '';:::; E a. (]) If)
o .....c 'E I.... ro Q...!::: OJ ~
~ $Olm~2Q)
o-oroQ>cQ)Q)roa.
2: Q)'';:::;-O E..Q I.... 0.0
....... C ..... 0
I....roQ).8:Jooo
00...... en.....c_O
'+- 0 0 +-' (f) .
Q.c("(]""Ou(j)~
€ (f) Ql mE -0 Ole :J Ui -::t
::J 2 ...c Q) -- 0 0 tf7
U5 'm ::: i2 to E 3: {) ~
c 0 <l) '"t:) Q) "0 TIc Q)
>. 0 ---.. <n a......... c .......
.-<:::: . - o::t if) :J Q) co (0 ro
:":= ro -- ro -0 --.J E
..0 ~ . C C/) __
.- '-" ~ if) (/) . ><
r./):;:::; :J .- Q) ro "0 -0 0
(ljEO-CGl>cQ)1....
Q) LL........D>(lJUa.
lJ....-. . C Q) C 0 OJ 0.wco co ""0 .- > 0 Q) ro
'r"Q)-O(Q......"Oc~
-I.... ......
-0 roQ)...cCO:JU)Q)
~ ~ n..!:::::! (j) Ol n..- 0)
(IJ Q) ~ '';:: 2 .......E- Q) C ~
a.. +-' D..::l .- I.... 0 Q)
1.1) ...c (/) CO :;:::; >
I.... OJ Q) 0) I.... ...... C/) '00 <0
o....w w.~ 5 0 Q) -5 .......
CJ) - 5: Q) '+- ~ -;; 0" U
0::: € .0 Q) U U -~
::)::J~~(/}ro5roe
~....... ro Q)..-:;:::;u a.
ri VJ ro E -r- CO C (f)
o (/) E"O -- 0) co --
o:c.......coQ):;:::;-E
N ....... g5 ro '+- c'E '+- I....
..cc_cwo Q5J2
U . (f)02I....(IJ...c.-o
l- t o...c. ro 0 :..:J O'i Q)
..;gouroE'+-c:.c"O
..::::; 0..."0 L '.,j:::; en 2 (l)
c~ cco~ (/) 0 0 IDI.V
" ..:::: (l) 0 Q....c c
o (/J r.n CJi Q)..c r.I>
co ...... {) -"'::: ...e
(J)"D-o Cl ~$:""'"
~~2~U)Q)o
~c'l5ocgt
~ ~ ~ CD ~~ ~
~:?;O(f.lOI....(f)
()::J-08('IJ
2 "0 >."0 C () "t:l
c~c~ro(QQ)
Q)O::l...Jcc-o
E 2 0 (O.-:J
COU=Q.(/)Cl
0.... > ........c
l.... Q. Q) c C/)--
> (/) 2 OJ 000
C cu:.;::;(J(f)
Q) (j) O-t19 c co
I.Vm~<(c.QQ)
:S.....Q) m+-,I....
'+- ro...c 00 Q. ~ ro
o_......6~OU)
C ro..c.- ..... Q) Q)
~ ~ +-' r..v +00-1
O:J ctI I.... l.... co
.....-roS::JI--oE
2~t5 g>~~cn
eo'EO:::('f) Q)
o...>.ow-o(O-OO
-o+-,orJ'JcE;o
c OJ.~::l m E U
roIDQ)"O<.OCl}Q)
cc..oC'<;f"I....(f.l
o ro ("') Q.)
'';::; _ "D ....J J> Q) ..c
ro ro ::J t.{) . ~ I-
>co .0).......
ID.Q (J <J) (J) l.... (/)
(f.lO...::.:::Lcon:::
ccoQ)o4--:J
o:Jo'Q:'::;Ql
U'+-Em~roE
~~EB(J)E"O
..... ....... m .:;:::; Q)
...c - C/) CI)
(5 ro~.c"E OJ E
-...cc:Cm.......0
(/) +-' ro :J "U en 't
Q.) OJ a....~ c 0 Q)
32 _~ :J \-1 ~ (J 0...
>'3mQ)U)C/)C/)
:2 if) ...c .c :J co
o.c""'::19.Q3:
Q)'+-oc>
Q) 0 ill Q) ill
""0 >. OJ (/j E D.. "0
o..oc(I) 0
U If}"C 0 6, <.( ()
>. >., raQ) ffi l.... >..
+-'ID c> .....
C ~ U .- c .2 C
::J "Ewc::Jt
o CO Q) 0 0
U:g~OcoEOQ.
Q)oo..roC(l)Q)~
o - 0 I.... a.!::: 0 >
I....LLQ)l])r./)::JI....-o
c > c -- 0" C
o Ql Q) Q)_~ OJ 0.2
:2E"'O<.9oo:::~U)
Alternative 1 - Do Nothing
This alternative assumes that no modifications to the existing airfield are undertaken and the existing non-
standard 200-foot runway centerline-to-taxiway centerline condition remains unchanged. No
construction, demolition or disturbances and/or impacts to environmentally-sensitive land areas situated
along the north side of Runway 7/25 or to existing structures, aircraft parking positions or apron areas
south of the runway would occur. The existing vegetative and environmentally-sensitive land areas
located parallel and northwest of the runway would remain outside the limits of the Runway Object Free
Zone (OFZ) and the Runway Object Free Area (ROFA)
As part of this "Do Nothing" alternative, it is assumed that the Marathon Jet Center Apron is marked and
striped to fully accommodate unrestricted AOG 8MII taxiing aircraft movements along the entire length of
the north side of the apron. For geometric analysis considerations only, a future AOG B-[I apron taxi lane
across the entire north side of the Paradise Jet Support apron was assumed to be in place and was
assessed for potential operational and economic impacts to the FBO's AOG A/B-I operations and tie
down positions.
Associated Impacts:
. Associated Construction: No construction, demolition or disturbance of natural or man-made
environs would occur.
. Existing Structures: No existing buildings, structures or facilities would be disturbed, relocated or
removed.
. Marathon Jet Center Apron/Operations: No changes to current operational practices would occur.
. Paradise Jet Support Apron/Operations: No changes to current operational practices would occur.
(Not considering the development of an AOG B-JI taxilane along the full length of apron.)
. Passenger Terminal Apron/Operations: No changes or operational impacts to the use of the
terminal apron area would occur. Occasional operations by regional jet aircraft having
dimensional characteristics larger than B-II wingspans could occur.
. Environmentally-Sensitive Land Areas: No disturbances or impacts to mangroves, hardwood
hammocks, wetlands or the salt pond would occur.
Anticipated Cost:
This alternative has no associated construction, relocation, or environmental mitigation costs.
Alternative 2 - Relocate Taxiway Alpha South
This alternative provides the required 240Mfoot runwaYMto~taxiway centerline separation by relocating
the Taxiway "A" centerline 40 feet to the south. This proposed action would require the widening of the
south edge of the Taxiway "A" to provide an overa[1 ARC B-II taxiway pavement width of 35 feet.
Accordingly, the associated AOG B-II Taxiway Safety Area (TSA) and Taxiway Object Free (TOFA)
would be shifted 40 feet south. The existing vegetative and environmentally-sensitive land areas located
parallel and northwest of the runway would remain outside the limits of the Runway Object Free Zone
(OFZ) and the Runway Object Free Area (ROFA)
4
Associated Impacts:
. Required Reconstruction of Taxiway "A": The entire length of Taxiway A's full strength pavement
would be reconstructed 40 feet to the south to provide an overall taxiway pavement width of 35
feet and a shoulder width of 10 feet. The full strength taxiway pavement construction would
occur to a width of 32.5 feet along the south side of the existing taxiway_ Where required, 10-
foot paved shoulders would be developed along the south side. The relocated taxiway would be
marked and striped to fully accommodate ADG B-II operations. All taxiway edge lights would
require relocation to within 10 feet of the newly established full strength taxiway pavement edge.
. Existing Structures: The relocated TOFA would extend 15 feet beyond the western-most extent
of four (Phase I) T-hangars that are situated along the south side of Taxiway "A".
. Impacts to Development of Phase II Future T-Hangars: The relocated TOFA would impact the
planned Phase II T-Hangar development planned immediately south of the existing four T-
hangars. The hangar units and associated storage closets would be eliminated. The rental rate
for the existing T-hangar units is $450 per month. The T-hangars have an estimated useful life
of 28 years. The rental rate for the four end storage closets having the same useful life is $100
per month. Applying the monthly rental rates, the associated financial impacts to the
owner/operators would be approximately $739,200 over the remaining 28-year useful fife of the
existing T-hangars
. The same impacts would be associated with the planned four additional multi-unit T-hangar
structures that are planned west of the existing T -hangars. Applying the same monthly rental
rates the associated financial impacts to the owner/operators would be approximately $792,000
over the 3D-year useful life of the future affected T-hangars
. Impacts to Future Fire Station Operations: The relocated TOFA would impact the planned
operation of a new fire station and supporting apron area adjacent to Taxiway "An. The
expanded TOFA would preclude the temporary or parking of various fire truck and/or equipment
in areas directly behind the Fire Station buildjng.
. Marathon Jet Center Apron/Operations: The required ADG B-II 105-foot taxiway centerline-to-
apron-edge taxilane centerline separation would require that the ADG B-II taxilane be shifted
southward impacting (4) four ADG A/B-I tied own positions. Based on current (2005) monthly
tie-down fees charged by the FBO, it is anticipated that the FBO (or future FBO) would incur
revenue impacts directly related to the lost of tie-down locations in the neighborhood of
$144,000 over a 30-year period.
. Paradise Jet Support Apron/Operations: Relocated ADG B-Il TOFA would require elimination of
16 apron-edge tiedown positions and 11 additional apron tje-down positions. Using the same
monthly tie-down fee rates, it is anticipated that the FBO (or future FBO) would incur revenue
impacts directly related to the lost of tie-down locations in the neighborhood of $972,000 over a
30-year period.
. Passenger Terminal Apron/Operations: The anticipated occasional itinerant operations by
ajrcraft having ADG C/O-II characteristics (e.g., typical Regional Jet) would generate wingtip
penetrations of the relocated ADG B-ll TOFA. Itinerant operations of aircraft having ADG 8-1
characteristics (e.g., Beechcraft 1900 airliner) would not generate wingtip penetrations of the
relocated TOFA.
. Environmentally-Sensitive Land Areas: No disturbances or impacts to mangrove wetlands,
hardwood hammocks or the salt pond would occur. Consequently, there would be no costs
associated with tree removal and replacement, wetland mitigation or organism relocation.
5
. Preclude or Severely Impact the Resumption of FAR Part 121 Air Carrier Operations: Following
the cessation of air carrier service in 2003, Monroe County has actively pursued all viable avenues
to reinitiate air carrier service. Monroe County has submitted a total of three Small Community Air
Service grant applications and has all reason to believe that such efforts will serve to attract and
retain scheduled air carrier service to serve the air traveling needs of residents of the lower and
middle Florida Keys.
Anticipated Cost:
The estimated direct costs developed for this analysis are limited to the relocation of the Taxiway Alpha
full strength pavement, shoulders and taxiway edge lighting. The estimated construction costs limited
only to the relocation of Taxiway Alpha is $4,988,914.
Other economic impacts include, but are not be limited to the two Fixed Base Operators tie-down
revenue loss of approximately $1,116,000, and unquantifiable impacts to certain Federal Aviation
Regulations Part 121 and/or Part 135 commercial operations (i.e., Regional Jets and or other charter
operations) at the passenger terminal airside apron. The associated impacts to the resumption of
Federal Aviation Regulations (F.A.R.) Part 121 or Part 135 operations can not be estimated at this tlme,
but would include lost financial opportunities to the airport and economic generation impacts to the
lower Florida Keys. An economic revenue loss of approximately $739,200 would be associated with
the required demolition of the four western-most T-hangar bays and corner storage areas to avoid
impacts to the Taxiway Alpha Object Free Area and to Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting facility apron
operations. Similar lost revenue impacts of approximately $792,000 would also be incurred for the
planned four additional multi-unit T-Hangar facilities. No environmental mitigation or environmental
permitting costs are anticipated for this alternative.
Monroe County's Reiection of Alternative 2
The numerous operational, financial and economic impacts associated with this alternative as viewed
from the perspective of Monroe County (Owner/Operator of the airport) are considered to render
Alternative 2 non-viable or impracticable.
Alternative 3 - Relocate Runway 7/25 North
This alternative provides the required 240-foot runway-to-taxiway centerline separation by relocating
the entire Runway 40 feet to the north. This would require the complete reconstruction of runway
pavement and shoulders to provide an overall full strength runway pavement width of 100 feet and
shoulder width of 10 feet. Accordingly, the associated ADG 8-11 Runway Safety Area (RSA) and
Runway Object Free (ROFA) area setbacks would be shifted 40 feet to the north. Portions of the
existing vegetative and environmentally-sensitive land areas located parallel and northwest of the runway
would be located within the limits of the Runway Object Free Zone (OFZ) and the Runway Object Free
Area (ROFA)
Associated Impacts:
. Associated Construction: The entire length of Runway 7/25 full strength pavement would be
reconstructed to relocate the runway centerline 40 feet to the north and to provide an overall
runway pavement width of 100 feet. Where required, 10-foot paved shoulders would be
developed along the north side of the runway pavement edge. All runway edge lights would
require relocation to within 10 feet of the newly established full strength runway pavement edge.
. Existing Structures: No man-made structures or facilities would be impacted by the northward
relocation of the runway.
. Marathon Jet Center Apron/Operations: No adverse operational or financial impacts are
anticipated to occur.
6
. Paradise Jet Support Apron/Operations: Establishment of ADG 8-11 apron taxilane would
eliminate 17 apron-edge tiedown positions. Revenue to the FBO typically generated by the
seasonal or year-round rental of these tie down positions would be lost. It is anticipated that the
FBO (or future FBO) would incur revenue impacts directly related to the lost of tie-down
locations in the neighborhood of $612,000 over a 3D-year period.
. Terminal Apron/Operations: No adverse operational or financial impacts are anticipated to
occur.
. Environmentally-Sensitive Land Areas: The relocated Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) would
extend 40 feet beyond the current 250-faot runway centerline-to-vegetation clearing line. This
would require that all wetland areas and upland hammock located within 250 feet of the
relocated runway centerline be impacted to satisfy the object free requirements. This would
result in an impact to approximately 1.0 acre of the wetland located in the northwest corner of
the airport. Mitigation would be required to compensate for the wetland impact.
Anticipated Cost:
This alternative presents the highest relative cost associated with the relocation of Runway 7/25
centerline, pavement edge expansion and edge lighting. The estimated direct costs developed for this
analysis are limited to the relocation of the runway 40 feet to the north is $9,628,344.
Other economic impacts to the tie-down revenue for Paradise Jet Support are anticipated to be
approximately $612,000 over a 30-year period.
This alternative would result in approximately 1.0 acres of wetland impact. Approximately 4.0 acres of
wetland creation should be required for mitigation. The wetland mitigation construction would cost
approximately $446,800. Land acquisition for approximately 4.0 acres would cost approximately
$1,800,000. This is in addition to the estimated $9,600,000 for costs related to tree removal, clearing,
grubbing, and canopy replacement per Monroe County Code.
Alternative 4 - Relocate Runway 7/25 North and Taxiway Alpha South
This alternative provides the required 240-foot runway-to-taxiway centerline separation by relocating
Runway 7/25 centerline 15 feet to the north and the Taxiway "A" centerline 25 feet to the south. The
north edge of the runway and south edge of the taxiway would be widened to provide 1 DO-foot and 35-
foot pavement widths respectively. The existing vegetative and environmentally-sensitive land areas
located parallel and northwest of the runway would remain outside the limits of the Runway Object Free
Zone (OFZ) and the Runway Object Free Area (ROFA)
This alternative fully avoids impacts to existing structures located south of Taxiway "A", but imposes
certain impacts to mangroves and portions of the hardwood hammock north of the runway. The
relocated Taxiway "An centerline would be established by placing the southern-most extent of the ADG
B-II Taxiway "AU TOFA along the face of the four T-hangar buildings.
Associated Impacts:
. Associated Construction: The Runway 7/25 centerline would be relocated 15 feet to the north
and the full strength pavement and 1 a-foot shoulders widened to the north by 15 feet
accordingly. The Taxiway "A" centerline would be relocated 15 feet to the south, but the full
strength taxiway pavement and associated shoulders widened only 17.5 feet to the south to
provide an overall ARC-B-II taxiway width of 35 feet. All runway and taxiway edge lights would
require relocation to within 10 feet of the newly established full strength runway pavement
edges.
7
· Existing Stcuelures: No impacts to existing man-made structuces oc facilities WOuld occuc.
· Macathon Jet Centec Apeon/Opecations: The celocated Taxiway "A" cenlecline would cequice a
celocation of the Macathon Jel Centec ADG B-II apcon taxilane centecline thus cequicing the
elimination of fouc ADG AlB-1 tiedown Positions. II is anticipated thaI the FBO (oc futuce FBO)
would not incur revenue impacts directly related to the lost of tie-down locations.
· PaCedise Jel Suppon Apcon/Opecalions: Establishment of ADG B-II apcon taxilane Would
eliminate 16 apCOn-edge and 12 additional apeon tiedown Positions. It is anticipaled that the
FBO (DC rutuce FBO) Would incuc cevenue impacts dicoclly celated 10 the lost of tie-dawn
locations in the neighborhood of $1 ,008,000 over a 3D-year penod.
· Tecminal Apcon/Opecations: Itinerant opecations by Regional Jets oc Beechccaft 1900 at the
Terminal Building apron Would not be adversely impacted.
· EnviconmenlallY-Sensitive Land Acea" The celocaled ROFA Would extend 15 feet beyond the
CUCCent 250-foot cunway centecline-Io-vegetation cleMng line. This Would cequice that ali
weiland aceas located within 250 feet of the celocated nmway centecline be tinpacled to satisfy
the Object fcee cequicements. This would cesult in an impact to appCOximately 0.4 acres of the
welland located in the northwest Comec of the aicport. Mitigation would be cequired to
compensate for the wetland impact.
AntiCipated Cost:
This alternative pcesents the seCond highest celative cost aSsociated with the celocation of Taxiway "A"
cent.cline, Runway 7125 centeeline: cespective pavement edges expansions and edge lighting
relocations. The estimated constcuction costs limited only to constcuction is 13,966, 472.
Economic impacts to the tie-down cevenue foc Pacadise Jet Suppon ace anticipated to be appcoxlmately
$ 1,008,000 over a 3D-year period.
Th is alternative would cesult in a ppcoximalely 0.4 acces of wetla nd impact Appm<imately 1.6 acces of
wetland cceation should be cequiced foc mitigation. The Weiland mitigation conslcuction would cost
a ppco<imately $178.720. Land acquisition foc apPcoxima lely 1.0 acces would cost appeoxima tely
$450,000. This is in addition to Ihe estimated $3,600,000 foc costs celated to tcee cemoval, cleacing,
grubbing, and canopy replacement per Monroe County Code.
FAA Study Review and Comments
Duhng the COUese of this Study, the FAA Airports Distcict Office located in Oclando, Florida ceviewed the
fouc aimeld design altematives. As part of that ceview, the FAA has taken the unwaVecing position thai
Altemative 1 (Null or Do Nothing) was not consideced to be acceptable fmm a safety standpnint and that
all measUces should be made by Moncoe County to COmedy the existing non-standacd aimeld design
conditions.
The vacious physical and financial impacts associate with the remarnrng thcee altematives wece
thocoughly investigaled and evalualed by URS, cepeesentatives of the alcport and the FAA. Thcough this
collabocative ceview PCOCess, it became evident Ihat each of the cemaining aietield design altematives
Would: 1) dccogate the aicpon's ability to adequately accommodate existing oc futuce anticipaled levels of
aic seNice, 2) cceate financial impacts lo Moncoe County and its existing aicpon tenants and stakeholdees,
and 3) create impacts to environmentally-senSJtive land areas on the airport.
The FAA cecognized that because of the limited geogcaphic acea within which the airpon opecates, the
celocalion of Taxiway Alpha 10 the South (cegacdless of distance) would sevecely impact existing
opecations as well as to possibly pceclude the cesumption of schedule ale cacciec opecations at the airpon
in the future.
8
Study Findings and Recommendations
Study Findings
It is apparent that any modifications to the existing runway/taxiway layout at the Florida Keys Marathon
Airport to fully satisfy current FAA design standards will carry a high price tag. Beyond the obvious cost
of relocating and redesigning airfIeld pavements, other associated costs would include operational and
financial impacts to the airport's two Fixed Base Operators, physical impacts to existing T-hangars and
the associated loss of T-hangar revenue, disruption of airport operations and/or the potential need to
close the airport during critical phases of construction.
The issue of current Monroe County codes that prescribe environmental impact limits to the hardwood
hammocks and the anticipated associated mitigation costs will serve to further raise the "cost" bar. One
major issue that remains critical to the feasibility of the "Action" Alternatives 3 or 4, centers on the
question of hardwood hammock impacts, specifically whether Monroe County would permit this amount
of hammock removal and, even if permitted, would the County's requirement to maintain at least 80
percent of the hammock as open space be met
Other areas of critical concern center on the need to maintain access to the nation's system of airports.
The Florida Keys Marathon Airport is considered a vital community asset that serves the safety, welfare
and economy of the lower and middle Florida Keys. Loss of this airport during the Hurricane Season or
other relief support efforts following a natural disaster would be problematic at best
There appears to be no quick or economically attractive solution available to remedy the current non-
standard runway-to-taxiway centerline separation dilemma at this airport. Based on the preliminary cost
estimates provide in this report, the cost will most likely start at around $7.6 million (Alternative 2) and
could be as much as $22.1 million (Alternative 3). It should be noted however, that Alternative 2 has no
associated environmental mitigation, the remaining impacts and constructions costs do not adequately
reflect or quantify the potential economic impacts associated with the potential resumption of scheduled
service at the airport.
Study Recommendation
Based on the findings and considerations developed as part of this Study, is recommended that Monroe
County request that FAA coordinate an Aeronautical Study to evaluate the proposed shifting of Runway
7/2540 feet to the north (Alternative 3). The shifting of the runway will require that portions of the existing
vegetative and environmentally-sensitive land areas along the north side of the airport be situated within
the Runway Object Free Area.
It is also recommended that Monroe County include as part of the request, the stipulation that the
Aeronautical Study assess the 40-foot northward shift of the runway without the trimming, removal or
disturbance of existing vegetation or environmentally-sensitive land areas north of the runway. As such,
the FAA's Aeronautical Study would investigate the potential for impacts to the existing (or potential
future) published instrument approach procedures (i.e., cloud ceiling or visibility minima) caused by the
presence of the vegetative hammock within the Runway Object Free Area.
If the FAA were to allow for the 40~foot northward shift of the runway without requiring the removal and
mitigation of the wetlands and hammock, the overall anticipated total cost of Alternative 3 would be
reduced by approximately $11.8 million dollars. This would serve to reduce the overall cost of Alternative
3 from over $22 million to just over $10 million that would be limited to runway reconstruction costs.
9
<i:
N 0 0 0 0 =
t'- 0 0 0 N a,\
-.::t. 0 0 0 t'- ....
CO ill Q) ill ill CO 0 0 CO ri
CD c: l:: c: c: 0
.q en 0 0 0 0 0 0 I.() t'- C'\I
Z Z Z Z 0 CD -.::t .,.... a)
C") .,.....!(<)
.... Ei7iEi7 ....
fA Ei7 ~
""" 0 0 0 0
""" 0 0 0 0 ,....
C") o. o. o. CO. '<t
CO ill ill Q) (]) N 0 0 CD ....
N c: c: c: c .,.... 0 0 """ t'-
M CO 0 0 0 0 CO CO CO -.::t CO
Q) Z Z Z Z Q) .,.... 0
N
~ C'\I
fA Efi Efi Efi Efi
I
I
-.::t 0 0 0 0 CD
.-- 0 0 0 0 ....
0:>. N 0 ..c: 0 0' <1J QJ (]) ....
N CO 0:> N .~ """ N c: c: c lIS
co C") 0:> I -.::t t'- 0 0 0 M
0). I'- I'- .,.... 0:> Z Z Z CD
-.::t ,....
f:F? f:F? f:F? f:F? tF.T U)-
-
c:
Q.l
E i
Q,W
o .~ I
- - Q) <ll (]) Q) <l.l <ll (j) ill ill Q.l
d) I'll l:: C C c: c: c: c c c: c:
> c:
(l) to- .... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C <Il Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
-
t-
Oe(
Q,
to-
e(
----
(/)
+-'
Q)
(/)
0
[f) U
03 Q)
OJ t
r:f) ('0 ....
~ .2 .... 2 0
('0 U 0 c: ~
E i7.i <1J
~ --- 0 :J
E .$ (j)
ro 03
:J .... C Q)
if) 0 :) ...., -,
i7.i -
U; UI 2 c Q) 1/1
0 - --- ~ 0 0 (/) 0
0 u 2 <ll ~ .s "D U
l'CI l:: :J ro ro c
0.. :J c E .... .... g W
t) E ro ro rn .~
<ll - :2 +-'
Q. ::! > - C1.. 0 '(i5 -
'tl OJ ro I I ~ ctI
E Q.l Q) c::: 0 (j) Q) q c:
:J C E to-
- .... :J :J 0 <Il
.s l'CI c g, ro c: c - <( -
Q) c: c: <(
u > u:: Q) Q) c: 0
:J 0 C > > 0 u
(j) c t'l
...... UI c::: ro Q) Q) ".;J to
I I.() c::: c::: ro ro
UI .... C") .g: ---l :J -
OJ <C ~ .... 0
~ .,.... c c U)
> -- ~ c i-
~ ~ .,.... S: S: :2 0 c
C N 0 0 0
(1J ......
c .... 0 0 ~ ro U
.... c I ".;J 0 .~
.& 0 ~ UJ t Q.J Q) 0 c
(1J +-'
"'B x f= f= E :2 0
w C1..
:J OJ ~ ...... E ~
~ I... C Q) c::: 4-
+-' .... <t (1J ~ (1J 2 OJ
(/J U; :J .... I ".;J
(/J C +-' LL 0 0 l::
Q) 0 'x :J .... .... u Q) :2
U W LL u<i: <i: 0 E
"- "- Q), "- "- 0 c u
:u 0 0 E 0 0 S: 0 c
Qi .... i9
92 UJ (fJ :J (fJ UJ U --
'E r;/) (fJ r:f) r;/) r;/) .... > w
- <i: 0 0 (fJ 0 0 ro c: $:
---l ---l <( ---l ---l :r: u.J
(j)
o
:E
't:
<r::
l{)
o
o
N
(j)
c:::
:J
Q)
e
:J
o
(j)
,:~\ .':: I' ,.1.~I. i 'I "'1~:'litr,!
I . . ! i ..J .'--==111 ,',' ,I
~I' G :'n I
), ." ]:"1 '~', , ,:1,':::, i
/', I-:"~ :li11j \
"\I,i' .'~i'" !llr~::/ ~("~~~,
: ,;;, _~~. 'I "'IG. '-~.. jr.,~;:!: Iii /70 ~..'"
',i' i.i'i:j::, <,~~ti'
(~:~. -,fIl',:1 ~ I ~<::">~
~ ;:~j ,\';'c::x :: d.1 11.1"-., q,.... /Z.
I ,';"j I '1'1"" [" il'! n r-,'Z~_!...J"-
1', I >t. >' cJ I"i ~ -'--->~
!t"; !;~'~~~I~" ---
I ,. -! ,I"' ,..--m :
r'~f: ;:;#J I;;: ': ;,
II r'i iJ~ i rl~~
!f j' :t~ II -,_ ~
I ',I. ! ~ ,~~f~"'FF. ,I j ~~~r::
; ,d ,~ i' :J 0"(:;
" ',!~ ["--, [) 0[
I { ,d)I"~~ jr:::~.~~oS
~. ;p-.....J,.++-rr J I I 0...... --..------ - _
'1 ----=, ~ 0 Q;::;
I v L-bi:(,",~ ",.
I i 1:-:'::' ,r--~:::::,cr-...
V ! : i ~ ~ , :,: Uc7c/::e:'?c
I v I I ~:' _' i,l l~ D t
..: "',.,. II N"-'o
~ ; ~". ~& ~ III ~::::-:---
'I,jl" !i;~j~i'.[<~:
!~I V "' ft'll~i' il ~
':1 './ II.. II!. ~ :~/l
.!; I k ~- ~ Ii )1 [ fC'00""":::"',
I' 'I ;\ ! 1..] "
"I" I co.{{,-", '
jl~i I: :~q~' '1" \ C~CcCc~>-
'I" ~~[.' ~ '0', ~I.. ~ '~14'! ...-~'
. I :'Jii I r-~,..j.~~ "L : ". ,.;> :
i I" !11,;r.:i--:t.:.'~!i;I'11 r~/1~
I Ji ~.c/~ilj! \LC::~~
I " 'Ii! If~'. : ~'1.! . ~~k
,'Ii~/~' I-;i -----.~(/""'\j
8;8:;; i I ~ ':llll~8 \ ~L_-~);
~~<: IIII~ j~~j~;li!~~~
~J] ": I :'\1 I ":'~[::II 'I, f:::J[;:~ ~<
~ c Il( .~tr'D~~C:l!.~ .'1: ~ r>~i,.!!) /liJ
~'~0_' ' " I ill ~!II'~-~'';'I]:I:~ jr( ~?
~ ,n '1 '~''--'--''C:F.yJ'if ',1 '- ~
{] [] ~ ': : ~~". .~~<'1~~"--"-n~' ':, ~ r,?_0,,,
::; c::J . on,!.I. K. I. ~>;~~~:.; ji I~:I I c.J L~
'~p~ r: l!! I ~;T~~~' u~~ogJ
;--~;;; 'i~ ' II! 7 ~i;':1 ~,., '. )ill.: >::L'1;;)
I~ " ~1;i'I;~~i,'!I~I,~~
r"'-' . f '.' =.1 ~,,'.. ~".;-i~'.'li ll''-. D Or.
~~~~,.I~.~ ~t:3:'r~.!I~i. ,:111 r ,
// I. t, l /,- !.Jj ~Lu" ="il" L
-----'. If 'I~' ;\;:.-----""'1 ,i",i. ii '1"1.\
I : ^ t . /' ,I; 'I [J
.f ~ '~,:- -~ / ~~~ ~ II ~~
/~ ! ~i\,'l (:~\\~lllli ~r ""~~~
. f ;" '~ /.,. \1 A- l i JlI' \
; "'~ I~':" 'r. ' \.......1 Ii i 'I : ~'-~
) i~~: \.,1,' ~. .1\ i: il..:I'.':1 [] ~~~f.>
I \,1 ,.' \ I .::0: \ ~~ ~ I I ,I.,
0, I '!: i '~ ~ I' !Ii f! <:
1-.li ~', ; : JI \ .:,...... _~
"---,)\,-~~_: } It :-~ ::1 ,~ fjL./
'-,,~ J' 'i{ ; , (,t-illl'l ,~i./!J
~\ _) \,%:~''-""_f l":::~ 1 Ii 1\, I ---~-....
:.:\
, ..-"-'
'".--;..-.:::--:::----
:J'"\ ~I ~ ,~
~-~r~ - i !
1 I'K
~ I~'
, I
[
- ,
i-I
\
II
,
/
[l i' L "I
~,
o ,.
)i
~I
)"1
c
~
LJ
~ [l
[1
,
~11
;
,
J!
,
. -
o : 'f
o : I~
=L[ I~
~----.::::::::::.-./ :~
" [
I
f
.~
[
t
.f
, I!
II;
i'n'; I
D
J
'::::J I
o
o
(
,
c:o'
::II
~i
0
" ~j
"
'T' ,
Q 0
:~ ~ --
" 1"(,1
"
'I:IL--;id ,
J'i..,-' i C=:~ ~
~ ....
~- i
<[~
No(
~ a:!i! Wz '"
<[ ~ ~ >0 ~
ee'" f=f=
0. z ~ C:(C)
:::l C:(", ~< ::Ii
0.1-- UJo '"
-' en. 'I' I-z ~
c:( e'" :;;!
li:lli! ~
u:oO( ~
a:
a ....
II-
~
<.
c
~'r
~~
:;:'CL
~
,
=;
~
,'J:"'l
J~
..
~
c
(
(
~ '
0~~!
___ --J '
~\Q
w-
, ' -......
--Ij
'-.10
()
~o '
----....::.::~:l
~-
!J ,,'"
~I
G '"."""1
~ ~
c::.liJ
,
!i
'., ;
i, '
';' I
,:
fl
"'
)
(
{
\
__--- I
; ~ ~
Hili
~i [ ~ ! ~ ~
I
I I, n Z
i,-,\.J;J~
I-
~ ~
Ng ~
z
o
i=
<
N
w-
~ ~ ~t:!
lreI i=o ~
:J~O ;2': ~
D..I-~ a:< :Ii
:;! en ~>-!:!
:I ...I<!:i!
IW <lE..:
lI.. x Ii!
a: < 0
< I- it
I-
-
,I
".
"
,-,
~ <
: < ~ IT ~:'
[ ~ 8 ~' ~ ;~
nll 0 ill
- - ~ ~
<. _ c
, "
~ ~~
~ ~~
.; :::: t
:[ :;~
8 <c
i ~~
; ,
II
, ,
, ,
II
"
: ~
"
IlTM~'~,(;,:fW
\ ' , ! :~h. "0':;,: i/
---1.'.-',! I~.-.I>,':,~" 111' ~~I'i/~, r'<:::.~-
I' I .,-.....,.---' . ' . ;l~.H -l I 'n :::---.:::':---..
: . ~_I, iC ". I?II,) I I ~~~"
'T-+-r __ . .._ i ~ r--y- J ,,I I 1;1" '
, J i 1 ", '-l' ,,(; ,-~
I!' ,'4; ,"" 1 '1 I ~-"::~ (i
~M~ ~'~ <l~'-W C:.;"'---:::..>-.<
~-~ 1_ /}
1 i 1;1~":j,.+~~.=' jl, ~T~:f:~
11'1r..~~'~:::; I" ,Iii
/ '1 f1IJ ; -. ~III ~ 1':
I:: II:!>. 1'1111 '];~r~D!~~~-.
'f' li1J:,.~i'llfl0 g
! 1 'i DJi.llr1~.:~,:+~1.I!il~lr~o~
" /-.I;J~' I ~o~p
, I . ~~ -. ~ r--~"l:r
{I' I' ,r~. . .!!tJl j IllD o~~
C I M,'~~' ',' (S~~D~
:: 1'/' 11'1' ~'U~ 'i' , o?i6~::::
: :!? ~ 'I' ~ ~F): l,~ (
:~',;' I'" ': .C-~---
It i I 'u" J:I' r"->~ t; ~,
! I:~i! II "I ;,.~,'i,:I':11 .0, ~~>"-
I.'{ !,ti I' ".j!
, ' ! ~"~ I' ~' ~
; {: :l:kir~- ill I ~~~~
11]1'1 ;b~llt~U ,j:J [)"
j: U.i~) ",!: I ;~tF7], ~ fQ:><,~-.,.,-.,'<'-
I,';''', ,-!~' ',' ." r,:c
"- (EoC---'~:' ..... ~
-, ; Ii '11.,1:.,'1, , -,~',,",," n ~~-~',-.t!iZ~
: ill:I!. :-~il!,ll .~~! ., -~' ~
I;' , I rr==;.! i~ ~/~ ,~:,~;
,: d LCJ)' r<c '- J! ~ ,~.~, ~, ,.~
" 'L'i-'!~ l,.~, " ~
I!i I:i' i lit~'L! ~)r\
, , I' I'~ i'~ \\~i '[-~'~~~
I I; I: ~I / i 1,&2 --:;;- i I' 1 " /,!!!:..
, '" 'I'" 'I,,~I,I r"<> ~ '""
i : :-1 :~i'" <:.r ;T:;'I '- r.-.~"-t.::.
III', I: ."IIIIf,l~...=... ,",".'! ,~I [:~,t)o'"
"- I :" _ I"'~rhi:~' ,,,1 iJ,.... --------=:
" ' ,-+--",' -, "I c:::;"
I: " '. ,~r~'J~ " 'i,c.jlf70 Jr
I .Ii I i'" ,,'~'c...'J-" .:,.1 'I .f1~-(.J
: ',:. ! 1;1 >1 IIH'J;~^;_^,ij:II:1 ,~@
.' ,II':, ,~'.y.~.JI" 'l'I~-
i -f~ : i ll~'~f' :.~ ~.:~~: ;;~ ".! -~---'---.-."~:;:--.
lil .....,,;-lh~,,-J...-:..:,,"!r-1,J:!', \~ DL,iJJ,/
::l ',.' ~C;~ J-<~
~: :c"~ I : : ." I, 1"111~~i ~"Bdl,'ii V ~~~
'..lec ~ , , I; ,,-~~, , I c:, c.r
;-~} ~, . ~'~_.. :t ~;t~ Iii \ ;~~J:;
____/ ;: ( \'~._ ,=,_.- ~_ ~ ,";, _~u;" ',' : -'"'-~
; I, ,-.j\ '~! L II
/r:) ili:; ; i ~~: -111111 ~1"-,-lJ~.,,,,,,,,,-<
!....,'--c': '~', / \ \'AA",
"'- '.I~I' 1- .._1" "1
,I' '\ Ii".'
),,1).\1 ", \!~ "I.II:I~' [0 :-:'~~','
(~ 'Il~' j '~ lil:, c-,;'
\,;~~', ,~' !', \ j i '-1 L--,'"
-..........,\) , . 1-'ll":5J I
'-\ i-" ; '~~ l'I' rl r--- aLl 0
. I \ _ ' '~ [ill, ~'~~
: ~:
::: !If;
. --------
'. (~ -,
~,.. :J:1.'
~....~ ~
i'1 ' ,
!pl f
, ~'
II :
, '
!D'
,
, '
I ,~
ID I
:
,
: ~ ~
I \e.
, ,:J .
l~ I
I i~; ,
.......~ II C ;
J ~: 0 f
n:li "
-~ 16 1-
01 Jo r
:: .D.".
1\ -
i' : i - ~I
U;j ;
J i\ 0 ':
~ ' I '
~>:: .
I i!,1 I..
-u] "
"
I',
~,~ I'
o ,co....'\
_ '--l
~.;; Q
_/ ;11~' ,
~.
, I:
. ()i.-',. ,.0. . ~';'.,
.~S.-:.--._.I':
:--" ~._~
'-' cJ :
;) c:J I,
00, ~
. ;-
"C'
,c_'f\'
1
\~
u
, ~
~ ! ~
i
: _ \:J::J ~ i
I ,
J-
~ I t
~ ..,0 ~i
l!!li ILIz zg
~l'5: ~t: ~~
~~~ ~~ ;~
ll.J-< a: 8
... [/l ~ >- ~
<9 ;i~ i:i~
IW z" ~
~ ~ ~
;;;; I- Ii
u.
:i:
1/1
".1
"i
11
"- '
,
,
.,
~
"
,
c
"
" ~ "
~ ~
< :~'
< ~ ~
< ~
~ '~.
<.',,:
"-'<:"
...; ...
<
"
f ~ ; ,.;~;;
I. " ,.--\ ,i 'U7fif{fI
Ii,'. ,I , I~'r'~,'~ ~n .!i,'it Ii
_"_ : :, ./ ~!I i ~ :~I' sL J ii i:,~r il
"?~ i; ,!.-,-'L ;:!L~"'1 (~~
". "1.,, '-',.._.. '_III.I~',k,' -IT'll' \~I n~"
J~' D~' "; .-,~: j t', ."=- ':,.; .~I j. i / o---~
~n I,j~' ~ ;-, '-'i ,~r 1,1 1 '~~~ 0;:;:
I,: \0 It" "', C ,~- ,! III I n'", ~ ~~?::::"c:
I I I ;~ '. ~ -I 'II '~ ~
i i'[]' ",,:,' I I ~~~;~~ ,-il';, n['-~-~;:'
" ',' '~ >, ," r u ~~
! ':: I: il!l:r: ,Lhrl~~,-~' 'c-
j I ~ t~',it' ;>:11Ii' ~ ~ I;: -
-! ~ !:~ :.., 1:111'11: !-"r : Ii 1 ~'lf~II'~11 i'~:; Q
W': . ""l'; "~I ~:'l ,-_~'J '::::
C',' !;""I ., '1Ir: "li'~~I: r;~~
C! B '\; "llll '4~~'1' ~~:_r:o~
Ci g II. '1'1 f'~' FT,,":, I uo?;;~
J,~ ~I,.',' II 'Il'f 1:1:,f~~I: ~;-~~$
: U IJ '1'1' 1 ;:I':lrti~ I 0 ::
E i, " :1 I: ~i~T'I" [~~~~
D~.J c!~',,' II 1111, r ,:j~II!JJ"'!i! [~-~;
~~':c-)!':~I 1,llll ::I'l!~~fll!i:~ " ~
,~ 1:,1 :\1 ': b~~!~~ 2/l
I, "'III ,~r" ;, 'Ill i ~ ',\ ~rcs~~
'!,: 'II1 ~ 1 , 'r" )(~, J lo
Ill! 1"'1 Ii ~: i i I':!r--: !,!I ft Ir~~~~,
" I ~ I ~ ~.--' I ~,~ _ ~ -...........:
,I, I'I:~' ,11r -111 'IIJ' 17'
"'. '", '11 ~ I ,~;:-~~ ! k: r--,
< ",i+--'i'lll r-'c~0
Ii I: ~ : I: I ~ III r-'::"~.-.:::~;/
1:\ :,1 '::1 -.( II '-. /~~r-
,~ --~ \ ~,
,'I'f~, '~c~IIII~:
,Ill 11ffJ:= -~'q" L~n
>~~ ' 1:1,11 ~r'~~ i~I'11~~"'-~~
~O::J'I: :1,+ H"~~'II\\I~._,i~
::; ),'ji 8,,' . ' 'III~ !' ' !,,- I . ......0 5::;5
~ ' .~I. , ~--., lr~
b<::::,!' " 'I,~;, r ~. ,J' l"" rJ;;:--~
--'~li ,I ~ \'-i:.~J?J 1 "I t::::; "
> [' ,;;) ,".", (:rF~!1 ~ ~~~:;o t[J
':::-' D.,.. : , . :11 ~ !, L C;::,..c:::11 'I 'j) --~-
~<_: ~. I ;11 r-~ "'l "'......... '71ii
r,~~I: lil 0":' ,: 79111'1 '.J ---..:;~'
~".c:J.=' I' :1..l~I'i -"l:~~ : ! ' ~ !!I ,) 1 }J~
DC! · . I' I, , ' ~ ~!;1 n ~!/;;;~
.----~~~='. "Ii : '-: E;~~~:~:P I , U, [j~
~~:'"8 ',I' i, PltL~r:li~~~lli llP-?~~
-'=~_(Jjf! I .'~' L,~_II:, -0 0(
,(~ llli) · :\~;rtl,i'I'>'>
~~" ~ ! \ t! I!:! ,.1.11 '., [~':::::::::::::~' :
/ ,\) i ' ~ -I j, I" I D \. :
~0 l ~ 1m; jl I
~u '"i, I, [1'1 ~ 0
-..' l {\ ,..JII~
~"~_.\ . /" i' 'lc~Th~ V r:IS~~
'I:
I'
~i
I _ ,.,
~.,DD~~
! - I
z
o
~
N
we
!;i !i 'I'
00.,
~Zl.)
c.;:::;:
-I(/)
""0
-I
W
ii:
a:
:i
(/)
~~
13ffi
~~ >-
() "" i
1i:o.. "
ort;9 i
~~~ ~~-
... ~" It! ~
<t~ ~ U
!5w.:; .,1.)
~ _..~
;il!i~ =1
~z ~i
z2 ..J
<t I- "-
e""
o()
>0
<tirl
a::
":,,'1'.
~.
.. I
0::: ,~
q";':
:.-cr
.>;'.;"
~ 'J.
o
J
:=! '; ~
f1 ~ ~
! ;