Loading...
Backup Documents 05/08/2012 Item #10A6EIFKt -�- 12enJoudkSHrn� Proposed v. Needed Beach Renourishment - Material Discrepancies Noted Page 1 of 2 Proposed v. Needed Beach Renourishment - Material Discrepancies Noted 14em HillerGeorgia sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 3:23 PM To: HillerGeorgia There is a material difference between what the county claims is needed to renourish the beaches and what is in fact needed based on the current state of the beaches. The intent should be to restore the beaches to their as built volumes in 2006, with a six (6) year design life. We know what the current sand volumes are based on the monitoring reports compiled by Humiston & Moore Engineers, which you all have. The county can't know what will be needed to avoid renourishing for a 10 year period. What is significant is that Alternative 2 of CPE's concept plan which proposes what is needed to implement the "traditional /existing" 2006 design, materially overstates the cubic yards needed to restore the beaches to 2006 volumes. If CPE's Alternative 2 is materially overstated, in other words you don't even need as much as what CPE is proposing for six years, you don't need what is being proposed for 10 years which follows. Please refer to Page 41 of the proposed Renourishment Concept Plan prepared by Coastal Planning & Engineering ( "CPE "). (See attached.) CPE introduction states on Page 41 that 482,031 cubic yards of sand are needed to re- establish the Vanderbilt, Park Shore and Naples beaches back to the 2006 historic design standard with a six year design life. The Humiston & Moore monitoring report shows that since 2006 to the present, the erosion amounts to 180,000 cubic yards of sand. CPE overstates the loss of volume by 302,000 cubic yards. CPE's design requires over 2.5 times more than what is needed to achieve the 2006 as built volume. The 2006 as built volume upon completion of the renourishment was 667,000 cubic yards. There is more than 500,000 cubic yards of sand still remaining on these beaches, 6 years later. The actual 6 year loss of 180,000 cubic yards represents a loss of only 27 %, and yet CPE is proposing a design as if 73% of the beaches have eroded. On Page 41 of CPE's concept plan, even the wording as to what is the proposed standard for each of the three beaches differs. Reiterating, CPE under alternative 2, entitled Traditional Existing Design, materially overstates what is needed to achieve the 2006 design causing alternative 3, the 10 year design for advanced renourishment, to be overstated since it builds on alternative 2. A summary and analysis of Page 41 of CPE's plan follows: 1. CPE's proposal for Vanderbilt Beach - "41,733 CY to refill to 2006 design" Analysis : The 2006 design was 178,000 CY meaning CPE is renourishing for a 24% loss which brings that beach back to the 2006 design. 2. CPE's proposal for Park Shore Beach - "138,132 CY to bring it back to the INTENDED STANDARD" Analysis: CPE's proposal presumes a 99% loss of the Park Shore beach. The 2006 as built volume was 140,000 CY. CPE's proposal states 138,132 CY are needed. This is not the case. See Humiston & Moore's monitoring report. Note that the wording "2006 design" applied to Vanderbilt has been replaced by "intended design standard" which is not defined and is not the 2006 design standard. 3. CPE's Proposal for Naples Beach - "302,166 CY to return to its FULL DESIGN INTENT" Analysis: Again, CPE's proposal grossly overstates what is needed. The as built volume of Naples Breach in 2006 was 345,000 CY. Requiring 302,166 CY suggests a 87% loss which is not the case. See Humiston & Moore's monitoring report. Importantly, note the standard is not the "2006 design" as for Vanderbilt. The wording for this beach's standard even differs from the Park Shore standard. Lastly, "full design intent" is not defined. In sum, under alternative 2, only Vanderbilt Beach is being renourished to the 2006 design standard based on actual losses, verified by Humiston & Moore's monitoring report. Park Shore and Naples are being renourished to completely different standards, far in excess of what is need to achieve the 2006 design. Again the average actual loss for these 3 beaches is about 25 %. The design for Park Shore provides for 99% or 74% more than the 2006 design. The design for Naples provided for 87% or 62% more than the 2006 design. CPE grossly overstates what is needed to achieve the 2006 design standard, before even offering the 10 year design standard /needs which builds upon the 2006 design standard. Neither alternatives 2, nor 3 can be relied upon. https:llmail. colliergov.netlowal? ae= Item &t = IPM. Note& id= RgAAAACBw7hYJwxI SLoTg %2fI %2fTJsGxBwAOKygR7oFzTb... 5/7/2012 Proposed v. Needed Beach Renourishment - Material Discrepancies Noted Page 2 of 2 Furthermore, the Barefoot Beach renourishment must remain outside of the scope of this renourishment plan. Barefoot is a separate and distinct project that is part of the Wiggins Inlet Management Plan and must be financed and monitored separately from the VB/PS/Naples plan, as has been the case in the past. Incidentally, the engineering design for Wiggins Pass was done by CPE, the same firm that is proposing the overstated renourishment concept plan. The Wiggins project is estimated at between $3.5 to $5 million dollars. It is an unproven approach, and as such the portion of this project related to renourishment should not be buried in the VB/PS/Naples project. The financial success or failure of the Wiggins Inlet project and the resulting erosion of Barefoot Beach needs to stand on its own. The financial impact of adjusting the concept plan based on the overstatement of the actual need and the Barefoot addition - without even going to the merits of the additional representations in alternative 3 - is approximately an $8,045,000 reduction in the project's cost. Alternative 2 would drop from $19 million to $14 million. Alternative 3 would drop at a minimum from $31 million to $23 million. Adjusting for the volume inflation in concept 2, and the scope adjustment in concept 3, the overall savings over what has been adopted by the BCC is $17 million, which is the difference between $31 million (BCC adopted) and $14 million (need based). As to the Marco beaches, the monitoring report shows that the Marco beaches have grown since the 2006 renourishment by 174,000 CY of sand. There has been accretion, not erosion, except with respect to the South Marco beach which has lost 14,000 CY, but is filling in naturally. So why is additional sand being proposed for those beaches, which are now larger then they were after being renourished in 2006? The proposed cost to add 104,000 CY of sand to the Marco beaches should be removed saving almost $2 million. Separately, any federal funds related to Tropical Storm Fay should only go to those beaches adversely affected by that storm and made a part of the grant request. I have asked for a copy of the grant proposal and a summary of the funding expended by the county and reimbursed by the Feds to determine where the county stands on this application. This storm occurred several years ago. Those beaches should already have been restored to their pre -storm volumes. A separate review of this matter will follow upon completion. It is clear from the few examples presented above that Commissioner Henning is justified in bringing this matter back for reconsideration. With thanks, Commissioner Georgia Hiller Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e -mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. https : / /mail.colliergov.netlowal ?ae= Item &t = IPM. Note& id= RgAAAACBw7hYJwxISLoTg %2f1 %2fUsGxBwAOKygR7oFzTb... 5/7/2012 s Park Shore The north Park Shore FEMA limits extend from R -45 to R -47. These profiles will receive 21,000 cubic yards of fill centered about R -46. The south Park Shore FEMA limits extend from R -51 to R -53. The design volume for this area is 30,000 cubic yards centered about R -52. Naples Beach The fill limits for the Naples Beach FEMA project extend from R -58A to R -65 and R -70 to R -72. In total, this area has a design volume of 84,000 cubic yards. The profiles to the north will receive 64,000 cubic yards of fill concentrated near R -62 to help mitigate losses to Doctors Pass. The area between R -70 and R -72 is also designed to receive 20,000 cubic yards, with fill centered about R -71. Alternative 2: Traditional/Existing Design The design volume is based on the quantity of sand needed to re- establish the design berm and provide 6 years of advanced nourishment using the 2006 project design. The design berm is 100 feet in Vanderbilt and Naples Beaches and 85 feet in Park Shore Beach. The amount of fill needed to bring the historic project areas back to design standard with a six year design life is 482,031 cubic yards (Table 8). The design method in spreadsheet form is provide in Table 11 at the end of this report. Vanderbilt Beach The fill limits of the previously permitted project in Vanderbilt are approximately R -22 to R -31. This area needs approximately 41,733 cubic yards to refill the 2006 design. Park Shore Beach The fill limits of the previously permitted project in Park Shore are approximately R -45 to R -55. Overall this area needs 138,132 cubic yards to bring it back to the intended design standard. Naples Beach The fill limits of the previously permitted project in Naples are approximately R -58A to R -79. Overall, this area needs 302,166 cubic yards to return to its full design intent. Alternative 3: Expanded Design The design volume for the expanded design is based on the quantity of sand needed to widen the construction profile to provide 10 years of advanced nourishment. The design beach width 41 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC 1�eA _46­104 remains the same as Alternative 2, except as stated below. The area south of Doctors Pass and Clam Pass will have a design width of 80 feet. This design volume includes raising the berm 1 foot for the expanded design option. The berm will be raised from 4 ft NAVD to 5 ft NAVD, but additional analysis will be needed to provide the proper transition between the natural beach and berm system, and the additional height may not be practical everywhere. From preliminary analysis, it appears that approximately 75% of the profiles can be heightened. A typical cross - section comparing the 2005/06 permitted template versus the expanded template is shown Figure 8. The design method in spreadsheet form is provided in Table 12 and 13 at the end of this report. FIGURE 8: Typical Naples Profile. Vanderbilt Beach The fill limits of the Vanderbilt project area are approximately R -22 to R -31. Approximately 58,056 cubic yards is proposed within this project area to expand its design life and raise the berm elevation. The design beach width and berm elevation is 100 feet and 4 ft NAVD respectively. An increased elevation of 5 feet NAVD will be used where the landward intercept is accommodating and /or where beach width is restricted by near shore hardbottom. 42 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC 409- /fens X10.4 Park Shore Beach The fill limits of the Park Shore project area are approximately R -45 to R -55. Overall, approximately 186,166 cubic yards of material is proposed for placement within this reach. This volume is restricted at a few areas due to the close proximity of hardbottom, which may limit project life. This may be moderated by analysis during modeling or the detailed design phase. The design beach width and berm elevation is 85 feet and 4 ft NAVD respectively. An increased elevation of 5 feet NAVD will be used where the landward intercept is accommodating and/or where beach width is restricted by near shore hardbottom. Naples Beach The fill limits of the Naples Beach project area are approximately R -58A to R -79. The expanded design within this area requires 413,008 cubic yards of material. The profiles immediately south of Doctors Pass near R -58 cannot fit an expanded template needed to support a 10 year renourishment interval due to potential hardbottom impacts. Modified inlet management practices should be able to address much of the hot spot problem, supplemented with a spur off the Doctors Pass jetty. The volume for this reach does not change with a change in inlet disposal locations, but the distribution of fill in Table 12 does. The design beach width and berm elevation is 100 feet and 4 ft NAVD respectively. An increased elevation of 5 feet NAVD will be used where the landward intercept is accommodating and /or where beach width is restricted by near shore hardbottom. The design width south of the inlet is 80 feet through R -59, due to the hardbottom restrictions. New Areas The two new areas that are proposed for the expanded project are located directly north of Wiggins Pass and directly south of Clam Pass. Barefoot Beach The Barefoot Beach area is located from R -14 to R -16 and has recently been designated as a critically eroded area by the FDEP. Approximately 100,000 cubic yards is proposed within this area to supplement fill placed from the maintenance dredging of Wiggins Pass and the proposed inlet realignment project. Initial estimated total cut volumes from Wiggins Pass are realignment approximately 80,000 cubic yards. This material will be used to fill the meander channel and create dikes along with restoring the shoreline to the north. The shoreline at Barefoot Beach requires more sediment than available from dredging the Pass, so supplementing it with fill from the renourishment project will aid in its restoration. It is estimated that 25,000 cubic yards can be provided on the initial inlet dredging, and at least 35,000 cubic yards every 4 years thereafter. In conjunction with nourishment, almost 200,000 cubic yards can be placed in 8 years. The design berm elevation is 4 ft NAVD or equal to the natural 43 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC beach. The design goal in conjunction with inlet management is to restore the beach towards historic widths. Clam Pass Park The area south of Clam Pass from R -42 to R -45 is the second proposed expansion area to the Collier County Renourishment Project. Fill to the north of Park Shore will stabilize the area, acting as a feeder beach. Approximately 30,000 cubic yards is proposed within this area. The fill will supplement sand from bypassing at Clam Pass, which alone is insufficient. The disposal site for Clam Pass bypassing should be extended further south to address a hot spot located south of R -44. The design template will be the similar to that proposed for the Clam Pass dredging project. The design beach width and berm elevation is 80 feet and 4 ft NAVD, respectively. An increased elevation of 5 feet NAVD will be used where the landward intercept is accommodating and where beach width is restricted by near shore hardbottom. The width is restricted for this entire reach. Alternative 4: Erosion Control Structures Structures have been proposed as one means of alleviating erosion in hot spot areas. Some types of structures suitable for use in Collier County are illustrated at the end of this report in Photographs 10 through 15 and Figure 20. Structural changes being considered for modeling are described in section XIV. Alternative 5: Alternative Sand Sources /Construction Methods Alternative sand sources and construction methods will be considered during design and project life. Each of the borrow areas that are proposed for use during the upcoming project requires different equipment in order to bring sand to the project area. For Borrow Area TI, a medium sized hopper dredge will be needed along with approximately 3 miles of submerged pipeline to transport the material to the shore. Booster pumps will also be required to supply extra force to ensure the sediment can transverse the entire length of the pipeline. For the Cape Romano borrow area, a hydraulic dredge with a scow will be required to remove sediment from the source. A small hopper dredge would also be feasible. Due to each of the borrow area's unique traits, a joint borrow area bidding scenario is unlikely, but could be feasible if a bidder used a hydraulic dredge and scow. In addition to the initial fill placement, upland sand sources may be used to alleviate erosional hot spots. Truck haul projects are advantageous when a small area requires extra fill, but they cause an unwarranted nuisance and need to be avoided. Mobilization prices can be costly for dredges, so using an upland sand source helps reduce the cost for smaller projects. 44 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Gaps in Fill Currently, gaps are proposed where a portion of shoreline does not need fill. If desired by the County, these gaps can be filled in at a minimum 10 c.y. /1.£, which is the smallest practical amount a dredge contractor can place. This "gap fill ", however, will substantially increase the cost of the project, but does help prevent lateral spreading of the design fill into surrounding areas. It is important to note that these gaps may be modified in the final design. Some gap areas may be partially filled in to alleviate losses from spreading and to account for detailed hardbottom avoidance. Below is a list of the areas where there are gaps in fill plan and no fill will be placed for Alternatives 2 and 3: R -22 to R -24 R -50 R -66 to R -69 R -31 R -54 R -73 to R -75 R -49 R -55 R -77 to R -79 XIII. SCHEDULE The project is tentatively scheduled for the November 2013 to April 2014 period, and will take approximately 4 months. If construction savings are desired, then summer construction in conjunction with another community offers the best prospect for savings. The May -July period has the calmest weather, which will lead to a shorter construction period and higher production rate when pumping. XIV. TASK LEADING TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE 2013 -14 PROJECT The project cost includes dredging and the professional services and management necessary to bring the project to construction and complete the required pre -, during- and post construction monitoring and inspections. This list should be updated based on a pre - permit application meeting with FDEP. A list of the tasks needed to prepare the project for construction and conduct the inspections and investigations necessary are summarized below: Permit Design, Plans and Specification for 2013 -14 Project Pre - Application Meeting FDEP Pipeline Corridor Mapping -3 New Ones with Operational Areas Special Design Survey for Structures, ECL & 3D Design Process ECL Survey Structural Areas Survey intermediate lines at hardbottom inflection points for 3D design 3 -D Design Update (around hardbottom) with larger fill section and new reaches Add Clam Pass Park and Barefoot Beach Address Hot Spots and Hardbottom Avoidance with intermediate profile line Run model with refinements and to revalidate design and Spreading magnitude Design structure modifications and removals Prepare BOEMRE Environmental Assessment 45 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC Prepare & submit permit modification to 2005 Permit with new Permit Sketches RAI Cycle with Meetings Update biological and physical monitoring plans Develop Hardbottom Impact Assessment Develop Plans and Specifications Bidding and Award Pre -, During- and Post - Construction Task Pre - Construction Survey Pre - Construction Biological Monitoring Hardbottom mapping using side scan Construction Assistance Services Pipeline Corridors Monitoring Shore Bird Sea Turtle Monitoring Post - Construction Survey, Report and Certification Post - Construction Biological Monitoring and Report XV. COST ANALYSIS The cost of the project is principally a function of distance to the borrow areas, cut depths, and shallowness of the nearshore bathymetry, which leads to long pumping distance after the sand has traveled to the submerged pipeline location. Grain size, water depth at the borrow area, and equipment play a secondary role. This cost estimate is based on experience derived from the 2005/2006 Collier County Renourishment Project, recent dredge industry practices, and a price adjustment of 2.2% per year until 2013 -14. Dredge contractors are placing a larger percent of cost in mobilization, and less in the unit cost component. The cost in Table 9 is summarized based on the volumes in Table 8. Given the ever increasing cost of dredging, combined bidding of the Collier County project with a similar regional project from the west coast of Florida could provide a significant cost savings. We have an estimate for cost saving considering a joint biding with another county or city government. A limited amount of structural work is considered, which includes building the south jetty spur at Doctors Pass and the removal of a few groins. Some matereail form groin removal may be suitable for use in the Jetty spur. The cost estimate includes removal of some of the existing groins for Alternative 2 and 3, and the construction of a jetty spur for Alternative 3. There is no cost difference for the alternatives designed to support sand bypassing to the Lowdermilk Park or adjacent to the Doctors Pass south jetty disposal area. Doctors Pass dredging would be less expensive with the closer disposal area. Fill for a feeder beach or additional advanced nourishment to a hot spot has been included for use during the detailed design phase of this project. The cost for increasing the beach design elevation to 5 ft. NAVD is small and will decrease the potential for hot spots. The County currently has a FEMA approved project based on erosion experienced during Tropical Storm Fay. This funding can help support the mobilization and demobilization costs, 46 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC ox; Aft 00610011- which are a costly component of the project. The County may also obtained cost sharing money from the FDEP, which will be used for applicable areas of the project. Alternative 2A illustrates one way to reduce the price of the project. It keeps the renourishment interval at 6 years, while keeping the two new reaches and limited structure funding. There are many strategies and small changes to the project that can be implemented to reduce the price, which can be fleshed out during the planning and implementation process. For example the cost savings of reducing the renourishment interval from 10 to 8 years amounts to $2.8 million. A moderate savings is assumed in the cost estimate from use of joint bidding and construction with an adjacent project to including cost efficiency desired by the dredge contractors. The greatest dredging cost savings need the following characteristics: -Early availability of draft Plans and Specifications -Long and Flexible Construction Timetable - Combined bidding with similar public projects - Construction period includes calmer months — May to July The total project cost including engineering, permitting, surveys and monitoring for the three main alternatives are provided in Table 9. Potential savings are estimated, including reducing the project to an 8 -year life. 47 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC �5/� TABLE 9 COLLIER COUNTY PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE Item Unit Unit Cost Alt. 1 FEMA Design Alt 2 Existing Design Alt. 2A Existing Design Alt 3 10 -yr Nourishment Construct Beach Fill Hydraulically Fill Volume C.Y. 175,000 482,031 612,031 787,130 1. Mobilization/Demobilization L. S. $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 Beach Fill 2. Vanderbilt Beach 822.5 -R31 C Y. $28.00 $1,120,185 $1,168,707 $1,168,707 $1,625,832 3. Pelican Bay Beach 1 -R37 Cy. $31.55 $0 $0 $0 4. North Park Shore Beach 43.5 -R48 C.Y. $31.88 $669,391 $1,303,126 $1,303,126 $1,585,146 5. Park Shore Beach R48- R54.5) C.Y. $26.23 $786,780 $2,550,508 $2,550,508 $3,575,581 6. Naples Beach R58A-R79) C.Y. $30.29 $2,544,759 $9,154,037 $9,154,037 $12,511,965 7. Hot Spot / Feeder Volume C.Y. $29.59 $591,806 Environmental Monitorin & Set Buoys for Pipeline Corridor $28,747,46L $28,747 $28,747 $28,747 $28,747 9. Turbidity Monitoring $197,692.43 $197,692 $197,692 $197692 $197,692 Offshore Sea Turtle Mom rine ffl000er Dred a only) 10. Mobilization/Demob. of Turtle Trawler Event $4,233.83 ,234 $4,234 $4,234 $4,234 11. Relocation Trawling Da $4,068.75 ,730 $178,297 $178,297 $243,063 12. Endangered Species Observer Dav $673.18 ,710 4$9,.218 $29,499 $29,499 $40,215 13. Payment and Performance Bond L.S. 1 ,272 $183,148 $183,148 $241,043 SUB -TOTAL 1 $18,497,995 $18,497 ,995 $24,345.124 New Reaches 14. Barefoot Beach C.Y. $28.00 $0 $0 $2,800,000 $2,800,000 15. Clam Pass Park C.Y. $31.71 $0 $0 $951,300 $951,300 New reaches Sub -total S3,751-300 $3,751.300 Alternative 4: Structures $0 $0 $400 00 $1,600,000 16. Phase I Removal of Groins 17. Jetty Spur $0 $0 $0 $0 $400,000 $0 $700,000 $900,000 Professional Services $906,950 $9"50 $1,265,301 $1,490987 18. Final Design and Permitting 19. Pre -, During & Post Construction Services $266,460 $640,491 $266,460 $640,491 $487,562 $777,739 $576,000 $914.987 Sub -total without Savings $10,125,451 $19,404,945 $23-914,595 $31,187.611 Project Saving Goal Sub -Total .$1,233,490 -$1,818,586 42,016,322 -$5,614,001 20.Combined Project/Mobilization 21.Year Round and Flexible Construction Specs 22.Turde Relocation 23. Reduce Project Design Life to 8 years, 41,000,000 4333,490 $100,000 $0 - $1,000,000 - $918,586 $100,000 $0 - $1,000,000 - $1,166,322 $150,000 $0 - $1,500,000 - $1,500,000 $150,000 42364,001 Sub -total with Savings $8,891,961 $17,586.159 $21,898,274 $25,573,610 5% Conangency $444,598 $879,318 $1,094,914 $1,278,680 TOTAL $9.336,559 $18,465,677 $22993,187 126,852,290 48 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC V n m A 3 r m v m X O z m a W r m r m 21 O m a z m w a X O O 10 X H X O 2 m c W m A 00 m z c� M. X C X r m O m m .-. w 3 z c m U) m X c A 3 m z z a X O a v v X O z 2 m n 2 3 D O (10� X 0 T 0 0 M m z �rn� z m D G) z '-' z D z C) m �zz �Zo moo =voo m Y n�Lrl M z w 7o ) D T.DEn o <z =�o 03 >z� ono moo ~z n rn D -I N 0 �O� 3-�6 z�`J' C3z m rn Lo M N Z O 0 o V MO- N 0�rn o �� ozrn -M G) z03� M 0 > Z -� X r �O oW nup oV) C;� Z (DD V 0 z z a 3 m m z D m r m m z G) v m N 0 N a v v m m o - (D, fD rt `° O � � I c .a n 0 0 v 03 c U m Ma m a m H Z n m rm a u a m CL CM f+ m 'fl n cn n A 3 D Or r r m 3 r rn rn 70 p O �n O V X z r rn m r, �z� v 3 ;mo In G) G p C --Ii G) 3 m p O �zm m m = r N m m = W °o � m W w a _ Lrl m 3 mzW r Z � > Lnn m O in �<z R1 = It m _ X Ol p -< >Z� c v oQ0 n moo O '-' -a z z rn 7) rn m 03 co rn W -zl Duo a a oo° 7D z 3�6 v v z "' 7v a c3z O O m m m (1) M O 2E CD 7o a 00 v xn� -1 m O 20 rn p o Mo = N O NE 0 z rn m z m G) L/) � D Lm rn = 3 03 -� _ D 70 m N O z X O W G) n;� O� m m z a � v m z a m rt m V b E. M1 2 s r r r r a v v f � m �S n I fi a m z v a m 3 N r m fl 3 m m H z c� v rn I1-1 C c A 3 rt U2 m U2 n il .� O O v W _ a m rr Ma r m m H Z n r m ro a u n to J Q. m OT, g l�1 V n m n 3 T r m v m X O z m a W r m r m I m m v a z m W a X O 3 X O m C W m W m N z m a X v O X m r m v 0 2 X m m .. w 3 z C m m X c n O 3 m z z v X O a v v X m 3 m n nNn ADO � rn 000 rn rn z �rn:� z M o D � rn G) G) Z D 70 z n �Dz z !zl <O =03 °o rn�w . rnz � w c� VDU) 0az -� 'C� z _ ° 03 (f) 01-1 °�o moo rn,z ou co rn D � N CD ° Q � 3-�6 c3z rnrn° 0 N z --q o 00-'] ;u > r� Mo- o�rn �O °zrn � G�cn 3rn-_q rn0D 0 Z >-F' °0 OW 0� zV) G V a m m m 10 = O Z v m c �4 m 0 n -i- C1� a v v X m n (� (D m O ,tea' m :D c� tC c = � � n 5 � �s W _ a cfl OPON ma r m m ma X H Z n I" m X rm �D CL aj r* (D V a A m A 3 M r m m v m X O z 2 m a r m r m 0 m m v a Z m 00 a v O O M X m -I O m C 0' m 00 m m z m a X O C a X r m v O X m .-. W 3 Z c m m X O G A O 3 3 m Z m z a m O a v m O Z 2 m n 3D0 rr `3rX OTO z 0 c rn m z �m z SG) 0 D G) D z z ,m �zz O =rN =C000 rn�W n v, rnzw 70 D T D V) oCz =�O 0oLnp ;u 0Q0 =zD rn,z co 03 Q D N 0 O � 3--I0 Z � "' c3z m (1) rn M N O Z -I O op N 0�m �O �zm MG) V) 3m D X r �0 oW 0� zU) C vv a m 3 mn L m a � 3 rt � rr r 3 m Z G) v m a v v X tea c° t C, O c \ S �a �l G n n cD OD rt U2 m m _ ai z -a m n 4 0 0 00 CL Lo (D rt Ma r m m H Z r m X r um [D C. r+ m I r) r a v v X tea c° t C, O c \ S �a �l G n n cD OD rt U2 m m _ ai z -a m n 4 0 0 00 CL Lo (D rt Ma r m m H Z r m X r um [D C. r+ m I r)