1989-03-20 US Army Corp of Engineers Permit Eval & Decisiont. ~ ~ ~ r
U
St. Paul District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
EVALUATION AND DECISION DOCUMENT
Application Number: 88-252-12
Applicant: Mr. Michael Potter
Project: Placement of fill material into a wetland for the
development of a mini-warehouse storage facility
and a public sports arena.
PART I - INTRODUCTION
~~~'~
• This permit evaluation document includes my environmental assessment, as
required by the National Environmental Policy Act; my statement of findings; my
determinations regarding compliance with the section 404(b)(1) guidelines (if
appropriate) and the need for an environmental impact statement; and my
determination as to whether or not the project is contrary to the public
interest. (NOTE: The regulations under which the Corps of Engineers
administers its permit program are found at Title 33 of the Code. of Federal
Regulations, Parts 320 through 330.)
A public notice describing the project and its location is attached (Attachment
A).
PART II - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Purpose and need. The applicant's purpose is to profit from a land investment
by providing commercial facilities which he has determined to be in demand in
the Albertville area.
Alternatives. (P = Proposal. Al = No action (denial). A2, A3 = Additional
alternatives, if any.)
No action (A1). Denial of the permit would not allow the project to be
completed as designed on this site.
• Other project designs. Modifications in design were made by the applicant
after discussions with the Corps of Engineers. An initial design involved
filling across the entire eastern side of the property. This would have
1
CENCS-CO-RF (88-252-12)
APPLICANT: Michael Potter
•
resulted in more wetland fill and an alteration in the existing drainage
pattern. The revised project which is described as the proposal in the public
notice represents an attempt by the applicant to avoid and minimize wetland.
losses. The fill areas now proposed are located in areas where there has been
previous disturbance to the wetland by either fill for the old haul road in the
southern part of the site or by mowing and pasturing in the northern part of
the site. When asked about reducing the size of the building parcels, the
applicant indicted that his research of other facilities serving communities of
the size of Albertville showed that the building areas are properly sized. His
research indicated that a facility for public recreation and other activities
such as weddings and meetings must provide adequate parking. Because there is
no adjacent land .for parking, the applicant's plans call for onsite parking,
thereby increasing the size of the needed parcel. Also, the applicant stated
that there are limited storage facilities available in the area. and that the.
existing ones are used to capacity.
Other project locations. Because both of the structures proposed are non-water
dependent activities, other upland alternatives were discussed with the
.applicant. It has been over 18 months since the applicant first contacted the
Corps about permit requirements. During some initial review delays he
purchased this parcel. He indicated that other sites are no longer available
for him because of rapidly increasing land costs. He stated that other
property available 1 or 2 years ago has since been purchased or has greatly
risen in price due to the area's close proximity to Minneapolis Metropolitan
• area.
Agencies and persons consulted. The public notice was sent to .all known
interested parties, including the appropriate Federal, State, and local
agencies. A public notice mailing list is included in the permit file.
A summary of comments follows:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA provided no comments
during the public notice period.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The FWS provided no comments during the
public notice period.
State Department of Natural Resources (DNR). No filling would take place in a
State Protected Water, therefore a State permit is not required for this
project.
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Submitted a letter indicating that
the project was unlikely to affect historic structures or archaeological sites.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Waived water quality certification
but asked that mitigation for wetland losses be investigated.
Other. The Frankfort. Township attorney submitted a letter requesting that a
public hearing be held so the Town Board could learn more about the project.
e This request was denied but the. project was explained to the Board and a copy
of the environmental assessment will be provided to the Board.
Z
CENCS-CO-RF (88-252-12)
APPLICANT: Michael Potter
•
General public interest factors.
IMPACT KEY
B = Beneficial effect.
0 = No effect.
A Adverse effect.
T Temporary effect.
NOTE: Lack of narrative under any heading with a "B" or "A" in the
parentheses indicates that the effects would be minor.
If assessing more than one alternative, the effects for each alternative
will be shown in separate parentheses.
Example: Noise Levels. P (T,B); A2 (B)
Noise levels. (0) While there would be temporary construction noise and
probably an increase in traffic noise with the proposal, the increase should
not be noticeable due to the noise currently generated by the nearby Interstate
Highway.
Aesthetic values. (A,B) The affect on .aesthetics will vary between observers.
Some may find the existing setting pleasing, while others would prefer a
developed landscape.
• Recreation. {B) Recreational opportunities would increase due to that portion
of the project involving the construction of a sports arena.
Transportation. (0)
Public health.- (0)
Safety. (0)
Community growth. (0)
Business/home relocations. (0)
Existing/potential land use. The surrounding area is undergoing land use
changes due to the fairly recent construction of several homes on the upland
immediately to the east of the site. To the north is a commercial nursery.
The area to the south and west toward the Interstate is undeveloped and
generally wetland similar to what which is found on the applicant's site. A
small cemetery is located just to the west of the site. The applicant's site
is generally wetland with the exception of an old haul road and fringe upland
along the, road which forms the east border of the site. The largest part of
upland is an area about 1.75 acres in size in the northern portion of .the
property which would be used as the site for the public sports center..
• Property: values. (B)
Tax revenues. (B)
3
CENCS-CO-RF (88-252-12)
APPLICANT: Michael Potter
•
Public facilities and services. (0)
Employment. (B) The same benefits would occur for employment and business
activity if the project were .constructed at another site.
Business activity. (B)
Farmland/food supply. (0)
Flooding. (0) A concern was raised about potential for drainage problems
should the project be constructed. An earlier plan (not evaluated in this
assessment) did involve the filling of the entire eastern portion of the site,
including the existing drainage way across the property. The plan under review
now avoids filling this area and maintains the existing flow. It is not
anticipated that this project would greatly increase the potential for
flooding. Should additional development occur on the higher ground to the east
on the adjacent properties, increased runoff will need to be addressed,
possibly in the form of retention ponds or a drainage pattern to carry more of
the adjacent runoff to the north or east. A2 and A3 would further reduce the
likelihood of flooding by reducing the amount of impervious surface on the
site.
Energy. (0)
Mineral needs. (0)
Air quality. (0)
Terrestrial habitat. (0) The terrestrial habitat in immediate vicinity of the
project is very limited. A large area to the north has been. converted to a
nursery with many young trees. Some trees are also present on the cemetery
land and around a farm house to the east. Upland grasses and scattered trees
are present along the old roadbed. The applicant has indicated a desire to
maintain. these trees for diversity even if the rest of the old haul road is
removed as a mitigation measure.. The remaining upland on .this site and in the
housing area to the east is currently open grassland which appears to have been
mowed in the past.
Aquatic habitat. (A,B) Mixed effects would occur due to the overall loss of
wetland acreage and the increase of diversity with the mitigation. The
wetland types located on the property currently consist of Types 1, 2 and 3.
It is estimated that approximately 3 acres of wetland would be filled by the
proposal. The proposal would involve filling of the Type 1 wetland areas which
appears to have been impacted by mowing and/or pasturing. Some Type 3 wetland
would be filled adjacent to the haul road for the storage facility.
The mitigation measures discussed with the applicant involve the
excavation/removal of the old haul road to recreate wetland habitat and to
create a more permanent open water area in the heart of the existing basin.
• With the retention of the trees along the haul road and the creation of open
water the basin would have an increase in diversity from the existing condi-
bons. Removal of the old roadbed would recreate approximately 1 acre of
4
CENCS-CO-RF (88-252-12)
APPLICANT: Michael Potter
•
•
~J
wetland.
Habitat diversity and interspersion. (B) See above discussion.
Water quality. (A) The project would increase site runoff containing
pollutants from the parking lot and. impervious surfaces associated with the
development. If adequate fringe wetland vegetation can be retained the water
quality impacts should be minimal.
Water supply. (0)
Groundwater. (O)
Soils. (O) The site is generally flat with some slope to the south. No
adverse effect on soils is anticipated provided adequate erosion control
measures are utilized.
Shoreline processes. (0)
Wetlands. See above discussion.
Secondary and cumulative effects. While all wetlands fills have cumulative
impacts, this project's impacts are minimized by the mitigation proposed and
because it would. occur in an area with less wetland development pressures.
Overall, effects should be minor.
Public interest factors meriting special consideration.
Navigation. (0)
Endangered species. (0)
Historical/archaeological. (0)
Wild and scenic rivers. (0)
The Environmental Protection Agency's 404(b)(1) guidelines.
The selection and use of disposal sites for the discharge of dredged or fill
material will be in accordance with guidelines developed by the Administrator
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The establishment of these
guidelines was required by Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act, and they
are therefore known as the 404(b)(1) guidelines. They are found at Title 40,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 230.
TESTING.
Does the discharge meet the testing exclusion? Yes, clean fill would be used.
TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS.
S
CENCS-CO-RF (88-252-12)
APPLICANT: Michael Potter
•
IMPACT KEY
B = Beneficial effect.
0 = No effect.
A = Adverse effect.
T = Temporary effect.
S = Significant effect.
CHEMICAL/PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM:
Substrate (A) The existing substrate would be compacted and altered during the
fill operation. Excavation along the old haul road .would allow that area to
return to its previous wetland condition.
Turbidity (0)
Water (A) It is anticipated that some sedimentation could occur and affect the
water column; this would be minimized by the retention of a vegetation buffer
strip.
Current Patterns (O)
Water Circulation (0) Existing water flow may be impacted to a slight degree
but the project is designed to maintain the drainage way and road culvert.
• BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM:
Endangered Species (0)
Aquatic Organisms/Food
Web (A) A minor adverse impact would occur due to the overall loss"aquatic
acreage by the project. Some organisms and wildlife species would be destroyed
by the filling and others would be forced to move to other areas of the
adjacent wetland. The mitigation may improve diversity to a degree where new
species may move into the area.
Wildlife (A,B) See above discussion.
SPECIAL AQUATIC SITES:
Sanctuaries/Refuges (0)
Wetlands (A) See above.
Mud Flats (0)
Vegetated Shallows (0)
• Riffle & Pool Complexes (0)
HUMAN USE CHARACTERISTICS:
6
CENCS-CO-RF (88-252-12)
APPLICANT: Michael Potter
C7
Water related recreation (0)
Water Supplies (0)
Fisheries (0)
Aesthetics (A,B) See above.
Parks, etc. (0)
SECTION 404B1 COMPLIANCE DETERMINATIONS.
P = Proposal. Al = No action (denial). A2, A3 = Additional alternatives, if
any. Where only a P is shown, it indicates that all a lternatives meet.
comp liance criteria for that item. An unknown is a no ncompliance; designate
with a U in the DOES NOT COMPLY column.
MEETS ~ DOES NOT
CRITERIA ~ COMPLY
1. The applicant must overcome the presumption. ~
that a practicable, less environmentally damaging ~
alternative site, outside special aquatic sites, P ~
exists. If the project is water dependent. OR ~
is not in a special aquatic site enter only NA ~
(not applicable). ~
2. There must be no alternative that is practicable, ~
is less damaging to the aquatic resource, P ~
and has no other significant, adverse
environmental effects.
3. The discharge must not violate state water ~
quality standards or Clean Water Act Section P ~
307 toxic effluent standards or bans. ~
4. The project must not jeopardize the continued ~
existence of an endangered species. P ~
5. The project must not cause significant ~
adverse effects on municipal water supplies, ~
plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife, special P ~
aquatic sites, or other aspects of human ~
health or welfare. ~
~--
6. The project must not cause significant ~
adverse effects on life stages of aquatic ~
life and other wildlife dependent on P ~
• - aquatic ecosystems.
----------------------------- ~
7. ----------------
The project must not cause significant ~
7
CENCS-CO-RF (88-252-12)
APPLICANT: Michael Potter
•
adverse effects on ecosystem diversity, P
productivity, or stability.
8. The project must not cause significant
adverse effects on recreational, P
aesthetic or economic values.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
9. All appropriate and practicable steps,
to minimize potential adverse effects of
the discharge on the aquatic ecosystem, P
.must be taken.
PART III - STATEMENT OF FINDINGS
Other authorizations.
Water-quality certification: Waived by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency.
State and/or local authorizations: A State DNE~ permit is not required.
The local approvals have not been acted on to date.
. 404(b)(1) compliance/non-compliance determination.
COMPLIANCE:
(X) The discharge with the roadbed removal as mitigation complies with the
guidelines.
( ) The discharge complies with the guidelines, with the inclusion of
appropriate and practicable conditions to minimize pollution or adverse effects
to the affected ecosystem.
NON-COMPLIANCE:
( ) The discharges fails to comply with the requirements of these guidelines
because:
( ) There is a practicable alternative to the discharge that would have less
adverse effect on the aquatic ecosystem, and that alternative would. not have
other significant adverse environmental consequences.
( ) The discharge would result in significant degradation of the aquatic
ecosystem.
( ) The discharge does not include all appropriate and practicable measures to
minimize potential harm to the aquatic ecosystem..
• ( ) There is not sufficient information to make a reasonable judgment as to
whether the proposed .discharge would comply with the guidelines.
8
CENCS-CO-RF (88-252-12)
APPLICANT: Michael Potter
r ~
L J
General Evaluation.
The relative extent of the public and private need for the proposed work.
The overall proposal includes aspects of both public need and private need.
The public sports center would provide. recreational opportunities for members
of the general public. The mini-storage facility may well be used by the
public but would be considered as a private commercial business activity. The
applicant has provided information showing a demand for these facilities in the
Albertville area.
The practicability of using reasonable alternative locations and methods to
accomplish the objective of the structure or work. The applicant has
demonstrated that other sites are not feasible. See above discussion of the
applicant's justification on the unavailability of other sites. Also, the
current. plan represents a modification to minimize wetland filling.
The extent and permanence of the beneficial and detrimental effects that the
proposed structure or work is likely to have on the public and private uses to
which the area is suited.• The public sports center and the roadbed excavation
would provide long term benefits to the public. A permanent net loss of about
3 acres of wetland would occur, however, the excavation would enhance the
existing habitat and offset the net loss of wetland acreage.
%' Finding of No Significant Impact. Having reviewed the information provided by
~ the applicant, the comments submitted by interested parties, and the
environmental assessment contained in this document, I find that this permit
action will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human
environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be
required. ~
~ 7 ~ ,~ ~~
Date
~ - ~\ - ~~
Date
•
~~
PROTECTION SPECIALIST
(Sec. Chief).
~- / ~ ~~Z
Ben Wopat
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Construction-Operations Division
9
CENCS-CO-RF (88-252-12)
APPLICANT: Michael Potter
•
PART IV - DECISION,_~
I have reviewed and evaluated, in light of the overall public interest, the
documents and factors concerning this .permit application as well as the state d
views of other interested agencies. and the concerned public. In doing so, I
have considered the possible consequences of this project in accordance with
regulations published in 33 CFR Part 320 to 330 and 40 CFR Part 230. I find
that issuance of a Department of the Army permit:
X would not be contrary to the public interest.
would be contrary to the public interest.
FEB d 3 )989
Date Roger L. Baldwin
Colonel, Corps o Eng' eers
District Engineer
•
•
10
a~
US Army Corps
• of Engineers '
St Gaul O~itnCt
PUBLIC NOTICE
APPLICANT: Michael and Heidi Potter
REFER T0: CENCS-CO-RF(88-252-23)
ISSUED: SEPT 15 1988
EXPIRES: OCT 17 1988
SECTION: 404 - Clean Water Act
1. APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO DISCHARGE FILL MATERIAL. Michael and Heidi
Potter proposed to discharge fill material in isolated wetlands near
Albertville, Minnesota. The purpose of the project is to make the site
suitable for development of a mini-warehouse storage facility and a municipal
sports arena.
2. SPECIFIC INFORMATION
APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 11650 57th Street N.E.
Albertville, Minnesota 55301
PHONE NUMBER: ( 612) 553 =~fi9~+9 ~-
.PROJECT LOCATION: The project site is located immediately northeast of
Albertville between Interstate Highway 94 and County Highway 37. This site. is
in the NW 1/4 NW 1/4 of section 6, township 120 N., range 23 W., Wright..
• County, Minnesota.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The applicants own a parcel of land. measuring
approximately 15 1/2 acres. The parcel consists of both upland and wetland
areas. Included in the upland is the bed of an abandoned road running from
southeast to northwest through the southern portion of the property. The
applicants propose to fill between 1.6 and 2.5 acres of wetlands in the
northern portion of the property to make that area suitable for construction
of a sports arena. After filling, the total upland area available for con-
struction of the arena would be approximately 5 acres. In addition to the
.filling for the arena,. the southeast corner of the 15.5-acre parcel would be
filled for a mini-warehouse storage facility. This part of the development
.would require the filling of about 1.1 acres of wetland for a total buildable
area of 1.5 acres.
MITIGATION: To mitigate for the wetland loss resulting from the filling,
the applicants propose to excavate upland areas on the property to create new
wetlands. One of the areas to be excavated is the portion of the old road
fill between the northwest corner of the mini-warehouse site. and the western
property line. The other area to be excavated is the upland area immediately
south of the cemetery that adjoins the northwestern portion of the property.
The total mitigation area is approximately 1.5 acres.
VEGETATION IN AFFECTED AREA: The wetland vegetation in the area is
typical of that associated with fresh meadaw and scrub-shrub wetlands.
• SOURCE OF FILL MATERIAL: Commercial sources and material excavated from
the mitigation areas.
1
SEPT 15 1988
•
CENCS-CO-RF (88-252-23)
SUBJECT: Notice of Application for Permit
SURROUNDING LAND USE: .Agricultural fields, interstate highway, cemetery,
small business, residential.
3. REPLIES/COMMENTS
Interested parties are invited to submit to this office written facts,
arguments, or objections within 30 days of the date of this notice. These
statements should bear upon the suitability of the location and the adequacy
of the project and should, if appropriate, suggest any changes believed to be
desirable. Comments received may be forwarded to the applicant.
Replies may be addressed to the District Engineer, St. Paul District, Corps of
Engineers, 1421 U.S. Post Office and Custom House, St. Paul, Minnesota. 55101-
1479, ATTENTION: Regulatory Functions Branch,
Or, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROJECT, call Henrik Strandskov at the St.
Paul District, (612) 220-0359.
4. THREATENED OR ENDANGERED. WILDLIFE. OR PLANTS OR THEIR CRITICAL HABITAT:
No threatened or endangered species are known to inhabit this area.
• This application is being. coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
.Any comments they may have concerning endangered or threatened wildlife or
.plants or their critical habitat will be considered in our final assessment of
the described work.
S. JURISDICTION: These wetlands come under the regulatory jurisdiction. of
the Corps of Engineers because their use, degradation, or destruction could
affect interstate or foreign commerce.
REGULATORY AUTHORITY: The application will be reviewed .according to the
provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Therefore, our public
interest review will consider the guidelines set forth under Section 404(b) of
the Clean Water Act (40 Code of Federal Regulations 230).
6. WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION.: This Public Notice has been sent to the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and is considered by the District Engineer
to constitute valid notification to that agency for water quality certifica-
tion. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has indicated that it intends to
review this project to determine the appropriate action .under Section 401 of
the Clean Water Act. Any comments relative to Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency actions may be sent to:
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Program Development
Division of Water Quality
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
2
SEPT 15 1988
r1
~J
•
•
CENCS-CO-RF (88-252-23)
SUBJECT: Notice of Application for Permit
7. HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL
This public notice is being sent to the National Park Service, the State
Archaeologist, and the State Historic Preservation Officer to determine if
there are known cultural resources which may be affected by the described
work. Any unknown archaeological, scientific, or historical data could be
lost or destroyed by the work described in the permit application. However,
the .latest version of the National Register of Historic Places has been
consulted and no listed properties (known to be eligible for inclusion, or
included in the Register) are located in the project area.
8. PUBLIC HEARING REQUESTS
Any person may request, in writing, within the comment period specified in
this notice, that a public hearing be held to consider this application.
Requests for public hearings shall state, in detail, the reasons for holding a
public hearing. A request may be denied if substantive reasons for holding a
hearing are not provided or if there is otherwise no valid interest-to be
served. '
9. PUBLIC INTEREST REVIEW
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the
probable impact, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity on the
public interest.. That decision will reflect the national concern for both
protection and utilization of important resources. The benefit which
reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced
against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors which may be
relevant. to the proposal will be considered, including the cumulative effects.
Among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental
concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards,
floodplain values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion,
recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs,
safety, food and fiber production and, in general, the needs and welfare of
the people. Environmental and other documents will be available for review in
the St. Paul District Office.
FOR THE DISTRICT ENGINEER:
.~•'
Encl L. GOETZ
Chief, Constr ion-Operations Division
3,
..-g~_a5~-a-3
•
•
~~--
~9
~~' ~
~~;
~` 3 ~
,~
1 ~
~ ~ G
~~
~~
i
i
,`T U'
1
Q~
~t
~ i
..aq qP>.
O N ~• P U O N L O N E C ~
rv T T C q Y P .+ C
- oz ., z q uu I C
c., NA~.uL ~~Q o
O. ~ U U N N u 0 ~•• ... O q L U
Lv.Li u PaW O _w 9 vu
b O vqi u 3 N C u ~ O L
~ N ~•• n q 0 C Z w V P
~- Qg00~ P.•J q L
l ~ y. 3 u ~~ "O+ L q q u ~ P u
q u ' `•
'O n ZO C „• u O~ N j 0 N U O i.
$Q~ ~ C t' O A N N 0 C~ T u
X - O N q yqj O u u L - U q- T
~bN bb °i~~ vc.
U 9 ~.. g 0 U L G~ .-L. N N b n e, b
y ~.. p~ C u u u 0 U O v
Z Y
q U U D N u q u y
t C q '•• N U y Y O L v~
C O v0i C .+ q 0 u O b W P n
u u ` T
~ T C O L i P C C b b N 0 -~+ L ~- L
O ~ ~ Z C V u C -. b o. ~~ O; Q b b u
_a Y E u^ O u.0+.+u Y C„2 O~ p
C
r F ~. u Y L L q N.-~ T y O h U^ L u b
> u ~q- ~ V \T 4 b i.b N e uN~ ~
,n / N O ~ uuy ~. T 20 U u Cv.W
U u ~
o° _ T Q ocC'mNyu t"'%noo ~i --III
~ bL~q~gy Y•-NY qZ COn '7~_
_ ° Y LP~aN O„au-i+v o.°,v n"vn (/,.
~ " ~b gZnc ~ci
o3 °y o., °:sN u.,wv,,, qn
O u P N U C Z ~ L O~ Y v O L J I
L n .L. g U O v
_ y g U N V u y You O g U U
b 6NCYV bhgq~.•U-~ UqA
~ u rn E C~ C v N Y O u .. ~ ~ .U. u .N. t I
d: q C E b V U b C-N N-~+.p L P N P ~
1-¢ U u q u O u-+Zd N U SC•+2 V
I
I Z~ ~
~~ o
fi"~ °°•°°~ 1~°3-.'If's"'..~ 1S'r`~ -~ ~~ ~,'~
-f ~ -
r -
rs ~ ~z
A / ~ ---
~ A ~ ~.
~~~~~ti
\ ~~ '. ;~ \v 0~
~~ r.
_ ~,~ \.
i ~~
~~ ~
3 ~T - `~ ~ ~
- ' •.~
Iw - - - -- ~o - Iy~s -- ~ ~
--. - -r. .~ \~~
,. ~~ ~ ~~-
~~ '~
I~ ~ '' ~i~
-V -- ___ -~- -i~
~-_ -----
~ i ~
-'C
4 ' ~ ~ ~~ i
A~i ~o ~,
~ + ~\ ~ 3~
\- ~~ ~ ~ °
%i/~ ~ "
~ ~
1 //' J ~
i; ~ ~~
,o
. o :,
~; ~ i/ ~ -~
~,
;~ ~ o
_ , ~ ~% ~ ~ ~ ~~- I
J
I ~ ~ - ~ h- ss 0° ~', m/v -s-i~r e ,
i ~ ~' / ~j ~