‘Continuing Education and ATraining Needs .4‘ A eiSouthern Forest Industry LIBRARY DEC 2 0 1985 .exas AS-M Universn; 8-1508 The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station/Neville P. Clarke, Director! The Texas A&M University System/College Station ,Texas CONTENTS Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ii k/ Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Research Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Study Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Survey Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Characteristics of Survey Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Needs and Emphases for Curriculum Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Needs Perceived by Industry Executives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Proposed Emphases by Course Providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Differences Between Perceived Needs and Proposed Emphases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . ; . .3 Differences Among Course Providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 " Factors Affecting Participation in Continuing Education Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l3 CONTINUING EDUCATION AND TRAINING NEEDS p OF THE ‘ SOUTHERN FOREST INDUSTRY John K. Thomas Don E. Albrecht ]. Charles Lee and Roger Klinoff* ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report is based on a mail survey conducted by the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station in cooperation with the Forestry and Harvesting Training Center. We gratefully appreciate the cooperation of all the participants in the study and assistance of the advisory committee of the Forestry and Harvesting Training Center, ]im Altman of the American Pulpwood Association, ]ay O’Laughlin and the staff of the Department of Forest Science, and the staff of the Department of Rural Sociology. In addition, we thank Kathy Schiflett, George Papathanassopulos, Susan Kuepfer, and Charles Bassenyemukasa for their assistance in processing the data. The opinions, findings, and con- clusions are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the supporting organizations. p *Drs. Thomas and Albrecht are research scientists in the Department of Rural Sociology and Dr. Lee is professor and department head, Department of Forest Science, the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A&M Univer- sity System. Roger Klinoff is with the Forestry and Harvesting Training Center. ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The introduction of new production and processing technologies and the rapid expansion of timber production in the South have resulted in an increasing need for educational and training programs for personnel at all levels of the forest industry. In 1984, the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station in coopera- tion with the Forestry and Harvesting Training Center conducted a mail survey to assess continuing education needs as perceived by southern forest industry executives and the likely responses to these needs by forestry schools, trade organizations, and other providers of continuing education. This report presents the results of that survey, including information on self-perceived factors that influence participation in education and training courses from executives and course providers. Industry executives emphasized the importance of managerial, decisionmak- ing and communication skills, and an understanding of wood procurement and production for upper and middle management, and supervisors. Only a few of the topics included in the survey were perceived by executives as necessary information for technicians and other operating personnel. There was a general lack of agreement on subject matter needs mentioned by in- dustry users and emphasis proposed by providers of continuing education. All respondents agreed that relevance and practicality were the major factors af- fecting the decision to participate in courses offered by any organization. Also, travel costs and distances were judged to be more important than tuition charges. There was no preferred season for programs, but most respondents preferred that courses be offered during the middle of the week. Overall, the results support a major objective of the Center and similar train- ing facilities to improve the administrative and technical skills of key person- nel, particularly in wood procurement and harvesting. The disparity between needs perceived by industry executives and areas of emphasis anticipated by the providers of continuing education suggests a continuing need for such centers. The need for more effective communication between the users and providers of continuing education also is suggested. Improved communica- tion can be accomplished by: O increasing the frequency of dialogue between users and providers; O expanding and varying the membership of advisory boards to include a broader representation of these groups; and I coordinating more activities between and within the two groups. This survey suggests that program offerings may fall short of the industry’s expectations without more active communication. Continuing Education and Training Needs of the Southern Forest Industry INTRODUCTION The demand for wood products is projected to escalate drastically throughout the world by the year 2000. Ac- cording to the USDA Forest Service (Raisch and Killian, 1981), global wood consumption is expected to increase in the next 15 years by more than 40%. The southern forest region of the United States is ideally suited to pro- vide a larger share of domestic and international market needs than it does now. The southern forest products industry has contributed significantly to commercial wood production, job crea- tion, and community economies. Approximately 41 % of the nation’s commercial forest lands are located in the 14 southern states. The timber harvested from southern forests in 1979 provided 658,000 jobs with a payroll of $7.4 billion, and produced $17.4 billion (34% of na- tional total) in value added by manufacturing as a con- tribution to the regional economy. In Texas alone, it pro- vided 75,300 jobs with an annual payroll of $835 million and produced $1.9 billion in value added by manufac- turing (American Forest Institute, 1982). The growth of this industry and the maintenance of a competitive position in domestic and world trade is dependent upon a predictable supply of reasonably- priced raw material and efficient harvesting and pro- cessing operations. The rapid shift from dependence on nature’s providence to intensively-cultured forest plan- tations to meet future needs has required the adoption of new technologies such as genetic improvement, fer- tilization, and control of competing vegetation. The rapid mechanization of forest operations, ranging from reforestation to harvesting, requires substantial capital outlays for equipment acquisition and operation. In- vestments in the growth and harvesting of timber have increased faster than inflation in recent years. Intensive forest management also has generated public concern about its compatibility with other environmental values. The technical, administrative, and communication issues raised by these changes demand that ad- ministrative, professional, and other operating person- nel in the industry stay abreast of new techniques for improving productivity in a society attenuated to en- vironmental concerns. Maintaining this currency has been difficult through traditional course offerings in con- tinuing education because of the diverse interests of the participants and a lack of continuity among courses. For example, programs designed for professional foresters are typically intended to appeal to those in public agencies as well as industry and frequently lack the orientation preferred by industrial managers. The Forestry and Harvesting Training Center, a southern regional consortium of industrial firms and forestry schools, was organized in 1974 to specifically address educational needs of participating firms. Forestry school curricula that did not emphasize harvesting and transporting wood raw materials were of particular concern to the industry. The sharing of ex- periences gained by the participating firms with the forestry schools was viewed as the most practical means of imparting the necessary technical and managerial skills to industrial personnel across the region. The Center has sponsored many innovative courses over the past decade and its leadership has encouraged ' other organizations to become more responsive to in- dustry’s needs. Human resource managers now have a broad array of courses conducted at various regional locations and throughout the year from which to meet manpower development needs. The availability of alternative continuing education programs, coupled with the sagging financial base of the Center during the economic recession of the early 1980’s, led the Center’s advisory committee in 1984 to propose an assessment of continuing education needs and offer- ings across the region. The intent of the study was to determine the needs as perceived by industry leaders and to determine the anticipated availability of programs sponsored by other organizations that might meet in- dustry needs. The results are intended to assist the com- mittee in identifying a role for the Center in subsequent years and to provide guidance for others’ sponsoring or offering continuing education and training to southern forest industry personnel. The assessment was conducted by specialists in the Departments of Rural Sociology and Forest Science of the Texas Agricultural Experiment Sta- tion, Texas A&M University System. RESEARCH METHODS Data for this study were obtained by a mail survey conducted from August to October 1984. After an ini- tial mailing of the questionnaires, a second mailing was conducted several weeks later to nonrespondents. On each occasion, a cover letter prepared on the letterhead of the Forestry and Harvesting Training Center was sent to explain the purpose of the survey and to encourage participation. Study Design The survey involved two purposively selected groups of individuals. One group consisted of 177 industry exec- utives who make decisions regarding the continuing ed- ucation and training needs of their company personnel. Executives were selected from 58 wood-based companies operating in 14 southern states. Questionnaires were sent to the individual responsible for overall land manage- ment and wood production, t0 the individual responsi- ble for land management, and t0 the wood procurement manager within each company in each state. Overall, 108 individuals responded to the survey. The par- ticipating companies selected are listed in Appendix A. The second group consisted of 58 individuals represen- ting organizations that provide continuing education and training courses for forestry personnel in the southern region. Of this group, 45 responded; l4 were employed by state cooperative extension services, l0 by forestry schools, 9 by trade associations, and l2 by federal and state forestry agencies. Appendix B lists the participating organizations by state. Survey Instruments Questionnaires consisting of three series of questions were developed for the two groups of respondents. One series was designed to determine socioeconomic characteristics of respondents. These questions sought in- formation on employment position, number of years in current position, age, and educational level of respondents. The second series of questions pertained to the relative importance of various topics to the industry and to the organizations that provide educational programs. Overall, 49 topics were listed in nine broad subject areas: 0 Site improvement (3 topics) Site preparation (2 topics) Regeneration (2 topics) Treatment of intermediate stands (4 topics) Wood procurement and production (ll topics) Raw material transportation (3 topics) Equipment management and maintenance (9 topics) Administration and decisionmaking (l0 topics) Communications (5 topics) For such questions, industry executives were asked to use a scale ranging from one (“not important”) to five (“very important”). Respondents were instructed to rate the level of importance of each topic for individuals in each of five categories of employment. The job categories were listed and defined as: Individuals whose primary responsibilities are above the technical level. Administrators: Professional individuals whose primary respon- sibilities are at the technical level. Young professionals: Individuals responsible for the first-line supervision of people, equipment, and production. ¢ Supervisors: Technicians: Individuals with a special- ized knowledge of a subject or task. Equipment operators and semi-skilled workers. ' Operatives: Providers of continuing education and training\ courses, on the other hand, were asked to indicate how much emphasis they planned to devote to each topic dur- ing the next 5 years. Using a five-point scale ranging from one (“no emphasis”) to five (“agreat deal of em- phasis”), they based their assessments on manpower development without regard to category of employment. The final series of questions involved the identifica- tion of factors which all respondents perceived as possibly affecting participation in education and train- ing courses. Both groups of respondents in the survey“ were asked questions related to travel distance, prefer- red scheduling, and factors affecting participation by each category of employee. The questionnaire for in- dustry executives included questions about their personal participation in courses as well as levels of participation by other employees. They were also queried to deter- mine preferences for internal company programs ver- sus those provided by other organizations. CHARACTERISTICS OF SURVEY PARTICIPANTS Employment and socioeconomic characteristics of in- dustry executives and course providers are presented in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Among the executives, 87% held middle and upper management positions. Other respondents (12%) included superintendents, project supervisors, and chief foresters. All industry respondents will be identified as “industry executives” in this report. F orty-seven percent had held their position less than 5 years, 33% between 5 and 9 years, and 18 % IO or more years. The average age was almost 48 years. Educa- tionally, 70% had bachelor degrees and 27% had ad- vanced degrees. One respondent reported having a technical degree. Of the 45 course providers who responded, 24 % were senior managers, such as academic deans and directors, 22% were heads of academic departments, 24 % were chief foresters in state Cooperative Extension Services, and 13% were professors. Thirteen percent held other kinds of positions such as training officers and project supervisors. The average number of years spent by course providers in their current position (mean = 6.2) was slightly more than that for woodland managers (mean = 5.8). Also, course providers tended to be younger than industry executives, with an average age of 45 years. A majority of the course providers (58%) had attained advanced degrees, whereas 40% had a bachelor’s degree. Several socioeconomic differences were observed among the four groups of course providers. As shown in Table 3, respondents employed by regional forestry schools and cooperative extension services had, on the average, almost twice the number of years in their cur- rent positions as respondents employed by the federal or state forest agencies and trade associations. They were ‘\- also slightly older and had higher educational degrees than the latter groups. \ TABLE I. EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF SURVEYED SOUTHERN FOREST IN- DUSTRY EXECUTIVES Employment and Socioeconomic Number of Percent Characteristics (Total = I08) Respondents of Total Employment Position: Senior woodlands manager 37 34.3 Middle manager 57 52.8 Other I3 12.0 No response I .9 Years in Position: Less than 5 5I 47.2 5 to 9 36 33.3 I0 or more 2O I8.5 No response I .9 Mean=5.82 Standard deviation=4.57 Age: 29 to 38 years I2 II.I 39 t0 48 47 43.5 49 t0 58 39 36.1 59+ 8 7.4 No response 2 I.8 Mean=47.69 Standard deviation=7.63 Education Degree: Technical I .9 Bachelor 76 70.4 Master 28 25.9 Doctorate 2 I.8 No response I .9 TABLE 2. EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF SURVEYED PROVIDERS OF CON- TINUING EDUCATION AND TRAINING Employment and Socioeconomic Number of Percent Characteristics (Total=45) Respondents of Total Employment Position: Senior management II 24.4 Department head I0 22.2 Chief forester II 24.4 Professor 6 I 3.3 Other 6 I3.3 No response I 2.2 Years in Position: Less than 5 2I 46.7 5 to 9 I5 33.3 10+ 8 I7.8 No response I 2.2 Mean =6.I8 Standard deviation=5.4I Age: 29 to 38 Years I2 26.7 39 to 48 I7 37.8 49 to 58 9 20.0 59+ I 5 II.I No response 2 4.4 Mean=44.8I Standard deviation=9.00 Education Degree: Bachelor I8 40.0 Master I0 22.2 Doctorate I6 35.6 No response I 2.2 NEEDS AND EMPHASES FOR CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT Needs Perceived by Industry Executives Using the five-point scale, the executives assessed the importance of each topic for each of the five employ- ment positions (Table 4). A majority of the total mean responses were near the middle of the scale indicating some importance for topics. However, individual topic means varied widely by employment position showing some association between job level and educational needs. Respondents indicated that 21 of the 49 topics among the nine subject areas were very important (a mean equal to or greater than 4.00) for company ad- ministrators. They perceived 22 topics as very impor- tant for young professionals and 17 as very important for supervisors. Respondents placed more importance on equipment maintenance and related topics for techni- cians and operators. Generally, executives viewed the continuing educa- tion needs of administrators and young professionals to include courses related to corporate management, deci- sionmaking, and communication. Contract and fiscal management topics were perceived as more important for administrators than for young professionals. For supervisors, respondents rated operational topics related to wood procurement and production, and equipment management and maintenance as being important. They also reported that courses which improved verbal and written communication skills were very important for supervisors. Executives did not perceive many of the topics listed on the questionnaire (Table 4) as especially needed by technicians and operatives. Topics which they viewed as moderately important for technicians and operatives (mean scores between 3.50 and 4.00) involved skill applications for equipment maintenance. Prescribed burning in intermediate stands also was considered to be an important topic for technicians. Proposed Emphases by Course Providers Unlike industry executives, course providers were asked to estimate how much emphasis they planned to give each topic in their courses during the next 5 years. Their responses and means are reported in Table 5. In- formation management was the only topic which had mean scores equal to or greater than 4.00. Other topics receiving much emphasis (mean scores between 3.50 and 4.00) were motivation of small nonindustrial land- owners, artificial and natural regeneration, taxation, chemical site preparation, and prescribed burning of in- termediate stands. Except for the latter topic, mean responses by course providers for these topics were higher than the corresponding responses by industry respondents. Differences Between Perceived Needs and Proposed Emphases Cautious comparisons between the general mean responses of course providers and the specific mean TABLE 3. TRAINING TO THE SOUTHERN FOREST INDUSTRY SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF FOUR GROUPS OF PROVIDERS OF CONTINUING EDUCATION AND State Cooperative Regional Forestry Federal/ State Trade Socioeconomic Characteristics Extension Service Schools Forest Agencies Associations Number Percent’ Number Percenta Number Percent‘ Number Percenta Years in Position: Less than 5 5 35.7 2 20.0 6 66.7 8 66. 7 5 to 9 5 35.7 6 60.0 1 11.1 g3 25.0 10+ 4 28.6 2 20.0 1 11.1 ~"1 8.3 No response 0 — 0 — 1 11.1 0 — Mean 7.36 8.10 4.25 4.50 Standard deviation 6.76 5.53 3.45 4.12 Age: 29 to 38 years 1 7.1 1 10.0 4 44.4 6 50.0 39 to 48 9 62.3 4 40.0 2 22.2 2 16.7 49 to 58 4 28.6 3 30.0 1 11.1 1 8.3 59+ 0 — 2 20.0 0 — 3 25.0 No response 0 — 0 — 2 22.2 0 — Mean 45.36 49.00 39.43 43.83 Standard deviation 6.06 7.92 8.52 11.79 Education Degree: Bachelor 3 21.4 0 — 6 66.7 9 75.0 Master 5 35.7 0 - 2 22.2 3 25.0 Doctorate 6 42 .9 10 100.0 0 — 0 ~ No response 0 — 0 — 1 11.1 0 — “Percentages calculated by using the total number of respondents in each group. responses by industry executives for the five categories of employees suggests additional differences between topics to be emphasized and topics perceived as impor- tant for continuing education and training. Major dif- ferences occurred regarding topics in four subject areas. First, wood procurement and production topics were not emphasized by course providers, but were perceived by industry executives to be moderately or very important for administrators, young professionals, and supervisors. Specific topics included harvest planning and manage- ment, organization of operation, production cost estimates, and public relations. Other areas where dif- ferences emerged included timber contracts and en- vironmental and silvicultural constraints. The two groups of respondents also differed on most topics related to communications. The lone exception was techniques for motivating small nonindustrial land- owners. In each case, these topics were considered im- portant by industry executives for administrators, young professionals, and supervisors, but were not emphasized by course providers. Administration and decisionmaking was a third sub- ject area that was not emphasized by course providers but was perceived by industry executives as important for administrators. Course providers gave all topics under this subject area an average mean of 3.06, com- pared to 4.49 by industry respondents. Equipment management and maintenance was the final subject area about which respondents differed. None of the topics in this area received much emphasis by course providers. On the other hand, industry ex- ecutives considered topics such as preventive versus cor- rective maintenance, on-site versus shop maintenance, and parts and equipment inventory to be important topics for supervisors and operatives. Moreover, they rated ‘ company versus contract maintenance and machine life and replacement to be important topics for administrators. Differences Among Course Providers In addition to these differences between course pro- viders and industry representatives, the four groups of course providers differed in planned levels of emphasis on various topics. Mean responses are presented for each group in Table 6. Of the 49 topics listed in the question- naire, respondents employed by state forestry extension services planned to greatly emphasize two topics — in- formation management and motivating small nonin- dustrial landowners. Of the four groups, respondents from southern forestry schools indicated that they would devote attention to more topics than other respondents. Their five highest emphasized topics were site improve- ment, chemical site preparation, artificial regeneration, information management, and written communication. Respondents employed by federal and state forest agen- cies indicated they would emphasize natural and ar- tificial regeneration. Finally, respondents from industry trade associations were interested primarily in emphasiz- ing taxation and the motivation of small nonindustrial landowners. None of the groups indicated that the broad subject areas of raw material transportation and equip- ment management and maintenance would receive much emphasis (means were less than 3.00). (Continued on page 9. ) Q@.~ ~m._ @_.~ _m.~ @¢.m mm.» . . . . . . . Amwump .-@~v =oH--¢@m=~.u >-@=¢U@w IIIM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I mo.m <@._ _m.~ @¢.m ~@.m ~m.~ . . . . . . . . . . . coflumuuoamcmuu ~>-aH~¢v xusue ccnunuuoawdmufi Amwuuumt aux mm.m @o.~ m~.m -.m ¢o.¢ m@.m . . . . . mucwemuswmwa wcm muumucmum wo.:o~um~H~Hu: moIm I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I @§OT I O I O O I O I I I I I O O O I I Ucwamimcma om.m @@.~ m~.~ ¢~.¢ _~.< @@.¢ . . . . . . . . . . . . . mmumaflumo mumou =¢@uQ=@o»@ ¢m.~ ¢~.~ ¢¢.~ -.¢ n~.¢ ~@.~ . . . . mucflmuuwcou ~mu:u~:uH>-w wan -u=~e=o»H>=m IMIm I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~@.~ @@.~ @w.~ m_.¢ @w.m ~_.¢ . . . . . . . . . . . . . cowumuwao mo ¢oHu~NH=~w»o ~@.m @@.~ @@.~ _m.¢ m@.@ @~.~ . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . >~H-n~HH~>@ u=wa@H=¢@ ofO$ I O I O I I I O O I I I O I I O I QOIM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I {NON I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ncuuuflwcum wuu uuuluunuoum wéol NQIM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I $$O@ O O I c O O O I I O O I I O O O O O O I I I IOI“ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I INI" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I uqflnum vunwwuluuuflm we uaulunouh mqIn I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I {QOI O O O O O I O O O I O I I O O O I O I O O O =¢--@=~w~= §¢Im I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I mm.m @m.~ n<.~ @Q.< ~m.< @~.m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . wcwwi -@Ha~;u uowumumaoum ouwm NNIm I O O I O O I O O O O O O O O I O NmIm I I I I I I I I I I I I I -.m _~._ ~@.~ @@.m ¢_.¢ Q<.~ >~H>~u@=@Q~@ wawuowwww muouuww flmufiawnu @¢@ H@UHm>=~ UflQIO>OHhIH muwm wwmcoamwm cum: ammo moma mwmzw momm zHzQ< Hmuoa nmwwuowoumu ~mc=omuwm pow wmmcoamwm cmwz mmmmu< uowflnsm mu>~a:uuxm >¢aw=ez~ HMMMOM zmmzaaom rm QMHMOQMM mm~¢cuaawumpwao n ammo van umcmfiuficzuwu n moms “wuowH>~wa:w n mmmsw umflmcofimmmwoua muse» u momm mmuoumuuwficfiewm n 2Hzouw>= mcflwn m ow =ucmuuonEH >um> woe: wcflwn _ .oHmum ucflomlm m ow mcflwuouum mum: wmmcommwmm __.~ ¢¢.~ @~.~ ¢~.~ m~.¢ ow.m . @-=>o@=~H --~m=@=H=¢= -mem w=Hu~>Huoz mo.m ¢~._ @~.~ m<.~ @~.m w@.¢ . mpwwwwfi uswsosu wan m»oum>occH m=H>~H»=~@H ¢¢.~ @~.~ ~o.~ w@.~ ww.m @m.< . . . . . . . . . mfiwwe wnu mo mm: ~>~UQ~u~@ ~m.~ 2d 3A Z5 S; S; . . . . . . . 33% wfixmwaw E6 @5553; <@.~ m@._ w_.n ¢o.¢ o@.¢ -.q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mdfiflxm wcfiufigz QHOMUUUMHSHEGU o@.~ wN._ ~o.~ m_.m m@.m ~<.¢ . . . . . . . m=o--~@¢ >=maeou m> uumuucou -.m @~.~ -.~ ~m.m w~.¢ m~.< Awuousaeou mcfiusflocfiv ucoewwmcme cowumeuowcw -.@ @@._ -.~ ~@.@ @o.< <¢.¢ . . . . . . . . . w»=H-~m=oQ -u=@e=¢->=m @@.~ w_._ oo.~ mm.~ ¢m.m ~m.< . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cciumxmw -.@ wm.~ -.~ ~w.m @~.@ @@.< . . . . . . . mcofiumfiwu uonmfi can muuwuucoo mo.m @<._ @_.~ m_.m _w.~ @m.¢ . . . . . . ucoflumfimu uflansa wan u=oE=»m>oo w wcw .:o#umucwEm~nE~ .ucmEmcHw>wu smuwoum @@.~ @_._ ~¢.~ ¢_.~ @~.m mw.< . . . . . . waficcmfla uflwwumuum new amufiuuwa wuuxnt uonunuoa wuw :o#uwuuu#:nlw< om.~ m~.~ wm.m ¢<.m mo.~ ~@._ . . . . . . . . . . . wucmcmucfims Hmufiuuuwqm ¢m.N mw.m mm.m Nm.m mo.N Q~.~ . . . . . . - . - . . . . . . . . moiaflmuwxm mm.~ @w.m mm.m w<.m mo.~ -._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . afimuu uwsom ow-N mo.¢ ma-m <~.m mw.~ mm.~ . - . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . wfl~©Ho3 m~.@ -.~ @<.~ wm.m ~m.m ~¢.m . . . . . . . . ucwewomflamu van wwflfi unison: 3A QTN 9: .83 :5 3A . . . . . . . >uou=w>=fi “Ewefiim. Ea. .322 ~_.m m@.~ _m.~ _~.@ ~m.~ ~¢.< . . . . . . . . . . . . uumuucou .m> >=~@e¢u @m.m _@.m ac.“ @_.¢ -.m @@.~ . . . . . . . oucmcwucfims aosw .m> wuflmuco ~w.m ~_.< mm.m ~m.¢ Rm.“ @~.~ . . . wucmcmuc~mE w>Huumuuou .m> m>Hu:w>wum uuflnuouuqnt was uuoluwunmt ufiolanflvu wwmcoamwm cwwz mmmo some mmmam momm zH==< Amuofi A mmfiuowwumo flwccowuwm pow mmwcoawmm cmmz mmmwu< uumnnsm $0 H2OUv muz~m: mm @<.~ m.o~ ~.m w.~_ _.m~ m.w@ . . . . . . . . . woumawuwo mumeo cefluoseeum Ne @~.m _.@~ w.- ~.mm w.< _.¢_ . . . . wucfimuuwceu ~mu:uH:ufi>HHm e=~ -e=@a=e->=m i6 NO AF‘ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O eq m~.~ m.~_ m.~ m.~_ m.~_ ¢.em . . . . . . . . . =oH--e¢ we =eeu-H=~w~e _< oo.~ @.@ @.< ~.- o.- ~._m . . . . . . . . . . . >eHH#n@~H~>~ ucmaawsvm ?q O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~< -.~ @.¢~ @.@ w.» @.¢_ ~._m . . . . . . . . . . :eHumueHHm Hmfluoume zmm oq O O O O O O O O O O O O O O fleuuuaweum wan ufiolouuuoum woe! qq iOm O O O O O O O O O O O O mwww 0 0 0 O o o 0 0 O 0 O O c O I a 0 O mq GO} OOq O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O mq @~.~ @.@_ @.m~ ¢.- @.w_ ~.@ . . . . . . . . . . . . . aeuuceu :eHumumww> nvflwuw UUQHUUIHUUHH we uuulumvuh {q iOm wOo O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q6 O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O I O ucuuwuuflowum mq O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Nq mOm OOO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O dcnuuuwaoum vuam Nq iOO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O ~< ww.~ @._~ @.__ m.mm ¢.- m.m . . . . . . . . . . . . . mucfimuumceo H@e=ea=e~H>=m mg ~o.m @.- ¢.<_ @.__ ~.om m.@_ >~fl>eee=eo~@ w=~eu~e- mueuumw Hmofiamsu wee -eHm>;~ u:uIo>ouaIH uunm wu=@@=¢@ @m=o@m@m Ame Aee Ame ANV A_e uwmm we we Hw>wA MQDEDZ cmwz mflwmsaem we wfimmsaém oz mmmu< uummnsm Hmee eeeeo < wwwueamwm es3 wuowH>eum we ucwouwm mzeme Ni w~m<:~:m euzz<4m um u4nuwwcoowm @~._ -._ om.~ @~._ . . . . . . . ucmawwmcme wumxwooz ~m.~ w~.~ co.~ ~m.~ . . cowumuuonmcmuu A>umeHumv xusuw unowumuuommumuh Anwuwumt Bum ¢@._ @m.~ ~@.~ ~w.~ . . . . . . . . . . wuawswuswmwa USN mwumwcmum MO GOHuMNwHMuD _¢.~ ¢w.~ o~.~ ~¢.~ . . . . . . . . . maaflumdwp uHHn=@ om.~ m~.~ -.m @m.~ . . . . . . . . ucwawwmcme uww>~m: R0- Qmnfl . Om.M QOQM - 0 . Q wmumefiuwm umou GO#uU5UOHm mo.m <¢.m o@.m m~.~ . . . . . . . . . . . mucwwuumcoo ANuDuH5UH>HMw UCM A®uC®EGOuM>GH ¢_.~ -.@ om.~ mm.~ . . . . . . . . . mxuwu new wwmom ¢w._ <¢.~ ¢@.~ om.~ . . . . coflumuwmo we ¢¢H»@-¢mw~o ¢w._ ~@.~ om.~ -.~ . . . . . . >u-~nm~Hm>m uawemflnwm Ow.N -.m O<.m -.m . - - . . . . . . w¢w=¢mHm uww>umI OOQN wmufl OO-M mN¢N - . ¢ u ¢ GOHHNUOHHM amwuwuma 3@M oo.~ ~@.~ Q~.~ m~.~ . . . . . . . . muu-u=¢U pwgefia nucwuuawaum was u:uIuu:uoum 16¢! @~.@ @~.~ ¢_.~ <@.m . . . . . . . . w=H¢~=@ wwpflhomwpm @@oN o o a o o 0 c o n o o a @Cfifl-Cfi£%. o¢.~ @w._ Q_.~ -._ . . . . . . . . . . =oHu-HH@u-@ -.~ -.m ¢m.~ uuwumum UUNMQQIHQHQH HO HGUIUQUHH OOH” I U I U Q O I . U Q I Q I O O U O I I l I I l O O "=¢~»-~=~w@= @~.~ ~@.~ Q¢.m @_.m . . . . . . . . . mcmwa Hmuwcmsuwz wo.m @~.m oQ.¢ @@.@ . . . . . . . . . . mauve Hmuflewzu uuowumumamum uuwm ~N.m ¢¢.m mw.m N©.N . - . . . . . . - u:wEwwm:mE uwum3 0%-N ww.N Qw.m ~m.N . - . - mucwmuumcou ~mucwEcou~>:m m~.~ oo.~ ¢~.¢ u@>H~U=@¢~@ w¢@~Q@~w@ wuouumw fimuwemnu wan ~muHw>:m luounoauol wo cmutl "wuflQHQ>OH&EH wuwm m:owum@uomm< mwHo:ow< ummwom mfioozum woH>uwm cofimcmuxm mvmwcoamvx we cum: mwmue mumum\Hmuowwm zuumuuom ~mco@wwm v>Humumaoou mumum was mmp< uuw@n:m uz~=~<¢u Q24 =o~aomm MO m@=o¢u MQOM >n m¢