Nonresident Summer Visitor ProfileSchool of Forestry Phone (406) 243-5686
Institute for Tourism &
32 Campus Dr. #1234 Fax (406) 243-4845
The University of Montana www.forestry.umt.edufitrr
Recreation Research
Missoula, MT 59812
Nonresident Summer
Visitor Profile
by
Norma Nickerson, Ph.D.
Thale Dillon, M.S.
Research Report 2002-5
April 2002
Institute for Tourism & Recreation Research
School of Forestry
The University of Montana
Missoula, MT 59812
www.forest!y.umt.edu/itr
This study was funded by the Lodging Facility Use Tax
Acknowledgements
Executive Summary
Chapter 1: Nonresident Summer Visitor Profile
I
Introduction I
Methodology
Study Population
Population Estimation
Survey Methodology and Response Rates
Chapter 2: Results
ALL visitors
Trip Satisfaction and Changes Noted by Summer Visitors
Demographic Characteristics of Summer Visitors: All visitors and by Purpose of Trip
Trip Characteristics of Summer Visitors: All Visitors and by Purpose of Trip
Comparison Data: Summer 1996 vs Summer 2001
Chapter 3: Summary and Discussion
2
2
2
2
4
7
7
10
15
Summary 19
Summer Expenditures/Group Size/Length of Stay 19
Travel Patterns 19
Satisfaction and Changes Observed 20
Traveler Demographic and Trip Characteristics 21
Traveler Trends 24
Discussion 25
Marketing 25
Program Development 25
Future research 28
Appendix A
Survey Instrument
INSTITUTE FOR TOURIS M & RECREATION RESEARCH: NONRESIDENT SIMMER VISITOR PROFILE
30
All Visitors
Table 1: Trip Expenditures — Summer 2001.......................................................
Table 2: Percent of Overnight Stays by Region ..................................................
Table 3: Percent of Overnight Stays for Selected Communities ...............................
Table 4: Percent of Nonresidents on Specific Highway Segments ...........................
Trip Satisfaction and Changes Noted by Summer Visitors
Table 5: Satisfaction with Montana Conditions......................................................
Table 6: Changes Seen Over Time by Returning Visitors ........................................
Demographic Characteristics of Summer Visitors: All visitors and by Purpose of Trip
Table 7: Reasons for Visiting Montana in the Summer ................................
Table 8: Demographic Comparison of All Summer Travel Groups and Those
Categorized by Primary Reason for Visiting Montana ....................
Table 9: Visitors Place of Residence.......................................................
Trip Characteristics of Summer Visitors: All Visitors and by Purpose of Trip
Table 10: General Trip Behavior..............................................................
Table 11: Accommodations.....................................................................
Table 12: Summer Attractions to Montana for those who Indicated Vacation
as One Reason for trip.............................................................
Table 13: Sites Visited While in Montana over the Years .............................
Table 14: Selected Sites Visited While in Montana on this Trip .....................
Table 15: Sources of Information Used to Plan Trip ....................................
Table 16: Source of Information Used While in Montana ..............................
Table 17: Activities Participated in While in Montana on this Trip ...................
Table 18: Comments by all Visitors...........................................................
Comparison Data: Summer 1996 vs Summer 2001
7
7
7
10
10
........................... 11
...........................12
........................... 12
........................... 12
........................... 13
........................... 13
........................... 14
Table 19: Comparison of Expenditures: 1996 vs 2001.......................................................... 15
Table 20: Travel Characteristics: 1998 vs 2001.................................................................... 16
Table 21: Attractions to the State: 1996 vs 2001................................................................... 17
Table 22: Sources of Information Used to Plan Trip: 1996 vs 2001.......................................... 17
Table 23: Sources of Information Use While in Montana: 1996 vs 2001................................... 17
Table 24: Comparison of Activities Participated in While in Montana: 1996 vs 2001................... 18
INSTITUTE FOR TOURISM & RECREATION RESEARCH. NONRESIDENT SIMMER VISITOR PROFILE
This study could not have been completed without the cooperation of many people around the state of
Montana and the many visitors who endorsed our study by answering our many questions. We are
forever indebted to the wonderful visitors who spent their trip time filling out the questionnaire and
mailing it back to ITRR.
A study of this magnitude has many employees who put their heart and soul into the project. The
summer surveyors spent 40 hours each week in temperatures ranging from the upper 90's to the 30's.
Mosquitoes and flies made their outdoor intercepts interesting to say the least. Forest fires by both
national parks changed the big sky to smoky skies. Finally, the terrorist attacks on New York and
Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001 greatly affected the last two weeks of data collection in
September. A special thanks goes to our four summer surveyors: Todd Easton and Andy Johnson
who covered the west side of the state and Jim Hartung and Charlie Beene who surveyed visitors in the
eastern part of the state.
In addition to the "in -the -field" surveyors, other workers on the summer study included Abby Aronofsky,
Holly Praytor, Clint Cook, and Bethany Sutton. These individuals were responsible for coding and
organizing all the returned surveys.
Special thanks go to all the airlines who cooperated with the study by allowing our survey personnel to
contact all people boarding flights and to the airport managers throughout the state who gave their
approval:
Billings:
Thomas Binford
Bozeman:
Brian Sprenger
Butte:
Rick Griffith
Great Falls:
Cynthia Schultz
Helena:
Ronald Mercer
Kalispell:
Monte Eliason
Missoula:
John Seymour
West Yellowstone:
Chris Cervantes
Finally, thanks go out to the customs and immigration officials at the northern borders of Montana and
to all the gas station/convenience store owners/managers who allowed our surveyors to talk to their
customers.
INSTITUTE FOR TOURISM & RECREATION RESEARCH: NONRESIDENT SIMMER VISITOR PROFILE- I
Nonresident Summer Travelers to Montana: 2001
• During the four -month study period June -September, nonresident visitors were intercepted at gas stations,
rest areas, and airports. Questionnaires were handed to 7,362 groups with a resulting 40% response rate.
• Summer visitors deposited $1.042 billion in Montana in 2001, a slight decrease in overall summer
expenditures of $1.071 billion in 1996 (in 2001 dollars). This drop in expenditures is explained by a slightly
shorter length of stay from 4.5 nights in 1996 to 4.2 nights in 2001 plus a slight decrease in group size of 2.5
down from 2.6.
• The top three expenditure categories were gasoline at $25.14, retail at $24.18, and restaurant/bar at $21.20
per visitor group per day.
• Summer visitors travel a variety of road segments. On the east -west corridors, between 19 and 39 percent
of all nonresidents traveled Interstate 90, and up to 19 percent traveled parts of US2 by Glacier National
Park. The most heavily traveled section of Interstate 90 was between Livingston and Bozeman (39%). The
most heavily traveled section on Interstate 94 was between Billings and Miles City with 14-15 percent of all
nonresident traffic. Going to -the -Sun -Road in Glacier National Park saw 15 percent of Montana's
nonresident traffic.
• The north -south routes carried significantly fewer nonresidents than the east -west routes. US89 between
Livingston and Gardiner had the highest percent of travelers (19%), followed by Interstate 15 between
Shelby and Great Falls with 7-13 percent of the traffic and 13-14 percent who traveled US93 between
Polson and Missoula. Fifteen percent of the traffic traveled into Yellowstone National Park from West
Yellowstone.
• Communities in the state who received the highest proportion of nonresidents overnights were Billings (9%),
Missoula and West Yellowstone (7% each), Bozeman (6%), and Gardiner and Great Falls (4% each).
• People who reside in Washington and California come to Montana in greater percentage than any other
state (12% and 10% respectively). The bordering states of Idaho, North Dakota, and Wyoming add up to 14
percent of all nonresidents visiting Montana in the summer months. Eight percent of all visitors were from
Canada while 3 percent were from overseas.
• Seventy-six percent of all summer visitors had visited the state on previous occasions.
• Nonresidents were satisfied with their experiences in Montana and most satisfied with Montana's hospitality
and service with 90 percent of respondents indicating they were satisfied. At the other end, 61 percent of
visitors indicated satisfaction with the availability of highway rest areas but 11 percent were dissatisfied.
• In general, visitors believe very little has changed in Montana over the years. On the positive side, visitors
believe the availability of commercial lodging has improved. On the negative side, 22 percent of the visitors
who have been here before believe the amount of open space is disappearing in Montana.
• Vacationers Profile: Comprise 52 percent of all summer visitors, stayed 4.6 nights, were in travel groups of
couples (45%) or families (34%), and 29 percent were traveling with children under 18 years of age. Thirty-
three percent visited Yellowstone, 23 percent visited Glacier, 13 percent visited the Flathead Lake area, and
3 percent visited Little Bighorn Battlefield. Fifty percent watched wildlife, 46 percent day hiked, 45 percent
went shopping, 25 percent visited museums, 9 percent hired an outfitter or guide. 44 percent of vacationer
nights were spent in hotel/motels while 32 percent of vacationer nights were spent camping. The Intemet
was used by 53 percent of vacationers for planning their trip followed by an automobile club (30%).
• Visiting Friend & Relatives (VFR) Profile: Comprise 15 percent of all summer visitors, stayed 5.7 nights,
were in travel groups of families (39%) or couples (34%), and 27 percent were traveling with children under
18 years of age. VFR visitors are less active then vacationers but 49 percent did go shopping, 34 percent
went picnicking, 31 percent watched wildlife, and 29 percent day hiked. Fifty-four percent of VFR visitors did
not use any of the listed information sources for planning, but 30 percent used the Intemet (the information
source used by the greatest number of people). Forty-four percent of VFR visitors have lived in Montana in
the past.
• Passing Through Profile: Comprised 21 percent of all summer visitors, stayed 1.4 nights, traveled as
couples (59%) or families (32%). Eighteen percent visited Yellowstone National Park, 18 percent shopped,
17 percent went on a picnic, 15 percent visited Montana history sites.
INSTITUTE FOR TOURISM & RECREATION RESEARCH: NONRESIDENT SLMMER VISITOR PROFILE- 11
® Business: Comprised 7 percent of all summer visitors, stayed 7.6 nights, traveled alone (49%), and were
inactive visitors to the state. The business visitor was more likely to travel by air (43%) than any other visitor
type.
® Comparison between 1996 Summer Visitors and 2001 Summer Visitors.
® The number of couples (group type) increased from 38 percent to 41 percent and families
decreased by two percentage points.
® Summer visitors continue to return to Montana at the same rate (76% were repeat visitors in
2001 compared to 75 percent in 1996).
® Twenty-eight percent of all visitors came from Washington, California and Idaho in both years.
The one noticeable change was the re-emergence of Alberta visitors who represented four
percent of Montana's summer visitor in 2001.
® There was a three percentage point increase in vacationers over 1996.
® The top attractions to Montana have remained the same from 1996 to 2001: Mountains/forests,
Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks, Rivers/lakes, and open space/uncrowded areas
continue to be the top attractions to Montana.
® Activities participated in also remained stable over the years with wildlife watching and
shopping topping the activity list. However, wildlife watching decreased by nine percentage
point in 2001 while shopping increased seven percentage points. The increase of visitors who
engaged in some form of historic/cultural site or museum visitation increased from 1996 to
2001.
® In 1996 only five percent of all visitors used the Internet for planning purposes and only three
percent said it was the most useful information source. By 2001, 43 percent of the visitors used
the Internet, and 38 percent said it was their most useful source of information. Vacationers
used the Internet in even higher proportions with 53 percent using it for planning.
® It is recommended that Montana, from a program development standpoint, look at all aspects of tourism;
economic, social and environmental, so as to preserve what we have and the reason why people visit this state.
® The Montana Department of Transportation could reevaluate their plan on rest areas and visitor centers. From
an economic development standpoint, visitor centers immediately off the Interstates at the state borders can
encourage visitors to stay longer and do more, in turn requiring visitors to spend more dollars in the state.
® Marketing opportunities to nonresident visitors include marketing to the repeat visitor as this type of visitor has
already seen parts of the state and could be convinced to return.
® Marketing to new visitors requires placing the two national parks as icons to draw them to the state.
® The majority of visitors overnight in Montana's larger communities. It is important for the areas surrounding the
larger communities to work together and encourage circle tours or day trips in and out of "home bases" in the
larger communities thereby increasing tourism to rural areas.
® Marketing mechanisms need to continue stressing the Internet for lie -trip planning purposes as well as
educating service persons and using highway signs and brochure racks for information during the trip.
® Promoting history and culture to nonresidents is a strategy that will continue to bring visitors back to the state
especially with the aging of the baby boomers. With the upcoming Lewis and Clark Bicentennial
Commemoration, it is recommended that history and culture are an additional promotional avenue employed by
those who promote to nonresidents.
INSTITUTE FOR TOURISM & RECREATION RESEARCH: NONRESIDENT SLMMER VISITOR PROFILE - Ill
Nonresident SummerMsitor Profile,
A Study of Summer Visitors to Montana
The purposes of this study were to assess characteristics of nonresident summer visitors to Montana, to
determine summer travel patterns, and to update visitor estimation figures for the state of Montana. A
summer visitor for this study is defined as a nonresident who traveled in Montana anytime during the
four summer months of June, July, August, and September.
This summer report is one component of the year-round nonresident visitor study to Montana. The
objectives of the year-round study were to:
• Describe visitors to Montana in terms of demographics, trip characteristics, travel behavior, and
expenditures in the state.
• Determine the economic impact of travelers to Montana.
• Describe changes in visitor trends since the previous nonresident visitor study.
• Determine the main attractions to the state (including Lewis and Clark attractions).
• Update information used in ITRR's model to estimate annual visitation to the state and
associated economic impacts.
This report provides the profile of nonresident visitors to Montana in the summer. Visitors are analyzed
and described according to the following categories:
1) All summer visitors are analyzed as one group.
2) The primary purpose for visiting Montana is analyzed and compared to other purposes.
3) 2001 summer visitors are compared to 1996 summer visitors and the differences analyzed.
INSTITUTE FOR TOURISM & RECREATION RESEARCH: NONRESIDENT SIMMER VISITOR PROFILE-1
Study Population
Travelers to Montana during the summer of 2001 (June through September) were examined for this
study. The population of travelers was defined as those persons who entered Montana by private
vehicle or commercial air carrier during the study period and whose primary residence was not in
Montana at the time. Specifically excluded from the study were those persons who entered Montana on
a roadway while traveling in a plainly marked commercial vehicle (e.g. scheduled or chartered bus or a
semi truck). Also excluded were those travelers who entered Montana by train, and out-of-state college
students living in Montana for educational purposes (they were considered residents). Other than these
exclusions, the study attempted to assess all types of travel to the state including travel for pleasure,
business, passing through, or any other reason.
Population Estimation Model
The population estimation model was designed to identify all members of the study population by entry
location and month of entry into the state. Entry locations included highway border crossings and major
airports. Thirty-nine roadway locations were considered entry points into the state (i.e., Interstates,
primary and secondary highways, and minor roads), in addition to the following airports: Billings,
Bozeman, Butte, Great Falls, Helena, Kalispell, Missoula and West Yellowstone.
The method used to estimate the nonresident travel population was two -fold. First, traffic counts at all
Montana borders/entry points were obtained from secondary sources for each month of the study.
These sources include:
• Helena Regional Airport Authority: Monthly Passenger Deboarding Report by Airport.
• Montana Department of Transportation, Planning and Statistics Bureau: Monthly Comparative
Automatic Traffic Recorder Data Report.
• Montana Department of Transportation, Planning and Statistics Bureau: Biannual Traffic by
Sections Report.
• Idaho Transportation Department: Monthly Automatic Traffic Counter Bulletin.
• Wyoming Department of Transportation, Planning Program: Automatic Traffic Recorder
Monthly Summary.
• North Dakota Department of Transportation, Planning Division: Monthly Automatic Traffic Data.
• The U.S. Department of Treasury, Customs Service: Monthly Canada-to-U.S. Border Crossing
Statistics.
Second, surveyors identified resident/nonresident proportions at each entry location by observing
vehicle license plates and questioning boarding air passengers at Montana airports using random
sampling techniques stratified by location and time period. Travel group sizes were obtained while
administering nonresident travel questionnaires to potential respondents.
Survey Metiiodology and Response Rates
Between June 1, 2001 and September 30, 2001, ITRR staff intercepted nonresident highway travel
groups at gas stations, rest areas, and Canadian border crossings, and air travel groups at all airports.
Intercepts were conducted at three Canadian borders: Port of Roosville north of Eureka, Port of
Sweetgrass north of Shelby, and Port of Raymond north of Plentywood. Gas stations in the following
communities were used: Libby, Kalispell, Whitefish, West Glacier, St. Mary, Missoula, Lolo, Rocker,
Butte, Dillon, Helena, Great Falls, Shelby, Bozeman, West Yellowstone, Livingston, Gardiner,
INSTITUTE FOR TOURIS M & RECREATION RESEARCH: NONRESIDENT SLMMER VISITOR PROFILE - 2
Lewistown, Harlowton, Laurel, Red Lodge, Bridger, Billings, Crow Agency, Miles City, Glendive, Sidney,
Culbertson, Glasgow and Havre. Rest areas on all three Interstates were used as intercept locations in
the summer.
When contacted, data was collected from the travel groups, including point of entry into the state, group
size and type, residence of the respondent as well as residence of others traveling in their group, travel
method, purpose of trip, anticipated length of stay in Montana, direction of travel, and planned exit. This
"front-end" data was obtained from virtually every parry contacted and thus represented a set of data
unaffected by survey non -response bias. Next, the groups were asked to accept and complete a diary
questionnaire of their visit to Montana and to return it by mail in a provided postage -paid envelope.
During the four -month study period, 7,738 groups were contacted. Questionnaires were handed to
7,362 groups. Useable questionnaires were returned by 2,931 groups for a response rate of 40 percent.
No follow-up measures (i.e., reminder postcards or replacement questionnaires) were used to increase
response rate. Due to the nature of the questionnaire (i.e. diary of events as they occurred) and the
nature of the methodology (i.e. no name or address information was collected from visitors), it was
impossible to mail replacement questionnaires to non -respondents.
Front-end data collected from all nonresidents contacted allowed adjustments of the survey results for
non -response bias and sampling error. Returned surveys were assigned relative weights based on key
variables to adjust for discrepancies with the population model. These key variables included point of
entry and purpose of trip.
INSTITUTE FOR TOURISM & RECREATION RESEARCH: NONRESIDENT SLMMER VISITOR PROFILE - 3
The results of the summer survey are presented in table format as much as possible in this section.
Results will show all respondents in one column followed by a 'breakdown' of the data by primary
reason for visiting. The second portion of this chapter has comparison tables between the 1996
summer visitor and the 2001 summer visitor. Throughout the report, numbers that appear in bold
represent one or two of the highest percentages for that column and sometimes the lowest
number.
ALL visitors
Table 1: Trip Expenditures —Summer 2001*
All Traveler
Groups
Total # of Summer Groups
2,267,140
Group Size
2.5
# Of Nights in MT
4.2
Average Daily Expenditures
$109.51
Total Summer Expenditures
$1,042,752,906
Expenditure
Distribution"
Restaurant/Bar
$21.20
Gas/oil
$25.14
Retail
$24.18
Hotel/motel
$11.52
Camping
$2.42
Groceries/snacks
$9.59
Auto Rental/repair
$7.23
Misc. Services
$0.61
Transportation
$0.14
Entrance fees
$3.09
Outfitter/guide
$4.39
`All figures are rounded.
**Expenditures reflect the average across all groups and do
not reflect actual costs of each individual item.
Table 2: Percent of Overnight Stays by Region
Region
% Overnights spent
in Region
Glacier Count
33%
Yellowstone Count
30%
Custer Count
14%
Gold West Count
11 %
Russell Count
9%
Missouri Count
2%
*Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.
INSTITUTE FOR TOURISM & RECREATION RESEARCH. NONRESIDENT SLMMER VISITOR PROFILE - 4
Table 3: Percent of Overniaht Stays for Selected Communities
Region
City/Location
% all
overnights
within
region
% all
overnights
within
state
Glacier Country
(33%)
Missoula
20%
7%
East & West Glacier,
St. Mary
17%
5%
Glacier National Park
15%
Whitefish
10%
3%
Kalispell
8%
3%
Columbia Falls
4%
Hungry Horse
3%
Hamilton
2%
Big Fork
2%
Yellowstone Country
(30%)
West Yellowstone
23%
7%
Bozeman
19%
6%
Gardiner
12%
4%
Livingston
10%
3%
Yellowstone NP
7%
2%
Red Lode
6%
Big Sky
3%
Cooke City
3%
Custer Country
(14%)
Billings
60%
9%
Miles City
11 %
Hardin
7%
Glendive
5%
Gold West Country
(11%)
Butte
28%
3%
Helena
18%
2%
Dillon
11 %
Anaconda
7%
Ennis
5%
Deer Lode
5%
Russell Country
(9%)
Great Falls
47%
4%
Lewistown
14%
Havre
12%
Shelby
5%
Missouri River
Country
(2%)
Glasgow
33%
Sidney/Fairview
24%
Plent ood
5%
INSTITUTE FOR TOURIS M & RECREATION RESEARCH: NONRESIDENT SIMMER VISITOR PROFILE - 5
Tahle 4- Percent of Nonresidents on Specific Hiahwav Segments*
WEST -EAST
All
Travelers
NORTH -SOUTH
All
Travelers
1-90
ID Border to Missoula
24-26%**
1-15
Canada to Shelby
4%
Missoula to Butte
33-37%
Shelby to Great Falls
7-13%
Butte to Bozeman
33-37%
Great Falls to Helena
9-11 %
Bozeman to Livingston
39% .
Helena to Butte
6%
Livingston to Billings
32-35%
Butte to Dillon
10-11 %
Billings to WY Border
19-21%
Dillon to ID Border
11%
1-94
Billings to Miles City
14-15%
US93
Canada to Kalispell
2-8%
Miles City to Glendive
14%
Kalispell to Poison
7-10%
Glendive to ND Border
11-12%
Poison to Missoula
13-14%
ID Border to Kalispell
5-6%
Missoula to ID Border
4-6%
US2
Kalispell to W. Glacier
14-19%
US191
Lewistown to 190
2-3%
W. Glacier to Shelb
6-10%
Belgrade to Big Sky
8-12%
Shelby to Glasgow
4-5%
Big Sky to W. Yellowstone
12%
Glasgow to ND Border
34%
West Yellowstone to
Madison Junction
15%
MT200
Missoula to Great Falls
3-6%
G.Falls to Hwy 87 Jct.
5-8%
Hwy 87 to ND Border
14%
US59
Miles City to WY Border
1%
US12
Helena to Townsend
7%
US287
Choteau to 190 Jct.
3-6%
Beartooth to Red Ld
5%
190 Jct. to West Yellowstone
5-7%
US212
Red Lodge to Laurel
5-7%
US89
Canadian B. to Browning
5-12%
190 Jct. to Broadus/WY
3%
Browning to Great Falls
4-7%
US310
Rockvale to WY Bord.
3%
Livingston to Gardiner
19%
Going -to -the -Sun Road
15%
MT16
Canada to Pien ood
6%
*Not all respondents answered the travel route portion of the survey since it regwrea tracing tneir route on a
provided map.
**The ranges represent more than one road segment between the two points highlighted, e.g. the stretch of
road between the Idaho border to Missoula has adjoining roads where travelers could access or leave this
stretch before arriving in Missoula. The ranges show the highest and lowest numbers on this portion of the
road.
INSTITUTE FOR TOURIS M & RECREATION RESEARCH. NONRESIDENT SCMMER VISITOR PROFILE - 6
��
N
0
V)
A �
O +3+
H
o a
N !L
T
p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
0 0 Ci 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
O H O 00 o CO c0 L O O
of - 00 00 o v - <o
00 N —
<° 00 04 M Cl) Cl) �
tf9 69 d9 69 EH 64 69, 64 (f3 w
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(0 0 — N W 00 �Y C0 O
N N O
00 N CO u7 O — CO N
(O CO CDM O ODLo c0 V
d9
9 6ci9 69 H9 04 69 O
Ef9
U
m
Y � �
O cu c
CL 0. u) m
m j w n
00 � "O LL O L j
O
mc C OCO O V)
m p O —
c
C y O
c �° m m m
J 0CL � Q
N E O C N y O f6 U <E
O Mn
H
M
rn
rn
if
0)
ui
0)
C)
to
CD
0)
C)
O
co
0)
cn
0 0
o
oo�
Cl) c
V � N
O:
V 0
c') c7
o
N
O O
O
Cl.O
co Q
U.) (C
64
Cl) W
O O o
0 0
0 0 m
a
0
cN0 n
M co
M
O o
O p
O O m
0) Q
O
O
_
691
Cl) 00
O o o
Lo o
O O CV
cc
ai N
cN0
cccl
_
co 00
00,
0 O
C
O C)
c0)
0
r
000 N
_
En
co O)
0 0 -0,cm
o
oocq
N C\
O c0
Cli V
_
0 0)
O
O o o
O o
CD
O
CD C
O O d
co C,
N
CD L p
m V
64
co 0)
cm:)O 0
(0 c
0
0
0 0 0?
N
N O
c') LC)
EFT
Cn Vi
ch ai
N
O
O
cV
_
O a
c Cf
O �I
R
E °
C 4
c)
E- a
cm
G
H
I— V1 T
C C
i
c9
m
>
O B O
0
`o
co
a m
c
O
m
°
w °
CL
rn
c C
N 2
C
~ ~ co
6 C
�a
-Ca)
°
O
V 0 c
O
v
z c
°
I
O
>
z z >
F a
m Q O
E L w
0 ~ > O U
d
m ro
m
o.
Z 0
m m OR m a m
c -0 m a m
d -0 o a
C v m m m
C EO Y _
O O N
O C L
U N E _ ( w
CL
aL N C m
Cc
0 y 'O a O
N
U C' C L W O
- N
C .0 CL .L..
O O O Cl c
O o 0 0 c
O N O O C
O C, V c
O co M m c
N N c
c0 c0 m n
Ci L v
N
69 69 69 0
O C) O O c
O O O c
O O O c
O 0 V V c
O m m c
clCl0
P� vi Ci r
O_ 0o C,
r)
69 tel 69 Cf
O O O C)c
O O O O c
o v O O C
O c0 O 0 c
O N O O c
v_ Ln Ct v
v r- o <
n v v
69 69 69 6'
vi
m
m
E
O
O
N
(V
c
LL