Technical Report CHL-98-28 September 1998 US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station Design for Navigation Improvements at Nome Harbor, Alaska Coastal Model Investigation by Robert R. Bottin, Jr., Hugh F. Acuff Approved For Public Release; Distribution Is Unlimited mA a. Ws Me. CLL — VS -2L¢ Prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, or promotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products. The findings of this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position, unless so desig- nated by other authorized documents. ER) rants ON RECYCLED PAPER MBL/WHOI ll Technical Report CHL-98-28 September 1998 Design for Navigation Improvements at Nome Harbor, Alaska Coastal Model Investigation by Robert R. Bottin, Jr., Hugh F. Acuff U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station 3909 Halls Ferry Road Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 Final report Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited ACA O34b23 5 O 0301 0 A U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska Prepared for Anchorage, Alaska 99506-0898 US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station FOR INFORMATION CONTACT: PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICE U.S. ARMY ENGINEER WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION 3909 HALLS FERRY ROAD VICKSBURG, MISSISSIPP1 33180-6799 PHONE: (601) 634-2502 AREA OF RESERVATION ¢ 2.7 sq km Waterways Experiment Station Cataloging-in-Publication Data Bottin, Robert R. Design for navigation improvements at Nome Harbor, Alaska : coastal model investigation / by Robert R. Bottin, Jr., Hugh F. Acuff ; prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska. 153 p. : ill. ; 28 cm. — (Technical report ; CHL-98-28) Includes bibliographic references. 1. Harbors — Alaska — Nome — Models. 2. Navigation — Alaska — Nome — Models. 3. Hydraulic models. |. Acuff, Hugh F. Il. United States. Army. Corps of Engineers. Alaska District. Ill. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. IV. Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory (U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station) V. Title. VI. Series: Technical report (U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station) ; CHL-98-28. TA7 W34 no.CHL-98-28 Contents PRE face meet try Haid Wn ale SIE Mean ORR SOR ynt es Score aeRO Elan: Gel ase iv Conversion Factors, Non-SI to SI Units of Measurement .............. vi TIntr@dactrom’s Lessa doves Se AO ee en San aa eal AO eh aE CONE UU A Ta 8 Ie 1 PFOtOLYPe Mir iapae = OM yeaa ava aimini cilres Sev enthed 8 actA gy pected Picea et ete adee ste 1 Problemsand Needs © ees cuorsicee creer a ota eae el eeeeey como nous er em e eee 3 Purpose of the Model Investigation ..................2------- 5 2 Nhe mode liv. testes Ae ec LUT See R UAC ey PO Dit Par ig nD oo 6 ModeliDesioniy ess. wets, soniaer Spe herd es ened (Trg NR SG aS egress 6 ModelvandsAppurtenancess 93 -yetie sie eeu oon cystitis) icon sul ae bsclencottenrs ellen: 8 Desioniofmracer Materiales pe et wen iene eee ence nee crue 11 3—Experimental Conditions and Procedures....................0.. 12 Selection of Experimental Conditions ......................... 12 AnalysisiofModelyDataiaerncisercis eis eee connect (on 17 4 EXperiments;andyRESUItS aye ieee yl iets cisions tists t=. el i) ceeicb si oitareile) = 18 EXPE TUMENtS yoy wash pce ee creedeMeed ele yooh hem ele grekene Morey Visneney + Caneel ce 18 ExperimentalsResultsigye: ps pcan nurse es ehescienec) dicicu ei fewe yao te 22 S=COnclusioms in-out iat te Nepree sos opts ea oct ese ae ttc REN RRR 8 5.0. 36 RRELETENCES 3h ccna e' Shek den BY Ales see aie ava ieinaher set ah Beg Ne a mh seataa stapes She 38 Tables 1-5 Photos 1-9 Plates 1-86 SF 298 Preface A request for a model investigation to study navigation improvements at Nome Harbor, Alaska, was initiated by the U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska, in a letter to the U.S. Army Engineer Division, Pacific Ocean. Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (HQUSACE) subsequently authorized the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES), Coastal and Hydraulics Labora- tory (CHL), to perform the study. Funds were provided by the Alaska District on 4 August 1997, 14 October 1997, 9 January 1998, and 27 February 1998. Model experiments were conducted at WES during the period December 1997 through March 1998 by personnel of the Harbors and Entrances Branch (HEB) of the Navigation and Harbors Division (NHD), CHL, under the direction of Dr. James R. Houston and Mr. Charles C. Calhoun, Jr., Director and Assistant Director of CHL, respectively; and under the direct guidance of Messrs. C. E. Chatham, Jr., Chief of NHD; and Dennis G. Markle, Chief of HEB. Model ex- periments were conducted by Messrs. Hugh F. Acuff and Larry R. Tolliver, Civil Engineering Technicians, and William G. Henderson, Computer Assistant, under the supervision of Mr. Robert R. Bottin, Jr., Research Physical Scientist. This report was prepared by Messrs. Bottin and Acuff. Word Processing and format- ting were completed by Ms. Myra E. Willis, CHL. Prior to the model investigation, Messrs. Bottin and Acuff met with represena- tatives of the Alaska District and visited Nome Harbor to inspect the prototype site. During the course of the study, liaison was maintained by means of confer- ences, telephone communications, E-mail, and monthly progress reports. Messrs. Ken Eisses and Ed Sorenson were technical points of contact for the Alaska District. The following personnel visited WES to attend briefings, confer- ences, and/or observe model operation during the course of the study. Mr. Let Mon Lee HQUSACE Mr. Henri Langlois HQUSACE Mr. Jim Nakasone Pacific Ocean Division Mr. Carl Stormer Alaska District Mr. Ken Eisses Alaska District Mr. Ed Sorenson Alaska District Mr. John Burns Alaska District Mr. Will Appleton Alaska District Mr. Ken Boire Consulting Economist, Alaska District Mr. John Oliver Engineering Consultant, Alaska District Mr. John Handeland Mayor, City of Nome Mr. Mike Yanez City Manager, City of Nome Mr. Stan Andersen City Council, City of Nome Mr. Norman Johnson City Council, City of Nome Mr. Terry Wilson Harbor Commission, City of Nome Mr. Randy Romenesko City Engineer, City of Nome Mr. Don Stultz President, Nome Planning Commission Mr. Paul Fuhs Consultant, City of Nome Dr. Robert W. Whalin was Director of WES during model experimentation and the preparation and publication of this report. COL Robin R. Cababa, EN, was Commander. The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, or promotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute an Official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products. vi Conversion Factors, Non-SI to SI Units of Measurement Non-SI units of measurement used in this report can be converted to SI units as follows: util 0.02831685 ee eee eee 0.4536 0.09290304 square miles (US statute) 2.589988 tons (2,000 pounds, mass) 907.1847 1. Introduction Prototype Nome is located on the Seward peninsula in western Alaska (Figure 1). It is known as the transportation and commercial center for northwest Alaska. Nome is accessible only by air and water, and cannot be reached by road from any major city. A local road system leads to three small neighboring villages. Mining, fishing, and tourism are the major industries in Nome. Nome Harbor is located on the Norton Sound, Bering Sea, at the mouth of the Snake River. The orginal Federal project, authorized in 1917, was among the first Corps of Engineers navigation projects in Alaska. It provided for a 102-m-long (335-ft-long)! east jetty, a 140-m-long (460-ft-long) west jetty, and a 2.44-m-deep* (8-ft-deep), 23-m-wide (75-ft-wide), 587-m-long (1,925-ft-long) entrance channel extending from Norton Sound to a tuming basin up the Snake River. The basin was 2.44 m deep (8 ft deep) and approximately 76 m by 183 m (250 ft by 600 ft) in area. Dredging of the channel and basin were completed in 1922. Construction of the jetties (originally concrete and timber structures) was completed in 1923. In addition, approximately 1,163 linear m (3,815 linear ft) of steel sheet-pile wall was constructed that lined the entrance channel and eastern side of the turning basin. Due to extensive ice and storm damage, the east and west jetties were recon- structed (with concrete and steel) in 1940 to modified lengths of 73 m (240 ft) and 122 m (400 ft), respectively. The east jetty was repaired in 1954, and both were again repaired in 1965. Emergency repairs to the steel sheet-pile wall were accom- plished in 1985 and 1986 (U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska (USAEDA) 1996). The existing federal project is shown in Figure 2. 1 Units of measurement in the main text of this report are shown in SI (metric) units, followed by non-SI (British) units in parentheses. In addition, a table of factors for converting non-SI units of measurement used in figures, plates, and tables in this report to SI units is presented on page vi. ? All depths and elevations cited herein are in meters (feet) referred to mean lower low water (mliw) unless otherwise noted. Chapter 1 Introduction CHUKCHI SEA SEWARD PENINSULA PROJECT LOCATION NORTON SOUND BERING SEA PASTOL BAY fF USA \ \ stupy \ CANADA AREA... \ SCALE Co a) 0 10 20 3040 50 mI Figure 1. Project location Chapter 1 Introduction " UPSTREAM LIMIT OF |" FEDERAL PROJECT awe é SNe xX. .- = s SS ae TURNING BASIN (8 FT DEEP, =a. SAND_SPIT 250 FT WIDE, 600 FT LONG) Nu. CHANNEL (8 FT DEEP, 75 FT WIDE, 1.925 FT LONG) Figure 2. Existing Nome Harbor Federal project An 823-m-long (2,700-ft-long) causeway, constructed in the mid-1980's, extends into the Norton Sound west of the harbor entrance. It is a rubble-mound structure that includes two vertical sheet-pile docks on the east side for vessel off- loading and berthing. The facilities were designed and built for cargo and petroleum vessels of 122 m (400 ft) in length and greater, and cruise ships that load and unload passengers. The depth at the causeway outer dock facilities is about 6.3 m (20 ft) and 4.3 m (14 ft) at the inner dock. A breach in the causeway, close to its shoreward end, allows nearshore water flow for fish migration and shoreline accessibility for small boats. The design depth through the breach is -2.4 m (-8 ft). A 1997 field survey, however, indicated depth of about -0.76 m (-2.5 ft). A stone revetment is located along the shoreline east of the existing harbor entrance. A federally constructed 1,020-m-long (3,350-ft-long) revetment was completed in 1951 to protect the shoreline from erosion. The State of Alaska constructed a 1,143 m (3,750 ft) eastern extension, which was completed in 1995. Figure 3 is an aerial photo of Nome Harbor. Problems and Needs Maintenance requirements for the existing harbor facilities are high. Mainte- nance is performed almost every year on the entrance jetties, the sheet-pile walls, and the turning basin (dredging). The existing project is currently in dire need of repair, with major rehabilitation required within the next year. In addition, vessel damages are caused by the hydraulic characteristics of the current entrance channel. Large waves propagate unimpeded through the channel, creating a significant hazard to small craft. Larger vessels impact the sheet-pile walls at the sharp turn in Chapter 1 Introduction | BUION JO MaIA jeudy “E aINbI4 Introduction = oO Pad a. i] {3 3) See: et! Clage ws ae . the entrance channel, which causes vessel damage as well as damage to the sheet pile. The existing project has become inadequate to meet the needs of the current fleet, due in part to the growth in the local fishing industry. Fisheries’ management changes and increasing interest in the fishing industry have changed the fishing fleet in Norton Sound. The fleet, once composed solely of large fish processors that did not stop in Nome, is now composed of mostly 9.8-m-long (32-ft-long) vessels, which must frequently use the harbor. Barge lightering operations in Nome are also different from when the project was constructed, and barge operators are increas- ingly burdened by the narrow, sharp-bended, entrance channel configuration. Nome needs expanded moorage facilities to accommodate the increased number of commercial vessels using the harbor. Current facilities in the area are crowded, inadequate, and sometimes unsafe. Vessels currently incur damages due to ground- ing and bumping against the sheet pile or each other. In summary, there are multiple purposes for navigation improvements at Nome Harbor. Improvements would (a) provide a safer harbor with more efficient access for the design fleet; (b) provide additional moorage for small fishing vessels, tugs, and barges; and (c) reduce operation and maintenance costs (USAEDA 1996). Purpose of the Model Investigation At the request of the U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska , a coastal hydraulic model investigation of Nome Harbor was initiated by the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES) to accomplish the following: a. Study wave, current, and shoaling conditions for the existing harbor configuration. b. Determine the impacts of a new entrance channel and harbor configuration on wave-induced current patterns and magnitudes, sediment transport patterns, and wave conditions in the new channel and mooring area. c. Optimize the length and alignment of a new breakwater structure required to provide adequate protection. d. Optmize the length and alignment of causeway extensions, in conjunction with the new breakwater, to provide adequate protection for waves and currents and minimize shoaling problems. e. Develop remedial plans for the alleviation of undesirable conditions as necessary. f Determine if the proposed design could be modified to significantly reduce construction costs without sacrificing the desired level of protection. Chapter 1 Introduction 2 The Model Model Design The Nome Harbor model (Figure 4) was constructed to an undistorted linear scale of 1:90, model to prototype. Scale selection was based on the following factors: a. Depth of water required in the model to prevent excessive bottom friction. b. Absolute size of model waves. c. Available shelter dimensions and area required for model construction. d. Efficiency of model operation. e. Available wave-generating and wave-measuring equipment. ft. Model construction costs. A geometrically undistorted model was necessary to ensure accurate reproduction of wave and current patterns. Following selection of the linear scale, the model was designed and operated in accordance with Froude's model law (Stevens et al. 1942). The scale relations used for design and operation of the model were as follows: Chapter 2 The Model DISCHARGE SONIC FLOW TRANSDUCERS WITH MANIFOLD MULTIPROCESSOR TRANSMITTER \ wn Ls = =] a we a ° = WAVE ABSORDER Sy Me, "4 s 0, 7) ~ = N NS 720 a WAVE GENERATOR - 182° DIRE Me c WAVE GENERATOR % % PIT ELEVATION -90 FT NOTE: CONTOURS AND ELEVATIONS SCALES IN FEET i SHOWN IN FEET REFERRED TO MODEL 0 5 10 15 20 MEAN LOWER LOW WATER (MLLW) PROTOTYPE 0 450 900 1350 1800 \ g — A WAVE ABSORDER 694,000 6 IN PIPE MANIFOLD MODEL LIMITS Figure 4. Model layout The existing causeway and revetment adjacent to Nome Harbor, as well as the proposed jetties and breakwaters, are rubble-mound structures. Experience and experimental research have shown that considerable wave energy passes through the interstices of this type structure; thus, the transmission, reflection, and absorption of wave energy became a matter of concern in the design of a 1:90-scale model. In small-scale hydraulic models, rabble-mound structures reflect relatively more and absorb or dissipate relatively less wave energy than geometrically similar prototype structures (LéMehauté 1965). Also, the transmission of wave energy through a rubble-mound structure is relatively less for the small-scale model than for the prototype. Consequently, small-scale model rubble-mound structures must be adusted somewhat to ensure satisfactory reproduction of wave-reflection and wave- transmission characteristics. In past investigations (Dai and Jackson 1966, Brasfeild and Ball 1967) at WES, this adjustment was made by determining wave- Chapter 2 The Model energy transmission characteristics of the proposed structure in a two-dimensional model using a scale large enough to ensure negligible scale effects. A cross section then was developed for the small-scale, three-dimensional model that would provide essentially the same relative transmission and reflection of wave energy. Therefore, from previous findings for structures and wave conditions similar to those at Nome Harbor, it was determined that the correct wave-energy transmission and reflection characteristics could be closely approximated by increasing the size of the rock used in the 1:90-scale model to approximately two times that required for geometric similarity. Accordingly, in constructing the rubble-mound structures in the Nome Harbor model, rock sizes were computed linearly by scale, then multiplied by 2 to determine the actual sizes to be used in the model. Ideally, a quantitative, three-dimensional, movable-bed model investigation would best determine the impacts of harbor modifications with regard to sediment deposition in the vicinity of the harbor. However, this type of model investigation is difficult and expensive to conduct, and each area in which such an investigation is contemplated must be carefully analyzed. In view of the complexities involved in conducting movable-bed model studies and due to limited funds and time for the Nome Harbor project, the model was molded in cement mortar (fixed-bed), and a tracer material was obtained to qualitatively determine sediment patterns in the vicinity of the harbor. Model and Appurtenances The model reproduced approximately 3,350 m (11,000 ft) of the Alaskan shore- line, the existing harbor and lower reaches of the Snake River, and underwater topography in the Norton Sound to an offshore depth of 12.2 m (40 ft) with a sloping transition to the wave generation pit elevation of -27.4 m (-90 ft). The total area reproduced in the model was approximately 1,225 sq m (13,200 sq ft), representing about 9.8 sq km (3.8 sq miles) in the prototype. Vertical control for model construction was based on mean lower low water (mllw), and horizontal control was referenced to a local prototype grid system. Figure 5 is a general view of the model. Model waves were reproduced by a 24.4-m-long (80-ft-long), electrohydraulic, unidirectional spectral wave generator with a trapezoidal-shaped, vertical motion plunger. The wave generator utilized a hydraulic power supply. The vertical motion of the plunger was controlled by a computer-generated command signal, and movement of the plunger caused a displacement of water, which generated the required experimental waves. The wave generator also was mounted on retractable casters, which enabled it to be positioned to generate waves from the required directions. An Automated Data Acquisition and Control System, designed and constructed at WES (Figure 6), was used to generate and transmit wave generator control signals, monitor wave generator feedback, and secure and analyze wave data at selected locations in the model. Through the use of a Microvax computer, the electrical output of parallel-wire, capacitance-type wave gauges, which varied with Chapter 2 The Model Chapter 2 The Model Figure 5. General view of model 10 DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CENTRAL PROCESSING UNIT DIGITAL TO ANALOG CONVERTER DISK / TAPE CONTROLLERS BIT PACKS DIGITAL OUTPUT CONTROL LINES STRIP CHART CHANNEL SELECTION { | | { CIRCUITRY RECORDERS LINES SELECTED FOR DISPLAY AND RECORDING CHANNEL SELECTION CIRCUITRY WAVE STAND CALIBRATION STATUS LIGHTS WAVE ROD AND POTENTIOMETER LINE PAIRS FOR EACH WAVE STAND PROGRAMS, TEST PARAMETERS, AND DATA CONTROL LINES=, WAVE STAND TO WAVE ' CONTROL ROD STANDS CIRCUITRY WAVE ROD SIGNAL AMPLIFIER QJ CALIBRATION POTENTIOMETER SIGNAL 4 | faa x WAVE STAND WAVE GENERATOR Figure 6. Automated Data Acquisition and Control System the change in water-surface elevation with respect to time, were recorded on magnetic disks. These data then were analyzed to obtain the parametric wave data. A water circulation system (Figure 4), consisting of a 15.2-cm (6-in.), perforated-pipe water-intake manifold, a 0.03-cms (1-cfs) pump, and sonic flow transducers with a multiprocessor transmitter, was used in the model to reproduce steady-state flows through the Snake River that corresponded to selected prototype river flows. The magnitudes of river currents were measured by timing the progress of weighted floats over known distances. A 0.6-m (2-ft) (horizontal) solid layer of fiber wave absorber was placed along the inside perimeter of the model to dampen wave energy that might otherwise be reflected from the model walls. In addition, guide vanes were placed along the wave generator sides in the flat pit area to ensure proper formation of the wave train incident to the model contours. Chapter 2 The Model Design of Tracer Material As discussed previously, a fixed-bed model was constructed and a tracer material selected to qualitatively determine movement and deposition of sediment in the vicinity of the harbor. Tracer was chosen in accordance with the scaling relations of Noda (1972), which indicate a relation, or model law, among the four basic scale ratios, 1.€., the horizontal scale A ; the vertical scale 1 ; the sediment size ratio np ; and the relative specific weight ratio n,. These relations were determined experi- mentally using a wide range of wave conditions and bottom materials and are valid mainly for the breaker zone. Noda's scaling relations indicate that movable-bed models with scales in the vicinity of 1:90 (model to prototype) should be distorted (i.e., they should have different horizontal and vertical scales). Since the fixed-bed model of Nome Harbor was undistorted to allow accurate reproduction of short-period wave and current patterns, the following procedure (which has been successfully used and validated for undistorted models) was used to select a tracer maternal. Using the prototype sand characteristics (median diameter, D,, = 0.15 mm, specific gravity = 2.7) and assuming the horizontal scale to be in similitude (i.e., 1:90), the median diameter for a given vertical scale was then assumed to be in similitude and the tracer median diameter and horizontal scale were computed. This resulted in a range of tracer sizes for given specific gravities that could be used. Although several types of movable-bed tracer materials were available at WES, previous investigations (Giles and Chatham 1974, Bottin and Chatham 1975) indicated that crushed coal tracer more nearly represented the movement of prototype sand. Therefore, quantities of crushed coal (specific gravity = 1.30; median diameter, D,, = 0.29 - 0.54 mm) were selected for use as a tracer material throughout the model investigation. Chapter 2 The Model 11 12 3 Experimental Conditions and Procedures Selection of Experimental Conditions Still-water level Still-water levels (swl’s) for wave action models are selected so that various wave-induced phenomena that are dependent on water depths are accurately re- produced in the model. These phenomena include refraction of waves in the project area, overtopping of harbor structures by waves, reflection of wave energy from various structures, and transmission of wave energy through porous structures. In most cases, it is desirable to select a model swl that closely approximates the higher water stages that normally occur in the prototype for the following reasons: a. The maximum amount of wave energy reaching a coastal area normally occurs during the higher water phase of the local tidal cycle. b. Most storms moving onshore are characteristically accompanied by a higher water level due to wind, tide, and storm surge. c The selection of a high swl helps minimize model scale effects due to viscous bottom friction. d. When ahigh swl is selected, a model investigation tends to yield more conservative results. Swl's of +0.5 and +4.0 m (+1.6 and +13.0 ft) were selected by the Alaska District for use during the model experiments. The lower value (+0.5 m (+1.6 ft)) represents mean higher high water (mhhw) and was used while obtaining wave heights, wave-induced current patterns and magnitudes, and sediment tracer patterns in the vicinity of the harbor and causeway. The higher value (+4.0 m (+13.0 ft)) represented extreme storm surge conditions and also was used for selected direc- tions while securing wave height data, current patterns and magnitudes, and Chapter 3 Experimental Conditions and Procedures sediment tracer patterns. This value was estimated at the harbor based on observa- tions made in the prototype during storm wave conditions. Intermediate swl's of +1.2 and 2.4 m (+4.0 and +8.5 ft) were selected for limited experiments during preliminary testing. Factors influencing selection of experimental wave characteristics In planning the experimental program for a model investigation of harbor wave- action problems, it is necessary to select heights, periods, and directions for the experimental waves that will allow a realistic study of the proposed improvement plans and an accurate evaluation of the elements of the various proposals. Surface- wind waves are generated primarily by the interactions between tangential stresses of wind flowing over water, resonance between the water surface and atmospheric turbulence, and interactions between individual wave components. The height and period of the maximum significant wave that can be generated by a given storm depend on the wind speed, the length of time that wind of a given speed continues to blow, and the distance over water (fetch) which the wind blows. Selection of experimental wave conditions entails evaluation of such factors as: a. Fetch and decay distances (the latter being the distance over which waves travel after leaving the generating area) for various directions from which waves can approach the problem area. b. Frequency of occurrence and duration of storm winds from the different directions. c. Alignment, size, and relative geographic position of the navigation struc- tures. d. Alignments, lengths, and locations of the various reflecting surfaces in the area. e. Refraction of waves caused by differentials in depth in the area seaward of the site, which may create either a concentration or a diffusion of wave energy. When waves move into water of gradually decreasing depth, transformations take place in all wave characteristics except wave period (to the first order of approximation). The most important transformations with respect to selection of experimental wave characteristics are the changes in wave height and direction of travel due to the phenomenon referred to as wave refraction. For this study, the Alaska District utilized numerical wave transformation models to transform deepwater wave characteristics into shallow-water values. The transformation models included refractive, diffractive, and shoaling effects of the offshore bathymetry. Shallow-water wave characteristics were obtained at the -12.2-m (-40-ft) contour, which corresponded to the approximate wave generator location in the physical model. Chapter 3 Experimental Conditions and Procedures 13 14 Wave hindcast data and selection of experimental waves Measured prototype data covering a sufficiently long duration from which to base a comprehensive statistical analysis of wave conditions were unavailable for the Nome Harbor area. However, a wave hindcast study was developed based on wind data in the area to define the wave climate (Applied Coastal Modeling 1997) at the Nome Harbor site. The objective of the hindcast was to define the general range of wave heights, periods, directions, and frequencies of occurrence at the project site. In general, the study indicated a relatively moderate wave climate at Nome with wave periods 12 sec or less, and heights 2 m (6.6 ft) or less occurring about 95 percent of the time (when waves are present). Waves up to 6 m (19.7 ft) in height, however, may occur on a 50-year recurrence interval. In addition, the study indicated that waves approach from a southwesterly sector about 66 percent of the time (when waves are present). Model experiments were actually initiated prior to completion of the hindcast study. The Alaska District initially selected the following wave conditions for use in the model investigation, which cover a large range of wave directions, periods, and heights. However, upon completion of the hindcast, the number of wave conditions was reduced. Unidirectional wave spectra were generated based on Joint North Sea Wave Project (SONSWAP) parameters for the selected waves and used throughout the model investigation. Typical wave spectra are shown in Figure 7. The solid line represents the desired spectra, while the dashed line represents the spectra repro- duced in the model. Figure 8 is a typical wave train time series. Selected waves were defined as significant wave height, the average height of the highest one-third of the waves or H, . In deep water, H, is very similar to H,,, (energy-based wave) where H,,, = 4 (E)'”, and E equals total energy in the spectra, which is obtained by integrating the energy density spectra over the frequency range. River discharges The Snake River runs generally southerly from the mountains and turns easterly near the Norton Sound coast. It flows through the currently authorized turning basin and the existing sheet-pile-lined navigation channel into Norton Sound. The mean annual discharge measured by the U.S. Geological Survey is 5.4 cms (190 cfs) northeast of Nome (USAEDA 1996). The typical maximum monthly mean flow occurs in June following the spring snowmelt. After the summer rains, progres- sively lower discharge peak flows occurs, and discharge continues to decline through the winter. During the period 1965-1991, the Snake River’s maximum monthly mean discharge was 47 cms (1,655 cfs). The mean annual discharge of 5.4 cms (190 cfs) was selected for use during all model experiments. Chapter 3 Experimental Conditions and Procedures Wave Conditions (3.3) 2 (6.6) 257 6 (19.7) 3 (9.8) 1 (3.3) 2 (6.6) Chapter 3 Experimental Conditions and Procedures 15 16 LEGEND — — SPECTRA GENERATED DESIRED SPECTRA Spectral Density (Ft2/Hz) EO} ee?) 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 Frequency (Hz) Figure 7. Typical energy density-versus-frequency plots (model terms) for a wave spectra; 12-sec, 2-m (6.6-ft) waves (prototype) 500. 600. b . 900. 1000. 1100. Time (sec) Figure 8. Typical model-scale wave train time series; 12-sec, 2-m (6.6-ft) wave (prototype) Chapter 3 Experimental Conditions and Procedures Analysis of Mode! Data Relative merits of the various plans were evaluated by: a. Comparison of wave heights at selected locations in the model. b. Comparison of wave-induced current patterns and magnitudes. c. Comparison of sediment tracer movement and subsequent deposits. d. Visual observations and wave pattern photographs. In the wave-height data analysis, the average height of the highest one-third of the waves ( H, ), recorded at each gauge location, was computed. All wave heights then were adjusted by application of Keulegan's equation’ to compensate for excessive model wave height attenuation due to viscous bottom friction. From this equation, reduction of model wave heights (relative to the prototype) can be calculated as a function of water depth, width of wave front, wave period, water viscosity, and distance of wave travel, and the model data can be corrected and converted to their prototype equivalents. 'G. HL Keulegan. (1950). "The Gradual Damping of a Progressive Oscillatory Wave with Distance in a Prismatic Rectangular Channel," Unpublished data, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC, prepared at request of Director, WES, Vicksburg, MS, by letter of 2 May 1950. Chapter 3 Experimental Conditions and Procedures 17 18 4 Experiments and Results Experiments Existing conditions Comprehensive wave height experiments were conducted for existing condi- tions (Plate 1) to establish a base from which to evaluate the effectiveness of the various improvement plans. Wave height data were secured at various locations in the existing and proposed harbor areas. In addition, wave-induced current patterns and magnitudes and sediment tracer experiments were conducted for representative wave conditions. Improvement plans Preliminary experiments of proposed improvement plans were initially conducted. These experiments consisted of expeditiously constructed breakwa- ters, causeway extensions, and/or channel alignments. Breakwaters were constructed with concrete blocks in some cases, and with stone in other instances. The stone breakwaters and causeway extensions consisted of an impermeable core (el +0.9 m (+3.0 ft)) with 7,257-kg (8-ton) armor stone constructed to a crest elevation of +4.0 m (+13.0 ft) on approximate 1V:1.5H side slopes. Deepening of the entrance channels and the turning and deposition basins was accomplished by removing the existing bottom contours and molding pea gravel to the required depths. Wave heights were obtained for most preliminary plans and wave- induced current patterns and magnitudes as well as tracer patterns and subsequent deposits were observed. These experiments were conducted in an expeditious manner only to determine how relative changes would affect hydrodynamic conditions. Results were viewed in a relative sense only due to the nature of the construction. Brief descriptions of preliminary improvement plans are presented in the following subparagraphs; dimensional details are shown in Plates 2-9. a. Plan 1 (Plate 2) consisted of the installation of a 808-m-long (2,650-ft- long) block breakwater. The structure originated approximately 463 m (1,520 ft) east of the existing causeway and extended seaward parallel to the causeway 408 m (1,340 ft) before doglegging to the southwest. The navigation opening between the new breakwater and the causeway was 213 m (700 ft) wide. Chapter 4 Experiments and Results b. Plan 2 (Plate 2) included the elements of Plan 1 with a 198-m-long (650-ft-long) seaward extension of the breakwater, resulting in a 1,006- m-long (3,300-ft-long) structure. c. Plan 3 (Plate 2) entailed the elements of Plan 1 but the dogleg portion of the breakwater was reoriented slightly to the west and extended by 46 m (150 ft) in length. This resulted in an 853-m-long (2,800-ft-long) struc- ture with a 122-m-wide (400-ft-wide) navigation opening between the breakwater and the causeway dock. d. Plan 4 (Plate 3) consisted of the elements of Plan 2 with a slight reorienta- tion of, and a 12.2-m-long (40-ft-long) extension to, the block dogleg breakwater. This resulted in a 1,018-m-long (3,340-ft-long) structure. A 107-m-wide (350-ft-wide), 6.7-m-deep (22-ft-deep) entrance channel, and a 6.7-m-deep (22-ft-deep) turning area (adjacent to the docks on the causeway) were installed. From this point the channel transitioned to 45.7 m (150 ft) in width and 3.7 m (12 ft) in depth and extended northerly through the sand spit into the Snake River and then easterly into the existing harbor. A 3.7-m-deep (12-ft-deep) deposition basin also was installed between the 3.7-m-deep (12-ft-deep) inner channel and the causeway. e. Plan 5 (Plate 3) involved the elements of Plan 4, but the breakwater was reduced in length by 110 m (360 ft) and the outer end was reoriented to the west. The total breakwater length was 908 m (2,980 ft) and the navigation opening was 137 m (450 ft) in width between the breakwater and the causeway dock. The existing harbor entrance also was closed. f. Plan 6 (Plate 4) entailed the elements of Plan 5 with a 41.1-m-long (135-ft-long) southerly extension of the causeway. The causeway exten- sion was of rubble-mound construction. g. Plan 7 (Plate 4) included the elements of Plan 6 with an additional 15.2-m (50-ft) extension of the causeway, resulting in a 56.4-m-long (185-ft-long) structure. h. Plan 8 (Plate 4) involved the elements of Plan 7, but the breakwater was reduced by 73 m (240 ft) in length and its head reoriented westerly. The total structure length was 835 m (2,740 ft), and the 137-m-wide (450-ft- wide) navigation opening was maintained between the breakwater and the causeway dock. i. Plan 9 (Plate 5) consisted of the installation of a 927-m-long (3,040-ft- long) rubble-mound breakwater. The structure originated approximately 579 m (1,900 ft) east of the causeway and extended seaward parallel to the entrance channels before it curved to the southwest. The navigation opening between the breakwater and the outer causeway dock was 137 m (450 ft) in width. The plan also included the dredging described in Plan 4, and the existing harbor entrance was closed. Chapter 4 Experiments and Results 19 20 Plan 10 (Plate 5) entailed the elements of Plan 9 with a 56.4-m (185-ft) rubble causeway extension to the south. The distance between the toes of the breakwater and the causeway extension was 119 m (390 ft). Plan 11 (Plate 5) involved the elements of Plan 10 with an additional 15.2-m (50-ft) causeway extension, resulting in a 71.6-m-long (235-ft- long) structure. The distance between the toes of the breakwater and causeway extension was 115.8 m (380 ft). Plan 12 (Plate 5) consisted of the elements of Plan 9, but the breakwater was decreased by 61 m (200 ft) in length and its head was reoriented to the west. This resulted in an 866-m-long (2,840-ft-long) structure with a 137-m (450-ft) width between the toe of the breakwater and the outer causeway dock face. Plan 13 (Plate 6) included the elements of Plan 9, but a 9.1-m-wide (30- ft-wide) breach was installed in the breakwater approximately 167.6 m (550 ft) seaward of the shoreline. Plan 14 (Plate 6) involved the elements of Plan 13 with a 71.6-m-long (235-ft-long) causeway extension. The navigation opening was 115.8 m (380 ft) in width between the toes of the breakwater and the causeway ’ extension. Plan 15 (Plate 6) entailed the elements of Plan 14 but the causeway extension was reduced in length by 15.2 m (50 ft) resulting in a 56.4-m- long (185-ft-long) structure with a 119-m (390-ft) navigation opening measured between the toes of the breakwater and the causeway extension. Plan 16 (Plate 7) consisted of the elements of Plan 14 but an area southwest of the head of the causeway was raised with gravel to represent shoaling that may be expected over the next 10 years. These contours were raised 0.9 m (3 ft) in elevation. Plan 17 (Plate 8) entailed the dredging elements of Plan 4 with no breakwater in place. The entrance to the existing harbor, however, was closed. Plan 18 (Plate 9) involved the elements of Plan 17 but the stone revetment along the existing breach in the causeway was removed to slightly increase its width and the depths were increased from about 1.1 to 2.4m (3.5 to 8 ft). The plan also included the installation of a dredged deposition basin eastward of the breach. The basin paralleled the shoreline and causeway and extended southeasterly in an arc about 122 m (400 ft) in diameter. It was 6.7 m (22 ft) deep. Chapter 4 Experiments and Results The final improvement plan (Plan 19) was developed as a result of the pre- liminary experiments. Plan 19 (Plate 10) consisted of a 107-m-wide (350-ft- wide), 6.7-m-deep (22-ft-deep) entrance channel and a 6.7-m-deep (22-ft-deep) turning area (adjacent to the docks on the causeway). From this point the channel transitioned to 45.7 m (150 ft) in width and 3.7 m (12 ft) in depth and extended approximately 274 m (900 ft) where it again transitioned to 3 m (10 ft) in depth before extending to the north through the sand spit into Snake River and then easterly to the existing harbor. The breach in the existing causeway was widened to 18.3 m (60 ft) with a depth of 2.4 m (8 ft), and a 6.7-m-deep (22-ft-deep) deposition basin was included eastward of the breach. The plan also entailed a 71.6-m-long (235-ft-long) rubble spur breakwater extending to the south from the causeway. The spur had an 8.8-m-wide (29-ft-wide) crest with an elevation of +4.3 m (+14 ft) and was armored with 19,958-kg (22-ton) stone on 1V:1.5H side slopes. Underlayer stone ranged from 1,361 to 2,495 kg (3,000 to 5,500 Ib) and core stone ranged from 0.45 to 295 kg (1 to 650 Ib). Thicknesses of the underlayer and armor layer stone were 2.1 and 4.6 m (7 and 15 ft), respectively. Also in-cluded in the plan was a new 909.8-m-long (2,985-ft-long) rubble-mound breakwater. The breakwater originated approximately 579 m (1,900 ft) east of the causeway and extended seaward 457 m (1,500 ft) parallel to the entrance channels before turning slightly southwesterly. The breakwater had a 3.7-m-wide (12-ft-wide) crest with an elevation of +4.3 m (+14 ft) and was armored with 7,257-kg (8-ton) stone on 1V:1.5H side slopes. Underlayer stone ranged from 363 to 907 kg (800 to 2,000 Ib) and core stone ranged from 0.45 to 295 kg (1 to 650 Ib). Thicknesses of the underlayer and armor layer stone were 1.5 and 3 m (5 and 10 ft), respectively. The new breakwater included a 9. 1-m-wide (30-ft- wide) breach approximately 244 m (800 ft) seaward of its origination point. The navigation opening between the new breakwater toe and the causeway extension toe was 115.8 m (380 ft) wide. The existing entrance to the small-boat harbor also was closed for this plan. Wave height experiments Wave height experiments were conducted for existing conditions and various improvement plans for representative experimental waves from the various incident directions. Experiments involving some proposed plans were limited to the most critical direction of wave approach. Wave gauge locations are shown in referenced plates. Wave-induced current patterns and magnitudes Wave-induced current patterns and magnitudes were obtained for existing conditions and selected improvement plans for representative experimental waves from the various incident directions. These experiments were conducted by timing the progress of a dye tracer relative to a known distance on the model surface at selected locations in the model. Chapter 4 Experiments and Results 21 22 Sediment tracer experiments Sediment tracer experiments were conducted for existing conditions and selected plans of improvement for representative experimental waves from the various incident directions. Sediment tracer was introduced into the model along the shoreline, or along the causeway and/or proposed breakwater to define sediment tracer patterns and subsequent deposition areas. Experimental Results In analyzing results, the relative merits of various improvement plans were based on measured wave heights, wave-induced current patterns and magnitudes, and the movement of sediment tracer material and deposition areas. Model wave heights (significant wave heights or H,) were tabulated to show measured values at selected locations. Wave-induced current patterns and magnitudes, and sediment tracer patterns and subsequent deposition areas were shown on plates. Existing conditions Results of wave height experiments for existing conditions are presented in Table 1. For the +0.5-m (+1.6-ft) swl, maximum wave heights’ were as follows: Outer causeway dock (gauge 5) 4.66 m (15.3 ft) 12-sec, 3-m (9.8-ft) waves from 137 deg Inner causeway dock (gauge 6) 3.2 m (10.5 ft) 12-sec, 3-m (9.8-ft) waves from 137 deg Existing entrance (gauge 12) 1.65 m (5.4 ft) 12- and 24sec, 3-m (9.8-ft) waves from 182 deg Existing channel (gauge 11) 0.98 m (3.2 ft) 24sec, 3-m (9.8-ft) waves from 182 deg Existing turning basin (gauge 10) 0.37 m (1.2 ft) 2- and 3-m (6.6- and 9.8-ft) waves from 182, 212, and 227 deg For the +4.0-m (+13.0-ft)swl, maximum wave heights were as follows: "Refers to maximum significant wave heights throughout report. Chapter 4 Experiments and Results Outer causeway dock 6.98 m (22.9 ft) 12-sec, 6-m (19.7-ft) waves from 137 deg Inner causeway dock 5.63 m (18.5 ft) 12-sec, 6-m (19.7-ft) waves from 137 deg Existing entrance 3.7 m (12.0 ft) 12-sec, 3-m (9.8-ft) waves from 257 deg Existing channel 1.4 m (4.6 ft) 12-sec, 6-m (19.7-ft) waves from 137 deg Existing turning basin 0.49 m (1.6 ft) 12-sec, 6-m (19.7-ft) waves from 137 deg Current patterns and magnitudes obtained for existing conditions are presented in Plates 11-21 for representative wave conditions and directions. For waves from 257, 227, and 212 deg, currents generally moved easterly along the shoreline, southerly around the head of the causeway, and then easterly again. However, currents in the lee (east) of the causeway moved southerly adjacent to the structure and then in a counterclockwise eddy. For waves from 182 and 137 deg, currents generally moved westerly along the shoreline, southerly around the head of the causeway, and then westerly again. Currents in the lee (west) of the causeway moved southerly adjacent to the structure and then in a clockwise eddy. Maximum velocities, for the experiments conducted, occurred for 12-sec, 6-m (19.7-ft) waves from 257 deg with the +4.0-m (+13.0-ft) swl. Maximum velocities of 2.2 mps (7.1 fps) were obtained around the head of the causeway for these extreme wave and water level conditions. Maximum velocities identified for the +0.5-m (+1.6-ft) swl were 0.8 mps (2.6 fps) adjacent to the west side of the causeway for 9-sec, 2-m (6.6-ft) waves from 212 deg; 1 mps (3.3 fps) adjacent to the outer dock on the east side of the causeway for 12-sec, 2-m (6.6-ft) waves from 137 deg; and 0.5 mps (1.8 fps) along the shoreline between the causeway and the existing entrance for 9-sec, 2-m (6.6-ft) waves from 182 deg. The general movement of tracer material for representative waves from 212, 182, and 137 deg is shown in Plates 22-24 for existing conditions. Sediment initially tended to move toward the shoreline and then, in general, moved easterly for waves from 212 deg and westerly for waves from 182 and 137 deg. Tracer material moved easterly through the breach in the causeway for waves from 212 deg and westerly through the breach for waves from 137 deg. Improvement plans Results of wave height experiments for Plans 1-12 are presented in Table 2 for representative waves for the +0.5-m (+1.6-ft) swl from various directions. For Plans 1-3, for experimental waves from 137 deg, maximum wave heights obtained without a dredged entrance channel were as follows: Chapter 4 Experiments and Results 23 24 Outer causeway dock (gauge 5) 2.47 m (8.1 ft) Plan 1 Outer causeway dock (gauge 5) 1.31 m (4.3 ft) Plan 2 Outer causeway dock (gauge 5) 2.74 m (9.0 ft) Plan 3 Inner causeway dock (gauge 6) 2.01 m (6.6 ft) Plan 1 Inner causeway dock (gauge 6) 0.46 m (1.5 ft) Plan 2 Inner causeway dock (gauge 6) 0.79 m (2.6 ft) Plan 3 After dredging of the proposed channels, maximum wave heights for Plans 4-6 for experimental waves from 137 deg were as follows: Outer causeway dock 0.7 m (2.3 ft) Plan 4 Outer causeway dock 2.41 m (7.9 ft) Plan 5 Outer causeway dock 2.32 m (7.6 ft) Plan 6 Inner causeway dock 0.24 m (0.8 ft) Plan 4 Inner causeway dock 0.64 m (2.1 ft) Plan 5 Inner causeway dock 0.61 m (2.0 ft) Plan 6 Turning area (gauge 13) 0.4 m (1.3 ft) Plan 4 Turning area (gauge 13) 0.64 m (2.1 ft) Plan 5 Turning area (gauge 13) 0.64 m (2.1 ft) Plan 6 Interior channel (gauge 8) 0.09 m (0.3 ft) Plan 4 Interior channel (gauge 8) 0.06 m (0.2 ft) Plan 5 Interior channel (gauge 8) 0.06 m (0.2 ft) Plan 6 For Plans 5-11, for experimental waves from 227 deg in the interior channel, maximum wave heights were as follows: Chapter 4 Experiments and Results Outer causeway dock 1.98 m (6.5 ft) Plan 5 Outer causeway dock 1.43 m (4.7 ft) Plan 6 Outer causeway dock 1.28 m (4.2 ft) Plan 7 Outer causeway dock 1.34 m (4.4 ft) Plan 8 Outer causeway dock 2.01 m (6.6 ft) Plan 9 Outer causeway dock 1.25 m (4.1 ft) Plan 10 Outer causeway dock 1.01 m (3.3 ft) Plan 11 Inner causeway dock 0.82 m (2.7 m) Plan 5 Inner causeway dock 0.7 m (2.3 ft) Plan 6 Inner causeway dock 0.7 m (2.3 ft) Plan 7 Inner causeway dock 0.76 m (2.5 ft) Plan 8 Inner causeway dock 0.76 m (2.5 m) Plan 9 Inner causeway dock 0.64 m (2.1 ft) Plan 10 Inner causeway dock 0.58 m (1.9 ft) Plan 11 Turning area 1.49 m (4.9 ft) Plan 5 Turning area 1.28 m (4.2 ft) Plan 6 Turning area 1.25 m (4.1 ft) Plan 7 Turning area 1.43 m (4.7 ft) Plan 8 Turning area 1.52 m (5.0 ft) Plan 9 Turning area 1.28 m (4.2 ft) Plan 10 Turning area 1.1 m (3.6 ft) Plan 11 Chapter 4 Experiments and Results 25 Interior channel 0.15 m (0.5 ft) Plan 5 Interior channel 0.12 m (0.4 ft) Plan 6 Interior channel 0.15 m (0.5 ft) Plan 7 Interior channel 0.12 m (0.4 ft) Plan 8 Interior channel 0.15 m (0.5 ft) Plan 9 Interior channel 0.12 m (0.4 ft) Plan 10 Interior channel 0.09 m (0.3 ft) Plan 11 Maximum wave heights for Plans 9 and 11 for 182-deg waves were as follows: Outer causeway dock 2.47 m (8.1 ft) Plan 9 Outer causeway dock 1.74 m (5.7 ft) Plan 11 Inner causeway dock 1.22 m (4.0 ft) Plan 9 Inner causeway dock 1.07 m (3.5 ft) Plan 11 Turning area 1.37 (4.5 ft) Plan 9 Turning area 1.37 m (4.5 ft) Plan 11 Interior channel 0.12 m (0.4 ft) Plan 9 Interior channel 0.12 m (0.4 ft) Plan 11 Maximum wave heights for Plans 9 and 12 for waves from 137 deg were as follows: Chapter 4 Experiments and Results Outer causeway dock 2.41 m (7.9 ft) Plan 9 Outer causeway dock 2.56 m (8.4 ft) Plan 12 Inner causeway dock 0.7 m (2.3 ft) Plan 9 Inner causeway dock 0.94 m (3.1 ft) Plan 12 Turning area 0.46 m (1.5 ft) Plan 9 Turning area 0.58 m (1.9 ft) Plan 12 Interior channel 0.06 m (0.2 ft) Plan 9 Interior channel 0.06 m (0.2 ft) Plan 12 Wave heights obtained for Plans 13-16 are presented in Table 3 for various directions and/or swl’s. For 12-sec, 5-m (16.4-ft) waves from 137 deg with the +0.5-m (+1.6-ft) swl, maximum wave heights were as follows: Outer causeway dock (gauge 5) 4.82 m (15.8 ft) Plan 13 Outer causeway dock (gauge 5) 4.48 m (14.7 ft) Plan 14 Inner causeway dock (gauge 6) 1.43 m (4.7 ft) Plan 13 Inner cause dock (gauge 6) 1.37 m (4.5 ft) Plan 14 Turning area (gauge 13) 1.4 m (4.6 ft) Plan 13 Turning area (gauge 13) 1.31 m (4.3 ft) Plan 14 Interior channel (gauge 8) 0.27 m (0.9 ft) Plan 13 Interior channel (gauge 8) 0.3 m (1.0 ft) Plan 14 For 9-sec waves from 227 deg with the +0.5-m (+1.6-ft) swl, maximum wave heights for Plans 14 and 15 were as follows: Chapter 4 Experiments and Results 27 Outer causeway dock 0.64 m (2.1 ft) Plan 14 Outer causeway dock 0.73 m (2.4 ft) Plan 15 Inner causeway dock 0.3 m (1.0 ft) Plan 14 Inner causeway dock 0.34 m (1.1 ft) Plan 15 Turning area 0.85 m (2.8 ft) Plan 14 Turning area 0.98 m (3.2 ft) Plan 15 Interior channel 0.06 m (0.2 ft) Plan 14 Interior channel 0.06 m (0.2 ft) Plan 15 For Plan 14, 12-sec, 5-m (15.4-ft) waves from 227 deg with the +0.5-m (+1.6-ft) swl resulted in the following maximum wave heights: Inner causeway dock 1.43 m (4.7 ft) 0.27 m (0.9 ft Maximum wave heights for Plan 16 from the 227-deg direction for 12-sec, 2-m (6.6-ft) waves with the +0.5-m (+1.6-ft) swl were as follows: Outer causeway dock 0.94 m (3.1 ft) Inner causeway dock 0.49 m (1.6 ft) 0.09 m (0.3 ft) For the 182-deg direction with the +0.5-m (+1.6-ft) swl and 12-sec, 5-m (16.4-ft) wave conditions, maximum wave heights for Plan 14 were as follows: Beaton Maximum wave heights for Plan 14 for 12-sec, 6-m (19.7-ft) waves from the 182- deg direction were as follows: Chapter 4 Experiments and Results Outer causeway dock 6.71 m (22.0 ft) 0.73 m (2.4 ft For 12-sec, 6-m (19.7-ft) waves from 227 deg, maximum wave heights for Plans 14 and 16 were as follows: Outer causeway dock 2.96 m (9.7 ft) Plan 14 Outer causeway dock 2.96 m (9.7 ft) Plan 16 Inner causeway dock 1.83 m (6.0 ft) Plan 14 Inner causeway dock 1.77 m (5.8 ft) Plan 16 Turning area 2.65 m (8.7 ft) Plan 14 Turning area 2.74 m (9.0 ft) Plan 16 Interior channel 0.46 m (1.5 ft) Plan 14 Interior channel 0.52 m (1.7 ft) Plan 16 Current patterns and magnitudes obtained for Plans 13-15 are presented in Plates 25-41 for various wave conditions and incident directions. For waves from 137 deg with Plan 13 installed, currents east of the new breakwater moved westerly along the shoreline and then southerly along the new structure. Currents west of the causeway also moved seaward along the structure. Maximum velocities were 1.52 mps (5.0 fps) adjacent to the new breakwater and 0.98 mps (3.2 fps) adjacent to the causeway for 5-m (16.4-ft) wave conditions with the +0.5-m (+1.6-ft) swl. For Plan 14 with waves from 182 deg, currents along the shoreline east of the new breakwater and west of the existing entrance moved to the west along the shoreline and then to the south along the new structure. Currents east of the existing entrance moved in an easterly direction. Currents west of the causeway moved seaward along the structure. Maximum velocities were 1.65 mps (5.4 fps) along the new breakwater for 12-sec, 5-m (16.4-ft) waves and 0.55 mps (1.8 fps) along the causeway for 12-sec, 2- and 5-m (6.6- and 16.4-ft) waves. Currents along the shoreline east of the new breakwater, with Plans 14 and 15 installed, split for waves from 227 deg. Some moved easterly toward the existing entrance and along the shoreline, while some moved westerly along the shoreline and then southerly along the new structure. Currents west of the causeway moved seaward along the structure for both plans. Maximum velocities were 1.13 mps (3.7 fps) along the new breakwater and 1.43 mps (4.7 fps) along the causeway for Plan 14 for 12-sec, Chapter 4 Experiments and Results 29 30 5-m (16.4-ft) wave conditions with the +1.5-ft (+1.6-ft) swl. Maximum velocities seaward of the new entrance (along the causeway extension) for Plan 14 were 1.62 mps (5.3 fps) for 12-sec, 6-m (19.7-ft) waves with the +4.0-m (+13.0-ft) sw. The general movement of tracer material for representative waves from 137, 182, and 227 deg is presented in Plates 42-47 for Plans 13 and/or 14. For waves from 137 deg, sediment along the shoreline west of the causeway moved to the east toward the structure, and sediment along the causeway moved seaward for Plans 13 and 14. Sediment along the shoreline east of the new breakwater moved shoreward and slightly to the west, sediment midway along the new breakwater split, with some moving to the north and some to the south, and sediment along the seaward portion of the new structure moved seaward along the breakwater. For waves from 182 deg with Plan 14 installed, sediment along the shoreline west of the causeway moved to the east toward the structure, and sediment along the causeway split with some mov- ing shoreward and some seaward along the structure. Sediment along the shoreline east of the new breakwater moved shoreward and slightly west, while sediment along the midway portion of the new breakwater moved to the north along the struc- ture and through the breach, and sediment along the head of the new breakwater moved seaward and across the new entrance. For waves from 227 deg with Plan 14 installed, sediment along the shoreline west of the causeway moved east toward the structure, and sediment along the causeway moved seaward along the structure around its head and across the entrance. Sediment along the shoreline east of the new breakwater generally migrated shoreward; sediment about midway along the new breakwater moved to the north; and sediment in the vicinity of the head of the new breakwater moved seaward. Results of wave height experiments for Plan 17 are presented in Table 4 for 9- and 12-sec waves from 227, 182, and 137 deg with the +0.5-m (+1.6-ft) swl. For 2-m (6.6-ft) wave conditions, maximum wave heights were as follows: Outer causeway dock (gauge 5) 2.71 m (8.9 ft) Waves from 137 deg Inner causeway dock (gauge 6) 2.56 m (8.4 ft) Waves from 137 deg Turning area (gauge 13) 2.62 m (8.6 ft) Waves from 182 deg Interior channel (gauge 8) 0.3 m (1.0 ft) Waves from 137 deg For 5-m (16.4-ft) incident conditions, maximum wave heights were as follows: Chapter 4 Experiments and Results Outer causeway dock 5.61 m (18.4 ft) Waves from 137 deg Inner causeway dock 4.02 m (13.2 ft) Waves from 137 deg Turning area 3.41 m (11.2 ft) Waves from 182 deg Interior channel 0.4 m (1.3 ft) Waves from 137 deg Waves from 182 deg Current patterns and magnitudes obtained for Plan 17 are presented in Plates 48- 62 for various waves from 137, 182, and 227 deg. For waves from 137 and 182 deg, currents along the shoreline east of the causeway generally moved west- erly, seaward along the structure, and then westerly around the head of the cause- way. Currents west of the causeway moved seaward along the structure. For waves from 227 deg, currents along the shoreline east of the causeway moved easterly and currents adjacent to the east side of the structure moved seaward. Currents west of the causeway also moved seaward along the structure. Maximum velocities were 1.07 mps (3.5 fps) adjacent to the west side of the causeway for 12-sec, 5-m (16.4-ft) waves from 137 deg; 0.91 and 2.04 mps (3.0 and 6.7 fps) along the inner and outer causeway docks, respectively, for 12-sec, 5-m (16.4-ft) waves from 227 deg; and 0.85 mps (2.8 fps) along the shoreline between the causeway and the existing entrance for 12-sec, 5-m (16.4-ft) waves from 137 and 182 deg. The general movement of tracer material for representative waves from 137, 182, and 227 deg is shown in Plates 63-65 for Plan 17. Sediment along the shoreline east of the causeway between the proposed and existing entrances generally moved shoreward and then easterly for waves from 227 deg and westerly for waves from 182 and 137 deg. Sediment along the shoreline west of the cause- way moved to the east through the breach for waves from 227 deg. This material split and moved in both directions (east and west) for waves from 182 and 137 deg. Sediment along the west side of the causeway at its outer end moved around the head of the causeway for waves from 227 deg, but for waves from 182 and 137 deg, moved in a clockwise eddy at the outer end of the structure. Tracer material was placed west of the causeway along the shoreline for Plan 18 and subjected to representative waves from 227 deg. Visual observations revealed that material would move to the east through the breach in the causeway and deposit in a clockwise eddy in the deposition basin. Results of wave height experiments for Plan 19 are presented in Table 5 for representative waves from 227, 182, and 137 deg. For 2-m (6.6-ft) wave conditions with the +0.5-m (+1.6-ft) swl, maximum wave heights were as follows: Chapter 4 Experiments and Results 31 32 Outer causeway dock (gauge 5) 2.56 m (8.4 ft) Waves from 137 deg Inner causeway dock (gauge 6) 1.1 m (3.6 ft) Waves from 182 deg Turning area (gauge 13) 1.25 m (4.1 ft) Waves from 182 deg Interior channel (gauge 8) 0.15 m (0.5 ft) Waves from 182 deg Interior channel (gauge 8) 0.15 m (0.5 ft) Waves from 137 deg For the +0.5-m (+1.6-ft) swl with 5-m (16.4-ft) incident waves, maximum wave heights were as follows: Outer causeway dock 4.69 m (15.4 ft) Waves from 137 deg Inner causeway dock 1.77 m (5.8 ft) Waves from 182 deg Turning area 2.16 m (7.1 ft) Waves from 182 deg Interior channel 0.34 m (1.1 ft) Waves from 182 deg Maximum wave heights for 6-m (19.7-ft) waves with the +4.0-m (+13.0-ft) swl were as follows: Outer causeway dock 5.97 m (19.6 ft) Waves from 182 deg Inner causeway dock 3.99 m (13.1 ft) Waves from 137 deg Turning area 3.11 m (10.2 ft) Waves from 137 deg Interior channel 0.85 m (2.8 ft) Waves from 182 deg Typical wave patterns for representative waves from 227, 182, and 137 deg are shown in Photos 1-9 for Plan 19. Current patterns and magnitudes obtained for Plan 19 are presented in Plates 66- 80 for representative waves from 227, 182, and 137 deg. For waves from all wave directions, currents along the shoreline between the new breakwater and the existing entrance moved to the west, and then seaward adjacent to the east side of the structure; and currents west of the causeway moved seaward along the structure. For waves from 227 and 182 deg, currents east of the existing entrance moved in an easterly direction, while they moved to the west for waves from 137 deg. Currents entered the harbor through the breach in the causeway for waves from 227 and Chapter 4 Experiments and Results 182 deg, and through the breach in the new breakwater for waves from 182 and 137 deg. Maximum velocities were 1.34 mps (4.4 fps) adjacent to the west side of the causeway; 1.86 mps (6.1 fps) through the breach in the causeway; 0.46 and 0.61 mps (1.5 and 2.0 fps) along the inner and outer causeway docks, respectively; and 0.40 mps (1.3 fps) in the new entrance channel for 12-sec, 5-m (16.4-ft) waves from 227 deg; and 2.13 mps (7.0 fps) adjacent to the east side of the new break- water; 2.26 mps (7.4 fps) through the breach in the new breakwater; and 0.79 mps (2.6 fps) along the shoreline between the new breakwater and the existing entrance for 12-sec, 5-m (16.4-ft) waves from 137 deg. The general movement of tracer material for 5- and 6-m (16.4- and 19.7-ft) waves from 227, 182, and 137 deg is shown in Plates 81-86 for Plan 19. For waves from 227 deg, sediment along the shoreline west of the causeway moved east toward the structure. The extreme wave conditions (12-sec, 6-m (19.7-ft) waves) resulted in material moving through the breach in the causeway and depositing in the deposition basin. For waves from 182 and 137 deg, this material tended to split, with some moving westerly and some moving easterly toward the causeway. Sediment did not move through the breach in the causeway for these directions. Tracer material adjacent to and west of the causeway moved seaward and around the head of the structure for waves from 227 deg; but for waves from 182 and 137 deg, tracer tended to split with some migrating seaward along the causeway and some moving northerly along the structure. Sediment along the shoreline east of the new breakwater and west of the existing entrance generally moved shoreward and then westerly for waves from all three directions, though a slight amount of easterly movement was noted for some conditions. In addition, sediment adjacent to and east of the new breakwater about midway generally moved northerly for waves from 227 and 182 deg and seaward for waves from 137 deg, while sediment in the vicinity of the head of the new structure moved seaward for waves from all three directions, with a slight amount moving northerly for waves from 227 and 182 deg. Discussion of experimental results Results of wave height experiments for existing conditions indicated rough and turbulent wave conditions in the existing entrance as well as along the existing causeway docks. Wave heights in the entrance exceeded 1.5 m (5 ft) for typical storm wave conditions (2-m (6.6-ft) waves). In addition, very confused and turbulent wave patterns were observed in the entrance due to reflected wave energy off the vertical walls. Wave heights along the existing outer and inner causeway docks were in excess of 3.7 and 2.7 m (12 and 9 ft), respectively, for typical storm wave conditions. For 50-year storm conditions (6-m (19.7-ft) waves), wave heights obtained in the entrance were almost 3.7 m (12 ft) in height and wave heights along the outer and inner docks were almost 7.0 and 5.8 m (23 and 19 ft), respectively. Preliminary experiments conducted with expeditiously constructed improvement plans (Plans 1-15) proved very beneficial in providing model data in an efficient manner. The lengths and alignments of the new breakwater and causeway extension were preliminarily determined relative to wave heights obtained in the harbor. These improvement plans also indicated the impacts of the structures on wave- Chapter 4 Experiments and Results 33 34 induced current patterns and magnitudes and sediment tracer movement and subsequent deposits. Experimental results obtained from these preliminary plans were used as a basis for determining the optimum improvement plan (Plan 19). Wave height experiments conducted for Plan 16 indicated that the raised bathymetry southwest of the head of the causeway (representing shoaling over a 10-year period) slightly reduced wave heights in the harbor relative to the existing depths of Plan 14. Since the area was raised expeditiously with gravel, however, the additional bottom friction may have contributed to the reduced heights as opposed to the bathymetry change. These results are, therefore, considered nonconclusive. Preliminary experiments with the dredged areas only (breakwater and causeway extension removed) of Plan 17 revealed increases in wave heights at the causeway docks. For 2-m (6.6-ft) wave conditions, maximum wave heights at the outer and inner docks increased by 0.52 and 1.49 m (1.7 and 4.9 ft), respectively, due to removal of the breakwater and causeway extension. Preliminary results also revealed current magnitudes in excess of 0.61 mps (2.0 fps) along the outer causeway dock and in the entrance channel for 2-m (6.6-ft) wave conditions for Plan 17. In addition, the removal of the breakwater would increase the potential for channel shoaling. During preliminary experiments, visual observations revealed that the 3.7-m- deep (12-ft-deep) deposition basin was not very effective in catching and storing sediment for waves predominantly from the southwest. The slight deepening and widening of the breach in conjunction with the 6.7-m-deep (22-ft-deep) deposition (Plan 18) increased the effectiveness of the sand management system and was used as a basis for the final design plan. Results of wave height experiments for the final (optimum) improvement plan (Plan 19) revealed calm conditions (wave heights of 0.15 m (0.5 ft) or less) in the existing harbor (gauge 9) during typical storm wave conditions (2-m (6.6-ft) waves). For 50-year storm wave conditions (6-m (19.7-ft) waves), wave heights of 0.52 m (1.7 ft) or less occurred in the harbor. Wave heights obtained along the outer and inner causeway docks were 1.16 and 0.61 m (3.8 and 2.0 ft), respectively, for predominant 2-m (6.6-ft) waves from 227 deg. For 50-year storm conditions, wave heights along the outer and inner docks were 6.0 and 4.0 m (19.6 and 13.1 ft), respectively. Results indicated that wave heights for Plan 19 were substantially less than those obtained for existing conditions. Wave-induced current patterns obtained for Plan 19, in general, indicated current movement from west to east for waves from 227 deg with a counterclockwise eddy east of the new breakwater. This eddy resulted in currents moving seaward along the new breakwater. For waves from 182 and 137 deg, current movement was generally from east to west with a clockwise eddy west of the existing causeway, even though in some cases, movement east of the existing entrance was in an easterly direction. Current patterns and magnitudes were similar to existing conditions, except that currents moved along the eastern side of the new breakwater as opposed to the eastern side of the existing causeway. The breaches in the causeway and breakwater provided some circulation between the structures. Chapter 4 Experiments and Results Sediment tracer movement for Plan 19 also was similar to that obtained for existing conditions, but sediment moved east of the new breakwater as opposed to east of the existing causeway. The new breakwater configuration should have minimal impacts on current and sediment movement patterns in the immediate vicinity. The widened and deepened breach in the existing causeway and the 6.7-m-deep (22-ft-deep) deposition basin of Plan 19 was very effective in trapping sediment for waves from the predominate 227-deg direction, particularly for storm waves with the higher swl's. Sediment moved through the breach and deposited in a clockwise eddy in the deposition basin. Chapter 4 Experiments and Results 35 5 Conclusions Based on results of the coastal model investigation reported herein, it is con- cluded that: a. Existing conditions are characterized by rough and turbulent wave condi- tions in the existing entrance. Very confused wave patterns were observed in the entrance due to reflected wave energy off the vertical walls lining the entrance. Wave heights in excess of 1.5 m (5 ft) were obtained in the entrance for typical storm conditions; and wave heights of almost 3.7 m (12 ft) were obtained in the entrance for 50-year storm wave conditions with extreme high water levels (+4 m (+13 ft)). b. Wave conditions along the vertical-faced causeway docks were excessive for existing conditions. Wave heights in excess of 3.7 and 2.7 m (12 and 9 ft) were obtained along the outer and inner docks, respectively, for typical storm conditions; and wave heights of almost 7.0 and 5.8 m (23 and 19 ft) were recorded along these docks, respectively, for 50-year storm wave conditions with extreme highwater levels. c. Preliminary experiments provided an excellent means to expeditiously evaluate various improvement plans (Plans 1-18) with respect to wave heights, wave-induced current patterns and magnitudes, and sediment tracer patterns and subsequent deposits. These experimental results were used as a basis for development of the final improvement plan (Plan 19). d. The final improvement plan (Plan 19) will result in calm conditions (wave heights of 0.15 m (0.5 ft) or less) in the existing harbor during typical storm conditions. For 50-year storm conditions with extreme highwater levels, wave heights will not exceed 0.52 m (1.7 ft) in the harbor. e. Wave heights at the causeway docks, particularly the inner dock, will be significantly reduced as a result of the Plan 19 breakwater configuration during both typical and extreme (50-year) storm wave events. Chapter 5 Conclusions Chapter 5 Conclusions The Plan 19 breakwater configuration will have no adverse impacts on current patterns and magnitudes and/or the movement of sediment in the immediate area. The widened and deepened breach in the existing causeway, in conjunc- tion with the deposition basin of Plan 19, will be effective in trapping sediment (particularly for storm waves with the higher swl's) for sand management purposes. 37 38 References Applied Coastal Modeling. (1997). "A wave hindcast and analysis of winds for Nome, Alaska," Vicksburg, MS. Bottin, R. R., Jr., and Chatham, C. E., Jr. (1975). "Design for wave protection, flood control, and prevention of shoaling, Cattaraugus Creek Harbor, New York; Hydraulic Model Investigation," Technical Report H-75-18, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Brasfeild, C. W., and Ball, J. W. (1967). "Expansion of Santa Barbara Harbor, California; Hydraulic Model Investigation," Technical Report No. 2-805, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Dai, Y. B., and Jackson, R. A. (1966). "Design for rubble-mound breakwaters, Dana Point Harbor, California; Hydraulic model investigation," Technical Report No. 2-725, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Giles, M. L., and Chatham, C. E., Jr. (1974). "Remedial Plans for Prevention of Harbor Shoaling, Port Orford, Oregon; Hydraulic Model Investigation," Techni- cal Report H-74-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. LéMehauté, B. (1965). "Wave absorbers in harbors," Contract Report No. 2-122, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, prepared by National Engineering Science Company, Pasadena, CA, under Contract No. DA-22-079-CIVENG-64-8 1. Noda, E. K. (1972). "Equilibrium beach profile scale-model relationship," Journal Waterways, Harbors, and Coastal Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers 98 (WW4), 511-528. Stevens, J. C., et al. (1942). "Hydraulic models," Manuals of Engineering Practice No. 25, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York. U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska. (1996). "Navigation Improvements Recon naissance Report, Nome, Alaska," Anchorage, AK. References (€ $0 | 3884S) YOL+=IMs bb OL 6 8 Z 9 v das aBnep ained ainey ainey afney ainey ainey pollad yjynwizy uo}}9941G u0}}e907] aHneyg pajeoipuy ye (J) }YHIaH BAEAA DARA [eJUaWIadXy SUOI}IPUOD BHuljsixy 40} S}YHIaH BALA b 91qeL (€ $0 Z Je0yS) £0 Se (8°6) € o N Ge (2) oy (oo) £0 G se) (9°9) 7 cl 2 N 2 nN ce N N ee (€°€) L LeL =: ° a1 Sy (oe) t+ N 2 o SY o Ge SE t+ wD : 2 2 2 DI} Ce 2 Z ! SE ) N N oY - v0 9'v cGl cul vvl eel (8°6) € N o Ss 9 — oO Ge ito} = o N N oO SS}, S| GS] -|-]|]-|o VL 8°CL Vel ve (9°9) Z nN LO N ° vt ro) o N (7) £0 oO i 2 GY 2 ro) ° = Ge : ai) SS t + o oO vl (€°€) L 1 Z4 S (2) GY o - Ly 8 8'vL (8°6) € = vt cop) N N ms a (9°9) Z LS oO 8'P £0 £0 isp) Lv 8'L 8'v cl (ee) L i fo} 2 GY SE t+ N OY ¢ N for) a0) ev OL CCl OeL “ee (8°6) € = (oa) SY 19 O'v v's CL © o 4 (9°9) Z c0 Ge Gc sé “Le 6e (€°€) L a ° ro) o io} 9 c L elt 6'v (8°6) € € c6 6 L?é L £0 v0 Ov 6 Oo N a] 9 ae ee : S fo) cst W9'b+ =1Ms bl OL 6 8 Z 9 v 39S ainey afney ainey ainey ainey |’ aineg ainey pollad yjynwizy u0}9911 uo0je907 ahneyd pajzesipyy je (J) yYBHIay BARA aAPA JejUaWadXy (panuijuod) | aqe1 co 6h YW O'eL+ = IMS bb OL 6 8 Z 9 v aS ced ainey ainey ainey ainey ainey ainey pollad ujynwizy uoNIa11g uo}je907] abned pajzeoipuy ye (jj) 3yBHIaH AAeAA DABAA [eJUaJadxXy (papnjouod) 1 aqeL (panujuod) vOL N (oe) n| o +] Oo 2 + °o N ve } (9°90 2 | ral Lb masta ZL ce €'Ol Ly to?) N foe] - ito) (sp) op N o SY , ; (oe) oO bo} . T+ Nn Nn + (a3 vv € N SS N nn © 4 b= (2) 1 N o - = : io) Sy vt fon) roo) 2] SE : + Oe Ly vy Lv c'0 oS oO 4 vv L's L‘OL col SS fo) Te) N ) o Se ire} Oo + WO b+ =IMS tL OL 6 8 Z 9 g v 23S abney ainey ainey ainey ainey ainey ainey ainey poiiad yjynwizy uolj2aJ1g uoje9077 ainey pajesipuy ye (34) }UHIaH aALAA DARAA [EJUaIIAdXy GL Ueld 105 S}UBIaH ave g age (L6L) 9 vL ch OL uol9941q uoje207 abneyd pazesipuyy je (yj) jyHIay BALAK DARA JeUaWILadxXy (papnjouod) g ajqe Ri . ? 9-sec, 2-m (6.6-ft) waves from 227 deg ? Typical wave patterns for Plan 19 Photo 1. ft) swl = +0.5-m (+1.6- ft) waves from 227 deg; a) GY & —_— & oO 2 N — x — Bm 52 as ga EC ak OWN BS B+ Bal Se eH 4 Photo 2 Yy Ne — eo Photo 3. Typical wave patterns for Plan 19; 12-sec, 5-m ((16.4-ft) waves from 227 deg; swl = +0.5-m (+1.6-ft) Photo 4. Typical wave patterns for Plan 19; 9-sec, 2-m (6.6-ft) waves from 182 deg; swl = +0.5-m (+1.6-ft) ? ft) waves from 182 deg 2. m (3 ils 12-sec, . a] ical wave patterns for Plan 19 S __ Typ swl . Photo 5 6-ft) m (+1. 5- = +0. 7 82 deg: * 12-sec, 5-m (16.4-ft) waves from 1 Photo 6. Typical wave patterns for Plan 19; swl = +0.5-m (+1.6-ft) ft) waves from 137 deg; 6- m (6. 2 -SeC, 9 ? -ft) 6 -m (+1. 5) ical wave patterns for Plan 19 = +0. Typ swl Photo 7 \ . ? 3-ft) waves from 137 deg 12-sec, 1-m (3. . ? 5-m (+1.6-ft) Photo 8. Typical wave patterns for Plan 19 swl = +0. os Photo 9. Typical wave patterns for Plan 19; 12-s swl = +0.5-m (+1.6-ft) ec, 5-m (16.4-ft) waves from 137 deg: SNOILIGNOD DNILSIXS Y3aINNN GNV NOILV901 39NVD QN3941 L ® oosL OSEL AS 4 SL (MATIW) Y4aLVM MOT Y3MO7 NV3W O41 G3Y4Y5539Y L344 NI NMOHS SNOILVAI13 GNV SYHNOLNOO :3LON AdALOLOUd TAGOW Plate 1 SENET CCUE ETE . — ee ona SS Xx 0z OL 7JAGOWN 1444 NI S3A1WOS (MTIIW) ‘ Lae Y3LVM MO7 YaMO7 NVA YAGWNN GNV NOILV901 JONVS | oy He OL Gauua43Y 1334 NI NMOHS GNa931 , mo SNOILWAI14 GNV SYHNOLNOD :3.LON Plate 2 S-v SNV1d JO SLN3WATS AdALOLOUd Plate 3 SNVId 4os GISOTD FONVYLNG (MATIN) cy “ae YALVM MO7 4Y4aMO7 NVSWN ana9a31 a SNOILVA314 GNV SYNOLNOD :4LON 8-9 SNV1d 4O SLN3W313 GISOTI JONVYLNI YASIWNN ONY NOILV90O1 JONVS ,9 QN3931 oosl OSEL N 4 SL (MTIW) Y3LVM MO71 Y3MO7 NWSW O1 G3Y¥YA4d3dY 1344 Ni NMOHS SNOILVWA3I14 GNV SHNOLNOO ‘3LON OL dadALOLOYd Plate 4 cL-6 SNV1d 4O SLN3W31S GISOTD JONVYLNI Y3aaNN GNV NOILV901 ANNVS ,9 GN3d941 OSEL SL (MTIW) Y3LVM MOT 43MO071 NV3IN OL G3uu3ad3Y 1344 Ni NMOHS SNOILWA313 GNV SYNOLNOO ‘3LON AdALOLOUd Plate 5 GL-EL SNV1Id JO SLN3IN314 GISOTD JONVYLNI Y3ISINNN GNV NOILV9O71 JNNVS ,9 QN3941 oosL OSEL 0z SL (ATI) Y3aLVM MOT YSMO1 NV3IN OL G3auu4dd49y L334 Ni NMOHS SNOILVAA14 GNV SYNOLNOO ‘3LON ddALOLOUd Plate 6 9L NV1d 4O SLN3INS13 o08l OSEeL agyso1g FJONVHLNI GNa931 y AdALOLOUd (M71) Y3LVM MO7 Y4AMO7 NVAIN OL G3YYu344u 1454 NI NMOHS SNOILVAI14 GNV SHNOLNOS ‘3LON Plate 7 ZL NW1d 4O S.LN3IN314 GISOTD JONVYLNI YASINNN GNV NOILV901 39NVS 19 QN3931 ooslL OSEL Na ee oz L DS 1334 NI Sa1vos S (MTIN) YaLVM MO71 Y3MO71 NWSI O1 G3y444d39yY 1344 NI NMOHS SNOILWA313 GNV SYNOLNOO :3LON ddALOLOUd Plate 8 8L NW1d 4O SLNSINA14 oosl OSEL \ 02 SL ddALOLOYd G3S019 JONVYLNI— (MTIA) 4 “ fo YaLVM MO7 ¥3MO07 NVA Y3EWAN GNY NOILW907 ADNVS 9 “ fo O14 G34H3434 1334 NI NMOHS ONna931 r, “Ee SNOILWA313 GNV SYNOLNOD :aLON Plate 9 6L NW1d 40 S.LNAINATA YASINNN GNV NOILV901 JDNVS ,9 QN3941 oosl OSEL (MT1W) YALYVM MO1 Y4MO71 NVA O1 Gauudd39Y 1334 NI NMOHS SNOILVAI14 GNV SHNOLNOD ‘ALON Plate 10 ial Sibse = UNS 9540 £G@ WOuS SAAVM 14-8'6 ‘DAS-V~ SNOILIGNOSD ONILSIXS YOS »SAJGNLINDSVI GNV SNYSLLVd LNSYYNno oosl OSEL 006 \ a SL OL mS 1344 NI S31v9S ~ GNOOAS YAd L344 AdALOLOYd NI SANIVA x (M11) YALVM MOT YSMO1 NVAW Ol G3¥uY3asd5dY L344 NI NMOHS SNOILVA313 GNV SYNOLNOOD :3LON ddALOLOUd 1300W Plate 11 the} tS [bar = WANS 94d £S@ WOYS SAAVM L4-Z'6L ‘OAS-2L SNOILIGNOOS ONILSIX4 YOS xSAIGNLINDSVIN GNV SNYSLLVd LNAYYND GQNOO¢S Y3d 1334 AdALOLOUd NI SANIVA x (M11) YaLVM MO7 YSMO71 NVSIN OL G3Y¥44d49Y L344 NI NMOHS SNOILVAS13 GNV SHNOLNOO :3LON ddALOLOYd 1a0G0W Plate 12 dis} Oar = UNS 940 £@z WOU SAAVM 14-9°9 ‘D4S-C1L SNOILIGNOS ONILSIX4 YOS xSAIGNLINDSVI GNV SNYSLLVd LNSYYNo oy : oosL OSEL \ 0c SL NS GNOOAS Yd 1344 AdALOLOYd NI SANIVA x (M111) YaLVM MO1 YSMO7 NVSIN OL Gsa¥uY3asd4du L434 NI NMOHS SNOILVA313 GNV SYNOLNOD :3LON ddA LOLOYd 1d00W Plate 13 dis| Sar = WMS 94d Lec WOUS SAAVM 14-8'6 ‘DAS-ZL SNOILIGNOOD ONILSIX4 YOS * SAGNLINDSVW GNV SNYSALLVd LNAYYND oosl \. 0 ~ x GQNOOAS Y3d 1354 AdALOLOUd NI SANIVA x (MT1W) YaLVM MO71 YAMO71 NVAW Ol G3Y¥44sd5Y 13454 NI NMOHS 006 OL 1344 NI SA1V9OS SNOILVA313 GNV SHNOLNOO :3LON ddALOLOUd 1300W Plate 14 dis} © bor = WANS 94d clé WOUS SAAVM 14-9'9 ‘OAS-6 SNOILIGNOSD ONILSIX4S YOS *« SHGNLINSVW GNV SNYSLLVd LNSYYND Ss Oe, SS a Ay ee iy Z Si) \ oosL OSEL \ 0c SL 006 OL x 1434 NI SA1V9S NS GNOOAS Yad 1344 AdALOLOYd NI SANIVA x (MT1IN) YaLVM MO7 YAMO71 NVSIN Ol G38u34d9Y L344 NI NMOHS SNOILVAS13 GNV SYHNOLNOD :3LON ~ 6) aa X AdALOLOUd 1a0OW Plate 15 dsl) [bse = TNS 94d Z1@ WOUS SAAVM 14-9°9 ‘DAS-SL SNOILIGNOS ONILSIX4 YOS »SAGNLINDVW GNV SNYSLLVd LNASYYNO oosl \e AS OSEL GL GQNOO3S Yad L344 AdALOLOYd NI SANTIWA x (MTIIN) YaLVM MOT YSMO7 NV3IN Ol G3¥8d445de 14354 NI NMOHS SNOILVAI13 GNV SYNOLNOO ‘3LON 006 OL 1344 NI SA1V9OS ddALOLOUd 1300W Plate 16 di 9b = WANS JAd 21L¢ WOYS SAAVM 14-9'9 ‘D4S-bZ SNOILIGNOS ONILSIX] HOS *« SAGNLINSVIN GNV SNYSLLVd LNSYYND x GQNOOAS Ysd 1344 AdALOLOYd NI SANTIVA x (MT1IA) YaLVM MO1 Y4SMO7 NVSIN OL G34uYssd3dY L444 NI NMOHS SNOILVA314 GNV SYNOLNOD :3LON ddALOLOYd Plate 17 dis} @) [bar = UNAS 54d 281 WOYS SSAVM 14-9'9 ‘O4S-6 SNOILIGNOSD ONILSIX4 YOS xSIGNLINDVI GNV SNYSLLVd LNAYYNO oosL OGEL GNOOSS Y3d L354 AdALOLOUd NI SANTVA * (MTI1W) Y3LVM MO1 YSMO7 NVSIN Ol GSy¥ed4d39Y L344 NI NMOHS OL 41334 NI SA1VOS SNOILVAI13 GNV SYHNOLNOD :3LON AdALOLOUYd 1,00W Plate 18 OSEL 006 ddALOLOYd 14 9°L+ = IMS : 540 Z8L WOYS SAAVM 14-9'9 ‘O4S-SL Sl OL 1300W SNOILIGNOD ONILSIX4S YOS 1344 NI S31V9S «SAIGNLINDVIN GNV SNYSLLVd LNAYYNnd a, . Plate 1 9 QNOOAS Ysd 13354 AdALOLOYd NI SANIVA * (MTA) YaLVM MO7 YSMO71 NVAIN Ol G3Y4Y4asd5dY L444 NI NMOHS SNOILVA314 GNV SHNOLNOOD :JLON SO Eat aN 954d 281L WOus SAAVM 14-9'°9 ‘D4S-7Z SNOILIGNOO ONILSIX4 YOS xSACNLINDSVI GNV SNYSLLVd LNAYYND Sy, : , SS oz —. 41434 NI S31V9OS GQNOOAS Yad 1334 JdALOLOUd NI SANTIVA x (MTI1IN) YdLVM MO71 Y4SMO71 NV3IN Ol G3ud4449u 14454 NI NMOHS SNOILVA3A13 GNV SYHNOLNOOD ‘SALON Plate 20 dis} bar = WANS 94d ZEL WOus SAAVM 14-9'9 ‘OAS-CL SNOILIGNOOSD ONILSIX4 YOS »SAGNLINSVW GNV SNYs4LLVd LNAYYND ooslL OSEL a SL aS GQNOOAS Y3d 13354 AdALOLOUd NI SANIVA x (MT1N) YdaLVM MO1 YAMO1 NVSIN OL G38u4asd4aY L444. NI NMOHS 006 OL 1344 NI SA1VOS SNOILVA313 GNV SHNOLNOOD :3LON ddALOLOYd 1300W Plate 21 14 9°1+ = IMS 94d €1¢ WOU SAAVM 14-99 ‘9498-71 SNOILIGNOSD ONILSIX3 HOS WIYALVI YFO0VEL JO LNAWSAAOW TVH3aNa9 | SS oosL OSEL OL 1344 NI SA1V9OS SLN3WIY3d X43 Ol YOId IWIYSLVN Yd9VYL IO NOILVDO1 OOOO0O0O QN39491 (M11) Y3LVM MO YAMO1 NVIIN OL G3u¥d4sd4dY L344 NI NMOHS SNOILVAI13 GNV SYNOLNOOD ‘JLON ddALOLOYd 1a0G0W Plate 22 : = : 008L OSEL 006 OS 0 AdALOLOWd] © 149°l+ = IMS — ee ae 94d 281 WOYS SAAVM 14-9°9 ‘OAS-CL \ & Gt OL S 0 130 0N 2 SNOILIGNOOD ONILSIX4 YOS < 1aa4 NI S31VOS o IWIYALVI YSAOVYL JO LNAWAAOW 1Ve4SN49 < x SLNAWIYad XS 2S pas iB Ol YOId IWIHSLV oS ~ “Ne ye Ae YAOVHL JO NOILVIO] OOOGOO0O oy A GN3531 5 (MATIN) YaLVM MO1 Y4SMO7 NVA Ol G3y¥Y3dsd5dY L344 NI NMOHS SNOILVA313 GNV SYNOLNOD :3LON ddALOLOYd 149°8+ = 1MS 934d Z€l WOU SAAVM 14-86 ‘O3S-Z1 OL 73a00W SNOILIGNOD ONILSIX] HOS Fea Saieas TVIMALVI YSOVYL JO LNIWSAOW WW¥aNd9 oy O O ZG I S.LNAWIY3d x3 Ol YOldd IWINALVW YAOVHL 4O NOILVIOT OOO0O00O0 GN43931 (MTN) Y3LVM MOT1 Y3MO71 NVSIN Ol 03444494 L344 NI NMOHS SNOILVA313 GNV SHNOLNOO :3LON Plate 24 Js} GP bare = UNS 94d LEL WOU SAAVM L4-€'€ ‘OAS-ZL €L NV 1d YOs »SAGNLINOVIW GNV SNYSLLVd LNAYYND G3SO19 JINVYLNI —= OSEL 006 SL OL 1434 NI S31VOS GNOOAS Y3d 1444 AdALOLOYd NI SINIVA x (MTN) YS1VM MO71 Y4MO71 NVA Ol G43YYusd3dY L454 NI NMOHS SNOILWAA14 GNV SYHNOLNOO ‘3.L0N AadALOLOUd 1300W Plate 25 dis} [bap = WWNS 94d ZEL WOYS SAAVM 14-9°9 ‘D4AS-ZL €L NW1d YOS x SAGNLINDSVW GNV SNYSLLVWd LNAYYND BL OFSO1D JONVYLNI — 008L OGEL 006 OSb CS \ GL OL g x 1934 NI Sa1v9oS ~ ante 4 Cf-7F QNOOAS Y3d 1334 AdALOLOUd NI SANIVA'* (M11) YaLVM MO7 443M0O1 NVaW Ol G3YY4Asd4aY L354 Ni NMOHS SNOILWAA14 GNV SYHNOLNOO :3.10N ddA LOLOUd JAGOW Plate 26 EOS ANS 94q ZEL WOYS SAAVM L4-v'9L ‘DAS-CL €L NW1d Y¥OS xSAGNLINDSVN GNV SNYSLLVd LNAYeno GFSO1D JONVYLNI oosl OGEL 0¢ SL NN GNOOAS Yad 13444 AdALOLOYd NISSNIVA * (MTIIN) YaLVM MO1 Y4AaMO1 NVAW O1 G3YY3d9Y 1334 NI NMOHS SNOILVWAI14 GNV SYNOLNOD :3LON ddA LOLOUYd Plate 27 Mole = ame 008l _OSeL 006 os 0 3dAL0L0¥d] © = = a ee el 94d 281 WOW SSAVM 14-€°€ ‘94S-6 ae GL OL g 0 7a00W 2 vl NV1d YOS 1aa4 NI S31VOS a xSACNLINDSVIN GNV SNYSLLVd LNSYYND S 03S019 JINVYLNI —= “AdALOLOUd NISANIVA x : ey eS GNOO3S Yad 1334 f (MTIW) YALVM MO7 YSMOT7 NVSAIN Ol G3Y4yYsdsd4dy 13494 NI NMOHS SNOILVA314 GNV SYNOLNOD :3JLON 00st —OGEL 006 Sb 0 AdALOLOUd POR ia INS 2. 9340 @81 WOus SAAVM 14-9°9 ‘D4S-6 SNOILIGNOS ONILSIX4 YOS »SAGNLINSVIN GNV SNYSALLVd LNSYYNd GL 1a00W OFSO1D IINVYLNI GNOOAS Yad 1434 AdALOLOYd NISANIVA * (M11) YaLVM MO71 YSMO1 NVAW Ol G3Y¥u3d4d49Y L444 NI NMOHS SNOILVA314 GNV SYNOLNOD ‘ALON Plate 29 dis} Gh te = NSS 94d 281 WOYd SAAVM L4A-€'€ ‘OAS-ZL vl NW1d YO4 *«SACGNLINSVIN GNV SNYALLVd LNSYYNDS : ( , : oy : Yo fi / > ’ a / a 1 58 i 2 t : ‘ BS Heo os Hoo 9 oy ha coe OISO1D JONVYLNI — OX 008l _OSEL Se Neo GL GNOO4S Yad 14354 AdALOLOYd NI SANIVA :x (MT1W) YaLVM MO1 Y4MOT NVAW O1 Gayuyu4asd4du L344 NI NMOHS SNOILVAI14 GNV SYNOLNOD :3ALON 006 OL AdALOLOUYd 1a00W Plate 30 0081 OGEL 006 AdALOLOYd| = 14 9°L+ = IMS aN — me 94d 281 WO SAAVM 14-9'9 ‘D4S-Z1 < St Ot s 0 TEKIOMN i VL NW1d HOS ~ 1334 NI Sa1voS oH * SACNLINDVIN GNV SNYS1LLvd LNJYYND SS Oz, 9ISO1D JINVYULNI —e Or jr SHIT / J an” ae eee Vie GNOO3S Yad 1334 : AdALOLOYd NISSNTIWA * (MTIW) YdLVM MO1 YAMO1 NVAW OL G3Y4Y45dd4dY 1444 NI NMOHS SNOILWA314 GNV SYNOLNOOD :3SLON 149°L+ = 1MS Ss Oost — OSEL 006 OSV (0) AdALOLOUd = x 940 Z8l WOYS SSAVM 1L4-v'9L ‘OAS-Z1L \. Sl OL S 0) 1a00W vLNW1d YOS — 1334 NISTIVOS oe xSAGNLINDVIN GNV SNYSLLVd LNAYYND ev Nt SS, os e AD 7 a Ak 7 3 7 AQ Se a fh a <= “7. So — d3SO19 JONVYLNI —= \ eS oz < : SS GNOOSS Y4d 1354 oy [eee 3dALOLOUd NI SIN TWA * : (MT) YaLVM MO7 Y3MO71 NVAW Ol G3Yyusdd4ay 1444 NI NMOHS SNOILVAI13 GNV SYNOLNOOD :4ALON Plate 32 14 0EL+ = IMS 94d 81 WOus SAAVM L4-Z'61 ‘D4S-Z1 VL NW1d YO4 » SAGNLINDVI GNV SNY3LLVd LNAYYND 008l OSEL 006 OSb 0 on = Ne0z GL OL g 0 << 1344 NI Sa1V9S Ne Lit CL 4 CO-T17 cc-14 QNOOSS Yad 13344 AdALOLOYd NI SANIVA * (MT1W) YaLVM MOT Y4dMO7 NVA Ol G3y¥43449Y L444 NI NMOHS SNOILVAI13 GNV SHNOLNOOD :3LON Ls AdALOLOUd 130 0W Plate 33 1491+ =1MS >. Oost OSEL 006 OS 0 AdALOLOYd + 94d £é¢ WOUYS SAAVM 14-€'€ ‘D4S-6 ae all OL 3 0 1a00W = DL NV 1d YOS SS 1944 NI S31V9S c *«SAGNLINSVIN GNV SNYSALLWd LNFYYND GISOTD JONVYLNI — QNOOAS Yad 13354 = AdALOLOUd NI SANIVA |x (MIN) YaLVM MO7 Y3MO7T1 NVAW Ol G3Y4Y3asd4Y 13454 NI NMOHS SNOILVA313 GNV SHNOLNOD :3LON feria = IMS be oosL OSEL 006 OSV D540 L7Z WOYS SSAVM 14-9'9 ‘D4S-6 TWIYALVIN YSOVYL AO LNAWSAOW IWHINSD IN OISO1D JONVYLNI —-— SLNAWIYadX3 i SS Ol YOId IWIHSLVW Oo YHAOVYL JO NOILVD01 OOCOCE GN3931 (M11W) YSLVM MOT Y4aMO7T NVAW Ol G3¥44ad3dY 1444 NI NMOHS SNOILVWA314 GNV SYNOLNOD ‘ALON Hel bse = WANS 94d Lé¢ WOUS SAAVM 14-€'€ ‘DAS-6 6l NW1d HOS * SAGNLINSVI GNV SNYSLLVd LNAJYYND Oost OSEL GQNOOS3S Yad 1334 _ ddALOLOYd NI SSANIVA x (MT1W) Y3LVM MO1 YSMO7T NVSW Ol G3Y¥Y3I3aY L354 NI NMOHS SNOILVAI13 GNV SYHNOLNOOD :3LON Plate 66 te} bar = NS 94d Lé¢ WOYS SAAVM 14-9°9 ‘D4S-6 6L NV1d YO4 + SAGNLINSVI GNV SNYSLLVd LNAYYND Oost OSEL QNOOS3S Y3d 1434 AdALOLOYd NI SANIVA * (M11W) Yy3LVM MO1 ¥3MO1 NVIW Ol G3¥Yu3I9" L344 NI NMOHS SNOILVA313 GNV SYUNOLNOO :3LON 3dALOLOUd 1300W Plate 67 dis} [bar = WAS 94d 2é¢c WOUS SAAVM 14-€'°€ ‘DAS-Z1 6L NW 1d YOS *«SJGNLINDSVIN GNV SNYALLVd LNAYYND GNOOSS Yad 13354 AdALOLOUYd NI SSNIVA * (M11W) Y3LVM MO1 Y3MO1 NWSW Ol G34¥Y3d9Y4 L353 NI NMOHS SNOILVAI13 GNV SYHNOLNOOD :3LON 3dALOLOUd Plate 68 ooslL OSEL 3dALOLOUd Jel Oe = WANS 94d Lec WOUS SAAVM 14:9'9 ‘DAS-ZL 6L NV 1d YO4 *« SAGNLINSVIN GNV SNYSLLVd LNSYYND SS 1300W Plate 69 Qn, GNOOSS Yad 1344 AdALOLOUd NI SANIVA * (M11W) Y3LVM MO1 Y3M01 NVIW Ol G3Y¥u3I9" L354 NI NMOHS SNOILVA313 GNV SYNOLNOD :3LON tS Oe bs STS 94d Lé¢ WO SAAVM L4-v'9L ‘DAS-21 6L NV 1d YOS + SAGNLINDVIA GNV SNYSLLVd LNSYYND oosl OSEL 3dALOL0¥d 13,0d0W 13344 NI SA1V9OS ~S Ze 60 GNOO3S Yad 135344 AdALOLOUYd NI SANIVA * (M11W) Y3.LVM MO1 Y3MO1 NV3W Ol G3Y¥Y83I3Y" L334 NI NMOHS SNOILVAI13 GNV SYNOLNOD ‘3LON Plate 7O 1491+ = 1MS oosl OSEL 006 OS 0 3dALOLOUd 540 281 WOYS SSAVM L4-€'€ ‘O4S-6 0z SL OL g 0 300W 6L NW1d HOS 1334 NI S31v9S x«SSIGNLINDVAW GNV SNYSLLVd LNSAYYND GNOOSS Yad 1434 AdALOLOUYd NI SANIVA * (M11W) YaLVM MO1 ¥YaMOT1NVSW Ol G3Y¥Y3I3Y L334 NI NMOHS SNOILVA313 GNV SYNOLNOD ‘3LON Plate 71 dis} ey bap = UNS 954d 781 WOYS SSAVM 14-9'9 ‘O4S-6 6L NV1d YOS « SAIGNLINDVW GNV SNYALLVd LNSYYNo oost OGsel GNOOAS Y3d 13354 JdA.LOLOUYd NI SSNIVA * (M11W) Y3LVM MO1 Y3M01 NV3IW Ol G3ay¥u3Id3Y 1354 NI NMOHS SNOILVAS13 GNV SYNOLNOOD ‘3LON 3dALOLOYd Plate 72 dle) BY bar = WANS 94d c8l WOud SAAVM L4-€'€ ‘DAS-Z1L 6L NV 1d HOS * SAGNLINSVIN GNV SNYSLLVd LNSYYND Oost OSEL GNOOAS Y3d 1334 AdALOLOYd NI SANIVA * (M11W) YaLVM M01 ¥SMO1 NVAW Ol G3¥Y3d3a" L334 NI NMOHS SNOILVA313 GNV SYUNOLNOOD :3LON 3dALOLOUd 1300W Plate 73 fi) [bar = WANS 540 781 WOUS SAAVM 14-9'9 ‘O4S-21 6l NW1d YO4 » SAGNLINDVW GNV SNYALLVd LNAYYdNo Oost OSEL 0% St ol 1334 NI SA1V9OS GNOO3S Y3d 13534 AdALOLOYd NI SANIWA * (M11W) YaLVM MO7 ¥3M01 NV3AW Ol G3y¥Yd3d39" 1334 NI NMOHS SNOILVAI13 GNV SYUNOLNOD :3JLON 3dALOLOUd Plate 74 SEE SS WANS 9540 Z8L WOU SSAVM 14-091 ‘OAS-CL 6L NW1d YO4 »SAGNLINDVIN GNV SNYAL1 Vd LNSYdNo oosl OSEL SS 02 SL 41334 NI S31W9S GNOOSS Yd 1434 AdALOLOUd NI SANTWA * (M11W) YaLVM M01 YaMO1 NVAW Ol G3¥Y¥3Id39YN L333 NI NMOHS SNOILVA313 GNV SYUNOLNOO :3LON 3dALOLOUd Plate 75 dts] tg) [bap = VNNS D540 ZEL WOYS SAAVM 14-€°€ ‘OAS-6 6L NW1d YO4 + SAGNLINDVIN GNV SNYALLVd LNSYYno oosl OSEL 006 OL 1344 NI SA1W9S GNOOIJS Y3d 1334 AdALOLOYd NI SANIVA * (M11W) YaLVM MO1 Y3MO1 NVIW Ol G3¥Y3d9Y L334 NI NMOHS SNOILVAS13 ONV SYNOLNOD :3LON 3dALOLOUd 1300W Plate 76 14 9° lL a IMS oosl ~ OSEL 006 OSY (0) JdALOLOYd j ee 94d ZEL WOYS SAAVM 14-9'9 ‘D4S-6 0z GL OL g 0 1300W ‘6L NW1d HOS 1334 NI Sa1voS xSAGNLINOVIN GNV SNHSLLVd LNSYYND Ao Oz oF V4 e-79 S y \ hd gQ Ss # Kr MI / OG : XY / / : = ie 3