WYOMING GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT

FISH DIVISION

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

~nstream Flow Studies on Coal Creek (tributary to Thomas Fork River),~ Bonneville Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki utah) Stream.

TITLE:

PROJECT:

~F-PE96-07-9S01

Paul D. Dey and Thomas C. Annear

AUTHOR:

DATE: June 1996

ABSTRACT

Instream ~flow data were collected in 1995 on Coal Creek to determine f:lowsneeded to main ain or improve Bonneville cutthroat trout (BRC) habitat andpopulations.

tudies were designed to complement ongoing monitoring of BRC :Lndexstreams (Remmi k et al. 1994).

PhYSiCal f abitat Simulation (PHABSIM) , the Habitat Quality Index (HQI), andthe Habitat Re ention Method were used to derive instream flow recommendations.Recommendation are: October 1 -April 30 = 1.8 cfs, May 1 -June 30 = 4.4 c::fs, andJuly 1 -Septe er 30 = 2.0 cis.

INTRODUCTION

Wyoming onneville cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki utah) populationsoccur primaril in the Thomas Fork and Smiths Fork watersheds. Physical, chemical,and biological characteristics were inventoried between 1966 and 1977 (Miller 1977).Binns (1981) r viewed the distribution, genetic purity, and habitat conditioJ:ls forBonneville cut hroat trout populations. Recent population and habitat surve:fresults are in Remmick (1981, 1987) and Remmick et al. (1994). In general,populations ar limited by seasonally low flows, lack of riparian cover, thermalpollution aris'ng in conjunction with low flows and reduced riparian vegetation, andsilt pollution (Binns 1981).

Bonnevil t e Cutthroat trout were recently petitioned for listing under theEndangered Spe ies Act but are not listed at this time. Status review was iltlitiatedin response to concerns expressed by the Idaho Fish and Game Department, the DesertFishes Council and the Utah Wilderness Association. This species is consider,ed"rare" by the yoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD 1977).

A s-Year ~ nagement plan for Wyoming, developed by the Wyoming Game and FishDepartment (WG ) in coordination with the u.s. Forest Service (USFS) and u.s.Bureau of Land Management (BLM) , outlines management goals and provides criteria forlisting Bonnev'lle cutthroat trout as threatened (Remmick et al. 1994). The plan'spurpose is to utline management practices to prevent listing by moving toward wider

1

distribution E d higher populations. The plan recommends that status decisj.ons bemade after fi e-years of population and habitat monitoring. Habitat protectj.on byacquiring ins ream flow water rights will not directly achieve the plan's gclals butrather serve 0 prevent additional population declines.

Fish an other resource management practices could be significantly affectedby listing Bo eville cutthroat trout as Threatened or Endangered. Instream flowwater right i entification and acquisition on Bonneville cutthroat trout streams isimportant to elp avoid listing. Therefore, the WGFD filed for water rights on HuffCreek, Coal ( wland) Creek, Hobble Creek, Porcupine Creek, Smiths Fork River, andRaymond Creek in 1993 and 1994. Studies in 1995 focused on Coal Creek, Salt Creek,Water Canyon eek, Giraffe Creek, and Coantag Creek.

Study Ob~ectives were to 1) investigate the relationship between discharge andphysical habit t quantity and quality for Bonneville cutthroat trout and, 2)determine an i stream flow necessary to maintain or improve Bonneville cutthroattrout populati ns.

METHODS

Study Area

Coal Cre k is a tributary to the Thomas Fork River (Fig. 1). The draiJ:lagebasin is manag d by the BLM for livestock grazing. Sagebrush/grass communit:i.espredominate at lower to middle elevations with mixed aspen and conifers at higherelevations and hillside valleys. Overall stream gradient is low «2.0 %) and thechannel type w s rated as B3 (Rosgen 1985). This rating indicates a moderatelyentrenched ch el that is well confined by its valley and has bed material composedof very course gravel, cobble, mixed sand and fine material.

In 1977 he BLM and WGFD constructed a livestock exclosure on Coal Creekprotecting 1.0 mile from grazing. The WGFD placed habitat structures (plunge pools)throughout the upper area of the exclosure. In 1995, the exclosure was functioningwell with exce lent grass growth inside contrasting sharply with grazed rangeoutside. Most habitat structures were intact and creating pool habitat for trout.

Fisheries

BonneVil ~e cutthroat trout populations collected between 1974 and 1980 in CoalCreek were ass'gned an "A" purity rating in upper reaches by Dr. Robert Behnke(Binns 1981, R mmick et al. 1994). The "A" rating indicates an essentially pure

population.

Trout po ulations, particularly in small mountain streams, normally fluctuatewidely. It is not unusual for pristine streams to contain different trout numbersamong consecut've years. In a western Oregon stream studied for 11 years, density ofage 0 cutthroa trout (fry, <2 inches) varied from 8 to 38 per 100 m2 and density ofage 1 cutthroa trout (juveniles, 4-4.5 inches) ranged from 16 to 34 per 100 m2(House 1995). this example, population fluctuations occurred despite the factthat habitat c ditions were not degraded and appeared to be relatively stable. Theauthor suggest that small changes in peak winter flows between years would haveaccounted for sifts in overwinter survival between age-classes.

In weste~ Wyoming, Binns (1981) noted significant trout number declines inseveral Bonnevi~le cutthroat trout streams, including Coal Creek, following drought

2

in 1977. coaJ Creek population data collected in 1987 at the upper end of theexclosure ind'cate an average of 442 trout/mile; conversely, no fish were found atthe same site in 1989 (Remmick et al. 1994). Data from 1995 indicate a populationof 290 trout/ ile.

Lack of ~rout in 1989 probably resulted from low 1988 flows causing emigrationand/or death. onversely, high 1987 numbers likely reflect the good water ye,ars of1984 through 1 86.

Long-te trout population maintenance in small streams depends on periodicstrong year cl sses produced in good flow years. Without benefit of periodi,::favorable flow, populations in some streams would decline or disappear. Tht3 WGFDinstream flow trategy recognizes the inherent variability of trout populations asdocumented in oal Creek and other streams (House 1995) and thus defines the"existing fish ry" as a dynamic feature. Instream flow recommendations are ]~ased ona goal of main aining habitat conditions that provide the opportunity for troutnumbers to flu tuate within existing natural levels.

Habitat Modeling

After vi ually surveying approximately 2.0 stream miles, a study site \~aslocated inside the upper end of the exclosure at Township 28N, Range 119W, Section13 (Figure 1). This site represents quality trout habitat attributes which t:he BLMis managing to ard. Trout cover is associated mostly with plunge pools (structures)and undercut b s. Additional cover is provided by lateral scour and backwclterpools. Twelve transects were distributed among pool, run, and riffle habitat: types(Appendix 1).

Data wer collected between May 9 and August 22, 1995. Collection date!s andcorresponding ischarges are listed in Table 1. Instream flow filingrecommendation derived from this site were applied to 4.2 mile-long reach e>:tendingdownstream fro the northeast corner of section 13 in T28N, Rl19W to the conf:luencewith East Fork Coal Creek at T28N, Rl19W, S25. The land through which the PI:oposedsegment passes is under BLM and State administration.

Table 1. Dat.e~ and discharges Coal Creek instream flow data were collected i.n 1995

Determin'ng critical trout life stages (fry, juvenile, adult, etc.) for' aparticular tim period aids in focusing flow recommendations. Critical life stagesare those most sensitive to environmental stresses. Annual population integr'ity issustained by p oviding-adequate flow for critical life stages. In many cases, troutpopulations ar constrained by spawning and young (fry and juvenile) life stagehabitat "bottl necks" (Nehring and Anderson 1993). Therefore, our general approachincludes ensur'ng that adequate flows are provided to maintain spawning habitat inthe spring was well as juvenile and adult habitat throughout the year (Table 2).

3

"z .

z~~m

".-~

.-co

.

a:

I..0 :-

Zf-Z

a)-N0

.a.f-

I ",".-

-C

.00

.-zu

Q)

f-(/)Z~-~

0

" -

~.-

(/)-~

0O

...J-J

II)I..

c

~:.:J

~:5

~~~

~

I-

4

.-.0z-(/)

I-~z-W~

~C

"!"'..,.WV

>u

~I-

OZ

-J!.oJ~

~!.oJ

~ (/)!

~~

I-~V

>

I-

z(/)-~~O

WI

W5

5§~-0U

'"z'5 .

z~~~

0O

-J

~ i~

0 ~

m0.. u;::

100::0

...U

:-Z

.~0

"'00-Z

O

N~

.

~ --;nl-.

~

Oil)

~

~N

'"~.r=

CU

);':!.O~"Z

~

Ci)~

9 uV

l~

cC

i)

~~

~C

Q:

0I-UV

I~

Table 2. Bonnr Ville cutthroat trout life stages and months considered in Co,al Creekinst earn flow recommendations. Numbers indicate method used to det:ermineflow requirements.

1 -QU r1itY 2 -PHABSIM

3 -Habitat Re ention

Habitat Retention Method

A Habita Retention method (Nehring 1979, Annear and Conder 1984) was used toidentify a mai tenance flow by analyzing data from three riffle transects. ~lmaintenance fl w is defined as the continuous flow required to maintain specj.fichydraulic crit ria in stream riffles. Year-round criteria maintenance ensure!spassage betwee habitat types for all trout life stages. In addition, the criteriamaintain adequ te benthic invertebrate survival. A maintenance flow is realj.zed atthe discharge or which any two of the three criteria in Table 3 are met for allriffle transec s in a study area. The instream flow recommendations from the,Habitat Retent"on method are applicable year round except when higher instrea.m flowsare required t meet other fishery management purposes (Table 2).

Table 3. Hydr~ulic criteria for determining maintenance flow with the HabitatReten~ion method.

M an Depth (feet) -i

M an Velocity (feet/second)0.01

1.0050

; ,_P,rcent Wetted Perimeteral -At average daily flow. Minimum depth = 0.20b Percent of bank full wetted perimeter

Habitat Quality Index

The Habit t Quality Index (HQI; Binns and Eisermann 1979) was used to estimatetrout productio over a range of late summer flow conditions. This model wasdeveloped by th WGFD and received extensive testing and refinement. It has beenreliably used i Wyoming for trout standing stock gain or loss assessment ass,ociatedwith instream f ow regime changes. The HQI model includes nine attributesaddressing bioI gical, chemical, and physical aspects of trout habitat. Results areexpressed in tr ut Habitat Units (HUs), where one HU is defined as the amount ofhabitat quality that will support about 1 pound of trout. HQI results were used toidentify the fl w needed to maintain or improve existing levels of Bonnevillecutthroat trout production between July 1 and September 30 (Table 2).

In the HQ~ analYSiS' habitat attributes measured at various flow events areassumed to be tical of mean late summer flow conditions. Under this assumption, HUestimates are e trapolated through a range of potential late summer flows (Conder andAnnear 1987) .oal Creek habitat attributes were measured on the same dates :PHABSIM

5

data were colI cted (Table 1). Some attributes were mathematically derived toestablish the elationship between discharge and trout production at discharges otherthan those mea ured. Average daily flow (ADF;4.0 cfs) and peak flow (48 cfs)estimates are aBed on elevation and basin area (Lowham 1976). A Ryan temperaturelogger monitor d water temperature at 2.0 hour intervals between June 28 and August22.

Physical Habitat Simulation

Physical Habitat Simulation (PHABSIM) methodology was used to quantifyphysical habit t (depth and velocity) availability over a range of discharge~~. Thismethodology wa developed by the Instream Flow Service Group of the u.S. Fish andWildlife servi e (Bovee and Milhous 1978) and is widely used for assessing instreamflow relations ips between fish and physical habitat (Reiser et al. 1989).

The PHAB IM method uses empirical relationships between physical variables(depth, veloci y, and substrate) and suitability for fish to derive weighted usablearea (WUA; sui able ft2 per 1000 ft of stream length) at various flows. Depth,velocity, and ubstrate were measured along transects (sensu Bovee and MilhollS 1978)on the dates i Table 1. Hydraulic calibration techniques and modeling options inMilhous et al. (1984) and Milhous et al. (1989) were employed to incremental].yestimate physi al habitat between 0.4 and SO cfs. Precision declines outsidE! thisrange; however, the modeled range accommodates typical Coal Creek flows.

Curves d~scribing depth, velocity and substrate suitability for trout lifestages are a v'tal component of the PHAMSIM modeling process. Suitability cuJ:"ves arelisted in Appe dix 2.

Estimate by Binns (1981) indicate BRC spawning activity in Coal Creek(elevation 640 -7300 feet) peaks approximately between May 3 and May 28. Becausespawning onset and duration varies between years due to differences in flow quantityand water temp rature, spawning recommendations should extend from May 1 to June 30.Even if spawni is completed by June 1, maintaining flows at a selected levelthroughout June will benefit trout egg incubation by preventing dewatering. ThePHABSIM model s used to obtain flow recommendations for maintaining or improvingBRC spawning ha itat from May 1 to June 30 (Table 2).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Habitat Retention Analysis

Habitat ~tention analysis indicates that 1.8 cfs is required to maintainhydraulic crite ia at all riffles to provide passage between habitats for all troutlife stages (T le 4). Maintenance of naturally occurring flows up to this flow isnecessary at al times of the year. Higher flows are needed during May throu'ghSeptember to su port critical life stages (Table 2).

6

Table 4. Sim~lated hydraulic criteria for three Coal Creek riffles.flow! = 4.0 cfs. Bank full discharge = 26 cfs.

Average daily

(cfs)40.026.023.712.010.07.85.64.0

~0.3

26.024.712.010.05.44.02.0

OS"0.70.5

26.024.712.010.05.44.02.0~0.7

IIRiffle

1 I (5.82 21.5

9.9~7.76.34.63.1

~

~8.76.56.05.34.13.93.7

~

9.49.17.67.4

~-~~~~

i 0.62i

! 0.41i

0.420.38I

~.~~I ~.~:~I 0.20II

0.10

0.700.700.65

I ~.~~I 0.52

0.450.300.21~0.180.15I!

0.67

0.960.620.610.410.330.21

i 0.20~!

0.10;

<0.07

a l -Hydraulic criteria metb -Discharge at which 2 of 3 hydraulic criteria are met

Based on itat retention results, an instream flow of 1.8 cfs is recommendedfor the Octobe 1 to April 30 time period. If approved, this flow level willmaintain the e isting fishery because it protects existing natural flow patterns upto the identifi d maintenance level. Trout populations are naturally limited by lowflow conditions during the winter months (October through March; Needham et al.1945, Reimers 1957, Butler 1979, Kurtz 1980, Cunjak 1988). Such factors as snowfall, cold inte sity, and duration of cold periods can influence winter troutsurvival. Fis populations are influenced primarily through the effects of frazilice including tabolic stress and anchor ice formation which limits habitat and mayresult in stran ing.

These win~er mortality causes are all influenced by winter flows. Higher flowsminimize temper~ture changes and increase stream areas where trout can escape frazil

.,

ice impactS. 1 AnY artificial reduction of natural winter stream flows would increasetrout mortali yand effectively reduce the number of fish the stream could siupport.Therefore pro ection of natural winter stream flows up to the recommendedmaintenance f ow is necessary to maintain existing survival rates of troutpopulations.

The 1.8 cfs identified by the Habitat Retention Method may not always bepresent durin the winter. Because the existing fishery is adapted to natural flowpatterns (see bove fisheries discussion), occasional periods of natural shortfallduring the wi ter do not imply a need for additional storage. Instead, theyillustrate the necessity of maintaining all natural winter stream flows, up to 1.8cfs, to mainta.n existing trout survival rates.

Habitat Unit Analysis

Article 0, Section d of the Instream Flow Act states that waters used forproviding inst earn flows "shall be the minimum flow necessary to maintain or improveexisting fishe ies". Often, HU's measured during low flow are used to define theexisting late ummer fisheries. In situations where the goal is to "maintain"existing fishe ies, we determine the flow range with the same HU's as measur.~d andthe minimum fl w in that range becomes the recommendation. At the measured latesummer flow of 1.2 cfs, HQI analysis indicates approximately 13.2 trout HUs (Figure2). However, .2 cfs is below the year-round maintenance flow of 1.8 cfs de1:erminedabove with the habitat retention method. Therefore, the minimum flow to mainitain thefishery during late summer is 1.8 cfs.

40.0

35.0

30.0

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

1 5.0

0.0

-II)

::;)~-~c

::;)

cu~.ccu~

..0

~0

~... C!N

<0 N co ..0 0N MM. It) «Xi

Discharge (cfs)

C!......

C!NN

~It)C')

...ci q

0It)

Figure 2 Tro~t habitat units at several late summer Coal Creek flow levels.axi~ discharges are not to scale.

x-

The mini m flow required to improve the fishery is 2.0 cfs which provides21.4 HU's. Habi at Units are maximized at an average late summer discharge between4.4 and 7.0 cfs. Based on HQI analysis and in consideration of the Bonnevillecutthroat trout Management Plan's goals (Remmick et al. 1994), an instream flow of2.0 cfs is reco ended to maintain or improve existing trout production between July

8

1 and septembef 30. This flow represents the lowest stream flow that willaccomplish thi+ objective.

Though n turally available less often than 1.8 cfs, 2.0 cfs would allo~.beneficial use of water in years when it is available. As outlined earlier, troutpopulations wi 1 benefit from favorable habitat conditions at 2.0 cfs which slhouldallow them to urvive poor habitat during periodic natural droughts. Alterncltively,storage solely for instream flow purposes is likely not in the State's bestinterest.

PHABSIM Analyses

Weighted usable area estimates for Bonneville cutthroat trout generally' agreewith HQI resul s (Figure 3). Adult and juvenile physical habitat peak at abo,ut 4.8and 3.4 cfs, r spectively. Physical habitat curves are fairly broad indicatingrelative insen itivity to changing flows. Such a pattern fits the observation thatmuch adult and juvenile habitat in Coal Creek occurs in well-defined pools thatwould tend to hange little as flows change. The recommended late-summer flow of2.0 cfs and ma' tenance flow of 1.8 cfs appear to maintain adequate adult andjuvenile physi al habitat.

Spawning as identified as a critical life stage. Peak spawning physicalhabitat occurs t 4.4 cfs. Normal spring flows are much higher -25 cfs wasmeasured in thi study (Table 1). Such high flows might limit spawning activitynear the study ite or cause migration to more favorable (upper) reaches. Thoughtrout can usual y find someplace to spawn whenever temperatures are appropriate andflows allow unr stricted movement, maximum physical habitat in the study site occursat a flow of 4. cfs. Therefore, an instream flow of 4.4 cfs is recommended for theperiod April 15 to June 30.

1 Of). ~

80.<p<:J~..><

~60.~

40.q

20.q

O.Q~0

C'!.- «I:('II

oq-

Discharge (cfs)

0N

<0N

a"1"

Figure 3 weig*ted usable area (percent of maximum) for Bonneville CUtthroat troutin C~l Creek over a range of discharges.

9

~ ~ ~ ~It) IX) T- .q-

Based 0 the analyses and results outlined above, the instream flowrecommendatio s in Table 5 will maintain or improve the existing Coal CreekBonneville cu throat trout fishery. These recommendations apply to an apprclximately4.2 mile segm nt of Coal Creek extending downstream from the northwest corner ofsection 13 in T28N, Rl19W to the confluence with East Fork Coal Creek in Section 25T28N, Rl19W. ecause data were collected from representative habitats and simulatedover a wide fl w range, additional data collection under different flow conditionswould not si 'ficantly change these recommendations.

Inst~eam flow recommendations to maintain or improve the existing Coalcre~k trout fishery.

Table S.

July 1 to September 30I October 1 to April 30

10

LITERATURE CITED

Annear, T.C. a~d A.L. Conder. 1984. Relative bias of several fisheries inst:reamflow met~ods. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 4:531-539.

Binns, N.A. 1~81. Bonneville cutthroat trout Salmo clarki utah in Wyoming.Wyoming qame and Fish Department, Fisheries Technical Bulletin No.5.

Binns, N.A. an4 F. Eiserman. 1979. Quantification of fluvial trout habitat inwyoming.! Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 108:215-228.

Bovee, K. and 1.Milhous. 1978. Hydraulic simulation in instream flowstudies: theory and technique. Instream Flow Information Paper 5,FWS/OBS- 8/33, Cooperative Instream Flow Service Group, U.S. Fish andWildlife Service. Fort Collins, Colorado.

Bozek, M.A. an~ F.J. Rahel. 1992. Generality of microhabitat suitability

models 0 young Colorado River Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki

pleuriti us) across site and among years in Wyoming streams. CanadianJournal f Fisheries and Aquatic Science 49:552-564.

Butler, R. 197~. Anchor ice, its formation and effects on aquatic lifeScience ir Agriculture, Vol XXVI, Number 2, Winter, 1979.

Conder, A.L. an~ T.C. Annear. 1987. Test of weighted usable area estimatesderived f om a PHABSIM model for instream flow studies on trout streamsNorth Arne ican Journal of Fisheries Management 7:339-350.

Cunjak, R.A. 1~ 88. Physiological consequences of overwintering in streams;

the cost f acclimatization? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic

Sciences 5:443-452.

House, R. 1995 t Temporal variation in abundance of an isolated population of

cutthroat trout in western Oregon, 1981-1991. North American Journal of

Fisheries Management 15:33-41.

Kurtz, J. 198"0.; Fishery management investigations. -a study of the upperGreen Riv r fishery, Sublette County, Wyoming (1975-1979). CompletionReport. yoming Game and Fish Department, Fish Division, Cheyenne.

Lowham, H. W. 1\76. Techniques for estimating flow characteristics of Wyomingstreams. u.s. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations 76-112.83p.

Milhous, R.T., i .L. Wegner, and T. Waddle. 1984. User's guide to the physicalhabitat s mulation system. Instream Flow Paper 11, FWSjOBS-81j43, U.S.Fish and ildlife Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Milhous, R.T., ~ .A. Updike, and D.M. Schneider. 1989. Physical habitat

simulatio system reference manual -version II. Instream Flow

Informati n Paper No. 26. U.S. Fish and wildlife Service, BioI. Rep89(16) .

Miller, D.D. 1~77. Comprehensive survey of the Bear River drainage. WyomingGame and ~ish, Administrative Report.

11

1

Needham, P., Ji Moffett, and D. Slater. 1945. Fluctuations in wild browntrout po ulations in Convict Creek, California. Journal of WildlifeManageme t 9:9-25.

Nehring, R. 1~9. Evaluation of instream flow methods and determination ofwater qu tity needs for streams in the state of Colorado. ColoradoDivision of Wildlife, Fort Collins.

Nehring, B.R. ~d R.M. Anderson. 1993. Determination of population-limitinsrcritical salmonid habitats in Colorado streams using the Physical Habit:atSimulati n System. Rivers 4:1-19.

Reimers, N. 19~".surviva1.1

Some aspects of the relation between stream foods and trO1.JltCalifornia Fish and Game 43:43-69.

Reiser, D.W., ~.A. Wesche, and C. Estes. 1989.legislat~on and practices in North America

Status of instream flowFisheries 14(2) :22-29.

Remmick, R. :$81, A survey of native cutthroat populations and associatedstream itats in the Bridger-Teton National Forest. Wyoming Game andFish Dep tment, Administrative Report.

Remmick, R. antN.A. Binns. 1987. Effect of drainage wide habitat managementon Bear 'ver Cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki utah) populations in theThomas Fa k drainage, Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department,Administr tive Report.

Remmick, R., K. I Nelson, G. Walker, and J. Henderson. 1994. Bonnevillecutthroat trout inter-agency five year management plan (1993-1997)

Rosgen, D. 198 ~ .A stream classification system. IN: Riparian Ecosystems

and Their Management; Reconciling Conflicting Uses. Proceedings of the

First Nor h American Riparian Conference, April 16-18, Tucson, Arizona.GTR-RM120, pp. 91-95.

WGFD.

1977. crrrent Status and Inventory of Wildlife in Wyoming. 133 P

12

RfaCh weighting used for PHABSIM AnalysisAppendix 1.

Appendix 2 S~itability index data used in PHABSIM analysis. Spawning indexdfta were developed by WGFD from 1994 observations in Huff Cree].:

o~oo 0.000.030.080.J.50.300.5J.0.700.90J..OOJ..OO0.820.640.4J.0.230.J.20.05O.OJ.0.000.00

0.004.104.205.705.80

100.00

0.000.00J..OOJ..OO0.000.00

I O~10I

0 ~20

~

0 32-0 45

0 600 760.911.011.101.221.321.411.501.601.721.811.911.97

f--

0.000.000.010.02

~~~=I ~.O~

0.110.190.250.320.44~

.54 0.64

0.740.83

I 0.93

0.981.001.000.960.910.800.710.600.470.380.000.00

0.000.100.150.20

I ~.~~! 0.300.35 !

0.40 i~.45 0.50

f ~.~~I ~.~gi 0.65I

0.70

0.75 :

0.80~.OO 1.50

100.00

f--

I 2.1°9I

2.119

2--:-131

-2.\41

2.150

1

.2 2.72

3. 01.00.00

13