The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1992-1022 Adjourned Mtg PACKET VII. NEW & MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: 1. Request by Gary Schrodt for special Council meeting on October 22 to consider wetlands treatment proposal. 2. Memorandum from Fire Chief concerning request by Gayle Titus, 1 Hillcrest Drive for waiver of fire flow requirement for building addition. 3. Request by Energy Conservation Coordinator to approve Long Term Energy- Q; Smart Design Assistance Program, and Res`lutio-W authorizing Mayor & Recorder to sign contract with B.P.A. 4. Memo from Energy Conservation Coordinator requesting Council approval of Local Conservation Plan. ° 5. Approval of annual performance evaluation criteria for City Attorney. 6. Approval of revised Primary Fixed Base Operator Minimum Standards for Ashland Municipal Airport. 7. Memo from City Attorney requesting that Council rescind acceptance of open space grant from Jere Hudson to correct defect in transfer. 8. Request from Councilor Arnold concerning waiver of transient occupancy tax for rooms rented to homeless persons; and a drive to collect sleeping bags/blankets for the homeless. VIII. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Limited to 3 min. per speaker and 15 min. total) IX. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS & CONTRACTS: 1. Second reading by title only of an ordinance amending Sections 15.04.010, 15.04.020, 15.04.030, 15.04.090, 15.04.200, 15.04.205 and repealing Sections 15.04.025, 15.04.050, 15.04.060, 15.04.070, 15.04.110, and 15.04.185 E. of the Ashland Municipal Code relating to building and other specialty codes and adding Section 15.04.250 relating to notices of non-compliance for buildings and occupancies. 2. Second reading by title only of an ordinance requiring certain multi-family dwellings, apartments, condominiums and mobile home parks to provide tenants /„� Ila and occupants with opportunity to recycle. MEMORANDUM October 22, 1992 To: Brian Almquist, Mayor and City Counc' 1 From: Steven Hall, Public Works Director Re: Latest Information Attached are four items for your reference. They will be coming in the mail, but Rob Winthrop felt that you should have the information tonight. The first is a letter from Eagle Mill Farm (Ron Roth) questioning the ownership of the effluent from our wastewater plant. This has been sent to the Watermaster for his opinion. The second item is a memo from Steve Celeste at Brown and Caldwell outlining his professional opinion of the effectiveness of wetlands. Third is a.Jdtter from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to the Oregon;;>Department of Environmental Quality with their observations and recommendations. The last is a listing of TID stored water rights available on property north of Interstate 5 near the Ashland wastewater plan. CITY OF ASHLANDr CITY HALL � ^ ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 telephone(code 503)482-3211 19 October 1992 Mr. John Drolet State Water Master Jackson County Courthouse Medford OR 97501 Re: Water Rights On Ashland Creek Dear John: I recently received the attached letter from the operators of the Eagle Mill Farm located on Bear Creek near Valley View Road. The Eagle Mill Partners contend that they have a water right on Ashland Creek for the operation of their farm located on 38-1E-31 tax lot 500 (see attached map). This property has no frontage on Ashland Creek and is located entirely on Bear Creek. The letter does not indicate a diversion point off Ashland Creek by which the Eagle Mii )Farms may acquire Ashland Creek water. Does this property have an Ashland Creek water right and if so what is the allotted rate? May I meet with you to discuss this matter further, perhaps after your staff has had an opportunity to research this question? Would you please call at 488-5347 at your earliest opportunity. Sincerely, James H. Olson Assistant City Engineer Certified Water Rights Examiner #283 JHO:rs\.gmw.ltr Attachments: letter, map cc: Brian Almquist Steve%Iia11=" Dennis Bamts II .. rk��ry�++,... , Basle ill % Fr,o�n_:.i� P?. . `:••..r _ .mss . ri y Ah[unj n �S y Tp: Gl� o7C l4dh,� 7'�'Er-�, /1'1a pr ahol C-at+v,ci ('ur reS(20fTl RhA CAIN /Aq joh5 rr-, )i c-ai e tAx G,'�y e� iFshl�,h� hus „"rrY CP"e Wo wa* 90'7 C-1 S O r 4 `1[Rt7d L-J^� �l(1W I 6D rQj �C1 ULiI� i ado �Va ler- v %5hlraN� hu.s: Su65�Ah �� l �uhiav water � iyti7s �v 1uh) b`/ �CzR Gl P_✓ Y� StL +^I/nl lam- 4s YY4 f4 2 f t,r5� �Wj P,90 9 t{ I�O h S )p y-rr pD Gt d y O � wa �'-✓' �_.o�v��ij ►h �a t�,Q {'�S�m�r . ��ti we ha►� ��e ,�;� ti � �-{, t�� art llm�oav 9glla „ 5. ArA Jn� tl� �s r.� flea . flOtl9;f �/ ",1 Ml�rk �S k7- I�YGh MEMORANDUM , To: John Holroyd �_ I From: Steve Celeste �\Z Date: October 16, 1992 Subject: Ashland -- Constructed Wetlands for Nutrient Removal As requested, I am continuing my investigation into the use of constructed wetlands for the removal of ammonia (NH3) and phosphorus (P). There appears to be a wealth of BOD and suspended solids (SS) removal data; however, NH3 and P removal information is a little harder to come across. The design of constructed wetlands is more of an art than a science. The usual engineering approach of using hydraulic, organic, and nutrient loading rates to size treatment units may not result in a properly sized wetland. The large number of variables involved, such as soil type, plant and animal populations, algal growth, water chemistry, and evaporation to name a few, make it extremely difficult to predict treatment performance. The exceptional plant and animal diversity makes the wetlands difficult to control, resulting in inconsistent treatment as compared to other common treatment processes. This memorandum summarizes my findings to date. I have examined BOD and SS removal, NH3 removal, P removal, and sizing criteria. BOD and SS Removal Assuming that the WWTP is retained and a constructed wetlands would be used only for effluent polishing, BOD and SS removal should not be a concern. However, pilot studies should be performed to determine if wetlands can consistently comply with the 10 mg/I BOD and SS limits. If the pilot study shows that these limits cannot be met, effluent filters could be used.to reduce BOD and SS below 10 mg/I. NH3 Removal The primary means of NH3 removal in a wetlands is nitrification; however, plant uptake can also account for some ammonia removal. In many wetlands systems, denitrification can also occur, resulting in lower total nitrogen discharges to the receiving waters. NH3 removal from plant uptake is expected to be significant only when plants are harvested from a wetlands. If plants are not harvested, the wetlands will eventually reach a steady state. The NH3 and nitrate taken up by growing plants will be partially offset by plant decay and NI-13 release back into solution. As with conventional treatment systems, the degree of nitrification depends on the concentration of nitrifying organisms, retention time, and water temperature. Compared to an activated sludge process, the concentration of nitrifying organisms in a wetlands is extremely low. In contrast, retention times in wetlands can be quite high compared to mechanical treatment plants. A study at the Shelbyville, Missouri wetlands concluded that nitrification was more a function of temperature than retention time. Because of the shallow water and long hydraulic retention times, water temperature is greatly influenced by air temperature. In Ashland, the cold winter temperatures could virtually stop all nitrification. However, during the summer months, a significant degree of nitrification would be expected if retention times were adequate. Operating data from a number of wetlands indicate that very low levels of effluent ammonia are attainable. However, these data also indicate that wetlands receiving influent NH3 concentrations typical of a WWTP effluent (15- 20 mg/1) do not consistently produce effluent NH3 concentrations below Ashland's limit of 1 mg/I even during warm weather. An important consideration in Ashland is water alkalinity. Water supplies in western Oregon typically have very low concentrations of alkalinity. Without sufficient alkalinity, biological nitrification would be inhibited. To ensure warm'Weather effluent NH3 concentrations consistently below 1 mg/I, it may be necessary to nitrify (at least partially) in the aeration basins of the WWTP before discharging to the wetlands. During cold weather, nitrifying at the WWTP before discharging to the wetlands should be considered essential. Phosphorus Removal P removal in wetlands occurs from absorption, adsorption, and precipitation. Plants absorb P through their roots and transport it to growing tissue. When the plant dies and decays, it releases its P back into solution. Therefore, to take advantage of this P removal mechanism, plants must be periodically harvested from the wetlands. However, many of the plants typically found in wetlands are not considered a significant factor for P removal because of low P uptake rates. Adsorption and precipitation reactions are the major mechanisms for P removal when the water can contact soil. Soils containing clay, iron and aluminum oxides, and calcium compounds have the greatest potential to remove P from solution. Some other soils have virtually no capacity for P removal. The P collects on sorption sites, accumulating in the sediment. Fine-textured soils, such as clay, provide more sorption sites than coarse soils partially because of the larger overall surface area. Over time (several years to several decades) all of the sorption sites will be used up and this P removal mechanism will no longer occur. To continue P removal, a new wetlands would have to be constructed , elsewhere or the soil and sediment in the existing wetlands would have to be dredged and replaced. Phosphates react with calcium, iron, and aluminum compounds to form relatively insoluble compounds that settle out of the water column. This explains why soils with high calcium, aluminum, and iron content remove P more effectively. Again. the metals eventually will be consumed, leaving a soil with no capacity for P removal. This removal mechanism is analogous to adding alum to a primary sedimentation basin, except that a finite supply of alum is available. P removal rates in wetlands are highly variable. Wetlands in steady state conditions sometimes remove virtually no P. Newly-constructed wetlands have removed up to 90 percent of the influent P. After reviewing available records, I believe that effluent P concentrations of 1 mg/I would be considered exceptional. As with most constituents, removal becomes more difficult as influent P concentrations decrease. P discharges from the Ashland WWTP average about 4 to 5 mg/I. Assuming that a wetlands in Ashland performed as well as the best wetlands in the country, effluent P levels would be around 0.5 mg/I. Unfortunately, Ashland's proposed limit is 0.08 mg/I. Based on available data, wetlands could not be used for P removal unless higher discharge limits were negotiated with DEQ. Another potentially significant factor related to nutrients is the growth of algae in the wetlands. Algae would be discharged into the receiving stream unless effluent filtration.was provided. This algae could act as a "seed" to trigger growth of more algae in the receiving stream. Depending on receiving stream flow, the algae in the effluent could even cause the receiving stream to violate the DEQ in-stream chlorophyll-a standard of 0.015 mg/l. Effluent from the Jackson Bottom wetlands in Hillsboro exceeds the in-stream chlorophyll-a standard. Wetlands Sizing As mentioned previously, there are no hard and fast rules for sizing a wetlands. A common approach appears to purchase a overly large piece of land for the wetlands. If the wetlands do not perform as desired, more wetlands are added to the system. I used two different approaches to estimate the required size of a wetlands for Ashland. The semi-theoretical approach resulted in a 186-acre wetland to treat a 20 mg/I BOD effluent to a 5 mg/I effluent. The empirical approach recommended by the same researcher netted a wetlands size of 79 acres. My guess is that a wetlands specialist would recommend a wetland size somewhere between 50 and 200 acres. o� Oi� on October 8, 1992 Vr DEPARTMENT OF Lydia Taylor ' Oj„ON FISH AND Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Division WILDLIFE 811 SW Sixth Avenue " 6 Portland, OR 97204 Re Bear Creek; City of Ashland Sewage Treatment Plant Dear Lydia: The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) offers the following comments and recommendations for Department ' of Environmental Quality (DEQ) regarding the proposed alternatives for the City of Ashland's sewage treatment plant (STP) . We appreciate DEQ's mandate. to determine and enforce Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) of effluent for Bear Creek while at the same time regulating Ashland's STP in compliance with Clean Water Act and State Water Quality .:Standards and protecting other beneficial uses associated?vth Bear Creek. Ashland's STP outflow contributes approximately one half of the total Bear Creek flow during the critical low flow period (CLFP) . Rather than simply removing effluent flow (by sprinkler irrigation or piping effluent to Medford "STP)>,,.. several waivers to state Water Quality Standards are under consideration by DEQ to sustain Bear Creek flow thereby helping to protect fish and other ecologically important Bear Creek resources. Fish are already severely impacted from past land and water management practices in the Bear Creek basin. Such degradation makes these remaining salmonid populations especially important because these fish provide the only viable parent source to successive generations of Bear Creek fish if habitat is restored. DEQ has identified fish as the most sensitive beneficial use of Bear Creek. . Loss of the Ashland effluent contribution to total Bear Creek flow, without providing mitigating flow, will further foreclose opportunities to restore fish and other ecologically important resources to the Bear Creek 4.rar„ watershed. s. 2501 SW First Avenue PO Box 59 Portland, OR 97207 (503) 229-5400 DEQ - Taylor October 8, 1992 Page 2 Bear Creek Fish Resources ODFW manages Bear Creek and its tributaries for fall chinook and coho salmon, steelhead and cutthroat trout. During any given time of year some life stage of coho salmon, chinook salmon or steelhead is present in the nine mile reach (zone of significant effluent impact) of Bear Creek below the STP outfall. Throughout this nine mile reach your water quality models demonstrate significant adverse influence by Ashland's STP. Coho Salmon Adult coho salmon return from the ocean and enter Bear Creek in December if sufficient water flow is available in the creek. Spawning takes place in December and January in the main stem Bear Creek. Late November and early December rains usually provide enough flow in the creek for coho to migrate upstream. However, in 1977-78 and again in 1990-91 adult coho salmon were unable to ascend Bear Creek due to low flow :conditions. In 1989, adult coho salmon were observed.: in-several Bear Creek tributaries and coho migrated as far upstream as Reader Reservoir in Ashland Creek. Most of these Coho salmon were hatchery fish introduced into Bear Creek as adults, but some were wild fish according to ODFW ppp biologists. ) Coho adult escapement ,.has been low the past few years primarily due to drought conditions. No juvenile coho were found during ODFW's 1990-91 . electrofishing surveys of Bear Creek. Coho salmon hatch from Bear Creek redds (salmon, trout and steelhead nests) in April each year and rear in freshwater to smolt (migration size) the following spring when, as one year old fish, they migrate to sea. Coho salmon juveniles are typically not found in mainstem rivers like the Rogue River. These salmon prefer rearing habitat (especially winter habitat) . in smaller tributary streams like Bear Creek which usually contain cover (boulders, off channel areas, woody debris, man made structures, undercut banks, beaver pond) where these populations can more readily over winter. 1. Galon Deshon, ODFW, Fish Technician, (Personal Communication) . 2 . Nicholsen et al. 1992 . Seasonal Changes in Habitat Use by Juvenile Coho Salmon in Oregon Coastal Streams. Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 49:783-789. DEQ - Taylor October 8, 1992 Page 3 Chinook Salmon Fall chinook salmon use Bear Creek. In recent years very few chinook salmon spawned in Bear Creek. No chinook salmon were observed during the 1990-91 electrofishing survey of Bear Creek (although most of the juveniles probably had left the stream at the time of the survey) . These salmon enter Bear Creek in October and spawn in the lower reaches of Bear Creek as far upstream as Phoenix (river mile 16) . Fall chinook salmon typically spawn in the lower reaches of mainstem streams as they do in Bear Creek. Eggs incubate in streambed redds and hatch in March and April the following spring. Newly hatched fry migrate quickly to the Rogue River estuary and enter the ocean in the following summer. In 1990, 13 dead adult chinook salmon were observed at the Jackson Street Dam in Medford. 3 The dam has an existing but inadequate fish passage facility. Suitable spawning gravel and habitat is present above the Jackson Street Dam and chinook salmon would utilize more of Bear Creek if they could negotiate the dam. Plans are currently underway to improve fish> passage at the dam. The nine mile reach of Bear Creek 'below Ashland's STP is potential spawning, rearing and migration habitat for these salmon. Steelhead Steelhead are ocean-going -trout. A 1990-91 ODFW survey of Bear Creek found many 1+ age class steelhead in Bear Creek above Medford and a few 2+ age fish. This survey indicates juvenile steelhead and resident trout successfully rear in Bear Creek between Ashland and Medford during the summer. . Cutthroat Trout During a 1990-91 ODFW inventory no cutthroat trout were found in the mainstem; however, Bear Creek tributaries (e.g. Neil Creek and Ashland Creek) showed abundant populations of wild cutthroat trout. People who live in the Bear Creek area talk of catching wild 12-13 inch trout in the mainstem of Bear Creek in the past. These fish were likely cutthroat trout. Habitat in Bear Creek is severely degraded by high temperatures and poor riparian habitat so that habitat is no p DEQ - Taylor October 8, 1992 Page 4 longer suitable for these trout but could be improved in the mainstem. Cutthroat trout spawning occurs in December- January in Bear Creek tributaries. These trout are likely resident fish that do not migrate to the ocean. In contrast, Applegate River cutthroat trout migrate into the mainstem Rogue River to spawn then return to the Applegate River but such potadromous behavior has not been observed in Bear Creek cutthroat trout. Based on his experience with coastal cutthroat trout the ODFW Upper Rogue District Fish Biologist believes these fish live approximately five years. After reaching maturity at one year of age t�ese trout likely spawn several times during their lifetime. ODFW Concerns I Ammonia Ammonia (unionized ammonia, NH4+) is chronically toxic to salmonids in concentrations equal to or greater than 0.020 mg/liter. Ashland's ammonia discharge currently averages 20 mg/l and values as high as 26.8 mg/l (total ammonia) were reported' at Valley View road in May 1992. Such high concentrations of ammonia are acutely and chronically toxic F to salmonids' Flow Effluent use for sprinkler irrigation versus discharge to Bear Creek (i.e. , bypassing-. Bear Creek by piping effluent to Medford) are other alternatives under consideration by DEQ. These alternatives concern. ODFW 'because they ignore instream biological conditions that will be further degraded by the proposed removal of, three cubic feet per second (cfs) of instream flow currently provided by the effluent (STP effluent contributes one-half of the total Bear Creek late summer-fall flow) . Clean Water Act mandates focus DEQ attention on water column chemical parameters thus ignoring holistic ecolocry of the Bear Proposals to y regulate STP discharge into Bear Creek to simply satisfy a 'F single water quality standard (e.g. , ammonia) does not necessarily result in overall improvements in the Bear Creek aquatic ecosystem.4 3. MacLeod, J. (ODFW Upper Rogue District Fish Biologist Personal Communication, July 199 2) 4. Karr, J.R. Biological integrity: A Long-Neglected Aspect of Water Resource Management, Ecological Applications 1(1) , pp. 66-84, 1991. DEQ - Taylor October 8, 1992 Page 5 In this case, such a management approach will adversely effect the ecological health and biotic integrity of Bear Creek. ODFW is concerned about this proposed late-September to early January withdrawal. of Bear Creek STP discharge during this CLFP * especially in consideration of ODFW Bear Creek management objectives. ODFW acknowledges the need .to meet state water quality standards, but also appreciates DEQ's recognition of concerns regarding the severe reduction in Bear Creek water flow if Ashland uses sprinkler irrigation (versus discharge to Bear Creek) during the CLFP. Only by maintaining flow (at least existing flow) in . the nine mile reach below the STP outfall can aquatic ecology, (especially salmon and steelhead habitat) be maintained. Temperature 1ODFW believes water temperature is the key attribute r limiting fish habitat quality in Bear Creek. in er r1 discharge to Bear Creek with resultant (mod fal predicted) temperature increases will adversely affect the life history of salmonids using the creek. For example, DEQ's temperature.-, model indicates Ashland's STP discharge increases. creek temperature at all times of the year and measurably increases temperature during the fall and winter CLFP: This temperature increase depends on dilution and relative air and water temperature. differences, however, we note increases of up to two degrees F. are predicted by your model for a distance of 10 miles below the plant during CLFP. Such increases will adversely effect salmonids using Bear Creek. With such large increases in temperature caused by the STP, fish migration, spawning, egg incubation and rearing are adversely impacted throughout the reach of temperature increases caused by the STP. For example, early emergence of salmonid eggs from Bear Creek redds will occur with these increased temperatures. This temperature increase also adversely impacts survival of these fish to adults. High water temperatures limit juvenile rearing habitat which curtails coho salmon productivity. Many of these fish migrate downstream after hatching to the mainstem Rogue River to rear because Bear Creek rearing habitat is severely limited by high water temperature. N DEQ - Taylor October 8, 1992 Page 6 i ODFA Recommendations Bear Creek aquatic ecology is now in poor condition for reasons other than just SIP discharge. However, Ashland's SIP discharge management is part of the solution and the issue to which DEQ must carefully address water quality regulations to protect fish habitat. Ammonia ��' If DEQ authorizes Ashland to discharge its effluent into �� y Bear Creek, DEQ should require the ammonia component of the p' 1 effluent to be reduced to concentrations less than p� chronically toxic to salmonids in compliance with OAR 340-e�' 41-365 (A) (i) . To satisfy this OAR, DEQ should require Ashland to achieve less than 1.0 mq/1 effluent total ammonia (Below the 0. 020 mg/1 salmonid chronic toxicity threshold) . Your model demonstrates that such a requirement will reduce the toxic unionized form of ammonia (NH4+) to less than 0.020 mg/1. Flow Mitigation For this proposed DEQ water development action that will impact fish and wildlife habitat, ODFW recommends flow I mitigation consistent with the goals and standards of OAR Chapter 635 Division 415 Section 025 (Fish and Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Policy.):. ODFW's mitigation goal for the mitigation for the Bear, Creek habitat category is no net loss of habitat. Accordingly, flows removed from Bear Creek by order of DEQ must be fully mitigated by replacing the lost flow. Loss of Ashland's effluent flow into Bear Creek will adversely affect salmonid populations that are already severely compromised by drought, over-appropriation and other human-caused disturbances within the .Bear Creek watershed. Such water (flow) removal will adversely affect the Bear Creek aquatic ecosystem. If DEQ allows Ashland sprinkler irrigation discharge, DEQ should require the City to mitigate this flow loss by using the three cfs water right appurtenant to the Talent Irrigation District (TID) land (which Ashland proposes to purchase from TID) for exclusive use in Bear Creek. DEQ should not allow the City of Ashland to use effluent for sprinkler irrigation without this water right transfer in place. Following purchase of this land, Ashland should transfer the water right to an Instream Water Right (IWR) held in public trust by the Water j Resources Department (WRD) with conditions attached to the DEQ - Taylor October 8, 1992 Page 7 IWR to ensure this water remains in Bear Creek from Ashland to the mouth of Bear Creek. Temperature In compliance with OAR 340-41-362 (2) (b) . DEQ should not permit Ashland to discharge effluent that increases Bear Creek water temperatures by more than 0.5 degrees F. due to the combined effect of Ashland's discharge and all other single point sources of discharge to Bear Creek. Artificial Wetlands Effluent treatment via an artificially-created wetland would help Ashland achieve water quality standards. Ashland's evaluation of this alternative is "Bear Creek is located in a deep steeply sloped V-shaped canyon. These steeply sloping canyon walls coupled with extreme winter-summer flow variation produce geomorphologic and hydrologic conditions not conducive to wetlands creation. " Therefore, DEQ has eliminated; . this idea concluding that discharge to artificially ;; created wetlands is not feasible. ODFW believes :the' Bear Creek valley floor would make wetland creation easy provided land is available Accordingly DE should require Ashland to provide a detailed engineered, scoping analysis. of this alternative using state-of-the-art artificial wetlands creation technology. Wetlands creation would serve to polish treated water prior to discharge to Bear Creek. I trust these comments are helpful to you. Please do not hesitate to contact me if we can provide any additional information. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. sincerely, Gregor P. Robart Staff Biologist Habitat Conservation Division c Brown and Caldwell - Holroyd City of Ashland - Hall DEQ - Water Quality Division, Wiltsey/Dzata/Baumgartner/ T. Foster EPA, Seattle - Kawabata/Lagerloef WRD - Applegate Rogue Valley Council of Governments - Ditmer/Provost Talent Irrigation District - Cannon c Public Information Request: Rogue Flyfishers - MacDiarmid Oregon Trout - Myron Ashland Wetlands Coalition - Schrodt Water Watch - Russel/Hunter I P ' I I �� Lil L ij T IT Il- -1., KRKS 'IITP OPTJOrj �A, I PFENTIlk T T I T by q� HEI 1 1 1'6,1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 w N,s H i p C,1 An , n ?D -71 TTD ID T I Pj --, 4 AP- ANK Fl. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- llrp'l2r Of ON'!' f OF -;-'n HHOI 3 17 h J�U :-t; Ii,V(.! 71 —CA- 0.0 0.00 V 0.00 O,O0 3j 0.00 39 tE L, 1-v 71 2t C'.n 0.0 0.01 U U 0 0.00 7- -1, lE 7-- it 6 . 56.5 144.73 0,54 � -L -r °4,80 n L J!J v 4 --, A,-,l `-IE 0, iL 10.4 8.29 io 0.10 f! Ul 0.06. 71 M IA 7.V 444.94 1161 0.97 i 376.70 ,:50.0 0.00 ------------------- ---------------------------------------------- 1300:19 '67.3 708.-5 M4 t One fav rEcrjrL'z 642.:. 2712.4 594,666 i.i5 I.tl 1.29 (21 'L Q C s n v. E,,n F, s. Eo-.-emun of acre fept 3r-P fr-'-.Onm'