ࡱ> CA<=D#` bjbj dʸE4.rKrKrKhKfL.nNN@NNNNNN$hh?fNNff?NNT,rrrfNNrfrrJQ\NbN @)?rKiXB<nlxnn@NdVrr[\2`mNNN??sqNNNffff...DErK...rK... A preliminary flow template for high-gradient, subalpine streams in the Fraser Watershed Prepared by The Nature Conservancy of Colorado, December 4, 2006 The ecological targets and associated flow parameters discussed in the Denver Water/TNC workshop of July 6, 2006 were used to develop a preliminary flow template for the high-gradient, subalpine streams in the Fraser Watershed. This preliminary template is intended to prompt expert input and more detailed discussion about specific flow parameters, criteria for those parameters that define hydrological and ecological condition classes, and relationships between hydrological parameters and ecological responses. The flow parameters and criteria presented in the template were developed through explicit consideration of only ecological condition. Flow standards for recreation, scenic value, wastewater management, and other water needs were not considered, although many non-ecological water needs will benefit from improvements in ecological condition. The guiding framework for this flow template was the Limits of Hydrologic Alteration methodology (LOHA; Richter et al. 2005). This methodology shares elements with other flow prescription methodologies (e.g., Arthington 1998; Brizga et al. 2002, King and Luow 1998), and it advances hydrology-based approaches to flow prescription such as the Range of Variability Approach (Richter et al. 1997). The LOHA methodology shares concepts outlined in Arthington et al. (2006), particularly the identification of acceptable degrees of hydrologic alteration and the application of a template to a class of streams (rather than to an individual stream). During the July 6 workshop, workshop participants identified two stream classes in the Fraser Watershed: high-gradient subalpine streams and low-gradient montane streams. We decided for two reasons to focus post-workshop efforts on the subalpine streams. First, in the Fraser Valley more research has been done on high-gradient subalpine streams than on the low-gradient montane streams. Second, the low-gradient montane streams are significantly affected by factors in addition to flow, including changes to streambank vegetation and floodplain structure. We concluded that the key flow parameters for the subalpine streams are floods and low (base) flows (Richter et al. 2006) (see Table 1 in Attachment 1 for details on key flow parameters). Although we are beginning this work on high-gradient, subalpine streams, we seek to extend it to low-gradient, montane streams. The Nature Conservancy followed-up the workshop by creating a draft flow template for the high-gradient subalpine streams that would delimit hydrological status based on alterations in the key flow parameters. The objective for this template is not to restore pre-developed flow conditions, but to postulate how specific improvements in ecological condition (assumed to follow hydrologic status) might be achieved by changing water management operations. With key flow parameters from the workshop in mind, natural and altered flow data from six locations in the Fraser watershed (produced by Denver Water using their PACSIM model) were evaluated using Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration software (IHA, Richter et al. 1996) to assess flow parameter sensitivity to alteration. Six flow parameters are proposed for inclusion in the flow template (Table 1). In the template, four classes of hydrologic classes were used (Richter et al. 2005). Criteria defining each class of hydrologic status were then proposed for each flow parameter. These criteria should only be considered hypotheses offered by TNC for consideration by experts, and we hope that these hypotheses will be tested through future research and monitoring. We expect that these criteria will change as they are reviewed and as more research is brought to bear on critical issues. Table 1. Flow parameters to represent key aspects of flow regimes in subalpine, high-gradient streams. Flow parameterReason for inclusion in template1-day minimum flow for the yearShort-term minimum can limit aquatic organisms that require flowing water. Extreme low flow duration (number of days in the lowest 10th percentile of the natural flow regime; TNC 2006)Many organisms (e.g., fish) can withstand short-duration but not long-duration extreme low flows.1-day peak flow for the yearIndicates the magnitude of annual floods, which transport sediment and maintain active channel width.Small flood Frequency (2-10 year return interval)Over time, most sediment is transported under bankfull conditions (Andrews 1980, Troendle et al. 1994); small flood frequency indicates the regularity of this condition.Mean small flood duration (from beginning of rising limb to end of falling limb; see TNC 2006)Over time, most sediment is transported under bankfull conditions (Andrews 1980, Troendle et al. 1994); small flood duration indicates the period of which this condition is sustained.Mean daily flow for each monthMonthly mean flows relate to total habitat availability and ecosystem productivity (Annear et al. 2004). Choosing specific criteria to define an ecological condition class or benchmark is challenging because there are generally few empirical data linking specific flow conditions to specific ecological responses in these high-gradient streams. (We hope that one outcome of this LOHA process will be the identification of research priorities that will provide these data). Criteria suggested for the six parameters included in the preliminary template come from a variety of sources. For several parameters, 10% was used to define a minimally altered mean, based on Arthington and Pusey (2003), who suggest that 80-90% of natural flows may be needed to maintain a low risk of environmental degradation (but note that this conclusion is based on studies of low-gradient Australian rivers, which differ from those in the Fraser watershed.). Ryan (1997), whose study was conducted in the Fraser watershed, was used to define good peak flows. Alteration of one standard deviation was used as a defining criterion for several parameters based on Richter et al. (1997). Preliminary data from Dr. LeRoy Poffs research lab (at Colorado State University), where researchers have been focused on aquatic macroinvertebrate diversity, was used to define poor condition for low flow. Once the flow template is reviewed, we hope it will be used to inform water management in the Denver Water system and possibly on similar streams throughout the region. Before that can be done, condition class criteria must be formulated into specific management objectives. For example, if, over a period of years, a goal is an alteration of the mean small flood duration of less than one standard deviation from natural conditions, water managers must know what duration from year to year is required to achieve the multi-year mean. However, we re-iterate that even while they are being used to guide management, the criteria should not be considered definitive. Rather, the provisional criteria should be viewed as hypotheses on how operational changes are likely to lead to specific improvements in ecological condition. Following flow management changes, the hypotheses should be tested through research and monitoring. With more research and more input from subject specialists, we hope that criteria will be linked more explicitly to existing empirical data. Table 2: Preliminary Flow TemplateFraser Watershed, High-gradient, subalpine streams Hydrologic StatusLimits of Hydrologic Alteration*JustificationNatural, undevelopedMean 1-day minimum flow < 10%Short-term minimum can be limiting. Mean extreme low flow duration < 10%If short-term minimum is survived, longer duration extreme low flows may be limiting.Mean 1-day peak flow < 10%Indicates maximum annual flows. Small flood frequency: on average ~1 in 2 yrsbank full variously described as 2-3 year return interval.Mean small flood duration < 10% Over time, most sediment is transport under bankfull conditions (Andrews 1980, Troendle et al. 1994)All mean monthly flows < 10% alteredMonthly flows relate to total habitat availability and ecosystem productivity.Minimally alteredMean 1-day minimum flow between 10% and 1 s.d.Richter et al. 1997 (1 s.d. still within range of variability).Mean extreme low flow duration between 10% and 1 s.d.Richter et al. 1997 (1 s.d. still within range of variability).Mean 1-day peak flow <45% altered.Ryan says annual peak flow was reduced up to 45%; an IHA analysis of conditions prior to diversions indicates mean reduction of 39%.Small flood frequency: on average ~1 in 3 yrsBank full occurring with less regularity.Mean small flood duration >10% but less than 1 s.d.Richter et al. 1997 (1 s.d. still within range of variability).All mean monthly flows < 1 s.d. alteredAll months with minimally reduced flows. Moderately alteredMean 1-day minimum flow between 1 s.d. and 90% altered.Poff (pers. comm.) 90% based on changes in aquatic macroinvert diversity.Mean extreme low flow duration between 1 s.d. and 2 s.d.90% represents extreme alteration.Mean 1-day peak flow between 45-90% altered.Upper end of range based on Ryan 1997.Small flood frequency: on average ~1 in 7 yrs. Small floods still occurring, but as rarely as 1 in 10 years. Mean small flood duration greater than 1 s.d. but < 2 s.d. Richter et al. 1997 (1 s.d. still within range of variability).All mean monthly flows < 2 s.d. (or 90%, whichever results in larger flows) alteredSome months with substantially reduced flows.Strongly alteredMean 1-day minimum flow > 90%Poff (pers. comm.) 90% based on changes in aquatic macroinvert diversity.Mean extreme low flow duration > 2 s.d. altered.Extreme departure from mean.Mean 1-day peak flow below > 90% altered.Extreme departure from mean.Small floods frequency: on average > 1 in 10 yrs.Small floods occurring with large flood recurrence interval.Mean small flood duration > 2 s.d.Extreme departure from mean.All mean monthly flows > 2 s.d. or >90% alteredEven if hydrograph has historic shape, all mean monthly flows are much reduced, and therefore total habitat is also much reduced. * % and s.d. (standard deviation) refer to the amount of alteration of the flow parameter from the natural flow regime; these Limits of Hydrologic Alteration define the hydrologic status of the flow parameter. References Andrews, E. D. 1980. Effective and bankfull discharges of streams in the Yampa River Basin, Colorado and Wyoming. Journal of Hydrology 46: 311-330. Annear, T., I. Chisholm, H. Beecher, A. Locke and twelve other authors. 2004. Instream flows for riverine resource stewardship, revised edition. Instream Flow Council, Cheyenne, WY. Arthington A.H.. 1998. Comparative Evaluation of Environmental Flow Assessment Techniques: Review of Holistic Methodologies. Occasional Paper No. 26/98. Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation: Canberra, Australia. Arthington, A. H., S. E. Bunn, N. L. Poff and R. J. Naiman. 2006. The challenge of providing environmental flow rules to sustain river ecosystems. Ecological Applications 16: 1311-1318. Arthington, A. H. and B. J. Pusey. 2003. Flow restoration and protection in Australian rivers. River Research and applications 19: 377-395. Bovee KD. 1982. A Guide to Stream Habitat Analysis Using the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology. Instream Flow Information Paper 12. FWS/OBS-82/26. USDI Fish and Wildlife Services, Office of Biology Services: Washington, DC. Brizga, S. O., A. H. Arthington, B. J. Pusey, M. J. Kennard, S. J. Mackay, G. L. Werren, N.M. Craigie, and S.J. Choy. 2002. Benchmarking, a top-down methodology for assessing environmental flows in Australian rivers. Proceedings of International Conference on Environmental Flows for Rivers, Southern Waters Consulting, Cape Town, South Africa. King, J.M. and D. Louw. 1998. Instream flow assessments for regulated rivers in South Africa using the Building Block Methodology. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Restoration 19:109-124 King, J. M., C. Brown and H. Sabet. 2003. A scenario-based holistic approach to environmental flow assessments for rivers. River Research and Applications 19: 619-639. Poff, N. L., J. D. Allan, M. B. Bain, J. R. Karr, K. L. Prestegaard, B. D. Richter, et al. 1997. The natural flow regime. BioScience 47: 769-784. Richter, B. D., A. T. Warner, J. L. Meyer and K. Lutz. 2006. A Collaborative and Adaptive Process for Developing Environmental Flow Recommendations. River Research and Applications 22: 297-318. Richter, B.D., C.D. Apse, and A.T. Warner. 2005. Beyond Tennant: a call for a new approach in environmental flow science. Unpublished manuscript of the Sustainable Waters Program, The Nature Conservancy. Richter, B. D., J. V. Baumgartner, R. Wigington and D. P. Braun. 1997. How much water does a river need? Freshwater Biology 37: 231-249. Richter, B. D., J. V. Baumgartner, J. Powell and D. P. Braun. 1996. A method for assessing hydrologic alteration within ecosystems. Conservation Biology 10: 1163-1174. Ryan, S. 1997. Morphologic response of subalpine streams to transbasin flow diversion. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 33: 839-854. Troendle, C.A.; Olsen, W.K., 1994.  HYPERLINK "http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/fraser/publications/PDF/TimberHarvest_FlowSed.pdf" Potential effects of timber harvest and water management on streamflow dynamics and sediment transport. In: Sustainable Ecological Systems Proceedings, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, GTR RM-247, 34-41. ATTACHMENT 1 DW-TNC MEETING SUMMARY: Ecological Values and Fraser River Flows July 6, 2006 9:00 - 4:00 @Denver Water 3 Stone Building Background: On July 6, 2006, Denver Water, The Nature Conservancy, and technical experts convened to discuss the relationship between stream flows and ecological integrity in the headwaters streams of the Fraser River. The goal was to identify:1) the natural ecological values of the Fraser River watershed; 2) the key components of the flow regime that sustain those values; and 3) a set of preliminary, quantifiable flow thresholds that could be used to make informed management decisions. The meeting was facilitated by David Harrison. This document is intended summarize the meeting, focusing on the relationship between flow and ecology as discussed by the group. Summary: The group had a productive meeting, addressing the theoretical underpinnings for the project, the state of the science on headwaters streams and rivers in the Fraser Valley, and the hydrologic patterns at several Denver Water PACSM nodes throughout the basin. The group developed a preliminary table that describes the relationships between stream flows and ecological integrity. Detailed notes that capture the discussion and include the table are attached below. Next Steps: At the end of the meeting, the group decided that Travis and Tom would develop a proposal for the group that identifies next steps, including: assemble data and information and address parked issues and outstanding data needs; identify specific flow parameters and criteria for developing conditions classes, using the IHA software and considering the outcomes of the July 6 workshop; consider a second workshop and identify funding sources for future work; conduct general outreach with potentially interested West Slope parties, specifically Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, the Colorado River Water Conservation District, and Grand County. Travis, Tom, John and Kevin will reconvene near the end of August to pull together this proposal. The goal is to identify the specific steps necessary to develop a sample flow template (as described in the original scope of work), building on the discussion and information from the July 6 experts meeting. If you have any comments on these meeting notes or suggestions for the work plan, please contact Travis and/or Tom by August 21. DETAILED MEETING NOTES Introduction: To begin the meeting, the parties discussed their goals for the day. The Nature Conservancy had two parallel goals: 1) to provide useful, quantifiable guidance on the relationship between flows and ecological integrity in the Fraser River and its tributaries that could be applied by Denver Water in the management of the Moffat System; and 2) to demonstrate that tools and approaches developed by TNC could be used by Denver Water and other water managers seeking to achieve improved stream condition across the Rocky Mountain west. Denver Water indicated that it is engaged in discussions with the West Slope about the appropriate management of transbasin diversions to sustain west slope rivers like the Fraser. If Denver were to change operations or to leave a next increment of water in the river, where should DW focus, how could DW do so within an objective, scientific framework, and how could the success of new management be measured over time? (Related, DW observed that if they do leave water in the river, they need to find a legal mechanism to ensure that the water is protected in stream rather than diverted by the next user. DW is researching this question.) This meeting focused on the ecological values of rivers. However, west slope and statewide stakeholders are interested in a broad array of river and flow related issues that need to be addressed as well, including recreation and future water supply development on the West Slope. These issues will need to be addressed through a broader dialogue with a range of stakeholders. It was observed that in some case improving ecological integrity through flow management may be constrained by land use or management practices within the Fraser Valley. For example, removal of willows along the main stem of the Fraser has likely altered stream structure, sand and gravel used on highway 40 adds significantly to the sediment load of the Fraser, and wastewater flows lower water quality. This complexity offers opportunity to work collaboratively in the Fraser watershed for overall improvement of ecosystem integrity. Natural Flow and River Function: John Sanderson, riparian-wetland ecologist with TNC, presented on the ecological theory and quantitative tools that underlie this project, described in the following paragraphs. Theoretical Underpinning: The widely-accepted natural flow regime paradigm (Poff et al. 1997) indicates that the ecological integrity of a stream or river will be highest when inter and intra-annual flow patterns are similar to patterns present before anthropogenic alterations to streamflow. The ecological flow components that comprise flow regime are: large floods, small floods, high flow pulses, low flows, and extreme low flows; the dimensions across which these events are measured are: frequency, duration, peak flow, timing, and rise and fall rates (Postel and Richter 2003, The Nature Conservancy 2005). These flow components strongly affect the ecological structure and function of rivers and streams and their associated riparian areas; for example, small floods help shape the physical character of a river, including riffle-pool structure and extreme low flows dictate the amount of habitat available to aquatic organisms during fall and winter. Several papers describe the natural flow regime and its role in maintaining ecosystem integrity, including Poff and others (1997) and Bunn and Arthington (2002). The goal of this project is to identify the specific flow components that are most important to maintaining the natural values of the Fraser River headwaters, and if possible to establish management guidelines that can be used to inform management of the Moffat system. By focusing on the most important, specific flow components, we significantly increase the ability to accommodate management targets and the likelihood of meeting conservation objectives. Within the context of this project, it is not presumed that the Fraser River and its tributaries will be returned to an unaltered condition. Rather, we are attempted to determine whether the ecological integrity of the watershed can be improved by altering management of diversions, with a focus on key attributes of small, montane and subalpine snowmelt streams. Tools: Hydrologic Analysis: TNCs Sustainable Waters Program (http://www.nature.org/initiatives/freshwater/) has developed tools and approaches to assess the ecological needs of the aquatic and riparian ecosystem, including Ecologically Sustainable Water Management (ESWM; Richter and others 2003 ) and the Limits of Hydrologic Alteration (LOHA; Richter, in press). Under this approach, experts identify specific aspects of hydrologic regime that are critical determinants of ecological structure and function of a river, and then develop ranges of these flow parameters that correspond to poor, fair, good, and excellent ecosystem integrity. On the Fraser River, our goal is to understand where current conditions are located on this spectrum, and to determine if we can improve the condition class (i.e., move from poor to fair, or fair to good). An important quantitative tool we will use to assess flow patterns is the Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) software package (Richter et al. 1996), which quantifies and objectively characterizes ecological flow components. Aquatic Classification: During the July 6 workshop, we discussed the potential utility of TNCs aquatic classification for the headwaters of the Fraser River (see map). This classification was originally developed for use in TNCs Southern Rocky Mountain Ecoregional Plan, and has since been further refined. Streams are classified based on size, geology, elevation, intermittency, and gradient. Specifically, the most prominent divide among classes in the Fraser watershed above Tabernash is by elevation: sub-alpine headwaters occur above 9000 and montane headwaters and streams occur below 9000. Although the aquatic classification distinguishes between subalpine and montane streams based on elevation, the most ecologically relevant distinction between these classes appears to be gradient. In the valley bottom, below approximately 9000, the stream gradient is <2% (calculated as ~1.6% along the mainstem of the Fraser between 8800 and 8600). Above 9000, the stream gradient is >2% (calculated as ~3.8% between 9200 and 9000 ft on Vasquez Creek. At low gradient, a wide floodplain is formed and the stream develops a sinuous character. At high gradient, there is little to no floodplain development, and the stream is straight. For the remainder of this document, the two classes are referred to as high-gradient, subalpine and low-gradient, montane streams. Ecology of streams in the Fraser River Watershed: The working group, with particular emphasis on the experts and their research, discussed the ecology of streams in the Fraser River, focusing on the relationship between flows and ecology. Research has been conducted on several aspects of the ecology of streams in the Fraser River watershed. This work includes surveys and habitat assessments for fish and boreal toads, research and experiments on the effects of diversion structures (invertebrates, vegetation, stream channel characteristics), and inventories of high-quality wetland and riparian areas. Most of the work related to effects of diversions has been done on the smaller, high-gradient streams of the subalpine zone. Less work has been done on the low-gradient streams of the Fraser River valley bottom, and no assessment of cumulative effects of multiple diversions has been conducted. The expertise and knowledge represented at the July 6 workshop reflected the division in knowledge and understanding between the two stream types: there was reasonably high degree of knowledge about the high-gradient subalpine streams, and much lower confidence concerning the low-gradient montane streams. Dr. LeRoy Poff presented an overview of his research on the effects of diversions on invertebrates in the Fraser watershed. Through comparative studies and experiments, he has shown that: Dewatering has relatively little impact on species diversity and diversity of functional groups until diversions become extreme (> ~90%). Abundance of individuals and total production are generally reduced, but he has looked less at this question and its ramifications for food web impacts in and along the streams. Significant reductions in abundance and diversity were also seen during previous research on these streams (Rader and Belish 1999). Effects of diversions are much greater with complete dry-up than when some by-pass or seepage occurs (a little water goes a long way); research conducted in Poffs research lab indicates that at diversions greater than 90% of flow result in significant changes in dominance of functional groups. Connectivity between above- and below-diversion stream segments (i.e., allowing some bypass) lead to recovery of macroinvertebrate communities. This phenomenon has been observed by others in this watershed, and elsewhere (Rader and Belish 1999). Connectivity across diversion structures and among stream segments may also be important for other components of the aquatic ecosystems (Bunn and Arthington 2002). It is also recognized, however, that the barrier that the diversions present to upstream movement of non-native trout (especially brook trout) is important for maintenance of native cutthroat trout populations in some stream segments. Dr. Poff also described a project that is emerging from his lab, which would develop a GIS tool that could be used to assess the location and length of affected stream reaches in the Fraser River. This is described in more detail under follow up. Steve Dougherty and John Sanderson discussed issues relating to riparian vegetation, including connected wetlands, beaver and boreal toad, and flood and baseflow processes. Steve noted that groundwater inputs or intervening tributaries often mitigate the impacts of diversions to riparian areas, and that there may not be differences in woody and herbaceous species composition above and below diversions. He also noted that overbank flooding may not be important for high-gradient, subalpine streams, but that it may be an important factor for riparian systems along low-gradient, montane streams. The group discussed a USFS paper that investigated the effect of diversions on stream channel structure in high-gradient sub-alpine streams (Ryan, 1997). The Ryan paper concluded that current levels of diversions could not be demonstrated to negatively affect stream channel morphology and riparian vegetation encroachment along high-gradient, subalpine streams in the Fraser watershed. Specifically, Ryan asked: do diversions cause stream channels to narrow to the point that their capacity to convey water is reduced? She concluded that some channel width were reduced 35-50%, but only in wider, pool-riffle channels with gravel bars. These effects were not widespread, and, generally, she determined there was little effect on stream channels where total annual discharge was reduced 20-60% and annual peak flow was reduced up to 45%. This result was explained by the fact that most large flows during high-runoff years bypass diversion structures, and these large flows occur with sufficient regularity to maintain stream channels. The working group suggested that for high-gradient, subalpine streams the flow reductions Ryan investigated may indicate the lower bound of a good condition class. Ryans work does not provide any insight into stream channel characteristics as they related to high flows on the low-gradient, montane streams. David Harrison asked about the historic role of beaver in this watershed. In another portion of the headwater system of the Colorado River, beaver have been shown to significantly alter hydrologic conditions, both upstream and downstream of dams (Westbrook and others 2006). In the Fraser watershed, it appears that on-channel beaver activity is limited in high-gradient subalpine streams and more common present in low-gradient montane streams, where the likely were once common to abundant. It was generally agreed that inadequate fish expertise was represented in our group. Kevin Urie mentioned that DW and the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) have developed a trout management plan that addresses some aspects of flow management as it affects fish, particularly minimum flows. Chadwick Ecological Consulting also did some work on minimum flows for trout. Generally speaking, small and large floods can have positive and negative to effects on fish populations. Production of rainbow trout (and likely cutthroat) is lower in years of high runoff, because spring-emerging fry are washed away by high flows (Fausch et al. 2001). At the same time, high flows are beneficial natural disturbances that clean sediment from gravel riffles where fish spawn, and scour pools where they overwinter (Fausch 2002). It was mentioned that the needs of fish (specifically, minimum flows) likely will overshadow invertebrate needs. Amphibians, including boreal toads, are most commonly associated with off-channel habitats, which for the most part are not highly dependent on stream flows. However, Sanderson pointed out that there may be some wetlands containing amphibians in which water levels fluctuate in tandem with stream flows. Where this dependency occurs, some minimum flow would be required to allow completion of life cycles. To summarize the discussions about the ecology of the Fraser as it relates to flow, we constructed a table (below) that summarizes the primary biological and physical components that were discussed. The table is organized by the variables (mostly biological, but including sediment and water quality) that may respond to alterations in flow regime. Running down columns alongside these variables are lists of the ecological flow components that affect the response variables, as discussed during this meeting. This table should be considered a work in progress, since there is much to learn about the Fraser watershed. Attachment 1 Table 1. Ecological targets and their relationships to flow components.High-gradient, subalpine key ecological flow componentsTargetLow-gradient, montane key ecological flow componentsLarge floods: Reduce current year recruitment; not clear that these are any different from small floods and high flows for habitat maintenance. High flows and small floods Regular flushing important; bank-full conditions (~2 yr return-interval floods) are most important for flushing. Low flows and extreme low flows: Reduce total available habitat, and dictate minimum wetted area/habitat; no flow conditions eliminate habitat. Depletion of flows after spawning has begun can lead to production failure. Provide connectivity during driest periods. May benefit native species over non-native species. Use CWCB/USFS/CDOW habitat-based minimum flow? Comments: In places where cutthroat are upstream of diversions, they benefit from the diversion acting as a barrier to upstream movement by non-native brook trout. there are a few locations where native cutthroat occur below diversions. Historically cutthroat known from throughout this watershed. Fish (cutthroat as native target, although non-native fisheries are expected to benefit) Large floods: Reduce current year recruitment, but important for habitat maintenance. Maintain channel and riparian complexity (e.g., undercut banks, coarse woody debris, off-channel pools). High flows and small floods Regular flushing important; bank-full conditions (~2 yr return-interval floods) are most important for flushing. Extreme low flows: Reduce total available habitat, and dictate minimum wetted area/habitat. Provide connectivity during driest periods. Affect water quality, with temperature being one key component (could use more temperature data, which is easy to collect). May benefit native species over non-natives. Use CWCB/USFS/CDOW habitat-based minimum flow? Comments: Historically cutthroat were known from throughout this watershed.Comments: Thought to be uncommon along high-gradient streams, but check with Dirk Renner of USFS (inventory -- summer 2006). Historically, boreal toads were common in this watershed; proximate cause for extirpation is unclear. AmphibiansExtreme low flows: Reduce total available habitat. Comments: May be commonly associated with beaver habitat, especially on side channels and smaller streams. Rate of change of minimum flows may be criticalamphibians need sufficient flows to maintain aquatic habitat while new recruits mature. Historically, boreal toads were common in this watershed; proximate cause for extirpation is unclear. Large floods: Not clear that there are important differences between large and mall floods. High flows and small flood Impact channel and sediment characteristics. Low flows and extreme low flows: Reduce total available habitat, and dictate minimum wetted area/habitat. Provide connectivity during driest periods. Some flow better than no flow. Comments: Heterogeneous habitat important for production. De-watering is mitigated by ground water inputs. Provided some water (10%?) remains, diversity is little impacted by total abundance and productivity declines. Whats good for fish will be good for invertebrates. InvertebratesLarge floods: Maintain channel and riparian complexity (e.g., undercut banks, coarse woody debris, off-channel pools). High flows and small flood Impact channel and sediment characteristics Low flows and extreme low flows: Reduce total available habitat, and dictate minimum wetted area/habitat; less total habitat results in lower total abundance and productivity. Comments: Heterogeneous habitat important for production Complete dewatering an issue, but rare in low-gradient, montane stream segments. Whats good for fish will be good for invertebrates.Large floods, small floods, and high flows: Current (or at least mid 1990s) flood flows appear sufficient for limiting vegetation encroachment into channel (Ryan 1997) Comments: Little development of riparian and wetland vegetation along high-gradient streams. Existing studies have generally shown little difference between streamside vegetation above and below diversions; these comparative studies may be confounded by other factors. Riparian/Wetland plant communitiesLarge floods: Maintain riparian complexity (e.g., undercut banks, coarse woody debris, off-channel pools). High flows and small floods Provide surfaces for recruitment of willows and cottonwoods. Affect distribution of riparian vegetation. Extreme low flows: Probably not a concern, since return flows likely maintain soil moisture. Comments: Little is known about cumulative impacts and role of flooding in low-gradient, montane streams of this watershed. Historic land use has reduced complexity and extent of habitat land mgmnt must be considered at same time as hydrology (opportunity to work with local partners?). Riparian/streamside vegetation has an important role in providing shade and maintaining water temperature. Kate Dwier (USFS) is researching riparian veg response to diversions. Large floods: Blow out dams, but also move accumulated sediment downstream. Small floods: Flush accumulated sediments. Low flows and extreme low flows: Absence of water may cause beaver to abandon stream segment. Comments: Not typically present on subalpine stream segment below diversions.BeaverLarge floods: Blow out dams, but also move accumulated sediment downstream. High flows and small floods: Important for maintaining riparian vegetation that forms beaver diet. Flush accumulated sediments. Low flows and extreme low flows: Absence of water may cause beaver to abandon stream segment. Comments: Prevalent in Winter Park reach, and probably widespread historically in low-gradient, montane stream segments. Alter hydrology, by raising water table above and below dams, and by reducing flood peaks through water storage. Large floods, small floods, and high flows: Control channel morphology and are responsible for most sediment transport. High flows and small floods: Mobilize and transport finer sediment fractions, but have smaller influence on overall channel morphology than large floods. Along most stream segments, current (or at least mid 1990s) flood flows likely are sufficient for maintaining channels and flushing sediment at most locations (Ryan 1997). Comments: Some accumulation of sediment, especially on mainstem by road down to the diversion. Need to improve collection and removal of excess sediments from road maintenance. Emphasizes importance of flushing flows.Sediment (indirect indicator)Large floods: Mobilize larger particles, break up armored bed surfaces, and produce dynamic channel-floodplain interaction, including planform changes and overbank sediment deposition. High flows and small floods: Form and maintain pool-riffle sequences, erode and deposit bars, rework gravels, flush fine sediments. Most sediment may be transported over time by bankfull (~2 year recurrence interval) events. Comments: Sara Rathburn (CSU) researching floods and channel characteristics. Comments: No water quality issues identified, except for excessive sediment at a few locations. Water quality (indirect indicator)Extreme low flows: Can result in low dissolved oxygen, high temperatures, nutrient enrichment, and other water quality concerns. Comments: Wastewater inputs also have significant impact on water quality.  Hydrologic Status: Tom Iseman presented preliminary results from the Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration analysis. The analysis compared the pre-impact and future-development scenarios provided by Denver Water at 7 nodes in the Fraser River watershed. The group reviewed several general results for each gage, including median monthly flow and an environmental flow components graph; the group also reviewed a select group of baseflow parameters and small flood parameters. The discussion focused on two fundamental questions: which parameters are most important? and which parameters have changed significantly? There was also considerable discussion of the PACSM model and specific model nodes. Operations: Denver Water provided additional information on its management of the Moffat system and the modeling runs it provided to TNC: Fraser system management: DW provided a handout titled PACSM Fraser System that describes the order of diversions and the diversion limitations. PACSM Scenarios: DW described the PACSM scenarios it provided to TNC for this exercise, which included a virgin (or undepleted) run and a fully-developed future scenario. (Note: DW did not provide a current operations scenario, so it is difficult to evaluate the potential impact of planned firming, especially with respect to the Ryan et al paper and riparian condition.) The degree of certainty of flow estimates at nodes varies: several nodes at diversion structures are estimated with high certainty; the node on the Fraser River at Tabernash contains high uncertainty, although the model used to develop flows at this node have been extensively scrutinized. Flows represented by node 2480 were clarified: this node is in the diversion ditch, and it represents combined streamflow upstream of that point in the system (as if the node were at the convergence point of all the streams, ignoring groundwater and tributary inflows below the ditch). This node conveys no information about individual streams. DW seeks information to answer questions like: What is the best place to spill? Which streams need it the most? How can we objectively reallocate water to improve stream condition? What are the trade-offs in different management scenarios, eg should we benefit all streams a little, or a few streams a lot? DW notes that any solutions would need to consider interrelated issues of agricultural diversions in Fraser River valley, and whether there is an opportunity for agricultural collaboration/contribution? (Potentially in collaboration with the CO Water Trust.) Potential solutions including re-distributing flushing flows, increased storage on east slope, Windy Gap round-the-horn, and by-pass flow obligations (including potential bypass of 920af) and contract deliveries for baseflows. Flows in the upper Vasquez are frequently (always?) higher than under unaltered conditions, because this stream segment conveys water from the Williams Fork to the diversion canal. Concerns about flooding on the Fraser and constraints on water conveyance limit options for water management. Specifically, some capacity to spill must be maintained on Fraser Creek, and diversion rates are limited by S. Boulder Creeks ability to convey from the east portal to Gross Reservoir. In many cases, flows left in streams are taken out of streams before Tabernash. Flow is bypassed to: meet USFS minimum instream flow mandates. deliver 920 ac ft to towns. deliver water to Winter Park Water and Sand and Grand County #1 (Vasquez and Little Vasquez Creeks). Winter flows in Englewood system are not diverted, because system is not winterized. Parked Issues: Consider how to engage more cold-water fishery expertise in project. Examine differences between large floods, small floods, and large flows. Is there a difference among them? Given limited water, should peak flows be lower magnitude with longer duration or higher magnitude with shorter duration? Concerning minimum flows: Can minimum flows be reduced below a minimum flow target during part of the year in order to augment at another time/place? During drought conditions, can minimum stream flows drop below mandates in proportion to conservation measures being taken? Can we use instream flow reports that have been prepared for Colorado cutthroat trout by CDOW, USFS and/or Chadwick Ecological as targets/guidelines for this project? Given that current flow components appear to maintain some stream characteristics (e.g., stream channel structure in high-gradient, subalpine streams), consider comparing current flows to virgin flows and full build-out scenario. Consider focusing on high-gradient, subalpine streams (aquatic classification 13000 series). Recognizing that: low-gradient, montane stream segments experience cumulative impacts of numerous diversions on smaller streams, there are insufficient data and knowledge to take an ecologically based approach to low-gradient, montane stream segments, and in valley-bottom stream segments (roughly from Winter Park to Tabernash) meaningful improvement to the aquatic and riparian ecosystem integrity likely will require attention to land use on the flood plain. Consider developing a map displaying the length of impacted stream reaches, degree of impact, amount of intervening tributary inputs and/or ground water and hyporheic flow. This map will provide insights into degree and distribution of impact, while showing locations for opportunities with respect to local agricultural and municipal diversions. Poff has begun work on this type of map, but would like to expand it. Kate Dwier (USFS) is working on such a map for the experimental forest. Next Steps Travis and Tom will develop a proposal for the group that identifies next steps, including: assemble data and information and address parked issues and outstanding data needs; identify specific flow parameters and criteria for developing conditions classes, using the IHA software and considering the outcomes of the July 6 workshop; consider a second workshop and identify funding sources for future work; conduct general outreach with potentially interested West Slope parties, specifically Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, the Colorado River Water Conservation District, and Grand County. References Bunn, S. E. and A. H. Arthington. 2002. Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environmental Management 30: 492-507. Fausch, K. D., Y. Taniguchi, S. Nakano, G. D. Grossman, and C. R. Townsend. 2001. Flood disturbance regimes influence rainbow trout invasion success among five Holarctic regions. Ecological Applications 11:1438-1455. Fausch, K.D. 2002. Phantom Canyon Preserve and North Fork of the Cache la Poudre River Summary and Recommendations on Fish. Unpublished report to The Nature Conservancy of Colorado. Dept. of Fishery and Wildlife Biology Colorado State University. October 2002. Poff, N. L., J. D. Allan, M. B. Bain, J. R. Karr, K. L. Prestegaard, B. D. Richter, et al. 1997. The natural flow regime. BioScience 47: 769-784. Postel, S. and B. Richter. 2003. Rivers for life: Managing water for people and nature. Island Press, Washington, DC. Rader, R. B. and T. A. Belish. 1999. Influence of mild to severe flow alterations on invertebrates in three mountain streams. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 15: 353-363. Richter, B. D., J. V. Baumgartner, J. Powell and D. P. Braun. 1996. A method for assessing hydrologic alteration within ecosystems. Conservation Biology 10: 1163-1174. Richter, B.D., R. Mathews, D.L. Harrison, and R. Wigington. 2003. Ecologically sustainable water management: managing river flows for ecological integrity. Ecological Applications 13:206-224. Ryan, S. 1997. Morphologic response of subalpine streams to transbasin flow diversion. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 33: 839-854. The Nature Conservancy, 2005. Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration Version 7 User's Manual. Westbrook, C. J., D. J. Cooper and B. W. Baker. 2006. Beaver dams and overbank floods influence groundwater--surface water interactions of a Rocky Mountain riparian area. Water Resources Research 24: doi:10.1029/2005SR004560. Meeting Agenda Introduction and Goals 9:00-9:30 Project Approach Natural Flow and River Function 9:30-10:00 Fraser River Background 10:00-12:30 Ecology of streams in the Fraser River Key ecological values and their relationship to flows Preliminary thresholds and desired condition Working Lunch: Initial Data Review and IHA Analysis 12:30-1:30 Synthesis: Draft Flow Template 1:30-2:30 Management/Modeling 2:30-3:00 Is it practical to move toward an improved ecological state? Monitoring and Adaptive Management 3:00-3:30 R1/R4 (USFS) or other methodology Next Steps 3:30-4:00 Technical work Integration with other studies Outreach to stakeholders Follow-up workshop? Participants The Nature Conservancy Tom Iseman John Sanderson Tim Sullivan David Harrison Denver Water Travis Bray Kevin Urie Mark Waage Dave Little Mike Lewellen Tom Gougeon (maybe) Experts LeRoy Poff Colorado State University Steve Dougherty ERO Consultants     PAGE  PAGE 3 DRAFT PAGE  PAGE 18    $ ? Q \     % ) 9 U j     u  0 E ûëhz.h+A6h)hwbh`Bh+A6hCJh+AhCJB*phh+AB*phh]MSB*phh;pShlB*phhP hFhhlhf{h4hlh nA hPhl h)5 h[5 hl56Y 89$$7$8$H$Ifa$gdlgdl $ $a$gd[$a$gdl ),8C~+.19MRhobk4ovNWX~ 7kpKݾݺh Mhh8lhCJhp!hwbh"gu hx8hlhPhl hPhlh+AB*phh4h nAh)h+AGKLM789 ;>@[z| -.^ǸǸǧ}k}#hhCJH*OJQJ^JaJhCJOJQJ^JaJhCJCJOJQJ^JaJhlCJOJQJ^JaJ h ehlCJOJQJ^JaJhl5CJOJQJ^JaJ#h ehl5CJOJQJ^JaJhC\ hl5 h45hp!h8l hPhlhl hlhI&?xx $7$8$H$Ifgdlykd$$Ifl0 &\  t0'44 la?@xx $7$8$H$Ifgdlykdj$$Ifl0 &\  t0'44 la.xx $7$8$H$Ifgdlykd$$Ifl0 &\  t0'44 la^  +-p"57:F'9?ipvh-Ghh&h8l hPhlhlhCJCJOJQJ^JaJhlCJOJQJ^JaJ h ehlCJOJQJ^JaJhj-CJOJQJ^JaJCqxx $7$8$H$Ifgdlykd>$$Ifl0 &\  t0'44 laqrxx $7$8$H$Ifgdlykd$$Ifl0 &\  t0'44 laxx $7$8$H$Ifgdlykd$$Ifl0 &\  t0'44 la!!+#;FEƀ;Fgdlgdlykd|$$Ifl0 &\  t0'44 laZcdS W Y Z \ a !!!!!'!C!O!X"m"*#+#|#### $$*$M$Y$i$$$$$$% %C%D%E%J%K%L%O%Z%h%%%%%Žʽʽ#hh8l5CJOJQJ^JaJ#hhj5CJOJQJ^JaJhIhl5 hr45 hl5 h75 hj5h[hwbh h{hC\ h2- hPhlhlh=9+#,#D%%%%%$$7$8$H$If]^a$gdl$$7$8$H$If]^a$gdl$$7$8$H$If]^a$gdl 7$8$H$gd[ 7$8$H$gdl%%%%%W&X&'"'((_(p(u)v)*7***++ +++1+C++,E,G,,,#-)-o------..ʹʹʫʝʹʫʫʌ~~ʹpʫʫpʌ~ʹhpCJOJQJ^JaJhMCJOJQJ^JaJ hhZCJOJQJ^JaJhZCJOJQJ^JaJh~=CJOJQJ^JaJ hh[CJOJQJ^JaJ hhjCJOJQJ^JaJ#hhj5CJOJQJ^JaJ#hh[5CJOJQJ^JaJ)%%%&7&pZD.$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdlkd$$IfHF%\H t07&    44 Ha yt/]7&8&9&^&&pZD.$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdlkd$$IfHF%\H t07&    44 Ha yt/]&&&&&pZD.$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdlkd$$IfHF%\H t07&    44 Ha yt/]&&&#'`'pZD.$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdlkd$$IfHF%\H t07&    44 Ha yt/]`'a'b''''pZDD.$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdlkdD$$IfHF%\H t07&    44 Ha yt/]'''(^(pZD.$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdlkd$$IfHF%\H t07&    44 Ha yt/]^(_(q(((pZD.$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdlkdl$$IfHF%\H t07&    44 Ha yt/]((()\)pZD.$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdlkd$$IfHF%\H t07&    44 Ha yt/]\)])^))*pZD.$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdlkd$$IfHF%\H t07&    44 Ha yt/]* * *8*d*pZD.$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdlkd6$$IfHF%\H t07&    44 Ha yt/]d*e*f***pZD.$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdlkd$$IfHF%\H t07&    44 Ha yt/]***+0+pZD.$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdlkd^ $$IfHF%\H t07&    44 Ha yt/]0+1+D+|++pZD.$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdlkd $$IfHF%\H t07&    44 Ha yt/]+++,&,pZD.$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdlkd $$IfHF%\H t07&    44 Ha yt/]&,',(,U,|,pZD.$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdlkd( $$IfHF%\H t07&    44 Ha yt/]|,},~,,,,pZDD.$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdlkd $$IfHF%\H t07&    44 Ha yt/],,,,*-+-ZD..$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdlkdP $$IfHF%\H t07&    44 Ha yt/]$7$8$H$If]^gdl+-m-n-o---ZD.$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdlkd $$IfHF%\H t07&    44 Ha yt/]$7$8$H$If]^gdl--.".n.pZD.$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdlkdx $$IfHF%\H t07&    44 Ha yt/]n.o.p...pZD.$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdlkd$$IfHF%\H t07&    44 Ha yt/]..///0////////00p0000A1B1C1D1E1H1ᴦyhyhWSNGCh4 h4h4 h45hl hhlCJOJQJ^JaJ hhCJOJQJ^JaJ hh[CJOJQJ^JaJhMCJOJQJ^JaJhU`CJOJQJ^JaJhZCJOJQJ^JaJ hhZCJOJQJ^JaJhpCJOJQJ^JaJh~=CJOJQJ^JaJ hhjCJOJQJ^JaJhwCJOJQJ^JaJ..../pZD.$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdlkd$$IfHF%\H t07&    44 Ha yt/]// /;/x/pZD.$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdlkdB$$IfHF%\H t07&    44 Ha yt/]x/y/z///pZD.$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdlkd$$IfHF%\H t07&    44 Ha yt/]////o0pZD.$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdl$7$8$H$If]^gdlkdj$$IfHF%\H t07&    44 Ha yt/]o0p0B1C1D1E1F1H1T1U11pkkkfk]kkk gd4gd4gdlkd$$IfHF%\H t07&    44 Ha yt/] H1I1S1T1U11111122222222223)3*33$4;444777277777N8m8{8899Ǻ˛˛藓yoy˛h-hl]aJh-hlaJhwbhX6] hwbhXhwbh&h-hl]hnh%OJQJ^Jh%OJQJ^Jhnh%OJQJ^Jh% h-hlh)hl] h)hl hxhlhlh/hl5 hl5 h4h)112233K4M4445577w777{8}899 7$8$H$gdX 7$8$H$gd%gdl9999:: ;;;;.<a<n<p<<<<<<<<=== =====(=)=3=4=@=A=I=J=R=S==> > >s>̻}thj^hl0J hl0Jjh)hlB*Uphhl0JB*]phh)hl0JB*]phh)hlB*]ph!jh)hlB*U]phh)hlB*ph hxhlh-hl] h-hlhlh^hl] h^hl+999::,;.;;;o<p<>> >>Z>t>>> &dPgdl 7$8$H$gdlgdlFEƀ2&gdls>t>>>>>>>?.??@?A@AAAKACC C-CQC_C`CCCCCDbDDDDDDDvGwGGGGGGGGGII?L@LQLSLLWM^MjMMMMNӺװצӜ hl5>*h$r*hl5>*hqahl0J5hGhl0J5 hl0J hGhl hl5 h$r*hlhl hl0J5hj^hl0J5hj^hl5hj^hl0J hj^hl:>@@@AAAC CCDDDEEvGwGGGII>L?LMMOOPPU & F hh^hgdlgdlN NN3NKNfNtNNNNNNOOQOOOOPPPPPPPQQRRRORRRdRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRSSS/S@SOS]S{SSvTTUUU4UUUHVgVWWTXUX[XrX*Y6Y`Y hl6>* hl6hj^hl6o(hj^hl6hehl6hehl6>*hj^hl5hl hj^hlJUUTXUX\X\\abff}g?ikjllmmMpNpmuuuww9{:{|| & Fgdlgdl`YYYYYYUZrZ~ZZ[ [[[C\g\h\v\\\\5^^^~___vaab0b2beeeeffff/gyg}g~gggggg h5hh?i@iklllmmnnoooo%pHpLpNpbppSqqqqqqqqqrrr-rttu hl5hj^hl5 hl6 hj^hlhhl6hlVuuvvvvvv"w3www?xcxxy7{9{|@A Ńȃ +Cj DdӋԋIJ%JKœt{-JĖhRy6CJaJhj^hRy6CJaJh+A5CJaJhj^hRy65hj^hRy65CJaJhRy65CJaJhU hj^hlhlF|A wrkd$$Ifl4^$$ t 6PU0644 la$U&P#$/IfgdRy6gdl fVBVV & F$U&P#$/IfgdRy6$U&P#$/IfgdRy6kd$$Ifl4^F$|x t 6PU06    44 la,-N 5i=ăŃ˃ / & F$U&P#$/IfgdRy6 & F$U&P#$/IfgdRy6$U&P#$/IfgdRy6 & F$U&P#$/IfgdRy6/wno˅sφІچ & F$U&P#$/IfgdRy6 & F $U&P#$/If^`gdRy6$U&P#$/IfgdRy6 & F $U&P#$/If^`gdRy6' jZFFZZZ & F$U&P#$/IfgdRy6$U&P#$/IfgdRy6kd$$IflF$|x t 6PU06    44 la?@J3 & F$U&P#$/IfgdRy6$U&P#$/IfgdRy6 & F $U&P#$/If^`gdRy6 jZFZZ & F$U&P#$/IfgdRy6$U&P#$/IfgdRy6kd$$IflF$|x t 6PU06    44 laCDeڊ4eԋ ' & F$U&P#$/IfgdRy6 & F$U&P#$/IfgdRy6 & F$U&P#$/IfgdRy6$U&P#$/IfgdRy6 & F$U&P#$/IfgdRy6'،ٌÍI~ & F$U&P#$/IfgdRy6 & F$U&P#$/IfgdRy6 & F $U&P#$/IfgdRy6 & F$U&P#$/IfgdRy6$U&P#$/IfgdRy6 & F $U&P#$/If^`gdRy6 IJwjZFZZ & F$U&P#$/IfgdRy6$U&P#$/IfgdRy6kd$$IflF$|x t 6PU06    44 laQ%4,vw & F $U&P#$/If^`gdRy6 & F $U&P#$/If^`gdRy6$U&P#$/IfgdRy6 & F $U&P#$/IfgdRy6IJ$U&P#$/IfgdRy6 & F $U&P#$/IfgdRy6 & F$U&P#$/IfgdRy6JKZjZ9ZZ & F $U&P#$/If^`gdRy6$U&P#$/IfgdRy6kd$$IflF$|x t 6PU06    44 laƓǓ%&0t{ʔ˔.KLm & F $U&P#$/If^`gdRy6 & F$U&P#$/IfgdRy6$U&P#$/IfgdRy6 & F$U&P#$/IfgdRy6$ĖF9 & F$IfgdMkd$$IflF$|x t 6PU06    44 la$U&P#$/IfgdRy6 & F$U&P#$/IfgdRy6.XYc 3Q` + & F $If^`gdM & F $U&P#$/If^`gdRy6$U&P#$/IfgdRy6 & F$U&P#$/IfgdRy6 & F$IfgdM $IfgdMĖ,8J3Q` +ABCǛ͜ A',EH`9]gi:<|~ߪǿ⿻hj^hl0J hl0Jhj^hl5 hj^hlhl hl5hGJ hl5 hI5hxIhj^hRy65 hj^hRy6hj^hRy65CJaJhRy6CJaJhj^hRy6CJaJhj^hMCJaJhMCJaJ5+ABC9kd$$IflF$|x t 6PU06    44 la & F$U&P#$/IfgdRy6$U&P#$/IfgdRy6 & F$IfgdMCMǛڛHIS & F $U&P#$/If^`gdRy6 & F $U&P#$/IfgdRy6$U&P#$/IfgdRy6 \]jhccccc[[[ & Fgdlgdlkd$$IflF$|x t 6PU06    44 la xMxީ$ުߪ560׭1 & F gdl & Fgdl & F  ^gdlgdl & Fgdl & Fgdl )35<AnάҬ/0;֭ -^Ю'*ͰGJI۲ABJ`7?^_~CDOP׵ǿǸhj^hl6 hj^hlhhl] hhl h/'hlhj^hl0Jhqahl0J5 hl0Jhj^hl0J5 hl0J5D ڲ۲B6COP۶ܶwx7$8$H$^`gdl1$7$8$H$^`gdlgdlh^hgdl & Fgdl & F gdl_ivθn*>i˼ǦǛ~z~z~z~zpj hU`0JjhU`0JUh}ijh}iU)h<hlB*CJOJQJ^JaJphhj^hlmH sH hj^hl5hj^hl0Jh~Phl0J hl0J5 hj^hl hyhlhhl] hhl hzuhlhhl6] hhlhl)NQ ^`gdl  @gdl  gdl  gdlgdl7$8$H$^`gdlZ7M]}ѿݿ %1=JY  @gdl  gdl  @gdl  gdlgdlYnvh]hgdRy6 &`#$gdRy6 7$8$H$gdl $dNgdlgdl hlh}i#h)hU`5CJOJQJ^JaJhM0JmHnHuhU` hU`0JjhU`0JU h]hgdRy6 &`#$gdRy6 &`#$gdM 21h:pl/ =!"#$% 21h:pl/ =!"#$% 21h:pl/ =!"#$% h$$If!vh5\ 5#v\ #v:Vl t'5\ 5/ h$$If!vh5\ 5#v\ #v:Vl t'5\ 5/ h$$If!vh5\ 5#v\ #v:Vl t'5\ 5/ h$$If!vh5\ 5#v\ #v:Vl t'5\ 5/ h$$If!vh5\ 5#v\ #v:Vl t'5\ 5/ h$$If!vh5\ 5#v\ #v:Vl t'5\ 5/ v$$If!vh5\ 5#v\ #v:Vl t'5\ 5/ / $$If !vh5\55H#v\#v#vH:VH t7&5\55H/ 4 Ha yt/]$$If !vh5\55H#v\#v#vH:VH t7&5\55H/ 4 Ha yt/]$$If !vh5\55H#v\#v#vH:VH t7&5\55H/ 4 Ha yt/]$$If !vh5\55H#v\#v#vH:VH t7&5\55H/ 4 Ha yt/]$$If !vh5\55H#v\#v#vH:VH t7&5\55H/ 4 Ha yt/]$$If !vh5\55H#v\#v#vH:VH t7&5\55H/ 4 Ha yt/]$$If !vh5\55H#v\#v#vH:VH t7&5\55H/ / 4 Ha yt/]$$If !vh5\55H#v\#v#vH:VH t7&5\55H/ 4 Ha yt/]$$If !vh5\55H#v\#v#vH:VH t7&5\55H/ 4 Ha yt/]$$If !vh5\55H#v\#v#vH:VH t7&5\55H/ 4 Ha yt/]$$If !vh5\55H#v\#v#vH:VH t7&5\55H/ 4 Ha yt/]$$If !vh5\55H#v\#v#vH:VH t7&5\55H/ 4 Ha yt/]$$If !vh5\55H#v\#v#vH:VH t7&5\55H/ / 4 Ha yt/]$$If !vh5\55H#v\#v#vH:VH t7&5\55H/ 4 Ha yt/]$$If !vh5\55H#v\#v#vH:VH t7&5\55H/ 4 Ha yt/]$$If !vh5\55H#v\#v#vH:VH t7&5\55H/ 4 Ha yt/]$$If !vh5\55H#v\#v#vH:VH t7&5\55H/ 4 Ha yt/]$$If !vh5\55H#v\#v#vH:VH t7&5\55H/ 4 Ha yt/]$$If !vh5\55H#v\#v#vH:VH t7&5\55H/ / 4 Ha yt/]$$If !vh5\55H#v\#v#vH:VH t7&5\55H/ 4 Ha yt/]$$If !vh5\55H#v\#v#vH:VH t7&5\55H/ 4 Ha yt/]$$If !vh5\55H#v\#v#vH:VH t7&5\55H/ 4 Ha yt/]$$If !vh5\55H#v\#v#vH:VH t7&5\55H/ 4 Ha yt/]$$If !vh5\55H#v\#v#vH:VH t7&5\55H/ 4 Ha yt/]$$If !vh5\55H#v\#v#vH:VH t7&5\55H/ / 4 Ha yt/]]$$If!vh5$#v$:Vl4^ t 6PU65$$$If!vh5|55x#v|#v#vx:Vl4^ t 6PU65|55x$$If!vh5|55x#v|#v#vx:Vl t 6PU65|55x$$If!vh5|55x#v|#v#vx:Vl t 6PU65|55x$$If!vh5|55x#v|#v#vx:Vl t 6PU65|55x$$If!vh5|55x#v|#v#vx:Vl t 6PU65|55x$$If!vh5|55x#v|#v#vx:Vl t 6PU65|55x$$If!vh5|55x#v|#v#vx:Vl t 6PU65|55x$$If!vh5|55x#v|#v#vx:Vl t 6PU65|55x@@@ n NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA@D Default Paragraph FontRi@R  Table Normal4 l4a (k(No Listj@j n Table Grid7:V04O4n SmallIndent F ^S@^ lBody Text Indent 307$8$H$^`0aJ6U@!6 l Hyperlink >*B*ph*W@1* lStrong5\RR@BR lBody Text Indent 2hdx^h4 @R4 sFooter  !.)@a. s Page Number4@r4 UHeader  !Awd4dhdY 89?@.qr+,D789^#`ab ^ _ q !\!]!^!!" " "8"d"e"f"""""#0#1#D#|####$&$'$($U$|$}$~$$$$$$$*%+%m%n%o%%%%&"&n&o&p&&&&&&'' ';'x'y'z''''''o(p(B)C)D)E)F)H)T)U)))**++K,M,,,--//w///{0}0111122,3.333o4p466 66Z6t66688@9A9; ;;<<<==v?w???AA>D?DEEGGHHMMTPUP\PTTYZ^^}_?akbddeeMhNhmmmmoo9s:sttAwwwww x xxxxx,y-yNyy z5zizzzz={{{{{ |/|w||||n}o}}}}s~~~~~' ?@J3CDeڂ4eԃ '؄لÅIJwQ%4,vwIJKZƋNj%&0t{ʌˌ.KLm$Ď.XYc 3Q` +ABCMǓړHIS \]xMxޡ$ޢߢ560ץ1 ڪ۪B6COPۮܮwxNQ ^Z7M]}ѷݷ %1=JYnvĸŸƸǸȸɸʸ̸͸ϸиҸӸոָ߸ 0000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0000000000000000000000000000 0 0 00000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 000 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 00 00 0 0 000 000 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 000 0 0 0000 0 0 000 000 0 0 000 0 0 0 00 0 0 000 000 000 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 00 0 0 000 0 000 000 0 0 0 00 0 0 000 000 000 0 0 0 000 0 000 000 0 00 0 0 000 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 000 00 0 0 0 0 0 000 00 0 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0  0  0 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000@000@000@000@000@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@000  )44444666666DDDDDG K^%.H19s>N`YuĖadeinp?q+#%7&&&`''^((\)*d**0++&,|,,+--n../x//o019>U| /'IJ+CYbfghjklmoqrstuvwxyz{|}~c44R5X  )06=@G!!!!Ҩ21t Ө22t Ԩ23t ը23t ֨23t ר24t ب2T4t ٨24t ڨ24t ۨ25t ܨ2T5t ݨ2|}ި2}ߨ2}2<~2|~2~2~2<2|222<2|222<2|222<2|222<2|22Ą2Pi 2TPi 2Pi 2Pi 2Qi 2TQi 2Qi 2Qi 2Ri 2TRi 2Ri 2Ri 2Si 2TSi 2Si 2Si 2Ti  2TTi  2Ti  2Ti  2Ui  2TUi 2Ui 2Ui 2Vi 2TVi 2Vi 2Vi 2Wi 2TWi 2Wi 2Wi 2Xi 2TXi 2Xi 2Xi 2Yi 2TYi 2Yi 2Yi  2Zi !2TZi "2 #2\ $2 %2ܰ &2 '2\ (2 )2ܱ *2 +2\ ,2 -2ܲ .2 /2\ 02 12ܳ 22 32\ 42 52ܴ 62 72\ 82 92ܵ :2 ;2\ <2 =2ܶ >2 ?2\ @2 A2ܷ B2 C2\ D2 E2ܸ F2 G2\ H2 I2ܹ J2\ K2, L2l M2 N2 O2l P2 Q2 R2, S2 T2, U2 V2, W2 X2` Y2\` Z2` [2` \2a QQZuu~))***z+z++---// /j/j/p4p4z4G6G6N6Z6h66d7d7k7999===rBrBVFVF]F%O%O,ORRR%U%U,UZ!ZZZZ@[@[G[]]!]eeen~~iiTTZmmOO55;-įʯްްS^^eyO|C       !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijkolmnpqrstuvwxyz{|}~Vnn}))***+++--- ///v/v/x4~4~4M6S6S6f6s66j7p7p7999===xBxB\FcFcF+O1O1ORRR+U1U1U Z&ZZZZF[L[L[ ]&]&]eee'n͍͍oo Y``uuZZ:AA,22ïɯԯԯ]djjYL    !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijkmnolpqrstuvwxyz{|}~=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceNameBw*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType8g*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagstime8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsdate9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState8|*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace  010121314152006304679DayHourMinuteMonthYear ||w||ww|w g   ||||||g g g g g g g g | "* !!1!4!""""""f#i######$%%%%(%B%E%%%W&b&&&''''x({(++,,--...%.,/0///00p4x4JJxVV1a7aTcZcggrr9> ؑơ^g(x~ NVPX^eʸʸ̸̸͸͸ϸиҸӸոָeh9A$(j)))1*{****+:+++M,o,?-b-c-q-.//1/w/|///001G111P2222.3k33-4b6l6<=PB\BeQoQWWmmrmvv={B{||~~z}|5f΍ԍӖ֖ ޡ$+ "PqJܮ-;ZկF^xаnQ!hȳ7Ӵ۴ʸʸ̸̸͸͸ϸиҸӸոָ33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333339CEJ "b  _ q u!v!"7""## ###1#D##$$&$E$G$$$#%)%o%%%%%"&&&&&&''''0'3'3'7'7'9'9'z''''''((C)H)I)U){**;_}_AwXwww xxxxNyyzz |w|||o}}~~'Je4 'لÅ4,wKZNj&0t.LYc3`CMړIS=x{ɡޡߢ61ܮn7Nɸʸʸ̸̸͸͸ϸиҸӸոָ# ###%%((ɸʸʸ̸̸͸͸ϸиҸӸոָ;n`6(^~6~2"6?(uGVleQ6Rp'SYL܊1`6~8b dk6Nq$bNw6ZV x6w~fİ)c h ( ^ `(OJQJo(hHh"( ^`(B*CJOJQJo(phhHhpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh ( ^ `(OJQJo(hHh ( ^ `(OJQJo(hHhpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh(^`(OJQJo(hHhpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHH ( ^ `(OJQJo(hHH ( ^ `(B*OJQJo(phhHHpp^p`OJQJo(hHH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoH^`OJQJo(hHH^`OJQJo(hHH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoHPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh ( ^ `(OJQJo(hH"( ^`(B*CJOJQJo(phhHhpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh ( ^ `(OJQJo(hHh ( ^ `(OJQJo(hHhpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh ( ^ `(OJQJo(hH"( ^`(B*CJOJQJo(phhHhpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh ( ^ `(OJQJo(hH"( ^`(B*CJOJQJo(phhHhpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh ( ^ `(OJQJo(hH"( ^`(B*CJOJQJo(phhHhpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh ( ^ `(OJQJo(hH"( ^`(B*CJOJQJo(phhHhpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh ( ^ `(OJQJo(hHhpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh ( ^ `(OJQJo(hH"( ^`(B*CJOJQJo(phhHhpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh ( ^ `(OJQJo(hHh"( ^`(B*CJOJQJo(phhHhpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh ( ^ `(OJQJo(hH"( ^`(B*CJOJQJo(phhHhpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh ( ^ `(OJQJo(hH"( ^`(B*CJOJQJo(phhHhpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh ( ^ `(OJQJo(hHh8^`OJQJo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh ( ^ `(OJQJo(hH"( ^`(B*CJOJQJo(phhHhpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh ( ^ `(OJQJo(hHh(^`(OJQJo(hHhpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHH ( ^ `(OJQJo(hHH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoHpp^p`OJQJo(hHH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoH^`OJQJo(hHH^`OJQJo(hHH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoHPP^P`OJQJo(hHh ( ^ `(OJQJo(hH"( ^`(B*CJOJQJo(phhHhpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHH ( ^ `(OJQJo(hHH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoHpp^p`OJQJo(hHH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoH^`OJQJo(hHH^`OJQJo(hHH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoHPP^P`OJQJo(hHh ( ^ `(OJQJo(hH"( ^`(B*CJOJQJo(phhHhpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh(^`(OJQJo(hHhpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh ( ^ `(OJQJo(hH"( ^`(B*CJOJQJo(phhHhpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh ( ^ `(OJQJo(hH"( ^`(B*CJOJQJo(phhHhpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh ( ^ `(OJQJo(hHhpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh ( ^ `(OJQJo(hHhP ^`POJQJo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH~2Nq!Rw~~8b'SYH_M')B"u~;n`^5-8''dk7Q1`tX>U8#ZV xNw ?%(u(9D)c?(uG"          b|       b|؛                          ("       !p!%h&>)!*j-{4Ry6v=~= nA-G(yICJMPKER]MSUZV[/]U`wb Mhgs"gu\w{l>espw7?7 pMxIXGAZ2-1M7#8lVh)&4=}iNr4=:I=4H+A?@.qrC789^#`ab ^ _ q !\!]!^!!" " "8"d"e"f"""""#0#1#D#|####$&$'$($U$|$}$~$$$$$+%m%n%o%%%%&"&n&o&p&&&&&&'' ';'x'y'z''''''o(p(C){*/Awwwww x x{ | IJ%JKt{3QBCǓe%D@ k'k'~ k'k'%p@Unknown SandersonGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial=AdvP41153C=AdvP4B2E3F3Goudy;Wingdings?5 z Courier New"1hf(f f 6^O6^O!4ll2qHX ?v=2Table 1John Sanderson Sanderson               Oh+'0   @ L X dpxTable 1John Sanderson Normal.dot Sanderson10Microsoft Office Word@ @rۮ@(@6)?6՜.+,D՜.+,H hp  The Nature ConservancyO^l Table 1 Title 8@ _PID_HLINKSAFzJhttp://www.fs.fed.us/rm/fraser/publications/PDF/TimberHarvest_FlowSed.pdf.   !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+-./012356789:;@Root Entry FA)?BData &1TableWordDocumentdSummaryInformation(,DocumentSummaryInformation84CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89qRoot Entry FPqBData &1TableWordDocumentd      !"#$%&'()*+-./0123MFGHIJKL՜.+,D՜.+,H hp  The Nature ConservancyO^l Table 1 Title 8@ _PID_HLINKSAFzJhttp://www.fs.fed.us/rm/fraser/publications/PDF/TimberHarvest_FlowSed.pdf. SummaryInformation(,DocumentSummaryInformation8ECompObjq