• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Executive summary
 Main
 Appendix














Title: Projected flood hazard lines for Escambia County, Florida
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00091411/00001
 Material Information
Title: Projected flood hazard lines for Escambia County, Florida
Series Title: Projected flood hazard lines for Escambia County, Florida
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Dean, Robert G.
Publisher: Coastal & Oceanographic Engineering Dept. of Civil & Coastal Engineering, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00091411
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Page i
    Table of Contents
        Page ii
        Page iii
    Executive summary
        Page iv
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
    Appendix
        Page A-0
        Page A-1
        Page A-2
        Page B-0
        Page B-1
        Page B-2
        Page B-3
        Page B-4
        Page B-5
        Page B-6
Full Text





UFL/COEL-98/004


PROJECTED FLOOD HAZARD LINES FOR
ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA



by


Robert G. Dean
and
Subarna Malakar


February 13, 1998




Prepared for:

Federal Emergency Management Administration
Flood, Fire and Mitigation Branch
500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20472














PROJECTED FLOOD HAZARD LINES
FOR ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA









February 13, 1998








Prepared for:

Federal Emergency Management Administration
Flood, Fire and Mitigation Branch
500 C Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20472








Prepared by:

Department of Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611









TABLE OF CONTENTS


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................. iv

INTRODUCTION .................................. ..................... 1

THE SETTING ................................. ......... .. .............. 1

PROCEDURES ................................................ ........ ... 1

RESULTS ....................................... .......... ............. 3
Shoreline Change Rates ............................................ 3
Aerial Photographs With Projected Flood Hazard Lines ......................... 6

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................... 6

REFERENCE ........................ ..... .......................... 10

APPENDICES

A DESCRIPTION OF THE THREE METHODS APPLIED TO DETERMINE
LONG TERM SHORELINE CHANGE RATES ........................... A-1

B LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE COORDINATES CORRESPONDING TO
THE DEP MONUMENTS IN ESCAMBIA COUNTY ..................... B-l









LIST OF FIGURES


FIGURE PAGE

1 Location of County for Which Erosion Hazard Areas Were Mapped ............... 2

2 Plot of 3 Methods of Historical Shoreline Change Analysis Using the 1856-1979
Data Set ................................ ......... ... ............ 4

3 Plot of 3 Methods of Historical Shoreline Change Analysis Using the 1911-1979
Data Set ........................................... ............. 5

4 Histogram of Shoreline Change Rates Using Least Squares Method for the 1856-
1979 Data Set ............................................... .... 7

5 Histogram of Shoreline Change Rates Using Least Squares Method for the 1911-
1979 Data Set ....................................................... 8

6 An Example of an Aerial Photo With 60 Year Erosion Hazard and FEMA Flood
Zones Drawn With Legend Code .............................. .......... 9



LIST OF TABLES


TABLE PAGE

1 Correlation Coefficients for the Three Methods Employed for Determination of
Shoreline Change Rates (1911-1979) ..................................... 3










EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


A study has been carried out to determine the erosion rates in Escambia County, Florida and to apply
those rates to the projection of existing flood hazard zones a landward distance equivalent to 60 years
of the erosion trend. The results are provided on a series of 42 aerial photographs at a scale of
1:5000. Each photograph is annotated to show the 60 year projected shoreline and the 60 year
projected V-zone/A-zone boundaries and the associated gutter lines.

The shoreline changes were based on a shoreline position data base developed and maintained by the
Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems (BBCS) of the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP). The individual data points are located at nominal shoreline spacings of 1,000 feet
and include data from Monument R-1 to R-214. These shoreline position data were analyzed by three
methods and for two different time periods. Although it was found that all three methods resulted in
similar rates, two of the methods (least squares and end point methods) were in better mutual
agreement than the third (Foster-Savage Method) and based partly on this comparison, a decision was
made to apply the least squares method in this study. The two time periods analyzed were the total
period of data availability (1867 to 1979) and the more recent period of 1911 to 1979. The shoreline
change rates were reasonably similar for these two periods and it was decided to apply rates for the
more recent period in order to emphasize the current trends. The average shoreline change rates in
Escambia County are very small; however, there is a wide range of local shoreline change rates with
the maximum local recession rate for the more recent period approximately -4.9 feet per year and
approximately 10.9 feet per year for the maximum advancement rate. Although the shoreline position
data base is based on the locations of the Mean High Water (MHW), the reference elevation
employed by the State of Florida for regulatory purposes is the so-called Seasonal High Later
Elevation (SHWE) which is at an elevation of 1.5 times the mean tidal range above the Mean High
Water Elevation (MHWE). The rationale for the SHWE is that its higher position on the profile than
that of MHW should result in a location that responds more like the long term shoreline change rate
and less to individual storms and seasonal fluctuations.

With the aerial photographs, the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and the long term erosion rates
available, the annotated aerial photographs were prepared for the 41 mile shoreline of Escambia
County. This entailed plotting the following information on the base maps: (1) The projected 60 year
position of the SHWE (in those cases where the shoreline was stable or advancing, the shoreline was
not projected), (2) The current flood hazard lines as transferred from Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRMS), and (3) The flood hazard lines projected landward by 60 years of the erosion rate at those
shoreline locations where long term erosion existed.










PROJECTED FLOOD HAZARD LINES
FOR ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA

INTRODUCTION

The Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) is charged with the assessment of a
wide range of hazards and with developing and implementing measures to achieve long term risk
reduction for these hazards. Coastal areas are subject to hazards due to flooding and damage due to
extreme storms and in some areas, tsunamis. In Florida, coastal hazards are the result of tropical and
extra-tropical storms. In such areas, FEMA is responsible for a program in which numerical modeling
is carried out using the historic meteorological data base and the bathymetry of the area of concern
to establish extreme storm surges and the associated waves. This information is provided in the form
of charts or maps with the hazard zones drawn as isolines denoting the elevations for lower structural
members. These charts, denoted Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), are available for most coastal
areas in the United States. In coastal areas with substantial erosion rates, the higher hazard zones will
gradually be translated landward in the future unless shoreline stabilization measures are implemented.
There is merit in recognizing these encroaching hazards in the management considerations and actions
associated with these hazards. FEMA is currently evaluating economic and other impacts of
considering the effects of progressive erosion in the hazard mapping and management process. This
requires the landward projection of hazard areas based on appropriate local erosion rates. This report
presents the results of one such pilot mapping effort for Escambia County, Florida to determine the
long term erosion rates and to project landward the existing flood hazard zones in accordance with
the long term erosion rates.

THE SETTING

Escambia County is located on the so-called Panhandle (west) coast of Florida and comprises
portions of two barrier islands extending over an approximate 41 mile length, see Figure 1. The
individual islands range in elevation from 6 ft to 20 ft NGVD. Escambia County is subject to
hurricanes with the 100 year storm tide on the order of 11.0 ft. As is the case for many coastal
counties in Florida, the shoreline change rates averaged over the entire county are small; however,
at any particular shoreline location, the long-term shoreline change rates can deviate substantially
from the County average. As an example, the shoreline change rates for the period 1856 to 1979
range from recession of approximately 4.3 feet per year to advancement of 8.0 feet per year.

PROCEDURES

The procedures applied may be considered in three steps. The first step required the determination
of the long term shoreline change rates. For this purpose, use was made of the excellent shoreline
position data base developed and maintained by the Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems (BBCS)
of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). These data extend from Monument
R-1 to R-214.






















G


Escambia County


u I f o f M e x i c o


Location of County for Which Erosion Hazard Areas Were Mapped.


0

0 -
11
a* S f


Figure 1








Generally, at each location, data are available for seven to nine dates, with most of the data
availability after the 1930's. The second step required the transfer of the existing flood hazard lines
on a set of aerial photographs at a scale of 1:5,000. The third and final step was the translation of
these lines by a distance equal to 60 years of the long term erosion rate.

RESULTS

Shoreline Change Rates

The FDEP shoreline position data base consists of shoreline positions at locations of fixed monuments
along the shoreline. The spacing of these monuments is nominally 1000 feet and the monuments were
first placed in Escambia County in 1973. The 41 mile shoreline is represented by 214 monuments and
actually includes the western portion of Santa Rosa County. Shoreline position data are available for
Escambia County for the period 1856 to 1979, a 123 year period. The shoreline positions in the
FDEP data base are distances from a known monument location to the Mean High Water Line
position. To evaluate the long term rates, three analysis methods were applied to the available data.
These included: (1) the least squares method, (2) the method developed by Foster and Savage (1989),
and (3) the end point method. The analysis of data was applied to the full set of data (1856-1979) and
to a more recent time period (1911- 1979). The results for these two time periods are presented in
Figures 2 and 3. Referring to Figure 2 for the total period for which data are available, it is seen that
in general, the three methods are in reasonable agreement; however, the Foster-Savage method
(described in Appendix A) tends to predict more extreme shoreline change rates at some locations
when compared to results from the other two methods. Referring to Figure 3 and comparing the
results, the general observations and comments are similar except the overall agreement is better
except for one isolated location. In order to intercompare the shoreline change results on a
quantitative basis, the correlation coefficients were developed for the three methods with the results
presented in Table 1. On the basis of the results in Table 1 and those in Figures 2 and 3, it was
decided to utilize the results based on the least squares approach.

Table 1

Correlation Coefficients* for the Three Methods Employed for
Determination of Shoreline Change Rates
(1911-1979)

Method Least Squares End Point Foster
Least Squares 1.00 0.91 0.72
End Point 0.91 1.00 0.79

Foster 0.72 0.79 1.00
*Note: To obtain r2 values, it is necessary to square the values in this table.

















Legend Metho

0 P 4 6 8
Scale:







-. -180
R- 170


v R-160 0



a R-- 140














--- 00



R -040




..--oeo

..-t- 010
... .. .... .*00- o


Figure 2


)dB-
Average Shoreline Change Rate (Ft/Yr)
f' (--ye Values Indicate Recession)

-10 -5 0 5 10




. '. ... ......S











+-'- ------











.. ...... .. -.. .. ....... . .. . .... ... .... ....


Plot of 3 Methods of Historical Shoreline Change Analysis Using the
1856-1979 Data Set.














Legend 'Methods:
LTSQ
Miles .. ........ED-PT
FOSTER
o 4 0S 8
Scule. ...20

R--210

*R'-OC

-R 190

.. ... R-180

R-- 170 +



*---150 o

qs r







R-090



A+
R 0 7 - - - -
R-050)

Penc4kco0a P5~s






~71Z-Oi


Average Shoreline Change
(-ve Values Indicate

.-- 10 0


- -- - - - -- --* -- j
.. .. .. .. .. . . . .. 4
.....................


Rate (FL/Yr)
Recession)

10


Figure 3 Plot of 3 Methods of Historical Shoreline Change Analysis Using the
1911-1979 Data Set.


I: -Y-T I(-~T~T- -I--.. ........I-


... .. ... .... .. . .. ..








Although Figures 2 and 3 provide the local shoreline change rates, it may be useful to examine the
results of the shoreline change analysis in different forms. The total average long and shorter term
shoreline change values for the entire county are -0.4 and +0.9 feet/year, respectively for the two time
periods based on the least squares method. Figures 4 and 5 present histograms of shoreline change
rates based on the longer (1856 to 1979) and shorter (1911 to 1979) periods, respectively.

The shoreline change rates used in projecting the hazard zones were not modified for the presence
of shore protection structures. The net longshore sediment transport in this area is from east to west.
The eastern 5 miles ofPerdido Key has been nourished, both in 1985 and in 1989 (Monuments R-40
to R-67 in 1989). This portion ofPerdido Key is subject to erosional pressure due to the progressive
deepening by dredging over the past century of Pensacola Pass for navigational purposes. Very little
beach nourishment other than that noted on Perdido Key has been conducted in Escambia County.
Additionally, there has been very little construction of shore protection devices.

Aerial Photographs With Projected Flood Hazard Lines

A complete set of aerial photographs was prepared for Escambia County with the hazard lines
projected 60 years into the future based on the long term erosion rates as determined by the least
squares method and as shown in Figure 3. The set consists of 42 aerial photographs with each
photograph representing approximately 1.2 miles. The FDEP monuments are indicated on each aerial
photograph. To provide references of the photographs to a standard system, the latitudes and
longitudes associated with each of the FDEP monuments are presented in Appendix B. These
monuments are numbered sequentially with Monument 1 located at the Western County line (at the
Florida/Alabama border) and Monument 214 is located at the eastern limits of the portion of Santa
Rosa County that is open to the public. Farther west, Eglin Air Force base is a secured area. The
original "gutter lines" are indicated by solid lines with each color designating a particular gutter line.
The dashed lines indicate the gutter lines projected by the 60 years of shoreline recession. For those
areas with a long term advancement trend, the gutter lines were not shifted. Figure 6 presents an
example aerial photograph and will be used to describe the series. The code used for interpretation
of the lines on the aerial photographs is provided on each photograph as shown in Figure 6. Figure
6 is located midway on Perdido Key. Figure 6 encompasses approximately 6,000 feet of the 13 mile
stretch ofPerdido Key west from Pensacola Pass to the Alabama/Florida border. Referring to Figure
6, it is seen that Monument "36" is located near the western limit of the photograph and Monument
"40" is located near the eastern end of the photograph. The red line is the 60 year projected position
of the green SHWL. The other solid and dashed lines are the current and projected flood hazard lines
respectively, with the elevations associated with the lines corresponding to the seaward limits of these
elevation zones.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This study has developed the long term shoreline change rates for Escambia County, Florida and
applied these rates by displacing the flood hazard lines landward by 60 years of the erosional trend.


























40 H


V

e,

3


-o
0

O

20


z


10 h


ID


o r
0 in 0 In 0 in 0 In 0 In 0 In 0 is 0 1n 0



Shoreline Change Rate (ft/yr)
(-ve Values Indicate Erosion)


Figure 4 Histogram of Shoreline Change Rates Using Least Squares Method
for the 1856-1979 Data Set.






















































I I-


Shoreline Change Rate (ft/yr)
(-ve Values Indicate Erosion)

e 5 Histogram of Shoreline Change Rates Using Least Squares Method
for the 1911-1979 Data Set.


40 -


, 30




0
I-

0
-4

3 20


to1-


Figure


tor
N





























































Figure 8. Portion of Escambia County FIRM Panel 305 of 360, DEP Monuments R36-R40.
Legend: 60-YrErosionlj -- SHIWLII V(15)1[ A(12)1
S-- A(10)|[ A(9)I

Figure 6 An Example of an Aerial Photo With 60 Year Erosion Hazard
and FEMA Flood Zones Drawn With Legend Code.








Two periods were considered in developing the erosion rates: (1) The full 123 year period of
shoreline position availability (1856 to 1979) and, (2) the most recent 68 year period (1911 to 1979).
Additionally three different methods for determining the shoreline changes from the available data
were applied and intercompared. Based on examination of the results, the least squares results based
on the shorter time period were applied to the displacement of the flood lines. Although, on average,
the long term shoreline trend in Escambia County is small, the deviations from the County average
are reasonably large ranging from a local erosional trend of approximately -4.3 feet per year to
advancement of 8.0 feet per year.

The results are presented as a series of 42 aerial photographs at a scale of 1:5000. Each photograph
is annotated with the positions of the shoreline projected with 60 years of the erosional trend, the
current flood hazard lines and the flood hazard lines projected by 60 years of erosional trend. In areas
where the shoreline trend is neutral or advancing, there are no projected shorelines nor projected
flood hazard lines.

REFERENCE

Foster, E. R. and R. J. Savage (1989) "Methods of Historical Shoreline Analysis", Proceedings,
Coastal Zone '89, Vol. 5, pp. 4434-4448.










APPENDIX A

DESCRIPTION OF THE THREE METHODS APPLIED TO DETERMINE
LONG TERM SHORELINE CHANGE RATES









APPENDIX A


DESCRIPTION OF THE THREE METHODS APPLIED TO DETERMINE
LONG TERM SHORELINE CHANGE RATES





INTRODUCTION

The three methods used to determine long term shoreline change rates include: (1) The least squares
method, (2) The method developed by Foster and Savage, and (3) The end point method. For
purposes of completeness in this report, each of these three methods is described briefly below.

DESCRIPTION OF THE THREE METHODS

The three methods employed in the analysis herein are described below.

(1) The Least Squares Method

The least squares method is a formal procedure which establishes the "best fit" of an analytical
relationship to a set of data. In the application here the analytical relationship is a straight line with
two unknowns and thus requires at least two data points. If only two data points were available, the
fit of the straight line to the data points would be exact and would be the same as the "end point"
method. In the case in which there are more data points than free parameters in the analytical
relationship, the method minimizes the sum of squares of the deviations between the data points and
the analytical relationship. The method of least squares is described in many references and is
commonly available as a subroutine in software packages.

(2) Method of Foster and Savage

This method was developed and proposed by Foster and Savage (1989) and provides a rational basis
for taking into consideration the accuracies of the individual data points and the spacing of the data
points in time. Basically, the method averages those possible end point rates that qualify based on
consideration of the magnitude of the difference in shoreline position being realistic, ie not simply the
result of errors in the data. Defining 6, and E2 as errors in data at times t, and t2, respectively, the
criterion for determining the rate is that the minimum time between data points to be considered is

T ( = ( +E22)








in which E, and E2 are the errors associated with the data at times ti and t2, respectively and R, is the
end point rate for the location of interest. The average end point rate is then taken to be the average
of all end point rates which satisfy the above criterion. It is noted that for N available data points,
there are N(N-1)/2possible combinations. For example, if there are 7 data points, there are 21
possible combinations of pairs of points that could yield valid end point rates if they all satisfied the
above equation.

(3) End Point Method

This is the most simple method of the three and involves the calculation of the rate based on the first
and last data points.


A-2










APPENDIX B

LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE COORDINATES CORRESPONDING
TO THE DEP MONUMENTS IN ESCAMBIA COUNTY










Lat:deg,min,sec


Long: deg,min,sec


Mon-ID

R-001
R-002
R-003
R-004

R-005
R-006
R-007
R-008


52.68251
55.10845
58.15961
.73658

2.89593
3.09084
5.50260
6.99443

10.18609
11.76692
16.95487
17.76365

21.44298
22.18083
23.23598
25.87553

28.62366
30.33179
31.99867
34.23469

35.77404
37.59862
39.07224
40.00591

42.34819
41.97663
45.20067
45.07461

48.46901
50.45216
50.98753
54.19994

55.17637
.78953
1.48104
3.89907


4.64763
54.25376
39.33722
30.45793

19.18555
6.83373
54.34799
43.94785

31.26866
20.94658
5.62458
56.23023

42.94881
33.11430
23.67582
13.44765

.58116
50.98798
39.52365
27.82378

16.73481
5.65141
54.37915
43.43876

30.59330
20.23584
9.30764
56.36010

44.73347
31.80971
19.56050
9.14750

57.78692
44.22216
30.31542
19.12667


R-009
R-010
R-011
R-012

R-013
R-014
R-015
R-016

R-017
R-018
R-019
R-020

R-021
R-022
R-023
R-024

R-025
R-026
R-027
R-028

R-029
R-030
R-031
R-032

R-033
R-034
R-035
R-036









R-037
R-038
R-039
R-040

R-041
R-042
R-043
R-044

R-045
R-046
R-047
R-048

R-049
R-050
R-051
R-052

R-053
R-054
R-055
R-056

R-057
R-058
R-059
R-060

R-061
R-062
R-063
R-064

R-065
R-066
R-067
R-068

R-069
R-070
R-071
R-072

R-073
R-074
R-075


6.15046
9.29657
11.91495
15.66444

19.20108
22.25004
24.95966
26.56051

30.12769
31.24433
34.40866
37.06251

40.26641
41.80904
45.22623
49.86835

48.57354
52.03615
56.30761
56.11529

58.16606
59.96335
1.58359
3.47079

4.74241
5.79823
6.97850
10.22574

13.13481
22.14950
31.90692
38.97561

33.62105
30.24630
29.58264
27.40134

20.12534
12.27952
15.08058


B-2


9.41776
58.08176
47.30069
34.98633

23.23180
12.32297
59.95906
49.38856

37.91088
28.14915
15.71081
5.20891

52.57447
41.93595
29.59547
17.37428

6.86466
55.46933
43.03282
31.17393

19.64620
8.17956
56.75909
45.78984

34.71302
23.03934
11.96976
3.01188

55.80611
51.33335
49.90326
57.86896

52.94934
41.32049
30.54593
21.99847

14.59010
5.51968
54.18126


30 19
30 19
30 19









30 19 13.13802


87 16 44.73234


R-076

R-077
R-078
R-079
R-080

R-081
R-082
R-083
R-084

R-085
R-086
R-087
R-088

R-089
R-090
R-091
R-092

R-093
R-094
R-095
R-096

R-097
R-098
R-099
R-101

R-102
R-103
R-104
R-105

R-106
R-107
R-108
R-109

R-110
R-1ll
R-112
R-113

R-114


6.85344
8.75077
5.13207
4.32230

3.58241
2.58222
2.19378
1.11789

4.00900
4.28991
5.24250
5.74411

5.87200
7.12666
7.73111
8.99245

10.27871
11.92683
13.23777
14.41686

15.99602
17.06546
18.41239
21.70588

23.57930
24.79785
26.96148
28.52785

30.41752
30.61886
31.72136
34.59083

35.68866
37.61715
38.43986
38.05002


30 19 38.69426


32.21572
21.12724
11.30648
1.04097

49.51637
38.14433
27.18601
16.65366

5.94358
55.12513
42.16691
31.24469

19.38625
7.50761
56.46689
45.11758

33.59769
21.89367
10.79800
.14087

48.76852
36.57749
25.56097
3.70243

51.31476
40.84793
29.61069
18.63528

6.21195
55.59594
45.17553
35.28368

24.46208
13.07221
2.53267
52.95339


87 9 40.79970









19 40.93025
19 43.77947
19 45.24540


R-115
R-116
R-117

R-118
R-119
R-120
R-121

R-122
R-123
R-124
R-125

R-126
R-127
R-128
R-129

R-130
R-131
R-132
R-133

R-134
R-135
R-136
R-137

R-138
R-139
R-140
R-141

R-142
R-143
R-144
R-145

R-146
R-147
R-148
R-149

R-150
R-151
R-152
R-153


46.31933
50.10255
51.83438
53.98726

55.34780
57.81747
59.35941
.17241

3.15123
5.22318
7.35455
8.92426

10.24409
13.24418
15.25690
17.44784

19.07515
21.11910
22.79666
25.47337

28.19624
29.44653
36.88620
34.50994

36.42703
38.68338
43.53781
43.13210

44.75950
47.21651
49.20016
51.34892

53.39980
55.25032
56.81552
58.98450


B-4


30.18678
19.56451
7.23716

58.52878
47.87833
33.98122
25.28855

14.17915
.57813
52.13997
41.26257

30.00745
18.03897
8.63160
57.92799

46.78537
35.81116
25.33866
14.02749

3.38339
52.82862
40.14811
29.92788

18.68851
8.23947
58.07475
44.77261

33.70142
22.15094
11.33564
59.93830

48.40393
37.51879
25.85499
14.70761

3.83869
51.32206
40.70724
29.46714









R-154
R-155
R-156
R-157

R-158
R-159
R-160
R-161

R-162
R-163
R-164
R-165

R-166
R-167
R-168
R-169

R-170
R-171
R-172
R-173

R-174
R-175
R-176
R-177

R-178
R-179
R-180
R-181

R-182
R-183
R-184
R-185

R-186
R-187
R-188
R-189

R-190
R-191
R-192


.42059
2.97688
4.88675
7.13142

9.56361
11.07549
13.76985
15.87190

17.58769
19.15423
21.26641
23.33144

24.82252
26.46650
28.36268
30.27529

32.16985
33.49667
35.54156
37.37735

39.68426
41.49236
43.77782
45.99477

48.33806
50.08373
52.22369
53.94604

55.75360
57.57730
59.79092
1.17263

3.36060
5.64458
7.97604
9.93580


30 22 11.97407
30 22 14.04091
30 22 16.32796


B-5


18.12676
6.71799
55.08844
44.44056

33.24794
22.22433
10.72418
59.31154

48.18149
36.41109
26.93771
15.00849

3.12741
52.23763
41.65951
29.85870

18.30990
6.71104
55.21575
45.08084

34.11849
23.73720
11.68373
.29631

49.15308
38.73125
27.69546
16.14396

4.88560
53.27788
42.00081
30.72018

18.46175
7.81686
57.05169
46.01037

35.00939
24.27445
12.18605









30 22 17.57458


86 54 58.56060


R-193

R-194
R-195
R-196
R-197

R-198
R-199
R-200
R-201

R-202
R-203
R-204
R-205

R-206
R-207
R-208
R-209

R-210
R-211
R-212
R-213

R-214


30 22 54.77814


20.03024
21.47465
23.65206
25.67535

27.59530
29.13290
30.37712
32.95445

34.61376
36.14381
37.75342
39.35864

44.82585
42.61587
48.60422
47.67055

48.24822
49.15244
50.82697
52.52166


86 51 .44867


B-6


49.57178
38.74126
27.05074
15.29638

4.42288
52.80209
42.30736
30.80290

19.35174
8.12002
56.61465
46.46505

34.50556
18.58181
10.40682
54.67775

46.40002
34.67728
22.80584
15.04562




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs