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














Title: Projected flood hazard lines for Lee County, Florida
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00091412/00001
 Material Information
Title: Projected flood hazard lines for Lee County, Florida
Series Title: Projected flood hazard lines for Lee 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: UF00091412
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
        Page B-7
Full Text




UFL/COEL-98/005


PROJECTED FLOOD HAZARD LINES FOR
LEE 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 LEE 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 SUM M ARY .................................................. 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 ........................................ 10

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 LEE COUNTY ............................. B-1



















ii









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 Lee County
(1858-1989) Data Set ................................................. 4

3 Plot of 3 Methods of Historical Shoreline Change Analysis Using 1972-1989 Data
Set ................................................................ 5

4 Histogram of Shoreline Change Rates Using Least Squares Method for the (1858-
1989) Data Set ..................................................... 7

5 Histogram of Shoreline Change Rates Using the Least Squares Method for the
(1972-1989) Data Set ................................................. 8

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



LIST OF TABLES


TABLE PAGE

1 Correlation Coefficients for the Three Methods Employed for Determination of
Shoreline Change Rates (1972-1989) ..................................... 3










EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


A study has been carried out to determine the erosion rates in Lee County, Florida and to apply those
rates to the projection of existing flood zones a landward distance equivalent to 60 years of the
erosion trend. The results are provided on a series of 50 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 1858 to 1989. 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 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
(1858 to 1989) and the more recent period of 1972 to 1989. 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 Lee County are very
small; however, there is a wide range of local shoreline change rates with the maximum local
recession and advancement rates for the more recent period approximately 30 feet per year and 50
feet per year, respectively. 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 Lee 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 LEE 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 Lee 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

Lee County is located on the lower west coast of Florida and comprises eight barrier islands
extending over an approximate 41 mile length, see Figure 1. The individual islands are generally low
ranging in elevation from 6 ft to 12 ft NGVD. Lee County is subject to hurricanes with the 100 year
storm tide on the order of 13 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 1972 to 1989 range from recession of
approximately 30 feet per year to advancement of 50 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 the mid-

















Miles
0 2 4 8
Scale:


R- 1 -
R- 10

R- 20
Charlotte
R- 30 Harbor

R- 40

R- 50

R- 60 Captiva
7Pass
R- 70


R- 80 g Red Fish
a Pass


R-110


R-10O

R-130

R-140

R- 150


R-ltO

R-190

R-200

R-210

R-220

R-230


Location of County for Which Erosion Hazard Areas Were
Mapped.


Figure 1








1800's to 1989. 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 installed in Lee County in the mid 1970's. The 41 mile shoreline is represented by 239
monuments. Shoreline position data are available for Lee County for the period 1858 to 1989, a 131
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 (1858-1989) and to a more recent time period (1972-1989). 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 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
(1972-1989)

Method Least Squares End Point Foster
Least Squares 1.00 0.9875 0.8562
End Point 0.9875 1.00 0.8491
Foster 0.8562 0.8491 1.00
*Note: To obtain r2 values, it is necessary to square the values in this table.




















Average Shoreline Change Rate (ft/yr)

(-ve Values Indicate Recession)


Plot of 3 Methods of Historical Shoreline Change Analysis

Using Lee County (1858-1989) Data Set.


Miles
0 2 4 6 8
Scale:

R- 1- --

R- 10
R- 20


Figure 2


R-180
R-190 -

R-200

R 210
R-2 lj
R-220

R-230


Legend Methods:

- LLSQ
---- END-PT
- FOSTER














Average Shoreline Change Rate (ft/yr)

(-ve Values Indicate Recession)
00 50 0 -50 -1(




-- '-.-. . ..--. . .' ' ...---- -.. . -.. .
.. -----.. ---------------------------- :












--------------------------------- --------- --


















p p,, pp ,i ,,I, ,,-, ,-I , , I , ,- , ,


Figure 3 Plot of 3 Methods of Historical Shorelin
1989 Data Set.


Miles
0 2 4 6 8
Scale:

R-
R- 10
R- 20
Charlotte
R- 30 Harbor


R-180

R-190

R-200
Legend Methods:
R-210
LLSQ
--- lls R-220
....... END-PT R-2.
FOSTER R-23



ie Change Analysis Using 1972-








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 shoreline
change values for the entire county are 0.01 and + 1.33 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 (1858 to 1989) and shorter (1972 to 1989) periods, respectively.

The shoreline change rates used in projecting the hazard zones were not modified for the presence
of shore protection structures. Captiva Island is one area that has been nourished. This island has been
under considerable erosional stress since Redfish Pass, the inlet at the north of the island was formed
by a hurricane in 1926, thereby capturing much of the southerly directed longshore sediment
transport. The northern end of Captiva island was first nourished in 1985 and the remainder of the
island was nourished in 1988 1989. The island was again nourished in 1995 subsequent to the aerial
photographs used for this study. Captiva Island has established a taxing district, the Captiva Island
Erosion Prevention District, to maintain their beaches and it appears that the Island is strongly
committed to maintaining their beaches. Several other beaches in Lee County had been stabilized
prior to this study; however, the amount of nourishment was so small as to have little effect on the
shoreline change rates and, at present there is insufficient evidence of a long term commitment to
shoreline stabilization. There are several areas in Lee County where shoreline stabilization structures
are present; however, the longshore extents of these structures are fairly short. Additionally, the
relatively short times that most of these structures have been in place are such that the shoreline
change rates should not be affected significantly.

Aerial Photographs With Projected Flood Hazard Lines

A complete set of aerial photographs was prepared for Lee 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. A five point smoothing filter was applied to the erosion rates prior
to their application to projecting the hazard lines. Additionally, at some locations, limited subjective
smoothing was conducted. The set of aerial photographs consists of 50 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 Northern County boundary
and Monument 239 located at the Southern County line. 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 on Captiva Island which is the
third island to the south of the northern County line. Figure 6 encompasses approximately 6,000 feet
of this 24,000 feet long island. Referring to Figure 6, it is seen that Monument "R-89" is located near
the northern limit of the photograph and Monument "R-94" is located near the southern end of the
photograph. The solid and dashed red lines are the current and 60 year projected position of the
















40


(U






0 -











0
o l


















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

Figure 4 Histogram of Shoreline Change Rates Using Least Squares Method for
the (1858-1989) Data Set.













25
















oo
o
10


0



10
IO-













0
5 -







So o o0 o0 o o 0 o 0 o o 0 0 0 o
I I I I I I


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



Figure 5 Histogram of Shoreline Change Rates Using the Least Squares Method
for the (1972-1989) Data Set.









Legend:


SHWL
V14 15- ----
VI4 13 --

All 12-
All_ 11------
All 10-----
All 9----


S: -y







j7.
iT -'-.; *f, .t-













...



Figure 18. Portion of Lce County FIRM Panels: 262,264; DEP Monuments R89-R94

Figure 6 An Example of an Aerial Photo With 60 Year Erosion Hazard
and FEMA Flood Zones Drawn With Legend Code.
Dil;- fe ^
^,
^^- ^i
JgL;.Es^^ ^ ^ '
Wf;. Wt. -,^,J.^w*t^ e^i
""f N^^1
,.N "t N.^1
i., p. s .(i-'- CT ~i^ft t?^, c
La-.-' &tl.n~&.' .^/..ts t-iJ
Figure~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~- 18 oto fLeCut IMPnl:2224 E ouet 8-9

Figure 6' An Exml fa eilPooWih6 erEoinHzr
and EMA loodZone Dran Wih Leend ode









SHWL. The solid and dashed blue lines are the current and projected 13 feet flood hazard lines,
respectively and the solid and dashed purple lines are the associated flood hazard lines for the 12 feet
elevation.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This study has developed the long term shoreline change rates for Lee County, Florida and applied
these rates by displacing the flood hazard lines landward by 60 years of the erosional trend. Two
periods were considered in developing the erosion rates: (1) The full 131 year period of shoreline
availability (1858 to 1989) and, (2) the most recent 17 year period (1972 to 1989). 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 Lee County is small, the deviations from the County average are large ranging from
a local erosional trend of approximately 30 feet per year to advancement of 50 feet per year.

The results are presented as a series of 50 aerial photographs at a scale of 1:5,000. Each photograph
is annotated with the positions of the shoreline projected to represent 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 E, and E2 as errors in data at times tj and t2, respectively, the
criterion for determining the rate is that the minimum time between data points to be considered is


Tmi (E1 + E2
Ri









in which El and E2 are the errors associated with the data at times t, and t2, respectively and Ri 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 LEE COUNTY









Lat:deg,min,sec


R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4

R-5
R-6
R-7
R-8


47 19.20930
47 9.83637
47 .37793
46 50.92596

46 41.03628
46 30.92427
46 21.37838
46 11.47097

46 .12178
45 47.33236
45 32.28433
45 20.58501

45 10.66318
45 .56526
44 50.61206
44 39.80427

44 29.79157
44 19.25599
44 10.04738
43 59.47942

43 50.86523
43 40.12937
43 31.48885
43 22.25483

43 11.90416
43 5.43939
43 4.17638
42 21.63979

42 14.90021
42 9.09442
41 59.63957
41 49.63653

41 41.50794
41 29.89630
41 21.04058
41 10.68755


26 41 2.64506


17.79563
13.51873
10.89217
7.45542

5.02604
3.62549
1.38297
.12753

56.61153
56.27803
55.51492
53.50339

52.98811
52.62034
52.32531
48.88491

48.62156
47.25608
48.66189
46.05660

47.37137
44.83444
48.33009
48.40843

51.78031
43.97497
37.70601
11.44377

18.88166
19.92073
22.98705
23.15486

21.57649
20.92760
21.62448
23.63170


R-9
R-10
R-11
R-12

R-13
R-14
R-15
R-16

R-17
R-18
R-19
R-20

R-21
R-22
R-23
R-24


R-25
R-26
R-26A
R-27


R-28
R-29
R-30
R-31

R-32
R-33
R-34
R-35

R-36


Mon-Id


Lat:deg,min,sec


82 15 28.85433









26 40
26 40
26 40


15 27.05573
15 24.03159
15 23.78180


R-37
R-38
R-39

R-40
R-41
R-42
R-43

R-44
R-45
R-46
R-47

R-48
R-49
R-50
R-51

R-52
R-53
R-54
R-55

R-56
R-57
R-58
R-59

R-60
R-61
R-62
R-63
R-64

R-65
R-66
R-67
R-68

R-69
R-70
R-71
R-72

R-73
R-74
R-74A


B-2


54.60106
45.40107
35.08059

27.58250
21.51215
14.98521
5.32111

53.80271
44.32142
34.36114
25.81068

16.75797
7.08525
58.71581
48.75598

40.59580
33.87931
28.57702
21.52138

12.90475
3.53421
54.26584
44.89732

35.57742
26.78264
15.97283
6.56638
53.98786

45.85207
20.91645
13.34352
6.20951

55.59939
45.81280
35.52465
22.06932

11.41771
3.92580
59.13020


18.56169
9.67951
5.82923
59.82749

55.03146
52.74365
51.08630
46.75157

41.44118
37.75819
33.91660
27.93952

23.66237
17.81893
9.48858
2.74046

56.19985
51.09406
46.70053
42.97368

39.78154
36.46352
33.58382
30.67086
27.06699

22.28408
16.28221
20.48656
25.82292

26.19785
26.42701
24.77658
18.50445

8.48176
1.47274
56.15984


26 35
26 35
26 34









26 34 54.48654


82 12 51.84973


R-75

R-75A
R-76
R-76A
R-77

R-77A
R-78
R-79
R-79A

R-80
R-81
R-81A
R-82

R-83
C-84
R-85
R-86

R-87
R-88
R-89
R-90

R-91
R-92
R-93
R-94

0-95
C-96
R-97
R-98

R-99
R-100
R-101
R-102

R-103
R-104
R-105
R-106

R-107


48.11835
40.40132
34.28159
28.66059

22.52078
10.26572
59.30285
52.17460

45.02191
34.92614
25.06272
20.35333

8.40063
4.19076
54.43959
46.39698

36.40976
27.02547
17.67283
8.50502

59.00328
48.10146
39.35830
24.10790

15.26128
5.28262
56.57580
46.06533

36.88713
26.75229
17.26210
5.52427

57.92118
47.59786
36.58098
27.83628


26 29 17.27273


47.87730
42.19970
37.59088
33.94687

29.89931
21.87102
15.72368
13.62810

11.73528
9.53276
7.61537
1.32474

57.63927
3.24237
53.17490
51.48316

48.59618
47.49625
43.17983
44.01214

42.77937
40.50383
38.61189
36.65958

34.80997
32.82611
31.03195
28.60910

26.09501
24.20692
21.67052
19.51824

17.21630
15.03868
13.50979
7.93598


82 11 4.31449









R-108
R-109
R-110

R-1ll
R-112
R-113
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
T-131

R-132
R-133
R-134
R-135

R-136
T-137
R-138
R-139

R-140
R-141
R-142
R-143

R-144
R-145
R-146
R-147


82 11 3.28224
82 10 58.91701
82 10 53.65268


4.92793
57.08907
54.78801

45.01546
38.58184
28.52583
12.46678

2.96557
57.29218
52.54067
47.71417

41.58865
37.22244
32.55774
28.14733

20.39003
14.50864
7.97503
.73394

50.83937
44.07638
35.90839
28.19398

20.95808
14.94079
9.88291
5.35989

1.59377
56.91373
53.23108
48.67370

45.52661
41.93380
37.30475
33.90615

30.85200
27.25356
24.45267
22.26108


B-4


51.02906
46.06426
38.88858
26.21392

18.67685
8.70971
57.94637
47.59032

38.39360
27.93414
18.51982
7.32902

59.77618
48.31446
40.03206
30.90185

20.60252
13.48699
4.70326
57.95021

50.43506
42.43952
33.01132
23.36938

14.48752
2.65113
54.22075
43.25400

33.48239
23.46300
13.10493
2.76398

53.54861
43.37590
32.54951
21.10222









R-148
R-149
R-150
T-151

R-152
R-153
R-154
R-155

R-156
R-157
R-158
R-159

R-160
R-161
R-161A
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


19.61816
19.78315
19.22574
19.92452

20.30996
23.53086
26.27428
29.43859

33.68230
37.41386
41.63907
45.51844

49.99598
55.39749
.56591
5.79469

11.87778
14.98480
21.61933
27.19291

32.25141
36.65612
42.44735
47.86258

56.53965
57.75922
3.61422
9.08571

49.97721
42.47881
35.43697
27.36064

21.42609
13.24616
8.07434
5.96109


26 27 2.56080
26 26 58.46624
26 26 52.72290


10.34222
59.35337
48.97726
36.80902

27.88038
15.71878
5.95783
55.91648

45.93607
35.97066
26.39240
15.79175

7.54671
57.90133
48.69016
41.93685

30.60851
24.02528
11.66726
2.88412

53.60551
43.88644
33.88142
24.16383

16.84168
7.62725
56.74102
53.26554

.06254
57.77351
51.79996
43.48701

37.48603
29.22456
19.96377
8.95080

.22706
49.35278
39.99784









26 26 48.96510


81 56 30.16356


R-186

R-186A
R-187
R-187A
R-188

R-189
R-190
R-191
R-192

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
R-215
T-216

R-217
R-219
R-220
R-221

R-222


26 22 42.90400


45.81226
44.02453
38.71371
36.02124

31.07900
25.32976
20.45738
13.50948

7.45894
59.64265
52.99729
47.16802

39.02664
33.54450
24.35356
18.27733

8.50252
.26378
47.10901
37.28566

32.58922
23.38723
14.62067
13.36909

12.88005
15.19304
59.41982
54.47184

49.60980
41.69677
34.13237
26.44256

19.96935
5.30417
58.86022
50.30242


81 52 6.00217


B-6


22.60110
15.56957
7.13041
59.87061

49.93878
40.85482
32.62867
23.74950

16.93825
5.52999
58.21361
50.36402

42.76117
34.05995
27.34607
20.28346

14.61008
10.25561
8.42428
4.38498

55.04006
46.63082
39.56472
28.17721

16.96500
4.78219
52.82121
58.17116

5.76509
5.33785
.44336
52.18891

44.29089
28.59091
21.98363
16.38503









R-223
R-224
R-225

R-226
R-227
R-228
R-229

R-230
R-231
R-232
R-233

R-234
R-235
R-236
R-237

R-238
R-239


20 1.14032
19 50.61561


51 57.97824
51 52.42223
51 49.65176


27.16029
14.68244
7.39729

51.03084
41.95285
32.13147
26.44934

17.03970
8.64415
57.41317
49.88978

38.91492
30.70144
20.50328
11.26441


81 50 48.35392
81 50 44.15880


47.71805
42.97784
37.09674
30.31145

25.27479
19.14533
15.35570
9.86320

5.97748
2.51162
56.72089
54.25970




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