Citation
Projected flood hazard lines for Lee County, Florida

Material Information

Title:
Projected flood hazard lines for Lee County, Florida
Series Title:
Projected flood hazard lines for Lee County, Florida
Creator:
Dean, Robert G.
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publisher:
Coastal & Oceanographic Engineering Dept. of Civil & Coastal Engineering, University of Florida
Language:
English

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

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
IN TR O D U CTIO N .......................................................... I
TH E SETTIN G ............................................................ I
PR O CED U RE S ............................................................ I
R E SU L T S ................................................................ 3
Shoreline Change Rates ................................................. 3
Aerial Photographs With Projected Flood Hazard Lines ......................... 6
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .......................................... 10
R EFER EN CE ............................................................ 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




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) D ata Set .................................................. 4
3 Plot of 3 Methods of Historical Shoreline Change Analysis Using 1972-1989 Data
S et . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4 Histogram of Shoreline Change Rates Using Least Squares Method for the (18581989) D ata Set ........................................................ 7
5 Histogram of Shoreline Change Rates Using the Least Squares Method for the
(1972-1989) D ata 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/Azone 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 Hligh Water (MH-W), 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 SLIWE is that its higher position on the profile than that of M1IHW 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 SLIWE (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 6 8
Scale:

R- 1
R- 10
R- 20
Charlotte R- 30 Harbor
R- 40
R- 50
R- 60 C aptiva
7,Pass R- 70

R- 80 1 Red Fish
a Pass

R-110

R-1~O R-130
R-140
R- 150

R-180
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 1FDEP 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 termn 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)
Metho 1 Least Squares End Point Foste
Least Squares 1.00 0.9875 0.8562
End Point 0.9875 1.00 0.8491
Foster 0.8562 1 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- 20

Figure 2

R-180 R-190 R-200 R-210
R-2 l j R-220 R-230

Legend Methods:
- LLSQ
-- END-PT
- FOSTER




Average Shoreline Change Rate (ft/yr)
(-ve Values Indicate Recession)
0 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-1
R 10
R- 20
Charlotte R- 30 Harbor

R-180
R-190
R-200
Legend Methods: R-210
- LLSQ R-20
....... END-PT .
- FOSTER R-23
e 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 Proiected 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
30
S20
-
z
10
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
20
(U Q0
15
0
0
0
,.Q m
0
*0
z ,
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 0
-.o q o .C.D qo o~ Co q D CD C 0
I I I I I I
Shoreline Change Rate (ft/yr) (-ye Values Indicate Erosion)
Figure 5 Histogram of Shoreline Change Rates Using the Least Squares Method
for the (1972-1989) Data Set.




Legend:
SHWLI
V14 15-VI4 13All 12All 11-All 10 -------All 9 -

Figure 18. Portion of Lee 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.




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 frill 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 termn 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
T. = (E +E2)




in which E1 and E2 are the errors associated with the data at times t, and t2, respectively and R1 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 COUNI4TY




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

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

15 27.05573 15 24.03159 15 23.78180

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

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

26 35 26 35 26 34

B-2




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-8 4 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
22.5207 8 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. 282 62 56. 57580 46. 06533
36. 88713 26. 75229 17.2 6210 5. 52427
57.92118 47.5978 6 36. 58098 27.83628

26 29 17.2727382 1 4349

47.87730 42.19970 37.59088 33.94687
29. 89931 21.87102 15. 723 68 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. 038 68 13.50979 7.93598

82 11 4.31449




R-108 R-109 R-110
R-111 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




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

51 57.97824 51 52.42223
51 49.65176

47.71805
42.97784 37.09674
30.31145
2S.27479
19.14533 15.35570 9.86320
5.97748 2.51162 56.72089 54.25970

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

81 50 48.35392 81 50 44.15880