/104p;L

Investigations of Isolated Sand Shoals

and Associated Deposits

Virginia Inner Shelf

Final Contract Report

Primarily in the Form of a Data Report

for

U. S . Department of the Interior

Minerals Management Service

Cooperative Agreement 14-35-0001-130643

via

Bureau of Economic Geology

University of Texas at Austin

and

Virginia Division of Mineral Resources

by

C. H. Hobbs, III

Virginia Institute of Marine Science

College of William & Mary

Gloucester Point, Virginia

March 1996
Investigations of Isolated Sand Shoals

and Associated Deposits

Virginia Inner Shelf

Final Contract Report

Primarily in the Form of a Data Report

for

U. S . Department of the Interior

Minerals Management Service

Cooperative Agreement 14-35-0001-1:30643

via

Bureau of Economic Geology

University of Texas at Austin

and

Virginia Division of Mineral Resources

by

C. H. Hobbs, III

Virginia Institute of Marine Science

College of William & Mary

Gloucester Point, Virginia

March 1996
FORWARD

This report is the final project report for the work performed under U . S . Department

of the Interior, Minerals Management Service (MMS), Cooperative Agreement 14-35-0001-

130643, performed by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), College of William

and Mary under contract with the Virginia Division of Mineral Resources, the Bureau of

Economic Geology at the University of Texas acting as agent for MMS .

The work described herein reflects the efforts of many people . S. M. Kimball, C. R.

Berquist, Jr., and C. H. Hobbs, III variously served as Principal Investigator. Several

individuals, especially C . S . Hardaway and D. A. Milligan, provided significant assistance in

both interpretation and actual work . C. R. Berquist, Jr . has provided continued assistnace and

encouragement. The high resolution seismic profiling was performed with the valuable aid of

the captain and crew of the R/V Bay Eagle and R. A. Gammisch . C. H. Hobbs, III prepared

this document and is responsible for any errors therein .

As was stated in an earlier report (Hardaway et al ., 1995), our work in southern

Virginia's inner continental shelf has benefitted from the commingling of several discrete

projects . In addition to the primary funding source for this report, work performed under

MMS Cooperative Agreements 14-35-0001-30731 (similarly managed through the Bureau of

Economic Geology and the Division of Mineral Resources) and 14-35-0001-30740 directly

with VIMS has contributed substantially to our understanding of the sedimentology and

Quaternary geology of the area . Often it is impossible to separate the individual

contributions .

Some of the text of this report repeats, in many cases word for word, the text of

Hardaway et al. (1995). The repetition is necessary is providing background both as to the

objectives and the geologically setting of the project .

It is our intention to continue work on Virginia's continental shelf . We will continue

to acknowledge the participation of MMS and to advise MMS of our progress and of the

products of the research
Investigations of Isolated Sand Shoals and Associated Deposits

Virginia Inner Shelf

INTRODUCTION

This report primarily serves to present minimally interpreted data from a tight spaced

set of high-resolution, seismic-reflection, sub-bottom profiles obtained during the summer of

1992. The profiles were run in the inner continental shelf adjacent to Virginia Beach,

Virginia as part of an investigation of offshore sounds potentially usable in beach nourishment

and hurricane protection projects along Virginia's Atlantic shore south of the mouth of

Chesapeake Bay . Figure 1 depicts the general study area .

Berquist and Gomillion (1993) presented an interpretation of a small portion of the

work. A larger, interpretive report (Hardaway et al., 1995) also utilizes information from this

set of sub-bottom profiles .

The full set of most recent studies builds upon, amplifies, and modifies the

interpretations of a set of earlier works especially, Shideler et al. (1972), Swift et al. (1977),

Williams (1987), Dame (1990), Kimball and Dame (1989), Kimball et al. (1991), Chen

(1992), and Chen et al. (1995).

The Problem

The primary drive behind this and the related series of projects is the need to locate

substantial quantities of sand suitable for use on along the shoreline of the city of Virginia

Beach, Virginia . In its Beach Management Plan (City Manager's Beach Management Task

Force, 1993), city officials stated " . . . from both .an economic and community identity point of

view the essence of Virginia Beach is 'the beach"' and " . . . the beaches of the City contribute

to the overall quality of life of all citizens of Virginia Beach . The beaches give identity to

the City as a coastal resort area, as such have a marked influence on the City's level of

prosperity and the well-being of its citizens." As with many coastal areas, natural forces, in

some areas accelerated by man's activities, attack the beach and decrease its size and thus

lessen its effectiveness as both a "draw" and a line of protection from the effects of storms .

The city and the U . S . Army Corps of Engineers have developed plans for replenishing the

beach and for constructing works to absorb the impacts of hurricanes . Both sets of projects

require significant quantities of sand .

Quoting from Hardaway et al. (1995)

The City of Virginia Beach is faced with an ongoing problem of erosion

along its ocean beaches . The "Resort Strip," the backbone of beach-going

tourism in the Commonwealth, must be renourished annually . Steel bulkheads

or sea walls have been constructed along most of the 7 km (4.5 mile) ocean

shoreline of Sandbridge, a semi-private, ocean-side community . The City is
1 Resort Strip, Virginia

Beach, Virginia

2 Sandbridge, Virginia

3 Buckroe Beach, Hampton,

Virginia

4 Ocean City, Maryland

5 Washington, DC

' •' ..

_ . .,.

: ;

~. :

.r.' ~

r- .~

. . .~. _

; ~^ . .

+ . ~ . .

. •'. ,~.

s :' ~ . ~ ~ . .. .

.• - . _ . .

• •.

• . ., .

•i . , ' i

.

. L

• . .

. . . . -.~

.Y ~ W t

Y

Q

a

<

i c. W a

3 4 U

: ,-

-

2

. ~r . : . .'.

4

Z

IrT

C.~

O

C.~

f=

z

Q

J

~

Q

. '~.~

3

-•!• k m 100 r

0 n mi 5

Figure 1: Map depicting the location of the study area and other sites mentioned in the study .

the box in the bottom center represents the area shown in Figure 2 and in the track line maps

in Appendix 1 .
looking for beach material to reestablish its sandy coast . Maintaining a

protective and recreational beach is the primary goal in both locales .

Previous sources of sand for the "Resort Strip" have been upland

borrow pits that either have closed or are located too far from the shore for

economically feasible truck-haul . Most recent nourishment efforts have relied

on a large dredge material stockpile at Lynnhaven Inlet. Although, this

stockpile is adequate at present for beach nourishment, it must be transported

by truck and its future as a sand resource is not certain .

Nearshore borrow areas have been utilized with success at several

locations around the U .S. including the nearby sites of Ocean City, MD and

Hampton, VA. Two projects were constructed at Ocean City, MD, in 1988 and

1990-91 with of 1 .8 x 106 m3 (2 .4 x 10

6

cy (cubic yards)) and 2 x 10

6

m3 (2.7

x 106 cy) of suitable beach fill being mined and placed respectively .

Hampton's Buckroe Beach was supplied with 210 x 103 m' (275 x 103 cy) of

offshore borrow material from Thimble Shoals, Chesapeake Bay in August

1990 (Hobbs and Kimball, 1990; Hobbs, 1993) .

Since the installation of steel bulkheads in 1987, Sandbridge essentially

has lost its subaerial beach . The site never has been nourished ; however recent

overtures by the City and the U .S. Army Corps of Engineers indicate a

potential partnership . Truck hauling sand is feasible with very'good upland

source about 22 road km (14 miles) away in the Pungo Ridge . However,

offshore sand reserves occur at "Sandbridge Shoal" less than 3 n mi offshore

and likely are a viable, less expensive sand source for beach nourishment .

In the summer of 1995 the U . S . Navy began the paperwork process

intended to lead to the eventual mining of 5.35 X 105 m3 (7 x 105 cy) for

nourishment of 2,829 m (9,280 ft) of beach in front of the facility at Dam

Neck, an area immediately north of Sandbridge . The discussion of potential

reserves of sand for Sandbridge applies equally the Navy's to Dam Neck

facility . Indeed the Navy proposes to use one of the sources, "Sandbridge

Shoal" addressed in this and previous reports .

The work reported upon in this and earlier reports was undertaken to assist in the

search for sand suitable for use on the shores of Virginia Beach .

GEOLOGICAL SETTING

A basic understanding of the regional geology is essential as a starting point for the

interpretation of the sub-bottom profiles reported upon in this report . Therefore it is

advantageous to reproduce another portion of Hardaway et al. (1995)

The inner continental shelf of the Commonwealth of Virginia is the

subaqueous extension of the Coastal Plain Province . Several stratigraphic units

3
that have been identified in outer coastal plain (Peebles et al., 1984). These

units range from Pliocene to Late Pleistocene in age and are overlain by a

veneer of modern Holocene sediments that have been transported into the area

from shoreline sources and the Chesapeake Bay and have been reworked from

the older, underlying strata .

Williams's (1987) analysis and interpretation of seismic data, which is

based upon Shideler et al. (1972), indicates that the stratigraphy of the Virginia

inner continental shelf to depth of about 45 m(150 ft) ( :MSL) consists of four

primary and distinct sedimentary units separated by unconformities, indicated

as sharp reflectors, of regional extent . Reflector 1, the top of the deepest and

oldest unit, Unit A (Shideler et al., 1972), is about -36 m (-120 ft) MSL . The

depth and acoustic character suggest this surface to be the top of the Yorktown

Formation (Unit A), a major erosional surface throughout the Virginia Coastal

Plain . The Yorktown Formation was deposited during the Pliocene .

The next, younger sedimentary sequence, Unit B, is characterized by

planar stratification and prominent channels showing considerable relief with

thalweg depths to -30 m(-100 ft) MSL . According to Williams (1987), their

structural nature and stratigraphic position suggest the channels were eroded

during the late Pleistocene ocean-level lowstands when rivers, such as the

ancestral Susquehanna and James, flowed eastward across the then subaerially

exposed continental shelf. Vibracores from this unit contain yellowish-brown

coarse sand and gravel that suggest a fluvial origin. These channel deposits

were determined to offer the greatest potential for sand and gravel resources in

the area (Williams, 1987) .

Unit C, the next younger sedimentary unit, is characterized by a gray

moist clay with high plasticity . The surface of Unit C is at depth of

approximately -18 m (60 ft) MSL with some cores recovering 6 m(20 ft) of

clay. The fine grained size and uniform character of Unit C suggest a lowenergy depositional environment such as an estuary or back-barrier lagoon

(Williams, 1987) . Shideler et al. (1972) obtained two radiocarbon dates from

Unit C that put the stratum at 20 .5 to 26 .0 Ka that suggest deposition during

the middle to late Wisconsinian highstand .

The youngest and shallowest sedimentary stratum is Unit D, which

comprises much of the surficial sediments except in areas where Unit B and C

outcrop on the seabed . Unit D is characterized by a gray to tan fine to medium

sand or muddy sand with modern shell fauna . Unit D is the modern sand sheet

that originated during the Holocene transgression .

The four major stratigraphic units are separated from one another by

regional reflectors thought to be regional unconformities (Shideler et al ., 1972) .

For the interested'reader Toscano and York (1992) attempt to put units A

through D into the context of the middle Atlantic Coastal plain and shelf .

4
More recently Chen (199) and Chen et al. (1995) discuss filled channel

systems in the inner continental shelf south of the Chesapeake Bay entrance .

Foyle (1994) and Oertel and Foyle (1995) discuss the seismic stratigraphy of

the inner shelf offshore from the Delmarva Peninsula .

Hardaway et al. (1995) itself adds to the understanding of the regional geology with

its conclusions emphasizing the complexity of the geology and the potential importance of

filled Pleistocene (?) channels to the sand reserve .

METHODS

The data-set reported upon in this document is a set of (very-) high-resolution,

seismic-reflection profiles (Hobbs and Dame, 1992) obtained in the summer of 1992 . The

lines were run aboard VIMS's R/V Bay Eagle. Although the ship usually was steered

following loran-c navigation, actual positions were documented and recorded from a

freestanding ( no differential correction) GPS system .

The seismic data were developed with a system consisting of a Datasonics SBT-220

transceiver, TTV-120 towed transduce vehicle, and tow cable and either or both an EPC 3202

or EPC 4800 graphics recorder . The SBT-220 allows easy switching among 3 .5, 5 and 7 kHz

transmitted signals and provides simple filtering and amplification capabilities . Virtually all

of the work was performed at 3 .5 kHz as that frequency empirically produced the best results .

The usual sweep rate of the graphic recorders was 63 ms (1/16 s) variously with a repetition

or firing rate of 0 .125 or 0.25 s (1/8 or 1/4 s) . The sweep rate yields a full scale

approximately equivalent to 47 .5 m of penetration using an acoustic velocity of 1,500 m s"' .

This slightly underestimates depth in the sediment column as actual acoustic velocities in the

sediment likely are somewhat greater . The seismic data exist on paper only ; they were not

recorded on electronic media .

After returning to the lab the data were processed in the following ways . Navigation

information was reviewed and the data were edited or "cleaned up" by removing obviously

erroneous points . Next a set of files containing times of individual fixes noted on the graphic

records and corresponding latitudes and longitudes for each "line" was assembled and x-y

plots depicting each line were prepared . These plots are presented, with additional

information, in the appendix .

Initial interpretation of the graphic records involved tracing of prominent reflectors on

a clear overlay . The tracings and the original records then were physically reduced with an

office copy machine . Further reduced copies of both sets of images also are in the appendix .

Finally, after studying the "raw" and traced data, each line was drawn in an interpretive

sketch at a constant scale . The sketches, also in the appendix, began with the construction of

a horizontally corrected baseline with a horizontal scale of 1 cm to 500 m(the original

graphic records are time, not distance, based) . Also the sketches all were constructed with

west or north to the left to facilitate correlation of features from line to line . The lines

representing the sea-floor reflection and prominent sub-bottom reflectors then were drawn to a

vertical scale of 1 cm to 10 m(or 1 cm to 13 .3 ms two-way-travel-time at 1,500 m s 1)(3 cm

5
to 30 m or 40 ms) .

Significant features from each line, usually filled channels, were marked in proper

place on an overlay to the line map, the same overlay being used for all lines . Finally once

again the lines themselves were reviewed individually and collectively to assist in the

development of an overall sense of the geology.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Virtually all of shoals that appear in the seismic lines that were obtained during this

study exist as discrete bodies atop a reflector that appears to be the continuation of the

adjacent sea floor. The shoals, which might be characterized as discontinuous surficial sand

bodies, are analogous to Unit D as described by earlier authors, e .g . Shideler et al (1972).

However the stratigraphic section itself is more complex than the relatively simple A, B, C, D

layer-cake model .

Although the field methods employed in this study do not allow reflector by reflector

correlation across more than two or three lines, it is apparent that there are more significant

reflectors than accounted for in the simple model . But given more knowledge of the details

of the regional Pleistocene history, this is not surprising . In their analysis of the regional

stratigraphy, Toscano and York (1992) portray Units A and B and Reflector 1, of Shideler et

al. (1972) and more recent authors as being of Pliocene age and Reflector B as being the

Pliocene-Pleistocene boundary . Thus leaving Unit C as a single unit spanning the entir

Pleistocene and the discontinuous Unit D as the (usually) active, surficial, Holocene

sedimentary unit.

Given three major low-stands of sea level during the span of Unit C, regionally

indicated by the Exmore, Belle Haven, and Eastville paleochannels and the post-Unit C,

Pleistocene ending Cape Charles paleochannel (Colman and Hobbs, 1987, 1988 ; Colman and

Mixon, 1988; Colman et al ., 1990; Foyle, 1994 ; Oertel and Foyle, 1995) in Chesapeake Bay,

one would expect to see profound evidence of the series of transgression and regressions in

the stratigraphy record within Unit C . Additionally, Toscano (1992) a set of sea-level

oscillations during oxygen isotope level 5, the last Plesistocene high-stnd of sea level that

would have affected what is today the inner continental shelf. Thus it is valid to assume that

the Pleistocene stratigraphy record is more complex than has previously been described and

that the complexity is manifest in the seismic records .

The present work also modifies Chen's (Chen, 1992 ; Chen et al., 1995) description of

the network of filled paleochannels imbedded in the sediments of the shelf . The major

channel system identified in the data-set reported upon herein is substantially broader than

was indicated in the earlier studies . The present data also tend to confirm the complexity of

the other channe networks . Figure 2 is a sketch map of the major channel systems evident in

the present data .

Viewed in the context of prospecting for sand, the data define two modes or models of

deposit. One model is the discrete, surficial shoal ; the other channel fill . Although both

6
types of deposit are easily discernable in the seismic record, both require determination of

actual material and confirmation of size by actual physical sampling . And that physical

sampling must be in the three dimensional . An appropriate network of cores is essential to

define the horizontal and vertical variability of sediment characteristics so as to enable precise

calculations of the quantity of material available and the careful. delineation of the areas

proposed for mining .

7
9 P

}

P A

.

1 t

Cl

1 1 1 1 1

60 60

66

60

46

40

35

.~

.

. •

•_ .

. ,

.

ti . .

• • .

66

50

46

40

36

30 ' y 30

v 0

Figure 2: A sketch map depicting the major channel systems evident in the 1992 seismic

reflection profiles . #1 is a major channel for which there is excellent control in terms of

channel width . #2 shows the trend of a lesser but also distinct channel (system?) at the

eastern limit of the 1992 data . #3 is an area within which there are numerous small channels .

8
REFERENCES CITED

Berquist, C. R., Jr. and N. Gomillion, 1993. Virginia Beach Offshore Sediment Study for the

1992-1993 Shore Erosion Research and Technical Analysis Program. Contract Report,

Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William & Mary, Gloucester Point,

VA., 9p .

Chen, Z.-Q., 1992 . An Investigation of the Late Pleistocene Systems in the Continental Shelf,

South of Chesapeake Bay Mouth. Unpublished Master's Thesis, School of Marine

Science, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William & Mary, Gloucester

Point, VA . 99.

Chen, Z.-Q., C .H. Hobbs, III, J .F. Wehmiller, and S .M. Kimball, 1995 . Late Quaternary

paleochannel systems on the continental shelf, south of the Chesapeake Bay entrance .

Journal of Coastal Research, 11(3) :605-614.

City Manager's Beach Management Task Force, 1993 . City of Virginia Beach, Beach

Management Plan. City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, 121p .

Colman, S. M. J . P . Halka, C . H. Hobbs, R . B . Mixon, and D. S . Foster, 1990 . Ancient

channels of the Susquehanna River beneath Chesapeake Bay and the delmarva

Peninsula. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 102 :1268-1279.

Colman, S. M. and C . H. Hobbs, III, 1987. Quaternary geology of the northern Virginia part

of the Chesapeake Bay . U. S . Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Investigtions

Map MF-1948-B .

Colman, S. M. and C . H. Hobbs, III, 1988 . Quaternary geology of the southern Virginia part

of the Chesapeake Bay . U. S . Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Investigtions

Map MF-1948-A.

Colman, S. M. and R . B. Mixon, 1988 . The record of major Quaternary sea-level changes in

a large Coastal Plain estuary, Chesapeake Bay, eastern United States . Palaeography,

Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 68 :99-116.

Dame, J.K.,II, 1990. Origin of a Solitary Sand Shoal Offshore of Sandbridge Beach,

Virginia . Unpublished Master's Thesis, School of Marine Science, Virginia Institute

of Marine Science, College of William & Mary, Gloucester Point, VA, 94p.

Foyle, A. M., 1994 . Quaternary Seismic Stratigraphy of the Inner Shelf and Coastal Zone,

southern Delmarva Peninsula, Virginia . Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Old

Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, 492p .

Hardaway, C. S ., c . H. Hobbs, III, and D . A. Milligan, 1995 . Investigations of Offshore

Beach Sands : Virginia Beach and Sandbridge, Virginia . Contract Report, Virginia

Institute of Marine Science, College of William & Mary, Gloucester Point, VA, 16p .

9
Hobbs, C. H. III and J. K. Dame, II, 1992 . Very-high-resolution; seismic-reflection profiling

and other acoustic techniques with examples from Virginia . In Geyer, R . A. (ed .)

CRC Handbook of Geophysical Exploration at Sea, 2nd Edition, Hard Minerals . CRC

Press, Boca Raton, FL. 193-211 .

Hobbs, C.H. III and S .M. Kimball, 1990 . Sand resources in lower Chesapeake Bay . Marine

Mining, 9 :429-440.

Kimball, S.M. and J.K. Dame, II, 1989 . Geotechnical Evaluation of Sand Resources on the

Inner Shelf of Southern Virginia . Final Report to the City of Virginia Beach in Two

Volumes. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William & Mary,

Gloucester Point, VA .

Kimball, S.M., J .K. Dame, II, and C .H. Hobbs, III, 1991 . Investigation of Isolated Sand

Shoals on the Inner Shelf of Southern Virginia . Final Contract Report . Virginia

Institute of Marine Science, College of William & Mary., Gloucester Point, VA. 73p.

plus Appendices .

Oertel, G. F. and A. M. Foyle, 1995 . Drainage displacement by sea-level fluctuation at the

outer margin of the Chesapeake Seaway . Journal of Coastal Research, 11(3) :583-604.

Shideler, G .L., D.J .P. Swift, G .H. Johnson, and B .W. Holliday, 1972 . Late Quaternary

stratigraphy of the inner Virginia Shelf : A proposed standard section . Geological

Society of America Bulletin, 83 :1787-1804.

Swift, D.J .P., T . Nelson, J . McHone, B. Holliday, H . Palmer, and G . Shideler, 1977 .

Holocene evolution of the inner shelf of southern Virginia . Journal of Sedimentary

Petrology, 47:1454-1474.

Toscano, M. A., 1992 . Record of Oxygen Isotope Stage 5 on the Maryland inner shelf and

Atlantic Coastal plain - a post-transgressive-highstand regime . in Fletcher, C . H., III

and J. F Wehmiller (eds .) Quaternary Coasts of the United States : Marine and

Lacustrine Systems, SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology) Special Publication No .

48, 89-99 .

Toscano, M. A. and L. L. York, 1992. Quaternary stratigraphy and sea-level history of the

U.S . middle Atlantic coastal plain . Quaternary Science Reviews, 11 :301-328.

Williams, S.J ., 1987 . Geological Framework and Sand Resources of Quaternary Deposits

Offshore Virginia, Cape Henry to Virginia Beach . U.S. Geological Survey Open-File

Report 87-667 . 60p .

10
APPENDIX

Each page in this Appendix represents one of the sub-bottom profiles reported upon in the

preceeding text . At the top of each page is a scaled sketch of the profile . As part of the

drawing process the profiles were oriented with either north or west to the left in order to

facilitate comparisons of adjacent lines even though the original data may have had opposite

orientatons . A simple regional map depicting the shoreline and the location of the line

occupies the bottom left of each page . The bottom right contains reduced copies of the

original graphic recording and a tracing taken from the original .

11
Line # 104, July 92-7

O N S . . 0

1

0

10 ~ .

m• 20 ~

20 - - -• - •-- ^ ~

2

•30 ~ cm I 140

LINE 104

i l9 3 'Y t W

W

66

EO

q

30

11

I1

b ~ 3 'Y 7 IR R
E ~1

°a -f"TT-1-'T'T-r

R

I

60~

k

~ 46 .

44

s

LIVE 105

5 p f W ~q

TnW M

66

60

46

.e

s

` d 3 4 W ;~

Line #105, July 92-8
Line #106, July 92-9

LIfE 106

Y

8 16 ~ ~Y i N R

C.i

EQ

N

i

p~ I~ ~ 7 N R
Line #107, July 92-10

m

l.a

B.

~

6

M1

~

M

X

~I M

= ~ ~ : R R

~~

D E„

H

s

yo

N SD

LINE 107

~ M

8 IB 3 Y ? N R
N S

Line #108, July 92-11

O d

2fl

3 Om

46

~

.~

.~

z

p

! A

I I

2

k

A A

N

K

w

s

~

Y

r Y A A A__

~

.

,. .

LINE t(98

! IA E +C Y
Line #109, July 92-12

o `''~ ~- - ----- Eo

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

M 10 ~

7,0

0 1 2

g km -4. o

LIrE 189

a a ~ v 7

Od

w

w

~

~

s

W R

M

w

s

w

a

Y F 31 p Q W R
LINE 110

8 tll 8 +C i R ?I

~ T"TTTTrf- rTT1TrTTTT Li

w

S . . . .0

~

~

~

~

K

60

46

N

i

~ Y 7 M, P9

Line #110. .Tulv 92-13

1 .v+

wl'+ ---.~.--~'- :~--- - ~--- ++ . nt; +1

~. .`~

: .- . . .-A

ll(_ .

/I
Line #111, July 92-14

0 0

N

t ~

e

~

30- _ qO

66

52

46

LInE 1! t

b ~ ~ W 1 W p

M

s

K

K

N

s

LV

!d t . p t

~$ IN 3. Y 7 ,9 II~
Line #112, July 92-15

LINE 112

g ~ ~ v T W A

w

w

~

b

w

~

~

.
Line #113, July 92-16

~1 `S o

~

~

2

I

3 D

L?It. 113

t d ~t i 7 RW

w r1-~--r---rr-r-r-rrT-r-r-r-rT-rr-rTTTrr-~-rr-'rt N

~

~

a

~

s

~

° --- - -

°

~

_2

-

a

r k i ~

-5

cs

w

N

x

3. x

8 IA 5t 7 R R
Line #114, July 92-17

IINE 114

.o a

7 ~g Z V 9 M A

~

K

M

i

K

W

K.0

i

I

I

-

~ ` . s .

i

~ .

~

3

.1-4111 1' I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1~1 1 ~ Ll ~

b ~ t Y t 19 R
T : - .. 1i l -9 E, T --t-- nn -9 o

LINE 115

~ A 4 Y 9 K K

m

66

6i

16

N

~

rrrr- -r-r-rl -rr-rTm-r- -rr-m-rr

F

rr

.E

r

~-----

~~

Y 1

66

68

.6

M

x

8 B : i K R" 1

~

~\

\

. ° ' ° - ----~- ~ :
Line #116, July 92-19

1b ~

oN Sb

0 2

Mti ~

~

w

L S

3 v

LINE 116

~

{ ~ ~ ~P 7 A A

E6

47

~

~

=

F M

Ir

F

r

rrrr m rr rr-r r

~

r

~

1

-L-'_L1! 1 -

u

ec

~

N

m

•~ ~ ; Y 7 K' R

A ~ GS . ~~ GS G1 1
Line #117, July 92-20

so

1

t

t'

va ~ 10

~

/

m' f~TTT

61i

60

I

4 6

t

M

E

LINE 117

g ~ i i4 A

fTTTTT-1T-rrr-t N

K

5i

.Y

W

N

f

3 0 W 1 I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 ._u 30

a ~ s o M M

o 2

km ~

.
a

C

~

~

~

~

00

h

~

~

~

~

N

N

T-4

s ~ a ~ s x

~

~-C

.~-

.-

_1 ~

,~ Am

w25'

A

.^

1 ')

1 -1

~ Jyll

h9c

w'
Line #119, July 92-22

_w

~

M

~

LINE t :y

i 19 Sc +V ~ W !9

~

66

EQ

b

N

7:

p

M

K

61

K

N

i

30

2 ~ N ~ 7 p A

E+

~

. I

4f^~; ~ .h .' ;

. \ /
Line #120, July 92-23

w

m

L I t1E 120

N N

g ~1 5 w Z W A

w

s

40

_

K

~

s

40

x

A

N

~

D

38 y

t ~ a o a r.
Line #121, July 92-25

LIIE 121

8 IR S V 9 W M

+~ FiTTrT1TTT~f~rTTTTfrrrr7TfTT-rT-r"1 M

~

~

~

I

46 r

4e

i

K

ea

w

N

. %

j -1x--

~ i ry r r i

y__y

1y M

8 ! S 9 7 M !1
a

. .,

C

~

~

~--1

N

N

h

~

G1

N

N~

N

\\

\\

I r--I .1

O

~

~

wscc-

~ s.-

J

wB09-

s

w-

~-

. -

AK9 it 3 T Y R R

E

i

E
Line #123, July 92-27

w

M

w

R

aY

~

E

K

K

8

40

]G

~I' H

1 ~ 3l ~ 7 4 M

L IrL t2S

x w t A ~M

E

v

zo ~

N

~

t 0
Line #124, July 92-28

%ov

V%O%

5 p

G

6J

45

V

LINE 124

~ ~B ! W PI

Y

66

60

45

N

K

x

'Y 7 '9 A

~

'.. o'

~

E

,

y

; ,~ .
Line #125, July 92-29

~

5J

~

~

%

~

fi

fJ

K

M

i

M

2% ~ M{ A

LINF- 125

a ~ ; 7 9 W i9

J , ' N
:.Ie .= 1?6

~ rT-rr-rT'rrrr r-r-r-r~---r-rrr-rr-I---r

~ ~

; rr •~

w y K

~

w

yt f ?

{0

a

.e

) :

--" )~

. 7 Fl M

1' .ine #12(- Tnlv 92-30

~ ~ .

U © h~ Ai o ~
Line #127, July 92-31

b d

~

to

LIrL 127

i IN ~ ~ 7 W 19

e° ~'1-T"(""rT.-iT~TTTTT7T'T-rTT"TrT'TrT s~

:b cs

~

w

.x

x

~~

~

-{ s

e ~

•a

x

:_L:_LLL!_LLLLJ UL_Ll .l ~.

~ g t 7 9 N

~ 1 2

~ I

~' " I
Line #128, July 92-32

LIrrE 120

S 16 g 'i i W ?

~ ri'fTrTT'T"rf7 TT"1TT °~

F,-

b6 K

B

16 I \ ~ ~

N

E

40

i

~

P.
oN S

Line #129, July 92-33

lp '-T km 7

Zo ~

H

~

_It£ 129

Y yi } Y i W PI

58 ' si

Ft ~

~

r

~~ 68

~r

.5 r \ . j i5

W

~

y

i

•0

%

H
Line #130, July 92-34

o N S n

zo

D ~

~ ~an ~

K

r

rr

F

r

r

F

.a ~

~

~

I

T

y .. . .~1

K

6.

•s

N

U
Line #131, July 92-36

0

l0 ~ l

:ill

3 ~ 4 o

is

fa

.e

K

s

c

~

~

(~3 G

~IN°_ 131

~l ~ 3 . i 9 A
Line #132, July 92-37

0

to

n1 -- Ip ~

2-V

.1 \ ~ H

I 8

L IrE 132

! Id 8 ~P 9 W A

K

6i

.b

~

~

~

M

K

69

.s

z

30

~

co
Line #133, July 92-38

_ : rE 123

} y } ~•

~ (-TT-rTf1_.i_

~

~ .

~

w

w

s:

66

rA

45

w

s

]0

/

.~

Y !4 At

N

i ti
Line #134, July 92-39

b W . ~

U l~ L

~o .

~i /ll ~ ~tv

31

l.?ti 134

Y b fi, 4?

4, I

9 R R

N

~

r

r~

~

~

K F E r

C

F

~

Ir

2 ~ -

K

5?

,!

36

,

i ~I R
Line #135, July 92-40

to ~

~

3

~

Y -- -

K

W

-G

N

E

L INE ,35

Y

J i L

lan

Lo

_ - - - J~

0

4

K

K

6

N

i

5 ~ 9{ Y ! W R
Line #136, July 92-41

ow ~

t

1-0

E

.00

a

sw

~

w

s

0 2

n

o lcm

`~ -

30 ~ ~t

~lG

D

L

W PI

c

INE 136

5 d ~ V 7

~
Line #137, July 92-42

aW

w ~

r%. N

8

3 ~tn

LIrF_ 137

9 18 t +e ' W A

W ~-'~TTTTTTrTTT"T1TrrTTTT~IT-Tr"1 N

~

6J

~ .

• . ~

x

x

K

6Y

~

s

s

a ~ s r ~ w ~

0 1~ 2~

km

lO

J

- r, ~
Line #138, July 92-43

~~ Eo

0 2

~

rl

to

n

f6

~

N

1

W A

M

p

69

46

N

%

LIr+E 1JB

9 tA A V f

s ~ a s ~ x n
r

~l60 ~-

~~ \ .

~

_I11= ,7q

. r At a

~

1

N

1

1

1_~L1_Ll _J ~

. r ? P

r--

~ ~~ ~- --~-~-~---i -~- ~

. ,. . •

t .l

Line #139, July 92-44

b

~ C ~