• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Main
 Appendix
 Appendix
 Appendix














Group Title: UFLCOEL-2000001
Title: Continued development of program to quantify shoreline changes, Lee County, Florida
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00091069/00001
 Material Information
Title: Continued development of program to quantify shoreline changes, Lee County, Florida
Series Title: UFLCOEL-2000001
Physical Description: iv, 16, A-24, B-21, C-36 : ill., maps ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Malakar, Subarna B
Dean, Robert G ( Robert George ), 1930-
Lee County (Fla.) -- Board of County Commissioners
Publisher: Dept. of Civil and Coastal Engineering, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 2000
 Subjects
Subject: Shorelines -- Monitoring -- Florida -- Lee County   ( lcsh )
Coast changes -- Florida -- Lee County   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (leaf 16).
Statement of Responsibility: Subarna B. Malakar, Robert G. Dean ; sponsored by Board of County Commissioners, Lee County, Florida.
General Note: "January, 2000."
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00091069
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.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 49506073

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page i
    Table of Contents
        Page ii
        Page iii
        Page iv
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
    Appendix
        Page A-0
        Page A-1
        Page A-2
        Page A-3
        Page A-4
        Page A-5
        Page A-6
        Page A-7
        Page A-8
        Page A-9
        Page A-10
        Page A-11
        Page A-12
        Page A-13
        Page A-14
        Page A-15
        Page A-16
        Page A-17
        Page A-18
        Page A-19
        Page A-20
        Page A-21
        Page A-22
        Page A-23
        Page A-24
    Appendix
        Page B-0
        Page B-1
        Page B-2
        Page B-3
        Page B-4
        Page B-5
        Page B-6
        Page B-7
        Page B-8
        Page B-9
        Page B-10
        Page B-11
        Page B-12
        Page B-13
        Page B-14
        Page B-15
        Page B-16
        Page B-17
        Page B-18
        Page B-19
        Page B-20
        Page B-21
    Appendix
        Page C-0
        Page C-1
        Page C-2
        Page C-3
        Page C-4
        Page C-5
        Page C-6
        Page C-7
        Page C-8
        Page C-9
        Page C-10
        Page C-11
        Page C-12
        Page C-13
        Page C-14
        Page C-15
        Page C-16
        Page C-17
        Page C-18
        Page C-19
        Page C-20
        Page C-21
        Page C-22
        Page C-23
        Page C-24
        Page C-25
        Page C-26
        Page C-27
        Page C-28
        Page C-29
        Page C-30
        Page C-31
        Page C-32
        Page C-33
        Page C-34
        Page C-35
        Page C-36
        Page C-37
        Page C-38
Full Text
UFL/COEL-2000/001


CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT OF PROGRAM
TO QUANTIFY SHORELINE CHANGES,
LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA




January, 2000




Subarna B. Malakar
Robert G. Dean










Sponsored by:

Board of County Commissioners
Lee County, Florida




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








TABLE OF CONTENTS





I INTRODUCTION ................................................................. 1

II BRIEF REVIEW OF PREVIOUS WORK .................................. 2

III FIELD PROGRAM..................................... ..................... 2

IV IMAGE PROCESSING........................................... ............. 5

V RESULTS....... ............................................................. ..... ....... 9

VI COSTS OF APPLYING THE METHODOLOGY....................... 15

VII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...................................... 15

VIII ACKNOWLEGEMENTS ............................................... 16

IX REFERENCES ...................................................................... 16









FIGURE

1 Location Map of Study Area, Lee County, Florida ........................... 1

2 Location of MHWL on a Beach Profile and Plan View of the Monuments
and the Shoreline Location ....................................... .............. 4

3 Example of an Aerial Photograph................................................ 5

4 The Same Aerial Photograph of Figure 3 With Gulfside
of the Shore Blackened ............................................................. 6

5 Intensity Profile at DEP Monument R-98 in Captiva Island,
L ee C county ...................................................................... .. .. 7

6 Scanning Path of the Intensity Profiles Between the 2 Monuments ........... 8

7 Example of a Beach Profile Survey ................................................ 9

8 MHW Distances From 1998 Photograph Versus 1998 Surveys
for Lovers Key, Lee County ................................................. 10

9 MHW Distances From 1998 Photograph Versus 1998 Surveys
for Captiva Island, Lee County ................................................... 10

10 MHW Distances From 1999 Photograph Versus 1999 Surveys
for Lovers Key, Lee County ................................................. 11

11 MHW Distances From 1999 Photograph Versus 1999 Surveys
for Captiva Island, Lee County .................................................... 11

12 Long Term Standard Deviations Along the Coastline of Captiva Island,
Lee County (1858-1989) ...................................... ............ .. 13

13 Short Term Standard Deviations Along the Coastline of Captiva Island,
Lee County (1972-1989) ...................................... ............ .. 13

14 Long Term Standard Deviations Along the Coastline of Lovers Key,
Lee County (1858-1989) .......................... ...................... .. 13

15 Short Term Standard Deviations Along the Coastline of Lovers Key,
Lee County (1972-1989) ......... ................................ ............. 14

16 Example of Continuous MHW Shoreline Determined From Photograph .. 14









TABLES


1 The DEP and Other Monument Identifications Located on Captiva Island
and Lovers Key, Lee County Florida ................................................... 2

2 Summ ary of Analyzed Results .......................................................... 12


APPENDICES


A Plots of May 5, 1998 and August 25, 1999 Surveys With Shoreline Locations
Determined From Photographs for Captiva Island and Lovers Key, Lee County,
Florida.

B Plots of Continuous Shorelines From August, 1999 Photographs for Captiva
Island and Lovers Key, Lee County, Florida.

C Plots of Continuous Shorelines From May, 1998 Photographs for Captiva Island
and Lovers Key, Lee County, Florida.








CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT OF PROGRAM
TO QUANTIFY SHORELINE CHANGES,
LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA




I. INTRODUCTION

This report presents a method for determining shoreline positions from aerial
photographs that can then be used to quantify shoreline changes. The beaches of Captiva
Island and Lovers Key, Lee County, Florida were selected for this study. See Figure 1 for
the study site location. The objective of this study is to develop a semi-automatic method
to determine the Mean High Water (MHW) distances with respect to Department of


Location Map of Study Area,


LEE COUNTY


I. L:i2


-& .


Figure 1.


Lee County, Florida.








Environment Protection (DEP) monument locations on the aerial photographs and to
evaluate the method through comparison against the MHW distances determined from
conventional surveys. Thus following major storm events, aerial photography could be
obtained and the methodology applied to rapidly determine the severity of erosion. The
tasks comprising this study include: field work, aerial photography, image processing,
data processing and analysis. This economical method of determining shoreline positions
can be applied to any other beaches to quantify shoreline changes for beach erosion
analysis and study.

II. BRIEF REVIEW OF PREVIOUS WORK

A previous phase of this study established that aerial photography combined with several
ground truth surveys could result in determination of the MHWL locations within
approximately 11 feet to 20 feet for the two surveys conducted (Kreuzkamp and Dean,
1997). Other investigators employing aerial photography for determination of MHWL
positions had determined that the accuracies were on the order of 21 feet (Dolan, et al
(1980) and 50 feet (Fisher and Overton, 1994). These previous studies were conducted in
areas of higher wave action and thus greater wave run-up which contributes to the
uncertainties.

The purpose of the present study was to automate, to the degree possible, the
methodology such that less training, experience and judgement were required and thus
subjectivity introduced by the analyst would be minimized.

III. FIELD PROGRAM

The first of the 2 field programs was carried out during the week of May 5h, 1998;
6 monuments were located on Lovers Key and 14 monuments were located on Captiva
Island, see Table 1.

Captiva Island, Lee County Lovers Key, Lee County

CPE-84 #CPE-98 R-212
R-88 CPE-99 R-213
R-90 *R-100 R-214
R-91 *R-102 *A-42
*R-92 R-103 R-220
R-93 CPE-104 R-221
R-94 R-108 R-222
CPE-96 R-109
R-97__
Note. Indicates profiles surveyed on Aug. 25th, '99 only; # Indicate
profiles surveyed on May 5th, '98 only

Table 1. The DEP and Other Monument Identifications Located on Captiva Island
and Lovers Key, Lee County Florida.








The second field program was carried out during the week of August 25th, 1999; 7
monuments were located on Lovers Key and 16 monuments were located on Captiva
Island. For each of these monuments a large marker was placed centered on the
monument so that these monument locations could be identified on the aerial
photographs. A beach profile was surveyed along the DEP survey bearing to wading
depth for each monument. Field beach profile survey notes were reduced to compute the
MHW distance from each monument for the purpose of "ground-truthing" the MHW
distances determined from aerial photographs; the beach survey profiles are also plotted
and included in this report in Appendix A.

It is very important that a large clearly visible marker be placed securely at each
monument location until the aerial photographs are taken; detailed field notes of the
surrounding landmarks should also be taken for each monument location that could aid
later in locating the monument position on the aerial photograph. This practice also
applies to surveying beach profiles.

Following the ground field work, aerial photographs of the beaches on Lovers Key and
Captiva Island in Lee County were promptly flown on May 12th, 1998 and on August
27 1999 and 9x9 inch prints were produced at a scale of approximately 1:3000. From
the May 12th, 1998 flight, 11 aerial photographs were selected for Lovers Key and 25
for Captiva Island. From the August 27th, 1999 flight, 8 aerial photographs were selected
for Lovers Key and 14 for Captiva Island. Aerial photography should be avoided during
early mornings and late afternoons when longer shadows may be cast along the beaches
thus complicating the location of the monument markers on the ground. Also, recent
weather conditions that may affect the normal position of the shoreline should be noted
during timing of the flight when the aerial photographs were taken. An alternative to
placing markers on the monuments would be to identify several permanent and easily
identified positions on each area to be included in an aerial photograph and to establish
the State Plane Coordinates of these positions. These positions could include intersections
of lines on tennis courts, corners of swimming pools, street intersections, etc.

Unfortunately the August 1999 photographic flight was conducted early in the morning
such that long shadows extended across the beach thus making it difficult to locate the
monuments.









Figure 2 presents a sketch of a beach profile with the monument location and the MHW
location on the profile which will be determined with respect to the 1928 National
Geodetic Vertical Datum (NVGD). Figure 2 also shows an aerial plan view for each
photograph where at least 2 monuments are located with the shoreline to be determined.
The MHW elevations are 1.66 feet on Lovers Key and 1.49 feet on Captiva Island, both
relative to NGVD.


Figure 2.


Cross-Section of a Beach Profile

-Towards Land

Monument


q MHWL

Shoreline Distance

Profile


Monument
Location A Survey Line
0 -- ---











Monument
Location B
Survey Line
Q----- ------ -.



Plan



Location of MHWL on a Beach Profile and Plan View of the
Monuments and the Shoreline Location.








Most DEP survey lines are approximately normal to the shoreline. The area in the
photograph landward of the monuments and the area in the photograph seaward of the
shoreline are not used, so except for small margins in these areas, they should be cut and
removed to conserve disk storage and unnecessary processing time. It is also useful to
place a label over each monument location. Some of the top and bottom portions of each
photograph should also be cut to minimize unnecessary overlapping between adjacent
photographs.

Using the image editing tools of the Adobe Photoshop software, shade the area seaward
of the shoreline black. Familiarity with Adobe Photoshop software and practice in
locating the shoreline in different photographic lighting conditions will be necessary to
enable consistent location of the shoreline on the photographs and blacken the area
seaward of the shoreline.

Figure 3 shows an example of a cropped photograph with DEP monuments R-98 and
R-99 in Captiva Island taken on May 12th, 1998 and Figure 4 shows the same photograph
with the area gulfward of the shoreline blackened. The final edited photographs are
saved as jpg-files.


Figure 4.


The Same Aerial Photograph of Figure 3 With Gulfside of the Shore
Blacken.








IV. IMAGE PROCESSING


Before the aerial photographs or images can be processed, they are prepared as follows:

1. The first step is to select the aerial photographs to use for the study that will
provide a continuous coverage of the shoreline in the study areas and such that
two monuments can be located on each selected photograph, see Figure 3.
2. Next, two end-monuments are located and marked on each selected photograph
with the aid of all available resources such as DEP aerial photographs, field notes,
etc. For the image in Figure 3, DEP monuments R-98 and R-99 have been
selected.
3. After setting the resolution to "300 dpi, sharp black and white photograph" on the
scanner, each selected photo is scanned, for example on a HP Scanner 4c and
using HP scanning software, the scanned images are saved as tif-files.


Figure 3.


Example of a Scanned Aerial Photograph.


Next, using an image editor such as Adobe Photoshop, the shoreline in each photograph
is adjusted such that it is approximately parallel with the left edge of the photograph. The
reason for this is that it will save time and a later step from not having to compute the
shoreline distance from the monument normal to the shoreline.








In the next step, a Matlab image processing program developed inhouse is run for each
jpg-file, in which, interactively on the displayed image (photograph), with the use of the
mouse, the pixel coordinates of the two monument locations are determined including the
range of pixel coordinate values for the image. The origin of the pixel coordinates are
located on the top and left corner of the photograph with the x axis positive direction
from left to right and with the y axis positive direction from top to bottom. The physical
width of the pixel varies with the size of the photograph and thus the conversion scale
from pixel to the State Plane Coordinates may vary from one photograph to another, thus
each image is processed independent of the other photographs and nonuniform pixel size
will not affect the analysis results.

Given an image jpg-file and the data collected for each image from above, another
Matlab image processing program developed inhouse is run. This program generates a
continuous intensity profile for the specified connected line segments, see Figure 5 for an
example of the intensity profile generated through DEP monument R-98. These intensity
profiles through DEP monuments R-98 and R-99 are also plotted on Figure 4.


R-98
Intensity

MHWL Road





GULF


Figure 5. Intensity Profile at DEP Monument R-98 in Captiva Island, Lee County.


Figure 6 presents an illustration depicting the scanning by the MATLAB software
program. The length of the line segments, for instance for AB, CD, EF, etc. is fixed for
each image and the spacing between these line segments is at a fixed interval, which for
this study is set at 200 pixels apart to generate about 5 intensity profiles between
monuments. The number of intensity profiles generated depends on the maximum y-
range (parallel to shore) value specified for the image. The output of this program is an
ASCII file containing (x,y,z) values for intensity profiles for each photograph, where x
and y are the pixel coordinates (horizontal coordinates) for each intensity value z. As
noted, Figure 5 provides an example of an intensity profile passing through DEP
monument R-98; also see Figure 4 where the intensity profiles passing through the
monuments are plotted on the photograph.







































Figure 6. Scanning Path of the Intensity Profiles Between the 2 Monuments.

Notice in Figure 5 that the intensity values change sharply from 0 to some high value
indicating a tonal (color) change and a probable change from wet to dry area. The sharp
change in intensity values is used as the criterion to identify the location of the MHW that
is consistent from one intensity profile to the next. Care is required to not interpret
breaking waves, white caps and other conditions that might indicate sharp changes in the
intensity values as false location of the MHW locations. Usually, once the MHW line is
located it should not fluctuate too much from monument to monument, thus assisting in
avoiding spurious high intensity values.

Fortran programs developed for this project are applied to read the ASCII output files to
filter, to determine the shoreline, to compute and to plot the shoreline data and other
results. The intensity profile that almost coincides with the beach survey line for a
monument is used for comparison of the MHW distances determined from the
photograph and the survey profile.


Direction of Intensity Profiling

A B

Monument
C D
C-.- --- >--------_ ^



E FI- -F

M-onm
03 G H


K L-
K-^ -- L

o Monument
CO I









Knowing the 2 monument location coordinates in both the pixel and the State Plane
Coordinate Systems on the photograph allows conversion from one system of
coordinates to the other. Considering Figure 2, let monument locations A and B have
State Plane Coordinates Northing and Easting as (NA, EA), (NB, EB) respectively, and in
the local pixel coordinate system for each photograph, as (XA, YA), (XB, YB), the factor
to convert from the pixel coordinate system to the State Plane Coordinates can be
computed as:
f= {(NB-NA2 + (EB-EA)2}2/{(XB-X +A)2 (YB- YA)22.
Knowing the coordinates of a monument in both systems and the conversion scale factor
f, the State Plane Coordinates of the origin of the pixel coordinate system can be
determined for each photograph. For the study here however, since the x-axis in the Pixel
Coordinate System is parallel to the profile line or almost normal to the shoreline, we
merely need to convert the pixel x distance to the shoreline with respect to the monument
to give us the photograph shoreline distance in feet from the monument.

V. RESULTS

In the following, results illustrating the data collected and the effectiveness of the
method will be presented as follows: (1) Profile surveys, (2) Comparison between
surveyed profiles and uncalibrated and calibrated aerial photograph results, and (3) Plots
of the Mean High Water Lines (MHWLs) along Lover's Key and Captiva Island.
As discussed in Section II, a total of 20 wading profiles were surveyed in the first survey
in May 1998 and 23 wading profiles were surveyed in August 1999. All of these profiles
are presented in Appendices A, B and C. An example is presented as Figure 7.

August 25, 1999 Survey Captiva Island, Lee County


l -- MHW From Photograph
* I MHW Elevation=1.49 ft MHW From
0 /MHW From Survey
ii:------------------- ---

.-ro

-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Distance in Feet
Figure 7. Example of a Beach Profile Survey for Monument R-97.










The uncalibrated MHW positions determined from the aerial photographs at the surveyed
monument locations were first compared with the surveyed positions at the same
monument locations. These results for 1998 are shown in Figures 8 and 9 for Lover's Key
and Captiva Island, respectively. Corresponding results for 1999 are presented in Figures
10 and 11.


Figure 8. MHW Distances
Key, Lee County.

ctn .i


400 1


> Calibrated
o Uncalibrated














I ill I II Ill t Iit I I I


D Calibrated
a Uncalibrated


Measured Shoreline Distance (ft)


From 1998 Photograph Versus 1998 Surveys for Lovers


Measured Shoreline Distance (ft)


MHW Distances From 1998 Photograph Versus
Island, Lee County.


1998 Surveys for Captiva


Figure 9.


uoIJ












600


400


200


> Calibrated
ao Uncalibrated










- -


Measured Shoreline Distance (ft)


Figure 10. MHW Distances From 1999 Photograph Versus
Key, Lee County.


1999 Surveys for Lovers


Measured Shoreline Distance (ft)


Figure 11. MHW Distances From 1999 Photograph Versus
Island, Lee County.


1999 Surveys for Captiva


These results are presented in terms of distances from the monuments to the respective
MHW locations. If the results were in exact agreement, all points would lie on the "line
of equivalency" shown in these diagrams.



11


SCalibrated
a Uncalibrated








Table 2


Summary of Analyzed Results

Survey Island Average Shoreline Differences (ft)f Standard Deviations (ft)f
Uncalibrated Calibrated Uncalibrated Calibrated
May 1998 Lovers Key 25.6 (9.1) 0.0 46.7 (11.1) 37.0 (3.6)
Captiva -1.1 0.0 9.0 8.9

August 1999 Lovers Key -0.7 (9.2) 0.0 28.5 (19.6) 28.5 (16.7)
Captiva 1.1 0.0 17.7 17.7

t Based on differences between shorelines established by photography and survey,
i.e. (MHWLphoto MHWLsurvey).

A summary of results is presented in Table 2 where the differences between the MHW
positions determined by the two methods are tabulated and the average differences are
also presented. It is seen that for the 1998 program, the average uncalibrated difference is
25.6 feet for Lover's Key and -1.1 feet for Captiva Island. A positive difference indicates
that the MHW shoreline determined from the photography analysis is located gulfward of
the MHWL determined by survey. The associated standard deviations in differences
between shoreline positions is 46.7 feet for Lover's Key and 9.0 feet for Captiva Island.
For Lovers Key, it was noted that the differences for the survey and photographic results
for line (R-213) were quite large and contributed unduly to the standard deviations. The
shoreline in this location is on the northwest comer of Lovers Key and varies
substantially with azimuth heading. For that reason, the results were calculated excluding
the results for this line and these results are presented in parenthesis and are considered
more representative. The standard deviation decreased from 46.7 feet to 11.1 feet when
results from R-213 are excluded.
For the 1999 program, the uncalibrated average differences were -0.7 feet and 1.1 feet for
Lovers Key and Captiva Island, respectively. The associated standard deviations are 28.5
feet and 17.7 feet for Lovers Key and Captiva Island, respectively.

Calibration of the aerial photograph results was carried out, by subtracting from each of
the aerial photograph results for a particular island, the average difference between the
aerial and surveyed positions. It is seen from Table 2 that this reduces the average
difference to zero (it must!) and reduces the standard deviations for the differences only
slightly for three of the four cases.

The interpretation of the above results (excluding those from profile R-213) is that,
without calibration, the MHW shorelines can be established from aerial photography to
within an approximate average of 2 feet and, on average, a standard deviation of
approximately 15 feet. The effect of calibration is to reduce the standard deviations only
slightly for three of the four cases.










To place these values in perspective, Figures 12, 13, 14 and 15 present the standard
deviations in the historical data base (Dean, et al, 1998) for short and long periods for the
two islands and the short- and long-term considerations. These results for Captiva Island
include some contribution from beach nourishment activities.


O00 1


250


5 i V D V a 0T o ) M c 0 tO ND V V 0 C CO f 0 V N V V
DEP monumnt LocationsAonhoooooroeln


DEP Monument Locations Along the Shoreline


Long Term Standard Deviations Along the Coastline of Captiva Island,
Lee County (1858-1989).


0




cV 0 0 M V V V V V V V n V- V V 0 0 0
o IM M F FM FF F Ml0l l M a, a F F


DEP Monument Locations Along the Shoreline


Short Term Standard Deviations Along the Coastline of Captiva Island,
Lee County (1972-1989).


I I I I I


1000


500
C)

I .
-e


C CC N -N N- C)
N Nt NL N o N r NN N N N
DEP Monument Locations on Lovers Key, Lee County


Long Term Standard Deviations Along the Coastline of Lovers Key,
Lee County (1858-1989).


I F I F F F F F F F F 1 I [ [


Figure 12.


Figure 13.


Figure 14.


"L


c













- 100
coo

0

S50
N


C,
O
V) 0
r


Figure 15.


-1 I -


DEP Monument Locations Along the Shoreline
DEP Monument Locations Along the Shoreline


Short Term Standard Deviations Along the Coastline of Lovers Key,
Lee County (1972-1989).


It is seen that the standard deviations associated with photographic methods
(approximately 15 feet on average) is considerably less than that determined from the
historical data (approximately 50 feet). It is believed that the larger standard deviations
from the analysis for 1999 are primarily due to the aforementioned early morning flight
which cast shadows causing difficulty in locating the monuments. In general it is
expected that the availability of easily located landmarks will contribute to the accuracy
of the photographic method of MHW determination.


With the MHW shorelines determined, they can be plotted continuously by drawing a
straight line from one transect (Figure 6) to the next. Figure 16 presents an example of
this type of results and Appendices B and C presents all results of this type.


600



300


Figure 16.


0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100
Distance in Feet

Example of Continuous MHW Shoreline Determined From
Photograph.


+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
-- Shoreline From Photo
August 1999 Data






R-103
R-102
+


i I


i --- ,








VI. COSTS OF APPLYING THE METHODOLOGY


Two types of costs associated with the application of the methodology will be discussed:
(1) The start-up costs, and (2) Costs of applying the methodology for the full 40+ mile
shoreline length of Lee County for each application. Some of these costs will be
presented in terms of person-days or person weeks.


Start-up Costs

The start-up costs include purchasing two programs (Matlab and Photoshop) if these are
not already owned by the County. This total cost is approximately $700. The training
costs would require approximately two person weeks of an individual reasonably capable
with computers. Additionally, it is recommended that in order to decrease costs for each
application, a basis be developed to obviate the need to place targets at the monuments
for each flight. It is estimated that this would require a one time effort of approximately
three person weeks. As discussed previously, this would entail the establishment of the
State Plane Coordinates of easily identifiable positions ( tennis court covers, swimming
pool covers, street intersections etc), for each area to be included in one image.

Costs for a One-time Application for the Full 40+ Mile Lee County Shoreline

The costs would consist of aerial photography, approximately $4,000, and analysis time
of approximately one person week. This assumes that the basis discussed above was
available such that it would not be necessary to target the monuments for each
application. If this is not the case, it would be necessary to include the costs (and time)
required for targeting those monuments at which the previously placed targets had been
disturbed. At some monuments the targets may remain in place for years and may require
no effort or at most, the removal of a thin layer of wind-blown sand.

VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This study has developed methodology for rapid and relatively inexpensive establishment
of MHW shoreline positions. This methodology would find greatest application after
severe storms to rapidly document changes or could possibly serve to quantify shoreline
changes at intermediate times between full surveys to document the performance of a
beach nourishment project.

With the availability of a trained individual, it is estimated that this methodology could
yield shoreline positions along the full 40+ mile Lee County shoreline length within
several days to a week after the photographs were available for analysis. The associated
costs would be approximately $4,000 for the aerial photography and up to one person
week time. Experience with the method could reduce the processing time further.







The accuracy of the uncalibrated methodology is approximately 2 foot for average
island shoreline positions in developed areas with average standard deviations on the
order of 15 feet, compared to the historical short-term variability in shoreline changes of
approximately 50 feet. The relative accuracy is probably better. That is, the comparative
accuracy between the results of two successive shoreline surveys is probably better than
comparing photographic results to survey results.

Although the cost of the aerial photographs for the full Lee County shoreline is
approximately $4,000, many counties fly their shorelines routinely, possibly for tax
assessment purposes. If this is the case, it would be possible to develop a routine
assessment of the condition of the shoreline and to identify at an early stage, areas that
may be experiencing erosional stress.

Cost of applying this method to each county could be reduced by flying several counties
simultaneously, thereby requiring only one aircraft mobilization.


VIII. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to express their appreciation for the assistance of Al Browder, Jamie
McMahan, Roberto Liotta and David Altman in conducting the surveys.


IX. REFERENCES

Dean, R.G. J. Cheng and S. Malakar (1998) "Characteristics of Shoreline Change Along
the Sandy Beaches of the State of Florida : An Atlas", University of Florida, Department
of Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Report No. UFL/COEL-98/015.

Dolan, R., B. P. Hayden, P. May and S May (1980) "The Reliability of Shoreline Change
Measurements From Aerial photographs", Shore and Beach, Vol. 48, pp. 22-29.

Fisher, J. S. and M. F. Overton (1994) "Interpretation of Shoreline Positi6n from Aerial
Photographs", Proceedings, 24h International Conference on Coastal Engineering, Vol. 2,
pp. 1998-2003.

Kruezkamp, A. J. and R. G. Dean (1997) "Pilot Program to Quantify Shoreline Changes
in Lee County", University of Florida, Department of Coastal and Oceanographic
Engineering Report No. UFL/COEL-97/002.

Kruezkamp, A. J. "Analysis of Conventional Aerial Photography to Determine Shoreline
Position", University of Florida, Department of Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering
Report No. UFL/COEL-97/007.













APPENDIX A












Plots of May 5, 1998 and August 25, 1999 Surveys With Shoreline Locations
Determined From Photographs for Captiva Island and Lovers Key, Lee County, Florida.
















































50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Distance in Feet


0

. U






o-
- 10

0
--t


I

r._


400








































400


50 100 150 200 250 300 350


Distance in Feet


-10'
0




























20







01
d)
S 10
b-




. -


0
4-<-














o
I


50 100 150 200 250 300 350


Distance in Feet


400








































400
400


50 100 150 200 250 300 350


Distance in Feet


-100
0























II I I r lI I I 1T "1 1 1 I IIII II 1 1 1 I I r I I ITI I I I Il1Ilr l I l l III 11 I I r lrl I 11 111711 I I


---- Aug 25, 1999 Survey


MHW-Line


Vertical bars indicate
I I I F 11 11 11Ii I 1 11 11 I "


100


150


200


MHW positions determined from photograph
I" """" """",,,,,,


250


300


350


Distance in Feet


-10'
0


0-


4(


3





















































400


50 100 150 200 250 300 350


Distance in Feet


-1-
a)
) 10

10



Co











co
-10





CL
u













































Distance in Feet


20



















-10
10


400


























May 5, 1998 Survey
Aug 25, 1999 Survey



S10





0
_____________________ ___ ___ ______________MHW-Line







Vertical bars indicate MHW positions determined from photograph
-1 500 200 250 300 350 4
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400


Distance in Feet



























































Distance in Feet


c)
Q)
Q) 10




0
4)
d
Co

7 00


400































May 5, 1998 Survey




10





_MHW-Line


Vertical bars indicate MHW positions determined from photograph


liii I I I i i 11111111111 I I III 1111 1111 I 1 1


100


200


250


300


350


4


00
00


Distance in Feet


-10


0


I


i i I r IrI I Il l l l I


,


t


















































Distance in Feet


Q) 10




0
C
> !
Ho


400























- I I I 1i I 1 I. I j III I I I I I II I I I I I I l I 1 I I I I I I j I 11 2 I 11 9 9 9 . .


Aug 25, 1999 Survey


10 -


MHW-Line


Vertical bars indicate MHW positions determined from photograph
. I i i 1 1 1 1 I . . I . .. I .


-10'


100


150


200


250


300


350


00


o Distance in Feet
o


4(


IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~ I~IIIlll~ll


)























11111 I I '' 111111 i II Fi II IIIIFIIFIFFFFIFIIIIIFIFFIIIIFIIIFII -


- Aug 25, 1999 Survey


-_7

~ -


MHW-Line


Vertical bars indicate MHW positions determined from photograph
II I I" I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I III I I I II I 1 1I I 1 I I II I


100


150


200


250


300


350


a
30


Distance in Feet


-10'
0C


4(


)























. . I I 1 1 I I I I.I i I II II I I I I.I.I I I.. I I I I II I I III I I I I 1111111 1 I I I I

May 5, 1998 Survey
Aug 25, 1999 Survey








SMHW-Line


Vertical bars indicate MHW positions determined from photograph
I I II,, I I.. . I I I . . I


100


150


200


250


300


350


4


00


Distance in Feet


''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''


(


,,,,,,,I
























May 5, 1998 Survey
Aug 25, 1999 Survey







S____MHW-Line


Vertical bars indicate MHW positions determined from photograph
I t t t I It i I I 1 1111t t It t t i I It r li I IIrIt t i ll I I t Ill 1r1 1


100


150


200


250


300


350


Distance in Feet


-10
0


00


4(






























Q) 10 -



10







Vertical bars indicate MHW positions determined from pI

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

co Distance in Feet
O
Kd


400
400








































800


Distance in Feet

























S May 5, 1998 Survey
Aug 25, 1999 Survey


10-


MHW-Line


Vertical bars indicate MHW positions determined from photograph
, , , , ,1 , ,,1 , I , , , , I , , , , 1 1 1 1 F F IF,, , I , 1 1 1 , , , I , , ,,!


100


150


200


250


300


350


4


00


Distance in Feet


100
0


I I


MHW-ine


I























































Distance in Feet


, 10




0

C
> V
tO


800

























May 5, 1998 Survey
Aug 25, 1999 Survey


10 1-


MHW-Line


Vertical bars indicate MHW positions determined from photograph
. . .I I. .ii i I I I. I . . ..I . ..I. .IIII I I I I I ,I I I I I ,III I I I, , , I I I I


100


150


200


250


300


350


O0


Distance in Feet


__


4(
























F F I FF F I FI IIFIFFj lii, F Fl ' ' I ll'" Fl' '' 1111 F' IF F F Fill I


Aug 25, 1999 Survey


10

---


MHW-Line :


Vertical bars indicate MHW positions determined from photograph
F F F I i I FFi 1, 1 11 11F iF I F I I I F [ I FI F 1 11111111 111111111 I I III 1 1 I I 1 I I


100


150


200


250


300


350


4C


Distance in Feet


-10
OC


0O
0.
w
la
)0


)












































50 100 150 200 250 300 350


400
400


Distance in Feet


00








-10
0







0
-4

o
ca
c,
K























I II liii ''''' I' 11111 I I1111 IJ II I'' '' ' I' ' 111 111r r ii iri iii iii r


- May 5, 1998 Survey
- Aug 25, 1999 Survey


10


MHW-Line


-~ --~ -~ I


I 1 I I I I I I I I I IIIi I III I I, i I I


100


150


200


bars indicate MHW positions determined from photograph
I lI I t i i I II I I I I l I I I Il


250


300


350


Distance in Feet
C\2


00


C----------------------


4(
























liii IlIlIj III I 11111111


May 5, 1998 Survey


10-


MHW-Line


-100
0


- I I I I I .i. 1 1,11 1 1 1 111 , I r r ,i II I


100


150


200


250


C\ Distance in Feet
C\2
CQ


300


350


30
)o


4


IlIlI lI l I l


'"''''''I''''''"'I '''' 'I'''''''''I'''"''' 'I


(


)















APPENDIX B













Plots of Continuous Shoreline From August, 1999 Photographs for Captiva Island and
Lovers Key, Lee County, Florida.

















+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
Shoreline From Photo
August 1999 Data
+


1000


1200


1400


Distance in Feet


800


600 k


R-85


CPE-84


400





200






0


200


400


600


800


V1


c~-------------

















+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
Shoreline From Photo
August 1999 Data


R-86


R-87
+


1600


2000


2400


Distance in Feet


1600


1200 k


800





400


400


800


1200


2800


















+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
Shoreline From Photo
August 1999 Data








R-87
+ R-88

+



E


800


1200


1600


2000


2400


2800


Distance in Feet


1600


1200


Q)



800
C)
CO
4-)-
(::I
Q,


400


400

















1600


+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
Shoreline From Photo
August 1999 Data
1200


0)


a 800

CO
4p
| R-88
+ R-90
400 -



Y Y


0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800


Distance in Feet


















+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
Shoreline From Photo
August 1999 Data


2000


2400


2800


Distance in Feet


1600


1200 F


a)



S 800
C)

,-
n3


400 F


R-91


+


R-92


400


800


1200


1600



















+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
Shoreline From Photo
August 1999 Data


1500


1800


2100


Distance in Feet


1200


900 k


Q) 600

Cd
cY
-4-


300 -


R-92


R-93


300


600


900


1200


I



















+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
Shoreline From Photo
August 1999 Data










R-97
+


1500


1800


2100


Distance in Feet


1200


900 F


1,r1



) 600

09
-i-


300 1


CPE-96


300


600


900


1200


Iz
















1200


+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
Shoreline From Photo
August 1999 Data
900





w 600
a



R-98 CPE-99
300 +






0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100


Distance in Feet

















+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
- Shoreline From Photo
August 1999 Data


400 k CPE-99


1600


2000


2400


Distance in Feet


1600


1200


800 V


R-100


400


800


1200


2800

















+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
Shoreline From Photo
August 1999 Data









R-103
R-102


1200


1500


1800


2100


Distance in Feet


1200


900 k


600


300 -


300


600


900


I I ) I I I I I


I
















+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
Shoreline From Photo
August 1999 Data











R-105


-~--c--~---~-~--0
I F I I-`-r_


2000


2400


2800


Distance in Feet


1600


1200 k


800 F


400


CPE-104


400


800


1200


1600

















+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
Shoreline From Photo
August 1999 Data








R-107


2000


2400


2800


Distance in Feet


1600


1200 k


800 -


400


R-106


400


800


1200


1600


~----------- /-------------


















+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
- Shoreline From Photo
August 1999 Data


R-107


R-109


1500


1800


2100


Distance in Feet


1200


900 h


4)



600
CO,
C,)


300 k


300


600


900


1200


_ ~-~---Y
















1200
+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
Shoreline From Photo
August 1999 Data
900 -
R-212


R-213
S+
S600
o




300



Y


0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100


Distance in Feet













R-213

800 +
+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
Shoreline From Photo
August 1999 Data
600



P ) 400




200

200 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400





0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400


Distance in Feet

















+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
Shoreline From Photo
August 1999 Data


R-214


R-215


1500


1800


2100


Distance in Feet


1200


900 k


600 -


300 k


300


600


900


1200

















+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
Shoreline From Photo
August 1999 Data













R-217


1000


1200


1400


Distance in Feet


800


600 I


400 L


200


T-216


200


400


600


800


~------



















+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
Shoreline From Photo
August 1999 Data















R-218
+-


1000


1200


1400


Distance in Feet


800


600 F


Q)


Q 400

C
-p-
M,
-i-
Q


200 F


R-217


200


400


600


800

















+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
Shoreline From Photo
August 1999 Data








R-220
+


Y

Y


1000


1200


1400


Distance in Feet


800


600 F


400


200 k


A-42


200


400


600


800


















+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
Shoreline From Photo
August 1999 Data


R-220


R-221


Y


400


600


800


1000


1200


1400


Distance in Feet


800


600 k


400
CI


200


200


"'















800


+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
Shoreline From Photo
August tq9q2Data
600 +-





- 400


-p R-221
Q+

200
Y




0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400


Distance in Feet















APPENDIX C













Plots of Continuous Shoreline From May, 1998 Photographs for Captiva Island and
Lovers Key, Lee County, Florida.











CPE-84
+


400
+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
S Shoreline From Photo
May 1998 Data
300 -



R-83

200 -





100 -






0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Pixels








R-85


+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
Shoreline From Photo
May 1998 Data




CPE-84
+
I-


400


600


800
Pixels


1000


1200


1400


200


800


600


400


200


















+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
--- Shoreline From Photo
May 1998 Data


1000


1200


1400


R-85


800


600 -


400


R-86


200 F


200


400


600


800
Pixels


I I I I I I (


















+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
--- Shoreline From Photo

R-87 May 1998 Data


+


1000


1200


1400


800


R-86


600 -


a 400
*ix
CL


200 k


200


400


600


800
Pixels


I I I I / I I

















+ Monument Location
R-87 Y MHW Location From Survey
Shoreline From Photo
May 1998 Data


R-88
+








Y


200


400


600


800
Pixels


1000


1200


1400


800


600 F


S400
a


200 F


















+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
Shoreline From Photo
May 1998 Data

+


1000


1200


1400


800


600 -


R-88


R-89


400 F


200 -


Y


200


400


600


800
Pixels


I I I ) I I I
















800


+ Monument Location
R-89 Y MHW Location From Survey
-- Shoreline From Photo
May 1998 Data
600



R-90
C 400 +
-2L




200 Y






0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Pixels


















+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
- Shoreline From Photo
May 1998 Data


1000


1200


1400


800


600 F


U)
. 400
P'


R-90


CPE-91


200 F


200


400


600


800
Pixels


I I I I I I I


Y

















+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
Shoreline From Photo
May 1998 Data



R-92
+
CPE-91
+





-Y


200


400


600


800
Pixels


1000


1200


1400


800


600


S 400
a


200

















+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
Shoreline From Photo
May 1998 Data




CPE-93

R-92 +
+


200


400


600


800
Pixels


1000


1200


1400


800


600 I


2 400
N
*.--


200 -


















+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
--- Shoreline From Photo
May 1998 Data






R-94

CPE-93
+




Y


200


400


600


800
Pixels


1000


1200


1400


800


600 F


G 400
. -


200 I


I I I I I ) I


















+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
- Shoreline From Photo
May 1998 Data


R-94


OL-95


1200


1400


800


600 I


S400



200 k


Y


200


400


600


800
Pixels


1000


) I I I I I

















+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
SShoreline From Photo
May 1998 Data


CPE-96


I I I I--~- ---


1500


1800


2100


1200


900 F


S600
c


300 F


OL-95


300


600


900


1200
Pixels


















+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
- Shoreline From Photo
May 1998 Data


1000


1200


1400


800


600 F


) 400
S400
, -


CPE-96


-


R-97


200 I


200


400


600


800
Pixels


I / I I I I I


y


















+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
- Shoreline From Photo
May 1998 Data


R-97


CPE-98


+





Y


400


600


800
Pixels


1000


1200


1400


800


600 h


400
. -
*i-


200


200


















+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
Shoreline From Photo
May 1998 Data





CPE-99
+

CPE-98
+
tm-



kt ^ -- -


200


400


600


800
Pixels


1000


1200


1400


800


600 F


400


200 F


I I I I I I I

















+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
Shoreline From Photo
May 1998 Data




R-100
+


1000


1200


1400


800


600 F


S 400



CPE-99


200 Y


200


400


600


800
Pixels

















+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
Shoreline From Photo
May 1998 Data



R-101
+ R-102

+


200


400


600


800
Pixels


1000


1200


1400


800


600 F


a 400
rS


200 1
















800
+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
S Shoreline From Photo
May 1998 Data
600
R-102
+ R-103

+

w 400





200






0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Pixels


















+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
S Shoreline From Photo
May 1998 Data





R-103 CPE-104
+ +









'1 4----5-


200


400


600


800
Pixels


1000


1200


1400


800


600 k


S400
rS


200 [


I I I I I I I

















+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
Shoreline From Photo
May 1998 Data


CPE-104 R105

+


200


400


600


800
Pixels


1000


1200


1400


800


600 F


400 F


200 KY


















+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
Shoreline From Photo
May 1998 Data
R-106


R-105
+


800
Pixels


1000


1200


800


600 k


400 I


200 H


200


400


600


1400


I I I I I I I
















800
+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
--- Shoreline From Photo
R-106 May 1998 Data
600- + R-107





o 400
I .X





200






0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Pixels

















- Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
Shoreline From Photo
May 1998 Data


R-108
+


1000


1200


1400


800


R-107


600 -


o 400
x
fc


200 [


200


400


600


800
Pixels














+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
- Shoreline From Photo
May 1998 Data


1000


1200


1400


800


600 F


0 400
.,-


R-108


R-109


200 I


200


400


600


800
Pixels


Y-
















400


+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
Shoreline From Photo
May 1998 Data
300
R-212
R-211
++
+


S200 -





100






0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Pixels















800
R-212 + Monument Location
+ R-213 Y MHW Location From Survey
+ Shoreline From Photo
May 1998 Data
600 -





Q 400





200






0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Pixels
















800
+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
R-213 Shoreline From Photo
+ May 1998 Data
600 -





S 400
co a




200 R-214
+





0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Pixels

















+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
-- Shoreline From Photo
May 1998 Data


R-215


R-214


1000


1200


1400


800


600 I


400 k


200 F


+


200


400


600


800
Pixels
















800
+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
Shoreline From Photo
May 1998 Data
600




V)
C 400
o L




200 T-216
R-215 +
+



0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Pixels

















+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
Shoreline From Photo
May 1998 Data














R-217
T-216 +


200


400


600


800
Pixels


1000


1200


1400


800


600 F


0 400


200 I
















+ Monument Location
Y MHW Location From Survey
Shoreline From Photo
May 1998 Data












R-218
R-217
+ ---


200


400


600


800
Pixels


1000


1200


1400


800


600


400 k


200 F




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