• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 List of Figures
 List of Tables
 Executive summary
 Main
 Ground truth profiles
 Analysis of aerial survey data...
 Analysis of aerial survey data...
 Frequency distributions showing...
 Shoreline change results
 Factors limiting the accuracy of...














Title: Pilot program to quanitfy shoreline changes in Lee County
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00091418/00001
 Material Information
Title: Pilot program to quanitfy shoreline changes in Lee County
Series Title: Pilot program to quanitfy shoreline changes in Lee County
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Kreuzkamp
Publisher: Coastal & Oceanographic Engineering Dept. of Civil & Coastal Engineering, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00091418
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Table of Contents
        Page i
    List of Figures
        Page ii
    List of Tables
        Page iii
    Executive summary
        Page iv
        Page v
    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
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
    Ground truth profiles
        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
        Page A-25
        Page A-26
        Page A-27
        Page A-28
        Page A-29
        Page A-30
        Page A-31
        Page A-32
        Page A-33
        Page A-34
        Page A-35
        Page A-36
        Page A-37
        Page A-38
        Page A-39
        Page A-40
        Page A-41
        Page A-42
        Page A-43
        Page A-44
        Page A-45
        Page A-46
        Page A-47
        Page A-48
        Page A-49
    Analysis of aerial survey data taken on February 5, 1996
        Page B1-0
        Page B1-1
        Page B1-2
        Page B1-3
        Page B1-4
        Page B1-5
        Page B1-6
        Page B1-7
        Page B1-8
        Page B1-9
        Page B1-10
        Page B1-11
        Page B1-12
        Page B1-13
        Page B1-14
        Page B1-15
        Page B1-16
        Page B1-17
        Page B1-18
        Page B1-19
        Page B1-20
        Page B1-21
    Analysis of aerial survey data taken on August 25, 1996
        Page B2-0
        Page B2-1
        Page B2-2
        Page B2-3
        Page B2-4
        Page B2-5
        Page B2-6
        Page B2-7
        Page B2-8
        Page B2-9
        Page B2-10
        Page B2-11
        Page B2-12
        Page B2-13
        Page B2-14
        Page B2-15
        Page B2-16
        Page B2-17
        Page B2-18
        Page B2-19
        Page B2-20
        Page B2-21
    Frequency distributions showing results of accuracy
        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
    Shoreline change results
        Page D-0
        Page D-1
        Page D-2
        Page D-3
        Page D-4
        Page D-5
        Page D-6
    Factors limiting the accuracy of aerial photography
        Page E-0
        Page E-1
        Page E-2
Full Text




UFL/COEL-97/002


PILOT PROGRAM TO QUANTIFY SHORELINE CHANGES
IN LEE COUNTY


ANNUAL REPORT



By


August J. Kreuzkamp
and
Robert G. Dean


February 24, 1997





Project Sponsor:

Lee County
Division of Environmental Services
1500 Monroe Street
Fort Myers, Florida 33901









Table of Contents
Page

List of Figures ................................................................................ ii

List of Tables .............................................................................

Executive Summary ............................................ ..................... iv

Introduction ............................................................................... 1

Previous Work .............................................. ........................... 1

Aerial Photographs ............................................. ....................... 3

Ground Truth ............................................... .......................... 4

Shoreline Location ........................................................................... 7

Methodology For Digitizing Photographs .............................................. 8

Analysis of Data............................................................................... 11

Results ................................................... .............................. 16

Sources of Error............................................................................. 23

Improvements ............................................... ........................... 24

Summary, Conclusions & Recommendations ........................................... 26

Literature Cited .................................................................. ..... 28

Appendix A: Ground Truth Profiles ................................................... A-1

Appendix BI: Data Analysis of Aerial Survey taken on February 5, 1996 ........ B -1

Appendix B2: Data Analysis of Aerial Survey taken on August 25, 1996 .........B2-1

Appendix C: Frequency Distribution Showing Results of Accuracy .............. C-1

Appendix D: Shoreline Change Results .............................................. D-1

Appendix E: Factors Limiting the Accuracy of Aerial Photography ................ E-1


i








List of Figures


Figure Page

1 Profile locations on Captiva Island .................................... .... 5

2 Sample profiles taken at R-088 ............................................... 6

3 Tidal prediction near Estero Island, Florida 2/04/96 2/06/96 ............ 7

4 Tidal prediction near Estero Island, Florida 8/25/96 ........................... 8

5 AutoCAD display window showing a portion of the base map of
Captiva Island ............................................... ................ 10

6 AutoCAD display window showing the composite map of Captiva
Island being assembled ..................................... .......... .. 11

7 Comparison of uncorrected data sets .......................................... 16

8 Comparison of uncorrected data sets excluding problem areas ............. 18

9 Comparison of results determined by applying various computations
to all February data (including problem areas) ................................ 19

10 Comparison of results determined by applying various computations
to all August data (including problem areas) ...................................19

11 Comparison of shoreline changes for the entire county .......................20

12 Comparison of shoreline changes for the entire county excluding
nourished areas .................................................... ..............21

13 Comparison of shoreline changes at profiled locations excluding
nourished areas .................................................................... 21

14 Comparison of shoreline changes at profiled nourished areas .............. 22








List of Tables

Table Pa

1 Flight and equipment information ............................................ 3

2 Dates ground and aerial surveys were performed ........................... 5

3 Sample data set for Routine #1 ............................................... 13

4 Sample data set for Routine #2 ................................................... 14

5 Sample data set for Routine #3 ............................................... 15

6 Summary error results for each aerial survey by island ..................... 17

7 Potential errors due to camera tilt ............................................ 23









Executive Summary


The outer coastline of Lee County, Florida consists of a series of barrier islands all of
which experience episodic erosion due to storms and portions of which are subject to long
term erosional trends. With such a dynamic and valuable shoreline, the county has
participated in actions to maintain portions of the shoreline by nourishment. In the
process of maintaining the coastline, monitoring the shoreline position would be quite
expensive and time consuming by ground survey alone. In an attempt to devise an
efficient and relatively inexpensive monitoring method, a technique was developed based
on aerial photography. This technique incorporated digitizing current aerial photography
and referencing State of Florida Coastal Construction Control Line photos to create a
composite map providing a continuous shoreline for each aerial survey performed. From
this composite map, the change in shoreline position was obtained with reference to the
coordinates of each DNR monument located throughout the county. Ground truth
surveys were performed as soon before and after the aerial photographs as possible and
used later to adjust the data and evaluate the method.

Throughout the process of refining this method, several developments were made which
were found to produce more reliable data. The best accuracy for this method was found
to be approximately 11 feet for specific areas. The improvements included specifying
larger scale aerial photographs, setting visual targets over known coordinates and
coordinating the aerial survey with high tide.. The method's highest precision was found
when observing the composite error of shoreline change between two successive aerial
surveys. The results for this six month period indicate that the average shoreline had
accreted approximately 8.6 feet (2.5 feet) due primarily to nourishment projects that
occurred in the interim of this project. After the nourished areas were excluded from the
sampling, the average natural shoreline was found to have eroded approximately 7 feet
(2.5 feet). In considering these results, it is necessary to note that the period over which
these results were obtained (six months) reflects the effects of individual storms rather
than an erosional trend.

The best applications for this method would be to evaluate overall annual shoreline
changes, monitor the performance of beach nourishment projects and evaluate coastal
damage due to large storms. The effectiveness of this program and the reliability of its
results would require the improvements already developed to be continued and further
progress be made to minimize the remaining distortion in the photographs which could not
be avoided with the equipment that was used.

It is recommended that further developments for this erosion study be made to continue to
improve its accuracy by reducing the distortion in aerial photographs. The most efficient
way to evaluate the effectiveness of various techniques that reduce distortion would be to
concentrate all efforts first on two selected islands. By applying and testing improved
techniques to a portion of the county would allow efforts to be focused on improvement
and evaluation of methodology and thus set the stage for application to the entire county








shoreline. Specifically, the recommended areas of improvement are the development and
testing of methodology to:

1. Remove distortion from the photographs which is primarily due to small values
of roll of the aircraft during the photographic mission.

2. Detect the waterline automatically through the tonal (color) change on the
aerial photographs.

In addition to the above, the improvements developed over the Phase I efforts would be
continued including: larger scale photographs, targeting of monuments and tide-controlled
photography. Ground truth surveys would also be included as a means of calibrating and
verifying the aerial photography.








Pilot Program to Quantify Shoreline Changes in Lee County
Annual Report

Introduction

The Department of Coastal & Oceanographic Engineering of the University of Florida,
under contract with Lee County Division of Natural Resources Management, conducted
this pilot program to evaluate aerial photography as a means of quantifying shoreline
changes in Lee County. Lee County's shoreline consists of approximately 40 miles of
dynamic coastline on the Gulf of Mexico and comprises eight barrier islands. Aerial
photography can provide the broad coverage needed, having been established as an
effective method for documenting shoreline position at various beach nourishment sites
and beach erosion studies. Distortion in aerial photography is a limitation to the accuracy
achievable. Through the years there has been considerable development in equipment to
rectify aerial photography; however the cost is substantial. The goal of this project is to
utilize aerial photography as a basis for obtaining shoreline positions using conventional
methods, which are cost and time efficient, and to calibrate and evaluate the results using
conventional ground truth surveys. This report includes the specifications used throughout
the project, methodology developed, pictorial examples to clarify concepts, data recorded
and an evaluation of the data with associated errors. All efforts were made to obtain the
best results for the project using the available data and equipment. Based on the resulting
errors and lessons learned, recommendations are presented for a second phase which
should yield considerable improvements in accuracy. During this study, two modifications
to the procedure which produced considerable improvements in accuracy were: (1) Larger
scale aerial photographs and (2) Targeting DNR monuments so that they would be
identifiable in the aerial photographs. Due to the areal extent of the project area and the
amount of data collected, Captiva Island was chosen as the area of focus in the main body
of this report to show meaningful examples with a reasonable amount of graphs and
tables. The complete results are provided in the appendices of this report.

Previous Work

Aerial photography first originated in the mid-1800s using cameras mounted on balloons
and kites. With the invention of the airplane in 1902 by the Wright Brothers, it was not
until 1913 when the airplane was first used for aerial photography for mapping purposes.
The use of aerial photography was expanded during World War I (1914-1918) when its
application for reconnaissance was recognized and later during World War II (1939-1945)
when reasonably good quality stereo vertical (aerial) photographs were developed. Since
that time, a multitude of technological advancements in equipment and technique have
been made to advance the accuracy of aerial photography. (Wolf, 1983)

While aerial photographs contain great quantities of information, they also include a
variety of distortions, which leads to their inaccuracy if left uncorrected. The distortions
include those caused by: changes in the camera's altitude, changes in tilt of the aircraft,
radial scale variations and relief variations of the surface photographed. The use of








vertical photographs to determine shoreline change began in the late 1960's. (Moffitt,
1969) Researchers attempting to determine historic erosion rates found that vertical
photographs dating as far back as the 1930's were a more reliable source for shoreline
position when compared with shoreline maps created during the same era. These
researchers developed different techniques to extract the shoreline position from vertical
photographs with varying levels of success in terms of their accuracy.

Utilizing historical aerial photographs, Stafford (1971) developed a method to determine
the historical coastal erosion along the Outer Banks of North Carolina. Shoreline
positions were found by taking point measurements perpendicular to the shore from stable
reference points. By focusing on beach widths located near the "principal line" (or flight
line), the distortion due to a plane's tilt could be minimized. Stafford was also able to
minimize the inherent change in scale between photographs caused by a camera's change
in altitude by grouping beach widths taken from the same photographs and then, after
determining the scale for each photograph, the beach widths were recorded. The final
product became a data base of beach widths which were compared with beach widths
taken from other surveys in the same area.

Based on the work of Stafford and Langfelder, Dolan et al (1978) documented continuous
shoreline positions and then compared those with earlier shorelines to determine rates of
erosion. Their method, called the orthogonal grid matrix system (OGMS), involved using
a projecting light table to superimpose photo images to the exact scale of a base map and
manually trace the shoreline onto a USGS "T-Sheet" (topographic map). Changing the
scale of the projected images once again helped eliminate the distortion associated with
the change in camera altitude. Once all of the shorelines were traced onto one common
base map, beach widths were measured at 100 meter intervals. Presentation maps were
then recreated from this data but could not reflect the same completeness as the original
base map. Several critics, including Leatherman (1983), judged this method to have less
merit than that of Stafford. Although a portion of distortion was eliminated by
maintaining a constant scale throughout entire sets of photos with this method, nothing
was done to attempt to eliminate the distortion due to plane tilt. The recorded accuracy of
the OGMS method was 6.3 meters (21 feet).

An important piece of equipment used to further reduce the amount of error in vertical
photographs is the zoom transfer scope. The zoom transfer scope (ZTS) is very efficient
in eliminating scale differences between sequential photographs and has the ability to
stretch or shrink images in one direction about the axis of tilt to help reduce a portion of
the distortion caused by tilt of the camera. The reason why only a portion is corrected is
due to the fact that the ZTS is a linear adjustment device while distortion due to tilt is non-
linear as shown in Figures D1 and D2 in the appendix. Since zoom transfer scopes can
not make the necessary scale corrections needed to eliminate all tilt distortion, it is
necessary to utilize one side of an image at a time and superimpose the corrected points of
interest onto a base map. This process is considered to produce reasonable results but
found to be a time-consuming and tedious process and should be reserved for smaller-
sized projects. (Leatherman, 1983) Other equipment that provides considerable








improvements forward is the analytical stereoplotter which has a documented accuracy of
5 feet. (Fisher and Overton, 1994)

Aerial Photographs

This program included conducting two sets of aerial photographs of the outer coastline of
Lee County on February 5, 1996 and August 25, 1996. The specifications of the
equipment and information for the two flights can be found in Table 1.



Contractor Kucera South Kucera South
Plane Cessna 206 Cessna 206
Altitude Flown 3,000 feet 1,500 feet
Camera Equipment Ziess RMKA 15/23 Ziess RMKA 15/23
Filters Minus B, yellow filter Minus B, yellow filter
Film Type Kodak Type 2405 B/W Kodak Type 2405 B/W
Approximate Scale 1"=500' 1"=250'
Width of Negative 230.0 mm = 9 inches 230.0 mm = 9 inches
Time of Flight 10:54am 11:36am 9:49am 10:36am

Table 1 Flight and equipment information

Under "Camera Equipment" in Table 1, the "15" signifies the focal length of the lens
(actually 152.28 mm) and the "23" signifies the width of the negative (actually 230.0mm).
The filter mentioned, the Minus B filter, was used for the photographs to reduce the
amount of blue light through the lens. This light causes a haze to develop on the film
reducing the contrast required to see detail. It is important to understand that the scale of
the photographs is not exact or consistent throughout each set of photos. The greatest
sources of these inconsistencies and inaccuracies are due to: changes in the camera's
altitude, changes in tilt of the aircraft, radial scale variations and relief variations of the
surface photographed. These factors are discussed in more detail in Appendix D of this
report. Finally, in order to assist in relating sequential photographs, a 60% overlap in
photographs was initially specified for both sets of photographs. It was later determined,
that 60% overlap was considerably more than needed for digitization. By eliminating
every other photo, the number of photos digitized was reduced by 50% while still
maintaining a 20% overlap between the remaining photos.

The six month period between photographs was to provide the greatest amount of beach
width contrast in a limited time frame. This variation in beach width is due to the recovery
of the beach profile caused by the change in seasonal climate. In a six month period of
time, a change in the cross-shore profile is caused by different types of wave activity
between the winter and summer months. In the winter months, storm systems tend to be
more intensive and frequent which create larger and more frequent wave activity
compared to that in the summer.








Scheduling the time and day of aerial photography was initially considered to be
inconsequential. Thus, no special instructions were provided to the sub-contractor for the
first aerial survey as to the phase of the tidal cycle for the photography. It was originally
believed that the High Water Line would be preserved for a longer period of time than was
later determined to be the case. More details about the contributing factors which cause
this problem will be discussed later in the Shoreline Location section. It is common
practice that photos be taken near noon-time during the winter months to avoid
unnecessary shadows and in the early morning during the summer to avoid the morning
cloud cover. This cloud cover which obstructs the detail in the photos typically appears
around mid-morning and continues throughout the rest of the day. Since the success of an
aerial survey is also weather dependent, for the second set the subcontractor was provided
with a tide table including high tides for the month and specified to start taking the
photographs within a time frame of an hour (approximately) after the estimated time for
high tide.


Ground Truth

Ground truth surveys were performed as soon as practical before and after the aerial
photographs. The availability of two ground surveys for each set of photographs had two
benefits. One benefit was by having two sets in a short time period, it would be possible to
compare data between ground surveys. By doing so, irregularities due to human error in
field measurements would be evident. The second benefit gave the ability to recognize
storm altered topography immediately before or after the photography was scheduled.
With ground truth data available both before and after the time of the aerial survey, it was
possible to select the ground truth data which best represented the shoreline at the time
the aerial survey was performed or to interpolate or average results from the two surveys.

Each ground survey consisted of a series of 46 profiles of the outer coastline of the county
at approximate one mile intervals. A three or four person crew conducted the surveys
with areas accessed by either boat or car depending on the particular island. The
equipment used to measure the characteristics of the profiles at the selected monuments
included that for standard ground surveys: level, level rod and tape. Each profile
incorporated one of the 239 Department of Natural Resources monuments for reference
which exist throughout the shoreline of Lee County. Each monument references a
discrete elevation and location based on the National Geodetic Vertical Datum and state
plane coordinate system. This information is provided in the Florida Department of
Natural Resources Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, Coastal Data Acquisition last
revised 2/04/92 referred to as "Monument Descriptions". Locations of the profiles taken
on Captiva Island are shown in Figure 1.


















RED FISH P





GULF OF MEXICO


PINE ISLAND SOUND






1 CAP11VA ISLAND


R-09


R-104


0 5000 10,000 FT.


BLIND PASS-'
NOTE:
MA1EIAL OBTAINED FROM NOAA NAUTICAL CHART 11427 (OCT 1970)
AND NOAA NAUllAL CHART 11425 (MAY 190)
UIVRMTY OF FLORIDA LEE COUNTY COASTUNE STUDY GROUND TRUTH
C0TL & 'K@ S AP IC CAPTIVA ISLAND VWTH PROFILE LOCATIONS
m m __t______ m ._


Figure 1 Profile locations on Captiva Island


Dates for the ground and aerial surveys are shown in Table 2. Survey #2 was chosen to
represent the ground truth for aerial survey #1 due to its timing being much closer than
Survey #1. Resulting beach widths for survey #'s 3 and 4 were averaged to approximate
the most accurate beach width at the time aerial survey # 2 was performed. Certain
exceptions had to be made in cases where the survey crew was denied access or previously
chosen monuments were destroyed or altered by construction or erosion.


Survey #1 11/18/95 11/19/95 & 12/02/95 1
Aerial Survey #1 2/05/96
Survey #2 2/10/96 2/12/96
Survey #3 8/16/96 8/18/96
Aerial Survey #2 8/25/96
Survey #4 8/27/96 8/28/96


Table 2 Dates ground and aerial surveys were performed


NORTH












In order to minimize the number of profiles shown in Appendix A, any profiles not
referenced for ground truth were not included on the drawings. Refer to Figure 2 for an
example of how the profiles were documented. Notice in the figure that the vertical scale
is exaggerated compared to the horizontal scale to emphasize the profile relief.







_-N". ..-. ,_,E,2. -"L_ -~. ..-.J S ,,


1+00 2+00 3+00 ++00
DISTANCE (FET1




0 o 40 SOFT.
HOFUZONAL SCAE


LEGEND: NOTES:
- -- SURVEY fl (12/02/95) 1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V,.D
3. ACCESS DENIED DURING SURVEY 02
--- SURVWY 4 (8/27/9) i


Figure 2 Sample profiles taken at R-088

The beach width at each profile was established based on the profile surveys and a chosen
water elevation. Based on McBeth (1964), the differences between the Mean High Water
Datum and the High Water Datum were determined to be insignificant for mapping
purposes. For this reason the Mean High Water Datum, MHWD was selected. The
MHWD relies upon statistical data based on the average height of the High Water
elevation over a nineteen year period. This datum, which changes slightly along a long
shoreline, is documented in 'Transformation of Historical Shorelines to Current NGVD
Position For the Florida Lower Gulf Coast" by Balsillie, Carlen and Watters (June 1987).
The range in elevation of the MHWD varies along the Lee County shoreline from +1.17
feet NGVD to +1.43 feet NGVD with the average value equal to +1.28 feet NGVD. With
the elevation of the MHWD known at each monument throughout the county (based on
Balsillie et al) and having the profile information from the surveys, the beach width could
be determined by finding the horizontal distance between the location of each monument
and its corresponding Mean High Water position on the profile.


11W
- --- --
J0ft~f -- -- --*- -
", ,- 4 WA --1.4

_LOWr -


Y b
8
Z









The beach width from the February 5t and August 27th surveys were also included on the
profiles as shown above and are presented for the entire set of profiles found in Appendix
A. These beach width values would later be used to evaluate the amount of error in the
composite map by comparing beach widths obtained from the composite map with the
ground truth determined beach widths.

Shoreline Location

The shoreline is technically the boundary that exists between land and water. Its position
is dependent on several factors including wave and current processes, sea level change,
sediment supply, coastal geology and morphology, and human intervention. One of the
most important and sensitive steps in the procedure was defining the shoreline position
from the photographs. It is important to choose a discriminator or indicator which is well-
defined as well as being selected consistent throughout the entire set of photographs.
Regardless of the indicator, the measurements taken from the digitized image models can
later be corrected using the ground truth to calibrate the results. The shoreline indicator
commonly used by coastal photogrammetrists is the High Water Line which represents the
highest extent of the most significant high tide over the past day which would also include
wave run-up and setup. This line can be found at the place of tonal (color) change
between wet and dry sand. Unfortunately there are two factors which make it very
difficult to locate this region. One factor is the local semi-diurnal tide which creates only
one significant high tide daily. The significant high tide before the first set of aerial
photographs was taken occurred at 12:14am the night before at an elevation of 2.6 feet
above the Mean Low Low Water Datum (MLLWD). The semidiurnal tide effect in the
vicinity of Estero Island between February 4h to the 5h is provided in Figure 3, taken
from the program Xtide (Version 1.5beta).

Matanzas Pass, Estero Island, Florida
02-04 02-04 02-05 02-05 02-05 02-05 02-06
13:15 18:41 0:14 7:19 13:31 19:17 0:49
4 ft


Figure 3 Tidal prediction near Estero Island, lornda 2/04/90 -








The longer the time between the significant high tide and the time of the photos, the more
difficult it is to define the High Water Line through the tonal difference, of the wet and
drying sand. The intensity of the Florida sun, the second factor, reduces the acceptable
time window even further by drying the sand even faster. For these reasons the
instantaneous "high water line" was taken as the shoreline location which includes the
effects of: tidal elevation, local wave run up and wave setup at the time and place each
photo was taken.

The timing of the second set of aerial photographs gave more consideration to the tide,
sun intensity and daily cloud cover in order to have the high water line better preserved.
The second set of aerial photographs was taken on August 25, 1996 between 9:49am and
10:36am with the high water tide at 9:08am at a tidal elevation of 2.9 feet MLLWD. This
information was also taken from Xtide shown below in Figure 4.


Matanzas Pass, Estero Island, Florida
08-25 08-25 08-25
4:13 10:01 17:21
4 ft

3









Figure 4 Tidal prediction near Estero Island, Florida 8/25/96

For the second set of photographs, the base of the swash zone was found to be well
defined throughout the set compared with the high water line which had areas that were
lacking in contrast. Along with the fact that there was minimal wave activity evident on
the photos for that time of day, choosing the instantaneous water line as the shoreline
indicator seemed reasonable. Once the shoreline positions were recorded and compared,
based on the shift of the shoreline, it would be possible to determine the amount of
shoreline advancement or recession.

Methodology For Digitizing Photographs

Once the photographs were taken and the ground survey data were recorded and
processed, the next step was to determine the best method to digitize the aerial
photographs taking into account time required and best results. Equipment used
throughout all different approaches included using a Cal Comp Digitizer tablet which was
throughout all different approaches included using a Cal Comp Digitizer tablet which was








connected to a 486 DX computer with AutoCad Release 12 software (a drafting program)
as the user interface. The paragraphs below chronicle the development procedure for
photograph digitization.

The first technique was to tape a series of corresponding photographs together in sets of
five or so and then digitize each set of photographs. Much attention was paid to common
objects on sequential photographs which aided in both the manual assembling of
photographs into sets of five and later the assembling of those sets of five with other sets
forming entire islands using AutoCad. It was desired to use common objects as control
points, that had minimal relief variations (changes in elevation which cause distortion of
the object). Parking lots, pools, tennis courts and roads were found to provide the best
references. This worked well in developed areas however in undeveloped areas some
difficult choices had to be made by selecting items like large debris on the beach or
shadows near the beach of large structures. Digitizing each set of photographs involved a
Computer Aided Drafting program (CAD) operator calibrating the digitizer tablet in order
to preserve the scale of the photographs and then "trace" features on each set of five
photographs. This created an image which only included these traced features. The sets of
images were then joined together using the drawing program with every attempt made to
obtain the best fit of all the control points included in the images. Once an entire island
was assembled, visual targets that were set over DNR monuments were used to transform
the islands' shorelines from an arbitrary coordinate system to the State plane coordinate
system. After the photographs were digitized, any significant errors could be seen in the
dimensions of the images created. It seemed likely that joining the photos together by
hand into the sets was responsible for a substantial amount of the error.

The next technique included digitizing photographs individually and then assembling the
digitized images together using the same CAD drawing program mentioned earlier.
Control points on sequential photos were again used to guide in the assembly of the
various islands. The benefit of this method was that the images could be laid over one
another similar to using a light table. This enabled more control points to be seen and be
used to help in the assembling process. Once assembled and moved into the State plane
coordinate system, again using visual targets, it became apparent that there was still a
considerable amount of error in the series of photographs most likely due to the inherent
distortion in the photographs.

The final technique used enabled some of the distortion to be eliminated. It was
concluded that the State of Florida Department of Natural Resources Coastal
Construction Control Line (CCCL) aerial photographs for Lee County (taken on
10/14/88) were somewhat rectified since the amount of distortion appeared minimal and
had state plane coordinates overlaying the photos. The first step was to chose control
points found in all three reference sets (CCCL photos, Feb. '96 photos and Aug. '96
photos) having similar properties as those mentioned earlier. With close to 10 years
between the CCCL photos and the recent sets of photos, the increase in developed areas
made it somewhat challenging to determine the control points in these particular areas.
After calibrating the digitizing tablet based on the state plane coordinates displayed, the
selected control points in the CCCL photographs were then digitized creating a map of









control points with known state coordinates. A map of control points on Captiva Island
can be seen in Figure 5 below.

'430495.1401.807904.4901 PROFILES




XIPTY o,----- TENNIS CO*WIS




GULF BUt~t
CF

MEXICO
TENNIS
COURTS






PROAD




Figure 5 AutoCAD display window showing a portion of the base map of Captiva Island


Once the control points were determined, both sets of recent photographs were digitized
including the depicted shoreline position, reference points and visible targets. To achieve
greater accuracy, before the second set of aerial photographs was taken, supplementary
visual targets were placed over 16 DNR monuments throughout the county. In order to
minimize fieldwork, the monuments selected to be targeted were part of the group used in
the profile surveys. Targeting the monuments was accomplished by the combined efforts
of the University of Florida Coastal & Oceanographic Engineering Department and the
Division of Natural Resources Management of Lee County. The individual digitized
images of the 9" x 9" photos for both sets of recent photographs were next imported into
the base map and placed in its best-fit location based on the control points mentioned
above. Here, a CAD application best served our needs by having the ability to change the
scale, change the alignment and shift images all with ease and minimal computer time.
Each set of images was then placed on a drawing layer inside the CAD application. This
was done to keep the two sets of recent photo images separated in order to reduce
confusion in editing later on. Figure 6 shows image blocks (created by digitizing aerial
photographs) being positioned in their best fit location over the base map utilizing the
control points labeled. Once digitizing and assembling of composite maps (a complete
sequential set of image blocks for an entire island) were completed, reference lines were









then started at the coordinates for every monument in the county (information provided in
the "Monument Descriptions") and drawn perpendicular to the coastline, extending past
the shorelines for both recent sets of images. The distances from the monument locations
to the corresponding shorelines (HWL) were then recorded.

^J iH lf.i. 430352.2862.807904.4901 I PROFILES


S9 IN PHOTOCcAPHS(TYP.)


GLF

MEXICO


PROFILE LOCATION rYP.)


Figure 6 AutoCAD display window showing the composite map of Captiva Island being
assembled
After comparing the beach widths obtained with this method to the ground truth beach
widths, some isolated areas were found to still have significant errors ranging from 40 to
over 100 feet when compared with other nearby profiles. These particular locations were
then re-digitized and imported again into the composite map utilizing additional reference
points. In some cases, this provided a better fit and produced better results.

Analysis of Data

Once beach widths were obtained from the composite map, they were compared with the
ground truth determined beach width values to judge the accuracy of the composite map.
Other than distortion as a reason for discrepancies found, other reasons were also
considered. The high water line represented in both sets of photographs is similar to a
contour found on a topographic map with its elevation being the sum of the tidal
elevation, storm surge, wave setup and wave run-up. One problem with this is the study
focuses on the outer coastline of the county, which consists of barrier islands. The
presence of inlets which cut through these barrier islands will always have an influence on








the elevation of the tides, resulting in varying tidal elevations throughout the county.
Other factors that will seldom be the same throughout a lengthy shoreline are the intensity
of the wind and the size of the waves that reach the shore due to local bathymetry and
exposure. Both are important characteristics on which storm surge, wave setup and wave
run-up are strongly dependent. This change in wave activity can be seen in both sets of
aerial photographs taken for this study which would obviously cause discrepancies in the
elevation of the HWL selected.

With the above discussion as background, there are several ways to attempt to account for
these changing variables. Setting up the proper instrumentation along the entire county to
measure tide, wind strength and wave characteristics at key locations simultaneously with
the photography would be both expensive and time consuming. It was felt more
advantageous and practical to adjust the high water line position data based on ground
truth data. Three different routines of adjusting the data included:

1. Leave the error data unchanged for a control (refer to Table 3).

2. For each island, shift all mean high water positions so that the average
error for each island's data reduces to zero (refer to Table 4).

3. For each island, determine the required change in water level (due to
tide and run-up) needed to reduce the average error of the sample
error data to zero (refer to Table 5). This differs from procedure 2,
above, due to the varying beach slope along the county shoreline.

The third routine was conceived after varying error results were examined throughout the
county. If the error was due in part to the water level being different than MHWD, the
error would be reduced by applying a uniform difference in elevation for each island in
combination with the beach face slopes of adjacent profiles.

Once the data sets were adjusted by the above methods, all three sets of data were then
calibrated to minimize remaining errors. Calibration includes finding errors associated
with any two particular monuments and then linearly interpolating those amounts and
applying as a correction factor to all those locations between the two. The errors found at
monuments other than those selected for calibration, would then be used to help determine
the accuracy accomplished by the two procedures.

The two methods of data calibration include:

1. Utilizing the first and last monuments on each island as the ground
truth profiles. (Calibration #1)

2. Utilizing every other monument on each island as ground truth
profiles. (Calibration #2)











LEE COUNTY COASTLINE STUDY
CAPTIVA ISLAND
February 1996 Survey Information Calibrated Utilizing Raw Data

Raw Data Calibration Utilizing Calibration Utilizing
DNR Ground High Water Line Error Without The First and Last Monument of the Island Every Other Monument of the Island
Monument Truth Position Without Correction Interpolation Calibration High Water Line Error Interpolation Calibration High Water Line Error
S (Feet) Correction (Feet) Number Coefficient Position (Feet) (Feet) Number Coefficient Position (Feet) (Feet)
A-46-2 126.1 6.2 119.9 6.2 119.9
R-85 833.3 6.2 827.1 62 827.1
R-86 520.0 6.2 513.8 6.2 513.8
R-87 383.4 6.2 377.2 6.2 377.2
R-88 251.3 257.5 6.2 6.2 251.3 0.0 6.2 251.3 0.0
R-89 453.9 1 4.9 449.0 1 6.6 447.3
R-90 215.1 2 3.6 211.5 2 6.9 208.2
R-91 157.5 3 2.3 155.2 3 7.3 150.2
R-92 192.2 4 1.0 191.2 4 7.7 184.5
R-93 224.8 5 -0.3 225.1 5 8.1 216.7
R-94 148.3 153.3 6.0 6 -1.6 154.9 6.6 6 A.4 144.9 -3.4
R-95 148.3 7 -2.9 151.2 7 8.8 139.5
R-96 117.7 8 -4.2 121.9 8 9.2 108.5
R-97 108.7 9 -5.5 114.2 9 9.6 99.1
R-98 130.1 10 -6.8 136.9 10 9.9 120.2
R-99 221.8 232.1 10.3 11 -8.1 240.2 18.4 11 10.3 221.8 0.0
R-100 194.0 12 -9.4 203.4 1 7.0 187.0
R-101 277.0 13 -10.7 287.7 2 3.6 273.4
R-102 219.0 14 -12.0 231.0 3 0.3 218.7
R-103 275.0 15 -13.3 288.3 4 -3.1 278.1
R-104 256A 268.1 11.7 16 -14.6 282.7 26.3 S -6.4 274.5 18.1
R-105 156.8 17 -15.9 172.7 6 -9.8 166.6
R-106 425.3 18 -172 442.5 7 -13.1 438.4
R-107 429.4 19 -18.5 447.9 8 -16.5 445.9
R-108 176.9 157.1 -19.8 20 -19.8 176.9 0.0 9 -19.8 178.9 0.0
R-109 374.2 -19.8 394.0 -19.8 394.0

Average Error: 2.7 Avg. 17.1 Avg. 7.3
Standard Deviation: 12.9 S.D. 9.9 S.D. 15.2

Note: The monuments at which ground truth profiles are located are shown in bold type.


Table 3 (Sample data set for Routine #1)












LEE COUNTY COASTLINE STUDY
CAPTIVA ISLAND
February 1996 Survey Information Calibrated Utilizing Average Error Correction

Raw Data Error Correction Calibration Utilizing Calibration Utilizing
DNR Ground High WaterLine Error Without HighWater Line Error With Avg. The First and Last Monument of the Island Ever Other Monument of the Island
Monument Truth Position Witho Correction Position Wth Error Correction Interpolation Calibration High Water Line Error Interpolation Calibration HighWater Line Error
(Feet) Correction (Feet) Avg Error Correction (Feet) Number Coefficient Position (Feet) (Feet) Number Coefficient Position (Feet) (Feet)
A-46-2 126.1 123.4 3.5 119.9 3.5 119.9
R-s5 833.3 830.6 3.5 827.1 3.5 827.1
R-86 520.0 517.3 3.5 513.8 3.5 513.8
R-87 383.4 380.7 3.5 377.2 3.5 377.2
R-86 251.3 2575 6.2 254.8 3.5 3.5 251.3 0.0 3.5 251.3 0.0
R-89 453.9 451.2 1 2.2 449.0 1 3.9 447.3
R-90 215.1 212.4 2 0.9 211.5 2 4.3 208.2
R-91 157.5 154.8 3 -0.4 1552 3 4.6 150.2
R-92 192.2 189.5 4 -1.7 191.2 4 5.0 184.5
R-93 224.8 222.1 5 -3.0 225.1 5 5.4 216.7
R44 148.3 153.3 5.0 150.6 2.3 -4.3 154.9 6. 86 5.8 144.9 -34
R-95 148.3 145.6 7 -5.6 1512 7 6.1 139.5
R-96 117.7 115.0 8 -6.9 121.9 8 6.5 108.5
R-97 108.7 108.0 9 -8.2 114.2 9 6.9 99.1
R-98 130.1 127.4 10 -9.5 136.9 10 7.2 120.2
R-4 221. 232.1 10.3 229A 7.6 11 -10.8 240.2 18A 11 7.6 221.8 0.0
R-100 194.0 191.3 12 -12.1 203.4 1 4.3 187.0
R-101 277.0 274.3 13 -13.4 287.7 2 0.9 273.4
R-102 219.0 216.3 14 -14.7 231.0 3 -2.4 218.7
R-103 275.0 272.3 15 -16.0 288.3 4 -5.8 278.1
R-104 25A 268.1 11.7 25.4 9.0 16 -17.3 282.7 2.3 6 4.1 274.5 18.1
R-105 158.8 154.1 17 -18.6 172.7 6 -12.4 166.6
R-106 425.3 422.6 18 -19.9 442.5 7 -15.8 438.4
R-107 429.4 428.7 19 -21.2 447.9 8 -19.1 445.9
R-108 176.9 157.1 -19. 154A -22.5 20 -22. 176.9 0.0 9 -22.5 176.9 0.0
R-109 374.2 371.5 -22.5 394.0 -22.5 394.0

Average Error 2.7 Avg. 0.0 Avg. 17.1 Avg. 7.3
Standard Deviation: 12.9 S.D. 12.9 S.D. 9.9 S.D. 15.2

Note: The monuments at which ground truth profiles are located are shown In bold type.


Table 4 (Sample data set for Routine #2)













LEE COUNTY COASTUNE STUDY
CAPTIVA ISLAND
February 1996 Survey Information Calibrated Utilizing Tidal Correction

Raw Data Corrected Data For Tidal Differences Calibration Utilizing Calibration Utilizing
DNR Ground Hgh Watr Une Error WIIhout Tidal Conctlo gW HghWaterUne Error Wilh The First and Last Monument of the Island Ever Other Monument of the Island
Monument Truth Position Wilh itf Correctin Tidal Elevaon Slope Wihn Hgh Water Une Poosion Wih Tidal Correctin Intlrpolaion Calbrlon igh Water Un Error Inerpolation Calbraion HighWater ine Error
(Feet) Correcion (Feel) Correcion SwashZone Correction Tida Conrracn (Fee Number CoeTmdent Position (Feet) (Fset) Number Coofficent Pootion (Fat) (Fet)
A46-2 128.1 0.29 0.124 -2.3 123.8 3.9 119.9 3.9 119.9
R-s 833.3 0.29 0.124 -2.3 831.0 3.9 827.1 3.0 827.1
R-0e 520.0 0.29 0.124 -2.3 517.7 3.9 513.8 3.0 513.8
R-87 3834 0.29 0.124 -2.3 381.1 3.9 377.2 3.9 377.2
R418 2513 257.5 .2 0.21 0.124 -2.3 2552 3.9 3.9 251.3 0. 3.9 251.3 0o
Re 0 453.9 0.29 0.128 -2.3 451.6 1 2.5 449.1 1 4.3 447.3
R-90 215.1 0.29 0.128 -2.3 212.8 2 1.1 211.7 2 4.7 208.1
R-91 157.5 0.29 0.130 -2.2 155.3 3 -0.3 155.5 3 5.1 150.2
R-92 192.2 0.29 0.133 -2.2 190.0 4 -1.6 191. 4 5 5 184.5
R-03 224. 0.29 0.135 -2.2 222.6 5 -3.0 225.7 5 6. 216.7
R- 4 1483 153" 50 0.29 0.137 -21 151.2 2.9 6 -44 1554 7.3 6 6.4 144.8 -3.5
P.-5 148.3 0.29 0.141 -21 146.2 7 -5.7 152.0 7 6.8 139A
R-6O 117.7 0.29 0.146 -20 115.7 8 -7.1 122.8 8 72 108.5
R-97 108.7 0.29 0.151 -1.9 106.8 9 -8.5 115.3 7.6 09.1
R-98 130.1 0.29 0.155 -1.0 1282 10 -9.9 138.1 10 8.1 120.2
R41 221 232.1 10.3 0.20 0.190 -1.8 2303 8.5 11 112 241.5 19.7 11 8a5 221J 0.0
R-100 194.0 0.29 0.146 -2.0 192.0 12 -12.6 204.6 1 4.9 187.1
R-101 277.0 0.29 0.131 -2.2 274.8 13 -14.0 288.8 2 1 A 273.4
R-102 21.0 0.29 0.117 -2.5 216.5 14 -15A 231.9 3 -2.2 218.7
R-103 275.0 0.20 0.103 -28 2722 15 -16.7 288.9 4 -5.8 277.9
R-104 2564 26.1 11.7 0.0 0.O -3.3 204.8 8A t1 -18.1 282.a 26. 5 4 3 274.1 17.7
R-105 156.8 0.29 0.085 -.4 153A 17 -19.5 172.9 6 -12. 1663
R-106 425 3 0.29 0.082 -3.5 421.8 18 -20.8 442.6 7 -165 4382
R-107 4294 0.29 0.070 -37 425.7 19 -222 448.0 8 -20.0 445.8
R-10B 176. 157.1 -19. 0.2 0.077 -3. 113.3 -23.8 20 -2W3 176.9 0.0 9 -23 1762 0.0
R-109 374.2 0.29 0.077 -3.8 3704 -23.6 394.0 -23.8 394.0

Average rror 17 Avg. 0.0 Avg 17.8 Avg. 7.1
Stendrd Delafion 12.9 SO.. 13.4 SD. a.8 15.0

Note: The monuments at which ground truth profiles are located are shown in bold type.


Table 5 (Sample data set for Routine #3)










Results


All of the data analyzed are presented in Appendix B in tables similar to those shown in
Tables 3 through 5 for Captiva Island. The data on those spreadsheets were then
condensed and used to evaluate various facets of the project. For each comparison, a
relative frequency distribution of error was calculated and shown in the form of
histograms. Each histogram highlights the merits of one procedure over another by
comparing results obtained from a specific process. All of the histograms utilized to make
any conclusions are shown in Appendix D with a summary presented and discussed below.
Included on each histogram are the standard deviation and mean for each data set. These
statistical tools were chosen in order to provide numerical descriptions for the degree of
spreading and average of each data set. The standard deviation of a data set indicates to
what degree the data fluctuates from the mean, with larger deviations corresponding to a
greater spread of the data.


Lee County Raw Survey Data

05-Feb-96
(Mean=3 6 ft.SD=22 2 ft)
R25-Aug-96
og (Mean=3 3 ft,SD=11.8 ft)

U.





5 -r "M 0_ M ? 0 0 M =
Error between Aerial Photographs and Ground Truth (Feet)


Figure 7 Comparison of uncorrected data sets

The histogram in Figure 7 shows the relative frequency distribution of error calculated for
the entire county for the first and second aerial surveys. Based on the information shown,
the mean errors for both surveys are quite similar while the standard deviation of the data
for the February survey is much greater than the standard deviation of the data for the
August survey. It was anticipated that the mean values would represent the amount the
representative shoreline was needed to be shifted to conform closer to the High Water
Line. Refinements in the latter aerial survey appear to be the reason for the improvement
reflected by the smaller standard deviation for the August aerial survey. These
refinements will be discussed later under Improvements.









A summary table of the data in Appendix B, is provided in Table 6 to show the errors
associated with each island independently. By noticing the standard deviations for each
island in Table 6, the larger contributors of error are: Lacosta Island, Estero Island and
Lover's Key. Lacosta Island and Lover's Key are less developed islands which results in
less available control points (Le. roads, pools, tennis courts, etc.) when compared with
other more developed islands (i.e. Sanibel Island or Captiva Island). With less control
points, it becomes much more difficult to create an accurate composite map. Adding
visual targets to these areas will help remedy the problem. Uncertainty with the reliability
of the composite map of Estero Island is due to a discrepancy found while digitizing the
CCCL photos. After several attempts of digitizing the CCCL photos, the main road near
monument R-203 was consistently disjointed by 20+ feet on the created base map. It is
therefore possible that there may be an error in the CCCL photos used and that portion of
the base map for Estero Island should be corrected by referencing a set of CCCL photos
taken at another time or by other means.

Island Feb. '96 Survey Data Aua. '96 Survey Data
Avg. Error S.D. Avg. Error S.D.
Gasparilla Island -5.7 9.8 12.4 7.4
Lacosta Island -9.0 31.9 -2.8 19.9
North Captiva Island -1.3 7.4 4.4 11.4
Captiva Island 2.7 12.9 7.1 7.3
Sanibel Island 10.8 18.5 3.3 7.5
Estero Island 20.0 29.1 -2.6 14.1
Lover's Key/Bonita Beach 1.0 29.3 1.9 13.2

Table 6 Summary error results for each aerial survey by island

In an attempt to focus on the accuracy of the method developed, these "problem areas"
were excluded from the data with results shown in Figure 8. Removing the problem areas
from the group sample reduced the error standard deviation and simultaneously increased
the mean error. The change in standard deviation appears to show that areas which lacked
control points or inaccurate control points resulted in an increased standard deviation.
The shoreline positions obtained from these problem areas appears to have also had an
influence on the average shoreline position with respect to the HWL however, the
difference between the two mean values is still relatively small. Any value determined
would have to be taken into consideration later when determining the total shoreline
change for the entire county.









Lee County Raw Survey Data Excluding Problem Areas

05-Feb-96
o (Mean=4 8 ft.SD=16.0 ft)
125-Aug-96
r- (Mean=5.6 ft.SD=7.6 ft)





8. f. ----,, 10-1:-
I







F 2 W R t2 u W 0 LO f
Error between Aerial Photographs and Ground Truth (Feet)

Figure 8 Comparison of uncorrected data sets excluding problem areas

The next question was if any of the correction routines performed on the data resulted in
significant improvements. Figures 9 and 10 focus on the various routines applied to each
complete set of data. For both surveys, the scatter and average error of the data were
reduced by a similar amount by either shifting the data or correcting for tidal change.
Although the results for either method were not dramatic, it is still felt that these
techniques (especially shifting the data) have merit by accounting for the discrepancies that
would be found should the shoreline be incorrectly identified in the photographs of an
aerial survey. After applying the two correction routines, each set of processed data was
calibrated two different ways as discussed earlier. Resulting errors indicated that both
methods of calibration consistently increased the error standard deviations.


























Figure 9 Comparison of results determined by applying various computations to the
February data (Including problem areas)


Error between Aerial Photographs and Ground Truth (Feet)


Figure 10 Comparison of results determined by applying various computations to
the August data (Including problem areas)

In order to examine the reliability of using aerial photography in determining shoreline
change, frequency distributions representing the change in beach widths between February
and August obtained from the composite maps were compared to the same obtained from
ground truth profiles. Figure 11 shows the changes that occurred for the entire county
over the six month time span. The discrepancies between the two methods are due to the










Relative Frequency Distribution of Adiusted Seasonal Shoreline
Changes Throughout the Entire County
0.30
0 Aerial Photos
0.25- Avg.=8 6 ft: S.D.=48.9 ft
SGround Truth
S0.20 Avg.=22.7 ft: S.D.=48.9 ft

i. 0.15*

S0.10

0.05

0.00

V A
Shoreline Change (Feet)

Figure 11 Comparison of shoreline changes for the entire county


amount of sampling by each method. Results based on aerial photography documented
shoreline change at every DNR monument (approximately 239 points spaced at 1/5 mile
intervals) while the ground truth profiles determined the shoreline change at 40 points
spaced at approximately 1 mile intervals. The positive mean values in Figure 11 for both
methods are due to the nourishment projects that occurred between the two aerial surveys.
In an attempt to investigate the natural shoreline processes for the region, Figure 12
excluded the nourished areas from the calculations. These areas included the southern tip
of Gasparilla Island, Captiva Island, parts of Sanibel Island, Ft. Meyers Beach and Bonita
Beach. By eliminating these nourished regions in the county, the histogram clearly shows
that the remaining unnourished areas experienced a net shoreline recession even during the
time between the winter and summer when shoreline advancement is expected. In order
to better evaluate the validity of the results of Figures 11 and 12, Figure 13 shows the
shoreline change determined from aerial photography at only profiled monument locations
and then compared with the change in shoreline position determined from the ground truth
at the same locations. The higher value of the standard deviation for the aerial data was to
be expected however the mean values only deviated from one another by approximately
2 V2 feet which indicates the range of precision the method obtains.






























Comparison of shoreline changes for the entire county excluding nourished
areas


Relative Frequency Distribution of Adjusted Seasonal Shoreline
Changes at Profile Locations Excluding Nourishment Sites


H lE~r


o o~ c co,


[] Aerial Fhotos
Avg.=-0.2 ft; S.D.=28.5 ft
* Ground Truth
Avg.=2.5 ft; S.D.=15.8 ft


EIruFIF6


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
w r P Cr r- T r C r o r- co Q
oooooooooooooooo


v Shoreline Change (Feet) A


Figure 13 Comparison of shoreline changes at profiled locations excluding nourished
areas


Relative Frequency Distribution of Adjusted Seasonal Shoreline
Changes Throughout the County Excluding Nourishment Sites
0.40
0.35 Aerial Photos
Avg =-7.0 ft: S D =27.9 ft
. 0.30
o 0.30-- Ground Truth
S0.25- Avg=1.6ft: S.D.=15.0ft
LL 0.20
* 0.15-
0.10-
0.05
0.00
"7 1;
v Shoreline Change (Feet) A


Figure 12


0.40-
0.35-


0.30
0.25

0.20-
0.15
0.10


0.05
0.00


- ' "***- *-
i


' '


l,









The last significant finding was the success in tracking nourishment projects as shown in
Figure 11. After removing all other areas, Figure 14 indicates the impact those projects
had on their respective beaches and the level of accuracy of the data obtained from aerial
photographs for this application. With beach widths being expanded by more than one
hundred feet in a limited time span, results from the composite map reflect changes of the
same order determined from ground truth profiles. When considering the difference in
values between the two methods, the difference in mean values calculated for those areas
are relatively small Not only was this method able to document the displaced shoreline at
the various nourishment sites, but also the displaced shoreline for areas nearby the
construction caused by the natural spreading of the material. Combining the results from
a composite map with strategically placed ground truth profiles would create a rapid and
complete way of tracking the volumes of material placed at nourished locations.


Relative Frequency Distribution of Adjusted Seasonal
Shoreline Changes at Nourished Profile Locations
0.60
E Aerial Photos
0.50- Avg.=103.1 ft
SGround Truth
.Avg.=100.0 ft
0 0.40
or
LL 0.30

Z 0.20-

0.10-

0.00 I I
a 0 0 0CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O CM CM Iq tO O O
v Shoreline Change (Feet) A

Figure 14 Comparison of shoreline changes at profiled nourished areas








Sources of Error


There are several sources of error in the shoreline positions determined by the
photographic procedure including: misinterpreting the high water line, inaccurately
digitizing the photographs, water level changes causing discrepancies in shoreline position
and human error throughout any part of the procedure.

The effectiveness of this entire process is dependent on the persons) determining and
digitizing the shoreline position. The method is fairly labor intensive and requires
attention to detail. Each step of the methodology requires total consistency throughout
each set of photographs which contributes to the difficulty. A trained draftsperson would
be the best candidate for this type of work. Error created by inaccurately determining the
shoreline position from photographs is presently unavoidable and would increase should a
smaller scale be used. For clarification, small-scale maps tend to show larger portions of
the earth's surface while large-scale maps approach the actual size of the entity being
mapped. Limitations of the digitizer tablet add to this error as well. The Calcomp
digitizer tablet used to create the image models for this project has limitations in accuracy
of 0.005 inches. At the smaller scale of 1"=500 feet, this accuracy could lead to an error
of + 2.5 feet.

Aerial photographs will always have an inherent error due to distortion which has to either
be removed or circumvented, as this project attempted to accomplish. The sources of
error that cause variations in scale and distortion include: changes in the camera's altitude,
changes in tilt of the aircraft, radial scale variations and relief variations of the surface
photographed. Appendix E explains each of these factors in greater detail. The largest of
these sources of error for this project was felt to be the distortion due to camera tilt. This
"tilt" is usually due to aircraft roll. Approximately one half of aerial photographs taken for
mapping purposes are tilted between 1 to 3 degrees. (Anders and Byrnes 1991) Even a
slight one degree tilt can cause non-linear scale variations throughout a photo which are
difficult to correct without the proper equipment/technology. The amount of error
specific to this project that could be expected due to camera tilt is shown below in Table
8. Further explanation of how this error was determined is provided in Appendix E.


1 degree 26 ft 13 ft
3 degrees 80 ft 40 ft
Table 7 Potential errors due to camera tilt








Improvements


Significant changes were implemented between the first and second sets of aerial
photographs which are believed to have improved the accuracy of locating the shoreline
position. It is strongly recommended that these improvements be included in subsequent
aerial surveys as discussed in the following paragraphs.

Increasing the scale of the aerial photos seemed to have a significant influence on the
results of accuracy determined. In this particular project, the first set of photographs was
taken at a scale of 1"=500'. This scale made it difficult for the CAD operator, who
digitized the photographs, to see detail including control points, shoreline indicators and
visual targets. The second set of photographs had a larger scale of 1"=250' which helped
improve detail in the photographs and reduce distortion. Displacements of objects due to
camera tilt is inversely proportional to the scale of a photograph. Theoretically, by
increasing the scale of the photographs by a factor of two will reduce the displacement of
the distorted object by one half. Further explanation is given in Appendix D including
Table D-1. It is believed that the larger scale is at least partially responsible for the
improvement in results shown in Figure 7. Only additional photographic surveys will
confirm this hypothesis.

Increasing the number of visual targets set over the DNR monuments located throughout
the county helped in several ways. Visual targets were felt to be more reliable compared
to other objects that were selected as primary control points since their state plane
coordinates were already known compared to the coordinates of a tennis court that were
identified in the CCCL photos. These visual targets also aided in the importing of images
into the composite map, especially in areas where there were a limited number of common
features found in the CCCL photos and the aerial photographs recently taken. These
undeveloped areas include Lacosta Island, Lovers Key and parts of Sanibel and North
Captiva Islands. It is important that for any subsequent aerial photographs, efforts should
be made to have just as many, but preferably more, visual targets than were set for the
August 25th run.

Coordinating the time of the aerial survey with the forecast time of high tide for the
region was believed to help photographically document a much more concise location of
the High Water Line. By providing the aerial photographer with a tide table for a one-
month time frame, the photographer was able to conform to the time frame specified while
maintaining his constraints for time of day to photograph and requiring clear skies.

Possible alternative improvements:

It is believed that any of the following techniques would improve the accuracy for
determining the shoreline position. It is recommended that any changes in methodology
be first applied to and evaluated for one or two small areas to determine its potential
before implementing for the entire 40 miles of coastline. This should allow various








techniques to be developed and evaluated more effectively, thereby resulting in an optimal
final procedure prior to application over a broad geographical area.


The best way to improve the project's results would be to eliminate the distortion in aerial
photography caused by camera tilt. The approach would be to apply a space resection
program to a scanned image of a photograph. Such a program has the ability to reduce
the distortion in digitized images utilizing control points with known coordinates to obtain
its best-fit position. The best fit is obtained by applying various algorithms including a
least squares adjustment which conforms the location of the digitized control points to
their proper scale and non-tilted position by means of a correction factor. The correction
factor can then be applied to other objects, such as the scanned shoreline on the corrected
image. Once the image is corrected, a computer would be used to interpret the shoreline
position. Computers have the ability to decipher 256 shades of gray compared to 8-10 for
the human eye. With the help of a computer operator, a computer could find consistencies
and gradients in the intensity of light which would help identify the wet/dry line in the sand
(high water line).

As an alternative to the above, a less complicated but possibly more costly procedure to
produce improved results would be to obtain orthophotos from the aerial photographer.
Orthophotos are corrected aerial photographs which have the scale variations due to plane
tilt and change in altitude removed by using large stereoscopic plotters. This equipment is
able to place the original photo back in its original tilted position and then project the
image downward at its proper scale. Information taken from these rectified photos can
then be treated as if taken from a map. Once the photos are corrected, they can be
digitized as was done in Phase I or scanned and having the computer interpret the
shoreline position as discussed in the preceding paragraph.









Summary, Conclusions & Recommendations


Since initiation of the project, many different techniques have been employed to create the
most accurate composite map in order to extract the most precise shoreline measurements.
The most significant improvements in accuracy were found between the two aerial surveys
taken February '96 and August '96. Preliminary planning for the August survey specified
a lower flight altitude (which produces a larger scale), an increase in the number of visual
targets and flight time coordinated with the predicted high tide; all of which are believed
to have contributed to improving the results. The best accuracy for the method developed
in determining shoreline position was +11.1 feet which is applicable for only the adjusted
August survey data after the average error for each island's data was reduced to zero. The
method developed by Dolan et al (1980) determined an error of 20.7 feet on a more
energetic shoreline while Fisher and Overton (1994) documented that the accuracy of
digitizing directly from aerial photographs and using USGS Topographic maps for control
will have an error of 50 feet. When evaluating average shoreline change, the accuracy of
the composite error improved to +2.5 feet based on the collective data. Stafford and
Langfelder (1971) found similar results with a large magnitude of error in some instances
while the mean of the composite differences was very small. It was concluded by Stafford
and Langfelder that, "...the composite error was concluded to be sufficiently small so as
to not have a detrimental effect on the study results expressed by mean beach location
changes as long as adequate care was taken in the measurement process and provided that
the most accurate type of aerial photograph available in a particular area was used."

After evaluating all of the data some interesting and useful information was determined. It
appears that the average natural shoreline receded approximately 7 feet (2.5 feet) during
the six month time frame. When including the nourished areas, the average shoreline
accreted approximately 8.6 feet (2.5 feet). This shows that the nourishment projects
appear to be helping control the amount of beach recession throughout the county. It is
also important to realize that these numbers are influenced by the seasonal profile changes
and storms that typically occur as mentioned earlier. The best way to filter out this
uncontrollable factor is to use aerial photographs spaced at one or several year intervals
when creating a composite map with special care that each aerial survey is performed
during the same time of season.

To further improve the degree of accuracy, it has been recommended by researchers such
as Anders and Byrnes (1991) among others that the error within erosion rate studies can
be minimized by extending the time between surveys. If a shoreline change trend exists,
increasing the temporal spacing results in shoreline changes which will eventually be larger
than the inherent errors of the method used. Thus, the temporal spacing allows the error to
be distributed throughout the associated time frame. For example, a 5 foot error
determined for a 5 year erosion study would result in one foot of error per year.

This method developed here would also be suitable for documenting larger shoreline
changes which occur over a shorter time span such as the result of beach nourishment
projects and the impacts of major storms. For example, the average shoreline change








including all of the nourished areas throughout the county was approximately 103 feet
determined with aerial photography while ground truth determined the change to be 100.0
feet. Nourished areas not only experience rapid changes when placing sand within the
design template during construction but when the material begins to disperse alongshore
due to spreading and cross-shore due to profile equilibration.

A second phase to this study is recommended to further develop and automate the
process. It is recommended that the second phase concentrate on: (1) rectifying the aerial
photographs to remove distortions due to roll of the aircraft, and (2) automate digitization
of the indicator representing the Mean High Water shoreline. The use of ground truth
surveys would be continued as a means of evaluating the accuracy of the methodology
implemented. Finally, it is suggested that the second phase effort would be most effective
if focused on two areas, one developed and one in a more natural condition. This focus
on two areas of reasonable longshore extent would allow methods to be developed and
evaluated more rapidly and effectively and efforts to be concentrated on development of a
procedure for application in future years.








Literature Cited


Anders, F.J. and M.R. Byrnes, "Accuracy of Shoreline Change Rates as Determined from
Maps and Aerial Photographs." Shore and Beach, Vol. 57, p. 17-26, 1991.

Balsillie, J.H., J.G. Carlen and T.M. Watters, "Transformation of Historical Shorelines to
Current NGVD Position For the Florida Lower Gulf Coast." 1987

Crowell, M. and S.P. Leatherman, M.K. Buckley, "Historical Shoreline Change: Error
Analysis and Mapping Accuracy." Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 7,
p. 839-852, 1991.

Dolan, R., B.P. Hayden and J. Heywood, "New photogrammetric method for determining
shoreline erosion." Journal of Coastal Engineering, Vol. 2, p. 21-39, 1978.

Dolan, R., B.P. Hayden, P. May, and S. May, "The reliability of shoreline change
measurements from aerial photographs." Shore and Beach, Vol. 48, p. 22-29, 1980.

Fisher, J.S. and M.F. Overton, "Interpretation of Shoreline Position from Aerial
Photographs." 24th International Conference on Coastal Engineering, Vol. 2,
p. 1998-2003, 1994.

Leatherman, S.P., "Shoreline mapping: a comparison of techniques." Shore and Beach,
Vol. 51, p. 28-33, 1983.

McBeth, F.H., "A method of shoreline delineation." Photogrammetric Engineering,
Vol. 22, p. 400-405, 1956.

Moffitt, F.H., "History of Shore Growth from Aerial Photographs." Shore and Beach,
Vol. 4, p. 23-27, 1969.

Stafford, D.B., J. Langfelder, "Air Photo Survey of Coastal Erosion." Photogrammetric
Engineering, Vol. 37, p. 565-575, 1971.

Wolf, P.R., Elements ofPhotogrammetry, 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York,
628 p, 1983.



















Appendix A


Ground Truth Profiles






0





O0
S)p




















o
90


























Co
-a
EU
0


O
z

m




Un
*D

-<




o












0
o

0
1











0
0
CA

z

0n




0


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


LEGEND:

------- SURVEY f2 (02/10/96)

----- SURVEY f4 (08/27/96)


3 10 20 FT.


3 40 80 FT.
~-I !I I


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


I


189.7'
178.3_'-_-_-_- -


0+00 1+00 2+00


3+00


- ~












140.7'
135.4'


I 800' ---- --- ---- ---- ----- ---------
8.00' --
6.00'
S4.00' -. MEAN HIG-I WATEI! (EL 41.17')
2.00'
0.00'
-2.00' -"-- ---

0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00

DISTANCE (FEET)







0 10 20 FT.
VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"

0 40 80 FT.
HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0" P





LEGEND: NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
------- SURVEY #2 (02/10/96) 2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.

SURVEY #4 (08/27/96)


- U




-UI


a



go


ii
30











'!
8 a








is











.-
U)


0


z
m


0

on


3-
0
m








r n

0
0
c
O


0


m



0

z
0

a


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


LEGEND:

------- SURVEY #2 (02/10/96)

-------- SURVEY #4 (08/27/96)


D 10 20 FT.


0 40 80 FT.
r' !


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


- A I


0+00 1+00 2+00


DISTANCE (FEET)


3+00





0

II

Do


'z
-IF









t ii
Ip
0


5 z




















'1
F;
.40















I


o
Fn


I


12.00'
10.00'
8.00'
6.00'
4.00'
2.00'
0.00'
-2.00'

0+(


1+00


2+00


3+00


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


0 10 20 FT.


3 40 80 FT.


LEGEND:

------- SURVEY #2 (02/10/96)

--- -- SURVEY #4 (08/27/96)


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


- ~.


I


, ._____. ___M EAN HIGH WATEF (EL + .18')-



-----


-I, 2_57..2'
---------------- ------257.2 _ _
: 253.9'


DO


I


II




mm


X 0





z
Do

-S
30

S0

M lp
.z

1201

-I-
0


155.5'
146.6'


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


3 10 20 FT.


3 40 80 FT.
I


LEGEND:

------- SURVEY #2 (02/10/96)

------ -- SURVEY #4 (08/27/96)


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


3+00


- & -- a











It 308.8'
S225.7'


S_"_'- ~ iEAN H GH WAER (EL +1.18')--



-_ _


2+00


3+00


4+00


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


0 10 20 FT.


0 40 80 FT.


LEGEND: NOTES:
- -- SURVEY l1 (12/03/95) 1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.
3. SURVEY #2 DATA NOT COLLECTED
----- --- SURVEY #4 (08/27/96)


-p


14.00'
12.00'
10.00'
8.00'
6.00'
4.00'
2.00'
0.00'
-2.00'


1+00








Ill
30



aO
11Z
eo

30O


C
z

m




O


0













0
0
1z







0






0



z
0
0,
cr

m,


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


LEGEND:

------- SURVEY f2 (02/10/96)

----- -- SURVEY f4 (08/27/96)


3 10 20 FT.


3 40 80 FT.


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


- i a


U


181.1'
178.2'


0+00 1+00 2+00


3+00




























DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


3 10 20 FT.


3 40 80 FT.
I I


LEGEND:

------- SURVEY #2 (02/10/96)

-------- SURVEY f4 (08/27/96)


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


0


I1

z "
0


z
DO

rI


L- __ 469.0'

---_-_- 446-.8. --I


6+00


- A






C







ml



5

!1
0




5

















0
0
c

z




m





0

c


5


IZ.UU
10.00'
8.00'
6.00'
4.00'
2.00'
0.00'
-2.00'

4+


a-- --" "- a **- --


____ ___
_____ M AN HIG- WATE (EL 41.20')

--- ~ 6--


00 5+00


6+00


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


LEGEND:

------- SURVEY #2 (02/10/96)

-- --- SURVEY f4 (08/27/96)


0 10 20 FT.


0 40 80 FT.
I I


NOTES:

1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


- b a


562.2'
------------------------558.6'
Vn ______I_558.6'


7+00




-U


S0I
z


to
0
ao
M 30
g















I
30 0
I









0


in





o
co


c
z

m

-I
m



0





*n












0
o














30



0


z
11






Un
o







0

;,
0
z
0
>l


1+00


2+00


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


LEGEND:


------- SURVEY f2 (02/10/96)

-------- SURVEY #4 (08/27/96)


0 10 20 FT.


0 40 80 FT.


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


- I ~E


178.3'
113.9'
12.00 -- - -- - -
12.00'
10.00'
8.00
6.00'- 1- g---
4.00' ----
2.00' --
0.00'
-2.00' -- - --- -


0+00


SMAN HIG1 WATEI (EL 41.20')
'^ ^ .- -


3+00






N 0





O

IF
mr








NI-
0


















z








CI
-0
0,


2+00 3+00 4+00


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


LEGEND:


------- SURVEY #2 (02/10/96)

-------- SURVEY #4 (08/27/96)


3 10 20 FT.


3 40 80 FT.


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


. I I


U


_ 321.4'
- -- ----- --- --


5+00












oo
0


SzI

I)
0
-I-











-o


F;




UI
0


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


LEGEND:


------- SURVEY #2 (02/10/96)

-- --- SURVEY #4 (08/27/96)


3 10 20 FT.


3 40 80 FT.
II C I


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


- a -


a.


C
a
m



0

I-

0



1


0+00 1+00 2+00


-<-

n
0
0
0
z

0
0


z
rn



0
c


I
0


3+00






0
Do






0 0



Ii
oo


























on
-I





I
30
yo









0)


0+00


108.5'
96.8'


-""- -MEAN HIG WATER (EL 41.21')
_________ ______ _______ _____ ^ ^ __ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ "" ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^


1+00


2+00


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


LEGEND:


------- SURVEY #2 (02/10/96)

----- SURVEY #4 (08/27/96)


3 10 20 FT.


3 40 80 FT.
I I!!I


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


-I I


F


12.00'
10.00'
8.00'
6.00'
4.00'
2.00'
0.00'
-2.00'


m

0

0
z


o
0









0
mC

Fo





z
0

c:
o


3+00


L





0
SOW



r0
00

z

fi


0+00 1+00 2+00


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


3 10 20 FT.


D 40 80 FT.
I I


LEGEND:
- - SURVEY #1 (12/02/95)


-------- SURVEY #4 (08/27/96)


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


- U


197.9'
190.3'__


3+00


I I





0



0

S0
r
n
ZZ










fi















I


n
a








'u
0










Cl'


C
z

m
0






0

0
o
















0

z

0
0
C



m



U<

c
z

0


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


LEGEND:

------- SURVEY f2 (02/10/96)

------ -- SURVEY #4 (08/27/96)


3 10 20 FT.


3 40 80 FT.
II' C I


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


I I


- p


249.5'


12.00' --
8.O0 ___ __ ____221.7_


10.00'
8.00 *
6.00 -Z --- -- ME. N HIG WATER (EL
4.00' -%_ -- ----' - --- .


0+00 1+00 2+00


3+00












90
g
90


i >


1+00


2+00


3+00


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


3 10 20 FT.


D 40 80 FT.
II G;2 C ; I


LEGEND:

------- SURVEY #2 (02/10/96)

-------- SURVEY f4 (08/27/96)


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


- U


67.3'
64.2'






"""_ __ -" MEAN HIG- WATE (EL -1.23')

-


12.00'
10.00'
8.00'
6.00'
4.00'
2.00'
0.00'
-2.00'


0+00


- &











so
0






Is






-o
z'















0

F;
)cn


C


C
z
m
m


0
41
on

oc
o

a











0
0
c
z

0








o
;a


- 1 I


0+00 1+00 2+00


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


LEGEND:


0 10 20 FT.


0 40 80 FT.
I i=o


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.
3. ACCESS DENIED FOR SURVEY #2.


-- --- SURVEY f4 (08/27/96)


3+00




-'U


0n





il1
zi












I
o









i B








-i
0




F;



00
00


C

m


0
91

0
o
3F






0





0
O
z

a


F,
o







z
m







0


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


LEGEND:


- SURVEY f#


(12/02/95)


0 10 20 FT.


0 40 80 FT.
I IFFF !T


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.
3. ACCESS DENIED DURING SURVEY #2


----- SURVEY #4 (08/27/96)


284.0'
- ---251.3'-- --


1+00 2+00 3+00


4+00


.1











234.9'
148.3'


___ _- MEAN HIGH W TER (El- +1.2')


---_ _-- _-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -4 ___ ^

--- -- -_ -- --- __ 'K_ -__- __ __ __ __ __ _


1+00


2+00


3+00


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


3 10 20 FT.


3 40 80 FT.
I !"


LEGEND: NOTES:
- -- - SURVEY #1 (12/02/95) 1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT

2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.
3. ACCESS DENIED FOR SURVEY #2 (ACTIVE BEACH NOURISHMENT
--- -- SURVEY #4 (08/28/96) PROJECT)


-I


12.00'
10.00'
8.00'
6.00'
4.00'
2.00'
0.00'
-2.00'


0+00






MI'




0

I"

i



II













0
I-


CI
5C


Co


C

m



0














I-
=n















I
zo





0
0











C
0
0




0

-<
o,





1


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


LEGEND:

------- SURVEY #2 (02/11/96)


0 10 20 FT.


0 40 80 FT.


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


I ----- SURVEY #4 (08/28/96)


t


S324.2'
V 221.8'

12.00'
10.00' 1


1+00 2+00 3+00


4+00





0




1,I'
a



-3
0























Fn


-I
Co





0
-ph


C
z






0


0
F"



-












0
0













;a
o



z






0






C)
0
z
0~


3+00


4+00


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


LEGEND:

------- SURVEY #2 (02/11/96)

----- -- SURVEY #4 (08/28/96)


3 10 20 FT.


) 40 80 FT.


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


U


312.9' -_-
256.4'
12.00'
10.00'
8.00' __
6.00' ----_^___MEAN HIGI WATER (EL+1.26')
6.00' ----- -----= =---
4.00'
4.00' ----. ---
2.00'
0.00'-
-2.00' ------*


2+00


1+00


.5-I,






Mo

|0
z i

5


0
>o

















*
0




I


*n






-U

-Il

I


0
s,


c
z

m
m

co

a
I-



5











O
0
C
z


E

0
m




o
o
c




z






0

ci


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


LEGEND:

------- SURVEY #2 (02/11/96)

------- SURVEY f4 (08/28/96)


0 10 20 FT.


D 40 80 FT.
C IN


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


- m I


- U
C


294.4'
176.9'


0+50 1+50 2+50
DISTANCE (FEET)


3+50







0




- 0


5 z
!r






OU

















-o
XI










0)

Fn


C
z

m

=<


o
On
3-


5





FiP




0
0
o
o

0
0


z
0





0
z
0

c
:0


250.2'__
120.3'

-m


S--ME HH WR ------- -----------

-" _----_I- __ ME N HIGH WATER (EL +1. 6')
_


1+00


2+00


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


LEGEND:

------- SURVEY #2 (02/11/96)

-- ------ SURVEY #4 (08/28/96)


0 10 20 FT.


0 40 80 FT.
|' I


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


r


12.00'
10.00'
8.00'
6.00'
4.00'
2.00'
0.00'
-2.00'


0+00


3+00


- I




- I


0



IP
:o
i0
m"r



I

z
on
I


4 8

-0






IO



0
3


C

m
0



Fn


0
0










U)
m
0
0
c
z





z



-<
o


0

i


1+00


2+00


3+00


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


3 10 20 FT.


D 40 80 FT.
I~ I


LEGEND: NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
------- SURVEY #2 (R-118 UTILIZED) 2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.

------- SURVEY #4 (08/28/96)


12.00'
10.00'
8.00'
6.00'
4.00'
2.00'
0.00'
-2.00'


186.6'


-- HIGH WATER (EL. +1
'"'----.. MEM N HIGH WATER (EL +1 27')


0+00































DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0'



HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


0 10 20 FT.



0 40 80 FT.
a%;;;@ T I


LEGEND: NOTES:

1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
------- SURVEY #2 (02/11/96) 2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.
3. R-118 PROBABLY REMOVED FROM NEARBY PARKING LOT CONSTRUCTION
----- -- SURVEY #4 (R-117 UTILIZED) SOMETIME AFTER SURVEY #2 WAS PERFORMED


- p


-436.0'


12.00'
10.00'
8.00'
6.00'
4.00'
2.00'
0.00'
-2.00'


MEAN -IGH W TER (El. +1.27')-
-- --- --- ---- --- -- ---- --- ----


__s__-_ "'
I ^ ^ ;
,___ ~


2+00


3+00


4+00


5+00





g0




IF
ze
00

Z


0



I





-U
i







-0
0

Fn
U)




I3
1>


C
z
Z
m



0
on

o

I
O








F8



0








ril
C






z
c


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


LEGEND:

------- SURVEY #2 (02/11/96)

-------- SURVEY #4 (08/28/96)


0 10 20 FT.


0 40 80 FT.
IT !


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


- I I


451.8'
427.8'

12.00'
10.00'
8.00'
8.00' __- ME N HIGH WATER EL
6 0 0 '" - -" _ . .. .------., .&- --
4.00'
2.00' ", --
0.00'
-2.00'
2+00 3+00 4+00
2+00 3+00 4+00


I,


DISTANCE (FEET)


5+00






'O



ir



z
00


IaW


1+00 2+00 3+00


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


3 10 20 FT.


3 40 80 FT.
I Imom !


LEGEND:

------- SURVEY #2 (02/10/96)

-------- SURVEY #4 (08/27/96)


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


MW


S309.4'
305.8'

12.00'
10.00'


4+00


II








I;!
'r

90
O0
5 m
:0
a
I


0
















1
i'







-g
0

F;




CA


0+00 1+00 2+00


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


LEGEND:


I


0
0
c

z
o


0O



0
m





z
0

C


0 10 20 FT.


0 40 80 FT.


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


0 p


L 7 253.8'
30.7'

10.00' -


------- SURVEY #2 (02/11/96)

------- SURVEY #4 (08/28/96)


3+00


I I





0
5w
o30


-I
oa
io
00


0


0+00 1+00 2+00


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


3 10 20 FT.


3 40 80 FT.
II I


LEGEND:

- -- SURVEY f2 (02/10/96)

-------- SURVEY #4 (08/27/96)


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


-U


178.7'
173.5'


3+00


- & I








MO

VO
0




o


3





-I-
0









C
-



FD


I
(03


C

Q
m

=


O
0
11


m1
3-









Fn
0







o
5

o
0


z

jlg
E1





0
z
0
mr


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


LEGEND:

------- SURVEY f2 (02/11/96)

--- -- SURVEY f4 (08/28/96)


3 10 20 FT.


3 40 80 FT.


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


I


214.0'
211.1' ___


0+00 1+00 2+00


3+00


.1





0

e .




r
00


30



O




3





4b
1.j









-0
s0


F;
cna

-I


C
z

m




0
Fn
o





c"
I-
O





U






O







z
m
o






0
z




0
*<


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


LEGEND:

------- SURVEY #2 (02/11/96)

--------- SURVEY #4 (08/28/96)


3 10 20 FT.


0 40 80 FT.
CF !T


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


- .1 A


-U


167.9'
164.4'


0+00 1+00 2+00


3+00






I 0
zn





90










10
V Z











0)

4-







50
;a



0


C
z

m
0


an


0
-U


Fn
I-
0
o












0







o1





0
m


c







z






0
;<


^


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


LEGEND:

------- SURVEY f2 (02/11/96)


3 10 20 FT.


3 40 80 FT.
I !


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


I --- -- SURVEY f4 (08/28/96)


150.3'
136.9'_


I
C


0+00 1+00 2+00


3+00


-~





0



iF'




4-
0






o

s



o



I Z
3 0












-0





(1
CID


C
z

m

I

o
0n


91
0




0








0
C


0
0
O


z




C
0
C
z
0

I9


12.00'
10.00'
8.00'
6.00'
4.00'
2.00'
0.00'
-2.00'

0+


3+


172.6'



- -
____ ____ 163.9'





S- ---- -- -- ~ MEAN HIGH WATER (EL +1 31')


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


LEGEND:

------- SURVEY #2 (02/11/96)

-- ------ SURVEY f4 (08/28/96)


0 10 20 FT.


0 40 80 FT.
I I


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


-I I


I
C


1+00


00


2+00


00






O
0
zo






I a
0
S0


















I
i








0




0)

-q


-a
IM


C
z

m
0


0




I
on


0














FC


0



z
0

0O





0
z


0


2+50


MEAN HIGH W TER (E. +1.32)-

---------- -


3+50


4+50


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


LEGEND:

------- SURVEY f2 (02/11/96)

------ --- SURVEY f4 (08/28/96)


0 10 20 FT.


0 40 80 FT.
! ENE


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


I
C


322.3'
S 319.7'


12.00"
10.00'
8.00'
6.00'
4.00'
2.00'
0.00'
-2.00'


5+50


I


immmm






-
os


mr

o


2z



i s
-0
















( )



0


I0


C
z

m




0
a
*n
*U'













m
o
0



0
0


z
1"
SU)
c














m







c:
z
0

c


3+00


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


LEGEND:

------- SURVEY #2 (02/11/96)

--------- SURVEY f4 (08/28/96)


0 10 20 FT.


0 40 80 FT.
!L !


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


aI m


V


-- 203.4'
190.7'

12.00'
10.00'
8.00' -
6.00'
4.00' .-- ---_.. r- iEAN HI H WAT R (EL 1.33')
2.00' ---- i
0.00" -- -T_ .---._ .. "- .,
-2.00' ---


2+00


1+00











DO
_0



5 '






I |
0





-u










Fn


I


C

m





an











-C
o0
0






0






0
z

0
0


z
Il
m


-<

o
c
z
0


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


LEGEND:


------- SURVEY #2 (02/11/96)

-------- SURVEY #4 (08/28/96)


3 10 20 FT.


3 40 80 FT.
I" !'


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


- v 179.1'
175.0'


1+00 2+00 3+00


.





0
Z0
















1













Fn
0



-ol














-4

-b


0o


0+00 1+00 2+00


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


LEGEND:


------- SURVEY #2 (02/12/96)

----- SURVEY #4 (08/28/96)


0 10 20 FT.


0 40 80 FT.
I


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


I I -


U


182.0'


m
O
0


I
z






m


o
C,
0
;a
0
z
0

C


3+00









O
IF

90


05



I-1
30
z


1+00


2+00 3+00


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


3 10 20 FT.

3 408 FT.
0 40 80 FT.
I !


LEGEND:

------- SURVEY #2 (02/12/96)

------ --- SURVEY #4 (08/28/96)


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


--


-- 238.0'
V221.5'
12.00'
10.00'
8.00'
6.00'
4.00' "
2.00' --..-
0.00'
-2.00'


4+00


-I I





0



i,

0 0
0














I '
40









I









c


(0
CD
41


C
z

m
0



on

3-
O

m
5














-4
0
0
0




z

0
0


z





0


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


LEGEND:

------- SURVEY #2 (02/12/96)

-- --- SURVEY #4 (08/28/96)


3 10 20 FT.


3 40 80 FT.


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


U


0+00 1+00 2+00


DISTANCE (FEET)


3+00


I


.





0
z )
5

s
iiP


a
0 0

S0






I
a













to
70




--I

-a
(0
0)


C
a
m


0
91



0












0
0
C
-I








oz

0
-n
o














0


z













c
zf


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


LEGEND:

------- SURVEY #2 (02/12/96)

-------- SURVEY #4 (08/28/96)


0 10 20 FT.


0 40 80 FT.


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


- I


r
C


0+00 1+00 2+00


DISTANCE (FEET)


3+00






Bo



r
0


1


I z


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


S10 20 FT.


D 40 80 FT.
!T M


LEGEND:

------- SURVEY #2 (02/12/96)

--------- SURVEY #4 (08/28/96)


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


-I


LK 925.2'
__-- 921.3'

12.00'
10.00'
8.00'
6.00'
4.00'
2.00' --- -
0.00'
-2.00'

8+00 9+00


MEAN HIGI WATEF (EL. +.39')
x^: ---- ---.=.^. -- -- -- -- -- -


~~It-- --1- -C-- 1


10+00


11+00


I I


I I i I i i 1













110.5'
104.6'






----""-'-'.-__ ~ ...- MEAN HIGH W TER (E. +1.39')



----'--- -- --=-


12.00'
10.00'
8.00'
6.00'
4.00'
2.00'
0.00'
-2.00'

0+(


2+00


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


3 10 20 FT.


) 40 80 FT.
m I


LEGEND: NOTES:

1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
- ---- SURVEY #2 (02/12/96) 2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.

------ --- SURVEY f4 (08/28/96)


-U


1+00


3+00


DO0





_0



i r

00
8so





0
z


















Fn

U1

-I

-a
C,


C
z

m



0
-









O
Fl

0






0
C)








0
c
z

0










C
z
m




o

c
z


c


0+00


1+00


2+00


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


LEGEND:


SURVEY #1 (12/03/95)
SURVEY f2 (MONUMENT GONE)
SURVEY f3 (MONUMENT GONE)
SURVEY f4 (MONUMENT GONE)


0 10 20 FT.


D 40 80 FT.
I I~L


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


-I
C


12.00'
10.00'
8.00'
6.00'
4.00'
2.00'
0.00'
-2.00'


30.7'-


MEAN HIGH WA1ER (EL +1.40')


3+00


I


,




-p


0



2.

so

go
a




I
E ,



-D












0
m



7,
-4


C

m


-<
m


0
on

r"
o











F;

0







z
m
CA



0

z
oi


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


LEGEND:


------- SURVEY #2 (02/12/96)

- - SURVEY #4 (08/27/96)


D 10 20 FT.


0 40 80 FT.
I I-


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


- &


0+00 1+00 2+00


DISTANCE (FEET)


3+00




~1


m,
z
00

Il
0


so













"0

I
Fn
(I)





(0


c
I
m
m



0
<
O



o
>










0
a i





C
0
c:





z


0
0<

o
z


i
0


S"- MEAN HIGH WATER (E. +1.41')

" ""-- - - - -- -


1+00


2+00


3+00


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


LEGEND:


------- SURVEY #2 (02/12/96)

--------- SURVEY f4 (08/27/96)


3 10 20 FT.


3 40 80 FT.


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


- I I


12.00'
10.00'
8.00'
6.00'
4.00'
2.00'
0.00'
-2.00'


l- Lz--


34.4'


0+00





0


Hi-
MO

0
2.
SOr




;i




3 s












-0
-o










F;


I
i4


1+00


2+00


3+00


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


LEGEND:
------------ SURVEY #1 (11/18/95)


- - SURVEY f4 (08/27/96)


0 10 20 FT.


0 40 80 FT.


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


~I~5


-U


25.9'
12.00'-
10.00'
8.00'
6.00'
4.00'
4.00' r ,MEAN HIGH WATER (E- +1.41')
2.00' _- --__- --__ _
0.00' --"" -- .
-2.00'
-.0 -


0+00


m
O
0
c
z

0



z
Co


C,
0
c
z
0

|9




- U
C


0

n r
II

i
00
DO

oZ





-I


I













-o



-I

Co


z
m



0
o1
I-


0
11

rB
0

1

SH







o


C
0


z


0


0
c
z
0


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


LEGEND:

- ---- SURVEY #2 (02/12/96)

----- --- SURVEY f4 (08/28/96)


0 10 20 FT.


0 40 80 FT.


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


344.0'
338.6'
11K- S--- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ----*


2+00 3+00 4+00


5+00


I


J





0



o

_o


zo



30














-I
00

3(0





5o
te
N)


On

an


S-
0















0
o
O
z


0


0


I




z
0


C
5


-" MEAN HIGH WATER EL +1.43')

-------------------------------------- = -8 ^ --- _^ ^ _._ ----


2+00


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


LEGEND:

- SURVEY #2 (02/12/96)

- - SURVEY f4 (08/28/96)


3 10 20 FT.


0 40 80 FT.


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


- I a


12.00'
10.00'
8.00'
6.00'
4.00'
2.00'
0.00'
-2.00'


0+00


(FOR BOTH)
169.1'


C


1+00


3+00





*o


so

IF
On
0





i9













to
I



3




(0


C
z
<
m



0
on


0












0
0
C






z


0
m




o
z
0

I


DISTANCE (FEET)


VERTICAL SCALE 1"=10'-0"


HORIZONTAL SCALE 1"=40'-0"


LEGEND:


------- SURVEY #2 (02/12/96)

--- SURVEY f4 (08/28/96)


0 10
! Cl~


NOTES:
1. STA. 0+00 DEPICTS THE LOCATION OF EACH MONUMENT
2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D.


- a a


I


263.5'
251.3'
1.00'------------------
12.00-- -- -
10.001


1+00 2+00 3+00


4+00


20 FT.


80 FT.



















Appendix B


Data Analysis of Aerial Survey Data taken on

February 5, 1996










LEE COUNTY COASTLINE STUDY
GASPARILLA ISLAND
February 1996 Survey Information Calibrated Utilizing Raw Data

Raw Data Calibration Utilizing Calibration Utilizing
DNR Ground High Water Line Error Without The First and Last Monument of the Island Every Other Monument of the Island
Monument Truth Position Without Correction Interpolation Calibration High Water Line Error Interpolation Calibration High Water Line Error
S (Feet) Correction (Feet) Number Coefficient Position (Feet) (Feet) Number Coefficient Position (Feet) (Feet)
R-1 189.7 193.0 3.3 3.3 189.7 0.0 3.3 189.7 0.0
R-2 205.5 1 2.5 203.0 1 3.3 202.2
R-3 168.8 2 1.8 167.0 2 3.4 165.4
R-4 235.9 3 1.0 234.9 3 3.5 232.4
R-5 220.9 4 0.3 220.6 4 3.5 217.4
R-6 140.7 124.1 -16.6 5 -0.4 124.5 -16.2 5 3.6 120.5 -20.2
R-7 214.3 6 -1.2 215.4 6 3.7 210.6
R-8 118.3 7 -1.9 120.2 7 3.7 114.6
R-9 306.7 8 -2.7 309.4 8 3.8 303.0
R-10 218.2 9 -3.4 221.6 9 3.9 214.3
R-11 43.6 10 -4.2 47.8 10 3.9 39.7
R-12 55.3 59.3 4.0 11 -4.9 64.2 8.9 11 4.0 55.3 0.0
R-13 27.1 12 -5.7 32.7 1 3.8 23.3
R-14 13 -6.4 2 3.5
R-15 14 -7.1 3 3.3
R-16 227.5 15 -7.9 235.4 4 3.1 224.3
R-17 257.2 245.5 -11.7 16 -8.6 254.1 -3.1 5 2.9 242.6 -14.6
R-18 329.7 17 -9.4 339.1 6 2.7 327.0
R-19 162.6 18 -10.1 172.7 7 2.5 160.1
R-20 275.0 19 -10.9 285.9 8 2.3 272.8
R-21 146.6 148.6 2.0 20 -11.6 160.3 13.7 9 2.0 146.6 0.0
R-22 376.5 21 -12.4 388.9 2.0 374.5
R-23 70.1 22 -13.1 83.2 2.0 68.1
R-24 118.0 23 -13.9 131.8 2.0 115.9
R-25 24 -14.6 2.0
R-26 225.7 210.4 -15.3 25 -15.3 225.7 0.0 2.0 208.3 -17.4

Average Error: -5.7 Avg. 0.8 Avg. -17.4
Standard Deviation: 9.8 S.D. 13.3 S.D. 2.8

Note: The monuments at which ground truth profiles are located are shown in bold type.












LEE COUNTY COASTLINE STUDY
GASPARILLA ISLAND
February 1996 Survey Information Calibrated Utilizing Average Error Correction

Raw Data Error Correction Calibration Utilizing Calibration Utilizing
DNR Ground High Water Line Error Without High Water Line ErrorWith Avg. The First and Last Monument of the Island Ever Other Monument of the Island
Monument Truth PositionWithot Corection PositionWilb Error Conrection Interpolation Calibration HighWaterLine Error Interpolation Calibration HighWaterLine Error
S (Feet) Correction (Feet) Avg Error Correction (Feet) Number Coefficient Position (Feet) (Feet) Number Coefficient Position (Feet) (Feet)
R-1 169.7 193.0 3.3 198.7 9.0 9.0 189.7 0.0 9.0 189.7 0.0
R-2 205.5 211.3 1 8.3 203.0 1 9.1 202.2
R-3 168.8 174.5 2 7.5 167.0 2 9.1 1654
R4 235.9 241.6 3 6.8 234.9 3 9.2 2324
R-5 220.9 226.7 4 6.0 220.6 4 9.3 217.4
R-4 140.7 124.1 -16.6 129.8 -10.8 5 S.3 124.5 -16.2 S 6.3 120.5 -202
R-7 214.3 220.0 6 45 215.4 6 9.4 210.6
R-8 118.3 124.0 7 3.8 120.2 7 9.4 114.6
R-9 306.7 312.5 8 3.0 309.4 8 9.5 303.0
R-10 218.2 223.9 9 2.3 221.6 9 9.6 214.3
R-11 43.6 49.3 10 1.6 47.8 10 9.6 39.7
R-12 553 59.3 4.0 65.0 0.7 11 0.8 64.2 8.9 11 9.7 s5.3 0.0
R-13 27.1 328 12 0.1 32.7 1 9.5 23.3
R-14 13 -0.7 2 9.3
R-15 14 -1.4 3 9.1
R-16 227.5 233.2 15 -2.2 235.4 4 8.8 224.3
R-17 257.2 245.5 -11.7 251.2 -.0 16 -2. 254.1 -3.1 5 8.6 242.6 -14.6
R-18 329.7 335.4 17 -3.7 339.1 6 8.4 327.0
R-19 162.6 168.3 18 -4.4 172.7 7 8.2 160.1
R-20 275.0 280.7 19 -5.1 285.9 8 8.0 272.8
R-21 146.8 148.6 2.0 154A 7.8 20 -4. 160.3 13.7 9 7.8 146.8 0.0
R-22 376.5 382.2 21 -6.6 388.9 7.8 374.5
R-23 70.1 75.8 22 -7.4 83.2 7.8 68.1
R-24 118.0 123.7 23 -8.1 131.8 7.8 115.9
R-25 24 -8.9 7.8
R-26 225.7 210.4 -15.3 216.1 -0.6 25 -9.6 225.7 0.0 7.8 208.3 -17.4

Average Error: -5.7 Avg. 0.0 Avg. 0.8 Avg. -17.4
Standard Devlation: 9.8 S.D. 9. S.D. 13.3 S.D. 2.8

Note: The monuments at which ground truth profiles are located are shown in bold type.












LEE COUNTY COASTLINE STUDY
GASPARILLA ISLAND
February 1996 Survey Information Calibrated Utilizing Tidal Correction

Raw Data Corrected Data For Tidal DIfferences Calibration Utilizing Calibration Utilizing
DNR Ground Hgh Water Line Error Without Tidal Correcion High Water Une Error Wilh The First and Last Monument of the Island Every their Monument of the Island
Monument Trulh Posion Wlhoua Correction Tidal Bdevlon Slope Witk Hih WaterUn Posltion With Tldal Correcflon intelrpation Calbraion High Water iUn Error Interpdlaion Calbradon Hih Water Une Error
(Feet) Correcion (Fee Comcton Swash Zone Correcton Tide Correcion (Fee Number Coefficient Positon (Feet) (Feet) Number Coefficient Pollion (Feet) (Feet)
R-1 189.7 193.0 33 -0.4 0.133 4, 1975 8.1 8.1 108.7 0.0 ".1 18.7 0.0
R2 2055 -0.64 0.129 4 9 2105 1 7A 203.1 i 83 2022
3 168 -0.64 0.126 5.1 173.9 2 6.7 167.2 2 85 1654
R4 235.9 -0.64 0.122 5.2 2412 3 6.0 235.1 3 8.7 232.5
R-5 220.9 -0.64 0.119 54 226.3 4 5. 221.0 4 8.9 2175
R4 140.7 124.1 -16 -464 0.115 6 129.7 -110 5 4.7 1250 -15.7 5 9.1 120. -20.1
R-7 214.3 -0.64 0.113 5.7 219.9 a 4.0 215.9 6 93 210.6
S118.3 -0.64 0.110 5. 124.1 7 3.3 120.8 7 95 114.6
Rg 306.7 -0.64 0.108 5.9 312.7 8 2.8 310.0 8 9.7 303.0
R-10 2182 -0.64 0.106 6.0 224.2 9 19 222.3 0.9 214.3
R 11 43.6 -0.64 0.104 8.2 409 10 1.3 485 10 10.1 30.7
R-12 553 5.3 4.0 4-.4 0.102 .3 0SS. 10.3 I 08 65,0 .7 11 103 55.3 0.0
R-13 27.1 -0.64 0.105 6.1 332 12 -0.1 33.3 1 10.0 23.1
R-14 -0.64 0.108 13 -0.8 2 03
R.15 -0.64 0.111 14 -1.5 3 9.6
R18 2275 -0.64 0.114 5.6 233.1 15 -2.2 235.2 4 93 223.8
R-17 257.2 245 -11.7 4.64 0117 55 251.0 -62 1 -2.8 253. -34 5 9.1 241 -15.3
R18 329.7 -0.64 0.114 5.6 335.3 17 -3.5 338. 6 8.8 3264
R19 162.6 -0.64 0.111 5s. 168.3 18 -4.2 1725 7 80. 159.7
R20 275.0 -0.64 0.108 5.9 280.9 1 -4.9 285.8 8 84 272.
R-21 146. 148 2.0 -0.4 0.105 .1O 154.7 .1 20 -5.6 10.3 13.7 8.1 146. 0.0
R-22 376.5 -0.64 0.104 6.1 382.6 21 -6.3 3889 8.1 3745
R-23 70.1 -0.84 0.104 62 76.3 22 -0.9 832 8.1 682
S24 118.0 -0.64 0.103 62 1242 23 -7.6 131. 8.1 116.1
R 25 -0.64 0.102 24 -8.3 8.1
R -2 225.7 210A -15.3 -046 0.101 6. 216.7 -0 25 -0.0 225.7 00 8.1 2068. -17.1

Aver-geErorm -5.7 Avg. 00 Avg. 1. Avg. -17.5
S anfr Deavi#non a sD. g ., 13.4 S.D. 2 .4

t, Note: The monuments at which ground truth profiles are located are shown in bold type.












LEE COUNTY COASTLINE STUDY

LACOSTA ISLAND
February 1996 Survey Information Calibrated Utilizing Raw Data


Raw Data Calibration Utilizing Calibration Utilizing
DNR Ground High Water Line Error Without The First and Last Monument of the Island Every Other Monument of the Island
Monument Truth Position Without Correction Interpolation Calibration High Water Line Error Interpolation Calibration High Water Line Error
(Feet) Correction (Feet) Number Coefficient Position (Feet) (Feet) Number Coefficient Position (Feet) (Feet)
I r T I 1


R-27
R-28
R-29
R-30
R-31
R-32
R-33
R-34
R-35
R-36
R-37
R-38
R-39
R-40
R-41
R-42
R-43
R-44
R-45
R-46
R-47

R-49
R-50
R-51
R-52
R-53
R-54
R-55
R-56
R-57
R-58
R-S9
R-60
P-61
R-62
R-63
R-65
nes


16.4
133.6
199.3
62.2
112.4
253.2
319.1
442.8
646.5
829.4
2094.2
2030.4
1605.8
1409.2
1672.5
15035
1158.7
869.7
577.3
179.4
114.5
111.5
22.2
41.7
181.0
185.9
318.7
717.6
697.2
490.9
291.9
168.8
77.13
30.95
89.5
34.25
78.2
24.2
52.16


21.1


1
2
3
4
65
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35


21.1
21.1
21.1
18.4
15.7
13.1
10.4
7.7
5.0
2.3
-0.3
-3.0
-5.7
-8.4
-11.0
-13.7
-16.4
-19.1
-21.7
-24.4
-27.1
-29.8
-32.5
-35.1
-37.8
-40.5
-43.2
-45.8
-48.5
-51.2
-53.9
-56.5
-59.2
-61.9
-64.6
-67.2
-69.9
-72.6
-72.6


-4.7
112.5
178.2
43.8
96.6
240.1
308.7
435.1
641.5
827.1
2094.5
2033.4
1611.5
1417.5
1683.5
1517.2
1175.1
888.8
599.0
203.8
141.6
141.3
54.7
76.8
218.8
226.4
361.9
763.4
745.7
542.1
345.8
225.3
136.3
92.8
154.1
101.5
148.1
96.8
124.8


0.0





-33.9












36.8


27.4





40.5






63.9





0.0


0.0





-45.4












0.0


-10.8





0.0






45.6





0.0


AverageError: -9.0 Avg. 26.9 Avg. -3.6
Standard Deviation: 31.9 S.D. 36.6 S.D. 45.9


Note: The monuments at which ground truth profiles are located are shown in bold type.












LEE COUNTY COASTLINE STUDY
LACOSTA ISLAND
February 1996 Survey Information Calibrated Utilizing Average Error Correction

Raw Data Error Correction Calibration Utilizing Calibration Utilizing
DNR Ground High Water Line Error Without High Water Line Error With Avg. The First and Last Monument of the Island Every Other Monument of the Island
Monument Truth PositionWithout Correction Positon With Error Correction Interpolation Calibration High Water Line Error Interpolation Calibration HighWater Line Error
(Feet) Correction (Feet) Avg Error Correction (Feet) Number Coefficient Position (Feet) (Feet) Number Coefficient Position (Feet) (Feet)
R-27 16.4 254 30.1 -4.7 30.1 -4.7
R-28 133.6 142.6 30.1 112.5 30.1 112.5
R-2 178.2 199.3 21.1 208.3 30.1 30.1 178.2 0.0 30.1 178.2 0.0
R-30 62.2 71.2 1 27.4 43.8 1 29.7 41.5
R-31 1124 121.3 2 24.7 96.6 2 29.3 92.0
R-32 253.2 262.1 3 22.0 240.1 3 29.0 233.2
R-33 319.1 328.1 4 19.4 308.7 4 28.6 299.5
R-34 469.0 442.8 -26.2 41.8 -17.2 6 18.7 436.1 -33.8 5 28.2 423. -46.4
R-35 646.5 655.5 6 14.0 641.5 6 27.8 627.7
R-36 829.4 838.4 7 11.3 827.1 7 27.5 810.9
R-37 2094.2 2103.2 8 8.7 2094.5 8 27.1 2076.1
R38 2030.4 2039.4 9 6.0 2033.4 9 26.7 2012.7
R-39 1605.8 1614.8 10 3.3 1611.5 10 26.3 1588.5
R-40 1409.2 1418.2 11 0.6 1417.5 11 26.0 1392.2
R-41 1672.5 1681.5 12 -2.0 1683.5 12 25.6 1655.9
R42 1503.5 1512.5 13 -4.7 1517.2 13 25.2 1487.3
R-43 1158.7 1167.7 14 -7.4 1175.1 14 24.8 1142.9
R-44 869.7 878.7 15 -10.1 888.8 15 24.5 854.2
R-4S 52.2 677.3 15.1 88.3 24.1 18 -12.7 699.0 368 16 24.1 582.2 0.0
R-46 179.4 168.4 17 -15.4 203.8 1 21.9 166.5
R47 114.5 123.5 18 -18.1 141.6 2 19,6 103.9
R-48 113.9 111. -2.4 120. 8.6 19 -20.8 1413 27.4 3 17.4 103.1 -10.8
R49 22.2 31.2 20 -23.5 54.7 4 15.2 16.0
R-50 41.7 50.7 21 -26.1 76.8 5 13.0 37.7
R-51 181.0 190.0 22 -28.8 218.8 6 10.7 179.3
R-52 185.9 194.9 23 -31.5 226.4 7 8.5 186.4
R43 3214 318.7 -2.7 327.7 .3 24 .34.2 381.9 405 8 8.3 321. 0.0
R-54 717.8 726.6 25 -36.8 763.4 1 -0.1 726.7
R-55 697.2 706.2 26 -39.5 745.7 2 -6.4 712.6
R-56 490.9 499.9 27 -42.2 542.1 3 -12.8 512.7
R-57 291.9 300.9 28 -44.9 345.8 4 -19.1 320.0
R-58 168.8 177.8 29 -47.5 225.3 5 -25.5 203.3
R- 72.4 77.13 4.7 86.1 13.7 30 -602 138.3 63.9 6 -31.8 118.0 45.6
R-60 30.95 39.9 31 -52.9 92.8 7 -38.2 78.1
R-61 89.5 985 32 -55.6 154.1 8 -44.5 143.0
R62 34.25 43.2 33 -58.2 101.5 9 -50.9 94.1
R-63 78.2 87.2 34 -60.9 148.1 10 -57.2 144.4
R44 96.8 24.2 -72.8 332 -63.6 35 .3.8 8.8 0.0 11 43.8 96. 0.0
R-65 52.16 61.2 -63.6 124.8 -63.6 124.8
SAII i. I .wg A-


Average E r:
,-,-4J 1"uf.;I-tl


Avg. U0.
._D 31.


Note: The monuments at which ground truth profiles are located are shown in bold type.


Sv.. 3.6
S.D. 36.6


S.. 5.9
S.D. 45.9















LEE COUNTY COASTLINE STUDY

LACOSTA ISLAND
February 1996 Survey Information Calibrated Utilizing Tidal Correction

Raw Data Corrected Data For Tidal Differene* Calibration Utilizing Calibration Utilizing
DNR Ground Hi gWater Une Eirar WMitout a1" cncrrrecm Hih Waer LhLe Error Wi Th Firt and Lest Monument of the Island Every Other Monument of the Island
Monument Truth Poolln ion~ Core n Tda Bevaoon Slope Wihin Hi WaterLm P Ion i Tidal Corrdcln Ikrpolon Clbralon Hgh Water Lie Enor Intrpodan Calbraton Hd Wablr L Eror
Fe____ CarrTlon Corredn SwihZona coreclao Ti Correion (Fel) M ntr Coeidet Poellon (Fe:o (Fol .nter cndert Pomron (Fi.t (Fet
S1 164 a1 -1 1o 0100 1 26.4 311


133.
193
622
112.4
2532
319.1
442G
6465
820A
20942
2030.4
1605.8
14092
1672.5
15035
1158.7
800.7
77.3
179.4
1145
111.
222
41.7

185.9
31.7
717.8
dB7.2
490.9
291.9
1862
77.13
30.95
895
34.25
782
242
52.16


0.100
0100
0.106
0.112
0.117
0.123
0.129
0.127
0.125
0.122
0.120
0.118
0.116
0.113
0.111
0.109
0.100
0.100
aiM
0.105
0.100

0.108
0.109
0.110
0.111
0.111
0.113
0.115
0.115
0.120
0.122
0124
0.120
0.117
0.114
0.110
.107
0.107


140.0
2013
71.7
1213
281.7
261.7
327.2
455
654.4
837.4
2102.4
2038.7
16143
14178
16813
15125
1167.9
879.1

188.9
123.0
1201
315
50.9
190.1
194.0
327.7
7261
7059
499.4
3002
177.0
852
303
08.0
43.1
073
331
015


31.1
31.1
28.4
25.7
23.0
203
17.
149
12.2
0.5
&a
4.1
1.4
-13
-4.0
-6.6
-93
-12.0
-14.7
-17.4
-201
-22.8
-255
-28.2
-30.0



-41.7
-44.4
-47.1
-49
-525
-55
-579
-005
-63.2


3.7


27.1




399











co


-4.
1125
1782
4110
01.0
2318
297.7
4215
825.7
809.1
20745
2011.2
1587.2
1301.1
1855.0
1486.6
1142.4
854.0
562.2
1685
103.8
101.1
16.0
37.7
1792
186.3
321A
728.4
7122
512.1
3102
2023
1168
772
1423
83.7
1442
01.
124.


AvrgeEmrro: -0. Avg. aO Avg. I2a.1 Av. -4.6
SmtddaVnlofen: 319.0 __S.. $2.1 S__ 37.1 &. 44 a


Note: The monuments at which ground truth profiles are located are shown in bold type.


17&2


44 I














LEE COUNTY COASTLINE STUDY
NORTH CAPTIVA ISLAND
February 1996 Survey Information Calibrated Utilizing Raw Data

Raw Data Calibration Utilizing
DNR Ground High Water Line Error Without The First and Last Monument of the Island
Monument Truth Position Without Correction Interpolation Calibration High Water Line Error
(Feet) Correction (Feet) Number Coefficient Position (Feet) (Feet)
R-66 161.9 6.3 155.7
R-67 376.4 6.3 370.1
R-68 121.4 6.3 115.1
R-69 190.3 196.6 6.3 6.3 190.3 0.0
R-70 241.9 1 5.1 236.8
R-71 332.9 2 3.8 329.1
R-72 581.3 3 2.6 578.7
R-73 1025.4 4 1.4 1024.0
R-74 579.5 5 0.1 579.4
R-74A 430.8 6 -1.1 431.9
R-75 221.7 220.0 -1.7 7 -2.3 222.3 0.6
R-75A 60.4 8 -3.6 64.0
R-76 9 -4.8
R-76A 7.4 10 -6.0 13.4
R-77A 27.1 11 -7.2 34.3
R-78 64.2 55.7 -8.5 12 -8.5 64.2 0.0
R-79 104.4 -8.5 112.9
R-79A 89.8 -8.5 98.3
R-80 -8.5
R-81 71.0 -8.5 79.5
R-81A -8.5
R-82 216.5 -8.5 225.0





Average Error: -1.3
Standard Deviation: 7.4

Note: The monuments at which ground truth profiles are located are shown in bold type.














LEE COUNTY COASTLINE STUDY
NORTH CAPTIVA ISLAND
February 1996 Survey Information Calibrated Utilizing Average Error Correction

Raw Data Error Correction Calibration Utilizing
DNR Ground High Water Line Error Without High Water Line Error With Avg. The First and Last Monument of the Island
Monument Truth Position Without Correction Position With Error Correction Interpolation Calibration High Water Line Error
(Feet) Correction (Feet) Avg Error Correction (Feet) Number Coefficient Position (Feet) (Feet)
R-66 161.9 163.3 7.6 155.7
R-67 376.4 377.7 7.6 370.1
R-68 121.4 122.7 7.6 115.1
R-69 190.3 196.6 6.3 197.9 7.6 7.6 190.3 0.0
R-70 241.9 243.2 1 6.4 236.8
R-71 332.9 334.2 2 5.1 329.1
R-72 581.3 582.7 3 3.9 578.7
R-73 1025. 1026.7 4 2.7 1024.0
R-74 579.5 580.8 5 1.4 579.4
R-74A 430.8 432.1 6 0.2 431.9
R-75 221.7 220.0 -1.7 221.3 -0.4 7 -1.0 222.3 0.6
R-75A 60.4 61.7 8 -2.2 64.0
R-76 9 -3.5
R-76A 7.4 8.7 10 -4.7 13.4
R-77A 27.1 28. 11 -5.9 34.3
R-78 64.2 55.7 -8.5 57.0 -7.2 12 -7.2 64.2 0.0
R-79 104.4 105.7 -7.2 112.9
R-79A 89.8 91.1 -7.2 98.3
R-80 -7.2
R-81 71.0 72.3 -7.2 79.5
R-81A -7.2
R-82 216.5 217.8 -7.2 225.0





Average Error: -1.3 Avg. 0.0
Standard Deviation: 7.4 S.D. 7.4

Note: The monuments at which ground truth profiles are located are shown in bold type.
















LEE COUNTY COASTUNE STUDY
NORTH CAPTIVA ISLAND
February 1996 Survey Information Calibrated Utilizing Tidal Correction

Raw Data Corrected Data For Tidal Differences Calibration Utilizing
DNR Ground High Water Line Error Without _Tidal Corrections High Water Line Error With The First and Last Monument of the Island
Monument Truth Position Without Correction Tidal Elevation Slope Within High Water Line Position With Tidal Correction Interpolation Calibration High Water Line Error
(Feet) Correction (Feet) Correction Swash Zone Correction Tide Correction (Feet) Number Coefficient Position (Feet) (Feet)
R-6e 161.9 -0.12 0.116 1.0 163.0 7.3 155.7
R-67 376.4 -0.12 0.116 1.0 377.4 7.3 370.1
R-8 121.4 -0.12 0.116 1.0 122.5 7.3 115.1
R-,9 190.3 196.6 6.3 -0.12 0.116 1.0 197.6 7.3 7.3 190.3 0.0
R-70 241.9 -0.12 0.109 1.1 243.0 1 6.1 236.9
R-71 332.9 -0.12 0.102 1.2 334.1 2 4.9 329.2
R-72 581.3 -0.12 0.096 1.3 582.6 3 3.7 578.9
R-73 1025.4 -0.12 0.089 1.3 1026.8 4 2.5 1024.3
R-74 579.5 -0.12 0.082 1.5 581.0 5 1.3 579.7
R-74A 430.8 -0.12 0.076 1.6 432.4 6 0.1 432.3
R-75 221.7 220.0 -1.7 -0.12 0.069 1.7 221.7 0.0 7 -1.1 222.8 1.1
R-75A 60.4 -0.12 0.074 1.6 62.0 8 -2.4 64.4
R-76 -0.12 0.079 9 -3.6
R-76A 7.4 -0.12 0.084 1.4 8.8 10 -4.8 13.6
R-77A 27.1 -0.12 0.089 1.3 28.4 11 -6.0 34.4
R-78 64.2 65.7 -8.5 -0.12 0.094 1.3 57.0 -7.2 12 -7.2 64.2 0.0
R-79 104.4 -0.12 0.094 1.3 105.6 -7.2 112.9
R-79A 89.8 -0.12 0.094 1.3 91.1 -7.2 98.3
R-80 -0.12 0.094 -7.2
R-81 71.0 -0.12 0.094 1.3 72.2 -7.2 79.5
R-81A -0.12 0.094 -7.2
R-82 216.5 -0.12 0.094 1.3 217.8 -7.2 225.0





Average Error -1.3 Avg. 0.0
Standard Deviaton: 7.4 S.D. 7.3

Note: The monuments at which ground truth profiles are located are shown in bold type.











LEE COUNTY COASTLINE STUDY
CAPTIVA ISLAND
February 1996 Survey Information Calibrated Utilizing Raw Data

Raw Data Calibration Utilizing Calibration Utilizing
DNR Ground High Water Line Error Without The First and Last Monument of the Island Every Other Monument of the Island
Monument Truth Position Without Correction Interpolation Calibration High Water Line Error Interpolation Calibration High Water Line Error
(Feet) Correcion (Feet) Number Coefficient Position (Feet) (Feet) Number Coefficient Position (Feet) (Feet)
A-46-2 126.1 6.2 119.9 6.2 119.9
R-85 833.3 6.2 827.1 6.2 827.1
R-86 520.0 6.2 513.8 6.2 513.8
R-87 383.4 6.2 377.2 6.2 377.2
R-88 251.3 257.5 6.2 6.2 251.3 0.0 6.2 251.3 0.0
R-89 453.9 1 4.9 449.0 1 6.6 447.3
R-90 215.1 2 3.6 211.5 2 6.9 208.2
R-91 157.5 3 2.3 155.2 3 7.3 150.2
R-92 192.2 4 1.0 191.2 4 7.7 184.5
R-93 224.8 5 -0.3 225.1 5 8.1 216.7
R-94 148.3 153.3 5.0 6 -1.6 154.9 6.6 6 8.4 144.9 -3.4
R-95 148.3 7 -2.9 151.2 7 8.8 139.5
R-96 117.7 8 -4.2 121.9 8 9.2 108.5
R-97 108.7 9 -5.5 114.2 9 9.6 99.1
R-98 130.1 10 -6.8 136.9 10 9.9 120.2
R-99 221.8 232.1 10.3 11 -8.1 240.2 18.4 11 10.3 221.8 0.0
R-100 194.0 12 -9.4 203.4 1 7.0 187.0
R-101 277.0 13 -10.7 287.7 2 3.6 273.4
R-102 219.0 14 -12.0 231.0 3 0.3 218.7
R-103 275.0 15 -13.3 288.3 4 -3.1 278.1
R-104 256.4 268.1 11.7 16 -14.6 282.7 26.3 5 -6.4 274.5 18.1
R-105 156.8 17 -15.9 172.7 6 -9.8 166.6
R-106 425.3 18 -17.2 442.5 7 -13.1 438.4
R-107 429.4 19 -18.5 447.9 8 -16.5 445.9
R-108 176.9 157.1 -19.8 20 -19.8 176.9 0.0 9 -19.8 176.9 0.0
R-109 374.2 -19.8 394.0 -19.8 394.0

Average Error: 2.7 Avg. 17.1 Avg. 7.3
Standard Deviation: 12.9 S.D. 9.9 S.D. 15.2

Note: The monuments at which ground truth profiles are located are shown in bold type.











LEE COUNTY COASTLINE STUDY
CAPTIVA ISLAND
February 1996 Survey Information Calibrated Utilizing Average Error Correction

Raw Data Error Correction Calibration Utilizing Calibration Utilizing
DNR Ground High Water Line Error Without High Water Line Error With Avg. The First and Last Monument of the Island Every Other Monument of the Island
Monument Truth Position WithoLu Correction Position Wit Error Correction Interpolation Calibration High Water Line Error Interpolation Calibration High Water Line Error
(Feet) Correction (Feet Avg Error Correction (Feet) Number Coefficient Position (Feet) (Feet) Number Coefficient Position (Feet) Feet)
A46-2 126.1 123.4 3.5 119.9 3.5 119.9
R-85 833.3 830.6 3.5 827.1 3.5 827.1
R-88 520.0 517.3 3.5 513.8 3.5 513.8
R-87 383.4 380.7 3.5 377.2 3.5 377.2
R-88 251.3 257. 6.2 254.8 3.8 3. 251.3 0.0 3.8 251.3 0.0
R-89 453.9 451.2 1 2.2 449.0 1 3.9 4473
R-90 215.1 212.4 2 0.9 211.5 2 4.3 208.2
R-81 157.5 154.8 3 -0.4 1552 3 4.6 150.2
R-92 192.2 189.5 4 -1.7 191.2 4 5.0 184.5
R-93 224.8 222.1 5 -3.0 225.1 5 5.4 216.7
R-4 148.3 183.3 8.0 160.6 2.3 6 -4.3 164.9 6.6 8 5.8 144. -3.4
R-95 148.3 145.6 7 -5.6 151.2 7 6.1 139.5
R-96 117.7 115.0 8 -6.9 121.9 8 6.5 108.5
R-97 108.7 106.0 9 -8.2 114.2 9 6.9 99.1
R-98 130.1 127.4 10 -9.5 138.9 10 7.2 120.2
R-9 221.8 232.1 10.3 229.4 7.8 11 -10.8 240.2 18. 11 7. 221.8 0.0
R-100 194.0 191.3 12 -12.1 203.4 1 4.3 187.0
R-101 277.0 274.3 13 -13.4 287.7 2 0.9 273.4
R-102 219.0 216.3 14 -14.7 231.0 3 -2.4 218.7
R-103 275.0 272.3 15 -16.0 288.3 4 -5.8 278.1
R-104 256.4 268.1 11.7 265.4 .0 18 -17.3 282.7 28.3 8 -9.1 2745 18.1
R-105 156.8 154.1 17 -18.6 172.7 6 -124 166.6
R-106 425.3 422.6 18 -19.9 442.5 7 -15.8 438.4
R-107 429.4 426.7 19 -21.2 447.9 8 -19.1 445.9
R-108 176.9 157.1 -19.8 154.4 -225 20 -22.5 176.9 0.0 8 -22.5 178.9 00
R-109 374.2 371.5 -22.5 394.0 -22.5 394.0

Average Error: 2.7 Avg. 0.0 Avg. 17.1 Avg, 7.3
StandardDevlatlon: 129 S.D. 12.9 S.D. 9.. S.D. 15.2

Note: The monuments at which ground truth profiles are located are shown In bold type.












LEE COUNTY COASTUNE STUDY
CAPTIVA ISLAND
February 1996 Survey Information Calibrated Utilizing Tidal Correction

Raw Data Corrected Data For Tidal Differences Calibration Utilizing Calibration Utilizing
DNR Ground Hgh Water ine Error Without Tldal Corrections Hgh Water Une Error Wit The First and Last Monument of the island Every Other Monument of the Island
Monument Truth Poeion Mlhaut Correction Tidal evalon Slope Wiihh gh Water Line Position Wilk Tidal Correction Intlrpolaon Calbrallon Hgh Water ULne Error nterpolon Calbraton Hgh Water Une Error
(F ) Corrcson (Feet Correcion SwashZone Correction Tida Correction (FOw Nmber ICoeildent Positon (Fet) (Feet) Nmber Cooecient Posilon (Fet) (Feet)
A46-2 126.1 0.29 0.124 -2.3 123.8 3.a 119.9 3.9 119.9
R85 833.3 0.29 0.124 -2.3 831.0 3.9 827.1 3.9 827.1
R-8 520.0 0.29 0.124 -2.3 517.7 3.9 513.8 3.9 513.8
1-87 3834 0.29 0.124 -2.3 381.1 3.0 377.2 3.9 377.2
R48 2513 257.5 .2 0.2 0.124 -2.3 255.2 3. 3 2513 00 39 2513 0.0
R80g 453.9 0.29 0.126 -2.3 451.6 1 2.5 449.1 1 43 447.3
R-0 215.1 0.29 0.128 -23 212.8 2 1.1 211.7 2 4.7 208.1
R-1 1575 0.29 0.130 -2.2 155.3 3 -0.3 1555 3 5.1 1502
92 192.2 0.29 0.133 -2.2 190. 4 -1. 101 4 5.5 184.5
RF93 224 8 0.29 0.135 -2.2 222.6 5 -3.0 225.7 5 6.0 216.7
R4-4 1483 1533 5" 03o 0.137 -21 1512 2.9 -44 1554 73 6 A 144.8 -15
R-g5 148 3 0.29 0.141 -2.1 146.2 7 -5.7 152.0 7 6.8 1394
R.06 117.7 0.29 0.146 -2.0 115.7 8 -7.1 122.8 8 72 1085
R-97 1087 0.29 0.151 -1.9 10.8 9 .5 115.3 7.6 99.1
R11. 130.1 0.29 0.155 -1.0 128.2 10 -9.0 138.1 10 8.1 120.2
R4 221A 232.1 103 0.29 0.100 -1.8 230.3 .5 11 -112 241 197 1 1 .5 2212 0.0
R- oo 194.0 0.29 0.146 -2.0 192.0 12 -12.6 204.6 1 4.0 187.1
R0lo 277.0 0.29 0.131 -2.2 274.8 13 -14.0 288.8 2 1A 273A
R102 2190 0.29 0.117 -2.5 2165 14 -15A 231.9 3 -2.2 218.7
R103 275.0 0.29 0.103 -2.8 2722 15 -16.7 288.9 4 -5.8 277.9
R-104 26A 288.1 11.7 0.29 0.068 -33 204i BA 1i -18.1 229 26&5 -4L3 274.1 17.7
-105 1568 9 .29 0.065 -34 1534 17 -19.5 172 6 -12.0 1663
R- 10 4252 0.29 0.082 -3.5 421.8 18 -20.8 442.6 7 -16.5 4382
R4107 429A 0.29 0.07 -3.7 425.7 19 -222 448.0 8 -20.0 445.8
R-1 170 157.1 -190 0.2 0.077 -8 153.3 -28 20 -L 176.8 0. -23 176 0.0
R-10I 3742 0.29 0.077 -3.8 370.4 -23.6 394.0 -23. 394.0
Average 2.7 Avg. a.0 Avg. 7.8 Avg. 7.1
Standard Deviron 12.9 SD. 13.4 SD. S 8 so. 15.0

S Note: The monuments at which ground truth profiles are located are shown in bold type.
I
Ns




















LEE COUNTY COASTLINE STUDY
SANIBEL ISLAND
February 1996 Survey Information Calibrated Utilizing Raw Data

Raw Data Calbration Utlikkig Cielbrtln Utllig
DNR Ground High Watr LU Ewor Wlhout The Flrt and Last Mosammnt the lanId Ever O uheur MeO mnt of 1le tlmd
armemwnt Trulh Posdllin Wi Correcton Inlrpolation Cabraon HighWawrULine Error Inlrpolatlon Calbrint I High Wa Line Error
(Fe) Corredmction Nubter Coollicitol Positio l(Fl) (Fafl) Nutber Coe iicen Ption (Fea) (Fel)
R110 4881 86 4805 6s 4805
-111 120.3 12 8.9 as 120. 030 .8 120.3 00
PR112 1 88 1 75
R-113 2 0 2 64
R-11 1200 3 91 1109 3 53 1147
R116 4 83 4 41
R117 1195 9 1100 5 30 1165
R118 436.0 421.5 -14.8 6 7 411.9 -24.1 6 1. 419.6 -144
R118 456 899 7 .1 7 08 4561
R-120 2512 100 2412 -03 251
R-121 3258 9 102 3156 8 -14 3273
R-122 427.0 4258. -2. 10 0A 414.9 -12.9 1 -2.5 4271 O0
R-123 6448 11 106 6342 1 -24 6472
R-124 3980 12 107 3873 2 -35 401
R-125 5356 13 109 5257 3 -40 5407
-126 305.1 30.0 311 14 11.1 297. -t0 4 -4.5 S13A 7.6
R-127 4230 15 113 4117 5 50 4280
-128 1680 16 115 1535 -55 1705
R-129 1040 17 116 24 7 -60 1100
R-13 883 18 116 765 -65 948
T-it 0.7 2.1 -1.4 19 1230 17.1 -16 9 -1.9 3S7 10
,-132 436 20 122 314 1 23 459
-1133 1414 21 124 1290 2 -30 1444
R-134 193 22 125 1567 3 -36 1730
R-tal 173.5 160.7 -112. 12.7 148.0 -255 4 -4.5 168.2 -&
R-136 2337 24 129 2208 5 -52 2389
T-137 2299 25 131 2168 6 -60 2359
R-13 159 26 132 1468 7 -67 1666
R-123 1578 27 134 1443 6 -75 1652
R-140 2174 28 136 203 8 -62 2256
R-141 2607 29 13 268 10 -88 2688
R-142 211.1 201A -97 0 140 187.5 -23. 11 -97 211.1 0.0
R-143 2454 31 141 231 3 1 -5 5 2510
R-144 2283 32 143 2139 2 -14 2297
R-145 1960 33 145 1823 3 27 1941
-146 1752 34 147 1605 4 68 1683
R-147 167.9 1W7.0 19.1 8a 14. 172.2 4.1 S 109 176.1 E.2
R-148 1152 36 15 1002 6 151 1002
R-149 2707 37 152 2555 7 192 2515
R-150 2465 38 154 2311 8 233 2231
R-151 2525 39 156 2368 9 274 2251
R-152 136.9 168.5 31 40 15. 152.7 15. 10 31. 136.9 00
R-153 205 41 15 1846 1 321 1684
R-154 2019 42 161 1 85 2 326 1683
R-155 168 5 43 16 3 152 2 3 332 1353
R-156 2083 44 165 1918 4 337 1746
R-157 188 45 166 1722 5 343 1545
R158 172.6 204.5 31 46 1.6 187.7 15.1 8 3. 1887 -2.9
R-159 1260 47 170 1090 7 353 907
R-160 1618 48 172 144 8 359 1259
R-151 1940 49 174 1766 9 364 1576
R-161A 2082 50 175 1907 10 370 1712
R-162 3197 357.2 3s7. 51 17.7 33965 19.8 11 75 3187 00
R-163 321.0 52 179 3031 1 57 2853
R164 3090 53 181 2909 2 339 2751
R-165 3092 54 182 2910 3 321 2771
R-166 3187 55 184 2982 4 303 2864
R-167 3159 56 186 2973 5 285 2874
R-1t 204 233.5 30.1 57 198. 214.7 112 6 26.7 20. 314
RFt16 2599 58 190 2409 7 249 2350
R-170 2585 59 191 233 8 231 2354
R-171 59089 60 193 5715 9 213 5695
R-172 175 19.5 1895 6 1.5 175.0 800 10 18 175.0 0.0
R-173 1470 195 1275 195 1275
R-174 4030 195 335 195 3835
Ame-ag r 0 Avg -a Avg. -1.4
S Nandtlrdnvion:l 1te S.D. 17a S.D. 9.7

Note: The morunents1 at which ground tudI h profiles am located am shown in bold type.






















LEE COUNTY COASTLINE STUDY
SANIBEL ISLAND
February 1996 Survey Information Calibrated Utilizing Average Error Correction

Raw Data Error Correicn Calbretion UtIlkhg Calibration Ulikng
DNR Ground HighWala Lie Emor Whoul Hig Wer Une Error IhAvg. T Frt and Lat Monuent of o land Every OthMr Monumente othe Isl.ld
Monmannt Trulh PotionhBai Crortdlon Poslonlh I Error Cona lion t hemolalion Cbraion Hig WaeiW ne Error Inhtpolaton Caltbraon HighWalwLine Error
Feet) CConredon Fte ) Avg Fro r Corecton -l) Nuwrbx Coellicint Poion (Fest) (Fel) Number Coeffillen Polion (Fel (Fe)


R110
R-11O
Mll
R-112
R-113
R115
R-11
R-117
R-119
R119
R-120
R-121
R-122
R-123
R-124
R125
R-128
R-127
R-12a
R129
R-130
T-131
R-132
R133
W-134

F131
T-137
R-138
R-139
R-140
R-141
R-142
R143

R-145
R-146
R-147
W-148
R-149
R-150
R-151

R-153
R-154
R-155


R-157
R-159
R-180
R-161
R-161A
R-162

R-164
R166
R-IG6

R167
R-1N
R-16
R-170
R-171
R-172
R-173
R-174


438.0



427J











179.8






211.1




167.9




136.9





172.8










203



175


488.1
-1
120.9


1200

1195
421.5
4119
4569
2512
3259
425.3
6448
3980
535a
30.90
4230
1050
1040
003
29.1
438
1414
1 0.7

2337
22919
1599
1578
2174
260.7
201A
2454
2283
1968
1752
107.0
1152
270 7
2465
2525
16.S
200 5
2019
1685
2003
1880
204.5
1260
1618
194 0
2082
357.2
3210
3090
3092
3167
3159
233.5
2599
2585
5908
194.5
147.0
4030


-22
-2.2
-20
-1 0
-17
-15
-13
-1.1
-09
-08
-00
0.4
-02
00
01

05
07
08
10
1.2
14
17
1.9
21
23
25
26
28
30
312
33
35
37
39
4.1
42
44
46
48
5.0
51
53
55
576
59

62
64

67
6.9
71
73
75
70
70
10
82
84
85

87
87


120.3


1109

1100
411.
447.1
2412
3156
414.9
9342
3873
5257
2097
4117
1535
924
765
17.1
314
1290
1567
1400
2200
2168
1466
1443
2038
2468
157.5
Is
2313
2139
1823
1605
172.2
1002

231 1
2359
12.7
1846
1858
1522
1918
1722
197.7
010
1446
1786
1907
3395
O031
2909
2910
2982
2973
214.7
2409
2393
5715
175.0
1275
3835


-L2
-33
-44
.65
-66
-1
-7

-100
-11.1
-122
-193
-132
-131
-130
-120
-127
-12
-127
-12 8
-125
-124
-131
138
-14
-10.3
-160
-16
-17.5
-182
-190
-197
-20.
-183
-122
-01
-40
0.1
43
04
125
166
20.
213
218
224
229
235
24.0
245
251
256
262
26.7
249
231
21
195
177

141
123
105
V7
87
97


120.3


1147

1165
419.
4561
251
3273
427.
8472
4004
5389
311.0
4250
1688
105
900
30.7
459
1444
1730
165.2
238.9
2359
166
16862
2256
26896
211.1
251 0
2297
1941
1683
178.1
1002
2515
2231




1746
1545
1697

907
1259
15476



1712
319.
2853
2751
277 1
2884
2874
208.
2350
2374
5645
175.0

3235


r 10.g 00 Aa-vvg -1
t0ATe nStano-dDeviaUon. 18.5 SD. 97.5 S I. 176.5 SD. .3

Note: The monuments at which ground tulh profiles are located are shown In bold type.


I I '






















LEE COUNTY COASTLINE STUDY
SANIBEL ISLAND
February 1996 Survey Information Calibrated Utilizing Tidal Correction

- *- w Det ,o Cowr.ted Ba. a For Tidal Difrne. Calbrtien UtillM g Calbhrtlon Utik hg
DNR -rournd High Wl-er 1U Error WlWhoI Tidal Correcaons Hig Wd LUne Enror WAh The Frlnt nd Last Maounent of ti Iland Evrv Oyhe Mnummnt of the Iland
Monumnt Trulh Posllonwilia Cornecllon Tidal Bevalon Slope Whin Hih WHer LUne Postlilo Wh dalCore dkon Inltepolaion Cboian Hih Walr Urno Enror Inlrpolaton Cal brcamon Hkig Wder Lin Err
(F) Conrdicon )l Coredlon SwahZone Coredlon TdeoCarredion WFed) Number CollltonIe Poslln (Fe) (Fe) Numnbr Coellioenl Posnia ( IFl)
00 0104n -77 A 4805 09 4805


120.9 B


1200

1195
421 A -14.5
4569
251,2
358
425.3 -.15
6448
3980
5366
8.9 a.1
4230

1040
883
2.1 -1.5
438
1414
1683
1l0.7 -12L.
2337
2299
1598
1578
217.4
2607
2015 -.7
2454
2283

1752


167.9 187.0 19.1


1368. 18.5
2005
2018


1888
2172 83
172.6 204.8


319.7


2088 231.6
2688
2085
5808)
178 184.6


31.6





31.










30.1



1S'


1203





438.0



4275.



305.8


R-110
R-t111
R-112
R-113
8R-115
R-118


R-119
R-120
R-121
P'22
R-123
R-124
R-125
R-121
R-127
R-128
R-129
R-130
T-131

R-133
R-134
R-135
R-136
T-131
R-138
R-139
R-140
R141


Us
080
oMo
080
080
080
080
80o
080
080


080
080
&M

080
080
080
O80
080

080


O3SO
080
880


080
080
080

080
080

080
080
080
080

080
080
080
080
080

0.
080
080
080
080

080
080
080
080

080
080
060
080
060




080
00
080
080
080
0.8
080
080
080


0.104
0105
0109
0111
0113
0115
0117
0117
0118
0115

0 110
0.105
0100
0085
0080
0085
0080
0075
0.700
0005
0077







0083
0.055


o088
0050






0085


0888
0071
0 077








0071
0062
0004
00965
0 057


008
0079



0063
0888



0073
0077


0070
0064
0058


0086
0052
0073






0077
0077

0054


0052
0052



0077
0 OT


-23.0



-11.7


-&1




-16.4


-7.7


-72

-70
-68
-0.
-69
-1.8
-73
-7 6
-80
-.4i
88
-94
-100
-106
-11.4
123
-133
-145
-13.3
-146
-133
-122
-112
-104
-97
-8S
-85
-84
-84
-83
-85
-91
101
-113
-128
-14.7
-145
-143
141
-139
-137
-13.8
126
-118
-110
-104
-9.'
-105
-114
-125
-138
-154
-17.3
-154
-173
-154

-104
-104


1
2
3
4
5

7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4






2


6
3

5


120.6




4130
4482
2423
3168
416.1
6351
3878
5260
287.7
4112
1525
900
743
14J
277
124,3
1508
1404
2149
2123
1433
1420
2024
2462
1M.O
231B
2146
1830
15 14
17t3.1
1004
2547
2291
2335
147A
1796
1811
1477
187.6
1682
188
1061
1427
1755
1902
8397
3028
2895
2885
2946
2920
207.6
2358
2324
5665
175.0
1275
3835


-14,


-23.1



5.11




10.5





112




20.0





421


19
-01
-12
-22
-32
-43
-53
-64
-74
-84
-8.5
-99
-103
-106
-11.0
-114
-118
-122
-126
-13.0
-134
-138
-144
-14.9
-153
-158
-163
-168
-172
177
-182
147
-112
-77
-42
-0.7
28
63
98
133
18.
178
188
198
208
218
22.
238
248
258
268
27.7
259
240
222
203
184
16.8
147
128
110

91
91


173.5


I-
Ul


-1~ 211.1


R-145
R-148

R-148
R-148
815 8
R-150
R-151

R-153
R-154
R-158
R157
R 157



R-181
R-8185
R-164
R-81
R-166
R-188

R-167
8188
R-16
R-1I7
R-1M
R-170
R-171
117T2
R-173
R-174


r I E 1I A 10 T s
I Is"ere SD. 17. 5 Dns 1 S 17 1 D. I o

Note: The monunents at which gmund tuth proles are located are shown in bold ype.




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