MR 76-2
(AD- A0zz B3l)
An ERTS-1 Study of Coastal Features
on the
North Carolina Coast

by
George H. Miller and Dennis W. Berg

MISCELLANEOUS REPORT NO. 76-2
JANUARY 1976

WN H OTS

DOCUMENT ;
COLLECTION /

Approved for public release;
distribution unlimited.

U.S. ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
COASTAL ENGINEERING

are RESEARCH CENTER
Bos Kingman Building

_OSsl Fort Belvoir, Va. 22060

AK

Reprint or republication of any of this material shall give appropriate
credit to the U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center.

Limited free distribution within the United States of single copies of
this publication has been made by this Center. Additional copies are

available from:

National Technical Information Service
ATTN: Operations Division

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, Virginia 22151

Contents of this report are not to be used for advertising,
publication, or promotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not
constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of such

commercial products.

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official
Department of the Army position unless so designated by other

authorized documents.

L/WHOI

MB

ACSA

NA

UNCLASSIFIED
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered)

READ INSTRUCTIONS
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COMPLETING FORM
T. REPORT NUMEER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO, 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER
MR 76-2

4. TITLE (and Subtitle) 5. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

Miscellaneous Report

,§:/PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(,

AN ERTS-1 STUDY OF COASTAL FEATURES
ON THE NORTH CAROLINA COAST

7. AUTHOR(a)

George H. Miller
Dennis W. Berg

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Department of the Army
Coastal Engineering Research Center (CEREN-EV)
Kingman Building, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060
CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS
Department of the Army
Coastal Engineering Research Center

Kingman Building, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060
14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(if different from Controlling Office)

ROJECT, TASK
MBERS

ar
z
Cc

12. REPORT DATE
January 1976
13. NUMBER OF PAGES

41 — IS

15. SECURITY CLASS. (of thie report)

1,

UNCLASSIFIED

{Sa, DECLASSIFICATION/ DOWNGRADING
SCHEDULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abetract entered In Block 20, if different from Report)

. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

49. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse side if necessary and identify by block number)

Remote sensing ERTS

Coastal engineering North Carolina coast
Morphological changes Satellite imagery
Multispectral scanner Sediment

Y

. ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse side if necosaary and identity by block number)

Unenhanced imagery recorded by the multispectral scanner (MSS) of the
NASA Earth Resources Technology Satellite (ERTS-1) was analyzed to determine
_how satellite imagery may be applied to specific coastal engineering problems.
| The study area is a segment of the North Carolina coast comprising Wrights-
ville Beach, Masonboro Inlet, Masonboro Beach, Carolina Beach Inlet, and

Carolina ’Beach, which are areas of ongoing research by CERC. Analysis was
supplemented by underflight imagery supplied by NASA and ground-truth data.

FORM Z j
DD , oan 73 1473 cvrtion oF 1 Nov 68 1S OBSOLETE UNSLASGRRRETD
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered)

UNCLASSIFIED
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(When Data Entered)

20. Abstract.—Continued

Several significant coastal features are visible in the ERTS-1 imagery.
Among those are plumes of suspended sediment emerging from inlets, changes in
water coloration possibly due to effects of temperature change, inlet bars,
and cape bars. In addition, morphological changes in selected coastal land
features were determined by comparing ERTS-1 films obtained about 1 year apart.

Limited water depth penetration is afforded by examining the lower MSS
spectral bands. Maximum penetration can be expected to measure in tens of
feet, depending on the physical characteristics of ocean water. Although
inadequate for deeper penetration, this capability is adequate for exposure
of backshore and nearshore underwater features.

Image resolution capability is sufficient for observation of gross coastal
features and processes but may not be adequate for viewing smaller features

such as wave patterns, morphological features on beaches, and many engineering
structures.

2

SECURITY Cl ®SSIFIL

PREFACE

This report is published to provide an analysis of the application of
satellite imagery to specific coastal engineering problems. The work was
carried out under the coastal processes program of the U.S. Army Coastal
Engineering Research Center (CERC).

The report was prepared by George H. Miller, formerly of CERC, and
Dennis W. Berg, Chief, Evaluation Branch, Engineering Development Division,
CERC. The satellite photography and the original report were provided by
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) under Contract
No. S-70260-AG, submitted 30 October 1973.

Comments on this publication are invited.

Approved for publication in accordance with Public Law 166, 79th
Congress, approved 31 July 1945, as supplemented by Public Law 172, 88th
Congress, approved 7 November 1963.

of Engineers
Commander and Director

CONTENTS
Page

LE VINTRODUCTION RSs. Sa eeeseees mae ee eet Ae a cone ee a ,
LTS STUDY AREA sores trot fe crs uieyue acest oy eigtesi's ond Ss cig ay Woy fortis cou rn
Tel CHARACTERTS TMCS OR SIMAGERVae.aece pemete! yo) -Wne) ce) Le taecen <i
LV. FIMAGERYSAVADEABLE SRORVSMUDYsdarwte «cts ee) oe) ens eben) | Sepa ee
V, GENERAL (COMMENTS) CONGERNINGMIMAGERY = 3)9.. "2s 1-1) eee
Vile COASTAL REATURESH 20 co (eee. ta ett te ea ta tem ey te oy ey) (tt
leerSedimentieP umes iz. i. as a 0 eee, ret a

2 nm DensiittyaeMalsiSie ns pee tyes tel” tes olen tome) on evenon ar at ta ne

Se IMME Bars so ae cals. ca ei eae i va) co tg Ee 2
Ce Of ol en ee ee EMER AR’ gg | GS

VAT MORPHOMOGICATNCHANGES, <) 9s 0: -coe gy cptinien nace ee
16 “Carolina-iBeach? e236 e Se a el es el ee Oe
25 Carolina Beach millet: cso fe auenue, ee le oe SO
3 HMasonboro: Beach: 40.9 ee ne ee OO
4. Masonboro: ‘Inlet? tee eern. eo See eee ety auile. peace LO
52 Wrightsville Beachy 2. 6. Ss, ae es ee ee ee

VEL SUMMARY@ANDMCONCEUSIONS) isc.) cy.) tesla cpikcn nein rm en tee fia SS
TX VRECOMMENDATIONS #6) rccuty sods Soa foi) gay edi cat ee nee as nen arc OOS

LITERATURE CITED SO Ce ene ire oo «6 AY

TABLES

1 ERTS-1 multispectral scanner and aerial photography
spectral: relationships: a. Si uve wine) el sp ! cee) el bs

2 Light: attenuation coefficients in clear water nl. 1) eee
3 Dates and times of ERTS and underflight observations ...... ll

A TGS Glee, So WeSerberte) Ile 5 6 bo 5 0 0b Oo ee oo CG

5) Significant waveshelightsmand) perlodSi a.) rt necinenntnn nn ane
FIGURES
SEP A ioxereheafopnl Sizho) (obs heh EEE, 6 6 9 6 5.0 6 6 6 0 6 0 0 60 G0 0 0 8

11

2

CONTENTS

FIGURES—Continued

Study area .
Sediment plumes and Cape Fear bar

Gray tone change. in ocean water

Sea surface isotherms recorded on 24 June and 25 June 1973 .

Inlet bars .

Bar off Cape Lookout .

Enlargement of study area, 30 July 1972
Enlargement of study area, 2 June 1973 .
Underflight mosaic of study area, 19 July 1972 .
Underflight mosaic of study area, 15 June 1973 .

Channel ,thalwegs of Masonboro Inlet

Page

‘a

ee

i) 6

AN ERTS-1 STUDY OF COASTAL FEATURES
ON THE NORTH CAROLINA COAST

by

George H. Miller and Dennis W. Berg

I. INTRODUCTION

Imagery obtained by the Earth Resources Technology Satellite (ERTS-1)
has proven highly useful in various scientific and engineering applica-
tions. Evidence of this has been demonstrated by the numerous technical
conferences and symposiums sponsored specifically to exploit ERTS-1
imagery, and the increasing amount of published research.

Most of the research on the usefulness of satellite imagery has
depended on the use of highly sophisticated, expensive equipment, and
complex computer analysis to derive the significant results published.
One of the intentions of the original Coastal Engineering Research Center
(CERC) proposal to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) was to determine the possible use of satellite imagery in coastal
engineering applications with only the aid of conventional photographic
processes and equipment. The results of this report should be beneficial
to individuals and small organizations lacking the expertise or financial
capability to utilize sophisticated equipment and analysis techniques to
derive useful information from ERTS-1 imagery.

The results described in this report have been documented through the
use of ordinary photographic processes, access to libraries, and informa-
tion available to the general public. The ERTS-1 imagery was furnished
by the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, and supple-
mented by underflight imagery furnished by the NASA Ames Research Center,
Mountain View, California, and the NASA facility at Wallops Island,
Virginia.

The primary objective of this study was to determine if the status of
the littoral regime for a part of a coastline could be established through
the use of remote sensing imagery, and if the variations of the coastal
features, i.e., barrier islands and tidal inlets, could be detected and
measured by this use. The exchange of waters between the ocean and tidal
areas and its contribution to the littoral budget were also investigated.

II. STUDY AREA

For an accurate analysis of the imagery, it was decided to choose a
study area with plentiful ground-truth data, preferably a coastal segment
with sites of active CERC research projects. Accordingly, a segment of

‘the North Carolina coast which included the following sites was chosen
(File, 1)

Co

a “4
Z New Topsail Inlet
Old Topsail Inlet

Rich Inlet

Mason Inlet
Wrightsville Beach

Inlet

gam tO je Carolina Beach Inlet

Cape Fear,)*\

River ——y9 Carolina Beach
DONE pd Snow’s Cut

" © 1 234 5 Miles
7a°00' CAPE FEAR SCALE

Figure 1. Location map of study area. Traced from ERTS 1314-15210.

Site Location

Wrightsville Beach
Masonboro Inlet
Masonboro Beach

Carolina Beach Inlet

wm FP WA N

Carolina Beach

In addition to being sites of active research projects of CERC, sites
1, 2, and 5 are either Federally sponsored beach erosion control and
hurricane protection projects or Federally maintained navigation projects.

The Carolina Beach Inlet studies are being pursued to establish the
feasibility of controlling a navigation channel through an inlet by
dredging a deposition basin in the throat of the inlet without construc-
ting permanent navigation structures such as breakwaters or jetties. The
Masonboro Inlet study seeks to substantiate the feasibility of a new con-
cept in jetty design, the weir jetty, which involves the provision of a
deposition area in the lee of the jetty for the storage of naturally
moved littoral materials, and periodic bypassing of these materials by
ordinary dredging equipment while providing navigation protection. Both
Wrightsville and Carolina Beaches are Federally sponsored hurricane and
shore protection projects constructed by the U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers.
Data collected on these beaches are being analyzed to determine the budget
of the littoral materials and to monitor the condition of the projects
built by the Corps of Engineers. Masonboro Beach, at present an
undeveloped barrier island between the two inlets, is being studied
because of its integral relationship to the barrier island-tidal inlet
complex and its contribution to the littoral budget.

The results of this report will provide additional information for
CERC's larger effort in applying remote sensing techniques to under-
standing coastal engineering problems. Moreover, it is anticipated that
the results presented here will provide a significant input to the con-
current CERC projects listed above.

III. CHARACTERISTICS OF IMAGERY

The imagery used in this study was ERTS-1 multispectral scanner (MSS)
imagery in four discrete spectral bands, ranging in wavelength from 0.5
micrometer (green) to 1.1 micrometers (infrared), and conventional aerial
photography taken on black and white, color, and infrared color film.

Specific information concerning the ERTS-1 satellite and details of
collection, processing, and dissemination of imagery are contained in the
Data Users Handbook (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1971);
however, for this study it is important to list the radiation wavelengths
to understand what is actually portrayed in the imagery of the MSS and the
conventional photography. Wavelength ranges for each MSS spectral band

(band numbers fixed by NASA) and for the conventional photography used in
this study are presented in Table 1. Optical filters were used in the
conventional photography to match the spectral bands of the MSS. Of par-
ticular importance in this study is the water penetration capability of
MSS imagery. Because light attenuation by water is related to light
wavelength, each spectral band provides a different degree of water pene-
tration. Table 2 shows total light attenuation coefficients in clear
water for wavelength of peak sensitivity of each MSS spectral band
(Polcyn and Rollin, 1969). Thus for clear water, penetration increases
as band numbers decrease.

Table 1. ERTS-1 multispectral scanner
and aerial photography spectral

relationships.
Sensor Wavelength range
(micrometers)
ERTS Band
4 | O55). LO Os
5 Os. eo) Os 7/
6 O7- CO Oo
7 0.8 too 1

NASA Ames Research Center Camera

1 0.

2 0.58 to 0.68
3 0.69 to 0.76
4 0.51 to 0.70
5 OF to

1. Color infrared film roughly compa-
rable to a composite photo of MSS
bands 4, 5, and 7.

Table 2. Light attenuation coefficients in clear water.

MSS Band | Wavelength of peak sensitivity | Attenuation coefficient
(micrometers) (per meter)

By using this data, underwater features can be detected and properly
identified on examination of imagery. 'Magoon, Berg, and Hallermeier
(1973) pointed out the utility of examining all four MSS bands, simulta-
neously and individually, and in conjunction with other existing data.

IV. IMAGERY AVAILABLE FOR STUDY

Table 3 presents imagery identification, dates, and times of obten-
tion for both ERTS-1 and underflight coverage.

Table 3. Dates and times of ERTS and
underflight observations.

Frame Date Time (e.s.t.)
number (hours)

ERTS-1

E-1007-15142 July 1972

E-1080-15203 | 11 October 1972 1021
E-1115-15152 | 15 November 1972 1015
E-1134-15211 4 December 1972 1021
E-1170-15205 9 January 1973 1021
E-1188-15210 | 27 January 1973 1021
E-1205-15153 | 13 February 1973 1016

E-1242-15213
E-1314-15210

22 March 1973
June 1973

Underflights

Flight
number

Time (e.s.t.)
(approximate)
(hours)

72-116 19 July 1972 0842
72-144 19 August 1972 1044
72-167 22 September 197 1226
W-179-FLT1 2 November 1972 1025
73-013A 30 January 1973 0945
W-187-FLT1 13 February 1973 1025
73-062 28 April 1973 1200
W-195 11 May 1973

W-222 June 1973

V. GENERAL COMMENTS CONCERNING IMAGERY

The basic obServations made and conclusions reached are referenced to
the images in Table 3. However, the broad range of conditions encountered
are representative of ERTS-1 imagery in general, and the statements have
applicability to other studies and investigations using this imagery.

Nominal resolving power of the multispectral scanner is approximately
250 feet on the ground (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1971).

As a result, smaller manmade structures such as roads and buildings
are not visible. However, this resolving capability is suitable for
observation of gross coastal features and processes.

In selected cases, distortion of the shoreline was apparent where
image scan lines intersected at nearly right angles to the shoreline,
imparting a serrated appearance to the shore. This appearance could be
interpreted erroneously as a natural cuspate shore by those unfamiliar
with the detailed procedure used to obtain and record the imagery.

Band 7 shows the greatest tonal contrast between land and water because
the water penetration is least in this band (comparable to black and white
infrared photography). Contrast, in general, decreases in moving from
band 7 to band 4. In some band 4 images, it was difficult to distinguish
land from water in backshore areas. Although the water depth penetration
is greatest in band 4, it is difficult to distinguish shoal areas from
land masses because of poor contrast. Shoal areas were most apparent in
band 5.

Clouds caused problems in distinguishing features on the ground and
in the water. In most of the images, cloud cover was light; only one
filmset was so heavily covered that analysis was impossible (27 January
1973, ERTS 1188-15210). In a few isolated cases, care had to be exercised
in distinguishing between shoals and cloud shadows.

The ERTS-1 images are either contact or enlargement photographs of
positive imagery (negative prints). As a result, land areas appear dark
and water areas lighter. Contact prints of the four spectral bands
showing the study area (11 October 1972, ERTS 1080-15203) are presented
in Figure 2. The prominent cape is Cape Fear. Photographic coverage of
the shoreline extends from just south of Little River Inlet, South
Carolina, north to Bear Inlet, North Carolina. Spectral bands 6 and 7
clearly show the Cape Fear River and its tributaries; one tributary extends
all the way to the northwest corner of the photo. The barrier islands
extending north and south of Cape Fear and the inlets separating the
barrier islands are also clearly delineated. Scan-line distortion along
the barrier islands is apparent in all four spectral bands, e.g., Masonboro
Beach.

In bands 4 and 5, contrast between land and water decreases and
shoaling areas at the mouths of inlets become more apparent. These two
bands illustrate the problem of contrast versus depth penetration. The
result was that shoals were studied primarily by using band 5. Sediment
plumes, visible in bands 4 and 5,-are seen at the mouth of the Cape Fear
River and migrating along the seaward edges of the barrier islands, both
north and south of Cape Fear.

Figure 2 illustrates the problem of cloud cover. Cape Fear has a
southeast-trending shoal off its tip visible in the lower spectral bands
(discussed later). Cloud cover in the southeast corner of Figure 2
obscures any evidence of shoaling off Cape Fear.

l2

(SOZST-O80T SLYA

) Pvore

Apnias

"Z einsty

py pueg

13

penutzUu0D— *(OZST-O8OT SLYd) eeze Apnys “Z eunsTy
L pueg

a TB ne Ab ae
SGI HR

Pay, PhS ee
Ee a ce ' ¢ ~ aes
apg Fed se baad

14

VI. COASTAL FEATURES

A number of selected coastal features in the study area were noted
during analysis of the ERTS-1 images. Interpretation of these features
is important to coastal engineering because it provides vital clues to
the littoral budget and behavior of shorelines and inlets. This section
treats each feature separately with accompanying ERTS-1 photos and perti-
nent ground-truth data.

1. Sediment Plumes.

Because sediment plumes act as tracers, bodies of suspended sediment
shown in aerial and space photos have long been used by coastal engineers
in interpreting current structures and estuarine flushing patterns. With
ERTS-1 imagery, it is possible to observe sediment plumes of areal extent
measuring in thousands of square miles. These sediment bodies (plumes)
are seen in spectral bands 4 and 5.

Figure 3 shows bands 5, 6, and 7 of the study area observed on 4
December 1972 (ERTS 1134-15211) (band 4 was not reproducible). Band 5
reveals sediment plumes at the mouths of Carolina Beach and Masonboro
Inlets. The visible part of the plume at Carolina Beach Inlet is almost
semicircular with its longest diameter against the shoreline, measuring
about 2.8 nautical miles. Maximum seaward extent of the plume is about
2.1 nautical miles. Masonboro Inlet has a smaller, more linear plume
extending seaward about 1.5 nautical miles and trending southeast.

Tide data (Table 4) obtained from a station at Masonboro Inlet indi-
cate an ebbtide occurrence during the ERTS-1 observation (National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, 1972b, 1973b). Tide level was 1.9 feet
above mean low water (MLW) (slack waters were 4.3 and 0.3 feet above MLW,
respectively). Daily weather data obtained from the National Weather
Service Office, Wilmington, North Carolina (National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, 1972a, 1973a), for 4 December 1972 and the
preceding 3 days showed zero precipitation. Hence, the sediment plumes
do not reflect abnormal quantities of runoff due to heavy precipitation ;
they are more likely normal discharges associated with ebbtide.

The sediment plume off Carolina Beach Inlet is displaced slightly
toward the south, indicating the presence of a southbound current. The
near-semicircular configuration suggests that this current was relatively
weak near the inlet. There is no ground-truth data available to substan-
tiate the existence of a predominant southward littoral drift during the
observation that may be a contributing factor to this movement. Wave
gage data (Table 5) obtained at Wrightsville Beach for 0100, 0700, 1300,
and 1900 hours (e.s.t.) on 4 December 1972 show lower significant wave
heights and longer wave periods than the average for the month of Decem-
ber 1972. Therefore, wave energy was lower than average. Wave observa-
tion data obtained by volunteer observers at Wrightsville Beach under the
Beach Evaluation Program (Galvin and DeWall, 1971) managed by CERC showed

15

Figure 3. Sediment plumes and Cape Fear bar (ERTS 1134-15211).

penutjuo0)—

L

“(ESI

pueg

bett SLad

) aeq i1eaqJ odep pue sowntd

quowrtpes °

9 pueg

¢ 9insTy

17

Table 4.

Tide data - Masonboro Inlet!.

Date Time (e.s.t.) Tide Range? Cycle
(hours ) (feet ) (feet)

1972

July Floodtide
October Ebbtide
November Floodtide
December Ebbtide
1973

January. Floodtide
January - Floodtide
February Ebbtide
March Ebbtide
June Ebbtide

Underflights

1972

July Floodtide
August Floodtide
September Ebbtide
November Ebbtide
1973

January Ebbtide
February Ebbtide
April Floodtide
May Floodtide
June Ebbtide

From National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
LO ZalO sae

2. Ranges denote maximum or minimum tidal height preceding

and following tide levels.

Table 5. Significant wave heights and periods!.

Date of Flight 0100 Hours 0700 Hours 1300 Hours 1900 Hours
H Ty H T H T
) | (feet) | (seconds) | (feet) | (seconds) | (feet)

(seconds)

July Average?

NS NEN)

oOoOnUwN [TR UODOIAD ONAID S£1O [NN HYPNOS

17 August?
18 August
19 August

August Average3

31 October?
1 November
2 November

i)
N COW }]O orf iN DaN ID INOW ]NI © & OC

October Average?

OIlNY ANA ITA Noo !]WwW Nrn
°
WlO woaw lo FON ITN COMO

13 November2
14 November
1S November

WwW eH Uws N PND Ny Fe

November Average3

- MOO} o

2 December?
3 December
4 December

@mmmwol]mam DOOO}]Ff# FOOITW SFNOTW FSNN

NO Ree
oOo FADHIO

December Average?
1973

7 January2
8 January
9 January

January Average?

1. Obtained from Wave Gage Data, CERC.
2. Recorded values for date and time.

3. Average values for entire month.

wave crests for the most part approaching parallel to shore. Wave gage
data and observers supported the view that the longshore current generated
off Wrightsville Beach or nearby vicinity must have been relatively weak.

The sediment plume off Carolina Beach Inlet is much larger in areal
extent than the plume off Masonboro Inlet. This phenomenon can be
explained by the tidal hydraulics of the area. A detailed analysis of
the tidal flow through Carolina Beach Inlet was during a study investi-
gating erosion at Carolina Beach (U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington,
1970). This analysis revealed that tidal flow through the inlet is
controlled not only by the ocean tide fluctuations but by the fluctuations
of the Cape Fear River through Snow's Cut. High water in the ocean occurs
about 1 hour before high water in the river; low water occurs about 1.5
hours before low water in the river. The result of this combined tidal
action is that slack water before ebbtide at the inlet occurs 1 hour after
low water in the ocean and slack water before floodtide occurs 1.5 hours
after ocean high water. On 4 December 1972, slack water times (e.s.t.)
for the ocean, Carolina Beach Inlet, and the Cape Fear River were as
follows:

Ocean River Inlet
(hours) (hours ) (hours )

0829 (high water) 0929 0959 (slack water before floodtide)
1551 (low water) 1721 1651 (slack water before ebbtide)

Based on this information, at the time of the ERTS-1 image shown in Figure
3 (1021 hours e.s.t.), Carolina Beach Inlet was at the beginning of the
floodtide cycle and not ebbtide as indicated by Table 4 which gives tidal
data from Masonboro Inlet. Therefore, what is observed in the ERTS-1

photo is the plume at Carolina Beach Inlet that resulted from the preceding
ebbtide cycle; what is seen at Masonboro Inlet is a partially developed
plume about 2 hours after the beginning of the ebbtide cycle.

2. Density Mass.

A definable color (or gray tone) change in the ocean water off the
North Carolina coast is visible in the four bands of the ERTS-1 imagery
recorded on 2 June 1973 (ERTS 1314-15210, Fig. 4). The water adjacent to
the coast is a lighter color (darker in the negative print) and appears
to be a linear mass, irregular in outline and running roughly parallel to
shore. The mass extends from the southern frame border north to Rich
Inlet, fades out, and picks up again at Old Topsail Inlet. Approximate
width of the mass is 7 miles from shore seaward. Examination of the
adjacent frame to the south (ERTS 1314-15213, not shown) reveals that the
mass is bordered on the south by the shoals off Cape Fear (discussed
later). The mass does not contain visible patterns suggesting a tidal
outflow. Its irregular outline suggests that mixing with adjacent ocean
water is in progress. The visibility of the mass in all four MSS bands
indicates the feature has some depth.

20

2l

Band 4

Gray tone change in ocean water (ERTS 1314-15210).

Figure 4.

22

Band 7

Band 6

Gray tone change in ocean water (ERTS 1314-15210). —Continued

Figure 4.

Climatological data for Wilmington (National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, 1972a, 1973b) revealed zero precipitation for the day of
the ERTS-1 observation and the preceding 2 days. Weather observations
made at 3-hour intervals on 2 June 1973, starting at 0100 hours (e.s.t.),
showed that air temperature rose from 59° Fahrenheit at 0400 hours
(e.s.t.), the lowest recorded temperature for that month, to 82° Fahren-
heit at 1000 hours, the highest recorded temperature for the day. Ina
6-hour interval, air temperature rose 23° Fahrenheit. Recorded wind-
speeds for 0100, 0400, and 0700 hours (e.s.t.) were zero, but the wind
picked up to 8 knots by 1000 hours.

The color change is probably caused by a difference in density which
may result from changes in salinity, quantity, and type of suspended
matter (e.g., sediment plumes), concentrations of marine life and nutri-
ents, or a combination of these. These changes are often observed
between water masses of different temperatures. A map of the coast of
the Carolinas showing sea surface isotherms recorded by an airborne
radiation thermometer on 24 and 25 June 1973, the closest days to the
ERTS-1 observation is presented in Figure 5 (U.S. Coast Guard, 1973).
Dotted lines along some of the isotherms represent extrapolations made by
the investigators. A trough of cooler water originates off the coast
north of Cape Lookout and extends south as far as Cape Fear, as evidenced
by the linearity of the 25° Celsius isotherm and a small entrapped 24°
Celsius isotherm. A small 27° Celsius isotherm is just off Cape Fear.

A body of warmer water may also be trapped by the 25° Celsius isotherm
between Capes Lookout and Fear. As previously noted, the change in water
temperature may be a factor in causing a tonal change in the photos.

The darker tone representing warmer water was borne out by examination of
the next ERTS-1 frame to the south (ERTS 1314-15213, not shown). The
same tonal variation is apparent toward the southeast roughly coinciding
with the Gulf Stream. Figure 4 shows that the outline of a probable
density mass roughly coincides with the isothermal pattern. Although the
temperature recordings were made on different days than the ERTS-1
recording, it is assumed that isothermal variations on the sea surface
tend to follow predictable patterns during a given season along a par-
ticular coastal segment.

3. Inlet Bars.

Bars are generally found at the landward and seaward ends of inlet
channels. These bars usually appear as lobate or delta-shaped sand bodies
originating at the channel ends. The bars are formed by deposition of
sediment transported alongshore to the inlet and carried through the
inlet by tidal flow. During floodtide the materials are carried through
the inlet and deposited on the inner bar. During ebbtide, some of the
materials deposited in the inner complex are transported back through the
inlet to the ocean bar. Ebbtide and floodtide channels form in both the
ocean and inner bar formations; both the bars and channels generally
Migrate. Geometry and migration of these features are related to the
rate of littoral material movement to and within the inlet, and the
prevailing tidal currents.

Ze

NORTH
CAROLINA

SOUTH
CAROLINA

LEGEND:
——"_ — Isotherm (°C)

ccm — Extrapolation

0 10 20 30 Miles Of Isotherm

(anh @ —Gulf Stream
SCALE Boundary

Figure 5. Sea surface isotherms recorded on 24 June (southern part)
and 25 June (northern part) 1973 (U.S. Coast Guard, 1973).

24

Inlets are important coastal features for private and commercial
water traffic because they are often the only means of access from main-
land areas to the ocean. Consequently, bar migrations and shoaling rates
must be closely monitored by coastal engineers so that appropriate mainte-
nance dredging measures can be planned to maintain the inlet channels in
navigable condition.

Inlet bars are visible around Carolina Beach and Masonboro Inlets
(ERTS 1007-15142, Fig. 6). These bars are most striking in bands 4 and
5, and barely visible in band 6. Southbound littoral drift at Masonboro
Inlet is controlled by a weir jetty at the mouth of the inlet on the north
side which results in the ocean bar being a different geometry and posi-
tion from the one at Carolina Beach Inlet. The ocean bar at Masonboro
Inlet is roughly linear in form and displaced toward the south of the
inlet channel which is bordered on the north side by the jetty. The bar
trends southeast, approximately parallel to the channel and jetty, and is
separated from Masonboro Beach by what is apparently a secondary tidal
channel.

4. Capes.

Capes Fear and Lookout each have a southeast-trending bar extending
from their tips. These bars are seen best in spectral bands 4 and 5.
The bar off Cape Lookout is the longer of the two, measuring about 4
Miles (Fig. 7). The bar off Cape Fear measures 1 mile (Fig. 3).

Historical records have shown these two capes as sites of shifting
current directions (Shepard and Wanless, 1971). Sediment transported
toward the tip of each cape by longshore currents is deposited in the
shoaling areas as the sediment-laden waters reach the tip. Diffraction
around the tip causes waves to lose energy which reduces the sediment
carrying capacity of those waves. Shifts in longshore current direction
probably prevent these shoals from approaching a direction parallel to
the current. The shoals visible in the ERTS-1 imagery are oriented in a
direction that reflects net deposition by shifting currents.

Bumpus (1955) points to converging currents as the mechanism for bar
formation off the capes of North Carolina. The prevailing southwesterly
wind blows parallel to the direction of the coast south of Cape Hatteras.
This wind piles up water on the south side of the capes which results in
a hydraulic current flowing out over the projecting bars. The current
deflects offshore any southward current approaching the cape from the
north side. The resulting decrease in current velocity also causes depo-
sition of the sediment load, thus providing a source of sediment for the
bars.

VII. MORPHOLOGICAL CHANGES
Coastal land features continually undergo erosion and accretion due

to the constant action of wind, waves, and currents. As a result, the
morphology of the land is constantly subject to change. Some of these

25

26

Band 5

Inlet bars (ERTS 1007-15142).

Figure 6.

all

Band 7

Band 6

Inlet bars (ERTS 1007-15142). —Continued

Figure 6.

S

*(ZvISt

pueg

ZOOT SLUA)

4noyoo

edey Fo

reg

*L eansty

y pueg

28

penutyuo)j— *(ZrISt-Zool SLYa)

ZL pued

ynoyooy edep JFFO 1eg

*/ orn3 Ty

9 pued

29

changes occur over very short-time periods, e.g., inlets through barrier
islands have opened up in a matter of hours during storms. These same
inlets were observed closing in a matter of weeks or months. Complete
beaches have eroded away within a few years due either to natural pro-
cesses or the influence of man; other beaches have formed in as much time.
In addition to one-time changes, there are changes such as seasonal
variations in beach width, steady growth of spits and hooks, and migra-
tions of capes and inlets.

Because changes to coastal landforms are continuous and often rapid,
maps of these areas become obsolete very quickly. With repeated coverage
by satellite imagery, the problem of obsolescence inherent in current
methods of mapping can be eliminated. Photos obtained from satellite
imagery can provide an up-to-date supplement to existing maps, and with
repeated coverage over relatively short-time intervals, a means of moni-
toring changes that are occurring in landforms, as long as those changes
are large enough to be resolved by satellite sensors.

This section discusses the morphological changes that have occurred
in each of the five sites along the coast of North Carolina: Carolina
Beach, Carolina Beach Inlet, Masonboro Beach, Masonboro Inlet, and
Wrightsville Beach. Emphasis has been placed on the comparison of what
was observed in the ERTS-1 imagery to low altitude aerial photography and
ground-truth data.

Blowups of the study area obtained from the first and last ERTS-1
films analyzed (30 July 1972 and 2 June 1973) are shown in Figures 8 and
9. Band 7 in Figure 8 has an overlay of the land-water interface traced
directly from band 7 in Figure 9, allowing direct comparison of shoreline
change between the two dates. Comparison of the two ERTS-1 films was
made with a Zoom Transfer Scope (Ambrose and McHail, 1972). Figure 10
shows mosaics of underflight infrared color photos of the study area on
19 July 1972 and 15 June 1973. The following discussion relates directly
to Figures 8 to 11. The location map in Figure 1 should be used to pin-
point locations of the various features.

1. Carolina Beach.

Comparison of the two underflight mosaics (Figs. 10 and 11) shows that
significant erosion occurred along the arched part of Carolina Beach,
immediately south of Carolina Beach Inlet. This shoreline recession was
more apparent in the ERTS-1 photos than in the underflight mosaics because
of the lower image resolution and scan-line distortion in ERTS-1 imagery.
No erosion was apparent along the beach south of the arched part. A
report by the U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington (1970) stated that
before the opening of Carolina Beach Inlet in 1952, the now-curved part
of Carolina Beach was continuous with the shoreline to the south and
Masonboro Beach to the north. Subsequent erosion of the segment imme-
diately south of the inlet has been in progress since the opening of the
inlet. This erosion was a natural development resulting from a deficit of
littoral drift from the north, caused by material entrapment in the inlet.

Band 4

3!

Band 5

Enlargement of study area (ERTS 1007-15142, 30 July 1972).

Figure 8.

penut wuojD— “(7261 AING OF ‘*ZPIST-LOOT SLU) evese

L pueg

9 pueg

Apnzs jo juowesze [ug

"8 oin3Ty

32

"(S261 OuNL Z ‘OIZSI-PIST

SLUd) Bere Apnis Fo Juswesie[Ug

g pueg

y pueg

°6 eIn3Ty

33

poenutzuo07—

(€Z61 eune Z

¢

O1ZST

vISL SLU) verte Apnys Jo JUoWes1e [UY
ZL puedg

9 pueg

6 o1nsT4y

34

"(¢26

“ISN 2003 00$°6 :9pnaTaTy
T ounf ST “ZZZ-M 243tIy sdoTTem WSVN) vere Apnis Jo dTesow AYBITJZepuQ “{[T ean3ty

“ISW 299F 000°S9 :9pnzTiTy

“(ZZ61T AIM GI “9TI-ZZL 2U3TTA ONV/VSVN) Beze Apnis zo ITesoW IYSsTTF1opuy

“OT emn3Tty

35

2. Carolina Beach Inlet.

Because of the erosion at Carolina Beach, Carolina Beach Inlet has a
well-defined offset, the southern ocean edge displaced landward of the
projected ocean edge of Masonboro Beach. The part of the inlet channel
between the barrier islands is arched northward. These features can be
seen clearly in the ERTS-1 photos. Comparison with the overlay reveals
that the inlet is migrating northward with a concomitant increase in the
bending of the channel. There does not appear to be a significant shift
in position of the: mouth of the channel. However, close examination of
the inlet in the underflight mosaic (19 July 1972) shows a long, (about
1,000 feet) narrow bar normal to the shore, detached from land, positioned
on the south side of the inlet, and extending seaward from well within
the inlet. This bar is faintly visible in Figure 8. Examination of
underflight-imagery subsequent to 19 July 1972 shows that the northern
tip of the Carolina Beach extension accreted and filled in the gap
between it and the linear bar, the latter forming a sort of cap to the
barrier island's growth. This accretion was accompanied by erosion on
the north side of the channel. The combination of accretion and erosion
accounted for the increase in the channel arching.

3. Masonboro Beach.

No significant change in the shoreline position of Masonboro Beach
was observed in either the ERTS-1 or underflight imagery. Evidently, the
sand budget along this coastal segment was relatively stable for the time
period under consideration. Most of the sand replenishing the southern
part of Masonboro Beach was probably derived from the outer bar of
Carolina Beach Inlet during littoral drift toward the north. Some littoral
drift at the north end probably moved south from the shoal on the south
side of Masonboro Inlet.

4. Masonboro Inlet.

A narrowing of the channel through Masonboro Inlet occurred between
the two ERTS-1 observations shown in Figures 8 and 9. The narrowing
resulted from accretion of the northern tip of Masonboro Beach; the
northern edge of the inlet channel remained stationary. An increase in
size of the shoal on the south side also narrowed the channel along the
above-water part of the jetty. Recent survey data have revealed a steady
northward migration of the channel thalweg since the installation of the
weir jetty (Fig. 12). Thus, the ERTS-1 photography probably reflects a
part of this general trend.

Accretion of the northern tip of Masonboro Beach and the increase in
shoaling along the south side of Masonboro Inlet may be due to any combi-
nation of several factors in- addition to normal shoaling associated with
inlet tidal flow. One of these factors is northbound littoral drift.
During the fall and winter months, waves approach the area around Mason-
boro Inlet more frequently from the northeast and east, producing south-
bound littoral currents. During the spring a transition period is

36

*JOTU] OLOquOseW FO sS3emTeu TouUeYD

a

000g ccm mor
1334 NI 371V0S

€26] AOW —b96I AON

Aysar 418M

HOV]
STIUASLHOIUM

HOVAd
OYOSNOSVAN

"ZI ean3sty

€261 sow —K —-X—
(RCE MES oo 50 ounc0n ce
6961 vor as
g96! Aine i
g96| vor —— --——
2961 eunp —— —- ——
9961990 — ——- —
996) Sny
¢ 961 AON,

QN39351

37

observed during which waves strike the beach with almost equal frequency
from all directions, resulting in frequent reversals in the direction of
littoral transport: During the summer, waves are more likely to come

from the southeast and south and produce northward drift (U.S. Army Engi-
neer District, Wilmington, 1969). Although on an annual basis the pre-
dominant direction of wave attack is from the northeast and east, shoaling
and accretion on the south side continue because of the occasional contri-
bution made by currents moving northward. Moreover, when the waves are
coming from the northeast and east, the shoal is protected by the weir
jetty.

Wave diffraction is another factor that may contribute to the shoaling.
Waves approaching the end of the jetty are diffracted, and the resulting
loss in wave energy causes the sediment load to be deposited in the
shoaled area. This phenomenon of wave diffraction around the end of the
jetty is visible in Figure 11.

5. Wrightsville Beach.

No discernible change was noted in the ERTS-1 imagery on Wrightsville
Beach. Like Masonboro Beach, the amount of sand lost approximately
equaled the amount gained during the time interval under consideration.
Some accretion was visible on the north side of the Masonboro jetty, but
like the rest of the beach, it remained stable during the time interval
between ERTS-1 observations.

VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This study was undertaken to determine how satellite imagery may be
applied to specific coastal engineering problems. The study analyzed
unenhanced imagery recorded by the four spectral channels of the ERTS-1
multispectral scanner. Problems encountered with analysis of the ERTS-1
imagery and the advantages offered by examination of each spectral band
separately were discussed. A number of coastal features seen in ERTS-1
films, including sediment plumes discharged from inlets, a change in
water coloration, inlet bars, and cape bars were also examined and dis-
cussed. These features were correlated with ground-truth data. Morpholo-
gical changes in selected coastal land features were determined by com-
paring ERTS-1 films obtained about 1 year apart. The observations
presented in this report should provide a significant input to other
coastal studies being conducted along the study area.

Two characteristics of satellite imagery are considered essential
attributes when applied to coastal engineering problems. The first
characteristic is adequate water depth penetration; depth of water pene-
tration by light increases as wavelength decreases. This property of
light allows an examination of certain underwater features in the lower
MSS bands of the ERTS-1 imagery. As inferred from the imagery presented
in this report, specifically in reference to the shoals and bars, depth
penetration in MSS channel 4 is estimated to be tens of feet. Actual
depth penetration by light of a given wavelength can vary greatly,

' 38

depending on the physical characteristics of seawater. Although this
penetration capability may be inadequate for deeper areas, it has proven
useful for making qualitative observations of estuarine and nearshore
underwater features.

The other important characteristic is the image resolution capable of
discerning small-scale features normally required in coastal studies,
i.e., wave patterns, nearshore current patterns, morphological features
on beaches, and engineering structures such as groins, seawalls, jetties,
and breakwaters. At present, such features must be sufficiently large
to fall within the limits of the ERTS-1 sensor's resolving capability.
Examination of the ERTS-1 imagery has shown that, although some smaller
scale features of interest in coastal engineering are not visible in the
imagery, many important observations of gross features can be made. Most
notable were the temporal changes in morphology of tidal inlets and
barrier islands observed by comparing the ERTS-1 images. In addition,
the current resolving capability of the multispectral scanner appears to
be adequate for mapping land-water interfaces with a degree of accuracy
that compares favorably with current methods of mapping.

IX. RECOMMENDATIONS

For coastal engineering, improvements in depth penetration capability
and resolving power would probably lead to wider application of satellite
imagery in coastal studies. While the ERTS-1 imagery has proven useful
in analyzing gross surface and nearshore features, much of what needs to
be examined in the solution of coastal engineering problems is found
below water level and at scales too small for or bordering on the present
resolving capability of the multispectral scanner. A resolving power of
50 feet or better would adequately cover most structures and features of
interest in coastal engineering. It is anticipated that improvements in
optical technology to be incorporated in future satellites will include
increased resolving capability. Greater water penetration capability may
be afforded by the addition of a blue-band channel in future satellite-
borne sensors.

39

LITERATURE CITED

AMBROSE, W.R., and McHAIL, R.R., "The Zoom Transfer Scope, A New Photo-
grammetric Instrument," 12th Congress of the International Society for
Photogrammetry, Canada, 1972.

BUMPUS, D.F., "The Circulation over the Continental Shelf South of Cape
Hatteras," Transactions, American Geophysical Unton, Vol. 36, No. 4,
Aug. 1955, pp. 601-611.

GALVIN, C.J., Jr., and DeWALL, A.E., "The CERC Beach Evaluation Program,"
Abstracts, Second Conference on Coastal and Shallow Water Research,
Oct. 1971, p. 80.

MAGOON, O.T., BERG, D.W., and HALLERMEIER, R.J., "Application of NASA
ERTS-1 Satellite Imagery in Coastal Studies ,"" Goddard ERTS Symposium,
Greenbelt, Md., 1973.

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, Earth Resources Techno-
logy Satellite, Goddard Space Flight Center Users Handbook, Document
71SE4249, Greenbelt, Md., Sept. 1971.

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, Local Climatological Data,
Wilmington, North Carolina, Dec. 1972a.

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, Tide Tables, Atlantic
Coast of North America, 1972b.

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, Local Climatological Data,
Wilmington, North Carolina, June 1973a.

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, Tide Tables, Atlantic
Coast of North America, 1973b.

POLCYN, F.C., and ROLLIN, R.A., "Remote Sensing Techniques for the
Location and Measurement of Shallow Water Features,'' Report 8973-10-P,
Willow Run Laboratories, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.,
1969.

SHEPARD, F.R., and WANLESS, H.R., Our Changing Coastlines, McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1971.

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, WILMINGTON, ''Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway ;
Masonboro Inlet South Jetty Restudy Report," Memorandum, Wilmington,
NG pl 969%:

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, WILMINGTON, "Investigation of Erosion,
Carolina Beach, N.C., Wilmington, N.C., 1970.

40

U.S. COAST GUARD OCEANOGRAPHIC UNIT, "Surface Isotherms-°C. ," Washington,
D.C., June 1973.

4

aw1gcn* £79 GAYE OH amg gn* £0ZOL

*ou qyiodez
snosueT Testy ‘1e}queD YyOleesey BuTseuTsuq [ejseoD *S*n : SeTreS “IIT
*zoygne jutof ‘°m stuueg *32eg ‘II ‘eTITL ‘I «“Aresemy~ *g «*({-Siuq)
SITTTEIeS ABoTOUYWDS] seodznosey yAIeg *G *sweqsks ButTuueds *h
*ASoToydiow TeIseop *E¢ ‘“S3uTIseuTZuUe TeIseOD *Z ‘“B3uTSues sjoWsYy *|

"OE

*sweTqoid SutirseuT3ue
Teaseoo oFFTOeds 03 pettdde eq Aew AreZeuT aiT[Teqes MOY sUTUIERAepP 03
pezAyTeue sem (| -SINA) PITITEIeS ABoTOUYDe, seDInosey yIIeY VSVN 2eUuI
JO (SSW) Jouueos TerqDedsTATNM ay Aq paeprIoseA AtaZeWyT pooueyusuy
“Ly-07 *d : Ayderz80TT qQTg
(Z-9L °OU $ TaqQUaD
yoreesey SuTiesuTsuq TejIseog — jAoder snosue{TeostW) “TIF : ‘d Ly
"9/6, S29}UeD YOATeeSeYy BuTTseUuTsUq TeIseoD
"s°n : °eA SATOATeg 3A0g — “310g °*M STUUSG pur JETT TI °H 831009 Aq
/ 3se09 eBuTTOIeD YIION ey} UO seInjeez Tejseod Jo Apnjs |-Siuq uy
*H 2831005 SI9TIW

ami gcn* Le9 GAYE OM TUS GOs £072OL

*ou 3iodaz
snosueT Tasty ‘1eqUeD YyoAeesey ZutTieeuT3uq TeIseoD *S*n : seTzeS “IIT
*zoyjne jufof ‘°m sfuueg ‘318g “II ‘eTITL ‘I ‘“Aze8ewy *9 *(L-SIaq)

PITTTEIVS ABOTOUYDeL sedinosey yIeY *¢ ‘smezsKs BuTUUeIS “Hy
*AZoToydiow Tejseog *g “BupeseuTSue Teqseopg *Z ‘“B3uTsues sqousey “|

BOne

*sueTgoid 38utizseuT3ua
Teqseod ofZToeds 03 pettdde oq Aew AreZeWT eITTTEIeS MOY sUTWASQep 07
pezAjTeue sem (| -SIYa) PITTTEIeS ABoTOUYIe, seoInosey yIIeY YWSVN 2U3
JO (SSW) 2Teuueds TerRIDedSTATNMU 9|yQ Aq peptodvea AZOBSeUT pooUeYyUoUL
“L7-0p ‘d : AydesBortT qt
(Z-9L °OU $ TeqQUED
yoieesey BuTiseutTzug [TeqIseop — ysode1 snosueTTeIsTW) “ITT : *d Ly
“9/6, SZeqUeD YOARPeSeYy BuTAveuTsuq [Te ,seog
*S°n : *eA S1TOATeg 310g — *3a0q *M STUUSg pUe AeTTTW *H e310e9 Kq
/ 3sB0D eBUTTOIeD YIION ey} UO saINnjeey [Tejseod Jo Apnqs |-slyq uy
"H e31009 ‘29TT IN

qui gon’ L729 G=9/, 50u am} gcn* £€020L
‘ou 310de1
snosUueTTOOSTW ‘1eqUeD YyoTeesey BupassuT3Zuq Teqyseop *S*n : sefzes “LIT
*zoyqne jutof 6*m stuueg ‘810g “TI “eTITL “I “Azesewy *9 «° (1 -SLua)

®ITTTENIeS AZoTOuYDe], sedinosey yRIeq *¢ ‘*suezsAs BSuTuURIS *H

*sB8oToydiow [eqjseopg *¢ “Bup~ivseuTsue Tejseop *Z7 ‘“SuTsues sjowey *1

SG

*suetTgoid SuyiseutTsue
Teqaseoo oTFtToeds of pattdde oq Aeuw AreBewT sIT[TeqWeS Moy sUTUASJep OF
pezATeue sem (|-SIUT) eITTTEIeS A8oTouysey sedtnosey yIIe| YSVN 247
FO (SSjl) teuueoS TeajoedsTITNU ey Aq peprAodez AreseUT paodUeYyUSUy
“Ly-07 °d : AyderaZ0TTqTg
(Z-9L *OU $ AeqUAaD
yoivesey SuTrveuTZuy Teqseog — Jtodeit snosueTTeosT) “TIT : *d Lh
“O/6| ‘2eqUeD YOARPSSey BuTAveuT3uq Teqseog
*s°n : *eA SATOATOg JIOg — *31eg *M STUUEG pUe ASTI MI *H e310e5 Aq
/ 3sB09 eUuTTOIeD YIAON ey} UO seIN}eeF TeIseod Jo Apnjs | -SLua uy
"YH 831009 SI9TTW

awpgsn* £79 G=9L “Ou am, gcn* €02OL
sou 3iz0de1a
snosueT[eosTW, ‘tequeQ Yyoreesey SutTreeuTSsugq Teqseoy *s*n : SeTIeS “IIT
*zoyqne jufof ‘*m stuueg *32egqg “II “OTITL *I ‘“Ateseuy *g «6° (| -SIuNa)

eITTTeaes ASoTouyoey sadinosey yiIe_ *G ‘*sweqysAs BuTuUrDS *h

*AZo0Toydiou Te,seog *¢ “BuTTeeuTsue TeqIseoD *7Z “BuTSUeS ajJOWeEY *|

GGL

*suetqoid 3utTzseuTsue
qTeqseoo oTsToeds 07 pottdde oq Aeu AZeZeWT VATTTEIeS Moy sUTWASJep OF
pezATeue sem ({-SINT) eITTTEIeS ABoTouYydDeT sedanosay YyIIeY VSVN 24}
JO (SSW) teuueos Tez}0edsTATNU 9yR Aq pepioder ArTeZeUT peouUeYUSU
“Ly-07 °d : Aydes30TTqQTg
(Z-9L *OuU $ 1eqUeD
yoieesey SutTzseutsuq [eqyseog — 3todex snosueTTedsT) “TTF : *d Ly
“O/6L ‘2e}UeD YOTeESey BuTIeeUT3Uq TeISPOD
*s°n : °eA faToATeg 3aoqg — *320q *M STUUAag puUe AeTTT *H e31009 Aq
/ 3se09 eBUTTOIeD YITON By} UO seINjeezZ TeIseoD Jo Apnqs | -SlY uy
°y e81009 S12TTHI

am gcn* £09 GAYE LO amp gcn* €072OL

‘ou qaodez
snosueT Test *19}uUeD YyOTessey BuTAseuTsuq TeqseoD *S*p : SeTIeS “IIT
*zoygne jutof *°m sfuueg “810g “JI “eTITL ‘I ‘Azeseuy *g «= *({-SIUq)
SITTTEIeS ABSOTOUYDS] seodAnosey yAAe_ *¢ ‘*sueqsks ZuTuURDS *y
*AZoToydiow [Tejseop *¢ *B8UTAseUTsUe Te}seOD *Z “SuTSues ajoWsy *|

nGal:

*suetgoid 3uTzseuT3ue
Teqseoo ofjJToeds 03 pottTdde oq Aew AreZeUT aITTTeEIeS Moy sUTWIEQepP 03
pezAyTeue sem (| =SINA) eITTTEAIeVS AZoTouYyDeZ seoINosey YyITeY VSVN 23
JO (SSW) touueos TerjJIedsTRTNW |aYyR Aq paprode1 ATaZeUT paouUeYyUsU
“L7-07 °d : AydeaZotTqta
(Z=9L *OU £ raqQUad
yoreesey SuTissuTsuq Teqjseog — jtoder snosueTTeostW) “TIF : ‘d Ly
°Q/6| ‘2e}UaD YOITeeSey BuTAseUuTsUq Te seo)
“S°n 3 °eA SAfFOATEegG 310g — “310g °*M STUUEG pUe ASTI °H eB10e Aq
/ 3se09 eBUTTOIeD YIAON BY} UO seAnjeeaz TeIseod Jo Apnjs |-Sluq uy
"H 2931009 S‘I2eTTIW

"ou

am, gcn* £09 C=9L ams Cae €072OL

*ou 3ioder
SNOsURTTeIOSTW ‘19}uUeD yoAeesey BuTreseuTSug Teqseoyg *Ss*n : seTzes “TIT
*zoyjne juyof *°m stuueg ‘319g "II ‘*eTITL ‘I “*Axe8euy °9 *(L-SIUa)

PITTTEIVS ABoTOUYDeT sedinosey yIeY *¢ ‘*swezsKks BuTUURDS *y
“AZoToydiom Tejseop *E “*BuUyTseuTSUe Te seoD *Z “*BuTSUVS djJOWDY *|

“GOlL

*sueTqoid SutiseuT3ue
Teaseoo oTzpoeds 03 pottdde oq Aem AXTeZeMT SITTTeEIeS MOY sUTWAeJep 03
pezATeue sem (| =SIYa) PITT TeIeS ABoTOUYDe] seoInosey yIIe| YSVN 242
JO (SSN) teuuedS TerqDedsTATNU 9Yy} Aq peprodea AAVBeUT podDUeYyUSUn
“Ly-07 ‘d : AydesSorrqta
(Z-9/ *OU $ ZaquaD
yoieesey BuTiseutTzuqg TeIseoD — ys1odeA snosueTTecdsTW) “TIF : *d Ly
“O/6, S1e}UeD YOIeSSeYy BuTrseuTZuy Te seo)
*S°n : *eA fAfOATeg 310g — “810g *M STUUeq pUe ASTTIW *H e831009 Aq
/ 38809 BUTTOIeD YIAON BY} UO Sainjeez TeIseod Jo Apnjs | -SlyqT uy
“H e320989 ‘19T TH

aug con® L729 G-9/ “ou am ggn* £0¢2OL
; ‘ou 310dez
snoosueTTexosTy] ‘1eque) yoTeasey BuTeeuT3uq Teqseop *S*n : setszes “IIT
*zoyjne qutof **m stuueg ‘3ieq “IT “eTATL *I “*AaeSsewy *Qg «= * (| -SLUR)

2ITTTeIesS AZoTouYyDe], sedinosey yAIe_ *¢ “*swaqsAs SuptuueIS *y

*ASoToydiow Teq4seog *¢ “8uTAeeuTsue TeqseoD *Z “SuTsues aejowey *|

SGN

*suetTqgoid 3utzeeuT3ue

Teqaseoo ofytoeds oj pettdde oq Aew AzaZewy szTTTeqWeS Moy sUuTWAeJep 0F

pezATeue sem (| -SLUT) eITTTEIeS ABoTOuYyDeT seoznosey yIIeY VSVN 243
JO (SS}J) TouueoS TerRZ0OedsTATNU BY Aq peproder AzeZeUT peodueYyUSoUy

“Ih-0h °d : AydeasotTqtg
(7-92 “OU $ AeqUED
yoivesey SuTrseuT3ug Teaseog — Jz0deXt snosueTTeosTy) “TTT : *d Ly

“9/6L ‘2eqUeD YOATPVSey BuTAveuT3uq Te Iseo)

"s°n : ‘eA SATOATOg 310g — *320g °M STUUAEG pUe TeTTHI *H e310e9 Aq
/ 4se0D eUTTOIeD YIION ey UO seInjeeFz TeIseod jo Apnjs {-SLYT uy

"H 882089 S19TT HI

ampgcn* 179 Z-9L “OU ql, g¢n* €07OL
*ou 3a0dea
snosueTTe0STy] ‘ZoquUeD Yoreesey BuTTeeuTsuq Teqseop *s*n : SeTIeS “III
*zoyzne jutof ‘*m stuueg ‘Steg “II ‘“eTIFL ‘1 “AzeSemy *g «*(|-SLua)

eITTTeIes ASoTouyoey sadinosey yAIeG *¢ ‘*suaqysAs BuTuURDS *h

*ASoToydiow Teqseog *¢ “SuTieeuTsue Tejyseop *Z “S3uTsues sjouEY *|

GE

*sueTqoad Sutizseutsue
qTeqseoo otjtoeds 09 pottdde oq Aew AXteBewT ATTTeEIeS MOY sUTUASZep OF
pezATeue sem ([-SLUT) eITTTEIeS ABo0TOUYDeL sedanosey YyIIeg VSVN 243
JO (SSW) teuueos Ter}0edsTATNU 9YyW Aq pepioder AAOZeUT peoUeYUSUL
“Ly-07 °d : AydeaZ0TTqQTg
(Z-9L “OU $ 1aQUaD
yoieesoy SutazseutT3uq Te3seoD) — J1odeX snosueTTedsT) “TTF : *d Ly
"Q/6, ‘2e]UeD YOTeeSey BUTIeeUTBU_ [TeISPOD
*s*n : "eA faToATeg Jt0qg — *320q *M STUUEG pUe AeTTTH *H e810e9 Aq
/ 3se00 eUTTOIeD) YITON ey} UO seAInjeez TeRsSeOD Jo Apnjs |-SLYa UV
*y e8200e9 S1I2PTTH

t
i
Fay
ab
iy
7

Pri

a)

ut

fF
a
rap

/
pf