Overview

Catalina Island's coastlines are continuously shaped by natural forces — waves, sediment transport, and seasonal storm activity. Coastal erosion at the USC Marine Reserve poses risks to both marine habitats and the infrastructure of the Wrigley Institute. This project compares past and present coastal topography to detect where significant erosion has occurred at Fishermans Cove between 2015 and 2025.

Using USGS LiDAR point cloud data from 2015 and drone-derived Digital Elevation Models from 2024 and 2025 flights with a DJI Mavic 3M, we created spatially aligned DEMs and applied raster differencing to map elevation gain and loss — identifying the most erosion-prone zones along the eastern and western portions of the cove.

10 yrCoastal change
tracked
0.014ftDrone DEM
resolution
1 ftLiDAR DEM
resolution
3DEMs compared
2015 · 2024 · 2025

ArcGIS StoryMap

Catalina Island coastline
ArcGIS StoryMap — Public
Catalina Island Coastal Erosion
Fishermans Cove · Drone + LiDAR · DEM Differencing · 2015–2025
Open StoryMap →

Resolution — Drone vs. LiDAR

One of the core technical challenges was the enormous resolution difference between the two data sources. Drone imagery captured at centimeter-level detail had to be aggregated to match the foot-level resolution of the historical LiDAR data before any meaningful comparison could be made.

0.014 ft
Drone DEM · per pixel
DJI Mavic 3M · 2024 & 2025
Processed in Drone2Map
1 ft
LiDAR DEM · per pixel
USGS LiDAR Point Cloud · 2015
Processed in ArcGIS Pro

The drone data is approximately 71× more detailed than LiDAR by linear resolution. Aligning these datasets required aggregating drone imagery to 1ft cells — preserving enough detail for meaningful subtraction while enabling direct comparison across data sources and time periods.

Data Processing Workflow

Processing Steps — ArcGIS Pro

LiDAR point cloud in ArcGIS Pro

LiDAR point cloud loaded in ArcGIS Pro — raw USGS data before DEM creation.

LiDAR DEM creation

LiDAR DEM generated at 1ft resolution from the point cloud.

Hillshade DEM

Hillshade rendering applied to the LiDAR DEM — reveals terrain texture and elevation gradients.

Drone DEM in ArcGIS Pro

Drone-derived DEM from Drone2Map loaded into ArcGIS Pro for alignment.

Resolution resampling

Drone DEM aggregated to 1ft cells to match LiDAR resolution before differencing.

LiDAR interpolation

LiDAR interpolation applied to fill gaps in the point cloud coverage.

DEM alignment check

DEM alignment verification — confirming both datasets share the same coordinate system and extent.

Minus tool output

Minus tool applied — subtracting LiDAR 2015 from drone 2024 DEM to produce the difference raster.

DEM difference raster result

DEM difference raster — initial result showing areas of elevation change across Fishermans Cove.

Image Comparisons — Drag to Compare

Drag the handle left or right to reveal and compare each dataset pair. Five comparisons show resolution differences, temporal change, and the effect of interpolation.

1 — Drone DEM vs. LiDAR DEM (Resolution)
drag
LiDAR DEM 2015 Drone DEM 2024
Drone DEM · 0.014ft
LiDAR DEM · 1ft
Resolution comparison — the drone DEM captures centimeter-level surface detail invisible in the USGS LiDAR. Before differencing, drone data was aggregated to 1ft cells to enable direct comparison.
2 — LiDAR Hillshade (2015) vs. Drone Imagery (2024)
drag
LiDAR 2015 Drone 2024
2024 Drone
LiDAR 2015
Nine-year change — comparing the 2015 USGS LiDAR hillshade against 2024 drone imagery reveals visible changes to the coastline profile, sediment distribution, and vegetated areas.
3 — LiDAR: Without vs. With Interpolation
drag
LiDAR interpolated LiDAR raw
Raw LiDAR
Interpolated
Interpolation effect — LiDAR point clouds contain gaps at water surfaces and steep angles. Interpolation fills these to create a continuous DEM surface required for reliable differencing calculations.
4 — 2024 Drone vs. 2025 Drone
drag
Drone 2025 Drone 2024
2024
2025
Year-over-year change — the 2024 and 2025 flights used the same DJI Mavic 3M and flight parameters, enabling direct single-year comparison without instrument bias.
5 — DEM Difference Results (2015 → 2024 vs. 2015 → 2025)
drag
DEM difference 2025 DEM difference 2024
2024 Difference
2025 Difference
DEM difference maps compared — contrasting the 2015→2024 and 2015→2025 difference rasters reveals how erosion and deposition patterns shifted between the two drone surveys.

DEM Difference Results — Erosion & Gain

Red — Elevation GainSediment deposition or vegetation accumulation since 2015
Blue — Elevation LossCoastal erosion, sediment removal, or surface lowering since 2015
DEM difference map

DEM difference raster — elevation change across the full Fishermans Cove study area.

Erosion zones detail

Erosion zone detail — highest-loss areas concentrated along the eastern cliff faces and sediment transport corridors.

Gain and loss classified

Gain and loss classified — symbology applied to distinguish net erosion from deposition zones.

Final difference map east

Eastern cove difference map — areas of net elevation loss correlate with wave-facing cliff exposures.

Final difference map west

Western cove difference map — sediment accumulation near the Wrigley Institute dock offset by erosion on exposed headlands.

Field Documentation — Drone Photography (2024)

Imagery captured during the 2024 DJI Mavic 3M survey flights over Fishermans Cove, providing visual context for the elevation changes detected in the DEM analysis.

Fishermans Cove aerial

Fishermans Cove from altitude — full cove extent and Wrigley Institute dock visible.

Coastal detail

Coastal boundary — land-water interface showing wave-cut platform and rocky shoreline.

Cliff face

Eastern cliff face — actively eroding surface consistent with high-loss zones in the DEM difference maps.

Sediment patterns

Sediment transport patterns — sand and gravel deposits visible at the base of erosion zones.

Western cove

Western cove — proximity to the USC Wrigley Institute infrastructure makes erosion monitoring critical.

High-res surface capture

High-resolution surface texture — individual rocks and sand features captured at 0.014ft by the Mavic 3M.

Drone survey

Survey flight — automated grid pattern over the eastern portion of the cove.

Coastline oblique

Oblique view — coastline profile showing vertical cliff relief and beach width.

Cove overview

Full cove overview from the final waypoint of the 2024 survey mission.

Drone2Map processing

Drone2Map processing — photogrammetric point cloud generated from overlapping drone imagery.

Limitations

Next Steps

This project establishes a baseline workflow for ongoing coastal monitoring at the USC Wrigley Institute. Future directions include integrating additional environmental variables — wave energy data, seasonal wind patterns, soil type — to understand which factors most strongly predict where erosion concentrates along the cove. Repeating drone flights annually would build a time-series dataset enabling statistical trend analysis rather than point-in-time comparison.