The accuracy of shoreline change analysis is dependent on how the shoreline is defined and the consistency of the techniques(s) used to define it. Using the concurrent lidar (light detection and ranging) and orthophotography dataset from August and September of 2004 covering North Carolina's 516 kilometers of barrier island oceanfront, Limber et al. (2007) examined the spatial relationship between two common shoreline definitions used in shoreline change analysis, mean high water [MHW] derived from lidar data and the wet/dry line digitized from orthophotography. Here, we summarize this work and extend the analysis with a comparison between two different methods of MHW shoreline extraction from liar data: a profile-based method (Stockdon et al., 2002) and a method based on correction of the lidar data to a MHW datum (Hess et al., 2005). Potential bias generated by using these different shoreline types together can affect not only the accuracy of shoreline change analysis, but also the coastal management policies and decision that rely on it. Therefore, the implications of this study potential extend far beyond North Carolina and Atlantic Coast of the United States.
