Technical Report CHL-99-6 US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station Coastal Processes Assessment for Brevard County, Florida, with Special Reference to Test Plaintiffs by Nicholas C. Kraus, WES Mark R. Byrnes, Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc. Anne-Lise Lindquist, Consultant Approved For Public Release; Distribution Is Unlimited ASIN E Prepared for U.S. Department of Justice The 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 of this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position, unless so desig- nated by other authorized documents. Technical Report CHL-99-6 May 1999 Coastal Processes Assessment for Brevard County, Florida, with Special Reference to Test Plaintiffs by Nicholas C. Kraus U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station 3909 Halls Ferry Road Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 Mark R. Byrnes Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc. 766 Falmouth Road ___iaa| ==, =Mashpee, MA 02649 —— fu —i Anne-Lise Lindquist —_—_™M === Consultant —— : ———-4 San Diego, CA — OO —oo IT) —F) —= Final report Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited Prepared for U.S. Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Division Washington, DC 20044-0663 sar US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY FOR INFORMATION CONTACT: PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICE U.S. ARMY ENGINEER WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION 3909 HALLS FERRY ROAD VICKSBURG, MISSISSIPPI 39180-6199 PHONE: (601) 634-2502 LABORATORY Gi == ip — STRUCTURES } ie * AREA OF RESERVATION = 2.7 sq km Waterways Experiment Station Cataloging-in-Publication Data Kraus, Nicholas C. Coastal processes assessment for Brevard County, Florida, with special reference to test plaintiffs / by Nicholas C. Kraus ; prepared for U.S. Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resource Division. 162 p.: ill. ; 28 cm. — (Technical report ; CHL-99-6) Includes bibliographic references. 1. Shorelines — Law and legislation. 2. Beach erosion — Florida — Brevard County. 3. Coast changes — Florida — Brevard County. |. United States. Army. Corps of Engineers. II. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Ill. Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory (U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station) IV. United States. Dept. of Justice. Environment and Natural Resources Division. V. Title. VI. Series: Technical report (U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station) ; CHL-99-6. TA7 W34_ no.CHL-99-6 Preface The study described herein was performed as an independent assessment of the coastal physical processes occurring along Brevard County, Florida. The study was conducted for the United States Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, in its involvement with the lawsuit Applegate et al. v the United States of America. The subject matter focuses on the two test plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The study was conducted by Dr. Nicholas C. Kraus of the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES), Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, Dr. Mark R. Byrnes of Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc., Mashpee, Massachusetts, and Ms. Anne-Lise Lindquist, Coastal Consultant, San Diego, California. At the inception of the project, Dr. Kraus was a staff member at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, Texas, and Dr. Byrnes was a staff member at the Center for Coastal Studies, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. At the time of publication of this report, COL Robin R. Cababa, EN, was Acting Director of WES. Preface iil Summary More than 300 plaintiffs owning property along the Atlantic Ocean coast of Brevard County, Florida, are suing the United States for the alleged taking of their property through beach and dune erosion attributed to construction, operation, and maintenance of Canaveral Harbor. This Harbor was constructed from 1950 to 1954 on an uninterrupted segment of barrier beach. In this report, coastal-sediment processes along the coast are identified and analyzed, with emphasis on quantifying shoreline change, bathymetric change, and storm-induced beach change. Analysis is focused on two property owners, Don and Gale Applegate, and Noro and Company, Inc., who were the test plaintiffs selected by the Court. The Applegates purchased their property on August 12, 1981, and still own it. Noro purchased on September 8, 1986, and sold on September 11, 1996. In this report, estimates of beach and dune erosion, if any, were calculated from time of purchase to December 8, 1997 (representing the present), for Applegate, and from time of purchase to September 11, 1996 (the sale date), for Noro. Appendices contain detailed technical material to supplement discussion and findings contained in the main body of this report. Long-term, regional beach change was evaluated by analysis of survey data on shoreline position, bathymetry, and beach profiles taken through time. Data sets accessed originated from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), the National Ocean Service, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and were supplemented with specific data collection performed for this study. The analysis was conducted within a Geographic Information System framework that included estimation of errors in the data and analysis procedures. Erosion of the beaches and dunes, principally attributed to storm impacts, was estimated at the properties of the two test plaintiffs by compiling storm data and calculating beach and dune change with a numerical model. Conclusions of this study are as follows: 1. The sand placed on Brevard County’s beaches by the USACE in 1974/75 extended the shoreline seaward of the 1948 (pre-Harbor) shoreline position and seaward of the September 1972 (pre-fill) shoreline position. The 1974/75 beach fill more than compensated for beach erosion that had occurred since the Harbor was constructed. The erosion-impact zone induced by the Harbor that was present on the (natural) beach prior to beach-fill placement ; These plaintiffs claim the purchase occurred in September 1983, but a copy of the deed indicates that Noreen and K. Edward Jaynes, General Partners of Noro and Company, purchased the Noro property on September 8, 1986, and then sold the property to Sandra Daniels on September 11, 1996. 2 This sand was placed as part of disposal operations during deepening of the Canaveral Harbor entrance channel and construction of the Trident turning basin and access channel. Although technically not considered a beach fill, because authorization of the project and the primary objective concerned navigation and disposal of dredged sediments, hereafter the material will be referred to as beach fill or fill for convenience and simplicity of discussion. Summary was determined to have extended approximately 7,000 ft south of the south jetty. The fill was placed on the beach from the Harbor’s south jetty and extended south approximately 10,500 ft. The fill compensated for preexisting erosion over the distance of 7,000 ft, as well as nourished previously accreting areas that are located beyond 7,000 ft south of Canaveral Harbor. 2. The beach in the 7,000-ft erosion-impact zone covered by the fill has experienced erosion since 1974/75. The volume of sand placed on the beaches south of the Harbor in 1974/75, and subsequent smaller fills and nearshore placements in the 1990s, has been effective at maintaining the shoreline seaward of its September 1972 pre-fill position. Nearly all impacts (beach erosion and shoreline recession) caused by the Harbor relative to pre-fill conditions, have been mitigated by placement of sand just south of the entrance channel. 3. Erosion that developed since the USACE beach fill in 1974/75 extends approximately 17,000 ft south of Canaveral Harbor, an increase of about 10,000 ft relative to the southern terminus of the erosion-impact zone that had occurred along the pre-fill (natural) beach. The increased distance of erosion is attributed to adjustments in the beach fill resulting from geometric differences (equilibration of beach slope and spreading loss associated with beach fills) and, possibly, grain-size differences between the natural beach and the engineered beach. 4. Sand-bypassing rates were determined through analysis of long-term sediment transport processes by comparing pre- and post-Harbor bathymetric surveys. Sand bypassing can mitigate or eliminate downdrift beach erosion caused by Canaveral Harbor. Net longshore transport rates were calculated for the vicinity of the Harbor. The volume of sand deposited along the beach north of the Harbor prior to its construction was subtracted from the volume of sand that accumulated in the entrance channel and deposited north of the Harbor after its construction, yielding an estimated sand-bypassing rate. Based on analysis of bathymetric data spanning 65 years, the net sand transport rate near the north jetty was calculated as 308,000 cubic yards per year (cy/year). The associated sand- bypassing rate was calculated as 155,000 cy/year (taking into account the natural sand- deposition rate prior to Harbor construction). Between 1972 and 1997, the USACE placed about 4.0 million cy (Mcy) of sand on the beaches within 17,000 ft south of Canaveral Harbor, and the shoreline to at least 42,000 ft south of the Harbor experienced net advance. Therefore, the calculated volume of sand bypassing (155,000 cy/year x 25 years = 3.9 Mcy) nearly balances the sediment added to the beach by the USACE between 1972 and 1997. Summary Vv 5. The conclusions listed below are based upon analysis of FDEP and USACE beach-profile vi data available at locations adjacent to the properties of the two test plaintiffs, supplemented by numerical modeling of storm-induced beach erosion. Main conclusions are as follows: a. Applegate Property. From August 12, 1981 (time of purchase), to December 8, 1997 (representing the present), the beach eroded and the shoreline receded. At least 95% of sand eroded from the beach fronting the Applegate property was removed from material placed during the 1974/75 USACE beach fill. The natural beach adjacent to the property prior to fill placement just recently began to erode (as shown on the December 8, 1997, beach profile at R-7). From August 12, 1981, to December 8, 1997, the mean high water (MHW) shoreline receded 216 +7 ft, and the beach eroded 8,500 cy, as determined from beach-profile surveys. These values can be compared with calculation results from storm-induced beach erosion modeling of the cumulative impacts of three of several storms that occurred within this time period. The modeling calculations gave approximately 70 ft of recession and a volume loss attributable to storms of (at least) 3,600 cy. Numerical calculations of storm-induced beach change indicate that at least 42+21% of the net erosion that has occurred since the time of purchase can be associated with the removal of sand from the beach by severe storms. Noro Property. From September 8, 1986 (time of purchase), to September 11, 1996 (representing the time of sale), the MHW shoreline receded 9 =7 ft, and 80 cy of material were eroded from the beach fronting the Noro property. These small changes are within variability associated with seasonal beach change and probably do not reflect a trend. Numerical calculations of storm-induced beach erosion at the Noro property indicate that all net change in sand volume on the upper beach and the dune face was caused by storms. Storms are deduced to be the dominant force producing beach and dune change at the Noro property and not blockage of longshore sand transport by Canaveral Harbor. Summary Table of Contents Page IERIE AC c MMMEIMIMINL PUR: eRe ce aaron tn. eae Sone NL MRD NorhNVNec Sc SERENE ks OD URI URN De 28 SION da Reeder ill RSSUITOT TAT Ay ain easel aoe ora ls hs ES als RE a tea cisy te ua eased Data Senet Wen, ocd EAM 2, A 2 IV TTAISIS Cr Cer ST eee eae n Reem te ated aerate i tear oie er ee ea yee se rete He Ae en Stn Vil IBIS (HOLM ROUTE Ses ere Sane ee ee al Mea AUN a DED eh REE acts cs ACMA URE Nes 2 MEA 1X TLS OIE Ral Ketch casa accias al aR emery ere a eer ean tenet ren anys ae ac RAs oR tn AAT. X1 I PLN CO GLUT G 1G lot ees eee Oe Nace Nh we hcg va de ovale aceamaasu at na ee eats EAN nots, MR ns oes 1-1 PRIMING DORON CIC Were conch cote ee ore ec NSC acres Nuc dd Socio ava mucha vaste es uc ae Nn ao 1-1 The SEIT BSS Aes I a tN AE ee a ey eR er a aE 1-2 [See StudyvallypothesesvandilMaimi€ onc lusiOnSspeesce sree ee ere eee ee eee 1-5 ESRI R PADD ICS ALC PVOPET LY Sek eee MeN ee Re Re TM ee cae ea eS 1-5 Il Doc Bisel OM CHRON 2d OY OTR Vaca A STIR AN De UR ER Ae NN ei Be ct Os st en 1-6 Do IBIS SET RONITING lisa vad itary REE eR re ele Sarr et naa ani aac 2-1 Za Nley SSUGDTG NY, IST aie hanaaece anc taser eoeceeace tate MeIouEe COREE Cen er REE a Sec en Sees MR Al 2-1 wr ma @ AN AV CTA lU LATO OTe cessor ane emt le Wien ek Nae epee Peete ANT sho or aA rs Cael eee tao Ses CR 2-2 mS eBINe Levanta © OaStalUPhOCeSSESiesectse ec eetsre accnscne seas e ate sa caste eaie Ser sn ican ese easea eee ne 2-8 SMILES COLIMICTIE SEL ANS DOI Leute Wnts bnmaamn de ee Shore | 7 ‘ Werspel Cross - Section View | Figure 1-4. Schematic depicting typical responses to longshore and cross-shore sediment transport. Chapter 1 Introduction ‘aif 2. Background This chapter gives an overview of the study site. Material covered includes the physical setting, natural coastal features and coastal engineering activities, and the locations of the properties of the test plaintiffs. A chronology of selected major activities and storms documented for the site is given, and the chapter concludes with a discussion of regulatory boundaries, reference datums, and shoreline definitions. 2.1. Study Site The plaintiffs own property along the Atlantic Ocean coast of Brevard County, in northern Florida. Figure 2-1 is a site map showing the locations of the properties of the two test plaintiffs. Brevard County meets Volusia County about 31 miles north of Canaveral Harbor. To the south, Brevard County meets Indian River County at Sebastian Inlet. Plaintiffs’ properties extend 33 miles south along the sand beach from the south jetty of Canaveral Harbor to the north jetty of Sebastian Inlet, a reach of approximately 41 miles. The northern reach of this beach is sheltered from northeast waves by Cape Canaveral and the Canaveral Shoals. Banana River Lagoon backs the peninsula to the north and merges with Indian River Lagoon to the south, through which the Intracoastal Waterway runs. From north to south, main beach segments are (City of) Canaveral Beach, Cocoa Beach, Patrick AFB, Satellite Beach, Indialantic Beach, Melbourne Beach, and Melbourne Shores. Table 2-1 is a chronology of selected major activities and storms pertinent to this study and associated beaches. It lists Harbor dredging, beach nourishment, major storms, establishment of the erosion-control line (ECL) and the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) (regulatory boundaries are discussed in Section 2-3), and purchase dates of the two test plaintiffs. The predominant (net) direction of longshore sand movement along the Brevard County coast is from north to south. The southward average annual longshore transport was estimated to be 350,000 cy by the USACE (Senate Document 140, 1962). The southward transport is presently estimated to be 308,000 cy/year just north of the Harbor entrance channel. The magnitude of 9 Federal authorization (River and Harbor Act of March 2, 1945) refers to the project of cutting the harbor as “Canaveral Harbor’ (Federal Navigation Project). In 1953, the State of Florida established the Canaveral Port Authority and Port District, replacing a previously created political entity, the Port District, which had been created to lobby the Federal Government for authorization of the Harbor. On maps, the Canaveral-Harbor complex is denoted as “Port Canaveral.” Canaveral Harbor consists of Port Canaveral and the Trident (submarine) Turning Basin, and it is bordered to the north by Cape Canaveral AFB. The ocean entrance channel is maintained by dredging to a depth of 46 ft mean low water. The west side of the Harbor connects to the Banana River Lagoon through a navigation lock that is normally closed, so tidal currents in the entrance and Harbor are weak. 10 The magnitude and direction of longshore sand transport are seasonal. Along the study coast, in winter the transport is directed predominantly to the south, whereas in summer it is directed predominantly to the north. In most years, the net annual transport is to the south. The longshore transport rate is not constant, but varies daily, seasonally, and annually depending on weather patterns; number, direction, and types of storms; water level; and other factors. Chapter 2 Background 2-1 longshore sand transport in the vicinity of the Harbor is discussed in Chapter 3. Cape Canaveral and its shoals provide substantial sheltering of waves incident from the north to the area of Canaveral Harbor, resulting in variable sand-transport rates alongshore and producing a concave shore. The Harbor jetties block sand that is moving alongshore, and the deep navigation channel also traps this sand. Consequently, accretion along the updrift beach (north of the north jetty at the study site) has accelerated, and the downdrift beach directly adjacent to the Harbor has eroded. 2.2. Canaveral Harbor The 1945 Rivers and Harbors Act (Public Law 79-14) authorized construction of the entrance channel, jetties, turning basin, and canal at Canaveral Harbor. The Harbor entrance was constructed between 1951 and 1954. The project was modified by the 1962 Rivers and Harbors Act (Public Law 87-874) to include construction and operation of a sand-bypassing plant. The purpose of the sand-bypassing plant was, in combined use with conventional dredging, to maintain the navigation project entrance channel. A secondary purpose of the plant was to nourish the beach directly south of the south jetty by restoring an estimated 90% of the southward annual littoral drift. In 1993, the USACE estimated that 636,000 cy would need to be dredged once every 6 years. In 1994, the USACE Chief of Engineers modified the sand-transfer feature of the project by approving construction of sand bypassing by conventional dredging in lieu of a fixed plant. Since 1965, Federal, State, and local interests have placed 6.3 Mcy on the beaches south of Canaveral Harbor. The most significant beach fill was conducted in 1974 and 1975 (Refer to Appendix F, Table F-2 for a complete list of beach fills). At that time, 2.8 Mcy of sand were placed on a 10,500-ft-long section of beach directly south of the Canaveral Harbor entrance channel. This area of beach fill extended from the south Harbor jetty to Monument R-11 (Pierce Avenue). Dp) Chapter 2 Background rma A WIS Station 18 2 oe Cocoa Beach Patrick AFB ATLANTIC OCEAN Indialantic Melbourne Beach LEGEND — 22 COE Profile Lines 1965 27, DNR Monument MILES 2 {e} 2 4 = Datum NAD 27, State Plane Feet Florida East Zone 3601 Sebastian Inlet Chapter 2 Background Figure 2-1. Location map for the study site r JACKSONVILLE. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, JACKSONVILLE APPLEGATE et.al. vs. UNITED STATES Case No. 92-832L Figure 1-1 Location Map Test Plaintiffs Brevard County, Florida 2-3 Table 2-1. Chronology of major activities and natural events at study site. 10/1951 Canaveral Harbor |e Cut through barrier island | Location | |_Canaveral Harbor _| |_Canaveral Harbor _| ho ° Applegate family constructed a single-family residential structure (approx.) Within a few years they placed armoring seaward of the dwelling eines a ECL | e 120,000 cy beach placement; Federal Navigation Project oe | s05tSofR7 | | Brevard County | ein a al 10/1974 305 ft S of R-7 12/1974 Brevard County 04/1974- 03/1975 e 2.77 Mcy beach restoration/disposal; Federal Shore Protection Project and Federal (Navy) Trident new work e Hurricane David struck the east coast of Florida 10/1980- R122 to R-135 e 540,000 cy beach restoration at Indialantic and Melbourne Beach. 01/1981 Federal Shore Protection Project 03/1986 Brevard County e Revised CCCL Approved by the Florida Cabinet 09/1986 395 ft S of R-43 e Noro (Plaintiff #294) purchased property 1986 ares ear e October and December Northeast storms 06-08/1992 R-28 to R-31 07-11/1993 02-04/1994 R-5 to R-11 e 100,000 cy local beach nourishment; cosponsors were the City of Cocoa Beach and Port Authority e 161,160 cy nearshore placement; Federal Navigation Project 10-11/1994 R-28 to R-31 07/1995 01-05/1995 R-0 to R-8 e 831,642 cy beach placement; Federal Navigation Project 08-12/1995 R- 28 to R-31 e 322,990 cy nearshore placement; Federal Navigation Project 02-03/1996 R-34 to R-38 e 40,000 cy local beach nourishment; cosponsors were the City and Port Authority 09/1996 ee ae Sede eal e Noro sold their property 1980-1996 R-53 to R-75 e 792,698 cy placed on Patrick AFB; ten placements total e Total volume of sand placed within the first 17,000-ft zone south of the Harbor is approximately 4 Mcy. e Total volume of sand placed on or in the nearshore of Brevard County beaches is approximately 5.5 Mcy (not including the 792,698 cy placed on the beach along Patrick AFB). 2-4 Chapter 2 Background Numerous analyses of coastal processes in the Brevard County have been conducted since construction of Canaveral Harbor. These studies arrived at various estimates of longshore sediment transport rates. In 1962, the USACE estimated that the southward (net) littoral drift was 350,000 cy/year. The Canaveral Harbor General Design Memorandum (USACE 1987) described a sand-bypassing system that would bypass 106,000 cy/year. That plan was revised in the corresponding General Re-evaluation Report (USACE 1992) to sand tighten and bypass 636,000 cy every 6 years (i.e., 106,000 cy/year) on the beaches south of the Canaveral Harbor south jetty. The feasibility report for the Brevard County shore-protection project (USACE 1996) recommended that the sand bypass work be supplemented by beach restoration of 2.5 Mcy along 9.4 miles south of Canaveral Harbor. Following beach construction, the 9.4-mile-long restored beach would be periodically nourished with 516,000 cy every 6 years. The Inlet Management Plan (IMP) (Bodge 1994) recommended placement of 1.03 Mcy along the shore extending 2.1 miles from the south jetty and placement of 9.6 Mcy (+2 Mcy) south of the first 2.1-mile increment to mitigate the Harbor’s historical littoral impacts. Prior to construction of Canaveral Harbor, as well as today (see Figures D-3 and D-4), the beaches and dunes along the Brevard County coast north and south of the Harbor were being eroded by storms. Although prior to Harbor construction the beach along the coast was net accretionary, some areas were eroding, such as at Patrick AFB. Erosion on this coast is evident as early as February 1948, as illustrated in Figures 2-2 and 2-3, which show ground photographs of the seawall and eroded beach at the Patrick AFB Officers Club (Monument R-57). Photographs taken in 1996 at similar sites are given in Figures 2-4 and 2-5. The Officers Club in the old photographs is fronted by a large seawall protecting the property and structure from wave attack, inundation, and erosion by persistent northeast storms in the winter months and tropical storms during the summer. The club was an early coastal structure along the study site and serves as a fixed reference for demonstrating shoreline recession that occurred on this relatively undeveloped coast prior to construction of Canaveral Harbor. 11 The volumes of material are estimates that would be modified dependent on monitoring of the post-fill beach, because the longshore transport rate and shoreline recession are not constant. Chapter 2 Background 2-5 Figure 2-2. Officers Club at the Banana River Naval Air Station (Patrick AFB), February 13, 1948. Notice massive armoring on the property. The beaches of Brevard County were experiencing erosion by storms prior to the construction of Port Canaveral (source: USACE, Jacksonville District). Figure 2-3. North end of concrete bulkhead at the Officers Club at the Banana River Naval Air Station (Patrick AFB), February 13, 1948 (source: USACE, Jacksonville District). 2-6 Chapter 2 Background Eate 2-4. Northern on of monet bulkhead at the Officers Club at Patrick AF B, February 20, 1997. Similar location as in Figures 2-2 and 2-3 (source: N. C. Kraus). Figure 2- 5. View north at Patrick AFB from Officers Club on February 20, 1997, showing storm-induced dune erosion (source: N. C. Kraus). Chapter 2 Background Doi/ 2.3. Relevant Coastal Processes This section gives an overview of the coastal processes acting at the properties of the plaintiffs, focusing on those relevant to this study. Coastal processes impacting sediment transport along the beaches of Brevard County include long-term wave and current dynamics; short-term, high-energy storms; and relative sea-level rise. All these factors produce beach erosion and accretion along the Brevard County coast. 2.3.1. Sediment Transport Longshore sand transport primarily acts on the portion of the beach below the toe of the dune, called the beach berm and foreshore. Longshore transport can advance the shoreline at a given location (accrete the beach) if more sand enters than leaves the area, or it can cause the shoreline to recede (erode the beach) if more sand leaves an area than enters. Cross-shore sand transport is primarily associated with destructive conditions (i.e., dune and/or beach erosion by storms). Sand removed from the dune and berm may then be transported out of the area of erosion by longshore transport. Also, sand removed from the dune and upper beach may be partially deposited on the lower portion of the beach, producing a seaward advance of the shoreline. The Harbor channel and jetties interrupt longshore sand transport, but the Harbor does not alter cross- shore sand transport processes. Both of these processes are water-borne transport, as summarized in Table 2-2. Table 2-2. Comparison of longshore and storm-induced cross-shore transport processes. Storm-Induced Cross-Shore Forcing oblique angle longer periods than non-storm waves Hours to days for extreme events (storms and hurricanes); seasonal for regular annual change and surf zone beach erosion or accretion Region of Beach Profile Impacted Dune, berm, and foreshore Recession of the beach and dune face and loss of sand volume Typical Result 2.3.2. Waves The USACE Wave Information Study (WIS) (Hubertz et al. 1993) has performed a wave hindcast for the Atlantic Ocean coast of the United States. The hindcast covers the period 1956- 1975 and involved generating waves with a numerical model with input forcing by wind and pressure fields measured in the Atlantic Ocean. WIS Station 18, located south of Cape Canaveral, is the nearest to Canaveral Harbor (Latitude 28.25 N, Longitude 80.25 W) at 22-m water depth (see Figure 1-1). The average monthly significant wave height in the 20-year 2-8 Chapter 2 Background hindcast varied between a high of 1.43 m in November to a low of 0.77 m in August. Most prevalent wave periods fall in the range of 7 to 13 sec, and the predominant wave directions are NNE (expected in winter) and ESE (expected in summer). The WIS database was accessed to conduct calculations of storm-induced beach change at the properties of the two test plaintiffs. 2.3.3. Storms The East Coast of the United States is subject to tropical cyclones (hurricanes and tropical storms) and extratropical storms (northeasters). The National Hurricane Center has compiled a record of tropical cyclone activity for the North Atlantic since 1886. In contrast, northeaster storms that have impacted Florida beaches were not well documented until around the mid- 1960s. Lack of documentation is attributed to the minimal coastal development in Florida prior to the 1960s and the lack of assets that would be threatened by storms. Only the more severe regional-impacting northeast storms have been documented from the 1930s through the 1950s. Figure 2-6 displays the frequency of tropical storms per year that have been documented as erosional to Brevard County beaches. Northeasters are not included in this figure because their recorded history is not as long, and the limited record would bias discussion of storm-impact frequency before and after construction of Canaveral Harbor. The present study does document major northeasters that have struck Brevard County beaches. The most significant erosional tropical cyclones to impact the Brevard County coast include Hurricane Greta in October 1956, Hurricane Ella in October 1962, Tropical Storm Gilda in October 1973, Hurricane David in August 1979, Tropical Storm Gordon in November 1994, and Hurricane Erin in July 1995. Known storms that have impacted the Brevard County coast and caused notable erosion are listed in Appendix C. Some of the most significant erosional northeasters occurred in December 1932, March 1962, February 1973, November 1984 (the “Thanksgiving Day” storm), and March 1989. For the East Coast of Florida, the Thanksgiving Day storm of 1984 is considered to be the most severe extratropical storm of record, with much property damage and beach and dune erosion reported in Brevard County. Northeasters are usually associated with high waves and moderately strong winds that can persist for several days, whereas the erosive force of tropical storms usually does not persist more than a day, typically having a duration on the coast of only several hours. The stronger winds of hurricanes can drive water level much higher on the coast than can northeasters. Higher water levels allow waves to attack higher on the beach. The frequency of cyclonic activity increased notably in the 1950s through the 1970s (Bodge and Savage 1992). Between 1930 and 1949, 15 hurricanes and tropical storms impacted the Brevard County coast (a frequency of 0.8 storms per year). For the following two decades (1950- 1969), 37 cyclones impacted Brevard County (a frequency of 1.9 storms per year). The beach has less time to recover during periods with higher frequency storm occurrence, making it more Chapter 2 Background 2-9 susceptible to further storm-induced erosion. The 1980s experienced minimal storm activity compared with the previous 30 years. 1950-1954: Port Construction Number of Events 1899 1902 1905 1908 1914 1917 1920 1923 1926 1941 1944 1974 1977 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1911 Figure 2-6. Number of tropical storms per year 1899 — 1996 documented as erosional to Brevard County beaches. 2.3.4. Sea-Level Rise Relative sea-level rise at the project site is estimated to be on the order of 2 mm per year based on National Ocean Service (NOS) tide records at Fernandina and Mayport, Florida (Lyles, Hickman, and Debaugh 1988), the closest long-term stations to Cape Canaveral. For a 50-year period, e.g., 1948 to 1998, ocean water level would have risen about 0.32 ft (4 in.) with respect to the land in coastal Brevard County. For a beach slope of 1 ft vertical to 10 ft horizontal, relative sea-level rise may account for an apparent shoreline recession of about 3 ft. 12 Operation and maintenance of a USACE water-level gauge located at the Trident Pier has recently been assumed by the NOS as a long-term station. The Trident Pier, Port Canaveral, Florida, gauge record (872 1604) begins October 1994. 2-10 Chapter 2 Background 2.4. Datums and Shoreline Definitions The position and movement of the shoreline along the project site are central to the plaintiffs’ claim of taking and procedures of this study. Shoreline position can be determined by two methods, (1) with reference to a vertical datum, and (2) as an identifiable and interpreted topographic feature formed by waves and tide (e.g., the berm crest, debris line, wet/dry boundary for predicted MHW, toe of dune). In previous studies at the project site and in the present study, shoreline position has been determined by both methods. Jurisdictional and legal marine — boundaries are defined in terms of tidal datums (the first method). Application of datums and measurement methods without knowledge of the errors and data inconsistencies of each method may lead to inaccurate conclusions about change in shoreline position and sand volume through time. The following section describes characteristic reference datums involved in the study. Tidal datums as determined by the NOS at Canaveral Harbor Entrance (NOS Station 872 1608) are shown schematically in Figure 2-7. These datums are representative of the beach directly south of the Harbor. Tidal datums will change slightly with distance moved along the shore of Brevard County. The nomenclature shown in Figure 2-7 is discussed next. 4.17 ft Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) 3.79 ft Mean High Water (MHW) 1.99 ft Mean Tide Level (MTL) 1.80 ft National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929 (NGVD) 0.19 ft Mean Low Water (MLW) 0.00 ft Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) Figure 2-7. Canaveral Harbor Entrance tidal datums to gauge zero. Chapter 2 Background 2-11 2.4.1. Reference Datums A description of vertical datums pertinent to this study is presented in this section. National Geodetic Vertical Datum. The National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29) is a standard geodetic (related to the shape of the earth) vertical datum used by the USACE and other agencies. NGVD 29 is a fixed vertical datum (sea level) observed at 26 primary tidal stations around the United States and Canada in 1929 (Shalowitz 1964). Therefore, in the absence of accidental or other mechanical movements of the survey benchmarks, NGVD 29 benchmarks are fixed through time and, therefore, form a convenient reference system for civil engineering works. Construction Datums. On coastal engineering and other civil engineering projects, it is often convenient to establish a local construction datum to which project measurements can be referenced. The construction datum can itself be referenced to NGVD 29 or another datum. The USACE construction datum along the Brevard County coast lies 1.9 ft below NGVD 29. Tidal Datums. Reference datums can be defined in terms of the phase of the tide and are then called tidal datums. Tidal datums change slowly with time because of global sea-level fluctuations and changes in local conditions, such as those associated with subsidence and water and oil extraction from the ground or sea bottom. The NOS has the Federal mission of determining and publishing tidal datums. This mission is accomplished by establishing a series of permanent benchmarks on land, called tidal stations, and measuring the water level at fixed intervals (typically, 6 min) with respect to the benchmarks. Water-surface records from short- term stations, typically deployed from 3 months to 2 years, are then referenced to long-term tidal stations with gauges that operate more than 19 years. In the 1970s, the State of Florida undertook an extensive tidal measurement program in cooperation with the NOS. This information is available for Brevard County. NGVD 29 is sometimes confused with or referred to synonymously as MSL. The datum MSL is defined by NOS as the average of the hourly values of water-level readings of a specific 19-year tidal epoch called the National Tidal Datum Epoch (NTDE), presently 1960 to 1978. However, because many variables control water level, and because a geodetic datum represents a best-fit surface over a broad area and not to a specific area, NGVD 29 is not, in general, equal to MSL. The geodetic datum can deviate from MSL by | ft or more, depending on location. The tidal datum MHW determines the boundary between State of Florida submerged bottom lands and privately held uplands. The intersection of the land and sea at the elevation of MHW is called the mean high-water line (MHWL), denoting the MHW shoreline. MHW and mean low water (MLW) are, respectively, the averages of all the high-water heights and low-water heights observed over the NIDE. The mean range of tide is the mean of the differences in height between high waters and low waters over the NTDE. A tidal datum close to the value of MSL is 2-12 Chapter 2 Background mean tide level (MTL). MTL is calculated as the mean of the differences between high water and low water. In Florida, MHW surveys to be filed with the State involve coordination with the Florida State Bureau of Survey and Mapping. The Bureau maintains a list of relations between NGVD 29, the fixed land datum, and MHW along the coast. These relations and other guidance are provided to the surveyor, who can then locate the MHWL by an accurate beach-profile survey that is connected to NGVD 29. 2.4.2. High-Water Line (HWL) Historical data generated by the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (USC&GS, predecessor organization to the present NOS) in its survey of the coast performed in the 1800s, and in coastal topographic surveys performed to present, identify a shoreline position as an interpreted HWL. The authoritative reference on the meaning and procedures of measuring the HWL is Shalowitz (1964), who was educated both as an attorney and engineer and was employed by NOS. Quoting Shalowitz (1964, pp. 171-172), The most important feature on a topographic survey is the high-water line. It is the line that is used on the nautical charts of the Coast Survey as the dividing line between the land and water; the line that indicates whether the coast is building out or receding... Further, From the standpoint of the surveyor, the high-water line is the only line of contact between land and water that is identifiable on the ground at all times and does not require the topographer being there at a specified time during the tidal cycle, or the running of levels. The high-water line can generally be closely approximated by noting the vegetation, driftwood, discoloration of rocks, or other visible signs of high tides. The HWL is, therefore, not the shoreline defined by MHW, as sometimes marked on charts and maps published by the NOS and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Instead, it is the shoreline mapped at the time of predicted MHW, which includes meteorological effects such as setup, set down, and runup because of waves. USC&GS topographers and topographers today doing routine wide-area shoreline-position surveys (such as by Global Positioning System (GPS) techniques) refer measurements to the HWL at the time of MHW in the field. The HWL inferred from aerial photographs might be either the instantaneous intersection of land and water at the time of MHW or the boundary between aeolian and waterborne deposits determined by visual interpretation of a discontinuity in color or geomorphology (Anders and Byrnes 1991). Mapped shoreline positions related to water level at the time photography was flown (other than MHW) may be poor estimates of the HWL and inconsistent with the historical database. Byrnes, Mc Bride, and Hiland (1991) discuss origins and treatment of various types of shoreline-position data. Chapter 2 Background 2-13 2.4.3. Comparison of Shoreline Definitions Figure 2-8 is a schematic depicting several common definitions of the shoreline, including the MHW intersection and the HWL. If different data sets are analyzed without conversion or reference to a common datum, then an apparent shift in shoreline position will occur, as discussed by Kraus (1997). Analysis of shoreline positions differently defined could lead to either apparent advance or recession of the shoreline. Because the MHWL is defined by a reference (vertical) datum, and the HWL is determined by interpretation of a topographic feature (such as the berm crest or foot of the dune), the methods are not directly comparable. The two shoreline positions must be related through additional analysis that can only provide an estimate of the distances between them. Two coastal geomorphologic configurations are shown in Figure 2-8, one where a berm crest can be clearly discerned, and the other in which a berm is not apparent, requiring identification of the HWL at the foot of the dune. This figure also schematically shows the instantaneous position of the water or shoreline created by wave- and wind-induced runup, which is the periodic up and down motion of the water at the shore associated with waves and wind. Runup creates the berm by pushing sand up onto the landward edge of the foreshore, a region that is periodically inundated with rise and fall of the tide and runup. Berms are created during calm wave conditions and are removed (eroded) by storm waves if the water level rises sufficiently during the storm. The berm crest represents a relatively stable feature that characterizes the boundary between land and sea — the shoreline. 2.4.4. Florida Coastal Jurisdictional Boundaries In 1972, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP: formerly the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), which merged with the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) in 1993 to become the FDEP), began to establish a system of profile survey monuments along all sandy beaches in the State of Florida. The monuments are benchmarks that allow consistent surveys to be made for the study and regulation of the sandy beaches of the State. Most of these monuments are denoted by the symbol “R” followed by a number. On the Atlantic coast, the R-monuments start at R-1 at the northern boundary of each county and continue consecutively (R-1, R-2, R-3, etc.) to the southern boundary within the same county. In 1994, the USACE established a monument in Brevard County called R-0, which is located directly south of the south jetty at Canaveral Harbor. This monument aided the design and monitoring of the 1994 sand-bypassing project. The approximate locations of the FDEP R-monuments in Brevard County are shown in Figure 1-2. The location of R-0 and the other monitoring survey monuments for the sand-bypassing project are shown in Appendix F. 2-14 Chapter 2 Background Interpreted H WL Berm Crest Foreshore Vegetation Foot of Dune Interpreted H WL Runup Foreshore Note: MSL # NGVD Figure 2-8. Shorelines determined by selected methods. The monuments are located at approximately 1,000-ft intervals starting with R-O at the south jetty of Canaveral Harbor and ending at R-219 at the southern border of the county, Sebastian Inlet. This section of the Brevard County Atlantic Ocean coast is, therefore, approximately 41 miles long and is the focus of this report. Brevard County also extends north of Canaveral Harbor to Volusia County, but this northern coastal area is Federal property (combination of the air force base, National Aeronautic Space Administration, and the Cape Canaveral National Seashore). The FDEP has no jurisdiction over Federal land, and thus no State-regulated monuments exist in this northern area. Several USACE survey monuments located throughout Brevard County have been used for studies of the Canaveral Harbor navigation project and the Brevard County shore-projection project (see Figure 1-2). As required in Chapter 161.053, Florida Statutes (F.S.), the FDEP established a CCCL on a county basis along the sandy beaches of the State fronting the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Straits of Florida. The CCCL defines that portion of the beach-dune system that is subject to “severe fluctuations” based on a 100-year storm surge, storm waves, or other predictable oceanographic and meteorological conditions. The term “fluctuations” in the context of the CCCL is assumed to refer to locations of shoreline recession (beach erosion) and shoreline advance (beach accretion). The CCCL is not a setback line, but, rather, defines a jurisdictional area in which construction seaward of the CCCL is regulated. A setback line generally restricts Chapter 2 Background 2-15 construction activities seaward of such line. Special siting and design considerations are necessary seaward of the CCCL to ensure the protection of the beach-dune system, proposed or existing structures, and adjacent properties, as well as the preservation of public beach access. In 1980, Chapter 161.053, F.S. was amended by adding any coastal construction control line that has not been updated since June 30, 1980, shall be considered a critical priority for reestablishment by the department. The CCCL in Brevard County was reestablished in March 1986 to a more landward location that better represents the zone subject to the 100-year storm surge. In 1987, Chapter 161.57, F.S. was added by the Florida Legislature. This provision requires that purchasers of interests in real property located in coastal areas partially or totally seaward of the CCCL be apprised of the character of the regulation of the real property in such coastal areas and, in particular, that such lands are subject to frequent and severe fluctuations. Prior to construction of a beach restoration or beach nourishment project, the State of Florida requires that an ECL be established (Chapter 161.141, F.S.). Upon the filing of a resolution of the Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund and the recording of the survey showing the location of the ECL (pre-Project MHWL for the area to be restored), title to all lands seaward of the ECL shall be deemed to be vested in the State by right of its sovereignty, and title to all land landward of such line shall be vested in the riparian upland owners (Chapter Kea F.S.).- If the state, county, municipality, erosion-control district, or other governmental agency charged with the responsibility of maintaining the protected beach fails to maintain the same and as a result thereof the shoreline gradually recedes to a point or points landward of the erosion control line, the provisions of Chapter 161.191, F.S. shall cease to be operative as to the affected upland (Chapter 161.211, F.S.). 13 161.57, F.S. Coastal properties disclosure statement. (1) The Legislature finds that it is necessary to ensure that the purchasers of interests in real property located in coastal areas partially or totally seaward of the coastal construction control line as defined in S. 161.053 are fully apprised of the character of the regulation of the real property in such coastal areas and, in particular, that such lands are subject to frequent and severe fluctuations. (2) Unless otherwise waived in writing by the purchaser, at or prior to the closing of any transaction where an interest in real property located either partially or totally seaward of the coastal construction control line as defined in S 161.053 is being transferred, the seller shall provide to the purchaser an affidavit, or a survey meeting the requirements of Chapter 472, delineating the location of the coastal construction control line on the property being transferred. 14 161.191, F.S. Vesting of title to lands (1) Upon the filing of a copy of the board of trustees’ resolution and the recording of the survey showing the location of the erosion control line and the areas of beach to be protected as provided in S. 161.181, title to all lands seaward of the erosion control line shall be deemed to be vested in the state by right of its sovereignty, and title to all lands landward of such line shall be vested in the riparian upland owners whose lands either abut the erosion control line or would have abutted the line if it had been located directly on the line of mean high water on the date the board of trustees’ survey was recorded. 2-16 Chapter 2. Background The ECL just south of Canaveral Harbor was approved by the Florida Board of Trustees on December 18, 1973, and a Florida DNR, Bureau of Beaches and Shores (BBS) Construction Permit (BBS 73-74-4) was issued. The permit was executed by the Brevard County Board of Commissioners in Special Session on December 31, 1973. The MHWL survey to establish the ECL for the Cape Canaveral segment of the Brevard County beach erosion control project was completed on June 29, 1973 (Sheets 1-5, Folder 2 of 2, BBS 73-74-4). The ECL was set 300 ft seaward of the June 29, 1973, MHWL survey from the north limit of Port Canaveral Jetty Park south to the north line of Madison Avenue. The ECL was then tapered to the existing MHWL at the north line of Polk Avenue and followed the MHWL south to the north line of Young Avenue, a distance of 2.8 miles (Sheets 1-6, Folder 2 of 2, BBS 73-74-4). The ECL at Indialantic and Melbourne Beach was approved by the Florida Board of Trustees on June 26, 1979. A Florida DNR Division of Beaches and Shores (DBS) construction permit (DBS 79-0009) was issued on June 18, 1979, for the Brevard County beach erosion control project segment at Indialantic and Melbourne Beach. Approximately 4.5 Mcy of beach-quality sand were available for a beach fill from the 1974- 1975 Trident work (see later descriptions of the Federal navigation and shore-protection project activity). Approximately 1 Mcy were needed to construct the Cape Canaveral segment. The remaining 3.5 Mcy were to have been placed on the beach as a cost-effective way of disposing of the material. The 4.5 Mcy, if placed uniformly along the 2.8 miles south of Canaveral Harbor, would have resulted in a 400-ft-wide construction berm. The ECL was to be placed seaward of the June 29, 1973, MHWL by 300 ft throughout the 2.8-mile project length. This location of the ECL was to allow placement of the 3.5 Mcy of Trident Fill beach disposal material in accordance with Chapter 161.141 F.S., which states in part that the ECL shall not be fixed for beach restoration projects that result from inlet or navigation channel maintenance dredging projects. The 1 Mcy destined for the shore-protection project were to be placed seaward of the ECL. 2.4.5. Federal Jurisdictional Boundaries Since 1972, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), has identified Coastal High Hazard Areas, termed V- (Velocity) Zones. As depicted on NFIP Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), V-Zones are areas subject to damage by waves 3 ft or higher during the 100-year event. Zones subject to the 100-year flood with waves less than 3 ft high are labeled as A-Zones. The inland extents of the V- and A-Zones are derived from computer models that calculate the landward penetration of a storm surge that can support a breaking wave 3 ft in height. 15 The Bureau of Beaches and Shores (BBS) was later recategorized, and thus renamed, as the Division of Beaches and Shores (DBS) within the DNR. After the FDEP was created, the Division was again changed to the Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems (BBCS). Chapter 2 Background 2-17 In communities that participate in the NFIP, construction is allowed within the V-Zone if it complies with State and local floodplain ordinances that meet NFIP requirements. Lending institutions enforce purchase of flood insurance for buildings located in the V-Zone as a condition of obtaining Federally sponsored or insured mortgages or home-improvement loans. All parcels of land fronting the Atlantic Ocean in Brevard County are at least partially within the V-Zone and substantially or wholly within the A-Zone (FIRMs for Brevard County dated Apmil 1989 and August 1992). The dates that communities in Brevard County were first identified as being in a flood zone by FEMA are shown in Table 2-3. Table 2-3. Dates Brevard County communities were identified as being in a flood zone by FEMA. Community Identification Date City of Cape Canaveral Sep 1972 Canaveral Port Authority Oct 1979 Cocoa Beach Jun 1972 Satellite Beach Feb 1974 Indian Harbour Beach Jun 1972 Town of Indialantic Aug 1972 Melbourne Beach Nov 1972 2-18 Chapter 2. Background 3. Assessment of Coastal Change This chapter describes the regional beach and nearshore response to waves and storms that occur along the coast of Brevard County, with focus on the properties of the test plaintiffs. Historical shoreline, beach profile, and bathymetry data sets are analyzed to document coastal evolution prior to and after construction of Canaveral Harbor. These data represent the primary sources of information for quantifying the impact of Harbor construction on property downdrift of the jetties. Data collected by the FDEP, the USC&GS (now NOS), and the USACE are the foundation upon which objective evaluations are made for assessing impacts at the properties of the test plaintiffs. 3.1. Data Sources Three sources of data were analyzed for quantifying shoreline-position change that has occurred along the coast of Brevard County for the period of record (1875 to 1998). Historical shoreline data sets from the NOS and a May 1996 shoreline surveyed using GPS technology established a consistent record of continuous measurements along the coast at an interpreted HWL (Table 3-1). FDEP and USACE beach-profile survey data were analyzed to determine cross-shore change in beach shape. Beach-profile survey data document short-term shoreline change at a 1,000-ft longshore spacing. NOS hydrographic data sets from 1929 and 1956 surveys, bounded on the landward side with the 1928 and 1948 NOS shoreline surveys, documented beach and nearshore sand volume changes prior to Harbor construction. Also, a hydrographic survey conducted for this study by the USACE (May 1996), together with the 1996 GPS shoreline survey, shows the beach and nearshore change resulting from Harbor construction. The Canaveral Harbor entrance and jetties were constructed over the period June 1951 to September 1954 (see the chronology in Table 2-1 and Appendix F). Immediate post-construction bathymetric survey data are not available to define morphologic adjustments after construction of the north Harbor entrance jetty. As a replacement, the 1948 NOS shoreline survey provided a surrogate landward boundary of the bathymetric surface to document beach and nearshore change prior to Harbor construction. As such, the available 1929 and 1956 NOS hydrographic surveys primarily documented pre-construction adjustments in sand volume north of the Harbor. All coastal morphology data sets contain errors that are related to measurement technique, map scale, and digital data-compilation and analysis procedures. In this study, to judge the significance of measured rates of beach and shoreline change, potential errors are quantified and compared with measurements. In considering all potential inherent errors associated with data compilation and analysis, it is recognized that these apply to each individual data set. In making comparisons of shoreline-position and bathymetric change, errors in measurement and technique Chapter 3 Assessment of Coastal Change 3-1 accumulate. If it is assumed that individual errors represent standard deviations, a root-mean- square (rms) approach can be applied to provide a realistic assessment of combined potential errors (Merchant 1987, Crowell, Leatherman, and Buckley 1991). In other words, if sources of error are independent, there is some cancellation of error, resulting in a reduction of combined potential errors. Table 3-2 summarizes estimates of potential positional error for the primary data sources analyzed in this study. The rms error for 1875/79 topographic maps (T-sheets; 1:20,000 scale) is about +50 ft, whereas the 1928 and 1948 T-sheets (1:20,000) and the 1970 topographic photomaps (TP-sheets; 1:10,000) contain about +55 and +27 ft of potential error, respectively. The GPS survey provided the most accurate measurement of shoreline position, with an estimated maximum rms error of +14 ft. Table 3-3 provides a summary of maximum rms errors for available shoreline change data for the study area. Table 3-1. Characteristics of shoreline data sources. First shoreline surveyed with standard engineering techniques; 1875 — New Smyrna Beach to False Cape USC&GS Topographic (T-sheets 1415a, 1415b, 1423); Maps (1:20,000) 1877 — Cape Canaveral to Cocoa Beach (T-sheets 1450a, 1450b): 1878/79 - Indialantic to Sebastian Inlet (T-sheets 1460, 1478) 1875/79 USC&GS Topographic |All maps produced from interpreted aerial photography Maps (1:20,000) (T-sheets 4530, 4440b, 4441b, 4442b, 4554, 4555, 4556) USC&GS Topographic |All maps produced from interpreted aerial photography Maps (1:20,000) (T-sheets 9162, 9164, 9165, 9168, 9171, 9174, 8880, 8882, 8884) USC&GS Topographic Photomaps in Cooperation |All photomaps produced from interpreted aerial photography February 1970 | “with State of Florida | (TP-sheets 135, 136, 138, 140, 142, 143, 145, 146, 147, 149) (1:10,000) May 20-22, 1996 Differential GPS Survey |North boundary of Cape Canaveral National Seashore to (1:1) Sebastian Inlet 3-2 Chapter 3. Assessment of Coastal Change Table 3-2. Estimates of potential error associated with shoreline position surveys. Traditional Engineering Field Surveys (1875/79) Location of rodded points +3 ft Location of plane table +6 to 10 ft Interpretation of high-water shoreline position at rodded +10 to 13 ft points Error because of sketching between rodded points up to +16 ft : P Map Scale Cartographic Errors (all maps for this study) 710,000 720,000 Inaccurate location of control points on map relative to true field location up to +10 ft up to +20 ft Placement of shoreline on map +16 ft +33 ft Line width for representing shoreline +10 ft +20 ft Digitizer error +3 ft +6 ft Operator error +3 ft +6 ft E : Map Scale Aerial Surveys (1928, 1948, and 1970 shorelines) 140,000 720,000 Delineating high-water shoreline position +16 ft +33 ft GPS Survey (1996 shoreline) Delineating high-water shoreline +3 to 10 ft Position of measured points +6 to 16 ft (specified); +3 to 10 ft (field tests) Sources: Shalowitz 1964; Ellis 1978; Kruczynski and Lange 1990; Anders and Byrnes 1991; Crowell, Leatherman, and Buckley 1991 Table 3-3. Maximum potential rms error for shoreline change data. Magnitude of potential error associated with high-water shoreline position change (ft). Rate of potential error associated with high-water shoreline position change (ft/year). Chapter 3 Assessment of Coastal Change 3-3 3.2. Seasonal Beach Change and Variability Beaches and dunes are dynamic morphologic features that experience substantial seasonal fluctuations and spatial variability in elevation, width, and shape. In winter, beaches commonly have low relief because energetic waves and currents remove sand from the beach face and transport it offshore. Conversely, in summer, beaches typically display constructive features formed from sand deposited on the foreshore. Typical winter and summer beach profiles are depicted schematically in Figure 3-1. In regions with relatively low rates of long-term shoreline recession, seasonal changes in shoreline position can exceed the annual recession rate by many times. Consequently, accurate representation of average beach change depends on consistent seasonal comparisons to reduce inter-annual variations. For Brevard County, inter-annual variation in shoreline position associated with seasonal change is estimated to reach +30 ft by examination of FDEP beach-profile surveys. Summer profile Berm crest Yom MHW Shoreline (Summer) MHW Shoreline (Winter) Storm (Winter) =O Estioa Kosaa soak Profile Figure 3-1. Schematic showing typical winter and summer beach profile shapes. Another factor influencing shoreline position as determined from beach-profile survey data is the uncertainty associated with interpolating between FDEP lines (R-monuments) that are spaced approximately 800 to 1,000 ft apart. This uncertainty is of particular concern at the study site, which has mixed nourished beach and natural beach together with coastal structures. Depending on natural variation in beach and dune morphology along a coast and the influence of structures (e.g., seawalls, bulkheads, and rubble), variability in shoreline position is estimated to be as 16 Comparison of profile shape at R-7 and R-44 (Figures 4-5 and 4-11) for winter (January 1985) and summer (August 1985) shows a 30-ft maximum seasonal change in contour position. 3-4 Chapter 3 Assessment of Coastal Change much as +15 ft. Because the surveys were not performed exactly at the date of purchase of the property, additional uncertainty is introduced. Given these inconsistencies, shoreline-position variability associated with interpolation and variability along the beach is estimated to be +30 ft. In summary, seasonal changes and inconsistencies between purchase dates and times of available surveys must be considered for quantifying and interpreting the significance of shoreline-position change at a site, particularly as it relates to the MHW property boundary. In analyzing data from different seasons that bracket the property purchase date, one can expect variation in shoreline position on the order of +45 ft (total rms error for combined errors from seasonal variability, interpolation between profiles, and longshore variability in the beach). 3.3. Long-Term Shoreline Change This section describes measurements and calculations of shoreline change for two time periods, the pre-Harbor time period represented by 1877 to 1948 and the post-Harbor period represented by 1948 to 1996. These measurements are referenced to the HWL (See Chapter 2). 3.3.1. Shoreline Change prior to Harbor Construction (1877 to 1948) The earliest shoreline surveys prior to Harbor construction include an initial field survey conducted in 1877 and aerial photographic surveys completed in April 1928 and April 1948. Although property ownership by the plaintiffs did not begin until the early 1950s, an assessment of shoreline response prior to this time is necessary to evaluate the impact of Harbor construction on beach evolution. For the periods 1877 to 1928 and 1877 to 1948, the shoreline extending from 12,000 ft north of the Harbor to approximately 35,000 ft south of the Harbor showed advance (Figure 3-2). However, the shoreline south of this point to Sebastian Inlet receded and advanced independent of the Harbor. The rate of change varies between the two time periods. Greatest variation in beach response occurs north of the Harbor, adjacent to Cape Canaveral shoals. This area receives substantial quantities of sand from the north through southerly directed longshore transport that supplied large quantities of sand to southern beaches in Brevard County. Between 1877 and 1928, shoreline advance along beaches within 30,000 ft south of the Harbor occurred at rates ranging from approximately 0 to 8 ft/year. Although the direction of shoreline movement between 1877 and 1948 had the same trend as for the period 1877 to 1928, the magnitude of change decreased slightly within the first 7,000 ft south of the Harbor. Chapter 3 Assessment of Coastal Change 3-5 20 2 i 245 3 _@_ 1877-1928 fa H ms 8 —— 1877-1948 Ee fi g | O BS 6 a a ae (est Seas aw was 0S cae & @ e > ep) 1 North South -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 Distance from South Jetty, ft (thousands) Figure 3-2. Change in historical shoreline position (HWL) prior to Harbor construction. 3.3.2. Shoreline Change after Harbor Construction (1948 to 1996) After Harbor construction, greater shoreline advance occurred north of the Harbor because of impoundment at the north jetty. The shoreline for about 7,000 ft of coast directly south of the Harbor receded as a result of this impoundment and deposition into the entrance channel. Change in shoreline position for the period 1948 to 1970 was evaluated using NOS data sets, which were also compiled and analyzed by the FDEP.” A reevaluation of the FDEP historical data set was completed in the present study as a quality control and assurance procedure because these data are central for determining alleged losses. A May 1996 GPS ground survey was also performed in this study to evaluate cumulative shoreline changes to that date, representing the “present,” for regional geomorphic analysis. Figure 3-3 shows post-construction shoreline response prior to and after the beach fill in 1974/75. Between April 1948 and February 1970, downdrift shoreline recession occurred along a reach extending to about 7,000 ft south of the Harbor. For the same period, south of this 7,000-ft reach to approximately 34,000 ft south of the Harbor, the shoreline advanced about 50 ft. The change from net shoreline recession to net shoreline advance determines the boundary of Harbor-induced erosion to be located within 7,000 ft south of the jetty. South of this location, no net adverse impacts to the beach can be attributed to the Harbor for the period 1948 to 1996, because the shoreline advanced. 17 The FDEP historical shoreline-position data from the 1948 and 1970 NOS data sets were obtained from the FDEP Internet web site at http:/Awww.dep.state.fl.us/. 3-6 Chapter 3 Assessment of Coastal Change Shoreline Position Change, ft Shoreline Position Change, ft Shoreline Change Difference, ft Chapter 3 Assessment of Coastal Change This Study —@— April 1948 - February 1970 —Q-— February 1970 - May 1996 300 cra FDEP —@ April 1948 - February 1970 —Q- February 1970 - December 1993 200 Difference (FDEP - This Study) 100 0 eae -100 -200 —@— April 1948 - February 1970 308 —©- February 1970 - December 1993/May 1996 -400 : Gia 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 Distance from South Jetty, ft Figure 3-3. Shoreline-position change after Harbor construction from data sets analyzed (a) for this study and (b) from the FDEP. Between April 1948 and February 1970, the shoreline receded from the south jetty to approximately 7,000 ft south. The FDEP and present study results for this period are consistent in trend and direction of shoreline change. The magnitude of advance south of 7,000 ft is less for the FDEP data than determined in the present study. Overall, shoreline adjustments between the February 1970 and December 1993 (FDEP) and from February 1970 and May 1996 (this study) show the shoreline advanced to at least 27,000 ft south of the Harbor, demonstrating the long- term effectiveness of the beach fill. Shoreline change analysis for this study shows greater advance, possibly caused by seasonal differences in the survey end dates (December 1993 for the FDEP analysis and May 1996 for this study). Greater shoreline advance adjacent to the south jetty (as shown in Figure 3-3c for the data taken in the present study) results from beach fills that occurred between December 1993 and May 1996 (Table 2-1). FDEP beach-profile data were also analyzed to document shoreline response between September 1972 and February 1998 (see Appendix F for description of the available USACE and FDEP survey data). Because historical shoreline-position data are collected differently than beach-profile data, the different data sets were compared to determine possible inconsistencies. - Figure 3-4 shows potential differences that can exist between shoreline position and beach- profile survey. The April 1948 and February 1970 shorelines are from NOS surveys, whereas September 1972 was the first FDEP beach-profile survey. The trend of erosion and accretion to approximately 27,000 ft from the south Harbor jetty is consistent between the two data sets. South of this position to about 34,000 ft, the beach-profile data show recession, whereas the NOS map data show advance. The difference in trends may be due in part to the different season and date of termination (February 1970 versus September 1972). This comparison indicates that data of the same type are desirable for increasing the confidence of calculations of shoreline change. To maintain consistency in comparing shoreline change between shoreline-position surveys and beach-profile surveys, an elevation for the HWL was estimated from beach response identified in profile surveys of beaches in the study area. Through the examination of morphologic features on beach profiles, an elevation of 8.0 ft NGVD was judged to represent the location of the HWL (this elevation is consistent with the design berm crest for past and planned USACE beach fills (USACE 1996)). For quantifying shoreline change from beach-profile surveys, the 8-ft elevation served as a surrogate for the HWL. From September 1972 to August 1985, sand placement on the beach south of the Harbor in 1974/75 advanced the shoreline an average of 95 ft within about 26,000 ft of the south jetty (Figure 3-5). Between August 1985 and February 1998, the shoreline receded an average of 69 ft within 17,000 ft (FDEP Monument R-19) of the south jetty, while the shoreline south of this 18 See Section 2.4: Shoreline-position surveys are continuous longshore measurements of the interpreted HWL; beach- profile surveys are measurements of elevation across the shore on lines from which shoreline position can be referenced to MHW. 3-8 Chapter 3 Assessment of Coastal Change erosion zone to R-48 (45,000 ft from jetty) advanced an average of 32 ft. For the period September 1972 to February 1998, the shoreline advanced an average of 42 ft for most of the coast south of the south jetty except for a 5,000-ft-long segment located between R-4 and R-9 that experienced an average 9 ft of recession (Figure 3-5). These trends indicate that, since 1972, nearly all coastal impacts (beach erosion and shoreline recession) caused by the Harbor have been mitigated by placement of sand just south of the entrance channel. 200 -500 —@— April 1948 - February 1970 (NOS - NOS) —©-— April 1948 - September 1972 (NOS - FDEP) Shoreline Position Change, ft 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 Distance from South Jetty, ft Figure 3-4. Shoreline-position change prior to the 1974/75 beach fill comparing beach response derived from NOS data to that derived from the 1948 NOS shoreline and the 1972 FDEP beach-profile data. Shoreline-position change plotted in Figure 3-5 shows that the maximum distance of downdrift impact of Harbor construction after the 1974/75 beach fill is about 17,000 ft. Historical shoreline-position change prior to this beach fill (Figure 3-3) exhibited an impact zone located about 7,000 ft south of the Harbor. The difference in impact distances is interpreted to be associated with beach adjustments (equilibration and spreading losses) after fill placement,» unrelated to response of the natural or native beach. After placement of sand on the beach in 1974/75, the beach south of the area of erosion located adjacent to the south jetty benefited substantially from southward sand transport. 19 Initially, sand placed on the beach will not be in equilibrium and will have a different slope and shoreline orientation as compared with the natural (pre-fill beach). Over several months to years, the placed material will be transported at rates greater than the naturally occurring rates. These processes are referred to as equilibration (across shore) of the profile and spreading (alongshore). Both equilibration and spreading appear as volume losses at the original site of the placement. 20 Placement of sand on the beach in 1974/75 was the least-cost disposal alternative of sand dredged from the Harbor channel. As such, the operation was not a beach-fill project, which would have its own Federal authorization and shore protection as a main objective. However, for simplicity of language, the 1974/75 sand placement will be called a beach fill. Chapter 3 Assessment of Coastal Change 3-9 Shoreline Position Change, ft Shoreline Position Change, ft Shoreline Position Change, ft 200 100 x —@— 09/13/72 - 08/28/85 -100 —@ 08/28/85 - 02/18/98 = rf —— T = _ ene —@ 09/13/72 - 02/18/98 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 Distance from South Jetty, ft Figure 3-5. Change in high-water shoreline position south of the Canaveral Harbor entrance channel. Shoreline position change (relative to the 8-ft NGVD reference datum) was extracted from beach-profile data collected by the FDEP and the USACE. Chapter 3 Assessment of Coastal Change 3.3.3. Coastal Sand-Volume Change Previous studies have estimated sand-volume change in the littoral zone through analysis of shoreline and beach-profile change. The present study quantified regional changes in sand volume by analysis of historical bathymetric data for the years 1929, 1956, and 1996, coupled with shoreline-position data for 1928, 1948, and 1996. The NOS hydrographic survey of 1956 is the closest survey data set available to distinguish bathymetric change before and after Harbor construction (construction of the Harbor entrance was completed 1954, see Table 2-1). Bathymetric surfaces were generated for each time period to calculate net volume changes by comparing surfaces (see Byres and Hiland 1995 for methods). Pre-construction (1929-1956) and post-construction (1956-1996) bathymetric surveys were compared to quantify differences in sand-volume change and to identify sediment transport patterns in the vicinity of Canaveral Harbor. Data from the post-construction time interval provided detailed information on sand- volume adjustments in the littoral zone to assess net longshore transport rates and sand-bypassing requirements (from north to south at the entrance channel). Volume change for the interval 1929 to 1956 served as a baseline estimate of pre-construction sediment transport patterns within the vicinity of the Harbor. Initial evaluation of volume changes from the HWL seaward to the 17-ft depth contour (NGVD) south of the Harbor was complicated by beach-nourishment activities that occurred between 1956 and 1996, introducing some uncertainty in formulating a sediment budget and associated transport rates. A central issue of this analysis was to quantify the amount of southward sand transport to estimate beach change before the Harbor was constructed. For this purpose, it was determined that analysis of volume changes north of the entrance channel jetty, combined with estimates of sand volumes dredged from the north side of the entrance channel, would provide a direct estimate of net longshore transport rates and sand-bypassing requirements. Two assumptions were made in this analysis: (1) the Harbor is a total littoral barrier, and (2) the rate of beach-volume adjustment prior to Harbor construction is representative of changes that would have continued to beaches north of the Harbor if the Harbor had not been built. Both assumptions are supported by long-term trends in shoreline- and bathymetric-change data sets (1875/78 to 1929 and 1929 to 1956). Comparison of bathymetric surfaces for the period 1956 to 1996 reveals a well-defined area of accretion north of the entrance channel jetty that extends about 12,000 ft to the north and offshore from the high-water shoreline to the 17-ft depth contour. Total sand accumulation for this zone is 8.36 +1.46 Mcy (the potential vertical measurement error for the surface model comparison is +1.6 ft), which includes naturally 21 Analysis of historical shoreline and bathymetry data sets, as well as USACE dredging records for Port Canaveral, show that the Harbor has trapped all sand transported from the north that would otherwise have reached beaches south of the south Harbor entrance jetty. If the Harbor were not present, it is believed that beaches in the vicinity of the Harbor would be changing similar to that found for historical trends. Chapter 3 Assessment of Coastal Change 3-11 occurring additions of volume to the beach and those associated with impoundment at the jetty. Changes in sand volume for this same area from 1929 to 1956 show net accretion of 4.12 +1.46 Mcy (natural beach volume additions). Dredging records indicate that sand deposition in two well-defined areas along the north side of the entrance channel occurs at a rate of 67,000 to 99,000 cy/year (Bodge 1994). This range of deposition rates represents the quantity of sand transported through and around the north jetty. Given these data, the net longshore transport rate in the vicinity of the Harbor is determined as the sum of sand accumulation north of the north jetty (8.36 Mcy over 40 years gives 209,000 cy/year) and the rate of sand deposited along the edge of the north channel (maximum deposition in two areas along the edge of the north channel is 99,000 cy/year). Consequently, southerly directed, net long-term sand transport north of the Harbor (equal to net long-term sand accumulation at the total littoral barrier) has been occurring at a rate of approximately 308,000 +28,000 cy/year. The amount of sand that was transported to beaches south of this point prior to Harbor construction is obtained by subtracting the net accretion rate in this area from 1929 to 1956 (4.12 Mcy/year over 27 years, or 153,000 +41,000cy/year) from the total sand accumulation rate of 308,000 cy/year. The resultant sand-bypassing rate is 155,000 +26,000 cy/year. This rate of sand bypassing is equivalent to 6.4 +1.1 Mcy of sand for the past 41 years (1956 to 1997). Approximately 6.3 Mcy of sand have been placed on or along the shore south of Canaveral Harbor in Brevard County, of which 4.0 Mcy were placed by the USACE and local sponsors within a 17,000-ft-long zone directly south of the Harbor, where evidence of Harbor-induced erosion exists. The remaining 2.3 Mcy of sand were placed on beaches or in nearshore disposal areas located farther than 17,000 ft south of the Harbor. Consequently, from 1956 to 1997, the supplied volume of 6.3 Mcy replaced the sand that would have been transported south by the longshore current, if not for the Harbor. Furthermore, approximately 90% of the plaintiffs purchased their properties after IOP. Wee 155,000 cy/year had been bypassed between 1972 and 1997, 3.9 Mcy would have been placed, which is equivalent to the amount of material (4.0 Mcy) placed by the USACE within the first 17,000 ft south of the Harbor. Calculation of shoreline-position change from measurements 22 The USACE would not have bypassed 155,000 cy each year since 1972. If the USACE had started to bypass sand in 1972, it would have been based on the data in the 1962 authorization, and the rate of 350,000 cy/year was the stated goal at that time. The USACE did not change (lower) its estimate of bypassing until the 1987 General Design Memorandum for the Sand Transfer Plant. In 1987, the USACE estimated the net deficit for the first 2.1 miles south of the Harbor to be 136,000 cy/year, after tightening of the south jetty. The current USACE sand-bypassing rate is based on the 1993 General Re-evaluation Report rate of 106,000 cy/year. Although the 1996 USACE Feasibility Report (Appendix A, Paragraph A-96) for the Brevard County Shore Protection Project recommended a bypassing rate increase to 156,000 cy/year, this rate has not yet been implemented by the USACE. The amount of material for each future sand bypassing will be based on monitoring surveys of the borrow and disposal areas for the sand bypassing. 23 Of these 90%, 50% purchased in the 1980s and 28% purchased in the 1990s. 3-12 Chapter 3 Assessment of Coastal Change shows net advance during this time period, supporting the independent estimate of sand bypassing presented above (Figure 3-3). In summary, regional shoreline-change analysis shows that erosion of the natural (pre- project) beach that can be attributed to sand blockage by Canaveral Harbor occurs in a zone that extends about 7,000 ft south of the south jetty (Figure 3-3). Also, FDEP beach-profile data indicate net shoreline recession extending as far as 17,000 ft south of the Harbor after the 1974/75 beach fill was completed (Figure 3-5b). It is emphasized that the 7,000-ft erosion zone pertains to the natural beach (beach prior to beach fill), and the 17,000-ft erosion zone pertains to the beach-fill area. In other words, along the beach extending south from 7,000 to 17,000 ft from the south jetty, primarily beach fill has eroded and spread since its placement in 1974/75, and not the preexisting beach (prior to the fill) that was in the area. According to the present study, the bypassing rate required for mitigating Harbor-induced downdrift erosion along the beach from the south jetty to 7,000 ft south is 155,000 +26,000 cy/year. 3.4. Impact of Storms on Brevard County Beaches Brevard County is susceptible to erosion by tropical cyclones (hurricanes and tropical storms) and extratropical storms (northeasters). The more severe storms that have impacted the project coast are discussed in Chapter 2, and Appendix C gives an annotated listing of storms that have been documented to cause notable erosion in recent times. Erosion of the beach and dune by storms is independent of the presence of the Harbor. Therefore, at the properties of the test plaintiffs, erosion caused by storms must be estimated so that it is not attributed to the Harbor. As seen in Figure 2-6, the number of documented erosional hurricanes and tropical storms increased in the period 1947 to 1975, as compared with the periods 1899 to 1946 and 1976 to 1995. In particular, the frequency of storms became higher immediately after construction of Canaveral Harbor, for the period 1954 to 1975 (see, also, Bodge and Savage 1992). The elevated water level (tide plus storm surge) accompanying more severe storms allows waves to reach the dune face, causing erosion. A beach berm protects the dune from wave attack and erosion by milder storms, but elevated water levels of more severe storms allow waves to travel over even a wide beach to reach the dunes. Appendix D contains photographs of dune scarping (a scarp is a vertical or near-vertical cut in the beach or dune produced by waves and currents) both to the north and to the south of the Harbor. 24 In contrast to storm-induced beach and dune erosion, which is rapid, accretion or buildup of beaches and dunes is a gradual process of transport of sand from the dry beach berm to the dune during times of stronger onshore wind. Dune buildup takes many years, assuming that the dunes are not disturbed and the process is left uninhibited. Along the coast south of the Canaveral Harbor, construction on top of the dunes (lawns, houses, parking lots, and _ shore-protection structures) interferes with the dune-building process. The dunes cannot grow in elevation with subsequent increase in width that would increase their volume. Placement of sand fences on the upper portion of the beach adjacent to the south jetty of Canaveral Harbor is a notable exception in which growth of sand dunes is promoted. A sufficient width of dry beach is required, typically about 30 ft, for full development of wind-blown sand to occur. Chapter 3 Assessment of Coastal Change 3-13 In summary, storm-induced erosion on the coast south of Canaveral Harbor is a predominantly unidirectional process of beach and dune-face recession and sand volume loss, independent of the Harbor. Beach erosion exposes dunes to erosion by milder storms and, if the beach narrows greatly, it reduces dune buildup by wind-blown sand. The main cause of dune erosion is the combined elevated water levels and higher, longer period waves accompanying storms. The following sections describe calculations performed to estimate erosion of beaches and dunes produced by three severe storms documented to have severely impacted the Brevard County coast (see Table 2-1 and Appendix C). Potential beach and dune erosion is estimated by 9 : 9 : ; 25 26 application of a numerical simulation model. ° 3.4.1. Model Calibration The SBEACH model had been previously calibrated and verified in the Feasibility Report (USACE 1996) for profile lines R-124 and R-31, respectively. Pre-storm and post-storm profile- survey data were available for Tropical Storm (TS) Gordon, which struck the Brevard County coast in November 1994 (Table 3-4). The available data are discussed in the Feasibility Report. Because periodic upgrades to SBEACH may produce slightly different final profile shapes for the same input conditions, the calibration run for Profile R-124 was repeated with the newer version of SBEACH (version 2.0) available for the present study. Also, the present study employed time series of hourly water-level measurements made at a USACE-NOS tide gauge located at St. Augustine (approximately 110 miles north of Canaveral Harbor), whereas the Feasibility Report made use of an estimated water-level time series. The estimated hydrograph was based on the measured peak surge elevation, surge duration, and tidal-cycle characteristics of Brevard County. Confirmation of model operation for TS Gordon is shown in Figure 3-6, with the difference between calculated profiles in the present work and the Feasibility Report. The central area of interest is removal of sand and recession of the dune in the region between about 100 and 200 ft 25 The terminology “potential” in the present situation refers to a beach and dune that are not armored on the dune face or at the top of the dune. Armoring would reduce the actual erosion to less than the potential. The numerical model applied is called SBEACH, an acronym for Storm-induced BEAch CHange (Larson and Kraus 1989; Larson, Kraus, and Byrnes 1990). SBEACH is applied by the USACE, as well as by State agencies and private consulting companies, to estimate storm-induced dune erosion for shore-protection design. 26 SBEACH has recently been demonstrated to perform well through comparisons of calculations against a comprehensive database of measurements in the field and laboratory (Wise, Smith, and Larson 1996). Details about the model can be found in the related references and in a number of other publications. The model calculates storm-induced dune and beach erosion produced by elevated water levels and energetic waves. Basic inputs to the model are time series (over the duration of the storm) of water level; wave height and period; initial beach profile shape; representative grain size for the beach; and various coefficients controlling calibration of the model. The principal calibration parameter is called K, and it and other input parameters were set to values determined in the Feasibility Report (USACE 1996). The value of K determined is also the default or typical value recommended for situations where calibration data are lacking, indicating the calculations were not biased. 3-14 Chapter 3 Assessment of Coastal Change offshore, at elevations above approximately 4 ft NGVD. The difference between the two calculations is small, with the maximum departure being at one grid cell on the dune face. Experience with the SBEACH model, including a recent validation with a large data set (Wise, Smith, and Larson 1996), indicates that calibrated model calculations have a typical accuracy of about +15% in estimating erosion volume above mean water level (in the present study, storm- induced erosion landward of the MHW line was tabulated). To account for uncertainties in the input data and lack of knowledge of the exact profile shape on specific dates for which information is needed in this study, a total uncertainty to the erosion-model calculations of +25% of the calculated (best-estimate) value was assigned. 20 Initial Meas. 15 : ———— Final Meas. 6 Calculated ja) > O 5 cS P= Ss 0 2 is a -5 Ww -10 -15 -20 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Distance Offshore, ft Figure 3-6. Reproduction of calibration calculation at R-124 for Tropical Storm Gordon in the Feasibility Report (USACE 1996). Chapter 3 Assessment of Coastal Change 3-15 0.5 0.0 lava -0.5 Se EE eee LS ri a — — a Elevation Difference, ft -2.0 [ivan i | =f val [ie 1 | i | ! | i [P= a8 0) 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Distance Offshore, ft Figure 3-7. Difference in calculations between present work and Feasibility Study at R-124 for Tropical Storm Gordon (USACE 1996). 3.4.2. Three Selected Storms for Analysis Three of the most damaging storms that occurred during or around the time of ownership were selected to investigate potential for beach and dune erosion on profile-survey lines representative of the beach and dune at the properties of the two test plaintiffs. The storms span an approximate 10-year period from late 1984 to late 1994 at approximate 5-year intervals. This period corresponds to the beach and dune condition near the times of purchase of the two test plaintiffs through to the near present. Each of these three storms was documented as having produced major damage along the Brevard County coast, and they are representative of both major types of storms, i.e., tropical and extratropical storms. The selected storms are listed in Table 3-4, and information about their erosive damage is contained in Appendix C. Pairs of plots for each of the storms, one showing the time series of water level, and the other showing the time period of the wave height and period, are contained in Appendix E. 3-16 Chapter 3 Assessment of Coastal Change Table 3-4. Storms selected for beach- and dune-erosion calculations and source of water- level data. NOS Tide Gauge Thanksgiving Day northeaster Mayport (No name) Northeaster Fernandina Tropical Storm Gordon St. Augustine Thanksgiving Day northeaster 1984. This northeaster was the most devastating erosive storm to impact Brevard County in modern times. Water level (Figure E-1) was elevated through several high tides during a broad peak of high waves (Figure E-2) lasting about 3 days. Therefore, severe northeasters, which are slow moving and of large size, can be as or more erosive than hurricanes (Larson and Kraus 1991), which are typically of smaller size and faster moving. Northeaster of 1989. A March 1989 northeaster substantially eroded the Brevard County coast, having high waves for more than 4 days through several high tides combined with storm surge. See Figures E-3 and E-4. Tropical Storm Gordon 1994. This storm crossed the Florida Peninsula at Naples, exited at Canaveral, went along the coast to North Carolina, then returned. Elevated water level (Figure E-5) and high waves (Figure E-6) persisted over a relatively long duration (approximately 6 days) for a tropical cyclone. 3.4.3. Analysis of Storm-Induced Erosion at the Applegate Property To conduct the analysis of beach and dune erosion by multiple storms at the Applegate property, the July 1983 FDEP profile survey at R-7 was selected to represent the pre-storm conditions for the 1984 Thanksgiving Day northeaster.. As discussed in Chapter 1, for the period of the analysis (November 1984 to November 1994), substantial rubble on the beach berm fronted the structure and upland of the Applegate property. Therefore, the upland behind the structure will not notably respond to storm action, because the rubble serves as shore protection or armoring, similar to, but not as efficient as, a rubble revetment or a bulkhead. The beach and dune can only erode to the rubble, which was the situation after placement of the 1974/75 fill. 27 Horizontal coverage offshore is coarse at 50-ft intervals, but the survey extends from landward of the dune crest to an elevation of -5.89 ft NGVD. To complete the profile so that it could serve as a realistic initial condition for subjection to the three storms, the December 1993 offshore survey data for R-7 were appended from elevation —5.9 ft and translated as required. After the dune-erosion calculation for each storm was completed, the resultant calculated profile, which was in equilibrium with the storm, was replaced with data from the December 1993 survey from the +4-ft elevation to the seaward limit of the survey data. This combination of profiles provided a realistic and consistent profile shape to serve as the next initial condition for the subsequent storm. Chapter 3 Assessment of Coastal Change 3-17 Calculation results at R-7 for the three selected storms, with the final profile position as post- TS Gordon, are shown in Figure 3-8. The storms caused substantial erosion on the upper beach. Specifically, as listed in Table 3-5, the MHW shoreline receded approximately 15 ft during the Thanksgiving Day storm, 31 ft during the March 1989 northeaster, and 24 ft during the 1994 Tropical Storm Gordon. The SBEACH model produced some washover, which is the landward transport of sand. Table 3-5 summarizes both the MHWL recession and maximum net loss of beach and dune volume landward of the location of the MHWL in the units of cubic yards per foot (cy/ft) of beach alongshore. Offshore sand transport rates ranged between 10.8 and 11.9 cy/ft. Using the conversion that 1 cy/ft= 2.5 cu m/m, the maximum transport rates fall in the range of 27 to 29.8 cu m/m of berm crest. These rates are in the midrange of storm-induced beach and dune- erosion rates as documented by Savage and Birkemeier (1987) measured for 13 storms at several northeastern beaches of the United States facing the Atlantic Ocean. It is noted that the calculated beach and dune erosion and recession corresponds to a profile that is not armored. Such would have been the case for the fill placed along the beach in 1974/75. The cumulative eroded volume from the storms is calculated as (11.9+11.3+10.8 cy/ft) x 106 ft = 3,600 cy. 12 Initial 07/83 Thanks 11/84 8 ; . NE 03/89 Gordon 11/94 Elevation, ft (NGVD) aS 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Distance Offshore, ft Figure 3-8. R-7: Beach recession by three selected recent storms. 3-18 Chapter 3 Assessment of Coastal Change Table 3-5. Summary of potential erosion of Profile Line R-7 by three selected storms. Beene Change of the Maximum Volume- q MHWL, ft Loss Rate, cy/ft Initial 07/1983 — Thanksgiving NE 11/1984 Post-Thanksgiving NE 11/1984 — NE 03/1989 Post NE 03/1989 - TS Gordon 11/1984 Total Change of the MHWL, 69.7 07/1983 to 11/1994 (three storms) ‘ For comparison, beach-profile change between September 1972 and December 30, 1993, measured at R-7 and R-8 is plotted on Figure 3-9. Numerical calculations of beach-profile change for the three storms, with survey data from R-7 as the initial condition, give recession and erosion less than that documented by the surveys as described below. The magnitude of erosion at R-8, located approximately 900 ft to the south of R-7, is less significant because the nearest survey in time occurred on August 27, 1985. Comparison of the August 1985 surveys for both R-monuments indicates similar beach dimensions relative to the position of the dune. 3.4.4. Analysis of Storm-Induced Erosion at the Noro Property Profile Line R-43 was selected to represent the condition of the beach and dune near the Noro property. Remnants of a wooden bulkhead (apparently destroyed in the 1984 Thanksgiving Day northeaster), sand-filled bags, and some stone rubble presently front this property. Therefore, the dune behind these objects will be protected against mild storms, but not against severe storms. To conduct the calculations of dune erosion by multiple storms, the FDEP profile-survey data at R-43 for May 1982 were selected to represent the beach and dune. This survey was made just prior to the devastating 1984 Thanksgiving Day storm. Coverage for the survey extends from landward of the dune crest to an elevation of —6.5 ft NGVD. To complete the profile so that it could serve as a realistic initial condition for subjection to the three storms, the December 1993 survey data for R-43 were appended from elevation —7.5 to —32 ft NGVD.— 28 For the calculation, the stone revetment located at the dune on Survey Line R-43 was not included (although this is possible in SBEACH) in order to calculate storm-induced erosion of a profile representative of that at the Noro property. 29 A point at —32-ft elevation was added to the profile some 4,000 ft offshore to extend the measured profile and allow random storm waves to break beyond the limit of the actual survey data at elevation of about —25 ft. After the dune-erosion calculation for each storm was completed, the resultant calculated profile, which was in equilibrium with the storm, was replaced with data from the December 1993 survey from the +4-ft elevation to the seaward limit of the survey data. This combination of profiles provided a realistic and consistent profile shape to serve as the initial condition for the subsequent storm. Chapter 3 Assessment of Coastal Change 3-19 Profile R-7 15 —S— 09/13/72 —r— 11/06/73 2 10 3 —@-— 09/06/79 Zz —3— 07/26/83 Pe og =| 6 {= Ss MHW oO ro) 0 = —| a —™ 01/12/85 5 5 —— 08/27/85 a 1 —$— 12/01/93 eee ZOOS -10 T T T = i= | T T ST 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Distance from Monument, ft Profile R-8 1G Sr | —S— 09/13/72 i] —*— 11/06/73 QO 10 - a —4A— 08/27/85 Zz —$— 12/01/93 © 5 12/08/97 2 MHW oO @ 0 im = & -5 al -10 ara Rage r TTT 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Distance from Monument, ft Figure 3-9. Beach profile change at FDEP Monuments R-7 and R-8. Calculation results at R-43 for the three selected storms, with the final profile position as post-TS Gordon, are shown in Figure 3-10. The storms caused moderate beach erosion and recession of the dune face, with the Thanksgiving Day northeaster of November 1984 producing P 30 Q 0 6 the most erosion. In comparison with the beach recession calculated at R-7 for Applegate 30 The SBEACH calculation for R-43 advanced the MHWL approximately 17 ft. Material contributing to advance the MHW shoreline was taken from the dune and upper beach. 3-20 Chapter 3 Assessment of Coastal Change (Figure 3-8), recession at R-43 is considerably less. The smaller recession at R-43 is attributed to the beach-face slope being closer to equilibrium than at R-7. For R-43, SBEACH produced no washover because the dune crest was higher than the highest wave runup. Table 3-6 summarizes calculated change in MHW shoreline position and the loss of dune and beach volume landward of the location of the MHWL. Volume lost landward of the MHWL ranged between 2.1 and 3.9 cy/ft or 5.3 and 9.8 cu m/m of dune crest. These rates are in the lower range of storm-induced dune-erosion rates as documented by Savage and Birkemeier (1987). 16 ie a Initial 05/82 12 5 ----- Thanks 11/84 aa MN salaashes NE 03/89 = va ~-—- Gordon 11/94 > i) () Vu S Ws, c : ~ oes Se S 4 SASS SSS SS @ SSN LW SASS ~—SS 0 -4 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Distance Offshore, ft Figure 3-10. R-43: Beach recession by three selected recent storms. Table 3-6. Summary of potential erosion of Profile Line R-43 by three selected storms. Change of the MHWL, ft Maximum Volume- Loss Rate, cy/ft Storm Sequence Initial 05/1982 — Thanksgiving NE 11/1984 Post-Thanksgiving NE 11/1984 — NE 03/1989 Post-NE 03/1989 — TS Gordon 11/1994 -1.0 Total Change of the MHWL +14.4* 05/1982 to 11/1994 * From 1986 to 1996 (bracketing time of ownership) the MHWL change was calculated to be Chapter 3 Assessment of Coastal Change -2.7 ft 3-21 For comparison, beach-profile change between September 1972 and February 1998 measured at R-43 and R-44 is plotted on Figure 3-11. Profiles at Monument R-43 exhibit limited change from the dune crest to the MHW shoreline between May 1982 and December 1993. The lack of change at the dune face is attributed to shore-protection armoring. Profile R-44, 1,000 ft to the south, has not been armored, and the beach and dune responded differently to the storms. From September 1972 to January 1985, at least 19 storms impacted the Brevard County coast (Appendix C). At R-44, the upper beach and dune face receded about 30 ft (Figure 3-11), mainly. in response to the 1984 Thanksgiving Day storm. Significant beach and dune recession was described in the local newspapers for the Noro property and at other properties as a consequence of this storm. Calculations of beach and dune erosion caused by storms were performed for the profile at R-43 without representing the armoring. The modeling calculations produce almost the same erosion as that measured at R-44, which is not armored. Similar to beach changes recorded at R-7, where simulated storm impacts accounted for a significant portion of measured erosion and recession, all of the erosion on the upper beach (above 5 ft NGVD) and the dune face at R-43 and R-44 can be attributed to storm-induced erosion. Storm-induced beach-volume loss at Noro for the time of purchase is calculated from Table 3-6 as (2.8+2.1 cy/ft) x 100 ft = 490 cy. 3-22 Chapter 3 Assessment of Coastal Change Profile R-43 18 se j 09/20/72 ae 05/05/8 So 4 01/24/85 oe 08/28/85 #5 4 12/01/93 6 | 02/18/98 raj J 6 O45 LU 4 a © -5 | oO -10 4 Toe ie T Uae Se || trans | SS T —- 0 100 200 300 400 500 Distance from Monument, ft is Profile R-44 09/20/72 Pas 01/25/85 = 10 q 08/28/85 GY 12/01/93 Shae 02/18/98 2 ae ne} 1 3 go4 LW a ee 1 5) 4 Oo 1 Pe ee ee ee cee 0 400 200 300 400 500 Figure 3-11. Chapter 3 Assessment of Coastal Change Distance from Monument, ft Beach profile change at FDEP Monuments R-43 and R-44. 3-23 HL & i Me oes i Ul Li t ’ : zane ay Lo - iy ; : ; Th ie 7 nh Ae aS 6 ‘ bh ae. & # 4. Test Plaintiffs’ Properties This chapter presents an analysis of the coastal property losses and gains experienced by the test plaintiffs. The analysis draws directly from procedures and material described in the previous chapter dealing with long-term regional coastal processes and storm impacts. 4.1. Data Analyzed Surveys of beach profiles made by the FDEP and the USACE were analyzed for calculating changes in shoreline position and beach volume at the properties of the test plaintiffs according to the Joint Protocol (Appendix B, Tier 4a). These surveys constitute the primary database for quantifying shoreline position and sand-volume change as close to test plaintiffs’ properties as possible. Accuracy of the profile survey procedure is high (plus or minus inches). However, the profile lines are approximately 1,000 ft apart, and interpolation is necessary to estimate shoreline position at the properties. Variability in shoreline position associated with interpolation between profiles at Applegate is estimated at +10 ft based on small variations in shoreline orientation between profiles in August 1981. Estimated shoreline-position variability between profiles bracketing the Noro property is +15 ft because the upland area fronting the property in September 1986 was offset seaward of the MHWL for adjacent profiles. 4.2. Applegate Property The first test plaintiff, Don and Gale Applegate, own a 106.16-ft-wide parcel with the northern boundary located approximately 305 ft south of Monument R-7. Until about September 1997 the structure on the property was a single-family, two-story house that was originally constructed around 1960. In February 1997, the structure was determined to be unsafe by the City of Cape Canaveral, which required its removal. Because the house was vulnerable to collapse, the City deemed the structure to be unsafe and issued a demolition permit on July 31, 1997; according to the City building inspector, the house and rubble were removed by March 8, 1998. Don and Gale Applegate purchased their property in August 1981 for $15,000. At the time of purchase, there was no dune in front of the structure, but much of the 1974/75 beach fill still remained. Figure 4-1 shows the location of the Applegate house relative to the dune line in August 1971, and Figure 1-2 shows almost the same view in May 1996. The house had been located approximately 200 ft seaward of all other houses south of the Harbor in Brevard County. In the 1960s, concrete rubble and automobile parts were placed in front of the property in an attempt to protect against storm waves and flooding (Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2) and were still Chapter 4 Test Plaintiffs’ Properties 4-1 present in December 1997 (Figure 4-3 and Figure 4-4). Because of its extreme seaward location relative to all other houses and structures along the beach in its vicinity, the Applegate structure was always vulnerable to wave action and flooding during times of annual extreme high waters that accompany storms and hurricanes. During the October 1974 tropical depression, a part of the Applegate structure crumbled into the ocean. Prior to its removal in March 1998, the rubble in front of the Applegate property formed a barrier, similar to the Canaveral Harbor jetties, to sediment moving alongshore. Because the net direction of sediment transport is to the south, the Applegate rubble deprived beaches to the south of material. Figure 4-3 shows the beach of the adjacent property to the south (see also aerial views in Figures D-8 and D-10). The 1974/75 beach fill resulted in placement of 2.8 Mcy of beach-quality dredged material within the first 2 miles of the south jetty. The fill buried the rubble at the Applegate property and advanced the June 1973 MHWL about 530 ft, based on the “typical” construction cross section for the area contained in FDEP construction permit No. BBS 73-74-4. After adjustment of the fill, the shoreline was located approximately 300 ft seaward of the pre-fill MHWL (see Figure 3-9) and had buried this rubble at the Applegate property. Figure 4-1. Applegate property, August 1971. Presence of pilings and concrete rubble indicates this particular structure was vulnerable to wave action 10 years after construction (source: USACE, Jacksonville). 3 The Applegates, including prior owners within the family, had placed such rubble on the beach periodically since the 1960s. Its presence is documented in local newspapers (Orlando Sentinel, 10/18/68, 10/23/68, 11/05/68, and 07/17/69; and Florida Today 02/25/72, 03/31/72, and 05/06/73). 4-2 Chapter 4 Test Plaintiffs’ Properties ae Figure 4-2. Applegate property viewed from the south adjacent property, February 20, 1997. Location of Applegate residence and rubble on the beach face and in front of the dune line is clearly evident (source: N. C. Kraus). Figure 4-3. Seaward side of the Applegate property, December 3, 1997. Main structure was removed by Mr. Applegate around September 1997; however, the foundation of the dwelling and the rubble in front of the structure still remained (source: N. C. Kraus). Chapter 4 Test Plaintiffs’ Properties 4-3 Figure 4-4. Side view of Applegate property, December 3, 1997 (source: N. C. Kraus). In November 1984, the destructive Thanksgiving Day northeaster storm eroded the eastern shores of Florida. Some of the greatest damage by the storm took place in Brevard County (Balsillie 1985). The storm also caused major damage at the Applegate residence and unearthed the rubble that had been covered by the 1974/75 beach fill. The Applegates commissioned a boundary survey of their property in August 1981. However, the survey does not define the MHWL or any other seaward property boundary. Plaintiffs’ counsel commissioned a current-condition survey for the property in March 1996, and this survey does indicate the location of the MHWL, as well as the location of the structure and the rubble on the property at that time. Repetitive surveys of the beach profile at FDEP Monuments R-7 and R-8 document change in shoreline position and in sand volume between August 1981 and December 1997. At Monument R-7, the surveys closest in time agreeing seasonally to the purchase date were those made on September 6, 1979, and July 26, 1983. The MHWL location for these two surveys was obtained by linear interpolation in time to estimate the August 12, 1981, shoreline position. At Monument R-8, a slightly different procedure was applied to establish the MHWL at the purchase date. The two profiles bracketing the time of purchase were surveyed on November 6, 32 A USACE beach-profile survey was performed at R-7 on December 1979, which makes it the closest in time to the purchase date, but this survey would contain the winter position of the shoreline and would not be compatible with the August purchase date and the July 1983 survey. 4-4 Chapter 4 Test Plaintiffs’ Properties 1973, and on August 27, 1985. Temporal linear interpolation between adjacent profiles (R-7 and R-8) was not appropriate for this situation because of the major beach fill placed in 1974/75, significantly advancing the shoreline position. Therefore, trends identified to exist between August 27, 1985, and December 1, 1993, were extrapolated to estimate shoreline position and beach-profile characteristics on August 12, 1981. These estimates established the MHWL and beach-profile shape at the Applegate property based on distance from the monuments. 4.2.1. Shoreline Change Once an estimate of MHWL location was established for the purchase date, shoreline positions between August 12, 1981, and December 8, 1997, were compared. The difference in shoreline position for these dates is -237 ft at R-7 and -177 ft at R-8 (“minus” denoting recession). The difference in shoreline recession at R-7 and R-8 is consistent with the expected decrease in recession with distance from the jetty. Therefore, the proportionate change in shoreline position at the Applegate property has been approximately —216 +7 ft (recession) since August 12, 1981, a recession rate of about 13 ft/year. 4.2.2. Volume Change Applying the same interpolation procedures described above, change in beach sand volume landward of the MHWL was calculated. Change in sand volume between August 12, 1981, and December 8, 1997, at R-7 and R-8 are -89 and -65 cy/ft, respectively (See Figure 4-5 and Figure 4-6). Consequently, the volume lost landward of the August 12, 1981, MHWL to present, associated with the 216 ft of shoreline recession, is estimated as 80 cy/ftx 106 ft = 8,500 cy. Calculation of erosion at R-7 as caused by three of several storms that struck the Brevard coast after time of purchase indicated that at least 3,600 cy of material were lost by storm impacts. Therefore, at least 3,600/8,500 x 100 = 42 +21% of sand-volume loss since time of purchase is accounted for by storm-induced erosion that cannot be attributed to the Harbor. 33 The value of 8,500 cy is an overestimate of loss because the natural beach and dune adjacent to the Applegate property (used to estimate loss at Applegate) eroded more than the armored Applegate property. Chapter 4 Test Plaintiffs’ Properties 4-5 Profile Elevation, ft NGVD Profile Elevation, ft NGVD 4-6 Profile R-7 —S-— 09/13/72 —y— 11/06/73 —@— 09/06/79 5 07/26/83 ; 01/12/85 4 —~ gazes | — 120103 12/08/97 fx] Change (-88.6 cy/ft) —@— 08/12/81 (Applegate purchase) sam IZOa/97, @) 100 200 300 400 500 60C Distance from Monument, ft Figure 4-5. Beach profile surveys at Monument R-7 and calculated volume loss from the time of purchase (August 12, 1981). Chapter 4 Test Plaintiffs’ Properties Profile R-8 15 09/13/72 11/06/73 0 08/27/85 © 12/01/93 a 12/08/97 S| 2 o > ® Wu 2 9 (ale Q > O Zz t= = Bo) o > o i @ e 2 a mes Change (-65.1 cy/ft) : F —@— 08/12/81 (Applegate purchase) —— 12/08/97 “10 +— Bae a oo ee eee Co La 0 100 200 300 400 Distance from Monument, ft Figure 4-6. Beach profile surveys at Monument R-8 and calculated volume loss from the time of purchase (August 12, 1981). Chapter 4 Test Plaintiffs’ Properties 4-7 4.3. Noro and Company Property (Pelican Landing Resort) The second test plaintiff is Noro and Company, former owners of the Pelican Landing Resort (Figure 4-7). The Noro Company purchased the property from Pelican Landing Resort, Inc., on September 8, 1986, and 10 years later, on September 11, 1996, they sold the property to Ms. Sandra Daniels for $387,500 (a $125,500 profit). No survey is available for the purchase conditions of the property, but a survey commissioned by plaintiffs’ counsel dated March 1996 does exist and represents conditions near the selling date. The March 1996 survey contains the location of the structures on the property and the property boundaries, including the MHWL. The northern border of the property is located 395 ft south of Monument R-43, and the property is 100 ft wide. The adjacent beach properties in this area are mostly armored. Presently, the Noro property is protected by sandbags (geotextile armoring units) placed around its seaward perimeter, and remnants of a rock revetment (or rubble) and a wooden bulkhead can be observed (see Figures 4-7 and 4-8). The bulkhead protected the property prior to the time of purchase, but it was destroyed in the Thanksgiving Day northeaster of 1984. The 1984 Thanksgiving Day northeaster struck the coast of Brevard County 2 years before Noro purchased the property. This storm removed the beach, destroyed the wooden bulkhead built to protect the property against storm waves, and eroded the dunes at the site. A local newspaper (Florida Today 11/24/84) reported that the foundation of “Pelican Landing Resort in Cocoa Beach hangs over dunes edge...” after the Thanksgiving Day storm. The remains of the wooden bulkhead can be seen in Figures 4-7 and 4-8. This bulkhead indicates response to and anticipation of dune erosion caused by storms, because long-term change of the MHW shoreline has been negligible for at least 30 years. During low tide, a substantial beach is observed in front of the Noro property, as seen in Figure 4-9. 4-8 Chapter 4 Test Plaintiffs’ Properties Figure 4-7. View of rock revetment and remnant wooden bulkhead seaward of the Pelican Landing Resort, February 20, 1997 (source: N. C. Kraus). Figure 4-8. Oblique view of remnant wooden bulkhead, rock revetment, and sandbags along the seaward side of the Noro Property (Pelican Landing), February 20, 1997 (source: N. C. Kraus). Chapter 4 Test Plaintiffs’ Properties 4-9 Figure 4-9. View north of Noro property with a wide beach, February 20, 1997 (source: N.C. Kraus). 4.3.1. Shoreline Change Calculation procedures adopted to establish the magnitude of change in shoreline position and sand volume for the Applegate property were applied in quantifying change at the Noro property. The two beach-profile surveys bracketing the purchase date at Monuments R-43 and R-44 are August 28, 1985, and December 1, 1993. After establishing the MHWL (2.06 ft NGVD) associated with R-43 and R-44 (based on tidal datums for that locale), change in shoreline position was calculated at each line. At both R-43 and R-44, the MHWL on September 11, 1996, receded approximately 9 ft since the time of purchase (September 8, 1986). Therefore, the MHWL at the Noro property (which lies between the two monuments) also receded 9 ft during the time of ownership. Given previously discussed uncertainties in estimating shoreline position through interpolation between different seasons, a 9-ft change in shoreline position over a ten-year period cannot be considered a trend (does not signify a change). 4.3.2. Volume Change Configurations of beach profiles at R-43 and R-44 were established for the period of ownership by interpolation between profiles bracketing September 8, 1986, and September 11, 1996. Changes in sand volume are 1.4 and 0.0 cy/ft net erosion at R-43 and R-44, respectively (See Figure 4-10 and Figure 4-11). These values produce an average loss in sand-volume per 4-10 Chapter 4 Test Plaintiffs’ Properties linear foot of beach at the Noro property of 0.8 cy/ft, which is a total loss of 80 cy for the 100 ft of beachfront for the time of ownership. In agreement with the loss in sand volume determined from measurements at the Noro property during the time of ownership, numerical calculations of potential storm-induced beach and dune change indicate that the volume loss on the upper beach and dune south of the property (Monument R-44) was caused by storms. The existing armoring at the property should prevent dune erosion by wave action during ordinary high tides, so that only elevated water levels that accompany major storms will erode the dune face. Therefore, storms are deduced to be the dominant factor producing dune recession at the Noro property and not blockage of longshore sand transport by Canaveral Harbor. 34 The word “potential” indicates that armoring was not taken into account in the calculations of storm-induced beach erosion. Chapter 4 Test Plaintiffs’ Properties 4-11 Profile R-43 ® —— 09/20/72 el —@— 05/05/82 j —m— 01/24/85 aa —A— 08/28/85 —S— 12/01/93 02/18/98 Profile Elevation, ft NGVD oN mx Change (-1.4 cy/ft) —@— 09/08/86 (Noro purchase) a — 3— 09/11/96 (Noro sale) © Zz ca Si Ae) © 3 MHVV LU & = 2 al 0 100 200 300 400 500 Distance from Monument, ft Figure 4-10. Beach-profile surveys at Monument R-43 and calculated volume loss from the time of purchase (August 12, 1981). 4-12 Chapter 4 Test Plaintiffs’ Properties Profile R-44 15 —S= WSZUZ Bs *f —m— 01/25/85 2 —A— 08/28/85 2 ——~— Als a 5 02/18/98 = << MHVW c. 2. SSS i SS ee £ 9 aa -5 -10 “3 Change (0.0 cy/ft) —@— 09/08/86 (Noro purchase) ss —3— 09/11/96 (Noro sale) > © Zz Ee ne) © > a) Lu & ‘e Oo 0 100 200 300 400 500 Distance from Monument, ft Figure 4-11. Beach-profile surveys at Monument R-44 and calculated volume loss from the time of purchase (August 12, 1981). Chapter 4 Test Plaintiffs’ Properties 4-13 5. Summary and Conclusions The first section of this chapter gives a summary of the overall relevant coastal processes, and the second section summarizes beach and dune change at the properties of the two test plaintiffs, Applegate and Noro. The estimates of the changes were derived from FDEP and USACE beach- profile measurements and from numerical calculations of storm-induced beach and dune erosion as documented and discussed in previous chapters. 5.1. Coastal-Processes Assessment The primary objective of this assessment was to document the impact of the construction, operation, and maintenance of Canaveral Harbor on the properties of the plaintiffs and to quantify shoreline recession and losses of sand volume associated with beach change (with focus on the properties of the two test plaintiffs). The causes of shoreline erosion and recession were, therefore, identified and quantified. Two hypotheses guided the study approach: (1) the position of the shoreline is primarily controlled by changes in longshore sand transport and, therefore, is influenced by the presence of the Canaveral Harbor entrance and (2) erosion and recession of the beach and dune are primarily associated with storms and cross-shore sand transport. The action and damage produced by storms have a weak, if any, dependence on the presence of the Harbor entrance. After reviewing pertinent documents and compiling and analyzing existing and new data sets, a determination of Harbor-induced impacts on the beach was derived. Long-term regional changes in the beach were evaluated by analysis of shoreline-position and beach-profile survey data. An assessment of storm-induced erosion of beaches and dunes representative of the conditions at the properties of the two test plaintiffs was also made. The (significant) erosion of the beaches and dunes was estimated by reference to storm information and data. These data were input to a numerical model that calculates storm-induced beach and dune erosion. The extent of Harbor-induced impacts on downdrift beaches was determined with historical shoreline-position data for the period April 1948 to February 1970 for quantifying the response of the natural beach (prior to the major fill of 1974/75). Analysis of NOS data sets by the FDEP and in this study produced the same general trends. A well-defined zone of shoreline recession, limited to 7,000 ft south of Canaveral Harbor, is associated with the Harbor entrance (1948-1970). A 27,000-ft-long coastal segment south of this point experienced net shoreline advance for the same period, although the magnitude of shoreline advance is calculated in this study to be slightly greater that of the FDEP assessment. Between February 1970 and May 1996, an interval mainly covering a time period after the major 1974/75 USACE beach fill, net shoreline advance was found, illustrating the effectiveness and persistence of the fill over the past two decades. Chapter 5 Summary and Conclusions 5-1 The position of the HWL was determined for the period September 1972 to February 1998 from FDEP and USACE beach-profile surveys. This information supplemented long-term historical shoreline-position data and revealed beach response to the beach fill of 1974/75 and subsequent shoreline change. Beach and dune erosion and recession were calculated for three storms that struck the coast of Brevard County between 1979 and 1994, a time span that covers the time of ownership of the properties of the two test plaintiffs to the near present. Four conclusions emerged from the analyses: 1. The sand placed on Brevard County’s beaches by the USACE in 1974/75 extended the shoreline seaward of the 1948 (pre-Harbor) shoreline position and seaward of the September 1972 (pre-fill) shoreline position. The 1974/75 beach fill more than compensated for beach erosion that had occurred since the Harbor was constructed. The erosion-impact zone induced by the Harbor that was present on the (natural) beach prior to beach-fill placement was determined to have extended approximately 7,000 ft south of the south jetty. The fill was placed on the beach from the Harbor’s south jetty and extended south approximately 10,500 ft. The fill compensated for preexisting erosion over the distance of 7,000 ft, as well as nourished previously accreting areas that are located beyond 7,000 ft south of Canaveral Harbor. ii) The beach in the 7,000-ft erosion-impact zone covered by the fill has experienced erosion since 1974/75. However, the volume of sand placed on the beaches south of the Harbor in 1974/75, and subsequent smaller fills and nearshore placements in the 1990s, had been effective at maintaining the shoreline seaward of its September 1972 position (pre-fill). Therefore, nearly all impacts (beach erosion and shoreline recession) caused by the Harbor relative to pre-fill conditions, have been mitigated by placement of sand just south of the entrance channel. 3. Erosion that developed since the USACE 1974/75 beach fill extends approximately 17,000 ft south of Canaveral Harbor, an increase of about 10,000 ft relative to the southern terminus of the erosion-impact zone that had occurred along the pre-fill (natural) beach. The increased distance of erosion is attributed to adjustments in the beach fill resulting from geometric differences (equilibration of beach slope and spreading loss associated with beach fills) and, possibly, grain-size differences between the natural beach and the engineered beach. 4. Sand-bypassing rates were determined through analysis of long-term sediment transport processes by comparing pre- and post-Harbor bathymetric surveys. Sand bypassing can mitigate or eliminate downdrift beach erosion caused by Canaveral Harbor. Net longshore- transport rates were calculated for the vicinity of the Harbor. The volume of sand deposited along the beach north of the Harbor prior to its construction was subtracted from the volume 5-2 Chapter 5 Summary and Conclusions of sand that accumulated in the entrance channel and deposited north of the Harbor after its construction, yielding an estimated sand-bypassing rate. Based on analysis of bathymetric data spanning 65 years, the net sand transport rate near the north jetty was calculated as 308,000 cy/year. The associated sand-bypassing rate was calculated as 155,000 cy/year (taking into account the natural beach deposition rate prior to Harbor construction). Between 1972 and 1997, the USACE placed about 4.0 Mcy of sand on the beaches within 17,000 ft south of Canaveral Harbor, and the shoreline to at least 42,000 ft south of the Harbor experienced net advance. Therefore, the calculated volume of sand bypassing (155,000 cy/year x 25 years = 3.9 Mcy) nearly balances the sediment added to the beach by the USACE between 1972 and 1997. 5.2. Assessment for the Properties of the Test Plaintiffs The conclusions listed below are based upon analysis of FDEP and USACE beach profile data available at locations adjacent to the properties of the two test plaintiffs, supplemented by numerical modeling of storm-induced beach erosion. Main conclusions are as follows: Ik. Applegate Property. From August 12, 1981 (time of purchase), to December 8, 1997 (representing the present), the beach eroded and the shoreline receded. At least 95% of sand eroded from the beach fronting the Applegate property was removed from material placed during the 1974/75 USACE beach fill. The natural beach adjacent to the property prior to fill placement just recently began to erode (as shown on the December 8, 1997, beach profile at R-7). From August 12, 1981, to December 8, 1997, the MHW shoreline receded 216 +7 ft, and the beach eroded 8,500 cy, as determined from beach-profile surveys. These values can be compared with calculation results from storm-induced beach erosion modeling of the cumulative impacts of three of several storms that occurred within this time period. The modeling calculations gave approximately 70 ft of recession and a volume loss attributable to storms of (at least) 3,600 cy. Numerical calculations of storm-induced beach change indicate that at least 42 +21% of the net erosion that has occurred since the time of purchase can be associated with the impact of severe storms. . Noro Property. From September 8, 1986 (time of purchase), to September 11, 1996 (representing the time of sale), the MHW shoreline receded 9 +7 ft, and 80 cy of material were eroded from the beach fronting the Noro property. These small changes are within variability associated with seasonal beach change and do not define a trend. Numerical calculations of storm-induced beach erosion at the Noro property indicate that all net change in sand volume on the upper beach and dune face was caused by storms. Storms are deduced to be the dominant force producing beach and dune change at the Noro property and not blockage of longshore sand transport by Canaveral Harbor. Chapter 5 Summary and Conclusions 5-3 APPENDIX A. References Anders, F.J., and Byrnes, M.R. 1991. Accuracy of shoreline change rates as determined from maps and aerial photographs. Shore & Beach, 59(1): 17-26. Balsillie, JH. 1985. “Post Storm Report: The Florida East Coast Thanksgiving Holiday Storm of 21-24 November 1984,” Post Storm Report 85-1, Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores, Tallahassee, FL. Bodge, K.R. 1994. Port Canaveral Inlet Management Plan. Final Report to the Canaveral Port Authority, Jacksonville, FL, 296 pp plus four appendices. Bodge, K.R., and Savage, R.J. 1992. Inopportune Timing of Oceanfront Structures, Reprint from Proceedings, Beach Preservation Technology '92. Olsen Associates, Inc., Jacksonville, I Byres, M.R., and Hiland, M.W. 1995. Large-scale sediment transport patterns on the continental shelf and influence on shoreline response: St. Andrew Sound, Georgia to Nassau Sound, Florida, U.S.A. In: J.H. List and J.H.J. Terwindt (eds.), Large-Scale Coastal Behavior. Marine Geology, 126: 19-43. Bymes, M.R., McBride, R.A., and Hiland, M.W. 1991. Accuracy standards and development of a national shoreline change database. In: N.C. Kraus, K.J. Gingerich, and D.L. Kriebel (eds.), Proceedings Coastal Sediments ‘9]. American Society of Civil Engineers, NY, pp. 1027- 1042. Crowell, M., Leatherman, S.P., and Buckley, M.K. 1991. Historical shoreline change: error analysis and mapping accuracy. Journal of Coastal Research, 7(3): 839-852. Ellis, M.Y. 1978. Coastal Mapping Handbook. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Ocean Service. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 199 p. Florida Statute, Chapter 161. 1995. Beach and Shore Preservation, Part I-III, State of Florida. House Document 367, September 3, 1941. Canaveral Harbor, Fla., Te Congress, 1 Session, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. House Document 352, July 8, 1968. Brevard County, Florida, 90" Congress, ope Session, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. House Document 102-156, October 21, 1991. Canaveral Harbor, Brevard County, Florida, loose Congress, 1“ Session, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Hubertz, J.M., Brooks, R.M., Brandon, W.A., and Tracy, B.A. 1993. Hindcast Wave Information for the US Atlantic Coast. Wave Information Studies of US Coastlines, WIS Report 30, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, MS. Appendix A References A-1 Kraus, N.C. 1997. Distinguishing Cross-Shore and Longshore Processes in Shoreline Change Evaluation. Proceedings 1997 National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology, Florida Shore & Beach Preservation Association, Tallahassee, FL, 135-150. Kruczynski, L.R., and Lange, A. 1990. Geographic Information Systems and the GPS Pathfinder System: Differential Accuracy of Point Location Data. Trimble Navigation, Ltd., Sunnyvale, CA. Larson, M., and Kraus, N.C. 1989. SBEACH: Numerical Model for Simulating Storm-Induced Beach Change. Report 1: Empirical Foundation and Model Development, Technical Report CERC-89-9, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, MS. . 1991. Mathematical Modeling of the Fate of Beach Fill. In: H.D. Niemayer, J. van Overeem, and J. van de Graaff (eds.), Artificial Beach Nourishments, Special Issue of Coastal Engineering, 16: 83-114. Larson, M., Kraus, N.C., and Byrnes, M.R. 1990. SBEACH: Numerical Model for Simulating Storm-Induced Beach Change. Report 2: Numerical Formulation and Model Tests, Technical Report CERC-89-9, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, MS. Lyles, S.D., Hickman, L.E., Jr., and Debaugh, H.A., Jr. 1988. Sea level Variations for the United States 1855-1986. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Rockville, MD, 182 pp. Merchant, D.C. 1987. Spatial accuracy specification for large scale topographic maps. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 53: 958-961. Savage, R.J., and Birkemeier, A.M. 1987. Storm Erosions Data From the United States Atlantic Coast. In: N. C. Kraus (ed.), Proceedings Coastal Sediments ’87, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, 1445-1459. Senate Document 140, September 24, 1962. Canaveral Harbor, Florida, ey Congress png Session, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Shalowitz, A.L. 1964. Shore and Sea Boundaries. 2 Vols. Publication 10-1, U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1967. Beach Erosion Control Study on Brevard County, Florida, U.S. Anny Engineer District, Jacksonville, Jacksonville, FL. March 1987. Canaveral Harbor, Florida. General Design Memorandum, U.S. Army Engineer District, Jacksonville, Jacksonville, FL. December 1992. Canaveral Harbor, Florida, Sand Bypass System. General Re-evaluation Report with Environmental Assessment, U.S. Army Engineer District, Jacksonville, Jacksonville, FL. August 1993. Canaveral Harbor, Florida, General Re-evaluation Report, U.S. Army Engineer District, Jacksonville, FL. A-2 Appendix A References U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. September, 1996. Brevard County, Florida, Shore Protection Review Study, Feasibility Report with Final Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. Army Engineer District, Jacksonville, Jacksonville, FL, with accompanying report of the Division Engineer dated September 20, 1996, and with accompanying report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 23, 1996. Wise, R.A., Smith, S.J., and Larson, M. 1996. SBEACH: Numerical Model for Simulating Storm-Induced Beach Change. Report 4: Cross-Shore Transport Under Random Waves and Model Validation with SUPERTANK and field Data. Technical Report CERC-89-9, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, MS. Appendix A References A-3 rh ’ eg Wy La f 0 ; i i} c 1 it U | hee Hf ' } HN ui K Tey f ‘ 1 i i 4 ae f ‘ f WW f I an: i 1 : : oe om 4 ds va a i " mm voy ge D lke : i BL itetiD i i " La iy ; i i» on : Lite 2 Oe ‘ Biya ‘ | arms palette xy | ett ‘hn eertate ett Vai APPENDIX B. Joint Protocol Applegate et al. v. United States MEASUREMENT AND ANALYSIS - JOINT PROTOCOL December 20, 1996 (citation to Addenda added 1/15/97) This document specifies the manner in which an estimate of the actual and specific losses incurred by the Plaintiffs shall be identified. This Protocol is based on present conditions and conditions at the time of purchase of each property as determined through application of a tier of methodologies described below that are ranked according to degree of accuracy. Losses shall be determined as the change in land area and volume above the mean high water line (MHWL). The Protocol does not distinguish the extent of losses or erosion that may be attributable to the inlet or the losses or erosion that may be attributable to causes independent of the inlet. All estimates of losses shall be calculated from the date of each Plaintiff's purchase of property until the date of the surveys performed in accordance with this Protocol. The following is a description of a protocol based on consideration of State of Florida statutes and on the coastal processes and data available for Brevard County: Current Conditions: (1) A MHWL survey shall be performed for each Plaintiffs property. The surveys shall be performed by using a methodology approved by the Bureau of Survey and Mapping, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter 177, Part Il, the “Florida Coastal Mapping Act of 1974” and Chapter 61G-17-6 Florida Administrative Code. The resultant surveys shall be provided to counsel of the United States and filed with the Bureau of Survey and Mapping. (2) Profile surveys shall be performed at the lateral boundary of each property (see Addendum 1), on each side of all significant discontinuities of dunes, and on each side of shore-parallel and shore-normal protective structures located on the active beach or dune of each property. The maximum lateral distance between profile surveys shall be a hundred feet (100 ft). On each profile survey line, the location and elevation of the dune crest, vegetation line, dune line (top of slope at seaward face of dune), seaward toe of the dune where it meets the beach berm, MHWL, and the locations of other major changes in elevation on the beach above the MHWL shall be surveyed for the property of each Plaintiff by a Registered Land Surveyor. The locations of shore-protection structures and their top elevation shall also be surveyed on each Plaintiff's property. All elevations shall be referenced to the local National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929. With respect to Tier 4 on the attached Table 1, at each FDEP “R” series monument that is located directly north or south of a Plaintiffs property one (1) profile shall be surveyed at each monument. All surveyed profiles will be tied to existing FDEP Coastal Construction Control line monuments utilizing survey traverse lines. Profiles shall include (a) stationing along the profile from the intersection of the profile with a baseline defined as a line connecting the FDEP monuments to the north and south of the property, and (b) associated elevations at a minimum Appendix B Joint Protocol B-1 spacing of twenty feet (20 ft) on center and at breaks in slope from the baseline to wading depth—at least seaward of elevation 0.0 ft NGVD. All profiles shall be surveyed at the same magnetic bearing as those profiles surveyed historically by FDEP at the same monument or at surrounding monuments as appropriate. The closure accuracy of the horizontal control traverse shall meet or exceed | part in 20,000. The profile shall be surveyed using a calculated angle turned off the traverse line based on an average bearing of the historic profiles for the two adjacent R-monuments located north and south of the subject tract. All benchmarks used shall be Third-Order, Class-I accuracy or better. All vertical control will be based on closed bench runs through at least two control monuments. The “shoreline” shall correspond to the MHWL as determined by the FDEP Bureau of Surveying & Mapping in accordance with Chapter 177 Part II. Purchase Conditions: Estimated conditions at the time of purchase of the property of each Plaintiff shall be calculated by using the highest possible tier of methodologies as listed in Table 1 and Addendum 2. Losses: Estimated losses that have occurred at the property of each Plaintiff shall be determined in the form of “loss of land” and in the form of “volumetric loss” from the beach and dune as determined by the Current Condition and the Purchase Condition. Loss of land shall be prescribed as the area in square feet calculated from the average change in MHWL position multiplied by the frontage of the property (Addendum 2). Where topographic data exist, volume losses shall be calculated by spatially weighted average end methods. Where topographic data do not exist, volume losses shall be calculated based on the change in average position of the MHWL and assumed profile shapes. Documentation: For each Plaintiff's property, documentation of the results of the application of the above-described Protocol shall include the following: 1. A plan view depiction showing to scale; a. Current conditions as surveyed; b. Purchase conditions including the historical data characterizing the conditions; c. State Plane Coordinate reference grid; Cross sections depicting the profile data used to determine volumetric changes; Ground-level photograph of the subject property; Narrative description of the application of Protocol; and nA BF WwW N Copies of surveys and/or aerial photographs used to establish purchase conditions. Nothing herein constitutes an admission of liability by defendant or acknowledgment by defendant of any loss. B-2 Appendix B_ Joint Protocol Table 1. Tiers of Joint Protocol for determining location of the mean high water line (MHWL) and the dune-beach cross section at time of purchase. Tier 1 (surveys within 2 months) State-approved MHW boundary survey of property within Topographic survey of property within +2 +2 months of purchase date. months of purchase date. Controlled beach-profile survey through subject property Controlled beach-profile survey through within +2 months of purchase date of subject property. subject property within +2 months of purchase date of subject property. State-approved MHW boundary survey of a neighboring Topographic survey of a neighboring property within +2 months of purchase date of subject property within +2 months of purchase date property. of subject property. Controlled beach-profile survey through neighboring Controlled beach-profile survey through property within +2 months of purchase date of subject neighboring property within +2 months of property. purchase date of property. Tier 2 (surveys within 6 months) Same as Tier 1, within +6 months. Same as Tier 1, within +6 months. Tier 3 (surveys within 1 year) Same as Tier 1, within +12 months Same as Tier 1, within +12 months Tier 4 (Interpolation beyond 1 year) If data for a subject property are not available to meet the quality and time criteria of Tier 1 through Tier 3, then either or both of the following shall be used by temporal and spatial interpolation to establish conditions at purchase as follows: (a) two sets of profile or shoreline surveys (or a combination) on the subject or neighboring properties [Known sources of data include profile and historical shoreline data maintained by the FDEP.], (b) aerial photographs [Known sources and dates of aerial photographs are U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1951; FDEP, 12/72, 05/74, 05/80, 06/80, 07/80, 10/85, 11/85; Olsen Associates, Inc., 11/93, and U.S. Army Engineer District, Jacksonville, 12/93.] The basis of the data set selection shall be included in the documentation. Appendix B_ Joint Protocol B-3 Table 2. Notes to Table 1 for the tiers of Joint Protocol. 1 2 The highest tier, according to the availability of data, shall be followed. Any exceptions to the Protocol shall be cited in the documentation with a description of the basis of the exception. For determining the location of the MHW boundary on subject properties from beach-profile surveys on neighboring properties, the MHW elevation shall be established on the beach-profile surveys and interpolated between them. Controlled profile-survey data sets of variable coverage are available from the following sources for the specified dates: FDEP, 09/72, 11/73, 09/79, 11/81, 05/82, 07/83, 01/85, 03/86; 11/93; and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, 12/93. For use of data from neighboring properties, the neighboring property must be located within +1000 ft. of the subject property, and documentation shall be provided to demonstrate the subject and neighboring properties possess similar conditions (e.g., presence of armoring, beach fills, dune height). If the neighboring properties possess different characteristics, for example, one is armored and the other is not, then a rational analysis procedure shall be applied and documentation provided to transfer the location of the MHW line from one to the other. For example, the relationship in positions of the MHW boundary at the two properties in the Current Condition could be used. B-4 Appendix B_ Joint Protocol ADDENDUM 1: CURRENT CONDITIONS ADDENDUM TO THE MEASUREMENT AND ANALYSIS JOINT PROTOCOL PROVIDING A METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE NORTH AND SOUTH BOUNDARY LINES OF THE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE PLAINTIFFS. Determining the approximate locations of the North and South boundary lines for the purpose of performing beach-profile surveys is necessary. To accomplish this task in an efficient and cost- effective manner, the location of physical improvements such as roadways, buildings and other structures, fences, walls, hedgerows, and other indications of possession as a basis of measurement or the property boundary in question will be utilized. Measurements will be performed using record dimensions from the deed descriptions and plat references and scaled dimensions from the tax assessor’s maps or aerial photographs of the area. This methodology will place the profile lines in close proximity to the actual property boundaries (about +2 ft). All profile lines will be located in reference to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL). If property boundaries cannot be determined in this manner by visual inspection, then a boundary survey will be performed in accordance with Florida Statute. ADDENDUM 2: DETERMINING PROPERTY WIDTH ADDENDUM TO THE MEASUREMENT AND ANALYSIS JOINT PROTOCOL PROVIDING A SET OF TIERS FOR DETERMINING PROPERTY WIDTH FOR CURRENT CONDITIONS AND LOSSES. Volume and area computations will be performed utilizing the deed or plat dimensions or, if a previous survey record is available, survey dimensions would be utilized in accordance with the following order: Appendix B Joint Protocol B-5 \ fy Tay i Pins, sec fede ne ns omer t= APPENDIX C. Storm Data Table C-1 gives a detailed chronology of storms to impact the Brevard County Coast. Appendix C Storm Data C-1 yoeag BUIAWS MAN Jeou OUeNY au} pesajua ‘edwe| je |jeypue| ouesWNH| Ol |LZOLLZ6L ‘Bale |PIACUED [Od Ul |[eypUE| PEW! PUe JSeOD JSey a4} Huo|e Epuio|4 JSOMUOU 0} payx9eJ} WO}S Jed!dol1 | Ol | 6060916) “YOU 0} UJNOS WOY Epld| 4 JO JS209 jsea payiys euediNH| OL |LZ80916L ‘yoeag euojAeq je |/eypue] apew pue jseod jseq ay} Buoje samyjou payxoe} SuUedWNH | OL |rososlet | QI|IAUOSOeP JESU ORUEHY SU} Palau ‘epuo|4 MMS UI |/eypue| suedINH| OL |600L0L6L “Yoeag 20005 JeaU SHUEY OU} Peleus ‘EpUO|4 MS Ul |!eypue| WUOIS Jeo1do11] O1 [zz6o6061| _——P Jeleneueg aden Jano Ajoauip passed ‘yOu 0} YINOS WO EPHO|4 JO }SEOD see PELs BUBILINH| Ol {27806061 p TIeNIS 12 ORUERY Su} PSsa]US “EPUO|4 MS Ul |eypue| euedWINH] OL [yl9og061| _—s P| Reg eduie, yBnosyj Jing ey} pesequa ‘ajepsapne] 34 pue yorag Wied Ise UBEMedq ||eypUe| SUBD}INH Boia BO60E061L | ep] “eJOSeses je JIND palajua ‘ajeprapne] }4 Jeeu |jeypue] suediiny oie rO80LO6L PSS) “YOU O} YINOS WO} EPO] JO JSEOD IIJUEI}WY¥ BY} PEYIS SUBSIINH| Ol | €O806681 NOILVINYOSNI Alvd |Sad9yNOS JO}JSEOUON — AN (uoissaidap jeoido.} Jo ‘Wuo}s jeoldoy ‘auediiny 9") audjoAD jeoIdod | - OL INYOLS 40 AdAL LVINNYOS GGINWAAAA NI GALNAS3ud 3uYvV SALVO Aob eeou' oyu MMWy//:d}Y - SyiSqem Ja}USH SUeDWINH JEUOIeN ‘UOH}e}SIUILPY queudsow}y pue aJuesdG |euOI}eN | npe yw smu qjwuns//:dyy - ayisqem ‘74 ‘euinog|ay| ‘ed|Aas Jaujeayy |EUOEN uoljoas siadedsman pantyouy - Aveigiq o1qnd ‘epuoj4 ‘eusnoqayy | SW ‘BungsyolA ‘uoe}S JUeWedxy shemuajen\ Jgauibug Awy $°f ‘Z1-b-dud Hodey weibog yeesey Bulbpeaiq «SN BU} JO S]SeOD OdIxa/J JO IND pue ysey au} JO} eseq e}EQ WO}S jed1dol1 V,, VEEL 1238 MN Jeuyeyos , “UOISOIF JSEOD pue yoeag 10} sjadsy uOHeIqyed, ‘S86l HT ‘Slisieg Y jwYy xepul/aljue}e/aueoiny/npe enpind suuye dxmj/:dyy ‘ayIsqem ‘AjsuaAlUN ONPINd ‘JBAIBS MMM JOSseo0ld Jaujea\\ SUL “dXM _ Sailer jesaneued JO yyNoS jII4 yoeag e jo BulJoyuoyy uo yodey,, 9/6] epuo| jo Ayisueniuy F4 ‘ayjiAsaule ‘epuoj4 jo ‘Alup ‘Buuseulbuy sa1ydeiBouesoge pue |e}seod jo juewuedsaq ‘6¢ ‘ON yoday a6aljoD Jue eas eplo|4 ,'6 ‘ON HOdey sjaju| Jo AWessojg ‘aduedUZ |eJeACULD WOd,, 0861 A'S UNH BPUO|4 JO Seauy |e}SEOD U! SWA|GOJd SUeDIINH JO sisfjeuy Yodey Aanins, “L961 JOVSN Pp 74 ‘ayisuosyoer ‘Joujsig Jeeulbuy AWwy “S'f) ,JUBWEa}e}S yoedwy je}uUawWUOIIAUQ jeul4 Ym Voday Ajiqiseay ‘Apnig MaiAay J99fO1d UONDE}Od SJOYS “14 ‘AyUNOD psieasig, ‘9661 JOVSN 9 74 ‘aiAuosyoer ‘Joujsiq Jeaulbuy Ay S°f , 14 ‘AjUNOD puensig UO Apnis jojuo9d uolsosg yoeeg, 4961 JOVSN “4 Sd ‘YNG4 ‘1-Sg Oday Wi0}S }SOd .. V86L JOQUISAON Z-LZ JO WIO}S AeplloH BuiniBsyuey| JSeOD sey epuo|4 Syl ‘Woday WO}S }SOd,, G86L HT Alllisieg He DD na9 a) ‘VLivd 40 SADYNOS © ‘sayoeag Ajunog pievaig Buroedui swuo}s paiyuap! yo Aeuuuns jesiHojouosyd “£-9 alge Appendix C Storm Data C-2 ‘yoeeg wed Isan Jeau Aqua onueny 0} pe] ye} PueMseayLOU ‘dij JsemujNos s.ejnsuluad je |}eJypue] eueoNY [oi] 8LG08P6L ‘yeJaneuey adeg jo dij au} sano Ajoesip passed pue jseog jsey ay} Huoje puemyyou payoes} WUO}s JeoIdos | oe | OLSOSr6L UOISS8991 BUNP ‘psyOde UOISOIS BJAASS '/ 76] das 6} UO SpuIM UdW-Gg soda Fy Wy ‘UOHeINp WIO}s Aep-¢ 1 AN |61602¢61 “SpuIM Udu- « AND yoeeg eEWweyeg au} Jeau $}aeJ}s ay} UO pues Hulysem Yyoeag oy} Bulpunod sees ybiy yjim yBnos sem uesd0 OY L “inoy se sali Og se UBly se peyoeel avey 0} ples aJe s}sndg “papsodes sem pum Bululeysns (snoy 19d) ajitu-¢g, payodai py ‘ai|iAuosyoer ye OUeNYY paeid}us PUe Y9eJ} PIEMJSESYLOU-YYOU PaMo||oy ‘BdIUa/ Je |JeJpue| SUBOWINH ‘Yenis ye Wespue| euediunH| O1 [zososesl| P| 'yoeag euojKeq Je |/eypue| ape pue Jseod jSey oy} Huoje puemysemyyou payoey wuo}s jeoidos1 | O1 |ezsoze6t| P| | OL [92609861 4IND a4} Oju! sape|Hierq ey} YBNowy] yO!) PIeAYSEMUINOS e PeMo}|O} ‘Wel, Je [Jeypue| suediNH| D1 [OEOLSE6L ‘Shay PAEJSEASP :SOYO}EYULA}S JE9U ||eJPUE| ‘YOU O} YINOS WOJ EPUO|4 JO JSLOD JIND peynys sueoinH| O1 [6zs0Seél ul SpuIM UdWW-Q9 peLiodal Py py ‘eave JaAly Jepag Oo} yoes} plemsemuUyOU ‘yoeeg Wed Jsa/ je |JeJpue] euedWNY JL | Fesoeee! a ‘uoHersja yoeaq ul dojp y-¢ & payodsl sacinos JeujO , BUIP|ING BY} JO SPs UO BY} 0} JSOLUJE SUBD Ja}eEM ay} Jeu} Aepsiny| ples ‘abeuew ‘siuueq Hy yBnouyye oulseo au} je peyodes sem abewep on ‘peAosjsap sem sacejd au} Jo Swios HuljuOsy yJEMap!s au} pue }so} sem Apedoud JQUUOD,O By} JO PJeA JUO BU} JO [Je Aljeonoesd yng ‘Aue yo pabewep jsea] au} alam SawOY AsuWI] pue soly aut “sBuljid juoj suiuusapuN 0} Buluuibeq sem Jayem au} Se UOSUYOr “Ay pue AeId “-9’9 ‘SalIH “Q'S 0} BulBuojaq SN | }Ochce6l OL IZLOLPr6L f'a'p'o sasnoy ay} a0eJg 0} Alesseoou swede | ‘uONOas JEU) UI SHuUIP|ING ay) Jo SeyoIOd JUOY BU} O} JSOWWE J GL Jnoge JO 9OUeISIP 2 JO} OJUI jND Sem ‘UBIY Y gL aq O} ples ‘UN|q au, “Sasnoy jYBIe Jo UO, UI yUeG aU) Aeme pauseMm UB8D0 By} Baym YOeag auJNoOg|ay }e P9lND90 UO!}DaS Siu} Ul aBewWep jsajyeasH aU], palodes Ppp) ‘“Ja}SeauLION ‘Hens Jesu OUeNY pasajua ‘epvO|4 MS UI |!eypue| sueoNH| OL |zo6Ole6l] ——s—P ‘ejooiyoejedy ye puejulew paiajua pue ‘Jseod 4JjND ay} pays ‘saepe|Gieng au} jo diy Wayjnos au) Bugle |Jeypue] Joug aueoWwNy | o4 |zesoezer ‘dui GZ 0} 09 JO SJUsWeINSeEwW PUIM [290] PeLOdes PJ) :yoeeg Wed sof Je |JeJpue| ouedNH| O1 [90608z6L| fie"p'o'q ‘aBewep jeo0| JyBis ‘spuim udw-99 peyoda (r_pj) /euinor Saw, auUINOG/ay,y ‘8012! 14 1e [!eJpue] euedWNY | OL |€0808zel | [‘'a'p'o “SISA 4 Je8U JIN| au) payajua ‘Iwei\y Je yeypue; euedWWNY | OL |LLeogz6L | ‘Jelaneueg aded je |jeypue| 0} yoeag Wied JSeA\ WOdj seOD OiUeNY epo|4 pays eueowny | OL [2zz09261 | 'a‘p‘o'gq ‘euoyfeq pue auljsniny js usemjaq onueNy palajua ‘epuo|4 MMS Ul |fespue| euedNH| OL [6zLLSZ6L NOILVINYOSNI J1vVGd | SS39YNOS Appendix C Storm Data ‘jesaneued adeo jo you ysn[ onuepy pesejue pue ejnsuluad ay} ssou9e peyoey ‘edwie| je |Jeypue| suedwiNH peweuuy Ol |41906S61 ower euestune| o1 |sooreser] may @ Spues ay} JapuN Ajaujua alam pasodxe painjoid Yajno pue sbuljid ay | “JEWOU O} UN}eJ 0} SPUES BU} JOJ SUJUOLU XIS SLIOS B42} JYHILW }! PS}ELUN}SE JBUOISSILULUOD ao1jod onuejeipu| ‘Jabies AueY ‘sapl jeuoydeoxe au} Aq 51 loeorgser y JINS ay} OJ! JNO yOeq PayseM oem ‘obe shep Maj e Ajuo Jazopling e Aq yo pajang| ejam YoIyM ‘spues By] “Yoeaq : QG6L AON 90 UO ‘e}aIN SueoWNH JSe05 NURI Uj JO JSee SEIIW JO Speypuny ‘yOes) PeMY}OU e pamol|oy (||) |eZeH euedIUNH]| OL |SooLyseL| 4 (a ae ee a a ee SOD OIJUEI\V OU} JO SEO SA|IW JO SpaipUNY ‘yOeJ} PJEMYLOU & PSMO||OJ |UeD SuedWNY ie OIL | 9Z80PS6L aaa "eale auInog|ay ul abewep a}q| ‘ydw Zg Oo} s}snb yyIM Spulm YdW-Gp O} -GE peyiodel r/ [| JOOLESEL typ" eB Jey) payodes sem}, SIa}EMYHESIG USYOIQ JO 19] S}Sod Aq UMOYs SI eas a4} Aq Aeme USBye} UBEq Sey YOeEq au) JOY p sUL JAMO] YZ |EUOIIPpe Ue aq 0} payeUI}sa UBEq Sey |9A9| YoRaq 94} StU} JEU} GdUIS palleAoid Seas Aneay asnecag ‘J8AaMoH 4 OM Ajayewixoudde Aq pasamo] SEM YoeAaq 94} JEU} PA}JEUI}SO SEM }! LUJO}S s Aepsen | Jay\y ‘ease au} ul yoeag ay} Buoye je pue| Jo 1/0} sy! Buiejo Ss} ueaoO JUeNY SUL, :7G6L 90 LZ UO pue *,UesD0 Joy z Ajayewixoidde yoesaq ay} pasamo) Aepsa}sa uesoo yBnol 94} yeu} peinBy sem yi yoeeg eusnoqjaly ul }ods 3U0 JY 00} YOeaq SU} JJO pues JO PEO] S}! YOO} UBIO JIJUeHY SUL,, :}d’eOxXQ “UO!ONISUOD HO, 0} JOLd UO!|SC’e ‘yoeag O1e/\ je SUEY pasajua ‘epHO|4 MS Ul [Jeypue| MOH eUedWINH| OL [LooLlsel| P| ‘aia eueowinH| OL [grsorsél| | “Munoo ailjue Huoje uolsoiea yoesq JOUIW ‘}JewuOU aAoge Y p-€ SEepl} ‘s}snb ydw-|7 ‘spuim f'9'p'9! peulejsns udu-gg peyodas ry ‘ejnsuiued ay} jo sixe Buc] dn yybiesjs peyxoed} ‘weil ye jjespuel ‘Bury euediiny OL JElOlos6l) s!ePpoq “‘Ayoag wos le\do1,| O1 |sog0ss6L 9} 0} auop aAey sap YBiy sAep Maj sed ay} JEYM SMOYs UCOUJAYe Aepiaysaf uaye} aunjoid siu, - Aeme paysem ‘QUINOG|I\| Je DUEN GU} Paejus pue aje}S ay} SsOOe PJemsea payxoe} ‘ede | je |jeypue| ||EZe} WIO}S JedIdos] AiBue ay} 0} }SO] pansijaq sem pue| Jo JuNOWe JeaJ6 OU yng ‘jUO’ UeBDO By} Huoje ||e seul] Ayiadoid 0} yoeq peysnd JIN |}cOlcs6L JO doUAaPIAS - suNP papeayyjng smoys ojoUud ‘s}snB ydw-zg ‘spulm paulejsns ydw-gy peyodal PL) ‘Ja}SCOYLON OAIY [eISAUD Jeau |jeJpue| NOILVINYOSNI AdAL| salva |saounos | 4 fereseand : oye ; yoeeq SolUeleIpuy, ‘Uoydeo YIM UOISOJe Yyoeaq jo ydeiBojoyd e payuld PL : “pauluapuNn SEM G4V HoIjed }e JO] Hulysjed e jo uoljod "y'q sem yoeaq au] ‘JaJeEMyeeiq peysews e jo ys} S}sod UO payieW Yes au} JO Sul] |eUIHO 94} 0} Hulpsooce ‘ajo ‘aiqyeueowinH| O1 [ersozser| ‘uoISOJe JO UOUSW ou pue sebewep jewiuiw peyiode py Appendix C Storm Data tt O Jejpue] Buiyew sandu ‘auljyjseoo aueny au} pajaljeued DUE PJEMULOU PSUIN] LWJO}s ay} ‘|esaAeueD aded jo jsee sali QOZ noge eaJe ue payors ji usUAA ‘SeJaNeY "PUS SU} Je INO 80) Ma} JaujOUe }sO] JaId G4y youJeEd ‘pauejeasy} sBuljjamp ‘yoeaq auinogjayy ul uolsoJe YOeaq 3JOABS WOL ‘pasdel}oo au} ing ‘seas Hulbes au) jo daams au} puejysuyiM 0} pebeuew Jaiq Buiysi4 yoeag e000 “ ‘nayepunul sem esnoy abewed sjsesuos pue uu] epeweY ‘uu| AeplloH au} Jo JU’ Ul EaJe aU) ‘Yoeag e000 edwie] je JIN auy Jejseauvion| 3N |voores6h| uj °° ‘JeWuOU aAoge jae} 9eJy} Buluuns sap} UBiy Aq UOIso1e YOeaq JO SWiOdeJ BWOS Useq aAeY BJaY] ~° ‘SeoUeG AN/OL | ¥C60E961 ! -IN|sip |ed!ido} snoloidsns omy uo payoayo Neaing Jayjeapy Bu} ‘awWI] awes au} }V ‘ejnsulued au} UMOp peddijs UOJ} P[OO }SJlj S.UOSeas au} se Aepo} Sayoeaq eploj4 jseoD seq paiayeq sajeH pue seas AneoH,, peyodal rj [eee J| « COB) JEQuisd9q U! WJO}s Ja|}ewWs e Aq payoljul sabewep wold pasedes useq jou pey sayoeeq se pajoedxe uey} sajeaib sem abeweq ‘PSUILApUN dJaM SpeOs pue Saljiedoid yoeaq awos pue abewep uolsola ajqeJsapisuod pauleysns seyoeeg}] IAN |E€OZOS96L y uBiy -ajej9uab jseoo 7+ Jo Jsea Cale ainsseid Mo} e Aq paonpoid spulm jseaujou Huos}s SnOnuUOD, ‘Ja}SeSyLON JeIseoyON| SN [9ztizgel| | ‘yoeaq juaoelpe pue jajoy| Spuejap!| au} 0} abewep pue seas AAeay panuljuod Jo uolje}oedxa ul UOeNoeAs Ajsey e spew Buipling jusoelpe ue jo sjuapisas pue Aepsaysa ‘wd O€:L Je Ja}OW SPUEjapl{ au} ye JUeINE}SaJ BU} Jo UOI}O9S Je91 BU} PSUIE|O UCDO IIJUeII\ passo}-eueswny ( VY, peHodai ajolye Z96L 190 LZ V JUHI UI SEAS ‘Ja}]OH JO} USES adoH ON, :pes ajoe BulAuedwoose au] JL |vlOlcg6t “4 Aneay ay} iy6f 0} }yHiu 8} O}U! Je} PEjlo} UBLUYJOM Se dJ8Y UMOYS SI UU] JOJO) PUE|@p!]| au} Je |JeEemeas au} Jo ajbue snoweosid aul - 28S ay} jsuleby US), :UOdeD YY [a}OW OUe]eIpU] Jo OJOYd peysiignd ry) ‘e\|4 sueowny “auljyjseoo ue eu} Buljajjesed ‘psemseaujiou i ‘pebewep sem said au} Jaye SJOYS 0} payjp pey yoiym ‘Jaid Buiysy gay AOUWJed yO seoaid dn Huryoid g4y yOWIed Je SMAID ¥JOM SMoYUs O}OUd] AN |SOEOZI6L [y'y'a'q PLIN Z9BL JEN LL ‘Ayunod pueAdig Waujnos Ul aBewep aianas ‘WJo}s Aepseupany ysy/Jeulean, J1e4 a}SeauLON | SN [oosoos6!| 9] p9Ja}Ude1 PUe ‘}JS9M SU} O} YOEG PauUN} ‘WeN}S 0} Pyemjses payed} ‘EPUO|4 AS UI J/eJpUe] BOUBIO|4 WO}S JedIdol | [on | 41600961 ee “WI0}S 9y} JO JyUHIay Hulunp Ssusnogjayy ye Spulm Ydw-G7 payodei pyyy “euoj\Aeq pue sujsniny 3S uasaemjagq ‘epuaig wuojs jeoidout | OL |gzzoog61| FP ‘yoreg O19 Je SNUeNY ey} Paiejue pue PseMYLOU paeyoeW) ‘eplo|4 MS UI [leJpue| yIpNf euedNH| Ol [ZLoLeseL| ss P| JSEOD IueHV JO Sea SAIL JO SpaspUNY ‘yOeI} PUEMYJIOU Oee Ue PaMojjo} aloe1g SueowNH| O1 |OZG6O6S6L ‘J ‘JaISESUUON| FN [OEEOE96L “SANUNOD PueAsig 0} NeSSeN WO} }SEOD EPO] JSeayou asjUa Huoje Hulpooy jeyseoo pue ins ybnos ‘sepy Ja}0/\) UdwWAN eas au} }e ||]emeas pohewep e Jo aseq ay} 0} ySnidn aAem Mous sojoud Hulkuedwosoy_, }Yubiu Ise} , BUIP|INg ay} 0} eaHhewep AAneay asneo pue jem au} Aeme Yysem oO} pausjeaiy} yeu} ef} auedwiNyY Aq dn pans sees peaow pue ‘yoedg Wied }Se/ JeaU SuUll]SeOd au} paysnig ‘eae IWelA\| WO) PIEMULOU payoes} EU sUeOLWUNY [ax] 92802961 DUE Bu} J9}Ud 0} eEjnsuluad au} SsolDe Jsea PUue YOU peydeI} UU} ‘sajdeN Jesu |jeJpue; EuUOG sue dWNY [ai] 62800961 Hoes NOILVINYOSNI divd |S39YynNOs C-5 Appendix C Storm Data “UJa}SEAUJIOU, JO Salas & Jaye YJUOW Siu) peAsrinsal aiam YoeRaq S,AjI9 BY} JO SUO}Od pue 7/6} Ul peAsvins sem dew ay, ‘pies Buejs ,Yy oz Ajoyewixoidde ease jse9| 9u} Ul pue }} O8 Ajayewixoidde sem } ‘ease }SIOM ay} uy, ‘Ssu@aulBua Buyjnsuod s,AjI0 ay} ‘sayeloossyy PUe PII ‘Ra|ug Joy “ Buenas wo, Aq sjetoyjo AjId 0} palanljap sem detu ay] ‘pajeanes Aepseupa/\ pesee|ai aul) aunp S,Aj!9 Oy} JO dew e ‘StUUO}S JUBI9J WO) Sede|d Ul BOL sdeyiad pue yoeeq Jo Yj Og 0} dn jsoj sey jeJeAeued adeo, Jey} Sajeys aoe FLW) €L61 G84 27 V |.PIES B/P4NH uyor JaUOISsILIWOD AjuNOD ,{yYIeE JO 4 ZE SO} ayy ‘polled snoY-gy e Ul EnUBAY SWePY UO, ~SEeUNP psio}se4 au} yBnoiu) sued ajdwe} Jou pinom ajdoad os saunp ay} JaAO YING SEM abpug y ‘pies Aejoeyy ‘,Aeme paysem yoeaq sjesaneued ede jo suoliod ~ adeo ul! anuany swepy je aul] BUNP 9U} 840}S21 O} yosfoud Aouebiewsa, ue uo sayono} Bulysiuly ay} Buyjjnd aiyM eas je }! Sduinp pue pues ay} dn sduind e6pep BuloBbeas e ‘Jeak yoes 301M} puy eek yoes jaUUeYS SO 94} ul pue Ayal jesaAeueD Od Ou} ysuieBe pues Jo spuef a1qn9 QoO'00E }noge dn Sajid YOU BU} WO} MOY PUES |EINJEN,, JEU} SE}E}S ,UeBIO U! SPURS JNg ‘Yyoeag S}ND UOISOIS,, PS}US yoda ri e ‘Bulddoyeno aunp ‘auljjseod Wa}see asijua Buoje UO!ISOJa YOBEq AAISUA}XA - UJODUIT] ‘Ja]SPSYON ‘ ‘wJoys Aepuyig s ; = i Ol |vosoz6| SEO MMS] Sesto ROE |6ce0zZ/6| Sy SEIOEH Oded 0} PuemypOU payoej ue SEWIEYeg OU} JO ysea jam pafejs el0q WuO}S Jesido1y| O1 |ozsolz6L| FS Fe ee ee a ae ee a ee ee a ee eee ier eaieyS [Eso] Foley Mele g SUINOGISW Je OMUEIY SU} paleyue pue JSeayjOU pauuN) ‘YyoRag Wied Isa/y je |lejpue| epieg euesiunH| O1 |Lzsosgel| | “aiiiAUOSyOeP Je OHUEHY Peiayus pue JaAly [eISAIO Jeau |jespue| sApe| euewNH| O1 |eLorsgel| 9 | MiogeveownH| OL [eososs6!| epueig euEoUine|| Ol zveovo6h | Ty “QUINOA! JO SJOYSHJO aIUM SpuIM YdW-Qg peWoder_W |jeypue| Ol |LOS0896L PUODAS S$}! ape }I QI9YM ‘AI||AUOSHOeL O} |eueAeUeD adeD WO }seod Jsey ay} peysnig pue PJemjsemyoU pauin} usu} ‘yoeag O1e/\ eau OUeHY palsjus pue ejnsulusd 8y} pessod ‘sJaAy\ }4 Jeeu jjeypue| Aqqy euediiNH "Bas O} INO yoe!q papeay pue UN} saiHap-QOE E PIP WO}S SU} ‘BIOYSIJJO SAyIW QOL jnoge ‘yoeag Wied IS8/\\ PIEMO} PJemsamujNos psy9e,} AjjeulBu0 pue epnueg Jesu peyeulblio elo euedWwNH JL {40602961 : | OL [rzeosoer| | O1 |ro909961 ‘J ‘einsuiued ay} jo dij eu} Bulysnig }sam 0} see WO pexde1} Asjeg auedNy [a] 42805961 ‘Ayedoid VSVN UO]. “Yd GQ jnoge JO Spulm LUNWIxeW payodal See OL |0c80796! ee) ‘| “BPHO|4 JO dij Wauynos 94} Buiysnig ysnf ‘yOe/) Puemjsem e Huoje seweyeg ay} Wo peyoeoidde zeu] auediwNny jeianeuey edeg Jo you payoda uolsoJa auNp Pue YOeRSQ ‘UOISOJA YORAq S1ENES 0} S}EJOPOLW Y}IM JO}SE9YLON 4 00017961 +4 NOILVINYOSNI AdAL} 3LVG | SS90YNOS ull, S| Jo eBuns UoO}s payewjse ‘Bjooiyoejedy Je [|eypue| Hupjew 910Jaq YYOU O} UJNOS WO EPO) JO }SOD SOM AY} PSS EU|\y SUCOLUNH ‘eded ay} JO AUUIOIN ‘yoeag Uwe }SA/\/\ Je8U OUeNY Ppelajue pue PJemseeypoU paeyxdeJ} ‘EpiO|4 MS Bugle |jeypue| jaqes} auedwwny [SiS] S00LP96L “Epuo|4 SSOsoe PseMIsEM peyoed} Uay} ‘aUASNOHNY ‘JS Jesu |jejpue| e1OG euedWNY ele 8Z80P961 Appendix C Storm Data C-6 Sees -p| O}-Z1 ‘s}snB ydui-Op ‘spulm ydw-9z 0} -G} peyode, Aepol epuiojy JaseayON| AN [LOLOvS6L “AUINO|a/\| Jeau |/eJpue| 0} JSAM anp ‘seweYeg jo yLOU juIOd e WO’ payoes Aueg euedWNy a EZBOEREL ‘JeJaneuea ZO80L861L aden Jesu oijuel}\Vy palajua pue PleMUWOU peyxdeJ} UA} ‘EpO|4 JO JSeOD AS Bu} Buoje |jeJpue; siuuaq eUeOWWNY "SBAEM Y-p 0} -€ ‘UUW GL SspulMm JSeayOU peyiodal Aepoy epuo/y ‘Je|SeEayLON LZZLOS6BL ee € ‘SEAS IJ-G 0} -9 'S]OUH GZ-0} SPuIM jseayjoU payodes Aepol epuojy Je\SeEe4ON| SN |POLL6Z6L ‘AyuNOD psiensig ul Sebewep aquoseap sojoud pue sajoipe JaujO , aSjOM SZ806Z61 “HNS Y-7 O} - yonwW Useq SABY PjNOD UOISOJE au} ples SaOUNe yng ‘AjUNOD JAAIY UEIPU] PUe PeASIG UNOS UI eBeWeP alanes JSOW dy) Bulneg] ‘sayoeaq jseoD soeds aos WO pues Jo 9a} INO} 0} BauU} peddijs pineq eueoWINY, peyodas gjoe Aepo! epuojy 6161 des go V SOD SEF su} Pays usu} ‘eovalg }4 Jeau |je}pue) pineq eueowny "INS Y-€ 0} -Z ‘SeAS Y-Z| 0} -g ‘S}JOUH OE-OZ SpuIM JSeayOU payiodal Aepo! epuo/y ‘1Ja\SeEAULION | An |e 8LZO6Z6L "HNS Y-Q O} -p ‘SEAS YJ-Z| 0} -g ‘S]OUY GZ-0Z SPUIM JSCOYON , SAep dau} sed Oy} Ul Saydeaq JseOD adedS Jo J9a) 9914} 0} dn Aeme uajea aAeySseAeM| JN |OETZLSZ6L [ Bulpunod uBip - sedesos Jans seyoeag, ‘8/61 29d OF pa}ep ajaie Aepoy epuojy ul pajuawinoop Ja}seayuLON ” "sJOUy GZ JO SpUIM JSeauyOU Paulesns payodas Aepoy epuo/+ ‘Ja}SEOYTON | AN | ZLOL8Z6L ['9 ‘udw Ze 0} s}sn6 um udw Qz-G spulm jseayou payodal Aepoys epuojy ‘10\SeAULON | SN [sozoezel]| ——s' | shpe|Q eueouinH| OL |LO01SZ6L “OYOUE|G SUBDIUNH| Ol |9CZOSZEL ‘Auny wuoys [eo1dou Cai Jezsosz6: | "yy Z JO uOISOJa BHesaAe ‘YY GZ JO UOISOJE LUNWIXeLW Palayyns Wag |} Yoeaq pejajdwoo Ayjenied ayy ,aunjonsjs ay} yo Wed Huiysiouwsap ‘j|esaaeuen adeg ul asnoy ajebajddy au} ysuleBe punod sanem OL |POOLPZEL (‘a sb Bulyseiy,, uodeo yim papnjou! si ojoud V , "We O€:L 1 Je Ul BSnNoY au} pip Ajjeuy sueaA SAY UE} GOW JO} dunjonuys au} UJeausq UONepUNC) pue YOeaq au} je Aeme Hues useq pey yoIuUM Sanem UesDO ‘HuluJowW Aepuns umop Huljquinio awed aesnoy ajyebajddy au] - seusiiad BSNOH Yyoeag - Sa|quINID ayIS jJelaAeUeD ade, aul|peey apnjoul $}dJ9OxQ ‘UOISOJA BU} JUBLUNDOP P76] 190 8-G payep sajoie Aepo/ epuoj+ jo saues Y ‘paliode) siam spulm 9010) 9126 pue jewWUOU SsAOge Yj G-€ SEPl| “Uo!SOJa pue BHulpooy aianes pasnes ‘p saquiny uolsseidagq |edidos | , Base JaySesip e jaju] UeISegas 0} g4y youjJeg WO Seyoesq au} Buejoap ym Buoje ob MAaYSY UEGENny ‘AOS yey} Hulysy ~* “aul| JyN|Gq UeS9O By} JO do} UO UOI}ONIJSUOD PIqso} MOU YoIYM ‘suO}eE|nBay AID pue ajejs Jo uodope asojaq ofe sesh yIng aiam SawWoY peisHbuepusa sy] ‘peayying Buloddns au} jo aseq au} je payse] JEU} SOAEM JU} 0} dd}s WO}}0q ay} WO }e94 }YHIa UE} aso SEM }] “WIE By} Ul BunY Yoeaq au} oO} Bulpes| $d9]}S 8}9JOUOD SU} ‘ANUdAYY PUDDES }W UOJ) Ul pues Huljioddns au} Aeme paysem seas ay} se Way} pulysq spues paxeos Jajem jo jyBiam auy Aq syonsyoyeu axl] peddeus asem sBurjid AAedH,, epnjou! s}diaoxy ‘s|jemeas pue speayying pasdejjoo moys soj}oud “€/6L 190 LE-ZZ Ue UOISOJa YOeaq UO SajOINe Py) Jo Sauas WY ‘seyoeagq Ayunogd piersdig 0} aBewep jueoyiubis }ewJou aaoge jj 9-7 Buluuns sapi ul paynse epjig WUO}S jeoIdol | , SUONEDO| juasaid J1ay} JO Sed 99} JO SpaspuNny Bulag se 996] PUue LGB] JO} seul] BUND smouUs Osje dew ay, ‘ples Bues ‘ue900 OY} Je PUS Pedp YOIUM Sjee_}$ AID Sosy} POUd}eSJU} pue pues Jo SalyUeNb SnowJoUuSs Aeme paysem SUWUO}S NOILVINYOANI “ S3DYNOS Appendix C Storm Data . YOeaq JO J8a} 9dJY} O} BUO JSO] YORaG ayII/A}eS,, °°" YOBSq JO Jaa} SAY 0} INO} SO] YORag SuINO|ayy, |,Aeme peayseM }alu] UeSeqas ye Joofoid JUsWYsluNOUSdI e Ul PUeS aU} JO JUBdIEd GG’, * payead WUO}s ay} UBYyM ‘AePl4 paieaddesip saunp s}i Jo Spulyj-om} 0} dn pue ‘ede uso} diam SAemule}s Bg} S,epuly eA} Jo UaeyI4 {UWS pjeqais pies ,‘490J ualeg 0} umop jsnf si d194} JNO pues ay], *“SuleddJ JO} SYBAM B9JU} 0} OM) PAsOjO aq |IIM 1! jeu) abewep yonw os paniades yoeag epul] eAeld, Sa}e}S ajoiWe 6R6l JEIN EL V ,O9-S-) ‘Eu yUeI4, payo}esos pey SUDBWOS 9}8JNUCD JO BdaId BUD UO ‘SJ!e}S BY} JapUN ‘SaAeM pue SpUIM ay} Aq payesauN asnjai jo ajid abe] e LUO} UHL} 'A}BINUOD JO SQE|S UBHOIG PleS YPIWS |,’SUINI UELUIOY BU} 9y!| SHOO} }J,, “A}@1NUOD UByOIg JO Sqe|s paling -Buo; Buiyyweeun ‘Aeme pabbheip useq pey pues ay} asnedeq seyoeaq ay} pasojo AjuNOD au} ples Japeay ueor Jobuey ed “Ns ay} 0} Hulpea] sule}s ay} Jo apis Jaya UO Aeme paydjeijs YBiy }99} UBASS PUeS Jo |]eEM e ‘ssa00e yoeaq anuany uescg je BulniHbsyueu) pg6} au} Aq euop aBewep au} se peq se jsouje ae JayjeEam AWWO}S ‘pjoo Jo ysejq Buo}yaem ey, Seg UMOG BaD Je Aeme paysem dul aunp jo y OL se yonw se jesaAeuey adeg uy‘ WJO}S SY} JO SJOSYa SUL, |, Seyoesq UO DOAeY SyeoIM JaUjeaM,, aoe Aepoy epLioj{ ul pajuswINDOp Ja}SEayON ‘suyO wioys ledidolt| O1 [Lzg0ge6 "Seas Yy-p 0} -€ ‘Ydlu OQ} AjUO Jo SpuIM JSeayjOU payodes Aepoy epuojy ‘ajseay ou ply | AN | ZOLOL86 “SESS Y-9 O} -7 ‘S]OUH OZ-G| SpUuIM JSeayWOU payodal Aepoy epuojy ‘a\SeayON | AN | GOZL986 ‘dw 0Z-S] spulm jseayyiou payodas Aepol epuoly ‘1a\SeeyJON| AN |8LOL986L ‘udu Op 0} S}SNB ‘sanem asoysjo Y-O€ JO SHOdai paysiqnd Aepo! epuo/y \1a}SEauLON | AN | ZZEOOSEL , SBade JAY}O 0} paylys 10 Aeme pausem jauyie SAN {60109861 318M YOeSgG COD04D JO YJNOS aul|aJOYs au} UO paoe|d pues Jo spied DIGNd QO0'NG au} JO JuBdJed Q| Pue G UVaMjeg Ee GL60S861 “wos Aeq BulniBsyuey, ay} Buunp pebewep sayoesq ysiinoual 0} Aem Japun si joaloid uoeso}sas UOT p Ls : DCLLVS6L Ol e dIOyM G4V YoWed je pajiodas eHewep ‘yoeaq sajqqiu Wo}s,, ajoie Aepoy epuoj+ ul payuaunoop Ja}SeauLION 80607861 AN |/-LLEO686L ‘yoeag ayijajes ye Sabewep saisua}xa sjoidap sojoud UUM gjDINe GEBL das 61 e ‘JaAemoy |,’ Swa|qoJd UOISOJA SNolas padeosa AjuNOD PueADIG ‘ples S|eldIJJo ‘UOIsOJS pli awios Hulsneo ‘pusya9em siy} seyoeaq jseog soeds papunod spulm Apajseauiou ydu-gz Aq uaAup Senem }OOJ-U9} 0} -UBABS — seyoeagq je MeuB seAeM ‘spuIM pUudyaE/,, BJIe AepoL Epuo/4 ul pa}UswNDOp Ja}SESYULON "PIINGel O} SWOye pue sabewep anisua}xe Buiquosap sajoipe sayjO SNOJBWNN , QUOB |/2 S}] ja}e] OOL ‘pjaiys Sayoajoid s,sunjeN JaUJO| PUe Jae |eUly ay} ‘SaUNpP au} Jo UONONISEp 0} OWED }! UBYUM BYyoUe|G Bed Sua}syOnyY suljseod ay} aAeb AjID ay], , YOeSG 20905 UI! Bulpue7q UeOIaq JO aseq punole 90ejd ojul yOeq Yip seysnd sezopling,, uoNded ay} YIM O}OUd PEG| AON GZ ‘AsOWawW jUsoaJ Ul sUBOWINY Aue ue} asiom YyonwW ‘|/2de1 pjnod ay JsJOM By} Sem BHeweP |e}SeOd ay} ples Uome7] (Gog JOAeW|) ,a{qipasoul si Siu} jng,, ‘ples ays ,|JeEM ees ay} Pulyaq LOI) pa;yo1W} pey pues aj}q!] e aqAew pue auOb aq pinom sdeajs au} aqhew y6noy} | ‘}! jnoge piesy | uayAA,, Aepu- yoeeq papoia ue Jano AjSnosaBuep Hulbuey uolepunol s,xajdwoo ylun-z| Jay mes ‘yoeag e000D ‘any oUelYy 'S LOZL Je xe|dwioo juawyede Bulpueq ueoljaq au} Jo JeuMO ‘souker SUSJON’”” ‘ples SjeldiJJO ‘S8AeM Pue SpUIM JO YOUN OMj-BUO AWO}S S.Aepl4 WO apedap e ul Buljeag JSJOM JIB} YOO} pseAeig ul seyoeeg,, , uOHeEpuNo} sHulpjing ye Aeme aye sanem ubiy sapna6pa s,sunp sero sHuey yoeag 20909 ul LOsay Bulpue] uedi|aq,, uodeo ym AYedojd OJON Jo ydesBHoj}oyd sapnjoul ajoe pe6] AON vz ‘Siededsmeu eae ul paejuswnoop abewep jseoD a0eds anisua}xe - Ws0}s Aeq BuiniBsyuey | a]seauON "yOeJ} PJEMJSESyOU e UO Papasddoid pue aJOYs}jo sali OQ) Ajayewixoidde psemujou pauin} usu} ‘see ay} WO jesAeUeD aded Builyoeosdde ‘wio}s jeoldol} e se Ajmojs payoes) euelg aueowNyY ['o a] o| Oo] oO & [‘e 6 NOILVINYOSNI dadAL| Alva SADYNOS Appendix C Storm Data a O “IOYSJO SAW Ove Aja}ewixoidde jerasneueD ade passed ‘aueowiny ¢ AioHayeo e se ‘ues4 BUeDLUNH fon] vOG0966L eel Jse09 oUeNY au} Huljaljered ‘quoysyjo sayitu peipuNy jeJeres PsemUOU peydeJ} ‘eyjeg SUedINY eas] LLZOS66L SSS EPUO| 4 JO JSBOD OHUEHY OU} HO SalI OO Ajayeuxosdde psemypyou payoey ‘INU WUO}S |eo1do1] O1 |zb909661[ ss |, BWOY YOeIG S}Ia}eS SJouaiq Jeau Yyoeaq JO }9a} O| JSOlUje Peposs sAey Auer S| Pue UA SUedINH,, 51 |pzeose6t = pajejs ,uoisose surebe ajjeq Ajjsoo aBem sjuapisay,, ajoe Aepo/ epuojy G66l Ony gz ‘Auer WO}s jeo!dol | Ol |LEZOS661 [ |, PUIM BY} OJ UBIY Os palid aiam Aau} asnedaq saduay pang yoeag e000 ul yJ@q puedays je seunq,, uojded yyIM Ojo |," SeuNp UO pues pajisodap sabins ‘yoeeg 20905 jo suOI}oesS Maj e Ul “OUeJeIpU] PUe YOBag syII|9}eS Ul UOISOJA SOM ** “SaUNp AjUNOD PJEASIg SWOS JO Pues JO }B04 g Se yonw se pedims uly auedNH, peyejs ,seyoeseq sinew WJO}S,, ajole Aepo! epuo/y S66l Bny yo ‘uy euediny , Aa|SSOID WIE ples ‘saeoejd auwos ul ounp jo jaa} € se YONW Se UBYe}] PUL SH|EMSSOJD YOBSq SWOS JJO PaMSYO SACU UOPIOS S| WO} SBAEM *”,, Sa}E}S PUL G4V YOWIed JE SIOYIOM SMOUS BJOIUE PEBL AON OL VY ”,,}! ULWAPUOD 0} sjeloyyo AjID Hulosoy pue ewoY ey} Jo Wed Buynovspun ‘Jods ay} ye yoeaq JO 189) ODE palqqob sey uesso au} ‘sapeosap aeiy} ul”, AUadoid ajeBajddy Jo ojoud OL |80ll reel si! ‘ -* PUBYBOM OU} JOAO SUI|}SLOD JO Y 6 SO] pey ‘Wede syd0\q ]yBia aie YoIyM ‘sonusre aJOUU||I4 pue Uo}Hulysen ye sayoeeq au], pajejs ,seyoeeq OJU! Sa}iq UOPION,, aBJoIWe Aepo! EPUO/Y YE6L AON S| UOpPsJOD WUO}sS jed!dos] ; ‘peuluwapun Aieau auaM SAWOY UOJ) YORaq aWOS BJaYM ‘saljUNOD YyOedg WIE, 0} PeASIG WO jse0o Huoje aGewep jsajeai6 IN |8-cOr6é6lL x ‘BUIPOO|J |e]SEOO JOUILU ue UOISOIa YOeag pasned Yydw gg 0} s}snB YIM YdW Op-OE SPUIM S1OYSUO ‘1a}SeayJON “Seas IJ-/ 0} -G pue SjouY QZ SPUIM JSeayOU peyOodas Aepo! eplojy ‘ja}SE9YLON | AN | QLEOS66L (‘9 ‘OBNH BueDWNH| OL {0160686 “INS U-GL 0} -Q) UIIM ‘payiodes a1am sjouy OF O} OE JO Speeds pulM JN peulejsns NOILVINNOSNI C-9 Appendix C Storm Data Appendix D: Photographs This appendix contains photographs documenting the physical condition of the beach and structures along Brevard County and the properties of the test plaintiffs, Don and Gale Applegate and Noro and Company. Figure D-1: View north along the concrete bulkhead at the Officers Club, Patrick AFB, February 20, 1997 (source: N. C. Kraus). Appendix D Photographs D-1 Figure D-2: Canaveral National Seashore at the Brevard/Volusia County line on September 6, 1979, showing storm damage to the dunes from Hurricane David (source: USACE, Jacksonville District). Figure D-3: NASA Federal Property at the tip of Cape Canaveral on May 10, 1996. Damage to the dunes from past storms is still visible (source: N. C. Kraus). D-2 Appendix D Photographs Figure D-4: View of Jetty Park just south of the South Jetty on May 9, 1996. A beach nourishment project was constructed in January 1996 (source: N. C. Kraus). Figure D-5: View of Jetty Park south of the South Jetty on February 20, 1997; one year after beach nourishment project (source: N. C. Kraus). Appendix D Photographs D-3 Figure D-6: Applegate property, August 1971. Presence of pilings and concrete rubble indicates this particular house was vulnerable to wave impacts soon after its construction, circa 1960 (source: USACE, Jacksonville District). Figure D-7: Uncontrolled aerial photograph of Applegate property, October 19, 1972. Downdrift erosion impacts are noticeable just south of the concrete rubble (source: USACE Jacksonville District). D-4 Appendix D Photographs Figure D-8: South side of Applegate property between February 1973 and November 1974 (source: USACE, Jacksonville District). Figure D-9: Uncontrolled aerial photograph of Applegate property on April 21, 1977; after the USACE 1974/75 beach fill. Concrete rubble seaward of the dwelling was not removed, but buried by the fill (source: USACE, Jacksonville District). Appendix D Photographs D-5 Figure D-10: Viewing north at Applegate property photographed after the USACE 1974/75 beach fill (source: USACE, Jacksonville District). : Boies eens Meeks eee : ssi Figure D-11: Applegate property on May 9, 1996, showing location of rubble mound and structure relative to natural beach features and other structures along the coast (source: N. C. Kraus). D-6 Appendix D Photographs Figure D-13: View looking south from Applegate residence, May 9, 1996 (source: N. C. Kraus). Appendix D Photographs D-7 21 t$:48 Figure D-14: Applegate property, November 21, 1996. Winter beach condition has uncovered more rubble and debris seaward of the house. Rusted vehicle parts can be seen in the foreground (source: N. C. Kraus). Figure D-15: Southern property boundary of Applegate residence, November 21, 1996, showing downdrift impacts of rubble mound seaward of the structure (source: N. C. Kraus). D-8 Appendix D Photographs Figure D-16: Northern view from Applegate’s property, November 21, 1996, showing the narrow beach associated with a typical winter beach profile (Source: N. C. Kraus) . Figure D-17: Applegate property, February 20, 1997 (source: N. C. Kraus). Appendix D Photographs D-9 Figure D-18: Dune face directly north of Applegate property, February 20, 1997, indicating storm erosion (source: N. C. Kraus). Figure D-19: View north from Applegate property, February 20, 1997 (source: N. C. Kraus). D-10 Appendix D Photographs Figure D-20: Noro and Co. property, May 9, 1996. Note the old stone revetment, deteriorated wooden bulkhead, and the sandbags along the seaward side of the property under the wooden boardwalk (source: N. C. Kraus). eens TS Be ane” Figure D-21: Noro and Co. property, May 9, 1996, showing the deteriorated wooden bulkhead and geotextile sandbags, as well as storm-induced erosion to the dune face (source: N. C. Kraus). Appendix D Photographs D-11 Figure D-22: View north from Noro and Co. property, May 9, 1996, showing storm damage to the dunes and the remains of attempts to protect upland properties (source: N. C. Kraus). Figure D-23: Noro and Co. property, November 21, 1996, showing deteriorated wooden bulkhead, geotextile sandbags, and other remains of storm-protection structures (source: N. C. Kraus). D-12 Appendix D Photographs Figure D-24: View north of the boardwalk at Noro and Co. property, November 21, 1996, showing the narrow beach associated with a typical winter profile (source: N. C. Kraus). Figure D-25: View north of Noro and Co. property, November 21, 1996, showing storm damages to northern neighboring properties (source: N. C. Kraus). Appendix D Photographs D-13 Figure D-26: View south towards Noro property showing the eroded dunes on one property and the creative armoring structures on the neighboring property to the north (source: N. C. Kraus). Figure D-27: View south from Noro and Co. property showing a wider beach, November 21, 1996 (source: N. C. Kraus). D-14 Appendix D Photographs Figure D-28: Noro and Co. property, February 20, 1997. The remains of the wooden bulkhead are visible just seaward of the wooden deck ( source: N. C. Kraus). Figure D-29: View north of Noro and Co. property showing the remains of the wooden bulkhead and rock revetment, February 20, 1997( source: N. C. Kraus). Appendix D Photographs D-15 APPENDIX E. Water Levels and Waves This appendix contains time series of the water levels and waves of the three storms selected to simulate storm-induced beach erosion at the properties of the two test plaintiffs and the extreme water levels measured at the Fernandina and Mayport stations. The calculations are described in Section 3.4 of the main text. E.1. Storms The wave data were taken from the Wave Information Study (WIS) Atlantic Hindcast (Hubertz et al. 1993), Station 18, which is located in 22-m (72.2-ft) depth seaward of the Cape Canaveral Shoal. The significant wave height and corresponding peak period at this depth are shown in the plots. Hourly water-level data as provided by National Ocean Service (NOS) and hindcast wave data at 3-hr intervals comprised the oceanic forcing for the dune erosion modeling. Prior to modeling of dune erosion, the wave data time series at the 22-m depth were transformed to the 10-m (33-ft) depth, corresponding to the nominal depth at the seaward ends of the available profile survey data, to account for directional wave spreading and energy losses. Plots of water level given in this report are referenced to mean tide level (MTL), whereas, in principle, water-level data input to the SBEACH model should be referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). This suggests that some adjustment of the water-level data would be required to convert those elevations to the NGVD datum. Water-level data sets obtained from NOS are referenced to the gauge-specific MTL elevation. The relationship between MTL datum and NGVD datum is not fixed, but varies according to the location of the site in question. For the historic tide gauge at Port Canaveral, NOS has estimated that MTL is 0.19 ft higher than NGVD, as illustrated in Figure 2-7. In comparison, estimated differences between MTL and NGVD at Fernandina, Mayport, and St. Augustine are 0.28, 0.31, and 0.17 ft, respectively; therefore, the differences in conversion values for all four sites was relatively small (within about 0.1 ft). It should also be noted that there are some inherent uncertainties between reference datums, such as the fact that they do not include contributions from relative sea-level rise between the tidal datum epoch (1960-1978) used in their calculation and the present time. For these reasons, it was assumed that the MTL elevations at the tide gauges listed in Table 3-4 are equivalent to the NGVD elevation at Brevard County. Therefore, no MTL-to-NGVD conversion was required for the water-level data input to SBEACH. Appendix E Water Levels and Waves : E-1 E-2 ‘uhh ire : LAM LL Figure E-2: Thanksgiving Day northeaster, 1984 wave height and period, starting 00 hr 841119. Appendix E Water Levels and Waves : £ 3 D 3 he Ta eek sm crime, Sel su i Mya Mi au | ol 200 250 300 350 400 Hr g 89 wate ig OO hr 890 Appendix E Water Levels and Wav: E-4 Water Level, ft (MSL) H, ft, and T,s 5.0 2S 0.0 -2.5 Gordon 94, Water Level -5.0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Hr Figure E-5: Tropical Storm Gordon, 1989 water level, starting 00 hr 941110. 15 = = Gordon 94, Wave Height, H, and Period, T 10 +— Gi 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Hr Figure E-6: Tropical Storm Gordon, 1994 wave height and period, starting 00 hr 941110. Appendix E Water Levels and Waves E.2. Fernandina and Mayport Extreme Water Levels This section summarizes an analysis of extreme water levels at the Fenandina Beach, Florida, and Mayport, Florida, tide gauges operated by NOS (NOS Tide Stations 872 0030 and 872 0220, respectively). These are the closest long-term or primary tide stations to the Brevard County beaches that provide records approximating the ocean water level at the project site. The Fernandina Station is located in Cumberland Sound, St. Mary’s Entrance, on the Florida-Georgia border, 169 miles north of Canaveral Harbor. The Mayport Station is located in St. Johns River, in Mayport (near Jacksonville), and is located about 145 miles north of Canaveral Harbor. The plates compiled below contain the elevations and corresponding duration in hours above MSL of water levels exceeding 4.5 ft for the Fernandina Station and 3.7 ft for the Mayport Stations. The plates run from 1979, the year of Hurricane David, to 1995 for Fernandina and to 1985 for Mayport (the end of the continuous record). Hourly water-level data were analyzed to arrive at the values. The cutoffs represent extreme water levels that are likely to produce erosion by allowing waves to reach the upper beach and dune. For reference, the half-tide ranges, defined as half of the difference between mean high water and mean low water (the half range represents the average reach of the tide above MTL or mean sea level), are 2.3 ft for Mayport and 3.0 ft for Fernandina. The plates were examined by reference to the storms compiled in Appendix C and were found to indicate their presence for the years covered. Because storm-induced erosion increases with increase in water level and the duration of higher water levels, the plates below give a qualitative indication of storm-induced erosion potential for the given storm and year. Appendix E Water Levels and Waves E-5 5.2.1. Fernandina Max Wtrlvl Duration (MSL) (HRS) 1995.531| 4.84 1995.528 | 5.01 1995.449 4.92 1995.372 4.85 1995.526 Year 1995.452 Duration (HRS) Max Wrrlvl (MSL) Year 1995.284 995.214 1995.211 | 1995.001 1994 Vaan Max Wirlvl Duration (MSL) (HRS) 1994.998 1994.995 1994.766 | 1994.763 1994.756 1994.394 1994.391 1994.922 1994.919 TOTAL # of events 1992 Year Duration (HRS) Max Wtrlvl (MSL) 1992.734 1992.020 | 5.32 1992.812 1992.747 1994.790 1994.780 1994.760 1994.758 1992.744 1992.741 1992.738 | 4.79 | 1992.735 | 5.16 1992.019 4.69 1 1 1 1 1 1 1992.023 4.69 1 1 0 0 0 1992.737 | 4.66 1992.730 1992.496 | 4.53 1992.493 | 4.58 0 1992.449 0 1992.022 4.69 0 0 1992.016 4.54 TOTAL # of events 21 Max Werlvl (MSL) Year 1991.847 1991.689 1991.528 1991.826 1991.771 1991.768 1991.687 TOTAL # of events Max Werlvl Year (MSL) Duration (HRS) Duration (HRS) 1989 Vea ret au Chey 1989.186 | 5.39 1989.498 | 4.66 1989.189 | 5.14 1989.182 | 4.68 1 1989.787| 470 | Oo | 1989.739| 462 | Oo | 1989.714 | 4.54 0 1989.192 | 4.57 0 1989.188 | 4.63 0 1989.185| 452 [| oOo | 1989.183 | 4.78 0 TOTAL # of events 14 Appendix E Water Levels and Waves 1988 Max Wrrlvl (MSL) Duration (HRS) Max Wrrlvl (MSL) 7007 848 1986 Max Wtrlvl Duration (MSL) (HRS) i Duration Year (HRS) Year 1986.471 1986.391 Appendix E Water Levels and Waves Max Wtrlvl Duration Vice (MSL) (HRS) 2 2 1 | 1985.787 | Ae ekenlep | 1985.784 | 4.96 ies 703 455 | 0 i9ss.7e2| 463 | 0 | rises 737] 451 | 0 | Fees 717 ast | 0 Pes 711| 4s | 0 _| riess.70o| 453 | 0 fiees.702[ 455 | 0 | Fioss.2a2[ 456 | 0 | TOTAL # of events 20 Vean Max Wtrlvl Duration (MSL) (HRS) [fe 1983 | Max Wtrlvl Duration (MSL) (HRS) Year 1983.160 1983.971 1983.443 5.14 1983.001 1983.845 4.50 0 | 1983.768/ 458 | oOo | 1983.520 1983.517 1983.449 1983.438 | 4.52 1983.154 1983.081 | 1983.078 1983.075 TOTAL # of events 18 Max Wrrlvl (MSL) Duration Year (HRS) 1981 Max Wrrlvi (MSL) 1981.784 SL 5h 1981.870 5.56 1981.867 5.99 1981.864 5.87 1981.861 5.32 1981.787 5.37 1981.783 5.20 1981.351 1981.348 1981.949 4.67 1981.943 4.69 1981.872 5.08 1981.865 4.87 1981.782 5.12 1981.501 4.67 1981.342 4.87 1981.339 4.75 1981.337 4.61 1981.868 HE 4.58 1981.863 4.53 Duration Year (HRS) ue ello fF EEE EE fise1.700[ 483 | 0 rigei7e6| 476 | 0 1981.780 4.57 1981.495 4.59 — riesias3] 465] 0 riesi.a5[ 491] 0 TOTAL # of events 26 1980 Max Wtrlvl Duration Year (MSL) (HRS) 2 497 1980.971 48) 1980.811 4.97 1980.741 4.98 466 1980.446 4.87 1980.372 4.92 1980.894 4.53 1980.738 4.63 1980.134 4.57 1980.133 4.52 1980.130 4.58 1980.050 4.75 TOTAL # of events 21 1979 Max Wtrlvl Duration Year (MSL) (HRS) 1979.692 1979.673 1979.526 1979.523 1979.520 1979.452 1979.449 1979.446 1979.695 1979.689 1979.517 1979.455 1979.444 TOTAL # of events 14 Appendix E Water Levels and Waves 5.2.2. Mayport Vip Max Wtrlvl Duration (MSL) (HRS) 1985.705 2 1985.828 1985.826 fea 1985.70 Fises.a20[ 363 [| 0 | 1985.793 Secu On Beer vee5.390| 361 | 0 | TOTAL # of events VEEt Max Wtrlvl Duration (MSL) HRS) Max Wtrlvl Duration YEAS MSL HRS rosaaat| 367 | 0 | TOTAL # of events 4 Appendix E Water Levels and Waves 1982 Vaar Max Wirlvl Duration MSL HRS TOTAL # of events 0 Duration (HRS) Max Wrrlvi Year (MSL) 1981.867 1981.864 1981.872 1981.870 1981.861 1981.787 1981.784 1981.782 1981.865 1981.790 1981.786 1981.783 1981.351 1981.348 1981.868 1981.863 1981.342 4.67 4.62 4.10 4.40 4.16 4.26 4.39 4.03 3.97 3.87 3.71 3.99 3.79 wo 3.66 3.78 3.71 3.65 TOTAL # of events Year 1980 Max Wrrlvl (MSL) Duration (HRS) 1980.812 1980.971 3.72 1980.891 3.69 1980.888 | 3.63 1980.449 | 3.62 1980.050 TOTAL # of events 1979 Weep Le ay eet 4 4 3 3 3 3 1979.694 | 4.77 1979.693 | 4.47 1979.692 3 1979.690 | _ 4.67 1979.689 | 4.47 3 1979.747 | 4.07 ara 2 4.07 2 1979.737 | __4.17 2 1979.714 | 3.97 1979.712 | 4.07 1979.700 1979.696 2 1979.687 2 1979.682 | 4.17 1979.679 | 4.37 D 1979.670 | 4.17 2 1979.667 | 3.97 ia 2 1979.845 | 3.88 1 1979.728 | 3.87 1 1979.723 | 4.07 1 1979.717 | 3.97 1 1979.699 | _ 3.97 1 1979.685 1979.680 1 E-9 = 1979 Veun Max Wtrlvl Duration MSL (HRS) _ | 1979.672 3.97 1 1979.446 1979.842 1979.745 1979.743 3.67 1979.726 3.77 1979.716 3.77 1 0 0 0 0 0 1979.713 3.67 1979.710 3.67 1979.703 1979.676 1979.523 3.67 3.67 1979.127 4.22 0 0 0 0 0 0 — I TOTAL # of events 56 E-10 Appendix E Water Levels and Waves APPENDIX F. Brevard County Federal Projects and Surveys” This appendix describes the Federal navigation project at Canaveral Harbor, Florida, and the Federal shore-protection project for Brevard County, Florida. Many surveys have been made by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for the purposes of study, construction, and monitoring of these two projects. These survey data sets have not been accessed in previous studies of Harbor impacts on the adjacent shores of Brevard County. The USACE survey data are analyzed and the results presented in this appendix. F.1. Canaveral Harbor, Florida, Navigation Project The River and Harbor Act of March 2, 1945 (Public Law 79-14), authorized a 27-ft-deep entrance channel, jetties, a 27-ft-deep turning basin enclosed by a dike, and an 8-ft-deep barge canal lock. The project is described in House Document 367, 77" Congress, 1“ Session, dated October 14, 1941. A location map with project features is shown in Figure F-1. Harbor Construction. The work began in June 1950. During the first full year of dredging, almost 6 Mcy were moved from the turning basin and the barge and slip canals. The dredged material was constructed into a dike around the turning basin and the Merritt Island causeway. The pilot cut was made in October 1951. The entrance channel was about 90 % complete in March 1952 when dredging was suspended from lack of progress because of rapid shoaling of the channel. To stabilize the land points and reduce shoaling, construction of jetties and bank revetments were undertaken on an emergency basis in June 1953. A section of the south jetty about 813 ft in length and 445 ft of bank revetment (along the south bank of the land cut beginning at the shore end of the jetty) was constructed between June 2, 1953, and November 10, 1953. The revetment was added because erosion was occurring at the south shore adjacent to the channel. Between December 1953 and June 1954, the north jetty was constructed 1,150 ft long to the 12-ft contour, and a 300-ft-long revetment was placed along the north shore extending south from the landward end of the north jetty. By September 3, 1954, a 300-ft extension to the south jetty was constructed, and the south-shore revetment was extended landward an additional 1,200 ft. The ocean entrance channel and turning basin were enlarged and deepened with military funds between November 1956 and May 1957 to 33 ft in the turning basin, 34 ft in the entrance channel through the land cut, and 36 ft in the approach channel. In 1958, the north revetment was extended 600 ft westward, and the south revetment was extended westward to the Port Authority wharf. In 1961, the channel was further deepened to 37 ft with military funds. 35 This appendix was prepared by Mr. David V. Schmidt, P.E., Supervisory Civil Engineer, USACE Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, Florida. Appendix F Brevard County Federal Projects and Surveys F-1 Between April 1974 and March 1975, the Harbor entrance channel was deepened from 37 to 44 ft and a new turning basin and access channel constructed to a depth of 41 ft for the Trident Missile Defense System. Approximately 4 Mcy were removed from the entrance channel, and 9 Mcy were removed from the turning basin and access channel. Local interests completed the deepening of the west access channel and west turning basin from the authorized 31 to 35 ft in May 1987. Deepening of the Harbor entrance channel from 37 to 41 ft, the inner channel from 36 to 40 ft and widening it to 400 ft, the middle turning basin from 35 to 39 ft to provide for a 1,200-ft- diameter turning area, and the north channel branch from 35 to 39 ft with a width of 350 ft, was started in August 1993 and completed in October 1994. Construction of the authorized fishing walkway, located on the south jetty, was coordinated with the jetty extension and sand-tightening project. The south jetty sand-tightening work was completed in September 1995. The first sand bypassing was completed in September 1995. F.1.1. Harbor Project Modifications 1951 Project Review Study. The Senate Public Works Committee by resolution adopted April 26, 1951, directed the USACE to review the report of the Chief of Engineers on Canaveral Harbor (House Document 367/77/1) to determine if the project should be modified. The purpose of the study was to consider the advisability of maintaining the enlarged and deepened harbor with civil works funds, deepening and enlarging the existing barge channel, enlarging the dike- enclosed harbor area, modifying the requirements of local cooperation, and proceeding with construction of a barge lock. The USACE Jacksonville District Engineer’s feasibility report in response to the Congressional resolution is dated October 30, 1961. The report of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors is dated March 23, 1962. The report of the Chief of Engineers is dated July 6, 1962. The Secretary of the Army transmitted the study results to Congress on September 24, 1962. The project was modified as follows. 1962 Sand Transfer Plant Authority. The River and Harbor Act of October 23, 1962 (Public Law 87-874), authorized maintenance of improved channel and turning basin. It also authorized enlarging a barge channel and lock, relocating the dike, constructing a channel and turning basin west of 35-ft turning basin, and constructing and operating of a sand-transfer plant. Project modifications are described in Senate Document 140, ye Congress, 2"4 Session dated September 24, 1962. The purpose of the sand-transfer plant, in combination with conventional dredging, was to maintain the navigation project entrance channel. 1990 Project Deepening Study. Title I, Section 101(7) of the 1992 Water Resources Development Act authorized modifications to the Canaveral Harbor, Florida, project. The authorization provides for increasing the depth of the entrance channel from 37 to 41 ft and F-2 Appendix F Brevard County Federal Projects and Surveys 78968 Bi HueruodgeeeT ~ cr) 0d Yd = (o7) > fo) Zz SZ —_—___ bod Jeasauueg 110d T-a aanaiy | i] VOIOIs STNANOSNOWr H STNANOSHOVE “LOIWLSIG H3SNIONS AWHY 'S'N { AWYY 3H1 dO LNW Levd30 I L = i] LOBE ev0z 1883 epyoly “I9e4 SUBIg NS “ZZGVN WMeG , i | SS rs nL aS oo ! j i seaiy jesodsiq | “00 aa RUStinne REN! Vz H AMSY pue|s} WWaI) | 996] SeUr7 aI1JO14 309 ZZ —— XG i lw SS ” aN3931 i ke eee peOCl ieee. fa os SE ATOBT 1 i if 1 ; yoeag e000) (sy pestered | l i] | | Yeu ! ZZ (ey, ! ; NVIIO i| | - y ayeBajddy DILNVTLY Sy | (vZ6L O}1G6L) i Baily jesbdsiq a / i} j | | ' i] i i] u 5 (Z/6, Due GOBL) 7 [Iq yoesg feu) Aver y@uuey9 aouedju 1 Moil0g ae 1 (S66L) Bally Mo0g ssedAg pue: BUSS uiseg BSuyuiny 1 } quel Burwiny | j JajJSUed Wap { Vy pues \ v ek a se eueueg tits o 2 = a = 2 ane Apauuay adeg 2 2 2< ee, =) = 22 -o 2§ Sie oa Le 22 ac ao ae) deepening of the inner channel from 36 to 40 ft and widening it to 400 ft. The middle turning basin would be deepened from 35 to 39 ft to provide for a 1,200-ft-diameter turning area. The north channel branch would be deepened from 35 to 39 ft with a width of 350 ft. A description of the project is contained in the report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 24, 1991, as modified by the letter of the Secretary of the Army dated October 10, 1991. Reference House Document 102-156, 102" Congress, 1“ Session, dated October 21, 1991, and the District feasibility report on deepening dated August 1990. 1993 Sand-Bypass Modification. General Re-evaluation Report, Sand-Bypass System, Canaveral Harbor, Florida, December 1992, Revised November 1993. The project modified the sand-bypass feature from a fixed sand-transfer plant at the north jetty to hydraulic dredging from a borrow site north of the jetty to the beach south of the inlet. The plan is to bypass 636,000 cy of sand every 6 years (106,000 cy/year). Another feature of the modified bypass system was to lengthen and sand-tighten the south jetty. The project modifications were approved by the Chief of Engineers in 1994. F.1.2._ Canaveral Harbor Dredged Material Volumes of dredged material removed from Canaveral Harbor are listed in Table F-1. Prior to 1974, dredged material was placed either in the ocean disposal site (Figure F-1) or stockpiled in upland disposal areas, except for 120,000 cy in 1965 and 200,000 cy in 1972. Since 1974, a combination of upland, offshore, beach, and nearshore disposal locations have been used (Figure F-2). Table F-1. Canaveral Harbor, Florida. Summary of dredging volumes (cy). Location Placed New Work Only 4 riaey 4 Ac isee Pisretoresroowes | rosraee |__| 7oaense | 70958108 | a Appendix F Brevard County Federal Projects and Surveys F-5 Aproximately 50.2 Mcy of dredged material have been removed from Canaveral Harbor, as shown in Table F-1. Approximately 22 Mcy were removed as a result of new work (initial construction) and 28.2 Mcy were removed from maintenance of the Harbor. Prior to April 1974, approximately 13.2 Mcy of dredged material from Canaveral Harbor was placed in the offshore disposal site shown on Figure F-1. Another 499,700 cy were placed in upland disposal areas. Approximately 120,000 and 200,000 cy were placed in the beach disposal area shown on Figure F-1 in 1965 and 1972, respectively. Since April 1974, upland, offshore, beach, and nearshore (0.9 Mcy) disposal locations have been used. The total dredged-material disposal placed in these areas is shown on Figure F-2. In April 1974, the offshore disposal site was changed to an area further offshore. The area of this “interim” offshore disposal area was 3 square nautical miles. The interim offshore disposal area was increased in size to 4 square nautical miles and designated as an Offshore Dredged-Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1990. A total of 21 Mcy have been placed in the ODMDS for Canaveral Harbor since April 1974. F.2. Brevard County, Florida, Shore-Protection Project The 1968 Rivers and Harbors Act (Public Law 90-483) authorized a beach-erosion control project for Brevard County, Florida. The project is described in House Document 352, 90" Congress, 2"! Session dated July 8, 1968. Five areas were identified as having erosion problems, two north of Canaveral Harbor and three south. These areas are shown in Figure F-3. The lengths of the problem areas are, in order from north to south, 4.9 miles at Kennedy Space Center, 4 miles at Cape Kennedy Air Force Station (AFS), 2.8 miles at the city of Cape Canaveral, 2.3 miles at Patrick AFB, and 2 miles at Indialantic and Melbourne Beach. Federal Civil Works participation was authorized for the City of Cape Canaveral and at Indialantic/Melbourne Beach. The three remaining areas are Federal property, and the Federal agencies involved would be responsible for constructing the projects recommended. Descriptions of the recommended project areas follows: Kennedy Space Center. Restore 26,000 ft (4.9 miles) of beach at Kennedy Space Center without Federal (Civil Works) participation. Federal agencies owning property involved would be responsible for their own justification and funding for project construction. Volume needed for initial restoration was 2.5 Mcy. Approximately 195,000 cy would be needed annually for periodic nourishment (7.5 cy/ft). Cape Kennedy AFS. Restore 21,200 ft (4.0 miles) of beach at Cape Kennedy AFS without Federal (Civil Works) participation. Federal agencies owning property involved would be responsible for their own justification and funding for project construction. Volume needed for initial restoration was 2.0Mcy. Approximately 162,000 cy would be needed annually for periodic nourishment (7.6 cy/ft). F-6 Appendix F Brevard County Federal Projects and Surveys Tra Monee 78 s8.81 9180 \woyre0 oud | aouruazuie yA] pur wonesadgG ae ‘ TA andi y 2 WOIdO?s ‘SJTNANOSNOVE STUANOSHOVE ‘LOINLSIG H33NION3 AWHY 'S'N AWHY 3H1 40 LNSWLevd3d LOBE eu0z 1883 epHoly Yeey eURIg CNS “ZZGVN Wea seg ge ab C) wb sealy jesodsig | uoonsysUuos 10qie}y ! fs i quswnuowyna = ae 4 9961 Seu] BIJ01g 30D 72 —— ! | GN3931 yoreag auinogjainy \ 1 be) % i - auinogayw onuelelpu NvII0 IILNVILY yoeag 8}))|912S (}Uasalg 01 Z66L) SPIEA 21GND 0O9'ELB — Bay |esodsiq aioyusueay ~ \ i | ( i i 1 ! i iF | | ! | 1 \ 1 i} 1 1 is | “Gd 4914724 DGS ae Se ae SSS SSeS SS SS LS eee ave ! | | | i i) { \ D ' (luasaig 0 #/ 61 judy) SPJEA IIQND OO7T'666'0Z (SAWCO) Bay |esodsiq a:048};0 jauueyd jesaneuea yseag 209073) (pZ6L YEW O} LSE L) SPIEA IIGND OOB’PET'EL Baily jesodsiq a0ys}i9 Qluasalg 0} GGL) Spied 919ND 009'8L6'E Paly jesodsiq ydeag / JOAIY eueueg (WU9S3JG 00/61) — SPJBA J!1GND OOB'SBE'LL seaiy |asodsiq pue|dy -00, 5008) 00,0087] a ~00,91 3B: 2Bpaj490y Ajunog penaig +00,06 82] JOA uelpuy a||IASNY Applegate et. al v. The United States 5 NOV 97 F-7 Confidential Information - Attorney/Client Privilege nt A) aera estes Sa iy 3 7 7 = 8 G4 1 og: — S i. ay A) dart yh ent’ << tia lee a a < = 7 \ adie i (i a i) q Vv Tose po Tea RvenPe) 5 oi =a A roovad 1 | 2 | suoyus0T alorg 3 3 JO1}U0D BOISsOAg PROT It Ajunog JaA\y Ue;PUy Ts papuawMoI0y LI6T T €-d 2ansty Be ——yaido1a STIANOSYOWr SIRI EB EBIES 3TIANOSYOVP LOINiSIG H33NIDNA AWHY ’S'N eG ; L AWHY 3H dO LNAWLWdaa Wi “\ KOE LOBE #U0Z 1883 epyoly "\ee4 eURig HIG ““LZOVN WEG we‘ r\ par) oP a ) azz Boe t or “n . NV quownuow yng = ak von \ 3961 B8UF] BIYO14 30D 22 7 oa aNa931 ING Ns | wiet pr soo0eBZ- — ~~~ >) — — — — ~~ ~~ ~~ - I I OO HS a ~ > ~~ 00, 00s 82 i} i) | ! Fos J ! oo \ ' yor | eas \ yoeag auinogiayy vor | ' = || al z as is fc won 2uNoIEW sowoz (| UualelpUl on ; JUaWYSUNON pus UONes01Seq4 ea em ie | fl : \ NVIIO | res \ \ \ ! ! IILNVTLY } Bes \ \ i} | \ upeag aujiaies i I \ Si \ 1 ' a it 010 SOW EZ \ JON aS SSS Ee SS SS ea a ee ee 1 _|_ gay youeg— — eee AEN ecw = oeeBe iq IUAWYSUNON pue Loneiosay | | ce ~ ae =O07s1eB \ <== =a \ \ 903 \ ! ! a 1 | i} 1 x4 + i} ' : : “Se! 3 | fauneo ' _y oR rea. 3s 21 haa aBpapjo0y hanes i % lyeegeooog OH bY i eg Ayunog | is \ S91 BZ { aBuelQ i JUaWYSUNON pue uONe10}Ssay ! my \ \ \ \ i ayeBajddy \ \ \ \ goquey jesaneued =| PMN eucueg i | em ee es (hing sy pe AS i nage “1+ |" J =y TOO;OE CBZ 1 Sa- SSS, i ied = ---—so0.nese ' ee \ oan ! \ \ > 1 \ Hl = sauinoy \ | ss \ \ \ Z - 1UBWYSNON pue UOneoisay \ 1 ~ pet ! a \ uelpuy 1 1 ¥ \ 2 \ 1 y aIASNIL i] a b L 1 x it, 1 AG %, uy H \ {ca 1 $8) i 8 ‘ Wer | X ae H IUBWYSLNOW Pue UONB10}say | “ ‘ NZ . | i) “ oe j V i] , y | ! | | 1 { } \ \ ; ! | > 1 ! | CSV > = SS te ee te ai = = $00.5 768G i] H { z “ i} | ' \ ' iT ra | Aluno9 e|snjop, 3 ~*~ 8 8 es 8 * a le 2 a | v 2 2 | Applegate et. al v. The United States 12/5/97 F-9 Privilege Confidential Information - Attorney/Client Cape Canaveral. Restore 14,600 ft (2.8 miles) of beach at the city of Cape Canaveral. Volume needed for initial restoration was 988,000 cy. Approximately 240,000 cy would be needed annually for periodic nourishment (16.4 cy/ft). The sand-transfer plant was expected to transfer 315,000 cy of material across the inlet annually. Therefore, no periodic nourishment was authorized for the Cape Canaveral project segment. Patrick AFB. Restore 10,600 ft (2.3 miles) of beach at Patrick AFB without Federal (Civil Works) participation. Federal agencies owning the property involved would be responsible for their own justification and funding for project construction. Volume needed for initial restoration was 700,000 cy. Approximately 82,000 cy would be needed annually for periodic nourishment (7.7 cy/ft). Indialantic/Melbourne. Restore 10,600 ft (2.0 miles) of beach at Indialantic Beach and Melbourne Beach. Volume needed for initial restoration was 603,000 cy. Approximately 68,000 cy would be needed annually for periodic nourishment (6.4 cy/ft). It is important to note that, with the exception of Cape Canaveral, all of the areas identified as having erosion problems were eroding at similar rates, between 6.4 and 7.7 cy/ft/year. Two of the eroding areas are located more than 9 miles north of Canaveral Harbor, to the north of Cape Kennedy, and are totally outside the zone of influence of the Harbor entrance. Brevard County, Florida, Project Construction. (Cape Canaveral Segment). About 2.0 of the 2.8-mile City of Cape Canaveral segment of the Brevard County, Florida, beach-erosion control project was completed in March 1975. Approximately 2.8 Mcy of sand were placed. In addition, about 1.3 Mcy were placed as part of the beach-erosion control project. The work was performed under an agreement dated April 26, 1973, and executed between the USACE and Brevard County Board of Commissioners (Contract No. DACW17-73-A-0009). The remaining 1.5 Mcy were placed on private property landward of the erosion control line (ECL) at Federal expense as a least-cost disposal site for new-work dredging as part of the deepening of the navigation entrance channel for the Trident. The southern 0.8 miles of the beach-erosion control project was not nourished as part of this work. (Indialantic/Melbourne Beach Segment). The 2-mile Indialantic and Melbourne Beach Segment (R-122+500 ft to R-134+500 ft) of the Brevard County, Florida, beach-erosion control project was completed in 1981. About 540,000 cy were placed along 2 miles of beach. The contract above was amended in 1979 for this project segment. The project was authorized with a 50-year project life. Federal participation was limited by the authorizing act to 10 years from the completion of construction. Federal participation expired at the end of 1991. Appendix F Brevard County Federal Projects and Surveys F-14 F.3. Beach-Erosion Control Project Modifications The House Public Works and Transportation Committee, by resolution adopted September 23, 1982, directed the USACE to review the report of the Chief of Engineers on Brevard County, Florida, published in House Document 352/90/2 to determine if the project should be modified. The purpose of the study was to consider the advisability of extending Federal participation in the Cape Canaveral and Indialantic and Melbourne Beach segments and the addition of other project segments if needed and justified. The study was completed and the report of the Chief of Engineers transmitted to the Secretary of the Army on December 23, 1996. Section 101(b)(7) of the 1996 Water Resources Development Act reauthorized the Brevard County, Florida, Shore-Protection Project based on the report of the Chief of Engineers. The City of Cape Canaveral segment was incorporated into a larger 9.4-mile segment. The Indialantic and Melbourne Beach segment was incorporated into a larger 3.4-miles segment. The locations of the existing and modified project segments are shown in Figure F-4. Beach restoration and periodic nourishment were authorized for both project segments at a 50-year total project cost estimated at $138,778,000. F.4. Summary of Dredged-Material Placement Approximately 4.8 Mcy of beach-quality dredged material from Canaveral Harbor have been placed on the beaches or in the nearshore littoral zone of Brevard County since April 1974. Another 792,700 cy have been placed at Patrick AFB by the Air Force. Non-Federal beach nourishment at the cities of Cape Canaveral and Cocoa Beach total 140,000 cy. The amounts, locations, authority, and other information on sand placed on Brevard County’s beaches are shown in Figure F-5. In summary, 6.3 Mcy of beach-quality material have been placed on the beaches, or in the nearshore zone, south of Canaveral Harbor in Brevard County from 1965 through 1997. A summary of beach and nearshore disposal in Brevard County is given in Table F-2. F-12 Appendix F Brevard County Federal Projects and Surveys ie) CRE RUSH 90,480) hd (6.999 Bt m0 Ja ‘Ayonop pavaosg, i} spaforg 10199}01g 9104S | py Aandi ja|u] ueseqas WOIHOTs “STIANOSNOWr pig vets 3THANOSOVP ‘LOIHLSIC HaaNIONA AWHY 'S'A ey ay Ale z . AWHY 3H1 JO LNAWLYvd30 LOBE eu0z 1963 epyoly ee euRig MIMS “LZOVN WME raed C) Era 4 VOYM 966] Seay 190/014 [———] VHRH 8961 Seay i00(o14 ae sv VG S9BL SEUN7 BI1JO1g JOD Ce QNngd937 quawnuow YNG (8961 ‘SAW 0'Z) JUaWBag yoreg suinoga/Inuele!pul gq AjUNOD JaAIy Ue!PUy lea \ ‘\ auunogiay i) | i} ! \ I i} ; (9661 ‘SOW ¥'e) | ee rf | LNaW93S HOV3Y HLNOS NvI20 1 iT i) OULNYTLY A \ 1 BE v I 1 \ ° udeag aujiaes | 1s ve =r i] v ! i eet | Ronee = FPS SSS S SES S535 5965 S95 S555 55 |v 4O1ed— “ae =y fa — — eo a 1 i} i} if i} \ (9661 ‘SOW ¥'6) LN3W93S HOW3Y HIHON | 1 {8961 ‘sew 9'z) jUyaWBas jesaneue) V | soquey jesaneueD { JOAs, ( Janny 2 rc i I | i ! i} | i & g \#S Ajunog puengig ey Alunog eIsnjop, Ajuno9 g19e05G Ayunog via aBue9 j 00,990 02 12/5/97 F-13 Confidential Information - Attorney/Client Privilege Applegate et. al v. The United States ry - : eps cede BL a yesodsig [eae pasparg Ayyjend qovag jo sjunoury pue suonvI07y s-d oandiy VWamdo71s “STIANOSNOVr STHANOS)OVE ‘LOIN.LSIG Y33NTON3 AWSY ‘S'N AWYY 3H1 4O LNAI LYWd30 LOBE eu0z 1983 epHOly "3904 ULIg M1N9 “ZZGYN Meg yoeag auinogayy & z t 0 t so seaiy jesodsiq ov pues 99/014 saz Va SUANOgISIN o)pue|e|puy quawnuoW YNG "2 Vs $961 S0UI7 A1Y014 30D ZZ —— . GNa931 vy ji, 1 | 1 Ay ! SPIBA FIQND (|@}03) oon'ess BA 31 I ‘ NvjI0 juawaze}y yIeag iy cA I } IILNVILY i} i} | ! | | Pectin 5 SS Re a ai a a i) i} i | | \ 9661 01 0B6L | SPIBA IIGND (18303) OOZ'7EL \ Juawasely yseag B ~) 1 i) i] i | i | i} i} i) i] 1 i} \ SBE6L ! SP4BA JIGND (16202) OOO'OF | juswarely useag | ! | | i £6619) 7661 | SPIBA I/QND (18303) O009’L68 a I Juawaze|4 aoYysieaN } BUN LS Wii Rates alon nado. =] ST SS SS a ae em TY es al v } 0: i) i i} i) i] I i i] i} \ i) i £66 S9GL 1 SPJEA FIQND (12303) OOG'BLO'py \ juawace|4 yoeag i} A i] i JOQIEH jesaAeuegD | s 4 / { JOAN \ i? ak Apauusy ’> s \ ( \ es ' fie ri fe \ 3 AS eueueg \ 8 ade: Ae -00.77 00 -00,200821L 00,2082; 12/5/97 Applegate et. al v. The United States F-15 Confidential Information - Attorney/Client Privilege — able F-2. Summary of beach and nearshore disposal sites in Brevard County, Florida. Monument No. North South Authority/Purpose Sand Placed 1965 | Cape canoe] 2 to Re | Poel La ea Cet 1965 1965 1972 | Cape Canaveral Mar-72 | Sep-72 TGS ape Canaveral Tne to R-11 reese S| acer Mar-75 Sau pas [Federal Mem Tage Nen Wek agra | wa 1860-| cian pegs eon oor eee Nourishment 3rd Avenue in Indialantic to 5" Avenue in Melbourne Beach aero abe Th gre Denes | 1992 | Cocoa Beach Jun-92 | Aug-92 229,000 ** Start |Complete Vel te Or Location Date Date Year oO TSB Cape Canaveral = oO (ee) = Ss i) NO ~ [= =J O nN oO Bs a ie) Oy ee eo es = O}]O;aO|N}|@ qu i) Appendix F Brevard County Federal Projects and Surveys USACE Trident Survey F-25 Table F-5. Beach-profile surveys south of Canaveral Harbor from south jetty to R-53, October 1951 to May 1975. USACE Distance: |», Ponce Canaveral USACE Beach- USACE Canaveral Harbor} USACE Beach- | from Harbor a omonng Erosion Control Trident Survey ; Surveys Month/Year Mon Beach Profile | Erosion Control | Channel Survey Number Sons PACING | Genes Oct- | May-| Oct- | Nov-| Mar-65 to|May, Jun,| Feb, Aug, |Sep-72 to May-75 51 = a 58 6 a eet aan 72 — DEP ef ee 508+51S Se) ie = ame a eT [eae A) ae ie Aa Note: Columns with shading denote surveys that were used in the volume analysis and plotted on the plates at the end of Appendix F. aon ee ES ee ee ee a a a a ae F-26 Appendix F Brevard County Federal Projects and Surveys Table F-6. Beach-profile surveys south of Canaveral Harbor from south jetty to R-53, March 1979 to January 1997. USACE USACE | DEP |USACE| USACE ; Trident Mon. | BEC | CCCL | BEC | BEC USACE Seng insti Surveys Survey | Survey | Survey | Surve onitoring Surveys USACE Mar- | Dec- |May-85 to} Aug-85 to] Sep- | Jan- |Feb-94 to|Jan-95 to | Jan-|May- 79 79 | Jun-85 | May-86 88 94 Apr-94 | Feb-95 | 96 |97** Distance aan Canaveral USACE Beach- | from Harbor en Harbor Beach | Erosion Control Channel ‘| Profile Survey | Profile Line No. | Centerline, Line No. Range 400, (Sst a a ee oes es 2 _ Ten A es |__| ir Er a | 1,000 __| ___ Ss i DS i i el a ee __ ei i Sas | _ ee a ae eT __ Seri Daas __ Ee a Seo | Sae e eT i ee eo a 00 | | | SSO Lee SS ass Ree i a as. Rn 210200. || | 20001 LT ass _ een a as | | 25+008__ [P48 ant] PL-18 | 2.500_| Le a a as _TeEe ne as |p| 3000S | | 3000 CONE YE SAN nn | CDA-B, P14 |Line14[ | CDA-B,PI4A{ | ea ae ee Sn i an eo CDA-B,P-15 | Line 15] | e282 | Eaeey| CDA-B,P16 [Line 16] ‘| 50+00S : PL-19 | 5,000 CDA-B, P17 | Line 17 CDA-B, P17 CDA-B, P1 CDA-B, P18 60+00S CDA-B, P19 CDA-B, P19 CDA-B, P20_| Line 20 CDA-B, P15A U =) = oj; fo>) a n = -19 6,000 = Eyp) IS o|=] Ja re ea ol ros) aw ps) w & (on) Appendix F Brevard County Federal Projects and Surveys F-27 Table F-6. Beach-profile surveys south of Canaveral Harbor from south jetty to R-53, March 1979 to January 1997. USACE USACE DEP |USACE | USACE : Trident Mon. | BEC | cccL | Bec | BEC ie Surveys Surve Surve Survey | Surve naar oI USACE ie. Canaveral uINey, Harbor Beach Distance from Harbor USACE Beach- Mon. Erosion Control Channel No. | Profile Survey | Profile Line No. | Centerline, Line No. 79 79 Jun-85 | May-86 88 94 Apr-94 | Feb-95 | 96 |97™ (rn oS —_— ee es Ao ee Pee a 2m em 5°0470(0| Ae IT Ce Pee a Ro | CAB PO [Une | oe ee a F025 9775 | ie ee ee re RAO | COAB P23 [Urea | a ce oe ae) a Sa eee ne 2a LSC a ee ane 74 al ED (ac CC 0697 | a a |e ree es | i a ee | as [ri 20) | 725 a a ee ee Ba See ee ae Pao Sera eae, ee RAS | South limit of 28-mile project | ta7ee | xX | | x fe oe (oe Ea | R16 |e ie ern Se eee eae io) i eee ee ese i eee eee es eee ee ea) 20 [| ee | | a | Ries Rare See ee Ee ae eee i eee | ee | Eo pee ee a eee i a Fe ee aes eee bee | (Sa ee a | es aes ee Se ae a | ee | 23 (060 | | | ee ae oe aes ao | eeolc)| Sal eo | a || PL-25 | a ee | F-28 Appendix F Brevard County Federal Projects and Surveys Table F-6. Beach-profile surveys south of Canaveral Harbor from south jetty to R-53, March 1979 to January 1997. USACE USACE DEP |USACE} USACE : ‘iéenilin, || Bee || Cook || Bae | fas | “SMOS Seine eso Monitoring Surveys Surveys Surve Surve Survey | Surve USACE Mar- | Dec- |May-85 to} Aug-85 to} Sep- | Jan- |Feb-94 to}Jan-95 to | Jan-| May- a be oe 7 85 ne 86 a EE (see aa 95 a Es) Distance USACE Beach- | from Harbor Erosion Control | Channel Profile Line No. | Centerline, DEP Survey Canaveral Mont Harbor Beach Profile Survey : Line No. Re) ae ey Re (Se ae R32 | OceanPines| _| Ro ae oe ce Me a a ae ee a eee pe a a a To VN NT TNR ee ae a a se oe ee ie EN ee | seen | eC we ea | CR (aa a ee a ee ee 2 (Sere eee Wee ie | | le ied ieee (sie a ane (oon [2 Mw) SS ee as a ee ae ee ee ee eee ee ee | eae hams. > Ea Pe Ee Re ee ee ere [____] itera eye |S na aicp S e es a a ieee BE] Ema i a a Ce Pe ae es ae a (RA) FF ea om Gr TVS Tl le Meal eel ol LE Sa a (Rc ec A a Ee) [RSD] a a Ta (ae (RST EE a a Pn oC ee] RS] RS a Wo a a ee I ON 52 ea | | TRS a ae a i a Se a PATRICK AIR FORCE BASE Note: Columns with shading denote surveys that were used in the volume analysis and plotted on the plates at the end of Appendix F. ** The May 1996 survey column was omitted for clarity, but was included in the volume analysis. Appendix F Brevard County Federal Projects and Surveys F-29 Table F-7. Brevard County, Florida, Shore Protection Project beach-profile surveys. , No. of | Survey esi oe ne re Baseline control and beach-profile surveys, 47 lines from the north county line to just south of Sebastian Inlet. Baseline control and beach-profile surveys, May-71 |8 lines from 5,000 ft north to 5,000 ft south of to Harbor, PL-16C, PL-17, PL-17A, PL-17B, PL- Jun-71 }18, PL-18A, PL-18B, PL-19; logs of core borings and grain size curves. 24-31, 488 ; : Beach-Erosion Control Project 4 Survey control and layout for survey in D.O. File 24-32, 002. Survey Control and Layout Beach-profile survey comparisons for Profile Lines 20, 21, 22, 23. Sep-71 offshore profiles limited to between -12 and -15 ft. 24-29, 128 Beach-Erosion Control Study 35 24-31, 322 Canaveral Harbor, FL Interim Beach Nourishment for Downdrift Shore 24-31, 727 Beach-Erosion Control Study Profile Lines Beach-profile survey comparisons for Profile Lines P-17, Cut 2, PL-17A, PL-17A-1, PL-17B, PL-18Alt, PL-18A. Many surveys are limited to wading depth. 24-31, 847 Canaveral Monitoring Surveys 24-31, 851 Canaveral Harbor, FL Pre-dredging Survey for Interim Beach Nourishment Sta. -4+00 to Sta. 23+00, 28 profile lines. Surveys extend to -12 ft. 1-6 Jul-74 | Survey control and layout, beach-profile cross of 23 Aug-74 | sections for 9 lines, P-17, Cut 2, PL-8, PL-17A, Nov-74 | PL-17A-1, PL-17B, PL-18Alt, PL-18A, PL-19A. 7-14 Jan-75 | Beach-profile surveys for 9 lines, P-17, Cut 2, of 23 Feb-75 |PL-8, PL-17A, PL-17A-1, PL-17B, PL-18Alt, PL- May-75 | 18A, PL-19A. 42-23 Jan-75 | Beach-profile surveys for 26 lines for the Trident of 23 Feb-75 |beach disposal area (CDA-B series beach- May-75 | profile lines). ) Five 1965 profile lines (30, 31, 32, 33, and 34 were resurveyed in Nov-74. The lines are located in or near Patrick AFB. The Nov-74 offshore survey is limited to -10 ft. Survey for the G&DDM dated Sep-72. 17 profile May-71 |lines were taken over the 2.8-mile Canaveral 7 to project segment. 16 profile lines were taken Jun-71 Jover the 2-mile Indialantic and Melbourne Beach project segment. Comparative beach-profile surveys. Surveys extend to -20 to -25 ft. Profile Lines PL-38, PL- 24-31, 990 Canaveral Monitoring Surveys 24-31, 998 1965 Beach-Erosion Control Study Update 24-32, 002 Beach-Erosion Control Project Exam Survey J ee eee Sree 39, PL-40, PL-41, R-120, R-123, R-126, R-129, G&DDM Addendum R-132, R-135, R-138 survey in the area of 2- mile Indialantic and Melbourne Beach project segment 24-32, 851 ; , ; } P&S sheets, file is dated Sep-78. These sheets Indialantic and Melbourne Beach Plans and 24 are missing from the D.O. File drawer. Specifications F-30 Appendix F Brevard County Federal Projects and Surveys Table F-7. Brevard County, Florida, Shore Protection Project beach-profile surveys. : No. of | Survey wiles = ae ie 24-33, 100 May-75 Mar-79 beach-profile lines extend to -20 to Beach-Erosion Control Project Comparative en -25 ft. 23 profile lines were surveyed and Profiles, Canaveral Harbor Sections extend from the south jetty to R-16. hed US) P&S sheets, file is dated Sep-81. These sheets are missing from the D.O. File drawer. Indialantic and Melbourne Beach ol 24-33, 776 ; ; g é Survey control and: beach-profile surveys. 27 Inelielemide €lnlel MclleeMbinte Eten wy Sensi lines were surveyed from R-122+451 to R-127. Comparative Profiles Plans and Specifications As-Builts HES, Ure Mar-79 |Comparative beach-profile cross sections for Dec-79 |R-1 through R-12. Profiles extend to -25 ft. Canaveral Harbor Sections Comparative Profiles R-1, R-3, R-6,,,R-219 surveyed to -25-ft contour. R-2, R-4, R-7, R-8, R-10, R-11, R-13, R-14, 24-34, 594 Beach-Erosion Comparative Profiles R-16, and R-17 were surveyed to wading depth only. R-1 through R-15 surveyed. Profiles extend to Sep-88 | 415 to -20 ft. 24-35, 379 City of Canaveral Monitoring Surve R-1, R-4, R-7, R-10...R-52 were surveyed to -20 ft. R-2, R-3, R-5, R-6...R-51 were surveyed 24-36, 564 to wading depth. R-56, R-59, R-62, R-65, R-68, Shore Bratection Project 29 Dec-93 R-71, and R-74 at Patrick AFB were surveyed to Feasibility Survey Beach Profiles wading depth. R-76, R-79, R-81...R-136 were surveyed to -20ft. R-77, R-78, R-80, R-81, R-83, R-84...R-137 were surveyed to wading depth. 24-37, 570 Nov-97 : ; Brevard County, FL, Shore Protection Project 23 to ae ie aa NC arse, and inter- Plans and Specifications Surveys, North Reach Feb-98 f 24-37, 565 Dec-97 F : Brevard County, FL, Shore Protection Project 10 to neice ne aie and inter- Plans and Specifications Surveys, South Reach Jan-98 5 From May to June 1971, beach profiles used in the USACE G&DDM dated September 1972 were surveyed. Seventeen profile lines were taken along the 2.8-mile Canaveral Beach project segment. Sixteen profile lines were taken along the 2.0-mile Indialantic and Melbourne Beach Project segment. In March 1979, the USACE surveyed FDEP Beach Profiles R-1 to R-16. The March 1979 data extends to between the -20 to -25-ft contour. FDEP Profile Lines R-1 through R-12 were resurveyed by the USACE in December 1979. The December 1979 data extends to the -25-ft contour. In September 1981, 27 profile lines between R-122+451 to R-127 were surveyed by the USACE. The USACE surveyed R-1, R-3, R-6, R-9...R-219 to the 30-ft contour, and R-2, R-4, R-5, R-7, R-8...R-218 to wading depth in May and June 1985. In September 1988, the USACE resurveyed R-1 through R-15. The 1988 survey extended offshore to the -15 to -20-ft contour. In January 1994, the USACE completed a survey of every third FDEP beach profile in Brevard County from the south jetty to the south county line, excluding Patrick AFB. The beach-profile Appendix F Brevard County Federal Projects and Surveys F-31 surveys for the contract plans for the Brevard County shore protection project were taken from November 1997 through February 1998. F.5.4. FDEP Surveys The FDEP establishes CCCLs on a countywide basis. Surveys of the beach and offshore areas are an integral part of studies performed by the FDEP for its control line program. The FDEP surveyed R-1, R-3, R-6, R-9,..R-219 to the 30-ft depth contour and R-2, R-4, R-6, R-7, R-8, ... R-218 to wading depth for the purpose of establishing a CCCL for Brevard County in September through November 1972. FDEP resurveyed the same profile lines for reestablishment of the CCCL in Brevard County from August 1985 to May 1986. Because the State does not establish CCCLs for Federal property, the Brevard County CCCL does not extend north of Canaveral Harbor. The FDEP has also performed ten post-storm or conditional surveys of the beaches in Brevard County since 1972. Post-storm and condition surveys do not extend seaward beyond wading depth (-5 ft MLW) and are taken for a limited number of profile lines. Table F-8 lists the FDEP surveys, including the number of offshore and onshore profiles, the total number of points (elevation data) taken, the survey type, and survey dates. from the FDEP. Total Number of Points invento Table F-8. Brevard County, Florida, beach-profile surve Survey Dates Number of Number of y Offshore Profiles Onshore Profiles 7 219 4,807 32 361 Post Storm 5 723 Post Storm 6 6 Survey Type Control Line Post Storm Post Storm Post Storm 74 Condition 193 93 219 Post Storm 4 30 520 Post Storm 1,414 21 239 Jun-86 Special Control Line Special Special 21 177 1 239 Special Special Le) = F-32 Appendix F Brevard County Federal Projects and Surveys F.6. Volume Computations As noted in the earlier sections of this appendix, there is a wealth of survey data for the beaches of Brevard County. Many of the surveys were taken for limited areas, such as the condition surveys taken by FDEP, or have been taken once, such as the USACE survey in 1965- 1966 for Brevard County from Cape Canaveral to the north county line. The USACE completed a survey for the area 2 miles north and south of the Harbor just prior to the pilot cut through the barrier island in October 1951. In May 1954, the USACE expanded the October 1951 survey to extend 4 miles north and 6.5 miles south of the Harbor. The 1951 and 1954 surveys serve as the basis for examining volume changes to the shores adjacent to Canaveral Harbor since its construction. Table F-4 shows the extent of survey data north of Canaveral Harbor. Beach-profile data north of the Harbor for October 1951, May 1954, November 1958, March 1965 - January 1966, February - April 1994, January 1996, May 1996, and May 1997 were digitized for analysis. These surveys are shaded in Table F-4. Tables F-5 and F-6 show the extent of survey data from the south jetty to R-53, near the north boundary of Patrick AFB. Beach-profile data south of the Harbor for October 1951, May 1954, November 1958, March 1965 to January 1966, September to November 1972, May 1975, March 1979, December 1979, August 1985 to May 1986, January 1994, January 1996, May 1996, and May 1997 were digitized for analysis. These surveys are shaded in Tables F-5 and F-6. The location and extent of survey data from R-53 to the south county line have been compiled, but were excluded from this report since the focus is on the test Plaintiffs (test Plaintiffs are located north of R-53). Therefore, surveys south of R-53 were not listed in Tables F-5 and F-6. Beach-profile data were digitized from the USACE D.O. map file mylar media, or obtained electronically from FDEP, in order to compare volume changes using the computer-aided design and drafting (CADD) software program. The software program MicroStation in conjunction with the support package InRoads was used to define the survey baseline data, beach-profile survey data, and conversion of data into surfaces (Digital Terrain Models (DTMs)) for each survey. Volume difference between the surfaces was then generated for each survey. The onshore limit of the volumetric analysis was the FDEP monuments. The offshore limit of the volumetric analysis is the 17-ft depth contour relative to NGVD (+1.7 ft MLW). An average-end area analysis was used to determine volume changes between each beach-profile survey line. The CADD software determined the cut, fill, and net area changes at each of the profile lines. The average net area change between adjacent long-line beach profiles was multiplied by the distance between each survey monument to define volume change. The surveys listed above from 1951 through 1997 were digitized with CADD software. InRoads converted the digital survey data into DTMs. Much of the USACE survey data were Appendix F Brevard County Federal Projects and Surveys F-33 referenced to MLW;; therefore, the elevation data were lowered -1.9 ft to convert to the NGVD 1929 reference. FDEP survey data for 1972, 1986, and USACE surveys for 1994 through 1997 were surveyed to NGVD datum and did not require elevation datum conversion. F.6.1. Volume Analysis North of Canaveral Harbor The pre-Harbor October 1951 survey was completed by the USACE just prior to the cut through the barrier island for the first 10,500 ft of shore north of the Harbor. The October 1951 survey was compared with the May 1954, December 1958, March 1965 to January 1966, February to April 1994, January 1996, May 1996, and May 1997 surveys to determine volume changes. The computed volume changes are listed in Table F-9. The volume changes were computed for the beach profile from the landward limit of the survey data seaward to the -17-ft contour of the October 1951 survey. The 1994 through 1997 survey data were extended landward to the limit of the October 1951 profile data in order to perform the volume comparisons. Some of the available survey data (Table F-4) were not included in the volume computations, such as the October 1956 and January, June, and October 1995 surveys, as there were sufficient surveys for comparison purposes for these time frames. Other surveys (refer to Tables F-3 and F-7) were excluded from the volume analysis because of their limited lineal extent. The May 1954 survey repeated and expanded the October 1951 survey. The May 1954 coverage extends from 210+00N to 343+98S. The Harbor impact was fairly limited in 1954 as evidenced by volume changes to the -17-ft contour for 10,500 ft of shore north and south of the Harbor of +286,800 and -148,600 cy, respectively (refer to Tables F-9 and F-12). Therefore, the May 1954 survey is better suited as the baseline for pre-project conditions since its lineal extent is twice as great north of the Harbor, and three times longer south of the Harbor as compared with the October 1951 survey. Therefore, volume changes were also computed using the May 1954 survey as a pre-Harbor survey. The May 1954 survey was compared with the November 1958, March 1965 to January 1966, January 1996, May 1996, and May 1997 surveys for the first 13,500 ft of shore north of the Harbor. The computed volume changes are listed in Table F-10. The volume changes were computed for the beach profile from the landward limit of the survey data seaward to the -17-ft contour of the May 1954 survey. The 1994 through 1997 survey data were extended landward at the berm elevation (+8.1 ft NGVD) to the limit of the May 1954 profile data in order to perform the volume comparisons. The May 1954 survey was compared with the November 1958 and the March 1965 to January 1966 surveys for the first 21,000 ft of shore north of the Harbor. The computed volume changes are listed in Table F-11. The volume changes were computed for the beach profile from the landward limit of the survey data seaward to the -17-ft contour of the May 1954 survey. The F-34 Appendix F Brevard County Federal Projects and Surveys 1994 to 1997 survey data does not extend beyond 13,500 ft north of the Harbor, and, therefore, could not be used to compute volumes beyond 13,500 ft. Table F-9. Volume changes north of the north jetty 10,500 ft, seaward to the -17-ft contour. Survey Mar-65 to | Feb-94 to Oct-51 | 286,800 | 1,124,100 | 1,947,400 | 4,868,500 | 4,229,300 | 4,264,300 | 4,434,400 May-54 fm | 837,700 | 1,714,900 | 4,563,700 | 3,923,900 | 3,958,700 one 128,600 1,053,900 | 3,726,400 | 3,086,200 | 3,121,000 | 121 | 3,121,000 | | 3,290,900 | MELEE 89 3,534,500 | 2,592,900 | 2,953,900 | 3,109,400 Jan-66 Feb-94 to Ar 94 ESS ae ane ie eee ar a a es Sena eae a Note: The 1965 data for the area north of the inlet are based on two profile lines. See Plates F-1, F-2, F-3, F-7, and F-8 for a graphical display of volume changes. The May 1954 MHW is depicted on the plates. Table F-10. Volume changes north of the inlet 13,500 ft, seaward to the 1954 -17-ft contour. Survey Mar-65 to | Feb-94 to | May-54 | 759,900 | 1,445,100 | 6,053,400 | 053, | 6,053,400 | 5,468,800 | 5,510,300 | 5,732,100 | Nov-58 | —_—|_-863,200 ‘| 4,689,900 | 4,104,000 | 4,145,600 | 4,371,800 Mar-65 to Jan-66 Pe a 4,666,600 | 4,117,100 | 4,151,700 | 4,359,000 Feb-94 to eM ee a ero Table F-11. Volume changes north of the inlet 21,000 ft, seaward to the 1954 -17-ft contour. May-54 1,312,900 2,594,700 Note: The 1965 data for the area north of the inlet are based on three profile lines. See Plates F-1 to F-9 for a graphical display of volume changes. The 1954 MHW line is noted on the Plates. Appendix F Brevard County Federal Projects and Surveys F-35 F.6.2. Volume Analysis South of Canaveral Harbor The pre-Harbor, October 1951 survey was completed by the USACE just prior to the cut through the barrier island for the first 10,500 ft of shore south of the Harbor. The October 1951 survey was compared with the May 1954, December 1958, March 1965 to January 1966, May 1975, March and December 1979, August 1985 to May 1986, January 1994, January and May 1996, and May 1997 surveys to determine volume changes. These volume changes were computed for the beach profile from the landward limit of the survey data seaward to the -17-ft contour of the October 1951 survey and are listed in Table F-12. Similarly, volume changes were computed for the beach profile from the landward limit of the survey data seaward to the October 1951 MHWL (Table F-13). Some of the available survey data (see Tables F-4, F-5 and F-6) were not included in the volume computations (such as the October 1956 and the January, June, and October 1995 surveys), as there were sufficient surveys for comparison purposes for these time frames. Other surveys (refer to Tables F-3 and F-7) were excluded from the volume analysis because of their limited lineal extent. The May 1954 survey repeated and expanded the October 1951 survey. The May 1954 coverage extends from 210+00N to 343+98S. The Harbor impact was fairly limited in 1954 as evidenced by volume changes to the -17-ft contour for 10,500 ft of shore north and south of the Harbor of +286,800 and -148,600 cy, respectively (refer to Tables F-9 and F-12). Therefore, the May 1954 survey is better suited as the baseline for pre-project conditions since its lineal extent is twice as great north of the Harbor and three times longer south of the Harbor as compared with the October 1951 survey and is more suitable as a pre-Harbor survey. The May 1954 survey was compared with the December 1958, March 1965 to January 1966, May 1975, March and December 1979, August 1985 to May 1986, January 1994, January and May 1996, and May 1997 surveys for the shore 34,398 ft (6.5 miles) south of the Harbor. Volume changes were computed for the beach profile from the landward limit of the survey data seaward to the -17-ft contour of the May 1954 survey, (Table F-14). Similarly, volume changes were computed from the landward limit of the survey data seaward to the May 1954 MHWL and the results displayed in Table F-15 and shown on Plates F-1 through F-8. Since the May 1975, March and December 1979, January and May 1996, and May 1997 surveys only extend to 2.8 miles south of the Harbor, they could not be used to compute volumes for 6.5 miles of shore. F-36 Appendix F Brevard County Federal Projects and Surveys fr ma | mr | mn | we Foo [sm [we | Parse |__| asa) ess zen] cram |rrn| ssn] aman] roel sen) a] Pees [|_| snr] ra 7510) em] an] eam] —ao| PeeP| [eine traa| anno) one] esa] sano] wae au _ Cael ae ae ea eee A A - a a ee Ce = [Frese] pee es ee ee) ae Be [eae A I EN SS) “aca | ee Pm | es Note: See Plates F-1 through F-7 for graphical display of volume changes. The May 1954 MHWL is noted on the Plates. The hydrographic data for the 1972 FDEP survey were omitted in this analysis because of irregularities in the offshore portions of the data set. [|r| St | mn | AI [i [re [er Pree | [ssn] rome] ean] aro] vse | | 550 || a0 [ann [| Fras [ren en ses | a | || “ints Se see -171,700 | 298,300 | 240,800 | 256,300 | 26,600 | -125,900 } -143, 000 | -106,800 | -71,700 eel || |__ [exer] cae] war] 20] a0] ora vs] A (co) eae Ge ee CIE CCC “ea a a eee ee eee ee auge -85 to ee | 12,900 | 900 | 13, | 13,900 | 44, | 44,400 | 69,800 34,900 Note: See Plates F-1 through F-7 for graphical display of volume changes. The May 1954 MHWL is noted on the Plates. The hydrographic data for the 1972 FDEP survey were omitted in this analysis because of irregularities in the offshore portions of the data set. Appendix F Brevard County Federal Projects and Surveys F-37 Table F-14. Volume changes south of the inlet from 2,500 to 34,400 ft, seaward to the -17-ft contour. Mar-65 to Sep-72 to Aug-85 to Nov-5 4 See May-86 May-54 1,687,500 | -1,497,700 | —- —«|_—_-260,800 | _-1,04,400 1,437,300 386,400 Note: See Plates F-1 through F-7 for graphical display of volume changes. The May 1954 MHW line is noted on the Plates. The hydrographic data for the 1972 FDEP survey were omitted in this analysis because of irregularities in the offshore portions of the data set. Table F-15. Volume changes south of the inlet from 2,500 to 34,400 ft, seaward to the 1954 MHW. Mar-65 to Sep-72 to Aug-85 to Nov-58 canod ra ee ere meet eam May-86 May-54 574,000 193,100 932,800 481,600 496,600 Bee en ee 357,700 92,800 80,700 [rst anes [ren [ac | on Si | | sc fer eo ae ce iT ieee Note: | See Plates F-1 through F-7 for graphical display of volume changes. The May 1954 MHW line is noted on the Plates. F.7. Plaintiffs’ Claims of Volume Loss A comparison has been made of the USACE October 1951 Canaveral Harbor pre- construction survey (D.O. File 11-20, 193; three sheets, a copy of which is in Plaintiffs’ possession) and the USACE January 1994 beach-profile surveys (1996 Feasibility report). The 1951 survey coverage was limited to 10,500 ft south of the south jetty. The volume difference in cubic yards was computed between the two surveys for the area bounded to the north by the inlet to a point 10,500 ft south of the inlet, to the minimum landward extent of the surveys and seaward to the October 1951 MHW shoreline (elevation +1.7 ft NGVD). The total volume change for this shore was 305,200 cy of erosion from 1951 to 1994 above and landward of the October 1951 MHW (see Table F-13). F-38 Appendix F Brevard County Federal Projects and Surveys F.7.1. Plaintiffs’ First Claim of Volume Loss In 1995, plaintiffs claimed total volumetric losses of 4.8 Mcy (claimed dune loss of 1.8 Mcy and other volumetric loss of 3.0 Mcy ) for the first 10,500 ft south of the south jetty at Canaveral Harbor for the period 1951 to 1995. These claims of volume loss, presumably above and landward of the 1951 MHWL, are 16 times higher than those estimated from beach-profile surveys for the period 1951-1994. It is important to note that within the first 10,500 ft south of Canaveral Harbor, the Defendant estimates that 43 shorefront parcels owned by Plaintiffs sums to 5,880 ft. Because Plaintiffs shorefront parcels are 5,880 ft of the first 10,500 ft, it could be expected that erosion losses would be similarly reduced from a computed total. Alleged volume losses from the Applegate property, which is located within the 10,500 ft south of Canaveral Harbor, totaled 42,550 cy (21,340 cy of dune and bluff erosion, a 21,210 cy of other volumetric loss. Applegate’s claim of volume losses in 1995 amounts to 13.9 % of actual loss (305,200 cy), yet Applegate’s property width of 100 ft is only 0.9 % of 10,500 ft. F.7.2. Plaintiffs’ Second Claim of Volume Loss Plaintiffs provided the Defendant a second estimate of dune and bluff volume losses from the time of purchase to 1995 on or about June 28, 1996. Summing the information provided by Plaintiffs second submission for claims within 10,500 ft south of Canaveral Harbor yields 464,710 cy of alleged losses from time of purchase to 1995. This is 1.5 times the amount of erosion from 1951 to 1994 (305,200 cy) above and landward of the 1951 MHW for the 10,500 ft of shoreline south of Canaveral Harbor. It is important to note the following: (1) Defendant estimates that Plaintiffs own 43 shorefront parcels totaling 5,880 ft within the first 10,500 ft south of Canaveral Harbor. Since Plaintiffs’ shorefront parcels are 5,880 ft of the first 10,500 ft, it could be expected that erosion losses would be similarly reduced from a computed total; and (2) Plaintiffs’ claims are alleged to have been made from time of purchase, and yet they exceed the estimate of loss based on survey data for the period 1951 to 1994. The volumes losses from 1965 to 1995 have been estimated to be 125,900 cy above the 1951 MHW line for the area 10,500 ft south of Canaveral Harbor (see Table F-13). These comparisons were made based on the USACE October 1951 Canaveral Harbor pre-construction survey, the USACE 1965 survey (D.O. File 24-29, 128; thirty-five sheets, a copy of which is in Plaintiffs’ possession) and the USACE January 1994 survey. 36 Based on information in Exhibit “A,” November 16, 1995, Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant's Request for Information in Accordance with Court Order Dated August 18, 1995. Volume is summed for the first 62 Plaintiffs (to R10+850). 37 Based on information in table enclosed to 30 June 1995 Plaintiffs’ Answer to Defendant's Interrogatory No. 10 and Request for Production. Volume is summed for the first 62 Plaintiffs (to R10+850). Appendix F Brevard County Federal Projects and Surveys F-39 Beside the City of Cape Canaveral (#176, 12 parcels totaling 465 ft), only two Plaintiffs (Pittman, #131, 350 ft and Eberwein, #8, 230 ft) own parcels in the first 10,500 ft of shore, and their claims of loss total 172,663 cy. Recognizing that an indefinable portion of this volume loss occurred after 1965, an estimate of Plaintiffs’ volume losses after 1965 within the first 10,500 ft south of Canaveral Harbor was made by subtracting 172,663 cy from 464,710 cy. This yields 292,047 cy of alleged volume losses after 1965, which is 2.3 times the amount of erosion (125,900 cy) computed from 1965 to 1994 surveys above and landward of the 1951 MHW. F.7.3. Other Issues Related to Plaintiffs’ Volume Claims Names of plaintiffs and associated frontage (in ft) were provided to the Defendant in 1995. Summing this frontage for the first 10,500 ft south of Canaveral Harbor yields a total of 11,845 ft of ocean frontage (for Plaintiffs north of R10+850), a physical impossibility. Defendant estimates that Plaintiffs own 43 shorefront parcels totaling only 5,880 ft of ocean frontage in the first 10,500 ft south of Canaveral Harbor. This appears in large part to be duplication by Plaintiffs for condominium properties. As an example, Canaveral Sands Condominium Association (Plaintiff No. 5) claims 700 ft of frontage and 149,380 cy of dune and bluff loss, yet three additional Plaintiffs (Nos. 242, 108, and 130) appear to be claiming the same frontage and a portion of the dune and bluff loss claimed by Plaintiff No. 5. Similar discrepancies exist in Plaintiffs’ Answer to Defendant’s Interrogatory No. 10 and Request for Production dated June 30, 1995, and Plaintiffs’ second estimate of dune and bluff volume losses dated June 28, 1996. F-40 Appendix F Brevard County Federal Projects and Surveys 1954 MHW EL. 1.7'NGVD y—1954 PROFILE LINE APPROXIMATE LOCATION SOUTH JETTY Sta 344+g9 Sta 239489 43 NORTH JETTY APPROXIMATE LOCATION 1954 MHW EL. 1.7'NGVD Ve 1954 PROFILE LINE NOTES Y 1. ONE FOOT CONTOUR INTERVAL Vy VOLUMES WERE COMPUTED AS y OIFFERENCES BETWEEN SURFACES GENERATED Y FROM EACH SURVEY. G 1965 PROFILE LINE 3. VOLUME DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SURFACES Y, 7 Sse WERE COMPUTED FROM LANDWARD LIMIT OF 58 Vy, Ze SURVEY SEAWARD LIMIT OF THE -17 FOOT + = CONTOUR OF THE 1954 DATA Y, EROSION a MY Ay ----~--- DNR MONUMENT aS ACCRETION NO CHANGE US. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, JACKSONVILLE CORPS OF ENGINEERS wevaRe COUNT, roma CAPE CANAVERAL VICINITY OCT 1951- MAY 1954 DIFFERENTIAL CONTOURS Ge ee MEX HSS HSS 5= CORPS MONUMENT LOCATION OF CANAVERAL HARBOR ~ MAINTENANCE PROFILE LINES PLATE F-1 el eG ~~ ee 5 eee a 1954 MHW EL. 1.7'NGVD Sta 34499 Va 1954 PROFILE LINE . ? i ——NORTH JETTY APPROXIMATE LOCATION y-1954 MHW EL. 1.7'NGVD 1954 PROFILE LINE ee 1. ONE FOOT CONTOUR INTERVAL 2 VOLUMES WERE COMPUTED AS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SURFACES GENERATED CH SURVEY JME DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SURFACES OMPUTED FROM LANDWARD LIMIT OF 58 SURVEY TO SEAWARD LIMIT OF THE -17 FOOT y BEOtS CONTOUR OF THE 19: DATA ¢ Vy EGEND ———————_ EROSION LY cr 3005000 FF ———— Y A ~------- DNR MONUMENT ——————=_ ACCRETION ij Wy, : " JUS. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, JACKSONVILLE NO CHANGE Ny A) -------- CORPS MONUMENT CORPS OF ENGNEERS y vs ‘TY. FLOM Y ee LOCATION OF CANAVERAL HARBOR CAPE CANAVERAL VICINITY VY, nN on Sie SS AINTENANGE PRORIUEMUINES MAY 1954 - NOV 1958 DIFFERENTIAL_CONTOURS ee CD) a PLATE F-2