From aerial photos and topograpWc maps, Kofoed (1963), interpreted the formation of 

 the peninsula as having originated at False Cape 100,000 years ago and developed by growth 

 of barrier islands and offshore bars fed by a predominantly southerly httoral drift and a less 

 important northerly littoral drift. Other investigators have hypothesized a structural origin 

 for the peninsula, based on faults in central Florida and data from wells drilled in the coastal 

 region. (Brown, et al., 1962), (White, 1958, 1970), (Vernon, 1951.) A study of shallow 

 structural characteristics of the east Florida inner shelf by Meisburger and Duane (1969), 

 found no evidence of major faulting in the subsurface, although one minor deep fault 

 striking north-south with tlie upthrown side seaward was mapped. If formation of the 

 peninsula was initiated by structural deformation it is still unresolved. However, once 

 initiated, normal nearshore processes probably are responsible for the accretion of the large 

 quantities of sedimentary material comprising the cape and its associated shoals. 



As the Canaveral Peninsula beach ridge complex formed, the sahent part of the coast was 

 on the north end of Merritt Island (A, Fig. 3) where local topography is bowed seaward. 

 Coastal erosion attending the Holocene transgression resulted in truncation of Pleistocene 

 beach ridges and formation of the present coasthne at B in Figure 3. Beach ridge orientation 

 seaward and south of False Cape (C, Fig. 3), indicates the ridge system was developed 

 subsequent to earlier development at A. As the foreland built outward, it migrated 

 southeasterly by littoral processes. Erosion on the north end and deposition on the south 

 resulted in the present promontory at Cape Canaveral. Ridges on the north part of Cape 

 Canaveral are aligned nearly normal to the present shoreline; truncation of these ridges is 

 shown at D in Figure 3. South of Cape Canaveral the ridge system parallels the coast due to 

 accretion on the downdrift side of the cape. (Shepard, 1963.) Rosalsky (1960), presented a 

 similar interpretation of the development of the peninsula frpm maps and aerial photos. 



II. INNER CONTINENTAL SHELF MORPHOLOGY AND STRUCTURE 

 1. Bottom Configuration. 



a. General. Morphology of the central Florida Continental Shelf and shelf edge has been 

 mapped by Uchupi (1968, 1969), and Maclntyre and Milliman (1970). These investigators 

 noted the presence of consolidated ridges, perhaps former strandline deposits on the shelf 

 edge, and unconsolidated ridges (called sand swells by Uchupi, 1968) on the surface of the 

 inner and outer shelf. 



Within the Cape Canaveral grid, the shelf surface is irregular due to constructional 

 features (shoals) and erosional features (terraces or benches). Major shoals he at depths of 

 less than 60 feet while terraces are generally deeper. Most mapped terraces he seaward of the 

 study area; principal terrace depths in this region are 65, 80, 100, 130, 165, and 213 feet. 

 (Uchupi, 1968.) 



South of Cape Canaveral the inner shelf plain has a regular configuration (Meisburger and 

 Duane, 1971), particularly in Canaveral Bight where the surface levels off at about 400 feet 

 MLW. Adjacent to Canaveral Peninsula the inner shelf surface is highly irregular. Large 

 shoals extend southeasterly from False Cape and Cape Canaveral. Isolated shoals and 

 depressions mark the shelf surface to 10 miles from shore. Rock ledges and irregular, often 

 steep, topography characterize the seaward edge of the survey area. Morphology, including 

 shore-connected shoals, depressions, isolated shoals, and the 80-foot contour are 

 schematically illustrated in Figure 4. North of the peninsula the bottom deepens, as noted 

 by the shoreward trend of the 50- to 65-foot inner shelf plain (Fig. 4), and the surface 

 becomes more irregular but has lower rehef . 



16 



