1. Introduction 



On December 4, 1992, more than 300 plaintiffs owning properties along approximately 

 33 miles of shoreline in Brevard County, Florida, filed a lawsuit against the Unites States 

 Government claiming in excess of $100 million in damages allegedly arising from beach 

 erosion. Plaintiffs attribute the erosion to the construction, operation, and maintenance of 

 Canaveral Harbor. Specifically, plaintiffs claim that the Government has physically taken their 

 property above mean high water (MHW) (Tidal darums and associated terminology are discussed 

 in Chapter 2). Plaintiffs claim 13.6 million cubic yards (Mcy) of erosion over a total of 

 6.45 miles of private property, along approximately 33 miles of shoreline, is attributed solely to 

 the Harbor, constructed over the period 1950 to 1954. Inland and back-bay construction 

 commenced in June 1950. However, it was not until October 1951 that the entrance was cut 

 through the Barrier Island and began interacting with the existing coastal processes. Therefore, 

 in this report we will refer to Harbor construction from (October) 1951 to 1954. Most of the 

 material, 11.9 Mcy, is claimed to have been lost between the south jetty of Canaveral Harbor and 

 Patrick Air Force Base (AFB). This report presents an analysis of coastal processes and beach 

 response to the Harbor along the site of the plaintiffs' properties and determines responsibility of 

 the United States for alleged erosion at the properties of the two test plaintiffs. 



1 .1 . Report Overview 



Chapter 1 contains a general introduction and background to the lawsuit and provides a 

 summary of the hypotheses and conclusions for this study. Chapter 2 describes the study site, 

 relevant coastal processes, and pertinent regulatory issues. Chapter 3 is an assessment describing 

 key data sources, analysis, results, and interpretation of regional shoreline movement, beach and 

 offshore volume change, and storm-induced beach and dune erosion along the coast of Brevard 

 County. Chapter 4 focuses on calculation of MHW shoreline-position change and beach volume 

 change at the properties of the two test plaintiffs, Applegate and Noro. Calculation and 

 interpretation of changes at the properties of the two test plaintiffs are a central objective of this 

 study. Chapter 5 summarizes the analyses and presents conclusions. 



The appendices contain detailed documentation and background information developed in 

 this study. Appendix A lists the references cited in this report. Appendix B contains the Joint 

 Protocol developed by the defense Expert-Witness Team and the plaintiff Expert-Witness Team 



Plaintiffs claimed they were entitled to damages back to 1951 (Harbor construction) that occurred to property prior to their 

 ownership. This claim represents the bulk of the erosion losses. Plaintiffs claimed 8.8 Mcy of sand loss prior to ownership. 

 After ownership, plaintiffs claimed a loss of 4.8 Mcy of sand from the beaches. By order dated March 9, 1996, the court 

 ruled that all claims were to be calculated for period of ownership only. 



4 



In parallel with and subsequent to preparation of this report, USACE beach-profile survey data and other materials were 

 identified and compiled. These data are contained in Appendix F. 



Chapter 1 Introduction •]_-] 



