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/ft x 106 ft « 

 8,500 cy. 33 



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. 



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_g 



