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 



34 



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. 



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 



