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: 



1. 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. 



2. 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 



