Table Of Content

Technical Report CHL-99-6 May 1999 US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station Coastal Processes Assessment for Brevard County, Florida, with Special Reference to Test Plaintiffs by Nicholas C. Kraus, WES Mark R. Byrnes, Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc. Anne-Lise Lindquist, Consultant Approved ForPublic Release; Distribution Is Unlimited Preparedfor U.S. Department of Justice Thecontentsofthisreportarenottobeusedforadvertising, publication,orpromotionalpurposes.Citationoftradenames doesnotconstituteanofficialendorsementorapprovaloftheuse ofsuchcommercialproducts. The findings of this report are not to be construed as an official Department ofthe Army position, unless so desig- natedbyotherauthorizeddocuments. Technical Report CHL-99-6 May 1999 Coastal Processes Assessment for Brevard County, Florida, with Special Reference to Test Plaintiffs by NicholasC. Kraus U.S. ArmyCorpsof Engineers Waterways ExperimentStation 3909 Halls Ferry Road Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 Mark R. Byrnes Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc. m 766 Falmouth Road Mashpee, MA 02649 _n rau rmu Anne-Lise Lindquist Consultant San Diego, CA Final report Approvedforpublicrelease;distributionisunlimited Preparedfor U.S. Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Division Washington, DC 20044-0663 US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station FORINFORMATIONCONTACT: PUBLICAFFAIRSOFFICE U.S.ARMYENGINEER WATERWAYSEXPERIMENTSTATION 3909HALLSFERRYROAD VICKSBURG,MISSISSIPPI 39180-6199 PHONE:(601)634-2502 AREAOFRESERVATION 27 Waterways ExperimentStationCataloging-in-Publication Data Kraus, NicholasC. Coastal processesassessmenttorBrevard County, Florida,withspecial referencetotestplaintiffs/by NicholasC. Kraus ; prep—aredforU.S. DepartmentofJustice, EnvironmentandNatural Resource Division. 162p. : ill. ;28cm. (Technical report; CHL-99-6) Includesbibli—ographic references. — — — 1. Shor—elines Lawandlegislation. 2. Beacherosion Florida Brevard County. 3. Coastchanges Florida BrevardCounty. I. UnitedStates.Army. CorpsofEngineers. II. U.S. ArmyEngineer Waterways ExperimentStation. III. CoastalandHydraulics Laboratory(U.S.Army EngineerWaterways ExperimentStation) IV. UnitedStates. Dept. ofJustice. Environmentand Natural Resources Division. V. Title. VI. Series:Technical report(U.S.ArmyEngineerWaterwaysExperimentStation) ; CHL-99-6. TA7W34 no.CHL-99-6 Preface The study described herein was performed as an independent assessment of the coastal physical processes occurring along Brevard County, Florida. The study was conducted for the United States Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, in its involvementwiththelawsuitApplegateetal.vtheUnitedStates ofAmerica. The subjectmatter focusesonthetwotestplaintiffs inthelawsuit. The study was conducted by Dr.Nicholas C. Kraus ofthe U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES), Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, Dr. Mark R. Byrnes ofApplied Coastal Research andEngineering, Inc., Mashpee, Massachusetts, and Ms. Anne-Lise Lindquist, Coastal Consultant, SanDiego, California. Atthe inceptionoftheproject, Dr. Kraus was a staff memberatTexas A&MUniversity-Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, Texas, and Dr. Byrnes was a staff member at the Center for Coastal Studies, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Atthe time ofpublication ofthis report, COLRobinR. Cababa, EN, was Acting Directorof WES. Preface Summary More than 300 plaintiffs owningpropertyalong the Atlantic Ocean coast ofBrevard County, Florida, are suing the United States for the alleged taking oftheir property through beach and dune erosion attributed to construction, operation, and maintenance ofCanaveral Harbor. This Harborwas constructed from 1950 to 1954 on anuninterrupted segmentofbarrierbeach. Inthis report, coastal-sediment processes along the coast are identified and analyzed, with emphasis on quantifying shoreline change, bathymetric change, and storm-inducedbeach change. Analysis is focused on two property owners, Don and Gale Applegate, and Noro and Company, Inc., who were the test plaintiffs selected by the Court. The Applegates purchased their property on August 12, 1981, and still own it. Noro purchased on September 8, 1986, and sold on September 11, 1996. In this report, estimates ofbeach anddune erosion, ifany, were calculated from time ofpurchase to December 8, 1997 (representing the present), for Applegate, and from time ofpurchase to September 11,1996 (the sale date), forNoro. Appendices contain detailed technical material to supplement discussion and findings contained in the main body of this report. Long-term, regional beach change was evaluated by analysis of survey data on shoreline position, bathymetry, and beach profiles taken through time. Data sets accessed originated from the Florida Department ofEnvironmental Protection (FDEP), the National Ocean Service, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and were supplemented with specific data collection performed for this study. The analysis was conducted within a Geographic Information System framework that included estimation of errors in the data and analysis procedures. Erosion of the beaches and dunes, principally attributed to storm impacts, was estimated at the properties of the two test plaintiffs by compiling storm data and calculating beachanddunechangewithanumericalmodel. Conclusionsofthis studyareas follows: 1. The sand2 placed on Brevard County's beaches by the USACE in 1974/75 extended the shoreline seaward ofthe 1948 (pre-Harbor) shoreline position and seaward ofthe September 1972 (pre-fill) shoreline position. The 1974/75 beach fill more than compensated forbeach erosion that had occurred since the Harbor was constructed. The erosion-impact zone induced by the Harbor that was present on the (natural) beach prior to beach-fill placement These plaintiffs claim the purchase occurred in September 1983, but a copy ofthe deed indicates that Noreen and K.EdwardJaynes,GeneralPartnersofNoroandCompany,purchasedtheNoropropertyonSeptember8, 1986,andthen soldthepropertytoSandraDanielsonSeptember11,1996. 2 Thissandwas placedaspartofdisposal operationsduringdeepeningoftheCanaveral Harborentrance channel and construction oftheTridentturning basin and accesschannel. Althoughtechnically notconsidered a beach fill, because authorizationoftheprojectandtheprimaryobjectiveconcerned navigationanddisposal ofdredged sediments, hereafter thematerialwillbereferredtoasbeachfillorfillforconvenienceandsimplicityofdiscussion. Summary was determined to have extended approximately 7,000ft south ofthe south jetty. The fill was placed on the beach from the Harbor's south jetty and extended south approximately 10,500ft. The fill compensated forpreexisting erosion overthe distance of7,000 ft, as well as nourished previously accreting areas that are located beyond 7,000ft south ofCanaveral Harbor. 2. The beach in the 7,000-ft erosion-impact zone covered by the fill has experienced erosion since 1974/75. The volume ofsand placed on the beaches south ofthe Harbor in 1974/75, and subsequent smaller fills and nearshore placements in the 1990s, has been effective at maintainingtheshoreline seawardofits September 1972 pre-fillposition. Nearlyall impacts (beach erosion and shoreline recession) caused by the Harbor relative to pre-fill conditions, havebeenmitigatedbyplacementofsandjustsouthoftheentrancechannel. 3. Erosion that developed since the USACE beach fill in 1974/75 extends approximately 17,000 ft south ofCanaveral Harbor, an increase ofabout 10,000ft relative to the southern terminus ofthe erosion-impactzonethathadoccurredalongthepre-fill (natural)beach. The increased distance of erosion is attributed to adjustments in the beach fill resulting from geometric differences (equilibration ofbeach slope and spreading loss associated with beach fills) and, possibly, grain-size differences between the natural beach and the engineered beach. 4. Sand-bypassing rates were determined through analysis of long-term sediment transport processes by comparing pre- and post-Harbor bathymetric surveys. Sand bypassing can mitigate or eliminate downdrift beach erosion caused by Canaveral Harbor. Net longshore transport rates were calculated forthe vicinity ofthe Harbor. The volume ofsand deposited alongthe beachnorth ofthe Harborpriorto its construction was subtracted from the volume ofsand that accumulated in the entrance channel and deposited north ofthe Harbor after its construction,yieldinganestimatedsand-bypassingrate. Based on analysis ofbathymetric data spanning 65 years, the net sand transport rate nearthe northjetty was calculated as 308,000cubic yards per year (cy/year). The associated sand- bypassing rate was calculated as 155,000cy/year (taking into account the natural sand- deposition rate prior to Harbor construction). Between 1972 and 1997, the USACE placed about 4.0millioncy (Mcy) of sand on the beaches within 17,000ft south of Canaveral Harbor, and the shoreline to at least 42,000ft south ofthe Harbor experienced net advance. Therefore, the calculated volume ofsand bypassing (155,000cy/yearx 25 years= 3.9Mcy) nearlybalancesthesedimentaddedtothebeachbytheUSACEbetween 1972 and 1997. Summary 5. The conclusions listed below are based upon analysis ofFDEP and USACE beach-profile data available at locations adjacent to the properties ofthe two test plaintiffs, supplemented bynumericalmodelingofstorm-inducedbeach erosion. Mainconclusions areasfollows: a. Applegate Property. From August 12, 1981 (time ofpurchase), 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 duringthe 1974/75 USACE beach fill. Thenaturalbeach adjacentto theproperty prior to fill placementjust recently began to erode (as shown on the December 8, 1997, beachprofile atR-7). FromAugust 12, 1981, to December8, 1997, themeanhighwater (MHW) shoreline receded 216±7 ft, and the beach eroded 8,500cy, 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 ofrecession and a volume loss attributable to storms of (at least) 3,600cy. 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 associatedwith theremovalofsand fromthebeach byseverestorms. b. Noro Property. From September 8, 1986 (time ofpurchase), to September 11, 1996 MHW (representingthe time ofsale), the shorelinereceded9±7ft, and 80cyofmaterial were eroded from the beach fronting the Noro property. These small changes are within variability associated with seasonal beach change and probably do not reflect a trend. Numerical calculations ofstorm-inducedbeach erosion attheNoro property indicate that all net change in sand volume on the upper beach and the dune face was caused by storms. Storms are deduced to be the dominant force producing beach and dune change attheNoropropertyandnotblockageoflongshoresandtransportbyCanaveralHarbor. Summary Table of Contents Page Preface iii Summary iv TableofContents vii ListofFigures ix ListofTables xi 1. Introduction 1-1 1.1. ReportOverview 1-1 1.2. Plaintiffs 1-2 1.3. StudyHypotheses andMain Conclusions 1-5 1.3.1. ApplegateProperty 1-5 1.3.2. NoroProperty 1-6 2. Background 2-1 2.1. StudySite 2-1 2.2. CanaveralHarbor 2-2 2.3. RelevantCoastalProcesses 2-8 2.3.1. Sediment Transport 2-8 2.3.2. Waves 2-8 2.3.3. Storms 2-9 2.3.4. Sea-LevelRise 2-10 2.4. Datums andShorelineDefinitions 2-11 2.4.1. ReferenceDatums 2-12 2.4.2. High-WaterLine (HWL) 2-13 2.4.3. Comparison ofShorelineDefinitions 2-14 2.4.4. Florida CoastalJurisdictionalBoundaries 2-14 2.4.5. FederalJurisdictionalBoundaries 2-17 3. AssessmentofCoastalChange 3-1 3.1. DataSources 3-1 3.2. SeasonalBeachChangeandVariability 3-4 3.3. Long-Term Shoreline Change 3-5 3.3.1. ShorelineChangepriortoHarborConstruction (1877to 1948) 3-5 3.3.2. Shoreline ChangeafterHarborConstruction (1948to 1996) 3-6 3.3.3. CoastalSand-Volume Change 3-11 TableofContents VII 3.4. ImpactofStorms onBrevardCountyBeaches 3-13 3.4.1. ModelCalibration 3-14 3.4.2. ThreeSelectedStormsforAnalysis 3-16 3.4.3. AnalysisofStorm-InducedErosionattheApplegateProperty 3-17 3.4.4. AnalysisofStorm-InducedErosionattheNowProperty 3-19 4. TestPlaintiffs' Properties 4-1 4.1. DataAnalyzed 4-1 4.2. ApplegateProperty 4-1 4.2.1. Shoreline Change 4-5 4.2.2. Volume Change 4-5 4.3. NoroandCompanyProperty(PelicanLandingResort) 4-8 4.3.1. Shoreline Change 4-10 4.3.2. Volume Change 4-10 5. SummaryandConclusions 5-1 5.1. Coastal-ProcessesAssessment 5-1 5.2. AssessmentfortheProperties oftheTestPlaintiffs 5-3 APPENDIXA.References A-l APPENDLXB. JointProtocol B-l APPENDIXC. StormData C-l APPENDIXD.Photographs D-l APPENDIXE. WaterLevels andWaves E-l APPENDIXF. BrevardCountyFederalProjects andSurveys F-l TableofContents