St. Lucie Shoal Complex: Regional Sediment Resource Or Submerged Storm Breakwater

St. Lucie Shoal Complex: Regional Sediment Resource or Submerged Storm Breakwater

Leaf Erickson, M.E., E.I.T.

A dissertation submitted to the College of Engineering at Florida Institute of Technology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctorate of Philosophy in Ocean Engineering

Melbourne, Florida December, 2017 We the undersigned committee hereby approve the attached thesis, “St. Lucie Shoal Complex: Regional Sediment Resource or Submerged Storm Breakwater,” by Leaf Erickson, M.E., E.I.T.

______Gary A. Zarillo, Ph.D Professor, Department of Ocean Engineering and Science College of Engineering

______Stephen L. Wood, Ph.D Department Head, Department of Ocean Engineering and Science College of Engineering

______Edward H. Kalajian, Ph.D Professor and Associate Dean, Department of Civil Engineering College of Engineering

______George A. Maul, Ph.D Professor, Department of Ocean Engineering and Science College of Engineering

ABSTRACT

St. Lucie Shoal Complex: Regional Sediment Resource or Submerged Storm Breakwater

Author: Leaf Erickson, M.E., E.I.T.

Advisor: Gary Zarillo, Ph. D.

Nearshore sand shoals have become the predominant sediment resource for beach nourishment projects on the east coast of Florida. Along this coast, the St. Lucie

Shoal Complex (SLSC) is comprised of several shoals designated as sediment resources for beach nourishment, many having depths less than 7 meters, at their crests. This group of shoals represents the largest high-quality beach nourishment sediment resource in southeast Florida. Among these shoals, the St. Lucie shoal is the largest and shallowest at the crest.

This project explores the current best practice methodologies to explore impacts of excavating sand resources from shallow-crested shoal systems like the SLSC in comparison to those used to previously to demonstrate that assumptions used previously are still viable through a pragmatic use of increased model capabilities and improved datasets. At times, limited modeling capabilities were the problem but, increasingly the sparse data density, both spatially and temporally of regional scale oceanographic datasets, was found as the limiting factor in model accuracy.

iii

A brief review of the Wave Information Studies (WIS) hind cast of wave data from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Coastal and Hydraulics Lab (CHL) indicates that significantly larger wave heights, 13.6 meters at a 14.9 second period, offshore of this area exceed those previously modeled, a 1.4-meter wave at a period of 15 seconds. To examine the potential of sand excavation from the SLSC to alter the local wave regime, the year of 2004, including Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne, was modeled as a worst-case scenario. Shallow crested, relative to their local wave climates, shoals must be evaluated for their wave energy dissipation effects during major storm events.

Wave attenuation from the shallowest shoal permitted for use during the strongest conditions (Hurricane Frances), showed a marginal wave reduction of 4%.

As the largest high-quality sediment resource in southeast Florida, the SLSC is targeted by several Florida coastal counties for sand excavation. Pragmatic management strategies can help provide a greater benefit for all by reincorporating more of the highest quality beach compatible sediment back into the longshore sediment movement from north to south along the southeast Florida coast.

Counties who have downdrift beaches should consider cost sharing as well as mutually beneficial policy changes to encourage the implementation of regional sediment management plans.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ...... iii Table of Contents ...... v List of Figures ...... vii List of Tables ...... ix Acknowledgement ...... x Dedication ...... xi Chapter 1 Introduction ...... 1 Objectives ...... 1 Significance ...... 1 Location ...... 2 Origins of Southeast Florida Shoals ...... 3 Geology ...... 6 Survey Data ...... 7 Wave Climate ...... 8 Local Hurricane Impacts ...... 12 Tidal Range ...... 14 Sea Level Rise ...... 15 Local Observations ...... 16 Chapter 2 Methods ...... 19 Introduction ...... 19 Model Type ...... 19 Previous Studies ...... 20 Model Justification ...... 21 Model Setup ...... 22 Model Grid development ...... 22 Boundary Condition Inputs ...... 26 Water level time series inputs ...... 26 Wind inputs ...... 27 Wave input ...... 27 Model Calibration ...... 29 v

Chapter 3 Results ...... 35 Modeled Conditions ...... 35 Model Limitations ...... 39 Chapter 4 Discussion ...... 41 Engineering Design and Utilization ...... 41 References ...... 47 Appendix A1: Model Calibration ...... 50 Appendix A2: Model Results ...... 54 Definition of Terms ...... 69

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Florida showing the location of the SLSC ...... 3 Figure 2. Representation of bathymetric data acquired in the 1930s by the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. Location of the SLSC is shown ...... 5 Figure 3. Representation bathymetric data in meters from 1930s and 1960s in the vicinity of the SLSC. Data are available from the NOAA Coastal Relief Model (https://ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/coastal/coastal.html)...... 8 Figure 4. 2004 WIS wave height and period [WIS, 2017]...... 9 Figure 5. WIS wave rose [WIS, 2017] ...... 10 Figure 6. WIS storm return period analysis [WIS, 2017] ...... 12 Figure 7. Seasonal variation of sea level surrounding the study area ...... 15 Figure 8. Sea Level Trends at Lake Worth Pier in meters. [NOAA, 2017] ...... 16 Figure 9. Storm wave interacting with the St. Lucie shoal [Erdman,2012] ...... 17 Figure 10. Typical elevation data density relationship with 100m grid spacing showing data density limitation to grid resolution ...... 24 Figure 11. Wave model grid extent and depths in meters available from historical hydrographic survey H-sheets available in digital format from the NOAA Coastal Relief Model (https://ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/coastal/coastal.html) ...... 25 Figure 12. SLSC modeled water level time series ...... 26 Figure 13. SLSC modeled wind speed time series ...... 27 Figure 14. WW3 modeled wave height time series ...... 28 Figure 15. Example of the spectral energy file utilized for analysis ...... 29 Figure 16. 2007 AWAC recorded wave heights in meters ...... 30 Figure 17. Modeled surface roughness and wave height root mean squared error .. 32 Figure 18. Graphical comparison of measured (2007AWAC) and model wave heights ...... 33 Figure 19. CMS-Wave modeled vs. AWAC measured wave heights for 2007 calibration ...... 34 Figure 20. Complete inshore observational transect transformed wave data...... 36 Figure 21. Model results for St. Lucie shoal extents during hurricane Frances peak wave conditions...... 37 Figure 22. Pre-sediment extraction Hurricane Frances peak wave heights in meters...... 38 Figure 23. Yearlong CMS-Wave Model Calibration of both high and low frequency wave events in meters...... 50 Figure 24. Yearlong Comparison of CMS-Wave Model outputs for various bottom roughness coefficients...... 52

vii

Figure 25. CMS-Wave Model Control Parameters applied to all model variations...... 53 Figure 26. Pre-sediment extraction Hurricane Frances peak wave heights in meters...... 54 Figure 27. CMS-Wave Modeled Results for Wave Height in meters for the Inshore Observation Transect ...... 55 Figure 28. CMS-Wave Modeled Results for Wave Height in meters for the Inshore Observation Transect...... 56

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Local storm return period analysis [WIS, 2012] ...... 11

Table 2. Survey data utilized [NOAA, 2012] ...... 23

Table 3. CMS-Wave Modeled Results for Wave Height in meters for the Inshore

Observation Transect...... 57

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to acknowledge the late Dr. Lee Harris, Professor of Ocean Engineering, who helped me begin and guided me through the start of my doctoral endeavors at Florida

Institute of Technology. I also acknowledge Dr. Gary Zarillo, who gave me the opportunity to fulfill my doctoral pursuit. Due to their energy, support, and guidance, I have achieved my goals.

DEDICATION

I dedicate this paper to my family. Who supported my doctoral endeavors even before I did and regardless of where it would take me. With their love and understanding, my life’s journey is and has been that much brighter.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Objectives

Beach nourishment projects all begin with a need for sediment and must be specifically designed for a particular sediment source, the quality of which is increasingly difficult to locate in quantities sufficient for beach nourishment activities. Nearshore sand shoals are commonly the best match for adjacent shorelines as they are, in many cases, their geologic source. Although largely isolated from the shoreline sediment transport system, their impact on the local wave climate needs to be understood for effective coastal management. This paper explores the potential impacts from the utilization of these nearshore sand shoals and discusses the most effective use of this limited resource.

Significance

Several alternative sediment resources have been attempted in the past, with only limited success: Bypassed sediment, upland sources, and nearshore sand flats.

Bypassed sediment is helpful along shorelines near inlets but, inevitably is not sufficient to fulfill the overall sediment demands for the downdrift shoreline.

Upland alternatives have additional handling and transportation costs and have proven, in many cases, insufficient in both quality and quantity. Finally, nearshore sand flats have insufficient sediment quality regardless of overwhelming quantity

[NOAA, 2010]. Transportation costs for moving the sediment from the borrow site to the beach site is central to the financial cost associated with beach nourishment

projects. The minimization in travel distance between borrow and fill locations has always helped lead coastal planners to the closest sediment resources with sufficient sediment quality, commonly nearshore sand shoals.

Larger waves than modeled previously occur locally and may experience energy dissipation through breaking over these shoals. It remains to be proven if storm waves large enough to experience significant energy dissipation can be achieved by the local wave climate, with any considerable frequency. However, with the possibility of increased wave energy reaching the adjacent shoreline storm wave conditions, this must be explored for their interaction with shoals prior to sediment extraction.

Location

As seen in Figure 1, Florida’s east central coast lies just north of the south eastern most Florida counties. Offshore of this area several shoals exist, these shoals have persisted through many tropical cyclones since first being noted on nautical charts of the area over a century ago. The majority of Florida’s central east coast’s proven sediment resources are within these nearshore sand shoals [NOAA, 2010]. Among these shoals, the St. Lucie Shoal Complex (SLSC), offshore of Hutchinson Island between Ft. Pierce and St. Lucie Inlets, sits in approximately 12-14 meters of water and has crests with depths of 7 meters or less.

Figure 1. Florida showing the location of the SLSC

Origins of Southeast Florida Shoals

Many of these features are reworked ebb shoals, detached from existing or relic barrier island inlet features during a period of relatively rapid sea level rise

[McBride and Moslow. 1991: CP&E and URS, 2007]. Although nearshore shoal systems can have many origins, the most likely origin along the southeast Florida inner continental shelf (Figure 2) involves inlet migration, common for retreating barrier island systems during a period of sea level. This can cause the elongation of the curved ebb shoal into a linear nearshore shoal feature we recognize today.

These shoals eventually detach from the retreating shoreface and usually form a

small, 35o or less, angle with the shoreline, which likely occurred during the most recent sea level rise. These relic ebb shoals, comprised of relict barrier island sediments, constitute the closest, largest and most compatible sediment for beach nourishment along Florida’s central east coast [CP&E and URS, 2007].

Cape Canaveral

Melbourne

Sebastian

Depth [m]

Vero

Ft. Pierce St. Lucie Shoal Complex

St. Lucie

Jupiter

Figure 2. Representation of bathymetric data acquired in the 1930s by the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. Location of the SLSC is shown

The opening, closing, and frequent migration of these inlets, occurs along the length of any barrier island system, creating a cycle of formation and subsequent abandonment of their ebb shoal features (McBride and Moslow, 1991). If sea levels rise too quickly, these ebb shoals are unable to be significantly reworked back into the retreating beachface and are effectively abandoned by sediment transport occurring at the shoreline. As many of these features originate from reworked relic ebb shoal sediment, they contain relatively uniform beachface compatible material with sufficient stability, persisting without the continued longshore sediment transport from updrift beaches that initially provided the sediment source that allowed them to form.

Geology

The geologic origin for these sand shoal features began largely during the

Pleistocene Epoch when sea level fluctuations allowed for sedimentation and sub- aerial erosion of the barrier island system. These sand shoals experienced continued sedimentation and reworking during and since the sustained sea level rise of the Holocene era, creating the complex formations of sand shoals we are familiar with today. Pleistocene and Holocene sediments in this area are primarily quartz with median grain size of approximately 0.24 mm and whose carbonate content increases towards the south [Hammer et. al., 2005].

Survey Data

While active in the local wave climate, the SLSC has endured several tropical cyclonic events since the 1930s. Despite being an essentially isolated sediment resource, it has remained stable, allowing the component shoals to behave as submerged offshore breakwaters. This endurance is found in the minimal change in the SLSC by only limited accretion or erosion of sediment over this time period.

The two surveys having complete coverage of the SLSC, during the 1930s and

1960s, are presented in Figure 3. Additional surveys have been conducted recently but, due to their limited coverage area, are not included in this elevation change analysis. The overall structure of this shoal complex has changed little over the thirty-year period between surveys. The largest and shallowest crested shoal, St.

Lucie, will be investigated as it presents the most likely portion of the SLSC to experience energy dissipation during storm events.

1930’s 1960’s Ft. Pierce Inlet

Ft. Pierce Capron

SLSC Dredge Pierce Area St. Lucie Depth [m]

o AWAC Gauge Gilbert

St. Lucie

Figure 3. Representation bathymetric data in meters from 1930s and 1960s in the vicinity of the SLSC. Data are available from the NOAA Coastal Relief Model (https://ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/coastal/coastal.html). St. Lucie Inlet

Wave Climate

Given frequent tropical cyclones, there are several years for which major storm

wave events occur, including the 2004 hurricane season when two hurricanes

directly impacted the study area. The United States Army Corp of Engineers

(USACE) Wave Information Studies (WIS) analysis shows wave heights in excess

of those used in previous studies occur regularly across the SLSC. WIS station

63523, immediately offshore of the study area, shows an average wave height of

1.4 meters and average period of 8.8 sec, as seen in Figure 4.

Figure 4. 2004 WIS wave height and period [WIS, 2017]

To provide directionality to the wave data, the 2004 wave rose for WIS station

63523, centrally located offshore of the study area, is presented in Figure 5, and shows waves primarily arrive from the east to northeast sectors.

Figure 5. WIS wave rose [WIS, 2017]

The largest storm conditions for 2004 were estimated by WIS to have a maximum wave height of 13.61 meters with a period of 14.9 sec and occurred on September

26th, 2004. Given the limited long term data available for wave conditions, storm events are commonly under predicted. The WIS Storm Event Return Period analysis ranked the top ten events between 1980 and 2012, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Local storm return period analysis [WIS, 2012]

Wave Height Wave Period Event Time [m] [s] 1 9/26/2004 13.61 14.87 2 9/5/2004 11.27 13.08 3 10/24/2005 8.94 10.7 4 10/16/1999 8.73 10.58 5 9/15/1999 7.88 14.92 6 10/26/2012 7.65 14.42 7 8/2/1995 7.07 11.69 8 3/12/1996 6.68 13.31 9 9/5/2008 6.39 14.06 10 11/14/1994 5.96 11.12

After a careful search of the WIS historical data for years having tropical cyclones, the year of 2004, included two major storm events passing directly over the SLSC, hurricanes Frances and Jeanne, stood out as the strongest two storm events of the

WIS analysis where Frances was just under 40 years and for Jeanne was just under

20 years as seen below in Figure 6 (WIS, 2012). Based only on the 33 years of data used, 1980-2012, it would be difficult to assess the accuracy of a storm return period beyond those that occurred within the study area. However, this represents the best site specific data for storm return period.

Figure 6. WIS storm return period analysis [WIS, 2017]

The year of 2007, which overlaps with previously recorded directional wave data offshore of Jensen Beach, was chosen to calibrate model runs. Storms in these years present conditions sufficient to explore storm wave interaction on the SLSC.

Local Hurricane Impacts

Coastal storm impacts from hurricanes Frances and Jeanne were significant between Ft. Pierce and St. Lucie inlets with Frances the most intense storm conditions of the two tropical cyclones. Dune retreat of 10-13 meters formed scarps of 3-4 meters, measured wrack lines showed a storm surge of 4 meters, and several overwash events on the order of 100 meters or more occurred along the study area coastline [FDEP, 2004].

Long term shore protection provided by natural nearshore sand shoals can provide greater endurance when exposed to such storm events. For example, within the study area, an engineered sediment feature designated as the Texas Reef, similar in elevation to the adjacent SLSC, exhibited significant impacts during the 2004 hurricane season. Improvements to the navigable depths and sediment containment basin for St. Lucie Inlet produced significant quantities of sand and limestone cobble, ranging from 6.3 to 51 cm in diameter. This sediment was placed 13 km south of the SLSC, creating a large mound of material in 15 meters of water as an artificial reef feature with several concrete and metal fish attracting structures.

Initial surveys indicated a minimum depth at 5.5 meters below the water surface.

After construction ended in 2002, the material settled for approximately a year before the first baseline surveys were completed in August 2003. Annual surveys, as well as after major storm events, were performed.

After experiencing the tropical cyclones of 2004, a storm event survey was completed in February 2005 and showed a loss of around 5.2 meters of material.

After the next annual monitoring survey, accretion of approximately 1 meter was found to occur, with a minimum depth of approximately 9 meters [CSA Int, 2007].

Storm wave energy was able to significantly redistribute the relatively large limestone cobble structure to around half of its original relief above the surrounding seafloor. This suggests the interaction with storm wave conditions was able to move material on the order of 6.3 to 51 cm in diameter, at a depth of around 9 meters. Despite the two years between construction and two direct

tropical cyclone impacts, Frances and Jeanne, the erosion of material would imply that the overall stability of this structure is far less than that of the naturally occurring nearshore shoals of the SLSC.

Tidal Range

Mean tidal ranges for the area vary from 1.06 meters to the north at Port Canaveral

(Trident Pier) and 0.79 meters to the south in Palm Beach, FL. A seasonal high stand of sea level occurs during the month of October. Monthly Mean Sea Level

(MSL) data for Daytona Beach, to the north, and Miami Beach, to the south, shows the seasonal variation of the MSL as 0.272 m and 0.237 m respectively, as shown in Figure7 [NOAA, 2009].

Figure 7. Seasonal variations of sea level surrounding the study area

Sea Level Rise

Rising sea levels, over the long term, likely will have only a minimal impact upon storm wave-shoal interaction, given the increase in sea level for Florida’s east

central coast, as shown at Lake Worth Pier in Figure 8, which has a value of 3.56 mm/yr. [NOAA, 2017]. These shoals are isolated from their initial sediment source, the longshore sediment transport regime, and as water level rises the distance between waves and shoals will increase. This will limit the dissipative effect of wave breaking and the energy allowed to pass over to the adjacent shoreline. The larger impact of sea level rise on the utilization on the SLSC is more indirect, because as sea levels rise and the related beach retreat occurs, significant sediment inputs through beach nourishment will be necessary to keep up with rising seas in order to prevent shoreline regression and to protect upland structures.

Figure 8. Sea Level Trends at Lake Worth Pier in meters. [NOAA, 2017]

Local Observations

Shoals that remain active in the local wave climate have a limited impact on beach sediment transport if no longer shoreline connected. Given that longshore sediment transport is directly associated with the wave energy reaching the shoreline,

anything that may impact these waves must be understood to adequately design and manage beach nourishment projects. The highest sediment transport rates occur during high energy storms and these events must be explored to understand to what degree nearshore sand shoals actively participate during these events. Breaking waves are easily visible from shore along the SLSC during large wave events, such as the 2.4-meter-high 14 second wave seen in the photograph presented in Figure 9.

This indicates that strong wave-shoal interaction could be possible during storm conditions.

St. Lucie

Figure 9. Storm wave interacting with the St. Lucie shoal [Erdman,2012]

Storm events were explored to determine what sheltering effect, if any, they may have on adjacent shorelines during these temporally brief but, highly energetic wave events. Previous studies in the area only considered average wave conditions

when evaluating the interaction between sand shoals and wave climate (Hammer et al., 2005). Thereby utilizing these shoals for beach nourishment has begun without a full understanding of their role in dissipating the energy transmitted to the adjacent nearshore wave environment. If the modification of the local wave regime is significant enough, these benefits may be jeopardized, resulting in higher longshore sediment transport. It is the potential for this erosion that requires greater understanding of wave-shoal interaction during large storm events and therefore, this was explored to ensure the sustainable management of limited sediment resources.

Since these shoals are somewhat isolated from the currently active beach sediment transport system, many coastal planners are inclined to utilize them for beach nourishment and might assume they no longer play an active role in nearshore sediment transport, assisting approval to utilize these features. A shoal’s ability to shelter or focus wave energy and, during storm events, actively dissipate wave energy, must be taken into consideration, in order to determine exactly what function, they have in the nearshore sediment transport regime at the shoreline during storm events.

CHAPTER 2 METHODS

Introduction

In order to determine the storm wave energy dissipation across the SLSC nearshore shallow crested shoal, a numerical model was employed to predict the wave attenuation. The larger the wave height, and the longer the wave period, the more likely it is to break over shallow crested shoals. Thus, the model was run for the year of 2004, which included hurricanes Frances and Jeanne, to determine if, during storm conditions, these shoals dissipate wave energy. The focus of the analysis will be on the shallowest of all the SLSC shoals, the St. Lucie shoal. This shoal consists of two primary crests, one to the north and one to the south. The northern region has been permitted for utilization and the southern reach has not and thus the northern reach was chosen as the primary region of interest with the southern reach utilization modeled as an expected continuation of current coastal zone management policies. Based on the degree of wave dissipation over the St.

Lucie shoal predicted during these storm events, effective management strategies will be discussed to support the utilization of these limited resources.

Model Type

The SLSC was modeled with the Coastal Modeling System for Waves (CMS-

Wave) using the Aquaveo® Surface Water Modeling System (SMS) 11.0 in order to develop the model grid. SMS is a model interface that allows the user to

construct computational grids and apply model boundary conditions for a range of coastal engineering models [Lin, 2008]. Within the SMS software platform, the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Coastal Modeling System Wave model

(CMS-Wave) was then used to propagate and transform waves from offshore to, as well as within, the study area.

Previous Studies

Previously an U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) study used the Steady-

State Spectral Wave Model (STWAVE) (Smith et al., 1999) and WIS predicted wave data to model the pre- and post-dredge conditions for these shoals. STWAVE is similar in overall theory and numerical formulation to CMS-Wave.

Average wave conditions, having a wave height of 1.4 meters and a period of 15 seconds, were used for static STWAVE runs and showed only refraction and diffraction landward of the shoal. Due to the use of relatively small wave conditions, no energy dissipation occurred when passing over these nearshore shallow crested shoal features, despite significantly larger waves, 8.5 meters at 14 seconds predicted by WIS, occurring within the study area. Additionally, studies by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the USACE, in

2011, have investigated the sediment resource potential of the SLSC. Sub-bottom profiling was used to determine the internal structure of these shoals so as to help estimate their likely sediment yield. Vibracores were performed to verify their internal structure and to further refine the estimated beach quality sediment

available. The internal structure is slightly stratified but the majority of the entire shoal feature, down to the level of the adjacent sand flats, is likely usable for nourishment activities.

Model Justification

CMS-Wave was chosen as it has been proven to accurately represent wave transformation by coastal systems in the nearshore environment [ERDC, 2008].

Previous studies of wave-shoal interaction by FDEP used the STWAVE model and were limited by using only static average wave conditions. In this investigation,

CMS-Wave was used to model yearlong runs of hind cast data for a more complete estimation of wave transformation and dissipation over these shallow crested shoal features when exposed to a realistic wave climate. CMS-Wave is a component of the Coastal Modeling System developed by the USACE Coastal and Hydraulics

Laboratory (CHL) (Lin et al., 2008) CMS-Wave is a two-dimensional wave spectral transformation model that employs a forward-marching, finite-difference method to solve the wave action conservation equation. CMS-Wave contains theoretically developed approximations for both wave diffraction and reflection and, therefore, is suitable for conducting wave simulations in shallow marine environments

The CMS-Wave model grid spacing was refined beyond that which was utilized by the previous MMS study. By using the newer CMS-Wave model with WW3 predicted wave data (Tolman , 2002) a more complete analysis of the nearshore

wave climate was predicted. The time series of wave data used provided a more robust estimation of storm wave-shoal interaction by allowing for a clearer assessment of how these low frequency, highly energetic storm waves interact with shallow crested shoals.

Model Setup

Model Grid development

Elevation data for the last regional scale survey from the 1960s was used with hind cast WW3 wave data, for several separate yearlong models runs. The first model runs calibrated the transformation of the WW3 data from offshore of Jensen beach to the location of the Acoustic Wave and Current (AWAC) gauge for 2007. Next, model runs for 2004 were able to estimate the extent of the local storm wave- shallow crested shoal interaction during the direct impacts of hurricanes Frances and Jeanne. Finally, sediment extraction was explored focusing on changes in wave energy for 2004 to explore the impact of shallow crested shoal utilization. A complete listing of the survey data set utilized in this analysis is shown in Table 2, which lists the specific hydrographic survey sheet (H-Sheets) used to compile the bathymetric data available in the NOAA integrated topographic relief model

(https://ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/coastal/coastal.html).

Table 2. Hydrographic Survey data utilized [NOAA, 2012]

1930's 1960's H05032 H05057 H08959 H08958 H05023 H05047 H08956 H08839 H05025 H05031 H08957 H08713 H05027 H05040 H08783 H08954

WW3 data were propagated from offshore, through the study area, using a grid spacing of 100 meters as seen in Figure 10. The relative relationship between elevation data density and grid size made the improvement to model accuracy through a further reduction in grid size minimal to non-existent. The wave model used time series of water level, wind speed, wind direction, wave height, period, and direction in conjunction with spreading parameters, from the WW3 hind cast data model developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) and was applied to the outer boundary of the CMS-Wave grid in water depths of around 40 meters as seen in Figure 11.

Figure 10. Typical elevation data density relationship with 100m grid spacing showing data density limitation to grid resolution

Ft. Pierce

Depth [m]

10km

St. Lucie

Figure 11. Wave model grid extent and depths in meters available from historical hydrographic survey H-sheets available in digital format from the NOAA Coastal

Relief Model (https://ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/coastal/coastal.html)

Boundary Condition Inputs

Water level time series inputs Lateral boundary conditions were established from the averaged long term tidal constituents, as found from using a 25 hour Butterworth low pass filter to reveal the seasonal water level variations. This was accomplished by utilizing the nearest tidal stations, Trident Pier and Lake Worth Pier, averaging and applying the low pass filter. Tidal currents minimal to non-existent given the distal nature of the two closest inlets and open ocean tidal ranges are small, on the order of a meter or less.

The Monthly Mean Sea Level (MSL) data for Daytona Beach, to the north, and

Miami Beach, to the south, is presented in Figure 12, and shows the seasonal variation of the MSL [NOAA, 2009].

Figure 12. SLSC modeled water level time series

Wind inputs Wind data consists of a time series for hourly wind speed and direction generated by hind cast data from the WW3 model (Tolman, 2002), as seen below in Figure

13. Wind data time series was applied as a spatially constant value across the entire model grid.

Figure 13. SLSC modeled wind speed time series

Wave input WW3 hindcast wave data was applied uniformly across the offshore boundary.

These wave heights are significantly lower than those predicted by WIS but, represent the best data set available for analysis is presented in Figure 14. An example of the spectral energy file utilized for analysis is presented below in Figure

15.

Figure 14. WW3 modeled wave height time series

Figure 15. Example of the spectral energy file utilized for analysis

Model Calibration

CMS-Wave allows for manual input of wave spreading parameters, the type of spectrum, and location of observation cell/data outputs. Input wave data used along the offshore boundary, was collected from the end of 2006 through the beginning of 2008, offshore of Jensen Beach with a 1,200 MHz Norteck® AWAC Acoustic wave and current profiler is presented below in Figure 16.

Figure 16. 2007 AWAC recorded wave heights in meters

For the 2007 model run, seasonal events, like tropical cyclones and distant nor’easters, were specifically explored for their correlation between the modeled and measured data sets. This model correlation was achieved through comparing several models runs at an observation cell coinciding with the location of the nearshore AWAC gauge previously deployed offshore of Jensen Beach, while varying the friction coefficient (Cf). Additionally, wave breaking formulas are adjustable within CMS-Wave and were also used in this calibration adjustment. It was found that the Battjes and Janssen (1978) wave breaking formulation provided

slightly better calibration. The modeled calibration run conditions are presented below in Table 3.

Table 3. Modeled calibration conditions

Dredge Depth Boundary Conditions Friction Coefficient

None 2007 0.035

None 2007 0.04

None 2007 0.045

None 2007 0.05

These modeled conditions were analyzed to determine their accuracy through a comparison of the transformed wave conditions by the model at an observation cell coincident with the location of the previously deployed AWAC gauge. During analysis, a point was found where the friction coefficient increase would improve the overall model accuracy but, low frequency storm events were significantly under predicted. In order for the bottom friction to be representative of real world conditions, a root mean squared error was used to determine how the increase in bottom friction and model accuracy improvement was related, as seen in Figure 17.

As the friction coefficient (Cf) increased the improvement in the root mean squared error leveled off significantly. Additionally, the root mean squared error between the three dredge cut depths had an average standard deviation of 0.0105 and a standard deviation of 0.0002.

Figure 17. Modeled surface roughness and wave height root mean squared error

The modeled wave heights utilized 1960’s water depths, WW3 hind cast wind and wave data, and water level changes based on tidal constituents averaged between constituents calculated from observations at NOAA Stations 8721604 (Trident Pier,

Cape Canaveral) and 8723214 (Virginia Key, FL) were compared to the 2007 measured data. The model data reasonably represented both low and high frequency wave events as seen in Figure 18. Thus, output wave data for the 2007 model runs best correlated with those recorded by the AWAC unit utilizing Battjes and Janssen (1978) as the wave breaking model and a Cf=0.045 for bottom friction.

Additional information on the model setup procedure for model calibration and calibration results are given in Appendix A1.

Figure 18. Graphical comparison of measured (2007AWAC) and model wave heights

Adjusting the friction coefficient over the model grid to improve the correlation between observes and modeled wave heights is a primary calibration process. The modeled vs. measured values, shown in Figure 17, correlate well for the friction coefficient (Cf) of 0.045 and further shows agreement between the two data sets.

CMS‐Wave 2007 (Cf=0.045) Modeled vs. Measured 3.5

2.5 y = 0.9473x R² = 0.5749 [m] 2 Hs

Wave

‐ 1.5 CMS 1

0.5

0 00.511.522.533.5 AWAC Gauge Hs [m]

Figure 19. CMS-Wave modeled vs. AWAC measured wave heights for 2007 calibration

CHAPTER 3 RESULTS

Modeled Conditions

Model runs for the year of 2004 consisted of both pre-sediment extraction and post- sediment extraction conditions for the utilization of the shallowest component of the SLSC, the St. Lucie shoal, with three alternative dredge cut depths chosen as shown below in Table 4. The results of these analysis are shown by an observational transect inshore of the SLSC presented in Figure 20.

Table 4. Modeled analysis conditions

Dredge Depth Utilization Strategy Boundary Conditions Friction Coefficient

11 m Minimum 2004 0.045

12 m Moderate 2004 0.045

13 m Complete 2004 0.045

Indian River St. Lucie Gilbert

Pierce Capron

Figure 20. Complete inshore observational transect transformed wave data

Considering the average depth of the St. Lucie shoal crest is approximately 10 meters (MSL) and surrounding ambient depths are approximately 14 meters

(MSL), dredge cut depths for borrow area utilization are presented as the minimal, median, and maximum. The relative differences among the three borrow area utilization strategies are negligible to nonexistent, as seen in Figure 21.

Figure 21. Model results for St. Lucie shoal extents during hurricane Frances peak wave conditions.

A maximum reduction in wave height for the St. Lucie shoal during hurricane

Frances was approximately 0.2 meters. However, to the south, shallower sections of the St. Lucie shoal, not currently approved for sediment extraction, show significant wave attenuation and thus would be a logical expansion of the existing utilization areas, as seen in the pre sediment extraction condition presented in

Figure 22.

Wave Height [m]

Inshore Observation Transect Start

Ft. Indian River Shoal Pierce Inlet

Capron Shoal

Pierce Shoal

St. Lucie Shoal

10km

Gilbert Shoal

St. Lucie Inlet Inshore Observation Transect End

Figure 22. Pre-sediment extraction Hurricane Frances peak wave heights in meters.

Hurricane Frances represents the largest wave event in the WW3 hind cast dataset for this area and for tropical cyclone impacts is representative of a 100 year return period storm event. Given the marginal nature of the shoal protection of the adjacent beachface, sustainable sediment utilization strategies could be implemented with only minimal impacts to the regional shoreline wave climate.

These areas are currently proposed for utilization but, are more active in the dissipation of energy during these strong storm events as indicated by the increased wave energy between the sediment extraction strategies shown above in Figures 19 and 20. Further model simulations should be performed for the southern extent of the St. Lucie shoal complex to examine its interaction with the local wave regime due to both its size and closer proximity to shore which would likely have a greater influence on the adjacent shoreline before sediment extraction is approved.

Additional details of wave attenuation across the SLSC is provided in Appendix

A2. This includes a tabular listing of wave height along the inshore model observation transects shown in Figures 20 and 21.

Model Limitations

The primary limitation of this model is grid size, which is a primary factor in any model of wave energy propagation. Resolution of physical features with a minimum of at least three grid squares is necessary to begin to represent a feature within the SMS modeling grid. The surveyed depth data averaging over each hundred (100) meter square does not reflect the overall reality of the actual crest

heights, as it uses an average depth of the bottom within the cell dimensions. It is this limitation that may controls the resolution of wave energy dissipation over the crest of the shoals. However, the limitation of spatial resolution set by the model grid cell size was, due to the restricted spatial resolution of the historical hydrographic survey data available in the study area.

CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION

Engineering Design and Utilization

The single most important material element in the engineered design of beach nourishment is the sediment resource utilized for beachfill material. The quality, proximity and quantity of any sediment resource are the primary concerns for coastal engineers in the design and development of beach nourishment projects.

The utilization of isolated sediment resources no longer within the longshore sediment transport regime is an essential part of sediment management within the coastal zone. Without a strong biologic or physical impediment to utilization of nearshore sand shoals, their reincorporation into the nearshore sediment transport system through engineered best practices, is the best use for this beach quality sediment resource.

The alteration of the wave regime when propagating across shallow crested nearshore shoals, must not result in any significant adverse effects for the adjacent shoreline. Examining high-energy and low-frequency storm events should be one of the first steps when determining the dissipative effect of these shoals.

Dissipation of wave energy must be considered as the primary concern when evaluating shallow crested shoals as a sediment resource. Nearshore shoals that do not actively dissipate wave energy during storm events should be considered as a sediment resource for utilization. Through extreme storm events, much of the

change in the nearshore environment occur during these short periods of time and, through natural selection, have prepared the biologic systems for the ephemeral nature of this ecosystem. Through this biologic resiliency, changes can be made to the nearshore environment with less impact than might otherwise be expected but, the frequency and temporal spacing of these events must remain consistent within this framework to help ensure the biologic system is able to keep pace with both natural and anthropogenic changes.

Nearshore sand shoals that do not dissipate significant amounts of wave energy generally tend to actively focus and dissipate wave energy through diffraction and refraction to varying degrees depending on the relationship between wave magnitude and water depth. In many cases these interactions negatively manifest themselves in erosional hotspots along the adjacent shoreline. Thus, when these shallow crested shoals are removed, wave energy is more evenly distributed and thereby their related erosional hot spots are eliminated.

The wave energy dissipated at the proposed borrow areas along the shallowest portion of St. Lucie shoal does not show significant wave attenuation given the frequency of these storm events. The max wave height was raised to 4.2 from 4 meters, during hurricane Frances a 100 year storm event. Such a limited, approximately 4%, increase in wave heights during such a strong storm event, the benefits for keeping the resource in place, are heavily outweighed by the value of this high quality sediment resource. SLSC has limited impact in this case, possibly because the distance these shoals are from shore, the subsequent reformation of the

wave train behind these shoal features, limits the overall influence of these shoals at the adjacent shoreface but, in other cases nearshore shore shoal wave attenuation may play a larger role.

Based on this analysis, the increase in local wave heights at the shoreline adjacent to the St. Lucie shoal appears to be relatively minimal when considering the return period for storms of these magnitudes which supports their use for sediment extraction. As for those counties to the south with more limited sediment resources, the physical limitations of unequally distributed resources can always be overcome at a cost but, the policies related to their access do more to control their utilization and must be addressed to change the current management norms that allow for the use of old, out of date, data analysis.

Regional Sediment Management

Disparate resources require that sediment be managed regionally, with consideration to the political accessibility, when developing policies to encourage the overall equitable use and common good. This is not to say that beachfill material should be transported long distances to nourish distant beaches relative to the resource, but the local management of these resources should consider their impact upon the downdrift beaches, however distant. These resources must, whenever possible, utilize the natural system in which they exist while remaining

sensitive to the biologic systems that are reliant upon these sediment features during their lifecycle.

Locally, the primary concerns to using these resources are generally limited to physical and biologic impacts. When these resources are inequitably distributed on regionally scale, a broader multifaceted approach to sediment management is necessary to provide the greatest benefit to public and private property. Adjusting public policies that shape the regulatory and political environment, providing for the sustainable use of existing sediment resources, thereby is essential to the management of these valuable resources.

Due to the overall southern sediment transport in Florida, all counties rely, to some extent, on the southern sediment bypassing of inlets, none more so than those with limited to no nearshore sediment resources like southeast Florida. Although nearshore sand shoals will need to be accessed, best management practices should continue be employed. All sediment viable for beach nourishment should be placed into the nearshore sediment transport system. Reflective of the natural background transport regime, a downdrift only policy for dredging and nourishment projects with cost sharing to help provide a funding resource should be considered as a component of any sustainable coastal management plan.

Recognizing their indirect benefit and stake in any sediment bypassing project, downdrift counties should shoulder more of the cost associated with these projects.

Although in the end, these counties’ needs will require significantly more sediment than these projects can provide. A multi prong approach to coastal protection and, more specifically, beach nourishment is essential to provide for the demands of coastal communities given the undeniable rise in sea levels over time. Downdrift counties are dependent on the nourishment policies of updrift counties. Also, the ability of and how each county is able to implement their nourishment policies.

This, combined with several other factors, has caused the frequency of both beach nourishment and inlet sediment bypassing projects has diminished.

Eminent domain upon nearshore sediment resources is an unlikely, but not impossible, outcome to restrictive policies of local county governments. The unified power of the tourism industry and beachfront property owners will likely become more and more creative in accessing sediment on a more regional basis the longer they are denied a viable sediment resource. The economic value of a recreational beachfront in southeast Florida may eventually change the process by which these resources are accessed, opening up the SLSC to greater utilization.

The longer southeast counties are denied a sediment resource, the more likely creative methods are likely to be used.

Sea level rise is conservatively approximated at 0.3-1 meter by the end of the century. The proximity of the shoal’s crest to the water’s surface, relative to the local wave climate, is the primary factor in energy dissipation through wave breaking. Wave-shoal interaction will be reduced over the long term by sea level rise through increasing water depths over these shoal systems. Although this a

slow process, a staged utilization strategy of accessing deeper shoals first, would allow for this trend to work, albeit over the longer term, in the coastal zone manager’s benefit. A best practices approach needs to be implemented to continuously incorporate any new data, capability, or accuracy into models used by engineers to enhance the ability for a clearer understanding of modeled results.

REFERENCES

Battjes, J.A., Janssen, J.P.F.M., 1978. Energy loss and set-up due to breaking of random waves. In: Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Coastal Engineering, ASCE, Hamburg, Germany, vol. 1, pp. 569–587.

Coastal Planning & Eng., URS. (2007) Florida Central Atlantic Coast Reconnaissance Offshore Sand Search. 280 pp. Florida Dept. of Env. Prot., Bur. Of Beach. and Coast. Syst., Tallahassee, Florida.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (2010), Coastal Inlets Research Program (CIRP), http://cirp.usace.army.mil, Vicksburg, MS.

Texas Reef Monitoring Program: Year 4 Survey Final Monitoring Report, CSA International, Inc., September 2007

Dean, R. G. and R. A. Dalrymple. (2004), Coastal Processes with Engineering Applications. 475 pp. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Dean, R. G., R. A. Dalrymple, and L. Philip (Eds). (1991), Water Wave Mechanics for Engineers and Scientists, Advanced Series on Ocean Engieering., Vol. 2, 353 pp. World Scientific, New Jersey.

Engineer Research Development Center (2008), Coastal Hydraulics Lab (ERDC/CHL TR-08-13), Coastal Inlets Research Program, CMS-Wave: A Nearshore Spectral Wave Processes Model for Coastal Inlets and Navigation Projects, Vicksburg, MS.

Erdman Video Systems, Inc.,8895 SW 129th Street, Miami, FL 33176; Tel. 1-888- 495-6057; 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Division of Water Resource Management, Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, Hurricane Frances and Jeanne Post-storm Beach Conditions and Coastal Impact Report with Recommendations for Recovery and Modifications of Beach Management Strategies, October 2004.

Hammer, R.M., et. al. (2005), Environmental Surveys of Potential Borrow Areas on the Central East Florida Shelf and the Environmental Implications of Sand Removal for Coastal and Beach Restoration. OCS Study MMS 2004-037, 306 pp. Continental Shelf Assoc., Applied Coast. Res. and Eng., B. A. Vittor & Assoc., FL Geo. Surv., U.S. Dept. of the Int., Miner. Mgt. Serv., Leasing Div., Marine Miner. Bur., Herndon, Virginia.

Kennett, James P. (1982) Marine Geology. 813 pp. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Knauss, John A., (2000) Introduction to Physical Oceanography. 309 pp. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Lin, L., et al. (2008) CMS-Wave: A Nearshore Spectral Wave Processes Model for Coastal Inlets and Navigation Projects. United States Army Corps of Engineers Coastal Inlets Research Program., Washington, D.C.

McBride, R.A. and T.F. Moslow. 1991. Origin, evolution, and distribution of shoreface sand ridges, Atlantic inner shelf, U.S.A. Mar. Geol. 97:57–85.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) Oceanographic Survey Data is available through: https://maps.ngdc.noaa.gov/viewers/bathymetry/

National Data Buoy Center (NDBC) data is available at through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/maps/Florida.shtml

Shore protection manual. (1984). 4th ed., 2 Vol, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, U.S.,Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Smith, J. M., Resio, D. T. and Zundel, A. K. (1999). “STWAVE: Steady-State Spectral Wave Model; Report 1: User’s manual for STWAVE version 2.0,”Instructional Report CHL-99-1, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS

Tides, Current, Sea Level Rise data available through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services: http://www.co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/index.shtml

Tolman, H.L. 2002. User manual and system documentation of WAVEWATCH-III version 2.22. NOAA / NWS / NCEP / MMAB Technical Note 222, 133 pp.

U.S Army Corps of Engineers, 2011. St. Lucie County South Beach and Dune Restoration Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 206 p.

Wang, P., et. al. (2002), Longshore Sand Transport – Initial Results from Large- Scale Sediment Transport Facility, Engineer Research Development Center, Coastal Hydraulics Lab (ERDC/CHL CHETN-II-46).

Wave Information Studies (WIS), (2012) is available through the United States Army Corps of Engineers Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory: http://frf.usace.army.mil/cgi-bin/wis/atl/atl_main.html

APPENDIX A1: MODEL CALIBRATION

Figure 23. Yearlong CMS-Wave Model Calibration of both high and low frequency wave events in meters.

CMS‐Wave 2007 (Cf=0.045) Modeled vs. Measured 3.5

2.5 y = 0.9473x [m] R² = 0.5749

Hs 2

Wave 1.5 ‐

CMS 1

0.5

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 AWAC Gauge Hs [m]

Figure 17. CMS-Wave modeled vs. AWAC measured wave heights for 2007 calibration

Figure 24. Yearlong Comparison of CMS-Wave Model outputs for various bottom roughness coefficients.

Figure 25. CMS-Wave Model Control Parameters applied to all model variations.

APPENDIX A2: MODEL RESULTS

Wave Height [m]

Inshore Observation Transect Start

Indian River Shoal Ft. Pierce Inlet Capron Shoal

Pierce Shoal

St. Lucie Shoal

10km

Gilbert Shoal

St. Lucie Inlet Inshore Observation Transect End

Figure 26. Pre-sediment extraction Hurricane Frances peak wave heights in meters.

Indian Gilbert River St. Lucie Pierce Capron

Figure 27. CMS-Wave Modeled Results for Wave Height in meters for the Inshore Observation Transect

Figure 28. CMS-Wave Modeled Results for Wave Height in meters for the Inshore Observation Transect.

Table 4. CMS-Wave Modeled Results for Wave Height in meters for the Inshore Observation Transect. Existing Conditions 11 meter cut depth 12 meter cut depth 13 meter cut depth Dist [m] Hs [m] Dist [m] Hs [m] Dist [m] Hs [m] Dist [m] Hs [m] 159.242 4.545 102.558 4.547 84.535 4.547 112.612 4.546 259.282 4.537 202.581 4.539 184.558 4.538 212.634 4.538 359.322 4.522 302.604 4.523 284.58 4.523 275.828 4.528 459.362 4.507 354.315 4.516 384.602 4.508 312.657 4.523 559.402 4.492 402.627 4.509 484.625 4.492 412.679 4.508 659.442 4.476 502.65 4.494 584.647 4.476 512.702 4.493 748.349 4.464 602.672 4.477 684.669 4.463 612.724 4.476 759.482 4.462 702.695 4.463 784.691 4.456 712.747 4.462 859.522 4.454 802.718 4.456 884.714 4.455 812.769 4.455 959.562 4.452 902.741 4.455 984.736 4.46 912.792 4.454 1059.602 4.457 1002.764 4.459 1084.758 4.468 1012.815 4.459 1159.642 4.465 1102.787 4.467 1184.78 4.476 1112.837 4.467 1259.682 4.474 1202.81 4.476 1284.803 4.477 1212.86 4.475 1359.722 4.476 1302.832 4.478 1384.825 4.467 1312.882 4.477 1459.762 4.466 1402.855 4.468 1484.847 4.45 1412.905 4.467 1559.802 4.449 1502.878 4.451 1584.869 4.435 1512.927 4.45 1659.842 4.433 1602.901 4.436 1684.892 4.426 1612.95 4.435 1759.882 4.424 1702.924 4.427 1784.914 4.421 1712.972 4.426 1859.922 4.419 1802.947 4.421 1884.936 4.415 1812.995 4.42 1959.962 4.412 1902.97 4.415 1984.958 4.407 1913.017 4.414 2060.002 4.405 2002.992 4.407 2084.981 4.4 2013.04 4.406 2160.042 4.398 2103.015 4.4 2185.003 4.398 2113.062 4.4 2260.082 4.396 2203.038 4.398 2285.025 4.401 2213.085 4.397 2360.122 4.399 2303.061 4.401 2385.047 4.405 2313.108 4.399 2460.162 4.402 2403.084 4.405 2485.07 4.406 2413.13 4.404 2560.202 4.404 2503.107 4.406 2585.092 4.404 2513.153 4.405 2660.242 4.402 2603.13 4.404 2685.114 4.401 2613.175 4.403 2760.282 4.399 2703.153 4.402 2785.136 4.399 2713.198 4.4 2860.322 4.398 2803.175 4.4 2885.159 4.401 2813.22 4.399 2960.362 4.399 2903.198 4.401 2985.181 4.404 2913.243 4.4 3060.402 4.402 3003.221 4.404 3085.203 4.408 3013.265 4.403 3160.442 4.406 3103.244 4.407 3185.225 4.412 3113.288 4.406 3260.482 4.41 3203.267 4.412 3285.248 4.413 3213.31 4.41 3360.522 4.411 3303.29 4.413 3385.27 4.409 3313.333 4.412 3460.562 4.407 3403.313 4.409 3485.292 4.402 3413.355 4.407 3560.602 4.4 3503.335 4.402 3585.315 4.397 3513.378 4.401 3660.642 4.395 3603.358 4.396 3685.337 4.391 3613.4 4.395

3760.682 4.389 3703.381 4.39 3785.359 4.381 3713.423 4.388 3860.722 4.379 3803.404 4.379 3885.381 4.369 3813.446 4.378 3960.762 4.367 3903.427 4.367 3985.404 4.358 3913.468 4.366 4060.802 4.357 4003.45 4.357 4085.426 4.35 4013.491 4.356 4160.842 4.349 4103.473 4.349 4185.448 4.339 4113.513 4.348

Existing Conditions 11 meter cut depth 12 meter cut depth 13 meter cut depth Dist [m] Hs [m] Dist [m] Hs [m] Dist [m] Hs [m] Dist [m] Hs [m] 4285.491 4.334 4303.518 4.325 4385.493 4.316 4313.558 4.323 4360.922 4.323 4403.541 4.317 4462.942 4.32 4413.581 4.315 4460.962 4.314 4503.564 4.326 4485.515 4.325 4513.603 4.324 4561.002 4.322 4603.587 4.355 4585.537 4.354 4613.626 4.353 4661.042 4.351 4703.61 4.395 4685.559 4.393 4713.648 4.393 4761.082 4.391 4803.633 4.431 4785.582 4.43 4813.671 4.429 4861.122 4.428 4903.656 4.463 4885.604 4.462 4913.693 4.461 4961.162 4.461 5003.678 4.494 4985.626 4.493 4987.131 4.483 5061.202 4.492 5031.363 4.503 5085.648 4.526 5013.716 4.492 5161.242 4.524 5103.701 4.527 5185.671 4.554 5113.738 4.524 5261.282 4.553 5203.724 4.554 5285.693 4.567 5213.761 4.552 5361.322 4.567 5303.747 4.566 5385.715 4.555 5313.784 4.564 5461.362 4.555 5403.77 4.553 5485.737 4.517 5413.806 4.551 5561.402 4.518 5503.793 4.516 5585.76 4.465 5513.829 4.514 5661.442 4.467 5603.816 4.463 5685.782 4.415 5613.851 4.461 5761.482 4.419 5703.839 4.411 5785.804 4.377 5713.874 4.41 5861.522 4.384 5803.861 4.373 5885.826 4.354 5813.896 4.371 5961.562 4.365 5903.884 4.348 5985.849 4.327 5913.919 4.347 6061.602 4.341 6003.907 4.318 6085.871 4.236 6013.941 4.317 6161.642 4.251 6103.93 4.228 6185.893 4.059 6113.964 4.228 6261.682 4.074 6203.953 4.056 6285.915 3.84 6213.986 4.056 6361.722 3.867 6303.976 3.84 6385.938 3.67 6314.009 3.84 6461.762 3.725 6403.999 3.662 6485.96 3.608 6414.031 3.663 6561.802 3.703 6504.021 3.584 6585.982 3.665 6514.054 3.586 6661.842 3.791 6604.044 3.623 6686.004 3.864 6614.076 3.627 6761.882 3.982 6704.067 3.805 6786.027 4.119 6714.099 3.809 6861.921 4.186 6804.09 4.053 6886.049 4.299 6814.122 4.056 6961.961 4.314 6904.113 4.252 6986.071 4.361 6914.144 4.253 7062.001 4.357 7004.136 4.343 7086.094 4.361 7014.167 4.342 7162.041 4.358 7104.159 4.358 7186.116 4.361 7114.189 4.356 7262.081 4.357 7204.181 4.363 7286.138 4.356 7214.212 4.359 7362.121 4.351 7304.204 4.359 7386.16 4.347 7314.234 4.356 7462.161 4.341 7404.227 4.351 7486.183 4.334 7414.257 4.348

7562.201 4.327 7504.25 4.338 7586.205 4.312 7514.279 4.335 7662.241 4.304 7604.273 4.316 7686.227 4.279 7614.302 4.313 7762.281 4.271 7704.296 4.284 7786.249 4.241 7714.324 4.28 7822.634 4.248 7804.319 4.246 7886.272 4.209 7814.347 4.242 7862.321 4.233 7904.342 4.212 7986.294 4.183 7914.369 4.208 7962.361 4.201 8004.364 4.187 8086.316 4.158 8014.392 4.183 8062.401 4.176 8104.387 4.162 8186.338 4.129 8114.414 4.158 8162.441 4.152 8204.41 4.133 8286.361 4.098 8214.437 4.129 8262.481 4.123 8304.433 4.101 8386.383 4.074 8314.46 4.097

Existing Conditions 11 meter cut depth 12 meter cut depth 13 meter cut depth Dist [m] Hs [m] Dist [m] Hs [m] Dist [m] Hs [m] Dist [m] Hs [m] 8462.561 4.07 8504.479 4.066 8586.427 4.062 8514.505 4.061 8562.601 4.059 8604.502 4.065 8686.45 4.063 8614.527 4.061 8662.641 4.056 8704.524 4.067 8786.472 4.062 8714.55 4.062 8762.681 4.056 8804.547 4.065 8886.494 4.056 8814.572 4.06 8862.721 4.055 8904.57 4.059 8986.516 4.048 8914.595 4.054 8962.761 4.052 9004.593 4.051 9086.539 4.043 9014.617 4.047 9062.801 4.046 9104.616 4.046 9186.561 4.04 9114.64 4.041 9162.841 4.041 9204.639 4.043 9203.389 4.04 9214.662 4.038 9262.881 4.037 9304.662 4.041 9286.583 4.038 9314.685 4.037 9362.921 4.035 9404.685 4.04 9386.605 4.037 9414.707 4.036 9462.961 4.034 9504.707 4.04 9486.628 4.037 9514.73 4.036 9563.001 4.034 9604.73 4.039 9586.65 4.037 9614.752 4.035 9663.041 4.034 9704.753 4.037 9686.672 4.034 9698.434 4.033 9763.081 4.031 9708.411 4.037 9786.694 4.028 9714.775 4.033 9863.121 4.024 9804.776 4.03 9886.717 4.017 9814.798 4.026 9963.161 4.015 9904.799 4.02 9986.739 4.004 9914.82 4.016 10063.2 4.001 10004.82 4.007 10086.76 3.989 10014.84 4.003 10163.24 3.985 10104.85 3.992 10186.78 3.974 10114.87 3.988 10263.28 3.971 10204.87 3.977 10286.81 3.965 10214.89 3.974 10363.32 3.961 10304.89 3.968 10386.83 3.961 10314.91 3.964 10463.36 3.956 10404.91 3.964 10486.85 3.959 10414.93 3.96 10563.4 3.952 10504.94 3.962 10586.87 3.955 10514.96 3.958 10663.44 3.948 10604.96 3.959 10686.9 3.95 10614.98 3.955 10763.48 3.944 10704.98 3.954 10786.92 3.947 10715 3.95 10863.52 3.941 10805.01 3.951 10886.94 3.948 10815.02 3.946 10963.56 3.943 10905.03 3.952 10986.96 3.955 10915.05 3.948 11063.6 3.952 11005.05 3.96 11086.98 3.969 11015.07 3.955 11163.64 3.966 11105.07 3.974 11187.01 3.988 11115.09 3.969 11263.68 3.985 11205.1 3.992 11287.03 4.01 11215.11 3.987 11359.78 4.006 11305.12 4.013 11387.05 4.028 11315.14 4.008 11363.72 4.006 11405.14 4.032 11487.07 4.043 11415.16 4.026 11463.76 4.027 11505.17 4.047 11587.1 4.054 11515.18 4.041 11563.8 4.043 11605.19 4.057 11687.12 4.062 11615.2 4.051 11663.84 4.055 11705.21 4.066 11787.14 4.068 11715.23 4.059 11763.88 4.065 11805.23 4.073 11887.16 4.075 11815.25 4.066 11863.92 4.073 11905.26 4.079 11987.18 4.082 11915.27 4.072 11963.96 4.08 12005.28 4.087 12087.21 4.091 12015.29 4.079 12064 4.085 12105.3 4.097 12187.23 4.104 12115.32 4.089 12164.04 4.092 12205.33 4.11 12287.25 4.123 12215.34 4.102 12264.08 4.103 12305.35 4.129 12387.27 4.145 12315.36 4.12 12364.12 4.119 12405.37 4.152 12487.3 4.172 12415.38 4.142 12464.16 4.139 12505.39 4.178 12587.32 4.2 12515.41 4.169

Existing Conditions 11 meter cut depth 12 meter cut depth 13 meter cut depth Dist [m] Hs [m] Dist [m] Hs [m] Dist [m] Hs [m] Dist [m] Hs [m] 12664.24 4.191 12705.44 4.235 12787.36 4.257 12715.45 4.226 12764.28 4.22 12805.46 4.263 12887.38 4.284 12815.47 4.254 12864.32 4.249 12905.49 4.29 12987.41 4.311 12915.5 4.28 12964.36 4.278 13005.51 4.317 13087.43 4.337 13015.52 4.307 13064.4 4.306 13105.53 4.343 13187.45 4.361 13115.54 4.333 13164.44 4.333 13205.55 4.367 13287.47 4.381 13215.56 4.356 13264.48 4.356 13305.58 4.387 13387.5 4.397 13315.59 4.376 13364.52 4.374 13405.6 4.403 13487.52 4.406 13415.61 4.392 13464.56 4.388 13505.62 4.413 13587.54 4.409 13515.63 4.402 13564.6 4.394 13605.65 4.416 13687.56 4.408 13615.65 4.404 13664.64 4.394 13705.67 4.415 13787.59 4.408 13715.68 4.403 13764.68 4.391 13805.69 4.415 13887.61 4.412 13815.7 4.404 13864.72 4.391 13905.71 4.419 13943.84 4.415 13915.72 4.407 13964.76 4.396 14005.74 4.425 13987.63 4.418 14015.74 4.413 14064.8 4.402 14105.76 4.429 14087.65 4.421 14115.77 4.416 14164.84 4.406 14205.78 4.429 14187.67 4.421 14215.79 4.415 14264.88 4.405 14305.81 4.426 14287.7 4.418 14315.81 4.412 14364.92 4.4 14385.46 4.424 14387.72 4.416 14409.74 4.41 14464.96 4.395 14405.83 4.424 14487.74 4.416 14415.83 4.41 14565 4.393 14505.85 4.424 14587.76 4.415 14515.86 4.41 14665.04 4.391 14605.87 4.423 14687.79 4.409 14615.88 4.408 14765.08 4.384 14705.9 4.417 14787.81 4.4 14715.9 4.402 14865.12 4.377 14805.92 4.409 14887.83 4.392 14815.92 4.394 14896.92 4.375 14905.94 4.401 14987.85 4.386 14915.95 4.385 14965.16 4.371 15005.97 4.395 15087.87 4.383 15015.97 4.379 15065.2 4.366 15105.99 4.392 15187.9 4.382 15115.99 4.376 15165.24 4.363 15206.01 4.391 15287.92 4.384 15216.01 4.375 15265.28 4.361 15306.03 4.393 15387.94 4.389 15316.04 4.377 15365.32 4.361 15406.06 4.398 15487.96 4.395 15416.06 4.382 15465.36 4.365 15506.08 4.405 15587.99 4.4 15516.08 4.388 15565.4 4.369 15606.1 4.41 15688.01 4.401 15616.11 4.393 15665.44 4.372 15706.13 4.411 15788.03 4.398 15716.13 4.394 15765.48 4.371 15806.15 4.409 15888.05 4.394 15816.15 4.392 15865.52 4.368 15906.17 4.403 15988.07 4.388 15916.17 4.386 15965.56 4.364 16006.19 4.397 16088.1 4.383 16016.2 4.38 16065.6 4.361 16106.22 4.392 16188.12 4.378 16116.22 4.375 16165.64 4.357 16206.24 4.388 16288.14 4.372 16216.24 4.371 16265.68 4.353 16306.26 4.382 16388.16 4.364 16316.26 4.366 16365.72 4.346 16406.29 4.373 16488.19 4.351 16416.29 4.356 16465.76 4.335 16506.31 4.36 16588.21 4.336 16516.31 4.344 16565.8 4.318 16606.33 4.345 16688.23 4.323 16616.33 4.33 16665.84 4.3 16706.35 4.332 16788.25 4.314 16716.35 4.316

Existing Conditions 11 meter cut depth 12 meter cut depth 13 meter cut depth Dist [m] Hs [m] Dist [m] Hs [m] Dist [m] Hs [m] Dist [m] Hs [m] 16865.92 4.272 16906.4 4.321 16988.3 4.312 16916.4 4.306 16965.96 4.27 17006.42 4.321 17088.32 4.31 17016.42 4.306 17066 4.271 17106.45 4.318 17188.34 4.302 17116.44 4.303 17166.04 4.27 17206.47 4.31 17288.36 4.289 17216.47 4.295 17266.08 4.263 17306.49 4.297 17388.39 4.272 17316.49 4.282 17366.12 4.25 17406.51 4.281 17488.41 4.253 17416.51 4.265 17466.16 4.23 17506.54 4.262 17588.43 4.235 17516.53 4.246 17566.2 4.206 17606.56 4.244 17688.45 4.223 17616.56 4.228 17666.24 4.187 17706.58 4.231 17788.48 4.221 17716.58 4.216 17766.28 4.179 17806.61 4.229 17888.5 4.226 17816.6 4.213 17866.32 4.182 17906.63 4.234 17988.52 4.234 17916.62 4.219 17966.36 4.193 18006.65 4.241 18088.54 4.24 18016.65 4.227 18066.4 4.205 18106.67 4.246 18188.56 4.242 18116.67 4.233 18166.44 4.214 18206.7 4.247 18288.59 4.239 18216.69 4.235 18266.48 4.218 18306.72 4.245 18388.61 4.227 18316.71 4.232 18366.52 4.214 18406.74 4.233 18488.63 4.201 18416.74 4.221 18434.06 4.206 18506.77 4.207 18588.65 4.164 18516.76 4.196 18466.56 4.199 18606.79 4.169 18684.28 4.127 18616.78 4.159 18566.6 4.17 18706.81 4.13 18688.68 4.126 18716.8 4.121 18666.64 4.13 18806.83 4.102 18788.7 4.098 18816.83 4.094 18766.68 4.091 18906.86 4.088 18888.72 4.084 18916.85 4.08 18866.72 4.062 19006.88 4.084 18988.74 4.081 19016.87 4.077 18966.76 4.047 19062.51 4.084 19088.76 4.084 19116.89 4.08 19066.8 4.044 19106.9 4.087 19188.79 4.092 19121.04 4.081 19166.84 4.046 19206.93 4.094 19288.81 4.101 19216.92 4.088 19266.88 4.053 19306.95 4.102 19388.83 4.109 19316.94 4.097 19366.92 4.061 19406.97 4.109 19488.85 4.116 19416.96 4.105 19466.96 4.069 19506.99 4.116 19588.88 4.122 19516.98 4.112 19567 4.075 19607.02 4.121 19688.9 4.128 19617.01 4.119 19667.04 4.078 19707.04 4.127 19788.92 4.136 19717.03 4.125 19767.08 4.081 19807.06 4.134 19888.94 4.149 19817.05 4.133 19867.12 4.084 19907.09 4.147 19988.97 4.173 19917.07 4.146 19967.16 4.091 20007.11 4.169 20088.99 4.206 20017.1 4.169 20067.2 4.109 20107.13 4.201 20189.01 4.244 20117.12 4.201 20167.24 4.136 20207.15 4.238 20289.03 4.282 20217.14 4.239 20267.28 4.168 20307.18 4.275 20389.05 4.316 20317.16 4.277 20367.32 4.2 20407.2 4.30820489.08 4.346 20417.19 4.31 20467.36 4.228 20507.22 4.336 20589.1 4.373 20517.21 4.34 20567.4 4.251 20607.25 4.363 20689.12 4.401 20617.23 4.367 20667.44 4.269 20707.27 4.389 20789.14 4.43 20717.25 4.394 20767.48 4.286 20807.29 4.418 20889.17 4.462 20817.28 4.423 20867.52 4.306 20907.31 4.449 20989.19 4.497 20917.3 4.454

Existing Conditions 11 meter cut depth 12 meter cut depth 13 meter cut depth Dist [m] Hs [m] Dist [m] Hs [m] Dist [m] Hs [m] Dist [m] Hs [m] 21067.6 4.361 21107.36 4.517 21189.23 4.562 21117.34 4.523 21167.64 4.387 21207.38 4.547 21289.25 4.587 21217.37 4.553 21267.68 4.409 21307.41 4.572 21389.28 4.601 21317.39 4.578 21367.72 4.425 21407.43 4.585 21489.3 4.595 21417.41 4.591 21467.76 4.434 21507.45 4.579 21589.32 4.569 21517.43 4.585 21567.8 4.429 21607.47 4.553 21689.34 4.533 21617.46 4.559 21667.84 4.405 21707.5 4.517 21789.37 4.5 21717.48 4.523 21767.88 4.369 21807.52 4.484 21889.39 4.485 21817.5 4.49 21867.92 4.337 21907.54 4.469 21989.41 4.491 21917.52 4.474 21967.96 4.323 22007.57 4.475 22089.43 4.511 22017.55 4.479 21971.2 4.323 22107.59 4.495 22189.45 4.536 22117.57 4.499 22068 4.329 22207.61 4.52 22289.48 4.556 22217.59 4.525 22168.04 4.347 22307.63 4.54 22389.5 4.563 22317.61 4.545 22268.08 4.366 22407.66 4.548 22489.52 4.554 22417.64 4.553 22368.12 4.375 22507.68 4.541 22589.54 4.53 22517.66 4.545 22468.16 4.369 22607.7 4.517 22689.57 4.496 22617.68 4.521 22568.2 4.345 22707.73 4.483 22789.59 4.467 22717.7 4.488 22668.24 4.313 22807.75 4.454 22889.61 4.457 22817.73 4.458 22768.28 4.283 22907.77 4.443 22989.63 4.47 22917.75 4.446 22868.32 4.269 23007.79 4.456 23089.66 4.501 23017.77 4.458 22968.36 4.279 23107.82 4.486 23189.68 4.536 23117.8 4.488 23068.4 4.313 23207.84 4.521 23289.7 4.563 23217.82 4.523 23168.44 4.361 23307.86 4.548 23389.72 4.576 23317.84 4.55 23268.48 4.407 23407.89 4.561 23424.73 4.577 23417.86 4.563 23368.52 4.437 23507.91 4.562 23489.74 4.576 23517.89 4.564 23468.56 4.443 23607.93 4.555 23589.77 4.567 23617.91 4.557 23568.6 4.429 23707.95 4.543 23689.79 4.554 23717.93 4.546 23668.64 4.398 23739.56 4.539 23789.81 4.537 23817.95 4.53 23768.68 4.356 23807.98 4.528 23889.83 4.512 23832.34 4.527 23868.72 4.312 23908 4.505 23989.86 4.479 23917.98 4.506 23968.76 4.276 24008.02 4.473 24089.88 4.441 24018 4.472 24068.8 4.251 24108.05 4.436 24189.9 4.411 24118.02 4.433 24168.84 4.233 24208.07 4.406 24289.92 4.4 24218.04 4.402 24268.88 4.222 24308.09 4.395 24389.94 4.412 24318.07 4.39 24368.92 4.224 24408.11 4.408 24489.97 4.438 24418.09 4.402 24468.96 4.235 24508.14 4.435 24589.99 4.459 24518.11 4.429 24569 4.246 24608.16 4.456 24690.01 4.455 24618.13 4.45 24669.04 4.249 24708.18 4.452 24790.03 4.422 24718.16 4.447 24769.08 4.242 24808.21 4.42 24890.06 4.377 24818.18 4.416 24869.12 4.227 24908.23 4.375 24990.08 4.34 24918.2 4.371 24969.16 4.209 25008.25 4.337 25090.1 4.321 25018.22 4.334 25069.2 4.191 25108.27 4.318 25190.12 4.315 25118.25 4.316

Existing Conditions 11 meter cut depth 12 meter cut depth 13 meter cut depth Dist [m] Hs [m] Dist [m] Hs [m] Dist [m] Hs [m] Dist [m] Hs [m] 25269.28 4.165 25308.32 4.309 25390.17 4.303 25318.29 4.307 25369.32 4.159 25408.34 4.301 25490.19 4.29 25418.31 4.299 25469.36 4.156 25508.37 4.287 25590.21 4.271 25518.34 4.286 25508.35 4.155 25608.39 4.267 25690.23 4.239 25618.36 4.266 25569.4 4.15 25708.41 4.236 25790.26 4.194 25718.38 4.235 25669.44 4.134 25808.43 4.192 25890.28 4.144 25818.4 4.192 25769.48 4.104 25908.46 4.142 25990.3 4.098 25918.43 4.143 25869.52 4.063 26008.48 4.095 26090.32 4.063 26018.45 4.097 25969.56 4.02 26108.5 4.059 26190.35 4.039 26118.47 4.062 26069.6 3.985 26208.53 4.036 26290.37 4.024 26218.49 4.038 26169.64 3.962 26308.55 4.021 26390.39 4.011 26318.52 4.023 26269.68 3.945 26408.57 4.008 26490.41 3.999 26418.54 4.01 26369.72 3.933 26508.59 3.996 26590.43 3.987 26518.56 3.998 26469.76 3.924 26608.62 3.984 26690.46 3.977 26618.58 3.987 26569.8 3.915 26708.64 3.974 26790.48 3.969 26718.61 3.977 26669.84 3.907 26808.66 3.966 26890.5 3.964 26818.63 3.969 26769.88 3.9 26908.69 3.961 26990.52 3.965 26918.65 3.964 26869.92 3.898 27008.71 3.961 27090.55 3.975 27018.67 3.964 26969.96 3.9 27108.73 3.972 27190.57 3.996 27118.7 3.974 27070 3.908 27208.76 3.993 27290.59 4.025 27218.72 3.995 27170.04 3.921 27308.78 4.023 27390.61 4.057 27318.74 4.024 27270.08 3.941 27408.8 4.055 27490.63 4.086 27418.76 4.055 27370.12 3.97 27508.82 4.085 27590.66 4.11 27518.79 4.084 27470.16 4.002 27608.85 4.11 27690.68 4.13 27618.81 4.108 27570.2 4.032 27708.87 4.13 27790.7 4.142 27718.83 4.127 27670.24 4.059 27808.89 4.143 27890.72 4.149 27818.85 4.139 27770.28 4.08 27908.92 4.151 27990.75 4.154 27918.88 4.146 27870.32 4.096 28008.94 4.156 28090.77 4.161 28018.9 4.151 27970.36 4.105 28108.96 4.164 28165.18 4.169 28118.92 4.158 28070.4 4.111 28208.98 4.175 28190.79 4.172 28218.94 4.169 28170.44 4.122 28309.01 4.187 28290.81 4.184 28318.97 4.182 28270.48 4.139 28409.03 4.198 28390.83 4.195 28418.99 4.193 28370.52 4.159 28416.6 4.199 28490.86 4.201 28519.01 4.199 28470.56 4.178 28509.05 4.204 28590.88 4.203 28543.65 4.2 28570.6 4.19 28609.08 4.206 28690.9 4.2 28619.03 4.201 28670.64 4.193 28709.1 4.202 28790.92 4.193 28719.06 4.198 28770.68 4.187 28809.12 4.196 28890.95 4.184 28819.08 4.192 28870.72 4.178 28909.14 4.186 28990.97 4.173 28919.1 4.183 28970.76 4.169 29009.17 4.175 29090.99 4.163 29019.12 4.172 29045.49 4.166 29109.19 4.165 29191.01 4.159 29119.15 4.163 29070.8 4.165 29209.21 4.161 29291.04 4.162 29219.17 4.158 29170.84 4.164 29309.24 4.163 29391.06 4.172 29319.19 4.161

Existing Conditions 11 meter cut depth 12 meter cut depth 13 meter cut depth Dist [m] Hs [m] Dist [m] Hs [m] Dist [m] Hs [m] Dist [m] Hs [m] 29370.92 4.17 29509.28 4.191 29591.1 4.21 29519.24 4.19 29470.96 4.181 29609.3 4.211 29691.12 4.226 29619.26 4.211 29571 4.198 29709.33 4.227 29791.15 4.238 29719.28 4.227 29671.04 4.218 29809.35 4.239 29891.17 4.246 29819.3 4.239 29771.08 4.234 29909.37 4.247 29991.19 4.253 29919.33 4.247 29871.12 4.244 30009.4 4.254 30091.21 4.257 30019.35 4.254 29971.16 4.251 30109.42 4.258 30191.24 4.259 30119.37 4.259 30071.2 4.261 30209.44 4.259 30291.26 4.259 30219.39 4.26 30171.24 4.275 30309.46 4.259 30391.28 4.258 30319.42 4.26 30271.28 4.285 30409.49 4.258 30491.3 4.255 30419.44 4.259 30371.32 4.287 30509.51 4.256 30591.32 4.25 30519.46 4.256 30471.36 4.284 30609.53 4.251 30691.35 4.247 30619.49 4.251 30571.4 4.278 30709.56 4.248 30791.37 4.253 30719.51 4.249 30671.44 4.27 30809.58 4.253 30891.39 4.267 30819.53 4.254 30771.48 4.265 30909.6 4.267 30991.41 4.284 30919.55 4.269 30871.52 4.271 31009.62 4.284 31091.44 4.299 31019.58 4.286 30971.56 4.285 31109.65 4.3 31191.46 4.314 31119.6 4.301 31071.6 4.302 31209.67 4.314 31291.48 4.332 31219.62 4.315 31171.64 4.319 31309.69 4.332 31391.5 4.352 31319.64 4.333 31271.68 4.339 31409.72 4.352 31491.52 4.369 31419.67 4.353 31371.72 4.364 31509.74 4.37 31591.55 4.38 31519.69 4.37 31471.76 4.388 31609.76 4.381 31691.57 4.386 31619.71 4.382 31571.8 4.402 31709.78 4.386 31791.59 4.392 31719.73 4.388 31671.84 4.406 31809.81 4.392 31891.61 4.401 31819.76 4.394 31771.88 4.403 31909.83 4.401 31991.64 4.412 31919.78 4.402 31871.92 4.404 32009.85 4.412 32091.66 4.424 32019.8 4.413 31971.96 4.415 32109.88 4.424 32191.68 4.438 32119.82 4.425 32072 4.433 32209.9 4.438 32291.7 4.455 32219.85 4.439 32172.04 4.45 32309.92 4.455 32391.73 4.476 32319.87 4.457 32272.08 4.464 32409.94 4.476 32491.75 4.497 32419.89 4.477 32372.12 4.48 32509.97 4.496 32591.77 4.516 32519.91 4.498 32472.16 4.503 32609.99 4.515 32691.79 4.531 32619.94 4.516 32572.2 4.532 32710.01 4.53 32791.81 4.541 32719.96 4.531 32582.63 4.535 32810.04 4.54 32891.84 4.548 32819.98 4.541 32672.24 4.557 32910.06 4.548 32905.63 4.549 32920 4.548 32772.28 4.575 33010.08 4.555 32991.86 4.555 33020.03 4.555 32872.32 4.586 33093.65 4.56 33091.88 4.562 33120.05 4.562 32972.36 4.595 33110.1 4.561 33191.9 4.564 33220.07 4.565 33072.4 4.6 33210.13 4.56433291.93 4.561 33254.95 4.565 33172.44 4.602 33310.15 4.56 33391.95 4.55 33320.09 4.561 33272.48 4.596 33410.17 4.55 33491.97 4.534 33420.12 4.551 33372.52 4.585 33510.2 4.535 33591.99 4.515 33520.14 4.535

Existing Conditions 11 meter cut depth 12 meter cut depth 13 meter cut depth Dist [m] Hs [m] Dist [m] Hs [m] Dist [m] Hs [m] Dist [m] Hs [m] 33572.6 4.548 33710.24 4.492 33792.04 4.471 33720.18 4.493 33672.64 4.521 33810.26 4.471 33892.06 4.454 33820.21 4.472 33772.68 4.493 33910.29 4.454 33992.08 4.442 33920.23 4.455 33872.72 4.472 34010.31 4.442 34092.1 4.435 34020.25 4.443 33972.76 4.46 34110.33 4.434 34192.13 4.429 34120.27 4.436 34072.8 4.455 34210.36 4.429 34292.15 4.423 34220.3 4.429 34172.84 4.455 34310.38 4.424 34392.17 4.421 34320.32 4.424 34272.88 4.459 34410.4 4.421 34492.19 4.422 34420.34 4.421 34372.92 4.463 34510.42 4.422 34592.21 4.427 34520.36 4.422 34472.96 4.463 34610.45 4.427 34692.24 4.435 34620.39 4.427 34573 4.46 34710.47 4.436 34792.26 4.446 34720.41 4.436 34673.04 4.457 34810.49 4.446 34892.28 4.459 34820.43 4.446 34773.08 4.464 34910.52 4.458 34992.3 4.468 34920.45 4.458 34873.12 4.488 35010.54 4.468 35092.33 4.47 35020.48 4.467 34973.16 4.515 35110.56 4.469 35192.35 4.462 35120.5 4.469 35073.2 4.527 35210.58 4.462 35292.37 4.454 35220.52 4.462 35173.24 4.516 35310.61 4.454 35392.39 4.455 35320.54 4.454 35273.28 4.497 35410.63 4.455 35492.42 4.467 35420.57 4.455 35373.32 4.49 35510.65 4.467 35592.44 4.483 35520.59 4.467 35473.36 4.503 35610.68 4.483 35692.46 4.492 35620.61 4.482 35573.4 4.525 35710.7 4.491 35792.48 4.484 35720.63 4.491 35673.44 4.541 35810.72 4.483 35892.5 4.451 35820.66 4.483 35773.48 4.545 35910.74 4.451 35992.53 4.395 35920.68 4.451 35873.52 4.533 36010.77 4.395 36092.55 4.322 36020.7 4.395 35973.56 4.502 36110.79 4.322 36192.57 4.247 36120.72 4.323 36073.6 4.444 36210.81 4.248 36292.59 4.178 36220.75 4.248 36119.77 4.411 36310.84 4.179 36392.62 4.111 36320.77 4.179 36173.64 4.361 36410.86 4.112 36492.64 4.037 36420.79 4.112 36273.68 4.266 36510.88 4.038 36592.66 3.953 36520.81 4.038 36373.72 4.177 36610.9 3.954 36692.68 3.868 36620.84 3.955 36473.76 4.104 36710.93 3.868 36792.7 3.791 36720.86 3.869 36573.8 4.046 36810.95 3.791 36892.73 3.729 36820.88 3.792 36673.84 3.991 36910.97 3.73 36992.75 3.683 36920.9 3.731 36773.88 3.919 37011 3.685 37092.77 3.655 37020.93 3.687 36873.92 3.822 37111.02 3.657 37192.79 3.65 37120.95 3.659 36973.96 3.708 37211.04 3.652 37292.82 3.673 37220.97 3.654 37074 3.609 37311.06 3.674 37392.84 3.725 37320.99 3.676 37174.04 3.56 37411.09 3.726 37492.86 3.801 37421.02 3.728 37274.08 3.576 37511.11 3.802 37592.88 3.885 37521.04 3.803 37374.12 3.647 37611.13 3.885 37646.07 3.928 37621.06 3.886 37474.16 3.748 37711.16 3.961 37692.9 3.961 37721.08 3.962 37574.2 3.85 37770.7 4.001 37792.93 4.024 37821.11 4.026

Existing Conditions 11 meter cut depth 12 meter cut depth 13 meter cut depth Dist [m] Hs [m] Dist [m] Hs [m] Dist [m] Hs [m] Dist [m] Hs [m] 37774.28 4.006 37911.2 4.084 37992.97 4.147 37966.25 4.112 37874.32 4.07 38011.22 4.147 38092.99 4.218 38021.15 4.148 37974.36 4.129 38111.25 4.218 38193.02 4.294 38121.18 4.219 38074.4 4.195 38211.27 4.295 38293.04 4.373 38221.2 4.295 38174.44 4.284 38311.29 4.373 38393.06 4.446 38321.22 4.373 38274.48 4.397 38411.32 4.447 38493.08 4.509 38421.24 4.447 38374.52 4.501 38511.34 4.509 38593.11 4.559 38521.27 4.51 38474.56 4.564 38611.36 4.559 38693.13 4.596 38621.29 4.56 38574.6 4.592 38711.38 4.596 38793.15 4.616 38721.31 4.598 38674.64 4.61 38811.41 4.616 38893.17 4.615 38821.33 4.618 38774.68 4.626 38911.43 4.616 38993.19 4.595 38921.36 4.617 38874.72 4.629 39011.45 4.595 39093.22 4.572 39021.38 4.594 38974.76 4.617 39111.48 4.57 39193.24 4.563 39121.4 4.566 39074.8 4.595 39211.5 4.56 39293.26 4.567 39221.42 4.554 39174.84 4.577 39311.52 4.566 39393.28 4.571 39321.45 4.561 39274.88 4.571 39411.54 4.571 39493.31 4.559 39421.47 4.571 39374.92 4.571 39511.57 4.56 39593.33 4.528 39521.49 4.562 39474.96 4.57 39611.59 4.529 39693.35 4.488 39621.51 4.532 39575 4.558 39711.61 4.489 39793.37 4.459 39721.54 4.492 39656.92 4.536 39811.64 4.46 39893.39 4.447 39821.56 4.463 39675.04 4.529 39911.66 4.448 39993.42 4.441 39921.58 4.451 39775.08 4.483 40011.68 4.442 40093.44 4.43 40021.6 4.445 39875.12 4.433 40111.7 4.43 40193.46 4.415 40121.63 4.432 39975.16 4.397 40211.73 4.415 40293.48 4.403 40221.65 4.415 40075.2 4.383 40311.75 4.403 40393.51 4.401 40321.67 4.403 40175.24 4.383 40411.77 4.401 40493.53 4.406 40421.69 4.4 40275.28 4.393 40511.8 4.406 40593.55 4.416 40521.72 4.406 40375.32 4.41 40611.82 4.416 40693.57 4.426 40621.74 4.415 40475.36 4.428 40711.84 4.425 40793.59 4.436 40721.76 4.425 40575.4 4.445 40811.86 4.436 40893.62 4.45 40821.78 4.436 40675.44 4.454 40911.89 4.45 40993.64 4.471 40921.81 4.45 40775.48 4.458 41011.91 4.471 41093.66 4.496 41021.83 4.472 40875.52 4.458 41111.93 4.496 41193.68 4.52 41121.85 4.497 40975.56 4.457 41211.96 4.52 41293.71 4.54 41221.87 4.52 41075.6 4.46 41311.98 4.541 41393.73 4.558 41321.9 4.541 41175.64 4.47 41412 4.559 41493.75 4.573 41421.92 4.559 41275.68 4.492 41512.02 4.573 41593.77 4.58 41521.94 4.573 41375.72 4.521 41612.05 4.58 41693.8 4.579 41621.96 4.58 41475.76 4.548 41712.07 4.579 41793.82 4.573 41721.99 4.579 41575.8 4.566 41812.09 4.573 41893.84 4.566 41822.01 4.573 41675.84 4.572 41912.12 4.566 41993.86 4.559 41922.03 4.566 41775.88 4.568 42012.14 4.559 42093.88 4.551 42022.05 4.56

Existing Conditions 11 meter cut depth 12 meter cut depth 13 meter cut depth Dist [m] Hs [m] Dist [m] Hs [m] Dist [m] Hs [m] Dist [m] Hs [m] 41975.96 4.543 42212.18 4.54 42293.93 4.523 42222.1 4.54 42076 4.532 42312.21 4.523 42386.52 4.502 42322.12 4.523 42176.04 4.525 42412.23 4.5 42393.95 4.5 42422.14 4.5 42276.08 4.52 42447.75 4.492 42493.97 4.477 42522.17 4.477 42376.12 4.516 42512.25 4.477 42594 4.457 42622.19 4.457 42476.16 4.511 42612.28 4.457 42694.02 4.443 42677.56 4.447 42576.2 4.505 42712.3 4.442 42794.04 4.434 42722.21 4.442 42676.24 4.5 42812.32 4.434 42894.06 4.436 42822.23 4.433 42776.28 4.495 42912.34 4.436 42994.08 4.452 42922.26 4.435 42876.32 4.49 43012.37 4.452 43094.11 4.472 43022.28 4.451 42976.36 4.488 43112.39 4.472 43194.13 4.48 43122.3 4.472 43076.4 4.487 43212.41 4.48 43294.15 4.47 43222.32 4.48 43176.44 4.487 43312.44 4.47 43394.17 4.452 43322.35 4.47 43194.06 4.487 43412.46 4.452 43494.2 4.442 43422.37 4.452 43276.48 4.486 43512.48 4.442 43594.22 4.442 43522.39 4.442 43376.52 4.48 43612.5 4.442 43694.24 4.448 43622.41 4.442 43476.56 4.467 43712.53 4.448 43794.26 4.46 43722.44 4.448 43576.6 4.451 43812.55 4.46 43894.28 4.486 43822.46 4.461 43676.64 4.439 43912.57 4.486 43994.31 4.517 43922.48 4.49 43776.68 4.437 44012.6 4.518 44094.33 4.541 44022.5 4.525 43876.72 4.447 44112.62 4.541 44194.35 4.554 44122.53 4.549 43976.76 4.463 44212.64 4.554 44294.37 4.564 44222.55 4.558 44076.8 4.484 44312.66 4.564 44394.4 4.576 44322.57 4.565 44176.84 4.508 44412.69 4.576 44494.42 4.586 44422.59 4.579 44276.88 4.533 44512.71 4.586 44594.44 4.594 44522.62 4.593 44376.92 4.555 44612.73 4.594 44694.46 4.605 44622.64 4.601 44476.96 4.572 44712.76 4.605 44794.49 4.62 44722.66 4.609 44577 4.585 44812.78 4.62 44860.63 4.627 44822.68 4.62

DEFINITION OF TERMS

AWAC- Acoustic Wave and Current Battjes & Janssen- Breaking wave model developed by Battjes and Janssen Borrow area- Location at which sediment is dredged Breakwater- a waterborne structure designed for protection from waves CHL-Coastal Hydraulics Lab CMS-Coastal Modeling System CMS-Wave- Coastal Modeling Systems’ Wave transformation program Directionality- Condition of indicating direction Dredge- Underwater excavation ERDC- US Army Engineer Research and Development Center Ebb- seaward tidal flow Epoch- Historical time period Friction coefficient- Frictional force between two substances FDEP- Florida Department of Environmental Protection H-sheet- NOAA hydrographic survey data format Hindcast- Historic prediction of conditions Holocene Epoch- Current post glacial period (11,700 years before present to now) Longshore- Movement along a shoreline MSL- Mean Sea Level Nearshore- Waterborne area near a shoreline NOAA- US Government National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Overwash- Water and sediment movement across beach and/or dune systems Pleistocene Epoch- Last period of glaciation (2.5 million to 11,700 years ago) SLSC- St. Lucie Shoal Complex SMS- Surface-water Modeling System produced by Aquaveo® STWAVE- STeady state WAVE modeling program from USACE Shoal- Submerged elongated feature primarily comprised of sediment Shoreface- The area between the high water line and the breaker zone Storm return period- An estimate as to the time between specific storm intensities Sub-aerial- The air soil interface, not underwater Sub-bottom- Of or relating to the area below the highest elevation of sediment Storm surge- The storm related rise in the static sea level by low pressure and wind Stratified- Layering of any substance USACE- United States Army Corps of Engineers WW3- Wave Watch III WIS- US Army Wave Information Study Wave rose- Graphic showing direction and wave Wrack line- Debris marking a high water mark Vibracore- Hollow metal tube vibrated into sediment for sediment sampling