Review of Beach Management Plans and ad-hoc management in Southeast England. Alex Cargo, Uwe Dornbusch. Southern Logo to come

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Review of Beach Management Plans and ad-hoc management in Southeast England. Alex Cargo, Uwe Dornbusch. Southern Logo to come"

Transcription

1 Review of Beach Management Plans and ad-hoc management in Southeast England Alex Cargo, Uwe Dornbusch Southern Logo to come Reference number/code [Sector Code]

2 We are the Environment Agency. It's our job to look after your environment and make it a better place - for you, and for future generations. Your environment is the air you breathe, the water you drink and the ground you walk on. Working with business, Government and society as a whole, we are making your environment cleaner and healthier. The Environment Agency. Out there, making your environment a better place. Cover shows part of the cover page of the 1995 Beach Management Plan for Seaford Published by: Environment Agency Rio House Waterside Drive, Aztec West Almondsbury, Bristol BS32 4UD Tel: enquiries@environment-agency.gov.uk Environment Agency All rights reserved. This document may be reproduced with prior permission of the Environment Agency. Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 1

3 Contents 1 Exec summary 5 2 Background Overview of beach management activities 6 3 BMP definition 8 4 Beach Management Plans East Beach & Freshwater Beach Management Plan (Halcrow 2009) Summary of the BMP Current Beach Management Practice Recommendations Chesil Beach (Portland to Small Mouth) 2010 (Halcrow) Summary of the BMP Current Beach Management Practice Recommendations Preston Beach 2009 (Halcrow) Summary of the BMP Current Beach Management Practice Recommendations Hurst Spit Netley Cliff Coast Protection BMP 1996 (Posford Duvivier) Summary of the BMP Current Beach Management Practice Recommendations Lee-on-the-Solent Beach Management Plan () Beach Management Strategy Plan for the southern Frontage of Eastoke Peninsula 1999 (Havant Borough Council) Summary of the BMP Current Beach Management Practice Recommendations Widewater Lagoon: Shoreham & Lancing Sea Defence Beach Management Plan 2003 (Halcrow) Summary of the BMP Current Beach Management Practice Recommendations Seaford Beach (Seaford Beach Management Plan 1995/96, NRA) Summary of the BMP Current Beach Management Practice Recommendations Eastbourne 2010 (Halcrow) Summary of the BMP Current Beach Management Practice Recommendations Pevensey Bay (Pevensey Bay Sea Defences PFI Draft 2009, PCDL) Summary of the BMP Current Beach Management Practice Recommendations Bulverhythe (Bulverhythe Coastal Defences Beach Management Plan 2007, Halcrow) Summary of the BMP Current Beach Management Practice Recommendations Pett Frontage Beach Management Plan 2009 (Halcrow) Summary of the BMP Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

4 Current Beach Management Practice Recommendations Denge Sea Defences Beach Management Plan 2008 (Environment Agency) Summary of the BMP Current Beach Management Practice Recommendations Dungeness (Halcrow) Greatstone Dune Mangement Plan 2010 / Draft (Herrington Consulting) Summary of the BMP Current Beach Management Practice Recommendations Romney Sands Beach Management Plan 2007 (Jacobs) Summary of the BMP Recommendations Current Beach Management Practice Recommendations Littlestone to St Mary s Bay Sea Defences BMP 2006 (Jacobs Babtie) Summary of the BMP Current Beach Management Practice Recommendations Hythe to Folkestone Beach Management Plan Project Appraisal Report 2008 (Herrington Consulting Ltd) Summary of the BMP Current Beach Management Practice Recommendations Sandwich Bay Beach Management Recommendations Northern Seawall Beach Management Recommendations Tankerton Beach Management Plan 1996 (Canterbury City Council) Summary of the BMP Current Beach Management Practice Recommendations Sheerness to Minster Beach Management Plan Ad-hoc Beach Management Arun District Council Recommendations Worthing Borough Council Recommendations Brighton and Hove Recommendations Bexhill Recommendations Hastings Recommendations Thanet Canterbury City Council Recommendations BMP recommendations BMP Content Geographical Boundaries Solent area to Selsey Bill Selsey Bill to Brighton Marina Seaford Beachy Head to Hastings / Rother Mouth 68 Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 3

5 6.2.5 Broomhill Sands to Folkestone Kingsdown to Pegwell Bay North Kent (Minnis Bay to Graveny) Priority Funding and Governance 72 7 Appendix 1 BMM chapter on BMP 73 8 Appendix 2 Clarification Note on Recycling and FDGiA 74 9 Appendix 3 Example mapping from Geodatabase References 78 4 Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

6 1 Exec summary Beach Management Plans provide an accountable and transparent methodology for managing beaches as coastal defence assets based on risk information that derives from scheme design, monitoring and scientific/research input with the aim of managing the frontage in a sustainable way. Along many frontages of Southeast England, beaches provide the means to implement SMP2 'hold the line' policies. Their management, based on monitoring information, is essential in providing flood and erosion protection for large areas. Altogether 19 Beach Management documents together with information about six frontages with ad-hoc activities have been reviewed for Southeast England (in total 25 management sites) covering ~138km with both length and number roughly equally divided between Local Authorities and EA as the Operating Authority. Five of the Beach Management Plans (BMP) were produced in the last century and nine in the last three years. Only three of the documents are regularly updated. On an annual basis > 300,000m³ are recycled, >50,000m³ are added through recharge and a significant amount of reprofiling is undertaken; all at a cost in excess of ~ 2.4 mio. Shortcomings in all or the overwhelming majority of documents reviewed relate to 1. basic modelling and assumptions that went into the design. It a. is not transparent as to what went into the models (e.g. what sea conditions, offshore / nearshore) b. is rarely mentioned what models have been used c. does not assess different under-beach conditions (vertical seawall / sloping revetment) d. does not provide any sensitivity test as to scope for beach changes e. does not seem to use any field data on run-up f. is not clear or there is no differentiation between the standard of protection for overtopping or breach (how much overtopping would be acceptable, how much overtopping will lead to breach) g. unclear how the risk changes along a frontage 2. environmental considerations. There is little or no reference to a. existing habitats or the lack of them b. habitat creation opportunities (vegetated shingle) c. the impact of management activities on habitat potential 3. coastal monitoring. Though monitoring is universally recommended, there is a. little reference to the analysis of monitoring data either as a task as such or in more specific details as to what analysis should be carried out and who should carry it out. 4. the lack of cost information (projected and real costs in the past) 5. lack of review in relation to a. environmental conditions experienced b. how the beach has performed in response to conditions and the management activities c. how this might feed back into the design In addition, information obtained for frontages that do not have beach management documentation highlights a lack of transparency about why and what management is carried out and thus a lack of accountability with respect to risk, standard of protection and eventually the resources (both beach material and costs) used. This does not imply that these frontages are not managed adequately but that it is near impossible to ascertain this. The analysis is followed up by recommendations on the BMP content that addresses these shortcomings, the geographical boundaries of new and updated BMPs and a prioritisation programme of BMPs based on a range of criteria. However, one of the main obstacles to efficient beach management are the present annualised and localised funding arrangements that allow for very little flexibility in response to the annual variation of management intervention in response to the varying wave and tide conditions. Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 5

7 2 Background Following the Strategic Coastal Overview which aimed to improve coordination of EA and LA capital programmes this project aims to improve understanding of beach management activities in EA Southern Region. The involvement of both the South East Coastal Group and Southern Coastal Group mean that a small number of beaches from EA Southwest Region have also been included. Given the dominance of mixed sand and gravel beaches in the Southeast, the report only deals with those and excludes management activities on sand beaches, however, it can be assumed that the recommendations put forward will also be applicable to those beaches. The distribution of BMP frontages as shown in Figure 1 reflects the distribution of shingle beaches in Southeast England, their role in providing flood and coastal protection and their potential for short term change due to wave and tide conditions. As a consequence the sheltered frontages of the Solent, the Isle of Wight and the western part of Southern Coastal Group do not show many sites. Beach Management Plans have been given increased status in that an agreed BMP will be required to draw on FDGiA funding for recycling activities (Draft Note in Appendix 2). The objective of this report is to identify and summarise both Local Authority led and Environment Agency led beach management activities in Southeast England. Beach management activities in the Region are largely based on beach management plans (BMP s) but on a range of frontages management is carried out in an ad-hoc manner guided by engineering judgement and experience. BMP s range from live documents that are updated annually to documents supplied with a capital scheme which have then rarely been reviewed. Documenting all beach management activities and the type of plans currently in place is the first step in assessing the requirements of beach management activities, the suitability of activities and the potential for optimising management across Southern Region. Optimising management could result in reduced maintenance and capital costs and enhanced habitat opportunities. The report extends the 2008 report "Adur to Hastings Integrated Management Plan " (PCDL, 2008) which although being limited in spatial extent provides additional background on why and how neighbouring frontages should be considered together (Section 6.2) and contains ideas about recycling over long distances and alternative methods of procurement. Information has been collected by contacting staff managing the beaches, however, for some frontages which are known to have some form of management, information has not become available for various reasons and these are only listed with a brief comment. The Western side of Selsey Beach has not been included due to the planned capital scheme at Bunn Leisure and the Managed Realignment which will require a BMP following implementation. Similarly, Cuckmere Haven is not included as the activity primarily relates to the clearing of the Cuckmere channel. This report is accompanied by an ArcMap geodatabase and shape file that summarises a range of BMP characteristics for each site were available. Sample maps based on BMP details are shown in Appendix 3 Example mapping from Geodatabase. 2.1 Overview of beach management activities A review of current beach management plans was undertaken for Southern Region (covering Southeast Coastal Group and parts of Southern Coastal Group) with some excursions into frontages that form part of Southwest Region, some of which still being part of the Southern Coastal Group. The location extent and type of beach management activities is presented in Figure 1 below and the BMPs are covered in the document split between frontage with BMPs and those with ad-hoc management, going round the coast in a counter-clock-wise direction. At present, 138km of open coast are actively managed in Southern Region (Table 1). Full details of activities are detailed in section 4 and sample maps that extend the table are shown in Appendix 3 Example mapping from Geodatabase. 6 Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

8 Figure 1 Locations of Beach Management activities covered in this report. Number of frontages Length of frontages Document production year Operators EA LA Private Sum Ad hoc Formal Plan Sum Ad hoc Formal Plan Sum Ad hoc plans or no date available Sum Table 1: Breakdown of number or frontages, length of frontages and document production year by Operating Authority Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 7

9 3 BMP definition Beach Management Plans provide an accountable and transparent methodology for managing beaches as coastal defence assets based on risk information that derives from scheme design, monitoring and scientific/research input with the aim of managing the frontage in a sustainable way. Here, sustainability refers to managing the beach (or the beach plus other defences) as a coastal defence structure in a cost effective way to the right standard of protection with the least environmental impact so as to enhance habitat opportunities. While beaches in many locations also provide a significant amenity, maintaining this amenity cannot be funded through FDGiA capital grant and BMPs need to clearly distinguish between the beach required for coastal defence and its management (including any H&S issues) and beach size / volume or management activities that are related to the amenity use, which should be funded from other sources. BMPs received a brief mention in the 1996 Beach Management Manual. The 2 nd Edition of the Beach Management Manual (2010) has extended its guidance on BMPs and is devoting an entire chapter to beach management. It contains an exhaustive list of content to be addressed in BMPs. While such a comprehensive BMP might be appropriate for frontages with annual management costs of several 100k, for those frontages were only a couple of thousands cubic metres are recycled every few years this seems disproportionate. The review of BMPs in Southeast England identifies the key items a BMP should contain and these are discussed in Section 6. 4 Beach Management Plans 4.1 East Beach & Freshwater Beach Management Plan (Halcrow 2009) Background The shingle beaches of East Beach (West Bay) and Freshwater Beach are located on the south coast in Lyme Bay, Dorset and are separated by approximately 1 km of coastal cliffs. East Beach itself provides protection to 254 residential and 35 commercial properties with an estimated value of 40.5 million in The objective for Freshwater Beach is to reduce the risk of flooding to properties and infrastructure at the village of Burton Bradstock (also at risk from river flooding if the river is blocked through the moving beach) and to 840 static caravans, two residential properties and associated infrastructure at Freshwater Beach Holiday Park. The key objective of this BMP is to reduce the risk of coastal flooding and erosion by ensuring that adequate beaches are maintained along East Beach and Freshwater Beach to provide a minimum 1% APO (1 in 100 return period) Standard of Protection against coastal erosion and flooding at both sites (Note, that the Standard of Protection of East Beach was designed, as part of the 2005 West Bay Scheme, to have a 0.7% APO; equivalent to a 1 in 136 return period (Ref 1.2)). The South Devon and Dorset SMP2 has HTL for the first two epochs followed by MR for East Beach, NAI for all epochs for the cliffs between East Beach and Freshwater Bay, and HTL for the first epoch followed by MR for Freshwater Beach. Management currently includes recycling and reprofiling to achive design crest heights and widths. There is also a stockpile of material at East Beach. 8 Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

10 Figure 2: Approximate extent of the East Beach & Freshwater Beach Management Plan Summary of the BMP Physical Conditions The BMP includes both extremes and Joint Return Probability (JRP) data for waves and tides and as the beach toe is at ~-4mOD there are only very small depth-limited effects under storm conditions. The beach has been modelled in physical models and wave analysis has taken bimodal conditions into account. The 2000 East and West Beach Management Plan provides an average grains size of 8-10mm, however, grain size curves in the document suggest a D 50 in the order of 3 to 4mm. Since 2004, beach volumes appear to have been largely stable though the analysis presented appears disjointed and it is difficult to follow where and how they apply Recommendations of the BMP The following conclusions are reached in the report: The BMP recommends a range of monitoring activities that continue the present monitoring regime, including sediment sampling (though no details of the methodology is given). Recycling and reprofiling is carried out on a needs basis, founded on monitoring data. Environmental The BMP mentions designated sites and some information on vegetated shingle, but this is not carried further into the assessment of beach management activities or the monitoring programme. Profiles and trigger levels Design beach characteristics are (see Figure 3): 1 in 8 lower seawards beach slope; +4mODN to +5mODN berm toe level; 1 in 4 upper seaward beach slope; +8mODN crest level; 13.5m crest width; and 1 in 6 inshore beach slope (as existing BMP). Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 9

11 Figure 3: Schematic of the design profile taken from figure 3.1 in the BMP Action Levels Crest Width along the beach falls below 13.5m; or Crest Level along the beach falls below +8mODN; or Lower Seaward Beach Slope gradient is steeper than 1 in 8. Emergency Levels Crest Width along the beach falls below 10m; or Crest Level along the beach falls below +7.5mODN; or Lower Seaward Slope gradient is steeper than 1 in 6. Data used for determination of profiles and renourishment requirements of BMP Monitoring data is used. Cost No costs for recycling or reprofiling are given, only for future potential recharge options Current Beach Management Practice This is presently achieved through regular beach maintenance involving re-profiling of the beach and recycling of beach material. Re-profiling of the beach is carried out periodically to restore the beach crest height, width and slope. During this re-profiling, areas where beach cliffing occurs are also removed as they pose a health and safety risk to beach users (refer to Section 1.6.4). Beach recycling is carried out when beach levels are significantly reduced. Beach material is recycled from areas of accretion within East Beach or from stored material previously removed from the beach. Current data available for assessment Regular surveys together with wave and tide data provide a sound basis of data. However, the BMP does not mention that a substantial part of the beach is subtidal and cannot be monitored through terrestrial surveys Recommendations A the point of the next review in 2015 it would desirable to relate performance back to the design and be more transparent as to variables considered for the overtopping assessment. It should also provide an overview of costs and might have developed and might set out how management activities influence shingle habitats. 4.2 Chesil Beach (Portland to Small Mouth) 2010 (Halcrow) Background 10 Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

12 The BMP covers only 3.3km of the south-eastern end of Chesil Beach (Figure 4) where a significant flood risk to property exists, documented through a long list of historic flooding and damage events. The key objective is to manage flood risk for ~170 commercial and domestic properties and the A 354 access road to Portland. Given the size and interest Chesil beach has attracted over the times there is a very comprehensive review of past events in this BMP. Figure 4: Location and extent of the Chesil Beach BMP. Strategy: The SMP policy for unit 6a02 is Hold the line for all three epochs and Managed Realignement for all epoch for policy unit 6a Summary of the BMP Physical Conditions A variety of assessments relating to water level and wave heights, in particular in relation to long period swell waves are describe together with an assessment of crest height and width variations with time. Input parameters (wave height, period and water level) for overtopping and barrier stability assessment are provided, however, there is no reference as to the additional parameters that 'tweak' these formulas and the relationship between the allowable overtopping and any risk to the barrier or structures behind is unclear. Recommendations of the BMP The BMP includes a long list of recommendation in relation to monitoring, how works should be carried out, additional studies and emergency planning. It suggests that the current maintenance practices of occasional beach recycling and reprofiling in Management Units 1 and 2 is continued without providing any details on frequency or quantities involved. Environmental Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 11

13 The BMP lists the SAC attributes and reports existing environments like vegetated shingle but does not go beyond the more generic BAP action plan objectives. Profiles and trigger levels Data used for determination of profiles and renourishment requirements of BMP The BMP draws heavily on existing monitoring data for beach geometry but although information from a range of storm events exists, this data does not seem to have informed for example the overtopping assessment. Cost There are no indications of annual costs in the BMP, largely because there are no regular works Current Beach Management Practice Current data available for assessment The importance of monitoring data in general and in relation to determining the scope of recycling or reprofiling together with visual assessments is stressed Recommendations A the point of the next review in 2015 it would desirable to relate performance back to the design and be more transparent as to variables considered for the overtopping assessment. 4.3 Preston Beach 2009 (Halcrow) Background Preston Beach Management plan was prepared in 2009 by Halcrow for the EA. The Preston Beach Management Plan apparently covers the 1.4km of Preston Beach which are backed by the 1995/96 scheme (including 214,000m³ recharge) between the rock groyne and outfall at Greenhill (southern end) and Overcombe (northern end). It makes reference to the further ~800m fronting Furzy Cliff (of which the first ~230m are protected by a 1984 scheme maintained by Weymouth and Portland Borough) to the slipway at Bowleaze which form the main source area 12 Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

14 for beach recycling. The beach is a shingle barrier that is backed by the A353 Preston Beach road and the Lodmoor Nature Reserve covering low lying land. The scheme that includes the beach provides a 1 in 100 protection against overtopping but a 1 in 500 protection against breaching, suggesting that flooding from occasional overtopping is not a serious problem. The key objective of the 1995/96 scheme was to manage the risk of flooding and coastal erosion to the A353 Preston Beach Road, 86 residential properties, infrastructure and environmental assets. It also aimed to reduce the instances when the A353 Preston Beach Road was closed due to flooding and blockage by shingle caused by wave overtopping during storm events Figure 5: Location plan for Preston Beach Strategic Overview The BMP is in line with draft South Devon and Dorset SMP2 that suggest MR in the long term Summary of the BMP Physical Conditions The beach is largely sheltered from westerly to southerly waves by Portland but is exposed to a ~240km fetch from southeast. The BMP includes return period tables for water levels including sea level rise, for extreme wave heights and for joint return periods. However, it is not clear if the water level table takes account of surges (column heads read "Tidal Still Water Level"), for which location the wave heights are valid (how far offshore and where within Weymouth Bay) or with which wave direction they are associated. The joint probability table suggests a strong correlation between wave heights and water level which is not supported by R&D Technical Report FD2308/TR1 (Joint Probability: Dependence Mapping and Best Practice: Technical report on dependence mapping (2005)). Net longshore transport has been modelled to be in the range of a few thousand m³ per year. There are no beach profiles or any information about beach toe levels or nearshore bathymetry in the BMP or its appendices, making it very difficult to get a picture about the beach systems. In particular the uncertainty about temporary sediment movement into the nearshore cannot be Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 13

15 followed without an idea of the subtidal morphology. From the 2008 Regional Monitoring Annual Report, bathymetry seems to be sloping gradually from the beach toe at ~-1.5m with -3mOD about 100m offshore (from the 0mOD contour) which suggests depth limiting condition for inshore waves which are not addressed in the BMP. The beach protects an embankment that largely covers the pre-1995 beach. This embankment is topped by a concrete promenade and on the seaward side is covered by a single layer rock armour of small rocks (D 50 of 300 to 600mm, equivalent to a W 50 of about 70 to 600kg) which are not designed to withstand direct wave attack. There also exists a 0.7m high flood wall at the rear of the promenade, however, it would appear as if there are no flood gates across the access points. Recommendations of the BMP The following conclusions are reached in the report: The BMP recommends sediment sampling, partly because in 2001, a 360m long stretch near Overcombe had been sieved with all material <5mm removed (it is not at all clear to what depth sediment had been involved, what has happened to the small fraction and what the nearshore sediment is, as any voids in the beach could attract finer sediment from nearshore). Environmental Reference is made to Environmental designation around the site, in relation to a potential recharge (preference of land sourced over marine sourced) and in relation to impacts beneath Furzy Cliffs during beach extraction. No direct reference is made to vegetated shingle and the only vegetation on the beach appears to be related to the "high fines" content that has lead to "weedy" vegetation of no nature conservation significance but with an adverse effect on beach amenity. The largest environmental impact appears to be associated with the release of fines into the water during recycling operations which could negatively affect the seawater intake for the Sea Life Centre at the southern end. Profiles and trigger levels The design conditions determined by the scheme in the 1990s were a 25m wide crest at 3.5mOD and a beach slope of 1 in 7.5. Action levels were set at a crest width of 15m with emergency levels set to crest width of less than 10m and a crest level of below 3.3mOD. The BMP has modified these thresholds by having two independent action and trigger levels with the crest width threshold modified based on experience. Action Level = Crest Width along any part of the beach falls below 13m OR Crest Level along any part of the beach falls below +3.5mOD Emergency Level = Crest Width along any part of the beach falls below 10m OR Crest Level along any part of the beach falls below +3.3mOD. Data used for determination of profiles and renourishment requirements of BMP The BMP recommends three annual beach profile surveys plus pre- and post recycling surveys which are carried out through the Regional monitoring programme. Additional post-storm surveys could provide additional information in emergency cases. Walkover surveys measuring crest width are also recommended. Cost No indication of costs for the recycling activities are given, however, some cost estimates are provided for a future recharge top-up Current Beach Management Practice Beach recycling has been carried out in the past and is recommended to continue, albeit the source and deposition areas can vary and have not necessarily coincided with those proposed in the scheme due to annually varying net longshore direction. Historic recycling logs are not available. Recycling is recommended to be carried out using two 4t dump trucks and two swing shovel excavators. Current data available for assessment 14 Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

16 The Regional Coastal Monitoring Programme provides topographic and bathymetric survey data together with wave data from the Weymoth Bay waverider. Tide data is also available from Weymouth Recommendations The BMP proposes a review in This could be a time to address the shortcomings of the present BMP in particular with regard to the forcing conditions and resulting consequences (ie overtopping) and how the beach has behaved in relation to longshore transport and the need for recycling. Total volume changes seems poorly understood. The data for this need to be reviewed together with an explanation as to where this material is most likely to have gone as Weymouth Bay appears to be a reasonably closed system. Despite the recent scheme having been implemented in 1995/96, there has been little increase in understanding of the beach behaviour. Sediment transport is poorly understood most likely due to limited net transport, lack of subtidal surveys, the limits of profile surveys with a spacing of 60m and the lack of historical recycling activity. Assessment of other beach configurations (eg a sloping beach crest that starts at the level of the promenade at 3.7mOD) and associated impact on overtopping. Greater transparency on how overtopping is calculated on this complex arrangement and to what it relates (is it overtopping onto the promenade or over the retaining wall and onto the backslope / road?) 4.4 Hurst Spit Awaiting delivery. 4.5 Netley Cliff Coast Protection BMP 1996 (Posford Duvivier) Background Beach levels in front of the Netley Cliffs have been falling historically according to this 1996 BMP leading to erosion of the built up cliffs behind. The BMP provides brief overview over options and identifying a renourished beach as the preferred option. Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 15

17 Figure 6: Location Plan of Netley Cliff frontage. Strategic Overview The BMP covers the NET2 frontage of the Itchen to Hamble Coastal Defence Strategy with a policy recommendation of Maintain / hold the line for the next 50 years followed by No Active Intervention. It suggests beach recharge in line with the frontage to the Southeast Summary of the BMP Physical Conditions This is a fetch-limited environment with apparently little longshore transport. Water level return periods are given as in Table 2 and maximum wave height is determined to be 1m with a period of 4s. Table 2: Predicted Tidal Levels Recommendations of the BMP The BMP recommends a recharge scheme and annual recycling of ~500m³ Environmental No reference is made to environmental considerations Profiles and trigger levels Profiles and trigger levels are only discussed in very generic terms without and reference to actual figures. Data used for determination of profiles and renourishment requirements of BMP 16 Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

18 It is not clear what data has been used. Cost No costs are given Current Beach Management Practice The capital project has never been carried out and there is no active management of the remaining beach Recommendations Write a BMP to follow any capital recharge scheme. 4.6 Lee-on-the-Solent Beach Management Plan () Awaiting delivery. 4.7 Beach Management Strategy Plan for the southern Frontage of Eastoke Peninsula 1999 (Havant Borough Council) Background The Eastoke frontage has a long history of intervention in the form of hard defences build and since the recharge in 1985 considerable data and experience has been gained in managing the beach material, expressed in a Beach Management Plan from 1992 and this Strategy Plan. There is not map in the report but Figure 7 show the approximate extent of the Strategy Plan Figure 7: Approximate extent of Strategy Plan Summary of the BMP Physical Conditions No information about the physical conditions are included in the plan Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 17

19 Recommendations of the BMP This scheme involves the provision of a shingle beach to a designed profile, maintained by a series of annual Shingle Recycling operations (20,000m³) from areas of accretion to depleted areas, an annual Coastal Management Study and the beneficial use of arisings from the entrance channel to Chichester Harbour undertaken on a 5 year periodic cycle (25,000m³). Environmental There is little mention of environmental impact of the beach management activity apart from highlighting that "The proposed management option to hold the existing coastline, will preserve the Sandy Point Nature Reserve (LNR) which is considered to be the best example of vegetated sand and shingle in Hampshire." Profiles and trigger levels Figures 14 and 26 provide profiles relating to different return periods. From these the following can be inferred: Crest height for design and intervention is 5.6mOD. Design crest width is 12.5m and intervention crest width is 5m. Action and emergency activities are distinguished by the number of groyne bays that fall below the 1 in 10 year standard (5m crest width) with action required for <= three groyne bays and emergency action if >=4 groyne bays are affected. Of note is that the profile slope is ~1:11.5 which is much closer to actual profile slopes in SANDS (~1 in 10) that the 1:7 found in most other BMPs. Data used for determination of profiles and renourishment requirements of BMP The report provides an overview of beach volume change since 1991 based on monitoring data and the proposal for recharge and recycling volumes is based on that information. Cost Average annual costs are calculated to be 90,00 based on one recharge every 5 years at 100k, annual recycling at 30k and management and monitoring at 40k Current Beach Management Practice Current data available for assessment The report highlights the need for monitoring and suggests topographic and bathymetric surveys, collection of wave, water level and weather data together with aerial and ground photography. These are now provided through the Regional Monitoring Programme and should provide all the data required to assess the beach performance Recommendations The beach is presently managed under a similar scenario to the BMP from Updating the activities and costs since 1999 and reflecting how these compare to those set out in 1999 would be a very useful exercise that could provide additional confidence for future management and would provide benefit for BMPs in other locations. Information on the forcing conditions that went into the design should be added and compared with the detailed monitoring data collected since 1999, potentially leading to revised design conditions and different action thresholds. 4.8 Widewater Lagoon: Shoreham & Lancing Sea Defence Beach Management Plan 2003 (Halcrow) Background The BMP (a short document of only 11 pages) was prepared in 2003 following Phase 1 of the capital works that included 9 rock groynes and an unspecified amount of recharge material fronting Widewater Lagoon (the BMP does not contain a map showing the extent so there is some uncertainty as to which 9 rock groynes it relates, Figure 8 show the assumed extent). 18 Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

20 Figure 8: Assumed extent of the Shoreham & Lancing Sea Defence BMP Strategic Overview The Beachy Head to Selsey Bill SMP2 policy unit 4d15 covers the frontage and set a hold the line policy for all epochs; the Arun to Adur Strategy lists the frontage under the 'sustain' policy Summary of the BMP Physical Conditions The BMP refers back to the 2000 Arun to Adur Strategy, in particular in relation to any JRP information. It provides in table from the marginal extremes for water level and offshore wave heights but there is no indication as to how design parameters have been used or arrived at with regard to crest width and height. Recommendations of the BMP The following conclusions are reached in the report: 1. Provide flood protection to 1 in 100 years whilst ensuring that amenity value of the beach is not compromised 2. Rock groynes should be monitored in particular in relation to public H&S. 3. Beach monitoring should be carried out in relation to maintenance of the design standard. 4. Interventions need to be carried out in line with the action and emergency levels defined. Environmental There is a short paragraph highlighting vegetated shingle in relation to beach management activities: "All maintenance works should avoid areas of vegetated shingle. It should be noted that due to the enlarged beach area now above the inter-tidal zone, there is the probability that new areas of vegetation will develop outside of the areas already identified. Therefore, prior to new works commencing, the beach should be surveyed to establish the current extent of vegetated shingle. " Profiles and trigger levels These are defined as below. Of note is that these are linked to the length of section that these conditions should apply, ie they seem to suggest that only if individual lengths of >20m show these conditions, action is required. Data used for determination of profiles and renourishment requirements of BMP There is no detail in the BMP. Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 19

21 Cost No Costs are provided in the BMP Current Beach Management Practice According EA ASM and Ops delivery there are no works carried out along this frontage due to the health of the beach Current data available for assessment Since the beginning of the Strategic Regional Coastal Monitoring Programme (SCRMP) the frontage has been surveyed three times per year. The survey data produced includes aerial photography, LiDAR, beach plans survey and biannual profile surveys. This data is analysed in the annual Beach Management Plan reports and reviewed in the Frontage reports. The data set provides a long term overview of beach movement with increased accuracy and supersedes the original BMP. Closely tied to the recycling activities, in and out surveys are carried out as quadbike surveys to establish areas of surplus and deficit. In addition to the SCRMP data the following data is also currently available: Additional bathymetric surveys were undertaken in 2003 and 2006 along the frontage to 1km offshore and could be utilised when reviewing future trigger levels. A Directional WaveRider buoy was deployed off Rustington (506331E, 93784N) in July 2003 to measure wave heights and directions. In February 2008 an additional directional Waverider buoy was also installed in Seaford Bay (546312E, 98205N). To achieve accurate information the data from the new source could be compared with the bouy used to calculated the trigger levels. The Rustington buoy provides a longer term dataset for analysis and extrapolation of mean wave heights; however the Seaford Bay data will be more area specific. Over time as the Seaford buoy collects data this will become the most accurate source of wave data for this frontage. If when compared the data is significantly different it may be prudent to recalculate trigger levels based on the new hydraulic information. Long term tidal records are available from the Newhaven Tide Gauge on the western side of Newhaven Harbour Recommendations The BMP contains very little information about the standard of protection, return periods and allowable rates of overtopping. Given the health of the beach and the lack of intervention, a review of the BMP is not a high priority, however, given that since scheme implementation, a wealth of topographic and hydrographic data has become the following review would seem appropriate as this would also help inform BMPs in similar locations: Re-evaluate beach profile development based on post storm profiles and modelling for other sites. 4.9 Seaford Beach (Seaford Beach Management Plan 1995/96, NRA) Background Seaford Beach Management Pan was prepared in 1995/1996 by HR Wallingford for the National Rivers Authority. It is largely a review of scheme options and development that led to the 1987 scheme that included a 1.5mio m³ shingle recharge. It reviews beach performance since implementation, compares it with predictions made and provides guidelines for future management based on recommendations made at implementation stage and the review, Seaford Beach is situated between the mouth of the River Ouse and the terminal groyne at the eastern end of Seaford and covers 4.2km of mixed sand and gravel (Figure 9). Over the western 20 Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

22 1.7km Seaford beach forms a continuous barrier beach in front of a lower hinterland, and over the remaining 2.5km its character varies between that of a barrier fronting three dry valley and that of a fringing beach fronting rising ground. The beach management plan defines the site as in Subcell 4d as described by HR report SR 328 Coastal Management Mapping of littoral cells. However since the completion of the BMP a number of further studies have been or are being undertaken including the Selsey Bill to Beachy Head Shoreline Management Plan Review (SMP2) and the Ouse to Seaford Head Strategy Study. Figure 9: Location Plan of Seaford Beach. Strategic Overview The frontage covers the Beachy Head to Selsey Bill SMP2 policy units 4d05 (NAI, MR, MR) in the west and 4d04 (Hold The Line for all three epochs) in the central and eastern part. There is currently no approved strategy for this frontage; the Ouse to Seaford Head Coastal Defence Strategy is currently in draft and is anticipated to be approved in May Summary of the BMP Physical Conditions The defences along the managed frontage consist of the shingle bank between the mouth of the River Ouse and the Buckle and a shingle beach fronting a seawall along the remainder. Additional protection to the seawall is provided over a length of 1000m between Buckle groyne and Salts Recreation Ground by a rock toe. The shingle provides protection to the seawall which acts as a secondary defence. The BMP describes the general littoral processes as moderate eastward transport of sand and shingle by the predominant south westerly waves. However, the modelled drift patterns suggest a drift divide at the Buckle with mean easterly drift of shingle at the eastern end of the Seaford frontage (near the Splash Point), and mean westerly drift at the western end. The coastline faces approximately 218 N, slightly south of south-west. The beach is exposed to south-westerly wave attack which is aggravated by the fact that along most parts the beach toe is located at -4 to -5m Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 21

23 OD. Between Newhaven Harbour and the Sailing Club '(near the Buckle Inn), the beach seemed to be stable and this has been attributed in the BMP to an offshore source feeding the frontage. Recommendations of the BMP The following conclusions are reached in the report: 1. The purpose of this plan is to maintain an adequate shingle defence to the town of Seaford. 2. This will be achieved by recycling shingle from the Splash Point Terminal Groyne and the western beaches at an approximate rate of 80,000 and 40,000 cu m respectively each year. 3. The beach crest level is to be maintained at 6.00m OD at the Buckle to 7.00m OD at Splash Point. The idealised beach section is a 25m crest with a 1 to 7 seaward slope. 4. Action will need to be taken when the crest width reduces to 15m width. 5. Monitoring will be principally carried out using the annual photo flight survey. This will be supplemented by ground survey as and when required. 6. A responsive beach recycling regime has been adopted. Environmental There are no environmental designations within the study area. The BMP does not mention the presence of vegetated shingle along the frontage or any impact the management activities might have on any vegetated shingle. Profiles and trigger levels The design profile of the re-nourished beach after the completion of the scheme in 1987 was a 25m wide crest varying in elevation from 6.00m OD at Buckle to 7.00m OD at Splash Point. The seaward slope of the beach was set to 1 in 7. It was suggested that action would need to be taken when the crest width was reduced to 15m, though no indication is given as to what action (recycling or reprofiling) to take. The 15m threshold is put into perspective with the statement that the beach crest berm should have a minimum width of about 15m at the beginning of the storm. In practice, waves could probably be allowed occasionally to reach the seawall during exceptional storms. (page 3). Data used for determination of profiles and renourishment requirements of BMP The design profiles were derived from physical modelling reproducing 1000m beach together with visual assessments of the beach pre-scheme near Splash Point outfall. This model proposed the frontage should have a minimum of a 15m berm at the beginning of a storm. Cost For the purposes of the management plan the average amount of shingle required annually was taken to be 100,000 m³ and the cost of recycling was 1/ m³ in 1995/6 estimating a total spend of 100,000 per year. Taking into account the Costs of the original scheme the Cost benefit ratio was stated at 2.19 below the current recommended level of 5. Over the last few years annual spent on Seaford was 400,000 including recycling, reprofiling and small scale recharge Current Beach Management Practice Since publication of the BMP, its broad recommendations have been followed in that twice annually (in Spring and Autumn) beach material is recycled towards the centre of the frontage. Up to 2003 this was based on the recommendations in the BMP after which regional monitoring programme data has been used in identifying areas in need of re-nourishment and those with surplus material to facilitate recycling. Over the years, the crest level in front of the entire length of the seawall has been raised to coincide with its crown (7mOD), increasing the protection level along the western part of the seawall. Over the past year, the berm top has been regraded to slope seawards, reducing cliffing significantly. In addition, haul routes across the berm exclude the landward 10m wide strip to encourage vegetated shingle. Recent works are detailed in Table 3 below. Year Works 22 Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

24 Estimated 42,000 m³ of material is recycled twice annually from the eastern and western ends of the frontage Recharged 10,000 m³ of shingle by barge. Ongoing Re-profiling of beach slope and crest width throughout the winter months using a bulldozer Horizontal berm was sloped seawards to reduce the occurrence of cliffing. Table 3 Works undertaken from 2009 frontage review report. Current data available for assessment Since the beginning of the Strategic Regional Coastal Monitoring Programme (SCRMP) the frontage has been surveyed three times per year. The survey data produced includes aerial photography, LIDAR, beach plans survey and biannual profile surveys, bathymetric surveys and wave data (Seaford Bay buoy since February 2008). This data is analysed in the annual Beach Management Plan reports and reviewed in the Frontage reports. The data set provides a long term overview of beach movement with increased accuracy and supersedes the original BMP. Closely tied to the recycling activities, in and out surveys are carried out as quadbike surveys to establish areas of surplus and deficit Recommendations The BMP contains very little information about the standard of protection, return periods and allowable rates of overtopping. No mention is made of opportunities for vegetated shingle habitat creation. Since scheme implementation, a wealth of topographic beach data should be available that would allow to Re-evaluate beach profile development based on post storm profiles and modelling for other sites. Consider whether a 25m and 15m berm is required along the entire frontage or whether there are areas where this could be reduced. In cases where berm width is required for moving of recycling plant alternative routes should be considered Assess potential modification to the management should bear habitat creation opportunities in mind. Review opportunities to further adapt the berm shape to remove requirement for reprofiling throughout the winter. From a quick assessment of the bay shape using MepBay 1, the pinch point around the Buckle Inn is confirmed suggesting that longshore transport out of this drift divide might decrease with a more relaxed alignment at the Buckle Inn. 1 Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 23

25 Figure 10: Quick assessment of the beach plan shape using MepBay. The present beach is aligned with a wave approach from 215 indicated by the correlation between the theoretical bay shape and the actual beach plan Eastbourne 2010 (Halcrow) Background The Eastbourne BMP covers the 6.5km long groyne field frontage that was re-established during a major scheme between 1995 and 1999 involving the construction of 94 timber groynes and import of 1.25m³ of shingle. The BMP is the result of an identified decrease in beach volume since implementation of the scheme and follows from a study supporting a PAR that identified a larger capital recharge together with annual maintenance. It supersedes the 1999 BMP (Haskoning) that was created as part of the capital scheme. The BMP covers a southern frontage with erosion protection (to the Pier) and the northern frontage with flood protection. The historic beach has been a fringing beach fronting the cliffs and higher ground changing into a shingle spit that protects the Levels behind and merging into the foreland like gravel accumulation of Langney point. There is virtually no natural input into the system from the South with net longshore drift northwards. Groynes bays north of Langney Point treatement works were not filled during the capital scheme but have since with material removed and bypassing Sovereign Harbour onto the Pevensey frontage. The SMP policy for the frontage is Hold the Line for all three epochs. 24 Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

26 Figure 11: Location of the Eastbourne BMP coverage Summary of the BMP Physical Conditions Eastbourne is largely sheltered from the regions dominant soouthwesterly wave conditions through Beachy Head. A range of studies for assessment of waves and water levels have been used. Eastbourne was in the southwestern corner of a regional wave model driven by Met-office point ~30km east of Eastbourne. Recommendations of the BMP The BMP recommends a suite of measures to ensure the 1:200 years protection level against failure (defined as damage to the seawall and promenade). The following conclusions are reached in the report: Capital recharge of 104,000m³ of shingle and redistribution of 111,000m³ of shingle in to restore the 0.5% APF standard of protection to the frontage. Annual recharge of 11,000m³ of shingle to replace ongoing losses, combined with recycling of a further 5,000m³ of shingle across the frontage. Annual walkover inspections to visually assess the condition of the timber groynes and seawall, directing occasional groyne repairs as necessary. Ongoing programme of beach monitoring undertaken as part of the South-East Strategic Coastal Monitoring Programme to inform each year s works and ongoing beach performance. Additional capital recharges are planned for 2035 (110,000m³), 2060 (157,000m³) and 2085 (185,000) in line with sea level rise predictions Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 25

27 Environmental The main emphasis in the BMP is in relation to the Hollywell Reefs SSSI which excludes the southern frontage from being used for direct recharge from the sea. There is very little shingle vegetation and the general state of vegetated shingle is given as 'impoverished', largely due to recreational disturbance. Figure 12: Best display of vegetated shingle along the entire BMP frontage (Southern End near groyne 12). Date: Profiles and trigger levels The study for the PAR has reviewed the original design profiles and modified them slightly. Essentially, crest height and width increase from the south to north, giving both height, width and slope together with cross sectional volumes. Groyne Nos. Landward Crest level (modn) Seaward Crest level (modn) Crest width (m) Beach slope Cross-sectional volume above -1.5mODN (m³/m) in in in in in in in in in in in in Accretion pocket Table 4: Design beach profiles for Eastbourne (source table 3-6) Groyne Nos. Crest level (modn) Crest width (m) Cross section volume above -1.5mODN Table 5: Action trigger levels for Eastbourne (source table 3-8) 26 Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

28 Groyne Nos. Crest level (modn) Crest width (m) Cross section volume above -1.5mODN Table 6: Failure trigger levels for Eastbourne (source table 3-7) Data used for determination of profiles and renourishment requirements of BMP It would appear as if the data used are the 2003 to 2008 coastal monitoring profiles but there is no evidence for this. Given the annual loss of 11,000m³ over five years and the total volume of 1.25mio m³ this equates to a loss of 4.4% which could well be within the accuracy of the survey method. The Beach Management Plan Report (2007) produced by Canterbury City Council shows a total net loss of 6,000m³ over the period Profiles were determined using original scheme data from physical modelling together with a modified overtopping formula for dykes (though roughness has been changed, this formula applies to impermeable slopes). Cost The annual cost for recharge and recycling are in the order of 400,000. The initial capital recharge and recycling work is 4.4mio (cost information is not part of the BMP but has been taken from the PAR) Current Beach Management Practice Beach management has been ad-hoc in the past Recommendations As the BMP is close to being finalised, every effort should be made to try to include as many of the recommendations in section Pevensey Bay (Pevensey Bay Sea Defences PFI Draft 2009, PCDL) Background The Pevensey Bay Beach Management Plan is an essential document for management of the 25 year PFI contracts (2000 to 2025), providing flood defence to Pevensey Levels. It covers the most intensively managed barrier beach in England. Design and SoP conditions are written into a contract between the Agency and PCDL and are based on detailed joint probability conditions for different wave directions, wave heights and water levels. The design contains a number of key physical features that need to be maintained and which are monitored regularly. Pevensey Bay extends from Eastbourne to Bexhill along the Sussex coast and covers 9km of sand and shingle beach (Figure 13). The shingle bank forms a continuous barrier beach protecting a number of assets including the freshwater Pevensey Levels, ~10,000 properties, several caravan parks and important transport links. Its width, and consequently it overtopping and breach risks vary significantly along the frontage. Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 27

29 Figure 13 Location plan of Pevensey Bay frontage. Strategic Overview The frontage covers the South Foreland to Beachy Head SMP2 policy units 4c27 and 4c28 with Hold the Line policies for all three epochs.. The present day epoch suggest maintaining the seawall, groynes and shingle recycling In the medium term increasing sea level rise is expected to result in a more heavily engineered frontage Error! Bookmark not defined. with this approach being carried forward into the third epoch. The earlier Redoubt to Cooden Strategy was approved for this frontage in 2002 and recommends an improve policy for the Sovereign Harbour to Cooden frontage in line with the SMP2. The works recommended are as below: 1. Monitoring Costs of 12,150 per annum. As part of the southeast regional monitoring package, supplemented by structural inspections. 2. Shingle placement of 374,000m³ Costing 11.62m in Year 0 3. Annual shingle recharge of 16,500m³ to account for losses, Costing 1.12m (including 675,000 for mobilisation/demobilisation) 4. Annual recycling of 11,000m³ shingle Costing 104,000: 7,000m³ transported around the Sovereign Harbour Arms from west to east and 4,000m³ transported from Cooden to the eastern side of Sovereign Harbour. 5. Reconstruction of 43 groynes (assumed to be timber of 80m length) in Year 5 and 30, Costing 5.34m. 6. Significant groyne maintenance in Year 20 and 45 Costing 290, Groyne and beach maintenance Costing 125,550 per annum. Prior to the year 2025, the strategy does not commit the Agency to any further expenditure than that recommended in the BMP. 28 Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

30 Summary of the BMP Physical Conditions The defences along the managed frontage consist of a shingle barrier beach which is backed for for short stretches at by a seawall or a timber wall. At the Sovereign Harbour, a of rock revetment provides the defence line and a backstop, protecting the harbour and parts of the Sovereign Habrour development. The BMP considers wave climate and water levels but omits currents in assessing beach management. Water levels are obtained from Admiralty Tide Tables for Dover (standard port) and Hastings (secondary port) as well as Shoreham (standard port) and Eastbourne (secondary port) to provide the yearly tidal cycle for Pevensey in the absence of port data for the area. Joint probability analysis modelling by HR Wallingford found that the predominant wave direction was South to South westerly with extreme offshore wave heights ranging from 5.27 in a 1 in 1 event to 7.16 in a 1 in 400 event resulting in a predominantly easterly drift. Natural littoral drift was calculated to be 16,000m³ therefore it was specified in the BMP that this should be maintained when recycling in order to maintain the flow of sediment along the frontage. Recommendations of the BMP The existing Beach Management Plan is the Environment Agency Pevensey Bay Sea Defences PFI Beach Management Plan 2009 which is a living document reviewed and updated on an annual basis. The formal review process states the plan should be reviewed after significant weather events, annually and every 5 years. The BMP sets out the Beach Management, Works Management and Project management and was first produced in The Environment Agency has let the management of this frontage to the PDCL consortium for 25 years consisting of Dean and Dyball, Mackley Construction, Westminster Dredging Co Ltd and Mouchel. This project to carry out beach management as a PFI was a pilot in the UK. The following conclusions are reached in the report: 1. The purpose of this plan is to document PCDL's evolving management strategy. 2. This is achieved by detailing historic works, setting out guidelines for data collection, designating role responsibilities and reviewing/ current management practices. 3. The document is designed as part of a suite and is to be read in conjunction with the Environmental Management Plan and Construction Phase Plan. 4. PCDL are required to maintain the sea defences such that the Key Physical Features (KPF) are in place. 5. Triggers for action are >5m beach crest loss, change in the rear profile of beach crest, reduction in beach crest level of >100mm or >10% loss of beach volume. This will be achieved through recycling, recharge or reprofiling. 6. Monitoring will be principally carried out using the Regional Coastal Monitoring Program. This will be supplemented by ground survey as and when required. 7. A responsive regime that moves away from the traditional beach profile approach has been adopted. Environmental The BMP refers to the Environmental Statement and Environmental Management Plan which are part of the suite of documents produced for the management of this frontage. It recognises the need to consult these documents but does not reiterate Environmental impacts, designations or the presence of vegetated shingle along the frontage. Profiles and trigger levels Trigger levels are set in the contract between EA and PCDL and consist of sectoral volumes (which trigger recycling), total volume (which is addressed though recharge of harbour bypassing) and crown width (beach width at the 5m contour which triggers reprofiling). Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 29

31 The frontage is to be renourished if the beach crest decreases by 5m at any point, change in the rear profile of beach crest occurs, there is a reduction in beach crest level of >100mm or >10% loss of beach volume. The beach volume should be maintained between 2,121,047 m 3 and 2,111,047 m 3, however the minimum volume reqired to maintain protection is at 2,083,601m³. Data used for determination of reprofiling, recharge and renourishment requirements of BMP The BMP states that changes in beach volume, beach crest width and height are measured relative to the June 1999 survey which is used as the baseline for all works and in addition to this an aerial photo survey with an accuracy of +/ m was undertaken in This data is compared to annual Regional Beach Monitoring data and Annual Beach Monitoring Survey (ABMS) photos to ascertain changes in beach volumes. The action criteria were derived from numerical modelling which indicates breach and overtopping criteria. In practice, a monthly GPS survey using a quadbike is carried out that covers the entire beach, the results of which are reported in a monthly report to the EA. Cost There is no reference to actual or indicative Costs in the BMP Current Beach Management Practice The BMP is current and regularly updated and reviewed. Previous works as listed in the BMP are shown in Table 7 below. Year Works Day to day beach maintenance and re-profiling. Groyne demolition and maintenance as required. Recycling campaigns (July 2000 Sailing Club, Salt Haven Depot, Beachlands, Norman s Bay and Herbrand Walk; December 2000 Norman s Bay and Herbrand Walk; January Norman s Bay and Herbrand Walk; April 2001 White Horses, Norman s Bay and Herbrand Walk). August 2000 Annual beach replenishment (23,900 m³). January 2001 Refurbishment of Cooden groynes C28, C30 and C Day to day beach maintenance and re-profiling. Groyne demolition and maintenance as required. August 2001 Annual beach replenishment (17,700m³). Recycling campaigns (November 2001 Beachlands, Norman s Bay and Herbrand Walk; April 2002 White Horses and Herbrand Walk). January 2002 Improvement of Cooden groyne C Major capital beach recharge to Beachlands, Normans Bay and Herbrand Walk (167,000m³). New groynes built at White Horses, Beachlands and Norman s Bay West. Backstop wall constructed at Herbrand Walk. Sovereign Harbour Shingle Stockpile Transfer (approx. 30,000m³). Recycling campaigns (January 2003 Beachlands, Norman s Bay and Herbrand Walk). Sovereign Harbour Shingle SW Beach Transfer (approx. 7,500m³). April 2003 Annual beach replenishment (approx. 20,000m³) Addition of Sector 1 (Sovereign Harbour) to contract Day to day beach maintenance and re-profiling. Groyne demolition and maintenance as required. Refurbishment of 'The Sandcastle' groyne GP47 Refurbishment of Fishing Station groyne GC16 Refurbishment of Herbrand Walk wavescreen Regular recycling campaigns 3 to 5 per annum Langney Beach Shingle Transfers 2 to 4 per annum Annual beach replenishment to Sovereign Harbour 30 Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

32 Table 7 Works undertaken in the Pevensey BMP. Current data available for assessment The BMP is reviewed regularly and includes new data available. Future schemes It is proposed that day to day beach maintenance and re-profiling continues from 2009 to 2024 along with annual beach replenishment and recycling of shingle from Sovereign Harbour. In addition to this capital works are proposed that may include a combination of the following: rock or timber breastwork and/or timber groynes at Beachlands, Sector 5; rock breastwork and/or timber groynes at Normans Bay East, Sector 9; rock breastwork and/or timber groynes to any part of the frontage; further volumes of beach recharge to any part of the frontage. If needed there are also plans to recycle shingle to the Cooden/ Bexhill frontage. The requirement for these works will be reviewed and adjusted in 2010 when the BMP is revised Recommendations Although this BMP is intended to be read in conjunction with other reports it may be beneficial to provide an overview of key Environmental designations and issues within the report. This would strengthen the links between the two documents and reinforce the key Environmental issues. The addition of indicative cost for proposed works would provide an indicator of savings realised by this approach. This could be reviewed in line with the BMP document and show the savings provided by using this new approach as compared to fixed beach management programmes over 5 years Bulverhythe (Bulverhythe Coastal Defences Beach Management Plan 2007, Halcrow) Background The Bulverhythe frontage is situated between Galley Hill and Bulverhythe jetty covers 3km of mixed sand and gravel (Figure 14). It is largely fronting the low lying developed area of Bulverhythe and the southcoast main railway line. It is currently defended in the central part by a rock revetment and by a shingle beach, supported through a combination of rock and timber groynes. The beach also provides protection to the structures from undermining. In the east are three timber groynes which maintain amenity function. The BMP has been produced following the implementation of a scheme that included 750m of rock revetment, 10 rock groynes and a 60,000m³ beach recharge that was finished in January 2006 that provides a 1 in 200 year protection against breach along the low lying sections. Interestingly, rocksizes for the groynes are the same as for the revetment (ie the groynes are overdimensioned) and beach design parameters allow for the natural realignment of the beach following construction. Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 31

33 Figure 14 Location Plan of Bulverhythe Frontage Strategic Overview The frontage is situated in management unit 4c025 of the current South Foreland to Beachy Head SMP2 and has a Hold the Line policy for all three epochs. Due to a lack of feed it is anticipated that with an increase in sea level, it will become increasingly difficult to retain a beach along this frontage. A lack of sediments on the foreshore will result in scour (at the toe of the defences) therefore more substantial structures may need to be constructed or more frequent maintenance may be required at some point during this epoch. Thus the character of this frontage will increasingly change, from one with an amenity value to one that is heavily defended Error! Bookmark not defined.. The draft Cooden to Cliff End strategy was completed in 2002 but not approved or adopted. Since the strategy was completed a scheme has been undertaken therefore it is not considered in this review Summary of the BMP Physical Conditions The defences along the managed frontage consist of a shingle bank retained by rock groynes and revetment. As most of the Southeast coast the frontage is classified as a macrotidal environment with a spring tide range > 6.5m. Wave climate information was were derived from previous studies analysis of inshore wave heights and water levels was undertaken in the Beachy Head to Rye Harbour coastal processes and resources study 1 and analysis of independent extreme water levels was undertaken in Extreme sea level analysis Kent Sussex and Hampshire 2. The most extreme waves were predominantly south to south westerly. A joint probability analysis was undertaken as part of the 2006 scheme design. A 9,500m 3 net loss of material is expected along the frontage annually, however, the BMP does not refer to any longshore transport occurring. Design crest levels vary between 4.5 and 7mOD and design crest width also vary considerably from location to location. 32 Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

34 Recommendations of the BMP The Beach Management Plan is a one off document following a coastal defence scheme in It sets out the design and action parameters required to maintain the scheme, outlines monitoring requirements and suggests responses when action thresholds are reached. The following conclusions are reached in the report: 1. The purpose of this plan is to define the conditions at which maintenance of the beach or coastal defence structures are required. 2. This will be achieved through the analysis of regional monitoring programme data. 3. Annual recharge of 9,500m³ 4. Future works will be undertaken when action thresholds are and could include reprofiling, recycling or recharge. 5. The beach crest level is to be maintained at +7.00m OD along the frontage. The action crest west is 6.3m with a toe of 0.69m OD. 6. Monitoring will be principally carried out using the SCRMP data and supplemented by visual inspection by experienced staff. 7. A responsive beach recycling regime was adopted. Environmental The beach management plan acknowledges two 100m exclusion zones. The first is around an Amsterdam shipwreck owned by the Dutch Government but protected by the 1973 Shipwreck Act. The second is around a prehistoric forest, both could be impacted by recharge operations. There is no vegetated shingle present in this area. Profiles and trigger levels The BMP provides trigger levels for action and emergency conditions. The trigger level for action is defined as the beach condition when the required standard of protection against overtopping, which is 1:100 year has become compromised. The action trigger levels are designed to be visually assessed in order to not require full surveys and as such are referenced to the toe of the rock revetment and the geotextile layer. When 0.6m of rock toe is exposed action is required. The emergency action level is defined as the condition at which emergency remedial action should be undertaken as soon as possible 3. This is taken to be when the beach crest erodes back to \ behind the rock groynes or when the geotextile layer at the toe of the revetment becomes exposed (+0.4Mod). The BMP states the these trigger levels are not absolute and an overview of the condition of the beach should be taken before undertaking any works. Post storm the state of the beach should be monitored for several days to assess whether the beach will naturally recover before undertaking remedial works. Data used for determination of profiles and renourishment requirements of BMP GPS survey data is collected via the regional monitoring programme at defined cross sections along the frontage. A full GPS survey is undertaken in the summer and supplement by two partial surveys. This data is fed in to SANDS then exported to a spreadsheet decision making tool. In addition to the regional monitoring programme surveys programmed visual surveys are undertaken as well as post storm visual surveys. Cost There is no reference to cost in this BMP, however, the recharge of 9,500m³ at ~ 20/m³ would amount to Current Beach Management Practice Current data available for assessment This BMP was completed in 2006 after the installation of a coastal defence scheme since that time recharge has taken place in front of the rock revetment in 2009 (4,000m³) and is planned for 2010 Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 33

35 (5,000m³). Given the annual input of ~30,000m³ at Pevensey downdrift, recharge from offshore sources appears to be a simple but possibly not cost effective approach. This extra material feeding into the system from Pevensey was not considered in the BMP. Future schemes There are no future schemes planned along this frontage Recommendations Monitor frontage in a consistent way to ascertain changes in total volume on a wider scale including updrift and downdrift. Link the BMP with frontages updrift (as far as Pevensey) and downdrift (as far as Hastings) to make best use of material along the entire frontage. Review rock groyne height in light of beach accumulation and volume changes. Review design profiles with post storm profile data to see how the scheme is performing. Review design criteria for different parts of the frontage (low lying and breach potential to those with rising ground behind). Update and add scheme information and design conditions. Review the need for reprofiling and amend BMP Explore opportunities to create vegetated shingle. Investigate whether a partnership to manage Pevensey, Bexhill, Bulverhythe and Hastings could provide savings and efficiencies Pett Frontage Beach Management Plan 2009 (Halcrow) Background Pett BMP frontage is located between Cliff End and the mouth of the River Rother fronting the low lying area of Pett Level, East Sussex on the south coast and covers 8km of sand and shingle beach (Figure 15). The shingle barrier, sloping revetment and timber groynes protect a large area of low-lying land from sea flooding (3,000ha and 390 properties). 34 Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

36 Figure 15 Location Plan of Pett Frontage. Strategic Overview The frontage is situated in management unit 4c18 of the current South Foreland to Beachy Head SMP2 and has a Hold the Line policy for the first two epochs and shifts to a Managed Realignment in the third epoch. This has been confirmned by the Folkstone to Cliff End Strategy, approved in 2009 recommending a 'Sustain' policy for the frontage between Cliff End and Winchelsea for the next 100 years and one of NAI for the frontage between Winchelsea and Rother mouth Summary of the BMP Physical Conditions The defences along the managed frontage consist of a shingle bank and seawall including 43 timber groynes between Cliff end and Winchelsea and sloping revetment, shingle bank with to the east. The BMP recommends Extreme still water levels (SWL) calculated by Jeremy Benn Associates (JBA,2004) rather than the original 2002 SWL (Table 8). Return Period (Years) Pett frontage Halcrow 2002 SWL Rye JBA 2004 Future SWL 1: No Data 1: : : : : Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 35

37 1: Table 8 Scheme Design Extreme Still Water Level Values for Coastal Frontage (Pett Frontage Sea Defences PAR, Halcrow, 2002 and Jeremy Benn Associates, 2004) The BMP considers wave direction to be predominantly south westerly with inshore extreme wave heights ranging between 2.6 (one in 2 years) and 3.0 metres (one in 200 years). Together with offshore wave heights provided, these suggest depth limited conditions that will therefore increase with sea level rise. No joint return probability data is provided in the BMP. Annual net longshore transport is taken from the Coastal Strategy and assumed to be in the range of 20,000-25,000m 3. Recommendations of the BMP The purpose of this Beach Management Plan (BMP) is to inform, guide and assist the responsible authorities and organisations in managing the beach. To achieve this it aims to maintain an adequate beach along the frontage and ensure that the various flood defence and control structures provide the design standard of protection. The BMP sets out management approaches for the 50 year life of the scheme and is to be reviewed at 5 yearly intervals. The following conclusions are reached in the report: 1. The purpose of this plan is to develop an approach to manage the beach to the required standard of protection. 2. In order to retain a beach which will provide the required standard of protection it will be necessary to continue annual shingle recharge of the beach. Once the 200 year standard of protection is achieved shingle recycling will still be required at 30,000m 3 /year and up to 50,000m 3 /year. 3. The beach management plan includes annual recycling works and reprofiling. 4. The beach crest level is to be maintained at +6.5m OD along the frontage except between groynes C1-9 where the level falls to +4.5m OD. The design crest width is 15m with a 1:7 seaward slope. Minimum crest width is 6m along the frontage. 5. Monitoring will be principally carried out using the SCRMP data. This will be supplemented by an annual walk over survey every September and visual surveys undertaken monthly. Environmental There are a number of Environmentally important habitats and features present in the beach management plan area. Designations adjacent to the study area include Dungeness csac, Dungeness to Pett Level SPA and the proposed Dungeness to Pett Level Ramsar Site. A key habitat in these areas is freshwater wetland which is maintain by the flood defences. Both the scheme and BMP consider the Habitats Regulations 1994 in relation to beach management activities. It is assumed that once the required standard of defence is reached the beach will stabilise, increasing the potential for vegetated shingle habitat. Profiles and trigger levels The design profiles are derived from the scheme design. The BMP references the report containing further information and does not repeat the method by which design conditions were calculated. The minimum beach required to provide a 1 in 200 standard of protection should have a enough crest width to ensure the toe of the seawall does not become exposed and limit overtopping to 20l/s (200l/s at western end). Action and emergency trigger levels have been defined by the BMP. Action level the level where the 1 in 200 year standard of protection is likely to be compromised. Emergency level the level where the 1 in 200 year standard of defence has been compromised and when the seawall may be compromised. A design crest width of 15m can be allowed to erode to 6m but the design crest height should not fall below +6.5m OD (+4.5m OD at groynes C1-9). Data used for determination of profiles and renourishment requirements of BMP Renourishment requirements will be determined by analysis of SCRMP data, an annual walkover survey and monthly visual assessments by experienced staff. 36 Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

38 Cost There is no reference to cost in this BMP. However the EA project manager estimates 140k - 180k/year Current Beach Management Practice Current data available for assessment This BMP was completed in 2009 therefore current data has been included. Future schemes The BMP recommends the following works: Recharge of 30,000m 3-50,000m 3 Recycling and of 30,000m 3-50,000m 3 Reprofiling to 1 in 7 slope from knee of pile Recommendations Continue to monitor frontage. Review programme to ascertain when scheme will be complete. Ascertain whether reprofiling is necessary or whether the volume of shingle is sufficient to reduce flood risk without reprofiling. Explore opportunities to create vegetated shingle. Investigate whether a partnership to manage Bulverhythe, Cuckmere Estuary and Pett Level could provide savings and efficiencies Denge Sea Defences Beach Management Plan 2008 (Environment Agency) Background Denge BMP frontage extends between Dungeness Power station and Jury s Gap in Kent on the south coast and covers 8km of sand and shingle beach (Figure 16).The shingle barrier provides protection to the low lying hinterland which includes Walland Marshes and the Ministry of Defence (MOD) Lydd Ranges. Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 37

39 Figure 16 Location Plan of Denge Frontage. Strategic Overview The frontage is situated in management unit 4c14 of the current South Foreland to Beachy Head SMP2 and has a managed realignment policy for all three epochs. This has been superseded by the Folkstone to Cliff End Strategy, approved in 2009 and recommends a hold the line (improve) policy for the Lydd Ranges frontage. This change in policy is due to MoD interest in maintaining the full functionality of it s training ground. The works recommended are as below: 1. Raising and strengthening of set back secondary defence (Green Wall). 2. Renourishment of the frontage through recycling or recharge. 3. Construction of timber groynes to the western end of the frontage. The strategy is based on a 50 year epoch not a 100 year to allow flexibility due to the interests of stakeholders in the area. If the position of the MoD was to change the frontage would revert to a managed realignment policy Summary of the BMP Physical Conditions The defences along the managed frontage consist of a shingle bank and a secondary embankment called the Green Wall. The Green Wall was not considered by the BMP as a defence due to its poor condition but would provide a degree of protection to the frontage. As the protection afforded by the Green Wall is not considered it is likely that Standard of Protection provided is higher than the design and action volumes could be reduced. The BMP considers coastal processes and assesses the requirements using CIRIA 1996 publication The Beach Management Manual, Report 153. Like most of the Southeast coast it is classified as a macrotidal environment with a spring tide range > 6.5m. The assessment of the joint probability of large waves coinciding with high water levels were considered to be independent events. The net drift is predominantly easterly with rates identified for sections as below in Table Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

40 Location Net drift (cu m/year) Jurys Gap 35,000 Galloway s Lookout 45,000 Denge Marsh Sewer 80,000 Dungeness Peninsula 100,000 Table 9 Net drift rates at different locations in the Denge BMP. Recommendations of the BMP The existing Beach Management Plan is the Denge Sea Defences Beach Management Plan 2008 intended to be annually reviewed. It aims to provide a sustainable programme for maintenance that will meet both the needs of flood risk management and the Environmental requirements 4 with a strong focus on ensuring the protection of the SAC. The following conclusions are reached in the report: 1. The purpose of this plan is to develop procedures to manage the beach and protect the SAC. 2. This will be achieved through reviewing data on a regular basis and identifying impacts on the SAC and requirements of necessary works. 3. The beach management plan includes annual recycling works and recycling from a borrow pit to the east of Dungeness has historically taken place. Future works will be undertaken when action thresholds are reached and emergency works are to be undertaken as and when required. 4. The beach crest level is to be maintained at +5.00m OD along the frontage. The idealised beach section is a 10m crest west of the ranges and 5m to the east near Dungeness Power Station with a 1:3 seaward slope. 5. Monitoring will be principally carried out using the annual photo flight survey. This will be supplemented by LIDAR data, photographic records and ground survey as and when required and an annual vegetated shingle survey. 6. A responsive beach recycling regime was adopted. 7. Carry on with annual recycling/recharge from land based sources in the order of 31,000m³ Beach management activities are limited along the Lydd Ranges frontage in order to ensure the MOD maintain functionality of the training ground. Environmental The beach management plan has a strong environmental focus. Designations within the study area and the presence of vegetated shingle along the frontage is noted and management of these habitats is considered. The process for undertaking management activities is strongly constrained by environmental concerns; access points to the foreshore are restricted to reduce impacts on vegetated shingle and Natural England are consulted on all areas selected for management. Profiles and trigger levels The design profiles derived from numerical modelling suggested the Minimum Design Crest width represents that at which the serviceability limits for breach and overtopping are achieved 4 on the eastern side of the frontage it has been determined that a crest width of 5 metres at a minimum level of 5.3m ODN will provide a standard of protection around 1 in 2 years. To the west the same standard of protection will be afforded by a 3 metre crest width at 5m ODN. In order to manage the standard of defence provided four thresholds were identified from modelling work, however the figures are not included in the BMP. The standard of protection afforded by the shingle beach is higher when considered in combination with the Green Wall. Data used for determination of profiles and renourishment requirements of BMP GPS survey data is collected for four cross sections along the frontage at the areas considered most vulnerable. This GPS survey was undertaken on a single day due to MOD restrictions around Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 39

41 Lydd Ranges and is of low resolution. Still Water Level, Shingle size, Wave Height, Wave Period and Offshore Wave Length data was collected from the Channel Coast Observatory Database and from historical data for previous modelling of the frontage. Due to the low resolution of the data the Standards of Protection provided are only indicative. Cost There is no reference to cost in this BMP Current Beach Management Practice Current data available for assessment This BMP was completed in 2008 therefore current data was included. Future schemes The strategy proposes the following works: raising and strengthening of the Green Wall, renourishment of the frontage through recycling or recharge, construction of timber groynes to the western end of the frontage Recommendations Re-evaluate beach management profiles using more cross-sections to provide increased resolution. Include information on shingle grading and the profile at the back of the crest. This should be cross checked with physical modelling. Review design profiles to understand the combination effects of the shingle bank and Green Wall once works have been completed. Investigate the effectiveness of reprofiling. Little to no recycling is undertaken on this frontage as such the current volume of shingle present is assumed to be correct to provide adequate protection. The shingle bank absorbs the wave energy reducing the chance of overtopping. The angle of the beach slope is critical in this absorption process however the current profiles are indicative. These profiles should be refined to ascertain whether reprofiling is necessary or whether the volume of shingle is sufficient to reduce flood risk without reprofiling. Review the effectiveness of current beach management with planned future schemes considered Dungeness (Halcrow) Awaiting delivery 4.16 Greatstone Dune Mangement Plan 2010 / Draft (Herrington Consulting) Background The Dune Management Plan has been included in this review because dunes are an integral part of the coastal defence system and in the case of the Greatstone Dunes provide the flood defence. The dune management plan does not address explicitly flood risk. There is no indication as to the standard of protection offered by the dunes nor how this might change with time. It deals largely with management of the dunes in relation to managing the people access, plant distribution and planting together with sand fencing. 40 Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

42 Figure 17: Extent and management zones of the draft Dune Management Plan Summary of the BMP Physical Conditions Given that the plan does not address flood risk explicitly, no information about physical conditions is provided, however, reference is made to a "Coastal Flood Risk Management Study" that might contain more detail. The only info relates generally to wind directions. Recommendations of the BMP The following conclusions are reached in the report: Environmental Profiles and trigger levels There are no profiles or action levels. Data used for determination of profiles and renourishment requirements of BMP No recycling or renourishment works proposed. Cost No costs are included. Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 41

43 Current Beach Management Practice Current data available for assessment Though the existence of coastal monitoring data is acknowledged and a continuation of the monitoring is suggested, the data does not seem to directly feed into current management. Most of the current management decisions appear to lie with Shepway s Grounds Maintenance Team Recommendations Given that the Dune Management Plan appears to have a different remit compared to the other BMPs reviewed in this report no recommendations are made Romney Sands Beach Management Plan 2007 (Jacobs) Background The Romney Sands BMP frontage extends between the sand dunes at Greatstone and the seawall at Littlestone on Sea in Kent covering 0.78km of sand and shingle beach (Figure 18).The shingle barrier is the sole protection to the low lying hinterland of Romney and Walland Marshes which is at a similar level OD to the Littlestone frontage Therefore a failure at Romney sands may lead to flooding at Littlestone. Since the completion of the BMP a number of other studies have been undertaken. There is no record of historical flooding along this frontage; however, most of this frontage was still a tidal inlet in the late 19 th Century. Figure 18 Location of the Romney Sands frontage. Strategic Overview The frontage straddles the border between management units 4c11 and 4c12 of the South Foreland to Beachy Head SMP2 that have a Hold The Line policy for all three epochs. The two descriptions vary between the policy units with 4c12 described as an accreting frontage and anticipated to remain very similar to its existing alignment to manage this unit comprehensive 42 Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

44 monitoring required to ensure that the hinterland assets remain sufficiently protected Error! Bookmark not defined.. Management unit 4c11 however is described as eroding frontage and as such during the first epoch it is recommended to protect the substantial assets on the coast and backing hinterland by maintaining and where necessary upgrading, the existing seawall, revetments, groynes and beach Error! Bookmark not defined. in the medium term updrift frontages (to the south) being allowed to function freely, some beach building material will enter the system Error! Bookmark not defined. from 4c12. The Folkstone to Cliff End Strategy approved in 2009 has an Improve policy in line with the SMP2. The strategy states that overtopping occurs annually along this frontage and management is necessary to deal with beach erosion. Shingle renourishment is proposed to improve the low standard of protection Summary of the BMP Physical Conditions The defences along the managed frontage consist solely of a semi-natural shingle ridge. Shingle ridges are highly mobile and prone to rapid changes due to tide and sea states. Supply of shingle is from either the south-west or north-east directions. The predominant feed over the past years has been from the north-east as highlighted by accumulation of shingle towards the southern end at the RNLI ramp. This is opposite to the drift direction that has been determined from modelling but in line with the historic spit layout. This suggests that net drift direction is highly depended on annual wave characteristics and can change from year to year Recommendations The existing Beach management plan is the Romney Sands Beach Management Plan 2007 intended as a live document to be reviewed on an annual basis. This may not be necessary as the BMP later states, because there has been no historical flooding in the area and no management works have been undertaken in recent years. The BMP aims to assist in the ongoing operation and maintenance 5 of the shingle bank. The following conclusions are reached in the report: The purpose of this plan is to assess the protection provided by the shingle bank to the hinterland behind. This BMP should be considered with the neighbouring Littlestone BMP and managed as a single unit. A 1 in 100 year standard of protection is to be maintained along the frontage with a crest height of +6m AOD and with of 7m the seaward slope should be maintained at 1 in 3 (which is clearly wrong). The trigger levels for urgent action were established at 5m crest width and height of 6m AOD. Monitoring will principally be carried out using RCMP data supplemented by ground survey when required. No management activities are currently required as this is a stable frontage. Environmental The Romney Sands frontage has a number of Environmental designations; it is an undeveloped Heritage Coast and includes sections of SSSIs, SNCI and a SAC. Vegetated shingle is present along the beach crest. The procedures and designation for managing the frontage are well documented. Profiles and trigger levels To manage the standard of defence provided by the beach, two thresholds for intervention were identified; Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 43

45 100-year protection standard When this threshold is reached the frontage will be monitored more frequently if possible recycling will be delayed until annual recycling is undertaken. Urgent This will identify where the beach width has been reduced to an extent where the design standard of defence is not being met. This should initiate immediate corrective action to restore defence standards. These threshold were then defined for three sections of the frontage as described below in Table 10 Thresholds for berm width along the frontage. The installed profile in all location was a 1 in 7 however the suggested reprofiled slope was 1 in 3. The beach crest was designed at +6.00m ODN. Table 10 Thresholds for berm width along the frontage. Unit ID 100yr protection standard Urgent MU17_ m Berm 5m Berm MU17_ m Berm 5m Berm MU17_ m Berm 5m Berm These thresholds are obtained from an overtopping vs crest width graph with 4 data points of which 2 are indicative and not to be taken at stated values. Therefore the crest widths are likely to contain a large margin of uncertainty and it is unlikely that reducing the crest width from 7m to 5m would result in a change from design to urgent protection. The frontage is covered by the South East Strategic Regional Coastal Monitoring Programme. Three surveys using kinetic GPS are undertaken each year across the frontage. Currently this is also supported by aerial photographic surveys and photogrammetry. The SANDS database is used to store and undertake analysis of the data. Data used for the determination of profiles of the BMP Coastal processes within this area have been defined by the Shoreline Management Plan and refined through the Folkestone to Rye Coastal Defence Strategy Study. In order to improve data resolution the Beach Management Plan commissioned additional numerical modelling by ABPmer to gauge response to storms (LITPACK) and potential overtopping rates (Owen and Hedges-Reis) however this produced only indicative results. Cost There is no reference to costs in this BMP Current Beach Management Practice This beach management plan is 1 year out of date as it should be reviewed annually. There have been no management activities in the past 5 years and none are planned at this time. However annual recycling is recommended by the plan if the requirement is identified by monitoring. When beach levels fall below the thresholds material is removed from areas identified by the monitoring programme and deposited where required. This is unlikely to happen in the short term as this is a stable frontage. Current data available for assessment Annual monitoring is undertaken as part of the Regional Coastal Monitoring programme this indicates long term changes in shingle movement and is used to identify sources of shingle for recycling. Post storm surveys are also undertaken to identify any urgent renourishment requirements. The current SRCMP survey data should be incorporated into a new updated Beach management plan and action levels should be reviewed. 44 Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

46 Future schemes Although the Folkstone to Cliff End strategy states the frontage should be improved by shingle renourishment the SMP2 and BMP have a different policy. This is because the frontage straddles the boundary of two managements units. As such it may be prudent to redefine the management area to reflect the strategic boundaries Recommendations Review the stated beach slopes of 1 in 3 as these do not correspond to the beach slopes in the SANDS database which are much closer to 1 in 7 and are unrealistic given the beach material. Review data to obtain agreement on whether the frontage is accreting and the standard of protection used. Assess need for beach management plan if frontage is accreting and works currently are not undertaken. Produce refined thresholds using revised maximum overtopping rate from Eurotop. Consider if management is necessary allowing the profile to roll back naturally. The monitoring shows a gentle drop to a second shingle ridge resulting in a 1 in 20 slope. This profile shape will naturally roll back considering the open space behind this may be a sustainable option for management. Look to redefine the extent of the frontage possibly incorporating the management into the neighbouring Greatstone and Littlestone BMP s Littlestone to St Mary s Bay Sea Defences BMP 2006 (Jacobs Babtie) Background The Littlestone to St Mary s Bay Sea Defences BMP frontage is on the eastern side of the Dungeness peninsula in South Kent and covers 2.9km of sand and shingle beach (Figure 19).The shingle barrier beach in combination with the seawall provides protection to residential properties and amenities. The beach is the former northern spit of the Romney Inlet. The BMP defines the site as in MU 18 as described by the South Foreland to Beachy Head SMP. However since the completion of the BMP a number of further studies have been undertaken. Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 45

47 Figure 19 Location Plan of Littlestone to St Marys Frontage. Strategic Overview The frontage is situated in management unit 4c11 of the current Beachy Head to South Foreland SMP2 and has a Hold The Line policy for all three epochs. It is envisaged that over time this frontage will become heavily defended as it comes under pressure from coastal squeeze. Future works include ongoing beach renourishment and where necessary upgrading, the existing seawall, revetments, groynes and beach Error! Bookmark not defined.. The Folkstone to Cliff End Strategy was approved in 2009 and recommends a Sustain policy for the Littlestone to St Mary's frontage in line with the SMP2. The works recommended are beach recharge for the next 50 years and upgrading the seawall to achieve protection against a 1 in 200 return period event Summary of the BMP Physical Conditions The defences along the managed frontage consist of a seawall protected by a shingle beach with a terminal rock groyne at the northern end of the frontage. During annual average conditions, the design of the 2004 scheme predicted that 5,000m³ of shingle would collect against the southern side of the groyne. The BMP suggests that the largest waves at St Mary's Bay have a significant inshore wave height of 3.0m, a peak period of 12s and come from an easterly direction. When storm direction is predominantly from the east, the direction of drift reverses and it has been estimated that an average value of 2,000m³ per annum moves from north to south. Under these conditions it is predicted that there will be localised erosion south of the terminal rock groyne. 46 Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

48 At Dymchurch the most severe wave conditions had a significant wave height of 2.6m, a peak period of 8s and came from a south to south easterly direction. Average annual net drift rates from south to north were estimated at approximately 6,000m³ for shingle and 80,000 m³ for sand,. The BMP considers coastal processes and assesses the requirements using the Beach Management Manual (CIRIA, 1996). Like most of the Southeast coast it is classified as a macrotidal environment with a spring tide range > 6.5m. The narrowing of the English Channel in this area funnels towards Dover creating the potential for large tidal surges 6 (Page 10) a simple joint probability analysis was undertaken of extreme conditions within the BMP. Recommendations of the BMP The existing Beach Management Plan is the Littlestone to St Mary s Bay Sea Defences Beach Management Plan 2006/07 it is intended as a live document to track the success of the scheme installed in 2004 and to plan/review maintenance activities. The plan has not been revised since 2006 and consideration should be given as to whether a review is required. The document provides a justification of the options and decisions that were taken when designing the recharge scheme. The following conclusions are reached in the report: 1. The purpose of this plan to maintain an adequate shingle defence along the frontage. 2. This will be achieved by annual recycling shingle which will be defined using monitoring data. 3. The beach crest level is to be maintained at 6.00m OD The idealised beach section is a 10m crest with a 1 to 7 seaward slope. Except at Littlestone Outfall where the beach crest is reduced to 7m. 4. Annual recycling is to be taken across the frontage except when an urgent threshold is reached in which case immediate action should be taken. 5. Areas of cliffing and recycling are to be reprofiled at 1 in 3 there is no clear reason why this gradient has been selected. 6. Monitoring will be principally be carried out by the Regional monitoring programme using the annual photo flight survey supplemented by ground survey as and when required. A vegetated shingle survey will also be undertaken but the extent, timing or frequency is not indicated in the report. Environmental The frontage is covered by several environmental designations; it is an undeveloped Heritage Coast and includes sections of SSSIs and a SNCI. The frontage is also a SAC. The European designations only apply to the southern half of the site as such an environmental Action Plan (EAP) was undertaken to allow all maintenance activities to be carried out in an accordance with regulations. It was suggested the EAP produced should be reviewed and updated prior to further recycling works. Profiles and trigger levels The design profile of the renourished beach after the completion of a scheme in 2004 was a beach crest at +6.00m ODN and 10m wide along the frontage except for at Littlestone outfall where the crest width at installation was 7m. The seaward slope at all locations was 1 in 7 at installation but 1 in 3 after reprofiling. The reasoning for this change in profile slope between installation and design is unclear. Three thresholds for intervention were identified; Installation This is the position upon completion of the construction works and will provides the base case for the consideration of beach movement. No intervention will be required. Minimum Design When this threshold is reached there may be a need for recycling of material to this part of the frontage. Beach movements can fluctuate rapidly dependant upon conditions and at this stage a watch will be kept on the beach with the potential for material to be recycled during the annual recycling exercise. Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 47

49 Urgent This will identify where the beach width has been reduced to an extent where the design standard of defence is not being met. This should initiate immediate corrective action to restore defence standards. These threshold were then defined for four sections of the frontage as described below in Table 2. The installed profile in all location was a 1 in 7 however the suggested reprofiled slope was 1 in 3. Unit ID Description Installation Minimum Design Urgent 18/1 10m Berm 7.5m Berm 4m Berm 18/2 Littlestone outfall 7m Berm 5.5m Berm 2m Berm 18/3 Golf course 10m Berm 7.5m Berm 4m Berm 18/4 Pirate Springs 10m Berm 7.5m Berm 4m Berm 18/5 south of terminal groyne 10m Berm 7.5m Berm 4m Berm Table 11 Thresholds along the frontage. Data used for determination of profiles and renourishment requirements of BMP Profiles were derived from numerical modelling, Littlestone to St Marys Bay Sea Defence Study report 7 (HR Wallingford EX 4506 January 2002) which assessed waves, currents and sediment transport and SMP coastal process information. Individual topographic and bathymetric surveys were undertaken to provide up to date information on conditions. The joint probability analysis approach as outlined in the Beach Management Manual 8 (CIRIA, 1996) provided threshold levels and design profiles for beach management. Cost There are no Costs presented in the BMP Current Beach Management Practice During the 2003 scheme the frontage was recharged with 250,000m³ of material from the Hastings Bank licensed site and re-profiled to design. During the scheme 24,000m³ of rock armour was also imported. Following completion of the scheme only in 2005 was recharge (5, 000m³) carried out. Annual maintenance was also suggested this included shingle recycling in advance of severe storm periods of late Autumn and Winter. Current data available for assessment Annual monitoring is undertaken as part of the Regional Coastal Monitoring programme this indicates long term changes in shingle movement and is used to identify sources of shingle for recycling. Post storm surveys are also undertaken to identify any urgent renourishment requirements. The current SRCMP survey data should be incorporated into a new updated Beach management plan and action levels should be reviewed in light of performance over the past 5 years. Future schemes There are currently no schemes planned for this frontage shingle recharge and recycling is the only proposed management activities in combination with the raising of the seawall to a 1 in 100 year standards of defence Recommendations Review action levels as the shingle beach alone currently provides a 1 in 100 standard of protection without considering the presence of the seawall. Therefore it is likely the design profiles are over estimated. Explain why overtopping cannot occur at Littlestone outfall the main issue here is likely to be blockage of the outfall increasing flood risk upstream. 48 Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

50 Update with design conditions and background, recent recycling volumes and beach behaviour Hythe to Folkestone Beach Management Plan Project Appraisal Report 2008 (Herrington Consulting Ltd) Background The Hythe to Folkstone BMP frontage is on the eastern side of the Dungeness peninsula in South Kent and covers 8km of sand and shingle beach (Figure 20). The shingle barrier beach in combination with the seawall provides protection to residential properties and amenities. This BMP has not been completed and information on intended works is taken from the project appraisal report used to secure funding. The PAR seeks funding for 5 years of recycling activity following the capital scheme in Figure 20 Location Plan of the Hythe to Folkstone Frontage. Strategic Overview The frontage is spread over management units 4c08 and 4c09 of the current Beachy Head to South Foreland SMP2 and has a Hold The Line policy for all three epochs. It is envisaged that over time a reducing beach will exert additional stress on the defences, and it is likely that the character of the frontage will change from one with amenity value to one that is purely defensive Error! Bookmark not defined.. The Folkstone to Cliff End Strategy was approved in 2009 and recommends a Sustain policy for the Hythe to Folkstone frontage in line with the SMP2 9. The works recommended are beach renourishment. Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 49

51 Summary of the BMP Physical Conditions The defences along the frontage consist of a shingle barrier / fringing shingle beach backed by a seawall that is said to fail within 5 years in the absence of any beach. There have also been works to pin the base of a landslip at Encombe which have been successful. Although a table providing wave direction, peak heights (Hs) and Still Water Levels (SWL) for specific events are provided the origin of the data is not clear and no relation ship to return periods for these events are given. The direction of drift is not stated but from the nature of proposed works it can be assumed that the net drift is in an easterly direction. Recommendations of the BMP The BMP has not been completed for this frontage instead a PAR to obtain funding has been approved. The BMP will stand for 5 years after which it will be reviewed and aims to sustain the protection provided by a scheme completed in The following conclusion are reached in the report: 1. The purpose of the plan is to sustain protection to the frontage from coastal flooding. 2. This will be achieved by recycling material from east to west in five cells along the frontage. 3. The beach will be maintained at a design profile of 6m crest width at a height of 4.8mOD however volumes of shingle to be recycled annually are not stated. Action will be taken whenever volumes fall below this profile. 4. Works will be undertaken pre and post winter. 5. Monitoring will be carried out using SCRMP data supplemented by ground survey as and when required. 6. A responsive regime has been adopted. Environmental "The study area between Hythe and Folkestone contains little ecological interests and there are no environmental designations" (Appendix 6.10). The BMP relies on the strategy EIA which identified exposed rock platforms as habitat of local importance and concludes recycling works are not detrimental to this feature. Vegetated shingle is not mentioned in the BMP. Profile and trigger levels Profiles and trigger levels are defined from the 2004 scheme design as follows: Cost Design Level beach at or above the design volume minimum requirement to provide a 1 in 200 standard of defence (crest width 6m crest height 4.8m OD). Beaches will generally be managed to so this is the minimum profile. Warning Level beach has dropped below design profile and measures should be put in place to either monitor closely or arrange for recycling / regarding. Emergency Action Level at this point emergency recycling should be undertaken to increase beach levels (3.8m OD crest height). Critical Level with beaches at this level there is significant risk of seawall failure and/or flooding from wave overtopping under relatively low return period events (2.0m OD crest height). The annual expenditure for the next 5 years is estimated to be 197.1k this is based on previous Cost estimates with a 20% contingency. This option was selected due to its high incremental Cost benefit ratio as recommended by PAG guidelines. Managing the frontage and two recharges over the next 100 years gives a Cost benefit of 7.7 and an incremental Cost benefit ratio of Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

52 Current Beach Management Practice Since the completion of the scheme in 2004 which included large scale renourishment recycling works have been undertaken as part the capital maintenance scheme. Current data available for assessment The BMP will included the most up to date information provided by the regional monitoring programme and should include all current relevant data for assessment. Future Schemes There are no schemes currently planned along this frontage Recommendations Provide historical volumes of recycling. Assess the suitability of a 6m crest width by reviewing post storm data. Investigate recycling shingle via road to allow vegetated shingle to develop and groyne management to reduce recycling requirements. Provide more clarity within the statement "In combination with a healthy beach, the new wave return wall reduces wave overtopping sufficiently to ensure that significant flooding does not occur under a 1 in 200 year event." (page 22) Sandwich Bay Beach Management 1996 Background The Sandwich Bay frontage currently managed by the Environment Agency is situated between Sandown Castle north of deal and Sandwich Bay Estate in Kent on the West coast (Figure 21). The frontage consists of ~3.5km of narrow shingle bank providing protection to low-lying agricultural land, recreational areas and 58 properties. A BMP was prepared in 1996 for this frontage but this is not considered in the day to day management of the frontage. Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 51

53 Figure 21 Location Plan of Sandwich Bay Beach Management Area Strategic Overview Since the BMP was written the Pegwell to Kingsdown Strategy has been completed as has been the Isle of Grain to South Foreland SMP2. The frontage is situated in management unit 4b22 of the SMP2 and has a Hold The Line policy for all three epochs. It is anticipated that due to lack of sediment supply and coastal squeeze this frontage will become increasingly difficult to maintain 10. The shingle bank will need to be improved by renourishment and possibly hard defences put in place to continue to defend the frontage. The Pegwell to Kingsdown Strategy was approved in 2008 suggests an Improve policy for the Sandwich Bay Estate to Deal castle frontage in line with the SMP2. The works recommended are raising the shingle banks and alongside this work it is anticipated a beach management plan will be produced. Physical Conditions The defences along the managed frontage consist of a revetment and concrete armour units with a continuous shingle bank along the majority of the frontage. However at the Sandwich Bay Estate there are secondary defences of a revetment and stub wall. The BMP 11 analysed the littoral processes using LITPACK. The analysis found there is only minor long shore transport from south to north the transport decreases from the south to north and material is deposited in the central part of the frontage. The seaward beach slope was found to vary from 1 in 8 in the south to 1 in 5 at the northern end. Considerable volumes of shingle are moved by cross shore transport during large return period events this was indicated by the modelling and confirmed by a storm event in Recommendations of the BMP The Beach Management Plan is the Sandwich Bay Beach Management Plan 1996 written as a one-off document explaining the options for the installation of rock revetment, capital recharge of 60,000m³ and recycling of 20,000m³. Additionally it documents assessment of beach profile development and beach recycling activities. However it is stated this BMP should be reviewed every 5 years and incorporating new available data. 52 Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

54 The following conclusions are reached in this report: 1. The minimum seaward slope of the embankment is 1:8 for both summer and winter conditions. 2. The existing profile of 1:5 slope at Sandwich Bay Estate would result in the exposure of the revetments during the predicted 1 in 1 year storm with surge and therefore is not considered a healthy beach. Approximately 60,000 m³ of shingle is required to provide a 1:8 slope. 3. At Sandown Castle to the south there is a problem of cut back due to the hard defences of Deal seawall where the slope is also steeper than 1:8. Approximately 20,000 m³ of shingle is required to provide a 1:8 slope. 4. Once the secondary defences are in place the central frontage has excess shingle above the healthy beach requirement. Approximately 100,000 m³ of material would be available for redistribution following completion of the secondary defences. 5. Monitoring will be undertaken using aerial photography supplemented by monthly readings from stationary gauges on the shoreline. Environmental There is no mention of environmental factors in the 1996 BMP. However from discussions with current staff it is understood that vegetated shingle is present along the crest of this frontage and vegetated shingle surveys have been undertaken. Profiles and trigger levels The beach management plan defines profiles measured using five sets of gauges at cross sections along the frontage. Three gauges were placed the first at ~14m seaward of the crest, the second ~30m forward of the crest and the third ~54m seaward of the crest. Four profiles were then defined that had specific actions assigned to manage the frontage. The profiles were defined as: Original - the design profile with a 1:8 slope, shows no change in beach levels at the gauges. This requires no action. Minor storm damage half a metre loss at the middle gauge no change on the lower and upper. Requires re-profiling within 1 month. Significant storm damage more than a metre loss at top gauge and 0.5m loss at the middle gauge no loss on lower beach. Requires emergency re-profiling if sufficient material and import if not immediately. Steepened profile more than a metre loss from lower gauge and 0.5 from middle no change at upper gauge. Requires re-profiling or import to establish 1:8 slope. These trigger levels are currently not used as the staff are not aware if these posts are still in place. Beach management is currently triggered by visual inspections of experienced staff. Data used for determination of profiles and re-profiling requirements The assets along this frontage are subject to asset inspections every 18 months and a visual assessment of beach levels is made by experienced staff on a weekly basis. This information is used to determine when beach levels are low. Canterbury City Council undertake a beach surveys on an annual basis and produce a Beach Management Plan Report. However due to the dynamic nature of this frontage annual changes in beach profiles are not felt sufficient to assess this frontage. Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 53

55 Cost Currently between one to two re-profiling works are undertaken per year along this frontage at a Cost of 2,000 each. Therefore between 2,000 and 4,000 is spent on beach management annually. Current Beach Management Practice Currently re-profiling takes place along the frontage on an irregular basis. Shingle is pushed up before the winter to provide protection against winter storms. Further re-profiling is then undertaken if required after weekly visual inspections of the frontage. Re-profiling takes place once or twice a year and the frontage is only reprofiled up to the vegetated shingle where present. Current data available for assessment Since the beginning of the SCRMP survey have been undertaken times per year. This data includes aerial photography, LiDAR, beach plan surveys, bathymetry surveys and since 2005 wave height and water level from the Rosemount WaveRadar Rex deployed at Deal Pier. Future schemes The Pegwell to Kingsdown Strategy suggests improving defences along this frontage by raising beach levels. Therefore it is expected that renourishment and a beach management plan will be produced in the near future Recommendations Reassess trigger levels based on current data. Review the benefit cost of reprofiling in light of any environmental gains. Review the boundary of the BMP and potentially extend southwards to Kingsdown to cover the entire sediment cell especially in the light of reversals in direction of annual net transport Northern Seawall Beach Management 2009 Background Situated on the North Kent coast this frontage extends from Reculver Towers to Plumpudding Island and is collectively termed the Northern Sea Wall (Figure 22). The 4.5km of seawall and shingle bank provide protection to the low lying behind which is predominantly agricultural land, saline lagoons and freshwater habitats. The beach was recharged with 110,000m³ of shingle interspersed between rock groynes after a scheme strategy plan produced by Canterbury City Council in Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

56 Figure 22 Location Plan of Northern Seawall Beach Management Area. Strategic Overview This frontage is situated in management unit 4a14 of the Isle of Grain to South Foreland SMP2 which is pending approval in The SMP2 policy in the first epoch is Hold The Line to maintain defence to the frontage while the benefits of implementing Managed Realignment in the medium term epoch are confirmed. Once the benefits are confirmed secondary defences will be constructed and the coastline will be realigned with the exception of Reculver towers which will continue to be defended 10. It is anticipated that fresh water habitats will become brackish or saline over time. The Reculver to Minnis Bay Strategy was completed in 1997 and is and is currently pending review. The original strategy recommends a Hold The Line policy to be implemented using beach management and constructing rock revetment at Reculver 12. Physical Conditions The frontage consists of a shingle and sand beach with rock groynes no less than 150m apart. A small section of rock armouring protects the Reculver Towers monument. The Northern Sea Wall is situated immediately behind the beach, except at Wantsum Delta and St. Augustine s Bank where the wall is also fronted by a saline lagoon and an area of vegetated shingle at these locations respectively. The Scheme strategy describes the net transport as predominantly east to west. Historically beaches at the eastern end of the frontage have shown a tendency to be erosive with sediment building up at Cold Harbour sluice 13. There is a small amount of easterly transport which deposits material on to Minnis Bay under westerly winds. Recommendations of the BMP The most up to date Beach Management Plan is the Annex 6 Reculver to Minnis Bay Scheme Implementation Plan 1997 written as a one-off document explaining the options for the installation Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 55

57 of rock revetment, two rock groynes and capital recharge. In addition it reviews assessment of beach profile development and beach recycling activities. The following conclusions are reached in this report: The purpose of this plan is to appraise the option for beach management from the strategy. This is achieved by comparing existing maintenance regime with a range of proposed options. The BMP recommends evaluating the performance of the beach management after two and 5 years incorporating additional monitoring data and revised modelling. Explore the possibility of increase recycling to replace recharge. Environmental There are a number of designations and protected Environmental features present along this frontage. Designations include a special area of conservation, a special protection area, a RAMSAR site, a SSSI and at the far east of the frontage a Special Marine Area. Habitats and Environmental features of particular interest include the vegetated shingle found along the frontage and a saline lagoon protected by the shingle embankment. Investigation into impacts of beach management on these features should be included if the BMP is reviewed. Profiles and trigger levels The BMP recommends design profiles with a minimum crest width of 6m and crest height of 4.8 OD and a seaward slope of 1 in 7.5 as established by numerical modelling undertaken by Canterbury City Council. However in practice beach management is triggered by weekly visual inspections of experienced staff. Data used for determination of profiles and re-profiling requirements The assets along this frontage are subject to 18 month asset inspections and a visual assessment of beach levels is made by experienced staff on a weekly basis. This information is used to determine when beach levels are low. Canterbury City Council undertake a beach survey on an annual basis and produce a Beach Management Plan report. However due to the dynamic nature of this frontage annual changes in beach profiles are not felt sufficient to assess whether action is required on this frontage. Cost Currently a number of recycling works are undertaken each year along this frontage. The BMP heavily investigates the Costs of recharge but is not relevant to the work undertaken currently. Current Beach Management Activities Currently re-profiling takes place along the frontage on an irregular basis. Shingle is recycled from Cold Harbour and Minnis Bay where it accumulates and distributed along the Northern Seawall if required after weekly visual inspections of the frontage. Past records of shingle recycling are shown below in Table 12. Date Quantity Source Placed (tonnes) 31 st March 4 th April Cold Harbour Rock groynes 1&2 8 th April 11 th April Minnis Bay Rock groynes 11, 12 & th April 18 th April Cold Harbour Rock groynes 2, 3, 4 & 5 21 st April 23 rd April Minnis Bay Rock groynes 10, 11, 13 & th April -25 th April Cold Harbour Rock groynes 5, 6 and 7 Table 12 Frequency of shingle recycling 56 Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

58 Current data available for assessment Since 2003 the SCRMP has been undertaking aerial, topographic and bathymetric survey along the frontage this data should be used to review the design profiles suggested by the 1996 BMP. In addition to this data a wave and tidal gauge was deployed at Herne Bay (069335E, N) in 1996 to provide improved wave climate data. Future schemes The Reculver to Minnis Bay Strategy suggests improving defences along this frontage by raising beach levels. Therefore it is expected that a beach management plan will be produced as part of recommended future works Recommendations Issues which could be addressed in the proposed new beach management plan include: Review current design profiles using currently available data and guidance. Ascertain annual Costs of recycling and review the requirements for triggering recycling. Review beach management plan to maximise opportunities for vegetated shingle habitat creation. Define suitable access points and methods for works undertaken. Include new CIRIA Guidance and available data. Adhoc beach management should continue to be undertaken by experienced staff until this plan is revised to ensure continuity and an accurate, structured approach Tankerton Beach Management Plan 1996 (Canterbury City Council) Background The frontage covered in this BMP extends for 3.5km from Whitstable Harbour in the west up to and including Long Rock (Swalecliffe) in the east (Figure 23). The BMP was written as part of the justification for a major scheme involving capital recharge and groynes. Information about the management following the scheme are sparse and although design criteria for the beach are included, no intervention thresholds are given. Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 57

59 Figure 23 Location Plan of the Tankerton Frontage. Strategic Overview SMP1, which was compiled at the time of the BMP set a policy of Hold The Line. This policy has been upheld by SMP2 for all three epochs, illustrating the need for the BMP Summary of the BMP Physical Conditions The defences along the frontage consist of a groynes shingle barrier beach backed by a seawall. In places, the seawall and promenade is backed by higher ground with a slope of 1in 7 to this higher ground. Wave conditions have been investigated for different approaches and tables for wave heights and Still Water Levels (SWL) are included in the accompanying documents. These are given for the present day (1996 and for Longshore transport has both been modelled and evaluated based on topographic ground surveys. Beach design in relation to overtopping has been modelled in a physical model. Recommendations of the BMP The BMP promotes a capital recharge and groyne replacement scheme. Design conditions are given for the beach to be appropriate for 1 in 100 year protection but no indications is given for intervention conditions that initiate recycling or recharge. The business case assume recharge in the order of 6500m³ every 10 years and recycling of 3000m³ every 5 years. The following conclusion are reached in the report: 1. The beach will provide a 1 in 100 year protection against overtopping (<30l/m/s) given a crest width of 3m at 4.8mOD and a 1 in 6 slope of the upper beach with a D 50 of 10mm Environmental Reference is made to designated sites by no express mention is made of vegetated shingle and how this could be improved / maintained. Profile and trigger levels 58 Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

60 There are not trigger levels given Cost The BMP assumes a cost of ~ 150,000 every 10 years for recharge and recycling and ~ 3,500 every 5 years for recycling and groyne maintenance Current Beach Management Practice An annual programme of beach recycling and regrading based on historical knowledge of problem areas and the information from the Strategic Monitoring Programme is carried out. A budget of 20k per annum which is always virtually fully spent and recycling 10,000 m³ a year plus general regrading work along the entire Canterbury frontage at a rate for recycling in the order of 1.80/m³. Recycling takes place at the following locations: Swalecliffe - every 2/3 years approx 6,000m³ Tankerton East - every 3/4 years approx 5,000m³ Current data available for assessment Beach Management Plan Reports are available since Topographic and photogrammetry profiles are available since 2003 and a LIDAR flight was carried out in Bathymetric survey data is available for Recommendations It would seem appropriate to provide an update of the BMP, especially based on monitoring information since the scheme was implemented, providing a comparison between the predicted and actual activity. This will provide transparency of the activities. The update needs to be in proportion to the cost of the maintenance activity. Management activities should be reviewed in relation to habitat maintenance and enhancements Sheerness to Minster Beach Management Plan 2011 Environment Agency is presently procuring a BMP for the frontage from Sheerness to Minster (Figure 24) which is programmed to be produced by the end of March The Environment Agency has responsibility for the sea defences on the Isle of Sheppey between Garrison Point and Minster. This frontage is identified within the Isle of Grain to South Foreland Shoreline Management Plan 2010 as policy unit 4a 02. The current policy is hold the line from present day into the long term. A variety of defences are prevalent. These include concrete sea wall variants (stepped, ragstone faced) fronted by a shingle beach and shingle embankments. The majority of the shingle beach is retained by a mixture of concrete, timber and rock groynes, as well as incidental retaining structures. The majority of defences were developed as a result of the 1953 North Sea Tidal floods, and are built to a standard of protection of 1:200yrs. The town of Sheerness lies between 1.5m and 3.0m below the level of the highest recorded tide (1953), with around 5000 properties at risk of flooding. Prior to the 2010 SMP review a flood defence strategy was produced for the Isle of Sheppey Northern Defences strategy, which led to improvement works being undertaken in The capital scheme involved improved rock armour protection the revetment between Ship-on-Shore and Barton s point, major improvements were also made to the shingle bank from Barton s point to Scrapsgate. Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 59

61 Following the scheme it was anticipated that a loss of shingle in the order of 2500m3/yr would continue to occur and that this would require supplementary shingle recharge. However, no shingle recharge has been undertaken on this frontage for at least 7 years as it has not been deemed a priority. Specifically the Barton s Point shingle bank is showing signs of significant scarping and over steepening on the seaward face, and this represents the priority to be addressed on the frontage. In addition to the need for recharge and re profiling at this location it is recognised that shingle losses have occurred to the West of Barton s point and this may also need addressing. There is good evidence to show that there has been a gradual but sustained loss of shingle from the shingle embankment and the beach fronted seawall. Data collected by the Strategic Regional Coastal Monitoring programme shows evidence for shingle loss along much of the frontage. The data shows a reduction in the level of the shingle embankments crest generally at a rate not exceeding 0.05m per annum. This is in line with the strategy predictions for such changes in beach/crest levels if nourishment were not to take place. It was predicted that in line with sea level rise and without shingle nourishment that within 25 years the SOP would reduce to 1:5 at the shingle bank. Environmental designations: There are no environmental designations within the study area, however consideration should be given to adjacent designated sites, such as the Sheppey cliffs and foreshore SSSI, and the potential presence of vegetated shingle habitats. Figure 24: Extent for the proposed Sheerness to Minster BMP. The extent is likely to also cover the groyne field in front of Minster. 5 Ad-hoc Beach Management The information provided below was collated from discussion with EA and Local Authority Staff managing the frontages. There are no formal Beach Management plans being used to manage these frontages. 5.1 Arun District Council There exists no BMP for the frontage between Pagham and Ferring (~24km), parts of which (Elmer and Climping) are managed by the EA.. 60 Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

62 The main aim of beach management is to straighten the beach in plan shape with crest width of 15-20m at pinch points (e.g Rock Garden, Aldinbourne Rife, Sea Drive, Middleton Point). The main management intervention is the addition or removal of groyne planks to manage the longshore transport (Note: Management of the groynes is not recorded in detail and thus does not feed into the coastal monitoring programme, however, some groyne works records are kept). Management is carried out based on engineering knowledge, experience and judgement that hinges on individuals. A minimum of two annual walkover surveys are carried out (plus post storm surveys and higher frequency surveys at pinch points). The beach is supposed to have a 5 year recession buffer build in so that if someone else has to take over beach management, this would provide a buffer time for 'learning the ropes'. Current data available for assessment Monitoring data from the Strategic Regional Coastal Monitoring Programme is used as a fall-back needed for obtaining in grant in aid and generally confirms experience but is not actively used. The main limitation for not using monitoring data more actively is the number of staff Cost: No annual costs have been made available Recommendations For reasons of transparency and accountability a formal beach management plan covering the entire ~24 km frontage is required that includes linkages with updrift and downrift frontages. The River Arun to Pagham Coastal Defence Strategy from 2004 together with its review in 2010 and the River Adur to Arun Coastal Defence Strategy from 2009 should contain sufficient information to draw on for a Beach Management Plan 5.2 Worthing Borough Council There exists no BMP for the frontage between Ferring and Brooklands (~7.5 km). The beach crest is managed to be at 6.8m with a berm width of between 10 and 5m. A crest level action level of 6.2m is used. Assessment is based on visual inspections confirmed by coastal monitoring data. The main activity is reprofiling which is carried out in Autumn and Spring with recent intentions of stopping this practice. 75% of the cost for beach management are spent on groyne maintenance and repair. Annual cost for maintenance is 100, Recommendations For reasons of transparency and accountability a formal beach management plan covering the entire frontage is required that includes linkages with updrift and downrift frontages. The River Adur to Arun Coastal Defence Strategy from 2009 should contain sufficient information to draw on for a Beach Management Plan. 5.3 Brighton and Hove There exists no BMPs for the frontage between Shoreham and Saltdean (~15km). The frontage can be divided into the section Shoreham Harbour to Brighton Marina and Brighton Marina and Brighton Marina to Saltdean. The Brighton Marina to Saltdean frontage consists of highly separated pocket beaches between concrete or rock groynes while that to the west of Brighton Marina is an almost uninterrupted beach fronting cliffs in the east and low lying land and the Shoreham Harbour in the west. No strategy exists for the western frontage (a strategy prepared in 2003 was rejected by Defra) an application is currently with NRG which is likely to be followed by a BMP It was recommended for Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 61

63 a BMP to be compiled for the eastern section following completion of works on the seawall, however this has been overtaken by a review of the strategy which will now extend from Brighton Marina to Newhaven and be led by Lewes DC. The frontage benefits from the regular bypassing operation undertaken by Shoreham Port across the mouth of the Adur in the order of ~10,000m³y -1 Following the construction of Southern Water outfall at Kemp Town Beach near Brighton Marina and problems encountered with blockage of the outfall, ~7000m³ of beach material have been taken from near the outfall and recycled to the Shoreham Harbour frontage in spring 2010 (paid for by Southern Water). Given the longshore transport pattern along the beach, this is likely to happen on a more regular basis. Other management activities include only occasional beach reprofiling and minor ad-hoc shingle movement with no records being kept. Reprofiling is carried out when requested for beach access. SRCM data is not used for the active management of the beach only to confirm the appropriateness of the current approach but has been used to support the assessment of recycling needs from the outfall. Cost Annual expenditure for beach management is ~ 80k for bypassing at Shoreham Harbour (paid by the port) and in 2009 and 2010 for additional recycling from the Kemp Town outfall (paid by Southern Water). Current data available for assessment The frontage east of Brighton Marina has been covered by LIDAR surveys since 2004 and given historic trends a review of the monitoring data every couple of years would seem adequate. The frontage west of Brighton Marina is also covered by the coastal monitoring programme Recommendations For reasons of transparency and accountability two formal beach management plan covering the entire the frontage east and west of the Marina are required. For the eastern frontage, this can be a reasonably basic BMP that includes beach design data from the recent scheme at Ovingdean and the historic schemes at Rottingdean and Saltdean and a review of the SoP offered by the beach seawall system and the SoP actually required. For the western frontage a more substantial BMP seems required to assess the SoP for a frontage with vulnerable assets behind the beach and in light of the variable beach width and the longshore transport along this frontage. It might be possible to compile a BMP instead of a strategy, thus having a BMP in place sooner and saving on the costs for a full-blown Coastal Defence Stragety. 5.4 Bexhill There exists no BMP for this frontage. Information from Adur to Hastings Integrated Management Plan (2008) indicates that the only beach management is annual reprofiling in Spring for amenity purposes and that due to the general health of the beach, little work is required and assessment of any requirements are made on an observational basis Recommendations The frontage needs to be included in a wider Eastbourne to Hastings/Rye BMP as there is a clear link with up- and donwdrift frontages. 5.5 Hastings There exists no BMP for this frontage and management is carried out infrequently. In ,000m³ where recycled at Carlisle Parade preceded by 10 years of neither recycling of recharge. Initial assessment for works is based on visual inspection which is than confirmed and firmed up using Monitoring data, in particular customised targeted surveys. 62 Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

64 5.5.1 Recommendations The frontage needs to be included in a wider Eastbourne to Hastings/Rye BMP as there is a clear link with up- and donwdrift frontages. 5.6 Thanet No information available 5.7 Canterbury City Council Canterbury City Council manages several frontages along the North Kent coast without formal BMPs in place but with an annual planned programme of beach recycling and regrading based on historical knowledge of problem areas and the information from the Strategic Monitoring Programme. Recycling takes place at the following locations: Herne Bay Pier to Neptune Jetty (central Herne Bay) - annually approx 6,000m³. Herne Bay Lane end to west of the Pier annually ~2,000m³ Hampton to Lane End - every 2 years ~2,000m³ Swalecliffe - every 2/3 years ~10,000m³ Tankerton East - every 3/4 years ~5,000m³ East Cliif Herne Bay - every 5 years ~8,000m³ Other areas as required on reactive basis. Costs: An annual budget of 20k is spent on recycling of ~10,000m³ and general reprofiling work. Current data available for assessment Wave and water level information together with topographic and bathymetric survey data are available for the entire frontage Recommendations For reasons of transparency and accountability formal beach management plans should be compiled that include beach design data and the required SoP for the frontages together with a review of the SoP offered by the beaches. A review of the management practices in light of habitat opportunities would also be beneficial. Given the comparatively small amount of management taking place the BMPs could be reasonably small documents taking into account the linkages between the individual frontages. 6 BMP recommendations Based on the information extracted from the BMPs and other documents and information provided, the following recommendations have been collated addressing BMP content, geographical boundaries, priorities for BMP updates / writing and finally the funding and governance structure of beach management in Southern Region. 6.1 BMP Content The 2010 Beach Management Manual (BMM) contains in (Box 8.1) [ ] Specific guidance on the preparation of BMPs for England and Wales, prepared in discussion with Defra and the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG). Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 63

65 However, the review presented in this document should be used as additional guidance, that is a) specific for the locations mentioned in this report b) addresses the clarity of the BMP as a single stand-alone document to provide an accountable and transparent methodology for managing beaches as coastal defence assets. Beach management along the frontages covered by this report is carried out because of the perceived and often well established need to do so. This need has generally been identified through strategy documents, as a follow on activity to an implemented scheme or from historic coastal development. Generally, there exists a good understanding of the general beach material movement at all of the sites, especially as many of the sites have a long history of management and a basic set of historic monitoring data that goes back to the 1970s, and, at a better level of detail and accuracy, since This means that beach management and thus BMPs do not have to start from scratch, and, most importantly, that there should be data to compare the performance with the initial design and with neighbouring or similar schemes in Southeast England. Unless it is considered to manage a frontage radically differently, for example by adding a groyne field to an open beach or otherwise changing the general principle of management, there seems little merit in going through the Beach Management Scheme Appraisal outlined in the BMM. Instead, the BMPs for the frontages considered should focus on what the BMM calls an Operational BMP but extend it to include the evidence base for why the operations are carried out and using the content suggested below. The following recommendations are therefore made for the core of a BMP which could be supplemented by any item from the framework for a BMP listed in the BMM. This core should ensure that the management activities are based on transparent information and decision making and together with monitoring information and beach performance inform and allow for a periodic review of the decision making (Figure 25). As already mentioned in section 3, the BMP needs to be in proportion to average annual costs for the actual management and while an all encompassing BMP might be appropriate for frontages with annual management costs of several 100k, for those frontages were only a couple of thousands cubic metres are recycled every few years a more concise, but nevertheless evidence based and transparent BMP would be adequate. Prediction Wave data Water level Grain size Run-up Overtopping Beach design Beach performance Monitoring Survey Wave data Water level Recharge / recycling Volume Volume distribution Post storm assessment Environment. conditions Calibration JRP correct? LST correct? Run-up correct? Figure 25 Schematic of the feedback relationship between beach design and prediction of performance, beach management and monitoring, and review and calibration of design and prediction. Green boxes show examples of primary data that feeds into the process and orange boxes show derived data and data analysis that drives the cycle. 64 Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

66 1. Background: A description and history of the site, including schemes, incidents, general evolution, reference to SMP and Strategies, habitats and environmental constraints linkages with neighbouring frontages 2. Drivers: The drivers are the flood and/or erosion protection, ie the number of properties at risk or any other benefit resulting from protection (e.g. protection of freshwater habitat). This will result in the determination of the standard of protection (SoP) required, divided in the SoP for overtopping and breach and should take variations of the risk and topography behind subfrontages into account 2. Especially the SoP for overtopping should clearly demonstrate the acceptable and unacceptable rates of overtopping depending for example on the back shore type (e.g. promenade, road, wide beach, houses) and its use (e.g. essential road, recreational promenade). This data should be consistent with the Shoreline Management Plan or Coastal Strategy, where these exist. 3. Physical input: These are the conditions on which design and intervention are based. For better comparison and transparency, these conditions should refer to inshore conditions and wave heights should consider the breaker wave height rather than offshore conditions that for the frontages considered often bear little relationship to the depth limited or sheltered conditions at the beach 3. Because of these conditions it is essential to include beach profile data that includes some of the nearshore. The forthcoming results from the Coastal Extremes project () will provide a homogenous and easily accessible data base for water levels to use and the swell wave data set will provide for many locations some of the worse case scenarios. Additional input conditions like grain size description of the beach (and how this was determined), foreshore profile and level of the beach toe need to be included as well. Any modelling or simpler formulas used to derive, for example breaker wave heights and joint probabilities, should be documented in such a way that any results are transparent and the way they were arrived at can be followed. 4. Design process and results: The processes to derive a design profile that satisfies the appropriate SoP identified under point 2 above needs to be clear and transparent and any uncertainties need to be clearly stated. Any modelling needs to be cross checked with coastal monitoring data (e.g. post storm surveys) to provide a reality check if not a calibration for the models used. A design that leads to an oversimplified and unrealistic beach cross profile with a horizontal berm of a certain width at a certain elevation and uniform frontal slope needs to be compared with the natural beach profile behaviour under storm conditions 4 and the impact such a profile and its maintenance would have on the occurrence of cliffing, which often requires additional maintenance work 5. Trigger levels need to refer to changed SoPs and in locations where inshore waves are depth limited, foreshore levels might be included as these will have direct impact on input parameters. The result of points 2 to 4 should provide an auditable trail of evidence that can be easily reviewed at intervals (e.g. how well a BMP performs against physical conditions experienced over a certain interval) that provides the framework for why a certain beach configuration is required and what the consequence of varying this configuration (with respect to changing SoP), or the parameters that went into its calculation, would be. 2 At Seaford for example, low lying and rising ground alternate several times along the frontage and applying just one SoP for the entire frontage may not be appropriate. 3 Offshore wave points (e.g. off Beachy Head or Dungeness) may show substantially different wave roses than inshore conditions for neighbouring frontages. The tidal conditions along much of the frontage mean that even severe offshore wave heights will have little effects if they coincide with neap tide conditions. 4 The natural behaviour might involve the creation of a storm berm at an elevation above the design berm; this would obviously have implications for overtopping which should be explored. 5 Beach reprofiling leads to 1) compaction, 2) habitat destruction and 3)obliterates any sediment sorting that has taken place. 1 and 3 are likely to increase cliffing which is the entire argument for reprofiling to remove cliffing. Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 65

67 5. Review of management activities: Given that management has happened for many years along most of the sites, and that the existing BMP documents have been rarely reviewed or updated, a review of what activities have taken place and at what costs should be carried out (this report has tried to collect some of this data and quite often there does not seem to be more detail available). How can this activity be related back to the SoP the beach should provide and should this review change any of the management activities 6. Particular emphasis should be given to how all the existing management activity impacts on the beach habitat (vegetated shingle) and how management activities need to change to improve the habitat. Where beach management is carried out for amenity purposes (for example the common practice of smoothing the beach in spring) this should be put in perspective to the damage this might cause to existing habitats or its impact on the potential for habitat to develop. 6. Proposed Management activities: Points 2 to 5 provide the background on which the proposed management activities should be based. All activities should be linked to trigger conditions that are themselves linked to SoPs and to monitoring of the beach. Although for example regular recycling of a given amount of beach material is easy to plan and budget for, it might not be necessary. Though present funding arrangements seem to favour regular works, if the case is made across many BMPs that more flexibility would be more cost effective, then funding arrangements need to change. A programme of BMP reviews should be made and published in the Action Plan for the relevant SMP 7. Monitoring activities: Points 2 to 6 should be used to determine monitoring requirements divided into those that can be accommodated within the Strategic Monitoring Programme and those that might be more site specific, however, any site specific monitoring should feed back into the Strategic Monitoring Programme data collection. Monitoring should address the individual beach and its problems Costs: This section should include a breakdown of the costs for managing the beach, including any works and time spent by the operating authority for the management and analysis. 9. Analysis and review: This closes the circle by assessing the performance of all activities (design, management, monitoring and costs) against the risk and the SoP provided. A programme of BMP reviews should be made and published in the Action Plan for the relevant SMP. Minor points to consider: Report all beach volumes in m³. If the information is only available as a weight, make clear what conversion has been used bearing in mind that the straight conversion of 1m³ = 2.7t based on the density of e.g flint does not work for a granular mix that might either be mixed (pebbles, gravel and sand where smaller grain sizes fill the voids between larger ones, approaching a conversion factor of 1:2.7) or highly sorted (for a narrow grain size distribution a 30% void content can be assumed so that the conversion would be closer to 0.7:2.7 or 1m³ = 1.9t). 6.2 Geographical Boundaries The close proximity of BMP frontages and/or frontages that are managed in an ad-hoc manner together with the recommendation for stronger interfacing with up- and downdrift frontage leads to the recognition that BMPs should cover more than one individual frontages defined by either Operating Authority or scheme boundary, where appropriate. This ensures strong linkage between frontages that share beach material. It also highlights that other management activities than the traditional recycling, bypassing and recharge might become more viable. 6 For example if the review of the design shows that the SoP is higher than required, management activities could be reduced for a time; conversely, if the SoP is lower than required, activities need to increase for a time. 7 Some beaches in this review have substantial subtidal portions (e.g. Chesil, Seaford) which cannot be surveyed easily from land and the benefit cost of surveying these differently needs to be assessed. 66 Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

68 Recommendations on the extent are limited to the extent of EA Southern Region as the review has focussed on mixed beaches and only samples of beach management activity have been included to the west, missing out on activities eg the sandy beach at Bournemouth Solent area to Selsey Bill Frontages receiving active management in this area are largely isolated. It is therefore suggested create: 1. one BMP following the Netley Cliff recharge that covers the frontage from Weston Point to Hamble Marina given uncertainty as to where the recharge material might disperse to. 2. One BMP for Hillhead Harbour to Gilliker Point including Lee-on-Solent 3. One BMP for Hayling Island / Eastoke 4. One BMP following the Managed Realignment at Medmerry and the scheme at Bunn Leisure to cover East Head to Selsey Bill Selsey Bill to Brighton Marina This large extent acknowledges that the frontages along this stretch are linked together, however, the presence of the mouths of the Arun and Adur provides significant interruption to transport and the variation in management structures (groynes, breakwaters etc), risk, policies and present management activities need to result in breaking down this stretch into smaller subsets. Nevertheless, the linkage is strong in that two different large scale approaches to Beach management would affect the frontage quite differently. Option one is to treat Selsey Arun, Arun Adur and Adur Marina as separate, resulting in recycling within each of the three cells. Option two would be to bypass both the Arun and Adur which would eventually lead to a build up west of Brighton Marina which is both undesired (blocking of Southern Water outfall) and unnecessary from an FCERM point of view so that the question arise how to address this growing accumulation; one solution being recycling back to Selsey (this could happen by barge but needs to be explored further) or selling the material to the aggregate industry and financing the recharge at Selsey from the proceeds. The following subdivision is proposed in hierarchical form (Figure 26). The 3 rd level division is largely based on variation in management structures and policies. Although the main area ends at Brighton Marina the frontage east of the Marina (Rottingdean and Saltdean) are partly reliant on the beach for coastal defence. As material is slowly moving through the system, bypassing from west of the Marina or recycling within the system needs to be considered and would merit inclusion in the wider frontage. Selsey Bill to Brighton Marina Selsey Bill to Arun Arun to Adur Adur to Saltdean Selsey to East Beach East Beach to Aldwick Aldwick to Elmer Elmer Elmer to Arun Arun to Brooklands Brooklands to Adur Figure 26: Proposed subdivisions of the Selsey Bill to Brighton Marina BMP Seaford With Newhaven Harbour to the west (with very limited volumes arriving west of the harbour), a terminal groyne on the eastern side followed by largely sediment starved, unprotected and natural Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 67

69 frontages as far as Beach Head, Seaford is treated as a 'closed system' that should be dealt with on its own Beachy Head to Hastings / Rother Mouth As there are no managed beaches in close proximity east of Beachy Head and natural supply from this frontage to east of Beachy Head is generally small and presently still interrupted through the Beachy Head Cliff fall, this BMP should start at Beachy Head. The longshore transport divide for natural transport at Sovereign Harbour is bypassed through management and thus Eastbourne is connected with the frontages further east. Hastings Harbour arm form a large terminal structure but there is a good chance that this is bypassed as the moment, letting material carry on further east, eventually onto the Pett Level frontage with the final terminal structure being the Rother Harbour arm. If Hasting would provide continued obstruction to any longshore transport, the cell should stop at Hastings and Pett Level would form its own cell and BMP, however, as the harbour arm is not likely to act as such a substantial obstruction, all downdrift frontages to the Rother Mouth should be included Broomhill Sands to Folkestone There is no longshore transport boundary between Broomhill and Folkestone, however, temporary drift reversal at Littlestone / St Mary's Bay and the scarcity of beach material along the Dymchurch frontage would suggest that subdividing this frontage into Broomhill to Dymchurch and Dymchurch to Folkestone would be of practical benefit, especially as the Hythe to Folkestone BMP already covers one of these subdivisions to a large extent Kingsdown to Pegwell Bay Between Kingsdown and Folkestone are only a couple of isolated beaches (Dover West and St Margaret's) that have little flood or erosion risk attached to them. Therefore the next BMP should start at Kingsdown and end at Shell Ness in Pegwell Bay. The dominant transport direction to the North and sustained gain of material at the northern end suggests that this frontage should be covered under one BMP North Kent (Minnis Bay to Graveny) The frontage is presently covered by three BMPs from two operating authorities, and although management activities are small compared to some on the southerly facing frontages, considering management along this larger frontage should provide a benefit. 6.3 Priority Prioritising the creation or update of BMPs, in particular under increasing funding constraints, needs to take into account a range of variables that are difficult to rank objectively in combination. The following tries to make the process of prioritising transparent by first highlighting the role each factor plays and then putting the priorities given into a coherent argument. Factors considered: Annual Spend: In the absence of a standard risk indicator such as houses protected, annual spend it thought to be a reasonable indicator of risk, assuming that historic funding was related to risk. It needs to be pointed out that for some frontages figures on annual spend could not be obtained, and that while for some frontages the spend will be exclusively on recycling and recharge, on others the majority is spent on e.g. groyne repairs. The costs are independent of the funding source which might be capital, EA / LA revenue or external (Shoreham to Brighton is funded by Shoreham Port with recent additions from Southern Water). Date of the BMP: To include monitoring data and new design guidance, BMPs should be updated at intervals and frontages that do not have any formal plan should formalise the management as soon as possible. However, even BMPs produced in the last 5 years lack transparency in relation to design conditions and as such the date of the BMP is only considered as a guide. Design parameters: This factor assesses the presence or absence of design parameters like wave and water levels. By default, frontages that do not have a formal plan are lacking design 68 Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

70 parameters 8, however, even some PARs do not contain this information, making an assessment of the beach design and management activities difficult. Beach parameters: This factor assesses the presence or absence of beach parameters like crest width and height. By default, frontages that do not have a formal plan are lacking beach parameters, however, even some BMPs do not contain this information, making an assessment of management activities difficult. Combined benefit with neighbouring frontages: Up- or downdrift frontages have been rarely considered in BMPs or any ad hoc management and where there is a clear linkage, this should be explored in a BMP update. Priority 1 BMPs need to be carried out in 2011/12 Priority 1a : The majority of annual spend shown in Figure 27, over 1mio, is spent on the Eastbourne to River Rother frontage. Over the last two years, Bulverhythe has been recharged at an annual cost of 300k when beach material placed at Pevensey has clearly accumulated on the Bexhill frontage to the west. With an additional major recharge at Eastbourne this winter, drawing up the Eastbourne to River Rother BMP is a matter of urgency that should provide significant cost savings (> 100k per year). While most parts of the frontage have a BMP produced within the last four years, there are significant discrepancies in the design conditions (waves and water levels at different return periods) that went into the beach design, and consequently in the beach crest and height design and action levels advocated by the individual BMPs, suggesting that some frontages are underprotected and some are overprotected. The BMP would be able address these imbalances leading to more sustainable use of beach material and beach management practices. There are only small scale MTP capital projects along the frontage and given the resources in the affected LAs and the fact that Pevensey, Bulverhythe and Pett are managed by the EA it is suggested that this BMP is led by EA Region with support from PCDL. Priority 1b: With planned major recycling works on the Arun frontage, Beach recharge at Elmer and a project to assess the development of Pagham Spit planned or ongoing, the Selsey to Brighton frontage requires a BMP urgently, in particular because there does not exist any formal plan except for Shoreham / Lancing along the entire length of the frontage. The recent coastal defence strategies (Arun to Adur and Pagham to Arun) should be able to provide input design conditions on which the BMP can be based. In line with the subdivisions in Figure 26 the work for this BMP in financial year 2011/12 should focus on the overview and the Selsey to Arun subset, followed by Arun to Adur in 2011/12 or 2012/13 and Adur to Saltdean in 2012/13, reflecting the need for an overall management of the beach material along the entire frontage and the more risk based prioritisation of the sub frontages. Given that the overwhelming majority of this frontage is covered by LAs, the BMP development should be led by either Arun or Worthing in close co-operation with the EA lead for priority 1a. Priority 1c: Seaford has one of the highest per kilometre spend and the BMP dating from 1996 has never been updated. As a consequence, beach management has changed the configuration of the design beach and in recent years, additional changes - partly reverting earlier ones have been introduced without linking to either design on monitoring. A review of this BMP is urgently required to fully justify activities and standards of protection. As the BMP only covers an EA frontage, its review will be led by EA Area with support from EA Region. Priority 2 BMPs should be carried out in 2012/13 Priority 2a: Regular annual maintenance along the North Kent frontage together with partly lacking and quite dated design and beach parameters, a mix of EA and LA managed frontages and a wealth of 8 These parameters might be included in Coastal Strategies or other studies, but are not easily accessible for each BMP frontage. Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 69

71 monitoring and study data suggest that a review of this frontage as one should provide a much more robust beach management plan that should provide operational savings for both LA and EA. Given the expertise and resource in Canterbury CC, it should lead in close cooperation with EA Area and support from EA Region. Priority 2b: The gravel barrier along the Kingsdown to Sandwich frontage varies considerable in width and is managed by Dover District Council and EA and Sandwich Estate. There is only one BMP for the frontage north of Sandwich which is outdated and not used as the basis for management. Longshore drift is generally toward the North, which leads to erosion in the Kingsdown area, but also immediately north of Sandwich with material gradually accumulating at Shell Ness with some potential impact on the sand dune system. Although annual spend is generally small, the proposed emergency works at Kingsdown point to more severe problems in beach material distribution that can only be addressed by managing the entire frontage with one BMP. Priority 2c: The frontage between East Head to Selsey Bill will undergo significant change with the Managed Realignment scheme at Medmerry and the proposed works in front of Bunn Leisure. This will have an impact on how and what sediment will move along the frontage and a BMP addressing the whole frontage should be produced once the details for both schemes are confirmed. The data and modelling used for both scheme should provide an excellent basis for the BMP. Milford on Sea Priority 3 BMPs should be carried out in 2013/14 Priority 3a: The Broomhill Sands to Folkestone frontage is generally covered by BMPs and by 2013, most of them would be between five and seven years old should be updated. Considering the entire frontage in one BMP should address the differences in design and beach parameters and would provide opportunities for considering sediment distribution between the presently individual frontages, taking into consideration the ten years of monitoring data and any drift reversal and its causes. Priority 3b: This category contains the single frontage BMPs of Preston and East Beach 9, Hillhead Harbour to Gilliker Point including Lee-on-Solent, Hurst Spit, Eastoke and Netley. Hurst Spit falls into this category largely because no information about the BMP has been received but it is assume that it is managed adequately. There could be a benefit in combining this BMP with Milford but without more information this is impossible to assess. Netley falls into this category because the proposed scheme needs to be implemented first, and a BMP should be produced with the scheme. Eastoke is a closed system with no interaction with neighbouring frontage and although having a very dated BMP, is managed by the LA using standard and more innovative monitoring methods, thus ensuring adequate management. The BMP needs to formalise these activities and can benefit from the BMP produced for West Selsey under priority 2c. The Hillhead Harbour to Gilliker Point BMP fall into this category because no information about the BMP or management along this frontage has been received and the generally sheltered location within the Solent suggests a low priority. Priority 4 BMPs should be carried out after 2013/14 The BMP for Chesil Beach has been produced in 2010 and although it has limitations, there does not seem to a high level of urgency for updating is for a frontage that largely relies on hard structures (gabion wall) for protection. Finally, because no information has been received on beach management around Thannet, the beaches appear reasonably healthy (e.g. north of Ramsgate), are in reasonably self contained 9 given the spatial limit of this review and the fact that these two sit within the EA Southwest programme their prioritisation should be assessed within the Southwest programme. 70 Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

72 pockets and the frontage is backed by cliffs with a fronting seawall, the urgency for creating a BMP appears to be very low. Priority Name MTP Title MTP start date Year Management type BMP type Lenght (km) Design parameters (yes/no) Beach parameters (yes/no) Annual cost 1a Pevensey Bay 2009 Formal Plan BMP 9.0 y y 500,000 1a Bulverhythe 2007 Formal Plan BMP 3.0 y y 300,000 1a Pett 2009 Formal Plan BMP 8.0 y y 180,000 1a Eastbourne Capital works Formal Plan BMP 2.4 y y 100,000 1a Hastings Harbour arm works 9999 Adhoc 4.5 n n 60,000 1a Bexhill 9999 Adhoc 0.0 n n 0 1b-2011 Arun DC frontage Capital recycling west of Adhoc 11.0 n n? River Arun 1.5mio 1b-2011 Pagham Spit Pagahm spit works Adhoc 1.1 n n? 1b-2011 Elmer Beach recharge Adhoc 1.6 n n 0 1b-2012 Worthing 9999 Adhoc 7.0 n n 100,000 1b-2012 Shoreham and 2003 Formal Plan BMP 0.8 y y 0 Lancing Sea Defences 1b-2013 Brighton and Hove 9999 Adhoc 9.5 n n 80,000 1c Seaford 1996 Formal Plan BMP 2.5 y y 400,000 2a Northern Seawall 1997 Adhoc PAR 4.5 n y 18,000 2a Herne Bay Herne Bay cosatal Adhoc 5.2 n n 14,500 defence strategy plan 2a Tankerton Scheme performance review Formal Plan BMP 3.5 y y 6,000 2b Kingsdown Emergency works Adhoc n n? 2b Sandwich 2006 Adhoc BMP 3.5 n y 4,000 2c West Selsey Beach management Adhoc n n? construction 1.5mio 2c Milford Capital scheme Adhoc n n? 3a 3a 3a Dungeness Power Station Hythe to Folkstone Hythe to Folkestone BMPupdate Littlestone to St Mary's 9999 Formal Plan BMP 1.0? y? Formal Plan PAR 8.0 n y 220, Formal Plan BMP 2.9 y y 0 3a Romney Sands 2007 Formal Plan BMP 0.8 n y 0 3a Denge 2008 Formal Plan BMP 8.0 n y 0 3b East Beach 2009 Formal Plan BMP 1.9 y y? 3b Preston Beach 2009 Formal Plan BMP 1.4 y y? 3b Lee on Solent 9999 Adhoc 0.0??? 3b Hurst Spit BMP update Formal Plan BMP 2.5??? 3b Eastoke Peninsula BMP update Formal Plan PAR 2.7 n y 90,000 - Beach 3b Netley Scheme Formal Plan PAR 0.7 y n 0 4a Chesil 2010 Formal Plan BMP 3.5 y y? 4a Thanet 9999 Adhoc 0.0??? Figure 27: Prioritisation table. First column shows the priority with the colour according to the year of production of the BMP. Frontage groups identified in 6.2 are coloured together in the Name column, frontages with MTP entries have the project title and start year, the later coloured by year. The BMP year is coloured in red for frontages where there is no BMP, orange for those produced before 2000, yellow before 2007 and green 2007 and later. Design and beach parameters are coloured with no as red and yes and green. Annual cost are coloured red those > 200k, orange > 50k and green below. Priority 1b is split into different financial years to account for different levels of urgency Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 71

73 6.4 Funding and Governance Funding for capital schemes or maintenance activity is usually restricted to a small frontage and applied for and granted on an annual basis that is tied to the financial year (April to March). Application for funds has lead-in times often exceeding 12 months. These factors make it impossible to carry out beach management on a 'needs only' basis, both spatially and temporarily, which is likely to lead to funding applications that relate to the 'worst case' and once the funding is granted, there is no incentive not to spend the funds as this might prejudice future funding. With the financial year ending in March, just shy of the highest equinoxial spring tides (usually end of March / beginning of April) and still within the period of the stormy winter season (e.g. severe storm on 11 th March 2008), chances are that funds will have been spent unnecessarily prior to an event just to ensure that they are spent within the financial year. Pool funds in time: For beach management that is carried out on a needs basis, annual variation can be in the range of between -40 to +25% (based on Pevensey experience). Such savings can only be achieved / higher expenses can only be accommodated, if funds can be carried over between financial years so that savings can be used to build up for years that require higher spent. Pool funds regionally: With frontages managed within Southern Region having vastly different storm and surge exposure 10 parts of the annual funding requirement variations could be absorbed through regional variations so that some flexibility could be achieved without the need to pool funds in time. The largest benefit with regard to flexibility of funding beach management would be to allocate funds on a regional (or coastal group) basis and allow for these funds to be carried over into following financial years. This approach would require for the funds to be managed by a group of operating authorities, which could be a subgroup of each Coastal Group or a group that cuts cross Coastal Groups boundaries. The benefits of having this management group are likely to be wider than just the better allocation of funds, as it would encourage exchange of beach management practice and forward planning for worst case scenarios North Kent suffering on northerly to easterly waves and from North Sea surges, different wave exposure for Seaford compared to Eastbourne to Hastings, etc 11 There exists the notion, that with reliance on recycling and reprofiling to manage flood and erosion risk, plant required to carry out these activities in emergency situations (in particular lowloaders that move plant between locations) maybe in short supply and the group could be responsible for prioritising sites if this becomes a requirement. It could also be the interface with the flood warning system and emergency services. 72 Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

74 7 Appendix 1 BMM chapter on BMP The following is the link to the publicly downloadable 12 BMM chapter 8: Management and Maintenance which contains sub-chapter "8.2 The Beach Management Plant" ntid=17648&directlistcomboind=d 12 To access the BMM for free, free registration with CIRIA is required. Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 73

75 8 Appendix 2 Clarification Note on Recycling and FDGiA 2011/12 FCRM Allocation Clarifying Note on MTP Construction (18 June 2010) Draft for inclusion in MTP Query log Treatment of Beach Recycling Work Guidance is to be changed to allow beach recycling operations undertaken by Local Authorities and the Environment Agency to be eligible for Capital FDGiA, provided they are part of a 5 year Beach Management Plan (see note below), formally approved by the Environment Agency or Defra. This approach; 1) Accords with the Memorandum Relating to Scheme Approvals and Grants to Local Authorities under The Coast Protection Act ) Acknowledges that, realistically, funding is unavailable from alternative grant aid sources (e.g. CLG). Consequently if beach recycling were designated as revenue spend authorities would be drawn to allowing beaches to deteriorate until a funding for a capital recharge scheme could be applied for. This would not be conducive to cost effective beach management. 3) Best matches the definition of reconditioning work used by the Environment Agency; - corrective work bringing an asset back to required operating condition - infrequent planned and recurring activities identified when the asset was commissioned as being required within its design life and which are undertaken at greater than five-yearly intervals; - activities where the cost of the works is no more than 250,000 (above this is Capital Maintenance); - activities where the cost of the works is no more than 20 per cent of the overall current replacement cost of the asset; - activities where the cumulative estimate of repair costs over a five-year period does not exceed 30 per cent of the current replacement cost of the asset. Annual re-grading work to beaches is more analogous to ongoing maintenance and as such continues to be classified as Revenue spend. Environment Agency Area Flood and Coastal Risk Managers should satisfy themselves that the correct approach has been adopted by all authorities for entries made in the MTP. Note: Due to the varying status and completeness of Beach Management Plans, this year, funding for beach recycling can be proposed where the activity has been identified under an agreed strategy or Shoreline Management Plan. As with other schemes full evidence (including costs and benefits) will be required, in accordance with the MTP format, to allow national prioritisation. Beach Management Plans will be required to support applications for FDGiA funding in future years. 74 Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

76 9 Appendix 3 Example mapping from Geodatabase The appendix contains a range of example maps from the geodatabase. The maps highlight some discrepancies between neighbouring frontages in the forcing factor but generally illustrate that there is very little information available for all sites. 1 in 100 year design wave height where available 1 in 100 year water level where available Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 75

77 Design Crest Height where available Design Crest Width where available Beach sediment D50 where available 76 Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England

78 Beach slope as 1 in x where available Average annual in 1000 where available. Note that Seaford and Eastbourne have been split into smaller sections so that annual cost for both of them would be 400k each Environment Agency Beach Management review for SE England 77

Review of Beach Management Plans and ad-hoc management in Southeast England

Review of Beach Management Plans and ad-hoc management in Southeast England Review of Beach Management Plans and ad-hoc management in Southeast England Authors: Uwe Dornbusch (uwe.dornbusch@environment-agency.gov.uk) Alex Cargo This report was collated by the Environment Agency

More information

Case study 64. Shoreham Harbour Shingle Bypassing and Recycling

Case study 64. Shoreham Harbour Shingle Bypassing and Recycling Case study 64. Shoreham Harbour Shingle Bypassing and Recycling Authors: Tony Parker, Uwe Dornbusch Main driver: Improved defences Project stage: Ongoing construction/operation since 1992 Photo 1: Shoreham

More information

Chiswell and Chesil Beach (to Wyke Narrows) 6a02 and 6a03 SUMMARY OF PREFERRED PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS AND JUSTIFICATION

Chiswell and Chesil Beach (to Wyke Narrows) 6a02 and 6a03 SUMMARY OF PREFERRED PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS AND JUSTIFICATION Location reference: Policy Unit reference: Plan: Chiswell and Chesil Beach (to Wyke Narrows) 6a02 and 6a03 SUMMARY OF PREFERRED PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS AND JUSTIFICATION The long term aim for this section

More information

NORTHERN CELL OPTIONS SHORTLIST RECOMMENDATIONS

NORTHERN CELL OPTIONS SHORTLIST RECOMMENDATIONS OPTIONS SHORTLIST RECOMMENDATIONS Coastal Unit C: Bayview Options recommended for MCDA scoring. Status quo. Planting 3. Renourishment (gravel) 6. Beach-scraping 7. Restore shingle crest. Inundation accommodation

More information

SHOREHAM BEACH LOCAL NATURE RESERVE

SHOREHAM BEACH LOCAL NATURE RESERVE SHOREHAM BEACH LOCAL NATURE RESERVE Coastal Geography Education Programme 2014-15 S. Savage 2014 COASTAL GEOGRAPHY OPPORTUNITIES Shoreham Beach Shoreham Beach is a shingle spit formed over many centuries

More information

Compiled by Uwe Dornbusch. Edited by Cherith Moses

Compiled by Uwe Dornbusch. Edited by Cherith Moses REPORT ON WAVE AND TIDE MEASUREMENTS Compiled by Uwe Dornbusch. Edited by Cherith Moses 1 Aims...1 2 Summary...1 3 Introduction...1 4 Site selection...1 5 Wave recorder settings...2 6 Results...2 6.1 Water

More information

Coastal Morphology Technical Note Lincshore. TN002/L/2013 March Title here in 8pt Arial (change text colour to black) i

Coastal Morphology Technical Note Lincshore. TN002/L/2013 March Title here in 8pt Arial (change text colour to black) i Coastal Morphology Technical Note Lincshore TN002/L/2013 March 2013 Title here in 8pt Arial (change text colour to black) i We are the Environment Agency. We protect and improve the environment and make

More information

SANDBANKS COAST PROTECTION

SANDBANKS COAST PROTECTION SANDBANKS COAST PROTECTION David Robson, Senior Engineer, Coastal & Drainage Team Borough of Poole Leisure Services (T) 01202 265265 (E) d.robson@poole.gov.uk May 2003 SANDBANKS COAST PROTECTION Introduction

More information

HURRICANE SANDY LIMITED REEVALUATION REPORT UNION BEACH, NEW JERSEY DRAFT ENGINEERING APPENDIX SUB APPENDIX D SBEACH MODELING

HURRICANE SANDY LIMITED REEVALUATION REPORT UNION BEACH, NEW JERSEY DRAFT ENGINEERING APPENDIX SUB APPENDIX D SBEACH MODELING HURRICANE SANDY LIMITED REEVALUATION REPORT UNION BEACH, NEW JERSEY DRAFT ENGINEERING APPENDIX SUB APPENDIX D SBEACH MODELING Rev. 18 Feb 2015 1 SBEACH Modeling 1.0 Introduction Following the methodology

More information

Beach profile surveys and morphological change, Otago Harbour entrance to Karitane May 2014 to June 2015

Beach profile surveys and morphological change, Otago Harbour entrance to Karitane May 2014 to June 2015 Beach profile surveys and morphological change, Otago Harbour entrance to Karitane May 2014 to June 2015 Prepared for Port Otago Ltd Martin Single September 2015 Shore Processes and Management Ltd Contact

More information

USE OF SEGMENTED OFFSHORE BREAKWATERS FOR BEACH EROSION CONTROL

USE OF SEGMENTED OFFSHORE BREAKWATERS FOR BEACH EROSION CONTROL .. CETN-III-22 4/84 PURPOSE: USE OF SEGMENTED OFFSHORE BREAKWATERS FOR BEACH EROSION CONTROL To provide information on the functional application of and general design considerations for using offshore

More information

SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED MANAGEMENT OPTION FOR STOCKTON BEACH APPLICATION OF 2D COASTAL PROCESSES MODELLING

SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED MANAGEMENT OPTION FOR STOCKTON BEACH APPLICATION OF 2D COASTAL PROCESSES MODELLING SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED MANAGEMENT OPTION FOR STOCKTON BEACH APPLICATION OF 2D COASTAL PROCESSES MODELLING C Allery 1 1 DHI Water and Environment, Sydney, NSW Abstract This paper presents an approach

More information

Llandudno Beach Management Plan and Options Appraisal

Llandudno Beach Management Plan and Options Appraisal Llandudno Beach Management Plan and Options Appraisal August, 2017 G.B. Edwards BEng (Hons) CEng FICE Head of, Mochdre Offices, Conway Road, Mochdre, Colwyn Bay, LL28 5AB. Tel. (01492) 574000 Fax. (01492)

More information

Reducing regional flood and erosion risk from wave action on the Channel Coast

Reducing regional flood and erosion risk from wave action on the Channel Coast Reducing regional flood and erosion risk from wave action on the Channel Coast Jack Eade, Channel Coastal Observatory Travis Mason, Channel Coastal Observatory Uwe Dornbusch, Environment Agency Tim Pullen,

More information

Julebæk Strand. Effect full beach nourishment

Julebæk Strand. Effect full beach nourishment Julebæk Strand Effect full beach nourishment Aim of Study This study is a part of the COADAPT funding and the aim of the study is to analyze the effect of beach nourishment. In order to investigate the

More information

Volume and Shoreline Changes along Pinellas County Beaches during Tropical Storm Debby

Volume and Shoreline Changes along Pinellas County Beaches during Tropical Storm Debby Volume and Shoreline Changes along Pinellas County Beaches during Tropical Storm Debby Ping Wang and Tiffany M. Roberts Coastal Research Laboratory University of South Florida July 24, 2012 Introduction

More information

Beachy Head to Selsey Bill Shoreline Management Plan. Appendix C: Baseline Process Understanding

Beachy Head to Selsey Bill Shoreline Management Plan. Appendix C: Baseline Process Understanding Beachy Head to Selsey Bill Shoreline Management Plan Appendix C: Baseline Process Understanding Beachy Head to Selsey Bill Shoreline Management Plan Appendix C: Baseline Process Understanding Contents

More information

New Jersey Coastal Zone Overview. The New Jersey Beach Profile Network (NJBPN) 3 Dimensional Assessments. Quantifying Shoreline Migration

New Jersey Coastal Zone Overview. The New Jersey Beach Profile Network (NJBPN) 3 Dimensional Assessments. Quantifying Shoreline Migration New Jersey Coastal Zone Overview The New Jersey Beach Profile Network (NJBPN) Objectives Profile Locations Data Collection Analyzing NJBPN Data Examples 3 Dimensional Assessments Methodology Examples Quantifying

More information

PUBLIC EXHIBITION OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR COLLAROY-NARRABEEN BEACH AND FISHERMANS BEACH

PUBLIC EXHIBITION OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR COLLAROY-NARRABEEN BEACH AND FISHERMANS BEACH ITEM 8.3 REPORTING MANAGER TRIM FILE REF 2014/110936 ATTACHMENTS PUBLIC EXHIBITION OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR COLLAROY-NARRABEEN BEACH AND FISHERMANS BEACH GROUP MANAGER NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 1

More information

# Post Consultation and Submissions Resource Consent Conditions for Surfing Impact Mitigation August 2016

# Post Consultation and Submissions Resource Consent Conditions for Surfing Impact Mitigation August 2016 # Post Consultation and Submissions Resource Consent Conditions for Surfing Impact Mitigation August 2016 Surf Mitigation Management Plan 1 1 Not less than 6 months prior to the commencement of the construction

More information

UPPER BEACH REPLENISHMENT PROJECT RELATED

UPPER BEACH REPLENISHMENT PROJECT RELATED ASSESSMENT OF SAND VOLUME LOSS at the TOWNSHIP of UPPER BEACH REPLENISHMENT PROJECT RELATED to the LANDFALL OF HURRICANE SANDY - PURSUANT TO NJ-DR 4086 This assessment is in response to Hurricane Sandy

More information

CHAPTER 8 ASSESSMENT OF COASTAL VULNERABILITY INDEX

CHAPTER 8 ASSESSMENT OF COASTAL VULNERABILITY INDEX 124 CHAPTER 8 ASSESSMENT OF COASTAL VULNERABILITY INDEX 8.1 INTRODUCTION In order to assess the vulnerability of the shoreline considered under this study against the changing environmental conditions,

More information

OECS Regional Engineering Workshop September 29 October 3, 2014

OECS Regional Engineering Workshop September 29 October 3, 2014 B E A C H E S. M A R I N A S. D E S I G N. C O N S T R U C T I O N. OECS Regional Engineering Workshop September 29 October 3, 2014 Coastal Erosion and Sea Defense: Introduction to Coastal/Marine Structures

More information

INTRODUCTION TO COASTAL ENGINEERING

INTRODUCTION TO COASTAL ENGINEERING The University of the West Indies Organization of American States PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME: COASTAL INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE A COURSE IN COASTAL DEFENSE SYSTEMS I CHAPTER

More information

Shoreline Response to an Offshore Wave Screen, Blairgowrie Safe Boat Harbour, Victoria, Australia

Shoreline Response to an Offshore Wave Screen, Blairgowrie Safe Boat Harbour, Victoria, Australia Shoreline Response to an Offshore Wave Screen, Blairgowrie Safe Boat Harbour, Victoria, Australia T.R. Atkins and R. Mocke Maritime Group, Sinclair Knight Merz, P.O. Box H615, Perth 6001, Australia ABSTRACT

More information

Impacts of breakwaters and training walls

Impacts of breakwaters and training walls Across the eastern seaboard of Australia, breakwaters and training walls have instigated fundamental perturbations to coastal and estuary processes. This has induced long-term changes to foreshore alignments,

More information

Australian Coastal Councils Conference

Australian Coastal Councils Conference Australian Coastal Councils Conference Kiama March 2019 Where Has My Beach Gone? (and what can I do about it?) Dr Andrew McCowan Water Technology Where Has My Beach Gone? Where Has My Beach Gone? Where

More information

RE: Hurricane Matthew Beach Damage Assessment and Recommendations [CSE 2416]

RE: Hurricane Matthew Beach Damage Assessment and Recommendations [CSE 2416] October 25, 2016 Iris Hill Town Administrator Town of Edisto Beach 2414 Murray St Edisto Beach SC 29438 RE: Hurricane Matthew Beach Damage Assessment and Recommendations [CSE 2416] Dear Iris, Hurricane

More information

Exemplar for Internal Assessment Resource Geography Level 3. Resource title: The Coastal Environment Kaikoura

Exemplar for Internal Assessment Resource Geography Level 3. Resource title: The Coastal Environment Kaikoura Exemplar for internal assessment resource Geography 3.5A for Achievement Standard 91430 Exemplar for Internal Assessment Resource Geography Level 3 Resource title: The Coastal Environment Kaikoura This

More information

Q1. What are the primary causes/contributors to coastal erosion at Westshore and the concept of longshore / littoral drift.

Q1. What are the primary causes/contributors to coastal erosion at Westshore and the concept of longshore / littoral drift. Q1. What are the primary causes/contributors to coastal erosion at Westshore and the concept of longshore / littoral drift. In order of (timing related) contribution to present problem 1. Beach is too

More information

Long Beach Island Holgate Spit Little Egg Inlet Historical Evolution Introduction Longshore Transport Map, Survey and Photo Historic Sequence

Long Beach Island Holgate Spit Little Egg Inlet Historical Evolution Introduction Longshore Transport Map, Survey and Photo Historic Sequence Appendix B Long Beach Island Holgate Spit Little Egg Inlet Historical Evolution Introduction The undeveloped southern end of Long Beach Island (LBI) is referred to as the Holgate spit as it adjoins the

More information

EX Beach Control Structures, Poole Numerical modelling of scheme options, Sandbanks to Branksome Dene Chine

EX Beach Control Structures, Poole Numerical modelling of scheme options, Sandbanks to Branksome Dene Chine EX 5763 Beach Control Structures, Poole Numerical modelling of scheme options, Sandbanks to Branksome Dene Chine Report EX 5763 Release 1.0 August 2008 Document Information Project Beach Control Structures,

More information

Appendix E Cat Island Borrow Area Analysis

Appendix E Cat Island Borrow Area Analysis Appendix E Cat Island Borrow Area Analysis ERDC/CHL Letter Report 1 Cat Island Borrow Area Analysis Multiple borrow area configurations were considered for Cat Island restoration. Borrow area CI1 is located

More information

North Shore of Long Island, Feasibility Study

North Shore of Long Island, Feasibility Study North Shore of Long Island, Asharoken New York Asharoken, Feasibility Study Asharoken, NY Public Meeting June 30, 2015 US Army Corps of Engineers US Army Corps of Engineers New York BUILDING STRONG BUILDING

More information

Taranaki Tsunami Inundation Analysis. Prepared for Taranaki Civil Defence Emergency Management Group. Final Version

Taranaki Tsunami Inundation Analysis. Prepared for Taranaki Civil Defence Emergency Management Group. Final Version Taranaki Tsunami Inundation Analysis Prepared for Taranaki Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Final Version June 2012 AM 12/07 HBRC Plan Number 4362 Asset Management Group Technical Report Prepared

More information

Reading Material. Inshore oceanography, Anikouchine and Sternberg The World Ocean, Prentice-Hall

Reading Material. Inshore oceanography, Anikouchine and Sternberg The World Ocean, Prentice-Hall Reading Material Inshore oceanography, Anikouchine and Sternberg The World Ocean, Prentice-Hall BEACH PROCESSES AND COASTAL ENVIRONMENTS COASTAL FEATURES Cross section Map view Terminology for Coastal

More information

Technical Brief - Wave Uprush Analysis Island Harbour Club, Gananoque, Ontario

Technical Brief - Wave Uprush Analysis Island Harbour Club, Gananoque, Ontario Technical Brief - Wave Uprush Analysis RIGGS ENGINEERING LTD. 1240 Commissioners Road West Suite 205 London, Ontario N6K 1C7 October 31, 2014 Table of Contents Section Page Table of Contents... i List

More information

Inspection of Clarence City Beaches following Winter 2011 Storm Events

Inspection of Clarence City Beaches following Winter 2011 Storm Events 18 July 2011 WRL Ref: WRL10086TDS L20110718 Messrs P Watson & I Preece Clarence City Council PO Box 96 Rosny Park TAS 7018 By email: pwatson@ccc.tas.gov.au ipreece@ccc.tas.gov.au Dear Phil/Ian, Inspection

More information

Management Area 19 Management Area 20 Management Area 21 Management Area 22. Mount s Bay West (The Greeb to Point Spaniard)

Management Area 19 Management Area 20 Management Area 21 Management Area 22. Mount s Bay West (The Greeb to Point Spaniard) PDZ: 8 Mount s Bay West (The Greeb to Point Spaniard) (Including Marazion and St Michael s Mount) Management Area 19 Management Area 20 Management Area 21 Management Area 22 Mount s Bay West (The Greeb

More information

Currents measurements in the coast of Montevideo, Uruguay

Currents measurements in the coast of Montevideo, Uruguay Currents measurements in the coast of Montevideo, Uruguay M. Fossati, D. Bellón, E. Lorenzo & I. Piedra-Cueva Fluid Mechanics and Environmental Engineering Institute (IMFIA), School of Engineering, Research

More information

Figure79. Location map for the 10 NJBPN profile sites in Atlantic County, NJ 155

Figure79. Location map for the 10 NJBPN profile sites in Atlantic County, NJ 155 154 Figure79. Location map for the 10 NJBPN profile sites in Atlantic County, NJ 155 ATLANTIC COUNTY SPRING 2009 to FALL 2010 The Atlantic County coastline consists of three barrier islands. Between Little

More information

LAKKOPETRA (GREECE) EUROSION Case Study. Contact: Kyriakos SPYROPOULOS. TRITON Consulting Engineers. 90 Pratinou Str Athens (GREECE)

LAKKOPETRA (GREECE) EUROSION Case Study. Contact: Kyriakos SPYROPOULOS. TRITON Consulting Engineers. 90 Pratinou Str Athens (GREECE) LAKKOPETRA (GREECE) Contact: Kyriakos SPYROPOULOS TRITON Consulting Engineers 90 Pratinou Str. 11634 Athens (GREECE) Tel: +32 10 729 57 61 Fax: +32 10 724 33 58 e-mail: kspyropoulos@tritonsa.gr 19 1 1.

More information

CHAPTER 281 INFLUENCE OF NEARSHORE HARDBOTTOM ON REGIONAL SEDIMENT TRANSPORT

CHAPTER 281 INFLUENCE OF NEARSHORE HARDBOTTOM ON REGIONAL SEDIMENT TRANSPORT CHAPTER 281 INFLUENCE OF NEARSHORE HARDBOTTOM ON REGIONAL SEDIMENT TRANSPORT Paul C.-P. Lin, Ph.D., P.E. 1 and R. Harvey Sasso, P.E. 2 ABSTRACT The influence of nearshore hardbottom on longshore and cross-shore

More information

AGGREGATE DREDGING AND THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT

AGGREGATE DREDGING AND THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT AGGREGATE DREDGING AND THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT The marine Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund ( marine ALSF ) programme represents one of the most substantial investments in UK marine research. The research

More information

Low-crested offshore breakwaters: a functional tool for beach management

Low-crested offshore breakwaters: a functional tool for beach management Environmental Problems in Coastal Regions VI 237 Low-crested offshore breakwaters: a functional tool for beach management K. Spyropoulos & E. Andrianis TRITON Consulting Engineers, Greece Abstract Beach

More information

DUNE STABILIZATION AND BEACH EROSION

DUNE STABILIZATION AND BEACH EROSION DUNE STABILIZATION AND BEACH EROSION CAPE HATTERAS NATIONAL SEASHORE NORTH CAROLINA ROBERT DOLAN PAUL GODFREY U. S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE OFFICE OF NATURAL SCIENCE WASHINGTON, D.

More information

Technical Brief - Wave Uprush Analysis 129 South Street, Gananoque

Technical Brief - Wave Uprush Analysis 129 South Street, Gananoque Technical Brief - Wave Uprush Analysis 129 South Street, Gananoque RIGGS ENGINEERING LTD. 1240 Commissioners Road West Suite 205 London, Ontario N6K 1C7 June 12, 2013 Table of Contents Section Page Table

More information

Pier 8 Wave Overtopping Analysis (65 Guise Street East) Our File:

Pier 8 Wave Overtopping Analysis (65 Guise Street East) Our File: Shoreplan Engineering Limited 55 Eglinton Avenue E., Suite 800 Toronto, ON Canada M4P 1G8 T) 416.487.4756 F) 416.487.5129 E) mail@shoreplan.com March 31, 2016 Mr. Ed English Senior Project Manager Waterfront

More information

Inlet Management Study for Pass-A-Grille and Bunces Pass, Pinellas County, Florida

Inlet Management Study for Pass-A-Grille and Bunces Pass, Pinellas County, Florida Inlet Management Study for Pass-A-Grille and Bunces Pass, Pinellas County, Florida Final Report Submitted By Ping Wang, Ph.D., Jun Cheng Ph.D., Zachary Westfall, and Mathieu Vallee Coastal Research Laboratory

More information

Chesil Beach, Dorset UK High energy, shingle coastline. Brighton Beach, Sussex UK Pebble beach

Chesil Beach, Dorset UK High energy, shingle coastline. Brighton Beach, Sussex UK Pebble beach Beaches: Depositional landform Extends from the highest high tide to the lowest low tide. Very important temporary store in coastal system. Accretion: sediment returning to the visible portion of a beach

More information

South Hayling Beach Management Plan. Beach Management Plan. Report Number: ESCP-HBC-SHBMP-001. Date : September Version : 2.

South Hayling Beach Management Plan. Beach Management Plan. Report Number: ESCP-HBC-SHBMP-001. Date : September Version : 2. South Hayling Beach Management Plan Beach Management Plan Report Number: ESCP-HBC-SHBMP-001 Date : September 2012 Version : 2.1 PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK ESCP-HBC-SHBMP-001 South Hayling Beach Management

More information

Compiled by R. Williams, edited by C. Moses. Not to be quoted without permission

Compiled by R. Williams, edited by C. Moses. Not to be quoted without permission BEACH RECHARGE IN SUSSEX & EAST KENT: A PRELIMINARY INVENTORY & OVERVIEW Compiled by R. Williams, edited by C. Moses. Not to be quoted without permission 1 Introduction...1 2 Inventory of beach recharge

More information

Evaluation of June 9, 2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Study for Town of Weymouth, Norfolk, Co, MA

Evaluation of June 9, 2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Study for Town of Weymouth, Norfolk, Co, MA Evaluation of June 9, 2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Study for Town of Weymouth, Norfolk, Co, MA Prepared For: Woodard & Curran 95 Cedar Street, Suite 100 Providence, RI 02903

More information

Shorelines Earth - Chapter 20 Stan Hatfield Southwestern Illinois College

Shorelines Earth - Chapter 20 Stan Hatfield Southwestern Illinois College Shorelines Earth - Chapter 20 Stan Hatfield Southwestern Illinois College The Shoreline A Dynamic Interface The shoreline is a dynamic interface (common boundary) among air, land, and the ocean. The shoreline

More information

APPLICATION OF SHORE PROTECTION SCHEMES IN HORNB^K Mads Peder J0rgensen ' Peer Skaarup 2 Karsten Mangor 3 J0rgen Juhl 4

APPLICATION OF SHORE PROTECTION SCHEMES IN HORNB^K Mads Peder J0rgensen ' Peer Skaarup 2 Karsten Mangor 3 J0rgen Juhl 4 APPLICATION OF SHORE PROTECTION SCHEMES IN HORNB^K Mads Peder J0rgensen ' Peer Skaarup 2 Karsten Mangor 3 J0rgen Juhl 4 ABSTRACT Hornbask Harbour was built more than a hundred years ago on a sandy coast

More information

THE WAVE CLIMATE IN THE BELGIAN COASTAL ZONE

THE WAVE CLIMATE IN THE BELGIAN COASTAL ZONE THE WAVE CLIMATE IN THE BELGIAN COASTAL ZONE Toon Verwaest, Flanders Hydraulics Research, toon.verwaest@mow.vlaanderen.be Sarah Doorme, IMDC, sarah.doorme@imdc.be Kristof Verelst, Flanders Hydraulics Research,

More information

Poole Bay, Poole Harbour and Wareham Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management. Final Strategy December Aerial photo credit: Kitchenham Ltd

Poole Bay, Poole Harbour and Wareham Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management. Final Strategy December Aerial photo credit: Kitchenham Ltd Poole Bay, Poole Harbour and Wareham Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Final Strategy December 2014 Aerial photo credit: Kitchenham Ltd 1 Foreword The Poole and Wareham Strategy area is one of

More information

AN OVERVIEW OF RECENT PROJECTS RELATED TO SAND BUDGETS, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BEACHES

AN OVERVIEW OF RECENT PROJECTS RELATED TO SAND BUDGETS, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BEACHES AN OVERVIEW OF RECENT PROJECTS RELATED TO SAND BUDGETS, SAND SUPPLY, COASTAL ARMORING, MANAGEMENT, AND VALUING SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BEACHES Dr. Kiki Patsch California State University Channel Islands Environmental

More information

April 7, Prepared for: The Caribbean Disaster Emergency Response Agency Prepared by: CEAC Solutions Co. Ltd.

April 7, Prepared for: The Caribbean Disaster Emergency Response Agency Prepared by: CEAC Solutions Co. Ltd. April 7, 2006 Prepared for: The Caribbean Disaster Emergency Response Agency Prepared by: Introduction CEAC Solutions Co. Ltd was commissioned in May 2005 to prepare coastal beach erosion hazard maps for

More information

Request Number IR1-12: Flow Passage. Information Request

Request Number IR1-12: Flow Passage. Information Request Request Number IR1-12: Flow Passage Information Request Provide additional information about the 100 metre flow passage channel scenario between the Westshore Terminals and the proposed Project terminal

More information

SACO RIVER AND CAMP ELLIS BEACH SACO, MAINE SECTION 111 SHORE DAMAGE MITIGATION PROJECT APPENDIX F ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

SACO RIVER AND CAMP ELLIS BEACH SACO, MAINE SECTION 111 SHORE DAMAGE MITIGATION PROJECT APPENDIX F ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT SACO RIVER AND CAMP ELLIS BEACH SACO, MAINE SECTION 111 SHORE DAMAGE MITIGATION PROJECT APPENDIX F ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Department of the Army New England District, Corps of Engineers 696 Virginia Road

More information

SPECIAL SPRING 2018 STORM REPORT ON THE CONDITION OF THE MUNICIPAL BEACHES FOR THE BOROUGH OF STONE HARBOR, CAPE MAY COUNTY, NEW JERSEY

SPECIAL SPRING 2018 STORM REPORT ON THE CONDITION OF THE MUNICIPAL BEACHES FOR THE BOROUGH OF STONE HARBOR, CAPE MAY COUNTY, NEW JERSEY SPECIAL SPRING 2018 STORM REPORT ON THE CONDITION OF THE MUNICIPAL BEACHES FOR THE BOROUGH OF STONE HARBOR, CAPE MAY COUNTY, NEW JERSEY Aerial photograph taken April 21, 2018 showing the view up the beach

More information

Poole Bay & Harbour Coastal Group

Poole Bay & Harbour Coastal Group Poole Bay & Harbour Coastal Group POOLE BA & HARBOUR STRATEG STUD Assessment of Flood and Coast Defence Options STUDLAND BA Contents Amendment Record This report has been issued and amended as follows:

More information

Absecon Island Shore Protection The planning behind the project

Absecon Island Shore Protection The planning behind the project Absecon Island Shore Protection The planning behind the project Most residents of Atlantic City, Ventnor, Margate and Longport are now aware of upcoming plans to protect their common coastline with a beachfill

More information

VENICE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM UPDATE: COASTAL HAZARDS WELCOME

VENICE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM UPDATE: COASTAL HAZARDS WELCOME VENICE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM UPDATE: COASTAL HAZARDS WELCOME 1 Introducing the Team Hosted by the Department of City Planning and grant funded in part by the California Coastal Commission 2 Workshop Purpose

More information

Bathing Water Profile - Carne (2017)

Bathing Water Profile - Carne (2017) Bathing Water Profile - Carne (2017) Bathing Water: Bathing Water Code: Local Authority: River Basin District: Monitoring Point: Carne IESEBWC050_0000_0300 Wexford County Council South Eastern 312952E,

More information

Atlantic Coast of Long Island, Jones Inlet to East Rockaway Inlet, Long Beach Island, NY Construction Update

Atlantic Coast of Long Island, Jones Inlet to East Rockaway Inlet, Long Beach Island, NY Construction Update Atlantic Coast of Long Island, Jones Inlet to East Rockaway Inlet, Long Beach Island, NY Construction Update June 2016 US Army Corps of Engineers Project Purpose Three specific damage mechanisms of coastal

More information

To: William Woods, Jenni Austin Job No: CentrePort Harbour Deepening Project - Comments on community queries

To: William Woods, Jenni Austin Job No: CentrePort Harbour Deepening Project - Comments on community queries Memo To: William Woods, Jenni Austin From: Richard Reinen-Hamill Date: Subject: cc: 1 Purpose This memo sets out our response to issues raised at and after Seatoun community consultation sessions held

More information

DRAFT. Management Area 19 Management Area 20 Management Area 21 Management Area 22

DRAFT. Management Area 19 Management Area 20 Management Area 21 Management Area 22 PDZ: 8 Mounts Bay West (The Greeb to Point Spaniard) (Including Marazion and St Michael s Mount) Management Area 19 Management Area 20 Management Area 21 Management Area 22 Mounts Bay West (The Greeb to

More information

RI Regulatory Setbacks & Buffers: Coastal Management Issues

RI Regulatory Setbacks & Buffers: Coastal Management Issues RI Regulatory Setbacks & Buffers: Coastal Management Issues New England Onsite Wastewater Training Program @ URI OWT 155 - November 29, 2012 James Boyd - Coastal Policy Analyst Photo: October 30, 2012

More information

IMPACTS OF COASTAL PROTECTION STRATEGIES ON THE COASTS OF CRETE: NUMERICAL EXPERIMENTS

IMPACTS OF COASTAL PROTECTION STRATEGIES ON THE COASTS OF CRETE: NUMERICAL EXPERIMENTS IMPACTS OF COASTAL PROTECTION STRATEGIES ON THE COASTS OF CRETE: NUMERICAL EXPERIMENTS Tsanis, I.K., Saied, U.M., Valavanis V. Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Crete, Chania,

More information

COUPLED MANAGEMENT STRATEGY LAKE CATHIE ESTUARY & COAST

COUPLED MANAGEMENT STRATEGY LAKE CATHIE ESTUARY & COAST Lake Cathie Progress Association Inc. ABN 28 251 433 854 P.O. Box 247 Lake Cathie NSW 2445 PHONE/FAX: 02 6584 8211 EMAIL: r3packag@bigpond.com 20 th October 2009 Port Macquarie Hastings Council PO Box

More information

GONE! Coastal Erosion Happens During Storms! Why Worry About Coastal Setbacks? Goals for Today

GONE! Coastal Erosion Happens During Storms! Why Worry About Coastal Setbacks? Goals for Today RI Regulatory Setbacks & Buffers: Coastal Zone Management Issues New England Onsite Wastewater Training Program @ URI OWT 155 November 21, 2013 Goals for Today Understand the impacts of storms, coastal

More information

COASTAL ENVIRONMENTS. 454 lecture 12

COASTAL ENVIRONMENTS. 454 lecture 12 COASTAL ENVIRONMENTS Repeated movement of sediment & water constructs a beach profile reflecting the balance between average daily or seasonal wave forces and resistance of landmass to wave action Coasts

More information

CROSS-SHORE SEDIMENT PROCESSES

CROSS-SHORE SEDIMENT PROCESSES The University of the West Indies Organization of American States PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME: COASTAL INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE A COURSE IN COASTAL DEFENSE SYSTEMS I CHAPTER

More information

Delaware Chapter Surfrider Foundation - Indian River Inlet Monitoring

Delaware Chapter Surfrider Foundation - Indian River Inlet Monitoring Delaware Chapter Surfrider Foundation - Indian River Inlet Monitoring In 2012, the Delaware Surfrider Foundation Chapter formed the Surf Quality and Access Committee to focus on issues such as surf spot

More information

General Coastal Notes + Landforms! 1

General Coastal Notes + Landforms! 1 General Coastal Notes + Landforms! 1 Types of Coastlines: Type Description Primary Coast which is essentially in the same condition when sea level stabilized Coastline after the last ice age, younger.

More information

EXISTING AND PLANNED STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS CONNECTED WITH COASTAL PROTECTION IN ASPECT OF PREDICTED SEA LEVEL RISE

EXISTING AND PLANNED STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS CONNECTED WITH COASTAL PROTECTION IN ASPECT OF PREDICTED SEA LEVEL RISE EXISTING AND PLANNED STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS CONNECTED WITH COASTAL PROTECTION IN ASPECT OF PREDICTED SEA LEVEL RISE Andrzej Cieślak Long term coastal protection strategy In 2000 a new 1 Polish long term

More information

Habitat Development: Habitat Boulders Lawson Pier Foreshore Enhancement

Habitat Development: Habitat Boulders Lawson Pier Foreshore Enhancement Habitat Development: Habitat Boulders Improve the existing habitat by stabilising beach sediments. Increase biodiversity by creating new habitats and colonisation opportunities. Loose cobble is unstable;

More information

Oceans and Coasts. Chapter 18

Oceans and Coasts. Chapter 18 Oceans and Coasts Chapter 18 Exploring the oceans The ocean floor Sediments thicken and the age of the seafloor increases from ridge to shore The continental shelf off the northeast United States Constituent

More information

REVETMENTS. Purposes and Operational Constraints. Purposes Erosion control o o. Revetment Design 4/5/2016. CE A676 Coastal Engineering

REVETMENTS. Purposes and Operational Constraints. Purposes Erosion control o o. Revetment Design 4/5/2016. CE A676 Coastal Engineering REVETMENTS Ijsseldam, the Netherlands Orson P. Smith, PE, Ph.D. Instructor Purposes and Operational Constraints Purposes Erosion control o o Embankment Toe protection for a seawall, retaining wall or other

More information

March Maidstone Integrated Transport Strategy Boxley Parish Council Briefing Note. Context. Author: Parish Clerk 2 March 2016

March Maidstone Integrated Transport Strategy Boxley Parish Council Briefing Note. Context. Author: Parish Clerk 2 March 2016 Context. Author: Parish Clerk 2 The Draft Integrated Transport Policy (DITS) sets out a vision and objectives, and identifies a detailed programme of interventions to support the Maidstone Borough Local

More information

VLH Ltd, Nereide Ltd, Saltlake Resorts Ltd Proposed Beach Erosion Protection Works at Bel Ombre Environmental Impact Assessment

VLH Ltd, Nereide Ltd, Saltlake Resorts Ltd Proposed Beach Erosion Protection Works at Bel Ombre Environmental Impact Assessment VLH Ltd, Nereide Ltd, Saltlake Resorts Ltd Proposed Beach Erosion Protection Works at Bel Ombre TATO/EIA/01 Issue 15 February 2017 This report takes into account the particular instructions and requirements

More information

Implications of proposed Whanganui Port and lower Whanganui River dredging

Implications of proposed Whanganui Port and lower Whanganui River dredging PO Box 637 Wanganui 4540 Attention: Rowan McGregor Dear Rowan 1 Summary We understand that it has been proposed to bring large vessels into the Port at Whanganui requiring the excavation of a channel up

More information

ALTERNATIVES FOR COASTAL STORM DAMAGE MITIGATION

ALTERNATIVES FOR COASTAL STORM DAMAGE MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES FOR COASTAL STORM DAMAGE MITIGATION Dave Basco Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, USA National Park Service Photo STRUCTURAL (changes to natural, physical system) hardening (seawalls,

More information

Draft Coastal Zone Management Plan for Byron Shire Coastline

Draft Coastal Zone Management Plan for Byron Shire Coastline Byron Shire Council Draft Coastal Zone Management Plan for Byron Shire Coastline 26 November 2010 #1030842 Presentation Outline o o o o o o o Brief Byron Shire erosion history What is a CZMP? Why Develop

More information

INTRODUCTION TO COASTAL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT

INTRODUCTION TO COASTAL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT Advanced Series on Ocean Engineering Volume 16 INTRODUCTION TO COASTAL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT J. William Kamphuis Queen's University, Canada World Scientific Singapore New Jersey London Hong Kong Contents

More information

Environmental Protection on the Gold Coast of Queensland, Australia. 1. What is the appeal of the Gold Coast to tourists?

Environmental Protection on the Gold Coast of Queensland, Australia. 1. What is the appeal of the Gold Coast to tourists? Environmental Protection on the Gold Coast of Queensland, Australia Sections 1. What is the appeal of the Gold Coast to tourists? 2. How are Gold Coast visitor trends changing? 3. How can the impacts of

More information

Coastal Change and Conflict

Coastal Change and Conflict Coastal Change and Conflict Outline of the Topic Contrasting Coasts why do all coasts not look the same? Geology of the coast the impact rock structure has on the coastline Waves Constructive and destructive

More information

SEDIMENT BUDGET OF LIDO OF PELLESTRINA (VENICE) Written by Marcello Di Risio Under the supervision of Giorgio Bellotti and Leopoldo Franco

SEDIMENT BUDGET OF LIDO OF PELLESTRINA (VENICE) Written by Marcello Di Risio Under the supervision of Giorgio Bellotti and Leopoldo Franco SEDIMENT BUDGET OF LIDO OF PELLESTRINA (VENICE) Written by Marcello Di Risio Under the supervision of Giorgio Bellotti and Leopoldo Franco Table of contents: 1. Introduction...3 2. Protection structures

More information

STATUS REPORT FOR THE SUBMERGED REEF BALL TM ARTIFICIAL REEF SUBMERGED BREAKWATER BEACH STABILIZATION PROJECT FOR THE GRAND CAYMAN MARRIOTT HOTEL

STATUS REPORT FOR THE SUBMERGED REEF BALL TM ARTIFICIAL REEF SUBMERGED BREAKWATER BEACH STABILIZATION PROJECT FOR THE GRAND CAYMAN MARRIOTT HOTEL August 23 STATUS REPORT FOR THE SUBMERGED REEF BALL TM ARTIFICIAL REEF SUBMERGED BREAKWATER BEACH STABILIZATION PROJECT FOR THE GRAND CAYMAN MARRIOTT HOTEL performed by Lee E. Harris, Ph.D., P.E. Consulting

More information

HARBOUR SEDIMENTATION - COMPARISON WITH MODEL

HARBOUR SEDIMENTATION - COMPARISON WITH MODEL HARBOUR SEDIMENTATION - COMPARISON WITH MODEL ABSTRACT A mobile-bed model study of Pointe Sapin Harbour, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, resulted in construction of a detached breakwater and sand trap to

More information

The Masterplan Coastal Safety: a wave of opportunities

The Masterplan Coastal Safety: a wave of opportunities The Masterplan Coastal Safety: a wave of opportunities In depth coastal research and state of the art maritime technology SPINCAM WEEK FLANDERS: OSTEND EVENT FEBRUARY 16-18th 2016 elias.vanquickelborne@mow.vlaanderen.be

More information

Beach Profiles. Topics. Module 9b Beach Profiles and Crossshore Sediment Transport 3/23/2016. CE A676 Coastal Engineering

Beach Profiles. Topics. Module 9b Beach Profiles and Crossshore Sediment Transport 3/23/2016. CE A676 Coastal Engineering Beach Profiles AND CROSS-SHORE TRANSPORT Orson P. Smith, PE, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus Topics Features of beach and nearshore profiles Equilibrium profiles Cross-shore transport References Text (Sorensen)

More information

Table 4. Volumetric Change Rates Pre-Project and Post-Project for the Town of Duck

Table 4. Volumetric Change Rates Pre-Project and Post-Project for the Town of Duck V. VOLUMETRIC CHANGES General Volumetric changes measured over the entire monitoring area for various time periods are provided in Table 4. The volume changes are given in terms of cubic yards/foot of

More information

CLAM PASS ANNUAL RESTORATION & MANAGEMENT PLAN TIDAL ANALYSIS ELEMENT REPORT NO. 13

CLAM PASS ANNUAL RESTORATION & MANAGEMENT PLAN TIDAL ANALYSIS ELEMENT REPORT NO. 13 CLAM PASS ANNUAL RESTORATION & MANAGEMENT PLAN TIDAL ANALYSIS ELEMENT REPORT NO. 13 Submitted to: Pelican Bay Services Division Prepared by: Humiston & Moore Engineers H&M File No. 13-078 November 2012

More information

Figure 4, Photo mosaic taken on February 14 about an hour before sunset near low tide.

Figure 4, Photo mosaic taken on February 14 about an hour before sunset near low tide. The Impact on Great South Bay of the Breach at Old Inlet Charles N. Flagg and Roger Flood School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, Stony Brook University Since the last report was issued on January 31

More information

storms and coastal defences at chiswell

storms and coastal defences at chiswell storms and coastal defences at chiswell What is this booklet about? This booklet provides information about: How Chesil Beach and the Fleet Lagoon formed and how it has changed over the last 100 years

More information

MESSOLOGI LAGOON AREA (GREECE)

MESSOLOGI LAGOON AREA (GREECE) MESSOLOGI LAGOON AREA (GREECE) 20 Contact: Kyriakos SPYROPOULOS TRITON Consulting Engineers 90 Pratinou Str. 11634 Athens (GREECE) Tel: +32 10 729 57 61 Fax: +32 10 724 33 58 e-mail: kspyropoulos@tritonsa.gr

More information

Broad Beach Sand & Dune Habitat Restoration Project. Revetment Owners Meeting July 12, 2017

Broad Beach Sand & Dune Habitat Restoration Project. Revetment Owners Meeting July 12, 2017 Broad Beach Sand & Dune Habitat Restoration Project Revetment Owners Meeting July 12, 2017 Status of Project Entitlement Coastal Commission CDP approved 10/15 (consolidated with City of Malibu), PTI conditions

More information