River Hamble to Portsmouth Harbour Entrance

1. INTRODUCTION - References Map

This is a coastline of low elevation and relief, with a north-west to south-east orientation except for the easternmost sector between Gilkicker Point and Fort Blockhouse. It is delimited to the northwest by the Hamble estuary (Photo 1) and in the south east by the entrance to Portsmouth Harbour (Photo 2) forming a distinct sub-cell within the wider Solent context (Bray et al. 2000). The outfall of the River Meon at Hill Head Harbour interrupts the shoreline continuity, but the overall planform is relatively linear with the shallow arcuate form of Stokes Bay, Gosport and a smaller embayment at Hill Head.

It is developed in Tertiary (Eocene) rocks and overlying Quaternary fluvial and niveo-fluvial sediments, which provide sands, silts, clays and gravels of low resistance to the modest erosional energy of waves in the eastern Solent. Either drift materials or protection structures largely conceal Sandy Eocene strata, but they do outcrop across the foreshore and at the base of the cliffs west of Hill Head (Photo 3). Gravel beaches are continuous along the entire frontage, with groyne and promenade protection between western Browndown and Hill Head (Photo 4 and Photo 5); most of the rest of the beach environment is undefended (Photo 6) except for sea walls between Gilkicker Point and Portsmouth Harbour entrance - see Photo 7 (Oranjiewould, 1991). Natural cliffs, up to 12 m in height, developed in Plateau Gravel and Bracklesham Sands, are developed between western Lee-on-the-Solent and Solent Breezes; however, the former cliff line in the central and eastern parts of Lee-on-the-Solent has been artificially regraded and protected. The seawall east of Gilkicker (Photo 7) is one of the most long-established protection structures in the SCOPAC region, and conceals the foundations of the Haslar spit that projects into, and helps define, the mouth of Portsmouth Harbour.

The representativeness of recent erosion rates was supported by seismic studies of the buried channels of the Solent River (Dyer, 1975). These studies indicated that the main channel of the Itchen and Test proto-tributaries ran across what is now the tip of Calshot Spit, 1.8km distant from Solent Breezes. Contemporary erosion averaging 0.22ma^-1 at Solent Breezes (Hooke and Riley 1987) gives total retreat of 1.1km over the past 5000 years, which is slightly less than the actual loss suggesting that erosion mar have been more rapid in the past. This scale of retreat would indicate a considerable potential for supply of sands and gravels from river terrace gravel that mantle the land eroded so that much of the coarse sediments which now comprises Browndown, Spit Sand and Hamilton Bank could have been derived from this source over the past 4-5000 years. Lonsdale (1969) noted the similarity of gravels from the offshore banks to Plateau Gravels exposed in contemporary cliffs that supports this hypothesis. Rates of coastline recession, and thus release of sediment, were probably faster in earlier millennia in the absence of the wide dissipative inter-tidal terrace that has developed subsequently.

A history of long-term cliff erosion and beach depletion is partly offset by the development of accretion structures, particularly the cuspate forelands at Gilkicker (Photo 8) and Browndown (Photo 9). The latter has accumulated as a closely-spaced set of both shore-normal and oblique shingle ridges in a former shoreline embayment. Saltern's Park, Hill Head (Photo 5), a smaller inset of the coastline has been cut off, and recently reclaimed, by the growth of a small gravel barrier. Complex patterns of bars and banks, some orthogonal to the coastline, occur in the inter-tidal and nearshore environments between Lee-on-the -Solent and Hill Head.

Wave action along this sector is relatively weak, with no significant penetration of residual swell waves further west than Gilkicker Point (HR Wallingford, 1997). The shoreline between the Hamble and Hill Head receives waves propagated across the 12km fetch of the western and central Solent, which includes occasional local storm waves in excess of 1.2m in height (HR Wallingford, 1995). East of Gilkicker Point, the wave climate is dominated by the fetch distance extending eastwards to Hayling Bay and Selsey Bill. Significant wave height is in the order of 0.6m, but modified storm waves up to 1.5m height are incident during periods of strong and sustained easterly winds. Waver from this direction can also refract around Gigkicker Point to oblikely strike the shoreline as far to the north west as Hill Head. Changes of coastline orientation with respect to potential fetch directions and propagation distances are crucial to the wave climate of each specific sector of this shoreline. Wave climates have been constructed by hindcasting for several points by HR Wallingford, (1995) and by Halcrow and Partners (1993) and Halcrow Maritime (2001). The latter study involved assessment of the effects of a climate change scenarion up to 2080 and it was determined that wave energy might slightly decrease in future due to the sheltering effects of the Isle of Wight that reduce the impacts of waves generated in the English Channel. Field observations of wave frequencies, wave heights and wind speeds have been collected by the Coastguard Agency and the former Naval Air Station (HMS Daedalus), both at Lee-on-the-Solent.

Tidal currents operate parallel to the shoreline, but low velocities, which do not exceed 1.2msec^-1 on the flood stream, are the result of dissipation by the wide and shallow shoreface (Price and Townend, 2000). Sediment transport in the littoral zone is almost entirely due to breaking waves, but the relative contributions of long- and cross-shore movements have not been determined (Wheeler, 1979; Barnett, 1994; HR Wallingford, 1997).

2. SEDIMENT INPUTS - References Map

The coastal segment between the River Hamble and Portsmouth Harbour Entrance is effectively isolated from westward littoral drift input by Portsmouth Harbour entrance (Harlow 1980). The mouth of the River Hamble forms a similar boundary to the north-west. Studies have not ruled out the possibility of littoral drift across the entrance to the Hamble, where tidal currents are likely to predominate over wave action, but drift is weak (Wheeler 1979; HR Wallingford, 1995). Sediment transport is therefore likely to be along the tidal channel rather than across it. Regular hydrographic surveys close to the Hamble entrance have been undertaken (ABP, 1994b) but these do not provide direct evidence of sediment transport. However, there may be some by-passing of a transient littoral drift barrier at Solent Breezes, as well as the mouth of the Hamble, by suspended sediment (Bray et al., 1995).

Sediment input from fluvial sources is possible from the rivers Hamble and Meon, but is relatively insignificant. Both rivers derive part of their flow from the Chalk and consequently have fairly stable discharges (Webber, 1980). Supply of suspended sediments is therefore limited to the sub-catchments of both rivers underlain by Eocene sands and clays and drift sediments. Peak discharges may not be sufficient to supply significant quantities of coarse materials by bedload (Rendel Geotechnics and University of Portsmouth, 1996). The Meon flows into Tichfield Haven, a freshwater lagoon and marsh that has formed within the infilled and reclaimed former estuary of the Meon that extended inland to Titchfield up until the mid-seventeenth century (Photo 10). Thus, it is likely that any sediment transported by the river is deposited and stored in this area rather than transferred to the littoral zone.

2.1 Offshore to Onshore Feed - F1 F2 References Map

F1 Salterns Park

The inter-tidal shoreline between Portsmouth Harbour entrance and the mouth of the River Hamble has been relatively poorly mapped, so except for two notable exceptions, it is difficult to identify firm evidence for onshore sediment feed. The beach at Salterns Park (Photo 5) is an unusual feature for it comprised an onshore migrating gravel barrier bar separated from the base of relic cliffs by a freshwater marsh over 100m wide (Brumhead, 1963). Onshore migration of this feature was measured at a rate of 0.67ma^-1 for the period 1859-1964 (Hooke and Riley, 1987) and 1.9ma^-1 for the period 1954-1962 (Lewis and Duvivier, 1962). The source of this sediment is uncertain, but a series of onshore migrating swash bars identified on the lower foreshore clearly indicate potential for onshore feed. Beach profile information (Environment Agency ABMS) between 1983 and 1990 indicated onshore migration of a bar feature at 8.0ma^-1 to 11.0ma^-1 (1984-88). However it was uncertain whether this was a new barrier migrating onshore or an artefact of inconsistencies and errors of profile analysis (Korab, 1990). The morphology and behaviour of the beach at Salterns Park suggests that onshore gravel feed may have created a barrier feature at some distance seawards from the extant cliffline. Onshore migration, possibly supported by continued sediment supply, must have operated over the previous 100 to 150 years to create the landform described by Brumhead (1963). Evidence provided by more recent beach profiles is inconclusive (Oranjiewould, 1991), so the present day possibility of beach progradation remains uncertain. Offshore/nearshore barrier and bar topography is both complex and long-established, as evidenced by the presence of a Neolithic occupation site at Rainbow Bar (Hack, 1998; 1999).

F2 Meon Shore

A series of unusual bar-like features have been identified on the lower foreshore immediately to the west of Hill Head Harbour (Photo 10 and Photo 11). The features appear long established and are possibly indicative of onshore supply of gravel at this point. A possible explanation is that they could represent residual onshore feed from an abandoned ebb tidal delta on the foreshore that would have been active at a time when Tichfield Haven was an estuary.

2.2 Fluvial Input - FL1 FL2 FL3 References Map

FL1 Brownwich Stream

A small, but significant, delta of gravel exists at the mouth of the Brownwich Stream (Korab, 1990). It is not known whether this represents a low frequency, high magnitude flood deposit from the stream or whether it could be explained by interruption of littoral drift by foreshore obstructions.

FL2 Meon and Hamble Rivers

Rendel Geotechnics and the University of Portsmouth (1996) estimate that the Meon and Hamble would both supply a suspended load of some 2.500 tonnes a^-1 and a bedload input of somewhat in excess of 700 tonnes a^-1. Actual delivery to the coastal zone may be less than 25% of these totals owing to the availability of natural and artificial sediment stores in both river systems. In particular, the Meon flows into Tichfield Haven, a freshwater lagoon and marsh that has formed within the reclaimed former estuary of the Meon (Photo 10), thus, it is likely that any sediment transported by the river is deposited and stored in this area rather than transferred to the littoral zone.

FL3 Alver River

The present day mouth of the Alver to the immediate east of Browndown is associated with a small cuspate delta. As the river drains a small catchment of negligible relief, sediment input is likely to be small. It is uncertain if this feature is a partly relict form, related to the discharge of the Alver before its mouth was blocked and its course diverted eastwards within a culvertdue to the growth of the Browndown gravel foreland.

2.3 Coast Erosion - E1 E2 E3 References Map

Low eroding cliffs between Hill Head are rich in gravel and sand and have been estimated to yield between 5,000 to 7,000m³a^-1of there materials to local beaches. An additonal 1,000 to 1,000m³a^-1 of fine sediment is also yielded.

E1 Hook Park to Solent Breezes (see introduction to coastal erosion)

Low eroding cliffs of Tertiary sands and silts overlain by Quaternary gravel extend up to 400m west of Solent Breezes. The erosion rate has been calculated as 0.28ma^-1 using comparison of Ordnance Survey maps covering the period 1910-1964 (Hooke and Riley, 1987). Assuming a mean cliff height of 3m (Wheeler 1979), coast erosion input can be estimated at 112m³a^-1 of predominantly fine sediments. Posford Duvivier (1997) suggest the higher figure of up to 400m³a^-1, based on the estimation of local cliff lithology at 30% gravel and 70% sand-silt. Sand is retained on the lower beach, but finer materials are unstable on the foreshore and are transported into the Eastern Solent.

E2 Solent Breezes to Brownwich Stream (see introduction to coastal erosion)

Although the a 500m length of the Solent Breezes frontage is currently protected (Photo 12) and probably contributes little sediment, the cliffs immediately to the east are actively eroding by both marine and sub-aerial processes (Wheeler, 1979; Hydraulics Research, 1987; Korab, 1990; HR Wallingford, 1995; 1997). A long-term erosion rate of 0.22ma^-1 is calculated by Hooke and Riley (1987) for the period 1910-1964. Measurement of the cliff foot position during beach profiling in 1978 indicated accelerated erosion at 0.57ma^-1 over the period 1964-1978 (Wheeler, 1979). The cliffs are composed of sandy clays of the Eocene Bracklesham Formation, capped by a thick unit of Plateau Gravel. Sampling of cliff materials from three sites yielded a mean composition of 52% gravel (>4mm), 31% sand (>0.125mm) and 17% silt and clay (Wheeler, 1979). Combination of mean erosion rate, sediment composition, average cliff height (10m) and cliff length (1200m) produced the following supply rates:

These input rates were supported by volumetric calculations based on field observations of cliff falls supplying sediment to the beach (Wheeler, 1979), Posford Duvivier (1997), however, propose a lower yield, of between 3,500 and 4,000m³a^-1, assuming a cliff composition of 55% gravel and 45% sand and clay.

E3 Brownwich Farm to Hill Head (see introduction to coastal erosion)

Field observations of this segment revealed cliffs of a mean height of 9m, with western parts eroding strongly (Photo 3) and eastern parts degraded and vegetated, indicating intermittent retreat (Korab, 1990). A long-term erosion rate, of between 0.1 to 0.2ma^-1 was calculated by Hooke and Riley (1987) and Bray and Hooke (1997) covering the period 1870-1964. Posford Duvivier (1997; 1999) suggest a rate of between 0.1 to 0.6ma^-1 using the same evidence with the addition of two intermediate map revisions that reveal a tendency for more rapid erosion of western parts. Lithological composition is similar to the cliffs further west (Korab, 1990) so integration of available information indicates the following sediment input for this 1100m long segment:

At Meon Shore, the cliffs are of lower elevation and almost completely vegetated, being protected by a wide beach and shore platform, which thereby suppresses potential erosion rates. Further east between Hill Head and Salterns Park a line of degraded and vegetated cliffs is set back from the shingle beach (Brumhead, 1963; Korab, 1990). Although previously subject to marine erosion, the cliffs have been protected by an onshore migrating coarse clastic barrier and cannot have supplied sediment to the beach for over 100 years (Brumhead, 1963). Eastward, at Lee-on-the-Solent, significant cliff erosion occurred until 1959 when the cliffs were regraded and protected by a seawall. Erosion averaged 0.34ma^-1 for the period 1909-1959 (Brumhead, 1963) and 0.28ma^-1 for the period 1860-1964 (Hooke and Riley, 1987). It is not possible to determine precisely the detailed character of previous supply, although Lewis and Duvivier (1954), Everard (1954) and Lonsdale (1969) report that a thickness of up to 5m of Plateau Gravel composed most of the cliff height. All of the coast eastwards to Elmore is protected and therefore yields no sediment from cliff erosion.

For the entire eroding sector between Solent Breezes and Hill Head, Posford Duvivier (1997) estimate an annual input of 8,100m³ of all types of sediment, of which 4,000m>³ is sufficiently coarse (mostly gravel) to be retained in the beach drift transport system.

2.4 Beach Nourishment - N1 References Map

At Meon Shore, replenishment by 3,000m>³ of quarry gravel was undertaken in the mid 1980s in conjunction with the construction of a new sea wall and groynes. From here eastward to Lee-on-the-Solent, a continuous sea wall and groynes protect the coast, with different parts defended at different times. At Hill Head, groynes were present in the 1950s causing accretion and reduction of eastward drift potential (Lewis and Duvivier, 1954).

N1 Lee-on-the-Solent Replenishment Scheme, 1996 (see introduction to Beach Nourishment)

Downdrift beaches at Lee-on-the-Solent were starved of sediment supply by defences updrift, but were at that time ungroyned and unable to retain sediment; thus beach levels fell and cliff erosion occurred (Lewis and Duvivier, 1957; Bray, 1993). Construction of a sea wall and groynes halted cliff retreat in the late 1950's, but did not improve beach levels because fresh supply was intercepted by groynes updrift and the cliffs backing the beach no longer contributed sediments. During the early 1990s the bedrock beneath the beach was lowered, the seawall was undermined and damaged and the defences also caused terminal scour and a set back of the coastline at their eastern terminal point. Beach replenishment was suggested as the most suitable method by which beach levels could be improved (Lewis and Duvivier, 1957), but this recommendation was not implemented until 1996, when a substantial recharge of the entire Lee-on-the-Solent frontage was completed (Halcrow and Partners 1996). This involved the introduction of 300,000m>³of gravel obtained from the dredging of the main navigation channel in Southampton Water, together with profile regrading and the construction of eleven rock groynes (Photo 4). This beach extends across part of the previously exposed foreshore; with wave run up excluded some 30m seawards of the sea wall to provide a high degree of protection (Fowler 1998; Banyard and Fowler, 2000).

3. LITTORAL TRANSPORT - LT1 LT2 LT3 LT4 References Map

LT1 Hook Spit to Solent Breezes

Littoral drift pathways have been determined from established patterns of erosion and accretion adjacent to foreshore obstructions such as sewer outfalls (Wheeler, 1979; Korab, 1990; HR Wallingford, 1997). The form of Hook Spit, which displays a well developed distal recurve (Photo 1) is clearly the product of wave and tidal current induced north westwards drift, which extends eastwards from an inferred partial, probably transient, littoral transport divergence at Solent Breezes. Evidence of progressive increases in beach levels east and west of this location is provided by Wheeler (1979). HR Wallingford (1995), have modelled drift based on a hindcast wave climate covering the period 1971-1991. For Hook Spit they determined a potential net westwards drift of around 300 m³a^-1, with mean annual variations from 200 m³a^-1 to the east to 600 m³a^-1 to the west. For Solent Breezes, they determined a potential net westwards drift of around 500 m³a^-1, with mean annual variations from 800 m³a^-1 to the east to 1,400 m³a^-1 to the west. However, the actual drift rate between Solent Breezes and Hook Spit is probably low, owing limited material availability resulting from the very modest input from cliff erosion along this sector.

Map analysis, nonetheless, reveals that the beach frontage of Hook Local Nature Reserve has accreted a series of gravel ridges since at least 1910 (Wheeler, 1979; Hooke and Riley, 1987; Korab, 1990), and Hook Spit has extended slightly into the Hamble River estuary mouth. Gravel supply from the nearshore zone may be implied, but has not been demonstrated. Posford Duvivier (1999) suggest that lower foreshore abrasion along this, and the adjacent sector to the east, removes approximately 900-6,000 m³a^-1, but most of this material is as suspended sediment. How much, if any, is re-circulated and contributes to the complex bar and trough topography of the foreshore between Hook and Hill Head is currently unknown.

LT2 Solent Breezes to Meon Shore (Mouth of River Meon)

At Solent Breezes, beach levels are characteristically low (Photo 12), despite the availability of potential input of gravel and sand from actively eroding cliffs. The increase in beach widths to the east of the inferred drift divergence indicates both greater sediment supply from cliff toe and cliff face erosion, and some acceleration of the net eastwards drift rate. Gravel accretion has occurred to the west of the culverted sewage/storm water outfall at Bromwich, and some scour and set back of the position of mean high water has occurred to the east (Lewis and Duvivier, 1948, 1954; Wheeler, 1979; Webber, 1979; Brian Colquhoun and Partners, 1992).

Supply to the drift pathway is likely to increase downdrift to the mouth of the Meon because of cumulative input from cliff degradation. Posford Duvivier (1997) suggest that a transient drift boundary may exist at the mouth of the Meon. Bray and Hooke (1997) estimate that 83% of sediment released by cliff falls and slope recession is stable on this wide inter-tidal shore profile and predict a moderate increase in cliff recession due to future sea-level rise. Large flint clasts provide a stable surface, often heavily overlain by seaweeds, across much of the low gradient foreshore. A combined wave and hydrodynamic model study of this shoreline (Price and Townend, 2000) revealed that strong northwest to southeast drift is driven by storm waves generated in the western Solent. This occurred even when maximum flood tide current flow was operating in the opposite direction. Halcrow and Partners (1993) undertook an application of a beach plan shape model for the Hill Head to Browndown shoreline based upon an estimated southeastward net drift input of 3,000 m³a^-1 at Hill Head. HR Wallingford (1995), have modelled drift based on a hindcast wave climate covering the period 1971-1991. At Hill Head, they determined a potential net eastwards drift of around 1,200 m³a^-1, with mean annual variations from 1,700 m³a^-1 to the east to 500 m³a^-1 to the west.

Further evidence of net eastwards drift is apparent from the deflection of the mouth of the River Meon in this same direction (Photo 10). This process, of marginal lateral spit growth, is confirmed by historical map analysis (Lewis and Duvivier, 1954; Wheeler, 1979) back to the mid-nineteenth century. Archival data from the late seventeenth century indicates the need to frequently remove blocking sediment accumulation at the mouth of the Meon. The original early seventeenth century land claim of the Lower Meon floodplain, was probably facilitated by the presence of a gravel beach extending eastwards from Meon Shore. This may have originated as a barrier spit. Titchfield Haven is a freshwater environment as the river mouth has been dammed since the lower floodplain was drained nearly 300 years ago.

LT3 Hill Head to Gilkicker Point

The coastal sector between Hill Head and Browndown is groyned, thereby restricting littoral drift (Hydraulics Research, 1987; HR Wallingford, 1995; Oranjewould 1988, 1991). Sediment distribution in groyne compartments indicates a potential for southeastward drift (Lewis and Duvivier, 1954; Hydraulics Research, 1987; Korab, 1990). A drift estimate of 3,000 m³a^-1 at Hill Head was made by Halcrow and Partners(1993) as an input for a beach plan shape model study using a hindcast wave climate. The resultant southeastward net drift predicted at Browndown was 4,000 m³a^-1, implying a tendency for net erosion along the intervening coastline. HR Wallingford (1995), have modelled drift based on a hindcast wave climate covering the period 1971-1991. At Hill Head, they determined a potential net eastwards drift of around 1,200 m³a^-1, with mean annual variations from 1,700 m³a^-1 to the east to 500 m³a^-1 to the west. At Lee-on-the-Solent, they determined a potential net eastwards drift of around 3,400 m³a^-1, with mean annual variations from 4,200 m³a^-1 to the east to 900 m³a^-1 to the west. Groynes throughout this frontage would intercept transport and prevent these potential transport rates from being achieved.

At Hill Head Harbour, depleted beaches immediately to the east (Photo 10) indicate that the Harbour and the River Meon outfall has an intercepting effect on the drift of coarse sediment (Lewis and Duvivier, 1954, 1962; HR Wallingford, 1995; Posford Duvivier, 1997). Material moving alongshore may be deflected offshore and may return onshore in the vicinity of Salterns Park. East to Seafield, beaches generally show net accretion suggesting supply by eastward drift (Lewis and Duvivier, 1954; Korab, 1990; HR Wallingford, 1995). This could be explained by drift occurring along the lower foreshore so beaches immediately east of the Meon exit are bypassed.

The upper gravel and lower sand-gravel beach at Lee-on-the-Solent has a history of depletion (Bray, 1993), with outgoing eastward drift more rapid than incoming updrift supply from Salterns Park (Lewis and Duvivier, 1957; Hydraulics Research, 1987; Halcrow, 1993). An 800m beach segment at Lee-on-the-Solent was intensively monitored using a series of 38 profiles measured at monthly intervals between June and October 1989 (Gosport Borough Council, 1989). Visual observations and photographs of sediment accumulation in groyne compartments indicated net eastward littoral drift, a trend supported by beach volume calculations between June and July 1989 which showed erosion in the western part of the sector and accretion to the east. Overall, this segment lost 2,600m³of sediment over the 4 month period, but this was not necessarily all attributable to littoral drift because onshore/offshore sediment exchange was also possible. Other studies documented similar losses suggesting that this process was probably indicative of longer-term trends (Mason, 1993; Bray, 1993; Halcrow, 1993, 1996: Barnett, 1994).

In 1996, Lee-on-the-Solent beach was substantially renourished (Fowler, 1998; Banyard and Fowler, 2000) with gravel derived from dredging of Southampton Water. Monitoring of subsequent volume changes suggests beach stability, but continuing net eastward drift across the rock groyne field. Increasing exposure to easterly waves may create occasional drift potential of gravel towards western Browndown where coast protection structures end and significant erosion has occurred (Hydraulics Research, 1987; Bray, 1993; Halcrow, 1993, 1996). Although similar in lithology to indigenous beach pebbles, the imported flint gravel differs in colour allowing clear visual observation of its leakage downdrift along the Browndown frontage.

The existing literature only limited details of littoral drift between Browndown and Gilkicker Point and there are few groynes or other control structures along the arcuate planform of Stokes Bay to indicate drift direction (Gosport Borough Council, 1991). Generalised sediment transport maps by Lonsdale (1969), Dyer (1980), Hydraulics Research (1987) and Bray (1993) indicate net eastward drift. HR Wallingford (1995), modelling studies at the Alver outfall in Stokes Bay have determined a potential net eastwards drift of around 3,000 m>³a^-1, with gross annual variations from 3,700 m³a^-1 to the east to 700 m³a^-1 to the west. Open transport conditions occur in Stokes Bay so these drift rates are likely to be achieved, functioning to deliver material to the wide accreting gravel beach at Gilkicker Point.

Shoreface erosion of fine-grained sediment, which is probably removed as suspended load, was estimated at approximately 5,000m³a^-1 by Posford Duvivier (1999).

LT4 Gilkicker Point to Portsmouth Harbour Entrance

This sector is protected by continuous sea walls and intermittent groynes (Dobbie and Partners 1987). High Water Mark has been stabilised, but littoral drift was determined by Harlow (1980) through analysis of the position of Mean Low Water Mark using Ordnance Survey map comparisons covering the period 1863-1972. Although less accurate than techniques utilising High Water Mark, this approach revealed significant erosion of the lower beach, indicating net eastward drift at approximately 2,000m³a^-1. This is supported by field observations of sediment distribution in groyne compartments (Dobbie and Partners, 1987). The information covered the period 1868-1972 and was thus representative of long-term rates. Posford Duvivier (1999) calculate a shoreface erosion yield of some 2,500m³a^-1 of fine sediment, removed as suspended output.

HR Wallingford (1995), modelling studies at Haslar have determined a potential net eastwards drift of around 1,600 m³a^-1, with gross annual variations from 2,200 m³a^-1 to the east to 500 m³a^-1 to the west. This is unlikely to be achieved in reality due to lack of transportable material.

The apparent spit at Haslar, encased by urban development since the mid-eighteenth century, would appear to have a complex origin. Given the limited up-drift feed of sediment, it is patently not a conventional spit (detached beach). The cuspate form of Gilkicker Point suggests barrier emplacement associated with mid to late Holocene sea-level rise, complicated by later spit extension and recurvature at the constricted entrance to Portsmouth Harbour. (See section on Quaternary History of the Solent)

4. SEDIMENT OUTPUTS - O1 O2 References Map

4.1 Transport In The Offshore Zone

Transport occurring within the main channels of the Eastern Solent is documented fully within the section on Transport Processes in the East and Central Solent that can be accessed via the menu system on the CD and website.

O1 Southampton Water (see introduction to sediment outputs)

Echo sounding and oblique asdic surveying revealed linear furrows adjacent to the banks aligned with current flow in the main channel of Southampton Water, indicating net southward sediment transport (Dyer, 1970; Flood, 1981). Sediments in this area are a complex pattern of gravels, sands and muds, with predominantly finer materials in the eastern part (British Geological Survey, 1989). Thus it is probable that most suspended transport adjacent to the Hook to Solent Breezes shore comprises coarse silt and fine sand. Analysis of tidal streams reveals that suspended sediments are subject to net transport into Southampton Water (Webber, 1980).

02 Hamilton Bank and Spit Sands (see introduction to sediment outputs)

Lonsdale (1969) has revealed several types of sandwaves on these sand and gravel banks that appear to be parrt of the ebb tidal delta of Portsmouth Harbour. Analysis of the asymmetry and orientation of bedforms indicated a clockwise sediment circulation. Transport along the Portsmouth Harbour tidal channel is southeastward and dominated by ebb current flow from Portsmouth Harbour (Hydraulics Research, 1959; Lonsdale, 1969; Harlow 1980; HR Wallingford, 1995). Offshore transport is apparently westward, but then reverses back towards Gilkicker Point, powered by tidal currents and wave action. Although these banks are believed to be a sediment sink (Harlow, 1980), chart comparisons covering the period 1783 to 1972 reveal some natural erosion since 1893 and significant lowering since 1964 (Fishbourne, 1977). This coincided with dredging of 1,680,000 tonnes over the period 1966-1975. Fishbourne (1977) calculated a theoretical lowering of the sea bed over the dredging licence area based on reported extraction, corroborated by chart measurements over the same period. Comparison of these analyses revealed that actual bed lowering was significantly less than predicted from dredging, which suggested sediment input at 62,000m³a^-1. The source of input was probably from other adjoining areas of the seabed. Beaches probably supply relatively little material, because the foreshore between Gilkicker Point and Portsmouth Harbour entrance is depleted and drift rates are low.

4.2 Estuarine Sediment Transport

EO1 Portsmouth Harbour Entrance Tidal Channel

Sediments transported eastward from Gilkicker Point (LT4) are moved into Portsmouth Harbour entrance tidal channel (Lonsdale, 1969; Harlow, 1980) whereupon the dominant ebb tidal current (Hydraulics Research, 1959; Lonsdale, 1969; Harlow, 1980; HR Wallingford, 1995; 1997) flushes them seaward. The final sinks for these sediments, comprising sand and gravel, appear to be Hamilton Bank and Spit Sands (Lonsdale, 1969; Harlow, 1980; HR Wallingford, 1995). Evidence of net offshore transport has been provided by echo-sounding traverses which revealed asymmetrical sand waves of 1.0m-2.0m height and 15m-20m wavelength flanking the tidal channel. These features provided an indication of net south-eastward transport of sand and gravel (Lonsdale, 1969). Bedform analysis indicated anticlockwise sediment circulation on Hamilton Bank and Spit Sands, a phenomenon probably associated with interaction of tidal currents with wave action in the East Solent (Lonsdale, 1969; Dyer, 1980).

5. SEDIMENT STORES AND SINKS - References Map

5.1 Beach Sediments and Morphology

The majority of beaches along this coastal segment are composed of a gravel upper berm with a steeply sloping face abruptly terminating on a low gradient, wide, low tide terrace or shoreface composed of fine sediments and scattered gravels. Considerable variation exists around this typical beach-type with detailed sedimentology and morphology responding to spatial variations in wave energy, currents, sediment availability and shoreline management.

Several beaches display consistent patterns of particle size sorting, with coarsest material on the backshore. Mid- and high-tide berms are characteristic of the sector between Salterns Park and central Browndown. Beach nourishment, profile regrading and rock groyne construction of the Lee-on-the-Solent frontage in 1996 has substantially altered natural morphodynamics and sedimentology (Fowler, 1998).

5.2 Beach Volumes

Relatively few beach volume measurements have been undertaken on this coastline, but there are several qualitative assessments based on time-specific observations. The upper beach at Hook Nature Reserve is substantial and includes an accreting series of low gravel ridges that decline eastward to Solent Breezes (Wheeler, 1979; Korab, 1990). Beach volume then increases eastward to Meon Shore (Photo 11). Immediately east of Hill Head harbour (Photo 10 and Photo 13), beach volume is small (Lewis and Duvivier, 1948, 1954), but increases eastward to Salterns Park (Photo 5) where a substantial upper shingle beach has accumulated (Brumhead, 1963; Korab, 1990). By comparison, the beach at Lee-on-the-Solent has been much less substantial (Brumhead, 1963; Hydraulics Research, 1987; Korab, 1990), with a history of steepening and narrowing extending back to the 1870s (Bray, 1993; Halcrow, 1996).

Gosport Borough Council measured Beach volumes for an 850m segment of the Lee-on-the-Solent foreshore. A total of 38 profiles were monitored at monthly intervals over a 4 month period in 1989. Beach volume was calculated above chart datum (-2.7 OD) assuming that sediment rested upon a horizontal surface. Total volume was 40,000m³to 42,000m>³a^-1 (47,000 to 49,000m³/km), but no indication was given of the relative proportions of sand and gravel. Beach volumes were also calculated from profiles measured by the National Rivers Authority using aerial photographs covering the period 1984 to 1989 (Gosport Borough Council, 1991). This relatively small, and evidently diminishing, beach volume was the trigger to the renourishment of Lee-on-the-Solent beach in 1996. Total beach volume (above -2mOD) for the 4km segment between western Lee-on-the-Solent and the River Alver outfall in Stokes Bay, Gosport was 841,000-889,000m³, of which approximately 700,000m³was stored at Browndown (389,000m³/km).

No volumetric information is available east of the Alver outfall but Harlow (1980), Dobbie and Partners (1987) and Korab (1990) note that the beach between Gilkicker Point and Portsmouth Harbour entrance is narrow, and subject to periodic drawdown east of Fort Monkton. It falls away steeply over a very short distance, and may be affected by the dredging of the Portsmouth Harbour entrance channel and/or past aggregate removal on Hamilton Bank.

5.3 Beach Accretion and Erosion

Since little volumetric information is available on beaches so beach changes have been assessed by reference to net advance or retreat of the Mean High and Low Water Marks as indicated on successive Ordnance Survey maps since the mid nineteenth century.

Hook Spit.

Hook Nature Reserve.

Solent Breezes.

Solent Breezes to Brownwich Stream.

Brownwich Stream to Meon Shore.

Hill Head to Salterns Park.

Bray (1993) noted that Low Water Mark recession was a consistent feature of Meon Shore, Hill Head east of the mouth of the Meon (Hill Head Harbour) and Salterns Park, 1870-1964.

Lee-on-the-Solent.

Browndown.

Stokes Bay.

Gilkicker Point to Portsmouth Harbour Entrance.

6. SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT PATHWAYS - References Map

1. The shoreline between Portsmouth Harbour entrance and the mouth of the River Hamble is bounded at the eastern and western extremities by channels swept by rapid tidal currents, which form effective barriers to lateral sediment transport. It is therefore identified as a discrete littoral drift compartment or cell. Two unequal subsidiary sub-cells are recognised on the basis of a littoral drift divide in the vicinity of Solent Breezes. The larger unit or pathway can be differentiated into an erosional shoreline from Solent Breezes to Lee-on-the-Solent and an accreting gravel shoreline from Browndown to Gilkicker Point. Overall, the system exhibits classic source-pathway-sink characteristics with low eroding cliffs contributing small quantities of sand and gravel to the shoreline. This sediment is generally moved southeastwards towards accreting sinks at Browndown, Stokes Bay and Gilkicker.
2. Potential sediment input pathways were analysed. Capacity for fluvial input is limited by stable discharge of rivers and small catchments of low erodibility. Onshore feed appears to occur around Hill Head, but is unquantified. Coast erosion is therefore the most obvious sediment input. Low cliffs of Tertiary sands and sandy clays capped by Plateau Gravels eroded at a mean long-term rate of 0.10 to 0.30ma^-1 with localised more recent increase to 0.57ma^-1. Integration of these erosion rates with cliff height and extent revealsls coast erosion input at 5,000 m³a^-1 to 8,000m³a^-1 between Solent Breezes and Meon Shore. Approximately 80% of this sediment comprises sand and gravel capable of remaining on the foreshore, the remainder is suspended fines liable to offshore loss.
3. Two distinct and divergent littoral drift pathways are recognised, with the divide located close to Solent Breezes. The westward drift extends to Hook Spit whilst eastward drift transports beach materials past Hill Head, Lee-on-the-Solent, Browndown and Gilkicker Point towards the Portsmouth Harbour tidal channel. These pathways have been identified by field observations dating back to 1945. Modelling of drift indicates potential eastward drift of around 1,000 m³a^-1 at Hill Head increasing to 3,000 m³a^-1 at Lee-on-the-Solent and in Stokes Bay. Drift at Lee-on-the-Solent was found to also to be moderately sensitive to variations in wave climate direction (HR Wallingford, 1995). Construction of groynes along much of the coast between Hill Head and Browndown has almost certainly reduced the actual drift rate to below the estimated potential. Some recent recent increases may have occurred due to greatly enhanced sediment availability following large-scale renourishment at Lee-on-the-Solent in 1996. Some of this material is now spilling downdrift to nourish the Browndown frontage.
4. Inundation of the Meon River valley formed an estuary at least as far inland as Titchfield. Tidal exchange at its inlet would have intercepted drifting sediments and generated an ebb tidal delta. However, with reclamation of the whole of the estuary, this delta became relict and has supplied its sediments onshore in the form of swash bars that migrate landward over the foreshore. This process continues to the present day and appears focussed on the Hill Head and Salterns Park frontages.
5. Intertidal foreshores between Solent Breezes and Lee-on-the-Solent are likely to continue to narrow, especially in front of defences. Presently active cliffs are likely to erode slightly more rapidly in future due to sea-level rise and climate change and contribute additional sediments that would drift towards the south-east. Groyne fields at Hill Head would probably intercept the majority of these materials leading to some beach accretion. Further downdrift at Lee-on-the-Solent, drift inputs would be negligible, but losses would continue to occur to Browndown so that the newly replenished beach would tend to narrow, albeit at slow rates due to its large volume and controlling groynes (Halcrow, 2002).
6. The future stability of the low-lying Browndown, Stokes Bay and Gilkicker Point frontages would depend upon the extent to which shore drift from the north-west can be maintained to supply sediments. In the short-term, these areas could benefit from inputs (losses) from the Lee-on-the-Solent replenished beach. In the event of cessation of drift inputs from the north-west, natural re-working of the extensive stored sediments of the Browndown foreland would be likely (Halcrow, 2002).

7. COASTAL DEFENCE AND HABITAT INTERFACE ISSUES - References Map

Regionally important shingle vegetation habitats exist at Hook Park, Hook Spit (Photo 1) and Browndown (Photo 9). In the first and last examples, a relatively diverse flora has developed on sequences of gravel ridges, which are both parallel and oblique to the modern shoreline. Progradation appears to have occurred over recent centuries, though the historical evidence for the development of these accretion forms is incomplete. A significant area of Browndown has been degraded by former military use of the site, but a conservation policy is now in place. Hook Park and Spit is a Local Nature Reserve that also benefits from current protection from development. Past views that, as sites of historic accretion they might be used as sources of material for beach replenishment, are no longer tenable. Western parts of Browndown have now started to erode and management may be required in future. Details of appropriate management and habitat creation techniques for vegetated shingle have recently been set out by Doody and Randall (2003).

The eroding cliffs between Solent Breezes and Meon Shore (Photo 3) have not been identified as accommodating significant habitat interests. However, it is important that they are not accorded the same, or similar, treatment to that which effectively obliterated the natural cliffline at Lee-on-the-Solent in the late 1950s; this is because they provide exposures of Pleistocene and Tertiary strata and continue to provide input of sediment to the littoral transport system and thus sustain adjacent and downdrift beaches.

Land claim and infilling has destroyed the former estuarine wetland of the Lower Meon (downstream from Titchfield) and the small brackish lagoon at Saltern's Park (Photo 5). There is a sound ecological case for re-instatement of the latter, which would involve some modification of the current line of defence that has sterilised the confining barrier beach. However, in the case of the Meon, there has been subsequent habitat creation, forming a large reed bed and freshwater lagoon of Titchfield Haven that are now an RSPB reserve (Photo 10). This is a regionally significant site, subject to various forms of protection in the interests of conservation. Thus, a managed retreat option at this site, whilst theoretically feasible, would involve intertidal habitat re-creation at the expense of internationally designated freshwater habitats.

Freshwater and brackish lagoons exist at Gilkicker and Hook Park, in both cases due to past human resource exploitation. Whilst the former are secure under the prevailing shoreline management approach, the latter depend on defences and could be under threat if there was a switch from current beach stability to a local deficit in the sub-cell sediment budget.

This coastline accommodates an example of the negative impact of shoreline management on earth science conservation objectives. Despite previous consultation with interested parties, the beach nourishment at Lee-on-the-Solent (1996) concealed exposures of Palaeogene strata on the foreshore designated as an SSSI site for their palaeontological value. Although they will (or should) be re-exposed in the longer term this example is indicative of how losses can occur where there are irreconcilable conflicts of interest.

This shoreline is included within the recent Solent Coastal Habitat Management Plan (CHaMP) produced by Bray and Cottle, (2003). The plan identifies the present distribution and status of coastal habitats and then goes on to predict future habitat changes likely to occur up to 2001, based on an assessment of geomorphological changes. It provides guidance on habitat management and identifies any habitat creation opportunities that could compensate for future losses. Bray and Cottle (2003) concluded that where Hold the Line is the coastal defence policy, 'coastal squeeze' of mudflats and lower foreshore habitats would continue in response to relative sea-level rise. Western parts of Browndown would be likely to erode. In the long term, increasing rates of cliff erosion between Solent Breezes and Meon Shore could resulting increased sediment supplies from this source, although material would be intercepted by groynes at Hill Head.

8. OPPORTUNITIES FOR CALCULATION AND TESTING OF LITTORAL DRIFT VOLUMES - References Map

The lack of significant wave energy, modest development of natural linear beaches and prevalence of groynes means that shorelines of this frontage are not well suited for definitive studies of drift. There are, however, opportunities to improve knowledge of drift and beach behaviour. In particular the provision of improved monitoring of beach volumes should in future allow crosschecking of modelled estimates of potential drift e.g. HR Wallingford (1995), against changes in beach volume actually been produced. Locations especially amenable to study include:

1. Immediately west of Brownwich stream outfall where drift is intercepted.
2. The wide uninterrupted beach of Meon Shore to the west of Hill Head Harbour.
3. The replenished Lee-on-the-Solent beach where rates of fill loss could be studied to assess drift.
4. Browndown, where erosion is affecting western parts.
5. South eastern Stokes Bay where accretion is building gravel ridges against Gilkicker Point.

9. KNOWLEDGE LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - References Map

The SMP (HR Wallingford 1997) and coastal processes strategy study (HR Wallingford 1995) has reviewed much of the available information and made recommendations for monitoring and research. Some recommendations are in the process of implementation by the Strategic Regional Coastal Monitoring Programme, a consortium of coastal groups working together to improve the breadth, quality and consistency of coastal monitoring in South and South East England (Bradbury, 2001). A Channel Coastal Observatory has been established at the Southampton Oceanography Centre to serve as the regional co-ordination and data management centre. Its website at www.channelcoast.org provides details of project progress (via monthly newsletters), descriptions of the monitoring being undertaken and the arrangements made for archiving and dissemination of data. Monitoring includes wave and tidal recording, provision of quality survey ground control and baseline beach profiles, high resolution aerial photography and production of orthophotos, LIDAR imagery and nearshore hydrographic survey. Not all of these actions are presently planned for this unit. Data is archived within the Halcrow SANDS database system and the aim is to make data freely available via the website.

The recommendations for future research and monitoring here therefore attempt to emphasise issues specific to the reviews undertaken for this Sediment Transport Study and do not attempt to cover the full range of coastal monitoring and further research that might be required to inform management as follows:

1. The effective application of numerical modelling studies of beach behaviour and sediment transport processes requires the input of high quality nearshore bathymetric survey data. This is especially important for those sectors of the near and offshore environments with complex landform and sediment associations, e.g. offshore of Hill Head and off Haslar in the vicinity of Portsmouth Harbour inlet channel and tidal delta. Surveys should be completed with reasonable frequency and ideally be combined with some seabed sediment sampling. The latter would ultimately provide more reliable knowledge of potential onshore sediment transport through the compilation of large-scale maps of sediment distribution, grading patterns, in relation to the distribution of morphological features such as banks, swash bars and bedforms etc. Some of these features are present within the lower intertidal zone and could be monitored by detailed analyses of aerial photos taken on low spring tides. It might, in particular, throw light on the important question of the magnitude and frequency of offshore to onshore gravel supply at Hill Head and whether it is a sustainable process under the contemporary hydrodynamic regime.
2. Historical beach profiles require thorough appraisal and re-analysis along this frontage. A potentially invaluable resource is provided by annual Environment Agency ABMS aerial photography since 1973, with subsequent photogrammetric measurement of profiles. However, there are have been some uncertainties in the past relating to the reliability of parts of the profile data so it has not been used to its fullest extent along this frontage. It is important both to validate the historical dataset and to introduce robust methods for future profile data collection. It is understood that the Environment Agency initiated such work in 2002 and intend to incorporate the new ground control provided by the Strategic Regional Coastal Monitoring Programme into their profile measurement procedures.
3. Once the quality and consistency of the ABMS profile data sets have been assured it will be important to consider how the profiles should best be analysed. It will be important to identify indicators of beach health such as sediment volume, crest height and crest position. Volume is especially important, but can be difficult to monitor reliably using widely spaced profiles on groyned coasts. Furthermore, an error analysis should also be undertaken to identify the minimum volumetric change that can be resolved with the techniques. Past trends in these indicator parameters (decadal, annual and seasonal) need to be established and a system of routine analysis instituted that would provide early warning of "unusual" trends. It may be that local engineers could identify critical thresholds, or minimum values of these parameters that could be applied to trigger specific warnings. To effectively interpret the trends recorded, it will also be vitally important to maintain good records of all beach management activities undertaken.
4. To understand beach profile changes it is important to have knowledge of the beach sedimentology (gain size and sorting). Sediment size and sorting can alter significantly along this frontage due to beach management, especially the practices of recharge. Ideally, a one-off field-sampling programme is required to provide baseline quantitative information along this shoreline together with a provision for a more limited periodic re-sampling to determine longer-term variability. Examination of longshore and onshore-offshore grading of the various sediment parameters can be employed to indicate or confirm directions of transport, sources of sediment and possible residence (storage) timescales. Such sediment data would also be of great value for future modelling of sediment transport, for uncertainty relating to grain size is often a key constraint in undertaking modelling.
5. Understanding of inputs of beach forming sediment from coast erosion, would be enhanced by cliff section mapping and sampling of deposits to reveal the detailed thickness, composition and variability of Plateau and Valley Gravels. This material is of particular importance as it is a major local source of beach material.
6. Littoral drift rates and volumes should be calculated using details of cliff, and shoreface erosion inputs and beach volume changes. This information should then be integrated both eastward and westward from the inferred littoral drift divide to provide drift estimates based upon beach volume change. Such data should provide a valuable basis for crosschecking of modelled estimates of potential drift. Data from the monitoring of beach levels following the 1996 replenishment at Lee-on-the-Solent also requires analysis of volume losses and profile stability.
7. At Gilkicker Point, beach gravel extends seaward of Low Water Mark and research is required to investigate the possibility of onshore to offshore transport. It is important to know whether drifting gravel exiting Stokes Bay simply accumulates at Gilkicker Point, or whether it moves offshore at the Point. Certainly very little drifts around the Haslar frontage. Work could involve comparison of beach profiles, historic maps and hydrographic charts and further surveys of offshore bedforms between Gilkicker Point, Spit Sands and Hamilton Bank.
8. Wave climate is known, qualitatively, to be variable along this shoreline, due to changes in coastal orientation with respect to fetch and the incidence of refracted waves entering the Eastern Solent. A large unprocessed dataset on wave frequencies and heights held by the Coastguard Agency (Lee-on-the-Solent) and a long record of hourly wind speeds (1932-1996) for HMS Daedalus (also at Lee-on-the-Solent) could provide an excellent basis for this. Emphasis should initially be on the determination of significant wave heights and the calculation of directional wave climates; this would provide verification of the hindcast wave climates produced by HR Wallingford, (1995).

10. REFERENCES - Map

ABP Research and Consultancy Ltd (1995) Southampton Water Main Channel Deepening, Vol. 2: Dredging: Environmental Statement. Report 524. Report to ABP Southampton.

ALGAN O (1993) Sedimentology and Geochemistry of Fine-Grained Sediments of the Solent, Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Oceanography, University of Southampton, 260pp.

BANYARD L and FOWLER R (2000) Lee-on-the-Solent Coast Protection Scheme, in: M B Collins and K Ansell (eds.) Solent Science - A Review, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 115-120.

BARNETT P A (1994) Monitoring the Movement of Beach Material at Lee-on-the-Solent, Unpublished BSc Civil Engineering Science Dissertation (Project No. 07/93-94), Department of Civil Engineering, University of Portsmouth, 91pp.

BRADBURY, A.P. (2001) Strategic monitoring of the coastal zone: towards a regional approach. Report to SCOPAC, South Downs Coastal Group, South East Coastal Group and Environment Agency, 91p.

BRAY M J (1993) Historical Beach Movements and Coast Protection: Impacts and Implications Applied to Lee-on-the-Solent. Report to Sir William Halcrow and Partners. Department of Geography, University of Portsmouth, 39pp.

BRAY M J, CARTER D J and HOOKE J M (1995) Littoral Cell Definition and Budgets for Central Southern England, Journal of Coastal Research, 11, 381-400.

BRAY M J and HOOKE J M (1997) Prediction of Soft-Cliff Retreat with Accelerating Sea-Level Rise, Journal of Coastal Research, 13(2), 453-467.

BRAY M J, HOOKE J M, CARTER D J & CLIFTON J, 1998. Littoral Sediment Transport Pathways, Cells and Budgets within the Solent. In: Collins, M.B. and Ansell, K. (Eds.) Solent Science - A Review. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam 103-106.

BRAY, M. J. and COTTLE, R. (2003) Solent Coastal Habitat Management Plan, Volumes 1 and 2. Report by Posford Haskoning and University of Portsmouth to English Nature and Environment Agency. Volume 1 Summary of Habitat Change 66p. Vol 2 Technical Report 219p.

BRUMHEAD D D (1963) The Coast between Titchfield Haven and Lee-on-the-Solent, Wessex Geographer, 4, 35-42.

BRIAN COLQUHOUN and PARTNERS (1992) Fareham Coastal Study, 2 Volumes. Report to Fareham Borough Council, 17pp. and Appendices.

DOBBIE and PARTNERS (1987) Repairs to Dolphin, Haslar and Monkton Sea Walls -2 Vols - Vol 1: Report; Vol 2: Appendices. Report to Property Services Agency, 48pp.

DOODY P and RANDALL R (2003). Guidance for the Management of Coastal Vegetated Shingle. Report No MAR 05-03-02 to English Nature 130p. electronic version available at: http://www.english-nature.org.uk/livingwiththesea/project_details/good_practice_guide/ shingleCRR/shingleguide/home.htm

DYER K R (1970) Linear Erosional Furrows in Southampton Water, Nature, 225, 56-58.

DYER K R (1975) The Buried Channels of the 'Solent River', Southern England, Proceedings Geologists' Association, 86(2), 239-245.

DYER K R (1980) Sedimentation and Sediment Transport, in The Solent Estuarine System, NERC, Publication Series C, No. 22, 20-24.

EVERARD C E (1954) The Solent River: A Geomorphological Study, Transactions and Papers of the Institute of British Geographers, No. 20, 41-53.

FISHBOURNE G R (1977) Physical Effects of Sand and Gravel Dredging with Particular Reference to the Solent Area, Unpublished BSc project report, Department of Civil Engineering, Southampton University, 115pp.

FLOOD R D (1981) Distribution, Morphology and Origin of Sedimentary Furrows in Cohesive Sediments, Southampton Water, Sedimentology, 28(4), 511-529.

FOWLER R (1998) One Man's Rubbish is Another Man's Resources: The Beneficial Use of Dredged Material in the Lee-on-the-Solent Coast protection Scheme, Proceedings of the 33rd MAFF Conference of River and Coastal Engineers, Keele, 4.3.1 to 4.3.11.

GOSPORT BOROUGH COUNCIL (1989) Beach Profiles and Shingle Movements; Weather and Tide Conditions, Lee-on-the-Solent. Survey and Report No. 1 - June 1989, Groynes No. 9-34; No. 2 - July 1989, Groynes 9-34; Nos. 3 and 4 - August/September and part-October 1989, Groynes 9-34, (prepared by Harvey Construction Services).

GOSPORT BOROUGH COUNCIL (1991) Stokes Bay: Proposed Slipway: Beach Levels. (Prepared by Harvey Construction Services), 11pp.

HACK B (1998 and 1999) Stone Tools from Rainbow Bar, Hill Head, Proceedings of Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society, 53, 219-232; 54, 163-171.

HALCROW and PARTNERS (1993) Lee-on-the-Solent Beach Study. Report to Gosport Borough Council, 62pp. and Appendices.

HALCROW and PARTNERS (1996) Lee-on-the-Solent Coast Protection Scheme. Engineer's Report. Report to Gosport Borough Council, 27pp. and 4 Appendices.

HALCROW MARITIME, UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH and the METEOROLOGICAL OFFICE (2001) Preparing for the Impacts of Climate Change. Report to SCOPAC, 110pp.

HALCROW, 2002. Futurecoast: research project to improve the understanding of coastal evolution over the next century for the open coastline of England and Wales. Report and CD-ROM produced by Halcrow-led consortium for DEFRA.

HARLOW D (1980) Sediment Processes, Selsey Bill to Portsmouth, Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Southampton.

HOOKE J M and RILEY R C (1987) Historical Change on the Hampshire Coast, 1870-1965, Department of Geography, Portsmouth Polytechnic. Report to Hampshire County Council, 68pp.

HR WALLINGFORD (1995) Pagham Harbour to River Hamble Coastal Strategy Study, Volume 2: Portsmouth Harbour to River Hamble. Report EX 3252. Report to Pagham to Hamble Coastal Strategy Group, 64pp and 150 Tables and Figures.

HR WALLINGFORD (1997) East Solent Shoreline Management Plan, Volumes 1 and 2. Reports EX 3441 (A) and (B). Report to East Solent SMP Project Group (Lead Authority: Havant Borough Council).

HYDRAULICS RESEARCH (1959) Portsmouth Harbour Investigation, Parts I and II, Reports 213B and 214.

HYDRAULICS RESEARCH (1987) Review of the Hampshire Coastline. Vol 2 - Bibliography and Appendices, Report No. EX 1601, 125pp.

JONES D K C (1981) Geomorphology of the British Isles: Southeast and Southern England, London: Methuen, 257-294.

KORAB A M (1990) A Study of the Coastal Changes along the East Solent Coast: The Hamble Estuary to Fort Blockhouse, Unpublished Dissertation, MSc in Environmental Change, Department of Geography, Portsmouth Polytechnic, vi + 84pp.

LEWIS and DUVIVIER (1948) Report on Fareham-Hill Head Sea Defences. Report to Fareham Urban District Council, 8pp.

LEWIS and DUVIVIER (1954) Report on Coast Protection: River Hamble to Saltern's Park. Report to Fareham Urban District Council, 9pp.

LEWIS and DUVIVIER (1957) Report on Coast Protection at Lee-on-the-Solent. Report to Gosport Borough Council, Report 2/10, 6pp.

LEWIS and DUVIVIER (1962) Report on the Sea Defences, Hill Head Harbour to Lee-on-the-Solent boundary. Report to Fareham Urban District Council, 6pp.

LONSDALE B J (1969) A Sedimentary Study of the Eastern Solent, unpublished MSc thesis, Department of Oceanography, University of Southampton, 38pp.

MASON T (1993) Beach Erosion at Lee-on-the-Solent, Unpublished BSc Dissertation (Project No. 38/92-93), Department of Civil Engineering, University of Portsmouth.

ORANJEWOULD, bv (1991) Hampshire's Coast: Eastleigh, Fareham and Gosport Districts: Frameworks for Coastal Defence. Report BV-28417. Report to Hampshire County Council.

ORANJEWOULD INTERNATIONAL bv (1989a) Hampshire's Coastal Problems. Report to Hampshire County Council, 54pp.

ORANJEWOULD INTERNATIONAL bv (1989b) Hampshire's Coast. Appendix 3: Maps. Report to Hampshire County Council (n.p.).

POSFORD DUVIVIER (1997) SCOPAC Research Project. Sediments Inputs to the Coastal Zone. Cliff Erosion. Report to SCOPAC

POSFORD DUVIVIER (1999) SCOPAC Research Project. Sediment Inputs to the Coastal System. Summary Document. Report to SCOPAC, 53pp.

PRICE D and TOWNEND I (2000) Hydrodynamic, Sediment Process and Morphological Modelling, in: M B Collins and K Ansell (eds.) Solent Science - A Review, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 55-70.

RENDEL GEOTECHNICS and UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH (1996) Sediment Inputs to the Coastal Zone: Fluvial Flows. Report to SCOPAC, 52pp and 2 Appendices.

SHALADAN M (1992) Climate Change and Rise in Sea-Level: Investigations into the Effect of Rising Sea-Level on the Borough of Gosport, Internal Report, Engineering Services, Borough of Gosport, 50pp. and Appendices.

WEBBER N B (1979) An Outline Study of the Coastline, Hook to Titchfield Haven - Some General Observations and Comments in Relation to the Project Report by Wheeler (1979). Report to Fareham Borough Council, 9pp.

WEBBER N B (1980) Hydrography and Water Circulation in the Solent, in The Solent Estuarine System: An Assessment of Present Knowledge, NERC, Publication Series C, 22, 25-35.

WHEELER R G (1979) A Study of the Coastal Engineering Problems at Hook, Warsash, Unpublished Third Year project report, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Southampton, 173pp.