Halcrow, Coastal Studies Forward Programme Data Compilation ...

This page is left blank intentionally.

LLW Repository LtdCoastal Studies Forward ProgrammeData Compilation and Position StatementAugust 2009Halcrow Group Limited

LLW Repository LtdCoastal Studies Forward ProgrammeData Compilation and Position StatementAugust 2009Halcrow Group LimitedHalcrow Group LimitedLyndon House 62 Hagley Road Edgbaston Birmingham B16 8PETel +44 (0)121 456 2345 Fax +44 (0)121 456 1569www.halcrow.comHalcrow Group Limited has prepared this report in accordance withthe instructions of their client, LLW Repository Ltd, for their sole andspecific use. Any other persons who use any information containedherein do so at their own risk.© Halcrow Group Limited 2010

Halcrow Group LimitedLyndon House 62 Hagley Road Edgbaston Birmingham B16 8PETel +44 (0)121 456 2345 Fax +44 (0)121 456 1569www.halcrow.com

LLW Repository LtdCoastal Studies Forward ProgrammeData Compilation and Position StatementContents Amendment RecordThis report has been issued and amended as follows:Issue Revision Description Date Signed1 0 Draft for comment 14.8.09 RM1 1 Final incorporating clientreview comments1 2 Revised following additionalclient comments10.12.09 PRF11.05.10 PRF

Contents1 Introduction 11.1 Coastal studies forward programme 11.2 Scope of work 21.3 Summary of work to date 21.4 Update since Halcrow (2009b) 72 Coastal System Characterisation 92.1 Historical data review 92.2 Nearshore hydrodynamics 92.3 Landform characterisation 142.4 Sediment budget and boundary conditions 142.5 Inheritance and sea-level change 182.6 Shoreline resistance to change 223 Coastal Monitoring 243.1 Baseline survey 243.2 Annual monitoring – repeat LiDAR surveys 243.3 Repeat baseline survey 253.4 Coastal inspections 253.5 Summary of monitoring results 254 Conceptual Coastal Change Projection Model 304.1 Conceptual model development 304.2 Conceptual coastal change projection models and results 345 Conclusions and Recommendations 426 References 44AppendicesA Catalogue of historical data setsBCReview of papers relevant to the coastal studies programmeBibliography

1 Introduction1.1 Coastal studies forward programmeIn 2000, British Nuclear Fuels 1 commissioned Halcrow (2000 and 2002a) todevelop a forward programme of monitoring and studies at the coast to supportthe environmental safety cases for its operational sites at Drigg and Sellafield. Theforward programme was designed to support the development of a conceptualcoastal change projection model (CCCPM) to describe future evolutionaryscenarios for the site frontages over short (100 yrs), medium (1,000 yrs) and longterm(10,000+ yrs) timescales.The forward programme recognised there were insufficient reliable coastal data todefine robust scenarios and projections of future coastal change and associated siteimpacts. Key elements of the forward programme include:Framework for coastal monitoring and assessment workGIS and data managementHistorical studies and data procurementBaseline surveysMonitoring surveysSpecific project workFull details are provided in Halcrow 2002a.The forward programme was implemented over the period 2001 to present tocollate relevant existing data and information, commission baseline surveys andrepeat monitoring of coastal processes and landform change, procure specialistinvestigations into Holocene sea-level change, and perform staged development ofthe CCCPM for the LLWR and Sellafied sites.The phased programme of work has been performed and reported in stages andpresented in a number of reports, some of which have been superseded by later1 The forward programme was commissioned directly through BNFL between 2000 and 2006, through NexiaSolutions in 2006/07, the National Nuclear Laboratory in 2007/08, and LLWR Ltd since late 2008.Doc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 1

work. This position statement provides a concise chronology of the workperformed, summarises the specific objectives and results of the various packagesof work completed to date, presents conclusions on the current state ofknowledge, and outlines recommendations for future coastal monitoring andassessment work to support the 2011 safety case for the LLWR site.1.2 Scope of workThe scope of this review and position statement is as follows:prepare full bibliographic listing of references, and categorise these intorelevant themes and their current status (i.e. relevant or superseded)prepare full listing of thematic ‘historical’ data procured and collated forthe coastal studies programmeprepare full listing of baseline and annual monitoring surveyscommissioned under the coastal studies programmeprepare a full listing of annual inspection surveysprepare timelines of coastal survey and monitoring work, and conceptualmodelling workprepare a concise position statement on the various stages and outputs ofthe coastal studies programme to the end of 2009provide original digital datasets and ArcGIS Publisher spatial dataincluding freeware.1.3 Summary of work to dateThe reports issued by Halcrow in connection with the coastal studies forwardprogramme are listed in Table 1.1. Figure 1.1 illustrates the component tasks of theforward programme to which these reports relate.Digital data, comprising historical datasets, baseline surveys, annual monitoring,interpretation and GIS mapping layers, have been provided separately to LLWRon an external hard drive. A spreadsheet which indicates the structure of theBNFL Cumbria 2009 GIS database is provided on the external hard drive.Halcrow (2001) provides a comprehensive review of the existing data and reportsprior to implementation of the forward programme; much of this review remainsrelevant today and provides an important reference to later work. The conclusionof this study was as follows:Doc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 2

Table 1.1. Halcrow reports relevant to the LLW Repository Coastal Studies Forward ProgrammeDate Halcrow report date and title Summary of content, including subcontracted work2000 Proposed scope of Forward Programme for evaluating First issue of forward programme.coastal evolution in the Drigg/Sellafield area.December 2000.2001 Review of sea-level rise predictions and the potentialfor coastal evolution in the Drigg area. March 2001.2002a Coastal Change at Drigg and Sellafield. Update toForward Programme. February 2002.2002b Coastal Change at Drigg and Sellafield, Cumbria. CoreStudies Report 2001/02. November 2002.Desk study review of available historical data and information, including Holocene sea-level history.Includes comprehensive review of relevant existing information such as the Shoreline Management Plan(1998).Second issue of forward programme.Review and analysis of historical remote sensing data (photos, maps and DEMs), and state ofknowledge in coastal change modelling and climate change science.2002c Drigg Coastal Study Survey Report. July 2002.2003a Review of Historical and Future Potential CoastalChange at Drigg. February 2003.2003b Shoreline Characterisation and Coastal Processes Studyat Drigg and Sellafield, Cumbria. May 2003.2004a Coastal Change at Drigg and Sellafield. 3D LaserScanning Survey of the Foreshore. April 2004.2004b Coastal Change at Drigg and Sellafield. CumbriaCoastal inspection, St Bees to Esk Estuary. March2004.2004c Coastal change at Drigg and Sellafield, development ofa conceptual coastal change model. March 2004.Baseline survey documentation.Final document of draft report first issued in 2001 (Halcrow 2001). Desk study review of availablehistorical data and information, including Holocene sea-level history. Includes review of availableremote sensing (photos, maps and DEMs) and state of knowledge in coastal change modelling andclimate change science.Detailed characterisation of the geomorphology, geology and hydrodynamics of the coastline. Includedassessment of coastal change by comparing historical maps and photos to the baseline survey.2004 annual survey documentation.2004 site inspection report.Development of conceptual model framework, paraglacial inheritance and shoreline resistance tochange models, review of conceptual models for the open coast and Esk estuary, and consideration ofcoastal change scenarios and forcing. Includes review of BNFL EFEP framework adopted for the 2002Doc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 3

Date Halcrow report date and title Summary of content, including subcontracted worksafety case by Dr Paul Kane, preliminary coarse sediment transport modelling by Dr Karla Rix, andreview of unpublished information on Quaternary geology by BGS.2005a Coastal change at Drigg and Sellafield, coastal 2005 site inspection report, including characterisation of foreshore (cliff, dune, beach) sediments.inspection and foreshore sediment mapping, St Bees toEsk Estuary. February 2005.2005b Coastal change at Drigg and Sellafield. Stage 1 coastalchange projection model. June 2005.2006a Coastal change at Drigg and Sellafield, coastalinspection survey, St Bees to Esk Estuary. February2006.First iteration of the conceptual coastal change model (CCCPM). Includes update on conceptualmodelling approaches, review of current regional-scale sediment budget, assessment of Holocenesediment budget and Holocene shoreline development, information on error handling in LiDAR dataand results of sea-level change research commissioned through Durham University.2006 site inspection report.2006b Cumbria coastal studies. Stage 2 conceptual model. Second iteration of the CCCPM. Includes update on model framework system states and drivers, testingFinal report August 2006. Nexia Solutions Report 7104. of models against historical data and projections of change for open coast, barrier beach and estuarysystems. Also integrates the results of second phase of Holocene sea-level change research by DurhamUniversity.2007a Coastal change at Drigg and Sellafield, coastal 2007 site inspection report.inspection survey, St Bees to Esk Estuary. Final reportMarch 2007. Nexia Solutions Report 83152008 Cumbria coastal studies. Stage 3 conceptual model.Final report March 2008. Nexia Solutions Report 85632009a Coastal change at Drigg and Sellafield, coastalinspection survey, St Bees to Esk Estuary. Final reportMarch 2009. NNL Report 10238.2009b Cumbria Coastal Studies Repeat 2009 Baseline Surveyand Analysis. Draft report July 2009. NNL Report10507Third iteration of the CCCPM, including updated projections of change in the open coast and estuary.Includes first 3D analysis of LiDAR datasets, and results of the third stage of Holocene sea-level changeresearch by Durham University.2009 site inspection report.Report documenting the 2009 repeat baseline survey data, and results of comparative analysis with the2002 baseline survey and annual LiDAR surveys.Doc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 4

Figure 1.1. Structure of the forward programme and work completed to dateDoc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 5

“The results of this study support the findings of the Shoreline ManagementPlan (Bullen Consultants, 1998a,b) that rates of erosion along the coastlinehistorically have been between 0.5 to 1.0 m per year. A detailed analysis of theDrigg frontage estimated local erosion rates to be approximately 0.64m per year(based on historical map analysis between 1898 and 1997). This value has beenused subsequently (e.g. the LLWR 2002 PCRSA, BNFL 2002a,b) to help assesslikely rates of coastal retreat… the assessments of coastal evolution and thepredictions are based on very limited data and have an unquantifiableuncertainty. For this reason, it would be unwise at the present time to basedecisions on the long-term viability of the site on the estimates provided.”The recommendations made in the 2001 report were integrated into the secondrevision of the forward programme for BNFL (Halcrow 2002a). The forwardprogramme of work has since been implemented over the period 2001 to present.The specific objectives and results of the coastal monitoring and assessment workare provided in the following sections.A key element of the coastal monitoring programme has been the collection ofaccurate and resolute shoreline data to measure coastal change with a high degreeof confidence. The results of analysis and modelling of these data, summarisedherein, provide a robust short-term measure of coastal change across the area ofinterest and LLWR frontage. While statements relating to historical coastal changemade in Halcrow (2001) are still supported, careful analysis of data collected aspart of the forward programme has demonstrated that historical recession rateshave been somewhat lower than reported in the past, and display spatial andtemporal complexity (Bullen Consultants, 1998a,b; Halcrow 2001).The current state of knowledge, following analysis of data collected in the forwardprogramme, is summarised by Halcrow (2009b):“the results demonstrate that the shoreline is characterised by contemporarydynamic processes of erosion and accretion at a local scale, although thecombined effects have resulted in relatively insignificant net change in shorelineposition and sediment budget, which can be regarded as relatively static or stable.Evidence is presented that indicates a predominance of sediment accumulationand local roll back of storm beaches, accretion of shallow bays, and local erosionof headlands formed of weak till. The quasi-stability of the shoreline in recenttimes is largely a reflection of the fact that relative sea-levels in the region haveremained static and possibly fallen. This factor along with the relative short-termDoc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 6

sample of quantified 3D data of coastal change need to be borne in mind whenmaking predictions of future shoreline change and should rightly be comparedwith analysis of historical coastal change data over much longer time periods.Perhaps most importantly, the coastal change signature over historical andcontemporary times may not be a good analogue for a transgressive regime ofrising sea-levels and shoreline erosion which needs to be considered inconceptual modelling of medium and long-term forecasting of coastal change atthe Sellafield and LLWR sites.”A summary of coastal monitoring, baseline surveys and analysis of historicalrates of change is provided in Section 3, while modelling and projections offuture coastal change based on current understanding, are presented in Section 4.1.4 Update since Halcrow (2009b)Since commissioning and completion of the 2009 coastal inspection (Halcrow2009a) and repeat baseline survey and analysis (Halcrow 2009b), LLWR havesought to address several key remaining uncertainties in the conceptual coastalchange projection model. This process began in early 2009 when LLWR conveneda two-day workshop (13 to 14 January) and invited a number of coastal changeexperts from industry and academia to comment on Halcrow’s work to the end of2008, and make recommendations for further work. Subsequent to this workshopa series of meetings were held with representatives from Halcrow, LLWR Ltd andURS Corp to further explore the application of numerical modelling approaches tocoastal change assessment. Key packages of work commissioned after theworkshop and subsequent meetings include:Geophysical survey of the Drigg spit and beach to characterise the spitstructure and inform the beach sediment budget. Data also have relevanceto the regional geological and hydrogeological model. Techniques usedinclude GPR and resistivity surveys of the spit and site frontage, EM31/EM34 and limited seismic refraction surveys of the beach. The work isbeing undertaken by a Halcrow/Quintessa/RSK STATS consortium.Application of the SCAPE model to the Drigg coastline to provideindications of coastal change over 100s to 1,000s of years under variousrelative sea-level rise scenarios. This work is being undertaken by RoyalHaskoning and provides an independent tool to the Conceptual CoastalChange Projection Model developed by Halcrow.Geological, sedimentological and geochronological investigation of theDrigg spit and coastal hinterland to confirm the spit structure and age ofDoc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 7

sediments, and inform future sediment budgets regarding the nature ofhinterland sediments and the elevation of rockhead. The work is beingundertaken by the British Geological Survey (BGS).Doc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 8

2 Coastal System Characterisation2.1 Historical data reviewThe availability and coverage of historical Ordnance Survey maps, aerialphotography, bathymetry and digital elevation models was originally reviewed andcatalogued in Halcrow 2001 and 2002b. The review revealed that no high qualitybaseline survey data were available for the LLWR frontage, but identified a largeamount of historical aerial imagery and OS mapping were available from variousarchives. Digital historical maps and aerial images were procured at this time andassembled within a GIS database to allow analysis and comparison with newbaseline survey data captured in early 2002. These data were then used toaccurately quantify historical coastal change of the LLWR frontage over the period1863 to 2002 for the first time (Halcrow 2003a).Appendix A provides a catalogue of historical and baseline datasets procuredunder the forward programme.2.2 Nearshore hydrodynamics2.2.1 Models and dataNumerical modelling and analysis of nearshore hydrodynamics was presented inHalcrow (2003b) and the datasets procured are catalogued in Appendix A. Thisnumerical modelling work used factual information on bathymetry, water-levels,tidal currents, wave and wind climate to model potential sediment transport ofdifferent sediment size fractions in the nearshore zone, alongshore and crossshore.Table 2.1 summarises the models used and Figure 2.1 shows how data andmodels were combined in the analysis.The models used in 2003 are industry standard and remain in use today. Themodels and results remain valid and only require review, and possible revision ifappropriate and of value, with new data (i.e. post 2003) to provide an up-to-datestatement on numerical hydrodynamic modelling. The following models were usedin the analysis:(a) MWAV_REG/ MWAV_TRN (Wave model)MWAV_REG is grid-based model that provides information on the wave heightand direction across a large area of regular grid cells for given offshore conditions.Doc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 9

The model is based upon an evolution equation for water waves, which has beendeveloped from the mild slope equation by using the perturbation method (Li1994). The mild slope equation, first derived by Berkhoff (1972), is widely used incoastal engineering. During its development, the model has been tested againstexperimental data and has undergone a process of calibration and validation.MWAV_REG has been extensively and successfully used on coastal studiesthroughout the world.Table 2.1 Coastal process models usedModel Type Model Used PurposeWave modelCurrentmodelCross-shoremodelLongshoremodelMWAV_REG/MWAV_TRNDAWNCOSMOSKamphuis equation(Kamphuis 2000) Assess wave climate (i.e. frequency and wavelength) Provide regional wave climate for wave-current interactionmodelling Transform waves inshore using bathymetry data to determineaffects of defraction and refraction. Used for sedimenttransport assessment by cross-shore and alongshore models Assess tidal currents and suspended sediment movement innearshore Identify areas of onshore-offshore sediment transfer Assess cross-shore response of beach sediments to waveconditions Identify key zones of sediment transport Assess longshore movement Assess spatial and temporal variations in ratesUsing the transformation results from MWAV_REG, a second model known asMWAVE_TRN was used to transform the offshore wave data inshore and provideinshore wave time series. Waves were transformed inshore to the –4m OD and 0mOD contours, taking water level variations during the period into account, so thattime series data were produced for two points on each profile. These two dataseries have been created so that any difference in transport along both the lowersand beach and the upper gravel beach can be examined.(b) DAWNMathematical modelling of tidal currents was undertaken using Halcrow’s depthintegrated 2D tidal modelling suite known as DAWN (Dispersion Advection WithNesting), which is designed to model hydrodynamics, water quality and sedimenttransport over a two-dimensional plan of the study area. It is a depth-integratedDoc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 10

model whereby variations with depth are not described, and instead values arecomputed as averages through the depth.Figure 2.1 The relationships between the coastal process models used and input dataOffshore waveand waterlevel dataBathymetry dataStorm analysisRegional WaveModelRegionalWave ModelTransforminshore offshorewavesCross-shoretransportmodellingDAWNhydrodynamicmodelLongshoretransportmodellingThe model is based on two fundamental principles of hydrodynamics: theconservation of mass (continuity), and the conservation of momentum. Sedimenttransport in DAWN is based on Van Rijn’s (1989) sediment transport model asmodified by Soulsby (1997). The DAWN model includes the full Van Rijnalgorithm for the combined effects of waves and currents, if required.The DAWN model was first used to assess tidal currents and calculate the residualflows over two complete spring-neap tidal cycles. The modelled currents were thenused to determine potential sediment transport load under combinations of tidalcurrents and wave conditions.Doc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 11

(c) COSMOSCOSMOS-2D is a two-dimensional model (for both vertical and cross-shoredimensions) of nearshore hydrodynamics, sediment transport and seabed evolution(known collectively as morphodynamics). Extensive research and developmentwork has been undertaken through collaboration between Halcrow and HRWallingford and at each stage of development extensive model tests have beenperformed against available laboratory and field data (HR Wallingford 1989, 1994).The two-dimensional nearshore model assumes a straight coastline with paralleldepth contours. It includes the following physical processes:wave transformation by refraction (by depth variations and currents),shoaling, Doppler shifting, bottom friction and wave breakinginteracted longshore tidal and wave-induced currentscross-shore undertow velocitiescross-shore and longshore sediment transport rates and down-cutting ofthe cohesive profile (where present)depth profile changes due to cross-shore and longshore transport,including dune avalanching where appropriate.The model assumes a straight coastline with parallel depth contours and gridpoints are chosen along a cross-shore line at spatial intervals. The model alsoallows inclusion of a cohesive layer beneath a sand beach. The model can be runfor a single wave and tidal condition or for a long sequence of wave/tidalconditions at specified time increments; for this study it has been run for threesingle wave conditions. The model determines wave, current and sedimenttransport parameters at each grid point.Although the model has many parameters, these are generally been set topreviously established values based on calibrated and validated laboratory and fielddata. As with the alongshore transport model the lack of suitable site-specific datameans it is not possible to calibrate the model specifically to the site. Consequently,outputs are used to help develop an understanding of the mechanisms at work andthe change processes that operate at the site.(d) Kamphuis EquationThe Kamphuis (1991, 2000) equation is a bulk sediment transport method, similarto the Coastal Engineering Research Center formula (CERC 1984), which relatesDoc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 12

total alongshore sediment transport rates to a few simple wave and beachparameters.Kamphuis derives an expression that includes the effects of wave period (T), beachslope and grain size:Qk0.6 64000Hsin 2(m 3 per year)2 1.5 0.75 0.25sbTp mbDbWhere: H sb is significant breaking wave height, T p is wave period, m b is beachslope in the breaking zone, D is median grain size and b is angle of waveincidence at breaking. The Kamphuis expression was derived from small-scalehydraulic model tests and found to be valid for available field tests. It does,however, overestimate transport for shingle beaches, because it does not include acritical shear stress, i.e. the equation assumes particles move even under low waveconditions, which is true for sand but not for gravel (Kamphuis, 2000), and alsodoes not take into account increased beach porosity. However, it does provide anindication of the trend of sediment movement and also the relative differences inmagnitudes along the frontage. The main alternative bulk transport expression thatis generally used in coastal engineering is the CERC formula (1984), but thisequation does not include grain size or each slope.2.2.2 ResultsThe analysis of current forcing mechanisms found waves from the SW quadrant tobe largest and of the longest period. The majority of storms also prevail from theSW. Tidal currents tend to be shore parallel with maximum speeds of 0.5m/s inthe nearshore zone and increasing with distance offshore.The results in the nearshore area indicate there is considerable potential formovement of suspended sand, especially during storm events. Waves are essentialto mobilise sand before it can be transported in suspension by the tides. Under thecurrent hydrodynamic climate the larger sediment sizes are less mobile, requiringhigher energy levels associated with storm events. Deposition of sand will dependupon the state of the tide and nature of the foreshore (e.g. sandy or cobbleplatform). There is only localised potential gravel movement during stormconditions but no net change within the system. In summary:There is little movement of cobbles or boulders, induced by presenthydrodynamic forcing on the foreshoreDoc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 13

There is some localised movement of gravels up and down the coastpredominantly during storm conditions, but with little or no net losses orgainsThere is considerable potential movement of sand; some bed loadtransport but also significant suspended load transport. Redistribution bycurrents means that large volumes could be moved about, particularlyduring storms, and deposition of this material will be dependent upon thestate of the tide and the undulating surface of the foreshore.Standard sediment transport models are generally limited to sand-sizefraction. An independent coarser-scale model developed by Dr Karla Rix(Halcrow 2004c) was applied to the LLWR frontage which reached thesame conclusions as summarised above.2.3 Landform characterisationA detailed assessment of the geomorphology and sedimentology of the shoreline isreported in Halcrow (2003b). The 2002 baseline survey data were used alongsideBGS geological data to characterise eighteen coastal landform units (Table 2.2).The sedimentological characteristics of the landforms were also described in thefield by assessing the cliffs and geological mapping.A second assessment of landform characterisation and dynamics was completed in2009 using data from the repeat baseline survey and field verification. Comparisonof the mapping highlighted the high mobility of sand bars, gravel movement in fandeltas of the rivers and accretion along the dune fronts from Seascale to Drigg.2.4 Sediment budget and boundary conditionsA review of the regional scale sediment budget, necessary to place the studycoastline in a broader context and to test the validity of the boundary conditionsused in the conceptual model, is provided in Halcrow (2005b). This work wasnecessary to amplify the regional information provided in shoreline managementplans for Cell 11 . The sediment budget was assessed at two scales:regional scale, including the Irish Sea coast between the Solway and theDee, defined by Sediment Cell 11 of the shoreline management plan(Figure 2.2)sub-cell scale, defined as sub-cell 11d, that extends between St Bees Headand the Duddon Estuary (Figure 2.2)Doc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 14

UnitSt Bees HeadSt BeesPromenadeSt Bees golfcourseTable 2.2. Coastal landforms and characteristics at Sellafield and DriggDescriptionSandstone cliffs with till capand rocky shoreLow till cliffs withprotection measuresHigh till cliffs in pushmoraineCoastlinelength (m)Intertidalwidth(m)*Stormbeachwidth (m)Stormbeachangle ()Backshoreheight(m AOD)450 75-350 0-20 7-25 45-100415 310 20-35 7-10 8-20970 300-340 20-35 6-7 10-25Pow Beck River outlet and fan delta 365 350-370 25-30 5-12 5-12NorthCouldertonCouldertonNethertownStationNethertownBraystonesEhen ValleySellafield(Ehen Spit)Ehen andCalderSeascaleWhitriggsScarCarl CragBarn ScarDrigg DunesEsk EstuaryRelict landslides in till withtoe protection measuredBarrier beach and till cliffheadlandRock platform and till cliffswith protection measuredBarrier beach and till cliffheadlandBarrier beach and till cliffswith protection measuredBarrier beach fronting lowriver valleyBarrier beach fronting rivervalley and till cliffsRiver outlets with fan deltaBarrier beach fronting lowhinterlandTill cliff headland withprotection measuresLow till cliffs capped byblown sandTill cliff headland capped byblown sandDunes overlying till andraised beachDunes, estuary and deltadeposits* (MHW to MLW)1 540 310-490 20-45 5-7 10-50720 330-410 30-40 5-7 10-501 215 340-425 30-45 6-8 10-17505 290-350 20- 55 7-12 10-302 520 315-440 50-60 6-8 12-251 710 380-430 30-50 4-8 7-101 185 480-500 25-45 3-9 8-13740 450-480 40-60 2-5 6-151 790 405-450 40-70 4-7 7-20770 415–460 15-60 3-6 10-201 300 370-480 35-65 4-5 8-15830 350-760 30-55 3-15 7-203 930 470-840 30-130 2-8 8-201 350 170-320 10-40 5-11 7-9Doc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 15

2.4.1 Regional scale sediment budgetAn assessment of the regional scale sediment budget, sources, sinks and transportpathways (Halcrow 2005b), covering the whole of Sediment Cell 11 from theSolway Firth to the River Dee, suggests that:Sufficient sediment is available from seabed sources to maintain thesediment budget of the Coastal system of cell 11Present-day transport processes are capable of moving sand from sourceto sink in areas south of Walney IslandSediment transport between St Bees and Walney is restricted due to tidalconditionsDespite abundant sediment sources and dynamic sediment transportpotential to the south, little sediment appears to enter sub-cell 11d(Cumbrian coast) due to entrapment in the Morecambe Bay sediment sinkSediment demand (i.e. that which is required to keep the estuary inequilibrium) in the Duddon and Esk, Irt, Mite estuaries that would beneeded to keep pace with future sea-level rise could only be met if surplussediment was available from Morecambe BaySea-level curves for Morecambe Bay suggest that sediment supply wassteady throughout the period 8,000 to 3,500 years BP. A slight decrease insea-level and thus sediment supply may have occurred between 3,500 and1,800 years BP but evidence is limited.Because sediment transport into Sub-cell 11d is limited and since sediment surpluswas not available for export to 11d throughout most of the Holocene, it is likelythat sediment stored within Sub-cell 11d was derived from within the sub-cell andnot from external sources. Therefore sediment stored in the Eskmeals and Driggspit and estuary mouth complexes appears to be derived from sources within thesub-cell which suggests that the boundary conditions for the study area system canbe defined at a local level.2.4.2 Local scale sediment budgetA review of available data was used to generate a preliminary sediment budgetwhich shows that local scale connectivity is dominated by sediment export(Halcrow, 2005b). The analysis shows that cliff and shore platform sedimentsources within the study area are likely to have been more than sufficient toaccount for the sediment now stored within the system. In addition, it seems likelythat this coast was a net exporter of large volumes of coarse sediment during theHolocene. During the period up to 2,500 years BP, the Cumbrian coast was likelyDoc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 16

to have been characterised by fringing beaches and barriers that appear to haveallowed longshore drift of sediment (derived from cliffs and the seabed) to movesouth. Here some of the coarser fraction accumulated in the Drigg/Eskmealsbarriers whilst the remainder moved south, possibly to the Duddon and theSandscale dune complex.St BeesCell 11: Solway to Great Orme.Subcell 11d: St Bees Head toDuddon estuary (in red)Esk, Irt andMite estuaryDuddon estuaryMorecambe BayWalney IslandFigure 2.2. Location of key features in subcell 11dThe modern coastal system is quite distinct from this mid-Holocene sediment-richshoreline. Since 2,500 years BP very slightly falling to static sea-levels have meant areduction in sediment inputs from shoreline erosion and seabed sources havebecome exhausted. The coast no longer exports sediment to the south and is in theprocess of developing into a closed, swash-aligned system. Future sedimentsources are likely to be dominated by cliff recession and platform lowering inputsdue to predicted increases in sea-level. However, internal re-working of existingDoc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 17

stores could prove to be an important process. Therefore, the dunes and shingleridges of Eskmeals are a potential sediment source that could influence the futurebehaviour of the St Bees to Drigg shoreline.2.5 Inheritance and sea-level changeThe ‘inheritance’ describes the impact of former climatic or environmentalconditions on contemporary shoreline processes. In the study area, important pastevents include:Late Devensian glaciation which left large amounts of till and sands andgravels on the seabed and coastal hinterland which have been eroded toform the current beaches. Variation in the sedimentology of materialsmeans that some sediments influence the erosion potential of the coast,and the supply of beach-building sands and gravels. In many areas, thesupply of sediment to the shoreline is prevented by the presence of arailway embankment which was constructed in the late 1840s (such as thatseen adjacent to the Sellafield site). In other locations erosion of thesesediments has left boulder-strewn foreshore platforms (locally known asscars) and resistant headlands in the cliffs. The development of Sabellariaalveolata (worm-rock) reefs formed of very fragile sand casts are also acharacteristic of this shoreline. The reefs are unlikely to have an effect onshoreline evolution in the medium to long-term because they do not formresistant reefs and breakdown. Winter site inspections (Table 1.1) haveconfirmed damage to the ‘worm-rock’ following storm events.Sea-level change since deglaciation (Figure 2.3, Table 2.2). A ‘mid-Holocene’ highstand deposited sediment in raised beaches and estuaries.In many areas of the coast, there is evidence that these potential sedimentsources are being cannibalised. The trend of current sea-level change isunclear, but is assumed to be static to slightly rising based on current UKclimate projections and advice (http://ukcp09.defra.gov.uk/).Based on the foregoing, Table 2.3 provides a conceptual understanding ofHolocene system states, sea-level, sediment budget and shoreline evolution of theLLWR frontage.Doc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 18

Figure 2.3 Relative sea-level reconstruction from Ravenglass estuary complex, Morecambe Bayand Solway Firth. Data in black are radiocarbon dated sea-level index points from Cumbria.Index points represented by ‘T’ are limiting points, sea-level lies below this altitude. The relativesea-level curve from the Solway Firth is as grey short dashed line (Lloyd et al., 1999) and fromMorecambe Bay grey long dashed line (Zong and Tooley, 1996).Table 2.2 Estimated tidal information for west Cumbria since the Lateglacial (based on Lloydand Zong, in Halcrow 2006b)Time Period MSL MHWS HATCurrent 0.24m 4.01m 4.9mMid-Holocene 0.55m 4.33 5.2Last Glacial Max. 2.29m 6.07m 7mNotes: MSL – mean sea-level; MHWS – mean high water spring tides; HAT – highestastronomical tide.Doc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 19

Table 2.3. Summary of conceptual Holocene system states and sediment budgetPeriod Sea-level RSL change Seabed sediments Cliffs & platforms Cliff inputs Beaches Estuary mouth Comments9kBP- -25m to Rapid rise ca Gravel; abundant? No cliff recessionTidal inlets through8kBP -5m 30mm/yrbarriers?8kBP to4kBP4kBP to2kBP-5m to0mSlow rise ca1.25mm/yr0 to 4m Relativelyrapid rise ca2mm/yr tostationarysea-levelSand; abundant?Shingle; reducedsupply comparedwith earlierHoloceneSand; abundant?gravel; negligibleminimalSand; abundant?Relatively rapidrecession andlowering of shoreplatform.Estimatedrecession rate;0.25m to0.5m/year.Cliffline at 6000 yrsBP around 2 kmoffshoreSlow recession andlowering of shoreplatform.Estimatedrecession rate; 0.1mto 0.2m/year.Cliffline at 6kBParound 750moffshoreNone; till slopesprotected bybarriers andlagoons.Increasing cliffsupplyMaximumHolocene yield?Series of broadbarrier beaches upto 4km offshore,aligned N-S,fronting lagoonareas?Development ofdrift-alignedfringing beaches.Beach growth andretreat.Dominantlongshore sedimenttransport cellsLongshore sortingof sediment anddecoupling of sandand shingle.Fringing beaches.Beach retreat.Formation ofshingle ridges fromlongshore transport(formed prior to6100 yrs BP).Sand duneformation (6000-5500 yrs BP) andburial of shingleridges.Prograding coast.Continuedformation ofshingle ridges(4000-3500 yrs BP;2800 yrs BP).Multiple shingleridges reflect pulsesof sediment inputor periodicforcing/storms.Sand duneformation (3300-2500 yrs BP) andburial of shingleridges.Evidence of barriers from seabedseismic interpretation (Nirex 1993);shells within planed off barrier dated at8500 yrs BP.Earliest shingle ridge at Drigg indicatesestablishment of net southwardslongshore transport during this period.This implies establishment of driftalignedfringing beaches.Formation of multiple ridges requiresfurther pulses of sediment i.e. fed byaccelerated cliff recession, withepisodicity possibly reflecting variableforcing control (e.g. wave directions).Emergence of St Bees Head and gradualanticlockwise pivoting of shorelineincreases tendency for net southwardsdrift. The end of this phase probablymarks the beginning of the transitionbetween drift and swash alignments.Doc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 201 20

Period Sea-level RSL change Seabed sediments Cliffs & platforms Cliff inputs Beaches Estuary mouth Comments2kBP toPresent4m to 0m Slow fall ca1mm/yrGravel; negligible Very slow recessionand lowering ofshore platform.Fringing beaches.Beach face declineand retreat.Sand; abundant?Estimatedrecession rate;0.1m/year.Cliffline at 2.5kBParound 300moffshoreScarce cliff supply,exacerbated in 20thcentury by coastprotection worksDevelopment ofswash-aligned cellswith distinctheadland control(Selker Point, StBees Head). Slowemergence ofminor headlandsand furthersegmentation ofshoreline.Longshore sortingof sediment anddecoupling of sandand shingle.Stranding of upperbeach structures(relict gradings).Prograding coast.Sand duneformation (1500 yrsBP). Developmentof blow-outs andparabolic dunes incold/dry/windyperiods (e.g. LittleIce Age).Intermittentforedunedevelopment,derived fromexposed sandyforeshore.Reduced tidalprism, reduction inmouth width andebb tide delta area;extension of spitstructures.Lengthening/combining/diversion ofriver channels.Cannibalisation ofupdrift sections ofspits, leading togradualdevelopment ofswash-aligned cellsand re-orientationof spit heads.Phase dominated by falling sea-levels.The current grading is probably a relictfrom the early stages of this period,indicating the establishment of headlandcontrols and cell development. Thisphase might be expected to coincidewith an actively prograding shoreline.However, reduction in cliff recessionand, hence, sediment supply hasprobably been the dominant control,leading to a period of slow evolution onthe open coast, stranding of upperbeach features (e.g. the grading) andlimited longshore transport (nowinternal re-distribution of sediment,rather than longshore towards Drigg).Rapid decline in the tidal prism hasprovided the impetus for significantadjustments at the estuary mouth,including spit lengthening (reduction inmouth cross section) and re-orientation(cannibalisation due to sedimentscarcity). Possible re-organisation ofchannel network to maximise streampower.Doc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 201 21

2.6 Shoreline resistance to changeThe shoreline’s resistance to forcing is an important consideration for predictionof future coastal change. Shoreline resistance has been assessed through thedevelopment of a map showing the bedrock surface, assembled using data fromBGS and BNFL records, and a visual assessment of the Quaternary sedimentsexposed in the coastal cliffs (Halcrow 2006b). These data show that the sandstonebedrock cliffs at St Bees Head are very resistant to change. Variation in thesedimentology of the Quaternary sediments also exerts a control on shorelineresistance to change with very coarse glacial outwash boulder deposits, as exposedat Nethertown headland, being more resistant to erosion than the fine-grained tillsexposed at Barn Scar, or the dunes at Carl Crag and Drigg.The bedrock surface map presented in Halcrow (2006b) and reproduced below(Figure 2.4) highlights the morphology of the bedrock surface and the elevation ofbedrock above current sea-level, and can be taken to show the coastline of the lastinterglacial. When combined with a digital elevation model, it is possible togenerate the volume and sedimentology of overlying Quaternary sediments in thehinterland, which gives an insight to the future potential sediment supply to thebeach and nearshore system.Doc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 201 22

Figure 2.4. Shoreline resistance model showing elevation of bedrock and of input data points (Halcrow 2006b)Doc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 23

3 Coastal Monitoring3.1 Baseline surveyThe baseline survey of the coastline from St Bees Head to Ravenglass wasundertaken in May 2002, extending one kilometre inland and five kilometresoffshore. This provided the first high resolution data for the area and provides afixed datum to compare historical data and future surveys. The baseline surveycomprised:setup of a GPS control network to ensure accuracy of survey componentsan aerial survey comprising simultaneous collection of 2m resolutionLiDAR data and 25cm resolution digital aerial imagerysingle beam echo sounder bathymetry survey to 5km offshorea shoreline RTK topographic survey of the intertidal zonea sediment sampling survey of the beach and offshore areameasurement of current strength and direction using three AcousticDoppler Current Profilers (ADCPs) deployed along the coast.The details of the baseline survey are documented in Halcrow (2002c). Analysis ofbaseline survey data are presented in Halcrow (2003b). The baseline survey data(raw ASCII format and processed to ArcView GRID format) have been providedseparately to the LLWR on an external hard drive.3.2 Annual monitoring – repeat LiDAR surveysSubsequent to the baseline survey, 2m resolution LiDAR data has been capturedon an annual to biannual basis. LiDAR was captured by aerial surveys in December2004 the Environment Agency (EA) and in February 2006 by Blom (formerlySimmons Aerofilms). A terrestrial laser scanning survey of the foreshore wasundertaken by Halcrow in the winter of 2003/04.In March 2009, high resolution 0.5m LiDAR data was collected by the EA’sGeomatics Group. All surveys cover the coastline between St Bees Head and theEsk Estuary mouth. All data were assessed for error, rectified accordingly and usedto generate Digital Elevation Models (DEM) of difference and beach volumes.Survey and analysis results have been provided separately.Doc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 24

The accuracy of the LiDAR surveys can be assessed by comparison with fixedpoints of known elevation and calculation of root mean square error (RMSE).Data for the different LiDAR surveys is summarised in Table 3.1 which highlightsthe improvements in accuracy and resolution of each subsequent survey.Dataset Date of survey Resolution (m) RMSE of originaldata (m)2002 DEM May 2002 2.0 0.1232004 DEM December 2004 2.0 0.0852006 DEM February 2006 2.0 0.0602009 DEM March 2009 0.5 0.027Table 3.1. RMSE errors for LiDAR surveys3.3 Repeat baseline surveyA repeat baseline survey was carried out in March 2009 by the EA GeomaticsGroup and consisted of a synchronous 0.5m resolution LiDAR and 12.5cmresolution digital aerial imagery survey, a shoreline RTK survey and a multibeamecho sounder bathymetry survey. These data have been used to assess and quantifyplanform and vertical changes of the shorelines since 2002. Survey results havebeen provided separately.3.4 Coastal inspectionsAnnual coastal inspections are documented in Halcrow 2004b, 2005a, 2006a,2007a and 2009a and key observations from these reports are summarised in Table3.1. These reports describe the prevailing conditions at the coastline duringinspection and makes comparisons with those documented previously to highlightareas of change. They provide field verification of shoreline change and assistunderstanding of the nature, magnitude and mechanisms of change; theinspections also provide independent calibration of the remote sensing survey data.3.5 Summary of monitoring resultsCoastal change data, measured in GIS by comparing historical orthorectified aerialphotography and Ordnance Survey (OS) mapping to the baseline survey datasetsare summarised in Figure 3.1. The aerial photography covers the period 1941 to2009, while historical OS mapping covers the period 1863 to 2002.Doc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 25

Table 3.1. Summary of coastal inspection findings (2000-2009)CBU Site observations Very little activity on the sandstone cliffs. Shallow mudslides commonly seen in the1. St Bees Head till-capped composite cliffs. Storm beach has very little activity observed on boulder-strewn foreshore Cliffs at southern extent show gradual degradation2. St Bees Storm beach elevation and angle varies greatlypromenade Foreshore - morphology and position of sand bars varies greatly, with occasionaloutcrops of gravel or peat observed3. St Bees GolfCourse4. Pow Beck5. NorthCoulderton6. Coulderton7. NethertownStation8. Nethertown9. Braystones10. Ehen Valley Cliffs very active with talus rapidly reworked into the storm beach Foreshore - morphology and position of sand bars varies greatly, with occasionaloutcrops of gravel or peat observed Shoreline eroding with degradation of gabions and undermining of footbridge anddefences south of stream. Defences collapsed in 2007/08 and repaired by 2009. Unprotected headland in north of CBU active with active cliff erosion and talusrapidly reworked into the storm beach Accumulation of gravel headland with stabilisation by vegetation at the southernlimit of the storm beach Foreshore gravels with occasional mobile overlying sand bars Shoreline being built out by residents of beach front bungalows. Storm beach often covered by veneer of sand Unprotected cliffs show localised activity Railway embankment suffered localised failure in 2007/08 with repair using gabionsand rock armour Sandstone outcrop on foreshore being quarried with removal of large blocks >5m 2 Cliffs with localised episodic failures which have deposited boulders on the stormbeach Persistent high and narrow storm beach. Localised failures of railway embankment which have been repaired using sleepersor bounders. Localised reworking of upper storm beach to build flood defence bund to protectbungalows (freshly cut exposure observed in 2009 revealed storm beach iscomposed of very sandy gravel with a veneer of gravel. River outlet beneath railway and through storm beach is buried periodically Number of bungalows has increased since 2002 Construction of waste water treatment plant since 2002 Accumulation of sand at back of beach Erosion of vegetation from dunes apparently due to trail bike use11. Sellafield Storm beach excavated for temporary storage of recovered Sealines12. Ehen andCalder Changing pattern of channel and gravel bars on foreshore fan delta Growth of gravel headland south of river Calder mouth13. Seascale Localised erosion of sand and shallow failure of railway embankmentDoc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 26

CBU14. WhitriggsScar15. Carl Crag16. Barn Scar17. Drigg dunes18. Esk estuarySite observations Apparent accumulation of sand at the back of the beach, particularly in the centre ofthe bay. Change in sandy foreshore beach elevation of >1m seen at pier Veneer of sand often covers storm beach gravels Localised failures from unprotected cliffs south of headland Apparent accumulation of sand at the back of the beach, particularly in the centre ofthe bay. Localised failures from exposed till cliffs Development of a vegetated gravel ness at the shoreline immediately north of the tillcliff headland Exposure of till platform beneath thin gravel veneer at base of storm beach and onshore platform Exposures of peat and laminated clay-rich till in basins observed in differentlocations as cover of sand has moved Regular migration of sand bars to reveal different parts of subjacent platform Regular migration of sand bars on shore front No change detected in estuaryResults of this analysis differ from the more generalised and pessimistic projectionsprovided by Bullen Consultants (1998a,b) because of improvements in precisionand accuracy of input data (orthorectified imagery and baseline survey), use ofadvanced measurement techniques (GIS tools), and the establishment of ageomorphological framework to describe individual coastal behaviour systems,their landforms, materials, processes and potential response to storms and climatechange.The chart shows:Distribution of 2002 to 2009 data is skewed towards shoreline advancewith a modal value of

7060Short term 2002-2009 (n = 132)Medium term 1941-2002 (n = 102)Long term 1863-2002 (n = 113)50Frequency403020100-5.0 to -4.0-4.0 to -3.0-3.0 to -2.0-2.0 to -1.0-1.0 to -0.8-0.8 to -0.6-0.6 to -0.4-0.4 to -0.2-0.2 to 00 to 0.20.2 to 0.40.4 to 0.60.6 to 0.80.8 to 1.01 to 22 to 33 to 44 to 5Rate of change (m/yr)Figure 3.1. Summary of coastal change data (1863 to 2009)The key findings of all the coastal monitoring and inspections can be summarisedas follows:In the north of the area of interest, the cliffs formed of weak till at St BeesGolf Course have been subject to erosion since 2002 at a rate of up to0.8m/yr, and on average by 0.42m/yr, due to on-going cliff instability(mudsliding) where debris is rapidly incorporated into the beach system.The foreshore in this area has experienced no significant net change involume, although the beach and foreshore morphology changesdynamically due to movement of sand bars.In the section from Pow Beck to the Ehen Valley, the foreshore ispredominantly a gravel shore platform which does not appear to haveDoc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 28

changed significantly in elevation. The storm beaches have also remainedmuch the same, although there has been localised modification to themorphology where flood defence bunds have been built by residents. Theshoreline is generally protected by the railway embankment andconsequently has not changed position. There have been a number ofrepairs to the embankment since 2002 where erosion and undermining ofthe embankment has occurred.From the Ehen Valley to the Ehen/Calder river mouth, the net elevation(and therefore change in volume of sediment) of the foreshore has notchanged. However, the shoreline has advanced seaward by up to 0.5m/yras sand has accumulated at the back of the beach. Also, dynamic changesin the morphology of the Ehen/Calder fan delta have occurred along withsignificant shoreline advance south of the river outlets with the formationof a sand/gravel ness.From Seascale to Drigg, significant accretion and shoreline advance hasoccurred in the centre of shallow bays (Seascale, Carl Crag and Driggdunes) where immobile sediments have become vegetated. There is aspatially-variable pattern of change in beach volume with limited netchange. There has been erosion of the weak till cliffs at Barn Scar andWhitriggs Scar, which form exposed headlands between the shallow bays.Doc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 29

4 Conceptual Coastal Change ProjectionModel4.1 Conceptual model developmentThe conceptual coastal change projection model (CCCPM) is presented in fourreports (Halcrow 2004c, 2005b, 2006b, and 2008) which document the variousstages of its development. These documents also describe the coastal developmentthrough the Holocene and the past response of the coast to changes in sedimentsupply and sea-level. The spatial/temporal framework is summarised below.Assessment tools used within the CCCPM, and current outputs of the model, aresummarised in Section 4.2.The most recent iteration of the conceptual coastal change projection model(Halcrow, 2008) was used by Nexia Solutions (acting as consultants to LLWR Ltd)to develop climate and landscape scenarios and coastal evolution pathways tosupport the LLWR’s Requirement 2 of Schedule 9 submission to the EnvironmentAgency (Thorne and Kane 2007). This document included mapped projections ofcoastal change interpreted from the work undertaken by Halcrow.4.1.1 Model frameworkIn developing the conceptual coastal change projection model, a geomorphologicalspace/time framework was adopted. The model incorporates the following:Space: geomorphological variation of the coast behaviour units (CBU)from St Bees Head to the Esk Estuary which have been specified in termsof their geomorphology, sedimentology and ‘inheritance’ (i.e. the impactsof glaciation, deglaciation and sea-level change in the Late Devensian toHolocene, see Sections 2.5 and 2.6).Process: provides functional models for the development of the coastlinebased on the impacts of inheritance from previous geological/climateconditions, and provides assessment tools to quantitatively model (e.g.empirical, mathematical, probabilistic) the evolution of open coast, barrierbeach and estuary CBUs.Forcing: considers climate change forcing scenarios. The 2002 DriggPCRSA Central Projection Scenario defines a number of variants ofpredicted climate change based on downscaling the LLN-2D modelresults. Halcrow (2004c) provides an update on the potential impact ofDoc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 30

climate change and sea-level rise, based on outputs from the BIOCLIMproject which will underpin revised scenarios of climate change and sealevelrise in future revisions of the PCRSA. The impacts of UKCP09projections over the next 100 years have yet to be considered, but are notthought to be significantly different to projections from UKCIP02.Response: develops scenarios for change in the open coast, barrierbeaches and estuaries over future time periods in response to futureforcing.The methodology that is being developed for the ‘process’ section includes anumber of key elements:Shoreline states: characteristics of the landforms that form the shorelinesystem. The system state can be regarded as a characteristic formassociated with a particular set of environmental controls (e.g. sedimentsupply, relative sea-level change; wave dynamics). Past states of thecoastline are presented in Table 2.3.State change: shoreline states are generally robust and persistent forms.However, shoreline evolution can involve the development of a series ofdistinct states. The transition between states is controlled by majorchanges in combinations of environmental controls.Complex system behaviour: within a particular state, morphologicalchanges can occur in response to variations in the forcing (e.g. wave, windor tidal energy flows) or the materials (e.g. the geology exposed at theshoreline at a particular point in time).The CCCPM developed for the LLWR frontage involves a combination of topdown,bottom-up, and hybrid approaches based on the Futurecoast (Halcrow,2002d) and Tyndall Centre Coastal Simulator studies (Tyndall Centre, 2005), butwith a number of advances that reflect the different temporal and spatial scalesunder consideration. The models for cliff recession and estuary evolution aredetailed in Section 4.2.4.1.2 Future states of the coastlineWith reference to the future shoreline states in the conceptual model, it is assumedthat the following processes and forms can be expected:Model State 1: there will be relatively uniform recession along the tillclifflines, maintaining the overall swash-aligned shoreline orientation.Doc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 31

Localised headland and bay units are likely to develop through time inresponse to changes in the resistance of the glacial sediments that crop outin the cliffs. The current situation of no net sediment drift will bemaintained, meaning that gravel eroded from the till cliffs will formprotective beaches. This positive feedback will be counteracted by sealevelrise which will act to accelerate the rate of cliff recession. Sedimentsupply from cliff recession is expected to be sufficient to maintain acoastal morphology similar to that seen today, but not high enough totrigger development of a new morphology, such as a protective barrierbeach. The LLWR site will be lost during this model state becausebedrock crops out higher than 0m OD inland of the site; therefore, theModel State will be reached after the site is lost (Figure 2.4);Model State 2: the gradual emergence of a buried sandstone land surfacewill have a significant control on shoreline evolution. There will besignificant variations in cliff recession rates between clifflines, reflectingthe different strengths and resistance to erosion of till and sandstone,leading to a change in broad-scale coastal morphology. A large embaymentis projected to form in the vicinity of the Ravenglass estuaries associatedwith a deep basin cut in rockhead (Figure 2.4). The declining supply ofgravel from till cliff recession and continued attrition of existing beachgravel will also act to gradually reduce the size of beaches and theprotection they provide to cliffs; andModel State 3: the shoreline will be segmented into a series of headlandsand bays developed in the limited remaining outcrops of till, withintervening rocky (till capped) clifflines. The low supply of gravel from theerosion of cliffs formed in till and the limited supply from erosion ofsandstone cliffs will accelerate the reduction in size of beaches anddiminish the cliff protection effect.4.1.3 Climate forcingThe only climate forcing function used in the conceptual coastal change model isrelative sea-level. Making predictions of future sea-level is beyond the scope ofHalcrow’s remit and conceptual model relies on the outputs of other researchprogrammes. Over the next 100 years, sea-level projections for the Cumbria coastare provided by UK Climate Projections 2009, which now supersede the UKCIP02projections. The UKCP09 projections for Drigg are shown in Figure 4.1. The maindifference from UKCIP02 projections is the use of probability to describe 5, 50and 95 percentile projections for each emissions scenario; input data on isostaticland-level change and eustatic sea-level rise remain unchanged. Relative sea-levelDoc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 32

199020002010202020302040205020602070208020902100projections for 2100 range from 0.1 to 0.8m higher than 1990 levels, with thecentral projection medium emissions scenario projecting sea-level rise of 0.4m.0.80.70.6H Relative Sea Level Rise at 5 %ile (m)H Relative Sea Level Rise at 50 %ile (m)H Relative Sea Level Rise at 95 %ile (m)L Relative Sea Level Rise at 5 %ile (m)L Relative Sea Level Rise at 50 %ile (m)L Relative Sea Level Rise at 95 %ile (m)M Relative Sea Level Rise at 5 %ile (m)M Relative Sea Level Rise at 50 %ile (m)M Relative Sea Level Rise at 95 %ile (m)Relative sea-level rise (m)0.50.40.30.20.10YearFigure 4.1. UKCP09 relative sea-level projections for Drigg. 5, 50 and 95 percentileprobabilities for high, medium and low emissions scenarios.Beyond 2100, sea-levels are harder to predict and the conceptual model usesinformation presented in the BIOCLIM programme (Table 4.1) which providesestimates of sea-level over the next three thousand years.Table 4.1 BIOCLIM relative sea-level change scenarios (from Thorne 2007)Future TimePeriodScenario Identifier ‘B3/B4 ModerateRise’Scenario Identifier ‘B3/B4 LargeRise’(Years) Annual Rate Cumulative Rise Annual Rate Cumulative Rise0-100 1mm/year 0.1m 8mm/year 0.8m100-1000 4mm/year 3.7m 12mm/year 11.6m1000-3000 4mm/year 11.7m 4mm/year 19.6mDoc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 33

4.2 Conceptual coastal change projection models and results4.2.1 Open coast(a) Stationary sea-level modelA simple linear extrapolation model has been used to estimate future cliff recessionrates under stationary sea-level conditions based on BIOCLIM scenario A4a(Thorne, 2007). Average annual recession rates for selected cliff sections have beenprojected into the future to the point at which breaching of the site boundaryoccurs (i.e. the cliff line retreats to a point where it intersects the site’s boundaryfence). The results are shown in Table 4.2 and suggest that breach of the LLWRsite due to coastal erosion under static sea-level can be expected within 1,400 years.Based on current understanding of climate change and sea-level rise, a scenario ofstatic sea-level is considered unlikely, and consequently these projections can beviewed as a best case.Table 4.2 BIOCLIM sea-level scenario A4a (Stationary sea-level)Unit Profiles RecessionRate*(m/Year)1000 YearRecessionDistance (m)Termination Eventat LLWR1. Barn Scar 30-35 0.07 70 5000 Years2. Carl Crag 36-47 0.25 250 1400 YearsNote: * Average long-term cliff recession rate from map sources(b) Rising relative sea-level modelA simple quantitative model was presented in Halcrow (2006b), which accountsfor more likely projections of sea-level. The model incorporates a negativefeedback whereby accelerated cliff recession causes increased sediment supplywhich in turn leads to beach growth to provide cliff protection leading to areduced cliff recession rate.The model uses relative sea-level (RSL) change and Beach Level (BL) factors tomodify an initial average recession rate (R) at a cliff-beach profile (i.e. it is a 2-dimension model):R (Year T) = R (Year T-1) x RSL Factor x BL FactorThe cumulative recession over time is calculated as:Cumulative R (Year T) = R (Year T) + Cumulative R (Year T-1)Doc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 34

A version of this model has been published by Lee (2005). An initial recession rate(Year 0) is adjusted by a combination of RSL and BL factors to generate a revised(Year 1) recession rate. This recession results in sediment (gravel) supply andpotential beach growth, changing the BL factor appropriate for Year 2. At thesame time RSL change over Year 2 also results in an adjustment to the recessionrate. The recession rate for Year 2 reflects the balance between RSL change andBL growth. The sediment (gravel) supply for Year 2 is determined by the trendbetween cumulative recession distance and gravel inputs from future cliffrecession, and is therefore determined by estimates of gravel content of glacialsediment in the hinterland. Future gravel supply is based on knowledge ofsediments exposed in the cliff face and an estimate of the total volume of glacialsediments in the hinterland based on the difference between lands surface androckhead elevations:Input (Year 2) = Input (Year 1) + (Cumulative Recession Distance xtrend of changing gravel input from cliff recession)The cliff behaviour units and representative profiles are shown in Table 4.3, alongwith the key parameters that define contemporary controls.This iterative process continues until:the beach wedge volume equals 200m 3 , at which point it is assumed thatthe beach provides almost complete protection to the cliff. A nominalrecession rate of c. 25% of the initial (Year 0) value has been used toreflect the on-going influence of extreme waves and sub-aerial processesthe recession distance results in sandstone being exposed at the cliff toe.An initial assumed sandstone recession rate (25% of the till cliffs) is used;this value is modified in subsequent years by the RSL and BL factors, asappropriate.Table 4.3 Recession model input data for profiles affecting the LLWRUnit ProfilesUnitlength(m)Historicalrecessionrate(m/yr)Currentgravel beachprofilevolume (m 3 )Currentgravel input(m 3 /m)GravelinputtrendslopeDistancetosandstone(m)1. Barn Scar 30-35 830 0.07 28.32 2.35 -0.0002 5002. Carl Crag 36-47 1300 0.25 43.07 2.15 -0.00094 250Doc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 35

The model assumes the following:as the shoreline is approximately swash-aligned and calculated drift ratesare low, the longshore transport of sand and gravel is relatively minoroffshore losses of sediment (95% of cliff inputs) includes the removal of aproportion of the fine-medium gravels by storm action i.e. the mediumcoarsegravels and cobble sized material is retained on the gravel stormbeach ridgegravel attrition losses are assumed to be in the range 0.05 to 0.3% per yearof the beach profile area. This is consistent with laboratory-basedestimates of attrition losses for flint pebbles from the south coast ofEngland (Dornbusch et al., 2003)the offshore transfer of medium-coarse gravels and cobble sized materialis negligible, as the dominant trend is for the landward transfer of coarsematerialall the fines are removed offshore in suspension and are available fortransport into the Esk estuary complex.A summary of the CCCPM results for mean recession distances are presented inTable 4.4. A probability distribution has been developed for the distance/time plotby generating upper and lower estimates that correspond to 2 standard deviations(SD) above or below the average (mean) estimate, respectively:The standard deviation (SD) has been assumed to be 15% of the mean value,following the approach suggested by the recent Risk Assessment of CoastalErosion (RACE) research project (Halcrow 2007b). Considering a normaldistribution, there is a 95% chance that the recession distance would fall within2SD of the mean recession rate. These data have been calculated, but for claritythey are not presented herein.Table 4.4 Predicted timing of LLWR site breaching by coastal erosion. (Sea-level scenariosdefined in Table 4.1)SiteRepresentativeCliff UnitScenario B3/B4: Moderate Scenario B3/B4: LargeSea-level RiseSea-level RiseMean Breach Time (Years)LLWR Drigg Barn Scar 1,250 1,000(350m) Carl Crag 1,000 1,000Doc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 36

A summary of the ‘best estimate’ projected timescales of coastal recession andbreaching of the site boundaries at the LLWR near Drigg are shown in Table 4.5for the ‘moderate’ and ‘large’ sea-level rise scenarios of BIOCLIM (Thorne, 2007),estimates on future gravel supply, and historical cliff recession rates to the 2002baseline survey. The Barn Scar and Carl Crag CBUs form the LLWR site frontage.Table 4.5 Predicted recession distances of the LLWR and adjacent frontage (Scenarios B3/B4).Unit Year after Scenario B3/B4: Scenario B3/B4: Largepresent Moderate Sea-level Rise Sea-level Rise50% Cumulative Recession Distance (m)Barn Scar 50 4 35100 11 91500 176 2041000 306 3432500 729 767Carl Crag 50 13 43100 33 91500 197 1911000 341 3612500 844 952Whitriggs 50 6 51100 15 118500 368 4621000 634 7312500 1281 1339The results indicate:that under both BIOCLIM scenarios, the projected timescale forbreaching of the site boundary by coastal erosion is relatively insensitive toeither the moderate or large sea-level rise scenarios. This is due to the factthat collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (which will contribute to amajor rise in sea-level) is not expected to occur until late in the CCCPMprojection timescale i.e. >1,000 yrs from now.350m of coastal recession leading to breach of the LLWR site boundarycould be expected within around 1,000 years under the BIOCLIM B3/B4scenarios of high sea-level rise and moderate sea-level rise.Doc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 37

It should be stressed that the 3,000-year cliff erosion and recession predictions aresimply a reflection of the modelled interactions between the cliff response to RSLchange and progressive beach growth. There are considerable uncertaintiesassociated with the current level of knowledge about these interactions thatconstrain the reliability of the results and the confidence that should be placed inthe shoreline projections. Upper and lower bound estimates of coastal recessionwere determined and reported in Halcrow (2009b).4.2.2 EstuariesEstuary evolution is related to changes in sea-level and sediment supply, and it hasbeen modelled using industry-standard tools which consider changes in estuarywidth and ebb-tide delta size. Assessment of estuary modelling tools was presentedin Halcrow 2004c and has been further developed in Halcrow 2006b and 2008.(a) Estuary morphology and the regime modelThe estuary width model is underpinned by a power law that connects dischargeand channel morphology where tidal discharge or tidal prism () in coastal inlets isrelated to mouth area, A m using expressions of the type (‘k’ and ‘n’ parameters arederived empirical values):Am knThe model uses the general inter-estuary relationship between tidal prism and crosssectional area of the estuarine mouth and applies this to the intra-estuary case. Thisassumes that the tidal prism/cross section relationship applies equally to eachsection of a given estuary as it does to individual estuaries. The resulting modelallows prediction of the regime relationship between cross section area and tidalprism for any given section of an estuary.The regime model for the Ravenglass estuaries incorporates constants derivedfrom a best fit regression analysis of UK west coast estuaries as described inHalcrow (2004c). The basic regime equation used is:Where:Log CA x = (0.9648. log TP x ) - 3.458CA x = cross sectional area of estuary channel at distance x from the mouthDoc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 38

TP x = Tidal prism of estuary landward of distance xModel verification has been undertaken by comparing prediction of channelmorphology using existing tidal prism data with the observed channel dimensions;the match between the predicted and existing morphology is reasonable (Halcrow2006b).(b) Ebb-tide deltaThe regime model predicts the equilibrium cross section area and width of theestuary at any distance along its length. Using this output it is possible to evaluatethe area of the ebb-tide delta that would develop on the open coast. The model isderived from work on US estuaries by Vincent and Corson (1981) as discussed inHalcrow (2004c).(c) ProjectionsThe potential large scale changes in the environmental controls of the Esk, Miteand Irt estuaries over the next 5,000 years mean that providing a framework forprediction is subject to considerable uncertainty. In particular the accommodationspace available for channel evolution will change as sea-levels rise so that it isnecessary to develop model boundaries that will adjust accordingly. In view of thisthe modelling has currently only been carried out for two important time periods:0 to 80 years:Irt and Mite included as a single estuaryIrt channel assumed to occupy existing courseEsk channel assumed to occupy existing course.300 to 5,000 years:Mite modelled separately from IrtIrt, Mite and Esk channel assumed to follow medial pathwaybetween the 10m valley boundary contourEsk boundary constrained by rock valley sides.Model predictions for the estuaries are presented as a series of maps and plots ofchannel width in Halcrow (2006b).Doc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 39

The approach presented provides a methodology and predictions for the futuregeomorphological development of the Irt, Mite and Esk estuaries, over the next5,000 years. The changes in geomorphology are predicted to arise as a result ofthree factors:The predicted rise in sea-levels described in UKCIP02 and BIOCLIM(summarised in Thorne 2007)The projected increase in sediment supply from the erosion of adjacentcoastal cliffsChanges in the accommodation space for channel evolutionThe results suggest that over the next 80 years, the projected changes to theestuaries are minimal. Between 25 and 80 years the projected rise in relative sealevelwill tend to widen the estuarine channels as tidal prisms increase. During thisperiod, however, sediment supply to the estuaries from open coast cliff erosionwill allow the estuaries to keep pace with sea-level rise so reducing the rate ofincrease in both tidal prism and channel width. The result in 80 years from now isprojected to be little change from existing conditions.The rise in relative sea-levels over the period 80 to 5,000 years after present isprojected to increase the channel dimensions of the three estuaries by a significantamount. The Irt channel will experience maximum change due to itsaccommodation space: it flows through a wide valley allowing its channel toexpand as sea-levels rise. In the Esk, the constraints provided by the rock valleysides provide minimal accommodation space that will not allow channel expansionin the more seaward sections of the estuary. Therefore, a broad inner channel willbe connected via a narrow, high velocity, outer channel to the open coast. It isprojected that tidal ponding will occur in the upper Esk.The pathway taken by the Irt to the sea is predicted to remain approximately as itis today. This is due to the projected increase in gravel supply to the Drigg barrierbeach 2 which will prevent any major avulsion of the Irt to a more westerly outlet tothe sea.2 Note that the structure of the Drigg barrier beach / spit is currently under investigation using data from ageophysical survey and borehole investigation. Preliminary geophysical data suggests the barrier beach / spit is aridge of glacial sediment with limited cover of Holocene sediments.Doc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 40

The Mite estuary will widen as its tidal prism increases, but here the availableaccommodation space is sufficient to allow channel expansion along the course ofthe present river and estuary channel, joining the Irt estuary at approximately itspresent location.The ebb-tide delta of the combined estuaries is projected to decrease in size overthe next 80 years due to a sediment deficit. Thereafter, however, the delta willexpand as sea-levels rise in the estuary channels and sediment supply from clifferosion increases. The delta is predicted to remain as a single coherent landformwith an ultimate projection seaward from the high water mark of 3km. Theinfluence of this expanding ebb-tide delta on coastal recession rates is predicted tobe significant and involves a negative feed-back mechanism that requires furtherinvestigation.The assessment for the estuaries includes visualisations of estuary form up to 5,000years from now based on quantitative data for the Irt, Mite and Esk, and sea-levelprojections available at the time. Projections for evolution of the estuaries indicatethat channels will initially narrow as salt marsh develops in response to continuedsea-level fall. As sea-level begins to rise in the medium to long term, the estuarieswill grow until the three rivers may eventually be able sustain separate mouths.Current projections suggest that the evolution of the estuaries will not directlyimpact on the Drigg site over the next 5000 years.Doc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 41

5 Conclusions and RecommendationsThis document provides a summary of the work completed under the CoastalStudies Forward Programme over the period 2000 to 2008 to develop a conceptualcoastal change projection model; preliminary results from the CCCPM arepresented for future scenarios of sea-level rise which are projected to cause erosionand flooding of the LLWR site over various timescales.Coastal erosion and landscape change are recognised to be critical issues for thefuture safe management and sustainability of the LLWR. As the site is near thecoast, it is necessary both to assess the risk that the site could be breached bycoastal and estuarine erosion processes over the lifetime of the site, and to assessthe degree to which these processes could be accelerated by relative sea-level riseassociated with global climate change.The predictions for the site being impacted by coastal erosion indicates that 350mof cliff recession (i.e. the distance from the current shoreline to the site boundary)could be expected within 750-1,750 years from now, depending on the scenarioand rate of sea-level rise adopted.The relatively large time periods over which erosion is projected to impact the sitereflect the current levels of uncertainty in relative sea-level rise beyond the period100 years from now. Further work is needed to reduce critical uncertainties in theconceptual coastal change projection model.A key source of uncertainty is incomplete knowledge of the interactions betweenlandforms and forcing processes. It is recommended that further work isundertaken to link recent storm events with shoreline responses that will havebeen recorded by the repeat annual LiDAR and shoreline inspection surveys.There are a number of uncertainties with the assessment tools used to inform theCCCPM which would benefit from further work, in particular:the cliff response to relative sea-level change, especially as the predictedfuture rates of relative sea-level change are higher than that experiencedover the historical record. It is unclear whether the linear response modelDoc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 42

described is applicable over a range of sea-level changes. Projections ofsea-level beyond 100 years are also uncertain.the future sediment yields generated by recession, as the cliffs retreatthrough tills of variable, but largely unknown gravel compositionthe historical, current and future sediment budget of the fringing beachesthat provide a greater or lesser degree of protection to cliffs, especiallyuncertainty regarding the sediment transport pathways and rates ofattrition alongshore, offshore and in and out of sediment sinksthe future sediment budget, especially the sensitivity to variations indominant wave direction that might occur as a result of changes in stormtracks across the Atlantic.The relevance for future predictions of the historical response of the Ravenglassestuary to higher than present sea-level, has been highlighted. This summary reportand the associated CCCPM reports provide a preliminary assessment but a moredetailed investigation is necessary to fully integrate recently commissioned work(see Section 1.5).Doc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 43

6 ReferencesBERKHOFF J (1972) Computation of Combined Refraction - Diffraction. Proceedings ofthe Thirteenth Coastal Engineering Conference, July 10-14, 1972, Vancouver B.C.,Canada pp. 471-490 ASCE.BRITISH NUCLEAR FUELS LIMITED (2002a) Drigg Post-Closure Safety Case:geological interpretation.BRITISH NUCLEAR FUELS LIMITED (2002b) Drigg Post-Closure Safety Case:PCRSA approach.BULLEN CONSULTANTS (1998a) St Bees Head to Earnse Point, Isle of WalneySMP. Bullen Consultants, Nov 1998, Volume 1, Core Report.BULLEN CONSULTANTS (1998b) St Bees Head to Earnse Point, Isle of WalneySMP. Bullen Consultants, Nov 1998, Volume 2, Atlas.CERC (1984) Shore Protection Manual. Coastal Engineering Research Center, USCorps of Engineers, Vicksburg.DORNBUSCH U, ROBINSON DA, WILLIAMS RBG, MOSES CA (2003)Estimation of abrasion on flint shingle beaches in East Sussex, UK. In: Proceedingsof the International Conference on Coastal Sediments 2003. CD-ROM Published by WorldScientific Publishing Corp. and East Meets West Productions, Corpus Christi,Texas, USA, 18-23 May 2003, Clearwater Beach, Florida.HALCROW GROUP LIMITED (2000) Proposed scope of Forward Programme forevaluating coastal evolution in the Drigg / Sellafield area. Report to BNFL, December2000.HALCROW GROUP LIMITED (2001) Review of sea-level rise predictions and thepotential for coastal evolution in the Drigg area. Final Report to BNFL, March 2001.HALCROW GROUP LIMITED (2002a) Coastal Change at Drigg and Sellafield.Update to Forward Programme. Report to BNFL February 2002.Doc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 44

HALCROW GROUP LIMITED (2002b) Coastal Change at Drigg and Sellafield,Cumbria. Core Studies Report 2001/02. Report to BNFL, November 2002.HALCROW GROUP LIMITED (2002c) Drigg Coastal Study Survey Report, October2002. Report to BNFL, November 2002.HALCROW GROUP LIMITED (2002d) Futurecoast. Report and maps on 3 CD-ROMs Prepared by Halcrow Group Limited for DEFRA.HALCROW GROUP LIMITED (2003a) Review of Historical and Future PotentialCoastal Change at Drigg. Final report to BNFL, February 2003.HALCROW GROUP LIMITED (2003b) Shoreline Characterisation and CoastalProcesses Study at Drigg and Sellafield, Cumbria. Report to BNFL, May 2003.HALCROW GROUP LIMITED (2004a) Coastal Change at Drigg and Sellafield. 3DLaser Scanning Survey of the Foreshore. Draft report to BNFL, April 2004.HALCROW GROUP LIMITED (2004b) Coastal Change at Drigg and Sellafield.Cumbria Coastal inspection, St Bees to Esk Estuary. Final report to BNFL, March 2004.HALCROW GROUP LIMITED (2004c) Coastal change at Drigg and Sellafield,development of a conceptual coastal change model. Report to BNFL, March 2004.HALCROW GROUP LTD (2005a) Coastal change at Drigg and Sellafield, coastalinspection and foreshore sediment mapping, St Bees to Esk Estuary. Report to BNFL,February 2005.HALCROW GROUP LIMITED (2005b) Coastal change at Drigg and Sellafield. Stage1 coastal change projection model. Report to BNFL, June 2005.HALCROW GROUP LIMITED (2006a) Coastal change at Drigg and Sellafield, coastalinspection survey, St Bees to Esk Estuary. Report to BNFL, February 2006.HALCROW GROUP LIMITED (2006b) Coastal change at Drigg and Sellafield. Stage2 coastal change projection model. Final report August 2006. Nexia Solutions Report7104.Doc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 45

HALCROW GROUP LIMITED (2007a) Coastal change at Drigg and Sellafield, coastalinspection survey, St Bees to Esk Estuary. Final report March 2007. Nexia SolutionsReport 8315HALCROW GROUP LIMITED (2007b) Risk Assessment of Coastal Erosion.Joint Defra/EA Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management R&D Programme -Technical Report FD2324. 24p excluding appendices.HALCROW GROUP LIMITED (2008) Cumbria coastal studies. Stage 3 conceptualmodel. Final report March 2008. Nexia Solutions Report 8563HALCROW GROUP LIMITED (2009a) Coastal change at Drigg and Sellafield, coastalinspection survey, St Bees to Esk Estuary. Final report March 2009. NNL Report 10238.HALCROW GROUP LIMITED (2009b) Cumbria Coastal Studies Repeat 2009Baseline Survey and Analysis. Draft report July 2009. NNL Report 10507HR WALLINGFORD (1989) Nearshore Sediment Transport Model Stage A. ReportEX 2010.HR WALLINGFORD 1994. COSMOS-2D (Version 2.4): Nearshore SedimentTransport Model. Description of Model Structure and Input. Report IT 388 (Issue B).KAMPHUIS JW (1991) Alongshore sediment transport rate. Journal of Waterways,Ports, Coastal and Ocean Engineering 117, 624-640.KAMPHUIS JW (2000) Introduction to Coastal Engineering and Management. WorldScientificLEE EM (2005) Coastal cliff recession risk: a simple judgement-based model.Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 38, 89-104.LI B (1994) An evolution equation for water waves. Coastal Engineering 23, 227-242.LLOYD JM, SHENNAN I, KIRBY JR, RUTHERFORD MM (1999) Holocenerelative sea-level in the inner Solway Firth. Quaternary International 60, 83-105.NIREX (1993). Quaternary geology of the Sellafield area. December 1993 Update. NirexReport no. 519.Doc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 46

SOULSBY R. (1997) Dynamics of marine sands. Thomas Telford, London.THORNE MC (2007) LLWR Lifetime Project: R & D on climate change and siteevolution. Report to Nexia Solutions.THORNE MC, KANE P (2007) LLWR Lifetime Project: climate and landscape changescenarios. Nexia Solutions Report (07)8847 Issue 1. September 2007.TYNDALL CENTRE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE (2005) CapturingGeomorphological Change in the Coastal Simulator. Tyndall Centre for Climate ChangeProject 3.4.VAN RIJN LC (1989) Handbook Sediment Transport by Currents and Waves. DelftHydraulics. Report H461.VINCENT CL, CORSON WD (1981) Geometry of tidal inlets: empiricalequations, Journal of the Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Division, American Societyof Civil Engineers, 107, WW1, Proc. Paper 16032, 1-9.ZONG Y, TOOLEY MJ (1996) Holocene sea-level changes and crustalmovements in Morecambe Bay, Northwest England, Journal of Quaternary Science 11,43-58.Doc No 1 Rev 2: Date: May 2010 47

Appendix ACatalogue of historical data setsDoc No 1 Rev 1: Date: Dec 2009

LLWR Coastal Studies: catalogue of data sources (adapted from Halcrow 2003a)Description Date Source Format Copyright Licence Details for InternalReports/Unpub. docsTopographic MappingOS Landline 1:2,500 scale vector data(currently available as MasterMap)OS Superplan 1:10,000 scale rasterdataOS Land-Form Profile 1:10,000 scaledigital height dataOS Panorama 1:50,000 colour rasterdataOS Land-Form Panorama 1:50,000digital height dataCurrent Ordnance Survey Digital Ordnance Survey “Reproduced from OrdnanceSurvey mapping by BNFL bypermission of Ordnance Survey, onbehalf of the Controller of HerMajesty’s Stationery Office. ©Crown Copyright BNFL EL219999. All rights reserved.”Current Ordnance Survey Digital Ordnance SurveyCurrent Ordnance Survey Digital Ordnance SurveyCurrent Ordnance Survey Digital Ordnance Survey “Reproduced from the OrdnanceSurvey map by BNFL bypermission of Ordnance Survey onbehalf of the Controller of HerMajesty’s Stationery Office. ©Crown copyright BNFL EL219999”Current Ordnance Survey Digital Ordnance Survey “Reproduced from the OrdnanceSurvey map by BNFL bypermission of Ordnance Survey onbehalf of the Controller of HerMajesty’s Stationery Office. ©Appendix A 1 of 17

LLWR Coastal Studies: catalogue of data sources (adapted from Halcrow 2003a)Description Date Source Format Copyright Licence Details for InternalReports/Unpub. docsCrown copyright BNFL EL219999”OS Outdoor Leisure 6, 1:25,000 scalemapCurrent Ordnance Survey Folded paper mapsheetCrown Copyright1998OS Pathfinder 593, 1:25,000 scalemapCurrent Ordnance Survey Folded paper mapsheetCrown Copyright1990OS Landranger 89 and 96, 1:50,000scale mapsCurrent Ordnance Survey Folded paper mapsheetsCrown Copyright1990“Reproduced from OrdnanceSurvey mapping by BNFL bypermission of Ordnance Survey, onbehalf of the Controller of HerMajesty’s Stationery Office. ©Crown Copyright BNFL EL219999. All rights reserved.”OS 1:10,000 scale maps (4 sheets) 1867 Landmark Digital geo-rectified OrdnanceSurvey/Landmarkjoint copyrightagreementOS 1:10,000 scale map (8 sheets) 1900 Landmark Digital geo-rectified OrdnanceSurvey/Landmark“© Crown Copyright andLandmark Information Group.Reproduced from the OrdnanceSurvey map by BNFL bypermission of Ordnance Survey onbehalf of the Controller of HerMajesty’s Stationery Office. ©Crown copyright BNFL EL219999”“© Crown Copyright andLandmark Information Group.Appendix A 2 of 17

LLWR Coastal Studies: catalogue of data sources (adapted from Halcrow 2003a)Description Date Source Format Copyright Licence Details for InternalReports/Unpub. docsjoint copyrightagreementOS 1:10,000 scale map (3 sheets) 1916 Landmark Digital geo-rectified OrdnanceSurvey/Landmarkjoint copyrightagreementOS 1:10,000 scale map (1 sheet) 1938 Landmark Digital geo-rectified OrdnanceSurvey/Landmarkjoint copyrightagreementReproduced from the OrdnanceSurvey map by BNFL bypermission of Ordnance Survey onbehalf of the Controller of HerMajesty’s Stationery Office. ©Crown copyright BNFL EL219999”“© Crown Copyright andLandmark Information Group.Reproduced from the OrdnanceSurvey map by BNFL bypermission of Ordnance Survey onbehalf of the Controller of HerMajesty’s Stationery Office. ©Crown copyright BNFL EL219999”“© Crown Copyright andLandmark Information Group.Reproduced from the OrdnanceSurvey map by BNFL bypermission of Ordnance Survey onbehalf of the Controller of HerMajesty’s Stationery Office. ©Crown copyright BNFL EL219999”OS 1:10,000 scale map (25 sheets) 1951-1983 Landmark Digital geo-rectified Ordnance “© Crown Copyright andAppendix A 3 of 17

LLWR Coastal Studies: catalogue of data sources (adapted from Halcrow 2003a)Description Date Source Format Copyright Licence Details for InternalReports/Unpub. docsSurvey/Landmarkjoint copyrightagreementOS 1:2,500 scale map (27 sheets) 1863-1895 Landmark Digital geo-rectified OrdnanceSurvey/Landmarkjoint copyrightagreementOS 1:2,500 scale map (23 sheets) 1899 Landmark Digital geo-rectified OrdnanceSurvey/Landmarkjoint copyrightagreementLandmark Information Group.Reproduced from the OrdnanceSurvey map by BNFL bypermission of Ordnance Survey onbehalf of the Controller of HerMajesty’s Stationery Office. ©Crown copyright BNFL EL219999”“© Crown Copyright andLandmark Information Group.Reproduced from the OrdnanceSurvey map by BNFL bypermission of Ordnance Survey onbehalf of the Controller of HerMajesty’s Stationery Office. ©Crown copyright BNFL EL219999”“© Crown Copyright andLandmark Information Group.Reproduced from the OrdnanceSurvey map by BNFL bypermission of Ordnance Survey onbehalf of the Controller of HerMajesty’s Stationery Office. ©Crown copyright BNFL EL219999”Appendix A 4 of 17

LLWR Coastal Studies: catalogue of data sources (adapted from Halcrow 2003a)Description Date Source Format Copyright Licence Details for InternalReports/Unpub. docsOS 1:2,500 scale map (8 sheets) 1916-1925 Landmark Digital geo-rectified OrdnanceSurvey/Landmarkjoint copyrightagreementOS 1:2,500 scale map (66 sheets) 1952-1970 Landmark Digital geo-rectified OrdnanceSurvey/Landmarkjoint copyrightagreement“© Crown Copyright andLandmark Information Group.Reproduced from the OrdnanceSurvey map by BNFL bypermission of Ordnance Survey onbehalf of the Controller of HerMajesty’s Stationery Office. ©Crown copyright BNFL EL219999”“© Crown Copyright andLandmark Information Group.Reproduced from the OrdnanceSurvey map by BNFL bypermission of Ordnance Survey onbehalf of the Controller of HerMajesty’s Stationery Office. ©Crown copyright BNFL EL219999”Vertical Aerial PhotographyDigital Aerial Imagery – 12.5cmground sampled distance2009 Environment Agency Ortho-rectified BNFL “© National Nuclear Laboratory”Appendix A 5 of 17

LLWR Coastal Studies: catalogue of data sources (adapted from Halcrow 2003a)Description Date Source Format Copyright Licence Details for InternalReports/Unpub. docsDigital Aerial Imagery (305 images) –19cm ground sampled distance2002 Environment Agency/GeotechnologiesOrtho-rectified BNFL “© BNFL”NRSC/UK Perspectives to obtain1:10,000 aerial photography summer20012001 National RemoteSensing CentreContact prints ordigital scans© National RemoteSensing CentreColour Aerial Photography at1:10,000 scale (July 1999 part reflownJuly 2000; c. 2000 east sortie verygood, c. 1999 north/south sortiegood)1999/2000 Cooper Aerial Surveys Contact stereovertical colour printssupplied togetmapping.com© getmapping.com No copyright declaration required.Digital Colour Aerial Photography(coverage 95 sq km; 1:10,500 scale;1200 dpi scanned images; c. 2000 eastsortie very good, c. 1999 north/southsortie good)1999/2000 Geo InformationGroupGeo-rectified X/Ydigital image data© getmapping.com No copyright declaration required.Colour Aerial Photography (coverage95 sq km; 1:10,500 scale; c. 2000 eastsortie very good, c. 1999 north/southsortie good)1999/2000 Geo InformationGroupStereo contact prints© getmapping.com(restriction onscanning)No copyright declaration required.Appendix A 6 of 17

LLWR Coastal Studies: catalogue of data sources (adapted from Halcrow 2003a)Description Date Source Format Copyright Licence Details for InternalReports/Unpub. docsDigital Colour Aerial Photography(coverage 60sq.km; 1:10,500 scale;1200 dpi scanned images; c. 2000 eastsortie very good, c. 1999 north/southsortie good)1999/2000 WildgoosePublications(getmapping.com)Geo-rectified X/Ydigital image data© getmapping.com No copyright declaration required.Special commission to produce DEMfrom Colour Aerial Photography(coverage 60sq.km; 1:10,500 scale;1200 dpi scanned images; c. 2000 eastsortie very good, c. 1999 north/southsortie good) supplemented by GPSfield survey and photogrammetry toproduce 2m contouring1999/2000 WildgoosePublications(getmapping.com)Ortho-rectifiedX/Y/Z digital imagedata and DEMCopyright for imagedata withgetmapping.com.DEM no restrictions.Colour Aerial Photography (coverage60sq.km; 1:10,500 scale; c. 2000 eastsortie very good, c. 1999 north/southsortie good)1999/2000 WildgoosePublications(getmapping.com)Stereo contact prints(62 No.) fromnegatives© getmapping.com(restriction on re-saleonly)No copyright declaration required.Colour Aerial Photography 1:25,000scale, Cumbria Nat. Park (includescoastline)1997 English Nature Stereo contact prints n/aGood quality colour air photos ofentire National Park (through ADAS)1995 Lake District NationalParkStereo contact prints© CountrysideCommission and/orOrdnance SurveyAppendix A 7 of 17

LLWR Coastal Studies: catalogue of data sources (adapted from Halcrow 2003a)Description Date Source Format Copyright Licence Details for InternalReports/Unpub. docsMay/June at 1:25,000 scale (67frames cover area of interest)1992 National RemoteSensing CentreContact prints ordigital scans© National RemoteSensing CentreColour Aerial Photography 1:25,000scale, Cumbria National Park(including coastline)1992 English Nature Stereo contact prints n/aMay/June Colour AerialPhotography at 1: 25,000, 67 framesfor 100% coverage1992 National RemoteSensing CentreDigital scans© National RemoteSensing CentreColour Aerial Photography at1:10,000 scale1991 BKS Surveys Original filmreturned to BNFL© British NuclearFuels LtdAerial Photographs – various butlimited coverage1957-1988 English Nature Stereo contact prints n/aColour Aerial Photography 1: 18000.100% coverage of north, south andeast of Park1988 Lake District NationalParkStereo contact prints© CountrysideCommission and/orOrdnance SurveyAerial Photographs 1:11,000(coverage 20 %) – 8 framesAerial Photographs 1:10,000(coverage 20 %) – 6 frames1987 National MonumentsRecord1985 National MonumentsRecordPrints/diapositives © Ordnance SurveyPrints/diapositives © Ordnance SurveyAppendix A 8 of 17

LLWR Coastal Studies: catalogue of data sources (adapted from Halcrow 2003a)Description Date Source Format Copyright Licence Details for InternalReports/Unpub. docsAerial Photographs 1:5000 (coverage20 %) – 9 frames1984 National MonumentsRecordPrints/diapositives © Ordnance SurveyAerial Photographs – various butlimited coverage1967-1983 Lake District NationalParkStereo contact prints© CountrysideCommission and/orOrdnance SurveyAerial Photographs 1:7350 (coverage20 %) -Aerial Photographs 1:7,500 (coverage100 %) – 79 framesOS Sortie No OS/661011980 National MonumentsRecord1966 National MonumentsRecordPrints/diapositives © Ordnance SurveyPrints/diapositives © Ordnance Survey Royalties paid for initial scanningof photos. Each copy of photomust quote the following text;“Reproduced from the OrdnanceSurvey map by BNFL bypermission of Ordnance Survey onbehalf of the Controller of HerMajesty’s Stationery Office. ©Crown copyright BNFL EL219999”Aerial Photographs 1:10,000(coverage 20 %) – 13 framesMOD Sortie No 58/66691965 National MonumentsRecordPrints/diapositives© Ministry ofDefencePhotos may be scanned, held indigital format, and subsequentlyreproduced as working copies andin reports, technical or otherwise toBNFL. Text shown alongsidephotos should be:Appendix A 9 of 17

LLWR Coastal Studies: catalogue of data sources (adapted from Halcrow 2003a)Description Date Source Format Copyright Licence Details for InternalReports/Unpub. docs“© Crown Copyright/MOD.Reproduced with permission of theController of Her Majesty’sStationery Office.”Aerial Photographs 1:10,000(coverage 20 %) – Photos notavailable for viewing1964 National MonumentsRecordPrints/diapositives © Ordnance SurveyB&W Aerial Photographs 1:5700(coverage 80 %; St Bees to Seascale)– 48 frames, poor quality1958 National MonumentsRecordPrints/diapositives© Ministry ofDefenceB&W Aerial Photographs 1:5,000(coverage 90%; south of St Bees) –115 framesMOD Sortie No 58/22021957 National MonumentsRecordPrints/diapositives© Ministry ofDefencePhotos may be scanned, held indigital format, and subsequentlyreproduced as working copies andin reports, technical or otherwise toBNFL. Text shown alongsidephotos should be:“© Crown Copyright/MOD.Reproduced with permission of theController of Her Majesty’sStationery Office.”B&W Aerial Photographs 1:10,000(coverage 5%; DRIGG) – 6 frames1956 National MonumentsRecordPrints/diapositives© Ministry ofDefenceAppendix A 10 of 17

LLWR Coastal Studies: catalogue of data sources (adapted from Halcrow 2003a)Description Date Source Format Copyright Licence Details for InternalReports/Unpub. docsB&W Aerial Photographs 1:5,000(coverage 15%; St Bees) – 36 frames1956 National MonumentsRecordPrints/diapositives© Ministry ofDefenceB&W Aerial Photographs 1:10,000(coverage 15%; Beckermet) – 8frames1953 National MonumentsRecordPrints/diapositives© Ministry ofDefenceB&W Aerial Photographs 1:5,000(coverage 1%; St Bees) – 7 frames1948 National MonumentsRecordPrints/diapositives© Ministry ofDefenceB&W Aerial Photographs 1:10,000(coverage 25%; DRIGG toNethertown) – 15 frames1947 National MonumentsRecordPrints/diapositives© Ministry ofDefenceB&W Aerial Photographs 1:10,000(coverage 90%; whole coast) – 25frames1946 National MonumentsRecordPrints/diapositives© Ministry ofDefenceB&W Aerial Photographs 1:5,000(coverage 90%; whole coast) – 29framesMOD Sortie No. S/1971941 National MonumentsRecordPrints/diapositives© Ministry ofDefencePhotos may be scanned, held indigital format, and subsequentlyreproduced as working copies andin reports, technical or otherwise toBNFL. Text shown alongsidephotos should be:“© Crown Copyright/MOD.Reproduced with permission of theController of Her Majesty’sAppendix A 11 of 17

LLWR Coastal Studies: catalogue of data sources (adapted from Halcrow 2003a)Description Date Source Format Copyright Licence Details for InternalReports/Unpub. docsStationery Office.”Aerial Photography Symonds GeomaticsGroup/AerofilmsNegative search ofarchiveAerial Photography Keele University Negative search ofarchiveAerial Photography Ordnance Survey Negative search ofarchiveAerial Photography NRSC Negative search ofarchiveDigital Elevation Models andBathymetryIfSAR of Lower Esk Estuary undated Getmapping.com Digital Getmapping.comLiDAR 2009 Environment Agency Digital BNFL Copyright © Environment AgencyLiDAR 2006 Blom Aerofilms Digital BNFL © BNFLLiDAR 2004 Environment Agency Digital BNFL Copyright © Environment Agency3D laser scanning survey of beachand shoreline2003 Halcrow Digital BNFLLiDAR 2002 Environment Agency Digital BNFL Data may be published in BNFL’sAppendix A 12 of 17

LLWR Coastal Studies: catalogue of data sources (adapted from Halcrow 2003a)Description Date Source Format Copyright Licence Details for InternalReports/Unpub. docsLiDAR (lower Ehen valley only) 2000 Environment Agency Digital EAinternal and external publicationsusing the following statement;“Copyright © EnvironmentAgency”Data may be incorporated andmanipulated in GIS. Data may bepassed to 3 rd parties only if they areworking for BNFL. Nocommercial gain should be madefrom the data by BNFL or anyother parties.1991 Aerial Survey (limited coverage- Beckermet to Seascale, Sellafield toGosforth) commissioned to produceDEM and 5m contour map using OSLandline 1:2,500 dataNuclear GenerationStudy Project (OveArup Consultants;BKS surveys (seeabove)Digital data© British NuclearFuels LtdDigital Terrain Model – includesoffshore bathymetry (coverageNX80, NY00 & SD08; NY00NW/NE/SW/SE and SD09 NE;RMS 1.7m)1997 UK Nirex Ltd –Archived at NationalGeosciences DataCentre (BritishGeological Survey)Digital data© Ordnance Surveyand UK Nirex LtdNo contract details on file- wascontract ever established? If not,then data cannot be reproduced asGIS to BNFL or their agents.Digital Terrain Model (50m National Remote Digital data NoneAppendix A 13 of 17

LLWR Coastal Studies: catalogue of data sources (adapted from Halcrow 2003a)Description Date Source Format Copyright Licence Details for InternalReports/Unpub. docsresolution, out of copyright. 1:63,630OS mapping. In tiles of 20km x20km based on OS grid.Sensing CentreNRSC can acquire ‘highly accurate’DTM using laser scanner.Bathymetric survey – localised tosealines1993 Wimpol Ltd (forBNFL)Digital data WimpolSingle beam survey to 5km offshorefrom St Bees to RavenglassMultibeam survey to 5km offshorefrom St Bees to Ravenglass2002 Halcrow Digital BNFL2009 Environment Agency Digital BNFLAdmiralty ChartsCharts 1320, 1346, 1826, 2013 1976-1992 Hydrographic Office,SomersetPaper copy mapsheets© AdmiraltyChart 18261915 &1944Royal GeographicalSociety, LondonLarge formatphotocopiesPre 1951 out ofcopyrightN/a as charts are out of copyrightGeological Maps, Reports andOther DataBedrock elevation map 2006 Various, includingBGS and BNFLDigital BNFLAppendix A 14 of 17

LLWR Coastal Studies: catalogue of data sources (adapted from Halcrow 2003a)Description Date Source Format Copyright Licence Details for InternalReports/Unpub. docsintegrated to give newsurfaceSolid Geology 2002 British GeologicalSurveyQuaternary Geology 2002 British GeologicalSurveyStructural Geology 2002 British GeologicalSurveyDigital BNFL “IPR/54-41C British GeologicalSurvey. © NERC. All rightsreserved.”Digital BNFLDigital BNFLOffshore and onshore geologicalmaps and various other dataUK Nirex Ltd Electronic reports © UK Nirex Ltd1:50,000 ‘solid and drift’ map Sheet37 GosforthBritish GeologicalSurveyFolded map sheet© NaturalEnvironmentResearch Council1:50,000 ‘solid and drift’ map Sheet28 WhitehavenBritish GeologicalSurveyFolded map sheet© NaturalEnvironmentResearch CouncilBorehole, geotechnical and landsliderecordsBritish GeologicalSurvey, NationalGeosciences DataCentrePaper records© British GeologicalSurveyAppendix A 15 of 17

LLWR Coastal Studies: catalogue of data sources (adapted from Halcrow 2003a)Description Date Source Format Copyright Licence Details for InternalReports/Unpub. docs1:100,000 Groundwater vulnerabilitymap sheet 6 ‘South-west Cumbria’Environment Agencythrough HMSOFolded map sheet© EnvironmentAgency 1998Seabed sediment map sheets for westCumbriaBritish GeologicalSurveyFolded map sheet© Crown Copyright1978Coastal Engineering Reportscommissioned by CopelandBorough Council:Copeland BoroughCouncilHardcopy reports© CopelandBorough CouncilSt Bees Promenade EmergencyRepairs to Northern End, Nov 1995.Ravenglass Sea Defence FeasibilityStudy 1995 by Bullen and Partnersfor National Rivers Authority, NWRegion.Tidal, Wave, & Wind DataReal time ADCP (Acoustic DopplerCurrent Profilers, at 5 offshorelocationsDec. 2001to May2002This study programme Digital BNFLAdmiralty tide tablesMay 92 toAugust2002British Oceanic DataCentreDigital BNFLOffshore hindcast wave climate dataJune 91 toSeptemberMet. Office European Digital BNFLAppendix A 16 of 17

LLWR Coastal Studies: catalogue of data sources (adapted from Halcrow 2003a)Description Date Source Format Copyright Licence Details for InternalReports/Unpub. docs-Hindcast Met. Office time series-Site observations at Sellafield2002 Wave modelJan 1996 toAugust2002Met. Office Digital BNFLAppendix A 17 of 17

Appendix BReview of papers relevant to the coastal studiesprogrammeDoc No 1 Rev 1: Date: Dec 2009

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

!"! ! #!!$!%%&!!!#!# &&"#7" "70 1; 3 8/;* :7" ":C " + .+)". ") 64 ) *4 ) 1 4 ) 2 ) * 6* 6D&(9? * *6"")""7" "70 1; 3 8/;* :7" ":C "5"++ . "".+".)64 1) )4 ) *4 ) 1 4 ) * * * * 6+ 7" "70 1; 3 8/;* :7" ":C "'.+ "++ . "+ .. ) " ".!1)%2 ")0" )."+./;""(* * * * 6+ 7".;1;" !; /1.;>""2"++ @..:;333+ 7*">"+".* (107$'99(# (%3.+ . * )12 )) 22 ")." .(6 * 6 * , 7. 2 " : F: ( 1. . A 5 613 * +" ))"+ + .+( ?" * * * * 6. !/ 3+ )+ " " / -/

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

!"! ! #!!$!%%&!!!#!# &&"#> !8)!!./ + " . +. 9/ .'./A':91 2)2 + " (, +. (. ) . " + . * * 6 6 * . > , 7 !8)!. +. / . ,< '&9'' + ). " ++. 6+ .* 6 6 * . /7".;" !;3. ++ )".H . + 8 + + .. . ") ) ++""( )A" .+ ) 12* * * * * . /;" !;,++ .""#%A5(/ .1) ) 12 * * * * * . HC2) +""91"; .- 5&" 2)) )) 12+" .". (3" ") )6 *6+ * + "++* +"+ " HC0! +" :5 .'7AA$( 0 )) * * * * * . !C "1 ". ". 1..''$ + " ". * * * * *0 13-, 1"" " + ++ + " + +)) " 1 6 2 )) "+=" 6 * * * =" * ++* * * ** +". * * * * * . ++@7$ 5

!"! ! #!!$!%%&!!!#!# &&"#0 , * 2 +++ 5"+ 0 ) )./.".3331@ .. * (3" 2(1@""."." /* * 6 * * "0/ .12 )) )* 6)2* * * * * . 08. ." ) " 1.89+ />>0/. +" "* * * * * . 0"!G6/ =""7 : 1..'.#$%'9''A + + ++ + + .* * 6 * * . 0", /!;, )1.32B"0 3(, .! "+3" (- E/!, #%&)) 62)) 61"(* * * *6" "0" . + .+ ")1.5; . .F !261 .. ) )) 12* * * * " .." 0"0"/7 )1#%0"/!!0 " + +) .> ; *81.

!"! ! #!!$!%%&!!!#!# &&"#3; .23; &+ ++ 3;8 . =" ) 12+" "+. 70*-./-%.

!"! ! #!!$!%%&!!!#!# &&"#- " 73. " '327(0"+#(%8 ++ 2=">""" 2)+13+ .13" " (7,+ .(87?'?5'(* * * * * . -;1/1/0 73* . "/ . + 1" 2 + .4"+ 22+4". 9&5&&5&&9! " . '7.$' $$:; .; .+'>$$ $A$320..1/#(% + .+ +.27&&&B"! " 1.. .0 . . (9:&$")2)) ) 73" ) 1) ) "73* " + +)) " . " "# 4" ) % "+ )** +" " 6)))2 ++ (/+ 1. (* * * ** * * ** . #

!"! ! #!!$!%%&!!!#!# &&"#* "#

!"! ! #!!$!%%&!!!#!# &&"#!8008"* 3 A *"..>9A13 .+ 4 3 8 .;+ ;+ .3++ 1.* 8 1.(" >.8 +" 31 ! "(3 ". )" ) 12* * * * 63* * * *6"+"++ 2+ ="3++ +"/>>))** 14 24 1 * 2 6 1* * * * *-!1.7#1%; 71 ;7 1..A 3 , 3 ; (311>++$ $ 5 +! " 7/9 (

!"! ! #!!$!%%&!!!#!# &&"#30 70 .7 5&&5! " B" '"/ 7/!>* !C0! "2" 1.('/#%$ A' + @ " " 6 * * * * " ."", , + . 5 ! 8 "",, / /; 4 "" "". "733/2 ". ::3+*43!+, !+ + .< ,#% '') .+ + " " "+ .2733/,@ + ""+ + 21+2 " "+ . )"" )12 6"* * * * * .6 * * * * .* * 6 * . + .* . +, /8, 3.. ! /;" !;!"&&,+ " "".13(7,+ .(87?'?5'(;)+))@+ * * * *6+ "++@7& 5

!< ; "< ; "C .C0!. ). +++ + , 2+ .". " 1."! ! #!!$!%%&!!!5 + + " ; " + ) )) 12 * * * *$+ + " ; + . " ' 1.(+C.; 7" ". :5 1../'A': . ) *+ + ". < + +."" " " "+ #!# &&"#* " . * * * * * +* * * * ** * * * *C 2+=" :! " ))+ '-#%59A5A:(' ':: + " )3 )" (3" " 6))2* * * ** " . ++@7 5

!"! ! #!!$!%%&!!!#!# &&"#8/"0 3. . . ) )"..":9+ 7 ."'

Appendix CBibliography (papers not cited in this report but which have beenreferenced in previous Halcrow conceptual model reports)Doc No 1 Rev 1: Date: Dec 2009

!"#$%&'!"#$()%'*+,&!' % -%-'!- !.% -'/ 0($0)/ "&&*!#% -%'!!+'&"-!, 1"% -%-2/ $(0/ 33 /!4+-5566!-7 &/8)44/9 :9 9 : !#+!-+; -!!'+*+,!%*"- %-!+/"$ )6($6/ 8'"%#!,-% &;+-#'! *,%-

0(' * !=+*/(/ -'!.:+->/00%44-+% + '&!# -%'4+-4-+?*#;-+#,-%*42'!%*/+ $/)'!#4*!;!&#+&*;+-*+,'+-'&!# -%'4+- ,-. +"' + 44/)A)$)6/3++#!+'B"'+;'%$*/0 $ A$/ ""-'%*!,+;-%&+#.%

39 9 3 -% !,-%4!%*%&;%"%*#%*'4-+C $A@%! -!#-4+-/) ($(6/ 3:9 ) '>#%*'+%' %*;+-*%&@%-%+*+,2%&'+-*%&&

: 3*%!,;+-'%*

308%*%'4-+&"&?2-%*!-"*% !++&*'/ $8/9 !*&#%'"-#%&"#-!%*#+&*

866!+' -% !,-%4!%&4%*%+!,' = ($(8/ :0A*! !44!,'!'% -!,,/ = 00$A/ :03-!' +-!%?!% !+'!'% %'%*/ = $0/ :0 %-*2+*!!'!'% '>#%*'/ = )6$A)/ : :3('+*!!%?!% !+'!'% '/ = )$00/ : :3(3-!' +-!%?!% !+'!'!9 ' "#?-!%3%- '%-%%&+-+; +*.%2/ = $)/ : :3)3-!' +-!%?!% !+'!'!9 ' "#?-!%3%- -+.%&%'%*%-%' = $/: 83%-%,*%!%*'&!# % !+@%+'!&-% !++;;*"*!;;'/+#%'*;+-&+&+/

:6%$*

9 3 A'"%#!'&!# % !+%''+!% &.! !'?+%-B"%>+;+

3 = A /!,$3+!&*/+&+/ 3 = A& 3/+&+/ 3 = A 3* /!,$3+! &*/+&+/ 3 = 0%2 3* /+&+/8644/ 3 = 0?$ +>*9 /+&+/=+& *!,+; #+-4+*+,!%*

8" -+'!+&"-!,' +-#+&!!+'/ ,7 / (6A$(8/ %&'*!&-!'>%''''# /@+%-&&/2 =+*/8/%*>#%+ -&%#/ %&'*!&-!'>J'2' #% !%44-+%' +%''''#%&#%%,# /@-"& *&'/2 $:/%*>#%+ -&%#/ "-- / ,*!'% "-/ )6' %?!*!2+; !&%*!* ''+-%&?%)$A/ % .. 4+-(//-#2 ,!-9 % -.%2' 74-!# % !+=!>'?"-,/= A%*

8666-%-'!,+#+-4+*+,2@ +-2%&%44*!% !+'!-%!,;!4%-!"*% '&!# '/@+' -&/ /9 !*2+&+/ =4-+'+?-%#+*"''+;-!%!%&#%->3%-0/"' "44*# / 9 ' %?*!'# +;%' %&%-&-*% !+'!4? .' *!,+*#.&0/ 33(% .$ + $ !%*+ 4-4%-&;+-!-7 &/A044/+##-!%*$!$+;!&/ 33(? / !-7 &%; 2-!'5(00)44/ 33= 6;!-' %44-+% +%''''!,;""-*!#% ' % '! +

G=A%*

= :!;*"+;'&!# '"44*2+ %*#+-4+*+,2+;"4*%&' -%#'@+.,!* *'+-.' ,*%&/ 2 0A$0)/ : 8666-%!,?%'%&4-++ *,%-

9 +> !4+- +/9 )$8=-'!+8/)@) ' ! ' ./4+-(''"/9 A /4+- +/9 3 8660$ /4+-8058 + /= H:-%*!!'+' % !B"!*!?-!"#?%2'/ )(A($(0/,*%!%*!' +-2%&,*%!%*&4+'!'+; +-%&9 ' "#?-!%*+.*%&'/@ *-'!??%-&3+'&'/ 3. /%*>#%+ -&%#/8+%' %*

:: = :G: 9 0 ) /% !+%*%&!+*+,!%*3-+ !++%-&/ 8 22 *C!,/+;!& !%*-4+-/ 8 22 *C!9/+;!& !%*-4+-/ = 3 6 /4+-+; +%' %*G+%%,# "?,-+"4/ = 3 6 * . /4+-4-4%-&;+-3?29 +->!,-+"4%#?-!&,!

=: =-+*+;-*% !

+#4-+?*#'+; 1"% -%-2+; -!'%/@!&'+++*2&'/1"% -%-2!' +-2+; -!'%/ "4!%*''"/8"#?-*%&+%' %*' !+'/@"&&%-++*2&'/ 2/ /1"% -%-2'%-''+!% !+%#?-!&,A$0 A"#-!%*'!#"*% !++; !#$&4& ?%%&&"-+'!+/ 88$8)A/3 : : 9 -'4+'+;?%' +'%*!,-+"4/+"-%*+;$ (A$8/ A"#-!%*'!#"*% !++; !#$&4& ?%%&&"-+'!+/ 88$8)A/ 9 A) % !' !%*'!,!;!%+;?%'%#4*!,# +&'!%*#+/+/A6% -+'!++%-&+-4'+; ,!-'// * / / "+&+/ *%!%*-?+"&%&'%*

3866(+-*!%,#%44!,%&#%%,# %*+, %' +%' /"$ A$(/ 866 ' "%-!'%&+%' '@+-4+*+,!%*%&C"' # %&4-+''&+#%!'/@!,, &'/ *3 ,555/*%>. *)$/ 866A+%' %**!;;-''!+-!'>@%'!#4*C"&,# $?%'&#+&*/0 " %$6)/ 8668 .' $:!+#%'*;+-&/ 9 9 866+%' %**!;;-''!+@ "'+;4-+?%?!*!' !4-&! !+# +&'/ 8A($80/ 9 3A+4 "%*%!-.% -$ +-#+&*+;%%-'+-3-+;!* +-%-+*!%/"$ )A$00/ 9 :9 33 8666+%' %*'!,* -%!,@%%'' "&2"'!, * -+!-%-2' # /@+' -&/ /9 !*2+&+/ $9 9 9 3 8660 ' /4+- + ;; '+,*+?%*.%-#!,!%'!#4* %-'2' ##+&*/ A$/ 39 0)/ /-#%/)

G 9 %!'#';+-+-.%-&'&!'4-'%*+; *%;!*&.%' /) )8$)A/1: -4*!% &(662-4-+72*!#% -+-&;-+#++#!,,+''%&*!!%+'' +-&-!-'+-- ,*%&/"0 80($8A/:3 9 (*! +-%*4+.-,-%&! %&'+-*!%,'/@+% '&/ !,%#4 +!+.*&,+;4%' %&;""-'%*

: ( *( // 3= 866(+%' %*%,%%*2'!'@%B"% !% !/%AA4-*!#!%-2-4+-+%#!-+*!'!% -!,,"#?-*%&/ = ($A/ H(/0 /#?-(4&% /!-74+-+/A/ H0 = ! 0 /!4+-4-!*0/ H%/ 0 /556(/ H?0 %: /556(/ H2 0 G03%A ,--1/556)(/ H& %! 0 /55668/ H 0 /556)A/

9 3 * ) /+-9 ' *!#% '%--+"4/9 9 /4 885(/4+-4-4%-&?2 +%+'"*%2 &/) )$/4+-4-+&"&?29 - *>!'N+-,/D 3(8 ' "%-2 !&%*4-!'#'-*% & + -%%-%' ($(/D 38 B"!*!?-!"#;*+.%-%'+;!* '+'%&2+%' ' "*26$)=%+"'?"-,/E: 6 ' "%-2,+# -2%'%;" !++; !&%*-%,/!99.*;44/(6A6$(608/D < < & /4+-+;4%-# +;!

3 866( 7-#' +-#;; +,-%

9 9 0"-- '2' #'! +---!'%/) A$0/ = 8"#-!%*!#"*% !++;%-'+-'!&"%*"-- '/@% ' * / &/%*+- %*/',% *&-'+ / $ .(: . :,/ %>+*&-3-4 !+'+;*!#% %,#4% '%&'4+''! %' ,*!%%&+-9 ' +; ,*%&/!-' %,9 +->!,4+-/3/ : 0+*+'%*

(+&*4-+C !+'+;8$!&"&B"!*!?-!"#*!#% %,/@9 %--!>%--+. N9 !,*2 /%#?-!&,!!44&/$:$ /+#%'*;+-&/ ) 3 ' /9 !*2$-'!/: /+#%'*;+-&+&+/

8 8 ! 4!%*!2+;-++%' %*2&-+&2%#!'/!

)) !,4%4-/844/ 9 9 ::0 /!-7 &-4+-+55668/ 9 338666 !!%*-4+-;+-!-7 &/)844/ G0"-;F+*+,'+-"-- '%&-%&+#.%%--+.9 !,*2&'/ 2 /%#?-!&,!

: 866A !2&% * -;+-*!#% %,3-+C (/)/ 33 + >/!%*4+-+//3@*!#% '%-! +-.! / H% %.* /!4+-5560/ H? * 0 !!4+-+55668/ H$ /!-74+-+#4!*% !+8/!-7 &$/= :38 8 /4+-4-+&"&;+-3/= :3)* 8 /4+-4-+&"&;+-3/:3 '... 4 /4%-# +; -#2 6$8$88 9 $ 9 %'!,+86()$666/= $:3 >*;2&-%"*!'%?+-% +-24"?*!'&3//!''-% !+/= = (#+&*+;#+-4+*+,!%*?%

= 83-+?%?!*!' !+%' *!4+'!!++#4"% !+'/+%' %*,/$8(/9 A0% $,*%!%*&4+'!% '"#?-*%&/0 " 2($6/9 00% 1"% -%-2!' +-2+; "#?-*%&*+.*%&/ $ 2$86/9 8%7!#"#?-%>-!, /" %A8$A)(/9 # +&;+-' !#% !,*+,$ -#-+'!+-% ';-+#*+,$ -#-!'!.% -*%--+. 9 !,*2&'/ 2 /%#?-!&,!

9 ). 8 < /% !+%*%&!+*+,!%*3-+ !++%-&/#+-%&"#3$)0/9 :: = :G:3+ !%*!"-'!++;#%-!'&!# !*%&&"-!,' +-#'@ -%&!+*+,!%*!#4+-%+;% !!&'/" $($(/9 3 3866%

G: :