Assessment of the Coastal Barrier at Hurst Spit, Hampshire

Jack Owen - 32927029

Introduction
Hurst Spit (50.7063°N, 1.5511°W) consists of a shingle bank and serves the local community as a
coastal barrier, protecting salt marshes and other rare habitats. The additional challenges posed by
rising sea levels, which due to the low levels of the accompanying land, are major concerns for the
local community and the surrounding Keyhaven area. Past the back barrier zone of the bank a zone
of saltmarshes stretches forth which supports a diverse and unique community structure, including a
large population of migratory birds who inhabit the area during a period of their migration (Baily,
B., et al., 2007). Therefore, as sea levels rise the habitable range which these habitats can be
sustained is reduced, and without the support of coastal barriers this habitat will be lost.
As demonstrated by their adoption of a coastal barrier, the management strategy they’re
implementing at Hurst Spit is ‘hold the line’. This requires the regular maintenance of the barrier
from inescapable erosion because of hydrodynamic activity (Bradley, A., 1998). At Hurst Spit they
are implementing a soft barrier so even more than normal they need regular additions of shingle to
the barrier or the redistribution of shingle at the site. But for this to be effective regular monitoring
and measurements of the barrier is required to confirm whether it is still effective to these ends.
This report consists of measuring the composition of the barrier and the dimensions of barrier, in
addition to some aspects of the tide for later analysis. In order to measure the dimensions of the
barrier we deployed measuring poles at a set distance across 8 zones of the barrier to accurately
measure the distance between zones and the gradient of the beach face. While measuring these
features of the barrier were identified. This data was recorded on a cross-section view of the barrier
highlighting this information (Fig 3). This data was repeated, taking an average of the distance and
gradients. A plan view was also created to compare whether the cross-section of the shore was
representative of the rest of the beach. (Fig 4).
At each defined zone along the beach face (1-8) 6 pebbles were also measured for the following
features: grain size, roundness, sphericity, and sorting. Each pebble had their size measured but the
other features were recorded per zone rather than individually. An average grain size at each site
was calculated and plotted along with the other features (Fig 2). Lastly the wave height and wave
period were recorded twice at 14:38 GMT and 15:00 GMT respectively, from which averages were
taken.
To analyze the state of the shore the relative tidal range at Hurst Spit was calculated, as was the
Dimensionless fall velocity (Fig 1). These are required for the classification of both the beach type
and breaker type, with the latter requiring the Irribaren number of the shore to be calculated. From
assessing these features, the aim is to identify the characteristics of this beach and discuss the
significance of these characteristics in terms of both the barrier itself and the significance for the
local area.

Results
Observations of the Coastal defense found that there were distinct berms which were used to define
8 zones for measuring the mentioned qualities (Fig 3). Using the above method, the Beach slope
was noted to be 4.15m on average and had a gradient of 22°. The beach face to the swash limit was
on average 26.775m from the shoreline and the mean gradient was 12.18°. After a flat top of 18m
and negligible gradient the back barrier zone consisted of 2 zones with gradients of 25° and 1°
respectively, covering a distance of 14.85m to the subsequent salt marshes. From the plan view the
area of the cross-section is representative of the shore except from regions with additional coastal
defenses such as the rock barrier erected (Fig 4). These measurements were taken over a 25-minute
period during which the average for the wave height was 1.19m and the mean wave period was
8.795 seconds. This was approximately 1 hour before high tide.
The Average grain size of the pebbles sampled was sporadic across the identified zones but did
have an overall trend with a positive gradient of 1.3593 (Fig 2). This is indicative that the grain size
increases further up the shore face, although the fluctuations in grain size suggest that this could not
be a significant difference. Using the 6 pebbles as a group the roundness, sphericity and sorting was
measured using defined categories. The roundness was measured using a 1-5 scale which went from
1 or angular to 5 or well-rounded. Again, there was a trend although around this trend there are
large fluctuations which reduce the accuracy of this correlation. The trend suggests that there is a
reduction in the sphericity from the shoreline along the shore face. The sphericity and sorting also
had trends like this, reducing along the shore face but with this irregularity reducing the significance
of the differences.
Using the data collected and the data provided the Relative Tidal Range was calculated to be 2.14m,
representative of a mesotidal tidal range (Fig 1). Assumptions made for this, and later calculations
were that the mean spring range (MSR) was equal to the mean high-water springs (MHWS) minus
the mean low water springs (MLWS) and that the breaking wave height (Hb) was equal to the
significant wave height (Hb). The dimensionless fall velocity was calculated to be 0.83, from which
the beach type can be classified as Reflective due to the relatively low tidal range. This matched
what was observed in the field as the tidal range was low compared to the breaking wave height and
the grain size was relatively big. Lastly the Irribaren number was calculated to be 4.4 which
suggests that the breaker type of the waves is surging. This is supported by in situ observations of
the relatively steep gradient along the beach face.

Discussion
The features of the barrier at Hurst Spit are characteristic of anthropogenic coastal defenses, being
constructed from locally sourced shingle pebbles and supplemented by the addition of the
transported sediment from areas where accretion of the sediment occurs. Therefore, you would
expect some deviation from the usual beach formation. However, despite this impact the shore still
maintains characteristics associated with the low energy waves of the Solent.
Distinct berms were present sub-parallel to each other along the shore face. These were unevenly
spaced and were indicative that the Spit experienced different wave conditions over the summer
months. However, in general the berms suggest that the shore is microtidal, with prominent berms
being the main indicator as well as the steepness of the beach. However, the relative tidal range
conflicts with this and therefore the shore is classified as a mesotidal beach. As with microtidal
beaches the Spit experiences small zone of tidal concentration, with the wave energy focused on a
single area for extended periods of time which causes the distinct shape of the barrier’s cross
section.
Although Hurst Spit experiences low energy waves the site does experience strong longshore
currents which is partly responsible for the steepness of the barrier. The longshore currents are set
up by a differential in depth and variations in stress which pushes material with the current into the
surf zone where it is subsequently transported along the current. Hurst Spit is an example of a Drift
aligned beach and therefore without additional sediment the shore will recede landwards where it
may just erode completely. This process is exuberated during storms when overwashing of the
barrier occurs. Although from observations of the barrier this process has not significantly eroded or
retrograded the shore this is a continuous concern, especially with rising sea levels increasing the
occurrence of overwashing events. If these events are large enough, they can breach the defense in a
single event rather than the usual periods of small events which move material to the back of the
barrier.
Along the shore face there is evidence of increasing grain sizes away from the shoreline (Fig 3). If
this was compared to regular beaches then this would mostly be due to the wave action transporting
the lighter material more while the larger material is unable to be drawn into the current and instead
remains settled, which creates these areas of different sizes. This is especially true for shingle-based
matter as in addition to the grading at the lower levels of the shore face the energy from the wave
breaking against the surface of the barrier creates a high-pressure gradient which moves larger
materials further up the shore face relative to the impact for behind the wave (Cox, S., et al., 1999).
Just as the size increases across the regions of the shoreface the sphericity and roundness reduce.
Both these features are most affected by the abrasion from the wave action and the subsequent
collisions of the shingle pebbles. Research into the abrasion rates of different shingle materials has
found that on average the rate of abrasion is 0.0174% loss of weight per tide (Dornbush, U., et al.,
2002). Especially as Hurst Spit is semi-diurnal, the pebbles of the region within the necessary
proximity to be affected by the wave action would experience rounding and more closely resemble
spheres. The irregularity for zone 6 may be due to a similar factor as although the waves would
rarely reach above the swash limit zone 6 experiences anthropogenic abrasion. Zone 6, despite the
1° gradient, is used as a road for transport across the long barrier towards Hurst Castle. This
abrasion would not be as regular, but it does suggest that additional abrasion could have been
occurring, although this would require further discussion on the significance of this abrasion.
However, a common theme between all the features of the grains is that despite there being an
underlying trend for each feature the actual data is sporadic. This is to be expected at Hurst Spit as
the anthropogenic impact of resupplying the barrier with material while it is being removed affects
all these measurements. The current coastal defenses at Hurst Spit are part of the ‘Hurst Spit to
Lymington’ strategy and therefore while they won’t prevent the loss of the barrier once supporting
it becomes ineffective against the rising sea levels, they still will resupply it during the discussion
and transition periods of the local management strategy. But this additional material mixes with the
naturally sorted material and is partly responsible for these sporadic results. This is especially
prominent for the sorting of the barrier at the sites further from the shoreline. At the lower sites the
regular sorting from the wave action negates this source of error but at the prior mentioned sites the
sorting is much less regular which creates this irregularly unsorted sediment.
From the results of both the relative tidal range and the Dimensionless fall velocity the beach type
for the beach was decided as Reflective. This beach type is associated with a relatively low tidal
range when compared to the breaking wave height and relatively large grain sizes. From the
observations made in situ Hurst Spit matched this description. The shingle barrier consisted of
relatively coarse sediment sizes and although there was variation the average of the shoreline-facing
shore face was 12.18° which classifies the barrier as having a steep nearshore and beach slope. The
presence of a distinct drop at the base of the foreshore is also an observation which lends itself to
being reflective due to the low energy system having the largest effect on the morphology of the
lower shore face. However, there are studies which suggest that meso-tidal beaches such as Hurst
Spit are only reflective around high tide and at low tides tend to be dissipative (Sherman, D., 2005).
These observations were taken approximately an hour before high tide and therefore to confirm
these additional observations would have to be made during low tide. For the aforementioned
reasons the breaker type can also be classified as Surging. The Steep gradient of the beach
associated with this breaker type in addition to observations of waves where the front faces and
crests remained intact, sliding onto the beach without breaking, support this classification.
Therefore, it can be confirmed by these observations that the calculations are supported.
References
Baily, B. and Pearson, A. W. (2007) “Change Detection Mapping and Analysis of Salt Marsh Areas of
Central Southern England from Hurst Castle Spit to Pagham Harbour,” Journal of Coastal Research, 1549-
1564, pp. 1549–1564. doi: 10.2112/05-0597.1.
Bradbury, A. P. (1998) Response of shingle barrier beaches, to extreme hydrodynamic conditions.
dissertation. University of Southampton.
Cox, S. J. and Cooker, M. J. (1999) “The Motion of a Rigid Body Impelled by Sea-Wave Impact,” Applied
Ocean Research, 21(3), pp. 113–125. doi: 10.1016/S0141-1187(99)00005-X.
Dornbusch, U. et al. (2002) “Life Expectancy of Shingle Beaches: Measuring in Situ Abrasion,” Journal of
Coastal Research, 36(Sp1), pp. 249–255. doi: 10.2112/1551-5036-36.sp1.249.
Sherman, D.J. (2005). Reflective Beaches. In: Schwartz, M.L. (eds) Encyclopedia of Coastal Science.
Encyclopedia of Earth Science Series. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3880-1_256

Figure 2: Line plot of the average grain size

Figure 1: Calculations for the Relative Tidal
(mm)at each site along the cross-section of
Range (RTR) and Dimensionless Fall Velocity (Ω) Hurst Spit Barrier (1-8)

Average Grain Size at each site

along the cross-section of
Hurst Spit Barrier
60

50

40
Grain size (mm)

30

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Site along beach cross-section

Average Grain Size

Linear (Average Grain Size)
Fig 3: Cross section view of Hurst Spit Barrier, including identifying features, grain size
measurements and wave periods
Fig 4: Plan view of Hurst Spit Barrier, including identifiable features