Holderness

• Which SMP approach is used at Bridlington?

  Hold the line
• Which engineering strategies protect Bridlington?


  It is protected by a 4.7km sea wall, wooden groynes are also used
• Which SMP approach is used at Withernsea?

  Hold the line
• Which engineering strategies protect Withernsea?

  But what happened in 1992?


  groynes to help keep wider beaches and a sea wall.

  the sea wall was so damaged that rock armour was placed at the bottom
• Which SMP approach is used at Hornsea?


  Hold the line
• Which engineering strategies protect Hornsea?


  a sea wall, wooden groynes, and rock armour (hold the line will increase height of sea wall and increase the no. of groynes)
• Which SMP approach is used at Mappleton?


  Hold the line
• Which engineering strategies protect Mappleton?


  Two rock groynes which were built in 1991 costing £2million and rock armour
• Which SMP approach is used at Flamborough head? Why is this area different?


  no active intervention - most northerly point so slowest rates of erosion
• What is likely to be required with hold the line?


  Increasingly sizeable defences as the defences will become exposed to wave attack due to the narrower beaches and sea level rise
• Which SMP approach is used at Dimlington and Easington? Why?


  Hold the line at the current defenses but no active intervention everywhere else

  Hold the line may be necessary to protect nationally important gas supplies at the terminals
• What engineering is used at Easington?

  Rock armour and reventments
• Which SMP approach is used at Spurn point?

  managed realignment but it will change to no active intervention if it is not sustainable in the long run
• What are potential drawbacks that may limit the sustainability of managed realignment at Spurn point?


  the potential for damage to historic assets, including WW1 and WWII features and the spurn point lighthouse (historic quarters)
• Why may the costs of hard/soft engineering be insignificant?


  For many, the benefits of the engineering are greater than their costs. E.g. the hold the line approach at Mappleton is likely to generate economic benefits that outweigh the costs of their implementation and the protection of gas supplies for 25% of the country at Easington will definitely be of greater economic benefits
• Why may the engineering used in Mappleton be unsustainable?


  Increasing amounts of sediment trapped at Mappleton means Great Cowden receives less sediment from LSD making their beaches narrower and less equipped to reduce wave energy.

  If less sediment is transported and deposited southwards then spurn head is at risk of erosion
• Why may the engineering used in Hornsea be unsustainable?


  Rising sea levels will continue and global warming will cause greater frequency and severity of storm events - so increasing the height of a sea wall is not sustainable!
• Why may the engineering used in Easington be unsustainable?


  Unprotected areas will lead to the formation of headland and bay(s) either side - where refraction will concentrate erosive power. This means that there may be a loss of habitats and interesting features or money will be needed to maintain defences
• Why may the engineering used in Spurn Head be unsustainable?


  Erosion will wash away the spit and expose the mudflats and salt marshes which are environmentally significant.

  Life boat station will be inaccessible.