Harwich Haven Disposal Site TH027 - GOV.UK

January 2017DLM7823-RT001-R02-00

Harwich Haven Disposal Site TH027Monitoring Report

Harwich Haven Disposal Site TH027

Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00

Document information

Document permissions Confidential - client

Project number DLM7823

Project name Harwich Haven Disposal Site TH027

Report title Monitoring Report

Report number RT001

Release number R02-00

Report date January 2017

Client Harwich Haven Authority

Client representative John Brien

Project manager Nigel Feates

Project director Mike Dearnaley

Document history

Date Release Prepared Approved Authorised Notes

16 Jan 2017 02-00 NGF MPD MPD Final report

02 Dec 2016 01-00 NGF MPD MPD Draft report for comment

Document authorisation

Prepared Approved Authorised

© HR Wallingford Ltd

This report has been prepared for HR Wallingford’s client and not for any other person. Only our client should rely upon the contents of this report and any

methods or results which are contained within it and then only for the purposes for which the report was originally prepared. We accept no liability for any

loss or damage suffered by any person who has relied on the contents of this report, other than our client.

This report may contain material or information obtained from other people. We accept no liability for any loss or damage suffered by any person, including

our client, as a result of any error or inaccuracy in third party material or information which is included within this report.

To the extent that this report contains information or material which is the output of general research it should not be relied upon by any person, including

our client, for a specific purpose. If you are not HR Wallingford’s client and you wish to use the information or material in this report for a specific purpose,

you should contact us for advice.


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00

Executive summary

The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) has granted Harwich Haven Authority

(HHA) a Marine Licence (L/2013/00392/3) that permits two trial disposals of 500,000 m3 of

dredged material arising from maintenance dredging at Harwich and Felixstowe Harbour.

The trial disposal site is referred to as the Harwich Haven Disposal Site (Cefas Site Code

TH027).

A condition of the licence is that monitoring data is collected during the course of the two trial disposal

campaigns (Trial 1 and Trial 2) and a Monitoring Report is submitted to the MMO within four months of

completion of the two trial campaigns. The Trial 1 disposal campaign was carried out from 9 to 17 June 2016

and the Trial 2 campaign from 21 to 30 August 2016.

This report presents the results of the analysis of the monitoring data collected and where appropriate

compares the results with those previously predicted by HR Wallingford in their Characterisation Report and

Addendums (HR Wallingford, 2014).

Activities assessed within this report include:

long-term measurements of suspended solids concentrations at 0.5 m above the seabed at three

monitoring locations before, during and after the two disposal trials and the comparison of that data with

the results of previous plume dispersion modelling studies;

the analysis of multibeam bathymetric surveys undertaken pre-Trial 1, pre-Trial 2 and post-Trial 2; and

a high level assessment of particle size and benthic fauna surveys undertaken pre-Trial 1, pre-Trial 2 and

post-Trial 2.

Suspended solids concentrations

There was no evidence of any large-scale increases in measured concentrations levels at the three

monitoring locations as a result of the disposal activity, nor was there evidence of an increase in the

background concentration during the course of the disposals.

The magnitude of the increases in concentration above background levels predicted by the numerical model

(approximately 100 mg/l) were not seen in the measured data.

Seabed levels

Multi beam echo sounder (MBES) surveys of disposal site TH027 were carried out pre-Trial 1, pre-Trial 2

and post-Trial 2 to determine if the placement of individual loads or wider long term effects could be detected

on the seabed. Analysis of the bathymetry data has shown very little evidence of seabed level changes in

excess of 0.2 m (i.e. beyond the quoted vertical repeatability / accuracy of the MBES instrument) that can be

attributed directly to the disposal activities indicating that much of the placed material had likely dispersed

outside of the boundary of the disposal site by the time of the surveys.

Particle size and benthic fauna

There does not appear to be any clear correlation between the composition of the bed material and the

disposal of dredged material having taken place at disposal site TH027 and that there is no evidence of an

increase in fine material resulting from the disposal activities. Each of the three sampling campaigns showed

a wide variability in the composition of the bed material both temporally and spatially. Notably, at the time of


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00

the sampling campaigns, there was no general increase or reduction in the proportion of any particular size

fraction (fines, sands and gravels) that could be directly attributed to the disposal activities indicating that

much of the placed material had likely dispersed outside of the boundary of the disposal site by this time.

There was a general decrease in biodiversity between the new 2016 surveys and the 2012 characterisation

survey, however the biodiversity levels once the disposal operations start remain relatively constant. The

overall number of individuals in the benthic community are observed to increase over the disposal period.

There also appears to be a temporary increase in of species which would be typically prevalent in estuarine

communities and increase in the abundance of opportunistic scavengers, however there is no evidence of

these organisms establishing permanent communities.

Whilst harbour species are temporarily being found within the survey area there are no clear trends in the

faunal assemblage in terms of species and abundance that can be directly related to the disposal activities

that have taken place at disposal site TH027. The changes seen considered to be the result of natural

variation in the marine environment.

Summary

The suspended solids concentrations measured at the three monitoring locations were lower than those

predicted by numerical modelling.

Analysis of the bathymetry data has shown very little evidence of seabed level changes in excess of 0.2 m

(i.e. beyond the quoted vertical repeatability / accuracy of the MBES instrument) that can be attributed

directly to the disposal of individual loads or wider long term effects indicating that much of the placed

material had likely dispersed outside of the boundary of the disposal site by this time.

There was no clear correlation between the composition of the bed material and the disposal of dredged

material having taken place at disposal site TH027.

There has been an observed change in the species assemblage at the site, with an increase in opportunistic

species. However, there has not been a change from the previously observed marine assemblage found on

muddy sands and gravels. There are no clear trends that can be directly related to the disposal activities that

have taken place at disposal site TH027 and any changes that are seen are typical of natural variation that

can occur.


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00

Contents

Executive summary

1. Background _________________________________________________________ 1

2. Disposal records _____________________________________________________ 4

3. Dredged material physical characteristics __________________________________ 5

4. Suspended solids data ________________________________________________ 6

4.1. Seabed frames .................................................................................................................................. 6

4.2. Turbidity calibration ........................................................................................................................... 8

4.3. Measured suspended sediment concentrations ............................................................................. 11

5. Wave and wind data _________________________________________________ 14

5.1. Wave data ....................................................................................................................................... 15

5.2. Wind data ........................................................................................................................................ 15

6. Assessment of disposal activities _______________________________________ 17

6.1. Disposal Trial 1 ................................................................................................................................ 17

6.2. Disposal Trial 2 ................................................................................................................................ 19

7. Comparison with numerical modelling ____________________________________ 21

7.1. Predicted concentration changes .................................................................................................... 21

7.1.1. Summary ............................................................................................................................ 26

7.2. Predicted deposition ........................................................................................................................ 27

8. Assessment of bathymetric survey data __________________________________ 28

8.1. Bathymetric surveys ........................................................................................................................ 28

8.2. Changes in bathymetry ................................................................................................................... 33

8.2.1. May 2016 to July 2016 ....................................................................................................... 33

8.2.2. July 2016 to October 2016 ................................................................................................. 33

8.2.3. May 2016 to October 2016 ................................................................................................ 34

8.3. Discussion ....................................................................................................................................... 34

9. Assessment of particle size and benthic community data _____________________ 40

9.1. Particle size analysis ....................................................................................................................... 41

9.1.1. August 2012 background and May 2016 pre-Trial 1 particle size data ............................. 41

9.1.2. 2016 pre-Trial 1, post-Trial 1 and post-Trial 2 particle size data ....................................... 44

9.1.3. Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 44

9.2. Benthic community data .................................................................................................................. 45

9.2.1. August 2012 characterisation survey ................................................................................. 45

9.2.2. May 2016 pre-Trial 1 monitoring survey ............................................................................ 46

9.2.3. July 2016 post-Trial 1 monitoring survey ........................................................................... 46

9.2.4. September 2016 post-Trial 2 monitoring survey ................................................................ 47

9.2.5. Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 48

10. Conclusions ________________________________________________________ 52


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00

11. References ________________________________________________________ 53

Appendices ____________________________________________________________ 54

A. Titan Environmental Surveys seabed frame deployment report

B. Thomson Unicomarine particle size analysis reports

C. Thomson Unicomarine benthic community data reports

Figures Figure 1.1: Monitoring locations .................................................................................................................. 3

Figure 2.1: Trial 1 disposal records ............................................................................................................ 4

Figure 2.2: Trial 2 disposal records ............................................................................................................ 4

Figure 2.3: TSHD Barent Zanen ................................................................................................................. 5

Figure 2.4: TSHD HAM 316 ........................................................................................................................ 5

Figure 3.1: Particle size analysis of a sediment sample taken from the dredger hopper during maintenance dredging in 2012.................................................................................................................... 6

Figure 4.1: Equipped seabed frame ........................................................................................................... 7

Figure 4.2: Booner tube sediment............................................................................................................... 7

Figure 4.3: Site 1: Trial 1 booner PSD ........................................................................................................ 9



Figure 4.6: Site 2: Trial 2: booner PSD ....................................................................................................... 9



Figure 4.9: Full range turbidity (NTU) to sediment concentration (mg/l dry weight) sensor calibrations ................................................................................................................................................ 10

Figure 4.10: Measured range turbidity (NTU) to sediment concentration (mg/l dry weight) sensor calibrations ................................................................................................................................................ 11

Figure 4.11: Suspended solids concentrations and water depths at Sites 1, 2 and 3 .............................. 12

Figure 4.12: Pre-Trial 1 sediment concentrations at Sites 1, 2 and 3 during the period 7-9 June 2016 .......................................................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 4.13: Pre-Trial 2 sediment concentrations at Sites 1, 2 and 3 during the period 19-21 August 2016 ......................................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 5.1: Location of the Felixstowe Waverider, the HHA meteorological station and disposal site TH027 ....................................................................................................................................................... 14

Figure 5.2: Recorded wave and wind data and measured suspended solids concentrations at Site 1 ... 16

Figure 6.1: Trial 1: Site 2 measured sediment concentrations before, during and after disposals .......... 17

Figure 6.2: Disposal Trial 1 measured suspended sediment concentration data ..................................... 18

Figure 6.3: Trial 2: Site 2 measured sediment concentrations before, during and after disposals .......... 19

Figure 6.4: Disposal Trial 2 measured suspended sediment concentration data ..................................... 20

Figure 7.1: Predicted concentration increases above background levels at Site 1 .................................. 22



Figure 7.4: Predicted concentration increases above background levels at Site 2 for disposals commencing mid-neap tide ....................................................................................................................... 23


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00

Figure 7.5: Measured concentrations at Site 2 during disposal Trial 1 ..................................................... 24

Figure 7.6: Predicted concentration increases above background levels at Site 2 for disposals commencing mid-spring tide ..................................................................................................................... 25

Figure 7.7: Measured concentrations at Site 2 during disposal Trial 2 ..................................................... 25

Figure 7.8: Predicted concentration increases above background levels at Site 2 for disposals commencing mid-spring tide with and without waves ............................................................................... 26

Figure 7.9: Predicted sedimentation thickness above background levels at Site 1 .................................. 27

Figure 7.10: Predicted sedimentation thickness above background levels at Site 2 ................................ 27

Figure 7.11: Predicted sedimentation thickness above background levels at Site 3 ................................ 28

Figure 8.1: May 2016 bathymetry survey of disposal site TH027 ............................................................. 30

Figure 8.2: July 2016 bathymetry survey of disposal site TH027 ............................................................. 31

Figure 8.3: October 2016 bathymetry survey of disposal site TH027 ....................................................... 32

Figure 8.4: Bathymetry difference July 2016 minus May 2016 ................................................................. 36

Figure 8.5: Bathymetry difference October 2016 minus July 2016 ........................................................... 37

Figure 8.6: Bathymetry difference October 2016 minus May 2016 .......................................................... 38

Figure 8.7: Bathymetry difference within the boundary of the disposal site October 2016 minus May 2016 at a minimum resolution of ±0.1 m ................................................................................................... 39

Figure 9.1: Particle size distribution in August 2012 and pre-Trial 1 disposal in May 2016 ..................... 42

Figure 9.2: Particle size distribution May 2016 pre-Trial 1 disposal, July 2016 post-Trial 1 disposal and September 2016 post-Trial 2 disposal ............................................................................................... 43

Figure 9.3: Comparison of the number of species (biodiversity) between the characterisation survey and the pre-Trial 1, post-Trial 1 and post-Trial 2 monitoring surveys ....................................................... 49

Figure 9.4: Comparison of the number of individuals (abundance) between the characterisation survey and the pre-Trial 1, post-Trial 1 and post-Trial 2 monitoring surveys ........................................... 50

Figure 9.5: Abundance of Sabellaria spinulosa at the disposal site ......................................................... 51

Tables Table 1.1: Proposed monitoring measures ................................................................................................. 2

Table 2.1: Summary of disposal records .................................................................................................... 4

Table 4.1: Seabed frame locations ............................................................................................................. 6

Table 4.2: Summary of seabed frame deployments ................................................................................... 8

Table 4.3: Trial 1 booner tube particle size distribution summary .............................................................. 8

Table 4.4: Trial 2 booner tube particle size distribution summary .............................................................. 8

Table 7.1: Summary of disposal records .................................................................................................. 21

Table 8.1: Bathymetry difference models ................................................................................................. 33

Table 9.1: Monitoring survey sampling regime ......................................................................................... 40

Table 9.2: August 2012 characterisation survey – numbers of species and individuals .......................... 45

Table 9.3: May 2016 pre-Trial 1 monitoring survey – numbers of species and individuals ...................... 46

Table 9.4: July 2016 post-Trial 1 monitoring survey – numbers of species and individuals..................... 47

Table 9.5: September 2016 post-Trial 2 monitoring survey – numbers of species and individuals ......... 47


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 1

1. Background

The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) has granted Harwich Haven Authority

(HHA) a Marine Licence (L/2013/00392/3) that permits two trial disposals of 500,000 m3 of

dredged material arising from maintenance dredging at Harwich and Felixstowe Harbour.

The trial disposal site is referred to as the Harwich Haven Disposal Site (Cefas Site Code

TH027).

A condition of the licence is that monitoring data is collected during the course of the two trial disposal

campaigns and a Monitoring Report is submitted to the MMO within four months of completion of the two trial

campaigns. The monitoring requirements are described in Licence Schedule 6 and summarised in Table 1.1

and the monitoring locations are shown in Figure 1.1.

HR Wallingford has previously produced a Characterisation Report and Addendums (HR Wallingford, 2014)

which included plume dispersion studies to look at the physical effects of using the proposed new disposal

site. They concluded that the disposal was not likely to produce a significant influence on the fisheries in the

area and that they would be broadly similar to the influences arising from disposal at the current Inner

Gabbard site. The documents recognised that if the disposal resulted in a significantly higher level of

suspended sediment concentration or seabed deposition than that predicted in the modelling study, there

was a risk that the magnitude of the effects on shellfish in particular could be higher than predicted.

To check the findings of the plume dispersion modelling studies reported in HR Wallingford (2014), and

identify any unexpected effects such as significant increases in suspended sediment concentration or

seabed deposition HHA proposed a programme of monitoring with the focus being on physical changes, as

these provide rapid feedback on the effects of disposal activities. Benthic analysis was also proposed to

monitor any longer term effects on the benthic community.

HR Wallingford was asked by HHA to undertake the analysis of bathymetric surveys and monitoring data

(collected by Titan Environmental Surveys) and the benthic community (collected by Thomson Unicomarine)

and to compare the results of these analyses with predictions made in the HR Wallingford Characterisation

Report and Addendums.

Monitoring activities assessed within this report included:

long-term measurements of suspended solids concentrations at 0.5 m above the seabed at three

monitoring locations before, during and after the two disposal trials;

the analysis of multibeam bathymetric surveys undertaken pre-Trial 1, pre-Trial 2 and post-Trial 2; and

a high level assessment of benthic fauna surveys undertaken pre-Trial 1, pre-Trial 2 and post-Trial 2.

The results of the analysis of the monitoring data and the comparison of that data with the results of the

plume dispersion modelling studies are presented in this Monitoring Report to be submitted to the MMO.


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 2

Table 1.1: Proposed monitoring measures

Monitoring

measure Methodology Frequency and duration

Turbidity/ suspended

sediment

concentration

3 no. calibrated optical backscatter (OBS)

sensors deployed on the seabed to the west

of the disposal site.

Locations shown on Figure 1.1.

In place for the first two disposal

campaigns. Deployment approximately 2

weeks prior to the disposal campaign;

retrieval after 4-6 weeks (to capture, pre,

during and post disposal).

Seabed deposition 21 no. surface grab samples analysed for

particle size.

Sample locations shown on Figure 1.1.

Survey carried out in conjunction with

benthic sampling (see below).

Before and after the first two disposal

campaigns.

Seabed deposition Multibeam bathymetric survey of the

disposal site and immediate vicinity.


campaigns.

Seabed deposition 5 no. passive sediment ‘traps’ attached to

crab/lobster pots**.

Before, during and after the first two

disposal campaigns. Locations and

deployment methodology to be agreed with

potting fishermen*.

Benthic community 21 no. surface grab samples analysed for

benthic fauna.

Sample locations shown on Figure 1.1.

Survey carried out in conjunction with

particle size sampling (see above).


campaigns. Surveys to be carried out during

spring/summer months (May – September).

Source: Marine Licence L/2013/00392/3, Schedule 6.

* Prior to the first disposal campaign, HHA liaised with Cefas and the fishermen who lay pots in the area to the west of

the disposal site (as shown on Figure 1.1) to plan a practical programme for deploying sediment traps.

** As it was impractical to attach the sediment traps to crab/lobster pots it was agreed with Cefas that the traps could be

attached to purpose built seabed frames.


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 3

Figure 1.1: Monitoring locations

Source: Based on Marine Licence L/2013/00392/3, Schedule 6, Figure 1


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 4

2. Disposal records

As permitted in the Marine Licence (L/2013/00392/3), the material arising from two maintenance dredging

campaigns at Harwich and Felixstowe Harbour was placed at the Harwich Haven Disposal Site (Cefas Site

Code TH027). The disposal records arising from the Trial 1 and Trial 2 dredging campaigns in terms of

Tonnes Dry Solids (TDS) are shown in Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2 and summarised in Table 2.1.

Figure 2.1: Trial 1 disposal records Figure 2.2: Trial 2 disposal records

Source: Harwich haven Authority Source: Harwich haven Authority

Table 2.1: Summary of disposal records

Trial # Start date End date No. days No. loads Avg. TDS Total m3 Total TDS

1 09/06/2016 17/06/2016 9 58 4,252 470,786 246,609

2 21/08/2016 30/08/2016 10 51 3,176 455,761 161,977

Source: Harwich haven Authority

The dredging associated with the two disposal trails was routine maintenance dredging of Harwich Harbour

using dredging plant available on the market at those times. For this reason it was not possible to design the

dredging campaigns to exactly match that previously adopted in the plume dispersion modelling studies

reported in HR Wallingford (2014). For the case of the plume dispersion modelling a total of 197,760 TDS

was simulated as being disposed of in 32 loads over 5 days using a Trailing Suction Hopper Dredger (TSHD)

having a hopper capacity of 16,000 m3 (see Section 7).

The Trial 1 dredging campaign was carried out by the TSHD Barent Zanen, operated by Boskalis

Westminster (Figure 2.3). The Barent Zanen has a hopper capacity of about 8,000 m3. The Trial 2 dredging

campaign was carried out by the TSHD HAM 316, operated by Van Oord (Figure 2.4). The HAM 316 has a

hopper capacity of about 9,500 m3.

The time taken to dispose of each dredged load at disposal site TH027 was, on average, 8.4 minutes for the

Barent Zanen and 11.9 minutes for the HAM 316. The length of time between disposals was, on average

about 3.4 hours for the Barent Zanen and 4.2 hours for the HAM 316.


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 5

Figure 2.3: TSHD Barent Zanen Figure 2.4: TSHD HAM 316

3. Dredged material physical characteristics

As reported in HR Wallingford (2014) a sample of material was taken from the hopper of the dredger during

the December 2012 maintenance campaign and tested by the National Laboratory Service for particle size

analysis; the sample was found to be fine muddy material with some fine sand. 100% of the grain size

fraction is less than 1000 µm. A graph showing the results of the analysis is shown in Figure 3.1. Samples

taken in 2016 for particle size and contamination analysis for the MMO showed the material to be very

similar.

The Maintenance Dredging Protocol Baseline Document for the Stour and Orwell Estuaries,

Harwich/Felixstowe Harbour and Deep Water Channel (HHA, 2012) provides information to enable the

assessment of maintenance dredging activities within Harwich and Felixstowe and the surrounding area and

their effects on the Stour and Orwell Estuaries Special Protection Area (SPA). The Baseline Document

states that with the exception of the predominantly 100 µm fine sand which is occasionally dredged from the

Deep Water Channel at the South Shipwash Buoy, all the maintenance dredging undertaken in the harbour

and rivers is largely silt sized with a variable clay fraction (HHA, 2012). The clay content (< 2 µm) varies from

up to 30% in the lower harbour to about 10% or less further up the estuaries. The typical material generally

has less than 5% fine sand or any coarser material. Recently deposited material is dredged at a bulk density

of about 1.25 T/m3 whilst older, more consolidated, material can attain a bulk density of 1.35 T/m

3.

A detailed study by HR Wallingford (1998) measured sediment properties of maintenance dredged material

from Harwich Harbour, including samples collected in-situ from the areas to be dredged, and samples

collected from the dredger hopper. This study recorded a low sand content: in the in-situ samples, 95% of

material was mud and 5% sand; in the dredger hopper samples, 98% of the material was mud and 2% was

sand.


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 6

Figure 3.1: Particle size analysis of a sediment sample taken from the dredger hopper during maintenance dredging in 2012

Source: HR Wallingford, 2014

4. Suspended solids data

4.1. Seabed frames

Seabed frames were deployed by Titan Environmental Surveys at five locations to the west of the disposal

site as shown in Figure 1.1 and Table 4.1 (Titan Environmental Surveys, 2016).

Table 4.1: Seabed frame locations

Site # WGS84 Latitude WGS84 Longitude Easting (m) Northing (m)

1 51°54.529'N 01°36.803'E 404617 5751805

2 51°53.804'N 01°36.111'E 403798 5750477

3 51°53.041'N 01°35.570'E 403150 5749075

4 51°54.377'N 01°35.901'E 403577 5751543

5 51°53.611'N 01°35.232'E 402783 5750138

Source: Titan Environmental Surveys


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 7

At monitoring Sites 1, 2 and 3, each frame was equipped with a JFE Infinity Turbidity Logger measuring at

0.5 m above the seabed and configured to record the measured data at 10 minute intervals. In addition to

measuring turbidity the JFE instrument also recorded water depth and temperature at the same time

intervals.

Also attached to each seabed frame were two booner tubes which trap the suspended sediment from the

same height above the seabed as the turbidity measurements were made. The material collected in the

booner tubes was subsequently used to calibrate the measured turbidity data in terms of suspended solids

concentration in mg/l (see Section 4.2).

At Site 4 and Site 5, each seabed frame was equipped with two booner tubes to trap the suspended

sediment at 0.5 m above the seabed. Turbidity was not to be measured at Site 4 and Site 5.

It should be noted that whilst the booner tubes collected material for use in the calibration of the turbidity

sensors (at Sites 1, 2 and 3) it was not possible to determine sedimentation rates from the booner tube

deployments as in most cases the tubes had either become blocked during the course of the deployment or

had overfilled with trapped sediment (see Appendix A for further details).

Figure 4.1 shows one of the seabed frames deployed equipped with two booner tubes and a JFE turbidity

logger and Figure 4.2 shows an example the sediment trapped within one of the booner tubes. Note that

there was no indication that the material size or colour had varied during the course of individual tides or

during the spring-neap cycle (this would normally be indicated by layering of the trapped booner tube

sediment); this was the case for all booner tube samples (see Appendix A).

Figure 4.1: Equipped seabed frame Figure 4.2: Booner tube sediment

Source: Titan Environmental Surveys Source: Titan Environmental Surveys

The seabed frames were deployed at the five sites prior to the commencement of the Trial 1 disposal on

26 May 2016 and recovered after completion of the Trial 2 disposal as shown in Table 4.2.


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 8

Table 4.2: Summary of seabed frame deployments

Trial # Height ASB Start date End date No. days

1 0.5 m 26/05/2016 13/07/2016 49

2 0.5 m 13/07/2016 06/09/2016 56


On 13 July 2016 the frames were recovered and the Trial 1 instruments and booner tubes were removed and

replaced prior to being redeployed on the seabed in advance of the Trial 2 disposal campaign commencing.

Following the removal of the Trial 1 instruments the recorded data was downloaded and the booner tubes

were emptied with the trapped sediment being photographed and stored for subsequent laboratory analysis.

The frames were recovered from the seabed on 6 September 2016 at which time the recorded Trial 2 data

was downloaded and the booner tubes were again emptied and their content photographed and stored for

subsequent analysis.

The Titan Environmental Surveys report for the Trial1 and Trial 2 seabed frame deployments is provided in

Appendix A.

4.2. Turbidity calibration

As the JFE Infinity Turbidity Logger measures turbidity, there is a requirement to develop a calibration

between the measured turbidity in Formazin Turbidity Units (FTU) and the equivalent suspended solids

concentration in mg/l. To facilitate this, a range of calibration solutions covering the range of expected

concentrations were manufactured using sediment that had accumulated in the booner tubes attached to the

bed frames at monitoring Sites 1, 2 and 3.

In advance of the calibration solutions being manufactured it was necessary to establish whether solutions

should be made up on a site by site basis (i.e. use the material trapped at one site to calibrate only the

sensor from the same site), or on a project basis (i.e. bulk all of the material trapped at the three sites

together and use this to calibrate the sensors from all three sites).

To facilitate this decision the sediment trapped at each of the three sites during disposal Trials 1 and 2 was

subject to a particle size distribution analysis and the results evaluated. These results are summarised in

Table 4.3 (Trial 1) and Table 4.4 (Trial 2) and presented graphically in Figure 4.3 to Figure 4.8 (note that the

y-axis range varies in these figures).

Table 4.3: Trial 1 booner tube particle size distribution summary

Site # Textural Group D10 (µm) D50 (µm) D90 (µm)

1 Sandy Mud 1.965 8.244 71.52

2 Mud 2.412 9.033 32.78

3 Mud 2.099 7.732 37.07

Table 4.4: Trial 2 booner tube particle size distribution summary

Site # Textural Group D10 (µm) D50 (µm) D90 (µm)

1 Sandy Mud 2.885 54.11 160.6

2 Mud 1.565 6.415 42.57

3 Muddy sand 5.307 144.9 570.0



Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 9

Figure 4.3: Site 1: Trial 1 booner PSD Figure 4.4: Site 1: Trial 2 booner PSD


Figure 4.5: Site 2: Trial 1 booner PSD Figure 4.6: Site 2: Trial 2: booner PSD


Figure 4.7: Site 3: Trial 1 booner PSD Figure 4.8: Site 3: Trial 2 booner PSD



Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 10

From Table 4.3 and Table 4.4 and Figure 4.3 to Figure 4.8 it can be seen that the particle size distributions of

the sediment trapped at the three sites during disposal Trials 1 and 2 can broadly be divided into two particle

size populations, one being more silty (<63µm) and one being more sandy (>63µm). It should be noted here

that whilst material in the sand size fraction was found in the booner tube material, the trial disposal activities

would have released only a small proportion of material in the sand size fraction (5-10%).

When manufacturing calibration solutions for turbidity sensors, where fine material is present in the

measured environment, it is important that the material used to generate the solutions also contains a

representation of that fine material1.

For Trial 1, based on the results of this assessment it was decided that the material collected within the

booner tubes during Trial 1 at Sites 1, 2 and 3 should be bulked together and the resulting sample used to

manufacture a suite of calibration solutions to be used to calibrate each of the Trial 1 turbidity sensors.

For Trial 2, the material collected within the booner tubes during Trial 2 at Sites 1 and 3 was bulked together

and used to calibrate the sensors at those sites for the derivation of suspended solids concentrations in mg/l.

As the particle size distribution of material within the Trial 2 booner tube at Site 2 was quite different (similar

to the Trial 1 material), the Site 2 material from Trial 2 was used to calibrate the sensor at this site only.

The turbidity to sediment concentration calibrations derived for each of the six JFE sensors are shown in

Figure 4.9. for the full range of calibration solutions utilised and in Figure 4.10 for the typical range of

concentrations measured during the disposal trials.

Figure 4.9: Full range turbidity (NTU) to sediment concentration (mg/l dry weight) sensor calibrations


1 Turbidity sensors are more sensitive to the concentration of fine sediment particles such as silt (<63 µm) than to the

concentration of sand particles (>63 µm).


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 11

Figure 4.10: Measured range turbidity (NTU) to sediment concentration (mg/l dry weight) sensor calibrations


4.3. Measured suspended sediment concentrations

The suspended sediment concentrations measured at monitoring Sites 1, 2 and 3 are shown as time series

sub-plots in Figure 4.11. Also shown in the sub-plots is the water depth measured at each site and the times

at which disposals of dredged material took place at the nearby disposal site TH027.

The sub-plots demonstrate that whilst the measured data is generally of good quality there are occasions

when unusually noisy data has been measured. This noisy data is indicative of the measuring sensor having

been partially obscured by detritus or marine growth. An example of this noisy data can be seen in the Site 3

data between about 24 July and 4 August.


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 12

Figure 4.11: Suspended solids concentrations and water depths at Sites 1, 2 and 3

Note: Also shown are the times of Trial 1 and Trial 2 disposals at disposal site TH027

Source: Titan Environmental Surveys / Harwich Haven Authority

14

16

18

20

22

24

0

100

200

300

400

500

26/05/2016 09/06/2016 23/06/2016 07/07/2016 21/07/2016 04/08/2016 18/08/2016 01/09/2016

Wat

er d

epth

(m

)

Susp

end

ed s

olid

s co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

mg/

l)

Date

Site 1

Suspended Solids Concentration Disposal Water depth

14

16

18

20

22

24

0

100

200

300

400

500

26/05/2016 09/06/2016 23/06/2016 07/07/2016 21/07/2016 04/08/2016 18/08/2016 01/09/2016

Wat

er

de

pth

(m

)

Susp

en

de

d s

olid

s co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

mg/

l)

Date

Site 2


14

16

18

20

22

24

0

100

200

300

400

500

26/05/2016 09/06/2016 23/06/2016 07/07/2016 21/07/2016 04/08/2016 18/08/2016 01/09/2016

Wat

er d

ep

th (

m)

Susp

end

ed s

olid

s co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

mg/

l)

Date

Site 3



Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 13

Figure 4.11 shows that there are differences in the magnitude of sediment concentrations measured at the

three monitoring sites. Other than during periods of noisy data, concentrations measured at the northernmost

Site 1 are fairly consistently higher than those measured at Sites 2 and 3 as can be seen in Figure 4.12 (pre-

Trial 1) and Figure 4.13 (pre-Trial 2).

Figure 4.12: Pre-Trial 1 sediment concentrations at Sites 1, 2 and 3 during the period 7-9 June 2016


Figure 4.13: Pre-Trial 2 sediment concentrations at Sites 1, 2 and 3 during the period 19-21 August 2016


14

16

18

20

22

24

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

07/06/2016 00:00 07/06/2016 12:00 08/06/2016 00:00 08/06/2016 12:00 09/06/2016 00:00W

ater

dep

th (

m)

Susp

end

ed s

olid

s co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

mg/

l)

Date

Sediment concentrations 7-9 June 2016

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Water depth at Site 1

14

16

18

20

22

24

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

19/08/2016 00:00 19/08/2016 12:00 20/08/2016 00:00 20/08/2016 12:00 21/08/2016 00:00

Wat

er d

epth

(m

)

Susp

end

ed s

olid

s co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

mg/

l)

Date

Sediment concentrations 19-21 August 2016

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Water depth at Site 1


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 14

The periods of sediment concentration data shown in Figure 4.12 (a period of reducing tidal range) and

Figure 4.13 (a period of increasing tidal range) are just before the Trial 1 and Trial 2 disposals at disposal

site TH027 commence and are thus representative of the range of background concentrations that existed in

the monitoring area at that time.

Within the measured data at all three monitoring sites are clear correlations between sediment concentration

and tidal range, with larger concentrations being measured during spring tides than neap tides as would be

expected (see Figure 4.9). Other factors which may be expected to influence sediment concentrations are

wave and wind conditions; these are discussed in Section 5.

5. Wave and wind data Wave data recorded at 30 minute intervals for the period of the seabed frame deployments was obtained for

the Cefas WaveNet ‘Felixstowe Waverider’ (WMO ID: 6201052) buoy operated by Gardline Environmental

on behalf of the Environment Agency. This directional Waverider is located at 51°56.29’N 001°23.63’E, in

8 m water depth.

Wind data recorded at 10 minute intervals for the period of the seabed frame deployments was provided by

HHA. This data is measured at the HHA radar tower on Landguard Point located at 51°56.148'N

001°19.096'E.

The location of the Felixstowe Waverider buoy and the HHA radar tower in relation to Harwich and disposal

site TH027 is shown in Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1: Location of the Felixstowe Waverider, the HHA meteorological station and disposal site TH027

Source: Google Earth ©


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 15

5.1. Wave data

A time series of the recorded significant wave height and peak wave period wave data is shown overlaid on

the suspended solids concentrations measured at Site 1 in the upper two panels of Figure 5.2. Also shown in

Figure 5.2 are the times of the Trial 1 and Trial 2 disposals at disposal site TH027.

The figures show that the longest period of persistently large waves occurred at the start of the record during

the two weeks prior to the Trial 1 disposals commencing. During this time the maximum significant wave

height measured was about 1.6 m. After this time significant wave heights were generally less than about

0.8 m. The average significant wave height during the deployment period was calculated to be about 0.46 m.

The peak wave periods measured during the period of the seabed frame deployments were generally about

3 to 5 seconds. Longer period waves of up to about 12 seconds were recorded to occur over relatively short

periods of time during the course of the frame deployments. The average peak wave period during the

deployment period was calculated to be about 4.26 m.

As shown in the upper two panels of Figure 5.2 there is no clear correlation between the wave conditions

measured by the Felixstowe Waverider buoy and sediment concentrations at monitoring Site 1. A period of

possible correlation exists during the first week of measurements at Site 1 when high sediment

concentrations were measured coincident with a period of neap tides and relatively strong winds and large

waves.

5.2. Wind data

A time series of the recorded wind speed and wind direction data is shown overlaid on the suspended solids

concentrations measured at Site 1 in the lower two panels of Figure 5.2.

There are numerous occasions during the seabed frame deployment period when high wind speeds are

coincident with large waves being measured. An examples of this can be seen during the first 10 days of the

time series data during which time the wind is consistently blowing from the north.

The maximum wind speed measured during the period of the seabed frame deployments was about

33 knots, recorded on 29 June 2016. This maximum wind speed can be seen to be associated with a

corresponding peak in significant wave height of about 1.5 m. The average wind speed during the

deployment period was calculated to be about 9.3 knots.

Wind directions were variable during the period of the seabed frame deployments but most commonly blew

from the west (250º to 290º sector) and to a lesser extent from the east (70º to 110º sector).

As shown in the lower two panels of Figure 5.2 there is no clear correlation between the wind conditions

measured at the HHA radar tower on Landguard Point and sediment concentrations at monitoring Site 1. As

noted in Section 5.1, a period of possible correlation exists during the first week of measurements at Site 1

when high sediment concentrations were measured coincident with a period of neap tides and relatively

strong winds and large waves.


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 16

Figure 5.2: Recorded wave and wind data and measured suspended solids concentrations at Site 1

Note: Also shown are the times of the Trial 1 and Trial 2 disposals at disposal site TH027 Source: Titan Environmental Surveys / Cefas WaveNet / Harwich Haven Authority

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0

100

200

300

400

500

26/05/2016 09/06/2016 23/06/2016 07/07/2016 21/07/2016 04/08/2016 18/08/2016 01/09/2016

Pea

k w

ave

pe

rio

d (

s)

Susp

end

ed s

olid

s co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

mg/

l)

Date

Site 1

Suspended Solids Concentration Disposal Peak wave period

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0

100

200

300

400

500

26/05/2016 09/06/2016 23/06/2016 07/07/2016 21/07/2016 04/08/2016 18/08/2016 01/09/2016

Win

d s

pe

ed (

kn)

Susp

end

ed s

olid

s co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

mg/

l)

Date

Site 1

Suspended Solids Concentration Disposal Wind speed

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0

100

200

300

400

500

26/05/2016 09/06/2016 23/06/2016 07/07/2016 21/07/2016 04/08/2016 18/08/2016 01/09/2016

Sign

ific

ant

wav

e h

eigh

t (m

)

Susp

end

ed s

olid

s co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

mg/

l)

Date

Site 1

Suspended Solids Concentration Disposal Significant wave height

0

90

180

270

360

0

100

200

300

400

500

26/05/2016 09/06/2016 23/06/2016 07/07/2016 21/07/2016 04/08/2016 18/08/2016 01/09/2016

Win

d d

irec

tio

n (

deg

N)

Susp

end

ed s

olid

s co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

mg/

l)

Date

Site 1

Suspended Solids Concentration Disposal Wind direction


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 17

6. Assessment of disposal activities

To establish whether the suspended solids concentrations at Sites 1, 2 and 3 are influenced by the Trial 1

and Trial 2 disposal activities time series plots of the concentration data were first produced. These data are

discussed below.

6.1. Disposal Trial 1

Figure 6.2 shows that the highest concentrations measured at 0.5 m above the seabed during the Trial 1

measurement period (26/05/2016 to 13/07/2016) occurred at all 3 monitoring sites during the first week of the

deployment during a period of neap tides when relatively strong winds and large waves persisted (Section 5,

Figure 5.2). After this time, neap tide concentrations were generally lower that those measured during spring

tides. During the spring tide periods a small elevation in the background (baseline) concentration was

observed.

During the period of the Trial 1 disposals (indicated by the red vertical lines in Figure 6.2) there is no

evidence of any large-scale increases in concentration, nor is there evidence of the background (baseline)

concentration increasing as a result of the disposal activity. Background (baseline) concentrations during the

period of the Trial 1 disposals are seen to decrease initially before gradually increasing after about

16/06/2016 in response to the increasing tidal range at that time.

Coincident with the increasing tidal range seen after about 15/06/2016, is an increase in the peak through-

tide concentrations at Site 2 and Site 3. This feature, which can be seen more clearly in Figure 6.1, may be

present as a result of fine material which had previously settled onto the seabed during the benign neap

tides being resuspended into the water column by the increased shear stresses associated with the larger

range tides. This feature is not so clearly evident in the Site 1 concentration data.

Figure 6.1: Trial 1: Site 2 measured sediment concentrations before, during and after disposals


14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

09/06/2016 11/06/2016 13/06/2016 15/06/2016 17/06/2016 19/06/2016 21/06/2016 23/06/2016

Wat

er

de

pth

(m

)

Susp

en

de

d s

olid

s co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

mg/

l)

Date

Trial 1: Site 2

Suspended solids concentration Disposal Water depth


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 18

Figure 6.2: Disposal Trial 1 measured suspended sediment concentration data


14

16

18

20

22

24

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

26/05/2016 02/06/2016 09/06/2016 16/06/2016 23/06/2016 30/06/2016 07/07/2016 14/07/2016

Wat

er

de

pth

(m

)

Susp

en

de

d s

olid

s co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

mg/

l)

Date

Trial 1: Site 1

Sediment concentration Disposal Water depth

14

16

18

20

22

24

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

26/05/2016 02/06/2016 09/06/2016 16/06/2016 23/06/2016 30/06/2016 07/07/2016 14/07/2016

Wat

er

de

pth

(m

)

Susp

en

de

d s

olid

s co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

mg/

l)

Date

Trial 1: Site 2


14

16

18

20

22

24

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

26/05/2016 02/06/2016 09/06/2016 16/06/2016 23/06/2016 30/06/2016 07/07/2016 14/07/2016

Wat

er

de

pth

(m

)

Susp

en

de

d s

olid

s co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

mg/

l)

Date

Trial 1: Site 3



Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 19

6.2. Disposal Trial 2

Figure 6.4 shows that the Trial 2 suspended solids concentration data is far “noisier” and generally higher at

all three sites than that measured during Trial 1. In particular, at Site 3, very high concentrations were

measured at 0.5 m above the seabed between 24/07/2016 and 04/08/2016. These high concentrations are

not seen in the Site 1 or Site 2 data and as such are considered to be spurious and indicative of the

measuring sensor having been partially obscured by detritus or marine growth.

With the exception of this period of spurious data at Site 3, there is a clear correlation between the measured

concentrations at all three sites with the phase of the spring / neap tidal cycle.

At the time that the Trial 2 disposals commenced the tidal range had been increasing from neap tides to

spring tides during the preceding 4 or 5 days. Associated with this increasing tidal range was a gradual

increase in both the background (baseline) and peak concentrations at all Sites, as shown in Figure 6.3 for

Site 2.

Figure 6.3: Trial 2: Site 2 measured sediment concentrations before, during and after disposals


During the period of the Trial 2 disposals, whilst peak concentrations on some (though not all) tides are

increased above those measured during the one or two days preceding disposal, the background

concentrations at Sites 2 and 3 are seen to reduce over time in phase with the reducing tidal ranges. During

the last day of disposals (30/08/2016), background concentrations begin to increase at Sites 2 and 3 in

response to the tidal range increasing from neap tides to spring tides. The features described here are also

evident in the Site 1 concentration data though this data appears to be relatively “noisy” and so is considered

to be of poor quality.

14

16

18

20

22

24

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

18/08/2016 20/08/2016 22/08/2016 24/08/2016 26/08/2016 28/08/2016 30/08/2016 01/09/2016

Wat

er

de

pth

(m

)

Susp

en

de

d s

olid

s co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

mg/

l)

Date

Trial 2: Site 2



Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 20

Figure 6.4: Disposal Trial 2 measured suspended sediment concentration data


14

16

18

20

22

24

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

13/07/2016 20/07/2016 27/07/2016 03/08/2016 10/08/2016 17/08/2016 24/08/2016 31/08/2016 07/09/2016

Wat

er

de

pth

(m

)

Susp

en

de

d s

olid

s co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

mg/

l)

Date

Trial 2: Site 1


14

16

18

20

22

24

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

13/07/2016 20/07/2016 27/07/2016 03/08/2016 10/08/2016 17/08/2016 24/08/2016 31/08/2016 07/09/2016

Wat

er

de

pth

(m

)

Susp

en

de

d s

olid

s co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

mg/

l)

Date

Trial 2: Site 2


14

16

18

20

22

24

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

13/07/2016 20/07/2016 27/07/2016 03/08/2016 10/08/2016 17/08/2016 24/08/2016 31/08/2016 07/09/2016

Wat

er

de

pth

(m

)

Susp

en

de

d s

olid

s co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

mg/

l)

Date

Trial 2: Site 3



Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 21

7. Comparison with numerical modelling

As part of the studies previously undertaken by HR Wallingford the influence of the disposal activities at

disposal site TH027 were predicted through plume dispersion modelling (HR Wallingford, 2014).

Three disposal scenarios were modelled; the first representing disposals commencing mid way through the

neap tides, the second representing disposals commencing mid way through the spring tides and a third

scenario being the same as the second, but with the effects of 0.5 m high waves included.

As the model simulations were configured to represent a worst case scenario the use of the largest TSHD

expected to undertake maintenance dredging of Harwich Harbour was assumed. Therefore, a TSHD having

a hopper capacity of 16,000 m3 was represented disposing of 32 loads, with each disposal taking 10

minutes. The disposals occurred approximately once every 3.75 hours, this being representative of the

anticipated cycle time of the dredger. The TDS released into the water column during each disposal was

6,180 Tonnes giving a total TDS disposed in each simulation of 197,760 Tonnes. These rates and total

disposal masses can be compared to that actually placed during the two trials as shown in Table 7.1 (see

also Section 2).

Table 7.1: Summary of disposal records

Duration of

disposal

Number of loads

disposed

Average

TDS disposed per load

Total

TDS disposed

Model simulations 5 days 32 6,180 Tonnes 197,760 Tonnes

Trial 1 9 days 58 4,252 Tonnes 246,609 Tonnes

Trial 2 10 days 51 3,176 Tonnes 161,977 Tonnes

Source: HR Wallingford / Harwich Haven Authority

7.1. Predicted concentration changes

It is important to note here that the sediment concentrations predicted by the numerical modelling represent

only the increase in concentration due to the disposal activities above background levels.

For the purpose of comparing the predicted increases in suspended solids concentration arising from the

disposal activities with the measured concentrations, time series of concentration data (above background)

have been extracted from the model result files at the location of each of the three bed frames (Sites 1, 2 and

3, Figure 1.1). Note that the time series data output from the numerical model is timestamped in terms of

minutes since the start of the model simulation. Based on the water levels predicted by the model at each of

the model time steps, a dummy date and time has been applied in order to align the predicted water levels

with those observed at the Trial 1 bed frame sites to allow comparisons to be made. The predicted

concentration increases above background at Sites 1, 2 and 3 for disposals commencing mid way through

neap and spring tides are shown in Figure 7.1, Figure 7.2 and Figure 7.3 respectively.

The extracted data shows that, at all three sites for both mid-neap and mid-spring starts, peak concentrations

during the period of the disposals, are predicted to increase by up to about 100 mg/l and background

concentration by about 5 to 10 mg/l.

As the predicted concentration increases at Site 2 (Figure 7.2) are broadly representative of those predicted

to occur at Site 1 and Site 3 for both mid-neap and mid-spring starts, this site has been selected for further

inspection and comparison. Figure 7.4 shows the predicted concentration increases above background at


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 22

Site 2 for disposals commencing mid way through neap tides and Figure 7.5 shows the measured

concentrations over the same duration of time with the water levels aligned to a common base (i.e. neap and

spring tides occur at broadly the same time).

Figure 7.1: Predicted concentration increases above background levels at Site 1

Source: HR Wallingford




Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 23



Figure 7.4: Predicted concentration increases above background levels at Site 2 for disposals commencing mid-neap tide



Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 24

Figure 7.5: Measured concentrations at Site 2 during disposal Trial 1


The data shown in Figure 7.4 and Figure 7.5 demonstrates that during the period of disposal and during the

following spring tide period the model is conservative in its prediction of concentration increases above

background levels at Site 2 as the magnitude of the predicted concentration peaks are not achieved in the

measured data. It should be noted here however that as shown in Table 7.1, whilst the total mass placed at

the disposal site in the model simulation was smaller than during Trial 1 (197,760 TDS c.f. 246,609 TDS), the

rate at which the material was placed was faster in the model simulation than during Trial 1 (32 loads

@6,180 TDS over 5 days c.f. 58 loads @4,252 TDS over 9 days). During the second neap and spring tide

periods at Site 2 (after about 27/06/16) the predicted concentration increases are much smaller (<20 mg/l)

and within the natural variability observed in the measured data at this site.

Figure 7.6 shows the predicted concentration increases above background levels at Site 2 for disposals

commencing mid way through spring tides and Figure 7.7 shows the measured concentrations over the

same duration of time with the water levels aligned to a common base (i.e. neap and spring tides occur at

broadly the same time).

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

09/06/16 16/06/16 23/06/16 30/06/16 07/07/16

Wat

er

de

pth

(m

)

Susp

en

de

d s

olid

s co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

mg/

l)

Date

Trial 1: Site 2



Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 25

Figure 7.6: Predicted concentration increases above background levels at Site 2 for disposals commencing mid-spring tide


Figure 7.7: Measured concentrations at Site 2 during disposal Trial 2


In the case of Trial 2, the disposals occurred at a different time within the spring-neap cycle than those

modelled for the mid-spring start scenario and so are not directly comparable. However, Figure 7.6 indicates

that during the period of disposals, peak concentration increases above background levels of up about

100 mg/l and an underlying increase of about 10 mg/l can be expected at Site 2. The Site 2 measured data

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

16/08/16 23/08/16 30/08/16 06/09/16 13/09/16

Wat

er

de

pth

(m

)

Susp

en

de

d s

olid

s co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

mg/

l)

Date

Trial 2: Site 2



Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 26

(Figure 7.7) demonstrates that during the 4 or 5 days preceding the commencement of disposal

concentrations are increasing as a result of the increasing spring tidal range. From the time that disposals

commence on 21/08/16 there is no evidence of any large-scale increases in concentration of the magnitude

predicted by the model (up to 100 mg/l), nor is there evidence of the underlying concentration increasing as a

result of the disposal activity. Note here again that the total mass of material placed and the rate at which it

was placed was different for the model simulation and Trial 2 (see Table 7.1).

The comparisons described above for Site 2 are also broadly valid for the measured and predicted

concentrations at Sites 1 and 3.

For the modelled scenario whereby disposals commenced mid way through the spring tides including the

effects of 0.5 m high waves the results were not dissimilar to the case without waves though elevated by

about 10 mg/l as shown at Site 2 in Figure 7.8.

Figure 7.8: Predicted concentration increases above background levels at Site 2 for disposals commencing mid-spring tide with and without waves


7.1.1. Summary

The magnitude of the increases in concentration above background levels predicted by the numerical model

are not seen in the measured data. Where the timing of the modelled disposals corresponds more closely to

the actual disposals, such as the mid-neap model scenario and Trial 1, the predicted concentrations (above

background levels) and measured concentrations are not dissimilar (Figure 7.4 and Figure 7.5).

As shown in Table 7.1, whilst the total mass of material placed at the disposal site in the modelling and

during the trials is broadly similar, the rate at which the material was placed was significantly different. In the

modelled scenarios 32 loads of about 6,200 Tonnes were placed over a 5 day period. During the trials

between 51 and 58 loads of between about 3,200 and 4,200 Tonnes were place over 8 to 10 days.

As the rate of placement was significantly faster in the modelled scenarios this would be expected to result in

larger predicted increases in concentration above background than those observed; and this was seen to be

the case.


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 27

7.2. Predicted deposition

For the purpose of presenting the predicted deposition arising from the disposal activities, time series of

thickness of deposition above background levels have been extracted from the model result files at the

location of each of the three bed frames (Sites 1, 2 and 3, Figure 1.1). The predicted deposition thickness

arising from suspended solids concentrations above background levels at Sites 1, 2 and 3 for disposals

commencing mid way through neap and spring tides are shown in Figure 7.9, Figure 7.10 and Figure 7.11

respectively.

Figure 7.9: Predicted sedimentation thickness above background levels at Site 1





Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 28



The figures above demonstrate that the maximum thickness of deposition above background levels from the

modelled disposal activities is about 1.25 mm at Site 1 due to sediment concentrations arising from disposals

commencing mid way through neap tides. For the scenario of disposals commencing mid way through spring

tides the predicted deposition is about 0.55 mm at Site 1. Whilst smaller deposition thicknesses are predicted

to occur at Site 3 (<1.0 mm) very little is predicted to occur at Site 2 (generally <0.2 mm). This is considered

to be due to the fact that Site 2 is located in waters about 3 m shallower than that which exists at Sites 1

and 3 and as such will have experienced higher current speeds and thus reduced deposition / increased

resuspension.

8. Assessment of bathymetric survey data

8.1. Bathymetric surveys

Three bathymetric surveys of disposal site TH027 were undertaken by Harwich Haven Authority as part of

the monitoring study to determine if the placement of individual loads or wider long term effects could be

detected on the seabed. Each survey was carried out over a two day period using a multi beam echo

sounder (MBES). The extents of disposal site TH027 were surveyed by covering a 1 km by 1 km area of the

seabed. Additionally two long lines were surveyed, broadly centred about the disposal site, one 22 km long

line parallel to the dominant flow direction and a second 5 km long line normal to the dominant flow direction.

Three MBES surveys were conducted during May, July and October/November 2016 to gather data on the

potential changes to seabed elevations following the two trial disposal events:

23 and 25 May 2016: MBES survey conducted 15 and 17 days prior to the commencement of the Trial 1

disposals on 9 June 2016.

18 and 28 July 2016: MBES survey conducted 31 and 41 days after the completion of the Trial 1

disposals on 17 June 2016.

31 October and 1 November 2016: MBES survey conducted 62 and 63 days after the completion of the

Trial 2 disposals on 30 August 2016. Note that this post-Trial 2 survey was originally conducted on 19

and 20 September 2016 (20 and 21 days after the completion of the Trial 2 disposals). During the


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 29

subsequent post-processing of this survey data it was recognised that the data was of sufficiently poor

quality that the survey should be repeated.

The MBES survey data was provided to HR Wallingford in x, y, z format at a 2 m horizontal resolution. The

data provided was a “median selection” rather than being either “raw” data or “shoal biased” data. Each of

the three survey data sets were processed and 3D surface models of the surveyed areas created at 1 m

horizontal resolution.

The 3D surfaces generated from the May, July and October 2016 surveys of disposal site TH027 are shown

in Figure 8.1, Figure 8.2 and Figure 8.3 respectively.

The figures show that the seafloor within the footprint of disposal site TH027 is very flat with seabed

elevations varying from between -21mCD in the north-east corner to about -22.5mCD in the central north-

south ‘ridge’ area.

The seabed elevations within disposal site TH027 measured prior to the Trial 1 disposal (Figure 8.1) and

after the Trial 2 disposal (Figure 8.3) can be seen to be very similar. Seabed elevations measured between

the two disposal trials (Figure 8.2) can be seen to be generally slightly elevated in the northern central area

of the disposal site. It should be noted here that the vertical repeatability / accuracy of the MBES system is

quoted as being ±0.2 m.


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 30

Figure 8.1: May 2016 bathymetry survey of disposal site TH027

Source: Harwich Have Authority


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 31

Figure 8.2: July 2016 bathymetry survey of disposal site TH027



Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 32

Figure 8.3: October 2016 bathymetry survey of disposal site TH027



Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 33

8.2. Changes in bathymetry

To identify areas of the seabed where changes in seabed elevation had occurred during the course of the

trial disposal difference models were generated by subtracting one surface from another.

For the purpose of this study two difference models were created as shown in Table 8.1.

Table 8.1: Bathymetry difference models

Difference model See Figure

July 2016 minus May 2016 Figure 8.4

October 2016 minus July 2016 Figure 8.5

October 2016 minus May 2016 Figure 8.6


As the quoted vertical repeatability / accuracy of MBES surveys being ±0.2 m only changes in seabed levels

of greater than 0.2 m (accretion or erosion) are shown in the difference models. Any changes smaller that

this are coloured in white in Figure 8.4, Figure 8.5 and Figure 8.6.

8.2.1. May 2016 to July 2016

The changes in bathymetry that occurred between May and July 2016 are shown in Figure 8.4. During this

period the Trial 1 disposal operations took place at Site TH027 between 9 and 17 June 2016.

Within the boundary of disposal site TH027 there is generally no change in seabed elevation (shown as

white). Whilst there are patches of apparent accretion of up to about 0.3 m (shown as yellow) this is not

considered to be entirely due to real changes in seabed elevation but due to a combination of bed level

changes and tidal reduction inaccuracies encountered due to the relatively large distance between the

survey area and the Harwich tide gauge (~24 km).

Along the length of the 22 km long flow parallel survey line apparent erosion of up to 0.4 m (shown in green)

was measured to the north of disposal site TH027. This is again considered to be largely due to tidal

reduction inaccuracies compounded by the presence of Shipwash Bank between the survey area and the

Harwich tide gauge. It can be seen in Figure 8.4 that the apparent erosion along this survey line is only

present offshore of Shipwash Bank and the inaccuracy increases further north along the line (as the distance

to the tide gauge increases). In the area to the south of Shipwash Bank the MBES data is of much higher

quality, showing detail of bedforms having moved in a southerly direction between the two surveys as shown

in the inset to Figure 8.4.

Along the length of the 5 km long flow normal survey line, which includes the area of seabed to the west of

the disposal site where the seabed frames were deployed (see Section 3), no changes in seabed elevation

in excess of 0.2 m are observed (shown as white).

8.2.2. July 2016 to October 2016

The changes in bathymetry that occurred between July and October 2016 are shown in Figure 8.5. During

this period the Trial 2 disposal operations took place at disposal site TH027 between 21 and 30 August

2016.


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 34

Within the boundary of disposal site TH027 there is no change in seabed elevation in excess of 0.2 m

(shown as white).

Towards the northern end of the 22 km long flow parallel survey line apparent accretion of up to 0.3 m

(shown in yellow) was measured. As discussed in Section 8.2.1, this is considered to be largely due to tidal

reduction inaccuracies which have been shown to be more prevalent at greater distances from the Harwich

tide gauge and compounded by the presence of Shipwash Bank. In the area to the south of Shipwash Bank

the MBES data is again of much higher quality, showing detail of bedforms having moved in a southerly

direction between the two surveys as shown in the inset to Figure 8.5.

No changes in seabed elevation in excess of 0.2 m are seen along the length of the 5 km long flow normal

survey line (shown as white).

8.2.3. May 2016 to October 2016

The changes in bathymetry that occurred between May and October 2016 are shown in Figure 8.6. During

this period encompassed by these two surveys both the Trial 1 and Trial 2 disposal operations had taken

place at disposal site TH027 between 9 June and 30 August 2016.

Within the boundary of disposal site TH027 there is generally no change in seabed elevation (shown as

white in Figure 8.6). For this case the changes in bathymetry that occurred within the boundaries of the

disposal site between May and October 2016 have also been plotted in Figure 8.7 to show changes of

greater than 0.1 m. Figure 8.7 demonstrates that the largest changes in bed level occurred in the north-east

quadrant of the disposal site where accretion of up 0.2 m is widely observed and accretion of between 0.3 m

and 0.4 m is seen over small areas. There is no definitive evidence of the placement of individual loads on

the seabed or wider long term effects. As previously noted in Section 8.2.1 (May to July 2016), the apparent

accretion is not considered to be entirely due to real changes in seabed elevation but due to a combination

of bed level changes and tidal reduction inaccuracies encountered during the surveys.

Along the length of the 22 km long flow parallel survey line apparent erosion of up to 0.4 m (shown in green)

was measured to the north of disposal site TH027. As discussed in Section 8.2.1, this is considered to be

largely due to tidal reduction inaccuracies which have been shown to be more prevalent at greater distances

from the Harwich tide gauge and compounded by the presence of Shipwash Bank. In the area to the south of

Shipwash Bank the MBES data is again of much higher quality, showing detail of bedforms having moved in

a southerly direction between the two surveys.

No changes in seabed elevation in excess of 0.2 m are seen along the length of the 5 km long flow normal

survey line (shown as white).

8.3. Discussion

MBES surveys were carried out prior to the two trial disposals commencing in May 2016, between the two

disposal trials in July 2016 and after the trials had finished in October 2016.

Analysis of the bathymetry data has been undertaken and this has shown very little evidence of seabed level

changes in excess of 0.2 m (i.e. beyond the quoted vertical repeatability / accuracy of the MBES instrument

±0.2 m) that can be attributed directly to the disposal activities. There is no definitive evidence of the

placement of individual loads on the seabed or wider long term effects.


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 35

Between May and July 2016 (and to a lesser extent between May and October 2016) some apparent seabed

level changes were observed but this is largely attributable to tidal reduction inaccuracies encountered due

to the relatively large distance between the survey area and the Harwich tide gauge (~24 km). The

inaccuracies are thought to be compounded by the presence of Shipwash Bank.


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 36

Figure 8.4: Bathymetry difference July 2016 minus May 2016

Source: Harwich Haven Authority


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 37

Figure 8.5: Bathymetry difference October 2016 minus July 2016

Source: Harwich Haven Authority

DLM7823-RT001

Figure 8.6:

Source: Ha

1-R02-00

Bathymetry d

arwich Haven

difference O

Authority

ctober 2016 minus May 22016

Harw

wich Haven Disp

M

posal Site TH02

Monitoring Repo

3

7

rt

8

DLM7823-RT001

Figure 8.7:

Source: Ha

1-R02-00

Bathymetry d

arwich Haven

difference wi

Authority

ithin the boundary of the disposal sitee October 20016 minus Maay 2016 at aa minimum reesolution of ±±0.1 m

Harw

wich Haven Disp

M

posal Site TH02

Monitoring Repo

3

7

rt

9


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 40

9. Assessment of particle size and benthic community data

The sediment particle size and benthic ecology in and around the proposed new disposal site could be

affected by the deposition of sediment onto the seabed. As part of the monitoring for the trial disposals, grab

sampling surveys were undertaken to determine whether there were any changes to the sediment particle

size and faunal communities present at the proposed disposal site and to provide a context for considering

the influence of the disposal trials.

A characterisation survey was carried out in August 2012 (Unicomarine, 2012) to provide a background for

future monitoring of the proposed disposal ground. Following that initial study, 21 of the original 59 grab

sampling characterisation stations were selected and agreed with Cefas for inclusion in the monitoring

programme (Figure 1.1).

Three monitoring surveys were conducted during May, July and September 2016 to gather data on the

potential changes to the sediment particle size, the benthic community and state of the marine ecology

following two trial disposal events:

18 May 2016: Unicomarine (2016a). Monitoring survey undertaken 22 days prior to the commencement

of the Trial 1 disposals. 20 stations successfully sampled. No sample was taken from Station 22.

19 July 2016: Unicomarine (2016b). Monitoring survey undertaken 32 days after the completion of the

Trial 1 disposals and 33 days prior to the commencement of the Trial 2 disposals. 20 stations

successfully sampled. No sample was taken from Station 22.

13 September 2016: Unicomarine (2016c). Monitoring survey undertaken 14 days after the completion

of the Trial 2 disposals. 17 stations were successfully sampled. No samples were taken from Stations

21, 28, 40 and 59.

The stations sampled during each monitoring survey are shown in Table 9.1.

Table 9.1: Monitoring survey sampling regime

Station May-16 Jul-16 Sep-16 Station May-16 Jul-16 Sep-16

ST1 ST40

ST11 ST42

ST21 ST43

ST22 ST45

ST24 ST46

ST25 ST49

ST27 ST51

ST28 ST52

ST36 ST55

ST37 ST59

ST39

Source: Unicomarine, 2016a,b,c


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 41

The results of the sediment particle size analysis are presented in Section 9.1 and the results of the benthic

analysis in Section 9.2.

9.1. Particle size analysis

The Thomson Unicomarine particle size analysis reports for each of the surveys are provided in Appendix B.

Whilst these data reports do not describe the survey methodology Thomson Unicomarine has confirmed that

this followed that adopted during the August 2012 characterisation survey and that the subsequent

laboratory processing of samples followed standard Thomson Unicomarine procedures. For each of the

stations sampled (Table 9.1) the sediment was subject to particle size analysis.

For the purpose of providing a high level overview of this data the percentage fines (<62.5µm), sands

(>62.5µm<2.0mm) and gravels (>2.0mm) within each sample was extracted from the 2012 characterisation

survey report (Unicomarine, 2012) and the 2016 monitoring survey reports (Unicomarine, 2016a,b,c) and

plotted as pie charts on a base map of the results of the plume dispersion modelling reported in

HR Wallingford (2014)2.

9.1.1. August 2012 background and May 2016 pre-Trial 1 particle size data

Figure 9.1 shows a the percentage of fines, sands and gravels present at each of the monitoring stations at

the time of the characterisation survey in August 2012 (black border pies) and at the time of the pre-Trial 1

survey in May 2016 (red border pies).

Figure 9.1 demonstrates the following:

There is a large variability in the composition of the bed materials over the surveyed area before the

disposal trials took place.

At some stations the composition of the bed material in August 2012 and May 2016 was very similar (e.g.

Stations 27, 30, 42 and 51).

At other locations the composition in August 2012 and May 2016 was very different (e.g. Stations 21, 24,

25, 39 and 43).

In August 2012 the bed materials north of the disposal site often comprised a greater proportion of gravel

(e.g. Stations 24, 25, 37, 52 and 43).

South of the disposal site there is very little fine material present in the bed materials.

Fine material is principally present in the area of the seabed immediately to the east of Shipwash Bank

(e.g. Stations 30 and 36).

In August 2012 fine material was present within the boundary of, and to the east of, the disposal site

(Stations 11, 21 and 55). This fine material was not present when sampled in May 2016 prior to the

disposal trials.

2 HR Wallingford (2014), Figure 6.8. Maximum deposition over 28 Day Cycle. Model Run 1: Spring Tide with 0.5m

waves.


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 42

Figure 9.1: Particle size distribution in August 2012 and pre-Trial 1 disposal in May 2016

Source: Unicomarine, 2012, 2016a


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 43

Figure 9.2: Particle size distribution May 2016 pre-Trial 1 disposal, July 2016 post-Trial 1 disposal and September 2016 post-Trial 2 disposal

Source: Unicomarine, 2016a,b,c


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 44

9.1.2. 2016 pre-Trial 1, post-Trial 1 and post-Trial 2 particle size data

Figure 9.2 shows the percentage of fines, sands and gravels present at each of the monitoring stations at the

time of the following monitoring surveys:

Pre-Trial 1 survey in May 2016 (red border pies).

Post-Trial 1 survey in July 2016 (blue border pies).

Post-Trial 2 survey in September 2016 (green border pies).

Figure 9.2 demonstrates the following:

The following sampling inconsistencies are noted:

In May and July 2016 Station 22 was not sampled.

Four stations were not sampled in September 2016 (Stations 21, 28, 40 and 59).

Within the boundary of the disposal site (Station 11) the pre-Trial 1 (red pie) and post-Trial 2 (green pie)

material compositions are very similar with no evidence of an increase in fine material resulting from the

disposal activities. The post-Trial 1 sample at Station 11 shows a larger proportion of fine material and a

smaller proportion of gravels, with the proportion of sand being similar. The post-Trial 2 sample at Station

11 showed a similar material composition to the pre-Trial 1 sample with no increase in the proportion of

fine material.

There is a large variability in the composition of the bed materials over the surveyed area.

At some stations outside of the disposal area the composition of the bed material during the course of

the trial placements was very similar (e.g. Stations 42 and 52).

At other locations outside of the disposal area the composition was very different (e.g. Stations 24, 25,

39 and 46).

Whilst the bed material composition at some stations outside of the disposal area showed greater

proportions of sand following the completion of the trial disposals (e.g. Stations 37, 39 and 46), other

stations showed a reduced sand content (e.g. Stations 25, 27 and 55).

Overall there is no evidence of an increase in fine material resulting from the disposal activities.

9.1.3. Discussion

The particle size distribution data shown in Figure 9.1 and Figure 9.2 shows that at the majority of the

sampling stations the bed material predominantly comprises sands having a particle diameter of between

62.5µm and 2.0mm. The next most commonly occurring size fraction is gravels (>2.0mm). Fine material

(<62.5µm), which comprises over 80% of the composition of the material being placed (see Section 3), is the

least commonly occurring over the surveyed area and is not present at all in many of the samples analysed.

In summary it can be stated that there is no clear correlation between changes in the composition of the bed

material and the disposal of dredged material having taken place at disposal site TH027 and that there is no

evidence of an increase in fine material resulting from the disposal activities.


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 45

9.2. Benthic community data

The Thomson Unicomarine benthic community data reports for each of the 2016 monitoring surveys are

provided in Appendix C. Whilst these data reports do not describe the survey methodology Thomson

Unicomarine has confirmed that this followed that adopted during the 2012 characterisation survey

(Unicomarine, 2012) and that the subsequent laboratory processing of samples followed standard Thomson

Unicomarine procedures.

9.2.1. August 2012 characterisation survey

During the August 2012 characterisation survey (Unicomarine, 2012) 59 stations were successfully sampled

using a 0.1 m2 mini-Hamon grab as shown in Figure 9.1. The stations were arranged in a rectangular pattern

running NNE – SSW in line with the prevailing currents in the area. The highest concentrations of stations

were positioned within close proximity to the proposed disposal site, with the remainder arranged as

reference stations.

The 59 survey stations recorded a total of 4489 individuals from 196 species, see Table 9.2. The total

number of individuals does not include those identified as “present”, i.e. species not enumerated due to their

colonial nature, e.g. bryozoans. The variation in diversity did not appear to be highly dependent on sediment

composition. Fauna found at the survey area were similar to those found during monitoring surveys at nearby

disposal grounds (Unicomarine, 2012).

Table 9.2: August 2012 characterisation survey – numbers of species and individuals

Phylum

(sub-phylum or class)

Number of

species

% Composition Number of individuals % Composition

Cnidaria (hydrozoan) 13 6.6

129 (excludes “present”

species)

3

Annelida (polychaeta) 75 38.3 1629 36

Arthropoda (crustacea) 40 20.4 214 5

Mollusca (bivalvia) 30 15.3 2224 50

Bryozoans 16 8.2 Present (not enumerated) -

Echinodermata 10 5.1 179 4

Other 12 6.1

114 (excludes “present”

species)

3

Total 196 100 4489 100

Source: Unicomarine, 2012

Notes: Other includes species not included in the above categories including nemertea, nematoda, turbellaria,

Sipuncula, ciliophora and chelicerata.

The benthic community were typical of mixed coarse sandy sediments, predominantly comprised annelids

(38% of species), crustaceans (20% of species) and bivalve molluscs (15%). Various species of polychaete

worms were identified ranging from deposit and filter feeders to highly mobile predators, over 30 species of

crustaceans (amphipods, shrimp and crabs), a similar number of molluscs and several sea spider

(pycnogonid) species. Bivalve species abundance was dominated by the common mussel, Mytilus edulis,

and species common in muddy sands and gravels – Abra alba, Kurtiella bidentata and Nucula spp

(HR Wallingford, 2014).


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 46

9.2.2. May 2016 pre-Trial 1 monitoring survey

During the pre-Trial 1 disposal survey in May 2016 (Unicomarine, 2016a), 20 of the 21 stations were

successfully sampled. No sample was taken from Station 22. The survey recorded a total of 681 individuals

from 127 species, see Table 9.3. The total number of individuals does not include those identified as

“present” but not enumerated due to their colonial nature, e.g. bryozoans.

Annelid polychaetes form the majority of the benthic community, accounting for approximately 52% of the

species (66 taxa) and 59% of the individuals (401 individuals) recorded during the survey. Low numbers of

reef building polychaetes Sabellaria spinulosa (34 individuals) and the tube building worms Lanice

conchilega (4 individuals). Arthropod crustaceans represented 15% of the total number of species

(19 species). The remaining species were comprised of mysid shrimps, copepods and isopods. Three

species of oligochaete were also recorded, one of which is usually not found far from shore and the other two

are usually found abundantly in intertidal mudflats (and the vicinity of harbours) rather than gravelly or sandy

areas offshore.

With regards to echinoderms the pre-disposal survey recorded six species (five brittlestars and one sea

urchin). The remaining taxa belonged to a variety of different phyla including nematoda, nemtertea,

phoronida and sipuncula.

Table 9.3: May 2016 pre-Trial 1 monitoring survey – numbers of species and individuals

Phylum


Number of

species


Cnidaria (hydrozoan) 5 3.9 2 (excludes “present”

species)

<1

Annelida (polychaeta) 66 52.0 401 59





Other 9 6.3 26 (excludes “present”

species)

4

Total 127 100 681 100

Source: Unicomarine, 2016a

Notes: Other includes species not included in the above categories including nemertea, nematoda, turbellaria,

Sipuncula, ciliophora and chelicerata

9.2.3. July 2016 post-Trial 1 monitoring survey

During the post-Trial 1 disposal survey in July 2016 (Unicomarine, 2016b), 20 of the 21 stations were

successfully sampled - no sample was taken from Station 22. The survey returned more individuals (1,942

individuals) and more species (147 taxa), see Table 9.4. Hydroid species were recorded at more stations

(7 stations during the interim survey) compared to the pre-disposal survey (5 stations). However the overall

contribution to species and individual numbers was similar (5% and 2%, respectively).

The polychaete community composition was different as the tube building polychaete Lagis koreni was

recorded in addition to Lanice conchilega and S. spinulosa. Polychaetes continued to dominate the faunal

assemblage, accounting for 41% of species (60 taxa) and 53% of individuals (1,026 individuals). The


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 47

abundance of S. spinulosa had increased (from 34 to 351), with their presence recorded at 7 stations

(Stations 1, 42, 45, 49, 51, 52, 59).

The number and diversity of crustacean species increased during the interim survey, contributing 22% of the

species in the benthic community (15% in pre-disposal survey), and 27% of the individuals (9% in pre-

disposal survey). Echinoderm and “Other” phyla both contributed similar amounts between the pre-disposal

and interim monitoring surveys.

Table 9.4: July 2016 post-Trial 1 monitoring survey – numbers of species and individuals

Phylum


Number of

species


Cnidaria (hydrozoan) 7 4.8 36 (exc. “present” species) 2

Annelida (polychaeta) 60 40.8 1,026 53





Other 11 7.5 62 (exc. “present” species) 3

Total 147 100.1 1,942 100

Source: Unicomarine, 2016b

Notes: Other includes species not included in the above categories including nemertea, nematoda, sipuncula, and

chordata

9.2.4. September 2016 post-Trial 2 monitoring survey

During the post-Trial 2 disposal survey in September 2016 (Unicomarine, 2016c) 17 of the 21 stations were

successfully sampled. No samples were acquired from stations 21, 28, 40 and 59 (Table 9.1). This difference

in the amount of sampling data means that direct comparison between the post-Trial 2 disposal survey data

(17 stations) and the previous pre-Trial 1 and post-Trial 1 survey data (each 20 stations) cannot be

undertaken, and that this high level assessment should only be considered as indicative.

Table 9.5: September 2016 post-Trial 2 monitoring survey – numbers of species and individuals

Phylum


Number of

species


Cnidaria (hydrozoan) 5 4.2 92 (exc. “present” species) 4

Annelida (polychaeta) 59 49.2 1,509 68





Other 9 7.5 130 (exc. “present” species) 6

Total 120 100.1 2203 100

Source: Unicomarine, 2016c

Notes: Other includes species not included in the above categories including nemertea, nematoda, sipuncula, and

chordata


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 48

The total number of species observed at the disposal site during the post-Trial 2 disposal survey (120 taxa)

are similar to the pre-Trial 1 survey (127 taxa), see Table 9.5. The total number of individuals has increased

to 2,203 compared to the post-Trial 1 survey result of 1,942 organisms. It is expected that if the full

complement of stations was sampled, that the number of species and individuals would be higher.

The benthic community continues to be dominated by the annelid polychaetes, both in terms of species

number (49% of total); and number of individuals accounting for 68% of all organisms recorded during the

survey. The abundance of S spinulosa increased to 1,124 individuals, although this species was only

observed at five stations (Stations 1, 37, 39, 42 and 45). The number of L. conchilega and L. koreni

individuals were observed to decrease.

The benthic community has a moderate crustacean fraction (17% of community species,) which account for

approximately 15% of the individuals observed during the survey. This included seven different species of

crab (and hermit crab), indicating that the number of scavenging species has increased from the pre-Trial 1

and post-Trial 1 monitoring survey levels. The identification of Hyas areneus individuals is unusual for this

area, as they are more typically found in the North Atlantic and on the western coast of Scotland (NBN

Gateway, 2013), although they have been recorded in the North Sea, further assessment is advisable.

The bryozoan community is becoming less diverse, with only eight species recorded during the post-Trial 2

disposal monitoring survey and the brackish water species identified from the pre-Trial survey not being

present.

9.2.5. Discussion

During the August 2012 characterisation study, a total of 4,489 individuals (excluding non-enumerated

species) belonging to196 different species were recorded. The average number of taxa per station was

17 species, and approximately 76 individuals. Fauna found in the survey area had a high degree of variability

between stations. The variation in diversity did not appear to be highly dependent on sediment composition.

Figure 9.3 shows a general decrease in biodiversity following the characterisation survey, however this is over

a two year period and cannot be attributed to the disposal operations. Following the commencement of

disposal operations the number of species remains approximately the same, with a marginal increase observed

during the inter-trial survey. In terms of individual taxa, polychaete and bryozoan species numbers decrease

following the disposal operations. However hydrozoans, crustaceans, bivalves and other phyla show an

increase in species numbers following the Trial 1 disposal event. This suggests that there is shift in ecosystem

composition occurring at the site. The same trend was also present between the August 2012 characterisation

survey and the May 2016 pre-Trial 1 survey which suggests that it is not related to disposal operations.


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 49

Figure 9.3: Comparison of the number of species (biodiversity) between the characterisation survey and the pre-Trial 1, post-Trial 1 and post-Trial 2 monitoring surveys

Source: Unicomarine, 2012, Unicomarine, 2016a,b,c

The May 2016 pre-Trial 1 monitoring survey tended to record lower numbers of individuals than the August

2012 characterisation survey (Figure 9.4). However, if the August 2012 survey is excluded from the analysis,

the abundance of individuals increases steadily throughout the disposal trials (from May to September,

2016). At a taxa level; hydrozoans, polychaetes and other taxa abundance increased following the pre-Trial

1 survey, whereas crustaceans, bivalves and Echinodermata showed a decrease in population numbers.

The increase in crab species (particularly juveniles) observed in the September 2016 post-Trial 2 monitoring

survey indicates that there is an increased opportunity for scavenger species.

This suggests that certain species of these phyla are adapting to the influences of the disposal events, and

taking advantage of change in nutrient levels, prey and environmental conditions. This trend, which occurred

since the start of the disposal operations, supports the premise that the changes in community structure and

abundance are the result of natural variation.

0

50

100

150

200

250

August, 2012, survey May, 2016 survey July, 2016 survey Sept., 2016 survey

No

. S

pe

cie

s

Total no. of species


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 50

Figure 9.4: Comparison of the number of individuals (abundance) between the characterisation survey and the pre-Trial 1, post-Trial 1 and post-Trial 2 monitoring surveys


Although there is no evidence of an increase in fine material from the disposal activities (Section 9.1.2) there

was a temporary increase in the number of species tolerant of variable/brackish salinities, characteristic of

the estuarine sediments dredged from Harwich Harbour, that have been transported in the dredged sediment

to the disposal site. However there is no evidence of these species establishing a permanent presence at the

site as no individuals were found during the September 2016 post-Trial 2 survey.

S. spinulosa was found at multiple stations in August 2012 (27 stations) and 2016 (3, 7 and 5 stations in the

pre-Trial 1, post-Trial 1 and post-Trial 2 surveys respectively), and can form established reef structures

(biogenic reefs) which provide species, which would not otherwise be found in the area, with a suitable

habitat (JNCC, 2008). Biogenic reefs are listed as an Annex I habitat under the EC Habitats directive, and

are considered an environmentally protected area.

S.spinulosa abundance increased steadily following the Trial 1 disposal event to levels that exceeded the

2012 characterisation survey. S.spinulosa was routinely observed at a number of stations during the

monitoring surveys, although it was not as widespread across the monitoring stations as it was in the 2012

characterisation survey. The species was initially recorded in lower numbers during the pre-Trial 1 survey

compared to the characterisation survey of 2012. However subsequent monitoring surveys, post-Trial 1 and

2, recorded increasing numbers of individuals (Figure 9.5), at approximately the same number of stations.

The disposal operations did not appear to have a significantly negative effect on the communities observed

during the monitoring surveys.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

August, 2012, survey May, 2016 survey July, 2016 survey Sept., 2016 survey

No

. S

pe

cie

s

Total no. individuals


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 51

Figure 9.5: Abundance of Sabellaria spinulosa at the disposal site


It is unclear whether the changes to the faunal assemblage in terms of species and abundance are

temporary due to natural variations in the local environment or whether they are related to the trial disposal

activities. Whilst harbour species are temporarily being found within the survey area there are no clear trends

in the faunal assemblage in terms of species and abundance that can be directly related to the disposal

activities that have taken place at disposal site TH027. The changes seen are typical of natural variation that

can occur.


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 52

10. Conclusions

Activities assessed within this report included:

Long-term measurements of suspended solids concentrations at 0.5 m above the seabed at three

locations before, during and after the two disposal trials and the comparison of that data with the results

of previous plume dispersion modelling studies;

The analysis of multibeam bathymetric surveys undertaken before and after the two disposal trials; and

A high level assessment of particle size and benthic fauna surveys undertaken before and after the two

disposal trials.

Suspended solids concentrations

There was no evidence of any large-scale increase in measured concentrations as a result of the disposal

activity, nor was there evidence of an increase in the background (baseline) concentration during the course

of the disposals.

The magnitude of the increases in concentration above background predicted by the numerical model were

not seen in the measured data.

Seabed levels

Multi beam echo sounder (MBES) surveys of disposal site TH027 were carried out before, between and after

the two trial disposals. Analysis of the bathymetry data has shown very little evidence of seabed level

changes in excess of 0.2 m (i.e. beyond the quoted vertical accuracy of the MBES instrument) that can be

attributed directly to the disposal activities indicating that much of the placed material had likely dispersed

outside of the boundary of the disposal site by this time.

Particle size and benthic fauna

There does not appear to be any clear correlation between the composition of the bed material and the

disposal of dredged material having taken place at disposal site TH027 and that there is no evidence of an

increase in fine material resulting from the disposal activities. Each of the three sampling campaigns showed

a wide variability in the composition of the bed material both temporally and spatially. Notably, at the time of

the sampling campaigns, there was no general increase or reduction in the proportion of any particular size

fraction (fines, sands and gravels) that could be directly attributed to the disposal activities indicating that

much of the placed material had likely dispersed outside of the boundary of the disposal site by this time.

A high level assessment of the benthic monitoring surveys shows that there has been an observed change in

the species assemblage at the site, with an increase in opportunistic species. However, there has not been a

change from the previously observed marine assemblage found on muddy sands and gravels. Whilst

harbour species are temporarily being found within the survey area, the available evidence suggests that this

is the result of natural variation in community structure and is not the direct result of disposal activities that

have taken place at disposal site TH027.


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00 53

11. References

HHA (2012) Maintenance Dredging Protocol Baseline Document: Stour and Orwell Estuaries,

Harwich/Felixstowe Harbour and Deep Water Channel. Version 6.0.

HR Wallingford, 1998. Properties of Dredged material. Measurement of sediment properties of dredged

material from Harwich Harbour. HR Wallingford Report TR 46, June 1998.

HR Wallingford, 2014. Characterisation of a new offshore disposal site. Characterisation report.

HR Wallingford Report DLM7157-RT001-R06-00, January 2014.

National Biological Network (NBN) Gateway. 2013. Distribution of Hyas areneus. Available online at

https://data.nbn.org.uk/Taxa/NBNSYS0000175822 [accessed 28/11/2016].

Titan Environmental Surveys, 2016. Harwich Turbidity Investigation, Survey Data Report, May 2016 –

September 2016. Titan Environmental Surveys Report CS0491_HTI_DR_V1, November 2016.

Unicomarine, 2012. Phillips, R. J., Finbow, L. A. & Worsfold, T.M., 2012. Characterisation of the proposed

alternative to the Gabbard disposal site at the Sunk, off Harwich, 2012. Thomson Unicomarine Report

HRWGABD12 to HR Wallingford Ltd, October 2012.

Unicomarine, 2016a. HHAESC16 - Harwich East Ship Channel May 2016, Benthic invertebrate analysis.

Unicomarine, 2016b. Harwich East Ship Channel - Survey July 2016, Benthic invertebrate analysis.

Unicomarine, 2016c. Harwich East Ship Channel - Survey September 2016, Benthic invertebrate analysis.

https://data.nbn.org.uk/Taxa/NBNSYS0000175822


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00

Appendices

A. Titan Environmental Surveys seabed frame deployment report

Client:

Harwich Haven Authority

Project:

Harwich Turbidity Investigation

Description:

Survey Data Report

Survey Date:

May 2016 – September 2016

Project Number:

CS0491

Client: Harwich Haven Authority Project Title: Harwich Turbidity Investigation Titan Report Ref: CS0491_HTI_DR

i

REPORT AUTHORISATION AND DISTRIBUTION

Compilation Oceanography

……………………

K. Hayes (Environmental Data Scientist)

Authorisation Checked

……………………

Z. Gilbert Hall (Data Scientist)

Approved

……………………

M. Houston (Managing Director)

Revision Date Title Titan Report Ref

1 11/11/2016 Harwich Turbidity Investigation CS0491_HTI_DR_V1

Distribution

No of copies 1

Client Name and Address Harwich Haven Authority

Harbour House

The Quay

Harwich

Essex

C12 3HH

For attention of Ian Webster


ii

SERVICE WARRANTY

USE OF THIS REPORT

This report has been prepared with due care and diligence and with the skill reasonably

expected of a reputable contractor experienced in the types of work, carried out under the

contract. As such the findings in this report are based on an interpretation of data that is a

matter of opinion on which professionals may differ and unless clearly stated is not a

recommendation for any course of action.

Titan Environmental Surveys Ltd has prepared this report for the clients identified on the

front cover in fulfilment of its contractual obligations under the contract and the only

liabilities Titan Environmental Surveys Ltd accepts are those contained therein.

Please be aware that further distribution of this report, in whole or part, or the use of the

data for a purpose not expressly stated within the contractual work scope is at the client’s

sole risk. Titan Environmental Surveys Ltd recommends that this disclaimer be included

in any such distribution.

TITAN ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEYS LIMITED

Orion House, Parc Crescent, Waterton Ind. Est. Bridgend, CF31 3BQ, Wales, UK

Telephone +44 (0) 1656 673673 Fax +44 (0) 1656 673674

www.titansurveys.com


iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORT AUTHORISATION AND DISTRIBUTION ................................................................................. I

SERVICE WARRANTY ........................................................................................................................... II

USE OF THIS REPORT .......................................................................................................................... II

TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................................................................... III

APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................................... IV

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................. V

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................... V

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS ..................................................................................................................... VI

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 General ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Reporting ..................................................................................................................... 2

2. SURVEY OPERATIONS .......................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Personnel .................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Vessel .......................................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Health, Safety and Environment .................................................................................. 3 2.4 Summary of Operations .............................................................................................. 4

3. MOORING DESIGN AND INSTRUMENTATION .................................................................... 5

3.1 Mooring Design ........................................................................................................... 5

3.2 Mooring Instrumentation .............................................................................................. 7

4. REFERENCE CONTROL ...................................................................................................... 11

4.1 Co-ordinate System ................................................................................................... 11

4.2 Vertical Control .......................................................................................................... 11

4.3 Reference Tidal Port ................................................................................................. 11 4.4 Calibration and Measurement Precision ................................................................... 12

5. DATA PROCESSING ............................................................................................................. 15

5.1 Turbidity/Suspended Sediment Concentration .......................................................... 15 5.2 Particle Size Distribution ........................................................................................... 16

6. RESULTS ............................................................................................................................... 17

6.1 Summary ................................................................................................................... 17 6.2 Site BO1 .................................................................................................................... 21

6.3 Site BO2 .................................................................................................................... 25 6.4 Site BO3 .................................................................................................................... 29

6.5 Site B4 ....................................................................................................................... 33 6.6 Site B5 ....................................................................................................................... 36


iv

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A GLOSSARY FOR EXPORTED DATASETS

APPENDIX B INSTRUMENT SPECIFICATIONS

B1 - JFE INIFNITY TURBI LOGGER

B2 – SONARDYNE TZ/OBC TRANSPONDER

APPENDIX C CALIBRATION REPORTS

C1 – TURBIDITY

C2 – SUSPENDED SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION

APPENDIX D DATA RESULTS

D1 – SUSPENDED SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION

D2 – PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS


v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Locations of the proposed mooring sites ............................................................................ 1

Figure 1.2 Summary of scope of work.................................................................................................. 2

Figure 3.1 “L-shaped” mooring configuration with a small instrument frame and surface marker

(Dahn flag)........................................................................................................................... 6

Figure 6.1 Comparison of SSC (mg/l) concentrations and water depth (m) observed at Sites BO1,

BO2 and BO3 between 23/07/2016-05/08/2016 ............................................................... 19

Figure 6.2 SSC (mg/l) recorded at Sites BO1, BO2 and BO3 during the first spoil disposal period .. 20

Figure 6.3 SSC (mg/l) recorded at Sites BO1, BO2 and BO3 during the second spoil disposal period

.......................................................................................................................................... 20

Figure 6.4 Deployed positions of Site BO1 relative to its proposed position ..................................... 21



Figure 6.7 Deployed positions of Site B4 relative to its proposed position ........................................ 33

Figure 6.8 Deployed positions of Site B5 relative to its proposed position ........................................ 36

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Proposed locations and monitoring instrumentation to be deployed at the four

oceanographic mooring sites .............................................................................................. 2

Table 2.1 Key Titan Personnel ............................................................................................................ 3

Table 2.2 Summary of the Principal Mooring Activities ....................................................................... 4

Table 3.1 Summary of the monitoring instrumentation utilised at each monitoring site ..................... 7

Table 4.1 Co-ordinate System .......................................................................................................... 11

Table 4.2 Port of Harwich calculated mean tide ranges ................................................................... 11

Table 4.3 JFE units used for the different sediment slurry blends .................................................... 13

Table 6.1 Spoil Ground Disposal Schedule ...................................................................................... 18

Table 6.2 Deployed positions of Site BO1 relative to proposed position .......................................... 21

Table 6.3 Data return from instrumentation deployed at Site BO1 ................................................... 24





Table 6.8 Deployed positions of Site B4 relative to proposed position ............................................. 33

Table 6.9 Deployed positions of Site B5 relative to proposed position ............................................. 36


vi

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS

Photo 2.1 Haven Hornbill (©MarineTraffic) ......................................................................................... 3

Photo 3.1 Instrument seabed frame containing the JFE Turbi, Booner tubes and Sonardyne

transponder ......................................................................................................................... 5

Photo 3.2 View of the sensor windows and wiper on the JFE Infinity-Turbi logger ............................ 8

Photo 3.3 Suspended Sediment Traps/Booner Tubes (©Sussex.ac.uk) ............................................ 9

Photo 3.4 Sonardyne Transponder positioned on bed frame (circled) .............................................. 10

Photo 4.1 In-house JFE turbidity calibration using Formazin ............................................................ 12

Photo 4.2 1l bottle samples taken from the bath at the end of each calibration test: (1) Fully mixed

(2) after 24 hours’ settlement period ................................................................................. 14

Photo 6.1 The sensors located on the JFE logger at Site BO1 after the first service interval and final

recovery............................................................................................................................. 22

Photo 6.2 The Booner Tube samples retrieved from Site BO1 after the first deployment phase ..... 22

Photo 6.3 The Booner Tube samples retrieved from Site BO1 after the second deployment phase 23

Photo 6.4 The sensors located on the JFE logger at Site BO2 after the first service interval and final

recovery............................................................................................................................. 26



Photo 6.7 The sensors located on the JFE logger at Site BO3 after the first service interval and on

final recovery ..................................................................................................................... 30



Photo 6.10 The Booner Tube samples retrieved from Site B4 after the first deployment phase ........ 34

Photo 6.11 The Booner Tube samples retrieved from Site B4 after the second deployment phase .. 35

Photo 6.12 The Booner Tube samples retrieved from Site B5 after the first deployment phase ........ 37

Photo 6.13 The Booner Tube samples retrieved from Site B5 after the second deployment phase .. 37


1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

In May 2016, Titan Environmental Surveys Ltd (Titan) was commissioned by Harwich Haven

Authority to undertake a turbidity monitoring investigation close to South Ship Head, offshore

from Harwich.

The purpose of the investigation was to monitor the influence of local dredge spoil disposal on

ambient turbidity levels. The centre of the spoil ground was given as 51°53.595'N 01°37.702'E

(405615mE 5750055mN UTM 31N).

1.1.1 Scope of Work

The main components of the survey work, as specified by the client, included:

The deployment of five moorings plus two guard buoys relative to the spoil ground

area to be monitored as shown in Figure 1.1 and detailed in Table 1.1 for a minimum

of 16 weeks.

Turbidity was to be measured every 10 minutes for the duration of the survey at Sites

BO1, BO2 and BO3.

Collection of suspended sediment samples using Booner Tubes was required at

each of the five mooring sites to determine the Particle Size Distribution (PSD).

Figure 1.1 Locations of the proposed mooring sites


2

Table 1.1 Proposed locations and monitoring instrumentation to be deployed at the

four oceanographic mooring sites

Site Description Latitude Longitude Easting Northing

(WGS84) (UTM31N)

BO1 OBS1+Booner 51°54.578’N 001°36.841’E 404662 5751896

BO2 OBS2+Booner 51°53.859’N 001°36.160’E 403856 5750578

BO3 OBS3+Booner 51°53.074’N 001°35.533’E 403109 5749137

B4 Booner4 51°54.409’N 001°35.937’E 403620 5751601

B5 Booner5 51°53.648’N 001°35.286’E 402847 5750205

G Northern Guard Buoy 51°54.657’N 001°36.907’E 404741 5752040

G Southern Guard Buoy 51°53.003’N 001°35.484’E 403050 5749005

Figure 1.2 Summary of scope of work

1.2 Reporting

This report summarises the events that took place during the initial deployment, servicing and

final recovery of the five monitoring sites. It also includes the results of the processed datasets

(graphical and statistical) for each of the deployed sites for the deployment phases between May

2016 and September 2016. The following parameters have been reported:

Turbidity and calculated Suspended Sediment Concentration (SSC) for Sites BO1,

BO2 and BO3.

Particle Size Distribution analysis for the collected Booner tube sediment samples

from Sites BO1, BO2, BO3, B4 and B5.

Information regarding the instrumentation specifications and methods adopted for the survey

operations, calibration/verification of the equipment, processing techniques and an assessment

of the data quality are also included in this report.


3

2. SURVEY OPERATIONS

2.1 Personnel

Table 2.1 lists the key Titan personnel who were involved with the project.

Table 2.1 Key Titan Personnel

Key Personnel

Technical Director Dan Owens

Project Manager Gwyn Nelson

Party Chief Dan Pitt, Dave Richards

Surveyors Robert Millar, Yolanda Barnes

2.2 Vessel

The Haven Hornbill was used for the deployment, servicing and final recovery of the mooring

equipment used for this project. Owned and managed by Harwich Port Authority, the 20m vessel

is equipped with a hydraulic crane, drum winch and large deck area suitable for performing

mooring activities safely and efficiently.

Photo 2.1 Haven Hornbill (©MarineTraffic)

2.3 Health, Safety and Environment

Prior to commencing work onboard the Haven Hornbill, a third-party vessel audit was completed

to ensure all necessary certification was in place including lifting gear requirements.


4

All work was carried out in accordance with Titan’s OHSAS 18001 accredited Health and Safety

management system. A pre-sail safety meeting was held onboard prior to sailing to ensure that

all personnel were familiar with the vessel layouts and location of safety equipment. Before the

deployment and recovery of the moorings, a toolbox safety meeting was held on board to ensure

all personnel fully understood the methods and techniques to be adopted for deployment and

recovery activities required at each site.

2.4 Summary of Operations

The moorings were deployed for approximately 104 days over the two deployment phases:

Deployment 1 – 25/05/2016 08:20 – 13/07/2016 12:00 (~ 49 days)

Deployment 2 – 13/07/2016 13:30 – 06/09/2016 08:00 (~ 55 days)

A summary of principle mooring activities that took place during the deployment, servicing and

final recovery of the mooring sites is given in Table 2.2.

Overall, each deployment interval was successful with all instrumentation recovered with no loss

of data.

Table 2.2 Summary of the Principal Mooring Activities

DPR Number

Date Activity Vessel

DPR01 25/05/2016 Travel to Harwich Port from Titan depot. Mobilise

vessel ready for operations. Haven Hornbill

DPR02 26/05/2016

Transit to survey area to deploy Sites BO1, BO2,

BO3, B4 and B5 together with the Northern and

Southern guard buoys. Demobilised vessel and

travel back to Titan depot.

Haven Hornbill

DPR03 13/07/2016

Transit to survey area to recover Sites BO1, BO2,

BO3, B4 and B5. Instrument servicing and

downloaded completed. All sites redeployed to

continue monitoring programme.

Haven Hornbill

DPR04 06/09/2016

Transit to survey area to recover Sites BO1, BO2,

BO3, B4 and B5. Al sites successfully recovered

and returned to port to demobilise vessel.

Haven Hornbill


5

3. MOORING DESIGN AND INSTRUMENTATION

3.1 Mooring Design

The design of the mooring configuration for the Harwich Turbidity Investigation Project took into

account a number of influencing elements:

Water depth

Current velocities

Seabed consistency

Monitoring requirements

Local activity/other sea users

The final design for each of the monitoring sites was based on a “L” shaped design, consisting of

these main components: an instrument seabed frame, a large chain clump weight and one

surface marker (Figure 3.1).

Each bed frame was connected to a clump weight via a rope groundline. This clump weight was

then connected to a Dahn flag using a rope riser to enable safe and swift recovery of the mooring

during service intervals from the surface.

A Sonardyne Acoustic Transponder was attached to each frame to aid recovery in the event of

the surface marker being lost or the mooring being moved by third party interference during the

deployment period from its original documented position.

Photo 3.1 Instrument seabed frame containing the JFE Turbi, Booner tubes and

Sonardyne transponder


6

Figure 3.1 “L-shaped” mooring configuration with a small instrument frame and surface marker (Dahn flag)


7

3.2 Mooring Instrumentation

The parameters which were to be monitored during the turbidity monitoring campaign include:

Turbidity/Suspended Sediment Concentration for Sites BO1, BO2 and BO3.

Particle Size Distribution of the collected suspended sediment samples for Sites

BO1, BO2, BO3, B4 and B5.

Table 3.1 summarises the equipment that was deployed at each of the monitoring sites to fulfil

the data collection requirements. All monitoring instrumentation was attached to the deployed

seabed frames. The four frames were identical, so all instrumentation was deployed at the same

height relative to the seabed (0.5m Above Seabed).

Table 3.1 Summary of the monitoring instrumentation utilised at each monitoring site

BO1

Position in

water column Equipment Objective Recording Interval

Near-bed

JFE Infinity Turbi Logger Turbidity Every 10 minutes

(Burst mode)

Booner Tube Suspended Sediment

Collection Continuous

Sonardyne TZ/OBC

Transponder Locating N/A

BO2

Position in


Near-bed


(Burst mode)



Sonardyne TZ/OBC


BO3

Position in


Near-bed


(Burst mode)



Sonardyne TZ/OBC



8

B4

Position in


Near-bed



Sonardyne TZ/OBC


B5

Position in


Near-bed



Sonardyne TZ/OBC


3.2.1 Turbidity

The JFE Infinity-Turbi loggers are autonomous data loggers designed for long-term turbidity

measurements by using their dual sensors capable of monitoring turbidity levels at low (0 to

1000FTU) and high (0 to 100,000 mg/l as Kaolin) concentrations. It is equipped with a

mechanical wiper to keep the optical window clean and free of biofouling and has secondary

sensors to provide records of ambient temperature and pressure.

Please refer to Appendix B for further information on this instrument.

Photo 3.2 View of the sensor windows and wiper on the JFE Infinity-Turbi logger


9

3.2.2 Suspended Sediment Collection

A ‘Booner Tube’ is a passive sediment trap which was used to continuously collecting suspended

sediment from the water column at each of the sites (Photo 3.3). To summarise the methodology:

The Booner Tube is deployed vertically on a weighted bed frame.

The tubes have holes in their side which allow the water to flow through. The water

flow is slowed which causes the suspended sediment load to settle within the Booner

Tube.

The tube itself has a removable container at its base to collect the sample of the

settled suspended sediment.

The collected sediment samples were sent to an accredited laboratory for Particle Size

Distribution analysis. The samples were also used for the calibration of the turbidity sensors to

convert turbidity records into suspended sediment concentration.

Photo 3.3 Suspended Sediment Traps/Booner Tubes (©Sussex.ac.uk)

3.2.3 Locating Equipment

A Sonardyne TZ/OBC Transponder was installed on each of the bedframes to aid with the

locating/recovery of the mooring in the event of the surface mark becoming lost or damaged by

providing ranging information. Hence the use of the transponder lowers the risk of mooring and

data loss.

Please refer to Appendix B for further information on this instrument.


10

Photo 3.4 Sonardyne Transponder positioned on bed frame (circled)


11

4. REFERENCE CONTROL

4.1 Co-ordinate System

The co-ordinate reference system for this project was agreed with the client prior to the initial

deployment of instrumentation. All co-ordinates are referred to the WGS84 datum. WGS84 datum

transformations were to UTM31 North using the EGM96 (global) model (Table 4.1).

Table 4.1 Co-ordinate System

Co-ordinate System Group UTM

Zone 31 North

Datum Transformation WGS1984 (no datum transformation)

Geoid Model EGM96 (Global)

4.2 Vertical Control

All water depth (pressure) data presented by Titan for this project was reported as a depth below

sea level relative to the position of the deployed JFE turbidity instruments. This data has been

provided, along with temperature, as a secondary parameter and therefore has not been quality

assured.

Please note that the water depth data provided in the turbidity datasets was calculated by the

JFE data processing software and assumed a fixed atmospheric pressure of 1020.4mbar and a

density constant of 1025kg/m3.

4.3 Reference Tidal Port

The reference tidal port for this project was Harwich. Predicted tidal data for this port, based on

Admiralty tidal predictions, was provided by GTE SeaZone Tidal Viewer. For the purpose of this

report, the statistical analysis has taken into account the spring and neap tidal periods which

occurred during the deployment phase:

Spring tide : 03/06/2016 00:00 – 09/06/2016 23:59

Neap tide : 12/06/2016 00:00 – 16/06/2016 23:59

These tidal periods were determined using a ±25 percentage classification based on the

difference between the mean spring and neap ranges for the Port of Harwich (Table 4.2).

Table 4.2 Port of Harwich calculated mean tide ranges

Port MHWS (m CD)

MLWS (m CD)

Mean Spring Range (m)

Harwich

4.0 0.4 3.6

MHWN (m CD)

MLWN (m CD)

Mean Neap Range (m)

3.4 1.1 2.3


12

4.4 Calibration and Measurement Precision

4.4.1 General

All times quoted in this report and associated datasets are in Coordinated Universal Time (UTC)

and units of measurement refer to the metric system.

4.4.2 Turbidity

Each of the deployed JFE turbidity sensors was subject to in-house laboratory turbidity

calibrations to check their integrity and to provide sufficient calibration coefficients to apply to the

n-values recorded by each instrument. An n-value is a raw figure that is recorded by the

instrument prior to the application of the factory-set internal coefficients to convert these values

into engineering units, normally FTU.

Although the JFE units are equipped with both mid-range and high-range sensors to monitor

varying levels of turbidity, the n-values collected by the mid-range sensors were utilised. This was

due to field turbidity levels observed at Sites BO1, BO2 and BO3 remaining below the mid-range

sensor’s 1000FTU maximum range and the mid-range sensor’s ability for improved definition at

the lower turbidities.

The JFE units were calibrated for Turbidity (FTU) using a Formazin standard. This procedure is

based on a standard addition technique using a 4000FTU standard for the range 0-250FTU in a

black calibration bath containing 5l of water and four instruments (Photo 4.1). This was followed

by immersion into tubs containing prepared standards in increments of 500, 750 and 1000 FTU.

Using the resulting n-values recorded in response to these known Formazin increments, new

calibration coefficients could be formulated through the use of regression analysis. The turbidity

calibration reports for each of the deployed JFE units are located in Appendix C.1.

Photo 4.1 In-house JFE turbidity calibration using Formazin


13

4.4.3 Suspended Sediment Concentration

In total, six turbidity datasets, collected by the six deployed JFE units, required a conversion from

turbidity (FTU) into Suspended Sediment Concentration (SSC, mg/l). This conversion process

utilised the mid-range sensor n-values recorded by each individual unit together with the

suspended sediment samples collected by the deployed Booner tubes at Sites BO1, BO2 and

BO3.

Based on the results of the Particle Size Distribution analysis performed by the National

Laboratory Service (NLS) on the collected suspended sediment samples (See Appendix D), it

was decided that three calibration tests were required using different sediment slurry blends. This

was to ensure that the distribution of particle size observed during each deployment phase at

Sites BO1, BO2 and BO3 was fully represented:

SSC_D1 – using a sediment slurry blend that contained equal quantities (by wet weight)

of suspended sediment collected at Sites BO1, BO2 and BO3 during Deployment 1.

SSC_D2_1 - using a sediment slurry blend that contained equal quantities (by wet

weight) of suspended sediment collected at Sites BO1 and BO3 during Deployment 2.

SSC_D2_2 – using the suspended sediment collected at Site BO2 during Deployment 2.

Using a similar methodology employed for the turbidity calibration process, three JFE units were

placed into a black calibration bath containing 5l of water together with an Aquatec AQUAlogger

210 to provide a real-time turbidity output for each calibration test, as a real-time output is not

available for a JFE unit. One JFE unit (s/n 0236) was used in every calibration test to act as a

reference unit (Table 4.3).

Table 4.3 JFE units used for the different sediment slurry blends

JFE S/N Deployed at SSC_D1 SSC_D2_1 SSC_D2_2

0234 BO1 Dep2

0235 BO2 Dep2

0236 BO1 Dep1

0237 BO2 Dep1

0238 BO3 Dep1

0239 BO3 Dep2

Due to each of the sediment slurry blends containing sand particles, the increments added to the

calibration bath were based on wet weight using a balance with a resolution of 10mg. Using the

Aquatec AQUAlogger 210 real-time turbidity output, the size of the increments could be

approximated so to represent the distribution of turbidities achieved during the deployment

phases. The sediment slurry blend additions were kept in suspension with the aid of a magnetic

stirrer.


14

On completion of each calibration test, two 1l samples were taken from the calibration bath while

the suspension remained stirred (Photo 4.2). One sample (1) from each test was sent to ALS

Environmental, a UKAS accredited laboratory, to determine the Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

concentration in mg/l at 105°C. ALS performed the analysis in triplicate. Three bottles (2)

remained at Titan as replicate samples.

(1)

(2)

Photo 4.2 1l bottle samples taken from the bath at the end of each calibration test:

(1) Fully mixed (2) after 24 hours’ settlement period

Photo 4.2 (1) and (2) shows the appearance of the samples when fully mixed (1) and also after

settlement (2) for 24 hours. Thus the settled sample photo gives an indication of the very fine

fraction of the sediment within each sample blend.

On receipt of the determined TSS concentrations from the laboratory, the increments of each of

the sediment slurry blends were corrected to the mean dry weight ratios. Using the resulting n-

values recorded in response to these known dry weight increments, the SSC conversion

coefficients were formulated through the use of regression analysis. The SSC calibration reports

for each of the deployed JFE units are located in Appendix C.2.


15

5. DATA PROCESSING

The results for the following parameters, presented as plots and tables of statistical analysis, are

located in Appendix E (site dependent):

Turbidity (FTU)

Suspended Sediment Concentration (SSC, mg/l)

Particle Size Distribution (PSD)

5.1 Turbidity/Suspended Sediment Concentration

The datasets collected by the JFE turbidity loggers deployed at Sites BO1, BO2 and BO3 were

downloaded and processed using SeaZone GeoTemporal (GTE). As part of the data cross-

examining stage, basic quality control measures were performed on each dataset to identify poor

or missing data records and included the following tests:

Minimum and Maximum Range Validation

Maximum Repeat Counts

Identification of Data Gaps

The datasets were assigned quality flags based on the passing or failing of these test and other

parameter-specific assessments. A Data Quality Inventory, based on the Turbidity records, has

been provided for the Sites BO1, BO2 and BO3 to give a clear representation of the data return

from the turbidity loggers during the monitoring periods. The data records have been allocated a

Quality Flag based on the following criteria:

Q0: Null data

Q50: Data deemed not of a suitable quality to be included in the statistical analysis

stage.

Q100: Data deemed of a suitable quality to be included in the statistical

analysis/reporting stage.

Statistical data generated for the turbidity and calculated SSC datasets for Sites BO1, BO2 and

BO3 is presented in Appendix D.1 in the form of maxima, minima and mean values calculated on

a full deployment basis as well as monthly, and for a typical Spring/Neap period. The calculated

SSC data has also been presented in two graphical forms:

Time-series plot of Suspended Sediment Concentration (mg/l) together with Temperature

(°C) and Water Depth relative to the instrument (m).

Frequency distribution plot of Suspended Sediment Concentration (mg/l) for the complete

deployment as well as on a monthly basis.


16

5.2 Particle Size Distribution

Following the retrieval of the suspended sediment samples from the Booner tubes deployed at

each of the five sites, sub-samples were sent to the National Laboratory Service (NLS), a UKAS

accredited laboratory, to be analysed for PSD.

The results of the PSD analysis have been presented using Gradistat V8.0, a grain size

distribution and statistics package developed by Dr. S J Blott. The program provided graphs of

the grain size distribution and cumulative distribution of the data in both metric and phi units.

The Gradistat reports for the suspended sediment samples collected at each site for each

deployment phase are located in Appendix D.2.


17

6. RESULTS

All monitoring sites were deployed between the dates of 26th May 2016 and 6

th September 2016

which was split into two deployment phases by a service interval that took place on 13th July

2016.

The following section provides a summary of:

Each site deployment position and deployment phase length.

Notes on equipment condition on recovery.

A review of the data percentage returns from the deployed turbidity loggers for Sites

BO1, BO2 and BO3.

The processed field data collected at each of the deployed sites is presented in Appendix D in

the form of:

SSC timeseries plots and associated statistical information for Sites BO1, BO2 and BO3

for the full duration of the deployment phase.

Reports for the PSD analysis results for Sites BO1, BO2, BO3, B4 and B5 performed on

the suspended sediment samples collected during deployment phases 1 and 2.

6.1 Summary

6.1.1 Turbidity/Suspended Sediment Concentration

The turbidity levels recorded at Sites BO1, BO2 and BO3 for the duration of the monitoring period

generally remained low. On average, the SSC at Site BO2 was 25mg/l SSC whereas at Sites

BO1 and BO3, SSC was approximately 40mg/l. The trends in ambient turbidity levels observed at

each of the three sites were generally similar to each other albeit on different scales.

It was difficult to identify what factors contributed to the fluctuations in turbidity in the area due to

having limited data available for comparison. The movement of the tidal currents in the area are

known to be rectilinear, moving NNE to SSW on a flood tide and SSW to NNE on an ebb tide.

The influence of the tide can sometimes be identified within the turbidity datasets as regular

fluctuations in response to the daily tidal patterns. The shift in tidal phases between spring and

neap tides can also be loosely associated with the variability in turbidity levels on an extended

timescale. It was also noted on the Admiralty Chart that the south end of the deployment area

was subject to the movement of sandwaves.

A noticeable event that occurred during the monitoring phase was observed at Site BO3 between

24/07/2016 and 04/08/2016 (Figure 6.1). The SSC levels fluctuated between 30-600mg/l in

response to the local tidal patterns; reductions in SSC levels were seen to occur on the flood tide

prior to HW slack after which they increased up to an average of 150mg/l before falling again

after slack LW. At Sites BO1 and BO2, the SSC levels generally stayed below 60mg/l with

reductions in SSC aligning with HW and LW slack periods.


18

While the turbidity monitoring moorings were deployed at Sites BO1, BO2 and BO3, spoil

disposal was scheduled in close proximity to the location indicated on Figure 1.1. The dates of

the disposal that occurred at the spoil ground during the deployment phases, as provided by

Harwich Harbour Authority, are shown in Table 6.1. The cycle time for the dredger was

approximately 3.5 hours.

Table 6.1 Spoil Ground Disposal Schedule

When comparing the recorded SSC levels for Sites BO1, BO2 and BO3 during these two spoil

disposal periods, it was difficult to determine if it had influenced the levels of SSC recorded at

each of the sites. Figure 6.2 represents the SSC timeseries data collected at the three monitoring

sites during the first spoil disposal period. It can be seen that the flood and ebb periods either

side of high water had a tendency to temporarily increase the ambient SSC levels. The levels

recorded at all three sites were of a similar range.

During the spoil disposal activities in the second deployment phase (Figure 6.3), the

characteristics of the ambient SSC levels were different to those observed during the previous

spoil disposal phase although it is not clearly evident that it was the result of these activities.

There was a marked difference in the SSC levels recorded at Site BO1 when compared with

Sites BO2 and BO3. At Site BO1, the SCC levels fluctuated in accordance to the flood and ebb

tides where drops in SSC coincided with either HW or LW slack. The levels achieved on ebb tide

were visibly higher than those obtained during the flood tide. At Sites BO2 and BO3, there was a

gradual rise and fall in SSC between each LW slack. At Site BO3, there were SSC spikes in the

BO3 dataset that coincided with the flood tide immediately after HW slack during the spring tide;

these were minimal during the neap phase of the tide during the spoil disposal period.

6.1.2 Particle Size Distribution

In terms of the Particle Size Distribution for the suspended sediment collected in the deployed

Booner tubes, there seemed to be a marked difference in the grain size distribution observed at

three of the five sites between the two different deployment phases. At Sites BO2 and B4, the

sand to mud ratio remained relatively consistent between the deployments, giving a medium to

fine silt at Site BO2 and a very coarse silt at Site B4. At Sites BO1, BO3 and B5, a shift in the

percentages of sand to mud ratio from a mainly mud-based presence to a dominant sand

influence can be seen between deployment phases. During the first deployment, a medium silt

was collected at all three sites; whereas during the second deployment phase, a very coarse

silt/very fine sand was collected.

Deployment Phase Dates of Spoil Disposal

1 17-19/06/2016

2 21-30/08/2016


19

Figure 6.1 Comparison of SSC (mg/l) concentrations and water depth (m) observed at Sites BO1, BO2 and BO3 between 23/07/2016-

05/08/2016


20

Figure 6.2 SSC (mg/l) recorded at Sites BO1, BO2 and BO3 during the first spoil disposal period

Figure 6.3 SSC (mg/l) recorded at Sites BO1, BO2 and BO3 during the second spoil disposal period


21

6.2 Site BO1

BO1 was deployed for a total of approximately 103 days between 26th May 2016 and 6

th

September 2016. The mooring locations of each deployment phase were in close proximity to the

originally proposed position (Figure 6.4, Table 6.2).

Figure 6.4 Deployed positions of Site BO1 relative to its proposed position

Table 6.2 Deployed positions of Site BO1 relative to proposed position

Site Proposed Position

BO1 51°54.578’N

01°36.841’E

404662 E

5751896 N

Deployment Dates of Deployment Deployed Position

(Frame)

1

26/05/2016 10:50

–

13/07/2016 11:20

51°54.529'N 01°36.803'E

404617 E 5751805 N

2

13/07/2016 13:50

-

06/09/2016 08:00

51°54.531'N 01°36.799'E

404612 E 5751809 N

Co-ordinate Zone/Geoid : UTM 31N/EGM96


22

6.2.1 Equipment Condition

Following the recovery of the instrument bed frame during the first service visit and after the final

recovery, there was evidence that the mooring was vulnerable to biofouling in the form of a light

covering of flora (Photo 6.1). The wiper on the JFE turbidity logger had fulfilled its role and kept

the sensor faces free of biofouling and debris. The Booner Tube samples collected at Site BO1

during the first deployment phase were a medium silt (11.3% sand, 88.7% mud) with evidence of

anoxic activity (Photo 6.2). The samples collected in the Booner tubes during the second

deployment phase (Photo 6.3) were a very coarse silt (47.1% sand, 52.9% mud) again with

evidence of anoxic activity.

Photo 6.1 The sensors located on the JFE logger at Site BO1 after the first service

interval and final recovery

Photo 6.2 The Booner Tube samples retrieved from Site BO1 after the first deployment

phase


23

Photo 6.3 The Booner Tube samples retrieved from Site BO1 after the second

deployment phase


24

6.2.2 Data Percentage Return

The overall data return for both deployments was excellent, with close to 100% of the data collected being a suitable standard to be included in the

statistical analysis/reporting stage (Table 6.3).

Table 6.3 Data return from instrumentation deployed at Site BO1

ASB = Above Seabed, BSL = Below Sea Level

The JFE Infinity Turbi logger was set to collect data on a 10-minute sampling regime. Therefore the total number of records expected for each deployment would be:

Deployment 1 (48.02 Days) = 6916 records


Deployment Instrument Height ASB

or Depth BSL

Parameter Total

expected records

Total achieved records

% return Total

records at Q100

% return

1 JFE Infinity Turbi 0.50m ASB Turbidity 6916 6916 100 6915 99.99



25

6.3 Site BO2


th






BO2 51°53.859’N

01°36.160’E

403856 E

5750578 N


(Frame)

1

26/05/2016 10:20

-

13/07/2016 11:40

51°53.804'N 01°36.111'E

403798 E 5750477 N

2

13/07/2016 13:30

-

06/09/2016 07:30

51°53.821'N 01°36.121'E

403810 E 5750508 N



26




covering of flora (Photo 6.4). The wiper on the JFE turbidity loggers had fulfilled its role and kept

the sensor faces free of biofouling and debris. The Booner Tube samples collected at Site BO2

for each deployment were of a similar consistency; a medium silt in the first deployment phase

(2.1% sand, 97.9% mud) followed by a fine silt in the second deployment phase (7.0% sand,

93.0% mud). Only one Booner tube vial was collected for each deployment as a result of

blockages in the upper part of the Booner tube where there was also evidence of anoxic activity

(Photo 6.5, Photo 6.6).


interval and final recovery


phase


27


deployment phase


28






The JFE Infinity Turbi logger was set to collect data on a 10-minute sampling regime. Therefore the total number of records expected for each deployment would be:




or Depth BSL

Parameter Total

expected records


% return Total

records at Q100

% return




29

6.4 Site BO3


th






BO3 51°53.074’N

01°35.533’E

403109 E

5749137 N


(Frame)

1

26/05/2016 08:20

-

13/07/2016 12:00

51°53.041'N 01°35.570'E

403150 E 5749075 N

2

13/07/2016 13:20

-

06/09/2016 07:00

51°53.029'N 01°35.555'E

403132 E 5749053 N



30




covering of flora (Photo 6.7). The wiper on the JFE turbidity loggers had fulfilled its role and kept

the sensor faces free of biofouling and debris. Minimal suspended sediment was collected in the

Booner vials due to blockages in the upper part of the Booner tubes. The Booner Tube samples

collected at Site BO3 during the first deployment phase were a medium silt (5.6% sand, 94.4%

mud) with evidence of anoxic activity (Photo 6.8). The samples collected in the Booner tubes

during the second deployment phase (Photo 6.9) were a very fine sand (72.8% sand, 27.2%

mud) again with evidence of anoxic activity.


interval and on final recovery


phase


31


deployment phase


32






The JFE Infinity Turbi logger was set to collect data on a 10 minute sampling regime. Therefore the total number of records expected for each deployment would be:




or Depth BSL

Parameter Total

expected records


% return Total

records at Q100

% return




33

6.5 Site B4

B4 was deployed for a total of approximately 103 days between 26th May 2016 and 6

th



Figure 6.7 Deployed positions of Site B4 relative to its proposed position

Table 6.8 Deployed positions of Site B4 relative to proposed position


B4 51°53.074’N

01°35.533’E

403109 E

5749137 N


(Frame)

1

26/05/2016 11:40

-

13/07/2016 10:40

51°54.377'N 01°35.901'E

403577 E 5751543 N

2

13/07/2016 14:00

-

06/09/2016 07:50

51°54.378'N 01°35.897'E

403573 E 5751546 N



34


The Booner Tube samples collected at Site B4 for each deployment were deemed a very coarse

silt where there was only slight differences in the sand to mud ratios; the first deployment phase

(66.4% sand, 33.6% mud), the second deployment phase (58.8% sand, 41.2% mud). Only one

Booner tube vial was collected during the first deployment and none in the second deployment as

a result of blockages in the upper part of the Booner tube where there was also evidence of

anoxic activity (Photo 6.10, Photo 6.11).

Photo 6.10 The Booner Tube samples retrieved from Site B4 after the first deployment

phase


35

Photo 6.11 The Booner Tube samples retrieved from Site B4 after the second

deployment phase


36

6.6 Site B5

B5 was deployed for a total of approximately 103 days between 26th May 2016 and 6

th



Figure 6.8 Deployed positions of Site B5 relative to its proposed position

Table 6.9 Deployed positions of Site B5 relative to proposed position


B5 51°53.648’N

01°35.286’E

402847 E

5750205 N


(Frame)

1

26/05/2016 12:15

-

13/07/2016 10:00

51°53.611'N 01°35.232'E

402783 E 5750138 N

2

13/07/2016 10:300

-

06/09/2016 08:40

51°53.637'N 01°35.270'E

402827 E 5750186 N



37


Minimal suspended sediment was collected in the Booner vials due to blockages in the upper

part of the Booner tubes. The Booner Tube samples collected at Site B5 during the first

deployment phase were a medium silt (6.9% sand, 93.1% mud) with evidence of anoxic activity

(Photo 6.8). The samples collected in the Booner tubes during the second deployment phase

(Photo 6.9) were a very coarse silt (62.7% sand, 37.3% mud) again with evidence of anoxic

activity.

Photo 6.12 The Booner Tube samples retrieved from Site B5 after the first deployment

phase

Photo 6.13 The Booner Tube samples retrieved from Site B5 after the second

deployment phase


APPENDIX A

Glossary of Terms for Exported Datasets

Oceanography Glossary

1

This document has been created to clarify the meaning of terms used in the column headers of datasets used within and exported from SeaZone GTE.

Column headers found within the GTE datasets for the Turbidity Time-Series data

Glossary of Terms

Term Definition Unit/Format

Group Designated group in which file was assigned in GTE

File Name of file imported into GTE

idData Unique number for each row of data

DateTime Date and time of measurement dd/mm/yy hh:mm:ss

Height_ASB Height of instrument above sea bed m

Pressure_MPa Pressure as measured by the JFE unit

(secondary parameter) MPa

Depth_m Depth of JFE unit below sea level; calculated by JFE

unit m

Temp_C Temperature as measured by the JFE unit

(secondary parameter) °C

Turb_M_NValue Value output provided by JFE mid-range turbidity

sensor No unit

Turb_M_FTU_Raw Turbidity values provided by the JFE unit; calculated

by application of internal coefficients on N-Values collected by mid-range sensor.

FTU

Turb_M_FTU Turbidity values calculated via the application of Titan-derived calibration coefficients to the JFE mid-range

N-Values FTU

SSC_mgl Suspended Sediment Concentration (calculated) mg/l

idCalibration Number allocated to individual calibration certificates

applied to JFE mid-range N-Values

Quality Number allocated to individual measurements to

indicate quality 0-100

Also present in the Datasets but not utilised for this project :

Turb_H_NValue Raw values provided by JFE high-range turbidity

sensor No unit

Turb_H_ppm Turbidity values provided by the JFE unit; calculated

by application of internal coefficients on N-Values collected by high-range sensor.

Kaolin ppm

Oceanography Glossary

2

Column headers found with exported datasets for Turbidity Time-Series

Quality Flags: The following quality flags were allocated to the data records during the processing procedure -

Q0: null data

Q50: data deemed not of a suitable quality to be included in the statistical analysis. Statistical analysis will not be performed on any data which has a quality flag less than:

Turbidity : Q100

Term Definition Unit/Format

idData Unique number for each row of data

DateTime Date and time of measurement dd/mm/yy

hh:mm

Height_ASB Height of instrument above sea bed m

Depth_m_BSL Depth of JFE unit below sea level; calculated

by JFE unit (secondary parameter) m

Temp_C Temperature as measured by the JFE unit

(secondary parameter) °C

Turbidity_MR_NValue Raw values provided by JFE mid-range

turbidity sensor No unit

Turbidity_MR_FTU Turbidity values calculated via the application of Titan-derived calibration coefficients to the

JFE mid-range N-Values FTU

idCalibration_Turbidity_MR_FTU Number allocated to individual calibration

certificates applied to the JFE mid-range N-Values

SCC_mgl Suspended Sediment Concentration

(calculated) mg/l

idCalibration_SCC_mgl Number allocated to individual calibration

certificates applied to the JFE mid-range N-Values


APPENDIX B

Instrument Specifications

B.1 JFE Infinity-Turbi Logger

B.2 Sonardyne TZ/OBC Transponder


B1. JFE INIFNITY-TURBI LOGGER


B2. SONARDYNE TZ/OBC TRANSPONDER


APPENDIX C

Calibration Reports

C.1 Turbidity

C.2 Suspended Sediment Concentration


C.1 TURBIDITY


SITE BO1 C.1.1

C.1.1.1 DEPLOYMENT 1: JFE 0236


SITE BO2 C.1.2



SITE BO3 C.1.3



C.2 SUSPENDED SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION


SSC1 C.2.1

C.2.1.1 JFE 0236


C.2.1.2 JFE 0237


C.2.1.3 JFE 0238


SSC2 C.2.2

C.2.2.1 JFE 0234


C.2.2.2 JFE 0236 (REFERENCE)


C.2.2.3 JFE 0239


SSC3 C.2.3

C.2.3.1 JFE 0235


C.2.3.2 JFE 0236 (REFERENCE)


C.2.3.3 JFE 0239 (ADDITIONAL SENSOR)


APPENDIX D

DATA RESULTS

D.1 Turbidity/Suspended Sediment Concentration

D.2 Particle Size Distribution Analysis


D.1 TURBIDITY/SUSPENDED SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION


D.1.1 BO1

Table 1.1 Mean, maximum and minimum Turbidity (FTU) recorded at the near bed at BO1 (Q100)

Data Period

Mean

Turbidity

(FTU)

Maximum

Turbidity

(FTU)

Date and Time

(UTC)

Minimum

Turbidity

(FTU))

Date and Time

(UTC)

All 39.4 541.5 31/05/2016 13:20 6.7 15/07/2016 14:00

May-16 67.1 541.5 31/05/2016 13:20 8.3 27/05/2016 21:20

Jun-16 26.9 167.1 02/06/2016 03:00 9.7 01/06/2016 08:10

Jul-15 28.6 289.3 02/07/2016 15:40 6.7 15/07/2016 14:00

Aug-15 52.1 341.3 10/08/2016 15:00 7.8 31/08/2016 23:00

Sep-15 68.6 280.0 02/09/2016 00:20 8.9 05/09/2016 13:50

Spring 27.6 100.1 03/06/2016 02:40 12.3 05/06/2016 05:20

Neap 22.2 92.0 12/06/2016 17:10 10.7 15/06/2016 01:50

Table 1.2 Mean, maximum and minimum Suspended Sediment Concentrations (mg/l) recorded at the near bed at BO1 (Q100)

Data Period Mean SSC

(mg/l)

Maximum

SSC (mg/l)

Date and Time

(UTC)

Minimum

SSC (mg/l)

Date and Time

(UTC)

All 41.0 764.0* 31/05/2016 13:20 0.8 15/07/2016 14:00

May-16 70.6 764.0* 31/05/2016 13:20 4.7 27/05/2016 21:10

Jun-16 24.0 184.4 02/06/2016 03:00 6.1 01/06/2016 01:50

Jul-15 26.8 346.3 02/07/2016 15:40 0.8 15/07/2016 14:00

Aug-15 59.4 484.1 10/08/2016 15:00 2.2 31/08/2016 23:00

Sep-15 81.3 389.3 02/09/2016 00:20 3.5 05/09/2016 13:50

Spring 24.8 104.4 03/06/2016 02:40 8.8 05/06/2016 05:20

Neap 19.2 95.2 12/06/2016 17:10 7.1 15/06/2016 01:50

* = this value was obtained through extrapolation of the SSC conversion coefficients

All data - Dep. 1: 26/05/2016 10:50 – 13/07/2016 11:20 Dep. 2: 13/07/2016 13:50 – 06/09/2016 08:00 Tidal Period - Spring: 03/06/2016 00:00 – 09/06/2016 23:59 Neap: 12/06/2016 00:00 – 16/06/2016 23:59


Figure 1.1 Timeseries of Suspended Sediment Concentration (mg/l), temperature (°C) and Water Depth (m) for BO1 26

th May 2016 – 6

th September 2016 (Q100)


Overall

May 2016

June 2016

July 2016

August 2016

September 2016

Figure 1.2 Monthly frequency distribution plots of Suspended Sediment Concentration (mg/l) at the near bed for BO1 (Q100)


D.1.2 BO2


Data Period

Mean

Turbidity

(FTU)

Maximum

Turbidity

(FTU)

Date and Time

(UTC)

Minimum

Turbidity

(FTU))

Date and Time

(UTC)

All 24.2 189.4 10/08/2016 16:30 1.3 18/07/2016 16:50

May-16 32.9 186.5 31/05/2016 00:00 1.7 28/05/2016 16:10

Jun-16 18.8 139.1 02/06/2016 14:30 2.5 30/06/2016 13:50

Jul-15 16.2 78.8 01/07/2016 00:00 1.3 18/07/2016 16:50

Aug-15 31.9 189.4 10/08/2016 16:30 7.2 01/08/2016 16:40

Sep-15 48.2 103.7 01/09/2016 23:30 19.6 01/09/2016 11:50

Spring 20.2 120.9 03/06/2016 03:50 4.8 09/06/2016 02:30

Neap 13.1 72.2 15/06/2106 08:00 3.0 14/06/2016 12:40



(mg/l)

Maximum

SSC (mg/l)

Date and Time

(UTC)

Minimum

SSC (mg/l)

Date and Time

(UTC)

All 24.8 269.3 10/08/2016 16:30 4.7 01/07/2016 14:30

May-16 30.2 205.0 31/05/2016 00:00 4.9 28/05/2016 16:10

Jun-16 18.0 141.4 02/06/2016 14:30 5.4 30/06/2016 13:50

Jul-15 18.5 80.6 20/07/2016 15:40 4.7 01/07/2016 14:30

Aug-15 32.9 269.3 10/08/2016 16:30 14.1 01/08/2016 16:40

Sep-15 47.2 114.3 01/09/2016 23:30 22.2 01/09/2016 11:50

Spring 19.1 119.2 03/06/2016 03:50 7.1 09/06/2016 02:30

Neap 13.5 65.9 15/06/2016 08:00 5.8 14/06/2016 12:40




th May 2016 – 6



Overall

May 2016

June 2016

July 2016

August 2016

September 2016



D.1.3 BO3


Data Period

Mean

Turbidity

(FTU)

Maximum

Turbidity

(FTU)

Date and Time

(UTC)

Minimum

Turbidity

(FTU))

Date and Time

(UTC)

All 35.9 734.1 26/07/2016 16:30 2.4 30/06/2016 13:40

May-16 36.8 243.6 28/05/2016 17:10 4.4 28/05/2016 09:40

Jun-16 19.8 175.9 29/06/2016 16:00 2.4 30/06/2016 13:40

Jul-15 45.5 734.1 26/07/2016 16:30 2.5 01/07/2016 14:40

Aug-15 38.8 443.8 01/08/2016 11:20 9.9 31/08/2016 23:20

Sep-15 44.7 165.7 01/09/2016 00:10 9.4 02/09/2016 12:10

Spring 20.8 84.0 03/06/2016 04:10 7.4 04/06/2016 10:40

Neap 13.7 73.5 13/06/2016 05:40 3.2 15/06/2016 14:20



(mg/l)

Maximum

SSC (mg/l)

Date and Time

(UTC)

Minimum

SSC (mg/l)

Date and Time

(UTC)

All 40.0 1267.0* 26/07/2016 16:30 0.5 18/07/2016 16:20

May-16 35.4 262.7 27/05/2016 16:30 6.6 28/05/2016 22:20

Jun-16 19.0 193.1 29/06/2016 16:00 5.2 30/06/2016 13:40

Jul-15 53.0 1267.0* 26/07/2016 16:30 0.5 18/07/2016 16:20

Aug-15 42.9 630.6* 01/08/2016 11:20 2.0 31/08/2016 23:20

Sep-15 51.2 213.6 02/09/2016 12:10 1.2 02/09/2016 12:10

Spring 19.6 79.1 03/06/2016 04:10 8.9 04/06/2016 10:40

Neap 6.9 68.1 13/06/2016 05:40 5.7 15/06/2016 14:20

* = this value was obtained through extrapolation of the SSC conversion coefficients




th May 2016 – 6



Overall

May 2016

June 2016

July 2016

August 2016

September 2016



D.2 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION


D.2.1 BO1

D.2.1.1 Deployment 1


D.2.2 BO2



D.2.3 BO3



D.2.4 B4



D.2.5 B5



Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00

B. Thomson Unicomarine particle size analysis reports

B.1. May 2016

Client Name

Client Address

Report Title

Method

Subcontracted Tests

Authorisation Daisy Chamberlain 13.06.16

Laboratory Manager

N/A

Thomson Ecology, Compass House, 60 Priestley Road, Surrey Research Park, Guildford,

GU2 7AG


TEM10 Particle Size Analysis

Harbour House, The Quay, Harwich, Essex, CO12

3HH

HHAESC16 ‐ Harwich East Ship Channel May 2016

Sample Form

Sample number Sample receipt date Sample condition Analyst Date Notes

ST1 18/05/2016 Good LJH 10/06/2016

ST11 18/05/2016 Good LJH 09/06/2016

ST21 18/05/2016 Good LJH 10/06/2016

ST24 18/05/2016 Good LJH 10/06/2016

ST25 18/05/2016 Good LJH 08/06/2016

ST27 18/05/2016 Good LJH 09/06/2016

ST28 18/05/2016 Good LJH 08/06/2016

ST36 18/05/2016 Good LJH 10/06/2016

ST37 18/05/2016 Good LJH 10/06/2016

ST39 18/05/2016 Good LJH 08/06/2016

ST40 18/05/2016 Good LJH 10/06/2016

ST42 18/05/2016 Good LJH 09/06/2016

ST43 18/05/2016 Good LJH 09/06/2016

ST45 18/05/2016 Good LJH 10/06/2016

ST46 18/05/2016 Good LJH 08/06/2016

ST49 18/05/2016 Good LJH 09/06/2016

ST51 18/05/2016 Good LJH 08/06/2016

ST52 18/05/2016 Good LJH 08/06/2016

ST55 18/05/2016 Good LJH 09/06/2016

ST59 18/05/2016 Good LJH 08/06/2016

Particle size distributionSample

µm phi ST1 ST11 ST21 ST24 ST25 ST27 ST28 ST36 ST37 ST39 ST40 ST42 ST43 ST45 ST46 ST49 ST51 ST52 ST55 ST59

63000 ‐6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

45000 ‐5.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

31500 ‐5 19.22 0.00 21.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.17 7.04 0.00 0.00

22400 ‐4.5 3.90 8.88 8.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.67 3.58 0.00 3.10

16000 ‐4 0.78 10.42 13.77 1.66 0.00 0.00 9.38 0.00 0.00 13.10 5.14 2.18 0.00 3.84 5.78 11.83 4.74 2.32 4.38 15.91

11200 ‐3.5 2.31 5.17 4.22 1.16 1.92 0.00 5.74 0.00 0.00 6.29 5.86 5.16 0.00 7.79 14.02 6.12 5.57 1.81 2.57 23.11

8000 ‐3 6.71 6.04 5.80 0.54 0.81 0.04 5.31 0.00 0.00 10.12 6.78 12.79 1.06 12.01 6.22 3.83 8.32 2.45 6.51 20.57

5600 ‐2.5 5.27 8.38 7.08 1.51 0.18 0.20 4.52 0.00 0.00 5.38 7.28 7.77 1.70 6.91 4.11 2.91 6.90 4.36 6.54 9.59

4000 ‐2 3.63 7.94 4.68 1.80 0.92 0.15 3.60 0.00 0.00 4.39 8.79 5.15 1.99 6.85 3.31 3.23 6.36 2.55 6.14 5.43

2800 ‐1.5 2.76 5.29 3.09 2.07 0.50 0.51 2.73 0.00 0.00 2.42 3.61 4.77 1.64 5.32 2.09 3.04 4.17 2.11 5.32 2.67

2000 ‐1 2.06 3.71 1.98 2.53 0.60 1.36 1.76 0.00 0.00 1.66 2.07 4.56 1.79 3.63 1.29 2.40 4.28 2.01 4.25 1.85

1400 ‐0.5 1.92 3.48 1.84 3.39 1.13 4.67 1.20 0.00 0.00 1.64 1.62 4.11 2.49 2.69 1.08 1.75 5.28 1.98 3.96 1.31

1000 0 1.38 2.77 1.46 2.76 1.88 11.64 0.92 0.00 0.00 1.39 1.37 4.25 4.67 1.00 0.70 1.19 0.89 2.20 3.36 0.80

707 0.5 1.70 6.15 3.33 10.28 13.98 59.66 1.08 0.09 4.58 9.93 6.27 5.70 42.55 5.00 4.77 4.51 12.98 18.89 9.12 1.80

500 1 7.98 8.53 4.58 14.59 23.95 20.51 5.05 0.14 7.72 17.80 13.61 7.77 31.26 10.28 15.20 9.93 13.30 23.63 10.29 3.31

353.6 1.5 13.55 8.48 4.79 17.07 26.12 1.26 8.05 1.68 8.76 16.98 16.12 8.64 10.28 13.29 21.21 14.08 8.58 16.51 8.44 4.26

250 2 12.86 6.02 3.99 15.84 17.16 0.00 7.08 10.56 9.16 7.94 10.53 7.49 0.57 11.10 15.21 13.47 3.16 5.41 6.12 3.65

176.8 2.5 6.68 2.94 2.63 10.70 5.59 0.00 3.33 20.54 10.03 0.97 3.19 4.97 0.00 5.79 4.81 8.70 0.57 0.25 4.61 1.95

125 3 1.55 1.08 1.45 4.94 0.32 0.00 0.66 23.29 10.56 0.00 0.28 2.77 0.00 1.78 0.19 3.95 0.46 0.01 3.51 0.53

83.39 3.5 0.16 0.58 0.83 1.58 0.00 0.00 0.12 16.17 9.08 0.00 0.71 1.58 0.00 0.42 0.00 1.64 0.78 0.26 2.43 0.01

62.5 4 0.58 0.56 0.62 0.63 0.55 0.00 0.44 6.61 6.07 0.00 1.44 1.02 0.00 0.35 0.00 1.01 0.62 0.31 1.59 0.01

44.19 4.5 0.87 0.50 0.55 0.66 0.77 0.00 0.57 1.85 3.77 0.00 1.20 0.68 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.78 0.32 0.16 1.22 0.03

31.25 5 0.66 0.39 0.49 0.75 0.49 0.00 0.43 1.79 3.21 0.00 0.66 0.50 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.56 0.25 0.10 1.16 0.02

22.097 5.5 0.43 0.34 0.42 0.77 0.33 0.00 0.29 2.80 3.62 0.00 0.44 0.51 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.48 0.36 0.24 1.15 0.01

15.625 6 0.42 0.37 0.38 0.82 0.39 0.00 0.28 3.03 4.05 0.00 0.47 0.63 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.57 0.50 0.36 1.13 0.01

11.049 6.5 0.49 0.40 0.37 0.87 0.47 0.00 0.30 2.67 4.15 0.00 0.51 0.75 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.71 0.57 0.36 1.11 0.02

7.813 7 0.51 0.40 0.35 0.83 0.46 0.00 0.29 2.27 3.92 0.00 0.48 0.78 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.76 0.56 0.29 1.11 0.02

5.524 7.5 0.45 0.35 0.31 0.68 0.39 0.00 0.25 1.90 3.39 0.00 0.42 0.71 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.70 0.49 0.22 1.06 0.01

3.906 8 0.37 0.27 0.26 0.50 0.31 0.00 0.21 1.48 2.63 0.00 0.36 0.58 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.57 0.38 0.17 0.93 0.01

2.762 8.5 0.29 0.20 0.20 0.36 0.28 0.00 0.17 1.10 1.92 0.00 0.30 0.46 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.44 0.28 0.17 0.75 0.01

1.953 9 0.23 0.16 0.15 0.29 0.28 0.00 0.13 0.81 1.35 0.00 0.23 0.36 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.34 0.22 0.16 0.55 0.01

1.381 9.5 0.17 0.12 0.10 0.24 0.20 0.00 0.10 0.62 0.94 0.00 0.17 0.27 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.26 0.16 0.06 0.37 0.01

0.977 10 0.12 0.07 0.07 0.17 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.45 0.64 0.00 0.09 0.19 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.19 0.09 0.00 0.23 0.00

0.691 10.5 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.15 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.00

0.488 11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.345 11.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.244 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.173 12.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.122 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.086 13.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

SAMPLE STATISTICS

ST59 ST28 ST39 ST46 ST25 ST52 ST51 ST11

ANALYST AND DATE: LJH, 6/13/2016 LJH, 6/13/2016 LJH, 6/13/2016 LJH, 6/13/2016 LJH, 6/13/2016 LJH, 6/13/2016 LJH, 6/13/2016 LJH, 6/13/2016SIEVING ERROR:SAMPLE TYPE: Bimodal, Poorly Sorted Trimodal, Very Poorly Sorted Trimodal, Very Poorly Sorted Bimodal, Very Poorly Sorted Unimodal, Moderately Sorted Trimodal, Very Poorly Sorted Polymodal, Very Poorly Sorted Trimodal, Very Poorly SortedTEXTURAL GROUP: Gravel Sandy Gravel Sandy Gravel Sandy Gravel Slightly Gravelly Sand Gravelly Sand Sandy Gravel Sandy GravelSEDIMENT NAME: Medium Gravel Sandy Very Coarse Gravel Sandy Medium Gravel Sandy Medium Gravel lightly Medium Gravelly Medium San Fine Gravelly Coarse Sand Sandy Medium Gravel Sandy Coarse Gravel

METHOD OF MEAN 10156.1 19876.3 5375.5 4461.2 909.9 5578.5 7020.2 7157.2MOMENTS SORTING 6773.2 19986.6 6667.3 6019.7 2042.5 10742.8 10436.6 8577.8

Arithmetic (m) SKEWNESS 0.282 0.570 1.098 1.196 5.334 2.248 2.006 1.189KURTOSIS 2.497 1.779 2.736 2.979 31.55 6.684 6.143 3.101


Geometric (m) SKEWNESS -1.446 -0.873 0.326 0.537 -1.088 0.336 -0.705 -0.737KURTOSIS 4.226 2.981 1.439 1.581 10.68 3.945 4.078 3.531

METHOD OF MEAN -2.605 -2.453 -0.914 -0.453 1.117 -0.343 -0.986 -1.179MOMENTS SORTING 1.920 3.196 2.205 2.271 1.580 2.403 2.724 2.710Logarithmic () SKEWNESS 1.446 0.873 -0.326 -0.537 1.088 -0.336 0.705 0.737

KURTOSIS 4.226 2.981 1.439 1.581 10.68 3.945 4.078 3.531

FOLK AND MEAN 5780.5 5845.0 1699.3 1343.0 476.1 1417.2 2276.8 2778.7WARD METHOD SORTING 3.724 7.813 4.526 4.704 1.970 4.534 5.716 5.814

(m) SKEWNESS -0.611 -0.451 0.522 0.613 0.034 0.624 0.077 -0.160KURTOSIS 1.539 0.559 0.584 0.557 1.552 1.022 0.895 0.714

FOLK AND MEAN -2.531 -2.547 -0.765 -0.425 1.071 -0.503 -1.187 -1.474WARD METHOD SORTING 1.897 2.966 2.178 2.234 0.978 2.181 2.515 2.540() SKEWNESS 0.611 0.451 -0.522 -0.613 -0.034 -0.624 -0.077 0.160

KURTOSIS 1.539 0.559 0.584 0.557 1.552 1.022 0.895 0.714

FOLK AND MEAN: Fine Gravel Fine Gravel Very Coarse Sand Very Coarse Sand Medium Sand Very Coarse Sand Very Fine Gravel Very Fine GravelWARD METHOD SORTING: Poorly Sorted Very Poorly Sorted Very Poorly Sorted Very Poorly Sorted Moderately Sorted Very Poorly Sorted Very Poorly Sorted Very Poorly Sorted(Description) SKEWNESS: Very Fine Skewed Very Fine Skewed Very Coarse Skewed Very Coarse Skewed Symmetrical Very Coarse Skewed Symmetrical Fine Skewed

KURTOSIS: Very Leptokurtic Very Platykurtic Very Platykurtic Very Platykurtic Very Leptokurtic Mesokurtic Platykurtic Platykurtic

MODE 1 (m): 13600.0 38250.0 605.0 427.5 427.5 605.0 605.0 19200.0

MODE 2 (m): 427.5 19200.0 19200.0 13600.0 38250.0 9600.0 427.5

MODE 3 (m): 427.5 9600.0 6800.0 38250.0 4800.0MODE 1 (): -3.743 -5.235 0.747 1.247 1.247 0.747 0.747 -4.243MODE 2 (): 1.247 -4.243 -4.243 -3.743 -5.235 -3.243 1.247MODE 3 (): 1.247 -3.243 -2.743 -5.235 -2.243

D10 (m): 477.9 280.8 362.9 280.5 237.7 365.9 358.1 269.0D50 (m): 9844.8 11957.0 882.8 609.5 473.6 727.2 1892.7 3229.2D90 (m): 19356.7 50706.3 17324.7 14371.3 950.6 23771.3 20629.4 21604.7(D90 / D10) (m): 40.50 180.6 47.74 51.23 4.000 64.96 57.60 80.31(D90 - D10) (m): 18878.8 50425.5 16961.8 14090.7 713.0 23405.3 20271.2 21335.6(D75 / D25) (m): 3.083 64.63 18.92 22.04 2.033 6.900 14.84 20.23(D75 - D25) (m): 9855.6 37096.8 8800.4 8070.8 344.9 2947.2 8244.6 10334.6D10 (): -4.275 -5.664 -4.115 -3.845 0.073 -4.571 -4.367 -4.433D50 (): -3.299 -3.580 0.180 0.714 1.078 0.460 -0.920 -1.691D90 (): 1.065 1.833 1.462 1.834 2.073 1.450 1.481 1.894(D90 / D10) (): -0.249 -0.324 -0.355 -0.477 28.38 -0.317 -0.339 -0.427(D90 - D10) (): 5.340 7.497 5.577 5.679 2.000 6.021 5.848 6.327(D75 / D25) (): 0.580 -0.149 -0.319 -0.449 2.830 -0.561 -0.238 -0.260(D75 - D25) (): 1.625 6.014 4.242 4.462 1.024 2.787 3.892 4.338

% GRAVEL: 82.2% 69.0% 43.4% 36.8% 4.9% 28.2% 49.2% 55.8%% SAND: 17.6% 27.9% 56.6% 63.2% 90.7% 69.5% 46.6% 40.6%% MUD: 0.2% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 4.4% 2.3% 4.2% 3.6%% V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% 33.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.7% 6.9% 0.0%% COARSE GRAVEL: 19.0% 11.6% 13.1% 5.8% 0.0% 6.2% 6.7% 19.3%% MEDIUM GRAVEL: 43.7% 11.1% 16.4% 20.2% 2.7% 4.3% 13.9% 11.2%% FINE GRAVEL: 15.0% 8.1% 9.8% 7.4% 1.1% 6.9% 13.3% 16.3%% V FINE GRAVEL: 4.5% 4.5% 4.1% 3.4% 1.1% 4.1% 8.5% 9.0%% V COARSE SAND: 2.1% 2.1% 3.0% 1.8% 3.0% 4.2% 6.2% 6.3%% COARSE SAND: 5.1% 6.1% 27.7% 20.0% 37.9% 42.5% 26.3% 14.7%% MEDIUM SAND: 7.9% 15.1% 24.9% 36.4% 43.3% 21.9% 11.7% 14.5%% FINE SAND: 2.5% 4.0% 1.0% 5.0% 5.9% 0.3% 1.0% 4.0%% V FINE SAND: 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.6% 1.4% 1.2%% V COARSE SILT: 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0.3% 0.6% 0.9%% COARSE SILT: 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.6% 0.9% 0.7%% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.7% 1.1% 0.8%% FINE SILT: 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.4% 0.9% 0.6%% V FINE SILT: 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.3% 0.5% 0.4%% CLAY: 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% 0.2%

:)( a:)( ax

:)( aSk:)( aK

:)( gx:)( g

:)( gSk:)( gK

:)( x:)(

:)Sk(

:)( K

:)( ZM:)( I

:)( ISk:)( GK

:)( GK

:)( GM:)( G

:)( GSk

SAMPLE STATISTICS

ANALYST AND DATE:SIEVING ERROR:SAMPLE TYPE: TEXTURAL GROUP: SEDIMENT NAME:

METHOD OF MEANMOMENTS SORTINGArithmetic (m) SKEWNESS

KURTOSISMETHOD OF MEANMOMENTS SORTINGGeometric (m) SKEWNESS

KURTOSISMETHOD OF MEANMOMENTS SORTINGLogarithmic () SKEWNESS

KURTOSISFOLK AND MEANWARD METHOD SORTING(m) SKEWNESS

KURTOSISFOLK AND MEANWARD METHOD SORTING() SKEWNESS

KURTOSISFOLK AND MEAN:WARD METHOD SORTING:(Description) SKEWNESS:

KURTOSIS:MODE 1 (m):MODE 2 (m):MODE 3 (m):MODE 1 ():MODE 2 ():MODE 3 ():D10 (m):D50 (m):D90 (m):(D90 / D10) (m):(D90 - D10) (m):(D75 / D25) (m):(D75 - D25) (m):D10 ():D50 ():D90 ():(D90 / D10) ():(D90 - D10) ():(D75 / D25) ():(D75 - D25) ():% GRAVEL:% SAND:% MUD:% V COARSE GRAVEL:% COARSE GRAVEL:% MEDIUM GRAVEL:% FINE GRAVEL:% V FINE GRAVEL:% V COARSE SAND:% COARSE SAND:% MEDIUM SAND:% FINE SAND:% V FINE SAND:% V COARSE SILT:% COARSE SILT:% MEDIUM SILT:% FINE SILT:% V FINE SILT:% CLAY:

:)( a:)( ax

:)( aSk:)( aK

:)( gx:)( g

:)( gSk:)( gK

:)( x:)(

:)Sk(

:)( K

:)( ZM:)( I

:)( ISk:)( GK

:)( GK

:)( GM:)( G

:)( GSk


LJH, 6/13/2016 LJH, 6/13/2016 LJH, 6/13/2016 LJH, 6/13/2016 LJH, 6/13/2016 LJH, 6/13/2016 LJH, 6/13/2016 LJH, 6/13/2016

Polymodal, Very Poorly Sorted Unimodal, Well Sorted Trimodal, Very Poorly Sorted Trimodal, Very Poorly Sorted Unimodal, Moderately Sorted Bimodal, Very Poorly Sorted Trimodal, Very Poorly Sorted Polymodal, Very Poorly SortedMuddy Sandy Gravel Slightly Gravelly Sand Muddy Sandy Gravel Sandy Gravel Gravelly Sand Sandy Gravel Sandy Gravel Muddy Sandy Gravel

Medium Silty Sandy Medium Gravelightly Very Fine Gravelly Coarse SanVery Coarse Silty Sandy Fine Grave Sandy Coarse Gravel Fine Gravelly Coarse Sand Sandy Fine Gravel Sandy Medium Gravel ery Coarse Silty Sandy Coarse Grav

4452.4 933.6 3162.5 4257.3 1109.0 3815.0 4284.9 15384.45995.2 498.9 4743.4 6564.8 1368.3 5253.7 5202.3 14566.41.926 7.279 2.040 1.456 4.218 1.614 1.274 0.5096.859 86.94 6.646 3.526 22.07 4.693 3.687 1.727

1253.8 860.2 782.1 866.8 829.1 1129.7 1484.3 4987.37.329 1.384 7.890 7.584 1.814 6.084 5.283 8.163-0.790 1.764 -0.711 -0.217 2.084 -0.479 -0.321 -1.1133.629 10.02 3.363 3.083 7.969 3.463 2.829 3.693

-0.326 0.217 0.355 0.206 0.270 -0.176 -0.570 -2.3182.874 0.469 2.980 2.923 0.859 2.605 2.401 3.0290.790 -1.764 0.711 0.217 -2.084 0.479 0.321 1.1133.629 10.02 3.363 3.083 7.969 3.463 2.829 3.693

1445.4 833.3 910.6 1090.7 736.0 1211.8 1442.1 5335.46.697 1.347 7.914 7.510 1.639 5.482 4.676 7.240-0.079 0.091 -0.027 0.334 0.160 0.310 0.267 -0.4760.882 1.590 1.087 0.889 1.993 0.861 0.612 0.702

-0.532 0.263 0.135 -0.125 0.442 -0.277 -0.528 -2.4162.744 0.429 2.984 2.909 0.713 2.455 2.225 2.8560.079 -0.091 0.027 -0.334 -0.160 -0.310 -0.267 0.4760.882 1.590 1.087 0.889 1.993 0.861 0.612 0.702

Very Coarse Sand Coarse Sand Coarse Sand Very Coarse Sand Coarse Sand Very Coarse Sand Very Coarse Sand Fine GravelVery Poorly Sorted Well Sorted Very Poorly Sorted Very Poorly Sorted Moderately Sorted Very Poorly Sorted Very Poorly Sorted Very Poorly Sorted

Symmetrical Symmetrical Symmetrical Very Coarse Skewed Coarse Skewed Very Coarse Skewed Coarse Skewed Very Fine SkewedPlatykurtic Very Leptokurtic Mesokurtic Platykurtic Very Leptokurtic Platykurtic Very Platykurtic Platykurtic

9600.0 855.0 605.0 427.5 855.0 427.5 427.5 38250.0427.5 9600.0 19200.0 4800.0 9600.0 19200.0

2400.0 19200.0 4800.0 4800.0 6800.0-3.243 0.247 0.747 1.247 0.247 1.247 1.247 -5.2351.247 -3.243 -4.243 -2.243 -3.243 -4.243-1.243 -4.243 -2.243 -2.243 -2.743

141.1 580.6 49.33 136.3 486.1 226.8 245.8 268.91327.6 834.9 770.2 513.1 756.5 688.3 1011.2 10085.811332.7 1281.4 9567.7 16854.6 1542.0 11901.3 12066.1 38208.780.34 2.207 194.0 123.7 3.173 52.47 49.10 142.1

11191.6 700.8 9518.3 16718.3 1056.0 11674.5 11820.4 37939.819.97 1.332 15.18 19.91 1.579 14.68 19.14 30.26

6920.1 240.5 3979.3 5150.1 339.2 5232.6 7065.7 26751.0-3.502 -0.358 -3.258 -4.075 -0.625 -3.573 -3.593 -5.256-0.409 0.260 0.377 0.963 0.402 0.539 -0.016 -3.3342.826 0.784 4.341 2.875 1.041 2.140 2.025 1.895-0.807 -2.193 -1.332 -0.706 -1.666 -0.599 -0.564 -0.3616.328 1.142 7.600 6.950 1.666 5.714 5.618 7.151-0.508 8.786 -0.877 -0.769 6.873 -0.557 -0.469 -0.0274.320 0.414 3.924 4.315 0.659 3.875 4.258 4.919

45.2% 2.3% 35.7% 33.4% 8.2% 39.5% 46.3% 70.8%48.3% 97.7% 53.5% 60.2% 91.8% 55.2% 51.7% 25.5%6.5% 0.0% 10.8% 6.4% 0.0% 5.3% 1.9% 3.6%0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.8%5.0% 0.0% 4.4% 11.8% 0.0% 5.1% 3.8% 23.1%

18.0% 0.0% 9.1% 9.9% 1.1% 12.6% 19.8% 10.0%12.9% 0.4% 12.7% 6.1% 3.7% 16.1% 13.8% 11.8%9.3% 1.9% 9.6% 5.4% 3.4% 5.7% 9.0% 5.1%8.4% 16.3% 7.3% 2.9% 7.2% 3.0% 3.7% 3.3%

13.5% 80.2% 19.4% 14.4% 73.8% 19.9% 15.3% 7.9%16.1% 1.3% 14.6% 27.6% 10.8% 26.7% 24.4% 8.8%7.7% 0.0% 8.1% 12.7% 0.0% 3.5% 7.6% 4.1%2.6% 0.0% 4.0% 2.7% 0.0% 2.2% 0.8% 1.5%1.2% 0.0% 2.4% 1.3% 0.0% 1.8% 0.5% 1.0%1.1% 0.0% 2.3% 1.1% 0.0% 0.9% 0.3% 0.8%1.5% 0.0% 2.2% 1.5% 0.0% 1.0% 0.5% 0.7%1.3% 0.0% 2.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.8% 0.3% 0.6%0.8% 0.0% 1.3% 0.8% 0.0% 0.5% 0.2% 0.3%0.5% 0.0% 0.7% 0.5% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2%

SAMPLE STATISTICS









:)( a:)( ax

:)( aSk:)( aK

:)( gx:)( g

:)( gSk:)( gK

:)( x:)(

:)Sk(

:)( K

:)( ZM:)( I

:)( ISk:)( GK

:)( GK

:)( GM:)( G

:)( GSk

ST24 ST1 ST36 ST37

LJH, 6/13/2016 LJH, 6/13/2016 LJH, 6/13/2016 LJH, 6/13/2016

Bimodal, Poorly Sorted Trimodal, Very Poorly Sorted Unimodal, Poorly Sorted Bimodal, Very Poorly SortedGravelly Sand Sandy Gravel Muddy Sand Muddy Sand

Very Fine Gravelly Medium Sand Sandy Very Coarse Gravel Coarse Silty Fine Sand Medium Silty Fine Sand

1270.2 10414.2 146.7 209.52993.6 14774.7 98.34 225.74.600 1.168 0.839 1.33925.23 2.600 5.579 4.060

433.8 1808.9 94.17 85.174.263 9.522 3.370 5.211-0.556 -0.215 -1.595 -0.7225.791 2.466 5.021 2.628

1.205 -0.855 3.409 3.5542.092 3.251 1.753 2.3820.556 0.215 1.595 0.7225.791 2.466 5.021 2.628

459.9 2057.8 95.49 86.843.583 8.964 3.156 5.4470.029 0.302 -0.542 -0.3411.961 0.721 1.707 0.867

1.121 -1.041 3.389 3.5251.841 3.164 1.658 2.445-0.029 -0.302 0.542 0.3411.961 0.721 1.707 0.867

Medium Sand Very Fine Gravel Very Fine Sand Very Fine SandPoorly Sorted Very Poorly Sorted Poorly Sorted Very Poorly SortedSymmetrical Very Coarse Skewed Very Fine Skewed Very Fine Skewed

Very Leptokurtic Platykurtic Very Leptokurtic Platykurtic

427.5 38250.0 152.5 215.01700.0 427.5 13.34

9600.01.247 -5.235 2.737 2.237-0.743 1.247 6.250

-3.243

133.0 205.5 12.96 6.821428.4 986.6 138.0 128.6

2367.2 37379.2 271.4 555.117.79 181.9 20.95 81.37

2234.1 37173.7 258.5 548.33.094 40.01 2.605 11.90525.8 13167.9 126.1 279.7-1.243 -5.224 1.881 0.8491.223 0.019 2.858 2.9592.910 2.283 6.270 7.196-2.341 -0.437 3.333 8.4744.153 7.507 4.389 6.3475.475 -0.417 1.604 3.0881.629 5.322 1.382 3.573

11.3% 46.6% 0.0% 0.0%81.8% 48.4% 79.1% 66.1%6.9% 5.0% 20.9% 33.9%0.0% 18.4% 0.0% 0.0%1.7% 5.5% 0.0% 0.0%1.7% 9.0% 0.0% 0.0%3.3% 8.9% 0.0% 0.0%4.6% 4.8% 0.0% 0.0%6.2% 3.3% 0.0% 0.0%

24.9% 9.7% 0.2% 12.3%32.9% 26.4% 12.2% 17.9%15.6% 8.2% 43.8% 20.6%2.2% 0.8% 22.8% 15.2%1.4% 1.5% 3.6% 6.9%1.6% 0.9% 5.8% 7.7%1.7% 1.0% 4.9% 8.1%1.2% 0.8% 3.4% 6.0%0.7% 0.5% 1.9% 3.3%0.4% 0.3% 1.2% 2.0%

Size Class & Stats TableSample

Sediment* mm phi f ST1 ST11 ST21 ST24 ST25 ST27 ST28 ST36 ST37 ST39V. coarse gravel >32<64 <-5>-6 18.37 0.00 20.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.74 0.00 0.00 0.00Coarse gravel >16<32 <-4>-5 5.53 19.30 23.14 1.66 0.00 0.00 11.57 0.00 0.00 13.10Medium gravel >8<16 <-3>-4 9.02 11.21 10.01 1.70 2.73 0.04 11.05 0.00 0.00 16.40Fine gravel >4<8 <-2>-3 8.90 16.32 11.76 3.31 1.10 0.35 8.11 0.00 0.00 9.78V. fine gravel >2<4 <-1>-2 4.82 9.00 5.07 4.60 1.09 1.87 4.49 0.00 0.00 4.08V. coarse sand >1<2 <0>-1 3.30 6.26 3.30 6.16 3.01 16.32 2.12 0.00 0.00 3.03Coarse sand >0.5<1 <1>0 9.68 14.68 7.91 24.87 37.93 80.16 6.12 0.23 12.30 27.73Medium sand >0.25<0.5 <2>1 26.40 14.50 8.79 32.91 43.28 1.26 15.13 12.25 17.92 24.92Fine sand >0.125<0.25 <3>2 8.23 4.03 4.08 15.64 5.91 0.00 3.99 43.83 20.60 0.97V. fine sand >0.0625<0.125 <4>3 0.75 1.16 1.46 2.22 0.57 0.00 0.58 22.82 15.23 0.00V. coarse silt >0.03125<0.0625 <5>4 1.51 0.88 1.03 1.40 1.24 0.00 0.99 3.60 6.89 0.00Coarse silt >0.015625<0.03125 <6>5 0.86 0.71 0.81 1.60 0.73 0.00 0.57 5.83 7.67 0.00Medium silt >0.007813<0.015625 <7>6 1.00 0.80 0.71 1.69 0.94 0.00 0.59 4.94 8.07 0.00Fine silt >0.003906<0.007813 <8>7 0.82 0.62 0.56 1.18 0.69 0.00 0.46 3.37 6.02 0.00V. fine silt >0.001953<0.003906 <5>5 0.53 0.36 0.35 0.65 0.55 0.00 0.30 1.91 3.27 0.00Clay <0.001953 >9 0.30 0.19 0.17 0.42 0.22 0.00 0.18 1.21 2.04 0.00

Statistics** Mean (phi) -1.04 -1.47 -2.42 1.12 1.07 0.26 -2.55 3.39 3.53 -0.76Sorting 3.16 2.54 2.86 1.84 0.98 0.43 2.97 1.66 2.45 2.18Skewness -0.30 0.16 0.48 -0.03 -0.03 -0.09 0.45 0.54 0.34 -0.52Kurtosis 0.72 0.71 0.70 1.96 1.55 1.59 0.56 1.71 0.87 0.58% Silt/Clay 5.00 3.56 3.63 6.93 4.38 0.00 3.09 20.87 33.95 0.00

Textural Group* Sandy Gravel Sandy Gravel Muddy Sandy Gravel Gravelly Sand Slightly Gravelly

SandSlightly Gravelly

Sand Sandy Gravel Muddy Sand Muddy Sand Sandy Gravel

Size Class & Stats Table

Sediment* mm phi fV. coarse gravel >32<64 <-5>-6Coarse gravel >16<32 <-4>-5Medium gravel >8<16 <-3>-4Fine gravel >4<8 <-2>-3V. fine gravel >2<4 <-1>-2V. coarse sand >1<2 <0>-1Coarse sand >0.5<1 <1>0Medium sand >0.25<0.5 <2>1Fine sand >0.125<0.25 <3>2V. fine sand >0.0625<0.125 <4>3V. coarse silt >0.03125<0.0625 <5>4Coarse silt >0.015625<0.03125 <6>5Medium silt >0.007813<0.015625 <7>6Fine silt >0.003906<0.007813 <8>7V. fine silt >0.001953<0.003906 <5>5Clay <0.001953 >9

Statistics** Mean (phi)SortingSkewnessKurtosis% Silt/Clay

Textural Group*

ST40 ST42 ST43 ST45 ST46 ST49 ST51 ST52 ST55 ST590.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.86 6.73 0.00 0.005.14 5.01 0.00 3.84 5.78 11.83 6.72 6.22 4.38 19.0012.64 17.95 1.06 19.79 20.24 9.95 13.89 4.26 9.08 43.6816.07 12.92 3.69 13.76 7.42 6.14 13.26 6.91 12.69 15.025.69 9.34 3.43 8.96 3.38 5.44 8.46 4.13 9.57 4.512.99 8.36 7.16 3.69 1.78 2.94 6.17 4.18 7.33 2.1119.88 13.47 73.81 15.28 19.97 14.43 26.28 42.52 19.41 5.1026.65 16.13 10.85 24.39 36.42 27.55 11.74 21.92 14.57 7.913.47 7.74 0.00 7.57 5.00 12.65 1.03 0.27 8.11 2.472.18 2.62 0.00 0.79 0.00 2.66 1.40 0.57 4.05 0.021.84 1.16 0.00 0.52 0.00 1.32 0.56 0.26 2.35 0.050.91 1.14 0.00 0.31 0.00 1.06 0.86 0.60 2.28 0.020.98 1.53 0.00 0.47 0.00 1.47 1.13 0.66 2.22 0.030.78 1.30 0.00 0.32 0.00 1.27 0.87 0.39 1.98 0.020.53 0.81 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.79 0.50 0.33 1.31 0.020.27 0.51 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.51 0.27 0.06 0.67 0.01

-0.28 -0.53 0.44 -0.53 -0.43 -0.13 -1.19 -0.50 0.14 -2.532.45 2.74 0.71 2.23 2.23 2.91 2.52 2.18 2.98 1.90-0.31 0.08 -0.16 -0.27 -0.61 -0.33 -0.08 -0.62 0.03 0.610.86 0.88 1.99 0.61 0.56 0.89 0.89 1.02 1.09 1.545.30 6.46 0.00 1.94 0.00 6.40 4.19 2.29 10.81 0.15

Sandy Gravel Muddy Sandy Gravel Gravelly Sand Sandy Gravel Sandy Gravel Sandy Gravel Sandy Gravel Gravelly Sand Muddy Sandy

Gravel Gravel

Wentworth Scale

Station Code ST1 ST11 ST21 ST24 ST25 ST27 ST28 ST36 ST37 ST39 ST40 ST42 ST43 ST45 ST46 ST49 ST51 ST52 ST55 ST59pebble 41.82 46.83 65.75 6.67 3.82 0.39 64.48 0.00 0.00 39.28 33.85 35.88 4.75 37.39 33.44 27.92 40.73 24.12 26.15 77.71granule 4.82 9.00 5.07 4.60 1.09 1.87 4.49 0.00 0.00 4.08 5.69 9.34 3.43 8.96 3.38 5.44 8.46 4.13 9.57 4.51V. coarse sand 3.30 6.26 3.30 6.16 3.01 16.32 2.12 0.00 0.00 3.03 2.99 8.36 7.16 3.69 1.78 2.94 6.17 4.18 7.33 2.11Coarse sand 9.68 14.68 7.91 24.87 37.93 80.16 6.12 0.23 12.30 27.73 19.88 13.47 73.81 15.28 19.97 14.43 26.28 42.52 19.41 5.10Medium sand 26.40 14.50 8.79 32.91 43.28 1.26 15.13 12.25 17.92 24.92 26.65 16.13 10.85 24.39 36.42 27.55 11.74 21.92 14.57 7.91Fine sand 8.23 4.03 4.08 15.64 5.91 0.00 3.99 43.83 20.60 0.97 3.47 7.74 0.00 7.57 5.00 12.65 1.03 0.27 8.11 2.47V. fine sand 0.75 1.16 1.46 2.22 0.57 0.00 0.58 22.82 15.23 0.00 2.18 2.62 0.00 0.79 0.00 2.66 1.40 0.57 4.05 0.02Silt Clay 5.00 3.56 3.63 6.93 4.38 0.00 3.09 20.87 33.95 0.00 5.30 6.46 0.00 1.94 0.00 6.40 4.19 2.29 10.81 0.15

100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00

B.2. July 2016

Client Name

Client Address

Report Title

Method

Subcontracted Tests

Authorisation Daisy Chamberlain 30/08/2016

Labortory Manager

N/A

Thomson Ecology, Compass House, 60 Priestley Road, Surrey Research Park, Guildford,

GU2 7AG



Navigation House, Harwich, CO12 3EJ

Harwich East Ship Channel ‐ Survey July 2016

Sample Form


1 19/07/2016 Good DI 19/08/2016

11 19/07/2016 Good DI 19/08/2016

21 19/07/2016 Good DI 19/08/2016

24 19/07/2016 Good DI 19/08/2016

25 19/07/2016 Good DI 19/08/2016

27 19/07/2016 Good DI 19/08/2016

28 19/07/2016 Good DI 19/08/2016

36 19/07/2016 Good DI 19/08/2016

37 19/07/2016 Good DI 19/08/2016

39 19/07/2016 Good DI 19/08/2016

40 19/07/2016 Good PF 20/08/2016

42 19/07/2016 Good PF 20/08/2016

43 19/07/2016 Good PF 20/08/2016

45 19/07/2016 Good PF 20/08/2016

46 19/07/2016 Good PF 20/08/2016

49 19/07/2016 Good PF 20/08/2016

51 19/07/2016 Good PF 20/08/2016

52 19/07/2016 Good PF 20/08/2016

55 19/07/2016 Good PF 20/08/2016

59 19/07/2016 Good PF 20/08/2016

Particle size distribution

Sampleµm phi 1 11 21 24 25 27 28 36 37 39 40 42 43 45 46 49 51 52 55 59

63000 -6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0045000 -5.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0031500 -5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0022400 -4.5 0.00 0.00 29.64 0.00 3.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.06 3.64 0.00 0.00 2.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.3316000 -4 2.24 7.30 4.57 0.00 2.95 0.00 29.05 0.00 11.54 0.00 13.64 2.42 0.00 1.29 7.56 9.10 3.44 5.90 12.31 15.5011200 -3.5 0.68 4.08 4.43 0.00 2.16 0.00 6.24 0.00 3.04 0.00 6.38 9.46 0.00 2.62 10.28 4.91 16.35 3.64 6.45 14.188000 -3 5.07 2.64 5.39 0.85 2.60 0.22 6.23 0.00 2.12 0.71 4.09 8.31 0.18 6.16 9.95 2.45 9.44 7.32 5.54 10.455600 -2.5 6.02 3.45 4.10 1.91 1.80 0.11 5.47 0.00 1.28 1.33 4.13 6.56 0.44 7.06 8.48 4.90 5.85 5.07 3.35 6.814000 -2 4.97 3.31 2.36 1.61 2.01 0.47 4.10 0.00 1.57 2.22 4.59 4.84 0.46 6.07 5.74 4.99 5.97 4.15 2.98 3.962800 -1.5 3.69 3.43 1.92 1.77 1.14 0.93 2.93 0.00 1.25 1.90 3.50 4.27 1.11 5.21 3.75 3.39 4.23 3.34 2.41 2.262000 -1 2.94 2.93 1.50 1.38 1.16 1.83 2.04 0.00 1.05 1.13 2.72 3.63 1.42 3.46 2.72 2.49 3.46 2.73 1.93 1.541400 -0.5 2.67 2.85 1.78 1.34 1.70 5.13 1.57 0.00 1.13 1.16 2.19 3.68 2.42 2.40 2.32 1.77 3.11 2.76 1.68 1.041000 0 2.03 1.97 1.66 1.14 1.84 11.57 1.02 0.00 1.32 0.95 1.95 3.57 3.67 1.67 1.45 1.12 2.83 2.44 1.36 0.76707 0.5 4.21 7.68 8.35 1.30 6.95 54.39 0.27 0.14 16.78 14.26 6.03 10.00 49.55 5.96 3.73 2.68 13.33 19.53 8.62 2.11500 1 10.85 9.91 9.49 4.78 17.29 22.94 1.77 0.56 20.84 34.47 12.92 11.14 32.96 11.10 10.91 6.02 13.01 21.06 9.77 4.66

353.6 1.5 16.34 8.55 8.23 7.20 24.69 2.41 3.60 2.03 17.55 31.56 16.13 9.91 7.69 13.87 15.10 8.32 7.65 13.07 8.42 7.15250 2 15.49 5.51 5.72 8.74 19.40 0.00 3.63 8.57 10.07 9.90 10.92 6.92 0.11 12.06 11.25 8.84 2.62 4.02 6.68 7.63

176.8 2.5 8.91 3.09 3.18 9.97 7.15 0.00 2.29 16.49 3.64 0.41 3.29 3.75 0.00 7.35 4.00 7.99 1.06 0.33 5.37 5.63125 3 2.82 2.26 1.42 10.24 0.51 0.00 1.43 18.76 0.75 0.00 0.13 1.80 0.00 3.31 0.29 6.62 1.47 0.15 4.14 2.76

83.39 3.5 0.64 2.49 0.64 8.59 0.00 0.00 1.57 13.14 0.39 0.00 0.00 1.03 0.00 1.41 0.00 4.87 1.49 0.65 2.93 0.8162.5 4 0.82 2.82 0.49 5.94 0.18 0.00 2.08 5.49 0.60 0.00 0.39 0.72 0.00 0.88 0.03 2.97 0.82 0.61 2.14 0.1544.19 4.5 1.10 2.86 0.53 4.21 0.48 0.00 2.42 1.76 0.57 0.00 0.48 0.49 0.00 0.76 0.10 1.62 0.28 0.30 1.84 0.1831.25 5 0.95 2.73 0.55 3.97 0.33 0.00 2.54 1.96 0.45 0.00 0.24 0.36 0.00 0.70 0.06 1.17 0.21 0.21 1.75 0.26

22.097 5.5 0.81 2.64 0.55 4.30 0.20 0.00 2.57 3.29 0.46 0.00 0.14 0.36 0.00 0.75 0.00 1.33 0.35 0.30 1.63 0.2615.625 6 0.89 2.65 0.56 4.37 0.30 0.00 2.55 4.26 0.57 0.00 0.24 0.44 0.00 0.89 0.00 1.66 0.46 0.39 1.47 0.2511.049 6.5 1.06 2.72 0.58 4.02 0.42 0.00 2.50 4.80 0.65 0.00 0.34 0.50 0.00 1.03 0.00 1.95 0.49 0.41 1.37 0.287.813 7 1.13 2.74 0.57 3.44 0.42 0.00 2.43 4.89 0.63 0.00 0.36 0.51 0.00 1.04 0.00 2.06 0.49 0.39 1.31 0.285.524 7.5 1.04 2.57 0.51 2.75 0.33 0.00 2.32 4.33 0.53 0.00 0.31 0.46 0.00 0.91 0.00 1.92 0.45 0.34 1.23 0.243.906 8 0.84 2.20 0.41 2.06 0.24 0.00 2.12 3.28 0.40 0.00 0.24 0.37 0.00 0.68 0.00 1.57 0.36 0.28 1.07 0.172.762 8.5 0.64 1.74 0.32 1.49 0.20 0.00 1.85 2.28 0.30 0.00 0.20 0.29 0.00 0.49 0.00 1.19 0.28 0.25 0.87 0.121.953 9 0.47 1.26 0.24 1.06 0.21 0.00 1.44 1.56 0.26 0.00 0.18 0.24 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.86 0.22 0.23 0.64 0.101.381 9.5 0.34 0.82 0.17 0.73 0.18 0.00 0.99 1.09 0.19 0.00 0.14 0.19 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.60 0.17 0.13 0.42 0.090.977 10 0.23 0.50 0.10 0.49 0.05 0.00 0.61 0.75 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.13 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.40 0.09 0.01 0.25 0.050.691 10.5 0.07 0.25 0.02 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.18 0.02 0.00 0.08 0.010.488 11 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.345 11.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.244 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.173 12.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.122 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.086 13.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

SAMPLE STATISTICS

1 11 21 24 25 27 28 36

ANALYST AND DATE: LJH, 8/30/2016 LJH, 8/30/2016 LJH, 8/30/2016 LJH, 8/30/2016 LJH, 8/30/2016 LJH, 8/30/2016 LJH, 8/30/2016 LJH, 8/30/2016SIEVING ERROR:SAMPLE TYPE: Bimodal, Very Poorly Sorted Polymodal, Very Poorly Sorted Trimodal, Very Poorly Sorted Polymodal, Very Poorly Sorted Unimodal, Poorly Sorted Unimodal, Well Sorted Unimodal, Extremely Poorly Sorted Bimodal, Very Poorly SortedTEXTURAL GROUP: Gravelly Muddy Sand Gravelly Muddy Sand Muddy Sandy Gravel Gravelly Muddy Sand Gravelly Sand Gravelly Sand Muddy Gravel Muddy SandSEDIMENT NAME: dium Gravelly Medium Silty Coarse Sarse Gravelly Coarse Silty Coarse Soarse Silty Sandy Very Coarse GravFine Gravelly Coarse Silty Fine Sand Coarse Gravelly Coarse Sand Very Fine Gravelly Very Coarse Sand Very Coarse Silty Coarse Gravel Medium Silty Fine Sand




Geometric (m) SKEWNESS -0.534 -0.301 -0.694 -0.056 0.374 1.878 -0.667 -0.895KURTOSIS 3.864 2.281 2.933 2.964 5.282 9.714 1.991 2.670

METHOD OF MEAN 0.333 0.939 -1.900 2.661 0.108 -0.284 -0.531 3.534MOMENTS SORTING 2.674 3.659 3.192 2.681 2.173 0.549 4.433 2.195Logarithmic () SKEWNESS 0.534 0.301 0.694 0.056 -0.374 -1.878 0.667 0.895

KURTOSIS 3.864 2.281 2.933 2.964 5.282 9.714 1.991 2.670


(m) SKEWNESS 0.191 -0.133 -0.269 -0.140 0.564 0.151 -0.608 -0.567KURTOSIS 1.315 0.903 0.665 1.154 2.061 1.626 0.641 0.797

FOLK AND MEAN -0.093 0.866 -2.253 2.800 0.024 -0.231 -0.700 3.510WARD METHOD SORTING 2.636 3.950 2.928 2.720 1.818 0.490 4.373 2.167() SKEWNESS -0.191 0.133 0.269 0.140 -0.564 -0.151 0.608 0.567

KURTOSIS 1.315 0.903 0.665 1.154 2.061 1.626 0.641 0.797

FOLK AND MEAN: Very Coarse Sand Coarse Sand Fine Gravel Fine Sand Coarse Sand Very Coarse Sand Very Coarse Sand Very Fine SandWARD METHOD SORTING: Very Poorly Sorted Very Poorly Sorted Very Poorly Sorted Very Poorly Sorted Poorly Sorted Well Sorted Extremely Poorly Sorted Very Poorly Sorted(Description) SKEWNESS: Coarse Skewed Fine Skewed Fine Skewed Fine Skewed Very Coarse Skewed Coarse Skewed Very Fine Skewed Very Fine Skewed

KURTOSIS: Leptokurtic Mesokurtic Very Platykurtic Leptokurtic Very Leptokurtic Very Leptokurtic Very Platykurtic Platykurtic

MODE 1 (m): 605.0 855.0 38250.0 215.0 605.0 1200.0 26950.0 215.0

MODE 2 (m): 9600.0 4800.0 855.0 26.67 13.34

MODE 3 (m): 107.5 13600.0 9600.0MODE 1 (): 0.747 0.247 -5.235 2.237 0.747 -0.243 -4.731 2.237MODE 2 (): -3.243 -2.243 0.247 5.250 6.250MODE 3 (): 3.237 -3.743 -3.243

D10 (m): 105.9 11.92 323.4 12.32 334.8 795.2 11.53 8.121D50 (m): 642.9 697.1 6042.0 193.5 658.6 1164.7 6160.8 163.6D90 (m): 10017.6 17938.0 39898.3 1403.0 12571.4 1920.7 28012.0 374.0(D90 / D10) (m): 94.58 1504.7 123.4 113.9 37.55 2.415 2429.4 46.05(D90 - D10) (m): 9911.6 17926.1 39574.9 1390.7 12236.6 1125.5 28000.5 365.9(D75 / D25) (m): 8.101 44.29 46.57 10.62 2.483 1.367 249.5 10.66(D75 - D25) (m): 2647.0 3553.9 32594.1 423.7 671.7 364.7 23396.5 240.4D10 (): -3.324 -4.165 -5.318 -0.489 -3.652 -0.942 -4.808 1.419D50 (): 0.637 0.521 -2.595 2.370 0.602 -0.220 -2.623 2.612D90 (): 3.239 6.390 1.629 6.343 1.579 0.331 6.438 6.944(D90 / D10) (): -0.974 -1.534 -0.306 -12.984 -0.432 -0.351 -1.339 4.894(D90 - D10) (): 6.563 10.56 6.947 6.832 5.231 1.272 11.25 5.525(D75 / D25) (): -0.893 -1.937 -0.096 4.110 -6.740 -0.017 -0.749 2.784(D75 - D25) (): 3.018 5.469 5.541 3.409 1.312 0.451 7.963 3.415


:)( a:)( ax

:)( aSk:)( aK

:)( gx:)( g

:)( gSk:)( gK

:)( x:)(

:)Sk(

:)( K

:)( ZM:)( I

:)( ISk:)( GK

:)( GK

:)( GM:)( G

:)( GSk

SAMPLE STATISTICS









:)( a:)( ax

:)( aSk:)( aK

:)( gx:)( g

:)( gSk:)( gK

:)( x:)(

:)Sk(

:)( K

:)( ZM:)( I

:)( ISk:)( GK

:)( GK

:)( GM:)( G

:)( GSk

37 39 40 42 43 45 46 49


Bimodal, Very Poorly Sorted Unimodal, Moderately Sorted Trimodal, Very Poorly Sorted Polymodal, Very Poorly Sorted Unimodal, Well Sorted Bimodal, Very Poorly Sorted Bimodal, Very Poorly Sorted Polymodal, Very Poorly SortedGravelly Sand Gravelly Sand Sandy Gravel Sandy Gravel Gravelly Sand Muddy Sandy Gravel Sandy Gravel Muddy Sandy Gravel

Coarse Gravelly Coarse Sand Fine Gravelly Coarse Sand Sandy Coarse Gravel Sandy Medium Gravel Very Fine Gravelly Very Coarse SandMedium Silty Sandy Medium Gravel Sandy Medium Gravel Medium Silty Sandy Coarse Gravel

4899.8 1249.4 8403.4 6750.7 1243.1 3568.5 8080.3 5071.98820.6 1806.3 11242.6 9262.8 1025.7 5386.7 9549.1 8435.71.871 4.374 1.246 1.793 6.839 2.084 1.252 1.7344.777 23.94 3.207 5.853 63.01 7.361 3.794 4.598

1172.8 869.1 2275.4 2013.5 1087.1 994.8 2894.6 687.05.582 1.923 6.352 6.321 1.500 6.436 4.917 11.31-0.063 2.126 -0.266 -0.624 2.217 -0.586 0.040 -0.2644.272 8.000 3.038 3.724 11.68 3.664 1.430 2.461

-0.230 0.202 -1.186 -1.010 -0.120 0.007 -1.533 0.5422.481 0.944 2.667 2.660 0.585 2.686 2.298 3.5000.063 -2.126 0.266 0.624 -2.217 0.586 -0.040 0.2644.272 8.000 3.038 3.724 11.68 3.664 1.430 2.461

1670.1 789.1 2370.7 2156.9 1033.6 1224.0 3052.1 804.85.570 1.780 5.357 5.505 1.399 6.305 4.746 11.930.392 0.297 0.459 0.203 0.011 0.152 0.001 0.0932.548 1.959 0.590 0.779 1.350 1.057 0.579 0.946

-0.740 0.342 -1.245 -1.109 -0.048 -0.292 -1.610 0.3132.478 0.832 2.422 2.461 0.484 2.657 2.247 3.577-0.392 -0.297 -0.459 -0.203 -0.011 -0.152 -0.001 -0.0932.548 1.959 0.590 0.779 1.350 1.057 0.579 0.946

Very Coarse Sand Coarse Sand Very Fine Gravel Very Fine Gravel Very Coarse Sand Very Coarse Sand Very Fine Gravel Coarse SandVery Poorly Sorted Moderately Sorted Very Poorly Sorted Very Poorly Sorted Well Sorted Very Poorly Sorted Very Poorly Sorted Very Poorly Sorted

Very Coarse Skewed Coarse Skewed Very Coarse Skewed Coarse Skewed Symmetrical Coarse Skewed Symmetrical SymmetricalVery Leptokurtic Very Leptokurtic Very Platykurtic Platykurtic Leptokurtic Mesokurtic Very Platykurtic Mesokurtic

855.0 855.0 605.0 855.0 1200.0 605.0 605.0 26950.026950.0 26950.0 19200.0 9600.0 19200.0 427.5

6800.0 2400.0 9600.00.247 0.247 0.747 0.247 -0.243 0.747 0.747 -4.731-4.731 -4.731 -4.243 -3.243 -4.243 1.247

-2.743 -1.243 -3.243

339.6 494.8 393.1 304.3 726.4 162.3 419.8 19.23863.6 769.8 1201.3 1453.9 1064.8 779.1 3088.6 547.5

23440.9 1380.3 27151.3 19471.1 1397.1 11242.4 22276.1 21055.669.02 2.790 69.06 63.98 1.923 69.27 53.07 1094.7

23101.3 885.5 26758.1 19166.8 670.7 11080.1 21856.3 21036.42.525 1.676 25.18 16.80 1.486 12.56 21.66 33.26833.7 398.1 14183.1 9917.5 412.8 4588.4 12806.9 5983.1-4.551 -0.465 -4.763 -4.283 -0.482 -3.491 -4.477 -4.3960.212 0.377 -0.265 -0.540 -0.091 0.360 -1.627 0.8691.558 1.015 1.347 1.716 0.461 2.623 1.252 5.700-0.342 -2.183 -0.283 -0.401 -0.956 -0.751 -0.280 -1.2976.109 1.480 6.110 6.000 0.944 6.114 5.730 10.10-1.873 39.88 -0.198 -0.198 -0.704 -0.575 -0.184 -0.9261.336 0.745 4.654 4.070 0.572 3.650 4.437 5.056

23.0% 8.4% 45.3% 46.8% 6.0% 34.3% 53.1% 34.0%72.5% 91.6% 52.2% 49.3% 94.0% 58.4% 46.9% 51.1%4.5% 0.0% 2.4% 3.8% 0.0% 7.3% 0.1% 14.9%0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 3.5% 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0%

14.6% 0.0% 20.2% 12.0% 0.0% 3.9% 17.9% 14.0%3.4% 2.0% 8.2% 14.9% 0.6% 13.2% 18.4% 7.4%2.8% 4.1% 8.1% 9.1% 1.6% 11.3% 9.5% 8.4%2.2% 2.3% 4.9% 7.3% 3.8% 5.9% 5.0% 4.3%

18.1% 15.2% 8.0% 13.6% 53.2% 7.6% 5.2% 3.8%38.4% 66.0% 29.0% 21.0% 40.6% 25.0% 26.0% 14.3%13.7% 10.3% 14.2% 10.7% 0.1% 19.4% 15.3% 16.8%1.1% 0.0% 0.1% 2.8% 0.0% 4.7% 0.3% 11.5%1.2% 0.0% 0.9% 1.2% 0.0% 1.7% 0.1% 4.6%0.9% 0.0% 0.4% 0.7% 0.0% 1.4% 0.1% 2.5%1.2% 0.0% 0.6% 0.9% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 3.6%1.2% 0.0% 0.7% 1.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 4.0%0.7% 0.0% 0.4% 0.7% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 2.8%0.4% 0.0% 0.3% 0.4% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 1.5%0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.6%

SAMPLE STATISTICS









:)( a:)( ax

:)( aSk:)( aK

:)( gx:)( g

:)( gSk:)( gK

:)( x:)(

:)Sk(

:)( K

:)( ZM:)( I

:)( ISk:)( GK

:)( GK

:)( GM:)( G

:)( GSk

51 52 55 59

LJH, 8/30/2016 LJH, 8/30/2016 LJH, 8/30/2016 LJH, 8/30/2016

Bimodal, Very Poorly Sorted Trimodal, Poorly Sorted Bimodal, Very Poorly Sorted Bimodal, Very Poorly SortedSandy Gravel Sandy Gravel Muddy Sandy Gravel Sandy Gravel

Sandy Coarse Gravel Sandy Medium Gravel ery Coarse Silty Sandy Coarse Grav Sandy Coarse Gravel

7099.3 4930.8 6382.3 13556.37899.8 7344.4 9400.2 12666.30.929 1.877 1.321 0.5602.520 5.505 3.165 2.094

2512.3 1700.2 1057.9 4638.56.007 4.798 10.44 7.116-0.906 -0.443 -0.386 -0.8714.217 4.674 2.588 2.950

-1.329 -0.766 -0.081 -2.2142.587 2.263 3.384 2.8310.906 0.443 0.386 0.8714.217 4.674 2.588 2.950

2968.1 1995.1 1266.7 5149.14.964 3.960 11.23 6.1720.018 0.515 0.052 -0.5510.754 0.814 0.874 0.595

-1.570 -0.996 -0.341 -2.3642.311 1.986 3.489 2.626-0.018 -0.515 -0.052 0.5510.754 0.814 0.874 0.595

Very Fine Gravel Very Coarse Sand Very Coarse Sand Fine GravelVery Poorly Sorted Poorly Sorted Very Poorly Sorted Very Poorly Sorted

Symmetrical Very Coarse Skewed Symmetrical Very Fine SkewedPlatykurtic Platykurtic Platykurtic Very Platykurtic

19200.0 855.0 26950.0 26950.01200.0 13600.0 855.0 427.5

26950.0-4.243 0.247 -4.731 -4.731-0.243 -3.743 0.247 1.247

-4.731

420.2 513.8 41.15 320.62441.5 1126.0 888.6 11370.819570.0 15650.7 23881.9 31857.346.58 30.46 580.4 99.37

19149.8 15136.9 23840.7 31536.715.80 8.259 36.98 34.43

12309.6 5407.0 10163.8 22146.8-4.291 -3.968 -4.578 -4.994-1.288 -0.171 0.170 -3.5071.251 0.961 4.603 1.641-0.292 -0.242 -1.006 -0.3295.542 4.929 9.181 6.635-0.072 -0.162 -0.539 -0.1323.982 3.046 5.209 5.106

51.8% 34.9% 36.7% 66.1%44.6% 62.1% 51.3% 31.8%3.6% 2.9% 12.0% 2.1%0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.9%

19.8% 9.5% 18.8% 30.1%15.3% 12.4% 8.9% 17.3%10.2% 7.5% 5.4% 6.2%6.6% 5.5% 3.6% 2.6%

16.2% 22.0% 10.0% 2.9%20.7% 34.1% 18.2% 11.8%3.7% 4.3% 12.0% 13.3%3.0% 0.8% 7.1% 3.6%1.1% 0.9% 4.0% 0.3%0.6% 0.5% 3.3% 0.5%0.9% 0.8% 2.8% 0.5%0.9% 0.7% 2.5% 0.5%0.6% 0.5% 1.9% 0.3%0.4% 0.4% 1.1% 0.2%0.1% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1%


Sediment* mm phi 1 11 21 24 25 27 28 36 37 39V. coarse gravel >32<64 <-5>-6 0.00 0.00 28.33 0.00 2.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Coarse gravel >16<32 <-4>-5 2.93 11.39 10.31 0.00 5.25 0.00 35.29 0.00 14.57 0.00Medium gravel >8<16 <-3>-4 11.10 6.09 9.50 2.76 4.40 0.33 11.70 0.00 3.40 2.04Fine gravel >4<8 <-2>-3 8.66 6.74 4.28 3.38 3.14 1.40 7.03 0.00 2.83 4.12V. fine gravel >2<4 <-1>-2 5.61 5.78 3.27 2.72 2.85 6.96 3.61 0.00 2.18 2.28V. coarse sand >1<2 <0>-1 6.24 9.65 10.01 2.45 8.79 65.96 1.29 0.14 18.09 15.22Coarse sand >0.5<1 <1>0 27.18 18.45 17.72 11.98 41.98 25.35 5.36 2.60 38.39 66.03Medium sand >0.25<0.5 <2>1 24.40 8.60 8.91 18.71 26.55 0.00 5.92 25.05 13.71 10.30Fine sand >0.125<0.25 <3>2 3.47 4.75 2.05 18.83 0.51 0.00 3.00 31.90 1.14 0.00V. fine sand >0.0625<0.125 <4>3 1.95 5.73 1.04 10.24 0.66 0.00 4.56 7.29 1.19 0.00V. coarse silt >0.03125<0.0625 <5>4 1.74 5.31 1.09 8.18 0.52 0.00 5.06 5.21 0.91 0.00Coarse silt >0.015625<0.03125 <6>5 1.95 5.37 1.14 8.39 0.71 0.00 5.05 9.07 1.21 0.00Medium silt >0.007813<0.015625 <7>6 2.17 5.31 1.08 6.19 0.75 0.00 4.74 9.22 1.16 0.00Fine silt >0.003906<0.007813 <8>7 1.49 3.94 0.73 3.56 0.44 0.00 3.97 5.56 0.70 0.00V. fine silt >0.001953<0.003906 <5>5 0.82 2.08 0.41 1.79 0.39 0.00 2.44 2.65 0.45 0.00Clay <0.001953 >9 0.30 0.81 0.11 0.82 0.05 0.00 0.98 1.31 0.06 0.00

Statistics** Mean (phi) -0.09 0.87 -2.25 2.80 0.02 -0.23 -0.70 3.51 -0.74 0.34Sorting 2.64 3.95 2.93 2.72 1.82 0.49 4.37 2.17 2.48 0.83Skewness -0.19 0.13 0.27 0.14 -0.56 -0.15 0.61 0.57 -0.39 -0.30Kurtosis 1.32 0.90 0.66 1.15 2.06 1.63 0.64 0.80 2.55 1.96% Silt/Clay 8.47 22.82 4.57 28.93 2.87 0.00 22.24 33.02 4.49 0.00

Textural Group* Gravelly Muddy Sand

Gravelly Muddy Sand

Muddy Sandy Gravel

Gravelly Muddy Sand Gravelly Sand Gravelly Sand Muddy Gravel Muddy Sand Gravelly Sand Gravelly Sand


Sediment* mm phiV. coarse gravel >32<64 <-5>-6Coarse gravel >16<32 <-4>-5Medium gravel >8<16 <-3>-4Fine gravel >4<8 <-2>-3V. fine gravel >2<4 <-1>-2V. coarse sand >1<2 <0>-1Coarse sand >0.5<1 <1>0Medium sand >0.25<0.5 <2>1Fine sand >0.125<0.25 <3>2V. fine sand >0.0625<0.125 <4>3V. coarse silt >0.03125<0.0625 <5>4Coarse silt >0.015625<0.03125 <6>5Medium silt >0.007813<0.015625 <7>6Fine silt >0.003906<0.007813 <8>7V. fine silt >0.001953<0.003906 <5>5Clay <0.001953 >9


Textural Group*

40 42 43 45 46 49 51 52 55 593.88 3.48 0.00 0.00 2.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.8720.21 12.04 0.00 3.90 17.94 14.01 19.79 9.55 18.77 30.138.22 14.86 0.62 13.22 18.43 7.35 15.29 12.39 8.89 17.268.09 9.11 1.57 11.29 9.49 8.38 10.19 7.49 5.39 6.224.92 7.31 3.83 5.86 5.04 4.26 6.58 5.49 3.61 2.587.98 13.57 53.22 7.63 5.17 3.81 16.16 21.97 9.98 2.8729.05 21.05 40.65 24.98 26.01 14.34 20.67 34.13 18.20 11.8114.21 10.67 0.11 19.41 15.26 16.83 3.69 4.34 12.04 13.260.13 2.84 0.00 4.72 0.29 11.49 2.96 0.80 7.07 3.570.88 1.21 0.00 1.65 0.14 4.61 1.10 0.91 4.02 0.330.37 0.71 0.00 1.43 0.06 2.47 0.55 0.50 3.34 0.510.58 0.94 0.00 1.92 0.00 3.62 0.95 0.80 2.84 0.530.67 0.97 0.00 1.95 0.00 3.98 0.94 0.73 2.55 0.520.44 0.66 0.00 1.17 0.00 2.76 0.65 0.54 1.94 0.300.32 0.42 0.00 0.62 0.00 1.45 0.39 0.36 1.05 0.180.06 0.14 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.63 0.11 0.01 0.33 0.06

-1.25 -1.11 -0.05 -0.29 -1.61 0.31 -1.57 -1.00 -0.34 -2.362.42 2.46 0.48 2.66 2.25 3.58 2.31 1.99 3.49 2.63-0.46 -0.20 -0.01 -0.15 0.00 -0.09 -0.02 -0.51 -0.05 0.550.59 0.78 1.35 1.06 0.58 0.95 0.75 0.81 0.87 0.602.45 3.84 0.00 7.34 0.06 14.92 3.59 2.93 12.05 2.10

Sandy Gravel Sandy Gravel Gravelly Sand Muddy Sandy Gravel Sandy Gravel Muddy Sandy

Gravel Sandy Gravel Sandy Gravel Muddy Sandy Gravel Sandy Gravel

Wentworth Scale

Station Code 1 11 21 24 25 27 28 36 37 39 40 42 43 45 46 49 51 52 55 59pebble 22.69 24.22 52.42 6.14 15.78 1.73 54.02 0.00 20.80 6.16 40.39 39.50 2.19 28.41 48.03 29.74 45.27 29.43 33.05 63.48granule 5.61 5.78 3.27 2.72 2.85 6.96 3.61 0.00 2.18 2.28 4.92 7.31 3.83 5.86 5.04 4.26 6.58 5.49 3.61 2.58V. coarse sand 6.24 9.65 10.01 2.45 8.79 65.96 1.29 0.14 18.09 15.22 7.98 13.57 53.22 7.63 5.17 3.81 16.16 21.97 9.98 2.87Coarse sand 27.18 18.45 17.72 11.98 41.98 25.35 5.36 2.60 38.39 66.03 29.05 21.05 40.65 24.98 26.01 14.34 20.67 34.13 18.20 11.81Medium sand 24.40 8.60 8.91 18.71 26.55 0.00 5.92 25.05 13.71 10.30 14.21 10.67 0.11 19.41 15.26 16.83 3.69 4.34 12.04 13.26Fine sand 3.47 4.75 2.05 18.83 0.51 0.00 3.00 31.90 1.14 0.00 0.13 2.84 0.00 4.72 0.29 11.49 2.96 0.80 7.07 3.57V. fine sand 1.95 5.73 1.04 10.24 0.66 0.00 4.56 7.29 1.19 0.00 0.88 1.21 0.00 1.65 0.14 4.61 1.10 0.91 4.02 0.33Silt Clay 8.47 22.82 4.57 28.93 2.87 0.00 22.24 33.02 4.49 0.00 2.45 3.84 0.00 7.34 0.06 14.92 3.59 2.93 12.05 2.10

100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00

B.3. September 2016

Client Name

Client Address

Report Title

Method

Subcontracted Tests

Authorisation Daisy Chamberlain 25/10/2016

Laboratory Manager

N/A

Thomson Ecology, Compass House, 60 Priestley Road, Surrey Research Park, Guildford, GU2 7AG



Navigation House, Harwich, CO12 3EJ

Harwich East Ship Channel ‐ Survey September 2016

Sample Form


ST01 13/09/3016 Good PF 24/10/2016

ST11 13/09/3016 Good PF 24/10/2016

ST22 13/09/3016 Good PF 24/10/2016

ST24 13/09/3016 Good PF 24/10/2016

ST25 13/09/3016 Good PF 24/10/2016

ST27 13/09/3016 Good PF 24/10/2016

ST36 13/09/3016 Good PF 24/10/2016

ST37 13/09/3016 Good PF 24/10/2016

ST39 13/09/3016 Good PF 24/10/2016

ST42 13/09/3016 Good PF 24/10/2016

ST43 13/09/3016 Good PF 24/10/2016

ST45 13/09/3016 Good PF 24/10/2016

ST46 13/09/3016 Good PF 24/10/2016

ST49 13/09/3016 Good PF 24/10/2016

ST51 13/09/3016 Good PF 24/10/2016

ST52 13/09/3016 Good PF 24/10/2016

ST55 13/09/3016 Good PF 24/10/2016

Particle size distributionsample ST01 ST11 ST22 ST24 ST25 ST27 ST36 ST37 ST39 ST42 ST43 ST45 ST46 ST49 ST51 ST52 ST55

Phi‐interval um

‐6.50 to ‐6.00 63000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

‐6.00 to ‐5.50 45000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

‐5.50 to ‐5.00 31500 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

‐5.00 to ‐4.50 22400 4.02 10.85 4.35 3.03 6.74 0.00 13.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.26 5.05 0.00 10.46

‐4.50 to ‐4.00 16000 1.29 4.20 5.95 4.27 10.69 2.98 0.74 0.00 0.00 5.35 1.64 5.31 0.00 0.00 3.06 4.33 6.35

‐4.00 to ‐3.50 11200 6.20 9.39 6.63 0.34 3.69 3.85 1.34 0.64 0.00 7.83 2.47 5.28 0.00 5.93 6.25 3.91 12.94

‐3.50 to ‐3.00 8000 4.26 6.74 7.13 2.67 10.60 4.08 2.04 1.04 0.00 8.27 3.80 5.96 0.22 1.88 4.11 4.71 8.51

‐3.00 to ‐2.50 5600 5.29 4.69 5.84 1.03 7.29 2.54 2.36 1.85 0.00 6.90 2.68 6.05 0.27 2.18 4.76 3.86 9.87

‐2.50 to ‐2.00 4000 5.07 4.22 5.16 1.42 5.58 2.44 2.16 1.61 0.00 6.19 3.06 5.43 0.55 1.82 3.94 3.98 8.17

‐2.00 to ‐1.50 2800 2.91 2.83 3.58 1.19 3.46 1.76 1.66 1.64 0.00 5.10 3.03 4.38 0.80 1.85 2.92 3.11 6.05

‐1.50 to ‐1.00 2000 2.26 2.09 2.78 0.90 2.35 1.84 1.31 1.77 0.00 4.47 2.98 2.73 1.12 1.47 2.31 2.47 4.79

‐1.00 to ‐0.50 1400 2.04 2.06 2.72 0.97 1.53 2.72 1.11 2.02 0.00 4.28 3.57 2.25 1.34 1.00 2.50 2.54 5.18

‐0.50 to 0.00 1000 1.66 1.83 2.62 0.69 0.92 3.82 0.71 2.22 0.00 4.17 4.08 1.70 1.41 0.66 2.50 2.87 5.19

0.00 to 0.50 707 4.89 10.24 11.63 1.23 2.20 27.26 1.37 15.21 11.89 6.44 29.18 4.24 12.46 1.28 0.71 23.29 2.11

0.50 to 1.00 500 11.80 12.95 12.76 5.84 8.31 25.72 2.30 19.00 38.50 6.36 25.42 9.23 25.99 3.59 0.00 23.61 2.58

1.00 to 1.50 353.6 18.26 11.13 9.81 11.34 13.75 15.59 3.67 16.50 38.29 5.86 12.76 13.10 30.40 5.89 30.60 14.40 2.11

1.50 to 2.00 250 16.81 6.32 5.54 14.10 11.44 4.91 6.91 10.60 10.97 5.11 2.70 12.70 19.64 9.31 0.00 4.15 1.69

2.00 to 2.50 176.8 8.49 2.07 2.39 11.66 4.24 0.23 10.72 5.19 0.35 4.22 0.00 8.61 5.64 12.50 31.30 0.06 1.62

2.50 to 3.00 125 1.69 0.34 0.97 6.40 0.34 0.00 11.51 2.26 0.00 3.35 0.10 4.34 0.16 12.78 0.00 0.00 1.60

3.00 to 3.50 88.39 0.01 0.37 0.67 2.29 0.00 0.11 8.40 1.42 0.00 2.47 0.42 1.92 0.00 9.46 0.00 0.13 1.41

3.50 to 4.00 62.5 0.13 0.68 0.74 0.74 0.47 0.14 4.38 1.41 0.00 1.64 0.31 0.95 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.18 1.17

4.00 to 4.50 44.19 0.39 0.71 0.83 0.74 0.86 0.03 2.30 1.46 0.00 1.11 0.04 0.61 0.00 2.17 0.00 0.10 1.04

4.50 to 5.00 31.25 0.29 0.62 0.89 1.00 0.78 0.00 2.23 1.48 0.00 0.97 0.00 0.48 0.00 1.55 0.00 0.07 1.00

5.00 to 5.50 22.097 0.17 0.62 0.93 1.08 0.67 0.00 2.76 1.58 0.00 1.07 0.15 0.48 0.00 1.92 0.00 0.21 0.96

5.50 to 6.00 15.625 0.22 0.71 0.98 1.07 0.70 0.00 3.05 1.81 0.00 1.26 0.28 0.58 0.00 2.30 0.00 0.34 0.90

6.00 to 6.50 11.049 0.34 0.80 1.02 1.06 0.75 0.00 3.02 2.01 0.00 1.42 0.31 0.69 0.00 2.45 0.00 0.37 0.86

6.50 to 7.00 7.813 0.38 0.84 1.01 0.98 0.72 0.00 2.78 2.01 0.00 1.46 0.28 0.73 0.00 2.39 0.00 0.33 0.82

7.00 to 7.50 5.524 0.32 0.78 0.92 0.80 0.59 0.00 2.34 1.73 0.00 1.34 0.24 0.66 0.00 2.12 0.00 0.28 0.75

7.50 to 8.00 3.906 0.23 0.65 0.75 0.56 0.44 0.00 1.77 1.27 0.00 1.08 0.22 0.51 0.00 1.69 0.00 0.24 0.63

8.00 to 8.50 2.762 0.19 0.50 0.57 0.39 0.32 0.00 1.28 0.87 0.00 0.82 0.22 0.37 0.00 1.27 0.00 0.23 0.49

8.50 to 9.00 1.953 0.18 0.35 0.39 0.29 0.23 0.00 0.90 0.59 0.00 0.60 0.06 0.28 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.18 0.35

9.00 to 9.50 1.381 0.15 0.24 0.26 0.23 0.18 0.00 0.63 0.42 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.06 0.22

9.50 to 10.00 0.977 0.06 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.11 0.00 0.43 0.30 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.13

10.00 to 10.50 0.691 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.23 0.10 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.06

10.50 to 11.00 0.488 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01

11.00 to 11.50 0.345 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

11.50 to 12.00 0.244 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

12.00 to 12.50 0.173 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

12.50 to 13.00 0.122 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

13.00 to 13.50 0.086 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

SAMPLE STATISTICS


ANALYST AND DATE: LJH, 10/27/2016 LJH, 10/27/2016 LJH, 10/27/2016 LJH, 10/27/2016 LJH, 10/27/2016 LJH, 10/27/2016 LJH, 10/27/2016 LJH, 10/27/2016SIEVING ERROR:SAMPLE TYPE: Polymodal, Very Poorly Sorted Trimodal, Very Poorly Sorted Bimodal, Very Poorly Sorted Trimodal, Very Poorly Sorted Trimodal, Very Poorly Sorted Bimodal, Poorly Sorted Polymodal, Extremely Poorly Sorted Unimodal, Very Poorly SortedTEXTURAL GROUP: Sandy Gravel Muddy Sandy Gravel Muddy Sandy Gravel Muddy Sandy Gravel Muddy Sandy Gravel Gravelly Sand Gravelly Muddy Sand Gravelly Muddy SandSEDIMENT NAME: Sandy Medium Gravel Medium Silty Sandy Medium Gravel Medium Silty Sandy Medium Graveloarse Silty Sandy Very Coarse Gravery Coarse Silty Sandy Coarse Grav Medium Gravelly Coarse Sand oarse Gravelly Coarse Silty Fine Sanne Gravelly Medium Silty Coarse Sa




Geometric (m) SKEWNESS 0.071 -0.676 -0.723 0.074 -0.616 1.348 0.290 -1.037KURTOSIS 3.451 3.423 3.516 2.124 3.040 3.831 2.342 4.293

METHOD OF MEAN 0.082 -0.657 -0.301 -0.147 -0.723 -0.055 1.739 1.639MOMENTS SORTING 2.447 3.056 3.013 3.663 3.011 1.585 3.782 2.470Logarithmic () SKEWNESS -0.071 0.676 0.723 -0.074 0.616 -1.348 -0.290 1.037

KURTOSIS 3.451 3.423 3.516 2.124 3.040 3.831 2.342 4.293


(m) SKEWNESS 0.565 0.194 0.129 0.409 -0.118 0.559 0.225 -0.394KURTOSIS 0.718 0.922 1.045 0.691 0.820 2.054 1.034 2.218

FOLK AND MEAN -0.044 -0.779 -0.549 -0.423 -1.117 -0.124 1.522 1.684WARD METHOD SORTING 2.220 2.935 2.921 3.623 2.898 1.579 4.119 2.321() SKEWNESS -0.565 -0.194 -0.129 -0.409 0.118 -0.559 -0.225 0.394

KURTOSIS 0.718 0.922 1.045 0.691 0.820 2.054 1.034 2.218

FOLK AND MEAN: Very Coarse Sand Very Coarse Sand Very Coarse Sand Very Coarse Sand Very Fine Gravel Very Coarse Sand Medium Sand Medium SandWARD METHOD SORTING: Very Poorly Sorted Very Poorly Sorted Very Poorly Sorted Very Poorly Sorted Very Poorly Sorted Poorly Sorted Extremely Poorly Sorted Very Poorly Sorted(Description) SKEWNESS: Very Coarse Skewed Coarse Skewed Coarse Skewed Very Coarse Skewed Fine Skewed Very Coarse Skewed Coarse Skewed Very Fine Skewed

KURTOSIS: Platykurtic Mesokurtic Mesokurtic Platykurtic Platykurtic Very Leptokurtic Mesokurtic Very Leptokurtic

MODE 1 (m): 427.5 605.0 605.0 38250.0 427.5 855.0 26950.0 605.0

MODE 2 (m): 13600.0 26950.0 9600.0 302.5 19200.0 9600.0 215.0

MODE 3 (m): 4800.0 13600.0 19200.0 9600.0 18.86MODE 1 (): 1.247 0.747 0.747 -5.235 1.247 0.247 -4.731 0.747MODE 2 (): -3.743 -4.731 -3.243 1.747 -4.243 -3.243 2.237MODE 3 (): -2.243 -3.743 -4.243 -3.243 5.750

D10 (m): 220.6 232.5 116.4 101.7 223.6 392.6 10.51 17.83D50 (m): 525.7 963.9 908.8 430.8 2118.6 739.8 191.1 469.7D90 (m): 12213.3 23009.1 16274.5 38119.7 20216.8 8619.6 24496.4 1546.7(D90 / D10) (m): 55.37 98.98 139.8 374.8 90.40 21.95 2330.3 86.76(D90 - D10) (m): 11992.8 22776.6 16158.0 38018.0 19993.2 8227.0 24485.9 1528.8(D75 / D25) (m): 13.49 23.82 17.28 97.92 26.46 2.072 29.94 3.218(D75 - D25) (m): 3989.5 10433.4 7113.4 21349.6 9529.0 566.0 2017.8 523.4D10 (): -3.610 -4.524 -4.025 -5.252 -4.337 -3.108 -4.615 -0.629D50 (): 0.928 0.053 0.138 1.215 -1.083 0.435 2.387 1.090D90 (): 2.181 2.105 3.103 3.297 2.161 1.349 6.572 5.810(D90 / D10) (): -0.604 -0.465 -0.771 -0.628 -0.498 -0.434 -1.424 -9.234(D90 - D10) (): 5.791 6.629 7.127 8.550 6.498 4.456 11.19 6.439(D75 / D25) (): -0.781 -0.328 -0.409 -0.493 -0.429 -7.111 -3.619 5.247(D75 - D25) (): 3.753 4.574 4.111 6.614 4.726 1.051 4.904 1.686


:)( a:)( ax

:)( aSk:)( aK

:)( gx:)( g

:)( gSk:)( gK

:)( x:)(

:)Sk(

:)( K

:)( ZM:)( I

:)( ISk:)( GK

:)( GK

:)( GM:)( G

:)( GSk

SAMPLE STATISTICS









:)( a:)( ax

:)( aSk:)( aK

:)( gx:)( g

:)( gSk:)( gK

:)( x:)(

:)Sk(

:)( K

:)( ZM:)( I

:)( ISk:)( GK

:)( GK

:)( GM:)( G

:)( GSk



Unimodal, Well Sorted Trimodal, Very Poorly Sorted Unimodal, Poorly Sorted Trimodal, Very Poorly Sorted Unimodal, Moderately Well Sorted Polymodal, Very Poorly Sorted Polymodal, Very Poorly Sorted Polymodal, Poorly SortedSand Muddy Sandy Gravel Gravelly Sand Sandy Gravel Slightly Gravelly Sand Gravelly Muddy Sand Sandy Gravel Gravelly Sand

Well Sorted Coarse Sand Medium Silty Sandy Medium Gravel Medium Gravelly Coarse Sand Sandy Fine Gravel ightly Very Fine Gravelly Medium Saedium Gravelly Medium Silty Fine Sa Sandy Medium Gravel Medium Gravelly Coarse Sand

532.2 4209.0 2097.7 3469.7 625.8 2373.9 4135.7 2928.1157.4 5462.4 3564.5 5262.0 739.0 5705.1 7066.4 4750.30.582 1.404 3.026 1.774 7.183 3.061 2.065 2.2552.753 3.932 12.26 5.162 69.54 12.19 6.386 7.201

502.1 969.8 956.9 857.7 496.8 232.3 982.9 1093.21.344 9.723 3.276 6.739 1.728 9.335 5.252 4.076-0.057 -0.811 -0.247 -0.344 1.558 0.209 0.753 -0.2392.525 3.098 7.148 3.254 7.858 2.978 2.001 5.454

0.994 0.044 0.064 0.222 1.009 2.106 0.025 -0.1290.426 3.281 1.712 2.753 0.789 3.223 2.393 2.0270.057 0.811 0.247 0.344 -1.558 -0.209 -0.753 0.2392.525 3.098 7.148 3.254 7.858 2.978 2.001 5.454

502.7 1147.9 1032.5 971.4 473.1 265.2 969.7 1266.81.376 9.454 2.671 6.334 1.606 10.89 5.368 3.4780.003 -0.181 0.503 0.288 0.097 0.145 0.637 0.5510.993 0.973 1.775 0.866 1.081 1.887 0.647 1.055

0.992 -0.199 -0.046 0.042 1.080 1.915 0.044 -0.3410.460 3.241 1.418 2.663 0.683 3.445 2.424 1.798-0.003 0.181 -0.503 -0.288 -0.097 -0.145 -0.637 -0.5510.993 0.973 1.775 0.866 1.081 1.887 0.647 1.055

Coarse Sand Very Coarse Sand Very Coarse Sand Coarse Sand Medium Sand Medium Sand Coarse Sand Very Coarse SandWell Sorted Very Poorly Sorted Poorly Sorted Very Poorly Sorted Moderately Well Sorted Very Poorly Sorted Very Poorly Sorted Poorly SortedSymmetrical Fine Skewed Very Coarse Skewed Coarse Skewed Symmetrical Coarse Skewed Very Coarse Skewed Very Coarse SkewedMesokurtic Mesokurtic Very Leptokurtic Platykurtic Mesokurtic Very Leptokurtic Very Platykurtic Mesokurtic

427.5 9600.0 855.0 427.5 427.5 215.0 215.0 855.0855.0 9600.0 13600.0 427.5 9600.09.431 19200.0 26950.0 13600.0 19200.0

1.247 -3.243 0.247 1.247 1.247 2.237 2.237 0.2470.247 -3.243 -3.743 1.247 -3.2436.750 -4.243 -4.731 -3.743 -4.243

340.4 32.28 402.5 139.6 269.5 11.42 199.9 382.0501.8 1228.4 766.3 551.1 468.2 192.9 437.6 764.9749.7 12945.0 6067.9 11652.2 889.0 9681.3 14361.7 9876.82.203 401.0 15.08 83.47 3.299 848.0 71.84 25.86409.3 12912.7 5665.4 11512.6 619.6 9669.9 14161.8 9494.81.570 24.32 2.201 17.59 1.838 5.587 20.56 4.564228.9 6382.6 660.6 4550.1 295.3 408.9 4577.2 1881.90.416 -3.694 -2.601 -3.543 0.170 -3.275 -3.844 -3.3040.995 -0.297 0.384 0.860 1.095 2.374 1.192 0.3871.555 4.953 1.313 2.841 1.892 6.453 2.323 1.3883.741 -1.341 -0.505 -0.802 11.15 -1.970 -0.604 -0.4201.139 8.647 3.914 6.383 1.722 9.728 6.167 4.6931.977 -0.683 -3.127 -0.822 2.401 3.468 -0.925 -0.7260.651 4.604 1.138 4.136 0.878 2.482 4.362 2.190

0.0% 44.1% 19.7% 35.1% 3.0% 18.4% 32.4% 26.4%100.0% 43.9% 78.5% 59.1% 97.0% 61.5% 67.6% 71.2%0.0% 12.0% 1.8% 5.8% 0.0% 20.1% 0.0% 2.4%0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0.0% 5.4% 1.6% 5.3% 0.0% 3.3% 8.1% 4.3%0.0% 16.1% 6.3% 11.2% 0.2% 7.8% 10.4% 8.6%0.0% 13.1% 5.7% 11.5% 0.8% 4.0% 8.7% 7.8%0.0% 9.6% 6.0% 7.1% 1.9% 3.3% 5.2% 5.6%0.0% 8.5% 7.7% 4.0% 2.8% 1.7% 5.0% 5.4%

50.4% 12.8% 54.6% 13.5% 38.4% 4.9% 0.7% 46.9%49.3% 11.0% 15.5% 25.8% 50.0% 15.2% 30.6% 18.6%0.3% 7.6% 0.1% 12.9% 5.8% 25.3% 31.3% 0.1%0.0% 4.1% 0.7% 2.9% 0.0% 14.5% 0.0% 0.3%0.0% 2.1% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 3.7% 0.0% 0.2%0.0% 2.3% 0.4% 1.1% 0.0% 4.2% 0.0% 0.6%0.0% 2.9% 0.6% 1.4% 0.0% 4.8% 0.0% 0.7%0.0% 2.4% 0.5% 1.2% 0.0% 3.8% 0.0% 0.5%0.0% 1.4% 0.3% 0.7% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 0.4%0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.1%

SAMPLE STATISTICS









:)( a:)( ax

:)( aSk:)( aK

:)( gx:)( g

:)( gSk:)( gK

:)( x:)(

:)Sk(

:)( K

:)( ZM:)( I

:)( ISk:)( GK

:)( GK

:)( GM:)( G

:)( GSk

ST55

LJH, 10/27/2016

Polymodal, Very Poorly SortedMuddy Sandy Gravel

ery Coarse Silty Sandy Medium Grav

8206.68454.11.0402.969

2691.68.606-1.3734.430

-1.4283.1051.3734.430

3185.67.675-0.4641.234

-1.6722.9400.4641.234

Very Fine GravelVery Poorly SortedVery Fine Skewed

Leptokurtic

13600.026950.06800.0-3.743-4.731-2.743

104.15185.022737.0218.4

22632.910.86

11590.2-4.507-2.3743.264-0.7247.7710.0643.440

67.1%24.7%8.2%0.0%

16.8%21.5%18.0%10.8%10.4%4.7%3.8%3.2%2.6%2.0%1.9%1.7%1.4%0.8%0.4%


Sediment* mm phi ST01 ST11 ST22 ST24 ST25 ST27 ST36 ST37V. coarse gravel >32<64 <-5>-6 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Coarse gravel >16<32 <-4>-5 5.30 15.05 10.30 8.24 17.43 2.98 14.30 0.00Medium gravel >8<16 <-3>-4 10.46 16.12 13.75 3.01 14.29 7.93 3.38 1.68Fine gravel >4<8 <-2>-3 10.36 8.91 11.00 2.45 12.87 4.98 4.52 3.46V. fine gravel >2<4 <-1>-2 5.18 4.92 6.35 2.09 5.81 3.60 2.97 3.41V. coarse sand >1<2 <0>-1 3.70 3.90 5.35 1.65 2.45 6.54 1.82 4.23Coarse sand >0.5<1 <1>0 16.69 23.19 24.39 7.07 10.52 52.97 3.67 34.21Medium sand >0.25<0.5 <2>1 35.07 17.45 15.36 25.44 25.20 20.50 10.58 27.10Fine sand >0.125<0.25 <3>2 10.18 2.41 3.36 18.06 4.58 0.23 22.23 7.44V. fine sand >0.0625<0.125 <4>3 0.15 1.06 1.43 3.05 0.48 0.25 12.83 2.86V. coarse silt >0.03125<0.0625 <5>4 0.67 1.31 1.70 1.72 1.62 0.03 4.47 2.91Coarse silt >0.015625<0.03125 <6>5 0.39 1.33 1.91 2.14 1.37 0.00 5.81 3.39Medium silt >0.007813<0.015625 <7>6 0.72 1.64 2.03 2.03 1.47 0.00 5.80 4.02Fine silt >0.003906<0.007813 <8>7 0.56 1.44 1.68 1.36 1.04 0.00 4.11 3.00V. fine silt >0.001953<0.003906 <5>5 0.36 0.85 0.96 0.67 0.55 0.00 2.18 1.46Clay <0.001953 >9 0.21 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.32 0.00 1.34 0.83

Statistics** Mean (phi) -0.04 -0.78 -0.55 -0.42 -1.12 -0.12 1.52 1.68Sorting 2.22 2.94 2.92 3.62 2.90 1.58 4.12 2.32Skewness -0.56 -0.19 -0.13 -0.41 0.12 -0.56 -0.23 0.39Kurtosis 0.72 0.92 1.05 0.69 0.82 2.05 1.03 2.22% Silt/Clay 2.91 6.98 8.72 8.39 6.37 0.03 23.70 15.61

Textural Group* Sandy Gravel Muddy Sandy Gravel

Muddy Sandy Gravel

Muddy Sandy Gravel

Muddy Sandy Gravel Gravelly Sand Gravelly

Muddy SandGravelly

Muddy Sand


Sediment* mm phiV. coarse gravel >32<64 <-5>-6Coarse gravel >16<32 <-4>-5Medium gravel >8<16 <-3>-4Fine gravel >4<8 <-2>-3V. fine gravel >2<4 <-1>-2V. coarse sand >1<2 <0>-1Coarse sand >0.5<1 <1>0Medium sand >0.25<0.5 <2>1Fine sand >0.125<0.25 <3>2V. fine sand >0.0625<0.125 <4>3V. coarse silt >0.03125<0.0625 <5>4Coarse silt >0.015625<0.03125 <6>5Medium silt >0.007813<0.015625 <7>6Fine silt >0.003906<0.007813 <8>7V. fine silt >0.001953<0.003906 <5>5Clay <0.001953 >9


Textural Group*

ST39 ST42 ST43 ST45 ST46 ST49 ST51 ST52 ST550.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 5.35 1.64 5.31 0.00 3.26 8.11 4.33 16.810.00 16.09 6.28 11.23 0.22 7.81 10.35 8.62 21.450.00 13.09 5.74 11.49 0.83 4.00 8.70 7.84 18.040.00 9.57 6.01 7.12 1.92 3.32 5.23 5.58 10.840.00 8.46 7.65 3.95 2.75 1.66 5.00 5.41 10.3650.40 12.80 54.60 13.47 38.45 4.88 0.71 46.90 4.7049.26 10.97 15.46 25.80 50.03 15.20 30.60 18.55 3.800.35 7.58 0.10 12.95 5.80 25.27 31.30 0.06 3.220.00 4.14 0.72 2.88 0.00 14.49 0.00 0.31 2.600.00 2.05 0.04 1.07 0.00 3.67 0.00 0.17 2.020.00 2.32 0.44 1.06 0.00 4.21 0.00 0.55 1.860.00 2.88 0.60 1.42 0.00 4.84 0.00 0.70 1.680.00 2.41 0.45 1.17 0.00 3.81 0.00 0.52 1.370.00 1.41 0.28 0.66 0.00 2.18 0.00 0.40 0.830.00 0.88 0.00 0.42 0.00 1.38 0.00 0.06 0.42

0.99 -0.20 -0.05 0.04 1.08 1.91 0.04 -0.34 -1.670.46 3.24 1.42 2.66 0.68 3.44 2.42 1.80 2.940.00 0.18 -0.50 -0.29 -0.10 -0.15 -0.64 -0.55 0.460.99 0.97 1.77 0.87 1.08 1.89 0.65 1.06 1.230.00 11.96 1.80 5.80 0.00 20.10 0.00 2.40 8.18

Sand Muddy Sandy Gravel Gravelly Sand Sandy Gravel Slightly

Gravelly SandGravelly

Muddy Sand Sandy Gravel Gravelly Sand Muddy Sandy Gravel

Wentworth Scale

Station Code ST01 ST11 ST22 ST24 ST25 ST27 ST36 ST37 ST39 ST42 ST43 ST45 ST46 ST49 ST51 ST52 ST55pebble 26.12 40.08 35.05 34.25 44.59 15.88 22.20 5.14 0.00 34.53 13.66 28.03 1.05 15.07 27.16 20.79 56.30granule 5.18 4.92 6.35 2.09 5.81 3.60 2.97 3.41 0.00 9.57 6.01 7.12 1.92 3.32 5.23 5.58 10.84V. coarse sand 3.70 3.90 5.35 1.65 2.45 6.54 1.82 4.23 0.00 8.46 7.65 3.95 2.75 1.66 5.00 5.41 10.36Coarse sand 16.69 23.19 24.39 7.07 10.52 52.97 3.67 34.21 50.40 12.80 54.60 13.47 38.45 4.88 0.71 46.90 4.70Medium sand 35.07 17.45 15.36 25.44 25.20 20.50 10.58 27.10 49.26 10.97 15.46 25.80 50.03 15.20 30.60 18.55 3.80Fine sand 10.18 2.41 3.36 18.06 4.58 0.23 22.23 7.44 0.35 7.58 0.10 12.95 5.80 25.27 31.30 0.06 3.22V. fine sand 0.15 1.06 1.43 3.05 0.48 0.25 12.83 2.86 0.00 4.14 0.72 2.88 0.00 14.49 0.00 0.31 2.60Silt Clay 2.91 6.98 8.72 8.39 6.37 0.03 23.70 15.61 0.00 11.96 1.80 5.80 0.00 20.10 0.00 2.40 8.18

100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00

C. Thomson Unicomarine benthic community data reports

C.1. May 2016

Thomson Ecology, Compass House, 60 Priestley Road, Surrey Research Park, Guildford, GU2 7AG

Client Name Harwich Haven Authority

Client Address

Harbour House, The Quay, Harwich Essex, CO12 3HH

Report title HHAESC16 ‐ Harwich East Ship Channel May 2016

Method TEM09 Benthic Invertbrate Analysis

Subcontracted Tests N/A

Author Laura Hearnden 03/06/2016

Biologist

Authorisation Ruth Barnich 03/06/2016

Principal Biologist

HHAESC16 - Harwich East Ship Channel May 2016

Sample number Sample receipt date Sample condition Mesh Size Sieve Analyst Date Sorting Analyst Date Identifcation Analyst Date QC Analyst Date Notes

64510 18 May 16 Good 1000 µm SH 26 May 16 SH 31 May 16 RBA 02 Jun 16

64511 18 May 16 Good 1000 µm LTW 27 May 16 LTW 27 May 16 LJH 31 May 16 RBA 01 Jun 16

64512 18 May 16 Good 1000 µm LJH 25 May 16 LJH 25 May 16 DC 26 May 16 RBA 01 Jun 16

64513 18 May 16 Good 1000 µm LTW 26 May 16 LTW 26 May 16 DC 31 May 16 RBA 01 Jun 16



64516 18 May 16 Good 1000 µm LJH 25 May 16 LJH 25 May 16 LJH 31 May 16 RBA 01 Jun 16

64517 18 May 16 Good 1000 µm LJH 27 May 16 SH 31 May 16 DC 01 Jun 16


64519 18 May 16 Good 1000 µm SH 24 May 16 LJH 25 May 16 LJH 31 May 16 RBA 01 Jun 16

64520 18 May 16 Good 1000 µm DC 27 May 16 DC 27 May 16 DC 31 May 16 RBA 01 Jun 16

64521 18 May 16 Good 1000 µm SH 24 May 16 SH 24 May 16 DC 31 May 16 RBA 01 Jun 16

64522 18 May 16 Good 1000 µm SH 23 May 16 SH 23 May 16 LJH 24 May 16 RBA 01 Jun 16

64523 18 May 16 Good 1000 µm LTW 31 May 16 SH 31 May 16 DC 02 Jun 16 RBA 02 Jun 16


64525 18 May 16 Good 1000 µm LJH 27 May 16 LTW 01 Jun 16 DC 02 Jun 16 RBA 02 Jun 16

64526 18 May 16 Good 1000 µm LTW 31 May 16 LTW 31 May 16 LJH 01 Jun 16


64528 18 May 16 Good 1000 µm LTW 31 May 16 LTW 31 May 16 LJH 01 Jun 16 RBA 01 Jun 16


HHAESC16 - Harwich East Ship Channel May 2016

SDC TaxonName 01

A 6

45

10

11

A 6

45

11

21

A 6

45

12

24

A 6

45

13

25

A 6

45

14

27

A 6

45

15

28

A 6

45

16

36

A 6

45

17

37

A 6

45

18

39

A 6

45

19

40

A 6

45

20

42

A 6

45

21

43

A 6

45

22

45

A 6

45

23

46

A 6

45

24

49

A 6

45

25

51

A 6

45

26

52

A 6

45

27

55

A 6

45

28

59

A 6

45

29

Lagotia viridis - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P - - - - -D0390 Halecium - - - - - - - - - - P - - - - - - - - -D0407 Sertulariidae P - - - - - - - - - P - - - - - - - - -D0424 Hydrallmania falcata - - - - - - - - - - - - - P - - - - - -D0275 Podocoryna - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PD0662 ACTINIARIA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - -F0002 TURBELLARIA 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -G0001 NEMERTEA - 1 - 2 - - - - - - - 3 - 2 - - 1 - 1 -HD0001 NEMATODA - - - - - - - - - - 1 2 - 1 - 1 - - - 1K0050 Barentsia P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -N0025 Nephasoma minutum - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - - - - - - -P0019 Aphrodita aculeata - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - -P0025 Polynoidae (juv.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 - - - - - 1P0082 Lepidonotus squamatus - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - -

Malmgrenia darbouxi - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - -Pholoe assimilis - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - -

P0092 Pholoe baltica 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -P0094 Pholoe inornata - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - 4 - - - -P0107 Sthenelais boa - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - 1 - 1 - - - -P0118 Eteone cf. longa - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - -P0122 Hesionura elongata - - - - - 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -P0124 Eteone foliosa - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - -P0255 Glycera - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 -P0256 Glycera alba - 1 - - - - - - - - - 3 - - - - - - - 1P0260 Glycera lapidum - - - - - 2 - - - - - 1 - - - - - 1 - -P0262 Glycera oxycephala - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - -P0271 Goniada maculata - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - -P0318 Podarkeopsis - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - -P0380 Eusyllis blomstrandi - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 - - - - - -P0422 Exogone naidina (epitoke) - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -P0423 Exogone verugera - - - - - - - - - - 1 2 - - - - 1 - - -P0425 Sphaerosyllis bulbosa - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - -P0358 Syllis - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - -P0458 Nereididae (juv.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - -P0475 Eunereis longissima (juv.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - -P0494 Nephtys (juv.) - - - - - - 2 2 - - 1 - - - 1 1 - - - -P0496 Nephtys caeca - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - -P0502 Nephtys kersivalensis - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - -P0503 Nephtys longosetosa - 1 - - - - - - - - - 2 - - - - - - - -P0518 Paramphinome jeffreysii - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - -P0564 Marphysa bellii 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 - - -P0564 Marphysa bellii (juv.) - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - -P0569 Lumbrineridae - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - -

Lumbrineris cf. cingulata (agg.) 2 - - - - - - - - - - 4 - - - 4 4 - 1 2P0643 Schistomeringos rudolphi - - 1 - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - -P0672 Scoloplos armiger - - - - - - - - 1 - - - 1 - 1 4 - - - -P0699 Paradoneis lyra - 2 - - - - - - - - 5 - - - - - 4 - - -P0718 Poecilochaetus serpens - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - -P0722 Aonides oxycephala - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -P0723 Aonides paucibranchiata - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - 1 - - - - - 1P0751 Dipolydora caulleryi - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - -P0750 Dipolydora coeca (agg.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - -P0794 Spiophanes bombyx - 8 - - - - 1 - - - 1 2 - 1 - - - - - -P0822 Cirratulidae - 1 - - - - - - - - - 2 - - - - - - - 1P0829 Caulleriella alata - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - 1 - - 1 - - -P0831 Chaetozone zetlandica - 3 - - - - - - - - - 2 - - - - 1 - - -P0845 Tharyx (Type 1) - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -P0846 Tharyx killariensis - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -P0919 Mediomastus fragilis - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - - - - -

SDC TaxonName 01

A 6

45

10

11

A 6

45

11

21

A 6

45

12

24

A 6

45

13

25

A 6

45

14

27

A 6

45

15

28

A 6

45

16

36

A 6

45

17

37

A 6

45

18

39

A 6

45

19

40

A 6

45

20

42

A 6

45

21

43

A 6

45

22

45

A 6

45

23

46

A 6

45

24

49

A 6

45

25

51

A 6

45

26

52

A 6

45

27

55

A 6

45

28

59

A 6

45

29

P0920 Notomastus 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 - 1 - -P0938 Maldanidae - - - - - - 1 - - - 1 - - 1 - - - - - -P0964 Euclymene oerstedii (agg.) - - 1 - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 1 - - 1

Leiochone 5 - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - 2 - - -P0999 Ophelia borealis - - - - 3 1 - - - 3 1 - 2 - 2 - - 3 - -P1007 Travisia forbesii - - - - - - - - - 2 - - 1 - - - - - - -P1026 Scalibregma celticum - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - -

Saccocirrus papillocercus - - - - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -P1091 Galathowenia 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Owenia borealis - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - -P1179 Terebellidae - - - - - - - - - - 1 - 1 2 - - - - - -P1195 Lanice conchilega (juv.) - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2P1117 Sabellaria spinulosa 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - 31 - - - - 1 -P1324 Serpulidae - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10P1340 Spirobranchus lamarcki - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 24 - - 124P1420 Paranais litoralis 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -P1490 Tubificoides benedii - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - -P1498 Tubificoides pseudogaster (agg.) - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Q0044 Anoplodactylus petiolatus - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6 - - - - - -Q0044 Anoplodactylus petiolatus (eggs) - - - - - - - - - - - - - P - - - - - -R0015 THORACICA (juv.) - - - - - - - - - - 4 - - 20 - - - - - -R0041 Verruca stroemia - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1R0142 COPEPODA - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -S0044 Gastrosaccus spinifer - - - - - - - - - 2 - - - - - - - 2 - -S0092 Heteromysis formosa 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -S0158 Amphilochus manudens - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 - - - - - -S0248 Urothoe elegans 1 1 1 - 1 - 1 - - - - - - 2 - - - - - 2S0252 Phoxocephalidae 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -S0257 Harpinia pectinata 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - -S0269 Phoxocephalus holbolli - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - -S0438 Ampelisca spinipes - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - -S0452 Bathyporeia elegans - - - 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -S0606 Monocorophium acherusicum 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -S0621 Unciola crenatipalma - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 - - - 2S0628 Dyopedos monacanthus 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -S0805 Cyathura carinata - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - - -S1276 DECAPODA (zoea) - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - -S1532 Macropodia rostrata - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - -S1555 Atelecyclus rotundatus - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - -W0046 POLYPLACOPHORA (juv.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - -W0053 Leptochiton asellus 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -W1695 Mytilus edulis (juv.) - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - 1 - - 1W1805 Anomiidae (juv.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - -W1906 Kurtiella bidentata - - 1 - - - - - - - - 2 - - - - - - - -W1975 Spisula elliptica - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -W2058 Abra - - 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -W2059 Abra alba - - - - - - - 3 - - - 137 - 5 - - - - 4 1W2181 Barnea candida - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - -Y0076 Alcyonidium diaphanum P - - - - - - - - - P - - P - - - - - -Y0077 Alcyonidium gelatinosum - - - - P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Y0096 Anguinella palmata P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Y0131 Vesicularia spinosa - - - - - - - - - - - - - P - - - - - -Y0172 Conopeum reticulum - - - - P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Y0173 Conopeum seurati - P - - P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Y0182 Aspidelectra melolontha - P - - - - - - P - P - - - P - - - - -Y0176 Electra crustulenta - - - - P - - - - - P - P P P P - - - -Y0178 Electra pilosa - - - - P - - - - - - - - P P P P - - -Y0274 Scrupocellaria - - - - - - - - - - P - - - - - - - - -Y0276 Scrupocellaria reptans - - - - - - P - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Bitectiporidae - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P - -Y0468 Schizomavella auriculata - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P P - - -ZA0003 Phoronis - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - -ZB0148 Amphiuridae (juv.) 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -ZB0161 Amphipholis squamata - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - 7 - - - 1ZB0156_97 Amphiura incana - - 1 - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - -ZB0167 Ophiocten affinis 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - -ZB0168 Ophiura albida - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - - - - - - -ZB0193 Psammechinus miliaris - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - 2


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00

C.2. July 2016

Client Name

Client Address

Report title

Method

Subcontracted Tests

Author 25/08/2016

Authorisation 26/08/2016Ruth Barnich

Principal Taxonomist

Laura Hearnden

Project Manager

N/A

Thomson Ecology, Compass House, 60 Priestley Road, Surrey Research Park,

Guildford, GU2 7AG

TEM09 Benthic Invertbrate Analysis


Navigation House, Harwich CO12 3EJ




01 B 64662 19 Jul 16 Good 1 mm LJH 09 Aug 16 LJH 09 Aug 16 LJH 10 Aug 16 DC 10 Aug 16


21 B 64664 19 Jul 16 Good 1 mm LTW 16 Aug 16 LTW 17 Aug 16 LJH 18 Aug 16 DC 18 Aug 16










43 B 64674 42570 Good 1 mm LTW 42598 LTW 42599 LJH 42599 DC 42599

45 B 64675 42570 Good 1 mm LTW 42597 LJH 42599 LJH 42599 DC 42599

46 B 64676 42570 Good 1 mm LJH 42597 LJH 42598 LJH 42598 DC 42598

49 B 64677 42570 Good 1 mm LTW 42594 LTW 42597 LJH 42597 DC 42597

51 B 64678 42570 Good 1 mm LTW 42593 LJH 42597 LJH 42597 DC 42597




HHAESC16 ‐ Harwich East Ship Channel ‐ Survey July 2016

SDC Taxon Name 01 B 64662

11 B 64663

21 B 64664

24 B 64665

25 B 64666

27 B 64667

28 B 64668

36 B 64669

37 B 64670

39 B 64671

40 B 64672

42 B 64673

43 B 64674

45 B 64675

46 B 64676

49 B 64677

51 B 64678

52 B 64681

55 B 64679

59 B 64680

Lagotia viridis ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ P ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

D0462 Nemertesia ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ P ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

D0407 Sertulariidae ‐ ‐ P ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ P ‐ P P ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

D0424 Hydrallmania falcata ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ P ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

D0141 ANTHOATHECATA P ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ P ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ P ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

D0491 Campanulariidae P ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ P P ‐ P ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

D0632 Cerianthus lloydii ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

D0662 ACTINIARIA 4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 28

G0001 NEMERTEA 1 ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 ‐ 4 ‐ 2 1 1 ‐ ‐

HD0001 NEMATODA ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐

N0017 Golfingia vulgaris ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

P0025 Polynoidae (juv.) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2

P0050 Harmothoe 1 ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 13 ‐ 12 ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ 1 7

P0092 Pholoe baltica 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ 1 ‐

P0094 Pholoe inornata 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2

P0107 Sthenelais boa ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

P0167 Eumida sanguinea (agg.) 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 2 ‐ 8 ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ 1 6

P0256 Glycera alba ‐ ‐ 1 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

P0260 Glycera lapidum ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 1 1 ‐

P0262 Glycera oxycephala ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

P0266 Goniadidae (juv.) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

P0268 Glycinde nordmanni ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

P0271 Goniada maculata ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ 1 ‐ 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Autolytinae ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

P0380 Eusyllis blomstrandi 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

P0449 Myrianida 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Sphaerosyllis sp. A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

P0371 Syllis variegata 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

P0475 Eunereis longissima ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4 ‐ 2 ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

P0494 Nephtys (juv.) 4 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

P0496 Nephtys caeca ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4 ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ 1

P0564 Marphysa bellii ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

P0564 Marphysa bellii (juv.) 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Lumbrineris cf. cingulata (agg.) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 3 ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ 1 1 1 2

P0643 Schistomeringos rudolphi ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐

P0672 Scoloplos armiger 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2

P0699 Paradoneis lyra ‐ 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

P0718 Poecilochaetus serpens ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

P0733 Laonice bahusiensis ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

P0774 Pseudopolydora pulchra ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐

P0776 Pygospio elegans ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Spio goniocephala ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

P0794 Spiophanes bombyx 80 15 9 4 1 ‐ 20 ‐ ‐ ‐ 5 4 ‐ 4 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 4 2

P0797 Streblospio ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

P0831 Chaetozone zetlandica ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 2

P0845 Tharyx ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Tharyx maryae ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1

P0846 Tharyx killariensis ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

P0906 Capitella ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

P0919 Mediomastus fragilis ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

P0920 Notomastus ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

P0927 Pseudonotomastus southerni ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

P0938 Maldanidae ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

P0964 Euclymene oerstedii (agg.) 2 ‐ 6 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2


11 B 64663

21 B 64664

24 B 64665

25 B 64666

27 B 64667

28 B 64668

36 B 64669

37 B 64670

39 B 64671

40 B 64672

42 B 64673

43 B 64674

45 B 64675

46 B 64676

49 B 64677

51 B 64678

52 B 64681

55 B 64679

59 B 64680

Leiochone 4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ 5 ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐

P0999 Ophelia borealis ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 7 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1 ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐

P1007 Travisia forbesii ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

P1026 Scalibregma celticum 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

P1027 Scalibregma inflatum ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 14 ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1

P1091 Galathowenia 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Owenia borealis ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐

P1107 Lagis koreni ‐ 2 7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4 1 ‐ ‐ 39 ‐ 6 ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ 7 10

P1118 Ampharetidae ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

P1139 Ampharete lindstroemi (agg.) 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐

P1179 Terebellidae ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐

P1195 Lanice conchilega 2 ‐ 5 ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ 8 21 ‐ 7 ‐ 5 ‐ ‐ 1 3

P1254 Thelepus cincinnatus 4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

P1117 Sabellaria spinulosa 8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 172 ‐ 150 ‐ 2 7 1 ‐ 11

P1320 Sabella pavonina ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

P1324 Serpulidae ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 ‐ ‐ ‐

P1340 Spirobranchus lamarcki ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 18 ‐ ‐ 112

Q0015 Achelia echinata ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Q0004 Nymphon 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Q0044 Anoplodactylus petiolatus 7 ‐ 4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 6 1 ‐ 4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4

R0015 THORACICA ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 30 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 19 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 8 ‐ ‐

R0077 Balanus crenatus ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 40 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 141 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 8 10 2

S0044 Gastrosaccus spinifer ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

S0213 Stenothoe marina ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ 6 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

S0246 Urothoe ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

S0248 Urothoe elegans 3 ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5

S0254 Harpinia antennaria 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Harpinia pectinata 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

S0423 Ampelisca ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4 ‐ 2 ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ 3

S0429 Ampelisca diadema ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

S0438 Ampelisca spinipes ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 7 ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 3 ‐ 1 14

Haploops dellavallei ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 11 ‐ ‐ ‐

S0498 Abludomelita obtusata ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1

S0505 Cheirocratus intermedius ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1

S0577 Aoridae (female) 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ 15 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

S0579 Aora gracilis ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

S0611 Crassicorophium crassicorne ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1

S0621 Unciola crenatipalma ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 1

S0627 Dyopedos ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

S0628 Dyopedos monacanthus ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2

S0541 Gammaropsis maculata ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2

S0552 Photis longicaudata ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

S0561 Ericthonius ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

S0564 Ericthonius punctatus ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Jassa herdmani ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 96 1 ‐ ‐ ‐

S0651 Pariambus typicus 6 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

S1142 Tanaopsis graciloides 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

S1197 Bodotria scorpioides 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ 1 ‐

S1276 DECAPODA (megalopa) ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

CARIDEA ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

S1463 Pagurus pubescens ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

S1482 Pisidia longicornis ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2

DIPTERA ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

W0051 Leptochiton (juv.) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 ‐ ‐ ‐

W0053 Leptochiton asellus ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ 1


11 B 64663

21 B 64664

24 B 64665

25 B 64666

27 B 64667

28 B 64668

36 B 64669

37 B 64670

39 B 64671

40 B 64672

42 B 64673

43 B 64674

45 B 64675

46 B 64676

49 B 64677

51 B 64678

52 B 64681

55 B 64679

59 B 64680

W0708 Buccinum undatum ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1

W1431 Cuthona ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 23 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

W1560 BIVALVIA ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

W1570 Nucula nucleus 1 ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1

W1691 Mytilidae (juv.) 5 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 7 ‐ ‐ 3 ‐ 10 1 ‐ ‐ ‐

W1695 Mytilus edulis (juv.) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

W1768 Pectinidae (juv.) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

W1929 Goodallia triangularis ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 18 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

W1906 Kurtiella bidentata ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 22 ‐ ‐ ‐

W1973 Spisula (juv.) 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ 1 ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4 ‐ ‐ ‐

W2029 Macoma balthica ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 6 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

W2058 Abra ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 ‐ ‐ ‐

W2059 Abra alba ‐ 3 6 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ 1 48 ‐ 17 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 12 5

W2061 Abra nitida ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

W2086 Veneridae (juv.) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

W1995 Pharidae (juv.) ‐ 1 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 ‐ ‐ 1 ‐

W1999 Ensis ensis (juv.) ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐

Y0004 Crisiidae P ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Y0076 Alcyonidium diaphanum P ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ P ‐ ‐ P ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ P ‐

Y0096 Anguinella palmata ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ P ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Y0131 Vesicularia spinosa ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ P ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Y0172 Conopeum reticulum ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ P ‐ P ‐ ‐ ‐ P ‐ ‐ P ‐ ‐ ‐ P P ‐

Y0175 Electra ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ P ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ P ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ P ‐ P

Y0178 Electra pilosa ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ P ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Y0187 Flustra foliacea ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ P ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Y0256 Bicellariella ciliata P ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ P ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Y0364 Escharella immersa ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ P ‐ ‐ ‐ P ‐ ‐

Y0468 Schizomavella auriculata ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ P ‐ ‐ P ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

ZA0003 Phoronis ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

ZB0100 Asterias rubens 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

ZB0161 Amphipholis squamata 4 ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5 ‐ ‐ 7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 5

ZB0165 Ophiuridae (juv.) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 6 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3

ZB0168 Ophiura albida 7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 8 ‐ 3 ‐ ‐ 5 ‐ ‐ 1

ZB0193 Psammechinus miliaris ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ 1

ZB0193 Psammechinus miliaris (juv.) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1

ZB0212 Echinocyamus pusillus ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐

ZD0002 ASCIDIACEA 3 ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

ZD0112 Polycarpa fibrosa 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 ‐ ‐ 5 ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


Monitoring Report

DLM7823-RT001-R02-00

C.3. September 2016

Client Name

Client Address

Report title

Method

Subcontracted Tests

Author 25/10/2016

Authorisation 25/10/2016

Thomson Ecology, Compass House, 60 Priestley Road, Surrey Research Park,

Guildford, GU2 7AG

TEM09 Benthic Invertbrate Analysis


Navigation House, Harwich CO12 3EJ

Harwich East Ship Channel ‐ Survey September 2016

Daisy Chamberlain

Laboratory Manager

Laura Hearnden

Project Manager

N/A

HHAESC16 ‐ Harwich East Ship Channel ‐ Survey September 2016


01 C 64871 13 Sep 16 Good 1 mm LTW 18 Oct 16 LTW 18 Oct 16 LJH 20 Oct 16 DC 25 Oct 16

















HHAESC16 ‐ Harwich East Ship Channel ‐ Survey September 2016

SDC Taxon Name 01 C 64871

11 C 64872

22 C 64873

24 C 64874

25 C 64875

27 C 64876

36 C 64877

37 C 64878

39 C 64879

42 C 64880

43 C 64881

45 C 64882

46 C 64883

49 C 64884

51 C 64885

52 C 64886

55 C 64887

Lagotia viridis ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ P ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐D0140 ANTHOATHECATA ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ P ‐ P ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐D0295 LEPTOTHECATA ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ P ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐D0407 Sertulariidae P ‐ P ‐ ‐ ‐ P ‐ P P ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ P ‐ ‐D0491 Campanulariidae ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ P ‐ P ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐D0662 ACTINIARIA ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 73 ‐ 18 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐F0002 TURBELLARIA ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐G0001 NEMERTEA ‐ 1 ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 1 7 ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ 2HD0001 NEMATODA ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐P0015 Pisione remota ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐P0017 Aphroditidae (juv.) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐P0025 Polynoidae ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐P0050 Harmothoe ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 13 ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ 1P0082 Lepidonotus squamatus ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Malmgrenia ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐P0092 Pholoe baltica ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐P0094 Pholoe inornata ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐P0107 Sthenelais boa ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐P0114 Phyllodocidae ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐P0141 Phyllodoce groenlandica ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 11 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1P0116 Eteone ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐P0167 Eumida sanguinea (agg.) ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐P0127 Mysta picta ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐P0255 Glycera ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐P0256 Glycera alba 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐P0260 Glycera lapidum ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 10 3 2 ‐ 1 ‐ ‐P0271 Goniada maculata ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ 4 ‐ 1 ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐P0475 Eunereis longissima ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐P0494 Nephtys ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ 1 ‐ 2 1 ‐ ‐ ‐P0496 Nephtys caeca ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1P0498 Nephtys cirrosa ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐P0499 Nephtys hombergii ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐P0564 Marphysa bellii 1 ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐P0566 Marphysa sanguinea ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐P0574 Lumbrineris aniara (agg.) 1 ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 4 ‐ ‐ 5 ‐ ‐P0643 Schistomeringos rudolphi 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐P0672 Scoloplos armiger ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 7 ‐ ‐ ‐P0699 Paradoneis lyra ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐P0722 Aonides oxycephala ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐P0723 Aonides paucibranchiata ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐P0751 Dipolydora caulleryi ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐P0733 Laonice bahusiensis ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐P0774 Pseudopolydora pulchra ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ 1P0777 Scolelepis ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐P0794 Spiophanes bombyx 6 3 20 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 2 ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐P0822 Cirratulidae 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐P0829 Caulleriella alata ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐P0831 Chaetozone zetlandica ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2P0884 Pherusa flabellata ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐P0920 Notomastus ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 ‐ ‐ 1 1 23 ‐ 2 3 ‐ 2P0927 Pseudonotomastus southerni ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐P0964 Euclymene oerstedii (agg.) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Leiochone ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5 ‐ ‐ 10 ‐ ‐P0971 Praxillella affinis ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐P0999 Ophelia borealis ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 8 ‐ ‐ ‐ 6 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐P1007 Travisia forbesii ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

SDC Taxon Name 01 C 64871

11 C 64872

22 C 64873

24 C 64874

25 C 64875

27 C 64876

36 C 64877

37 C 64878

39 C 64879

42 C 64880

43 C 64881

45 C 64882

46 C 64883

49 C 64884

51 C 64885

52 C 64886

55 C 64887

P1026 Scalibregma celticum ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐P1027 Scalibregma inflatum ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ 4 ‐ 6 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐P1091 Galathowenia 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐P1107 Pectinaria koreni 1 ‐ 5 ‐ 1 ‐ 37 1 ‐ 16 ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 7P1139 Ampharete lindstroemi (agg.) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1 ‐ ‐P1195 Lanice conchilega 1 ‐ 13 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1P1235 Polycirrus ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ 3 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐P1254 Thelepus cincinnatus ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐P1175 Terebellides stroemi ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐P1117 Sabellaria spinulosa 11 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 1 608 ‐ 503 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐P1320 Sabella pavonina ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐P1340 Spirobranchus lamarcki ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 6 ‐ ‐Q0015 Achelia echinata ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Q0004 Nymphon ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Q0044 Anoplodactylus petiolatus ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5 ‐ 8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐R0015 THORACICA ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐R0077 Balanus crenatus ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 ‐S0034 Siriella armata ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐S0248 Urothoe elegans ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐S0257 Harpinia pectinata ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐S0423 Ampelisca ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 8 ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1S0438 Ampelisca spinipes ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐S0577 Aoridae ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐S0621 Unciola crenatipalma ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ 10 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4S0541 Gammaropsis maculata ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 50 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐S0552 Photis longicaudata ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐S0564 Ericthonius punctatus ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 13 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐S0803 Anthura gracilis ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐

CARIDEA ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐S1449 Anapagurus laevis ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐S1482 Pisidia longicornis ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ 197 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐S1512 Majidae (juv.) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐S1518 Hyas araneus ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐S1529 Macropodia ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐S1566 Cancer pagurus (juv.) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐S1581 Liocarcinus holsatus ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐W0054 Leptochiton cancellatus ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐W1560 BIVALVIA ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐W1570 Nucula nucleus 2 ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐W1691 Mytilidae (juv.) 1 ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐W1768 Pectinidae (juv.) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐W1906 Kurtiella bidentata ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ 5 ‐ ‐W1975 Spisula elliptica ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐W2029 Macoma balthica ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 10 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐W2058 Abra ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐W2059 Abra alba ‐ 1 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ 12 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ 2W2144 Mya (juv.) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐W2181 Barnea candida ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 26Y0073 Alcyonidium ‐ ‐ P ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Y0131 Vesicularia spinosa ‐ ‐ P ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ P ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Y0172 Conopeum reticulum ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ P ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Y0175 Electra ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ P ‐Y0178 Electra pilosa ‐ ‐ P ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Y0187 Flustra foliacea ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ P ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Y0274 Scrupocellaria ‐ P ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ P ‐ P ‐Y0364 Escharella immersa ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ P ‐ZB0105 OPHIUROIDEA ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ZB0161 Amphipholis squamata ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 36 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1ZB0165 Ophiuridae ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ZB0168 Ophiura albida 2 ‐ 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4 ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ 1ZB0181 ECHINIDEA (juv.) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ZB0193 Psammechinus miliaris ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ZD0002 ASCIDIACEA ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 63 ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ZD0112 Polycarpa fibrosa 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 20 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

© HR Wallingford

FS 516431EMS 558310OHS 595357

HR Wallingford is an independent engineering and environmental hydraulics organisation. We deliver practical solutions to the complex water-related challenges faced by our international clients. A dynamic research programme underpins all that we do and keeps us at the leading edge. Our unique mix of know-how, assets and facilities includes state of the art physical modelling laboratories, a full range of numerical modelling tools and, above all, enthusiastic people with world-renowned skills and expertise.

HR Wallingford, Howbery Park, Wallingford, Oxfordshire OX10 8BA, United Kingdomtel +44 (0)1491 835381 fax +44 (0)1491 832233 email [email protected]

Harwich Haven Disposal Site TH027 - GOV.UK

Documents

Transcript of Harwich Haven Disposal Site TH027 - GOV.UK