Slowing the Flow at Pickering, UK

NWRM

Application scale

River

Installation date

2011-06

Lifespan

Performance timescale

1 - 4 years

Area (ha)

6860

Design capacity description

Low level bunds (N1): 85000 m^3 flood storage
Riparian woodland (F1): 15000 to 53000 m^3 flood volume reduction (0.8 to 2.2 cumecs peak flow reduction)
Floodplain woodland (F1): 14% increase in storage (20 minute flood peak delay)

Basis of design

N1 to protect 50 properties against a 1 in 25 year flood event

Constraints

The river channel is incised/deep which has led to disconnection from its floodplain. The low level bunds (N1) therefore require an artificial structure (pipe bridge) to ensure their effectiveness.

Favourable preconditions

The key factor that influenced the choice of site was the nature of land ownership with around half the area owned by either the public sector (Forestry Commission and the North York Moors National Park Authority) or the Duchy of Lancaster Estates.
Mapping data and catchment models from previous research had been used to identify sites for low level bunds (N1). This research also involved stakeholder engagement which may have been important in overcoming barriers.
Opportunity mapping for woodland creation for flood risk reduction had also been undertaken.

Design contractual arrangement

No data

Design consultation activity

Activity stage	Name	Comments
Design phase	Public meeting	Flooding: can local knowledge make a difference? Exhibition held at Pickering Memorial Hall by the Ryedale Flood Research Group. Around 200 people attended the exhibition and were able to read about the group's work, watch video clips, talk to group members and try their hand at modelling
Design phase	Public meeting	Community engagement event. This public event in the Memorial Hall Pickering, was held to enable the project team to engage the community and stakeholders and involve them with identifying and implementing solutions on the ground.
Implementation phase	Media releases	Variey of media (web, press, radio) coverage at local/regional and national levels

Design land use change

Land use change type
Mixed forest

Design authority

Authority type	Role	Name	Comments
Other	Implementation	Forestry Commission	Forest policy and land management/ownership. Financing of project €127675
National water authority	Determination of design details of the measure	Environment Agency	Expertise on design of measures. National agency responsible for flood management and WFD implementation. Financing of project €93103
Regional / sub-national water authority	Financing	Regional Flood Defence Committee	Provides funding from local levy €179310
Other	Financing	North York Moors National Park Authority	Land management/ownership, planning authority within National Park. Financing of project €58046
Other	Financing	Ryedale District Council	Local planning authority and project financing €1094368
Other	Financing	Natural England	National agency responsible for natural heritage and agri-environment measures cover woodland creation. Financing of project €25287
		Duchy of Lancaster Estates

Key lessons

†¢ Two years is too short to execute a demonstration project.
†¢ A short duration project is problematic for monitoring and evaluation work.
†¢ Partners need to adopt a †˜can do†™ attitude and not be risk averse.
†¢ Community expectations need to be carefully managed.
†¢ Local communities appear ready to embrace the concept of a whole-catchment approach to flood risk management.
†¢ Decision making over the selection and siting of flood management measures often relies on good data and robust models.
†¢ It was not possible for the modelling to integrate the effects of the different measures, mainly due to lack of time/resources.
†¢ Slowing the flow at some sites can increase rather than decrease flood flows as a result of synchronising catchment contributions.
†¢ While public ownership of land can smooth decision making over woodland creation, a range of barriers still exist.
†¢ LWD dams can exert a stronger effect on flood flows than woodland vegetation, although both are complementary.
†¢ Demonstration projects should include a formal ecosystem services assessment, which needs to be carefully planned from the start of the project.
†¢ The ecosystem services assessment suggests that it is unlikely to be cost effective to implement forestry measures solely for flood regulation, highlighting the need to factor in other ecosystem benefits such as for habitat creation and climate change mitigation.
†¢ To be most effective, land management measures need to be carefully targeted.
†¢ It remains a challenge to persuade farmers to implement slowing the flow/diffuse pollution measures, with limited take-up of Catchment Sensitive Farming Capital Grants.

†¢ A short duration project is problematic for monitoring and evaluation work.
†¢ Partners need to adopt a †˜can do†™ attitude and not be risk averse.
†¢ Community expectations need to be carefully managed.
†¢ Local communities appear ready to embrace the concept of a whole-catchment approach to flood risk management.
†¢ Decision making over the selection and siting of flood management measures often relies on good data and robust models.
†¢ It was not possible for the modelling to integrate the effects of the different measures, mainly due to lack of time/resources.
†¢ Slowing the flow at some sites can increase rather than decrease flood flows as a result of synchronising catchment contributions.
†¢ While public ownership of land can smooth decision making over woodland creation, a range of barriers still exist.
†¢ LWD dams can exert a stronger effect on flood flows than woodland vegetation, although both are complementary.
†¢ Demonstration projects should include a formal ecosystem services assessment, which needs to be carefully planned from the start of the project.
†¢ The ecosystem services assessment suggests that it is unlikely to be cost effective to implement forestry measures solely for flood regulation, highlighting the need to factor in other ecosystem benefits such as for habitat creation and climate change mitigation.
†¢ To be most effective, land management measures need to be carefully targeted.
†¢ It remains a challenge to persuade farmers to implement slowing the flow/diffuse pollution measures, with limited take-up of Catchment Sensitive Farming Capital Grants.

Financing mechanism

Financing mechanism information

Riparian and floodplain woodland supported by the English Woodland Grant Scheme administered by the Forestry Commission

Success factor(s)

Success factor type	Success factor role	Comments
Existing institutional framework	main factor	Land ownership was relatively concentrated with around 50% of catchment in either public ownership (Forestry Commission and the North York Moors National Park Authority) or the Duchy of Lancaster Estates.
Available support tools	secondary factor	The catchment had been subject to hydrological modelling as part of a previous academic study.
Available support tools	secondary factor	Opportunity mapping of woodland creation had already been undertaken
Attitude of the public	secondary factor	Ongoing process of stakeholder and community engagement in both the aims and delivery of the project.

Financing

Financing type	Comments
National funds	The main funders of the project are: Forestry Commission: €127,675 Environment Agency: €93,103 Natural England: €25,287 The financing was entirely from public sector sources. The majority of the funding was to cover construction of the low level bunds. The funding includes woodland creation grants
Local funds	Regional Flood Defence Committee: €179,310 North York Moors NPA: €58,046 Ryedale District Council: €1,094,368

Barrier

Barrier type	Barrier role	Comments
Other	main barrier	Construction delayed until January 2014 with completion due April 2015. Due to the reliance on another flood protection scheme for provision of the clay needed for construction
Legal obligations / restrictions	secondary barrier	The size of the scheme (>25,000m3) meant that the measure was subject to the safety requirements of the Reservoirs Act 1975, specifically the risk to lives and property should the bunds fail.
Legal obligations / restrictions	main barrier	Constrained due to existing conservation designations covering landscapes, habitats, species and archaeological heritage.
Lacking financing sources	main barrier	Financial barriers due to the loss of agricultural production and a reduction in grants from €4598/ha to €2299/ha due to the closure of the Regional Development Agency.

Driver

Driver type	Driver role	Comments
Past flooding events	main driver	A flood alleviation capital scheme was also proposed but deemed unaffordable under current national cost-benefit thresholds.

Financing share

Financing share type	Share	Comments
National funds	16	Note that a large part of the local funding will have come from national funding allocations (e.g. block grants) to local authorities

Policy description

The town of Pickering in North Yorkshire has a history of flood events, most recently in 1999, 2000, 2002 and 2007; the last of these causing an estimated £7m (€8.05m) of damage. The Slowing the Flow at Pickering project was one of three pilot projects funded by under Defra†™s multi-objective flood management demonstration programme. A flood alleviation capital scheme was also proposed but deemed unaffordable under current national cost-benefit thresholds.

Part of wider plan

Policy target

Target purpose
Increase Water Storage
Peak-flow reduction
Peak-flow reduction

Policy pressure

No data

Policy area

No data

Policy impact

No data

Policy wider plan

No data

Policy requirement directive

No data

Ancillary benefits

270450

Ancillary benefits information

An ecosystem services assessment estimated impacts of 85ha of woodland creation (F1: riparian, floodplain and farm woodland) and 150 large woody debris dams (F10) but not the storage bunds (N1). This is a higher area of woodland than actually planted.
Mean annual (€/yr)
Habitat creation: 139,683
Flood regulation: 6,855
Climate regulation: 123,029
Erosion regulation: 236
Education and knowledge: 16
Community development: 631

Costs investment

1580000

Costs investment information

€1.32m N1: low level bunds

€17,951 F1: riparian woodland (€2070/ha for native broadleaved, plus €2300/ha for flood risk management)

€27,782 F10: large woody debris dams (labour costs)

Costs land acquisition information

Land ownership does not change

Costs maintenance information

F10 (large woody debris dams) are expected to need ongoing maintenance, the costs are not specified

Costs total

1580000

Compensations annual information

No specific compensation is discussed in the project documentation, but it is noted that given potential losses of agricultural output, compensatory payments may be necessary to ensure sufficient uptake of some measures.

Information on Economic costs - income loss

An ecosystem services assessment estimated impacts of 85ha of woodland creation (F1: riparian, floodplain and farm woodland) and 150 large woody debris dams (F10) but not the storage bunds (N1). This is a higher area of woodland than actually planted. The estimated loss of agricultural production was €36326 per year or €1047000 over 100 years.

Ecosystem improved biodiversity

Information on Ecosystem improved biodiversity

Creation of new habitat

Ecosystem provisioning services

Information on Ecosystem provisioning services

Loss of agricultural land for riparian and floodplain woodland

Information on Economic costs other annual

The ecosystem services assessment estimated increaed forestry costs of €620000 over 100 years

Ecosystem impact climate regulation

Increased permanent biomas

Information on Ecosystem impact climate regulation

Increase in woody biomass and soil C storage

Information on increased water storage

Source reference gives estimated total storage without time values, these range from 90000 to 138000 m3

Peak flow rate reduction

10,6999998092651

Peak flow rate reduction unit

Information on Peak flow rate reduction

Mean estimated combined impact of riparian woodland (F1) and woody debris dams (F10), range of 6.7% to 14.7% depends on size of flood event

Information on Increased infiltration

Possible increase in infiltration due to flow reduction effects

Information on Soil moisture

Possible increase in soil moisture due to increased retention

Ecosystem flood control return periods

1 in 25

Information on Ecosystem flood control return periods

N1 floodplain storage has sufficient capactiy for a 1 in 25 year flood event.

Ecosystem erosion control

Information on Ecosystem erosion control

Riparian and floodplain woodland should reduce soil erosion

Water quality overall improvements

N/A info

Soil quality overall soil improvements

N/A info

Information on Effect delaying peak

Floodplane woodland estimated to delay flood peak by 20 minutes, considered to be small to significant

National Id

UK_03

Site name

Pickering Beck and River Seven

Summary

The Project 'Slowing the Flow at Pickering' implements multiple natural flood risk measures including low level bunds, large woody debris dams, planting riparian and floodplain woodland, planting farm woodland, blocking moorland drains and establishing no-burn buffer zones, blocking forest drains and implementing farm-scale measures. The aim of the project is to show how land management measures can help to reduce flood risk from a river in the town and is implemented in close cooperation with local stakeholders. The project involved both the Pickering Beck and adjacent River Seven catchments, the description of measures described below relate to the former.

The town of Pickering in North Yorkshire has a history of flood events, most recently in 1999, 2000, 2002 and 2007; the last of these causing an estimated £7m (€8.05m) of damage. The Slowing the Flow at Pickering project was one of three pilot projects funded by under Defra’s multi-objective flood management demonstration programme. A flood alleviation capital scheme was also proposed but deemed unaffordable under current national cost-benefit thresholds.

The main principle of the project is to achieve flood risk management using natural processes. This involves developing an understanding of how land use and management across the entire catchment contribute to flood risk. The project is also concerned with wider environmental, economic and social benefits. These include improved water quality, provision of new and/or improvement of existing habitats, enhanced carbon sequestration, enhanced local skill base in estate management, improved recreation/tourism access and increased public understanding and engagement in land management for flood risk reduction.

NUTS Code

North Yorkshire

RBD code

UK04

Transboundary

Data provider

Alistair McVittie, SRUC

Longitude

-0.77

Latitude

54.25

EEA core metadata

Contents

cs-uk-03-final_version.pdf