General 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. Light or indepth? In-depth The in-depth description of the case study cs-uk-03-final_version.pdf NUTS Code North Yorkshire RBD code UK04 Transboundary 0 Data provider Alistair McVittie, SRUC Source(s) Project RMP5455: Slowing the Flow at Pickering, Final Report to Defra, Forest Research WFD Surface Water Objectives 2012 National River Flow Archive NEW: final reports for Slowing the Flow at Pickering project NWRM(s) implemented in the case study Basins and ponds Coarse woody debris Forest riparian buffers Longitude -0.77 Latitude 54.25 Site information Climate zone cool temperate moist Mean annual rainfall 600 - 900 mm Mean rainfall unit mm/year Mean runoff unit 450 - 600 mm Average runoff coefficient 0,400000005960464 Type Case Study Info Mean annual runoff range 300 - 450 mm Average slope range 10 - 15% Monitoring maintenance Monitoring impacts effects 0 Administrative annual cost information Costs of existing monitoring and data management are met from the budgets of relevant agencies. Performance Performance impact estimation method Unknown Performance impact estimation information Impacts estimated from modelling Design & implementations Application scale River Installation date 2011-06 Lifespan 50 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 Arrangement type Responsibility Role Comments Name Design consultation activity Activity stage Key issues 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 Responsibility 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 Lessons, risks, implications... 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 1 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 Available support tools secondary factor Available support tools secondary factor Attitude of the public secondary factor 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 View Policy, general governance and design targets 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 0 Policy target Target purpose Increase Water Storage Peak-flow reduction Peak-flow reduction Policy pressure Pressure directive Relevant pressure Policy area Policy area type Policy area focus Name Comments Policy impact Impact directive Relevant impact Policy wider plan Wider plan type Wider plan focus Name Comments Policy requirement directive Requirement directive Specification Socio-economic 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 1 Information on Ecosystem improved biodiversity Creation of new habitat Ecosystem provisioning services 0 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 Biophysical impacts 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 1 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 Full Context Pathway(aka Context) Default view Area(aka Level or Site) ALL