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.
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.
The in-depth description of the case study
NUTS Code
North Yorkshire
RBD code
UK04
Transboundary
0
Data provider
Alistair McVittie, SRUC
Source(s)
NWRM(s) implemented in the case study
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
Light or indepth?
In-depth
Mean annual runoff range
300 - 450 mm
Average slope range
10 - 15%
Monitoring maintenance
Monitoring impacts effects
0
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)
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.
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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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.
†¢ 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
|
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 |
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 | |
|---|---|---|---|
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
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)
€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
