Case study:Guisborough Flood Alleviation Scheme

From RESTORE
Jump to: navigation, search
0.00
(0 votes)


To discuss or comment on this case study, please use the discussion page.


Location: 54° 32' 1", -1° 2' 42"
Edit location
Loading map...
Left click to look around in the map, and use the wheel of your mouse to zoom in and out.


Project overview

Edit project overview
Status In progress
Project web site http://www.therrc.co.uk/sites/default/files/projects/22_guisborough.pdf
Themes Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Land use management - agriculture, Land use management - forestry
Country England
Main contact forename Ted
Main contact surname Thomas
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Environment Agency
Contact organisation web site http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/environment-agency
Partner organisations Forestry Commission, Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council
Parent multi-site project
This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
Project picture

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


The Chapel Beck (main river) flows through Guisborough (Map 1) and is fed by a number of small tributaries (ordinary watercourses). There is significant modelled flood risk from the chapel beck but few instances of actual flooding, although the tributaries have caused flooding in the past. The project has so far determined that the reason for the lack of flooding from the beck is likely to be a large number of unaccounted for natural and unintentionally created attenuations upstream of the town. The project is seeking to formalise and improve these existing attenuations and to create further attenuations to reduce future flood risk, while creating 5ha of water dependent habitat. Installing 15,000m3 of flood water storage in the catchment could reduce the 100-year peak flow by 10.9% (2m3s-1). The published flood map cannot take account of the man-made attenuations present in the catchment because there is no guarantee that these will perform this inadvertent flood water storage function in perpetuity. Only if the features are formalised as flood risk assets and maintained can they be considered when estimating the actual flood risk to homes in Guisborough.

Monitoring surveys and results

This case study hasn’t got any Monitoring survey and results, you can add some by editing the project overview.

Lessons learnt

This case study hasn’t got any lessons learnt, you can add some by editing the project overview.


Image gallery


ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment



Site

Name Chapel Beck
WFD water body codes
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name
Pre-project morphology
Reference morphology
Desired post project morphology
Heavily modified water body No
National/international site designation
Local/regional site designations
Protected species present No
Invasive species present No
Species of interest
Dominant hydrology
Dominant substrate
River corridor land use
Average bankfull channel width category
Average bankfull channel width (m)
Average bankfull channel depth category
Average bankfull channel depth (m)
Mean discharge category
Mean annual discharge (m3/s)
Average channel gradient category
Average channel gradient
Average unit stream power (W/m2)


Project background

Reach length directly affected (m)
Project started 2015
Works started
Works completed
Project completed
Total cost category
Total cost (k€) £1.5m
"£" is not declared as a valid unit of measurement for this property.
Benefit to cost ratio
Funding sources Environment Agency Grant in Aid, RFCC, Local levy funding, External contributions

Cost for project phases

Phase cost category cost exact (k€) Lead organisation Contact forename Contact surname
Investigation and design
Stakeholder engagement and communication
Works and works supervision
Post-project management and maintenance
Monitoring



Reasons for river restoration

Mitigation of a pressure Flood risk management
Hydromorphology
Biology
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project


Measures

Structural measures
Bank/bed modifications
Floodplain / River corridor Offline storage areas
Planform / Channel pattern
Other
Non-structural measures
Management interventions
Social measures (incl. engagement)
Other


Monitoring

Hydromorphological quality elements

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative

Biological quality elements

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative

Physico-chemical quality elements

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative

Any other monitoring, e.g. social, economic

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative


Monitoring documents



Additional documents and videos


Additional links and references

Link Description

Supplementary Information

Edit Supplementary Information