{"text_format":"1","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":12,"sheets":["Sheet1","Review summary & QA record","RAG classification","How to use this workbook","1. Summary of assessment","2. Catchment","3. Locations for estimates","4. Stationary statistical","7. ReFH2","9. Results","10. Appendix","Lists"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":1,"macros":0,"external_links":1,"defined_names":2,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900"}

{"sheet":"Sheet1","index":0,"n_rows":11,"n_cols":3,"rows_kept":11,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
[]
[null,"Content details"]
[]
[null,"Title","Flood Estimation Calculation Review Template"]
[null,"Audience","Environment Agency"]
[null,"Type","Template"]
[null,"Reference","LIT 66039"]
[null,"Version",3]
[null,"Security marking","OFFICIAL"]
[]
[null,"CONTROLLED CONTENT"]

{"sheet":"Review summary & QA record","index":1,"n_rows":22,"n_cols":20,"rows_kept":22,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[17,1,18,5],[20,1,20,5],[21,1,24,5],[3,1,3,3],[5,2,5,5],[6,2,6,5],[7,2,7,5],[16,1,16,5]]}
[]
[null,"FLOOD HYDROLOGY REVIEW"]
[]
[null,"The latest version of the Flood Estimation guidlines is :",null,null,"LIT 11832 (available in Content Cloud)"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"List for RAG classification data verification: "]
[null,"Project :","Begbroke Innovation District"]
[null,"EA Area:","Oxfordshire",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Green"]
[null,"Project undertaken by: ",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Amber"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Red"]
[null,null,"1st review","2nd review","3rd review","4th review",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"OK"]
[null,"Report reference:","BEG-BHE-XX-XX-RP-X-00001",null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"N/A"]
[null,"Report version: ","Version4"]
[null,"Report date: ","2023-02-03"]
[null,"Date of review:","2023-12-14","2024-04-19"]
[null,"Name of reviewer: ",null,"JKE"]
[]
[null,"PURPOSE OF THE HYDROLOGICAL STUDY \nand any particular concerns or aspects that need review"]
[null,"Extracted form report:\n\"Routine hydrological assessment to estimate design hydrographs needed as \ninput to the 1D-2D hydraulic model of the watercourses in the area of study\""]
[]
[]
[null,"SUMMARY - IS THE HYDROLOGY FIT FOR PURPOSE\nand any particular aspects that require revision"]
[null,"19/04/24: The hydrology study is now considered fit for purpose. Updates to the reporting have been undertaken and have resolved most of the comments from the first review. Only minor Green comments are now outstanding.\n\n15/12/23: The reporting needs to be improved. There are some sections of the hydrology report that say \"to be updated later\" and that appears to have been forgotten"]

{"sheet":"RAG classification","index":2,"n_rows":2,"n_cols":1,"rows_kept":2,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[0,0,0,5],[1,0,9,5]]}
["RAG COMMENT CLASSIFICATION GRADING SYSTEM"]
["The following RAG system is used to classify comments and identifiy appropriate actions to be taken by the original authors of the report: \n\nN/A - not relevant to this study. \n\nOK – Good practice.\n\nMinimum expected response:  No minimum.\nMaximum expected response: No maximum.\nPlanning: No Objection.\n\nGreen – Negligible impact on the results that is unlikely to change the outcome of the study. Consider for future studies. \nTaking action to address issues would be expected and some issues may be addressed coincidentally by work on others.\n\nMinimum expected response: Acknowledge the comment in the spreadsheet and update the limitation section of the report.\nMaximum expected response: Actions done to address the issue identified.\nPlanning: No Objection.\n\nAmber – Potential impact on the results that may change the outcome of the study. Follow recommendation. \nTaking action to address issues should be undertaken, some issues may be addressed coincidentally by work on others.\n\nMinimum expected response: Comments justifying the approach taken and update the limitation section of the report.\nMaximum expected response: Actions done to address the issue identified.\nPlanning: Consider objecting to the application based on comments highlighted in this category.\n\nRed – Has an impact on the results that may significantly change the outcome of the study. Must do. \nIf no action is taken the response must clearly demonstrate why the issue raised is not relevant and the approach employed is justified backed up with evidence. If issues highlighted red are ignored, then submissions should always be sent back.\n\nMinimum response: Comments thoroughly justifying approach from applicant based on evidence and update the limitation section of the report if action is not addressed.\nMaximum expected response: Actions done to address the issue identified.\nPlanning: Objection - Application to be objected if comments are highlighted in this category.\n"]

{"sheet":"How to use this workbook","index":3,"n_rows":31,"n_cols":19,"rows_kept":31,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[16,0,16,18],[18,0,18,18],[1,0,8,5],[0,0,0,5]]}
["WORKBOOK FOR REVIEWING FLOOD ESTIMATES"]
["This workbook is a supporting document to the Environment Agency’s Flood Estimation Guidelines. It can be used by analysts checking their own work (both internal staff and consultants working for us), supervisors carrying out internal reviews or staff reviewing consultants’ calculations. Reviewers are assumed to be familiar with the Flood Estimation Guidelines and competent to judge what choices are appropriate. Flood hydrology report and calculation reviews are an essential component of the Quality Assurance (QA) process that provides confidence in flood estimates and that they are suitable for the intended purpose. \n\nEvidence that the flood hydrology has undergone QA may be requested by external parties and hence all reviews should be written with an expectation that they will be read externally.\n\nThe structure of the checklist closely follows that of the Flood Estimation Report Template LIT65087. \nGuidance notes are identical to those in the Flood Estimation Report Template Notes LIT65088 which provides guidance notes to help completion of the Flood Estimation Report Template. \n\nEvaluation should be appropriate to the level of detail and risk of the study. For example, lower risk studies needing a quick and approximate answer would not normally include a historic review or a lengthy calculation of ReFH model parameters from flow and rainfall data. Before reviewing studies carried out on behalf of the Environment Agency, check the brief and ask the project manager what has been agreed with them.\n\nShould any issues be raised during the review process, the reviewer should detail the actions required in sufficient detail to allow the analyst to complete the changes as appropriate. Completion of this Flood Hydrology Review document does not automatically constitute calculation approval. Once the suggested changes have been completed, the reviewer may require that the report be resubmitted for further review to establish whether the actions have been completed satisfactorily. Only once all the amendments have been completed satisfactorily, will the model be approved and the quality assured by the reviewer.\n\nSee example below for how the spreadsheet is structured. Each tab represents a separate chapter in the Flood Estimation Report Template. Other reporting templates can be used, but the same expectations of content and level of reporting detail apply. \n"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
["1. Summary of assessment"]
[]
["1.1 Summary"]
[]
["Item No.","Item Checked","Guidance Note","RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2st Review Actions","2nd Review Response","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3st Review Actions","3rd Review Response","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4st Review Actions","4th Review Response"]
["1.1.1","Does the report include a summary that covers:\n●\tCatchment location\n●\tPurpose of study and complexity\n●\tKey catchment features\n●\tFlooding mechanisms\n●\tGauging stations\n●\tFinal choice of method\n●\tKey limitations and uncertainties \n","●\tThis section provides a summary of the key information contained within the detailed assessment in the following sections.  \n●\tThe aim is to enable quick and easy identification of the type of assessment undertaken. This should assist in identifying an appropriate reviewer and the ability to compare different studies more easily.\n●\tKeep the text to one or two sentences for each point."]
["1.1.2","(Additional space for other items checked)","N/A"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
["."]

{"sheet":"1. Summary of assessment","index":4,"n_rows":10,"n_cols":19,"rows_kept":10,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
[]
[]
[]
["1. Summary of assessment"]
[]
["1.1 Summary"]
["Item No.","Item Checked","Guidance Note","RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2st Review Actions","2nd Review Response","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3st Review Actions","3rd Review Response","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4st Review Actions","4th Review Response"]
["1.1.1","Does the report include a summary at the start that covers:\n●\tCatchment location\n●\tPurpose of study and complexity\n●\tKey catchment features\n●\tFlooding mechanisms\n●\tGauging stations\n●\tFinal choice of method\n●\tKey limitations and uncertainties \n","●\tThis section provides a summary of the key information contained within the detailed assessment in the following sections.  \n●\tThe aim is to enable quick and easy identification of the type of assessment undertaken. This should assist in identifying an appropriate reviewer and the ability to compare different studies more easily.\n●\tKeep the text to one or two sentences for each point.","OK","Minimal but sufficient information available"]
["1.1.2","Stop and think! What has changed since the calculations were undertaken or previously reviewed? Consider if there have been any changes in methods, software and/or data that could significantly change the outcome of the study. \n\nChanges could include: \n●\tA recent large flood in the catchment being modelled. \n●\tNew datasets, such as an updated NRFA dataset version. Although single year changes are expected to be small, the impacts of several years or more of changes could be more significant. \n●\tNew methods, such as the FEH22 rainfall depth-duration-model, the updated ReFH2.3-FEH22 model, and the small catchments pooling method. \n●\tNew software that includes bug fixes or changes to methods. ","These guidelines are not absolute and there may be some circumstances where a different approach is warranted. Decisions over methods and data should be justified with supporting evidence and proportionate to the project scope, impacts and risk. Please contact the National Flood Hydrology team for further support.   \n\nIn general, a 6 months’ timeframe is considered reasonable for transitioning to using new methods and data (see National Flood Hydrology transition guidelines). However, sometimes a faster transition is needed if there are significant impacts on flood estimates. In other cases, new methods and data may have little impact on individual studies outcomes and older hydrological analysis may still be appropriate.  \n\nConsultants can support this review action by providing sensitivity analysis or residual uncertainty analysis to take into account the potential impacts of using new methods or data. For example, a sensitivity test could use the latest data and methodologies to estimate lumped flow at one key location assessed in the study for the 1% AEP event for comparison with the original analysis:\n●\tIf flows or volumes are increased by more than 20% , do not proceed further with this review. Mark this row as Red and request the calculations are updated using the latest data and methodologies.\n●\tIf flows or volumes are increased by 10 – 20%, mark this row as Amber. Continue with the review and check that the potential impacts of this change are allowed for within the sensitivity analysis or residual uncertainty analysis.  \n●\tIf flows are volumes are increased by less than 10%, mark this row as Green. Note that best practice would be to use the latest methodologies and data, but these are unlikely to change the outcome of the study. Check that the potential impacts of the change are allowed for within the sensitivity analysis or residual uncertainty analysis.\n\n","OK"]
["1.1.3","(Additional space for other items checked)","N/A"]

{"sheet":"2. Catchment","index":5,"n_rows":46,"n_cols":19,"rows_kept":46,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
[]
[]
[]
["2. Method Statement"]
[]
["2.1 Requirements for flood estimates"]
["Item No.","Item Checked","Guidance Note","RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2st Review Actions","2nd Review Response","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3st Review Actions","3rd Review Response","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4st Review Actions","4th Review Response"]
["2.1.1","Does the method statement include an overview of the project, its scope and hydrological complexity? ","●\tThe content and level of detail provided in this section will depend on the scope of the study.  The following should be included as a minimum:\n●\tPurpose of study\n●\tPeak flows or hydrographs? \n●\tDesign events for which flow estimates are to be made (AEP %)\n●\tClimate change allowances with reference to relevant guidance\n●\tPotential number of locations for flow estimation\n●\tThe purpose of the document \n●\tWhat is the complexity of the study – simple, routine, moderate, difficult, very difficult?\n●\tWhat does the client’s scope specify for inclusion in the study, e.g., review of existing studies, rating reviews / updates, simple / detailed flood history review, ReFH model parameter estimation, joint probability?\n●\tInclude a reference to any modelling reports which this flood estimation calculation record supports. ","OK"]
["2.1.2","(Additional space for other items checked)","N/A","N/A"]
[]
["2.2 The catchment"]
["Item No.","Item Checked","Guidance Note","RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2st Review Actions","2nd Review Response","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3st Review Actions","3rd Review Response","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4st Review Actions","4th Review Response"]
["2.2.1","Does the method statement include maps showing the catchment and key locations and hydrological features? ","●\tInclude a map of the catchment in here, at a minimum showing the river network, catchment boundary and gauging stations, and appropriately labelled / referenced in a legend.  Additional information which could be included is the model extent or locations of unusual / interesting features, for example.  Think about the background mapping being used – scale and colour / greyscale – think about if the reader could easily identify locations from the background mapping.\n●\tInclude more than one map if that would assist in presenting the information, consider including maps using satellite imagery as background if that would better show key catchment features, and consider including photographs if they would help understanding of features identified in the ‘Description’ section.  For permeable catchments, consider including a hydrogeological map showing groundwater equipotential lines.\n●\tRemember to give all figures a number and title and refer to them in the text.\n●\tConsider changing the page orientation to landscape and the page size to A3 if necessary or including maps as a separate digital appendix","OK","Yes"]
["2.2.2","Does the method statement describe the catchment and its hydrological features, including how runoff is generated during flood events and any unusual features that might affect the flood hydrology. ","●\tThink about how runoff will be generated and what features are going to affect runoff from the contributing catchment reaching the watercourse. Include: \n●\tTopography\n●\tClimate\n●\tGeology\n●\tSoils\n●\tLand use \n●\tAny unusual features (e.g., reservoirs, historic mining) that may affect the flood hydrology.  \n●\tIn some cases, it may be useful to include reference to things such as amount of modelled reach that is culverted but remember that this is not a hydraulic modelling report and detail on hydraulic features, such as weir and culvert sizes, is not required.  ","Green","No imformations on soils or geology","Please expend report to include information about soils in the area and geology with maps.","Geology information and a map have been added","OK","Map and info now added."]
["2.2.3","(Additional space for other items checked)","N/A"]
[]
["2.3 Hydrometric data"]
["Item No.","Item Checked","Guidance Note","RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2st Review Actions","2nd Review Response","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3st Review Actions","3rd Review Response","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4st Review Actions","4th Review Response"]
["2.3.1","Are the sources of flood peak data listed? Is the latest version of the NRFA database used? ","●\tThis should be updated to the latest version of the dataset at the time of the assessment.","OK","NRFA v11, released September 2022\nOK as document produced in February 2023 and reviwed in December 2023 less than 6 month since last NRFA update."]
["2.3.2","Are the type and record length of flow and level gauging stations listed, including stations outside the NRFA peak flows dataset and closed stations as well as current ones? ","●\tYou only need to include gauges at or very near to the sites of flood estimates unless there is an exceptional reason to include other gauges.\n●\tIf you have data extracted from WISKI the datafile may only provide the digital data period of record, and the actual operating period of the gauge may be longer. You should check this using the NRFA website.","N/A"]
["2.3.3 ","Is the data available at each flow gauging station summarised, including data type, record length, data quality, and what further updates and checks are needed in this study? ","●\tThis table can be deleted if the study catchment is ungauged.\n●\tA quality check of the data is not required if the gauge is in the NRFA, unless specifically called for in the project brief.\n●\tThere is no need to repeat everything in the NRFA station description, for example, weir length, wingwall height.  Just add the key factors which will affect the quality of flood flow measurement and hence confidence in the data.  For more detailed studies consider looking for other sources of information, for example, gauging authority rating review reports, station files held at CEH Wallingford, or reports on earlier flood studies.\n●\tAny flood peak data not in the NRFA (e.g., extra stations, recent data or altered flows) should be provided in the appendix.\n●\tProvide details of how peaks-over-threshold (POT) data has been derived in the appendix.   ","N/A"]
["2.3.4","Is it appropriate to update the flood peak data (e.g. to include additional water years or a new rating) and if so has this been done? ","●\tTabulate any updated or revised flood peak series in the appendix and provide a summary here. ","N/A"]
["2.3.5","Have data quality checks been carried out, at minimum giving the NRFA peak flows classification? Is a more detailed review of data appropriate for this study and if so has it been done? ","●\tProvide full details of data quality checks in the appendix and summarise findings here. ","N/A"]
["2.3.6","Are rating equations summarised and is a more detailed rating review needed? ","●\tThe Flood Estimation Guidelines provide suggestions on the information that should be collated and assessed for rating reviews (Section 2.1 ‘Rating reviews and improvements’).  \n●\tA site visit is an important component of any rating review. ","N/A"]
["2.3.7","Have any changes to ratings been reported? (see additional tab 2a)","●\tProvide full details of rating updates in an additional report or the appendix.","N/A"]
["2.3.8","Has other relevant data been sought and presented in the report? Has data quality been reviewed? Have any flood alleviation schemes been carried out or other significant catchment changes which could affect the relevance of older data? ","●\tCheck flow gaugings / spot flow gaugings are only required if you are reviewing a rating\n●\tHistorical flood data: a chronology and interpretation of the flood history should be included in the appendix or in an additional report (add references). The detail included will depend on requirements in the project scope.  If there is a flow gauge within the study reach (or close by), consider if the historical flood data could be used to extend the systematic gauge record (see FEH Local guidance for more information).\n●\tPotential evaporation data may be required if the ReFH Calibration Utility is being used. \n●\tOther data or information could include groundwater, tides, channel widths, low flow statistics, sewer network data, or any other data used in your analysis. Add extra rows to the table if needed.  ","OK","Only historical data"]
["2.3.9","Does the report conclude by clearly explaining what the data at each gauging station will be used for? ","N/A","N/A"]
["2.3.10","(Additional space for other items checked)","N/A","N/A"]
[]
["2.4 Hydrological understanding of the catchment"]
["Item No.","Item Checked","Guidance Note","RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2st Review Actions","2nd Review Response","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3st Review Actions","3rd Review Response","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4st Review Actions","4th Review Response"]
["2.4.1","Are plots of flood peak data included and interpreted? ","●\tThis could be the AMAX series or the POT series.  \n●\tVisually examine the time series and identify if there are, for example, outliers, apparent truncation of the flood peaks, trends or fluctuations in the data, step changes in the data, or unusually small flows. You should include an interpretation of these and other features.  \n●\tIf there is more than one gauge in the study area, correlation plots can help to identify patterns or inconsistencies in the hydrological behaviour.\n●\tYou could add informative plots, for example, showing the seasonality of floods or the correlation of peak flows at different gauges.","N/A"]
["2.4.2","Are plots of flow data included and interpreted? ","●\tThis could include, for example, annual flow hydrographs or flood events.  \n●\tPlots should be followed by an interpretation of the plots, for example, discussion of catchment processes, response time, propagation of a flood, and contributions from tributaries.  \n●\tIf there is more than one gauge in the study area it can be useful to plot the data for all gauges on the same graph as this can aid understanding of the relationship between flow at different locations.  \n●\tThese plots can be useful for checking the quality of the data and it is often helpful to plot flow and rainfall together as this may identify problems.","N/A"]
["2.4.3","Are plots of stage data included and interpreted? ","●\tMany catchments do not have flow gauges, but stage / level data may be available. This data can provide valuable information on the catchment response in the absence of flow data, for example estimating Tp from lag analysis.","N/A"]
["2.4.4","Has a conceptual model for the catchment flooding processes been described? ","●\tSee Section 3.3 of the Flood Estimation Guidelines. Include information on factors such as:\n●\tWhere are the main sites of interest?  \n●\tWhat is likely to cause flooding at those locations? (e.g., peak flows, flood volumes, combinations of peaks, groundwater, snowmelt, tides…)\n●\tMight those locations flood from runoff generated on part of the catchment only, e.g., downstream of a reservoir?\n●\tIs there a need to consider temporary debris dams that could collapse?","OK"]
["2.4.5","Have unusual catchment features been identified? What is their impact on choice of method and conceptual model? E.g.: \n●\tUrbanisation: impacts on local flood generating processes and influence of the urban drainage network. \n●\tReservoirs: the potential need for reservoir routing calculations.\n●\tHighly permeable catchments: hydrogeological setting and influence on flood generation. \n●\tPumped: alternative rainfall-runoff methods.","●\tSee Section 7 of the Flood Estimation Guidelines. Include information on factors such as:  \n●\thighly permeable soils or geology\n●\theavily urbanised land use\n●\tpumped watercourse  \n●\tmajor reservoir influence (FARL<0.90) \n●\tflood storage areas, particularly those which are normally dry\n●\thistorical mining or operational mining activities","OK"]
["2.4.6","(Additional space for other items checked)","N/A","N/A"]
[]
["2.5 Initial choice of approach"]
["Item No.","Item Checked","Guidance Note","RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2st Review Actions","2nd Review Response","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3st Review Actions","3rd Review Response","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4st Review Actions","4th Review Response"]
["2.5.1","Are FEH methods appropriate? ","●\tFEH methods may not be appropriate, e.g., for extremely heavily urbanised or complex catchments).  Explain your decision. ","OK"]
["2.5.2","Is an initial choice of method(s) included with adequate reasons?  Have unusual catchment features been considered and choices of methods justified?","●\tSee Section 3 of the Flood Estimation Guidelines. \n●\tThink about: \n●\tthe type of problem \n●\tthe type of catchment \n●\tthe type of data available\n●\tWhich methods are appropriate?  If more than one method is appropriate will all be applied, and the results compared before a final decision is made?  Will non-stationary methods be applied? Will different storm durations need to be considered / tested?","OK"]
["2.5.3","How will hydrograph shapes be derived if needed? ","●\tFor example, ReFH1 or ReFH2 shapes, average hydrograph shape from gauged data. \n●\tIf using average hydrograph shapes, how will inflows from different tributaries be phased? ","OK"]
["2.5.4","Will the catchment be split into sub-catchments? If so, how? ","●\tIf the hydrological assessment is being undertaken to supply inflows to a hydraulic model, it is likely that a distributed approach will be taken, with the catchment split into sub-catchments and design flows routed from each sub-catchment.  \n●\tThink about what the split into sub-catchments will be based on, e.g., tributary confluences, changes in geology / urbanisation, key areas of interest, sewer outfalls.  \n●\tWill intervening area hydrographs be required and how will these be derived?  \n●\tIf the catchment area changes significantly over the study reach, or tributaries are also being modelled, will different storm durations need to be considered / tested? ","OK"]
["2.5.5","What software will be used? ","●\tSee Section 1.2 of the Flood Estimation Guidelines\n●\tInclude version numbers\n●\tInclude software used for non-stationary analysis, if undertaken. ","OK"]
["2.5.6","(Additional space for other items checked)","N/A","N/A"]

{"sheet":"3. Locations for estimates","index":6,"n_rows":19,"n_cols":19,"rows_kept":19,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
[]
[]
[]
["3. Locations where flood estimates are required"]
[]
["3.1 Summary of subject sites"]
["Item No.","Item Checked","Guidance Note","RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2st Review Actions","2nd Review Response","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3st Review Actions","3rd Review Response","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4st Review Actions","4th Review Response"]
["3.1.1","Have locations where flood estimates are required been tabulated and shown on a map, clearly distinguishing between lumped catchments and sub-catchments (intervening areas) and explainint the purpose for which they have been created? ","●\tInclude a map which shows the locations of the subject sites.\n●\tUse site codes in all subsequent tables for clarity and to save space. \n●\tLumped catchments (L) are complete catchments draining to points at which design flows are required. \n●\tSub-catchments (S) are catchments or intervening areas that are being used as inputs to a distributed model. Details of these need to be included so that results can be fully reproduced and checked.","OK"]
["3.1.2","Do you agree with the choice of flood estimation points? Do they cover the main locations of interest (e.g. confluences, areas of known flood risk, gauging stations, model boundaries) without including an excessive number of subcatchments or very similar catchments? ","N/A","OK"]
["3.1.3","(Additional space for other items checked)","N/A","N/A"]
[]
["3.2 Catchment descriptors"]
["Item No.","Item Checked","Guidance Note","RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2st Review Actions","2nd Review Response","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3st Review Actions","3rd Review Response","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4st Review Actions","4th Review Response"]
["3.2.1","Are the final catchment descriptors tabulated for every subject site, indicating where changes have been made from default values?  ","●\tInclude any changes made. Use a different colour to identify catchment descriptors which have been changed from the default values. \n●\tRefer to Section 2.3 of the Flood Estimation Guidelines for suggestions on how to check and amend catchment descriptors. Any changes made must be recorded fully so that they can be checked and are reproducible. \n●\tInclude sub-catchments and intervening areas required for a distributed approach. ","OK"]
["3.2.2","Have FEH catchment boundaries been checked against high resolution LIDAR, sewer network, and OS data and refined where appropriate? If catchment area has been changed, have catchment descriptors been adjusted appropriately?","●\tAdd maps if needed to aid explanation of any changes.  ","OK"]
["3.2.3","Does the calculation record state whether URBEXT1990 or URBEXT2000 has been used?  Has the correct value been identified for the method(s) to be applied? Have the URBEXT values been updated to the current year or revised using the URBAN50k method if a discrepancy between the FEH urbanisation layer and current OS mapping has been identified?","●\tExplain the source of URBEXT used in the analysis (e.g., URBEXT1990, URBEXT2000, manually derived using URBAN50k). URBEXT1990 should only be used in ReFH1. \n●\tIf URBEXT values need to be substantially revised due to development or catchment boundary changes, see the URBAN50k method in Section 2.3 of the Flood Estimation Guidelines. \n●\tDefault URBEXT1990 and URBEXT2000 values should always be updated to the current year. Explain what method has been used (e.g., CPRE formula, manual derivation) and where (e.g., edited catchment descriptor files, updated within WinFAP software, updated within ReFH2 software).  ","OK"]
["3.2.4","Has BFIHOST19 been used in preference to BFIHOST? Have values been checked against other soil or geological data? Has BFI been derived from local data? ","●\tBFIHOST19 should be used in the ReFH2 calculations, since the current release (ReFH2.3) was calibrated using BFIHOST19, and also in the FEH Statistical method, since this has been found to improve the results.\n●\tSoil association maps can be used to check BFIHOST values, especially if significant changes have been made to catchment boundaries. Any changes made must be recorded fully so that they can be checked and are reproducible. \n●\tIf using other BFIHOST data, explain what has been used, why, and how it has been derived. ","Green","A map of the soil and geology of the area is recommended","please amend report with maps.","Added in 2.2","OK","Map and info added."]
["3.2.5","How have other catchment descriptors been checked and revised? How have catchment descriptors for sub-catchments been derived (particularly FARL, DPLBAR and URBEXT)? ","●\tRefer to Section 2.3 of the Flood Estimation Guidelines for suggestions on how to check and amend catchment descriptors. \n●\tAny changes made must be recorded fully so that they can be checked and are reproducible. \n●\tInclude before and after tables if appropriate.  ","OK"]
["3.2.6","(Additional space for other items checked)","N/A","N/A"]

{"sheet":"4. Stationary statistical","index":7,"n_rows":33,"n_cols":19,"rows_kept":33,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
[]
[]
[]
["4. Stationarity statistical methods"]
[]
["4.1 Method overview"]
["Item No.","Item Checked","Guidance Note","RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2st Review Actions","2nd Review Response","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3st Review Actions","3rd Review Response","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4st Review Actions","4th Review Response"]
["4.1.1","Is the reason for using this methods explained? ","●\t Include a brief summary of the reasons, specific to this study, for applying the method.","OK","Typo in the report."," Please update \"lacation\" >> to \"location\""]
["4.1.2","What methods will be used to estimate QMED and growth curves? Has local data been used to its full potential? ","●\tInclude a brief summary of what methods will be used at which subject sites.\n●\tMore than one method may be tested at each site (e.g., comparing single site and pooled growth curves at a gauged site). \n●\tInclude all methods tested, even those ultimately rejected. ","Green","We will need legend under the table in 4.1 please.","We need a lengend here.","Table 4.1 does not require an additional legend because it provides a structured answer to the question defined above the table, i.e. What methods will be used to estimate QMED and growth curves? at each flood estimation point","Green","Need explanation of what \"DT\" means. E.g. have a list underneath table to explanation abbreviations.","Add list of abbreviations for Table 4.1."]
["4.1.3","(Additional space for other items checked)","N/A","N/A"]
[]
["4.2 Estimating QMED"]
["Item No.","Item Checked","Guidance Note","RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2st Review Actions","2nd Review Response","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3st Review Actions","3rd Review Response","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4st Review Actions","4th Review Response"]
["4.2.1","Has QMED been estimated at gauged sites appropriately? Have short records been adjusted for climatic variation? ","●\tSee Section 4.2 of the Flood Estimation Guidelines. \n●\tWhen QMED is estimated from short records (less than 14 years), it should also be adjusted for climatic variation. Refer to FEH Volume 3, chapter 20. Provide full details of the adjustment in the appendix. \n●\tIf you estimate QMED from peaks-over-threshold (POT) or low flow duration curve statistics (LF), add sufficient details in the appendix of the data sources and calculations to allow these to be fully reproduced.\n●\tMore than one method may be used at each site. Use a different row for each method.","N/A"]
["4.2.2","Has QMED been estimated at ungauged sites appropriately? ","●\tSee Section 4.2 of the Flood Estimation Guidelines. \n●\tOnly fill in the cells needed. \n●\tIf you estimate QMED from bankfull channel width, add sufficient details in the appendix of the data sources and calculations to allow these to be fully reproduced.\n●\tMore than one method may be used at each site. Use a different row for each method. ","OK"]
["4.2.3","What method and parameters have been used for urban adjustment of subject and donor sites? Is this appropriate? ","●\tList the method used for urban adjustment of subject and donor sites, if applicable (e.g., Kjeldsen (2010), WinFAP v4, WinFAP v5). \n●\tList the parameters used for the urban adjustment. The standard values are listed below, and any amendments must be explained. \n●\tImpervious fraction for built-up areas, IF: 0.3\n●\tPercentage runoff for impervious surfaces, PRimp: 70%\n●\tMethod for calculating fractional urban cover, URBAN: updated URBEXT 2000 ","OK","Urban adjustment procedures applied in WINFAP5 based on updated \nURBEXT2000 to present day."]
["4.2.4","How were donor sites identified and selected? What urbanisation threshold was used? Has the use of urbanised donor sites been avoided unless appropriate for the catchment being assessed? Has the choice and number of donor sites been justified?","●\tProvide details regarding how potential donors were selected and the reasons why they were chosen / rejected.\n●\tInclude a map if helpful, which shows the location of the study catchment and donor stations under consideration.\n●\tSection 4.2 of the Flood Estimation Guidelines provides guidance on selecting a donor(s) for data transfer.\n●\tConsider using POT and low flow stations as donors, especially if used as gauged subject sites.\n●\tIf using WinFAP to search for donor sites: the default URBEXT2000 threshold value for donors in WinFAP v5 is 0.03. Explain if you have changed the threshold, for example to enable a more urbanised donor site to be used.","OK"]
["4.2.5","Was QMED estimated at donor sites appropriately? If donor sites are upstream or downstream of subject sites, have the adjusted QMED estimates been checked for consistency and averaged adjustment factors been used? ","●\tSee Section 4.2 of the Flood Estimation Guidelines. \n●\tWhen QMED is estimated from short records (less than 14 years), it should also be adjusted for climatic variation. Refer to FEH Volume 3, chapter 20. Provide full details of the adjustment in the appendix. \n●\tIf you estimate QMED from flow duration curve statistics (LF), add sufficient details in the appendix of the data sources and calculations to allow these to be fully reproduced.\n●\tQMED from catchment descriptors is the ‘as rural’ value, i.e., with no urban adjustment factor applied. For urban donors, record whether and how the observed value of QMED has been “de-urbanised” for comparison with the as-rural estimate from catchment descriptors.\n●\tThe adjustment ratio in the table below is the adjustment in full, with no distance factor applied. ","OK"]
["4.2.6","(Additional space for other items checked)",null,"N/A"]
[]
["4.3 Estimating growth curves"]
["Item No.","Item Checked","Guidance Note","RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2st Review Actions","2nd Review Response","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3st Review Actions","3rd Review Response","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4st Review Actions","4th Review Response"]
["4.3.1","Have growth curves been derived at subject sites using appropriate methods, distributions, adjustments and parameters? Where flood peak records are available, has single site and enhanced single site analysis been carried out? Has historical analysis been considered? Have urban and non-flood years adjustments been applied? ","●\tSee the Flood Estimation Guidelines Section 4.2.  \n●\tList all flood growth curves compared, including those ultimately rejected. \n●\tIf using historical methods, provide full calculation details in the appendix.\n●\tAn individual urban adjustment should be applied even if the same pooling group (including enhanced single-site analysis) has been applied to several sites, as each site is likely to have a different URBEXT2000 value and hence a different urban adjustment. \n●\tA non-flood years adjustment (previously known as the “permeable” adjustment) should be considered if there are non-flood years in the stations in the pooling group that may make a significant difference to the results. Adjustments to remove the influence of non-flood years are carried out using the method in FEH Volume 3, chapter 19. This is valid only for the GLO distribution.\n●\tMore than one method may be used at each site. Use a different row for each method. \n●\tEdit the list of methods if any alternatives were used and highlight the changes made. ","OK"]
["4.3.2","Are flood frequency curve plots included? ","●\tAny relevant frequency plots, particularly showing any comparisons between single-site, enhanced single-site, and pooled growth curves (including flood peak data on the plot), should be shown here.","OK"]
["4.3.3","Have pooling groups been derived appropriately? Was the small catchment pooling procedure used, if appropriate? If there are several similar flow estimation points, have they used a single pooling group to aid simplicity and consistency? ","●\tTry to use as few groups as possible, this avoids step changes in flow estimates between flow estimation points for catchment-wide studies. \n●\tSection 4.2 of the Flood Estimation Guidelines provides further details on reviewing pooling groups.\n●\tProvide initial and final pooling group compositions in the appendix. \n●\tIf you increase the URBEXT2000 threshold from the default value of 0.03, include a justification and compare the results with those from an all-rural pooling group.\n●\tL-moments are deurbanised by default in WinFAP v5.  ","OK"]
["4.3.4","Is the composition of the pooling group recorded? How has pooling group composition been reviewed and adjusted? Has the removal or retention of sites been adequately justified, especially discordant sites? ","●\tIf no changes were made, just say \"none\", although it is helpful to provide details of stations which were investigated even if they were ultimately retained. \n●\tProvide original and final pooling group compositions in the appendix.\n●\tWeighted L-moments should be the pooling group L-CV and L-Skew, after any changes were made to composition, but before any urban or non-flood years adjustments. ","OK"]
["4.3.5","(Additional space for other items checked)","N/A","N/A"]
[]
["4.4 Final choice of QMED and growth curves"]
["Item No.","Item Checked","Guidance Note","RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2st Review Actions","2nd Review Response","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3st Review Actions","3rd Review Response","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4st Review Actions","4th Review Response"]
["4.4.1","Has the final choice of method for QMED and growth curves been explained and justified? ","●\tRecord your final choices of method for QMED and growth curves.\n●\tConsider spatial consistency. Check values to ensure they are consistent with observations at upstream or downstream gauging stations. In some situations, using the data transfer method and switching between pooling groups can lead to unrealistic step changes. See Flood Estimation Guidelines Section 4.2.","OK"]
["4.4.2","Have the final flood estimates been tabulated? ","●\tAdd or remove columns as needed to change the return periods to those used in the study. ","Amber","RB01 and TB01 catchments have the same flows results.","Please explain why.","This has been updated in revised version of the Flood Estimation Report","OK","Corrected in latest reporting."]
["4.4.3","(Additional space for other items checked)","N/A","N/A"]

{"sheet":"7. ReFH2","index":8,"n_rows":31,"n_cols":19,"rows_kept":31,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
[]
[]
[]
["7. Revitalised flood hydrograph 2 (ReFH2) method"]
[]
["7.1 Method overview"]
["Item No.","Item Checked","Guidance Note","RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2st Review Actions","2nd Review Response","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3st Review Actions","3rd Review Response","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4st Review Actions","4th Review Response"]
["7.1.1","What is the purpose of applying this method? Has the method been avoided for large catchments? ","●\tInclude a brief summary of the reasons, specific to this study, for applying the method.","Red","Section is almost completely empty","Please fill the report properly.\nWe need to be able to reproduce results.","Section has been updated","OK","ReFH2 method undertaken as a comparison against statistical method. This method was also used to generate hydrographs for use as input into hydraulic model.","No further action required."]
["7.1.2","Are rural and urban sub-divisions used? ","●\tThis section can be deleted if the catchment is essentially rural.\n●\tIf the catchment is urban: \n●\tDid you calculate paved areas using a method other than from URBEXT using the standard equations?\n●\tDid you allow for transfer of water via sewers across the topographic catchment boundary?\n●\tIf yes to either of these questions provide details which give sufficient information to understand the process applied and any assumptions made.  It may be useful to include a map of sub-catchments here, if not provided earlier in the report.","Red","Section is almost completely empty","Please fill the report properly.\nWe need to be able to reproduce results.","Section has been updated","OK","Defaults values are retained. This is considered apprpriate and justification is given due to the small area of the catchments. ","No further action required."]
["7.1.3","(Additional space for other items checked)","N/A"]
[]
["7.2 Model parameters"]
["Item No.","Item Checked","Guidance Note","RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2st Review Actions","2nd Review Response","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3st Review Actions","3rd Review Response","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4st Review Actions","4th Review Response"]
["7.2.1","What methods were used to estimate model parameters? Have model parameters been listed? If flow estimation points are at or near a gauging station, have model parameters been estimated from observed data? ","●\tList parameters for all site codes, including intervening areas and sub-catchments. \n●\tInclude a brief summary of what methods will be used at which subject sites. See Section 4.3 of the Flood Estimation Guidelines. \n●\tMore than one method may be tested at each site. Include all methods tested, even those ultimately rejected.\n●\tSee the Flood Estimation Guidelines for recommended approaches for modelling urbanised catchments. You only need to provide the urban area, TP urban scaling factor, IF, IRF and DS parameters if modelling as urbanised.\n●\tReFH2 treats BR (baseflow recharge) as a state variable rather than a parameter, setting it automatically in order to conserve volume.  The values of BR vary with return period and so are not reported here.","Red","Section is almost completely empty","Please fill the report properly.\nWe need to be able to reproduce results.","Section has been updated","OK","Model parameters are based on catchment descriptors. For SD01 a storm duration of  3.5 hrs has been applied. A summer rainfall profile has been used. For all other catchments, a storm duration of 11 hrs has been adopted with a winter storm profile.\n","No further action required."]
["7.2.2","What analysis was undertaken to derive model parameters? ","●\tFor any methods other than catchment descriptors, provide a description here and include full calculation details in the appendix.","Red","Section is almost completely empty","Please fill the report properly.\nWe need to be able to reproduce results.","Section has been updated","N/A","Model parameters derived using catchment descriptors.","Not applicable."]
["7.2.3","(Additional space for other items checked)","N/A"]
[]
["7.3 Model inputs for design events"]
["Item No.","Item Checked","Guidance Note","RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2st Review Actions","2nd Review Response","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3st Review Actions","3rd Review Response","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4st Review Actions","4th Review Response"]
["7.3.1","What rainfall DDF model has been used (e.g. FEH99, FEH13 or FEH22)? Have rainfall data and initial conditions been amended from default values? ","●\tModel inputs include rainfall data and initial conditions. These are a complete package and should only be amended in some circumstances. See Section 4.3 of the Flood Estimation Guidelines.  ","Red","Section is almost completely empty","Please fill the report properly.\nWe need to be able to reproduce results.","Section has been updated","Green","FEH13 rainfall statistics have been used. There is a more up to date dataset available FEH22. However, given that the final choice of method if FEH statistical, it is not considered necessary to update.","Consider updating method for FEH22 rainfall statistics in the future."]
["7.3.2","Have different design events been used when considering lumped and sub-catchment sites? Does the report acknowledge that a single design storm will need to be applied to all inflow hydrographs in a distributed modelling approach? ","●\tReFH2 may be applied for both lumped catchments and sub-catchments in a study. Different design events will be needed when considering lumped and sub-catchment sites. Complete the relevant sections as appropriate for your study.   ","Red","Section is almost completely empty","Please fill the report properly.\nWe need to be able to reproduce results.","Section has been updated","OK","Separate storm durations are calculated for both lumped and subcatchments. Storm durations of 3.5hrs and 11hrs were taken forward for testing in the hydraulic model. This is considered appropriate.","No further action required."]
["7.3.3","What design events are listed for lumped catchments? Are the choices suitable? ","●\tStorm durations detailed here should be the values for the individual catchments.  Lumped flows should be generated using the storm duration relevant to each lumped catchment.\n●\tA summer storm should be used if the catchment is heavily urbanised (URBEXT2000 between 0.15 and 0.3) AND highly permeable (BFIHOST19>0.65).\n●\tCini and BFO values only need to be listed if amended from default values. \n●\tThis section can be deleted if ReFH2 is not being applied for lumped catchments.  ","Red","Section is almost completely empty","Please fill the report properly.\nWe need to be able to reproduce results.","Section has been updated","OK","Separate storm durations are used for winter and summer scenarios. Both scenarios have been taken forward for simulation in the hydraulic model. This is considered appropriate.","No further action required."]
["7.3.4","What design events are listed for subcatchments and intervening areas? Are the choices suitable? ","●\tThis table can be deleted if ReFH2 is not being applied for sub-catchments.\n●\tThis table is included to identify the storm which will be applied to all inflows to a distributed model (see Section 6.1 of the Flood Estimation Guidelines) and avoid the scenario of using a different storm for each inflow to the model.\n●\tIf there are multiple flood risk areas throughout the model it may be necessary to allow for different storms in different parts of the model by carrying out multiple runs. Each model run should use the same storm applied to all inflows. \n●\tUse one row for each storm to be applied. If only one storm is to be applied, delete the additional rows.","Red","Section is almost completely empty","Please fill the report properly.\nWe need to be able to reproduce results.","Section has been updated","OK","Design events listed are 50%, 20%, 10%, 3.3%, 2%, 1%, 0.5%, 0.1% AEP. Just the 3.3%, 1% and 0.1% AEP events have been modelled. This is appropriate.\n\nTwo design storms have been modelled by carrying out multipled runs with the same storm applied to all inflows, as appropriate.","No further action required."]
["7.3.5","Has storm duration testing been undertaken using the hydraulic model? ","●\tIf storm duration testing using the hydraulic model is being undertaken add details of the results, for example, which duration(s) has been selected and why, what the process will be in terms of presenting model results if more than one duration is selected.","Red","Section is almost completely empty","Please fill the report properly.\nWe need to be able to reproduce results.","Section has been updated","OK","Yes","No further action required."]
["7.3.6","(Additional space for other items checked)","N/A"]
[]
["7.4 Final choice of ReFH2 flow estimates"]
["Item No.","Item Checked","Guidance Note","RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2st Review Actions","2nd Review Response","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3st Review Actions","3rd Review Response","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4st Review Actions","4th Review Response"]
["7.4.1","Has the final choice of design inputs and model parameters been recorded? Are the choices suitable? ","●\tRecord your final choices of method for model parameters and design inputs. You may have multiple choices of methods for lumped and distributed modelling. ","Red","Section is almost completely empty","Please fill the report properly.\nWe need to be able to reproduce results.","Section has been updated","OK","Yes","No further action required."]
["7.4.2","Are the final flood estimates from the ReFH2 method reported? ","●\tAdd or remove columns as needed to change the return periods to those used in this study.\n●\tResults only need to be provided here for lumped catchments, for comparison to other methods. Results for distributed catchments can be provided digitally but must still be provided to allow for checking. \n●\tIf you have modelled a catchment as urban, make sure you record the urbanised flows rather than the as-rural flows.","Red","Section is almost completely empty","Please fill the report properly.\nWe need to be able to reproduce results.","Section has been updated. Final flood estimates from ReFH2 method in 7.4 are from the lumped catchments individual storms in table Design events for lumped catchments in 7.3. However, SD01 and KB01 design events only have been selected for storm duration testing and applied at all estimate locations, as deinfed in table Method choice and reasons in 7.4.","OK","Yes.","No further action required."]
["7.4.3","(Additional space for other items checked)","N/A"]

{"sheet":"9. Results","index":9,"n_rows":47,"n_cols":19,"rows_kept":47,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
[]
[]
[]
["9. Discussion and summary of results"]
[]
["9.1 Comparison of results from different methods"]
["Item No.","Item Checked","Guidance Note","RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2st Review Actions","2nd Review Response","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3st Review Actions","3rd Review Response","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4st Review Actions","4th Review Response"]
["9.1.1","Are peak flows from different methods compared? ","●\tCompare peak flows from preferred methods at key sites for selected return periods / AEP events.  \n","OK"]
["9.1.2","(Additional space for other items checked)","N/A","N/A"]
[]
["9.2 Final choice of method"]
["Item No.","Item Checked","Guidance Note","RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2st Review Actions","2nd Review Response","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3st Review Actions","3rd Review Response","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4st Review Actions","4th Review Response"]
["9.2.1","Is the choice of method justified by discussing the type of problem, the type of catchment and the type of data? ","●\tInclude reference to type of study, nature of catchment and type of data available. \n●\tIf different methods are chosen for different site codes or return periods, explain why. ","OK"]
["9.2.2","Does the report explain how hydrograph shapes or volumes have been derived? ","N/A ","OK"]
["9.2.3","How will the 0.1% AEP flows be estimated? ","●\tYou may choose a different method for the 0.1% AEP event (see Section 6.6 of the Flood Estimation Guidelines). Explain how growth factors and peak flows have been calculated, if using a hybrid method. ","OK"]
["9.2.4","How will the flows be applied to the hydraulic model? ","●\tFor example, will model inflows be adjusted to achieve a match with lumped flow estimates, or will the model be allowed to route inflows?","OK"]
["9.2.5","(Additional space for other items checked)","N/A","N/A"]
[]
["9.3 Final results"]
["Item No.","Item Checked","Guidance Note","RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2st Review Actions","2nd Review Response","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3st Review Actions","3rd Review Response","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4st Review Actions","4th Review Response"]
["9.3.1","Have the final peak flow results been provided for all flow estimation points and design events? ","●\tInclude subcatchment and intervening catchment flows here or in digital files, to allow checking of the hydraulic model.\n●\tIf scaling factors have been used in a distributed model, provide full details of the original and final flows below or in the appendix. ","OK"]
["9.3.2","Have any other information, data or results needed for the next stage of the study been provided? ","N/A","N/A"]
["9.3.3","If appropriate, what design storms have been applied in the hydraulic model? ","●\tUse this section if appropriate to record the ReFH1 or ReFH2 design storm parameters applied in the hydraulic model, if they are different to those recorded in the ReFH1 and ReFH2 sections of this report. \n●\tYou must apply a uniform storm duration and areal reduction factor across all subcatchments. Refer to the Flood Estimation Guidelines Section 6.1. This may result in a number of different design storms being modelled to give critical results at different locations in the catchment. List all details below. ","Red","Comment in the report says \"To be selected in the next stage of analysis\".\nThe model has been run and you are using the outputs in the modelling report but this section has not been updated.","Please update the report.","Section has been updated","OK","Design storms of duration 3.5 hrs and 11 hrs will be applied to the hydraulic model. This is appropriate.","No further action required."]
["9.3.4","What climate change allowances have been applied and how? ","●\tRefer to online guidance on climate change allowances for flood risk assessments and projects.\n●\tProvide information on: \n●\tWhat climate change allowances have been applied, e.g., rainfall and/or flow allowances, source of data, river basin, epoch, and percentiles. \n●\tHow the climate change allowances have been applied, e.g., applied to rainfall / flow hydrographs within the hydraulic modelling software using scaling factors. \n●\tFor non-stationary methods, refer to the practitioner guidance available on the FCERM R&D web page and provide full details and justification for the approach chosen.  ","Red","No comment on climate change allowances.\nUse https://environment.data.gov.uk/hydrology/climate-change-allowances/river-flow?mgmtcatid=3117 to find out CC allowances","Gloucestershire and the Vale Management Catchment peak river flow allowances\nDismiss\nCentral\tHigher\tUpper\n2020s\t11%\t17%\t33%\n2050s\t11%\t19%\t43%\n2080s\t26%\t41%\t84%","Section has been updated","OK","Climate change information has been added to report. This has been checked and is appropriate.","No further action required."]
["9.3.5","(Additional space for other items checked)",null,"N/A"]
[]
["9.4 Checks on final results"]
["Item No.","Item Checked","Guidance Note","RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2st Review Actions","2nd Review Response","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3st Review Actions","3rd Review Response","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4st Review Actions","4th Review Response"]
["9.4.1","Are checks on results included? ","●\tSee Section 3.5 of the Flood Estimation Guidelines. \n●\tThese checks are important as a way of ensuring that everything has been considered and that the results are sensible.  \n●\tAll relevant sections should be completed for every study.  Where sections are not relevant (where there are no flow gauges or previous studies, for example) a comment should be added to this effect rather than leaving a blank space.","Red","Many sections are empty","Please improve reporting","Section has been updated","OK","This section has been updated to include checks on results.","No further action required."]
["9.4.2","Have the 1% and 0.1% AEP growth factors been derived and sense-checked? If the 1% AEP growth factor is outside the typical range, has a justification been provided? ","●\tWhat is the range of 1% AEP (100-year) growth factors? Is this realistic? \n●\tWhat is the range of ratios for the 0.1% AEP (1000-year) over 1% AEP (100-year) flow?   \n●\tWhat reasons are there for variations in ratios between sites? ","OK"]
["9.4.3","Has the specific discharge (l/s/ha) been derived, and are varaitions between locations explained? ","●\tWhat specific discharge (flow in l/s/ha) do the results equate to? Can you explain variations in specific discharges between different locations across the study area?","Red","Section is almost completely empty","Please fill the report properly.\nWe need to be able to reproduce results.","Section has been updated","Green","Specific discharge has been derived for all locations. However, no discussion on variations in the results has been included.","Ideally, the specific discharge results would be commented upon."]
["9.4.5","Have the design flows been checked for spatial consistency, e.g. at confluences and along reaches? ","●\tThis will not be relevant for a study where there is only a single flow estimation point.\n●\tSee Section 6.1 of the Flood Estimation Guidelines. FEH methods are intended for application at individual sites and may not give spatially consistent results if applied to multiple sites along a river system.  \n●\tYou should particularly check for consistency between upstream and downstream points and at confluences. ","Red","Section is almost completely empty","Please fill the report properly.\nWe need to be able to reproduce results.","Section has been updated","Green","No. A quick check of results shows that flow increase downstream as expected.","Ideally, a comment on spatial consistency of results should be included in the reporting."]
["9.4.6","Have return periods for notable historic floods been calculated? ","●\tWhat do the results imply regarding the return periods / frequency of major events in the gauged record? This can help justify the choice of flood growth curve. \n●\tIf there is no flow data available, you can compare your design event hydraulic modelling results to observed level and flood extent data if available for major events.  ","Red","Section is almost completely empty","Please fill the report properly.\nWe need to be able to reproduce results.","Not applicable due to the lack of notable historic flood events records","N/A"]
["9.4.7","Are results compatible with the longer term flood history? ","●\tConsider whether the implied frequency of flooding from your design event hydraulic modelling results is compatible with what is known of the flood history of the study area.   ","Red","Section is almost completely empty","Please fill the report properly.\nWe need to be able to reproduce results.","Not applicable due to the lack of information about long term flood history","N/A"]
["9.4.8","Have results been compared with previous studies? ","●\tExplain any differences and conclude which results should be preferred.\n●\tThis will not be relevant if there are no previous hydrological assessments.","Red","Section is almost completely empty","Please fill the report properly.\nWe need to be able to reproduce results.","Not applicable due to the lack of previous studies","N/A"]
["9.4.9","Have the hydraulic model results been checked against lumped flow estimates? ","●\tAre flows generated by the hydraulic model consistent with those estimated from a lumped catchment FEH estimate at locations within the model reach? \n●\tHave any scaling factors been applied to reconcile model results to the preferred flow estimates? ","Red","Section is almost completely empty","Please fill the report properly.\nWe need to be able to reproduce results.","The checks on the hydraulic model results are reported on in the model report","OK","Hydraulic modelling checked and consistent with flow esimates."]
["9.4.10","(Additional space for other items checked)","N/A","N/A"]
[]
["9.5 Assumptions, limitations and uncertainty"]
["Item No.","Item Checked","Guidance Note","RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2st Review Actions","2nd Review Response","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3st Review Actions","3rd Review Response","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4st Review Actions","4th Review Response"]
["9.5.1","Are assumptions, limitations and uncertainty reported? ","●\tCareful thought should be put into identifying the specific assumptions and limitations applicable to the design peak flow estimates (and design hydrographs).  \n●\tAssessing and reporting on the uncertainty in the estimates is also very important.  \n●\tThese sections should be completed for every study and never left blank.","OK"]
["9.5.2","Are the assumptions acknowledged and specific to the study?","●\tSee Section 5.2 of the Flood Estimation Guidelines. \n●\tAssumptions should be specific to the study, have a large effect on the results, and can be tested. General assumptions do not need listing. ","OK"]
["9.5.3","Are the limitations acknowledged and specific to the study? ","●\tSee Section 5.3 of the Flood Estimation Guidelines. \n●\tThis could include applying methods outside of the range of catchment characteristics or return periods for which they were developed. ","OK"]
["9.5.4","Does the report comment on uncertainty in the design flows? ","●\tSee Section 5.4 of the Flood Estimation Guidelines. \n●\tUncertainties in the peak flow estimates should always be quantified if it is possible to do so for the method applied.  \n●\tNote that the confidence limits given in the Flood Estimation Guidelines assume that the AMAX flows follow a generalised logistic distribution. If you have fitted a different distribution, these confidence limits will not be applicable. \n●\tComplete the table with flows from the uncertainty analysis. The default is the 95th percentile upper and lower bounds, but other estimates may need to be provided depending on the requirements of the study. ","Red","Section is almost completely empty","Please fill the report properly.\nWe need to be able to reproduce results.","Section has been updated","OK","Yes. Confidence bounds of flows have been given.","No further action required."]
["9.5.5","Is the suitability of the results for future studies considered? ","●\tWith reference to the assumptions, limitations and uncertainties, comment on the suitability of these calculations for future studies, e.g., at nearby locations, or for different purposes such as detailed scheme design. ","Red","Section is almost completely empty","Please fill the report properly.\nWe need to be able to reproduce results.","Section has been updated","OK","Yes. The flows calculated are specific to the assessment of flood risk for the current study.","No further action required."]
["9.5.6","Are recommendations made for future work? ","●\tMake recommendations for how assumptions, limitations and uncertainties could be reduced in future work, for example flow monitoring, rating reviews, etc.  ","Red","Section is almost completely empty","Please fill the report properly.\nWe need to be able to reproduce results.","Section has been updated","OK","Yes.","No further action required."]
["9.5.7","(Additional space for other items checked)","N/A"]

{"sheet":"10. Appendix","index":10,"n_rows":19,"n_cols":19,"rows_kept":19,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
[]
[]
[]
["10. Appendix"]
[]
["10.1 Digital files"]
["Item No.","Item Checked","Guidance Note","RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2st Review Actions","2nd Review Response","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3st Review Actions","3rd Review Response","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4st Review Actions","4th Review Response"]
["10.1.1","Are input data, output data and profile files available to provide evidence of calculations? ","●\tIf you are submitting work commissioned by the Environment Agency or for review by the Environment Agency, you should be prepared to submit as digital files your input data, output data and project files (where these exist) from the software you have used in the flood estimation. Refer to Section 8.5 of the Flood Estimation Guidelines.\n●\tUse this section to list the files you are submitting, if relevant.",null,null,null,null,"Green","No digital files have been supplised","Please provide all required files."]
["10.1.2","Do the digital files use the same input data and parameters, and give the same results, as listed in the report? ","N/A ",null,null,null,null,"Green","No digital files have been supplised","Please provide all required files."]
[]
["10.2 Other supporting information"]
["Item No.","Item Checked","Guidance Note","RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2st Review Actions","2nd Review Response","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3st Review Actions","3rd Review Response","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4st Review Actions","4th Review Response"]
["10.2.1","Is other supporting information included as needed, complete and accurate? ","●\tInclude any additional information which best sits here rather than in the section text, for example, flood peak series, details of historical flood events, rating reviews, pooling groups, or details of flood event analysis.  Include important information in the section text, for example, comparison of growth curves, or results of flood event analysis.",null,null,null,null,"OK","Supporting information ok.","No further action required."]
["10.2.2","(Add additional items checked here and below as needed, to review the supporting information included in the Appendix or separate reports. )"]
["10.2.3","(Additional space for other items checked)"]
["10.2.4","(Additional space for other items checked)"]
["10.2.5","(Additional space for other items checked)"]
["10.2.6","(Additional space for other items checked)"]
["10.2.7","(Additional space for other items checked)"]

{"sheet":"Lists","index":11,"n_rows":12,"n_cols":2,"rows_kept":12,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[]}
[]
[null,"Competency"]
[null,"Level 1 – Hydrologist with minimum approved experience in flood estimation"]
[null,"Level 2 – Senior Hydrologist"]
[null,"Level 3 – Senior Hydrologist with extensive experience of flood estimation"]
[]
[]
[null,"Simple"]
[null,"Routine"]
[null,"Moderate"]
[null,"Difficult"]
[null,"Very difficult"]