{"text_format":"1","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":25,"sheets":["Details","Summary","Model_Approach","1D_Model_Build","1D_Boundary_Conditions","1D_Structures","1D_Run_Parameters","2D_Model_Build","2D_Boundary_Conditions","2D_Structures","2D_Run_Parameters","1D_2D_Surface_Water","Coastal_boundary","Wave_Transformation","Wave_Overtopping","Linked_1D_2D","Model_Stability","Model_Outputs_Calibration","Model_Sensitivity","Audit_Trail","Additional Info.","Roughness Values","Lists","Version_control","Additional Comments"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":9,"macros":0,"external_links":1,"defined_names":4,"comments":20,"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":"Details","index":0,"n_rows":11,"n_cols":3,"rows_kept":11,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
[]
[null,"Content details"]
[]
[null,"Title","Non-real time Hydraulic Model Review Template"]
[null,"Audience","Environment Agency, Defra"]
[null,"Type","Template"]
[null,"Reference","LIT 17617"]
[null,"Version",6]
[null,"Security marking","OFFICIAL"]
[]
[null,"CONTROLLED CONTENT"]

{"sheet":"Summary","index":1,"n_rows":16,"n_cols":11,"rows_kept":16,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[3,2,3,4],[5,2,5,3],[5,6,5,8],[6,1,6,5],[6,13,7,17],[7,4,7,5],[7,6,7,7],[7,8,7,9],[7,10,7,11],[11,1,11,18],[12,2,12,18],[14,1,14,18],[15,1,16,18],[8,4,8,5],[8,6,8,7],[8,8,8,9],[8,10,8,11],[9,4,9,5],[9,6,9,7],[9,8,9,9],[9,10,9,11]]}
[]
[null,"NON-REAL TIME HYDRAULIC MODEL REVIEW"]
[]
[null,"Type of review","Fluvial/tidal 1D-2D model"]
[]
[null,"Project","Bagbroke Innovation District",null,"Job Number",null,"Required coastal standard\n (if applicable)"]
[]
[null,"Model Type","1D/2D ","Software","Estry/TuFlow",null,"2nd review",null,"3rd review",null,"4th review"]
[null,"Revision","2023-07-01","Date","2023-12-11",null,"2024-05-01"]
[null,"Area Client",null,"Reviewer",null,null,"JKE"]
[]
[null,"REVIEW SUMMARY/CONCLUSION"]
[null,"Is the model suitable for intended use?","May 2024 - Second Review\nThe hydraulic model of Bagbroke Science Park is not considered fit for purpose. \nThe outstanding issues include:\n- significant discrepancies between 1D and 2D channel widths may be resulting in double counting of modelled flow.\n- No inflow sensivitity test resulting in not having full picture of model uncertainty, report is misleading without it.\n- Various omissions from the reporting including detail on 1D and 2D structure representation and topographic modifications included.\n\nDec 2023 - First review\nFollowing our review of the hydraulic model for Bagbroke Science Park, the Evidence and Risk reviewer has concluded that this model is not fit for purpose.\nA number of issues have been found with the model that need to be addressed before we can sign if off, based on our Red, Amber, Green status which is explained further below. \nPlease respond to the review comments in the relevant tabs to ensure we have a clear paper trail of the review process. \n\n"]
[]
[null,"MODEL REVIEW PROCESS"]
[null,"\nHydraulic Model reviews are an essential component of the Hydraulic Modelling Quality Assurance (QA) process that provides confidence in a model’s suitability for its intended purpose. Evidence that the model has undergone QA may be requested by external parties and hence all reviews should be written with an expectation that they could be read externally.\n\nShould any issue(s) be raised during the review process, which require attention, the reviewer should detail the action(s) required in sufficient detail to allow the modeller to complete the changes as appropriate. Completion of this Model Review document does not automatically constitute model approval. Once the suggested changes have been completed, the reviewer may require that the model 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\nIt is recommended that the reviewer makes good use of the fluvial design guide chapter 7\nand the user manual/help guides for the appropriate modelling software.\n\nDepending on the work being reviewed some questions or entire sections may not be relevant, in which case they can be deleted. On completion of the review the reviewer may choose to use the following colour coding system to alert the modeller to the priority of the actions required (if any).\n\nColour coding used:\n\nOK – Good practice.\nMinimum response:  No minimum.\nMaximum expected response: No maximum.\nPlanning: No Objection.\n\nGreen – Consider for future studies. Negligible impact on the results that is unlikely to change the outcome of the study.\nMinimum 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\nNote: Taking action to address issues would be expected and some issues may be addressed coincidentally by work on others.\n\nAmber – Follow recommendation. Potential impact on the results that may change the outcome of the study.\nMinimum response: Comments justifying the approach taken and update the limitation section of the report if not sorted.\nMaximum expected response: Actions done to address the issue identified.\nPlanning: Consider objecting to the application based on comments highlighted in this category.\n\nNote: Taking action to address issues should be undertaken, some issues may be addressed coincidentally by work on others.\n\nRed – Must do. Has an impact on the results that may have a significant impact on the outcome of the study.\nMinimum response: Comments thoroughly justifying approach from applicant based on evidence and update the limitation section of the report if not sorted.\nMaximum expected response: Actions done to address the issue identified.\nPlanning: Objection - Application to be objected if comments are highlighted in this category.\nNote: If 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 evidences. If issues highlighted red are ignored, then submissions should always be sent back."]

{"sheet":"Model_Approach","index":2,"n_rows":30,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":30,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[4,0,4,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,0,6,3],[6,5,6,16],[7,0,14,3],[7,4,14,16],[15,0,15,3],[15,4,15,16],[16,1,16,3],[17,1,17,3],[18,1,18,3],[19,1,19,3],[20,1,20,3],[21,1,21,3],[23,0,23,3],[23,4,23,16],[29,1,29,3],[24,1,24,3],[25,1,25,3],[26,1,26,3],[27,1,27,3],[28,1,28,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["PROJECT BACKGROUND AND APPROACH"]
[]
["PROJECT DESCRIPTION & REQUIREMENTS"]
[null,null,null,null,"Edenvale Young Associates have been commissioned by Buro Happold\nto undertake hydraulic modelling at a site west of Kidlington,\nOxfordshire. The results of this hydraulic modelling will be used to\ninform a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) for the proposed Begbroke\nInnovation District—a mixed use development incorporating the existing\nBegbroke Science Park. The existing flood map is defined it is believe by JFLOW, so a new hydrological analysis and hydraulic model build has been completed as part of this work. "]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
["MODEL APPROACH & SUMMARY"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (28/02/24)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[1.1000000000000001,"What model approach has been adopted? Is it appropriate?\n(e.g. new 1D/2D build, existing model truncation, 1d only?). ",null,null,"OK","A new 1D/2D model has been build as there was no existing model at this location"]
[1.2,"Software used, including versions? ",null,null,"Green","Estry/Tuflow HPC\n2020-10-AF-iDP-w64 \nThis is not the latest version of the software","Please justify the use of HPC and make use of the latest software version","The model is being re-run with the latest version of the software. ","OK","Model has been rerun with latest software."]
[1.3,"Model Version Reviewed ",null,null,"OK","Bbk_v32-A_f100.tcf\nBbk_v32-A_f100cc41.tcf\nBbk_v32-B15_f100cc41.tcf\nBbk_v32-C3_f100cc41.tcf"]
[1.4,"Are all model files provided? ",null,null,"OK","Yes"]
[1.5,"Does the model run? ",null,null,"Red","This has not been tested due to technical issues and will need to be done at the next model review stage","This has not been tested due to technical issues and will need to be done at the next model review stage","It is not clear why this has received a Red flag. All of the model files have been provided and the model runs to completion to provide the results included in the model issue.","OK","Yes, model runs."]
[]
["EVENTS & SCENARIOS "]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (28/02/24)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[2.1,"What events have been simulated (Q5, Q100, Q100CC, Q1000)?\nAre they sufficient to meet the project requirements?",null,null,"OK","3.33%, 1% and 0.1% AEP for the baseline senario"]
[2.2000000000000002,"Is a development being modelled? If so are appropriate scenarios modelled to assess the impact?",null,null,"OK","Two proposed options have been modelled: \nNW Swale Mitigation Option: v32-B15\n•\tf100cc41\n•\tf1000\n(including the proposed swale)\nProposed Secondary Site Option: v32-C3\n•\tf100cc26\n•\tf100cc41\n•\tf1000\n"]
[2.2999999999999998,"Flood Mapping scenarios?",null,null,"N/A","Do not believe the Flood Map for Planning is being challenged"]
[2.4,"Have climate change runs been undertaken?",null,null,"OK","Yes,  the 1% AEP event with climate change allowances\nto the 2080s from Gloucestershire and the Vale Management\nCatchment has been run (26% and 41%)."]
[2.5,"Has a study for quantifying uncertainty been undertaken?\nIf yes, what are the results?",null,null,"Green","No - All modelling contains uncertainty, from the input data to the outputs and decisions made in developing the model. Please see the section of the review on sensitivty testing. \nIt would be useful to include an assessment of levels of uncertainty  in the model and how this affects the conclusions of the assessment  and proposals.\nFreeboard has been applied to deal with a certain level of uncertainty. ",null,"Not clear what the actions required are.","OK","Model accuracy section included in reporting."]

{"sheet":"1D_Model_Build","index":3,"n_rows":20,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":20,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[4,0,4,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,0,6,3],[6,4,6,16],[7,1,7,3],[8,1,8,3],[9,1,9,3],[10,1,10,3],[11,1,11,3],[12,1,12,3],[18,1,18,3],[19,1,19,3],[13,1,13,3],[14,1,14,3],[15,1,15,3],[16,1,16,3],[17,1,17,3]]}
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,"Chow roughness values"]
[]
["1D MODEL BUILD"]
[]
["1D NETWORK"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (28/02/24)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[3.1,"Model overview: Node Summary\n1d length",null,null,"Red","Mid point approach used to define estry cross-sections in the 1d_nwk/1d_nwke. The Tuflow manual recommends using the End Point approach for channels. ","Provide justification for using this approach. \nProvide more detailed survey used to define the 1d_nwk/1d_nwke invert levels so that a complete review can be done. ","TUFLOW manual recommends the end point approach in Section 5.10.5 for practical reasons: there's no need to add the sections invert levels in the network line and the data is compatible with external sources. However, the use of the cross-section data end to end means that the channel geometry interpolates between these  two sections, giving priority to the end cross-section and the geometry is not as representative of the 1D channel as the mid section approach, where the mid section has priority and the channel is more representative of the measured channel geometry. This has already been explained in Section 4.3 of the Hydraulic Modelling Report.","OK","Justification accepted and included in reporting."]
[3.2,"Have appropriate distances between sections and/or nodes been used (dx)?  ",null,null,"Red","50 - 150m on the Rowel Brook - this is a key source of flood risk","Please justify the distances between sections given the sinuosity of the channel along this reach. ","Distances between cross-sections are a result of the available survey data. The length of the line/polyline is used as digitised in the model, since the len_or_ANA of the 1d_nwk_bbk_RB_sections_v27_L.shp is less than zero (-1).","OK","Justification accepted."]
[3.3,"Are out of bank flows represented in 1d? If so, how has it been done and is it appropriate?",null,null,"OK","N/A Out of banks flows have been represented in the 2D domain"]
[3.4,"Is the model geo-referenced?",null,null,"OK","Yes"]
[3.5,"Do the cross sections and bed profiles look reasonable?",null,null,"Red","Refer to 1D/2D links tab - 1D cross-sections have not been trimmed to 2D cross-section widths. \nThis section will need to be re-reviewed once 1D cross-sections have been trimmed to 2D widths\nInitial spot checks have been undertaken and found errors at S018 - the right bank does not appear to match survey? However, as mentioned above, these will need to be alterered during the trimming process so will need to be reviewed again as a full review has not been done at this stage. ","This section will need to be re-reviewed once 1D cross-sections have been trimmed to 2D widths\n","As stated in the TUFLOW manual, sections of a cross-section can be “removed” by entering -1 (negative one) for a resistance value.  This feature is particularly useful when developing a linked 1D/2D model where the 1D cross-sections are typically trimmed to the top of bank to avoid double counting of floodplain storage.  This has been done in some instances. However, the Cross-Sections have now been trimmed removing points instead of using -M to show more transparency. Now also outlined in the technical note.","OK","There is still significant discrepancies between the 1D and 2D cross section widhts - see 12.3 for details. \n\nSpot checks of the cross sections against survey has been undertaken and all match.\n\nRemoved Red RAG status as 1D2D width discrepancy is detailed on 12.3."]
[3.6,"Chainage – compared to surveyed sections",null,null,"Green","Unable to check - is this detail available in any additional survey documents that have not been provided for this review so that this can be reviewed?",null,"Survey data has been provided.","OK","Chainage spot checked and is correct."]
[3.7,"Does conveyance look appropriate? ",null,null,"OK","Yes, a review of conveyance shows that it is acceptable"]
[3.8,"If gauged flow is available, is there good flow reconciliation between the statistical estimates and the modelled, for given return periods?",null,null,"N/A"]
[3.9,"Bank Markers. Are they used and if so, are they suitably located? ",null,null,"N/A","Estry model so does not apply"]
[3.1,"What approach to channel roughness has been used? ",null,null,"OK","Fixed value for 1D channel"]
[3.11,"What manning’s n value(s) have been used for the channel? If it is 1d only what values and how have they been applied in the flood plain?",null,null,"Red","See figure 1 below. \nRowel Brook North, a roughness value of 0.0805 is applied to the channel to represent the sinuosity. Little evidence and justification provided for the values chosen throughout the 1D channel. \nSection 4.8 of the hydraulic model report suggest that higher roughness values have been used on the Rowel Brook west of Woodstock Road. However, review of the check files shows a lower value has been applied here? \nWhy has a section on the Eastern Drainage ditches been assigned a lower mannings n value of 0.025 when surrounding reaches are 0.04? Survey suggests they should have similar manning's values? ","Further explanation and justification is required on the values applied throughout the modelled 1D channel. Particularly the Rowel Brook and the use of Manning's n to account for sinuosity. \nProvide clarification on section 4.8 of the hydraulic model report","Explanation of the chosen values will be added to the report. 0.0805 is the addition of the loss coefficients as per Cowan's approach to this problem, which is to break the roughness estimate into six factors: sediment size, degree of surface irregularity, variation of channel cross section, effect of obstructions, vegetation, and degree of meandering.\nSections S001, S002 and S003, which form the uppermost extent of the Rowel Brook, have a roughness value of 0.07 applied. This is higher than the rest of the Rowel Brook North West. An additional photo has been added to the report. \nIn reference to the Eastern Drainage Ditch, the only channel with a value of 0.025 is a concrete culvert. It would therefore be appropriate that this has a lower roughness value than the surrounding open channel. ","OK","Justification accepted."]
[3.12,"What method has been used to estimate roughness (USGS, Chow, etc. based on survey, photographs)? Are they appropriate",null,null,"Red","Site Visits - some photographs have been provided\nCowan’s method has been used\nMannings ’n’ roughness values\nhave been estimated based on the limited number of photographs\navailable and with consideration of the maintenance of other\nditches on-site.","As above, further justification and information required. ","Roughness values used are chosen based on the site visit photographs, aerial photography and Cowen's method. Further justification will be provided in the model report.","OK","This approach is valid and acceptable. Justificaiton has been provided in model reporting. "]

{"sheet":"1D_Boundary_Conditions","index":4,"n_rows":13,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":13,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[4,0,4,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,0,6,3],[6,4,6,16],[7,1,7,3],[8,1,8,3],[9,1,9,3],[10,1,10,3],[11,1,11,3],[12,1,12,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["1D BOUNDARY CONDITIONS"]
[]
["1D BOUNDARY CONDITIONS"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (28/02/24)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[4.0999999999999996,"1d boundary model domain; is there glass walling anywhere in the modelled reaches?",null,null,"N/A","fully linked 1d-2d model"]
[4.2,"How have the inflows boundaries been applied? \n",null,null,"Red","The majority of sub-catchment inflows are applied as point inflows to the 1D domain. S06 however is distributed across a reach of the Rowel Brook North. Why has this approach been taken for S06. \n\nInflows do not appear to match the final results in table 9.3 of the Flood Estimation report however they do match the design inflows in the hydraulic modelling report","Please clarify why there is a discrepancy in final design inflows between reports and which should be used in the model.\nProvide further explanation and justification for the method used to apply inflows to the model. ","Direct rainfall modelling was carried out to determine subcatchments and as a result, for this subcatchment  it was considered more appropriate not to use a point inflow but a distributed flow.\nExtra text added to 4.7 Model Boundaries of hydraulic modelling report and proforma has been updated.","OK","Justification accepted. Inflows checked and match final flood estimation results."]
[4.3,"How is the downstream boundary(s) applied?\n",null,null,"OK","HT boundary at Dukes Lock on the canal. Value of 60.25 applied which matches the Initial Water Level applied. As explained in the report, this is 0.1m higher than the maintained pound level due to a lack of topo survey data. \nA sensitivity test has been run to reduce the water level by 0.1m. "]
[4.4000000000000004,"If tidal - how has the boundary been derived? \n\n",null,null,"N/A"]
[4.5,"Have appropriate locations been chosen for the downstream model extents?\n",null,null,"OK","Yes, the downstream boundary is at Duke's Lock on the canal. Sensitivity testing showed the downstream boundary was far enough downstream to not influence water levels at the site. Sensitivty testing needs to be reviewed as the relevant files have not been provided for  the first review. ","Please provide sensitvity testing model files so that they can be reviewed","Sensitivity Model Files were provided upon request and were shared with the EA on 23/01/24 and will be provided again with the updates."]

{"sheet":"1D_Structures","index":5,"n_rows":30,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":30,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[4,0,4,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,0,6,3],[6,4,6,16],[7,1,7,3],[13,1,13,3],[8,1,8,3],[9,1,9,3],[10,1,10,3],[11,1,11,3],[12,1,12,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["1D STRUCTURES"]
[]
["1D STRUCTURES"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (28/02/24)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[5.0999999999999996,"Are all structures represented? If not have explanations for structures not modelled been given in the Log/report? \n",null,null,"Red","There are numerous footbridges along the Rowel Brook which have not been included in the model, please provide further evidence and justification for not including these structures, particularly given the Rowel Brook comes out of bank during the3.33% AEP and is heavily vegetated and potentially susceptible to blockage. See figure 2 below.\n\nFurther description required in the reporting on how structures have been modelled e.g. the structure between XS 10 and 12. \n\nHow have WB CH0014w dimensions been derived as they don't match the survey?\n\nWhy have CH0016w and CH001612 been given a length of 5.4m and  5.7m respectively? This does not match the the photo in fugure 1 taken from our Asset Information? CH0017 only has a length of 43.639m but the survey shows the structure to be over 48m in total? The invert levels match the survey for this structure. However, how were the width and height defined - from cross-section 11? Further explanation required, parciularly as this is realted to the outlet from the storage area.  \n\nStructure CH0117b has an invert of 62.16m which does not appear to match the survey. Hydropop check files show the weir to have an elevation of 68.54mAOD which does not match survey. Please review the representation of this structure. \n\nIs the weir over the culvert at CH0084w represented as intended? \n\nWhat is the interaction between the Thrupp Ditch and the Rowel Brook North is being represented by the weir at TD_RB_Spill? \n\nHow were the dimensions of the culvert under Green Lane determined (GL01)?","Please provide further information on the issues identified. ","The structures that were omitted were not considered hydraulically significant or that they would not withstand high flow conditions (the image included as Figure 2 would be an example of both of these). Some assumptions were necessary as well when the survey did not provide enough details. \n\nThe interaction between the Rowel Brook and Thrupp ditch is already described in the model report. The channels are separated by a track and this has been modelled as a 1D weir rather than in 2D as it is relatively narrow. \n\nThe culvert beneath Green Lane was observed on site and an image is already included in the report. An approximate measurement was undertaken on the site visit. This information has been added to the report. \n\nCH0084w represents the canal towpath and is a hybrid weir section of high points to represent flow over the towpath. In the 100cc event there is no flow over this structure.","Amber","The reasoning for not including structures is accepted. However, omission of any structures from the hydraulic model should be justified in the reporting. This justification is not currently included within the model report.\n\nThere is very little detail on structure representation in the model report. No description of how many of the structures have been modelled is given. \n\n","Please update modelling report to include all structure representation and omission information."]
[5.2,"Are invert levels correct compared to survey data?",null,null,"Red","Please see comments in line 5.1 which includes issues identified with structure dimensions","Please see comments above","CH0117b – the invert level used in the open channel network line is 62.16mAOD – this matches the bed elevation survey about 2m upstream of the section. The schematisation of this structure has been revised. Invert of BB changed from 62.16mAOD to 62.206mAOD. CH0117w created as WW with level of 63.59mAOD and width of 5.481m and all factor left as default.","Amber","Structure representation information should be recorded in the modelling report.","Please update modelling report to include all structure representation and omission information."]
[5.3,"Do bridges surcharge? If so has orifice flow been enabled?",null,null,"N/A"]
[5.4,"Are there spills around the structure or over the top represented appropriately? ",null,null,"Red","Please see comments above relating to representation of structure spills as weirs","Please see comments above","Please see responses above.","Amber","Structure representation information should be recorded in the modelling report.","Please update modelling report to include all structure representation and omission information."]
[5.5,"If there are any movable structures have they been modelled correctly? \n",null,null,"N/A"]
[5.6,"Structure coefficients - Have they been changed from default values?",null,null,"Amber","Defaults have been used - no justification or explanation provided in the reporting","Please provide further information. ","The default structure coefficient have been used as advised by the TUFLOW manual. This statement has been added to the report.","OK","Default parameters have been used. This is appropriate."]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,"Figure 1 - weir at CH0016w"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,"Figure 2: Structures not modelled on the Rowel Brook"]

{"sheet":"1D_Run_Parameters","index":6,"n_rows":11,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":11,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[8,1,8,3],[9,1,9,3],[10,1,10,3],[4,0,4,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,0,6,3],[6,4,6,16],[7,1,7,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["1D RUN PARAMETERS"]
[]
["1D RUN PARAMETERS"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (28/02/24)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[6.1,"What time step has been used for the 1D model? Is it appropriate?",null,null,"Amber","Tuflow HPC has been used. The initial timestep set in the .tcf is 0.1. \n","Tuflow recommends that the timestep should not be less than 1/10 of a healthy TUFLOW classic timestep which would be 0.1 in this case as the 2D cell size is 2m. \nJustification required for not using an initial timestep of 0.5 (the recommended value to use)","The Timestep command included in the TUFLOW Control File (TCF) is only used for the first calculation timestep. The specified value should be consistent with what would be appropriate for a TUFLOW Classic model (i.e. 1/2 to 1/5 the 2D cell size). Internally, TUFLOW HPC divides this value by 10 to apply a value that is suitable for an explicit solution scheme. All subsequent calculations are completed using the adaptive timestep approach and are not going to be affected by the initial timestep. ","OK","Justification accepted."]
[6.2,"What initial conditions have been used? Steady state, hotstart file?",null,null,"Red","Initial Water levels have been applied based on a steady state model run\n1d_iwl_Canal_v27-A_P.shp\n1d_iwl_Fluvial_v29-A_P.shp\n\nIWLs in the canal are covered by both the above shapefiles with the 1d_iwl_Fluvial_v29-A_P.shp files reading into the .tcf after 1d_iwl_Canal_v27-A_P.shp. Please clarify if this is appropriate as the IWLs in the 1d_iwl_Fluvial_v29-A_P.shp do not match table 4.3 of the hydraulic modelling report and will be used based on the oder files are read into the model","Please clarify how the IWLs have been applied","IWL check file does match the report. Furthermore, Section 5.2 of the report states that the variation in the canal pound level is shown to have negligible\nimpact on-site. There is some change in water level within the bypass channel at Kidlington Green Lock, but this is extremely localised and has no impact on flood extent.","OK","IWL checked and looks ok. Justification accepted - non-significant impact of IWL on flood extent."]
[6.3,"Have any of the parameters and advanced parameters been changed from the default. If so, has it been justified?",null,null,"OK","Defaults have been used"]

{"sheet":"2D_Model_Build","index":7,"n_rows":41,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":41,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[4,0,4,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,0,6,3],[6,4,6,16],[7,1,7,3],[8,1,8,3],[9,1,9,3],[10,1,10,3],[11,1,11,3],[12,1,12,3],[13,1,13,3],[14,1,14,3],[15,1,15,3],[16,1,16,3],[17,1,17,3],[23,1,23,3],[19,0,19,3],[19,4,19,16],[20,1,20,3],[21,1,21,3],[22,1,22,3]]}
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,"Chow roughness values"]
[]
["2D MODEL BUILD"]
[]
["DIGITAL TERRIAN MODEL"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (28/02/24)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[7.1,"Number of domains?",null,null,"OK","One"]
[7.2,"Area of 2d domain/s",null,null,"OK","4.5km2"]
[7.3,"What dataset has been used to define the DTM elevations? LiDAR, Photogrammetric DTM?",null,null,"Red","The majority of the Digital Terrain Model (DTM) uses LiDAR data downloaded from the DeFRA website.  The report states that in some locations,  the LiDAR has been superseded using detailed topographic survey (2023) (EG_Existing_Ground_3D_Triangles_Converted.asc). However, has this more detailed topo been read into the model control files? The .tgc suggests that it has been read in but clipped to 2 polygons representing the copse and Woodstock Road. However, check files do not show that this has been done correctly. Please review. ","Provide further information on the detailed topo and whether it has been read into the control files as intended.  \nProvide further information on the LiDAR used - date, resolution etc. in the reporting","Acknowledged that the clip layer was not working as expected and has now been removed. Topo survey and LiDAR information have been reviewed. Topo survey seems to provide a more accurate representation than LiDAR data. This might be caused by inaccurate filtering of the LIDAR near the shallow and narrow ditches and watercourses covered by trees\n\nThe model uses 2020 2m DTM Composite LiDAR downloaded from the Defra website. ","OK","Checked and accepted."]
[7.4,"What grid resolution has been used?\nIs it suitable to accurately represent flow paths, e.g. between buildings?",null,null,"OK","2m grid. This is acceptable for this model"]
[7.5,"Has the DTM been rotated to optimise flow route representation?",null,null,"OK","The grid is orientated north to south. This is appropriate given the channel being modelled"]
[7.6,"Is there any obstruction to flow?",null,null,"OK","Railway line has been picked up in the DTM"]
[7.7,"Has additional site specific topographic survey data been used?\n",null,null,"Red","Yes - in some locations,  the LiDAR has been superseded using detailed topographic survey (2023) (EG_Existing_Ground_3D_Triangles_Converted.asc). \nThere appears to be up to 20cm difference between the LiDAR and the topo - has this been investigated?","Please confirm whether the difference between liDAR and topo has been reviewed. \nPlease see comments above in line 7.3.","It is generally assumed that detailed topographic survey will be preferential to LiDAR and supersedes the LiDAR where available. ","OK","Justification accepted."]
[7.8,"How have buildings been represented within the DTM?",null,null,"Amber","Buildings have  been represented using a high manning's roughness of 1.0. This is much higher then the standard representation of 0.3-0.5."," Provide justification for use","There are multiple ways of representing buildings in a 2D model, all of which have limitations. When buildings are represented using increased roughness alone, it is acknowledged that a value lower than 1 is often applied (e.g. 0.3-0.5), but EVY typically favour 1. The Syme (2003) paper which is sometimes cited in these discussions does not endorse a value of 0.3, but simply uses it as an example. It is considered that, given the limitations associated with any approach, a roughness value of 1 is acceptable.","OK","Justification accepted."]
[7.9,"Are defences/embankments/bank crests accurately represented?",null,null,"Red","Numerous shapefiles have been applied in the .tgc file to represent bank elevations, weir elevation etc. There is a lack of information as to where this elevation data has been derived from as on numerous occasions the elevations do not match survey data or LiDAR. E.g. 2d_zsh_DD_Extension_v14-A_P.shp, 2d_zsh_SDD_Extension_v25-A_P.shp, 2d_zsh_BOTTOM_BANK_v16-A_P.shp, 2d_zsh_Banktop_RB_South_v28-A_P.shp (spot check found issues at S043, S045, S048, S050, left bank at S042 does not match survey),  2d_zsh_CanalOfftakeBank_v20-A_P.shp (In places, elevations seem to be 40cm lower than the LiDAR?) Please provide further information. \n\n2d_zsh_Banktop_SDD_v21-A_P.shp - Channel widths need to be revisited - see 1d/2d links tab. Cross-section 80 has been applied twice in the 1D (1d_tab_bbk_SDD_sections_v32_L). Section 82 needs further explanation. There is a large reduction in channel width representation between section  75 and 76, what is the reasoning for this? This may be resolved when the general issues with 1D/2D links are addressed. \nGap in SDD Banktop point and line definition downstream of Woodstock Road? Why is there a gap, what impact on model results?? Figure 2 below - strange configuration of the channel at this location. \n\n2d_zsh_CAN_XSBankPoints_v03-A_P.shp - Channel widths need to be revisited e.g.   S090, S091, CAN13 - see 1d/2d links tab. No survey provided for the canal to confirm cross-sections have been represented correctly - please provide this survey. Weir elevation into the side channel and the KGL culvert dimensions appear to match the survey provided. \nMore detail required around KGL - elevations in 2d_zsh_CanalOfftakeBank_v20-A_L.shp are lower than the LiDAR but the .tgc says this it is representing top of bank. Confirm the levels are correct and clarify what the set-up is at this location as it is quite complex and there is a lack of reporting. \nPlease elaborate on the 'engineering judgement' that was used to alter the canal bed levels to an assumed water depth of 1.5m. \n\n2d_zsh_Banktop_RB_v06-A_P.shp 1D cross sections have not been trimmed - please see 1D/2D linking tab. S017 has been read in twice rather than S016 and then S017. A number of issues have been found from a spot check and need to be addressed: S018 does not match the survey provided. S019 - width does not match survey, bank height read in twice. S020 width does not match, S021 has no right bank elevation. Please review all cross-sections to ensure the correct survey information has been used within the model. \n\nHas the use of clipped files been implemented correctly as a spot check of elevations suggests that it has not at the copse or at Woodstock road? (Copse_Clip_v06-A_R.shp  and WoodstockRoad_Clip_v20-A_R.shp) As the Read Grid Zpts  lines area read in after a number of other lines within the .tgc file, it will over-write any previous modifications to the DTM - please review. \n\n2d_cwf_Ditches_v20-A_R.shp Factor of 0.3 has been applied - how has this been determined? \n\n2d_zsh_TOP_BANK_v12-A_P.shp | gis\\2d_zsh_TOP_BANK_v12-A_L.shp Were detailed topo levels used to define the elevations - these seem to differ to the LiDAR by up to 20cm in places? 2d_zsh_TOP_BANK_v12-A_L.shp does not extend as far north as 2d_zsh_TOP_BANK_v12-A_P.shp\n\n2d_zln_CopseWeir_v01-A_L.shp weir elevation matches cross-section 38. \n\n2d_zsh_Decks_v15-A_R.shp - Values in the attibutes appear to match survey, however, the polygon with a value of 69.3 mAOD does not appear to have been implemented correctly from a review of the check files?\n\n2d_zln_BankRaise_v29-A_L.shp ! No connectivity observed on site between ditches here. Is there any photographic evidence to evidence this? \n\n","A number of issues have been raised in cell F17 which need to be addressed - please provide further information and make any relevant changes to the model. ","A separate tab has been added at the end of this review sheet to address each of the issues raised in this cell.  Spot checks have been undertaken in response to the items raised in this comment. Minor modifications have been made in some instances. For the most part it is considered that the discrepancies identified are sufficiently minor that changes are not required. For example, where bank top survey was available at regular intervals along the channel, this was used in preference to the single elevation at the deactivation of the 1D channel.\n\nSome amendments have been made to the the latest version of the model; these are described in the accompanying technical note. Further detail will also be added to the hydraulic modelling report. ","Amber","Comments included in \"additional information\" tab. Justification accepted. It would be beneficial to include all of this detailed information in the model reporting.","Update reporting to include all information detailed."]
[7.1,"If post-development scenarios are required have the proposed ground levels and building been represented appropriately?",null,null,"Red","NW Swale Mitigation Option: v32-B15\nThe swale has been read in as a 1d network with the embankment represented as a z shape. \nRead GIS Code == GIS/2d_code_inactive_Swale_v32-B15_R.shp\nRead GIS Z Shape == gis\\2d_zsh_Swale_v32-B15_L.shp\n\nRead GIS BC == GIS\\2d_bc_hx_Swale_v32-B15_L.shp\n\nProposed Secondary School Site Hydraulic Modelling Technical Note\nUnder the above proposal, the school site has been raised  out of the flood extent, sections of the Southern Drainage Ditch have been infilled (including moving the inflow boundary downstream of the site), an additional channel has been proposed to maintain convectivity \n\nSD01 point inflow has been moved downstream on the Southern Drainage Ditch as explained in the report to represent channel infilling due to re-profiling at the school site. \n2d_zsh_Banktop_SDD_v32 point and line shapefiles have been altered for this scenario to represent infilling of the Southern Drainage Ditch by removing it from the  these shapefiles so that it is not stamped into the 2D domain. \nThe additional gully has been stamped in as intended using the new 2d_zsh_Banktop_SDD_v32 files ( version C3). How were the elevations defined for this new channel as they do not appear to match the LiDAR? \n\nThe re-profiling of the school development site has been applied correctly using a ZShape (2d_zsh_Field_Elevation_v32-C1_R). \n2d_zsh_Field_Ditch_v32-C3_P has been used to stamp in the gully to improve connectivity by lowering the topography by around 0.7m - how were the elevations for this gully chosen? ","How have swale 1d network invert levels been defined? \nThe swale is working as intended and blocking flows from going across the development site. However, the model results do not look appropriate as there is no difference in modelled water depth at the swale which does not seem logical considering the resulting backing up in this location? Please clarify the swale set-up at this location. \nThe report states that a 300mm bank has been proposed however in the model, the Zsh_zpt check file shows that the embankment is not 300mm but is set to 68.18 on the east side an 68.19 on the northern side. Please amend the reporting.  \n","The swale's height varies with the terrain. It is 300mm in its deepest location. Swale has been represented as a 1D channel. The depth comparison must be done between the 2D values in the baseline and the 1D values in version B15.","OK","Checked updated model and swale is modelled appropriately. Reporting updated to better describe how swale is modelled."]
[]
["2D ROUGHNESS"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (DATE)","RAG","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[8,"What manning’s n values have been used to define floodplain roughness? Have they been applied correctly?\n",null,null,"OK","0.05 default roughness applied. \nSee figure 1 below for all other roughness values"]
[8.1,"What methods have been used to estimate roughness? ",null,null,"OK","Site visits have been used to assign manning 'n' valued, based on Edenvale Young’s standard TUFLOW modelling template,"]
[8.1999999999999993,"Is the representation of different roughness areas sufficiently accurate and detailed? ",null,null,"OK","Yes a review of the materials file against background mapping and aerial photography show that the spatial variation of roughness values does  match  well. \n3 areas of 'ditch' have been represented with a higher roughness value of 0.065. "]
[]
[null,null,null,null,"Figure 1 - Manning's n values used"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,"Figure 2: Poor representation of the channel at this location"]

{"sheet":"2D_Boundary_Conditions","index":8,"n_rows":14,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":14,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[9,1,9,3],[10,1,10,3],[11,1,11,3],[4,0,4,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,0,6,3],[6,4,6,16],[7,1,7,3],[8,1,8,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["2D BOUNDARIES"]
[]
["2D BOUNDARY CONDITIONS"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (DATE)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","1st Review Response (28/02/24)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[9.1,"Have any boundaries been used in the 2D domain? If so detail.",null,null,"Amber","2d_bc_sa_Inflows_v11-A_R.shp\nSA boundaries most commonly used to model rainfall-runoff directly onto 2D domains\n\nHQ boundaries applied to the Eastern Drainage Ditch and the Southern Drainage Ditch with a slope value of 0.01. ","Why has this approach been used for sub-catchments S01 and S07?","For S01, this is described in the report (p15-16). There was uncertainty about the flow split in this area so we decided that the direction of water should be controlled by the topography in this location. We had detailed survey of the copse area and this meant that the flow split was not reliant on our assumptions. \n\nS07: Not detailed in the report however the reasoning is similar. Further information on the approach has been added to the report.","OK","Checked and accepted."]
[{"$f":"A9+0.1","v":9.1999999999999993},"Is the model boundary suitably large? i.e. the flood extent should not reach the boundary.",null,null,"Amber","No, flood extents reach the model boundary at the top of the model near the Thrupp Ditch inflow in events > 1% AEP. See figure 1 below","Please review the model boundary","This is intentional. The model has to stop somewhere and the glasswalling is extremely limited so deemed reasonable. Further explanation will be added in the updated Hydraulic Modelling Report. Comment added to report. ","OK","Justification added to reporting. Accepted."]
[{"$f":"A10+0.1","v":9.2999999999999989},"Has rainfall been applied directly to the 2d model domain? ",null,null,"Amber","See 9.1",null,"See reply to 9.1.","OK","Checked and accepted. "]
[{"$f":"A11+0.1","v":9.3999999999999986},"Coastal - How has the wave overtopping been applied?",null,null,"N/A"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,"figure 1 - 1% AEP +41%CC flood extent reaching the model boundary"]

{"sheet":"2D_Structures","index":9,"n_rows":12,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":12,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[9,1,9,3],[10,1,10,3],[11,1,11,3],[4,0,4,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,0,6,3],[6,4,6,16],[7,1,7,3],[8,1,8,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["2D STRUCTURES"]
[]
["2D STRUCTURES"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (28/02/24)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[10.1,"Have any structures been included in the 2D domain? If so how have they been represented? ",null,null,"Amber","2d_zln_CopseWeir_v01-A_L.shp - weir elevation matches cross-section 38. \n2d_zsh_Decks_v15-A_R.shp - Values in the attibutes appear to match survey, however, the polygon with a value of 69.3 mAOD does not appear to have been implemented correctly from a review of the check files?","Please provide further explanation and review how structures have been represented. \nSee section 7.9 in tab '2D_Model_Build' for further comments ","Deck of the bridge has been amended to represent the deck properly.","OK","Checked and accepted."]
[10.199999999999999,"Are invert levels correct compared to survey data?",null,null,"Red","See section 7.9 in tab '2D_Model_Build'","See section 7.9 in tab '2D_Model_Build'","Inverts have been checked and updated if required. See response in 7.9 and technical note. ","Amber","Comments included in \"additional information\" tab. Justification accepted. It would be beneficial to include all of this detailed information in the model reporting.","Update reporting to include all information detailed."]
[10.3,"How have defences been represented? Zline? If there are flood zone scenarios have the defences been excluded adequately? ",null,null,"Red","Bagbroke Flood Storage Area Structure has been represented in the 1d network - See row 5.1 in the '1D_Structures' tab","See row 5.1 in the '1D_Structures' tab","Implementation of z-lines has been revised and it is 300mm in its deepest point, as included in the report.","OK","Checked and accepted."]
[10.4,"Have appropriate loss coefficients and roughness values been used?",null,null,"Amber","Default values have been used - no justification or explanation provided in the reporting\nForm Loss of 0.001 at CH0117b","Please provide further information. ","Default values have been used. For BB bridges without an LC table it is necessary to specify a value greater than zero or an error will be returned. This is the lowest possible value for a BB bridge type. The TUFLOW manual details this.","OK","Justification accepted."]

{"sheet":"2D_Run_Parameters","index":10,"n_rows":11,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":11,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[8,1,8,3],[9,1,9,3],[10,1,10,3],[4,0,4,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,0,6,3],[6,4,6,16],[7,1,7,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["2D RUN PARAMETERS"]
[]
["INITIAL CONDITONS & OTHER RUN PARAMETERS"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (28/02/24)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[11.1,"What time step has been used for the 2D model? Is it appropriate?",null,null,"Amber","Double precision has been used. Tuflow recommends that single precision is used for all tuflow HPC models unless testing shows otherwise","Please provide further justification for using double prevision in an HPC model - has single precision been tested? ","Yes, single precision was used for the initial iterations of the model and the results were unrealistic; the flow hydrographs on the Rowel Brook appeared ‘capped’ with no peak on the hydrograph. A run was undertaken using double precision which immediately rectified this. It is thought that this is due to the relatively small design flows used within the model. This is noted in the model report. ","OK","Justification accepted."]
[11.2,"Have initial water levels been applied? Are they correct?",null,null,"Amber","\n2d_iwl_CopsePond_v11-A_R.shp (62.82m applied)\n2d_iwl_Ditches_v29-A_R.shp (59.97m applied)","How have IWLs in the ditches been derived as they do not appear to match closest survey levels (59.42mAOD rather than 59.97mAOD)\n","Originally surveyed levels were used however these didn’t seem realistic. The levels were dropped for a later version using LiDAR and engineering judgment. Further reporting on this will de included.","OK","Justification accepted."]
[11.3,"Are the other 2D model parameters reasonable (e.g. flooding & drying, eddy viscosity). Are they different from default?",null,null,"OK","Defaults have been used"]

{"sheet":"1D_2D_Surface_Water","index":11,"n_rows":23,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":23,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[4,0,4,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,0,6,3],[6,4,6,16],[7,1,7,3],[8,1,8,3],[9,1,9,3],[10,1,10,3],[11,1,11,3],[12,1,12,3],[13,1,13,3],[14,1,14,3],[15,1,15,3],[16,1,16,3],[17,1,17,3],[18,1,18,3],[19,1,19,3],[20,1,20,3],[21,1,21,3],[22,1,22,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["1D-2D Surface Water"]
[]
["SURFACE WATER MODELLING"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (DATE)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[18.100000000000001,"Check the geographical coverage of the model relative to the surface water catchment for the study. Is the model coverage sufficient for the study or project?   "]
[18.2,"Have contributing areas been applied appropriately? Are the sub catchment boundaries geocoded? Do the impermeable area assumptions appear correct? "]
[18.3,"How has the surface water network been represented, is it suitably detailed?"]
[18.399999999999999,"Does the overall model connectivity match the sewer records?"]
[18.5,"How are receiving watercourses represented in the model? Is this appropriate?"]
[18.600000000000001,"Has storage compensation been applied? Is this appropriate?"]
[18.7,"Has storage compensation been applied? Is this appropriate?"]
[18.8,"Are there any backfalls in the model and do these look realistic where they exist?"]
[18.899999999999999,"Have sediment depths and roughness coefficients been applied appropriately and are they within the expected ranges?"]
[18.100000000000001,"Are all significant outfalls included in model with appropriate detail?"]
[18.11,"Are all significant storage tanks included in model with appropriate detail?"]
[18.12,"Are all significant pumping stations included in the model with appropriate detail?"]
[18.13,"Has any infrastructure been omitted from the model network? If so what is the justification for this this? Is this appropriate?"]
[18.149999999999999,"Is the runoff model appropriate and have the parameters been applied correctly?"]
[18.16,"How has the design rainfall been generated and applied? Is this appropriate?"]

{"sheet":"Coastal_boundary","index":12,"n_rows":14,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":14,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[4,0,4,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,0,6,3],[6,4,6,16],[7,1,7,3],[13,1,13,3],[8,1,8,3],[9,1,9,3],[10,1,10,3],[11,1,11,3],[12,1,12,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["FORCING PARAMETERS AND JOINT PROBABILITY INCLUDING FOR WAVE TRANSFORMATION MODELLING"]
[]
["PARAMETERS AND JOINT PROBABILITY"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (DATE)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[19.100000000000001,"Does the approach utilised conform with best practice guidance?"]
[{"$f":"A9+0.1","v":19.200000000000003},"Inclusion of up to date data, such as Hindcast?"]
[{"$f":"A10+0.1","v":19.300000000000004},"Creation of tidal curve created using appropriate source data?"]
[{"$f":"A11+0.1","v":19.400000000000006},"What Joint Probability method has been used (Defra 2005 or Multivariate) is this suitable for the study?"]
[{"$f":"A12+0.1","v":19.500000000000007},"Has the Coast Flood Boundary data (CFB) been applied appropriately within the models?"]
[{"$f":"A13+0.1","v":19.600000000000009},"Has climate change been accounted for appropriately?"]

{"sheet":"Wave_Transformation","index":13,"n_rows":54,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":54,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[4,0,4,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,0,6,3],[6,4,6,16],[7,1,7,3],[8,1,8,3],[9,0,9,3],[9,4,9,16],[10,1,10,3],[11,1,11,3],[12,1,12,3],[13,1,13,3],[14,1,14,3],[15,1,15,3],[16,0,16,3],[16,4,16,16],[17,1,17,3],[18,1,18,3],[19,0,19,3],[19,4,19,16],[20,1,20,3],[21,1,21,3],[22,1,22,3],[23,1,23,3],[24,1,24,3],[25,0,25,3],[25,4,25,16],[26,1,26,3],[27,1,27,3],[28,0,28,3],[28,4,28,16],[29,1,29,3],[30,1,30,3],[31,1,31,3],[32,0,32,3],[32,4,32,16],[33,1,33,3],[34,1,34,3],[35,1,35,3],[36,0,36,3],[36,4,36,16],[37,1,37,3],[38,1,38,3],[39,0,39,3],[39,4,39,16],[40,1,40,3],[41,1,41,3],[42,1,42,3],[43,1,43,3],[44,0,44,3],[44,4,44,16],[45,1,45,3],[46,1,46,3],[47,0,47,3],[47,4,47,16],[48,1,48,3],[52,1,52,3],[53,1,53,3],[49,0,49,3],[49,4,49,16],[50,1,50,3],[51,0,51,3],[51,4,51,16]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["COASTAL WAVE TRANSFORMATION MODELLING"]
[]
["MODEL CHOICE"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (DATE)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[20.100000000000001,"Does the model fit the brief? (Phase averaging/ phase resolving, stationary / non-stationary)"]
["DOMAIN"]
[{"$f":"A9+0.1","v":20.200000000000003},"Does the boundary cover offshore waves from all relevant directions?"]
[{"$f":"A11+0.1","v":20.300000000000004},"Does the coastline file represent the coastline to a high enough resolution for the modelling required?"]
[{"$f":"A12+0.1","v":20.400000000000006},"Are all required output locations offshore of the chosen coastline?"]
[{"$f":"A13+0.1","v":20.500000000000007},"Does the model extend far enough offshore that computational error close to the model boundary will not effect the required results?"]
[{"$f":"A14+0.1","v":20.600000000000009},"Does the model domain extend far enough offshore so that wave boundary conditions are accurate for the model boundary?"]
[{"$f":"A15+0.1","v":20.70000000000001},"Does the model converge to a reasonable amount in the area of interest?\n\n"]
["ACTIVE/INACTIVE BOUNDARIES"]
[{"$f":"A16+0.1","v":20.800000000000011},"Are ocean and land boundaries set? "]
[{"$f":"A18+0.1","v":20.900000000000013},"Is the spectral shape to be applied to the ocean boundary appropriate given the geographic location and the boundary conditions available?"]
["BATHYMETRY"]
[{"$f":"A19+0.1","v":21.000000000000014},"Is the input bathymetry of a high enough resolution for the resolution required?"]
[{"$f":"A21+0.1","v":21.100000000000016},"Are bathymetry data available for areas which may dry out at low tide?"]
[{"$f":"A22+0.1","v":21.200000000000017},"Are boundaries between different bathymetry datasets smooth?"]
[{"$f":"A23+0.1","v":21.300000000000018},"Does the model mesh/grid represent the input bathymetry well?"]
[{"$f":"A24+0.1","v":21.40000000000002},"Are bathymetric features elsewhere within the model domain well represented if they are expected to alter wave propagation (e.g. Offshore sand banks)?"]
["WATER LEVEL"]
[{"$f":"A25+0.1","v":21.500000000000021},"If the model water level has been set constant across the model domain is this a realistic assumption given the tidal behaviour across the model domain?"]
[{"$f":"A27+0.1","v":21.600000000000023},"For non-stationary models has the underlying tide / surge behaviour been taken into consideration? If not is it justifiable?"]
["WIND FIELD"]
[{"$f":"A28+0.1","v":21.700000000000024},"If model wind speed and direction has been set constant across the model domain is this realistic?"]
[{"$f":"A30+0.1","v":21.800000000000026},"Are there any datasets available which could be used to construct a spatially varying wind field?"]
[{"$f":"A31+0.1","v":21.900000000000027},"For non-stationary models has an appropriate data set been identified to cover the required model period?"]
["WAVE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS"]
[{"$f":"A32+0.1","v":22.000000000000028},"If modelled, wave boundary conditions should come from the same model data source as wind data otherwise there may be inconsistency between the two."]
[{"$f":"A34+0.1","v":22.10000000000003},"Is enough information available to generate a wave spectrum?"]
[{"$f":"A35+0.1","v":22.200000000000031},"For non-stationary models has an appropriate dataset been identified to cover the required model time period?"]
["OUTPUT REQUIREMENTS"]
[{"$f":"A36+0.1","v":22.300000000000033},"Model behaviour checked through output of Hs, Tp, Mdir fields for entire model domain."]
[{"$f":"A38+0.1","v":22.400000000000034},"Water depth at output points checked against real depth (interpolation / lower resolution may result in differing water depth which in shallow water can result in significant change to wave height)."]
["RESULTS"]
[{"$f":"A39+0.1","v":22.500000000000036},"Do errors at the model boundary disappear further into the model domain?"]
[{"$f":"A41+0.1","v":22.600000000000037},"Does wind growth occur as expected given the fetch length across the model?"]
[{"$f":"A42+0.1","v":22.700000000000038},"Are changes in wave period easily explained?"]
[{"$f":"A43+0.1","v":22.80000000000004},"Is the output wave height within the expected range?"]
["CALIBRATION"]
[{"$f":"A44+0.1","v":22.900000000000041},"Has the model been calibrated against appropriate quality controlled measured data?"]
[{"$f":"A46+0.1","v":23.000000000000043},"Do the locations of the calibration data allow calibration close to the required output locations?"]
["VALIDATION"]
[{"$f":"A47+0.1","v":23.100000000000044},"Has the model been validated against appropriate data independent from the calibration process?"]
["SENSITIVITY TESTING"]
[{"$f":"A49+0.1","v":23.200000000000045},"Have sensitivity runs been performed in order to test the sensitivity of the model at the output locations to reasonable variations in the model forcing data (for all boundary parameters)?"]
["STABILITY AND CONVERGENCE"]
[{"$f":"A51+0.1","v":23.300000000000047},"Have the number of iterations been modified away from the default and is this appropriate?"]
[{"$f":"A53+0.1","v":23.400000000000048},"Has the model achieved the appropriate levels of convergence?"]

{"sheet":"Wave_Overtopping","index":14,"n_rows":20,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":20,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[4,0,4,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,0,6,3],[6,4,6,16],[7,1,7,3],[8,1,8,3],[9,1,9,3],[10,1,10,3],[11,0,11,3],[11,4,11,16],[16,4,16,16],[17,1,17,3],[18,1,18,3],[19,1,19,3],[12,1,12,3],[13,1,13,3],[14,1,14,3],[15,1,15,3],[16,0,16,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["WAVE OVERTOPPING"]
[]
["GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (DATE)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[21.1,"What is the source of data used?"]
[{"$f":"A9+0.1","v":21.200000000000003},"What level of calibration (where data exists) has been achieved?"]
[{"$f":"A10+0.1","v":21.300000000000004},"How appropriate are any assumptions?"]
["DEFENCE CONCEPTUALISATION"]
[{"$f":"A11+0.1","v":21.400000000000006},"Is it the appropriate resolution?"]
[{"$f":"A13+0.1","v":21.500000000000007},"Are any key low crest levels missed out?"]
[{"$f":"A14+0.1","v":21.600000000000009},"Have the correct crest, toe and slope been used in terms of Neural Network constraints?"]
[{"$f":"A15+0.1","v":21.70000000000001},"Comparison/check against beach profile, AIMS, defence survey, LIDAR and any other data used for schematising."]
["EUROTOP APPLICATION"]
[{"$f":"A16+0.1","v":21.800000000000011},"Have correct values been input?"]
[{"$f":"A18+0.1","v":21.900000000000013},"Have the calculations been used within their applicable range?"]
[{"$f":"A19+0.1","v":22.000000000000014},"How has overtopping been considered when the still water levels rise near the crest/ just above the crest?"]

{"sheet":"Linked_1D_2D","index":15,"n_rows":15,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":15,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[4,0,4,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,0,6,3],[6,4,6,16],[7,1,7,3],[8,1,8,3],[9,1,9,3],[10,1,10,3],[11,1,11,3],[12,1,12,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["1D/2D MODEL LINKS"]
[]
["MODEL LINKS"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (28/02/24)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[12.1,"How have the 1D/2D models been coupled, is it appropriate?",null,null,"OK","HX and CN lines have been used  for the majority of the model. SX lines have been applied to embed 1D elements into the 2D domain which is appropriate."]
[12.2,"Is the digitisation of the links acceptable? ",null,null,"Red","1D model areas have been removed from the 2D domain as expected. \nPlease see section 7.9 in the 2D_Model_Build tab which refers to topography of channel banks and the potential for errors which will affect the 1D/2D linking. \nE.g. how have 2d_zsh_Banktop_RB_v06-A_P.shp elevations been derived as they don't appear to consistently match the LiDAR, site topo or cross-section survey?","Please see section 7.9 in the 2D_Model_Build tab.","Bank elevations throughout the model are derived from a combination of cross-sectional survey, top of bank survey (a separate layer within the topographic survey) and LiDAR. Spot checks along the Rowel Brook North, which makes use of the shapefile named in this comment, shows that the majority  of bank points are taken from the cross-sectional survey in this area. ","OK","Justification accepted."]
[12.3,"Is the 2d representation of the river channel comparable in width with the 1d model cross sections?",null,null,"Red","No, a spot check shows there are a significant number of cross-sections throughout the model which will result in double counting (where the 1D cross-section has not been trimmed to the 2D width) e.g. S022, S002, S030, S078, S088, S050_CAN_v01, S075","Please address this issue and improve the representation of 1D and 2D channel widths","Cross-Sections are using a negative M value, according to the manual this will remove the sections in the cross-section. To avoid confusion, rows containing deactive data have now been removed. ","Red","A spot check shows there still is significant differences between the 1D and 2D cross section widths. For example, at S019 in figure below using the 1d_xsl check file. \n\nOther cross sections with significant discrepancies include s081, s083, s085s086,s087,s088, s051, s049, s042, s027, s025, s024, s018, s032.","Improve representation of 1D and 2D channel widths to avoid double counting of flow."]
[12.4,"Representation of 1D output in 2D domain",null,null,"OK","No, WLLs have not been applied"]
[12.5,"Have any default link parameters been changed (i.e. to improve stability)?",null,null,"OK","Z flags have been applied to a number of SX lines which is appropriate"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,12.3]

{"sheet":"Model_Stability","index":16,"n_rows":20,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":20,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[4,0,4,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,0,6,3],[6,4,6,16],[7,1,7,3],[8,1,8,3],[9,1,9,3],[10,1,10,3],[12,0,12,3],[12,4,12,16],[18,1,18,3],[19,1,19,3],[13,1,13,3],[14,1,14,3],[15,1,15,3],[16,1,16,3],[17,1,17,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["MODEL STABILITY"]
[]
["1D MODEL STABILITY"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (28/02/24)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[13.1,"Errors/Comments/Warnings?",null,null,"Red","There are a number of checks and warnings, of particular note are the following: \nWarning 1100 (pleae review the 1D topography and structure invert/dimensions) (WARNING 1100 - Structure \"a\" crest/invert is below bed of primary upstream channel \"b\".)\nWARNING 2468 - Active cell has no active faces.\n\n\n","Please review the Warnings and provide commentary in the model reporting on model performance.\nThis will need to be re-reviewed once the 1D model cross-sections have been trimmed. ","Warnings have been checked. Relevant warnings have been acted on. Warning 2468 can happen occasionally if an active cell is surrounded by SX/HX cells, or near code polygon boundary. This is not going to have a significant inpact on the results.","Amber","Various checks and warnings remain including warning 1100 previously highlighted. Ideally these warnings would be eliminated.","Consider eliminating remaining check and warning messages."]
[13.2,"Convergence",null,null,"OK","Model Convergance is suitable - this will need to be re-reviewed once the 1D model cross-sections have been trimmed. ","this will need to be re-reviewed once the 1D model cross-sections have been trimmed. ",null,"OK","Model convergence low as expected for HPC model."]
[13.3,"Does a basic check of animations and graphed outputs give an indication of good model stability?",null,null,"OK","Yes - this will need to be re-reviewed once the 1D model cross-sections have been trimmed. ","this will need to be re-reviewed once the 1D model cross-sections have been trimmed. ",null,"OK","Yes."]
[]
["2D MODEL STABILITY"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (DATE)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[14.1,"Is mass balance within tolerable limits?",null,null,"OK","Tuflow HPC model - mass error is below 1% but please see comments below relating to dt and control numbers","this will need to be re-reviewed once the 1D model cross-sections have been trimmed. ",null,"OK","Mass error low as expected for HPC model."]
[14.2,"Are CE and dV values relatively stable and remain so once the run has got going. ",null,null,"OK","dt values appear to be relatively smooth and only drops below the recommended value at the start and end of the simulation. Control numbers are within tolerances for Tuflow HPC given the stable dt values","this will need to be re-reviewed once the 1D model cross-sections have been trimmed. ",null,"OK","As previous comment."]
[14.3,"Errors/Comments/Warnings?",null,null,"Red","Please see box 13.1 above","this will need to be re-reviewed once the 1D model cross-sections have been trimmed. ","Warnings have been checked. Relevant warnings have been be acted on.","Amber","Various checks and warnings remain including warning 1100 previously highlighted. Ideally these warnings would be eliminated.","Consider eliminating remaining check and warning messages."]
[14.4,"Negative Depths\n",null,null,"OK","None","this will need to be re-reviewed once the 1D model cross-sections have been trimmed. ",null,"OK","None"]
[14.5,"Does a basic check of animations and graphed outputs give an indication of good model stability?",null,null,"OK","Unable to view in detail due to technical difficulties","this will need to be re-reviewed once the 1D model cross-sections have been trimmed. ",null,"OK","Yes."]
[14.6,"2d extents and outputs",null,null,"OK","Flood extents appear sensible","this will need to be re-reviewed once the 1D model cross-sections have been trimmed. ",null,"OK","Ok."]

{"sheet":"Model_Outputs_Calibration","index":17,"n_rows":16,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":16,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[4,0,4,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,0,6,3],[6,4,6,16],[7,1,7,3],[13,1,13,3],[8,1,8,3],[9,1,9,3],[10,1,10,3],[11,1,11,3],[12,1,12,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["MODEL OUTPUTS & CALIBRATION"]
[]
["CALIBRATION/VERIFICATION"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (28/02/24)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[15.1,"Have calibration runs been completed?\nIs data for calibration available? Gauge data, extents, anecdotal etc.",null,null,"Amber","No calibration undertaken due to a lack of gauges within the catchment. Historic flood extents are available - have these been used to validate model results and provide confidence in the model approach taken and assumptions made? ","See row 15.6 below","See response on row 15.6.","OK","Agree that not enough data to undetake full model callibration."]
[15.2,"Are the simulated hydrograph peaks reasonably similar to the recorded peaks? ",null,null,"OK","As above"]
[15.3,"Is the shape of the simulated hydrograph and therefore the volume suitably similar? ",null,null,"OK","As above"]
[15.4,"Are simulated floodplain extents similar to recorded extents? Are flow routes similar?",null,null,"OK","As above"]
[15.5,"Has suitable effort been made to attempt and improve calibration. Have attempted changes been documented with a quantification of impact?",null,null,"OK","As above"]
[15.6,"If no historic data is available, are the simulated flood outputs similar or very different from past modelling in the area? If there is a large difference, does it seem sensible?",null,null,"Amber","There are existing historical flood outlines and Jflow modelling. \nThe report does not include a comparison between the model results and historic flood outlines to verify the model results. ","Please consider model verification in the absense of gauged data and existing detailed modelling within the catchment. What is resulting in the large difference in modelled flood extents compared to the existing Flood Map for Planning? ","Comparison between a full hydrodinamic model and a large scale modelling approach like JFLOW is unnecessary, it would just highlight the assumptions made by JFLOW and or the time of the previous hydrological flow assumptions.","Amber","Accept justification for not comparing against currnet Flood Map for Planning.\n\nHowever, historic flood map shows areas of flooding (see figure below) and no mention of these in model reporting. ","Validate model outputs against the historic flood mapping."]
[]
[null,null,null,null,15.6]

{"sheet":"Model_Sensitivity","index":18,"n_rows":11,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":11,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[8,1,8,3],[9,1,9,3],[10,1,10,3],[4,0,4,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,0,6,3],[6,4,6,16],[7,1,7,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["MODEL SENSITIVITY"]
[]
["SENSITIVITY TESTING & UNCERTAINTY"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (28/02/24)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[16.100000000000001,"Have appropriate model parameters been chosen for sensitivity testing? \n\nTypical tests include:\n  Sensitivity to roughness ± 20% ( Manning's \"n\" both in 1D and 2D)\nSensitivity to flows ± 20% (From central estimate)\n Sensitivity to downstream boundary\n Key structure blockage(s)",null,null,"Red","The following model parameters have been chosen for sensitivity testing:\nRoughness (+/- 20%)\nDownstream boundary conditions (double/half the slope)\nReduction in Pound level of 0.1m\nNo sensitivity on the assumptions made regarding the dimensions of the canal\nNo model files or results files related to sensitivity testing have been provided for review although this were requested. ","No sensitivity model files or results have been provided for review.\nPlease provide all relevant model files, checks and results incl. depth difference grids to demonstrate the impact of changing certain parameters. \nWere the canal dimensions sensitivity tested given the assumptions made and lack of survey data e.g. using a constant depth of 1.5m? \n","Sensitivity Model Files were provided upon request and were shared with the EA on 23/01/24. Updated files will be provided as part of this submission.","Red","The biggest uncertainty in hydraulic modelling is often the inflowsv-vdue to uncertainties in methods of flow estimation. However, there was no sensivitiy test on inflow. Why was this sensitivity test omitted? Suggest that this sensitivity test is undertaken and results commented on.","Undertaken an inflow sensitivity test to ensure model uncertainty is well understoof."]
[16.2,"Do the results of the tests show the models to be particularly sensitive to certain parameters?",null,null,"Red","As above, no model or results files have been provided for review","Please provide the information required for review","This has been included in the report.","Red","Sensitivity test model files now provided. Checked and agree with reporting. Although the model is sensitive to roughness values, this is not thought to be significant at site. \n\nHowever, as an inflow sensitivity test has not been undetaken we do not fully understand the model's sensivity to important parameters.","As above."]
[16.3,"Have confidence limits for model results (+/- mm) been presented? How were they derived and does this seem sensible? ",null,null,"Red","As above, no model or results files have been provided for review","Please provide the information required for review","This has been included in the report.","Red","There is a section on this now included in the model reporting. However, this should be updated once an inflow sensitivity test is undertaken.","Update reporting with results of inflow sensitivity test."]

{"sheet":"Audit_Trail","index":19,"n_rows":20,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":20,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[4,0,4,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,0,6,3],[6,4,6,16],[7,1,7,3],[8,1,8,3],[9,1,9,3],[10,1,10,3],[11,1,11,3],[12,1,12,3],[18,1,18,3],[19,1,19,3],[13,1,13,3],[14,1,14,3],[15,1,15,3],[16,1,16,3],[17,1,17,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["AUDIT TRAIL"]
[]
["AUDIT TRAIL"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (28/02/24)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[17.100000000000001,"Was a model run log provided?",null,null,"Green","No detailed model log provided beyond a list of model scenarios","Please provide a model log","Model log will be provided.","OK","Model log provided."]
[17.2,"Was a suitable file naming, structure & management system used?",null,null,"OK"]
[17.3,"Were check files provided?",null,null,"Red","No check files provided for the sensitivity testing scenarios",null,"Sensitivity Model Files were provided upon request and were shared with the EA on 23/01/24. Updated files will be supplied as part of this submission.","OK","Sensivitiy test results and check files included."]
[17.399999999999999,"Were comments provided within the model?",null,null,"Green","Some commentary included in the model control files. Further information would help the reviewer",null,"Not clear what action is required.","Green","Best practise to include more detail information within the model."]
[17.5,"Was there good version control? Is the model history detailed where applicable?",null,null,"Green","New model build - little information on model history provided","More information could be provided","Details have been added to the Model Report.","OK","Accepted."]
[17.600000000000001,"Were Errors / comments / warnings made available?",null,null,"Amber","No, there is no discussion on model performance in the report incl. any warnings, errors, sources of uncertainty or model stability","Please provide information and discussion in the report on model performance including any errors, warnings, stability and uncertainty","Discussion on Warnings an errors will be added to the report.","Amber","Report checked and information not yet added.","Please provide information and discussion in the report on model performance including any errors, warnings, stability and uncertainty"]
[17.7,"Was a technical overview of the model and its background provided ",null,null,"Amber","No, a number of issues and unusual methods have been used and not justified or explained. ","Please provide further information in the reporting as highlighted elsewhere in this review","Unusual methods have not been used. However, further explanations will be included in the report.","Amber","There are various sections where addition informaiton would be very beneficial. These include: 1D structures, 2D topographic structures, etc.","Add information highlighted elsewhere in review."]
[17.8,"Were notes on how the model operates under different flow conditions  provided?",null,null,"Green","Climate Change scenarios have been run ",null,null,"Green","Best practise to include notes on how the model operates under different flow conditions.","Add detail to reporting."]
[17.899999999999999,"Was an explicit statement of any concerns about the accuracy of the model or its ability to represent reality provided?",null,null,"Amber","No - this has not been discussed and should be included in the model reporting","Please update the model report to include this information","This is included in the report, but more details will be added.","OK","Model Accuarcy section in reporting."]
[18,"Is there anything else missing or are there suggestions for additional information or clarification?",null,null,"Amber","Are blockage scenarios required? For example to culverts under the A44, such as on the Rowel Brook where it flows past the garage/caravan sales (oppsite the Royal Sun Public House)","Please provide justification as to whether blockage scenarios are or are not required","Blockage scenarios have not been modelled at this stage. It was not considered necessary in terms of the pre-development risk to the site to assess the condition if the culverts under the A44 were to block. \n \nA preliminary assessment of the topography shows that in the event of a blockage in the culvert under the A44 to the north of the site, the water would flow across the A44 almost directly adjacent to the culvert and re-enter Rowel Brook. Should the culvert capactiy be reduced there would increases in water levels upstream, but contained within offsite areas. \n \nTo the south of the site, if the culvert under the A44 were to block, the land immediately upstream would be inundated. Given the road levels and the adjacent topography, water would back up and inundate land to the east and west of the watercourse but would not adversely affect the application site. \n \nWhilst blockage scenarios may be of interest to the EA, it is not considered that the blockage of the culverts are likely to significantly affect the assessment of risk to the application site.","OK","Justification accepted."]
[18.100000000000001,"Comment on the quality of the reports:",null,null,"OK","As mentioned above, further information could be provided"]
[18.2,"is a freeboard analysis necessary?\nIf yes have you review the report?\nWhat are is the agreed freeboard?",null,null,"N/A"]

{"sheet":"Additional Info.","index":20,"n_rows":18,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":18,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[4,0,4,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,0,6,3],[6,4,6,16],[7,1,7,3],[8,1,8,3],[9,1,9,3],[10,1,10,3],[11,1,11,3],[12,1,12,3],[13,1,13,3],[14,1,14,3],[15,1,15,3],[16,1,16,3],[17,1,17,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["Additional information"]
[]
["Additional information"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (DATE)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[100.1]
[100.2]
[100.3]
[100.4]
[100.5]
[100.6]
[100.7]
[100.8]
[100.9]
[101]

{"sheet":"Roughness Values","index":21,"n_rows":174,"n_cols":5,"rows_kept":174,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
[null,"Return to 1D model build"]
[null,"Return to 2D model build"]
[null,"Manning's n for Channels (Chow, 1959)."]
[null,"Type of Channel and Description","Minimum","Normal","Maximum"]
[null,"Natural streams - minor streams (top width at floodstage < 100 ft)"]
[null,"1. Main Channels"]
[null,"  a. clean, straight, full stage, no rifts or deep pools",2.5000000000000001E-2,0.03,3.3000000000000002E-2]
[null,"  b. same as above, but more stones and weeds",0.03,3.5000000000000003E-2,0.04]
[null,"  c. clean, winding, some pools and shoals",3.3000000000000002E-2,0.04,4.4999999999999998E-2]
[null,"  d. same as above, but some weeds and stones",3.5000000000000003E-2,4.4999999999999998E-2,0.05]
[null,"  e. same as above, lower stages, more ineffective ",0.04,4.8000000000000001E-2,5.5E-2]
[null,"  slopes and sections"]
[null,"  f. same as \"d\" with more stones",4.4999999999999998E-2,0.05,0.06]
[null,"Chainage – compared to surveyed sections",0.05,7.0000000000000007E-2,0.08]
[null,"  h. very weedy reaches, deep pools, or floodways ",7.4999999999999997E-2,0.1,0.15]
[null,"  with heavy stand of timber and underbrush"]
[null,"2. Mountain streams, no vegetation in channel, banks usually steep, trees and brush along banks submerged at high stages"]
[null,"  a. bottom: gravels, cobbles, and few boulders",0.03,0.04,0.05]
[null,"  b. bottom: cobbles with large boulders",0.04,0.05,7.0000000000000007E-2]
[null,"3. Floodplains"]
[null,"  a. Pasture, no brush"]
[null,"  1.short grass",2.5000000000000001E-2,0.03,3.5000000000000003E-2]
[null,"  2. high grass",0.03,3.5000000000000003E-2,0.05]
[null,"   b. Cultivated areas"]
[null,"  1. no crop",0.02,0.03,0.04]
[null,"  2. mature row crops",2.5000000000000001E-2,3.5000000000000003E-2,4.4999999999999998E-2]
[null,"  3. mature field crops",0.03,0.04,0.05]
[null,"    c. Brush"]
[null,"  1. scattered brush, heavy weeds",3.5000000000000003E-2,0.05,7.0000000000000007E-2]
[null,"  2. light brush and trees, in winter",3.5000000000000003E-2,0.05,0.06]
[null,"  3. light brush and trees, in summer",0.04,0.06,0.08]
[null,"  4. medium to dense brush, in winter",4.4999999999999998E-2,7.0000000000000007E-2,0.11]
[null,"  5. medium to dense brush, in summer",7.0000000000000007E-2,0.1,0.16]
[null,"    d. Trees"]
[null,"  1. dense willows, summer, straight",0.11,0.15,0.2]
[null,"  2. cleared land with tree stumps, no sprouts",0.03,0.04,0.05]
[null,"  3. same as above, but with heavy growth of sprouts",0.05,0.06,0.08]
[null,"  4. heavy stand of timber, a few down trees, little ",0.08,0.1,0.12]
[null,"  undergrowth, flood stage below branches"]
[null,"  5. same as 4. with flood stage reaching  branches",0.1,0.12,0.16]
[null,"4. Excavated or Dredged Channels"]
[null,"a. Earth, straight, and uniform"]
[null," 1. clean, recently completed",1.6E-2,1.7999999999999999E-2,0.02]
[null," 2. clean, after weathering",1.7999999999999999E-2,2.1999999999999999E-2,2.5000000000000001E-2]
[null," 3. gravel, uniform section, clean",2.1999999999999999E-2,2.5000000000000001E-2,0.03]
[null," 4. with short grass, few weeds",2.1999999999999999E-2,2.7E-2,3.3000000000000002E-2]
[null,"b. Earth winding and sluggish"]
[null," 1.  no vegetation",2.3E-2,2.5000000000000001E-2,0.03]
[null," 2. grass, some weeds",2.5000000000000001E-2,0.03,3.3000000000000002E-2]
[null," 3. dense weeds or aquatic plants in deep channels",0.03,3.5000000000000003E-2,0.04]
[null," 4. earth bottom and rubble sides",2.8000000000000001E-2,0.03,3.5000000000000003E-2]
[null," 5. stony bottom and weedy banks",2.5000000000000001E-2,3.5000000000000003E-2,0.04]
[null," 6. cobble bottom and clean sides",0.03,0.04,0.05]
[null,"c. Dragline-excavated or dredged"]
[null," 1.  no vegetation",2.5000000000000001E-2,2.8000000000000001E-2,3.3000000000000002E-2]
[null," 2. light brush on banks",3.5000000000000003E-2,0.05,0.06]
[null,"d. Rock cuts"]
[null," 1. smooth and uniform",2.5000000000000001E-2,3.5000000000000003E-2,0.04]
[null," 2. jagged and irregular",3.5000000000000003E-2,0.04,0.05]
[null,"e. Channels not maintained, weeds and brush uncut"]
[null,"  1. dense weeds, high as flow depth",0.05,0.08,0.12]
[null,"  2. clean bottom, brush on sides",0.04,0.05,0.08]
[null,"  3. same as above, highest stage of flow",4.4999999999999998E-2,7.0000000000000007E-2,0.11]
[null,"  4. dense brush, high stage",0.08,0.1,0.14000000000000001]
[null,"5. Lined or Constructed Channels"]
[null,"a. Cement"]
[null," 1.  neat surface",0.01,1.0999999999999999E-2,1.2999999999999999E-2]
[null," 2. mortar",1.0999999999999999E-2,1.2999999999999999E-2,1.4999999999999999E-2]
[null,"b. Wood"]
[null," 1. planed, untreated",0.01,1.2E-2,1.4E-2]
[null," 2.  planed, creosoted",1.0999999999999999E-2,1.2E-2,1.4999999999999999E-2]
[null," 3. unplanned",1.0999999999999999E-2,1.2999999999999999E-2,1.4999999999999999E-2]
[null," 4. plank with battens",1.2E-2,1.4999999999999999E-2,1.7999999999999999E-2]
[null," 5. lined with roofing paper",0.01,1.4E-2,1.7000000000000001E-2]
[null,"c. Concrete"]
[null,"  1. trowel finish",1.0999999999999999E-2,1.2999999999999999E-2,1.4999999999999999E-2]
[null,"  2. float finish",1.2999999999999999E-2,1.4999999999999999E-2,1.6E-2]
[null,"  3. finished, with gravel on bottom",1.4999999999999999E-2,1.7000000000000001E-2,0.02]
[null,"  4. unfinished",1.4E-2,1.7000000000000001E-2,0.02]
[null,"  5. gunite, good section",1.6E-2,1.9E-2,2.3E-2]
[null,"  6. gunite, wavy section",1.7999999999999999E-2,2.1999999999999999E-2,2.5000000000000001E-2]
[null,"  7. on good excavated rock",1.7000000000000001E-2,0.02]
[null,"  8. on irregular excavated rock",2.1999999999999999E-2,2.7E-2]
[null,"d. Concrete bottom float finish with sides of:"]
[null,"  1. dressed stone in mortar",1.4999999999999999E-2,1.7000000000000001E-2,0.02]
[null,"  2. random stone in mortar",1.7000000000000001E-2,0.02,2.4E-2]
[null,"  3. cement rubble masonry, plastered",1.6E-2,0.02,2.4E-2]
[null,"  4. cement rubble masonry",0.02,2.5000000000000001E-2,0.03]
[null,"  5. dry rubble or riprap",0.02,0.03,3.5000000000000003E-2]
[null,"e. Gravel bottom with sides of:"]
[null,"  1. formed concrete",1.7000000000000001E-2,0.02,2.5000000000000001E-2]
[null,"  2. random stone mortar",0.02,2.3E-2,2.5999999999999999E-2]
[null,"  3. dry rubble or riprap",2.3E-2,3.3000000000000002E-2,3.5999999999999997E-2]
[null,"f. Brick"]
[null,"  1. glazed",1.0999999999999999E-2,1.2999999999999999E-2,1.4999999999999999E-2]
[null,"  2. in cement mortar",1.2E-2,1.4999999999999999E-2,1.7999999999999999E-2]
[null,"g. Masonry"]
[null,"  1. cemented rubble",1.7000000000000001E-2,2.5000000000000001E-2,0.03]
[null,"  2. dry rubble",2.3E-2,3.2000000000000001E-2,3.5000000000000003E-2]
[null,"h. Dressed ashlar/stone paving",1.2999999999999999E-2,1.4999999999999999E-2,1.7000000000000001E-2]
[null,"i. Asphalt"]
[null,"  1. smooth",1.2999999999999999E-2,1.2999999999999999E-2]
[null,"  2. rough",1.6E-2,1.6E-2]
[null,"j. Vegetal lining",0.03,null,0.5]
[]
[]
[null,"Manning's n for Closed Conduits Flowing Partly Full  (Chow, 1959)."]
[null,"Type of Conduit and Description","Minimum","Normal","Maximum"]
[null,"1. Brass, smooth:",8.9999999999999993E-3,0.01,1.2999999999999999E-2]
[null,"2. Steel:"]
[null,"Lockbar and welded",0.01,1.2E-2,1.4E-2]
[null,"Riveted and spiral",1.2999999999999999E-2,1.6E-2,1.7000000000000001E-2]
[null,"3. Cast Iron:"]
[null,"Coated",0.01,1.2999999999999999E-2,1.4E-2]
[null,"Uncoated",1.0999999999999999E-2,1.4E-2,1.6E-2]
[null,"4. Wrought Iron:"]
[null,"Black",1.2E-2,1.4E-2,1.4999999999999999E-2]
[null,"Galvanized",1.2999999999999999E-2,1.6E-2,1.7000000000000001E-2]
[null,"5. Corrugated Metal:"]
[null,"Subdrain",1.7000000000000001E-2,1.9E-2,2.1000000000000001E-2]
[null,"Stormdrain",2.1000000000000001E-2,2.4E-2,0.03]
[null,"6. Cement:"]
[null,"Neat Surface",0.01,1.0999999999999999E-2,1.2999999999999999E-2]
[null,"Mortar",1.0999999999999999E-2,1.2999999999999999E-2,1.4999999999999999E-2]
[null,"7. Concrete:"]
[null,"Culvert, straight and free of debris",0.01,1.0999999999999999E-2,1.2999999999999999E-2]
[null,"Culvert with bends, connections, and some debris",1.0999999999999999E-2,1.2999999999999999E-2,1.4E-2]
[null,"Finished",1.0999999999999999E-2,1.2E-2,1.4E-2]
[null,"Sewer with manholes, inlet, etc., straight",1.2999999999999999E-2,1.4999999999999999E-2,1.7000000000000001E-2]
[null,"Unfinished, steel form",1.2E-2,1.2999999999999999E-2,1.4E-2]
[null,"Unfinished, smooth wood form",1.2E-2,1.4E-2,1.6E-2]
[null,"Unfinished, rough wood form",1.4999999999999999E-2,1.7000000000000001E-2,0.02]
[null,"8. Wood:"]
[null,"Stave",0.01,1.2E-2,1.4E-2]
[null,"Laminated, treated",1.4999999999999999E-2,1.7000000000000001E-2,0.02]
[null,"9. Clay:"]
[null,"Common drainage tile",1.0999999999999999E-2,1.2999999999999999E-2,1.7000000000000001E-2]
[null,"Vitrified sewer",1.0999999999999999E-2,1.4E-2,1.7000000000000001E-2]
[null,"Vitrified sewer with manholes, inlet, etc.",1.2999999999999999E-2,1.4999999999999999E-2,1.7000000000000001E-2]
[null,"Vitrified Subdrain with open joint",1.4E-2,1.6E-2,1.7999999999999999E-2]
[null,"10. Brickwork:"]
[null,"Glazed",1.0999999999999999E-2,1.2999999999999999E-2,1.4999999999999999E-2]
[null,"Lined with cement mortar",1.2E-2,1.4999999999999999E-2,1.7000000000000001E-2]
[null,"Sanitary sewers coated with sewage slime with bends and connections",1.2E-2,1.2999999999999999E-2,1.6E-2]
[null,"Paved invert, sewer, smooth bottom",1.6E-2,1.9E-2,0.02]
[null,"Rubble masonry, cemented",1.7999999999999999E-2,2.5000000000000001E-2,0.03]
[]
[]
[null,"Manning's n for Corrugated Metal Pipe  (AISI, 1980).  "]
[null,"  Type of Pipe, Diameter and Corrugation Dimension","n"]
[null,"  1. Annular 2.67 x 1/2 inch (all diameters)",2.4E-2]
[null,"  2. Helical 1.50 x 1/4 inch"]
[null,"8\" diameter",1.2E-2]
[null,"10\" diameter",1.4E-2]
[null,"  3. Helical 2.67 x 1/2 inch"]
[null,"12\" diameter",1.0999999999999999E-2]
[null,"18\" diameter",1.4E-2]
[null,"24\" diameter",1.6E-2]
[null,"36\" diameter",1.9E-2]
[null,"48\" diameter",0.02]
[null,"60\" diameter",2.1000000000000001E-2]
[null,"  4. Annular 3x1 inch (all diameters)",2.7E-2]
[null,"  5. Helical 3x1 inch"]
[null,"48\" diameter",2.3E-2]
[null,"54\" diameter",2.3E-2]
[null,"60\" diameter",2.4E-2]
[null,"66\" diameter",2.5000000000000001E-2]
[null,"72\" diameter",2.5999999999999999E-2]
[null,"78\" diameter and larger",2.7E-2]
[null,"  6. Corrugations 6x2 inches"]
[null,"60\" diameter",3.3000000000000002E-2]
[null,"72\" diameter",3.2000000000000001E-2]
[null,"120\" diameter",0.03]
[null,"180\" diameter",2.8000000000000001E-2]

{"sheet":"Lists","index":22,"n_rows":27,"n_cols":8,"rows_kept":27,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
[]
["Model  Review Type","RAG","Coastal standard","Software","Model Type","Area Name","Tab List","QAR Sheet"]
["Coastal wave transformation only","Red","Strategic","ISIS/FMP","1D only","Cumbria and Lancashire","Model_Approach","FRA / Pre-App / ERR"]
["Coastal 1D inundation","Amber","Appraisal","FMP/TuFlow","2D only","Devon and Cornwall - East","1D_Model_Build","PDU"]
["Coastal 1D-2D inundation","Green","Design","Estry/TuFlow","1D/2D ","Devon and Cornwall - West","1D_Boundary_Conditions","CDF / CSF / MMF / MCF"]
["Coastal 2D inundation","OK",null,"TuFlow",null,"Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire","1D_Structures","Other"]
["Fluvial/tidal 1D model","N/A",null,"MIKE11",null,"Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk","1D_Run_Parameters"]
["Fluvial/tidal 1D-2D model",null,null,"MIKE21 HD",null,"East Midlands","2D_Model_Build"]
["Fluvial/tidal 2D model",null,null,"MIKE21 SW",null,"Greater Manchester Merseyside and Cheshire","2D_Boundary_Conditions","A - Design"]
["Surface water model",null,null,"MIKEFLOOD",null,"Hertfordshire and North London","2D_Structures","B - Appraisal"]
["Display all sheets",null,null,"SWAN",null,"Kent and South London","2D_Run_Parameters","C - Strategic"]
[null,null,null,"SWAN/EuroTop/TuFlow",null,"Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire","1D_2D_Surface_Water","U - Unsatisfactory"]
[null,null,null,"Other",null,"North East","Coastal_boundary"]
[null,null,null,null,null,"Thames","Wave_Transformation"]
[null,null,null,null,null,"West and East Sussex","Wave_Overtopping"]
[null,null,null,null,null,"Hampshire and Isle of Wight","Linked_1D_2D","Level 1"]
[null,null,null,null,null,"Dorset and Wiltshire","Model_Stability","Level 2"]
[null,null,null,null,null,"Somerset and West of England","Model_Outputs_Calibration","Level 3"]
[null,null,null,null,null,"Shropshire Herefordshire Worcestershire and Gloucestershire","Model_Sensitivity"]
[null,null,null,null,null,"Staffordshire Warwickshire and West Midlands","Audit_Trail","1 Very good"]
[null,null,null,null,null,"North Yorkshire, East Ridings and Hull",null,"2 Good"]
[null,null,null,null,null,"South and West Yorkshire",null,"3 Fair"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"4 Poor"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"5 Very poor"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Not Previously assessed/known"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Yes"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"No"]

{"sheet":"Version_control","index":23,"n_rows":4,"n_cols":3,"rows_kept":4,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["Date","Version","Description"]
["2019-09-06",4.5,"Baseline version"]
["2019-09-12",4.5999999999999996,"Add coastal  template to baseline.\nAdd version control sheet and version number\nAdd roughness example sheet\nAdd sheet 'Lists' for maintenance\nUpdate named ranges for RAG status\nAdd drop down box to select model type and VBA to hide/display relevant sheets\nExplicitly reference Model_checks in  cell comments\nSwitch off remove comments as code not yet resilient\n"]
["2020-01-17",4.7,"Add the QAF Tab\nAdd the Additional Info. Tab\nChange the VBA code to make them Hidden/Visible\nAdd the counting of colours in the QAR tab"]

{"sheet":"Additional Comments","index":24,"n_rows":25,"n_cols":4,"rows_kept":25,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["Item Number","Comment","Response","Added to list?"]
["\n\n\n\n\n\n","From reviewer: Numerous shapefiles have been applied in the .tgc file to represent bank elevations, weir elevation etc. There is a lack of information as to where this elevation data has been derived from as on numerous occasions the elevations do not match survey data or LiDAR."]
[null,"2d_zsh_DD_Extension_v14-A_P.shp","No topographic survey was available here due to land access issues. An initial elevation of 59.75mAOD was taken from LiDAR to represent the ditch bed level. Further interrogation of the LiDAR was undertaken but, as the LiDAR elevations did not drop, 59.75mAOD was extended until the LiDAR showed a drop in bed level and to ensure that there was a continuous flow path.","Accepted and report checked. Some detail included although a full explanation as supplied here would be beneficial to include."]
[null,"2d_zsh_SDD_Extension_v25-A_P.shp","A Z Shape GULLY has been applied with elevations to approximately match the gradient of the final surveyed reach upstream. This is simply intended to convey water out of the model. ","Accepted approach. Add detail to reporting."]
[null,"2d_zsh_BOTTOM_BANK_v16-A_P.shp","Elevations are based on ‘L_BOTTOM_BANK’ in the topographic survey","Accepted."]
[null,"2d_zsh_Banktop_RB_South_v28-A_P.shp (spot check found issues at S043, S045, S048, S050, left bank at S042 does not match survey)","Elevations are based on ‘L_TOP_BANK’ in the topographic survey. The topographic survey provides a complete run of bank top survey at much higher resolution that the cross-sections and this information has been used to set the height of the boundary cells. There a minor discrepancies in the bank top shown in the surveyed cross-sections versus those in the L_TOP_BANK layer, but using these elevations would influence only a few Zpts before the more detailed L_TOP_BANK layer enforced the elevation. ","Accepted."]
[null,"2d_zsh_CanalOfftakeBank_v20-A_P.shp (In places, elevations seem to be 40cm lower than the LiDAR?) Please provide further information. ","Elevations are based on ‘L_TOP_BANK’ in the topographic survey. These may deviate from the LiDAR but we would expect the topographic survey to be more reliable and have used it in preference. ","Accepted"]
[null,"2d_zsh_Banktop_SDD_v21-A_P.shp - Channel widths need to be revisited - see 1d/2d links tab.","Deactivation was used in previous comments.","ok."]
[null,"Cross-section 80 has been applied twice in the 1D (1d_tab_bbk_SDD_sections_v32_L)","This is intentional. Section 81 is surveyed as the channel turns parallel to the road and it would not be appropriate to interpolate between this Section 81 and Section 80 as section 81 is not representative of much of this reach. A tab line with source data from Section 80 is applied twice as this is more representative of a longer reach of channel. ","Accepted."]
[null,"Section 82 needs further explanation. ","We are not sure what information is being requested here. Section 82 is at the upstream face of the culvert. The section is trimmed at bank top and the bank elevations tie in with the deactivation. ","ok."]
[null,"Gap in SDD Banktop point and line definition downstream of Woodstock Road? Why is there a gap, what impact on model results??","No bank top survey was supplied in this location and boundary cell elevations will be derived from the underlying DTM. This section of the model simply serves to convey water towards the downstream boundary and is not within the site. Water levels in the 1D domain do not exceed the bank tops of the limited cross-sections in this location and would not flow into the 2D domain even if the elevations of the Z points were enforced here.  ","Accepted."]
[null,"Figure 2 below - strange configuration of the channel at this location. ","This schematisation has been updated to give priority to survey section over banks survey, so the 1D and the 2D extents agree.","ok."]
[null,"2d_zsh_CAN_XSBankPoints_v03-A_P.shp - Channel widths need to be revisited e.g.   S090, S091, CAN13 - see 1d/2d links tab","The difference in width between S90 and S91 in the csv, bearing in mind that deactivation has been applied, is negligable. This also needs to be viewed in light of the resolution of the model. In this location, the 2D domain has been extended to better agree with the lock section.\nCAN13 is a short narrow section within the lock. It is acknowledged that the boundary cells remain at a consistent width within the wider portions of the channel, but portion of the 2D domain that would not be available for out of bank flooding is extremely limited and water would still leave the canal at the appropriate bank elevation in this location.","Accepted. Canal widths look reasonable."]
[null,"No survey provided for the canal to confirm cross-sections have been represented correctly - please provide this survey. ","The canal survey sections are in 220854 Sections.dwg which we believe has been supplied. ","Accepted."]
[null,"Weir elevation into the side channel and the KGL culvert dimensions appear to match the survey provided. ","Weir has been reviewed.","Accepted."]
[null,"Please elaborate on the 'engineering judgement' that was used to alter the canal bed levels to an assumed water depth of 1.5m. ","Although the canal survey sections show a bed level, when comparing these bed levels to the measured water level the canal seems unrealistically shallow. For example, on Section 100 the measured bed level is 59.72mAOD and the measured water level is 60.21mAOD – less than 0.5m. Due to this uncertainty, we assumed that the measured water level was accurate and deducted 1.5m from this measured level. An experienced waterway engineer was consulted to determine a likely depth for the canal. ","Accepted, could be more detail in reporting."]
[null,"2d_zsh_Banktop_RB_v06-A_P.shp 1D cross sections have not been trimmed - please see 1D/2D linking tab.","Sections have been trimmed as reported previously.","Still significant discpreancies between 1D and 2D widhts as highlighted in 12.3"]
[null," S017 has been read in twice rather than S016 and then S017.","This is intentional. Section 81 is surveyed as the channel turns parallel to the road and it would not be appropriate to interpolate between this Section  and Section 16 as section 17 is not representative of much of this reach. A tab line with source data from Section 17 is applied twice as this is more representative of a longer reach of channel. ","Accepted."]
[null,"Please review all cross-sections to ensure the correct survey information has been used within the model. ","Spot checks have been carried out on Cross-Sections and are considered appropriate.","ok."]
[null,"Has the use of clipped files been implemented correctly as a spot check of elevations suggests that it has not at the copse or at Woodstock road? (Copse_Clip_v06-A_R.shp  and WoodstockRoad_Clip_v20-A_R.shp) As the Read Grid Zpts  lines area read in after a number of other lines within the .tgc file, it will over-write any previous modifications to the DTM - please review. ","Already addressed in the review document","ok."]
[null,"2d_cwf_Ditches_v20-A_R.shp Factor of 0.3 has been applied - how has this been determined? ","Value obtained from on-site observations provided as described by the client – that the Woodstock Road ditch is approximately 0.6m wide. The cell size used in the model is 2m. 0.6 is 30% of 2m and therefore a factor of 0.3 will limit the flow width to 30%.","Accepted. Some detail in reporting."]
[null,"2d_zsh_TOP_BANK_v12-A_P.shp | gis\\2d_zsh_TOP_BANK_v12-A_L.shp Were detailed topo levels used to define the elevations - these seem to differ to the LiDAR by up to 20cm in places?","Already addressed in the reiview document","ok."]
[null,"2D_zsh_TOP_BANK_v12-A_L.shp does not extend as far north as 2d_zsh_TOP_BANK_v12-A_P.shp","This has been updated.","ok."]
[null,"2d_zln_CopseWeir_v01-A_L.shp weir elevation matches cross-section 38. ","This has been updated.","ok."]
[null,"2d_zsh_Decks_v15-A_R.shp - Values in the attibutes appear to match survey, however, the polygon with a value of 69.3 mAOD does not appear to have been implemented correctly from a review of the check files?","This has been updated.","ok."]