{"text_format":"1","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":24,"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_Sensitivity","Model_Outputs_Calibration","Audit_Trail","Additional Info.","Roughness Values","Lists","Version_control"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":34,"macros":1,"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":[[5,6,5,8],[6,1,6,5],[7,4,7,5],[7,6,7,7],[7,8,7,9],[3,2,3,4],[15,1,16,18],[11,1,11,18],[12,2,12,18],[14,1,14,18],[7,10,7,11],[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],[6,13,7,17],[5,2,5,3]]}
[]
[null,"NON-REAL TIME HYDRAULIC MODEL REVIEW"]
[]
[null,"Type of review"]
[]
[null,"Project","Gavray Drive",null,"Job Number",68791,"Required coastal standard\n (if applicable)"]
[]
[null,"Model Type","1D/2D ","Software","FMP/TuFlow",null,"2nd review",null,"3rd review",null,"4th review"]
[null,"Revision",null,"Date","July 2022",null,"2023-02-14"]
[null,"Area Client","THM","Reviewer",null,null,"PW"]
[]
[null,"REVIEW SUMMARY/CONCLUSION"]
[null,"Is the model suitable for intended use?","2nd Review - Currently the model is not fit for purpose, it has undergone extensive revision since the previous review but improvements still need to be made, I have summarised the main issues below: \n- It would be appreciated if only the files relevant to the latest model runs be included with future submissions, it is difficult and more time consuming to navigate folders when legacy/irrelevant model files have been included. \n- Inflow boundaries have not been applied correctly and the hydrological calculations need to be revisited. \n- Inflows have been incorrectly applied, showing the results of the 0.1%AEP event for the 1% scenarios. \n- Downstream boundary is applied incorrectly and should be moved, along with the 2D boundary. \n- Changes in 1D model parameters need to be justified. \n- Building representation doesn't appear to have been updated in the latest model submission. \n- Model stability should still be improved to reduce oscillations in stage during model runs, hydrographs show a plateau at the beginning which needs addressing. \n- With gauge data available it would be expected that this is used to calibrate the model where possible or sufficient justification for why this is not being done. \n\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nAt present this model cannot be deemed fit for purpose. There is too much uncertainty in the results at the moment to say with confidence that the outputs are accurate. There are some areas of increased flood extent downstream of the planned development however this is mostly in the Q1000 scenario with very isolated increases in the Q100+CC scenarios, mostly contained to the compensatory storage onsite. If the concerns raised in this review are adequately addressed then this model should then be useable for the intended purpose. \nThe main outstanding problems are:\n- Incomplete model runs provided means that the full suite of baseline and proposed scenarios cannot be compared to assess the differences.\n- No blockage scenario has been run on the flood relief culverts exiting the planned development site - this was done in the original model and we feel should be included here to ensure the compensatory on site storage is adequate in the event of blockage. \n- Some structures have been misrepresented or omitted completely and we would like clarification in the reporting along with evidence that they are not required and/or work as intended. \n- The underlying LiDAR and basemapping for building representation appear to be outdated, the latest available LiDAR should be used along with the latest OS mastermapping for the entire model to represent all buildings in the floodplain and to ensure accurate topography for flow routes.\n- Flood storage areas upstream and downstream of the planned development have not been mentioned in the reporting or represented in the modelling in the case of the upstream washland. These should be assessed for impact on results and missing structures incorporated in the model. Initial water levels should be set for the storage pond downstream to ensure it is full at the beginning of runs so that the most conservative flood extents can be presented. \n- The hydrology has not been updated since the original model was built in approximately 2009? This will need updating using current methodology and software to ensure accurate design flows can be used. WINFAP v2 was used to produce the original flow estimates and this has long been superseded and the most recent (v5) should now be used. \n- Uncertainty around site levels as the current footprint is set to 75maod which is both conservative and unrealistic, it is difficult to decide whether the site is going to be at risk without more accurate site plans. \n- Model stability is not great which makes it difficult to asses the accuracy of the mapped outputs, Mass balance needs addressing along with negative depths - some close to the planned development. \n"]
[null,null,"w"]
[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":[[29,1,29,3],[28,1,28,3],[25,1,25,3],[26,1,26,3],[27,1,27,3],[24,1,24,3],[21,1,21,3],[19,1,19,3],[20,1,20,3],[16,1,16,3],[17,1,17,3],[18,1,18,3],[23,0,23,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,5,6,16],[15,4,15,16],[23,4,23,16],[6,0,6,3],[4,0,4,3],[15,0,15,3],[7,0,14,3],[7,4,14,16]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["PROJECT BACKGROUND AND APPROACH"]
[]
["PROJECT DESCRIPTION & REQUIREMENTS"]
[null,null,null,null,"The original model for Bicester was created by Peter Brett Associates in 2009 on behalf of the EA. This was a flood risk mapping study to help the EA and Local authorities understand flood risk in the area and inform future spatial planning. Hydrock have used this exisiting model to incorporate site plans for a new residential area along Gavray Drive on the outskirts of Bicester to prove that site raising for the development does not have an adverse impact on flood levels away from the site. "]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
["MODEL APPROACH & SUMMARY"]
["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)"]
[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","1D/2D FMP/TUFLOW","None"]
[1.2,"Software used, including versions? ",null,null,"Green","Flood Modeller Pro VER=4.6.0.6759\nTUFLOW Build: 2020-01-AB-iDP-w64","Latest versions used at the time of runs (early 2021).\nPlease ensure future runs are using the latest software versions. "]
[1.3,"Model Version Reviewed ",null,null,"OK","Bicester_012","None"]
[1.4,"Are all model files provided? ",null,null,"Red","No, some model runs did not run to completion and there are files missing as a result. \n1000yr baseline(HYD) for each storm duration and 6.5hr (PROP) ","Please ensure all models have run to completion and that all model files check files, result files etc. are all included for review. \nIf possible provide .shp files and all .xmdf outputs (depth, height, velocity etc.)","All model files have now been provided.","Amber","Difficult to assess which model files are relevant to the study as too many iterations have been provided, some with failed runs so it is difficult to tell which are the final runs that are to be reviewed with this submission. \n\nPlease provide only the updated model runs that are requiring review so that the review can be undertaken more efficiently and to esnure the correct model runs are being looked at. "]
[1.5,"Does the model run? ",null,null,"OK","Yes, checked the 100yr+35CC 13hr HYD PROP run. Terminated run as it would take too long to complete. ","None"]
[]
["EVENTS & SCENARIOS "]
["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)"]
[2.1,"What events have been simulated (Q5, Q100, Q100CC, Q1000)?\nAre they sufficient to meet the project requirements?",null,null,"OK","Q100+CC,Q1000","None",null,"Green","Consider running some lower order events to improve model calibration against gauge levels. i.e. 50% AEP and 20% AEP and include the results with the next submission. "]
[2.2000000000000002,"Is a development being modelled? If so are appropriate scenarios modelled to assess the impact?",null,null,"Red","Proposed development modelled however no footprints for buildings present or finished floor levels. A master plan of the finished site has been provided which fits in with the polygons of the model however it is difficult to judge whether water levels will inundate the site without accurate finished site levels. ","Provide proposed site levels to determine whether the proposed area is still at flood risk. The provided polygon has been set to 75maod which is a conservative approach to site levels. The greatest flood depth in the baseline run within the proposed site area is 100mm, however when looking at the plans this is not close to the planned residential properties. ","Finished floor levels have now been modelled in the post development scenario.","Green","It would be expected that buildings be represented in the proposed scenario rather than an asc grid showing ground elevations. This would be useful to help show flood risk to individual buildings at the proposed site. "]
[2.2999999999999998,"Flood Mapping scenarios?",null,null,"Red","No defended/undefended or blockage scenarios\nThe original model had a blockage scenario on the Gavray Drive culvert, this should be implemented on this site to ensure that the proposed compensatory storage is sufficient with a reduced outflow from the site. \nSee screenshot for additional information. ","Please run blockage scenarios on the flood relief culverts running beneath Gavray Drive culvert (LA.3088)","A blockage scenario has been run on the post development scenario with 100% blockage of the flood relief culvert just like the original model.","Green","Blockage runs have been produced and briefly discussed in the reporting. \nProvide maps comparing flood depths/extents of the blockage scenario. "]
[2.4,"Have climate change runs been undertaken?",null,null,"Green","climate change runs for 35% higher allowance used. ","Not in line with current allowances but considered conservative for higher. ","The updated climate change allowance has been run.","OK","15% climate change runs have been carried out which is the central allowance for the 2080 epoch. "]
[2.5,"Has a study for quantifying uncertainty been undertaken?\nIf yes, what are the results?",null,null,"OK","No","None"]

{"sheet":"1D_Model_Build","index":3,"n_rows":20,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":20,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[19,1,19,3],[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],[6,0,6,3],[4,0,4,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,4,6,16],[7,1,7,3]]}
[]
[]
[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 (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)"]
[3.1,"Model overview: Node Summary\n1d length",null,null,"OK","685 Nodes\nTotal Length: 13.015km\nOpen Channel: 12.007km\nConduit: 1.008km","None",null,"OK","Model has been truncated since first review, reducing the model domain significantly and now only representing Langford Brook. \n\n126 nodes\n4.6km length\n0.085km conduits"]
[3.2,"Have appropriate distances between sections and/or nodes been used (dx)?  ",null,null,"OK","Yes","None"]
[3.3,"Are out of bank flows represented in 1d? If so, how has it been done and is it appropriate?",null,null,"N/A","N/A","None"]
[3.4,"Is the model geo-referenced?",null,null,"Green","Yes model geo-referenced however some nodes not appearing where they should. ","Can the structures not being spatially referenced correctly be addressed?","Yes nodes, now appear where they should be.","OK","Nodes are all georeferenced correctly. "]
[3.5,"Do the cross sections and bed profiles look reasonable?",null,null,"Amber","Cross sections have not been trimmed to channel width and incorporate the floodplain, this is problematic where bank elevations drop away and water is being misrepresented behind banks. (See screenshot)  \nSee item no.12 for additional inaccuracies with 1D cross section locations. ","Please trim the cross sections to the top of bank so that the floodplain can be correctly represented. Please adjust the cross section locations to the correct spatial area. ","Cross sections have been trimmed to top of banks.","OK","Cross sections match 1D channel widths.  "]
[3.6,"Chainage – compared to surveyed sections",null,null,"OK","Chainage is accurate between sections for the areas around the site of interest. ","None"]
[3.7,"Does conveyance look appropriate? ",null,null,"Amber","Conveyance looks okay for the modelled reach that has been observed. Structure conveyance needs addressing at node LA.3503. ","Please double check all cross sections and structures for acceptable conveyance and fix any issues present where possible. ","Conveyance has been checked.","OK","Conveyance looks okay for the cross sections close to the site of interest. "]
[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","N/A","None"]
[3.9,"Bank Markers. Are they used and if so, are they suitably located? ",null,null,"OK","Bank markers have been used and are suitable. ","None"]
[3.1,"What approach to channel roughness has been used? ",null,null,"Amber","Varying roughness values have been used with 0.06 for the banks throughout and 0.05 for the bed except for downstream of the sewage treatment works which is 0.045","Please explain the reasoning for the roughness values used within the channel and banks. There is no mention of this in the reporting for the 1D domain. ","Channel roughness explanation has been provided in the report.","Green","Channel roughness explanation provided in report. Roughness appears to be consistent with what can be seen through satellite/streetview. \nSensitivity testing shows site is sensitive to roughness changes. "]
[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,"Amber","See above. ","As above",null,"OK","1D Channel roughness is 0.05 and banks are 0.06. Floodplain is modelled in 2D. "]
[3.12,"What method has been used to estimate roughness (USGS, Chow, etc. based on survey, photographs)? Are they appropriate",null,null,"Amber","Manning's N values have been used for roughness values. ","The methods used to derive the roughness values, they are the same as the EA model but this does not explicitly say what the EA model used. ","Channel roughness explanation has been provided in the report.","OK","Explanation provided in the report. "]

{"sheet":"1D_Boundary_Conditions","index":4,"n_rows":13,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":13,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[4,4,4,16],[4,0,4,3],[6,0,6,3],[6,4,6,16],[12,1,12,3],[9,1,9,3],[8,1,8,3],[10,1,10,3],[7,1,7,3],[11,1,11,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["1D BOUNDARY CONDITIONS"]
[]
["1D 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","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,"OK","No evidence of glasswalling, 1D cross sections are full width. ","None"]
[4.2,"How have the inflows boundaries been applied? \n",null,null,"Red","Point inflows at upstream extents and lateral inflows representing intermediary tributaries. \nPlease provide explanation in the reporting for how these inflows have been applied and to where in the model. Also provide justification for retaining sweetening flows to back brook. Please provide more justification for the 3 storm durations being used and proof that the 6.5hr is the critical duration. \nThe inflows for all IED's still show a 17.5hr storm duration rather than the one specified in the IED title.  \nPlease address the unusual hydrograph shapes found in some of the run scenarios (e.g. Q100+35CC 13hr)","Whilst the hydrology may have been sufficient at the time of the original modelling this is no longer the case now and should be brought up to date using current methods. \nPlease undertake a full hydrological analysis using a flood estimation report to ensure accurate hydrographs are being used for the inflows. ","Updated hydrological analysis has been undertaken and compared to the previous inflows. This is discussed in the report.","Red","See hydrological review sheet for detail. \nInflow boundary has been applied at the top of the catchment as a FEHBDY. \n\nThe original study provided two additional inflows within this catchment, please provide explanation for why these are no longer required. \n\nAn unusual hydrograph shape can be seen throughout the model with an initial sharp rise in stage/flow before plateauing for several hours.\nPlease investigate and amend the hydrograph so it does not have the plateauing.  \nAdditionally the model run scenarios have been set up incorrectly, the graph included hopefully illustrates the issue but the 0.1% hydrograph has been applied to the 1%CC model runs and vice versa and should be re-run so that the model runs correspond correctly. "]
[4.3,"How is the downstream boundary(s) applied?\n",null,null,"Amber","A normal depth boundary has been used, derived from the reach average slope over the lower reach of Langford Brook. \nThis is not explained sufficiently in the reporting. ","Please update the report to state how the DSB has been applied. ","This has been added to the report.","Red","The downstream boundary has been modified with the model truncation. The new downstream boundary has been placed in an unusual place, normally this would be placed at a control structure where possible that cannot be bypassed by out of bank flows. In this instance the DSB is bypassed in the 2D domain where HQ boundaries have been placed at the edge of the domain, to take flows out of the model. \nPlease provide explanation for the schematisation of this DSB and why the bridge just downstream could not be used as a suitable downstream limit for the model. \n\nSensitivity testing has been carried out for +/- 20% slope, this shows some minor difference in levels at the site of interest, have these been replicated for the 2D boundary as this is also taking flow out of the model. It is recommended that the 2D boundary is realigned with the B4100 so it is not taking flow out of the model and all flows are routed correctly through the 1D as normally flow would not be leaving the model in the place where the 2D boundary has been schematised.  "]
[4.4000000000000004,"If tidal - how has the boundary been derived? \n\n",null,null,"N/A","N/A","None"]
[4.5,"Have appropriate locations been chosen for the downstream model extents?\n",null,null,"Amber","Downstream extent sufficiently far from the site, impact was assessed in the original model and considered to have no effect after 1km upstream. ","This should be updated in the reporting to state the justification for the downstream boundary and how it was decided upon. ","This has been added to the report.","Red","See item 4.3, this needs to be altered to a more suitable location, ideally where no out of bank flows are occurring and then sensitivity testing carried out again to ensure it is not affecting the site of interest. "]

{"sheet":"1D_Structures","index":5,"n_rows":14,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":14,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[6,0,6,3],[4,0,4,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,4,6,16],[7,1,7,3],[13,1,13,3],[12,1,12,3],[10,1,10,3],[11,1,11,3],[8,1,8,3],[9,1,9,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["1D STRUCTURES"]
[]
["1D STRUCTURES"]
["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)"]
[5.0999999999999996,"Are all structures represented? If not have explanations for structures not modelled been given in the Log/report? \n",null,null,"Amber","Most structures have been represented however no mention of missing structures given in reporting. Footbridge at node LA.4458 has been missed, water main pipe crossing the channel around node LA.3764. \nWater storage area upstream of the railway culvert at node LA.3905. ","Please state in the reporting why some structures have been omitted and the implications of not including this water storage area. ",500,"Green","Water storage area upstream of the site is deemed to be in poor condition and not representing this structure formally provides a more conservative approach. \nNo explanation for the omission of missing structure at nodes LA.3764 and LA. 4458"]
[5.2,"Are invert levels correct compared to survey data?",null,null,"OK","Invert levels are correct for the model reach that has been checked. "]
[5.3,"Do bridges surcharge? If so has orifice flow been enabled?",null,null,"OK","Orifice flow has been enabled. "]
[5.4,"Are there spills around the structure or over the top represented appropriately? ",null,null,"OK","Yes spills have been represented. ","None"]
[5.5,"If there are any movable structures have they been modelled correctly? \n",null,null,"Red","Sluice used in place of bridge unit at node:LA.4474 This is to improve model stability, no mention of what effect this has on flows or whether it is still considered representative. ","Please provide evidence for why this has been used and how this effects low/high flows compared to a bridge unit. ","This has not been altered as we do not have the survey for the bridge. An explanation of this has been written in the report.","OK","Justification detailed in the model report, no further action required. "]
[5.6,"Structure coefficients - Have they been changed from default values?",null,null,"Green","Weir coefficients have been changed from default however within expected range. \nAll structure coefficients seem to be kept at default. ","Please reference in the report the coefficients used and why the weir coefficients are set at their values. ",null,"Green","Weir coefficients vary between 0.8 and 1, this is within expected ranges.\n\nPlease add a statement within the report detailing the variance in weir coefficient values.  \n"]

{"sheet":"1D_Run_Parameters","index":6,"n_rows":11,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":11,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[4,4,4,16],[6,4,6,16],[10,1,10,3],[8,1,8,3],[9,1,9,3],[7,1,7,3],[4,0,4,3],[6,0,6,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["1D RUN PARAMETERS"]
[]
["1D RUN PARAMETERS"]
["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)"]
[6.1,"What time step has been used for the 1D model? Is it appropriate?",null,null,"OK","2 second","None",null,"OK","This model iteration uses a 1s timestep, this is half the 2D timestep and appropriate.  "]
[6.2,"What initial conditions have been used? Steady state, hotstart file?",null,null,"OK","Unsteady, warm start","None"]
[6.3,"Have any of the parameters and advanced parameters been changed from the default. If so, has it been justified?",null,null,"Green","minitr 3 maxitr 11\nmin/max iterations changed from default.  ","Please justify in the reporting the reasoning behind the changes to these default parameters and use the defaults where sufficient justification cannot be provided. ",null,"Amber","slot depths have been modified to 2.0000m however this is not acknowledged in the reporting.\nDummy coefficient has been set to 0.0001 and 0.001 for some run scenarios.  \n\nProvide justification for the changes to default parameters in the reporting. Where these are legacy parameters from the EA model, investigate the effects of changing the parameters back to default and provide evidence of this. "]

{"sheet":"2D_Model_Build","index":7,"n_rows":24,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":24,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[20,1,20,3],[21,1,21,3],[22,1,22,3],[23,1,23,3],[10,1,10,3],[11,1,11,3],[16,1,16,3],[17,1,17,3],[14,1,14,3],[15,1,15,3],[12,1,12,3],[13,1,13,3],[19,0,19,3],[19,4,19,16],[8,1,8,3],[9,1,9,3],[7,1,7,3],[4,0,4,3],[6,0,6,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,4,6,16]]}
[]
[]
[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 (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)"]
[7.1,"Number of domains?",null,null,"OK",1,"None",null,"OK","1 domain is used in this updated model. "]
[7.2,"Area of 2d domain/s",null,null,"OK","24.9km2 approx. ","None",null,"OK","12.8km2 after model truncation. "]
[7.3,"What dataset has been used to define the DTM elevations? LiDAR, Photogrammetric DTM?",null,null,"Red","LiDAR has been used however source, age and resolution has not been defined in the reporting. ","Please update the reporting with the specific details of the LiDAR being used. If it is from the original model (2009) then this should be updated with the latest LiDAR available. ","Updated Lidar has been used and this has been written in the report.","OK","Updated LiDAR has been applied.\nThis is 1M DTM from 2020.  "]
[7.4,"What grid resolution has been used?\nIs it suitable to accurately represent flow paths, e.g. between buildings?",null,null,"OK","4M grid resolution has been used. ","None",null,"Green","4M resolution has been retained, could this be reduced with the smaller catchment area to improve channel representation?  "]
[7.5,"Has the DTM been rotated to optimise flow route representation?",null,null,"OK","Is not optimised for the site of interest however is inkeeping for the wider catchment model. ","None",null,"Green","Has the DTM been rotated to improve optimisation with the Langford Brook? It may improve results to realign this to be better optimised."]
[7.6,"Is there any obstruction to flow?",null,null,"Green","Flow routes in the floodplain have been represented using Estry to model culverts, these have been estimated using LiDAR and photographic evidence rather than surveyed so dimensions and exact locations are best estimates. ","Please consider using site survey for the culverts that have been represented in the 2D to give a more accurate representation. ","The model has been truncated in the latest submission and this comment does not apply to the new model.","Green","A 1D network layer is still included in the model which represents culverts in the floodplain, these are outside of the model domain so do not affect the results but it would be best practice to remove these as these are no longer required in this model. "]
[7.7,"Has additional site specific topographic survey data been used?\n",null,null,"OK","Topographic survey data for the site has been presented by additional LiDAR for the site. ","None"]
[7.8,"How have buildings been represented within the DTM?",null,null,"Red","Buildings have been represented within the TMF as blocked polygons for large residential areas and individual buildings where larger commercial properties are represented. \nA large factory is omitted from the upstream extent of Langford brook, this could have an impact on flood extents and urbext values for the hydrology. ","Please ensure the most up-to-date maps have been used for the representation of buildings. ","This has been undertaken and is written in the report.","Red","Some buildings still do not appear to be represented within the latest TMF files. \nPlease update the mapping to incorporate the missing building representation. "]
[7.9,"Are defences/embankments/bank crests accurately represented?",null,null,"Green","Embankment defences have been represented by Z-lines and reinforced with Z-point elevations along the defence. \nThese appear to be accurate when measured against LiDAR. Some inconsistency with use of Z-lines along embankments.","Please update the reporting to include where and why z-lines have been used within the model. ","The model has been truncated in the latest submission and this comment does not apply to the new model.","OK","Okay"]
[7.1,"If post-development scenarios are required have the proposed ground levels and building been represented appropriately?",null,null,"Red","No. Very basic footprints for the developments have been used and appear to be too inaccurate to clearly define where the desired development is planned to be sited. Proposed ground levels have not been specified in the reporting which is useful to assess whether or not the proposed site would be inundated during different scenarios.  ","Please provide detailed proposals so that the site can be clearly assessed for flood risk. ","Finished floor levels have been used for the updated model and are within an asc format. This has been written in the report.","Amber","Thank you, it is usually expected that proposed building footprints be included as z-shape files to define invidividual objects rather than simply defining the floor levels as an ascii grid. \n\nWith respects to the site lowering and ponding of water adjacent to the watercourse, what mechanisms are in place to facilitate the storage areas to empty once levels recede back into the channel? "]
[]
["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,"Amber","Urban areas - 0.150\ninland water - 0.030\nRoads/Tracks - 0.030\nDense Vegetation - 0.090\nRail - 0.035\nOther/Default - 0.050\nRoughness values appear to be reasonable and have been applied correctly. ","Original mastermap should be updated to include any recent developments in the area. ","This has been done and has been written in the report.","Amber","Not updated in supplied model. "]
[8.1,"What methods have been used to estimate roughness? ",null,null,"Green","This is not explicitly mentioned in the reporting however this is unchanged from the original modelling. The original model used OS MasterMap to estimate roughness based on land type/usage. ","Please specify the roughness methodology in the reporting. ","This is written in the report.","OK","Report has been updated, no further action required. "]
[8.1999999999999993,"Is the representation of different roughness areas sufficiently accurate and detailed? ",null,null,"Amber","Original EA model used OS MasterMapping to represent different roughness values, this has not been updated in this model iteration however is still mostly accurate. ","Use the most recent MasterMap data available to ensure floodplain roughness is as accurate as possible. ","This has been done and has been written in the report.","Amber","As previously stated, building representation needs to be updated. "]

{"sheet":"2D_Boundary_Conditions","index":8,"n_rows":12,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":12,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[4,0,4,3],[6,0,6,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,4,6,16],[11,1,11,3],[10,1,10,3],[8,1,8,3],[9,1,9,3],[7,1,7,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["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","2nd Review Response (DATE)","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,"Green","Yes 2D HQ boundaries have been applied at the Southern end of the model along the downstream boundary to prevent pooling and South of the Railway embankment. There is a HQ boundary to the East of Launton Village however I am unsure what the purpose of this boundary is. (FID 453)","Please explain the rationale for the implementation of the HQ boundaries. ",null,"Red","2D boundary has been implemented at the downstream extent of the model domain. \nTwo HQ boundaries have been applied however it is not clear how and why these have been schematised the way they have. \n\nIt is usual for the 1D channel to be snapped to the 2D code boundary rather than the 2D boundary extend further than the 1D. \n\nPlease provide justification for the choice of HQ boundary and it's location and consider changing the location and setup of this boundary to more appropriately handle flows leaving the model. \nSee item 4.3 for further details. "]
[{"$f":"A9+0.1","v":9.1999999999999993},"Is the model boundary suitably large? i.e. the flood extent should not reach the boundary.",null,null,"Green","The model boundary is large however some pooling occurs against the downstream boundary where a HQ BC layer has been applied to allow out of bank flows to exit the model. ","Consider changing the position of the downstream boundary so that all flows are accounted for within the channel. ",null,"Red","Some runs show flows interacting with the HQ boundary at the downstream extent of the model. It would be expected that flows only leave the model through the 1D boundary where possible with a suitable control on flows to keep channels in bank at the downstream location.  \n\nSee item 4.3 for further details. "]
[{"$f":"A10+0.1","v":9.2999999999999989},"Has rainfall been applied directly to the 2d model domain? ",null,null,"N/A","N/A","None"]
[9.3999999999999986,"Coastal - How has the wave overtopping been applied?",null,null,"N/A","N/A","None"]

{"sheet":"2D_Structures","index":9,"n_rows":12,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":12,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[4,0,4,3],[6,0,6,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,4,6,16],[11,1,11,3],[10,1,10,3],[7,1,7,3],[9,1,9,3],[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 (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)"]
[10.1,"Have any structures been included in the 2D domain? If so how have they been represented? ",null,null,"Amber","Culverts have been included in the 2D floodplain to represent flows under railway embankments. These are situated at the southern most extent of the model and to the South of Launton. \nThese are represented by SX points and polylines. \nSome embankments have been reinforced with Z-lines/points however this is not consistent with breaks in them. ","Please explain why some features have been reinforced and others haven't. ","This does not apply for the truncated model.","OK","Okay, no further action required. "]
[10.199999999999999,"Are invert levels correct compared to survey data?",null,null,"OK","No structure survey data available, position and dimensions estimated from LiDAR and aerial photography. ","None"]
[10.3,"How have defences been represented? Zline? If there are flood zone scenarios have the defences been excluded adequately? ",null,null,"Red","No formal defences are present in the study area. Raised embankments are represented by Zlines and points. \nThere is a flood storage area in Langford Village however there is no mention of this in reporting.\nThere is a flood storage washland area immediately upstream of  ","Please update the reporting to acknowledge the flood storage area immediately downstream of the proposed site and how this has been implemented into the model. i.e. Is this storage area full at the beginning of the run scenarios? ","We have no data for the FSA and it is in poor condition. Therefore representing it in LiDAR is accurate and conservative. This has been explained in the report.","Amber","Ponds downstream of the site are represented by z shapes, some ponds have not been represented which fill with water during the run, provide justification for the omission of the pond . \nProvide details for how the elevations for bank full have been derived, it would appear there is still some capacity left in the ponds. \n\nFlood storage area upstream of the site remains omitted to provide a conservative approach to flood risk. "]
[10.4,"Have appropriate loss coefficients and roughness values been used?",null,null,"OK","Set to defaults. ","None"]

{"sheet":"2D_Run_Parameters","index":10,"n_rows":11,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":11,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[4,4,4,16],[6,0,6,3],[6,4,6,16],[10,1,10,3],[7,1,7,3],[9,1,9,3],[8,1,8,3],[4,0,4,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["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 (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)"]
[11.1,"What time step has been used for the 2D model? Is it appropriate?",null,null,"OK","4 seconds ","None",null,"OK","2 second timestep has been used. "]
[11.2,"Have initial water levels been applied? Are they correct?",null,null,"Red","No IWL commands present","Are the IWL for this pond (and others) set to the LiDAR and as such have capacity to fill during each scenario run. To produce the most conservative extents these storage ponds should be full at the beginning of the runs to prevent extra storage capacity where this is none.   ","Ponds have been represented as full via zshapes. ","Amber","Ponds now represented through z-shapes. \n\nSee item 10.3. "]
[11.3,"Are the other 2D model parameters reasonable (e.g. flooding & drying, eddy viscosity). Are they different from default?",null,null,"OK","These look appropriate at default. ","None"]

{"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],[10,1,10,3],[11,1,11,3],[8,1,8,3],[9,1,9,3],[7,1,7,3],[16,1,16,3],[17,1,17,3],[14,1,14,3],[15,1,15,3],[12,1,12,3],[13,1,13,3],[22,1,22,3],[20,1,20,3],[21,1,21,3],[18,1,18,3],[19,1,19,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["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],[6,4,6,16],[6,0,6,3],[11,1,11,3],[12,1,12,3],[13,1,13,3],[7,1,7,3],[8,1,8,3],[9,1,9,3],[10,1,10,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["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":[[4,4,4,16],[4,0,4,3],[6,0,6,3],[19,4,19,16],[16,4,16,16],[9,0,9,3],[9,4,9,16],[6,4,6,16],[7,1,7,3],[8,1,8,3],[17,1,17,3],[18,1,18,3],[32,4,32,16],[28,0,28,3],[25,0,25,3],[28,4,28,16],[25,4,25,16],[51,4,51,16],[49,0,49,3],[49,4,49,16],[47,0,47,3],[47,4,47,16],[44,0,44,3],[44,4,44,16],[39,0,39,3],[39,4,39,16],[36,0,36,3],[36,4,36,16],[41,1,41,3],[42,1,42,3],[43,1,43,3],[20,1,20,3],[21,1,21,3],[10,1,10,3],[19,0,19,3],[16,0,16,3],[11,1,11,3],[12,1,12,3],[13,1,13,3],[14,1,14,3],[15,1,15,3],[35,1,35,3],[37,1,37,3],[38,1,38,3],[40,1,40,3],[22,1,22,3],[32,0,32,3],[34,1,34,3],[23,1,23,3],[24,1,24,3],[26,1,26,3],[27,1,27,3],[29,1,29,3],[30,1,30,3],[31,1,31,3],[33,1,33,3],[45,1,45,3],[53,1,53,3],[48,1,48,3],[50,1,50,3],[52,1,52,3],[46,1,46,3],[51,0,51,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["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?"]
[{"$f":"A22+0.1","v":21.200000000000017},"Are boundaries between different bathymetry datasets smooth?"]
[21.300000000000018,"Does the model mesh/grid represent the input bathymetry well?"]
[21.40000000000002,"Are bathymetric features elsewhere within the model domain well represented if they are expected to alter wave propagation (e.g. Offshore sand banks)?"]
["WATER LEVEL"]
[{"$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?"]
[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":[[6,4,6,16],[4,0,4,3],[4,4,4,16],[17,1,17,3],[18,1,18,3],[16,4,16,16],[11,0,11,3],[11,4,11,16],[10,1,10,3],[7,1,7,3],[8,1,8,3],[9,1,9,3],[6,0,6,3],[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":13,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":13,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[4,4,4,16],[6,4,6,16],[6,0,6,3],[11,1,11,3],[10,1,10,3],[12,1,12,3],[7,1,7,3],[9,1,9,3],[8,1,8,3],[4,0,4,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["1D/2D MODEL LINKS"]
[]
["MODEL LINKS"]
["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)"]
[12.1,"How have the 1D/2D models been coupled, is it appropriate?",null,null,"Green","Coupling using HX and CN lines to transfer flows from 1D to 2D. \n\"2d_bc_Z_HX_Bicester_extended_014\". Some areas of the model aren't represented correctly when checked against LiDAR. The channel cross sections have not been trimmed which is incorrectly representing volumes when the stage rises. \n","The two examples below are away from the site of interest and should not be having an adverse effect on flood extents in the area. It would be in line with best practice to fix these discrepancies to ensure accurate model outputs however not deemed critical for this development. ",null,"OK","1D/2D boundaries have been trimmed and the mis represented areas of the model are no longer present in this truncated section. "]
[12.2,"Is the digitisation of the links acceptable? ",null,null,"Amber","Some parts of the channel are being activated due to the 4M grid used along the narrow channel reaches. This is close to the downstream extent of the model and may be causing some of the stability issues. ","Please consider adjusting the HX lines so that the 1D-2D interactions are represented properly. ","This has been updated for the truncated model.","Amber","See item 7.4, it would be preferable to lower the grid resolution if possible to improve channel representation with less 1D-2D interaction which could improve model stability. \n\nSee screenshot for example of flows exiting 1D and reentering due to code layer not being aligned with the DTM. "]
[12.3,"Is the 2d representation of the river channel comparable in width with the 1d model cross sections?",null,null,"Amber","No, a few spot checks in and around the site of interest show varying channel widths in the 2D however the 1D channels are much smaller. E.g. LA3272has a width of 27m and 19m in the 2D vs 1D. These may be a result of the grid resolution used however this should be checked for accuracy by the modeller. ","Please fix these channel width discrepancies between the 1D and 2D models. ","This has been updated for the truncated model.","OK","Channel widths have been improved with this model. "]
[12.4,"Representation of 1D output in 2D domain",null,null,"Green","WLL have been applied however see other comments around trimming of 1D cross sections to top of bank. ","See comments on 1D cross sections, "]
[12.5,"Have any default link parameters been changed (i.e. to improve stability)?",null,null,"OK","Default parameters have been used.  ","None",null,"Green","Double Precision has been enabled and synchronising of HPC timestep however HPC is not used in this model. \n\nProvide explanation for why sychronise HPC timestep is selected."]

{"sheet":"Model_Stability","index":16,"n_rows":20,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":20,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[4,4,4,16],[6,0,6,3],[6,4,6,16],[12,0,12,3],[12,4,12,16],[7,1,7,3],[10,1,10,3],[8,1,8,3],[9,1,9,3],[4,0,4,3],[17,1,17,3],[18,1,18,3],[19,1,19,3],[13,1,13,3],[14,1,14,3],[15,1,15,3],[16,1,16,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["MODEL STABILITY"]
[]
["1D 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)"]
[13.1,"Errors/Comments/Warnings?",null,null,"Amber","***Warning W2302, W2229, W2044, W2010, W2206, W2204, W2058, W2019, W2302***","Please address these warnings to improve the model stability. ","These have been reduced and an explanation of the warnings that remain are written in the report.","OK","Warnings/comments have been reviewed and removed where possible, remaining ones have been justified in the report with no effect on model results. "]
[13.2,"Convergence",null,null,"Red","Poor model convergence is observed from peak flows onwards with 8.41% of the 100yr+CC simulation being unconverged.\nMass balance is outside of the tolerable limits at 2.71%.  ","Please investigate the underlying stability issues to improve the model convergence, there appears to be particular problems around the downstream extent of the model. ","The new model indicates good model convergence.","Amber","Model convergence has been improved however there is still significant convergence, this is not above the threshold. \n\nConsider investigating what is causing these stability issues, it is apparent when viewing the animation of cross sections that there is frequent stage changes which is unrealistic and makes it difficult to judge. "]
[13.3,"Does a basic check of animations and graphed outputs give an indication of good model stability?",null,null,"Red","No, long section animations show poor model stability with frequent level changes occurring close to the downstream boundary and throughout the lower sections of the model. Graphed outputs included below show time series plots for GB_6417 and LA2930 respectively. ","Please address the underlying issues causing instabilities with the model outputs. ","The new model indicates good model stability.","Red","There is still significant oscillation in the stage and flow when viewed through cross section animation, this is due to underlying stability issues which makes it difficult to determine whether the modelled peaks are representative.\n\nTime series data backs this up with fluctuations visible in the flow/stage graphs. There is also an usual period at the beginning of the run where flow/stage initially increase before plateauing and then increasing again which needs investigating and fixing. \n\nPlease investigate the underlying issues that are causing oscillation of flow/stage throughout the model runs.   \n\n"]
[]
["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,"Red","Mass balance was outside the tolerable limits for all baseline and proposed model runs. Please see image below for example. From Fluvial Modelling Standards: The Environment Agency’s Minimum \nTechnical Requirements for Modelling (MTRM) specifies that models should “be \nnumerically stable with mass balance errors of <±1%. If this is not achievable, \nsupporting information should be included”","Please lower the mass balance to within -/+1% across all runs.","The new model indicates mass balance of +/-0.3%. This is written in the report.","OK","Mass balance is now within +/- 1%. "]
[14.2,"Are CE and dV values relatively stable and remain so once the run has got going. ",null,null,"Amber","dVol is okay up until the 20hr mark where it becomes more unstable with frequent volume changes. ","Addressing the other stability issues should fix the sharp dVol changes seen in the below graphed output ","Dvol is smooth in the new model runs. See the model report for an example.","OK","dVol has been checked and is acceptable throughout the provided model runs. "]
[14.3,"Errors/Comments/Warnings?",null,null,"Amber","CHECK 2078 - End of 3D HX breakline is dangling.\nWARNING 1317 - WLL does not cross (2 point WLL only) or snap to 1D channel\nCHECK 2099 - Ignored repeat application of boundary to 2D cell.\nWARNING 2118 - Lowered SX ZC Zpt by 0.41m to 1D node bed level.\nCHECK 2118 - Lowered SX ZC Zpt by 0.26m to 1D node bed level.\n","Please acknowledge and fix the warnnings/checks where possible. ","These have been reduced and an explanation of the warnings that remain are written in the report.","OK","Justification supplied in the report and warnings reduced. "]
[14.4,"Negative Depths\n",null,null,"Red","There are 4 negative depths found in the 1000yr and 2 in the 100yr+CC. ","Please find the cause of these negative depths and fix the problems causing them. ","There are no negative depths in the new truncated model.","OK","No negative depths in the new model runs, no further action required. "]
[14.5,"Does a basic check of animations and graphed outputs give an indication of good model stability?",null,null,"Amber","Some instability in flows can be seen through animation of 2D files. Flows behave as they should constricting behind structures and following elevation changes.  ","Fixing the inherent stability problems should improve the modelled flow animations within the floodplain. ","Animations show good model stability.","Amber","Some issues with flows exiting the 1D channel unexpectedly due to the location of the code layer spilling flows into the 2D. See comment 12.2 with corresponding screenshot. \n\n"]
[14.6,"2d extents and outputs",null,null,"Amber","Flood extents and depths follow a logical trend between return periods. There is some increase in flood extent around the water treatment plant especially in the 1000yr scenario, this may be down to model instabilties in this area but should be investigated further. ","Please investigate instability in modelling outputs to see whether this is influencing flooding extents. ","Extents show good model stability.","Red","Extents do not show as expected due to the wrong hydrographs being applied to the IED files meaning the 0.1% event has a lower extent than the 1%CC event. \nSee item 4.2"]

{"sheet":"Model_Sensitivity","index":17,"n_rows":11,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":11,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[10,1,10,3],[7,1,7,3],[9,1,9,3],[8,1,8,3],[4,4,4,16],[4,0,4,3],[6,4,6,16],[6,0,6,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["MODEL SENSITIVITY"]
[]
["SENSITIVITY TESTING & UNCERTAINTY"]
["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)"]
[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,"Amber","No sensitivity testing has been carried out for this submission.\n\nSenstivity tests were carried out on the original model which show that the model was not particularly sensitive to changes to DSB however roughness and flow showed a reasonable amount of  sensitivity to parameter changes.\nBlockage scenarios were sensitivity tested and showed a reasonable difference between parameter changes. \n ","Sensitivity tests should be carried out to ensure that the changes made to other aspects of the modelling do not have unexpected results and to improve confidence in the outputs of the model. ","Sensitivity tests have been undertaken and the results are discussed in the report.","Amber","All requested sensitivity tests have been carried out and results discussed in the report. \nPlease redo the sensitivity testing using the correct hydrographs to show the effects of this. "]
[16.2,"Do the results of the tests show the models to be particularly sensitive to certain parameters?",null,null,"N/A","-","-",null,"Green","Results show the model to be sensitive to roughness parameter changes with a change of +/-47mm, blockage scenario shows increased flood extents and depths across the site of interest with roughly 15mm flood depth. \nDownstream boundary indicates a change of around 1-3mm in channel depth. \n\nPlease update the report once sensitivity testing has been rerun using the correct hydrographs for the run scenarios. "]
[16.3,"Have confidence limits for model results (+/- mm) been presented? How were they derived and does this seem sensible? ",null,null,"N/A","-","-",null,"Green","Provide confidence limits from the results of the sensitivity testing. "]

{"sheet":"Model_Outputs_Calibration","index":18,"n_rows":14,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":14,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[4,4,4,16],[4,0,4,3],[6,0,6,3],[6,4,6,16],[13,1,13,3],[12,1,12,3],[7,1,7,3],[9,1,9,3],[8,1,8,3],[11,1,11,3],[10,1,10,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["MODEL OUTPUTS & CALIBRATION"]
[]
["CALIBRATION/VERIFICATION"]
["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)"]
[15.1,"Have calibration runs been completed?\nIs data for calibration available? Gauge data, extents, anecdotal etc.",null,null,"Green","No calibration runs have been undertaken. The original model was calibrated against spot gauge data at the LA3070 node. The hydrographs from this submission have been compared to the calibrated ones and show a satisfactory fit. ","It is recommended to carry out calibration runs to ensure the model is as accurate as possible, there is a level gauge just down stream from the site of interest, ",null,"Amber","Level gauge data is available at Langford Brook Village, flows have not been adequately calibrated against this.\nMore detail can be found in the hydrology review and previous study for how the gauge data has been used to calibrate the hydraulic model for improved accuracy. "]
[15.2,"Are the simulated hydrograph peaks reasonably similar to the recorded peaks? ",null,null,"N/A","N/A","N/A"]
[15.3,"Is the shape of the simulated hydrograph and therefore the volume suitably similar? ",null,null,"N/A","N/A","N/A"]
[15.4,"Are simulated floodplain extents similar to recorded extents? Are flow routes similar?",null,null,"N/A","N/A","N/A"]
[15.5,"Has suitable effort been made to attempt and improve calibration. Have attempted changes been documented with a quantification of impact?",null,null,"N/A","N/A","N/A"]
[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,"N/A","N/A","N/A",null,"Amber","Previous modelling outputs shown a significant increase in extents and outputs compared to the current study. The calibration that was carried out using hydrometric data in the previous study should be applied to this study where applicable to improve model performance.  "]

{"sheet":"Audit_Trail","index":19,"n_rows":20,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":20,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[9,1,9,3],[8,1,8,3],[19,1,19,3],[18,1,18,3],[4,4,4,16],[4,0,4,3],[17,1,17,3],[16,1,16,3],[11,1,11,3],[10,1,10,3],[13,1,13,3],[12,1,12,3],[15,1,15,3],[14,1,14,3],[6,4,6,16],[6,0,6,3],[7,1,7,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["AUDIT TRAIL"]
[]
["AUDIT TRAIL"]
["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)"]
[17.100000000000001,"Was a model run log provided?",null,null,"Amber","No.","Please provide a model log to make it easier to see what runs have been used and for which scenarios. ","A model log has now been provided.","OK","Thank you. "]
[17.2,"Was a suitable file naming, structure & management system used?",null,null,"Green","Naming conventions/version files were slightly confusing with \"HYD/HYD PROP\" being the applicant's submissions however other files still included? There were also multiple storm duration runs however no explanation as to why, a critical storm duration should have been chosen and only this one submitted or more explanation in the reporting as to why all three have been included. ","Please ensure naming conventions are easy to distinguish and that the reporting explains/justifies the naming and inclusion of all files.  ",null,"Green","Naming conventions could still be improved to remove legacy naming where they are no longer relevant. \n"]
[17.3,"Were check files provided?",null,null,"Amber","Yes some have been provided, other files are missing possibly due to runs not completing. ","Please provide all model check files for each run scenario. ","Check files are provided.","OK","All check files are provided for the model runs. "]
[17.399999999999999,"Were comments provided within the model?",null,null,"OK","Comments retained from original model. ","None"]
[17.5,"Was there good version control? Is the model history detailed where applicable?",null,null,"Green","Versions were mostly satisfactory with some excess files which had been superseded. ","If files have been superseded then do not include them for review. ",null,"Green","Version control could be improved and when submitting model files to review please only include the runs that need reviewing as there are a lot of legacy files present in this submission making the review process more difficult to determine which files are relevant to this. "]
[17.600000000000001,"Were Errors / comments / warnings made available?",null,null,"OK","Yes.","None"]
[17.7,"Was a technical overview of the model and its background provided ",null,null,"Red","Technical note provided however inadequate detail on model history and decision making. ","Please improve the technical note to show proposed site plans and how the original model has been built along with all decision making relating to changes made to the model. ","The technical note has been updated to include the changes made.","Green","Model technical note has been updated to include the changes made, ensure further justification and any new changes are logged in the reporting with supporting evidence where applicable. "]
[17.8,"Were notes on how the model operates under different flow conditions  provided?",null,null,"Amber","Not enough detail on comparisons between different return periods and peak flows/volumes. ","Please update the report to include flood risk comparisons for the different run scenarios and conclusions derived from the model results.  ","This has been updated in the report.","Amber","Provide updated results once scenarios have been run with the correct hydrographs to give realistic outputs.\nIt would appear the sensitivity testing has been run with the 0.1% hydrograph which may change the results of the sensitivity tests once they are run with the correct flood estimates. "]
[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","Stated that the original model was deemed fit for purpose. \nAt present this model shows stability problems and needs updating with current data/methods to make it representative of the current catchment. ","The original model was created >10 years ago and it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure it is still up-to-date with current best practices and sense checked for satisfactory outputs.","This analysis has been undertaken.","Amber","As with the hydrology review, the calculations need revising to better incorporate the hydrometric data available and then calibration of the model to improve confidence in model outputs. "]
[18,"Is there anything else missing or are there suggestions for additional information or clarification?",null,null,"Red","Some model runs have not been completed, these will need submitting along with updates throughout the model. \nA full site plan with proposed finished levels would be useful to determine the flood risk to the proposed residential areas. ","Please ensure all information necessary for the review is included. All model outputs should be included with the reporting, it is noted that some runs lack certain results files and check files. ","All information has been provided.","Amber","Suggested areas that need addressing before the model can be considered fit for purpose are detailed in this review sheet. "]
[18.100000000000001,"Comment on the quality of the reports:",null,null,"Red","Overall quality of the reporting is that it lacks detail relying on the original reporting for much of the models detail. The report should justify all decisions being made and detail how the modelling has been applied. ","Please improve the technical detail of the reporting incorporating the advise/requests given within this review and report on all the changes that are being made and justify why changes are not needed where applicable. ","The report has been updated to address all of the concerns in this review","Amber","Greater detail in the reporting is required, for example where sensitivity testing has been carried out a detailed analysis of the results with confidence limits and graphs/gridded outputs to illustrate the difference with clear statements on how the model has been schematised and the decision making taken for how the model has been setup after being truncated is advised. "]
[18.2,"is a freeboard analysis necessary?\nIf yes have you review the report?\nWhat are is the agreed freeboard?",null,null,"Amber","No detailed site plans provided to check freeboard.","Provide detailed site plans. ","An asc file of the proposed development has been provided.","Amber","Provide proposed site with buildings represented via z shapes to give more detail around different roughness values and where the buildings are to be located compared to flood extents. "]

{"sheet":"Additional Info.","index":20,"n_rows":18,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":18,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[15,1,15,3],[16,1,16,3],[17,1,17,3],[9,1,9,3],[10,1,10,3],[11,1,11,3],[12,1,12,3],[13,1,13,3],[14,1,14,3],[8,1,8,3],[4,0,4,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,0,6,3],[6,4,6,16],[7,1,7,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["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"]