538 10 SD01

What is the Flood Map for Surface Water
Guidance for Local Resilience Forums, Regional Resilience Teams, Local Planning
Authorities and Lead Local Flood Authorities v1 November 2010
Environment Agency
What is the Flood Map for Surface Water:
Guidance for LRF, RRT, LPA and LLFA. V1 November 2010
We are the Environment Agency. It's our job to look after
your environment and make it a better place - for you, and
for future generations.
Your environment is the air you breathe, the water you drink
and the ground you walk on. Working with business,
Government and society as a whole, we are making your
environment cleaner and healthier.
The Environment Agency. Out there, making your

environment a better place.
Published by:
Environment Agency
Rio House
Waterside Drive, Aztec West
Almondsbury, Bristol BS32 4UD
Tel: 0870 8506506
Email: enquiries@environment-agency.gov.uk
www.environment-agency.gov.uk
© Environment Agency
All rights reserved. This document may be reproduced with

prior permission of the Environment Agency.
Environment Agency 1
Document Purpose
This document explains what the Flood Map for Surface Water is, and how it was produced
and validated.
This guidance will be revised following review of feedback on the data.
It is for use by Local Resilience Forum members, Regional Resilience Teams, Local
Planning Authorities and Lead Local Flood Authorities.
2 Environment Agency
Contents
Very Important – Read all documentation 3
Very Important – Environment Agency Surface Water Maps not to be used
to identify individual properties at risk 4
Background 5
What is the Flood Map for Surface Water 7
Producing the Flood Map for Surface Water and method selection 9
Validation studies summary 31
Very Important – Read all documentation
Read
documents Before using Environment Agency surface water flood maps it is very
before use important that all of the following guidance documents are read:
- Using Surface Water Flood Risk Information
- What are Areas Susceptible to Surface Water Flooding
- What is the Flood Map for Surface Water
Very Important – Environment Agency Surface Water
Maps not to be used to identify individual properties
at risk
Not suitable The Environment Agency’s surface water flood maps give an indication of
for the broad areas likely to be at risk of surface water flooding.
identifying However, Environment Agency surface water flood maps are not
individual suitable for identifying whether an individual property will flood.
properties This is because the modelling only gives an indication of broad areas at risk,
at risk and because we do not hold information on floor levels, construction
characteristics or designs of properties. We would need this and other
detailed information to be able to say whether flooding of certain depth would
enter into an individual property and cause damage.
They may be suitable for identifying where properties are in areas at risk of
flooding for locations where surface water flooding is strongly influenced by
topography.
Each map can only give an indication of areas at risk from surface water
flooding from a national assessment. They cannot provide detail on individual
properties. Therefore the information should not be interpreted as showing
that the location you are interested in will or won't actually flood, but simply
that it is in or not in an area shown at risk on the maps.
Background
Pitt Review The Pitt review of the summer 2007 floods recommended that the
Environment Agency, supported by local authorities and water companies
should urgently identify the areas that are at highest risk from surface water
flooding.
Strategic In December 2008 the UK Government accepted the recommendations of

Overview the Pitt review of the 2007 summer floods. Final Recommendation 2 states
“The Environment Agency should progressively take on a national overview
(inland) - of all flood risk, including surface water and groundwater flood risk, with
England immediate effect.”
A key part of our Strategic Overview (inland) role in England is to provide
local authorities and partners with data, tools and guidance on flood risk
management activities. The distribution of flood risk data supports local
authorities and contributes towards the aim of our Strategic Overview
(Inland) role – that all floods are assessed and managed.
Strategic The National Strategy for Wales will be developed by Welsh Assembly
Oversight - Government and will set out the strategic policies for managing flood and
coastal erosion risk in Wales. The Environment Agency as a Flood Risk
Wales Authority will deliver against that strategy. We also have a strategic oversight
role which will require us to monitor and report on implementation of the
strategy. It is expected as part of that role we will provide technical advice
and support to other risk management authorities and that will entail the
distribution of flood risk data.
1st JBA Consulting developed a simple model of surface water flooding, suitable
generation for application at a national scale. We procured a licence to use the map
from JBA following a tender and evaluation process in spring 2008. We were
map supplied with the model outputs only, not the model itself.
develop-
ment The maps were produced by a model originally run in August 2008 and
updated where improved or new digital terrain model data from Infoterra
GeoPerspectives was available in January 2009.
We first delivered map data to Local Resilience Forums (LRFs) in August
2008 and updated this in July 2009 when we also sent the data to Local
Planning Authorities (LPAs) in England. The data was sent to Welsh LPAs in
November 2009.
This 1st generation surface water mapping was called ‘Areas Susceptible to
Surface Water Flooding’ – AStSWF.
Reason for The 1st generation map was procured as a preliminary national output to
provide LRFs with an initial indication of areas that may be susceptible to
1st surface water flooding.
generation
maps It was also provided to:
Regional Resilience Teams for use in their functions which relate to

emergencies as defined and as required by the Civil Contingencies Act
2004;
LPAs for land use planning purposes.
Areas For more information about why the Areas Susceptible maps were produced
Susceptible and the method used to produced them please refer to guidance titled “What
are the Areas Susceptible to Surface Water Flooding.”
to Surface
Water
Flooding
Maps –
More
information
2nd In March 2009 following a tender and evaluation process we employed JBA
generation Consulting (working in partnership with Halcrow) to develop the 2nd
generation maps.
map
develop- This included a number of improvements to the original model in areas
ment where it was known to be weaker; for example considering:
more storm events;
the influence of buildings;
the influence of the sewer system.
The differences between 1st and 2nd generation are explained in more detail
in producing the map and method selection.
The 2nd generation surface water mapping is called the ‘Flood Map for
Surface Water’.
What is the Flood Map for Surface Water
Which type In 2010 the Flood and Water Management Act defined ‘surface runoff’.
of surface Generally, the type of flooding shown by the Flood Map for Surface Water fits
water with the definition in the Act and shows:
flooding The flooding that takes place from the 'surface runoff' generated by rainwater
does the (including snow and other precipitation) which:
Flood Map (a) is on the surface of the ground (whether or not it is moving), and
for Surface (b) has not yet entered a watercourse, drainage system or public sewer.
Water show The Flood Map for Surface Water will pick out natural drainage channels,
rivers, low areas in floodplains, and flow paths between buildings. But it will
only indicate flooding caused by local rainfall.
It does not show flooding that occurs from overflowing watercourses,
drainage systems or public sewers caused by catchment-wide rainfall events
or river flow.
Which The Flood Map for Surface Water shows areas where surface water would
rainfall be expected to flow or pond.
events does Two rainfall events, one with a 1 in 30 and the other with a 1 in 200 chance
the Flood of occurring in any year, are modelled and mapped. However, users must
Map for note that this is the chance of this rainfall, and not of the resulting flood
extent occurring. Consequently it only provides a general indication of areas
Surface which may be more likely to suffer from surface water flooding in these
Water show rainfall probabilities.
flooding for
For each rainfall probability, the map provides two shapefiles which can be
used individually to indicate:
‘Surface Water Flooding’
flooding greater than 0.1m deep;
‘Deeper Surface Water Flooding’
flooding greater than 0.3m deep;
When the shapefiles for each rainfall probability are shown together (with
‘deeper’ displayed on top) the lighter colour purple (see ‘Colours’ below) will
then indicate:
Flooding between 0.1 – 0.3m deep.
The 0.3m threshold is chosen as it represents a typical value for the onset of
significant property damages when property flooding may start (above
doorstep level) and because it is at around this depth that moving through
floodwater (driving or walking) may become more difficult; both of which may
lead users to consider the need to close roads or evacuate areas.
Colours Using the layer file means the data appear in a darker and lighter shade of
purple. The 1:200 is a solid fill colour; the 1:30 has a patterned effect.
To avoid confusion with fluvial/coastal flood risk (blue) or implications of
danger (red) or approval (green) these purple colours must not be changed.
If it is necessary to show the two rainfall events at the same time, the user
must ensure they can be distinguished between and not change the layer file
set up.
The Areas Susceptible to Surface Water Flooding Map also uses purple.
If it is necessary to show the Flood Map for Surface Water at the same time
as the Areas Susceptible Map, the user must ensure they can be
distinguished between, for example use different shading or patterns.
! Important The Flood Map for Surface Water shows predictions of flooded areas but
does not show whether individual properties will be affected by surface water
flooding or have been affected in the past. The Flood Map for Surface
Water should not be used to predict if individual properties will flood.
The Flood Map for Surface Water layers should not be viewed internally by
our partners with a larger (more detailed) OS base map scale than 1:10,000
(that is 1:25,000 is ok, 1:1,250 is not).
The Flood Map for Surface Water layers should not be viewed internally by
our partners at a larger (more detailed) zoom scale than 1:5,000 (that is
1:10,000 is ok, 1:500 is not).
The Flood Map for Surface Water layers should only be published or
provided externally with a OS base map scale of 1:25,000 or smaller (i.e.
1:50,000 is ok, 1:10,000 is not).
The Flood Map for Surface Water layers should only be published or
provided externally with a zoom scale of 1:10,000 or smaller (i.e. 1:50,000 is
ok, 1:5,000 is not).
Use of the Flood Map for Surface Water data at larger (more detailed) scales
(OS basemap or zoom) than these implies an inappropriate degree of
accuracy which may lead to increased risk of misinformed decision making.
We strongly recommend that you use local knowledge in conjunction with
records held by Local Authorities and other partners (for example, of
drainage systems and historic surface water flooding records) to assess and
understand the suitability of the Flood Map for Surface Water map layers as
an indicator for surface water flooding for your area before decisions are
made.
Producing the Flood Map for Surface Water and
method selection
In this This section includes the following topics:

section
Topic See page
Rainfall modelling 9
Routing 11
Digital Terrain Model (DTM) 14
Post processing 17
Available attributes 18
Differences between Areas Susceptible to Surface Water 19

Flooding and Flood Map for Surface Water
Where is the Flood Map for Surface Water map likely to be

3 20
more or less representative?
Rainfall modelling
Properties The Areas Susceptible to Surface Water Flooding map models the response
and of the ground surface to a rainfall event with the following properties and
rationale:
rationale
Properties Rationale
1 in 30 and 1 in 200 These were chosen as being likely to produce
chance of occurring in inundation in the majority of significant flow
any year pathways and storage areas in England and
Wales, and captured rarer and more likely
storms.
Initial plans were run a 1 in 100 chance storm in
the model. However, it was considered that a 1 in
100 chance storm output would be fairly similar
to a 1 in 200 chance storm. Because of this and
that the Areas Susceptible to Surface Water
Flooding project had run a 1 in 200 storm the
decision was made to also run the 1 in 200 for
Flood Map for Surface Water. This would ensure
that it was possible to provide a limited
comparison of property counts between the
Areas Susceptible to Surface Water Flooding
Maps and the Flood Map for Surface Water (as
other changes in data mean a direct comparison
Properties Rationale
is not meaningful).
The 1 in 30 rainfall was used as it is the largest
common design standard for urban drainage.
Therefore this rainfall likelihood seeks to capture
the ‘onset’ of flooding in many urban locations.
1.1 hour storm duration Testing across 5 pilot study locations provided an
indication of how well the maximum flood
response was captured by a single storm. The
1.1 hour profile produced consistently higher
results than the other storm durations tested for
the majority of pilot study locations.
50% summer rainfall The recommended profile (from the Flood
profile Estimation Handbook) for urban areas, where
surface water flooding is concentrated.
Depth- Depth-duration-frequency curves are derived from the FEH (Flood Estimation
duration- Handbook) CD-ROM (V1) parameters, taken from the centre of each 5 km x
5 km model, with an areal reduction factor applied to convert the point rainfall
frequency estimate to a figure more representative of the model area.
curves
The depth-duration-frequency curve is then used to derive the 1.1 hour, 1 in
30 and 1 in 200 annual probability rainfall depths and these are then
converted to a hyetograph, using the summer rainfall profile.
Adjust- Two adjustments are made to calculate effective rainfall:

ments In rural areas, rainfall is reduced to 39% to represent infiltration;
In urban areas, rainfall is reduced to 70% to represent infiltration then a
rainfall reduction of 12mm/hr is applied to represent the effects of sewers.
The sewer capacity is a nationally representative figure derived from analysis
of typical performance (see below). This is a somewhat arbitrary value but
independent validation suggests that it is a suitable ‘typical’ value to
represent the effects of urban drainage.
Urban and rural areas are defined by using Ordnance Survey MasterMap
data to calculate the area covered by buildings. Urban areas are defined as
having a building coverage greater than 5% by area (this excludes data such
as paved areas, roads, green spaces etc hence the apparently low value for
an area to be classed as urban).
A single infiltration figure is used in urban or rural areas, no allowance is
made for differing infiltration of different soil types etc.
Drainage Sewer capacity can be estimated from an assumed standard of protection
adjustment (e.g. the sewer will have been designed to carry the 10% Annual
Exceedence Probability storm) if the runoff coefficient and critical storm
duration are known.
These parameters will vary widely across the country, for different
catchments, and for sewer systems built at different times and using different
techniques.
An evaluation was completed, using the Monte-Carlo method (the generation
of multiple trials to predict the value of a random variable) to estimate the
range of sewer capacities likely to be seen across England and Wales for
typical ranges of all parameters used in the equations of the initial approach.
This distribution was then analysed to give values of statistical parameters –
mean, mode etc and an estimate of the uncertainty range for sewer capacity
based on confidence levels e.g. 95% confidence.
The results of the Monte Carlo analysis indicate that sewer capacities in the
range 6-20mm/hr (10 and 90%ile) can be expected. The median value of 12
mm/hr has been taken as a single representative value.
The sewer capacity results have been verified by comparison with two
sources: North Brent Integrated Urban Drainage pilot study and hydraulic
analysis of the Luton sewer system
Capacities reported in the North Brent IUD pilot show a wide range of values
from <1mm/hr to >20mm/hr. This evidence is not comprehensive nor precise
(but is the only data on capacities reported in the IUD pilots), but does show
that the analysis used here is generating capacities of the right order of
magnitude, and the range corresponds approximately to the range seen in a
real sewer network.
Drainage Sewer capacities for Luton are calculated from collecting area, pipe diameter
adjustment and slope using Manning’s equation. The mean value is 9mm/hr, with a
mode of ~5mm/hr. These figures lie within the range obtained from the
continued Monte Carlo analysis, and the shape of the distribution for Luton is similar.
Though far from comprehensive, comparison with these two data sets gives
us some confidence that 12mm/hr is a reasonable estimate of national sewer
capacity, thus supporting its use in the generation of the FMfSW.
Nevertheless, the inclusion of sewer capacity in the model used to generate
the FMfSW is worthwhile, as it represents a move to more physically based
modelling, by representing one of the important mechanisms influencing
surface water flooding. One useful outcome of this is that it allows the model
to start to represent different probabilities of flooding (from the 1 in 30 and 1
in 200 rainfall events), which would not have been possible with the
approach used for the previous national maps.
Routing
Description The rainfall is allowed to fall on the topography and the resultant runoff is
routed dynamically, according to Manning’s equation (diffusive wave
approximation) between the cells of a rectangular grid.
This allows the Flood Map for Surface Water to represent flows down slopes
and ponding water (since watercourses are depressions the runoff is likely to
enter them).
The routing is carried out using JBA’s JFLOW-GPU model.
The computing power of a grid of 36,000 graphical processing units (GPUs,
the processors used in graphics cards) is used to solve the necessary
equations, allowing the model to be run for the whole of England and Wales
in four weeks.
JFLOW – GPU was chosen because of its:
ability to model large areas;
robustness to cope with complex DTMs without failing and;
speed.
Note: that conclusions of the recent Defra / Environment Agency Joint Flood
& Coastal Erosion Risk R&D Programme report on 2D model benchmarking
support the use of ‘simplified models’ such as JFLOW-GPU to this type of
national scale application.
Properties Flood Map for Surface Water model properties and rationale are as follows:
and Model resolution is 5 m x 5 m, small enough to allow the model to
rationale represent some small scale features, such as embankments, that may
significantly influence wider inundation patterns.
The country is modelled as a series of 5 km x 5 km tiles, with water
allowed to run off the edges of the tiles. Each tile has a 0.5km buffer to
minimise any impact from the edge of the tile.
The model represents the dynamics of the flow with a time step of 10-3s.
Manning’s n is set at 0.1 in rural areas and 0.03 in urban areas.
Given the relative lack of calibration data or other research,
pragmatic single uniform urban Mannings values were used. The
values allow some of the broad scale effects of vegetation and other
obstructions not represented explicitly to be approximated. In general,
urban areas will have areas of low roughness (for example tarmac), so
are given a lower Manning’s n. 0.03 is an appropriate typical value to
represent rough masonry or short grass for example. Whereas 0.1 in
rural areas is an appropriate value to represent floodplains with trees,
hedges or other hydraulic obstacles.
The maximum water depth over the duration of the storm is taken as
the model output, which will represent both the long duration flooding of
ponded water, and the short lived flooding in flow paths which will tend to
coincide with peak rainfall.
Model results are reviewed and the Digital Terrain Model (DTM)
modified to include significant flow paths, such as flow through
bridges in railway or road embankments.
Pumped networks are not explicitly modelled so there is no allowance
made for individual IDB etc drainage networks.
No allowance is made for tide locking / high levels where sewers cannot
discharge 12mm/hr to rivers / the sea.
The method does not take into account flood barriers / other defences.
Digital Terrain Model (DTM)
Description JBA used the Environment Agency’s 2010 Composite DTM (created by
Geomatics Group) which consisted of:
Environment Agency LIDAR (a composite of 0.25m, 0.5m, 1m and 2m
data);
Infoterra LIDAR (1m and 2m data available under the Pan Government
Agreement 2);
Intermap Technologies NEXTMap Britain IfSAR data.
The Composite DTM consisted of the following data in order or precedence:
Environment Agency LIDAR = 63.04%
Infoterra 1m LIDAR = 1.17%
Infoterra 2m LIDAR = 0.33%
NEXTMap SAR = 35.46%
Quoted All LIDAR within the 2010 Composite DTM was degraded to a 5m grid and
accuracy has a quoted accuracy of ±15 cm or better in its original form.
The NEXTMap data (derived from Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar)
has a quoted vertical accuracy of ±1 m or better.
Buildings The elevation data has been processed at 2m resolution to produce a bare
earth DTM, removing buildings, vegetation and other surface features (like
walls, fences etc). Using OS MasterMap data from 2009, buildings were
added to the DTM, assigned an arbitrary height of 5m and then the DTM was
the re-sampled to a grid size of 5m.
It is important to note that road kerbs are beyond the resolution of the original
data and therefore this level of detail was not captured.
Rationale One of the findings from the validation / evaluation report of the Areas
Susceptible to Surface Water Flooding project was that the lack of buildings
in the model can contribute to inaccuracy in the modelling. Flooding,
especially in urban areas is influenced by the presence of buildings and
roads. In certain types of catchment, buildings have been identified as an
important determinant of pathways for surface water flooding (Halcrow
Group, 2008).
Options for including buildings and their impact on the predicted flood risk
were investigated in Aug-Sept 09 at the request of the Project Board. The
results of this analysis were compared to modelling with a bare earth DTM
(as per the Areas Susceptible maps). It should be noted that the value of
modelling buildings explicitly must be balanced against the considerable data
processing overheads (for inputs and outputs, see below) and potential
implications for model stability.
We were able to test three options to consider including buildings in the
modelling, these were:
1. Increased roughness within the building footprint;
2. Building footprints raised to some arbitrary threshold level (for
example. 0.3-0.6m above existing ground level in DEM);
3. Building footprints raised to some un-floodable level.
Option 1 did not change the flow paths of flood water that is it still followed
the natural topography rather than being guided along roads as happens
when high buildings were used. In summary: local roughness changes
make very little difference to resulting flood extents.
Options 2 and 3 were applied to DTM and compared the maximum depth
results with and without buildings. The stubby buildings investigation looked
at 0.3 and 0.6m above the existing ground level in both the 2m and 5m
resolutions.
A number of general conclusions were drawn illustrating clear differences in
flooding patterns when buildings are included. Without buildings and with
options 1 & 2, flooding occurred along natural valleys rather than channelled
through the street network as recorded in flood events. Even raising
buildings by 0.6m still produced flood outlines more similar to the bare earth
DTM. Accordingly, and following detailed discussions with JBA, it was
agreed that the Flood Map for Surface Water product will utilise Option 3.
DTM Issues JFLOW-GPU uses the DTM as one of its model inputs. The model simply
& Solutions places water onto the DTM and allows it to spread.
Because of the degrading of the resolution of the DTM used (to 5m), many
local surface features are not well represented in the Flood Map for Surface
Water model. This can have a significant impact on flooded areas. The 5m
resolution of the DTM may, for example, mean that some small
embankments or flow paths are not represented.
DTMs will miss flow paths below bridges, as the top of the bridge is
represented rather than the opening below. In some circumstances, this can
lead the Flood Map for Surface Water model to wrongly predict large ponded
areas being held back by an embankment, whereas in reality the water is
free to flow under the bridge.
Where an embankment or structure remains in the model, water does not
spread through it unless there is a gap; for example, a path for a watercourse
that flows under the structure. In reality, there would be an opening such as
an arch bridge or culvert that water can flow through; this isn’t represented in
the DTM.
The model output highlighted where structures in the DTM were preventing
the natural flow of water and the DTM was edited to represent the flow path
correctly. The raster cells through these structures / embankments were
lowered to allow access. If these locations were not edited, the resulting
extent would be far larger than would be expected in reality. Over 20,000
edits were made to the DTMs.
The access provided to these cells varied on the structure type. A minimum
of a 2 cell width was applied to a maximum of 5 cells. Typical examples of
these would be as follows:
Drains, small streams or subways – 2
Larger rivers – 3 to 5
Roads – 2 to 3
Railways – 4 or 5
Due to the intermittent supply of DTM and time constraints, both the 2009
and 2010 Composite DTMs had edits applied to them. The 2010 Composite
was only edited where it was updated from the 2009 version. Any other
locations were edited in the 2009 Composite only.
Post processing
Thresholds Following consultation with a number of LRF partners, we classified the

& Bands Flood Map for Surface Water modelled maximum depths output into two
bands:
Greater than 0.1 m;
Greater than 0.3 m.
We chose 0.1 m as the first threshold because modelled depths below this
value may be ‘noise’ in the model output rather than indicative of real
flooding.
The 0.3m threshold is chosen as it represents a typical value for the onset of
significant property damages when property flooding may start (above
doorstep level) and because it is at around this depth that moving through
floodwater (driving or walking) may become more difficult; both of which may
lead users to consider the need to close roads or evacuate areas.
! Important Bear in mind that little depth validation work has been carried
out and there is likely to be significant uncertainty in the depth information.
Removing We have removed:

isolated isolated wet areas less than 200 m2 in size;
areas isolated dry areas less than 750 m2 in size
from the Flood Map for Surface Water extents.
This matches the approach taken with the National Generalised Modelling
used to produce Flood Zones and our latest thinking on ‘dry island’ sizes.
The Environment Agency now holds a copy of the model, as well as the
results.
Impact of As groups of cells smaller than 200 m2 are removed, this includes
200m2 rule removing rows of cells that are only connected to each other diagonally,
even if the total area of the diagonally connected row exceeds 200 m2.
on linear
flooding Therefore four blocks of 100 m2 linked together on diagonals would not
qualify as >200 m2 and would be deleted.
This can impact on how linear flooding is shown and there may be areas
where, for example, a road is at risk of flooding but this is not shown because
of the diagonal connection rule.
When a group of cells is larger than 200 m2 (not just linked on the diagonal),
any diagonal attachments to this group are maintained.
In order to help picture this, think of a spider’s body with its legs attached; the
processing may have removed ‘legs’ >200m2 that have no body holding them
together.
Available attributes
Attributes The Flood Map for Surface Water ESRI shapefiles and Mapinfo tab files
have three attributes which we have provided internally and externally. They
are:
UniqueID – unique identifier for each polygon;
DTM Type – defines what DTM was used to model the event for that
particular polygon;
Confidence – a quality flag (H,M,L) that is attached to the data, based on
the quality of the model input data.
Confidence flag is defaulted to ‘Medium’ and is only set to ‘Low’
where there are known issues with the DTM or the model in particular
areas. The confidence flag has been provided primarily for future use
if improvements are made to the dataset. Having lower confidence
does not prevent use of the data as previously described but the user
should be aware if there are confidence issues in their area of
interest.
There are other attributes which are fixed for the entire Flood Map for
Surface Water dataset (such as Mannings n) these are already detailed in
the appropriate section of this guidance document.
Differences between Areas Susceptible to Surface Water Flooding
and Flood Map for Surface Water
Differences The table below describes the main differences between Areas Susceptible
to Surface Water Flooding (AStSWF) and Flood Map for Surface Water.
Properties AStSWF Flood Map for Why different/same?

Surface Water
Annual 1 in 200 chance 1 in 30 and 1 1 in 30 added to allow a
Probability in 200 chance better understanding
Rainfall of lower consequence,
more frequent events
such as the onset of
sewer flooding.
Storm 6.5 hrs 1.1 hr 1.1 hr profile produced
Duration on average higher
results than other
durations piloted
Rainfall Profile 50% summer 50% summer Recommended profile
from the FEH
Reduction to 0 Reduction to AStSWF did not
rainfall 39% in rural consider infiltration
amount to areas and 70%
represent in urban areas
infiltration
Reduction to 0 Reduction of AStSWF did not
rainfall 0mm/hr rural, consider effects of
amount to 12mm/hr sewers
represent urban
sewer flow
Manning’s ‘n’ 0.1 0.1 rural, 0.03 Urban value reduces
urban now as buildings are
included in DTM.
Previously n was
increased to account
for lack of building
representation
DTM Infoterra bare EA 2010 Access to EA LIDAR
earth LIDAR Composite available
and (SAR, EA
GeoPerspective LIDAR and
s PGA2 LIDAR)
with OS 2009
Mastermap
Buildings
(DTM raised
by 5m)
Model 5m 5m Modelling at smaller
Properties AStSWF Flood Map for Why different/same?
Surface Water
Resolution resolution (for example
2m) was impracticable
at a national scale with
the model used due to
processing demands.
Model Domain 5 x 5 km 5 x 5 km 5km provides a
Size reasonable balance
between high intensity
local storms and larger
less intense events
Buildings Not represented Represented Earlier work identified
in the DTM that the presence of
using the 2009 buildings improved the
OS Mastermap routing of flow in urban
Buildings layer areas. Use high
buildings based upon
the DTM elevation plus
5m. Building outlines
are best represented by
OS Mastermap
polygons
Threshold - 0.1 to 0.3m - >0.1m Consultation with
Bands (less) partners resulted in 2
- >0.3m
bands being produced
- 0.3 to 1m
(intermediate)
- >1m (more)
Where is the Flood Map for Surface Water map likely to be more
or less representative?
More There is a higher likelihood that the Flood Map for Surface Water will be
represent- more representative in steeper areas where inundation is influenced by
topography, rather than drainage and buildings. See example 1.
ative
Less There is a lower likelihood that the Flood Map for Surface Water will be more
represent- representative over large, flat landscapes. There will be locations affected by
surface water flooding outside of the areas predicted. See example 3.
ative
Equivalent In all areas modelled using LIDAR (refer to polygon attributes) the Flood Map
representati for Surface Water is likely to be equally representative. In all areas modelled
using NEXTMap SAR DTM (refer to polygon attributes) the Flood Map for
ve Surface Water is likely to be equally representative. This means that if Oxford
and Cambridge are both modelled with LIDAR then they will be equally
representative (clearly you also need to consider whether areas are steep or
flat).
Notes The Flood Map for Surface Water will pick out natural drainage channels,
rivers, low areas in floodplains, and flow paths between buildings. But it will
only indicate flooding caused by local rainfall, rather than that caused by
catchment-wide rainfall events or river flow. They may also be affected by
fluvial or coastal flooding.
There will be many exceptions to these general comments. Therefore, it is
very important that you apply local knowledge (such as Environment Agency,
LRF, RRT, LPA, LLFA etc) to assess how suitable the Flood Map for Surface
Water is for your needs.
Caution Given the assumptions and the lack of comprehensive validation of the
results, it is important that users:
do not rely on the Flood Map for Surface Water alone to show expected
areas of surface water flooding;
interpret the Flood Map for Surface Water as defining the flood extent
only approximately for the given probability event;
interpret the Flood Map for Surface Water bands as only approximate
predictions of specific depths;
interpret the 1 in 30 rainfall probability Flood Map for Surface Water as
being less representative than the 1 in 200 rainfall probability Flood Map
for Surface Water.
Bandings The Flood Map for Surface Water layers can be used to indicate two
bandings: ‘shallower’ and ‘deeper’. The ‘deeper’ bands may be useful to
help identify areas which have a natural vulnerability to:
flood first;
and flood deepest.
The 1:30 rainfall probability ‘deeper’ band only will be useful to identify areas
which have a natural vulnerability to:
flood for relatively frequent, less extreme events (when compared to the
‘shallower’ band).
We recommend that the LRFs and LPAs use local data to assess the Flood
Map for Surface Water layers and then decide which layers are most
appropriate for their purposes, noting that surface water flooding can occur
outside of the mapped bands extents.
We also expect the Flood Map for Surface Water to be useful in helping
prioritise areas requiring more detailed analysis of surface water flooding.
Note: The bandings have been applied nationally. Even if an LRF/LPA/LLFA
has no ‘deeper’ areas with the national bandings applied, it does not mean
that some parts of that LRF/LPA/LLFA area will not be ‘deeper’ than others if
a local assessment of relative depth were applied.
Data The Flood Map for Surface Water has been validated against the following
sources data sources:
Detailed records of surface water, sewer, and ordinary watercourse flood
incidents for Torbay (Devon), Bushey (Hertfordshire) and the West
Midlands, for which suitably reliable location data are available.
Partial records of surface water, sewer, and ordinary watercourse flood
incidents for London and Swindon.
Other surface water flooding models built by Halcrow Consultants for the
Hull Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and, in London, for infrastructure
flood protection studies.
Other surface water flooding data modelled or reported in the IUD
(Integrated Urban Drainage) pilot reports for: North Brent (London),
Lincoln, and Poringland (Norfolk).
How we For the locations listed in Data sources above, we have compared the Flood
assessed Map for Surface Water qualitatively with records of historic surface water
flooding and with results from other modelling. These comparisons suggest
how that the Flood Map for Surface Water, when used in combination with local
representati knowledge, is useful for the purposes detailed in this document.
ve the map
We have assessed quantitatively the ability of the Flood Map for Surface
is Water to predict the number of surface water and related flood incidents in
an area for Torbay, Bushey and the West Midlands as follows:
1. Obtain the FMfSW data for the required area (as shapefile polygons already
post processed to exclude areas where flood depths are less than 0.3m and to
include a buffer where adjacent to buildings). Two data sets are used: one
generated from the 1 in 30 rainfall event and one from the 1 in 200 rainfall
event.
2. Obtain the Historic Flood Incident data points for the required area and
intersect these with OS MasterMap building polygons to generate a historic
flood incidents polygon data set. Similarly, use the National Receptor Dataset
(NRD) and intersect this with the OS MasterMap building polygon data to
generate a potential receptor polygon data set.
3. Intersect both the flood incidents polygons and the potential receptor polygons
with the FMfSW and count the number of intersected properties/incidents for
both the 1 in 200 and 1 in 30 AEP maps. This process generates the number
of receptors in three probability bands as predicted by the model: less than 1
in 200; between 1 in 200 and 1 in 30; and greater than 1 in 30. Steps 1 to 3
were undertaken by the Environment Agency’s Geomatics Group.
4. The expected number of flood incidents, in each probability band. if the

model were correct, is taken as:
Expected
NIncidents = NReceptors × L × P
L is the length of period for which historic data are available (see
assumptions below).
5. The expected number of incidents from step (4) is compared with the total
number of incidents observed.
6. A relative probability is defined as:
NIncidents in 0.5% zone NIncidents outside 0.5% zone

PRe lative =
NReceptors in 0.5% zone NReceptors outside 0.5% zone
This tells us how much more likely a property is to flood if it is located within
the 1 in 200 probability zone than outside. A similar relative probability can
be defined for other probability bands.
The outputs from steps 5 and 6 tell us two different things about model
performance:
How accurate is the model in predicting the number of flood incidents,
irrespective of their locations? If the total expected number of incidents
(step 5) is close to the number recorded, then the model is predicting the
number of incidents correctly, but not necessarily in the right locations.
How accurate is the model in predicting the locations of these incidents?
For a model that successfully identifies areas of lower and higher
probability, we would expect the relative probability to be much greater
than 1. If this is the case, then the model is successfully identifying areas
of higher risk.
The method is based on the following assumptions:
The flood incidents database is a reliable record of the number of
properties affected by flooding. This may not be the case if flooding is not
reported to the local authority, water company etc., or if a single reported
incident covers several properties. We have tried to mitigate against this
by confirming that the majority of records are associated with a single
property rather than a street. Despite known limitations, the data in the
database are the best available and has to be assumed to be reliable for
comparison to be carried out.
A flooded building can be identified through the buffering process used
by the Environment Agency to extend the modelled flood extent to
adjacent buildings.
A receptor is classed as flooded only if the model output depth is greater
than 0.3m, which is a typical threshold for the onset of flooding. In reality
flood incidents may be recorded at lower depths (e.g. basements) or at
higher depths (e.g. houses significantly above road level).
The analysis assumes that the test site is large enough, and the record
length long enough, to experience a number of low probability storms -
the method essentially assumes that the probability of flooding for each
receptor is independent, so uses a large number of receptors as a proxy
for a long length of record. However, despite the spatially heterogeneous
nature of the types of intense, convective storms than tend to produce
surface water flooding, flood events are likely to be correlated across
even large areas (e.g. widespread surface water flooding experienced in
summer 2007). The short lengths of record available (up to 30 years) are
highly likely to miss large, infrequent events, and hence may under
represent the long term average number of flood incidents. The expected
number of flood incidents from model outputs may therefore be greater
than the number reported.
The length of historic records is not easy to define, and so some
assumptions must be made about how far back in the record we can go
before event recording becomes unreliable. It is hard to disentangle this
from the temporal variability of surface water flooding (was 1986 a dry
year, or are there simply no records of flooding available?). For the West
Midlands, a subjective judgement of 15 years has been made for the
record length. Records for Torbay and Bushey do not show the same
trend in number of events over time, and so the record length has been
taken as the period between the first and last records for these sites.
Example 1: The validation of the FMfSW shows that while the model overestimates the
flooding in total number of incidents expected in the 30 year period, by a factor of about
4, the model appears to predict the spatial patterns of flooding with some
Torbay skill. An example of this skill is shown in the 1 in 30 probability model
outputs. The model only predicts small areas of flooding (the effective rainfall
for this event is small, as a significant proportion is carried away by the sewer
system), and many of these coincide with clusters of recorded events.
1 in 30 probability extent predicted by the FMfSW and recorded flood incidents (blue circles).
Locations where clusters of flood incidents coincide with predicted flooding are highlighted in
red).
Example 1 Flooding along Torquay’s main street, where local experience indicates water
cont: is directed by buildings is well represented in the map.
flooding in Based on the available (limited) evidence from Torbay, low confidence
Torbay should be assigned to the ability of the FMfSW to predict numbers and
locations of properties at risk from surface water flooding (using the criteria
recommended by IPCC, 2005).
Surface water in Torquay following natural flow paths in the Areas Susceptible to
Surface Water Flooding maps (left) and being directed along the main street by
buildings in the Flood Map for Surface Water (right)
Area where Number Number of Number of flood Relative probability of

model depth, of flood incidents incidents for which properties in flood
D>0.3m buildings expected over details were extents being more likely
29 year record recorded over 29 to flood than properties
period year record period outside flood extents
Outside 0.5% 59202 n/a 178 1
0.5%-3.3% 3445 500-3300 185 18
Inside 3.3% 2324 >2200 260 38
Total 64971 >2700 623
FMfSW validation results for Torbay
Example 2: The FMfSW predicts the expected total number of flood incidents with
flooding in medium confidence (based on IPCC 2005 criteria), overpredicting by a factor
of 2 (this compares to factors of 4 for Torbay and 8 for the West Midlands).
Bushey The maps show less spatial skill than for Torbay and West Midlands, with
properties inside the 1 in 200 zone only 5 times more likely to be flooding
than those outside.
Surface water flooding reported in Bushey (blue circles), with AStSWF (top) and
FMfSW (bottom)
Area where Number Number of Number of flood Relative probability of
model of flood incidents for which properties in flood extents
D>0.3m buildings incidents details were being more likely to flood
expected recorded over 20 than properties outside
over 20 year year record period flood extents
record period
Outside 0.5% 7421 183 1
0.5%-3.3% 144 15-100 11 3
Inside 3.3% 168 >100 20 5
Total 7733 >100 214
FMfSW validation results for Bushey
Example 3: The total number of incidents is overpredicted by a factor of about 8 (which
flooding in could be considered to indicate a low to very low confidence in predictive
ability, based on IPCC, 2005 criteria). Nevertheless, the model still shows
West some skill in predicting the locations of recorded incidents. The relative
Midlands probabilities show that properties in these two bands are 6 and 12 times
more likely to flood than properties outside these bands.
In general the FMfSW performs similarly to the AStSWF mapping, but in
some locations, such as Selly Park there is evidence of improvement. For
Selly Park, the FMfSW extent is smaller, but still includes the recorded flood
incidents, indicating that the model is showing more skill in predicting where
flooding will occur
Recorded surface water flooding (blue circles) shown with AStSWF maps (top) and
FMfSW (bottom)
Area where Number of Number of Number of flood Relative probability of
model buildings flood incidents for which properties in flood
D>0.3m incidents details were extents being more likely
expected recorded over 15 to flood than properties
over 15 year year record period outside flood extents
record period
Outside 1
1096199 1092
0.5%
0.5%-3.3% 54014 4000-27000 299 6
Inside 3.3% 20198 >10000 242 12
Total 1170411 >14000 1633
FMfSW validation results for West Midlands
Note on We have post processed these examples to remove isolated wet areas
post smaller than 200m2.
processing
Updating and future plans for surface water
The future We are keen to receive feedback on the usefulness and accuracy of the
and getting Flood Map for Surface Water. While we cannot promise that it will be
updated immediately, all information received will be used to determine our
feedback way forward, and to decide if and when the available data and techniques
will enable us to produce a useful update.
We are currently undertaking R&D work with local authorities and water
companies, due to complete in 2011. This will provide a framework and
methodology for undertaking assessments of surface water flood risk across
a range of spatial scales. This R&D will also test the feasibility of some GIS
tools to support the methodology.
Environment Agency LRF, LPA and LLFA representatives should collate
feedback on the usefulness and accuracy of the Flood Map for Surface
Water as it is likely to be requested by the project team to inform future
surface water proposals.
Validation studies summary
Description The pictures below shows a selection of the validation data taken from the
Hull SFRA, and two IUD pilots (one historic and one modelled comparison)
against the Flood Map for Surface Water.
Hull – modelled
comparison
Comparison between
the Flood Map for
Surface Water (top)
and TuFLOW model
from SFRA (bottom)
show little
correspondence.
There is a very poor

fit (predicting same
wet / dry cells)
between the FMfSW
and the TUFLOW
model of 12%. The fit
for the AStSWF
model (as reported in
Halcrow, 2010) is
38%. This is to be
expected given the
much smaller flooded
areas predicted in the
FMfSW.
The assumptions
made in the FMfSW
model are less
appropriate for Hull.
The sewer capacity of
12mm/hr is much
greater than the
pump capacity
equivalent to
3.7mm/hr over the
whole city. This
overestimation of the
drainage capacity has
reduced flooding.
North Brent
(London) – historic
data
The FMfSW gives a
smaller flood extent,
probably due to the
lower rainfall depths
and water being
channelled between
buildings. The model
is also a good
predictor of foul water
flooding. Clusters of
reported flood events
coincide in many
places with model
output greater than
0.3 m flood depth,
implying that the
model depth output is
associated with
increasing probability
of flooding.
Marylebone
(London) –
modelled
comparison
The FMfSW results
(top) show much less
flooding than the
TUFLOW model
(bottom), which
essentially predicts all
roads as being
flooded.
Would you like to find out more about us,
or about your environment?
Then call us on
08708 506 506 (Mon-Fri 8-6)
email
enquiries@environment-agency.gov.uk
or visit our website

www.environment-agency.gov.uk
incident hotline 0800 80 70 60 (24hrs)

floodline 0845 988 1188
Environment first: This publication is printed on paper made from

100 per cent previously used waste. By-products from making the pulp
and paper are used for composting and fertiliser, for making cement and for
generating energy.

538 10 SD01

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

538 10 SD01

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

What is the Flood Map for Surface Water

The Environment Agency. Out there, making your

All rights reserved. This document may be reproduced with

Very Important – Read all documentation

Strategic In December 2008 the UK Government accepted the recommendations of

 Regional Resilience Teams for use in their functions which relate to

In this This section includes the following topics:

Digital Terrain Model (DTM) 14

Differences between Areas Susceptible to Surface Water 19

Where is the Flood Map for Surface Water map likely to be

Adjust- Two adjustments are made to calculate effective rainfall:

Thresholds Following consultation with a number of LRF partners, we classified the

Removing We have removed:

Properties AStSWF Flood Map for Why different/same?

4. The expected number of flood incidents, in each probability band. if the

NIncidents in 0.5% zone NIncidents outside 0.5% zone

Area where Number Number of Number of flood Relative probability of

FMfSW validation results for Torbay

FMfSW validation results for Bushey

FMfSW validation results for West Midlands

Updating and future plans for surface water

There is a very poor

or visit our website

incident hotline 0800 80 70 60 (24hrs)

Environment first: This publication is printed on paper made from

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen

Regional Resilience Teams for use in their functions which relate to