Borders Flood Studies

Borders Flood Studies How is flood risk managed by the Scottish Borders Council? The Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 aims to prioritise flood mitigation across Scotland using a proactive and risk based process for assessing flood risk. This approach led to the preparation of SEPA s Flood Risk Management Strategies by SEPA and the Tweed Local Flood Risk Management Plan developed by the Scottish Borders Council as the Lead Local Authority for the Tweed Local Plan District. These plans identified specific communities as being at risk and in need of a detailed flood study to help inform the management of flood risk in each community. Which communities are being assessed? Peebles, Broughton & Innerleithen Newcastleton Earlston How will Flood Protection Schemes be prioritised? SEPA will prioritise nationally where funding should be allocated. The reports and findings of our study will inform this process. National Flood Risk Assessment (2011) Potentially Vulnerable Areas Flood Risk Management Strategy and Local Flood Risk Management Plan (2016) Borders Flood Studies (2017-18) Scheme considered against national priorities (2018/19) Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009

What are the study objectives? 1) Develop better understanding of flood risk in the community Create, update or develop new/existing flood model information; Determine existing flood risk; Develop improved flood mapping; Why choose a 200 year standard of protection? Scottish Planning Policy 2) Develop recommendations for management of flood risk Develop a range of options to manage flood risk, including structural and non-structural options; Appraise actions to manage flood risk (consider the pros and cons and economic viability for all proposed options); Recommend options for the future management of flood risk; requires new build properties to have a 200 year standard of protection This standard is accepted as low risk by the flood insurance companies. A higher standard of 3) Select a preferred approach to manage flood risk in each community and identify recommendations that the Council will take forward SEPA will prioritise nationally where funding should be allocated; The reports and findings of our study will inform this process. protection will mean the scheme will be considered more favourably by SEPA s scheme prioritisation making funding more likely 4) Engage partners and stakeholders Today s consultation.

What has been done so far? The studies aim to better assess current flood risks in the community by undertaking a review of past flood events; generating updated and detailed flood maps, determining the likely risk to different properties; and to propose a set of mitigation measures to reduce the flood risk to an acceptable level. Flood Review Topographic surveys Asset inspections The models developed form a basis for assessing future flood levels, flood mitigation options, detailed design of schemes and the costs to deliver. Return periods and annual probabilities doff Hydrology Modelling Flood Mapping Properties at risk Options Appraisal Cost-Benefit When a river floods the severity of the flood is known as a 1 in x year flood. This terminology represents the probability of that event occurring in any year. For reference, the December 2015 event (Storm Frank) on the River Tweed in Peebles had a 1 in 55 chance of occurring in any year. This does not mean that the flood will occur once every 55 years; it could occur tomorrow and again next week, or not for another 200 years. But on average a flood of that severity will occur once every 55 years. For example, there is a 1 in 100 (or 1%) chance of a flood exceeding the 100 year flood in any one year.

Assessed watercourses Peebles is at flood risk from the River Tweed, Edderston Burn, Eddleston Water, Soonhope Burn and Haystoun Burn. Each of the watercourses has its own mechanism of flood risk and the individual watercourses were therefore studied independently. The River Tweed is the largest of the assessed watercourses with a catchment area of 700km 2 followed by the Eddleston Water (70km 2 ), Haystoun Burn (23km 2 ), Soonhope Burn (9.5km 2 ) and finally the Edderston Burn with a catchment area of under 2km 2. Some of the watercourses such as the Eddleston Water and the River Tweed have a long history of flooding whereas others have little available flood history. Soonhope Burn

Flood Timeline River Tweed 1948 An extremely large flood in the Borders. Extensive flooding of the Tweed. 1977 Several bridges swept away. Residential, commercial property and agricultural land also affected. Overwhelming of property defences in December 2015 2015 Largest event recorded at the Peebles gauging station. Extensive flooding throughout the Tweed catchment. 2009 River Tweed flooded at Tweed Green in Peebles. 2018 High flow event that inundated parts of Tweed Green and Kerfield Park. 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 1949 In January heavy rains caused the Tweed to breach. The railway was inundated and when flood was at its highest flooded to a dept of 2ft 6inches. 2005 January- River Tweed flooded at Tweed Green in Peebles. 2013 December- Tweed Green area of Peebles was inundated by water from the River Tweed. No properties flooding but surrounded. Flooding to Kerfield Park pitches recorded 200m from the river banks. Photo taken in Dec 2015 looking downstream from Tweed Bridge

Catchments and watercourses The River Tweed has a catchment area of 700km2 including a number of the other watercourses included in this flood study. The largest floods are likely to originate from the River Tweed but these floods do not necessarily flood the highest number of properties compared to the other watercourses. The Tweed was modelled from Peebles to Walkerburn but the main flood risk study focussed on Peebles only. The figures below show the catchment and the length of modelled channel. Return Period (Years) River Tweed peak flows (m3/s) 2 50 200 180 484 717

Flood mapping River Tweed Property Type Number at Risk (1 in 200 year flood) Residential 135 Commercial 23 How do we create these flood maps? A physical survey captured the measurements of river channels, banks and structures along each watercourse. These measurements were input to a computer model, along with calculated river flows for a range of storm events. This model produced a flood outline and estimated flood depths based on a 3D representation of the land surface and buildings. The outcome resulted in a detailed flood map. What do the maps show? The mapping indicates the predicted flooding for a given flood magnitude. The 1 in 10 year map shows what is expected to be inundated for a flood that is likely to occur once every 10 years (or with a probability of 10% in any one year). The 1 in 200 year represents a flood event with a probability of 0.5% in any year.

Flood mechanisms on the River Tweed Out of bank flow paths, key structures and constraints were identified. Flood first occurs around Kerfield Park and Tweed Green. Properties on Tweed Green are most frequently affected. Tweed Bridge and Priorsford Bridge have some influence on flood levels during larger floods but overall it is the low-lying floodplains and large volume of flood waters due to the large catchment size that lead to flooding. Floodplain flows Bridges on the River Tweed Flood gates and PLP near the Tweed Has this flow mechanism been seen before? Flood water is known to have overtopped the banks in various places throughout Peebles and further downstream. Reports of historic floods like those in 1948, 1984, 2012 and 2015 show a similarity to our model results. The aim of the scheme would be to proactively mitigate against flood events with frequent and significant impacts.

River Tweed Options appraisal Long list of options The process for selecting flood mitigation options involves assessing a wide range of possible measures and narrowing it down to a short list according to whether the options are technically, environmentally and socially acceptable. Those that are short listed are shown in the following posters. The full list of options assessed is provided below: Relocation - Relocation or abandonment of properties not usually socially or politically viable. Flood Warning Warning on the River Tweed should be maintained. Resistance Measures Property level protection is well suited to the shallow flood depths experienced in some flood events but not all on this large watercourse. 39 properties already have property level measures in place. Resilience Measures - Unlikely to be economically viable. Watercourse Maintenance Council should continue the scheduled maintenance regime. Natural Flood Management Some opportunities identified within the upper catchment and sub-catchments but unlikely to sufficiently reduce peak flows for large magnitude floods. Further investigation is still required. Storage Insufficient space away from houses and roads to store sufficient volumes of flood water. Control structures The large structures that would be required on the River Tweed are not feasible. Demountable Defences A suite of permanent walls or embankments is more suitable than demountable defences. Direct Defences A combination of walls and embankments could contain flows on the watercourse to a high standard of protection. Channel Modification Not capable of delivering long-term benefits. Diversion channel No suitable route for the diversion. Structure Modification Modification of Tweed Bridge and Priorsford Bridge likely to bring some benefit but only in combination with some other flood protection measures. Most desirable options Good practice and partial solutions Least desirable options

River Tweed Short Listed Options Option 1: Direct flood defences (walls and embankments) Three sub-options have been proposed with increasing standards of protection from 50 to 100 years The different defence heights required for each standard of protection are shown on the supporting drawings. Initial assessment suggests average wall height on Tweed Green would be 1.0-1.3m. Climate change adaptation would require longer and taller defences as well as bridge modifications. Estimated cost 2.0-4.3m. Estimated damage avoided 15.6-16.7m. Why not protect against the 1 in 200 year flood? There are pros and cons to increasing the standard of protection to protect against the 1 in 200 year flood event. Pros Increased standard of protection Reduced flood risk Cons Unsuitable defence heights for public spaces. We have discounted protecting to such a high standard for aesthetic reasons as shown below. Typical example of a flood wall Proposed flood defences See adjacent technical drawings for further details of this option. What are your views on the different standards of protection? 200 year defence on Tweed Green

161.00 EDDERSTON RIDGE CRESCENT EDDERSTON RIDGE EDDERSTON RIDGE 161.00 161.00 Peebles Option 1: River Tweed LEGEND WATER LEVEL 50-100 Year Direct Defences EXISTING WATERCOURSE EDINBURGH ROAD DEFENCE NEEDED FROM THE 1 IN 50 YEAR FLOOD EVENT B BIGGERSKNOWE EDDLESTON WATER BRIDGEGATE DEFENCE NEEDED ONLY AT THE 1 IN 100 YEAR FLOOD EVENT HAY LODGE PARK 261m LONG GREENSIDE WALL EASTGATE VEHICULAR VEHICULAR GREENSIDE GREENSIDE EDDLESTON WATER B SWIMMING POOL WALL 160m LONG HIGH STREET TIES INTO EXISTING WALL ALTERNATIVE WALL ALIGNMENT TO MAINTAIN RIVER VIEW FROM THE GREEN INNERLEITHEN ROAD FLOOD GATE HEIGHT 1m SOUTH PARK WALL WEST APPROXIMATELY 195m LONG POSSIBLE LOCATION OF PUMPING STATION FOR EDDERSTON BURN A PORT BRAE TWEED GREEN TWEED GREEN WALKERS HAUGH WALKERS HAUGH SOUTH PARK WEST A D/S END OF WALL C TWEED GREEN EMBANKMENT TWEED GREEN TWEED AVENUE TWEED AVENUE SOUTH PARKS SOUTH PARKS SOUTH PARKS SOUTH PARK CRESCENT EDDERSTON BURN CALEDONIAN ROAD SOUTH PARK DRIVE SOUTH PARK FLOOD WALL ONLY REQUIRED IF PROTECTING AGAINST THE 1 IN 100 YEAR FLOOD EVENT C GATE REQUIRED EXISTING GARDEN WALL TO BE STRENGTHENED EXISTING CAR PARK NEW FLOOD GATE TO BE INSTALLED HOUSE AROUND PROPERTY TO BE TIED INTO DISUSED RAILWAY EMBANKMENT SOUTH PARKS EDDERSTON RIDGE EDDERSTON ROAD CALEDONIAN ROAD CALEDONIAN ROAD PUMP STATION TO BE PROVIDED ON DRY SIDE OF EMBANKMENT TO REDUCE SURFACE WATER PONDING KINGSMEADOWS ROAD SPRINGHILL ROAD PRIORFORD BRIDGE COULD BE RAISED TO INCREASE STANDARD OF PROTECTION KINGSMEADOWS ROAD EDDERSTON ROAD PLAN 100 YEAR FLOOD LEVEL 100 YEAR - 1.3m HIGH EXISTING FOOTPATH ALL OPTIONS TO HAVE STEEL RAILING ON TOP 100 YEAR FLOOD LEVEL 75 YEAR FLOOD LEVEL 50 YEAR FLOOD LEVEL 100 YEAR - 0.9m HIGH 75 YEAR - 0.7m HIGH 50 YEAR - 0.5m HIGH Rev.: Comments Date Drawn Designed Checked Approved Client Approval A - Approved B - Approved with Revisions C - Do Not Use SECTION A-A SECTION B-B Purpose of Issue Suitable for Coordination Status S1 Unit 2.1 Quantum Court Research Avenue South Heriot Watt University Edinburgh EH14 4AP United Kingdom www.jbaconsulting.com t +44 (0)131 3192940 f +44 (0)845 8627772 e info@jbaconsulting.com Offices at Coleshill, Doncaster, Edinburgh, Exeter, Glasgow, Haywards Heath, Isle of Man, Leeds, Limerick, Newcastle upon Tyne, Newport, Peterborough, Saltaire, Skipton, Tadcaster, Thirsk, Wallingford and Warrington FLOOD WALL TO HAVE STEEL RAILING ON TOP Project Borders Flood Studies 100 YEAR FLOOD LEVEL 100 YEAR - 1.3m HIGH Title Client Peebles River Tweed: Option 1 Direct Defences for The property of this drawing and design vested in Jeremy Benn Associates Ltd. It shall not be reproduced in whole or in part, nor disclosed to a third party, without the prior written consent of Jeremy Benn Associates Ltd. SECTION C-C: SOUTH PARK WALL - ONLY REQUIRED TO PROTECT AGAINST THE 1 IN 100 YEAR FLOOD EVENT SECTION B-B As it currently looks SECTION B-B Artist interpretation of wall with indicated gate for car park Scale Project Number: As Shown @ A1 2017s5526 Drawn: Designed: Checked: Approved: A Coad 13/02/18 B Bedford 12/02/18 S Cooney Drawing Number Revision AEM-JBAU-PB-RT-IM-C-1000 P02

EDDERSTON RIDGE EDDERSTON RIDGE 161.00 161.00 Peebles Option 1: River Tweed OPTION SUMMARY: Direct defences option which provides protection from either 1 in 50, 1 in 75 or 1 in 100 year flood events. Fewer defences and lower defence heights are required for the 1 in 50 year option whereas more defences and taller defences are required to protect against the larger 1 in 100 year event. 50-100 Year Direct Defences BIGGERSKNOWE LEGEND HAY LODGE PARK 261m LONG GREENSIDE WALL EASTGATE WATER LEVEL POSSIBLE LOCATION OF PUMPING STATION FOR EDDERSTON BURN VEHICULAR GREENSIDE GREENSIDE EDDLESTON WATER D PORT BRAE SWIMMING POOL WALL 160m LONG TWEED GREEN HIGH STREET TIES INTO EXISTING WALL F TWEED GREEN ALTERNATIVE WALL ALIGNMENT TO MAINTAIN RIVER VIEW FROM THE GREEN WALKERS HAUGH INNERLEITHEN ROAD FLOOD GATE HEIGHT 1m WALKERS HAUGH INNERLEITHEN ROAD EXISTING WATERCOURSE DEFENCE NEEDED FROM THE 1 IN 50 YEAR FLOOD EVENT DEFENCE NEEDED ONLY AT THE 1 IN 100 YEAR FLOOD EVENT SOUTH PARK WEST D TWEED GREEN EMBANKMENT F TWEED GREEN GATE REQUIRED TWEED AVENUE TWEED AVENUE EXISTING GARDEN WALL TO BE STRENGTHENED SOUTH PARKS SOUTH PARKS SOUTH PARK CRESCENT EDDERSTON BURN CALEDONIAN ROAD SOUTH PARK DRIVE SOUTH PARK FLOOD WALL ONLY REQUIRED IF PROTECTING AGAINST THE 1 IN 100 YEAR FLOOD EVENT EXISTING CAR PARK E NEW FLOOD GATE TO BE INSTALLED HOUSE AROUND PROPERTY TO BE TIED INTO DISUSED RAILWAY EMBANKMENT EDDERSTON RIDGE EDDERSTON RIDGE CRESCENT This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of the Ordnance Survey on behalf of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Unauthorized reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Crown copyright and database rights (2018) Ordnance Survey (100023423) EDDERSTON ROAD EDDERSTON ROAD CALEDONIAN ROAD CALEDONIAN ROAD PUMP STATION TO BE PROVIDED ON DRY SIDE OF EMBANKMENT TO REDUCE SURFACE WATER PONDING KINGSMEADOWS ROAD SPRINGHILL ROAD E KINGSMEADOW EMBANKMENT ADDITIONAL 14m LENGTH ADDED TO EXISTING EMBANKMENT. EXISTING FOOTPATH REPLACED TO INCREASE HEIGHT BY APPROX 0.5m. PRIORFORD BRIDGE COULD BE RAISED TO INCREASE STANDARD OF PROTECTION KINGSMEADOWS ROAD PLAN SWIMMING POOL 100 YEAR - 1.5m HIGH 75 YEAR - 1.3m HIGH 50 YEAR - 1.1m HIGH 100 YEAR FLOOD LEVEL 75 YEAR FLOOD LEVEL 50 YEAR FLOOD LEVEL NEW PATH ADDED TO EXISTING EMBANKMENT AND CREST RAISED BY APPROX. 0.3m 100 YEAR FLOOD LEVEL EXISTING KINGSMEADOWS CAR PARK Comments Rev.: Date Drawn Client Approval A - Approved B - Approved with Revisions C - Do Not Use Designed Checked Approved Purpose of Issue Suitable for Coordination Status S1 SECTION D-D: SWIMMING POOL Options for Tweed Green flood defence SECTION E-E: KINGSMEADOWS EMBANKMENT Project Unit 2.1 Quantum Court Research Avenue South Heriot Watt University Edinburgh EH14 4AP United Kingdom www.jbaconsulting.com t +44 (0)131 3192940 f +44 (0)845 8627772 e info@jbaconsulting.com Offices at Coleshill, Doncaster, Edinburgh, Exeter, Glasgow, Haywards Heath, Isle of Man, Leeds, Limerick, Newcastle upon Tyne, Newport, Peterborough, Saltaire, Skipton, Tadcaster, Thirsk, Wallingford and Warrington Borders Flood Studies PROPERTY FOOTPATH ROAD 100 YEAR - 1.5m HIGH 75 YEAR - 1.3m HIGH 50 YEAR - 1.1m HIGH 100 YEAR FLOOD LEVEL 75 YEAR FLOOD LEVEL 50 YEAR FLOOD LEVEL NEW EMBANKMENT APPROX. 1.1-1.5m HIGH DEPENDENT ON STANDARD OF PROTECTION CHOSEN FOOTPATH REINSTATED ON CREST EXISTING PATH TO BE REMOVED Title Client Peebles River Tweed: Option 1 Direct Defences for The property of this drawing and design vested in Jeremy Benn Associates Ltd. It shall not be reproduced in whole or in part, nor disclosed to a third party, without the prior written consent of Jeremy Benn Associates Ltd. SECTION F-F: OPTION 1 - WALL AND EMBANKMENT SET BACK FROM THE RIVER SECTION F-F: OPTION 2 - EMBANKMENT ON THE RIVER SIDE Scale Project Number: As Shown @ A1 2017s5526 Drawn: Designed: Checked: Approved: A Coad 13/02/18 B Bedford 12/02/18 S Cooney Drawing Number Revision AEM-JBAU-PB-RT-IM-C-1001 P02

WHITEHAUGH PARK ROWAN COURT Peebles Option 1: River Tweed LEGEND WATER LEVEL ECHO STREET BRAE 50-100 Year Direct Defences EXISTING WATERCOURSE BIGGERSKNOWE EDDLESTON WATER DEFENCE NEEDED FROM THE 1 IN 50 YEAR FLOOD EVENT DEFENCE NEEDED ONLY AT THE 1 IN 100 YEAR FLOOD EVENT BIGGERSKNOWE HIGH STREET WALKERS HAUGH WALKERS HAUGH GREENSIDE GREENSIDE EDDLESTON WATER PORT BRAE TWEED GREEN TWEED GREEN TWEED GREEN NEW FLOOD GATE TO BE INSTALLED TWEED AVENUE G G TWEED AVENUE TWEED GREEN WALL 97m LONG AND TO BE TIED INTO OLD RAILWAY EMBANKMENT CAVALRY PARK EMBANKMENT - ONLY NEEDED AT THE 1 IN 100 YEAR FLOOD EVENT BUT COULD BE BUILT TO PROTECT AGAINST THE 1 IN 200 YEAR EVENT DUE TO THE SPACE AVAILABLE H KINGSMEADOWS ROAD H CAVALRY PARK KINGSMEADOWS ROAD SPRINGHILL ROAD KINGSMEADOWS ROAD KINGSMEADOWS ROAD CALEDONIAN ROAD PLAN EXISTING PROPERTY EXISTING PROPERTY WALL ALL OPTIONS TO HAVE STEEL RAILING ON TOP 100 & 75 YEAR - 1.1m HIGH 50 YEAR - 1.0m HIGH 100 & 75 YEAR FLOOD LEVELS VERY SIMILAR 50 YEAR FLOOD LEVEL Comments Rev.: Date Drawn Designed Client Approval A - Approved B - Approved with Revisions C - Do Not Use Purpose of Issue Suitable for Coordination Checked Status Approved S1 SECTION G-G Unit 2.1 Quantum Court Research Avenue South Heriot Watt University Edinburgh EH14 4AP United Kingdom www.jbaconsulting.com t +44 (0)131 3192940 f +44 (0)845 8627772 e info@jbaconsulting.com Offices at Coleshill, Doncaster, Edinburgh, Exeter, Glasgow, Haywards Heath, Isle of Man, Leeds, Limerick, Newcastle upon Tyne, Newport, Peterborough, Saltaire, Skipton, Tadcaster, Thirsk, Wallingford and Warrington Project Borders Flood Studies 100 YEAR WATER LEVEL 1 3 APPROX. 1.2m HIGH EMBANKMENT PROPERTY FENCE Title Client Peebles River Tweed: Option 1 Direct Defences for The property of this drawing and design vested in Jeremy Benn Associates Ltd. It shall not be reproduced in whole or in part, nor disclosed to a third party, without the prior written consent of Jeremy Benn Associates Ltd. SECTION H-H Scale Project Number: Drawing Number As Shown @ A1 2017s5526 Drawn: Designed: Checked: Approved: AEM-JBAU-PB-RT-IM-C-1002 A Coad 13/02/18 B Bedford 12/02/18 S Cooney Revision P02

Option 2 - Property Level Protection River Tweed PLP is the last form of defence before water gets into a building. Automatic PLP is proposed for each property at risk from the River Tweed that floods to a depth of under 0.6m 73 residential and 1 non-residential. The property with the lowest standard of protection would be protected to the 1 in 10 year flood event but some others would be protected up to the 1 in 1000 year flood event. PLP would involve surveying each property to identify entry points and recommend appropriate PLP, but could include self sealing doors, air bricks and non return valves on plumbing. Estimated cost 1.8m Estimated damage avoided 14.2m Standard of protection map indicating the existing level of protection of each property Option appraisal and first round of public consultation October 2018 Examples of how Property Level Protection can mitigate the risks of flood inundation (image courtesy of Whitehouse Construction Co. Ltd)

Can we remove the sediment? 1) Is gravel causing a flood risk problem? In the past sediment in some watercourses in the Border towns was intermittently removed. Furthermore, in some locations it is believed that the bed level of rivers is rising as a result of a long term build up of silt and gravel. Whilst sediment does build up locally, these deposits are not new and the formation and erosion of sediment in Peebles is a natural process balanced over thousands of years. 2) Why is sediment in rivers important? River sediments and their movements form important habitats for plants, fish and animals. The removal of sediment can lead to a loss of, or damage to these habitats. Sediment removal can disturb the natural equilibrium of a river which can cause serious problems with river stability, often leading to erosion downstream. 3) Would removal of sediment or the gravel island reduce the flood risk? While sediment removal appears a straight forward solution to flooding, evidence indicates that it does not work on large rivers moving at pace. Our assessment has shown that on the River Tweed there would be little benefit in reducing river bed levels through sediment removal. Additionally, during a flood the water will move material downstream and fill in any dredged areas back to their original level very quickly. Removal of the gravel island has previously been tested and no significant reduction in flood levels was identified. The reasons why wide-scale bed modification is not actively undertaken are as follows: Any additional conveyance created by a lowered river channel is very quickly lost. It is not considered a sustainable option; expensive repeat works are required to maintain bed levels. Additional bank stabilisation works may also be required. In many locations this may require construction of walls down to bed level, removal of riparian land (gardens) and extensive rock armour. Sediment removal carried out in watercourses requires regulatory legislation enforced by SEPA and would require sufficient evidence to support any such applications for removal. 4) What else could be done? We have looked at a number of other options to mitigate the flood risk to Peebles from all watercourses. This includes options for natural flood management in the upper catchments that may help to manage sediment transport into the downstream reaches. Further modelling is required to investigate the benefits of these options.

Preferred Option for River Tweed Summary of short listed options Option (Standard of protection) Properties protected Environmental implications Working with natural processes Constraints/ limitations Mitigating residual risks Improved public awareness Best use of public money Preferred Options and recommendations Direct Defences (2% AP - 50 year) Direct Defences (1.33% AP - 75 year) 28 Implications for RBMP, set back defences selected wherever possible. Minimal in-channel works. 36 Implications for RBMP, set back defences selected wherever possible. Minimal in-channel works. NFM measures have been identified and, subject to further investigation, could be incorporated within the scheme to provided additional benefits. Further modelling and discussion with landowners is required to determine the most appropriate measures and locations for these works and the benefits they may provide. Opportunities to set back defences and retain the use of Tweed Green as an amenity area. Defence heights likely to be most acceptable to community Large number of gates required. Large number of gates required. Increased defence extents and heights possible but should be designed for at this stage rather than added on later. Demountable defences could be used in the future. Possible to use PLP & NFM to manage residual risk. As above. Option should be presented to public for comment. Signage relating to flooding and sand bag stores and work with Peebles residents alongside Resilient communities programme. Flood Warning should be continued on the River Tweed and updated if necessary in light of the recommendations made and depending on the options proposed. Highest benefit cost ratio of defended options but 75 year option provides greater long term benefit. Incremental benefit cost ratio of 1.0 relative to 2% AP (50 year) option meaning that this option has the longest term benefits. Aligns best with council criteria to provide at least a 75 year standard. The preferred option for Peebles is the direct defences option protecting to a 75 year flood event. The PLP option could be extended beyond those properties that are already covered by the existing PLP scheme. The short term recommendations are: Direct Defences (1% AP - 100 year) PLP (10% AP 10 year) 59 Implications for RBMP, set back defences selected wherever possible. Minimal in-channel works. Opportunities to remove embankment downstream of Peebles. Pumping stations behind defences considered to deal with secondary flood risk. 74 Little to no impact. NFM measures have been identified and, as explained above, could be incorporated within the scheme to provided additional benefits. Wall heights in some areas likely to be too high and additional defences required. Large number of gates required. No improvement in standard of protection for some frequently flooded properties. Inconsistent standard of protection. As above. Priorsford Bridge raising should be considered to improve protection for above design standard events. As above. Highest standard of protection but lowest benefit cost ratio. Highest benefit cost ratio due to low relative costs but not a long-term solution. Awareness raising for sandbag stores and flooding in general. Monitor bank erosion and carry out repairs where necessary. Manage vegetation on the banks and in-channel. Negative Neutral Positive

What can we do in terms of natural flood management? Location and type of measures suggested for the River Tweed catchment What is natural flood management? Natural flood management (NFM) is when natural processes are used to reduce the risk of flooding by slowing flows and storing water within the catchment. It is however difficult to quantify the reduction in flow that these types of measures can deliver. NFM also offers additional wider benefits by restoring habitats and improving water quality. NFM opportunities were first identified by examination of aerial photography and were confirmed with a site visit at sample locations. The NFM measures which have been proposed for the Tweed catchment include: Upland drain blocking Working within the banks (buffer strips, debris dams) Woodland planting including in gully s Sediment management. The Council will need to investigate the potential benefits before working with other parties on developing these options further. Typical example of a meandered channel Typical example of inchannel debris barrier Typical example of young woodland

What happens next? The following sets out the Council wide steps required to progress preferred options to a Flood Protection Scheme Option appraisal and first round of public consultation October/November 2018 SBC Council review and decision to enact preferred options January 2019 Selected Flood Protection Schemes taken forward to outline design stage 18 months Schemes prioritised for 2021 FRM cycle Further consultation on outline design Issue proposed and selected schemes to SEPA for prioritisation December 2019 Scheme approval by Council, stakeholders and public Carry out detailed design of flood protection measures Produce tender documents and procure contractor These posters and further information are available at: www.bordersfloodstudies.com