[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-203329-105":59,"doc-detail-203329-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","digital-good-practice-manual-phase-1-flood-risk-management-trials-checklist","Digital Good Practice Manual - Phase 1 - flood risk management trials checklist","","A series of Environment Agency reports examines how to mitigate the impacts of flood defence and land drainage schemes on rivers, lakes and coastal waters. Phase 1 of a Digital Good Practice Manual provides a checklist and guidance to assess whether a scheme represents good environmental practice and, if not, which mitigation measures can be used without undermining defence or drainage objectives. The report summarizes FRM trials on heavily modified water bodies and concludes that expert judgment, alongside transparent audit trails, is required to assess ecological potential while considering costs and unrelated pressures.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/digital-good-practice-manual-phase-1-flood-risk-management-trials-checklist/203329/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/digital-good-practice-manual-phase-1-flood-risk-management-trials-checklist/203329.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"supergirl","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-17","2026-09-04",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":24},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What is the purpose of Phase 1 of the Digital Good Practice Manual?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"Phase 1 provides a checklist and guidance to assess whether a flood risk or land drainage scheme reflects good environmental practice, and if not, which additional mitigation measures can be used without harming flood defence or land drainage objectives.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"Which water bodies are covered by the report’s guidance?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The report covers activities on rivers, lakes, estuaries and coastal waters, aiming to meet Water Framework Directive requirements without adverse impacts on intended use and considering costs.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"Can the UKTAG decision-making tool alone determine good ecological potential (GEP)?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"No. The report concludes that GEP cannot be determined per se using the UKTAG tool alone; expert judgment is needed. UKTAG Approach B is recommended mainly for transparent recording of the audit trail.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},203329,1788559831,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":24,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":14,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":129,"read_time":24,"preview_page_count":4},962088121634,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_9964176cb1d06d4a9deccf72a44ae3dc","SCHO0809BQWM-E-P  \nDigital Good Practice Manual: Identifying mitigation measures for good and maximum ecological potential  \nScience Summary SC060065/SS  \nA new series of reports published by the Environment Agency explores ways of mitigating the effects of flood defence and land drainage schemes on rivers, lakes and coastal waters.  \nOver the last 20 years, considerable progress has been made in mitigating the impacts of flood risk management (FRM) activities on water bodies. The European Centre for River Restoration (ERRC) and UK River Restoration Centre (RRC) have acted as catalysts since 1990 to promote river restoration. There is renewed effort in Europe with the new Floods Directive and Flood Management Plans exploring alternatives to enhance storage in floodplains, recreate wetlands and remove hard engineering structures on some rivers.  \nThe first report in this series covers Phase 1 of the development of a Digital Good Practice Manual, providing a checklist and guidance for assessing whether a flood risk or land drainage scheme represents good environmental practice and, if not, what further mitigation measures/techniques could be used without adversely effecting the flood defence or land drainage objectives. This report covers activities on rivers, lakes, estuaries and coastal waters aiming to comply with requirements of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) but without having adverse impacts on their use (and taking into account costs) . The Digital Good Practice Manual is provided in a parallel report.  \nThe first report describes a series of flood risk management (FRM) trials on heavily modified water bodies (HMWBs) . The results of these trials (and iterative development of checklists) has fed back into the broader work of the government advisory group known as UKTAG, which has coordinated trials in all water sectors, including ports, navigation, water resources and hydropower. The report covers four trials conducted primarily for FRM, namely:  \n• Hogsmill Stream (FRM-rivers)  \n• Lower Thames (FRM – rivers and navigation)  \n• River Irwell (FRM – rivers)  \n• Pagham (FRM – transitional/coastal waters)  \nFor the trials, UKTAG recommended testing three approaches (A, B and modified A) to determine whether a water body is below, close to, or at good ecological potential (GEP) . The main finding of this report is that GEP cannot be determined per se by the UKTAG decision-making tool alone (whichever of the suggested approaches is adopted) . Whilst from an FRM perspective UKTAG Approach B is the most userfriendly, even this process does not allow a conclusion to be drawn on whether the water body is at, below, or above GEP. Conclusions from the FRM trials are that expert judgment is needed and UKTAG Approach B is recommended as a means of transparent recording of the audit trail. Equally important are the experts’comments that are likely to arise and these should be recorded by the scribe. It is very probable, for example, that a water body might be judged to be close to or at GEP from an FRM perspective but to be degraded by activities unrelated to one of the recognised sectors (for example, the Lower Thames has piecemeal bank protection by riparian landowners) .  \nIn addition to reporting the outcomes of the trials, this report makes recommendations on the classification process of all HMWBs. It is suggested that the process of classification takes place at regional meetings with the help of nationally-trained facilitators to ensure consistency across all areas. Time constraints (the need to classify a large number of water bodies in a short period of time) and the views of experts with knowledge of their patch may force grouping of water bodies together (for example, based on similar characteristics of adjacent water bodies) or similar river, transitional water, coastal or lake types. Thus if a template is developed for one water body, this might be extended (with tailoring and recording of differences) fairly rapidly ","cbCaim8aA8hvi0Pa","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaim8aA8hvi0Pa","pdf",69931,"English","# Digital Good Practice Manual: Phase 1 - development and checklist\n## Background on flood risk management and restoration efforts\n## Scope: rivers, lakes, estuaries and coastal waters\n## FRM trials on heavily modified water bodies (HMWBs)\n## Testing approaches for good ecological potential (GEP)\n## Recommendations for classification of all HMWBs\n## Second report: review of techniques and evidence base","[{\"question\":\"What is the purpose of Phase 1 of the Digital Good Practice Manual?\",\"answer\":\"Phase 1 provides a checklist and guidance to assess whether a flood risk or land drainage scheme reflects good environmental practice, and if not, which additional mitigation measures can be used without harming flood defence or land drainage objectives.\"},{\"question\":\"Which water bodies are covered by the report’s guidance?\",\"answer\":\"The report covers activities on rivers, lakes, estuaries and coastal waters, aiming to meet Water Framework Directive requirements without adverse impacts on intended use and considering costs.\"},{\"question\":\"Can the UKTAG decision-making tool alone determine good ecological potential (GEP)?\",\"answer\":\"No. The report concludes that GEP cannot be determined per se using the UKTAG tool alone; expert judgment is needed. UKTAG Approach B is recommended mainly for transparent recording of the audit trail.\"}]","Digital Good Practice Manual - Phase 1 - flood risk management trials checklist | PDF"]