Exploring flood risk potential at the micro catchment scale
This document is an output from the Devon and Cornwall Soils Alliance, delivered by Westcountry Rivers Trust.
Flood risk is a major issue for numerous communities across the Southwest and with the expected future impacts of climate change, as well as compounding factors such as population growth and development, it is a problem that is becoming all the more urgent. A number of projects are currently underway to understand the causes of flooding and investigate potential solutions. This includes the Upstream Thinking - Rapid Response Catchments project and Devon and CornwallSoils Alliance (more info on page 5).
A mapping exercise was carried out to identify all the micro-catchments (5km2 or 10km2)above flood-risk properties in Devon and Cornwall. The idea being that Natural Flood Management (NFM) measures and engagement with the local community weremost likely to be effective at this scale. These micro-catchments were then prioritised according to a number of factors. The catchment described in this report, the Beer Brook, is one of those prioritised micro-catchments. The micro-catchment for the Beer Brook is 3.69km2 and highlights 12 properties potentially at riskfrom fluvial and surface water flooding, many of these are in Beer. There are multiple possible contributing causes of this, including the topography, land use, and overland flow pathways. The micro-catchment is adjacent to an assessed Water FrameworkDirective (WFD) catchment failing regulations on both ecological and chemical status and is within a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone for Ground Water
A rapid walkover survey wascarried out by an experienced surveyor from the Westcountry RiversTrust (WRT) to further inform potential issues and opportunities for flood riskmitigation. During the walkover, the micro-catchment, did display localised flood risk. There is therefore an opportunity to effect localised flood improvement, and the ability to mitigate part of a larger flood riskdownstream (less localised) should not be discounted.
Implementation of Natural Flood Management (NFM) measures may have the potential to mitigate some of the flood risk that would ultimately benefit the local community. The NFM opportunities identified in this report include online/offline storage and other habitat creation surrounding existing habitats across the catchment to slow surface water flow and enhance habitat networks. In addition, there are opportunities for floodplain reconnection and runoff attenuation in lower sections. In some cases, their proximity to the urban environment willneed to be considered when designing these NFM measures, although this presents a major opportunity for community engagement to facilitate their delivery.
OverviewHow this Document Works
This documentisa study for causesof flooding,priorityconsiderations,and opportunitiesforNFMin the micro-catchmentforthe BeerBrook, covering some of the Beerurban area in EastDevon.
The study is builton multiple layersof mapped environmentalinformationand the results of the walkoversurvey. This informationhasbeenused to explore the current state of the catchmentand its environment, and then map areasfor further investigationand actionsto make improvements.
This micro-catchment scaleassessmentwillbe usedto guide efforts incommunityengagement andNFM.
The study has 5 key chapters,based on the current status of the micro-catchmentand whatopportunitiesthere mightbe.
1. Micro-catchmentOverview
2. PriorityAreasand Drivers
• Flooding
• WaterQuality
• WaterQuantity
• Designated Sites
• Tourism and Recreation
3. Existing Natural Assetsand Their Condition
• Habitats
• Soils
• Crops
4. Issues
• Abstraction,Discharges,Pollution,and Runoff
• HydrologicalConnectivity
• Issues identified during Walkovers
5. Opportunities
• Existing Opportunities
• OpportunitiesIdentified during Walkovers
It isnot possible to map all aspectsof the status of the micro-catchmentwithexisting datasets,and the true state of the catchmentmay not be fully reflected inthe datasetsforvariousreasons including the age of the data,the resolution, and the level of local knowledge takeninto consideration when the data has beencollected and mapped.
Assessing the qualityand conditionof natural assetsin particularischallenging due to the level of detail required.Nonetheless,the availabledata has beenreviewed and the bestdata currently availablehasbeenused. A full set of referencescan be found on pages51 - 54.
OverviewFlooding isa problem thatis experienced widelyacrossDevonand Cornwall,witha large portionof caseslinked to rivers(fluvial flooding as opposed to surface wateror sea).Riverwaterqualityisalso a key issue in the region,withall 381assessed rivers failing to achieve “good” statusin 2019.One importantreasonfor waterqualityfailure islinked to soil erosion.Soil erosioncan also contribute to increased fluvial flood riskdue to reduced channel capacitiesand blockages.Therefore,waterqualityand floodriskdriversare often interlinked and the solutionsto alleviate these pressures are often multifunctional.Two projectscurrentlyunderwayare aiming to tackle these issues by working withlocal communitiesto deliver small-scale,land-basedmeasures(“nature-basedsolutions”).These projectsare Devonand Cornwall SoilsAlliance (DCSA) and Upstream Thinking Rapid Response Catchments(UST-RRC).
Afteritwas found that over 40%of soilsacrossDevonand Cornwall are degraded,the collaborativeprojectof the DCSA waslaunched inJune 2019. This aimsto build the capacityand capabilityinsoilsadvice forthe projectpartnersacrossthe 2 counties to work towards restoring degraded soils. One significantbenefitof improving soil healthisgreatersurface waterinfiltrationinto the ground before itreachesand overwhelmswatercourses, thereby reducing flood riskand preventing potential pollutantsfrom entering the water.Thisalso has the potential to make considerable Water FrameworkDirective (WFD) improvementsto waterquality.
AcrossDevonand Cornwall there are hundreds of Rapid Response Catchmentsthat are characterised byquicklydraining catchmentareasunder 10km2 (and under 5km2) , where during high rainfall eventssurface flowsand overland run off overwhelm small communities(1-50propertiesin flood zone 1).Flood eventshave increased inthese types of catchmentdue to degraded soilsthatno longerhave the infiltrationcapacity,simplified drainage patternsand more variable and extreme weatherpatternsassociated witha changing climate.UST-RRCwill focusonworking withsmall communitiesinthese rapid response catchments to help them develop and delivertheirown climate resilience plansbyrestoring some of the hydrological functionalitywithinthe landscape.
The DCSA isworking in partnership with the UST-RRCprojectacrossDevonto develop 24preparatoryinvestigationsonprioritised microcatchmentsto identifylikelyareasfornature-based solutionsand NFM (Natural Flood Management) interventionswhere land ownership showsa willingnessand waterqualitycanbe improved.Communityengagementwill be criticalwhenimplementing NFMasmeasures need to be numerous and spread out across the catchmentto provide the greatestbenefits.If propertyowners and landownerscan work togetherand share perspectives, then measures canbe designed thatare agreeable to all stakeholdersinvolved.Thisalso helpsto fostera sense of community stewardship overtheir catchmentand NFM measuresthat would enhance theirlongevityand resilience.
There may be opportunitieseverywhere forNFM measures and other nature-based solutionsatlow cost that also bring additional benefits to human health,biodiversity,and the aestheticsof the landscape. However,the scattered and fragmented locationsof propertiesat flood riskand the limited accessible fundsrequiresidentifying only the largestclustersof flood riskpropertieswiththe smallestupstream micro-catchmentsto deliverthe mostimpactwiththe resources available.
The processof identifying priorityareasforopportunitiesto deliver improved waterqualityand quantityforclimate change resilience wasundertaken in four steps.
1. The Southwestareasof Devonand Cornwall were modelled using GIS (Geographic InformationSystems) to identifywhere opportunityareaswere located.
2. The modelled opportunityareaswere ground-truthed in theory using desk-based studies
3. The top prioritised opportunityareaswhere ground-truthed physicallyusing rapid walkoversurveys
4. Internal evidence reviews,external evidence reviews,and 2pagers summary documentswill be writtenfor24 trial investigationareas where physical interventionscan take place.
For more informationonthe first 3steps please see the appendix.
The final 24micro-catchments,including the Beerwhichis shown in red.
Themicro-catchment was selectedin theGISmodelling step becauseit contains anumber of properties that arepotentially at flood risk in thetown of Beer.
The map below showswhichbuildingsoverlap withthe EA’s modelled “Flood Zone 2” area,specificallyareasatriskof flooding from rivers,as identified during the micro-catchmentmapping process.
There are 0 buildingspotentiallyatriskout of 114 in the catchment,approximately0%of them. Instead flood riskarisesfrom surface water, on slide 15 we identify12propertiesatrisk.
The catchment’ssize of 3.69km2 givesan area of 0.31km2 per building atrisk.
The catchmentiscoastal and wasnot assessed inCycle 2of the Water FrameworkDirective (WFD),butthe status in the adjacentwaterbody catchment,the LowerColy, isPoor.
If property ownersare willing to workwithlandownersand vice versa, then small-scale NFMmeasuresupstream in the catchmenthave the potential to benefita large numberof propertiesand improve water quality.All flood riskbuildingsare inthe southeast near the catchment outlet,which is atSeatonHole Beach,the most south-westerlypoint of the Seatonurban area.
The only river present is the Beer Brook that begins in the east of the catchment, adjacent to an unnamed road, flows southeast to the sea just after the catchment outlet. There are no other streams present and the Beer Brook itself only extends approximately 1.43km into the catchment, inferring that flood risk may be arising from surface water. Overall, the micro-catchment falls within the Beer Parish and is administered by Beer Parish Council.
The map on the right shows the steepness of slopes. The higher areas of the catchment to the west are relatively flatter compared to the center and east. One main steep-sided valley runs horizontally across the catchment then sharply turns vertically down to Seaton Hole Beach.
The way the land is used has significant impacts on flood management. Land use has been mapped here using the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology’s (CEH) Land Cover Map 2019. This is a model derived from satellite imagery at 25m resolution.
The land use here is primarily arable and horticulture, accounting for 68.45% of the catchment. Patches of improved grassland (7.94%) and broadleaved woodland (9.78%) are found throughout the catchment with two small areas of neutral grassland on the valley slopes. Fields of calcareous grassland are interspersed with the beer urban areas in the southeast.
It should be noted that this land cover map model is not a perfect representation of land use as it simplifies UK land cover into very broad classes.
Land use observed during the catchment walkover rarely matched the land use mapped here using the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology’s (CEH) Land Cover Map 2019 above.
Woodland in the catchment has some areas of deciduous woodland as coniferous and other areas vice versa. Generally, the woodland is mostly broad leafed, but there has been some clear felling of the conifer plantations in recent years, which have been put back to conifer.
The major proportion of land use mapped was arable horticulture. However, there are large sections of the catchment that are used for rearing outdoor pigs, there is some arable (including maize), also much more improved grassland which is part of the rotations.
Outdoor pigs in the early stages of their field occupation. Over time the land cover becomes increasingly exposed. Photo looking North.
Flooding hasthe potential to negativelyaffectpeople and communities. Byconsidering boththe vulnerabilityof communitiesand the opportunitiesforland managementinterventions,actionscanbe targeted to have a positive impactoncommunitiesmostatrisk.
Flooding isone of a number of natural hazardswhichcan cause harm to people,the environmentand the economy.The primarydriverfor targeting thiscatchment isflooding.However,there are otherpriorityareasand driverswhich will be affected byNFMand candetermine the mostappropriate type of NFM forthe catchment. These are mapped inthe following pages.
The Neighbourhood Flood Vulnerability Index (NFVI) characterises vulnerability as communities likely to experience losses in wellbeing during flood events. This is based on their susceptibility, preparedness, responsiveness, and ability to recover, all without significant support from emergency services.
Roughly 5% of Beer’s buildings are classed as “Average” in the Neighbourhood Flood Vulnerability Index (NFVI), meaning that they are vulnerable to losses in wellbeing from a flood event on par with the UK average. The rest of the catchment is classed as “relatively low”, meaning they are slightly less vulnerable than the UK average.
The Social Flood Risk Index (SFRI) is a geographic measure of flood disadvantage. It identifies communities who are both exposed to flood risk by living on a flood plain and who are more vulnerable to the effects of flooding, due to factors such as health, preparedness and the availability of community support. Higher numbers of people living in a flood plain coinciding with high social vulnerability result in higher index values. The map highlights neighbourhoods identified as at riskof fluvial flooding higher than the national average. Please note that this is based on flood risk from rivers and the sea, so coastal areas may not be affected by changes in land management upstream.
At present, the bottom of the Beer Brook catchment, including the Beer Hole Beach area is classed as “Low” in the SFRI for river and coastal flooding. This decreases to “no exposed population” though in future projected scenarios of 2- and 4-degree temperature increases by the 2050s. The upstream areas of the catchment are classed as “exposed”, but the NFRI remains below the UK mean in all scenarios.
When considering flooding, it is necessary to investigate records of previous flood events and combine this with modelled scenarios of what could happen, particularly in the face of the uncertainty of climate change affecting weather patterns. There are no recorded flood outlines in the catchment, but this doesn’t mean it has never flooded. It is possible that previous flood waters have receded or flowed out to sea before an outline could be recorded.
The EA’s modelled fluvial Flood Zone 2 dataset show areas predicted to flood from rivers in a storm event so severe it is likely to occur only once every 1000 years. There are 0 properties in flood zone 2 within the Beer Brook catchment. This is also known as a 0.1% Annual Exceedance Probability. Flood Zone 2 was used to identify buildings potentially at flood risk as shown previously on page 8. This only extends roughly a quarter of the way into the catchment, covering the bottom of the valley where the Beer Brook runs.
The EA’s Risk of Flooding from Surface Water (RoFSW) dataset shows the extent of flooding caused by rainwater flowing across the ground towards the nearestwater course in a 1 in 1000-year storm event. There are 12 properties at Risk of Flooding from Surface Water within the Beer Brook Catchment. This overlaps frequently with Flood Zone 2, but also shows depressions in the ground where surface water will accumulate. It is the only modelled riskof flooding upstream, covering the whole length of the valley as well as a long gulley that runs either side of 2 roads.
The flood riskmapping is generally accurate, but it does miss a couple of key areas. The measure of flood risk is associated with properties, and farmhouses at a local farm are not always included. Major farm infrastructure can be adversely affected during severe events. This could lead to significant pollution problems if floodwaters are able to access farm slurry lagoons, animal housing etc. Significant infrastructure improvements have been made on a farm in the catchment (see photos). It includes a very large subsurface drainage to transfer the water generated above the farm under the yards where it is then released below some bunds. Temporary storage ponds have also been utilised to mitigate flows and reduce impacts. These are located directly above the farm yard (middle photo) and further up the valley.
The natural action of pigs does expose the soil and cause localised soil compaction, both of which leave large areas vulnerable to increased run-off. The bottom left photo shows excess run-off from the pig ground in previous years. Much of the outdoor pig ground located in the upper area of the catchment and has been altered in recent years to include additional mitigation measures. These mitigation measures haven't yet been tested against higher than average rainfall events to quantify their effectiveness, but even if successful they can only reduce a proportion of the excess run-off created, not eliminate it.
To increase resilience the community have put in place:
• Neighbourhood plan outlining measures to prevent flooding (https://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/2427855/beer-submission-plan-v9feb2018ad.pdf)
There is a Beer Emergency Response Team (BERT) and Emergency Plan that outlines the riskof flooding.
Beer has been recorded as flooding ten times since 1926 with the most recent flooding occurring in June and October 2021.
Clean and plentiful water is vital for a huge variety of our activities, and for supporting healthy ecosystems. Good water quality supports an efficient water supply, healthy natural habitats and cultural ecosystem services. A plentiful water supply is important for drinking water and household use, irrigation, industrial use and for maintaining habitats. Water quality is a key underpinning for the Water Framework Directive.
There are no Water Framework Directive monitoring sites, priority wetlands, or aquatic habitats in the catchment.
Most of the catchment falls within a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone for Groundwater.
In addition, there are 2 Ground Water Source Protection Zones present; a Zone I – Inner Protection Zone in the north, and a Zone II – Outer Protection Zone encircling this. There is another significantly larger Zone II – Outer Protection Zone following the catchment boundary to the south just outside of it.
For more information on water quality go to page 26.
The amount of water available for abstraction is an indicator of how much drinking water is available for people. The catchment sits within an area not assessed for licensed water abstraction (left map) but is bordered to the east by areas where water is available for licensed abstraction
In the context of NFM, it is also necessary to consider water availability for plants and wildlife. Drought can cause vegetation to die back, leaving bare soil exposed and more vulnerable to erosion and runoff when it eventually rains. The Vegetation Health Index (VHI) uses satellite data to combine temperature and vegetation condition to characterise vegetation health. Areas are scored between 0 and 1 with lower values indicating low drought risk to plant health and higher values indicating higher risk. The bottom half of the catchment scores low at 0.265 on the VHI (right map), indicating low risk to plant life from drought stress. The top half of the catchment scores relatively higher at 0.40 but is still below average.
Designated habitat sites, from small local nature reserves all the way up to large national parks, need to be protected for the wealth of benefits they provide to people and the environment, including already providing some degree of NFM. A site being designated can be an indicator of habitat health.
The Western half of the catchment (west of Gatcombe Lane) lies within the EastDevon AONB. The Lyme Bay and Torbay Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Sidmouth to Beer Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) are located just outside the southeastern boundary of the micro-catchment.
Clean air is important for people’s health and for healthy ecosystems. Air quality is the term used to describe the levels of pollution in the air. When air quality is poor, pollutants in the air may be hazardous to people, particularly those with lung or heart conditions. In the past, the main air pollution problem was smoke and sulphur dioxide from fossil fuels such as coal. Now, the major threat to clean air is from traffic emissions. Petrol and diesel motor vehicles emit a variety of pollutants, principally carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and particulate matter (PMx).
A growing body of researchsuggested that smaller particles, in particular PM less than 2.5μm in diameter (PM2.5), is a metric for air pollution which is closely associated with the adverse health effects of poor air quality. Therefore, this section will use data relating to PM2.5 where relevant.
Improvements to the soil and surrounding environment have the potential to also deliver improvements to air quality through natural filtering processes.
The catchment has a relatively low concentration of air particulate matter, with the lowest recorded of 6.47PM2.5 in the southeast at the catchment outlet. The highest recorded air particulate concentration of 6.85 is immediately west of this, possibly due to the proximity of the Beer urban area.
Areas and features important for tourism and recreation may also be at flood risk and it is necessary to protect them for a healthy society and environment.
The catchment contains a single greenspace in the south, consisting of a large playing field belonging to the local Football Club.
The Southwest Coast Path, a national trail, passes through the catchment outlet. There are two PRoWs in the east, both running vertically. One follows the valley bottom for a short distance to a local farm. Just outside of the catchment to the northwest is an area of CRoW Access Land.
Biodiversity,the varietyof life onearth, is valuable initsownright. It also supports recreation,food,flood protection and climate regulation. This sectionwill predominantlyexplore whathabitatsand othernatural assetsare presentin the catchmentthat will already be contributing to NFM and could be improved withfurther NFM measures.Water, soilsand crops are natural assets in themselvesand will also be investigated.
The natural assets mapped below are habitats which have the potential to support thriving plants and wildlife. Thriving vegetation is very valuable for NFM as it roughens the ground, thereby slowing down surface water flow, meaning water courses are less likely to be overwhelmed in a storm. In addition, plant roots provide structural support for the soil and prevent surface water washing soil into water courses.
Where the assets are present the landscape is likely to be contributing to the provision of habitats, biodiversity and even NFM. Where assets are absent there may be a lack of habitats which contribute to or support thriving plants and wildlife. Assets may still be present however in the form of crops and soils which are mapped in the following pages.
There is a priority river habitat headwater area that runs along the northwestern boundary of the catchment along with an area of mixed, mainly conifer woodland that falls just outside of this boundary. Patches of coniferous woodland are scattered throughout the catchment with a larger area found at Couchill Common. A small section of the coniferous woodland located in the centre of the catchment is also classified as an ancient woodland.
There are three areas of broadleaved woodland in the eastern part of the catchment, two of which are also classified as deciduous woodland which is a priority habitat.
Just outside the southern boundary of the catchment is an area of lowland calcareous grassland and just outside the south-eastern boundary lies an area of maritime cliff and slope which is also part of the SSSI Sidmouth to Beer Coast, currently in “Favourable” condition.
It is important to determine the current condition of water quality. Poor water quality can be detrimental to people, wildlife, and may cause other negative effects during a flood event. Good water quality should always be protected. A key set of evidence used to assess the water quality in a catchment is the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The status of a waterbody is measured using a series of parameters and is recorded on the scale: high; good; moderate; poor; bad (with moderate and worse being regarded as a failure).
The Beer Brook is a coastal waterbody and was therefore not assessed in Cycle 2 of the Water Framework Directive. However, the adjacent Lower Coly to the west has been assessed and may provide some insight into this neighboring catchment.
The Lower Coly is overall classed as Moderate meaning it is failing WFD regulations. It is currently classed as Moderate for ecological status and Failing on chemical status but is ranked good or high for most other classes. In 2019, 100% of waterbodies in the UK failed on chemical status after the EA included monitoring “mercury and its compounds” and “Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE)” into its water quality monitoring methodology.
The Lower Coly waterbody is classed as Moderate for Fish, Phosphate, Macrophytes, Phytonbenthos, and Invertebrates, giving it a Moderate overall ecological status, meaning it is failing the WFD regulations on ecological grounds. It is failing due to poor livestock management. The waterbody is classed as Good or High for all other ecological elements.
The waterbody is classed as Good for nearly all chemical classifications, except for mercury and its compounds, and PBDEs, where it is classed as Failing. The waterbody’s overall chemical status is consequently Failing and is therefore failing WFD regulations on chemical grounds as well as ecological.
There are over 60 metrics that the EA can use to monitor waterbody catchment statuses. For more information and a breakdown of this catchment’s status go to https://environment.data.gov.uk/catchmentplanning/WaterBody/GB108045008790
Crops can be a natural assetin themselves, providing the food we eat and storing carbon. Some crops, however, could be considered natural liabilities. One such crop is maize which is planted in wide rows, leaving bare soil exposed and without structural support from roots. Furthermore, it is often harvested in late-Autumn when the weather becomes wetter, meaning little to no vegetation can regrow to protect it over Winter. This leaves the soil much more susceptible to being carried away by surface water runoff. Despite this, maize can be successfully managed to grow and harvest while minimising runoff.
The Crop Map of England (CROME) dataset is derived from satellite data and generalised to hexagons. It identifies the majority of the catchment as grass with several areas of maize. These are generally found in the higher areas of the catchment. There are scattered areas of non-vegetated or sparsely vegetated land, particularly around the area of Churchill Common surrounded by small clusters of trees. Several other varieties of crops are grown in small patches throughout the catchment.
The nature of the soil can determine how much surface water infiltrates into the ground, as well as what plants will growand where. Understanding soils is vital to providing effective NFM and improving water quality. The aim with water quality improvements is to keep the soil on the land and improve groundwater infiltration and recharge, therefore allowing a slower and more naturally filtered water route to the river.
Degraded soil structure, where the soil profile is compacted at shallow depths or capped at the surface and impermeable can lead to excessive unnatural run-off of surface water instead of percolation and infiltration. More than 60% of soils in Devon and Cornwall are naturally well-drained and should rarely become saturated.
The Farming Rules for Water (FRFW) were introduced at the start of 2018 as legislation to help protect surface water quality. The regulations are designed to help manage cultivated agricultural land well, without over-management, nutrient run-off, or waste affecting surface water.
The diagram above shows good soil structure on the left and compacted soil structure on the right. In compacted soil, little surface water can infiltrate into the soil subsoil due to surface capping or compacted layers, while vegetation can be deprived of oxygen due to compression of pores that normally transport air and water (sourced from SEPA NFM Handbook).
The nature of soil can determine how much surface water infiltrates into the ground, as well as what plants will grow and where. Understanding soils is vital to providing effective NFM and improving water quality.
The NATMAP soils dataset from Cranfield University shows that the catchment is primarily composed of the soil series BATCOMBE– deep loam to clay followed by BEARSTED 2 – loam over red sandstone that follows the shape of the valley down to the sea. Along and just outside the catchment boundary are areas of Coombe 1 – silty over chalk, DUNKESWELL–seasonally wet deep silty to clay and WHIMPLE 3 – deep red loam to clay.
Walkover note – The BATCOMBE association of soils are loamy soils over clays with impeded drainage. This does make them vulnerable to compaction during wet weather. Freer draining soils such as the BEARSTED 2 are mostly on the steeper ground so come with their own setof risks but have a lower flood risk.
The above map was created using the NATMAPvector dataset from Cranfield University in March 2022
Geological conditions impacts groundwater and soil type. When rocks are sufficiently permeable it can lead to groundwater flooding. If local flooding is caused be groundwater levels, then it is unlikely that changes to land management and NFM will improve flood resilience.
The geology of the catchment is largely comprised of colluvium surrounding a central channel that follows the shape of the valley comprised of chalk, sandstone and claystone/mudstone at its bottom.
Multiple issues have already been mentioned and mapped that could be contributing to flood risk and WFD failures. However, there are further potential issues that may be influential which will be explored in the following pages.
Pollution incidences themselves will directly affect water quality, but consented discharges into watercourses and chemical runoff from roads exacerbated by rainwater may also be sources of pollution.
There are no recorded pollution incidences in the catchment but there is one source of consented discharge into the Beer Brook from a Water company for a pumping station on the sewerage network just outside the catchment outlet at Seaton Hole beach.
Licensed water abstraction points may serve as sources of risk to ground water quantity and availability. There is an abstraction point for private water supply in the north of the catchment.
Surface flow pathways are the routes rainwater accumulates and follows when it lands to the nearest depression or watercourse. As it flows, surface water can pick up any number of chemicals, soil, and debris and carry them into the watercourse with it. This serves to demonstrate why community engagement and working with landowners is so important, as the effects of practices upstream in the catchment cascade down via these routes. Pathways have been modelled in 2 different ways here.
The first are modelled using topographic data and software called SCIMAP (left). Only the routes with above average wetness are shown. The flat topography of floodplains and the unnatural topography of quarries can skew the modelling process and pathways in these areas should be considered unreliable.
The second method uses SCALGO Live (right). Flow routes with at least 1km2 upstream area are shown. Areas that would be flooded if 15cm of rain were to fall during a storm event are also mapped. Flooded areas are coloured by their water volume from light to dark.
There are many options to reduce flood and coastal erosion risk across the country which involve implementing measures that help to protect, restore and emulate the natural functions. These options are known as Working With Natural Processes (WWNP) or Natural Flood Management (NFM). These measures increase flood resilience by slowing the flow of water and disperse energy to keep the water at the top of the catchment or to improve groundwater infiltration and recharge, therefore allowing a slower and more naturally filtered water route to the river.
Where rapid surface water run-off has been noted there may be opportunities for WWNP to mitigate both water quality and to regulate flow. An example of some NFM interventions are given below. They are intended to slow water, store water, increase infiltration and intercept rainfall.
The illustration above shows various natural flood management techniques (sourced from CIRIA).
The Environment Agency have mapped potential opportunities for WWNP to reduce flood and coastal erosion risk across the country. These include opportunities for different types of woodland planting, floodplain reconnection features like restored riverside wetlands and meadows, and runoff attenuation features which aim to slow pathways of water across the land, like storage ponds or leaky barriers. Anumber of areas are also excluded from the woodland maps such as urban areas and existing woodland. These are mapped separately on page 39.
The greatest opportunity identified by these WWNP datasets for the catchment is riparian woodland planting along the length of the Beer Brook, particularly on the western bank.
In addition, there are opportunities for floodplain reconnection along the some of the length of the Brook, but these would be narrow and possibly not contiguous.
There may be current habitat creation and river restoration projects where opportunities exist to work together with organisations to provide simultaneous benefits to habitats, rivers, and flood resilience.
Natural England have also identified opportunities to expand on existing habitats to create habitat networks across the landscape.
While there are no recorded habitat creation or river restoration projects in the catchment, there are significant opportunities for expanding habitat networks around existing priority habitats (see page 24).
There are Fragmentation Action Zones around the coastal regions of the catchment. Natural England defines these as “Land immediately adjoining existing habitat patches that are small or have excessive edge to area ratio where habitat creation is likely to help reduce the effects of habitat fragmentation.”
Along the south-eastern border of the catchment is Network Enhancement Zone 1, defined as “Land within close proximity to the existing habitat components that are more likely to be suitable for habitat re-creation for the particular habitat. These areas are primarily based on soils but in many cases has been refined by also using other data such as hydrology, altitude and proximity to the coast.”
Elsewhere in the catchment is the Network Expansion Zone, defined as “Land within relatively close proximity to the Network Enhancement Zones that are more likely to be suitable for habitat creation for the particular habitat and identifying possible locations for connecting and linking up networks across a landscape.”
Much of the urban and coastal area is classed as Network Enhancement Zone 2, “Land within close proximity to the existing habitat components that are unlikely to be suitable for habitat re-creation but where other types of habitat may be created or land management may be enhanced including delivery of suitable Green Infrastructure.”
Agri-environment schemes are government initiatives that aim to financially compensate farmers for providing benefits to wildlife on their land. Areas under agri-environment scheme agreements may provide opportunities simultaneously for the landowner to meet the agreement’s objectives and deliver NFM to benefit the catchment community. A large section of the western area of the catchment is under an environmental stewardship scheme agreement.
There may be opportunities for landowners in the northwest, east, and south of the catchment to enter into agri-environment schemes. Habitat creation in the north and south may be facilitated in the Habitat Enhancement and Expansion Zones as identified on page 37 if landowners were to enter into an agri-environment scheme.
A further consideration for the targeting of NFM via soil improvement, habitat enhancements, restoration or creation is existing areas which may not be suitable for changes in land use or land management. This may be because they are already valuable sites for wildlife (e.g., designated wildlife sites), because the land use is difficult to change (e.g., urban land) or because the land is highly valuable for farming (high grade agricultural land). There may be further historic or natural heritage designations to consider.
The East Devon AONB designation (see page 20) to the west of the catchment may provide administrative challenges, as will the lowland calcareous grassland, and maritime cliff and slope priority habitats. The Lyme Bay and Torbay SAC and SSSI designations would likely not cause challenges due to its offshore location. However, there is still the opportunity to improve these habitats and designated sites further by getting more partner organisations involved in the process and even access additional sources of funding.
The WWNP woodland constraints dataset highlights any urban areas and existing woodlands (including woodlands not listed as priority habitats not shown here) where additional tree planting may be difficult. This excludes much of the urban centre of the catchment, Couchill Common and several patches of woodland scattered throughout the catchment. This does not mean urban tree planting is impossible and would also provide another avenue to get the community involved the closer the planting is. Much of the non-populated area of the catchment has no constraints.
The agricultural land grade is grade 3 across the catchment which is considered average and there is therefore no high-grade land present. There are also no scheduled monuments present.
Pathway Interruption Opportunities Identified During Walkover Surveys
There are some opportunities to improve flood resilience in the Beer Brrok through water pathway interruption.
NaturalFlood Management (NFM) or Working withNaturalProcesses (WWNP)
Potential benefit in catchment
Potential provider identified
Locationof opportunity matches GISmaps
Cross-slope planting of treesor hedges Gatewayrelocation
Cross-slope buffer(beetle bankor cross-drain) ✓ ✓
Timber/stone instream deflectors ✓ ✓
There are some opportunities to improve flood resilience in the Beer Brook through water attenuation on nonfloodplain wetland. There are opportunities where ponds and wetlands could be created or existing augmented.
Slow the Flow Opportunities Identified During Walkover Surveys
There are some opportunities to improve flood resilience in the Beer Brook through increasing channel and floodplain roughness to slow the flow.
There are some excellent sections where this could be possible but would require buy in from all stakeholders.
NaturalFlood Management (NFM) or
Working withNaturalProcesses (WWNP)
Potential benefit in catchment
Potential provider identified
Locationof opportunity matches GISmaps
Channel restoration,sinuosity ✓ ✓
Large/coarse woodeddebris introduction ✓ ✓
Floodplainreconnection (palaeochannelreconnection) ✓ ✓
Riparianbufferstripsor woodland (sloped)
Floodplainwoodland orwet woodland Peak flow leakybarriers ✓ ✓
Bed renaturalisation– armour/ gravel augmentation
There are 8 landowners in the catchment. The catchment is not in a UST area, but several landowners have been engaged under a soil improvement project. The 3 largest landowners own 76.28% of the catchment. The major landowners and managers have all been engaged in the Test and Trials work and the subsequent follow up which began in September 2022.
WRT has also engaged the catchment community in other projects.
As well as the opportunities identified in the previous section, there may be opportunities for you to get involved as an individual.
WRT runs a Citizen Science Investigation (CSI) team of volunteers across the southwest, whereby volunteers receive a testing kit and training to procure water samples from a watercourse. Westcountry CSI aims to engage people with their local environment and produce water monitoring data that can identify pollution events quickly and target improvement work.
There are currently no active sampling points in the catchment. There may be the potential for more sampling sites along the main Beer Brook if there is suitable access to the water.
For more information about Westcountry CSI, including instructions on what’s involved and how to sign up, visit our website at wrt.org.uk/westcountry-csi
Another opportunity for you to get involved in is the Riverfly Partnership’s Anglers’ Riverfly Monitoring Initiative (ARMI). This recognises that anglers are very well placed to monitor river water quality and facilitates communication between them and their local Environment Agency contact.
There are no riverfly survey sites within the micro-catchment, but, as with CSI sites, it may be possible to start a new site if there is suitable access to the water and with communication with the Environment Agency.
For more information on ARMI, visit their website at riverflies.org/anglersriverfly-monitoring-initiative-armi
Multiple reasonsforthe possible causesand remediesforflooding inthe micro-catchmentforthe BeerBrookhave beenmapped in this study, as have other factorsthat are key to considerwhen making NFM decisions.
It islikelythat a combinationof causesare at playhere contributing to there being propertiesatflood risk,including the topographyand land use. Historically,floodwatergenerated higherup the catchment has caused manyissues with farm infrastructure and further downstream with the houses. Where greenengineered and NFM solutionshave been put in place there has beena positive impact,butthis hasn't eliminated the risk.
Primarilythe soilsare key, and the locationof the outdoorpigsis currently causing additional run-off withinthisvalley.Thiscan be exacerbated by other contributionsfrom neighboring fieldswithdegraded soil structure and additional flowsgenerated bythe road networkand its drainage.
Some advanceshave beenmade in land management withadditional mitigationoptionsputinplace.Thisvalleyhaspotential foradditional offline and inline storage capacity,wetland creation,floodplainreconnectionetc.
The nextsteps are to engage and empowerthe communityin the catchmentto discuss and work towardsbuilding flood resilience throughsome of the opportunitiesmapped inthe previouspages.It is imperative thatpropertyownersand landownersshare perspectivesand worktogetherto find solutionsagreeable to all sides.Some opportunitiesmayprovide secondarybenefitstowardsimproving the catchment’sWFD chemical status.
The processforidentifying the highest-impacting locationsof NFMmeasures acrossDevonand Cornwall involved several stepsin a Geographic InformationSystem (GIS).The first step was to identifywatercourseswithan upstream watershed less than 10km2 and less than 5km2 in size,then to identifypropertiesadjacentto these watercoursesthat overlapped withthe EnvironmentAgency’s (EA) fluvial “Flood Zone 2”dataset.Next,pour pointswere placed onthe watercoursesin front of the furthest downstream flood riskproperties.These pourpoints were thenused to delineate the upstream micro-catchmentboundaries.A total of 1270micro-catchmentswithpropertiespotentiallyatriskwere identified across the 2counties.
For every micro-catchmentidentified,itsarea wasdividedbythe number of flood risk propertieswithinitto calculate the area perproperty atrisk foreach micro-catchment.Those withthe lowestarea perpropertyindicated higherpotential forsmall-scaleNFMmeasuresto benefitthe greatest number of flood riskproperties. Lastly,additional factors,suchas WFD classificationsand previousWRT engagementwithfarmers,were considered alongsidethe area perproperty atflood risk toprioritise a small numberof micro-catchmentsto targetcommunityengagementand NFM delivery.
➢ Due to the large geographic extent(Devonand Cornwall)and the manual elementof the mapping (bothcausing the mapping processto be time-consuming),the resolution/accuracyof some datasetsmaybe compromised.
➢ The buildingsdataset(OS VectorMap Buildings) isnotasaccurate as OS MasterMap- some propertiesare amalgamatedinto a single polygon and very small buildingsare notshown. Therefore,propertiesatrisk of flooding maybe underestimated.
➢ Potential flood-riskisidentifiedbyselecting building polygonsthatintersectthe flood zones;no detailed local information (e.g.drainage or defences) ormodelling hasbeenused.
➢ The spatial resolutionof the topographydata iscoarse (50m).Thisisused to calculate the upstream catchmentarea foreach communityat-risk. Therefore,some errors mayoccur (additionsoromissions) whenidentifying micro-catchments.
➢ The mapping method involvesanelementof manual validation,whichhasthe potential to be subjective and/orpossible errors.
Once catchmentswere modelled and the informationtabulated to show theoretical flood risk in conjunctionwithWFD failures, a systematic approach to ground-truthing was adopted.
Catchmentsthat were perceived to have elevated water quality and water quantity risks were discussed with local land management advisors and regulators to determine if the modelled risk was likely to be correct.
Upon a theoretical, or desk-based ground-truthing,the catchmentswere then surveyed using a rapid walkover survey to observe run-off pathways and confirm if useful managed interventions could be implemented to reduce flood risk locallyand improvewater quality in the process.
A further modelling process using SCIMAP was undertaken to identify high risk run-off pathways of the specific micro-catchmentbeingsurveyed to assist the surveyor in locating issues within a <10km2 area.
Where possible, surveyors reacted to high rainfall predictions and went out to observe the catchmentwhen the conditions were right.
Walkover surveys were undertaken noting observations about surface water run-offand taking photographs of key areas and issues. All walkovers aimed to provide:
➢ Dry or Wet weather photos,
➢ Identify stakeholder PROVIDERS where NFM can be instigated,
➢ Identify stakeholder BENEFICIARIES by property and number people,
➢ Establish opportunities in each catchmentand feasibility of action.
Georeferenced photos were taken to provide a visualoverview of issues, opportunities, and as general reference notes.
Where issues and opportunities existed, further investigation was made or attempted to establish the realistic chances of further action. This was achieved by either speaking withthe localcommunityor contacting communitygroupsor key landowners.
All 1270 micro-catchments with properties potentially at risk were identified across the 2 counties.
CIRIA (Page 35)
The Construction Industry Research and Information Association’s (CIRIA) Natural Flood Management Manual (C802) (PDF)
FRFW (Page 28)
Statutory guidance for Farming Rules for Water (FRFW) (Webpages)
https://www.ciria.org/Books/Free_publications/C802F.aspx
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/applying-thefarming-rules-for-water/applying-the-farming-rules-for-water
Handbook describing various natural flood management interventions and case studies (PDF)
https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/163560/sepa-natural-floodmanagement-handbook1.pdf
Dataset
Source AttributionStatement
Agricultural Land Classification Natural England © Natural England copyright. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crowncopyright anddatabase right2022.
Air Quality Management Areas UKAIR © Crown copyright and database rights licensed under Defra's PublicSectorMapping Agreementwith Ordnance Survey(licence No. 100022861) and the Land andProperty Services Department(Northern Ireland) MOU206.
Ancient Woodland Natural England © Natural England copyright. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crowncopyright anddatabase right2022.
AONB Natural England © Natural England copyright. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crowncopyright anddatabase right2022.
Areas Benefitting fromFlood Defences EnvironmentAgency © EnvironmentAgency copyrightand/or database right 2018. Allrights reserved.Some features of this mapare based on digital spatial data from the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology,© NERC (CEH) © Crowncopyright anddatabase rights 2018Ordnance Survey 100024198
Bathing Water Monitoring Locations EnvironmentAgency © EnvironmentAgency copyrightand/or database right 2015. All rights reserved.
Country Parks NaturalEngland © Natural England copyright. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crowncopyright anddatabase right2022.
Countryside StewardshipScheme Agreements Natural England © Natural England copyright. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crowncopyright anddatabase right2022.
Crop Map of England Rural Payments Agency © Rural Payments Agency
CRoW Access Land NaturalEngland © Natural England copyright. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crowncopyright anddatabase right2022.
CRoW RegisteredCommonLand NaturalEngland © Natural England copyright. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crowncopyright anddatabase right2022.
DetailedRiver Network EnvironmentAgency © EnvironmentAgency Crown copyrightand databse right 2022.
Drinking Water Safeguard Zones (Ground Water) EnvironmentAgency © EnvironmentAgency and/ordatabase rights. Derivedfrom BGSdigital data under licence from British Geological Surveycopyright NERC.
Drinking Water Safeguard Zones (Surface Water) EnvironmentAgency © EnvironmentAgency copyrightand/or database right.All rights reserved. Derived fromBGS digitaldata underlicence fromBritish Geological Survey ©NERC. Derived fromCentre of Ecology andHydrology data ©CEH
Energy Crop Scheme Agreements NaturalEngland © Natural England copyright. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crowncopyright anddatabase right2022.
Natural England © Natural England copyright. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crowncopyright anddatabase right2022.
Flood Defences EnvironmentAgency © EnvironmentAgency copyrightand/or database right 2020. Allrights reserved.
Flood Zone 2 EnvironmentAgency © EnvironmentAgency copyrightand/or database right 2018. All rights reserved.Some features of this map are basedon digital spatial data from the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology,© NERC (CEH). © Crown copyrightand database rights 2018 Ordnance Survey 100024198
Greenspaces Ordnance Survey Contains OS data © Crown copyrightand database right 2022
HabitatNetworks Natural England © Natural England copyright. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crowncopyright anddatabase right2022.
HistoricLandfill Sites EnvironmentAgency © EnvironmentAgency copyrightand/or database right 2018. All rights reserved.Contains information © Local Authorities
Dataset Source AttributionStatement
Land Parcels Rural Payments Agency © Crown copyright and database rights 2020 OS
LCM2019 25m Parcels Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Morton, D., Marston, C. G, O’Neil, A. W., & Rowland, C. S. (2020). Land Cover Map 2019 (25m rasterised land parcels, GB) [Data set]. NERC Environmental Information Data Centre. https://doi.org/10.5285/F15289DA-6424-4A5E-BD92-48C4D9C830CC
LNR Natural England © Natural England copyright. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2022.
MCZ Natural England © Natural England copyright. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2022.
National Forest Inventory Forestry Commission Contains Forestry Commission information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0
National Trails Natural England © Natural England copyright. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2022.
NATMAPvector Cranfield University Soil data © Cranfield University (NSRI) and for the Controller of HMSO 2019
Nitrate Vulnerable Zones 2021 Combined Environment Agency
© Environment Agency copyright and/or database right. Derived in part from geological mapping data provided by the British Geological Survey © NERC. Derived in part from data provided by the National Soils Research Institute © Cranfield University. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2016. Derived in part from data provided by the Department for theEnvironment, Farming and Rural Affairs © Crown 2016 copyright Defra. Derived in part from data provided by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology © NERC. Derived in part from data provided by UK Water Companies.
National Parks Natural England © Natural England copyright. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2022.
Organic Farming Scheme Agreements Natural England © Natural England copyright. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2022.
OS Open Datasets Ordnance Survey Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2022
Permitted Waste Sites Environment Agency © Environment Agency copyright and/or database right 2015. All rights reserved.
PM2.5 2020 UKAIR © UKAIR crown copyright
Pollution Incidents Environment Agency
Priority Habitat Creation and Restoration Projects Environment Agency © Environment Agency copyright and/or database right 2015. All rights reserved.
Priority Habitat Inventory Natural England © Natural England copyright. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2022.
Priority Habitats (Aquatic and Wetlands) Natural England © Natural England copyright. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2022.
Priority Roads for Catchment Management of Runoff Highways England
Priority Roads for Catchment Management of Surface Water Highways England
Public Rights of Way Ordnance Survey Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2022
Ramsar Natural England © Natural England copyright. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2022.
Recorded Flood Outlines Environment Agency © Environment Agency copyright and/or database right 2018. All rights reserved.
River Restoration Projects The River Restoration Center
Dataset
Source AttributionStatement
RoFSW Extent 1in 1000 EnvironmentAgency © EnvironmentAgency copyrightand/or database right 2015. All rights reserved.
RPA Land Parcels Rural Payments Agency © Crown copyright and database rights 2020OS
SACs Natural England © Natural England copyright. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crowncopyright anddatabase right2022.
SCALGO Live
Scheduled Monuments HistoricEngland © HistoricEngland2022. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crowncopyright anddatabase right2022
SCIMAP Flow Pathways SCIMAP SCIMAP modelling system- SCIMAP was developed atDurham andLancasterUniversities as part of a NERCgrant
Slope TellusSW Ferraccioli,F.; Gerard,F.; Robinson, C.; Jordan,T.;Biszczuk,M.; Ireland, L.; Beasley,M.; Vidamour,A.; Barker, A.; Arnold, R.; Dinn, M.; Fox,A.; Howard, A. (2014). LiDAR based Digital Terrain Model (DTM) data for SouthWestEngland. NERC Environmental InformationData Centre. https://doi.org/10.5285/e2a742df-3772-481a-97d6-0de5133f4812
Source ProtectionZones EnvironmentAgency © EnvironmentAgency copyrightand/or database right 2016. All rights reserved.
SPAs Natural England © Natural England copyright. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crowncopyright anddatabase right2022.
SSSI Units Natural England © Natural England copyright. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crowncopyright anddatabase right2022.
SSSIs Natural England © Natural England copyright. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crowncopyright anddatabase right2022.
Vegetation Health Index Centre for Ecology and Hydrology © UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology
Water Resource Availability and Abstraction Reliability Cycle 2 EnvironmentAgency © EnvironmentAgency copyrightand/or database right 2015. All rights reserved.
WFD Monitoring Sites EnvironmentAgency
WFD River Waterbody Catchments EnvironmentAgency © EnvironmentAgency copyrightand/or database right 2015. All rights reserved.
WFD River Waterbody Status EnvironmentAgency
WIMS Locations EnvironmentAgency Uses Environment Agency waterquality data from the WaterQuality Archive (Beta)
WWNP Datasets EnvironmentAgency © EnvironmentAgency copyrightand/or database right 2015. All rights reserved.
