Isbourne Catchment Project: Scoping Study Final Report - Appendices

Isbourne Catchment Project

Scoping Study (Final Report) - Appendices

To

Isbourne Catchment Partnership & Environment Agency

By School of Natural and Social Sciences, University of Gloucestershire

&

The Countryside and Community Research Institute

When quoting this report use the following citation: Clarke L, Short C and Berry R (2016) Isbourne Catchment Project: Scoping Study (Final Report), Report to Isbourne Catchment Partnership & Environment Agency. School of Natural and Social Sciences, University of Gloucestershire & CCRI: Gloucestershire, UK.

Isbourne Catchment Project: Scoping Study (Draft Report) - Appendices

Appendix A: The European Water Framework Directive

A.1. The European Water Framework Directive

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) is a European Directive which provides a strategic planning process for managing, protecting and improving the water environment. The condition of water quantity, quality and environment are of key consideration for the UK’s responsibilities under the WFD. Water bodies, which includes watercourses, canals and lakes, reservoirs or lochs and aquifers (groundwater sources), have been classified to identify their current condition in terms of their ecological condition (i.e. fish, invertebrates, aquatic plants and diatoms/algae), in terms of chemical condition (i.e. dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, phosphates, nitrates, ammonia. copper, zinc) and physical condition (i.e. quantity and dynamics of flow, morphology).

In the future there is to be ‘no deterioration’ from the classified current status of all water bodies (as established during baseline assessments undertaken in 2009). Where a water body is currently achieving Moderate, Poor or Bad condition, improvement or enhancement measures must be implemented as each identified water body has been given targets to achieve Good Ecological Status (GES) or Good Ecological Potential (GEP) by 2015, or if technically or financially not feasible, by 2027. Failure to achieve GES will result in an infraction of the WFD and fines will be imposed by Europe for failure to achieve the specified target conditions.

England and Wales has been split into 11 river basin areas: Anglian, Dee, Humber, Northumbria, North West, Severn, Solway Tweed, South East, South West, Thames and Western Waters. All of the water bodies within these basin areas have been assessed within an accompanying River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) and their baseline WFD classification has been published by the Environment Agency (with re-assessment in 2009 and 2015). The future WFD objectives for 2021 and 2027 have also been devised for each individual water body.

The River Isbourne lies within the Severn River Basin District. The WFD classifications for the River Isbourne catchment are described below.

A full copy of the European WFD report can be found here.

A.2. River Basin Management Plan: Severn River Basin District 2015

The Sever river basin district, which covers over 21,000 km2 lies both in England and Wales. It extends from the Welsh Uplands, through the rolling hills of the Midlands and south to the Severn Estuary. There are 10 river management catchments identified within the Severn River Basin Management Plan.

The Isbourne sub-catchment lies within the Avon Warwickshire, there are 91 river water bodies (of which 11 are designated as heavily modified) and 3 lake water bodies (of which 1

59 | Page

Isbourne Catchment Project: Scoping Study (Draft Report) - Appendices is designated as heavily modified) within the catchment. For the rivers, 19 were classified as Good Ecological Status/Potential in 2015. The target is for 54 to reach Good Status in 2027.

The River Isbourne is contained within the Avon-Midlands West Operational Catchment; there are 22 river water bodies, 1 canal water body and 1 groundwater body in this catchment. The status (health) of the water environment in 2009 was assessed as being generally moderate. In 2014, the status of the water environment had not changed. It can take 5 to 10 years for the positive benefits of actions to be reflected in the ecological status. Environment Agency current analysis suggests that 50% of the water bodies in the Avon- Midlands West catchment should have a long term objective of achieving Good Status. It is clear from these statistics that the current status of many water bodies within this catchment are not reaching the current objectives of the WFD classifications.

The current overall status for the River Isbourne is ‘Poor’ (Environment Agency Catchment Data Explorer updated March 2016), with the objective to reach Good Status by 2027. The catchment is not designated as heavily modified and the chemical status is classified as ‘Good’ but the water body is failing on Ecological Potential, Phosphate, Biological Quality Elements and Fish (see Table A1). No information was available on the hydromorphology and hydrological regime, as well as a range of water quality variables that had been estimated without monitoring. The river was identified at being at risk from diffuse pollution pressures and the operational catchment as a whole identified pollution from rural areas as the key reason for not achieving good status of water bodies.

This suggests that implementation of NFM in the Isbourne Catchment has the potential to positively impact the WFD status of the water body moving towards 2027, by potentially reducing runoff entering the river channel, creating a greater diversity of flow conditions and habitats and thus improving the ecological potential of the river system.

A full copy of the Environment Agency Severn River Basin District River Basin Management Plan (Dec 2015) can be found here and a copy of the Avon Warwickshire Management Catchment (2014) can be accessed here.

Table A1: Summary of the 2015 WFD status of the River Isbourne (ID GB109054039631)

2015 Current Target Status/Potential Reasons for Failure Protected Area Overall Status by 2027 Designation

Poor Good Overall Status Biological Quality (Poor) Nitrates Directive Good Ecological Status Ecological Potential (Poor) Fish (Poor) Phosphate (Poor) Macrophyte & Phytobenthos (Moderate) Physico-Chemical Quality (Moderate)

For more information: Environment Agency (2015) Severn River Basin District River Basin Management Plan

60 | Page

Isbourne Catchment Project: Scoping Study (Draft Report) - Appendices

Appendix B: Local Flood Management, Planning and Development Policies

B.1. Strategic Flood Risk Assessment – Tewksbury District Council

Tewksbury District Council (Halcrow, 2008) commissioned a Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) to identify the main flood risks within the area. The onset of flooding can be particularly rapid, particularly in the steeper upper catchments which result in flashy flows that are transferred to valley bottoms. This situation may deteriorate with the onset of climate change and depth of flooding is likely to increase without intervention. Topography is considered a significant factor as the upland catchment is relatively small and underlying soil permeable (Oolitic rock) but heavy, short-term storms can lead to high rates of drainage and runoff and respondent rapid river level rises. The River Isbourne was not mentioned in the Level 2 SFRA.

B.1.1. Flooding issues within the Isbourne Catchment Historical flood SFRA Tewkesbury Borough Council 48 outlines produced by the Environment Agency indicate that areas along the River Isbourne flooded during both the July 1968 and summer 2007 flood events. The Flood Zone maps are relatively narrow, extending onto rural floodplain in the upper reaches of the catchment. In general the anecdotal evidence corresponds with the locations of flooding shown in the existing flood zone maps however, the summer 2007 flood outlines are slightly larger in places. The summer 2007 event flooded a significant number of commercial and residential properties along the River Isbourne, as well as a sewage works and a number of farms.

Reference: Halcrow Group (2008) Tewkesbury Borough Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for Local Development Framework Level 1

B.2. Strategic Flood Risk Assessment – Wychavon District Council

Wychavon District Council as part of the South Worcestershire Joint Core Strategy (JBA Consulting, 2009) commissioned a Level 1 and 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) to identify the main flood risks within the area. The River Isbourne was identified as one of the main causes of flooding in Evesham along with the River Avon and Battleton Brook. With the river cited as the primary cause of flood risk for a potential development (Cheltenham Road, Evesham) highlighted as one of the sixteen Strategic Allocation Areas. The River Isbourne was not mentioned in the Level 2 SFRA and no specific recommendations were made as to the management of the River Isbourne.

The effect of climate change was considered to potentially increase water levels in the River Isbourne due to increased rainfall densities, and therefore the risk of fluvial (river) flooding was is likely to increase without intervention.

Reference: JBA Consulting (2009) South Worcestershire Joint Core Strategy Level 1 and Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment.

61 | Page

Isbourne Catchment Project: Scoping Study (Draft Report) - Appendices

Appendix C: NFM Case Studies from Other River Catchments

C.1. Belford Scheme, Northumbria

The town of Belford, Northumbria, has been subject to frequent flooding caused by a combination of steep upland areas that lead to rapid surface water runoff and flooding, coupled with rapid flow increases within Belford Burn. Many properties in the town centre, through which Belford Burn flows, are subject to frequent, almost annual flooding. The catchment area covers 10km2 and consists of upland pasture with lowland arable areas and urban development. A feasibility study identified that it would cost several million pounds to create defences within the town, which was not economically viable for protecting relatively few properties.

Innovative, sustainable and economically viable solutions were therefore required and by working in partnership with Newcastle University, a range of techniques were effectively combined to slow and store water upstream of the town (project cost £600,000).

The work involved creation of on-line and off-line ponds, insertion of fences (leaky timber) and bunds to intercept overland flow routes, insertion of woody debris and dams to divert and hold back flows and increase channel and floodplain roughness, insertion of willow hurdles, rock ramp insertion to pool water behind (but not impair fish passage) as well as shrub and tree planting. The scheme is likely to help reduce flood risk and diffuse pollution, control topsoil erosion and fertile soil loss, allow collection of settled sediment for re-use to increase farm productivity as well as creating a diversity of habitats for wildlife.

The network of installed NFM techniques in the upper Belford Burn catchment carries an estimated storage capacity of 10,000 m3. (Nicholson et al., 2012). Transient storage, through altering flow paths and increasing floodplain storage, have been shown to create attenuation effects. A provisional assessment of the current data suggests that most of the NFM are functioning as intended and many fast flow paths are being intercepted. The degree to which the local catchment system has been ‘engineered’ is still being determined and requires further monitoring (Wilkinson et al., 2014).

The Belford catchment is of a similar size to the upper reaches of the Isbourne (i.e. from the Upland Areas until Winchcombe) but is more gently sloping, with very shallow ground-slope along river valleys and wide floodplain areas available for attenuation, deflection and storage to take effect.

References: Barber & Quinn, 2012; Carrick & Welton, 2007; Environment Agency & Newcastle University: http://research.ncl.ac.uk/proactive/belford/; Nicholson et al., 2012; Quinn et al., 2013; Welton, 2010; Wilkinson et al., 2014

62 | Page

Isbourne Catchment Project: Scoping Study (Draft Report) - Appendices

C.2. Pickering Scheme, North Yorkshire

An example of large-scale storage area creation in an upper catchment to protect a downstream urban settlement can be found in North Yorkshire. The Pickering community- funded flood alleviation works aim to maximise flood management by creating upper catchment storage and slowing its passage thus reducing the risk of flooding in downstream urban areas such as Pickering. This area has flooded four times since 2000, and works were approved following the 2007 floods. Ryedale District Council voted to contribute £800,000, Defra provided £274,000 and the Environment Agency & Yorkshire Regional Flood Defence Committee added £150,000 towards the scheme, which is led by Forest Research. Hydraulic modeling estimated that by creating 85,000m3 of upstream storage along Pickering Beck in the form of two flood bund storage areas. Additionally on the high moors, over 180 ‘grips’ have been cut through the peat to improve drainage and reduce runoff, as well as implementation of ‘no burn’ zones along moorland streams. Smaller-scale techniques to slow flows in other sections included creating woody debris dams (approximately 160) and woodland planting.

Modelling predicted that these measures will deliver the primary objective of protecting Pickering from at least a 1 in 25 year flood, reducing the chance of flooding in the town from 25% to 4% or less in any given year1. A monitoring programme has been established to quantify the effect of the measures in reducing flood flows. Although some of the land management interventions such as woodland creation will take time to become fully effective, an attempt was made to determine if they had any impact on a near-flood recorded in Pickering in November 2012. The local community believe that the measures implemented by then (pre-dated bund construction) helped to prevent an expected flood but an analysis of the data proved inconclusive, possibly due to the multiple peak nature of the event1. A longer run of data and larger number of flood peaks are required for a more robust assessment.

References: 1Project RMP5455 – Slowing the Flow Final Report – version 1 (2011) and version 2 (2015)

C.3. Stroud scheme, Gloucestershire

The Frome catchment in Gloucestershire is situated in steep valleys and is a rapid response catchment, that flooded heavily in 2007. In 2014 a NFM project was initiated to reduce flood risk and restore biodiversity throughout the catchment of the River Frome and all its tributaries, including the (Slad Brook, Painswick Stream, Nailsworth Stream, Ruscombe Brook and all their named and unnamed tributaries). A range of NFM techniques have been implemented across the catchment with over 110 large woody debris leaky dams installed in four tributaries, 30 minor coarse woody debris structures to deflect and divert flow, 9 culverts and soakaways, 12 off-line field bunds to prevent runoff from fields into watercourses, and 6 large scarp erosion/drainage channels filled with timber.

The Stroud RSuDS project is located in close proximity to the Isbourne catchment and there are many similarities between the two environments. Qualitative evidence has demonstrated that the Stroud NFM initiatives implemented are functioning successfully and are retaining water during rainfall events. The scheme has the potential to considerably slow the time it

63 | Page

Isbourne Catchment Project: Scoping Study (Draft Report) - Appendices takes water to travel along the watercourse but research and monitoring of flows along the watercourse is ongoing and the results have not yet been published.

References: see the Stroud Rural Sustainable Drainage (RSuDS) project website.

C.4. Allerton Project, Leicestershire

The Allerton Project aims to research the effects of different farming methods on wildlife and the environment, and to share the results of this research through educational activities. It has been running since 1992 and is part of the research wing of the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT). The farm at Loddington in Leicestershire is 333 hectares of clay soil (Hanslope and Denchworth series) and is a mixed arable and livestock business. Crops grown are primarily winter wheat, oilseed rape, winter oats and spring beans.

The pasture land is grazed by sheep and the arable side of the farm has also been managed in collaboration with the neighbouring farm since 2001 when minimum tillage was adopted across the combined area – this is a conversion from the original pre-1992 cultivation system that used a plough, disc and power harrow. By 2001 disc cultivation was used to reduce crop establishment operations, and the cultivation tractor moved from tyres to tracks to reduce soil compaction.

Farm staff are also involved in conservation work through management of habitats, both in the farmed area, in woodland and other non-cropped habitats. A Water Friendly Farming scheme has also been initiated at a landscape-scale, with active participation of the farming community to improve water quality (to meet EU WFD targets) whilst at the same time maintaining farm incomes and other environmental objectives. The project is based on three headwater catchments, each of about 10km2: the Stonton and Eye Brooks in the upper Welland river basin, and the Barkby Brook in the Soar river basin. The three catchments are broadly similar in terms of topography, soils and farming systems (mixed arable and livestock) and are comparable to many areas of lowland England. Since 2010 baseline data on water quality (nutrient concentrations and sediment) and ecology (acquatic plants and invertebrates) have been collected across all three catchments, with fish data also gathered in 2012 and 2013, and local assessments of birds and pollinators also carried out.

From 2013, changes have been made across nearly 20km2 of farmland in the Eye Brook and Stonton Brook catchments, while the Barkby Brook catchment remains unchanged and serves as a control to monitor background changes in water quality and ecology. Measures being introduced currently consist mainly of various types of interceptor wetlands receiving water from surface runoff and field drains, with some farmyard measures and streamside fencing and installation of alternative livestock drinking sites. There are many grass buffer strips already in place. Soil and nutrient mapping, and guidance on soil and nutrient management are also being provided to farmers. There is also an ongoing process to identify and address important domestic sources of phosphorus from septic tanks and small rural sewage treatment works.

References: see the Allerton Project website

64 | Page

Isbourne Catchment Project: Scoping Study (Draft Report) - Appendices

C.5. Slow the Flow – Somerset Rivers

The Somerset Rivers Authority (SRA) was launched in 2015, to play a key role in flood protection Somerset in response to the large-scale flooding in the county during the winter of 2013 to 2014, with the aim of creating better flood protection and increasing resilience against future events. The SRA has committed £550,000 for NFM activities, under their “Slow the Flow” project. This project takes a catchment-wide approach and focuses on flow pathways that activate during heavy rains and find suitable points to hold back, or slow the speed, of the water at these locations. Farmers and landowners in the county have access to grants to carry out a range of NFM solutions such as water meadow restoration, tree and hedge planting, and building woody dams, soil bunds or attenuation ponds, as well as rainwater harvesting.

In one example, the SRA is part-funding the creation of 10 acres of new woodland of thousands of trees in the catchment of the River Isle, which feeds into the Parrett. A fairly steep section of land at Dillington near Ilminster will no longer be used for grazing and instead has been planted with a mix of 6,000 native broadleaf trees planted to provide denser cover than usual and slow the flow of water from slope to valley stream. The scheme is mostly being funded by the Forestry Commission, under a new Countryside Stewardship scheme, but the SRA has contributed nine per cent of the cost so as to maximise the flood reduction benefits. Not all of the schemes are as large-scale, with planting being undertaken in strategic locations such as steep slopes, corners, next to roads and buffering rivers.

The SRA is also renovating disused ponds and introducing leaky or wood debris dams. An example of a current project, is the SRA are currently funding work on three ponds and a series of dams in Montacute near Yeovil, Somerset. One of the ponds is an ancient stewpond that was almost completely silted-up and two further defunct 18th-century ponds for washing flax. These are being dug out again primarily to hold water, but also for wildlife. Also as part of the project, a ditch has been cleared out for the first time in 40 years and new dams are being created, some with I-beams, sleepers and boards, to allow water levels to be controlled, whilst other woody debris dams will be built using local logs. Over 60 woody debris dams are being proposed in Somerset to help slow the flow of water from catchment areas into rivers.

References: see the Somerset Rivers Authority website

C.6. Summary

It is clear that although reduction of flood risk is often the main driver for action to address runoff and surface water flooding problems, it cannot be dealt with in isolation from other aspects such as water quality and ecology. For success, a good understanding of the physical nature of the landscape, the interactions between hydrology and the environment need to be understood before it is possible to identify clear aims and objectives for more sustainable management of land areas, water resource, the environment and the wildlife that it supports.

Land management changes should be considered alongside the aim to introduce for roughness and barriers within the flow paths in the Isbourne. As with NFM wide spread

65 | Page

Isbourne Catchment Project: Scoping Study (Draft Report) - Appendices changes can have a significant impact on the catchment and there is evidence from the Allerton Project of the benefits. However, not all of the suggestions are covered by incentives through the Countryside Stewardship project meaning that most will have to be secured through knowledge exchange from advisors to farmer. The principle incentive here would be financial savings and production benefits as well as long-term sustainability of the soil.

Whilst the introduction of NFM within a drainage catchment is unlikely to provide sufficient flow reduction to solve downstream flooding problems, adoption of a more sustainable approach to land drainage and management can significantly contribute towards flood risk reduction measures and lead to improvements in water quality. NFM therefore provide a mechanism to treat some of the ‘causes’ rather than trying to deal solely with the ‘symptoms’.

66 | Page

Isbourne Catchment Project: Scoping Study (Draft Report) - Appendices

Appendix D: Summary of NFM Designs and Applications

The following information is based on data provided in the Environment Agency Rural SuDS report (Avery, 2012).

Table D1. Summary of RSuDS designs and general applications (based on data in Avery, 2012)

67 | Page

Isbourne Catchment Project: Scoping Study (Draft Report) - Appendices

68 | Page

Isbourne Catchment Project: Scoping Study (Draft Report) - Appendices

69 | Page

Isbourne Catchment Project: Scoping Study (Draft Report) - Appendices

70 | Page

Isbourne Catchment Project: Scoping Study (Draft Report) - Appendices

Appendix E: Figures E1-E16

Figure E1: River Isbourne catchment area overview map

Figure E2: Catchment topography map

Figure E3: Catchment bedrock geology

Figure E4: Isbourne catchment area hydrology and flow pathway map

Figure E5: Historic Flood Map – post-1960 flooding events (Environment Agency records)

Figure E6: Historic water features in the Isbourne Catchment

Figure E7: Dudley Stamp land cover map from 1930s

Figure E8: Land cover map of Great Britain 1990

Figure E9: CORINE land cover 2000

Figure E10: CORINE land cover 2006

Figure E11: CORINE land cover 2012

Figure E12: Isbourne catchment soil erosion risk map

Figure E13: Main designations

Figure E14: Isbourne Catchment county and district authority boundaries

Figure E15: Isbourne Catchment parish boundaries

Figure E16: Summary map showing potential NFM initiatives in the Isbourne catchment

71 | Page

Isbourne Catchment Project: Scoping Study (Draft Report) - Appendices

72 | Page

Isbourne Catchment Project: Scoping Study (Draft Report) - Appendices

73 | Page

Isbourne Catchment Project: Scoping Study (Draft Report) - Appendices

74 | Page

Isbourne Catchment Project: Scoping Study (Draft Report) - Appendices

75 | Page

Isbourne Catchment Project: Scoping Study (Draft Report) - Appendices

76 | Page

Isbourne Catchment Project: Scoping Study (Draft Report) - Appendices

77 | Page

Isbourne Catchment Project: Scoping Study (Draft Report) - Appendices

78 | Page

Isbourne Catchment Project: Scoping Study (Draft Report) - Appendices

79 | Page

Isbourne Catchment Project: Scoping Study (Draft Report) - Appendices

80 | Page

Isbourne Catchment Project: Scoping Study (Draft Report) - Appendices

81 | Page

Isbourne Catchment Project: Scoping Study (Draft Report) - Appendices

82 | Page

Isbourne Catchment Project: Scoping Study (Draft Report) - Appendices

P N   \  H @ H V  W V U Y  . H \ L K  O U \ L G U \ X J J H X L 7 H K  D J 8 R F  U  O 6 L Y   S  G R  U O  V Y R Q    H  Q  H U O H R U F V  Z F X U  H V D  P = D (  R Q R G  F H  H 6 U  E  U U  \  D E D W R   $  D \  k R &  Q W G / W + V  I V   H  W  G Q W ‹ D &   \ U Y  S  K  D H

H  O  G H U U  s D D   O J F H W 2 L O W  X \ O R  P  G U F X  Q  i D D 0  J 6 K H O G Q H   O F D G Q - R M X F   5 H D O H W r   H & > $ 6  \  G   R  F  D  R  S / R W  +

H F  D ± O @ Q F   @ Q  K U  Y  2 G R D ( D U  O  J W H  \ & * L H O Q R U X Q *  U D 6 H Q  3 n 5 X G U R  G \ W   G 6 V Z U I  G 2 -   I X  ( S  O   W R  > H D 2 Q R H R R  D  Q  1  R U L W o O F P ' W P   L E F W W  Q  W  S H W  K Q R  D V Q i D  G U K D , D V U Q O J D ! I \  &  H L H S Z V H  J U N U Q  W L W Z P V F K  L G U & L H H G X G D R   s R 6 (  H H V \ J U H Y U  L G L W Q P L V  H F V S K W R H 2 F & S U ' / J D 5 D  R  & F W  H  U   D Z K o 8  E V U J W R &  $ D  5 ‹ H & W O 7   W D  Q D L Q F R L W Q W R [ ( 1 , L r 6  Q D Y W , D K D W H H D L G W H  1 $  S ' J  G D + / : ' > U  L H 7 Q S  D D  K Q \  P G W e (  V R H G   5   E S H  ) D      Q 

6 & D  & & J 8  G H   J 7  G D   5  G  l V 2 Q  Q  P H \ W L  G  L  L  H D S O Q i J K V D V Q  & H J E U L V R J Q D J  Z Z U  8 O L L O D G    U W Q R R  H   R D ( G    \ W U Q D o 7  Q U  R   D L S Q G N - % S  W  ' R W 6  \ R R F X W  D R * S 2 V K  $ G ‹ + & : & S 2 ) R R E 5 F  V n 3 , 6 o i s ¯ o r e

r e t a w (

k s i r

W n [ H 7 o i s o r e

l i o S

. 2 1

e r u g i F

83 | Page

Isbourne Catchment Project: Scoping Study (Draft Report) - Appendices

84 | Page

Isbourne Catchment Project: Scoping Study (Draft Report) - Appendices

85 | Page

Isbourne Catchment Project: Scoping Study (Draft Report) - Appendices

86 | Page

Isbourne Catchment Project: Scoping Study (Draft Report) - Appendices

87 | Page