Sam Dickinson

Analysis
My first hypothesis states that the type of vegetation in the area leads to the need for flood
management. As shown in figure 10, the land cover type around where I carried out my
measurements is 31.5% grassland and 11.3% built up area. The built up areas could lead to surface
run off due to the impermeability of the concrete, increasing the amount of water going in to the
river. The surrounding grass land is significant because my results show that there is a clear
correlation between there being grass land and low infiltration levels. This suggests saturation as the
water was not being absorbed by the ground. In grassland there is no canopy cover and my results
show that the average infiltration levels were just 10mm. This is relatively small as, in deciduous
woodland, infiltration rates reached 29mm and they reached 76mm in coniferous woodland. As
shown in my excel correlation sheet (figure 19), there is a clear correlation between there being high
infiltration rates in coniferous woodland and slightly less in deciduous (shown by the figures
0.329748 and 0.776995 respectively). This is mainly as a result of water being used up by the plant
roots and higher levels of interception in coniferous woodland. This proves that the ground is more
saturated in grassland areas due to the low infiltration rates. This is significant as it means that less
water is being absorbed by the ground, resulting in surface run off and therefore increasing the
chance of the river mole flooding. This is because the water that has not been absorbed by the
ground has a direct route to the river.

The hypothesis is further supported in the graph in figure 15. Figure 15 shows the relationship
between canopy cover and infiltration rates. As demonstrated by the line of best fit, the higher the
canopy cover, the higher the infiltration rates. This further proves the hypothesis as the surrounding
area is mainly grassland (meaning that there is no canopy cover). This leads to the need for flood
management as the tear shaped drainage basin means that most of the surface run off and water
that has not been absorbed by the ground goes into the river at a particular point. Figure 8 shows us
the catchment elevation. As we see, near Juniper Hall there is a strip of land at a higher altitude than
where we carried out our infiltration experiments (see Tanners Brook). As water cannot flow
upwards due to the force of gravity, it must stop here. This increases the flood risk, as seen in figure
2, and would not be such a risk if it were not for the low infiltration rates caused by the vegetation
type. To summarise, the hypothesis that the type of vegetation leads to the need for flood
management is proven by the results of the infiltration experiments which show that infiltration
rates are lowest in grass land areas, causing surface run off.

Additionally, in this area the rock type, as shown in figure 9, is one of high permeability whereas it is
not permeable where we did our infiltration experiment at Tanners Brook. This supports my second
hypothesis that says the greater the permeability of the ground rock, the lesser the need for flood
management. This is because the low infiltration rates that have just been expressed show how the
low permeability rock has meant that the ground is more saturated. This is because, if rock is less
permeable, water is not absorbed as easily. Both of these factors mean the water that was unable to
be absorbed be the ground at Tanners Brook causing surface run off meaning has no-where to go
but the river. Unsurprisingly, this is where there is the highest risk of flooding as shown in figure 2.

Sam Dickinson
The surface run off caused by the geology of the area and the canopy cover increases the discharge
of the river due to the extra water that it has to carry. The mannings coefficient (see figure 20) tells
us that the river was sluggish vegetated channels with deep pools suggesting that it is inefficient. I
believe that this may the result of an anomaly to do with the recorded velocity as the river exhibited
the characteristics of a river that had winding vegetated channels with stones on bed. (See figure
20). The velocity reading may have been affected by the ineffective bridge at Brockham (Shown in
figure 18). This is because the arches that support the bridge slow the water down to an unnatural
level, reducing velocity downstream. Another reason that the velocity reading obtained may not be
what was expected is that, under certain conditions, velocity can change based on where in the river
the measurement was made. As shown below, when the river meanders, velocity is higher on the
outer side. We conducted our measurements on a meander.
Figure 22
Sourcehttp://www.geographylwc.
org.uk/A/AS/ASriver/image
s/MeanderBend_Landform
s.jpg
My third hypothesis was The smaller the difference between low water and bank full, the greater
the need for flood management. As seen in figure 21, there is a relatively large difference between
low flow and bank full of up to 50cm. This means that the river should be able to take on extra water
in times of heavy rain and therefore does not lead to the need for flood management. We know,
however, that the River Mole does need flood management as it has flooded many times in its
recent history including when the river burst its banks in 2013. The damage caused by this and the
extent to which it happened is demonstrated in figures 5 and 6. This suggests that the river Mole
does need flood management but for other reasons. As 50cm is fairly deep for this type of river, it is
odd that we took our measurements in the middle course of the river. As seen in the Bradshaw
model (figure 3), a big channel depth is normally a characteristic associated with the downstream
part of a river. This suggests that the river mole does not exhibit the standard characteristics shown
in figures 3 and 11 that you would expect in a standard river. This could be as a result of human
activity. This could include the inefficient bridge shown in figure 18. Another example of human
activity that will have affected the rivers key characteristics is the urbanisation of the surrounding
land. As seen in figure 10, 11.3% of the River Mole catchment area is made up of built up areas. This
is significant as built up areas are made up of impermeable materials such as concrete which rain
water cannot penetrate. As the water cannot be absorbed by the ground, surface run off is created.
As the water has a direct route to the river without having to go through the ground, the lag time is
reduced meaning that more water enters the river in times of heavy rain.

To summarise, the characteristics of the River Mole lead to the need for flood management. This is
due to the geology type of the surrounding area and canopy cover type as they both create ground
saturation causing surface run off. One of my hypothesise, however, is not supported by any of my

Sam Dickinson
data but is also not disproved. This is that The smaller the difference between low water and bank
full, the greater the need for flood management. I measured a high difference, yet the River Mole
still floods. I believe that this is because of the unusual characteristics talked about above.