Mole (Bray to Yeo) is currently at Moderate Ecological Status. It is failing on phytobenthos, with an EQR of 0.487 against a Good threshold of 0.60. It is also failing on phosphate at 0.046 mg/l compared with a Good threshold of 0.039 mg/l. This places phosphate close to Good.
The Environment Agency has identified poor livestock management, riparian/in-river activities and continuous sewage discharges as the key pressures. The catchment contains 31 farms, is approximately 80% farmland, and phosphorus source modelling suggests that livestock contributes around 57% of phosphorus loading while South West Water sewage treatment works contribute around 26%. Livestock therefore appears to be the dominant nutrient source.
The presence of a specific riparian and in-river RNAG is important. Unlike some neighbouring water bodies where nutrient pressures dominate the story, the Environment Agency is signalling that bankside condition and channel processes may also be contributing to ecological response.
Click the map to select a river catchment, or enter a postcode
Eco Class Good Moderate Poor Bad
Catchment Ranking: 49/92
Catchment Ranking
The ranking is derived from the EA 2025 classification data. Parameter scores are normalised and an average is taken. Rankings are restricted to prevent e.g. a "moderate" river being ranked higher than a "poor" river.
(92 river waterbodies in the North Devon Catchment)
EA Ecological Classification
- 2022Moderate
- 2019Moderate
- 2016Moderate
Failing Elements
- Phosphate
- Phytobenthos Sub Element
EA RNAGs
- Poor Livestock Management
- Riparian/in-river activities (inc bankside erosion)
- Sewage discharge (continuous)
Mole (Bray to Yeo)
Why is the river failing?
What is happening now?
Current activity includes review of discharge permits, Northern Devon Natural Solutions, regulatory farm inspections, Devon Woods and the Mole Maize Project.
Risk Levels
Risk Levels
- SWW Overflows: Total duration of intermittent spills for all CSOs in the catchment for 2025.
- Private Sewage: Density rating based upon non-SWW properties in the catchment.
- Livestock: APHA data from Feb 2026.
- Runoff: ESME modelling (wf_r24).
- Modification: ESME modelling (aa_r1).
- Invasive Species: ESME modelling (iv_r17).
- Overheating: derived from tree cover ESME modelling (wq_r10).
- Running Dry: Abstraction sustainability ESME modelling (ws_r27).
- Untreated SewageLow
- ModificationMedium
- Sewage (Private)Very Low
- Invasive SpeciesHigh
- LivestockLow
- OverheatingLow
- RunoffHigh
- Running DryVery Low
Intervention hypothesis (confidence: High)
The evidence suggests a relatively straightforward livestock-driven nutrient issue. Phytobenthos is the only failing Biological element, phosphate is close to Good, livestock is the largest modelled phosphorus source, and poor livestock management is the most direct RNAG. Recovery is therefore likely to require relatively modest reductions in nutrient losses from priority farms.
The additional riparian and in-river RNAG suggests that nutrient management alone may not fully resolve ecological condition. Consequently, targeted riparian improvements should be retained as a contingency intervention should phytobenthos remain below Good following nutrient reductions.
| Intervention | Size of Intervention | Estimated Cost | Lead |
|---|---|---|---|
| PRIORITY INTERVENTIONS (NOT IN ORDER OF PRIORITY) | |||
| Regulatory enforcement to drive compliance with Farming Rules for Water | c.8 priority farms | £16,000 | EA |
| Soil health interventions | c.8 priority farms | £224,000 | NE/DWT/WRT/EA |
| SECONDARY INTERVENTIONS | |||
| Riparian tree planting | 2.3km (9.3km) | £46,000 | ND Biosphere Foundation |