East Hampshire Management Catchment
About
The East Hampshire catchment covers an area of 571km2, with rolling chalk downland to the north and a flat, heavily urbanised coastal plain in the south, including Portsmouth, where the Royal Navys surface fleet is based. The main rivers in the catchment are the Hamble, Meon, Wallington, Hermitage and Lavant. Their sources are in the upland chalk, from where they flow into Southampton Water or the harbours of Portsmouth and Langstone. Shorter rivers like the Alver and Hook Lake are constrained but also important to their communities. The low-lying coastline has been heavily modified to allow for the growth of Fareham, Gosport, Havant , Portsmouth and other towns, some of which has been on land reclaimed from the sea, which is rising due to climate change. There are also major developments planned and underway, sites include North Whiteley near the Hamble, north Fareham close to the Meon and Waterlooville, by the headwaters of the River Wallington. We must minimise the impact of the landfill sites resulting from this expansion, which lie very close to Hook Lake, the River Alver and Portsmouth Harbour, where there are designated nature reserves, such as Farlington Marshes. A balance is needed between the demand for water and keeping enough flow for fish and other river life in the Hamble, Meon and other waterbodies. Groundwater quality on the chalk downs must also be protected from historical and current diffuse pollution resulting from intensive agriculture.
![Volunteers planting reeds to intercept leachate between a landfill site and the River Alver in Gosport](/catchment-planning/photos/managementcatchment/3034.jpg)
Classifications data for East Hampshire Management Catchment
Number of water bodies
The number of water bodies in the river basin district. It shows whether these are natural, artificial (such as canals and reservoirs) or have been modified ('heavily modified') for particular uses.
Water body categories | Natural | Artificial | Heavily modified | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|
River, canals and surface water transfers | 8 | 0 | 3 | 11 |
Lake | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Coastal | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Estuarine | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Groundwater | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Total | 8 | 0 | 3 | 11 |
Ecological status for surface waters
Table summarises the current ecological status of surface water bodies. Water bodies are classified as being at high, good, moderate, poor or bad ecological status or potential.
Ecological status or potential | Bad | Poor | Moderate | Good | High | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number of water bodies | 1 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 11 |
Number of water body elements | 3 | 5 | 11 | 17 | 63 | 99 |
Chemical status for surface waters
Table summarises the current chemical status of water bodies. These are classified as being at good or fail.
Chemical status | Fail | Good | Total |
---|---|---|---|
Number of water bodies | 11 | 0 | 11 |
Number of water body elements | 26 | 121 | 147 |
Quantitative status for groundwater
Table summarises the quantitative status of groundwater water bodies. These are classified as being at good or poor.
Quantitative status | Poor | Good | Total |
---|---|---|---|
Number of water bodies | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Number of water body elements | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Chemical status for groundwater
Table summarises the chemical status of groundwater water bodies. These are classified as being at good or poor.
Chemical status | Poor | Good | Total |
---|---|---|---|
Number of water bodies | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Number of water body elements | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Challenges data for East Hampshire Management Catchment
Reasons for not achieving good status by business sector
The issues preventing waters reaching good status and the sectors identified as contributing to them. The numbers in the table are individual counts of the reasons for not achieving good status with a confidence status of 'confirmed' and 'probable', where the latest classification is less than good status. There may be more than one reason in a single water body. Note, table does not include reasons for deterioration.
Significant water management issue | Changes to the natural flow and level of water | Invasive non-native species | Physical modifications | Pollution from abandoned mines | Pollution from rural areas | Pollution from towns, cities and transport | Pollution from waste water |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Agriculture and rural land management | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Domestic general public | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
Industry | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Local & central government | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Mining and quarrying | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Navigation | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
No sector responsible | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Other | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Recreation | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Sector under investigation | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Urban and transport | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
Waste treatment and disposal | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Water Industry | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Total | 2 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 1 |
Objectives data for East Hampshire Management Catchment
Ecological status or potential objectives for surface water bodies
Table summarises the ecological status and ecological potential objectives set for water bodies in the river basin management plan. Each water body is only counted once in this table. Each water body objective consists of a target status and a date when it was, or is expected to be, met.
Status | Bad | Poor | Moderate | Good | High | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
By 2015 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
By 2021 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
By 2027 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
Total | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
Chemical status objectives for surface water bodies
Including those with less stringent objectives and extended deadlines
Status | Fail | Good | Total |
---|---|---|---|
By 2063 | 0 | 11 | 11 |
Total | 0 | 11 | 11 |
Quantitative status objectives for groundwater
Including those with less stringent objectives and extended deadlines
Status | Poor | Good | Total |
---|---|---|---|
Total | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Chemical status objectives for groundwater
Including those with less stringent objectives and extended deadlines
Status | Poor | Good | Total |
---|---|---|---|
Total | 0 | 0 | 0 |