Kent and Leven Management Catchment
About
The Kent Leven catchment is characterised by short rivers rising in the southern and central Lake District fells and flowing southwards into Morecambe Bay. It has several iconic lakes including Englands largest Windermere along with culturally significant waters such as Grasmere and Rydal Water, famed for their shared history with Wordsworth amongst others. The catchment boasts the largest continuous intertidal area in the UK with several high value shellfish beds. Two thirds of the catchment is within the Lake District National Park and there are many designated conservation areas, such as Leighton Moss SSSI nationally renowned for its wader bird populations, all reflecting the high environmental, landscape and amenity value of this area. The rivers and lakes support a diverse range of fish including Sea trout, Atlantic salmon, the rare and under threat Arctic charr and freshwater mussel as well as healthy populations of native White-clawed crayfish. The main urban centres can be found at Windermere/Bowness on Windermere, Kendal and Ulverston. Land use is dominated by livestock agriculture with sheep/beef farming throughout the catchment, and small to medium sized dairy farms lower down the catchment. There is also a significant tourist industry centred round Windermere and the Lakeland fells. A long history of water dependent industries continues today, with several successful paper mills and more recently a rejuvenation of the hydro-electric power sites. There is also a legacy of historic mining activities particularly in the Coniston sub-catchment. All this contributes to what is a truly vibrant rural economy.
Classifications data for Kent and Leven 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 | 33 | 0 | 5 | 38 |
Lake | 10 | 1 | 9 | 20 |
Coastal | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Estuarine | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Groundwater | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Total | 43 | 1 | 14 | 58 |
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 | 28 | 27 | 0 | 57 |
Number of water body elements | 4 | 4 | 45 | 84 | 404 | 541 |
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 | 57 | 0 | 57 |
Number of water body elements | 125 | 809 | 934 |
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 Kent and Leven 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 | 3 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 0 |
Domestic general public | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Industry | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Local & central government | 0 | 0 | 0 | 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 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Recreation | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Sector under investigation | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Urban and transport | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Waste treatment and disposal | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Water Industry | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 |
Total | 1 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 16 |
Objectives data for Kent and Leven 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 | 1 | 28 | 0 | 29 |
By 2021 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
By 2027 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 26 | 0 | 26 |
Total | 0 | 0 | 1 | 56 | 0 | 57 |
Chemical status objectives for surface water bodies
Including those with less stringent objectives and extended deadlines
Status | Fail | Good | Total |
---|---|---|---|
By 2063 | 0 | 57 | 57 |
Total | 0 | 57 | 57 |
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 |