Leeds and Liverpool Canal, Leigh Branch Water Body
Moderate ecological status
Get Leeds and Liverpool Canal, Leigh Branch data
Attributes
- Water Body IDGB71210233
- Water Body TypeCanal
- Hydromorphological designationartificial
- NGRSD6117400362
- Surveillance Water BodyNo
- Length12.909 km
Classifications
Classification Item | 2019 | 2022 |
---|---|---|
Ecological | Moderate | |
Physico-chemical quality elements | Good | |
Ammonia (Phys-Chem) | High | |
Phosphate | Good | |
Temperature | High | |
Supporting elements (Surface Water) | Moderate | |
Mitigation Measures Assessment | Moderate or less | |
Chemical | Fail | Does not require assessment |
Priority hazardous substances | Fail | Does not require assessment |
Benzo(a)pyrene | Good | |
Dioxins and dioxin-like compounds | Good | |
Heptachlor and cis-Heptachlor epoxide | Good | |
Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD) | Good | |
Hexachlorobenzene | Good | |
Hexachlorobutadiene | Good | |
Mercury and Its Compounds | Fail | |
Perfluorooctane sulphonate (PFOS) | Good | |
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) | Fail | |
Priority substances | Good | Does not require assessment |
Fluoranthene | Good | |
Other Pollutants | Does not require assessment | Does not require assessment |
Investigations into classification status
No data to show
Reasons for not achieving good (RNAG) and reasons for deterioration (RFD)
All reasons (RFDs and RNAGs) attributed to the classification elements in this water body.
Reason Type | SWMI | Activity | Category | Classification Element | More information |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
RNAG | Physical modification | Other (not in list, must add details in comments) | Sector under investigation | Mitigation Measures Assessment | Details |
RNAG | Unknown (pending investigation) | Unknown (pending investigation) | Sector under investigation | Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) | Details |
RNAG | Unknown (pending investigation) | Unknown (pending investigation) | Sector under investigation | Mercury and Its Compounds | Details |
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 | Physical modifications | Pollution from waste water | Pollution from towns, cities and transport | Changes to the natural flow and level of water | Invasive non-native species | Pollution from rural areas | Pollution from abandoned mines |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Agriculture and rural land management | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Industry | 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 |
Urban and transport | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Water Industry | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Local & central government | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Domestic general public | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Recreation | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Waste treatment and disposal | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Other | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
No sector responsible | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Sector under investigation | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Total | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Objectives
Classification Item | Status | Year | Reasons |
---|---|---|---|
Ecological | Good | 2027 - Low confidence | Disproportionately expensive: Disproportionate burdens |
Biological quality elements | Not assessed | 2015 | |
Physico-chemical quality elements | Good | 2015 | |
Ammonia (Phys-Chem) | Good | 2015 | |
Phosphate | Good | 2015 | |
Temperature | Good | 2015 | |
Hydromorphological Supporting Elements | Not assessed | 2015 | |
Supporting elements (Surface Water) | Good | 2027 - Low confidence | Disproportionately expensive: Disproportionate burdens |
Mitigation Measures Assessment | Good | 2027 - Low confidence | Disproportionately expensive: Disproportionate burdens |
Specific pollutants | Not assessed | 2015 | |
Chemical | Good | 2063 | Natural conditions: Chemical status recovery time |
Priority hazardous substances | Good | 2063 | Natural conditions: Chemical status recovery time |
Benzo(a)pyrene | Good | 2015 | |
Dioxins and dioxin-like compounds | Good | 2015 | |
Heptachlor and cis-Heptachlor epoxide | Good | 2015 | |
Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD) | Good | 2015 | |
Hexachlorobenzene | Good | 2015 | |
Hexachlorobutadiene | Good | 2015 | |
Mercury and Its Compounds | Good | 2040 | Natural conditions: Chemical status recovery time |
Perfluorooctane sulphonate (PFOS) | Good | 2015 | |
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) | Good | 2063 | Natural conditions: Chemical status recovery time |
Priority substances | Good | 2015 | |
Fluoranthene | Good | 2015 | |
Other Pollutants | Does not require assessment | 2015 |
Protected areas
PA Name | Id | Directive | More information |
---|---|---|---|
River Glaze NVZ | S641 | Nitrates Directive | |
River Douglas NVZ | S644 | Nitrates Directive | |
Pennington Flash Eutrophic lake NVZ | EL138 | Nitrates Directive |
Monitoring sites which have been used to classify this water body
Shows which sites were used for classification for which years within each cycle.