Mole Management Catchment
About
Much of the rivers course flows over the Wealden and London clays. However, between Dorking and Leatherhead, in the area known as the Mole Gap, the river cuts its way through the North Downs chalk. In this area some of the river water disappears through holes in the chalk in to the groundwater aquifers before flowing back in to the river near to Leatherhead. This phenomenon has been suggested as giving the river its name. However it is more likely that name originates from the Latin for mill (Mola) or from the town Molesey where the river meets the Thames.
Classifications data for Mole Management Catchment
Number of water bodies
| Water body categories | Natural | Artificial | Heavily modified | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| River, canals and surface water transfers | 10 | 0 | 10 | 20 |
| Lake | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| Coastal | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Estuarine | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Groundwater | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 10 | 2 | 12 | 24 |
Ecological status for surface waters
| Ecological status or potential | Bad | Poor | Moderate | Good | High | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of water bodies | 1 | 7 | 15 | 1 | 0 | 24 |
| Number of water body elements | 7 | 23 | 35 | 32 | 127 | 224 |
Chemical status for surface waters
| Chemical status | Fail | Good | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of water bodies | 24 | 0 | 24 |
| Number of water body elements | 68 | 270 | 338 |
Quantitative status for groundwater
| Quantitative status | Poor | Good | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of water bodies | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Number of water body elements | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Chemical status for groundwater
| Chemical status | Poor | Good | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of water bodies | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Number of water body elements | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Challenges data for Mole 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 | 18 | 0 | 29 | 0 | 0 |
| Domestic general public | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 27 | 0 |
| Industry | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Local & central government | 0 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mining and quarrying | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Navigation | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| No sector responsible | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Other | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Recreation | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sector under investigation | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Urban and transport | 0 | 0 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 1 |
| Waste treatment and disposal | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Water Industry | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 44 |
| Total | 1 | 6 | 61 | 2 | 29 | 40 | 45 |
Objectives data for Mole Management Catchment
Ecological status or potential objectives for surface water bodies
Including those with less stringent objectives and extended deadlines
| Status | Bad | Poor | Moderate | Good | High | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| By 2015 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 8 |
| By 2027 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 16 |
| Total | 0 | 2 | 6 | 16 | 0 | 24 |
Chemical status objectives for surface water bodies
Including those with less stringent objectives and extended deadlines
| Status | Fail | Good | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| By 2063 | 0 | 24 | 24 |
| Total | 0 | 24 | 24 |
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 |
Summary Statistics data for Mole Management Catchment
Ecological status and potential
| Summary statistic | Rivers, Canals and SWTs | Lakes | Estuaries | Coastal | Surface Waters Combined |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % of water bodies at good or better ecological status/potential | 0% | 25% | 4% | ||
| % of biological elements, phys-chem elements and specific pollutants at good or better status | 69% | 80% | 69% | ||
| % of water bodies with an objective of good ecological status/potential or better | 65% | 75% | 67% | ||
| % of biological elements, phys-chem elements and Specific Pollutants with an objective of good status or better | 87% | 80% | 87% |
Chemical
| Summary statistic | Rivers, Canals and SWTs | Lakes | Estuaries | Coastal | Surface Waters Combined |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % of water bodies at good chemical status | 0% | 0% | 0% | ||
| % of chemical elements at good status | 81% | 72% | 80% | ||
| % of water bodies at good chemical status without uPBT | 85% | 100% | 88% | ||
| % of chemical elements at good status without uPBT | 98% | 100% | 98% | ||
| % of water bodies with an objective of good chemical status | 100% | 100% | 100% | ||
| % of chemical elements with an objective of good | 100% | 100% | 100% | ||
| % of water bodies with an objective of good chemical status without uPBT | 100% | 100% | 100% | ||
| % of chemical elements with an objective of good without uPBTs | 100% | 100% | 100% |