Lee Upper Management Catchment
About
Rivers within the Upper Lee catchment extend to over 320km. Their distribution means not one of the catchments 700,000 residents is further than 5km from a river. This extensive blue infrastructure is recognised in the areas status as a locally determined Nature Improvement Area. Here local groups have committed to significant landscape scale environmental improvement. Across the catchment, the character of the rivers varies considerably. In urban areas like Luton, rivers typically run in man-made channels and culverts, only making an appearance as they flow through parks and green spaces. Some towns like Harlow, Hertford and Bishops Stortford, have historic navigations running near or through them, providing a valued link between town and country. In rural areas, picturesque rivers, including rare chalk rivers, wind their way through small settlements. As a result, the way the rivers are perceived by local people, and the value they place in them, varies widely across the catchment. The catchment is an area of water stress, where average daily water use is amongst the highest in the country. Groundwater and rivers supply water for local people, and 90% of water abstracted is used for this purpose. This groundwater abstraction impacts on the amount of water available in the environment. In particular, this impacts the rivers in the catchment, which depend on an adequate supply of groundwater. River users, businesses and organisations are working together to identify ways of reducing abstraction, using water more wisely and, improving the quantity and quality of water in the environment.
![Culvert cleaning near the River Beane at Waterford Marsh, Hertfordshire](/catchment-planning/photos/managementcatchment/3105.jpg)
Classifications data for Lee Upper 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 | 19 | 0 | 4 | 23 |
Lake | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Coastal | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Estuarine | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Groundwater | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Total | 19 | 0 | 4 | 23 |
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 | 9 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 23 |
Number of water body elements | 3 | 27 | 25 | 26 | 185 | 266 |
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 | 23 | 0 | 23 |
Number of water body elements | 44 | 375 | 419 |
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 Lee Upper 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 | 11 | 0 | 36 | 0 | 0 |
Domestic general public | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Industry | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Local & central government | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Mining and quarrying | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Navigation | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
No sector responsible | 0 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Other | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
Recreation | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Sector under investigation | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Urban and transport | 0 | 0 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 0 |
Waste treatment and disposal | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Water Industry | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23 |
Total | 20 | 9 | 48 | 0 | 36 | 18 | 23 |
Objectives data for Lee Upper 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 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
By 2027 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 17 | 0 | 18 |
Total | 0 | 0 | 5 | 18 | 0 | 23 |
Chemical status objectives for surface water bodies
Including those with less stringent objectives and extended deadlines
Status | Fail | Good | Total |
---|---|---|---|
By 2063 | 0 | 23 | 23 |
Total | 0 | 23 | 23 |
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 Lee Upper 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% | 0% | |||
% of biological elements, phys-chem elements and specific pollutants at good or better status | 79% | 79% | |||
% of water bodies with an objective of good ecological status/potential or better | 78% | 78% | |||
% of biological elements, phys-chem elements and Specific Pollutants with an objective of good status or better | 97% | 97% |
Chemical
Summary statistic | Rivers, Canals and SWTs | Lakes | Estuaries | Coastal | Surface Waters Combined |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
% of water bodies at good chemical status | 0% | 0% | |||
% of chemical elements at good status | 89% | 89% | |||
% of water bodies at good chemical status without uPBT | 96% | 96% | |||
% of chemical elements at good status without uPBT | Greater than 99% | Greater than 99% | |||
% of water bodies with an objective of good chemical status | 100% | 100% | |||
% of chemical elements with an objective of good | 100% | 100% | |||
% of water bodies with an objective of good chemical status without uPBT | 100% | 100% | |||
% of chemical elements with an objective of good without uPBTs | 100% | 100% |