One of the things I like to do on this blog is to draw out the links between the microscopic and human worlds, and also to explain how we measure the extent of human impacts on the aquatic environment, and what we can do to reverse significant negative impacts. My professional life is largely concerned with how the evidence for these evaluations is gathered and used to arrive at decisions. Lip service has always been paid to the importance of transparency in this process but it has not always been easy to find information about the condition of your local environment. So a few months ago I was pleased to find a new website from the Environment Agency that makes this process a lot easier.
The Catchment Data Explorer starts with some intuitive navigation panes that let you search for your part of England, and then to locate particular streams, rivers and lakes and see how these match up to current environmental targets. Navigating to my local river, the River Wear, and, more specifically, to the section closest to my house (“Croxdale Beck to Lumley Park Burn”), I find a table with drop-down tabs that give a brief overview of its state. I see from this that the overall condition of the river is “moderate” and, then, by opening-up further levels, see that the various components of the ecology are all good (I’m not sure that I agree with that for the microscopic algae but that’s a story for another day) but that “physico-chemical supporting elements” are “moderate”. Classification of rivers and lakes follows the “one out, all out” rule, so it is the lowest class that is measured that determines overall status. In this case, opening up the physico-chemical elements levels in the table, I see that all is well, except for phosphorus, which is moderate and, therefore, determines the classification.
The home page of the Catchment Data Explorer
From here we can also download a file of “reasons for not achieving good status” in order to understand why phosphorus levels are elevated which tells us that it is waste water treatment and urban drainage that is the most likely source of phosphorus in the catchment. Control that and, in theory, all should be well. However, these are just two rows of 147 in a spreadsheet which deals with the lower Wear catchment and its tributaries, so the scale of overall challenge facing the Environment Agency becomes clear. Moreover, the Wear has already had over £7M investment to install phosphorus stripping from the larger sewage works, to comply with the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive, so the potential for further improvement is already limited. Go back to the original table and look at the right hand column, which is labelled “objectives”. The ecological target is “good by 2027”; however, if you hover the cursor over this, a box pops up telling you that this is “disproportionately expensive” and “technically infeasible”, invoking the WFD’s notorious “Get Out of Jail Free” card which lets countries bypass the need to achieve good status in certain specified situations (clause 4 paragraph 5 – “Less Stringent Objectives”).
Water body classification information from the Catchment Data Explorer for the River Wear, between Croxdale Beck and Lumley Park Burn.
All good so far. The problems come when you start burrowing deeper into the Catchment Data Explorer and, in particular, when you download data. There is a lot of information in Excel spreadsheets (which is great); however, it is riddled with jargon and not very well interpreted. Then there are some apparent contradictions that are not explained. I searched for one stream that interested me, and found the overall ecological status to be moderate, despite the status of the fish being poor. There is probably a good reason for this (perhaps there was low confidence in the data for fish, for example) but, again, it is not very well explained.
Then there are those water bodies that are, apparently, “good status” but, when you delve deeper into the Catchment Data Explorer, you find that there is no evidence to support this. This is a surprisingly common situation, not just in the UK but across Europe. The phrase “expert judgement” is invoked : probably meaning that someone from the local Environment Agency office went along for a look around and could not see any obvious problems. It seems to be used, in the UK at least, mostly for smaller water bodies and is probably a pragmatic decision that limited resources can be better used elsewhere.
These are relatively minor niggles when set against the positives that the Catchment Data Explorer offers. There is already quite a lot of information in the Help pages, and there is also a Glossary, so you should be able to work out the situation for your local water bodies with a little patience. A struggle with terminology is, perhaps, inevitable, given the complexities of managing the environment. We would all do well to remember that.