Monitoring, assessing and classifying the environment Classification Monitoring, assessing and classifying the environment

Why we need to classify Provides information on the environment’s quality to the Scottish public RBMP Classification allows us to define targeted objectives for the RBMPs We have to report results to the EU

How was classification devised? Increasing control Increasing comparability Ecostat

Objectives and state of the water environment in Scotland HIGH GOOD MODERATE POOR BAD No deterioration Improve to Good Status by 2027 Protected Areas R e s t o r e

What is classification? All Scotland’s baseline water bodies have to be classified Classification based on ecological, chemical and hydromorphological data WBs will be classified as High, Good, Moderate, Poor or Bad status (GEP) Large emphasis on ecology Classification informs the setting of objectives

What are we looking at? Priority substances & other dangerous substances Water flows & levels Nutrients Temperature pH Oxygen Toxic pollution Bed Banks Shore/riparian zone Alien species

What do we do where?

How we monitor and classify? Risk-based, in response to pressures Good spatial extent 3 types of monitoring Surveillance – long term change Operational – sites at risk Investigative – pollution incidents or intensive to improve confidence REVIEWED ANNUALLY

Grouping Grouping – why? Have to classify all water bodies; can’t afford to monitor them all How were the groups created? Based on risk, pressure profile and typology. Each group has monitoring in and these classification results used to classify the group

What’s in classification? Then for each final box, varying numbers of parameters below Type of parameter varies, depending on the water category

One out all out What are the problems with this approach? Negative ratchet – you can only fail with this system; two goods don’t equal a bad The more we monitor, the more likely we are to get a fail Are there any advantages? Simple and transparent system Will concentrate SEPA’s (and the Government’s ) mind – no hiding unwelcome results by averaging them out! Consistent across EU and UK

e.g. rivers High Good Pass Bad Bad Pass High Pass Bad Bad

Confidence of class Why do we need confidence? To determine whether expensive PoM can be justified Requirement of the Directive (must report “adequate confidence and precision”) Helps us target action and further monitoring How is it determined? At the moment, methods vary – some mathematically calculated (invertebrates, chemical parameters), other are expert judgement (hydrology, macrophytes)

Increasing confidence Confidence of class Use confidence to prioritise action Only take expensive action once highly confident Increasing confidence

Heavily modified water body “so affected by human activity . . . that it may be unfeasible or unreasonably expensive to achieve good status . . . less stringent environmental objectives may be set” So, we assess HMWBs for “ecological potential”, not ecological status

HMWB Check mitigation measures: Fish ladder Compensation flows/ freshets Temperature okay Sediment regime ok Water quality is fine Morphology bad status However, is at GEP

Information for you All of this information is published and available for you to use at your convenience. We welcome people questioning it – especially people like yourselves with expert local knowledge about the local ecology. Only by questioning it can we refine our monitoring and improve our confidence.