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

2. 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

3. How was classification devised?
Increasing control
Increasing comparability
Ecostat

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. What do we do where?

8. 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

9. 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

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

11. 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

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

13. 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)

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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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.