120 likes | 132 Views
This article discusses the process of classifying, monitoring, and assessing the water environment in Scotland's River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs). It highlights the need for classification, the objectives and state of water environment, how classification was devised, and the monitoring methods used. The article also explains the grouping of water bodies and the inclusion of heavily modified water bodies in the classification system.
E N D
Classification Monitoring, assessing and classifying the environment
RBMP Why we need to classify • Provides information on the environment’s quality to the Scottish public • Classification allows us to define targeted objectives for the RBMPs • We have to report results to the EU
Ecostat How was classification devised? Increasingcontrol Increasingcomparability
HIGH GOOD MODERATE POOR BAD Objectives and state of the water environment in Scotland • 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
How do 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
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
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 • Overall status is same as the worst parameter • No averaging out • Consistent across EU and UK
Pass Pass Pass Pass High High High High High High High High High Good Bad High High High High High High e.g. rivers Bad Pass Bad Bad