Back to section

Post a comment on the text below

7.  REPORTING AT RBD/SUB-UNIT LEVEL FOR SURFACE WATER (SCHEMA SWMET) including 7.3, 7.4, 7.6 and 7.7

  • TypeSpecificReferenceConditionsforHyMoQEs, terminology is wrong, should be 'type-specific HyMo conditions' - further look into it before discussing
  • Indicate whether a surface water body is a natural or a heavily modified or artificial water body (add a schema element)
  • Delete Schema SWSupportingQE as the same information is provided Quality Element schema
  • Suggestion for an option to indicate if the classification boundaries for a certain supporting QE and the class boundaries for sensitive BQE are reported in accordance with/are relevant to the water category

Previous comments

  • SE - Sweden (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 02 May 2019 11:09:32
    TypeSpecificReferenceConditionsforHyMoQEs, terminology is wrong, should be 'type-specific HyMo conditions' - further look into it before discussing  
    Indicate whether a surface water body is a natural or a heavily modified or artificial water body (add a schema element) SE: No. We do not agree as this information should not be part of the method schema, and it is already reported in SWB
    Delete Schema SWSupportingQE as the same information is provided Quality Element schema SE: No. We do not agree, as different information is reported in the two classes
    Suggestion for an option to indicate if the classification boundaries for a certain supporting QE and the class boundaries for sensitive BQE are reported in accordance with/are relevant to the water category SE does not understand the problem or suggestion for modification
  • SI - Slovenia (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 03 May 2019 10:00:55

    1.Regarding Comment no. 199 and 200  in "Talkback_comments_28.03.19.xls„ we agree with the aspect set out in bouth comments regarding the terminology (the terminology should be revised).

    2.Regarding Comment no. 203  in "Talkback_comments_28.03.19.xls" on Class BQEMethod, we cannot agree with the aspect set out in the comment because it would represent double reporting (the content already reported in Schema element: naturalAWBHMWB) and because the content as reported in Class BQEMet represents RBM level (not on WB level).

    3.Regarding Comment no. 204  in "Talkback_comments_28.03.19.xls„, we do not agree with the aspect set out in the comment

    4.Regarding Comment no. 205  in "Talkback_comments_28.03.19.xls„, we agree with the aspect set out in first part of the comment (an option to indicate if the classification boundaries for a certain supporting QE and the class boundaries for sensitive BQE are reported in accordance with/are relevant to the water category) and disagree with the aspect set out in the second  part of the comment. Adding an information regarding natural or an artificial or a heavily modified water body to the supportingQESensitivityBQE shema would represent  double reporting (the content already reported in Schema element: naturalAWBHMWBB).

You cannot post comments to this consultation because you are not authenticated. Please log in.