Risk Informed Management Approach. Table 1 provides a high-level summary of the four classes, including key commitments at each class, and some considerations for classification. To improve the transparency and consistency of classification, the appendices of each Bilateral Water Management Agreement may contain more specific criteria and representative conditions that correspond to each class. However, the Parties recognize the need to retain flexibility in the future, as it will be impossible to identify every possible consideration. In general, as described in Table 1, water bodies with no or very low development/use are class 1. At class 1, it is expected that the Jurisdictional Water Management practices of each Party will be sufficient to meet transboundary commitments. Other than reporting, no Bilateral Water Management actions are required in this class. As warranted by increased development/use and other factors, Transboundary Waters will be moved to higher classes, where Bilateral Water Management actions are identified to complement Jurisdictional Water Management practices. Some level of current or planned development/use is necessary for a water body to move from class 1 to class 2, but there is no single threshold of development/use that causes a water body to move to class 2 or 3. To move from a class 1 to 2 or from class 2 to 3, the level of development/use is considered along with other factors to classify water bodies using a risk-informed approach. Other factors beyond development levels that may influence the assignment of a water body to class 2 or class 3 include, but are not limited to: Natural or other anthropogenic stressors or vulnerabilities; Sensitive water or ecosystem uses (e.g., traditional uses, drinking waters, heritage sites or parks); Use conflicts or controversy; Water quality and quantity conditions or trends; and Aquatic Ecosystem (e.g., biological, human health or traditional use) conditions or trends. In other words, a water body that is stressed or vulnerable (e.g., low winter flows, etc.), supports sensitive uses (e.g., traditional use, drinking water, etc.), experiences water use conflicts (e.g., conflicts among users or public controversy about water or ecosystem conditions), and/or demonstrates negative conditions or trends in water quality, water quantity or Aquatic Ecosystem Indicators, may be moved up in class at a lower level of development/use than a water body that does not. The intensity of Bilateral Water Management will increas...
Risk Informed Management Approach. Table 1 provides a high-level summary of the four classes, including key commitments at each class, and some considerations for classification. To improve the transparency and consistency of classification, the appendices of each Bilateral Water Management Agreement may contain more specific criteria and representative conditions that correspond to each class. However, the Parties recognize the need to retain flexibility in the future, as it will be impossible to identify every possible consideration. In general, as described in Table 1, water bodies with no or very low development/use are class 1. At class 1, it is expected that the Jurisdictional Water Management practices of each Party will be sufficient to meet transboundary commitments. Other than reporting, no Bilateral Water Management actions are required in this class. As warranted by increased development/use and other factors, Transboundary Waters will be moved to higher classes, where Bilateral Water Management actions are identified to complement Jurisdictional Water Management practices. Some level of current or planned development/use is necessary for a water body to move from class 1 to class 2, but there is no single threshold of development/use that causes a water body to move to class 2 or
