Table 8. Object Summary view information in Object Tree Exchange Online Tile All Exchange A view for all Exchange Online objects defined in your Exchange Online environment (see Environment Summary - Exchange Online (All Objects) view).
Table 8. 2.1 Location Additional Annual Leave Per Annum Norfolk Island 3 days Kakadu/ Jabiru 7 days Christmas Island 7 days Uluru – Kata Tjuta 7 days Cocos (Keeling) Islands 7 days
Table 8. 1 presents the escalated capital outlay and support cost esti- mates in each fiscal funding year. A 3.2% annual escalation factor is used for construction costs, and 3.0% is used for support costs, which are escalated to the mid-point of each component. The funds will be allocated in the first year of each phase of development.
Table 8. Summary of possible infractions identified by the International Review Panel at its 47th and 48th meetings. TABLA 8. Resumen de posibles infracciones identificadas por el Panel Internacional de Revisión en sus reuniones 47 y 48. INFRACCIONES MAYORES / MAJOR INFRACTIONS: Viaje sin observador Trips without an observer 0 Viajes con lances en delfines sin LMD asignado Trips with dolphin sets but no DML assigned 0 Viajes con capitanes no incluidos en la lista del APICD Trips with captains not on the AIDCP list 2 Viajes sin paño de protección de delfines Trips without a dolphin safety panel 0 Xxxxxx intencionales después de alcanzar el LMD Intentional sets made after reaching the DML 0 Lances o cazas con uso de explosivos (ocurrieron en 1 viaje) Sets or chases with use of explosives (occurred in 1 trip) 2 Lances sobre stocks o tipos de manadas prohibidas Sets on banned stocks or school types 0 Lances sin retroceso Sets without a required backdown 1 Lances con embolsamiento o salabardeo de delfines Sets with dolphin sack-up or brail 1 Xxxxxx sin evitar herir o matar delfines Sets with unavoided dolphin injury or mortality 0 OTRAS INFRACCIONES / OTHER INFRACTIONS: Viajes sin balsa Trips without a required raft 8 Viajes con < 3 lanchas rápidas y/o sin bridas de remolque Trips with < 3 speedboats and/or missing towing bridles 0 Viajes sin reflector de alta intensidad Trips without a required high-intensity floodlight 17 Viajes sin máscaras de buceo Trips without required facemasks 0 Lances nocturnos (ocurrieron en 1 viaje) Night sets (occurred in 1 trip) 1 Xxxxxx sin rescate adicional Sets without required deployment of rescuer 0 Xxxxxx sin rescate después del retroceso Sets without continued rescue effort after backdown 0 Viajes con lances sobre delfines antes de la notificación del LMD Trips with dolphin sets before the DML notification 0 Total 26 Casos de interferencia al observador Cases of observer interference 3 Viajes revisados en estas reuniones Trips reviewed in these meetings 724 Lances sobre delfines revisados en estas reuniones Dolphin sets reviewed in these meetings 10,780 Xxxxxx accidentales revisados en estas reuniones Accidental sets reviewed in these meetings 3 TABLE 9. Responses for six types of possible infractions identified by the International Review Panel at its 47th and 48th meetings.
Table 8. The sensitivity of k-effective (∆k/k%) to the individual isotopes and reactions (non-expanded model) Isotope Reaction Explicit Std. dev. Implicit Std. dev. Total Std. dev. Pu-239 total +3.9768e-01 +1.5606e-05 -2.1150e-03 +1.8012e-07 +3.9557e-01 +1.5608e-05 Pu-239 nubar +6.0333e-01 +3.0177e-05 +0.0000e+00 +0.0000e+00 +6.0333e-01 +3.0177e-05 Pu-239 fission +4.4602e-01 +1.7031e-05 -5.9614e-04 +5.5395e-08 +4.4542e-01 +1.7031e-05 Xx-000 x,xxxxx -0.0000x-00 +1.9310e-06 -4.1961e-04 +4.2324e-08 -4.4279e-02 +1.9315e-06 U-238 total -2.1519e-01 +1.0339e-05 +6.2981e-03 +5.6012e-07 -2.0889e-01 +1.0354e-05 X-000 x,xxxxx -0.0000x-00 +9.4246e-06 +6.1604e-04 +6.2406e-08 -2.1550e-01 +9.4248e-06 U-238 n,n’ -8.7828e-02 +6.1230e-06 -3.9247e-05 +2.6095e-09 -8.7867e-02 +6.1230e-06 U-238 fission +8.6768e-02 +7.9636e-06 -3.9836e-06 +3.1910e-10 +8.6764e-02 +7.9636e-06 C-000 total -8.8442e-02 +4.2391e-06 -2.9571e-03 +1.7507e-07 -9.1399e-02 +4.2427e-06 C-000 elastic -8.6072e-02 +4.2325e-06 -2.9582e-03 +1.7506e-07 -8.9030e-02 +4.2362e-06 C-000 n,n’ -1.6362e-03 +1.4335e-07 +1.0224e-06 +1.7121e-10 -1.6352e-03 +1.4335e-07 X-000 x,xxxxx -0.0000x-00 +6.3386e-08 +1.1122e-07 +1.9709e-11 -7.2126e-04 +6.3386e-08 Pu-241 total +8.0061e-02 +3.2955e-06 -1.5506e-04 +1.0274e-08 +7.9906e-02 +3.2956e-06 Pu-241 nubar +1.1456e-01 +6.1179e-06 +0.0000e+00 +0.0000e+00 +1.1456e-01 +6.1179e-06 Pu-241 fission +8.5860e-02 +3.4924e-06 -6.5054e-05 +4.5634e-09 +8.5795e-02 +3.4924e-06 Xx-000 x,xxxxx -0.0000x-00 +2.0432e-07 -1.7268e-05 +1.3058e-09 -5.0250e-03 +2.0433e-07 Si-028 total -2.8811e-02 +1.7770e-06 +4.1647e-04 +8.6754e-08 -2.8395e-02 +1.7791e-06 Si-028 elastic -1.3618e-02 +1.3875e-06 +4.1308e-04 +8.6571e-08 -1.3205e-02 +1.3902e-06 Si-028 n,n’ -1.0214e-02 +8.1522e-07 +2.2698e-06 +4.9192e-10 -1.0212e-02 +8.1522e-07 Xx-000 x,x -0.0000x-00 +2.3126e-07 +2.4852e-08 +2.0067e-11 -2.2831e-03 +2.3126e-07 Xx-000 x,xxxxx -0.0000x-00 +9.1627e-08 +1.0673e-06 +1.7456e-10 -1.6435e-03 +9.1627e-08 Xx-000 x,xxxxx -0.0000x-00 +1.0413e-07 +1.5507e-08 +9.1150e-12 -1.0531e-03 +1.0413e-07 U-235 total +2.3016e-02 +9.9545e-07 -7.4708e-05 +5.3851e-09 +2.2941e-02 +9.9546e-07 U-235 nubar +3.8331e-02 +2.0709e-06 +0.0000e+00 +0.0000e+00 +3.8331e-02 +2.0709e-06 U-235 fission +2.6824e-02 +1.1220e-06 -2.5208e-05 +1.9470e-09 +2.6799e-02 +1.1220e-06 X-000 x,xxxxx -0.0000x-00 +1.3518e-07 -1.1682e-05 +8.9889e-10 -3.3026e-03 +1.3518e-07 U-235 n,n’ -5.2961e-04 +3.2699e-08 -4.4976e-07 +3.3979e-11 -5.3006e-04 +3.2699e-08 Pu-240 total +2.1252e-02 +...
Table 8. Objective 5: To improve the capacity of Range States and international cooperation and capacity towards the conservation of migratory waterbird species and their flyways Progress Target Indicator Summary and reference 5.1: The membership of the Agreement is expanded AEWA Membership has increased to 75 Parties by MOP5, to 85 Parties by MOP6, and to 90 Parties by MOP 7, with particular focus on Central Asia and the Middle East The number of Contracting Parties (CPs) increased by 14 from 61 at MOP4 (as of 1 September 2008) to 75 at MOP6 (as of 1 May 2015) with 13 new CPs from Africa and two from Europe. Only seven CPs reported approaching non-CPs to encourage them to accede to the Agreement. Change since MOP5: Positive. Additional eight African and one European countries acceded to the Agreement between MOP5 and MOP6. Reference: Report of the Depositary (document AEWA/MOP 6.8); Analysis of AEWA National reports for the triennium 2012-2014 (document AEWA/MOP 6.13) 5.2: Sufficient funding for the implementation of the SP is raised from different sources Full funding is raised While no specific assessment of the progress towards the achievement of this target has been made, considering that progress towards a substantial number of other targets has been limited and that in those cases funding has been restricted or not available, it will be justified to assess the progress towards target 5.2 as limited. Change since MOP5: No change. 5.3: Cooperation with other MEAs and key partners is enhanced At least 5 new MoU/MoC between AEWA and other MEA’s and key partners are established At the AEWA 15th Anniversary Symposium in June 2010, a Memorandum of Cooperation (MoC) was signed with the Ramsar Convention, BirdLife International and Wetlands International to continue the joint work and partnership established during the Wing over Wetlands (WOW) project (post-WOW partnership). Progress Target Indicator Summary and reference An MoC with Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) was signed on 12 July 2012 during Ramsar COP11. An MoC was signed at MOP5 between the Ramsar Convention and the CMS (also on behalf of its instruments, including AEWA) under which a Joint Work Plan of 2004 between AEWA and Ramsar was renewed. Change since MOP5: Neutral. Reference: Report of the Secretariat (document AEWA/MOP 6.9) 5.4: The Small Grants Fund (SGF) is activated At least 100,000 EUR annually is disbursed to developing countries for implementation of AEWA Starting from 2010 there ...
Table 8. Types of populations studied in social acceptance research and illustrative studies Type of population Studies General public at the country level Xxxxxxxxxx, 2014; Xxxxxx et al., 2014; Xxxxxxxx et al., 2006. General public at the local level (cities) Xxxxxx-Xxxxxxx et al., (2010) Customers and users (e.g., passengers of fuel-cell vehicles) Kang & Xxxx, (2011) Population potentially affected by a hydrogen infrastructure N. M. A. Xxxxxx et al., (2013) Students DOE Survey Selected age groups (x.x. xxxxx people) Xxxxxxx & Xxxxx, (2014) Workers Besley & Xxxxxx-Xxxxxxxx, (2010)
Table 8. Average annual predation rates (95% credible intervals) by Caspian terns at managed colonies prior to (Pre) and following/during (Post) implementation of management actions to reduce colony size as part of the IAPMP. ESA‐listed salmonid populations (ESU/DPS) from the Snake River (SR) and Upper Columbia River (UCR) with runs of spring (Sp), summer (Su), and fall (Fall) fish were evaluated. Time periods are denoted as the average of all years within a time period or data from the last three years of the management period (2017‐2019). NC denotes that no colony (NC) existed during that period. Goose Is. North Potholes Is. Crescent Is. ESU/DPS Pre Post Last 3-years Pre Post Last 3-years Pre Post Last 3-years 2007-2013 2014-2019 2017-2019 2007-2013 2016 1 2017-2019 2007-2014 2015-2019 2017-2019 SR Sockeye < 0.1% < 0.1% < 0.1% NC < 0.1% < 0.1% 1.5% (1.2-2.0) < 0.1% < 0.1% SR Sp/Su Chinook < 0.1% < 0.1% < 0.1% NC < 0.1% < 0.1% 0.8% (0.7-1.0) < 0.1% < 0.1% UCR Sp Chinook 2.5% (1.7-3.6) < 0.1% < 0.1% NC 0.1% (0.1-0.3) < 0.1% 0.5% (0.3-0.9) < 0.1% < 0.1% SR Fall Chinook < 0.1% < 0.1% < 0.1% NC < 0.1% < 0.1% 1.0% (0.9-1.2) < 0.1% < 0.1% SR Steelhead < 0.1% < 0.1% < 0.1% NC < 0.1% < 0.1% 4.5% (4.1-5.1) < 0.1% < 0.1% UCR Steelhead 15.7% (14.1-18.9) < 0.1% < 0.1% NC 4.1% (2.9-6.3) < 0.1% 2.5% (2.2-2.9) < 0.1% < 0.1% 1 Colony formed in 2016 and was then actively managed during 2017‐2019
Table 8. 1: % of people who believe people from different backgrounds get on well together in their local area – 2006/07 Area Percentage Cumbria CC 83 England 78.9 Counties 80.7 Figure 8.1: % of people who believe people from different backgrounds get on well together in their local area – 2006/07 Cumbria CC has a higher than the national average percentage of people who believe people from different backgrounds get on well together in their local area in 2006/07. Cumbria CC’s figure is also higher than the average for all the counties in England Out of 34 other County Councils, Cumbria CC has the 9th highest figure, and is only 3% off the best performing Table 8.2: Cumbria County Council compared to local authority neighbours (2006/07) Rank Local Authority Percentage 1.5 Cornwall 83 1.5 Cumbria 83 3 Cheshire 80 4 Lancashire 75 Figure 8.3: Comparison of percentage between Cumbria CC and it’s set of comparative neighbours Cumbria is joint 1st out of five local authorities that are comparative neighbours with Cornwall CC The worst performing Local Authority is Lincolnshire CC with 74% There is a 10.8% difference between Cumbria and Lincolnshire Table 8.4: Comparison of 22 local authorities in the North West region 2006/07 Rank Local Authority Percentage 1 Stockport 88 2 Warrington 85 3 Trafford 84 4 Cumbria 83 5 Sefton 82 6 Knowsley 81 7 Cheshire 80 8 St Helens 79 9 Manchester 77 10 Liverpool 77 11 Halton 77 12 Lancashire 75 13 Wirral 74 14 Blackpool 74 15 Bury 73 16 Xxxxxx 72 17 Tameside 70 18 Wigan 69 19 Salford 68 20 Xxxxxxxxx with Darwen 66 21 Rochdale 65 Figure 8.4: Comparison of percentage between Cumbria CC and North West local authorities (2006/07) Cumbria is ranked 4th out of 22 local authorities in the North West region The best performing is Stockport MD with 88% of people who believe people from different backgrounds get on well together in their local area The worst performing is Oldham MD with 54% Cumbria is in the top 25% in the North West There is a 5.7% difference between Stockport MD and Cumbria CC There is a 34.9% difference between Cumbria CC and Oldham MD Figure 8.5: Comparison of 34 County Councils in 2006/07 for % of people who believe people from different backgrounds get on well together in their local area Table 8.2: The top 10 and bottom ranked County Councils in 2006/07 Rank County Councils Percentage 1 Dorset 86 2 Gloucestershire 86 3 Hampshire 86 4 Devon 85 5 Oxfordshire 85 6 Bedfordshire 84 7 Nottinghamshire 84 8 Cornwall 83 9 Cumbria 8...
Table 8. Summary of possible infractions identified by the International Review Panel at its 65th and 66th meetings, July and October 2019.
