Uncertainty issues within the WFD Sample Clauses

Uncertainty issues within the WFD. The Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires that results of the status assessment and monitoring programmes give estimates of the confidence and precision of the determination. Understanding the effect of sampling variation and other sources of uncertainty on the ecological status class assessment and underlying metrics is key in this process. Sources of uncertainty can be, amongst others, due to natural spatial and temporal variation, sampling methodology or predictive modeling (Xxxxxx and Hering, 2006). A detailed overview of general considerations with regards to uncertainty issues in status assessment is given in the WISER Deliverable D6.1-1: “Report on a workshop to bring together experts experienced with tool development and uncertainty estimation” (Xxxxxx and Xxxxx, 2008). For macrophyte status assessment the sampling methodology is an important source of uncertainty. Quantitative estimates of uncertainty related to bioassessment methods are required to reach accurate waterbody ecological classification decisions. Standardised, objective, and repeatable monitoring methods are essential in monitoring programs with aims to detect anthropogenic impact on lake ecosystems. Results of lake macrophyte surveys are extremely sensitive to errors due to both vertical and horizontal variability of macrophyte communities (Xxxxxx 1977, Janauer, 2002). In addition to spatial variability there are errors related to recognition and identification of individual species and also especially to coverage estimations of vegetation. This study aims to assess the relative importance of different sources of (spatial) variation in the sampling data on uncertainty in the available metrics. Previous work on uncertainty in macrophyte status assessment methods and metrics (especially from the STAR project on running waters) showed that inter-surveyor differences were low and the influences of temporal variation (years and seasons) and shading slightly stronger (Xxxxxx and Hering, 2006). The strongest variation was due to habitat modifications, but several metrics were of sufficient precision in terms of sampling uncertainty to be useful for estimating the ecological status of rivers (Xxxxxxxxxxxx et al., 2006). However, the probability of misclassification of a site was found to be largely associated with classification methodology (Xxxxxxxxxxxx et al., 2007, 2009).
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Uncertainty issues within the WFD

  • Additional mechanisms within the Programme 5.1 Pre-defined projects

  • What If I Engage in a Prohibited Transaction If you engage in a “prohibited transaction,” as defined in Section 4975 of the Internal Revenue Code, your account will be disqualified, and the entire balance in your account will be treated as if distributed to you and will be taxable to you as ordinary income. Examples of prohibited transactions are:

  • Retraining for Positions within the Hospital Where, with the benefit of retraining of up to six (6) months, an employee who has either accepted the layoff or who is unable to displace any other employee could be redeployed to a hospital position identified by the Redeployment Committee in accordance with Article 9.08(d)(i):

  • Options within the Layoff Unit A. Employees will be laid off in accordance with seniority, as defined in Article 39, Seniority. The Employer will determine if the employee possesses the required skills and abilities for the position and the comparability of the position. The Employer may require updated information from the employee regarding the employee’s current skills and abilities. Employees being laid off will be provided one (1) option within the layoff unit in descending order of salary range and one

  • Outpatient emergency and urgicenter services within the service area The emergency room copay applies to all outpatient emergency visits that do not result in hospital admission within twenty-four (24) hours. The urgicenter copay is the same as the primary care clinic office visit copay.

  • What if a Prohibited Transaction Occurs If a “prohibited transaction”, as defined in Section 4975 of the Internal Revenue Code, occurs, the Xxxxxxxxx Education Savings Account could be disqualified. Rules similar to those that apply to Traditional IRAs will apply.

  • Entities that Boycott Israel Contractor represents and warrants that (1) it does not, and shall not for the duration of the Contract, boycott Israel or (2) the verification required by Section 2271.002 of the Texas Government Code does not apply to the Contract. If circumstances relevant to this provision change during the course of the Contract, Contractor shall promptly notify System Agency.

  • STATUTORY PENALTY FOR INADEQUATE QUALIFIED INVESTMENT Pursuant to Section 313.0275 of the TEXAS TAX CODE, in the event that the Applicant fails to make $10,000,000 of Qualified Investment, in whole or in part, during the Qualifying Time Period, the Applicant is liable to the State for a penalty. The amount of the penalty is the amount determined by: (i) multiplying the maintenance and operations tax rate of the school district for that tax year that the penalty is due by (ii) the amount obtained after subtracting (a) the Tax Limitation Amount identified in Section 2.4.B from (b) the Market Value of the property identified on the Appraisal District's records for the Tax Year the penalty is due. This penalty shall be paid on or before February 1 of the year following the expiration of the Qualifying Time Period and is subject to the delinquent penalty provisions of Section 33.01 of the TEXAS TAX CODE. The Comptroller may grant a waiver of this penalty in the event of Force Majeure which prevents compliance with this provision.

  • PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTS WITH COMPANIES BOYCOTTING ISRAEL CERTIFICATION As required by Chapter 2271 of the Texas Local Government Code the Contractor must verify that it 1) does not boycott Israel; and 2) will not boycott Israel during the term of the Contract. Pursuant to Section 2271.001, Texas Government Code:

  • Puts Within 30 Days After Bank Closing During the thirty (30)-day period following Bank Closing and only during such period (which thirty (30)-day period may be extended in writing in the sole absolute discretion of the Receiver for any Loan), in accordance with this Section 3.4, the Assuming Institution shall be entitled to require the Receiver to purchase any Deposit Secured Loan transferred to the Assuming Institution pursuant to Section

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!