BEE-spoke-data/govdocs1-by-extension huggingface dataset:
# Presentation: 729936

## A Global Scale for Ranking Dairy Bulls Using Blended National Rankings

**Rex L. Powell*******
**Paul M. VanRaden**
**Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory**
**Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD**
- _[rpowell@aipl.arsusda.gov](mailto:rpowell@aipl.arsusda.gov)_

**Notes:**
TITLE SLIDE

## Multiple Rankings for Bulls 

*Holstein International 2001*

## Objective

**Examine procedures for combining Interbull country evaluations into a common global evaluation**
**Develop base knowledge for next step (sub-global)**

## Data

**May 2001 Interbull evaluations**
**27 Holstein population scales**
**65,472 bulls with protein data**
**24 million daughters**

## Numbers of Daughters by Countryand Proportion of Global Total

| Country |  | Daughters | Proportion |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| United States | 4,148,875 |  | .17 |
| Germany | 3,635,369 |  | .15 |
| France | 2,940,220 |  | .12 |
| New Zealand | 2,523,259 |  | .11 |
| Netherlands | 2,213,830 |  | .09 |
| Canada | 1,122,599 |  | .05 |
| Great Britain | 1,113,042 |  | .05 |
| Australia | 1,083,235 |  | .05 |
| Others | 5,025,596 |  | .21 |
| Total | 23,806,025 |  | 1.00 |

## Methods

**Evaluations standardized **
**	****(x-mn)/sd**
**Global as bull mean, weighted by**
**Population size**
**Unweighted**
**Inverse of population size**
**Impact on top 100 determined**

## Relation of National & Global ScaleWithin Birth Year

| Country |  | Corr(N,G) | Common top 100 | Mean rg | SD rg |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Australia | .961 |  | 54 | .80 | .0287 |
| Canada | .991 |  | 77 | .89 | .0376 |
| France | .994 |  | 82 | .88 | .0237 |
| Germany | .991 |  | 76 | .87 | .0331 |
| Netherlands | .995 |  | 81 | .90 | .0382 |
| New Zealand | .961 |  | 56 | .79 | .0291 |
| United States | .988 |  | 78 | .89 | .0409 |

**Corr(N,G)**** = correlation of national with global scale**
**r****g**** ****= correlation of national scale with other national scales**

## Relationships of Global Scales Correlations & Common Top 100

|  | Population Size | Unweighted | Inverse Weighting |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Population Size |  | .9994 | .9989 |
| Unweighted | 97 |  | .9997 |
| Inverse Weighting | 95 | 97 |  |

**Relationships of Global Scales ****Correlations & Common Top 100**

## Conclusions

**Global evaluations highly correlated with national evaluations**
**Variation between national and global top 100 lists related to mean genetic correlation **
**Global evaluations robust to weighting procedures (r ~ 1.0)**
# Presentation: 360683

## AVIAN FLU AND BIOSECURITY

- NATIONAL LEADERSHIP TEAM MEETING
- PORTLAND, OREGON
- APRIL 4, 2006
- Barry Kintzer
- National Environmental Engineer

## Progression of Avian Flu2004 - 2006

- Information except the slide on migratory flyways is from the March 30, BBC site:  _[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/world/05/bird_flu_map/html/1.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/world/05/bird_flu_map/html/1.stm)_
- Information on migratory flyways is from:  http://www.who.int/csr/disease/avian_influenza/en/index.html

## Avian FluJanuary through June 2004

## Avian FluJuly through December 2004

## Avian Flu—January through June 2005

## Avian FluJuly through December 2005

## Avian FluJanuary through March 16, 2006

**Avian Flu****January through March 16, 2006**

## World Migratory Flyways

## Slide 9

## Avian Flu—Human cases through   March 21, 2006

**Avian Flu—Human cases through   March 21, 2006**

## NRCS ACTIONS

- BIOSECURITY PROCEDURES
- General Manual (GM) Title 130 Part 403 Subpart H
- APHIS is Lead USDA Agency
- Follow Appropriate Level of Caution (1, 2 or 3)
- GM 130-AGN Amendment 14
- (a)  During periods of outbreak of infectious animal diseases, NRCS employees shall not enter affected areas for normal planning and implementation purposes.  Entry to those areas shall only be made in response to a request from the State Veterinarian or other responsible official in order to provide guidance and assistance for mortality disposal.  In those situations, biosecurity measures as directed by the responsible official shall be followed.

## NRCS ROLE IN EVENT OF AN OUTBREAK

- Assistance with mortality disposal
- Burial
- Incineration
- Composting
- Proper disposal/utilization of litter/manure from infected production facilities

## NRCS MANAGEMENT PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY

- Health and Welfare of NRCS and Partnership Employees!

## “Be prepared for H5N1 being identified in the U.S. – it would be almost biblical to think we would be protected.” – Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns

**“****Be prepared for H5N1 being identified in the U.S. – it would be almost biblical to think we would be protected.” – Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns**
# Presentation: 182760

## Enabler’s Steering Committee Meeting

***January 9******th******, 2003***

## Early Adopter Process Map 

- 1). Agencies

- express interest

- in becoming

- Early Adopters

- 2a). Agencies

- and eGov team

- finalize Early

- Adopter

- Project Scope

- 2b). Executive

- Council approves

- Costs for Enabler’s

- 3a). Agencies

- finalize Early

- Adopter

- agreement

- Continue?

- Yes

- 2c). Early

- Adopters identify

- resources

- (financial and

- personnel)

- 4). Begin Early

- Adopter

- Implementation

- 3b). Consider

- USDA

- -

- wide

- implementation

- No

## Early Adopter Process Details

***The process for Early Adopters will have multiple steps and no Agency will be forced to participate...***
- Step 1 of the process is to express interest in becoming an early adopter.  Many Agencies have already completed this step by indicating specific areas of interest in the eDeployment initiative.
- There are multiple components to Step 2:
- Agencies that have signed up as early adopters will work with the eGovernment team to finalize the early adopter project scope.
- Simultaneously, the Executive Council will be working through defining and approving the Enabler’s Costs.
- Finally, the early adopter Agencies will be working to identify the financial and personnel resources that they can provide towards the implementation effort.
**Following Step 2, Agencies will decide whether or not they intend to continue with the early adopter process.  **
- Step 3 is the decision point in the process -
- As part of Step 3, Agencies that decide not to continue with the early adopter process due to lack of budget, personnel resources or other factors will consider joining the effort for USDA-wide adoption.
- Agencies that decide to continue will formally agree to the conditions of the early adopter agreement.
- Finally, in Step 4, Agencies will begin the early adopter implementation process.  The full implementation will consist of tasks related to Agency specific requirement definition, project planning, design, build, rollout, and continued operations/support of the initiative.
# Presentation: 775119

## CCCS Customer Satisfaction Survey

- Conducted during
- Summer 2005

**Notes:**
CCCS Customer Satisfaction Survey
Conducted during Summer 2004

## CCCS Overall Customer Satisfaction 2005(all active programs)

**803  Responders**
**96 %  Would recommend program**
**93 %  Average response rate to questions**
**89 %  Rated device as “good” or better**
**92 %  Reported health as same or better**
**94 %  Reported current health about the same as they expected or better than expectations**

**Notes:**
CCCS Overall Customer Satisfaction 2005(all active programs)
803  Responders
77 %  Patients, 23 % Caregivers
96 %  Average response rate to questions
93 %  Rated device as “good” or better
89 %  Would recommend program
92 %  Reported health as same or better
94 %  Reported current health about the same as they expected or better than expectations

## Technology DevicePatient’s feedback about their technology device and the overall understanding and reliability of the device.

- Percent

**Notes:**
Technology DevicePatient’s feedback about their technology device and the overall understanding and reliability of the device.
89% rate primary device
90% easily understood
90% easily used
89% reliable

## CCCS Customer Satisfaction Patient feedback regarding Care Coordination services.

- Percent

**Notes:**
CCCS Customer Satisfaction Patient feedback regarding Care Coordination services
91% timely resolution of problems
91% responsive to needs

## CCCS Customer SatisfactionPatient feedback regarding how CCCS helped with Process of Care.

- Percent

**Notes:**
CCCS Customer SatisfactionPatient feedback regarding how CCCS helped with Process of Care.
93% educations patients about condition
89% helps patients manage health
94% improves communication with VA

## CCCS Customer SatisfactionPatient feedback regarding current outcome.

- Percent

**Notes:**
CCCS Customer SatisfactionPatient feedback regarding current outcome.
93% made a difference
91% stay healthier
93% feel more secure
96% would recommend
93% compared to before CCCS

## ConclusionsCCCS 2005 Customer Satisfaction Survey

- Overall, the patients who participated in the 2005 CCCS Customer Satisfaction Survey were very pleased with their care, staff and with their current outcomes.

**Notes:**
ConclusionsCCCS 2005 Customer Satisfaction Survey
Overall, the patients who participated in the 2005 CCCS Customer Satisfaction Survey were very pleased with their care, staff and with their current outcomes.
# Presentation: 139125

## Example: Upfront Payments and Bidding Flexibility 

| Market Number  | Channel/Class  | Market Name  | Bidding Units  | Upfront Payment  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| FM008  | 246A  | Calico Rock, AR  | 15,000  | $15,000  |
| FM009  | 257A  | Cotton Plant, AR  | 15,000  | $15,000  |

- If a bidder wishes to bid on both construction permits in a round, it must have selected both on its FCC Form 175 and purchased at least 30,000 bidding units (15,000 + 15,000).  If a bidder only wishes to bid on one in a given round, but not both, purchasing 15,000 bidding units would meet the requirement for either construction permit.  The bidder would be able to bid on either construction permit in a given round, _but not both at the same time_.

- Former defaulters should calculate their upfront payment for all construction permits by multiplying the number of bidding units they wish to purchase by 1.5.  In order to calculate the number of bidding units to assign to former defaulters, the Commission will divide the upfront payment received by 1.5 and round the result up to the nearest bidding unit.
- NOTE:  An applicant’s actual bidding in any round will be limited by the bidding units reflected in its upfront payment, notwithstanding the number of construction permits the applicant has indicated in its FCC Form 175.
# Presentation: 290364

## NOAA VDMS DATA FLOW

**Cruise Data Received and Distributed by NCDDC**

**Original Digital Video Tapes for Long-Term Archiving and Preservation**

**NOAA Central Library Catalog Online **

**NODC Ocean Archive System**

**Video Annotations **

**Image Annotations**

**Cruise Reports**

**Quick Look Reports**

**Situational Reports**

**Peer-Review Publications**

**Educational Lesson Plans**
**K-12**

**NGDC Archive System**

**Original Raw CTD DATA for Archiving, Preservation, and Online Access**

**Digital Video Highlights**

**Digital Image Highlights**

**Original Raw Multi-Beam Data for Preservation and Online Access**

**Uncompressed Digital Video Data for Online Archiving and Preservation**

**Digital Video Highlights**

**Video Annotations**

**Cruise Reports**

**Quick Look Reports**

**Situational Reports**

**Peer-Review Publications**

**Digital Images**

**Digital Images**

**Image Annotations**

**Digital Image Highlights**

**Web Sites and Related Home Pages**

**Educational Lesson Plans**

**Video Supporting Document**
**For Online Access**

**Video Supporting Document For Archiving, **
**Preservation and Central Online Access**
# Presentation: 497922

## LSC/CNCS/Computer Security

- Mark Leininger
- 6/08

## FY08 Tactical Plan Status for Computer Security

- Relevant Strategic Plan(s):
**“****FY08 Strategic Plan for Computer Security”**
- Docdb Document #2250
- Tactical Plan Goals
- Provide a computer security strategy sufficient to protect lab data and systems without impeding the lab’s mission.

## Budgeted vs Obligated

## Analysis of Status

- M&S issues
- M&S numbers don’t show $135K just submitted for web proxy, so we’ve spent all the budgeted M&S funding
- The KCA first phase transition is just being completed, so there’s not enough time to purchase HSM this fiscal year (~$50K)
- Remaining important purchases
- Splunk license for netflow collection (~$50K)
- Upgrades for collection and analysis machines, Simmer and Roaster (~$25K)
- Upgrade of devices to monitor 10G link
- Ordered Bro box and 10G NIC card (both here but not setup) for single machine test, clustered equipment probably can’t be purchased this fiscal year.
- Rely on CPP provided tap ($50K)
- Large customer demand for NetID Manager port to Unix and Mac (~$300K total)
- OSG has been able to leverage existing Splunk license

## Analysis of Status

- FTE issues
- Total 5.5 FTES charged YTD against computer security activities by people not on computer security team
- Total of 10 FTES spent YTD on DOE Compliance
- Ron Cudzewicz is charging ~50% of his time to OSG funds for work on OSG security controls

## Notes on how I got the numbers

- Budget numbers from crystal reports PA actual obligations and budget rollup through April 30.
- Project Accounting actuals for everyone except Mine, who is paid mostly out of OSG funds. Used division canonical $110K for her. She is paid on budget line items 1548 and 3708. 85% comes out of those two line items ( 5 months NSF and 7 months DOE money), 15% comes out of cyber security money.

## Tactical Plan Objectives for FY08

- Encourage use of central services
- Upgrade infrastructure to accommodate visibility into the ever increasing network speeds
- Minimize impact of DOE requirements on scientific program.
- Refine security controls for new Open Science enclave.

## FY08 Tactical Plan for Computer Security

- Tactical Plan Strategies
- Encourage people to use central services; This means central services have to be useful, easy to use, flexible, responsive
- Use automation wherever practical – eg central logging, blocking and unblocking
- Think long-range for enterprise solutions – not “labware”, use supported (commercial or open source) solutions – eg ldap, Splunk
- Collaborate with other labs.
- Increase efficiency and integration across the Laboratory by (at least) collaborating  with other Div/Sec’s on common projects. Collaborate among ourselves.
- Outsource or use consultants where appropriate, to fill gaps in effort or expertise.
- Maintain life cycle processes which anticipate user needs, changes in technology, growth (or decline) in demand, etc. and allow for tactical plans to be developed twelve to eighteen months ahead, with implementation six months ahead of need.
# Presentation: 326693

## Verification and Validation of Adaptive SystemsOnline Failure Detection and Identification for IFCS through Statistical Learning

- Bojan Cukic, Yan Liu, Srikanth Gururajan
- West Virginia University
**NASA OSMA SAS '04**

## Problem 

- Adaptive systems play an increasingly important role.
- Software V&V poses a major obstacle impeding the widespread use of such systems.
- Abnormal data patterns have a significant impact on the system behavior.
**Independent and reliable detection and identification of such conditions are vital and necessary as part of V&V of adaptive systems.**

## Approach

**Investigate the role of modern AI techniques (Support Vector Machines) in failure detection and identification. **
- Failure Detection
**Designing a fast (real-time) SVDD algorithm, to detect failure conditions **
- Failure Identification
**In off-nominal flight conditions, failure results in loss of symmetry.  Significant couplings between longitudinal and lateral dynamics become highly probable. These failures can be identified by studying the correlation between certain longitudinal and lateral dynamics parameters.**** **
**Validate the methodology in extensive simulations. **

## Importance/benefits

- Developing a* *methodology suitable for ***independent*** assessment of developer’s claims on anomaly (failure) handling.
- Unique and significant improvements of SVDD algorithm,
- Space/time complexities have been highly reduced allowing for real time anomaly detection.
- Automated correlation analysis provides accurate results as an independently developed online failure identification tool.
- Approaches can be generalized for other online adaptive (flight control) systems.

## Relevance to NASA

**Verification and validation of adaptive systems is feasible.  **
- We have been able to develop a good understanding adaptive flight control systems very well.
**Significant lessons learned. **
- Scientific, technological, organizational.
- In collaboration with the ISR, Inc., these methodologies will be included in IV&V guidebooks and best practice documents.
**Interest to utilize this research in upcoming projects at Dryden/Ames. **
- Involve IV&V facility as a future partner.

## Accomplishments

**Development and experimental evaluation of real-time, robust novelty detection algorithms. **** **
**Development and maintenance of a high-fidelity WVU/NASA F-15 flight simulator. **
- Extensive use in evaluation.
**Demonstrating that the developed techniques and tools are suitable for IV&V practice.    **** **
**Importance of a multidisciplinary research approach. **
- Participation of investigators/students from 4 different departments.

## Accomplishments- Failure Detection

## Accomplishments- Failure Identification

## Next Steps

- Continue with rigorous evaluation and performance tuning.
- Explore different parts of the flight envelop.
- Build an SVDD database for online failure detection.
- Analyze/improve the performance (false positives).
- Embed the SVDD tools and cross-correlation analysis into the IFCS simulation environment for testing and demonstration.
- Technology transfer.
# Presentation: 134788

## Site Fire Protection Planning Committee

Presented by 
Joe Levesque

For Copies Email 
Levesque @BNL.Gov
March 19, 2001 revised for April 2002

- Presented by
- Joe Levesque
- For Copies Email
- Levesque @BNL.Gov
**March 19, 2001 revised for April 2002**

## Committee Details

**Area of Responsibility:**
- Site fire alarm system (bldgs to firehouse),
- Local fire detection and fire suppression systems (within bldgs.)
- Covered in other PE committees:  water supplies, hydrants, life safety code, communication

**Membership**

- S. Guthrie
- R. Karol (CA)
- E. Lessard (CA)
- K. Kentoffio, Secretary
- J. Levesque (ESD),Team Leader
- A. Somma
- T. Sperry
- J. Vaz (ESD)
- S. Waski

## Summary of Committee Actions

- Meet three times since last year
- Revised ADSs for current priorities
- Polled to determine if there are any current issues.
- Bldg. 930 Fire Alarm Panel Replacement
- Fire Alarm Central Computer Replacement
- Communication Lines in the Apartment Area

## Issues

- Predictable baseline funding for system replacements is needed (fire alarm, Halon)
- Obsolete fire protection should receive no credit for mitigation in ADS ranking
- Focus in on rehabilitating all fire safety aspects of a building at one time (programmatically important ones first)

## Risk Posed by Unfunded Activities

**World class experimental facilities at risk to major damage and downtime due to fire**
- Halon systems in key programmatic facilities
- Fire alarm systems for CA MCR (515 BCF In Progress)
**Support facilities to BNL operations at risk to loss, interrupting support to programs**
**Basic responsibility to protect scientist & employee**
- Dormitory & Apartments (sleeping quarters)
- High Rise Buildings (Chemistry)
**Quality of life at BNL**
# Presentation: 088280

## Brasil - A Biased View 					(as always)

- Manoel Conde

## Outline

- Brief history:
- Portuguese colony (1500 – 1822)
- Empire (1822 – 1889)
- Republic (1889 – now)
- What it presently looks like.

## Colony

- Cabral was first European in Brazil?
- Treaty of Tordesillas
- Invasions: English, French, Dutch
- Portugal under Spanish king (1580 – 1640)
- Territorial expansion; treaty of Madrid (1750)
- Economic activities: Brazil wood, sugarcane, tobacco, gold, coffee
- Portuguese king in Brazil (1808 – 1821)

## Treaty of Tordesillas (1494)

## Empire

- D. Pedro I (1822 – 1831)
- Aristocracy dominating politics (landowners vs. Portuguese)
- Economic crisis
- Regencies (1831 – 1840)
- Political parties
- Regional revolts
- D. Pedro II (1840 – 1889)
- Parliamentary monarchy
- Liberal and Conservative parties

## Borders

- Conflicts and politics in the South
- British influence

## Republic

- old republic (1889 – 1930)
- Getulio Vargas (1930 – 1945)
- post WWII (1945 – 1964)
- military coup (1964 – 1985)
- back to democracy (1985 – now)

## Brazil today*

- Area: 3,287,612 sq mi (5th largest)
- Population (81% urban): 180,542,000 (5th largest)
- Racial composition: 54% white, mulatto 40%, black 5.4%
- Religious affiliation: catholic 74%, protestant 23%
- 	Fraction of the catholics that actually practice the religion: 10 – 15% in large cities, 60 – 70% in towns and rural areas
- Literacy: 86%
- GNP US$ 479 billion   ($2,710 per capita)
- Fraction of employed population receiving minimum wage: 54%
- Imports: US$ 56 billion (machinery 43%, chemicals 18%, fuels 14%); US 22%, Argentina 10%, Germany 9%)
- Exports: US$ 58 billion (food products 20%, transportation equipment 14%,iron and steel 6%); US 25%, Netherlands 5%

- *Enciclopedia Britannica Almanac 2006

## Five distinct regions

- North
- Northeast
- Center-West
- Southeast
- South

## Center-West:  The Pantanal

- The Pantanal is the largest fresh-water wetland in the world.

## Center-West:  Brasilia

- Pop.  2,094 / 3,200

## Southeast:  Rio de Janeiro

- Pop.  5,974 / 11,227

## Southeast:  Rio de Janeiro

## Southeast:  Rio de Janeiro

## Southeast:  Sao Paulo

- Pop.  10,042 / 18,628

## Southeast:  Sao Paulo

## Southeast:  Sao Paulo

## Angra dos Reis, RJ

**Southeast**

- Ubatuba, SP

## Northeast

- Jeriquaquara, CE

- Tambada, PB

- Natal, RN

## North: Amazon

## South

- Blumenau, SC

- Florianopolis, SC

- Iguaçú
- Falls
# Presentation: 179416

## Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, CALessons Learned:

- Location, location, location.
- Pre-construction monitoring can be critical.
- “Bird kill problem” reported by CA Energy Comm. biologist ~1980; attention 	drawn to issue 1988 by CEC at AWEA conference.
- Grazing and wind development don’t necessarily mix.
- Rodent control hasn’t worked.
- Rock piles for kit fox have created haven for some rodents.
- Certain turbines highly dangerous; cluster turbines, relocate selected, highly 	dangerous turbines.
- When re-powering, elevate rotor swept area.
- Reduce vertical, lateral edge – turbines steeper slopes and canyons more 	dangerous.
- End-of-row and turbines on edge of farm killed disproportionately more birds.
- Pylons need to be rodent-proofed.
- -1-

## Altamont, cont.

- Lessons learned, cont.
- Monitor and update results.
-  Use **adaptive management strategy**:  design, implement, monitor, evaluation, adjust, assess – problem-solving solution.
- Remove guy wires, take down derelict turbines, remove any bird-unfriendly wires.
- Continue to assess deterrents – blade painting, shutdown, relocation.
- FWS Involvement
- OLE
- CNO, Sacramento ES
- WO
- 					-2-

## Altamont, cont.

- Challenges to Siting:
- Re-powering 1:7 ratio.  Elevate rotor swept area.  Use consistent turbine design.  Pylons at turbine string ends to divert flight.
- 3 years post-construction monitoring, including mortality monitoring and behavioral analysis.
- Fatality associations usually species specific – solutions to one may not help another.
- Diversity of ownership.
- Range management.
- Identifying high risk turbines and sites.
- Litigation.
- 					-3-

## Altamont, cont.

- Research issues:
- 	- 1990 several studies began.
- 	- 1989-mid-1990’s:  Orloff and Flannery conducted 1st in-depth 		studies bird fatalities.
- 	- early 1990’s Kennetech convenes Avian Research Task Force.  		Dr. Tom Cade, PI.
- 	- 1993 bankruptcy; studies ended.  No solutions discovered.
- 	- 1994-  Dr. Grainger Hunt GOEA study; funded by CEC until 		~2002.
- 	- 1998, NREL funded Carl Thelander *et al.* for fatality and 			behavioral research.
- 	- 2001, CEC provided Thelander additional funding expand 		research.
- 					-4-

## Altamont, cont.

- Sociological issues:
-  APWRA provides 29% CA’s 3.5 billion KW hours emission-free energy.
- Important to State’s renewable energy portfolio standards to meet 20% State’s electricity by renewable energy sources through 2017.
- Alameda County moratorium on issuing permits to increase capacity until demonstrated progress toward significantly reducing bird mortality at Altamont.
- 					-5-
# Presentation: 699523

## Accessing the Food Programs Reporting System (FPRS) for reporting SF-269 data	 

## According to Grant Cooperative Agreement with FNS	

**    **
**   **Quarterly SF-269 reports must be submitted showing expenditures for the reporting period.

## Steps to obtain access to FPRS

- Part 1: USDA eAuthentication
- Please note that this process can take more than a few days, so please plan accordingly
- Go to _[http://](http://www.eauth.egov.usda.gov/)__[www.eauth.egov.usda.gov](http://www.eauth.egov.usda.gov/)_
- Select “Create an Account”
- Select “Level 2 Access”

## Slide 4

## Slide 5

## eAuthentication FormComplete the form (note the high standards for password security) You will receive an email telling how to activate your accountYou will need to visit a USDA Service Center or Local Registration Authority with a valid photo ID  to confirm your status 

**Notes:**
READ SLIDE.

## Part 2: FNS-674 

- You must have an active eAuthentication account to complete this step
- Please note that this step can take quite a few days, so plan ahead
- You will need a colleague or FNS Regional Office staff to access the following forms from the FPRS Welcome Screen
- You will need to obtain a FNS-674 form
- You will need the FNS-674A to gain form rights for the WIC EBT SF-269
- You will need a FNS-4 for Certify Rights
- Submit these forms to your FNS Regional Office for processing
- You will be notified when your access rights have been approved

## Signing in to FPRS

- Go to _[https://](https://fprs.fns.usda.gov/)__[fprs.fns.usda.gov](https://fprs.fns.usda.gov/)_ Don’t forget the s
- Welcome to FPRS!
- You will be directed to the eAuthentication login screen
- Enter your User ID and Password

## FPRS Training

- Once you’ve successfully signed in to FPRS, at the bottom of the home screen you’ll see computer based training available.
- It shows as “For a system overview, click here to access the _[FPRS CBT](file://hq.fns.pri/alx/User/FPRS%20CBT.htm)_.”
- This is highly recommended to new users in order to understand the process flow of the system.

## Slide 10

## Slide 11

## Slide 12

## Slide 14

## When entering SF-269 EBT Reports in FPRS – Please remember

- Reports must be entered and posted quarterly.
- The previous quarter must be posted in order to enter the data for the next quarter.
- The Grant Source Year needs to be correct on all submissions.

## QUESTIONS?
# Presentation: 095283

## NASA WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY NAMMA PARTICIPATION

- OBJECTIVE:
- Assimilate high-resolution radiosonde profiles focusing on atmospheric structure and features.
- MEASUREMENTS:
- 	Radiosondes
- 		- beginning August 15, one instrument release every four hours - 350 gram balloon
- 		- Temperature, relative humidity, and wind data to be sampled every second
- 		-  GPS position allows lat. and long. for each second with highly accurate winds
- 		-  chilled mirror radiosonde once each night
- 		-  measurements during descent
- 	Precipitable Water
- 		-  ground based GPS unit expected to be available to obtain total precipitable water
- 	Total Ozone
- 		-  expect to have Microtops (photometer) available - total ozone, precipitable water, 		   optical depth.
- 	Vertical Ozone Profiles
- 		-  could be available, but funds and manpower are limited
- DATA LOGISTICS
- 	On a daily basis, available data are expected to be posted to a web page. Details 	will be made available on the Community web site in two-three weeks. _x0010_
** ****HU NAMMA 6/5-6/06  Schmidlin**** **
# Presentation: 503247

## QUEBECMINISTRY OF LABOUR

***LONG TERM COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS, ***
***LABOUR-MANAGEMENT DIALOG***
***AND***
*** ******PUBLIC MEDIATION***
***Presented by Dr. Dalil Maschino***

## 	ALCAN

- In Quebec (5000 jobs), plants and jobs are  concentrated in one region

- A multinational aluminum producer (37 countries; H-0 in Montréal)

## 	ALCAN

- Investment of more than $ 1 billion
- Continuous flow of production

- THE ECONOMICS OF THE PROJECT

- THE SOCIAL PROJECT (union)

- Job protection in an isolated region

## 	ALCAN

**Antagonistic **industrial relations
**Mutual interest** for the invesment project

- THE LOCAL CONTEXT

## 	ALCAN

- SETTING THE STAGE (1996)

- Preliminary contacts with the Union

- Consultation of outside experts

- Contacting the Ministry of Labour

## 	ALCAN

- DAY 1 :  **IDEAL** INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
- 	(vision of union + mngmt)
- DAY 2 :  THE **CURRENT** REALITY
- 	 (vision of union + mngmt)

- THE 4 DAY SEMINAR (Feb. 1997)

## 	ALCAN

- DAY 3 : 	**ACTIONS** TO BE TAKEN BY BOTH 		SIDES (propositions fomr union + 		mngmt + joint propositions)
- DAY 4 : 	ACTION **PLAN** & INFORMATION OF THE	EMPLOYEES

- THE 4 DAY SEMINAR  (Feb. 1997- ctd)

## 	ALCAN

- Two labour-mgmt **committees**
- Hiring a **facilitator** (formerly a mediator)

- IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN

## 	ALCAN

- The **support** of the direction
- The 18 year operational **stability agreement**

- IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN (ctd)

## 	ALCAN

- The **changing** environnment
- The **departure**** **of the initiators

- THE PITFALLS
# Presentation: 517006

## PCEF DESIGN PARAMETERS

**PCEF DESIGN PARAMETERS**

- Strand pattern type - There are three basic categories of pretensioned strand patterns; draped, straight, and straight with unbonding.  With proper attention to design and detailing, all three can provide an equivalent end-result. Recognizing this, it is the consensus of the committee that straight strand patterns (either with or without unbonding) are preferred and that draped designs can be substituted given that computations are provided which document the equivalency of the design.

## PCEF DESIGN PARAMETERS

**PCEF DESIGN PARAMETERS**

- It is the consensus of the committee that the maximum amount of unbonding used to reduce top tensile stresses (or bottom compressive stresses) at the end of the member should be limited to 25% of the total number of strands.

## PCEF DESIGN PARAMETERS

**PCEF DESIGN PARAMETERS**

- Many states either use, or allow the use of, 1/2" Special strands with an area = 0.167 in2. Some states are leaning toward the use of 0.6" strands spaced at 2" c/c.  It is the consensus of the committee that either 1/2" Special or 0.6" strands spaced at 2" c/c should be used in the design of pretensioned bridge members.

## PCEF DESIGN PARAMETERS

**PCEF DESIGN PARAMETERS**

- Most states in the region design to a maximum allowable tensile stress in the precompressed tensile zone (i.e. At or very near midspan at the bottom of the girder) of
- 	3* sqrt(f'c).  A small number still design for zero allowable tensile stress.  It is the consensus of the committee that 3*sqrt(f'c) tension is adequate to provide sufficient protection in severe environments and should be used throughout the region, unless the owner deems that a higher allowable tensile stress provides adequate protection in their area.

## PCEF DESIGN PARAMETERS

**PCEF DESIGN PARAMETERS**

- For I-beam, bulb-tee, and spread box beam bridges, many states use a single line of diaphragms at midspan to stabilize the girders during deck casting for spans up to 160 feet.  Given the cost and safety implications of diaphragms, it is the consensus of the committee that a single line of diaphragms should be used for spans up to at least 160 feet.

## PCEF DESIGN PARAMETERS

**PCEF DESIGN PARAMETERS**

- Reinforcement projecting from the top of pretensioned bridge girders is not only costly, it is a safety (tripping) hazard for workers on the jobsite and is a logical pathway for corrosive materials to enter the girders.  Therefore, it is the consensus of the committee that AASHTO horizontal shear reinforcement provisions should be used to reduce the amount of projecting reinforcement as much as possible.
# Presentation: 679425

## Techniques to work on:
Neural Networks  
Marcin, Tony
Adaptive Mixtures 
Pushpa, Harrison
Support Vector Machines  
Daniel W, Tony 
Independent Component Analysis
Dan R, Marcin, ..
Self-Organizing Maps 
Antonio, Mcihael Arov, Pushpa, 

- Neural Networks
**Marcin, Tony**
- Adaptive Mixtures
**Pushpa, Harrison**
- Support Vector Machines
**Daniel W, Tony **
- Independent Component Analysis
**Dan R, Marcin, ..**
- Self-Organizing Maps
**Antonio, Mcihael Arov, Pushpa**,

- Run2AAG Work-Plan for next 3 months

**Nov. 8, 2001**

## Plan (cont’d)

- Problems to be addressed:
- Classification
**Examples:**
**Signal/Background Discrimination**
**Flavor-tagging of jets**
- Parameter Estimation
**Examples:**
**Top mass in dilepton channel**
**Jet energy correction**

## Plan (cont’d)

- Bench-mark Analyses:
**Top**
**ttbar ******** e ******** +jets**
**     ****Backgrounds: WW, Z ******** ******
**Higgs**
**WH: M = 110 – 140 GeV**
**      ****Backgrounds: Wbb, ttbar**
**ttH: M = 110 – 140 GeV**
**      ****Backgrounds: ttjj**
**Z ******** bb**
**       ****Background: QCD di-jets**
**    ****(improving Z mass resolution)**
**	**
# Presentation: 680405

## Goal – 1422 GWh - Equivalent of 2.5% of Federal facility electricity use by 2005
equals about 500 MW of wind (at 31% Capacity Factor)

- equals about 500 MW of wind (at 31% Capacity Factor)

- June 2000	  	173 GWh
- _Current (8/29/02):  __	__362 GWh_
- To Go:  	         1,060 GWh

**Federal Renewable Energy Goal**

**Notes:**

based on a capacity factor of 31%. 

## Federal Renewable Technologies and Purchases - 1990 – Sept. 2002 

**Federal Renewable Technologies and Purchases - 1990 – Sept. 2002**** **

**Technologies**

**Solar**
**Thermal**

**Biomass**

** ****Wind **

**RE Purchases/**

**Credits**

**PV**

**Ground **

**Source **

**Heat Pump**

**Biomass**
**Fuels**

- Solar Thermal

- 6.5

- GWh

- Biomass

- 92.5

- GWh

- Wind

- 14.1

- GWh

- RE Purchases/Credits

- 127.0

- GWh

- Photovoltaics (PV)

- 22.2

- GWh

- Ground Source Heat Pump

- 88.8

- GWh

- Biomass Fuels

- 10.4

- GWh

**Total**

- 361.5

- GWh

**Federal Energy Management Program**

**Data as of 8/29/02**

**Notes:**
Goal definition were broad and included renewable fuels

Biomass Fuels:  FY 2000, biodiesel and E-85 use only.  Does not include 10% ethanol blends.  Converted at rate of 3412 Btu/kWh.

Data as of 8/29/02 – K degroat

For ASES – The pie tells a lot of the story on the challenges for solar and the Federal renewable goal

## Solar Thermal – 1.8 GWh
Photovoltaics – 11.3 GWh
GSHP – 16.9 GWh
Wind – 2.5 GWh
RE Purchases/Credits – 113.5 GWh since March
Outlook:  Several projects in Annual Reports mentioned, but with insufficient data to add. Significant additions from LFG expected 2002.

- Photovoltaics – 11.3 GWh
- GSHP – 16.9 GWh
- Wind – 2.5 GWh
- RE Purchases/Credits – 113.5 GWh since March
- Outlook:  Several projects in Annual Reports mentioned, but with insufficient data to add. Significant additions from LFG expected 2002.

**Where is the Growth**

**Notes:**
PV – just a lot better accounting of a number of small systems – USCG, DoD, a handful of larger projects.
Wind – also a handful of new projects and better accounting of systems already in place.
GSHP is bursting out all over in DoD, with smaller pieces in EPA, DOI.  NC, SC for MC, TX, CA and NJ for Army, Navy in DC, FL, VA, MD.
Solar thermal is pool heating, more SWH systems for housing, and slow growth in transpired collectors.
Green Power – latest is 19GWh from the Army serving Walter Reed, Adelphi, and Ft. McNair – wind and LFG. 

## Data on projects for your agency in the database – usually more than are being reported
Feel free to correct, update, use
Includes entries for projects that had insufficient data to enter – if we get it, we will put it in
Kevin DeGroatkdegroat@mcneiltech.com703-921-1632703-921-1610 (fax)

- Feel free to correct, update, use
- Includes entries for projects that had insufficient data to enter – if we get it, we will put it in
- Kevin DeGroatkdegroat@mcneiltech.com703-921-1632703-921-1610 (fax)

**Handouts**** **
# Presentation: 798315

## Assessment of the ECCO2 optimized solution in the ArcticAn T. Nguyen, R. Kwok, D. MenemenlisJPL/CaltechIICWG/S4D workshop, Copenhagen Oct 15-17, 2008

- Assessment of the ECCO2 optimized solution in the ArcticAn T. Nguyen, R. Kwok, D. MenemenlisJPL/CaltechIICWG/S4D workshop, Copenhagen Oct 15-17, 2008

## Outline:

-  ECCO2
-  Optimized solution in the Arctic
-  Sea ice:
-  Extent  summer 2007
-  Velocities & fluxes
-  Thickness
-  Ocean:
-  hydrography
-  fresh water content
-  heat & volume fluxes
-  Summary
-  Arctic solution: 53% cost reduction
-  Greenland Sea

## ECCO2:

## ECCO2:

- controled parameters

**Modified Cost**:                        *J*  =  (**y**o – *G*(**0**))T **W** (**y**o – *G*(**0**))                                                        (**G**(**** – ********+ ****)T **W **(**G**(**** – ********+ ****)
-                                                        (****– ********T**G**T**WG**(****– ********+ ****T**W******

**G**(********) ****

## ECCO2:

- [**y**o]

- [****]

## Regional Arctic solution:

_**Ocean model:**_
-  ~ 18km horizontal, 50 vertical levels
-  volume-conserving, C-grid
-  Surface BC’s: ECMWF / ERA-40
-  Initial conditions: WOA05
-  bathymetry: GEBCO
-  KPP mixing [Large et al., 1994]
_**Sea ice model:**_
-  C-grid, ~ 18km
-  2-catergory zero-layer thermodynamics       [Hibler, 1980]
-  Viscous plastic dynamics [Hibler, 1979]
-  Initial conditions: Polar Science Center
-  Snow simulation: [Zhang et al., 1998]

## Regional optimized solution:

-  Sea-ice velocity, sea-ice thickness, CTD profiles,
-  Parameters:
-  Salt-plume parameters, air / sea-ice drag coefficients, sea-ice and ocean albedos, sea-ice strength, initial conditions, freshwater content, etc.
-  Solutions:
-       Baseline:    A0
- Optimized: A1
-  Cost: (m-d)T W (m-d)

- [****]

- [**y**o]

## Sea ice extent

## Sea ice extent

## Sea ice thickness

## Sea ice velocity

- Passive microwave derived
- 1992-2002

## Sea Ice flux: 

**Sea Ice flux:**

## Arctic ocean hydrography

- Nguyen et al, [2008], *submitted to JGR-Oceans*

## Arctic ocean fluxes: Bering Strait

- [Woodgate, 2006]

## Arctic ocean flux: Fram Strait

- [Schauer 2006]

## Arctic ocean flux: Fram Strait

## Summary:

- _Summary:_

-    Arctic Ocean:
- Summer 2007 sea-ice minimum
- Realistic Halocline
- Freshwater: compatible with Serreze estimates
- Berring Strait: all fluxes compatible with measurements  from Woodgate [2006]
- Fram Strait: all fluxes too low compared to Schauer [2006]

## END

- _END_

## Arctic ocean (5): Fresh water volume:
# Presentation: 719957

## Program Support: Facilities, Equipment, Reagents and Supplies

- Peter Crippen
- Public Health Advisor
- GAP Laboratory Support Team

## Quality 

- To assure quality results in the laboratory, it is necessary to assure that the appropriate supplies, reagents, and equipment are used in a safe and clean environment.

- Experience
- Systems
- Critical Points

## Experience

- Collective experience of CDC/HQ staff, other U.S.-based experts, GAP field staff, and host country personnel.
- Laboratory design and renovation; equipment selection and purchase; procurement of reagents and supplies.
- Dialogue with USAID, other donors, Ministries of Health.

## Systems

- Local purchase, Embassy, USAID.
- GAP/Atlanta: Jhosetta Morrow & Peter Crippen.
- Other CDC procurement.
- Lab-in-a-box.
- Crown Agents

## Critical Points

- Placement of equipment; renovation.
- Provision for installation and maintenance.
- Thoughtful selection:  appropriateness, level of training required.
- Consistency of brands; staff experience.
- Cost and cost limitations.

- Lead time.
- Customs.
- FDA approval.

## Contact Information

- Jhosetta Morrow: 404-498-2731; _[JMorrow@cdc.gov](mailto:JMorrow@cdc.gov)_
- Peter Crippen; 404-498-2712; _[PCrippen@cdc.gov](mailto:PCrippen@cdc.gov)__ _
# Presentation: 372124

## Task Order No. S-22 Recovery of Hawaiian humpback whale sighting and movement data

**Task Order No. S-22 ****Recovery of Hawaiian humpback whale sighting and movement data**

**Dr. Debra Palka**
***NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center***
**Dan Smith**
***Integrated Statistics, Inc.***
**Dr. Peter Tyack**
***Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution***

## Background

**Background**

**Off Maui, Peter Tyack (now at WHOI) collected data on locations, tracks, and behaviors of humpback whales and ships during the mating seasons (Jan-Apr) of 1979-81**
**This is one of the first extensive, multi-year studies of humpback whale occurrence and behavior in the Hawaiian Islands**
**In 1997 the area was designated as part of the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary**

## Scientific Rationale

**Scientific Rationale**

_***Contribution to improved data access and rescue***_
**Provides an accurate and complete electronic version of the historical handwritten data**
_***General merit to overall program***_
**Since one of the sanctuary’s goals is long-term monitoring, these nearly 30 year old data will greatly enhance the knowledge on these endangered animals.**** **
_***Value to community***_
** ****These historical data can be used in combination with more recent studies to investigate how changes in climate, habitat, and shipping traffic are associated with changes in the distribution and behavior of humpback whales on their breeding grounds.**

## Project Accomplishments:

**Project Accomplishments:**

**100 sample pages have been key-punched, proof-read, and corrected. **
**A Keying Guide has been developed for keyers to reduce number of errors.**
**Scanning procedures have been developed and agreed upon.**
**Three notebooks have been sent to Source Corp.**
**Source Corp will start scanning and keying in these 3 notebooks in the very near future.**

**Notes:**
The Keying Guide includes background information on the project, commonly used abbreviations and symbols, coded that were used for the whale behaviors, initials of the observers, boat names, correct spelling of Hawaiian places that may appear in the notes,  a nautical chart that includes coastlines and landmarks in the study area, and other helpful suggestions to reduce the confusion of reading the notes and thus keying errors.

## Remaining to be done:

**Scan and key the 3 notebooks (each about 150 pages) that Source Corp presently has.**
**Mail to Source Corp, scan and key-in the remaining 11 notebooks.**
**Proof-read the results from all of the notebooks.**
**Correct keyed in data.**
**Source Corp stated they could probably complete all the notebooks within the next couple months.**
# Presentation: 136466

## Estimating electricity use “associated with the internet”:  A cautionary tale

- Jonathan Koomey, Ph.D.
- Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
- JGKoomey@lbl.gov, 510/486-5974, http://enduse.lbl.gov/
- Talk is on the web at http://enduse.lbl.gov/shareddata/internetdatatalk000524.ppt
- Presented at the WRAP AP2 Forum
- Marines' Memorial Hotel, San Francisco, CA
- June 1, 2000

## Beware false premises

**	****The fascinating impressiveness of rigorous mathematical analysis, with its atmosphere of precision and elegance, should not blind us to the defects of the premises that condition the whole process.  There is perhaps no beguilement more insidious and dangerous than an elaborate and elegant mathematical process built upon unfortified premises.**
**--T. C. Chamberlain--**

## Background

- _x0008_*The Internet Begins with Coal*, by Mark Mills, was published in *Forbes* in May 1999.
- Results were widely cited.
- Memo to EPA dated 9 December 1999 was our response (http://enduse.lbl.gov/Projects/InfoTech.html).
- Congressional testimony given by Mills, Jay Hakes, and Joe Romm on 2 February 2000.

## Mills’ analysis was flawed

- Bad data: 1-2 kW PCs, 500 kW central offices, 250 kW mainframes, confusion of web sites and servers.
- Bad boundary definitions: Just what part of a PC or a server is “associated with the internet”, anyway?
- Overlooked systemic effects: information tech. can affect the efficiency of many processes.

## Mills’ electricity “used by the internet”, corrected by LBNL

**TWh per year**

## Data needs

- Equipment sales
- Power use (W) by operating mode
- Usage (Hours) by operating modes
- Equipment stocks (estimate using sales and lifetimes, and/or assess using surveys)
- Materials use, reuse, and recycling
- Estimate energy use and emissions
- Systemic effects (e.g., telecommuting, e-commerce)

## Latest estimate of office equipment electricity use by sector in 1999

**Residential 12%**

**Industrial 13%**

**Network**
**     ****4%**

**Commercial  71%**

**Total = 74 TWh**

- http://enduse.lbl.gov/Projects/InfoTech.html

## Comparison of Estimates of Energy Use for Commercial Office Equipment in 1999

**Printer**

**Desktop/Portable/Server Computer**

**Display/Terminal**

**Mainframe/Minicomputer**

**Copier/Fax**

**Annual Energy Use (TWh)**

## Possible systemic effects of information technology (IT)

- Commercial floor space
- Reduced office space
- Reduced warehouse space
- Changes in travel patterns
- More efficient use of energy and materials
- IT + utility deregulation = energy service markets for Enron

## Something unusual is going on

## Conclusions

- Misinformation seems to spread more quickly than truth.
- Electricity used by computers and network equipment is at least a factor of eight smaller than Mills implies.
- Understanding the systemic effects of information technology is critically important.
- Credible data are urgently needed.

## Join the network for energy, environment, efficiency, and the information economy (N4E)

**http://n4e.lbl.gov**

## LBNL best estimate of electricity use
# Presentation: 701802

## The NEW KidsTM Program

## 284 new patients seen over 18 months
Very overweight
BMI Mean = 35 kg/m2 (99.8th percentile)
BMI > 40 = 27%
BMI Range: 17 – 78 kg/m2 
High risk for later CVD

**Very overweight**
**BMI Mean = 35 kg/m****2**** (99.8****th**** percentile)**
**BMI **_**>**_** 40 = 27%**
**BMI Range: 17 – 78 kg/m****2**** **
**High risk for later CVD**

**56% elevated cholesterol**
**43% elevated LDL**
**14% low HDL**
**44% elevated triglycerides**
**65% elevated insulin levels**

**High Prevalence of CV Factors in Children seen in a Pediatric Weight Management Program**
**JA Skelton, D Kilway, S Lerret, G Telega**

## 284 overweight patients (age 2-18 years) 
60 children (21%) demonstrated an elevated ALT 
15 children (5%) demonstrated an elevated AST
8 children (3%) were biopsied 
Mean BMI of patients biopsied = 35.1 (+/- 7.3) 
All 8 children had NASH
7/8 had fibrosis with cirrhosis

**60 children (21%) demonstrated an elevated ALT **
**15 children (5%) demonstrated an elevated AST**
**8 children (3%) were biopsied **
**Mean BMI of patients biopsied = 35.1 ****(+/- 7.3)**** **
**All 8 children had NASH**
**7/8 had fibrosis with cirrhosis**

**Steatohepatitis in Overweight Children ****S Lerret, JA Skelton, D Kilway, G Telega**

## Psychosocial factors in a multidisciplinary pediatric obesity treatment programL Miller, JA Skelton, M Otto, J Mao, H Hackbarth, G Flores

**58 patients followed in program for > 9 months**
**64% had successful reduction in weight status**
**Overall group had a reduction in CVRFs**
**No association with race/ethnicity, income, gender**

## Slide 5

## Slide 6

## Slide 7