alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Resources for Certified Technical Service Providers

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Technical Service Providers 
-  Resources for Certified Technical Service Providers 

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) offers free information to help Technical Service Providers work with eligible program participants. Below is a list of available resources:

**Contacts**

Regional TSP Coordinator Map(415.47 KB)

**NRCS Registry**
              - NRCS Registry Log In
              - Technical Service Provider - Training Videos    (YouTube)

NRCS Registry – TSP Application User Guide(2.08 MB)

NRCS_Registry_Business_Certification_User_Guide.pdf(1.22 MB)

NRCS_Registry_Expiring_or_Expired_License_or_Certication_User_Guide(261.84 KB)

**Certification**

Regional Certifier Map - Updated 07052023(922.85 KB)

TSP Certification Agreement for TSP(81.79 KB)

TSP Certification Agreement for OBR/Business(156.9 KB)

Safeguarding Personally Identifiable Information Fact Sheet (146.8 KB)

**Civil Rights Responsibilities**

TSP Civil Rights Responsibilities(34.23 KB)

USDA Anti-Harassment Policy(172.47 KB)

USDA Civil Rights Statement(100.66 KB)

NRCS Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Policy Statement(745.79 KB)

"And Justice For All" Poster(4.44 MB)

              - USDA Non-Discrimination Statement

**Forms**
              - TSP Forms

**Payment Rates**
              - Technical Service Payment Rates
              - State Payment Schedules (Coming Soon! Later in 2022 TSPR Rates will be found here)

**TSP Policy and Regulations**
              - Technical Service Provider Assistance Regulation  (7CFR, Part 652)
              - Technical Service Provider Assistance Policy  (GM 180, Part 411)
              - Technical Service Provider Assistance Manual  (Title 440, Part 504)
              - Conservation Planning Manual  (GM 180, Part 409)
              - National Planning Procedures Handbook (NPPH)  (Handbooks Title 180, Part 600)
              - eDirectives

**Tools and References**
              - Electronic Field Office Technical Guide
              - Other Tools and References for TSPs

**Training**
              - Certified Conservation Planner-State Specific Training Modules
              - TSP Training Opportunities

**Contact Information**

To learn more about NRCS’s TSP program in a respective state,  e-mail the national TSP team at tsp@usda.gov.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 April 12, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 06-13133

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-00033-CR-4-RH

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

KURTIS TYRONE WRIGHT, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

_________________________

(April 12, 2007)

Before DUBINA, CARNES and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Kurtis Wright appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a
2

convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). Wright

contends that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the offense. After

careful review of the parties arguments and the record on appeal, we affirm.

“We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, viewing

the evidence in the light most favorable to the government.” At Wright’s trial, the

government produced evidence that: (1) Wright at one time admitted committing

the bank robbery using a 9-millimeter pistol; (2) while incarcerated Wright

described the bank robbery and his possession of the 9-millimeter pistol to a fellow

inmate; (3) Wright admitted at trial that he had touched a black pistol on the day of

the robbery; (4) Wright led police on a high-speed chase using a vehicle that

matched the description of the vehicle used in the robbery and that was carrying

men who matched the description of the men who committed the armed bank

robbery; and (5) two loaded firearms, resembling those used in the bank robbery,

were located in the trailer that Wright was parked in front of when spotted by

police. While Wright questions the credibility of his fellow inmate’s testimony

because the inmate stood to benefit from it, we have determined that the fact that

testimony may benefit the person giving it does not make the testimony incredible. 

See United States v. Chastain, 198 F.3d 1338, 1561 (11th Cir. 1999). Thus, it was

for the jury to decide whether to believe the testimony. Similarly, the jury could
3

find Wright’s testimony that the gun he touched was not one of the guns

introduced at trial lacked credibility. If disbelieved, Wright’s testimony could be

used as substantive evidence of his guilt. United States v. Woodward, 459 F.3d

1078, 1087 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). 

We find that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that Wright was

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon

under § 922(g)(1). Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.
# Recreation Land Improvement and Protection (Ac.) (566) Conservation Practice Standard

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Resources 
-  Recreation Land Improvement and Protection (Ac.) (566) Conservation Practice Standard 

Download the national conservation practice standard document and supporting documents for Recreation Land Improvement and Protection (Ac.) (566).

## National Standard Document

NOTICE - National conservation practice standards should not be used to plan, design or install a conservation practice. To find these documents at the local level, visit our Field Office Technical Guide website. 

Conservation Practice Name (Units) (Code) (Date Issued)

Recreation Land Improvement and Protection (Ac.) (566) (7/2021) Standard Document(127.05 KB)

###   Supporting Documents

Recreation Land Improvement and Protection (Ac.) (566) Overview(314.54 KB)

Recreation Land Improvement and Protection (Ac.) (566) Network Diagram(70.27 KB)

Recreation Land Improvement and Protection (Ac.) (566) CPPE(25.07 KB)

##   Additional Information

### Conservation Practice Standards

On this page find links to national conservation practice standards and supporting documents.
Learn More

### Conservation Practice Standards Information

Learn about the information provided in conservation practice standards and supporting documents, such as overviews, worksheets, and network effects diagrams.
Learn More
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Conservation Crop Rotation, Integrated Pest Management, Nutrient Management, Residue and Tillage Management, Mulch Till, Residue and Tillage Management, No Till/Strip Till/Direct Seed, Residue and Tillage Management, Ridge Till, Residue Management, Seasonal.

**Note:**This worksheet contains general talking points for the conservation planner to discuss with the land user.  It is the first step towards an economic or financial analysis.  The second step would include identifying a specific site for analysis at the farm or field level, editing the template for local conditions, adding units and quantities of farm inputs and outputs.  The third step in the economic analysis is to place a dollar value on as many variables as possible, put all units in the same time frame, using amortization ($/Acres/Year) or net present value ($/Acre), so benefits and costs can be compared.  The fourth and final step would be to combine several conservation practices into a conservation system, which is how most conservation practices are applied at the field level. Data for the worksheet comes from the land user, conservation planner, technical specialist and local agricultural supply vendors and contractors.  See Economics Technical Note: TN 200-ECN-1, Basic Economic Analysis Using T-Charts (August 2013) for more information.
# High Tunnel System (Sq.Ft.) (325) Conservation Practice Standard

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Resources 
-  High Tunnel System (Sq.Ft.) (325) Conservation Practice Standard 

Download the national conservation practice standard document and supporting documents for High Tunnel System (Sq.Ft.) (325).

## National Standard Document

NOTICE - National conservation practice standards should not be used to plan, design or install a conservation practice. To find these documents at the local level, visit our Field Office Technical Guide website.

Conservation Practice Name (Units) (Code) (Date Issued)

High Tunnel System (Sq.Ft.) (325) (3/15) Standard Document(58.89 KB)

###   Supporting Documents

High Tunnel System (Sq.Ft.) (325) Overview(252.55 KB)

High Tunnel System (Sq.Ft.) (325) Network Diagram(59.55 KB)

## Conservation at Work: High Tunnel

This video explores how Keu Y Moua in Fresno, CA, is using this practice to extend the growing season and grow specialty crops on her land.

##   Additional Information

### Conservation Practice Standards

On this page find links to national conservation practice standards and supporting documents.
Learn More

### Conservation Practice Standards Information

Learn about the information provided in conservation practice standards and supporting documents, such as overviews, worksheets, and network effects diagrams.
Learn More
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases

# News Releases - 2009

subscribe to page updates

January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December

*This page includes links to files in non-HTML format. See Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools for more information.*

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, February 03, 2021

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2024
          - 2023
          - 2022
          - 2021
          - 2020
          - 2019
          - 2018
          - 2017
          - 2016
          - 2015
          - 2014
          - 2013
          - 2012
          - 2011
          - 2010
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007
          - 2006
          - 2005
          - 2004
          - 2003
          - 2002
          - 2001
          - 2000
          - 1999
          - 1998
          - 1997
          - 1996

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

#### Search News Releases

#### Related Information

            - Speeches

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, February 03, 2021
United States Environmental Protection Agency

Region IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

August 31, 2011

Transmittal of EPA Rule Review Comments

To: Joe Cassmassi, South Coast Air Quality Management District

jcassmassi@aqmd.gov

Mike Guzzetta, California Air Resources Board

mguzzett@arb.ca.gov

From: Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief

steckel.andrew@epa.gov

Re: Rule 1147, NOx reductions from Miscellaneous Sources (8/9/11 draft)

We are providing comments based on our preliminary review of the draft rule identified above. Please 

direct any questions in this regard to me at (415) 947-4115 or to Idalia Perez at (415) 972-3248.

General Comment

CAA section 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving SIP revisions that interfere with applicable requirements 

concerning attainment and reasonable further progress. The Impact Analysis (page 3-1 of Draft Staff 

Report) shows that the delay in compliance deadline won't affect attainment or RFP. Nonetheless, it 

unclear how payment of the mitigation fee and accompanying delay in compliance will impact the 

expected amount of reductions and the timing of these reductions with respect to RFP and attainment 

deadlines. The District should further document that this compliance alternative will not affect attainment 

or RFP. 

Section Specific Comments

1. The Staff Report should explain the reasons for changes to the Compliance Determination Section, 

(d)(1), and why the changes are appropriate.

2. A definition of "dual purpose burner", as used in Section (d)(7)(B), should be added. 

3. The District should clarify that the option of testing once for multiple units with a common exhaust in 

Section (d)(7)(B) is available only for similar types of units. If the District intends this option to be also 

available to different types of units venting in parallel to a common exhaust, the District should explain 

why this is appropriate. 

4. Section (d)(7)(B) allows compliance for multiple units to be determined by testing at one location. 

Because these provisions allow sources flexibility to comply with the emissions standards, the rule 

should address EPA’s guidance on economic incentive programs, "Improving Air Quality with 

Economic Incentive Programs,” January 2001 (EPA-452/R-01-001), available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/eipfin.pdf. 

a. To ensure adequate deterrence to non-compliance, the rule should specify that sources relying on 

provision (d)(7)(B) that exceed an emission limit are liable for a separate violation at each unit for 

each day.

b. The District should address how the rule provides for an environmental benefit for sources 
utilizing section (d)(7)(B)(ii). An environmental benefit is most readily demonstrated by providing

a 10% emission reduction for the environment. In some cases, the environmental benefit could 

be addressed by the District’s showing that the flexibility provision is needed to regulate a sector 

for the first time and/or establish more stringent standards than would otherwise have been 

possible.
NRCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE EFFECTS - NETWORK DIAGRAM March 2014

Hedgerow Planting 

(422)

D.3 (+) Canopy cover and 

vertical vegetative structure 

from established plants

1. Linear stand of planted 

trees and shrubs, or dense 

upright herbaceous 

vegetation (bunch grasses)

D.4 (+) 

Carbon 

storage

I.12 (-) Crop 

production 

(nonwoody)

I.13 (-) Crop 

business and 

support 

infrastructure

I.10 (-) 

Greenhouse 

gases

I.9 (+) Shade 

and water 

consumption

I.5 (+) Arboreal 

and understory 

habitat

I.6 (+) Forest 

edge wildlife

C.2 (+) 

Recreational

opportunities

C.4 (+/-) Income and income 

stability (individuals and 

community)

D.5 (-) 

Cropland area

Initial setting: Large contiguous blocks of cropland with 

fragmented forest areas where connectivity is needed to meet a 

conservation need, e.g., wildlife habitat

D.7 (+) Wood fiber 

production

I.16 (+) 

Harvestable trees

for firewood

D.1 (+) Connectivity 

between forested 

areas

I.2 (+) Wildlife 

range and 

distribution

C.1 (+) Sustainable 

wildlife community

1.8 (-) Airborne 

particles and 

chemical drift

C.3 (+) Air 

quality

I.1 (+) Wildlife 

movement; 

(-) fragmentation

D.2 (+) 

Wildlife food 

and cover

I.3 (+) Wildlife 

populations 

(species specific)

D.6 (+) Cost 

of installation 

and 

maintenance

I.15 (+/-) 

Net return

I.4 (+) 

Biodiversity

I.17 (-) Wildlife 

habitat (short term)

I.11 (+) 

Soil 

quality

I.14 (+/-) 

Potential 

income

I.7 (+) 

Beneficial 

insects

I.18 (+) 

Recreational 

business and 

support 

infrastructure

Start

LEGEND

#. Created by practice

D. Direct effect

I. Indirect effect

C. Cumulative effect

Pathway

Mitigating practice

Associated practice

Notes:

Effects are qualified with a plus 

(+) or minus (-). These 

symbols indicate only an 

increase (+) or a decrease (-) 

in the effect upon the resource, 

not whether the effect is 

beneficial or adverse.

Windbreak/Shelterbelt 

Establishment (380)
# C_2004228EN.01003801.xml

| 11.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/38

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 24 June 2004

in Case T-190/02: Anita Jannice Österholm v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Officials - Absence treated as a period of annual leave - Time-limits - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)

(2004/C 228/84)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-190/02: Anita Jannice Österholm, residing at Stockholm (Sweden), represented by J.R. Iturriagagoitia Bassas, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and V. Joris assisted by A. Dal Ferro, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the Commission's decision to treat the applicant's absence between 8 and 31 July 2000 as a period of annual leave — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, M. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; for the Registrar: I. Natsinas, Administrator, has given a judgment on 24 June 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

| 2. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 202, 24.8.2002.

1

---
HomeRadioactive WasteLow-Level Waste Disposal

# Low-Level Waste Public Outreach

In keeping with the NMSS vision statement, DUWP staff strives to maintain a continuing dialogue with members of the public and other stakeholders on current LLRW issues of interest. We accomplish this by convening periodic topical meetings, attending and participating in related for a convend by others and by providing topical links, such as those herein, to allow for continued information collection and exchange.

## Activities in Public Outreach Related to LLW

            - Extended Storage of LLRW - Reference Material
            - Workshop on Performance Assessments of Near-Surface Disposal Facilities: FEPs Analysis, Scenario and Conceptual Model Development, and Code Selection (August 29-30, 2012)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, March 11, 2024

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Low-Level Waste Disposal Regulations, Guidance, and Communications
          - Licensing
          - Oversight
          - Decision Support
          - Public Outreach
          - Low-Level Waste Disposal Under 10 CFR 20.2002
          - 10 CFR 20.2002 Process for Alternative Disposals
          - Very Low Level Waste
          - Transfer of Very Low-Level Waste to Exempt Persons for Disposal

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

#### Related Information

            - Low Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW)/Disused Sources Toolbox for Materials Users
            - Regulations.gov (Public Input Repository)
            - DOE Manifest Information Management System

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, March 11, 2024
NRCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE EFFECTS - NETWORK DIAGRAM June 2022

Vegetated Treatment Area (635)

Initial setting: One of the following: 

(1) Runoff of animal or other waste material 

occurs from areas were animals, manure or 

feed is concentrated and/or stored; or

(2) Animal or other waste material is 

collected and discharged as a point source.

I.2 (+) Aquatic habitat

C.1 (+) Fishable and swimmable 

waters; (+) health and safety for 

humans, domestic and wild 

animals 

Start

1. Strip of perennial herbaceous vegetation 

established to which agricultural wastes and 

wastewaters are applied as sheet flow

D.5 (+) Cost of 

installation and 

maintenance

C.4 (+/-) Income and

income stability 

(individuals and

community)

Heavy Use Area Protection (561) 

Critical Area Planting (342)

Waste Storage Facility (313) 

D.2 (+) Adsorption and 

transformation of 

pollutants by vegetation 

and microorganisms

I.6 (-) Dissolved 

contaminants (including 

nutrients and BOD) to 

sensitive areas

D.1 (+) Filtration

D.3 (+) Infiltration

I.11 (+) Nutrient 

cycling by soil 

organisms

I.15 (+/-) Net return to 

producer

I.8 (+/-) Dissolved 

nutrients to 

ground waters

C.2 (+/-) Meeting water quality 

standards and compliance with 

regulations

I.5 (+) Soil 

organic matter

I.14 (-) Potential 

income

I.3 (-) 

Sediment 

and 

particulate 

contaminants 

to sensitive 

areas

I.10 (+/-) Cost of 

compliance with 

future regulations

I.4 (+) Quality of 

surface waters 

I.1 (-) 

Pathogens to 

surface waters

I.7 (+) Soil 

quality

I.13 (+) Wildlife habitat

D.4 (-) Area for production 

of crops and forage

C.3 (+) Biodiversity

I.9 (+/-) Quality 

of ground waters 

I.12 (+) Permanent 

vegetative cover

. 

D. Direct effect

#. Created by practice

I. Indirect effect

C. Cumulative effect

Pathway

Notes:

Effects are qualified with a plus 

(+) or minus (-). These symbols 

indicate only an increase (+) or a 

decrease (-) in the effect upon 

the resource, not whether the 

effect is beneficial or adverse.

LEGEND

Mitigating practice

Associated practice
WASHOE COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT 

AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DIVISION 

F%hlic Health Pzevenl. Promote. Prolecl. 

April 23,20 10 

David Lutz 

Data Cei-tification Contact 

U.S. EPA (C304-06) 

Ambient Air Monitoring Group 

Resear-ch Triangle Park, NC 277 1 1 

Re: CY2009 Ambient Air Monitoring Data Celtificatioi~ 

Dear Mr. Lutz: 

Attached please find a copy of the Washoe County Health District, Air Quality Management 

Division's (AQMD) AQS AMP450 and AMP45ONC summaly reports for ambient concelltration 

data for all State and Local Air Monitoring Statio~ls (SLAMS) and Federal Reference Method 

(FM) stations that meet criteria in 40 CFR 58 Appendix A opertted from January 1 to 

December 3 1,2009. 

Also attached is tlie AQS AMY255 sunltnaly report detailing the quality assurance statistics fbr 

AQMD's ambient air monitors. 

Tltis letter certifies tl~af the al~ibiertt co~rcent~*ation clntcr nlid the qzmlity ossznmlce chta n1.e 

co~upletely slrblriitted to AQS, n~ld tlie anlbier~t data me crcczn.ate to the best of nty k~~o~vledge 

taking into consirle~~atio~i the qrralip assii~micefj~~di~~g~~. 

'I'his letter also certifies PM2,5 speciation data, \vhese AQMD Inanages the monitoring station, 

changes filters, atid perfonns calibrations, verifications, audits, and maintenance on the inonitor, 

but cliernical alii~lysis is performed by Resea~.ch Triangle Institute (RTI) under EPA-managed 

contract. 

Please contact me at (775) 784-7233 with any questiolis or concesns. 

Senior Air Quality Specialist 

cc: Jared Blumcnfeld, Regional Adtni~:ist~.ator, U.S. EI'A IZegion 9 

Andrcw Goodl-icli, Director, AQMD 

P.0. BOX 11130 Itcno, NV 89520-0027 (775) 784-7200 FAX (775) 784-7225