Managing Federal assistance in the 1980's : a report to the Congress of the United States pursuant to the Federal Grant and cooperative agreement act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-224)

Mode of access: Internet.

West Valley cooperative agreement [microform] : hearing before the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, Ninety-seventh Congress, first session, July 9, 1981.

"No. 26."

Cooperative agreement /

Imprint varies.

Cooperative mining series. Bulletin [1]-33.

No. 33 is the final no. of this series.

Cooperative mining series.

No. 1 (Preliminary report on organization and method of investigation) published without series title or number.

The 1989 Comprehensive Plan of Action (CPA) and refugee policy in Southeast Asia : twenty years forward what has changed?

In 2012, the only South East Asian countries that have ratified the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereafter referred to as the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol) is Philippines (signed 1954), Cambodia (signed 1995) and Timor Leste (signed 2001). Countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand have annual asylum seeking populations from Myanmar, South Asia and Middle East, that are estimated to be at 15 000-20 000 per country (UNHCR 2012). The lack of a permanent and formal asylum processing process in these countries means that that asylum-seeking populations in the region are reliant on the local offices of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees based in the region to process their claims. These offices rely upon the good will of these governments to have a presence near detection camps and in capital cities to process claims of those who manage to reach the UNHCR representative office. The only burden sharing mechanism within the region primarily exists under the Bali Process on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime (the Bali Process), introduced in 2002. The Bali Process refers to an informal cooperative agreement amongst the states from the Asia-Pacific region, with Australia and Indonesia as the co-chairs, which discusses its namesake: primarily anti-people smuggling activities and migration protocols. There is no provision within this process to discuss the development of national asylum seeking legislation, processes for domestic processing of asylum claims or burden sharing in contrast to other regions such as Africa and South America (i.e. 2009 African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of the Internally Displaced, 1969 African Union Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa and 1984 Cartagena Declaration on Refugees [Americas]) (PEF 2010: 19).

Panama City Fisheries Resources Office: FY 2006 Annual Report

HIGHLIGHTS FOR FY 2006 1. Captured and tagged 475 Gulf sturgeons in five Florida rivers and one bay. 2. Documented Gulf sturgeon marine movement and habitat use in the Gulf of Mexico. 3. Assisted the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) with the collection of Gulf sturgeon, implantation of acoustic tags, and monitoring of fish in a study to examine movement patterns and habitat use in Pensacola and Choctawhatchee bays post-Hurricane Ivan. 4. Provided technical assistance to Jon “Bo” Sawyer in completing a study – Summer Resting Areas of the Gulf Sturgeon in the Conecuh/Escambia River System, Alabama-Florida – for acquiring a Degree of Master of Science at Troy University, Alabama. 5. Coordinated tagging and data collection with NOAA observers aboard trawlers while collecting Gulf sturgeon during dredging operations in the coastal Gulf of Mexico. 6. Hosted the 7th Annual Gulf Sturgeon Workshop. 7. Implemented Gulf Striped Bass Restoration Plan by coordinating the 23rd Annual Morone Workshop, leading the technical committee, transporting broodfish, coordinating the stocking on the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) river system, and evaluating post-stocking success. 8. Continued updating and managing the Freshwater Mussel Survey Database, a Geographic Information System (GIS) database, for over 800 unique sites in the Northeast Gulf (NEG) drainages in Alabama (AL), Georgia (GA), and Florida (FL). 9. Formed a recovery implementation team for listed mussels in the ACF river basin and oversaw grant cooperative agreements for 14 listed and candidate freshwater mussels in the NEG watersheds. 10. Initiated a project in the Apalachicola River to relocate mussels stranded as a result of drought conditions, and calculate river flows at which mussels would be exposed. 11. Initiated a project in Sawhatchee Creek, Georgia to determine the status of threatened and endangered (T&E) freshwater mussels and target restoration projects, population assessments, and potential population augmentation to lead toward recovery of the listed species. 12. Initiated a study to determine the age and growth of the endangered fat threeridge mussel (Amblema neislerii). 13. Provided technical assistance to the Panama City Ecological Services office for a biological opinion on the operations of Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam and its effects on the listed species and designated and proposed critical habitat in the Apalachicola River, Florida. 14. Assisted with a multi-State, inter-agency team to develop a management plan to restore the Alabama shad in the ACF river system. 15. Conducted fishery surveys on Tyndall AFB, Florida and Ft. Benning, Georgia and completed a report with recommendations for future recreational fishery needs. 16. Provided fishery technical assistance to four National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) (i.e., Okefenokee NWR, Banks Lake NWR, St. Vincent NWR, and St. Marks NWR). 17. Initiated an Aquatic Resources and Recreation Fishing Survey on Department of Defense facilities located in Region 4. 18. Identified 130 road-stream crossings on Eglin AFB for rehabilitation and elimination of sediment imputs. 19. Continued the Aquatics Monitoring Program at Eglin AFB to assess techniques that determine current status and sustainability of aquatic habitat and develop a measure to determine quality or degradation of habitat. 20. Assisted Eglin AFB Natural Resource managers in revising the installation’s Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) and its associated component plans. 21. Coordinated recovery efforts for the endangered Okaloosa darter including population/life history surveys, stream restoration, and outreach activities. 22. Initiated a comprehensive status review of the Okaloosa darter with analyses performed to assess available habitat, preferred habitats, range expansions/reductions/fragmentations, population size, and probability of extinction. 23. Assisted the Gulf Coastal Plain Ecosystem Partnership and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) under a Memorandum of Agreement to develop conservation strategies, implement monitoring and assessment programs, and secure funds for aquatic management programs in six watersheds in northwest Florida and southeast Alabama. 24. Entered into a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Air Force to encourage the conservation and rehabilitation of natural resources at Hurlburt Field, Florida. 25. Multiple outreach projects were completed to detail aquatic resources’ conservation needs and opportunities; including National Fishing Week, Earth Day, several festivals, and school outreach.

Harvest History of Belugas, Delphinapterus leucas, in Cook Inlet, Alaska

Belugas, Delphinapterus leucas, in Cook Inlet, Alaska, represent a unique and isolated marine mammal population that has been hunted for a variety of purposes since prehistoric times. Archeological studies have shown that both Alutiiq Eskimos and Dena'ina Atabaskan Indians have long utilized many marine resources in Cook Inlet, including belugas. Over the past century, commercial whaling and sport hunting also occurred periodically in Cook Inlet prior to the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA). During the 1990's, the hunting mortality by Alaska Natives apparently increased to 40-70 whales per year, which led to the decling of this stock and its subsequent designation in 2000 as depleted under the MMPA. Concerns about the decline of the Cook Inlet stock resulted in a voluntary suspension of the subsistenc hunt by Alaska Natives in 1999. The difficulty in obtaining accurate estimates for the harvest of these whales is due to the inability to identify all of the hunters and, in turn, the size of the harvest. Attempts to reconstruct harvest records based on hunters' recollections and interviews from only a few households have been subject to a wide degree of speculation. To adequately monitor the beluga harvest, the National Marine Fisheries Service established marking and reporting regulations in October 1999. These rules require that Alaska Natives who hunt belugas in Cook Inlet must collect the lowere left jaw from harvested whales and complete a report that includes date and time of the harvest, coloration of the whale, harvest location, and method of harvest. The MMPA was amended in 2000 to require a cooperative agreement between the National Marine Fisheries Service and Alaska Native organizations before hunting could be resumed.

Preliminary results from the Caribbean Acoustic Tracking Network (CATn): a data sharing partnership for acoustic tracking and movement ecology of marine animals in the Caribbean Sea

We have recently exchanged and integrated into a single database tag detections for conch, teleost and elasmobranch fish from four separately maintained arrays in the U.S. Virgin Islands including the NMFS queen conch array (St. John nearshore), NOAA’s Biogeography Branch array (St. John nearshore & midshelf reef); UVI shelf edge arrays (Marine Conservation District, Grammanik & other shelf edge); NOAA NMFS Apex Predator array COASTSPAN (St. John nearshore). The integrated database has over 7.5 million hits. Data is shared only with consent of partners and full acknowledgements. Thus, the summary of integrated data here uses data from NOAA and UVI arrays under a cooperative agreement. The benefits of combining and sharing data have included increasing the total area of detection resulting in an understanding of broader scale connectivity than would have been possible with a single array. Partnering has also been cost-effectiveness through sharing of field work, staff time and equipment and exchanges of knowledge and experience across the network. Use of multiple arrays has also helped in optimizing the design of arrays when additional receivers are deployed. The combined arrays have made the USVI network one of the most extensive acoustic arrays in the world with a total of 150+ receivers available, although not necessarily all deployed at all times. Currently, two UVI graduate student projects are using acoustic array data.

Neogene through Pleistocene paleoclimate of the Great Salt Lake region, northeastern Great Basin, USA

In a cooperative agreement between Amoco Production Company and the University of Arizona Geosciences Department, extensive data and resources associated with 15 deep wells drilled in the Great Salt Lake are currently on loan at the University of Arizona. Seismic data, electric and lithologic logs, cuttings and previously-prepared pollen slides will eventually permit a thorough study of both the tectonic and climatic history of the Great Salt Lake region. The preliminary study presented here concentrates on the Late Tertiary and Pleistocene climatic reconstruction of the eastern Great Basin through examination of fossil pollen.

Complying with the NIH Public Access Policy - Copyright Considerations and Options

On January 11, 2008, the National Institutes of Health ('NIH') adopted a revised Public Access Policy for peer-reviewed journal articles reporting research supported in whole or in part by NIH funds. Under the revised policy, the grantee shall ensure that a copy of the author's final manuscript, including any revisions made during the peer review process, be electronically submitted to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central ('PMC') archive and that the person submitting the manuscript will designate a time not later than 12 months after publication at which NIH may make the full text of the manuscript publicly accessible in PMC. NIH adopted this policy to implement a new statutory requirement under which: The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication: Provided, That the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with copyright law. This White Paper is written primarily for policymaking staff in universities and other institutional recipients of NIH support responsible for ensuring compliance with the Public Access Policy. The January 11, 2008, Public Access Policy imposes two new compliance mandates. First, the grantee must ensure proper manuscript submission. The version of the article to be submitted is the final version over which the author has control, which must include all revisions made after peer review. The statutory command directs that the manuscript be submitted to PMC 'upon acceptance for publication.' That is, the author's final manuscript should be submitted to PMC at the same time that it is sent to the publisher for final formatting and copy editing. Proper submission is a two-stage process. The electronic manuscript must first be submitted through a process that requires input of additional information concerning the article, the author(s), and the nature of NIH support for the research reported. NIH then formats the manuscript into a uniform, XML-based format used for PMC versions of articles. In the second stage of the submission process, NIH sends a notice to the Principal Investigator requesting that the PMC-formatted version be reviewed and approved. Only after such approval has grantee's manuscript submission obligation been satisfied. Second, the grantee also has a distinct obligation to grant NIH copyright permission to make the manuscript publicly accessible through PMC not later than 12 months after the date of publication. This obligation is connected to manuscript submission because the author, or the person submitting the manuscript on the author's behalf, must have the necessary rights under copyright at the time of submission to give NIH the copyright permission it requires. This White Paper explains and analyzes only the scope of the grantee's copyright-related obligations under the revised Public Access Policy and suggests six options for compliance with that aspect of the grantee's obligation. Time is of the essence for NIH grantees. As a practical matter, the grantee should have a compliance process in place no later than April 7, 2008. More specifically, the new Public Access Policy applies to any article accepted for publication on or after April 7, 2008 if the article arose under (1) an NIH Grant or Cooperative Agreement active in Fiscal Year 2008, (2) direct funding from an NIH Contract signed after April 7, 2008, (3) direct funding from the NIH Intramural Program, or (4) from an NIH employee. In addition, effective May 25, 2008, anyone submitting an application, proposal or progress report to the NIH must include the PMC reference number when citing articles arising from their NIH funded research. (This includes applications submitted to the NIH for the May 25, 2008 and subsequent due dates.) Conceptually, the compliance challenge that the Public Access Policy poses for grantees is easily described. The grantee must depend to some extent upon the author(s) to take the necessary actions to ensure that the grantee is in compliance with the Public Access Policy because the electronic manuscripts and the copyrights in those manuscripts are initially under the control of the author(s). As a result, any compliance option will require an explicit understanding between the author(s) and the grantee about how the manuscript and the copyright in the manuscript are managed. It is useful to conceptually keep separate the grantee's manuscript submission obligation from its copyright permission obligation because the compliance personnel concerned with manuscript management may differ from those responsible for overseeing the author's copyright management. With respect to copyright management, the grantee has the following six options: (1) rely on authors to manage copyright but also to request or to require that these authors take responsibility for amending publication agreements that call for transfer of too many rights to enable the author to grant NIH permission to make the manuscript publicly accessible ('the Public Access License'); (2) take a more active role in assisting authors in negotiating the scope of any copyright transfer to a publisher by (a) providing advice to authors concerning their negotiations or (b) by acting as the author's agent in such negotiations; (3) enter into a side agreement with NIH-funded authors that grants a non-exclusive copyright license to the grantee sufficient to grant NIH the Public Access License; (4) enter into a side agreement with NIH-funded authors that grants a non-exclusive copyright license to the grantee sufficient to grant NIH the Public Access License and also grants a license to the grantee to make certain uses of the article, including posting a copy in the grantee's publicly accessible digital archive or repository and authorizing the article to be used in connection with teaching by university faculty; (5) negotiate a more systematic and comprehensive agreement with the biomedical publishers to ensure either that the publisher has a binding obligation to submit the manuscript and to grant NIH permission to make the manuscript publicly accessible or that the author retains sufficient rights to do so; or (6) instruct NIH-funded authors to submit manuscripts only to journals with binding deposit agreements with NIH or to journals whose copyright agreements permit authors to retain sufficient rights to authorize NIH to make manuscripts publicly accessible.

Lean Transition of Emerging Industrial Capability

This volume of the final report documents the technical work performed from December 1998 through December 2002 under Cooperative Agreement F33615-97-2-5153 executed between the U.S. Air Force, Air Force Research Laboratory, Materials and Manufacturing Directorate, Manufacturing Technology Division (AFRL/MLM) and the McDonnell Douglas Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Boeing Company. The work was accomplished by The Boeing Company, Phantom Works, Huntington Beach, St. Louis, and Seattle; Ford Motor Company; Integral Inc.; Sloan School of Management in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Pratt & Whitney; and Central State University in Xenia, Ohio and in association with Raytheon Corporation. The LeanTEC program manager for AFRL is John Crabill of AFRL / MLMP and The Boeing Company program manager is Ed Shroyer of Boeing Phantom Works in Huntington Beach, CA. Financial performance under this contract is documented in the Financial Volume of the final report.

Lean Transition of Emerging Industrial Capability (LeanTEC)

Lean Transition of Emerging Industrial Capability (LeanTEC) program was a cooperative agreement between the Boeing Company and AFRL conducted from January 1998 to January 2002. The results of this program are documented in the Manual for Effective Technology Transition Processes included as an attachment to this report. This manual provides processes, procedures, and tools for greatly improving technology transition in the aerospace industry. Methodology for the implementation of these improvements is given along with methods for customizing the various processes, procedures, and tools for a given company or business unit. The indicated methodology was tested by the LeanTEC team and results are documented in the report.

An Experiment on Prisoner's Dilemma with confirmed Proposals

We apply an alternating proposals protocol with a confirmation stage as a way of solving a Prisoner’s Dilemma game. We interpret players’ proposals and (no) confirmation of outcomes of the game as a tacit communication device. The protocol leads to unprecedented high levels of cooperation in the laboratory. Assigning the power of confirmation to one of the two players alone, rather than alternating the role of a leader significantly increases the probability of signing a cooperative agreement in the first bargaining period. We interpret pre-agreement strategies as tacit messages on players’ willingness to cooperate and on their beliefs about the others’ type.

On the Relationship between Zaprionus spinipilus Chassagnard & McEvey and Z. vittiger Coquillett, the Type Species of the Genus Zaprionus (Diptera: Drosophilidae)

Zaprionus vittiger Coquillett is the type species of the genus Zaprionus Coquillett. However, the species is only known from five old museum specimens collected from South Africa and Malawi. It has often been confused with many other Zaprionus species, especially with Z. spinipilus Chassagnard & McEvey, a widespread species in Africa known from Madagascar, Malawi, Ethiopia and Cameroon. We have recently collected flies from the type localities of both species (South Africa and Madagascar, respectively). This has prompted us to test the taxonomic boundaries of these two nominal species using molecular (the mitochondrial COII and the nuclear Amyrel genes), chromosomal, morphological (internal and external genitalia), and reproductive isolation analyses. The results suggest Z. spinipilus to be a junior synonym to Z. vittiger.