Task 2. Conducting the Environmental Review To support the environmental review process and preparation of the Environmental Review Record (ERR), our team will compile all relevant environmental documentation into digital (.PDF) format for submittal to FBCCDD for review. Depending on the nature and complexity of the project, documentation may include: ✓ Preliminary site reviews ✓ Tiered reviews (if applicable) ✓ Agency consultation requests/response to agency comments ✓ Public involvement documentation (public notice, public meeting/public hearing information, response to comments, etc.) ✓ Alternatives analysis (8-step process for floodplain and/or wetlands development) ✓ Technical reports for “special studies” including biological assessments, wetland delineation reports, archeological background studies and/or surveys, Phase I/II ESAs, etc. Once MPACT determines whether the proposed activity will be housing or infrastructure, we will assign the review to the appropriate team staff to begin the ERR coordination process. The MPACT team can use HEROS or TIGR to compile the ERR (MPACT ask that Fort Bend County request access for MPACT Environmental Program Staff from the appropriate oversight agency), which will summarize the environmental documentation prepared for the proposed project in HUD’s required format. If necessary, we will participate in comment resolutions workshops with FBCCDD to address comments/revisions to the ERR and supporting environmental technical reports, exhibits, and worksheets.
Task 2. The contractor shall develop and implement a cohesive, coordinated and sustainable STEM education outreach strategies across CCDC-ARL that facilitates in attracting eligible applicants. The contractor shall market and promote the CCDC ARL Outreach program to attract qualified prospective applicants via contractor developed website. The outreach effort shall include the design and distribution of advertising and application materials and an appropriate method to reach audiences from which qualified applicants will be drawn. The outreach effort shall be wide ranging, national in scope and comparable to other nationally renowned undergraduate and graduate level science and engineering student programs. The contractor shall identify relevant media for communicating the program. The contractor shall submit marketing strategy to the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) for approval. The strategy should include marketing to diversified S&T community (HBCU/MIs, Tier I-III US institutions, & professional organizations/conferences). Marketing techniques/ approaches to consider:
Task 2. Acceptance Acceptance takes place on a quarterly basis, bound to the quarterly report and SLA. Acceptance is documented by an Acceptance Sheet signed by EASO. Acceptance of corrective maintenance deliverables under this task is based on: Accepted project documents (i.e., of any document updated as part of the activities under the contract); Completed and defect free functionalities and developments; Successful deployment at the DG-DIGIT Data Centre, in all required environments; Passed stress testing; Passed vulnerability testing; Passed user acceptance (functional) testing; Reports and minutes are accepted; Quality indicator target is met. Acceptance of technical support deliverables under this task is based on: The system is fully operational for the complete application scope and available on all required Commission environments. The system operates bug free, meaning that all known bugs are registered, prioritized and their fix is planned in subsequent system releases.
Task 2. Systems for maintaining unique and secure identities for specimens, subjects and biobanks Task 2 will be to explore systems for maintaining unique and secure identities (object models) for specimens, subjects and biobanks, as well as for keeping track of the handling of permissions for use, analytical results and statistical output. Meta-information on quality of specimens and phenotypes will be integrated. (GA BBMRI, no.: 212111) Primary related deliverables: D5.2, D5.5, Data Protection Deliverable Task 2 can be split into two parts; the part for which it was originally intended, primarily exploration of systems for Globally Unique Identifiers (GUIDs), and the part for which an additional deliverable was created, the issue of data protection and privacy. For the latter part work is still ongoing in collaboration with WP6 and the final conclusions will be accounted for elsewhere. Deliverable 5.2, dedicated to the first part of Task 2, does not contain a final decision for a particular existing system for Globally Unique IDentifiers (GUIDs). Instead, it outlines the scenarios of what should be made a preceding decision, the one of suitable service architectures for BBMRI in the short and long-term perspective. The service architecture scenarios are connected to the use cases and system design and therefore presented under Task 3 in Section 1.3.4. Additionally, D5.2 contains an inventory of the most important relevant existing GUIDs systems, presented below.
Task 2. Systems for maintaining unique and secure identities for specimens, subjects and biobanks Use cases 1 and 2 in Section 1.1.2 do not require globally unique identifiers issued and to be maintained by an external authority. Hence, surrogate identifiers, which should not contain any semantics, should be used. Exclusion of the semantic information from identifiers makes them more stable. It is important that identifiers can be created and managed locally in a coordinated fashion (Section 1.2.1). If need for a system for globally unique identifies should arise, ISO/HL7 OIDs will be a good choice as they are existing in the health care domain already. Mapping to the surrogates is possible by maintaining 1:1 mapping to surrogate keys, which are managed locally (Section 1.2.1). A final decision on a GUID standard for biological information should be made jointly with other affected ESFRI (Section 1.2.1). Researcher identification and user identification in general is another important issue. Emerging standards like Open Researcher and Contributor ID – ORCID (xxxx://xxx.xxxxx.xxx/) should be used. Standard federated authorization and authentication protocols like SAML2 or OpenID must be used (R9). Work on the Data Protection deliverable is ongoing jointly with WP6.
Task 2. 2: AMI Implementation Plan The Consultant/PM shall develop a “Road Map” for the City to follow as it sets out to implement and maintain an AMI system. A review of different alternatives shall be evaluated to determine the best option for implementation of an AMI system. Options shall include a basic description of how AMI would be deployed in a phased approach within the entire City water service area. The implementation options shall address project planning, budgeting, and overall system performance. A realistic schedule for implementation of the project for the entire metering inventory shall be developed. As part of the implementation plan the Tenderer shall provide a plan towards tracking the impact the AMI rollout will have during the deployment. This should include a randomized control reporting approach to support the CCT in evaluation the success of the project at different intervals.
Task 2. 3 Internal project dissemination Internal communication aims for information exchange among project partners and for generally ensuring the successful implementation of overall project objectives. It creates an optimal common understanding for the project partners about the on-going activities within different working packages as well as fosters the involvement and identification of all project partners because they are all important multipliers of the project and its results. This task includes Digital Tools and Training/Educational Initiatives as: • Chat; • Skype; • Email; • Web Conferences and Workshops; • Online Forums.
Task 2. 3 Mobility context analysis and baseline Data collection/survey for SUMP elaboration: • Census/demographic data; • Economics data; • Tourists flow; • Accessibility in/out; • O/D matrix; • Data on network and traffic flow (speed, occupancy, incidents, etc.); • Emissions/Energy consumption; • Pollution; • Questionnaires on travel behaviour, attitudes, perceptions and expectations; • On-field measuring campaign carried out during the data collection phase.
Task 2. 4 e) Procedures for quantification of MNM exposure and fate in dispersions for ecotoxicological studies An outline of the key elements of the NANoREG TGD for ecotoxicity exposure dispersion characterisation is provided in the current Deliverable Report document. In addition, example data generated through implementation of the TGD in aquatic ecotoxicity studies conducted as part of NANoREG WP4 are presented. Both characterisation data and the suitability of the TGD are evaluated. Full details of the recommended MNM characterisation procedure for quantifying exposure in aquatic ecotoxicity studies can be found in the TGD document (⮉).
Task 2. 4 f) Procedures for quantification of MNM exposure and fate in dispersions for in vitro studies; In-depth characterization at each stage is fundamental to facilitate data interpretation, to relate MNM properties to the biological outcomes and also improving data reliability for benchmarking. A multi-techniques based approach is suggested to expand the characterization of MNM not only to size, but also to surface charge and dissolution. These properties, together with size, appear strictly linked to exposure. They may be considered interesting physical descriptors for MNM risk assessment. Presence of culture medium and cells add significant complexity to the physicochemical determinations. Their pattern change evaluation may be informative of the MNM fate in the dispersant medium and of their actual dose. Furthermore the pattern analysis of these properties may pave the way for grouping based on structural properties of MNM, which are influenced by the environment. Many of these research works are cross-cutting with activities done between WP5 and WP2 and the results may respond to key questions of WP1. At least size and surface characteristics of MNMs should be determined before and monitored during in vitro exposure studies. Dose of MNMs evolves during in vitro studies; therefore, a methodology like the one proposed here, should be used systematically to determine the sedimented dose. This determination should be done at least at the beginning and the end of in vitro testing. Obtained sedimented dose should help to improve the interpretation of the biological outcome, which is still associated to a “nominal dose”. At this state, given the small quantity of data, it is suggested to continue with protocol evaluation and further data generation. Kinetics of MNMs during in vitro tests, sedimented dose and protein corona determinations require further evaluation. The complexity of the determinations and the technical limitations, associated to current characterisation techniques, suggest that in silico approaches should be considered to better understand fate.
