Table 0. 4: Development needs of universities (rang, mean) Increase the practical orientation of teaching Enhance traineeships and internships Improvements in their financial systems Focus on short-term skill development Focus on long-term skill development Support an international orientation Focus on research and development Enabling the valorisation of applied research Strategic cooperation with business Non/minor extent of 1. 3. 8. 9. 4. 5. 7. 6. 2. UBC 6,12 5,71 4,72 4,62 5,69 5,45 4,91 4,94 5,95 Medium extent of 2. 3. 8. 9. 5. 4. 7. 6. 1. UBC 6,10 5,73 4,96 4,65 5,35 5,44 5,24 5,28 6,25 High extent of 2. 3. 8. 9. 6. 4. 7. 5. 1. UBC 6,33 5,96 5,42 4,64 5,62 5,83 5,51 5,81 6,56 Question B4: In your view, to what extent should higher education institutions change in the future? Mean of responses of a 7-level scale where 1=”Not at all” and 7=”To a very high extent”. When comparing the reported results among EMCOSU countries there are just minor differences regarding the developmental needs that should be implemented in the future in order to enhance university-business cooperation. Bulgarian, Slovenian and Spanish representatives reported that there should be tendencies towards the development of strategic cooperation with business, and Hungarian and Polish representatives reported that higher education institutions should increase practical orientation of teaching. Comparing to other countries there is a high tendency of Slovenian representative to support an international orientation. Lower emphasis for the future developments, however still with relatively high mean (4,61), was reported for focus on short-term skill development and improvements of the higher education financial systems (mean in total 4,99).
Table 0. Xx. Xxxxxx Segment Location 0 Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxx X to Kettering Street Both Sides 0 Xxxxxx X-0 00xx Xxxxxx Xxxx to 15th Street West Both Sides 0 Xxxxxx X-0 (XXX X-0) Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxx to 0xx Xxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxx side 0 Xxxxxx X-0 00xx Xxxxxx Xxxx to 10th Street West Both Sides 0 Xxxxxx X 0xx Xxxxxx Xxxx to 0xx Xxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxx side 0 0xx Xxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxxx X-0 to Avenue K-12 East Side 0 Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxx X-00 to Avenue K Both Sides 0 Xxxxxx X-0 00xx Xxxxxx Xxxx to 00xx Xxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxx side 0 Xxxxxx X-0 00xx Xxxxxx Xxxx to 00xx Xxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxx side 00 Xxxxxx X 00xx Xxxxxx Xxxx to 00xx Xxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxx side 00 Xxxxxx X 0xx Xxxxxx Xxxx to Challenger Way South side 00 Xxxxxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxx to Challenger Way South side 00 Xxxxxx X (XX) Xxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx to Lone Oak Street North side 00 Xxxxxx X 00xx Xxxxxx Xxxx to 00xx Xxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxx side 00 Xxxxxx X-0 Xxxxx Xxxxxx to Beech Avenue Both Sides 00 Xxxxxx X-0 Xxxxx Xxxxxx to Sierra Hwy Both Sides 17 Avenue K Gadsden Avenue to Park Avenue North side 00 Xxxxxx X-0 Xxxx xx 00xx Xxxxxx Xxxx to 18th Street West North side 00 Xxxxxx X 0xx Xxxxxx Xxxx to Division Street Both Sides 00 Xxxxxx X 0xx Xxxxxx Xxxx to Sierra Hwy Both Sides 00 00xx Xxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxxx X to Avenue H-4 Both Sides 00 00xx Xxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxxxxx Xxx to Avenue I West side 00 00xx Xxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxxx X to Xxxxxx Avenue Both Sides 00 00xx Xxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxxx X to Avenue K-10 West side 00 00xx Xxxxxx Xxxx Xxxx Xxxxxxxx Drive to Avenue L East Side 00 00xx Xxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxxx X-0 to Avenue K-11 West side 28* 00xx Xxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxxx X-0 to Avenue J-8 East Side 00 00xx Xxxxxx Xxxx (XX) Xxxxxx X-0 to Avenue J-5 West side 00 Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxx X to Avenue K-4 West side 00 Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx to Avenue J West side 00 Xxxxxxxxxx Xxx Xxxxxx X to Kettering Street East Side 00 00xx Xxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxxx X to Xxxxx Xx East Side 00 00xx Xxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxxx J to Avenue J-8 East Side 00 00xx Xxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx to Avenue J East Side 00 00xx Xxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx to Lancaster Blvd Both Sides 00** Xxxxxx Xxx Xxxxxx X-0 to Columbia Way (Ave L-12) West side *Location 28 was identified as an environmentally sensitive area, therefore, Location 28 has been eliminated and is no longer part of the project. **Location 37 excludes parcels 0000-000-000, 0000-000-000 and 0000-000-000 that are already improved. PROJECT MAP GENERAL SCOPE OF SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED The Consultant shall provide ROW Services in accordance with the Caltrans Right of Way ...
Table 0. 4 Table 1. Water Forum cost-sharing for lower American River habitat projects. PROJECT/STUDY AGENCY ANNUAL COST Years 2-4 Ongoing Wetland/Slough Complex SAFCA CALFED4 Water Forum Unknown Unknown $25,000 To be determined Shaded Riverine Aquatic Habitat SAFCA CALFED Water Forum Unknown Unknown $25,000 To be determined Tailrace Habitat Utilization Study CALFED Water Forum $15,000 $15,000 Study Complete Thermal Refugia Utilization Study CALFED Water Forum $25,000 $25,000 Study Complete Off-site Mitigation (if required) Water Forum Unknown Unknown Monitoring and Evaluation SAFCA Water Forum $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 4 CALFED – a state and federal program for… CVPIA $100,000 $100,000 Plan Development, Updating and Technical Assistance SAFCA CALFED CVPIA $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 Table 0.5 Table 2. Additional lower American River habitat projects. These are additional projects and studies that would be carried out by other organizations. Habitat projects that benefit the lower American River ecosystem Priority Actions Study or Project Possible Funding Source(s) Lead Organization High New Flow Standards Project City of Sacramento City of Sacramento High Flow Fluctuation Criteria Project CVPIA Reclamation USBR High Dry Year Flow Augmentation Project CVPIA PCWA Reclamation USBR /USFWS High Folsom Temperature Control Device (TCD) Project Reclamation USBR Reclamation USBR High Folsom Reservoir Cold Water Pool Management Project SCWA Folsom SJWD Reclamation USBR Reclamation USBR High In Stream Cover (Xxxxx Xxxxxx) Project Corps SAFCA Corps SAFCA High Flood Control Channel Improvement Project SAFCA Corps SAFCA High Spawning Habitat Management/ Maintenance Study, Project CVPIA CALFED CDFW CDFG USFWS High Hatchery Temperature Control Project Reclamation USBR Reclamation USBR High Hatchery Management Practices Project Reclamation USBR Reclamation USBR Moderate Fire Management Project Sacramento County Sacramento County Low Increase Artificial Production of Salmonids Project Reclamation USBR CDFW CDFG Low Angling Regulations Project CDFW CDFG CDFW CDFG Project-Specific Mitigation
Table 0. 2 1995 and proposed year 2030 surface water diversion. Note: The diversions described below, combined with the dry year actions, will meet each supplier’s customer needs to the year 2030 39 Table 0.3 Draft EIR modeling assumptions for American River diversions for purveyors that have not concluded their negotiations 46 Table 0.4 Table 1. Water Forum cost-sharing for lower American River habitat projects 58 Table 0.5 Table 2. Additional lower American River habitat projects. These are additional projects and studies that would be carried out by other organizations 60 Table 0.6 Water Forum projected expenditure summary for FY 0000-0000 000 Table 0.7 Water Forum projected funding sources summary for FY 0000-0000 000 Table 3.6 Table 3. Initial listing of potential projects to address effects on lower American River recreation 61 Table 3.8. Habitat Management Element cost-share breakdown for FY 2015-2016 projection 118 Table 3.10. WFSE cost-share breakdown for FY 2015-2016 projection 119 Table 3.11. Zone 13 - Sacramento County unincorporated area and City of Citrus Heights and Elk Grove as of December 31, 2014 120 Table 4.1. Progress Update on the Lower American River Flow Management Standard 150 Table 5.1 Summary of Water Forum Dry-Year Procedures 183 ATTACHMENT C: Potential First Year Cost Allocation On A Purveyor-By-Purveyor Basis 130 List of Figures Diagram 1 Public Proposals: General Plan Update, Specific Plan, LAFCO Sphere of Influence 165 Diagram 2 Privately – Initiated Development Proposals 168 Attachment I Map of City POU as of 1/1/97 309 Attachment II Retail Service Area Exception 310 Attachment III Bill Letter 311
Table 0. 0.0.0: Differences in clinical, biochemical and haematological parameters on admission to intensive care between medical survivors and those who died or underwent transplantation. Medical survivors N=44 Death (without transplant) N=6 Transplanted N=4 Death or Transplanted N=10 AST (IU/L) 1551 (16 – 7755) 627 (48 – 3040) 3345 (3000 – 3739)* 1714 (48 – 3739) Lactate (mg/dl) 2.5 (0.8 – 6.6) 7.8 (3.5 – 18.0)* 7.3 (2.6 – 12.0)* 7.6 (2.6 – 18)* Platelet count 81 (19 – 255) 73 (25 - 153) 34 (21 – 54)* 57 (21 – 153) (cells/µL) Creatinine (mg/dl) 1.99 (0.58 – 4.47) 1.94 (0.83 – 3.73) 2.04 (1.61 – 2.5) 1.98 (0.83 – 3.73) Bilirubin (mg/dl) 5.26 (0.81 – 22.69) 5.61 (0.52 – 12.16) 4.85 (3.85 – 5.49) 4.23 (0.5 – 12.2) INR 1.5 (0.8 – 3.9) 2.2 (1.1 – 4.3) 2.0 (1.24 – 2.7) 2.1 (1.1 – 4.3) Encephalopathy 43 83 100* 90* (%) *p<0.05 when compared to medical survivors
Table 0. 0.0.0: Aetiology of liver disease and effect of era on clinical parameters and intensive care management at KCH AFLP (1997-2008) N=18 HELLP (1997-2008) N=26 AFLP (1986-96) N=32 HELLP (1986-96) N=7 Median age at presentation 31 (21-38) 34 (23-40) 30 (17-40) 31 (23-41) Week of gestation 36 (33-38) 35 (27-40) 36 (28-40) 34 (27-38) Pre-eclampsia (%) 11%* 100%* 50%* 100%* Number 10 (56%) 9 (35%) 20 (63%)* 1 (14%)* encephalopathic/ventilated Platelet count (150-450 cells/µL) 100 (33-180)* 48 (15-99)* 123 (26-262)* 39 (19-89)* Creatinine (45-120 mg/dL) 210 (100–396) 160 (52–309) 245 (99-758) 102 (63-526) CVVH 8 (47%) 13 (46%) - - AST (10-50 IU/L) 78 (16-3003)* 2270 (58-7755)* 99 (25-911) 342 (60-328) Bilirubin (3-20 µmol/L) 123 (37-194)* 48 (14-388)* 142 (63-646)* 34 (19-124)* Lactate (<2 mg/dl) 2 (1-6.5) 1.9 (0.7-7.3) - - INR (0.9-1.2) 1.8 (1.09–4.3)* 1.2 (0.84–3)* - - * Statistical significant value for AFLP versus HELLP (p<0.05).
