Legal symposium on wetlands: an executive summary

In 1969 the Virginia Institute of Marine Science published a report stating that although marshlands represented only one-half of one percent of the total area of the state, 95 percent of Virginia \u27s annual harvest of sport and commercial fisheries were dependent to some degree upon these valuable wetlands . The report went on to urge some form of public control over these vital areas in order to relieve some of the pressures created by dredging, filling, diking and bulkheading. Recognizing the need to address this issue, the 1971 General Assembly passed House Joint Resolution Number 60, creating a Wetlands Study Comm1ss1on The Comm1ss1on, chaired by Russell M. Carneal, recommended the passage of strong wetlands legislation providing for a locally administered permit program . Partly as a result of this, the Virginia Wetlands Act (Title 62 .1, Chapter 2.1, Code of Virginia 1950) became effective in July of 1972 . During the two years that have passed since the inception of the Act , Wetlands Boards have been established in twenty -four counties and cities in Tidewater . Available evidence indicates that the objectives of the Act are being attained

Phosphorus and water quality

The Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service periodically issues revisions to its publications. The most current edition is made available. For access to an earlier edition, if available for this title, please contact the Oklahoma State University Library Archives by email at [email protected] or by phone at 405-744-6311.Biosystems and Agricultural Engineerin

Comparison of Aquifer Sustainability Under Groundwater Administrations in Oklahoma and Texas

We compared two approaches to administration of groundwater law on a hydrologic model of the North Canadian River, an alluvial aquifer in northwestern Oklahoma. Oklahoma limits pumping rates to retain 50% aquifer saturated thickness after 20 years of groundwater use. The Texas Panhandle Groundwater Conservation District’s (GCD) rules limit pumping to a rate that consumes no more than 50% of saturated thickness in 50 years, with reevaluation and readjustment of permits every 5 years. Using a hydrologic model (MODFLOW), we simulated river-groundwater interaction and aquifer dynamics under increasing levels of ‘‘development’’ (i.e., increasing groundwater withdrawals). Oklahoma’s approach initially would limit groundwater extraction more than the GCD approach, but the GCD approach would be more protective in the long run. Under Oklahoma rules more than half of aquifer storage would be depleted when development reaches 65%. Reevaluation of permits under the Texas Panhandle GCD approach would severely limit pumping as the 50% level is approached. Both Oklahoma and Texas Panhandle GCD approaches would deplete alluvial base flow at approximately 10% development. Results suggest periodic review of permits could protect aquifer storage and river base flow. Modeling total aquifer storage is more sensitive to recharge rate and aquifer hydraulic conductivity than to specific yield, while river leakage is most sensitive to aquifer hydraulic conductivity followed by specific yield

Temporary interruption of baricitinib: characterization of interruptions and effect on clinical outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Background In clinical practice, temporary interruption of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) therapy is common for various reasons including side effects, non-compliance, or necessity for surgery. To characterize temporary interruptions of baricitinib and placebo-matched tablets in phase 3 studies of patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and describe their impact on efficacy and safety. Methods During 4 baricitinib phase 3 studies, investigators documented timing, reason, and duration of investigator-initiated temporary interruptions of study drug. In 2 studies, patients recorded RA symptoms in daily diaries for 12 weeks. Post hoc analyses investigated changes in symptom scores during interruptions and resumption of treatment. Interruptions were evaluated for reoccurrence of adverse events or laboratory abnormalities after retreatment. Results Across the placebo-controlled studies, interruptions occurred in larger proportions of baricitinib- (2 mg, 18%; 4 mg, 18%) vs placebo-treated (9%) patients in only one study (bDMARD-inadequate responder patients, RA-BEACON). In the active comparator-controlled studies, the lowest rates of interruption were in the baricitinib monotherapy arm (9%) of RA-BEGIN (vs methotrexate monotherapy or combination therapy), and proportions were similar for baricitinib (10%) and adalimumab (9%) in RA-BEAM. Adverse events were the most common reason for interruption, but their reoccurrence after drug restart was infrequent. Most interruptions lasted ≤ 2 weeks. Daily diaries indicated modest symptom increases during interruption with return to pre-interruption levels or better after resumption. Interruptions had no impact on long-term efficacy outcomes. Conclusions Consistent with its pharmacologic properties, brief interruptions of baricitinib during phase 3 studies were associated with minor increases in RA symptoms that resolved following retreatment. This analysis provides useful information for clinicians, as temporary interruption of antirheumatic therapy is common in the care of patients with RA

Pollution prevention at exploration and production sites in Oklahoma: Best management practices for prevention and control of erosion and pollution

The Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service periodically issues revisions to its publications. The most current edition is made available. For access to an earlier edition, if available for this title, please contact the Oklahoma State University Library Archives by email at [email protected] or by phone at 405-744-6311

Whose water is it anyway? Comparing the water rights frameworks of Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida

The Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service periodically issues revisions to its publications. The most current edition is made available. For access to an earlier edition, if available for this title, please contact the Oklahoma State University Library Archives by email at [email protected] or by phone at 405-744-6311

Water quality series: Drinking water testing

The Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service periodically issues revisions to its publications. The most current edition is made available. For access to an earlier edition, if available for this title, please contact the Oklahoma State University Library Archives by email at [email protected] or by phone at 405-744-6311

Correction to: Temporary interruption of baricitinib: characterization of interruptions and effect on clinical outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Background In clinical practice, temporary interruption of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) therapy is common for various reasons including side effects, non-compliance, or necessity for surgery. To characterize temporary interruptions of baricitinib and placebo-matched tablets in phase 3 studies of patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and describe their impact on efficacy and safety. Methods During 4 baricitinib phase 3 studies, investigators documented timing, reason, and duration of investigator-initiated temporary interruptions of study drug. In 2 studies, patients recorded RA symptoms in daily diaries for 12 weeks. Post hoc analyses investigated changes in symptom scores during interruptions and resumption of treatment. Interruptions were evaluated for reoccurrence of adverse events or laboratory abnormalities after retreatment. Results Across the placebo-controlled studies, interruptions occurred in larger proportions of baricitinib- (2 mg, 18%; 4 mg, 18%) vs placebo-treated (9%) patients in only one study (bDMARD-inadequate responder patients, RA-BEACON). In the active comparator-controlled studies, the lowest rates of interruption were in the baricitinib monotherapy arm (9%) of RA-BEGIN (vs methotrexate monotherapy or combination therapy), and proportions were similar for baricitinib (10%) and adalimumab (9%) in RA-BEAM. Adverse events were the most common reason for interruption, but their reoccurrence after drug restart was infrequent. Most interruptions lasted ≤ 2 weeks. Daily diaries indicated modest symptom increases during interruption with return to pre-interruption levels or better after resumption. Interruptions had no impact on long-term efficacy outcomes. Conclusions Consistent with its pharmacologic properties, brief interruptions of baricitinib during phase 3 studies were associated with minor increases in RA symptoms that resolved following retreatment. This analysis provides useful information for clinicians, as temporary interruption of antirheumatic therapy is common in the care of patients with RA