Report to the Governor and the Chairmen of the House Committee on Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources, Pursuant to House Bill 1774

This report was required by House Bill 1774 (2017), in which the General Assembly requested that the Commonwealth Center for Recurrent Flooding Resiliency convene a workgroup to study the administration of the Commonwealth’s current stormwater management program, as well as the potential treatment and use of water in roadside ditches in rural, Tidewater Virginia localities. Under the Virginia Stormwater Management Act, the Department of Environmental Quality administers stormwater management requirements for any localities that opt out of becoming a Virginia Stormwater Management Program authority, but only for land disturbances of one acre or more that are covered by the Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater from Construction Activities issued by DEQ. However, in localities that are subject to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, the stormwater management and erosion and sediment control requirements must be applied to all land disturbances of 2,500 square feet or more. This Workgroup was convened and this report was created to propose potential solutions to address rural Tidewater localities’ concerns regarding administration of regulatory coverage for land disturbances of between 2,500 square feet and one (1) acre, and to assess potential innovative alternatives for treatment and use of stormwater in these rural Tidewater localities. This abstract has been taken from the report\u27s Executive Summary

ESHRE good practice recommendations on recurrent implantation failure

Funding The meetings and technical support for this project were funded by ESHRE. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the 35 experts who contributed to the stakeholder review for their helpful comments and suggestions; the list of these reviewers is available in Supplementary Data S3Non peer reviewedPublisher PD

Feasibility of Development of Flood Resiliency Clearinghouse Program

[Introduction] House Bill 2187i, introduced by Delegate Keith Hodges in the 2021 session of the Virginia General Assembly, directed the Commonwealth Center for Recurrent Flooding Resiliency (CCRFR), a partnership between Old Dominion University, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) and the William & Mary Law School’s Virginia Coastal Policy Center (VCPC) established by Virginia Chapter 440 of the 2016 Acts of Assembly (HB 903), to evaluate the development of a Flood Resiliency Clearinghouse Program (henceforth Clearinghouse). The bill stipulated that the Center should work with the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) to evaluate solutions that manage both water quality and flooding and emphasize naturebased solutions. Further, it states that the CCRFR and DCR shall evaluate solutions that include both “approved and not-yet-approved stormwater best management practices”. The intent of HB 2187 to provide an easily accessible resource to aid policymakers, state agencies, localities, businesses, and the public in implementing flood protection practices that are protective of water quality is clear. Less clear is the geographic and the programmatic/jurisdictional scope of the best management practices (BMPs) to be considered and the specific roles that the Clearinghouse would play beyond being a repository for information on existing BMPs ranging from shoreline erosion control to stormwater management. This report takes the approach of assuming that the intent of the bill is for the Clearinghouse to be a statewide resource, but much of the analysis is focused on the coastal zone where jurisdictional and regulatory structures include additional levels of complexity. While there are currently best management practices (BMPs) approved in the Commonwealth for the management of stormwater quantity and quality, these practices were not designed to withstand flooding impacts and have not been evaluated for flood control in the riparian and littoral zones. There is a need in Virginia for innovative shoreline strategies that manage water quality and flooding and protect the coastline from erosion related to rising sea levels and storm surge. A Flood Resiliency Clearinghouse could be a resource to promote resilient shoreline solutions and could provide the cross-agency collaboration needed to evaluate and approve solutions that manage both water quality and flooding. The Clearinghouse could fill the need in the Commonwealth for a one-stop location to identify BMPs for a particular activity intended to provide flood protection while being protective of water quality

Investigating the Mechanisms of Hyporesponse to Antiplatelet Approaches

Hyporesponsiveness, or resistance, to antiplatelet therapy may be a major contributor to poorer outcomes among cardiac patients and may be attributed to an array of mechanisms—both modifiable and unmodifiable. Recent evidence has uncovered clinical, cellular, and genetic factors associated with hyporesponsiveness. Patients with severe acute coronary syndromes (ACS), type 2 diabetes, and increased body mass index appear to be the most at risk for hyporesponsiveness. Addressing modifiable mechanisms may offset hyporesponsiveness, while recognizing unmodifiable mechanisms, such as genetic polymorphisms and diseases that affect response to antiplatelet therapy, may help identify patients who are more likely to be hyporesponsive. Hyporesponsive patients might benefit from different dosing strategies or additional antiplatelet therapies. Trials correlating platelet function test results to clinical outcomes are required. Results from these studies could cause a paradigm shift toward individualized antiplatelet therapy, improving predictability of platelet inhibition, and diminishing the likelihood for hyporesponsiveness. Copyright © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/58554/1/20360_ftp.pd