![]() ![]() The public will have an opportunity to review the draft plan and provide additional input. Comments may be emailed to or submitted online at or mailed to: Farmers Conservation Alliance, 11 3rd Street, Suite 101, Hood River, OR 97031.įollowing the public comment period, project partners will develop a Draft Watershed Plan - Environmental Assessment. A request for an interpreter for the hearing impaired or for other accommodations for persons with disabilities should be made at least 48 hours before the meeting to David McKay (541) 716-6085 or comments may be submitted through Nov. The meeting location is accessible to persons with disabilities. Participants will have an opportunity to learn more about the proposed irrigation improvements at the meeting and submit their comments, ideas and concerns. at the Pine Grove Grange, 2835 Van Horn Drive, Hood River, Oregon. Members of the public are invited to provide input to help guide planning efforts during a scoping meeting, Oct. The project is sponsored by the East Fork Irrigation District, with funding and technical support from Energy Trust, the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Farmers Conservation Alliance. 11, 2018) – The East Fork Irrigation District and project partners propose to modernize aging infrastructure to conserve water, reduce energy use, improve operational efficiencies, and enhance fish and wildlife habitat in the Hood River Watershed.īy converting open-ditch irrigation canals into underground, closed-pipe systems, the proposed East Fork Irrigation District Modernization Project could reduce seepage and spill water losses by up to 5,287 acre-feet, a rate of up to 16.6 cubic feet per second, over the entire irrigation season. 18 in Hood RiverĬontact: Tom Makowski, Assistant State Conservationist for Watershed Resources and PlanningĮmail: Robillard, Public Affairs Officer 4, Taiwan Boulevard, Taichung, Taiwan (Republic of China).Public comments sought for improvements to East Fork Irrigation District infrastructure Liang, Department of Otolaryngology, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, 1650, Sec. American journal of rhinology & allergy.Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL).Information DOI of original publication: Copy DOI Database: Although all the patients reported improvement after irrigation, there was no difference in outcome between patients who received AMB and those who received NS solution.ĬONCLUSION: Our study showed that nasal irrigation with 100 μg/mL of AMB did not confer a greater benefit than that of NS solution nasal irrigation in post‐FESS care. ![]() Among the patients who completed the study, 38 received AMB irrigation, and 39 received NS solution irrigation. RESULTS: Seventy‐seven patients were enrolled between June 2012 and December 2014. Pre‐FESS, pre‐irrigation, and postirrigation sinonasal symptoms were assessed by questionnaires, and the patients received endoscopic examination, acoustic rhinometry, smell test, and saccharine transit test. Patients in the AMB group received 100 μg/mL of AMB nasal irrigation daily for 2 months, and those in the normal saline (NS) group received NS solution nasal irrigation daily for 2 months. METHODS: Patients with CRS who received FESS for treatment were recruited and randomly assigned to two groups at 1 month after surgery. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of 100 μg/mL of AMB nasal irrigation as postoperative care after functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS). Previous studies evaluated the efficacy of intranasal amphotericin B (AMB) in the treatment of patients with CRS, but the results were controversial. BACKGROUND: Fungus‐driven inflammation is proposed to play an important role in the pathogenesis of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |