A study by Idaho and Oregon researchers showed that when intrusive Western juniper trees go down, r sage grouse populations go up.

Working primarily in Southeast Oregon from 2010 to 2014, researchers compared sage grouse populations in areas where juniper and other conifers had been cut or burned to bird populations in control areas where trees weren’t removed.

Juniper tree removal increased the sage grouse population growth rate by 25 percent compared to the control areas, concluded the study, whimsically named “Better Living Through Conifer Removal: A Demographic Analysis of Sage-grouse Vital Rates.”

More seriously, the work reinforces what rangeland and wildlife scientists have maintained for years: Cutting down junipers has widespread benefit for the sagebrush ecosystem and especially for sage grouse, which at one point teetered on the edge of Endangered Species Act listing.

The study is among the first to link sage grouse demographic rates to conifer removal, primarily juniper. On a landscape scale, the work showed the potential to increase female sage grouse survival and nest survival, “two of the most important demographic parameters affecting population growth,” according to the study.

An Oregon State University researcher who co-wrote the study said the early results are promising, but cautioned that “We’re in this for the long haul.”

“We hope to carry this 10 years out,” said Christian Hagen, a research faculty member with OSU’s Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. “Sage grouse is still an upland bird, it’s susceptible to the mood swings of Mother Nature.”

Hagen co-wrote the study with John Severson, who conducted the research for his doctoral dissertation at the University of Idaho. He now works for U.S. Geological Survey.

Taking out junipers primarily helps sage grouse because it deprives predators of perches from which to attack adults, chicks or eggs. Hawks, crows, ravens and jays prey on sage grouse.

Junipers are notorious for taking up water and crowding out other plants, including native sage and grasses. Removing them “preserves basic sagebrush ecosystem function” by extending water availability. Grazing cattle are among the beneficiaries, leading some ranchers to take up the motto, “What’s good for the bird is good for the herd.”

“From an agricultural producer standpoint, what we’re seeing is that maintaining rangeland and forage production for livestock can be compatible with sage grouse,” Hagen said. While the work may not necessarily increase forage, measured by the Animal Unit Month, it can make the land more resilient when the next fire or drought comes, he said.

“I know it’s cliche, but it is win-win,” Hagen said. “You’re providing sustainable rangeland, water quality and habitat for this bird. If you’re doing that, then our concerns over the species become alleviated over time.”

For the study, researchers collected data on 219 female sage-grouse and 225 nests from 2010 to 2014. The worked in an area in Southeast Oregon where western juniper was being removed and an area with no removal in Southeast Oregon, Northeast California and Northwest Nevada. Both areas involved both public and private lands.

Greater sage grouse use range in 11 Western states and was a candidate for protection under the Endangered Species Act as its numbers declined. Producers warned that habitat restrictions accompanying a listing would hamper or shut down ranching, farming, mining or energy development in wide expanses of the West. At one point, producer groups referred to the potential impact as “the Spotted Owl on steroids.”

However, ranchers, federal agencies and local organizations such as Soil and Water Conservation Districts spearheaded an effort that reversed the situation. Ranchers signed voluntary habitat conservation agreements on private land that protected them from additional regulation in return for such things as marking fences to reduce bird strikes and removing juniper trees. Meanwhile, federal agencies prepared management plans for BLM and Forest Service land.

In September 2015, then-U.S. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell announced an endangered species listing for sage grouse was not warranted.

“The truth is, we’ve never done anything like this before,” Jewell said at the time. She called it the “largest, most complex land conservation effort ever in the history of the United States of America, perhaps the world.”

SEQUIM, Wash. (AP) — New modular classrooms are being built across Washington state using a new wood that’s the buzz of the industry.

Crews began installing four new modular classrooms in Sequim this week as part of a statewide pilot project to create more classrooms using cross-laminated timber, or CLT.

The technology is made by stacking beams in perpendicular layers and then glued or laminated together the layers like a sandwich.

Supporters say it could infuse struggling forest communities with new economic growth while reducing the carbon footprint of urban construction by using a renewable building material.

For the Sequim classrooms, the wood panels came from local trees and were manufactured in Oregon.

Washington state lawmakers set aside $5.5 million in the 2016 capital budget for 20 classrooms made from CLT. Five school districts in the pilot project are in Seattle, Mount Vernon, Sequim, Wapato and Toppenish.

SALEM — A proposal to expand allowable activities for cider businesses on farmland is sailing through the Oregon legislature with minimal opposition.

Imitating rules established for wineries, Senate Bill 677 would permit cider businesses to produce and sell their beverages, serve food and conduct other agritourism activities on-site in farm zones.

Companies generating less than 100,000 gallons of cider a year would have to be within or next to an orchard of at least 15 acres to take advantage of the provisions.

The orchard size requirement would increase to 40 acres for those businesses producing more than 100,000 gallons annually, under the bill.

The Senate has unanimously approved SB 677, and it’s now being considered by the House Committee on Economic Development and Trade, which is expected to vote on it on May 3.

Cider businesses are similar to wineries in terms of government regulation and the process of crushing fruit to make juice that’s then fermented into alcohol, said Dan Lawrence, founder of Stone Circle Cider near Estacada, Ore.

The goal of SB 677 is to provide cider companies with the same opportunity to process and sell their product, while educating consumers about how it’s made, said Lawrence.

“Oregon is in a strong position to be a leader, if not the leader, in this industry nationwide,” he said. “It helps bring dollars and jobs to the countryside.”

U.S. sales of cider surged more than 300 percent between 2010 and 2015, to about $870 million, with Northwest consumers being particularly keen for the beverage, according to testimony from the Northwest Cider Association, which has 25 members in Oregon.

Rep. Ken Helm, D-Beaverton, commended SB 677’s supporters for emulating existing land use provisions for Oregon wineries, rather than trying to create a whole new system for their industry.

“There’s fewer unknowns here,” Helm said.

Nobody spoke against the bill during the committee hearing, but written testimony submitted by the Oregon Farm Bureau was unenthusiastic.

The organization wants to encourage Oregon’s cider industry but is concerned “about the breadth of activities authorized” under SB 677, much as it was concerned about previously enacted rules for wineries, said Mary Anne Nash, OFB’s public policy counsel.

The proposal allows bed-and-breakfast operations and other activities “seemingly unrelated” to agriculture in farm zones, without requiring cider businesses to own the orchards, she said.

“This could result in the development of a production facility and business center that is not actually part of the farm use on the property,” Nash said.

Joe Beach has been named editor and publisher of the Capital Press.

The announcement was made April 21 in Salem by Steve Forrester, president and CEO of the EO Media Group, and Kathryn Brown, secretary-treasurer of the EO Media Group — the parent company of the Capital Press.

“Kathryn and I were impressed with the rich field of candidates. We believe that Joe is exceedingly well equipped to move the Capital Press to a new level in its basic news product, as well as all of the newer forms of delivery and product lines we might develop,” Forrester said.

Beach has been in the newspaper business for 37 years, beginning his career as a part-time features writer at the Terre Haute Tribune while studying journalism at Indiana State University. After graduation he was named editor of Indiana Agri-News, a weekly farm publication. He has since held top editorial positions at a number of publications, and has served stints as publisher of three daily newspapers.

Beach was named editor of the Capital Press in November 2008, and since August 2014 has also managed the EO Media Group/Pamplin Media Group statehouse bureau. He will retain those duties in his new role as editor and publisher.

He’s been married to his wife, Rebecca, for 32 years. They have two children — Jessica and Jacob.

“It is an extreme honor to have been chosen to lead the Capital Press, and I appreciate the trust Kathryn and Steve have placed in me,” Beach said. “The Capital Press has a unique relationship with its readers and advertisers. I look forward to working with everyone at the paper, the most talented people I’ve known in my time in the business, to continue that tradition as we diversify the products we offer.”

An Oregon law professor says producers need to keep their cool, ask questions, take pictures and be prepared to help detained employees if agents from the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency show up at an orchard, vineyard, dairy or other ag facility.

Susan Felstiner, who teaches at Lewis & Clark College in Southwest Portland, was part of a panel discussion at an Immigration Forum put on in late April by five Oregon producer groups. With immigration issues and labor shortages hot on producers’ minds and farmworkers fearful that they’ll get swept up in raids, Felstiner said it’s easy to get caught up in emotion.

She offered steps to head off problems and protect the rights of producers and employees.

• Owners should mark parts of their businesses as private. ICE agents don’t need an owner’s consent to enter the public area of a business, but entering a private office, for example, would require a warrant. Fields should be posted as private property as well, she said.

• If agents arrive, have employees tell them to wait in a designated public area while the owner contacts an attorney, “So they don’t go wandering around,” Felstiner said.

• Keep employees’ I-9 forms and supporting documents together in a secure place. The I-9 forms are ones by which employees show they can legally work.

• Determine if agents have a warrant, and what kind. An ICE administrative warrant usually gives them authority to detain an individual, Felstiner said, while a broader judicial warrant gives them authority to search the premises.

• If agents have a warrant, take a photo of it with your phone and send it to your attorney, Felstiner said. Write down names, badge numbers and agencies involved. Video shot with cell phones has become an important tool to document officers’ behavior, she said, but it’s important not to obstruct agents. Stand about 10 feet away.

“You shouldn’t do any harboring (of undocumented employees) or hiding, or aid in escaping, provide false information or shred documents,” she said.

• In case of an arrest, remember your personal right to remain silent, and brief employees ahead of time on their rights. If an employee is detained, ask where he or she is being taken, and follow up to track their location.

• If an employee is arrested, think about helping the family hire an immigration attorney, Felstiner said. Consider paying the bond amount so the detainee can be released pending a hearing, and make sure any money owed to the employee is paid.

Felstine works at Lewis & Clark Law School’s Small Business Legal Clinic. She’s a founding member and past president of the Oregon Hispanic Bar Association. In addition, she’s a member of the Hispanic National Bar Association and Oregon Women Lawyers.

The Immigration Forum, held April 20 in Newberg, involved the Oregon Farm Bureau, Oregon Association of Nurseries, Oregon Winegrowers Association, Oregon Cattlemen’s Association and Oregon Dairy Farmers Association. Close to 200 producers attended. The meeting was closed to the media, but representatives of three groups spoke to the Capital Press afterward about what was said and the mood inside.

All agreed workers are scared by the tough talk coming out of the Trump administration about a crackdown on illegal immigration, especially because even though the worker may be documented, a husband, wife or children might not be.

Tom Danowski, CEO of the winegrowers group, said there is a “chilling effect” on employees, with some afraid to drive to work or take their children to events such as athletic practices.

Jeff Stone, executive director of the nursery association, said there is a “pervasive fear more tangible and real than we’ve seen in the past.”

He said the agricultural labor shortage is severe, and for nurseries represents a cap on growth. Nurseries have recovered from the recession, he said, but some are operating with 40 percent to 50 percent of the labor force they could use. As a result, some who could grow their business 25 percent are growing at a rate of only 2 or 3 percent because they don’t have sufficient labor, Stone said.

Representatives from ICE and other staff from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security attended the forum and took questions from producers. According to producers, the ICE representatives said they are not going on big sweeps or raids to catch undocumented immigrants. Instead, they’ve enhanced what Obama administration did; they go after targeted felons, and if other illegals are in the vicinity, they sweep them up, too. Under Obama, they let go the ones who were simply undocumented.

The ICE officials said a highly publicized Feb. 24 incident in Woodburn, Ore., was an example of that policy. Agents stopped a pair of worker transport vehicles, seeking two men wanted on criminal charges, and ended up detaining 11 people on allegations they were in the country illegally.

Dave Dillon, executive vice president of the Oregon Farm Bureau, said despite fear of an ICE crackdown, there’s “more smoke than fire” at this point.

He and others, however, said dysfunctional immigration policies are at the heart of the problem.

“This is 30 years of a broken system coming home to roost,” said Stone, of the nursery association. He said fixing it is not a mystery: Bring workers into “legal status,” avoiding the politically-loaded word “amnesty,” and create a guest worker program.

PENDLETON, Ore. (AP) — Tumbleweeds are a common sight across Eastern Oregon, rolling over the vast landscape like something out of an Old West movie.

They are also a scourge for dryland wheat farmers, spreading hundreds of thousands of tiny seeds that invade fallow fields and rob the ground of critical moisture.

The weed isn’t native to North America, but is believed to have been brought to South Dakota in contaminated flax seed in the late 19th century by Russian immigrants. It spreads quickly, with the stem detaching from the root and being carried by the wind across long distances, leaving its seed along the way.

A group of growers in southern Morrow County has come up with an ambitious plan to eradicate the invasive tumbleweeds — Russian thistle — from approximately 100,000 acres south of Ione, where they say the problem has exploded in recent years.

But first, they must receive a $7 million matching grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture through the Regional Conservation Partnership Program. The Natural Resource Conservation Service administers the program funding, which supports collaborative work to protect natural resources while benefiting agriculture.

The group submitted its pre-application proposal to the agency on April. If selected, they will submit a full proposal by Aug. 31. Grants will not be awarded until November.

John Rietmann, who has farmed near Ione for more than 30 years, said the project would run over five years and help determine best management practices for dealing with Russian thistle. The management area would run north to Ione along Baseline Road, south to the Heppner-Condon highway, east to Rhea Creek and west to Eightmile Canyon.

The goal, Rietmann said, is to sustain no-till farming in the region, which has already proven valuable for local farmers.

“This is the best methodology to reduce wind and water erosion, and to maintain soil health,” he said.

No-till relies on direct seeding, where a drill plants the crop seed and fertilizer directly into the soil with minimal disturbance on the surface.

Rietmann said he has been no-tilling for 12 years now, and others in the group for even longer.

“We’ve all invested a lot of money getting ourselves educated in the tools and equipment needed to be involved in direct seeding,” he said.

Russian thistle, however, threatens to make that investment unsustainable. Farmers use herbicides, such as glyphosate, to spray for weeds without tilling fallow fields. As Russian thistle continues to spread, Rietmann said they are having to spend more time and money treating the problem.

Combined with the sagging price of wheat, Rietmann said it is pushing the cost of production beyond their break-even point.

“This is a low-margin business as it is,” he said.

Research from Oregon State University also shows some tumbleweeds are becoming resistant to glyphosate, forcing farmers to turn to other higher-risk chemicals. If they can eliminate Russian thistle, Rietmann said it would dramatically reduce input costs and ensure farmers can afford no-till practices.

Rietmann said they have already raised nearly $7 million in matching dollars and in-kind work for the grant. The project would have on-the-ground support from Larry Lutcher and Judit Barroso with OSU Extension Service, and Stewart Wuest with the USDA Agricultural Research Service.

Barroso, who works at the Columbia Basin Agricultural Research Center north of Pendleton, said the proposal is a great idea and based on sound science.

“If we are able to prevent the spreading of Russian thistle, we’ll be more successful controlling the weed,” she said.

Kacee Lathrop, district conservationist for the NRCS in Morrow County, said she helped steer the group toward applying for the Regional Conservation Partnership Program. She said she is impressed by the initiative from local growers.

“They’re the ones who identified the problem and are seeking help and funding, which is pretty unique,” Lathrop said. “It’s a pretty aggressive goal they’re trying to attain.”

Rietmann said the project would be daunting, but if successful could be a game-changer for the region.

“Logic says, in the agricultural community, this will move beyond the project boundaries as people see whether it’s successful or not,” he said.

SALEM — A slew of bills that stirred up controversy in Oregon’s agriculture and timber industries have met their end, at least for the 2017 legislative session.

In some cases, though, legislators have vowed to revisit the issues in future years or find other ways to approach the underlying disputes.

Following is a summary of proposals that were voted down or killed by an April 18 legislative deadline:

• Solar development restrictions: A proposal to make commercial solar projects tougher to build on high-value farmland in Oregon has died, but discussions on the subject are expected to continue.

House Bill 3050 would have required developers to conduct an “alternatives analysis” to search for other sites before installing solar panels on high-value farmland.

Critics say the proposal would preserve agriculture from incompatible uses but solar industry representatives argued the bill would impede Oregon requirements that utilities buy power from small-scale producers.

The “alternatives analysis” bill will go no further this legislative session but a work group will study the issue of commercial solar development on farmland, said Rep. Brian Clem, D-Salem, who chairs the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.

• Wage and hour lawsuits: Employers would be barred from recovering attorney fees from workers who filed losing lawsuits over unpaid wages under a bill that recently sank in the House Business and Labor Committee.

Labor advocates claimed that workers are currently afraid to bring wage and hour claims against their bosses due to the possibility of owing attorney fees.

Proponents argued that HB 2169 would have removed this deterrent to legitimate claims, but opponents said it would have disrupted a necessary balance in such disputes.

• Dairy emission regulations: Two large dairies in Oregon have forestalled a bill that aimed to impose air emissions regulations on dairy farms across the state.

State regulators would have been required to draw up rules restricting dairy air emissions under Senate Bill 197, which supporters said was recommended by a 2008 task force that included dairy industry representatives.

Opponents countered that Oregon’s air quality is highly regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and that dairies are voluntarily adopting measures to reduce emissions.

An alternative to SB 197 was made possible by Three Mile Canyon Farms, a large dairy near Boardman, and Lost Valley Ranch, a proposed large dairy nearby, which have agreed to devise “best management practices” to control emissions, said Sen. Mike Dembrow, D-Portland, who chairs the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee.

• Pesticide spray notification: A bill imposing new notification requirements for aerial pesticide sprays in Oregon forests was voted down 3-2 despite several changes proposed by Dembrow, its chief sponsor.

Timber industry representatives complained the original language of Senate Bill 892 would have unreasonably complicated the timing of pesticide applications, which must often be shifted due to weather.

In an attempted compromise, Dembrow proposed delegating the length of the notification window to the Oregon Board of Forestry and exempting uninhabited areas from the spray notification requirement.

The deciding vote against the amended bill was cast by Sen. Arnie Roblan, D-Coos Bay, who said he’s uncomfortable with the notification requirements due to the history of sabotage against Oregon’s timber industry.

• Neonicotinoid restrictions: The Energy and Natural Resources Committee allowed Senate Bill 929, which would have restricted the use of neonicotinoid pesticides, to die without comment.

Proponents of the bill argued that homeowners without pesticide training shouldn’t be allowed to buy the chemicals, which have been linked to pollinator die-offs.

However, critics said that classifying neonicotinoids as restricted-use pesticides could steer people to more toxic pesticides that are harmful to people as well as insects.

• Livestock antibiotic limits: A bill restricting antibiotic usage in Oregon’s livestock industry has died in the Senate Committee on Health Care despite objections from critics who claim federal controls insufficiently limit usage of the drugs.

Pharmaceutical companies changed antibiotic labels to disallow uses aimed at livestock growth promotion, but critics claim this “loophole” continues to permit antibiotic usage for disease prevention in livestock.

Senate Bill 785 would have restricted antibiotics to treat or control the spread of a disease under the supervision of a veterinarian and required confined animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, to report usage.

Supporters of the bill said it would help slow bacterial resistance to medically important antibiotics, but opponents argued the proposal was too rigid and rendered unnecessary by federal measures.

Oregon State University, the alma mater or sports team favorite of many Pacific Northwest producers, has a new logo and branding to go with it.

The new logo is an intentional artistic representation of what the university stands for and the practical research and education it does in agriculture, forestry, natural resources, engineering and other work that benefits Oregonians.

“The personality of this university is like the state animal, the beaver,” said Steve Clark, OSU’s vice president for University Relations and Marketing. “We work hard, we get things done. We don’t just talk, we do.”

The old logo, dating to 2003, was orange and simply said “OSU.” The new one shows a beaver, the OSU mascot, on top of an academic crest shaped like a rounded-off map of Oregon. On the crest are a tree and an open book, which represent knowledge, according to an OSU news release.

The crest also includes three stars to represent the OSU campuses in Corvallis, Bend and Newport, and the date 1868, when the university was founded.

Finally, the crest includes a reference to the state seal, with a sun setting over the ocean, plus mountain peaks under the stars. Together, the symbols speak to OSU’s status as a land, sea, sun and space grant university.

In a prepared statement, Clark said the logo provides a “refreshed visual identity” that “portrays the promise and product of Oregon State: high-quality teaching, research and community engagement.”

He said Oregon State and “Beaver Nation” members are “gritty, determined, confident, collaborative, visionary, conscientious and welcoming.”

The logo change is accompanied by a motto, “Out there,” which expresses OSU’s network of statewide Extension and research stations and its Willamette Valley, Cascades and coastal campuses.

“We’re out there in the middle of everywhere,” Clark said.

Clark estimated 75 to 80 percent of responses so far have been favorable, with reaction coming in social media, email and phone calls.

Kevin Miller, an OSU graduate who edits the Oregon Stater alumni magazine, said students on campus appeared to be enthusiastic about the change when the logo was unveiled at an event on campus this past week.

Miller, who lives in and was a newspaper editor in Eugene, acknowledged the change might not have much impact in the home of arch-rival University of Oregon.

“It’s not going to make some of my friends who are Duck fans burn their green and yellow Duck gear because we have a new logo,” Miller said. “If you know OSU, you say, ‘Hey, that looks like us,’ “

The athletic team logo — a beaver with bared teeth and bristling hair — remains the same.

The logo and branding work cost $480,000. Of that, $395,000 went to Ologie, a Columbus, Ohio, branding agency, and $85,000 was paid to Pentagram, a design firm based in London. Money came from sales of licensed OSU merchandise, no university or public money was spent, according to OSU.

Online

A FAQ guide to OSU’s new logo: http://bit.ly/2q29InU

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit accusing Oregon regulators of allowing dairies to contaminate Tillamook Bay to the detriment of an oyster company.

However, the underlying conflict isn’t going away and the case is expected to be revived in the near future.

Last year, the Hayes Oyster Co. filed a complaint arguing the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality insufficiently regulated fecal coliform bacteria from dairies in the Tillamook area.

Due to the low threshold of allowable bacteria levels in shellfish waters, DEQ’s regulatory shortfall has greatly reduced harvests on Hayes’ 600 acres of oyster plats in the bay, the lawsuit said.

Oyster harvesting is entirely prohibited on about 250 of those acres and closed for extended periods on the remaining 350 acres, according to the complaint.

U.S. Magistrate Judge John Jelderks has now dismissed the case, ruling that it should have been filed in state court rather than federal court.

Thomas Benke, attorney for the Hayes Oyster Co., said he’s preparing to refile in an Oregon court soon.

Benke said DEQ wrongly assumes that permits issued to confined animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, by the Oregon Department of Agriculture actually prevent the discharge of bacteria into surface water.

But since bacteria are nonetheless released into rivers, the DEQ has “sanctioned a pollution easement across the entire bay by the dairy farms,” he said.

The Hayes Oyster Co. has been unable to harvest oysters during eight of the past 10 holiday seasons due to high river flows that are associated with elevated bacteria levels, said Jesse Hayes, the company’s president.

After heavy rains, the company must routinely wait until 10 high tides wash out the estuary to resume harvesting, he said. “You can’t imagine how frustrating that is.”

Hayes argues the manure generated by dairies in the region exceeds what can safely be applied to fields.

“If you take the amount of dairy waste, there is not enough room for it,” he said.

The goal of Hayes’ lawsuit is for DEQ to recognize that CAFO permits aren’t adequately controlling bacteria and to tighten manure management practices to stop water contamination, said Benke.

Another possibility would be for wastewater plants in the region to pay dairies to reduce pollution, rather than be subjected to stricter discharge controls by DEQ, he said.

“It’s intended to create a situation where the citizens of Tillamook encourage farmers to abate their fecal coliform contribution to the estuary,” Benke said.

Chad Allen, president of the Oregon Dairy Farmers Association, bristled at the notion that dairies are under-regulated.

Manure can only be applied to fields at agronomic rates needed to grow crops, which is subject to oversight by regulators, said Allen, who farms in the Tillamook area.

To compare, crop farmers aren’t subject to restrictions on synthetic nitrogen, he said.

Dairy farmers have also voluntarily fenced miles of streams to keep cattle out and planted vegetation in riparian areas to keep streams cool, Allen said.

“Dairymen here in Tillamook take it extremely serious,” he said. “We’re not going to survive in this estuary if we can’t show we can co-exist.”

Reducing the amount of manure on fields would basically mean decreasing the number of dairy cows in the region, said Troy Downing, an Oregon State University dairy specialist.

If dairy operations ceased operating, pastures could still be stocked with other livestock that also produce manure, he said.

Septic systems, horses and wildlife also contribute to fecal coliform bacteria, Downing said. “That’s part of people living here in the valley.”

Though manure levels are applied at rates aimed at precluding discharge, it is possible for some bacteria to get into water, said Wym Matthews, manager of ODA’s CAFO program.

“The field is a treatment system and it’s not as highly controlled as a factory would be,” he said.

Even so, farmers are required to change their waste management plans if permit conditions are found to be insufficient, Matthews said.

“The plan is very specific for each individual farm,” but none are allowed to discharge, he said.

Genetic tests have shown the source of fecal coliform bacteria in the Tillamook region is most commonly human in populated areas while ruminants are the more common source in rural areas, said York Johnson, North Coast basin coordinator for DEQ.

Over time, though, statistically significant decreases in bacteria levels have been documented in the Wilson, Kilchis and Tillamook rivers, which feed into the bay, he said.

“In general, we’re seeing improvement,” Johnson said. “We’re making progress toward our goal.”

KLAMATH FALLS — In the heart of Southern Oregon’s burgeoning wolf territory, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission Friday took testimony on the state’s draft wolf plan revision.

The meeting was dominated by input on the Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan’s five-year review. Wolf advocates pleaded for stricter conservation measures while ranchers asked for quicker determinations on suspected wolf-caused livestock losses and hunters pushed for controlled hunts when wolf populations threaten deer and elk populations.

Russ Morgan, Oregon’s wolf coordinator, said conservation remains the focus of the wolf plan, but it also has management flexibility when it comes to problem wolves.

“We are using an adaptive approach as originally intended,” Morgan said.

Capturing, collaring and monitoring collar data as wolf numbers increase and territories expand is becoming increasingly difficult, Morgan said, and monitoring requirements in the current plan are potentially unattainable or unnecessary.

“We are not getting away from collaring wolves but being more selective,” Morgan said.

Bill Nicholson was one Southern Oregon rancher in attendance who said he’s lived with wolves on Wood River Valley ranch for a number of years, but 2016 was what he called the “breakout year” when four calves were confirmed as wolf kills last October.

“The only reason they stopped (killing) was because we shipped the cattle.” Nicholson said.

The Rogue pack was blamed for the losses, but a couple weeks ago a lone, collared wolf known as OR-25 was detected near his ranch. He said he isn’t into lethal control, but wants more tools to prevent kills.

“In a week or two there will be 30,000 head of cattle in the upper (Wood River) valley and I think we are going to have a problem right away,” Nicholson said.

One of the more controversial provisions in the wolf plan is the allowance of controlled hunts by certified hunters and trappers in cases where deer and elk populations are threatened by wolf predation. Advocates voiced their opposition over any kind of hunting to control wolf populations while members of Oregon Hunters Association pressed Morgan to keep controlled hunt provisions in the plan. Jim Akenson, the association’s conservation director, said, “Hunting is a critical tool that need to be integrated.”

The number of confirmed wolf-caused livestock kills and injuries that can trigger lethal removal of wolves was also hotly contested. Nick Cady of Eugene’s Cascadia Wildlands said increasing the number of incidences from two to three was an improvement, under these new proposed rules four of the 11 packs would be eligible to have some of their numbers killed. Most of the other advocates urged the number of confirmed depredations increase beyond three in a year before the state sanctions killing wolves.

“I oppose killing wolves for having the audacity to eat meat,” Rob Klavins of Oregon Wild, said.

Oregon Cattlemen’s Association Chairman John O’Keeffe said he understands wolves are part of the landscape and here to stay, but it’s time to recognize burden on livestock producers.

“A lot has been asked of Oregon’s livestock producers, mentally, financially and emotionally,” O’Keeffe said. “We want the changes to the plan need to reflect these inequities.”

O’Keeffe cited research that claims partial pack removal is best soon after predation events.

“We are told if there are wolves present that don’t prey on livestock leave them alone, but it is equally true with problem wolves,” O’Keeffe said.

Bill Gawlowski was the public-at-large representative on the stakeholder team that developed the 2005 wolf plan. He said in light of funding constraints he suggested that the wolf advocate groups represented at the April commission meeting raise money to offset costs.

“I’ve counted the memberships listed today of these groups and counted their memberships that total 70,000. You might want to put your money where your mouth is,” Gawlowski said.

NYSSA, Ore. — The Idaho-Oregon onion industry has managed to dispose of virtually all of the estimated 100 million pounds of onions that were lost this winter when dozens of sheds collapsed under the weight of unprecedented snow and ice.

Both states extended their deadlines for disposal of cull onions from March 15 to April 15 this year and most of the onions were properly disposed of before that date, officials in both states said.

With the deadline looming last week and a lot of onions still not disposed of, the state of Oregon gave the Lytle Boulevard landfill in Malheur County emergency permission to build another trench to handle the onslaught of culls.

“They significantly ramped up (the amount of onions they were taking) and pretty much everything is disposed of at this point,” Lindsay Eng, director of certification programs for the Oregon Department of Agriculture, said April 20.

The onion maggot, which is frequently found in piles of cull onions, can devastate onion and other vegetable crops. Both states require culls to be properly disposed of by March 15 so they don’t spread to the new crop.

Cull onions can be disposed of in landfills or pits, by discing or plowing them into a field, feeding them to livestock or by chopping or shredding and cultivating them into fields.

The states’ cull onion rules affect growers and packing sheds in Malheur County, Ore., and Ada, Canyon, Gem, Payette, Owyhee and Washington counties in Idaho.

If weather delays disposal, cull onions must be treated with an Environmental Protection Agency-labeled insecticide.

Disposing of 100 million pounds of onions was no easy task, said Casey Prentiss, an ODA field operations manager in Ontario who worked closely with the industry.

“It’s kind of a minor miracle that we were able to get that amount of onions disposed of,” he said. “It’s been quite a feat.”

Across the border, the Idaho State Department of Agriculture has investigators in the field following up with growers and processors to ensure they have properly disposed of their culls, ISDA Communications Director Chanel Tewalt told Capital Press in an email.

“Given the extreme weather this winter, it was important to provide additional time for onion disposal but that flexibility has to be balanced with the recognition that mitigating pest hatches is a significant concern,” she said. “We are working in concert with industry to balance the need for disposal with their ability to dispose of culls due to weather conditions.”

Violators can be fined up to $10,000 but the ISDA’s goal is to work with the industry to address the issue and avoid an onion maggot outbreak, Tewalt said.

“Idaho agriculture has had a very difficult winter and we are looking for mutually agreeable solutions and compliance with the cull onion rule,” she said. “However, enforcement options are available if needed.”

ALBANY, Ore. — The State of Oregon has conceded that a class action lawsuit seeking $1.4 billion for insufficient timber harvests isn’t blocked by the statute of limitations.

The state government has also dropped its argument that county governments and local taxing districts don’t have legal standing to sue Oregon for alleged breach of contract.

Last year, Linn County filed a lawsuit accusing Oregon of violating contracts with 15 counties by reducing logging on about 650,000 acres of forestland the counties had donated to the state.

The lawsuit was certified as a class action by Linn County Circuit Judge Daniel Murphy, which means the 15 counties and roughly 150 taxing districts, such as schools and fire departments, were joined as plaintiffs in the case.

Since then, Clatsop County’s government and Clatsop County Community College have opted out of the lawsuit while other taxing districts within Clatsop County have not.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs had asked the judge to eliminate 12 “affirmative defenses” intended to shield the State of Oregon from the class action lawsuit.

During oral arguments on April 20, Oregon’s attorneys agreed to drop several of these defenses, including the expiration of statute of limitations, the plaintiffs’ lack of legal standing and the court’s lack of jurisdiction over the case.

However, Oregon’s attorneys also argued for the validity of remaining defenses, such as the claim that the federal Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act preclude the level of logging sought by the plaintiffs.

Counties turned over the forestlands in the early 20th Century in return for a share of timber revenues, but plaintiffs claim Oregon has curtailed logging due to environmental and recreational considerations.

Even if the Oregon’s contract with the counties did require timber revenues to be maximized, that’s no longer possible because federal laws effectively impose limits on logging, said Scott Kaplan, attorney for the state.

“That purpose, if there was such a purpose, can’t be satisfied,” he said.

This defense isn’t valid because the lawsuit only seeks to recover damages for lost revenues from lawfully harvested timber, argued John DiLorenzo, attorney for the plaintiffs.

Oregon’s reduction in timber harvest goes beyond what’s required by federal law, he said. “Honoring federal requirements is built into the calculation of damages.”

Oregon’s “greatest permanent value” rule for managing state forests, enacted in 1998, is blamed by plaintiffs for causing the harvest reductions.

Attorneys for the state government say the “greatest permanent value” rule conforms with Oregon law and the Oregon Department of Forestry is complying with the rule, which is a valid defense to the breach of contract claim.

DiLorenzo said the plaintiffs agree that ODF is following the rule, but they simply want to recover damages resulting from that compliance.

“We’re not seeking to void the rules,” he said.

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A federal court has killed a large wind energy project in Oregon over concerns about a declining sage grouse population that needs the area to breed.

The U.S. District Court in Portland vacated plans for the project Tuesday, bringing an end to lengthy litigation over the proposal by Columbia Energy Partners.

The project proposal was for wind energy development on roughly 10,500 acres of private land in Harney County near Steens Mountain.

The project called for 40 to 69 wind turbines and a 230-kilovolt transmission line to bring the energy to the electrical grid.

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management had approved the project, and Harney County granted a key permit.

But environmental groups, including the Oregon Natural Desert Association and the Audubon Society of Portland, challenged the BLM’s environmental review of the project. It needed the environmental review partly because the transmission line’s right of way would cross public lands.

The groups said the BLM did not conduct surveys to determine how many sage grouse wintered in the area — and last year, an appeals court sided with opponents.

That ruling set the stage for this week’s action by the court, which vacated the Secretary of the Interior’s approval of the large wind project.

Greater sage grouse need sagebrush year-round for mating, nesting and rearing their broods. They also eat pretty much only sagebrush through the winter. Loss of sagebrush habitat has contributed to sage grouse population decline in Oregon.

Columbia Energy Partners did not immediately reply to an email seeking comment Wednesday. A number listed for their Vancouver, Washington office rang busy.

“Steens Mountain never should have been considered for industrial wind development,” said Bob Sallinger, conservation director of the Audubon Society of Portland. “We strongly support the transition to renewable energy sources but it needs to be done in a responsible manner.”

A trip to the Eastern Oregon this spring gave two Portland school kids a rare glimpse into raising livestock in the county where half of the state’s wolf population live.

On April 7, their first full day of the 4-H Urban Rural Exchange in Wallowa, County Sylvia Grosveld and Abby Darr of Sunnyside Environmental School accompanied their host to a remote ranch on the upper Imnaha River, well known wolf country for almost 10 years. There they watched as an Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife biologist determined a calf had been killed by the recently named Harl Butte Pack.

Todd and Angie Nash live and ranch in Wallowa County and have hosted Sunnyside students six of the last 10 years. In 2012 a student staying with the Nashes helped mark the ears of newborn calves and wrote her name on one of ear tags. In the fall that tag helped identify a calf killed by wolves.

Todd Nash manages the Marr Flat Cattle Ranch and has witnessed dozens of investigations - both of his own cattle and as the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association wolf committee chair. When he got word of the suspected wolf kill on the Imnaha he asked the girls if they wanted to go on an investigation of a dead cow and calf. They agreed, but weren’t sure how they would react.

“I thought I was going to take a look and bolt,” Grosveld said.

Neither girl bolted, though Darr said she got a little woozy. They watched as Pat Matthews, ODFW’s Enterprise field office biologist, skinned the calf, revealing bruising in what little remained of its head, front legs and rib cage.

Nash said he suspected the mother cow had been run to death so Matthews investigated her carcass, as well.

Grosveld said it didn’t appear wolves had fed on the cow, but it’s head was bloody and one eye socket had a broken orb. She and Darr watched as Matthews skinned the cow and pulled out her organs.

“When they rolled the guts out, the girls got inquisitive,” Nash said.

When the lungs and windpipe were removed they were half full of blood. Nash said the organs were sent to Washington State University to determine if there was any evidence to prove the cow had died from being chased.

Even though the investigation was on a ranch an hour outside Joseph, the nearest town with cell phone service and a gas station, the cow and calf were found dead only 250 yards from a ranch house.

“I was surprised that a wolf would attack that close to houses and people.” Darr said. “It’s different to see that in person than to hear about it.”

Before coming face to face with a wolf attack, Grosveld and Darr had only an academic exposure to wolves. Darr said the school had a guest speaker who told the students about how wolves benefit streambanks by thinning out elk herds that have over-browsed shrubs and aspen. The effect of wolves on livestock was also discussed, but it seemed abstract until the trip to the Imnaha ranch.

“When they were talking about it in class it didn’t seem like a real thing,” Darr said.

In 2016 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife confirmed 13 wolf-caused deaths and injuries in Wallowa County of the 24 total confirmed incidences in Oregon. Matthews said the newly named Harl Butte Pack is running in much of the same territory as the Imnaha Pack once did. Four of the pack’s members, including the alpha male and female and two yearlings, were killed by ODFW biologists in the spring of 2016 after repeated, confirmed livestock loss and injury. Since July, wolves running in the old Imnaha pack territory were blamed for four incidences of livestock loss or injury close to where the cow and calf were found dead on the Imnaha ranch earlier this month.

Oregon’s wolf management plan is up for public review as the ODFW Commission once again attempts to balance the restoration of an apex predator with the havoc they can cause in rural areas.

The commission will take comments on a draft conservation and management plan during an April 21 meeting in Klamath Falls, and will repeat the process May 19 in Portland. The commission eventually will adopt a five-year management plan; no date is set yet.

Russ Morgan, ODFW’s wolf program manager, said the draft management plan builds on what wildlife biologists have learned over the years. When the first management plan was adopted in 2005, there were no documented wolves in Oregon. The first pups were discovered in 2008, and by the end of 2011 there were 29 confirmed wolves in Oregon. The state documented 64 wolves at the end of 2013, and a minimum of 112 by the end of 2016, including 11 packs and eight breeding pairs.

Morgan said the plan couples state data with “tons of research” that’s been done on wolves in Oregon and elsewhere over the years.

“This plan still maintains a very active conservation approach, it doesn’t change in that regard,” Morgan said.

Oregon classifies wolves as a “special status game animal.” The draft plan allows ODFW to authorize hunters and trappers to kill wolves in two specific “controlled take” situations: Chronic livestock depredation in a localized area, and declines in wild ungulate populations, principally deer and elk. The draft plan does not allow a general hunting season, a prohibition that would hold for five years after the plan is adopted.

“I can’t predict what will happen to wolf management years and years out, but during this planning cycle, absolutely not,” Morgan said of a possible sport hunting season on wolves.

Livestock producers and wildlife activists don’t like aspects of the draft plan.

The Oregon Farm Bureau and Oregon Cattlemen’s Association said it makes it harder for ranchers to protect their animals because it increases the number of confirmed attacks required before allowing lethal control of wolves.

The draft plan requires three confirmed depredations or one confirmed and four “probable” attacks within a 12 month period. The previous standard was two confirmed depredations or one confirmed and three attempted attacks, with no time period set.

The groups also believe ODFW should continue collaring wolves, and should set a population cap for wolves in Oregon. Without a benchmark, “we will not be able to tell when wolves have reached their natural carrying capacity” in the state, the Farm Bureau said in a statement.

Cattlemen also want local biologists to make the call on lethal control of wolves, not department administrators in Salem. Todd Nash, the association’s wolf policy chair, said ranchers’ views aren’t reflected in the draft plan.

“It doesn’t look like we were even in the room, and that’s really disappointing,” he said.

Some activists, however, believe ODFW is moving too quickly to relax conservation safeguards, including the decision in 2015 to take wolves off the state endangered species list. Among other things, they point to the annual wolf count figures released this past week as proof the population is fragile. The minimum count of 112 wolves at the end of 2016 was only two more than in 2015, after years of sharp growth. Even ODFW described the population gain as “weak.”

The department said a combination of factors probably contributed to the modest increase. At least seven wolves were killed in 2016, including four members of the Imnaha Pack shot by ODFW for repeated livestock attacks. Blood samples taken from captured wolves indicated many animals were exposed to recent or severe parvovirus infections, which can take a toll on pups. Finally, bad winter weather hampered efforts to count wolves. Wildlife officials stress the annual population figure is a minimum number, and believe the state has considerably more wolves.

Nonetheless, Nick Cady, legal director for the Eugene-based group Cascadia Wildlands, said wolves aren’t the “exponentially growing and undefeatable species” that opponents sometimes describe.

“One hard winter and there’s no growth,” he said.

Cady said wolf recovery faces numerous hurdles. Anti-predator bills pop up in the Legislature on a regular basis and ODFW is deferential to hunting interests that provide budget money through license sales, he said. The state appears headed to a wolf management approach that allows hunting while doing “basic level monitoring so they don’t go extinct, which I think wolves are not ready for.”

Cascadia Wildlands opposes killing wolves if deer and elk populations drop. Cady said proper habitat is a greater factor in ungulate populations than wolves. The group also opposes draft plan provisions that allow USDA Wildlife Services to conduct livestock depredation investigations. Cady said the agency is too quick to blame wolves for every attack.

Wildlife Services came under intense criticism this spring when it killed an Oregon wolf with an M-44 cyanide poison trap set to kill coyotes. Soon after, a dog in Idaho died and a teenage boy was injured when they encountered an M-44. Wildlife Service subsequently announced it would not use the devices in six Eastern Oregon counties where the majority of the state’s wolves live.

“Given their track record, they shouldn’t be involved in predator management in Oregon in any capacity,” Cady said.

Past wolf hearings have become displays of the state’s urban-rural divide. Wildlife activists from Portland and Eugene, and from out of state, tend to celebrate the presence of wolves restored to the landscape. Cattle ranchers and other rural residents tend to testify about the expense of defensive measures and the grisly results of livestock attacks.

As the draft wolf plan authors put it, “people with the most positive attitudes about wolves have been those with the least experience with them. People who live in areas with wolves have more negative attitudes toward wolves than the general public, and negative attitudes are further amplified by wolf predation of livestock.

“In Oregon, it is expected that an increasing and expanding population of wolves will result in more, not less, conflict in the future,” the plan concludes.

The plan says the impact of wolves on deer and elk is mixed, and is complicated by the presence and feeding habits of cougars, bears, coyotes and bobcats.

When hunting elk, “wolves continually test prey to identify weak individuals” they can single out for attack. Such “near constant hunting pressure” could change the habitat use, vigilance, movement rates and migration patterns of elk, according to the report. The fitness and reproductive potential of elk could be expected to decline in such cases.

Wolves don’t eat mule deer that often, but their presence could force cougars into steeper terrain where they’d be more likely to encounter mule deer, according to the report.

The second public meeting is Friday, May 19, at the Embassy Suites hotel near the Portland Airport.

KLAMATH FALLS, Ore. (AP) — Irrigators in the Upper Klamath Basin are deeply concerned about a recent call on water by the Klamath Tribes.

The call alerts secondary water users that the Tribes will use its water allocation in the Williamson, Sprague and possibly the Wood rivers for the benefit of fish habitat over irrigation for farming and cattle operations.

Rancher Becky Hyde tells the Herald and News the call is potentially devastating for irrigators, and puts a strain on their relationship with the Tribes.

Area ranchers spent years hammering out an Upper Basin agreement over water use with the Tribes. The agreement remains on the books, but has no funding behind it and is moot.

The agreement would retire some 18,000 acres from use to put water back into the streams. In turn, there would be water security for ranchers.

Tribal Chairman Don Gentry says he understands the agricultural concerns, but there must also be concern for the fisheries.

SALEM — A bill restricting antibiotic usage in Oregon’s livestock industry has died despite objections from critics who claim federal controls insufficiently limit usage of the drugs.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has worked with pharmaceutical companies to change antibiotic labels to disallow uses aimed at livestock growth promotion.

However, critics such as the Consumers Union have said the approach creates a “loophole” by continuing to permit antibiotic usage for disease prevention in livestock.

Senate Bill 785 would have restricted antibiotics to treat or control the spread of a disease under the supervision of a veterinarian and required confined animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, to report usage.

Supporters of the bill said it would help slow bacterial resistance to medically important antibiotics, but opponents argued the proposal was too rigid and rendered unnecessary by federal measures.

The Senate Committee on Health Care didn’t take action on SB 785, effectively allowing an April 18 legislative deadline to kill the proposal.

SALEM — Biotech patent holders would be legally responsible for losses caused by their genetically engineered crops in Oregon under a bill that’s survived a crucial legislative deadline.

House Bill 2739 would allow landowners to sue biotech patent holders for the unwanted presence of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, on their land.

The bill has now been referred to the House Rules Committee, which isn’t subject to an April 18 legislative deadline that recently killed other proposals.

The move could effectively allows HB 2739 to stay alive through the end of the 2017 legislative session, scheduled to end in late June.

However, the House Judiciary Committee made the referral without a “do pass” recommendation, and even then, two of its 11 members voted against the action.

It’s unfair to punish biotech developers — who range from small start-ups to major corporations — for what happens with crops they have little control over, said Rep. Rich Vial, R-Scholls, who voted against HB 2739.

The proposal should have been vetted by a committee with experience in agriculture, said Rep. Bill Post, R-Keizer, who also voted against it.

Rep. Mitch Greenlick, D-Portland, and Rep. Chris Gorsek, D-Troutdale, expressed similar concerns about the bill, though they voted in favor of the referral.

Even though the bill wasn’t sent to the House Rules Committee “with a bow on top,” recommending passage, it’s nonetheless good news for the Center for Food Safety, a group that supports more GMO regulation, said Amy van Saun, legal fellow with the organization.

“For me, it was a great sign that it wasn’t allowed to die,” said van Saun.

Amendments to the bill are being discussed, but those remain confidential, she said.

Class action lawsuits have already been filed over GMO contamination of non-biotech crops, but HB 2739 would provide farmers with legal recourse in more limited instances of cross-pollination, she said.

“We would be a pioneer in doing something like this,” van Saun said.

Oregonians for Food and Shelter, an agribusiness group, is disappointed that such poorly-written legislation is moving forward in the process, said Scott Dahlman, the group’s policy director.

No states have passed a law that would hold biotech patent holders liable similarly to HB 2739, he said.

MEDFORD, Ore. (AP) — When gray wolf OR-7 made his historic and famous trek from northeastern Oregon to find a mate and territory of his own, the lone wolf wandered well over 1,000 miles throughout Southern Oregon and even Northern California before he finally found what he was looking for in remote eastern Jackson County.

These days, he might be thinking the neighborhood is getting a little crowded.

A new draft report on Oregon’s wolves concludes that OR-7, his mate and four offspring remain the only official wolf pack outside of the northeastern corner of the state, but there are plenty of up-and-comers which, under the right conditions, could reach pack status come New Year’s Day.

At least three male wolves fitted with GPS collars have been tracked in southwestern Oregon this past year as well as three uncollared wolves documented in the Keno area, according to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s 2016 draft wolf report, released this week.

Should they find mates or simply hook up with some new running mates, they could join the OR-7’s clan as southwestern Oregon packs.

“We know they’re dispersing and establishing themselves here,” says Mark Vargas, the ODFW’s Rogue District wildlife biologist. “There are a lot of single wolves out there. But right now, all we know of is the Rogue Pack.”

A pack is described as four wolves traveling together in winter, a status OR-7, his mate and their first two pups cracked three years ago.

The pack is currently denning in the same general area of federal forestland in eastern Jackson County they have the past three years, Vargas says. They have produced pups annually, except only one of last year’s pups was confirmed to have survived into January, Vargas says.

Since they did not have two surviving pups, they did not join the ranks of eight breeding pairs counted in 2016 among Oregon’s 11 official packs.

“It’s not alarming,” says Michelle Dennehy, spokeswoman for the ODFW’s wolf program. “It’s just that we didn’t find a second pup at the end of the year.”

OR-7’s GPS collar failed two years ago, but the clan’s images continue to get caught on trail cameras stationed by state and federal biologists tracking these animals federally protected as endangered species in Western Oregon.

Two other collared males — OR-25 and OR-3 — also are in the region.

Three-year-old OR-25 moved into eastern Jackson County earlier this year and has been lurking around the edge of the regular range of OR-7, his cousin with which he shares genes from northeastern Oregon’s Imnaha Pack.

Biologists presume he’s looking to lure a female away from the Rogue Pack.

OR-3 is an 8-year-old male in Lake County’s Silver Lake area and had mated with 3-year-old OR-28, which was also collared. They had at least one confirmed pup, but OR-28 was shot and killed by a poacher and biologists have seen no evidence of the pup, though OR-3 remains in the area.

Another collared wolf, OR-33, also made his way throughout eastern Jackson County, and though his collar failed last year, his image continued to show up on several game cameras until October, so his whereabouts are unknown.

Another set of three uncollared wolves was documented last year in the Keno area near Klamath Falls.

The trio remain the only documented wolves outside of northeastern Oregon in 2016, and likely for a good reason.

“Down here there’s good habitat, without a doubt,” Vargas says.

An ODFW study concludes that 41,256 square miles of Oregon are potential wolf range, of which 27,417 square miles actually lie in Western Oregon, including much of southwestern Oregon.

That research points to five factors wolves prefer when dispersing from their previous packs: forested areas, public land ownership, the availability of elk and other prey, low human presence and low road density, according to the study.

Those five conditions are met in places like eastern Jackson County’s Sky Lakes Wilderness Area, part of which the Rogue Pack calls home, as well as other South Cascades lands.

“Those factors indicate pretty strongly that it’s good wolf land down there,” says Amaroq Weiss, wolf coordinator for the Center for Biological Diversity.

Since the first confirmed wolf wandered into Oregon from Idaho in 1999, Oregon now sports a known wolf population of 112 animals, up two from 2016, the report states.

As their numbers expand, various studies found southwestern Oregon and Northern California to be prime candidates for relocation, since Western Oregon contains the bulk of suitable wolf habitat, experts say.

Some studies look at Northern California and Southern Oregon together because “the wolves don’t know there’s a state boundary there,” Weiss says.

The habitat studies put the number of wolves the region is able to support anywhere from 190 to 470, with a new California study suggesting the Golden State alone could one day be home to 500 wolves.

Those that have crossed between the two states have shown an affinity to the land bridge through southeastern Jackson County.

“That’s the area I’ve been calling a little bit of a wolf super-highway,” Weiss says.

But the super highway won’t be nose-to-tail with wolves, Weiss says.

“I don’t think we’re looking at bunches of wolves in Southern Oregon.

“It’s going to be a while before we get anywhere close to those numbers anytime soon,” she says.

SALEM — A proposal to impose a new annual fee on all water rights in Oregon has passed a key legislative committee but the amount is no longer specified.

House Bill 2706 originally sought a $100 yearly fee for every water right, capped at $1,000 for individual irrigators and $2,500 for municipal governments.

The bill is intended to pay for water management conducted by the Oregon Water Resources Department, but opponents say it unfairly targets irrigators who are already under financial strain.

Rep. Ken Helm, D-Beaverton, proposed an amendment stripping the specific amounts from HB 2706 to “lower the heat” on the bill and demonstrate that a fee amount is not “pre-ordained,” he said.

The House Energy and Environment Committee approved the amended bill 5-4 during an April 17 work session, referring it to the Joint Committee on Ways and Means, which isn’t subject to normal legislative deadlines.

Helm said he’s overseeing a work group that’s discussing a companion bill, House Bill 2705, which requires irrigators to install measuring devices to gauge water use and was previously referred to the House Rules Committee.

During those negotiations, the water rights fee has “diminished in popularity and significance” but may still provide a useful funding source, he said.

Rep. David Brock Smith, R-Port Orford, said he wouldn’t support the amended version of HB 2706 because leaving the fee amount blank “scares me more.”

The only fee amount acceptable to irrigators in the Klamath basin is zero, said Rep. Werner Reschke, R-Klamath Falls, who likewise opposed the bill.

Finding a new source of funding for water management is a good idea, but the burden shouldn’t fall disproportionately on irrigators, said Rep. Cliff Bentz, R-Ontario.

Much of the activities performed by OWRD staff are aimed at protecting in-stream interests, which aren’t subject to any fee under HB 2706, he said.

“The cost of management should not focus on the six to seven percent (of water) that is actually diverted,” Bentz said.