Federal wildlife researchers killed 737 invasive barred owls in 2015-16 in an ongoing experiment to determine if removing them will aid the recovery of Northern spotted owls, the bird whose threatened status was at the center of the Pacific Northwest timber wars.

Spotted owl populations have continued to decline rapidly despite environmental lawsuits, protection under the Endangered Species Act and logging restrictions in the old growth timber habitat they favor. Barred owls, which are larger, more aggressive and feed on a wider variety of prey, have taken over spotted owl territory throughout their range in Oregon, Washington and Northern California.

Scientists with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services and U.S. Geological Survey, partnering with the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, agreed to an experiment: Kill hundreds of barred owls in the Cle Elum area of Washington, the Oregon Coast Range and Klamath-Union-Myrtle areas of Oregon and Hoopa Valley tribal land in Northern California.

In Oregon and Washington, field crews shot 642 barred owls using 12 gauge shotguns and captured one owl alive, turning it over to the Oregon High Desert Museum in Bend. In Northern California, where early research by the late Lowell Diller of Humboldt State University documented that spotted owls reclaimed nesting areas after barred owls were removed, researchers killed 95 of the competitors.

Ranchers and farmers in the Pacific Northwest have a stake in Endangered Species Act and wildlife restoration projects undertaken by government agencies. They often referred to the potential rangeland restrictions that might accompany an ESA listing for greater sage grouse as “the spotted owl on steroids.” They’ve also dealt with wolves spreading into the four states and attacking livestock.

Northern spotted owls were listed as threatened under the ESA in 1990, which greatly reduced logging in the Pacific Northwest, especially on federal land. Their continued decline could result in it getting listed as endangered, which might bring even more restrictions on human activities in the woods.

So far, nothing has worked. The Northwest Forest Plan set aside 18.5 million acres of the older forests that spotted owls prefer, “But then the barred owl emerged as a threat capable of sweeping through the entire range of the northern spotted owl,” researcher Diller wrote in a 2013 magazine article.

Barred owls are from the East Coast and appear to have moved west over the decades, following development. They are 15 to 20 percent larger than spotted owls, which Diller called “the human equivalent of a heavyweight going up against a middleweight.”

Working on forest land owned by Green Diamond Resource Co., and with federal permission, Diller and fellow researchers killed dozens of barred owls over five years and documented the return of spotted owls. The work had startling results. Spotted owls “rapidly re-occupied” areas where barred owls were removed, Diller wrote. In one case, a female spotted owl returned to a nesting site seven years after she’d been last seen.

Overall, Diller’s work showed “removal of barred owls in combination with habitat conservation could slow or even reverse population declines at a local scale.”

Researchers don’t know if that success will be repeated.

“It’s way too early to say,” said Davie Wiens, a raptor ecologist with USGS. Diller’s work was “definitive evidence” that spotted owls’ decline was reversed on Green Diamond Resource land, but conditions elsewhere are much different, Wiens said. The Oregon Coast Range, for example, has a much higher density of barred owls, he said.

Even if it does work, land managers might be required to revisit areas and shoot more barred owls to keep them at bay.

Lingering in the background is whether wildlife biologists should be killing barred owls at all.

“It is gut-wrenching,” said Wiens, the USGS raptor ecologist. “It is for all of us.”

He said barred owls are an apex predator that has “completely taken over” spotted owl habitat. “This experiment is a way to get a handle on that.”

Lowell Diller, who died in March, once called it a “Sophie’s Choice” dilemma.

“Shooting a beautiful raptor that is remarkably adaptable and fit for its new environment seems unpalatable and ethically wrong,” he wrote in Wildlife Professional magazine in 2013. “But the choice to do nothing is also unpalatable, and I believe also ethically wrong.”

If human action such as logging caused major alterations to spotted owl habitat, and development paved the way for barred owls to move west, “Don’t we have a societal responsibility to at least give them a fighting chance to survive?” Diller asked.

Online

The owl removal progress report: http://bit.ly/2nMGOKY

The late Lowell Diller’s 2013 article about the ethical dilemma facing wildlife biologists taking part in the barred owl removal project. http://bit.ly/2pLE4Kh

SALEM — Two large dairies in Oregon have forestalled a bill that would impose regulations on air emissions from dairy farms across the state.

State regulators would have been required to draw up rules restricting dairy air emissions under Senate Bill 197, which was opposed by the Oregon Dairy Farmers Association and Oregon Farm Bureau.

Supporters of the bill argued that a 2008 task force recommended that Oregon’s Environmental Quality Commission devise new rules aimed at reducing dairy air emissions, such as methane and other “greenhouse gases.”

Opponents countered that Oregon’s air quality is highly rated 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 existing dairy near Boardman, and Lost Valley Ranch, a proposed large dairy nearby, which have agreed to devise “best management practices” to control emissions and prevent haze in the Columbia Gorge, said Sen. Mike Dembrow, D-Portland.

Dembrow, chair of the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee, will participate in a work group setting best management practices, along with representatives of the Oregon Department of Agriculture and Oregon State University.

• Another controversial piece of legislation also failed to pass must during the committee’s April 17 meeting.

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

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

In the original bill, timber companies would have to conduct spray operations within two days of the scheduled date submitted to a statewide notification system.

In an attempted compromise, Dembrow proposed delegating the length of the notification window to the Oregon Board of Forestry.

Dembrow’s proposed amendment would also have directed the Board of Forestry to exempt uninhabited areas from the spray notification requirement.

Sen. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene, said that Oregon’s notification requirements are “lacking” compared to other states.

In light of problems that off-site pesticide sprays have caused for rural residents, Oregon should try to find a solution, Prozanski said.

Even if the bill doesn’t pass, the Oregon Board of Forestry should take these matters into consideration, he said.

Prozanski and Dembrow were the only members of the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee to vote in favor of amendments to SB 892.

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

People who disagree with any logging could seek to disrupt forestry activities, just as they did in the past by spiking trees, potentially causing danger to themselves or other, Roblan said.

With the proposed amendments defeated, Dembrow said the underlying bill was dead because the original language wasn’t acceptable to anyone.

• Finally, the 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.

A companion bill, Senate Bill 928, would have required special labels for crops treated with neonicotinoids, but it was previously killed by a legislative deadline.

SALEM — An bill exempting slow-growing counties from Oregon’s land use goals is staying alive this legislative session, though it’s probably headed for revisions.

Local governments would be exempt from statewide goals intended to preserve farmland and contain growth under Senate Bill 432, as long as they have 50,000 or fewer residents and haven’t expanded since the last federal census.

The Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee has unanimously referred SB 432 to the Senate Rules Committee without recommendation.

The action allows the bill to survive an April 18 legislative deadline that doesn’t apply to the Senate Rules Committee.

Lawmakers need time to change SB 432 to ensure it doesn’t have a negative impact on the sage grouse in Eastern Oregon, said Sen. Mike Dembrow, D-Portland.

“This bill needs work,” Dembrow said.

The greater sage grouse was a candidate or federal protection under the Endangered Species Act, but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided that listing the bird as threatened was unwarranted.

The agency’s decision was based in part on Oregon land use regulations as well as voluntary conservation efforts by ranchers.

Another proposal to increase housing availability in Oregon, by allowing “accessory dwelling units” in rural areas, has died this legislative session.

House Bill 1024 would permit such dwellings to be built on the same parcels as existing homes in rural residential zones, allowing some new development that would otherwise be restricted under Oregon’s land use laws.

The bill is not ready to move forward this year but will probably be the subject of a work group, said Sen. Sara Gelser, D-Corvallis, chair of the Senate Committee on Human Services.

With roughly 700,000 acres of land potentially affected by SB 1024, opponents worried the bill could create conflicts with farmland, rural roads and wildfire prevention.

“It was just too broad a brush,” said Mary Kyle McCurdy, deputy director of the 1,000 Friends of Oregon conservation group.

McCurdy said she appreciated efforts by supporters of SB 1024 to develop “sideboards” limiting the bill’s scope, despite the lack of an ultimate compromise.

Two similar bills in the House, which would have allowed accessory dwelling units and the permanent siting of recreational vehicles in rural residential zones, have also died.

SALEM — Local governments would have to notify Oregon irrigation districts of proposed subdivisions under a bill that’s headed for a vote on the House floor.

The notification requirement, which is intended to prevent developments from disrupting irrigation canals and other facilities, was initially opposed by the League of Oregon Cities.

However, the organization has arrived at a compromise with supporters of Senate Bill 865, which was approved with a “do pass” recommendation on April 13 by the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee.

City governments initially objected to SB 865 because they feared it would slow down the approval of new plats, or maps of subdivision parcels.

An amendment to the bill has soothed that concern by clarifying that local governments will seek input from irrigation districts much earlier in the plat approval process, said April Snell, executive director of the Oregon Water Resources Congress, which supports SB 865.

Lack of communication between local governments and irrigation districts has led to breached canals and flooding, endangering public safety and water quality, according to the Oregon Water Resources Congress, which represents irrigation districts.

The revised bill provides irrigation districts with 15 days to respond to tentative plans for proposed plats, down from 30 days in the original language, she said.

Local governments aren’t required to act on the input from irrigation districts under the bill, Snell said.

Irrigation districts must also submit their boundary maps to local governments to qualify for notifications, said Erin Doyle, intergovernmental associate with the League of Oregon Cities.

“It’s difficult for us to keep track if there are no maps or listed facilities,” she said.

A companion bill centered on relations between local governments and irrigation districts — Senate Bill 866 — would have required permission for stormwater to be discharged into canals.

City governments said the bill would impracticably have forced them to manage all the rainfall within their boundaries, but supporters argued the bill would protect irrigation districts from pollutants.

A legislative deadline for scheduling work sessions on SB 866 has passed, so the bill has died in committee.

Wolves killed and ate most of a 150-pound calf April 7 in Northeast Oregon’s Wallowa County, according to Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

A livestock owner notified ODFW after finding the calf’s remains and a dead cow nearby. Wolf tracks, the size and location of bite and scrape marks and tracking collar data showed wolves were responsible, according to an ODFW report. Most of the tissue and the hindquarters of the calf were missing. The cow was unmarked except for a severe eye injury; its death wasn’t attributed to wolves.

Tracking collar data showed a wolf designated OR-50 was at the kill site at 6 a.m. on April 7. The wolf is part of the newly-designated Harl Butte Pack.

The attack happened on private land near the Imnaha River.

ODFW recently issued its annual wolf report, which showed what biologists said was weak population growth in 2016. The report showed Oregon had a confirmed minimum of 112 wolves at the end of 2016, only two more than the previous year.

ODFW officials say bad winter weather made it hard to count wolves this past year, and believe there are more than the survey shows. Other factors for the low population gain may include the disease parvovirus, which could have taken a toll on pups; blood samples taken from captured wolves showed a high exposure rate to severe infections. Also, at least seven wolves were killed in 2016: four of them were shot by ODFW for repeated livestock attacks, one was shot while caught in the act of attacking livestock, and two were killed in circumstances under investigation by Oregon State Police.

Meanwhile, the ODFW Commisson is reviewing the state’s wolf management plan this year. The first hearing is April 21 in Klamath Falls.

SALEM — A proposal to make commercial solar projects tougher to build on high-value farmland in Oregon has died, but lawmakers expect to revisit the issue.

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.

The bill received a hearing from the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee but on April 13, the committee’s chair, Brian Clem, D-Salem, said it would go no further this legislative session.

“I think there is something there, but we’re just not there yet,” he said.

After speaking to both sides, Clem said he’d be putting together a work group to discuss commercial solar development on farmland.

Commercial solar facilities on high-value farmland are currently limited in size to 12 acres, unless developers perform an alternative analysis.

The Oregon Farm Bureau has gotten reports that farmers in the Willamette Valley are receiving solicitations from solar developers looking to lease land for projects.

The concern is that grouping of several solar projects will effectively sidestep the 12-acre limitation, converting high-value farmland and changing the agricultural character of some areas.

Critics also say that solar developers may drive up rent prices for farmland, competing with crops, even though there’s a risk the projects won’t be decommissioned.

However, representatives of the solar industry argued that existing rules are sufficient and that HB 3050 would impede Oregon requirements that utilities buy power from small-scale producers.

PORTLAND (AP) — In many Oregon communities, county governments are hard up for cash, a decades-old fact of life arising from falling timber revenue, stagnant property values and a deep-seated aversion to local tax levies.

So locals are used to prioritizing services. Lincoln County Chair Terry Thompson recalls a time a few years back when a group of rural residents wanted to make their wishes known to the county board.

“We want good roads that we can travel on,” he recalled them saying, “and the trapper. The rest of the things are just for people in the cities.”

Twenty-six of Oregon’s 36 counties have a wildlife specialist — or trapper — who falls under the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. The Wildlife Services program is paid for through a cooperative cost-sharing agreement involving county, state and federal governments. It’s been that way for decades but, may that be about to change.

Gov. Kate Brown’s budget would cut $934,340 from the program in the next biennium, a move championed by environmental and conservation groups as a long-awaited rebuke of a program they contend needlessly kills thousands of animals each year. But rural Oregonians and ranchers see it as the tone-deaf response of political leaders far removed from the daily realities of a rural existence.

The 27 wildlife specialists in the state respond to hundreds of service requests each year. Some calls stem from public safety concerns, others from property damage. They chase away, trap or kill animals in every corner of the state: from packrats in sheds, to skunks under porches, to cougars, coyotes or bears that threaten livestock or people.

Brown said Salem’s diminished support wouldn’t stop trappers from doing their job. “The state is one of several entities that contributes to this federal program, which will continue to respond to concerns caused by bears, cougars, wolves, and others,” the governor’s spokesman, Bryan Hockaday, said in an email.

In the months since the spending plan was released, the federal agency has been in the spotlight for unintentionally killing a gray wolf with a cyanide trap in Wallowa County. The incident generated widespread criticism, prompting lawsuits and legislation by U.S. Rep Peter DeFazio to ban the controversial device.

But for tens of thousands of Oregonians, the obscure federal agency is being unfairly tarnished. It responds to nuisance and dangerous wildlife, they say, and it’s vital that the state holds up its end of the funding. Oregon’s general fund budget for the current biennium is more than $18 billion.

“If that’s taken away, it’s kind of like taking an arm and a leg off of the program,” said David Williams, who’s directed Wildlife Services in Oregon for more than 20 years. Williams points out Oregon law spells out the cooperative arrangement. “Appropriate measures must be taken to assist farmers, ranchers and others in resolving wildlife damage problems.”

Douglas County helps pay for three wildlife specialists who cover an area more than four times the size of Rhode Island.

Dan Dawson, whose 115-acre property east of Roseburg abuts a park where kids play, says he’s on the phone with them monthly, sometimes weekly. He says he doesn’t have the time or skills to track the cougars and coyotes that pick off his 1,250-head sheep herd year-round.

“If we don’t have three,” he said of the trappers, “it doesn’t do us any good to have any.”

Susan Roberts has lived all her 70 years in northeast Oregon’s Wallowa County, and says there’s a sense in the Willamette Valley that wildlife services are just “indiscriminate killers.”

But Roberts, the county’s commission chair, said that’s not the case. When someone has packrats in a shed, the trapper gets the call. When rodents are in the cemetery, the trapper gets the call. And when beavers flood a section of Imnaha Highway, as they did last month, the trapper gets the call.

“The beavers are cute and they’re kind of fun to watch,” she said, but when they become fond of certain areas “it complicates things.”

In Wallowa County, population 6,800, a portion of property tax bills pays for a trapper. Though that worker is shared other counties, having one was important enough for voters to approve the levy.

She views Brown’s plan as both onerous to local residents and punitive: “I understand we’re in a punishment phase for rural Oregon.”

Though Dawson has spent upward of $30,000 on fences, lights and other non-lethal protection, the Roseburg rancher says he loses anywhere from 30 to 100 sheep a year to coyotes, and another 20 to 25 to cougars and black bears. He depends on the wildlife specialists to diagnose what animal may be responsible. “Without them, all we’re doing is guessing,” he said.

In 2015, Dawson and fellow rancher Ron Hjort pushed Roseburg legislators to allow farmers to form a voluntary predator control district, where residents could opt in and pay an annual fee to trappers. The Legislature passed the bill.

The district is still being formed, and the annual fee participants will pay is uncertain. “We’re trying to fill that gap in,” he said.

But Dawson, who estimates the killings cost him at least $10,000 a year, is adamant that the coyotes, cougars and black bears “killing our personal property belong to the state of Oregon.

“It really shouldn’t be our responsibilities,” he said. “They’re the public’s animals.”

The Audubon Society of Portland and other wildlife advocates applaud Brown’s proposed cut. “It is long past time that Oregon stopped investing in this program,” said Bob Sallinger, the nonprofit’s conservation director, noting the agency’s role in killing thousands of cormorants on East Sand Island in the mouth of the Columbia River.

Arran Robertson, a spokesman for Oregon Wild, said everyone should shoulder the cost-cutting given the state’s projected $1.6 billion budget revenue shortfall. He also believes there should be more information about its operations. “If we’re going to spend taxpayer money on an agency like this it should be more transparent and accountable to the public,” he said.

Wildlife Services’ role stretches far beyond Oregon. In mid-March, the Center for Biological Diversity said the agency killed 2.7 million animals nationwide last year.

“The Department of Agriculture needs to get out of the wildlife-slaughter business,” Collette Adkins, a biologist and attorney with the nonprofit, said at the time. “Wolves, bears and other carnivores help keep the natural balance of their ecosystems. Our government kills off the predators, such as coyotes, and then kills off their prey — like prairie dogs — in an absurd, pointless cycle of violence.”

Many Oregonians might not have been aware of Wildlife Services before the death of a gray wolf known as OR48.

The 100-pound male member of the Shamrock Pack was killed Feb. 10 by a M-44, a spring-loaded contraption that shoots a capsule of chemicals into an animal’s mouth it tugs on scented bait. The federal agency typically uses M-44s to kill coyotes. Last year, 13,364 were killed in more than a dozen states. In Oregon, the devices claimed 121 coyotes and three red foxes in 2016, agency data show.

But the wolf’s death outraged environmental groups and was upsetting to members of the state fish and wildlife department.

Weeks later, 14-year-old Canyon Mansfield was walking his dog, Casey, on a hillside near their Pocatello, Idaho, home when they encountered an M-44. Casey was killed and the boy was sprayed with a white substance, according to police reports. The boy subsequently experienced headaches, nausea and numbness, according to the Idaho State Journal.

On March 30, DeFazio reintroduced a bill to ban M-44s. “I have been trying to ban the indiscriminate use of lethal devices and poisons like Compound 1080 and the chemicals used in M-44 devices for decades, even as a Lane County commissioner,” he said in a statement. “The use of these deadly toxins by Wildlife Services has led to countless deaths of family pets and innocent animals and injuries to humans. It is only a matter of time before they kill someone.”

On March 31, the federal government said it would stop using M-44s in six Eastern Oregon counties at the request of state fish and wildlife officials.

Williams, the Oregon agency director, said the wolf’s death was the only unintentional kill tied to the M-44 in the state in five years. The agency respected the state’s request to stop using the trap, but doing so “makes our job incredibly hard.”

Roberts, the Wallowa County chair, was pragmatic. “People drive down the freeway, and they wreck and kill themselves,” she said. “It’s not somebody else’s fault. These things are part of life.”

Conflicts with wildlife aren’t contained to 26 Oregon counties. Williams said the others also have issues, but can’t afford the expense. “They can barely hold onto what they have now.”

State wildlife officials say they will occasionally respond and trap and kill big game — typically cougars or bears — in counties where there are no trappers if there is a public safety concern or livestock damage.

“We can, but we don’t have in many cases the staff to be able to do that,” said Doug Cottam, the state’s wildlife division administrator.

Though Oregonians can legally hunt cougars and bears, they are protected. Wildlife services has the necessary permits to respond to public safety concerns or property damage. “You can’t just go out and shoot them,” he said.

While governments battle revenue woes, timber companies can afford to pay to trap or kill bears that damage their crops. Since 2014, some 621 black bears were killed by the federal agency, much of that in Southwest Oregon.

Sara Duncan, director of public affairs with the Oregon Forest & Industries Council, said black bears caused $16.4 million to timber crops in 2014 alone. She noted that the animals, with an estimated population of 25,000 to 30,000 in the state, are much more likely to be killed by legal hunting than for damaging timber.

For other services, Williams said, counties provide most funds. Last year, the federal government provided $955,687 for operations in Oregon, and the state’s share was $539,944. Counties contributed $1.3 million, Williams said.

If the state’s funding is cut as projected, Williams said the agency may have to cut agents. Those employees, many of whom have worked in the same cities or counties for decades, are difficult to replace because their skills and knowledge of the regions are “earned over years.

The Oregon Cattleman Association, which represents more than 2,000 ranchers across the state, will continue lobbying to restore some funding.

Jerome Rosa, the group’s executive director, said the program’s benefits are clear. “What is a problem on private land one minute is something that may be a problem on public land the next minute,” he said.

But he’s unsure if the lobbying will be successful. “My crystal ball is just as foggy as everybody else’s right now.”

SALEM — A proposed Oregon Industrial Hemp Commission, which would promote and research the crop, has secured the unanimous support of the House Agriculture Committee.

The commission would be appointed by the Oregon Department of Agriculture’s director by 2018 and decide how much hemp growers would pay to fund its activities.

After passing the House Agriculture Committee on April 13, House Bill 2372 has now been referred to the Joint Committee on Ways and Means, which decides budget policy.

The Ways and Means Committee is expected to take a particularly critical eye to legislation this year, given Oregon’s projected budget deficit.

However, establishing the commission isn’t expected to have any fiscal impact on ODA and the referral isn’t likely to be an obstacle for HB 2372, said Courtney Moran, an attorney specializing in hemp who supports the bill.

“I don’t foresee any problem with that at all,” she said.

The committee’s chair, Brian Clem, D-Salem, reflected on the crop’s long journey since Oregon lawmakers initially legalized hemp production in 2009.

Back then, Clem said, he considered the proposal by former Sen. David Nelson, R-Pendleton, to be “strange,” but he now realizes hemp offers a new opportunity to Oregon farmers.

In other business:

• The committee unanimously voted in favor of House Bill 3151, which appropriates $695,000 to the Oregon Department of Forestry for the fight against phytophthora ramorum.

Discussion of the fungal-like pathogen, commonly known as sudden oak death, elicited expressions of regret from a couple representatives.

“It’s a shame we didn’t react properly and we didn’t pay attention,” said Rep. Sal Esquivel, R-Medford, of the disease’s early years.

Rep. Caddy McKeown, D-Coos Bay, warned against being “penny wise and pound foolish” in light of the pathogen’s “existential threat.”

The bill has also been referred to the Joint Committee on Ways and Means.

An interagency task force has battled the disease since 2001 in Oregon’s Curry County — where it’s found in the wild — and the pathogen was found in two dozen Oregon nurseries in 2003, which resulted on restrictions on shipping ornamental nursery stock.

• A bill creating the Oregon Agricultural Heritage Fund, which is aimed at farmland preservation, passed the committee 7-2 with a referral to the Ways and Means Committee.

The amount dedicated to the fund isn’t specified in House Bill 3249, but rule-making and support for the commission overseeing it are expected to cost $190,000 in the 2017-2019 biennium and $90,000 in the 2019-2021 biennium.

Money from the fund would buy conservation easements from farmers, ensuring their property won’t be developed, and assist with drawing up succession plans.

Rep. Greg Barreto, R-Cove, said he understood the succession problems facing Oregon’s farmers but he doesn’t believe it’s the government’s role to buy up development rights. He was joined by Rep. Esquivel in voting against the bill.

Rep. Clem responded that he’s uneasy about the government directly buying land, but in the case of easements, the property remains in private hands and on the tax rolls.

• Farmers would be eligible for tax credits of 25 percent of the value of crops they donate to food banks under House Bill 3041, up from the current level of 15 percent. The proposal is supported by the Oregon Farm Bureau but opposed by Tax Fairness Oregon, a group that seeks to preserve state revenues from tax breaks.

SALEM — Two bills that would have allowed local governments in Oregon to regulate genetically engineered crops have died in the Legislature.

Lawmakers prohibited most local governments from restricting seed in 2013, but Senate Bill 1037 and House Bill 2469 would have exempted genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, from that statewide pre-emption law.

Sen. Michael Dembrow, D-Portland, said he’s decided to let SB 1037 die during the April 13 meeting of the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee, which he chairs.

A legislative deadline previously killed HB 2469 in the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.

There are still too many looming questions about the extent of cross-pollination of conventional and organic crops from GMOs and the efficacy of mediation aimed at promoting coexistence, Dembrow said.

“I want to get a sense if there are problems with contamination or if there are problems with the mediation process,” Dembrow said, adding that he planned to hold an informational session on the matter.

The committee recently heard conflicting testimony about the frequency of cross-pollination among genetically engineered, conventional and organic crops.

While supporters of SB 1037 said they face market shutdowns from the presence of biotech traits in their seeds, opponents of the bill said very few organic growers reported crop loss from GMOs to USDA.

No growers in Oregon have taken advantage of a mediation program overseen by USDA to resolve GMO disputes, said Barry Bushue, president of the Oregon Farm Bureau, which opposes the bill.

The right to self-determination among local governments versus the efficiency of statewide agricultural rules was also debated during the legislative hearing.

“We’re asking for flexibility in Oregon,” said Mary Middleton, director of Oregonians for Safe Farms and Families, a group that supported a ballot initiative banning GMOs in Josephine County.

While voters in Josephine County voted in favor of the GMO ban in 2014, a state judge has ruled the ordinance is pre-empted by state law.

Middleton urged the committee members to “honor the will of the people” by passing SB 1037, which would retroactively make Josephine County’s ordinance effective.

Proponents of SB 1037 argued that lawmakers passed the statewide pre-emption on local seed rules with the understanding that Oregon regulators would step into the breach, but that hasn’t materialized.

“Our farms remain at risk of contamination because the state has not put any protections in place,” said Carol Valentine, a Josephine County resident.

The Association of Oregon Counties opposed SB 1037 because genetic engineering is a complex issue best left to the state government, said Mike McArthur, the group’s executive director.

“This is not the proper role for a county government to be engaged in,” he said.

Lawmakers created an exception to the 2013 pre-emption bill for Jackson County, which already had a GMO ban proposal on its ballot at that point.

McArthur said the government of Jackson County is nonetheless not enforcing the GMO ban due to a lack of resources.

Craig Pope, a Polk County commissioner, said he sympathizes with the organic farming community but said county governments need to focus on public safety and other key services.

“Continuing to hammer at pre-emption is not going to solve this problem,” Pope said.

The economic threat of cross-pollination among organic, conventional and GMO crops was also debated at the April 12 hearing.

Buyers of organic seed have no tolerance for traces of biotech traits, so the risk posed by GMO crops is a one-way street that can only damage organic growers, said Don Tipping, an organic producer in Southern Oregon.

“For us, this is an economic issue,” he said.

Helle Ruddenklau, a seed grower in Polk County who opposed SB 1037, said the problem of cross-pollination isn’t limited to GMO crops, but farmers find ways to resolve the issue.

For example, if a neighbor is planting a related seed crop, Ruddenklau establishes a buffer strip to distance her crop from the pollen, she said.

“That’s a financial burden for us, but it’s a cost of being a certified seed grower in Oregon,” she said.

While bringing a hay exporter one step closer to rebuilding his burned-down barns, Oregon lawmakers are preparing for a broader discussion about wetland regulations.

After fire destroyed his two barns last year, state regulators informed hay exporter Jesse Bounds that rebuilding the structures violated Oregon fill-removal law because his 12-acre property near Junction City was a wetland.

The parcel wasn’t identified as a wetland on federal, state or county maps, but the Department of State Land nonetheless determined the project required a wetland fill-removal permit due to soil characteristics and other features.

Under state law, the fact that Bounds had received county approval for rebuilding the barn was irrelevant.

The House Agriculture Committee has now approved a bill that would change Oregon fill-removal law to rectify the situation for Bounds and farmers who find themselves in a similar dilemma.

On April 13, the committee unanimously referred House Bill 2785 for a vote on the House floor with a “do pass” recommendation.

Under HB 2785, fill-removal requirements would not apply when replacing a dwelling or agricultural building on farmland, as long the structure receives county approval, existed before 2017 and would be located on the same parcel.

The committee’s chairman, Brian Clem, D-Salem, said the bill is “just a tiny starting place” for dealing with conflicts that may arise from Oregon’s wetland rules.

Wetlands are “treasured in this state” but it’s been too long since lawmakers looked at how they’re defined and the process for resolving fill-removal disputes, Clem said.

“Sorry to spring this on you, but prepare to deal with wetlands for another year,” he said.

For example, lawmakers should consider the creation of authoritative maps for identifying wetlands and whether fill-removal enforcement should remain complaint-driven, as it is now, Clem said.

Another bill being considered by the House Agriculture Committee, House Bill 2786, proposes a more extensive solution by exempting properties from fill-removal law unless they’re included in the State Wetland Inventory.

The Oregon Farm Bureau and the Oregonians in Action property rights group support HB 2786, arguing that landowners need a reliable method to determine if they’re subject to wetland rules, other than waiting for a complaint to DSL.

However, opponents of the bill claim the State Wetland Inventory sets the definition for “wetland” too narrowly, since it doesn’t include many wetlands.

A work session on HB 2786 was scheduled for April 13, but it was carried over to a future committee meeting.

Two committee members who were first elected to the House last year — Rep. David Brock Smith, R-Port Orford, and Rep. Karin Power, D-Milwaukie — volunteered to work toward a longer-term solution on the wetland question.

Clem attributed their requests to “freshman enthusiasm.”

“Wow, you are a glutton for punishment,” he said.

HELLS CANYON — Idaho farmers who rely on Snake River water for irrigation fear they could one day be stuck with a $1 billion-plus bill for a plan by the State of Oregon to help endangered fish.

As a condition of relicensing Idaho Power Co.’s three Hells Canyon dams on the Idaho-Oregon border, Oregon leaders have proposed reintroducing endangered steelhead trout and salmon into Pine Creek, which originates in Oregon and spills into the Snake River upstream of Hells Canyon Dam. Under Oregon’s draft Clean Water Act certification proposal, Idaho Power would be expected to trap the fish upstream of the dam and truck them for release downstream, enabling them to migrate to the Pacific Ocean.

Marilyn Fonseca, hydropower program coordinator for the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, said her state has developed a phased-in fish reintroduction plan spanning two decades and would expand into other tributaries based on the experience at Pine Creek. Fonseca said Oregon considers fish passage to be an integral part of meeting the state’s own U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-approved water-quality standards.

Should Oregon eventually reintroduce steelhead and salmon in tributaries upstream of the nearby Brownlee Dam, endangered fish would have access to a broad reach of the Snake River through Idaho, forcing the state to manage the system for the new endangered species. That would raise the bar on water-quality standards and place additional demands on the river’s fully allocated storage and natural-flow water rights. Snake River water users upstream predict they’d face a cascade of new expenses and regulations.

“It’s not a reach to say this could potentially impact every use of water in Southern and Eastern Idaho,” said Norm Semanko, the outgoing executive director of the Idaho Water Users Association. The association represents nearly all of the water users in the state.

Attorney Al Barker, who represents Boise Valley and Owyhee Reservoir water users, objects that Oregon’s draft certification would allow that state to unilaterally make decisions on introducing endangered fish into tributaries of a shared waterway.

Even if Oregon were to limit fish reintroduction to Pine Creek, Barker said irrigators could face new requirements to improve water quality and augment flows for the benefit of salmon and steelhead in the Hells Canyon Reservoir.

“There are consequences that need to be addressed and thought through that Oregon is not taking into account,” Barker said.

Caught in the middle of the dispute is Idaho Power, which has been working nearly 15 years to relicense the three dams that produce nearly one-third of its power portfolio and could be forced to comply with conflicting Idaho and Oregon Clean Water Act certifications.

Idaho officials saw the potential for a battle over fish reintroduction as far back as 2003, when Idaho Power first applied for a new federal license to operate the Hells Canyon dams. The legislature passed laws requiring its blessing — and the governor’s — before fish and wildlife could be introduced within Idaho’s borders. But legislators envisioned they’d be grappling with the federal government, not a neighboring state.

“This is pretty unprecedented,” said Sam Eaton, legal counsel and deputy administrator of the Idaho Governor’s Office of Species Conservation. “Does one state veto the other state? As far as my understanding, from discussions and research, there’s really nothing like this.”

In response to Oregon’s plan, the Idaho Legislature recently updated its laws, clarifying that Idaho’s primacy over introduction of wildlife within its borders applies to other states in addition to the federal government.

In a more symbolic gesture, the Legislature also passed a joint memorial expressing its opposition to fish reintroduction due to the “drastic impacts on irrigated agriculture, industry, water supply and electric generation.”

Eaton said he is encouraged that Idaho Gov. Butch Otter and Oregon Gov. Kate Brown have begun negotiating to resolve their states’ differences. But they’ll have to work quickly. The deadline to complete the Clean Water Act certifications is July 29.

They must be issued by each state’s department of environmental quality. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission — an independent agency that regulates the interstate transmission of electricity — won’t be allowed to make any changes to the certifications, and Idaho Power will be obliged to follow them both.

“We’ve finally got everybody at the table who needs to be at the table,” Eaton said. “It’s not that Oregon is backing off of (reintroduction) or anything like that, but I think they might be reassessing priorities about where they want to focus their efforts.”

Brian Hockaday, a spokesman for Brown, said the governor is committed to collaborating with Idaho to resolve the issue, and conversations are ongoing.

“We’re considering all viable options and taking a look at new approaches,” said Hockaday, who declined to offer details of possible compromises.

Several years ago, Semanko’s association commissioned an economic impact study of a federal proposal to reintroduce another endangered species, bull trout, into southwest Idaho tributaries of the Snake River. The study estimated the reintroduction would cost irrigators upward of $1 billion to make improvements such as retrofitting infrastructure with fish screens to keep the protected fish out of diversions.

Semanko considers the estimate to be conservative if applied to Oregon’s planned salmon and steelhead reintroduction, which could impact an even wider geographical area.

“The cost is just astronomical,” Semanko said. “I think it’s interesting that we haven’t heard a single retort or rebuttal to the notion that if these fish are reintroduced above Hells Canyon, there would be major Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act requirements placed upon the residents, farmers, businesses and industries in Southern and Eastern Idaho.”

Idaho’s Committee of Nine, which represents watermasters of the major federal irrigation projects on the Upper Snake River, and the Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association have also come out against reintroduction.

Lynn Tominaga, executive director of the groundwater users’ organization, worries about power rate increases for irrigators, based on Idaho Power’s estimate that it would cost more than $100 million for a system to capture the salmon and transport them for release below Hells Canyon Dam.

Irrigators say they are already boosting the river’s flow to help salmon below the dams. Jerry Rigby, an attorney for the Committee of Nine, emphasized Upper Snake irrigators reached an agreement with the Nez Perce Tribe in 2004 requiring them to release water, according to a formula based on the supply outlook, to help salmon below the Hells Canyon dams.

“We are already stretched to our absolute limit to do flow augmentation with the flushing flows,” Rigby said.

Kevin Lewis, executive director of Idaho Rivers United, a nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving Idaho waterways, contends reintroduction into Pine Creek would have little impact on Idaho, given that the fish would be confined by dams to Hells Canyon Reservoir. He also believes poor water quality incapable of supporting salmon and steelhead upstream of the Hells Canyon dams relegates expansion of reintroduction into other tributaries to a longterm possibility, at best.

“Oregon realizes they have a tributary that’s healthy, and they’re entitled as part of their water-quality certification to take that step,” Lewis said.

On Nov. 23, 2016, Idaho Power filed a petition asking FERC to intervene and resolve the dispute.

Idaho Power argued that the so-called Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution pre-empts Oregon from imposing the fish passage requirements on Idaho Power. FERC dismissed the petition on Jan. 19, deciding the request was premature.

Idaho Power spokesman Brad Bowlin said the company has since filed a motion asking FERC to reconsider its stance, but the issue remains on hold, as FERC has only two active commissioners and lacks a quorum. But Bowlin said the company remains hopeful negotiations between the Oregon and Idaho governors will bear fruit.

“That would be best for everybody concerned if we can find some middle ground,” Bowlin said.

FERC has also concluded that the current water quality in the Snake upstream of the dams is too poor for salmon and steelhead survival. Bowlin said Idaho Power has invested millions annually to mitigate for the impacts of its dams and has already launched water-quality improvement initiatives with relicensing in mind.

Ralph Myers, Idaho Power’s water quality program manager, said the company’s proposed Snake River Stewardship Program would seek to improve water quality along a 30-mile stretch of river from Swan Falls Dam to Homedale, west of Nampa in southwestern Idaho. The plan would be carried out over roughly 25 years. The project would deepen and narrow the river to increase flow velocities and decrease temperatures. Silt would be applied to shallow areas of the river by the banks — where the water flow slows and warms — creating seasonal floodplains.

Idaho Power tested the feasibility of the approach last fall, dredging a small portion of the river and applying silt to expand Bayha Island, located 5 miles downstream from Swan Falls Dam. Myers said Idaho Power also hopes to work with private landowners to plant trees and vegetation to shade about 150 miles of tributaries in the region.

He said the company is also working to convert landowners in the Grand View area south of Boise from flood irrigation to sprinkler systems to keep sediment out of the river. They’ll also be bringing in fresh gravel — which is critical for the life cycle of fish and supporting aquatic insects — in reaches where gravel has been bound by silt.

Idaho Power has also partnered with the Riverside Irrigation District to switch irrigators to high-phosphorus water from some tributaries to reduce nutrient inflows into the Snake.

Jim Chandler, Idaho Power fisheries program supervisor, said the company also invests $5 million annually in its hatchery program. The company stocks 1.8 million steelhead, 3 million spring chinook salmon, 1 million summer chinook salmon and 1 million fall chinook salmon per year.

But Lewis, with Idaho Rivers United, considers hatchery fish to be a poor substitute for their wild counterparts.

SALEM — A proposal to allow local governments in Oregon to regulate genetically engineered crops has died in the House but the battle remains alive in the Senate.

Oregon lawmakers prohibited most local governments from restricting seed in 2013, but Senate Bill 1037 would exempt genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, from that statewide pre-emption law.

A similar proposal, House Bill 2469, failed to survive a recent legislative deadline in the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources.

However, Senate Bill 1037 was timely scheduled for a work session on April 12 before the Senate Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, which is chaired by Sen. Mike Dembrow, D-Portland, the bill’s chief sponsor.

While committee members didn’t take action on SB 1037, they did hear conflicting testimony about the right to self-determination among local governments versus the efficiency of statewide agricultural rules.

“We’re asking for flexibility in Oregon,” said Mary Middleton, director of Oregonians for Safe Farms and Families, a group that supported a ballot initiative banning GMOs in Josephine County.

While voters in Josephine County voted in favor of the GMO ban in 2014, a state judge has ruled the ordinance is pre-empted by state law.

Middleton urged the committee members to “honor the will of the people” by passing SB 1037, which would retroactively make Josephine County’s ordinance effective.

Proponents of SB 1037 argued that lawmakers passed the statewide pre-emption on local seed rules with the understanding that Oregon regulators would step into the breach, but that hasn’t materialized.

“Our farms remain at risk of contamination because the state has not put any protections in place,” said Carol Valentine, a Josephine County resident.

The Association of Oregon Counties opposes SB 1037 because genetic engineering is a complex issue best left to the state government, said Mike McArthur, the group’s executive director.

“This is not the proper role for a county government to be engaged in,” he said.

Lawmakers created an exception to the 2013 pre-emption bill for Jackson County, which already had a GMO ban proposal on its ballot at that point.

McArthur said the government of Jackson County is nonetheless not enforcing the GMO ban due to a lack of resources.

Craig Pope, a Polk County commissioner, said he sympathizes with the organic farming community but said county governments need to focus on public safety and other key services.

“Continuing to hammer at pre-emption is not going to solve this problem,” Pope said.

The economic threat of cross-pollination among organic, conventional and GMO crops was also debated at the April 12 hearing.

Buyers of organic seed have no tolerance for traces of biotech traits, so the risk posed by GMO crops is a “one way street” that can only damage organic growers, said Don Tipping, an organic producer in Southern Oregon.

“For us, this is an economic issue,” he said.

Helle Ruddenklau, a seed grower in Polk County who opposed SB 1037, said the problem of cross-pollination isn’t limited to GMO crops, but farmers find ways to resolve the issue.

For example, if a neighbor is planting a related seed crop, Ruddenklau establishes a buffer strip to distance her crop from the pollen, she said.

“That’s a financial burden for us, but it’s a cost of being a certified seed grower in Oregon,” she said.

PORTLAND — Urban-rural divide? Nothing like a bottle of wine to close the gap.

Between 375 and 400 people attended the annual Portland Grand Tasting put on by the Columbia Gorge Winegrowers Association, which has set its sights on attracting consumers from the big city. Extending from Hood River on the Oregon side east to Maryhill on the Washington side, the region markets itself as an alternative to the much better known Willamette Valley wine destinations.

“A lot of people are familiar with Newberg, Dayton and McMinnville, but we feel we’re almost easier to get to and definitely a beautiful drive,” said Debby Mudler, executive coordinator of the winegrowers association. “We’re right in Portland’s backyard.”

The drive east up the gorge from Portland is known for its spectacular scenery, and the transition from wet Western Oregon and Washington to the dry east side of both states is on full display in the space of 40 miles. The climate goes from about 36 inches of rain a year in Hood River to perhaps 10 at the eastern edge of the winegrowing region. That change is played out in the grapes as well, Mudler said.

“You can see it as you’re driving and taste it in the wines,” she said.

The Willamette Valley, of course, is known for its Pinot noir and Chardonnay, but the gorge grows 41 varietals and produces a wide selection of white and red wines. The area has grown rapidly as a wine-producing region, and now has 90 to 100 vineyards covering 1,300 acres, and is closing in on 40 wineries, Mudler said.

Tourists originally attracted by water sports and hiking in the gorge are discovering the wineries along the way, she said. “More and more, we’re bringing people out to do wine tasting as a destination,” she said.

The region’s next targeted market may be Seattle, she said.

SALEM — Irrigators would be required to install devices to measure their water usage in Oregon under a bill that’s won approval from an initial legislative committee.

The House Committee on Energy and the Environment voted 7-1 in favor of a “do pass” recommendation for House Bill 2705 during an April 11 work session.

However, the bill won’t immediately be voted on by the full House. It has first been referred to the House Rules Committee, where bills aren’t subject to the same legislative deadlines for action as regular committees.

Proponents of HB 2705 argue the measuring requirement is necessary for the Oregon Water Resources Department to effectively manage the state’s 89,000 water rights.

Farm and irrigator groups are opposed to the bill, arguing that water devices will be expensive to install and will overwhelm OWRD with data that it lacks the resources to analyze.

The committee delayed taking action on two other measures related to water: House Bill 2706, which imposes a $100 annual fee on all water rights, and HB 2707, which appropriates an unspecified amount of money for additional groundwater studies.

A work session on those two bills was rescheduled for April 12.

Ramesh Sagili, an Oregon State University assistant professor who studies honeybee health, was honored for his work during the annual meeting of the Pacific branch of the Entomological Society of America.

Sagili won an award for his work on insect physiology, biochemistry and toxicology. A dozen other West Coast scientists also received awards during the ESA’s gathering in Portland the first week of April.

Sagili is an assistant professor and Extension specialist in the horticulture department of OSU’s College of Agricultural Sciences. He directs the honeybee lab and master beekeeper program at OSU, and is among a cadre of researchers who are attempting to solve the mystery of Colony Collapse Disorder, which has wiped out many hives nationwide.

Originally from India, Sagili earned a doctorate in entomology from Texas A&M University in 2007 and was hired at OSU in 2009 after beekeepers and farmers pressed the Legislature to fund honeybee research. While some blame colony collapse on causes ranging from pesticides to cell phones, Sagili has maintained that a variety of factors are more likely, including the presence of parasites. He believes nutrition is key to bee health.

Pollination is critical to West Coast crops, and beekeepers truck thousands of hives to California beginning each January. They move hives north as crops blossom in rotation, beginning with almond orchards and on into berries, tree fruit and seed crops.

Low temperatures have slowed the growth of Oregon’s crops this spring, at least compared to recent years, while high moisture levels have impeded the state’s farmers.

Crop development in the Willamette Valley, for example, is roughly a month behind 2016 and 2015, according to “degree day” data compiled by Oregon State University.

Degree days represent the accumulated average daily temperatures above a certain threshold — 41 degrees Fahrenheit for many crops — necessary for plant growth.

However, crop development in 2017 is actually close to the usual average. The previous two springs were simply much warmer than typical, according to OSU.

“Even though it’s been quite cool compared to the last couple years, we’re still around the 30-year normal,” said Len Coop, associate director of OSU’s Integrated Plant Protection Center.

Meanwhile, precipitation across Oregon has been 20-47 percent above average during the current water year, which began last autumn, according to USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Saturated soils have prevented farmers from applying fertilizers and pesticides or planting vegetables and other annual crops, experts say.

“You’ve got this complication of all the work backing up,” said Tom Peerbolt, a berry crop consultant and founder of Peerbolt Crop Management.

Soggy ground and strong winds knocked over a large oak tree at a ranch near Elkton, Ore., killing two cows owned by Ed Cooley.

Cooley said he realized something had gone wrong when his electric fence failed, which led him to the fallen tree and five cows trapped beneath.

While two were crushed to death, Cooley managed to rescue the other three by removing limbs with a chain saw.

“The cows were pretty calm about it,” he said.

Plentiful rainfall tends to encourage fungal diseases like scab in apples, but low temperatures suppress the emergence of pests, such as the spotted wing drosophila and brown marmorated stink bug, said Coop.

The spotted wing drosophila needs a higher temperature threshold — 50 degrees Fahrenheit — to develop than many crops, so right now, the insect’s populations are lagging plant growth, he said.

The pest would still be at a disadvantage if the weather quickly shifts to being hot and dry, but mild temperatures would allow it to thrive, Coop said.

“They could catch up later on,” he said.

Rainy weather during blueberry bloom reduces bee activity, which could hurt pollination, though the problem is still speculative at this point, said Peerbolt.

Dampness is also conducive to mummy berry, a fungal disease, which is tough to combat with fungicides when windows of appropriate spraying weather are scarce, he said.

“It increases the risks of fungal disease pressure down the road,” Peerbolt said.

The pace of field work is sluggish this spring for growers of sweet peas, which could delay planting of other crops, such as corn and green beans, said Dan Fitzner, scheduling manager for the NORPAC food processing cooperative.

If NORPAC’s processing volume is dominated by sweet peas, that prevents the company from switching to those other crops, he said. Effectively, that means planting of other crops must be delayed or acreage of sweet peas must be decreased.

“It could be a problem if it keeps up like this,” he said.

Some Oregon crops can benefit from the dreary spring.

Perennial ryegrass, a major seed crop in the Willamette Valley, generally performs better in cooler, wetter weather, said Tom Chastain, an OSU seed crop physiology professor.

Rust disease tends to be more problematic on perennial ryegrass and tall fescue — another common grass seed crop — during warmer and drier springs, since the reproductive cycle of the fungus is sped up, Chastain said.

However, annual ryegrass, which is generally planted in poorly drained soils, won’t be helped by the generous rainfall, he said.

The cool spring is a delayed effect of the La Nina climate pattern, which is associated with low Pacific Ocean temperatures, said Coop.

“Every time a La Nina comes around, this is what we expect,” he said.

According to long-term forecasts, though, temperatures are expected to become higher than average later in spring, Coop said.

“The normal seasonal pattern should kick in pretty soon,” he said.

Capital Press

SALEM — Oregon had only two more confirmed wolves at the end of 2016 than it did the year before, a growth rate the state wildlife department described as “weak” and a sharp drop from the 27 to 36 percent growth rates the previous three years.

The state visually documented 112 wolves at the end of 2016, according to ODFW’s annual report. At the end of 2015, Oregon had 110 confirmed wolves.

Department spokeswoman Michelle Dennehy acknowledged the low population gain but said ODFW is not concerned.

“It’s one year, one data point, based on what we saw,” she said. “It’s not a trend of growth rates decreasing.”

Russ Morgan, ODFW’s wolf program manager, said the weak population gain is a “byproduct of our counting methodology,” in which wolves aren’t counted without a confirmed sighting. He called that method “very conservative.”

“You get what you get,” he said. “It’s not the actual population, but the actual minimum. You know there can’t be fewer.”

In the future, the department may rely more on pack counts than on breeding pair counts, he said, and include population estimates based on known birth rates and other information.

Oregon Wild, a conservation group long involved in wolf management issues, holds an opposite view.

In a prepared statement, Conservation Director Steve Pedery noted the report shows population growth is “stalled” and the number of breeding pairs and packs declined from 2015.

“This raises troubling questions about ODFW’s continuing drive to pursue hunting and trapping,” Pedery said. Oregon Wild and other activists believe the state may ultimately allow hunting of wolves, as it does cougars and bears.

The ODFW report lists several reasons why the wolf count is low, including disease.

Blood samples taken from wolves commonly show high rates of exposure to parvovirus; the same is true of domestic dogs, said Morgan, the ODFW wolf program manager. But in 2016, 68 percent of samples taken were positive for a specific marker that shows active or recent infections. Parvovirus can increase pup mortality rates, which would affect short-term population growth rates. However, the report indicates the finding is not expected to impact the wolf population long-term.

Another possibility is what the report calls known or unknown “human-caused” mortality. Seven wolves are known to have been killed during the year, including four by ODFW itself. The department shot members of the Imnaha Pack, including longtime alpha wolf OR-4, in March 2016. The wolves had attacked and eaten or injured calves and sheep in private pastures five times that spring.

Meanwhile, Oregon State Police continue to investigate two other wolf killings, and one wolf was legally shot by a herder when it was caught in the act attacking livestock.

Other reasons for the small population gain may include “decreased breeder success, diseases affecting pup survival, and dispersal out-of-state,” according to the report.

Dennehy, the ODFW spokeswoman, said the 2016 count was hindered by severe winter weather that grounded observation flights at times. Wolves may have been present but not counted, the ODFW report says.

Also in the report:

• Depredation investigations confirmed wolves killed 11 calves, seven sheep, one goat and a llama in 2016, compared to three calves, 10 sheep and a herding or guard dog in 2015.

• The state distributed $129,664 to 13 counties to compensate producers for dead, injured or missing livestock and to pay for prevention and deterrence programs. About $5,000 of the amount was for grant administration.

The population numbers are part of a draft wolf management plan that will be considered by the ODFW Commission at two public hearings this spring: April 21 in Klamath Falls and May 19 in Portland.

Multiple irrigators claim the federal government’s plans for two Klamath-area national wildlife refuges unlawfully restrict farmed acres and agricultural practices.

In the final days of the Obama administration, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued plans for managing several refuges in the Klamath basin over the next 15 years.

The Tulelake Irrigation District, Klamath Water Users Association, Tulelake Growers Association and three private farms have now filed a complaint against the agency, arguing that plans for the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath refuges violate federal laws.

The plaintiffs have asked a federal judge to overturn the management plans and impose an injunction against the farming restrictions.

“The likely effects of this shift in management will be noxious weed growth on fallowed or non-irrigated lands, wind erosion of dry topsoils, as well as detrimental social, and economic effects, all without any benefit to migrating waterfowl,” the complaint said. “Further, it would be false to assume that less agriculture will result in more water for waterfowl or wetland habitat. Indeed, the approximate is true: less agriculture will result in less water, more noxious weeds, less wetland habitat, and less food resources for waterfowl.”

Capital Press was unable to reach a representative of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as of press time.

National wildlife refuges in the region have long been leased for agricultural production, allow farmers without land of their own to plant crops and expand their businesses, according to plaintiffs.

Farmers leave a portion of grain crops for waterfowl to eat and cooperate with scientists to develop innovative “wildlife-friendly farming practices” on the leased refuge acres, the complaint said.

Under the management plans issued in January, growers leasing land in the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath refuges would be subject to numerous stipulations, such as prohibitions on post-harvest field work and genetically engineered crops, the complaint said.

The government plans also to restrict alfalfa harvests, require farmland to be flooded over winter and disallow hazing of waterfowl during tilling and planting in late winter and early spring, the plaintiffs allege.

“These stipulations would or may reduce agricultural acreage and increase the number of unharvested acres of land that remain in agriculture, as well as impair the ability to productively farm on the lease lands,” the complaint said.

According to the plaintiffs, these plans violate legislation passed by Congress in 1964, known as the Kuchel Act, which requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to “continue the present pattern of leasing” of property within the refuges.

The lawsuit also claims the government insufficiently studied the “direct and indirect adverse environmental effects” of the restrictions, while failing to show they actually helped waterfowl.

Aside from the irrigators’ complaint, the U.S. Fish and Wildife Service is also contending with a lawsuit filed by environmentalists who claim the agency unlawfully lets farmers use pesticides on leased refuge acres.

WINSTON, Ore. — Radio collared wolves have been monitored in the southern Cascades Mountains of Oregon and officials agree it won’t be long before multiple packs take up residence in those mountains, in the Siskiyou Mountains and probably in the Coast Range.

That was part of the message delivered by state and federal officials during a presentation April 6 at the annual Douglas County Livestock’s Spring Livestock Conference. A timeline is not being predicted for the permanent settlement of the four-legged animal in Western Oregon, but there was consensus that they are quietly venturing west from northeastern Oregon packs.

“Wolves are on their way, the growth curve of their population shows that,” Tod Lum, the Douglas District wildlife biologist for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, said to the audience of about 50 livestock producers.

“It’s just a matter of time before they get here,” said Paul Wolf, the supervisor of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services program in Douglas County.

“It’ll just take a little bit of time,” he added, knocking on wood.

The Rogue pack to the south of Crater Lake is established. Wolves have also been monitored in the Keno, Ore., area and three radio collared wolves have been monitored traveling through the southern Cascades south of LaPine, Ore., and into the Siskyous in California.

More recently, the OR33 wolf was reportedly seen near the Lemolo Lake-Highway 138 junction in the Cascades in eastern Douglas County last year. Then last October, a wolf, possibly OR33, was seen about 10 miles east of Roseburg, Ore. Those are considered “credible, but good unconfirmed sightings,” according to Lum. To be a credible sighting, the animal or physical evidence must be photographed and turned into an ODFW office.

Western Oregon ranchers are concerned about the arrival of wolves because they’ll be one more possible predator on their livestock, especially targeting newborn calves and lambs. Ranchers must already deal with coyotes, cougars, bears, eagles and ravens.

Veril Nelson, a cattle rancher east of Sutherlin, Ore., and co-chairman of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association wolf committee, said one of the OCA’s biggest concerns is that in Western Oregon the wolf remains protected by the federal Endangered Species Act and even if a wolf is seen killing a calf, there is nothing the rancher can do about it.

“The association would like to see the wolf taken off the endangered list,” he said, noting the animal is already off the state’s endangered list. “We’re going to be lobbying at the federal level for that.”

Nelson said the environmental groups “are pushing for and expressing they do not want wolves to be hunted, regardless of their population.” Nelson has seen photos of wolf attacks on calves and he describes it as “bite, bite, bite, bite and there’s nothing we can do about it.”

The Oregon Wolf Plan is currently being reviewed. Stakeholders in the wolf plan met in Salem, Ore., in March and made recommendations on how to revise the plan that was first written in 2008. Those recommendations will be presented to the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission at an April 21 meeting in Klamath Falls, Ore.

According to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, “The goal of the plan is to ensure the conservation of gray wolves as required by Oregon law while protecting the social and economic interests of all Oregonians. Minimizing wolf-livestock conflict and reducing livestock losses to wolves is an important part of the Wolf Plan.”

Suzanne Stone, the Northwest representative with Defenders of Wildlife and a resident of Boise, Idaho, was also a presenter at the conference. She emphasized to the ranchers the use of non-lethal methods to discourage wolves from having confrontations with livestock. Those methods include having guard dogs live with the livestock, removing bone and carcass piles that attract predators, using sirens and air horns, hanging streamers on fences and increasing human presence around the livestock.

“Some people are interested in using the methods and want to protect their livestock the best way they can and others say they just don’t want them (wolves) here,” Stone said. “I think they will expand here, but probably not into urbanized areas. Wolves tend to avoid human contact.

“Western Oregon is going through the same thing Idaho and Montana did regarding wolves,” she said. “There’s so much misinformation out there about wolves. Don’t get waylaid and waste a lot of time and energy on rumors. Focus and work on preventive measures.”

Nelson said in some situations those non-lethal methods should be used, but “no tool is going to work for very long because those predators are smart and will adjust to get what they want.” He also emphasized that even if wolves don’t kill livestock, the predators can stress the domestic animals into lower conception rates and weight loss.

Nelson said he would be attending the April 21 Fish and Wildlife Commission meeting in Klamath Falls and added that he hoped other livestock associations would also have representatives there.

SALEM — A proposal to make lawsuits over alleged pesticide damages easier to file in Oregon has died along with several other bills that could have impacted agriculture.

Senate Bill 500 wasn’t scheduled for a work session as of April 7, killing the legislation.

Under current law, anybody who claims to be harmed by pesticides must submit a report within 60 days to the Oregon Department of Agriculture before taking legal action against the landowner or applicator.

Senate Bill 500 would have removed the requirement, which was characterized by proponents as an unfair impediment to justice and by critics as a reasonable barrier to frivolous litigation.

Critics of the bill argued the reporting requirement allows ODA to gather facts substantiating or repudiating the claims of pesticide loss, thus avoiding litigation based on weak or nonexistent evidence.

The 60-day window also ensures that accused farmers have an opportunity to collect evidence, which may not be possible if a lawsuit is filed long after an alleged incident, opponents said.

Supporters of SB 500, on the other hand, said the “report of loss” requires submitting specifics that are difficult for people to obtain, such as the type of pesticide applied and who sprayed the chemical.

Rural residents who are exposed to pesticides often won’t realize they must submit a report to ODA, according to proponents.

If they find out about the 60-day deadline too late, residents are then permanently blocked from seeking legal recourse, supporters said.

The April 7 deadline, which lawmakers set early in the legislative session, also marked the death of other farm-related proposals:

• Senate Bill 499 would have changed Oregon’s “right to farm” law to exclude pesticide usage. The statute currently protects common agricultural practices from lawsuits over nuisance and trespass, but SB 499 would have specifically allowed litigation over pesticide use.

• Senate Bill 198 would have established an Independent Science Review Board to analyze controversial decisions by state agencies, such as wolf management or restrictions on genetically engineered crops. Representatives of natural resources industries objected to SB 198, arguing that such a panel would create another layer of bureaucracy without ensuring objectivity.

• Senate Bill 866 would have held cities liable for discharging pollutants in stormwater into irrigation canals without permission. Supporters claimed SB 866 was necessary for irrigators to comply with environmental laws, but municipal governments said the bill would unrealistically require them to collect and divert all the rainwater falling within their boundaries.

• House Bill 2180 would allow workers with unpaid wage complaints to file liens against the property of their employers. Supporters of HB 2180 said the proposal would prevent employers from transferring assets to another entity to avoid paying unpaid wages. Critics countered that such liens could disrupt business transactions even without proving any wrongdoing by an employer.

• House Bill 2181 would have created a “rebuttable presumption” that employers unlawfully retaliated against workers who were fired within 90 days of filing an unpaid wage claim. Employers argued that under HB 2181 they’d be considered guilty until proven innocent.

• House Bill 2365 would have created a task force to study transferring federal land to state ownership. Such transfers are opposed by environmental groups that say state government wouldn’t be able to afford the upkeep of such lands, forcing their sale to private parties.

• House Bill 3016 would prohibit discrimination by county and city governments against any specific type of livestock in zones where livestock are generally allowed. Critics of HB 3016 worried the bill would prompt local governments to make more zones livestock-free.