BEND, Ore. (AP) — A proposed wilderness encircling Oregon’s Painted Hills has the backing of local leaders.

The Bulletin newspaper reports the Wheeler County Court and the city of Mitchell support the plan for the Sutton Mountain Wilderness. The Bend-based Oregon Natural Desert Association is now trying to win over the state’s congressional delegation.

The federal designation of a wilderness requires an act of Congress and approval by the president.

The planned Sutton Mountain Wilderness would cover nearly 60,000 acres around and in the Painted Hills Unit of the John Day Fossil Beds National Monument.

The Bureau of Land Management currently oversees the land.

ASHLAND, Ore. (AP) — The last time Logan Linker and his fellow Ashland High School students got their hands on the 2-foot-tall incense cedar trees growing in the ScienceWorks’ shade-house nursery, they were little starter plants barely one-third their current height.

“Things grow all the time,” says Linker, 17, as he plops a milk crate full of cedars and similar-sized Ponderosa pines into a pickup bed.

Starting next week, these trees will be growing along the banks of Bear Creek, where they may create shade, cooling and cleansing the creek for future generations of wild chinook salmon.

“Doing this is a way I can help the environment, do something for salmon,” Linker says.

Linker and hundreds of other Rogue Valley students will be doing much of the same over the next seven days as the Ashland-based Lomakatsi Restoration Project embarks on its seventh annual Streamside Forest Recovery Week at five sites throughout the Bear Creek Valley.

Students will take more than 1,000 native plants, ranging from Oregon ash and incense cedar, as well as shrubs such as Oregon grape and Pacific ninebark to fortify streamside riparian zones either torn up over time by development or choked out by non-native Himalayan blackberries.

It’s a hands-on lesson in ecology and stewardship for grade- and high-school students who adopt these projects and get to watch them blossom into living sentries warding off stream degradation.

But you can’t plant ‘em until you grow ‘em.

And that’s just what Lomakatsi workers and their teenage volunteers do painstakingly at four greenhouse sites at ScienceWorks and nearby Wellsprings, as well as at Ashland High and Helman Elementary School.

Volunteers take native starter “plugs” bought from area nurseries and put them in pots for two years of coddling before they are prepped for planting and driven to the restoration sites, where armies of young hands will choose where they will take root.

It’s a formula Lomakasti has used, and expanded on, since 1997 at places such as the confluence of Paradise Creek as it wiggles into Bear Creek in southeast Ashland.

“Some of those trees along Paradise Creek are now well over 50 feet tall,” says Alicia Fitzgerald, Lomakatsi’s outreach and communications manager.

After Linker and his classmates carry crate after crate of trees and shrubs to a Lomakasti pickup, they get down and dirty with Lomakatsi Education Director Niki Del Pizzo in the nursery’s center.

“Now you will be, basically, restoring this nursery,” Del Pizzo tells the group.

Kyle Levin stops taking inventory to take stock in ensuring a Pacific Ninebark plug gets properly potted so its root ball has room to grow for 2016’s round of streamside plantings.

“When I think about what’s happening to the Earth, it makes me angry,” says Levin, 19, who has volunteered with Lomakatsi for three years. “Being able to do something like this makes me feel better.”

That’s a theme among teen volunteers on projects like this, says Jennifer Wahpepah, who teaches the alternative program at Ashland High.

“It’s a big self-esteem builder,” Wahpepah says. “They’re overwhelmed with a lot of negative things, like global warming. This helps them push through that wall by taking part in small actions to help change things.”

Consider Jesse Applegate a convert.

“They’re keeping nature as close as they can to original, not artificial,” says Applegate, a 15-year-old sophomore. “I love what they do, and I’m excited to be part of it

The Oregon Board of Forestry voted unanimously Nov. 5 to proceed with a new plan to create specific timber harvest and conservation zones on 600,000 acres of state-owned forests west of Portland and along the north coast.

The Oregon Department of Forestry currently uses a single management strategy to pursue both timber revenue and conservation goals, but officials concluded in 2012 that approach was not generating enough money. The new concept is known as land allocation. It grew out of recommendations from a stakeholder group that included representatives from the timber industry, environmental organizations, anglers and county governments.

During the board meeting in Portland, some of those stakeholders said they are concerned at the lack of detail in the proposal. State officials said that will spend the next eight months filling in details of the plan and forecasting how it would affect timber harvest revenue and conservation goals.

The forestry board would still need to give final approval to a detailed plan, before it could take effect.

“What’s before you here is not a management plan,” State Forester Doug Decker said. “We do have the broad contours of a management plan.”

A year ago, Gov. John Kitzhaber asked the board to look for opportunities to increase conservation in the northwest region, which includes the Tillamook, Clatsop and Santiam state forests.

The Oregon Department of Forestry also needed to increase revenue from timber harvests, which have not kept up with the cost to manage the state forests over the last decade. Financial Analyst Joan Tenny said the department’s $27.9 million annual state forest budget is approximately $6 million short of what the department needs.

As a result, the department has cut back on forest thinning, research and monitoring and improvements related to recreation, Public Affairs Program Manager Dan Postrel said.

State officials have not determined how much of the state forests might be designated for conservation or for timber harvest, despite an earlier version of the plan developed by the committee that would have roped off 30 percent of forest land for conservation and 70 percent for logging. Officials said there also might be more than two types of management zones.

One difficult question state employees face is how to divvy up timber harvest revenue among counties, if the state shifts to land allocation management. The state keeps one-third of the timber revenue to cover its management costs, and sends the remaining two-thirds to the county governments where the forests are located. If some forests are designated as conservation land where logging is reduced or banned, those counties would lose revenue unless the state and counties find a way to share timber money among counties.

Tim Josi, a Tillamook County commissioner and chairman of the Council of Forest Trust Lands Counties, said the council supported the land allocation concept. However, Josi said, “there are still some trust issues with some of the counties about changing the revenue sharing formula.”

W. Ray Jones, vice president of resources for Stimson Lumber Company, said the new management proposal would likely meet the goals to increase both conservation and revenue. However, Jones said he is concerned about proposals by Oregon Department of Forestry employees to include habitat conservation plans and expanded no-cut buffers along streams in the new plan.

“I’m having a hard time connecting the dots of why those no-cut zones would be expanded,” Jones said.

Bob Van Dyk, forest policy manager at the Wild Salmon Center, said at this early stage, the new management plan is like a Rorschach test: because there are few details, everyone who looks at it finds different potential problems.

“We support continued exploration of this,” Van Dyk said. “There’s at least a chance we can find something not anyone’s happy with, but everyone’s happy enough with.”

State officials currently plan to bring a detailed version of the plan back to the forestry board in June.

COOS BAY, Ore. (AP) — The Coos County, Oregon, sheriff’s office says a Bureau of Land Management employee was fatally injured when a falling tree at a logging site struck her Ford Explorer.

The sheriff’s office says 55-year-old Estella Morgan came upon a logging operation in the Blue Ridge area east of Coos Bay on Tuesday. A tree that had just been cut fell on her SUV, crushing the driver’s area. She died at the scene.

The accident is under investigation.

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — In the end, not even Oregon’s backyard chicken owners and vegan foodies had enough money and clout to persuade voters to pass a ballot measure that would have required labeling of genetically modified foods.

Oregon is the fourth state in the West that has failed to pass a GMO labeling measure. A similar proposal also flopped Tuesday in Colorado, which joined Washington state and California as other states that have said no.

It would seem that if a label mandate could pass anywhere, it would have passed in a left-leaning state like Oregon, whose biggest city is a hub for hipsters, funky boutiques and farm-to-table dining.

But are opponents of GMOs ready to give up? Nope. They say they’re making headway against biotechnology companies like Monsanto Co. and are ready to continue the fight in legislatures, on ballots, and at the federal level.

“This is a social movement that’s gaining power, as people become more aware of how their food is produced,” said George Kimbrell, a senior attorney at the Center for Food Safety. “So there’s great success there regardless of the outcome of the measure.”

There’s little science that says genetically engineered foods are unsafe, and agribusinesses fear mandatory labels would spook consumers. Most of the nation’s corn and soybeans are genetically engineered to resist pests and herbicides, but labeling proponents say there’s too much that’s unknown about GMOs.

The Oregon initiative would have required manufacturers, retailers and suppliers to label raw or packaged foods produced entirely or partially by genetic engineering, but voters narrowly rejected it by about 1 percentage point.

In the past two years, voters in California and Washington rejected labeling requirements by about a 2-point margin.

“The reason we lost narrowly is because chemical companies and their allies smashed spending records in these states,” Kimbrell said. “People were being inundated with their commercials on televisions.”

Opponents raised about $20 million to defeat the Oregon initiative, while the campaign to pass Measure 92 had about $7.5 million in donations.

Labeling proponents were even more dramatically outspent in Colorado, where they raised $896,000 — compared with about $16.7 million by the opposing food and biotech companies. Coloradans saw no television advertising from proponents, but there were frequent TV spots featuring farmers who called the measure misleading.

There were similar disparities in California and Washington, where the 2013 ballot measure contest was the costliest in state history.

Oregon’s results underscored an urban-rural divide. Voters supported labeling in liberal cities like Portland, where at least one grocer will deliver organic produce to your door in a biodiesel-powered truck. Much of rural Oregon overwhelmingly opposed it.

“Measure 92 would have burdened our state’s family farmers and food producers with costly new compliance regulations and red tape,” said Pat McCormick, spokesman for the No on 92 Coalition.

Oregon voters also defeated a GMO labeling measure in 2002, when it wasn’t such a prevalent issue. That measure lost by a landslide, 70 percent to 30 percent.

Since then, the political fight has escalated. The Vermont Legislature approved a labeling bill that’s set to take effect in 2016. Maine and Connecticut also passed labeling laws, although they don’t take effect unless other states follow suit.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, some 30 other states have also considered GMO labeling legislation this year, though none of the bills has passed.

Earlier this year, voters in two rural Oregon counties approved bans on genetically engineered crops, and voters in Hawaii’s Maui County opted this week to temporarily ban the cultivation of GMOs, but those measures are a far cry from putting labels on products that families see at the supermarket.

Still, the West’s four GMO labeling measures have made people aware of their choices when it comes to their food, Kimbrell said.

Labeling proponents say they’re already gearing up to get legislation passed in more states and put initiatives on more ballots — though they declined to say where. Ultimately, they’re pushing for federal labeling rules, though there’s no indication of any impending nationwide solution.

Even those who didn’t support the measures say the anti-GMO momentum deserves Big Food’s attention.

“Independent of the results, there’s clearly some part of the population that ... wants to know what’s in the food they eat, how it’s made, and where it comes from,” said Gregory Jaffe, biotechnology project director for the Center for Science in the Public Interest. “I think the industry needs to figure out ways to be more transparent.”

While labeling advocates say they’re just getting started, opponents aren’t about to step aside.

“The patchwork of state labeling standards would require separate supply chains to be developed for each state,” said Pamela Bailey, president and CEO of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the food industry’s main trade group.

“This maze of varied regulations based on inaccurate information would cripple interstate commerce ... and ultimately increase grocery prices for consumers by hundreds of dollars each year.”

Bailey and Monsanto, among others, say they are seeking a federal law that would take precedence over any state laws and let companies voluntarily label their engineered foods.

That’s unacceptable to food activists.

“The bottom line,” Kimbrell said, “is that this movement is going to continue to grow, move forward and gain in prominence.”

With Oregon’s genetically modified organism labeling initiative apparently headed for a narrow defeat, supporters and opponents agree the debate isn’t over.

As of 11 a.m. Wednesday, “No” votes for Measure 92 were leading “Yes” votes by slightly more than a percentage point: 50.6 percent versus 49.4 percent.

While it’s still possible that 35,000 uncounted votes in left-leaning Multnomah County could still put Measure 92 over the top, that result is unlikely.

Supporters of the initiative remain hopeful that the razor-thin margin will swing their way, but even if it’s defeated, the issue is unlikely to fade away, said Sandeep Kaushik, spokesman for the Yes on 92 campaign, which supported the initiative.

Mandatory labeling of food containing GMOs gained traction among Oregonians despite being tremendously outspent by the opposition, Kaushik said.

“This is absolutely not the last we’ve heard of labeling,” he said. “This is a long term effort. We are making progress.”

Concern continues to grow around the country about GMO labeling and supporters plan to continue to press the issue, though a specific strategy has yet to be set, Kaushik said.

A defeat of Measure 92 in Oregon would mark the third time that voters rejected similar labeling initiatives in recent years, after California and Washington, said Scott Dahlman, executive director of Oregonians for Food and Shelter, which opposes labeling.

A labeling measure was also defeated Tuesday in Colorado.

Even so, the discussion is likely to continue, he said. “I don’t think this is an issue that is going away.”

Oregon voted down a similar labeling measure in 2002, which did not seem to deter backers of the most recent measure, said Pat McCormick, treasurer of the No on 92 campaign. “It’s apparent the proponents don’t take no for an answer.”

Oregon voters ultimately decided against the measure because they were convinced organic and non-GMO labels were more effective than a mandatory label, he said. “They’ve got a better system in place than this measure would provide.”

The initiative would have probably fared better in the 2016 presidential election, which will probably have higher voter turnout among young and liberal voters who favor labeling, said Russ Donero, retired political science professor at Pacific University.

“The proponents may have, unfortunately for themselves, mistimed when they put it on the ballot,” said Dondero, noting that a older, white, conservative demographic is more likely to vote in lower-turnout elections. “That didn’t help.”

Voters may have been confused by some aspects of the debate, like why certain types of food were excluded from labeling, he said.

Opponents of the measure were effective in raising doubts through their advertising, Dondero said.

Even if the advertising didn’t necessarily convince some people to vote against the measure, the negative message could have discouraged them from voting to the advantage of opponents, Dondero said. “It’s designed to do that.”

A proposed ban on commercial pesticide use in Oregon’s Josephine County was soundly rejected by voters, but supporters of the ballot initiative vow to regroup and continue fighting.

Measure 17-63, which would have prohibited licensed applicators from applying pesticides in the county but did not apply to residential properties, was defeated by a 2-1 margin.

Even if it had passed, the county initiative was would have been pre-empted by state law governing pesticides.

However, pesticide users and other opponents were worried that voter approval would have inspired vandalism, since the measure would allow citizens to take “direct action” if courts or local governments refused to enforce the ban.

The measure’s defeat shows most people recognize pesticides as a legitimate tool in agriculture, said Scott Dahlman, executive director of Oregonians for Food and Shelter, a group that opposed the ban.

“The voters spoke pretty strongly,” he said, noting that 67 percent voted against the initiative. “That’s a pretty loud voice.”

Audrey Moore, director of the Freedom from Pesticides Alliance, said she was disappointed by the results but heartened that roughly 11,000 county residents supported the measure.

Voters rejected the measure due to a biased ballot initiative summary printed by the county and a deluge of advertising by opponents, she said. “It was downright lies that were put out in the media.”

Even so, pesticide critics will continue to advocate against their use, she said. “It’s a topic that’s been swept under the carpet by the state for way too long and we’re not going away. We’re going to learn and go forward.”

Supporters of Oregon’s Measure 88, which permitted driver’s cards for people without proof of legal U.S. residence, said the initiative’s defeat will worsen labor shortages in agriculture.

Opponents, meanwhile, say the measure’s failure is a demand from citizens for law and order.

Voters rejected the measure by more than a 2-1 margin on Nov. 4, effectively overriding a bill passed by state lawmakers in 2013 that allowed for the driver’s cards.

At 9 a.m. Wednesday, “no” votes totaled 852,759, while “yes” votes totaled 413,324.

The measure’s defeat will not keep undocumented immigrants off the roads — the state simply won’t be able to ensure they’re safe drivers, said Jeff Stone, executive director of the Oregon Association of Nurseries and a Measure 88 supporter.

“They’re still going to go to school, to church, to the doctor’s office, and they’re still going to be our neighbors,” said Stone.

Farmers, meanwhile, won’t be able to employ as many workers if applicants are unable to show they can legally drive to job sites that are often remote, he said.

“These farms are not off a busline,” Stone said. “It’s not like you can take the MAX to a strawberry field.”

Nurseries are already struggling with a labor shortage due to federal inaction on comprehensive immigration reform, which remains a top concern for the agricultural industry, he said. “We cannot solve the immigration issue in Oregon.”

Jim Ludwick, founder of Oregonians for Immigration Reform and an opponent of the initiative, rejected the argument that Measure 88 would ensure safety on the roads.

Illegal immigrants would drive anyway, even if they failed the driver’s card test, he said.

“They break the law on so many levels,” Ludwick said. “They’re constantly told they’re above the law.”

The fact that Measure 88 failed in an overwhelmingly Democratic-leaning state shows that people of all stripes are trying to send a message to government that they won’t tolerate lawlessness, he said.

If agriculture is facing a challenge with insufficient labor, the solution is to mechanize, Ludwick said.

“That’s the future,” he said. “That’s what we should be going for instead of importing cheap labor.”

Online

Measure 88 results

Early returns showed Oregon voters handily legalizing the smoking, growing and selling of marijuana, joining a parade of states that have decriminalized pot.

With about two-thirds of the votes counted, Measure 91 was passing 54 percent to 46 percent. The measure allows adults to possess up to an ounce of pot at any time, up to eight ounces at home, and to grow up to four plants per household. It also establishes the commercial sale of pot and pot products.

For Oregon farmers who might be interested, the measure also permits them to grow industrial hemp, which can be used to make food, oil, cloth, rope and other products.

It was easy to tell where Measure 91’s support was coming from: Portland and Eugene. Nearly 70 percent of Multnomah County voters favored the measure, and it took nearly 60 percent of the vote in Lane County.

Oregon voters are rejecting a ballot measure that would uphold a law enacted in 2013 by the Legislature that authorizes the Department of Motor Vehicles to issue four-year driver’s cards to Oregonians unable to prove legal residency in the United States.

Measure 88 was supported by many business and agriculture groups, particularly the nursery, vineyard and orchard industries.

According to the Secretary of State’s Office, at 11 p.m. “no” votes totaled 680,473, or 67.37 percent, while “yes” totaled 329,645 votes, or 32.63 percent.

Measure 92 mandates that many food items sold in Oregon stores containing genetically modified ingredients be labeled. As of 11 p.m., the measure was failing by a narrow, but widening, margin. “No” votes totaled 525,373, or 51.1 percent, while “yes” votes totaled 502,686, or 48.9 percent.

The campaign was the most expensive Oregon ballot measure ever, with supporters and opponents raising nearly $27 million.

A similar ballot measure failed Tuesday in Colorado.

Online results

Measure 88 - oregonvotes.gov/results/2014G/562976592.html

Measure 92 - oregonvotes.gov/results/2014G/1029276478.html

OREGON CITY — Nobody wants slugs and yellow jackets for Christmas, especially the buyers in Hawaii and other far-flung export markets who make Oregon’s Christmas trees a $103 million annual crop.

Hoping to avoid the ire of inspectors, reduce fumigation costs and maybe expand sales, one of Oregon’s major growers and shippers is washing trees with hot water to kill pests before shipping.

Kirk Co. may be the only Oregon shipper trying the treatment, and it’s attracting attention. Agriculture officials from Malaysia and the Philippines observed the method at the company’s facility Monday, watching as workers shook freshly washed trees to inspect for any remaining bugs.

“What you’re trying to do with that is control hitchhikers,” said Bob Bishop, a trade specialist with the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service who accompanied the Philippines and Malaysia officials.

“We want to avoid diseases,” said Paz Benavidez, with the Philippines Department of Agriculture. “We’re checking how they do inspections and best management practices.”

Norsiyenti Othman, an entomology officer with the Malaysia Department of Agriculture, said her country now imports Noble Christmas trees without pest concerns, but is reviewing new procedures.

Although Malaysia is about 60 percent Muslim and 20 percent Buddhist, Otham said there is a steady market for Christmas trees among shopping malls, tourist hotels and households.

Gary Snyder, co-owner of Kirk Co., said the Hawaiian market is his biggest immediate concern. Inspectors there, leery of bugs they consider invasive, will set loads aside and require treatment if pests are discovered.

The company experimented with hot water washing last year with mixed results, but tweaked the operation this year. Harvested trees are routed by conveyor belt through an enclosed washer that raises the tree temperature to about 106 degrees.

“I’m shipping 75 to 80 containers to Hawaii,” Snyder said. “If less than five of them get held up for slugs, I’ll feel successful.”

Kirk Co. ships about 500,000 trees a year and has operations in Oregon, Washington, North Carolina and Nova Scotia.

Chal Landgren, a Christmas tree specialist with Oregon State University Extension Service, said some growers don’t have on-site water or electrical capacity to wash trees as Snyder’s crew is doing. Some are worried export markets may eventually require it.

“Growers in general hope it doesn’t come to this, but (Snyder) is thinking it might,” Landgren said.

Bishop, of USDA APHIS, said the washing method may control fumigation costs. As a side benefit, washed trees stay fresh and green longer because they carry so much moisture during shipment, Bishop said.

Oregon leads the nation in Christmas tree production, with about 7 million trees sold in 2013 and 17 percent of the U.S. total, according to the National Agricultural Statistics Service. Christmas trees are Oregon’s 12th most valuable crop.

SEASIDE, Ore. — Farmers, ranchers and those interested in making a living in agriculture made it clear they reject the idea that the Oregon Coast is the wrong place to put down roots.

“The presence of all these farms show that it’s patently untrue that ‘You can’t grow anything here on the coast,’” said Emily Fanjoy, owner of Peace Crops farm in Nehalem, in introducing the keynote panel of the third Grow the Coast at the Seaside Civic and Convention Center Saturday.

The theme was heard repeatedly during the convention as presenters discussed topics ranging from weed management and cost accounting to winter vegetable production and seed saving.

Farmers can grow many crops on the coast, said Teresa Retzlaff of 46 North Farm in Olney. She was one of three keynote panelists.

“There’s no can’t about it,” she said. “It’s about the choices we make.”

Laura Swanson, manager of the Manzanita Farmers’ Market, spoke about the proliferation of farmers’ markets on the North Coast. Nine markets cooperate on days and hours of operation, she said.

It’s an arrangement that’s worked out well. All the markets seem to be growing, and travelers like the market option.

“One question always asked is, ‘Where are other farmers markets,’” she said.

For farmers, the markets offer a stepping stone to getting their products into grocery stores and other markets, she added.

Clatsop County Commissioner Dirk Rohne, owner of Brownsmead Island Farm, said when he was in high school, people were uninterested in farming.

“Now it’s ‘Napoleon Dynamite’ cool,” he said.

In the same way the craft beer industry has taken off, locally grown food can also find a bigger place in communities, he said.

Suggestions on financing a farm included loans through a traditional lender or innovative funding through crowdsourcing.

Michelle Dragoo, a U.S. Forest Service biologist from Tillamook, was there just to check out the possibilities,

“It’s something I would love to do” she said.

She considering buying a vegetable farm or an orchard. She’s thinking about a place where she could have poultry or livestock and room for processing value-added products.

It would depend on the land available, she said.

All these issues came up during discussions. It’s not just buying the land, said Suzanne Hayes, farm loan officer for the USDA Farm Service Agency. Zoning issues can affect what you can and can’t do on your land. It’s important to check with county officials before making plans, she said.

The coastal farm can produce income by bringing tourists to the table, but there’s a load of red tape involved.

Scottie Jones, co-owner of Leaping Lamb Farm in Alsea and founder of Farm Stay USA, shared her experiences in making her working farm a place for city slickers to get back to nature.

Zoning, regulations and neighbors play a role in agritourism, she said. Talk to the neighbors first, she emphasized.

“The neighbors can put a kink in the works,” she said. “If you have bad relations with the neighbors before you start a farm stay, do you really think this is going to make it better?”

A backyard poultry operation may sound like a great business, but better check city or county officials to make sure you can do it, said James Hermes, OSU Extention poultry specialist.

Hermes went over some of the specifics of the number of poultry and the age of the birds that often get small producers in trouble with local authorities.

He also gave an overview of the types of chickens and turkeys that do best in coops and free range. He explained that the fast-producing Cornish cross, the common chicken found on dinner tables today, owes its existence to a small-scale farmer.

“It was created by a small farmer like yourself selecting for those traits,” he said.

The session on tasty poultry traits broke just in time for lunch.

While others addressed coastal weed problems and crop health, Marc Bates gave a crash course in cheesemaking.

While Tillamook County dominates the cheesemaking industry, there’s been a proliferation of cheese producers, he said. In Oregon there were five or fewer in 1999. That number had climbed to 10 in 2005. In Washington there were nine in 1999 and 29 in 2009.

He expects to see a facility in Clatsop County sometime soon.

“It’s a question of when,” he said.

He cautioned that the craft cheese industry is unlikely to balloon like the craft beer industry because of stricter regulations and higher startup costs.

Nellie McAdams of the Friends of Family Farmers, said, “There’s a sea change in farming on the coast.”

More people, including young people, are beginning to farm. It’s an exciting time for farming locally and nationally, she said.

“They’re looking at it as a lifestyle and a viable business.” Grow the Coast, sponsored by Oregon State University, the Oregon Food Bank, The Daily Astorian, the Oregon Department of Agriculture, Meyer Memorial Trust and CenturyLink, drew between 225 and 250 participants, organizers said.

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Oregon’s expensive fight over the labeling of genetically engineered food has entered the final round.

An initiative before voters Tuesday would require manufacturers to label genetically engineered packaged foods as “Produced With Genetic Engineering” or “Partially Produced With Genetic Engineering.” The change would take effect in 2016.

The measure would not apply to animal feed or food served in restaurants.

If it passes, Measure 92 could make Oregon one of the first states to pass a labeling measure in an election.

Colorado voters also are tackling the issue Tuesday, and the Vermont Legislature approved a labeling bill that’s set to take effect in 2016. Scores of countries have GMO labeling laws, including the entire European Union.

Over the past two years, proposals to require GMO labeling have failed in neighboring California and Washington. Oregon voters also have defeated a labeling measure, but that was in 2002, when the issue was less on the public radar.

Earlier this year, voters in two rural Oregon counties approved bans on genetically engineered crops, showing the issue has gained traction outside liberal Portland.

The votes in Jackson and Josephine counties followed the discovery of a patch of GMO wheat in eastern Oregon, a finding that led Japan and South Korea to temporarily suspend imports of the crop.

Though genetically engineered crops are common and no mainstream science has shown they are unsafe, opponents contend GMOs are still experimental and promote the use of pesticides. They say more testing is needed and people have a right to know what’s in their food.

Opponents, including some of the world’s largest food producers, have raised about $20 million to prevent the labels from appearing on Oregon grocery shelves. Though the labels are not a warning, they fear the words will spook consumers.

The campaign to pass Measure 92 has surpassed $7.5 million in donations.

The anti-labeling campaign spent about $45.6 million in California, compared with $8.7 million spent by supporters. In Washington state, opponents spent $33.3 million, compared with $9.8 million by the pro-labeling groups.

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The issue of driver’s cards for immigrants who are in the country illegally has been a political hot potato since at least as far back as Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential run.

Now, Oregon is the first state to put the matter before voters.

Residents in the state on Tuesday will decide whether the cards should be provided to those who cannot prove their legal status in the United States.

If the measure passes, Oregon will join 10 other states and the District of Columbia in allowing immigrants who entered the country illegally to drive here legally. In 2008, a state law took effect requiring proof of residence to obtain a driver’s license.

Gov. John Kitzhaber signed a state law last year granting the cards, but an interest group put the measure before voters this year.

Supporters said the measure will make streets safer by forcing people to learn the rules of the road and get insurance. They noted the cards can’t be used for privileges such as voting or getting government benefits. The cards also can’t be used to board a plane or buy firearms.

Opponents, including 28 of Oregon’s 36 sheriffs, argued granting the driver’s cards would reward illegal behavior and facilitate crime.

Business groups have turned out in support of the proposal, especially those with a hand in agriculture and manual labor. That has fractured the conservative voting bloc a bit, pitting those who prefer a stronger hand on immigration laws against businesses that rely on unauthorized immigrant labor.

But recent polling does not bode well for the measure. And supporters believe its wording — which specifies that those seeking driver cards don’t need to show proof of residence — works against it.

The measure would allow immigrants and others to apply for the driver cards if they have lived in Oregon for at least a year and meet other requirements. It was aimed mainly at the tens of thousands of immigrants who live in Oregon after entering the country illegally.

The measure follows a general loosening of rules nationally surrounding driving rights for immigrants who are in the country without legal permission.

California projects get nearly half the money in a round of farmworker housing grants and loans announced Friday by the USDA.

Washington and Oregon housing projects also received funding as the USDA handed out $20.7 million in loans and $8.3 million grants for 10 projects in six states.

The projects will provide housing for 320 farmworker families, with rental assistance offered on 315 of the units, according to a USDA news release.

The California projects include: Coachella Valley Villa Hermosa Phase II, $3 million loan for 68 units; Peoples Self Help, $3 million loan for 33 units; Avenida Maria, $3 million loan for 60 units; and Golden Valley, $3 million loan for 41 units.

In Washington, Grant County Housing Authority will use a $2 million loan and $1 million grant to develop 16 units.

The Oregon grant went to Farmworker Housing Development Corporation, based in Woodburn. The non-profit will use a $1 million loan and $2 million grant to build a 20-unit project in Silverton.

Robert Jimenez, FHDC executive director, said the Silverton project has a total cost of $5.4 million. His agency took over the project from another entity and hope to begin construction in June 2016. The development will have 19 units for families and one for a resident manager. Jimenez described the units as “contemporary, two-story walkups.”

Jimenez said there is a “huge demand all across Marion County” for farmworker housing. The agency’s Woodburn housing development alone has a waiting list of 500 families, he said.

The county is Oregon’s leading agricultural county and features many labor-intensive crops, Jimenez noted.

A key task force has tentatively decided to scrap a controversial requirement for obtaining money from Oregon’s water supply development fund.

In 2013, state lawmakers created a $10 million fund to pay for water storage projects that meet certain environmental requirements.

Earlier this year, Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber appointed a task force to decide how much water can be diverted during peak flows without disrupting a stream’s ecology. That standard is required under the law as a requirement for making the money available.

Under an early proposal, up to 15 percent of a stream’s flow could be stored without extensive environmental review. Anything beyond that would undergo an in-depth assessment.

Representatives of irrigator groups were uncomfortable with the “percentage of flow” mechanism, which was developed by an earlier sub-group of the task force. They felt that diverting 15 percent or less of streamflow would render many projects economically unfeasible and deter developers from using the state fund.

Critics of the 15 percent threshold pointed out that the fund program will already require 25 percent of water stored aboveground to be released for in-stream environmental purposes.

Some members also worried the percentage of flow approach would effectively set a cap on how much water could be diverted by projects funded by the state program, said Richard Whitman, the governor’s natural resources adviser.

The group tried to compromise by exploring a middle path for projects that are too large and complex for the percentage of flow approach but that don’t warrant an in-depth assessment.

During the most recent task force meeting on Oct. 30, however, members tentatively agreed to eliminate the 15 percent threshold altogether and revisit a streamlined method in a few years, once the water fund is operational and regulators gain experience from funded projects.

Until then, projects will be evaluated according to a “matrix,” with the level of environmental analysis depending on the specifics of the project.

Under this matrix method, regulators would examine projects based on available information about the stream’s biological, hydrological and physical characteristics.

If they determine there’s sufficient data, the project would undergo a less exhaustive “mid-depth” review and receive funding that allows it to proceed. If it’s determined that existing information is insufficient, the project would be subject to more rigorous data gathering and analysis under an in-depth review.

It’s also possible that some projects will involve a combination of mid-depth and in-depth review, if certain aspects of a stream have been well-studied but others haven’t.

J.R. Cook, director of the Northeast Oregon Water Association, pointed out that some or all points of analysis would overlap with existing state environmental regulations for building water projects.

“That mid-depth review is probably going to happen anyway,” he said. “I think it’s a good place to start from, personally.”

Proposed projects that have already been extensively studied would already have a lot of data available for the mid-depth process, he said. “We’re tying it to ability to proceed.”

April Snell, executive director of the Oregon Water Resources Congress, said the matrix should provide regulators with a “measuring stick” to determine the level of analysis, based on such factors as whether a project is located on-stream or off-stream. The latter is associated with fewer environmental impacts, she said.

The amount of information currently available about streams ranges widely, said Valerie Kelly a retired hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey.

Gauges that measure flow levels are expensive to maintain and aren’t available on all streams, but it’s possible to try to infer that data from similar streams, she said.

On the other hand, regulators from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife probably have a lot of data about fish conditions in streams, Kelly said. “The biological piece may be the best covered.”

Stahlbush Island Farms Inc., of Corvallis, is the winner of Oregon State University’s Family Business Leadership Award for 2014.

Third-generation owners Bill and Karla Chambers will be honored by OSU’s College of Business at a dinner Nov. 20 in Portland.

The awards are coordinated by the Austin Family Business Program at OSU and highlight family business achievements in entrepreneurship, community involvement and multi-generational planning.

Other winners this year include:

• Family Harmony Award — Second Glance Inc., Corvallis, and Unger Farms Inc., Cornelius. Finalists were Jag Forms, West Linn; and WSC Insurance, Forest Grove.

• Generational Development Award — Glory Bee, Eugene. Finalists were Advanced Wealth Management, Portland; and Blue RaevenFarmstand, Rickreall.

• Business Renewal Award — Willamette Valley Pie Co., Salem. Finalist was Viewpoint Construction Software, Portland.

• Student Award — Jake Thompson, Thompson Timber, Philomath.

The awards dinner is at the Sentinel Hotel, 614 S.W. 11th Ave., Portland. Tickets are $85, $25 for children age 3 to 10. Reception is 5:30 p.m., dinner at 6 p.m. and the program begins at 6:45 p.m.

To register and reserve a seat by Nov. 7, email Melissa.elmore@bus.oregonstate.edu or on-line at http://bit.ly/1yVW32k.

PORTLAND — Improving the market for western juniper wood products could result in a cascading effect that helps solve one of the west’s most vexing environmental problems, a touring group of USDA Rural Development directors learned Wednesday.

A combination of federal grants and public-private collaboration has created a burgeoning market for juniper products ranging from landscape timbers and signposts to decking, butcher block and siding. Half a dozen Rural Development state directors toured a Portland business, Sustainable Northwest Wood, to learn more about the Oregon project.

Tamra Rooney, director of operations for the business, said juniper sales are growing at 50 percent a year and will approach $500,000 in 2014. “We can sell juniper all day long,” she said.

Buyers like juniper for its strength and appearance, and it is naturally rot resistant and doesn’t have to be chemically treated. It’s proving popular as row end posts for organic vineyards, and the Portland Parks Bureau uses juniper posts as well, Rooney said.

“The word is really getting out,” she said.

Increased juniper sales could pay off in unexpected ways for rural producers.

Removing juniper — Oregon alone has an estimated 9 million acres of it — allows native sage and grasses to recover and improves habitat for greater sage grouse, which is up for endangered species consideration in 2015. Hawks and other sage grouse predators perch in western juniper trees, which also suck up prodigious amounts of water — up to 30 gallons a day, by some estimates.

If sage grouse are listed as endangered, it could bring severe grazing restrictions and regulations for western cattle ranchers.

A USDA grant announced in mid-October will pay for Oregon State University and the West Coast Lumber Inspection Bureau to certify juniper’s engineering values. Such certification is required before state agencies such as the Department of Transportation can use juniper posts for signs, guardrails and other uses.

Contributions and spending have increased in three ballot measure campaigns as the Nov. 4 election nears.

The most expensive ballot-measure campaign in Oregon history is now Measure 92, which would require labeling of food containing genetically modified organism sold in Oregon. Combined contributions from supporters and opponents top $23 million; combined spending, close to $19 million, as of Monday.

The previous record was $15 million, $12 million of it from tobacco companies, in a 2007 campaign over a proposed increase in cigarette taxes. Voters defeated the measure, intended to fund an expansion of children’s health services; lawmakers funded the expansion by other means in 2009.

As of Monday, Measure 92 supporters raised $6.7 million and spent $6.4 million. Opponents raised $16.3 million and spent $12.5 million.

Largest donors to the campaign for the measure are Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, $1.15 million, and the Center for Food Safety Action Fund, $1 million. Largest donors to the campaign against it are DuPont Pioneer, $4.5 million, and Monsanto Co., $4.1 million.

Neither of the two other top-spending campaigns are close to those amounts.

For Measure 91, which would legalize marijuana for recreational use and delegate regulation and retail sales to the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, supporters have collected $3.26 million, and opponents $168,532. Supporters have spent $2.1 million; opponents, $125,256.

Largest donors to the campaign for the measure are Drug Policy Action, New York, $1.39 million, and New Approach PAC, Washington, D.C., $850,000. Largest donors to the campaign against it are the Oregon State Sheriffs Association at $145,000, and the Oregon Narcotics Enforcement Association, $20,000.

For Measure 90, which would advance the top two finishers in a primary to the general election regardless of party, supporters have collected and spent $3.8 million; opponents have collected $990,141 and spent $667,412.

Largest donors to the campaign for the measure are Michael Bloomberg, business magnate and former New York City mayor, $1.65 million, and John Arnold, natural-gas trader, $1.75 million, channeled through the Open Primaries political committee.

Largest donors to the campaign against it are the union-backed Defend Oregon, $600,000; Local 503 of Service Employees International Union, $120,000; Oregon Education Association, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and American Federation of Teachers, $50,000 each; Nurses United PAC and United Food and Commercial Workers, $30,000 each. The latter three also gave $1,200 each in noncash contributions.

PORTLAND — Mark Anderson bends at the waist to look closer at the store’s meat display, because that’s where the money is. Look at that behind the glass: lunch meat, sausage, ground this and that. Cordon bleu? They sliced open that chicken breast, stuck some cheese in it and jacked up the price. How hard is that?

Anderson straightens and puts a name to it: value-added processing. That’s what he wants to do with his turkeys, at his farm.

“And what I need to make that happen,” he says a couple days later, “is 1,000 people on my mailing list.”

Anderson, 36, is a big guy bubbling with what he refers to as “five years worth of ideas.” Right now he’s the guy in the big white van who shows up at the back of 11 New Seasons Markets and seven Grand Central Bakery outlets once a week, delivering chicken eggs.

“We’re not city folks, but that’s who we’re selling to,” Anderson says.

He’s not complaining about the 35-mile drive from his farm in St. Paul, Ore., because it gives him a toehold in Portland’s lucrative foodie marketplace. Between them, the businesses buy about 1,200 dozen eggs a week. At New Seasons, Anderson’s Champoeg Farm eggs, labeled “All Natural” and “Pasture Raised,” sell for $6.99 a dozen.

Earlier in October, Anderson sold New Seasons 600 pasture-raised turkeys for the holidays. New Seasons will be able to tell its customers the birds roamed pastures managed in a “graze, rest, grow” rotation, meaning the birds were moved every couple days from spot to spot, kept in wheeled trailers overnight and let out during the day.

Anderson wants customers to learn that from him, as well.

“I want them to come and see where and how their food comes from, and then buy from us,” he says.

A $200,000 grant from the USDA might make that happen. Champoeg Farm was one of nine Oregon grant recipients announced by the agency this summer, part of Value Added Producer Grants to 247 entities that totaled $25 million nationally.

Amy Cavanaugh, Washington, D.C., director of the grants program within the USDA’s Rural Development wing, said the grants run parallel to rising consumer interest in local food. The idea is to help rural entrepreneurs get their products in front of urban buyers.

Cavanaugh acknowledged some might view the USDA grants as a form of picking winners and losers, but said grant applications are reviewed at the state level and get a second look from a pool of independent producers or others with an agricultural background. Money for the grants was included in the Farm Bill, she said, and appeared to have solid support in Congress.

Anderson is building processing space at the farm but said he cannot use grant money for such capital and construction expenses. Instead, he will use the money for marketing, packaging and some payroll expenses.

Anderson grew up in Newberg, Ore., and now lives on the St. Paul farm with his wife, Katy, and their three young daughters. He earned a marketing degree from Oregon State University and worked in that field for several years before turning to farming on property owned by his mother’s family.

In addition to turkeys and chickens, he raises a few cattle, hogs and rabbits. The farm has 50 acres of profitable Marionberries, which Anderson jokingly says finance the rest of the operation.

It’s the prospect of direct turkey sales, however, that gets him going. He believes he can raise and process 500 turkeys on the farm and have customers write the check directly to him.

There’s a “huge” difference in the flavor of pasture-raised birds, even as lunch meat, he says. Having time to explain that to consumers is crucial, and best done on-site, he says.

“Fundamentally, what it’s about is educating consumers to the value of a better product,” he says. “The difference between a garden tomato and a hothouse tomato — that’s what we’re talking about here.”