WOODBURN, Ore. — Personal relationships are important in business circles, but may count for more in agriculture than most enterprises. It’s a small fraternity and sorority, after all, with membership spanning generations. A mis-step or wrong-headed action between farmers can strain relations for years.

That’s one of the reasons North Valley Seeds’ enduring story deserves a nod. The custom seed cleaning business, involving two families, has ridden the ups and downs of the Oregon grass seed industry for nearly 40 years and is positioning itself for more to come.

The business was formed in 1976 chiefly by Frank Buck, and he brought in farmer Paul Kirsch of nearby St. Paul and his brother, John, as part owners in 1980. John Kirsch eventually left farming, and brothers Cam and David Buck bought their father’s half of the business in 2008. They’ve been partners with Paul Kirsch since.

The business initially offered bulk grain storage in addition to seed cleaning, because wheat was strong in the Willamette Valley at the time. So was perennial rye grass, but most of the commercial seed cleaners were in the south end of the valley.

Paul Kirsch, a grass seed grower, saw the business as a form of vertical integration of his farming operations. He found a like-minded grower in Cam Buck, while David Buck, a full-time CPA, stepped in to handle the financial affairs. Chris Mattson, general manager of the seed cleaning facility, has been with the company 15 years.

The company cleans, custom blends, bags and warehouses seed for a cluster of growers.

Kirsch said he and Cam Buck are customers of the business in addition to being owners, but keep their farms separate and pay the same rate as other growers.

“It’s a real professional relationship, I would say,” Kirsch said. “That’s the beauty of being able to pick your partners. We all have our strengths, the three of us. I knew all of us together would be stronger than just me running the business and still farming.”

Kirsch said he and the Bucks understand the temperament of farmers and run the business accordingly.

“You have to prove yourself over time,” he said. “They are your neighbors. You treat their seed like you treat your own seed, and get it to market in a timely fashion.”

Cam Buck seconds that. Being farmers themselves, he said, they know how important it is to growers and seed companies to “keep quality seed moving out of the valley, so everybody gets paid.”

He believes North Valley has been a stable fixture in the industry.

“We’ve been cleaning and handling seed here in the north part of the valley since the late 1970s,” he said.

Roger Beyer, executive director of the Oregon Seed Council, said North Valley’s principals are “stalwarts” of the industry.

“They’ve been doing it a long time and they know what they’re doing,” Beyer said. “They’re good operators.”

Grass seed has largely recovered from the recession and was Oregon’s fifth most valuable crop in 2014 statistics, with sales of $450 million. But like all of the state’s ag sectors, change is afoot.

Some farmers turned to raising tall fescue instead of ryegrass, while others put in crops such as blueberries and hazelnuts. Meanwhile, the farmers’ co-op Wilco shut down its seed cleaning plant in nearby Donald.

Adjusting to the changes, North Valley put in a new line for cleaning tall fescue seed, which must be kept separate from perennial ryegrass. Tall fescue has gained favor for some uses because it is drought tolerant.

“Some of the guys we clean perennial for also grow tall fescue, but they weren’t coming here” for cleaning,” Kirsch said.

Mattson, the general manager, said over the last two seasons North Valley has doubled its receiving capacity and increased bulk storage by a third. Larger pits allow truckers to dump loads more quickly and return to the field.

Helicopter pilots have been cleared to harvest Christmas trees around Salem, Ore., in poor weather, but some still fear the new rules will interfere with timely shipments.

Earlier this year, the Federal Aviation Administration effectively imposed new restrictions on helicopters operating near Salem during times of low visibility.

The agency expanded “Class D” airspace around Salem — in which aircraft are more strictly regulated — from roughly four to eight miles.

Christmas tree farmers feared this would prevent their crop from being harvested during the cloudy, rainy days that are common in autumn, thereby delaying shipments and reducing overall sales.

The FAA has since reconsidered the airspace expansion, and re-proposed increasing it by only about one mile around the Salem airport.

However, that regulatory change will take time and will not be finished in time for this year’s harvest.

To avoid hampering Christmas tree operations, the FAA has approved a “letter of agreement” between the air traffic control tower in Salem and helicopter pilots that will generally allow harvest to continue even during low visibility.

Under the agreement, multiple helicopters can fly within the Class D airspace in such conditions as long as they stay below 400 feet and remain in frequent contact with the control tower.

When a plane flying on instruments approaches or leaves the airport, helicopters that pose a potential for collision must land.

The arrangement basically delegates authority over helicopters to the Salem tower from the FAA’s control center in Seattle, which wouldn’t have time to deal with such small aircraft in low visibility conditions, said Mitch Swecker, director of the Oregon Department of Aviation.

However, the rules can still be problematic for Christmas tree farmers if multiple airplanes take off or land at the Salem airport during poor weather, he said.

“It is not ideal. There will always be hiccups for the ag operators, but the FAA and the tower have tried to make it as painless as possible,” Swecker said.

The requirement that helicopter pilots regularly speak with the Salem control tower is troublesome in hilly areas where radio communications are spotty, said Patrick Hall, a helicopter pilot who is harvesting trees for BTN of Oregon, a grower near Salem.

“A lot of the airspace covers areas where you can’t contact the control tower by radio,” he said.

Hall said he’d prefer more relaxed requirements in exchange for restricting the allowable flight ceiling to 100 feet, down from the current 400 feet.

“It doesn’t need to be that much,” he said. “We’re essentially working at the level of tree tops.”

Ben Stone, whose family owns BTN of Oregon, said he’s still concerned about missing shipping windows despite the letter of agreement.

Trucks arrive at the farm ready to pick up trees and drive them to buyers, so even relatively short delays can be disruptive, Stone said.

“If we can’t get them out of the field, there’s no way we can get them on a truck,” he said.

Nonetheless, the situation would be much worse without the letter of agreement, since helicopter operations in the Class D airspace would essentially be shut down during poor visibility, said Tim Raugust, owner of Chehalem Helicopters.

So far, the company has pre-arranged where and when it will be harvesting trees with the Salem control tower, without any holdups in operations, he said. “For us, it hasn’t bothered us.”

Severely diminished container service at the Port of Portland hasn’t yet irreversibly changed shipping strategies, but that pattern won’t hold forever, according to a freight expert.

Importers and exporters largely hope that ocean carriers will eventually return to the port’s container terminal after Hanjin and Hapag-Lloyd pulled out earlier this year, eliminating almost all container service, said Dan Smith, principal of the Tioga Group transportation consultancy firm.

So far, those hopes have prevented shippers from closing distribution centers or making other changes unlikely to be reversed if ocean carrier service returned to the container terminal, Smith said during a Nov. 17 legislative hearing in Salem.

Hanjin and Hapag-Lloyd, which represented more than 90 percent of container traffic at the port, said their decision was based on low productivity, which the container terminal operator — ICTSI Oregon — blamed on work slowdowns by the longshoremen’s union.

The International Longshore and Warehouse Union, on the other hand, faulted inadequate equipment and safety practices as the cause of slowed container movements.

A broader labor contract dispute between ILWU and terminal operators aggravated the situation, with West Coast slowdowns occurring in late 2014 and early 2015 before the issue was settled earlier this year.

Companies that buy from importers and exporters are now using the unpredictability caused by the slowdowns as a negotiating lever, which may lead to some distribution centers becoming uneconomical — thus prompting shippers to close them and divert traffic to other areas, said Smith of Tioga Group.

“We are getting closer to a cliff,” he said.

For now, though, shippers are “coping” by using trucks and trains to send goods to ports in Seattle and Tacoma, Smith said.

Bill Wyatt, executive director of the Port of Portland, said the longshoremen’s union, ICTSI Oregon and the port are still engaged in litigation but they’re also in “significant conversations” and he’s more optimistic about a resolution than six to eight months ago.

Ocean carriers are looking for a signal from ILWU that they’re “welcome to return” to Portland, at which point they’re likely to renew container service at the port, Wyatt said.

While the Port of Portland’s container terminal doesn’t generate large revenues, it was a profitable niche for Hanjin — a major trans-Pacific carrier — until the work slowdowns began, he said. “It is a lucrative market for the right carrier.”

Until container service is restored to Portland, it’s possible that agricultural shippers in Eastern Oregon and Idaho will be helped by reconfiguring the transport of goods from Lewiston, Idaho.

When the container terminal was fully operational, barges moved product from Lewiston to Portland for loading onto ocean liners, but that service has now fallen apart, Wyatt said.

The problem may be mitigated by transloading goods sent on barges from Lewiston onto trains in Boardman, Ore., for shipment to Tacoma, he said.

During the legislative hearing, the possibility of expanding Oregon ports in Coos Bay or Newport to accommodate containers was discussed, but Wyatt said this wasn’t a realistic alternative due to huge investment involved.

“The likelihood of developing another container service in Oregon is unlikely because the capital cost is immense,” he said.

A research team, part of the state’s response to the Hanjin container shipping company ending its calls at Portland this year, last week presented six recommendations during a meeting of stakeholders in Wilsonville.

The initiatives are the result of an effort involving Business Oregon, the Port of Portland, the state departments of agriculture and transportation, and multiple producers and shippers. The recommendations include:

• Establishing a port trucker information system to consolidate and streamline the flow of traffic.

• Truck driver training to expand the pool of available drivers.

• Build satellite container yards to speed up the drop-off, pickup process.

• Expand cold storage facilities for imports, which could make more refrigerated containers available for Oregon exporters.

• New rail intermodal yards to add flexibility to rail and truck container traffic.

• Monitor Columbia River rail and barge service linking Lewiston, Wash., and Boardman, Ore., and be prepared to provide additional public financial support as it expands.

About 19 percent of export containers shipped out of the Pacific Northwest carry agricultural products, according to the port. Rerouting containers to the Seattle area from Portland increases the shipping cost by $500 to $1,000 per container, according to a trade and logistics fact sheet prepared for state officials.

“The loudest screams are not about added cost, but about goods that are not moving,” said Dan Smith of the Tioga Group Inc., a California consulting company hired to assess the situation. “If they don’t move the goods, they’re not in business.”

Reporter Eric Mortenson contributed to this report.

Oregon wildlife officials confirmed a calf found Nov. 11 with bite wounds on its hind legs was attacked by wolves.

The attack happened on a public land grazing allotment in Wallowa County, in Northeast Oregon where most of the state’s wolf packs live. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife officials investigated and the calf was examined by a veterinarian as well. A rancher found the injured calf.

Numerous wolf and calf tracks and blood were found over a half-mile area where the attack occurred, according to an ODFW report.

Information gathered from tracking collars showed Imnaha pack wolves were 1.5 miles south of the attack area on Nov. 9. The examining vet estimated the attack happened Nov. 10. The pack was blamed for another livestock attack about 10 miles away on Oct. 27.

A science panel has recommended Oregon and Washington spray more than 18,000 acres to combat Asian gypsy moths, seen as a major threat to the timber, nursery and Christmas tree industries.

The states’ agriculture departments are reviewing the recommendations and haven’t announced their plans. In the past, both states have taken a hard-line against gypsy moths and sprayed insecticides from the air, even in the face of urban protests and court challenges.

The panel, made up mostly of U.S. Department of Agriculture officials and academic advisers, has recommended aerial spraying 8,641 acres in north Portland in response to two Asian gypsy moths trapped last summer near the port.

The area includes the St. Johns neighborhood and Forest Park, the largest city park in the U.S. and almost seven times as large as New York’s Central Park, in Portland.

“If it got established in that park it would really be a problem,” Oregon Department of Agriculture spokesman Bruce Pokarney said.

Both states have routinely battled European gypsy moths, which are established in 19 Eastern and Midwest states and annually defoliate thousands of acres, according to USDA. Media reports often focus on the insect in caterpillar form littering picnic tables and cars, and dropping on people.

The science panel was convened in response to the trapping in Oregon and Washington of Asian gypsy moths, rarer and more dangerous than their European counterparts. Asian gypsy moths feast on a wider variety of plants and are more mobile.

Until trapping 10 this summer, WSDA had not caught an Asian gypsy moth since 1999.

The two caught near the Port of Portland were the first found in Oregon since 2006.

In response to Asian gypsy moths caught in Washington, the science panel recommended spaying 6,979 acres near the Port of Tacoma, 1,280 acres in Nisqually, 807 acres near the Port of Vancouver and 640 acres in Kent.

Agencies spray for gypsy moths in the spring as eggs hatch and caterpillars emerge. An area is typically sprayed three times over about two weeks with Bacillus thirgiensis var. kurstaki, commonly referred to as Btk and sold under the name Foray.

Besides the 10 Asian gypsy moths, WSDA trapped 32 European gypsy moths, the most since 2006. Some 22 were caught in the densely populated Seattle neighborhood Capitol Hill. The science panel recommended spaying more than the 28 acres tentatively planned by WSDA.

WSDA spokesman Hector Castro said the agency has not decided whether to revise its plans.

Oregon trapped 12 European gypsy moths, mostly near Grants Pass in Southern Oregon. ODA hasn’t decided how it will respond to those gypsy moths, Pokarney said.

WSDA has asked Gov. Jay Inslee to include $5.3 million in his supplemental budget proposal to the 2016 Legislature for a two-year campaign against Asian gypsy months. The governor’s office is evaluating spending requests from all state agencies and has not made any funding decisions, an Office of Financial Management spokesman said.

WSDA hopes most of the money actually will come from the federal government. A USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service spokeswoman said the agency will work with the states on a response, but has not made a proposal.

Flowering rush, an aquatic weed that clogs irrigation canals, has spread to multiple new sites near McNary Dam along the Columbia River since its discovery in the area last year.

Meanwhile, the federal government must again clear environmental regulatory hurdles before removing new patches of flowering rush found growing below the dam, which is under the jurisdiction of a different regional office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

“Because we’re part of the federal government, we have to follow federal laws and regulations,” said Diana Fredlund, spokesperson for the Army Corps’ Portland District.

Flowering rush was first found growing on the Oregon side of the Columbia River in August 2014, with surveys eventually locating 15 sites near McNary Dam.

That portion of the river is governed by the Walla Walla District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which had to obtain approval under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Archeological Resources Protection Act to remove the weed with diver-assisted suction hoses.

“This should be straightforward. We’re just going in and by hand removing some small sites,” said Tim Butler, Oregon Department of Agriculture’s noxious weed program manager.

By the time the agency cleared those hurdles and scheduled a dive team to yank the flowering rush patches in August 2015, the weed had expanded to 45 total sites in the area.

While divers were able to treat 39 of those sites, six of them were growing on the Columbia River below McNary Dam, which means they come under the purview of the Army Corps’ Portland District, said Mark Porter, an integrated weed management coordinator for ODA.

For that reason, the process of obtaining clearance under NEPA, ESA and ARPA must now be repeated by the agency’s Portland office, which is unlikely to occur in time for the patches to be removed before next year, he said.

The agency expects that the regulatory processes will be completed over winter, when the plants disappear below the water line, so they can be covered with mats or removed when they re-emerge next spring, said Fredlund.

“We do want it to keep it from becoming a bigger problem,” she said.

The Army Corps’ Walla Walla District can continue removing the weed without re-clearing regulatory barriers, and its experience is expected to speed up the Portland District’s compliance with those statutes, said Damian Walter, wildlife biologist for the agency.

Apart from sites on the Columbia River, there’s a large population of flowering rush upriver on the Yakima River in Washington, which state regulators are attempting to control, he said.

“There is a constant source currently in the system,” Walter said. “We’ve got to address the source of it.”

As part of long-term plans to battle flowering rush, Washington State University is studying predatory beetles in Central Europe that feed on the weed’s roots in that region, limiting its spread.

The weed poses a serious threat if it’s able to enter irrigation systems along the Columbia River or its tributaries, said Porter. Flowering rush grows so thickly that it greatly slows the movement of water and changes aquatic ecosystems.

“This plant seems to be a very aggressive aquatic invader. This isn’t just another weed,” he said. “it has the big potential to do some harm.”

ONTARIO, Ore. — Idaho and Oregon onion growers say they can live with the water quality provisions included in the FDA’s final produce safety rule, which was released Nov. 13.

Two years ago, they were worried the proposed water quality provisions in FDA’s originally proposed produced rule could put them out of business. But industry officials said the FDA heard their concerns and re-wrote the rule in a way that onion growers are OK with.

To go from a rule that would have seriously impacted the economics of the onion industry “to a rule that’s livable for us and allows us to stay in business is a huge victory,” said Kay Riley, chairman of the Idaho-Eastern Oregon Onion Committee.

When FDA first proposed its produce safety rule in 2013, it included water quality standards limiting how much generic E. coli bacteria could be present in agricultural water.

If the water didn’t meet those standards, farmers had to immediately stop using it. Virtually none of the surface water used by onion growers in Eastern Oregon and Southwestern Idaho meets those standards.

The water quality standards still exist in the final rule.

But FDA altered them to allow growers to meet the standards, even if their water exceeds the minimum bacteria levels, if they can show through scientific evidence that bacteria dies off at a certain rate from the last day of irrigation until harvest.

The bulb onions grown in this region are left in the field to dry for a few weeks following harvest. Field trials by Oregon State University researchers have shown these onions will meet the so-called die-off provisions.

“The thing that’s great about it is they actually listened to us,” Riley said. “I would deem it a tremendous victory compared to what it could have been.”

But the final rule still requires farmers to test their water annually, even if they meet the die-off provisions. Onion growers say the testing will be costly and time-consuming and they hope to be able to skip them.

“They are still going to require testing and that’s going to be the hardest thing to deal with,” said Stuart Reitz, an OSU cropping systems extension agent in Ontario. “The final rule is not ideal but it’s not that bad. It’s one onion growers can live with.”

Reitz said the industry is working with FDA to see if it’s possible an entity such as an irrigation district could conduct water quality tests in canals and have the results apply to a large group of farmers.

“That would get each individual farm out from having to do the testing themselves,” he said. “We really need to get some more details from FDA on what type of format that would potentially be.”

According to the FDA rule, farmers may use data collected by a third party, such as an irrigation district, but the “testing data may only be shared if there is no reasonably identifiable source of likely microbiological contamination between the sampling sites and the farms involved.”

A Baker City, Ore., man who told state police and wildlife officials that he’d shot a wolf while hunting coyotes on private property has been charged with killing an endangered species.

Brennon D. Witty, 25, also was charged with hunting with a centerfire rifle without a big game tag, Harney County District Attorney Tim Colahan said Monday. Both charges are Class A misdemeanors, each punishable by up to a year in jail and a $6,250 fine. Witty will be arraigned Dec. 2 in Grant County Justice Court, Canyon City.

The shooting happened in Grant County; the neighboring Harney County DA handled it as a courtesy because his Grant County counterpart was acquainted with the hunter’s family and wanted to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.

The incident happened Oct. 6, when Witty voluntarily notified ODFW and Oregon State Police that he’d shot a wolf while hunting coyotes on private property south of Prairie City. Police recovered a wolf’s body on the property.

Oregon’s action to remove wolves from the state endangered species list has no apparent bearing on the case. Wolves were listed under the state Endangered Species Act at the time of the shooting; the ODFW Commission on Nov. 9 removed wolves from the state list. Regardless, they remained on the federal endangered species list in the western two-thirds of the state.

The wolf was identified as OR-22, a male that has worn a GPS tracking collar since October 2013 and dispersed from the Umatilla Pack in February 2015. He was in Malheur County for awhile, then traveled into Grant County. Wildlife biologists don’t believe he had a mate of pups. Young or sub-dominant wolves often leave their home packs to establish their own territory and find mates.

OR-22 was the third Oregon wolf known to have died since August, when the Sled Springs pair in Northeast Oregon were found dead of unknown cause. The state now has a minimum of 82 wolves.

SPOKANE — The Pacific Northwest agencies representing grain farmers will unite to take a proactive approach against what they say is misinformation about the value of dams.

The Idaho Wheat Commission, Oregon Wheat Commission and Washington Grain Commission made the decision Nov. 11 in Spokane during a tri-state commission meeting.

Kristin Meira, executive director of the Pacific Northwest Waterways Association, outlined recent efforts by groups to revive arguments in favor of removing dams on the Snake River.

The outdoor clothing design company Patagonia is the reason the argument recently resurfaced, Meira said. The company’s founder and CEO is in favor of dam breaching and produced a documentary, “Dam Nation,” that’s “filled with inaccuracies,” Meira said. Protest flotillas in Seattle, Portland and the Lower Granite Dam near Lewiston, Idaho were assisted by funding from Patagonia, Meira said.

The groups’ arguments include the claim that removal of the dams will help save orcas in the Puget Sound, Meira said. Orcas eat large Chinook salmon from the Columbia-Snake river system.

“Then they make the leap to, ‘If we just breach the four Snake River dams, they’ll have a lot more Chinook to eat,” Meira said. “The problem with that argument is, the reason the orca populations were decimated 40 to 50 years ago is because until the mid-1970s, people were out there rounding up the orcas in nets and hauling them away to Sea Worlds around the country.”

Orca populations have been slowly increasing since the 1970s.

There are also more fish in the river system than before Bonneville Dam was constructed in the 1930s, Meira said, citing information from the Bonneville Power Administration and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Snake River system averages a juvenile fish survival rate of 97 percent as they move through the dam.

“We’re approaching levels that they’re not even achieving in undammed rivers,” Meira said. “This is the latest, very extreme argument (opponents) have tried to put forth. To argue this is the time we should be talking about dam breaching is a really hollow cry.”

Roughly 10 percent of U.S. wheat exports go through the Snake River dams, Meira said. Farmers need to speak out about the importance of the system to their operations, she said. The waterways association maintains a website to combat misinformation.

The dam-breaching groups are speaking to universities and reaching out to professors to back up their message, Meira said.

“They have found they have not been successful in the courts or in Congress,” Meira said. “All you have left is the press and going to colleges and doing flotillas and things like that.”

Blaine Jacobson, executive director of the Idaho Wheat Commission, said the industry needs to take a proactive approach against the protestors’ messages.

“We’ve got a great story, and it’s not getting out there,” Jacobson said. “The concern we have is that we’re playing defense. They’re setting the agenda instead of the people who really matter setting the agenda.”

The three commissions will discuss further action at their respective meetings.

BOISE — Researchers with the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality and Oregon State University say analyzing insect populations is often the best way to assess water quality, and the data can create opportunities for agricultural land owners.

IDEQ regional water quality manager Lynn Van Every served on a committee that recently published an updated technical document to help guide the department’s water-quality analysis of Idaho waterways, based on aquatic invertebrates.

Van Every explained the department assessed roughly 100 stream reaches known to be healthy for a picture of fully functioning waterways and will use the document to compare insect life within water bodies statewide. While water samples provide a snapshot of water quality, insects offer a long-term look at health.

The new publication is the third revision of the technical document analyzing aquatic invertebrate populations. The original version was released in the late 1990s. Van Every said the document will undergo a public comment period and should be available for use some time next year.

“It’s directly associated with implementing best-management practices to address streams that are impaired,” Van Every said.

Implementation of projects aimed at improving water quality are voluntary for farmers and ranchers. Van Every said IDEQ often works with USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service or local soil and water conservation districts to design and implement cooperative, incentivized water-quality projects on agricultural land, such as buffer strips along field edges by streams, cattle fencing or off-site watering.

Van Every said IDEQ is in the midst of analyzing how aquatic life in Pebble Creek — which flows through agricultural land near Lava Hot Springs — has responded to a recent restoration of original channels.

OSU researchers Sandra DeBano and Dave Wooster have extensively studied agricultural buffers and their affects on aquatic invertebrates.

Generally, Wooster said, healthy streams are rich in desirable aquatic insects such as caddisflies, mayflies and stoneflies. The absences of those insects, and often the presence of midges or segmented worms, bodes ill for stream health, he said.

The OSU researchers’ positions were created about 15 years ago, when Eastern Oregon farmers were concerned about potential farm buffer zone requirements, similar to those in place along streams in Western Oregon forest land, to protect salmon. They’ve found the length of buffer zones they studied in Eastern Oregon is more important to water quality than width. Furthermore, data collected in 2012 and 2013 from Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program buffers along Eastern Oregon wheat fields shows the width of buffers is more critical than the type of vegetation. The data, which is still being analyzed and awaits publication, finds little difference in water quality between grass or forested buffers.

“If you have limited money and limited land, probably the most important thing to do is focus on having a continuous buffer, regardless of width,” DeBano said. “And if you have more money or time, then you may focus more on increasing width.”

The researchers also used aquatic insects to assess streams for the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and they’re partnering with the tribes to assess the effectiveness of a recent restoration project, removing cattle ponds on camp creek near Enterprise, Ore.

They weren’t on the agenda when the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Commission voted Nov. 9 to take wolves off the state’s endangered species list, but Oregon’s elk and deer population likely will be key factors in wolf management decisions in the years ahead.

Mark Henjum, a retired wildlife biologist who was ODFW’s original wolf program coordinator, said healthy deer and elk populations are a buffer between livestock and the state’s increasing number of predators.

Oregon has 25,000 to 30,000 black bears, an estimated 6,200 cougars and a minimum of 82 wolves, according to ODFW.

Biologists fully expect the state’s wolf population to continue growing. Wolves occupy only 12 percent of their potential range in the state, and continued dispersal from Northeast Oregon will put them in contact with elk and deer and possibly in competition with other predators. Bear and cougar are much more widely dispersed in the state.

Sharp, localized drops in ungulate prey, as deer and elk are known, could drive predators to attack sheep, cattle or other domestic animals, Henjum and other biologists say.

Bears are primarily omnivorous but will take young deer and elk, especially in the spring. Cougars, meanwhile, are solitary ambush hunters and can take just about any animal at will, Henjum said. “They’re amazingly good at what they do,” he said.

Wolves travel in packs and chase down prey. They can kill solitary adult cougars, or females and kittens, and chase cougars off carcasses. Pressure from wolves can force cougars into steeper, brushier terrain. The competition for ungulate prey could produce a bad turn for livestock.

Biologists say wolves prefer elk, but attacks on livestock are what anger cattle and sheep producers and gain media attention. From 2009 through June 2015, Oregon’s confirmed losses to wolves stood at 79 sheep, 37 cattle, two goats and two herd protection dogs. Ranchers believe wolves are responsible for much more damage, saying livestock often disappear in wolf country. In addition, many livestock attacks are written off as “probable” or “possible” wolf depredations.

“This buffer thing is one of the main reasons we haven’t seen so high a rate of loss of livestock,” Henjum said. “I think down the road, trying to maintain the ungulate populations is something that‘s going to be more important as we move on.”

Although wolves were taken off the state endangered species list, their existence in Oregon is still governed by a wolf management plan. Hunting and trapping are not allowed, and there’s no sport season for wolves. The plan does allow “controlled take” of wolves in cases of chronic livestock attacks or decreases in prey.

Phase 3 of the wolf plan, the next step after delisting, calls for wolves to be managed “in concert with its wild prey base,” a move strongly supported by groups such as the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. “Oregon’s wolf population is rapidly approaching the point where human tolerance and unacceptable impacts upon the wolf’s deer and elk prey base must be addressed,” the foundation said in a letter to the ODFW Commission.

Jerome Rosa, executive director of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, said his organization’s members report seeing fewer deer and elk in some areas, and more in others.

What’s ahead for wolves might be found in Oregon’s cougar management plan, which allows for targeted killings to address problems. In October, the ODFW Commission authorized killing 95 cougars in four wildlife management units during 2016. One area was chosen because of human, livestock and pet safety concerns, and three were selected to help mule deer recover. The kills, to be done by ODFW employees, federal wildlife service agents, or contractors, are in addition to whatever other cougar deaths occur.

A controversial proposal to expand a landfill on farmland in Oregon’s Yamhill County has been dealt a setback due to an adverse land use ruling.

Oregon’s Land Use Board of Appeals found that, in approving the proposal, the county government improperly shifted the burden to farmers to prove they’d be harmed by the 29-acre expansion.

Due to this error, LUBA has now sent the approval decision back to Yamhill County for reconsideration.

Under Oregon law, certain non-farm uses such as landfills can only be approved if they don’t “force a significant change” in farm practices on surrounding farmland.

In this case, LUBA found that the county incorrectly discounted evidence of harm from the Riverbend landfill on properties beyond one mile from the facility.

The county also erred by disregarding evidence of bird damage because the farmers didn’t quantify the amount of destruction, LUBA said.

It’s up to landfill’s owner — Waste Management — to prove the harm isn’t significant, but the county didn’t fault the company for not quantifying the extent of damage from birds attracted to the facility, the ruling said.

Similarly, LUBA said the county insufficiently considered the impacts of wind carrying plastic bags and other trash from the landfill onto nearby fields, complicating hay baling.

The county also should have considered the negative effects of noise on a nearby pheasant farm as well as “odor and visual impacts” on farm stands and other direct marketing operations, LUBA said.

Ramsey McPhillips, a landowner and longtime opponent of the landfill, said the LUBA decision is a victory because Oregon’s environmental regulators can’t permit the expansion until Yamhill County revises its findings or the ruling is reversed on appeal.

It will be difficult for the county’s commissioners to again ignore evidence of harm to farmers, but if they do, opponents will again challenge the approval, he said.

“We’re not going to give up. We’re going to just keep going and going and going,” McPhillips said.

The best case scenario for opponents would be if Yamhill County turned down the expansion proposal, especially since the legal controversy is prompting landfill customers to examine other dumping options, he said.

“The tide has turned more in that direction,” he said.

Waste Management noted that LUBA rejected most of the “assignments of error” alleged by the opponents, which “shows we are on the right track,” said Jackie Lang, senior communications manager for the company, in an email.

The finding on farm impacts indicates LUBA want more information, but Waste Management hasn’t yet decided whether to appeal that aspect of the ruling, she said.

“We are reviewing the decision now to understand the full intent and determine our next steps,” Lang said. “There have been many steps to this process over the last seven years. We are continue to look forward and take it one step at a time.”

Tim Sadlo, the county’s general counsel, said the commissioners have until Dec. 1 to decide whether to challenge LUBA’s ruling before the Oregon Court of Appeals, but such an outcome isn’t likely.

The ruling held that Yamhill County did not misconstrue land use law by allowing a landfill in a farm zone, which a major point in favor of the county, Sadlo said.

As for the county’s analysis of farm impacts, “that’s the kind of thing that can usually be cured on a remand,” he said.

Sisters, Ore. — A key part of Marc Thalacker’s original job description was drying up the stream from which his irrigation district drew water.

Entirely drying up Whychus Creek in summer ensured growers within the Three Sisters Irrigation District got as much water as possible, but by the late 1990s, it was clear the practice was bound to come under regulatory scrutiny, said Thalacker, the district’s manager.

Steelhead and bull trout were gaining federal protections as threatened species, and it appeared likely the district would face problems under the Endangered Species Act, he said.

“Why wait for the regulatory hammer when you can get out in front of it?” Thalacker said.

At the same time, the irrigation system was inefficient: Of the 35,000 acre feet of water diverted by the district, only 17,000 acre feet were delivered to farmers, he said. “The rest would seep into the ground through our leaky canals.”

Since then, the district has replaced 50 miles of its 63 miles of canals with high-density plastic pipes. When the system is fully piped in about five years, the rate of water loss will fall to 10 percent, down from more than 50 percent with canals.

Farmers are now able to get more water while diverting less from the creek.

Piping provides additional benefits: The irrigation system is pressurized by gravity, which allows farmers to stop pumping and thus save electricity. Last year, the district also installed a hydropower turbine that generates more than 3 million kilowatt hours a year, or enough to power 75 homes.

Money generated from selling electricity will help pay off loans taken out for the piping project. Meanwhile, the district plans to install four smaller turbines next year as part of a demonstration project for growers and invest in a second large turbine by 2020.

While the $2 million cost of the first turbine was heavily subsidized with grants from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the Energy Trust of Oregon, a non-profit funded by state ratepayers, Thalacker expects such projects will one day pencil out financially on their own.

As Pacificorp and other major power utilities reduce their reliance on coal burning over the next decade, electricity rates are expected to rise and make such renewable energy projects economically feasible, he said.

“When we’re burning a lot less coal, this will make a lot more sense,” Thalacker said.

Three Sisters Irrigation District is one of seven districts in Oregon that have retrofit their systems to generate hydropower, and another six are examining the possibility as part of broader modernization efforts, said Jed Jorgensen, renewable energy program coordinator at the Energy Trust of Oregon non-profit.

“It is an idea that is just starting to take off,” Jorgensen said.

Hydropower turbines are often associated with piping projects, particularly when a system doesn’t have a sudden drop in elevation — in such cases, pipes are necessary to build enough pressure to power the turbine, he said. For a hydropower turbine to make sense, there has to be enough spare pressure in a system beyond what farmers need to eliminate pumps.

“You don’t want hydropower to be in conflict with how farmers get their water,” Jorgensen said.

Energy Trust of Oregon funds such hydropower retrofits that are on the verge of being financially viable but can’t quite make it on their own, he said.

Even when the revenues from hydropower alone may not make a project attractive enough, districts and ditch companies are drawn to other advantages of irrigation modernization, such as reduced electricity use from pressurization, decreased costs for upkeeping canals and fewer environmental headaches, Jorgensen said.

“That water savings is worth a lot of money and is a tremendous environmental benefit,” he said.

Aside from economic factors, the technology is more accessible because recent legislation has removed regulatory barriers to installing hydropower turbines, said Dan Keppen, executive director of the Family Farm Alliance, a group that advocates for irrigators.

In 2013, two bills — House Resolutions 267 and 678 — were passed into law, which streamlined the federal government’s approval of small hydropower facilities, Keppen said.

Previously, hydropower retrofits were lumped in with larger projects even though they modified existing irrigation systems and had no environmental impact, he said.

The time and expense of obtaining permitting was often greater than building the project itself, but now many of these impediments have been removed, Keppen said.

Irrigation systems across the West are often reliant on gravity, with water being pulled from behind a dam or distributed by flowing from higher to lower elevations, so they’re already designed to accommodate hydropower, he said.

“You’re going to have Mother Nature on your side,” Keppen said.

NAMPA, Idaho (AP) — Land management officials say they have begun reseeding the giant burned area along the Idaho-Oregon border where a wildfire scorched valuable sage grouse habitat and grasslands needed by ranchers.

KIVI-TV reports that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management has started drilling grass, forbs and shrub seeds into the ground. The agency plans on dispersing 2.4 million pounds of seed.

Cindy Fritz, a natural resource specialist for the BLM, says that reseeding will help reduce the spread of invasive grass species. However, she added that it will take at least 15 years for the area to return to normal.

The fire earlier this summer charred a 443-square-mile area, often fueled by invasive cheatgrass and burning up to 125 square miles in a day. It easily leapt fire lines put down by retardant bombers.

SALEM – After nearly 11 hours of emotional testimony, back and forth discussion and two timeouts for legal advice from a state attorney, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Commission voted 4-2 Monday to take gray wolves off the state endangered species list.

In making the decision, commission members agreed with an ODFW staff appraisal that the state’s wolves have expanded in number and range to the point that they no longer need protection under the state Endangered Species Act.

Oregon’s wolves remain covered under the federal ESA in the western two-thirds of the state, and ODFW officials say the state wolf management plan remains in effect and will protect wolves from illegal hunting.

The decision doesn’t close the book on Oregon’s work to manage wolves. Some commission members made it clear they preferred to delist wolves only in the eastern third of the state, where most of Oregon’s 82 confirmed wolves live, but were prevented from doing so by language in the state law.

Meanwhile, conservation groups are expected to file a lawsuit over the commission’s decision.

“I think that’s very likely,” said Amaroq Weiss of the Center for Biological Diversity. “I think they’re in violation of the law. They didn’t pay attention to the science.”

Conservation groups believe Oregon’s wolf population is too small and too fragile to delist, and is present in only 12 percent of its potential territory.

“There’s no other species we would delist when it’s absent from almost 90 percent of its habitat,” Weiss said.

Oregon’s ranchers, who had urged the ODFW commission to follow the guidelines of the wolf plan and the recommendations of the department’s biologists, cheered the decision.

“I’m relieved,” said Todd Nash, wolf committee chairman for the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association. “This sends a message to cattle producers that the ODFW Commission will stand by its commitment.”

Nash said ranchers would not have supported a partial delisting.

“When we were paying the price (of livestock attacks) in Eastern Oregon, we fully believed we were doing it for the whole state,” Nash said. “And we were proud to do it.”

More than 150 people packed the ODFW hearing room and 106 signed up to testify. Activists opposed to delisting wolves, many of them wearing matching orange T-shirts, made up a majority of the audience. A sprinkling of men in cowboy hats – Eastern Oregon cattle ranchers who have borne the stress and cost of wolf attacks on livestock – clustered on one side of the hearing room.

The testimony echoed the arguments that have been made since Oregon’s wolf population reached the number of breeding pairs that trigger consideration of delisting under the management plan.

Conservation groups and their allied argue that the state’s biological status report on wolves was flawed and should have been peer-reviewed by other scientists. ODFW staff belatedly circulated the report to biologists they knew, but conservationists said that was insufficient.

“If this commission chooses to delist it will make a very sad and powerful statement about who and what it serves,” said Jonathan Jelen, development director for the conservation group Oregon Wild.

Livestock producers, however, argued they’d followed the wolf plan in good faith and expected the ODFW Commission to to the same.

“Oregon ranchers honored their obligation to follow the plan,” said Jerome Rosa, executive director of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association. “This is one of the reasons wolves multiplied in our state.”

SALEM — A packed meeting room is expected today as the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Commission decides whether to remove gray wolves from the state’s endangered species law.

Livestock producers strongly favor the idea and conservation groups are just as deeply opposed, and a full day of emotional, conflicting testimony is likely. The wolf delisting is the only item on the commission’s agenda.

State wildlife biologists recommend delisting wolves. Under the state’s wolf recovery plan, the commission can take wolves off the endangered list if they determine:

Wolves aren’t in danger of extinction in any portion of their range; their natural reproductive potential is not in danger of failing; there’s no imminent or active deterioration of their range or primary habitat; the species or its habitat won’t be “over-utilized” for scientific, recreational, commercial or educational reasons; and existing state or federal regulations are adequate to protect them.

Conservation groups aligned as the Pacific Wolf Coalition have described the staff recommendation as flawed. They believe state law requires that the study be peer reviewed by other scientists. The coalition includes Oregon Wild, Cascadia Wildlands and the Center for Biological Diversity.

If the ODFW commission agrees with the staff recommendation, it would mean wolves in the eastern third of the state are not protected under either state or federal endangered species laws. Federal ESA protection would still be in force in Oregon west of Highways 395, 78 and 95.

Delisting wouldn’t mean open season on wolves in Eastern Oregon, however. The state wolf plan would remain in force, and it allows ODFW-approved “controlled take,” or killing, of wolves in cases of chronic livestock attacks or if wolves cause a decline in prey populations, chiefly elk and deer. Ranchers, as they can now, would be able to shoot wolves caught in the act of attacking livestock or herd dogs. None have been killed in that manner.

Oregon’s wolf plan does not allow sport hunting of wolves in any phase of the recovery timeline, department spokeswoman Michelle Dennehy said.

Oregon has 82 confirmed wolves. The number stood at 85 in July, but the Sled Springs pair was found dead of unknown cause in Wallowa County, and a man hunting coyotes shot a lone wolf, OR-22, in Grant County. ODFW’s wolf program coordinator, Russ Morgan, estimates Oregon has 90 to 100 wolves and said the population might reach 150 within three years.

Paul Hughes jokes that he hasn’t caused an accident on the road yet. So far, so good, when you’re accustomed to driving on the left in Great Britain and have to adjust to American traffic patterns.

When it comes to making whiskey, vodka and other distilled spirits, however, Hughes will be happy to share his way of doing things.

Hughes, a chemist who spent the past 10 years teaching at a university in Scotland, has been hired as a researcher and instructor at Oregon State University’s Fermentation Center. The program teaches students how to make wine, beer and cheese, and is branching out into the fast-growing distilled spirits industry.

According to OSU, distilled spirits made in Oregon now account for $69 million in gross annual sales, nearly 13 percent of the state’s liquor revenue. Oregon has close to 80 distilleries, up from 12 eight years ago, said Christie Scott, spokeswoman for the Oregon Liquor Control Commission.

Hughes said one of his priorities is to meet with distillers and establish good relations with the industry.

Hughes also is setting up the first distilling course, which will be offered in January.

“There’s a lot of commonality around the fermenting techniques used in brewing, wine-making and distilled spirits production,” he said in an OSU news release. “But distilling requires additional steps. So there will be a need for additional courses about those techniques.”

Hughes most recently taught and did research at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh, Scotland,

At OSU, the fermentation sciences program is part of the Food Science and Technology department.

The Oregon Legislature provided money for the distilled spirits position on campus.

PORTLAND — Visiting this foodie city to promote her book and to learn about food system changes, Chelsea Clinton, the daughter of one president and potentially a second, declined to delve into her mom’s ideas on agriculture.

Clinton, daughter of Bill Clinton, the 42nd U.S. president and Hillary Rodham Clinton, who seeks the 2016 Democratic Party’s nomination, suggested people visit her mother’s website for her views on agriculture. Hillary Clinton, the former senator and Secretary of State, has been spending time in Iowa, a key primary state and where farming is “hugely important,” Chelsea Clinton noted.

She said her mother helped start a micro-financing program in Arkansas when Bill Clinton was governor, and the first clients were small farmers.

Chelsea Clinton didn’t mention it, but her mother has another agricultural connection in Iowa. In August, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, a former Iowa governor, endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination. Vilsack has been mentioned as a possible vice president pick, but downplayed that during a visit to Portland in August. Vilsack said he simply believed Clinton is the best candidate.

The younger Clinton, who spent her teenage years in the White House, is 35 now, married and has a 13-month-old daughter. It was while pregnant that she became more acutely aware of the world her daughter and other children will inherit.

Clinton said proper nutrition and exercise are crucial for young people.

“When I was in public school in Little Rock (Arkansas), we had P.E. every single day,” Clinton said. Now, fewer than 10 percent of school children have gym every day, she said, and recess has “largely gone away.”

Clinton’s book, “It’s Your World: Get Informed, Get Inspired & Get Going!” details some of the world’s problems and shares stories of young people who are helping their communities find solutions.

Clinton said her first turn as an activist came when she was a youngster and learned wildlife sometimes choked on discarded plastic beverage container rings. She began “obsessively” cutting them up — “Which I still do,” she said — and convinced her classmates to do the same.

Clinton spoke Nov. 5 at Ecotrust, a Portland nonprofit that researches and seeks sustainable solutions in farming, forestry and economics. Among other things, the organization produced a report this year on problems hindering “Ag of the Middle,” the small- to mid-size producers and processors who are too big to survive by selling at farmers’ markets but too small to compete in the commodities markets.

At Ecotrust, Clinton heard a three-member panel detail work they’re doing to ensure nutritious local food finds its way to schools and to programs that serve needy populations. About two dozen children were in the audience, in addition to adults.

Clinton was introduced by Amanda Oborne, Ecotrust’s vice president of food and farms, who told students in the audience that the “food system riddle” would be theirs to solve.

“The food system you’re inheriting is kind of a mess,” she said.

Children today, when they become adults, will figure out how to feed 9 billion people, adapt to a changing climate and engage in farming, ranching and fishing techniques that replenish natural resources, Oborne said.

A calf was killed and eaten in Klamath County and two others were badly mauled in the first confirmed wolf attacks on livestock outside Northeast Oregon.

Tracking collar data showed a wolf designated OR-25 was at the attack site five times between Oct. 28 and Nov. 2. The calves were attacked in a 100-acre pasture on private land in the upper Williamson River area, according to Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

OR-25 is a male wolf that dispersed from the Imnaha Pack and traveled through the Columbia Basin, Southern Blue Mountains and Northern and Central Cascades. He’s been in the Sprague wildlife management area of Klamath County since May, according to ODFW.

In August, the department designated the region an Area of Known Wolf Activity and encouraged livestock owners to take defensive measures, part of the process required under the Oregon wolf plan. The wolf wears a GPS tracking collar that emits a location signal to a computer at regular intervals.

The livestock attack comes as the ODFW Commission is set to decide Nov. 9 whether to remove gray wolves from the state endangered species list.

The wolf and the Klamath County attack site are physically outside the state endangered species jurisdiction, but the de-listing decision is expected to attract a large crowd and emotional, conflicting testimony. The attack may be seen as additional evidence wolves are expanding in numbers and range, as state wildlife biologists said when they recommended wolves be removed from the state endangered species list.

State Endangered Species Act protection applies to wolves east of Oregon Highways 395, 78 and 95, roughly the eastern one-third of the state. Federal ESA jurisdiction covers the rest of the state west of the highways.

Investigation of the Klamath County attacks began when an unidentified livestock producer reported finding an injured 350-pound heifer in the pasture Oct. 31, the carcass of a dead calf Nov. 1 and another injured calf Nov. 2. The injured calves had severe bite wounds and “massive tissue damage” to their hind legs, according to an ODFW report.

Of the carcass, “very little remained of the dead calf for examination,” ODFW reported. The department confirmed a wolf was responsible for all three.

OR-25 is believed to be alone. The department has no evidence he has a mate or pups, said Michelle Dennehy, ODFW spokeswoman.

Online

ODFW’s depredation report http://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/dep_inv/151103_Klamath_Depredation_Report.pdf

Oregon State University’s College of Agricultural Sciences has submitted an application to the federal Drug Enforcement Administration seeking permission to conduct research on industrial hemp production, according to an OSU announcement issued Nov. 5.

Jay Noller, head of the college’s Crop and Soil Science Department, said the university hopes to secure approval from the DEA and the Oregon Department of Agriculture in time to begin the research next year.

The 2014 Farm Bill included a provision allowing higher educational institutions to conduct industrial hemp research in states where hemp production is legal.

The Oregon Legislature in 2009 legalized the production and possession of industrial hemp.

Noller said the research will focus on agronomic production of industrial hemp in Western Oregon.

He said the College of Agricultural Sciences hasn’t identified a particular individual interested in conducting the research, but believes researchers are available that would be interested.

“I think there are agronomists, particularly those who just completed graduate school training, who could come in and perform the field trials,” he said. “My ideal sense is we would be able to secure enough external funds to make it worthwhile for somebody to study this.”

Asked if the college’s interest in hemp research could bleed into marijuana research, Noller said: “I wouldn’t rule that out in the long run if federal actions move that to where it is permissible.

“At this time we are just looking at the question of will industrial hemp varieties grow in Western Oregon,” he said.

According to the announcement, industrial hemp has many uses, including in paper, textiles, biodegradable plastics, fuel and health and food products. It also is an environmentally friendly plant that grows fast and requires few pesticides.