PENDLETON, Ore. — Members of Pendleton Grain Growers will vote at a meeting May 2 whether to dissolve the local farmers’ co-op, according to a letter sent to members Friday.

If the motion passes, it will spell the end for PGG, which has served Eastern Oregon farmers since 1930.

It’s been a tumultuous few years for the co-op, which has bled money and lopped off multiple business units trying to restore profitability. Retail stores closed in 2014; the agronomy division later sold to a company based in Colorado; and most recently, PGG has been in negotiations to sell its grain assets to multinational United Grain Corporation.

Now, PGG’s Board of Directors is recommending dissolution as the best course of action. That would mean selling everything — grain, energy, seed, transportation and the Precision Rain irrigation subsidiary — in order to pay off debt and have some equity left over to return to members.

If growers choose not to dissolve PGG, the co-op would likely still fold and members would be less likely to recoup any equity. In the letter, which was obtained by the East Oregonian, board chair Tim Hawkins stated that operating costs are too high and grain receipts too low to continue offering the same services.

“The decision to move toward a plan of dissolution was not easy, but we believe it is the best alternative to return what equity we can over time to members and allow the businesses to operate independently or with partners who can bring new resources and value to our Eastern Oregon farmers and families,” Hawkins wrote.

PGG has 1,079 members eligible to vote May 2. At least 50 members are required for a quorum, and the resolution will need a two-thirds majority to pass.

Rick Jacobson, PGG general manager, insisted the co-op is not insolvent and still has support from CoBank, which extended a $15 million term loan and $20 million line of credit last June. That came on the heels of PGG losing $7.9 million in 2014, and approximately $4.4 million in 2013.

The co-op also discovered through an audit that it had overstated earnings by $1.8 million in 2010 and $5.7 million in 2011, according to financial statements. PGG did net $434,681 in total income in 2012.

Jacobson, who was hired by PGG in 2012, said he is optimistic about getting a deal done with United Grain Corporation to sell the McNary river terminal, Feedville piles and 19 upcountry grain elevators, but couldn’t get into specifics. Other aspects of the business are doing well independently, he said, such as the energy division and Precision Rain. But PGG is simply not bringing in enough bushels of wheat to generate a profit that will allow it to invest in those services.

Last harvest, the co-op figured it would need at least 8 million bushels to continue on as it has. Jacobson didn’t provide the exact number it carried, but said it fell short.

“Some stayed with us, but nowhere near enough,” Jacobson said of members. “The vote was with their bushels.”

The board felt it would be best to dissolve PGG and sell off those assets to another company, Jacobson said, thus maintaining services and — hopefully — retaining jobs in the community. He said United Grain Corporation is in a good position to work with local farmers.

“I think it’s the best thing to do, given the circumstances,” he said.

Preston Winn, who leases about 147 acres of wheat fields near Weston, said he’s been a member of PGG for roughly 50 years. Over the years, he said, the co-op gradually lost focus on customer service, while members’ trust whittled away.

Winn, who also chairs the agriculture department at Blue Mountain Community College, said PGG was slow to change in how it received, stored and handled larger shipments of grain. Instead of taking 15 minutes to unload shipments at PGG’s old country elevators, he said, growers decided to turn to competitors that could unload them in a fraction of the time. In particular, he said Northwest Grain Growers of Walla Walla and Gavilon have both added grain piles in nearby Athena in recent years.

“We’re going to go to a place that has better customer service,” Winn said. “We’re going to go to a place that can unload us in an expeditious manner.”

The U.S. Department of Agriculture also pulled PGG’s warehouse license for 44 days in 2012 after discovering discrepancies, which Winn said shook some confidence.

“I’ve heard people say, ‘I don’t think I can trust them,’” Winn said. “Anytime you don’t have confidence ... I think that’s where this fell apart.”

Eric Nelson, who farms organic wheat north of Pendleton, said losing PGG would be a hard hit to the community. The co-op has been a major supporter of local organizations, Nelson said, and he hopes whoever comes in carries that same sense of commitment.

“It’s going to be hard to fill that hole,” Nelson said. “It’s a tough blow to the community in general.”

Jacobson said the board realizes how difficult the decision is, and carries the burden of the decision. He praised the board for its willingness to do what they feel ultimately will be the best for the membership.

“I feel reasonably confident the best will come out of this,” Jacobson said.

A Utah State associate professor with expertise in textiles and apparel design has been named associate director of Oregon State University Extension Service.

Lindsey Shirley will begin work at OSU on June 1. She’ll also serve as associate provost.

Shirley’s work at Utah State has branched out from textiles and apparel design to include the social dynamics represented by clothing, according to an OSU news release. Among other work, she developed ways to teach design as a STEM subject, bringing science, technology, engineering and math principles into the study.

Shirley has a bachelor’s degree and Ph.D. from Iowa State University and a master’s in education from the University of Minnesota. In her OSU position, she succeeds Deborah Maddy, who retired.

Online

Shirley explains her teaching approach in a Utah State video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FntbUNSr8cQ&feature=youtu.be

Her website: www.lindseymshirley.com

ONTARIO, Ore. — Idaho State Department of Agriculture officials will provide an overview of the new Food Safety Modernization Act rules and how they will impact agriculture, during an April 26 meeting.

According to an ISDA press release, FSMA “is widely considered the most sweeping change to food safety regulation since the 1940s and will have a direct impact on many Idaho growers, processors and shippers.”

The meeting will be held from 6-8 p.m. at the Clarion Inn in Ontario, Ore. The southwestern Idaho and Eastern Oregon farm industry is closely linked and many producers in this area farm in both states.

The meeting will focus on FSMA’s produce rule and its preventative controls for human food rule.

The produce rule requires irrigation water to meet minimum standards for bacteria, a provision that is a big concern to onion farmers in this area.

The produce rules covers on-farm activities related to the growing of agricultural commodities that are consumed raw. The preventative controls for human food rule covers food manufacturing.

According to the ISDA news release, the meeting is targeted toward small- and mid-sized farms and facilities.

For more information about the meeting, contact Candi Fitch, executive director of the Idaho Fruit and Vegetable Association, at (208) 722-5111.

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Building in flood zones is about to get harder across much of Oregon, due to new federal recommendations.

The government published the recommendations, called a biological opinion, in response to a lawsuit from environmental groups. The Audubon Society of Portland, National Wildlife Federation, Northwest Environmental Defense Center and Association of Northwest Steelheaders had argued that federal flood insurance was encouraging development detrimental to threatened salmon.

Will Stelle, regional administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said the agency recommends FEMA make several efforts to change the flood insurance program.

“The first effort is a mapping effort,” Stelle said. “The second effort is development standards to try to steer development out of harm’s way, in order to protect those most important habitat functions for salmon and steelhead.”

The biological opinion does not directly ban development in flood plains along salmon-bearing waterways. But there is a “no net loss” policy, requiring that developers or property owners mitigate any lost salmon habitat with new habitat.

FEMA said that 251 Oregon communities have flood plain areas along salmon-bearing rivers and streams out of 271 communities with flood plains. Affected areas are up and down the coast, throughout the Willamette Valley, east to the Idaho border and into much of Central Oregon.

Some Oregon communities and leaders have expressed concern about the effect rules could have on property owners and potential development near salmon-bearing streams.

FEMA’s regional branch chief for Floodplain Management & Insurance, John Graves said that his agency will work with the state of Oregon and local governments on implementation, including new maps and how rules may work on the ground.

Oregon Congressman Peter DiFazio garnered support in the U.S. House for legislation potentially blocking FEMA from following the recommendations.

“For over a year and a half, I have worked with local officials and directly engaged with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to stop a bureaucratic overreach . that could supersede Oregon’s land-use laws and prohibit development on tens of thousands of acres across the state,” DiFazio said in a statement supporting the FEMA amendment. “We can protect our endangered species without dictating unworkable solutions for communities in flood prone areas.”

Environmental groups have signaled their support of the biological opinion, and optimism that the changes to flood insurance could improve recovery efforts for threatened salmon and steelhead.

“It has been a long time coming, but we are very pleased that the National Marine Fisheries Service has outlined sensible improvements to FEMA’s flood insurance program to help recover listed salmon and steelhead,” said Bob Sallinger Conservation Director for the Audubon Society of Portland, one of the environmental groups to file the lawsuit in 2009.

The two agencies at the center of the changes — NOAA and FEMA — do not see eye-to-eye on all aspects of what about the federal flood insurance program should change. As NOAA regional administrator Will Stelle explained on a conference call with reporters, the two agencies differ in at least two areas.

One is where edge areas, what he called “erosion zones,” are concerned. NOAA believes those areas should be included in FEMA’s new mapping efforts. FEMA has said those areas are not within flood zones and should be treated differently. The other difference of opinion relates to map revisions that property owners can request, if, for instance, they’re filling in an area. Stelle and John Graves with FEMA said the two agencies agreed to discuss those situations on a case-by-case basis.

FEMA and NOAA have been down this road before, in response to a similar lawsuit in the Puget Sound area, and implementation ran into some difficulty on the ground. How the recommendations will play out on the ground is on the minds of environmental groups.

“Now it is time move forward and ensure that FEMA works with Oregon’s state and local governments to manage floodplain development in ways that protect salmon and make our communities more resilient in the face of increasing threats from extreme weather events,” said Andrew Hawley, staff attorney for the Northwest Environmental Defense Center.

An association representing 18 timber-dependent counties says it will file a lawsuit over the BLM’s proposed new Western Oregon Resource Management Plan.

“This isn’t saber rattling by us,” said Columbia County Commissioner Tony Hyde, chair of the Association of O&C Counties. He maintains the counties were “largely ignored” as the BLM built the proposal.

A timber industry group also might take legal action against the BLM. The American Forest Resource Council, based in Portland, said the plan denies Oregon loggers and mills the opportunity to demonstrate how “sustainability, forest health and economic growth are not mutually exclusive.”

AFRC President Travis Joseph said the council’s board will decide whether to file suit over the plan.

The association includes counties that receive money from timber harvests on former Oregon & California Railroad land, a checkerboard pattern covering 81 percent of the 2.5 million acres in the Western Oregon plan. The feds took it over from the railroad long ago and the BLM manages the land.

For decades, the counties received half the annual timber harvest receipts and used the money to provide sheriff’s patrols, operate jails and other services. As timber harvests declined, the counties received less money and drastically cut services. Voters for the most part voted down property tax increases that would have offset some of the revenue loss.

The BLM’s management proposal, released this past week, sets aside 75 percent of the forestland as reserves for fish and wildlife habitat, stream protection and to maintain older and complex forests.

The O&C counties and timber industry groups believe the plan should allow more logging, which they say could revive the shattered economies in much of rural Oregon.

The BLM estimates it will be able to provide 278 million board feet of timber for harvest annually, an increase over average harvests since 1995 but far below what the O&C counties and industry groups favor.

Hyde, of Columbia County, said the O&C lands could provide 400 million to 500 million board feet annually.

“We’re not asking for exclusive use of these lands for revenue production,” Hyde said. “We can get higher (harvest) levels while still providing for endangered species, clean water and fish habitat,” Hyde said relations between the counties and BLM are not particularly acrimonious, but have reached the point where the plan’s legality must be challenged.

Hyde and Joseph of the AFRC say the language of the 1937 O&C lands act is clear: The land is to be managed under a “sustained yield” principle in order to provide a permanent timber supply, protect watersheds, regulate stream flow, provide recreation and contribute to the “economic stability of local communities and industries.”

The BLM maintains the proposal strikes a balance between multiple statutory mandates, including the Endangered Species Act. The annual timber harvest is set by determining an Allowable Sale Quantity. or ASQ.

The proposal, technically called a Resource Management Plan and final Environmental Impact Statement, covers operations in the BLM’s Coos Bay, Eugene, Medford, Roseburg, and Salem Districts, and the Klamath Falls field office of the Lakeview District.

Conservation groups have criticized the proposal as well. They say it doesn’t do enough to protect drinking water, streams, recreational activity and threatened or endangered Northern spotted owls and salmon.

A 30-day protest period began April 15. The BLM expects to reach a final decision this summer.

The Oregon O&C counties are: Benton, Clackamas, Columbia, Coos, Curry, Douglas, Jackson, Josephine, Klamath, Lane, Lincoln, Linn, Marion, Multnomah, Polk, Tillamook, Washington and Yamhill.

GRANTS PASS, Ore. — Farmers seeking to overturn the ban against genetically engineered crops in Oregon’s Josephine County have come under fire in court from proponents of the ordinance.

An April 14 court hearing over the validity of the county’s prohibition largely centered on whether the plaintiffs even have the right to challenge it.

“If you look at the circumstances, the whole house of cards of this manufactured lawsuit comes tumbling down,” said Stephanie Dolan, an attorney representing ordinance supporters, during oral arguments.

The fundamental dispute in the lawsuit is whether state law overrules the county’s prohibition against genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

Oregon lawmakers pre-empted most local GMO regulations in 2013 but Josephine County voters nonetheless approved a ballot initiative banning such crops the following year.

Landowners Robert and Shelley Ann White filed a lawsuit challenging the GMO ordinance shortly before it was set to become effective in September 2015.

While the county government decided not to defend the ordinance, proponents of the ballot initiative — Oregonians for Safe Farms and Families and Siskiyou Seeds — voluntarily intervened in the case as defendants.

Those intervenors now claim the lawsuit should be thrown out because the Whites are “hobby farmers” who were “hand-picked” to serve as plaintiffs by biotech lobbyists intent on overturning the will of Josephine County voters.

The Whites say they’ve been prevented from growing biotech sugar beets on leased property.

They’ve asked Circuit Court Judge Pat Wolke to declare that the GMO ordinance is invalid and to permanently enjoin its enforcement.

Supporters of the GMO ban have responded by attacking the Whites’ legal standing to file the lawsuit.

During the oral arguments, the intervenors cast doubts on harm suffered by the Whites due to the ordinance.

“They need more than their general disdain for this ordinance to get into court,” said Melissa Wischerath, attorney for the intervenors.

In reality, the couple hasn’t proved to hold a valid contract with biotech developer Syngenta, which would be necessary to grow GMO sugar beets, according to the intervenors.

The Whites’ lease agreement to 100 acres, where the crop was supposedly going to be planted, is also not valid, the intervenors claim.

Since they have not demonstrated an actual financial hardship from the GMO ordinance, they cannot challenge its legality in court, Wischerath said.

“The mere interest in the subject matter — like the idea they’d like to grow GE crops — is not sufficient,” she said.

The couple’s financial loss was “purely hypothetical” because they likely could have earned as much money from continuing to grow hay on the property or by switching to organic sugar beets, intervenors argue.

“Really all they have is a hope to grow GE crops someday in the future,” said Wischerath.

John DiLorenzo, attorney for the plaintiffs, countered that these allegations are both false and irrelevant.

“The Whites have shown much more than is necessary to show their standing,” he said.

Syngenta did contract with the couple to grow biotech sugar beets in previous years but did not enter into a new contract due to the GMO ordinance, he said.

As for the lease agreement, it remains valid even if there’s no expiration date and the landowner is willing to renegotiate payment terms, DiLorenzo said.

Regardless of whether they can prove a financial hardship, plaintiffs can still seek to invalidate a regulation that affects them under Oregon law, he said.

“They’re affected by the ordinance as it’s applied. Nothing further is required,” he said. “It does not matter how much they might have made if they’d been allowed to grow GMO crops.”

Apart from the question of standing, the parties also debated whether the 2013 statute that pre-empts local GMO restrictions runs afoul of Oregon’s constitution.

“We contend that law is unconstitutionally vague,” said Dolan.

Lawmakers impermissibly disallowed local rules for GMOs without creating a statewide scheme for governing such crops, she said.

“What we’re left with is a regulatory void,” Dolan said.

The pre-emption statute doesn’t contain any protections for organic and conventional farmers, she said.

“The law instead creates a novel vacuum,” she said.

The plaintiffs argued that a statewide regulatory system isn’t necessary to pre-empt local restrictions on GMOs — it’s sufficent that lawmakers didn’t want Oregon’s 36 counties to establish their own GMO rules.

Oregon also pre-empts local governments from enacting rent controls or regulating shooting ranges, among other issues, DiLorenzo said.

“It is the legislature’s right to trust in the market sometimes,” he said.

Intervenors drew a parallel between Oregon’s pre-emption statute and a law that was struck down in Ohio, which prohibited local restrictions on the foods that can be served at restaurants.

An appellate court in Ohio overturned that law because the state didn’t establish its own regulations over food content in restaurants. Supporters of the GMO ordinance say that the current test of Josephine County’s “home rule” authority is a unique case of “first impression” in Oregon, so the Ohio case should guide the judge’s thinking.

“It’s persuasive and strikingly similar,” Dolan said.

DiLorenzo said the Ohio decision has no bearing on the situation because Oregon has different legal standards for when the state can pre-empt local regulations.

In Ohio, lawmakers must cross several additional hurdles in passing a statute that can pre-empt local ordinance, he said. “Oregon’s home rule authority is not as extensive.”

ONTARIO, Ore. — When the Idaho-Eastern Oregon Onion Committee cut its checkoff assessment in half last year, it slashed the budget for its promotion committee, from $635,000 a year to $250,000.

The region’s onion industry is still conducting marketing and promotion efforts, only now it’s being done mostly by individual shippers instead of the IEOOC, which administers the federal marketing order that covers onion growers in southwestern Idaho and Eastern Oregon.

Many people felt the committee’s promotion dollars weren’t being used as effectively as they could and the idea in cutting the assessment was to allow growers and shippers to use the savings to do more of their own marketing, Malheur County Onion Growers Association President Paul Skeen said.

The IEOOC in 2015 cut its assessment from 10 cents to 5 cents per hundredweight. Growers pay 60 percent of that assessment and handlers the rest.

“We streamlined and cut the fat out of the program ... where we didn’t feel like we were getting the right bang for our buck,” said Skeen, a farmer and member of the promotion committee.

The committee trimmed its media campaign but still maintains a visible profile in the industry, said Grant Kitamura, chairman of the promotion committee.

For example, the committee has continued its website and social media efforts and printed 1,000 onion shipper directories that it hands out at trade shows.

“We’re working hard to keep (the budget) down and try to get the most bang for our buck,” Kitamura said. “And hopefully ... shippers are moving forward with their own company promotions and marketing efforts. I think it will be a better return (on investment).”

USDA rules governing federal marketing orders tie the promotion committee’s hands in some areas, he said, For example, the committee can promote and market but can’t actually make sales, “which is kind of the ultimate goal.”

The onion industry’s customer base has also consolidated heavily over the years and its customer lists are much shorter now, so it makes sense for individual shippers to go after a few large chains themselves, Kitamura said.

“It just allows more aggressive marketing and sales,” he said of the assessment cut plan. “We will have more flexibility to go directly after customers and hopefully make that sale. You’re not going after a bunch of mom and pops any more, you’re going after one big chain....”

Early indications are that most shippers are using the savings from the assessment cut to do more marketing and promotion, said Kitamura, general manager of Murakami Produce in Ontario.

Skeen said the committee will review the assessment cut down the road but for now, “everybody seems pretty happy with it.”

The IEOOC’s research and export budgets were not impacted by the assessment cut.

ONTARIO, Ore. — Onion growers in Malheur County in Eastern Oregon have joined their Idaho counterparts in receiving special permission to apply an important herbicide through drip irrigation systems.

Idaho growers who produce Spanish bulb onions received permission from the Idaho State Department of Agriculture last week to apply the Outlook herbicide through drip systems, and the Oregon Department of Agriculture granted onion growers in Malheur County the same permission April 12.

Outlook, produced by BASF, was already approved for surface application in Idaho and Oregon bulb onion fields but it wasn’t previously approved for use in drip systems in onion fields.

Onion growers in Idaho and Oregon say Outlook is one of their best tools for controlling the yellow nutsedge weed, which is their top weed challenge and can reduce yields by as much as 60 percent.

Two years of field trials by Oregon State University researchers in Malheur County showed Outlook is a lot more effective in controlling the yellow nutsedge weed when applied through a drip system.

About 60 percent of the 20,000 acres of Spanish bulb onions grown in this region are irrigated through drip systems.

The Langlois Lions Club is more than pleased to announce that our recent Spaghetti Feed and Dessert Auction was a huge success, going beyond all expectations. As a result, we were able to increase our Pacific High School senior scholarship…

LANGLOIS -- Ginger Pearson from Coast Community Health Center will be at the Langlois Public Library from 3-6 p.m. Wednesday, April 20. She will be introducing individuals in Curry County to self-sufficiency programs. These programs include such things as OHP,…

LANGLOIS – The next Interesting Langlois event will feature Bonnie Jensen Cox with a talk on “Searching for Our Past,” at 7 p.m. Wednesday, April 27, at the Langlois Public Library, 48234 U.S. Highway 101, Langlois.

On behalf of the Bandon Community Youth Center and those we serve, I would like to thank all of the restaurants, donors and attendees of the 2016 Bite of Bandon held on March 5 for their generous support. We were…

The Langlois Public Library wants to thank Coast Community Health Center for their continued commitment to the community.

Thursday, April 14

March 2, 1926 - April 5, 2016

Timber industry groups believe the federal Bureau of Land Management’s proposed new forest management plan for Western Oregon is a disaster that locks up 75 percent of the land, will cost jobs and leave forests more vulnerable to fire.

One group called it a “lose, lose, lose” plan for the environment, wildlife, and rural communities.

As it turns out, conservation groups also think the proposed Resource Management Plan is lousy. They say it will increase logging, cut stream buffer zones in half, threaten drinking water quality and harm endangered species.

For its part, the BLM believes it followed legal mandates and successfully split the difference between opposing points of view. In a news release, Acting State Director Jamie Connell said the BLM “achieved an extraordinary balance” between protecting threatened and endangered wildlife and allowing timber harvests that support the economy of rural communities.

Spokeswoman Sarah Levy said the BLM had to follow legal mandates that require the agency to protect threatened species such as salmon and northern spotted owls, protect waterways, provide recreation opportunities and assure sustainable timber harvests on former Oregon & California Railroad (O&C) land it manages.

“It’s really a middle-of-the-road plan,” she said. “I would say both sides can find something in this plan that they like.”

The Resource Management Plan covers about 2.5 million acres that the BLM administers in Western Oregon, including the Coos Bay, Eugene, Medford, Roseburg and Salem Districts, and the Klamath Falls field office of the Lakeview District. It replaces plans that have been in effect since 1995 under the Northwest Forest Plan.

About 75 percent of the 2.5 million acres will be managed as reserves for older, more complex forests and for fish, water, wildlife and other “resource values,” according to the BLM.

Of major concern to many rural residents, the updated plan increases the targeted timber harvest level on BLM land to 278 million board-feet annually. Since 1995, the BLM has administered the region with a goal of annually harvesting 203 million board-feet, Levy said.

The decline of timber harvests on land managed by the U.S. Forest Service and BLM is widely blamed for the widespread mill closures and job losses in rural Oregon. Reduced timber harvests also hurt county governments, as they received money from timber sales on O&C land. Since 1989, timber harvests on federal land in Oregon have declined by 90 percent.

Federal agencies manage 60 percent of the forestland in Oregon, but provide only 12 percent of the annual timber harvest, according to the Oregon Forest Resources Institute.

The Portland-based industry group American Forest Resource Council said the BLM had an opportunity to present a “bold, strategic vision” of forest management but instead developed a plan that “regurgitates the failed policies of the past.”

“If the past 20 years provide any indication, this approach is doomed to fail our forests, wildlife and our communities,” group President Travis Joseph said in a prepared statement.

Nick Smith, executive director of the pro-industry group Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities, said the BLM “turned its back” on rural residents.

“This is yet another example of an out of touch federal government, fueling the kind of rural frustration that garnered national attention after the Malheur standoff.”

Conservation groups see other problems.

Cascadia Wildlands, based in Eugene, said the plan offers “weakened stream buffers, increased carbon emissions and relaxed standards for salmon and wildlife, all to increase certainty for the logging industry.”

Executive Director Josh Laughlin called it “unthinkable” that the BLM would reduce stream buffer zones, where logging isn’t allowed, by half.

Increased logging ignores the recreation-based economy in the state, the group said in a prepared statement.

John Kober, executive director of Pacific Rivers, said the BLM puts too much value on “subsidizing” county governments with logging revenue.

“The fact is, our public lands produce far more economic and social value by storing carbon, sustaining fisheries, providing recreational opportunities and delivering clean drinking water. Unfortunately, due to rapacious logging of private and state lands all of the burden for conservation is placed on federal lands,” he said in a prepared statement.

Levy, the BLM spokeswoman, said the management plan will be published April 15, which begins a 30-day protest period. An agency team will be appointed to review the protests, and a final decision is expected this summer.

Online

The proposed Resource Management Plan is at http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/feis/

LAS VEGAS (AP) — Attorneys say two sons of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and three other men are due to be transferred in custody from Oregon to Nevada to face charges stemming from an armed confrontation with government agents two years ago.

Defense lawyers in Oregon lost a bid Tuesday for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to block the move.

Lawyers for Ammon Bundy said they’ve been told arraignments will be Friday in U.S. District Court in Nevada.

Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Brian Cavalier, Blaine Cooper and Ryan Payne have been in federal custody in Portland, where they’re accused of leading an occupation of a U.S. wildlife refuge this year.

In Nevada, they’re facing conspiracy, obstruction, weapon and assault charges for a standoff with federal agents rounding up cattle near Bunkerville.

Cattle will be allowed to continue grazing along the Oregon-California border despite their propensity to “drift” into unauthorized national forest areas.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected a request by environmental groups to block livestock grazing on 48,000 acres in the ecologically-sensitive Siskiyou Crest.

An earlier ruling by the 9th Circuit held that the U.S. Forest Service had violated federal environmental law by insufficiently studying the impacts of “cattle drift” from California’s Klamath National Forest into Oregon’s Rogue River Siskiyou National Forest.

The Forest Service argued that a federal judge was correct in previously dismissing an environmentalist lawsuit because the effects of cattle drift on the region’s environment are minimal and quickly corrected by ranchers.

However, the appellate court agreed with Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center and Klamath Forest Alliance that forest managers “provided essentially no information” about grazing in unauthorized areas and overturned that earlier decision.

The 9th Circuit ordered the agency to better account for the environmental impacts of cattle drift, which occurs due to the difficulty of fencing remote areas.

While they won this legal point, the environmental plaintiffs nonetheless asked the 9th Circuit to reconsider its opinion because it didn’t prohibit grazing while the government updated its environmental analysis.

The 9th Circuit has refused that motion and amended its previous ruling to clarify that current Forest Service grazing plans for the region should remain in place.

The environmentalists claimed that vacating grazing authorizations for the Siskiyou Crest would effectively stop grazing, but the 9th Circuit took a different view.

Contrary to these claims, the 9th Circuit found that vacating the existing permits would require the “reinstatement of earlier permits on terms less protective of forest resources.”

For this reason, the current grazing plans should stay effective until the Forest Service decides they should be replaced, the ruling said.

Irrigators fighting a lawsuit over the threatened Oregon spotted frog have won a key battle but face new challenges in upcoming settlement negotiations.

U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken has filed an official opinion denying a preliminary injunction sought by environmentalists that would have significantly disrupted the operations of three irrigation reservoirs in Central Oregon.

The Central Oregon, North Unit and Tumalo irrigation districts must now strive to protect their interests during in settlement talks with environmentalists and the federal government.

Growers are generally outmatched in terms of time and money in such litigation, which doesn’t help their position during negotiations, said Karen Budd-Falen, an attorney who represents natural resource industries.

“The farmers are going to be under significant pressure to settle even if they end up with less water,” she said. “It really is like David and Goliath, with two Goliaths instead of one.”

Aiken’s recent ruling was no surprise, since she’d already told the plaintiffs — WaterWatch of Oregon and the Center of Biological Diversity — they’d failed to prove such an injunction was necessary during a court hearing in March.

However, the environmentalists then asked the judge not to issue a written ruling, which would have prevented the opinion from being cited in future legal proceedings.

Aiken has now denied that request and issued a decision stating their proposed injunction would “create certain hardship for farmers and ranchers” while its benefits to the spotted frog would be “questionable.”

The environmentalists argue that the Crane Prairie, Wickiup and Crescent Lake dams have reversed the natural flow patterns of streams to the detriment of the frog in violation of the Endangered Species Act.

Their injunction motion sought an order requiring the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to alter reservoir operations to promote higher flows in winter and lower flows in summer.

The government and irrigation districts argued the species had adapted to the system over the past 70 years, so the injunction proposal could hurt the frogs as well as farmers.

In her written opinion, Aiken said she would defer to federal biologists rather than “pick and choose among expert opinions,” particularly since the stream flow options demanded by the environmentalists wouldn’t clearly help the frogs.

Aiken noted the environmentalist proposal was “not based on studies or surveys of the frog and the hydrological conditions of the Upper Deschutes River basin over a meaningful period of time. Rather, plaintiffs’ proposals are based primarily on the limited observations of one individual over the course of several weeks.”

“This fact alone renders the requested relief questionable,” the judge said.

Apart from officially denying the injunction, Aiken’s written opinion directs the parties to enter “judicial settlement proceedings” before U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin.

Such three-way negotiations are tricky for farmers and ranchers, since environmentalists have greater financial resources and basically nothing to lose in the litigation, said Budd-Falen.

“Even if the environmental guys get only half of what they requested, they’re still ahead,” she said.

While a co-defendant, the government can “print money” and has its own attorneys, so it similarly doesn’t face the same uncertainty and constraints as the irrigators, she said.

Natural resource defendants have also accused the Obama administration of leaving them out in the cold while reaching “sweetheart” deals with environmentalists as part of a “sue-and-settle” strategy.

In 2013, for example, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a settlement over forest species management between federal agencies and environmentalists because the agreement circumvented public rule-making procedures.

COOS COUNTY — Oregon State University has announced students who have earned honors for winter term 2015-2016. To be included on the honor roll list, students must have carried at least 12 graded hours of course work.