Solar power technology draws no objections from farmer Sam Sweeney.

In fact, he’s got 600 square feet of solar panels on his property near Dayton, Ore.

“It’s time to explore other options for energy,” Sweeney said.

However, the potential for solar development on prime farmland in Oregon’s Willamette Valley does make Sweeney anxious.

Three solar companies have sent letters offering to lease his property at rates several times higher than other growers would typically pay.

While Sweeney has ignored the offers, he realizes other growers will be tempted by such deals.

“When I saw that, I thought, ‘Gosh, these are probably going out all over the valley,’” he said. “A lot of people are going to think this is really an opportunity. Before we know it, we could have a lot of these scattered about on really high quality soil.”

Those concerns are shared by the Oregon Board of Agriculture and the Oregon Department of Agriculture, which plan to formally ask the state’s Land Conservation and Development Commission to re-examine regulations for solar development on high-value farmland.

Currently, the rules allow solar facilities to be constructed on up to 12 acres of high-value farmland as long as the local county government issues a conditional use permit.

Larger projects must undergo an analysis of alternative sites, but there’s a concern that developers might circumvent that requirement with several smaller projects.

“Cumulatively, they may have the same impact as a large one,” said Jim Johnson, ODA’s land use specialist. “They’re doing large-scale operations by breaking them up and having components.”

Originally, the 12-acre threshold was established so farmers could supplement their income, but now that solar companies are looking to develop several properties, it’s time to re-evaluate the rule, he said.

One possibility would be to reduce the threshold to 5 acres, and subject larger projects to an alternative site analysis, Johnson said.

Solar development is more intensive than simply installing some panels — developers generally move soil, add gravel and build fences, said Larry Ojua, executive director of the Yamhill Soil and Water Conservation District, which has raised concerns over two recent solar projects in Yamhill County, southwest of Portland.

Once a lease for a solar project expires, the changes raise doubts about returning the farmland to its previous condition, he said. “What if the company goes out of business?”

Unlike wind energy, which is largely compatible with agriculture, solar development entails a greater risk of permanent land conversion, said Barbara Boyer, chair of the Oregon Soil and Water Conservation Commission and vice chair of the Oregon Board of Agriculture.

“You can’t farm underneath them, like you can with the wind turbines,” she said.

Solar companies develop projects in Western Oregon even though the region’s “solar resource” is about 30-40 percent lower than in Central or Eastern Oregon, said Rob Del Mar, policy analyst for the Oregon Department of Energy.

“The solar resource is not stellar, not ideal, but it’s adequate,” he said.

Nonetheless, building solar facilities on the westside is efficient because that’s where most of the population — and energy consumption — are, Del Mar said.

Costs for solar hardware and installation have also declined in recent years, he said. “It’s so much cheaper than it used to be, and the market has really matured.”

Oregon’s “business energy tax credit” expired in 2014, but a federal tax credit for 30 percent of project costs is still available.

The state Department of Energy also dispenses grants for renewable energy projects, with 13 projects receiving a total of $1.5 million from the agency this year. Energy Trust of Oregon, a nonprofit, also provides cash incentives for renewable energy development.

Jeff Bissonnette, executive director of the Oregon Solar Energy Industries Association, said he’s aware of concerns about solar development on prime farmland but hadn’t heard about the push for rule changes.

Bissonnette said he’d have to see specific policy proposals before commenting on them.

“That’s always a conversation we’re willing to engage in,” he said.

Prices for electricity aren’t currently high enough to justify a “gold rush” of solar development in Western Oregon, said Alan Hickenbottom, a principal at Latitude45 Associates, which consults on solar projects.

Developing several small projects, rather than one big one, is less efficient because it would require multiple “interconnections” hooking them up to the electrical grid, he said.

“I’m wondering how it would pencil for them,” said Hickenbottom.

GOLD BEACH — Curry County is suing the Department of State Lands over a river barrier on Floras Lake near Langlois.

Capital Bureau

SALEM — Nearly one month before acquisition proposals for a major parcel of the Elliott State Forest are due, more than 30 members of the public gave comments at the State Land Board’s meeting Tuesday.

The sale of approximately 82,500 acres of the Elliott State Forest, which has proven controversial, particularly among environmental groups, wasn’t an item that board members were scheduled make any decisions on.

Nevertheless, an hour-long comment period on the subject was scheduled for the end of Tuesday’s meeting — though protesters had to check their signs at the door under the watchful eyes of state troopers.

Under the state constitution, the State Land Board is required to maximize revenue from the Elliott State Forest and other natural resources the state received from the federal government at statehood. The board is required to put that revenue toward the state’s K-12 public schools.

The Elliott Forest land at issue has, for years, been an asset of the Common School Fund. In recent years it has become a financial liability and the state wants to “decouple” the fund from the forest.

In July, the Department of State Lands estimated that the Common School Fund lost $4 million since 2013 due to new timber harvest limitations on the Elliott State Forest land.

Those limitations were sparked by a lawsuit challenging the state’s logging in areas that are home to the marbled murrelet, which is protected under the federal Endangered Species Act.

The proceeds from the planned sale of the parcel will be invested in the Common School Fund, according to the department.

The buyer must ensure 40 direct and indirect jobs in connection for the forest for 10 years, and in perpetuity do the following: conserve public access on 50 percent of the area’s acreage, protect at least 25 percent of the trees from harvest and maintain riparian areas of 120 feet or more on either side of fish-bearing streams.

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown, one of three members of the board, said during Tuesday’s meeting that bidders can exceed these requirements. However, prospective buyers cannot offer more than the state’s price of $220.8 million, determined earlier this year to be the forest’s fair market value.

Speakers during the public comment period, of whom there were about 35, spoke in favor of keeping the forest public.

Several commentors, including children, said they lived in the area and that they feared the potential effect of new ownership on the forest’s rivers, trees and fish.

The land board, however, bears ultimate responsibility for the acquisition decision.

Several dozen entities have expressed interest in buying the land, according to the Department of State Lands. These include public agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the Oregon Department of Forestry.

According to State Lands Spokeswoman Julie Curtis, public entities who submitted expressions of interest in accordance with the state deadline can partner with private entities to submit acquisition plans, as long as those who formally expressed interest on deadline are the lead entity on any acquisition plan.

Acquisition plans are due Nov. 15, one week after the general election. Oregon Gov. Kate Brown is the only board member seeking reelection.

Secretary of State Jeanne Atkins plans to retire when her term concludes at the end of this year, while Treasurer Ted Wheeler has been elected to serve as mayor of Portland starting in January.

At Tuesday’s meeting, DSL Director Jim Paul said the sale was on track to meet the projected timeline for the sale of the Elliott State Forest property.

After the Nov. 15 deadline, it may take the department up to a week to evaluate all of the proposals for how well they meet the criteria, Paul said, and public comment will again be taken at the board’s next meeting Dec. 13.

In other business, on Tuesday the board also received the department’s annual aquatic resource management report and approved the sale of two state-owned trust parcels — one in Marion County and another in Lincoln County.

The Marion County parcel, approximately 0.68 acres, is being sold to the city of Salem, as it is surrounded by city property in Minto Brown Park. The Lincoln County Parcel, approximately 70.6 acres, is being sold to the Wetlands Conservancy, a conservation nonprofit.

The board also approved “clarifying” changes to administrative rules governing state-owned submerged and submersible land.

ONTARIO, Ore. — Scotts Miracle Gro. experts showed farmers and others how to identify a genetically engineered creeping bentgrass Oct. 10 during an outreach meeting.

The bentgrass, which was being developed by Scotts and Monsanto Corp. for use mainly on golf courses, escaped field trials in 2003 and has taken root in Malheur and Jefferson counties in Oregon.

Some of the plants have also been found in Canyon County in Idaho.

Bob Harriman, vice president of biotechnology for Scotts, said the company has a good idea where the plant is in Malheur County.

However, he added, farmers and others can be the company’s “extra eyes out there so we know where it is and we can hop on it” when it’s found.

The grass has fine, shallow roots and will most likely be found at the water’s edge, especially around irrigation ditches, he said.

“It’s so dry here that if it’s not by a water source ... it’s not going to grow,” he said.

The grass has short leaves and can be identified by its long stolons, which grow or creep horizontally along the ground.

“Visually, the stolons are your easiest identifier,” Harriman said.

The plant was genetically engineered to resist applications of the glyphosate herbicide.

There are conventional creeping bentgrass varieties in the area and if growers want further confirmation that the plant is genetically engineered, they can spray it with glyphosate.

Scotts can also send people strip tests that will show conclusively whether the plant is a genetically engineered variety.

To contact Scotts, call (877) 375-5139 or send an email to questions@scotts.com. People can also visit the company’s website at http://scottsmiraclegro.com/gtcbanswers/

“If you suspect a plant, let us know and we’ll investigate,” Harriman said. “If we find it, we’ll ... take care of it.”

Some farmers and water managers in the area worry that because the bentgrass is resistant to glyphosate and is hard to kill, it could clog irrigation ditches and affect shipments of crops to other nations that don’t accept traces of genetically modified organisms.

They have also voiced concerns that a recent 10-year agreement Scotts reached with USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service will allow the company in a few years to essentially walk away from any responsibility for controlling the plant.

Since the plant escaped field trials, Scotts has been responsible for surveying for it and eradicating it when possible.

Harriman said Scotts won’t walk away from its commitment to helping growers in the area eradicate and control the plant.

“We have a history of doing the right thing and we are going to continue to do the right thing,” he told Capital Press.

Bill Buhrig, an Oregon State University cropping systems extension agent in Malheur County, said some of the criticism aimed at Scotts over its response to the escaped grass could have been prevented with better outreach and education efforts in the past.

“Yesterday’s meeting was a great start toward helping concerned folks learn about the plant and how to identify it,” he said.

MEDFORD, Ore. (AP) — Motorists do double-takes as they gawk at fields of cannabis plants flowering just outside Ashland.

But what they’re looking at are 40,000 medicinal hemp plants covering 30 sloping acres at the foothills of Grizzly Peak on East Nevada Street.

“There’s a lot of people wondering what’s going on,” said Chris Bourne, one of several partners in this unusual cannabis operation. “People have concerns, people have fears and people are stoked that we’re doing it.”

Instead of growing the more common hemp plants for their fiber, Bourne grows only female hemp plants that barely have any trace of the active ingredient that makes people high.

The cannabis plants look exactly the same as their more intoxicating cousins and are even pushing out purple flowers as they get ready for harvest. They also have a similar odor that annoys some and makes others beam with pleasure.

But smokers would be disappointed at the lack of a buzz.

Typical marijuana plants have tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, that produces the high. Bourne’s plants are being grown for the cannabidiol, or CBD, that many believe is good for pain relief, seizures, Parkinson’s disease and other ailments. In Oregon, hemp plants are limited to a maximum 0.3 percent THC.

“These plants have strong anti-inflammatory properties,” Bourne said.

Bourne said his fields have been tested and found in compliance by the Oregon Department of Agriculture, which licenses hemp operations.

“We can sell the CBDs nationwide,” he said. “There’s ways to monetize it nationally.”

He said the oils are used by research groups and clinical trials to determine how effective they are at managing ailments.

Ron Pence, operations manager at the Oregon Department of Agriculture, said he could confirm that Permaag LLC, the name of the company that runs the hemp farm, has an active license.

Pence said female hemp operations are becoming more common statewide, and 80 to 90 percent of growers have told him they are looking to extract CBDs.

“These are big, bushy plants with lots and lots of flower,” he said. “It looks like marijuana, smells like marijuana.”

Pence said most hemp farms are interested in growing organic crops.

He said the largest operation he knows of in the state is 75 acres near Salem, but he said the Ashland farm is a pretty good size as well.

Most passersby on the east side of Ashland are content to observe the hemp farm from their vehicles. But the sight of all those plants tempted someone to steal several over the weekend, leaving remnants of some plants lying on the ground. Bourne reported the theft to law enforcement.

“Those plants were going to go to those with Parkinson’s disease and other patients,” Bourne said. He said additional security steps are being taken to protect the crop.

Because he is growing hemp, his operation falls under a different set of state rules than either recreational or medical marijuana. The largest recreational pot operation can cover only slightly less than an acre, according to Oregon law.

Other marijuana operations bring in soil for growing. Bourne’s hemp plants required a tilling, planting and watering, but no amendments were added to the native clay soil.

The hemp went in the ground late in the season when temperatures hit 100 in July, which resulted in shorter plants, varying from 2 to 4 feet.

Initially, Bourne had 75,000 plants in the ground, but 35,000 of them were males and were pulled out.

“It was a lot of work,” he said. “We have 34 miles of rows of plants.”

He’s also growing without using pesticides or any sprays to combat insects. Bourne said he expects to see more insects next year, but he plans to take steps growing other plants that deter bugs to create biodiversity.

During the winter months, Bourne said he will grow a cover crop to fix the nitrogen in the soil.

When the hemp is harvested and dried in a couple of weeks, the CBD oils will be extracted and processed, Bourne said.

By next year, Bourne and his partners hope to have 500 to 1,000 acres of hemp growing in Southern Oregon, though he’s not ready to disclose the location.

SALEM, Ore. (AP) — A 55-year-old woman has been sentenced to fines and probation for first-degree cattle theft.

The Salem Statesman reports that Anita Branton pleaded guilty to committing theft of livestock valuing $10,000 or more on or between 2013 and 2014.

Branton was ordered Monday to pay $18,000 in restitution.

Branton’s attorney, Walter Todd, said she would pay the amount on Monday. He says Branton received stolen cattle but did not steal them herself.

Branton will also pay a $200 fine after pleading guilty to two misdemeanor charges of disfigurement of earmarks on cattle and obliteration or disfigurement of brands on cattle.

Wolves killed and ate most of two calves and badly injured a third in an attack that happened on private land frequented by the pack formed by Oregon’s best known wolf, OR-7.

Whether the Rogue Pack was involved is uncertain, because no pack members wear tracking collars, but the Wood River Valley in Southern Oregon’s Klamath County is part of the territory the pack uses, according to Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. A federal biologist, John Stephenson, added that other wolves use that area as well.

If it turns out Rogue Pack members were responsible, it would be their first known attack on livestock, said Stephenson, who works for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “They’ve had a good record,” he said.

Two calves, one about 800 pounds and the other estimated at 600 pounds, were found dead and mostly consumed Oct. 5. An employee of the livestock operation told investigators he saw three wolves feeding on one of the calves.

A third calf, about 300 pounds, was found alive with bite wounds on all four legs, according to an ODFW report.

Stephenson said the cow herd is scheduled to be moved from the area in a couple weeks, and wildlife officials hope to keep them safe until then.

The Rogue Pack’s alpha male, OR-7, became well known when he dispersed from Northeast Oregon’s Imnaha pack in September 2011. He wandered across the state and into California, becoming the first wolf known to have entered that state since 1924.

After traveling more than 1,000 miles in zig-zag fashion, he settled in the Southern Oregon Cascades and in 2014 found a mate, an unknown female. They’ve since had three litters of pups. OR-7’s tracking collar quit working in June 2015, but he was photographed by a trail camera as recently as June 2016.

Oregon wildlife officials are beginning required reviews of the way they manage wolves and cougars, while researchers are continuing to study how the two predators interact.

Information on the review process was scheduled to be presented to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Commission at its meeting Oct. 6-7 in La Grande.

In the background is an intriguing study, now in its third year, on wolf-cougar interaction in the Mount Emily Wildlife Unit of the Blue Mountains outside of the city.

Cougars and wolves compete for the same prey, primarily deer and elk. Cougars far outnumber wolves in Oregon — the state has an estimated 6,000 cougars and a minimum of 110 wolves — but are thought to be at a disadvantage because they are solitary animals while wolves hunt in packs.

From July 2014 through January 2016, ODFW and Oregon State University researchers documented 16 cases of direct and indirect wolf-cougar interaction in the Mount Emily management unit, according to research material. The majority of the interactions involved wolves scavenging prey that cougars had killed and hidden in caches, as they are called. There were two cases where wolves chased cougars up trees, one case in which wolves chased a collared cougar off a fresh kill and one case, in November 2015, where wolves killed three cougar kittens.

Since December 2013, researchers have collared 18 cougars in the study area, but four have died — one from unknown causes and the three kittens killed by wolves — and one is missing. Eleven wolves have been collared since the fall of 2013, but 10 have dispersed from their home packs, died, or their status is unknown. “This was not unexpected due to the dynamic nature of wolf packs,” the researchers commented in their report.

Four wolf packs use sections of the Mount Emily unit as their home range, but only one wolf is wearing a tracking collar at this time, the researchers reported.

GOLD BEACH — Curry County is suing the Department of State Lands over a river barrier on Floras Lake near Langlois.

Two Pacific Northwest winemakers won awards in recent weeks, and the Oregon producer involved believes the state’s surging wine industry has the potential to “lift the tide” for many other agricultural products.

Ed King, CEO and co-founder of King Estate in Eugene, said the future will find Oregon “fully arrived as a wine region standing on an equal footing with the world’s greatest.”

King’s 2015 Acrobat Pinot gris was named best buy of 2016 by Wine Enthusiast, an influential industry magazine. The designation goes to wines considered an extraordinary value. Acrobat sells for about $13 a bottle.

The Best Buy of the Year award was a first in that category for an Oregon wine. In 2014, Ken Wright’s 2012 Abbott Claim Vineyard Pinot noir, from the Willamette Valley’s Yamhill-Carlton district, was ranked first in Wine Enthusiast’s Top 100 wines.

In an interview, King said he views the award as a parallel development to news that a large California company, Jackson Family Wines, maker of the familiar Kendall-Jackson brand, has purchased its fourth Oregon property in three years.

King said the popularity of Oregon wines is a sign of its “arrival” in the wine world, and the interest of “very sophisticated” companies such as Jackson Family Wines is further evidence.

He said the current evolution and success of the state’s wine, beer, hard cider and spirits sectors may one day be looked upon as a “Golden Age” of Oregon agriculture.

King shared an email he distributed to wine industry leaders this summer in which he predicted Oregon will be “much more heavily planted” to wine grapes in the future, and that the Southern Oregon and Columbia River wine regions will “share in this growth and renown” with the Willamette Valley.

He said the wine industry will become the largest component of Oregon agriculture in terms of dollar value, and will be “politically powerful.”

Wine grapes ranked ninth in value among Oregon commodities in 2015, at $147 million. They were ranked 11th, at $107 million, in 2013.

King said Oregon wine must define itself as part of the state’s “global brand,” which will include fine craft beverages, great food and an “unspoiled environment” to attract culinary travelers.

King also said the state can have world-scale export brands “built around our spectacular Oregon products: wine, beer, cheese, fruits, berries, hops, nuts, meats and grains.”

He warned that Oregon wine must retain the diverse operations and high quality that got it to this point.

“Do not allow a creeping sameness under any guise (to) overtake our diversity,” he wrote his fellow vintners. “We must compete with each other with ferocity, and yet it is also our duty to seek the survival of our littlest, most unorthodox wineries.”

He said Oregon’s winemakers “must stay close to our dirt and our yeast, making our wine with the idea that we, ourselves, and our friends and families will be drinking it in ten and twenty years. We can do this and still be a business.”

The other recent wine prize went to the Walla Walla Valley’s L’Ecole N° 41 winery, of Lowden, Wash., which won a trophy for Best Red Bordeau Blend in the Six Nations Wine Challenge held in Australia.

Online

http://www.lecole.com

https://www.kingestate.com

http://www.winemag.com/buying-guide/acrobat-2015-pinot-gris-oregon

It’s unlikely any county will opt out of the recently certified $1.4 billion class action lawsuit over Oregon’s forest management practices, according to the attorney leading the case.

The decision by Linn County Circuit Court Judge Daniel Murphy to certify the lawsuit as a class action means that 15 Oregon counties and roughly 130 taxing districts automatically become plaintiffs in the case unless they ask to be excluded.

John DiLorenzo, attorney for lead plaintiff Linn County, said that he’d be surprised if any of the potential plaintiffs opt out, given their financial constraints.

“Why would any of the districts want to turn down money?” he said. “I am predicting there will be zero opt outs.”

Linn County filed the lawsuit earlier this year, arguing that Oregon was obligated to maximize timber harvests from 650,000 acres of forestland that counties turned over to state ownership in the early 20th Century.

Since 1998, however, the state government has emphasized environmental protection and recreational opportunities in managing the forests for their “greatest permanent value,” according to the lawsuit.

Last month, the case crossed a significant hurdle when Murphy refused a request by Oregon’s attorneys to dismiss the lawsuit.

The class certification doesn’t come as a surprise because the judge said he was inclined to grant that request in the previous decision, but it nonetheless raises the stakes for Oregon — particularly given the prospect of trying the case before a Linn County jury.

Even if some of the counties or tax districts don’t oppose the state government’s forest management philosophy, it’s not probable they feel strongly enough to miss out on a portion of the potential $1.4 billion in damages, said DiLorenzo.

Likewise, it’s unlikely that the counties or tax districts will opt out to pursue a similar lawsuit on their own, he said.

Oregon’s attorneys have until May 2017 to file “dispositive motions” to get the case thrown out based on matters of law, but it’s unclear what arguments they could make since the lawsuit is “going to be very fact-specific,” DiLorenzo said.

Capital Press was unable to reach attorneys for Oregon as of press time.

The Washington Supreme Court ruled Thursday that counties must verify that new domestic wells won’t harm existing water uses, even in rural areas where the Department of Ecology already has determined that the wells won’t impair senior water rights.

A business coalition that included the Washington Farm Bureau, homebuilders and real estate agents had urged the court to rule the other way, arguing that decisions about allocating water resources should be made at the state level to avoid a patchwork of local regulations.

The Farm Bureau said it was concerned that its rural members will be blocked from building homes or farmworker housing.

“It’s clearly a major, major case, and it’s a major disappointment to the Farm Bureau,” said Evan Sheffels, associate director of governmental affairs.

“It may make it extremely difficult and extremely expensive for farmers and rural landowners to build a home in the future,” he said. “It makes it hard for grandpa to bring a grandkid home to farm.”

The 6-3 ruling in Hirst v. Whatcom County was the latest Supreme Court decision striking at Ecology’s control of water. The ruling was in line with previous decisions that overturned new water uses. The court has protected minimum stream flows established by Ecology, even in cases in which Ecology created the new water rights.

This case stemmed from a challenge by the environmental group Futurewise and others to Whatcom County’s policy of allowing new wells for single-family homes in rural areas.

The county policy was based on Ecology’s 30-year-old Nooksack Rule, named for the area’s 786-square mile basin.

The rule limits new withdrawals from streams and rivers, but allows new small groundwater withdrawals.

Writing for the majority, Justice Charles Wiggins wrote that aquifers and streams are connected and that the Nooksack Rule allowed an “unchecked reduction of minimum flows.”

The policy also violated the Growth Management Act, which requires counties to protect surface and groundwater in rural areas, he wrote.

Ecology was not a party to the lawsuit, but filed a brief asking the court to find that the Nooksack Rule protected the county’s streams and rivers.

“We’re disappointed the Supreme Court didn’t uphold the Ecology’s interpretation of the Nooksack Rule,” department spokeswoman Kristin Johnson-Waggoner said. “We’re assessing the impact of the decision, and we’re working as fast as we can to determine how it’s going to effect us and people out there.”

In the dissenting opinion, Justice Debra Stephens said the majority opinion “imposes impossible burdens on homeowners.”

She cited a recent case that suggested proving that a new well won’t impair existing water rights would take two years and cost $300,000. She also said county building departments will have to evaluate hydrogeological studies. “The practical result of this holding is to stop counties from granting building permits that rely on permit-exempt wells,” Stephens wrote.

Justice Madsen concurred with the majority, but issued a separate opinion, urging the state, local governments and tribes to work together to make water available. “This is not a burden to be shifted onto individual permit applicants,” she wrote.

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Under a brief, but rapid-fire cross-examination Thursday, Ammon Bundy denied leading the occupation of a national wildlife refuge and defended receiving a U.S. Small Business Administration loan.

Bundy, 41, who’s on trial for conspiring to impede Interior Department workers from doing their jobs at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, was quickly reminded by Assistant U.S. Attorney Ethan Knight that he had earlier testified that he was the leader.

Bundy said he was not a leader in the way Knight considers him to be. The man who led followers to the refuge for the 41-day standoff with law enforcement said he teaches “core principles” to people and lets them govern themselves.

Those principles, spoken of in great detail during three days of testimony this week, include Bundy’s belief that the federal government can’t own land within a state’s borders, except for limited purposes.

Knight closed his 15-minute cross-examination by getting Bundy to acknowledge receiving a $530,000 U.S. Small Business Administration loan, a move to show Bundy isn’t opposed to the federal government when it can help him profit.

Bundy said he supports the federal government, but not its management of land within states.

Bundy has said he came to Oregon’s high desert to help locals deal with an overreaching federal government that has abused people’s land rights for decades. The immediate issue was the case of Dwight and Steven Hammond, two ranchers who Bundy felt were unjustly returning to prison on arson convictions.

Earlier Thursday, Bundy was questioned by his own attorney and lawyers representing the other six people charged in the alleged conspiracy. One was his brother and co-defendant Ryan Bundy, who’s acting as his own lawyer.

“How you doing, brother?” Ammon asked Ryan at the start of the testimony.

The pair discussed their relationship, from childhood to the start of the occupation. Ammon testified that the pair spoke by phone in the run up to the occupation, but never discussed the refuge or impeding federal workers.

Ryan Bundy did not arrive in southeast Oregon until the morning of the occupation, his brother said.

“I know you were not very prepared, didn’t have much of a jacket,” said Ammon Bundy, showing his brother had planned to attend a rally in support of the Hammonds but did not intend an extended stay.

Co-defendant Shawna Cox, also acting her own lawyer, briefly questioned Bundy. Lawyers for the other four defendants — Kenneth Medenbach, Jeff Banta, Neil Wampler and David Fry — asked questions designed to show they had only brief interactions with Bundy and were not involved in key decisions.

Medenbach’s lawyer, Matthew Schindler, asked Bundy how a federal employee was supposed to work when Bundy was using her office and sitting in her chair.

“I didn’t really think of it,” Bundy said.

Answering questions from his own lawyer, Bundy repeated statements from earlier in the week that the group planned to take ownership of the refuge by means of adverse possession, which is a way to gain title to land by occupying it for a period of time. The defense displayed videos that showed Bundy lecturing on the topic at the refuge.

Bundy testified he did not visit the refuge before the occupation and had to use GPS to find it.

The prosecutor returned to that statement during his cross-examination, asking Bundy if he really needed GPS to find a place in which he intended to stay until 2036. Bundy responded that he expected the government to try to evict him — not arrest him — and the land dispute would be settled in civil court.

Prosecutors allege the conspiracy began two months before the occupation, when Bundy and another activist arrived in Harney County and gave Sheriff Dave Ward an ultimatum — protect the Hammonds from returning to federal prison or face extreme civil unrest.

Knight reminded Bundy that he told Ward during a Nov. 19 meeting that he wasn’t bluffing.

Bundy said he couldn’t remember a conversation that happened 11 months ago.

“Didn’t we listen to a recording of it two days ago?” Knight asked.

“Yeah, bits and pieces,” Bundy said.

Early Thursday, Bundy testified that he moved freely during the occupation, giving law enforcement plenty of chances to arrest him and end the occupation early. He said he traveled to nearby Burns for a haircut and Chinese food, and made three trips to see his wife and six kids in Emmett, Idaho.

Bundy also described the Jan. 26 traffic stop on a highway north of the refuge that ended with his arrest. He said he feared getting shot if he made a move and was too afraid to pick up his hat. He said armed police were in trees and everywhere else.

“I had red dots all over me,” he said.

Police fatally shot Robert “LaVoy” Finicum after he fled the stop in a different vehicle.

When Bundy called it an ambush, U.S. District Judge Anna Brown halted further mention of the topic, reminding the courtroom that Finicum’s death isn’t being litigated.

Finicum’s wife, Jeanette, testified late Thursday. In tears, she recalled how she repeatedly asked LaVoy to come home early in the standoff.

JOHN DAY, Ore. (AP) — Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer says he “never reviewed” a state policy that he has cited as justification for destroying government emails.

In a recent deposition, Palmer also contradicted his earlier claim that it was practice in his office to print emails, file the hard copies and then delete the electronic versions. Under oath, he said his office has no such policy and he never told his employees to handle emails that way.

He also testified that he released cellphone records only after redacting personal calls, including calls to people associated with a militia.

Palmer’s disclosures came under questioning by a lawyer for The Oregonian/OregonLive as part of a lawsuit seeking public records. In May, The Oregonian/OregonLive sued Palmer and his office after he ignored or declined several requests for records dating to February. That included police reports, cellphone records, emails, his calendar and records of handgun licenses. Oregon law generally makes such material open to the public.

Palmer acknowledged in subsequent court filings that he had no electronic versions of emails to turn over because he routinely deleted them from his primary account. He has yet to produce any hard copies of emails.

Emails have become a crucial resource for the public and the press to monitor the conduct of public officials such as Palmer. They can document how government decisions are made and who is influencing public officials.

During the deposition in late September, the sheriff asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination 51 times when questioned about his email practices.

Palmer already is under criminal investigation for an allegation that in 2012 he destroyed an electronic copy of a police report.

In the deposition, Palmer said:

— He considered calls to or from those associated with the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge to be “personal” so they didn’t have to be disclosed to the public.

— Records of his government-issued cellphone show “many” personal phone calls — a potential violation of state ethics law prohibits personal use of government equipment.

— He frequently “confided” in a man recently convicted in Grant County of the theft of fire equipment. Palmer had investigated and cleared his friend, Roy R. Peterson of Monument. The Oregon State Police did a separate investigation and a jury found Peterson guilty in August.

—A flooring contractor he considered a “close friend” asked to become a special deputy so he could process concealed handgun licenses in the Portland area. Palmer said he didn’t learn until four years later that the man was associated with the Oregon Firearms Federation, a gun rights organization.

Palmer, 54, gained national attention for his sympathy with occupiers who took over the wildlife refuge in January. His conduct prompted John Day city officials and Grant County residents to file 11 complaints questioning his fitness for office. The state Department of Public Safety Standards and Training said it will conduct an administrative inquiry once the state criminal investigation of Palmer is complete.

The Oregonian/OregonLive sought Palmer’s email records, including during the period of the occupation, but he said there were no emails in the private email account he uses for most of his government work. Through his attorneys, he provided a state document called “E-mail Policy Manual for Local Government” as his legal authority.

His attorneys wrote in court filings that the sheriff’s office “practice regarding staff and officer emails” to maintain only hard copies followed requirements in the manual.

But handed the manual during the deposition, Palmer testified, “I have never reviewed this document prior to today.”

He said his office had no policy on how to retain or print emails. Asked if employees had been instructed when to delete emails, Palmer replied that “I don’t believe so. I’ve never had a discussion with anybody to that effect.”

Sally DeFord, a civil deputy who handles administrative functions in Palmer’s office, testified that she knew of no office email policy and “nothing” had been communicated to her about keeping emails. She said that Palmer hadn’t told her when she could delete emails.

The deposition zeroed in on the evening when refuge occupier Robert “LaVoy” Finicum was shot and killed by state troopers as he and other occupiers traveled off the bird sanctuary and headed to John Day. Palmer released records from his personal cellphone that included a mix of personal and work calls. He redacted the telephone numbers and length of calls for those he considered personal.

The evening of Jan. 26, Palmer was in uniform at a community center in John Day, ready to speak at a gathering that featured Ammon Bundy, the leader of the refuge occupation. He drove to an Oregon State Police roadblock in the south end of Grant County after he heard about Finicum’s shooting but returned after a short time.

The records for Jan. 26 after the shooting showed that Palmer used his personal cellphone to make or receive 12 calls that evening. He classified 10 of them as personal. He said that in general he would consider calls to anyone associated with the occupation to be personal.

He said he would have classified as personal any call with Brooke Agresta, 36, a friend who has described herself as the intelligence officer for an Idaho militia group. She said in Facebook postings that she was the one who notified Palmer of Finicum’s shooting and kept him posted by phone through the evening. Palmer didn’t say whether he had redacted Agresta’s number from his personal cellphone records. But her number doesn’t appear on the records for a second, government-issued phone that he provided without redaction.

Palmer was asked whether he learned of the shooting in his role as sheriff.

“It’s kind of a gray area,” Palmer said. “I don’t know whether to say yes or no.”

Palmer also struggled to explain phone records showing repeated calls on his government cellphone to Peterson, his friend convicted recently for stealing fire trucks. Records Palmer provided for his personal cellphone also showed calls to Monument but with the telephone number redacted. He said those were to Peterson, too.

The sheriff said he had known Peterson and his family for years, once lived two doors from Peterson, and the two once were firefighters with a local department. He said some phone calls in the records were personal and some were work. He deputized Peterson in March for rescue missions and radio work while he was awaiting trial on the theft charges.

“I confide in him quite a bit of stuff that’s going on,” Palmer said.

He investigated Peterson in 2013 when a rural fire district complained that Peterson wouldn’t turn over fire engines and other equipment. Palmer closed the case concluding it was a civil matter. State police subsequently took up the investigation. Peterson was sentenced this week to 60 days in jail.

Under questioning about his government-issued cellphone, Palmer testified “there’s lots of personal calls.”

State ethics law prohibits public officials from making personal use of government property. The Oregon Government Ethics Commission in a staff opinion said that a public official can use a government-issued phone “for personal business on a brief and infrequent basis (2 to 3 times per month)” without violating the law.

In 2010, Palmer deputized Salvatore D. Casuccio, 49, of Gresham, so he could process concealed handgun licenses for out-of-state applicants. State law authorizes sheriffs to issue licenses to residents of their county or to residents of neighboring states.

The sheriff has faced local criticism for deputizing untrained civilians. Grant County records show he has appointed 65 volunteer deputies since 2010. He has said he has no applications or other records documenting the training or qualifications of the deputies.

Palmer described Cascuccio as a close friend who approached him about becoming a special deputy.

“I think he got ahold of me and kind of threw the idea at me,” Palmer said.

He said he had “no files” regarding Cascuccio. He said Casuccio already was trained in fingerprinting and he gave only verbal instructions about duties to Casuccio.

He said he learned about four years after he deputized Casuccio that he was affiliated with the Oregon Firearms Federation.

“Somebody told me that he has something to do with the membership” of the federation, he said.

Casuccio didn’t respond to telephone messages. The Oregon Firearms Federation didn’t respond to questions about why Cascuccio’s affiliation wasn’t disclosed to Palmer. The organization instead asked for a transcript of Palmer’s testimony.

The federation’s political action committee earlier this year gave $5,000 to Palmer’s legal defense fund — his largest contribution.

BANDON — “The Ventriloquist” is a new approach for New Artists Productions, a rare dramatic presentation being staged at the Sprague Community Theater.

SUMMER LAKE, Ore. (AP) — The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has confirmed a wolf attack in Lake County last month.

The Herald and News reports that it is believed a tracked female gray wolf perpetrated the Sept. 28 attack that injured a calf grazing as a part of a herd.

No other incidents of wolf depredation have been reported in the area recently.

Wildlife officials are composing a conflict deterrence plan to help stop future depredation by the Silver Lake wolf pack. The plan will outline non-lethal, preventive measures that livestock producers can take to avoid conflicts with wolves.

The longshoremen’s union is asking a federal appeals court to shut down a subsidy program at the Port of Portland that’s already effectively defunct.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently heard oral arguments in the dispute, which pits the International Longshore and Warehouse Union against a program that paid ocean carriers to visit the Port of Portland’s container terminal.

ILWU argues that the port used taxpayer dollars to benefit a private corporation, which violates Oregon’s constitution.

However, the subsidy program is non-operational because ocean carriers stopped calling at the Terminal 6 last year, citing work slowdowns by the longshoremen.

The facility’s shutdown is a hardship for agricultural exporters who must now ship crops to Asia from more distant ports, increasing their transportation costs.

Andrew Ziaja, attorney for ILWU, told the 9th Circuit that a federal judge incorrectly ruled that the subsidies were constitutional because the money was drawn from rent paid by ICTSI Oregon, the terminal operator.

“The port commingled its tax revenue and its commercial revenue in the same fund and in the same bank account,” he said during oral arguments on Oct. 3. “It’s not possible to distinguish tax revenue from commercial revenue when looking at a commingled fund or a commingled bank account.”

Randy Foster, attorney for the Port of Portland, said the agency used “suspenders, belt and superglue” accounting methods to keep the rent revenues separate from tax dollars.

“The port knows through its accounting systems where the tax revenues are and how they are used,” he said.

Just because a tax dollar is in the same bank account as commercial funds “does not infect those and prevent me from using those in the future,” Foster said, saying the ILWU’s theory “defies modern accounting and fiscal management techniques.”

It’s unclear exactly what the longshoremen’s union would have to gain from a favorable ruling by the 9th Circuit. Not only is the subsidy program non-operational, but it attracted container traffic to the port that kept ILWU members employed.

Representatives and attorneys of the ILWU did not respond to requests for comment by Capital Press.

The ongoing litigation is likely an example of the “longshore mentality” of biting into something and not letting go, said Jim Tessier, a longshore labor consultant and former employee of the Pacific Maritime Association, which represents terminal operators.

“They operate on a lot of emotion,” Tessier said. “They don’t like losing and nobody tells them what to do.”

Melanie Maceros, a spokesperson for the port, said the Port of Portland is defending the subsidies because it hopes that ocean carriers will return to the container facility.

“We are committed to restoring container service at Terminal 6,” she said.

Maceros also noted that litigation over the subsidy program is just one lawsuit in roughly a dozen filed between the longshoremen’s union, the port and the terminal operator.

“This is just working its way through the court system,” she said.

Michael LeRoy, a labor law professor at the University of Illinois who has studied longshore disputes, said the subsidy lawsuit may be a way to exact pressure on the Port of Portland and ICTSI in the overall legal battle.

“Their thinking might be to leverage it to get some kind of broader settlement,” he said. “They must see some strategic value in this.”

Peter Friedmann, executive director of the Agriculture Transportation Coalition, said the ongoing litigation may simply be a form of “inertia,” since the case precedes the suspension of activity at the terminal.

It stands to reason that the longshoremen would not object to any subsidy program that keeps them working at the container terminal, he said. “It would not be the advice I’d give them, but frankly they’re not asking my advice.”

SUVER, Ore. — Staring up into the innards of a partially dismantled grain elevator, deconstruction expert Steve Marlega could barely contain his enthusiasm.

Though much of the wood in the roughly 70-year-old structure was too insect-damaged to be reclaimed, the massive old-growth timber beams supporting its frame were in superb condition.

“I’ll tear this whole thing down just for those,” said Marlega, project manager for Northwest Reclaimed Wood, a deconstruction firm.

While the old Pacific Seed grain elevator in Suver, Ore., was no longer useful to its current owner, the Wilbur-Ellis farm supply company, lumber from the structure will live on in various forms.

Like the wood from ancient barns and other outdated and dilapidated agricultural buildings around the region, it will be turned into furniture and used in home renovations by people who value its unique heritage.

“History is huge. You don’t want it to just die,” said Danuta Burris, co-owner of Salem Salvage, a reclaimed wood company that buys material from Marlega.

People often prefer to use lumber that was milled at about the same time as their older homes were built because it fits better aesthetically and dimensionally, she said.

Such lumber is also used as a decorative element in newer homes, Burris said. “Barn wood is a big thing right now. Everybody wants that barn wood look.”

Dismantling an old barn or grain elevator is much more time-consuming and complicated than simply bulldozing it or setting fire to it. The added care is necessary to extract the valuable lumber intact, said Marlega. “You can’t get it by knocking it over.”

In some cases, quickly demolishing or burning down a structure simply isn’t safe or practical. The Pacific Seed grain elevator, for example, was too close to other buildings and a railroad track.

However, deconstruction also reduces the trauma of removing a structure with which people have developed a nostalgic connection, said Michelle Ratcliffe, a landowner near Hubbard, Ore., who worked with Salem Salvage to dismantle a barn earlier this year.

Ratcliffe thought of her old barn as “the world’s greatest lawn ornament,” while neighbors considered it a local attraction.

“People loved the barn,” she said. “It is really emotional for the people involved and the community.”

Unfortunately, the leaning structure had become dangerous. Renovating it would have been prohibitively expensive.

The deconstruction process, meanwhile, yielded salvageable wood that can be used as floorboards or other elements, as well as “trinkets and treasures,” such as an old hay trolley, Ratcliffe said.

“This is a valuable resource and it doesn’t need to go up in flames,” she said.

The terms of each deconstruction project are different, and in some cases, buildings have decayed too much for the process to be worthwhile, said Marlega.

As a rule of thumb, the value of reclaimed lumber offsets the cost of deconstruction to the landowner, who also saves money by having less waste material to dump at the landfill, he said.

Salem Salvage earns roughly half its revenues by wholesaling the lumber to builders and woodworkers, and the other half by turning the wood into furniture, Burris said. The company also restores old barns as a supplementary seasonal business.

“I love wood and I love being creative, so it’s fun for me,” she said.

It’s critical for the company to keep track of the lumber’s origin, she said. “My guys in the yard know where each piece of wood came from.”

Such details are valuable for furniture-building companies such as The Shaker Craftsman in Yakima, Wash., which buys lumber from Salem Salvage.

Shaker Craftsman uses old-school joinery methods to make furniture from lumber that comes entirely from a single building, said Rhonda Cornwell, the company’s co-owner.

“They know I need that information,” she said. “If you provide that history, our customers really like that.”

Cornwell said she buys several species of reclaimed lumber from all over the U.S., but relies on Salem Salvage for old-growth Douglas fir.

Television shows, magazines and social media devoted to home renovation have increased the popularity of reclaimed lumber, driving up both competition and prices, she said.

“People are wanting it more,” Cornwell said. “A lot of people are getting more aware of it.”

Aside from its age, reclaimed lumber intrigues people due to its texture.

“The coolest thing about it is the wood is amazing before you do anything to it,” said Terry Edwards, Burris’ husband and co-owner of Salem Salvage.

Unusual textures often develop from how a piece of wood is used over decades, he said.

For instance, the old Pacific Seed grain elevator contained wooden chutes that grain passed through.

Over time, the grain wore away the softer wood, leaving ripples similar to those created when water passes over sand, Edwards said.

Edwards plans to use the wood from the chutes to build a conference table for Wilbur-Ellis.

“We’re going to knock their socks off,” he said.

Another unique texture was created when generations of cows stomped on the floor boards of a barn, causing the softer wood to wear away faster than the knots, which then appeared elevated.

Edwards and Burris turned that lumber into a bench that a wife gave to her husband, a former cowhand.

“It told the story of how the cows had worked that wood just by walking on it and gave it a shape that a machine never could,” Edwards said.

PORTLAND (AP) — The leader of a 41-day standoff at a national wildlife refuge in Oregon testified that he orchestrated the takeover to take “a hard stand” against the federal government’s control of public lands and said the occupiers would not be successful unless they carried guns.

Ammon Bundy’s two days of testimony have taken jurors from his family’s high-profile 2014 standoff with federal agents in Nevada to this winter’s occupation of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, revealing the connections between the two. Bundy asserted the Nevada standoff triggered the activism that led him to Oregon.

Though U.S. District Judge Anna Brown has tried to keep jurors focused on the criminal charges, the charismatic Bundy has repeatedly tried to use the platform to amplify his message that Western states must win more control over vast federal land holdings.

Bundy, 41, is among seven people accused of conspiring to impede federal workers from doing their jobs at the refuge during the occupation that lasted nearly six weeks. Four of the seven, including Bundy, are also charged with possessing a gun in a federal facility. If convicted, they face years in prison.

Bundy said he did not conspire with anyone in the weeks prior to the Jan. 2 occupation. That morning, he met a group at a restaurant 30 miles from the refuge and suggested they take it over during a rally supporting two ranchers set to return to prison for arson.

“I proposed to them that we go into the refuge, and we basically take possession of it, and we give these lands back to the people,” Bundy said.

He said he wasn’t armed on the refuge but acknowledged telling others to carry guns. Otherwise, the occupation had no chance of success, he said.

“Without the guns, they would have come out in a paddy wagon and put us in zip-tie handcuffs,” Bundy said of authorities. “We would never have been able to tell people why we were there.”

Bundy testified that interfering with federal workers was never a consideration. He wanted to generate media coverage of the treatment of Dwight and Steven Hammond, father-and-son ranchers convicted of setting fire to public land, and his belief that the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government very limited right to own land within a state.

“This issue is the issue,” Bundy told the judge when she tried to limit his testimony about the Constitution. “This is why we went onto the refuge and did what we did.”

Bundy maintains he tried legally to keep the Hammonds out of prison before deciding he had no choice but to take what he repeatedly called a “hard stand.”

Prosecutors contend the conspiracy began two months before the occupation, when Bundy met an Oregon sheriff on Nov. 5 to discuss the plight of the Hammonds. Bundy said that was not true.

He testified that a police official helped ease tensions during a 2014 standoff with federal agents at his father, Cliven Bundy’s Nevada ranch. The federal agents tried to round up the elder Bundy’s cattle but backed off as they faced a large armed group.

A video played for jurors showed the police official appearing to broker the deal that allowed Cliven Bundy’s cattle to go free.

Ammon Bundy said that official protected his family, and he figured Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward in Oregon would do the same for the Hammonds. But he said the discussion with Ward got no results, and neither did his efforts to contact elected officials.

Bundy also discussed how his religious faith played a role in his decision to help the ranchers. The judge, however, stopped him from reading Scripture on the stand.

After the jury left for its lunch break, Bundy co-defendant Neil Wampler stood to applaud, saying, “We all love you Ammon. Thank you so much for what you’re doing.”

Bundy will take the stand again Thursday.

Yamhill County Farm Bureau has announced the recipients of its 2016 scholarship program. Joanna Kubes, a graduate of Dayton High School in Dayton, Ore., and Kaitlin Davis, a graduate from Country Faith Christian Academy in Newberg, will each receive a $1,500 college scholarship.

Joanna is a sophomore at Oregon State University, pursuing a double major in agricultural business and public health with plans of a career in agribusiness working in food production. An active FFA member for six years, she has served in many leadership roles, including chapter president and Lower Willamette District vice president and president.

Joanna has also competed in national FFA competitions, most recently in the National Agricultural Sales contest in Louisville, Ky., where her team took first place.

After a long history of 4-H involvement with a focus on poultry, Kaitlin is also sophomore at OSU, studying animal science and agricultural education. Among her accomplishments are earning the titles of Yamhill County Reserve Champion and Master Showmanship Champion. While maintaining her studies, she serves as treasurer of the county 4-H Leaders Association, teaching an animal ag class at Country Faith Christian Academy and working as a teaching assistant in her OSU Animal Science lab.

Her goal is to become a vocational ag teacher where she can share her enthusiasm for agriculture with youth.

“We congratulate these exceptional students and are proud to support their academic endeavors toward careers in agriculture,” said Jerry Mann, president of Yamhill County Farm Bureau. “Farm Bureau supports all young people pursuing careers in agriculture. It is very important that we encourage a new generation of ag professionals.”