CEDAR MILL, Ore. — One of the key figures in Oregon agriculture right now is a gardener but not a farmer, writes a community newspaper but has no journalism training, and worries about insecticides but endorses a five-year state plan to kill invasive Japanese beetles.

“I’m at Ground Zero,” said Virginia Bruce. “This is a huge threat.”

That it is. The Oregon Department of Agriculture proposes to treat about 1,000 acres in Washington County, just west of Portland, with annual granular applications of Acelepryn, which will kill Japanese beetles in the grub stage. But to get after the beetles, department staff will have to treat yards and flower beds at about 2,500 private homes. And they might have to come back annually for up to five consecutive years.

These days, expecting the public to believe what government scientists say isn’t a sure thing. And some people in the treatment area might question the insecticide plan if it were being pushed solely by a business group, such as the plant nurseries whose product is at risk.

Clint Burfitt, who manages the eradication program for the ag department, said there is something akin to an “anti-expert” atmosphere at work, and a grass-roots effort stands a better chance of reaching people. Following that line, he identified Bruce, who has extensive community connections as editor and publisher of the monthly Cedar Mill News, as an important ally.

“It’s pretty clever,” Bruce said. “This guy Burfitt is an expert on these beetles and ways to deal with it. He said the only way to have a successful campaign is to have community partners.”

She said Burfitt recently attended a community meeting that included members of the Aloha Garden Club, which holds an annual plant sale and gets some of its plants from members who live in what Bruce calls “Ground Zero.” It’s quite possible, Bruce said, that some plant buyers took Japanese Beetle grubs home with them.

The agriculture department decided to take action after a record 369 beetles were found in traps last year and numerous live beetles were found eating roses and other plants in the area. Japanese beetles are capable of causing heavy damage. They’ll eat nursery plants, wine grapes, cannabis, hazelnuts and cane berries in addition to homeowners’ flowers.

Burfitt said failure to stop the infestation would cost Oregon agriculture an estimated $43 million a year in lost plant value, export restrictions and increased spraying and other production costs. The department says Acelepryn, the insecticide, won’t harm pets, birds, bees or people.

He’s won Bruce over, and she’s using her print edition, website and email newsletter, and her garden club connections, to help spread the word. She’s been writing about it since last August, and the windows of her office display informational fliers and maps of the affected area.

“If the problem gets out of control, everybody who grows that kind of stuff will have to spray, and that’s worse,” she said. “The importance of this whole thing is just mind-boggling.”

In addition to helping Burfitt make community connections, she helped convince the ag department to revise its outreach material. The first version urged homeowners to protect the “Rose City,” which is Portland’s nickname. But Cedar Mill and Bethany are proudly and distinctly outside the city in unincorporated Washington County, and residents don’t like to be called “Northwest Portland.”

“I understand how devastating an invasive pest can be,” Bruce said. “I understand how it can affect the economy and enjoyment of the community. The damage potential of these beetles far outweighs the reservations I have about using chemicals.”

The ag department will hold a pair of open house meetings on the project. The first is Saturday, March 4, from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. at Leedy Grange Hall, 835 N.W. Saltzman Road. The second is Monday, March 6, from 5:15 to 7:15 p.m. at the Cedar Mill Library, 12505 N.W. Cornell Road.

More information about the project is online: http://www.japanesebeetlepdx.info/

Virginia Bruce

Occupation: Editor and publisher of the Cedar Mill News.

Personal: Age 70, divorced. Her son, James Bruce, is an attorney in Tigard, Ore. Her daughter, Megan Bruce, suffered from depression and committed suicide. Virginia Bruce speaks openly about it in hopes of helping other families.

Ag connection: Has become the Oregon Department of Agriculture’s key community connection as it moves to eradicate invasive Japanese beetles in a 1,000-acre residential area of Washington County.

Professional development: Bruce said she fell into publishing the Cedar Mill News. Years before, when her children were young, she’d put together the Portland Family Calendar, a listing of activities and other information. In Cedar Mill, the local business association was seeking to reach more people and Bruce suggested a similar newsletter. From there, the monthly publication evolved into a community newspaper. It’s printed on high-speed copiers, with 800 copies distributed free. It also circulates by email and has a website, http://cedarmill.org/news/index.html

Office partner: Scout, an active 3 1/2-year-old Jack Russell-Dachsund mix. “Everything’s her business,” Bruce said. “She takes after me.”

SALEM — Oregon’s farm regulators may curtail inspections conducted on behalf of the federal government to free up time to tackle a backlog of state food safety inspections.

The Oregon Department of Agriculture performs 500 inspections a year to ensure food manufacturers are following federal sanitation standards and other regulations, for which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration pays the agency $700,000.

Last year, a state audit found that ODA’s food safety program had a backlog of 2,800 facilities — such as processors, dairies and bakeries — that were overdue for an inspection by at least three months.

As part of its plan to reduce the backlog, ODA is considering trimming the number of federal inspections to 400 a year, which would also reduce its federal funding for inspections by one-fifth, said Stephanie Page, the agency’s director of food safety and animal health.

That shift would free up about 700 hours a year that ODA employees could devote to state inspections, which are typically more streamlined and require less extensive reports than federal inspections, Page said during a recent meeting of the Oregon Board of Agriculture.

Currently, the ODA employs 32 inspectors, two field operation managers and 7 specialists who also conduct inspections.

It’s also possible that ODA will withdraw from the FDA’s Manufactured Food Regulatory Program Standards program, a cooperative food safety program that enrolls state agencies, Page said.

The ODA has enforcement authorities, such as suspending or revoking operating licenses, necessary to ensure food safety, she said. “We have the teeth we need to deal with issues.”

Oregon’s contemplated decrease in federal inspections comes at a time when the FDA is poised to become even more dependent on state officials to carry out the Food Safety Modernization Act.

The law was enacted in 2011 but the FDA spent several years completing the rules for farmers and manufacturers, which state agencies are expected to help implement.

The FSMA regulations will likely make federal inspections of food facilities even more time-consuming, likely further reducing the number of such inspections that ODA can handle, said Page.

Aside from enhanced inspections of manufacturing facilities, FSMA requires on-site inspections of farms that grow produce this is eaten raw.

The ODA isn’t certain it wants to perform such inspections, though the agency has asked state lawmakers for that authority just in case, said Page.

If the agency does conduct on-farm inspections for FDA, it would need a separate group of employees dedicated to the task, she said.

“We have to have federal funds to do it and we have to have additional staff,” Page said.

Saturdays

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A federal judge has dropped one of three charges filed against the lawyer for the leader of the armed occupation at an Oregon wildlife refuge.

U.S District Judge John C. Coughenour also said in court Thursday he will decide, not a jury, on the other two charges.

Coughenour dismissed a charge that accused Marcus Mumford of creating a disturbance by impeding the official duties of government officers because it encompassed the same conduct alleged in the second count, failing to comply with official signs that prohibit the disruption of federal officers’ official work.

The incident in question occurred when Mumford’s client Ammon Bundy was acquitted last fall and Mumford was tackled by federal marshals for refusing to stop arguing with the judge.

Mumford is also charged with failure to comply with the lawful direction of a federal police officer.

EUGENE, Ore. — Environmentalists claim the USDA’s contract to kill wolves on behalf of Oregon wildlife officials is unlawful because the federal agency hasn’t properly analyzed the environmental impacts.

The USDA, meanwhile, argues a lawsuit over the agreement is baseless because Oregon can kill problematic wolves even without federal assistance.

“This is predominantly a state program. The USDA is very much a bit player,” said Sean Martin, attorney for the agency, during oral arguments on Feb. 16 in Eugene, Ore.

Wolves in Eastern Oregon are no longer listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act but their population in that region is still managed under a state plan.

USDA’s Wildlife Services division killed two wolves at Oregon’s behest in 2009, which prompted environmental groups to sue the agency.

Under a settlement deal, USDA agreed to conduct an environmental assessment of its lethal wolf removal agreement with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

In 2014, the USDA’s analysis concluded its wolf control activities didn’t have significant environmental impacts, but five environmental groups — Cascadia Wildlands, Center for Biological Diversity, Wildearth Guardians, Predator Defense and Project Coyote — challenged that finding in federal court last year.

The plaintiffs asked U.S. District Judge Michael McShane to prohibit Wildlife Services from killing wolves in Oregon because USDA’s environmental assessment of the contract violated the National Environmental Policy Act.

USDA failed to take a “hard look” at the impact of killing wolves on the species’ population and ecosystem, said John Mellgren, attorney for the environmental groups.

Reducing predation on livestock by killing wolves hasn’t conclusively shown to be effective over the long term, so the strategy requires a greater degree of scrutiny by USDA, he said.

“It’s not settled science. There is controversy in the scientific community,” Mellgren said.

USDA’s analysis didn’t sufficiently consider the disruption to pack structure from lethal removal and neglected actions against wolves taken in neighboring states, he said.

The plaintiffs also argued that Wildlife Services will dispatch wolves more efficiently than Oregon wildlife managers, which casts doubt on the USDA’s claim that Oregon’s lethal control activities will proceed without federal help.

Non-target animals can be also killed by traps intended for wolves, but the USDA didn’t analyze those impacts as required, Mellgren said.

“We don’t know that because it’s not disclosed anywhere in the record,” he said of the number non-target killings.

The cumulative effects of USDA’s involvement in Oregon’s wolf control program should have triggered a more comprehensive environmental impact statement, or EIS, he said.

The USDA countered that even if Wildlife Services was ordered to desist from killing wolves, Oregon’s lethal control efforts would continue.

“This isn’t some brand new course of action,” Martin said.

The lethal expertise offered by USDA doesn’t trigger the need for an EIS because killing a few problem wolves has minimal consequences for the species, said Martin.

Lethal removal isn’t meant to be a long-term strategy against livestock predation, but rather a response to an immediate problem, he said.

“We’re talking about very limited removal of wolves under very circumscribed conditions,” Martin said.

The USDA minimizes unintentional killing of non-target species by using devices that reduce the chances smaller animals, such as coyotes and foxes, are caught in traps.

Larger animals, such as cougars and bears, are unlikely to be caught in traps set for wolves anyway, the USDA said.

Even if some coyotes, foxes, cougars and bears are caught in the wolf traps, they’re abundant enough in Oregon to render the environmental impact negligible, the agency said.

While it’s possible for non-target species to be caught in wolf traps, “I don’t believe this record shows us this has been a problem in Oregon,” said Martin.

At the conclusion of the hearing, McShane said he hoped to issue a ruling that would resolve the case within a month.

Sept. 24, 1920 — Feb. 10, 2017

EUGENE, Ore. — Environmentalists claim the USDA’s contract to kill wolves on behalf of Oregon wildlife officials is unlawful because the federal agency hasn’t properly analyzed environmental impacts.

The USDA, meanwhile, argues a lawsuit over the agreement is baseless because Oregon can kill problematic wolves even without federal assistance.

“This is predominantly a state program. The USDA is very much a bit player,” said Sean Martin, attorney for the agency, during oral arguments on Feb. 16 in Eugene, Ore.

Wolves in Eastern Oregon are no longer listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act but their population in that region is still managed under a state plan.

USDA’s Wildlife Services division killed two wolves at Oregon’s behest in 2009, which prompted environmental groups to file a lawsuit against the agency.

Under a settlement deal, USDA agreed to conduct an environmental assessment of its lethal wolf removal agreement with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

In 2014, the USDA’s analysis concluded its wolf control activities didn’t have significant environmental impacts, but five environmental groups — Cascadia Wildlands, Center for Biological Diversity, Wildearth Guardians, Predator Defense and Project Coyote — challenged that finding in federal court last year.

The plaintiffs asked U.S. District Judge Michael McShane to prohibit Wildlife Services from killing wolves in Oregon because USDA’s environmental assessment of the contract violated the National Environmental Policy Act.

USDA failed to take a “hard look” at the impact of killing wolves on the species’ population and ecosystem, said John Mellgren, attorney for the environmental groups.

Reducing predation on livestock by killing wolves hasn’t conclusively shown to be effective over the long term, so the strategy requires a greater degree of scrutiny by USDA, he said.

“It’s not settled science. There is controversy in the scientific community,” Mellgren said.

USDA’s analysis didn’t sufficiently consider the disruption to pack structure from lethal removal and neglected actions against wolves taken in neighboring states, he said.

The plaintiffs also argued that Wildlife Services will dispatch wolves more efficiently than Oregon wildlife managers, which casts doubt on the USDA’s claim that Oregon’s lethal control activities will proceed without federal help.

Non-target animals can be also killed by traps intended for wolves, but the USDA didn’t analyze these impacts as required, Mellgren said.

“We don’t know that because it’s not disclosed anywhere in the record,” he said of the number non-target killings.

The cumulative effects of USDA’s involvement in Oregon’s wolf control program should have triggered a more comprehensive “environmental impact statement,” or EIS, he said.

The USDA countered that even if Wildlife Services was ordered to desist from killing wolves, Oregon’s lethal control efforts would continue.

“This isn’t some brand new course of action,” Martin said.

The lethal expertise offered by USDA doesn’t trigger the need for an EIS because killing a few problem wolves has minimal consequences for the species, said Martin.

Lethal removal isn’t meant to be a long-term strategy against livestock predation, but rather a response to an immediate problem, he said.

“We’re talking about very limited removal of wolves under very circumscribed conditions,” Martin said.

The USDA minimizes unintentional killing of non-target species by using devices that reduce the chances smaller animals, such as coyotes and foxes, are caught in traps.

Larger animals, such as cougars and bears, are unlikely to be caught in traps set for wolves anyway, the USDA said.

Even if some coyotes, foxes, cougars and bears are caught in the wolf traps, they’re abundant enough in Oregon to render the environmental impact negligible, the agency said.

While it’s possible for non-target species to be caught in wolf traps, “I don’t believe this record shows us this has been a problem in Oregon,” said Martin.

At the conclusion of the hearing, McShane said he hoped to issue a ruling that would resolve the case within a month.

The federal government unlawfully expanded the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument onto public land that’s dedicated to timber production, according to a lawsuit by 17 Oregon counties.

The Association of O&C Counties claims the national monument designation will effectively prohibit logging on 35,000 acres of U.S. Bureau of Land Management forests that must be harvested on a “sustained yield basis” under a 1937 law.

Capital Press was unable to reach a representative of the U.S. Interior Department, which oversees the BLM.

The 53,000-acre national monument was initially created in 2000 under the Clinton administration and was recently increased by 48,000 acres in the waning days of the Obama administration, to the consternation of timber and grazing interests.

Much of the newly added acreage is comprised of lands the federal government originally granted to the Oregon & California Railroad in the late 1800s but later repossessed due to a contract breach.

Because that property was taken off county tax rolls, the O&C Act of 1937 committed it to forest production, with 50-75 percent of the logging revenues going to 17 counties in Western Oregon.

The Association of O&C Counties, which represents those governments, argues that O&C Lands can’t be included in the national monument because commercial logging is prohibited within its boundaries.

According to the complaint, the federal government has repeatedly backed off from including portions of the O&C Lands within a national monument, a wilderness area or a state park.

In 1986, the federal government concluded that O&C Lands may only be included in a plan to protect the threatened spotted owl if it doesn’t conflict with timber production, the complaint said.

Counties affected by the expansion were caught by surprise by the Obama administration’s announcement and had no input on the decision, said Rocky McVay, executive director of the Association of O&C Counties.

“We’re very disappointed we weren’t brought into this early on,” he said.

It’s possible that ranchers and inholding landowners may also file lawsuits against the expansion, McVay said.

The lawsuit has asked a federal judge to declare that expanding the national monument onto O&C Lands exceeds presidential authority.

McVay said his group hasn’t been in touch with the Trump administration about the lawsuit and whether the expansion could be rolled back under a settlement deal.

“We have to wait and see. The ink hasn’t quite dried on it yet,” he said, noting that Ryan Zinke, the nominee to head the Interior Department, hasn’t yet been confirmed by the Senate.

The Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, an environmental group in the area, believes the acreage added to the national monument is valuable beyond its extractive uses, said Jeanine Moy, outreach director for the group.

“There are not many places that are as biologically diverse as this region,” she said.

The lawsuit’s understanding of the O&C Act is too narrow, as the statute also recognizes the importance of preserving stream flows and recreational uses, Moy said.

“Counties have largely intepreted it as ‘timber first’ when the Act doesn’t necessarily say that,” she said.

It’s uncertain whether environmental groups will seek to intervene in the lawsuit as defendants or how the Trump administration will react to the complaint, Moy said.

Expanding the national monument provides better access for researchers and the public while the lawsuit is focused on extracting timber, she said. “It really only goes to benefit just a few.”

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A jury of seven women and five men, as well as four alternates, has been selected to hear the trial of four men who joined Ammon Bundy at last winter’s armed takeover of a wildlife refuge in southeastern Oregon.

The Oregonian/OregonLive reported Wednesday that the jury was chosen after attorneys for both the prosecution and the defense interviewed about 58 prospective jurors out of a pool of 1,000 people. The trial is expected to begin next week.

This is the second trial in connection to the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Last fall, jurors acquitted Bundy and six others.

The defendants now on trial include Duane Ehmer, Jason Patrick, Jake Ryan and Darryl Thorn. All are accused of conspiring to impede Interior Department employees through the use of force, threats or intimidation.

BANDON – When Jonathan Hawkins and Nicole Rush purchased the McNair Building in 2015 they had big plans for the historic structure located at the entrance to Old Town. Those dreams are soon coming to fruition with the opening of…

BANDON – When Jonathan Hawkins and Nicole Rush purchased the McNair Building in 2015 they had big plans for the historic structure located at the entrance to Old Town. Those dreams are soon coming to fruition with the opening of…

Oregon’s heavy snow in January caused problems for wildlife staff who track the state’s wolf population.

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife said extreme weather in northeast Oregon, where most of the state’s wolves live, interrupted airplane, helicopter and ground surveys of wolfpacks. As a result, the annual wolf report has been delayed a month and won’t be delivered to the ODFW Commission until its April 21 meeting in Klamath Falls.

The report usually is released in March and typically includes an updated wolf population count and information on the number of breeding pairs in the state. The count provides an information baseline as the commission considers updates to the state’s Wolf Management and Conservation plan. The plan is reviewed every five years, and the commission will most likely adopt an updated version later in 2017.

Although heavy snow and an extended cold snap delayed ODFW’s field work, department spokeswoman Michelle Dennehy said it probably didn’t harm Oregon’s wolves.

“Wolves typically do quite well during the winter,” she said by email. “Winters that are hard on deer and elk may actually be easier on wolves. There is winter (prey) loss to scavenge and it is harder for ungulates (deer and elk) to escape in the deep snow.”

Oregon had a minimum of 110 wolves at the end of 2015, according to figures released by ODFW in February 2016. At least seven wolves died in 2016. Four members of Wallowa County’s Imnaha pack, including venerable alpha male OR-4, were shot by ODFW in March 2016 after repeatedly attacking, killing and eating livestock. Wildlife biologists speculated at the time that the group began attacking livestock due to OR-4’s advanced age and the fact that his longtime mate limped from an injured leg. They had two yearlings with them, and the four appeared to have separated from or been forced out of the main Imnaha pack.

In addition, a female wolf designated OR-28 was found dead in October 2016 in south-central Oregon. Officials have not said how the wolf died, and Oregon State Police are investigating. A $20,000 reward for information is available.

State police also are investigating a wolf found dead in Northeast Oregon in March 2016.

In May 2016, a sheep herder shot a wolf from the Walla Walla pack that was attacking sheep. State police judged the shooting was lawful under the “caught in act” provision that allows producers to kill wolves that are wounding, biting, killing or chasing livestock, according to ODFW.

Oregon water regulators want to raise fees for water rights transactions by nearly 16 percent over four years to avoid processing slowdowns for irrigators.

The Oregon Water Resource Department’s request to state lawmakers, House Bill 2295, would mark the third such increase since 2009.

Some groups representing irrigators are uneasy about the proposal, particularly in light of another bill that would impose a new $100 management fee on every water right in Oregon.

Under H.B. 2295, a transaction fee increase of 15.88 percent would be phased in over four years and a sunset on previous hikes — set to expire this year — would be eliminated.

If the fee schedule reverted back to 2009 levels, OWRD would have to cut 5.5 full-time positions, effectively extending the time that irrigators must wait to develop or transfer water rights, said Tom Byler, the agency’s director.

The increase is also necessary to maintain OWRD’s dam inspection program, which oversees roughly 900 large structures, he said. “These are all very important functions for the agency.”

Fees must be raised just to keep these services at current levels due to climbing expenses for salaries, benefits and retirement plans for state employees, Byler said at a Feb. 13 hearing of the House Committee on Energy and the Environment.

The Oregon Water Resources Congress, an irrigator group, wishes that fee increases wouldn’t occur so frequently but nonetheless supports HB 2295, said April Snell, its executive director.

The Oregon Association of Nurseries also testified in favor of the bill.

“Water transfers are a big part of how we do business,” said Jeff Stone, executive director of OAN. Nurseries typically rely on water rights transfers when they expand production onto newly bought or leased property.

Water for Life, an irrigator group, is concerned about the rate at which costs are growing, said Richard Kosesan, its lobbyst. “Water for Life is not enamored with the fee increases.”

The Oregon Farm Bureau is neutral regarding HB 2295 and won’t oppose the hike as long as another piece of legislation — House Bill 2706, which imposes the $100 management fee on water rights — isn’t passed, said Mary Anne Nash, public policy counsel for the group.

The cost of processing water rights transactions is currently split evenly between water users and OWRD. The Farm Bureau wants the agency to continue shouldering half the expense instead of shifting more of the burden on irrigators, Nash said.

LANGLOIS -- Love books? You can easily find the books you like to read at the Friends of the Langlois Library’s Book Sale, set for 9 a.m.-4 p.m. Saturday Feb. 25, at the Langlois Lions Club, Floras Lake Loop in…

Bradley Lake will get its first planting of trout in the new year at the end of the month. It is one of five sites in Coos County that will receive fish the week of Feb. 27-March, and will receive…

SALEM — Activists often urge a speedier government response to climate change, but the Oregon Global Warming Commission doesn’t want to rush any decisions involving forest policy.

Angus Duncan, the commission’s chair, recently told Oregon lawmakers it’s better to wait until it’s better understood how forest management can offset carbon emissions, which are blamed for climate change.

Up until now, the OFWC has focused on quantifying the amount of carbon absorbed by forests across different regions in the state.

Altogether, Oregon’s forest store the equivalent of about 9.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide — roughly 150 times as much as the state emits per year, according to the commission.

Before making forest management recommendations, the commission plans to determine the historical carbon fluctuations in Oregon forests and how they’re affected by climate change and human interventions such as logging, said Duncan.

“We don’t see anybody else who is doing this type of work,” he said.

Improving forest health and preventing wildfires may involve removing trees, but these choices involve a “trade-off” in terms of carbon accrual, Duncan said.

Wildfires in Oregon have been emitting roughly 1.5 million tons to 4 million tons of carbon dioxide a year since the beginning of the 21st Century, but it’s unclear whether this level is normal or excessive, the commission found.

The impact of forest fires on carbon emissions is complicated by the extent and severity of fires — in some cases, fires can affect large acreages but the forest will still store carbon in burned trees, he said.

Of the 63.4 million tons of carbon dioxide emitted in Oregon in 2015, about 37 percent came from the transportation sector, 35 percent came from the residential and commercial sectors and 20 percent came from the industrial sector, according to OGWC.

With about 8 percent of the total, the agricultural sector contributed the smallest share of Oregon’s emissions.

Oregon is expected to fall short of its carbon emissions-cutting goals in coming years, but Duncan said he expects the output of renewable energy to increase in the state and the nation due to technology improvements and lower costs.

In the future, the energy industry will move away from a “command and control” structure, with utilities buying electricity from a variety of sources as needed, similar to the stock market, he said.

Oregon’s contribution to reduce global emissions will depend on a “mutually-reinforcing club” of other states and countries taking similar steps, Duncan said.

“If we do our job and nobody else does theirs, we’re toast, and I mean that literally,” he said.

SALEM — Oregon farmers would be stripped of the ability to recoup attorney fees if they win a wage and hour lawsuit under a proposed bill before state lawmakers.

Only employees who file and win such cases would be entitled to attorney fees under House Bill 2169, which is being considered by the House Committee on Business and Labor.

Currently, either workers or employers can recover such costs if they win legal disputes over wage and hour claims.

Proponents of HB 2169 argue the current system effectively prevents workers from filing lawsuits when employers have paid less than the minimum wage or made improper wage deductions.

“It serves as a real deterrent for low-asset households to proceed with legitimate claims,” said Michael Dale, executive director of the Northwest Workers’ Justice Project, during a Feb. 13 committee hearing.

Judges would still retain the right to penalize plaintiffs and their lawyers for cases that are deemed frivolous, Dale said. “I think it balances out.”

Attorneys who represent workers in labor disputes said their clients are typically unwilling to risk paying tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees over disputes involving several hundred dollars in wages.

“It guarantees bankruptcy for the individual,” said attorney David Schuck.

Opponents of HB 2169 argue the law should remain impartial as to who can recoup attorney fees in wage and hour lawsuits.

“We don’t think Oregon law should stack the deck against one side or the other,” said Anthony Smith, state director for the National Federation of Independent Business.

Tim Bernasek, an attorney representing the Oregon Farm Bureau, said judges ultimately decide whether such awards are appropriate, so workers don’t necessarily have to pay the opposing side’s attorney fees when they lose a dispute.

The prospect of being liable for attorney fees has a “sobering effect” on both parties in such disputes, Bernasek said. “It’s important to keep that balance.”

Representatives of Oregon’s business community testified they were also troubled by other proposals aimed at strengthening the position of workers in litigation against employers.

“Wage theft is already illegal and none of the bills before you make it any more illegal,” said Betsy Earls, vice president of Associated Oregon Industries.

Under House Bill 2180, workers who file a complaint over unpaid wages can file a lien against their employer’s property.

Supporters of HB 2180 say the change is necessary because companies can transfer assets or change their names, preventing employees from collecting unpaid wages even when they’ve won court judgments.

Opponents of the bill question its fairness, since a lien can impede the ability to sell property, hurt a company’s creditworthiness and otherwise disrupt business transactions, even if the wage claim is unfounded.

“The due process concerns are significant,” said Bernasek.

Similarly, under House Bill 2181, if a worker is fired within 90 days of filing a wage claim, the employer faces the “rebuttable presumption” that the termination was intended as retaliation.

According to proponents, this revision levels the playing field.

“Proving retaliation is very difficult,” said Dale. “You have to get in someone’s head based on something they did in the past.”

Critics of HB 2181 argue it’s just as difficult for employers to prove they were not retaliating against workers.

“You’re telling me I’m guilty until I prove I’m innocent,” said Smith.

PORTLAND — The Oregon Department of Agriculture is holding a pair of meetings in March to talk about its proposed five-year plan to knock out an infestation of Japanese beetles on about 1,000 acres in the Bethany and Cedar Mills areas of Washington County.

The project would include spreading insecticide granules on lawns and ornamental planting beds for five consecutive years at approximately 2,500 private residences. Each residence would be treated once per year. The department is hoping for 100 percent cooperation from homeowners, and is relying on trusted local sources, including master gardeners, to explain why eradication is necessary.

The proposed measures reflect the department’s grim view of an infestation discovered last summer, when a record 369 beetles were found in traps and numerous live beetles were found eating roses and other plants. The infested area is adjacent to Northwest Portland.

Japanese beetles are an invasive pest capable of causing heavy damage to valuable Oregon crops, including nursery plants, wine grapes, cane berries, cannabis, hazelnuts and more. Clint Burfitt, the ag department’s insect pest program manager, said failure to stop the infestation would cost Oregon agriculture an estimated $43 million a year.

He said the estimate includes the lost value of nursery plants that would be quarantined and could not be shipped out of state. “Many plant products we sell wouldn’t be welcome any longer,” Burfitt said.

The estimate also includes the cost of controlling beetles on established turf such as golf courses and parks, and the increased production cost, including pesticide use, of growing ornamentals, wine grapes, fruit and nuts.

“If we’re successful, we eliminate the reality of longterm pesticide use in agricultural and urban areas,” Burfitt said. “It’s an economic and ecological issue.”

The treatment proposed by the Department of Agriculture is a granular form of Acelepryn, an insecticide commonly used to control grubs on golf courses. The department would apply the insecticide in April or May, when Japanese Beetles are in their grub, or larvae, form.

As the name implies, Japanese beetles are native to Japan and first showed up in New Jersey in 1916. Since then they’ve steadily spread west.

“Right now there’s no population west of the Rockies that is not under some sort of (eradication) protocol right now,” Burfitt said. Boise and Billings, Mont., have dealt with infestations, and Burfitt managed a five-year Japanese beetle eradication project that began in 2007 in Orem, Utah. He was hired by the Oregon Department of Agriculture two years ago.

Oregon hosted a Japanese beetle briefing in Portland in December to explain the state’s plan. Ag officials from Idaho and Utah and some from back east attended and reviewed the proposal.

“They think it will work,” Burfitt said.

The department will host an open house Saturday, March 4, from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. at Leedy Grange Hall, 835 N.W. Saltzman Road. A second open house will be held Monday, March 6, from 5:15 to 7:15 p.m. at the Cedar Mill Library, 12505 N.W. Cornell Road.

Online

http://www.japanesebeetlepdx.info/

Tuesdays

BEND, Ore. (AP) — Rep. Greg Walden, R-Hood River, is sponsoring a bill that would soften the federal statute used to convict the Harney County ranchers whose imprisonment was central to last year’s Malheur National Wildlife Refuge standoff.

The bill would exempt from prosecution people who violate the law under circumstances similar to Dwight and Steven Hammond.

In 2012, The Hammonds were convicted of setting fires on their ranch in 2001 and 2006 that spread to federal land. The Hammonds maintain the earlier fire was set to control invasive plants, while prosecutors maintained it was to cover up illegal hunting.

In 2006, Bureau of Land Management firefighters were battling nearby blazes sparked by lightning, and the Hammonds lit a backburn in an attempt to prevent the already-burning fires from encroaching on the winter feed for their cattle.

The Hammonds were tried under a federal statute that establishes a minimum of five and a maximum of 20 years in prison for any person who uses fire or explosives to damage or destroy or attempt to damage or destroy federal property.

However, U.S. District Judge Michael Robert Hogan declined to impose the minimum sentence on the Hammonds and said at the time doing so would “shock the conscience.”

The federal government appealed and won, negating the reduced sentences imposed by Hogan. The Hammonds were resentenced to five years each with credit for time served and returned to prison in January 2016.

The perceived mistreatment of the Hammonds was at the root of the demonstrations in and around Burns that led to the takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge at the same time the Hammonds were headed back to prison.

Demonstrators held the refuge headquarters for more than three weeks, at which point demonstration leader Robert “Lavoy” Finicum was shot and killed by Oregon State Police during a traffic stop between Burns and John Day. Most of the remaining occupiers fled, and the final holdouts surrendered to law enforcement Feb. 11.

Walden’s bill defines the circumstances under which the law would not apply, carving out exemptions that would likely have spared the Hammonds had they been in place at the time. Provided a fire was set on an individual’s private land for the purpose of protecting that property or as part of farming-, ranching- or timber-related vegetation management — and does not pose a serious threat of injury or damage to any individual or federal property — that individual would not be prosecuted.

Walden spokesman Andrew Malcolm said because a law cannot be adopted retroactively, the passage of Walden’s bill would have no effect on the Hammonds’ conviction or imprisonment.

Walden proposed an identical measure last year, according to Malcolm. Malcolm said the measure attracted five co-sponsors from Western states, but Congress ran out of time before the proposal could be considered.