Saturday, Feb. 25

Ranchers who suffer livestock losses from predators stand to lose state support under both budget scenarios currently proposed for the Oregon Department of Agriculture.

Funding aimed at predator control and compensation for livestock depredation would be cut under recommendations from Gov. Kate Brown as well as the co-chairs of the Joint Ways and Means Committee, Sen. Richard Devlin, D-Tualatin, and Rep. Nancy Nathanson, D-Eugene.

The proposed cuts drew objections from the livestock industry during a Feb. 22 hearing on ODA’s budget before a panel of Joint Ways and Means Committee members focused on natural resources.

As the wolf population has grown in Oregon, livestock losses have been a continuing source of frustration for ranchers, said Mike Durgan of the Baker County Wolf Compensation Advisory Committee.

Even when wolves don’t kill cattle, they cause health problems that are considered indirect losses and aren’t compensated with state dollars, Durgan said.

Until wildlife officials find a better way to manage the predators, the livestock industry should receive state assistance, he said. “I want to make it clear I’m not advocating killing wolves today.”

Oregon counties have steadfastly contributed money to their partnership with ODA and USDA’s Wildlife Services division to pay for predator control, even as they’ve fallen short of funds for public safety and other vital services, said Craig Pope, a Polk County commissioner.

“We will have no one else to call if we let this partnership fail,” Pope said. “Counties cannot make up the difference of this funding hole.”

The Oregon Hunters Association and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation testified in favor or restoring the state’s full contribution to the predator control program, which they say is necessary to maintain a balance between predators and deer and elk.

Under Gov. Kate Brown’s recommended 2017-2019 budget, the ODA would eliminate $460,000 in state funding for the USDA’s Wildlife Services division, which kills problematic predators.

An ODA program that compensates ranchers for wolf depredation would be funded at $211,000 under the governor’s proposal, compared to $233,000 in the 2015-2017 biennium.

The co-chairs of the Joint Ways and Means Committee, meanwhile, have proposed a “budget framework” for the upcoming biennium that would decrease funding for the wolf compensation program “and/or reduce funding for predator control.”

While the co-chairs’ budget framework doesn’t specify the exact reductions for ODA programs, it does propose cutting state funding for all natural resource agencies to $405 million, down from $413.6 million during the previous biennium.

Rep. Lew Frederick, D-Portland, said he’s concerned about livestock losses and supports continued assistance from the state but raised concerns about possible hunting of wolves.

While wolves aren’t currently hunted in Oregon, controlled hunts could be allowed during a later phase of wolf recovery under the state’s management plan for the species.

Frederick cautioned against the display of “trophy” wolves killed by hunters, which he said would erode public support for the predator control and wolf compensation programs.

“That’s a political situation that will shut down a great deal,” he said.

Aside from predator control, other ODA programs are on the chopping block under the proposals from Brown and the co-chairs of the Joint Ways & Means Committee.

A coalition of natural resource industry groups — including the Oregon Farm Bureau, Oregon Association of Nurseries, Oregon Cattlemen’s Association and others — urged lawmakers not to curtail those programs.

For example, the co-chairs’ budget framework recommends decreasing the number of positions in ODA’s agricultural water quality program and shifting food safety and pesticide programs from the general fund to program fees.

Industry representatives fear such shifts will effectively increase fees on farmers, ranchers and others.

Under Brown’s budget proposal, about $250,000 in general fund dollars would be cut from ODA’s inspection program for “confined animal feeding operations,” shifting the burden onto fee payers.

A biocontrol program for controlling invasive weeds would also be eliminated, saving $250,000.

Don Farrar, Gilliam County’s weed officer, argued against the proposal because biological control with predatory insects can effectively suppress large infestations of weeds.

“This program has been one of the best in the nation and it would be sad to lose that,” he said.

POWERS — Powers’ volunteer firefighter compensation could be leaving the city exposed to problems with the Internal Revenue Service.

SWEET HOME, Ore. (AP) — A memorial service for a man who died in a logging accident has been scheduled for Sunday afternoon at the Sweet Home High School auditorium.

The Albany Democrat-Herald reports Colt Campbell was struck by a tree last week while working with his family’s timber cutting business on Weyerhaeuser property west of Eugene.

The 29-year-old timber faller was married and had a 5-year-old son.

PORTLAND — Federal employees spoke Thursday about their inability to work during the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation last year.

At U.S. district court in Portland, jurors also viewed a video that showed occupiers talking about killing those workers if they had to flee the Harney County facility.

“I wasn’t able to perform my duties at the refuge,” Linda Beck, a former fish biologist at the refuge, told the court. “It wasn’t safe for me to go to work.” This is the second time Beck and other federal employees testified. She spoke previously in last year’s trial of more prominent occupation leaders. Those men and one woman were acquitted on all charges.

Bureau of Land Management Special Agent Jason Curry talked Thursday about two “Closed Permanently” signs that had been fastened to the BLM office in Hines, near Burns in Eastern Oregon.

“We had to remove the signs before you could open the door,” Curry said.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Geoff Barrow later asked if the sign would “physically impede” work by BLM employees.

“Yes, it would,” Curry said.

“I have no further questions,” Barrow responded.

Thursday’s questions were the latest attempts by federal prosecutors to show jurors that the four occupiers on trial were part of a conspiracy whose intent was to prevent federal employees from doing their jobs.

Sixteen employees worked at the refuge at the time of the occupation. Since then, five have taken positions elsewhere. The remaining employees are back, working at the refuge, but the headquarters buildings remain closed to the public. Officials expect they will reopen later this year.

As at the first trial, Barrow showed Beck photos of her office during and after the occupation. He asked Beck questions like whether her office was open to the public and if it looked the same as she had left it before the 41-day long occupation began.

Beck said there was a sign on the fence outside her office that said “closed to the public.”

“Is that your gun?” Barrow asked, showing the jury a photo of occupation leaders Ryan Bundy, cradling a long gun, with Ammon Bundy sitting at Beck’s desk.

Beck responded that it wasn’t.

“I’m not allowed to have firearms in my office,” she said.

As in her testimony during the first trial, Beck said she wasn’t able to conduct carp removal from Malheur Lake and the Blitzen River during January 2016.

During cross-examination, Jake Ryan’s attorney, Jesse Merrithew, asked Beck if any of the men on trial had objected in emails or phone calls to the carp-removal program.

“I have no idea,” Beck responded.

To prove their case, prosecutors have to show the occupiers’ state of mind at the time of the occupation was to keep federal employees from going to work.

Jess Wennick, who runs the grazing program at the refuge, said he was told by his boss to not go to work because of the occupation.

“He said it was not safe to return to work at that time,” Wennick testified.

“If your office had not been taken over and occupied, would you have returned to work?” Barrow asked.

“Yes,” Wennick said.

Borrowing a line from his previous testimony, Wennick referred to the office next to his as a “technological sweatshop” after the occupation because it smelled and computer parts were strewn about the room. Wennick testified it appeared the occupiers brought a scanner to the refuge and used it to copy government files.

During Wennick’s cross-examination, Merrithew again drove at the question of the occupiers’ intent. He asked whether the men on trial had voiced opposition to bird surveys taken at the refuge.

“Not to my knowledge,” Wennick said.

“You don’t know who precisely was in those offices,” Merrithew said.

“No,” Wennick responded.

Federal prosecutors repeatedly stressed through their witnesses that across Harney County, federal employees were impeded by the occupiers.

Matthew Yeager, an FBI agent who analyzed Facebook accounts for some of the occupiers, testified about a series of private messages and public posts. Some were new; others were included as part of last fall’s trial.

“I’m getting conflicting message on the 2nd,” read one private message from Gavin Seim to Ammon Bundy on Dec. 30, 2016, seemingly referring to a planned protest in Burns on Jan. 2. “On one hand it’s being called a rally and protest. On the other it’s a call to action. People are confused.”

“I would never show up to a rally without my arms,” Bundy wrote back.

On Dec. 31, 2016, a man named Brandon Thomas wrote a private message to Bundy:

“I think you aught (sic) make it more clear that people should not take as a green light to stand against the FEDs, like was done at your family’s ranch,” Thomas wrote. “Just my two cents.”

“It’s much more than a protest,” Bundy wrote back.

Facebook messages also showed defendant Darryl Thorn discussing his involvement with the refuge.

“I was part of the federal building occupation,” Thorn wrote in a private message Jan. 3.

A photo posted to Facebook shows Thorn sitting in what Agent Yeager said was the fire tower at the refuge.

“Good good sitting here at the refuge standing guard,” Thorn wrote in another message.

During cross-examination, Marc Freidman, Thorn’s attorney, asked Yeager if Thorn was at the refuge when the photos were uploaded. Yeager said he couldn’t tell, but added that Thorn “was very boastful about his participation in the occupation.”

The day ended with an 11-minute video depicting a meeting in the fire bunkhouse at the refuge on Jan. 26, 2016, after the leaders were arrested and Arizona rancher LaVoy Finicum was shot and killed by Oregon State Police during a traffic stop.

The video depicts defendant Jason Patrick appearing to lead a meeting about whether the remaining occupiers should leave the refuge or stay. Thorn and Ryan are also present.

“We are the David in the David and Goliath story,” Patrick says. He tells the small group assembled in the bunkhouse kitchen that he has already put out a message to the media saying the remaining occupiers want a peaceful resolution.

“If we change tactics, the narrative changes to domestic terrorism,” Patrick says.

Off-camera, an unidentified person can be heard saying, “We already have our martyr,” presumably a reference to Finicum. Another unidentified person suggests the group should “execute” federal employees and their families.

Thorn, who is sitting on a bar stool smoking a cigarette, with a long gun resting against his leg, says the remaining occupiers should stay.

“All I see is a buck of salty motherf------,” Thorn says. “We came here for one reason and that’s to fight.”

At one point in the video, Ryan, who doesn’t appear to speak, is seen standing next to Thorn.

Blaine Cooper, another occupation leader, suggests leaving the refuge in one of the firetrucks and heading for Idaho, where the occupiers can regroup. Cooper says they could put five armed people on the truck and “if they try and follow us, lay lead down.”

Patrick and Thorn can be heard disagreeing with the plan.

“I came to defend the Constitution, not flight,” Patrick says at one point.

But during his redirect, Barrow pointed out that in the end, Patrick, Thorn and Ryan all voted to stay, rather than leave the refuge.

BANDON -- Harbor Lights Middle School and Bandon High School students learned about high growth careers that provide good wages at the GEAR-UP Vocational Career Fair held at the HLMS gym on Feb. 7.

BANDON -- Harbor Lights Middle School and Bandon High School students learned about high growth careers that provide good wages at the GEAR-UP Vocational Career Fair held at the HLMS gym on Feb. 7.

PORTLAND — The coming growing season is likely to be cooler than the past two years as the Pacific Northwest returns to something closer to normal after a “drought to deluge” ride that included much warmer than usual temperatures followed by an extended cold snap and pounding winter snow storms.

Gregory Jones, a Southern Oregon University professor and research climatologist, delivered that assessment in a talk at the Oregon Wine Symposium, the state’s annual gathering of wine grape growers, vintners and related businesses.

Jones specializes in viticulture climatology and is deeply respected within the industry. Tom Danowski, executive director of the Oregon Wine Board, introduced Jones by saying he’s “as close as we get in Oregon to a national treasure.”

Jones said 2016 began with a mild winter, a dry and warm spring and an early June heat spike that broke records with temperatures over 100. Overall, Oregon’s temperature was 2 to 3 degrees higher than normal during the grape growing season, he said.

The warm weather resulted in a bud break that was two to four weeks early, but the June spike compressed the flowering period. With growth stages advanced, Oregon may have seen the earliest start and earliest finish to harvest on record, Jones said. The stretch included an “amazingly long” frost-free period that ranged from 225 to 325 days in various regions of the state.

The effect on wine quality will become clear with time. Jones said brix readings were slightly above average, pH readings were average and yields were up 2 to 4 percent over the previous year.

This year is shaping up as cooler and a return to normal, but a revived El Nino pattern later in the year could lead to another warm winter. Jones said the western U.S. is prone to weather variability. “We really should be expecting it,” he said.

The best news is that all of Oregon will be removed from drought designation this year, Jones said, and the snowpack holds sufficient water to carry the state through the growing season. Although California has been pummeled by rain and flooding, “It needs three more winters like this to come out of the drought they experienced,” Jones said. “Maybe four or five.”

Statistically, the frequency of Western droughts is shifting, he said. What used to be a once in 20 years event could become a once in 10 years event, Jones said. “We do have a tendency in the West to come in and go out of droughts more abruptly,” he said. “Climate science is starting to look at that.”

SALEM — Oregon landowners don’t have a simple, reliable method to find out whether their property is considered a wetland.

That’s potentially a big problem if a structure is built on a parcel that state authorities later determine is a wetland, thus making the landowner liable for costly mitigation measures.

Jesse Bounds, a hay exporter near Junction City, Ore., learned that lesson the hard way.

Upon trying to rebuild two barns that had burned down last summer, Bounds was told by Oregon’s Department of State Lands the construction was unlawful because he hadn’t obtained a fill-removal permit. The permit is required when disturbing wetlands.

Bounds was shocked by the notification, since his 12-acre parcel wasn’t identified as a wetland under the State Wetland Inventory and he’d obtained all necessary building permits without a hitch.

Oregon lawmakers are now contemplating two bills that would resolve the problem.

One is aimed specifically at Bounds’ situation, while the other seeks to dispel the broader confusion over which properties fall under DSL’s wetland jurisdiction.

House Bill 2785 takes the narrow approach, by exempting the replacement of a farm building “destroyed by fire or other act of God” from state fill-removal laws.

House Bill 2786 is more expansive, creating an exemption for any property that’s not designated as a wetland under the State Wetland Inventory.

Much of the discussion during a Feb. 21 hearing before the House Agriculture Committee focused on the latter bill.

Proponents argue that landowners may believe their property isn’t subject to fill-removal laws — based on the State Wetland Inventory — without realizing that DSL can nonetheless arrive at a different conclusion.

“They have no idea the map is not right,” said Mary Anne Nash, public policy counsel for the Oregon Farm Bureau.

Landowners such as Bounds, who think they’ve followed all the applicable laws, may never hear from DSL unless a neighbor makes a complaint, said Dave Hunnicutt, executive director of the Oregonians in Action property rights group.

“Unfortunately, that’s the way that DSL exercises its jurisdiction,” Hunnicutt said.

While a housing developer may be able to afford wetland mitigation credits, that option is often too costly for farmers, he said.

Such credits, which effectively pay for the creation of wetlands elsewhere, cost about $77,000 to $81,000 per acre, according to DSL.

“Someone in Mr. Bounds’ position, it puts him out of business,” said Hunnicutt.

Opponents of HB 2786 claim the bill would jeopardize wetlands across Oregon because many aren’t included in the State Wetland Inventory.

The State Wetland Inventory only includes a “small subset” of wetlands that are under both state and federal jurisdiction, said Tom Wolf, executive director of the Oregon Council of Trout Unlimited, a group that advocates for fish habitat.

“It’s too broad a bill,” Wolf said.

The League of Women Voters of Oregon believes the wetland designation process should be made clearer but worries HB 2786 sets a definition that’s too limited, said Peggy Lynch, the group’s natural resouces coordinator.

“We need to have something more than the State Wetland Inventory to consider,” she said.

Several members of the House Agriculture Committee said they sympathized with Bounds’ predicament and the need to clarify wetland designations, including Rep. Brian Clem, D-Salem, the committee’s chair.

Clem said he favored a simpler alternative to the current system of identifying wetlands, under which parcels are evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

“That to me sounds horribly tiresome and painful,” he said.

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The federal prosecutors who failed to convict Ammon Bundy returned to court Tuesday to try four lesser-known men who followed Bundy’s call to take a hard stand against the government and occupy a national wildlife refuge in Oregon.

Like the defendants in the first trial, the primary charge facing the men is conspiracy to impede Interior Department employees from doing their jobs at the refuge through the use of force, threats or intimidation.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Barrow spent a good portion of his opening statement telling jurors that a conspiracy does not have to include people gathering around a conference table and drafting a written agreement.

Barrow acknowledged there was no written agreement, but said circumstantial evidence will show there was a “meeting of the minds” to prevent federal employees from going to work.

The four defendants are Duane Ehmer of Irrigon, Oregon; Jason Patrick of Bonaire, Georgia; Darryl Thorn of Marysville, Washington; and Jake Ryan of Plains, Montana. The men, all free on their own recognizance, waived their right to a speedy trial last fall, preferring to have more time to prepare.

Three of them are also charged with possessing a firearm in a federal facility. Two are charged with depredation of government property.

They were among the more than two dozen men and women who answered Bundy’s call to occupy the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge to protest federal control of Western lands and the imprisonment of two ranchers convicted of setting fires on public rangeland.

“The defendants are not being tried for their political beliefs, no matter how baseless, radical and ridiculous they may be,” Barrow told jurors.

Andrew Kohlmetz, an attorney representing Patrick, countered that the beliefs of the men are at the heart of the case, because they are what drove them to the refuge. He told the Portland jury of seven women and five men that impeding workers was not one of those beliefs and there was no conspiracy.

“The evidence will fail to show that a single person went there with the conscious desire or goal to interfere with anyone who worked there,” Kohlmetz said.

The protesters gained control of the refuge on Jan. 2, 2016. The Bundys were arrested in a Jan. 26 traffic stop away from the refuge that ended with police fatally shooting Robert “LaVoy” Finicum, an occupation spokesman. Most occupiers left the refuge after Finicum’s death, but a few holdouts remained until Feb. 11, 2016.

There was no dispute the group seized the refuge and established armed patrols, but jurors last fall bought defense arguments that the takeover was an act of civil disobedience and the government failed to prove a conspiracy against employees.

Barrow and the other prosecutors who lost what initially seemed an open-and-shut case declined interview requests after the bitter defeat, and haven’t elaborated on what they think went wrong.

Unlike the first trial, they hired an outside consultant to help them with last week’s jury selection process, a sign they believe the seeds of defeat were planted before the first witness was called.

They also hedged their bets by adding misdemeanors such as trespassing to the mix of charges against the four men. The misdemeanor charges will be heard in a non-jury trial after the felony trial ends.

Bundy, the star of the first trial, is expected to appear in the sequel as a defense witness. Though cleared in Oregon, he’s in a Nevada jail awaiting trial on charges stemming from a 2014 standoff with federal authorities at his father’s ranch near Bunkerville.

The defense plans to put him on the stand for two days, letting him explain the occupation and what it hoped to accomplish.

SALEM — A desire to reduce inefficiencies — and neighbor conflicts — is driving Oregon dairy farmers to cut unwanted emissions, according to an industry expert.

Environmental activists often bemoan the lack of federal and state air quality restrictions for dairies, but farmers are taking steps on their own, said Troy Downing, dairy extension specialist at Oregon State University.

“As we get new science, our industry is adopting it quicker than we would through regulation,” Downing said at the Oregon Dairy Farmers Association’s annual conference on Feb. 20.

The prospect of Oregon’s government taking a more active role has been raised by Senate Bill 197, which would require the state Environmental Quality Commission to enact formal rules for reducing dairy air emissions.

The legislation seeks to formalize recommendations made by a dairy air task force in 2008, which proponents of SB 197 complain haven’t been acted upon, Downing said.

In reality, though, dairy farms have voluntarily implemented “best management practices” such as installing anaerobic digesters to capture gases and use them for energy production, he said.

“We have made significant progress,” Downing said.

Decreasing odors allows dairy farmers to be good neighbors as well as curtail volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, he said.

The adoption of automated scrapers has led to more frequent removal of manure and urine from barns, Downing said. Waste is more stable in a liquid state, which prevents volatilization and the release of undesirable gases.

Some measures also help farmers put the nutrients in manure to better use.

By applying to manure to fields with “big guns” at high pressure, more of the substance is released as an aerosol-like spray that’s prone to volatilizing into a gas, Downing said.

More farmers are now switching from the big guns to low-pressure or injection systems that preserve nitrogen while reducing gases, he said.

Manure is often assumed to be the culprit in dairy emissions, but feed and silage also release gases, Downing said.

Dispersing smaller amounts of silage several times a day — rather than a large amount once — decreases the amount of time it lays around, reducing VOCs, he said.

Storing silage in a narrower pit also shrinks the size of the open “face” as feed is removed, reducing volatilization of gases compared to a broader pit with a larger face, he said.

As gases are volatilized from silage, the material’s weight decreases, Downing said. “That’s dry matter you’re losing to the atmosphere that the cows aren’t eating, that you bought and paid for.”

Reducing emissions can be advantageous for dairies, but Downing noted that livestock production contributes to only 4 percent of U.S. emissions of “greenhouses gases,” according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The dairy industry’s share is less than 1.5 percent of total U.S. emissions.

Meanwhile, Oregon’s air quality is predominantly rated as “good” by the EPA, though some areas occasionally dip into “moderate” territory when people heavily use wood stoves during atmospheric inversions, Downing said.

“Oregon really has no air quality problem. What problem are you trying to fix?” he said.

CORVALLIS, Ore. — New and experienced small farm enthusiasts made up the near-capacity crowd at the 17th Annual Oregon Small Farm Conference Feb. 18 on the Oregon State University campus.

The sessions were geared toward farmers, agricultural professionals, food policy advocates, students and farmers’ market managers.

Attendees could go to some of the 27 sessions offered throughout the day and had access to 45 industry vendors, an industry-rich resource bookstore, a breakfast and lunch of local foods and “Think and Drink” information-sharing sessions throughout the day.

First-time attendee Sue Delventhal came with her husband, Joerg, and their 13-year-old son, Tim.

“This not only is our first conference, but we are new to farming,” Delventhal said. “Two-and-one-half years ago, Joerg and I followed our dream and bought five acres on a 1,400-foot elevation ridge on Chehalem Mountain near Newberg. The property is heavily wooded, which almost makes us more like homesteaders than farmers.”

She heard about the conference after a visit to the OSU Yamhill Extension office in McMinnville.

“After attending, I saw that it wouldn’t matter who you were or what you were doing, you could find something there of value,” she said. “My priority was the session on organic weed management and I was really impressed with what I was able to learn. I know now that I have basically two types of weeds, that I need to do more mulching and I need to do a lot more studying on the subject.”

Joerg was most interested in the dryland farming session.

“We have a great loam soil but living on top of a mountain gives us water issues,” she said. “Because I’m the one home in the daytime, I am able to do a lot of the farm work but Joerg and Tim get called in on all of the big muscle jobs.”

The conference started in Eugene in 2000 and moved to Corvallis two years later.

“There were 50 at the first one, then 180, 240, 800 and today there were 925,” Chrissy Lucas, one of the event coordinators, said. “Some people come every year, and some come if there are specific sessions they need. First-timers made up 40 percent of the attendees this year.”

Featured among the presenters this year were farmer-authors Ben Hartman of Clay Bottom Farm in Goshen Ind., and Josh Volk of Slow Hand Farm near Portland, Ore.

Their books “The Lean Farm: How to Minimize Waste, Increase Efficiency and Maximize Value and Profits with Less Work” by Hartman and “Compact Farms: 15 Proven Plans for Market Farms on 5 Acres or Less: Includes Detailed Farm Layouts for Productivity and Efficiency” by Volk are available at Amazon.com.

“Our goal is to bring people together to help solve problems of small-scale farming,” Garry Stephenson, OSU Extension small farms specialist and small farms program coordinator, said. “Both of our featured presenters drew 200 to 250 people each in their sessions.”

He said the target market for the conference is “both young people who are interested in and already doing it and an older group of people who are doing it as a second career.”

“We are trying to help them with profit, viability and, most of all, show them ways to stay nimble,” Stephenson said. “As soon as we get this conference evaluated, we’ll start on the next one set for Saturday, Feb. 24, 2018.”

Online

For more information, visit smallfarmconference.org.

Tuesdays

WEDNESDAY, FEB. 22

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