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.

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.

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.

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/

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.

RICKREALL, Ore. — The Mid-Valley Winter Ag Fest aims to build on last year’s inaugural event, which “exceeded attendance expectations on every front,” according to the event’s organizer.

The event, scheduled for the Polk County Fairgrounds on Feb. 25 and 26, welcomed 5,500 adult visitors last year, said Deb Thomas.

“This doesn’t include the thousands of children that attended,” she said. “We had strong local participation with ag organizations and youth groups as well as ag-related businesses.”

The event is spread over five buildings on the fairgrounds campus that host educational events, a Farmer’s Bounty Market, a petting zoo, artisan vendors and displays of ag technology.

The fairgrounds’ Main Building will house the Bounty Market, ag business vendors, the Polk County Master Gardeners and Master Preservers and other groups, Thomas said.

The Swine Barn will feature the Polk County 4-H Horse Club, and local FFA groups will show animals and provide demonstrations such as hoof trimming.

In the Floral Building, demonstrations on outdoor Dutch oven cooking by the 4-H Achievers are a highlight.

In the 4-H Building, family-friendly events such as food and fashion demonstrations are scheduled, and Building B hosts “a mix of ag organizations, Saturday Market and artisan vendors,” Thomas said.

It was, in all of her measures, a successful first year last year, she said. “We just want a repeat of last year.”

Seminars in the Main Building on Feb. 25 include:

• “Home Canning Tomatoes” by the Marion County Master Preservers at 10 a.m.

• “Secrets of the Lazy Urban Chicken Keeper” by Idaho author and farmer Gretchen Anderson at 11 a.m.

• “Introduction to Bee Keeping” by George Woodward of Woodward Farms in Dallas at 1 p.m.

• “Water is the Connection: Managing Pesticide risk to Aid in Salmon Recovery” by Sharon Selvaggio of Northwest Alternatives to Pesticides at 2 p.m.

Seminars in the Main Building on Feb. 26 include:

• “Winter Planning for a Summer Harvest” by Anderson at 11 a.m.

Mid-Valley Winter Ag Fest

Where: Polk County Fairgrounds, Rickreall, Ore.

When: 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturday, Feb. 25, and 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Sunday, Feb. 28.

Admission: $5 for adults and free for those under the age of 18.

Parking: Free at the fairgrounds.

Website: www.mvwagfest.com

Email: mvwagfest@gmail.com

PAYETTE, Idaho — The Idaho-Oregon onion industry, which was hit hard by the collapse of dozens of storage and packing buildings in the Treasure Valley area this winter, faces another large challenge.

Upward of 200 million pounds of onions that were ruined when the buildings collapsed under the weight of snow and ice have to be disposed of in the next two months.

But both states have special requirements for the disposal of cull onions to prevent an outbreak of onion maggot, which can devastate onion and other vegetable crops.

Because of the level of devastation caused by the building collapses, both states have moved the deadline for disposal of cull onions from March 15 to April 15.

But getting rid of that many onions will be no easy task, said Jack Yarbrough of Idaho Waste Systems, which operates a landfill in Mountain Home, Idaho.

“This is a major problem and people need to get moving on it,” he said. “Something needs to be done and it needs to be done quickly.”

As many as 200 million pounds of onions may have been destroyed in southwestern Idaho and Malheur County, Ore.

Because of the environmental requirements involved with the burial of cull onions, many landfills in the region aren’t set up to handle onion disposal, Yarbrough said.

IWS is accepting onions but that landfill is 80 miles from Malheur County and can’t handle all of the onions on its own.

The landfill near Payette is also accepting onions but they have to be separated from debris and that landfill is small, Yarbrough said.

The Lytle Boulevard landfill in Malheur County is expected to receive a special permit to dig a trench where onions can be buried, Gov. Kate Brown said Feb. 10 during a press conference in Payette.

But that pit will handle only about 30 million pounds, or an estimated one-third of the ruined onions on the Oregon side, she added.

“We’re going back to the drawing board to figure out how we can get the people power and the resources to expand that pit so that we can bury everything that we need to in a really rapid manner,” Brown said.

Idaho Gov. Butch Otter said state officials are addressing the problem but also want to make sure to avoid an outbreak of onion maggot, which resulted in an epidemic in the 1960s that devastated onion and other vegetable crops.

He said the state needs to “make sure that our disposal is that kind of disposal that can protect our industry but we also know that we’re going to have to be just a little bit flexible with some of the things we do.”

Idaho State Department of Agriculture Communications Director Chanel Tewalt said the department, health districts, environmental regulators, county commissioners and emergency management officials have been meeting to address the issue.

“There’s been a pretty big group effort to look at what the options are,” she said.

PAYETTE, Idaho — Idaho Gov. Butch Otter and Oregon Gov. Kate Brown flew in a Black Hawk helicopter together Feb. 10 to get a close-up view of the damage caused by this winter’s heavy snowfall.

The governors earlier attended town hall meetings in their respective states where they heard from people affected by this winter’s heavy snowfall, which has resulted in the collapse of at least 50 onion storage buildings and packing sheds, in addition to several hundred other structures in the region.

The governors were shocked by the extent of the damage, which is estimated at about $100 million to the region’s onion industry alone.

“We saw a lot of devastation and we heard about a lot of devastation (today),” Otter said during a joint press conference. “We’re going to work to recover just as fast as we can.”

Brown, who earlier in the day was provided a vehicle tour of some of the dozens of collapsed onion buildings, was stunned by what she saw.

“It looks like a tornado disaster. It’s just awful,” she said during a town hall meeting in Ontario. “Thank you for sharing your stories. I think it will help us craft a solution for the community and region.”

Brown pledged to do “everything I can to help you all get through this and move into recovery mode.”

Both governors said agencies from the two states would work together to try to expedite recovery as quickly as possible and find assistance for those affected by the damage.

They brought with them cabinet members as well as the directors of their respective state agriculture departments, emergency management officials and National Guard leaders.

During the Ontario town hall event, farmers and other local business owners stressed how important it was to help the local agricultural economy recover.

“Without the farmers, ranchers and processors, this community goes fallow,” said John Kerby, who owns a retail business in Ontario. “To say we are in crisis, in peril, is understating what is happening here.”

The immediacy of the need for assistance was also stressed.

“We have unfolding a disaster of epic proportions and we need to have a response that matches the challenges we face,” said Oregon Sen. Ted Ferrioli, R-John Day.

The governors said both states are actively working to obtain federal assistance for the area.

Otter, a Republican, and Brown, a Democrat, both promised that help is on the way.

“We are working every single day to make sure that we can find as many tools in the toolbox as possible to assist with recovery efforts,” Brown said. “I know the impact, particularly in the agricultural sector, has been devastating.”

Malheur County Onion Growers President Paul Skeen, who flew in the Idaho National Guard Black Hawk with the governors and took Brown on the earlier tour of the collapsed buildings, said she appears to understand the seriousness of the situation,

“Every time she saw another building that had gone down, she’d just say, ‘Oh my gosh, oh my gosh,’” Skeen said. “She’s understanding it.”

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown and Idaho Gov. Butch Otter today are viewing damage done in the Treasure Valley by heavy snow.

The onion industry has yet to tally the cost of the damage caused by the collapse of dozens of onion buildings in the Treasure Valley area

More than 50 onion storage buildings and packing sheds have collapsed under the weight of several feet of snow and ice this winter. Some people estimate the total damage could be near $100 million.

Brown and Otter are meeting with local officials and those who are impacted. They will have a joint press conference in Ontario, Ore., today at 4 p.m. Watch capitalpress.com for full coverage.

SALEM — Lawmakers are considering whether to extend a tax credit for Oregon farmers who install fish screens on their irrigation intakes, which expires next year.

Under Senate Bill 172, the tax credit — which covers 50 percent of installation costs up to $5,000 — would expire in 2024 instead of 2018.

“We view this as a valuable tool in the toolbox,” said Alan Ritchey, manager of the fish screening program at the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Screens are intended to prevent fish from getting sucked into irrigation systems and killed.

Between 2010 and 2015, Oregon has issued 230 tax credits for the installation of fish screens at an average amount of $819, according to the Legislative Revenue Office.

“We have tens of thousands of unscreened diversions, so this is way of chipping away at those,” said Shannon Hurn, ODFW’s deputy director for fish and wildlife programs.

While the amount of money spent on the tax credits is relatively small, Hurn said it helps incentivize voluntary installation of fish screens, she said.

The program also smoothes the process for mandatory installations, since irrigators are required to install fish screens when establishing new water rights or changing the point of diversion, she said.

“When they are required, it is a very tense conversation and this makes it more palatable,” said Hurn, who estimated that roughly half the tax credits are used for mandatory installations.

The tax credit supplements a cost-share program that assists landowners with money and technical expertise.

The debate over requiring fish screens for irrigation diversions dates back to the 1980s, with lawmakers enacting the cost-share and tax credit programs to relieve the burden on landowners, said Richard Kosesan, lobbyist for Water for Life, a group representing irrigators.

The approach relied on investment from landowners and the state, as well as anglers in the form of a surcharge on fishing licenses, he said.

Without state assistance, “you get away from the cooperative nature of the program.” Kosesan said.

ONTARIO, Ore. — The onion industry has yet to tally the cost of the damage caused by the collapse of dozens of onion buildings in the Treasure Valley area of Idaho and Oregon.

But it’s massive and the industry faces many challenges in rebounding from the disaster.

That became clear during a special panel discussion held during the Idaho-Oregon onion industry’s annual meeting Feb. 7 to address topics related to the damage.

More than 50 onion storage buildings and packing sheds have collapsed under the weight of several feet of snow and ice this winter.

Some people estimate the total damage could be near $100 million.

When local insurance agent John Forsyth, one of the panelists, asked how many people suffered losses due to the collapses, about 50 of the 60 people present raised their hands.

“It’s pretty much hit everybody,” Forsyth said.

“Right now, everybody is so busy it’s almost overwhelming,” said panelist Martin Koch, an insurance agent.

One of the big unanswered questions is how many people who suffered losses had basic insurance, which does not cover structure collapses due to the weight of snow and ice, and how many had more comprehensive coverage that does.

“We are hearing all kinds of stories about people having basic coverage,” Koch said.

Another questions is whether those people who did have adequate coverage, especially older farmers, are going to decide to rebuild or just take the cash value from their insurance claim, said panelist Doug Lamm, a certified public accountant.

Snake River Produce Manager Kay Riley, the Idaho-Eastern Oregon Onion Committee’s marketing order chairman, said the damage has the potential to cause a major disruption in the region’s onion industry.

“It’s a huge concern,” he said. “How are we going to accommodate next year’s crop without these buildings and storages being put back? There’s no way all the buildings that have fallen down are going to be fixed.”

Whether those who do choose to rebuild will do so in the state they are currently in is another unknown, Lamm said.

Several onion shippers have told Capital Press in the past year that they may move to Idaho because of Oregon’s higher minimum wage.

Tens of millions of onions in the buildings when they collapsed are damaged and growers must dispose of them.

Members of the audience asked whether those onions would be covered at the market price at the time of injury or at the current, higher price.

Insurance agents said they were unsure but Riley said that depends entirely on how the insurance policy was written.

Four of Snake River Produce’s buildings collapsed but Riley said, “It appears our coverage was quite good. We feel pretty good about where it’s headed.”

He said he’s heard stories about other people who didn’t have adequate coverage but those are only rumors for now.

How quickly the damaged buildings can be rebuilt is another question because a couple hundred structures have collapsed around the region and there aren’t enough contractors in the area to handle all the work this year.

“There are probably not going to be enough contractors to get (all the onion buildings) put back before this fall’s harvest,” Koch said.

KLAMATH FALLS, Ore. (AP) — Members of an Oregon riverside community have prepared for potential weekend flooding.

The Herald & News reports that the Sprague River is expected to rise past its flood point of 8.5 feet by Friday evening, causing flooding that is expected to last through Sunday.

Klamath County began providing residents sand bags Wednesday morning. The communities of Beatty, Sprague River and Chiloquin could be affected by the flood.

Sprague River residents have been making sure households and other structures are protected and say they hope the flood will actually help bring the small community together.

Biotech critics are calling on Oregon lawmakers to overturn a prohibition against local government restrictions on genetically engineered crops because statewide regulations haven’t been enacted.

In 2013, the Oregon Legislature passed a law that preempted cities and counties from setting their own rules over seeds, which blocked most local ordinances banning genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

Groups that opposed the preemption bill say state inaction since then has justified the passage of House Bill 2469, which would carve out an exemption allowing local GMO regulations.

“Oregon farmers can’t wait another four years to protect themselves from this harm,” said Amy van Saun, a legal fellow at the Center for Food Safety nonprofit group.

Van Saun said measures are needed to prevent cross-pollination of conventional and organic crops with biotech genes, which threatens markets for those farmers. The federal government doesn’t regulate GMO crops once they’ve been approved for commercial use.

“We’re probably going to see even more lax regulation,” van Saun said.

Oregon’s seed preemption law doesn’t apply to Jackson County, which was already set to vote on a GMO ban ballot initiative when the state legislation passed.

Voters approved the Jackson County ordinance, creating a “GMO-free seed sanctuary” where seed crops can be produced without the threat of cross-pollination from biotech varieties, said Elise Higley, director of the Our Family Farms Coalition, which supported the GMO ban.

“We’re in this unique economic opportunity,” she said.

Supporters of HB 2469 haven’t given up on statewide GMO regulations but they hope the bill will provide local control over biotech crops until the Oregon Department of Agriculture or lawmakers decide to take action, said Ivan Maluski, policy director of the Friends of Family Farmers nonprofit.

“We have no expectation the state of Oregon will move forward on these types of policies,” he said.

Oregonians for Food and Shelter, an agribusiness group that supported the preemption bill, is disappointed that biotech critics are still trying to regulate what crops farmers are allowed to plant, said Scott Dahlman, its policy director.

Cities and counties aren’t equipped to regulate crop production, which is the province of the Oregon Department of Agriculture, he said.

The ODA hasn’t determined specific rules are necessary for GMOs, which the federal government deregulates after determining they pose no greater risk than conventional crops, Dahlman said.

Lawmakers never committed to statewide regulations when passing the pre-emption bill, he said. “There were no promises I was aware of at the time.”

Dahlman noted that the seed preemption bill passed in 2013 not only protects GMOs from a patchwork of local regulations, but also precludes such rules for other crops that may become unpopular in the future.

Many of the same lawmakers who voted in favor of the preemption bill four years ago still hold office, so Dahlman said he’s hopeful they won’t support HB 2469.

SALEM — Oregon now has more jobs than before the “great recession” but some rural areas are still lagging behind, according to the state economist.

After the financial crisis a decade ago, Oregon lost roughly 8 percent of its jobs, said Mark McMullen, the state economist.

Since then, the state has not only regained all those lost jobs but also increased the overall number by 6.5 percent from the pre-recession peak, he said during a Feb. 6 hearing before the House Committee on Economic Development and Trade.

However, McMullen said those gains haven’t been felt equally by all regions of the state.

The Portland metropolitan area has seen the strongest recovery, with the number of jobs now 9 percent higher than before the recession.

There are now 7.5 percent more jobs in the Columbia Gorge, 6.8 percent more jobs in Central Oregon and 3.3 percent more jobs in the Willamette Valley.

Jobs in Southern Oregon contracted by roughly 12 percent during the recession but the region now has 0.3 percent more jobs than before the crisis.

Northeast Oregon and the North Coast haven’t yet fully recovered, but the number of jobs is less than a half-percent lower than before the recession.

Southeast Oregon still has 4.7 percent fewer jobs from the pre-recession peak, while the South Coast has 6.1 percent fewer jobs. These regions have seen worse times, though — both have recovered roughly half the jobs they lost during the recession.

Some counties are still seriously reeling from the downturn. Gilliam County has recovered only 10 percent of the jobs it lost during the recession, while Crook and Grant counties have recovered fewer than 30 percent.

The good news is that nearly 100 percent of Oregon counties are now gaining jobs rather than losing them, McMullen said.

The lone exception — Morrow County — is actually an economic success story, but has recently lost some jobs due to the completion of major construction projects, he said.

Oregon now has about 2 unemployed people per job opening, down from 11 people per open position in late 2009.

In terms of income, the top 20 percent of Oregon households are now making 6.7 percent more money than they were a decade ago, adjusted for inflation, he said. Inflation-adjusted incomes are about 1 percent lower among the middle 20 percent of households and 7 percent lower among the bottom 20 percent.

Oregon is the 12th most trade-dependent state in the U.S., he said. Computer and electronic equipment lead in the way in exports, followed by heavy manufactured products such as metal and machinery, then agricultural goods and forestry products.

China is the major destination for Oregon exports, followed by Canada, Malaysia, Japan and South Korea.

Exports from Oregon are now facing a headwind due to the high value of the U.S. dollar compared to other currencies, which makes our products more expensive in foreign markets.

“It hasn’t been this strong since 2000,” McMullen said. “It’s putting downward pressure on the demand for our exports.”

With a statewide snowpack that’s 134 percent of average, Oregon’s water outlook is healthy nearly two-thirds of the way into the snow accumulation season.

However, unless it increases from its current level, Oregon’s snowpack would still be below normal at the traditional peak in early April, said Julie Koeberle, a hydrologist with USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service

“The threat of rainfall in the mountains is there,” Koeberle said. “We’d rather not see it rain in the mountains. We’d rather it continue to build as snow.”

It’s been cold enough during recent storms for most precipitation to be deposited as snow, but there’s a potential for the snow level to rise to higher elevations, she said.

Rain wouldn’t likely have much deleterious effect on the snowpack in higher-elevation mountains, but it could melt snow at lower elevations, Koeberle said.

The Owyhee basin in southeast Oregon has the strongest snowpack in the state, at 160 percent of average, followed by the Willamette basin in Western Oregon, which is 150 percent of average.

The Grande Ronde, Powder, Burnt and Imnaha basin in Northeast Oregon has the weakest snowpack at a respectable 109 percent of average.

While current snowpack levels bode well for summer stream flows, it’s worth noting that Oregon was also in robust shape last winter, Koeberle said.

Record-high temperatures in April 2016, however, diminished snowpacks to the point where many streams were running below-normal in the summer, she said.

Due to low stream flows and strong irrigation demand, most of Oregon’s reservoirs were at below-average levels when the rainy season began last autumn, according to USDA NRCS.

Some reservoirs are now approaching average levels, but many have yet to catch up despite the improved water situation, the agency said in its February water outlook report.

The Hood, Malheur and Powder basins were faring the worst in early February, with reservoir levels below 35 percent of average. At 160 percent of average, the Grande Ronde basin had the strongest reservoir levels.