Docstoc

February 12_ 2009 Board of Agriculture meeting minutes

Document Sample
February 12_ 2009 Board of Agriculture meeting minutes Powered By Docstoc
					Board of Agriculture Meeting Minutes, February 12 and 13, 2009

Day one: Thursday, February 12, 2009. The Salem Agriculture Building, Hearings
Room, Salem, Oregon. At 9:15 a.m. Chair Ken Bailey called the State Board of
Agriculture meeting to order.

Board members present: Bernie Faber, Ken Bailey, Pat Dudley, Jan Kerns, Doug
Krahmer, Lynn Youngbar, Bob Levy, Dan Carver, Tom Fessler, Katy Coba, Stephen Van
Mouwerik, Bill Boggess

ODA staff present: Lisa Hanson, Lauren Henderson, Gary Roth, Ray
Jaindl, Dalton Hobbs, Jim Johnson, Sherry Kudna, Brent Searle, Bob Meinke, Helmuth
Rogg, Madeline MacGregor, Dan Hilburn, Shannon Brubaker, Chris Kirby

Others present: Mitch Lies, The Capital Press; Jim Welsh, Oregon Cattlemen’s
Association; Megan Fuhrman, Friends of Family Farmers; Paulette Pyle, Oregonians for
Food and Shelter (OFS); Terry Witt, OFS; Katie Fast, Oregon Farm Bureau; Jeff Stone,
Oregon Association of Nurseries; Bryan Ostlund, Oregon Ryegrass Growers Seed
Commission; Calli Daly, Northwest Food Processor’s Association; Chris Mertz, USDA-
NASS Oregon Field Office

ODA Native Plant Conservation Program report, Bob Meinke, program leader,
Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) Native Plant Conservation Program
(NPCP): ODA Plant Division Administrator Dan Hilburn introduced Meinke to the
board. Hilburn stressed the program is at a serious juncture; funding is in danger, and he
invited the board to be part of the decision making process on whether to fold or to merge
the program. Meinke has been with the program since 1988, and gave a PowerPoint
presentation that highlighted the following points (For more information please visit the
NPCP Web site at: http://oregon.gov/ODA/PLANT/CONSERVATION/index.shtml)
     ODA started the Native Plant Conservation Program when it was legislatively
        mandated in 1987.
            o The primary mission was to conserve and list qualified native plants
               species as threatened or endangered under ORS 564.
            o The program was developed due to public pressure.
            o Although all states have native plant programs, Oregon is one of the few
               where the program is housed within the agriculture department. Most are
               located in natural resources or wildlife management agencies.
     Is the program in conflict with ODA’s mission to promote agriculture?
            o The Legislature added a provision to the law that excludes the protection
               of native plants on private lands.
            o Other reasons the program was placed within ODA include the team of
               plant scientists already on staff, as well as the agency’s strong relationship
               with Oregon State University.
            o Many native plants in Oregon contain agricultural potential, including a
               number of those identified for protection and conservation. These include:
                    Leiberg’s desert clover; Harney County



                                                                                           1
                 Howell’s mariposa lily; Josephine County
                 Gentner’s fritillary; Jackson County
                 Big flowered wooly meadowfoam; Jackson County
                 Klamath yampah; Klamath County
   Sixty plants out of 4,400 plant species in Oregon are listed.
        o Most have natural ranges in the wild of only a few acres
   Most protected species occur in the South Coast, Umpqua and Rogue Valleys,
    Willamette Valley, Columbia Gorge, and Klamath Basin Region; and in small,
    scattered areas throughout the state.
   By the late 90s, as the program matured and the most vulnerable of the species
    were identified, its primary mission changed.
        o The focus shifted to advising state and local agencies as to listed species
            on public lands under federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) protection.
   Enforcement actions are expected to increase with the new administration in
    Washington D.C.
        o ODA can serve as a buffer against United States Fish and Wildlife
            Services (USFWS) regulation, and develop planning protocols for local
            agencies; allowing the application of state rules in place of federal ESA.
   Since 1996, ODA has provided over 2,200 consultations for Oregon towns,
    counties, state agencies, and private developers; and at the same time, addressed
    the requirements under both state law and federal ESA. Several examples of these
    projects are:
        o The Kingsley Field – Klamath Falls project:
                 Geese were endangering the flight operations of the 173rd Fighter
                    Wing of the Oregon National Guard.
                 Elimination of the standing water next to runways (which attracted
                    the geese) was prevented by the presence of a federally listed
                    wetland plant.
                 ODA worked with USFWS to find a solution.
        o Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) maintenance and
            construction dilemma; when listed plants are located within highway
            project zones, conflicts occur:
                 If ODOT does not comply with ESA and USFWS by 2010, they
                    will face federally mandated construction delays.
                 ODA is developing an agreement with USFWS to allow ODOT to
                    complete all right-of-way projects under state law.
        o Alyssum murale:
                 is considered a noxious weed.
                 Once planted in an ill-advised attempt to ―mine‖ nickel from
                    mineral rich soil, this mustard species has now spread—and
                    abandoned fields pose serious risk to native plants and grazing
                    livestock.
   Not all consultations can be supported by outside or state funding; local agencies
    are seldom in a position to pay for services—while ESA and state and federal law
    mandate compliance.




                                                                                     2
           o In the last four years, budget cuts have eliminated 90 percent of state funds
             used for consulting under ODA rules.
                  This cripples ODA’s ability to help agencies, developers, and other
                     clients.
                  Current support for the program consists primarily of research
                     contracts and limited watershed-health funds.
                  Consultations and regulatory work mandated by law are no longer
                     being accomplished.
                  Assistance to state and local agencies has been curtailed, although
                     laws remain active and compliance is still required.
                  An advisory committee is being set up to review funding options,
                     and to determine what level of plant conservation assistance ODA
                     can, or should be offering.

Insect Pest Prevention and Management Program (IPPM), Helmuth Rogg, ODA
IPPM Program manager: (This is an abridged summary of material presented by Rogg.
Please refer to the IPPM Web site at http://oregon.gov/ODA/PLANT/IPPM/index.shtml)
    The program’s main objective is to protect Oregon agriculture and environment
        from damaging invertebrate pests and to maintain and enhance the value of
        Oregon’s agricultural products.
           o IPPM achieves these objectives through regulatory enforcement, vigilant
                detection, and rapid response programs.
    Highlights of 2008/Proposals for 2009
           o Gypsy moth: Three aerial applications of Bacillus thuringiensis (Btk) were
                applied to a 336-acre plot in Shady Grove, Oregon to eradicate gypsy
                moth (GM). No GM were found on subsequent survey. For more
                information on GM go to:
                http://oregon.gov/ODA/PLANT/IPPM/gm_eugene_eradication09.shtml
                     For 2009, a proposed eradication effort will target 625 acres in SE
                        Eugene.
           o Japanese beetle: IPPM conducted the largest Japanese beetle (JB)
                eradication project in the program’s history. Five sites, including Portland
                International Airport (PDX), totaled 488 acres.
                     Eradication is costly; there are no revenues to fund:
                             Eradication = $150,000 per year; surveying = $100,000 per
                                year
                             The economic impact of doing nothing, and allowing
                                infestation to occur = $33 million per year.
                     For more information and survey results visit:
                        http://oregon.gov/ODA/PLANT/IPPM/survey_jb.shtml
           o Apple maggot: Three apple maggot flies (AM) were caught at the Blue
                Mountain apartment complex in Pendleton, Oregon. When the project
                began in 2006, 135 AMs were trapped.
           o Western cherry fruit fly: Although the fly is a native species to Oregon,
                California requires quarantine when the fly is found on product shipped




                                                                                          3
   from our state. ODA has sent notification to California and asked for a
   reassessment of their quarantine protocol.

o Asian ambrosia beetle: The good news is that the eradication efforts in
  The Dalles, Oregon were successful.
       In 2005, the pest was discovered in drying raw oak railroad ties,
          imported from the Southeastern US.
       A total of 6,000 railroad ties and an adjacent 800 acres were
          sprayed three times.
       After three years of follow-up and trapping efforts, the beetle can
          be declared gone.
               No other state has ever been able to successfully eradicate
                  ambrosia beetle.
o Grasshopper: Record infestations of grasshoppers were recorded in 12
  eastern Oregon counties; Baker County alone accounted for half of the
  infested acres. Economic infestations ran between eight and 200
  grasshoppers per square yard. The full survey may be read at:
  http://oregon.gov/ODA/PLANT/IPPM/gh_ann_rep.shtml
       The 2009 outbreak predictions for grasshoppers in Eastern Oregon
          will depend on spring weather patterns.
               Less grasshoppers = cold and wet weather
               Big outbreak = warm and dry spring
       ODA’s plans in the spring involve
               Visual survey for grasshopper nymphs,
               preparing infestation maps, and
               helping with regional grasshopper management.
       A joint program between USDA-APHIS, the Port of Portland, and
          ODA, addressed the problem of grasshoppers and aircraft
          operation at PDX. Grasshoppers and their larvae, attract the
          American kestrel (Commonly known as ―grasshopper hawk‖). As
          the birds hunt for their favorite snack, they can be the cause of
          inadvertent bird strikes—resulting in both aircraft damage and total
          engine failure.
               A 615-acre application site alongside runways was
                  proposed; actual treatment area was 566 acres.
               After grasshopper suppression, the percentage of
                  insectivore strikes diminished substantially in months
                  following application.
o New insects/snails: arrive continuously. Twenty-five species have entered
  Oregon since 2007, and more are expected.
       Funding is needed to address the problems
               of high risk pathways—rail and highway—and,
               impediments to implementing selection methods.
o Light brown apple moth: Originating from Australia, the light brown
  apple moth (LBAM) has become a political hot potato. California has been
  in a battle with environmentalists on control efforts.


                                                                             4
                      LBAM’s economic impact to Oregon could top $20 million per
                       year.
                      Over 1,000 plant species and over 250 vegetable and fruit crops
                       can be affected.
                      The LBAM can easily move into Oregon from California. For the
                       full pest economic risk analysis see:
                       http://oregon.gov/ODA/PLANT/IPPM/index.shtml (Download the
                       PDF document from the IPPM home page.)


Agriculture industry round table discussion
    Jim Welsh, Oregon Cattlemen’s Association (OCA): Legislative items
      concerning OCA include:
              o Additional slaughterhouses are needed in Oregon. Given the current
                   number of animals waiting for processing, a minimum of two
                   slaughtering facilities is required. USDA needs to provide inspection
                   services for the facilities so that product can be sold across state lines.
              o OCA plans to introduce a bill for process to de-list the wolf.
              o Monitoring water quality (post Smith River study) and DEQ findings
              o Estray issues for ODA’s Brand Program; stray horses are becoming a
                   big problem as owners abandon them due to the high cost of feed.
              o Brand inspection; need to establish fee for services in order to fund
                   inspection services.
    Bryan Ostlund, Oregon Ryegrass Growers Seed Commission: Ostlund said grass
      seed and field burning are in the forefront for his commission, as are industry
      sales. Over the fiscal year grass seed prices were on the upswing in the first
      quarter, but now the majority of species type has experienced a 20 percent
      reduction in seed movement. Indicators suggest that the marketplace
      (international) and golf courses fall into the discretionary spending category. It
      appears that the US has become more of tall fescue market. Perennial ryegrass
      acreage is decreasing in light of the new trend. Half of the Willamette Valley is
      planted in grass seed. The post-harvest markets, such as the straw market will be
      affected. If one market becomes out of balance, it affects the other. In addition,
      endophyte research dollars will become extremely important in the next
      biennium.
    Jeff Stone, Oregon Association of Nurseries (OAN): Among the legislative
      items for OAN:
              o E-verification: OAN supports comprehensive immigration reform at
                   the federal level, not at the state level. OAN believes electronic
                   verification is not a good idea. Arizona and Oklahoma experienced ag
                   labor shortages after e-verify was initiated in their states.
              o Farm Bill implementation: OAN worked with USDA and the ODA to
                   set aside funding for Oregon. Primary focus will be on pest and
                   disease issues, energy, and water efficiency.
              o Transportation Reauthorization Act: OAN will focus on increased use
                   of plant materials to accomplish environmental goals—using more



                                                                                            5
               nursery plants in transit projects, and in new highway and road
               construction.
          o Plant pests and diseases: OAN is providing $2.53 million to fight
               sudden oak death (SOD) suppression on private forestlands. If SOD is
               not contained, it will move through the Willamette Valley. OAN also
               seeks a SOD funding line item for the 2010 federal budget.
          o Employee Free Choice Act: President Obama expected to sign;
               nurseries will engage in this matter with the AFLCIO. OAN believes
               this legislation could have negative impacts on the right to bargain
               freely over working terms and conditions—and it could have negative
               impacts on agriculture.
          o Taxes:
                     Estate tax reform fix
                     Energy and water tax credit
                     Minimum wage indexing tax credit
          o Metal theft: OAN stresses bipartisan support—to increase penalties for
               metal thieves and greater flexibility for law enforcement to crack down
               on the transportation and selling of illegal materials, and increase
               cooperation between metal recyclers and stakeholders. OAN urges
               district attorneys to develop a plan to prosecute and deter metal theft in
               all 36 counties.
          o Environment: OAN advocates for a balanced approach to pesticide
               management, and will work against onerous field burning restrictions,
               and against restrictions of growing operations near waterways.
          o Land use: OAN will monitor policy proposals surrounding The Big
               Look (regional land use), urban/rural reserves, liquefied natural gas
               lines, and exclusive farm use (EFU) regulatory changes.
 Paulette Pyle, Oregonians for Food and Shelter (OFS): OFS continues to focus
  on the following for the 2009 session:
          o PURS; sunset extension
          o Metal theft/scrap recycling
          o Greenhouse gas and carbon
                     Opposes SB 80/cap and trade system
          o Environmental
          o Invasive species
          o Canola production within the Willamette Valley
 Calli Daly, Northwest Food Processor’s Association (NWFPA): Daly reports
  that there is good news; food processing is one sector that has added jobs in
  Oregon. NWFPA is focusing on the following for the legislative session:
          o HB 2210: changing the definition of public members to the Board of
               Agriculture
          o SB 188: civil penalties
          o Banning the use of phthalates in Oregon. If this bill passes, NWFPA
               could not create specialty items for Oregon.




                                                                                       6
            o ODA Food Safety Division (FSD): Budget concerns—NWFPA will
                share with legislature that shifting funds from fees for services
                performed is not an option.
                     The recent peanut salmonella-associated recall is a primary
                         example of why the industry needs ODA FSD inspectors and
                         oversight.
            o Cap and trade system, SB 80: NWFPA opposes the bill—and believes
                this is not the correct time to create a state program. Cap and trade
                systems should be regulated at the federal level.
                     NWFPA is not against energy efficiency—they will be signing
                         a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the US
                         Department of Energy to reduce energy use by 25 percent in
                         five years, and by 50 percent in 10 years.
                     Also utilizing smart meters to determine how efficiently they
                         are using energy—and in partnership with energy efficiency
                         programs.
    Katie Fast, Oregon Farm Bureau (OFB): 2009 will be a rough session for
     industry. The number one priority for OFB will be to address the state’s $800
     million plus budget deficit, and the potential cuts to agricultural services and
     programs.
            o Oregon Department of Forestry: sudden oak death (SOD) funding on
                cut list. It will be important to find matching funds
            o Water Resources Department (WRD): facing a possible 30 position
                cuts; these positions provide vital services which irrigators use
                routinely—especially with diminished rainfall and snowpack. There
                are only 147 employees at WRD—the impact of losing 30 positions
                could be devastating to much needed programs.
            o ODA is facing a potential sweep of all of their fee revenues. What will
                happen to certain divisions if they lose industry dollars integral to their
                infrastructure? OFB will receive a list that will help to clarify the
                proposed cuts.
            o Corporate taxation: difficult to discuss with legislation when many
                farmers are not making any money. If fees are increased, producers
                cannot pay the increase if sales are down.

Public comment
   1. Henry Pir: submission of written testimony on soil erosion protection statutes and
       complaint thereof.
   2. Craig Ambrust: submission of written testimony on Willamette Valley specialty
       seed industry and its opposition to canola production within the valley.
   3. Michael Iverson: in support of the Willamette Valley Specialty Seed Association
       (WVSSA), and in opposition to canola production within the valley.
   4. Dave Williams: USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services, on predator control issues.
   5. Steve Fershweiler: WVSSA, submission of written testimony in opposition to
       canola production within the valley.




                                                                                          7
Board of Agriculture Meeting Minutes, February 12 and 13, 2009

Day two: Thursday, February 13, 2009. The Salem Agriculture Building, Hearings
Room, Salem, Oregon.

Board members present: Bernie Faber, Ken Bailey, Pat Dudley, Jan Kerns, Doug
Krahmer, Lynn Youngbar, Bob Levy, Dan Carver, Tom Fessler, Katy Coba, Stephen Van
Mouwerik, Bill Boggess

ODA staff present: Lauren Henderson, Gary Roth, Ray Jaindl, Dalton Hobbs, Jim
Johnson, Sherry Kudna, Brent Searle, Madeline MacGregor, Stephanie Page, Mike
Powers, Chris Kirby, Wym Mathews, Ray Jaindl

Others present: Mitch Lies, The Capital Press; Jim Welsh, Oregon Cattlemen’s
Association; Megan Fuhrman, Friends of Family Farmers; Katie Fast, Oregon Farm
Bureau; Chris Mertz, USDA-NASS Oregon Field Office; Mateusz Perkowski, The
Capital Press; Suzanne Knapp, Governor’s Natural Resources Office; Neil Mullane,
Department of Environmental Quality; Russ Karow, Oregon State University; Allison
Hensey, Oregon Environmental Council (OEC); Bob Stacey, 1000 Friends of Oregon;
Deborah Kane, Eco-Trust; Sarah Vickerman, Defenders of Wildlife; Tim Haines;
Jennifer Wigal, DEQ; Andrea Salinas, OEC

Introduction from Bill Boggess, Interim Dean of OSU College of Agriculture
Sciences: The permanent dean will not be chosen until March. OSU is facing the same
issues as ODA; OSU will have to prepare a 10 to 20 percent cut list to comply with the
state’s budget shortfall. The cuts will be aimed at the Ag Experimental Station and
possibly to the rest of the Extension Service Program offices. OSU and the ODA have
many overlapping programs that rely upon each other to succeed; examples include the
IPPM Program and the Native Plant Conservation Program. The university is still hoping
to move forward with the Oregon Sustainable Agricultural Resource Center (OSARC)
and fund positions in partnership with ODA. OSU still reigns as the premiere ag research
facility in the nation.

Governor’s Natural Resources Office (GNRO) briefings, Suzanne Knapp: Knapp
outlined projects that the GNRO has been heavily involved with. (See handout and refer
to: http://www.leg.state.or.us/garrard/article_022709) One of the largest is the Klamath
Basin Restoration Agreement between many stakeholders, including numerous federal
government agencies and other state natural resource agencies; the Oregon Departments
of ODF&W, ODEQ, and OWRD; Humboldt, Siskiyou, and Klamath counties;
conservation groups; fisherman; water users, both agricultural and public; and, the tribes
of Hoopa Valley, Yurok, Karuk, and Klamath.
     There are two processes used by the GNRO, and under the Federal Energy
        Regulatory Commission (FERC). The processes are known as ―traditional
        FERC,‖ and ―FERC + (plus).‖




                                                                                             8
 Elements of the agreement include:
     o Removal of four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River:
             Iron Gate, Copco I, Copco II, and J.C. Boyle
     o Restoration agreement principles
             Water balance
             Community stability
             Habitat and fish restoration
             Dam removal
     o Restoration agreement programs
             Fisheries
                     Re-introduction and management plan
                     Monitoring
                     Restoration
             Water resources
                     Klamath on-project water users
                     Off-project water users
                     Additional water conservation and storage
             Environmental water
                     Measures that create environmental water,
                     protection, and
                     real time management.
             Regulatory assurances
                     ESA oversight of:
                           o Habitat conservation plan
                           o General conservation plan
                           o Biological opinions
                     Water diversion and approvals assurances
                     Avoidance of adverse impact
                     Screening
             Power resources
                     Provide power cost security for agriculture and federal
                       refuges:
                           o Interim power sustainability fund
                           o Long-term renewable power investment for revenue
                               stream to offset rising power costs
                     Shift BOR loads to federal power
                     Energy efficiency and conservation:
                           o Invest in on-farm conservation and efficiency
                           o Invest in infrastructure and deliver efficiency
             Counties mitigation and benefits
                     Siskiyou, Humboldt, and Klamath counties
                           o Provide for economic development opportunities
                               and investigations
                           o Mitigate for impacts and losses




                                                                            9
              Tribal program (Klamath, Yurok, Karuk, Hoopa Valley)
                    Provide resources to participate in fish restoration and
                       reintroduction
                    Develop fishing economies
                           o Marketing, processing, sale, and transport
                    Tribal revitalization
                           o Promote cultural preservation
                           o Develop self-government institutions
                           o Provide for long-term economic revitalization
       o Klamath hydroelectric project agreement in principle:
             AIP
                    Non-binding presumptive path to dam removal (in 2020);
                       key elements:
                           o US determination; federal legislation; costs and
                               state legislation; local community elements; transfer
                               schedule and interim operations
                    Oregon’s commitments
                           o ODF&W: reintroduction plan, fisheries
                               management
                           o OWRD: water regulation and management, water
                               rights reauthorization, adjudication
                           o ODEQ: 410 certification, TMDL implementation
                           o OWEB: funding for restoration projects
                           o ODOE: power resources program assistance
                           o OECDD: assistance to Klamath County
                           o ODA: energy efficiency, agricultural programs
                           o Governor’s Office: SB76 oversight and
                               coordination

  Fish consumption rule, Neil Mullane, Oregon Department of Environmental
  Quality (DEQ); Jennifer Wigal, DEQ: (The outline below is a summary of the
  presentation on the fish consumption rule. For complete text and information,
  visit the DEQ Web site at: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/toxics.htm)
 Revision outline to water quality standards based on a new fish consumption rate
      o Significance of the new rate
               The rate is used to calculate human health related water quality
                 standards
               Important locally driven component of water quality standards
               Standards derived to protect people who eat fish and shellfish
               Standards affect multiple programs
      o Process and public involvement
               Conducted a series of public workshops to identify critical issues,
                 discuss implementation challenges, and propose alternative actions
               Formed two expert groups
                      Human health focus group comprised of toxicologists and
                         public health experts


                                                                                 10
               Fiscal impact and implementation advisory committee
                comprised of regulated entities, other affected entities, and
                economists.
o Outcome of collaborative government effort
      Three governments presented Environmental Quality Commission
        with joint recommendation:
             Fish consumption rate = 175 grams per day
             Proceed with standards rulemaking to incorporate rate and
                identify implementation approaches.
o EQC directive – rulemaking, October 23, 2008
      Revise standards based on the recommendations
      Incorporate environmentally meaningful and cost-effective
        implementation approaches
      Look at implementation strategies that can also reduce non-point
        sources of toxics.
      Carefully consider the costs and benefits and scientific data.
o Implementing the commission’s direction:
      Goal: environmentally meaningful, cost-effective implementation
        of water quality standards.
      Two main components:
             Clean Water Restoration Act implementation
                    o Revise human health water quality criteria
                    o Revise permitting rules
                    o Maximize treatment for point sources
                    o Include mechanism for allowing permitted sources
                        to implement source reduction activities outside of
                        the NPDES program.
             Overall toxics reduction strategy
                    o Identify high priority toxic pollutants
                    o Describe known sources and pathways into the
                        environment.
                    o Identify gaps in current programs and recommend
                        actions to improve:
                             actions to reduce toxic pollutants from both
                                point and non-point sources and include a
                                mix of collaborative and regulatory
                                activities.
                             Includes measurable goals and methods to
                                assess effectiveness.
             Related activity SB737; requires DEQ to:
                    o Develop a list of priority persistent bio-
                        accumulative toxics by June 2009.
                    o Report to the Legislature on all sources of priority
                        persistent pollutants and identify opportunities for
                        source reduction by June 2010.



                                                                           11
                                o Requires source reduction plans from Oregon’s 52
                                    large municipal wastewater treatment plants by July
                                    2011.
                 Stakeholder involvement; advisory groups
                          WQS advisory groups include state agencies, regulated
                            entities, non-regulated sources, environmental
                            organizations, tribal representatives, US EPA
                          Targeted communication: toxic reduction strategy will
                            engage interested parties through electronic outreach,
                            meetings, and other methods
                 Project timelines:
                          June 2009, first deliverable to Legislature
                          June 2010, legislative report on likely sources of pollutants
           o Implications
                 Revised water quality standards will be lower for some existing
                    and legacy agricultural pesticides.
                 The list of pollutants identified by SB737 preparation will likely be
                    include agricultural pesticides
                 The toxics reduction strategy will address both point and non-point
                    sources
                 DEQ envisions these efforts will inform existing operations
           o Next steps:
                 Continue to partner with Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla
                    Indian Reservation and the EPA, to lead the water quality
                    standards review process.
                 Work with state agencies, DEQ programs, and stakeholder
                    advisory groups to coordinate activities.

A board discussion took place following Mullane and Wigal’s presentation. Among the
board’s concerns and questions:
    If the state does not know where the fish that Oregonian’s consume is sourced
       from (for example: is it sourced from Washington State, Alaska, or other regions
       outside Oregon), how can DEQ set standards for higher water quality rates?
           o There is a concern by the board that the main driver behind setting levels
              of pollution in Oregon’s water supply may apply to fish that are non-
              native.
                   How are the standards set for fish consumption when the rules do
                      not differentiate, or clearly specify, imported out-of-state fish
                      versus native in-stream species?
           o DEQ says that the collection of fish tested included both up-river and
              down-river in order to set levels for the Columbia River.
                   If levels are set because of down-stream pollutant deposits, how
                      will up-stream operators (who currently adhere to strict water
                      quality management plans for pesticides or other pollutants)
                      manage at even lower levels?




                                                                                      12
       Oregon State University canola study results, Russ Karow, OSU Crop and
       Soil Sciences: The following is a summarization of the latest report to the ODA.
       Please refer to your handouts, and to the ODA-OSU Oilseed Project Web page at:
       http://cropandsoil.oregonstate.edu/bioenergy/overview

    Funding for the ODA-OSU oilseeds project was initially provided by an Oregon
     Legislature Emergency Board grant and is now funded by a specific base budget
     allocation to the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA). Funding is provided
     so that ODA can obtain the information it needs to make informed decisions
     about canola production zones in the state. The following information was
     specifically sought as an outcome of research efforts and is part of primary project
     objectives.

           o Understanding interactions between canola and other specialty seed and
             vegetable crops grown in Oregon. Key areas of information need to
             include isolation distances, flower synchrony, pollen flow, local weather
             and topological needed conditions for canola and specialty seed
             production, and the need to better understand the threat of increased
             infestations of cabbage maggots and plant diseases on other vegetable
             crops.
           o Development of potential management strategies for production of canola
             crops while protecting the specialty seed and vegetable crop industry
           o Need a well-developed GIS system to identify areas of least risk to locate
             canola field trials and potential sites for future production where conflicts
             with vegetable seed and seed production are minimized.
           o Need better understanding of how to design and maintain isolation zones.
           o Need to better understand problems of cross-pollination and weedy
             establishment of volunteers.
           o Investigation of alternative oilseed crops that do not conflict with specialty
             seed and vegetable crop production.
           o Need updated enterprise budget for growing oilseeds in no- or low-till
             production systems.
           o Need a system to share oilseed information among researchers, industry,
             and agency personnel.

The work areas listed below were identified for the Dec 1, 2007 - Nov 30, 2009 grant
period. In the period Dec 1, 2008 - Nov 30, 2009, work in areas I, II, III and VI
continues.




                                                                                        13
GIS work is completed except for final static map preparation. ODA Canola Advisory
Committee input is being sought in this regard. Work area V is completed.
    Grower field trials, alternate crop trials, publications and web site (Objectives B,
      C, D)
          o Hyslop Farm Trials The first date of spring mustard, canola, camelina,
              and flax trials were planted at Hyslop Farm on February 5, 2009. Wet soil
              conditions made seedbed preparation particularly difficult this year, and
              the final seedbed was quite cloddy and uneven. Unusually cool weather
              after planting resulted in very slow crop emergence. In spite of the poor
              seedbed and slow germination, plants were established in all mustard,
              canola, and camelina plots by mid-March. Flax emergence was very
              uneven from the first planting date, and stand establishment was very poor
              in these plots, but some plants are still emerging from the soil.

              The second planting for all spring trials is scheduled for early April as
              weather permits.

              No safflower or sunflower trials are planned for the 2009 season.

              Nearly 25 years ago Dr, Gary Jolliff conducted a series of soybean trials at
              OSU to investigate the feasibility of soybean production in western
              Oregon. A series of diverse genetic materials were assessed. Most of the
              genetic stocks available at that time would not consistently set seed when
              night temperatures were below 58o F, a common occurrence in the area.
              However, several lines with low temperature tolerance were identified.
              Dr. Clint Shock at the Malheur Experiment Station has been making
              crosses with remnant seed from those early experiments and has
              developed a number of advanced lines that may have tolerance to low
              night temperature. Following recent seed increases, he has agreed to
              supply sufficient seed to establish a replicated soybean yield trial at
              Hyslop Farm in 2009. We intend to plant an irrigated trial in May to assess
              the yield and screen approximately 35 soybean lines for low night
              temperature tolerance under Willamette Valley conditions.

              In fall 2008 a small field winter flax field was planted at Hyslop Farm to
              increase seed of the variety Linore. This field has survived the winter
              without any problems and should begin flowering in April. Our intent is to
              be able to provide seed for grower-scale trials and to evaluate fiber from
              these plants as an industrial feedstock for fiber reinforced composites.

              Five winter canola fields were established in fall 2008 as part of the ODA-
              OSU oilseed research project. Growers included Dean Freeborn, Kathy
              Freeborn, Bruce Bice, and Scott Setniker. All fields were issued permits
              by the Oregon Department of Agriculture to be planted as part of this
              research project. All fields were planted to non-GM canola varieties.




                                                                                          14
   All fields were fertilized during the first week of February with a blanket
   application of 100 lb N/acre. Replicated fertility trials were established in
   fields 1, 2, and 5 that included treatments with an additional 50 lb N/acre
   as well as the blanket treatment. As in past years, these plots will be
   harvested using the grower’s combines, and yield will be measured using a
   weigh wagon.

o Weeds project, cross-pollination, seed bank (Objectives A, B) Long-
  term goal: Evaluate whether the introduction of canola poses a risk to the
  Brassica seed crop production industry.

   Objective 1: Determine the potential of gene flow and hybridization via
   pollen flow from Brassica napus to related Brassica vegetable crops.

o Field experiments In-field crossing studies were conducted in a B. napus
  field on the Van Leeuwen Farm near Corvallis, OR. Pollen receptor plants
  of a self-incompatible B. rapa var. chinensis (Pak-choi), a second B. rapa
  var. pekinensis (Chinese cabbage), and cytoplasmic male sterile (CMS) B.
  oleracea var. botrytis (broccoli) plants were grown in the greenhouse and
  sequentially moved into the field throughout B. napus flowering. These
  experiments are the same as those conducted at the Robinson Farm in
  2007. A second experiment was conducted in a B. napus field on the
  Hyslop Agricultural Research Farm using a B. oleracea var. capitata
  (cabbage) as a receptor species. Each receptor plant was placed in a 7 x 7
  m grid inside the perimeter of a 15 x 15 m study area at both locations
  with one plant located at the intersection of the grid axes. Each experiment
  contained thirteen receptor plants. Initiation and duration of flowering
  were recorded for all species at both sites.

   The B. rapa var. chinensis x B. napus cross produced 5,000 seeds with a
   germination of 58%. Results of the flow cytometry analysis on the
   progeny of this cross-revealed that 89% of the offspring produced were
   hybrids (Figure 1a). The B. rapa var. pekinensis x B. napus cross-
   produced 663 seeds with a germination of 62%. The flow cytometry
   analysis on the progeny of this cross-revealed that 88% of the offspring
   produced were hybrids (Figure 1b). As with the results of the 2007
   crosses, hybridization rates varied between receptor plants within both B.
   rapa species. No hybrid offspring were produced from either of the B.
   oleracea sp. x B. napus crosses.

   It is important to note that the data on hybridization presented here are
   limited and should not be considered conclusive. These experiments were
   conducted as a worst-case scenario, and only examined a limited number
   of Brassica vegetable species.




                                                                             15
o Insect monitoring (Objective A) Insect monitoring (Objective A) As of
  March 16th, insect pest management issues were minimal in all five
  grower fields. The majority of canola plants were in rosette stage with
  25% beginning to bolt. A low level number of over-wintering cucumber
  beetles and mature gray field slugs were causing damage, particularly on
  borders. It appears metaldehyde bait was applied. One hundred roots were
  sampled for cabbage maggot damage on January 15th, but no infestation
  was found. We will sample for cabbage maggot infestations again after
  spring flight (mid-to-late April).

   Additional pests such as aphids (three species), cabbage seedpod weevil,
   and diamond back moth were found. The specialty seed industry in the
   Willamette is concerned over the pollen beetle. One species of pollen
   beetle, M. aeneus, wiped out brassica seed production in France. It has not
   made its appearance in western Oregon. However, another species of
   pollen beetle, M. nigrescens, is widely distributed across North America,
   and lays its eggs in legumes.

o GIS mapping work (Objective B) Mike Halbleib participated in Feb 27
  and March 20 ODA Canola Advisory Committee meetings to provide
  information about and access to the web-based mapping system that has
  been developed. He has repeatedly sought input from root-crop brassica
  growers on the historic locations of their production and is anticipating
  receipt of some data the week of March 30. The final output of Mike and
  Chris’ work for this project will be a set of static maps that shows historic
  locations of specialty seed and brassica root-crop production, if data for
  the latter is received, in the Valley. Mike and Chris, the PRISM group,
  have developed the framework needed for dynamic pining maps.
  Specialty seed growers or others who are interested in use of such a
  system will need to contract with the PRISM for system development and
  maintenance, if there is need for the latter.
o Economic assessment work (Objectives B, C) Economic work is
  completed and posted to the CSS Oilseeds website
o http://cropandsoil.oregonstate.edu/bioenergy/ Bill Jaeger participated in
  the OSU reporting session with the ODA Canola Advisory Committee on
  Feb 27 and provided highlights of this work.
o Communications (Objective D) Dreves, A. 11 Jan 2009; PNW IPM
  Conference in Portland OR. Title: Oregon Canola-Camelina Project to
  meet Biodiesel Demand—pest management perspective.
  Dreves, A. 19 Feb 2009; Specialty Seed Growers; Albany, OR. Two talks:
  Cabbage Maggots; Pollen Beetles
  Ehrensing, D. 21 Jan 2009. Camelina presentation to the Oregon Ryegrass
  Growers meeting, Albany, OR.
  Ehrensing, D. 19 Feb 2009. Camelina presentation to Josephine County
  Farm Bureau, Grants Pass, OR.




                                                                             16
      Karow, R. 13 Feb 2009. Oregon Board of Agriculture, ODA Oilseeds
      Project Update, Salem, OR
      Karow, R. monthly or quarterly updates to Wheat, Grains, Potato, Mint
      and grass seed commissions and Oregon Seed Council on project
      activities.
      OSU Research Group. 27 Feb 2009; Salem, OR; ODA Canola Working
      Group; A 2-year study: Canola Pests
o    Other oil seeds Other trials have been run or proposed, see
  http://cropandsoil.oregonstate.edu/bioenergy/crops for crop fact sheets on:
      o Camelina: being studied as a meal or feed for the egg industry
      o Winter flax: is being considered for its food oil ingredient
      o Meadowfoam: has niche qualities as a cosmetic ingredient and bio-
          fumigant industrial oil
      o Winter safflower: Down side to dryland and irrigated safflower is the
          short growing season in the WV; early rainfalls will cause crop losses.
      o Sunflowers: grow well in the WV, but most likely require irrigation to
          attain economic yields. Winter varieties have been grown by
          Washington State University, and an OSU trial could begin in fall
          2009.
      o Edible mustard: mustards do not shatter; current market is for mustard
          meals, but has potential as a biocide or biofumigant.
      o Hemp
o Risk assessment Is the Willamette Valley able to accommodate small
  acreages of canola?
      o The Canola Advisory Committee continues to gather information in
          order to make recommendations to ODA by late spring of 2009, and to
          make the findings available to the public. The data would be in and
          decisions made by the fall 2009 planting time.
o Goals
      o Find a broad leaf rotational crop
      o Is it possible for specialty seed growers to grow limited acreage or
          larger acreage for specialty oil producing seeds, such as sprouting
          seeds?
                Can these crops be grown within the constraints of an open
                  membership of the Willamette Valley Specialty Seed
                  Association controlled system?
                The Willamette Valley could truly become the premier
                  specialty seed growing area in the world; partnership among
                  growers and seed dealers would promote product to customers
                  worldwide.
                Crews will be needed to remove unwanted plants if sprouted,
                  as well as ongoing insect and disease monitoring.
                An electronic pinning system will be developed along with
                  field history




                                                                              17
              o Change the majority crop incentive program to favor camelina and
                other crops that replace fossil fuels, and that do not interfere with
                specialty seed industry.
                     Set dollar limits for incentives
                     Modify the business energy tax credit

Discussion with board members followed Karow’s presentation: The board supports
the WVSSA and OSU working together to obtain objective data. The board would like to
wait until all data has been collected to make recommendations. The existing industry
should be offered consideration when making the decision to allow canola production
within the WV.

Conservation roundtable discussion – 2009 Legislative session
   Bob Stacey, 1,000 Friends of Oregon: Stacey’s organization is focused on the
      following
             o The Big Look Task Force recommendations: House Bill 2229 contains
                several proposals from the task force to change Oregon's land use
                planning program. Some changes we support, including a plan to have
                key state agencies develop an integrated strategic plan to coordinate
                land use, transportation and economic development efforts.
                Unfortunately, the task force has focused much of their effort on a
                controversial proposal to allow counties to develop new criteria to
                redefine farm and forest lands and propose this to LCDC for approval.
                This proposal, not supported by any data from the task force, is based
                on the perception that unproductive lands have been mis-designated by
                counties, and that counties are prevented from correcting these errors.
                Counties can, and do, re-designate land from agricultural or forest to
                other categories. In fact, counties re-designated over 20,000 acres from
                agriculture to other rural uses between 1989 and 2007. If land is mis-
                zoned, counties should correct the zoning error, not come up with new
                definitions for farm and forestland. Simply put, this task force proposal
                will lead to rural sprawl, increased global warming pollution from cars
                and trucks, and impact Oregon agriculture at a time when our economy
                is already in danger.
                 1,000 Friends recommends:
                          Direct the Oregon Progress Board to develop performance
                            measures for evaluating each statewide land use planning
                            goal.
                          Direct state agencies to develop a state strategic plan,
                            integrating emerging economic, environmental, social, and
                            population trends and desirable outcomes.
                          The Legislature should reject the Big Look Task Force
                            proposal to redefine farm and forest land.
             o Destination resorts; restoring balance and common sense:
                 Increased demand on county and nearby services without
                     corresponding revenue


                                                                                        18
          Resort residents strain the infrastructure and services of
           counties and nearby municipalities without defraying the
           costs. For example, the City of Redmond estimates that a
           newly approved resort just over the county line in Crook
           County will impose $860,000 in traffic-related costs to the
           city. Redmond will be unable to recover these costs
           because there is no mechanism for the city to impose
           system development charges for the resort as it would on a
           development of similar size within its boundaries.
   Unsustainable demand for limited water supplies
         Water consumption for golf courses, landscaping, and other
           resort uses reduces stream flows and drains limited
           groundwater supplies - impacting local farmers and
           ranchers who depend upon limited groundwater to earn
           their living. Proposed central Oregon resorts have applied
           for permits to withdraw millions of gallons of groundwater
           per day. State agency officials have expressed concern that
           resort groundwater withdrawals near the Metolius Basin
           could diminish in stream flows in the Wild and Scenic
           Metolius River and Whychus Creek.
   Conflicts with existing farm, ranch, and forestry committees
         High-end resorts that draw tourists and new permanent
           residents create traffic and other conflicts for Oregon’s
           working family farms and forests and undermine the
           character of surrounding communities.
   Increased wildfire risks add safety concerns
         The Oregon Department of Forestry considers the
           Ponderosa forests east of the Cascades to be at the highest
           level of risk for wildfire. Homes in the forestlands outside
           Sisters have been under threat of evacuation each year for
           several years in a row. Some homes have burned to the
           ground, including homes within existing destination resorts.
           Improperly sited resorts significantly increase the risk of
           wildfire by extending development farther into the forest,
           endangering the lives of nearby residents and firefighters
           and further straining the state’s limited financial resources
           by adding to wildfire suppression costs.
   Habitat and natural resources harmed
         Under current siting guidelines, resorts are being approved
           in areas that provide important habitat for fish and game.
           The Elkhorn resort, near the Opal Creek Wilderness area,
           would be built on an elk calving ground and would place an
           open sewage lagoon above a river that is home to
           threatened and endangered salmon and steelhead.
           Currently, resorts can be sited in deer and elk migration



                                                                     19
                          corridors, preventing big game from moving between their
                          winter and summer ranges.


                Common sense solutions for destination resort siting reform:
                      ensure that destination resorts cater to tourists and don’t
                          become residential subdivisions
                      prohibit siting resorts in high risk fire areas
                      protect Oregon’s streams and salmon; site resorts away
                          from streams and out of areas where groundwater
                          withdrawals can reduce stream flow in protected rivers
                      ensure buffer zones so that resorts do not interfere with
                          existing commercial farm, ranch, or forestry operations
                      protect wildlife by keeping resorts out of big game habitat
                          and big game mitigation corridors.
 Sarah Vickerman, Defenders of Wildlife (DOW): DOW’s objectives for the
  2009 session include:
         o A bill to encourage and enable building markets for ecosystem
             services
              Natural resources, clean water, etc.
              Separate markets increased transaction costs for buyers and sellers
              Invest the time to make the markets better for stakeholders,
                 including a bill to create a workgroup and policy recommendations
         o Climate change
              A state established policy is necessary for emissions. Oregon
                 should take affirmative steps, and create legislation for the steps to
                 be implemented
         o Ballot Measure 66
              Lottery funds stand to be reduced to parks and watersheds partially
                 (15 percent) funded by lottery dollars.
              There is a need to modernize the bill and explicitly deal with
                 Oregon conservation strategy—but as of now, there are no funds to
                 do this.
         o The Big Look Task Force
              Will be making minor recommendations
         o DOW has an interest in the state’s natural resource agency budgets;
              Will show support for Soil and Water Conservation Districts
                 (SWCDs)
              Will encourage projects with energy credit programs
 Andrea Salinas, Oregon Environmental Council (OEC): Salinas identified the
  following legislative agenda items:
         o Global warming
              The significant impact to crops
              Interested in the trading of greenhouse gas emissions
              OEC participation with ODA in the Global Warming Commission
         o Creating healthier school environments


                                                                                    20
                   Working with Senator Bonamici on pesticide use in schools
                   Supports the suspension of the Pesticide Use Reporting System
                    (PURS)
            o Wants to see funding for the SWCDs continued
            o Offering testimony in support of OSARC
                 and seeking federal grant monies for sustainable agricultural
                    practices.
    Deborah Kane, EcoTrust: EcoTrust is concentrating on the Farm to School
     Program for the next biennium. Of their findings (in the early phases of the
     program), data shows:
            o Children participating in planting, tending, and harvesting vegetables
                in school-supervised gardens are more likely to eat the meals made
                with their own hands.
            o Due to the fact that Farm to School is an Oregon state funded program
                rather than one receiving federal assistance, the program is far behind
                in needed dollars.

Board of Agriculture subcommittee reports
    Natural resources: ODA Natural Resources Division Administrator Ray Jaindl
      gave a report on the Conservation Restoration Enhancement Program (CREP).
      ODA Pesticides Division Administrator Christopher Kirby reported on changes in
      language to the PURS resolution, intended to replace Board Resolution #168.

       Discussion followed by the full board and centered on the Confined Animal
       Feeding Operation (CAFO) permits. Although the EPA review stated that ODA
       needed to conduct an increase in CAFO inspections, ODA’s CAFO permit
       program was not funded for the extra inspector positions it would require to fulfill
       EPA’s recommendations.

       State Representative Jefferson Smith was going to meet with community activists
       and talk about resident water issues in Umatilla County. Agriculture board
       member Bob Levy will try and meet with him as well.

    Government relations: Board member Tom Fessler reported that the committee
     had reviewed the final copy of the State Board of Agriculture Report before its
     submission to legislators yesterday. The report was well received by lawmakers.
     Due to its shortened length and well-defined chapters focusing on several issues,
     it was the perfect way to introduce the Legislature to Oregon’s agricultural
     industry and the serious issues they grapple with. Kudos from the board went to
     the ODA team tasked with writing, editing, and designing the report.

    Marketing: ODA Assistant Director Dalton Hobbs and board member Lynn
     Youngbar spoke about the USDA National Organic Program (NOP) certification
     program that ODA’s Commodity Inspection Division plan to integrate into their
     current services for growers. Oregon Tilth (Oregon’s largest NOP certifier at this
     time) Director Chris Schreiner has asked ODA to consider a cooperative program



                                                                                        21
   rather than one that might take business away from Tilth. Oregon Tilth has asked
   the Board of Agriculture to sign a letter of cooperation between the agencies.
   Some of the items that are up for discussion include:
       o Since Washington Sate Department of Agriculture (WSDA) handles 20
           percent of USDA NOP certification within Oregon, WSDA would hand
           back those customers to the ODA.
       o Oregon Tilth is interested in enforcement beyond base certification,
           particularly in the marketplace. Good and open communication with
           Oregon Tilth and ODA is needed, since the products certified become
           value-added agricultural commodities.

 Land use: ODA’s Jim Johnson and board member Pat Dudley spoke about the
  Big Look Task Force and board action item revision. Some land use laws have
  not been revised in 30 years; some have to do with local government capabilities.
  A draft resolution would suggest that periodic review is necessary to see if there
  are inappropriately zoned lands in use. Johnson reviewed a bill summary which
  highlighted the following:
      o Exclusive Farm Use zoning; potential changes
      o Aggregate mining
      o Super siting
      o Airport zoning
      o Utility siting (pipelines and transmission lines); no eminent domain. A
          high level of frustration with power companies who view farmland and
          ranchland as being ―cheap‖ real estate.
  The two biggest issues coming up for the committee are:
      o CAFOs: will need to address very soon. This is a very emotional issue in
          the public sector.
      o Right to Farm (RTF) laws: For example, cannons used to frighten geese
          from fields is a contentious source of misunderstanding to those who do
          not know what is permitted farm use and what is not. Perhaps there needs
          to be an education program on RTF in the local communities.

 Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) report: Board member Dan
  Carver summarized recent activities:
     o Three percent of the public knows what OWEB does.
             Ideas to improve recognition for OWEB’s responsibilities could be
              to change the name to the Oregon Conservation Board. A
              discussion could be held with ODA and the Board of Agriculture
              to pursue the name change.
     o Budget constraints are tough, but not as dire as some.
             Eight percent of lottery spending is down, but OWEB is hoping to
              receive dollars from the federal government for salmon recovery.
             OWEB will meet in March 2009 for a funding disbursement
              session. Forty million dollars are available, yet over $60 million
              has been requested by applicants. OWEB has hired a public




                                                                                  22
                     relations firm to educate the public about Measure 66 (lottery
                     funding) dollars and the clause of 2014.
Other board business
Approval of minutes: Minutes approved without changes or additions by unanimous
vote.
Nominating committee: The following board members were appointed to the committee:
Pat Dudley, Chair
Doug Krahmer
Bernie Faber
Their recommendations will be brought back to the next board meeting.

Next board meetings
May 13, 14, 15, 2009—Salem, OR
September 9, 10, 11, 2009—Baker, OR (Tentative location)
November 18, 19, 20, 2009—Astoria, OR (Tentative location)

Meeting adjourned




                                                                                 23

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:6
posted:4/20/2010
language:English
pages:23