Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 29, 2016)
January 29, 2016 CapitalPress.com 3 Brown calls for more engagement on land issues Governor proposes $3.8 million in Harney County drought assistance By HILLARY BORRUD Capital Bureau SALEM — Oregon Gov. Kate Brown said Tuesday the federal government should do more to engage with people about how to manage federal lands. Her comments came before federal and state authorities arrested eight suspects and killed another who had been among mostly out-of-state protesters who had occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County since Jan. 2. They had demanded that federal lands be turned over Land ownership in Harney County Private: 1.6 million acres or 24.9% Bureau of Land Management: 3.97 million acres or 60.6% Sources: Harney County GIS; BLM, Burns District At more than 6.5 million acres, Harney is the largest county in Oregon. State: 197,417 acres or 3% U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 188,160 acres or 2.9% U.S. Forest Service: 523,071 acres or 8% Other government*: 36,507 acres or 0.6% * Includes Bureau of Reclamation, Indian reservation and trust land, Northern Great Basin Experimental Range and other water bodies. Alan Kenaga/Capital Press to state and county govern- ments, and that two ranch- ers serving five-year prison sentences for burning Bu- reau of Land Management property be released. While many local resi- dents, farming and ranching groups and elected officials have criticized the occupi- ers’ actions, they say the un- derlying anger over federal land management policies and their impact on local communities throughout the West is real. “I certainly believe that there needs to be a higher level of federal engagement around federal management of public land,” Brown said. “I do think our fi rst priority is to end this occupation swiftly and peacefully. I think it’s ex- tremely important that wrong- doers be held accountable to the full extent of the law. ” The governor spoke during a press briefi ng, where she also announced her plan to seek $3.8 million from the Legislature to pay for drought assistance targeted at Harney County. It was not immediately clear why Brown was tar- geting Harney County when drought has affected much of the state for several years. In 2015, Brown issued drought declarations in 25 counties and the federal government declared a drought in the re- maining 11 Oregon counties. “It is just near coincidence, the package was in develop- ment before this incident oc- curred,” Brown said, referring to the occupation by armed activists of the Malheur Na- tional Wildlife Refuge in Har- ney County. Brown said her funding plan would call for a “roughly $3.8 million pack- age, both emergency funding and staff to make sure that we are prepared for a drought this coming year and in the years to come.” Brown said roughly $3 million would be “emergen- cy funding” and the balance would pay for staff to assist a task force that would “prepare for drought resiliency.” Most of the money — $3 million — would go to drought emergency assistance so the state could help munic- ipal water systems, agricul- tural water users and others, according to a document from the Oregon Water Resources Department. The agency not- ed that Washington set aside $16 million for emergency as- sistance during the current bi- ennium, while Oregon has not identifi ed any such assistance. The governor also wants to pay for a study of ground- water in Harney County, where state regulators mostly stopped issuing agricultural well permits in 2015 pending further study because they were worried about depleting the aquifer. Finally, a small portion of the funding would pay for a staffer to assist with the cre- ation of a Drought Emergency Response and Resiliency task force to study how the state “anticipates and responds to drought,” according to the state Water Resources Depart- ment. Tree fruit industry grapples with FSMA water testing but that could change with a change in administration after the 2016 presidential election, Hanrahan said. Enforcement in Washington most likely will fall to the state Department of Agriculture, Woods said. It’s hard to gauge the impact of FSMA on the tree fruit in- dustry, Woods said. “It’s impossible to put a number on (the cost). It will By DAN WHEAT Capital Press YAKIMA, Wash. — The level of testing required on orchard irrigation water is the main issue facing the tree fruit industry as it seeks to comply with the Food Safety Modern- ization Act. Whether growers can test water at a single point in a ca- nal or must test it at multiple diversion points is the ques- tion the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has no generic answer for, says Kate Woods, vice president of the Northwest Horticultural Association in Ya- kima. “The FDA says it depends on individual circumstances depending on the potential for contamination between one point and another,” Woods said. FSMA’s Produce Safety Rule requires growers to estab- lish a microbial water quality profi le by conducting 20 tests on each surface water source vary depending on what pro- grams growers and packing houses currently operate under and how much more they will have to do,” she said. Many growers and packing houses have been involved in Global Gap or other private food safety auditing programs through which they are already 80 to 90 percent in compliance with FSMA, Hanrahan said. Dan Wheat/Capital Press Granny Smith apples fl oat in water at the start of a Zirkle Fruit Co. packing line in Selah, Wash., on Dec. 8. Water in packing houses and in orchards is regulated by the new Food Safety Modernization Act. over two to four years, Ines Hanrahan, postharvest physiol- ogist with the Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission, told growers at an industry ed- ucational day in Wenatchee on Jan. 21. Second, growers must an- nually conduct fi ve tests near harvest on each water source to update the profi le, she said. “This will be the most dras- tic change from current oper- ations. Growers will need to look at the defi nition of each water source,” she said. Whether water fl ows through a closed conduit or open canal probably will have a bearing on what’s allowed, Woods said. The rule was made public Nov. 27. Growers and packing houses that own the majori- ty of the fruit they pack have until Jan. 26, 2018, to comply, Woods said. Packers that don’t own a majority of the fruit they pack fall under the Preventive Controls for Human Food rule, released Sept. 17, that requires different paperwork, she said. Compliance is required by Jan. 26, 2020. The FDA is taking an edu- cation approach to enforcement Oregon begins wolf plan review accompanied by legal wrangling Oregon’s wildlife offi cials begin a required review of the state’s controversial wolf management plan with three months of stakeholder meet- ings starting in February, fol- lowed by a revision, draft and fi nal adoption process expect- ed to last into October. The process might seem like overkill for managing a wolf population that might reach 100 to 120 animals this year, but it is likely to be heat- ed and lengthy as environ- mental, hunting and ranching groups have their say. The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission voted in November 2015 to remove gray wolves from the state en- dangered species list. In a 4-2 vote, commissioners agreed with an ODFW staff report that said wolves have expand- ed in number and range to the point that they no longer need protection under the state En- dangered Species Act. A trio of environmental groups — the Center for Bi- ological Diversity, Cascadia Wildlands and Oregon Wild — sought a judicial review a month later, claiming the commission hadn’t used the best available science on wolf recovery. Among other things, the groups believe ODFW should have gone through the management plan review before taking any action on de-listing. Oregon’s wolves remain covered under the federal ESA in the western two-thirds of the state. ODFW offi cials say the state wolf manage- ment plan remains in effect and will protect wolves from illegal hunting. The political and legal fi ght over wolves took another turn recently when state Sen. Bill Hansell and state Rep. Greg Barreto, both Republicans, backed legislation that would ratify the commission’s action and make a lawsuit moot, the Associated Press reported. Hansell and Barreto plan to introduce bills when the Leg- islature convenes in February. The bills also would prohibit re-listing wolves as threat- ened or endangered unless the population falls below a cer- tain level, the AP reported. Oregon’s wolf population has grown from 14 in 2009 to a minimum of 85 in July 2015. Three have died since then, leaving the confi rmed population at 82. State wild- life biologists believe there 5-1/#14 are more; the population count represents only docu- mented wolves. An updated population survey will be completed in March. In other wolf news, ODFW designated a new Wallowa County pack, the Shamrock Pack, which denned up, pro- duced an unknown number of pups in April 2015 and carved out territory in ODFW’s Chesnimnus Unit north of Wallowa Lake. The new pack previous- ly was designated only a male-female pair. It operates in a wildlife unit adjacent to where the Sled Springs pair was found dead of unknown causes in late August. Oregon State Police investigated and said there was not suffi cient probable cause to believe hu- mans caused the deaths. Another wolf, wearing a tracking collar and designated OR-22, was shot and killed in Grant County last fall. A hunt- er, Brennon D. Witty, notifi ed ODFW and state police Oct. 6 that he’d shot the wolf while hunting coyotes on private property south of Prairie City. Witty is charged with two Class A misdemeanors: Kill- ing an endangered species and hunting with a centerfi re rifl e without a big game tag. Each is punishable by up to a year in jail and a $6,250 fi ne. Witty is scheduled to enter a plea Feb. 3 in Grant County Justice Court, Canyon City. ROP-32-52-2/#17 Capital Press 5-2/#14 By ERIC MORTENSON 5-7/#14
