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