Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 24, 2017)
February 24, 2017 CapitalPress.com 9 Oregon Environmentalists challenge USDA’s authority to kill wolves By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI Capital Press EUGENE, Ore. — Envi- ronmentalists say the USDA’s contract to kill wolves on be- half of Oregon wildlife offi- cials is unlawful because the federal agency hasn’t prop- erly 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 Ore- gon are no longer listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act but Mateusz Perkowski/Capital Press File The U.S. District Courthouse in Eugene, Ore. Arguments were heard Feb. 16 in a lawsuit against the USDA over its participation in killing wolves that attack livestock in Oregon. 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 environmen- tal groups to file a lawsuit against the agency. Under a settlement deal, USDA agreed to conduct an environmental assessment of its lethal wolf removal agree- ment with the Oregon Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife. In 2014, the USDA’s analysis concluded its wolf control activities didn’t have significant environmental im- pacts, but five environmental groups — Cascadia Wild- lands, Center for Biological Diversity, Wildearth Guard- ians, 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 Na- tional 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 been 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,” Mell- gren said. USDA’s analysis didn’t sufficiently consider the dis- ruption 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 effi- ciently than Oregon wildlife managers, which casts doubt on the USDA’s claim that Or- egon’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 be- cause it’s not disclosed any- where in the record,” he said of the number non-target kill- ings. The cumulative effects of USDA’s involvement in Or- egon’s wolf control program should have triggered a more comprehensive “environmen- tal impact statement,” or EIS, he said. The USDA countered that even if Wildlife Services was ordered to desist from killing wolves, Oregon’s lethal con- trol efforts would continue. “This isn’t some brand new course of action,” Martin said. E. Oregon job growth expected to trail behind state through 2024 By CLAIRE WITHYCOMBE Capital Bureau Courtesy of WSDA The Oregon Department of Agriculture may reduce the number of federal food inspections it does so it can catch up on other inspections, the state Board of Agriculture was told recently. Oregon farm regulators may scale back federal inspections Added staff time needed to reduce backlog of state inspections By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI Capital Press SALEM — Oregon’s farm regulators may curtail inspections conducted on behalf of the federal govern- ment to free up time to tackle a backlog of state food safety inspections. The Oregon Department of Agriculture performs 500 inspections a year to ensure food manufacturers are following federal sani- tation standards and other regulations, for which the U.S. Food and Drug Admin- istration pays the agency $700,000. Last year, a state audit found that ODA’s food safe- ty program had a backlog of 2,800 facilities — such as processors, dairies and bak- eries — that were overdue for an inspection by at least three months. As part of its plan to reduce the backlog, ODA is consid- ering trimming the number of federal inspections to 400 a year, which would also re- duce its federal funding for inspections by one-fifth, said Stephanie Page, the agency’s director of food safety and an- imal health. That shift would free up about 700 hours a year that ODA employees could devote to state inspections, which are typically more streamlined and require less extensive re- ports than federal inspections, Page said during a recent meeting of the Oregon Board of Agriculture. Currently, the ODA em- ploys 32 inspectors, two field operation managers and 7 specialists who also conduct inspections. It’s also possible that ODA will withdraw from the FDA’s Manufactured Food Regu- latory Program Standards program, a cooperative food safety effort that enrolls state agencies, Page said. The ODA has enforcement authorities, such as suspend- ing or revoking operating li- censes, necessary to ensure food safety, she said. “We have the teeth we need to deal with issues.” Oregon’s contemplated decrease in federal inspec- tions comes at a time when the FDA is poised to become even more dependent on state officials to carry out the Food Safety Modernization Act. The law was enacted in 2011 but the FDA spent sever- al years completing the rules for farmers and manufactur- ers, which state agencies are expected to help implement. The FSMA regulations will likely make federal inspec- tions of food facilities even more time-consuming, likely further reducing the number of such inspections that ODA can handle, said Page. Aside from enhanced in- spections of manufacturing facilities, FSMA requires on- site inspections of farms that grow produce that is eaten raw. The ODA isn’t certain it wants to perform such in- spections, though the agency has asked state lawmakers for that authority just in case, said Page. If the agency does conduct on-farm inspections for FDA, it would need a separate group of employees dedicated to the task, she said. “We have to have federal funds to do it and we have to have additional staff,” Page said. IN M! W A O SH N E R G WE SPECIALIZE IN BULK BAGS! BAGS: • Seed Bags • Fertilizer Bags • Feed Bags • Potato Bags • Printed Bags • Plain Bags • Bulk Bags • Totes • Woven Polypropylene • Bopp • Polyethylene • Pocket Bags • Roll Stock & More! HAY PRESS SUPPORT: • Hay Sleeves • Strap • Totes • Printed or Plain • Stretch Film (ALL GAUGES) WAREHOUSE PACKAGING: • Stretch Film • Pallet Sheets • Pallet Covers LOCATIONS: Albany, Oregon (MAIN OFFICE) Ellensburg, Washington CONTACT INFORMATION: Phone: 855-928-3856 Fax: 541-497-6262 info@westernpackaging.com ....................................................... CUSTOMER SERVICE IS OUR TOP PRIORITY! 8-4/#14 SALEM — Job growth in Oregon’s rural areas — par- ticularly southeastern Oregon — is projected to trail the rest of the fast-growing state until 2024, according to the Oregon Employment Department. Oregon’s jobs are expected to grow 14 percent between 2014 and 2024, more than double the national expected rate for that period. But in Harney and Mal- heur counties, the number of jobs is expected to increase merely 3 percent until 2024. That’s compared to 6 and 7 percent in neighboring coun- ties to the north and west, which is a rate on par with ex- pected job growth nationally. Counties near the central Columbia River Gorge, mean- while, are expected to see 11 percent job growth until 2024. The outlook comes in the broader context of the slow post-recession jobs recovery in rural areas of the state. While Oregon as a whole has made up the jobs it lost during the Great Recession, that’s not the case for many of the state’s rural areas — such as Gilliam and Wheeler counties. But the future may be brighter for them: Both are projected to exceed the coun- try’s jobs growth rate until 2024. Construction, health care and professional and business services jobs are expected to grow the fastest, according to a presentation employment department officials made to lawmakers on the state’s workforce committee Thurs- day. The high-tech sector is also expected to continue growing — a recent dip in jobs can be attributed to layoffs in the semiconductor industry, but the overall trend is upward, said Nick Beleiciks, a state employment economist with the Oregon Employment De- partment. Filling those new jobs may be a challenge in rural Ore- gon, too, though. Some employers in rural areas say they struggle to at- tract and retain young talent, Melisa Drugge, a business development officer for Busi- ness Oregon’s Eastern region, told lawmakers. There are a number of fac- tors at work. For example, many millennials — ages 19 to 30 — gravitate toward ur- ban centers with cultural ame- nities. And finding adequate housing for workers in com- munities such as Joseph in Wallowa County — where many homes are vacation properties — is a challenge, Drugge said. State Rep. Mark Johnson, R-Hood River, said some employers in the Colum- bia River Gorge are busing workers from the Portland and Vancouver areas because they can’t find or afford local housing. w w w. w e s t e r n p a c k a g i n g. c o m 8-4/#5
