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