Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (Dec. 22, 2017)
December 22, 2017 CapitalPress.com 5 Onion reload facility on track, backers say By SEAN ELLIS Capital Press NYSSA, Ore. — A pro- posed major rail reload fa- cility in Eastern Oregon that could greatly help the region’s onion industry is on track to be built within three years. The region’s onion ship- ping companies face constant transportation challenges. In- dustry leaders say the problem is getting worse and the reload facility is sorely needed. “Transportation is a chron- ic problem for us (and) it’s as bad as I’ve ever seen it right now,” said Kay Riley, man- ager of Snake River Produce, one of 30 onion shipping companies in southwestern Idaho and Malheur County, Ore. Riley said the planned re- load facility is so important “it could keep us in business, and we could go out of business Sean Ellis/Capital Press Onions are sorted at a facility near Nyssa, Ore., in September. Idaho-Oregon onion shippers hope a major rail reload facility being built near Nyssa will help them solve their chronic transportation problems. without it.” The facility would allow shipping containers to be transfered between truck and rail. It could benefit a wide range of agricultural com- modities grown as far away as southcentral Idaho. Most onions produced here are sold to markets on the East Coast. Shippers must currently truck them 216 miles north to the nearest reload facili- Rep. Greg ty in Wallula, Smith Wash., before they begin their journey east. Eliminating that step will reduce the cost of shipping onions, improve timeliness of delivery and possibly open new markets, said Grant Ki- tamura, general manager of Baker & Murakami Produce, the region’s largest onion shipper. “This is a major game changer for onion shippers,” he said. “It will help us main- tain our viability as an indus- try. Transportation has been a real issue for onion shippers in Oregon and Idaho for many years and it’s been getting worse and hopefully this will help us turn it around.” Bruce Corn, an Oregon farmer, said the facility could markedly speed up delivery times to East Coast markets. “It can result in a substan- tial savings in transportation costs and also be a much more reliable source of transporta- tion,” he said. The $5.3 billion transpor- tation package passed by the Oregon Legislature this year included $26 million for a reload facility in Eastern Ore- gon. A 400-acre piece of land just north of Nyssa was re- cently chosen as the facility’s location. The plan for the facility is for it to include dry and cold storage, said Rep. Greg Smith, R-Heppner, who is helping lead the effort to build the facility. “All of a sudden, we be- come a regional location that can compete against anyone in the world,” said Smith, Malheur County’s economic development director. The plan also includes building the infrastructure needed by food processors, Smith said. “That way, agricultural food processors will have a one-stop location where they can produce and have a ship- ping hub right at their back door,” he said. The biggest challenge now is making sure the facility is designed and built correctly, Smith said. “I think our biggest chal- lenge is expectation. Folks want this now,” he said. “We want to take our time and do it correctly, not do it quickly just to meet that expectation. This facility is going to be here for 100 years. Let’s do it correctly the first time.” Feds stop North Cascades grizzly recovery Capital Press The USDA announced Dec. 15 that it is withdrawing a proposed rule dealing with animal handling practices for organic livestock and poultry. The rule, largely supported by organic interests, was opposed by conventional livestock producer organizations. USDA plans to withdraw contentious organic rule By CAROL RYAN DUMAS Capital Press USDA announced on Fri- day it intends to put an end to a new rule dealing with animal handling practices for organic livestock and poultry, saying the rule exceeds its statutory authority. Supported by the Organ- ic Trade Association, which largely developed the rule, and the National Farmers Union, the Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices final rule has drawn staunch opposition from conventional livestock groups. That opposition has shelved implementation of the rule twice after the new adminis- tration put an initial, temporary hold on it – as well as any new regulation – after Trump took office. Now set to get the ax after a public comment period, the rule would have added new pro- visions for livestock handling and transportation for slaughter and avian living conditions in organic production. It would also have expanded existing requirements for livestock care and production practices. The Organic Trade Asso- ciation issued a statement of dismay on USDA’s intention to withdraw the rule and vowed to continue to fight for its imple- mentation. “This groundless step by USDA is being taken against a backdrop of nearly universal support among organic busi- nesses and consumers for the fully vetted rules that USDA has now rejected,” OTA stated. And USDA’s latest action might not be the final nail in the coffin. OTA filed a lawsuit against USDA in September in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., seeking judicial review of the administration’s earlier delays. It amended its com- plaint last week to include the November delay. “We will continue our fight to uphold organic standards … we will see the department in court and are confident that we will prevail on this important issue for the organic sector,” OTA stated. National Farmers Union is disappointed with USDA’s de- cision, saying the rule would improve the consistency and integrity of organic livestock practices and labeling. “We urge USDA to find a solution that provides certainty to family organic producers and integrity to the organic label,” said Rob Larew, NFU senior vice president of public policy and communications. The National Pork Produc- ers Council was also quick to issue a statement, saying the rule would have incorporated welfare standards that weren’t based on science and were out- side the scope of the Organic Food Production Act, which limited organic considerations to feeding and medical prac- tices. “We’d like to thank Sec- retary (Sonny) Perdue and the Trump administration for lis- tening to our concerns with the rule and recognizing the seri- ous challenges it would have presented our producers,” said Ken Maschhoff, NPPC presi- dent. NPPC raised several prob- lems with the regulation, argu- ing animal production practices have nothing to do with the ba- sic concept of “organic.” It also cited the complexity the standards would have add- ed to the organic certification process, creating significant barriers to existing and new organic producers. Fewer conventional live- stock and poultry groups have commented on this lat- est round in the organic rule saga. But the opposition has also included the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Chicken Council, National Association of Egg Producers and National Milk Producers Federation. They’ve opposed the rule on several fronts, saying the proposed practices aren’t based on science but aimed at consumer perception and threaten both animal and hu- man public health. They’ve contended the rule would be costly, impractical and ill-advised and its require- ments for outdoor access could help spread animal and avian diseases, resulting in consum- er mistrust of their products. They also contend the or- ganic program is a marketing program, which legally does not include animal welfare. Some are also concerned the rule would set a precedent that could be used by activist to push unscientific restrictions on all animal agriculture. The beleaguered rule was first proposed in April 2016, finalized in the final days of the Obama administration and set to go into effect last March 20. That implementation was delayed by Trump’s executive order putting a hold on any pending regulation, pushing implementation to May 19. Feds halt grizzly bear recovery effort in North Cascades Vancouver it of Ge org i 5 WASH. 5A Merritt 1 97C North Cascades Ecosystem 99 5A 5 Princeton 3 7 ra St USDA WENATCHEE, Wash. — The National Park Service apparently is shutting down its efforts to reintroduce griz- zly bears into the North Cas- cades Ecosystem. Conservation Northwest, a regional conservation orga- nization strongly supportive of grizzly bear recovery, is- sued a news release Dec. 18 lamenting what it said was a stop work order announced Dec. 13 at an Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee meeting in Missoula, Mont. The Missoulian newspaper reported that North Cascades National Park Superintendent Karen Taylor-Goodrich said at the meeting that her staff had been asked to stop work on its environmental impact statement for grizzly bear re- covery by Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s office. Taylor-Goodrich could not be reached for direct comment and no statement was issued by Interior. Tay- lor-Goodrich reportedly said the order also stalls discus- sions with Canadian wildlife managers who oversee simi- lar grizzly recovery in British Columbia. The North Cascades Eco- system encompasses 9,800 square miles in the U.S. and 3,800 square miles in British Columbia. The U.S. portion is generally the Cascades from Wenatchee northward. It includes North Cascades National Park, Ross Lake Na- tional Recreation Area, Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest and Mt. Bak- er-Snoqualmie National For- est. The North Cascades Na- tional Park staff is in the third year of a public pro- cess and was evaluating 127,000 public comments on a draft environmental impact statement. That statement Area in detail Chilliwack 3 1 Abbotsford a British Columbia Washington 542 NORTH CASCADES NAT’L PARK Bellingham 5 Victoria 20 Grizzly bear habitat 101 20 530 5 Lake Chelan Everett 97 Chelan 2 N 153 2 Seattle 20 miles 2 90 Tacoma 97 Wenatchee 28 90 Olympia Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; National Park Service Alan Kenaga/Capital Press National Park Service A Yellowstone grizzly bear. The U.S. Department of the Interior has apparently ordered the National Park Service to cease work on a grizzly bear recovery plan for the North Cascades. includes a no-action alterna- tive and three alternatives to restore a reproducing popu- lation of about 200 bears by bringing them in from other areas. Restoring grizzlies would “enhance the probability of longterm survival and con- servation of grizzly bears in the contiguous United States thereby contributing to over- all grizzly bear recovery and greater biodiversity of the ecosystem,” the NPS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- vice have said. Grizzlies were listed as a threatened species in the con- tiguous U.S. in 1975. They were listed as endangered in Washington in 1980. U.S. Rep. Dan Newhouse, whose 4th Congressional District encompasses part of the North Cascades, strongly opposed the plan. Jim DeTro, an Okanogan County commissioner op- posed to the plan, said Tay- lor-Goodrich’s announce- ment is good news. He said he had heard at a National Association of Counties meeting in Sunriver, Ore., in May that such a decision would be forthcoming. Okanogan County ranch- ers already coping with coy- otes, cougars and wolves said they didn’t need another apex predator killing and harass- ing their cattle. “Yes, ranchers in the Okanogan will be happy but the opposition had biparti- san support. Even hikers and people on the green side said the North Cascades was no place for this,” DeTro said. A group in the small Western Washington town of Darrington opposed the plan, saying it would hurt tourism, hiking and be bad for general safety since there are fewer meadows, berries and no wild bees, elk nor bi- son for the bears. The draft plan would close more roads to hiking, which would be bad for tourism, members of the Darrington Area Re- source Advocates have said. The group includes resi- dents, representatives of the Sauk-Suiattle Tribe, Hamp- ton Lumber Mill, business owners and backcountry horsemen. “Many years of science, public education and significant taxpayer dol- lars have gone into grizzly bear recovery in our region and are not being taken se- riously by this administra- tion,” said Chase Gunnell, a Conservation Northwest spokesman. The vast majority of the 127,000 comments received were supportive of recovery and Conservation Northwest urges work to continue, he said. 51-1/106 By DAN WHEAT
