State Game Commission wants new federal plan for wolves ahead of any releases

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/state-game-commission-wants-new-federal-plan-for-wolves-ahead/article_a9b7ab39-4108-5be3-a53d-0bac72dc990f.html State Game Commission wants new federal plan for wolves ahead of any releases Posted: Saturday, November 14, 2015 7:00 pm | Updated: 11:10 pm, Sat Nov 14, 2015. By Staci Matlock The New Mexican | 3 comments The New Mexico State Game Commission has said it doesn’t want more captive Mexican wolves released until the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has an updated recovery plan for the endangered species. The commission’s stance doesn’t bode well for an appeal by Ted Turner’s staff at the Ladder Ranch to continue importing and housing captive Mexican wolves at a facility there. Game and Fish Director Alexa Sandoval denied a permit for the facility, and on Thursday, Nov. 19, the State Game Commission will consider the ranch’s appeal at a public meeting in Roswell. The 156,439-acre Ladder Ranch west of Ruidoso has provided critical space since 1997 to prepare captive-reared Mexican wolves for release into the wilds of the designated wolf recovery area around the Gila Mountains as part of a federal effort to recover the endangered species. Sandoval earlier in the year also denied a permit for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to release captive-bred wolf cubs and a pair of adults. The agency appealed the decision, but the State Game Commission backed Sandoval on Sept. 29 and denied the permit as well. Officials with the federal agency said after the decision that they didn’t legally need a state permit and will proceed with wolf releases next year. Biologists with the federal wolf recovery program say those releases are critical to diversifying the gene pool among the wild wolves and building a lobo population that is viable for the long term. At Thursday’s meeting in Roswell, the commission also will discuss a lawsuit filed by Arizona against Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell over the Mexican wolf reintroduction program. Arizona filed the lawsuit in June saying Jewell and the Fish and Wildlife Service have failed to update a Mexican wolf recovery plan as required under the Endangered Species Act. Arizona also contends the federal government has usurped the state’s rights in managing the wolf population. New Mexico game commissioners could vote to join the Arizona lawsuit. Sandoval and the State Game Commission have argued similar points in denying the permits for the Mexican wolf releases, saying the federal government has failed to revise its old recovery plan for the species. Conservation groups including the Center for Biological Diversity and Defenders of Wildlife filed a similar lawsuit in 2014, calling on the federal government to complete an updated recovery plan. Michael Robinson, of the Center for Biological Diversity said he thinks the states want to have some control over what’s contained in the recovery plan, and that it won’t be to benefit the wolves. The Mexican wolf is federally listed as an endangered subspecies of gray wolf. It was considered extinct by the 1970s, killed off by ranchers and hunters. Biologists in New Mexico and Arizona have rebuilt the number of wolves in the wild from seven adults and a few released from captive facilities such as the Ladder Ranch. Biologists counted 110 wolves in the wild this year. Arizona and New Mexico game officials have argued the Fish and Wildlife Service is operating off a 1982 recovery plan that calls for protecting the captive wolf population and increasing the number of wolves to “at least” 100 in the wild. Game commissioners say the federal agency must have a recovery plan with an end goal in mind if the wolf is to ever be “recovered” and removed from the endangered species list. The dispute over the wolf recovery program gets heated in ranch-friendly Catron County, where some of the wild wolves roam. Catron County’s three commissioners are on record opposing more wolf releases and think the State Game Commission has made the right moves in denying permits. “The citizens of the county and the public in general have the right to know what the new goals of the program are,” said Catron County Commissioner Anita Hand. “I expect the federal agency to set forth clear and concise goals and be transparent and open in setting those goals. It is fundamentally unfair for the USFWS to ask the state Game and Fish Department for a permit to release wolves for a program that is now ambiguous and it has expanded beyond own stated objectives.” Wolf advocates believe the seven-member commission, appointed by Republican Gov. Susana Martinez, is placating ranchers in the wolf recovery area who say the animals threaten their livestock and their families. Wolf advocates and federal wolf biologists note the 1982 plan also calls for a “viable” population of Mexican wolves on 5,000 square miles of their historic range. The gene pool of the current wolf population is limited, and biologists are already seeing the impacts in fewer pups born and fewer living to adulthood, a result of inbreeding, according to Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity. “When game commissioners say there’s no recovery plan, they are just grasping for a rationale that is an excuse to block wolf recovery,” Robinson said. There must be enough breeding pairs of wolves spread across a wide geographic area for the wolves to remain viable in the years ahead. There were eight breeding pairs of wolves in 2014, five of the pairs in New Mexico, according to John Oakleaf, Mexican Wolf Field Projects Coordinator for the Fish and Wildlife Service in an email. Robinson acknowledges the Fish and Wildlife Service has three times tried to finish a recovery plan and failed. He was part of the second attempt, when a team met for two years and had a draft recovery plan by 2005. The Fish and Wildlife Service says it is working on a recovery plan now and expects to complete it by 2017. Defining how many breeding pairs are needed across how much land will be two important questions for the recovery plan to answer, Oakleaf said. Hand said this year alone, there have been 36 livestock deaths by wolves, according to reports investigated by the county and USDA. Two injured cows and five injured pets also were blamed on wolves, and people have reported five “close contacts” with wolves. Two people said they had wolves charge at them. The reports are filed with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Hand said. Contact Staci Matlock at 986-3055. Joel A. Alderete Regional Director YF&R/Collegiate Coordinator New Mexico Farm & Livestock Bureau PO Box 2286, Roswell, NM 88202 (w) 575-622-6415 (c) 505-238-1591 joela@nmflb.org

American Farms Are Leading the Way in Sustainability

American Farms Are Leading the Way in Sustainability Americans love a good story and we love a good meal. All the better when the two can go hand-in-hand. Consumers are eager for more stories about their food. They want to know where each meal comes from and how it’s grown. The market responds, but only haltingly. Walk into a grocery store and you can find just about every label imaginable—free range, non-GMO, organic, gluten-free and natural—you name it, there’s a label for it. Some of these labels are helpful, but none of them can fully tell the story of American agriculture. That’s up to us farmers. We need to tell the story instead of letting others define who we are. Consider the mantra of sustainability. It’s today’s buzzword, but it’s been our way of life for a century or more. Farmers are producing more food with less land, water and pesticides, and we can prove it. Thanks to tools like Field to Market’s Fieldprint Calculator, we can track our efficiency and environmental impact and share the impressive results. Our practices may vary, but we all know the importance of protecting our resources. Our livelihoods depend on it. Whether conventional or organic, we all work hard to produce the highest quality food for our customers as affordably as we can. American farms are growing more food using less water and energy, all while protecting the soil for future crops. We need to get out there and tell consumers how we’re making this happen. We need to tell people in cities and suburbs—cubicle dwellers and factory workers—about the new technology we’re using. They need to know how we are growing more crops on less land with less soil erosion than ever before. Even water use is down thanks to better equipment and genetically modified seeds. Big data systems let us zero in on fields to use the exact amount of water, seed and crop protection each crop needs. Average consumers don’t know how practices like conservation tillage are protecting our soil, but we can teach them. We can explain how homegrown fuels like ethanol are cutting greenhouse gas emissions. We can proudly share more about how we rotate our crops and use conservation plans to keep the soil healthy. Cover crops, green manure, grassland preservation, no-till techniques—all this and more are mysteries to non-farmers. Agriculture has a great story of sustainability to share. Conventional and organic alike—we’re keeping America fed and preserving our valuable resources for generations to come. People need to hear it straight from the ones who know it best.

ASI WEEKLY NEWS FOR SHEEP INDUSTRY LEADERS

ASI WEEKLY NEWS FOR SHEEP INDUSTRY LEADERS ________________________________________ American Sheep Industry Association; 9785 Maroon Circle, Suite 360; Englewood, CO 80112-2692 Phone: (303) 771-3500 Fax: (303) 771-8200 Writer/Editor: Judy Malone E-mail: judym@sheepusa.org Web site: http://www.sheepusa.org ASI is an equal opportunity provider and employer. ________________________________________ Future Dates • Nov. 15 - Let's Grow Application Deadline - www.sheepusa.org/Growourflock_Funding_Application • Nov. 16 - ASI Awards Nominations Due - www.sheepusa.org/About_Awards • Nov. 17 - 2-3:30 EST - DOL H-2A Webinar - Participant Instructions at www.sheepusa.org/IssuesPrograms_LegislativeActionCenter • Nov. 21-23 - North Dakota Shearing School - Hettinger Fairgrounds - www.ag.ndsu.edu/HettingerREC/sheep-shearing-school • Nov. 21-23 - North Dakota Certified Wool Classing School - Hettinger Armory - www.ag.ndsu.edu/HettingerREC/sheep-shearing-school • Dec. 3-5 - Oregon Sheep Growers Association Annual Convention and Pacific Northwest Lamb and Wool Symposium - Sunriver Resort - www.sheeporegon.com • Dec. 4-5 - Montana Woolgrowers Association Convention - Billings Hotel and Convention Center - www.mtsheep.org/convention.html • Dec. 5-6 - Wisconsin Beginning Shearing School - toddtaylor@wisc.edu • Dec. 9-11 - South Dakota Shearing Training - SDSU Sheep Unit, Brookings, SD - Jeffrey.Held@sdstate.edu or 605-690-7033 • Dec. 11-12 - Buckeye Shepherd's Symposium and OSIA Annual Meeting - Shisler Center, Wooster - rhigh@ofbf.org or www.ohiosheep.org/symposium.html • Jan. 9-11 - San Angelo Shearing School and Certified Wool Classing School - reid.redden@ag.tamu.edu • Jan. 27-30, 2016 - SAVE THE DATE - ASI Annual Convention - Scottsdale, Ariz. - More information will be available soon. • March 14-16, 2016 - Save the Date - ASI Spring Trip - Washington, D.C. 2016 Convention - Scottsdale, Ariz. Scottsdale wasn't originally called Scottsdale. The area was first known as Orangedale because of Albert G. Utley, a former Rhode Island banker who owned 640 acres of land near today's Indian School and Scottsdale Roads. In 1894, he set aside some of that land for a new town that he called Orangedale because it was considered an ideal place to grow citrus. The land was adjacent to property owned by Winfield Scott, and Utley often directed people to his land by saying it was near Scott's, where citrus groves stood. A newspaper article mistakenly referred to his new town as Scottsdale, and the name stuck. (Apparently, Utleyville was never a consideration). Registration information for the 2016 ASI Convention is available at www.sheepusa.org/About_Events_Convention. Extension to Scrapie Comment Period The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service extended the comment period for the proposed rule to amend the regulations of the National Scrapie Eradication Program through Dec. 9. The comment period for the draft revised scrapie program standards is also extended through Dec. 9. APHIS welcomes all comments on the proposed rule. The proposed rule is available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2007-0127. Comments can also be submitted and reviewed through this link. Industry is encouraged to offer comments to this proposed rule. ASI's detailed comments are available for review at www.sheepusa.org/IssuesPrograms_AnimalHealth_Scrapie. Pending Deadlines Let's Grow Grant - The deadline to submit an application in the second round of Let's Grow grants is Nov. 15. Since this is a Sunday, applications will be accepted through midnight, Monday, Nov. 16. ASI Awards Nominations - Nov. 16 is also the deadline for entries into the ASI Awards program. All nominations for the McClure Silver Ram, Camptender and Distinguished Producer Awards must be submitted by end of day Monday, Nov. 16. Additional information is available for both programs at www.sheepusa.org. UPDATE: Interstate Animal Movement Website Last week, an article about a new website offering quick, accurate access to state import requirements for livestock was published in the ASI Weekly Newsletter. As many of you pointed out, even though sheep are an option in the species box, no data was available. The American Sheep Industry Association has been informed that the first round of data loaded into www.interstatelivestock.com was only for the movement of cattle. The next round will focus on different species, including sheep. ASI will keep producers informed when additional details become available. The site is sponsored by the U.S. Animal Health Association and the National Institute for Animal Agriculture. Gray Wolf Removed from Oregon Endangered Species List On Nov. 9, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission voted to remove the gray wolf from protection under the Oregon Endangered Species Act. The meeting lasted almost 10 hours, with more than 100 people providing public testimony. The decision was the result of a 4-2 vote by the commission. The decision follows the recommendation of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to delist the wolf. The wolf delisting will not impact the management of the species under the Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan, which emphasizes non-lethal deterrence measures to resolve wolf and livestock conflicts. Under the plan, ranchers can only shoot a wolf caught in the act of wounding, biting, killing or chasing livestock. In addition, the commission's decision will not impact how the majority of Oregon's approximately 83 wolves are managed. The gray wolf is still listed under the federal ESA in the western two-thirds of the state. There are Hundreds of Sheep in This Picture Turns out sheep aren't half bad at hide-and-seek. Liezel Kennedy, a farmer in Saskatchewan, Canada, had a difficult time spotting her flock of about 550 sheep earlier this month. Now, how in the world does one miss hundreds of sheep? Well check out the photo, which she shared on Twitter and you'll understand - www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sheep-hidden-photo_5640d366e4b0411d3071c59c. MARKET NEWS Weekly National Market Prices for Wool The U.S. Department of Agriculture's prices for wool can be accessed at www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_EPAS_Reports/wamrpt091515.pdf. The effective repayment rate is the lower of either the 30-day average or weekly rate. Category 2014 Loan Rate Effective Repayment Rate LDP Rate Week of 11/11/15 Graded Wool CLEAN PRICES in $ per pound <18.6 Micron 3.88 3.78 $.10 LDP Available 18.6-19.5 3.38 3.54 Not Available 19.6-20.5 2.94 3.38 Not Available 20.6-22.0 2.72 3.34 Not Available 22.1-23.5 2.56 3.27 Not Available 23.6-25.9 2.33 2.97 Not Available 26.0-28.9 1.78 1.96 Not Available > 29 Micron 1.38 1.74 Not Available GREASE PRICES in $ per pound Ungraded Wool 40 cents 60 cents Not Available Unshorn Pelt 6.865 lbs x Ungraded Wool LDP Not Available Wool LDPs are not available when the weekly repayment rate is above loan rate. Market Summary, Week ending November 6, 2015 Feeder Prices ($/cwt.), San Angelo: 48 lbs. for 218, 67 lbs. for 190; 70-80 lbs. for 170-174; 80-90 lbs. for 165-172. Slaughter Prices - Negotiated ($/cwt.), wooled and shorn 128-157 lbs. for 144.50-165 (wtd avg 152.97). Slaughter Prices - Formula1, 4,206 head at 292.54-316.25 $/cwt. for 71.1 lbs.; 3,362 head at 286.71-314.99 $/cwt. for 79.2 lbs. Equity Electronic Auction, 125-145 lbs. fro $147/cwt. Cutout Value/Net Carcass Value2, $322.91/cwt. Carcass Price, Choice and Prime, YG 1-4, $/cwt., weighted averages, 993 head at 55-65 lbs. for 344.38, 2,470 head at 65-75 lbs. for 325.21, 1,960 head at 75-85 lbs. for 316.11, 1,113 head at 85 lbs. and up for 307.26. Boxed Lamb, weighted average prices ($/cwt.), Trimmed 4" Loins 523.38, Rack, roast-ready, frenched (cap-on) 1,405.47, Rack, roast-ready, frenched, special (cap-off) 1,845.84, Leg, trotter-off, partial boneless 500.28, Shoulder, square-cut 292.84, Ground lamb 569.45. Imported Boxed Lamb, weighted average prices ($/cwt.), AUS Rack (fresh, frenched, cap-off, 28 oz/up) 926.50, AUS Shoulder (fresh, square-cut) 232.54, AUS Leg (fresh, semi boneless) 372.93, AUS Rack (frozen, frenched, cap-off, 28 oz/up) 740.46, NZ Rack (frozen, frenched, cap-off, 20 oz/up) 808.32, AUS Shoulder (frozen, square-cut) 193.52. Exported Adult Sheep, 0 head Wool, Price ($/pound) Clean, Delivered, Prices from 2 weeks ago in bold: other prices 6-7 months old. 18 micron (Grade 80s) NA, 19 micron (Grade 80s) 4.21, 20 micron (Grade 70s) 4.20, 21 micron (Grade 64-70s) 3.35, 22 micron (Grade 64s) 3.69, 23 micron (Grade 62s) 3.25, 24 micron (Grade 60-62s) 3.42, 25 micron (Grade 58s) 2.90, 26 micron (Grade 56-58s) 2.95, 27 micron (Grade 56s) 2.89, 28 micron (Grade 54s) 2.62, 29 micron (Grade 50-54s) NA, 30-34 micron (Grade 44-50s) 1.89. Australian Wool, Clean, delivered FOB warehouse & gross producers ($/pound), 18 micron (Grade 80s) 3.69-4.18, 19 micron (Grade 80s) 3.47-3.94, 20 micron (Grade 70s) 3.32-3.76, 21 micron (Grade 64-70s) 3.29-3.73, 22 micron (Grade 64s) 3.26-3.69, 23 micron (Grade 62s) 3.21-3.64, 24 micron (Grade 60-62s) NA, 25 micron (Grade 58s) 2.82-3.20, 26 micron (Grade 56-58s) 2.61-2.96, 28 micron (Grade 54s) 2.21-2.51, 30 micron (Grade 50s) 2.10-2.38, 32 micron (Grade 46-48s) 1.82-2.06, Merino Clippings 2.70-3.06. 1Prices reported for the two weight categories of the largest volume traded. Second, multiplying the carcass prices by an estimated 50.4% dressing percentage yields live weight prices. 2The cutout value is the same as a net carcass value. It is a composite value that sums the value of the respective lamb cuts multiplied by their weights. It is also the gross carcass value less processing and packaging costs. Source: USDA's AMS

Up the Creek Without a Paddle: Navigating New Clean Water Rule

Up the Creek Without a Paddle: Navigating New Clean Water Rule James M. McClammer, The Legal Intelligencer November 13, 2015 | 0 Comments The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers promulgated a new rule under the Clean Water Act (CWA) this past June with the intent of finally clarifying the agencies' jurisdiction over "waters of the United States." Unfortunately, the controversial new Clean Water Rule has only muddied the waters, as its future is uncertain. Conflict over the rule centers around industry and property owners' need for predictable permitting guidelines within the authority of the CWA and the agencies' goal of ensuring vital wetlands and waterbodies are adequately protected. Challenges to the rule were filed in federal district courts and courts of appeals all over the country by individual states, the regulated community and environmental organizations. As discussed below, all eyes are now on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which stayed the implementation of the rule across the country and now must decide whether it even has jurisdiction to decide the substantive issues of the case. What Is the Significance of the New Rule? The Clean Water Act was passed over 40 years ago but its scope and reach over various waterbodies across the country is still being debated. Congress created uncertainty in the act by limiting the agencies' jurisdiction to "navigable waters," which is defined only as "waters of the United States, including the territorial seas." Faced with this overly broad and vague definition, the agencies have wrestled with how to determine which waterbodies and wetlands constitute "waters of the United States" and therefore fall under their jurisdiction. Whether waterbodies are subject to federal jurisdiction is significant because of the myriad federal regulations that are triggered once jurisdiction is established. Such regulations include the comprehensive permitting scheme known as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), dredge and fill permits, water quality certifications, and oil spill prevention programs. In 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court in Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), clarified—to some extent—the limit of the agencies' jurisdiction. In a plurality decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy concurred with the four conservative justices that the Corps had overstepped its jurisdiction, and articulated a "significant nexus" test to determine which waterbodies constitute "waters of the United States." Jurisdiction over a waterbody or wetland exists, Kennedy explained, where it has a "significant nexus" to other jurisdictional waters. To establish a "significant nexus" the waterbody must significantly affect the physical, biological and chemical integrity of a downstream navigable waterway. This ruling only led to further uncertainty as the Corps struggled to apply the subjective "significant nexus" test on a site-by-site basis to establish which waters met these criteria. Implications of the New Rule In response to the continued uncertainty after Rapanos, the EPA and the Corps promulgated the new Clean Water Rule on June 29. In the summary of the final rule, the agencies proclaimed that the new rule will "ensure protection for the nation's public health and aquatic resources, and increase CWA program predictability and consistency by clarifying the scope of 'waters of the United States' protected under the act." The rule clarifies the definition of tributaries and adjacent waters, and also codifies the agencies' authority to make determinations of what constitutes a jurisdictional waterbody under the "significant nexus" test. Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the new rule is the addition of bright-line geographical limits to establish jurisdiction over waterbodies. Under the rule, all waters located within a 100-year floodplain of traditional navigable waters (i.e., waters used in commerce, interstate waters and territorial seas) and all waters within 4,000 feet of a high tide line or ordinary high water mark of jurisdictional waters that also have a significant nexus to the jurisdictional water are considered "waters of the United States." In keeping with the Rapanos decision, these case-specific "significant nexus" analyses require a determination if "any single function or combination of functions performed by the water, alone or together with similarly situated waters in the region, contributes significantly to the chemical, physical, or biological integrity" of the nearest traditional navigable water. Finally, in response to public comments and consistent with past practice, the agencies categorically excluded certain waters from jurisdiction even though they would otherwise be jurisdictional. Such exemptions include groundwater, wastewater treatment systems, prior converted cropland, and stormwater control features constructed in dry land. Procedural and Substantive Challenges As soon as the new rule was promulgated, procedural and substantive challenges were filed across the country in federal district courts as well as courts of appeals. The major procedural challenge alleges that the rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act because the agencies made significant changes from the proposed rule to the final rule, thereby failing to provide commenters with adequate notice of the framework for the final rule. The major substantive challenge alleges the rule exceeds the Supreme Court's jurisdictional limits of the CWA as set forth in Rapanos. But before these issues can even be reached, the courts will have to first decide whether jurisdiction lies with the district courts or courts of appeals, an issue that requires interpretation of the CWA's grant of jurisdiction. Although multidistrict and multicircuit litigation is ongoing, the latest legal development comes from the Sixth Circuit where four courts of appeals cases were consolidated. On Oct. 9, a divided Sixth Circuit issued a nationwide stay of the Clean Water Rule, finding that the 18 petitioning states opposing the rule demonstrated a "substantial possibility of success" on both substantive and procedural grounds, in Ohio v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (In re EPA and DOD Final Rule), Nos. 15-3799, 3822, 3853, 3887 (6th Cir. Oct 09, 2015). Substantively, the court found that it was "far from clear" that the rule's new distance limitations were harmonious with the Rapanos decision regarding the "permissible parameters of the 'waters of the United States' as used in the Clean Water Act." Procedurally, the court noted the rulemaking process by which the distance limitations were adopted was "fairly suspect" because the proposed rule did not include any proposed distance limitations in its use of terms like "adjacent waters" and "significant nexus" that are included in the final rule. The dissenting judge argued that the court should have determined whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction before issuing the stay, an issue that is currently being briefed by the parties. In response, the majority noted that it would be better to issue the stay prior to deciding the jurisdictional question given the "sheer breadth of the ripple effects caused by the rule's definitional changes." The court must now determine its own jurisdictional authority before proceeding to the merits of the case. The Sixth Circuit's ruling came about one month after the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota granted a motion for a preliminary injunction of the rule filed by 13 states in North Dakota v. EPA, Civ. No. 3:15-cv-59 (D.N.D. Aug. 27, 2015). The district court first found it had jurisdiction to hear the case before finding the injunctive relief was appropriate. Similar to the Sixth Circuit's decision, the court said it "appears likely" that the agencies violated their grant of authority in promulgating the rule and that the agencies also failed to comply with the Administrative Procedures Act. What's Next for the Clean Water Rule? The decisions by the Sixth Circuit and North Dakota district court are far from the end of this story, but their harsh critiques suggests that the rule could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court for further review or sent back to the EPA and Corps for further action. And, in a final twist, Congress has also weighed in on the matter. On Nov. 4, the U.S. Senate voted for a resolution that would void the rule if also passed by the House and signed by the president. However, the White House has already indicated that it would veto the resolution, and Congress would need a supermajority for the resolution to pass. • James M. McClammer is an attorney with the environmental, energy and land use law and litigation firm of Manko, Gold, Katcher & Fox, located just outside of Philadelphia. He can be reached at 484-430-2334 or jmcclammer@mankogold.com.

Cancellation Order Issued for Sulfoxaflor

Woods note: This marketed as trademark name of Transform. Cancellation Order Issued for Sulfoxaflor On November 12, 2015, EPA issued a cancellation order for all previously registered Sulfoxaflor products. This cancellation order is in response to the September 10, 2015, order of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals finding that EPA improperly approved the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act registrations of the pesticide sulfoxaflor; the court’s order became effective on November 12. Pursuant to EPA’s cancellation order, and beginning November 12, 2015, distribution or sale by the registrant of cancelled sulfoxaflor products is prohibited, unless such distribution or sale is for the purpose of disposal or export. Also, stocks of cancelled products held by persons other than the registrant may not be commercially distributed in the United States, but instead may be distributed only to facilitate return to the manufacturer or for proper disposal or lawful export. Use of existing stocks by end users is permitted provided such use is consistent in all respects with the previously-approved labeling for the product. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act tolerances, also known as maximum pesticide residue levels for sulfoxaflor are not affected by either the court's decision or EPA’s cancellation order, so crops that have been properly treated with sulfoxaflor or that may be treated with existing stocks as described in the final cancellation order can still be sold legally. View a copy of the cancellation order.

Buying firewood in New Mexico? Know the law so you don’t get burned

Buying firewood in New Mexico? Know the law so you don’t get burned NMDA says law ensures you get your money’s worth (LAS CRUCES, N.M.) – The New Mexico Department of Agriculture (NMDA) is reminding New Mexicans that there’s a law governing firewood sales in this state – and that it exists to ensure that people buying firewood get their money’s worth. NMDA’s Standards and Consumer Services Division (SCS) regulates New Mexico’s Weights and Measures Law, which covers how firewood and other agricultural commodities must be advertised and sold in order to maintain fairness in the marketplace for both buyer and seller. “We sometimes see firewood sellers using a variety of terms – face cord, loose cord, Albuquerque cord, truckload, load, rack, pile – but none of these are actual legal units of measurement,” said Ray Johnson, SCS assistant division director. “So when you see firewood labeled in these ways, it’s impossible to know whether you’re getting a fair deal or not.” Instead, Johnson added, “people should look for firewood sold by the cord or fraction of a cord.” New Mexico law actually requires that firewood be advertised and sold by volume, either by the cord or fraction of a cord. A cord is legally defined as 128 cubic feet of wood, commonly seen in a tight stack 4 feet wide by 4 feet high by 8 feet long, with logs stacked parallel to one another. State law allows firewood sellers to sell amounts of wood by weight, but the seller must declare the price-per-cord equivalent. This does not apply to firewood sold in packaged bundles weighing less than 100 pounds. There are a few other things to keep in mind when you’re buying firewood in New Mexico: • If possible, be on hand when the seller stacks and measures your firewood. • For every delivery of firewood, get a receipt or invoice with the name and address of the seller, date of delivery, quantity delivered, identity of the commodity, and the total selling price. • If possible, get the seller’s phone number and the license plate of the delivery vehicle. • Bundles of kindling wood or similar packages must include what’s called “a statement of net content”, which details the weight or measure of the firewood. • The label must also include the name and place of business of the packager or distributor and a word or phrase identifying the product. If you suspect that a company or individual is selling firewood in a way that violates state law, please contact NMDA by visiting www.nmda.nmsu.edu/scs or by calling NMDA’s Standards and Consumer Services Division at 575-646-1616.

New Mexico food, ag companies invited to free exporting workshop

New Mexico food, ag companies invited to free exporting workshop NMDA, regional trade group to co-host Dec. 1 event in Las Cruces (LAS CRUCES, N.M.) – Food and agriculture companies of all sizes from across New Mexico are invited to attend a free, daylong workshop to learn how to build their business by exporting. The “Explore Exporting” workshop happens Tuesday, December 1, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. in Las Cruces. Those interested in attending must register at http://bit.ly/1LLwubZ on or before Friday, November 27. Location details will be provided upon registration. The event is co-hosted by the New Mexico Department of Agriculture (NMDA) and the Western United States Agricultural Trade Association (WUSATA). WUSATA is a non-profit trade association that offers training, matching funds, market research, and more to help food and agricultural companies in New Mexico and 12 other western states export their products. WUSATA administers funding provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Market Access Program (MAP). "Every food and agricultural business owner in New Mexico who wants to grow their business should at least think about exporting," said New Mexico Secretary of Agriculture Jeff Witte. "The state’s pecan and dairy producers have seen tremendous success in foreign markets – but so have local producers of beans, onions, manufactured food products, and more. There’s room for everybody at the table." “Nearly 95 percent of the world’s customers live outside the U.S.,” WUSATA Deputy Director Janet Kenefsky said. “The recent signing of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement will unlock new opportunities for Western U.S. agribusinesses to develop new markets and expand their current global footprint as a result of tariff eliminations in TPP countries.” The workshop will cover: • global consumption trends • the basics of shipping logistics • the steps food and agricultural companies should take to expand internationally • an overview of available state and federal resources During the final two hours of the workshop, WUSATA officials will meet one-on-one with companies to answer questions and offer individualized company consultations. These meetings are offered on a first-come, first-served basis. For questions or more information, please contact NMDA international marketing specialist Jason New at jnew@nmda.nmsu.edu or 575-646-4929. For more information about NMDA’s marketing programs to help New Mexico’s food and agricultural producers, please visit www.nmda.nmsu.edu/marketing. For more information about WUSATA, please visit www.wusata.org. ### Confidentiality Notice: New Mexico has a very broad public records law. Most written communications to or from state employees are public records. Your e-mail communications may therefore be subject to public disclosure. This e-mail, including all attachments is for the sole use of the intended recipients. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited unless specifically provided under the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act. Confidentiality Notice: New Mexico has a very broad public records law. Most written communications to or from state employees are public records. Your e-mail communications may therefore be subject to public disclosure. This e-mail, including all attachments is for the sole use of the intended recipients. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited unless specifically provided under the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act.