Association directives
Download 1.19 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Attachment D California Code of Regulations Section 6396 Protocol for Residual Mill-Funded Activities to
|
7. Takes disciplinary action when necessary, either directly or through recommendation. 8. Supervises or handles remedial legal actions required to obtain compliance with laws and regulations. 9. Prepares a portion of the Department's annual budget and operates within it. 10. Compiles information to determine costs of performing various tasks, services, or providing supplies. 11. Supervises some clerical functions. 12. Maintains an inventory of equipment and supplies. 13. Gives talks to various groups on departmental activities. 14. Leads and/or serves on interdepartmental committees. 15. Prepares reports and correspondence. 16. Works with members of agricultural industry and other industries, and agencies. 17. Obtains compliance, preferably by education rather than from enforcement. Required Qualifications A. Knowledge of: 1. State laws, regulations, policies, and agreements pertaining to the function of the County Department of Agriculture. 2. California Agricultural Commissioners Association policies and agreements. 3. Principles of effective supervision. 4. Personnel management and training including emphasis on safe working conditions, affirmative action, and disciplinary measures. 5. Basic principles of county budgeting methods including funding sources. 6. Principles of administrative organization. 7. County organization and general operations. 8. Rules of evidence, investigating techniques, and court procedures. 9. The normal duties performed in the Department's programs. 10. General agricultural practices and issues. B. Ability to: 1. Interpret and apply laws, regulations, ordinances, agreements, contracts, and policies applicable to the position. 2. Work cooperatively with other public agencies and with groups and individuals affected by activities of the Department. 3. Analyze situations accurately and take effective action. 4. Speak and write effectively. 5. Direct the work of others and train subordinates. 6. Provide leadership to small groups. 7. Identify key issues/problems and propose creative, problem-solving solutions. 8. Maintain bearing under pressure. 9. Work supportively with the Department head. 10. Maintain a management perception and stance in departmental operations. 11. Work with a minimum of supervision--"self-starter" type. C. Experience: 1. Demonstrated leadership and/or supervision. 2. Demonstrated speaking ability. 3. Worked as an agricultural biologist/inspector. GUIDELINES Safety Guidelines for Facilities and Equipment Used in the Formulation of Vertebrate Pest Control Baits These guidelines may be used in determining needs for vertebrate pest control facilities and equipment. Further investigation is advised to comply with current requirements of other Federal, State or County agencies. A. GENERAL WAREHOUSE WORKROOM 1. Passageways, storerooms, service rooms and work areas should be clean and aisles should be clear. 2. All stairs with four or more risers should have standard hand rails. 3. Portable step ladders should be in good condition, 4. Portable rung ladders should have safety feed securely bolted or fastened. 5. Wood ladders should be equipped with non-slip material on rungs. 6. Metal ladders should be equipped with non-slip material on rungs. 7. Metal ladders should not be used in areas where exposed to electric circuits. 8. Exits should be visible and clearly marked and illuminated by a reliable light source, 9. Work areas should have at least two exits. 10. Where exits are not clearly visible from work areas, signs pointing to exits should be posted. 11. Approved containers for flammable materials should be available and used.
object hazards exist.
protective footwear. 14. Fire extinguishers for necessary classes of fire should be visibly mounted. 15. Extinguisher tops should not be more than five feet above the floor. Those over 40 pounds should not be over 3 1/2 feet above the floor.
18. High lift trucks should have overhead guards and a working horn. 19 Lift trucks should have load limit posted visible to operator. 20. Operators of lift trucks should be instructed and trained as to use, and no one under 18 years of age should operate them. 21. Identity of all materials should be maintained at all times. 22. Compressed air cleaning equipment should be limited to less than 30 psi and should be chip guarded. 23. Unused or abandoned electric receptacles should be plate covered. 24. Drop cords, trouble lights and extension cords should be of three wire, rubber coated and three prong type. 25. Circuit breaker switches should identify which circuits they control. 26. Access to electrical panels should be unobstructed. 27. Employee safety meetings should be scheduled and held at regular intervals. 28. Proper signs indicating hazards should be posted. (Fire extinguishers, air compressor, poison storage areas, eyewash and emergency shower, high voltage, first aid kit, grinders, poison storage containers and equipment, etc.) 29. Storage of flammable materials should be in separate area from non- flammable materials. 30. Floors (in formulating area) should be sealed with an impervious and non- skid type material to prevent slippage. 31. If flammable materials are used, spark proof motors/switches and explosion proof motors should be used. B. POISON MIXING EQUIPMENT AND AREA 1. Floor pits (to bucket elevators),where provided, should be covered with a guard over pit (maximum opening 3"), or guarded over chain drive and bucket shear points.
moving parts. 3. Adequate lighting should be provided to illuminate the work area. 4. Septic system (for poisonous wastes) should be the enclosed type and able to be pumped out, It should be used for original rinse and storage of poisonous waste materials, for disposal at a Class I disposal site. 5. Poison storage room, where poisonous concentrates are stored, should be locked separately, and properly ventilated, to prevent accumulation of hazardous fumes. 6. All equipment which is used in formulating poison baits, should be plainly labeled or color coded to indicate possible contamination of poisons. (Tubs, spoons, mixers, pans, etc.)
material, and be easily cleanable. 8. No smoking should be permitted during formulating, mixing or sacking rodenticides. 9. Open type mixers (batch) should be equipped with lids, fan or vented hood to prevent poisonous dusts from becoming air-borne during operation.
mixing area, where spills or splashes are likely to occur. 11. A current inventory of toxic materials should be maintained. 12. Eating, smoking and drinking should be prohibited in the formulating, mixing or storage area. 13. Provisions should be made for cleaning of protective equipment and laundering of protective clothing after daily use by employees who mix and handle poisons.
(Phone numbers of doctors, ambulance, poison control center, etc,) 15. Water in volume and approved cleaning compounds should be provided to wash down and decontaminate equipment and floor after mixing operation. 16. Packaging counter should be provided with air registers vented into dust collecting system, or exhaust fans, to exhaust toxic dust particles away from worker. 17. Upon completion of mixing operation, equipment used for other poisons should be cleaned after usage and all waste material should be collected and stored for disposal in a Class I dump site.
immediate mixing or formulating area. 19. Poison containers, should be plainly marked with a warning legend or painted a distinctive color. 20. If mixing or formulating of poisonous concentrates is conducted without the aid of a fume hood and ventilating system, the following personal protective equipment should be provided, used and cleaned regularly:
b. Face shield or goggles c. Rubber or vinyl gloves d. Vinyl apron or coveralls 21. If mixing or formulating of poisonous concentrates is conducted with the aid of a fume hood and ventilating system, the following personal protective equipment should be provided, used and cleaned regularly: a. Face shield or goggles b. Rubber or vinyl gloves c. Vinyl apron or coveralls 22. The names, phone numbers, etc. of emergency medical facilities (doctor, ambulance, etc.) should be clearly posted in the formulating area and by the closest telephone.
should be trained in safety precautions and good hygiene measures. 25. Poisonous waste material should be segregated according to the method of disposal. 26. After usage, containers of rodenticides should be triple rinsed and the waste water used in the mixing formula or disposed of in a closed septic system. 27. All employees should wash hands before eating, smoking or using toilet and immediately after mixing, loading, transferring, or handling rodenticides and at the end of the day. C. GENERAL WAREHOUSE - RESTROOM 1. Toilets and showers, where provided, should be in a separate room. 2. Individual towels or drying equipment for employees in wash rooms should be provided. 3. Where disposable drinking cups are provided, a container should be provided for their disposal. 4. Toilet facilities should be adequate for number of employees. (1-15=1 16- 30=2, 31-45=3). 5. Clean toilet facilities should be provided for each sex. 6. An area for changing and storing clothes should be provided for employees. 7. Rest area should be separated by a partition from other warehouse area. 8. Sanitary facilities should be well maintained, and provided with lavatories, having hot and cold running water and cleanser for proper cleanup after mixing.
number of employees who may use it. 3. Covered receptacles should be provided in lunch room and emptied after usage or daily. 4. Physician approved first aid kit should be accessible. 5. Safety and health protection posters should be displayed. 6. Log of occupational injuries or illnesses should be up to date. 7. Passageways, store rooms, service rooms and work areas should be clean and aisles clear. (Adopted December 8, 1977, Reaffirmed May 17, 1983.) GUIDELINES California Department of Food and Agriculture and the
California Agricultural Commissioners Association Procedures and Recommendations for Baiting Field Rodents These guidelines pertain to field rodent control practices performed by the State Department of Food and Agriculture and County Departments of Agriculture. Part A contains procedures common to nearly all rodent control programs and includes comments on aerial application of toxic baits and general safety precautions. Part B is a summary of procedures and recommendations for specific control programs. A. GENERAL PROCEDURES 1. Bait acceptance plots should be established in locations representative of the area or district to be treated. 2. The kind of bait chosen should be based on selectivity as well as acceptance value. 3. Control operations should not be undertaken until test plots indicate satisfactory bait acceptance. 4. Toxic baits used in all control operations are to be colored in accordance with departmental recommendations. 5. Toxic bait quantities exposed should be regulated so that residual bait will be minimal. 6. Fumigants or anticoagulants should be considered in preference to toxic baits around inhabited buildings or suburban areas as a safeguard to children and domestic animals.
carcasses on the ground surface immediately adjacent to inhabited areas. A shovel or fork should be used to minimize possible contact with ectoparasites. 8. In the absence of specific statutory provisions requiring the posting of warning signs for rodent control, many counties follow a procedure to post "Poison out" signs. If premises are posted in accordance with county policy, they are to be posted as prescribed by law. (Section 596 Penal Code "----- signs located at intervals of distance not greater than one-third of a mile apart and in any case not less than three such signs having words with letters at least one inch high reading ‘WARNING--POISON BAIT PLACED OUT ON THESE PREMISES,'....").
Agricultural Code. 10. Supervision of county field rodent control projects is mandatory when " Compound 1080" bait is used. 11. When County Agricultural Commissioners anticipate control programs involving other than established practices or enter into a research program with the University of California or other agencies, the State Department of Food and Agriculture shall be advised. 12. Aerial application of rodenticides for the control of ground squirrels, meadow mice and kangaroo rats should be made only upon the Agricultural Commissioner's determination that the necessary field work such as determining the density of infestation, bait acceptance, and hazard to other forms of animal life has been done. Aerial application of bait shall not be made over campgrounds, dwellings, streams, or water storage supplies.
responsibility of the Agricultural Commissioners. All other program participants should follow policy and directions. *Commissioners shall inform employees involved in field rodent control as to the provisions of Regulations Concerning Sale, Use and Possession of Sodium Fluoroacetate (Compound 1080) and the following precautionary procedures:
material and requires a commercial applicator certificate (category G) for its use.
locked space at all times when not in use. Such space shall be entirely separate from any space where food or drink for humans or animals is kept or stored. c. All persons handling toxic baits or concentrates should be advised as to:
(2) The necessity of adequate protective clothing and devices and washing thoroughly before eating or smoking. (3) The necessity for keeping all skin abrasions and cuts adequately protected. (4) The secondary effects. (5) The possibility of inadvertent poisoning of wildlife and domestic animals by improper bait exposure. d. To prevent the accidental spillage of toxic grain, containers, including sacks, shoulder bags and saddle bags, should be so designed and in such repair that leakage or spillage does not occur. Shoulder bags should be equipped with a zipper or other device for closing. Equip saddle bags with either a zipper or drawstring to facilitate quick closing. *All other program participants should follow policy and directions. e. Discarded or used containers should be disposed of in a safe manner.
B. PROCEDURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SPECIFIC CONTROL PROGRAMS 1. Microtus. Squirrel oat groats is the most satisfactory bait aerial and mechanical broadcast application, although crimped whole oats or barley are at times effective. Zinc phosphide treated bait (2 lbs. Zn3P2/100 lbs.) applied at 5 to 10 lbs. per acre (2-4 kernels per square foot), depending upon the density of the infestations, is recommended for broadcast baiting of meadow mice, Microtus spp.
kangaroo rats can be controlled with strychnine treated crimped or rolled barley, at 3 oz/100 lbs, or crimped whole oats or squirrel oat groats applied in 100 foot wide strips, 100 feet apart, at a rate of 1/2 to 3/4 lbs, per acre. For hand baiting spread 3 to 4 tablespoonfuls of toxic grain on a bare piece of ground common to several dens. The dens may be 30 to 40 yards from bait spots Scatter grain as much as possible. 3. Ground Squirrel Control. There are several equally important steps to consider before a ground squirrel control program is undertaken. The selection of a grain bait often requires field test plots to show actual bait preference. The period and intensity of activity is variable; therefore, it becomes mandatory to determine correctly the peak of activity if optimum results are to be achieved. Period of High Squirrel Activity. A period of high activity occurs during the breeding season and varies with geographic and climatic conditions as well as species. It is necessary that specimens be obtained for examination to determine this period. This is usually done by shooting, although there may be some particular situation that would require trapping, Examination of the specimens will indicate whether males or females predominate or whether the desirable nearly 50% ratio is reached. Males are usually more active than females following hibernation. As the peak breeding period nears the ratio tends to equalize. Sufficient specimens should be collected from the area to be treated to make certain that the timing is correct. Trials to Determine Preference of Baits. Bait preference plots are standard procedure when it is not known what grain bait squirrels will readily accept. The actual selection of grain to be used is made only after exposure of two or more kinds of untreated grain. Degree of acceptance is more easily interpreted if the untreated grain is placed in small piles at least six to eight inches apart. In order to prevent the bait being scattered by squirrels or covered with dirt during burrow cleaning, placement is made at the rear or sides of the burrows and on hard bare ground. When placing and reading these plots consideration must be given to the possibility of other rodent or bird interference which would cause an, incorrect evaluation, Bait acceptance should indicate that approximately 90% of the untreated bait will be taken within 24 hours following exposure. Test Area to Determine Effectiveness of Treated Bait. The next step is the application of the rodenticide to the indicated grain for further plot work. For this purpose an area on which the approximate number of squirrels is known is selected. This plot must be a sufficient distance from the bait preference plot to preclude the feeding in the toxic bait area by prebaited squirrels. In no case is one plot used for both purposes. Ideal conditions include pasture, cereal, truck, and orchard lands of as many of these which are applicable to the area to be finally treated. Exposure of toxic baits for plots or routine control is made in the same manner as are the non-toxic baits, except that the toxic material is scattered not piled. At least two days should be allowed in which to determine maximum kill. Inspection of the treated plots must conform to the time of day the highest activity is known to occur. This period usually includes several hours in the morning and afternoon. Routine observation prior to establishing the plot will have determined the time more closely. Field control procedure is begun as soon as it is determined that the kill is satisfactory. Amount of Bait to Use. The matter of proper bait size is highly important from an economic as well as a conservation standpoint. Ideally it would be perfect work if only that amount of toxic bait required to kill each rodent was exposed. A slight residue of a few kernels of the original bait quantity following a 24-hour exposure period is not detrimental or hazardous, and normally indicates that bait exposure is adequate. When less-than-satisfactory results are obtained the condition cannot be corrected by repeated treatments within the year. It may be necessary to allow a rest period of at least a year during which no grain baits should be exposed. Baiting of any area should not normally be done more often than annually. Timing of Control Program. It is necessary to know when to stop ground squirrel control work. Shooting or trapping during the period when embryo counts are made, make it possible to fix closely the time the early work must be stopped as well as determining when it may be resumed, Control work must be stopped before the young are old enough to survive death of the adults and should not be resumed until the young are above ground and large enough to take bait. There should be no further interruptions until inspection determines a slow-down of activity indicating aestivation on the untreated areas. This normally can be expected following a few days of unusually hot weather, and may continue in some districts on into the winter period of partial to complete hibernation. In other areas there may be a brief period of very high activity in the fall during which effective control measures may be applied. Proper Supervision Important. The ultimate success of a ground squirrel control program is entirely dependent on the effort expended. The person in charge should carefully watch all phases of the field work, including daily rodent activity, bait acceptance and degree of kill. Any condition that could interfere with the desired control should be corrected immediately, even to stopping any job that is not progressing satisfactorily. (Replaces CPS-V3 originally adopted at Bijou, May 21, 1965; amended May 24, 1968; and reaffirmed December 5. 1968. Edited and revised December, 1974. Amended and reaffirmed May 23, 1975. Amended and reaffirmed May 17, 1983.) GUIDELINES Procedure for Applying Rodent Baits by Aircraft Pre-Treatment 1. Actual damage or threat of damage must be sufficient to warrant aerial application of rodent baits. Alternative methods shall always be considered. 2. There shall be adherence to recognized methods and techniques of determining bait acceptance. No baiting shall be implemented unless tests indicate satisfactory bait acceptance in representative areas. 3. The pilot shall be thoroughly familiar with the application site. Maps (topographic/aerial) identifying boundaries and sensitive areas shall be provided to the pilot prior to application. 4. Property lines and boundaries shall be clearly visible from the air. 5. The aircraft shall be calibrated with placebo baits under the supervision of the agricultural commissioner or his staff. 6. A general evaluation shall be made of non-target wildlife. This evaluation should be documented. Treatment 1. Ground to air communication shall be in use during treatment. 2. Provisions shall be made to eliminate spillage of bait at the loading site. Unless automatic loading equipment is utilized, a ground cloth or canvas must be used. 3. No treatment shall be made when wind velocity impairs effective bait placement. 4. Treated bait shall not be applied near farm buildings or over water supplies. 5. Aerial baiting for the control of ground squirrels should not occur on the same parcel of land more often than once every two years with the same toxicant. 6. The aircraft bait hopper shall be: (a) Cleaned with hot water and detergent or steam cleaned before the first baiting of the program, after final baiting of the program, and if baiting hopper has been used for other pesticides during the program. (b) Emptied of bait at the end of each day's operation unless properly secured. 7. The rate of application shall be monitored daily by measuring bait dispersal in the treated area. 8. Direct supervision by the county agricultural commissioner or his staff means the presence of at least two supervisors. One man shall oversee bait handling and record keeping at the landing strip; another man shall monitor the operation in each area under treatment. Post-Treatment An evaluation should be made of representative areas to determine the degree of control and the effects on non-target wildlife. (Adopted May 11, 1972. Amended and reaffirmed May 17, 1983.) GUIDELINES Approval of County Operated Predatory Animal Damage Control Programs 1. Program objectives and policy shall be established and be in writing. 2. Laws and regulations relating to predatory animal damage shall be adhered to. 3. A county operated bounty system shall not be in effect in the county. 4. Control work shall be done only upon the request or approval of the landowner or his agent. 5. The need for control shall be recorded by the county trapper or his supervisor. 6. Control operations shall be directed only toward the offending animal or local populations. 7. Control techniques and devices shall be as selective and humane as possible and shall minimize hazards to non-target animals. 8. Warning signs shall be used where control techniques might pose a hazard. 9. Traps and other devices (except M-44's) shall be serviced not less than twice a week.
Canis latrens, that depredate livestock and poultry. 11. M-44 devices shall be serviced in accordance with EPA Use Regulations. 12. M-44 devices and sodium cyanide capsules shall be restricted to use by only t rained applicators (State and County officials) in predatory animal damage control programs approved by the Department, Landowners or farm livestock operators will not be authorized to use sodium cyanide or to place or retrieve M-44 devices.
shall not be used for commercial purposes. 14. Uninjured non-target animals (except dogs) shall be released from traps. 15. Trapped dogs shall be released to the county poundmaster or to the landowner. 16. Records shall be kept showing: a. Landowners request for control. b. Kind of offending predator . c. Kind of animal or crop damaged. d. Number and value of animals lost or value of crop lost. e. Number and kind of predators taken and methods of take used for each kind. 17. A report of losses shall be submitted to the Department of Food and Agriculture on Report Form 3C. 18. The county predatory animal damage program shall be reviewed annually by the Department of Food and Agriculture. (Adopted December 6, 1973. Amended and reaffirmed May 17, 1983.)
and the
California Agricultural Commissioners Association Evaluation of Pests New to California INTRODUCTION Newly detected pest infestations, which are or may become harmful in California, are of primary concern to federal, state, and county agencies. These agencies are responsible for the protection of agriculture, public health, ornamental plantings, forests, wood products, wildlife, soil, and water by eradication or containment of harmful plant diseases, insects, weeds, vertebrates, and other pests. The Food and Agricultural Code provides that the Director shall thoroughly investigate the existence of any pest, the probability of spread, the feasibility of control or eradication; and that he may establish, maintain, and enforce quarantines and such other regulations as he deems necessary. Any investigation taken in line with these guidelines must not in any manner preclude the Director or a Commissioner from taking any other joint or separate action. The following guidelines for the analysis and evaluation of pests new to California provide for a consistent, orderly study of such pests, including a rapid fact finding study, pest rating and follow-up action, and a review and recommendation by a permanent Pest Evaluation Committee. GUIDELINES I. Fact finding Study The first step in the valuative procedure is a rapid study by a Division Study Team*. (All or a part of this study will already have been completed for certain Detection "Target Pests.") The Study Team can seek information and support from other federal, state, county or university specialists. This investigation should result in sufficient data to establish a pest rating for follow-up action. Timely action against serious pests requires that this study receive high priority so that conclusions can be reached in the shortest time. Results of this study shall be completed within 10 days beyond the date that the organism or disease is found and identified. The study should utilize information obtained from: A. Evaluation of pest status outside of California. 1. Host plants, stating preferences or principal associations. *The Division Study Team for each pest will be organized by the appropriate Principal Staff Professional and chaired by him or his Assistant, and will include a representative appointed by each of the other units. 2. Life history, including: a. Description of life stages, seasonal occurrences, etc. b. Biotic potential (capacity for population buildup). c. Known environmental and habitat requirements, especially those that favor or limit. d. Means of spread, dissemination, or transmission. 3. Known distribution. 4. Reported pest status, including location, type, and economic impact with and without controls. 5. Reported biological and chemical or other controls, including materials and methods used, and effectiveness achieved. 6. Annotated bibliography covering all pertinent information about the pest and its occurrence. B. Evaluation of pest status in California. 1. Factors affecting likelihood of spread, dissemination, or transmission: a. Availability of hosts and host continuity. b. Favorable environment and habitat (climate, elevation, latitude, etc.).
d. Probability of spread. 2. Ability to detect the pest. 3. Added impact on cost of control of pests already established. 4. Natural control factors available, and estimate of their effectiveness. 5. Principal impact, including losses with and without control; control costs; quarantine impacts; and any other costs or losses. a. General public. b. Structures, yards, street sides, parks, or urban communities. c. Commercial crops, including ornamentals, floriculture, and livestock d. Agribusiness. e. Forests, rangelands, roadsides, or general environment (air, water, soil). f. Wildlife. C. Feasibility of control, suppressions or eradication. 1. Ability to prevent reintroduction. 2. Ability to prevent spread, dissemination, or transmission. 3. Environmental impact of control or eradication methods. 4. Capability of materials and methods referred to in I, A, 5, to eradicate or hold the pest pending investigation. 5. Other factors, such as public relations, adequate personnel, training of personnel, time considerations, etc. 6. Estimate of cost/benefit ratio. D. An evaluation of the pest from the USDA and other sources. II. Pest Rating and Follow-up ActionThe next step in the evaluation procedure, based on the fact finding study, is recommendation of a pest rating by the Division Study Team. The Division of Plant Industry will then establish the pest rating and determine the need for further action as follows:
B. If the organism or disease is of great economic significance, and emergency action seems advisable, a recommendation by the Division Study Team will be made within five days to the Chairman of the Pest Evaluation Committee, who may authorize emergency action. Regardless of the action taken, the Chairman within five days of receiving the recommendations shall report to the Pest Evaluation Committee documenting and establishing: 1. Pest status. 2. Federal-state-county responsibility. 3. Action necessary to hold or eradicate. 4. Type, sequence, and estimated extent of program actions to be taken to alleviate or eliminate the problem, including environmental impact statements if necessary.
county level, pending further investigation. 4. Recommended type, sequence, and estimated time and extent of investigation, and, as needed, suppressive action. III. Pest Evaluation Committee Review and Recommendation The final step is a review by the Pest Evaluation Committee of the data documented in the course of the fact finding study and additional information developed. The review should include a reconsideration of environmental, biological, and economic impacts that would result from widespread occurrence of the pest in California and a reevaluation of available technology to detect, contain, eradicate, and prevent recurrence of the infestation. The Pest Evaluation Committee, appointed by the Director of Food and Agriculture, will have as its Chairman the Assistant Director-Plant Industry, Department of Food and Agriculture. Other members will include:
Agricultural Commissioners Association. B. A representative of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services, United States Department of Agriculture. C. A representative of the Agricultural Experiment Stations, University of California. D. A representative of the Resources Agency, State of California.
Calcot Limited, California Rice Growers Association, California Beet Growers Association, Western Growers Association, California Association of Nurserymen, California-Arizona Citrus League, California Tomato Growers Association, California Grape and Tree Fruit League, San Joaquin Hay Growers Association, Cattlemen's Association, Agricultural Council of California, and Council of California Growers.
action has been taken as indicated in II, B, the Committee may approve the emergency action taken and/or recommend additional action. B. If the organism or disease is of known importance or of questionable status, and further study or action is recommended by the Division Study Team, the Committee may:
deliberations taken under III at 30-day intervals until its final conclusions and recommendations are submitted.
pest.
/S/ C.B. CHRISTENSEN , June 6, 1973 . (Director) (Date) Concurred in by the California Agricultural Commissioners Association:
(Executive Secretary) (Date) GUIDELINES Adoption of Local Pest Control Regulations (Agricultural Code 11503) 1. Prepare notice of intention to adopt regulations (form attached). Notice must contain:
b. Express terms of informative summary of the proposed regulations. 2. At least 10 days prior to date set for adoption, amendment or repeal of regulations: a. Publish the notice one time in a newspaper of general circulation in the county (i.e., a newspaper which has obtained a judicial decree establishing it as having such status).
commissioner as required by Sec. 11732, and to any other interested person who has filed with the commissioner a request for such notices. (Ordinary first-class mail is sufficient). 3. At the time and place set for the hearing and preliminary to receiving statements: a. If a stenographic or phonographic record is not to be made, arrange to have the hearing officer or some other designated person record minutes of the proceedings.
of the county or, if the conduct of the hearing is delegated to another person, introduce a written statement from the Commissioner authorizing such person to conduct the hearing. c. Announce the purpose of the hearing and introduce a copy of the proposed regulations. This simplified procedure for the adoption of local pest control regulations under the provisions of Section 11503, Food and Agricultural Code, was prepared by Ethelbert Johnson on December 12, 1960. d. Introduce proof of publication of notice of intention to adopt regulations (affidavit from publisher certifying date of publication). e. Introduce proof of mailing (affidavit of person mailing notices certifying that on a specified date notices enclosed in sealed envelopes with postage thereon fully prepared, were deposited in the U. S. mail, addressed to the persons named at the addresses set opposite their respective names). f. Introduce any relevant written statements received prior to the time of the hearing.
4. Afford any person present the opportunity to present statements, arguments or contentions in writing, with or without opportunity to present the same orally. If oral testimony is offered, the hearing officer should administer the oath to each person before testifying, either singly or in a group.
matters presented on or before a specified time, will be considered before adopting the regulations.
statements, arguments or contentions may be presented. 6. Adjourn the hearing. 7. After the final text is adopted: a. Submit the regulations to the Director for review and approval as to reasonableness. b. File the regulations, when approved, with the Director. c. Notify all interested persons that the regulations have been adopted and approved, and become effective on a certain date (30 days after approval; except emergency regulations, which become effective on the date of approval).
PROCEDURAL GUIDE Report of Disaster Damage to Crops A. DESCRIPTION OF DISASTER (1) Type: Frost, flood, drought, windstorm, earthquake, or other. A brief statement establishing the fact that a circumstance hazardous to agriculture has occurred, including a delineation of the general area involved whether local, district-wide or other. It is also strongly recommended that this opening paragraph indicate the estimated total financial loss for your county. (2) Severity: A short description of the intensity of the disaster; area and depth of floodwater, lowest freezing temperature, duration of freeze, force of wind, Richter scale of earthquake, duration of drought, etc. (3) Comparison of current disaster to those occurring previously - a brief historical background illustrating that this is an unusual circumstance which could not reasonably have been foreseen. Tables or exhibits may be attached to the report. B. CROPS EFFECTED (1) List of damaged crops with a brief explanation of how damage has occurred to each. Since many of the persons reading the report may not necessarily be connected with agriculture, a concise description of damage symptoms to each crop involved is desirable. Photographs, drawings or other examples may be included to illustrate damage.
closely scrutinized, it follows that a methodical approach be demonstrated in evaluating damage. The probability that methods will vary from time to time and from place to place is of little consequence so long as the method used in a current report is clearly described. Tables or exhibits attached to the report are suggested. (2) Discussion of the difficulties inherent in evaluating crop damage. Again, many readers of the report may have little knowledge of the problems. For their benefit, certain aspects should be explained. This applies particularly to damages which, at the moment of the report, remain hidden; interior fruit damage, root damage and the like are matters which should be discussed. (3) (a) Application of estimated "normal" yields and production in assessing losses. This should not be established on the basis of the highest possible yield, since that would be an inflated figure. Nor should it be based on the lowest possible yield, as that would unfairly minimize loss. The use of five- year averages is more satisfactory, although even that may be misleading. Perhaps the use of nut or fruit counts in certain permanent "control" or "indicator" orchards would provide the best estimate of what the crop would have been had not the disaster occurred. The latter method would involve frequent inspections throughout the growing season and hence greater expense, but the data so obtained would also be usable in routine crop and condition reports. The method chosen for a particular disaster report, however, should be carefully detailed - either in the body of the report itself or by means of attached tables or exhibits. (b) Establishing the estimated "normal" value of the crops involved may be handled in several ways. Where seasonal prices have already been announced, use them. If not, then other approaches must be considered; five-year averages, market trends, information from brokers, and so forth. Where several adjacent counties have suffered in the same disaster, it would be wise for the commissioners to contact one another in the matter of projected prices since uniformity among counties is important in this part of the report. The method used must be detailed as in paragraph (3)(a), above.
which will only become apparent with the passage of time. One example would be next year's weed problem after this year's flood. Another might be the permanent stunting of trees and vines after a severe freeze. Although the extent of financial loss may be difficult to analyze in these cases, the fact that they possibly do exist should be emphasized. D. ANALYSIS OF LOSS (1) Crop-by-crop use of data and formulas to determine the extent of damage and financial loss. Here, all of the facts and estimates developed in the preceding paragraphs are applied to each damaged crop. It is suggested that, for each crop. the report show total bearing acres, acres affected by the disaster, acres sampled, percent of loss in sample, estimated total acreage lost, estimated "normal" yield/acre, estimated total production lost, estimated "normal" value/ton, and estimated total financial loss. Of course, any other pertinent material may be added at will. This section should be contained in the body of the report itself, rather than through the use of tables.
individual crops and a grand total. Indicate where the main losses will occur and, if desirable, discuss any extra-serious impacts on the local agricultural economy.
may be needed. F. MODEL REPORT See attached. MODEL REPORT MEMO TO: Board of Supervisors, County DATE: 1 MAY 1972 FROM: Agricultural Commissioner SUBJECT: Report of freeze damage to crops, County A. DESCRIPTION OF DISASTER (1) Unusually low temperatures were experienced throughout the Northern San Joaquin Valley on the nights of 25, 26 and 27 April,1972. The resulting damage to crops in County is estimated to be $8,179,000. (2) Temperatures in County reached a low of 17F. on each of the nights indicated. The lowest readings were recorded in the Patterson area, where temperatures remained below 20F. for eight hours at a time. The Modesto-Turlock fruit belt was somewhat warmer, but lows of 24F. were sustained there for six to seven hours on each of the three nights. Areas of damage were scattered throughout the County, with the severest occurring in the Patterson, Denair and Salida regions. River bottom and other low-lying areas suffered universally. (3) These temperatures are the lowest recorded, and of longer duration, than any since January, 1945. The average nighttime low in County during the month of April is 52F. See Table I, attached. B. CROPS EFFECTED (1) Apricots: Suffered most damage due to freezing of newly formed fruit. Peaches: Much damage to young growth and developing fruit. Grapes: New growth and berries frozen. Almonds: Small nuts frozen and blackened. Walnuts: Most severe damage among paynes, an early variety. Many orchards blackened to a height of 10 to 12 feet above ground.
plantings are attached.
damage to the crops listed in paragraph B(l). (2) It should be remembered that there is no exact method of determining the extent of freeze damage in agricultural crops. Much of the damage cannot be assessed at this time simply because it is invisible. Past experience has shown that a large amount of interior damage, particularly to peaches and apricots, will not be apparent until the fruit nears harvest. It is also believed that extensive fruit drop will occur later. (3) (a) An important aspect of this evaluation is the anticipated "normal" harvest for 1972. Determination of loss has been made on the basis of what crop production would have been had not the freeze occurred. In all cases except almonds this has been done by means of five-year averages, there being little else to go on. In the case of almonds, however, certain "indicator" orchards have been established which provide closer analysis. Tables VII through XII illustrate the methods used in estimating normal 1972 production for each of the damaged crops.
averages. Tables XIII through XVII apply. (4) Still another factor is that of long-term damage. A freeze such as this will frequently set back the growth of immature trees and vines, and in some cases full growth may never be achieved at all. This obviously amounts to a hidden loss to the grower. Pruning to cut back burned shoots and other damaged growth must also be taken into account, as must the replacing of trees which have been totally destroyed. D. ANALYSIS OF LOSS (1) Applying the data contained in the attached tables, it will be seen that crop losses in County may be estimated as follows:
acres effected by freeze: 5,000 acres acres sampled: 500 acres percent of loss in sample: 20% (estimated acreage lost: 5,000 x .20 = 1,000 acres) estimated 1972 yield/acre: 11.00 tons (estimated production loss: 1,000 x 11.00 - 11,000 tons) estimated 1972 value/ton: $ll3.OO (estimated financial loss: 11,000 x $113.00 - $1,243,000)
acres effected by freeze: 10,000 acres acres sampled: 1,000 acres percent of loss in sample: 25% (estimated acreage lost: 10,000 x .25 = 2,500 acres) estimated 1972 yield/acre: 11.98 tons (estimated production loss: 2,500 x 11.98 = 29,950 tons) estimated 1972 value/ton: $30.00 (estimated financial loss: 29,950 x $80.00 = $2,396,000) Grapes: total bearing acres in County: 15,000 acres acres effected by freeze: 7,500 acres acres sampled: 750 acres percent of loss in sample: 30% (estimated acreage lost: 7,500 x .30 = 2,250 acres) estimated 1972 yield/acre: 9.00 tons (estimated production loss: 2,250 x 9.00 = 20,200 tons) estimated 1972 value/ton: $100.00 (estimated financial loss: 20,200 x $100.00 = $2,020,000) Almonds: total bearing acres in County: 17,000 acres acres effected by freeze: 10,000 acres acres sampled: 1,000 acres percent of loss in sample: 40% (estimated acreage lost: 10,000 x .40 = 4,000 acres) estimated 1972 yield/acre: 1.0 tons (estimated production loss: 4,000 x 1.00 = 4,000 tons) estimated 1972 value/ton $500.00 (estimated financial loss: 4,000 x $500.00 = $2,000,000)
acres effected by freeze: 9,000 acres acres sampled: 900 acres percent of loss in sample: 15% (estimated acreage lost: 9,000 x .15 = 1,300 tons) estimated 1972 yield/acre: 1.0 tons (estimated production loss: 1,300 x 1.00 = 1,300 tons) estimated 1972 value/ton: $400.00 (estimated financial loss: 1,300 x $400.00 = $520,000) E. CONCLUSION (1) As has been shown, the agricultural interests in this County have suffered severe losses. Some individuals farming the effected crops will lose their entire 1972 production. Many others will lose as much as 80%. The average loss, where loss has been sustained, is expected to be 30%. The total estimated loss is as follows: Apricots: $1,243,000 Peaches: $2,396,000 Grapes: $2,020,000 Almonds: $2,000,000 Walnuts: $520,000 $8,l79,000 (2) It should be remembered that, due to the circumstances outlined in paragraphs C(2) and C(4), this is only a preliminary (and conservative) estimate. A more accurate assessment could be made at a later date as further damage becomes evident.
Agricultural Commissioner County Encl: Table I 30-year nighttime temperature record for the month of April, County Tables II - VII Evaluation .methods and .formulas for various crop losses Tables VIII - XII Estimated normal production .for 1972 Tables XIII - XVII Estimated normal value for 1972 Photographs, damaged crops
5750
5750 11 = 52.2. TABLE II: Estimating crop loss in Almond orchards. A. RANDOM SELECTION OF TREES: (1) Determine the number of rows in the orchard in the directions in which the varieties are planted. (Rows selected should give a cross-section of all varieties.) (2) Divide the number of rows by four. (3) Make random selection of one row in each part. Outside rows are considered a typical and should be omitted from sample. (4) Divide number of trees in each row by five, using the result as a unit in selecting sample trees in each row. (i.e., in an orchard having 100 trees per row, the unit is 20.) The first tree in a row would be selected from number 1 to 20; each sample thereafter would be selected using the next tree in the row as number one. A minimum of five trees per row should be selected, with a larger number of samples being taken from the orchard when the damage is not uniform. B. ESTIMATING PERCENTAGE OF CROP ON TREES: (1) Divide the tree into three horizontal zones of production: a - lower 1/3 of tree = 25% of production. b - middle 1/3 of tree =40% of production. c - upper 1/3 of tree = 35% of production.
sample of terminals are counted in each zone. Estimates of each zone are then averaged for an estimated percentage of crop on the tree.
orchard. For example: Row 1: Tree 1=13% Row 2: Tree 1=80% 2=07% 2=10% 3=35% 3=30% 4=10% 4=15% 5=35% 5=25% 6=20% 6=10% 120 6 = 20% 170 6=28. Row 3: Tree 1=15% Row 4: Tree 1=60% 2=02% 2=25% 3=01% 3=25% 4=05% 4=20% 5=04% 5=02% 6=05% 6=03% 32 6 = 05.3% 135 6=22.5% total estimated production for orchard: 76.l% 4 = 19% Estimated loss therefore 81% (Note: This method is accurate but time-consuming.)
$562.71
November 29, 1972 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE REGULATION AND THE CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONERS AND SEALERS ASSOCIATION FOR DISBURSMENT OF RESIDUAL MILL ASSESSMENT FUNDS TO ENHANCE LOCAL PESTICIDE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS BACKGROUND The Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) protects human health and the environment by regulating pesticide sales and use and fostering reduced-risk pest management. To ensure compliance with the nation’s toughest pesticide laws, California has the largest and best-trained enforcement organization in the country. Local use enforcement of pesticide laws and regulations is carried out at the local level through the county agricultural commissioners (CACs). CACs (and their staffs) have primary responsibility for local enforcement activities. The California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association (CACASA) is the official representative body on the behalf of the CACs and Sealers (California Food and Agriculture Code [FAC] section 2003). Funding fir local pesticide field enforcement activities comes from four sources--mill assessment, locally generated fees and penalties, county general fund, and unclaimed gas tax. Mill assessment is a fee levied on the sale of pesticides sold for use in California. Under statute and regulation, DPR collects and distributes mill assessment to the counties as partial reimbursement for their cost of carrying out the pesticide enforcement program. SCOPE The purpose of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between DPR and CACASA is to establish the process and procedures that shall be followed by the parties to this agreement relative to invoicing for work performed, and distribution and accounting if the CAC’s residual mill assessments funds, which are to be used to support county initiatives that will enhance local county pesticide enforcement programs. This MOU is intended to establish the roles and responsibilities that the respective authorities of DPR and CACASA shall comply with in carrying out the mutually agreed upon objectives associated with expenditures of residual mill assessment funds. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY AUTHORITIES DPR is mandated by California and federal law to protect human health and the environment by regulating pesticide sales and use and fostering reduced-risk pest management. DPR’s strict oversight includes extensive scientific product evaluation and registration; and statewide licensing and certification of commercial applicators, dealers, and advisers. The field enforcement of regulations governing pesticide use is carried out by the CACs under DPR's supervision. A significant portion of a county's funding for the local pesticide field enforcement activities comes from mill assessment. Mill assessment is a fee levied on the sale of pesticides sold for use in California. Under statute and regulation, DPR collects and distributes mill assessment to the counties as partial reimbursement for their cost of carrying out the pesticide enforcement program. All persons who are the first to sell DPR-registered pesticide products in California are assessed a mill ($0.001) fee. This fee is established by statute, and the rate is set through regulation. The current mill assessment rate is 21 mills, or $0.021 per dollar of pesticides sold. Existing law requires DPR to reimburse counties (from the revenue collected from mill assessment) for the cost incurred in enforcing FAC Division 6 (commencing with section 11401) and FAC Division 7, Chapter 2 (including section 12979, as enacted by Chapter 1200, Statutes of 1989), Chapter 3 (commencing with section 14001), Chapter 3.4 (commencing with section l4090), Chapter 3.5 (commencing with section 14010), and Chapter 7 (commencing with section 15201). The amount distributed to the counties equals the revenue derived from 7.6 mills of the total mill assessment revenue collected by DPR. FAC section 12844 requires the Director and CACs to jointly develop regulations specifying the criteria to be used in allocating the mill assessment funds to the counties. These regulations are established in Title 3, California Code of Regulations (CCR) sections 6391 through 6396. Title 3 CCR section 6396 (effective February 11, 2006) was established to provide a mechanism for disbursement of mill funds remaining after the application of CCR section 6395, minimum reimbursement (CAC baseline amount). CCR section 6396 provides that any, or all, of the residual funds may be allocated for support of restricted- materials permitting and reporting system activities or any other program element mutually agreed upon by the DPR Director and CACASA. Remaining residual funds not specifically agreed upon may be distributed proportionately to each county pursuant to the criteria in CCR section 6393, or deposited into a trust account for front-loading future projects. PRINCIPLES OF AGREEMENT In accordance with CCR section 6396, the CACASA President will annually send a letter to the DPR Director requesting acceptance of the proposed county projects and initiatives to be supported by the residual mill funds. CACASA will, as necessary, designate project-manager counties (PMC) to collaborate with DPR to secure mutually beneficial program enhancements that will result in improved pesticide use enforcement programs. Residual mill assessment funds dedicated to these county projects and initiatives will be held in trust by the county of choice, designated by CACASA, for future disbursement as directed by the mutual agreement of the designated PMC, CACASA President, and DPR Director. The appointed CAC for the designated PMC, the CACASA President, and the DPR Enforcement Branch Chief will be authorized to request disbursement. A formal letter with all of the appropriate authorized signatures of the appointed CAC for the designated PMC, the CACASA President, and the DPR Enforcement Branch Chef will be required to issue a warrant for payment from the related trust account. DPR agrees to:
CACASA and its PMCs agree to:
DISPUTE AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION It is the desire of the parties to establish a speedy, efficient, and informal method for the resolution of interagency conflicts. Conflicts between DPR and CACASA that cannot otherwise be informally resolved will be referred to the DPR Director and the CACASA President. To assist the parties in resolving conflicts, one staff person will be appointed by the DPR Director and the CACASA President to represent the interests of the signatories of this MOU. This MOU shall become effective upon the date of final signature and shall continue in effect until modified by the mutual written consent of the parties or until terminated by any party upon a thirty-day advance written notice to the other party. SIGNATORIES 
Attachment A California Code of Regulations Section 6396 Draft Protocol for Residual Mill-Funded Activities to Enhance County Pesticide Enforcement Programs California Code of Regulations (CCR) section 6396 (effective February 11 ,2006) was established to provide a mechanism for disbursement of the mill funds remaining after the application of CCR section 6395, minimum reimbursement (county agricultural commissioner baseline amount). CCR section 6396 provides that any, or all, of the residual funds may be allocated for support of restricted-materials permitting and reporting system activities, or any other program element mutually agreed upon by the Director of the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) and the California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association (CACASA). Remaining residual funds not specifically agreed upon may be distributed proportionately to each county pursuant to the criteria in CCR section 6393 or deposited into a county trust account, as designated by CACASA, for county projects and initiatives. The following draft protocol outlines the time lines for facilitating commissioner proposals for residual-funded activities. 1. April Mill disbursement to the counties is made including residual funds. 2. CACASA Spring Conference (May) DPR and CACASA will discuss and consider joint program priorities for funding projects to begin the following July. These areas have been generally identified and include, but are not limited to: a. Staffing to augment local enforcement programs in a county. b. Pesticide safety training for applicators and outreach for the general public. c. Staffing to support multiple counties. d. Specific project proposals by individual counties. CACs will receive instructions for the development of project proposals from the Pesticide Regulatory Affairs Committee (PRAC) Chair. All proposals should be forwarded to the PRAC Chair. All projects shall be submitted no later than two weeks prior to the fall interim meeting. The Chair will forward proposals to PRAC's mill subcommittee for review and consideration for handing. DPR and designated project counties will report on ongoing projects. 3. CACASA Interim meeting (August) PMC's mill subcommittee will discuss: a. Project proposals received for the following year, and will begin review and prioritization for recommendation at the Winter Conference. b. Project-manager counties will report on the programmatic and fiscal status of residual-fund projects. 4. CACASA Winter Conference (November) Topics of discussion will be: a. The PRAC's mill subcommittee recommendations for approval of projects by CACASA Board of Directors. b. Preliminary report on residual mill fund estimate for the current year issued by DPR.
The CACASA President will send a letter to the DPR Director recommending approval of projects to begin the following July. The letter must indicate the project scope, funding amount, and county for disbursement.
The DPR Director will send a response letter to the CACASA President on agreed- upon recommendations for the remaining residual-funded projects to begin July. 7. CACASA Interim Meeting (February) a. Project-manager counties will report on the programmatic and fiscal status of ongoing projects. b. A decision regarding the April 1 disbursement of residual funds will be made. c. DPR will provide an update on the availability of residual mill funds for projects beginning in July of the following year. 8. March 1 The CACASA President will send a letter to the DPR Director recommending actions for the April 1 disbursement of residual funds. 9. March 15 The DPR Director will send a response letter to the CACASA President on agreed- upon recommendations fox the disbursement of residual funds. 10. April 1 Mill and residual funds will be disbursed to the counties. 11. REPEAT PROCESS. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER AND THE CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONERS AND SEALERS ASSOCIATION FOR DISBURSEMENT OF RESIDUAL MILL ASSESSMENT FUNDS TO ENHANCE LOCAL PESTICIDE ENFORCMENT PROGRAMS BACKGROUND The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) together with the County Agricultural Commissioners (CACs) protect human health and the environment by regulating pesticide sales and use and fostering reduced-risk pest management. To ensure compliance with the nation’s toughest pesticide laws, California has the largest and best-trained enforcement organization in the country. Local use enforcement of pesticide laws and regulations is carried out at the local level through the County Agricultural Commissioners. CACs and their staffs have primary responsibility for local enforcement activities. The California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association (CACASA) is the official representative body on behalf of the CACs and sealers (California Food and Agricultural Code [FAC] section 2003). Funding for local pesticide field enforcement activities comes from four sources: pesticide mill assessment, locally generated fees and penalties, county general fund, and unclaimed gas tax. Mill assessment is a fee levied on the sale of pesticides sold for use in California. Under statute and regulation, DPR collects and distributes mill assessment to the counties as partial reimbursement for their cost of carrying out the pesticide enforcement program.
The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between CACASA and the Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner (LACAC) is to establish the processes and procedures that shall be followed by the parties to this agreement relative to holding in trust, invoicing for work performed, and distribution and accounting of the CACs’ residual mill assessments funds, which are to be used to support county initiatives that will enhance local county pesticide enforcement programs. This MOU is intended to establish the roles and responsibilities with which the respective authorities of CACASA and LACAC shall comply in carrying out the mutually agreed upon objectives associated with expenditures of residual mill assessment funds. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY AUTHORITIES DPR is mandated by California and federal law to protect human health and the environment by regulating pesticide sales and use and by fostering reduced-risk pest management. DPR’s strict oversight includes extensive scientific product evaluation and registration as well as statewide licensing and certification of commercial applicators, dealers, and advisers. Field enforcement of regulations governing pesticide use is carried out by the CACs under DPR’s supervision. A significant portion of each county’s funding for local pesticide field enforcement activities comes from mill assessment. Mill assessment is a fee levied on the sale of pesticides sold for use in California. Under statute and regulation, DPR collects and distributes mill assessment to the counties as partial reimbursement for their cost of carrying out the pesticide enforcement program. All persons who are the first to sell DPR-registered pesticide products in California are assessed a mill ($0.001) fee. This fee is established by statute and the rate is set through regulation. The current mill assessment rate is 21 mills, or $0.021 per dollar of pesticides sold. Existing law requires DPR to reimburse counties (from the revenue collected from mill assessment) for the cost incurred in enforcing FAC Division 6 (commencing with section 11401) and FAC Division 7, Chapter 2 (including section 12979, as enacted by Chapter 1200, Statutes of 1989), Chapter 3 (commencing with section 14001),
FAC section 12844 requires the Director of DPR and CACs to jointly develop regulations specifying the criteria to be used in allocating the mill assessment funds to the counties. These regulations are established in Title 3 California Code of Regulations (CCR) sections 6391 through 6396. Title 3 CCR section 6396 (effective February 11, 2006) was established to provide a mechanism for disbursement of mill funds remaining after the application of CCR
LACAC will hold in trust residual mill assessment funds that have been distributed to LACAC by DPR for future disbursement to CAC members of CACASA. As stipulated in the March 30, 2006, letter from CACASA to the Director of DPR (Attachment A) and as amended by the May 24, 2006, letter of proposed changes from CACASA to DPR (Attachment B) and the May 25, 2006, letter of acceptance from DPR to CACASA (Attachment C), CACASA will, in regard to the residual 2005 mill assessment funds, designate project-manager counties (PMCs) to collaborate with DPR to secure mutually beneficial program enhancements that will result in improved pesticide use enforcement programs. Thereafter, in regard to residual mill funds for each year following 2005, project proposals, evaluations of proposals, disbursement approvals, and directives for disbursement will be in accordance with the Protocol for Residual Mill-Funded Activities to Enhance County Pesticide Enforcement Programs approved and adopted by CACASA (Attachment D). In accordance with CCR section 6396, the CACASA President will annually send a letter to the DPR Director requesting acceptance of proposed county projects and initiatives to be supported by the residual mill funds. Residual mill assessment funds dedicated to these county projects and initiatives will be held in trust by LACAC for future disbursement as directed by the mutual agreement of the designated PMC, CACASA President, and DPR Director. The appointed CAC for the designated PMC, the CACASA President, and the DPR Enforcement Branch Chief will be authorized to request disbursement. A formal letter of authorization to disburse funds from the trust account will be sent from the CACASA President to the Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner, bearing each of the appropriate authorized signatures of the appointed CAC for the designated PMC, the DPR Enforcement Branch Chief, and the CACASA President. Receipt of such letter by the LACAC will be required to issue a warrant for payment from the related trust account. LACAC agrees to:
CACASA agrees to:
INDEMNIFICATION To the extent allowable by law, each party to this MOU hereby agrees to hold harmless each and one another and the respective agencies, officers, agents and employees of each from any liability imposed for injury or damage to property caused by any act or omission arising out of the performance of this MOU by any party, but only in proportion to, and to the extent that, such liability arises as a result of the negligence or willful misconduct of the party, its agencies, officers, agents, and/or employees or anyone acting under the party’s direction or control or on the respective party’s own behalf. INSURANCE Both parties shall maintain proof of an adequate insurance policy and/or self-insurance through the term of the MOU. This MOU shall become effective upon the date of final signature and shall continue in effect until modified by the mutual written consent of the parties or until terminated by any party upon a thirty-day advance written notice to the other party. SIGNATORIES L _____________________________ June 7, 2006 Kurt Floren, Commissioner Date C  alifornia Agricultural Commissioner and Sealers Association
______________________________ June 7, 2006_ Jerry Prieto Jr., President Date Contact CACASA’s Executive Secretary for Attachments A - C Attachment D California Code of Regulations Section 6396 Protocol for Residual Mill-Funded Activities to Enhance County Pesticide Enforcement Programs California Code of Regulations (CCR) section 6396 (effective February 11, 2006) was established to provide a mechanism for disbursement of the mill funds remaining after the application of CCR section 6395, minimum reimbursement (county agricultural commissioner baseline amount). CCR section 6396 provides that any, or all, of the residual funds may be allocated for support of restricted-materials permitting and reporting system activities, or any other program element mutually agreed upon by the Director of the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) and the California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association (CACASA). Remaining residual funds not specifically agreed upon may be distributed proportionately to each county pursuant to the criteria in CCR section 6393 or deposited into a county trust account, as designated by CACASA, for county projects and initiatives. The following protocol outlines the time lines for facilitating commissioner proposals for residual-funded activities.
Mill disbursement to the counties is made including residual funds.
DPR and CACASA will discuss and consider joint program priorities for funding projects to begin the following July. These areas have been generally identified and include, but are not limited to:
c. Staffing to support multiple counties.
CACs will receive instructions for the development of project proposals from the Pesticide Regulatory Affairs Committee (PRAC) Chair. All proposals should be forwarded to the PRAC Chair. All projects shall be submitted no later than two weeks prior to the fall interim meeting. The Chair will forward proposals to PRAC’s mill subcommittee for review and consideration for funding. DPR and designated project counties will report on ongoing projects.
PRAC’s mill subcommittee will discuss: a. Project proposals received for the following year, and will begin review and prioritization for recommendation at the Winter Conference. b. Project-manager counties will report on the programmatic and fiscal status of residual-fund projects.
Topics of discussion will be: a. The PRAC’s mill subcommittee recommendations for approval of projects by CACASA Board of Directors. b. Preliminary report on residual mill fund estimate for the current year issued by DPR.
The CACASA President will send a letter to the DPR Director recommending approval of projects to begin the following July. The letter must indicate the project scope, funding amount, and county for disbursement.
The DPR Director will send a response letter to the CACASA President on agreed-upon recommendations for the remaining residual-funded projects to begin July.
a. Project-manager counties will report on the programmatic and fiscal status of ongoing projects. b. A decision regarding the April 1 disbursement of residual funds will be made. c. DPR will provide an update on the availability of residual mill funds for projects beginning in July of the following year.
The CACASA President will send a letter to the DPR Director recommending actions for the April 1 disbursement of residual funds.
The DPR Director will send a response letter to the CACASA President on agreed-upon recommendations for the disbursement of residual funds. 10. April 1 Mill and residual funds will be disbursed to the counties. 11. REPEAT PROCESS. Directory: site site -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 site -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 site -> Glossary for Chapter 1 Algorithm site -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose site -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations site -> Physical custody of 1033 program property accountibility form statement of Physical Custody: By signing for the below 1033 property I am a Law Enforcement Officer of the aforementioned Law Enforcement Agency site -> Nstructions for Acquiring Excess Equipment online, through the 1033 Program site -> Memorandum of agreement Download 1.19 Mb. Share with your friends:
|
os Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner