Annual report / Arizona Department of Agriculture

              Table of Contents
Arizona Agricultural Advisory Council 2
Department of Agriculture Leaders 3
Arizona Agriculture Reaches the World 5
Environmental Services, License and Registration 14
Pesticide Compliance and Worker Safety 20
Office of Review and Investigations 26
Animal Disease, Ownership and Welfare Protectio 31
Commodity Development and Promotion 40
Citrus, Fruit and Vegetable Standardization 45
Food Safety and Quality Assurance 47
Agriculture Consultation and Training 50
Legislation Year in Review 62
Pest Exclusion and Management 64
State Agricultural Laboratory 72
          	
   

 

                          
                          
  

            !   
"     #          $%

 
                  &
'  !        !                            (     )                                                 
 !  *      +         ,          -.  

 / 
          ,                      !  *(+       *    
    *       (      )      *   (   )      )/ 
           (                   	  
  
       
   

        /
           )                             !      !   )         !        +       0        )     
 !  *         )    (                    *    !         !     *   !   )  !           1          *   !
*           )               *  / 
    !                          )             *      1       
  !     )   )    (   )      *       !                  *                        )     1        !   (
  )  *        *(/

                                       
       
        
     / 
    !                (   1   
        1                            !  *                   )   )                      )     2     (
            *        2     (     !  *           ) *   !  1                )     2     (             
                           *         3 (/

                          !  *                     )    (                )   **        
-.  

 / -    *          (   )      (   !      !      !  *         )    (   )         !        
         ) *        1  )  !      (   ) ) *        )    ) 1  4                    *        (
   4  ! 1 (                  * /

        1  !                       -.  

   **                                                     
         */
   *    ( 
    )   ,/      
    *   
           	
         	
     

            !  *        )     ( 5   *     
  )                             )  (    
                0(         / 6(           1 
             *     (   ! ! )          
   ) *                3       *       *      1 
                ) *       )         !          /
7         ( *                        
  **                 )   )             * /  
         (                )                 
    0                                  *  *(    
          )             #    )     /

    )     ( *   *        1   !  *            *(
                        )  (   1   )   
 )         )           *                   
          / 
    )     ( *   *              
)   *                 !  )                     )
           )   )!       *           !    
 )                          )         / 
  
*   *             1    )   4  
  *     )              )   *              )
                )      /
          	  
  
    
              
  

    
        
         	
     
        	 
   
  
   		        	

    
      
        
        
 	   

         	
     
  	
         
  	   	  

         	
     
          	
    
    
  
  
    *               ) 1 0  0     
) !     ( 1      )             8


) ) *   ) )               (   /
   1  !         " (       *  
    *          )       )   )   
              *                  
 !  *            *               (
                  !             
*      0       !  *(/ 9 *   ( 
  !      (           (   )
              (                          + 
 !  *              ! /
 
      
          
	
  
   
    
  
    
     
   
      	  
  
            
          	  	    
      	       
                         
       

  *4 "            !      
          +  :            
     *           /    !  1        
7             / "              )
1  4  ! 1                        
          * )       *      )     
          *     )         
  * !              #                ) 
        * )    !          ) 1  4        *    /
                       


         
     5             !   #       
  )    (  #      *         "    
     *           / '             
  *           )         )    4    !
               !  *        *    *  
*                 !     !     *     
     *    (  #         !          
7 )1   /
       
       	
   
 
               
 
     	        
  
       
        
     
        
      

 
 
               	                       
 
  
   
	          
                        
  

    
 
          3    )            
               !  *             
    *         *                 
     *                ;       
    

 /           )             
<                *          
                              
7                     
 !  *             !   (          
   *    !           /
          	  	    
      	       
       
                       

    ; 1                  
             +        *      
        )   !       2     (
       *     !   /  
 *   *   ) *      (    )  
; 1    3    )    
                
     *      )         !  
        )  #      *    
   )              5      
-       ) < !           )  )           !   /
       
                           

    )  !          
    )          #      * 
1                      )
  *        *     *( 
; *       )          
       +   !  *       
  )    ( 1   /   
5    )  (            
  ) "                  
    *        )         
                          *        4    !   )
          /              ! )                + 
          )    *      ( )        !   1    4   
          )      )                  
*    )     /
       
                 
         
 1 !      )   )   *      
 *                     
 !  *        9        (/
       *               
  !                  )
               *       *   )
  !      (   !          /
         )              
4                 (       
   )  !  )!    
  *     ! *             /
       
                          

6     5                )
         !  *             (
*   *     /      
                   
 !  *        5           
  ) 
      !    !   
1  *    *    )    
 !  *(+       0    
        +           
:#*     *   1  )/
Arizona Agriculture Reaches the World
The vast majority of Arizona’s leading agricultural products are traded on the world
market. Arizona’s cotton, cattle products, citrus, wheat as well as various specialty crops
are sold abroad. Primary trade partners include Mexico, Canada, Japan, Australia,
Argentina, Chile and China. Each year Arizona’s farmers and ranchers contribute a great
deal to the nation’s highest quality food and fiber products. With a year-round growing
climate and relatively low cost of water, Arizona’s agricultural industry brings an
estimated $10 billion into the Grand Canyon State’s bustling economy.
Agriculture in the Desert?
Despite Arizona’s dry climate, the river valleys and desert lands where irrigation is used
are brought to life for farming. Arizona’s agriculture is as diverse as its landscapes. From
apples to citrus, cattle and cotton to lettuce and freshwater shrimp, Arizona’s agricultural
industry is among the most innovative and environmentally conscious industries in the
country.
Arizona Agriculture at a Glance
Arizona ranks first in the nation in the average farm size at 3,560 acres. In 2000, Arizona
had nearly 27 million acres of land in farms and ranches. Beef is our leading agricultural
product, producing enough beef annually to feed more than 4.6 million Americans.
Arizona is among the leading producers of lemons, lettuce and melons. Upland cotton,
cattle and cattle products continue to be mainstays for Arizona’s agricultural industry.
Renowned nationwide as a specialty crop state, Arizona’s farmers grow many specialty
crops including vegetables, citrus, nursery plants, nuts, herbs, peppers and even wine
grapes. For Arizona’s producers, international market access is the key to a solid future.
The Evolution of a New Arizona Department of
Agriculture
Legislative Year in Review
The Department was successful in accomplishing its two main legislative priorities in the
First Regular Session of the 45th Legislature.
Sunset Legislation
Arizona law requires all state agencies to be reviewed every ten years as part of a process
known as a Sunset Review. This process includes an audit by the Auditor General to
determine the Department’s effectiveness and necessity. Legislative hearings are
followed by a recommendation of the legislative Committee of Reference to continue the
Department for ten years. The Department sought, and gained legislative approval to
continue the Department until July 1, 2011.
Omnibus Bill
The Department requested an omnibus bill to address statutes that needed to be modified
or repealed, and to implement changes suggested by the Auditor General. These changes
were consistent with the Department’s goals of embracing change and promoting fiscal
responsibility.
The Department’s Omnibus Bill this year made several changes to benefit the agricultural
industry:
• Eliminate pre-transit inspections
By modifying livestock movement statutes, the Department can now permit a livestock owner to
ship livestock going to auctions, feedlots, sale barns or slaughter under a previous inspection
certificate, thus eliminating the requirement that inspections must occur immediately before and
after shipping.
• Deregulate hay brokers
The Legislature repealed statutes requiring hay brokers to be licensed and bonded through the
Department. Because the Department hasn’t had to enforce this statute for more than six years,
brokers no longer need to have a bond on file with the Department. Hay producers are agreeable to
releasing the mandate for a bond.
• Allow the Grain Research and Promotion Council to earn and retain interest on their
account
• Repeal the Date and Pecan Standardization Program
The change was made because both the Department and the industries felt that market-based
quality assurance mechanisms were more stringent than the statutorily established guidelines.
Domestic Farm Wineries Bill
The Department helped Arizona wineries with legislation that enables them to sell wine
from each other’s wineries. This will allow Arizona wineries to cross sell and to promote
other Arizona Grown wine, not just their own.
Department Restructuring
Both the Omnibus Bill and the Sunset Legislation were major steps in promoting changes
that have lead to a new Arizona Department of Agriculture. Prior to the formation of the
Agency, several boards and commissions enforced Arizona’s agricultural laws. New
leadership of the Department is breaking down the old walls and recreating the Arizona
Department of Agriculture. Times have changed, resources are limited and the
Department is reforming to reflect these challenges.
Improved Customer Service
One of the recommendations of the Auditor General was to combine licensing functions
to provide better use of limited resources, improve cash handling practices and cross train
employees. The formation of a Licensing Section has resulted in improved customer
service.
Licensing Section
We pooled personnel with licensing expertise into one office to form the Licensing
Section. Working together in one location allows uniformity in licensing forms, a single
customer database, and uniform cash handling. Customers can now send a vast majority
of their licensing questions to one office.
Office of Review and Investigations
The Office of Review and Investigations is designed to be another tool in the
Department’s efforts to enforce agricultural laws. The Unit is made up of investigators
selected from across divisional lines who are experts in conducting criminal
investigations.
This Office has been charged by the Director to identify and site individuals responsible
for illegal processing or sale of adulterated or contaminated food; individuals responsible
for damage, destruction or theft of native plants; and those responsible for cruelty and the
unlawful killing or theft of livestock.
Citrus, Fruit and Vegetable Standardization Joins Food Safety
and Quality Assurance Program
Citrus, Fruit and Vegetable Standardization (CF&V) and Federal State Inspection Service
(FSIS) offices were relocated to the third floor of the Agriculture building. The move
signifies the Department’s intent to unify food quality and food safety functions under the
Food Safety and Quality Assurance Program.
Food Safety—a Top Focus
Meat, milk, egg, poultry, vegetable and fruit inspections are now the responsibility of one
division. This is a continuation of the department-wide effort to break down existing
barriers, to improve utilization of limited resources, and focus attention on food safety
and quality.
In addition to creating efficiency through cross-training, the Department is focusing more
on food safety by training inspectors to perform third party audit functions within the
food production HACCP plans. HACCP plans are detailed on page 11.
Department Achievements
Legislature Funds Desperately Needed Lab Replacement
Equipment
The Arizona Legislature funded the State Agricultural Laboratory an additional $90,000
to continue the annual replacement schedule of 9% of the laboratory’s equipment each
fiscal year beginning in FY 2002. Inflationary costs for the replacement of the scientific
equipment account for the increased funding.
This much-needed financial support means our lab can continue to respond to emergency
situations and can maintain its scientific integrity. We use scientific equipment to provide
appropriate analyses for health-related, regulatory and environmental samples. The
legislature approved a conservative 12-year replacement schedule for equipment valued
at $3,500,000. The newly budgeted amount helps assure that the Laboratory’s testing
results are defensible in court when regulatory action is taken on the basis of the analyses.
Cibola Quarantine Lifted
An aggressive, two-year Red Imported Fire Ant eradication project at Cibola High
School in Yuma was completed in FY 2000. Over 8,200 mounds were initially identified
across the 25-acre property and within several school buildings. Eradication of the pest
was costly—over $200,000 was expended by the Yuma school district. Our nationally
recognized success in detection and eradication of this pest was the impetus for the
USDA to fund our efforts with a cooperative agreement worth $59,000.
California Leans on our Success
We successfully negotiated a continuation of the California Department of Food and
Agriculture agreement to protect Arizona’s Eastern border from Red Imported Fire Ants
for a period of three years. This agreement solidifies efforts to establish regional
approaches to pest exclusion, and will be the seed for further partnering.
Continuation of this agreement, worth up to $1,475,000 over the next three years, will
enable us to continue operations at the Duncan and Douglas ports and provide expanded
staffing at the high-volume, interstate ports of Sanders and San Simon.
ACT Yuma Field Consultant
The Yuma area has a vast agricultural community with numerous crops grown year round
and an extensive farm-labor force. During the winter months, October through April,
Yuma is known as the Salad Capital of the nation. In an effort to provide a higher level
of service to the community, an office and a full-time ACT Field Consultant position
were established in Yuma. Frank Zamudio, a former Environmental Services Division
Industrial Hygienist, has filled the position and is already working to help train the Yuma
Agricultural Community.
2000 Governor’s Spirit of Excellence Awards
One of only two non-regulatory programs, Agriculture Consultation and Training (ACT),
received the Department’s first Governor’s Spirit of Excellence Award. Requirements to
achieve this prestigious award include strong leadership, a commitment to continuously
improving customer service, increasing productivity and/or decreasing costs in state
government.
This award is representative of the Agency’s efforts to the overall improvement of
programs and services. Since the inception of ACT in 1994, the program has grown from
one of waiting for the phone to ring and handling 44 compliance assistance issues per
year, to one of constantly being on the road and handling more than 1,900 compliance
assistance issues per year.
Foot and Mouth Disease
A World Crisis
During the spring of 2001, the U.S. moved into crisis prevention mode when an outbreak
of an economically devastating livestock disease was discovered in the United Kingdom.
Although Foot and Mouth Disease, or FMD, occurs in many, primarily underdeveloped
countries throughout the world, it had not been seen in the U.K. for two decades.
Many in the U.S., including members of the cattle, sheep, goat and swine industries, as
well as state and federal animal health officials, were alarmed. This is due, in part,
because of the occurrence of such a contagious disease in a country with an extremely
sophisticated animal disease protection system. Because of the close ties with the U.K.,
both through trade and passenger traffic, the U.S. had to prepare for the worst. The U.S.
has not faced this disease for decades. The last outbreak was in 1929 in California.
Increasing Animal Disease Threats
With the ease of international travel and relaxed trade restrictions, comes the threat of a
major economic crisis. Our animal industries are now more vulnerable than ever to a
foreign animal diseases. Foot and Mouth Disease could compromise the health of this
country’s animal industries and the welfare of a nation dependant on an abundant supply
of reasonably priced, safe and wholesome food.
News of the U.K. outbreak, with losses estimated to be as high as 10 percent of the total
livestock population there, initiated a number of activities in the U.S. at both the state and
federal levels to improve the protection of our animal health populations.
Arizona’s Efforts to Protect Our Livestock
While Foot and Mouth Disease is not a human health threat, the Arizona Department of
Agriculture undertook a number of activities to improve its ability to protect, or safeguard
the health of livestock. The Agency has a Foreign Animal Disease Emergency Response
plan.
Animal Disease Emergency Response
The Agency’s emergency response plan encompasses many local and state government
emergency response officials. Tabletop exercises are held to insure that whatever animal disease
outbreak occurs, local, state and federal entities can work together to decrease its overall impact.
Collaboration with the United States Department of Agriculture Animal Plant Health
Inspection Service, is another way we’ve worked to protect Arizona from FMD. We have
trained our inspection staff to work with federal officials at our International Airports and
at state and federal border stations.
Training to Recognize the Symptoms
The State Veterinarian has trained our livestock officers and inspectors, other certified
veterinarians and interested industry personnel to identify the symptoms of FMD and
how to implement biosecurity measures to prevent a local outbreak. These group sessions
and other educational materials were disseminated through public meetings and media
outreach efforts.
Regional Approach
Arizona hosted a border FMD meeting with Mexican border officials and several other
border states including California, Texas, New Mexico and Florida. The goal of the
meeting was to discuss the threat from a regional approach. Early detection and
comprehensive communication were accepted as the best approach. The region remains
on alert for signs of animal disease threats.
SECC Together - We Win
The State Employees Charitable Campaign, or SECC, is an integral part of the Agency
under Director Jones’ leadership. Participating as a Pacesetter Agency for the last five
years means our campaign starts a little earlier and hopefully sets the pace for other
agencies within state government.
From hot dog cookouts, cow milking contests, sight-seeing train rides, multi-agency trap-shooting
competitions and golf tournaments to the enormous generosity evidenced in
Arizona Department of Agriculture employee payroll donations, we have definitely lived
up to the spirit of SECC’s motto, Together—We Win.
We Strive to Succeed
Through our personal, professional achievements, the Arizona Department of Agriculture
is poised to serve its customers and the public into the future. The mission of the Arizona
Department of Agriculture is to regulate and support Arizona agriculture in a manner that
encourages farming, ranching and agribusiness while protecting consumers and natural
resources.
NFACT and National Agricultural Policy
Creating a dialogue at the federal level, five state departments of agriculture formed a
coalition to bolster their efforts aimed at protecting and promoting specialty crops,
livestock, poultry and aquaculture in their respective states. The departments of
agriculture from New Mexico, Florida, Arizona, California and Texas (NFACT)
represent 26 percent of American agricultural cash receipts as well as 27 percent of the
U.S. congressional delegation. Leveraging this significant representation into meetings
with high-ranking federal officials has brought much needed attention to NFACT issues.
NFACT is known for its strong stance on issues such as animal and plant health, food
safety, conservation, international and domestic marketing, research and risk
management.
Congressional Impact
NFACT has used its unified voice to highlight both national and international agricultural
issues of importance. Now that the 107th Congress and Bush Administration are
preparing to develop the 2002 farm policy legislation, NFACT has set as a major goal to
have specific recommendations available for their consideration. In order to capture
diverse agricultural, environmental and regional needs, NFACT hosted 14 listening
sessions from November 2000 through February 2001.
Listening to Farmers and Ranchers
The forums provided an important opportunity for the agricultural, environmental and
academic communities—as well as other concerned stakeholders—to have a strong voice
in crafting the NFACT recommendations. Transcripts of these sessions included
thousands of pages of written and oral testimony, which were both comprehensive and
well presented. (Transcripts are available for review on the Internet at cdfa.ca.gov/nfact.)
Farm Policy Influence
The NFACT coalition sorted through the hundreds of good ideas and critical issues to
arrive at a number of key findings and recommendations. Included in this report are the
consensus recommendations endorsed by the NFACT coalition. NFACT was pleased to
present our recommendations to Capitol Hill as federal farm policy for the new century.
In the coming months, the NFACT coalition is looking forward to working with members
of the 107th Congress, the Bush Administration and U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ann
Veneman to help America’s farmers and ranchers meet the present and future challenges
facing production agriculture in America. Ultimately, NFACT is working hard so that the
men and women responsible for our nation’s food and fiber can achieve their dreams of
continued innovation, productivity and future prosperity.
About Our Leader
Director Sheldon R. Jones
Sheldon R. Jones, Director of the Arizona Department of Agriculture, serves the
Governor, the public and the agriculture industry as the steward of responsible public
policy relating to agricultural, rural economic development, the environment and natural
resources. Director Jones sits on numerous committees and boards where his dedication
to Arizona’s producers and citizens is illustrated by his positions on land, water and
agriculture related issues. Jones represents an increasingly diverse and growing industry.
Through the Department, Arizona agriculture is given a voice that is heard at all levels of
government.
Throughout the year and across the state, Jones promotes agriculture and the role it plays
in Arizona’s burgeoning economy. After all, agriculture is the bedrock of human
civilization and Arizona’s economy, from its earliest point, has relied on the unique and
innovative agricultural producers of our state. From his roots as a cattleman and his
experience as an agribusiness banker, Jones makes every effort to educate the community
on the prosperous past and future of Arizona agriculture.
From hosting foreign leaders interested in trading with Arizona producers, to his
involvement on the Governor’s Water Management Commission, Director Jones ensures
that Arizona’s agriculture industry and its unique interests are adequately represented.
Formal speaking engagements for agricultural enthusiasts and grassroots debates signify
his passion for the community he serves.
With callused hands from a rural upbringing, Jones knows the value of working with
farmers and ranchers. However, he understands the benefit of breaking the mold and
meeting with young people, urban communities and business leaders to find innovative
ways for Arizona agriculture to continue growing.
Future Farmers of America students, 4-H students and citizens participating in festivals
and events are all audiences who have learned that Jones is more than a government
official; they have learned he is a leader who enjoys talking about Arizona agriculture’s
successes and challenges.
He holds the title for fastest celebrity cow milker at the Annual Arizona Ag Day event,
tosses up Arizona Grown salad at the Annual Yuma Lettuce Days and duels fellow
Cabinet members for the State Employee’s Charitable Campaign. Jones is truly a hands-on
director.
National Ag Policy
U.S. Agriculture policy development is usually dominated by issues and concerns of the
citizenry in the Midwest, South and East. Generally, the policies and the programs they
create have limited applicability to Western states, like Arizona. Presently, many
agricultural and environmental organizations are framing the major issues for national
Farm Policy. In fact, the Arizona Department of Agriculture has partnered with
organizations like the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture and the
Western Governors’ Association to develop a national agriculture policy that addresses
the needs of American agriculture and not just the concerns of colleagues in the Midwest,
South and East.
Internationally, Director Jones is strengthening the channels of trade with our neighbors
to the South as Chairman of the Agribusiness Committee for the Arizona-Mexico
Commission. The Arizona-Mexico Commission promotes the importation and
exportation of all food products in Arizona and Mexico. In an effort to break down border
trade barriers, the Commission focuses on ensuring a quality food supply, disease free
animal trade, as well as continuing to foster sound business relationships.
Jones credits his entire staff in facilitating the Department’s accomplishments in serving
Arizona agriculture at home and abroad.
Environmental Services
Overview
The Environmental Services Division changes in responsibility have slowed. Through the
strategic plan implementation of a licensing section and the Office of Review and
Investigation, the division now provides uniform customer service, appropriate cash
handling and follows up on agricultural related crimes. The Division continues to protect
public health, agricultural workers, consumers and the environment. This Division is
responsible for ensuring the proper use of crop protection products. The Department
inspectors ensure compliance with environmental laws and rules by monitoring the
agricultural use of pesticides. Division inspectors also inspect and sample feed, fertilizer,
pesticide and seed in the marketplace to protect consumers.
Staff Allocations
The Environmental Services Division had 41.5 full-time employee positions as of June
30, 2002; 13 were field inspectors, who are responsible for sampling the various products
and assuring compliance with pesticide, feed, fertilizer and worker protection statutes and
rules. One and one-half of these positions are assigned to the laboratory to help in product
analysis. This number reflects the additional staffing for the licensing section and five
investigator positions in the Office of Review and Investigation (ORI), with most
positions coming from the Animal Services Division. Because of the tight and unknown
budget situation, approximately 25 percent of the division’s positions were held vacant
during the year. Four positions will remain vacant within current reduced budget levels.
Registration and Licensing Section
Customer Service
The licensing section allows customers to stop at one location and take care of all
licensing needs. In 2001, the Aquaculture, Meat and Dairy and Egg Licensing programs
were added to the list of services provided. Then in April, Certificates of Free Sale were
added to the Licensing Section. October of 2001 saw the beginning of a mail-in
registration process for equine which created a virtual doubling of walk-in customers and
transactions performed, while maintaining the same customer turn-around times. During
this time, technology came within the section to allow actual pictures of a person’s horse
to be placed on hauling cards. This provided a more professional registration card and
was met with approval from our customers. The Licensing Section is committed to
providing excellent customer service to both our internal and external customers.
Combining Resources
By combining resources from these divisions, we not only provide better customer
service while issuing licenses, but also comply with Generally Accepted Accounting
Practices for cash handling.
Agricultural Licenses
The Licensing Section processes approximately 50 percent of the different types of
licenses issued by the Department, which accounts for about 96 percent of the total
quantity of licenses issued. The office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. After 4:30
p.m., paperwork will be accepted but the issuance of the corresponding license may not
occur until the following day. To apply for a license call (602) 542-3578.
Funds for enforcement of the Commercial Feed Laws come from an annual $10 license
fee and a $0.20 per ton inspection. Fees are paid by licensees and collected by the
Department. Fertilizer Materials Act enforcement funds come from an annual $125
license fee, a $50 per brand and grade specialty fertilizer registration fee and a $0.25 per
ton inspection fee. Revenues for the enforcement of the state Pesticide Registration Law
come from a $100 per brand registration fee. Seed programs are funded from an annual
license fee of $25 for dealers and $40 for labelers. Approximately one-half of the seed
money is utilized to fund a portion of a position at the State Agricultural Lab to do the
seed quality analysis.
One hundred dollars of the fee paid for each fertilizer license and $75 of the pesticide
registration fee help support the Arizona Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund
(WQARF), which is administered by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ) and pays for ground water cleanup projects. In 2002, $834,900 in fees was
collected for the WQARF. Fertilizer license fees contributed $29,100 while pesticide
registration fees made up the remaining $805,800. The table following this section
covers the number of companies licensed, products registered and various credential
holders.
Training and Certification
After passing tests for competency, private and commercial pesticide applicators receive
certification, they can then re-certify through participation in training sessions. In
addition, the Division offers training sessions throughout the year in English and Spanish
to qualify individuals to train workers and pesticide handlers on pesticide safety and
encourage worker protection and safety across the state.
Continuing Education
The Department’s continuing education efforts keep users of restricted use pesticides
aware of current laws, rules and the latest integrated pest management techniques to help
protect the environment through more efficient utilization of pesticides.
Individuals holding commercial certification and pest control advisor licenses are
required to earn six continuing education units each year. Those holding private
certification are required to earn three units each year. Private certification enables
individuals to apply restricted use pesticides on land owned or rented by their employer
or themselves. Commercial certification allows application on any agricultural property.
During FY 2002, 159 training courses including 251 separate sessions approved by the
department provided credential holders an opportunity to earn credits.
Testing Center
With the implementation of the Licensing Section, tests offered by the Environmental
Services Division have expanded. Exams include milk haulers, cottonseed samplers and
a myriad of pesticide use related credentials. With additional exams, a new processes has
been implemented. Individuals are now required to show identification before taking an
exam and the Identification is collected. Individuals are no longer allowed to bring
materials into the testing room. These procedures were necessary after individuals were
caught bringing materials into the exam. In one situation, the individual walked out with
the exam. Tests are administered in Phoenix between 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday at 1688 West Adams Street. To schedule an appointment call (602) 542-
3578. For people not in the Phoenix metro area, the local inspector will provide advice
on testing options.
Exams Administered in FY 2002
TYPE OF EXAM
Total
Exams
Number
Passed
Number
Failed
Passing
Rate
Commercial Applicator (PUC)
115
101
14
88%
Custom Applicator (CA)
7
4
3
57%
Pest Control Advisor (PCA)
74
43
31
58%
Private Applicator (PUP)
140
116
24
83%
Milk Sampler & Hauler
87
82
5
94%
Cottonseed Sampler 4 2 2 50%
TOTALS 427 348 79 87%
National Pesticide Certification
Nationally, the Pesticide Certification Program is undergoing assessment. A national
group of regulatory and extension people are looking at improving the overall quality of
the National Pesticide Training and Certification Program. With the goal of ensuring
professionalism within the pesticide application industry, this will require changes in
some states. Arizona is already ahead of the curve. For certification, Arizona requires
closed book monitored exams for initial certification and continuing education credits for
renewal. The Department continues to play an active role in these national meetings to
develop and discuss ways to improve the federal program. The current areas for revision
nationally include mandatory testing, age limits on who can be certified, closed book
monitored exams and varying the training levels required for different pesticides based on
their toxicity and potential to cause harm. The last issue ties into helping in the national
security effort.
Auditor’s Report
We conduct in-house auditing of feed and fertilizer tonnage reports, perform random
visits to selected and identified feed and fertilizer licensees, and offer on-site reviews of
feed and fertilizer tonnage and pass-through reporting. Additionally, programs that
handle monies are subject to review for accuracy and timeliness of handling.
The auditor’s office issued 102 Feed, Fertilizer, Pesticide and Seed Quality Assurance-
Cease and Desist Orders. It assessed 22 Fertilizer Deficiency Penalties totaling $5,120.98
to 15 different companies.
With guidance from MIS, an ESD Compliance Auditor wrote and installed an MS-Access
program, which monitors and reports deposits made by Animal Services Division
field staff.
Through the guidance of our MIS Division and DeVry student teams, ESD installed and
implemented their Revenue Inventory Tracking System (RITS). Regardless of type or
source, the RITS program enables ESD License/Registration to track all revenues from
the time of receipt to their disposition. To assure timeliness, all items, can be queried and
reviewed. Additionally, the tracking program can verify deposits for each respective
program.
Licenses and Registrations Issued 2002
Pesticide
Total Pesticides Registered*
10,263
Agriculture 1,253
Non-Agriculture 9,010
Fertilizer
Licensed Fertilizer Companies
473
Specialty Fertilizers 1,239
Feed
Licensed Feed Companies
817
Seed Dealers 679
Seed Labelers 173
Dairy/Milk Industry Licenses 62
Aquaculture Licenses 76
Egg & Egg Products 93
Meat Industry Licenses 256
Livestock Brand Certificates 2,400 (Approx.)
Equine Certificates Issued 17,689
************** Calendar Year
Pesticide Use Related Credential Summary
Grower Permits (PGP) 1,218
Pesticide Sellers (PSP) 201
Ag Aircraft Pilots (AAP) 61
Custom Applicators (CAA) 55
Equipment Tags 466
Pest Control Advisors (PCA) 240
Certified Applicators 742
Private Applicators (PUP) 490
Commercial Applicators
(PUC)
252
Pesticide Use Compliance
The Department aggressively monitors pesticide applications and activities related to
mixing and loading pesticides, offers storage and disposal of pesticides and empty
pesticide container disposal to ensure the safety of pesticide workers and handlers and
protects the public from unlawful pesticide exposure.
Monitoring Pesticide Use
As part of a cooperative agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
department inspectors monitor pesticide applications. Inspectors monitor applications of
pesticides in agricultural areas to ensure that pesticides are handled and applied in
accordance with state law and federal pesticide labeling requirements. Monitoring efforts
are also intended to ensure that pesticides are applied in a manner that avoids off-target
movement of the pesticide into areas that might create a hazard to humans, animals or the
environment. Inspectors ensure that protective equipment is used by the applicator and
cautionary measures are followed. Cautionary measures may include proper temperature,
humidity and wind conditions and that the pesticide is only applied by certain methods.
Restricted Use Pesticides
Inspections are conducted at pesticide distributors to ensure that pesticides are properly
registered with the State and the Environmental Protection Agency. Pesticides classified
as restricted use are sold and used only by persons who have proven their competency to
handle the associated risks through certification. This ensures that agricultural
insecticides do not find their way into urban settings for residential use. Inspections are
also designed to identify pesticides that have been manufactured in other countries and
illegally imported into Arizona. Generally, such pesticides are not subject to the same
strict quality control or child-safe packaging measures as pesticides manufactured for use
in the United States and may create undue health risks to people, animals and the
environment.
Pesticide Application Record Keeping
Department inspectors conduct records inspections of pesticide applications made on an
agricultural establishment. Inspectors conduct records inspections of agriculture
pesticide applications to assure the applicator is properly certified to handle restricted use
pesticides, keep records of those pesticide applications, store unused pesticides safely and
dispose of empty pesticide containers in a manner that does not present a risk to humans,
animals or the environment.
Misuse is Taken Seriously
Complaints alleging pesticide misuse are promptly and thoroughly investigated. Once an
investigation is complete, a recommended disposition is prepared. No recommended
disposition can take place without a review and approval by the Associate Director, the
Director and an attorney from the Office of the Arizona Attorney General. If all parties
agree, a complaint can be issued. Negligent parties may negotiate a settlement with the
Department, request a hearing with the Office of Administrative Hearings or pay a
penalty established by law for their actions.
Report Pesticide Misuse
To report pesticide misuse allegations, contact the Pesticide Emergency Hotline at 1-800-
423-8876. This number is monitored regularly, including weekends and holidays. This
line is also used by pesticide applicators to request an inspector to monitor an application
when spraying in pesticide management areas or sensitive areas where agricultural and
urban areas interface. Complaints may also be reported by calling offices located in
Phoenix, Tucson, Yuma and Safford.
Pesticide Use Compliance Rules
The Department continues the process of rewriting the Pesticide Use Compliance rules.
Throughout the year, the Department met extensively with an adhoc group to update the
rules and a final draft was developed for public comment. After the rules went through
the public hearing process and received no negative responses, the package went to the
Governor’s Regulatory Review Council (GRRC). Here the package was required to be
revised extensively to meet their format. The Auditor General’s Office, EPA and GRRC
indicated that a section requiring further review was Article 5, the penalties section,
because it does not adequately address the statutory requirements. As a result, a
supplemental package was opened.
Non-Food Quality Assurance
Feed, fertilizer, pesticide and seed samples are collected by inspectors from products
distributed in Arizona to determine compliance with labeling and quality requirements.
State Agricultural Laboratory staff analyze the samples and report the findings.
Enforcement action is initiated when analysis is found to vary from label guarantees or
when labels are misleading, unclear or are not in compliance with appropriate laws.
Actions may include warning letters, cease and desist orders and/or license cancellations.
In some instances requests for criminal prosecution may be necessary because there is no
civil penalty authority in the Non-food Quality, feed, fertilizer or pesticide programs.
Expenses for enforcement of the feed, fertilizer and pesticide statutes are paid by
licensing, tonnage inspection or registration fees applied to the commodity or product
involved.
Department inspectors are also charged with ensuring that persons who sell or distribute
feed, fertilizer, seed and pesticides are properly licensed and that their products are
lawfully registered in the state. In addition, the State Agricultural Laboratory routinely
collects samples of these products for analysis. Analysis ensures that manufacturer label-represented
guarantees are met, ingredients have not degraded and the product is not
adulterated with anything harmful. This sample analysis ensures that the consumer
receives a quality product. The table below summarizes these sampling activities.
SAMPLE ANALYSIS FOR DEFICIENCIES for FY 2002
Received Reported
Sample Type Collected Analyses
Samples
Reported
Sample Violation
Rate
Analysis Violation
Rate
Cancelled
Feed 307 705 336 14.6% 9.6% 4
Fertilizer 553 1372 577 10.6% 6.0% 6
Mycotoxin 32 130 35 17.1% 4.6% 11
Pesticide
Formulation
201 226 213 7.0% 6.5% 13
Pesticide
Residue
143 176 126 Not Applicable Not Applicable 32
Seed 752 1129 799 5.9% ----- 6
Agricultural Worker Safety
The Department’s Worker Protection Standard (WPS) efforts predate federal standards
and continue to be a benchmark for other states. The Department complements WPS
inspections by remaining in regular contact with the agricultural worker community,
thereby gaining trust and credibility.
Train-the-Trainer
The Train-the-Trainer program was reviewed internally by looking at the surveys
received for training seminars held during the year. The program was revised to ensure
continued interest on the participants’ part. The new program is conducted in
cooperation with Agricultural Consultation & Training staff, who generally follow the
courses with pesticide handler training. The course test has been rewritten and expanded
from 25 questions to 50 questions to test participants' basic knowledge. Reviews
continue to give the program high marks. Meetings are held throughout the year in
agricultural regions of the state to allow easy access by the regulated parties. These
sessions are offered in both Spanish and English.
Make the Grade
Twenty-two Train-the-Trainer courses were taught during this fiscal year, half in English
and half in Spanish. More than 150 people attended these sessions, 110 participants
passed the certification test to become certified trainers for pesticide handlers and field
workers.
Worker Protection Standard
Department inspectors cover the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) through inspections,
participation in training courses and developing training materials. Industrial hygienists
help agricultural establishments who need assistance to be in compliance with the WPS
laws. All hygienists are bilingual and can communicate with the farm worker community
to ensure they are provided the protections required.
The Department continues to play an active role in various organizations from identifying
and coordinating mutual agency requirements to assisting farm workers to become aware
of the laws created for their protection. Periodic meetings are offered to allow outreach
efforts to be extended to the worker community and employers.
US/Mexico Border Exchange
The Department continues participation in the United States/Mexico Border Exchange
Program. The program is coordinated by the Texas Department of Agriculture and
involves all states along the Mexican border. The intent of the program is to educate
people from Mexico and the United States on pesticide issues on both sides of the border.
The goal is to develop an infrastructure and set standards within Mexico to create
uniformity on both sides of the border as it relates to pesticide use, safety and
environmental protection. Consistency on both sides of the border benefits Arizona.
In 2001, funding was used for an inspector exchange program. Arizona hosted two
inspectors from Mexico and introduced them to Arizona agricultural practices and how
we implement pesticide compliance and worker safety programs. Two Arizona
inspectors spent a week learning of their programs and farming practices in Mexico.
National Leadership
Nationally, the federal worker protection program continues to undergo assessment to
ensure its effectiveness. A meeting was held in Orlando, Florida with a broad
representation from the worker, employer and regulatory communities. The Department
was active in the meeting and follow-up conference calls in trying to set up plans for
change. Nationally, the goal is to ensure the safety of workers through quality
inspections. If several Arizona requirements were adopted nationally by the
Environmental Protection Agency, it would help balance worker protection and employer
responsibility. Three examples include worker record keeping requirements, issuance of
training cards and required information exchange between contractors and farms. These
requirements clarify responsibilities as well as allow for training verification by the
employers. These issues are being discussed nationally in addition to the current
notification system, the training requirements and how inspections are done.
Arizona is also part of the national effort to evaluate the Worker Protection Program.
EPA regional offices are reviewing various state programs to ensure the program is being
implemented correctly. Arizona is part of this as this year representatives from the EPA
Region 9 Office traveled to the Yuma and Phoenix areas to conduct WPS Assessments
with local industrial hygienists. The purpose was to review the Department’s program
and enforce a national uniformity of the WPS.
CASE ACTIVITY FY 2002
Cases Opened 95
Cases Still Open or Awaiting
Recommendation
39
Total FY 2001Cases Completed and Closed
in FY 2002
29
Total FY 2002 Cases Completed and Closed
in FY 2002
52
Total Cases Investigated in FY 2002 95
PESTICIDE COMPLAINTS OPENED / INVESTIGATED FY 2002
07/01/01 - 6/30/02 Number of Cases
Agricultural Safety 28
Expired License 12
Drift - Health Effects 7
Drift / Overspray 6
Drift - Property Damage 2
Drift - Fish Kill 2
Illegal Sales 4
Label Violations 4
Avian / Animal Poisoning 3
Unregistered Pesticide 2
Illegal Application 2
Quality Assurance 1
Container Disposal 1
Total Cases 74
Non-Pesticide Related Complaints Received / Investigated FY 2002
Seed – Voided Test Dates 9
Prohibited Noxious Weed 3
Hay Quality 2
Unlicensed Seed Labeler / Dealer 2
Seed Quality Assurance 1
Unlicensed Feed Manufacturer 1
Unregistered Specialty Fertilizer 1
Total Non-Pesticide Related Complaints 19
Office of Review & Investigations
The Office of Review & Investigations (ORI) is primarily responsible for the
investigation of criminal activities involving agricultural laws. The unit is comprised of
special investigators trained to investigate criminal wrongdoing involving native plants,
livestock, food safety and cultural resource protection. The unit was formed to
investigate allegations of criminal activities and review selected departmental
inspections. This approach makes the Department’s ORI program more efficient and cost
effective.
Officer Certification
ORI investigators are certified peace officers and maintain training standards in
investigation techniques, annual handgun qualification and various proficiency
requirements.
Annually, ORI investigators attended the Conservation Law Enforcement Association
Conference held in Prescott and the Archaeological Law Enforcement Workshop
conducted in Camp Verde.
FY 2002 Enforcement Activity
During the fiscal year the unit investigated 78 cases of alleged misconduct. Of this
amount, 34 cases are still pending. Five cases are pending review by County Attorney
Ooffices and the Attorney General’s Office to determine what criminal charges should be
filed against the responsible individuals. Twenty-seven cases were closed due to
insufficient evidence. Six cases were from actions such as warning letters or civil
penalties assessed, 3 cases were closed by conviction and 4 cases were referred to another
agency for further investigation.
Native Plants Investigations
The Arizona Native Plant Law was established in 1929 to protect wild growing plants.
The law has been amended several times, but increased population and water costs have
placed drought tolerant native plants in greater demand for landscaping purposes. The
law requires a State permit to possess any protected native plant taken from its habitat.
Moreover, it is unlawful to destroy or mutilate any protected plant. To regulate the
collection of protected native plants, the Department enforces the law through
investigations, legal action against violators, public awareness programs and permit
issuance. Without a system to enforce legal removal and transportation of protected
native plants, their existence would be vulnerable.
There were 36 native plant cases of theft and destruction with 10 cases still under
investigation. One case is pending review by the County Attorney Office and two by the
Attorney General’s Office. Fourteen cases were closed as having insufficient evidence to
prosecute. Five cases were closed after issuing warning letters and one case was closed
by conviction. One case was referred to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for further
investigation. Department assistance was requested by the State Land Department in two
cases involving reckless destruction of a protected plant.
Livestock Investigations
ORI investigator responsibilities include curtailing the theft and killing of livestock and
enforcing the laws and regulations closely associated with livestock inspection.
Livestock operators who keep cattle or certain other animals on open ranges must have
them marked with a registered brand to establish ownership. Equine ownership/hauling
certification has the same function. Both types of registrations help protect livestock
owners from having their animals stolen.
There were twenty-seven livestock cases involving theft or questionable ownership.
Fifteen cases are still being investigated and two cases are pending prosecution through
the County Attorney’s Office. One case involving 131 head of cattle was closed by
conviction. Eight were closed due to insufficient evidence. One case was closed due to
the recovery of the animals, but no suspects were apprehended.
There were ten cases involving livestock killing or cruelty to animals. Six are still under
investigation and two were closed due to unfounded or insufficient evidence. Two cases
were closed by conviction in which four defendants plead to violations involving either
the cruelty or killing of livestock. One of the cruelty cases was referred to the Maricopa
County Health Board for further investigation.
Food Safety Investigations
ORI investigators assist with illegal animal slaughtering operations. Under Federal and
State standards, public health requirements are fulfilled by enforcing laws and assuring
that Arizona consumers have a safe supply of meat and meat products.
There were 3 cases involving food safety violations. Two are still under investigation
and 1 was deemed to be unfounded.
Cultural Resource Investigations
Material evidence of past cultural heritage is found in many areas in Arizona. This
includes ruins and burial and pictograph sites, none of which can be renewed and when
destroyed, they are gone forever. While no legal action was taken during the fiscal year,
the Department continues to work closely with other agencies to reduce the threat of
losing one of Arizona’s richest legacies.
One case involving theft of artifacts from tribal gravesites on State Trust land is under
active investigation.
Major Case Summary
Protected Theft:
Cases Species No. of Plants Impacted
3 Saguaro 72
1 Pima Pineapple 30
1 Ocotillo 349
1 Barrel 10
Livestock Cases:
Theft No. of Head
23 216
Cruelty No. of Head
4 13
Killing No. of Head
6 17
Ownership Disputes No. of Head
4 210
FY 2002 Enforcement Activities Quantity
Penalties Assessed
During FY 2002
Penalties Paid
During FY 2002
Warning Letters
Regulated Growers – PGP 29 Not Applicable----- - Not Applicable ----
Fertilizer Manuf. / Distrib. 10 Not Applicable ---- Not Applicable -----
Pesticide Manufacturers 9 Not Applicable ----- Not Applicable -----
Seed Dealers 7 Not Applicable ----- Not Applicable -----
Private Sector 4 Not Applicable ----- Not Applicable -----
Private Applicators – PUP 3 Not Applicable ----- Not Applicable -----
Pest Control Advisor - PCA 2 Not Applicable ----- Not Applicable -----
Farm Labor Contractors 2 Not Applicable ----- Not Applicable -----
Pesticide Sellers – PSP 1 Not Applicable ----- Not Applicable -----
WPS Trainer 1 Not Applicable ----- Not Applicable -----
Commercial Applicators - PUC 1 Not Applicable ----- Not Applicable -----
Seed Labelers 1 Not Applicable ----- Not Applicable -----
Total Warning Letters 70 Not Applicable ----- Not Applicable -----
Deminimus Violations Not Applicable Not Applicable
Commercial Applicators - PUC 4 Not Applicable Not Applicable -----
Private Applicators – PUP 1 Not Applicable ----- Not Applicable -----
Total Deminimus 5 Not Applicable ----- Not Applicable -----
Non-Serious Violations
Regulated Growers – PGP 7 $6629.50 $5048.50
Commercial Applicators 3 $2398.00 $398.00
Pesticide Sellers 3 $542.00 $1340.00
Seed Dealers – SDL 2 $500.00 $500.00
Private Sector 1 $1160.00 $71.00
Seed Labelers 1 $1500.00 $1500.00
Private Applicators – PUP 1 $57.00 $57.00
Farm Labor Contractors 1 0 $292.50
Total Non-Serious 19 $12787.50 $9207.00
Notice of Violations
Unregistered Pesticides 84 Not Applicable ----- Not Applicable -----
Seed Label Violation 57 Not Applicable ----- Not Applicable -----
Quality Assurance Seed 22 Not Applicable ----- Not Applicable -----
Prohibited Noxious Weed 17 Not Applicable ----- Not Applicable -----
Unlicensed Seed Labeler / Dealer 14 Not Applicable ----- Not Applicable -----
Unlicensed Feed Manufacturer 15 Not Applicable ----- Not Applicable -----
Unregistered Specialty Fertilizer 9 Not Applicable ----- Not Applicable -----
Quality Assurance / Pesticide 6 Not Applicable ----- Not Applicable -----
Unlicensed Fertilizer Manuf. / Distrib. 3 Not Applicable ----- Not Applicable -----
Label Violation – Pesticide 2 ----- -----
Total Notices of Violation 229 ----- -----
Animal Health and Welfare Program
A high priority of the Arizona Department of Agriculture remains the prevention, rapid
identification and response to devastating diseases of livestock, poultry and commercial
fish, some of which may be transmitted to people, as well as ensuring the humane
treatment of our livestock resources. The Foot and Mouth Disease crisis in the United
Kingdom and Europe, in 2001 and the events of 9-11, underscore the importance of the
Department’s emphasis on animal health prevention and maintenance of animal health
emergency response capability.
Program Changes Implemented
In early 2002, the Livestock Inspection Subprogram and Animal Disease Control
Subprogram of the Animal Disease, Ownership and Welfare Program were merged into
one, the Animal Health and Welfare Program. This occurred as a result of budget
shortfalls resulting in a reduction in force in field personnel in the Livestock Inspection
Subprogram and a need to focus remaining personnel resources on animal health and
welfare issues. With that merger, the State Veterinarian was charged with the added
responsibility for the oversight of the expanded program in addition to the already
established responsibilities for livestock, poultry and commercial fish disease issues,
livestock welfare, and oversight of livestock slaughtering and processing.
Disease Prevention, Rapid Identification, Response,
and Eradication
The prevention of imported diseased animals from other states and countries and the
rapid identification and containment of infected animals that slip through the
safeguarding net is one of the primary goals of the animal health and welfare program.
Animal Health and Welfare officers and inspectors work toward this goal by assisting the
State Veterinarian with the following:
  Monitoring the health of animals moving in interstate commerce including those
moving through interstate and international ports of entry.
  Monitoring the health of livestock at points of concentration such as auctions,
feedlots and dairies.
  Enforcement of laws governing the importation of animals.
  Investigation and control of disease outbreaks.
  Application of quarantines when necessary.
  Enforcement of laws pertaining to the heat treatment of meat garbage fed to swine
(improperly treated meat garbage can spread swine diseases including diseases
foreign to the U.S.).
Additionally, the State Veterinarian collaborates with other state and federal government
agencies in the U.S. as well as Sonora, Mexico, to enforce laws and control livestock and
poultry diseases. Some of these diseases include Foot and Mouth Disease, Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE or Mad Cow Disease), tuberculosis, brucellosis,
rabies, pseudorabies in feral and domestic swine, scrapie in sheep, chronic wasting
disease in deer and elk and other animal diseases foreign to the United States.
Disease Threats
Because an outbreak of a foreign animal disease is high due to increased international
trade (85 percent in the last two years) and passenger traffic along with an escalating
threat of agro bio-terrorism, the State Veterinarian began working on a Foreign Animal
Disease Response Plan in 1998. The plan was completed in 1999 and incorporated into
the State of Arizona Emergency Response and Recovery Plan. It guides the Department
as well as other supporting state, federal and private agencies in the event of an actual
disease emergency. The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced in late FY 2002 that
the Arizona Department of Agriculture would receive a grant totaling nearly $155,000 to
enhance its animal disease surveillance activities and emergency response capability.
Livestock Disease Prevention and Control
Animal Health and Welfare officers and inspectors working in the field are vital in the
initial recognition of unusual animal health events. In order to enhance disease
surveillance and response efforts, all field personnel complete a 40-hour comprehensive
animal disease-training module. The intensive course on animal health, prevention and
control of animal diseases was designed to enhance the ability of Department field
personnel working in the livestock inspection subprogram to recognize the symptoms of
livestock diseases and determine its regulatory significance. In addition, it enhanced the
Department’s ability to investigate and take action on cases involving livestock neglect.
This new knowledge on animal diseases and welfare concerns will assist the Department
as it transitions to an animal health and welfare focus.
Aquaculture Disease and Control
Arizona is well suited to produce warm water fish species such as catfish, tilapia and
shrimp. In addition, production of cold water species such as trout occurs in cooler parts
of northern and eastern Arizona.
Aquaculture statistics for FY 2001/2002 indicate 68 licenses were issued to aquaculture
facilities, transporters and processors including eight for educational or research
purposes. The scope of regulation covers those involved in the growing, transporting and
processing of commercially raised fish and shrimp for human consumption.
When transported, live fish must be accompanied by a certificate of aquatic health.
Because the Department does not have a fish health inspector on staff, the University of
Arizona assists the Department by conducting the fish farm inspections and sample
testing in order to complete the health certifications.
Animal Health Programs
In addition to ongoing state/federal/industry programs for the elimination of brucellosis
and tuberculosis in cattle, pseudorabies in swine and equine infectious anemia in horses,
the Animal Health and Welfare field veterinarians have new responsibilities. These
include TSE’s Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (mad cow disease) in cattle, scrapie
in sheep, Johne’s Disease in cattle and West Nile Virus in horses. To address Johne’s
Disease issues, a Department Advisory Committee was formed and meets regularly to
discuss implementation of a state voluntary program. New rules for individual
identification of sheep and goats in interstate commerce for scrapie control purposes were
implemented in 2001 and will be expanded for sheep and goats in intrastate commerce in
2003. The Animal Health and Welfare Program is ready to address emerging diseases as
they arise.
Inspection Activities
The Animal Health and Welfare Program is focused on protecting and regulating the $5
billion livestock industry. While the primary focus is protecting livestock and horses
from animal disease and ensuring their humane care, the Program works with the Central
Licensing Self-Inspection Program to oversee the owner-generated documentation of
Arizona livestock movement. The ability to trace the movement of animals through the
marketing system is a cornerstone of an effective disease control program. If a diseased
animal is located, the knowledge where the animal has been enables identification of
potentially exposed animals and the implementation of disease reduction strategies.
Self-Inspection Expansion
Because of reduced field personnel and the need to focus on animal health activities, the
Director suspended several of the ownership inspection duties while relying on the
existing voluntary self-inspection program until a mandatory program could be
established. In order to trace infected animal movements in the absence of inspection
documentation generated by Department employees, self-inspection participants were
urged to continue using the program. In addition, expanded use of the program by
livestock owners that previously had not utilized self-inspection was encouraged.
Out-of-State Movement Inspections and Inspections of
Custom Slaughter Animals Continue
While details of the self-inspection program are being ironed out, our Animal Health and
Welfare officers and inspectors have continued to provide inspection services to ranchers
wishing to ship their livestock out-of-state and when cattle are sold to another. This
ensures the continued marketability of their animals. Continuation of this activity will
depend upon availability of field personnel and possible additional budget cuts. While
the Department considers ownership inspection to be important, animal health threat
reduction is a higher priority. Discussions to determine whether this type of ownership
inspection will continue are ongoing.
Livestock owners who have their animals slaughtered at facilities but do not have regular
inspection service by Department or USDA employees must still have their animals
inspected by an Animal Health and Welfare officer or inspector. This inspection is
conducted to ensure the safety of the meat product even though it will not be used for sale
to the general public.
Internal and External Stakeholder Meetings to Revamp Self-
Inspection
Before legislation passed in 2002 and gave the Department the authority to design and
implement a mandatory self-inspection program, the Department put together an internal
and external stakeholder group to review the program. While the proposed rules
governing mandatory self-inspection work through the promulgation process, discussions
will be held with ranchers to obtain their input into the program design. It is expected
that the mandatory program will be fully implemented in early 2003.
Theft and Stray Issues Continue to be Addressed
The Animal Health and Welfare Program also works in concert with the Office of
Review and Investigations to follow-up on reports of livestock theft. On the other hand,
strays are handled as they historically have been. Strays without owners along the
international border are seized and checked for diseases before being released for sale.
Strays from the interior of the state are identified and the owner, if known, is notified. If
the stray is unclaimed, it is contained and remanded to the nearest livestock auction for
sale.
After-Hours Service
The Animal Health and Welfare Program further refined the after-hours answering
system. Rather than paying for a costly answering service, local and 1-800 contact
numbers were maintained and tied to a voice mail box that would immediately notify a
veterinary professional on duty. If the matter is deemed an emergency, the appropriate
field personnel are contacted for response. In addition, cellular telephone numbers for
the field personnel are available to the ranching industry. The after-hours contact
numbers are (602) 542-0872 or (800) 294-0305.
At Your Service
As the program has evolved, communications between the Animal Health and Welfare
Program officers/inspectors and their ranching customers has improved. All animal
health and welfare officers and inspectors are equipped with cell phones with voice
messaging and maintain regular contact with headquarters using two-way radios. If the
officer/inspector cannot be reached when a call is received, the customer is now able to
leave a voice message.
Livestock Industry Services
Animal Health and Welfare officers and inspectors serve the citizens and livestock
industry of Arizona by protecting livestock from contagious and infectious diseases,
ensures that animal movements are tracked and inspect custom slaughter animals for
health. Acting on behalf of the State Veterinarian, officers and inspectors may enter any
premises where livestock are kept or maintained to examine evidence of ownership,
inspect the animals for health or to confirm their humane care.
As a result of workforce reduction, the field component of the Animal Health and
Welfare Program consists of five officers and thirteen inspectors who are assisted by a
cadre of part-time deputies that help during increased inspection demands. Two officers
have received advanced training in equine welfare issues and take the lead in complicated
welfare cases.
Foot and Mouth Disease: A World Animal Disease Crisis
During the spring of 2001, the U.S. was knocked into crisis preparation mode when an
outbreak of an economically devastating livestock disease was discovered in the United
Kingdom. Although Foot and Mouth Disease, or FMD, occurs primarily in
underdeveloped countries throughout the world, it had not been seen in the U.K. for two
decades.
Many in the U.S., including members of the cattle, sheep, goat and swine industries as
well as state and federal animal health officials were shocked. This was due in part,
because the outbreak occurred in a country with a sophisticated animal disease protection
system. Because of our close ties through trade and passenger traffic with the U.K., the
U.S. prepared for the worst. The U.S. has not faced this disease for decades. Our last
outbreak was in 1929 in California.
Threat of Agro-Terrorism Increases
On September 11th 2001, our country was rocked by the purposeful destruction of life and
property by a terrorist organization bent on disrupting countless American freedoms.
Undeniably, these events underscored our country’s vulnerability to terrorist acts on
people and property. In addition, it became apparent that we had numerous types of
vulnerabilities including the potential for intentional terrorism acts on the agriculture
industry. This horrible event demonstrated that the Department’s move to protect the
health and vitality of the livestock industry was wise. The threat of an intentional
introduction of a foreign animal disease has never been greater. The Animal Health and
Welfare Program is positioned to make the most of limited resources to prevent, identify,
contain and eliminate diseases which would have a major economic impact on not just
the livestock industry, but also the public in general.
Increasing Animal Disease Threats
With the ease of international travel and relaxed trade restrictions, there comes the threat
of a major economic crisis. Our animal industries are now more vulnerable to a foreign
animal disease. Foot and Mouth Disease could compromise the health of our country’s
animal industries and the welfare of a nation dependant on an abundant supply of
reasonably priced, safe and wholesome foods.
With losses estimated to be as high as 10 percent of the total livestock population there,
news of the U.K. outbreak initiated a number of activities in the U.S. at both the state and
federal levels to improve the protection of our animal health populations from a similar
calamity.
Arizona’s Efforts to Protect Our Livestock
While Foot and Mouth Disease is not a human health threat, the Department undertook a
number of activities to improve its ability to protect and safeguard the health of its
livestock. In addition to outreach activities to raise the level of awareness of foreign
animal diseases, the Department worked with the state’s Division of Emergency
Management to prepare an incident action plan in the event that Arizona becomes the site
of an animal health emergency. This plan supplements the existing Animal Disease
Emergency Response Plan that was put in place several years ago.
Animal Disease Emergency Response
The emergency plan encompasses various local and state government emergency
response officials. Tabletop exercises have been held to ensure that whatever animal
disease outbreak occurs, local, state and federal entities work together to decrease its
overall impact.
Collaboration with the United States Department of Agriculture Animal Plant Health
Inspection Service is another way we have worked to protect Arizona from FMD. We
have trained our inspection staff to work with these federal officials at our International
Airports as well as interstate and international border stations.
Training to Recognize the Symptoms
Our State Veterinarian has trained Animal Health and Welfare officers and inspectors,
private veterinary practitioners and interested industry to identify the symptoms of FMD
and how to implement biosecurity measures to prevent a local outbreak. These group
sessions and other educational materials were disseminated through public meetings and
media outreach efforts.
Homeland Security Grant
In June 2002, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced the distribution of funds to
each state’s Departments of Agriculture to augment their surveillance and emergency
response capabilities. The Department’s work plan includes purchasing equipment to
improve the communication with field personnel and hiring an emergency-planning
veterinarian. This specialist veterinarian will devote their entire time to emergency
planning and preparedness and outreach activities on the recognition of foreign animal
diseases. In addition, this individual will expand the animal health emergency planning
process to include the counties.
Response to Rodeo-Chediski Fire
In June 2002, the Department was asked to provide support to the Rodeo-Chediski fire in
northern Arizona. The Animal Services Division Associate Director and State
Veterinarian were called upon to provide full-time animal issue support to the State’s
Emergency Operations Center located at the Papago Park Military Reservation. In
addition, several Animal Health and Welfare officers/inspectors and an investigator from
Office of Review and Investigations provided valuable assistance at the disaster site on
livestock related issues. One happy story demonstrating the dedication of these field staff
was the rescue of several ostriches that were located on a burning property.
FMD—A Foreign Threat to U.S. and Arizona Livestock
Foot-and Mouth disease is a severe, highly communicable viral disease of all cloven-hooved
animals are susceptible to. Virtually 100 percent of animals in exposed herds will
become infected and younger animals may die from the disease. FMD does not affect
cats, dogs or horses and is NOT a threat to human health.
How FMD is Spread
• The virus can become airborne and breathed in by nearby susceptible animals.
• While the disease is not considered a threat to humans, it is possible for a person
to mechanically spread the virus to susceptible animals, especially on
contaminated shoes or clothing.
• The disease can be spread when susceptible animals come into contact with feed,
feeding utensils, vehicles or holding facilities that have been contaminated with
the virus.
• The FMD virus can be carried in raw meat, animal products or milk from FMD-exposed
or infected animals.
Prevention and Control
Animals and animal by-products from infected areas are prohibited entry into the U.S. A
single infected animal or a contaminated meat product could carry the virus to our
livestock.
Animals in this country are highly susceptible to FMD. They have not developed
immunity to it because FMD has not occurred in the U.S. since 1929. If an outbreak
were to occur, this disease could spread rapidly to all sections of our country by routine
livestock movements unless detected early and eradicated immediately.
If FMD were to spread unchecked, the economic impact could reach billions of dollars in
the first year. The nation’s deer and other wildlife populations could also rapidly become
infected and contagious.
Keep FMD Out! Do Your Part!
The U.S. has restrictions in place to prevent the introduction of FMD-infected animals
and animal products.
• If you suspect a disease problem, report it immediately to your local veterinarian
or regulatory animal health official.
• FMD spreads fast! Early detection and reporting are critical. Don’t move animals
that may be affected. If you suspect a problem, stop all visitors from entering your
premises.
Traveling Abroad? Take Precautions:
• Avoid contact with animals or areas where animals have been held for at least five
days before returning to the U.S.
• Before returning to the U.S., launder or dry clean all clothing, jackets and coats
and disinfect your shoes.
• If you have visited a farm abroad and live, work or plan to visit a farm in the U.S.,
shower, shampoo and change into clean clothing and wait at least five days before
contacting any livestock in the U.S.
• Remove all dirt or organic material from shoes, luggage, personal items, etc. and
wipe them with undiluted table vinegar or other disinfectant approved for FMD
virus.
• Don’t bring animal products home.
• Avoid contact with livestock or wildlife for at least five days after you get home.
Economic Impact of FMD
The at-risk livestock population in Arizona is worth more than $600 million and over
$1.4 billion worth of products are produced yearly.
• The primary impact of FMD is drastic loss of production of meat, milk, wool and
offspring.
• Although not a food safety problem, consumers may lose confidence in the safety
of meat food products. Economic impact includes reduction in meat supply as well
as increase costs of meat.
• The sale and international shipment of animals and animal products would be
drastically restricted. This impact alone is worth $5 billion per year in the U.S.
• Eradication costs are very high. All animals exposed to the virus, and those
nearby, must be destroyed to prevent the spread of disease.
For more information on Foot and Mouth Disease visit www.agriculture.state.az.us or
www.aphis.usda.gov or contact (602) 542-4293.
Commodity Development and Promotion
The Office of Commodity Development and Promotion (CDP) supports Arizona’s
agriculture by providing a number of marketing and outreach services. While our
agriculture industry continues to be among the leaders in the nation in crop diversity and
self-reliance, trade and marketing assistance are two requests we receive frequently.
Outreach and Promotion
We work to promote Arizona agriculture to local consumers and potential trading
partners in cooperation with the state’s farmers, ranchers and agribusinesses through
various marketing and outreach opportunities.
Our services are organized into two programs focused on domestic channels of trade and
the other focused on international trading opportunities. Both programs develop and
enhance markets for Arizona agricultural products, increase consumer awareness and
educate the public about quality products raised in Arizona.
FY 2002 was a year of tremendous change in CDP, with more than half of its staff and
operating budget eliminated by specific legislative funding reversions.
Serving Arizona’s Agricultural Industry
Throughout FY 2002 several targeted promotions were held to increase consumer
awareness and increase sales of Arizona Grown agricultural products. Additionally, we
assisted the agriculture industry by answering consumers’ questions regarding local
agriculture, provided educational materials to school children and teachers for curriculum
development, marketed Arizona’s products at national tradeshows and worked with the
agriculture industry to improve the logistics involved in product movement.
National Marketing Program
Unfortunately, the Arizona State Legislature eliminated the funding for the National
Marketing Program, which included Arizona Grown appropriation and the National
Marketing Program Manager position.
Arizona Grown
The centerpiece of CDP’s marketing and outreach tools is the Arizona Grown logo
program. Arizona Grown is a licensed trademark of the Arizona Department of
Agriculture and is used to differentiate high quality food and fiber products produced in
the Grand Canyon State.
Overall, the logo is used to increase the consumption and use of locally grown
agricultural products. We showcase how Arizona Grown products benefit the consumer
and our agriculture industry, as well as work to educate consumers about the availability,
freshness, quality and variety of the products grown in our state.
While the appropriation for the Logo-Recognition Program was eliminated, CDP has
developed a number of strategies to increase brand recognition of the logo. For example,
CDP was successful in obtaining the passage of legislation in FY2002, which authorizes
items labeled with the Arizona Grown logo to be sold. As a result, all funds raised from
the effort will be invested and credited toward future marketing activities. Additionally,
CDP was successful in its efforts to advocate for the passage of federal legislation that
appropriated $3.93 million to the ADA for promotion of Arizona specialty crops and
agriculture in general.
As a result of the federal legislation, CDP was able to award numerous grant awards
directly to Arizona’s farming and ranching communities for projects that develop
important research, expand markets for Arizona Grown products and educate Arizonans
about the value of Arizona agriculture.
Ask for Arizona Grown
You can find a variety of Arizona Grown products year-round in seven retail supermarket
chains representing 350 stores. That makes up 75 percent of the supermarkets in
Arizona. In fact, more than 140 agriculture businesses use the Arizona Grown logo to
differentiate their high quality, locally grown products from the competition.
You’ll find the logo on everything from carrots and citrus to onions and tomatoes in a
number of retail and wholesale operations around the state. Be sure to ask your local
retailer to carry Arizona Grown food and fiber products.
International Marketing Program
The International Program of the Marketing and Outreach Office works to promote and
support Arizona agriculture and agribusiness throughout the world. The International
Program uses various promotional activities to target foreign buyers of Arizona
agricultural products. As new markets continue to embrace free trade, Arizona
agriculture will capitalize on exporting many Arizona Grown commodities. In 2001-
2002 we continued our focus on Japan, Canada, and Mexico. These countries are the
leading markets for Arizona’s agricultural products and remain our largest trading
partners.
Funding for our international marketing services is allocated entirely from a range of
sources from the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service’s Market Access Program to the
Western United States Agricultural Trade Association (WUSATA) to the United States
Livestock Genetics Export, Inc. Awards are based on strategic planning, market potential
and industry support for each promotional activity. Although funding is limited, we have
been able to initiate a number of quality promotions internationally for various Arizona
farmers, ranchers and agribusinesses.
Trade Shows and Missions
One successful avenue the Arizona Department of Agriculture informs and educates
international buyers about the wealth of Arizona Grown products is through international
trade shows and missions. In these programs, the Department works with industry
representatives and companies and accompanies them to international locales to find
buyers interested in their products.
Obregón, Mexico, November 2001
In November 2001, the Arizona Department of Agriculture accompanied five industry
members to Ciudad Obregón, Mexico for an agricultural tour of the region. The
delegation toured Estación Don, the quarantine station leading into Sonora. In addition to
this tour, the delegation met with several growers, toured farms and visited a biological
control research farm. This research farm is growing predator insects that will help
contain pests in the agricultural fields. This research benefits both Arizona growers and
consumers by offering an organic method of controlling pests without pesticides in
similar climates.
Agribition, Regina, Canada, November 2001
In November 2001, an Arizona Department of Agriculture representative traveled to
Regina, Canada to attend one of Canada’s largest livestock shows, Agribition 2001.
During this mission, the representative handed out flyers and cattle directories detailing
Arizona’s ranching industry. Several important contacts were made at the International
Reception, with not only the Canadian officials, but with officials as far away as the
United Arab Emirates and as close as Mexico. From this trip, the Department has been
working with the Arizona Cattlemen’s Association to follow up on leads and disseminate
information.
FoodEx, Tokyo, Japan, March 2002
In March 2002, the Arizona Department of Agriculture took a delegation of greenhouse
tomato growers to Tokyo, Japan for FoodEx 2002. The group had a booth at FoodEx in a
premier location. In addition to exhibiting at the show, arrangements were made to tour
tomato import houses, wholesale markets and retails stores. The participants obtained
vast amounts of information about the Japanese market and the preferred taste of
Japanese consumers.
The Japanese were impressed with the “on the vine” or cluster ripened tomato varieties
grown in Arizona. Several Japanese importers stated they wanted to purchase the
tomatoes, as vine ripened tomatoes are currently not sold in Japan. Arizona successfully
found a niche market for their commodities, which promises to be fruitful.
FMI, Chicago, May 2002
The Arizona Department of Agriculture attends the Food Marketing Institute (FMI) Show
each May in Chicago. While the show has a domestic location, it highlights international
visitors. This is the second consecutive year that the Arizona Department of Agriculture
attended the show. In 2001, two Arizona companies chose to exhibit in the Arizona
booth. Both companies reported a positive experience and will participate with Arizona
again.
Foreign Delegations
Because of Arizona’s title “land of perpetual harvest,” foreign delegations often visit
Arizona in the hopes of obtaining information about our successful agricultural industry.
This past year, the Arizona Department of Agriculture hosted four separate delegations
from four countries.
Japan, September 2001
The Arizona Department of Agriculture hosted a group of Japanese importers interested
in importing prickly pear cactus products. The Japanese were interested in health
benefits that might be derived from eating such products and if there were any side
effects. After meeting at the Arizona Department of Agriculture and hearing about
Native Arizonans that have eaten cactus for years, the Japanese were assured the product
was safe. As a result, the natural desert product companies that were involved in this
program have sold over $25,000 of prickly pear juice to the Japanese since the visit.
Israel, December 2001
The general director of the Israeli Ministry of Agriculture visited Arizona in December
2001. This small delegation was interested in learning about our water resources and
how a predominantly desert state manages water. The group toured water reclamation
plants, Salt River Project and met with officials from the Arizona Department of
Agriculture and the Department of Water Resources.
Namibia, March 2002
The Secretary for Development and Agriculture from the African country of Namibia
visited Arizona in February, 2002. Interested in promoting trade and investment between
Arizona and Namibia, the Secretary also visited Arizona’s biggest shrimp farm. The
shrimp farm presents itself to foreign countries as an unusual commodity and as such
often attracts international visitors who wish to see a shrimp farm “in the middle of the
desert.”
Macedonia, April 2002
A group of Macedonian marketers were hosted by the Arizona Department of Agriculture
for one day. The group toured through Arizona to learn about how Arizona markets
agribusiness and agricultural commodities to the public. Macedonia has a large
agricultural sector and these professionals were interested in learning about successful
techniques used by both the public and private sectors in Arizona. The Arizona
Department of Agriculture explained the genesis of the successful ‘Arizona Grown’
program, along with other promotional campaigns conducted by the Office of Marketing
and Outreach.
Support Programs
In addition to working directly with industry to promote Arizona Grown agricultural
goods, the International Programs office offers support throughout the industry to
overcome challenges and take advantage of opportunities.
Export Readiness
Six companies took advantage of the Department’s Annual Export Readiness Program,
set up through WUSATA. Part of the Branded Program component at WUSATA, the
Department brought in an international trade consultant with over 20 years experience in
pioneering and developing overseas markets. The companies registered for a one-on-one
two hour session with the consultant to discuss their market plans, products and labeling.
These sessions provided insight for the companies and exposed them to new marketing
ideas. After meeting and discussing their marketing plan, one company reported new
sales over $40,000 in Canada. This is a true example of how export readiness can work
for growing agricultural based companies.
Douglas Crossing Pens
Under the auspices of the Arizona Mexico Commission, the Department is continually
working with Cochise County, the Arizona Department of Transportation and the City of
Douglas to find ways to pave roads from cattle crossing pens in Douglas. Arizona
cattlemen are interested in exporting their breeding cattle to Mexico and the crossing
pens can offer them the means to facilitate that. The ADA has promised to continue
working towards a successful resolution of this issue.
ACCORD
In May 2002, Arizona hosted the 12th annual Tri-National ACCORD meeting in Rio
Rico, Arizona. This annual meeting started during the NAFTA negotiations in the early
90s. Officials from the three signatory countries of the NAFTA agreement meet to
discuss agricultural trade issues. This high level meeting had directors and secretaries
from most of the U.S., Mexican States and Canadian Provinces. In fact, the International
Program was instrumental in arranging accommodations for the Mexican delegation.
What to Expect in FY 2003
As a result of marketing activities in 2002, CDP successfully distributed marketing
material throughout the world. The programs will continue to build upon these
foundations and add new international markets where Arizona producers of both
processed foods and bulk commodities can successfully compete. In addition to these
programs, we will explore new opportunities in both Europe and South America. We
hope to implement these programs within two to three years.
Marketing Successes
As a result of these marketing activities, Arizona successfully distributed marketing
literature around the world about the quality and freshness of Arizona Grown
commodities. The programs will continue to build upon these foundations and add new
international markets where Arizona producers of both commodities and fresh products
can successfully compete.
Expanding Consumer Awareness
In the next year, the Department will seek to extend consumer awareness of Arizona
Grown products by partnering with a variety of industries. Watch for the office to work
with restaurants, hotels, retailers, wholesalers, as well as the media and community-based
organizations to increase the value of the Arizona Grown logo.
Throughout the next fiscal year, the Department will continue to build upon the
challenges of FY 2002 while adding new domestic and international markets in which
Arizona’s agricultural producers and processors are well-suited to compete.
Citrus, Fruit and Vegetable
Standardization
Growers, shippers, dealers and commission merchants in Arizona’s citrus, fruit and
vegetable industries rely on the Arizona Department of Agriculture Citrus, Fruit and
Vegetable Standardization (CF&V) program. The Standardization Program ensures
product quality standards are maintained.
Product quality standards are established for each commodity produced or marketed in
Arizona. Inspections encompass quality (such as color, shape and condition factors like
bruising and decay), size, maturity, processing and labeling. Inspections take place in
fields, packinghouses, coolers and warehouses. Industry uses the program for quality
control to help in the marketing of their products.
Customer Satisfaction
Arizona has an immense variety of citrus, fruits and vegetables available to consumers
throughout the year. Arizona ranks third in the nation for production of fresh market
vegetables. Citrus, Fruit and Vegetable inspectors ensure product quality. For example,
lemons are tested for their maturity and size, which is important to fruit shippers. Grapes
and melons are tested for ripeness and sugar content. All vegetables and fruits are
inspected for defects such as scars or irregularities of shape, which are important to
choosy customers.
Arizona’s top five commodities rank second nationally and account for 68 percent of the
State’s produce production. The following are the cartons shipped for each commodity in
order of their volume:
   Head lettuce 34,978,189
   Romaine 9,420,357
   Cantaloupe 8,826,465
   Broccoli 6,069,386
   Leaf lettuce 4,917,738
  
Federal-State Partnership
The Citrus, Fruit and Vegetable Standardization program successfully completed the
sixth year of managing the Federal-State Inspection Service fresh produce inspection and
terminal market programs in Nogales, Phoenix and Yuma under cooperative agreement
with the USDA. USDA inspections are given by federal-state inspectors and take place
primarily at the shipping point (point or origin), port-of-entry (Arizona-Mexico border) or
the terminal market (point of destination).
The program also enforces U.S. import requirements and marketing order restrictions at
Arizona’s border with Mexico. Nogales, Arizona is the second busiest port-of-entry for
produce in the United States. Last year over 20.2 million packages of tomatoes and 11.7
million lugs of table grapes imported from Mexico were inspected.
In FY 2002, the Citrus, Fruit and Vegetable program and the shipping point inspection
program in Yuma and Phoenix developed cost-reduction efficiencies for the agriculture
industry through the cross-training of inspectors to handle both state and federal
inspections.
Third Party Audit
The Fresh Produce industry requested that the Arizona Department of Agriculture
develop and implement a Third Party Audit Program. Representatives from the Arizona
Department of Agriculture along with other western states' Departments of Agriculture
and the United States Department of Agriculture, met several times during the year to
develop a Third Party Audit Program within the framework of USDA Agricultural
Marketing Service/Federal -State Inspection. The audit program is designed to audit the
Good Agricultural Practices and Good Handling Practices for the produce industry and
will operate for one year as a pilot program. Some Federal-State inspectors in Nogales,
Yuma and Phoenix are training to be licensed by USDA as auditors.
Industry Funded
Both the state and federal programs are entirely self-funded and have no general fund
allocations. Industry supports the Citrus, Fruit and Vegetable program through license
fees, inspection fees and industry assessment, which are reviewed monthly and adjusted
yearly. The two programs together conducted 88,385 inspections this past year. Citrus,
Fruit and Vegetable issued 489 licenses and Arizona acreage produced over 94 million
cartons of fresh produce.
Industry Support
The Citrus, Fruit and Vegetable Standardization Advisory Council is Governor-appointed
and represents the citrus, fruit and vegetable industry in Arizona. This group is comprised
of leaders in their respective fields. The Citrus, Fruit and Vegetable Advisory Council
meets quarterly with the program to review and make recommendations on policy and
budgetary items.
Statewide Gleaning Project
Gleaning is harvesting surplus crops for the hungry. The Arizona Department of
Agriculture plays an integral role in the statewide gleaning effort. The Statewide
Gleaning Project is an Executive Order of Governor Jane Dee Hull. Citrus, Fruit and
Vegetable inspectors notify key food bank officials of upcoming seasons and identify
potential crop donations. Participating producers donate food instead of discarding it.
Volunteers, inmate labor and food banks harvest the fields. In addition, many other state
agencies support other portions of the program. As a result of this combined effort, more
than 32 million pounds of produce was collected and distributed to food banks and other
organizations during FY 2002.
Food Safety and Quality Assurance
Animal Products
The Arizona Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Quality Assurance Programs
are established to protect consumers, both in terms of public health and in getting what
they pay for.
We serve consumers by providing food safety inspection and grading services for dairy
farms and processors, dairy products, egg and egg products and meat and poultry
products. We also provide inspections and grading services for shipments of food
products to other states and countries.
A Renewed Focus on Food Safety
After the September 11, 2001 incident, the Food Safety and Quality Assurance programs
have a greater focus on food safety. In particular, a focus on the deliberate contamination
of our food supplies. In cooperation with federal, state and county agencies, ADA is
doing its part to establish a food safety net for Arizonans.
HACCP—A Plan for Safe Foods
Meat and Poultry Industry
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) is a methodology, originally
established by NASA and Pillsbury to produce safer food products for astronauts who
cannot afford to be sick in space. HACCP procedures have significantly impacted the
food processing industry, especially for meat and poultry. Meat packers are responsible
for establishing their own HACCP program in compliance with federal and state laws.
Implementing into Dairy
The HACCP concept is currently expanding into other areas of food safety. In dairy
programs nationally, the National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments (NCIMS) has
implemented a pilot HACCP project. We have participated in this conference, in
furtherance of consumer protection and safety.
Expanding into Eggs
A similar project is being implemented in egg inspection. USDA and the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) formed a national food safety committee with a number of states
participating. The Arizona Department of Agriculture was asked to participate in this
important movement to bring all egg packers under sanitary standards and testing.
The Seven HACCP Principles
The National Advisory Committee on Microbial Criteria outlined the latest version of
HACCP in the International Journal of Food Microbiology in 1992. The Committee
defined the HACCP process with seven principals.
1. Conduct a hazard analysis. Prepare a list of steps in the process where significant
hazards can occur and describe the preventive measures.
2. Identify the Critical Control Points (CCPs) in the process. That is, items in a plan
where it can reasonably be expected that food safety might be compromised.
3. Establish critical limits for preventive measures associated with each identified
CCP. Determine how high a temperature might be allowed on a food product
when receiving or processing, limits
for pH, etc.
4. Establish CCP monitoring requirements. Establish procedures for using the results
of monitoring to adjust the process and maintain control. This might include
recording thermometers or other equipment designed to take temperatures and
how that information might be used to maintain control of product.
5. Establish corrective actions to be taken when monitoring indicates that there is a
deviation from an established critical limit. Establish how to deal with the results
of non compliance with the HACCP plan to ensure food safety.
6. Establish effective recordkeeping procedures that document the HACCP system.
7. Establish procedures for verification that the HACCP system is working correctly.
Dairy Products Inspection
Agency dairy inspectors are charged with providing food and facility inspections at
every level within the dairy industry. The consumer is served by this general fund
program that provides microbiological sampling, physical inspections of dairy farms,
plants and proper label usage of animal drugs and dairy products. Dairy products that do
not meet microbiological, labeling or other standards are removed from sale.
Dairy Product Inspections
We conduct routine sampling of dairy products, both in raw (not heat treated to
pasteurize and kill microorganisms) and consumer ready forms of milk products. These
samples are collected at dairy farms, from dairy tankers, holding facilities and in finished
product form. The samples are tested by State Agricultural Lab microbiologists, who
conduct food safety tests to ensure consumers get wholesome products.
Bacteria Checks
Dairy products are commonly checked for Coliform bacteria, Listeria and Salmonella.
Coliform bacteria often serve as indicators of the quality of milk, and the conditions it
was produced under. Both Listeria and Salmonella can cause vomiting and diarrhea.
Egg Inspection
Egg inspection staff regulate the production and sale of eggs and egg products sold in
Arizona. A staff of six inspectors perform state and federal inspections and grading at
packing plants, wholesalers and retailers. The program enforces both federal and state
quality and grade standards.
School Lunch Protection
Part of the USDA cooperative agreement includes sampling poultry products shipped to
Arizona for the USDA school lunch program. Annually, millions of pounds of poultry are
distributed to Arizona schools. Inspectors ensure that product received is safe and in good
condition prior to acceptance by the State.
Meat and Poultry Inspection
The Meat and Poultry program is charged with the regulation of all meat and poultry
products under the state inspection program. Under a cooperative agreement with USDA-Food
Safety Inspection Service (FSIS), processing plants under state inspection are
administered by
the State of Arizona. The cost for this program
is borne equally by the state general fund and the USDA.
Live Animal Inspections
Meat inspectors are charged with both live and post mortem inspections of animals
presented for slaughter. Inspectors check for the condition of the animals upon their
arrival at the slaughter facility and the sanitary conditions during slaughter. Inspectors
examine carcasses to ensure they are disease-free and wholesome prior to further
processing. Inspectors also ensure the humane treatment of animals presented for
slaughter.
Plant Sanitation Inspections
Our inspectors also oversee plant sanitation and check to be certain that all meat-processing
facilities adhere to HACCP procedures developed in accordance with state
and federal law. In further processing, formulations (mixtures of water, sugar, salt, spices,
etc.) are checked.
Check the Label
Labels are approved for ingredients and clarity prior to the triangular mark of state
inspection being granted. Products are microbiologically sampled and tested at the State
Agricultural Lab. Testing is also performed for fat, moisture and other types of economic
analysis that affect consumers. This way, consumers do not have to pay for fat in excess
of the label amount or for excessive water in some meat.
State/Federal Inspections
Arizona, as well as several other state governments, looks forward to the passage of a
federal law that will allow interstate shipment of meat and meat products produced under
supervision of state meat inspection programs. This enables facilities producing meat
products under state inspection the same ability to ship meat and meat products interstate
as under federal inspection. Without this bill, state inspected plants are not authorized to
ship meats interstate.
Agricultural Consultation and Training
A Unique Approach to Compliance Assistance
The Agricultural Consultation and Training program (ACT) is an innovative compliance
assistance program unique to an agricultural regulatory agency. ACT’s primary goal is to
provide worker safety and environmental compliance assistance to Arizona’s diverse
agricultural community.
The ACT program focuses on two main areas of compliance assistance: the Worker
Protection Standard (WPS) and the Regulated Agricultural Activities Assistance Program
(RAAAP).
Growers Receive Assistance with Complicated Pesticide
Laws
ACT offers consultation in the WPS program, which is designed to provide protection for
agricultural workers and pesticide handlers. We also help growers with state regulated
pesticide issues.
Assistance for Feedlots and Dairies on Complicated
Environmental Laws
ACT provides compliance assistance to animal feeding operators. We help ranchers and
dairymen to better understand and comply with state and federal water quality regulations
to reduce animal-waste contamination of water.
Compliance Assistance On-Site
Upon request, ACT field consultants will conduct an On-Site Visit (OSV) of a farm,
feedlot or dairy, to identify potential compliance problems. If deficiencies are found,
corrective measure recommendations and/or training are provided to the producer in
order to correct potential compliance problems.
Corrective Measures
The agricultural producer receives a report, generally within 15 working days, which
outlines corrective measures. A target date is set to have all corrective measures
implemented at the facility. After the target date, a follow-up visit is conducted to
determine if all corrective measures are in place.
Five Steps to Ensure Your Farm or Livestock Operation is in
Compliance
1. Self-Evaluation Checklist (WPS). Request a free checklist for self-evaluation
of a farm or animal feeding operation from the Arizona Department of
Agriculture website, www.agriculture.state.az.us
2. On-Site Visit (WPS and RAAAP). Contact ACT to schedule an OSV of your
farm or livestock operation. During the OSV, the ACT consultant will provide
information and/or recommendations on compliance-related problems observed
during the OSV. ACT is required to keep all compliance problem information
confidential, therefore no regulatory or enforcement action will be taken based on
information acquired during an OSV. However, in extreme situations of
imminent danger, referral to a regulatory agency can be made.
3. Written Report. Within 15 days of the OSV, a report with supplemental
materials will be mailed. The report details compliance deficiencies and
corrective measures to address those deficiencies.
4. Implement Corrective Actions. Implement the corrective actions provided in
the OSV report for facility compliance.
5. Follow-up Visit. Schedule a follow-up visit to ensure corrective measures have
brought the operation into compliance with state and federal regulations.
Worker Protection
The WPS is a federal regulation, administered by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). It is designed to provide protection for agricultural workers and pesticide
handlers. The WPS is a federal regulation administered by the EPA which became
effective in 1992. It is designed to provide protection for agricultural workers
(individuals involved in the production of agricultural plants) and pesticide handlers
(individuals involved in mixing, loading or the application of pesticides, or performing
tasks involving direct contact with pesticides). Each year ACT’S personnel addresses
various WPS issues specifically pertaining to the agricultural community. The WPS was
the initial focus of the ACT program.
Focus on Training
In order to provide the best possible compliance assistance to the members of Arizona’s
Agricultural industry, we have focused on the “T” for “Training” in our acronym, ACT.
ACT conducts WPS pesticide safety training for agricultural employers across the state in
conjunction with On-Site Visits. Since the WPS, requires all agricultural employers on a
state and a federal level who apply pesticides to provide pesticide safety training for their
employees, it is our hope that by providing this service that more employers will attain
compliance.
WPS Training at a Glance
During Fiscal Year 2002, ACT conducted 113 WPS training sessions, and trained 1,062
persons as either agricultural workers or pesticide handlers. Of the 113 WPS training
sessions, 82 were conducted in Spanish, resulting in over 900 persons trained in Spanish.
The State of Arizona requires that pesticide handlers be recertified every three years and
agricultural workers be recertified every five years. As a result, the demand for WPS
training remains constant. For example, WPS agricultural worker pesticide safety
training was conducted for nearly 110 employees of a single local produce grower in
Phoenix. Many employees that participated in training classes were still in possession of
their original training verification card previously issued by ACT personnel. The size of
each training session varies with the number of workers or handlers employed by the
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
1050
1100
FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
Fiscal Year
Chart 1. Worker Protection Standard Training
Workers - Spanish
Handlers - Spanish
Workers - English
Handlers - English
FY Total
employer. ACT has conducted several “second rounds” of training and in one case even
a “third round” of training was conducted for a local agricultural employer. It has been
encouraging to see several employees provide one and even two previously valid WPS
training verification cards during the recertification training classes. Many agricultural
employers are adopting a policy of providing WPS training on an annual basis instead of
waiting for the three and five year expiration dates. Agricultural employers want their
employees to know what chemicals are being applied around them and they want the
workplace to be as safe as possible.
Chart #1 indicates the training conducted by ACT’s WPS personnel since Fiscal Year
1998.
Nurseries, farmers and other members of the agribusiness community receive assistance
by complying with state and federal regulations, such as pesticide application record
keeping, signage requirements and worker protection safety and training requirements.
This unique program provides a formal means by which the regulated agricultural
community may request compliance assistance without regulatory repercussions. The
ACT program is not affiliated with ongoing enforcement activity. Detected violations are
not made available to regulatory personnel except in the cases of imminent danger to
human health and welfare.
After an interested member of the agricultural community makes a subject specific
request, a field consultant provides a detailed evaluation report tailored specifically to the
customer. The report details information discussed during the on-site visit as well as any
applicable corrective recommendations. Generally, a follow up visit date is set within
three months. At this time, the field consultant reviews the progress of the customer in
implementing the corrective actions recommended.
Success in Succession
Providing compliance assistance is the primary goal of the ACT program. Responding to
the requests from industry members across the state is the driving force behind the
continued success that the ACT program has experienced. Since ACT’s inception, the
number of customers assisted by ACT’s compliance programs has increased each year.
The past year was no exception. The Agricultural Community’s usage of the ACT
program increased approximately 37 percent during Fiscal Year 2002, with a total
number of compliance-related issues addressed at 2,634.
Chart #2 displays the increase in the number of compliance issues addressed by the ACT
program.
FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
Fiscal Year
Chart 2.Total Number of Issues Addressed By ACT
Due to the complexity of federal WPS laws, the number of WPS-related issues occupy
the largest percentage of compliance issues addressed by ACT personnel. Chart #3
depicts the percentage and types of issues addressed
Statewide, ACT personnel conduct OSVs of agricultural facilities. Chart #4 indicates the
counties where OSV’s were conducted and the number conducted in each county.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
WPS Pesticide Record
Keeping
Non Pesticide Issue Other Pesticide
Issues
Chart 3. Percentage of Issues Addressed In Relation to the Worker Protection
Standard
Arizona Interagency Farmworker Coalition
The AIFC is a coalition of individuals from public and private agencies and organizations
which promote the needs of farmworkers in Arizona. Members of the AIFC include
individuals from federal, state and county agencies as well as representatives from
various public and private organizations.
ACT Field Consultant Rick Stillion served as a Vice President of AIFC and is now
serving in his second term as President. Rick’s leadership in AIFC has allowed ACT to
remain abreast of farmworker issues, statewide. As a result, promotion of ACT’s
programs has been enhanced and Federal, State and County agencies have become more
aware of ACT’s programs.
Regulated Agricultural Activities Assistance Program
(RAAAP)
RAAAP Targets Water Quality Compliance to Assist Livestock
Producers
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
Maricopa Yuma / La Paz Cochise Pinal / Pima Greenlee
Chart 4. ACT On-Site Visit Demographics
FY 2000
FY 2001
FY 2002
In FY 2001, animal feeding operation (AFO) compliance was added to ACT’s
compliance assistance efforts. RAAAP assists dairy and feedlot operators to understand
and comply with federal and state regulations in order to reduce animal-waste
contamination of surface and ground waters. The two primary objectives of RAAAP are:
1. To educate producers regarding the requirements of the Federal, National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) CAFO General permit and
Arizona’s Agricultural General permits
2. To assist producers in compliance efforts to protect water quality.
In support of obtaining educational and compliance assistance goals for AFOs, the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) and ADA developed the
RAAAP. An intergovernmental service agreement (ISA) between ADA and ADEQ has
been used to co-fund the RAAAP. As a result, RAAAP is funded 60 percent by ADEQ
through an EPA grant and 40 percent through ADA monies.
RAAAP has Support of EPA and Livestock Producers
EPA Region 9 has expressed support for the RAAAP. EPA Region 9 is hoping to utilize
the RAAAP as a model for CAFO compliance assistance programs within other Region 9
states and other EPA regions. In addition, the Arizona Cattle Feeders’ Association and
various livestock producers have expressed support for the RAAAP.
RAAAP AFO/CAFO Compliance Assistance
On-Site Visits (OSVs)
ACT field consultants conduct assessments of livestock production facilities.
Before and after the OSVs, field consultants assist AFO operators in
understanding animal-waste management regulations. ACT also informs the
facility’s owner/operator if any waste-control systems and practices are out of
compliance. In addition, ACT field consultants make recommendations on how to
bring the facility into compliance with federal and state laws.
ACT never mentions, nor discusses a particular operation, owner or case by name
with regulatory agencies. However, ACT may consult with EPA and the ADEQ,
to discuss a specific issue or question to obtain interpretations of the regulations.
During the Fiscal Year 2002, the RAAAP program conducted fourteen OSVs and
mailed 31 consultation letters. Through OSV and letters, 236 issues relating to
animal manure management issues were addressed.
Multi-Agency AFO Education Group
In order to provide education for AFO owners, an AFO Education Group has been
established. The AFO Education Group consists of ACT, Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS), Natural Resource Conservation Districts (NRCDs),
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and University of Arizona
Cooperative Extension Service. The AFO Education Group’s objectives are to
help AFO operators understand the AZ NPDES general permit and Arizona’s
rules and to help producers to achieve compliance. The AZ NPDES CAFO
general permit is a permit under the Clean Water act, which regulates the
discharge of animal wastewater to waters in the United States. ACT has taken a
leadership role in the AFO Education Group. The AFO Education Group’s
chairperson is from ACT. Much of the educational outreach is funded through a
$90,000 grant from EPA.
Accomplishments of the AFO Education Group include:
• Website (ag.arizona.edu/animalwaste) which contains important information on
animal waste management and links to other agencies
• Livestock producer’s notebook covering federal and state regulations and
resources
• Nutrient management software
• Educational workshops including the education session at the 2002 Dairy Days
• Compliance assistance workshops, including the Nutrient Management Plan
(NMP) workshop to assist producers in development of NMP, a required
component of the NPDES CAFO general permit
Water Quality and Animal Feeding Operations in Arizona:
A Producer’s Notebook
One of the successes of ACT and the AFO Education Group has been the
compilation of the producer’s notebook. ACT took the lead in compiling the
notebook. The producer’s notebook contains worksheets to assist record keeping,
information on state and federal regulations, contact information for financial and
technical assistance organizations, principles on nutrient management, sampling
procedures, questions and answers and other materials to assist producers in
compliance. Approximately 200 notebooks have been distributed to producers,
producer organizations and state and federal agencies. Periodically, the notebook
is updated and sent to the recipients of the producer’s notebook.
Training Provided by RAAAP during FY 2002
RAAAP provided training at workshops for NPDES CAFO permit education,
nutrient management planning and Dairy Days. RAAAP gave presentations at
three workshops for CAFO permit outreach. The presentations addressed the
worksheets in the producer’s notebook, which provided compliance assistance and
helped producers meet several record keeping and documentation requirements of
the CAFO permit. RAAAP also gave a compliance assistance presentation on
nutrient management record keeping as required by the CAFO permit at the
workshop and gave an educational presentation at Dairy Days, summarizing the
NPDES CAFO permit requirements.
Waste Management Assistance Program Promotion
RAAAP has promoted the compliance assistance program through speaking
engagements at Farm Bureau meetings and other livestock industry events. In
addition, Cattlelogue, Arizona Farm Bureau’s monthly periodical and United
Dairymen of Arizona’s magazine have published articles on RAAAP and NPDES
CAFO permit information.
Working for You
Donald Hall, ACT Field Consultant
With previous regulatory experience at the ADEQ, Donald Hall provides AFO owners
accurate compliance and technical assistance regarding Arizona’s regulations and
federal rules. During FY 2002, the NPDES CAFO General permit for Arizona was
issued. Also, EPA published the proposed changes to the national CAFO Rule, which
affects how AFO are regulated nationwide. Mr. Hall can inform AFO owners of these
regulations and how the CAFO permit and proposed CAFO rules will affect their
facilities.
Livestock operations are subject to a myriad of regulations, which can be confusing to
producers. Additionally, Mr. Hall can explain the regulations to producers during on-site
visits and workshops during the upcoming year. The compliance assistance ACT
provides can help livestock producers concentrate more on the operation of their facilities
instead of regulatory issues. Please contact Donald Hall at (602) 542-0972 to arrange an
on-site visit.
The Problem with Improper Handling of Animal Waste
Manure runoff or manure wastewater contamination of surface or ground water can cause
algal blooms, fish kills and illness. Surface water contamination by manure can cause
fish kills and algal blooms due to excessive concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus.
Manure contains fecal coliform and E. coli bacteria in high concentrations. When
manure contaminates surface or ground water, illness may result from bacterial
contamination.
If a manure wastewater discharge occurs, the ADEQ may issue a violation to the
discharging animal feeding operation (AFO). One of the purposes of the RAAAP is to
help prevent livestock facility discharges of manure-contaminated water to surface or
ground water.
State AFO Regulations
Arizona AFOs are subject to two state agricultural general permits: the Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) permit and the Nitrogen Fertilizer General permit.
The CAFO permit primarily regulates animal waste discharges prior to a 25-year, 24-
hour storm event. It also regulates manure storage runoff. The Nitrogen Fertilizer
General permit regulates the application, leaching and runoff of nitrogen-containing
fertilizers (including manure) on cropland.
In addition, the State’s Numeric and Narrative Water Quality standards apply to AFO
discharges. The Aquifer Water Quality standards also regulate AFO discharges. The
ADEQ conducts inspections of livestock operations to determine whether they are in
compliance to the state and federal regulations.
Federal AFO Regulations
The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 sets the parameters for regulating pollutant
discharges to waters of the U.S. AFOs are a type of facilities regulated under the CWA.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) CAFO General permit
for Arizona was issued under the authority of the CWA. The CAFO permit was issued
during August of 2001.
25-Year, 24-Hour Storm Event
Containment of rainfall up to a 25-year, 24-hour storm event is required by AFO owners
through the State’s CAFO General permit and the NPDES CAFO General permit. The
25-year, 24-hour storm event means the maximum 24-hour precipitation event with a
probable recurrence interval of once in 25 years, as defined by the National Weather
Service. In Maricopa County, a 25-year, 24-hour storm event ranges from 2.8 to 3.2
inches of rain. RAAAP helps livestock operators determine their wastewater
containment capacity deficiencies and helps operators obtain proper storage capacity.
Growing Smarter Open Space Reserve Grant Program
The Growing Smarter Open Space Reserve (GSOSR) Grant Program is part of the
Growing Smarter Statute that was passed by public referendum in 1998.
The Arizona State Parks Board (ASPB) designates up to $2 million annually to GSOSR.
Under the enabling statute, A.R.S. §41.511.23:
The purpose of the Open Space Reserve Grant Program is
to fund grants to individual landowners or grazing or
agricultural lessees of state or federal land who contract
with the Arizona State Parks Board to implement
conservation based management alternatives using
livestock or crop production practices or to reduce livestock
or crop production, to provide wildlife habitat or other
public benefits that preserve open space. Priority must be
given to lessees of state and federal land who are required
to reduce livestock production to provide public benefits,
such wildlife species conservation or wildlife habitat.
The ASPB is designated by statute as the overall administrator of the program. ASPB
has entered into an intergovernmental agreement with the Arizona Department of
Agriculture (ADA), ISA # 00-124, on October 4, 2002, to administer the program.
The intent of the program is to reduce the fragmentation of open spaces in rural areas. In
the 2002 grant cycle, ASPB and ADA contracted with ranching families that have been
required to reduce cattle on public land leases to provide public benefits. As the public
continues to demand more benefits from open spaces in rural areas, the pressure for
ranching families to sell privately held land to a multitude of buyers eventually becomes
their most feasible option for financial relief. The GSOSR has provided these families
with the alternative of contracting with the ASPB and ADA to receive funding that will
allow these families to retain their privately held land.
The ADA and the ASPB worked together to develop suitable criteria for the 2002 grant
program. The approved 2002 criteria were as follows:
1. Percentage of cattle (in head) required to be removed from public land leases
2. Length of time the reduction will be required
The ADA developed the grant manual and application packet. The materials were
distributed at four workshops in early January, through the mail and on the ADA website.
The workshops were held in Benson, Globe, Springerville and Camp Verde. More than
160 ranchers, land management agency representatives and others attended. The ADA,
State Parks and Arizona Cattle Growers Association hosted the workshops, where the
ADA gave a page-by-page presentation of the grant manual and application packet. The
deadline for applications was March 1, 2002.
In its first year, the GSOSR program received 71 applications requesting more than $4
million. Sixty-six applications were deemed eligible by a grant evaluation team. ADA
compiled a grant award recommendation for the ASPB that included a $90,000 cap with
a graduated percentage award on individual requests to allow for a wider distribution of
funds. The ASPB approved the ADA’s grant award recommendation on May