14.1. The Best Practices Are:

• See Tables 5 and 6 and Decision Tree (Figure 5) for numerical criteria and guidance applicable to animal encroachment and adjacent land uses. The “Technical Basis Document” (Appendix B) describes the process used to develop these metrics.
• During the Environmental Assessments discussed in Section 2, the location of any adjacent land uses that are likely to present a food safety risk should be documented. In addition, as specified in Table 6, any deviations from the recommended buffer distances due to mitigation factors or increased risk should be documented.
• Fencing, vegetation removal, and destruction of habitat may result in adverse impacts to the environment. Potential adverse impacts include loss of habitat to beneficial insects and pollinators; wildlife loss; increased discharges of sediment and other pollutants resulting from the loss of vegetative filtering; and increased air quality impacts if bare soil is exposed to wind. It is recommended that producers check for local, state, and federal laws and regulations that protect riparian habitat, restrict removal of vegetation or habitat, or restrict construction of wildlife deterrent fences in riparian areas or wildlife corridors.
• Document any observed encroachment by animals of significant risk during production periods.
• Evaluate and monitor animal of significant risk activity in and proximate to lettuce/leafy greens fields and production environments. Conduct periodic monitoring, pre-season, pre-harvest, and harvest assessments. If there are animals of significant risk present, make particular efforts to reduce their access to lettuce and leafy green produce.
• Evaluate the risk to subsequent crop production on production acreage that has experienced recent postharvest grazing with or by domesticated animals that used field culls as a source of animal feed.
• Locate production blocks to minimize potential access by animals of significant risk and maximize distances to possible sources of microbial contamination. For example, consider the proximity to water (i.e., riparian areas), animal of significant risk harborage, open range lands, non-contiguous blocks, urban centers, etc. Periodically monitor these factors and assess during preseason and preharvest assessments as outlined in Tables 5 and 6. If the designated food safety professional deems that there is the potential for microbial contamination from adjacent areas, a risk assessment shall be performed to determine the risk level as well as to evaluate potential strategies to control or reduce the introduction of human pathogens.
• DO NOT harvest areas of fields where unusually heavy activity by animals of significant risk occurs. If animal of significant risk intrusions are common on a particular production field, consider fencing, barriers, noisemakers, and other practices that may reduce intrusions.
• Train harvest employees to recognize and report evidence (e.g., feces) of animal of significant risk activity.
• Pooled water (e.g., a seasonal lake) from rainfall may attract animals of significant risk and should be considered as part of any land use evaluation.
• Consider controlling risks associated with encroachment by urban development. Risks may include, but are not limited to, domestic animal fecal contamination of production fields and harvest equipment and septic tank leaching.
• Producers are encouraged to contact the relevant agencies (e.g., the Regional Water Quality Control Board and state and federal fish and wildlife agencies) to confirm the details of these requirements. In addition, producers may wish to consult with local NRCS to evaluate the food safety risks associated with wildlife of significant risk, livestock, domestic animals and other adjacent land uses and to develop and document strategies to control or reduce the introduction of human pathogens through wildlife of significant risk for each production block.