Thursday, October 22, 2020
Tribal Emergency Management News. Cal OES - Prepositioning of Firefighting Resources and Personnel in 10 California Counties in Advance of Red Flag Conditions
Tribal Emergency Management News
Cal OES - Prepositioning of Firefighting Resources and Personnel in 10 California Counties in Advance of Red Flag Conditions
October 21, 2020
In preparation of dangerous fire weather conditions continuing across the state, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) has strategically prepositioned critical fire resources to include strike teams of fire engines, firefighters, hand crews, water tenders, helicopters, dispatchers and overhead staff in 10 counties across the state.
The prepositioned fire resources include:
- Lake County: 2 Local Government Task Forces (8 Local Government Type 3 Engines), 2 Local Government Type 1 Water Tenders, 1 Local Government Type 2 Dozer, 1 Dispatcher
- Napa County: 1 Local Government Task Force, (1 Local Government Type 2 Engine, 2 Local Government Type 3 Engines, 2 Local Government Type 6 Engines)
- Sonoma County: 1 Local Government Strike Team (5 Local Government Type 3 Engines), 1 Local Government Task Force, (5 Local Government Type 3 Engines, 1 Local Government Type 6 Engine) 1 OES Water Tender
- Marin County: 1 Local Strike Team (5 Local Government Type 3 Engines), 1 Local Government Type 1 Water Tenders, 2 Dispatchers
- Solano County: 4 Local Government Type 3 Engines
- Alameda County: 1 Cal OES Strike Team (5 Cal OES Type 3 Engines), 1 Local Government Type 1 Water Tender, 1 Dispatcher
- Contra Costa County: 1 Local Government Strike Team (5 Local Government Type 3 Engines), 2 Local Government Type 2 Dozers, 1 Local Government Type 1 Water Tender, 1 Helicopter, 1 Local Government Hand Crew, 1 Dispatcher, 3 Overhead
- Colusa County: 4 Local Government Type 3 Engines, 1 Local Government Type 1 Water Tender
- Tehama County: 1 Cal OES Strike Team (5 Cal OES Type 3 Engines)
- Nevada County: 1 Dispatcher
A strike team includes five fire engines with 15 firefighters and a strike team Leader.
The National Weather Service is forecasting low relative humidity and unseasonably warm temperatures, creating Red Flag weather conditions over parts of California throughout the remainder of the week. A Red Flag Warning means that critical fire weather conditions are either occurring now, or will shortly. A combination of strong winds, low relative humidity, and warm temperatures can contribute to extreme fire potential and erratic fire behavior.
Click here to see the National Weather Service’s Red Flag warnings.
The public is urged to remain aware of their surrounding conditions and to avoid outdoor activities that can cause a spark near dry vegetation, such as yard work, target shooting, or campfires and follow local fire restrictions. The public is also reminded to have an emergency plan in place, emergency preparedness kits at home and vehicles full of fuel. Sign-up for emergency alerts, listen to local authorities and warnings, and be prepared to evacuate if necessary.
The Cal OES Warning Center and State Operations Center will monitor conditions and be ready for further resource requests as necessary throughout the Red Flag period.
For more from Cal OES, visit CalOES.ca.gov and follow us on Twitter @Cal_OES.
LISTOS 5 Steps of Preparedness:𝟭) 𝗚𝗲𝘁 𝗔𝗹𝗲𝗿𝘁𝘀
𝟮) 𝗠𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗮 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻
𝟯) 𝗚𝗲𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗦𝗮𝗳𝗲𝘁𝘆
𝟰) 𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗦𝗵𝗲𝗹𝘁𝗲𝗿
𝟱) 𝗛𝗲𝗹𝗽 𝗙𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗙𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝘆
For more information about Listos California go to www.iTEMA.org/2020
Wednesday, October 21, 2020
Ethiopian Community Center (ECC) “Effective Strategies in Preventing COVID-19 Friday, October 23, 2020 | 6:00 pm - 8:00 pm
Effective Strategies on Preventing COVID-19
Join MOAA grantee, Ethiopian Community Center (ECC) for an online event on “Effective Strategies in Preventing COVID-19” with Dr. Ashenafi Waktola, MD. Dr. Ashenafi will discuss COVID-19 prevention and protection tips, treatment and care as well as other useful resources during this pandemic.
All conversation will be in Amharic with simultaneous English interpretation.
When: Friday, October 23, 2020 | 6:00 pm - 8:00 pm
Where: Virtual
Documentary Examines White Supremacy in U.S. October 20, 2020
A documentary looks at America’s ‘lows’ — its legacy of white supremacy
Each encounter left him with the same
question: “I wanted to know what was producing the mentality that caused White
people to behave that way,” Hodge said. But most of the coverage of such
incidents focused on the Black victims and relatively little about the White
people who were involved.
“Even
the discussions I was hearing lacked context and tended to devolve into whether
or not the Black person ‘deserved it,’ ”
he recalled.
A graduate of
Virginia Commonwealth University with a master’s degree in film from American
University, Hodge started his own production company while in his mid-20s. He
shot film for D.C.’s WJLA-TV, CNN and other national news outlets. He set up a
film editing bay in the basement of his home in Oxon Hill, Md., which he
shares with his wife and three children. It makes it easier to work
around-the-clock when up against a tight deadline.
Because he had the
skills and equipment, Hodge decided to answer his own question. And now, at age
43 and after more than five years’ effort, he has produced a compelling film
about his findings — a documentary called “The American LOWS” (an acronym for
Legacy of White Supremacy).
“I was aware from my own life experiences that there is a component of American culture that values Whiteness over Blackness, and it wasn’t born in any police department,” Hodge said. “But police departments are affected by that culture, along with every other institution. I wanted to construct a narrative about where that mentality came from and how it endures.”
Those life experiences included attending a racially integrated
elementary school in Alexandria, Va., where, he says, teachers often
punished Black students for engaging in behavior that was overlooked when done
by White students, such as passing notes or laughing at fellow students for
giving a wrong answer.
While
attending a middle school near Winchester, Va., he says White students taunted
him with racially derogatory names such as “darky.”
His
family moved back to Alexandria in time for him to attend Mount Vernon High.
There, in his media arts class, he was introduced to TV production, which he
enjoyed so much he made a career of it.
His
film on white supremacy recently premiered at the San Antonio Black
International Film Festival, where it was well received. At the event, which
was held on Zoom, Hodge explained that he wanted to make a film that would “help African Americans to
better understand the system and culture of white supremacy in order to
effectively counteract it.”
Either one of those would probably
require at least a lifetime of learning. But the film does offer a timely primer on the subject.
It
begins with Jacqueline Battalora, author of “Birth of a White Nation: The
Invention of White People and Its Relevance Today,” explaining how white
supremacy became legalized in Colonial America and why it stayed that way into
the 1950s.
Or,
as attorney Paul Butler, author of “Chokehold: Policing Black Men,” puts
it in the film, how “keeping
Black people down is built into the law.”
There
is stock film footage of white supremacists marching with tiki torches in
Charlottesville. As their chant “You will not replace us” fades out, D.C.-based
psychiatrist Frances Cress Welsing — in her last videotaped interview before
her death in 2016 — begins an analysis of the intent of such marchers.
“They understand
what they are doing,” she said. “They are not playing games about what their
issues are. They are dealing with the problem. And we are the problem.”
That’s when the
documentary explodes into gunfire. We see Levar Jones, with his hands up, being shot by South
Carolina Trooper Sean Groubert after a traffic stop.
We see Minnesota
police officer Jeronimo
Yanez firing into a car and then video of a bleeding Philando
Castille taken by his girlfriend seated next to him.
That is followed by
North Charleston police
officer Michael Slager firing his .45-caliber Glock handgun eight times as the
unarmed Walter Scott ran from him. Scott died after being
hit five times — three in the back, one in the buttocks and one
in the ear.
Eventually, we get
to Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, a hand casually placed in his side
pocket while nonchalantly pressing a knee into George Floyd’s neck. Chauvin
ignores the pleas of passersby not to kill Floyd and keeps the pressure on for
seven minutes and 46 seconds. Floyd dies.
Hodge had braced himself for the
task. He knew that going through hours and hours of cellphone and dash-cam
video would be difficult. But it was necessary.
For
insight about the challenges that police officers face, Hodge did not have to
go far. His father, Darnley Hodge Sr., was a career law enforcement officer who
was brought in to lead a court-ordered reform of the New Orleans city jail.
Before that, he had been a military police officer and had served as
superintendent of the Riverside Regional Jail in Prince George, Va. Hodge Sr.
said he thought his son’s critique of white supremacy and law enforcement was
fair. “Quite honestly, he has raised my consciousness, awakened me to some
of the realities of white supremacy that I did not understand,” he said.
In
2016, Hodge Jr. spent three months in the Prince George’s County Citizens’
Police Academy, which is billed as an opportunity for civilians to learn
rudimentary police procedure.
“I just wanted to get a closer look
at police work,” he said. “This was not a culture that I was unfamiliar with,
being the son of a police officer. But I did gain some insights, and I
certainly didn’t go into this project with an ax to grind.”
To
complete the film, Hodge traveled to Egypt and toured parts of the Nile. He
interviewed cultural historians and anthropologists who gave him background on
Africans who had journeyed to the Americas long before Christopher Columbus.
“For
African Americans to really know what is possible for the future, we have to
see what our people have already accomplished,” he said. “It is awe-inspiring.
Sometimes our concept of ourselves is so limited because we can only see
ourselves through the lens of White people. We need a wider lens.”
Hodge’s film gives us that lens. And much more.
Tuesday, October 20, 2020
NLFRTA supports Revised Geographic Eligibility for Federal Office of Rural Health Policy Grants
Revised
Geographic Eligibility for Federal Office of Rural Health Policy Grants
Thomas J. Engels
Administrator Health Resources and Services Administration 5600 Fishers Lane Rockville, MD 20857 U.S.A
CC: Steve Hirsch, Public Health Analyst FORHP, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone number: (301) 443-0835 or Email: ruralpolicy@hrsa.gov.
RE: Revised Geographic Eligibility for Federal Office of Rural Health Policy Grants
Dear Administrator Engels,
On behalf of the National Latino Farmers & Ranchers Trade Association (NLFRTA), we appreciate the opportunity to provide formal comments on the Health Resources and Services Administration’s (HRSA) Federal Office of Rural Health Policy (FORHP) methodology of defining rural areas in the United States. FORHP’s definition of rural areas is critical to determining which providers are eligible for rural health grant funding or services. NLFRTA supports modifying FORHP’s methodology for defining rural areas in the United States, and we appreciate the work HRSA has previously completed to address stakeholder concerns and ensure ‘rural’ is properly defined across the country.
NLFRTA is a national nonprofit membership organization with more than 75,000 members, and the association’s mission is to improve the sustainability of food production for rural America and provide leadership on multiple rural issues, which, of course includes accessibility to health services, through advocacy, communications, education, and research. While our focus is on Latino farmworkers, farmers and ranchers, NLFRTA membership consists of a diverse collection of individuals and organizations, all of whom share the common goal of protecting rural America's communities.
There are approximately 60 million people living in rural America, spread across 80 percent of the nation's landmass. Unfortunately, however, there are rural communities across the country that are not identified by HRSA as ‘rural’ and remain ineligible to apply for or receive services funded by FORHP’s rural health grant programs. In January 2020, the Chartis Center for Rural Health found that 48 percent of the United States’ rural hospitals faced negative operating profit margins. Due to the impact of the pandemic, this percentage has undoubtedly increased. It is imperative that HRSA ensure all rural designated providers are eligible for federal rural health grants. These could provide a critical lifeline for these providers as they continue to combat the ongoing COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE).
NLFRTA views the proposed revised geographic eligibility for FORHP grants as a step in the right direction. In particular, the proposed change to the rural methodology listing outlying Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) counties without Urban Area (UA) populations as eligible areas is a positive development. Providers located in these counties have been considered ‘rural’ by nearly every interpretation except for eligibility for FORHP rural health grants for years. Expanding FORHP rural health grant eligibility to rural providers in these counties is logical and necessary; due to the COVID-19 PHE, many providers in rural America have furloughed staff, instituted cuts, or are shuttering their doors. Allowing additional rural providers to apply for or receive services funded by FORHP’s rural health grant programs could provide a critical lifeline to struggling rural providers and allow them to continue serving rural patients.
NLFRTA is excited by the direction HRSA has taken revising the methodology for geographic eligibility, but we believe there are ways the methodology can still be improved. Broadly speaking, we believe it is reasonable that all rural designated providers—whether that is a Critical Access Hospital, Rural Health Clinic, Federally Qualified Health Center, Rural PPS Hospital, etc.—should be eligible to apply for or receive services funded by FORHP’s rural health grant programs. This could be done through instating a “legacy clause,” which would grandfather all currently designated rural providers as eligible for FORHP grants. If it is not possible for HRSA to include this clause within their current methodology changes, we believe the following suggestions will help HRSA’s definition of ‘rural’ be more reflective of the populations and areas served throughout rural America.
Provide an Exception for Counties with Difficult Terrain
NLFRTA supports HRSA’s decision to include counties in MSAs with no UAs within their definition of rural. However, we believe the proposed methodology misses the mark when it comes to measurements for some rural areas. Rural health care providers across the country, particularly those that practice in mountainous regions or areas with difficult terrain, will remain ineligible for FORHP grant funding and services because their counties’ population densities are misinterpreted as UAs. For example, in West Virginia, Fayette County is not considered rural for FORHP grant eligibility, even under the proposed methodology. We believe this is wrong.
In New Mexico, according to the latest 5-year American Community Survey estimates, many Bernalillo County residents lack access to a vehicle which may prevent them from traveling to receive health services, buy healthy food, or engage in other health promoting behaviors.
Currently, FORHP provides exceptions to census tracts with a Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) codes of two or three that are, “400 square miles in area with a population density of no more than 35 people per square mile.” FORHP should consider exceptions aimed at regions which have difficult terrain, such as mountainous regions, that may have a higher density per square mile, but, ultimately, are just as rural. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has recognized the need to provide a shorter distance requirement for rural areas in regions with difficult terrain with a lack of primary roads. For example, CMS requires critical access hospitals (CAH) located in regions with mountainous or difficult terrain to only have 15 miles between their facility and the next hospital, instead of the standard 35 miles. NRHA firmly believes FORHP should allow exceptions that will incorporate rural areas with mountainous
or difficult terrains within their definition of ‘rural.’
Utilize a More Accurate Representation of a County’s Population When Determining FORHP Grant Eligibility
NLFRTA believes FORHP misinterprets the population base of certain rural counties and wrongly deems them ineligible for rural grants. State penitentiaries and federal prisons can skew the total population and population density of counties that would otherwise be considered rural, which can inhibit them being eligible for rural grants. Civilian populations in these counties are not large or densely populated and are often served by rural hospitals or CAHs, yet FORHP misinterprets these counties as ‘not rural’ because they include a prison population that does not use any of the services utilized by the civilian population. In the past, FORHP has provided exemptions for some of these counties, but these exemptions must be regularly obtained. NLFRTA believes that FORHP should fix this glitch as they seek to update their rural classification methodology.
Similarly, FORHP deems some rural counties as ‘not rural,’ making them ineligible for rural grants, because they include a college or university. Although college/university student populations are more likely to use their county’s rural health infrastructure and services than prison populations, they are often only in a rural community for eight months out of the year, and typically do not use health care services in the same capacity as permanent residents. These populations are extremely transient and should not inhibit a provider from applying for FORHP rural health grant dollars. NRHA requests FORHP’s definition of rural account for rural counties that may include transient college populations.
Hub Sites that Serve Majority Rural Population
NLFRTA encourages FORHP to consider expanding eligibility to health centers primarily serving rural populations that are affiliated with a hub site located within a MSA UA. There are several health centers located in rural counties across the United States that have a hub site registered within a county that FORHP considers “urban.” These satellite sites serve a majority rural population and provide critical health care services. NRHA believes it is not fair to the satellite provider that they are unable to obtain FORHP rural health grant funding simply because of their affiliation with an urban hub. We believe FORHP should review this criterion and allow health centers serving rural populations to apply for grants based on the location of the service, rather than the location of an affiliated hub site.
As a final note, NLFRTA would like to acknowledge that as FORHP expands its definition of ‘rural’ and allows more entities to apply for or receive services funded by its rural health grant programs, increased funding for these programs will be necessary. NLFRTA welcomes any assistance the administration can provide as we continue to work with Congress to ensure that adequate funding is appropriated to these programs.
Again, thank you for the chance to offer comments on this revised methodology and for your consideration of our comments. We very much look forward to continuing our work together to ensure our mutual goal of improving quality and access to care. If you would
like additional information, please contact Rudy Arredondo at latinofarmers@live.com, or 202- 628-8833.
Sincerely,
Rudy Arredondo
President/CEO/Founder
National Latino Farmers & Ranchers Trade Association
1029 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 601
Washington, DC 20005
Office: (202) 628-8833
Fax No.: (202) 393-1816
Email: latinofarmers@live.com
Twitter: @NLFRTA
Website: www.NLFRTA.org
Thomas J. Engels
Administrator Health Resources and Services Administration 5600 Fishers Lane Rockville, MD 20857 U.S.A
CC: Steve Hirsch, Public Health Analyst FORHP, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone number: (301) 443-0835 or Email: ruralpolicy@hrsa.gov.
RE: Revised Geographic Eligibility for Federal Office of Rural Health Policy Grants
Dear Administrator Engels,
On behalf of the National Latino Farmers & Ranchers Trade Association (NLFRTA), we appreciate the opportunity to provide formal comments on the Health Resources and Services Administration’s (HRSA) Federal Office of Rural Health Policy (FORHP) methodology of defining rural areas in the United States. FORHP’s definition of rural areas is critical to determining which providers are eligible for rural health grant funding or services. NLFRTA supports modifying FORHP’s methodology for defining rural areas in the United States, and we appreciate the work HRSA has previously completed to address stakeholder concerns and ensure ‘rural’ is properly defined across the country.
NLFRTA is a national nonprofit membership organization with more than 75,000 members, and the association’s mission is to improve the sustainability of food production for rural America and provide leadership on multiple rural issues, which, of course includes accessibility to health services, through advocacy, communications, education, and research. While our focus is on Latino farmworkers, farmers and ranchers, NLFRTA membership consists of a diverse collection of individuals and organizations, all of whom share the common goal of protecting rural America's communities.
There are approximately 60 million people living in rural America, spread across 80 percent of the nation's landmass. Unfortunately, however, there are rural communities across the country that are not identified by HRSA as ‘rural’ and remain ineligible to apply for or receive services funded by FORHP’s rural health grant programs. In January 2020, the Chartis Center for Rural Health found that 48 percent of the United States’ rural hospitals faced negative operating profit margins. Due to the impact of the pandemic, this percentage has undoubtedly increased. It is imperative that HRSA ensure all rural designated providers are eligible for federal rural health grants. These could provide a critical lifeline for these providers as they continue to combat the ongoing COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE).
NLFRTA views the proposed revised geographic eligibility for FORHP grants as a step in the right direction. In particular, the proposed change to the rural methodology listing outlying Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) counties without Urban Area (UA) populations as eligible areas is a positive development. Providers located in these counties have been considered ‘rural’ by nearly every interpretation except for eligibility for FORHP rural health grants for years. Expanding FORHP rural health grant eligibility to rural providers in these counties is logical and necessary; due to the COVID-19 PHE, many providers in rural America have furloughed staff, instituted cuts, or are shuttering their doors. Allowing additional rural providers to apply for or receive services funded by FORHP’s rural health grant programs could provide a critical lifeline to struggling rural providers and allow them to continue serving rural patients.
NLFRTA is excited by the direction HRSA has taken revising the methodology for geographic eligibility, but we believe there are ways the methodology can still be improved. Broadly speaking, we believe it is reasonable that all rural designated providers—whether that is a Critical Access Hospital, Rural Health Clinic, Federally Qualified Health Center, Rural PPS Hospital, etc.—should be eligible to apply for or receive services funded by FORHP’s rural health grant programs. This could be done through instating a “legacy clause,” which would grandfather all currently designated rural providers as eligible for FORHP grants. If it is not possible for HRSA to include this clause within their current methodology changes, we believe the following suggestions will help HRSA’s definition of ‘rural’ be more reflective of the populations and areas served throughout rural America.
Provide an Exception for Counties with Difficult Terrain
NLFRTA supports HRSA’s decision to include counties in MSAs with no UAs within their definition of rural. However, we believe the proposed methodology misses the mark when it comes to measurements for some rural areas. Rural health care providers across the country, particularly those that practice in mountainous regions or areas with difficult terrain, will remain ineligible for FORHP grant funding and services because their counties’ population densities are misinterpreted as UAs. For example, in West Virginia, Fayette County is not considered rural for FORHP grant eligibility, even under the proposed methodology. We believe this is wrong.
In New Mexico, according to the latest 5-year American Community Survey estimates, many Bernalillo County residents lack access to a vehicle which may prevent them from traveling to receive health services, buy healthy food, or engage in other health promoting behaviors.
Currently, FORHP provides exceptions to census tracts with a Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) codes of two or three that are, “400 square miles in area with a population density of no more than 35 people per square mile.” FORHP should consider exceptions aimed at regions which have difficult terrain, such as mountainous regions, that may have a higher density per square mile, but, ultimately, are just as rural. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has recognized the need to provide a shorter distance requirement for rural areas in regions with difficult terrain with a lack of primary roads. For example, CMS requires critical access hospitals (CAH) located in regions with mountainous or difficult terrain to only have 15 miles between their facility and the next hospital, instead of the standard 35 miles. NRHA firmly believes FORHP should allow exceptions that will incorporate rural areas with mountainous
or difficult terrains within their definition of ‘rural.’
Utilize a More Accurate Representation of a County’s Population When Determining FORHP Grant Eligibility
NLFRTA believes FORHP misinterprets the population base of certain rural counties and wrongly deems them ineligible for rural grants. State penitentiaries and federal prisons can skew the total population and population density of counties that would otherwise be considered rural, which can inhibit them being eligible for rural grants. Civilian populations in these counties are not large or densely populated and are often served by rural hospitals or CAHs, yet FORHP misinterprets these counties as ‘not rural’ because they include a prison population that does not use any of the services utilized by the civilian population. In the past, FORHP has provided exemptions for some of these counties, but these exemptions must be regularly obtained. NLFRTA believes that FORHP should fix this glitch as they seek to update their rural classification methodology.
Similarly, FORHP deems some rural counties as ‘not rural,’ making them ineligible for rural grants, because they include a college or university. Although college/university student populations are more likely to use their county’s rural health infrastructure and services than prison populations, they are often only in a rural community for eight months out of the year, and typically do not use health care services in the same capacity as permanent residents. These populations are extremely transient and should not inhibit a provider from applying for FORHP rural health grant dollars. NRHA requests FORHP’s definition of rural account for rural counties that may include transient college populations.
Hub Sites that Serve Majority Rural Population
NLFRTA encourages FORHP to consider expanding eligibility to health centers primarily serving rural populations that are affiliated with a hub site located within a MSA UA. There are several health centers located in rural counties across the United States that have a hub site registered within a county that FORHP considers “urban.” These satellite sites serve a majority rural population and provide critical health care services. NRHA believes it is not fair to the satellite provider that they are unable to obtain FORHP rural health grant funding simply because of their affiliation with an urban hub. We believe FORHP should review this criterion and allow health centers serving rural populations to apply for grants based on the location of the service, rather than the location of an affiliated hub site.
As a final note, NLFRTA would like to acknowledge that as FORHP expands its definition of ‘rural’ and allows more entities to apply for or receive services funded by its rural health grant programs, increased funding for these programs will be necessary. NLFRTA welcomes any assistance the administration can provide as we continue to work with Congress to ensure that adequate funding is appropriated to these programs.
Again, thank you for the chance to offer comments on this revised methodology and for your consideration of our comments. We very much look forward to continuing our work together to ensure our mutual goal of improving quality and access to care. If you would
like additional information, please contact Rudy Arredondo at latinofarmers@live.com, or 202- 628-8833.
Sincerely,
President/CEO/Founder
National Latino Farmers & Ranchers Trade Association
1029 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 601
Washington, DC 20005
Office: (202) 628-8833
Fax No.: (202) 393-1816
Email: latinofarmers@live.com
Twitter: @NLFRTA
Website: www.NLFRTA.org