1

Tribal Summary Impact Statement

The Announcement
On February 5, 2010, the Secretary announced that the Department planned to take a new approach to animal disease traceability. This new approach, flexible yet coordinated, is intended to embrace the streng ths and expertise of States, Tribes, and producers and empower them to find and use the traceability approaches that work best for them. Immediately following the announcement, USDA hosted a Tribal Nations Conference Call presented by USDA Under Secretary Ed Avalos and the agency’s Chief Veterinary Officer, Dr. John Clifford. They provided additional information about the new traceability framework and answered questions.
Traceability Forum

On March 18

- 19, 2010 , USDA hosted a State/Tribe/Federal Traceabil ity forum in Kansas City, Missouri . Over 60 T ribal representatives were invited
, and travel expenses were paid for those who could attend

.
B reakout sessions at the forum included one devoted to the “Role of Consultation in Tribal Jurisdictions.” Janie Hi pp, Senior Adviser t o Secretary Vilsack for Tribal R elations, moderated two sessions attended by roughly 40 T ribal and 15 State representatives. She assured everyone that USDA did not consider these sessions to constitute T ribal consultation but rather w ere intended to identify issues related to traceability and jurisdiction that would need to be addressed prior to or during T ribal consultation. She offered to e

- mail to any requester a copy of the USDA T ribal C onsultation Action Plan, which ha d been appr oved by the White House.

T he following issues were raised during the breakout session :

Tribes need to be involved in the development of State traceability plans, especially if the Tribes do not have a plan but rely on the State. If States are counting T ri bal livestock operations and cattle in their requests for funding
, T ribes need to be at the table too

. Outreach/ e ducation/ p roducer acceptance: Many issues surfaced around educating producers about animal diseases in general
, not taking eartags off animals from Mexico or Canada
, and the value to them of participating in traceability

- related work. There is concern about getting producers to accept the traceability program. It is important to provide outreach and education to the T ribal brand inspectors and producers during the time that consultation with elected T ribal officials is taking place

. The need to have smaller regional meetings with T ribal and State animal health officials present was raised

. Tribes that have to work closely with the Bureau of I ndian Affairs felt that the Dep artment of the Interior should have been at this week’s meeting. There was concern about w hen tagging will become “mandatory

. ”2

There is a need to clarify what constitutes interstate movement in Indian country, especially whe n a reservation straddles one or more State boundaries

. There is a need for respect of T ribal livestock movement enforcement activities by State enforcement agencies

. Tribes are concerned about costs to the producer associated with animal identification and the willingness of USDA to defray those costs

. Tribes are very concerned about their lack of basic infrastructure (personnel, equipment, and expertise ) to even begin talking about information technology systems and electronic support for traceability

. Tribal governments often require multi ple layers of T ribal approvals before a chairman can sign off on coop erative agreement paperwork . This makes it imperative to allow sufficient time for the cooperative agreement application process in order for the m to meet deadlines. Many T ribes said that a traceability system based on existing brand systems and official metal eartags is adequate

. Tribes expressed desire for some level of standardization, particularly about what constitutes “ official identificati on .” Tribes want to protect their reservation boundaries from i l lnesses from out

- of

- State cattle

. Tribal P articipation in the Traceability Regulations Working Group
The Traceability Regulations Working Group was organized in April 2010 for the purpose of developing recommendations on the substance of a proposed rule for traceability. The group was composed of approximately equal numbers of State animal health officials and T ribal subject matter experts . S everal F ederal employees with animal disease trac eability expertise were also part of the group

. This working group held regular weekly conference calls and several face

- to

- face meetings through September 2010

. USDA and members of the working group shared information about the working group’s current t hinking at eight public meetings held in May , June, July, and August 2010. Additionally, on August 30

- 31, the National Institute for Animal Agriculture and the United States Animal Health Association co

- hosted a Joint Strategy Forum on Animal Disease Trac eability to facilitate interaction between State and T ribal animal health officials, animal producers, livestock marketers and handlers, and meat processors to provide additional input to USDA on concepts developed by the working group . The working group ’ s final recommendations considered feedback from all of these meetings.
Tribal Consultation Meetings

USDA entered into consultations with Tribal Nations in October 2010. Tribal c onsultation s were held in conjunction with other T ribal meetings and other U SDA agency consultation s . The format of the meetings was, for the most part, breakout sessions where participants could choose which topic area to attend. The meeting locations included:3

October 14, 2010 Verona, NY

October 28

- 29, 2010 Rapid City, S D

November 3

- 4, 2010 Oklahoma City, OK

November 8

- 9, 2010 Minneapolis, MN

November 22

- 23, 2010 Seattle, WA

November 29

- 30, 2010 Nashville, TN

December 1

- 2, 2010 Albuquerque, NM

December 13

- 14, 2010 Anchorage, AK

Issues raised and USDA’s responses are described in the bulleted list below. In summary, t he feedback we received from the consultation meetings was that information provided by USDA resolved the majority of concerns that had been raised earlier

. USDA received very few negative comments, and few concerns were expressed. In general, the participants who attended the traceability breakout sessions said they considered the new framework and proposed rule to be a reasonable and workable solution to the need for traceability. Some who were unable to attend the traceability break out session nevertheless thanked us for offering an opportunity for consultation in the development of a proposed rule. They also expressed their appreciation that our traceability framework provide s Tribes with the option of establishing their own traceability program apart from the States. While they believe few will exercise this option, they were pleased with our recognition of their sovereignty

. Tribal feedback, along with the recommendations of the Tr aceability Regulation Working Group and other sources of input were considered in the development of the traceability proposed rule.
Issues raised and USDA’s responses : Funding. This is a concern shared by States as well. In the past, we have provided

co operative agreement funds to help support traceability efforts in States, T ribes, and Territories. We will continue to do that as funds are available. We will also use the latest NASS Census of Agriculture data for T ribes to make sure our funds are alloc ated equitably. Concern that the data systems that were developed by USDA and made available to T ribes at no charge would remain available for use. We assured them that the data systems already developed would be available in the future

.4

Cost to producers . One participant stated that the current system of official metal tags and brands is adequate and we didn’t need anything new. When we explained that those methods were acceptable under the new framework, he expressed appreciation. Another participant expressed concern that the new framework might result in the need for additional identification devices over and above what he currently used for herd

mana gement. When we explained that official eartags that can be used for herd management are currently a vailable, his concern was resolved. C oncerns about cost share requirements in our cooperative agreements and the 10 percent indirect cost limit for nonprofits included in the Farm Bill. We are looking into this. The need for outreach and education on issu es related to animal agriculture in general. There appears to be a lack of knowledge on what animal diseases are of concern and why traceability is needed. We have a designated T ribal liaison veterinarian w ho has been meeting with T ribes and T ribal organ izations throughout the U nited S tates to explain the new traceability framework and provide updates on livestock disease control programs in general. There is a plan for c ontinued outreach to the T ribes and to provide them assistance in the cooperative ag reement process.
Tribal Cooperative A greements

T hrough the cooperative agreement process over the past several years
, many T ribes receive d funds to help provide education and outreach to their producers about the need for traceability and begin to develop traceability plans. In the past, there has not been sufficient information about the number of livestock operations and livestock numbers to provide a basis for equitable distribution of funds. The most recent NASS Census of Agriculture has much more T ri bal data than ever before, and it is our intent to use these data to help us allocate cooperative agreement funds to States and T ribes equitably.