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 strengths 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 Traceability forum in Kansas City, 

Missouri. Over 60 Tribal representatives were invited, and travel expenses were paid for those 

who could attend.

Breakout sessions at the forum included one devoted to the “Role of Consultation in Tribal 

Jurisdictions.” Janie Hipp, Senior Adviser to Secretary Vilsack for Tribal Relations, moderated 

two sessions attended by roughly 40 Tribal and 15 State representatives. She assured everyone 

that USDA did not consider these sessions to constitute Tribal consultation but rather were

intended to identify issues related to traceability and jurisdiction that would need to be addressed 

prior to or during Tribal consultation. She offered to e-mail to any requester a copy of the 

USDA Tribal Consultation Action Plan, which had been approved by the White House.

The 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 Tribal livestock 

operations and cattle in their requests for funding, Tribes need to be at the table too.

Outreach/education/producer 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 Tribal brand inspectors and producers during the 

time that consultation with elected Tribal officials is taking place. The need to have 

smaller regional meetings with Tribal and State animal health officials present was 

raised. 

Tribes that have to work closely with the Bureau of Indian Affairs felt that the 

Department of the Interior should have been at this week’s meeting. 

There was concern about when tagging will become “mandatory.”
2

There is a need to clarify what constitutes interstate movement in Indian country, 

especially when a reservation straddles one or more State boundaries. 

There is a need for respect of Tribal 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 multiple layers of Tribal approvals before a chairman 

can sign off on cooperative agreement paperwork. This makes it imperative to allow 

sufficient time for the cooperative agreement application process in order for them to 

meet deadlines. 

Many Tribes 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 identification.”

Tribes want to protect their reservation boundaries from illnesses from out-of-State cattle.

Tribal Participation 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 Tribal 

subject matter experts. Several Federal employees with animal disease traceability 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 thinking 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 Traceability to facilitate interaction between State and Tribal 

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 consultations were 

held in conjunction with other Tribal meetings and other USDA agency consultations. 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, SD

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, the 

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 breakout 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 provides 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 Traceability 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 

cooperative agreement funds to help support traceability efforts in States, Tribes, and 

Territories. We will continue to do that as funds are available. We will also use the latest 

NASS Census of Agriculture data for Tribes to make sure our funds are allocated 

equitably.

Concern that the data systems that were developed by USDA and made available to 

Tribes 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 

management. When we explained that official eartags that can be used for herd 

management are currently available, his concern was resolved.

Concerns 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 issues 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 Tribal liaison veterinarian who has been 

meeting with Tribes and Tribal organizations throughout the United States to explain the 

new traceability framework and provide updates on livestock disease control programs in 

general. There is a plan for continued outreach to the Tribes and to provide them 

assistance in the cooperative agreement process.

Tribal Cooperative Agreements

Through the cooperative agreement process over the past several years, many Tribes received

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 Tribal data 

than ever before, and it is our intent to use these data to help us allocate cooperative agreement 

funds to States and Tribes equitably.