United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Marketing and 

Regulatory 

Programs

Animal and 

Plant Health 

Inspection 

Service 

Recognition of 

Patagonia Region in 

Argentina as Free of 

Foot-and-Mouth 

Disease

Environmental Assessment, 

January 2014
Recognition of Patagonia 

Region in Argentina as Free of 

Foot-and-Mouth Disease

Environmental Assessment, 

January 2014

Agency Contact:

Dr. Silvia Kreindel, Senior Staff Veterinarian 

Regionalization Evaluation Services Staff 

National Center for Import and Export 

Veterinary Services 

Animal Plant Health Inspection Service 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

4700 River Rd. Unit 38 

Riverdale, MD 20737

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its 

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, 

religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family 

status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program 

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’S 

TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

Room 326–W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, 

DC 20250–9410 or call (202) 720–5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer. 

Mention of companies or commercial products in this report does not imply 

recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture over 

others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the standard of 

any product mentioned. Product names are mentioned solely to report 

factually on available data and to provide specific information. 
Table of Contents 

I. Need for the Action............................................................................................................................ 4

A.  Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 4

B.  Need.................................................................................................................................................. 5

II. Alternatives........................................................................................................................................ 5

A.  No Action .......................................................................................................................................... 6

B.  Preferred Alternative ........................................................................................................................ 6

III.    Environmental Consequences............................................................................................................ 9

A.  No Action .......................................................................................................................................... 9

B.  Preferred Alternative ...................................................................................................................... 10

1.  FMDV and Vaccinations.............................................................................................................. 11

2.  FMD and Processing.................................................................................................................... 14

3.  Regulatory Control of FMD ......................................................................................................... 14

4.  Interspecies Transmission of FMD.............................................................................................. 15

5.  Environmental Fate of FMD........................................................................................................ 20

6.  Public Health ............................................................................................................................... 22

IV.  Other Environmental Issues............................................................................................................... 23

A.  Environmental Justice and the Preferred Alternative .................................................................... 23

B.  Protection of Children and the Preferred Alternative .................................................................... 23

C.  Threatened and Endangered Species and the Preferred Alternative............................................. 23

D.  Potential Cumulative Impacts......................................................................................................... 24

V.  Listing of Agencies Consulted ............................................................................................................. 26

VI. References.......................................................................................................................................... 27
4

I. Need for the Action 

A. Introduction 

Generally, the importation of livestock is prohibited except under certain 

circumstances from specific areas, as stated in Title 9 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) § 94. These restrictions are designed to prevent the 

introduction of a number of animal diseases including foot-and-mouth 

disease (FMD). In 1997, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), established rules 

for recognizing regions, rather than only countries, for the purpose of 

importation of animals and animal products into the United States (9 

CFR 92.2). This action was designed to facilitate trade while 

minimizing the risk of the introduction of animal disease to the United 

States. 

Argentina submitted an official request to APHIS to attain recognition of 

a region of Patagonia, which consists of Patagonia South (the region of 

Argentina south of the 42nd parallel) plus the adjacent region 

immediately north of the 42nd parallel known as Patagonia North B 

(hereafter referred to as Patagonia Region), as free from FMD. The 

World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) considers the Patagonia 

Region to be free of FMD. The last outbreak of FMD in the Patagonia 

Region occurred in 1994. Consistent with U.S. regulations, APHIS 

conducted a risk analysis to evaluate the likelihood of FMD introduction 

into the United States through the importation of animals and animal 

products from the Patagonia region in Argentina. The findings of that 

document are summarized and incorporated by reference into this 

environmental assessment (EA). 

FMD is an acute, highly contagious viral disease that primarily affects 

cloven-hoofed animals. FMD may affect humans; however, that 

occurrence is rare (USDA-APHIS, 2013). All cloven-hoofed animals 

including cattle, sheep, goats, deer, buffalo, and swine are susceptible to 

FMD. The death rate from this disease is usually low; however, clinical 

signs during the acute phase of the infection can result in costly losses in 

meat and milk production. The disease is characterized by vesicles that 

develop in the hooves and mouth areas. FMD is transmitted to 

susceptible animals through exposure to the active virus. Transmission 

may occur through inhalation of airborne droplets (primarily from 

animals in close contact) through direct contact (such as ingestion, 

sexual transmission, mucous membrane discharge from the eyes, nose, 

or mouth, skin or mucous membrane abrasions), or through indirect 

exposure (feed, drinking water, equipment, animal products, human 

clothing, transportation vehicles). Exclusion of this disease from the 
5

United States is particularly important in that the virus responsible for 

this disease is highly contagious and can survive in the environment for 

extended periods of time. Previous outbreaks of FMD in the United 

States have been very costly to contain and eradicate. The United States 

reported the last FMD outbreak in 1929. 

APHIS conducted site visits to Argentina in 2003, 2005, 2006, 2009, and 

2013. Based upon the findings of those site visits and the risk assessment, 

APHIS concludes that the Patagonia Region is free of FMD and the 

likelihood of introduction of FMD virus (FMDV) into the United States 

via susceptible species or their products imported from the Patagonia 

Region is very low. The combination of Argentina’s legal framework, 

animal health infrastructure, movement and border controls, diagnostic 

capabilities, surveillance programs, and emergency response capacity 

provides a comprehensive system with redundant safeguards that are 

sufficient to detect, prevent, control, and eradicate FMD outbreaks within 

the boundaries of the Patagonia Region. 

B. Need 

In response to an official request from Argentina and in accordance 

with relevant U.S. statutes and regulations and agreements, APHIS 

has reviewed the issues related to importation of species and products 

susceptible to FMD from the Patagonia Region of Argentina. The 

preparation of this EA complies with the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4327, its implementing 

regulations, and Executive Order 12114, “Environmental Effects 

Abroad of Major Federal Actions”. The issue of potential 

environmental risks of an outbreak of FMD in the United States 

resulting from imported animals and animal products is of great 

concern to APHIS. Characterization of the disease risk potential and 

adequate mitigation measures are critical to excluding this disease 

from the United States. 

II. Alternatives 

This EA analyzes potential environmental consequences of recognizing 

the Patagonia Region of Argentina as free of FMD. This recognition 

would allow the importation of FMD-susceptible animals or products 

originating in the Patagonia Region of Argentina under certain 

conditions. The two possible alternatives considered in this EA are (1) 

the current recognition of the Patagonia Region of Argentina as an FMDaffected region similar to the rest of the country (no action), and (2) 

recognition of the Patagonia Region as free of FMD (preferred 

alternative). The issues of potential environmental impacts associated 
6

with the disease risks of each alternative are discussed in section 3, 

Environmental Consequences of the Alternatives. 

A. No Action 

The No Action Alternative is defined as continuation of the current 

sanitary regulation of importation of animals and animal products from 

all of Argentina. This alternative would involve continuation of the 

prohibition of the importation of FMD-susceptible animals and products 

from Argentina. The lack of any changes in conditions for the entry of 

commercial shipments of live ruminants, beef, pork, lamb, and other 

livestock products from Argentina maintains overall disease risks at the 

status quo. 

B. Preferred Alternative 

Recognition of the Patagonia Region as FMD-free 

Argentina has requested that APHIS recognize the Patagonia Region 

as free of FMD. The Preferred Alternative would recognize the 

Patagonia Region of Argentina as FMD-free and would allow the 

importation of FMD-susceptible animals and products from the 

Patagonia Region, under certain conditions. After conducting a risk 

assessment in connection with the request, APHIS has determined 

that ruminant and ruminant products can be safely imported from the 

Patagonia Region within Argentina provided that certain requirements 

are met. In addition, because rinderpest has never become established 

in South America, APHIS would recognize the Patagonia Region of 

Argentina as free of rinderpest. The Preferred Alternative is designed 

to maintain sanitary security in the United States while facilitating 

trade with Argentina. 

The conclusions of the risk assessment for the Patagonia Region, as 

presented in the disease risk analysis (USDA–APHIS, 2013) are 

summarized for each regionalization factor below.1

 Argentina’s 

consistent and ongoing fulfillment of these factors is part of the 

requirement for recognition of disease-free status – 

                                                             1

 The 11 factors (defined by APHIS as necessary to regionalization as described in 9 CFR § 

92.2(b)) are met by the Patagonia Region of Argentina. In 2012, APHIS consolidated the 11 

factors into 8 factors. However, since the evaluation of the Patagonia Region started before 

2012, and the topics addressed by the 11 factors are contained within the 8 factors, this report 

follows the 11 factor format. 
7

(1) Argentina has made significant improvements to its veterinary 

infrastructure since FMD outbreaks in Argentina in 2000-2001. 

Based upon site visits and documentation reviews, APHIS 

considers Argentina’s Servicio Nacional de Sanidad y Calidad 

Agroalimentaria (SENASA) to have sufficient legal authority to 

carry out official disease control, eradication, and quarantine 

activities. In addition, APHIS is confident that in the unlikely 

event of another outbreak, reporting would be prompt and 

transparent. 

(2) The last FMD outbreak in the Patagonia Region occurred in 

1994. There is no evidence to suggest that any species have 

been infected with FMDV in this region since 1994. 

(3) Argentina is bordered by Paraguay to the north, Bolivia to the 

northwest, Uruguay and Brazil to the northeast, and Chile to the 

west. APHIS only considers Chile to be FMD-free; however, 

there is no evidence that FMD has been transported from 

surrounding countries and/or other regions of Argentina into the 

Patagonia Region in 20 years. All sides of this region are 

bordered by either the ocean or areas that are either free of 

FMD with or without vaccination following OIE standards. 

(4) There is not an active disease control program in the Patagonia 

Region since an FMD outbreak has not occurred since 1994. There 

are measures in place, however, including strict animal movement 

controls, border inspections, and clinical surveillance for prevention 

and early detection if the disease were introduced. 

(5) FMD vaccination is prohibited in the Patagonia Region. In the 

absence of vaccination, it is likely that clinical signs compatible 

with FMD resulting from an incursion of disease would be 

identified. 

(6) Most of the Argentine border is protected by natural barriers 

that help reduce the unrestricted flow of animals and animal 

products from areas of higher risk. Government movement 

control measures compensate in areas where natural barriers do 

not exist. 

(7) The Patagonia Region has adequate controls at ports of entry for 

legal commercial and noncommercial importation of FMDsusceptible species and livestock products. Site visits to border 

control posts demonstrate adequate staffing levels, knowledge of 

requirements and procedures, professionalism, and efficiency. 

(8) Argentina has a system designed to capture farm inventory, 
8

animal movement information, sanitary information, 

identification numbers, and control movements. The National 

Identification System is comprehensive and enables the 

Patagonia Region to comply with the U.S. certification 

requirements. 

(9) Argentina has a surveillance system designed to estimate herd 

immunity of the vaccinated cattle population and to 

demonstrate the absence of FMDV circulation. In 2011, 

serological sampling was conducted to demonstrate the 

absence of disease in the Patagonia Region; no reactors were 

found. In 2013, a serological survey of Patagonia North A was 

designed to supplement information needed to apply for 

recognition of this area as an FMD-free zone without 

vaccination. No reactors were identified in any of the samples 

collected. 

(10) Argentina has one diagnostic laboratory for FMD in Buenos 

Aires. The laboratory was determined by APHIS to have 

sufficient capacity to accurately diagnose FMD. 

(11) Emergency response capabilities in Argentina are adequate. 

Local veterinary officials are well-trained in procedures to 

control and contain FMD outbreaks. A plan developed by 

SENASA in 2007 also addresses procedures for rapid 

containment of disease in case of an outbreak. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, once a country is listed as FMD-free 

following APHIS’ evaluation, other requirements must be met to 

import ruminants into the United States from the Patagonia Region. 

These requirements ensure that FMD-susceptible animals and products 

can be safely imported from the Patagonia Region: 

 The ruminants must be accompanied by a health certificate 

issued by a full-time salaried veterinary officer of the national 

government of the region of origin (9 CFR 93.405.a); 

 The ruminants must have been kept in the FMD-free region 

during the last 60 days immediately preceding the date of 

shipment to the United States (9 CFR 93.405.a.1) during which 

time they may not have been exposed to communicable disease, 

or have been under any quarantine (9 CFR 93.405.a.2) or other 

movement restrictions due to animal health concerns. If any 

restrictions have occurred, they must be communicated to 

APHIS in advance of an import permit being issued; 

 The animals must have been isolated without contact with any 

other ruminants or animals that could transmit diseases or 
9

ruminants for a period of 60 days prior to export, during which 

time they must be tested for communicable diseases as 

specified by APHIS; 

 The ruminants may not have been vaccinated for FMD; 

 All ruminants imported into the United States (except from 

Canada, Mexico, Central America, and West Indies) must be 

quarantined in a USDA facility (or a privately-owned, APHISapproved quarantine facility) for not less than 30 days starting 

from the date of arrival at the port of entry (9 CFR 93.411.a). 

These requirements mitigate the risk of exposure by increasing the 

probability of disease detection prior to export and during quarantine 

in the United States. 

The requirements in 9 CFR 94.11 mitigate the risks associated with 

importing meat and other animal products from regions with less 

restrictive practices by (1) restricting the sourcing of meat of 

ruminants and swine to the FMD-free region, (2) prohibiting 

commingling of live animals, meat, or meat products for export with 

such commodities from regions not considered free of FMD, and (3) 

requiring exporting slaughter establishments to be approved by the 

USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service. In addition, an official 

veterinarian of the exporting country must certify that these 

conditions have been met. 

III. Environmental Consequences 

A. No Action 

The No Action Alternative would leave the current recognition of 

FMD status in the Patagonia Region unchanged. Under this 

alternative, the Patagonia Region would continue not to be allowed 

to export FMD-susceptible ruminants and ruminant products to the 

United States. 

The biological history and disease potential of FMD suggest that 

the continuation of the current regulations of FMD-susceptible 

animals and products (no entry) from the Patagonia Region of 

Argentina would maintain the status quo with respect to impact on 

the human environment. As with most commodities, there is 

always some risk of smuggling; however, the frequency is low due 

to the high punitive costs from noncompliance. Due to the high 

potential risks from disease associated with noncompliance, 

APHIS’ policy is to provide a strong deterrent. Therefore, APHIS 
10

keeps importers and shippers informed of its import regulations 

and of the penalties for inadequate compliance. The importer or 

shipper could be subject to civil penalties, criminal fines, jail 

sentences, and loss of revenue due to APHIS’ rejection of 

commodities, permit applications, and/or compliance agreements. 

A major tool for APHIS is the option to refuse entry, require 

treatment, or require destruction of infected or potentially infected 

cargo. All of these options are costly to the shipping line and 

exporter who must assume all costs for the delays and any 

treatments. 

All of these measures provide strong incentive for full compliance with 

import regulations. Monitoring the rates of compliance with a 

phytosanitary rule, promulgated in 1998, found that proper compliance 

with those import requirements was achieved approximately 98 percent 

of the time (USDA–APHIS, 2003). Comparable compliance is expected 

for any present or revised sanitary regulations related to the importation 

of FMD-susceptible animals and products from the Patagonia Region. 

B. Preferred Alternative 

The environmental consequences from recognition of the Patagonia 

Region of Argentina as FMD-free are largely contingent upon the 

effectiveness of various mitigations and procedures to preclude 

exposure of the Patagonia Region to FMDV and to preclude 

importation from the Patagonia Region to the United States of any 

ruminants or ruminant products that could potentially be infected with 

FMDV. The risk analysis (USDA–APHIS, 2013) of importing FMD 

in susceptible species and products from the Patagonia Region 

evaluates the risk of the disease in the region. While permitting 

exports from the Patagonia Region is assumed to pose some theoretical 

risk of exposure beyond the No Action Alternative, APHIS has 

determined that such risk is very low and that FMD-susceptible animals 

and products can be safely imported from the Patagonia Region within 

Argentina provided that certain requirements are met. Findings of the 

risk analysis are summarized within this document and are 

incorporated by reference herein.

Compliance with NEPA requires APHIS to consider all potential 

effects to the human environment from this rule. In addition to 

consideration of disease issues related to livestock, this document 

analyzes characterization of the potential effects to humans, wildlife, 

and environmental quality. The information is presented by topics 

related to program requirements and mitigative actions that affect 

potential disease risks associated with the importation of FMD-
11

ruminant susceptible species and associated unprocessed products from 

the Patagonia Region in Argentina. This includes sections with issues 

related to the vaccinations, surveillance, the disease transmission 

mechanism as related to wildlife, and the persistence of FMDV under 

various environmental conditions on or in environmental media such as 

in soil, in water, on plants, and on abiotic surfaces. 

FMDV is the virus that causes FMD. FMDVs are members of the 

Picornaviridae family and viruses of the genus Aphthovirus. FMDV is a 

small virus that is very infectious, multiplying in and causing damage to 

cells throughout the body of susceptible animals. The virus can survive 

in the environment for extended periods of time. FMD is an acute, 

highly contagious viral disease, mainly of cloven-footed animals. The 

risk to humans from FMDV is minimal. Confirmed cases of FMD in 

humans are rare. Symptoms in humans are mostly mild and primarily 

include fever and blisters in the mouth. Patients usually recover within a 

week after the last blister formation (USDA–APHIS, 2013). 

The major host species for FMDV is widely recognized to be domestic 

cattle. FMD in cattle is characterized by the formation of lesions on the 

feet and mouth, damage to the mucous membrane lining the 

gastrointestinal system, and high fever. Damage from FMDV also may 

occur to the heart muscle cells (particularly in young animals), the milksecreting cells of the udder, and hormone-producing cells. All clovenhoofed animals including cattle, sheep, goats, deer, buffalo, and swine 

are susceptible to FMD. The death rate from this disease is usually low; 

however, clinical signs during the acute phase of the infection can 

result in costly losses in meat and milk production. The disease is 

characterized by vesicles that develop in the hooves and mouth areas. 

FMD is transmitted to susceptible animals through exposure to the active 

virus. Transmission may occur through inhalation of airborne droplets 

(primarily from animals in close contact), through direct contact (such as 

ingestion, sexual transmission, mucous membrane discharges from the 

eyes, nose or mouth, skin or mucous membrane abrasions), or through 

indirect exposure (feed, drinking water, equipment, animal products, 

human clothing, transportation vehicles). Exclusion of this disease from 

the United States is particularly important in that the virus responsible 

for this disease is highly contagious and can survive in the environment 

for extended periods of time. Previous outbreaks of FMD in the United 

States have been very costly to contain and eradicate. The United States 

reported the last FMD outbreak in 1929. 

For FMD to remain in a population, each infected animal must infect at 

least one other animal. The primary methods in which FMDV moves 

out of an infected animal are in airborne droplets from the lungs and the 

1. FMDV and 

 Vaccinations 
12

fluid-filled vesicles; in the saliva, urine, feces, semen, and milk; 

secretions from the eyes, nose, prepuce, and vagina (WIN, 2001). 

Infected meat, hides, and bones also carry the FMDV. 

It is possible for animals to carry FMDV without appearing clinically ill 

under conditions such as recovery from clinical disease and undetected 

subclinical disease; nevertheless, reports of carrier animals infecting 

susceptible animals are extremely rare (WIN, 2001). Different strains2 

of FMD have different capacities to establish persistent infection, and 

the proportion of animals that become carriers following exposure to 

virus varies depending on the severity of the challenge, but does not 

appear to be influenced by the age or sex of the host (WIN, 2001). The 

establishment of carriers is reduced in endemic areas if routine 

vaccination is used. Vaccination does not cause animals to become 

FMDV carriers; properly inactivated vaccine, when injected into 

animals, does not give rise to the carrier state (WIN, 2001).

Three general conditions must be present for a virus to persist over a 

long term in a host. First, the virus must be able to infect host cells 

without being lethal to the cell. Second, there must be mechanisms for 

long-term maintenance of the viral genome3 in host cells. Third, the 

virus has to avoid detection and elimination by the host’s immune 

system (Fields et al., 1996). Viruses have devised various strategies to 

accomplish these goals. The normal response of the immune system is 

to detect antigens 4 and establish an immune response to those antigens. 

A virus will modify specific antigens or proteins so as to evade the 

host’s immune system, thereby establishing persistent infection in the 

host. In the case of FMD, the modification of specific antigens or 

proteins gives rise to a substrain of virus. 

Given that viruses tend to modify their antigenic and protein 

characteristics for persistent survival within the host, it is likely that 

FMDV will switch strains. Vaccination against a certain FMD strain 

does not result in protection against other strains. Argentine animal 

health authorities may respond to the presence of outbreaks in the 

Patagonia Region by following a stamping out that involves the killing of 

susceptible animals that were likely to have been exposed to the index 

case. Regardless of the strain that may cause an outbreak, SENASA will 

                                                             2 A strain is a taxonomic subdivision of a micro-organism based on characteristic antigens or 

proteins. 

3

 A genome represents all of the genetic information or hereditary material possessed by an 

organism or micro-organism. 

4

 An antigen is a substance that can trigger an immune response, usually a foreign protein, 

which is not found naturally in the body. 
13

manage FMD outbreaks following their contingency plan, and a sanitary 

state of emergency will be declared with the accompanying quarantine 

and movement restrictions and sanitary measures (USDA–APHIS, 

2013).  

a. FMD Situation in the Patagonia Region 

The epidemiological office of the National Animal Health Office in 

Argentina is responsible for the regulatory aspects and the assessments of the 

recorded information. The general field office, the regional supervisors, and 

the local SENASA veterinarians are responsible for the operations. 

In May 2002, the OIE recognized the area south of the 42nd parallel 

(Patagonia South) as FMD free without vaccination. In May 2007, the OIE 

recognized Patagonia North B as FMD free without vaccination. The 

northern border of the Patagonia Region borders an area of Argentina which 

is considered by the OIE to be free of FMD with vaccination (Northern 

Argentina). Vaccination is not practiced in the Patagonia Region and has 

never been systematically applied. Vaccination also is not performed in 

Patagonia North B. Administration of serum against FMD infection is not 

permitted in these regions. 

b. FMD Surveillance 

FMD has not been diagnosed in South America for two years (last 

outbreak reported in Paraguay in 2012) (USDA-APHIS, 2013). 

Effective FMD surveillance programs in the South America region are 

essential in the prevention and containment of disease outbreaks. 

APHIS has evaluated the movement and detection controls in place for 

the Patagonia Region of Argentina and has determined that they are 

adequate to maintain an overall very low level of risk of introducing 

FMDV to the United States via the pathway of live ruminants and 

ruminant products exported from the Patagonia Region (USDA–APHIS, 

2013). 

The FMD surveillance performed in the Patagonia Region can be broadly 

characterized as having two phases: (1) demonstrating freedom from disease 

in a zone, and (2) monitoring of the zone. Argentina employs “active” and 

“passive” systems of surveillance. Passive surveillance—watching for any 

suspicion of FMD—in Argentina is bolstered by effective community 

education and involvement, while the bulk of active surveillance consists of 

the annual serological sampling of randomly selected animals and regular 

survey of higher-risk areas (USDA–APHIS, 2013). APHIS considers the 
14

Patagonia Region to have implemented effective disease surveillance 

strategies. 

Animal processing can lead to exposure and spread of FMD. Only livestock 

from production areas complying with the APHIS certification requirements 

under the Preferred Alternative would be accepted for slaughter, and 

processing would occur only at approved facilities in the Patagonia Region of 

Argentina. 

Federal, State, and local veterinary authorities enforce the animal health laws 

in Argentina. SENASA establishes and enforces animal health regulations at 

the national level in Argentina to prevent the introduction and spread of 

animal pests and diseases. Argentina has instituted the National 

Identification System. Domestic movement controls over animals are 

stringent. Through these FMD regulations, the Government controls the 

movement of cattle from one location to another. SENASA, Federal and 

State veterinary facilities, and accredited veterinarians all play a role in 

ensuring the health of livestock in Argentina. 

The severity of an FMD outbreak may be influenced by government’s 

decisions such as reporting and notification delays. As noted in the risk 

analysis, Argentina’s current reporting and notification systems meet 

U.S. and international standards. 

The establishment of effective surveillance and monitoring of susceptible 

livestock also is important in preventing and limiting FMD outbreaks. 

Argentina requires that all premises with agricultural animal production 

register with SENASA and obtain unique identification numbers that encode 

information about individual premises, and link to data on the health, test 

status, and movement of their animals. Animals are tracked from field to 

slaughter; slaughterhouses must be able to identify every supplier and trace 

all products intended for export, showing compliance with the requirements 

of SENASA and those of the destination country. The SENASA individual 

animal and premises identification system (SENASA Resolution 754/2006) is 

mandatory for all bovine and ovine destined to the European Union (USDAAPHIS, 2013). 

Chile is the only South American country considered by APHIS to be FMDfree (USDA–APHIS, 2013). To avoid disease introduction and spread into 

Argentina, Argentina operates domestic checkpoints; its international borders 

are monitored in a regional disease-control effort. Even so, disease 

transmission into Northern Argentina from adjacent countries has occurred. 

In areas where natural barriers do not exist, and at sea, air, and land ports of 

entry, Argentina has enhanced governmental protocols to protect their animal 

populations against FMD. Border surveillance and extensive biosecurity 

measures are in place to control the movement of people, animals, and goods 

as they enter the country. Imports of FMD-susceptible livestock from 

2. FMD and 

 Processing 

3. Regulatory 

 Control of 

 FMD 
15

approved countries are quarantined and tested. Imports of live FMDsusceptible animals into the Patagonia Region are only allowed from 

countries recognized by the OIE and SENASA as free of FMD (without 

vaccination). Argentina participates with other South American governments 

in the Cuenca del Plata Agreement—a harmonized regional subprogram of 

the PANAFTOSA Hemispheric Plan for the Eradication of FMD—in 

reporting and responding to disease risks in neighboring countries. 

APHIS conducted site visits to Argentina in 2003, 2005, 2006, 2009, and 

2013. APHIS also evaluated documentation provided by SENASA, scientific 

literature, and site observations in Argentina reported by the Canadian Food 

Inspection Agency. APHIS concludes that the risk of introducing FMD into 

the United States through the importation of ruminants and ruminant products 

originating in the Patagonia Region is very low (USDA–APHIS, 2013). 

APHIS considers that Argentina’s SENASA possesses sufficient legal 

authority to carry out official prevention, control, and quarantine activities for 

animal health programs, and that it has demonstrated an infrastructure 

adequate for rapid detection of FMD and for carrying out surveillance and 

eradication programs (USDA–APHIS, 2013). 

The climate in the Patagonia Region is mostly dry and windy in the summer 

and cold, windy, and snowy in the winter. The land is not used for growing 

crops, but mainly for sheep meat and wool production. The terrain and 

desolate nature of the area act as an effective barrier to disease incursion 

through illegal trafficking of prohibited products. Areas where there are no 

natural barriers have control mechanisms that include mobile patrols and a 

permanent coordination between national and provincial entities to maintain 

a constant presence at the region route controls (National Border Police and 

other police authorities). 

FMD is one of the most contagious animal diseases known (AVIS/OIE, 

2000); although rare, human cases have occurred. However, FMD is not 

considered zoonotic under natural conditions (Enserink, 2001; AVMA, 

2007). Natural infection with FMDV has been reported worldwide in animal 

families, including the Bovidai, Cervidai, Suidae, Tayasuidae, Camelidae, 

Giraffidae, Erinaceidae, Muridae, Elephantidae, Tapiridae, and Ursidae 

(Mouchantant et al., 2005). Transmission between susceptible cloven-hoofed 

wild and domesticated animals is possible and known to have occurred once 

in the United States in 1924 (Rhyan et al., 2006). The virus also may be 

transmitted mechanically by humans and nonsusceptible animals (carrier 

animals), such as rodents and birds. 

4. Interspecies 

Transmission of 

FMD 
16

FMD can cause blisters and flu-like symptoms in humans, and lasting 

debilitation or rarely death in cloven-hoofed animals. There is no known 

treatment for FMD (AVMA, 2007). Severity of the disease and expression of 

symptoms can vary greatly, even within a species. Sheep are generally 

considered to be “carriers,” while swine are “amplifiers” and cattle are 

“indicators” (CIDRAP, 2007). Although occasionally FMD can be very 

destructive to wildlife populations (for example, the South African impala in 

the late 19th century, or mountain gazelles in Israel more recently 

(Shimshony et al., 1986; Thomson et al., 2003)), generally FMD in wildlife 

“results in a relatively mild disease from which the affected animals recover 

in a week or two. The significance of the disease for wildlife lies largely in 

the potential that cloven-hoofed wild animals have for transmitting the 

disease to domestic livestock . . .” (Thomson et al., 2003). 

Experts generally consider the transfer of FMD from wildlife to domestic 

animals to be unlikely. In most cases, it does not appear that FMD can 

long survive independently of domesticated animals. FMD in wildlife 

appears to be an extension of the disease in livestock, with the exception 

of the sub-Saharan Africa. Therefore, if FMD is eradicated from 

livestock in a region, it generally disappears from wildlife in the region 

(Thomson et al., 2003). There are several ways that the virus may be 

transferred between wildlife and susceptible livestock (USGS, 2001; 

WDNR, 2003)— 

• exposure to infected saliva, feces, urine, milk, semen, meat, and 

meat byproducts of infected animals; 

• exposure to viral particles carried via wind, animals, or on 

virtually any object (farm equipment, hay, shoes, etc.); 

• drinking from a common source of contaminated water; and 

• exposure to raw or improperly cooked infected garbage. 

In order to conduct a thorough analysis of the effect that implementing the 

Preferred Alternative could have on the human environment in the 

United States, APHIS examined the consequences of the movement of 

FMDV between wild animals and domestic livestock within the Patagonia 

Region of Argentina and surrounding regions, as well as within the United 

States. 

APHIS considers that the livestock sampling conducted in the Patagonia 

Region under the national serological sampling plan is adequate to detect 

disease and identify and measure viral activity in the export region (USDAAPHIS, 2013). In 2013, a wildlife surveillance study was conducted 

involving wild boar in the Patagonia North A area. No reactors were 

identified in the samples (USDA-APHIS, 2013). This could indicate that the 

virus does not survive or is not present in local species of wildlife capable of 

carrying or being infected with FMDV. 
17

If FMDV enters the United States, susceptible livestock and wildlife may be 

potentially at risk of contracting and spreading the disease. North American 

wildlife (including white-tailed deer and other deer species, feral pigs, bison, 

moose, antelope, peccaries, musk ox, caribou, sheep, and elk) are known to 

be susceptible to FMD and would likely be targeted for eradication in the 

vicinity of FMD outbreaks (USGS, 2007a; USGS, 2007b). Loss of livestock, 

rare species, and habitat due to the culling process, the pollution of the 

environment from mass carcass disposals, and increased danger to humans 

and animals from widespread disinfectant or other chemical uses are all likely 

in the event of an FMD outbreak (Pinto, 2004). 

“All cloven-hoofed animals and Camelidae . . . are susceptible to 

infection with FMD viruses but the facility with which different species 

and even breeds of animals develop clinical disease varies . . . This 

variation is largely quantified in the case of domestic animals but for 

most species of wildlife their relative susceptibility is unknown . . . With 

a few exceptions, excretion and transmission of FMD by wildlife has not 

been studied in any detail. For that reason much of what is currently 

accepted in that regard has been extrapolated from what is known to 

occur in domestic species” (Thomson et al., 2003). It is difficult to 

diagnose FMD in wildlife because symptoms can vary greatly. The 

disease tends to be subclinically expressed, and physical examinations of 

wild populations are difficult to carry out (Thomson et al., 2003). 

However, despite the fact that several South American wildlife species 

are susceptible to FMD, their role in the epidemiology of FMD is 

considered to be insignificant. Research into FMD in South America 

has determined that wildlife populations, including feral swine, do not 

play a significant role in the maintenance and transmission of FMD. 

During outbreak situations, wildlife may become affected by FMD; 

however, the likelihood that they will become carriers under field 

conditions is rare. As a consequence, they would not be capable of 

sustaining the epizootic once the disease has been cleared from 

domesticated cattle. Domesticated bovines are considered the primary 

reservoir for the FMD virus within South America. 

a. The Export Region and Surrounding Countries 

While FMDV can be transmitted over long distances and remain viable 

for up to 15 weeks under certain conditions (USDA–APHIS, 2013), the 

potential for transmission between wildlife and domestic livestock in the 

Patagonia Region of Argentina is offset by strict national surveillance 

programs and animal movement controls (USDA–APHIS, 2013). 

APHIS considers the feeding of contaminated waste to swine (which may 

then transmit the virus to other livestock populations) to be the primary 
18

pathway for FMDV introduction. Because of the risk presented by FMDcontaminated waste, Argentina prohibits feeding untreated swill to animals 

and has disposal requirements for confiscated products and for organic waste 

from ships and airplanes, which lessens the possibility for viral exposure to 

wild or feral animals (USDA–APHIS, 2013). 

Certain wild and domestic species may become infected and shed the 

virus without showing clinical signs, thus acting as carriers of FMD 

(USGS, 2001; Kitching and Hughes, 2002; Thomson et al., 2003). 

FMDV can survive up to 91 hours on the feathers of live birds and can 

pass unaltered through their digestive system (WDNR, 2003). The 

pathway does not need to be a live infected or carrier animal. Infectious 

levels of virus can survive in cleaned, salted, and dried intestine destined 

for sausage casing or in the clothing or nasal passages of human travelers 

(Haas and Kramer, 2000; Schoenian, 2005). 

b. United States 

The United States has retained an FMD-free status since 1929 (AVMA, 

2007). Prohibition of importation of live ruminants and swine and their 

products from FMD-affected countries, and the avoidance of contact 

with livestock, zoo animals, and wildlife by returning travelers 

continues to be considered essential for preventing FMD outbreaks 

(AVMA, 2007). However, there is the potential for interspecies 

movement of FMD in the United States should infected meat be 

imported into the country. 

For instance, in the event that FMD-contaminated meat was imported and 

disposed of in U.S. landfills, susceptible wildlife populations could 

become infected. For example, the rapidly growing white-tailed deer 

and feral pig populations in the United States are leading to increased 

foraging, scavenging, predation, and contact with these animals by 

domestic livestock populations; thus, infected species could be entirely 

wiped out or provide a further source of infection (USGS, 2001; LDWF, 

2007; ODA, 2007). Nonsusceptible animals and humans consuming or 

contacting the contaminated meat could transfer the virus mechanically, 

as previously discussed. 

The United States has already battled FMD in wildlife populations. In 

1924, in a section of Stanislaus National Forest, California, FMD 

became established in deer (CDA, 1926). At the time of the outbreak it 

was impossible to gather the wild deer to determine the extent of 

infection. The eradication effort, where all deer were either poisoned or 

shot within a 1,000-square mile area of the national forest, took 2 years. 

Available literature does not indicate that the wild deer ever reinfected 
19

cattle herds. The eradication process was expensive, it restricted human 

and livestock access to the area, and it angered people who were 

concerned with the well-being of the wild deer population. This is the 

only known occurrence of wildlife FMD infection in the United States, 

and, in 1929, the last outbreak of FMD in the United States occurred in 

cattle. 

APHIS cooperates with other Federal and State authorities in the 

detection and management of notifiable disease outbreaks in the United 

States. If susceptible wild species are exposed to FMD, Morgan et al. 

(2003) suggested analyzing and possibly implementing the following 

measures in order to prevent the transmission of the disease to domestic 

livestock— 

• lethal collection of wild animals for diagnostic testing, 

• provisions for surveillance zone, 

• the possibility of reducing the density of susceptible 

wildlife populations within an infected zone, 

• long-term observation, and 

• additional prevention and control measures, such as the closure of 

hunting seasons and restriction of access to public lands by 

humans (because humans can spread the virus via physical 

contact). 

In the United States, APHIS has a robust national emergency program 

in place for exotic/invasive pest detection and Federal response. 

Should an outbreak of FMD occur in the United States, APHIS will 

conduct further environmental analyses specific to the characteristics of 

the location and the scale of the emergency. 

c. Ongoing Wildlife Research 

In the event of an FMD outbreak, the risk to wildlife will depend on 

the distribution, density and biology of species in the affected location, 

the level of exposure to infected animals, and existing environmental 

conditions (Corn and Fischer, 2001). In order to develop more 

effective control of FMD, more needs to be understood about the 

epidemiology of the disease and the role of possible wildlife reservoirs. 

USDA–Agricultural Research Service, in association with the 

Department of Homeland Security and a Maryland biopharmaceutical 

company has developed a new FMD vaccine that is not only considered 

affordable, but can be manufactured in the United States without using 

infectious FMD materials. The current formulation is for use on cattle, 

and may prove effective in protecting domestic and wild animal 

populations. The vaccine will allow for improved diagnosis and 
20

response, and may lead to a change in trade restrictions as the new 

formula makes it possible to determine whether the FMD antibodies 

possessed by an animal were acquired from vaccination or from infection 

(FASS, 2007). 

APHIS interacts with the U.S. Department of the Interior–U.S. Geological 

Survey–National Wildlife Health Center to coordinate research and monitor 

outbreaks of FMD in South America. This Federal team is developing 

prevention and contingency plans for informing U.S. land management and 

conservation agencies about the risk FMD may pose to wildlife (USGS, 

2007a). In addition to helping the United States control FMD in wildlife 

populations, these efforts also may assist Argentina and other countries in the 

future when dealing with the potential interspecies movement of FMD. 

FMDV may persist in the external environment for extended periods of 

time whenever susceptible animals in close contact are exposed to the 

virus. For a virus to become freely circulating, it must be able to persist 

in the environment either inside or outside of the host long enough to 

infect a susceptible host. The Cottral study (1969) reports the survival 

time of FMDV on or within various contaminated objects at ambient 

temperatures, as shown in table 1. 

Table 1. Survival Time of FMD Virus on Various Contaminated Objects At 

Ambient Temperatures. 

Contaminated Objects Weeks of Survival

Soil, S–W 5 1–21 

Barn dirt; Barn sand 1–10 

Road sand; garden soil 1.5–4 

Manure, S–W 1–24 

Sewage, S–W 3–15 

Barns (brick, adobe, wood), S–W 2–11 

Walls, brick and plaster 2–4 

Soil, water, lichens 4 

Pasture plants, S–W 1–7 

Haystack, S–W 4–29 

Feed sacks; bran 20 

                                                            

5 S–W, 1–21: summer 1 week, winter 21 weeks.

5. Environmental 

 Fate of FMD 
21

Meal 7 

Vegetables 1 

Water 3–14 

Houseflies 10 

Ticks 15–20 

Wool, sheep 2 

Hair, cattle 4–6 

Glass surface 2 

Clothing and footwear, S–W 6 3–9, 14 

Meat cloth (at 4 oC) 6 

In addition to the objects listed in table 1, many other contaminated items 

have been suspected as the source of FMD outbreaks, including various 

domestic or wild animals and birds, humans, truck tires, and even postal 

materials. The survival time of FMDV is shorter for virus in the environment 

than for virus in animals. Sunlight, temperature, pH changes, relative 

humidity, and the dilution effect of rain and melting snow all affect virus 

survival; however, sunlight and ultraviolet radiation have little effect on virus 

persistence (Pharo, 2002). Longer survival times for FMDV on objects 

would be expected at the low temperatures associated with high altitudes, or 

the arctic regions, than at sea level or in the tropical regions. Although 

temperatures above 50 °C destroy most infectivity, it is likely that a small 

proportion of the virus particles are relatively resistant to the effects of heat 

and pH in most populations (Pharo, 2002). 

The effect of temperature and pH on time for 90 percent virus inactivation is 

shown in table 2 and table 3, respectively, based on findings from the 

Bachrach et al. (1975) study. There is also the potential for FMDV to be 

disseminated over considerable distances by aerosols (Cottral, 1969). In 

aerosols, FMDV survives best when the relative humidity exceeds 70 percent 

and there is a critical humidity level of 55 to 60 percent, below which 

survival is poor (Pharo, 2002). Based on available scientific data, the 

survival of residual FMDV in the external environment following eradication 

of an outbreak of FMD in susceptible animals would be expected to persist 

no longer than 8 months. 

                                                            

6 Cotton garments, leather shoes, rubber boots.
22

Table 2. Effect of Temperature (at pH 7.5) On Time for 90 Percent FMDV 

Inactivation. 

Temperature Inactivation Time (90 percent)

61 oC 30 seconds

55 oC 2 minutes

49 oC 1 hour

43 oC 7 hours

37 oC 21 hours

20 oC 11 days

4 oC 18 weeks

Table 3. Effect of pH (at 4 oC) On Time for 90 Percent FMDV Inactivation. 

ph Inactivation Time (90 percent)

10.0 14 hours 

9.0 1 week 

8.0 3 weeks 

7.0–7.5 >5 weeks 

6.5 14 hours 

6.0 1 minute 

5.0 1 second 

FMD may affect humans; however, its occurrence is quite rare. The number 

of cases reported worldwide is so small when compared with the number of 

persons exposed to FMD that it is generally not considered a threat to 

humans. FMDV has been isolated and typed in only 40 patients during the 

last century. Symptoms in humans are mostly mild and mainly include fever 

and blisters on the hands, feet, mouth, and tongue. Patients usually recover 

within a week after the last blister formation (USDA–APHIS, 2013). 

Perhaps more importantly, an FMD outbreak of the magnitude observed in 

the United Kingdom can result in severe psychosocial effects on farmers and 

farming communities. Farmers and their families can suffer from grief over 

losing animals (in some cases blood lines kept over many generations), as 

well as loss of control over their lives due to movement restrictions, 

disruptions in community life, and short- and long-term stress over their 

financial future. Researchers from Lancaster University in the United 

Kingdom conducted a new study on the social consequences of FMD in the 

Cumbria community. The study revealed high rates of depression, alcohol 

consumption, and mortality among farmers during the crisis (USDA–APHIS, 

2013). 

6. Public Health 
23

IV. Other Environmental Issues 

A. Environmental Justice and the Preferred Alternative 

 

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice 

in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” requires each Federal 

agency to make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by 

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and 

activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United 

States and its territories and possessions. Importation of ruminants and 

ruminant products from the Patagonia Region of Argentina, under the 

Preferred Alternative, is not expected to substantially affect the condition of 

minority livestock producers in the United States. Most of the modest 

impact-generating compliance actions under the Preferred Alternative will 

occur outside of the United States (in Argentina), and none has any 

disproportionate adverse effects on minority or low-income populations in 

the United States. Although one could design scenarios involving the 

introduction of FMD to the United States, these are primarily remote and 

hypothetical. Even if such scenarios could occur, their impact to minority 

and low-income populations would be expected to be negligible. 

B. Protection of Children and the Preferred Alternative 

Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks,” requires each Federal agency to address 

disproportionate environmental health risks or safety risks to children that 

arise in the course of agency policies, programs, activities, and standards. 

Implementation of the Preferred Alternative does not pose greater risks to 

children than to other parts of the affected populations. Control of the risks 

associated with ruminant and ruminant product importation depends 

primarily upon adherence to sanitary requirements. Proper adherence will 

remove the potential for adverse effects to humans and make other 

commodity introduction-related risks remote and of very low concern in 

regard to the protection of children. 

C. Threatened and Endangered Species and the 

 Preferred Alternative 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and its implementing regulations 

require Federal agencies to ensure that their actions are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or 

result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. APHIS 
24

considered the potential effects of the Preferred Alternative on threatened 

and endangered species and designated critical habitat. There are six listed 

ungulate species that are potentially susceptible to FMD (table 4); however, 

based on the supposition of required mitigation measures for the importation 

of FMD-susceptible products, the risk for these species to be exposed to and, 

thus, be affected by this action is very low. Therefore, APHIS expects 

changing the recognition status of the Patagonia Region to FMD-free will 

have no effect on threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat in 

the United States.

APHIS determined that the risk of FMD-infected ruminants and ruminant 

products entering the United States from the Patagonia Region of Argentina, 

and the potential to expose U.S. livestock to FMD, to be very low (USDA–

APHIS, 2013). This risk would be further mitigated by requiring 

implementation of the measures outlined in 9 CFR § 94.11. Based upon the 

effectiveness of the mitigation measures included in 9 CFR § 94.11 and the 

very low likelihood that FMD would establish in U.S. livestock, changing the 

status of the Patagonia Region to FMD-free is expected to have no effect on 

federally listed endangered species or designated critical habitat. 

Table 4. Endangered Species in the United States Susceptible to Foot-andMouth Disease. 

Common Name Scientific Name Critical 

Habitat Listing Status 

Woodland caribou Rangifer tarandus caribou No Endangered 

Columbian white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus 

leuceurus No Endangered 

Key deer Odocoileus virginianus clavium No Endangered 

Sonoran pronghorn Antilocapra americana 

sonoriensis No Endangered 

Bighorn sheep Ovis Canadensis Yes Endangered 

Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis californiana No Endangered 

D. Potential Cumulative Impacts 

The potential impacts from the change in status of the Patagonia Region 

in combination with similar actions are referred to as cumulative 

impacts. These impacts are not expected to pose any substantial risks 

based upon the findings of the risk assessment (USDA–APHIS, 2013). 

It is difficult to precisely quantify the potential cumulative impacts that 

are dependent upon disease conditions in the Patagonia Region of 
25

Argentina, as well as compliance with importation conditions in the 

region and other regulated countries. However, APHIS considers the 

Patagonia Region to be free of FMD, making introduction of the 

disease extremely unlikely. In addition, the nature of disease mitigation 

is of principal concern for this issue, and the constraints provided by the 

anticipated mitigations are considered to provide adequate protection. 

 
26

V. Listing of Agencies Consulted 

Environmental and Risk Analysis Services 

Policy and Program Development 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

4700 River Road, Unit 149 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1237 

Regionalization Evaluation Services 

National Import Export Services 

Veterinary Services 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

4700 River Road, Unit 38 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1231 

Regulatory Analysis and Development 

Policy and Program Development 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

4700 River Road, Unit 118 

Riverdale, MD 20737 

 
27

VI. References 

APHIS—See U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service 

AVIS—See Advanced Veterinary Information System 

AVIS/OIE—See Advanced Veterinary Information System/ International 

Office of Epizootics 

Advanced Veterinary Information System, 2002. Foot and mouth 

disease (2002 suite). AVIS/FMD/Control: Species of wildlife 

susceptible to FMD. [Online.] Available: 

http://www.aleffgroup.com/AVISFMD/ 

Advanced Veterinary Information System/ International Office of 

Epizootics, 2000. International Office of Epizootics: Animal 

Disease Cards. Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD). Office 

International des Epizooties: August 30, 2000. [Online.] Available: 

http://www.aleffgroup.com/avisfmd/cards/A010-fmd-00.HTM 

[2007, August 21]. 

AVMA—See American Veterinary Medical Association 

American Veterinary Medical Association, 2007. Foot and Mouth 

Disease Backgrounder. February 14, 2007. [Online.] Available: 

http://www.avma.org/reference/backgrounders/fmd_bgnd.pdf 

[2007, November 7]. 

Bachrach, H.L., Breese, S.S., Callis, J.J., Hess, W.R., and Patty, R.E., 

1975. Inactivation of foot-and-mouth disease virus by pH and 

temperature changes and by formaldehyde. Proceedings of the Society 

for Experimental Biology and Medicine, 95, 147-52. 

CDA—See California Department of Agriculture 

California Department of Agriculture, 1926. The epizootic of footand- mouth disease in California. February 17, 1924 to June 10, 

1926. Charles Keane, D.V.S. Special Publication No. 65, 110 pp. 

Sacramento, CA. 

CIDRAP—See Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy 

Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, 2007. University of 

Minnesota, Academic Health Center. Foot-and-mouth disease. 
28

[Online.] Available: 

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/biosecurity/ag- biosec/animdisease/foot-mouth.html [2007, Sept. 13]. 

Corn, J., and Fischer, J., 2001. What if FMD hits? Southeastern 

cooperative wildlife disease study (SCWDS) Briefs, April 2001, 17.1 

[Online.] Available: 

http://www.uga.edu/scwds/topic_index/2001/WhatifFMDHits.pdf 

[2007, Nov. 7]. 

DEFRA—See Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs 

Cottral, G.E., 1969. Persistence of foot-and-mouth disease virus in animals, 

their products and the environment. Bull. Off. Int. Epizoot., 70(3):549–68. 

Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, 2007. H5N1 

Highly pathogenic avian influenza outbreak/Holton, Suffolk/February 

2007: Lessons to be learned report. August 3, 2007. [Online.] 

Available: 

http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/notifiable/disease/ai/lates

t- situation/holton.htm [2007, Nov. 27]. 

Enserink, M., 2001. The English patient. ScienceNOW 2001 (426): 

2. April 26, 2001. [Online.] Available: 

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org [2007, Sept. 20]. 

FASS—See Federation of Animal Science Societies 

Federation of Animal Science Societies, 2007. Foot and mouth disease 

vaccine developed by USDA, ARS Scientists. Article #1244, 

distributed May 31, 2007. [Online.] Available: 

http://www.fass.org/page.asp?pageID=205 [2007, Oct. 16]. 

Fields, B.N., Knipe, D.M., and Howley, P.M., 1996. Fundemental

Virology, 3rd Edition. 

Haas, B., Kramer, M., 2000. Appendix 11: Possible introduction 

of FMDV with sheep intestines from FMD countries. 

FAO/AGA/The European Commission for the control of foot-andmouth disease. [Online.] Available: 

http://www.fao.org/ag/AGA/AGAH/EUFMD/reports/rg2000bv/app11.pdf 

[2007, Nov. 6]. 

Kitching, R.P., and Hughes, G.J., 2002. Clinical variation in foot 

and mouth disease: sheep and goats. OIE: Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. 

Epiz., 2002, 21 (3), 505–512. [Online.] Available: 
29

http://www.oie.int/eng/publicat/rt/2103/1.8%20Kitchingsheep.pdf 

[2007, Nov. 6]. 

LDWF—See Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, 2007. Surveillance 

plan to help control wild hog population adopted. Released: 11/13/07. 

[Online.] Available: http://www.wlf.state.la.us/news [2007, Nov. 14]. 

Morgan, J.T., Fischer, J., Hostetler, M.E., 2003. If foot-and-mouth 

disease came to Florida: potential impact on white-tailed deer in Florida. 

University of Florida, March 2003. [Online.] Available: 

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/BODY_UW183 [2004, Oct. 20]. 

Mouchantant, S., Haas, B., Lutz, W., Pohlmeyer, K., Frolich, K., 2005. 

Absence of antibodies to foot-and-mouth disease virus in free-ranging 

roe deer from selected areas of Germany (2001–2002). Wildlife 

Disease Association: Journal of Wildlife Diseases 41(3), July 2005, pp. 

599–605. 

ODA—See Oregon Department of Agriculture 

Oregon Department of Agriculture, 2007. Story of the week: feral 

swine action plan getting some attention in Oregon. August 8, 2007. 

[Online.] Available: 

http://oregon.gov/ODA/docs/pdf/news/070808pigs.pdf [2007, Nov. 14]. 

Pharo, H.J., 2002. Foot-and-mouth disease: An assessment of the 

risks facing New Zealand. New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 50(2), 

46–55. 

Pinto, A.A., 2004. Foot-and-mouth disease in tropical wildlife. Annals 

of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1026:65–72. 

Rhyan et al., 2006. Rhyan, J., Shalev, M., Gidlewski, T., McCollum, M., 

Ward, G., Deng, M., McKenna, T., Salman, M., 2006. Susceptibility of 

North American wild ungulates to foot-and-mouth disease virus: initial 

findings. FAO/EUFMD Reports, 2006 Session of the Research Group of 

the Standing Technical Committee of EUFMD (Pahphos, Cyprus: 

October 2006). [Online.] Available: 

http://www.fao.org/AG/AGAInfo/commissions/en/eufmd/Paphosvtrans.html [2007, Oct. 17]. 

Schoenian, S., 2005. Mad cow and foot-and-mouth. University of 

Maryland, Maryland Cooperative Extension, Western Maryland 

Research and Education Center. Copyright 2000; last revised: 12/23/05. 
30

[Online.] Available: 

http://www.sheepandgoat.com/articles/bse_fmd.html [2007, Sept. 20]. 

Shimshony et al., 1986. Shimshony, A., Orgad, U., Baharav, D., 

Prudovsky, S., Yakobson, B., Bar Moshe, B., Dagan, D., 1986. 

Malignant foot-and-mouth disease in mountain gazelles. Veterinary 

Record (1986) 119, 175–176. [Online.] Available: http://www.israelembassy.org.uk 

Thomson, G.R., Vosloo, W., Bastos, A.D.S., 2003. Foot and 

mouth disease in wildlife. Virus Research 91 (2003) 145–161. 

[Online.] Available: www.sciencedirect.com 

USDA–APHIS—See U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, 2013. Risk analysis: risk of importing foot-and-mouth 

disease in susceptible species and products from a region of Patagonia, 

Argentina. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, 2003. Importation of solid wood packing 

material. Final environmental impact statement—August 2003. 

Riverdale, MD. 

USGS—See U.S. Department of the Interior, United States Geological 

Survey 

U.S. Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, 

National Wildlife Health Center, 2007a. Wildlife Health Bulletin #01–

01 from Bob McLean, Director NWHC: foot and mouth disease in 

Europe- fact sheet. Last modified June 28, 2007. [Online.] Available: 

http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov 

U.S. Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, 

National Wildlife Health Center, 2007b. Foot and mouth disease. Last 

modified June 28, 2007. [Online.] Available: 

http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov 

U.S. Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, Office 

of Communication, 2001. USGS issues wildlife health alert for footand- mouth disease. Released April 18, 2001. [Online.] Available: 

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=480 

WDNR—See Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 
31

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2003. Foot-and-mouth 

disease: issues for Wisconsin wildlife. Last modified: April 17, 

2003. [Online.] Available: 

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/wildlife/whealth/issues/fmd.htm 

[2004, Sept. 15]. 

WIN—See Wildlife Information Network 

Wildlife Information Network, 2001. Picornaviridae: Foot-and-mouth 

disease virus. [Online.] Available: 

http://www.wildlifeinformation.org/Subdirectories_for_Search2/SampleS

p ecies/picornaviridae/Picornaviridae_FMDVirus.htm