Letter Regarding USDA'S Station Review of Wyoming

October 31, 1997

Secretary Daniel Glickman
Department of Agriculture
14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20250

Dear Secretary Glickman:

On behalf of the nationwide membership of The Fund for Animals (The Fund) I submit the following comments on the "Wyoming Station Review" (Station Review).

As you know, the Station Review and its recommendations have generated enormous controversy among the affected cattle producers, state and federal agencies, and environmental and animal protection interests, including The Fund. The Fund believes that this controversy is appropriate and deserved as a consequence of the underhanded and inappropriate process forced on the State of Wyoming by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) working in concert with this nation's State Veterinarians. The Station Review's recommendations, or requirements, imposed on some of Wyoming's cattle producers represent a substantial economic and practical burden which are contradicted by the content of the Station Review itself, are in violation of federal and state law, and are not based on sound scientific evidence or reasoning.

As you know, many agencies have criticized the Station Review for its technical inaccuracies. The Fund agrees with these criticisms. However, The Fund also asserts that the Station Review, and the process used to formulate the Station Review, are even more fundamentally flawed and are in conflict with several federal and state regulations. Specifically, The Fund believes that:

1. The basis for the requirements in the Station Review are beyond the legal authority of the USDA.

2. The USDA has failed to comply with federal rulemaking regulations in imposing increased cattle testing requirements on certain Wyoming counties.

3. The Station Review process was conducted in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

4. The Station Review is a major federal action which must be evaluated pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act.

5. The Station Review will force Wyoming to violate its own state Administrative Procedures Act in order to satisfy the USDA.

Because of these legal inadequacies, in addition to the technical errors and lack of valid evidence to support the recommendations of the Station Review, APHIS must retract the entire Station Review and reassure Wyoming of its brucellosis- free status. APHIS has no authority to do otherwise.

Background:

In 1995, based on threats made by the USDA to the brucellosis-free status of the State of Wyoming due to the presence of potentially exposed or infected bison and elk in the State, an interagency working group was established with the express purpose of developing interim management procedures for bison and elk to address the USDA's concerns. In November 1996, after nearly 18 months of deliberations, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), in compliance with the Wyoming Administrative Procedures Act (WYAPA), solicited public comment on draft Interim Procedures. This comment was solicited both in writing and through three public meetings.

As a result of this process, it became immensely clear that the public, including cattle producers, were not at all satisfied with the draft Interim Procedures which, among other things, proposed additional testing of cattle herds in Teton, Sublette, and a portion of Lincoln County to augment existing Brucella abortus surveillance efforts. Many of the producers argued that these additional testing requirements represented an unnecessary economic and practical burden to their business particularly in light of their vaccination practices and the fact that wild elk had intermingled with their stocks for years with virtually no evidence of bacteria transmission.

In response, the agencies involved in the working group, including APHIS, recognized that the Interim Procedures would need to be modified to address some of the public's concerns. Upon revision, the WGFD intended to again solicit comments from the public on the revised Interim Procedures.

Prior to initiating this revision process, however, in February 1997, the State Veterinarians of Alabama and Nebraska distributed a letter to their colleagues in the remaining 48 states encouraging them to impose restrictions on Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho cattle if they were not satisfied with the actions being taken by these states to address wildlife potentially exposed or infected with B. abortus. This action was apparently initiated, in part, because the State Veterinarians were misled into believing that the Interim Procedures process had been terminated due to adverse public reaction to the initial plan.

Shortly thereafter Alabama and Oregon imposed restrictions on Wyoming's cattle. The remaining western states and possibly some eastern states were prepared to follow suit. To prevent that from occurring, with reluctance and only as a result of coercion by the State Veterinarians, Wyoming agreed to ask APHIS to conduct a station review to assess Wyoming's compliance with the provisions of the National Brucellosis Eradication Program (NBEP). That review was conducted by a 5-member team of present and former APHIS officials during the first week of May 1997.

In July 1997, the Station Review was completed and released to the State of Wyoming and the public. The Station Review contained ten "recommendations" regarding Wyoming's compliance with the NBEP, including increased cattle surveillance activities in 6 Wyoming counties (Teton, Lincoln, Sublette, Park, Fremont, and Hot Springs). These so-called recommendations, however, as will be further discussed below, are actually federal requirements which Wyoming has to impose on its producers to prevent sanctions on its cattle by other states.

Thus, what began as a unified interagency effort to develop, with substantial public participation, acceptable brucellosis management procedures has devolved into a federal mandate imposed on Wyoming and Wyoming producers and which completely removes the public from having any voice in the decision-making process.

Legal Concerns:

1. APHIS Has Exceeded its Legal Authority in Imposing Restrictions on Wyoming Cattle:

Livestock disease control and eradication efforts in the U.S. are administered and exercised by the USDA and the states. These parties have cooperated in an effort to eradicate brucellosis from domestic livestock since the mid-1930s. Federal regulations governing this program are codified at 9 C.F.R. $ 78.1 et seq. The Uniform Methods and Rules for Brucellosis Eradication (UM&R) provide additional guidance for this program.

Under the federal regulations, APHIS has the authority to designate states as brucellosis-free, Class A, Class B, or Class C based solely on whether Brucella abortus is present in "cattle" or "domestic livestock." A brucellosis-free designation means that no Brucella abortus has been detected in cattle or domestic livestock for at least 12 months. Id. at $ 78.1. To lose this designation, B. abortus must be found in cattle or domestic livestock. Id. at $ 78.40. Wyoming was designated as brucellosis free in 1985.

APHIS regulations do not allow it to base a state's designation on the presence of B. abortus in free-ranging wildlife. Moreover, APHIS maintains no legal authority over free-ranging wildlife potentially exposed or infected with B. abortus. This lack of authority has been clearly demonstrated in the State of Wyoming where, in 1985, the state was declared brucellosis free despite the knowledge that free-ranging elk and bison were both known to have been exposed or infected with B. abortus. If APHIS had authority over such animals, Wyoming would never have been designated as brucellosis-free.

This lack of authority has also been confirmed by the courts and by the USDA General Counsel. In Parker Land and Cattle Company v. United States, 796 F.Supp. 477, 486, (D.Wyo., 1982), Judge Brimmer held that "the regulations contained in Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations also do not apply to wildlife as it would not be physically possible to regulate wildlife in accordance with these directives."

The USDA is well aware of its lack of authority over free- ranging wildlife. In a 1990 legal memorandum regarding the authority of APHIS to promulgate regulations to restrict the interstate movement of aquatic plants and animals that may pose a risk to the health of aquaculture operations, Assistant General Counsel Ronald D. Cipolla determined that APHIS may require new legislation to gain authority over animals, including domestic animals, which fall outside of the narrow interpretation of "livestock" which APHIS had established. If APHIS can't make such a leap with aquatic animals, then surely it also could not suddenly decide, without legislation, to include wild, free- ranging animals under its authority.

The purpose of the Station Review is to evaluate a state's compliance with the NBEP. Since regulations implementing the NBEP only provide APHIS authority over cattle and domestic livestock, then the scope of the Station Review must be limited to these species. In this case, however, APHIS went far afield of its authority and considered the presence of B. abortus in free ranging elk and bison in crafting its restrictions on Wyoming's cattle producers. Indeed, the stated purpose of this Station Review was to "assess the risk of cattle contracting brucellosis from affected elk and bison populations within the State; to evaluate measures being taken to prevent exposure of cattle to affected wildlife; and to evaluate long range options for the control and ultimate eradication of brucellosis from wildlife within the State" (Station Review at 1).

Had APHIS conducted a legal evaluation of Wyoming's brucellosis eradication program, its conclusion could only have been that Wyoming's cattle and domestic livestock are brucellosis free and that the state is in full compliance with the NBEP. Instead, in its continuing efforts to illegally assert non-existent authority over free-ranging wildlife, APHIS relied upon the presence of B. abortus in feedground and non-feedground elk and in free-ranging bison to impose unnecessary and illegal restrictions on Wyoming's cattle producers. Though APHIS may believe that these animals pose a potential, yet unproven and unlikely, risk of bacteria transmission to cattle and domestic livestock, the regulations do not allow it to base a state's designation on the presence of B. abortus in wildlife. Thus, contrary to the assertion in the Station Review (page 11), the mere fact that "known infected animals are in the state" is irrelevant in this case since those animals are wild, free- ranging animals over which APHIS has no authority.

Because of the clear lack of legal authority, these restrictions should be immediately withdrawn in their entirety and Wyoming should be congratulated for its continued excellence in complying with the NBEP and maintaining its brucellosis free status.

2. APHIS Has Not Complied With its Own Regulations in Imposing Additional Testing Requirements on Wyoming Cattle Producers:

As previously explained, the Station Review has resulted in the imposition of additional bacteria surveillance testing requirements on cattle producers in six Wyoming counties. In so doing, APHIS has effectively downgraded these counties to Class A status without officially doing so through rulemaking as required by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). 5 U.S.C. $ 553 et seq. APHIS's regulations do not permit the imposition of such additional testing requirements without redesignating the State or the counties in question as Class A or lower.

The regulations provide APHIS with the authority to split designate a state at the county level. 9 C.F.R. $ 78.1. If APHIS had any interest in complying with its own regulations, it would have to exercise this split designation authority in this case.

As previously stated, however, the regulations only authorize the downgrade in status if brucellosis is confirmed in cattle or domestic livestock. This is not the case in Wyoming since the restrictions imposed by the Station Review are based entirely on the presence of B. abortus in free-ranging wildlife. Since APHIS's authority does not extend to free-ranging wildlife, it has no legal justification for enacting such a downgrade for one or more Wyoming counties at this time. Even if it had such authority, the downgrade in status must be achieved through the rule-making process. Instead, in this case, APHIS is illegally attempting to redesignate these six counties as Class A without complying with the rulemaking procedures contained in the Administrative Procedure Act.

3. The Station Review Was Developed in Violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act:

The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) was promulgated in 1972 to control the growth and operation of the "numerous committees, boards, commissions, councils, and similar groups which have been established to advise officers and agencies in the executive branch of the Federal Government." 5 U.S.C., App. 2, $ 2(a). The statute was specifically intended to protect against undue influence by special interest groups over government decision-making.

FACA requires that committees established and/or utilized by a federal agency to provide advice on a certain issue must be formally chartered, id. at $ 9(c), that the membership of the committee must be "fairly balanced in terms of points of view represented...," id. at $ 5(b), that its meetings must be open to the public, id. at $ 10(a), and that the "records, reports, transcripts, minutes, appendixes, working papers, drafts, studies, agenda, or other documents which were made available to or prepared for or by each advisory committee shall be available for public inspection and copying." Id. at $ 10(b).

In this case, the committee responsible for developing the Station Review clearly constitutes an advisory committee as defined in the law, requiring compliance with FACA.

First, APHIS created the Station Review team. Second, this team was comprised of four APHIS officials and one private citizen (a retired APHIS official). Third, the purpose of the Station Review was to provide APHIS with advice as to whether Wyoming was in compliance with the NBEP. And, fourth, APHIS is utilizing the advice of the Station Review team to require changes in Wyoming brucellosis eradication regulations.

Thus, there is no question that the Station Review team and process should have been subject to the provisions of FACA, its meetings should have been open to the public, and materials considered by the Station Review team should have been available to the public. Since none of this occurred, the Station Review is in violation of federal law and cannot be relied upon by APHIS in assessing or determining Wyoming's compliance with the NBEP. Either APHIS has to conduct a second Station Review in compliance with FACA or it has to recertify Wyoming as brucellosis-free in its entirety and require no new testing standards on Wyoming's cattle producers.

4. The Station Review Represents a Federal Action Requiring Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act:

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is the national charter for the protection of the environment. 40 C.F.R. $ 1500.1(a). NEPA regulations require federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of their actions before implementation.

An action, as defined by NEPA, includes "new and continuing activities, including projects and programs entirely or partly financed, assisted, conducted, regulated, or approved by federal agencies." Id. at $ 1508.18(a). The Station Review process and resulting requirements constitute a federal action which must be subject to NEPA review. The mere fact that Wyoming is implementing the Station Review requirements does not render meaningless the substantial role of the federal government in this process nor does it make the action any less federal.

Indeed, there can be no question that this is a federal action for the following reasons:

1. The Station Review process was implemented by APHIS, involved current and retired APHIS officials, and was done to provide APHIS (and other states) with information regarding Wyoming's compliance with the NBEP. Though Wyoming has the burden of implementing the Station Review requirements, APHIS must approve Wyoming's implementation plans and intends to monitor Wyoming's compliance with the Review requirements. In its cover letter accompanying the Station Review, for example, Dr. Robert Nervig, USDA/APHIS, Western Regional Director, not only specified that Wyoming must provide APHIS with its plans to address the Station Review's "recommendations" but also specified that follow up reports would be required every 30 days "until all recommendations are implemented so the review process can be finalized."

2. The purpose of the NBEP and its associated regulation is, in part, to provide APHIS with the ability to determine the appropriate brucellosis designation for a state based on the presence or absence of B. abortus in domestic livestock and cattle. State veterinarians rely on APHIS for guidance regarding the brucellosis status of other states. The entire designation process is federal, under the control of only APHIS, and any change to a state's designation can only be achieved through a federal action. The mere fact that APHIS has not complied with its own regulations or the APA in using a formal rulemaking to downgrade the status of the six Wyoming counties from Class Free to Class A does not remove the federal nexus from this action.

3. The so-called "recommendations" contained in the Station Review are in fact requirements. The mandatory nature of these "recommendations" is based on the consequences or ramifications if Wyoming chose to ignore the Station Review. In that case, it would be potentially subject to additional restrictions from other states in the form of sanctions imposed on Wyoming's cattle, adversely affecting their marketability in interstate commerce. Contrary to its own assertions, APHIS, as previously explained, would not have the authority to downgrade Wyoming's brucellosis-free status or otherwise impose any restrictions on Wyoming's cattle or producers since its authority does not include free-ranging wildlife.

The Station Review will clearly impose an unnecessary economic burden on hundreds of cattle producers in the six county areas subject to the Review's requirements. It will also, and indeed already has, adversely affected the marketability of Wyoming cattle by creating an undeserved perception that Wyoming cattle are potentially diseased. In addition, free-ranging wildlife may also be impacted by the Station Review as a result of increased pressure by livestock interests on state and federal wildlife management agencies to eradicate B. abortus from wildlife or to severely restrict the movements of potentially exposed or infected wild animals.

Consequently, until and unless APHIS subjects the provisions of the station Review to NEPA review, it cannot require Wyoming to implement the Review requirements.

5. The Mandatory Nature of the Requirements Imposed by the Station Review Conflict with Wyoming's Administrative Procedure Act:

As previously explained, the recommendations contained in the Station Review are indeed requirements imposed by APHIS which Wyoming must meet. Otherwise, it faces the high probability of sanctions on its cattle imposed by other states. Because of the mandatory nature of these recommendations, Wyoming has initiated a rulemaking procedure to amend its existing brucellosis regulations to address the requirements contained in the Station Review.

Wyoming's rulemaking process is conducted in accordance with the State's Administrative Procedure Act. WS $ 16-3-101. Like its federal counterpart, Wyoming's APA requires the State to publish notice of its proposed rulemaking, to solicit public comment on its proposal, and to consider those comments before publishing a final rule. For the process, particularly the public comment process, to be meaningful the State must have the flexibility to amend the proposed rule in response to concerns expressed by the public.

In this case, however, since the Station Review provisions are mandatory and are not subject to modification by the State, the rulemaking process, including the opportunity for public comment, is meaningless. Even if Wyoming received hundreds of substantive comments opposing the proposed rule, it cannot consider these comments in any meaningful way because alteration or modification of the proposed rule is out of the question. The Station Review, and the process used by APHIS to formulate the Station Review, therefore, not only cuts the public completely out of the decision-making process involving rules that directly and indirectly affect many members of the public, but it also forces Wyoming to violate its State APA to satisfy APHIS and the state veterinarians.

Specific Concerns:

In addition to our broad concerns delineated above, The Fund also has several specific concerns about the content of the Station Review. The Fund believes that the Station Review is poorly written, contains inflammatory rhetoric that has served only to further polarize various interests involved in the ongoing debate over wildlife and cattle management in the GYE, includes numerous contradictions and blatant errors, and that it fails to provide valid evidence to support many of its factual statements. A sampling of these inadequacies are provided below.

1. What is remarkable about the Station Review is despite concluding that there is less risk of brucellosis transmission from wildlife to cattle in 1997 than in 1985 when Wyoming was first designated as brucellosis-free (Station Review at 14) it imposes additional surveillance testing procedures on Wyoming cattle producers in a six county area. If the prevalence of the bacteria and the risk of transmission is lower now than in 1985, what possible justification exists to impose more burdensome testing requirements on producers now than in 1985 or anytime since? The Station Review does not provide the justification for these new restrictions.

2. The Station Review contains numerous references to elk and bison "affected" with brucellosis. If the term "affected" is being used in the regulatory sense, this terminology is in error. The brucellosis regulations define a "herd known to be affected" as "any herd in which any animal has been classified as a brucellosis reactor and which has not been released from quarantine." 9 C.F.R. $ 78.1. Since neither the free-ranging elk or bison herds in Wyoming are under quarantine these herds cannot be considered "affected" as defined by the regulations.

3. The Station Review suggests that prior to Wyoming being designated as brucellosis free statewide, it was given a split status classification "because of the recurring infection in cattle from wildlife." Station Review at 3. A review of the Federal Register notices which document Wyoming's evolution to a class-free state provides absolutely no evidence to support the contention that Wyoming's split classification was due to bacteria transmission from wildlife to cattle. Indeed, these documents make no reference to wildlife. If this were true then it is hard to imagine that APHIS would have granted Wyoming its brucellosis free status in 1985 considering that at the time APHIS was not only aware of B. abortus in free-ranging wildlife in the State, but that it believed the wildlife was responsible for the outbreaks of brucellosis in cattle.

4. Though the Station Review describes four instances where it alleges wildlife, specifically elk, were the only likely source of infection to cattle, it provides no valid evidence to substantiate these assertions (Station Review at 3). The mere fact that APHIS officials believe that elk were the source of these outbreaks is not, particularly given APHIS's vested interest in the outcome of the ongoing debate about cattle, wildlife, and B. abortus management in the GYE, sufficient proof. Surely APHIS has other documentation, including epidemiological traceback reports or herd test results to substantiate these assertions. If so, these documents should have been appended to the Station Review. Several attempts by The Fund for Animals to obtain this evidence have gone unanswered.

5. The Station Review asserts that Wyoming was granted its brucellosis-free status in 1985 since "only introduced infection from wildlife had been found in the State." Station Review at 3. It then goes on to suggest that the reason Wyoming did not lose its brucellosis free status as a consequence of the brucellosis outbreak in the Parker herd was because the "infection was introduced from wildlife." Station Review at 4. Both of these conclusions are entirely inconsistent with the brucellosis regulations which specify that a State's status can only be upgraded or downgraded based on brucellosis in domestic livestock. The mere fact that wildlife may harbor the bacteria and may possibly represent a potential vector of transmission is not sufficient grounds to downgrade a State's status under the current regulations.

   If, however, APHIS concurs with these conclusions in the Station Review then it would appear that APHIS has no legitimate role to play in the ongoing controversy surrounding the management of wildlife, cattle, and B. abortus in the GYE. If a wildlife-caused infection in domestic cattle is not grounds for revoking a state's brucellosis-free status, then the only remaining risk to Wyoming's producers is through sanctions imposed on their cattle by other states.

6. The Station Review raises some concern over the backtagging system used at the Idaho Falls livestock market, by producers in the Star Valley, and for cow/calf pairs at the Torrington, Riverton, and Glenrock stockyards. Station Review at 4. The concern is that if all animals are not properly backtagged, then if an animal tests positive to exposure to B. abortus it is difficult to determine the herd or origin for epidemiological purposes. Despite recognizing this deficiency in the overall program, none of the Station Review requirements are intended to remedy this problem.

   It is far more sensible to enforce existing backtagging requirements on markets, stockyards, and producers selling, receiving, or moving Wyoming cattle than to impose unnecessary, expensive, and burdensome herd testing requirements in a six county area. If, as the Station Review suggests, the backtagging issue is one of the principal weaknesses in the overall program then changes to this system are far more reasonable and fair than imposing testing restrictions on many of Wyoming's producers.

7. The Station Review specifies that there are dairy herds in the proximity of B. abortus infected wildlife that may serve as "sentinel herds." Station Review at 7. If this is the case, then instead of imposing testing requirements on all cattle herds in a six county area, it would be far more reasonable and fair to simply require additional testing of these dairy herds. If they act as "sentinel herds" than the test results obtained from these herds can be used to predict the disease status of non-dairy herds. While The Fund would still consider such restrictions to be unnecessary given the available evidence, the fewer producers affected by the restrictions, the less the economic and practical impact of the Station Review requirements.

8. The Station Review expresses concern over the possibility that B. abortus transmission could occur among bison, elk, and cattle that share a common range. The Station Review correctly states that the risk of transmission during winter is exceedingly low because the feedgrounds tend to limit the movement of potentially exposed and infected animals. In the Spring, however, the Station Review expresses concern that there may be overlap between the reintroduction of cattle on public land grazing allotments and the migration of elk and bison who had wintered on the National Elk Refuge (NER). Station Review at 7. Though the amount of spatial and temporal overlap is extremely limited, it appears that APHIS is principally concerned about the potential for transmission associated with several cattle herds which are permitted to graze within Grand Teton National Park (GTNP) during the spring and summer.

   What the Station Review does not recognize or suggest is that by closing these allotments or modifying the dates on which livestock are permitted to be returned to these allotments, the temporal and spatial overlap of these different species can be completely eliminated thereby preventing any chance of bacteria transmission, assuming such transmission is even possible. Again, had the Station Review team members thought beyond the narrow scope of disease control and considered other means of reducing, if not eliminating, the perceived chance of bacteria transmission, it could have recommended far more substantive and permanent mechanisms to prevent transmission.

9. The Station Review suggests that neither the National Elk Refuge or Grand Teton National Park are doing anything to address brucellosis in elk and bison that occupy its lands (Station Review at 10). This is patently untrue and represents precisely the type of APHIS rhetoric aimed at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service that is not conducive to developing a trusting and cooperative working relationship between the agencies. These statements should be retracted.

   Both the NER and GTNP are involved in efforts to address B. abortus in elk and bison. Both parties participated in the development of a long-term management plan and environmental assessment for the Jackson bison herd which was recently finalized. The GTNP has approved various studies, currently being implemented, to gain a better understanding of the impact of B. abortus on bison. In addition, both parties are active participants in the ongoing efforts by the Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee to resolve this issue. The mere fact that neither party may be doing precisely what APHIS believes it should do in response to this issue, is not sufficient grounds to claim that nothing is being done. Both parties are engaged in efforts to address this issue and both parties should be commended for the steps and efforts that they have made to date.

10. The reference to 320 bison in the Star Valley on page 10 of the Station Review is incorrect. There are no bison in the Star Valley.

Conclusion:

The Station Review, as described above, contains a number of technical inaccuracies, is not based on valid scientific evidence, and is in violation of a myriad of federal laws. Indeed, the stated purpose of the Station Review is far beyond the legal authority of APHIS to regulate diseases in animals. As a consequence, the Station Review in this case is not a constructive mechanism to aid Wyoming in maintaining its brucellosis-free status. Instead it is a political javelin unnecessarily and inappropriately hurled into the ongoing controversy surrounding wildlife, cattle, and B. abortus management in the GYE for the purpose of increasing pressure on wildlife management agencies to expedite their resolution of this controversy.

As a consequence of this process, which was forced upon the State of Wyoming by APHIS and the State Veterinarians, many Wyoming cattle producers are being unfairly and unnecessarily targeted with increased restrictions on their cattle. Indeed, the Station Review has created a situation where the State of Wyoming and its citizens, including many of its cattle producers, are literally being held hostage by the USDA and many State Veterinarians. Instead of building appropriate and scientifically sound management policies with full public participation, APHIS and the State Veterinarians have conspired to achieve their personal agenda through a process which prevents the public, including those who will be directly affected by the Station Review requirements, from having any meaningful participation in the development, content, or implementation of the Station Review or regulations based on the Station Review requirements.

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Station Review must be retracted and APHIS must reassure Wyoming's of its brucellosis- free status. Any other outcome of this process is inappropriate, unnecessary, and illegal.

Sincerely,

Andrea Lococo
Rocky Mountain Field Office Coordinator

cc: Dr. Joan Arnoldi, Director, USDA/APHIS/VS
Dr. Robert Nervig, USDA/APHIS, Western Regional Director
Mr. Terry Medley, USDA/APHIS, Administrator
Dr. Claude Barton, USDA/APHIS
Dr. Russell Burgess, USDA/APHIS
Mr. Patrick Collins, USDA
Governor Jim Geringer
Mr. John Baughman, Director, Wyoming Game and Fish Dept.
Mr. Ron Micheli, Director, Wyoming Department of Agriculture
Dr. Don Bosman, Wyoming State Veterinarian
Mr. Robert Stanton, Director, National Park Service
Dr. Dan Huff, National Park Service
Mr. Ted Bolling, Department of the Interior
Ms. Debra Hecox, Solicitor, Department of the Interior
Mr. Ray Clark, Council on Environmental Quality