Brucellosis Coordination Team Meeting
April 16, 2009
Cody, Wyoming
Members Present: Representative Roscoe, Senator Hines, Terry Kreeger, Steve Ferrell, Cathy Purves,
Bob Wharff, John Keck, Bill Lambert, Fred Lindzey, Jim Logan, Don Montgomery, Walt Cook, Jason
Fearneyhough, Rob Hendry, Bret Combs, Frank Galey, Karl Musgrave, Ken Mills and Gary Peterman.
Albert Sommers, Terry Pollard and Scott Werbelow joined via teleconference.
Update on Brucellosis Status and Proposed Rules:
Dr. Cook updated the team and explained that the positive case from Daniel resulted in the herd being
depopulated. In order to maintain the state’s Brucellosis–Free status, there can be no new positive
cases until after October 2010. The supposed positive case from Bondurant was determined to not be
positive for Brucellosis, thus not implicating the state’s Free status.
Dr. Logan then gave the team an update on changes to the Livestock Board’s Chapter 2 and Chapter 6
rules. Chapter 2 rule changes were adopted by the Livestock Board and are currently being reviewed by
the LSO. Until the rules are approved by the Management Council and Governor, the Board will
continue to operate under emergency rules. Under the proposed Chapter 2 rules, testing will only be
required on cattle from the designated surveillance area (Fremont, Park, Lincoln, Teton and Sublette
counties), female cattle sent to custom slaughter facilities will have to be blood sampled, cattle from the
surveillance area going to feeder/slaughter facilities that are subsequently redirected will have to be
tested (from the surveillance area), breeding cattle sold from the surveillance area will have to be tested
if purchased for breeding purposes and the identification requirement for cattle will shift from 18
months to 12 months.
Update on Test and Removal Pilot Project:
Brandon Scurlock offered an update on the pilot test and removal project within the Pinedale herd unit.
Seroprevalence on the Muddy Creek feedground has dropped from 37% positive to approximately 7%.
Culture positives from among the seropositive animals has increased from 32% to 63%. In terms of
seroconversion, in 2007, 10% of recaptured adults seroconverted, in 2008, 9% of recaptured adults
seroconverted and in 2009, 0% seroconverted. For Fall Creek, there was 7% seroprevalence of captured
elk, with 45% of the seropositive animals culturing positive in the second year of the project. For Scab
Creek, seroprevalence was determined to be 21% of trapped elk, with 36% of those seropositive animals
culturing positive in the first year of trapping on that feedground.
According to Scurlock, trap mortalities are down.
The full presentation will be made available on the website.
Dr. Logan suggested that the first five years has shown positive results, but noted that if we close down
the pilot, we could lose ground. He went on to suggest that the group endorse an expansion of the pilot
going forward. Bob Wharff noted the initial apprehension of doing the pilot and its eventual success,
but suggested that the wildlife community will not likely support additional time for the test and
remove. Galey noted, as a historical matter, that one of the options going forward was to phase out
feedgrounds, which was tied to the test and remove pilot (the thought being that we should only
consider feedground closure after seroprevalence in wildlife is dropped). Rob Hendry asked about the
scientific response to the pilot and whether it was “real.” Kreeger suggested that the data are data, and
are real. He followed up to ask whether we could eventually get to 3%. The answer was yes.
Commissioner Lindzey asked about data for seroprevalence on feedgrounds to see if the pilot results are
reflective of natural reduction. Kreeger suggested that the results are likely beyond natural variation
and tied to the test and remove. Cathy Purves asked whether the livestock producer at the Muddy
Creek feedground is implementing changes in management and the answer was yes. Dr. Cook
suggested that the recapture data and seroconversion information indicates that if we stop the test and
remove, we are likely to see the numbers spike again. Rep. Roscoe asked whether the costs would go
down through time. Scurlock said that some costs will go up, tied to snow plowing, but that other costs
will be spread out through time. Dr. Montgomery noted that the culture positive data is important. Dr.
Cook asked about the data tied to “acute” infections, which is the subject of ongoing study. Hendry
suggested that the project has been successful and that, with the added pressure to close feedgrounds,
it is wise to continue the project for the eventuality that feedgrounds are closed. The question was
raised about whether the elk population has been affected numbers-wise, which apparently it has not,
at least within the acceptable range of no more than 10% discussed at the inception of the project.
Kreeger noted that there are a lot of elk that are not going into the traps, which we know nothing about,
which could affect the data and any interpretation of the data.
Scurlock continued with an update on the Brucellosis Management Action Planning process. The WGFD
is continuing to update information, with each plan undergoing revision after 5 years. He went on to
discuss research that is underway tied to feedgrounds. One such study takes a culture negative aborted
fetus and places it on a feedground to check whether other elk visit the fetus, which is thought to be a
major vehicle of transmission. The feeding pattern is also altered from “high density” to “low density”
feedlines, with the fetus being placed along the line. The low-density feeding seemed to reduce
interaction with the fetus by approximately 75%. The WGFD is also looking at historic seroprevalence
and its tie to the length of feeding. The data show that the longer you feed, the higher the
seroprevalence. In initial study, there could be a 66% reduction in seroprevalence if the Department
stops feeding 3 weeks earlier. The Department is also tracking movement of elk via GPS collars, which
show that the hunt areas and herd units are drawn quite appropriately. There are also studies going
forward with vaginal transmitters to track abortion.
Galey noted that while test and remove was the most high profile research project undertaken by the
team, there were numerous other studies that were triggered by the team’s efforts. Bernie Holtz spoke
about the past winter in the Gros Ventre, where the Department did not start feeding until March 11th,
but when residual forage was depleted, weather conditions changed (onset of heavy snow) and elk
down-migrated from the Upper Gros Ventre, feeding was ultimately triggered.
Representative Childers suggested that the public may not understand the presentations and that the
team might include some explanations on the team website. Galey noted that he and others would
work to include more information.
Public Education:
Eric Keszler provided an update on the public awareness campaign portion of the team’s
recommendations. A public education communications plan has been crafted for the team’s review and
was distributed.
Cathy Purves asked whether the public education group was contemplating a website and suggested
that all of the Brucellosis information on the current website be migrated to one website, which could
house the additional information suggested by Representative Childers. Purves also asked whether the
Brucellosis Team website is referenced – and suggested that it be on the materials that were distributed.
Senator Hines asked whether speakers were available to discuss Brucellosis and the answer was yes and
that a PowerPoint presentation was developed to assist those speakers.
Educational Session - Elk Behavior Modification: Rick Danvir, Deseret Ranch
Mr. Danvir is the wildlife manager of the Deseret Ranch. He explained the history of feeding elk during
the winter on the Ranch (started in 1983). Thoughts of reducing the feeding program or doing away
with it all-together have been emerging, which lead to the creation of a comprehensive plan/study on
the subject. Dax Mangus presented his study on Reducing Reliance on Supplemental Winter-Feeding in
Elk.
Deseret Land and Livestock is comprised of approximately 215,000 acres of land west of Evanston,
Wyoming. Mangus presented the pros and cons of feeding elk, which mirror many of the concerns and
benefits with which Wyoming’s feeding program is faced.
The Ranch determined that the risks of stopping feeding ‘cold turkey’ were unacceptable (Craighead
brothers admonition with Yellowstone bear populations was used as a modern day example). The
hypothesis was that by both positive and negative reinforcement that the Ranch could change the
winter-feeding behavior of elk that have historically been given supplemental winter feed.
Range conditions, habitat, elk behavior and other factors were studied for correlation to the need to
feed elk. The “carrots” used to affect behavior were tied to food and safety/security. The “sticks” were
harassment (herding and hazing, elk movement) and death (elk hunts).
Conclusion: In years of deep snow and prior poor year growing conditions, it is necessary to feed to
keep elk off of haystacks and cattle feedlines. There is potential to make progress toward eliminating
feeding, but wildlife managers have very difficult decisions to make in the process. The powerpoint
presentation for this session was also shared for the website.
Update on Surveillance:
Dr. Kreeger supplied an update on seroprevalence surveillance across Wyoming. Hunter surveillance
yields about 300-500 samples that are useable. Non-feedground surveillance in northwest Wyoming
indicate between 0 and 33% seroprevalence (33% in Hot Springs County, 5.9% in the Clark’s Fork, 25% in
southern Park County, 14.3% adjacent to the Wiggins Fork, 7.7% due east of Yellowstone, etc.)
Feedground surveillance shows a range of seroprevalence between 9 and 69%, with an average
somewhere in the mid 20% range.
Galey asked what the higher seroprevalence in non-feedground elk may be attributable to. Gary Brown
from the WGFD suggested that historically, seroprevalence was approximately 3%. The general
increasing trend may be attributable to many factors: migration to Yellowstone, interaction with
Yellowstone bison, some exchange with feedground elk, etc., but no single factor is pervasive. Elk are
collared to track migration (3 year study), particularly in the Clark’s Fork area. Cathy Purves asked about
the interchange between Hot Springs County and the Wind River Indian Reservation, which does take
place according to Brown. Wharff asked about elk vaccination, which does not occur in the nonfeedground elk according to Brown. Hendry and Purves asked about out and in-migration to and from
Yellowstone Park and to and from Montana. Questions tied to sample size were also presented, with
the answer indicating that the number of samples is low – but that the numbers are still trending
upward, which is the primary point of the matter at this time. Certainly, more samples would be
helpful, but the concern, for now, is simply the upward trend in seroprevalence.
Proposal to move Bison to the Wind River Indian Reservation:
The Arapahoe tribe had applied to APHIS to receive approximately 40 head of bison that had gone
through the APHIS quarantine facility in Montana. These bison have been in the facility for several years
and have tested negative – some upwards of 17 times. There was a meeting in Thermopolis in July and
it was determined that as long as the bison meet Livestock Board importation requirements, the tribe
can bring them onto the Reservation. However, because they are coming from the APHIS facility, the
bison would have to meet more rigorous requirements, including being held upwards of 5 years, being
tested and being adequately fenced. The initial relocation site on Boysen Peak was not acceptable. The
tribe then sought to hold the bison on Red Canyon Ranch, but the private owners of the Ranch would
not agree to accept the bison. The tribes then sought out another ranch – the Odde Ranch which is near
Red Canyon Ranch. Before the transaction can take place, there must be an MOU between the tribe
and APHIS and another MOU between the tribe and the Livestock Board. The MOU has not been
approved by the tribe, but has been by the state. The disease issue is not the primary concern, but
instead tribal management of the herd (they will manage for around 300 bison per the MOU). Under
the MOU, the bison will be treated as livestock and if they escape, they will be susceptible to Ch. 41 of
the WGFD rules, which allows the bison to be lethally removed. A tour of the Odde Ranch will be
conducted soon, to ensure that it is adequate.
Hendry asked about management of the bison. Logan indicated that they will be under tribal
management. Hendry also asked about vaccination. According to Logan, the bison have been calfhood
and adult vaccinated. Hendry also expressed concern with interaction with the elk that are showing
increasing seroprevalence in the general vicinity of the proposed relocation site. Logan suggested that
they will be located quite a way east of the Wiggins Fork area (an area of significantly increased elk
seroprevalence on the northern edge of the Reservation), but did say that the Livestock Board would be
having meetings with concerned livestock producers to discuss these and other issues. Cathy Purves
asked about the laws and regulatory mechanisms that would govern the bison. Dr. Combs said that the
arrangement will be governed by an MOU. APHIS has suggested that they would not count the herd as
infected for purposes of the state’s “Free” status, even if it is found to be positive. Dr. Mills asked why
they want these bison when they could go and purchase bison from elsewhere. It was suggested that
these are these are the last remaining genetically pure wild bison from Yellowstone National Park. A
question was asked whether these bison will perpetually be treated as domestic bison. The suggestion
is that they will, in fact, be treated as domestic bison. Sen. Hines mentioned that he has read that the
Montana Stockgrowers Association opposes the transfer. Logan said that his understanding was that
they were opposed to a transfer to a Montana reservation, but that the Legislature has subsequently
endorsed the transfer. Other questions were posed relative to tribal management of the bison going
forward.
Dr. Cook did mention that Dr. Jack Ryan should be invited to speak to the group to discuss his research
on this particular bison herd.
National Brucellosis Elimination Zone:
Dr. Combs introduced the topic. Over the course of the last three years, the only infected domestic
cattle herds have come from the GYA. APHIS is coming to the realization that the current UM & R do not
address the outstanding issues that must be addressed to not only finally eradicate the disease, but also
manage it in the short-term. APHIS is getting away from first point testing and cutting back on
laboratories, etc. as a start towards changing the management framework for Brucellosis. APHIS
remains committed to “eradication.” They want to get out of the Brucellosis business, according to Dr.
Combs, but understand that all of the tools that need to be brought forward may not be available today.
The plan must focus on protecting the producers in the area and their ability to market their cattle,
while still containing the spread of the disease.
NBEZ is a proposal. Other proposals are out there to address the disease. APHIS is looking for
comments on NBEZ, which will be in the Federal Register in the coming weeks, to hone the proposal.
APHIS will also be holding meetings with stakeholder groups and producers (at least two in each state –
Casper and Jackson in Wyoming). After comments are received, the plan will be developed. Public
outreach will be an integral part of the effort to explain why the time is right for a change in Brucellosis
management.
NBEZ, as it currently stands, is based on an international concept of regionalization. Under the NBEZ
framework, the country is declared “Free” except for a particular region (GYA). With the country being
“Free,” class status all across the country falls away. Within the zone, you can have multiple cases and
not change the “state’s status” as no status exists. For people outside the “zone,” no restrictions would
exist. For people within the “zone,” there will be restrictions. Dr. Cook suggested that he hopes, in
addition to the restrictions, that the proposal comes with benefits for the producers. By way of example
from the last cases experienced in Wyoming, he described how benefits could be interwoven into the
proposal.
Galey asked whether the cattle within the “zone” will have a “scarlet letter” that makes them nonmarketable. Cook suggested that in large measure we already have a zone, which burdens the
producers in the area. Dr. Combs mentioned that APHIS is assembling an expert panel to complete risk
assessments to assign some level of risk for the herds within the zone. Other state veterinarians have
suggested that no matter the risk, high or low, cattle coming from the area will be treated differently.
Hendry suggested that there might be a benefit to the portion of the state outside of the zone, but
questioned how we reassure those within the zone that they will not be cordoned off and forgotten.
Cook mentioned that he sees that as the major concern: how do we know that APHIS and the state will
not forget about those in the zone? Galey mentioned that even within the state, legislators from
outside the zone might not prioritize funding and efforts to eradicate the disease. Dr. Cook mentioned
that he hopes that we can get APHIS to simply adopt the state’s Ch. 2 rules. Senator Hines asked how
cases outside of the zone would be treated. Combs said they would be treated as an emergency case
and would be eradicated immediately. Purves asked about wildlife and the impact of the proposal on
wildlife. Combs mentioned that APHIS does not have control over wildlife. Bill Lambert asked whether
the zone would grow if the wildlife Brucellosis seroprevalence in the Big Horns, for instance, increases.
The answer, according to Cook, is yes – the zone will be elastic, to expand and contract (a point not
expressly endorsed by APHIS). Lambert mentioned that the issue revolves around livestock – every time
the zone expands, its only impact is to livestock. Hendry asked whether the contraction of the
Brucellosis focus area would lead to increased funding for testing, etc. within the zone. Combs said that
it could be considered for the proposal, depending on comments they receive. Dr. Montgomery asked
about the monetary savings to the federal government with the proposal. Dr. Combs did not offer any
figures. Bob Wharff mentioned that he is nervous about the proposal and the potential for “everyone
walking away and saying it doesn’t concern them anymore,” but suggested that more research might be
a benefit. Dr. Mills asked about the effect of the proposal on vaccination requirements nationwide.
Cook said that most states do not require vaccination, with Kansas even forbidding it today. Galey asked
whether the Team wanted to suggest an action item on NBEZ – perhaps a comment from the Team.
Albert Sommers noted that the surveillance provisions of NBEZ frightened him. He also labeled it as a
National Brucellosis “Expediency” Zone, as nothing in the proposal lends itself to “eradication.”
Sommers is vehemently opposed to NBEZ, is wary of APHIS and the federal government and suggested
that the Task Force is the only entity that can do the work at hand. He recommended that the Team
“can” the proposal. Purves noted that she is concerned about what is “lacking” from the proposal,
perhaps not what is “in” the proposal. She also suggested that the Team needed more information,
which Galey agreed to forward to the Team when it becomes available. Wharff suggested that the
National Park Service was the one entity that has done nothing - that the sportsmen have given, through
the test and remove, the ranchers have given, through testing and otherwise, but the NPS has done
nothing. He encouraged John Keck to have the NPS buy into the solution. John Keck noted that the NPS
has spent millions of dollars on the bison issue in particular for hazing, etc. They are also putting money
toward a vaccine and the delivery mechanism for the vaccine. He also noted that the issue is tied to
other public lands – BLM and Forest Service. “Eradication” has become the problematic issue – as a
political matter the public will not stand by and watch elk and bison be slaughtered in Yellowstone. Keck
also asked that the request to the NPS be refined – what do we want them to do? Hendry asked, with
the coming economic hard times, will we be able to afford to pay for testing statewide if we lose our
Class Free status again, as a potential positive side to the proposal.
Albert Sommers closed the conversation by suggesting that he hoped that no one believes that we can
eradicate the disease right now. He suggested we need to reduce the risk of transmission and that
reducing these risks should be the focus and where our effort should be directed. Senator Hines
mentioned that nothing should be eliminated from the table, and cautioned that if we lose our status
again, the state will be pressured to create its own “zone.”
Elk Population and Setting of Targets:
Galey asked if Director Ferrell/Scott Talbot could explain how elk population objectives are set. Talbot
offered the WGFD definition of “herd unit,” which is largely developed based on socio-political factors
and concerns. The WGFD then assembles “objectives” for management, which the WGFD manages for
+/- 10%. The objectives are established by the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission based on a
multitude of factors.
Senator Hines asked if there was a factor for weather conditions – drought, long winters when antelope,
etc. move around more than normal? Talbot noted that when hunting seasons are established, the
harvest is “targeted” as populations move. Where we see chronic depredation by wildlife, he explained,
the Commission authorizes the WGFD to manage below objective. Habitat condition is increasingly a
query when setting objectives. Dr. Mills asked about historic information about objectives and numbers
around feedgrounds. Talbot suggested that he thought the numbers are relatively similar and stable.
Bernie Holtz explained that the numbers support Talbot’s assessment. Logan asked about herd unit
numbers and objectives and the fact that producers are concerned about those herds that are 50%
above objective. WGFD treats objectives as long-term targets, which might be affected by access to
private lands, etc. The WGFD does its best to manage to objectives, working with landowners and
others.
Logan mentioned that he thought that the Team could be helpful with certain Team members visiting
with landowners that do not currently allow access about the need to manage wildlife herds. He also
asked that, during the risk period, the WGFD consider targeted late season cow hunts to address
“problem” elk. Talbot noted that the WGFD has authorized late season cow hunts where they have
been needed – as late as the end of January. Logan asked about the process. Talbot noted that it is part
of the season setting process. Emergency regulations come through the regional office, which can be
authorized in about a week to more immediately address the issue. Terry Pollard noted that nonresident owners are buying ranches and cutting off access, which is an increasing problem in Sublette
County. Hendry suggested that Talbot’s example from Natrona County is caused by precisely the
circumstance described by Pollard.
Update on Research, Consortium and Laboratory:
The second highest priority of the Team was research. Part of the initial work has been done by the
WGFD, but the other big tools that were noted to be lacking were new diagnostic tests and a new
vaccine. One of the hang-ups is the absence of BSL-3 Laboratory space. $25 million has been
appropriated for the addition of BSL-3 space at the State Vet Lab in Laramie. The lab will allow the state
to do important research on Brucellosis – a select agent. $100,000 was also allocated to Dean Galey to
set up a Brucellosis Consortium to research and develop a vaccine. This effort will follow onto the
meeting that was held in Laramie in the summer of 2005, which resulted in a “vaccine roadmap.”
Congress, with money from the state, has already provided some funding for this research. Dr.
Montgomery mentioned that there are advances that are being made, with some promise being shown
in immune protection in mice. The vaccine candidates may lead to better diagnostic tools, especially to
differentiate between seroprevalent elk and those that are actually culture positive. Dr. Montgomery
concluded by describing a study that looks at 35 years of data from feedgrounds and the spatial and
temporal interactions that affect the disease.
Another piece of research that is being undertaken is a socio-economic study. The questions asked
include: How would Brucellosis affect demand for guided elk hunts? Another element of the study
creates a regional economic model for the Pinedale region to look at the loss of guided elk hunts and the
subsequent effect on the local economy. The final piece looks at the cost of various Brucellosis
management strategies on livestock operators, which is directly related to one of the team’s
recommendations.
Representative Roscoe asked about the potential to collaborate with the federal government to help
fund the described research. Galey suggested that the aim is to use the consortium to be the
mechanism to attract federal dollars and money from other states and private entities. Roscoe added
that he hopes that the lab will be helpful with chronic wasting disease. Galey suggested that, in fact, it
would.
Legislative Update and Upcoming Joint Agriculture and Public Lands Committee Meeting:
Senator Hines and Representative Roscoe provided an update on the past legislative session. The major
issue during the session tied to Brucellosis was the funding of the state laboratory complexes – both in
Cheyenne and in Laramie. Concerns related to the proposal are that President Obama’s recent decision
to restrict AML funds, which fortunately was not added to the either the Senate or House budgets,
would have a significant impact on the construction of the facilities as AML funds are central to the
funding the labs. The senator and representative also discussed the funding for the consortium.
Beyond the budget, the Legislature added a provision to fund spaying heifers (in addition to testing).
Further, a bill allowed for emergency response for reportable diseases and supplied a field vet. A bill
was also passed to prevent intentional feeding of wildlife – subject to certain exceptions. Senator Hines
mentioned the potential for significant declines in state revenues – caused by a decline in natural gas
values and a loss of property taxes – which could affect all appropriations, including those for
Brucellosis. Representative Roscoe noted his perception that the only opposition to the Brucellosis
legislation came from legislators from the eastern side of the state, who do not see Brucellosis as an
issue. This is of special concern in the face of NBEZ.
Frank Galey suggested that another issue that was raised during the Legislature is the concern that the
Brucellosis Coordination Team is not addressing the issue adequately. Galey, as a result, will be
addressing the Joint Agriculture and Public Lands Committee meeting to present the efforts of the Team
and the progress made by the group. Galey will present copies of the Team’s report, along with a
progress report on the 28 recommendations, to the committee. The materials will also be presented to
the Joint Travel, Recreation and Wildlife Committee. Dr. Cook will also be involved with the Joint
Agriculture and Public Lands Committee meeting. Cathy Purves asked if it would help if a small group
would help Dean Galey prepare those materials. Rob Hendry, Bob Wharff and others volunteered to
help. Hendry suggested that the BCT is the only group meeting on Brucellosis today and that we should
actually take over some of the other efforts that have been undertaken relative to Brucellosis. Wharff
suggested that more needs to be related about test and slaughter and the success of the program.
Purves and Galey suggested that the Public Communications team work on a press release consistent
with the testimony presented to the Committee.
Rob Hendry suggested that we respond to an email from BLM, regarding changing turn-out times to
avoid elk calving times. Hendry suggested that if this restriction were affixed by BLM as a blanket
matter, it would be very difficult to comply with. Joel Bousman had suggested that such a discussion
should be based on the individual herd plans of the individual producers. Dr. Logan reiterated that this
issue is already dealt with in the herd plans, after consultation with the State Veterinarian and BLM or
other land manager. The BLM representative at the meeting was directed to relate the discussion and
the Team’s preference to defer to the herd plan instead of instigating a blanket prescription to Mr.
Cagney and others with the BLM.
Public Comment:
Jim Magagna: From WSGA’s perspective, they see slow but sure progress on the issue and fully support
the BCT and its efforts. WSGA also has concerns with NBEZ: (1) for Wyoming, we think we are
addressing the issue through the surveillance directed by the Livestock Board; (2) the “freed up” dollars
may not be directed at Brucellosis, but instead to other issues; and (3) the need for those dollars and
significant APHIS effort to create incentives – not just regulations. WSGA and others see the need for
APHIS to work with industry and others before the proposal is release – to collect stakeholder input
BEFORE the federal register notice is published.
Lloyd Dorsey: Thanked the Team for holding the meeting and supplying quality information.
Arlene Hansen: Has an interest in the wolf and the potential to test wolves for Brucellosis.
Larry Bentley: Offered his understanding of the movement of the bison to the Reservation and the
process and geography tied to the movement of these animals.
Anthony Jolovich: Asked whether the infection rates were figured into herd objectives for WGFD.
The question was posed to the group whether they saw the need to have Galey craft a letter consistent
with Mr. Magagna’s comment. The BCT will monitor the issue and assist with the states’ efforts.
Representative Childers expressed his discomfort with the “fast-track” that this is on, the process that is
being undertaken and the places that have been described for public meetings (Jackson and Casper).
Galey will work with Lance to craft a letter that interfaces with the Governors’ letter.
Logan suggested that the stakeholder group is quite large, and that all producers are affected (across
the state).
Going back to the Cagney discussion about turn-out dates, the BLM official in attendance suggested that
Mr. Cagney was mainly requesting that the group do a biological study to justify the turn-out dates that
are currently used.
The Team then adjourned.