A R epoRt to the M ontAnA L egisLAtuRe p A eRfoRMAnce udit Brucellosis Management in the State of Montana Department of Livestock Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks J 2017 AnuARy L A egisLAtive udit d ivision 16P-06 Performance Audits Legislative Audit Performance audits conducted by the Legislative Audit Division Committee are designed to assess state government operations. From the audit work, a determination is made as to whether agencies and Representatives programs are accomplishing their purposes, and whether they Kim Abbott can do so with greater efficiency and economy. [email protected] Dan Bartel We conducted this performance audit in accordance with [email protected] generally accepted government auditing standards. Those Randy Brodehl, Chair [email protected] standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain Tom Burnett sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for [email protected] our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We Virginia Court believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis [email protected] for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Denise Hayman Members of the performance audit staff hold degrees in [email protected] disciplines appropriate to the audit process. Senators Performance audits are conducted at the request of the Legislative Dee Brown Audit Committee, which is a bicameral and bipartisan standing [email protected] committee of the Montana Legislature. The committee consists Terry Gauthier of six members of the Senate and six members of the House of [email protected] Representatives. Bob Keenan [email protected] Mary McNally, Vice Chair [email protected] J.P. Pomnichowski [email protected] Gene Vuckovich [email protected] Audit Staff Orry Hatcher Joe Murray Members serve until a member’s legislative term of office ends or until a successor is appointed, whichever occurs first. Reports can be found in electronic format at: §5-13-202(2), MCA http://leg.mt.gov/audit Fraud Hotline (Statewide) 1-800-222-4446 (in Helena) 444-4446 [email protected] LEGISLATIVE AUDIT DIVISION Angus Maciver, Legislative Auditor Deputy Legislative Auditors: Deborah F. Butler, Legal Counsel Cindy Jorgenson Joe Murray January 2017 The Legislative Audit Committee of the Montana State Legislature: This is our performance audit of brucellosis management activities carried out by the Department of Livestock and the Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks. Brucellosis is a bacterial disease that can be transmitted between wildlife and livestock, potentially causing livestock to abort their calves. This report provides the Legislature information about the various activities undertaken by state agencies for preventing and detecting the transmission of brucellosis between wildlife and livestock in Montana. It includes recommendations for improving oversight of programs at the Department of Livestock and clarifying the role and responsibilities of the Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks. Written responses from both departments are included at the end of the report. We wish to express our appreciation to personnel from the Department of Livestock and the Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks for their cooperation and assistance during the audit. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Angus Maciver Angus Maciver Legislative Auditor Room 160 • State Capitol Building • PO Box 201705 • Helena, MT • 59620-1705 Phone (406) 444-3122 • FAX (406) 444-9784 • E-Mail [email protected] i Table of Contents Figures and Tables ....................................................................................................................iii Appointed and Administrative Officials ..................................................................................iv Report Summary ...................................................................................................................S-1 CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................1 Audit Objectives and Scope ......................................................................................................2 DOL .................................................................................................................................2 FWP .................................................................................................................................3 Audit Methodologies .................................................................................................................3 Report Contents ........................................................................................................................4 CHAPTER II – STATEWIDE BRUCELLOSIS MANAGEMENT �����������������������������������������������������������5 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................5 USDA Regulations Guide State Brucellosis Management ........................................................5 Interagency Plan Guides Federal and State Management of Bison ...................................6 Department of Livestock Implements Federal Brucellosis Regulations .....................................6 Designated Surveillance Area Program Maintains Brucellosis Class Free Status ..............7 DSA Producers Have Mixed Opinions on Program Impacts ............................................8 DOL Bison Program Implements IBMP Goals and Objectives ........................................9 FWP Has Recently Begun Managing Brucellosis in Elk ........................................................10 Targeted Elk Brucellosis Surveillance Monitors the Disease in Elk.................................11 Wildlife Disease Risk Management Responds to Brucellosis Concerns ..........................13 CHAPTER III – PREVENTING AND DETECTING BRUCELLOSIS IN LIVESTOCK ������������������15 Introduction ............................................................................................................................15 DOL Can Improve Oversight of Brucellosis Testing Requirements .......................................15 Brands Inspection Functions as Oversight of Livestock Movements .......................................16 Market Sales of DSA Livestock Are More Closely Monitored ........................................16 Brands Does Not Provide Real-Time Data on Brucellosis Testing ..................................17 DOL Has Not Consistently Addressed Noncompliance .........................................................17 Other States Use Brands Inspections to Establish Proof of Brucellosis Testing ...............18 Verification of Compliance Is Improving, but Current Process Does Not Address All Elements of Administrative Rules ...........................................................................................18 Herd Management Plans Provide Variations to Testing Requirements ...................................19 Herd Plans Lack Clear Documented Basis for Variances ........................................................19 Other Animal Health Agencies Document Risk Assessments ........................................20 Annual Review of Herd Plans Has Not Been Regularly Carried Out ....................................20 Department Staff Indicate Issues with Annual Review Period ........................................21 DOL Should Improve Documentation for Brucellosis Testing Payments ...............................21 DOL Pays Higher Rates for Brucellosis Testing ..............................................................22 Survey Data Indicates Unclear Impacts on Producers from DSA Program.............................24 Documentation for DSA Reimbursement Payments Should Be Improved .....................25 DOL Lacks a Defined Policy for Reimbursements .........................................................26 CHAPTER IV – FOLLOWING THE INTERAGENCY BISON MANAGEMENT PLAN ������������������27 Introduction ............................................................................................................................27 IBMP Adaptive Management Plans Are Intended to Guide Bison Management ..........28 16P-06 ii Montana Legislative Audit Division DOL Lethal Removals of Bison Should Follow Adaptive Management Guidelines ...............30 DOL Could Improve Documentation Surrounding Lethal Removal Actions ................31 Recent IBMP Changes Emphasize Use of Public Hunting to Manage Bison .................31 CHAPTER V – FWP BRUCELLOSIS RESPONSE EFFORTS ��������������������������������������������������������������33 Introduction ............................................................................................................................33 FWP Disease Management Activities Could Be Better Defined ............................................33 FWP Disease Management Typically Concerns Wildlife Populations ...........................33 FWP Process for Responding to Brucellosis Is Similar to Game Damage ..............................34 FWP Brucellosis Response Actions Lack Clear Eligibility Requirements ...............................35 Other FWP Landowner Assistance Programs Are Defined in Statute and Administrative Rule ...........................................................................36 FWP Needs to Clarify Role ...........................................................................................36 DEPARTMENT RESPONSES Department of Livestock .......................................................................................................A-1 Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks ..................................................................................A-1 iii Figures and Tables Figures Figure 1 Greater Yellowstone Area Map ...............................................................................................1 Figure 2 Designated Surveillance Area Map ........................................................................................8 Figure 3 DOL Brucellosis Spending ...................................................................................................10 Figure 4 Parts of FWP Regions 3 and 5 Impacted by Brucellosis .......................................................11 Figure 5 Elk Brucellosis Exposure Rates ............................................................................................12 Figure 6 FWP Brucellosis Spending...................................................................................................14 Figure 7 Average Cost for Brucellosis Testing and Vaccination Per Head of Cattle ...........................23 Figure 8 Interagency Bison Management Plan Zones ........................................................................28 Figure 9 2015 Western Management Area .........................................................................................30 Figure 10 FWP Brucellosis Response Actions ......................................................................................34 Figure 11 FWP Documentation Issues ................................................................................................37 Tables Table 1 DSA Reimbursement Rates ..................................................................................................22 Table 2 DSA Reimbursements–Payments to Producers and Veterinarians .......................................24 16P-06 iv Montana Legislative Audit Division Appointed and Administrative Officials Montana Board of John Lehfeldt, Chair Livestock John Scully, Vice Chair Nina Baucus Susan Brown Brett DeBruycker Lila Taylor Ed Waldner Department of Mike Honeycutt, Executive Director Livestock Martin Zaluski, DVM, State Veterinarian Eric Liska, DVM, Brucellosis Program Veterinarian Department of Fish, Jeff Hagener, Director Wildlife & Parks Paul Sihler, Acting Director Ken McDonald, Wildlife Division Administrator Quentin Kujala, Wildlife Bureau Coordinator Fish & Wildlife Gary Wolfe District 1 Commission Dan Vermillion, Chair District 2 Richard Stuker, Vice Chair District 3 Vacant District 4 Matthew Tourlotte District 5 S-1 M L a d ontana egisLative udit ivision P a erformance udit Brucellosis Management in the State of Montana Department of Livestock Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks January 2017 16P-06 rePort Summary The Department of Livestock needs to improve oversight of livestock brucellosis testing to ensure all potentially infected livestock are tested. The Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks’ role and responsibilities relative to preventing brucellosis transmission between wildlife and livestock should be better defined. Context Brucellosis is a regulated infectious disease that audit found that both departments should affects certain livestock and wildlife populations make improvements to these programs. within the states that contain the “Greater DOL is accurately issuing payments to Yellowstone Area”- Montana, Wyoming, veterinarians for brucellosis testing, but needs and Idaho. The Montana Departments of to enhance its oversight of various elements Livestock (DOL) and of Fish, Wildlife & of its Designated Surveillance Area program Parks (FWP) have management authority over for brucellosis. The department should livestock and wildlife. These state agencies improve its process for ensuring that all spent over $7.5 million of federal and state required brucellosis testing is carried out, and funds in efforts to prevent the transmission consistently respond to noncompliance with of brucellosis between wildlife and livestock brucellosis testing requirements. DOL also since fiscal year 2011. DOL requires increased needs to better document bison management, brucellosis testing to be performed on livestock and increase coordination with FWP on in parts of southwestern Montana through concerns related to the presence of bison. its Designated Surveillance Area program, While FWP is managing the presence of while FWP conducts activities for monitoring brucellosis in some Montana elk populations and responding to the disease in elk. Both through an adapted form of game damage agencies are signatories to an Interagency Bison mitigation, its responsibilities could be better Management Plan that details responsibilities defined. This process lacks clear, defined for a large range of management activities over eligibility criteria for landowners requesting Yellowstone bison. These responsibilities are assistance. shared among the state of Montana and federal agencies. Our recommendations to DOL include: Š Improving oversight of brucellosis Results testing requirements. We conducted a performance audit of Š Expanding documentation of certain multiple programs across the two state brucellosis vaccination payments. agencies that protect livestock populations Š Using the Interagency Bison from brucellosis infection. Our performance Management Plan adaptive (continued on back) S-2 management guidelines when Recommendation Concurrence lethally removing bison and clearly documenting the need for lethal Concur 4 removals. Partially Concur 1 Our recommendations to FWP include: Do Not Concur 0 Š Clarifying its role and responsibilities in responding to brucellosis through Source: Agency audit response included in legislation. final report. Š Defining its brucellosis response program through administrative rules and program policies. For a complete copy of the report (16P-06) or for further information, contact the Legislative Audit Division at 406-444-3122; e-mail to lad@mt�gov; or check the web site at http://leg�mt�gov/audit Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse to the Legislative Auditor’s FRAUD HOTLINE Call toll-free 1-800-222-4446, or e-mail ladhotline@mt�gov�