| HOME | SEARCH | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | HELP | ||
 |
 |
|
|
| Montana Administrative Register Notice 32-18-291 | No. 19 10/05/2018 | |
|
||
| Prev | Next | ||
|
BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF LIVESTOCK OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
TO: All Concerned Persons
1. On July 6, 2018, the Department of Livestock (DOL) published MAR Notice No. 32-18-291 pertaining to the proposed amendment and repeal of the above-stated rules at page 1225 of the 2018 Montana Administrative Register, Issue Number 13. On August 10, 2018, the Department of Livestock extended the comment period to August 17, 2018, to give concerned persons additional time for comment on the above-stated rules.
2. Eight separate public informational meetings/listening sessions were held to promote public involvement and awareness. DOL held meetings in counties that would be new to vaccination regulations in addition to Beaverhead County where a DSA boundary adjustment was proposed. Locations included Absarokee, Big Timber, Boulder, Bridger, Lima, and Townsend. A press release was issued to local newspapers and radio stations as well as a regional agricultural periodical. Addressed envelopes were provided at each meeting to promote public comment. Attendees were made aware that other administrative rules (DSA boundary, vaccination, and the bison import rules) that had proposed changes were open for comment as well.
Prior to the opening of public comment, DOL met with members of Snowline Grazing Association to discuss all administrative rule change proposals and request formal input once the comment period opened. Snowline Grazing Association members would represent most of the producers impacted by the boundary change. Approximately 20 members of the public were present.
3. The department has amended the following rules as proposed: ARM 32.3.108, 32.3.201, 32.3.206, 32.3.207, 32.3.212, 32.3.216, 32.3.307, 32.3.311, 32.3.407, 32.3.411, 32.3.412, 32.3.1003, 32.4.101, 32.4.202, and 32.4.601.
4. The department has repealed the following rules as proposed: ARM 32.3.224, 32.3.430, and 32.3.2002.
5. The department has amended the following rules as proposed, but with the following changes from the original proposal, new matter underlined, deleted matter interlined:
32.3.433 DESIGNATED SURVEILLANCE AREA (1) through (1)(c) remain as proposed. (d) Beaverhead County – from Madison-Beaverhead County line, south of Sweetwater Road to East Bench Road near Dillon, then south of East Canal Bench Road to White Lane, then south of White Lane to Blacktail Road, then south of Blacktail Road to Highway 91, then west of Highway 91 to Interstate 15 business loop, then south of Interstate 15 business loop to Interstate 15, then east of Interstate 15, (2) A map of the designated surveillance area follows:
32.3.436 BRUCELLOSIS VACCINATION (1) All sexually intact female cattle and domestic bison 12 months of age or older in (a) remains as proposed.
6. The department has thoroughly considered the comments and testimony received. A summary of the comments received and the department's responses are as follows:
ARM 32.3.212 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CATTLE
COMMENT #1: The commenter represents an association of multiple individuals and wrote in support of the amendments that would make import requirements for domestic bison reflect USDA regulations and the national class free status of domestic bison. RESPONSE: The department thanks the commenter and agrees.
ARM 32.3.433 DESIGNATED SURVEILLANCE AREA
COMMENT #2: Two commenters opined that the boundary change would reduce property values of ranches within the area. RESPONSE: This comment does not apply to the proposed rule change. The Department of Livestock (DOL) is dedicated to maintaining Montana's brucellosis class free status through a USDA approved Designated Surveillance Area (DSA) and maintaining the marketability of Montana's cattle and domestic bison.
COMMENT #3: Two commenters stated that Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks should take more responsibility for the disease and a larger role in managing the disease in wildlife. RESPONSE: These comments do not directly apply to the proposed rule. DOL does not have authority over wild elk, but continues to work closely with Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) to determine the extent of the disease in wildlife. In so doing, DOL can identify areas where livestock are at risk. Additionally, FWP does not have authority over livestock, but makes disease mitigation tools available to landowners within the DSA. These tools are intended to reduce comingling of elk and livestock during the risk period.
COMMENT #4: One land owner stated he is concerned that the expansion of the DSA is premature, needing further testing and investigation. He encouraged the department to wait another year and gather more information pertaining to elk movement patterns. RESPONSE: DOL disagrees. The boundary adjustment was recommended to the Board of Livestock because a brucellosis exposed elk was discovered outside of the DSA during the 2018 risk period. The adjustment to the boundary is essential to include livestock in the area in brucellosis surveillance. The rapid response by the Board of Livestock to change the boundary in response to information that indicates that livestock may be at risk, promotes trading partner confidence in the disease-free status of Montana livestock. A delay in this boundary adjustment would allow for livestock to leave an area, where brucellosis exposed elk exist during the risk period, without brucellosis surveillance.
COMMENT #5: One land owner stated that a brucellosis exposed elk is a "presumptive" positive and not enough evidence to change the boundary. RESPONSE: DOL disagrees. If an elk is serologically positive to brucellosis in an area adjacent to the DSA (where we know B. abortus exists), then it was exposed to the Brucella abortus. With exposure, there is a risk of infection and therefore transmission. All DSA boundary adjustments have been made based on serologic results from elk. In two cases, the boundary change has resulted in the early detection of brucellosis infected livestock. Also see response to comment #3.
COMMENT#6: One commenter supports the scientific approach to a boundary change. RESPONSE: DOL agrees that a recommended boundary adjustment such as this must be based on the best available science and information.
COMMENT #7: One commenter was not opposed to the expansion if there are adequate resources to cover the expense of this addition. RESPONSE: This comment does not apply to the proposed rule change. However, DOL has and will continue to work diligently to secure funding for testing and surveillance within the DSA.
COMMENT #8: One landowner commented that the positive elk should have been collared to test again. RESPONSE: This comment does not apply to the proposed rule. However, collar movement information is helpful to FWP for management reasons and to DOL to identify new areas where the disease may exist in wildlife. Unfortunately, the costs associated with the collar itself, monitoring, and retrieval make the collaring of all captured elk cost prohibitive.
COMMENT #9: One landowner disagrees with drawing a boundary just a little more than a mile north of where the positive elk was captured and then extending it 26 miles west. He commented that "the Red Rock valley running north and south along I-15 is level and unimpeded by draws, gulches, mountains or high ridges. Montana FWP acknowledges there is north-south elk migration in the valley. South and west of the elk capture site is an unbroken series of canyons, steep ridges and high mountains. Montana FWP knows of no east-west elk migration between cow capture site and upper Big Sheep Creek." Because of these reasons, he believes that the probability of elk migrating from the flats along I-15 to the head of Big Sheep Creek is "less than zero." He encouraged the department to not make a decision based on lines on a map and instead to talk with people who study the land, talk to FWP wildlife biologists, and confer with locals who know the country when deciding the new boundary. The landowner also proposed an alternative boundary. RESPONSE: DOL agrees with the proposed alternative boundary for multiple reasons: (1) Movement data following the elk capture in the area suggests that the elk do stay southeast of the proposal; (2) it is enforceable because it is recognizable by DOL law enforcement, local landowners, and livestock producers, and; (3) none of the elk captured west of this proposed boundary were serologically positive. It is difficult to define a boundary that meets all the above criteria due to the lack of roads or other recognizable features in this area.
ARM 32.3.436 BRUCELLOSIS VACCINATION
COMMENT #10: One commenter stated that we should start a conversation about all replacements retained within Montana being bangs vaccinated. RESPONSE: This comment does not apply to the proposed rule change. However, DOL agreed with the comment. In 2010, the Board of Livestock (BOL) directed the department to hold seven public meetings in various locations around the state on a proposed administrative rule that required brucellosis vaccination statewide. Following those meetings and the negative feedback from the public that attended, the BOL abandoned the rule. In 2018, the BOL again requested input from stakeholders and industry groups on a statewide vaccination rule. Due to the lack of support, the BOL moved forward with the current proposed changes.
COMMENT #11: Two commenters expressed their support for the proposed changes. RESPONSE: The department thanks the commenters for their expressed views.
COMMENT #12: One commenter stated that he believed the counties included in the DSA and the counties which are considered adjacent to a DSA should be identified to decrease confusion. RESPONSE: DOL agrees. In addition to decreasing confusion, this would eliminate the potential for a bordering state to change Montana rule.
COMMENT # 13: One commenter stated that the list of counties should include Big Horn County because some elk from Wyoming's Brucellosis Area of Concern are known to travel into Big Horn County, Montana. RESPONSE: DOL agrees with this comment. As initially proposed, this administrative rule change would not include Big Horn County, Montana because it does not border on Wyoming's DSA. However, because Big Horn County, Montana does border on Wyoming's Brucellosis Area of Concern, we agree that it should be included.
/s/ Michael S. Honeycutt BY: /s/ Cinda Young-Eichenfels Michael S. Honeycutt Cinda Young-Eichenfels Executive Officer Rule Reviewer Board of Livestock Department of Livestock
Certified to the Secretary of State September 25, 2018.
|
A directory of state agencies is available online at http://www.mt.gov/govt/agencylisting.asp.
For questions about the organization of the ARM or this web site, contact [email protected].
