USDA audit rule and voluntary biosecurity incentives reach Minnesota producers; state reports three required BCAP audits so far

Minnesota animal health officials briefed the board on two related USDA programs intended to raise on‑farm biosecurity: a mandatory audit requirement tied to indemnity eligibility and a voluntary, incentive‑based assessment that can qualify producers for cost‑share remediation.

Mandatory audits and indemnity: The Biosecurity Compliance Audit Program (BCAP) interim rule, implemented as an interim rule late last year, ties indemnity eligibility in affected areas to the completion and passing of an audit. “If you hear audit, it means it’s required,” a USDA‑trained auditor said during the briefing, noting the role of audits for premises within control areas or previously infected premises seeking indemnity prior to restocking. Minnesota said it has completed three required BCAP audits so far, including restock audits for two commercial premises and one buffer‑zone placement audit.

Voluntary incentive assessments: USDA also rolled out a voluntary “biosecurity incentive focused assessment” program (BIFA) that uses a similar audit tool to identify structural and operational gaps. The voluntary assessment can be entirely virtual for many producers, and producers who complete the assessment may be eligible for reimbursement of remediation costs through USDA cost‑share, with up to 75 percent of costs covered under some programs. These funds are lifetime amounts and specific reimbursement categories were not yet published.

Why it matters: The mandatory audit rule changes the practical terms for producers seeking federal indemnity after H5N1 events. The voluntary incentives program is designed to expand participation beyond control areas and to reduce barriers for producers to improve structural biosecurity.

What Minnesota officials told the board - Audits are involved and can be time consuming: Minnesota staff described audit timeframes that ranged from days to weeks depending on document compilation and remediation steps required. - Common remediation needs: Officials said recurring audit issues include updated written biosecurity plans (many plans lack explicit prohibitions or required documentation such as sign‑in sheets) and documentation of perimeter‑crossing activities (service providers, feed trucks, contractors). A lack of written procedures or recordkeeping was cited as a frequent reason for “remediations needed.” - Producer options: The voluntary wildlife biosecurity assessments—piloted in Minnesota previously—are in‑person, multi‑phase reviews conducted with USDA Wildlife Services to recommend on‑farm wildlife mitigation, while the BIFA is designed to be lower‑burden and virtual in many cases.

Next steps: Officials said they are pressing USDA for clearer audit guidance and greater consistency across auditors, and they encouraged producers to update written plans and recordkeeping now rather than waiting for an incident. The board will continue outreach through producer meetings and regional briefings to explain audit expectations and remediation resources.

Caveats: The BCAP rule remains an interim rule with a comment period open at the time of the meeting; Minnesota officials said extension of the comment window had been granted and additional clarifications may follow from USDA.