ADVANCING ANIMAL DISEASE 

TRACEABILITY

ROAD MAP FOR

THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

A Three-Year Plan

Submitted by:

SCOTT MARSHALL, DVM

RI STATE VETERINARIAN/DEPUTY CHIEF

RI DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT/DIVISION OF AGRICULTURE

235 PROMENADE STREET, PROVIDENCE, RI 02908

(401) 222-2781

Submitted to:

BRADLEY KEOUGH, DVM

AREA VETERINARIAN IN CHARGE

VETERINARY SERVICES

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

146 MENDON STREET, STE. MM-2-W UXBRIDGE, MA 01569

(508) 363-2290

December 11, 2023
Table of Contents

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 3

II. CURRENT TRACEABILITY SITUATION ............................................................................ 5

2.1 Who are we? ....................................................................................................................... 5 

2.2 Where are we now? ............................................................................................................. 6 

2.3 Strengths and Weaknesses .................................................................................................. 7 

2.4 Opportunities and Threats ................................................................................................... 8 

2.5 Inventory of existing infrastructure and suitability assessment............................... 9 

III. VISION AND MISSION CONTEXT FOR ADVANCING TRACEABILITY ....................... 9

3.1 Vision statement ................................................................................................................. 9

3.2 Mission statement ............................................................................................................... 9

IV. TRACEABILITY REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................... 10

4.1 Strategic goal(s).....................................................................................10

4.2 Programmatic goal(s) (Objectives)...............................................................10

4.3 Animal disease traceability performance measures .......................................................... 11

4.4 Data requirements ............................................................................................................. 13

4.5 Information technology plan ............................................................................................. 14

4.6 Resource requirements ...................................................................................................... 16

4.7 Organizational needs ......................................................................................................... 17

4.7.1 Executive support .......................................................................................... 17

4.7.2 Coordination and oversight procedures ......................................................... 17

4.7.3 Policy ............................................................................................................. 18

4.7.4 Staffing .......................................................................................................... 18

4.7.5 Budget requirements ..................................................................................... 19

4.7.6 Outreach ........................................................................................................ 19

4.7.6.1 Accredited veterinarians ................................................................... 19

4.7.6.2 Livestock markets ............................................................................ 19

4.7.6.3 Industry as a whole ........................................................................... 19

4.8 Monitoring and reporting interstate movement activity ................................................... 19

V. TRACEABILITY IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................... 20

5.1 Ranking of priorities for advancement ............................................................................. 20

5.2 Implementation of objectives ............................................................................................ 20
3

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A simple, comprehensive, and easy to comply with Animal Disease Traceability 

(ADT) plan is a necessity to protect animal agriculture in the state and in the United 

States. There is little if any debate on this point. However, there is much debate over 

how to achieve the goal of having an effective ADT plan. Most of the debate is 

focused on having an effective plan, but not at the expense of sacrificing privacy, 

interstate commerce, or small independent business. This road map will attempt to 

outline a state ADT plan that will be effective and at the same time, expected to enjoy 

compliance from producers. 

The benefits of having an effective ADT plan will be to have the ability to rapidly 

trace the movement of diseased animals in an effort to mitigate the animal health risk, 

public health risk, and risk to interstate and international trade that diseased animals 

represent. Having such capabilities will facilitate epidemiological investigations, 

identify exposed or at-risk animals and premises, and will allow rapid containment and 

control actions to take place. Having this ability will demonstrate to animal industry, 

to consumers of animal products, and to domestic and international trade partners that 

our animal products are safe, that regulators have the ability to quash any outbreaks, 

and, that we are committed to making our animal products as safe and marketable as 

possible. 

NOTE: The term “animal” as used in this document refers to cattle, sheep, goats, 

horses, swine, and poultry.

The cornerstone of any ADT plan is official identification (ID) and knowledge of 

animal locations. Once animals are officially identified, then it is more-or-less a 

matter of recording such ID and recording animal movement. Historically, state and 

federal animal health agencies had ample opportunity to apply ID to animals when 

there were robust disease eradication programs, such as cattle brucellosis testing and 

vaccination, cattle tuberculosis eradication, and swine pseudorabies eradication. 

These programs required animals to be identified and records of animal locations be 

recorded. Granted, these programs were very expensive to administer, but they 

provided opportunity for animal identification and animal location identification. 

Therefore, they provided the foundation for an ADT plan. Historically, searching for 

individual animals within these records was a very arduous task. As these programs 

enjoyed successful outcomes (i.e. eradicated or greatly reduced the incidence of the 

diseases they intended to) it became evident that funding them was no longer cost 

effective. As regulations regarding testing and/or vaccination eased, so too did we 

begin to lose our ability to trace animals. 

Currently, we are faced with development of a plan that allows for the animal ID and 

animal location components that we enjoyed under disease eradication/vaccination 

programs, without the expense of administering those programs. We must also have 

a means of quickly searching ID records. It must be acknowledged that the highway 

and rail infrastructure that exists nowadays did not exist at the inception of many of 
4

the “classic” disease eradication programs with the result being that animal movement 

occurs much faster and much more easily than it did when those programs began. 

Therefore, it is imperative that we develop means of searching/tracing movements of 

animals that keep up with the current speed of animal commerce. 

• The fundamental problems to be addressed by this plan are:

o Increasing the application of Official ID to animals, including 

increased application of RFID tags.

o Enhancing our knowledge of where animals are located.

o Enhancing our ability to trace animal movement on or off premises.

o Continuing the transition from a mostly paper based ICVI system to a 

system that uses electronic ICVIs. 

• The key elements of this plan will be:

o Ongoing location of animal premises through GIS systems.

o Ongoing distribution of official ID tags to producers.

o Ongoing educational outreach to producers regarding the benefits of an 

ADT system to protect their animals and their livelihood.

o Educational outreach to federally accredited veterinarians regarding the 

importance of an ADT system and their role in protection of their 

clients, and their client’s livelihood. This will include them phasing out 

use of NUES tags in accordance with USDA’s timeline, promoting use 

of and using RFID tags, and phasing out use of paper ICVIs with 

replacement by electronic ICVIs.

o Use of a data management “system” whereby data is rapidly searchable 

and is as real-time as possible. The primary system is Core One but 

until all records are electronic, we will still need to maintain a paperbased record system. Until all records are electronic, we will require 

personnel to record and enter data regarding ID application to animals 

and interstate movement of animals. Searchable electronic tools will 

be used to facilitate this if those tools are realistically available. 

• The benefits of this work will be to have the capability to trace diseased 

animals into or out of the state. It will allow RI to cooperate efficiently in 

incidents involving interstate movement of animals. It will allow RI animal 

health officials to locate and take appropriate timely actions when a diseased 

animal has been reported to have entered the state or has otherwise been 

discovered. 

• Currently, RI’s ability to trace animals is adequate since we have made Official 

ID tags available directly to producers. These producers are then able to apply 

the ID themselves and record the application. As NUES tags are phased out 

we have supported producers who wish to purchase official RFID tags by 

providing them the necessary LIDs. We also have made available free of 

charge to producers a portion of USDA’s allotment of RFID tags. Sheep and 

goat producers continue to be able to obtain Official ID (scrapie tags) directly 
5

from USDA for identification of those species, however funding to support 

free tags to sheep and goat producers has ceased. There is ongoing outreach 

to producers about the benefits of a sound traceability system, and the trend is 

that more producers are complying with ID requirements. Additionally, the 

State Veterinarian, as time allows, will provide the service of examining 

animals for interstate shipment and preparing an Official Certificate of 

Veterinary Inspection (OVCI) for those animals. OCVIs prepared by the State 

Veterinarian utilize the electronic CVIs through Global Vet Link (GVL). The 

GVL application has been approved for both small and large animal OCVIs in 

RI. 

• The final ADT rule has been promulgated by the USDA and this plan is

compliant with that rule in that animals involved in interstate commerce will 

be officially identified and all interstate animal movements will be recorded. 

In fact, this plan exceeds the standards in the ADT framework because there 

will not be age exemptions for cattle. RI has promoted the phase out plan for 

NUES tags and the plan for replacement by RFID tags. 

• It is expected that this plan will fully support efforts taken in other states, 

territories, tribes, and federal plans.

• This plan is expected to receive more support from producers as NUES tags 

are phased out and replaced by RFID. Both accredited veterinarians and 

producers will also support the transition to electronic ICVIs. 

• Expected project costs are $55,500 per year through 2026.

II. CURRENT TRACEABILITY SITUATION

2.1 The RI Department of Environmental Management/Division of Agriculture

& Forestry/Animal Health Unit will be primarily responsible for 

administration of this plan. The entire staff of the Animal Health Unit 

consists of two full-time field personnel and one full-time veterinarian who 

is primarily relegated to support from the office. In addition to ADT, 

Animal Health has many other tasks related to animal health including but 

by no means limited to animal welfare, licensing of facilities, disaster 

preparedness, public health, strategic planning, inspections, and 

investigations. Given current staffing levels and the unlikelihood of having 

the ability to increase Animal Health staff, the only realistic means of 

implementing an effective and compliant ADT strategy will be to request 

cooperative agreement money to hire a contractor to assist with entry of 

data. Currently, our existing cooperative agreement has allowed us to 

partner with the RI State Conservation Committee (RISCC) to handle the 

work that having an effective ADT plan requires. These partnerships will 

be necessary until the fiscal situation that the state is currently enduring is 

resolved. It should be noted that transitioning from a paper-based system 

into an entirely electronic system will take time. During that transition, both 

systems will require support. Therefore, it is a reasonable expectation that 

costs of this program will necessarily increase until the transition is 
6

complete; then costs will decrease as personnel for data entry are no longer 

required. 

• The primary constituents are the RIDEM/Division of Agriculture &

Forestry/Animal Health Unit in regard to oversight, administration,

and development of the plan. The RISCC will provide human

resources through a contractual agreement to distribute ID

information to producers, to distribute official ID tags to producers,

and to educate them regarding the benefit of ADT. They will also

provide human resources for data entry regarding ID application,

animal location, ID distribution, and animal movement through

OCVI.

• RIDEM/Division of Agriculture & Forestry/Animal Health Unit is

the primary constituent, and the RISCC is an external constituent

under contract.

• Traceability data will be used internally to enhance disease/disaster

response preparedness by having a better idea on the number and

location of animals within the state. Externally, data will be shared,

as necessary, with USDA and/or other states that would have an

epidemiological link to animals in RI.

• RI values having an ADT system that is interoperable with all other

state/tribal/territory systems and that is effective, efficient, and

capable of enhancing the overall traceability capacity of the country.

Our current system is a combination of paper-based and electronic

data, but our goal would be the eventual phase-out of all paper-based

systems.

2.2 The current status of ADT in RI is as follows: 

• Animal Disease Traceability capacity currently is limited by the rate

of compliance with state and federal regulations. Current state

importation regulations require all individual cattle, sheep, goats,

and horses to be identified and listed individually on an OCVI;

animals being imported into RI must be identified and accompanied

by an OCVI unless slaughtered within 72 hours. Those that are

destined to slaughter within 72 hours are still required to be

identified, but they may move into the state on an Owner Shipper

Statement. Animals being exported from RI need to meet

requirements of state of destination, therefore RI has no requirement

for an OCVI or animal ID above what the state of destination has.

• Currently, ADT can be accomplished for animals that have been

legally imported into the state and for those that have been exported

and for which the state of destination required an OCVI or other

movement document, and animal ID. The speed at which this occurs

is dependent on several factors including whether the Division of

Agriculture has a paper or electronic copy of the OCVI with RI as

the origin or destination state, whether our copy has been uploaded

into Core-one yet, or whether we need to search paper copies.
7

Limitations on this are obviously the speed in which we are able to 

gain access to an OCVI. If an issuing veterinarian fails to send 

copies of an OCVI to the proper authorities in a timely manner, then 

there is no way to trace that movement. Likewise, if an animal 

owner moves animals without an OCVI there will be no record of 

the movement. So, once we have an OCVI by any form, we can 

search our data, in any form, with the expectation that the location 

of the animal will occur within a matter of a day’s time at worst.

• Once the RI State Veterinarian is notified that an animal is being 

searched for, staff will be assigned to this task as a high priority. 

Electronic and paper records will be reviewed to locate the animal, 

and once located, the farm owner will be contacted to notify him/her 

that the animal is being traced, the reason, and what if any disease 

containment actions are to be taken place. Being a small state, 

coordination across the state is relatively easy.

• The RI State Veterinarian will coordinate trace efforts with USDA 

and any epidemiologically linked states via telephone, email, etc. 

• It is currently assumed that the RI Division of Agriculture & 

Forestry can locate any animal in question to a premises within a 

matter of hours to one day. The limiting factor is the quality of the 

information on the OCVI and the speed in which we get that 

information. As electronic OCVIs are beginning to overtake the 

number of paper-based documents, the time to locate an animal has 

been dramatically decreased with most test traces taking less than an 

hour. 

• Currently, we are managing data captured on OCVIs on the Coreone application. Paper or electronic forms are the source of the data,

and the data are then entered electronically into this tool. Once in 

the Core-one tool, data can be searched easily. Paper records can 

also be searched, but it is more labor intensive. Even though more 

work, paper records in RI can be adequately searched manually due 

to the low volume of animal movement into and out of RI. With 

increased use of electronic CVIs that meet the data standards of 

USAHA, these products are searchable electronically. They also 

interface well with Core-one and data migration is facilitated 

through the free instance of Statevet.com that was developed. GVL 

is in wide use in the state for livestock so there is already a 

significant use of electronic CVIs. 

• The RI State Veterinarian is available for emergency response 24/7. 

The USDA AVIC and all state veterinarians have emergency contact 

information and can use it at any time.

• Due to the federal mandate to have a compliant ADT plan and 

capabilities, RI must be able to meet program standards (once 

developed). Unfortunately, RI is in a static fiscal situation. State 

agency budgets are essentially unchanged year-to-year, state 
8

workforces are currently level, and this trend is likely to continue. 

Therefore, at least in the foreseeable future, federal funding of state 

efforts to enhance ADT capability will be necessary for RI.

2.3 Strengths and Weaknesses

• The strength of RI’s current and future ADT capabilities lies in the 

fact that RI is a small state and animal agriculture is a relatively 

small sector of the state’s economy. Therefore, many of the animal 

producers are known within the state. Knowing farm locations gives

the state the ability to target ADT outreach to the actual premises 

where animals were known to exist. More importantly, this data is 

essential for any ADT response. As the RISCC contractors perform 

data entry into Core-one they confirm whether or not a premises has 

an associated PIN or LID. If there is no location identifier associated 

with a premises they will generate a LID. Therefore, over time, the 

number of premises with an associated PIN or LID will increase. 

• Weaknesses are incomplete animal location data (this information is 

constantly in flux), a state fiscal situation that precludes hiring of 

personnel to implement the program, a reliance on federal funding 

that is uncertain at best, and a current lack of a data management 

tool that will serve as an ADT tool, but also will capture other animal

health data that the state wants to keep. 

2.4 Opportunities and Threats

The data used to locate animal premises have the opportunity to enhance 

disease and disaster preparedness and response capabilities in the state. 

Knowledge of animal locations can help in all-hazard disaster planning, and 

knowledge of the type and number of animals can also assist in modeling 

for disaster response and disease outbreak response. This plan would 

therefore provide an opportunity to enhance all hazards response far more 

than simply ADT capability would.

• This plan certainly would mitigate threats from multiple sources, not 

simply threats related to animal disease outbreaks.

• This crosscutting plan enhances networking opportunities and 

therefore eliminates much of the redundancy of having separate 

programs for individual disease response and interagency disaster 

response, therefore making the planning and response more 

efficient. 

• Without implementation of this plan RI would not have the 

resources to adequately respond to the initial phases of a disease 

outbreak or other disaster involving animals where the location of 

animals is necessary for said response. 

• Without implementation of this plan, affected areas will need to be 

canvassed to locate animals and animal farms. This will necessitate 

a huge response that is time sensitive. This plan will allow for 

capture of this data BEFORE an event, and the data can then be used 
9

to respond. It front-loads obtaining the data to the time preceding 

an event so that limited resources can be more efficiently used in 

response post event.

• An ADT plan that supports identification of animal locations prior 

to an event facilitates interagency collaboration. This information 

will be used by multiple state agencies for all-hazards response.

2.5 Inventory of existing infrastructure and suitability assessment

Existing infrastructure includes support from Animal Health staff, office 

space availability, computer access availability, incomplete data of animal 

locations, existing regulations that require identification of all animals 

moved into RI and an OCVI requirement (unless moved directly to 

slaughter), and existing contracts with RISCC for outreach and data entry.

• Human resources consist of three full-time Animal Health staff. 

Human resources are augmented through contractual arrangements 

with RISCC to provide human resources for distribution of official 

ID information to producers, gathering records of ID application and 

distribution, providing those records to Animal Health, and 

development and administration of educational outreach to animal 

producers in reference to the benefits of ADT as well as necessity 

for compliance with ADT rules. RISCC also provides the human 

resources and workspace for data entry of OCVI and tag distribution

data into Core-one.

• There is adequate office space within RIDEM for workspace and 

records storage to enact the plan as it currently exists. 

• Currently there is adequate computer terminal access for data entry 

to take place here at RIDEM. There is connectivity between Animal 

Health and contractors through internet and via telephone. Also, 

there is electronic transfer of data in the form of OCVIs to Animal 

Health from other states. These OCVIs may be electronic forms, or 

scanned paper forms. Transfer of electronic data is done by email. 

• RI currently has and is expected to have access to USDA traceability 

and animal health information. Usually, this access is done 

electronically. 

• All paper records are held and reviewed on a weekly basis. Weekly 

basis for review was based on volume of OCVIs received here at the 

Division of Agriculture and could be done much more frequently if 

there was a known disease threat. The paper OCVIs are scanned 

and transmitted to the RISCC for data entry. Electronic OCVIs are 

forwarded to the RISCC directly as well as being printed and filed 

here at RIDEM. The paper copies are then filed by RI farm location 

where they are held in the office for at least 5 years, after which they 

are stored in a remote site. 

III. VISION AND MISSION CONTEXT FOR ADVANCING TRACEABILITY
10

3.1 Vision Statement

The Department’s vision for advancing ADT is to have in place a system 

whereby all stakeholders, governmental and non-governmental, realize the 

benefit of such a system in regard to protection of animal agriculture, animal 

health, public health, and marketing of animals and animal products 

domestically and abroad. 

3.2 Mission Statement

It is therefore the mission of the Department to work collaboratively with 

all stakeholders to develop a system to enhance ADT so that animal 

agriculture, animal health, public health, and animal marketability is 

protected. 

IV. TRACEABILITY REQUIREMENTS

4.1 Strategic goal(s)

The strategic goals of enhancing ADT are as follows:

• Develop an ADT plan that is consistent with national goals for ADT 

and is interoperable with the plans of other states/tribes/ territories. 

• Develop an ADT plan that will yield cross cutting data that will be 

used for all hazards disaster response and will be used by multiple 

agencies.

4.2 Programmatic goals are as follows:

• Target, develop, and implement outreach messaging regarding data 

quality and processing for animal health information forms. This 

will primarily target accredited veterinarians and animal producers 

such that forms collect minimal data necessary to affect the plan. 

OCVI data will be the primary source from veterinarians but may 

include any testing for program diseases. In reference to animal 

producers, the main outreach will be to encourage them to apply ID 

to their animals and to provide accurate records of that application 

to the Division of Agriculture. This will be ongoing throughout the 

life of the plan. 

• OCVI data uploads must occur in a timely manner. The three factors 

influencing this are 1) how promptly the issuing veterinarian who 

prepares the certificate forwards that certificate to the proper animal 

health authorities, 2) how promptly the animal health official 

forwards the certificate to RI for imported animals, and 3) how 

promptly the data on certificates that are here in RI are uploaded. 

Goal is to enhance/expedite all three if possible. Ultimately, there 

will be a mandatory transition from a paper-based system to an 

entirely electronic one. Applications that interface with Core-One 

make this transfer of data instantaneous. Encouraging increased 

usage of interoperable electronic systems will be ongoing 

throughout the life of the plan. DEM has ceased making paper 

certificates available to facilitate phase-out of their use. 
11

• Due to the fact that the state will not likely be able to hire a person 

to take on the role of data entry and current staff will not be likely 

to assume this role on a daily basis, it will continue to be something 

that will be outsourced to contractors. The objective will be to have 

all data uploaded for routine work on a weekly basis and to task 

existing staff with doing so at any time on an emergency basis upon 

notification that there is an ongoing trace. Note that as electronic 

systems are implemented, there will be an ongoing need to support 

the existing paper-based systems of data entry while also supporting 

adoption of software that allows direct importation of OCVIs into 

Core-one. There is a trend toward increased use of electronic 

OCVIs by accredited veterinarians, but we still receive a significant 

number of paper-based OCVIs. 

• Data retrieval will be enhanced by the state migrating data into Coreone. This tool, though not a traceability tool, has the capability of 

tracing animal movements and data storage consistent with the goals 

of this plan. Premises information gained through location of 

premises in GIS can be migrated into this program and animals 

identified can be associated with that premises. This will commence 

immediately.

• The RI State Veterinarian is available on emergency basis at any 

time to share necessary data with USDA or any state/tribal/territory 

authority that is authorized to request such data. 

• Use of Core-One product will provide a means of associating 

surveillance data with individual animals or premises, further 

enhancing traceability and/or disease disaster response. 

• Tag application and distribution enhancement will be accomplished 

by delivery of tags and applicators to producers at the time that 

contractors reach out to them. Additionally, the DEM has 

transferred a large proportion of RFID tags from our USDA 

allotment to the contractor so that the contractor can, in turn, provide 

those tags to producers who request them. The contractor keeps all 

distribution records and makes them available at the request of the 

state veterinarian. Contractor(s) will collect data that is in excess of 

ADT framework requirements in regard to the minimum amount of 

information for premises location, animal owner, and policies 

consistent with VS memo on distribution of NUES compliant tags. 

This is ongoing and will continue for the life of the plan. 

4.3 Animal disease traceability performance measures (required)

ASSUMPTION: The following performance standard baselines are made 

working on the assumption that we are dealing with lawful shipments of 

animals AND that OCVIs have been promptly forwarded from accredited 

veterinarians to the state animal health officials and that those state animal 

health officials in the state of origin have promptly reviewed and forwarded 

their copies to the states of destination. Obviously, illegally transported 
12

animals that arrive in a state will be more difficult to trace as will legally 

documented shipments for which documentation (review and forwarding of 

OCVIs) is delayed.

• Performance standard 1: Determines the State/Tribe in which the 

animal was officially identified and notifies the State/Tribe of the 

reference animal’s official ID number. (To be performed by the 

animal health official in the receiving state or tribe) 

• If Rhode Island was the receiving state of a reference animal, 

and that animal was officially identified, it would take less than 

one day to determine which state applied official ID. The SAHO 

in the state of origin would be notified by common means of 

communication, including but not limited to telephone 

conversation, facsimile, email, text messaging, etc. OCVIs could 

be searched electronically or manually within that time period 

and once the animal location within the state has been 

determined, animal identification could easily be physically 

confirmed by an animal health technician or the State 

Veterinarian visiting that farm. The caveat being that access to 

the farm may be restricted if the farm owner is not present. 

• Performance standard 2: Confirms that it has documentation that an 

official ID number has been issued within its jurisdiction and that it 

has contact information for the person who received that number. 

(To be performed by the animal health official in the state or tribe 

where application of official ID occurred.) 

• If Rhode Island is notified that official ID has been applied in RI 

to a reference animal, it is expected that RI animal health 

officials could confirm that application within one day provided 

that the Division of Agriculture has a record of that application. 

We could certainly search all records that we currently have in 

possession within that timeframe. DEM would not necessarily 

have a record of a tag being applied to an animal since the 

producer may apply the ID and there is no requirement for 

application records to be forwarded to DEM. That being stated, 

DEM would have records of distribution of tags to a producer so 

those records would be used to determine where the animal was 

tagged. 

• It is expected that RI animal health officials could verify that a 

reference animal was identified within the state within one to 

two days. The ID would have been applied in one of the 

following manners: 1) the ID was applied by an employee of the 

Division of Agriculture; 2) the ID was distributed directly to a 

producer and the producer applied the ID to one of his/her 

animals (in this case the Division of Agriculture has a tag 

distribution record); or 3) the ID was distributed to a federally 

accredited veterinarian, and that veterinarian applied the tag (in 
13

this case the Division of Agriculture would have a tag 

distribution record to that veterinarian, but would need 

additional time to contact that veterinarian for records of which 

animal the tag was applied to). Tag distribution records would 

need to be manually and electronically searched for the series of 

tags distributed to a particular producer or accredited 

veterinarian because currently both paper and electronic 

distribution records are being used. In all likelihood 2 days is a 

very conservative estimate and it may very well be accomplished 

much sooner. 

• Performance standard 3: Determines the State or Tribe from which 

the animal was moved interstate into its jurisdiction and notifies that 

State or Tribe of the reference animal’s official ID number. (To be 

performed by the animal health official in the receiving state or 

tribe.) 

• This is somewhat dependent on the timeline in which RI animal 

health officials receive an OCVI from the state of origin. The 

fact is that it is possible for the animal to arrive in the state long 

before the RI Division of Agriculture receives an electronic or 

paper copy of an OCVI. Limiting factors in this are delays from 

accredited veterinarians in the state of origin forwarding copies 

to their state animal health officials, then further delays in review 

by the animal health officials in the state of origin and 

forwarding reviewed OCVIs to RI. These are all circumstances 

that are out of the control of the receiving state. Having stated 

that, once RI is in receipt of an OCVI referencing a particular 

animal, the state of origin can be notified within one day, likely 

less. This performance standard should be greatly improved 

with applications that instantaneously transfer data.

• Performance standard 4: Determines the address or location from 

which the reference animal was shipped. (To be performed by the 

animal health official in the state or tribe where the animal was 

shipped from.)

• The time it would take to verify that a reference animal 

originated from RI would be less than one day provided that the 

Division of Agriculture was in possession of an OCVI bearing 

the animal’s ID and origin. There is the potential for delay from 

the accredited veterinarian in RI submitting the OCVI in a timely 

fashion. The RI Division of Agriculture will monitor and 

encourage timely submission of OCVIs issued by federally 

accredited veterinarians. 

4.4 Data requirements

• Currently, location identification numbers (LIDs) are being used. 

The reason that LIDS were chosen over PINS is that RI producers, 

for the most part, have preferred not sharing location identifiers with 
14

the federal government. The use of LIDs does not preclude issuance 

of a PIN if a producer prefers sharing that information with the 

federal government, however since producer compliance with an 

ADT plan is necessary, current thinking is to not take any action to 

disenfranchise producers. For the producers that prefer PINs, the 

Division of Agriculture & Forestry refers those producers to USDA 

for allocation of a PIN. Use of LIDS provides the RI Division of 

Agriculture to assign a unique number to premises while being able 

to address producers’ concerns over PINS. 

• Official ID will be the only method of ID to be used. NUES tags 

will be phased out in favor of RFID and in accordance with USDA’s 

timeline. RFID is gaining acceptance and Animal Health staff have 

facilitated producers purchase of them by assisting them with 

obtaining a LID so they can order tags from suppliers. “Scrapie” tags 

will continue to be used in sheep and goats for producers who wish 

to purchase them. An anticipated area of push back from producers 

will be use of breed registration numbers associated with tattoos as 

“official” ID. Currently, these tattoos are considered official ID 

within the state, but are not considered so under the ADT rule. RI 

will use official ID that is consistent with national program 

standards.

• Consistent with VS Memo 578.12, NUES tags will continue to be 

available for distribution directly to producers until they are phased 

out. Producers are recognizing the enhanced utility of RFID though 

and requests for NUES are waning. This is likely a function of RFID 

being a better alternative overall, and the fact that producers 

recognize that NUES tags are moving towards obsolescence. 

Availability of official ID tags has increased compliance with 

animal ID since producers have gotten in the habit of applying ID 

when it is convenient for them to do so and at times when they would 

normally be handling their cattle. The RI Division of Agriculture & 

Forestry will continue to assist producers as NUES tags are phased 

out in favor of RFID. The RI Division of Agriculture will also assist 

producers with any federal program that will assist producers use of 

this form of ID.

• A tag distribution system will be that the RI Division of Agriculture 

& Forestry will assist producers to acquire their own tags directly 

from distributors. We will provide or generate a LID for them so 

they can then order tags directly. We lack the resources to distribute 

tags to producers since our staff has been reduced from 4 FTEs to 

the current 3. Additionally, our contract partner, NRICD, will 

distribute official ID (RFID) tags to producers and keep distribution 

records. This stock of tags is a portion of the RI allotment from 

USDA and these tags are offered at no cost to the producers. 
15

• OCVIs are the only forms approved for interstate animal movement 

unless directly to slaughter (within 72 hours at a USDA inspected 

plant).

• Data will be shared with USDA and other states/tribes/territories 

immediately upon a request by USDA or authorized animal health 

official in a state/tribe/territory. The RI State Veterinarian is 

available for emergency recall at any time and has prompt, if not 

immediate, access to computer records. Data will be shared by 

telephone communication or electronically by email. Any data that 

is not stored electronically will need to be manually searched, 

however this should not be a very time-consuming task due to the 

low volume of animals being moved into and out of Rhode Island, 

and the increasing trend of electronic documents has resulted in 

fewer paper documents.

4.5 Information technology plan

The IT needs of RI are relatively simple because of the small volume of 

animals shipped into and out of the state. It is expected that Core-One will 

be utilized by RI for the foreseeable future. Though this is not a 

“traceability” program, this program will sufficiently meet the needs of the 

state in regard to having adequate traceability capability. The transition 

from a mixed system of paper-based OCVIs to an entirely electronic OCVI 

system is progressing and is expected to continue along that trajectory. RI 

Division of Agriculture & Forestry receives all formats of OCVIs, whether 

paper or electronic. The plan is to support data entry of all current formats 

while transitioning over time to a completely electronic format. It is 

unlikely that the transition will occur over the life of this document, but it 

is expected that it will progress toward that goal. During this transition there 

will be costs associated with maintenance of both systems, however, as the 

paper-based system is phased out, the cost of support of that system will 

also be reduced and then eliminated. 

4.6 Resource requirements

• A means of migrating existing farm location data into Core-one will 

be a great benefit. Currently, it is not known whether this can easily 

be done. Either Core-one resources or state resources will need to 

investigate this possibility.

• It is possible that consultants will need to be involved in this 

migration, however, if the proposition to rectify the two databases is 

too arduous, it can be managed as two separate entities.

• RIDEM has a Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP), the plan is 

updated fairly frequently, but unfortunately it is rarely tested. 

4.7 Organizational Needs 

4.7.1 Executive support

• The Chief of the RI Division of Agriculture & Forestry and 

the Director of the Department of Environmental 
16

Management fully support an ADT plan that will protect RI 

livestock, will support interstate ADT efforts, is compliant 

with national ADT standards and will enhance marketability 

of RI livestock and poultry. 

4.7.2 Coordination and oversight procedures

• The RI State Veterinarian engages RI livestock and poultry 

producers frequently. The RI State Veterinarian will 

continue to engage with these sectors to stress the 

importance of ADT efforts, and to listen to their concerns. 

• Emergency response personnel are contracted from URI 

through an existing contractual agreement. Additional in 

state resources are personnel from the RI Department of 

Environmental Management, RI Emergency Management 

Agency, and possibly the RI Department of Health. The six 

New England states have also entered into a compact with 

each other to share resources for animal emergency response 

on a regional level. 

• RI plans to have an ADT plan that is consistent with federal 

ADT rules, therefore, will be compliant with and 

interoperable with all other compliant state/tribe/territory 

plans.

• The State Veterinarian will be the administrator and will 

assign duties to Animal Health staff directly, or contractually 

to RISCC as external support for the plan. 

• Feedback regarding implementation of the plan will be direct 

and linearly to the State Veterinarian.

4.7.3 Policy

• Existing animal importation regulations will need to be 

reviewed and amended as necessary to maintain consistency 

with a federal ADT rule and to ease interoperability with 

other state plans.

4.7.4 Staffing

• Currently, ADT is supported by federal cooperative 

agreement funds being used to hire contractors. ADT is also 

supported in-kind by animal health staff developing plans, 

assisting contractors, and generally supporting ADT efforts. 

• Full time paid support staff for ADT could easily be justified 

based on the work that contractors are doing in this effort. 

This work could more easily be overseen by the state 

veterinarian if animal health staff were tasked with ADT 

outreach, ID distribution, and data entry. Unfortunately, 

even if federal funds were used to support this, state hiring 

policies do not permit it. 
17

• Ability to communicate with farmers to educate them 

regarding ADT, and a working knowledge of animal 

movement, production, commerce, and disease risk are all 

desirable skills. Also, basic data entry skills and ability to 

query the database. Finally, minimal GIS skills to locate and 

update farm location inventory.

• One full-time employee would be needed to administer the 

plan and would allow expansion of it.

• Other human resources could still exist in the form of 

contractors.

• The state’s preference would be to have the ability to hire a 

dedicated ADT employee to administer all aspects of the 

plan. 

4.7.5 Budget requirements

• Currently ADT efforts are funded by VS cooperative 

agreement to hire contractors. State in-kind match is met by 

oversight, administration, and development by state animal 

health and management services employees. 

• It is expected that funding will be used to enter extended

contracts with the current providers, however, this plan 

expands the current roles of the contractors. See below:

o Contractor to provide educational outreach and 

distribute information on procuring official ID to 

producers. Contractors would also provide data 

entry into Core-one. It is expected that this phase 

will cost approximately $27,500 per project year. 

These levels are based on funding levels through 

2023. It is reasonable in light of the current fiscal 

situation on the state and federal levels that level 

funding is to be continued. Therefore, contractors 

should work under the assumption that funding 

levels will remain static through 2026. 

o Should budgets be reduced the contracts will need to 

be renegotiated and either the contractor will accept 

a lower rate for the same work, or the amount of work 

will need to be reduced to reflect the available funds. 

o Contractor will report at least quarterly to the RI 

State Veterinarian and the RI State Veterinarian will 

provide summary data on a quarterly basis to VS.

o Total project budget is therefore expected to be

approximately $55,500 annually to continue current 

ADT agreement objectives.

• Cost sharing is achieved by support from animal health staff, 

providing workspace for data entry and storage, providing 
18

administrative support, and continuing development of the 

plan. 

• The only real way for the applicant to insulate against budget 

cuts and short falls will be to renegotiate contracts with 

contractors to decrease scope of work to be done or to agree 

on a lower rate for completion of the same scope of work. It 

should be recognized that there is already sufficient 

insulation by use of outside contractors such that payroll 

costs associated with state employees have been eliminated. 

• Other potential funding sources have been explored;

however, none have materialized to date. Due to the all 

hazards nature of this plan, funding through DHS has been 

explored and will continue to be. 

4.7.6 Outreach 

4.7.6.1 Accredited veterinarians

• The state veterinarian will stress performance standards to 

accredited veterinarians and clearly state expectations for 

such matters as reporting their application of official ID, 

prompt submission of OCVIs, and how to correctly fill out 

official documents such as OCVIs, test charts, records of tag 

distribution, etc.

• Accredited veterinarians will be encouraged to adopt use of 

electronic OCVIs and RFID. 

• It is not expected that accredited veterinarians will have a 

direct role in distribution of official tags to producers, 

however, they will be recipients of tags themselves. Having 

too many distribution sources will only have the effect of 

having more sources to search in the event of an animal 

trace. Therefore, it is expected that the Division of 

Agriculture will assist accredited veterinarians by providing 

them with LIDs so they can obtain tags directly from 

distributors. Vets and farmers will then need to record 

application to animals. 

• As technology advances, accredited veterinarians will be 

notified of changes such as phase-out of NUES and phaseout of paper OCVIs. This will most easily be accomplished 

through direct email messaging targeted at accredited 

veterinarians. 

4.7.6.2 Livestock markets

• Currently, RI has no permanent livestock markets. The only 

markets are occasional auctions held by faith-based groups 

or 4-H. These animal concentration points may be visited 

by RI Division of Agriculture personnel or contractors and 
19

they have all been educated on and provided information 

regarding animal importation and identification rules. 

• State regulations require that all markets keep records on 

source of animals as well as buyer. All official ID is 

recorded as the animals are accepted for consignment. If an 

animal is not officially identified it is identified with a 

“slaughter only” tag in the case of sheep and goats. Official 

ID tags will be applied to cattle and hogs upon consignment. 

Those animals that are imported for the sale but that do not 

meet state import requirements will be followed after the 

sale to ensure that they have been slaughtered as is required 

by regulation. Those that have not been slaughtered will be 

held under quarantine and the owners ordered to have 

slaughtered or tested to meet import requirements for 

individual species plus/minus penalty. All markets are 

required to make records available to Animal Health staff 

upon request. Compliance has historically been good.

4.7.6.3 Industry as a whole

• Livestock groups have been reached out to throughout the 

development of the federal rule. They have been offered 

opportunity to provide feedback to the federal government 

regarding the rule, or to the division of agriculture. They 

have likewise been notified that each state will be required 

to have an interoperable ADT plan. 

• In addition to direct emails to industry leadership for 

distribution to producers, the RI State Veterinarian has 

distributed URLs for the USDA’s website on traceability. 

• Predictably, RI has a relatively small but diverse animal 

industry. There are currently about 7 licensed dairies, many 

small (<50 head) beef producers, a few large (>50 head)

beef producers, three commercial layer operations, none

over 30,000 birds, one broiler producer, one turkey 

producer, one large game bird farm, and under 200 sheep 

and goat producers, the majority of them being under 50 

head. Most of the sheep and goat producers are small 

private dairies and/or raise their animals primarily as a 

hobby. 

• A benefit to having a small state is that there is always easy 

access to animal health officials, figuratively and literally. 

All points within the state with the exception of one island 

community are within an hour drive. 

4.8. Monitoring and reporting interstate movement activity (required)

• The number of animals and animal shipments will be recorded and 

collated by recording the data captured on OCVIs.
20

• It is assumed that the information will be accurate and there will be 

no need of verification for routine shipments of animals since the 

source of OCVIs for RI origin animals will be accredited 

veterinarians and the source of OCVIs for RI destination animals 

will be the SAHO in the state of origin. Obviously, verification of 

shipments of animals under question will ultimately need to be 

verified from the origin and destination state to verify that the 

destination state received the animal, and the origin state shipped the 

animal. 

• The following data must be reported for quarterly reports: RI 

intends to comply and report the following data as applies. 

o Number of OCVIs and other interstate movement documents 

created within the State/Tribe/Territory on a year-to-date 

basis for move-out animals

o Number of OCVIs and other interstate movement documents 

received for move-in animals

o Number of animals by species and class for move-in events 

associated with OCVIs and other interstate movement 

documents, indicating the number of animals officially 

identified and the number not officially identified

o Number of animals by species and class for move-out events 

associated with OCVIs and other interstate movement 

documents, indicating the number of animals officially 

identified and the number not officially identified

o Volume of distribution for each official numbering 

system/device issued by the State/Tribe/Territory and/or AD

office, including backtags by market or processing 

(slaughter) facility

V. TRACEABILITY IMPLEMENTATION

5.1 Ranking of priorities for advancement

• Specific steps for advancement over the current level for ADT are 

as follows:

o Enhancement of electronic OCVI use by outreach to 

accredited veterinarians. This will be facilitated by phase-out 

of NUES tags.

o Use of applications that facilitate electronic OCVI 

assimilation into Core-One. This will be facilitated by phaseout of paper OCVIs. 

o Targeted educational outreach to accredited veterinarians.

o Continued and updated educational outreach to producers.

• It is not expected that a phase in approach would be necessary for 

RI to implement ADT.
21

5.2 Implementation of objectives

It is expected that implementation of the advancement objectives listed 

above can commence with the next work plan and can occur 

simultaneously. Therefore, the budget listed above will remain relatively 

static, provided funds exist, for the next three project years.