![](media/image1.png){width="2.125in" height="1.0451388888888888in"}

Jeff Taylor, President

Star Prairie Trout Farm

8421 Lake Jane Tr\
Lake Elmo, MN 55042

651-699-6050\
[jtaylor@dungarvin.com](mailto:jtaylor@dungarvin.com?subject=WAA Website)

Terry Hogan\
Hayward Bait & Tackle, Inc\
15737 Davis Ave\
Hayward, WI 54843

715-634-2921

[TLH001@netzero.com](mailto:baitshop@cheqnet.net?subject=WAA Website)

Cindy Johnson

Creel Editor

Secretary/Treasurer

P.O. Box 1408

Bayfield, WI 54814

715-373-2990

Cindy@wisconsinaquaculture.com

Peter Fritsch\
Rushing Waters Fisheries Inc\
P.O. Box H\
N301 Hwy H\
Palmyra, WI 53156-0917

262-495-2089

[Peter.Fritsch@rushingwaters.net](mailto:Petef@rushingwaters.net?subject=WAA Website)

Dr. Gary Egrie

Senior Staff Veterinary Medical Officer

National Center for Animal Health Programs, VS, APHIS

4700 River Road Unit 46

Riverdale, MD 20737-1231

10/7/2008

Dr. Egrie;

We believe that the Interim Rule **should not** go into effect on
November 10, 2008 until key provisions are changed. For the past decade,
Wisconsin has not only been a leader in fish health programs, but also
understands the importance of preventive procedures, and initiated VHS
testing for imports of susceptible species of fish in September 2006
(two months before the Federal Order). We have worked closely with USDA
APHIS staff to communicate industry concerns regarding VHS by providing
recommendations on regulations that secure the safety of the industry,
slow the progression of VHS while allowing commerce to continue, and are
supportive of sensible rules. However, Wisconsin fish farmers feel that
the APHIS Interim Rule goes beyond reasonable regulations and that the
costs associated with the rule will cause significant economic burden on
our small businesses and may put many farmers in jeopardy of losing
their businesses.

The Interim Rule on VHS - Docket No. APHIS-2007-0038 was written,
according to the summary, to restrict the interstate movement and
importation into the United States of fish susceptible to VHS to prevent
further introductions into, and dissemination within, the United States
of viral hemorrhagic septicemia. There is no doubt that the Interim Rule
will accomplish restricted movement of fish (from farms) but at a cost
that will cripple the aquaculture industry in the Great Lakes Region,
and probably will not prevent the disease from spreading through natural
conduits or by water via the thousands of boats and vessels that are
involved in commercial transport, sport fishing and recreation in the
region.

The Regulatory Impact Analysis is disjunctive with the Interim Rule by
stating, "*Net impacts of the interim rule are expected to be small
because of the existing State regulations and the Federal Order.*" And
in the summary -- "*The potential impacts of the interim rule are not
known given the lack of information on aquaculture operations and
commercial fisheries in the regulated areas.*" It is very disappointing
that APHIS did not understand how the commerce of live fish shipments
work as stipulated by the economic analysis that the interim rule would
have no adverse economic consequences -- in view of the fact that
stakeholder meetings were conducted and many professional organizations
offered assistance. While the assessment is correct that many states
have adopted equal or more restrictive rules concerning VHS, the interim
rule has many changes from the modified federal order and which **will**
have an economic impact on the industry. The state and federal VHS rules
are not allopathic to one another but add layers of regulations - all
costing large sums of money in order to comply. If the Interim Rule goes
into affect without modifications, the aquaculture industry in the Great
Lakes region will be in jeopardy by being placed at a competitive
disadvantage to other regions of the U. S. and it will certainly have a
negative effect on the multi-billion dollar sport fish industry. It is
imperative that a new Economic Analysis be completed that has input from
affected stakeholders and aquaculture professionals in the region.

We offer the following comments and suggestions:

1.  **Definitions (§§ 83.1 and 93.900) and §83.4 Regulated Fish.** The
    definition of Anadromous fish does not take into consideration that
    in the Great Lakes Region Natural Resource agencies stock specific
    strains of fish that are Anadromous, spending part of their lives in
    streams and part in the Great Lakes (non saltwater). This definition
    seems to then allow the exemption (from regulation) of anadromous
    fish species from VHS strain IV (a) that occur on both the East and
    West Cost. Although VHS strain IV (b) affects more species of fish,
    there are still unregulated shipments of frozen fish coming into the
    Great Lakes Region from areas known positive to VHS strain IV (a).
    The definition appears to be subjective to avoid regulations for VHS
    strain IV (a), and there is no regulation on frozen fish.

2.  **General Restrictions; Conditions of Movement (§§ 83.2 and 83.3)**
    This section appears to distinguish between VHS tested live
    shipments of fish and non-tested fish moved in interstate commerce
    for slaughter. However in Paragraph (b) the term transported in a
    sealed conveyance and accompanied by VS Form 1-27 needs better
    definition and if intended to mean sealed by a veterinarian or
    competent authority, this will be too costly and there is
    insufficient infrastructure to comply (see below). It should be
    noted that many fish processing plants are not located on municipal
    sewage systems. It seems reasonable that dewatering could be land
    based on fields (not subject to runoff), as the soil would
    neutralize the virus. The offal, including carcasses, should be
    allowed to be disposed via commercial waste companies (in compliance
    with state standards) or sold to companies that produce a product
    that in the process neutralizes the virus (cooking, change in ph -
    pet food, or fish emulsion).

3.  **Interstate Certificate of Inspection (ICI) (§ 83.5) Paragraph
    (b)** -- *the requirement of the 72 hour inspection by accredited
    veterinarian or a state, Tribal or Federal competent authority for
    aquatic animal health.* There is insufficient infrastructure
    (accredited authorities) to carry out the inspection and, most
    notably, VHS carries no visual symptoms specific to VHS. Wisconsin
    Aquaculture Specialists called several accredited aquatic
    veterinarians and fish farmers who ship in interstate commerce to
    get an idea of the impact. The veterinarians told them that they
    charge \$1 per mile round trip and they may be hundreds of miles
    from clients. The sight (visual) inspection itself may cost up to
    \$150 due to disruption in their business day. The total cost for
    the inspection would be several hundreds of dollars and many said
    they could not comply because of frequency, and distance from
    clients would disrupt their business. The number of shipments at
    certain times of year runs several per week so the total cost of
    compliance runs into the tens of thousands of dollars per farm per
    year. We recommend that the 72 hour inspection be dropped for
    domestic interstate shipments. There may be need for the 72 hour
    inspection on international shipments.

4.  **Testing Requirements (§ 83.6)** -- The incorporation of the farm
    level certification standard and reduction of percent prevalence
    with facilities showing negative testing results over a period of
    time is a welcome relief. However, the standard for water
    temperatures between 50 and 72 °F, coupled with the twice per year
    and at least 3 months between tests, will not work. Many farms have
    water sources that are below 50 °F most of the year and other farms
    will not have those water conditions at the interval needed to take
    samples in order to comply. We recommend that USDA APHIS allow the
    state competent authority and their clients to work out a schedule
    for testing that makes sense for the farm and meets scientific
    knowledge of VHS. The Interim Rule fails to address, and give credit
    for, the AFS Blue Book standard of 60 lot fish once a year, which
    was required in the modified Federal Order and adopted by many
    states in the Great Lakes Region. Although APHIS would like the
    Interim Rule to serve as a draft standard model for state
    regulations \"for all other regulated diseases\", many of the states
    have adopted the blue book standard in their statutes, which are not
    easy to change. The consequences are that farms that ship to several
    states will have double the testing costs causing excessive economic
    burdens with no benefit derived from the test results.

5.  **Testing Requirements (§ 83.6) Paragraph (c)** -- *testing for fish
    held on a water source that is not a secure water source will be
    valid for 30 days from the date of sample collection.* This simply
    will not work since VHS testing takes a minimum of 28 days and
    longer with shipping. USDA APHIS should not be looking at "open
    water source" but rather if the fish are "cultured fish" as defined
    in the Interim Rule, or "wild source" indicating fish captured from
    unregulated waters, which are not aquaculture facilities. The 30 day
    testing requirement for cultured fish should be dropped.

6.  **Shipping Containers; Cleaning and Disinfection (§ 83.7)** Although
    we agree that cleaning and disinfection is part of a biosecurity
    program and should be practiced on farms, the requirement to be
    monitored by the accredited competent authority is unworkable. This
    suggests that the competent authority needs to be present during the
    cleaning and disinfection and that simply is too costly, and again
    there is not the infrastructure in place to comply. A better
    solution is to recognize that fish farmers are the last people that
    want VHS on their facilities and have taken steps (biosecurity plans
    or VHS HACCP plans) to prevent the disease from coming onto the
    farm. Again, USDA APHIS needs to recognize the risks associated
    with, and the difference between, fish coming from "wild source" and
    "cultured fish". The risks are greater in wild source fish.

The Wisconsin Aquaculture Association would like to acknowledge that
USDA APHIS spent a lot of time, money and energy on the Interim Rule and
Economic Analysis; there are sections that are improvements from the
modified Federal Order. However because there are many provisions that
are unworkable and will have disastrous effects on the aquaculture
industry in the Great Lakes Region, we feel that the modified Federal
Order should remain in place until these sections can be modified. WAA
is willing to work with APHIS and other stakeholders to reconcile these
points of concern. We suggest a meeting, sponsored by APHIS, which
includes representatives from the eight Great Lakes States to include
fish farmers, aquaculture extension specialists, state and national
aquaculture organizations and State Competent Fish Health authorities.
The meeting could be informational to allow APHIS to gain information
about aquaculture commerce that is needed to complete the rule making
process. Also WAA would like to invite Dr. Gary Egrie, to the Rules
Workshop on December 5, 2008 to be held in Madison, Wisconsin to give an
update on the Interim Rule. WAA also recognizes that APHIS has received
comments from aquaculture concerns and scientists out of the region that
believe that VHS has to be contained at all costs, even if this means
significant hardship on fish farmers in the Great Lakes Region. APHIS
has the difficult task of sorting out the wishes of competitors and the
scientific validity of these concerns. VHS is out in the wild, not on
any United States farm, and it is here to stay -- regulations must be
sensible, allowing commerce to continue while safeguarding fishery
stocks. This is not an easy task but one that must be transparent and in
conjunction with stakeholders.

We look forward to working with USDA APHIS on a modified version of the
Interim Rule that will slow down the advancement of VHS without the
heavy economic burden place on fish farmers. But, again, the Interim
Rule must not go into effect on November 10, 2008.

Sincerely,

### Jeff Taylor

Jeff Taylor, President WAA

Cc

Senator Herb Kohl

Senator Russell D. Feingold

Representative Paul Ryan

Representative Tammy Baldwin

Representative Ron Kind

Representative Gwen Moore

Representative F. James Sensenbrenner

Representative Thomas E. Petri

Representative David R. Obey

Representative Steve Kagen

Wisconsin Senator Bob Jauch

Wisconsin Senator Dale Schultz

Gary Jensen, National Program Leader USDA CSREES

Ray Marchiori, SBA Regional Advocate

Betsy Heart, Ex-Dir NAA

Bart Hawcroft, President NASAC

Ted Batterson, Ex-Dir NCRAC