![](media/image1.bmp)

+-----------+---+-------------------------------------------------------+
| **United  |   |                                                       |
| States    |   |                                                       |
| D         |   |                                                       |
| epartment |   |                                                       |
| of        |   |                                                       |
| Agri      |   |                                                       |
| culture** |   |                                                       |
|           |   |                                                       |
| **        |   |                                                       |
| Marketing |   |                                                       |
| and       |   |                                                       |
| R         |   |                                                       |
| egulatory |   |                                                       |
| P         |   |                                                       |
| rograms** |   |                                                       |
|           |   |                                                       |
| **Animal  |   |                                                       |
| and**     |   |                                                       |
|           |   |                                                       |
| **Plant   |   |                                                       |
| Health    |   |                                                       |
| I         |   |                                                       |
| nspection |   |                                                       |
| Service** |   |                                                       |
|           |   |                                                       |
| ![](med   |   |                                                       |
| ia/image2 |   |                                                       |
| .jpeg){wi |   |                                                       |
| dth="0.45 |   |                                                       |
| 902777777 |   |                                                       |
| 777776in" |   |                                                       |
| hei       |   |                                                       |
| ght="0.50 |   |                                                       |
| 833333333 |   |                                                       |
| 33333in"} |   |                                                       |
+-----------+---+-------------------------------------------------------+
|           |   | **Interim Regulation for Viral Hemorrhagic            |
|           |   | Septicemia; Interstate Movement and Import            |
|           |   | Restrictions on Certain Live Fish**                   |
+-----------+---+-------------------------------------------------------+
|           |   |                                                       |
+-----------+---+-------------------------------------------------------+
|           |   | **Environmental Assessment, April 2008**              |
+-----------+---+-------------------------------------------------------+

**Interim Regulation for Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia; Interstate
Movement and Import Restrictions on Certain Live Fish**

**Environmental Assessment**

**April 2008**

**Agency Contacts:**

Dr. P. Gary Egrie

Veterinary Medical Officer

National Center for Animal Health Programs

Veterinary Services, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

4700 River Road, Unit 46

Riverdale, MD 20737--1231

Dr. Peter L. Merrill

Senior Staff Veterinarian

National Center for Import and Export

Veterinary Services, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

4700 River Road, Unit 39

Riverdale, MD 20737--1231

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in
all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national
origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual
orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases
apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require
alternative means for communication of program information (Braille,
large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA'S TARGET Center at
(202) 720--2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of
Civil Rights, Room 326--W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue,
SW, Washington, DC 20250--9410 or call (202) 720--5964 (voice and TDD).
USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Mention of companies or commercial products in this report does not
imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture over others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor
warrants the standard of any product mentioned. Product names are
mentioned solely to report factually on available data and to provide
specific information.

CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals,

desirable plants, and fish or other wildlife---if they are not handled
or applied

properly. Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. Follow
recommended

practices for the disposal of surplus pesticides and pesticide
containers.

**Table of Contents**

[**I. Introduction 1**](#introduction)

[II. Purpose of and Need for Action 1](#purpose-of-and-need-for-action)

[A. VHS: The Disease of Concern and Its Spread in the United States
2](#a.-vhs-the-disease-of-concern-and-its-spread-in-the-united-states)

[B. APHIS Action to Prevent the Spread of VHS Virus to Aquaculture
5](#b.-aphis-action-to-prevent-the-spread-of-vhs-virus-to-aquaculture)

[III. Alternatives 9](#alternatives)

[A. Implement an Interim Regulation That Maintains the Federal Order
Provisions
10](#a.-implement-an-interim-regulation-that-maintains-the-federal-order-provisions)

[B. Implement an Interim Regulation That Expands Provisions Within the
Scope of the Federal Order for the Interstate Movement and Importation
of VHS-regulated Live Fish Species (Preferred Alternative)
10](#b.-implement-an-interim-regulation-that-expands-provisions-within-the-scope-of-the-federal-order-for-the-interstate-movement-and-importation-of-vhs-regulated-live-fish-species-preferred-alternative)

[C. No Action---Withdraw the Federal Order and Take No Further APHIS
Action
17](#c.-no-actionwithdraw-the-federal-order-and-take-no-further-aphis-action)

[D. Implement a Proposed Regulation for Marine and Freshwater VHS Viral
Genotypes
18](#d.-implement-a-proposed-regulation-for-marine-and-freshwater-vhs-viral-genotypes)

[IV. Environmental Impacts 18](#iv.-environmental-impacts)

[A. Public Health Effects 19](#a.-public-health-effects)

[B. Nontarget Species Effects 21](#b.-nontarget-species-effects)

[C. Physical Environment 25](#c.-physical-environment)

[D. Cumulative Impacts 41](#d.-cumulative-impacts)

[E. Other Environmental Review Issues
45](#e.-other-environmental-review-issues)

[V. Agencies Contacted 49](#v.-agencies-contacted)

[VI. References 49](#vi.-references)

**Appendix A. Ecological Relationships of VHS-regulated Species 56**

# Introduction

As a Federal Government agency subject to compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA),[^1] the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to consider the
environmental effects of a proposed action and alternatives to that
action, consistent with NEPA regulations.[^2] This EA evaluates the
potential effects on the quality of the human environment[^3] from the
implementation of a rulemaking (interim regulation, discussed herein)
that is designed to prevent the spread of an animal disease to U.S.
aquacultured[^4] animals. APHIS' NEPA regulations classify rulemakings
that seek to remedy specific animal health risks as normally requiring
preparation of EAs.[^5] According to requirements under APHIS' NEPA
regulations, this document is being made available for public review and
comment. Written comments are welcome and should be sent to an agency
contact point identified in the notice that announced the availability
of this document to the public.

#  Purpose of and Need for Action

Under the authority of the Animal Health Protection Act[^6] (AHPA),
APHIS' Veterinary Services (VS) has authority for preventing the
introduction and establishment of diseases harmful to U.S. agricultural
animals, including fish species important to agricultural production.
Viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus (VHSV)[^7] causes a disease of the
same name in many species of wild marine and freshwater fish, a number
of which also are farmed species. A new strain of this virus has emerged
and has recently been identified in certain species of freshwater fish
in the Great Lakes region of Canada and the United States that were
previously unknown to be susceptible to VHSV infection. This strain has
been epidemiologically linked to a number of large-scale fish kills of
wild species in the Great Lakes region since 2006.

The emergence of a new VHS strain with an expanded host range and the
potential to spread beyond the Great Lakes region is causing concern for
U.S. aquaculture industries and public resource agencies. In accordance
with its statutory authority, APHIS is taking action to prevent the
introduction and spread of VHS to U.S. aquacultured animals.

The new VHSV strain, tentatively called North American type IV(b) to
differentiate it from what will likely be renamed type IV(a), is
demonstrably capable of causing substantial morbidity and mortality in
many susceptible freshwater fish species including baitfish,
recreationally important fish, and food fish, such as salmonids and
catfish. The potential impacts of VHS have generated concern for the
aquaculture industry because susceptible host fish are important to
related industries as a supply source for recreational fish, sport fish,
and food fish. The spread of VHS, or the virus that causes it, could
have substantial economic impact on the aquaculture industry and
industries that rely on aquaculture in different ways. Some of these
industries include---

-   commercial suppliers of fish for food, bait, or stock;

-   commercial and recreational fishing businesses;

-   sporting outfitters;

-   marina operators;

-   manufacturers of commercial or recreational watercraft; and

-   wholesalers and retailers of fishing gear and equipment.

## A. VHS: The Disease of Concern and Its Spread in the United States {#a.-vhs-the-disease-of-concern-and-its-spread-in-the-united-states .unnumbered}

**1. History of Disease and Recent U.S. Outbreaks**

VHS is a highly contagious disease of certain fresh and saltwater fish,
caused by a rhabdovirus. Four genotypes of VHS have been identified, and
appear to be distributed geographically. Genotypes I, II, and III are
mainly found in Europe or Asia and are highly pathogenic to rainbow
trout. European genotypes of VHSV have been isolated from fish in most
countries of continental Europe, including the western Soviet Union and
the British Isles. The disease caused by VHSV was first described
possibly as early as 1931. VHS, originally called "infectious kidney
swelling" and "liver degeneration" later also became known as Egtved
disease, denoting the village in Denmark where the disease was first
recognized (Skall et al., 2005). The viral etiology of the disease was
established in 1963. Beginning in Denmark during 1965, successful
control of VHSV was accomplished in several areas of Europe by use of
virus-free water supplies, eradication of virus-infected fish stocks,
disinfection of rearing facilities, and repopulation of hatcheries with
certified virus-free broodstock. Until 1979, VHSV had been a concern
mainly in freshwater fish in Europe. In 1979, the virus also was
isolated from saltwater fish in Europe. The European genotypes have
caused substantial economic impacts in European aquaculture (Meyer and
Winton, 1995). A fourth genotype, VHSV type IV, has more recently been
found in fish from Japan, North Korea, and both coasts of North America.

In 1988, VHSV type IV was detected in two Washington State hatcheries
from adult coho and Chinook salmon.  VHSV type IV also was isolated in
1989, 1991, 1994, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2002, and 2005 from adult coho
salmon and in 2006 from steelhead returning to hatcheries in the Pacific
Northwest, specifically Washington State.  Further isolations of this
viral genotype have been made from smelt in the Columbia River Basin,
Pacific herring and Atlantic salmon (2007) in Puget Sound. In addition
to Washington State, other reports have included VHSV type IV isolations
from Atlantic salmon, sardines (pilchards), and herring in British
Columbia; Pacific cod, Pacific herring, walleye Pollock, and Pacific
hake in Alaska; and Pacific sardines and mackerel caught in commercial
fisheries in southern California.

In 2005 and 2006, freshwater outbreaks of VHS occurred in both Canada
and the United States around the Great Lakes region and resulted in
die-offs of wild fish. These outbreaks, some of which have been
substantial, have affected many freshwater species that previously were
not known to be susceptible to VHSV infection or disease. As deduced
from genetic analyses of the isolated virus associated with virtually
all of these outbreaks, the North American type IV VHS virus previously
known to affect marine fish apparently has mutated into a strain that is
affecting many new host fish species in freshwater environments of the
Great Lakes region in both Canada and the United States. The emerging
strain (tentatively called North American type IV(b) to differentiate it
from what will likely be renamed type IV(a)) has caused a number of mass
mortalities in wild fish populations, ranging up to many thousands of
fish.

**2. Nonanthropogenic Spread of VHS**

In general, strains of VHSV are readily transmissible to susceptible
fish of all ages, although mortality will typically vary depending on
age. VHSV reservoirs include clinically ill and carrier fish that do not
show signs of the infection (CFSPH, 2003). VHSV is shed with urine and
ovarian fluids (Skall et al., 2005). Transmission can occur through the
water (CFSPH, 2003) and for most strains is thought to occur primarily
by contact with other infected fish, or contaminated water and utensils,
at optimum water temperatures. Information from the U.S. Geological
Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, indicates that VHSV type IV(b)
grows best at

15 °C (59 °F) and up to 20 °C (68 °F) in vitro. Viral growth was
inhibited at 25 °C (77 °F) (USDOI, USGS, 2007).

The virus is likely to enter the body through the gills or through
wounds (Jorgensen, 1974; CFSPH, 2003; USDA, APHIS, 2006a).
Experimentally, fish can be infected by cohabitation, immersion,
intraperitoneal and intramuscular injection, brushing virus on the
gills, and feeding (McAllister, 1990). VHSV can be found on the surface
of salmonid eggs during spawning of infected females (Meyers and Winton,
1995) and is capable of persisting for sufficient time to result in
egg-associated transmission of the virus from adult to progeny (Whelan,
2007).

VHSV can be transmitted by infected fish regurgitated by piscivorous
(fish-eating) birds (Peters and Neukirch, 1986), but the virus does not
appear to survive passage through the bird intestinal tract (Eskildsen
and Jorgensen, 1973). Birds also can transmit VHSV by transporting
infected fish and mechanical transfer of VHSV on the beak (Olesen and
Jorgensen, 1982). Piscivorous fish may acquire the virus by feeding on
VHS-infected prey (Skall et al., 2005). The close proximity of fish in
schools may enhance the transmission of virus via water and fish-to-fish
contact (Skall et al., 2005).

The historic absence of VHSV detections in past wild fish health
surveys, and the recovery of nearly identical isolates of VHSV type
IV(b) from large numbers of dying fish in several of the Great Lakes,
suggest that this strain of VHS virus may have been introduced into the
Great Lakes through one of several potential sources, including the
migration of anadromous or catadromous fish species that can enter or
exit the Great Lakes via the

St. Lawrence River (Elsayed et al., 2006).

**3. Anthropogenic Spread of VHS**

Although the various pathways by which VHS is spread are not fully
characterized, it is already apparent to scientists that the disease can
be spread artificially by anthropogenic means (i.e., of, relating to, or
resulting from the influence of humans on nature). If infected or
carrier fish are transported from one waterbody to another, VHS can
affect additional susceptible fish populations. VHS virus also may be
transferred by human activities, such as recreational boating, waste
water or other water discharges (see ballast water below), spreading
untreated solid waste from processed infected fish, handling
VHS-infected stocking or live market fish, and the use of live fish for
testing, bait, or feed, as discussed further in this section. All
anthropogenic means of spreading VHS involve transporting the virus
artificially, via a contaminated animate or inanimate source, and
causing it to be released into a new area with conditions and/or host
organisms that are suitable for maintaining the viability and
infectivity of the virus.

VHS has caused severe economic consequences for humans in many
countries, but the disease poses no direct risk to human health (USDA,
APHIS, 2006a; USDA, APHIS, 2006c). The virus breaks down within the
human body because of its inability to survive our internal temperature
and chemical processes (Jorgensen, 1974). Touching or eating a diseased
fish, therefore, will not infect a human with the VHS virus; however,
under the right conditions it is possible for the virus to be carried on
clothing, footgear, and a variety of surfaces via anthropogenic activity
(OIE, 2006; USDA, APHIS, 2006b; USDA, APHIS, 2006c). People who move in
and out of virus-contaminated water or who operate facilities, vessels,
vehicles, and equipment that may come in contact with the virus may
cause the disease to spread more rapidly than it would by
non-anthropogenic means, such as the natural movement of
VHS-contaminated fish and fluids (OIE, 2006; Skall et al., 2005; USDA,
APHIS, 2006a). The virus is quickly shed into marine or fresh water by
infected fish, often in urine, and can survive longer in natural
seawater when in contact with a protein source such as reproductive
fluids (Jorgensen, 1974; Kocan et al., 2001; USDA, APHIS, 2006a).

Vessels, vehicles, and equipment can act as fomites for the virus by
retaining even small amounts of virus-contaminated fluid which may be
transferred from site to site (Warren, 1978; Skall et al., 2005; USDA,
APHIS, 2006a). VHS virus can survive in water for hours: it has been
known to persist in sea water for 10 months and to be viable after being
frozen and thawed (OIE, 2006; Elsayed et al., 2006; Jorgensen, 1974). If
the virus does not dry out for long and is kept at appropriate
concentration, temperature, and pH levels, it can remain viable and
infect susceptible fish populations coming into contact with it (Arkush
et al., 2006; Hedrick et al., 2003; Meyers and Winton, 1995).
Non-biosecure boats and trucks carrying VHS-infected or carrier fish,
for example, can cross overland and release their cargo to expose
uninfected wild or cultured populations, or contaminate multiple
watersheds (USDA, APHIS, 2006b). With the rapid means of cross-country
transport available today, a VHS outbreak in one State can represent a
risk to any susceptible fish population within the United States.

## B. APHIS Action to Prevent the Spread of VHS Virus to Aquaculture {#b.-aphis-action-to-prevent-the-spread-of-vhs-virus-to-aquaculture .unnumbered}

In response to the detection and concern about the emergence of a new
strain of VHS virus in freshwater fish species and its potential to
spread beyond the Great Lakes region, APHIS determined that, under its
authority, there was a need to take immediate action toward preventing
the spread of VHSV to protect VHS-susceptible fish species that are
important to aquaculture. Considering the rapid spread of the disease
and variability in Federal and State regulations to prevent its spread,
APHIS issued a Federal Order that included restrictions on the
interstate movement and importation of VHS-susceptible species from
VHS-affected or at-risk areas and regions. A Federal Order is a
temporary mechanism whereby a Federal agency can implement emergency
actions under its authority. Measures taken through a Federal Order are
the result of a need for immediate action in the absence of regulations
under the authority of the agency implementing the action. A Federal
Order is a temporary solution to an immediate need for action until the
agency is able to establish requirements in a regulation related to the
scope of the immediate need. The Federal Order is then superseded by the
implementation of a regulation that meets the scope of the identified
need for action.

**October 24, 2006, Federal Order**

On October 24, 2006, APHIS implemented a Federal Order in response to
the rapid spread of the VHS virus in the Great Lakes region and the
potential impact of the disease on a growing number of fish species,
including fish species raised commercially in the United States. Through
the order, APHIS prohibited the importation of VHS-susceptible live fish
from areas in Canada that APHIS considered affected by VHS, specifically
the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario. Shipments of live fish identifiable
as originating from other Canadian Provinces were not affected by the
Federal Order. The order also simultaneously placed restrictions on the
interstate movement of VHS-susceptible fish species originating from
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
and Wisconsin, which were the eight States considered by APHIS to be
affected, or at risk of being affected, by VHS. Thirty-seven freshwater
fish species were identified in the October 24, 2006 Federal Order as
VHS-susceptible in the Great Lakes region of the United States, and were
regulated by the order. A list of the fish species is provided on an
APHIS Web site at
<http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/animal_dis_spec/aquaculture/>.

Species are added to or removed from this list as additional information
is obtained.[^8]

Following publication of the October 24, 2006, Federal Order, APHIS held
a 2‑day meeting with the U.S. Department of Interior's Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), State regulators, and industry representatives from the Great
Lakes region and other areas of the country. The purpose of the meeting
was to discuss the VHS situation in the United States and the
development of a Federal regulatory program to prevent the spread of VHS
caused by the emerging IV(b) strain. From this meeting, APHIS received
several recommendations regarding modifications to the Federal Order to
reduce the impact of the Federal Order on industry and related
businesses in the Great Lakes region. In early November 2006, APHIS also
met with Canadian government agencies that have oversight for fish
species in Canada. These agencies provided APHIS with information about
VHS testing in place in its country and asked that APHIS allow the
importation of certified VHS-free fish from Canada.

**November 14, 2006, Revised Federal Order**

On November 14, 2006, APHIS modified the October 24, 2006, Federal Order
with conditions that reduced restrictions on the importation and
interstate movement of VHS-susceptible live fish species, depending upon
whether the live fish are transported for slaughter, research, or other
purposes. These additional provisions facilitated the limited
importation and interstate movement of VHS-susceptible fish species in
the eight Great Lakes States listed in the order as VHS-affected or at
risk of being affected by VHS because of their geographic association
with the affected waters of the Great Lakes. APHIS also modified the
Federal Order to allow the continued importation of VHS-susceptible
species of live salmonid fish from Canada according to regulations[^9]
enforced by FWS. The amended Federal Order continued to prohibit the
importation of VHS-susceptible live non-salmonid fish species from
Ontario and Quebec, Canada. The revised conditions for importation and
interstate movement were made public through an amended Federal Order
issued on November 14, 2006,[^10] and are summarized below. All
importation and interstate movements of VHS-susceptible species from
VHS-affected areas of the Great Lakes region not specified as
permissible by the Federal Order are prohibited.

**[Interstate Movement]{.underline}**

**Live VHS-susceptible fish species from VHS-affected and at-risk States
for slaughter:**

-   Fish are for human consumption.

-   If not tested for VHS, fish are accompanied by a valid VS Form 1-27
    issued by an APHIS area office.

-   Fish are transported to a State-inspected slaughter facility that
    must---

> \- Discharge waste water to municipal sewage system that includes
> waste water disinfection or to either a non-discharging settling pond
> or settling pond that disinfects according to all applicable U.S.
> Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and State regulatory criteria.
>
> \- Render or compost offal, including carcasses.

**Live VHS-susceptible fish species from VHS-affected and at-risk States
for research and diagnostic laboratories:**

-   Fish are transported to an approved laboratory and accompanied by a
    valid form VS 1-27 (Permit for Movement of Restricted Animals)
    issued by an APHIS area office.

-   The laboratory must---

> \- be authorized to work with VHS by the State, tribal, or Federal
> competent authority for aquatic animal health.
>
> \- dispose of effluent and carcasses as medical waste at the receiving
> research or diagnostic facility according to EPA and State regulatory
> criteria.

**Live VHS-susceptible fish species from VHS-affected States and at-risk
States (for other interstate movement) to any State:**

-   Fish are transported with documentation from the appropriate State,
    tribal, or Federal competent authority(ies) for aquatic animal
    health.

-   Documentation will state that fish have tested negative for VHS
    virus according to either the AFS Blue Book[^11] or World
    Organization for Animal Health (OIE) chapter 2.1.5.[^12]

**Permissible movement of live VHS-susceptible fish species through
VHS-affected or at-risk States:**

-   When live VHS-susceptible fish originate from States that are not
    affected by VHS, permission is not required from APHIS to transit
    through a State to another State of designation.

**[Importation]{.underline}**

**Live salmonid VHS-susceptible fish species:**

-   Fish may be imported into the United States only if the shipment
    meets the requirements set forth in 50 CFR §§ 16.13(a)(3) and
    16.13(b).[^13]

**May 4, 2007, Revised Federal Order**

The Federal Order was again revised in May 2007 to include an exception
for catch and release fishing activities across international and
interstate boundaries. This revision allows the movement of
VHS-susceptible species of live fish used for such purposes, except for
those used or intended to be used as live bait, across international and
interstate boundaries. These catch and release activities include
fishing for pleasure or for recreational purposes such as tournaments,
organized fishing competitions, fishing derbies, or other types of
contests in which participants catch, compare, and release live fish.

**November 8, 2007, Revised Federal Order**

APHIS modified the Federal Order on November 8, 2007, by revising the
list of VHS-susceptible species. Specifically, APHIS removed 13 species,
added 3 new freshwater fish species that are susceptible to VHS, and
clarified the scientific names of several species. The updated list
includes only those species found in freshwater environments in the
United States and Canada that have been infected by VHS under natural
(i.e., non-experimental) conditions of exposure and from which VHS virus
has been isolated by cell culture, with confirmation of strain identity
through molecular detection. Anadromous fish species that have migrated
into freshwater and from which VHS strain type IV(a) is isolated are
excluded.

**April 2, 2008, Revised Federal Order**

APHIS modified the Federal Order on April 2, 2008, to remove the
prohibition of imported non-salmonid fish species from regions in Canada
that are affected by VHS. The April 2008 revised Federal Order allows
importation of live non-salmonid VHS-susceptible species from affected
Canadian provinces into the United States for direct slaughter under an
APHIS-issued permit.

# Alternatives 

As a Federal agency subject to compliance with NEPA, APHIS prepared this
EA to consider the environmental effects of a proposed action and
alternatives to that action consistent with NEPA regulations.[^14] As
mentioned above, APHIS implemented a Federal Order as a temporary action
to address an immediate need in preventing the spread of an animal
disease. Preparation of an interim regulation will follow through with
the intent of the Federal Order. The interim regulation should be
similar in scope to the emergency action that it is designed to replace.

This section of the EA discusses the following alternatives, including
the proposed action:

\- Implement an interim regulation that maintains the provisions of the
Federal Order;

\- Implement an interim regulation that expands provisions within the
scope of the Federal Order (the preferred alternative);

\- No action---withdraw the Federal Order and take no further APHIS
action; and

\- Implement a broad regulation for marine and freshwater VHS viral
genotypes.

## A. Implement an Interim Regulation That Maintains the Federal Order Provisions {#a.-implement-an-interim-regulation-that-maintains-the-federal-order-provisions .unnumbered}

Under this alternative, the requirements, as stated in the initial and
revised versions of the Federal Order would remain in effect as a result
of promulgation into APHIS regulations. Under these regulations, the
provisions defined in the Federal Order would continue to regulate the
North American strain of VHS virus (type IV(b)) that has appeared in
freshwater fish in the Great Lakes region and would incorporate the same
provisions as the Federal Order, making no changes. This action would
continue the Federal Order provisions (discussed in section II.B above)
for the interstate movement and importation of VHS-regulated fish
species from the eight States (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota,
New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) and two Canadian Provinces
(Ontario and Quebec) considered by APHIS, in the original Federal Order,
to be affected with VHS. The provisions would remain in effect in an
interim regulation until more information and data are available about
VHS or VHSV spread in the United States in order for APHIS to be in a
position to implement a follow-up regulation. (A follow-up regulation
could include all VHSV genotypes, all live VHS-susceptible freshwater
and marine fish species and their various life stages and products, and
all locations where VHSV is detected nationally and internationally.)

This action, to implement an interim regulation that maintains the
provisions under the May 4, 2007, Federal Order, is considered in this
EA as an alternative action to the interim regulation as proposed
(discussed in section B below). This action would maintain a level of
sanitary requirements that are known to limit spread of VHS or VHSV and
prevent certain human-assisted (anthropogenic) movements from locations
identified as VHS-affected, or at risk of acquiring VHS, until a more
thorough assessment of disease distribution and risk can be completed.

## B. Implement an Interim Regulation That Expands Provisions Within the Scope of the Federal Order for the Interstate Movement and Importation of VHS-regulated Live Fish Species (Preferred Alternative) {#b.-implement-an-interim-regulation-that-expands-provisions-within-the-scope-of-the-federal-order-for-the-interstate-movement-and-importation-of-vhs-regulated-live-fish-species-preferred-alternative .unnumbered}

The interim regulation would establish requirements for regulating any
VHS type IV ('North American') virus of any fish species found in
freshwater to be infected by that virus under natural (i.e.,
non-controlled) conditions of exposure and from which the virus has been
isolated from a given species by cell culture, with confirmation of
strain identity through genetic sequencing. Anadromous fish species that
have migrated into freshwater and from which VHSV strain type IV(a) has
been isolated are excluded from the provisions under the interim
regulation.

[]{.mark}

A list of VHS-regulated freshwater fish species meeting APHIS'
regulatory criteria would continue to be maintained on the APHIS
aquaculture Web site[^15] and updated as APHIS lists additional fish
species according to the criteria. Additionally, a list of areas (State
or portion of a State) from which a North American (type IV) strain of
VHS has been detected in any VHS-regulated species (with or without
clinical signs of disease) in a water source that is not a secure water
source, or which the Administrator determines should be regulated based
on criteria such as inadequate surveillance or movement requirements, or
other epidemiologic information, will be maintained on the APHIS
aquaculture Web site. APHIS will list as a VHS-regulated region any
region in which VHS virus has been officially reported to the World
Organization for Animal Health by the country's competent authority for
aquatic animal health from any fish species in a water source that is
not a secure water source, or which the Administrator determines to be
at risk of having VHS based on criteria such as inadequate surveillance,
less restrictive import requirements, or other epidemiologic
information. []{.mark}

This regulation would allow for interstate movement of live
VHS-regulated fish species from VHS-regulated areas and for importation
of live VHS-regulated fish species from VHS-regulated regions according
to certain requirements. Importation of VHS-regulated fish species from
Canadian Provinces or interstate movement of VHS-regulated species from
U.S. areas where a VHSV type IV (North American) strain has not been
found in freshwater fish species would not be regulated under the
interim regulation.

Importation of live VHS-regulated salmonid species from areas in Canada
considered by APHIS to be affected with VHS would continue according to
the provisions of 50 CFR §§ 16.13(a)(3) and 16.13(b) of FWS-enforced
regulations. The interim regulation would allow importation of live
VHS-regulated non-salmonid species from Canadian Provinces considered by
APHIS to be affected with VHS, according to certain requirements.

The interim regulation would apply conditions and requirements for
allowing VHS-regulated fish species from VHS-regulated areas (interstate
movement) and VHS-regulated regions (importation). The remainder of this
section includes many of the conditions and requirements; however,
please refer to the associated interim regulation published
simultaneously with this document for all the specific conditions and
requirements.

**Interstate Movement of Live VHS-regulated Fish Species From
VHS-regulated Areas**

**Live VHS-regulated fish, including those destined for live fish
markets, other than for immediate slaughter or research:**

-   Fish may move out of a VHS-regulated area with an Interstate
    Certificate of Inspection (ICI) if they originate from a fish
    premises that has been found free of the VHS virus according to
    testing requirements specified in section (§) 83.6 of the interim
    regulation

> (9 CFR § 83.6).

-   The ICI must include the following requirements:

    -   A statement that the live fish were inspected by the accredited
        veterinarian or a State, Tribal, or Federal competent authority
        for aquatic animal health within 72 hours prior to shipment and
        found to be free of any clinical signs of disease consistent
        with VHS; and the live fish covered by the ICI originated in an
        area or facility that has demonstrated freedom from VHS in
        accordance with § 83.6.

    -   Name, address, and phone number of the owner or owner's agent
        and of the facility in which the fish originated.

    -   Name, address, and phone number of the person or facility that
        will receive the fish; or the State or other regulatory
        authority responsible for oversight of the environment in which
        the fish will be introduced.

    -   Name, address, and phone number of the shipping or
        transportation company.

    -   Species and number of the fish; lot (or other) identification of
        the shipment.

    -   Name, address, and phone number of the approved laboratory that
        performed the testing required by § 83.6; number of fish tested;
        the assay(s) used for testing, and test results.

    -   Date the certificate was issued.

-   Testing must meet certain requirements, such as:

    -   Be conducted with a sample size that provides for a 95%
        confidence level of detecting a 2% prevalence of infection in
        the facility.

        -   For a facility with cultured fish of VHS-regulated species
            and having a 2-year negative testing history, a 95%
            confidence level of detecting a 5% prevalence of infection
            in the facility;

        -   For a facility with cultured fish of VHS-regulated species
            and having a 4‑year negative testing history, a 95%
            confidence level of detecting a 10% prevalence of infection
            in the facility.

        -   Such facilities must be on a secure water source and must
            document that all VHS-regulated species in the facility
            originate from other facilities of the same or a higher
            health status.

    -   Virus isolation using appropriate cell lines to detect VHS
        virus, if present. All suspect VHS cytopathic effects must be
        positively identified as VHS through molecular assays and/or
        genetic sequencing.

    -   Use proportional numbers of each VHS-regulated fish species
        which might be present in a facility, if applicable.

    -   Be conducted twice a year, with at least 3 months between tests
        and at water temperatures between 50 and 72 °F (10 to 21 °C), or
        at other times or under environmental conditions when VHS virus
        would most likely be detected, if present.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Fish must be shipped in new containers or containers that have been
    cleaned and disinfected to neutralize any VHS virus to which the
    shipping containers may have been exposed. The cleaning and
    disinfection protocols must be referenced in the ICI or in a
    separate cleaning and disinfection certificate accompanying the
    shipment.

**Live VHS-regulated fish for immediate slaughter:**

Fish without health certification or testing may be moved interstate
directly to a slaughtering establishment that meets certain
requirements.

-   Fish must be---

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Accompanied by a VS Form 1-27.

-   Transported in sealed conveyances.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The slaughtering establishment must meet certain conditions as
    follows---

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Discharges its waste water to a municipal sewage system that
    includes waste water disinfection or to either a non-discharging
    settling pond or a settling pond that disinfects according to all
    applicable local, State, and Federal requirements.

-   Renders or composts offal, including carcasses.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Any water used to transport fish is disposed of in a municipal
    sewage system that includes waste water disinfection or is disposed
    to either a non-discharging settling pond or a settling pond that
    disinfects according to all applicable local, State, and Federal
    regulations.

-   Containers used to transport fish must be new or must be cleaned and
    disinfected after unloading the fish and prior to leaving the
    facility.

**Live VHS-regulated fish species for research/laboratory use:**

-   Fish without health certification or testing may be moved to an
    approved laboratory or diagnostic facility that meets certain
    requirements.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Fish must be---

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Accompanied by a VS Form 1-27.

-   Transported in sealed conveyances.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The facility must meet certain conditions as follows---

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Discharges its waste water to a municipal sewage system that
    includes waste water disinfection or to either a non-discharging
    settling pond or a settling pond that disinfects according to all
    applicable local, State, and Federal requirements.

-   Renders or composts offal, including carcasses.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Water used to transport the fish is to be disposed of in a municipal
    sewage system that includes waste water disinfection or to either a
    non-discharging settling pond or a settling pond that disinfects
    according to all applicable local, State, and Federal regulations.

**Importation of VHS-regulated Fish Species From VHS-regulated Regions**

Shipments not meeting the conditions and requirements in the regulations
would be refused entry and exported within a time fixed in each case by
the APHIS Administrator and in accordance with other provisions required
for their handling.

**Live salmonid VHS-regulated fish species:**

-   Fish may be imported into the United States if the shipment meets
    the certification requirements in 50 CFR §§ 16.13(a)(3) and 16.13(b)
    and pass FWS inspection at the port of entry.

-   Fish may not be moved from the port of entry until released by an
    FWS official.

**Live non-salmonid VHS-regulated fish, including those destined for
live fish markets, other than for immediate slaughter or research:**

-   Fish must be imported through designated ports and pass APHIS
    inspection at the port of entry.

-   Shipments entering through Canadian land border ports may be
    imported into the United States without an import permit.

-   Shipments entering through other ports specified in the regulations
    must be accompanied by an APHIS-issued import permit and must arrive
    within 30 days of the proposed arrival date stated in the import
    permit. Import permits must meet certain requirements as stated in
    §§ 93.112(a), (b), and (c).

-   All live VHS-regulated fish must be accompanied by a health
    certificate issued by a full-time salaried veterinarian of the
    national government of the exporting country, or issued by a
    certifying official and endorsed by the competent authority of that
    country.

-   Shipments not meeting entry criteria will be refused entry by APHIS.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The health certificate must state that the following requirements
    have been met:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The live fish were inspected by the veterinarian or certifying
    official who issued the certificate within 72 hours before shipment
    and were found to be free of any clinical signs of disease
    consistent with VHS; and

-   The live fish covered by the health certificate originated in a
    region or facility that has demonstrated freedom from VHS through
    testing according to 9 CFR § 93.913(b) and (c).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Fish must originate from a region or facility that can demonstrate
    freedom from VHS through negative testing results by a pathogen
    detection laboratory approved for VHS viral assays by the competent
    authority of that country;

-   Testing must be conducted with a sample size that provides for a 95%
    confidence level of detecting a 2% prevalence of infection in the
    facility;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   For a facility with cultured fish of VHS-regulated species and
    having a 2-year negative testing history, a 95% confidence level of
    detecting a 5% prevalence of infection in the facility;

-   For a facility with cultured fish of VHS-regulated species and
    having a 4-year negative testing history, a 95% confidence level of
    detecting a 10% prevalence of infection in the facility.

-   Such facilities must be on a secure water source and must document
    that all VHS-regulated species in the facility originate from other
    facilities of the same or a higher health status.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In order to retain VHS-free status, a facility that has been
    determined to be free of VHS, according to § 93.913(b) of the
    regulations, must conduct testing on any newly listed species, if
    present in the facility, with a sample size that provides for a 95%
    confidence level of detecting a 2% prevalence of infection in the
    fish facility.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Tests must include virus isolation or other assays authorized by the
    competent authority, using appropriate cell lines to detect VHS
    virus, if present. All suspect VHS cytopathic effects must be
    positively identified as VHS through molecular assays and/or genetic
    sequencing.

-   Proportional numbers of each VHS-regulated fish species which might
    be present in a shipment must be used for testing, if applicable.

-   Testing must be conducted twice a year, with at least 3 months
    between tests, at water temperatures between 50 and 72 °F (10 and 21
    °C), or at other times or under environmental conditions when VHS
    virus would most likely be detected, if present.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Other than certain exceptions described in § 93.910(f)-(h) of the
    regulations, all live fish that are to be shipped to the United
    States must be shipped in new containers or in containers that have
    been cleaned and disinfected.

-   Cleaning and disinfection of shipping containers must be monitored
    by the veterinarian or certifying official who issues the health
    certificate.

-   The health certificate or a separate cleaning and disinfection
    certificate that accompanies the shipment must reference the
    cleaning and disinfection protocols that were used.

**Live non-salmonid VHS-regulated fish species for slaughter:**

-   Fish may be imported directly for slaughter with an import permit
    obtained under § 93.912; all conditions of the permit must be
    observed.

-   An APHIS representative at the port will seal the conveyance with
    official seals.

-   An APHIS representative will unseal the vehicle at the slaughtering
    establishment.

-   Fish must be transported directly to a slaughtering establishment
    that---

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   discharges its waste water to a municipal sewage system that
    includes waste water disinfection or to either a nondischarging
    settling pond or a settling pond that disinfects according to all
    applicable local, State, and Federal regulations.

-   renders or composts offal, including carcasses.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Water used to transport the fish is to be disposed of in a municipal
    sewage system that includes waste water disinfection or in either a
    non-discharging settling pond or a settling pond that disinfects
    according to all applicable local, State, and Federal requirements.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Live fish that originated in a region or facility that has
    demonstrated freedom from VHS through testing must be shipped in new
    containers or in containers that have been cleaned and disinfected
    using procedures sufficient to neutralize any VHS virus to which the
    shipping containers may have been exposed.

**Live non-salmonid VHS-regulated fish species for research or
laboratory use:**

-   Fish without health certification or testing must be transported to
    an approved laboratory and accompanied by an APHIS import permit
    obtained under § 93.912; all conditions of the permit must be
    observed.

-   The laboratory or research facility disposes of effluent to a
    municipal sewage system that includes waste water disinfection or to
    either a non-discharging settling pond or a settling pond that
    disinfects according to all applicable local, State, and Federal
    requirements.

-   Carcasses must be rendered or composted.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Water used to transport fish is to be disposed of in a municipal
    sewage system that includes waste water disinfection or in either a
    non-discharging settling pond or a settling pond that disinfects
    according to all applicable local, State, and Federal requirements.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Containers used to transport untested live VHS-regulated fish from
    VHS-regulated regions must be cleaned and disinfected in accordance
    with § 93.913(d) after unloading the fish and prior to leaving the
    slaughtering establishment.

**Live VHS-regulated fish species (other than live salmonid
VHS-regulated fish meeting 50 CFR 16.13(a)(3) and 16.13(b) and
VHS-regulated fish having an import permit meeting requirements
specified in the interim regulation) transiting through the United
States:**

-   Fish must be maintained in continuous confinement while in transit
    aboard means of conveyance, or, if fish are unloaded during transit,
    they are placed in a holding facility, provided by carrier/agent and
    approved by the Administrator, that is adequate to prevent spread of
    any finfish disease.

-   An approved holding facility must:

> \- Be sufficiently isolated to prevent direct or indirect contact of
> live fish it contains with any other live VHS-regulated species in the
> United States.

-   Be constructed in a manner to adequately protect against
    environmental conditions and to be adequately cleaned, washed, and
    disinfected.

-   Comply with all applicable local, State, and Federal requirements
    for environmental quality and any additional requirements that the
    Administrator may impose on a particular shipment in order to
    prevent the dissemination of disease.

-   Provide for disposal of fish carcasses, shipping water, waste, and
    associated shipping materials in a manner that prevents spread of
    disease.

-   Provide for adequate sources of feed and water and for attendants
    for care and feeding of fish in the facility.

## C. No Action---Withdraw the Federal Order and Take No Further APHIS Action  {#c.-no-actionwithdraw-the-federal-order-and-take-no-further-aphis-action .unnumbered}

Under this alternative, APHIS would not be involved in implementing
regulations for the interstate movement of VHS-susceptible species among
affected States, other States of the Great Lakes region, or any other
State where VHS is found in a water source that is not a secure water
source. Lack of involvement would be extended to the importation of
VHS-susceptible species from the Provinces of Canada considered by APHIS
to be affected with VHS, or any region or country where VHSV type IV is
found in a water source that is not a secure water source. Actions to
prevent the spread of VHS virus would fully remain the responsibility of
individual State agencies, Federal agencies that have related
responsibilities (such as FWS and National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) for certain fish species), and perhaps special interest groups
that have no regulatory authority for controlling the spread of animal
disease. State and Federal agencies currently regulating for VHS have
varying degrees of regulation, including some States that have no
existing regulations to prevent the spread of VHS or VHSV; therefore,
complying with the various regulations could be cumbersome for
aquaculture producers and others who would have a need to move fish
interstate or internationally.

## D. Implement a Proposed Regulation for Marine and Freshwater VHS Viral Genotypes {#d.-implement-a-proposed-regulation-for-marine-and-freshwater-vhs-viral-genotypes .unnumbered}

This action would implement the requirements for interstate movement of
VHS-regulated fish species for all States or a portion of a State where
any VHS virus genotype is detected and for importation from all
countries or regions where VHS has been reported. This regulation could
include States where the North American type IV(a) strain of VHS virus
has been detected in marine species and could include requirements for
the importation of VHS-regulated fish species from all regions or
countries where any VHS virus genotype has been detected, such as
countries in Europe. However, more extensive research and data on the
North American type IV(b) strain of VHS virus and additional
coordination with State and other Federal agencies and the affected
industry are needed before APHIS could pursue a broader regulation.
Implementing a broader regulation at this time would not be a reasonable
alternative for following through on the immediate need for action that
the Federal Order met. A broader regulation will not be explored as an
alternative in this EA, and the potential environmental impacts of this
alternative will not be considered in this document.

#  {#section .unnumbered}

# IV. Environmental Impacts {#iv.-environmental-impacts .unnumbered}

The NEPA implementing regulations set forth criteria that Federal
agencies should evaluate in an environmental document with regard to
proposed action alternatives considered.[^16] NEPA criteria that are
considered in this section of the document include potential effects on
public health, effects on the physical environment, highly uncertain or
unique or unknown risks on the human environment,[^17] adverse effects
on federally listed endangered or threatened species, and cumulative
impacts.

## A. Public Health Effects {#a.-public-health-effects .unnumbered}

VHS is not a zoonotic disease, meaning that it cannot be transmitted
from animals to humans. Humans would not be affected by VHS virus even
if they consumed fish infected with it. Although internal body
temperature can vary on an individual, the normal core body temperature
of a healthy, resting adult human is stated to be at 37 ^o^C (98.6 ^o^F)
(Wong, 1997; World Book Encyclopedia, 1996). Further, recent studies on
the transmission of VHS virus also indicate that VHSV type IV(b)
isolated from the Great Lakes grows best at 15 ^o^C (59 ^o^F). However,
virus growth began to decline at 20 ^o^C (68 ^o^F), and viral growth was
inhibited at 25 ^o^C (77 ^o^F) (USDOI, USGS, 2007). As more strains of
VHS virus are detected, the scientific understanding about the virus is
changing, including the temperature range at which it replicates. As
mentioned earlier in this document, the virus breaks down within the
human body because of its inability to survive our internal temperature
and chemical processes (Jorgensen, 1974). Contact with or consumption of
VHSV-infected fish does not transmit the virus to humans.

Most farmed fish are used as human food (Mock et al., 2001). Fish are
sources of important protein, minerals, and vitamins for humans, and
some fish fats are known to be important to human cardiovascular health.
Fish for consumption may come from farmed production sources or could
come from wild-caught fish. While there are benefits of fish
consumption, there are concerns about fish consumption related to
exposure to environmental toxins, such as mercury, dioxins, and
polychlorinated biphenyls, present in some fish species and that then
can be ingested by humans who consume contaminated fish; therefore,
consuming large amounts of some fish could result in adverse effects to
human health (U.S. EPA, OST, 2001; Mozaffarian and Rimm, 2006).

Farmed fish may be a supply source for replenishing declining natural
stocks. Fish produced for restocking provide replenished sources of fish
species, providing biological diversity of fish species for ecological,
recreational, and other purposes benefiting humans.

**1. Implement an Interim Regulation That Maintains the Federal Order
Provisions**

Human health would not be adversely impacted under this alternative. The
intent of provisions under the Federal Order is to provide an interim
solution to help prevent VHSV transmission, specifically for protecting
aquaculture production. Available supplies of healthy farmed fish are
beneficial to humans for consumption, recreational, conservation, and
restocking purposes. This alternative could maintain a level of sanitary
requirements considered effective in limiting spread of VHS and VHSV and
prevent certain human-assisted (anthropogenic) movements from locations
identified as VHS-affected.

### 2. Implement an Interim Regulation That Expands Provisions Within the Scope of the Federal Order for the Interstate Movement and Importation of VHS-regulated Live Fish Species (Preferred Alternative) {#implement-an-interim-regulation-that-expands-provisions-within-the-scope-of-the-federal-order-for-the-interstate-movement-and-importation-of-vhs-regulated-live-fish-species-preferred-alternative .unnumbered}

As stated above for the previous alternative, human health would not be
adversely impacted under this alternative but could benefit from
regulatory actions that would prevent the spread of VHS to aquaculture
facilities and sustain aquaculture production for its intended purposes.
The intent of requirements under the interim regulation is to provide an
interim solution, in the absence of information to support broader
requirements, to help prevent VHSV transmission from the interstate
movement, importation, or transit of VHS-regulated fish species to
aquaculture facilities. This alternative could maintain a level of
sanitary requirements considered effective in limiting spread of VHS and
VHSV and prevent certain human-assisted (anthropogenic) movements from
locations identified as VHS-regulated, thereby resulting in beneficial
impacts for humans.

### 3. **No Action---Withdraw the Federal Order and Take No Further APHIS Action** {#no-actionwithdraw-the-federal-order-and-take-no-further-aphis-action .unnumbered}

It is possible that without a coordinated Federal regulatory approach to
further prevent spread of the disease, efforts associated with import or
interstate movement of VHS-susceptible fish species from VHS-affected
locations could be difficult or cumbersome for aquaculture producers who
may not be familiar with requirements that vary among State agencies.
State agencies may not have the regulatory support needed to ensure that
VHS-susceptible fish species from VHS-affected areas are not imported or
moved interstate, possibly leading to opportunities for VHS spread and
reductions in aquaculture production and, therefore, a decreased supply
of healthy farmed fish for consumption, recreational, conservation, and
restocking purposes. The lack of regulations for States that do not have
them or the lack of consistent regulations to prevent VHS spread could
result in spread of the VHS virus through the import or interstate
movement of VHS-infected fish species, potentially leading to additional
VHS-affected water sources and fish populations.

People who rely upon cultured fish or products from cultured fish for
dietary or recreational purposes could be affected by reduced
aquaculture production if VHS were to spread to aquaculture facilities.
Aquaculture facilities that rely on water supply from unprotected water
sources or that acquire VHS-susceptible fish species could be more
vulnerable to risk of VHSV transmission if consistent requirements are
not in place to prevent VHS spread through pathways associated with the
import or interstate movement of VHS-susceptible fish species. In the
absence of consistent regulations and coordinated efforts to prevent VHS
spread, the disease could spread to aquaculture facilities and reduce
available fish supplies for consumption, recreational, conservation, and
restocking purposes. A reduced fish supply could lead to higher costs
for fish. Higher costs could result in a lower level of fish consumption
for humans. A reduction in VHS-susceptible fish populations for
conservation and restocking could result in a decrease in the quality of
human experiences associated with recreational and sport fishing.

## B. Nontarget Species Effects {#b.-nontarget-species-effects .unnumbered}

Ecological systems could be affected by spread of diseases, including
VHS. Appendix A of this document provides information about the
ecological relationships associated with VHS-regulated species[^18] that
have been determined as of November 8, 2007. APHIS efforts under two of
the alternatives discussed in this document could help to mitigate VHS
spread.

**1. Implement an Interim Regulation That Maintains the Federal Order
Provisions**

**a. Ecological Spread**

The alternative to maintain Federal Order provisions in an interim
regulation would be beneficial to VHS-regulated fish and those species
that may be impacted by population changes in VHS-regulated fish by
reducing the potential for VHS spread to aquaculture production of
VHS-regulated species. In situations where aquaculture production uses
an open water system, the provisions for ensuring that VHS-free fish
species are imported or moved interstate from VHS-regulated areas may
also help to prevent VHS spread to wild VHS-regulated species in close
proximity to aquaculture production with open water systems. The
provisions could also serve to prevent the loss of prey fish that might
be susceptible to VHSV infection. In addition, restoration and
conservation efforts are not likely to be adversely affected because of
provisions in the regulations that could help to mitigate VHS spread and
thereby not adversely affect the viability, health, and biodiversity of
freshwater ecosystems that are habitats for VHS-regulated species.

Another provision of the Federal Order that serves to mitigate VHS or
VHSV spread to ecological systems is the requirement that untested
VHS-regulated species moved interstate or imported be moved directly to
a facility (either for slaughter or research/diagnostics) that
discharges its waste water according to certain criteria (see section
IV.C.1.a for further discussion on this). This provision is intended to
mitigate the potential for VHS spread to ecosystems through improper
waste disposal or waste water systems that do not treat for pathogens
and that could be connected to natural freshwater systems that are
habitats for VHS-regulated species. Each of these provisions serves to
mitigate VHS or VHSV spread into new habitats by precluding certain
potential risk pathways, providing a level of sanitary requirements
considered effective in limiting VHS spread.

**b. Anthropogenic Spread**

Regulatory requirements would serve to control the anthropogenic spread
of VHS from the interstate movement of live VHS-regulated fish species
through the requirement that fish must have tested negative for VHSV
prior to movement from the four VHS-regulated States and four additional
States around the Great Lakes region. The regulatory requirements
enforced by FWS, according to 50 CFR §§ 16.13(a)(3) and 16.13(b), for
importation of live VHS-regulated salmonid fish species from Ontario and
Quebec, Canada would serve to control the anthropogenic spread of VHS
via the importation of these species. Anthropogenic spread of VHS from
live VHS-regulated non-salmonid fish species from these two Canadian
Provinces would be controlled by requiring that they are imported for
direct slaughter and that the slaughter facility uses appropriate
mitigation measures to prevent the spread of the virus.

**2. Implement an Interim Regulation That Expands Provisions Within the
Scope of the Federal Order for the Interstate Movement and Importation
of VHS-regulated Live Fish Species**

**a. Ecological Spread**

The alternative to implement an interim regulation that expands the
Federal Order provisions would include the same benefits for ecosystems
as discussed for the interim regulation alternative in section IV.4.b.1.
However, the expanded provisions would include additional requirements
that would serve to have a higher level of sanitary requirements than
the Federal Order provisions, as discussed further here.

One expanded provision requires that live fish that originate from a
facility that has demonstrated freedom from VHS must be shipped in new
containers or containers that have been cleaned and disinfected to
neutralize any VHS virus to which the shipping containers may have been
exposed. Another expanded provision requires proper disposal of water
(discussed further in IV.C.1.b) used to transport untested VHS-regulated
fish species from VHS-regulated areas or regions to slaughter facilities
or research or diagnostic laboratories. This provision would add an
additional benefit for ecological systems by mitigating the potential
risk of VHS or VHSV spread from water used to transport untested
VHS-regulated fish. Provisions for preventing potential VHS spread from
VHS-regulated species transiting the United States from VHS-regulated
areas include requirements that were not provided for in the Federal
Order. Each of these provisions serves to mitigate VHS or VHSV spread
into new habitats by precluding certain potential risk pathways. These
provisions add an increased sanitary level to limit VHS or VHSV spread
over the alternative to implement an interim regulation that maintains
the Federal Order provisions.

**b. Anthropogenic Spread**

Under this alternative, the requirements of the Federal Order would be
replaced by requirements of the interim rule. Import and interstate
movement restrictions would be applied to all VHS-regulated areas[^19]
in the United States and VHS-regulated regions in Canada. Human activity
related to the importation and interstate movement of VHS-regulated fish
from certain U.S. areas and Canadian regions would be restricted and
regulated so as to prevent the introduction and spread of the disease to
non-affected areas.

Apparently healthy fish can be infected with VHSV, so visual inspection
and regular surveillance, while helpful in determining the extent of
spread, are not sufficient methods for preventing viral spread by
anthropogenic means (Skall et al., 2005). The criteria for importation
under the preferred alternative would depend upon the type of fish and
the intended destination and use of the shipment and would require
specific human interventions such as:

-   adherence to existing FWS regulations (if moving salmonids);

-   an import permit for shipment to certain ports;

-   fish health and container certifications;

-   port inspection;

-   the use of designated ports for entry;

-   continuous confinement in sealed conveyances and approved holding
    facilities;

-   fish testing, feeding, and care;

-   site of origin surveillance;

-   cleaning and disinfection of containers and facilities; and

-   adherence to local, State, and Federal laws by laboratory and
    research facilities and slaughter establishments concerning
    environmental quality and the treatment and disposal of waste water,
    effluents, and fish offal and carcasses.

    The criteria for interstate movement would similarly regulate and
    restrict anthropogenic activity by requiring, as indicated by the
    intended destination and use for the shipment, fish certification,
    testing, site of origin surveillance, VS permitting, approved
    destination facilities, and adherence to local, State, and Federal
    protocols for cleaning, disinfection, and disposal.

These requirements are designed to relieve some restrictions of the
Federal Order while preventing the spread of VHS by regulating
anthropogenic activity associated with the importation and interstate
movement of live VHS-regulated fish species from VHS-regulated Provinces
and States or portions of States. The preferred alternative would allow
for the importation and interstate movement of live VHS-regulated fish
species from VHS-regulated areas or regions according to certain
requirements; areas or regions where VHS type IV virus has not been
detected in freshwater fish species would not be regulated. Also,
movement of VHS-regulated fish species in States or regions where VHS
has not been reported or where VHSV type IV virus has not been detected
would not be subject to the regulations; however, the regulations would
serve to protect aquaculture interests in those States or regions from
VHS spread from VHS-regulated areas and regions.

Provisions under this alternative would continue to allow importation of
non-salmonid VHS-regulated species from VHS-regulated regions while
maintaining a level of sanitary requirements considered effective in
limiting VHS or VHSV spread via human activities related to importation
of VHS-regulated species.

**3. No Action---Withdraw the Federal Order and Take No Further APHIS
Action**

**a. Ecological Spread**

Under the "no APHIS action" alternative, the lack of a coordinated
approach for interstate movement and importation of VHS-susceptible
species from VHS-affected areas or regions could lead to VHS spread in
aquaculture production and further spread in freshwater ecosystems. If
VHS were to spread, extensive losses of VHS-susceptible species could
result for aquaculture production that farms these species and in
ecosystems that are habitats for these species. In ecosystems,
species---especially for sessile species---that may be dependent upon
these fish for their survival could be adversely impacted. VHS spread
could result in an imbalance in aquatic ecosystems and potentially could
impact threatened and endangered species and conservation or restoration
programs that involve VHS-susceptible species.

**b. Anthropogenic Spread**

Under the no action alternative, the existing provisions under the
Federal Order for the importation and interstate movement of live
VHS-susceptible fish would not be in effect. Anthropogenic activity
involving the importation or interstate transport of VHS-susceptible
fish species, other than the importation of salmonid species regulated
under 50 CFR § 16.13, would not be federally regulated. Regulation of
interstate movement or importation of live VHS-susceptible fish species
would vary among States, depending upon the extent of individual State
regulations to protect against the spread of VHS. Because VHS virus
genotypes can be even more rapidly spread by artificial means and
because of the lack of other coordinated regulatory efforts aimed at
controlling anthropogenic spread via the pathways of importation and
interstate movement, removing Federal restrictions on the importation
and interstate movement of VHS-susceptible live fish could provide for
an increased risk of VHS spread to aquaculture facilities and wild fish
populations.

## C. Physical Environment {#c.-physical-environment .unnumbered}

**1. Water Quality**

This section of the EA considers the potential impacts on water quality
from APHIS actions or lack of APHIS actions that would occur, as
applicable under each of the alternatives discussed in this document.

Survival and spread of VHSV in water depends upon various factors, such
as water temperature and other physical parameters, fish species, and
stressors on fish populations that may affect a population's ability to
become infected or diseased after exposure to the virus. However, it has
been noted that various genotypes of VHS virus have some differences in
characteristics, pathogenicity, and the temperatures in which they
survive. Although information is available about the different viral
genotypes and water temperatures in which they survive, relatively
little is known about the characteristics and pathogenicity of the
VHSV-IV(b) strain found in freshwater fish of the Great Lakes area.
Based on information that is known, this strain may have a wider
temperature range and survive in warmer waters; other factors, such as
species involved and stress (which may cause increased shedding of VHS
virus), may play a role in the pathogenesis of the disease.

VHSV may be found in ovarian fluid of infected broodstock but not in the
egg itself, so true vertical transmission of VHSV is not believed to
occur (Bovo et al., 2005). Appropriate disinfection of eggs prevents VHS
transmission in salmonid fish species (Bovo et al., 2005). While many
State and Federal hatcheries use precautions to disinfect eggs,
disinfection of eggs of non-salmonid coolwater fish species has not been
adequately assessed for efficacy or potentially harmful effects to the
eggs themselves. Further development of a disinfection treatment for
cool water species is needed. Economic data indicates that eggs of
VHS-regulated freshwater species are distributed from States (USDA,
NASS, 2006), such as Wisconsin and Pennsylvania; however, more
information is needed about the acquisition and sources of eggs for
farmed fish and the routine procedures for testing or disinfecting eggs.
Consideration of requirements associated with gametes would be more
appropriate for a follow-up regulation after more data is known about
VHS caused by VHSV-IV(b) and the potential pathways of virus
transmission, such as untreated gametes of freshwater fish species.
Therefore, gametes from these fish species will not be included under an
interim regulation that follows through on the Federal Order.

Pathways that do not directly involve living hosts, such as ballast
water, may transport viable VHSV-IV(b), but this would be dependent upon
environmental conditions for survival, which for VHSV-IV(b) are not
completely characterized at this time. A limited amount of information
about generic VHS viral environmental survival outside a living host is
available and can be extrapolated to situations involving VHSV-IV(b).

While ballast water (i.e., water with its suspended matter taken on
board a ship to control trim, list draught, stability, or stresses of a
ship) is a potential pathway for VHS spread, it presents a presumed
lower risk of VHS survivability than the living host (VHS-susceptible
fish species) because the transport of the virus would be dependent on
environmental (non-living) factors that could be highly variable. The
U.S. Coast Guard has responsibility for regulating ship ballast water in
U.S. waters. APHIS will assist the U.S. Coast Guard, which has clear
authority for ballast water in their development of ballast water
discharge standards.

Fish "kills" or epizootics from disease can vary in size from a few
individuals to several hundreds or thousands of fish. A fish kill can
lead to increased biochemical oxygen demand (the amount of oxygen
required by aerobic microorganisms to decompose organic matter in
water), leading to a condition of low dissolved oxygen (the amount of
oxygen available in dissolved form in the water). Dissolved oxygen is
consumed by bacteria when large amounts of organic matter from
pollutants or even dead fish are present in the water. Depending upon
the extent of a fish kill from diseases such as VHS, a decrease in
oxygen supply in the water could affect other life forms in the
immediate area of a fish kill. A fish kill that causes a decrease in the
water's oxygen supply would also likely have a negative impact on
non-VHS-regulated fish and other aquatic life. While the absence or
presence of disease is a water quality-related issue, this section also
will address the indirect effects on water quality from the alternative
actions discussed in this document.

**a. Implement an Interim Regulation That Maintains the Federal Order
Provisions**

Without provisions in place that are designed to prevent VHS spread,
freshwater sources could be affected with VHS if it were to spread via
potential pathways from the transport of live VHS-regulated fish species
from VHS-regulated areas when imported or moved interstate to a
slaughter facility or to a research or diagnostic facility. Maintaining
the provisions of the Federal Order would help to prevent VHS spread to
susceptible fish populations, thereby decreasing adverse impacts to fish
populations and other aquatic life. A fish kill can cause a decrease in
the water's oxygen supply, having a negative impact on fish and other
aquatic life in the immediate area. Regulatory actions preventing
disease spread to fish populations could lessen adverse impacts on water
quality.

Importation of Live VHS-regulated Fish Species

Provisions for the importation of VHS-regulated fish species that would
continue include allowing VHS-regulated salmonid species to be imported
according to FWS regulations. FWS regulations require that these species
are certified as free of VHS and other diseases, thus providing a
requirement that serves to prevent VHS spread. The importation of live
VHS-regulated, non-salmonid fish species for direct slaughter under an
APHIS-issued permit would continue; restricting their import to direct
slaughter and requiring appropriate mitigation measures at the slaughter
facility serves to control the potential for VHS spread from any
potentially VHS-infected fish.

**Interstate Movements of Live VHS-regulated Fish Species**

The movement of untested live fish poses a high risk of VHS transmission
to farmed freshwater fish through direct contact and other routes as
mentioned previously.

Interstate movement of live VHS-regulated fish species from a
VHS-regulated area to an unregulated area is a pathway of concern for
VHS spread. Based on knowledge about VHS transmission, wild-caught bait
fish that originate from a VHS-regulated area and that are moved to an
unregulated area present a potentially significant pathway for
transmitting VHS virus unless they are first tested and found to be
VHS-free. Eighty percent of baitfish used in U.S. recreational fishing
is farm-raised (Goodwin et al., 2004). Conservation activities, such as
those carried out in Federal hatcheries that produce fish for stocking
in public waters to enhance or restore recreational or commercial
fishing, are generally thought to have a low risk of disease spread
because of their biosecurity measures. However, information about
biosecurity measures in place at State, nonprofit, and private
hatcheries would need to be explored further in a risk document
supporting a broader regulation for preventing VHS or VHSV spread.
Irrespective of whether the fish originate from a farmed or natural
environment in a VHS-regulated area, restrictions on their movement
dependent upon their intended use (e.g., for human consumption,
conservation, or recreational purposes) would serve to mitigate VHS or
VHSV spread, thereby helping to protect aquaculture production of
VHS-regulated species.

As live host fish present the presumed highest risk of VHS transmission,
a requirement for testing of VHS-regulated species from VHS-regulated
areas for VHS virus before their movement is an important step in
preventing disease spread. A provision to require testing of all
VHS-regulated fish species moved interstate from VHS-regulated areas,
for purposes other than slaughter or diagnostic research, would be
maintained from the Federal Order as a mitigation measure to prevent VHS
spread from this pathway. A provision would allow for untested
VHS-regulated fish from VHS-regulated areas to be moved interstate if
they were for human consumption and were moved directly to a slaughter
facility for processing or a diagnostic/research facility for further
testing. Under this regulatory alternative, provisions would be required
for the disposal of waste water from the processing of these fish
species at these facilities to prevent VHS spread from this pathway
(discussed below).

[Transport Water]{.underline}

Live fish are often transported from producing facilities to receiving
facilities (or directly to receiving waters) in truck-mounted containers
with water that is disposed of after fish are unloaded, or placed
directly in the receiving water along with the fish. Provisions adopted
from the Federal Order into an interim regulation under this alternative
would not include requirements for proper disposal of water used to
transport the fish after untested VHS-regulated fish from VHS-regulated
areas were moved directly interstate to a slaughter facility or
research/diagnostic laboratory. Transport water that is not disposed of
in a way that prevents the spread of VHS virus from untested fish could
present a potential pathway for affecting water quality from VHS spread.
Under this alternative, there would be no requirements for disposal of
transport water, thus leaving a potential pathway for VHS spread
unmitigated.

[Waste Water from Processing Untested VHS-regulated Fish at a Slaughter
Facility or Research/Diagnostic Facility]{.underline}

Untested VHS-regulated fish from VHS-regulated areas that are moved
interstate must be transported for processing to a slaughter facility or
to a research facility that discharges its waste water to a municipal
sewage system that includes waste water disinfection. The processing of
fish that results in fish products or discarding of fish parts and the
cleaning and disinfection of equipment after processing provide an
opportunity for any surviving VHSV to be discharged in waste water. A
regulatory option for handling waste water could require that the
facility discharges waste water to either a non-discharging settling
pond or a settling pond that disinfects according to all applicable EPA
and State regulatory criteria. Thus, if VHS virus were present in the
shipment of untested VHS-regulated fish and was shed or otherwise
distributed into the processing water, it would be discharged in a way
that prevents further spread of virus. VHSV is sensitive to a number of
common disinfectants (OIE, 2006). According to studies available about
other VHSV genotypes, several methods and chemicals are available to
disinfect against the virus. Disinfection treatments effective against
VHSV in effluent (waste) water include heat treatment and chemicals,
such as chlorine and iodophors. Although ultraviolet C (UVC) radiation
is an effective treatment against VHSV in inflow water for hatcheries,
it would be variably effective or ineffective as a treatment for
effluent water because of the interference of any suspended organics
(Oye and Rimstad, 2001, as reported in OIE, 2003).

Disinfection of waste water is a primary mechanism for inactivating or
destroying pathogenic organisms and preventing the spread of waterborne
diseases to downstream users and the environment. Some commonly used
disinfectants for waste water treatment include chlorine, iodine, and UV
radiation (U.S. EPA, OW, 2003). Many treatment facilities that disinfect
waste water use methods and/or disinfectants, including some known to be
effective against VHSV, that eliminate numerous pathogens through the
treatment process.

[Interstate Movement and Importation of VHS-regulated Species Moved
During Catch-and-release Fishing Activities]{.underline}

A provision for catch-and-release fishing would be maintained under this
alternative, allowing the international or interstate movement of fish
for catch-and-release fishing activities. Catch-and-release fishing
activities include recreational fishing, tournaments, competitions,
fishing derbies, and other types of contests where individuals catch,
compare, and release live VHS-regulated fish. However, catch-and-release
fishing activities do not include the movement of VHS-regulated fish
intended to be used as live bait; fish used as live bait are
purposefully removed from one body of water and used for fishing in
multiple bodies of water in a broad geographic scope. Thus, the use of
live bait is considered a high risk activity for spreading VHS virus.
Catch-and-release fishing activities are considered low risk for
spreading VHS virus as generally fish are caught and released within the
same body of water and within limited geographic scope and over a
confined timeframe. These activities occurred prior to VHSV-IV(b) being
found in freshwater fish species of the Great Lakes area and have
occurred since that time. No information or evidence has been reported
linking the occurrence of a VHS outbreak in the Great Lakes area to
catch-and-release activities.

**Natural Movement of Live VHS-regulated Freshwater Fish**

Although relatively little is known about the VHSV-IV(b) strain that has
emerged in freshwater fish in the Great Lakes region, it (like many fish
viruses) is presumed to spread mainly by live fish hosts. The natural
movements of live wild freshwater fish in the United States and Canada
present a concern for vectoring VHS to farmed fish that may share
freshwater sources; however, the control of natural fish movement,
including through locks and dams, is not regulated or otherwise
controllable by APHIS. Provisions that would be maintained from the
Federal Order include testing of all farmed fish when moved interstate
from VHS-regulated areas. These provisions are intended to help prevent
transmission of VHS to farmed fish and also would be helpful in
preventing disease transmission to natural freshwater sources if the
transported fish are intended for release into those waters or to an
aquaculture facility that has an open water system that releases its
effluent to natural freshwater sources.

**Introduction of VHSV into Populations of Farmed Freshwater Fish
Species From Fomites**

Knowledge of the mechanism of VHS virus transmission has come mainly
from studies on European freshwater VHSV isolates that have shown
transmission to be horizontal through contact with other infected fish
or contaminated water and fomites (OIE Aquatic Manual, 2006). While
fomites, such as boat hulls or fishing equipment, may potentially play a
role in disease transmission, further information is needed to determine
the extent (Bakal, 2007; Whelan, 2007; Skall et al., 2005). As a
precaution, current biosecurity recommendations advise disinfection of
any fomite that could potentially transfer the virus (USDA, APHIS,
2006b; Bakal, 2007; Wisconsin Dept. of Agriculture, 2007; and Malison
and Hartlieb, 2005). Provisions consistent with those of the Federal
Order would not include the mitigation measure for cleaning and
disinfecting containers to help prevent the potential for VHS spread
from the pathway associated with containers used for interstate movement
of VHS-regulated fish species that have demonstrated freedom from VHS.

**b. Implement an Interim Regulation That Expands Provisions Within the
Scope of the Federal Order for the Interstate Movement and Importation
of VHS-regulated Live Fish Species**

**Interstate Movements and Importation of Live VHS-regulated Fish
Species From VHS-regulated Areas or Regions**

As stated previously, the movement of live fish poses a high risk of VHS
transmission to farmed freshwater fish. For species of fish that may be
affected by some strains of VHS virus, the primary routes for viral
transmission are through gills or epithelial cells (Brudseth et al.,
2002), predation, or direct contact with other infected fish (Meyers and
Winton, 1995). Interstate movement of live VHS-regulated fish species
from a VHS-regulated area to an unregulated area is a pathway of concern
for VHS and VHSV spread, as is the importation of live VHS-regulated
fish species from VHS-regulated regions. Based on information known
about VHSV, wild-caught bait fish that originate from a VHS-regulated
area and that are moved to an unregulated area present a potentially
significant pathway for transmitting VHS unless they are first tested
and found to be VHSV-free. Eighty percent of baitfish used in
recreational fishing is farm-raised (Goodwin et al., 2004). Conservation
activities, such as those carried out in Federal hatcheries that produce
fish for stocking in public waters to enhance or restore recreational or
commercial fishing, generally may be presumed to have a low risk of
contributing to disease spread due to common testing and biosecurity
measures. Irrespective of whether the fish originate from a farmed or
natural environment in a VHS-regulated area or region, restrictions on
their movement dependent upon their intended use (e.g., for human
consumption, conservation, or recreational purposes) would serve to
protect aquaculture production of VHS-regulated species.

As live host fish present the highest presumed risk of VHS transmission,
a requirement for testing of VHS-regulated species in VHS-regulated
areas and VHS-regulated regions for VHS virus before their movement is
an important step in preventing disease spread. A provision to require
testing of all VHS-regulated fish species moved interstate from
VHS-regulated areas for other than slaughter or diagnostic research, a
mitigation measure incorporated from the Federal Order, would serve to
prevent VHS spread from this pathway. A provision would allow for
untested VHS-regulated fish from VHS-regulated areas to be moved
interstate and for non-salmonid species from VHS-regulated regions to be
imported provided that they were for human consumption and were moved
directly to a slaughter facility for processing or a diagnostic/research
facility for further testing. Under this regulatory alternative,
provisions would be required for the disposal of waste water from the
processing of these fish species at these facilities to prevent
potential VHS spread from this pathway (discussed below).

Expanding provisions of the Federal Order in an interim regulation would
regulate additional human-assisted actions and increase the sanitary
level that is considered effective to limit VHS spread. The expanded
actions include proper disposal of water used to transport untested
VHS-regulated fish and using new or cleaned and disinfected containers
to move VHS-regulated fish species that have demonstrated freedom from
VHS from VHS-regulated areas or regions. An increased sanitary level
that helps to prevent VHS spread to susceptible fish populations could
further decrease adverse impacts to fish populations and other aquatic
life. A fish kill can cause a decrease in the water's oxygen supply
through increasing biological oxygen demand, creating a negative impact
on all fish and other aquatic life in the immediate area. Expanded
provisions beyond those of the Federal Order could further contribute to
mitigating disease spread to fish populations and, indirectly, could
lessen adverse impacts on water quality.

[Transport Water]{.underline}

As mentioned previously, water used to transport untested VHS-regulated
fish moved from VHS-regulated areas and regions to facilities for
slaughter or research, including water from shipments of fish in transit
through the United States, provides a potential pathway for affecting
water quality from VHS spread. Under this alternative, requirements
would be provided for proper disposal of water used to transport
untested fish shipments to slaughter facilities or research/diagnostic
laboratories. Transport water would have to be disposed of in a
municipal sewage system that includes waste water disinfection or in
either a non-discharging settling pond or a settling pond that
disinfects according to all applicable local, State, and Federal
regulations. More information about disposal of water in this manner is
provided in the next two paragraphs.

[Waste Water from Processing Untested VHS-regulated Fish at a Slaughter
Facility or Research/Diagnostic Facility]{.underline}

Untested VHS-regulated fish from VHS-regulated areas or VHS-regulated
regions that are imported or moved interstate must be transported for
processing to a slaughter facility or to a research facility that
discharges its waste water to a municipal sewage system that includes
waste water disinfection or to either a non-discharging settling pond or
a settling pond that disinfects according to all applicable local,
State, and Federal regulations. The processing of fish that results in
fish products or discarding of fish parts and the cleaning and
disinfection of equipment after processing provide the opportunity for
any surviving VHSV to be discharged in waste water. Handling of waste
water under the regulatory requirements would require that the facility
discharge its waste water to either a non-discharging settling pond or a
settling pond that disinfects according to all applicable EPA and State
regulatory criteria. Thus, if VHSV were present in the shipment of fish,
water used in the processing of untested VHS-regulated fish must be
discharged in a way that prevents further spread of any potentially
available VHSV. Various VHSV genotypes are known to be sensitive to a
number of common disinfectants (OIE, 2006). According to available VHSV
studies, several methods and chemicals are available to disinfect
against the virus. Disinfection treatments effective against VHSV in
effluent (waste) water include heat treatment and chemicals, such as
chlorine and iodophors. Although ultraviolet C (UVC) radiation is an
effective treatment against VHSV in inflow water for hatcheries, it
would be variably effective or ineffective as a treatment for effluent
water because of the potential interference of suspended organics (Oye
and Rimstad, 2001, as reported in OIE, 2003).

Disinfection of waste water is a primary mechanism for inactivating or
destroying pathogenic organisms and preventing the spread of waterborne
diseases to downstream users and the environment. Some of the most
commonly used disinfectants for waste water treatment include chlorine,
iodine, and UV radiation (U.S. EPA, OW, 2003). Waste water treatment
facilities that disinfect waste water use methods and/or disinfectants,
including some known to be effective against VHSV, that eliminate
numerous pathogens through the treatment process. The requirements for
disposal of transport water under this alternative would not require any
changes for waste water treatment and would not contribute to additional
adverse impacts on the water quality. The requirement indirectly could
lessen adverse impacts on water quality in that it would serve as a
precautionary mitigation against the further spread of VHS and VHSV via
water from processing fish and the discarded fish parts and products.

[Interstate Movement and Importation of VHS-regulated Species Moved
During Catch-and-release Fishing Activities]{.underline}

A provision for catch-and-release fishing would be maintained under this
alternative, allowing the international or interstate movement of fish
for catch-and-release fishing activities. Catch-and-release fishing
activities include recreational fishing, tournaments, competitions,
fishing derbies, and other types of contests where individuals catch,
compare, and release live VHS-regulated fish. However, catch-and-release
fishing activities do not include the movement of VHS-regulated fish for
use as live bait. As mentioned earlier, catch-and-release fishing
activities pose an undetermined but possibly high risk for disease
spread because the movement of untested VHS-regulated fish from affected
areas to unaffected areas, whether during aquaculture production or
recreational fishing, is a potentially significant pathway for the
movement of VHS virus. However, in most cases, fish from these
activities are not moved outside bodies of water where they are caught.
No information or evidence has been reported linking the occurrence of a
VHSV outbreak in the Great Lakes area to catch-and-release activities.
Until more information is known about the transmission of VHSV-IV(b),
the specific impacts on water quality from catch-and-release fishing
activities cannot be accurately determined.

**Natural Movement of Live VHS-regulated Freshwater Fish**

While APHIS does not have authority over the natural movements of live
fish in water bodies, it is possible that the requirements associated
with import and interstate movement of VHS-regulated species in the
interim regulation could help to prevent or mitigate VHS transmission
via pathways between farmed fish that are not protected from freshwater
sources and from farmed fish to wild fish. Transport water from untested
VHS-regulated fish or waste water from fish processing facilities could
be potential pathways for VHS transmission to public water sources.
Although dependent upon water temperature and other factors, the VHS
virus could be transmitted via these pathways to live wild VHS-regulated
fish species. Requirements of the interim regulation are designed to
prevent VHS transmission via these potential pathways. One such
requirement is that untested VHS-regulated species be moved directly to
a slaughter facility that discharges its waste water to a municipal
sewage system that includes waste water disinfection, or to either a
non-discharging settling pond or a settling pond that disinfects
according to all applicable local, State, and Federal regulations.
Another requirement is that transport water used to import or for the
interstate movement of VHS-regulated species be disposed of in a
municipal sewage system that includes waste water disinfection or
disposed of in either a non-discharging settling pond or a settling pond
that disinfects according to all applicable local, State, and Federal
regulations.

**Introduction of VHSV into Populations of Farmed Freshwater Fish
Species From Fomites**

As mentioned earlier in this document, VHS transmission has been
documented on a generic basis via fomites. Although it is not
specifically known if the freshwater VHS viral genotype found in the
Great Lakes region is transmissible via fomites, this pathway is
presumed to represent a potential risk if VHSV type IV(b) mimics
characteristics of other genotypes.

While generic VHS virus transmission via fomites has been documented,
regulating fomites for their disease-carrying characteristics is a
challenge. APHIS has the authority to regulate, for animal disease
prevention purposes, the treatment of fomites that could have contact
with VHSV through the pathway of import or interstate movement of
VHS-regulated fish species from VHS-regulated areas. As a mitigation
measure, the interim regulation would include that either (a) new
shipping containers are used for transporting VHS-regulated fish that
originate from a facility that has demonstrated freedom from VHS, or
that (b) these fish must be shipped in containers that have been cleaned
and disinfected to neutralize any VHS virus to which the containers may
have been exposed. If the latter is the case, a certificate referencing
the cleaning and disinfection protocols would be required to accompany
the shipment. VHS-regulated fish that have not been tested would be
moved directly to a slaughter facility in a sealed container.

While studies on the chemicals or methods that reduce survivability of
the VHSV-IV(b) strain are not available, studies on other VHSV genotypes
have shown that VHSV is sensitive to a variety of disinfection chemicals
and methods including actomar (an iodophor), chlorine, chloroform, ethyl
ether, formalin (2%), glycerol, iodine, quaternary ammonia compound, and
UVC irradiation (wavelength \<280 nm) (Jorgensen, 1974; Wolf, 1988;
Smail, 1999; Kurita et al., 2002; and Bovo et al., 2005). Applying any
of these disinfection treatments to fomites that may have been exposed
to type IV of VHSV is expected to prevent the spread of the virus; thus,
the containers could be reused for additional fish transports without
concern for spreading potentially available VHSV. Users are advised to
ensure that a disinfectant is registered for the use intended. The use
of chemical disinfectants on containers is not likely to unduly result
in adverse impacts on human health, nontarget species, or the physical
environment, provided that they are used according to recommended label
requirements. Although a disinfectant is registered for use against some
types of rhabdovirus, APHIS is not aware of disinfectants that the EPA
has registered for use against VHS at this time.

**c. No Action---Withdraw the Federal Order and Take No Further APHIS
Action**

Under the alternative to withdraw the Federal Order and take no further
APHIS action, import of VHS-susceptible salmonid fish from VHS-affected
Canadian Provinces would be allowed under FWS regulations. FWS
regulations require the fish to be certified as free of VHS and other
diseases. Regulation for the importation of other VHS-susceptible fish,
other than salmonids from VHS-affected Canadian Provinces, would be
solely the responsibility of the States, where regulation for VHS varies
substantially. Regulatory efforts would not be coordinated; some States
would continue virtually unregulated for VHS while others would be
highly restrictive.

The lack of regulations for States that do not have them or the lack of
consistent regulations to prevent VHS spread could perpetuate VHS spread
through the import or interstate movement of VHS-susceptible fish
species, leading to additional VHS-affected water sources. Aquaculture
facilities that rely on water supply from common water sources or that
acquire VHS-susceptible fish species could be more vulnerable to risk of
VHS transmission if VHS were to spread via introduction from the import
or interstate movement of VHS-susceptible fish species.

Withdrawing provisions of the Federal Order and taking no further APHIS
action would decrease coordinated efforts associated with increasing the
sanitary level that is considered effective to limit VHSV spread. A
decrease in coordinated efforts associated with a sanitary level of
disease prevention could lead to increased VHS spread in fish
populations, resulting in fish kills. As a fish kill can cause a
decrease in the water's oxygen supply through increasing biological
oxygen demand, adverse impacts could occur to all fish and other aquatic
life in the immediate area of a fish kill.

Uncoordinated and inconsistent efforts to prevent VHS spread could lead
to spread of the virus or disease to aquaculture facilities, resulting
in fish die-offs. The proper disposal of fish carcasses is important to
prevent the transmission of virus or disease and to protect the quality
of the environment. Fish die-offs at aquaculture facilities could
present environmental quality concerns with regard to preventing VHS or
VHSV spread to natural water resources and with regard to proper
disposal of infected dead fish. Various disposal methods are available
to handle fish and offal. These include burial, incineration, ensiling,
rendering, composting, on-site processing, and freezing. Fish and fish
waste may be composted or disposed of in landfills in compliance with
local, State, and Federal guidelines. The method used should be managed
to minimize odors, prevent fly larvae development, prevent animal
depredation, and ensure that leaching of waste material does not become
a source of water contamination.

Methods for disinfection of waste streams are available. Waste streams,
however, cannot be treated effectively with common chemical
disinfectants because most lose their efficacy in the presence of heavy
organic loadings, with the possible exception of iodine (Gill, 2000).
Also, chemical disinfectants pose their own environmental risks to water
quality if not used according to label requirements. The most practical
available treatments that are established for treating waste streams
include ozone, ultraviolet (UV) irradiation, and heat treatment. Most
commercial ozone treatments are applied to disinfect waters with
relatively low organic solids content and are not well-suited for
heavily loaded aquaculture streams (Gill, 2000). UV light has been used
for many years in land-based aquaculture systems and to depurate
shellfish exposed to fecal (bacterial) pollution. However, regardless of
the size or sophistication of the UV system, the amount of fish
pathogens remaining in water treated by UV disinfection never reaches
zero (Spotte and Adams, 1981). In general, this method is far more
effective at eliminating bacterial pathogens than viral pathogens
(Liltved et al., 1995). Thermal processing of waste streams is conducted
in Norway through a continuous heat exchange process designed to ensure
destruction of all pathogens and spoilage organisms (Gill, 2000). This
method may be effective and economical for large aquaculture operations.

**2. Soil Quality**

It is not known for certain if the use of fish parts in fertilizer for
soil application could be a potential pathway for VHS to affect soil
quality. Although it could be debated that the use of fertilizer made
from fish processing discards is a potential source of VHS transmission
from the importation or interstate movement of products of
VHS-susceptible species, studies specifically evaluating fish fertilizer
as a potential disease vector are not available. As fertilizer made from
processed fish discards is applied to soil for nutrients in gardening,
the potential exists for VHS transmission from the use of fertilizer
made from discarded materials of untested VHS-susceptible fish from
VHS-affected areas that are processed in slaughter facilities if those
materials are not properly processed for fertilizer use.

A report by the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare
(2003) states that in theory many types of fish pathogens can be
inactivated in a validated composting process. In the absence of
systematic investigations with fish pathogens, the report states that it
may be possible to extrapolate from the behavior of other similar
pathogens of warm-blooded animals and relevant indicator organisms that
a validated composting process will be effective at neutralizing fish
viruses from a hygienic perspective. The report provides data
extrapolated by Moss and Haas (2000) indicating that certain types of
composting under varying temperatures and exposure times may inactivate
the VHS virus. The report concludes that it is likely that
time/temperature treatments normally applied in the production of
fishmeal or fish feed would reduce to negligible the risk of disease
spread from the majority of conventional fish pathogens, based on
available data. From information in literature and discussed in the next
section, temperatures achieved during composting are high enough to
inactivate the virus, and composting is a generally accepted method for
eliminating disease risk. Based on evidence available, composting would
be a proper method to use for inactivating any potentially available VHS
or VHSV.

**a. Implement an Interim Regulation That Maintains the Federal Order
Provisions**

The ability of VHS virus to survive in living fish is variable and
dependent on factors such as species, water temperature, nutrition,
carrier status, and more. While the live fish host presents a high risk
of transmitting the VHS virus and it is not known whether the use of
fertilizer made from processed VHS-regulated fish discards could serve
as a potential source of VHS transmission, a mitigation measure in the
interim regulation that may help to decrease any potential for VHS
spread from processed fish parts at slaughter facilities is the
requirement that VHS-regulated fish species moved interstate from a
VHS-regulated area and sent for slaughter must be sent to a facility
that renders or composts offal, including carcasses. This requirement
provides a more environmentally safe method for fish waste disposal than
allowing it to be disposed of in an unprocessed manner.

Under the alternative to include the provisions of the Federal Order in
an interim regulation, mitigations that require rendering or composting
of offal and carcasses of VHS-regulated fish species from VHS-regulated
areas and VHS-regulated regions, whether for slaughter or research,
would be in place to help prevent any potential for VHS transmission
from improperly processed or discarded fish parts through the soil.
Although VHS genotype differences exist and VHS virus has experimentally
been found at temperatures up to 25 ºC (77 ºF), the virus is unlikely to
survive temperatures reached during rendering processes and composting
processes.

Rendering is a process in which inedible carcasses are ground and then
heated under pressure to extract valuable products such as fats, protein
concentrate, and minerals. Rendering of fish carcasses for disease
elimination requires a high-temperature batch process. A satisfactory
rendering process involves grinding the raw product, solvent extraction
of lipids at 100 ºC (212 ºF) for 1 hour, and high temperature (160 ºC,
or 320 ºF) treatment of both meatmeal and lipid fractions for at least
40 additional minutes (Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry-Australia,
2002).

Composting may be acceptable for situations where there is minor risk of
fomite spread. This should be done in a secure area that is not
accessible to scavenging animals or birds. The composting process
requires a minimum of 180 days. Correct composting of fish kills all
major known pathogens except infection pancreatic necrosis virus and
other aquatic birnaviruses (Smail et al., 1993). Thermophilic
fermentation is a composting process which involves particle size
reduction followed by bacterial fermentation at high temperatures
(usually 50 to 70 ºC, or 122 to 158 ºF) accompanied by aeration. This
method has been used in Norway and British Columbia, Canada (Gill,
2000).

**b. Implement an Interim Regulation That Expands Provisions Within the
Scope of the Federal Order for the Interstate Movement and Importation
of VHS-regulated Live Fish Species**

While a live host is presumed to present the highest risk of
transmitting the VHS virus, it is not known whether the use of
fertilizer made from VHS-regulated fish discards could serve as a
potential source of VHS transmission. A mitigation measure in the
interim regulation that could decrease the potential for VHS
transmission from processed fish at slaughter facilities is the
requirement that VHS-regulated fish species moved interstate from a
VHS-regulated area or imported from a VHS-regulated region and sent for
slaughter must be sent to a facility that renders or composts offal,
including carcasses.

Under the preferred alternative, the requirement that fish waste (offal,
including carcasses) be rendered or composted provides a more
environmentally safe method for fish waste disposal than allowing it to
be disposed of in an unprocessed manner. Provided that the composting or
rendering methods of waste from fish processing are carried out
according to local and State requirements, soil quality should not be
adversely affected by the VHS virus. For pathogen control in composting,
Cornell Waste Management Institute (2002) recommends a temperature of
not less than

55 ºC (131 ºF) maintained for at least 3 consecutive days and states
that research suggests that common bacterial and viral pathogens are
killed in regularly turned compost piles containing carcasses.
Temperature varies for rendering animal tissues depending upon the type
of rendering process used; for example, meat rendering plants use a high
temperature of 93 ºC (200 ºF) during an edible rendering process to a
final temperature of 121 to 135 ºC (250 to 275 ºF) for the final
temperature batch rendering processes, which are well above the
temperature range in which VHS viruses are known to generally survive in
water. As reported in the Manual of Diagnostic Tests for Aquatic Animals
(OIE, 2006), temperatures above 20 ºC (68 ºF) are most harmful for VHSV
survival. Although VHSV genotype differences exist and clinical VHS has
been found to occur experimentally at temperatures up to 25 ºC (77 ºF)
(de Kinkelin et al., 1980), no strain of VHS virus is likely to survive
temperatures reached during composting or rendering processes.

Under the preferred alternative, the requirement for rendering or
composting offal and carcasses of VHS-regulated fish species from
VHS-regulated areas and VHS-regulated regions, whether for slaughter or
research, would be precautionary in helping to prevent any potential for
VHS transmission from improperly processed or discarded fish parts.

**c. No Action---Withdraw the Federal Order and Take No Further APHIS
Action**

Although the interim rule is intended to prevent the need for mass
disposal of fish exposed to VHSV, the disposal of VHSV-infected fish
from a lack of action (no action alternative) could pose a challenge for
aquaculture facilities. There would be no APHIS-coordinated action to
prevent the spread of VHS to aquaculture facilities; actions to prevent
the spread would be the responsibility of individual States. As State
regulations to prevent VHS spread vary greatly with regard to regulating
for VHS virus, there could be the potential for VHS spread to
aquaculture facilities. This could result in possible impacts on water
quality from aquaculture facilities connected to natural water resources
as a result of inconsistencies among State regulations or uncoordinated
efforts to prevent VHS or VHSV spread. Uncoordinated and inconsistent
efforts to prevent the spread of VHS or VHSV could lead to spread of the
virus through various pathways, including interstate movement or
importation of VHS-susceptible fish, to aquaculture facilities,
resulting in morbidity and mortality. The proper disposal of fish
carcasses is important to prevent the transmission of disease and to
protect the environment.

Ensiling in organic acids is an effective way to treat the carcasses of
diseased fish. The European Union requires fish showing clinical signs
of infectious salmon anemia to be ensiled in formic acid prior to
rendering (Stagg, 1999). The fish must be thoroughly macerated when
loading into the ensiling plant to permit rapid contact with the acid.
As recommended for this particular situation in literature, ensiled
material requires further heat treatment at a minimum of 60 ºC (140 ºF)
for 2 hours to kill residual pathogens (Smail et al., 1993). Proper
disposal of the treated material would need to be ensured. Silage has
been used as a low cost ingredient in the diet of Atlantic salmon (Espe
et al., 1992).

Some aquaculture facilities have on-site processing of diseased animals.
This generally involves a given temperature and duration of treatment to
inactivate a range of pathogens of aquatic organisms. As recommended in
literature, the minimal conditions involve heat treatment of 60 ºC (140
ºF) for 30 minutes (Smail et al., 1993).

Some facilities routinely use freezing as a method of storing carcasses
of diseased animals. In general, freezing for a limited period of time
does not completely neutralize the viability of bacteria and viruses.
Therefore, frozen carcasses would need to be disposed of in the same
manner as fresh carcasses.

##  {#section-1 .unnumbered}

## 3. Air Quality {#air-quality .unnumbered}

Potential impacts on air quality would not occur from the VHS virus
itself. This section addresses potential air quality impacts from
actions that are intended to prevent VHSV spread or from the lack of
actions to prevent its spread.

**a. Implement an Interim Regulation That Maintains the Federal Order
Provisions**

Under provisions that would be incorporated from the Federal Order into
an interim regulation, implementation of requirements that are designed
to prevent the spread of VHS virus are not likely to result in impacts
on air quality.

**b. Implement an Interim Regulation That Expands Provisions Within the
Scope of the Federal Order for the Interstate Movement and Importation
of VHS-regulated Live Fish Species**

##  {#section-2 .unnumbered}

Under expanded provisions in the interim regulation, implementation of
requirements that are designed to prevent the spread of VHS virus are
not likely to result in impacts on air quality.

**c. No Action---Withdraw the Federal Order and Take No Further APHIS
Action**

##  {#section-3 .unnumbered}

Uncoordinated and inconsistent efforts to prevent the spread of VHS or
VHSV could lead to spread of the virus through various pathways,
including interstate movement or importation of VHS-susceptible fish, to
aquaculture facilities, resulting in morbidity and mortality. If VHSV
were to spread from a lack of APHIS involvement, potential impacts on
air quality could result from methods used to dispose of fish carcasses.
The proper disposal of fish carcasses is important to prevent the
transmission of disease and to protect the environment. As incineration
is one method for disposal of diseased fish, this method could result in
a temporary decrease in air quality.

Incineration of carcasses is expensive and can create highly visible air
pollution and odors. This method is effective at destroying pathogens in
the infected material. Biological incinerators that reach a pre-heating
level of nearly 2,000 ºC (3,632 ºF) provide an environmentally and
biologically safe carcass disposal system, but the expense limits usage
to small quantities of high risk carcasses (McDaniel, 1991). Carcass
burning on the farm or other facility requires intensive pyres that
produce heat, smoke, vapor, and odor in amounts unacceptable for many
locations. When using incineration for disposal of diseased fish, local,
State, and Federal requirements related to air quality should be
followed.

##  {#section-4 .unnumbered}

## D. Cumulative Impacts {#d.-cumulative-impacts .unnumbered}

Cumulative impact is defined as the "impact on the environment which
results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of
what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other
actions" (40 CFR § 1508.7). Various regulatory actions occur in the
United States and Canada with regard to preventing the spread of VHS and
other diseases of fish and are discussed in this section.

[U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service]{.underline}

Under the Lacey Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), a bureau
in the U.S. Department of the Interior, currently regulates the
importation of salmonids (Title 50 CFR § 16.13) because of concern that
VHSV genotypes could be introduced from Europe with imported salmonids
(family Salmonidae). According to those regulations, live or dead
uneviscerated salmonid fish, live fertilized eggs, or gametes of
salmonid fish are prohibited entry into the United States for any
purpose except by direct shipment accompanied by a certification that
the fish lots from which the shipments originated have been sampled;
virus assays have been conducted as required; and *Oncorhynchus masou*
virus and the viruses causing VHS, infectious hematopoietic necrosis,
and infectious pancreatic necrosis have not been detected in the fish
stocks from which the samples were taken. FWS would continue to regulate
the importation of salmonids even with implementation of the proposed
alternatives. FWS activities contribute toward a level of sanitary
regulation that is considered effective to help in limiting spread of
VHS or VHSV from importation of VHS-regulated salmonid species, thus
reducing risk of VHS spread.

Depending upon the species of fish and purpose of import, other fish
might be regulated under FWS regulations regarding invasive, nuisance,
or exotic species. Additionally, some fish require Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) permits for
importation to the United States.

[National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]{.underline}

The U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) has regulatory authority for fishing activities in
the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which is constituted by the waters
from

3 to 200 miles offshore, under the recently reauthorized
Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA). This authority may extend to aquaculture
activities in the EEZ, including disease control, as authorized within
the MSA. At this time, NOAA is in the process of developing a permit
system for offshore aquaculture facilities to include infectious disease
considerations, such as VHS, although there are no aquaculture
facilities in the EEZ. NOAA also has authority to regulate VHS if the
disease impacts wild marine stocks or is found in exported fish
products. NOAA also issues health certificates for VHS for wild-caught
frozen sardines exported to Australia for feed for tuna ranching. All of
these activities contribute toward a level of sanitary regulation that
is known to help in limiting spread of VHS or VHSV from exportation of
VHS-regulated species, thus reducing risk of VHS spread.

[U.S. State Agencies]{.underline}

Many States, such as Vermont, Alabama, Virginia, Maryland, and others,
have various regulations restricting the importation and interstate
movement of nuisance and other prohibited fish. Each State may establish
its own requirements for the introduction or transfer to that State of
live fish from another State. Policies are not consistent among States
and vary greatly. Some States require health certification and testing,
while others do not. State VHS-prevention activities contribute toward a
level of sanitary regulation that is known to help in limiting VHSV
spread from importation and interstate movement of VHS-regulated
species, thus reducing risk of VHS spread.

[U.S. Department of Agriculture]{.underline}

Prior to October 24, 2006, USDA, APHIS had importation requirements only
for eight carp species, under regulations regarding spring viremia of
carp virus. Subsequently, APHIS implemented a Federal Order (originally
effective October 24, 2006, and revised November 14, 2006; May 4, 2007;
November 8, 2007, with an updated VHS-regulated species list in the last
revision) that stipulates the conditions under which specified
VHS-regulated live fish may enter the United States from Canada or be
moved interstate; and April 2, 2008. The Federal Order and its revisions
are discussed in greater detail earlier in this document. The Federal
Order is not intended to remain in effect on a long-term basis.

[Canada]{.underline}

In Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and the Department
of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) have overlapping regulations that together
control the movement of VHS-susceptible fish under the authority of the
Health of Animals Act (HAA) (Chapter 1990, c. 21) and the Fisheries Act
(R.S., 1985, c. F-14). The regulations associated with these acts are
Health of Animals Regulations (Consolidated Regulations of Canada
(C.R.C.), c. 296) and Fish Health Protection Regulations (C.R.C., c.
812). Also, Canadian Provinces regulate fisheries and aquaculture,
although the level of provincial control varies.

Currently, CFIA and DFO are working to update HAA regulations to
specifically include diseases, such as VHS, of aquatic animals through
Canada's National Aquatic Animal Health Program (NAAHP). CFIA and DFO
jointly administer NAAHP, although CFIA provides the overall program
lead under the legislative authority of the HAA. NAAHP is a
science-based regulatory program for aquatic animal diseases that have
been designated as reportable or notifiable in Canada and includes many
elements, such as listing of aquatic animal diseases, legislation,
regulations, and policies, surveillance, disease databases, research and
technology development, import controls, export certification, disease
control and eradication standards, and education and training. The
Canadian NAAHP was developed to provide a comprehensive and coordinated
aquatic animal health management program for Canada and is presumed to
reduce the risk of spread through exportation of VHS-susceptible species
to the United States. The Canadian NAAHP became effective in 2005.
Amendments to HAA regulations that fully incorporate aquatic animals are
expected to be completed in late 2008 (CFIA, 2007).

[Conclusion]{.underline}

Negative impacts relating to VHS, such as fish die offs at aquaculture
facilities, could result if no regulatory actions against VHSV spread
were implemented, However, no significant adverse cumulative impacts on
the environment are expected from the implementation of the proposed
action. Human health would not be adversely impacted but could benefit
from regulatory actions that would prevent the spread of VHSV to fish in
aquaculture facilities and sustain aquaculture production for its
intended purposes, to provide an ample supply of fish to the American
public. Implementation of the proposed action would decrease ecological
and anthropogenic spread of VHSV, reducing impacts to VHS-regulated and
nontarget species, including species that prey on VHS-regulated species
and threatened and endangered fish. Impacts to the physical environment,
such as water and soil quality, would be minimized due to the
implementation of mitigation measures that could decrease the potential
for VHSV transmission from processed fish at slaughter facilities.

Each of the regulatory efforts contributes to an overall positive
cumulative impact on the human environment by preventing the spread of
VHSV from the different geographic jurisdictions. Each regulatory effort
described above mitigates the spread of VHSV and contributes toward a
cumulative beneficial impact in preventing impacts more so than one
regulatory agency taking action separately. Implementing the APHIS
requirements in a regulation would provide a more coordinated U.S.
approach for enforcing importation and interstate movement of
VHS-regulated species and complement the individual regulatory efforts
already in place.

## E. Other Environmental Review Issues {#e.-other-environmental-review-issues .unnumbered}

**1. Executive Order 12898**

Executive Order (EO) 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations," focuses
Federal attention on the environmental and human health of minority and
low-income communities, and promotes community access to public
information and public participation in matters relating to human health
or the environment. This EO requires Federal agencies to conduct their
programs, policies, and activities that substantially affect human
health or the environment in a manner so as not to exclude persons and
populations from participation in or benefiting from such programs. It
also enforces existing statutes to prevent minority and low-income
communities from being subjected to disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects. There are no known
disproportionate impacts on minority populations or low-income
populations resulting from the requirements for the importation or
interstate movement of VHS-regulated fish from VHS-regulated areas.

**2. Executive Order 13175**

EO 13175, "Consultation and Coordination with Indian and Tribal

Governments," states that agencies must consult with Indian tribal

governments about any new regulations that may have substantial direct

effects on them and their members. The interim regulation would regulate
the importation and interstate movement of VHS-regulated fish species
from areas that could include tribal lands. APHIS, VS representatives
met with the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission on January
23, 2007, at the Lac Courte Oreilles/Ojibwe Reservation outside Hayward,
Wisconsin. The Commission's members include the Bay Mills Indian
Community, Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, and the Lac Vieux Desert Band
in Michigan; the Bad River, Red Cliff, Lac du Flambeau, Lac Courte
Oreilles, Sokaogon, and St. Croix Bands in Wisconsin; and the Fond du
Lac and Mille Lacs tribes in Minnesota. Based on discussions in meetings
with represented Indian tribal governments, no substantial direct
effects on tribes, their lands, or their resources have been identified
as a result of the provisions of the Federal Order. Additionally, no
substantial direct effects on tribes, their lands, or their resources
are foreseen from the interim rulemaking alternative to expand
provisions of the Federal Order as described in this document. APHIS
inaction under the "no action" alternative would likely afford less
protection to VHS-regulated species in tribal territories in the absence
of State or other regulations to prevent VHS spread.

**3. Endangered Species Act**

Number range CHAPTERSection 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and
its implementing regulations require Federal agencies to ensure that
their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. APHIS prepared a biological assessment
that considered the impact of the proposed interim rule on threatened
and endangered species that are susceptible or potentially susceptible
to VHSV infection, as covered under the Federal Order and either
alternative for an interim rule. Upon concluding the assessment, APHIS
determined that the interim rule as proposed will be beneficial to
listed species of the genera *Salmo* and *Oncorhynchus*, and other
listed and native fish species that are considered susceptible or
potentially susceptible to VHSV infection, by limiting the potential
spread of the virus in the United States. APHIS also determined that the
interim rule may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the
Higgins' eye pearlymussel (*Lampsilis higginsii*) through any required
or elective testing at hatcheries of host fishes used in restoration
efforts for the pearlymussel or through compliance with APHIS
requirements for any interstate movement of host fishes infected with
glochidia of the pearlymussel.

In accordance with the ESA Section 7 consultation process, the
biological assessment was submitted to FWS and NMFS. Both agencies
concurred with the APHIS effect determinations.

**4. Uncertainties**

**a. Nature of the Virus and Its Distribution**

More information, such as surveillance data, information about
outbreaks, and scientific information from field experience and
laboratory experiments, is needed about VHSV-IV(b) in order to
understand the environmental conditions for this virus genotype to
survive. VHS viruses are in a family of viruses, called rhabdoviruses,
that are known to mutate relatively rapidly in order to adapt to new
hosts and new environments. Based on knowledge about rhabdoviruses, the
VHSV-IV(b) strain may adapt to a wider range of hosts and temperatures
and could become well-established if introduced into aquaculture. As
water temperature changes seasonally, it is possible that over time more
fish populations and species may be found to be susceptible to infection
or disease caused by this virus strain, and more freshwater areas could
be affected. A lack of scientific information, documentation about past
outbreaks, and experience concerning the VHSV IV(b) strain that has
occurred in the Great Lakes region leads to a high level of uncertainty
about the risk pathways associated with this strain.

The environmental impacts of VHS or VHSV spread and any proposed actions
that may be implemented to prevent its spread are also not completely
understood. In order to better understand the risks associated with VHS
or VHSV spread, more information is needed about the aquaculture
industry, including its procedures used for obtaining gametes, disease
testing and quarantine procedures, compliance with water and waste
regulations, movement of fish and eggs, production systems used, and
biosecurity practices. Other information that would help to understand
the risks associated with VHS or VHSV spread include the quantity and
specific species of live fish transported to slaughter from affected
States, disposal methods used for gray water accompanying shipments, and
treatment methods used for processing water and the resulting waste.
Information about live fish markets, such as the location, movement of
animals, and water disposal practices would be helpful in determining
the risks associated with the movement of VHS-regulated fish or of VHSV
Understanding more about these risks would help to further identify
potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures that would help
in preventing environmental impacts associated with VHS or VHSV spread.

**b. Potential of Possible Human Actions to Affect Desired
Management/Containment of VHS in the United States**

Because of the relatively rapid rate of rhabdovirus mutations, VHS
strains may have the potential to increase in virulence, which could
have adverse economic consequences for the United States' aquaculture
and baitfish industries and wild fish populations (Meyers & Winton,
1995). This rule is intended to prevent the spread of VHS into
aquaculture facilities and susceptible fish populations by regulating
the movement of VHS-regulated fish species via anthropogenic activity.
In addition, certain recommendations have been made by APHIS and other
scientific and governmental authorities that support effective methods
to control this disease; whether or not they are followed may depend
upon the cost and inconvenience they represent to affected industries
and the public. For example, the following recommendations could involve
increases in construction costs, processing time, and additional outlays
for personnel and equipment:

-   Activities involving the movement of susceptible species from
    VHS-affected waters (such as sport fishing, subsistence fishing, and
    ornamental stock or baitfish collection) can spread the disease if
    the catch is transported to unaffected areas, and therefore should
    reflect good biosecurity practices (APHIS, 2006b; APHIS, 2006c).

-   Hatchery operators, farmers, and aquaculture suppliers should not
    transport fertilized fish eggs from a VHS-affected area before
    completing an effective method of rinsing and disinfection
    (Jorgensen, 1974; Skall et al., 2005).

-   Fish stressors have been linked to the triggering of VHS, and those
    potential stressors under human control (such as water pollution,
    stocking densities, feeding techniques, and harvest practices
    resulting in unnecessary stress) should be avoided (Skall et al.,
    2005).

-   Aquaculture farms, hatcheries, and processing plants should strive
    to prevent the presence of animal predators that may act as vectors
    for the virus (OIE, 2006; Skall et al., 2005).

While it is in the public interest to contain the spread of VHS,
deliberate human actions, despite APHIS regulation, could assist the
spread of the disease. This includes activities such as the trapping,
transport, and release of infected fish for broodstock by a small
business that cannot afford the cost of laboratory testing or obtaining
health certification; or an act of bioterrorism. However, the
mitigations of the preferred alternative are expected to assist in
identifying the presence of the virus earlier and aid in its
containment, which may help to prevent mass mortalities and the
introduction of the disease to uninfected fish populations in the United
States via the pathways of interstate movement and importation of live
VHS-regulated fish species (USDA, APHIS, 2006b).

While ballast water is a concern as a possible means of transmission of
the VHS virus, given the disease's pattern of distribution in the Great
Lakes (Whelan, 2007; Elsayed et al., 2006), there is no direct evidence
that VHS has been transmitted through ballast water. The discharge of
ballast water is regarded as a significant contributor to the
introduction of aquatic nuisance species to the Great Lakes and other
areas of the United States (DHS, USCG, 2007; Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ), 2006). The State of Michigan has
implemented regulations for the discharge of ballast water in waters
under its jurisdiction (MDEQ, 2007), and other States may promulgate
their own regulations. Under Sections 10404 and 10406 of the Animal
Health Protection Act (Subtitle E of the Farm Bill of 2002), USDA may
prohibit or restrict the importation and interstate movement of
VHS-regulated fish species, and any animal, article, or means of
conveyance that could harbor the disease (under the Animal Health
Protection Act). However, APHIS defers to the U.S Coast Guard as the
primary regulatory authority for ballast water[^20] and acts as a
cooperating agency in developing discharge standards for foreign and
domestic vessels operating in U.S. waters.

#   {#section-5 .unnumbered}

# V. Agencies Contacted {#v.-agencies-contacted .unnumbered}

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Policy and Program Development, Environmental Services

Riverdale, MD 20737

# VI. References  {#vi.-references .unnumbered}

Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry---Australia, 2002. Disposal Manual
(Version 1.0). Australian Aquatic Animal Diseases Emergency Plan
(AQUAVETPLAN), Edition 1, Agriculture Fisheries and
Forestry---Australia, Canberra, ACT.

APHIS---See U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service.

Arkush, K.D., Mendonca, H.L., McBride, A.M., Yun, S., McDowell, T.S.,
and Hedrick, R.P., 2006. Effects of temperature on infectivity and of
commercial freezing on survival of the North American strain of viral
hemorrhagic septicemia virus (VHSV). Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 69:
145--151.

Bakal, R.S, 2007. National fish hatchery system addresses viral
hemorrhagic septicemia. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. March 2007.
Available:
<http://www.fws.gov/midwest/ashland/mtan/mtan59/mtan_59.html>.

Bovo, G., Hill, B., Husby, A., Hastein, T., Michel, C., Olsen, N.J.,
Storset, A., and Midtlyng, P.J., 2005. Work package 3 report: Pathogen
survival outside the host and susceptibility to disinfection, VESO,
Oslo, Norway.

Brudeseth, B.E., Castric, J., and Evensen, O., 2002. Studies on
pathogenesis following single and double infection with viral
hemorrhagic septicemia virus and infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus
in rainbow trout (Onocorhynchus mykiss). Vet. Pathol. 39:180--189.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2007. National Aquatic Animal Health
Program (NAAHP), Frequently Asked Questions. Available:
<http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/aqua/queste.shtml>.
\[November 28, 2007\].

Center for Food Security and Public Health, 2003. Viral hemorrhagic
septicemia factsheet. Iowa State University, College of Veterinary
Medicine. (Last updated August 8, 2005.) Available:
<http://www.cfsph.iastate.edu/Factsheets/pdfs/viral_hemorrhagic_septicemia.pdf>.
\[March 1, 2007\].

CFIA---See Canadian Food Inspection Agency

CFSPH---See Center for Food Security and Public Health

Cornell Waste Management Institute, 2002. Natural rendering: composting
livestock mortality and butcher waste. Department of Crop and Soil
Sciences. Available:
<http://compost.css.cornell.edu/naturalrenderingFS.pdf>. \[October 2,
2007\].

CFSPH---See Center for Food Security and Public Health

de Kinkelin, P., Bearzotti-LeBerre, M., and Bernard, J., 1980. Viral
hemorrhagic septicemia of rainbow trout: selection of a thermoresistant
virus variant and comparison of polypeptide synthesis with the wild-type
virus strain. J. of Virology 36(3):652--658.

DHS, USCG---See U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard

Elsayed, E., Faisal, M., Thomas, M., Whelan, G., Batts, W., and Winton,
J., 2006. Isolation of viral haemorrhagic septicaemia virus from
muskellunge, *Esox masquinongy* (Mitchill), in Lake St. Clair, Michigan,
USA reveals a new sublineage of the North American genotype. Journal of
Fish Diseases 29:611--619.

Eskildsen, U.K., and Vestergard-Jorgensen, P.E., 1973. On the possible
transfer of trout pathogenic viruses by gulls. Rivista Italiana di
Piscicultura e Ittiopatologia 8:104--105.

Espe, M., Haaland, H., and Niaa, L., 1992. Autolyzed fish silage as a
feed ingredient for Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Comp.Bioche.Physiol
103A(2):369--372.

Gill, T.A., 2000. Waste from processing aquatic animals and animal
products: implications on aquatic animal pathogen transfer. FAO
Fisheries Circular No. 956. United Nations, Food and Agriculture
Organization. \[Online\]. Available:
<http://www.fao.org//docrep/003/x9199e/x9199e00.htm>.

Goodwin, A.E., Peterson, J.E., Mayers, T.R., and Money, D.J., 2004.
Transmission of exotic fish viruses: the relative risks of wild and
cultured bait. Fisheries, May 19--23.

Hedrick, R.P., Batts, W.N., Yun, S., Traxler, G.S., Kaufman, J., and
Winton, J.R., 2003. Host and geographic range extensions of the North
American strain of viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus. Diseases of
Aquatic Organisms 55:211--220.

Jorgensen. P.E.V., 1973. Artificial transmission of viral hemorrhagic
septicaemia (VHS) of rainbow trout. Riv. Ital. Piscicol. Ittiopatol.
8:101--102.

Jorgensen, P.E.V., 1974. A study of viral diseases in Danish rainbow
trout, their diagnosis and control. Commissioned by A/S Carl Fr.
Mortensen, Bűlowsvej 5 C, 1870 Kobenhavn V.

Kocan, R.M., Hershberger, P.K., and Elder, N.E., 2001. Survival of the
North American strain of viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus (VHSV) in
filtered seawater and seawater containing ovarian fluid, crude oil and
serum-enriched culture medium. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 44:75--78.

Kurita, J., Iida, Y., Nakajima, K., and Inouye, K., 2002. Virucidal
effects of various disinfectants on viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus
(VHSV) isolated from Japanese flounder. The Japanese Society of Fish
Pathology 37(4):175--181.

Liltved, H., Hektoen, H., and Efraimsen, H., 1995. Inactivation of
bacterial and viral fish pathogens by ozonation or U.V. irradiation in
water of different salinity. Aquacultural Engineering 14:107--122.

Malison, J., and Hartlieb, C.F., (Eds.), 2005. Best management practices
for aquaculture in Wisconsin and the Great Lakes region. Sea Grant
Institute, University of Wisconsin, Publication No. WISCU--H--05--001.
August 2005.

McAllister, P.E., 1990. Fish Disease Leaflet 83. Viral hemorrhagic
septicemia of fishes. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Fisheries
Research Center-Leetown, National Fish Health Research Laboratory,
Kearneysville, West Virginia. Available:
<http://www.lsc.usgs.gov/fhb/leaflets/83.asp>

McDaniel, H.A., 1991. Environmental protection during animal eradication
programmes. Scientific and Technical Review, Office International des
Epizooties 10(3): 867--884.

MDEQ---See Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

Meyers, T.R., and Winton, J.R., 1995. Viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus
in North America. Annual Review of Fish Diseases 5:3--24.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2007. News Release:
Michigan\'s First Ballast Water Permits Issued. February 23, 2007.
Available: <http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135--162830--,00.html>.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2006. Water Quality and
Pollution Control in Michigan 2006. Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314
Integrated Report. Available:
<http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3307_7255-12711--,00.html>.

Moy P., Shea, C., Dettmerst, J., and Polls, I. 2005. Isolation of the
North American strain of viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus (VHSV)
associated with epizootic mortality in two new host species of Alaskan
marine fish. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 38: 81--86.

Mozaffarian, D., and Rimm, E.B., 2006. Fish intake, contaminants, and
human health. Evaluating the risks and benefits. Journal of American
Medical Association, Vol. 296(15):1885--1900. Available:
[http://www.jama.com](http://www.jama.com/). \[December 5, 2007\].

OIE---See World Organisation for Animal Health.

Olesen, N.J. and Jorgensen, P.E.V., 1982. Can and do herons serve as
vectors for Egtved virus. European Association of Fish Pathologists.

2(3):48.

Peters, F. and Neukirch, M., 1986. Transmission of some fish pathogenic
viruses by the heron, Ardea cinerea. Journal of Fish Diseases T986, 9,
539--544.

Skall, H.F., Olesen, N.J., and Mellergaard, S., 2005. Viral haemorrhagic
septicaemia virus in marine fish and its implications for fish
farming---a review. Journal of Fish Diseases 28:509--529.

Smail, D.A., Huntly, P.J., and Nunro, A.L.S., 1993. Fate of four fish
pathogens after exposure to fish silage containing fish farm mortalities
and conditions for the inactivation of infectious pancreatic necrosis
virus. Aquaculture 113:173--181.

Spotte, S. and Adams, G., 1981. Pathogen reduction in closed aquaculture
systems by U.V. radiation: Fact or artifact? Mar.Ecol.Prog.Ser.
6:295--298.

Stagg, R., 1999. Diagnosis and control of infectious salmon anemia.
Shetland Fishing News, July 1999.

USDA, APHIS---See U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.

USDA, NASS---See U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural
Statistics Service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, 2006a. Viral hemorrhagic septicemia in the Great Lakes.
Emerging Disease Notice---July 2006. Fort Collins, CO.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, 2006b. Viral hemorrhagic septicemia in the Great Lakes region.
Industry Alert---August 2006. Riverdale, MD.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, 2006c. Questions and answers about viral hemorrhagic septicemia
(VHS) Federal Order. Factsheet---November 2006. Riverdale, MD.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, 2006d. Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (VHS) -- Amended Federal
Order. November 14, 2006. Available:
<http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/aqua/pdf/vhs-fed-order_ogc-changes.pdf>.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics
Service, 2006. Census of Aquaculture (2005). Vol. 3, Special Studies,
Part 2, AC--02--SP--2. Issued October 2006. Available:
<http://www.nass.usda.gov/Census_of_Agriculture/2002/Aquaculture/AQUACEN.pdf>.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, Office of
Operating and Environmental Standards, 2007. Ballast Water Management
Program. Available: <http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/mso/bwm.htm>.

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, 2007. Detection
of viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus. USGS FS 2007-3055. July 12, 2007.

USDOI, USGS---See U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological
Survey. Available:
http://wfrc.usgs.gov/pubs/factsheetpdf/vhsfs080807.pdf.

U.S. EPA, OST---See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Science and Technology.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology,
2001. Fish tissue criterion for methylmercury to protect human health.
Fact sheet; January 2001. Available:
<http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/methylmercury/factsheet.html>.
\[December 5, 2007\].

U.S. EPA, OW---See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Municipal
Technology Branch, 2003. Wastewater technology fact sheet. Disinfection
for small systems. EPA 832-F-03-024, September 2003. Washington, DC.

Warren, J.W., 1978. Chapter 19: Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia. A guide to
integrated fish health management in the Great Lakes basin. 2002
revision. Available:
<http://www.glfc.org/pubs/SpecialPubs/sp83_2/index.html>.

Whelan, G.E., 2007. Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (VHS) Briefing Paper:
February 26, 2007. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Available:
[http://www.greatlakesfishhealth.com/Viral%20Hemorrhagic%20Septicemia%20Fact%20Sheet%20-%202-26-2007.pdf](http://www.greatlakesfishhealth.com/Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia Fact Sheet - 2-26-2007.pdf).
\[March 6, 2007\].

Wisconsin Dept. of Agriculture, 2007. Fish health advisory. Viral
hemorrhagic septicemia. Report of viral hemorrhagic septicemia in
Wisconsin. Trade and Consumer Protection, Division of Animal Health. May
2007.

Wolf, K., 1988. Fish viruses and fish viral diseases. Cornell University
Press, Ithaca.

Wong, L., 1997. Temperature of a healthy human (body temperature). The
Physics Factbook, edited by Glenn Elert. Available:
<http://hypertextbook.com/facts/LenaWong.shtml>. \[December 5, 2007\].

World Book Encyclopedia. "Temperature, Body." Chicago: Field
Enterprises, 1996.

World Organisation for Animal Health, 2006. Manual of Diagnostic Tests
for Aquatic Animals, Part 2, Section 2.1, Chapter 2.1.5: Viral
Hemorrhagic Septicaemia. Available:
<http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/fmanual/A_00022.htm>

**Ecological Relationships of VHS-Regulated Species**

This section describes how the ecological spread of VHS in susceptible
fish populations due to VHSV might impact other species, such as
predators and other aquatic species.

In the past, VHS was thought to be a concern only for trout and a few
other freshwater fish raised for commercial aquaculture in Europe.
However, in 2005 and 2006, VHS outbreaks were reported in wild
freshwater fish species from the Great Lakes area in both Canada and the
United States. The outbreaks in the Great Lakes region appear to be due
to a new strain of the VHS virus. This new strain is responsible for
die-offs in fish species such as muskellunge, smallmouth bass, northern
pike, freshwater drum, gizzard shad, yellow perch, black crappie,
bluegill, rock bass, white bass, redhorse sucker, bluntnose sucker,
round goby, and walleye (USDA, APHIS, CEAH, 2006). Since 2005, the
number of species, including ecologically, economically, and
recreationally important fish, known to be affected by VHS has risen
substantially.

It should be noted that birds known to feed on VHS-regulated fish
species are not expected to be adversely impacted by loss of prey from
VHSV because of their relative mobility and resulting lack of
localization to just one area. Other predatory species, including many
piscivorous fish, may also have wide forage ranges. However, more
localized individual populations or animals that are more sessile (lack
mobility) and depend upon these species for survival could be more
challenged when seeking prey. For example, the local amphibian or snake
population that prey upon VHS-regulated fish life-stages could
potentially be impacted by loss of their prey if those fish constitute a
large portion of their diet.

The VHS-regulated species and potential impacts on those species are
discussed in this appendix according to fish family. We note that, from
a cumulative perspective, potential impacts could be realized on certain
fish population structures if VHS continues to spread in the United
States. The lack of information about the VHSV-IV(b) strain and the
extent of its spread prevent definitive descriptions of the impacts on
fish population structures, at present.

In the following sections, VHS-regulated species (as determined by
APHIS) are grouped and discussed by fish family.

**[Fish Families]{.underline}**

[Lotidae](http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/FamilySummary.cfm?ID=183)

Lotidae is a large family of bony fishes (order Anacanthini) including
many important food fishes (such as the cod, haddock, and pollock, and
several others) whose livers yield oils rich in vitamins A and D. Burbot
is the VHS-regulated species in this family.

Burbot is the only fresh water representative of the primarily
ocean-dwelling species of the Lotidae family. In the United States,
burbots---commonly called "lawyers" in the Great Lakes region---have
long been overlooked as a food fish; early Great Lakes fishermen derided
them as a culturally insignificant fish. In the middle of the 20th
century, the Great Lakes' burbot populations declined under the
onslaught of the sea lamprey. Today, however, burbot are returning to
the lakes in increasing numbers and are valued as a food and
recreational fish (UW, SGI, 2002).

Burbots are top predators in their ecosystem, sometimes overlapping with
similar top predators such as pike or large salmonids. Burbots are
voracious predators and opportunistic feeders and are known to prey on
whitefish, sculpins, lampreys, and other burbots (Jacobs, 2005). Top
predators are important because they are involved in the balance of the
populations of all of the animals below them in the food web, thus
contributing to the overall health of the food web. Although burbots may
prey upon other fish species, such as whitefish and other burbots that
are susceptible to VHS, their success is not limited by any specific
type of prey; therefore, burbots as a species would not be unduly
impacted by population changes in those species of fish. By preying upon
a number of species, burbots help to maintain the health and viability
of the ecosystem (Dewey, 2006).

Northern pike are known to prey on burbot where the two species coexist
(Schwalme, 1992, as cited in Jacobs, 2005). Smelt and yellow perch prey
on larval and juvenile individuals (Scott and Crossman, 1973). Humans
also exert predation pressure on burbot through commercial and sport
fisheries (Cohen, 1990; Kirillov, 1988). In the Great Lakes, the sea
lamprey (*Petromyzon marinus*) is also known to prey on burbot (Smith,
1971, as cited in Jacobs, 2005). However, all predators of burbot are
opportunistic feeders and are not expected to be unduly affected by
population changes in other fish species due to losses from VHS
outbreaks.

[Centrarchidae or Sunfish]{.underline}

The sunfish family is the second largest fish family in North America
and is comprised of 30 species. They are the most common lake and pond
fish and have been widely introduced for sport fishing throughout the
United States. Anglers divide this group into the sunfish and the bass.
Sunfishes (bluegill, pumpkinseed, and others) and crappie (white and
black) are the most common pond fish and are widely popular with
children (Kraft et al., 2006). They are small (up to 2 pounds),
laterally compressed fish that are abundant, easily caught, and are
valued as a food fish. This family contains the following VHS-regulated
species: large mouth bass, black crappie, bluegill, rock bass,
pumpkinseed, and smallmouth bass.

The sunfish family supports a large amount of warm water sport fishing
in many U.S. ponds and lakes and is usually abundant, readily caught,
and a valued species for consumption. Largemouth bass is the most widely
distributed and commonly sought sport fish in the United States. For
example, professional bass fishing tournament anglers compete for prizes
up to \$1 million (Kraft et al., 2006).

Predators of fish in this family include species of yellow perch,
walleye, northern pike and muskellunge and other sunfish (Jacobs, 2005).
However, most of the predators of the sunfish family are opportunistic
feeders and are not expected to be unduly affected by population changes
in the fish due to losses from VHS outbreaks.

[Clupeidae]{.underline}

This fish family includes herrings, shads, and sardines which are
anadromous marine or brackish water species; however, some species
(alewife, as well as gizzard and threadfin shad) occur in freshwater.
Some fish species in this family have been introduced to promote sport
fish growth in lakes and reservoirs throughout the country (Helfrich et
al., 2005). The gizzard shad is the VHS-regulated fish species in this
family.

Gizzard shad is primarily omnivorous and feeds mostly on phytoplankton
and zooplankton. The predators known to feed upon this fish are catfish
and striped bass (Morris, 2001), both of which are opportunistic
predators that are not expected to be disproportionately adversely
affected by population changes in shad populations.

Although gizzard shad is primarily viewed as a culturally insignificant
and nuisance fish, humans do use gizzard shad as bait to catch larger
fish (Morris, 2001). Also, larger pelagic (surface or middle depth of a
body of water) sport fishes eat gizzard shad, which helps to support the
sport fishing industry (Morris, 2001).

[Cyprinidae or Minnow]{.underline}

The minnow family is the largest and most ecologically diverse family of
freshwater fishes. Over 290 species of minnows occur in North America.
The common term "minnow" generically refers to any small fish but is
specifically appropriate for many fish in this family. Most fish in this
family are small fish (less than 6 inches) that like to school, feed on
insects and algae, and serve as prey for sport fish (Helfrich et al.,
2005). They are found in a wide variety of habitats in streams, rivers,
and lakes throughout North America. The VHS-regulated species in this
family known to be susceptible to VHSV are the bluntnose minnow, emerald
shiner, and the spottail shiner.

These species and others in this family are farmed and sold as bait fish
to anglers for recreational fishing of bass, perch, walleye, and many
others. Because of their intermuscular bones, minnows are not highly
prized as food fish in the United States. Many of the minnows, such as
the emerald shiner, are hardy, attractive, and lively, and adapt well
for use in home aquaria.

Minnows are prey for many larger fish and top predators such as bass,
perch, walleye, and other animals such as the black-crowned night heron,
grackles, northern water snake, and turtles. Minnows are an abundant
fish and serve an important role in the ecosystem as prey for larger
animals (Helfrich et al., 2005). The animals that prey upon minnows
generally do not rely upon them as their sole source of food and, as a
result, are not expected to be unduly impacted by changes in the minnow
population due to VHSV.

[Ictaluridae]{.underline}

Catfish have been widely distributed by humans throughout the
United States for sport fishing and fish farming. Except for the
miniature madtom, which lives in cold clear streams, catfish are warm
water (80 to

95 ºF) fish that thrive in slow-flowing rivers and productive lakes and
ponds. Adult catfish are voracious predators that feed primarily at
night, using their fine sense of smell and touch (barbells), on fish and
other aquatic animals (Kraft et al., 2006). The VHS-regulated fish in
this family are the brown bullhead and channel catfish.

Sport and commercial fishing for channel catfish and the smaller
bullhead species is very popular, especially in the South. Private
fee-fishing ponds are frequently stocked in high density with channel
catfish. Channel catfish are the most economically important warm water
fish farmed in the United States and are known for their adaptability,
excellent food quality, and value to commercial fisheries. They are also
abundant in wild populations (Helfrich et al., 2005).

Predators of the channel catfish include larger fishes, such as the
chestnut lamprey and the flathead catfish. Brown bullheads, especially
when young, are preyed upon by muskellunge, northern pike, walleyes, and
other predatory fish (Jacobs, 2005). These predators are opportunist
feeders and are not expected to be unduly affected by population changes
in the brown bullhead or channel catfish.

Channel catfish do prey on a number of VHS-regulated species such as
minnows, sunfish, suckers, and bullheads; however, channel catfish are
omnivores and opportunistic feeders and will eat anything from insects
to amphibians. As a result, the success of this particular fish is not
limited to one type of prey and, therefore, the channel catfish would
not be unduly affected by loss of prey due to VHS outbreaks.

[Salmonidae]{.underline}

The salmonids include about 38 species in North America, including
Pacific salmon, the Atlantic salmon, trout, and whitefish. Pacific and
Atlantic salmon are native anadromous fish that hatch in coastal
streams, spend most of their adult life in the ocean, and return to
their home stream as adults to spawn and die (Helfrich et al., 2005).
The Chinook salmon is one of five species of Pacific salmon native to
North America. The Chinook salmon was introduced to the Great Lakes to
control the invasive alewife population and is now among the top
predator species in the Great Lakes (Jacobs, 2005). The VHS-regulated
species in this family include the brown trout, Chinook salmon, rainbow
trout, and lake whitefish.

In the ocean, adult Chinook salmon are a top predator species, but for
young Chinook salmon predation is high. Many animal species eat salmon
fry (fingerlings) and smolts (a lifestage that is actively adapting to a
saltwater-based physiology), including striped bass, American shad,
sculpins, and sea gulls. Adult salmon are still prey to many animals
when they return to spawn. In the Great Lakes, sea lampreys are the most
common predators of all salmonid species, including rainbow trout
(Ridolfi and Wehrly, 2006). Other predators include bears, killer
whales, sea lions, seals, otters, eagles, and cormorants, all of which
are opportunistic feeders (Jacobs, 2005).

Brown trout are extremely wary fish, usually feeding only at dusk or at
night, so fishermen are likely the chief predator of adults. Predation
of this species in the open ocean is largely unknown.

Salmon and trout support major commercial and recreational coldwater
fisheries. In the Great Lakes, salmon, whitefish, and lake trout are
commercially caught. Salmon and trout are widely farmed in freshwater
and saltwater ponds and pens as food fish. Rainbow and brown trout are
frequently stocked by public resource or conservation agencies for
put-and-take angling in freshwater lakes and streams (Helfrich et al.,
2005), and are popular with stockers of privately owned ponds, as well.
The saltwater phase of rainbow trout, known as steelhead, is also
economically and recreationally important.

[Sciaenidae]{.underline}

Freshwater drum are the only members of the family Sciaenidae that
inhabit freshwater. As their name implies, these fish can produce an
underwater sound using their gas bladder as a resonating chamber
(Helfrich et al., 2005). They have a vast distribution range that
extends from as far north as the Hudson Bay to as far south as
Guatemala. They are considered to be one of the most wide-ranging fish
species in North America. The freshwater drum is the VHS-regulated fish
species in this family.

Freshwater drum are often nocturnal feeders and will search the bottom
of the water in schools for many different prey items. They generally
root around and move rocks and other bottom surface to flush their prey.
Adults feed primarily on aquatic insects such as mayflies, small fish
(in particular shad and immature drum), and mollusks. During the early
larval stage, freshwater drum feed primarily on the larval stages of
other fishes (Jacobs, 2005).

Freshwater drum are known for feeding on the invasive zebra mussels.
They do not control populations but may contribute to high numbers of
mortality in these nuisance mussels. It is documented that many types of
mussels use freshwater drum as a host in their reproductive cycle
(Helfrich et al., 2005).

Freshwater drum are growing in popularity and, in some cases, are
recognized as a sport fish. They are known for their great fighting
ability and large size. They are also a popular food fish in some areas
and are occasionally used as bait to catch other fish species.

Humans contribute to a great amount of predation on freshwater drum.
Commercially, up to 1 million pounds of freshwater drum are harvested
per year. Immature drum are preyed on by many different predatory fishes
such as walleyes, muskellunges, northern pikes, other freshwater drums,
and gulls (Jacobs, 2005). However, due to the opportunistic nature of
their feeding habits, none of the predators listed are expected to be
unduly impacted by changes in the freshwater drum population due to the
opportunistic nature of their feeding habits.

[Esocidae]{.underline} (Pikes)

Pikes and other esocids are large voracious predatory fish with a long,
streamlined body and a long, toothed duckbill-like snout. Fish, such as
the northern pike and muskellunge (musky), can grow to a large size of
50 to 100 pounds. Northern pike are among the most widely distributed of
fish, found widely across northern North America, Europe, and Asia.
Trophy-size musky and pike are difficult to catch and are actively
sought after by sport anglers because they strike and fight hard
(Helfrich et al., 2005). The VHS-regulated species in this family are
the muskellunge and northern pike.

The pikes are prolific (0.5 million eggs per fish) broadcast spawners,
laying adhesive eggs over flooded vegetation in the early spring.
Juveniles become predatory on fish (piscivorous) at about 2 inches in
length and continue to be day-active voracious carnivores eating fish,
frogs, waterfowl, and small mammals throughout their solitary lives
(Jacobs, 2005). Although, pikes may prey upon other VHS-regulated fish,
they are not expected to be unduly impacted from loss of prey as a
result of VHS losses sustained by prey populations due to their
opportunistic feeding habits.

The predators of the fish in this family are relatively few. Birds and
humans are predators of adult fish, but the younger lifestages of
esocids can be preyed upon by other esocids, bass, and sunfish. However,
predator species typically do not rely upon fish in the pike family as
their sole source of food and, therefore, are not anticipated to be
unduly affected by changes in the population of this fish species due to
losses from VHS.

[Catostomidae]{.underline} (Sucker fish family)

More than 60 species of suckers occur in North America. All have similar
body shapes, most notably large thick lips and a ventral mouth adapted
for sucking. Because of their abundance and size, they may account for
much of the fish biomass in rivers and streams. Large suckers, such as
the white sucker, hogsuckers, and especially buffalofishes, can reach
lengths of 3 feet and exceed 30 pounds; however, most are small species
that hide among bottom rocks in rivers and streams. They are frequently
found in pools and shoreline areas of lakes (Helfrich et al., 2005), and
prefer clean, unpolluted waters; however, because many are intolerant of
pollution changes in their populations, they are often used as an
indicator of water quality. The VHS-regulated species in this family
include the shorthead redhorse and silver redhorse.

Although not highly prized culturally or economically, the meat of many
suckers can be eaten by humans and are often sold pickled or smoked.
They are sometimes reared and sold as bait fish for large sport fish,
such as pike and muskie.

Suckers feed by "vacuuming" invertebrates and clams on river bottoms and
do not thrive in heavily silted or anaerobic river bottoms. Suckers are
mostly solitary, sedentary fish, strongly oriented to a bottom existence
(Helfrich et al., 2005).

Young sucker fish are preyed upon by piscivorous fish like northern
pike, walleyes, and smallmouth bass (Jacobs, 2005). However, these
predators are typically opportunistic feeders and are not expected to be
unduly impacted by changes in population of the sucker fish family.

[Gobiidae](http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/FamilySummary.cfm?ID=405)
(Gobies)

Gobies are found worldwide in fresh, brackish, and salt water. They are
concentrated in the tropics and subtropics, mainly in the Indo-Pacific
region, but some marine species can be found in the subarctic streams of
southern Siberia. Gobies have been transported beyond their natural
range via the intake pipes or ballast water of large ships. One species,
the round goby (*Neogobius melanostomus)*, a native of the Black and
Caspian Seas, was introduced into one of the Great Lakes in North
America around 1990 and has since spread invasively into all five Great
Lakes (Jonna, 2004). The round goby is the VHS-regulated species in this
fish family.

Gobies are variously classified as zooplanktivores, omnivores, and
carnivores, as they feed on a wide variety of small organisms like
crabs, shrimps, smaller crustaceans (such as copepods, amphipods, and
ostracods), mollusks, annelids, polychaetes, formaninferans, sponges,
small fishes, and eggs of various invertebrates and fishes (Jonna,
2004).

Due to their small size, gobies are among the prey of many different
predators, such as sea snakes, shore birds, and larger fish, all of
which are opportunistic feeders and which would not be unduly impacted
by changes in the population of gobies due to VHSV.

Gobies are extremely important in almost any ecosystem they occupy
because their relative abundance makes them an essential part of the
general food web. Gobies have the greatest impact on the benthic (bottom
of a body of water) environment since most reside there (Jonna, 2004).

[Percidae](http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/FamilySummary.cfm?ID=306)
(Perches)

The perch family is one of the most diverse fish groups represented by
153 species in North America. Yellow perch, trout-perch, and walleye are
some of the major sport and food fish in this family (Helfrich et al.,
2005). The remaining 150 species of small colorful darters occupy
streams and lakes throughout the country. The trout-perch, walleye, and
yellow perch are the VHS-regulated species in this fish family.

Yellow perch and walleye are temperate water (21 to 27 ºC, or 70 to 80
ºF) fish that thrive in the northern United States and Canada,
especially the Great Lakes, large reservoirs, and big rivers. These
species school in open water and near the bottom. They are spring
broadcast spawners. Adults feed voraciously on small fish and
invertebrates, principally at sunrise and sunset (Helfrich et al.,
2005).

Walleye are top predators. Once they reach adulthood, they primarily eat
other animals but are not themselves eaten, except by people. They
compete for food with other fish that are top predators, including
smallmouth bass and white perch (Creque, 2000). Top predators are
important because they are involved in the balance of the populations of
all of the animals below them in the food web, thus contributing to the
health and viability of the ecosystem. Because walleyes prey upon a
variety of fish species (including VHS-regulated fish), they are not
expected to be unduly impacted by loss of prey or changes in population
due to VHSV.

Perch are an important food source for top predators such as the
walleye, northern pike, muskellunge, and, in colder waters, lake trout.
Herring gulls and diving ducks also eat perch (Herman et al., 1959, as
cited in Creque, 2000). All predators of fish in this family do not rely
upon any one particular fish as their prey and, therefore, are not
expected to be unduly impacted by changes in the population.

[Moronidae](http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/FamilySummary.cfm?ID=487)
(Temperate basses)

Four freshwater species, including the striped bass, white bass, yellow
bass, and the white perch, are found in this family. The fish are valued
as a source of food for humans and recreational fishing. White bass and
white perch are VHS-regulated fish in this fish family.

These schooling species are spring broadcast spawners, releasing as many
as 0.5 million small eggs per female. Bass eggs are semibuoyant and must
be kept moving in a river current for several days at a specific water
temperature prior to hatching (Helfrich et al., 2005). White bass, for
example, spawn near the surface of water that is 6 to 7 feet deep and
that has a temperature of 14 to 18 ºC (58 to 64 ºF) (Steiner, 2002).
Most freshwater populations must be maintained by stocking. The young
lack a yolk sac and must feed on tiny zooplankton as soon as they hatch.
Adult striped bass are voracious fish predators, preferring herring,
shad, and alewife prey.

Fish in this family are important as intermediate predators in the
ecosystem in which they live as predator and prey for larger fish and
other animal predators. None of the fish that prey upon the fish in this
family are expected to be unduly impacted by population changes due to
their opportunistic feeding habits.

**References**

Creque, S., 2000. \"Perca flavescens,\" Animal Diversity Web. Available:
<http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Perca_flavescens.html>.
\[October 16, 2007\].

Dewey, T., 2006. \"Lotidae,\" Animal Diversity Web. Available:
<http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Lotidae.html>.
\[October 16, 2007\].

Helfrich, L., Newcomb, T., Hallerman, E., & Stein, K., 2005. Department
of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences. Virginia Polytechnic Institute &
State University. EFISH: The Virtual Aquarium. Available:
[http://www.cnr.vt.edu/efish/index.htmll](http://www.cnr.vt.edu/efish/families/centrarchidae.html).
\[October 11, 2007\].

Jacobs, G., 2005. University of Michigan, BioKIDS. Available:
<http://www.biokids.umich.edu/critters/Lota_lota/>. \[October 10,
2007\].

Jonna, R., 2004. \"Gobiidae,\" Animal Diversity Web. Available:
<http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Gobiidae.html>.
\[October 16, 2007\].

Kraft, C.E., Carlson, D.M. & Carlson, M., 2006. Inland Fishes of New
York, Version 4.0 Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University,
and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
Available: <http://pond.dnr.cornell.edu/nyfish/fish.html>. \[October 8,
2007\].

Morris, C., 2001. \"Dorosoma cepedianum.\" Animal Diversity Web.
Available:
<http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Dorosoma_cepedianum.html>.
\[October 30, 2007\].

Ridolfi, K. and K. Wehrly, 2006. \"Oncorhynchus mykiss.\" Animal
Diversity Web. Available:
<http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Oncorhynchus_mykiss.html>.
\[October 30, 2007\].

Steiner, L., 2002. Pennsylvania Fishes. Pennsylvania Fish and Boat
Commission. Available:
<http://www.fish.state.pa.us/pafish/fishhtms/chapindx.htm>. \[October
30, 2007\].

USDA, APHIS, CEAH---See U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Program, Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Care.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health (CEAH), 2006. Viral
Hemorrhagic Septicemia in the Great Lakes, July 2006, Emerging Disease
Notice. Available:
<http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cei/taf/emergingdiseasenotice_files/vhsgreatlakes.htm>.
\[October 10, 2007\].

UW SGI---See University of Wisconsin, Sea Grant Institute

University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute, 2002. Fish of the Great
Lakes: Burbot (*Lota lota)*. Available:
<http://www.seagrant.wisc.edu/greatlakesfish/burbot.html>. \[October 11,
2007\].

[^1]: 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 4321 et seq.

[^2]: 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 1500--1508; 7 CFR 1b;
    and 7 CFR part 372.

[^3]: The "human environment" is interpreted comprehensively to include
    the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people
    with that environment (40 CFR § 1508.14).

[^4]: Aquaculture, as defined for reporting under the Census of
    Aquaculture, is the farming of fish, crustaceans, mollusks, and
    other aquaculture products. (USDA, NASS, 2005).

[^5]: 7 CFR 372.5(b)(1).

[^6]: 7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.

[^7]: For purposes of this document, the terms "VHSV" and "VHS" shall be
    considered synonymous.

[^8]: This list was last updated November 8, 2007. As of the publication
    of this document, the list of fish species susceptible to VHS, as
    determined by APHIS, currently includes 28 separate species.

[^9]: ^?^ 50 CFR §§ 16.13(a)(3) and 16.13(b).

[^10]: Available on the Internet:
    [www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/animal_dis_spec/aquaculture/downloads/vhs-fed-order_ogc-changes.pdf](http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/animal_dis_spec/aquaculture/downloads/vhs-fed-order_ogc-changes.pdf).

[^11]: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/AFS-FHS Standard Procedures for
    Aquatic Animal Health Inspections section of the Suggested
    Procedures for the Detection and Identification of Certain Finfish
    and Shellfish Pathogens 2005 Edition, American Fisheries Society,
    Fish Health Section, Bethesda, Maryland.

[^12]: World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) Manual of Diagnostic
    Tests for Aquatic Animals, Fifth Edition (2006), Chapter 2.1.5, OIE,
    Paris, France.

[^13]: These regulations, enforced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service, include provisions to prevent the introduction of fish
    diseases, including VHS.

[^14]: 40 CFR parts 1500--1508, 7 CFR 1b, and 7 CFR part 372.

[^15]: <http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/animal_dis_spec/aquaculture>

[^16]: 40 CFR § 1508.27(b).

[^17]: Under NEPA regulations, the "human environment" includes the
    natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with
    that environment" (40 CFR § 1508.14).

[^18]: As listed on APHIS' Internet Web site:
    <http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/animal_dis_spec/aquaculture>

[^19]: "VHS-regulated area" is defined as any State or portion of a
    State from which VHS virus has been detected in any VHS-regulated
    fish species (with or without clinical signs of disease) in a water
    source that is not a secure water source, or which the Administrator
    determines to be at risk of having VHS based on epidemiologic
    information. "VHS-regulated region" is defined as any region in
    which VHS virus has been officially reported to the World
    Organization for Animal Health by a country's competent authority
    for aquatic animal health from any fish species in a water source
    that is not a secure water source, or which the Administrator
    determines to be at risk of having VHS based on criteria such as
    inadequate surveillance, less restrictive import requirements, or
    other epidemiologic information.

[^20]: In accordance with the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention
    and Control Act of 1990 (as reauthorized and amended by the National
    Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA)), the Coast Guard promulgated
    ballast water management (BWM) regulations in 33 CFR part 151,
    subparts C and D. As part of NISA, Congress authorized the Coast
    Guard to require BWM reporting and recordkeeping so as to monitor
    discharge trends and practices as well as monitor compliance with
    BWM regulations (USCG, 2007).