+-------------+-----------------------------------------+--------------+
| ![](me      | [State of Michigan]{.smallcaps}         | !            |
| dia/image1. |                                         | [](media/ima |
| png){width= | DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES         | ge2.wmf){wid |
| "0.54027777 |                                         | th="0.575in" |
| 77777777in" | [Lansing]{.smallcaps}                   | height       |
| height="    |                                         | ="0.58611111 |
| 0.622222222 |                                         | 11111111in"} |
| 2222222in"} |                                         |              |
+-------------+-----------------------------------------+--------------+
| JENNIFER M. |                                         | REBECCA A.   |
| GRANHOLM    |                                         | HUMPHRIES    |
|             |                                         |              |
| [governor]{ |                                         | [director]   |
| .smallcaps} |                                         | {.smallcaps} |
+-------------+-----------------------------------------+--------------+

October 9, 2008

Regulatory Analysis and Development

PPD

APHIS

Station 3A-03.8

4700 River Road Unit 118

Riverdale, MD 20737-1238

Re: USDA-APHIS VHSv Interim Rule

Environmental Assessment Comments

Docket No. APHIS-2007-0038

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MIDNR) has reviewed the
USDA-APHIS VHSv Interim Rule Environmental Assessment (EA), dated April
2008. The MI DNR's analysis of this EA indicates that it is incomplete
and wholly inadequate as a key decision support document as it
inaccurate in many places, unclear in many others, and full of
speculation without supporting evidence in most sections. Many of these
issues could have been resolved if USDA-APHIS would have engaged the
Great Lakes fish community and its fish health professionals are
partners in the EA process. Any regulations and rules based upon the
analysis in the EA decision document are fundamentally flawed. We
request that a revised EA be developed to address the many issues that
we have found in this document and a collaborative process be used that
engages all parties as information sources to ensure that any
regulations developed by USDA-APHIS are founded on good defensible
science.

We would like to file the following comments on this document as one of
Michigan's Competent Authorities:

1.  Overall Comment -- The EA does not address the option of using
    watershed management using USGS Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs) and
    only examines the management of VHSv on a per state basis which
    makes no ecological sense as fish movement is controlled by
    watersheds. We request that this option be added and completely
    discussed in the revised EA.

2.  Page 2, Paragraph 1 -- The EA states that VHSv type IVb has caused
    widespread mortality in baitfish, salmonids and catfish. There is no
    evidence to support this claim to date anywhere in the Great Lakes
    region and this should be corrected in the revised EA.

3.  Page 3, Nonanthropogenic Spread of VHSv, Paragraph 1 -- This
    paragraph does not mention one of the key ways to pass VHSv which is
    the ingestion of infected prey. This needs to be added to this
    section. We are also unclear on what is meant by contaminated
    utensils.

> This paragraph also cites work by USGS that indicates the virus grows
> best between 15 to 20 C in vitro. We have checked on this information
> with Dr. James Winton (USGS) and there are significant errors in the
> paragraph. First, this information, from a non-peer reviewed fact
> sheet, shows little difference in growth between 10 to 20C. Second,
> temperatures below 10 C were not even tested so the actual optimal
> performance of this virus is not clear at this time and maybe similar
> to Type IV which has optimal growth at 6 to 9 C. This information
> should have been verified.

4.  Page 4, Paragraph 1 -- We are unclear on where you found the
    information that the virus can persist for sufficient time to result
    in egg-associated transmission of the virus from adult to progeny.
    One of staff is the author of the fact non-peer reviewed public fact
    sheet that is cited and this was a mis-quote from that document.
    This should be corrected.

5.  Page 4, Paragraph 2 -- This paragraph indicates that virus does not
    appear to survive passage through the bird intestinal tract which is
    correct. We recommend that you consult with Dr. James Winton (USGS)
    on their work that shows the virus to be completed and quickly
    inactivated at 37 C and bird body temperatures are well above that
    temperature. The reason for birds being a very low risk vector is
    very clear and should be clearly stated. It is also highly unlikely
    that the virus will move very far on the beak of a bird is very
    unlikely to infect fish by this method. This should be corrected.

6.  Page 4, Paragraph 3 -- This paragraph seems to imply that the
    natural movement of fish from outside the Great Lakes Basin is a
    likely introduction vector and this is not verified with any
    supporting evidence. This is highly unlikely given the very low
    rates of movement of fish upstream through the Messina Hydropower
    Project at the beginning of the St. Lawrence River. Additionally,
    there are practically no fish, other than the very low numbers of
    American eels, which move from the Maritime Region of Canada (the
    likely source of the virus) to the Great Lakes Basin. These factors
    make natural fish movement a very low probability event for
    introduction of the virus into the Great Lakes Region. Overall,
    natural factors are highly unlikely and we request this paragraph be
    revised accordingly.

7.  Page 4, Anthropogenic Spread of VHS, Paragraph 1 -- One pathway not
    stated is the potential stocking of infected fish which should be
    listed. This is the likely reason for the infection of a small
    private pond in NY which was a rescue of infected fish from a stream
    that was drying up into the private pond. There are no other
    occurrences of VHSv being caused by stocking to our knowledge.

8.  Page 5, Paragraph 1 -- This paragraph implies that people and
    equipment moving in and out of VHSv positive waters is a high risk.
    A simple analysis of the likelihood of this is in order. This type
    of contact would move very little water at any one time and that
    water would have to be heavily infected. The virus would have to
    survive to be place in proximity of susceptible fish species, in the
    face of high dilution factors, in appropriate titers to cause
    transmission. This is highly unlikely except perhaps in the case of
    repeat exposures in a hatchery system. Even here it is a very low
    probability. We request that a clear discussion and analysis of the
    likely VHSv transmission factors be included here.

9.  Page 5, Paragraph 2 -- This paragraph needs a proper analysis of
    likely risk factors to be meaningful for decision making. Vectors
    such as most vehicles and recreational boats are low risk factors as
    many variables, each with their own probability, must line up
    exactly right. The vehicle and recreational boats must uptake
    infected water in high titers (likely low probability), keep it
    alive (likely low probability), and introduce it in sufficient
    titers to susceptible fish in the face of dilution (very low
    probability). The combination of these events is very unlikely. A
    factor on the other extreme is the moving of infected live fish
    which is a high risk vector as you have sufficient concentrated
    virus that is alive and can easily be transmitted to susceptible
    fish in sufficient titers without dilution. Ballast water in
    commercial cargo shipping as an infective vector is likely to be a
    relatively low probability event as the ship must uptake sufficient
    titers of live virus, infected fish parts or infected fish, keep it
    alive, and introduce the virus live in the face of dilution to
    susceptible fish. The one large difference is the very large amounts
    of water carried by this factor which ranges from 1 million to 10
    million gallons of water. If the ship is successful in collecting
    large amounts of infected water and moving it, it is a very high
    risk factor to infect new locations. So ballast water is a low
    probability but high risk factor. A full analysis of all of the risk
    factors should be included to adequately develop this EA.

10. Page 5, APHIS Action -- The EA should note that the authority used
    for this action is the Animal Health Protection Act. We also wish to
    place in the record that the conference report for the Animal Health
    Protection Act clearly states that no action under the act can
    impair the ability of state fish and wildlife agencies to manage
    fisheries resources. This legislative intent should be clearly
    stated in this EA as it has major implications on what potential
    options.

11. Page 6, October 24, 2006 Federal Order, Paragraph 1 -- Why was
    Quebec included in the list when no positive detections have been
    made in the province to date? We also still do not understand why
    entire states were included as restricted states and this was not
    done by appropriate hydrologic unit.

12. Page 6, October 24, 2006 Federal Order, Paragraph 2 -- It should be
    clearly noted that the recommended changes made did not cause any
    reductions in the amount of protections provided by the original
    order.

13. Page 9, November 8, 2007 Revised Federal Order -- This paragraph
    should indicate that listing require confirmation by NVSL but not
    any other laboratory even if they use approved confirmation methods.

14. Page 10, Section A, Paragraph 2 -- The EA baseline should be the
    existing Emergency Order which is the existing condition. This needs
    to be corrected in this decision document.

15. Page 12, ICI Bullet, Bullet 2 -- It is wholly unclear what purpose
    the 72 hour visual inspection will serve. Later in this document,
    you clearly state that visual signs are not always obvious and are
    generally a poor way to detect VHSv. This rule will only greatly
    increase costs, slow down trade and provide no measureable
    improvements in VHSv protection. We request this provision be
    deleted from the interim rule.

16. Page 12, ICI Bullet, Bullet 6 -- It is unclear who approves the
    laboratories. Who does this task? We request this be clarified in
    the EA.

17. Page 12, Testing Bullet -- What statistical distribution is
    USDA-APHIS assuming to use to determine the sample size? If you are
    assuming this virus to be randomly distributed, this is highly
    unlikely as most diseases are clumped in their distribution. We have
    not seen randomly distributions of the virus in the wild have seen
    it clumped in specific areas in the Great Lakes. Thus, your
    statistical sample sizes are not appropriate as the assumed
    underlying distribution is not correct. We request that evidence be
    provided to verify the underlying statistical distribution which has
    huge implications on the proper sample size.

18. Page 12, Testing Sample Sizes -- The sample scheme proposed does not
    have any supporting evidence. It is highly likely that inspected
    facilities will have higher prevalences than those not inspected so
    the sampling scheme will not properly sample these facilities. Thus,
    the sampling scheme is inverse of what it should be based on likely
    prevalences of VHSv at inspected facilities. We request that either
    evidence be provided to support this sampling scheme or it be
    modified using appropriate statistical sampling methodologies.

19. Page 13, Virus Isolation Bullet -- What are the USDA-APHIS approved
    cell lines? These should be clearly stated and we request that they
    be so in the EA along the evidence supporting those lines.

20. Page 13, Facility Sampling Bullet -- This bullet implies that only
    farm sampling will be accepted but this is not clear from the
    language in the EA. Is lot sampling acceptable? This needs to be
    clarified in the EA.

21. Page 13, Sampling Periodicity Bullet -- This bullet provides a
    sampling periodicity and temperatures but no supporting evidence for
    the periodicity is provided anywhere in the EA. We request that
    supporting evidence for the sampling periodicity and temperatures be
    provided in the EA.

22. Page 13, Shipping Containers Bullet -- What are the approved
    cleaning and disinfection protocols? The EA is unclear on this point
    and we request it this information be provided in a revised EA.

23. Page 13, Live VHS regulated fish for immediate slaughter, Bullet 2
    -- This bullet indicates that waste water must be sent from
    slaughtering facilities to sewage treatment facilities,
    non-discharging settling ponds or settling ponds that disinfects
    according to applicable laws. It is assumed that this refers to
    disinfection for virus but this should be clarified in the EA. It is
    also unclear what requirements are being referred to and this should
    be clarified in a revised EA.

24. Page 14, Importation of VHS Regulated Fish, Live Non-Salmonid VHS
    Regulated Fish, Bullet 1 -- It is unclear what APHIS inspections
    entail at the border and this should be clarified in the revised EA.

25. Page 14, Importation of VHS Regulated Fish, Live Non-Salmonid VHS
    Regulated Fish, Bullet 2 -- It is unclear why there is a difference
    in the need for import permits depending how the shipment came into
    the country. This needs to be explained in a revised EA.

26. Page 15, Bullet 1 -- Same comment as Comment 15.

27. Page 15, Bullet 3 -- Same comment as Comment 17. The last sub-bullet
    indicates the proposed testing is only applicable for secure water
    sources. It is unclear to us why this would not apply to a negative
    compartment watershed that is tested for VHSv using a statistically
    valid schedule and procedure. The explanation should be provided in
    a revised EA along the supporting evidence.

28. Page 15, Bullet 4 -- What is the assumed statistical distribution
    and how was it selected? This should be discussed in a revised EA.

29. Page 15, Bullet 5 -- What are the appropriate and approved cell
    lines? These should be noted in the revised EA along with supporting
    evidence.

30. Page 15, Bullet 6 -- Comment 20 also applies here.

31. Page 16, Bullet 1 -- Comment 22 also applies here.

32. Page 16, Bullet 2 -- This bullet states that cleaning and
    disinfection of containers must monitored. What exactly does this
    monitoring mean and entail? What standards are to be used? This
    needs to be clarified in a revised EA.

33. Page 16, Live Non-Salmonid VHS-Regulated fish species for slaughter,
    Bullet 4 -- Comment 23 also applies here.

34. Page 16, Live Non-Salmonid VHS-Regulated fish species for slaughter,
    Bullet 6 -- This bullet states that containers must have been
    cleaned and disinfected using procedures sufficient to neutralize
    any VHS virus. What are the disinfection protocols to be used and
    where are they documented? This needs to be clarified in a revised
    EA.

35. Page 16, Live Non-Salmonid VHS-Regulated fish species for research
    or laboratory use, Bullet 1 -- What are the likely conditions for
    the APHIS import permit? These should be summarized in a revised EA
    as they may affect the interpretation of the requirement in this
    decision document.

36. Page 16, Live Non-Salmonid VHS-Regulated fish species for research
    or laboratory use, Bullet 2 -- Comment 23 is also applicable here.

37. Page 17, Live Non-Salmonid VHS-Regulated fish species for research
    or laboratory use, Bullet 1 -- Comment 23 is also applicable here.

38. Page 17, Transport of VHS Regulated Fish Species, Bullet 2 -- It is
    unclear who approves these holding facilities. It also unclear what
    is meant by "constructed in a manner to adequately protect against
    environmental conditions and to be adequately cleaned, washed and
    disinfected." The standards for such facilities should be clearly
    stated in a revised EA. It is also unclear what is meant by "Comply
    will all applicable local, State and Federal requirements." What
    laws are being referred to here? What is the appropriate manner for
    disposal that prevents the spread of the disease? What is meant by
    providing adequate sources of feed and water? What are the standards
    here and what is adequate? How makes this determination? All of
    these items need clarification in a revised EA decision document.

39. Page 17, No Action Alternative -- This moves the regulations to the
    state level who are the appropriate responsible party for disease
    control within their jurisdictions with some responsible for USFWS
    and NMFS. This would include importation of VHSv regulated fish. No
    evidence is provided on why this is not appropriate.

40. Page 18, Paragraph 1 -- This paragraph states there are special
    interests groups that have no regulatory authority for controlling
    the spread of animal disease maybe somehow responsible for VHSv
    control measures. It is unclear what groups are being referred to
    here and these should be stated in a revised EA. This paragraph also
    states that the No Action Alternative with potentially a range of
    regulations would be too cumbersome for aquaculture producers and
    others who move fish interstate or internationally but no evidence
    is provided on how this may still prevent the disease from being
    spread or how this is too cumbersome. The key is that state
    regulation is a workable structure to prevent the spread of VHSv and
    no evidence is provided to state this could not work. This needs to
    completely examined in a revised EA.

41. Page 18, Other VHSv Genotypes -- Since VHSv Type IVb was also
    unknown to infect freshwaters until recently why would USDA-APHIS
    also not consider the possibility that VHSv Type IV a could also not
    mutate into a virulent freshwater strain? It is wholly unclear to us
    why both strains should not be regulated in this rule and evidence
    must be provided to support this decision. Simply stating the
    broader regulation will not be examined as an alternative in the EA
    is not acceptable without justification and supporting evidence. We
    request this alternative be examined in a revised EA.

42. Page 19, Public Health Effects, Paragraph 1 -- As stated above, the
    USGS did not test all potential temperatures so the actual optimal
    growth temperatures are not known at this time. This paragraph also
    states that the virus does not survive human body temperatures so it
    really precludes all warm blood animals as being potentially
    affected by this disease agent. Both of these statements should be
    clarified in a revised EA.

43. Page 19, Public Health Effects, Paragraph 2 -- We do not see how
    this paragraph addresses VHSv as a public health effect and are
    unclear on its relationship with VHSv. We request that this
    paragraph either be clarified or deleted from a revised EA.

44. Page 19, Public Health Effects, Paragraph 3 -- This paragraph does
    not fully state why fish are stocked in waters. The key reasons are
    to: reestablish extirpated species; rehabilitate species with
    depressed populations; address ecosystem balance; and to develop new
    sportsfisheries. This needs to be corrected in a revised EA.

45. Public Health Effects -- The EA does not provide any compelling
    evidence to indicate that any of the options would adverse affected
    human health and this should be clearly noted in a revised EA.

46. Page 20, Federal Order Provisions Option -- Since this section
    addresses public health effects and the paragraph implies human
    health effects; it is unclear what the human health affects are with
    this option. We request that substantial evidence be provided to
    support this claim in the revised EA.

47. Page 20, Expanded Federal Rule Option -- This paragraph states that
    no direct human health affects would occur with the expanded federal
    rule but humans could benefit from regulatory actions that would
    prevent the spread of VHS to aquaculture facilities. The logic of
    this statement is unclear and unsubstantiated by evidence,
    particularly in the face of the wide availability of alternative
    aquaculture sources and products. We request that this statement
    either be clarified, corrected or deleted from the revised EA.

48. Page 20, No Action Option, Paragraph 1 -- The initial statement
    implies there are human health implications to the No Action Option
    but no substantial evidence is provided to confirm this speculation
    and we do not see what the real human health issues are with this
    option. It also indicates this option will lead to reductions in
    healthy farmed fish but no evidence is provided to support this
    speculative statement. The final statement indicates that this
    option will lead to additional VHSv affected water sources and fish
    populations without any supporting evidence. Why have you not
    include an analysis of all of the regulations currently in affect or
    an analysis of the Great Lakes Fish Health Committee Actions? It is
    also unclear in the face of many alternatives, how this option will
    directly affect human health. We request that all of the speculative
    statements either be supported by evidence or removed in the revised
    EA.

49. Page 20, No Action Option, Paragraph 2 -- This paragraph indicates a
    potential problem in the availability of fish from aquaculture
    facilities but this is highly unlikely given the number of
    alternative sources available. This paragraph needs to be
    substantiated by evidence or deleted in a revised EA.

50. Page 21, No Action Option, Paragraph 1 -- This paragraph is simply
    speculation without any supporting facts. This virus does not affect
    all species equally so stocking options will be available and there
    are alternative supplies of fish available for both stocking and
    foods so the statements are not supported by any analysis or facts.
    We request this paragraph either be substantiated with data or
    deleted in a revised EA.

51. Page 21, Ecological Spread -- The spread of VHSv from infected
    aquaculture facilities to wild fish could be supported by the peer
    reviewed literature concerning the Danish experience with VHSv in
    the 1990s. This should be done in a revised EA. Throughout the
    document, you use the word mitigate and you really mean slow or
    contain. This should be corrected in a revised EA. It is unclear how
    the Interim Regulation option would not adversely affect the
    viability, health, and biodiversity of freshwater ecosystems that
    are habitats for VHS-regulated species. This needs to be supported
    by substantial evidence in the revised EA.

52. Page 22, Ecological Spread, Paragraph 1 -- This paragraph discusses
    criteria for waste water discharge but it is not specified in the
    document. Additionally, the sanitary requirements considered
    effective in limiting VHSv spread are not discussed or specified in
    the document. Finally, it is unclear what will be done by USDA-APHIS
    with positive facilities. We request that all of these items need to
    be addressed by a revised EA.

53. Page 22, Expended Scope Regulation Option, Ecological Spread,
    Paragraph 2 -- The discussion on cleaning and disinfection provides
    no standards or accepted methods and these needs to be addressed in
    a revised EA.

54. Page 23, Anthropogenic Spread, Paragraph 2 -- We agree with your
    statements that the lack of external clinical signs does not mean
    fish are not infected nor is it effective preventing the spread of
    the disease (citing Skall et al. 2005) so why is the requirement for
    visual inspection for clinical VHSv signs in the regulations.
    Exactly how will this mean a real difference to preventing VHSv from
    spreading? This requirement needs to have substantial evidence to
    support it in the revised EA or it should be deleted.

55. Page 24, Bullet 1 -- This bullet refers to local, state and federal
    laws but does not cite what laws it is referring to and this needs
    to be corrected in the revised EA.

56. Page 24, Paragraph 1 -- This paragraph refers to local, state and
    federal protocols for cleaning, disinfection and disposal but what
    are these. These protocols need to be specified in the revised EA.

57. Page 24, No Action Alterative, Ecological Spread -- We strongly
    disagree with your implication that the federal action here is the
    only way to prevent the spread of the disease. The No Action Option
    simply moves the responsibility to the states or region which have
    their own regulatory ability. These regulations are generally
    already in place in the affected region or will be once the virus is
    detected in the waters of state and are more protective of the
    aquatic resource than the other proposed actions. This paragraph
    also states that ecosystem level affects will occur but this is not
    clear at this time based upon what we know currently. This statement
    on ecosystem affects needs to be substantiated by evidence or
    removed. The document goes on to state sessile species maybe
    affected but it is unclear what species are considered to be sessile
    by USDA-APHIS and currently population effects have not been
    documented. Both of these statements need clarification and
    substantial evidence in the revised EA. Finally, this paragraph
    indicates an "imbalance" will occur in ecosystems because of VHSv
    effects but there is no evidence to suggest this at this time even
    in waters were large fish kills have seen to date. This statement
    needs substantial evidence in the revised EA or should be removed.

58. Page 25, Anthropogenic Spread -- This paragraph does not state that
    fish movement swill be and have been regulated by the states. We
    request this be corrected in the revised EA. Given the current state
    and regional policy and regulatory structures in place, it is also
    unclear what the increased risk of VHS spread would be as no
    substantial evidence is provided to support the USDA-APHIS position
    in this section and this is not examined in the EA. We request that
    a full analysis of the state and regional structures be conducted in
    the revised EA and a full analysis of risk of these rules be done or
    the statement should be removed.

59. Page 25, Water Quality -- In general, there is no substantial
    evidence presented in this entire section that would indicate there
    are any water quality effects from any of the alternatives examined.
    The entire discussion is unsupported speculation. We recommend that
    all of the speculation be deleted from the revised EA or supported
    by evidence.

60. Page 25, Water Quality, Paragraph 2 -- The last sentence is not
    supported by evidence and is speculation based on no supporting
    evidence. The implication that this sentence that VHSv Type IV b has
    a wider temperature warmer temperature range is not known as not all
    temperatures have been tested.

61. Page 26, Paragraph 1 -- It should be noted that the Great Lakes Fish
    Health Committee has developed a disinfection protocol that is
    proceeding through the Great Lakes Fishery Commission process for
    approval and adoption. This paragraph also notes that more
    information is needed about the acquisition and sources of eggs for
    farmed fish and the routine procedures for disinfection. Why was
    this data not collected for this EA? When will it be collected to
    support the decisions in this document? Why is it appropriate to
    wait for a follow up regulation? These needs to be immediately
    address and the information provided in a revised EA.

62. Page 26, Paragraph 2 -- This paragraph discusses aspects of ballast
    water but fails to discuss what the real risk is from this vector
    and dismisses the USDA-APHIS role. It is very clear from the Animal
    Health Protection Act that USDA-APHIS has direct authority over
    conveyances and tanks of water are clear conveyances, thus it must
    be addressed and covered by USDA-APHIS. Other agencies may be
    authorities but they do not have authority over the importation of
    pathogens in aquatic organisms. This must be fully addressed in a
    revised EA and not side stepped. There is also no discussion or
    analysis about the likely origin of VHS Type IV b, the locations of
    ballast water uptake in the Maritime Region of Canada, and about the
    amount of ballast water entering Great Lakes and other U.S. waters
    nor any information provided about the different ways ballast water
    is brought on board ships which could easily move live fish hosts.
    There is peer review literature on the survival of VHSv that should
    be included in this paragraph to inform decision makers. Why was
    this information not provided in this EA? We request it be included
    in a revised EA. Overall, this paragraph is patently deficient and
    must be properly analyzed in the revised EA.

63. Page 26, Paragraph 3 -- This paragraph implies that fish kills will
    cause a decrease in dissolved oxygen concentrations without any
    supporting information about VHSv kills. To date, the resource
    agencies have mostly single species mortalities of any size and some
    of these were large, such as the freshwater drum mortality in
    Western Lake Erie in 2006. If this kill caused a dissolved oxygen
    mortality event, multiple species would have been killed not just
    one species with clear VHSv clinical signs. It may be possible to
    have dissolved oxygen mortality from a VHSv caused fish kill event
    but it is a very unlikely event that would likely be very localized.
    We request that the statements on VHSv fish kills causing dissolved
    oxygen mortalities should either be substantiated with evidence,
    corrected to show it is a low risk issue or deleted in a revised EA.

64. Page 27, Interim Regulation -- Water Quality Effects, Paragraph 1 --
    This paragraph is without any substantial evidence and is a very
    weak logical argument. This paragraph should either have the
    speculation removed or supported by evidence in a revised EA.

65. Page 27, Interstate Movements, Paragraph 2 -- The information on
    baitfish is very generalized and is not based on the best possible
    information. For example, this document cites Goodwin et al. 2004 on
    farm raised baitfish use but the authors never asked the resource
    agencies in affected areas about the real use of baitfish in their
    jurisdictions. MI DNR analysis of the baitfish industry indicates
    that up to 70% of the bait is imported but seasonally this drops to
    10-20%.

66. Page 28, Paragraph 1 -- This paragraph states that information about
    biosecurity measures at state, nonprofit and private hatcheries is
    missing. Why was this data not requested? This flaw must be
    addressed to properly analyze each alternative in the EA and must be
    included in a revised EA.

67. Page 28, Paragraph 2 -- It is unclear to us why fin fish raised in
    open water supplies from negative compartments that are frequently
    tested are not of a very low risk. This option should be examined in
    the revised EA.

68. Page 28, Transport Water - While disinfection of fish hauling trucks
    is a generally good biosecurity measure for fish culture operations,
    the discharge of such waters is a relatively low risk. The volume of
    transport water in most fish hauling vehicles will have insufficient
    titers of VHSv once mixed with receiving waters to cause disease
    transmission even if susceptible species are in proximity to the
    discharge. We request that substantial evidence be provided to
    support the position stated in the EA and this corrected in the
    revised EA.

69. Page 29, Waste Water Discharges, Paragraph 1 -- As stated above, the
    applicable EPA and state criteria are unclear and a summary of the
    specific regulations in mind should be included in the revised EA.
    Given the very limited amount of water used in processing plants and
    the dilution of virus titers by processing waters, this is likely to
    be a low risk factor. We request that substantial evidence be
    provided to support the speculation in this paragraph in the revised
    EA.

70. Page 29, Waste Water Discharges, Paragraph 1 -- The last statement
    indicates that UV is not likely to be effective because of the
    interference of suspended organics but supporting evidence was not
    provided. There is no information on the likely amount of suspended
    organics in discharge water in waste water discharges from the
    discussed facilities nor was any information provided from
    experiments using new UV equipment on how well the equipment may
    work on viruses. This speculation needs to be fully supported by
    evidence or deleted in the revised EA.

71. Page 29, Interstate Movement of VHS Regulated Species by Catch and
    Release Fishing -- A similar issue not addressed in this section is
    the use of live VHS regulated baitfish in border waters which is
    essentially the same issue as catch and release fishing. If the fish
    could get to a waterbody naturally from the point of capture or
    baitfish use, then it should be permitted to release a fish or use
    baitfish in that waterbody. It appears that the use of VHS regulated
    baitfish on border waters will be prohibited or restricted by the
    language noted in this paragraph, even if the fish can simply swim
    across the imaginary boundary line. This needs to be corrected in
    the EA as it will unduly impair recreational fisheries with no net
    improve in controlling VHSv spread.

72. Page 30, Paragraph 1 -- If properly regulated and enforced, state
    regulations can reduce the risk of spreading VHSv to new waters.
    This should include the use of inspected lots of baitfish and
    restrictions on the locations that uncertified baitfish can be used.
    No analysis of the current state baitfish regulations was conducted
    to appropriately determine the true risk from baitfish and this
    deficiency must be addressed in a revised EA. It is also unclear on
    what is really meant by releasing a fish to the same water from
    which it was caught. Does this mean that all connected waters to
    which fish could swim from that point are acceptable? If not, the
    Interim Rule is building an unenforceable regulation that does not
    have any supporting evidence for it reducing the risk of spreading
    VHSv.

73. Page 30, Natural Movement Fish -- Natural fish movement is clearly a
    medium to high risk way to move the virus when all of the conditions
    are met but is highly dependent on a number of other factors for its
    real effectiveness as a transmission factor including the density of
    the fish, behavioral factors such as grouped spawning, and forage.
    No information on the natural movements of fish in the affected
    region are provided in this section and this information is
    available for many species in the area from the resource agencies
    but was not requested. Likely species with appropriate behaviors to
    readily transmit this virus is also not provided in the EA. This
    information is required to do a proper analysis of this factor. This
    information is omitted from the EA and a full analysis should be
    done in the revised EA.

74. Page 30, Natural Fish Movement -- The EA in this paragraph does not
    address the movement of wild broodstock by natural resource agencies
    (IN DNR in this case) for fisheries management purposes from one
    part of a river system over a border to another part of a river
    system (St. Joseph River) even though these fish could swim there on
    their own. The risk of this action is very low as the fish are going
    to a location they could reach anyway (a state fish hatchery) and
    will moved under less stressful conditions (trucking the fish from a
    lower fishway). There is no evidence to indicate that this action
    will in anyway affect the rate of transmission of VHSv. We request
    that this action be specifically addressed in the revised EA as the
    case is already known and on record with USDA-APHIS. It will likely
    come up in other jurisdictions.

75. Page 30, Fomites -- The EA indicates that fomites are a potential
    risk factor but does not provide any specifics on the likely risk
    posed by these actions. It is our opinion that the risk is likely
    very low because of the small amount of VHSv that can be moved by
    these vectors that must be transported live to a receiving water
    then placed after dilution in sufficient titers to cause infection.
    The EA cites Whelan (2007) and that document just mentions it as a
    possibility but never indicated this is a high risk but is a risk
    that can be managed by proper user actions. We request that the
    revised EA do a proper risk assessment analysis on fomites and
    correct the EA text as appropriate.

76. Page 31, Expanded Rule, Interstate Transport, Paragraph 1 -- This
    paragraph omits a key vector in the beginning of the discussion
    which is transmission through exposure to infected gametes or sexual
    fluids. This needs to be corrected in the revised EA. The paragraph
    states there is a significant risk from the movement of baitfish
    from a regulated VHSv area to an unregulated one but does not
    discuss or mention the regulatory steps taken by the states to deal
    with VHSv risks with baitfish use. This is essential for the proper
    analysis of the facts in this paragraph and we request it be
    specifically included in a revised EA. We also request that
    USDA-APHIS obtain more accurate and recent information on the
    baitfish trade from the fisheries agencies in the VHSv affected area
    and this information be used in this discussion in the revised EA.
    The EA in this paragraph also omits the fact that state and tribal
    hatcheries in the Great Lakes all follow the Great Lakes Model Fish
    Health Program as do the federal hatcheries and omits any mention of
    this Program. This Program has pathogen testing, and movement and
    introduction protocols that are followed by all of the Great Lakes
    Fishery Commission -- Great Lakes Fish Health Committee member
    agencies and this program should be included in the revised EA as
    part of the analysis in this section on the risks of VHSv
    transmission posed by public hatcheries. Similarly, there is no
    mention of the regulations put into place by the Departments of
    Agriculture in the states in the affected VHSv areas which need to
    be included in the revised EA. The final sentence in this paragraph
    is unclear on its intent and does not have any supporting evidence
    to support its conclusion. This needs to be clarified in the revised
    EA.

77. Page 32, Expanded Rule, Interstate Transport, Paragraph 2 -- A full
    analysis of the risks from transport water need to be included in
    the revised EA as discussed above. While we agree this is generally
    a good practice to be careful with transport water, there is no new
    information presented here that changes how this could any more than
    a low risk from the discharge of transport water. Our previous
    comments on the unsubstantiated claims about fish kills from VHSv on
    water quality also apply to this paragraph. We also do not see what
    the implications of the proposed actions are on water quality and no
    evidence is presented to support the claims made in this paragraph.

78. Page 32, Expanded Rule, Transport Water - While we agree this is
    generally a good practice to be careful with transport water, there
    is no new information presented here that changes how this could any
    more than a low risk from the discharge of transport water.
    Substantial evidence is needed to support the claims in this
    paragraph and a full analysis should be done of this factor in the
    revised EA. Another related item that needs to be included in this
    paragraph are the estimated costs for this action and this should be
    discussed in light of the likely protection provided by the action
    in the revised EA. Again, what regulations are being referred to in
    the last sentence of this paragraph? This should be clarified in the
    revised EA.

79. Page 32, Expanded Rule, Wastewater Discharge -- Comment 69 also
    applies to this paragraph.

80. Page 33, Expanded Rule, Wastewater Discharge, Paragraph 1 -- Again,
    what EPA and state regulatory criteria are being referred to here?
    This needs to be clarified in the revised EA. Comment 70 also
    applies to this paragraph.

81. Page 33, Expanded Rule, Catch and Release Fishing -- Comments 71 and
    72 also apply to this section. No evidence is provided to make any
    case that the regulations on Catch and Release Fishing will have any
    implications on water quality nor do we expect any affects.

82. Page 34, Natural Movements of Fish -- Comments 73 and 74 also apply
    to this section.

83. Page 34, Fomites -- Comment 75 also applies to this section.

84. Page 35, Fomites, Paragraph 1 -- The EA provides a lot of
    speculation on shipping containers as a risk but no information on
    ballast water tanks which have many orders of magnitude great
    amounts of water. It is imperative that the USDA-APHIS use their
    clear regulatory authority on conveyances to ensure this high risk
    but low probability factor is properly managed. This must be
    included in the revised EA.

85. Page 35, Fomites, Paragraph 2 -- The last sentence of this paragraph
    states that a disinfectant is registered for use, which we assume
    refers to the US EPA, against some types of rhabdovirus, APHIS is
    not aware of registered disinfectants for VHSv Type IVb. The
    implications of this sentence are unclear and we request this
    sentence be clarified with respect to its meaning in the revised EA.

86. Page 35, No Action Alternative, Paragraph 1 -- This paragraph does
    not mention the Great Lakes Fishery Commission -- Great Lakes Fish
    Health Committee Great Lakes Model Fish Health Program (and similar
    programs in other parts of the country) which is why the USFWS
    hatcheries in the Great Lakes region have been testing for pathogens
    for decades, the coordinated actions by agencies following the Great
    Lakes Model Fish Health Program and the existing actions by state
    regulations. We request that this information on the implications of
    these state actions on VHSv control be fully discussed in the
    revised EA. The discounting of state actions in this document is
    wholly without supporting substantial evidence and is offensive to
    our agency and the state agencies are capable of effective
    cooperative action to control the spread of this pathogen.

87. Page 35, No Action Alternative, Paragraph 2 -- Comment 85 also
    applies to this paragraph. The lack of understanding of how
    fisheries agencies interact in the affected VHSv area is clear in
    this document and this must be corrected in the revised EA. It is
    also clear that USDA-APHIS staff do not understand that state
    fisheries agencies have a public trust responsibility to protect the
    fish and wildlife of their state as a trustee of this public
    property. Failure to act to protect this common property opens up a
    state fisheries agency to legal action by its citizens. The
    implications of this responsibility for state agencies must be
    discussed in the revised EA in this section as we must act to ensure
    the resource is not degraded by this pathogen.

88. Page 36, Paragraph 2 -- The EA in this paragraph implies that the
    states are incapable of regional actions but completely ignores
    current regional management structures such as the Great Lakes
    Fishery Commission that provide coordinated action. The EA is
    incorrect in this paragraph as stated above and this must be
    corrected in the revised EA. The assumption that without federal
    action there will be no coordinated action and this will lead to
    additional fish kills is wholly without supporting evidence and
    ignores current regional management structures. Again, the
    speculation that fish kills will lead to water quality problems is
    without substantial evidence and incorrect in nearly all cases.
    These statements need to be corrected, provided with substantial
    evidence, or deleted in the revised EA.

89. Page 36, Paragraph 2 -- The first sentence is generally not true in
    the affected VHSv area and without any substantial evidence. We
    request it be correct or substantiated in the revised EA. It is also
    unclear what this paragraph has to do with water quality. The
    paragraph also indicates that freezing is a reasonable disposal
    method. Given the ability of this virus to live for long periods at
    commercial freezer temperatures, it is unclear how this is an
    acceptable method of disposal. We request this be corrected in the
    revised EA.

90. Page 36, Paragraph 3 -- It is unclear what the point of this
    paragraph is in the analysis. Are you saying these treatments are
    not effective? The EA also does not list chlorine as a treatment
    option. Why is this the case? These items need to be clarified in
    the revised EA.

91. Page 37, Paragraph 1 -- Thermal treatment of waste streams is
    prohibitly expensive given the current costs of energy and this
    should clearly noted in the revised EA.

92. Page 37, Soil Quality - In general, there is no substantial evidence
    presented in this entire section that would indicate there are any
    soil quality effects from any of the alternatives examined. The
    entire discussion is unsupported speculation. We recommend that all
    of the speculation be deleted from the revised EA or supported by
    evidence.

93. Page 37, Soil Quality, Paragraph 1 -- This entire paragraph is
    strictly speculation without any supporting evidence. It should
    either be supported by evidence or deleted from the revised EA.

94. Page 37, Soil Quality, Paragraph 2 -- The middle of the paragraph
    does the use of high temperatures in fish food production and we do
    not see the relevance to this section. Similarly for the last
    sentence, VHSv has no known effects on soil quality so what is the
    relevance to this document. We request these items be clarified in
    or deleted in the revised EA.

95. Page 38, Paragraph 2 -- We are unclear on what the relevance of this
    paragraph is to soil quality. We request this paragraph be clarified
    in the revised EA.

96. Page 38, Paragraph 3 -- We are unclear on what exactly the point of
    this paragraph is with respect to the effects of VHSv on soil
    quality. Is the point to support rendering as a preferred option for
    disposal? We request this paragraph be clarified in the revised EA.

97. Page 39, Paragraph 1 -- We are unclear on what the relevance of this
    paragraph is to soil quality. We request this paragraph be clarified
    in the revised EA.

98. Page 39, Paragraph 2 -- Would the functioning of soils ever be
    affected by VHSv? If not, then this paragraph is not relevant to
    this section of the EA. We request this paragraph be clarified in
    the revised EA.

99. Page 39, Paragraph 3 -- While you make a case for rendering, what
    does this have to do with soil quality and the functioning of soil
    ecosystems? We request this paragraph be clarified in the revised
    EA.

100. Page 39, No Action Alternative -- The responsibilities for ensuring
     soil quality falls to the states in this case. So what is the point
     of this discussion and what are the affects of this option on soil
     quality? We request this paragraph be clarified in the revised EA.

101. Page 40, Paragraph 1 -- Without federal action, the EA indicates
     that the states actions would not protect soil quality and water
     quality but all of the states have specific water quality standards
     and anti-degradation standards to meet so it is unclear what the
     point is here. All disposal actions would have to meet these and
     solid waste regulations. An analysis of current applicable state
     regulations should be done in the revised EA to remove all of this
     speculation and replace it with facts.

102. Page 40, Paragraph 2 -- This paragraph seems completely out of
     place here and should be merged with the rest of the disposal
     options section which still baffle us on what they have to do with
     the effects of VHSv on soil ecosystems.

103. Page 40, Paragraph 3 - We are unclear on what the relevance of this
     paragraph is to soil quality. We request this paragraph be
     clarified in or deleted from the revised EA.

104. Page 40, Paragraph 4 -- We are unclear on what the purpose of this
     paragraph is with respect to soil quality. Is this supposed to be
     the seeds of a new regulation on disposal? We request this
     paragraph be clarified in or deleted from the revised EA.

105. Page 40, Air Quality - In general, there is no substantial evidence
     presented in this entire section that would indicate there are any
     air quality effects from any of the alternatives examined. The
     entire discussion is unsupported speculation. We recommend that all
     of the speculation be deleted from the revised EA or supported by
     evidence.

106. Page 41, No Action Alternative -- The EA indicates that there are
     significant air quality issues with fish disposal but does not
     provide any analysis of the relevant solid waste and public health
     laws that all states have to deal with this issue. We recommend a
     full analysis of the relevant state laws and regulations be
     conducted for the revised EA to provide factual evidence for this
     statement or delete it. The incineration and carcass burning
     conclusions are complete speculation and again ignore the state
     solid waste, air quality and public health laws on this issue. It
     should be substantiated with evidence or deleted from the revised
     EA.

107. Page 41, Cumulative Effects -- It appears to us that much of the
     cumulative effect analysis is missing from this document as it does
     not discuss the implications of each alternative on multiple
     aquaculture facilities in individual watersheds or on the Great
     Lakes as a whole. We request that this analysis be included in the
     revised EA.

108. Page 42, NOAA -- The EA fails to state that NOAA issues health
     certificates for exports to Australia because Australian code
     requires it. This should be clearly noted in the revised EA.

109. Page 43, U.S. State Agencies -- The EA fails to note any of the
     efforts of the state agencies in the Great Lakes and does not note
     the existence of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission or their
     coordination bodies. This body coordinates the efforts of state,
     federal, tribal and provincial fisheries agencies on the Great
     Lakes and is completely omitted from the document. It also fails to
     discuss any of the other regional management efforts that the
     states are involved in either coast of the U.S. This is a serious
     deficiency that has colored the analysis of this entire document
     and the EA is wholly unacceptable without a full analysis in this
     area. We request this be completed for the revised EA.

110. Page 44, Canada, Paragraph 1 -- We are unclear what the point of
     the general discussion of the NAAHP is with regards to VHSv. We
     request this discussion be clarified in or deleted from the revised
     EA.

111. Page 44, Conclusion -- The initial conclusion in this section
     states that negative effects will occur without federal action but
     no substantial evidence has been provided to indicate that the
     states have not and are not capable of handling this pathogen. It
     goes on to state that no cumulative impacts would occur from the
     proposed action without conducting an actual cumulative impacts
     analysis or providing any substantial evidence. The EA goes on to
     say that human health would be improved without any substantial
     evidence being provided to support the speculation in the document.
     It also indicates that effects on soil and air quality would be
     avoided but there are no clear effects from VHSv on either of these
     resources and no substantial evidence was provided in the document
     to support this claim. What is the evidence that clearly shows the
     regulatory efforts contribute to a positive cumulative effect on
     the human environment? This entire conclusion is without
     substantive evidenced and complete speculation. We request that the
     revised EA provide logical rational for the conclusions based on
     substantial evidence.

112. Page 45, Executive Order 13175 -- The EA states that GLIFWC member
     tribes were consulted but what about all of the other tribes in the
     Great Lakes area that are not represented by GLIFWC. This is a
     serious omission that must be corrected in the revised EA. The
     final sentence of this section completely overlooks the actions
     that states have already taken to deal with VHSv. This must be
     clearly discussed in the revised EA.

113. Page 46, Endangered Species Act -- What are the implications of the
     proposed action and the alternatives on obtaining gametes for
     fisheries restoration efforts? This should be clearly stated and
     included in the revised EA. This is the first mention of any
     consideration of mussel or amphibian effects and VHSv effects on
     these groups should be addressed in the revised EA. It is also
     possible that aquatic invertebrates can be infected as Dr. Mohamed
     Faisal (Michigan State University) has recently detected this
     pathogen in Diporea. This is a serious oversight that must be
     corrected in the revised EA.

114. Page 46, Uncertainties, Virus Nature and Distribution -- The EA
     states that the rhabdoviruses are known to mutate rapidly to adapt
     to new hosts and environments but no citations are provided to
     support this statement. It is unclear to us why the EA states the
     virus will become well-established in aquaculture and no literature
     is cited to support this statement. We request that citations be
     provided to support these statements in the revised EA.

115. Page 47, Paragraph 1 -- The EA states that more information is
     needed on the aquaculture industry to better understand the risks
     of VHSv but does not state how the information will be used to
     improve the assessment nor does it state why the data has not been
     collected for this EA. It is also unclear on who will pay to obtain
     these data.

116. Page 48, Paragraph 1 -- It is unclear whom is going to pay for all
     of the additional requirements being considered by USDA-APDIS in
     their ruling. This should be clearly stated in the revised EA. The
     EA states that bioterrorism is a possibility which is a real long
     stretch with respect to the likely vectors of VHSv spread. This
     should be deleted in the revised EA or substantiated with evidence.

117. Page 48, Paragraph 2 -- Since it is highly likely that VHSv Type
     IVb originated in the Maritime Region of Canada, there are very few
     likely vectors to move this virus into the Great Lakes. There are
     very few recreational or fishing boats moving from the Maritime
     Region of Canada to the Great Lakes, no baitfish movement, very few
     fish passing the Messina Hydropower Project at the entrance to the
     Great Lakes, and little or no aquaculture trade moving in that
     right direction. Birds are not a long distance vector because of
     their body temperatures and the migration routes (Atlantic flyway)
     run north-south not east-west. It really only leaves ballast water
     as a possible vector even though the probability of an individual
     event is low, the amount of water carried makes it a high risk.
     There are many lake carriers and ocean carriers that transit
     through the infected area. We would like to know the USDA-APHIS
     evidence that ballast water is not a likely factor and this should
     be provided in the revised EA. As we stated before, USDA-APHIS has
     clear authorities to regulate conveyances in the Animal Health
     Protection Act and must use them to ensure that ballast water is
     not a vector for VHSv.

118. Page 48, Agencies Contacted -- This list seems incomplete given the
     discussion on other agencies authorities and should include at
     least the NOAA-NMFS and USFWS. USDA-APHIS should have used a
     process that included the states to develop this EA and should do
     so in the revised EA.

119. Page 55, Paragraph 2 -- Redhorse suckers are a large group so which
     ones are specifically being discussed here? We are not aware of
     what a bluntnose sucker is and this should be corrected in the
     revised EA.

120. Page 55, Paragraph 3 -- The first sentence should note that the
     virus can not survive at avian body temperatures thus are not a
     major vector for virus dispersal in this case. We request this be
     corrected in the revised EA.

121. Page 55, Paragraph 4 -- This paragraph should clearly state that
     there have not been any population effects from VHSv mortalities
     detected to date and the effect of this virus on fish population
     structures is unknown at this time. We request this be corrected in
     the revised EA.

122. Page 56, Fish Families -- A table listing all of the scientific
     names for the common names in this text should be included in the
     revised EA. The EA does not discuss the economic importance of
     sport fisheries in general and these data are readily available in
     the 2006 USFWS National Survey on Fishing and Hunting. Additional
     economic data are available from the American Sportfishing
     Association and from many state agencies. Economic data is also
     available for each fish taxa or group which would really improve
     the perspective of this document. These data must be included in
     the revised EA as the value of sportsfishing far outweighs that of
     all of the aquaculture value by approximately 100X on an annual
     basis. There is also a lot of new information on the susceptibility
     of various species to VHSv and this information should be included
     in the revised EA.

123. Page 56, Lotidae, Paragraph 2 -- Sea lamprey were just one of many
     system stressors that collapsed predator populations in the Great
     Lakes. The paragraph should not that alewives also played a key
     role by preying on young-of-year recruits of all species and large
     scale habitat degradation was also a key factor. The paragraph
     should note that this is not a species of commercial importance and
     there is very small recreational fishery that targets this species.
     These changes should be incorporated into the revised EA.

124. Page 56, Lotidae, Paragraph 3 -- The effects of prey community
     changes from VHSv mortality (if there any population effects) on
     burbot populations are not known and will depend on the
     availability of suitable alternative prey items. This comment is
     true through this section and should be corrected in the revised
     EA.

125. Page 56, Lotidae, Paragraph 4 -- Alewives are also an important
     predator on larval and young-of-year fish until they outgrow
     alewife mouth size. The amount of commercial and sport fishing in
     most of the U.S. is very low and catch data is available on the
     Great Lakes for this species. These statements should be corrected
     in the revised EA.

126. Page 57, Sunfish, Paragraph 2 -- Smallmouth bass should also be
     noted as a key tournament species in this paragraph.

127. Page 57, Sunfish, Paragraph 3 -- Large and smallmouth bass are the
     key predators of sunfish and this should be included in the revised
     EA. The only time sunfish populations will be affected is if losses
     are severe and even then this may only be reflected in size
     structure and growth changes.

128. Page 57, Clupeidae, Paragraph 2 -- Many predators will use gizzard
     shad as prey when of the appropriate size for the predators.
     Omitted key predators include walleye and large and smallmouth
     bass. These items should be corrected in the revised EA.

129. Page 58, Paragraph 2 -- The value of the baitfish industry should
     be noted in this paragraph. Emerald shiners are not a hardy fish
     and do not make good aquarium fish. Other cyprinids are good
     aquarium but not emerald shiners. These items should be corrected
     in the revised EA.

130. Page 58, Paragraph 3 - The effects of cyprinid community changes
     from VHSv mortality (if there any population effects) on predator
     populations are not known and will depend on the availability of
     suitable alternative prey items. This comment should be corrected
     in the revised EA.

131. Page 58, Ictaluridae, Paragraph 1 -- What is a miniature madtom? We
     are unaware of what species is being referred to here. The
     Ictaluridae family has a wide range of temperature preferences
     depending on the species. We request that these items need to be
     corrected in the revised EA.

132. Page 58, Ictaluridae, Paragraph 2 -- This paragraph should note
     that there is a large live fish trade in catfish from commercial
     fishers, particularly in the Great Lakes, to private fee-fishing
     lakes throughout the U.S. The value of the farmed catfish industry
     should also be included here. We request that these items be added
     to the revised EA.

133. Page 58, Ictaluridae, Paragraph 3 -- Chestnut lampreys are
     parasites of channel catfish but not predators. This paragraph
     should note that brown bullheads are not preferred food items for
     most predators because of the high handling time from their spines.
     The only exceptions to this are only large catfish which will
     target smaller members of the catfish family. We request these
     items be corrected in the revised EA.

134. Page 59, Paragraph 2 -- The intent of Comment 124 applies here.

135. Page 59, Salmonidae, Paragraph 2 -- This paragraph should also note
     the importance of salmon to marine mammals as prey and the key role
     they play in recycling nutrients in some systems, particularly the
     Pacific Northwest. Sea lampreys are parasites of salmonids, not
     predators. We request these items be corrected in the revised EA.

136. Page 59, Salmonidae, Paragraph 3 -- Small brown trout are prey for
     any larger piscivorous fish and many are eaten by fish eating birds
     and mammal. Fisherman are not the only predator of this species.
     Predation on brown trout in the Great Lakes is also unknown. . We
     request these items be corrected in the revised EA.

137. Page 59, Salmonidae, Paragraph 4 -- One of the chief reasons to
     stock salmonids is to develop self-sustaining populations or
     put-grow and take fisheries. Put and take fisheries are declining
     because of their high maintenance cost and low returns. We request
     these items be corrected in the revised EA.

138. Page 60, Salmonidae, Paragraph 1 -- What are the anticipated
     effects on salmonids? This is missing in this EA and should be
     corrected in the revised EA.

139. Page 60, Sciaenidae, Paragraph 2 -- Mollusks are the key food item
     for freshwater drum and this should be clearly noted in the revised
     EA.

140. Page 60, Sciaenidae, Paragraph 3 -- Freshwater mussels use
     freshwater drum as key hosts and this should be clarified in the
     revised EA.

141. Page 60, Sciaenidae, Paragraph 5 -- The economic value of this
     catch should be provided in the revised EA.

142. Page 61, Esocidae, Paragraph 2 -- The intent of Comment 124 applies
     here also.

143. Page 61, Esocidae, Paragraph 3 -- Small pike and muskies are eaten
     by a broad range of larger predators and this should be corrected
     in the revised EA.

144. Page 61, Catostomidae, Paragraph 1 -- Hogsuckers are not one of the
     larger members of this family. Many of the redhorse group and
     longnose suckers are larger and should be included in the list. We
     request this be corrected in the revised EA.

145. Page 62, Catostomidae, Paragraph 1 -- Small suckers are utilized by
     a broad range of predators and are particularly important to
     esocids as prey. The intent of Comment 130 also applies here.

146. Page 62, Gobiidae, Paragraph 3 -- The intent of Comment 130 also
     applies here.

147. Page 62, Gobiidae, Paragraph 4 -- Gobies are now an important
     component of the benthic food web in the Great Lakes. We request
     this be corrected in the revised EA.

148. Page 63, Percidae, Paragraph 2 -- Small pike and muskies are eaten
     by a broad range of larger predators and this should be corrected
     in the revised EA. As any other large predator, they are important
     in moving energy up the food chain.

149. Page 63, Percidae, Paragraph 3 -- The EA indicates that diving
     ducks are important predators but this is unclear as most diving
     ducks do not eat fish but eat invertebrates. If the intent is
     mergansers, then it should say this in the revised EA. There is
     also no mention of cormorants which are an important avian predator
     on many species in the Great Lakes. We request this be corrected in
     the revised EA.

150. Page 63, Moronidae, Paragraph 2 -- The EA states that most
     freshwater populations of the true basses are maintained by
     stocking and this is completely incorrect for white bass or white
     perch. No striped bass or striped bass hybrids are stocked in the
     Great Lakes as agreed upon by the member agencies of the Great
     Lakes Fishery Commission Committees and Councils. All of this
     family are piscivores, not just striped bass. We request these
     items be corrected in the revised EA.

151. Page 63, Moronidae, Paragraph 3 -- The intent of Comment 124 also
     applies here.

152. Regulatory and Impact Analysis for the Interim Rule, General
     Comment -- There is no discussion of the overall economic value of
     the recreational fisheries in the affected states or nationally and
     this information must be included to provide appropriate context to
     the value of the regulations being considered. As stated above in
     Comment 122, these data are available from a number of different
     sources and we request it be included in the revised Impact
     Analysis.

153. Page 2, Regulatory and Impact Analysis for the Interim Rule --
     Since VHSv is not found in Lake Superior, why is Minnesota included
     in this order as they are currently in a negative watershed. Why is
     Quebec included in this order as there have not been any detections
     of VHSv in their waters? This is inconsistent with the requirement
     that only NVSL confirmations of positive species can be added to
     USDA-APHIS regulated list. Confirmed observations of the VHSv
     should be the basis of a jurisdiction being listed. This should be
     corrected in the revised Impact Analysis.

154. Page 3, Paragraph 1 -- ICI should use appropriate testing methods
     that are documented in the revised Impact Analysis.

155. Page 4, U.S. Fish Production, Paragraph 1 -- The Impact Analysis
     states that aquaculture is on the rise in the U.S. The latest
     information indicates that U.S. aquaculture is on the decline,
     particularly catfish production. This should be corrected in the
     Impact Analysis. The last sentence needs to be corrected in the
     revised Impact Analysis with the recent finding of VHSv in Diporea,
     a freshwater crustacean. Footnote 4 fails to mention that there are
     hybrids of baitfish production that include intensive culture,
     extensive culture and wild capture, all in one business. This is
     particularly true for fathead minnow production in the Great Plains
     region and this needs to be corrected in the revised Impact
     Analysis.

156. Page 5, Paragraph 1 -- It is unclear where the information on
     baitfish comes from and it is unclear what is included in these
     data but the value is a large underestimate of the industry in the
     region. We request that USDA-APHIS consult with all of the agencies
     in the affected area to develop improved baitfish values for the
     revised EA.

157. Page 6, Paragraph 1 -- The Impact Analysis does not include all of
     the key reasons why state hatcheries stock fish. These are: to
     reintroduce extirpated species; rehabilitate depressed populations;
     to provide for ecosystem balance; and to provide for additional
     sportsfishing opportunities. We request this be corrected in the
     revised Impact Analysis. With respect to the last sentence, we
     question the legal authority that the Animal Health Protection Act
     has over state fish and game agencies given the Congressional
     Conference language on the Act.

158. Page 6, Paragraph 2 -- The last statement is incorrect as it is
     very rare that state agencies stock waters outside of their state.
     It is not uncommon for states to trade fish to meet fisheries
     management needs. We request this be corrected in the revised
     Impact Analysis.

159. Page 6, Paragraph 3 -- Another facet of the commercial fishery that
     is note covered in this document is a substantial trade in live
     wild caught channel catfish and carp from Great Lakes waters to
     both live markets nationally and to fee fishing lakes. We request
     this be examined in the revised Impact Analysis.

160. Page 8, Paragraph 1 -- The data from Michigan is not completely
     correct as on an annual basis approximately 60-70% of our baitfish
     are imported from a combination of wild and cultured sources.
     Seasonally, Michigan wild caught baitfish can be 70-80% of the
     market. We also question the use of Kebus (2007) as an expert on
     wild caught baitfish fisheries in NY and PA. We request that
     USDA-APHIS contact each of the state fisheries agencies for
     information on the baitfish trade in their respective states and
     provide the corrected data on catch and estimated value in the
     revised Impact Analysis.

161. Page 8, Baitfish Production in the US, Paragraph 1 -- This document
     indicates that data on the harvesters, amount harvested and value
     of the baitfish harvest is not available. What fisheries agencies
     and who was contacted to obtain this information? Most of the
     states license these individuals and have good information on them.
     For example in Michigan, we have 44 licensed wholesale bait
     dealers, 711 licensed retail bait dealers and 86 minnow catchers.
     We request that USDA-APHIS contact each of the state fisheries
     agencies for information on the baitfish trade in their respective
     states and provide the corrected data on catch and estimated value
     in the revised Impact Analysis.

162. Page 8, Baitfish Production in the US, Paragraph 2 - We also
     question the use of Kebus (2007) as an expert on wild baitfish
     fisheries and angler use of bait. While Dr. Kebus is a licensed
     veterinarian, he is not a fisheries expert and his information
     should be used with great caution. Depending on this source for
     information on this key area is a large flaw in this analysis and
     this information must be verified using fisheries agency data and
     expertise. Additionally, Dr. Goodwin is also not an expert on the
     Great Lakes bait industry and is incorrect in the statement that
     there is no commerce in frozen freshwater baitfish. There is a
     large market for frozen baitfish as salmon and catfish bait. We
     request that USDA-APHIS contact each of the state fisheries
     agencies for information on the baitfish trade and use in their
     respective states and provide the corrected data on catch and
     estimated value in the revised Impact Analysis.

163. Page 10, Paragraph 2 -- A number of the listed species are illegal
     as bait in a number of states including goldfish and green sunfish.
     It is also unclear what species of dace is being referred to as
     there are a large number of dace species. Finally, there is
     essentially no cultured bait produced in Michigan. We request that
     these items be corrected in the revised Impact Analysis.

164. Page 10, Expected Costs of the Rule, Wild Caught Baitfish,
     Paragraph 1 -- There is no doubt that this rule will have
     substantial affects on the wild caught bait industry. It is unclear
     on what basis you conclude that the changes will be minimal and
     this should be supported by evidence in the revised Interim Rule.
     This paragraph also states that baitfish are sold immediately after
     capture and this is not the case for some species such as emerald
     shiners which are stored for months to supply the winter ice
     fishery. Another incorrect statement is that the baitfish industry
     does not holding facilities and this is not correct as nearly all
     of Michigan's wholesalers have such facilities. This is followed by
     a statement that the life expectancy of wild caught species is not
     sufficient to allow for testing which is also incorrect as is your
     statement on testing wild caught baitfish. In Michigan, we have
     done this and implemented a program to certify wild caught
     baitfish. These statements are without substantial evidence and are
     generally incorrect. We request that USDA-APHIS contact each of the
     state fisheries agencies for information on the baitfish trade and
     their practices and provide a corrected analysis for this paragraph
     in the revised Impact Analysis.

165. Page 10, Expected Costs of the Rule, Wild Caught Baitfish,
     Paragraph 2 -- Emerald shiners are used widely for bait throughout
     the Great Lakes region, not just in areas bordering the Great Lakes
     as cited from Kebus. There is also a very large of amount of wild
     baitfish harvest that may be impacted by the interim rule, not a
     small amount as implied by the document. It is also clear that
     appropriate and accurate data from all of the state was not
     requested for use in this document. We request that USDA-APHIS
     contact each of the state fisheries agencies for information on the
     baitfish trade, likely economic value, and their practices and
     provide a corrected analysis for this paragraph in the revised
     Impact Analysis.

166. Page 11, State and Federal Hatcheries -- We request that instead of
     guessing where the public hatcheries in the Great Lakes region
     stock their fish that USDA-APHIS seek out these data from all of
     the owners of these facilities and correct the statements about the
     hatcheries' operation in the revised Impact Analysis. We are also
     unclear how the interim rule will limit production and stocking by
     state agencies given the Congressional Committee language on this
     bill. We request this be specified in the revised Impact Analysis.
     Given the fisheries agencies not do not what the effects of the
     interim rule are on their production, the actual effects on fishing
     license sales are also unclear.

167. Page 11, State Regulations -- The interstate movement of
     wild-caught baitfish out of Michigan by license commercial
     operations to other states is prohibited which is different than
     stated in the Impact Analysis. The transport of live fish between
     waters is prohibited and the use of baitfish off of a hook is
     prohibited. There is no mention of our baitfish certification and
     testing requirements along with our zonation approach to use of
     uncertified bait. All of the Great Lakes states have coordinated
     our actions through Great Lakes Fish Health Committee. We request
     that USDA-APHIS contact each of the state fisheries agencies for
     their regulations concerning VHSv and provide a corrected analysis
     for this paragraph in the revised Impact Analysis. Additionally,
     the Great Lakes Fish Health Committee coordination needs to be
     fully explored and discussed in the revised Impact Analysis.

168. Page 12, Paragraph 5 -- Illinois has enacted regulations as soon as
     VHSv as the virus was detected in their states. Minnesota is
     prepared with a full VHSv plan that is based on our coordinated
     approach developed by the Great Lakes Fish Health Committee that
     was adopted by all of the fisheries agencies on the Great Lakes. We
     request that these corrections be included in the revised Impact
     Analysis.

169. Page 12, Paragraph 1 -- It is not clear to us that net impacts of
     the interim rule will be muted because of existing state
     regulations. This needs to be clarified in the revised Impact
     Analysis.

170. Page 12, Estimated Costs -- It should be noted that there are very
     few veterinarians available that are trained in fisheries work. It
     is also unclear on where the estimates for the hourly cost for
     veterinarians came from and does it include travel expenses. This
     needs to be corrected in the revised Impact Analysis.

171. Page 14, Expected Benefits -- The document states that will be an
     expected benefit to aquaculture operations but does not provide any
     supporting evidence on how this will be accomplished. It is likely
     to impair sportsfisheries which have a value between 10-100X the
     annual economic benefit of aquaculture but this is not discussed.
     To provide some perspective is that a 1% decline in sportsfishing
     value (assuming an annual value of about \$100 billion dollars)
     annually is greater than nearly all of the annual value from all
     types of aquaculture nationally. This section also points to the
     importance of aquaculture in a few states but what about the
     benefits to other areas and the costs to those areas. These
     corrections must be made and the clear bias must be removed from
     the revised Impact Analysis.

172. Page 15, Paragraph 1 -- It is unclear why all types of VHSv Type IV
     was not included in the rule since the virus is apparently able to
     mutate to exploit new hosts and environments and fish are
     transported nationally from areas where VHSv Type IV a is
     documented. We know that frozen Pacific herring are moved to the
     Great Lakes for cut bait purposes as one route and VHSv can last
     for a long time at commercial freezer temperatures. It is also our
     understanding that VHSv Type IV a has been found in some hatchery
     fish or broodstocks. The argument dismissing the need to include
     all strains of VHSv Type IV in the order does not have compelling
     evidence. We request that a full review be conducted in the revised
     Impact Analysis.

173. Page 15, Paragraph 2 -- It is unclear why USDA-APHIS did not use
     watersheds to regulate VHSv movement since this is the appropriate
     ecological and physical context for the spread of this pathogen,
     and this is the geographic units being used for the Bi-National
     Surveillance Plan. Fish and pathogens follow watershed boundaries
     for their spread so this is right geographic method to manage this
     pathogen. We are unclear on who you are referring to with respect
     to certain small entities which must be clarified on whom this is.
     It is also unclear why you selected HUC2s for the decision point.
     Much smaller and easier to manage than the huge HUC2s. The use of
     geopolitical boundaries makes no sense and are meaningless to fish
     and their pathogens. Additionally, state boundaries are large units
     that are equally difficult for small entities. Finally, where is
     the substantial evidence that watersheds, other than HUC2s, would
     present the potential for burdensome regulations being imposed on
     entities within States not exposed to the virus and how is this
     different from the proposed geopolitical boundaries. There is
     simply no substantial evidence provided for this conclusion and we
     request that a full analysis be conducted in the revised Impact
     Analysis.

174. Page 15, Paragraph 3 -- We do not see any substantial evidence
     provided that indicates that the states are not and can not manage
     this pathogen. We have a clear track record of implementing
     effective regulations that were not acknowledged correctly in this
     document. The paragraph ends on Page 16 with the statement that
     "Compliance with the various regulations could be burdensome for
     aquaculture producers and others who move fish...". Exactly what
     regulations is the document referring to and is this rule designed
     to pre-exempt state regulations in place? We request that the
     revised Impact Analysis provide substantial evidence rejecting this
     option and provide the missing information needed to properly
     understand the rational in this paragraph.

175. Page 16, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Reasons for
     Action -- There is clearly no consideration of fisheries management
     effects, the effects of the regulations on recreational fisheries,
     or the effects on small fish producers as the intent is focused on
     the few large producers in the South. It also states this rule is
     closely aligned with the goals of a draft NAAHP with is likely to
     change when and if moved forward for acceptance.

176. Page 16, Objectives and Legal Basis for the Rule -- We request that
     the revised Impact Analysis consider the Congressional Conference
     language that states that no action under the Animal Health
     Protection Act can impair the activities of fish and wildlife
     agencies.

177. Page 17, Small Entities -- It is clear that the fisheries agencies
     were not consulted on the numbers of potential fisheries businesses
     that could be affected. In an above comment, we have provided the
     number of baitfish businesses. We also have 581 licensed
     charterboat operations in 2008 (458 -- Lake Michigan, 55 -- Lake
     Huron, 37 -- Lake Erie, 13 -- Lake Superior, 18 -- Lake St. Clair).
     A minimum of 11 state-licensed commercial fishing operations and 5
     licensed wholesale operations that likely export live fish from
     Michigan that are covered under the USDA-APHIS proposed Interim
     Rules. These data are available through the affected region and we
     request that corrected information be obtained from the fisheries
     agencies on the potential number of small fisheries business
     affected by this order. The information should be fully analyzed in
     the revised Impact Analysis.

178. Page 18, Paragraph 3 -- The conclusion that the number of firms
     affected by the interim rule as being small is without substantial
     evidence as the information was not collected to make this
     determination. It is also unclear what the actual costs with be to
     implement these regulations for each business and this information
     must be collected and summarized for a rational decision to be
     made. Also unclear is who will be responsible to pay for all of
     these additional costs that will be incurred at private, state and
     federal levels but generally not by USDA-APHIS. The document also
     does not provide adequate data on the costs to sportsfishing and
     does not indicate that these federal mandates will be on top of the
     costs of state regulations. They are an additional cost and do not
     replace the state regulations. We request that all of the above
     information be provided and analyzed in the revised Impact
     Analysis.

179. Page 20, Estimate of Compliance Requirements -- The actual costs of
     these additional federal regulations needs to be fully developed
     and provided in the revised Impact Analysis.

180. Page 20, Conflict with Existing Rules -- It is unclear why and
     where the interim rule defers to USFWS regulation. This should be
     clearly stated in this section of the revised Impact Analysis.

181. Page 20, Summary, Paragraph 1 -- This paragraph provides a list of
     unknown information that is available from the fisheries agencies
     but was not requested. These information should be fully developed
     and analyzed in the revised Impact Analysis.

182. Page 20, Summary, Paragraph 2 -- The statement that the impacts of
     the interim rule are likely already realized is without substantial
     evidence and this should be fully examined and analyzed in the
     revised Impact Analysis.

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources appreciates the opportunity
to comment on this important document that needs a substantial revision
to be a fully acceptable decision support document. We have highlighted
a number of areas for improvement and are prepared to assist in
obtaining the needed information for the requested revised documents.

If have any questions on this matter, please contact me.

Sincerely,

> ![](media/image3.png){width="1.6895833333333334in" height="0.54375in"}

Gary E. Whelan

FISHERIES DIVISION

\(517\) 373-6948

cc: Dr. Kelley Smith, DNR

Dr. Tammy Newcomb, DNR

Dr. Kurt Newman, DNR

Dr. Nancy Frank, MDA