Environmental Assessment Field Studies to Assess The
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Photo courtesy of Dean Biggins, USGS FIELD STUDIES TO ASSESS THE SAFETY OF SYLVATIC PLAGUE VACCINE IN PRAIRIE DOGS AND NON-TARGET ANIMALS April 2012 Prepared by: United States Geological Survey National Wildlife Health Center 6006 Schroeder Road Madison, WI 53711 USGS-NWHC Environmental Assessment: Field Studies to Assess the Safety of Sylvatic Plague Vaccine in Prairie Dogs and Non-Target Animals TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 5 2. HISTORY ................................................................................................................................ 6 3. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ACTION ...................................................................... 6 3.1 Decision to be made .......................................................................................................... 8 3.2 Scoping and issues ............................................................................................................. 8 3.2.1 Actions analyzed ...................................................................................................... 8 3.2.2 Site specificity .......................................................................................................... 8 3.3 Summary of public involvement .......................................................................................8 4. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ......................................... 8 4.1 Proposed action (Alternative 1) ....................................................................................... 8 4.1.1 Project objective and context .................................................................................. 8 4.1.2 Proposed activities ................................................................................................... 9 4.1.3 Monitoring and mitigation activities .................................................................... 10 4.1.3.1 Monitoring .................................................................................................... 10 4.1.3.2 Mitigation activities ...................................................................................... 11 4.2 Alternatives ...................................................................................................................... 11 4.2.1 Rationale behind selection of alternatives ........................................................... 11 4.2.2 Alternative action—another time (Alternative 2) ............................................... 11 4.2.3 Alternative action—other locations (Alternative 3)............................................ 11 4.2.4 No action (Alternative 4) ....................................................................................... 12 4.2.5 Alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed analysis ......................... 12 5. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................... 12 5.1 Physical Description and Climate.................................................................................. 12 5.2 Biological Resources ....................................................................................................... 16 5.2.1 Terrestrial Vegetation ........................................................................................... 16 5.2.2 Terrestrial Mammals ............................................................................................. 16 5.2.3 Birds ........................................................................................................................ 16 5.2.4 Arthropods.............................................................................................................. 16 5.2.5 Reptiles and Amphibians ...................................................................................... 16 5.3 Federal Threatened and Endangered Species and Critical Habitat .......................... 16 5.4 Cultural Resources.......................................................................................................... 16 5.5 Human Uses ..................................................................................................................... 17 April 2012 Page 2 of 31 USGS-NWHC Environmental Assessment: Field Studies to Assess the Safety of Sylvatic Plague Vaccine in Prairie Dogs and Non-Target Animals 5.5.1 Subsistence Uses ..................................................................................................... 17 5.5.2 Other Public Uses ................................................................................................... 17 5.6 Designated Wilderness.................................................................................................... 17 6. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ......................................................................................... 17 6.1 Issues considered ............................................................................................................. 17 6.1.1 Issues considered in detail ..................................................................................... 17 6.1.2 Issues not considered in detail with rationale...................................................... 18 6.1.3 Effects of Global Warming, Habitat Loss, and Pollution on Wildlife Populations .................................................................................................................19 6.2 Issues analyzed by alternative........................................................................................ 20 6.2.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ........................................................................... 20 6.2.1.1 Potential impacts of vaccine ........................................................................ 20 6.2.1.1.1 Potential to cause plague ..................................................................... 20 6.2.1.1.2 Potential to cause raccoon pox ........................................................... 20 6.2.1.1.3 Potential for recombinant RCN to revert to virulence or to recombine with other viruses in the wild and result in a virus that could cause disease in humans or animals ............................................................ 21 6.2.1.2 Potential impacts of biomarker ................................................................... 22 6.2.1.3 Potential impacts of insecticide ................................................................... 22 6.2.1.4 Potential impacts of capture/handling methods used in monitoring and surveillance actions ............................................................................................. 23 6.2.2 Alternative action—another time (Alternative 2) ............................................... 24 6.2.3 Alternative action—other locations (Alternative 3)............................................ 24 6.2.4 No action alternative (Alternative 4) .................................................................... 24 6.3 Cumulative Impacts .........................................................................................................24 6.4 Summary of impacts of alternatives for each issue...................................................... 25 7. AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED ....................... 27 8. LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS ..................................................................... 27 9. LITERATURE CITED ........................................................................................................ 27 10. GLOSSARY........................................................................................................................... 31 Appendix A: Open Houses Appendix B: Agency Coordination Appendix C: Compliance with Environmental Statutes Appendix D: Published Information about Prairie Dogs and Sylvatic Plague April 2012 Page 3 of 31 USGS-NWHC Environmental Assessment: Field Studies to Assess the Safety of Sylvatic Plague Vaccine in Prairie Dogs and Non-Target Animals ACRONYMS ACUC Animal Care and Use Committee BLM Bureau of Land Management BSL Biosafety level CPW Colorado Parks and Wildlife DNA Deoxyribonucleic acid EA Environmental assessment EIS Environmental impact statement FDA Food and Drug Administration LD50 Lethal dose 50% NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NWHC National Wildlife Health Center NWR National wildlife refuge PIT Passive integrated transponder RCN Raccoon poxvirus SCID Severe combined immune deficient SPV Sylvatic plague vaccine SWA State wildlife area tk Thymidine kinase USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey April 2012 Page 4 of 31 USGS-NWHC Environmental Assessment: Field Studies to Assess the Safety of Sylvatic Plague Vaccine in Prairie Dogs and Non-Target Animals ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF FIELD STUDIES TO ASSESS THE SAFETY OF SYLVATIC PLAGUE VACCINE IN PRAIRIE DOGS AND NON-TARGET ANIMALS 1. INTRODUCTION The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Wildlife Health Center (Madison, WI) is proposing to conduct a field study to assess the safety of an oral sylvatic plague vaccine (designated as SPV) designed to prevent plague outbreaks in prairie dogs. The experimental vaccine uses raccoon poxvirus to carry genes of Yersinia pestis, the causative agent of plague. Inoculation with SPV via ingestion is capable of conferring protective immunity against plague to vaccinated prairie dogs. Prevention