An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer

Animal and Plant

Health Inspection
Service

Marketing and
Regulatory
Programs

Animal and
Plant Health
Inspection
Service

Legislati ve and
Public Affairs

Freedom of
Information

4700 Ri ver Road
Unit 50
Riverdale, MD
20737-1232


September 11, 2014



David Karopkin
616 E. 19
th
Street
Brooklyn, NY 11230
Email: dkaropkin@gmail.com

Dear Mr. Karopkin:

This is in response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request dated, and received in
this office, December 4, 2013, seeking for copies of the following records:

1. All records and correspondence relating removal of Canada geese by USDA
Wildlife Services during 2013 in New York City and Gateway National
Recreational Area/J amaica Bay Wildlife Refuge.

2. All records and correspondence relating to the removal of turkeys by USDA Wildlife
Services during 2013 in New York City (specifically including the total number of
birds taken and the dates of their removal) and the letter reporting the results of the
bird damage abatement which was indicated in Section G of the attached contract to
be issued by USDA Wildlife Services on Oct. 30, 2013. Please include any current,
pending, or expired contracts and correspondence between USDA and public or
private property owners in New York City.

3. All contracts and correspondence with Kroll's Farm in New Windsor, NY, as well as
any other company used to slaughter Canada geese, turkeys, or other wildlife
removed by USDA Wildlife Services in New York State in 2013.

We apologize for the delay of our response.

Your request was forwarded to the Office of Wildlife Services (WS) to search for responsive
records. WS employees conducted a manual, outlook email, and email archives search of
their files and located the enclosed 232 pages responsive to item #1 & 3 of your request.

With regards to item #2 of your request, we have no record of a letter reporting the results of the
bird damage abatement, although it indicates in Section G of the Cooperative Service Agreement
(CSA) that one would be completed. Please note, although the CSA indicates that a letter
reporting the result of the bird damage abatement would be submitted, the parties agreed to a
verbal report. You also asked for current, pending, expired contract between USDA and public
or private property owners in New York City (NYC). The only contract USDA has is with NYC
Office of Mental Health, and this document is included in this response

Information has been withheld pursuant to Exemption 4, 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(4). FOIA
Exemption 4 protects trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a
person, and is privileged or confidential, from public disclosure when release would cause
substantial harm to the competitive position of an individual, a partnership, or a corporation
from whom the information was obtained. Specifically, we withheld the quantity, unit price
and number of items purchased.


David Karopkin 2
FOIA 2014-APHIS-01062-F

In addition, information has been withheld under FOIA Exemption 6, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6).
Exemption 6 permits the government to withhold from personnel and medical files and similar
files information about individuals when the disclosure of such information would constitute a
clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. We have determined that these records meet
the definition of similar files, because they contain information pertaining to individuals.
Specifically, we withheld the names of third parties individual and all signatures.

In order to determine whether a document may be withheld under Exemption 6, an agency must
undertake a three-step analysis. First, the agency must determine whether a significant privacy
interest would be compromised by the disclosure of the record. Second, the agency must
determine whether the release of the document would further the public interest by shedding
light on the operations and activities of the Government. Third, the agency must balance the
identified privacy interests against the public interest in disclosure.

We have determined that the individual has more than a de minimis privacy interest in this
information because the signatures could be used for identity theft as a person uses a signature to
attest as to who they are in business and personal records. Under Exemption 6, the only pertinent
public interest is whether release of the information would shed light on the agencys activities
and the agencys performance of its statutory duties. We determined that the release of the
identifying information does not shed any light on APHIS activities. Therefore, the privacy
interests of the individuals in the records you have requested outweigh the non-existent
public interest in disclosure of the information.

You have the right to appeal our partial denial determination. If you choose to appeal, your
appeal must be in writing and must be received at the following address within 45 days of the
date of this letter. Please send your appeal to:

Administrator
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Ag Box 3401
Washington, D.C. 20250-3401

If you choose to appeal, please refer to 2014-APHIS-01062-F in your appeal letter and add the
words FOIA Appeal to the front of the envelope. To assist the Administrator in reviewing
your appeal, please provide specific reasons why you believe modification of the determination
is warranted.

If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Sophie Lau-Lopez of my staff at (301) 851-4083.

Sincerely,



Tonya G. Woods
Director
Freedom of Information & Privacy Act
Legislative and Public Affairs

Enclosures