Relating to geese removal in Westchester, Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge, Long Island, removal of turkeys in Staten Island, Contract and communication with Kroll Farms
Relating to geese removal in Westchester, Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge, Long Island, removal of turkeys in Staten Island, Contract and communication with Kroll Farms
Relating to geese removal in Westchester, Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge, Long Island, removal of turkeys in Staten Island, Contract and communication with Kroll Farms
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