New York State Department of Environmental Gonservation Division of Fish, Wildlife & Marine Resources

Bureau of Wildlife,
5th

Floor

Phone: (518)402-8919 . FAX: (518)402-9027 Website: www.dec.state. ny. us

625 Broadway, Albany, New

York 12233-4754

Alexander B. Grannis Commissioner

April 26,2007
Mr. Anthony J. Forti New,York State Department of Health
Room 330, Flanigan Square 547 River Street Troy, New York 12180-2216 Dear Mr. Forti:

As we have discussed, we are currently in the process of exploring management alternatives to address the removal of a nuisance wild turkey flock in Staten Island, New York. Among the alternatives discussed is the possibility of rounding-up and euthanizing the flock and donating the meat to a food bank. Similar to nuisance Canada goose round-ups and meat donations that have been done in the past (see DOH-DEC communications from 1997 and 1999), one of the necessary precautions is a chemical analysis of the breast meat to test for contaminants prior to distribution to food banks. What follows is a proposed sampling scheme and analyes list for testing birds from this nuisance wild turkey flock.
Estimates of flock sizerange from 60 to 80 birds. Based on this estimate, Larry Skinner (DEC, Bureau of Habitat, Environmental Monitoring Section Head) indicated that sampling 5-7 birds from the flock would be sufficient to detect any health hazards posed by contaminated breast meat. An alternate sampling scheme that has been used in the nuisance goose work would be to take a small sample of breast meat from each bird and pool them for the chemical analysis. Both methods would provide the necessary information; however, the latter method would be more cost effective, thus it is preferred.
The primary location of the flock is the 4O-acre South Beach Psychiatric Center facility, but as the flock has grown, they have moved into the adjacent residential neighborhood. The birds feed on both natural foods (hard and soft mast, weed seeds, insects) and foods provided by hospital staff, patients, and town residents (cafeteria food, bird seed). Possible contaminants to which the turkeys may be exposed include lead (picked up incidentally while the birds forage for grit, seeds, etc.) and chemical pesticides used on the hospital grounds and surrounding residential neighborhood.

In an effort to identify the optimal approach, we have reviewed the analytes lists from USDA APHIS Wildlife Services, the chemical analyses conducted for nuisance goose meat, and the metals and chemical screening suggested by Larry Skinner (see attached). Based on

this review and the suburban environment the turkeys inhabit we feel that testing breast meat (skin and fat removed) for lead, mercury, and cadmium, organochlotines, and PCBs will be sufficient to identify threats to human health prior to distribution to food banks. These may be most efficiently tested for using multi-compound screens for metals, etc. Should testing reveal that levels for metals, organochlorines, or PCBs exceed USDA, FDA, or EPA standards, we will dispose of the meat immediately. Past studies of contaminant levels in upland game birds have not indicated any reason to expect high levels of these compounds in
breast meat.

Thank you for your help in developing this management alternative. We are still working with federal, state, and local government agencies, as well as the hospital facility and local residents to deterrnine the best course of action to resolve this problem. Should we choose the alternative outlined above, we will be sure to provide your office with the detailed sampling scheme and chemical screening process prior to implementation. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me via phone (518.402.8866) or e-mail (bl swi ft@gw. dec. state. ny.us). Sincerely,

lsl
Bryan Swift Leader, Game Bird Unit
Attachment

USDA APHIS Wildtife Services Metals

Na Mg
P

List
Organic Chemicals Chlorinated Pesticides

& PCBs
alpha-BHC beta-BHC alpha-Chlordane Oxychlordane Lindane Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide

Cu Zn

Insecticides
organophosphates carbamates

Mo
Cd
Se

K
Ca

Mn
Fe Co As

Pb

TI Hg-aa

organochlorines Strychnine Metaldehyde A number of therapeutic and illicit drugs, euthanasia agents, and environmental contaminants

Aldrin
Endrin pp-DDT pp-DDE pp-DDD Dieldrin Methoxychlor (200 ppb) Aroclor 1260 (50 ppb)

List from Nuisance Canada Goose

Metals
Pb

DO

Organic Chemicals
PCBs Chlorinated pesticides Organophosphate pesticides & herbicides Carbamate pesticides & herbicides

Hg Cd

DEC, Bureau of Habitat, Environmental Monitoring Section Analytes List . Skinner Bureau of Ha Environmental Section Head) Metals
Pb

Organic Chemicals
PCBs Chlorinated pesticides

Hg Cd

,Michae Schiavone - Re: Fw: Status: Wild Turkey - Staten lsland - DEC nuisance/harvest project

Page I

From: To: Date:

Larry Skinner Forti, Anthony J.

4127107

9:224M

Subject:

Re: Fw: Status: Wild Turkey - Staten lsland - DEC nuisance/harvest project

Tony, some thoughts on the topic. These are "wild" birds on hospital grounds so I think very little of the information re drugs, agricultural chemicals, etc. really applies. The standard compounds (PCBs, OC pesticides, Hg, Cd and Pb) would all seem applicable. PCBs due to their universal presence in the environment, DDT compounds due to the past extensive use and the proximity to the historical manufacturer/processor, chlordane due to termite control applications and the documented continuing presence in some birds in the area, Hg a ubiquitos environmental contaminant, Cd is a localized issue primarily in the aquatic environment, and Pb due to Pb-based paints which are ever-present in the city. I really don't expect any of these compounds to be a significant factor for wild turkeys but it is better to have information than not. The only other potential concerns are lawn chemicals (e.9., diazinon, herbicides, etc.), but they are not readily accumulated in flesh, and the carbamate and organophosphate pesticides often used on lawns would have produced a toxic response (which is contrary to what appears to be happening) if there wqre significant exposure. have a hard time thinking there is a significant concern here, but I could be wrong.
I

Larry
>>> "Anthony J. Forti" <ajfO1@health.state.ny.us> 412512007 1:23 PM >>> Hi, guys.

Attached note from Ed cites a few of articles you might want to consult on coming up with potential analytes. We'll try to get the article on "Record of Some Chemical Residues in Poultry Products" and get back to you on it.

hanks, Tony ----- Forwarded by Anthony J. Forti/BTSA/DEHA/CEH/OPH/DOH on 0412512007 01:14 PM --Edward G. Horn/DEHA/CEH/OPH

/DOH

To Anthony J. FortiiBTSA/DEHA/CEH/OPH/DOH@NYSDOH 0412512007 11:40 cc AM A. Kevin Gleason/BTSA/DE HA/CEH/OPH/DO H@NYSDO H, DanielA. LuttingeriBTSA/D EHA/CEH/OPH/DOH@NYS DOH, James F. Leach/BTSA/DEHA/CEH/OPHiDOH @NYS DOH, Judith A. AbbotUBTSA/DEHA/C EH/OPH/DOH@NYSDO H , Nancy K. Kim/DEHA/CE H/OPH/DOH @NYSDO H, Thom as
Wainm anlB
H
EE

l/D

EHA/EH/OPH/DOH@NYSDO

Subject Re: Status: Wild Turkey - Staten lsland - DEC nuisance/harvest project(Document link: Anthony J. Forti)

Michael Schiavone - Re: Fw: Status: Wild Turkey - Staten lsland - DEC nuisanceiharvest project

Page 2

Yes, but "other relevant data" should include USDA's recommendations or previous relevant analytes. The recommended list should very briefly characterize what was done to develop the analyte list. A couple of
suggestions.

As a start, someone (perhaps DEC) should look into the USDA surveillance activities described in their Blue Book - "2006 FSIS National Residue Program Scheduled Sampling Plans" ( wrvw.fsis.usda.qov/Science/2006 Blue Book/index.asp ) and see if any relevant results are available for review somewhere. And someone should look at the Canadian report "Report On Pesticides, Agricultural Chemicals, Veterinary Drugs, Environmental Pollutants and Other lmpurities in Agri-Food Commodities of Animal Origin" (available at www.inspection.qc.calenqlish/fssa/microchem/residi2002-2003ianima e.shtml#meavia ) for potentially relevant information. A more recent edition would also be potentially helpful, if available. An old article that may also be useful (but I didn't have time to track
it down) is

Record of Some Chemical Residues in Poultry Products

W. J. Stadelman
BioScience, Vol. 23, No. 7 (Jul., 1973), pp.424-428 Happy huunting!

Anthony J. Forti/BTSA/DEHA/C

To Edward G. Horn/DEHA/CEH/OPH/DOH@NYSDOH 0412512007 09:48 cc AM

EH/OPH/DOH

DanielA.
Lutti n ger/BTSA/D DOH, Nancy K.
E

HA/C

H/O

H/DO

@NYS
A.

Kim/DEHA/CEH/OPHiDOH@NYSDOH,
Kevin

Gleason/BTSA/DE HAJCEH/OPH/DOH @NYSDO H, Judith A. AbbotVBTSA/D E HA/CE HiOPH/DO H@NYSDOH

,

Thomas

Wainm an/B EE l/DEHA/CEHiOPH/DO H@NYSDO H, James F.

Leach/BTSA/DEHA/CEH/OPH/DOH@NYSDOH Subject Status: Wild Turkey - Staten lsland

Michael Schiavone - Re: Fw: Status: Wild Turkey - Staten lsland - DEC nuisance/harvest project

Page 3

- DEC nuisance/harvest project

I had a followup discussion on this with DEC's Mike Schiavone. Based on that discussion and the 4112107 conference call, DEC wants to move this forward by submitting a sampling & analysis proposal in the near future. So, we should soon be getting DEC's proposed sampling scheme and analyte list for our review and comment. This list will be based on their experience in previous efforts/programs in this area (e.9., DEC nuisance goose testing), other relevant data, etc.

DEC wants to have agreement with us on this plan before they proceed with harvest, and since they would need to harvest the turkeys by early May (before nesting season), our review would have to be timely. ls this all OK with you? ----- Forwarded by Anthony J. Forti/BTSA/DEHA/CEH/OPHiDOH 04:21 PM --"Bryan Swift" <blswift@qw.dec.

on 0412312007

To state.ny.us> "Michael Schiavone" 0412312007 02:36 <mvschiav@qw.dec.state.nv.us>, <aifO1@health.state.nv.us> PM

cc Subject Re: Wild Turkey Research

Nice piece of investigative work Mike - save this list for future reference! Bryan L. Swift, Leader Game Bird Unit NYSDEC Bureau of Wildlife 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233-4754 tel: (5'18) 402-8866

fax: (518) 402-9027 or 402-8925

blswift@qw.dec.state. nv. us

MichaelSchiavone - Re: Fw: Status: Wild Turkey - Staten lsland - DEC nuisanceiharvest project

Page 4

>>> Michael Schiavone 04123107 2:34 PM >>> Hi Tony,

A review of the literature came up with the following references for wild
turkeys: Bridges, J.M. and R.D. Andrews.1977. Agricultural pesticides in wild turkeys in southern lllinois. Trans. lllinois State Acad. Sci. 69(4): 473-478. Stone, W.B. and S.A. Butkas. 1978. Lead poisoning in a wild turkey. New York Fish and Game J.25(2): 169. Scanlon, P.F., T.G. O'Brien, N.L. Schauer, J.L. Coggin, D.E. Steffen. 1979. Heavy metal levels in feathers of wild turkeys from Virginia. Bull. Environ. Contam. and Toxicol. 21 (415):591-595. Bridges and Andrews (1977) detected only sub-lethal concentrations of 13 different agricultural pesticides, which generally reflected their level of use in the environment. Stone and Butkas (1978) detected lead poising in a single wild turkey in Chemung County. There were 4 lead pellets in the gizzard and concentrations of lead in the liver exceeded 17 ppm (ww). Scanlon et al. (1979) attest to the rarity of heavy metal toxicosis in Virginia. Most other references have to do with lead shot ingestion by various game birds. These studies are usually done on heavily hunted areas where there is a high probability that birds will ingest lead shot while foraging for grit. A sample of these can be found below.
Did you get in touch with Joe Pane? He can best answer your questions re: the type and amounts of pesticides and herbicides used by the hospital. As for what the birds are being fed, Joe indicated it is a mix of bird seed from the residential neighborhood and cafeteria food from the hospital staff and patients (bread crumbs, etc.).
I don't have Ed's e-mail address, so if you can pass this along to him as well, it's appreciated. lf you need any more information, let me know.

Mike

Additional References: Best T. L., Garrison T. E., Schmitt C. G. '1992. Availability and ingestion of lead shot by mourning doves (Zenaida macroura) in southeastern New
Mexico. Southwestern Naturalist. 37 :287 -292. Castrale J. S. 1989. Availability of spent lead shot in fields managed for mourning dove hunting. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 17:184-189 Franson J. C. 1996. lnterpretation of tissue lead residues in birds other

Michaer Schiavone - Re

Status: Wild Turkey - Staten lsland - DEC nuisance/harvest project

Page 5

than waterfowl. Pages 265-279 in W. N. Beyer, G. H. Heinz, A. W. Red m on-Norwood, ed itors. Environ mental contam inants in wildl ife: interpreting tissue concentrations. Lewis, CRC, Boca Raton, Florida, USA. Franson J. C. 2002. Lead exposure in mourning doves. Final Report-Webless Migratory Game Bird Research Program, unpublished. U.S. Geological Survey National Wildlife Health Center, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.

Keel M. K., Davidson W. R., Doster G. L., Lewis L. A.2002. Northern bobwhite and lead shot deposition in an upland habitat. Archives of Environ m ental Contam nation and Toxicology. 43:31 8-322.
i

Kendall R. J., LacherT. E. Jr., Bunck C., Daniel 8., Driver C., Grue C. E., Leighton F., Stansley W., Watanbe P. G., Whitworth M. 1996. An ecological risk assessment of lead shot exposure in non-waterfowl avian species: upland game birds and raptors. Environmental Toxicology and

Chemistry. 15:4-20.
Schulz J. H., Millspaugh J. J., Bermudez A. J., Gao X., Bonnot T. W., Britt L. G., Paine M. 2006. Experimental acute lead toxicosis in mourning doves Journal of Wildlife ManagemenL. 7 0:413-421 . Schulz J. H., Millspaugh J. J., Washburn B. E., Wester G. R., Lanigan J. T. lll, Franson J. C.2002. Spent-shot availability and ingestion on areas managed for mourning doves. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 30:112-120.

Tsuji, L.J.S., E. Nieboer, J.D. Karagatzides, R.M. Hanning, B Katapuk. 1999. Lead Shot Contamination in Edible Portions of Game Birds and lts Dietary lmplications. Ecosystem Health 5 (3), 183-192.

cc

Schiavone, Michael; Swift, Bryan

Michael Schiavone - RE: Staten lsland Turkeys

Page

From: To:
Date:

"Susan Trock" <Susan.Trock@agm kt.state. ny.us> "Michael Schiavone" <mvschiav@gw.dec.state.ny.us>

4l25lj7 2:48PM
RE: Staten lsland Turkeys

Subject:
Dear Mike,

I agree - these are feral turkeys. So long as they don't go to a live bird market (they would need to be held as a 'flock' for a minimum of 21 days, tested negative for avian influenza prior to moving into that system, etc) we don't really have any great disease concern issues. Maybe Canada is looking for a few good turkeys again. Of course, these don't sound very wilderness savvy but who knows what they are capable of reverting back into. I can't think of any other options that you have not already considered at this point.

Think of them as feral cats with feathers. Thanks so much for thinking of me. Give my regards to Pat.
Good luck, Sue Susan C. Trock, DVM, MPH, DACVPM (Epi) NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets 108 Airline Drive Albany, NY 12235 518 457-3502 518 485-7773 (fax)

----Original Message-----

Sent:Wednesday, April25, 2007 1:50 PM To: Susan Trock Cc: John Huntley; Patrick Martin Subject: Staten lsland Turkeys
Hi Dr. Trock,

From : Michael Schiavone [mailto: mvschiav@gw.dec.state.ny.us]

We are in the midst of addressing a nuisance turkey issue on Staten lsland and I had some questions about the potential for transferring the birds to azoo, game bird breeder, preserve, etc. When I discussed this with Patrick Martin, he brought up the issue of disease transmission and recommended that I e-mail you to get your thoughts. Some background - There is a flock of 60-80 turkeys roaming the grounds of a State hospital facility and the adjacent residential neighborhood on Staten lsland. For the most part, the birds are wild-strain in appearance, but some light coloration suggestions they may have domestic origins. There is anecdotal evidence that the birds originally came from a man who was raising domestic turkeys in the area and released them on the hospital grounds several years ago, but there is no documentation to back this up. ln any case, the origin of the birds is questionable, but because we can't be sure we are assuming that these are wild turkeys over which DEC has jurisdiction.

Michael Schiavone - RE: Staten lsland Turkeys

Page 2

The birds used to confine their activities to the State hospital grounds where they were fed by hospital staff and patients (bread crumbs and other cafeteria food), but as the flock has grown they have moved into the surrounding neighborhood where they feed on bird seed, weed seeds, insects, etc. The birds have lost allfear of people and are roosting on cars, roof tops, and other structures.
Some alternatives we are looking in to: 1) Do nothing - unacceptable to locals 2)rap and release elsewhere - unacceptable due to questionable origin of birds as well as "tame" behavior. 3) Trap, euthanize, and dispose - unacceptable to locals 4)Trap, euthanize, and process for food - The preferred alternative for us, but there is a need to test for contaminants (OC's, metals). Locals may not be in favor of killing the birds even if it is for a food
pantry. 5) Trap and distribute as many as possible to zoos, sanctuaries,

preserves, etc - OK with locals and OK with us if there are any, but may not be likely for 80 birds (or even a fraction thereof). Also, there are DEC special license and (potentially) disease transmission concerns that need to be addressed. Any suggestions or recommendations as we develop Alternative #5? Specifically, I'd like to get your opinion on any disease transmission issues associated with transferring the birds to either a game bird breeder (or preserve, etc.) or a farm/poultry producer. Since the locals are not in favor of killing and processing the birds for charity, they are probably even less likely to be in favor of a poultry producer, but we have to do our homework so we can present all the options and potential obstacles.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts, Mike

MichaelV. Schiavone Wildlife Biologist NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources 625 Broadway, Sth Floor Albany, New York 12233-4755
Ph: (518) 402-8886 Fx: (518) 402-8925 mvschiav@gw.dec.state.

ny.

us

"A Land Ethic, then, reflects the existence of an ecological conscience, and this in turn reflects a conviction of individual responsibility for the health of the land. Health is the capacity of the land for self-renewal. Conservation is our effort to understand and preserve this capacity." -- Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac, '1949

cc

"John Huntley" <John.Huntley@agmkt.state.ny.us>,

"Patrick Martin"

Michael Schiavone - RE: Staten lsland Turkeys

Page 3

<pxmartin@gw.dec.state.ny.us>,

"James Gray" <James.Gray@agmkt.state.ny.us>

(8/26/2013) Michael Schiavone - Fwd: health risks from eating wild turkeys

Page 1

From: To: Date: Subject: fyi

Bryan Swift Schiavone, Michael 6/6/2013 3:00 PM Fwd: health risks from eating wild turkeys

>>> "Lowney, Martin S - APHIS" <Martin.S.Lowney@aphis.usda.gov> 6/6/2013 2:59 PM >>> Tony, Good afternoon. The USDA Wildlife Services program will conduct a feral/wild turkey project to remove about 80 birds from a psychiatric center in metropolitan New York City. The public is asking the turkeys be used constructively after capture versus discarded in a landfill. The question has been raised about the safety of letting food banks distribute processed turkey meat to people in need. I am requesting a risk analysis on the need to test feral/wild turkeys from Staten Island for a chlorinated hydrocarbon screen, organophosphates, PCB's, carbamates and for the heavy metals lead, cadmium and mercury. Similar testing was done in the past for wild Canada Geese in New York and other states. The wild NY geese tested over the last decade were clean of pesticides except for a few having lead and traces of mercury, cadmium, or arsenic. In some birds the lead levels were elevated which indicated the lead was introduced to the muscle (e.g., shot) versus accumulated from the environment where the elevated lead levels would have killed the goose. During testing and also sample collection some geese were found to have .177 caliber pellets and lead shot in their breasts which accounted for some or all of the lead detected during testing. The final recommendation for geese was to follow the statewide waterfowl consumption recommendation of no more than 2 meals per month. The turkeys in metropolitan NYC live 1-6 years based on estimated spur length of male turkeys. Their diet in NYC appears to mostly be handouts of grain and bread stuff from the public. The turkeys also likely eat some wild greens, clover and other forbes, grass seeds, acorns, wild berries (blackberries, poison ivy, etc.), worms and insects (e.g., grasshoppers) on site. Turkeys are territorial and likely spend their life within 1-1 miles of the psychiatric center. The turkeys meet their life requirements of food, shelter, and water in uplands habitats. Turkeys pick up grit of a particular size and color to grind food in their gizzard. There is no known lead poisoning from eating lead pellets reported in wild turkeys. Turkeys tend to have little fat on their bodies except for males having "sponge" fat over the upper breast especially during breeding season. This sponge fat is discarded during evisceration. Conversely, the Canada Geese tested several years ago by your agency and other agencies live up to 20 years, especially those in urban/suburban areas. Resident Canada Geese travel regularly up to 7 miles from the molting pond and infrequently traveled several hundred miles. The tested geese ate mostly grass and some aquatic plants but also were fed bread stuffs and popcorn by the public. The habitat used by geese included golf courses, parks, large turf areas, wetlands, marshes, and large bodies of fresh, brackish, and salt water. Geese filter feed the wetland bottom non-discriminatingly picking up grit to grind food in their gizzards. It was thought geese picked up some lead pellets while filter feeding in wetlands and this would account for some lead poisoning seen historically in waterfowl. Canada Geese have fat between the skin and muscle over most of their body. I have two options for collecting and testing the turkeys. The preferred option would be to capture the turkeys, deliver to a NYS Agriculture and Markets approved 5A slaughterhouse, have the turkeys euthanized and de-breasted. The breast would be sliced into appropriate portions, packaged and frozen. I could make 5-10 breasts of different birds available for testing. Depending on the outcome of testing, the meat would be donated or discarded into a landfill. The second option would be to capture 5-10 turkeys, have them tested and based on the outcome, catch the remaining turkeys and dispose as appropriate. I look forward to your reply. Thank you for your assistance on this risk analysis. Martin

(8/26/2013) Michael Schiavone - Fwd: health risks from eating wild turkeys

Page 2

Martin Lowney Certified Wildlife Biologist State Director, New York USDA, APHIS, Wildlife Services 1930 Route 9 Castleton, NY 12033 (518) 477-4837 Martin.S.Lowney@aphis.usda.gov http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/state_office/newyork_info.shtml

This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended recipients. Any unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the law and subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete the email immediately.

Michael Schiavone - Fwd: Re: Pb in Wild Turkeys

From: To: Date: Subject: CC: Michael Schiavone Martin.S.Lowney@aphis.usda.gov 6/12/2013 8:06 AM Fwd: Re: Pb in Wild Turkeys Swift, Bryan

Hi Martin, See below from Kevin re: lead in wild turkeys. Mike >>> Kevin Hynes 6/11/2013 10:58 AM >>> Mike, We have two confirmed cases of lead poisoning in wild turkeys; the case Ward wrote up in the NY Fish and Game Journal in 1976 with 17.3 ppm Pb in liver tissue and a case from Ulster Co. in 1990 with 38.2 ppm Pb in liver tissue. The lead levels in the skeletal muscle of these poisoned birds should be considerably lower than the levels found in the liver and may even be safe for human consumption. In my opinion the Pb danger for human consumption of resident geese, and probably urban/suburban nuisance turkeys as well, comes from Pb birdshot and airgun pellets present in the breast musculature coupled with the practice of grinding the meat which can break up the lead projectiles and distribute them over several packages of meat. Grinding the meat also increases the risk of bacterial contamination...better to package and donate whole breasts or cutlets. -Kevin >>> Michael Schiavone 6/6/2013 3:13 PM >>> Hi Kevin and Joe, The Staten Island turkey issue is surfacing again. The administrators at the hospital campus where the birds spend a lot of time are getting fed up with the mess, so would like USDA to remove the birds. When we were considering this back in 2007, we worked with Tony Forti at DoH to see what testing would be needed to have the birds donated to a local food pantry. At that time I got a bunch of references from the literature on contaminants in game birds, and got some technical guidance from Larry Skinner about testing for OC's, heavy metals, and PCB's and provided it all to Tony et al. (see attached; the list of references are on pgs. 7-8). Martin Lowney from USDA (and we) are revisiting this and Tony wanted to know if we have any information on lead poisoning in wild turkeys. Do you have any records from the lab? Thanks, Mike

(8/26/2013) Michael Schiavone - Re: Fw: health risks from eating wild turkeys

Page 1

From: To: CC: Date: Subject: Hi Martin,

Bryan Swift Lowney, Martin Forti, Anthony J.; Leach, James F.; Mukasa, Agnes N; Schiavone, Michael 6/27/2013 12:27 PM Re: Fw: health risks from eating wild turkeys

For metals, I would recommend samples be sent to the Utah State Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory we've used them before and they are cheap, fast turnaround, and comprehensive. Total cost per sample should be ~$50-60. For more info, go to http://www.usu.edu/uvdl/htm/services and follow links to Toxicology Services. For the organochlorines and pesticides, there may be several options, none of which are as cheap as the metals. Pennsylvania Animal Diagnostic Lab is one that we've used for goose meat, so that may be a good place to start: http://www.padls.org/services.html, follow link to Services and see price list for Toxicology; you'll probably have to talk to someone there to figure out the best combination of tests to conduct. Kevin Hynes also suggested Michigan State Vet Lab or UC Davis Vet lab for the non-metals. For all analyses, be sure to request QA/QC statistics, and lipid and moisture content. I hope that's helpful. Bryan >>> "Anthony J. Forti" <ajf01@health.state.ny.us> 6/26/2013 11:01 AM >>> Could you please see attached proposal to monitor contaminants in Staten Island wild turkeys and respond to Martin's question re: analytical costs. thanks Tony Forti Bureau of Toxic Substance Assessment New York State Department of Health Empire State Plaza, Corning Tower, Room 1743 Albany, NY 12237 Phone: 518-402-7820 Fax: 518-402-7819

----- Forwarded by Anthony J. Forti/BTSA/DEHA/CEH/OPH/DOH on 06/26/2013 10:55 AM ----From: "Lowney, Martin S - APHIS" <Martin.S.Lowney@aphis.usda.gov> To: "Anthony J. Forti" <ajf01@health.state.ny.us>, Cc: "James F. Leach" <jfl03@health.state.ny.us>, Agnes N Mukasa <anm01@health.state.ny.us> Date: 06/26/2013 10:43 AM Subject: RE: health risks from eating wild turkeys

Tony,

(8/26/2013) Michael Schiavone - Re: Fw: health risks from eating wild turkeys

Page 2

The proposal is acceptable. Any chance the results get published some place so other persons can use the data? Thank you for working with us on this project. I will let you know when it starts. Can you give me an estimate of the costs I will incur? Martin Martin Lowney Certified Wildlife Biologist State Director, New York USDA, APHIS, Wildlife Services 1930 Route 9 Castleton, NY 12033 (518) 477-4837 Martin.S.Lowney@aphis.usda.gov http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/state_office/newyork_info.shtml

From: Anthony J. Forti [mailto:ajf01@health.state.ny.us] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 10:29 AM To: Lowney, Martin S - APHIS Cc: James F. Leach; Agnes N Mukasa Subject: Re: health risks from eating wild turkeys

Hi Martin I'm responding to your proposal to sample and test nuisance wild turkeys to determine if their meat is suitable for distribution in food banks (per your June 6, 2013 email, attached below). We generally agree with the preferred option proposed in your June 6 note: capture all the turkeys before testing, deliver them to a NYS Agriculture and Markets approved 5A slaughterhouse, have the turkeys euthanized and de-breasted (all fat and skin should then be removed), the breast meat would be sliced, packaged into one pound portions, and frozen. The meat would then be stored frozen pending the results of contaminants testing and our review . If we find the turkey meat acceptable for human consumption, you would then provide it to the food pantries; and if we find the meat unacceptable, it would be discarded. We agree with your characterization of the differences between Canada geese and turkeys in regard to their food sources, habitat, longevity and other attributes, which generally makes turkeys less likely than geese to accumulate chemicals from their environment. Nevertheless, to evaluate the potential for this turkey population to come in contact with significant sources of environmental contaminants, we checked with our Bureau of Environmental Exposure Investigation to determine whether any hazardous waste sites were located in these turkeys' home range, and found that there were none. Consequently, we find your proposed sampling scheme and analyte list to be generally acceptable, with slight modifications. Here is our proposal: 1. As you proposed, select meat from 5-10 different turkeys for testing. Because older birds generally tend to have higher

(8/26/2013) Michael Schiavone - Re: Fw: health risks from eating wild turkeys

Page 3

contaminant levels (and turkey ages can be determined by physical characteristics), preferentially select older turkeys for testing. 2. Heavy metal analytes should include lead, mercury, cadmium and arsenic (we added arsenic to the list because it has been shown to be a contaminant of concern in some foods, and trace levels were found in the nuisance goose program). 3. As you suggested, include PCBs and a chlorinated pesticide screen (e.g., DDT, DDD, DDE, chlordane isomers/metabolites, mirex, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorocyclohexane) in these analyses. 4. Because organophosphate and carbamate pesticides are less likely to be found, replace screens for these compounds with screens for more contemporary pesticides that are more likely to have been used on nearby properties, such as 2,4-D, dicamba, pendimethalin, imidacloprid, and pyrethroid insecticides. 5. The analytical laboratory carrying out these analyses should provide quality assurance/quality control reports to ensure the accuracy of these analyses. Thank you for consulting with us on this matter. Please let us know if our proposal is acceptable and keep us updated on the status of this project. Regards, Tony

Tony Forti Bureau of Toxic Substance Assessment New York State Department of Health Empire State Plaza, Corning Tower, Room 1743 Albany, NY 12237 Phone: 518-402-7820 Fax: 518-402-7819

Inactive hide details for "Lowney, Martin S - APHIS" ---06/06/2013 02:59:35 PM---Tony, Good afternoon. The USDA Wildlife Servi"Lowney, Martin S APHIS" ---06/06/2013 02:59:35 PM---Tony, Good afternoon. The USDA Wildlife Services program will conduct a feral/wild turkey project t From: "Lowney, Martin S - APHIS" <Martin.S.Lowney@aphis.usda.gov> To: "Tony Forti (ajf01@health.state.ny.us)" <ajf01@health.state.ny.us>, Cc: "Bryan L Swift (blswift@gw.dec.state.ny.us)" < blswift@gw.dec.state.ny.us> Date: 06/06/2013 02:59 PM Subject: health risks from eating wild turkeys

Tony, Good afternoon. The USDA Wildlife Services program will conduct a feral/wild turkey project to remove about 80 birds from a psychiatric

(8/26/2013) Michael Schiavone - Re: Fw: health risks from eating wild turkeys

Page 4

center in metropolitan New York City. The public is asking the turkeys be used constructively after capture versus discarded in a landfill. The question has been raised about the safety of letting food banks distribute processed turkey meat to people in need. I am requesting a risk analysis on the need to test feral/wild turkeys from Staten Island for a chlorinated hydrocarbon screen, organophosphates, PCB's, carbamates and for the heavy metals lead, cadmium and mercury. Similar testing was done in the past for wild Canada Geese in New York and other states. The wild NY geese tested over the last decade were clean of pesticides except for a few having lead and traces of mercury, cadmium, or arsenic. In some birds the lead levels were elevated which indicated the lead was introduced to the muscle (e.g., shot) versus accumulated from the environment where the elevated lead levels would have killed the goose. During testing and also sample collection some geese were found to have .177 caliber pellets and lead shot in their breasts which accounted for some or all of the lead detected during testing. The final recommendation for geese was to follow the statewide waterfowl consumption recommendation of no more than 2 meals per month. The turkeys in metropolitan NYC live 1-6 years based on estimated spur length of male turkeys. Their diet in NYC appears to mostly be handouts of grain and bread stuff from the public. The turkeys also likely eat some wild greens, clover and other forbes, grass seeds, acorns, wild berries (blackberries, poison ivy, etc.), worms and insects (e.g., grasshoppers) on site. Turkeys are territorial and likely spend their life within 1-1 miles of the psychiatric center. The turkeys meet their life requirements of food, shelter, and water in uplands habitats. Turkeys pick up grit of a particular size and color to grind food in their gizzard. There is no known lead poisoning from eating lead pellets reported in wild turkeys. Turkeys tend to have little fat on their bodies except for males having "sponge" fat over the upper breast especially during breeding season. This sponge fat is discarded during evisceration. Conversely, the Canada Geese tested several years ago by your agency and other agencies live up to 20 years, especially those in urban/suburban areas. Resident Canada Geese travel regularly up to 7 miles from the molting pond and infrequently traveled several hundred miles. The tested geese ate mostly grass and some aquatic plants but also were fed bread stuffs and popcorn by the public. The habitat used by geese included golf courses, parks, large turf areas, wetlands, marshes, and large bodies of fresh, brackish, and salt water. Geese filter feed the wetland bottom non-discriminatingly picking up grit to grind food in their gizzards. It was thought geese picked up some lead pellets while filter feeding in wetlands and this would account for some lead poisoning seen historically in waterfowl. Canada Geese have fat between the skin and muscle over most of their body. I have two options for collecting and testing the turkeys. The preferred option would be to capture the turkeys, deliver to a NYS Agriculture and Markets approved 5A slaughterhouse, have the turkeys euthanized and de-breasted. The breast would be sliced into appropriate portions, packaged and frozen. I could make 5-10 breasts of different birds available for testing. Depending on the outcome of testing, the meat would be donated or discarded into a landfill. The second option would be to capture 5-10 turkeys, have them tested and based on the outcome, catch the remaining turkeys and dispose as appropriate. I look forward to your reply. Thank you for your assistance on this risk

(8/26/2013) Michael Schiavone - Re: Fw: health risks from eating wild turkeys

Page 5

analysis. Martin Martin Lowney Certified Wildlife Biologist State Director, New York USDA, APHIS, Wildlife Services 1930 Route 9 Castleton, NY 12033 (518) 477-4837 Martin.S.Lowney@aphis.usda.gov http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/state_office/newyork_info.shtml

This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended recipients. Any unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the law and subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete the email immediately.

Michael Schiavone - Re: Fwd: FW: Staten Island Advance: Feds round up wild turkeys on Staten Island for slaughter
From: To: Date: Subject: CC: Michael Schiavone Constantakes, Peter; Gibbons, Michelle 8/15/2013 8:36 AM Re: Fwd: FW: Staten Island Advance: Feds round up wild turkeys on Staten Island for slaughter Riexinger, Patricia; Swift, Bryan

That is one of several reasons. There are also concerns about moving nuisance animals from one location to another (i.e., transferring the problem from someone on Staten Island's backyard to someone else's back yard) and concerns about disease transmission. Lastly, these birds, even the birds that look like wild turkeys, are tame and accustomed to handouts from people. They are not fit for survival in a more rural setting. Mike >>> Peter Constantakes 8/14/2013 5:50 PM >>> if either of you are around, USDA is saying that because there were hybrid birds, relocation is not permitted. Just checking if that is true. thanks. Peter Constantakes Acting Director of Public Information Dept. of Environmental Conservation 518-402-8000 Fax 518-402-9016 ConnectwithDECon: Facebook&Twitter >>> Michael Schiavone 8/13/2013 2:25 PM >>> Hi Peter, The permit was issued by Region 2. The NYS Office of Mental Health (OMH) contacted Region 2 about removing approximately 80 free-ranging turkeys and other wild and domestic fowl from their South Beach Psychiatric Center (SBPC) on Staten Island. DECs Region 2 office issued a permit to OMH authorizing the activity. OMH is using the services of the USDA Wildlife Services to conduct the removal work. These birds originated as an unauthorized release of nine turkeys by a local resident in 2000. The turkey numbers and associated conflicts have grown significantly since that time. DEC has met with OMH, as well as local residents and elected officials on many occasions dating back to 2006, in response to complaints about the birds. This spring, OMH and the local employees union concluded that the current bird numbers created unsanitary conditions and posed a human health risk for residents and staff of the Center. A public attitude survey by Cornell and DEC in 2011 found that most residents of the surrounding area wanted something done to reduce the problem, but there was no consensus on what management action should be taken. USDA plans to live-capture all turkeys, geese and domestic fowl on the property and transport them to a commercial poultry processor so the birds can be used to provide food for the needy. DEC supports this action as the only practical option for alleviating the conflicts at SBPC. Please contact Joe Pane, Region 2 Wildlife Manager, for more information. Regards, Mike **************************************

Michael V. Schiavone Certified Wildlife Biologist NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources 625 Broadway, 5th Floor Albany, New York 12233-4754 Ph: (518) 402-8886; Fx: (518) 402-8925 mvschiav@gw.dec.state.ny.us ************************************** >>> Peter Constantakes 8/13/2013 2:19 PM >>> Can you let me know the process for DEC issuing a permit for this - and is it from the region? thanks. Peter Constantakes Acting Director of Public Information Dept. of Environmental Conservation 518-402-8000 Fax 518-402-9016 ConnectwithDECon: Facebook&Twitter >>> "Christine Pritchard" <Christine.Pritchard@exec.ny.gov> 8/13/2013 2:13 PM >>>

AccordingtoUSDA,DECissuedapermit
From: Leo Rosales Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 1:53 PM To: Christine Pritchard Subject: FW: Staten Island Advance: Feds round up wild turkeys on Staten Island for slaughter

From: Benjamin Rosen [mailto:Benjamin.Rosen@omh.ny.gov] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:27 AM To: Anita Appel; Benjamin Rosen; David Wollner; Donna Bradbury; Donna Hall; Emil Slane; Gerald Engel; Jayne Van Bramer; Jeremy Darman; John Allen; John Tauriello; Leesa Rademacher; Lloyd Sederer; Lynn Heath; Marcia Fazio; Marisol NunezRodriguez; Martha Schaefer; Renee Bott; Robert Myers; Rosanne Gaylor; Scott Bard; Susan Orens; Titus Mathew; William McDermott Cc: Corinda Crossdale; Leo Rosales; Michael Seereiter Subject: Staten Island Advance: Feds round up wild turkeys on Staten Island for slaughter

Feds round up wild turkeys on Staten Island for slaughter

turkey.jpg Little do turkey and rooster on the grounds of South Beach Psychiatric Center realize what fate -- not to mention the USDA -has in store for them. (Staten Island Advance/Virginia N. Sherry) Virginia N. Sherry/Staten Island Advance By Virginia N. Sherry/Staten Island Advance Staten Island Advance on August 12, 2013 at 9:11 PM, updated August 13, 2013 at 1:42 AM STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. -- They survived the ravages of Hurricane Sandy but it's now off to the slaughterhouse for the flock of turkeys -- despised by detractors and loved by fans -- who made their home on the Ocean Breeze campus of the South Beach Psychiatric Center on Seaview Avenue. The "capture removal" operation started early Monday morning, carried out by personnel from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) wearing blue T-shirts marked USDA, according to eyewitnesses. Using pellets to attract the birds into large black nets, "they were picking the turkeys up by their necks and feet, and throwing them into plastic crates," one psychiatric center worker, clearly upset by what she had witnessed, told the Advance. The birds were piled four crates high in the back of two white pickup trucks, "and then they just let them sit," she said USDA spokeswoman Carol Bannerman of the agency's Wildlife Services and Animal Care division confirmed that a "direct assistance" operation was under way. "At the request of the state's South Beach Psychiatric Center, USDA biologists and specialists are removing free-ranging wild and hybrid turkeys from the campus," she replied to the Advance in an email on Monday evening. "In this operation, the turkeys are herded into temporary corrals made of netting, hand-captured, and placed in poultry crates," she explained. "The birds are then transported to a state-approved processing facility. The resulting meat will be stored frozen until testing confirms its suitability for donation for human consumption." It was not possible to relocate the turkeys because the flock is a mix of breeds, according to Ms. Bannerman. Wild turkeys are managed by the state Department of Environmental Conservation, "which issued the permit to capture and remove the birds. The flock contains hybrid turkeys so relocation was not permitted." According to USDA estimates, the number of turkeys on the campus is around 80, and "the state permits allow for all to be removed, which would require several visits over some time," Ms. Bannerman noted. JUSTIFICATIONS USDA cited sanitary and other reasons for the extermination campaign. "The state's concern was for excessive feces accumulation on handrails and walkways and the potential for bacterial contamination when droppings are inadvertently carried it into the facility," Ms. Bannerman explained. "People in the community have different attitudes about the presence of the turkeys and their removal. Despite a no-feeding policy, people have continued to feed the flock, encouraging it to concentrate on the campus," she noted. "In addition to sanitation concerns, the turkeys have been aggressive toward people on and off the center campus. Vehicle accidents have been reported due to turkey presence on the streets and complaints were received regarding the turkeys impeding emergency vehicle traffic at adjacent [Staten Island University Hospital]," she said. An Advance reporter was turned away at the entrance to the psychiatric center on Monday afternoon, and security officials present refused to comment.

Ben Rosen Public Information Officer NYS Office of Mental Health 518-474-6540- Phone 518-473-3456- Fax benjamin.rosen@omh.ny.gov

Follow OMH on Twitter: https://twitter.com/NYSomh Like OMH on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NYSOMH Subscribe to OMH's YouTube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/NYSomh
IMPORTANT NOTICE : This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential information which is, or may be, legally privileged or otherwise protected by law from further disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, use, or distribution of the information included in this e-mail and any attachments is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and immediately and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments.

************************************* WE WORK FOR THE PEOPLE Performance * Integrity * Pride

Michael Schiavone - Re: Wild Turkey Capture in Staten Island

From: To: Date: Subject: Michael Schiavone grc@mepengineeringpc.com 8/15/2013 9:42 AM Re: Wild Turkey Capture in Staten Island

Hello, Thanks for taking the time to write us with your concerns. The turkeys at the hospital campus are a mix of domestic turkeys and captive-bred wild turkeys. Their "hybrid" status is one of the reasons they are not suitable for relocation. In addition, these birds are relatively tame and rely on people for "hand outs". Transferring the birds elsewhere would be shifting the nuisance behaviors of the birds from one location to another. Furthermore, any time wildlife are moved there are concerns about disease transmission. Lastly, since these birds largely lack "wild" behaviors and wariness, they readily approach people. These characteristics render them unfit for survival in a more rural setting. The DEC Region 2 office (New York City) worked closely with the NYS Office of Mental Health to address their concerns about the free-ranging turkeys at the hospital campus. After much consideration it was determined that the most practical and effective solution for alleviating the problems associated with these birds is to process them for local food banks to feed people in need. If you have more questions, please contact he DEC Region 2 office at (718) 482-4922. Regards, Mike

************************************** Michael V. Schiavone Certified Wildlife Biologist NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources 625 Broadway, 5th Floor Albany, New York 12233-4754 Ph: (518) 402-8886; Fx: (518) 402-8925 mvschiav@gw.dec.state.ny.us ************************************** >>> <grc@mepengineeringpc.com> 8/14/2013 10:12 AM >>>

Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing this letter in concern to the recent capture of wild turkeys in Staten Island. I am looking for an explanation as to why the turkeys were sent to a meat processing plant and not transported to a DEC land / Wildlife Management Unit to support hunting and wildlife recreation. Sincerely German Chaikin 65 Nassau Avenue Islip, NY 11751 T. 631.587.1999 x 320

Michael Schiavone - Staten Island Turkeys

From: To: Date: Subject: CC: Attachments: Michael Schiavone Batcheller, Gordon 8/16/2013 12:59 PM Staten Island Turkeys Swift, Bryan SI Turkeys.docx

Hi Gordon, See attached summary of the Staten Island Turkey issue and the conditions for relocating them to a captive facility. On a related note, USDA Wildlife Services captured 44 turkeys this week at the OMH facility. Based on the estimate of 80-100 birds at the site, that leaves 36-56 birds. The 44 that were captured have been processed and frozen. USDA won't test the meat for human consumption until their removal operations are complete. Mike

In 2000, nine captive-bred turkeys were released on the South Beach Psychiatric Center, NYS Office of Mental Health (OMH) by a local resident who had held them in captivity. Since that time, in addition to these turkeys and their descendents, other domestic birds including turkeys and chickens, have been illegally released at the facility by unknown members of the public. As of this spring there were 80-100 turkeys at the site. In order to protect New Yorks wild turkey population, the free-ranging turkeys at the OMH facility and adjacent lands cannot be relocated and released to the wild. The turkeys at the hospital campus are a mix of domestic turkeys and captive-bred turkeys and their "hybrid" status makes them unsuitable for relocation and release. In addition, these birds are relatively tame and rely on people for "hand outs". Transferring the birds elsewhere would be shifting the nuisance behaviors of the birds from one location to another. Furthermore, any time wildlife are moved there are concerns about disease transmission. Lastly, since these birds largely lack "wild" behaviors and wariness, they readily approach people. These characteristics render them unfit for survival in the wild. One option for these birds is to relocate them to a captive facility that will prevent the turkeys from interacting and breeding with indigenous wild turkeys. Merely clipping the birds wings is insufficient as they will still be able to roam freely and encounter wild birds. An appropriate facility must guarantee that the turkeys will remain confined for the rest of the birds lives. Despite research and inquiries, DEC has not been able to identify a facility that is willing or able to take the turkeys and ensure that they are kept separate from wild turkey populations. If such a facility were identified, the next step would be identifying the logistics of trapping and transporting the turkeys (e.g., funding, whether the facility would require testing the birds before they interact with domestic livestock, etc.). In addition, the facility would need a special license from DEC to possess the birds (e.g., Game Bird Breeders license). One of the license conditions would be that the turkeys could not be released to the wild.

APHIS Agreement No. 13-7236-4956 MU

PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT Between THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, DIVISION OF FISH, WILDLIFE, AND MARINE RESOURCES (DFWMR) And UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE (APHIS) WILDLIFE SERVICES (WS)
For a COOPERATIVE WILDLIFE DAMAGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK

ARTICLE 1 - PURPOSE The purposes of this PARTNERSHIP are (1) to establish a cooperative relationship between DFWMR and APHIS WS for the planning, coordination, and implementation of policies developed to prevent or minimize damage caused by wildlife, including threatened and endangered species, to agriculture, property, and natural resources and to safeguard public health and safety; (2) to facilitate an exchange of information; (3) to encourage research on wildlife damage management; and (4) to provide a basis for the establishment of cooperative service agreements to conduct wildlife damage management activities.

ARTICLE 2 - BACKGROUND In the United States, wildlife is a publicly owned resource held in trust and managed by State and Federal agencies. Wildlife sometimes causes significant damage to private and public property; other wildlife and their habitats; agricultural crops and livestock, forests, and pastures; and urban and rural structures. Wildlife may also threaten human health and safety or be a nuisance. Since wildlife is a publicly owned resource, State and Federal agencies must be responsible for responding to requests for the resolution of damage and other problems caused by wildlife. As human populations expand, and wildlife habitat loss occurs, the resulting competition for habitat has created escalating negative human-wildlife interactions and created new challenges for society and wildlife managers. Additionally, increasing environmental awareness frequently results in the paradox of greater protection of wildlife with little or no consideration for responsible management of human-wildlife conflicts. Damage resolution is exacerbated by this increased wildlife protection making wildlife damage management decision making increasingly complex, Ignorance of laws and regulations protecting wildlife and governing the

use of management methods may result in affected individuals using methods that are illegal or environmentally harmful. Responsible wildlife management provides a balance between human and wildlife needs and serves to reduce the frustration of individuals adversely affected by wildlife. It promotes tolerance toward wildlife in general and reduces the potential for environmentally unacceptable management actions. Varying responsibilities and expertise among agencies necessitates coordination to ensure optimum management of wildlife and other resources and will be addressed in this PARTNERSHIP. This PARTNERSHIP replaces APHIS 12-34-72-0042 MOU that became effective December 30, 1988.

ARTICLE 3 - AUTHORITIES The DFWMR is a Division of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), which was created on July 1, 1970 to combine in a single agency all state programs designed to protect and enhance the environment and whose mission is: "To conserve, improve and protect New York's natural resources and environment to prevent, abate and control water, land and air pollution, in order to enhance the health, safety and welfare of the people of the state and their overall economic and social well-being." NYSDEC has statutory authority pursuant to the New York State Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) and, the DFWMR is charged with the management of fish, wildlife and marine resources within the NYSDEC environmental mission. The mission of the DFWMR is: "To serve the interests of current and future generations of New Yorkers by using our collective skills, in partnership with the public, to describe, understand, manage and perpetuate a healthy and diverse assemblage of fish, wildlife and ecosystems." Specific sections of the ECL most relevant to this PARTNERSHIP include, but are not limited to: 11-0303, 11-0305, 11-0307, 11-0325, 11-0505, 11-0511, 11-0503, 11-0515, 11-0521, 11-0523, 11-0524, 11-0525, 110535, and 11-0537. API-US WS has statutory authority under the Act of March 2, 1931 (46 Stat. 1468; 7 U.S.C.426-426b) as amended, and the Act of December 22, 1987 (lOlStat. 1329-331, 7 U.S.C. 426c), to cooperate with States, local jurisdictions, individuals, public and private agencies, organizations, and institutions while conducting a program of wildlife services involving mammal and bird species that are reservoirs for zoonotic diseases, or animal species that are injurious and/or a nuisance to, among other things, agriculture, horticulture, forestry, animal husbandry, wildlife, and human health and safety.

ARTICLE 4 - RESPONSIBILITIES The parties to this agreement hereby enter into a coordinated program of wildlife damage management with mutual objectives which best serve the citizens of New York.

The DFWMR and APHIS WS mutually agree; A. To meet at least annually with DFWMR's Bureau of Wildlife's Management Team to discuss mutual wildlife damage management concerns, accomplishments, resource needs, available technology, and procedures. APHIS WS will coordinate the annual meeting and any special wildlife damage management meetings related to this PARTNERSHIP. Proposed amendments to the PARTNERSHIP should be presented in writing to the APHIS WS State Director at least 15 days prior to the annual meeting. The terms of this PARTNERSHIP and any proposed amendments may be reviewed at the annual meeting. To refer the appropriate requests for wildlife damage management assistance from the public to APHIS WS or the appropriate agency. To conduct wildlife damage management activities in accordance with the applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Any wildlife carcasses will be disposed of in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations and policies. To conduct wildlife damage management programs using or recommending the Integrated Wildlife Damage Management (IWDM) approach to reduce conflicts caused by wildlife. IWDM is the process of integrating and applying practical methods of wildlife damage prevention and management while minimizing harmful effects of control measures on humans, other species and the environment. IWDM may incorporate habitat alteration, cultural practices, wildlife behavior management, local population reduction, or any combination of these, depending on the characteristics of the specific damage problem. To conduct wildlife damage management activities and field investigations pursuant to this PARTNERSHIP emphasizing sound management practices with due regard for the protection of the public, domestic animals, beneficial or nontarget wildlife, endangered species, and the environment. To designate a representative from each agency to be responsible for the joint coordination of activities pursuant to this PARTNERSHIP. APHIS WS and DFWMR respective responsibilities are: 1. APHIS WS will assume the primary responsibility for responding to requests for wildlife damage assistance involving migratory birds, and wildlife hazards at airports. 2. DFWMR will assume the primary responsibility for responding to requests for assistance involving State regulated wildlife species (excluding those species creating hazards at airports), unless stipulated in other agreements with DFWMR (e.g., feral

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

G.

swine). 3. DFWMR will issue a general license to the APHIS WS State Director and his/her assistants, to manage offending target individual animals or populations of wildlife species detrimental to agriculture, public health and safety, property or natural resources, throughout New York State, except for deer, bear, beaver, wild turkey and any State-listed threatened and endangered species. A separate permit from DFWMR will be required to take any of those species. APHIS WS staff will not be required to obtain a nuisance wildlife control operator license pursuant to ECL 11-0524; however, any APHIS WS staff acting under the general license must have evidence that they meet the requirements for issuance of a nuisance wildlife control operator license as specified in ECL 11-0524 (2). APHIS WS will provide to DFWMR, on or before February 1 annually, a report of activities conducted under this license during the preceding calendar year. Such reports need only include those activities for which APHIS WS was directly authorized by DFWMR. DFWMR staff, including officially appointed volunteers, may assist APHIS WS with any activities authorized by such license or permit. 4. Actions taken by APHIS WS under authority of a DFWMR license permit will have the appropriate environmental compliance (NEPA) completed, in consultation with DFWMR. DFWMR's Programmatic Impact Statement on Game Species Management (1980), Supplemental Findings (1994), and Type II actions listed under 6 NYCRR 618 (2) (d) provide further compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) for issuance of permits to APHIS WS to take actions pursuant to this PARTNERSHIP. 5. APHIS WS will include DFWMR on committees, task forces and working groups when developing environmental assessments, environmental impact statements or damage management plans. DFWMR and APHIS WS will involve the other in development of wildlife management plans needed for the implementation of various aspects of this partnership agreement. For APHIS WS, it will include DFWMR in the development of National Environmental Policy Act documents (e.g., environmental assessments, categorical exclusions, environmental impact statements), including threatened and endangered species consultations. DFWMR will invite APHIS WS to participate in development of appropriate state wildlife management plans, especially damage management plans. 6. DFWMR will assist APHIS WS with the pesticide registration process and with the oral rabies vaccine (ORV) program by providing guidance and critical review of environmental documents. 7. DFWMR and APHIS WS will share available information related to the management of diseases or wildlife damage affecting livestock or wildlife. 8. DFWMR will assume the primary responsibility for providing educational assistance to landowners, agricultural producers, and other citizens of the State of New

York as necessary; will develop information publications and materials; and will provide an educational network to disseminate appropriate research and information related to the prevention and management of wildlife damage, pathology, and epidemiology. DFWMR will coordinate the development of wildlife damage management information with APHIS WS, and APHIS WS will assist in all of the above activities as needed. 9. Whenever practicable, APHIS WS and DFWMR will communicate with each other before talking to communities, localities or the media about wildlife damage management programs being proposed or conducted pursuant to this PARTNERSHIP. 10. APHIS WS will use firearms in accordance with federal laws. APHIS WS will coordinate with local and/or state law enforcement agencies before implementation of projects where firearms are used. In accordance with New York Penal Law 265.20 l(d), WS may conduct sharp-shooting or hazing programs from a vehicle, at night and/or with suppressed firearms. Wildlife may be shot over bait when regional NYSDEC offices approve such action. 11. Any DFWMR employee may ride in a federal government vehicle or boat when working on a project consistent with this partnership agreement. Furthermore, DFWMR employees may operate a Federal government motor vehicle when working with APHIS WS on a project of mutual interest after completing Federal Optional Form 30 la. 12. DFWMR will ensure that wildlife hazards to human safety identified on or around airports are referred to APHIS WS. 13. APHIS WS will be a participating partner in the New York "Wildlife Health Program" One Health Initiative. As such, APHIS WS will participate in planning and program implementation to meet mutually agreed upon goals and strategies of the program. DFWMR is the lead agency administering the Wildlife Health Program.

ARTICLE 5 - STATEMENT OF NO FINANCIAL OBLIGATION Signature of this PARTNERSHIP does not constitute a financial obligation on the part of either signatory. Each signatory party is to use and manage its own funds in carrying out the purpose of this PARTNERSHIP.

ARTICLE 6 - LIMITATIONS OF COMMITMENT This PARTNERSHIP and any continuation thereof shall be contingent upon the availability of funds appropriated by the Congress of the United States. It is understood and agreed that any monies allocated for purposes covered by this PARTNERSHIP shall be expended in

accordance with its terms and in the manner prescribed by the fiscal regulations and/or administrative policies of the party making the funds available. If fiscal resources are to transfer, a separate agreement must be developed by the parties.

ARTICLE 7 - CONGRESSIONAL RESTRICTION Under 41 U.S.C. 22, no member of, or delegate to, Congress shall be admitted to any share or part of this PARTNERSHIP or to any benefit to arise therefrom.

ARTICLE 8 - AMENDMENTS This PARTNERSHIP may be amended at any time by mutual agreement of the parties in writing.

ARTICLE 9 - TERMINATION This PARTNERSHIP may be terminated by any of the parties upon sixty (60) days written notice to the other parties.

ARTICLE 10 - EFFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION This PARTNERSHIP will be in effect June 1, 2013 and will continue until May 31, 2018, not to exceed 5 years.

X^_

/js ^V/^*C^Z-^ t<"*--^

Dat Patriciafciexinger,Director ^ ^iv Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine \esources New York State DepartmenTof*EfWTrc5nmental Conservation

Charles S. Brown, Eastern Regional Director Wildlife Services Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service United States Department of Agriculture

Date