Species, causes, and outcomes of wildlife rehabilitation in New York State

Wildlife rehabilitation is a publicly popular practice, though not without controversy. State wildlife agencies frequently debate the ecological impact of rehabilitation. By analyzing case records, we can clarify and quantify the causes for rehabilitation, species involved, and treatment outcomes. This data would aid regulatory agencies and rehabilitators in making informed decisions, as well as gaining insight into causes of species mortality. In New York State, the Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) has licensed rehabilitators since 1980 and annual reporting is required. In this study, we analyzed 58,185 individual wildlife cases that were attended by New York rehabilitators between 2012 and 2014. These encompassed 30,182 (51.9%) birds, 25,447 (43.7%) mammals, 2,421 (4.2%) reptiles, and 75 (0.1%) amphibians. We identified patterns among taxonomic representation, reasons for presentation to a rehabilitation center, and animal disposition. Major causes of presentation were trauma (n = 22,156; 38.1%) and orphaning (n = 21,679; 37.3%), with habitat loss (n = 3,937; 6.8%), infectious disease (n = 1,824; 3.1%), and poisoning or toxin exposure (n = 806; 1.4%) playing lesser roles. The overall release rate for animals receiving care was 50.2% while 45.3% died or were euthanized during the rehabilitation process. A relatively small number (0.3%) were permanently non-releasable and placed in captivity; 4.1% had unknown outcomes. A comparable evaluation in 1989 revealed that wildlife submissions have increased (annual mean 12,583 vs 19,395), and are accompanied by a significant improvement in release (50.2% in the study period vs 44.4% in 1989) (χ2(1) = 90.43, p < 0.0001). In this manuscript, we aim to describe the rehabilitator community in New York State, and present the causes and outcomes for rehabilitation over a three-year period.

Epilogue

This chapter recounts how the State Department of Environmental Conservation allowed the Parks Department to open the Floating Pool Lady at Barretto Point Park in the Bronx on June 27, 2018. It points out the appreciation that the author has received since the floating pool started its voyage, emphasizing how people enjoying and having fun provided proof that creating the swimming facility yielded many accomplishments. It also discusses how the Floating Pool Lady weathered two hurricanes and a formidable rainstorm, such as superstorm Sandy in 2012, which only caused minimal damage. The chapter mentions how children in the Bronx from a recreationally underserved neighborhood no longer have to swim in putrid waters now that the floating pool has become accessible. It notes how the Floating Pool Lady had a seasonal record of nearly fifty thousand swimmers in 2019, despite over twelve inches of rainfall in July and August.

Fire and Water

This chapter begins with the author's experience when she presented her proposal of the floating pool to the Waterfront Committee on July 29, 2004. It recounts her meeting with the State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) in 1998 and how she convinced regulators that a floating pool was a water-dependent use. It also details how the author presented the concept of a floating pool to a panel at a Waterfront Center Conference in 2001 and discussed methods to open up urban riverfronts for recreation. The chapter mentions the influential book The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs, which argued that municipal governments were no longer able to govern effectively. It talks about Jacobs' recommendation of more inclusiveness in the political and administrative processes by creating a subdivision within every public agency whose portfolio affected a locality.

Sustainable Trail Design, Not Hiker Permits, is Necessary for Environmental Preservation in New York State’s Adirondack Park High Peaks

The High Peaks of the Adirondack Park in New York is home to many of the state’s precious natural resources and is a favorite destination for hikers. Severe erosion on trails threatens the region’s environmental health. Most conservation groups advocate for reducing the number of hikers as the primary solution to combatting erosion; however, the scientific literature indicates that reduction of foot traffic is ineffective at combatting already deteriorating trails. Instead, we recommend the state legislature and Department of Environmental Conservation pursue a plan to rebuild these trails using sustainable design principles, which more effectively ensures their longevity. We outline the research and expertise required to successfully rebuild these trails as well as a mechanism to fund this expensive endeavor.

Species, causes, and outcomes of wildlife rehabilitation in New York State

Wildlife rehabilitation is a publicly popular though highly controversial practice. State wildlife agencies frequently debate the ecological impact of rehabilitation. Analysis of case records could inform that debate by clarifying and quantifying the causes for rehabilitation, species involved, and treatment outcomes. This information could aid in the ability of regulatory agencies and rehabilitators to make informed decisions and gain insight into causes of species decline. In New York, rehabilitators are licensed by the Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and thus, are required to submit annual reports. Between 2012-2014, 59,370 individual wildlife cases were seen by licensed rehabilitators comprising 31,229 (52.6%) birds, 25,490 (42.9%) mammals, 2,423 (4.1%) reptiles, and 73 (0.1%) amphibians. We identified patterns among taxonomic representation, reasons for presentation, and disposition. Major causes of presentation were trauma (n = 22,672, 38.2%) and orphaning (n = 21,876, 36.8%), with habitat loss (n =3,746, 6.3%), infectious disease (n = 1,992, 3.4%), and poisoning or toxin exposure (n = 864, 1.5%) playing lesser roles. The overall release rate for animals receiving care was 50.2%; 45.4% were either euthanized or died during the rehabilitation process. A relatively small number (0.3%) were permanently non-releasable and placed in captivity, and 4.1% had unknown outcomes. In comparison to data from 1989, wildlife submissions have increased (annual mean 12,583 vs 19,790), as has the release rate, from 44.4% to 50.2%. Utilizing a large data set allowed us to fill knowledge gaps, which can help inform management by both the rehabilitators and the state agencies that regulate them, deepening understanding of the scope and impacts of wildlife rehabilitation.

Alaskan North Slope Legacy Wells: Case Study

ABSTRACT Various State of Alaska agencies, including the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), are currently investigating 136 legacy wells within the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and surrounding lands. These legacy wells were drilled between 1944 and 1981 by federal agencies, including the United States Navy and United States Geological Survey, to explore oil reserve potential and to develop drilling techniques for Alaska's arctic. In 2004, 2010 and 2013 the Bureau of Land Management released preliminary studies describing potential environmental risks at each site. Many wells include historic reserve pits, flare pits, crude and diesel oil releases, and discarded solid waste. Tundra damage and potential residual contamination are of great concern. Due to their remote locations, information on the current status of waste is limited. Regulatory agencies are developing a cleanup plan that is appropriate for their remote, Arctic environment.

Two-Volume Contingency Plans in Alaska Provide Focused Information for Responders & Regulators

Oil discharge prevention and contingency plans (ODPCPs) have been required under Alaska statutes and regulations for oil exploration, production, storage, and transportation facilities since 1992. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. (BPXA) has prepared and submitted their North Slope ODPCPs (Milne Point, Endicott, Greater Prudhoe Bay, and Northstar) as a single volume for each facility under these requirements. However, in 2011, when the four plans were renewed, BPXA elected to present their ODPCPs in two volumes for each facility. The purpose of this organizational change from one to two volumes was to focus information in each volume; the first volume is a stand-alone Emergency Action Plan for spill responders, dedicated to spill response planning and preparedness, and the second volume is dedicated to spill prevention requirements and procedures. The 2-volume edition allows BPXA's plan writers, operators, and regulators to concentrate on specific response or prevention topics and regulatory compliance. The 2-volume plan is easier to use and revise through the amendment process. This approach is allowed under Alaska regulations and was embraced by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Federal regulators (Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, US Environmental Protection Agency, US Coast Guard, and US Department of Transportation) have reviewed and approved the 2-volume response plans as well. According to regulators, with such large ODPCPs, the effort to maintain publication efficiency during public review creates a potential risk of confusion or lack of sufficient detail, which may lead to comments that focus on form or style, rather than content. Working with two volumes circumvented this potential problem. Due to the size and lengthy history of the facilities, an comprehensive Alaska regulations governing the contents of ODPCPs, two volumes allowed BPXA to include all of the necessary information for the plans without creating a storage or ergonomic problem for the reviewers. Regular users of the ODPCPs at the BPXA facilities have found that working with a smaller, more focused volume is more efficient.

NEARSHORE OPERATIONS RESPONSE STRATEGY: Overcoming Spill Response Challenges in Remote Areas

Conducting oil spill recovery operations in remote regions/environments is a daunting challenge. Increased shipping and oil exploration in the Arctic drives the need for developing innovative ways to mitigate oil spills in remote regions. This includes bolstering near-shore spill response to protect coastal resources. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, in conjunction with the United States Coast Guard, and Alaska oil spill response organizations, has developed a Nearshore Operations Response Strategy (NORS) that provides planners and responders with a framework to plan for and carry out long-term oil removal and shoreline protection strategies in the Alaskan near-shore environment. NORS addresses the logistical challenges that exist when considering sustained operations in remote areas without shore-based support facilities. This strategy begins with tactics developed using best available technology to recover oil and protect resources in the near-shore environment. The components of a Nearshore Response Group designed to implement these tactics over a ten mile radius are described. Finally, the elements of a marine logistical base to support the Group for up to 21 days in remote regions are developed.

THE ALASKA SHORELINE CLEANUP GUIDANCE AND STANDARDS MANUAL

ABSTRACT The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) Spill Prevention and Response Division is compiling a Shoreline Cleanup Guidance and Standards Manual that captures statewide standards for oil-impacted shoreline cleanup and the lessons learned from previous spill response efforts, including the MIV Selendang AYU (2004), the M/V Kuroshima (1997), and the T/V Exxon Valdez (1989) oil spills. Important elements of the manual include the capture of cleanup endpoint criteria and prescribed controls required for specific techniques. The criteria and controls have been developed as a result of experience from previous oil spill cleanups. The criteria, reviewed and approved by State resources agency representatives from the Alaska Departments of Environmental Conservation, Fish and Game, and Natural Resources, now sets the statewide standard for shoreline cleanup of persistent oiling. The manual presents not only the State of Alaska'S shoreline endpoint standards but also the State'S requirements, policies, and expectations for cleanup of oil-impacted shorelines, including: the cleanup approval process; prescribed controls required for specific techniques; and the identification of current, ‘alternative’, or chemical shoreline treatment techniques that may be considered during shoreline cleanup operations. The manual describes many common shoreline cleanup techniques and outlines “best-use” practices, but does not identify new techniques or technologies. Conditions specific to Alaska are summarized, including primary shoreline types and primary oil types that are transported in bulk or most likely to be of concern. In most instances, the primary users will be incident management teams facilitating development of incident-specific shoreline cleanup plans. The manual will also serve ADEC staff, Responsible Parties, State and federal trustee agencies, and land managers.