Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-03-30 Correspondencei COMFORT . >, fidl-service vete,'i,,ary ca~e February 18th 1999 24-hour emergency treatment generd[ exantindtions Iowa City Council Civic Center Iowa City, IA 52240 vaccinations spaying / neutering surgery fidl-service dental care diagnl ~stic testing. radiology behavioral counseling Ladies & Gentlemen, It is with regret that I submit my resignation from the Iowa City Animal Advisory Board, effective immediately. When I submitted my name for this position, there was no suggestion that a conflict of interest might exist between my professional services provided to the City of Iowa City, and my work on the board. In an effort to avoid such an appearance, this action would seem unavoidable. I would be hapl~y to provide any assistance to the board as a private citizen in the future. Respectfully, .\ pharmaceuticals boarding protbssional grooming gr~emzing ,uds spccudty diets nutrttie,tdl sttp[dics 2122 ACT Circle, Iowa City, Iowa 52245 ° 319-338-9955 ° 319-338-0112 fax 28 South Linn Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 (319) 356-5220 Fax (319) 356-5226 MEMORANDUM To: Members of the City Council CC: Members of the Board of Supervisors From: Mary Kathryn Wallace, Secretary Senior Center Commission Date: 11-Mar-99 Re: Request for Connecting Walkway between the Second Floor of the Senior Center and Iowa Avenue Parking Facility At the February 16, 1999, meeting of the Senior Center Commission, the importance of a connecting walkway between the Iowa Avenue parking facility and the second floor of the Senior Center was discussed. Commissioners were in agreement that a walkway would provide more than a convenience for Senior Center participants. Factors associated with aging, such as diminished sight, hearing, balance and mobility make convenient, sheltered building access a safety concern as well. In accordance with this opinion, the following motion was passed by unanimous vote: Request the City Council include a skywalk connecting the Iowa Avenue parking facility to the Senior Center in the final design of the parking facility. This request is not contingent upon the Center acquiring additional space in the ramp. Additionally, Handicapped parking should be available adjacent to the skywalk entrance. On behalf of the Senior Center Commission, I am requesting that a second level walkway be included in the final design of the Iowa Avenue parking facility. Because of a belief that the connecting walkway is essential to safe building access, this request is unrelated to earlier Commission requests for parking and programming space in the parking facility. Your thoughtful consideration of this request is appreciated. 03-30-99 33('7 2~-Z,,,~,T ,4g(3) i~ F~ Mar-12-99 11:35A Arbor Develop~nt 14023412655 Farham Group, Inc. 1630 Farham Street, Suite 920 Omaha, NIJ 68102 Telephone (402) 34 1-0888 Fax (402) 34 March 12, I999 The Honorable Errfie L~hman Mayor, City ol'lowa City 410 East Washington Street hmwa City, IA 52240 Dear Mayor Lehman: I am very pleased to inform you that the Phase 11 application for our Riverview P'!ace Senior Apartments has bccn approved by the Iowa Finan~ Authority. We could not be more elated by this atmouneement, nor more appreciative of your suprn~rt and assistance in the process. Your help, as well as that of other city officials and members of the business community, was absoMtely key to our success w/th the Authority in what has beeowe an extraordinarily competitive process. Thank you fi~r your active support and I look Ibrwasd to working with the City in making this development one that we will all be proud of. PSR Re orts PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY NOBEL I EACE ~! Z E n >' Nuclear War, recip ien~ ~: of the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize VOL. 20 NO. I WINTER 1999 How Green is Your Golf Course? Herbicides, Pesticides Draw Doctors' Attention olf has emerged as one of Gronmental issues of the the fastest growing envi- day. And for good reason. Gnlf courses cover an area about three times the size of the state of Rhode Island. More than 360 new courses are being completed annually. Golf, once the favorite pastime of the privileged, is fast becoming a sport of choice for more than 25 million Americans. Along with the exponential growth of golf courses comes a cumulative in- crease in the use of potentially harmful chemicals. Today, more and more physi- cians--a segment of the population long known for its love of the game--are taking a second look at the lush green of their neigh- borhood links and asking some important questions about the pro- cesses and products that keep the fairways so inviting: ......... HOW GREEN IS YOUR, GOLF? continued from page l certainty" that no harm will come from aggregate exposures to pestl- eides from food, drinking water, showers and lawn and residential use. The conference drew more than 100 participants, including golf course owners, architects, and managers; governmental organiza- tions such the Environmental Protection Agency and regional planning agencies; and nonprofit organizations such as the League of Women Voters. the North Caro- lina Coastal Federation, and the Garden Clubs of America. PSR Reoorts cides, 20 to 25 fungicides and 10 to 15 herbicides. Although there is little information on their occupa- tional health effects, one study of 618 golf course superintendents conducted by the University of Iowa found elevated levels of cancer of the lung, brain, large intestine and prostate, as well as non-Hodgkins lymphoma. (The % On average, each golf course uses about 20 different insecticides, '20 to 25 fungicides, and 10 to 15 Sharon Newsome has served on the steering committee of the project for four years and was a central negotiator in the develop- ment of"Environmental Principles for Golf Courses in the United States," which outlines principles for planning, siting, and construc- tion of new courses; their mainte- nance (including water use and waste management); and facility operations, It also includesea list of principles golfers should follow. The principles have been en- dorsed by 22 national and regional organizations, including PSR, the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides and Friends of the Earth. Endorsing / golf organizations include the Golf Course Builders Association of America, the Golf Course Superin- tendents Association of America, and the American Society of Golf Course Architects. WHAT YOU CAN DO Obtain a copy of the "Environ- mental Principles for Golf Courses in the United States" by calling PSR or visiting www. psr. org; then encourage your local golf courses to adopt them. If you are a golfer, adopt the Golfer's Principles. study did not take into account smoking, family history, and other potential confounding variables.) At a recent conference on golf and the environment held in Orlando, Florida, past PSR Presi- dent Dr. Alan Lockwood and Director of the Environment Pro- gram Sharon Newsome were featured speakers. They discussed the dangers of some of the chemi- cals used on the nation's 16,000 golf courses and the need for greater cooperation on legislative and regulatory goals. Dr. Lockwood spoke on the new focus by EPA on organophosphates and carbamates, both of which are widely used by golf course superin- tendents. These cholinesterase inhibitors affect the brain and other portions of the nervous sys- tem. Dr. Lockwood urged the EPA to fulfill its mandate under the Food Quality Protection Act of nil I*l~m (ISSN~894-6264)i, the newsletter of Physicit ps fQLSocial Respon- sibility, a no.rboFof~tor LaniZ~a~0n, Committed to hhe elirninalbn of ~ ';lea ra~d ot~er weap- ons of mass destrue'tic ,~, th~:~chievement of , ,,,.,.....I.,;, . ....?.t -" .s . .e ~ .,. '~."'.~i~:Jll.,io:!.:ti:~:' 0' v ~ e".?? ~P:l r, ~* e a:.. .s. To. 'l:ce .'e · . ,. J.i I ~u I IM Fourteenlh'Str~et'N ! n ton, DC 26~05; ~ iisi '~Q.6r website at www. psr. o~g; :~ ] Executive Director: :bert;~./vfUsiI,Ph.D. Executive Editor: ;~. ,,~uth Swanson Fdito~: --- :~. So ~ Physicicms Jor _~,~ial.;,.~,i~'~ponsibilitY , PRESIDENT CLINTON, THE WHITE HOUSE, 1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. WASHINGTON, DC 20500 · {202) 456-1414 Carol deProsse 5281 Wapsi Ave SE Lone Tree, IA 527554795 VoL 20 No. I SCHUBERT ~ ASSOCIATES' P.O. BOX I I 540 GLENDALE, AZ 853 I 8- 1540 TELEPHONE/FAX: (602) 547-8537 Memorandum To: From: Re: Date: Members of the I~~nnvCity Council ' March I2, 1~)99 ~MAR 16 1999 CITY MANAGERS OFFICE For your information I have enclosed a copy of the comments on the Revised Environmental Assessment for deer management in Iowa City, Iowa which I prepared for the University of Iowa Animal Rights Coalition and The Fund for Animals. If you have any questions about the enclosed document, please feel flee to contact me. (, ct 8 "13o5e doc cun,en-e &go.; io, bie.. SCHUBFRT & ASSOCIATES P.O. BOX I I 540 GLENDALE, AZ 853 I 8- 1540 TELEPHONE/FAX: (602) 547-8537 February 8, 1999 BY TEI,EFAX AND OVERNIGHT MAll, Mr. Ed Hartin, State Director USDA/APHIS/WS 2407 Industrial Drive Columbia. MO 65202 Mr Gary Larson, Eastern Regional Director USDA/APH] S/WS 3322 West End Avenue Suite 301 Nashville, TN 37203 Dear Mr. Hanin and Mr Larson: On behalf of the University of Iowa Animal Rights Coalition (UIARC) and The Fund for Animals (The Fund) 1 submit the following comments on the Revised Environmental Assessment (PEA) for Reducing Deer Damage Through Population Reduction in Iowa City, IA. These comments are submitted in addition to any comments submitted by individual members of the UIARC The UIARC and The Fund are unalterably opposed to the ongoing efforts of WS to initiate a deer sharp shooting program in Iowa City, IA. Despite the new title and alleged clarifications, the REA remains as legally and biologically deficient as the previous Environmental Assessment. Deficiencies in the REA include a failure to provide site specific data about the deer herd and its alleged impacts in Iowa City, to evaluate the environmental impacts of WS activities on a statewide basis, to consider and evaluate the impacts of other actions reasonably connected to the WS action, and a failure to properly evaluate the impacts of its proposed action on endangered species. These and other deficiencies will be discussed below. Because the REA suffers from many of the deficiencies of the previous EA, the comments submitted earlier are hereby incorporated by reference and attached (Attachment 1 ). As a threshold matter, the UIARC and The Fu--.d condemn the WS process because the WS has purposefully and illegally limited the opportunity for public comment in order to minimize the ability for interested and concerned members of the public to participate in the decision- making process and because, regardless of the public concerns, the WS intends to reinitiate deer sharpshooting to satisfy the desires of its client, Iowa City. The entire National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process is a whitewash because the public is not being provided with an adequate opportunity to review and prepare substantive comments on the REA. A one-week comment period is simply insufficient to review the REA. ~ The WS has blatantly violated its responsibilities under NEPA to facilitate and promote public involvement in the NEPA process. While WS may prefer that its activities be exempt from NEPA and public review, federal law, if the WS would bother to comply, requires otherwise. Because of the limited opportunity for comment, these comments are not as complete or as thorough as they would be if a more reasonable opportunity for public comment was provided. DEFICIENCIES IN THE REA: Though WS has changed the title of its present REA, it cannot avoid the fact that its original Environmental Assessment in this matter was a statewide proposal to manage deer in urban areas and at airports throughout the State of Iowa. (Attachment 2). Only after WS was informed that it could not legally implement its deer killing program without public input, did its program suddenly change from a statewide program to a action limited to Iowa City. NEPA prohibits agencies from segmenting its actions into smaller parts in order to reduce or minimize the environmental impacts of each individual part and the project as a whole. There is no question that WS is violating NEPA by attempting to piecemeal its larger project into smaller parts in order to reduce the environmental impacts and significance of each individual part. lfWS intends to initiate a "deer killing for hire" program in the State of Iowa then it must evaluate the impacts of its proposal in a legally sufficient Environmental Impact Statement and then prepare site-specific Environmental Assessment on its individual projects within the State. The stated purpose of the proposed deer sharpshooting program is to reduce the expanding deer population, reduce deer damage to urban landscaping, reduce deer/vehicle collisions. and reduce the risk of human exposure to Lyme disease. A review of each of these objectives. and the data supporting them, demonstrates that there is no legitimate justification for lethal deer control in Iowa City. The KEA claims that the deer population has increased in Iowa City. This claim is based zone week is the maximum amount of time that any organization or individual has been provided to review and comment on the REA. In reality, many individuals and organizations, including individual members of the UIARC, have been provided even less time to comment on the document. Ms. Shannon Nelson, for example, despite submitting comments on the previous EA, received a copy of the REA only on February 3 -- one day before the comment deadline '- and only after requesting a copy in writing. 2 solely on two surveys, one conducted in January 1997 and the second conducted in January 1999. The first survey counted 538 deer and the second counted 800 deer. The veracity and/or computability of these survey results cannot be determined because of a lack of information. The survey methodologies, for example, were not disclosed thereby preventing the public from understanding if the techniques were identical or different. This c, an substantially alter the results of any survey effort. The areas surveyed were not disclosed. The REA claims that the surveys in 1997 and 1999 covered the same area but there is no evidence to substantiate this point. The number of observers and experience of observers conducting the surveys was not disclosed. This factor is critical in determining the accuracy of the count. Also, the conditions of the survey were not disclosed. Even if the survey methodologies were unquestionable and directly comparable -- an unlikely situation -- the mere fact that the deer population has increased does not justify the proposed reduction program. Indeed, the REA contains absolutely no evidence that deer damage to urban landscapes, deer/vehicle collisions, or Lyme disease are of particular concern or importance in the areas targeted for sharpshooting. Since the objective of the action is to reduce these alleged threats, if the threats don't exist, then there is no justification for the program. Even if the threats miraculously did exist, non-lethal strategies to resolve these impacts are far preferable both from a humane and ecological perspective than a shooting program. The REA claims that deer are causing damage to urban landscaping in lowa City. The evidence substantiating this claim is limited to observations by WS personnel. The REA contains absolutely no credible data identifying where deer impacts to landscaping has been identified in the City, the number of persons who have complained about such impact, or the severity of such impacts. Without such site-specific data, the public cannot possibly determine if the proposed action is warranted or if it will achieve its stated objective of reducing such alleged impacts. It is common biological knowledge that deer eat. It is also known that deer do enjoy eating ornamental plant species. The mere fact that deer may consume landscaping plats is not justification for the extermination of the deer particularly when non-lethal alternatives (i.e., planting less preferred and less palatable landscaping plants, fencing) exist to reduce or eliminate these impacts. On a site-specific level, it is unlikely that WS can demonstrate that deer damage to urban landscapes represents a significant threat on the Peninsula or in the Hickory Hill area of lowa City, the two areas targeted for sharpshooting. Both of these areas, as the REA concedes do not contain many homes, REA at 9, suggesting that there are few, if any, homes with landscaping for the elect to impact. Thus, killing deer in these areas, while it may placate the killing desires of certain WS personnel and enable WS to meet its contractual promises to Iowa City, it will not result in any meaningful reduction of the alleged impacts of deer on urban landscaping. The REA claims that the number of deer/vehicle accidents in Iowa has increased substantially over the past decade. In lowa City, the police report 39 deer/vehicle accidents during 1998 and claim that this number continues to increase. Unfortunately, due to the inherent pro-killing bias of WS, it suggests that this number of deer/vehicle accidents in Iowa City is unacceptably high and that non-lethal options for reducing this accident rate will simply not provide sufficient protection to the citizens of Iowa City. This is incorrect. First, ifWS disclosed the number of vehicles operated on the streets and highways of Iowa City on a daily basis, it would quickly become evident that the threat of a deer/vehicle collision is a remarkably rare event. Given the millions of vehicle trips taken every year by the citizens of Iowa City, 39 deer/vehicle accidents is a remarkably low number and represents the insignificant risk of such an accident in the city. Arguably, though the data are not available, the' number of vehicle/vehicle collisions and the number of vehicle/stationary object collisions is probably far higher than the number of deer/vehicle collisions. Consequently, if promoting public safety on the Iowa City roadways was truly the objective, either automobiles should be banned entirely or significantly restricted in use. Second, WS has entirely failed to include any information in the REA about the likely increase in traffic volume in Iowa City. Reports from local activists indicate that Iowa City has grown considerably in recent years with a number of new residential and commercial developments. More houses means more people which means more vehicles. Though frequently no considered, the change in traffic volume over time may substantially increase the risk of deer vehicle accidents even if the number of deer remains stable. Instead of blaming the deer for the alleged unacceptable risk of deer/vehicle collisions, additional investigation may demonstrate that the risk is more a function of a larger volume of traffic than a larger population of deer. Third. the scientific evidence demonstrates that deer/vehicle accidents can be effectively reduced and, in some cases, eliminated by non-lethal means. Iowa City has already experienced considerable success with roadside reflectors and this program should be expanded to all roads where it is believed there is an unacceptable risk of deer/vehicle accidents. Waming signs at deer/vehicle accident hotspots, reduced speed limits during the rut in those areas more prone to deer/vehicle accidents, and changes in roadside habitat management (i.e., planting less palatable vegetation, clearing roadside shrubs/trees to increase driver ability to see and react to deer near the roadway), and changes in winter road management (i.e., replacing salt with altemative substances which are less attractive to deer) should also be implemented. Finally, the REA fails to identify where deer/vehicle accidents have been documented in lowa City. This information must be disclosed to the public to aid in the identification of potential deer/vehicle accident hot spots and to so that the public can determine whether deer killing at the two targeted areas will have any meaningful impact on deer/vehicle collisions. According to Lisa Handsaker of the Iowa City City Manager's office information on when, where, and what conditions deer/vehicle accidents occurred has been documented. Yet, this information is not disclosed in the REA. Considering the uninhabited nature of the two targeted sites (i.e., the Peninsula and the Hickory Hill area) it is highly unlikely that there have been a large number of deer/vehicle accidents in these areas and, therefore, shooting deer in these areas -- assuming that killing deer has any impact on the deer/vehicle collision rate -- will result in any meaningful reduction in the risk of a deer/vehicle accident. In reality, there is no evidence that lethal cont."'~l of deer in an area -- unless all of the deer are exterminated -- prevents surviving deer from crossing roads and potentially causing deer/vehicle accidents. IfWS can point to any credible studies documenting that lethal deer control reduces deer/vehicle accidents, it should do so. The PEA reports that nine eases of Lyrne disease have been reported in Johnson County between 1983 to 1997. What is not disclosed is whether these nine eases occurred in Iowa City or in outlying communities. Nor did the WS disclose whether these c.~ses were believed to be the result of exposure within the county or if these individuals were exposed to the disease in other parts of the country and simply were diagnosed while in Johnson County. This information must be disclosed if the public is to be able to understand the implications of Lyme disease in Iowa City. Even if the cases were home grown, the fact that there has been only 9 diagnosed cases in Johnson County during a i 5 year period demonstrates that this disease is no where close to being even a minor public health threat in lowa City or Johnson County. Considering the number of lowa City and Johnson County residents and the number of days they spent outside in their yards or in nature during that 15 year span, ifLyme disease was prevalent in that area, there surely would have been more diagnosed cases. The misdiagnosis of Lyme disease is irrelevant in this case because there is no evidence to document how frequently Lyme disease is misdiagnosed and because the public can comment only on what is known, not what is unknown. Finally, since there are a number of species, including domestic cats and dogs, who can act as hosts for ticks carrying Lyrne disease, reducing the deer population will not necessarily reduce the risk of Lyme disease The REA also suggests that the deer population in Iowa City must be reduced to address deer impacts to natural vegetation and wildlife diversity. Though this reportedly has been a major concern of several deer task forces in Iowa, the REA contains absolutely no evidence to demonstrate that deer are adversely impacting natural vegetation or wildlife diversity in the lowa City area. Mere speculation about such impacts is not sufficient grounds to justify a deer killing program If WS, Iowa City, or the lowa Department of Natural Resources has evidence demonstrating such impacts, it must be disclosed. Such evidence would have to include baseline information about the abundance, diversity, and composition of vegetation in natural areas, the abundance and diversity of wildlife in those areas, and data demonstrating that the abundance and diversity of vegetation and wildlife has been changed over time as the deer population in the area has increased. If such evidence does not exist on a site-specific level, then WS should cease from using these claims in an attempt to justify its proposal to slaughter deer. As the foregoing evidence demonstrates, WS has provided no site-specific evidence to substantiate its claims that the deer population in the targeted areas either are causing impacts or is in need of reduction. Instead, it appears that WS is using any excuse it can find in its continued strained attempts to justify the killing of deer to satisfy its own gunners and to satisfy the desires of its client, lowa City, to kill deer. If WS was a professional organization and if it based its management efforts on credible scientific evidence, it would have to concede that there is not sufficient evidence to justify a deer killing program in Iowa City and that killing deer in the targeted areas will provide no meaningful impact to these alleged problems. As indicated in earlier comments (Attachment l ) on the initial Environmental Assessment, lethal control ofwildlife is ultimately ineffective as a management tool. As explained, when animals, including deer, are removed by lethal means, the productivity, health, and survival rate of the remaining animals increases allowing the animals to quickly fill those areas where deer have been killed. Consequently, lethal control, instead of being an effective solution to address alleged human/wildlife conflicts, must be continued indefinitely to counteract the populations response to removal. Non-lethal management options are far more effective in resolving deer/human conflicts because they rely on decreasing deer/human conflicts while protecting the deer population. Using these techniques, the deer population is permitted to naturally stabilize (assuming development can be minimized and controlled), while humans are provided different strategies to reduce or eliminate the likelihood of deer conflicts and to increase their tolerance for deer. Even the PEA concedes that the deer population is subject to natural regulation if the population exceeds the biological carrying capacity of the habitat (see below). WS must provide a comprehensive and credible explanation of the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of lethal deer control before it should even begin to consider the use of this technique in lowa City or elsewhere. The UIARC and The Fund are absolutely convinced that a comprehensive non-lethal deer management program in Iowa City would be effective in reducing whatever deer/human conflicts are occurring in the area. The PEA discusses both the concepts of Biological Carrying Capacity (BCC) and Wildlife Acceptance Capacity (WAC) but fails to disclose relevant information about these estimates. The REA fails, for example, to specify what the BCC is for Iowa City or for specific areas within Iowa City. lfWS intends to rely on this estimate to justify its deer killing program, then it must disclose what it believes the BCC is in the area. This would require surveys and studies to determine the abundance and productivity of the vegetation in the area and a determination of how much forage is needed by deer to survive. These studies, however, have not been done. Moreover, the BCC estimate is highly variable and can change over time. Indeed, climate and rainfall patterns can substantially influence the BCC of an area. In one year, for example, if perfect vegetation growing conditions exist, the BCC may be higher than in another year which experiences climatic conditions which are less conducive to vegetation growth. Because this estimate can be so variable, establishing a BCC is problematic. WS officials believe that the deer herd in Iowa City is at or near its BCC. As a result, as the PEA indicates, it would be expected that the health of the deer herd should begin to suffer due to a decrease in the availability of nutritious food items, productivity should decline, and the incidence of parasitism and disease should increase. While the availability of supplemental feed or ornamental plants may alter these impacts, if the deer population is at or near the BCC then, as the PEA concedes, the population should begin to decline naturally through decreased productivity and survival. If this is the case, then there would appear to be no legitimate justification for lethal control. The mere fact that the deer may be nutritionally deprived or 6 subject to an increased threat of disease -- factors which are perfectly normal in nature -- does not justify the implementation of a lethal deer control program. The PEA claims that the WAC is approximately 35 deer/square mile yet offers no evidence to substantiate this claim. Since the WAC reflects the public willingness to tolerate deer, then to substantiate this claim either the WS, Iowa City, or Iowa Department of Natural Resources must have conducted a survey of citizens to determine their tolerance for deer. Neither the UIARC or The Fund know of no such survey. If the citizens have not been surveyed, then there appears to be absolutely no justification for the establishment of a WAC at 35 deer/square mile. A cumulative impact is defined in NEPA as "the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions." 40 C.F.R. §1508.7. In this case, WS has conveniently ignored a number &cumulative impacts of its proposed action which have been proposed, planned, and/or approved by Iowa City. Since NEPA requires federal agencies to consider reasonably foreseeable future actions, including actions being conducted by a non-federal entity, WS cannot avoid substantially expanding the analysis of the impacts of its action in relation to those actions being planned by Iowa City. First, an article in the October 1998 Cedar Rapids Gazette reveals that the Iowa City City Council has approved a massive residential development project for the Peninsula -- one of the area where WS proposes to kill deer. Attachment 3.2 The article indicates that the development will consist of 300-340 homes and other buildings, including apartments Though the amount of land to be consumed by this development is not stated, there is no question that 300-340 homes will consume a significant portion of the Peninsula area. The article states that construction could begin as early as spring. This massive development clearly represents a reasonably foreseeable future action which has been approved by the Iowa City City Council. Yet, the PEA fails to even reveal the development plans for the Peninsula. Considering the lack of any evidence to substantiate the need for a reduction in the deer population in the Peninsula area to address deer impact to landscaping, deer/vehicle collisions, and Lyme disease threats, it is apparent that the true agenda of the City Council is to substantially reduce the deer population in the Peninsula area in order to make way for the planned development. It is not known whether WS was aware of this planned development, but regardless, this development clea~y qualifies as a future action that must be considered in a cumulative impact analysis. In addition, the PEA indicates that bowhunting may be used as a population management :A better copy of the Cedar Rapids Gazette article will be forwarded to you under separate cover tool after WS or a private party conducts the sharpshooting program. PEA at 8. Despite this admission, this future action was not evaluated as a cumulative impact as it must be. This analysis must include a discussion of the humaneness ofbowhunting The UIARC is unalterably opposed to the use ofbowhunting to kill deer because the evidence indicates that bowhunting is incredibly inhumane resulting in a excessive amount of wounding and suffering. The PEA discusses four alternatives. Two of these alternatives (i.e., capture and relocation, capture and euthanasia), however, are, as the PEA concedes, not viable for a number of reasons and, therefore, were clearly included to augment what otherwise would be an insufficient list of alternatives. In reality, only two alternatives (i.e., killing deer or no action) are presented. Such a restricted list of alternatives is not consistent with NEPA which requires that agencies consider a reasonable range of alternatives. An alternative which should have been considered, and which is completely consistent with the city's objective to manage deer, is for WS to fund and assist Iowa City in the implementation of a comprehensive and aggressive non-lethal deer management strate~'. WS proposes to use sharpshooters to reduce the deer population in two areas in Iowa City. The sharpshooters will utilize rifles equipped with silencers. The PEA claims that the shooters will attempt to ensure clean head or neck shots in order to quickly dispatch the animal. The REA fails, however, to discuss how the use of silences may affect the velocity and impact speed of the bullet. Silencers, to be effective, reduce the velocity of the bullet fired from the rifle. Less velocity means the bullet does not travel as far, may affect the accuracy of the shot, and certainly affects the impact speed of the bullet. The impact speed or force can directly impact whether or not the shot results in a quick kill or causes a wound which leads to suffering and which may cause the animal to flee only to die minutes, hours, or even days later. This, in turn, could result in wounded animals dieing in residential neighborhoods resulting in substantial trauma to persons. including children, who may witness the death. The mechanics of a silencer and how it affects the velocity, trajectory, and impact force of a bullet must be disclosed and considered in a broader discussion of the humaneness of the proposed action. WS references "new information" in the PEA at page 5, but fails to reveal what the new information is or how it is relevant to the analysis. If this "new information" exists, it must be disclosed in the REA.3 Without this information, the public is simply unable to evaluate the applicability of the information to the analysis or to use the information in preparing substantive and informed comments. WS proposes to utilize bait to attract deer to the shooting sites. Since shooting may occur during the day or night, the bait will presumably be constantly augmented and left in the environment at least until the shooting program has been completed which could last for 3 to 6 3Through this letter, 1 am hereby requesting a copy of the "new information" referenced on page 5 of the REA Considering that this information was referenced in the PEA, it clearly constitutes a public records which must be sent to me immediately. 8 weeks. The WS, however, fails to evaluate how the bait will impact the environment. These impacts may include affects to small mammals who utilize the bait, birds who may be attracted to the bait, and the potential for the bait to increase the rodent population in the area. While WS may believe these impacts are inconsequential, it must disclose and evaluate such impacts in the PEA. WS claims that there are no federally-listed species in the project area. According to Ms. Holly Leas, however, who resides in an apartment complex near the Peninsula, within the past month she and her friends observed a bald eagle near her apartment complex. Considering the availability of wooded areas and a potential foraging site (Iowa River), it is possible that a bald eagle utilizes this area for feeding, resting, or perhaps, even nesting. WS has a duty under the Endangered Species Act to ensure that is programs will not adversely affect listed species. The mere fact that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has allegedly agreed with WS that its project will not impact listed species is irrelevant because the FWS does not know the location or territories of each and every individual of each listed species under its jurisdiction. The fact that Ms. Leas and others have observed a bald eagle in the area mandates that, at the very least, WS delay its project until and unless it and the FWS can determine that the project will not adversely affect listed species. WS has essentially been hired by the City of Iowa City to reduce the city's deer population through lethal control. This is not unlike the City hiring a private pest extermination company to conduct the project. The principle difference is that WS is supposed to be a federal agency operating under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Despite its statutory mandate, it is not at all clear that WS has the legal authority to hire itself out to private or public parties for the purpose of resolving human/wildlife conflicts. The laws governing this program, and particularly the laws authorizing WS to sell its services, should be disclosed and discussed in the REA WS claim that its wildlife control activities are normally subject to Categorical Exclusions is entirely inaccurate and inconsistent with NEPA. A review of the list of Categorical Exclusions in the USDA/APHIS NEPA implementing regulations fails to reveal any category which could be used to Categorically Exclude wildlife damage control activities, particularly actions requiring lethal control, from NEPA compliance in the form of an EA or Environmental Impact Statement. CONCLUSION: As the foregoing evidence indicates, the PEA remains legally and biologically deficient. Not only did WS violate federal law by failing to provide an adequate opportunity for the public to review and comment on the PEA, but there simply is no evidence to even begin to substantiate the alleged need for a reduction in the deer population in Iowa City or in the targeted locations. There is no site-specific evidence of deer impacts to urban landscapes, deer/vehicle collisions, deer impacts to natural vegetation, or an increased threat of Lyme disease. All the evidence suggests that the deer killing program is designed to remove a large number of deer to 9 accommodate a planned and approved city development. This development, however, was not evaluated as pan and parcel of the cumulative impacts of the proposed action. Moreover, WS entirely failed to evaluate the humaneness of the action, particularly the humaneness of using rifles equipped with silencers to kill deer, nor did it properly evaluate the potential impacts of its action on federally protected species. Despite the apparent obsessive desire of WS and Iowa City to kill deer, neither have provided any substantive or credible evidence to substantiate the need for lethal deer control. A comprehensive non-lethal deer control program would be far more effective in addressing human/deer conflicts in Iowa City. If, despite these deficiencies, the WS approves a sharpshooting program, my client will consider all options, including litigation, to challenge the legality of the REA. Sincere. ly, D.J, Schubert Wildlife Biologist 10 SCHUBERT & ASSOCIATES P.O. BOX 11540 GLENDALE. AZ 853 I 8- 1540 TE::LF, PHONE, ff'AX: (602) 547-85q. 7 December 31, 1998 BY TEI.EFAX AND OV'ERNIGHT MAn, (DE! .IVERY 1/4/99) Mr Ed Hartin, State Director USDA .M~HI S "V,'S 2407 Industrial Drive Columbia. MO 65202 Dear Nlr Hanin On behalf of the L'niversitv of lox~'a Animal Rights Coalition and The Fund for Animals (hereafter "LqARC and The Fund"). I submit the following comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the Management off'hire-tailed Deer Conflicts in the Ci~' of Iowa Ci~', 1A The L'IARC and The Fund strongly and unaherably oppose the proposal by the U. S Department of Agricuhure. Wildlife Services (x, VS) to sharpshoot or otherwise participate in the slaughter of deer in lo,,va City. IATM The DEA offers no valid or credible site-specific evidence to justif) the proposed killing program, or for that matter, to document that the deer population in lov, a City is in need of any form of lethal management Indeed, instead of conducting the requisite studies and surveys to gain a greater understanding of the biological and ecological characteristics of the deer herd in this area, including the rates of immigration,.'emigration, reproduction. and mortalit)', and without any site-specific data on deer/human impacts, the alleged need for the proposed action cannot be substantiated, and therefore, lethal control strategies must not be implemented The mere fact that shooting deer may be simpler and less costly than engaging in the requisite biological and sociological studies and surveys to better understand deer management needs in Iowa City is not sufficient justification for implementing the proposed sharpshooting program ~As presently wrinen, the DEA suggests that WS officials would engage in the sharpshooting of up to 240 deer over bait while city officials max' elect to trap and euthanize deer See Appendix C Conversely, what is likely the case, as is consistent with most urban deer controversies, is that a small minority group of Iowa City residents have begun to raise concerns about the deer and how the deer may impact their lives. In response, instead of attempting to design and implement an effective, long-term campaign to humanely resolve whalever deer-human conflicts exist through the use of non-lethal strategies, including changing human attitudes and behaviors which may contribute to the alleged deer problem, WS has proposed to engage in an unnecessary, inhumane, and ultimately ineffective lethal control program. Moreover, though the DEA provides some discussion of non-lethal management options, this analysis is entirely biased and inappropriate since WS essentially and unjustifiably dismisses many non-lethal management options claiming that they are ineffective or will not provide long-term relief. In addition to the lack of biological justification for the proposed action, the DEA is legally deficient. Not only does it fail to adequately document the purpose and need for the proposed action, and fail to consider a reasonable range of alternatives, but its analysis of the environmental consequences of the action is entirely insufficient. The remainder of this comment letter will discuss the multitude of DEA deficiencies DISCUSSION: The National Environmental Policy Act CNEPA) is the basic national charter for the protection of the environment 40 C.FR §1500 a(a) NEPA requires federal agencies to evaluate the environmental impacts of their proposed actions before implementing those actions Under NEPA. an impact includes "ecological. aesthetic, historic. cultural, economic, social. or health, whether direct. indirect. of cumulative." ld at §1508 8 NtiPA requires agencies to identify and assess the "reasonable alternatives to proposed actions that ~vill avoid or minimize adverse effects of these actions upon the quality of the human environment "ld at §1500 2(e)(emphasis added) Ultimately. to satis6' the intent of Nt!PA, federal agencies must "use all practicable means .. to restore and enhance the quality of the human environment and avoid or minimize any possible adverse effects of their actions upon the qualit.~' of the human environment" ld at §1500.2(f) Thus, as is clear under NIEPA. the actions implemented by a federal agencies must be designed to avoid or minimize adverse effects on the environment The proposal to sharpshoot deer in various areas throughout Iowa City, IA does not meet this threshold nor does it satisfy other NEPA criteria These deficiencies and others are evaluated belox~ WS Did Not Afford the Public a Sufficient Opportunity to Evaluate and Submit Comments on the DEA: While the UIARC and The Fund appreciate the opportunity to comment on the DEA,2 they believe that the opportunity for cornmere was not sufficient to afford interested members of the public, including members of the UIARC, the ability to adequately review and comment on the DEA Indeed, by the time the DEA was received by my clients there was slightly more than two weeks available to evaluate and comment on the document. Considering the time of year and the holiday season, the public's opportunity to participate in the WS decision-making process was, perhaps purposefully, further limited. The failure of WS to provide a sufficient opportunity for public comment, particularly considering the issues identified in the December 23, 1998 letter requesting an extension in the comment deadline, is inconsistent with the public involvement provisions and requirements contained in NEPA. 2. The DEA Fails to Substantiate the Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action: The DEA contends thai deer in lowa City, IA are overabundant and require lethal control. The DEA proposes to implement a sharpshooting program to remove a maximum of 240 deer from various unidentified areas within the Iowa Cit3' limits Despite the claims of overabundance, the DEA provides no valid or credible evidence. including no site-specific evidence, to substantiate such claims or to justif}' the need for lethal control. Instead. the DEA relies on potential impacts to justify.' the need for lethal deer control Basing wildlife management decisions. particularly when involving lethal control, solely on speculation of what impacts max' occur in the future. may be beneficial to the efforts of WS to expand its killing services. but is biologically reckless and unprofessional The DEA identified several potential deer impacts including deer';vehicle collisions. damage to landscaping plants. damage to natural vegetation. and impacts to other wildlife species In addition the DEA contends that the Cultural Carr>~ng Capacity or Wildlife Acceptance CapaciLv has been exceeded in the Iowa City area An analysis of each of these claims. however. re~eals a nearl~ complete lack of any site-specific data to document that these impacts are occurring in the Iowa City area Deer vehicle accidents The DEA claims that the number of deer killed on Iowa roadx~avs has increased by 75% to over 11,000 deer/vehicle collisions during 1995. In Iowa City, there have allegeally been 39 reported accidents this calendar year and, according to the local police. the number of deer/vehicle accidents has been increasing each year. While this is the only data specific to lowa City pro~4ded in the DEA. this low number of deer/vehicle accidents does :It should be noted that the available evidence suggests that WS was not initially planning on providing the public an opportunity to comment on the DEA This opportunity was only gained after the UIARC notified WS of its failure to subject the DEA to public comment in Noven~ber ] 098 not substantiate the need for lethal deer control. Indeed, even if'the lethal deer control program were implemented it does not follow that the removal of deer will necessarily reduce the number or rate of deer/vehicle accidents. Not only will the deer population respond to lethal control with an increase in productivity and survival, but shooting will not prevent the surviving deer from crossing roads to access suitable habitat. As long as there are deer, roads, and automobiles, deer/vehicle accidents will occur. As the number of roads and traffic volume increase as a consequence of development, the number of deer/vehicle accidents is also likely to increase regardless of the trend in the deer population. It is entirely inappropriate to initiate a sharpshooting program for deer to compensate for irresponsible planning and development decisions which have, most likely, been the principal cause of deer/vehicle accidents by increasing tra~c volume, road density, and by fragmenting deer habitat. Deer/vehicle accident rates can only effectively be reduced by modifying the behavior of the deer and human drivers Reducing speed limits on those road segments where a preponderance of deer/vehicle accidents have been documented is the most effective means of reducing the rate or severity of such accidents by providing the drivers with more time to respond to deer in the roadway An educational campaign designed to provide drivers with the tools necessary' to drive safely in areas occupied by deer is not only a useful tool to alert drivers to the potential presence of deer on the roadways, but also to provide them with tips on how to minimize the chances of a deer vehicle collision In addition, temporary warning signs placed in high deer'vehicle accident areas can alert drivers to be more attentive to the potential presence of deer on the roadx~'av Since most deer vehicle accidents occur from October through December and Wpically either at dax~'n or dusk. restrictions on speed limits. placement of warning signs, or other tools useful to modif-x' driver behavior need only be utilized during a portion of the year to reduce the number and rate of deer"x'ehicle accidents Deer behavior near roadways can be modified by utilizing reflector systems to reduce. and in some cases eliminate. the number and rate of deer crossing roadways Reflector systems have been effective in reducing deer/vehicle accidents rates in various parts of the country Many municipalities have successfully utilized reflector systems to reduce deer/vehicle accident rates Though not disclosed in the DEA, even Iowa City apparently has seen a 95 percent cumulative reduction (1994-1997) in deer/vehicle accidents along Dubuque Street since a reflector system was installed in 1994 and a 96 percent cumulative reduction (1995-1998) in deer/vehicle accidents alon~ Dodge Street since a reflector system was installed in 1995. (Attachment 1 and 2) The failure of '~VS to disclose this information is not only inconsistent with NEPA, but perhaps. was purposeful to prevent the public from using this information to contest the alleged need for lethal deer control In addition to reflectors, habitat modifications can be used to reduce the attractiveness of road shoulders for deer or to increase the time that drivers have to react to deer The use of non- 4 palatable vegetation when landscaping road shoulders and the use of de-icing compounds which are not attractive to deer may reduce the attractiveness of road shoulders to deer. The use of salt to treat icy winter roads is particularly troublesome since salt, which is eventually absorbed in the soil and plants along the roadway, is a strong attractant to deer. Increasing the width of the road shoulder by removing large trees and shrubbery will provide the driver more time to react to deer. However, such vegetation removal should only be used sparingly and should be done only after all potential adverse consequences are considered. The key to reducing deer/vehicle accidents is understanding when, where, and why deer/vehicle accidents occur. A reporting or monitoring system is essential in order to identify "hot spots" where the majority of deer/vehicle accidents occur. Once the hot spots are identified each site can be examined individually to determine why the site lends itself to a high deer/vehicle accident rate. In turn, non-lethal management strategies can be devised on a site-specific level to reduce the number and rate of deer/vehicle accidents. In this case. not only has the WS failed to attempt to implement any of the non-lethal strategies effective in reducing deer/vehicle accidents, but there is no evidence to suggest that or the City Council. has collected the requisite reporting or monitoring information to identify deer vehicle accident hot spots Damage to Iandscaping Plants The DEA provides absolutely no site-specific data to demonstrate that deer in the lowa Cit~' area have had. or continue to have, an adverse impact on ornamental vegetation lfWS intends to rely on this claim to justify the need for lethal deer control. then surely it must have, or the City Council must have. site-specific survey data demonstrating where and to what severity deer are dama~ng ornamental plants If these data doesn't exist. or if there have only been sporadic reports of such damage, this claim should not be used to justly' the alleged need for lethal deer control Deer Damage to Native Vegetation The DEA provides absolutely no site specific data to document deer damage to native vegetation in the Iowa City area. Surely, ifWS is intent on using this claim to justly' the need for lethal deer control, it must have vegetation productivity. abundance. and composition data over an extended time period from multiple natural areas within the lox~'a City city limits to document the alleged impact of the deer to natural vegetation This lack of data is even more egregious considering that several deer task forces in Iowa, according to the DEA. have explicitly stated that "reducing damage to natural vegetation is an important, and in some cases the primary.'. reason for attempting to reduce deer numbers." (DEA at 2) Adverse Impacts to O~her Wildlife Species: The DEA cites two scientific studies which allegedly document that when deer become overabundant they can cause adverse impacts to other species. including birds and small mammals WS, however, provides absolutely no-site specific evidence to document such impacts in the lov,'a City area Neither WS, the Iowa City City Council, or the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has ever initiated the requisite studies in the Iowa City area to assess the impact of deer on either the natural vegetation or other species. To demonstrate, for example, that the deer in Iowa City are having an adverse impact on birds, baseline data on the density and composition of birds who nest in deer habitat and credible estimates of the size and distribution of the deer herd would have to be collected and then compared to subsequent data collected over time to ascertain whether changes in the size and distribution of the deer herd corresponded to changes in bird density and composition. In addition, to ensure the credibility of this analysis, other factors which may impact bird nesting activities, including development pressures and the presence and abundance of feral and domestic house cats in the area would have to be considered. There is no question that deer impact natural vegetation because they must consume vegetation to survive. The real question is whether deer, at different densities, adversely impact natural vegetation in a manner which results in long-term and irreversible ecological damage. There is no evidence that deer. even at high densities, cause such irreversible impacts In this case. however, beyond mere conjecture and speculation there is no evidence that the deer in the Iowa City area have caused any adverse, long-term, or irreversible ecological impacts to the natural vegetation or wildlife in the area Conjecture and speculation are not appropriate criteria for developing or implementing a lethal deer management strateD'. The Deer Herd has Exceeded the Cultural Carrying Capacity The so-called Cultural Car~'ing Capacity or Wildlife Acceptance Capacity (WAC) for deer is an entirely subjective measurement based solel>: on the whims and desires of a specific group of people. The WAC for deer can be different between adjacent neighborhoods, neighbors, and even between indi~4duals The \VAC may be different between lox~' and high income families and most certainly varies depending on the educational experiential background and values of the persons surveyed Since i~ is an entireIx' subjective measurement, the WAC of an area for deer or other animals can be changed through. among other things. education An aggressive educational campaign to educate residential propen>' o~ers about deer bioloD' and ecoloD' and how to live with deer can be instrumental in increasing the WAC in an area In this case. though the DEA references the WAC, it fails to specif).' what the WAC is for deer in The lov,'a Cit~' area. whether the WAC for deer has been exceeded in Iowa City, or, if so. it fails to provide data to substantiate that fact. Since there are no substantive or credible data to document any adverse deer impacts to the residents or properties oflowa City, the WAC could not possibly have been exceeded Thus, there is no reason to initiate the proposed action or to initiate any other form of lethal deer control. Even if the WAC had been exceeded. due to its subjective nature. it is not an appropriate criteria on which to justify lethal control Quite simply. based on the evidence provided in the DEA, there is no deer "problem" in Iowa City' and there certainly is not a deer "problem" that warrants the use of lethal control to resolve Finally. in its strained attempts to create a deer "problem" where none exists. WS provides some data on deer numbers conducted during an aerial deer survey in January.' 1997 This sun,ev of ~fteen areas resulted in a determination that the deer density was <25, between 25 and 50, and >50 in 9, 4, and 2 areas, respectively. While these data are interesting they most certainly do not document a deer "problem" which requires the removal of 240 deer through sharpshooting. First, only one survey flight was conducted. Though snow conditions were allegedly adequate for the January survey flights, the DEA concedes that "actual numbers (of deer) were unable to be collected via helicopter count due to inadequate snow cover during the late winter season of 1997/98." Admittedly, then, neither the City Council, Iowa DNR, or the WS have any idea how many deer are in the area nor have any of these parties conducted the requisite studies to determine the distribution or natality rate of the deer population. Second, the DEA fails to provide any explanation of the methodology of the aerial survey flight raising concerns about the accuracy of the collected data. For example, the DEA does not specify whether the aerial survey was conducted during the day or whether it utilized infrared technolo~' or what assumptions were built into the mathematical models used to calculate deer densil~.' based on the number of deer observed. Since no survey methodology is without limitations and potential sources of error, the DEA must identify the methodology used and provide some discussion of the potential sources of error and assumptions inherent to the methodology Third, one survey is not sufficient to document a trend in the deer population Multiple sur,'evs. using the same methodolo~..'. must be conducted over time to determine whether, and at ~'hat rate. the deer population is increasing or decreasing Basing a proposal to slaughter 240 deer on a single aerial surx'ev is not only irresponsible and unprofessional but it most certainly does not meet the minimal scientific criteria necessary. to justi~' such a program The DEA Fails to Objectively Evaluate and Consider Non Lethal Management Strategies to Resolve White-tailed Deer Management Conflicts in Iowa City: The proposed action in the DEA is to implement an Integrated Deer Damage Management Plan This integrated plan. at least on paper, is intended to utilize both lethal and non-lethal management strategies with non-lethal methods given "first consideration in the formulation of each damage control strateg>.'" DEA at 6 Instead of properly considering non-lethal strategies for use in this case, as its own policy suggests, WS quickly dismisses nearly all of the potential non-lethal strategies, including fencing, frightening devices, chemical repellents, claiming that they either are aesthetically displeasing. detract from the quality of living in an area, or may be ineffective These findings are particularly troubling and entirely inexplicable since the preferred alternative (i e., using sharpshooters to kill deer attracted to bait sites), has the same drawbacks or adverse impacts Moreover, though the DEA specifies that a number of non-lethal managemere strategies "have been implemented at various problem areas within the State," there is no evidence provided to indicate that x3,;S. the City Council, or any other entity has attempted to implement a comprehensive non-lethal deer management program, including an educational campaign, prior to electing to pursue lethal control options. To the extent that the City Council has implemented any of its non-lethal management strategies as identified in Appendix C, initiating lethal control now prior to determining if these strategies have resolved the problem or if these strategies must be further augmented with other non-lethal strategies, is unwarranted. The DEA contends that nonlethal techniques alone are not adequate to reduce conflicts caused by deer to an acceptable level. DEA at 11. While my clients completely disagree with this claim and strongly dispute the argument that deer need to be killed, nowhere in the DEA does the WS identify or define what constitutes an "acceptable level" of deer conflicts. If WS intends to use these criteria to decide which management strategy is appropriate and to determine when a particular management strategy can be terminated, then clearly some reasonable definition of an "acceptable level" of deer conflicts must be provided. Without objective, measurable criteria to determine when this standard has been met, the determination is entirely subjective and can be easily manipulated to meet the personal needs/desires of the person or persons implementing the program Though the DEA suggests that the removal of up to 240 deer is the goal of the program. there is no e~4dence to suggest that this amount of killing will reduce deer conflicts to an acceptable level or if less killing could achieve the same objective Though my clients believe that the entire proposal should be rejected in favor of a aggressive and multi-dimensional non-lethal campaign, at a minimum. the proposal to !ethally control deer in Iox~'a City must be delayed until and unless all non-lethal strategies are comprehensively implemented and tested to resolve deer:~human conflicts. The disregard for the objective and fair analysis and consideration of non-lethal management strategies in the DEA is symbolic of the WS program which attempts to mislead the public into believing that it desires to resolve conflicts using non-lethal means, when, in reality this is merely lip-service designed to placate the public while lethal control strategies are the principal tool of choice This analysis should be rejected and a new analysis. either in a far more substantive DEA or Environmental Impact Statement, should be prepared which provides an objective and thorough re~4ex~' of the effectiveness and feasibility of the many non-lethal alternatives available to resolve deer/human conflicts 4. The DEA Does Not Evaluate a Reasonable Range of Alternatives: The aYternatives evaluated in the DEA are the standard alternatives used by WS. In this case. the XVS failed to evaluate at least two reasonable alternatives The first is the implementation of an aggressive campaign to educate private property o~'ners about hox~' to live with deer while utilizing non-lethal deer control strategies to immediately address whatever. if any, serious ongoing conflicts may exist 8 The second alternative would permit lethal deer control through the use of depredation permits provided to individual landowners by the Iowa DNR while the WS would implement a comprehensive non-lethal deer management program. While the UIARC and The Fund fully endorse the former alternative (i.e., e~lucational campaign with non-lethal management), neither supports the latter alternative which is simply provided as an example of the failure of WS to consider all reasonable alternatives. As previously stated, educating the public about d~er biology, ~cology, and how to harmoniously live with deer provides a unique tool to increase public value in, and tolerance for, deer, while also increasing the public's general knowledge about, and appreciation for, nature. Such an educational campaign could consist of written materials, videotapes broadcast on a local cable access station, exhibits and presentations at community events, and pre-arranged meetings in those neighborhoods most concerned about deer issues. Such educational programs could consist of both a discussion of deer ecology. and biology as well as a demonstration on how to install, maintain. or othe~se use some of the non-lethal management tools available for resolving deer 'human conflicts In addition to such an agnessire educational program. existing non-lethal strategies could be implemented immediately in identified problem areas to address human/deer conflicts. To implement such a program. a monitoring and reporting system may have to be established to collect the requisite data to identif3' the deer "hot spots" in the Iowa City area Once the hot spots are identified. site-specific management strategies could be designed for each area depending on the specific problem identified Such a strategy -- targeting only those areas where deer have been reported as a problem -- is far more effective than implementing a sharpshooting program which max' result in a lot of dead deer but may not ultimately resolve deer/human conflicts in the short or long-term The second alternative. utilizing the Iowa DNR deer depredation permit process is, as previousl.~' stated. not supported by either the U1ARC or The Fund It should. however. be evaluated as a reasonable alternative Unlike the proposed action, which uses federal employees to kill deer presumably randomly throughout the lowa City area, the use of deer depredation permits would be done by the person experiencing the damage and would target those deer who theoretically were responsible for the damage. While lethal control, even if targeted at specific indix-iduals. is still an ineffective short or long-term strategy (see below), it puts the burden of the control on the complainant and is far preferable to a control program which is far broader in scope The DEA Fails to Disclose Relevant Information and to Properly Evaluate the Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and Other Alternatives: Though the analysis of the en',~ronmental consequences of a proposed action and alternatives is a critical component of any NEPA document, in this case, WS. in its attempt to 9 mislead the public into believing that lethal deer control in Iowa City is warranted, has neglected to fully disclose all the relevant information and to properly evaluate the environmental consequences of the proposed action and the other alternatives. Neither the UIARC or The Fund support the proposed alternative so these deficiencies are provided as examples only and should not be interpreted as support for sharpshooting. Such deficiencies include: A A failure to disclose when, where, or how the proposed sharpshooting program would be conducted. The DEA fails to identify the location or locations of the proposed bait piles over which the deer would be shot, when the shooting would occur, or other procedures to be followed by those participating in the program to ensure a clean and rapid kill. The public, particularly those who may reside near areas where the killing may occur, have a fight to know about such activities, particularly considering public safety concerns. Details on the location of the shooting, when the shooting program may be initiated, what time shooting will be conducted, and other procedures associated with the program, including what will happen if a deer is wounded but not retrieved by the shooters, must be disclosed for the public to consider when preparing comments on the DEA A failure to provide such information compromises the ability of the public to submit informed and substantive comments on the proposal. B As stated. the proposed sharpshooting program will involve the use of bait to attract deer to specified areas for slaughter The DEA, however, fails to identif)' the type of bait to be used nor does it consider the potential impact of the bait on other wildlife. including rats, mice, other small mammals. and birds in the area The presence of artificial feed in and around residential areas. even if entirely cleaned after each shooting operation, may se~,e to increase the population of rats and mice which may reside in the area If the bait is left over the duration of the seasonal shooting program. the likelihood that the bait will impact other species is even greater Information about ~'hat kind of bait 4411 be used, hob' the bait will be used. and how the bait may impact other species must be included in the DEA C Any program which involves the use of firearms in or near residential areas raises sehous public safety concerns The DE.X. however, fails to prox~de any meaningful analysis of the public safet~ concerns associated with the proposed program There is, for example, no discussion of how the shooting program will be conducted in a manner to reduce the risk to public safety. xvhether the public in the vicinity of a shooting operation will be informed of the program before it is initiated. what steps will be taken to ensure the safety of the public during the shooting operation. and ,,,,'hat emergency measures will be implemented should a resident be injured, killed. or traumatized by an errant bullet. Such information must be disclosed in the DEA and the public must be permitted an opportunity to review and comment on such information before the plan is implemented Given the City Council's concern about the impacts of the deer on public safety. one would hope that it would have equal if not greater concern about the potential impact of the shooting program on public safety and would demand that a comprehensive public safety plan be prepared prior to initiating the shooting program 10 D. The DEA fails to properly evaluate the environmental consequences of lethal deer comrol. As has been extensively documented in the scientific literature, the lethal removal of animals, including deer, from a population generally results in increase productivity and survival of the remaining animals. Thus, far from being a solution to deer/human conflicts, lethal deer control, unless repeated indefinitely, does not provide a long-term solution to such conflicts because the targeted deer populations will quickly recover to, or in excess, ofpre-control levels. Lethal control is also ineffective in the short-term since the removal of deer in an area will not necessarily stop the surviving deer from crossing roads, eating ornamental shrubbery, or consuming native vegetation. Indeed, the initiation of lethal control to address deer/human conflicts may provide a psychological benefit to those who want to see deer destroyed, but ultimately creates a situation where lethal control will be necessary indefinitely to limit the deer herd to a pre-determined and entirely arbitrary size. The suggestion that lethal control will only be used initially and then non-lethal strategies will be used to reduce the need for lethal control represents a convenient excuse for WS to immediately engage in lethal control while making promises about implementing non-lethal strategies at some future date. Considering the alleged deficiencies with many non-lethal strategies, as stated in the DEA, there would appear to be no reason to implement such defective strategies unless these strategies suddenly become more acceptable once the deer herd has been substantially reduced through lethal control The DEA fails to provide the public with any analysis ofthe short and long-term effectix eness of lethal control strategies The limitations of lethal control, particularly in regard causing a short or long-term reduction in deer/human conflicts. must be disclosed in the DEA E The DEA suggests that the potential for the condition of individual deer to deteriorate makes .-M~ernaxix'e 3 (non-lethal on.l,,') unacceptable This statement demonstrates the failure of \VS to understand and apply basic ecological and biological concepts to its management strategies The deteriorating condition of a deer may reflect disease. undernourishment caused by an abundance of deer. or age While death through or as a consequence of starvation is not considered by humans as an appropriate way to die. it is a critical component of the cycle of life in the natural v,'orid Wild animals, from both hunted and unhunted populations, die from starvation and the consequences of malnourishment (i.e., disease) ever)' winter. Instead of allowing this natural process to operate. wildlife managers have arbitrarily decided that preventing natural mortality by permitting animals to be killed by sport hunters is preferable. In unhunted populations. the mere fact that individual deer may be smaller and in poorer condition is not cause for concern Rather. such conditions reflect a population that is attempting to balance itself in relation to its habitat Since. under such conditions, there is insufficient forage available to the sur~'iving deer. the natural mortality rate it likely to increase while the natality rate will decrease due to a lack of sufficient ener~: for gestation In time, these factors if allowed to operate II without interference through sport hunting, will permit the population to reach an equilibrium with its habitat. In addition, the mortality of an animal as a result of natural factors is of significant benefit to the ecosystem as that animal deteriorates and its nutrients are recycled into the earth, The removal of animals through a sharpshooting programs eliminates that potential benefit. The DEA must provide a more objective analysis of the potential impacts due to the deer population of each and every alternative which does not embrace lethal control as the preferred management strategy. F. The DEA suggests that if lethal control is not implemented as proposed, the result will be an increased risk of people contracting Lyme disease. The DEA provides no evidence to substantiate this claim In reality. there is no compelling scientific evidence to document an absolute cause and effect relationship between an increased density of deer and an increase in human cases of Lyme disease Since the tick who carries L~Tne disease has a number of animal hosts, including cats, dogs. horses. mice. small mammals, and birds, reported cases of human Lyme disease can increase even in the absence of an abundant white-tailed deer population. Since the principal animal host for the tick is the white-footed mouse, an area which provides suitable habitat for an abundant rodent population represent a greater risk for the contraction of Lyme disease than an area inhabited primarily by deer This risk is even greater considering that the larval and nymphal life stages of the tick (the life stages that are the smallest in size and most difficult to detect) primarily use the xvhite-footed mouse as their hosts while the adult tick (a larger size which is more easily dexectablel uses the white-tailed deer. Indeed, since an abundant deer population may consume undergrox~-th reducing the suitability of the site as rodent habitat, an area with an abundant deer population may pose a lower risk of Lyme disease transmission than areas ,A~th lower deer densities Moreover. according to statistics provided by Iowa State University (Attachment 3 ), the reported incidence of Lvme disease in Iowa is quite low. In Johnson County, for example. where Iowa City is located there have only been nine reported cases of Lyme disease between 1983 and 1997 It is believed that most, if not all, of these reported cases were actually contracted outside of Johnson County Since Johnson County does not have a Lyme disease problem and the disease may not even be endemic to this area, the notion that an increasing deer herd may increase the incidence of Lyme disease appears to be far-fetched and may be intended only to mislead the public into supporting WS' proposal for lethal control CONC! .USION: As the foregoing evidence demonstrates, the DEA is woefully inadequate. Not only does fail to provide any credible site-specific data to justi~' the alleged need for the proposed lethal 12 deer control program, but it falls to consider all reasonable alternatives, falls to disclose relevant and important information, and its evaluation of the environmental consequences of the proposed action and its alternatives is deficient. The evidence provided in the DEA reveals that there is no deer "problem" in Iowa City, 1A. Consequently, there is absolutely no justification for the proposed sharpshooting program. Instead, the UIARC and The Fund fully endorse Alternative 3 (non-lethal management only) or an alternative which combines Alternative 3 with the development and implementation of an aggressive educational campaign to teach people about the biology and ecology of deer and how they can employ non-lethal strategies to peacefully coexist with deer. Thank you for considering these comments. SincereIx'. ' D J Schubert B'ildlife Biologist cc lox~a City City Council members 13 AIFI .AC'I~D N1 I IOWA CITY WILDLIFE REFLECTOR SYSTEM REPORT DUBUQUE STREET: ',/, MILE INSTALLR-n SEPTEMBER 1994 1993/1994 Averale fifty (SO) deer vehicle aetidtnm reportrod by citizens to police and animal mntrol. 1994 after reflectors inetalled:2 recorded aecident~ (1) during dayUght (1) broken reflector 1995 (2) during daylight (3) broken reflector 1996 (1) broken reflector 1997 (2) bent poles 1998 6 recorded mccidena 2 recorded accidents 2 recorded accidents A'f'IACIBfi N] 2 DODGE STREET 1 K M/t,E INSTALLED SEPTEMBER 199S 1993/1994 AVERAGE 2 DEER PER MONTH mT BY VEHICLES 1994 Jut prior to imtallat/on 6 I_'~'l__detttS reported (all night time aecidents) 199~ 1 1996 0 1997 3 (1} daylight hours (1) bent post 1998 0 NUMBERS DO NOT TAKE 15"I'O ACCOUNT ANIMALS INVOLVED OUTSIDE THE REFLECTED AREAS~ THESE ACCIDENTS RAVE INCREASED ALONG INTERSTATE 1-80. NO NOTICABLE INCREASE OR DECREASE IN ACCIDENTS RAVE BEEN OBSERVED J~ST OUTSIDE TKE REFLECTED AREAS LrNITED STATES DEPARTMENT-OF AGRICULTURE ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE WILDLIFE SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Management of White-tailed Deer .Conflicts in Urban Areas and on Airports in the State of Iowa August 1998 United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services 2407 Industrial Dr. Columbia, Missouri 65202 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE WILDLIFE SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT INTRODUCTION The U.S. Department of Agriculture CUSDA) is authorized by law to protect American agriculture and other resources from damage associated with wildlife. The primary authority for the Wildlife Services program (WS) (formally known as the Animal Damage Control [ADC] program) is the Animal Damage Control Act of March 2, 1931, as amended (7 11.8 .C. 426-426c; 46 Slit. 1468) and the Rural Development, Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriatibns Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-202). WS activities are conducted in cooperation with other federal, Stile, and local agencies, as well as with private organizations and individuals. Wildlife damage management, or control, is defined as the alleviation of damage or other problems caused by wildlife (Leopold 1933, The Wildlife Society 1990, Berryman 1991). The WS program uses an Integrated Wildlife Damage Management (IWDM) approach (sometimes referred to as "Integrated Pest Management", or IPM) in which a variety of methods may be used or recommended to prevent or reduce damage caused by wildlife. IWDM is described in Chapter 1 of the Animal Damage Control Program Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (U.S. Depart. Agri. 1994). These methods include the alteration of cultural practices, as well as habitat and behavioral modification to prevent damage. The management of wildlife causing damage may also require that the offending animal(s) be removed or that populations of the offending species be reduced through lethal methods. This EA docUments the analysis of the potential environmental effects of management activities to reduce human-white-tailed deer conflicts in urban areas and on airports in the Stile of Iowa. This analysis relies in part on existing data contained in published documents, primarily the Animal Damage Control Program Final Environmental Impact Statement CLI.S. Dept. Agri. 1994) to which this EA is tiered. The purpose of an Environmental Assessment (EA) is to "briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact" (40 CFR § 1508.9). WS activities are undertaken in compliance with relevant laws, regulations, policies, orders, and procedures, including the Endangered Species Act. Notice of the availability of this document will be made, consistent with the Agency's NEPA procedures, in order to allow interested parties the oppommity to obtain and review this document. PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose of this EA is to evaluate alternative methods and approaches for reducing human- 1 deer conflicts in urban areas, and deer-aircraft baTarcls on airports. Airports certainly represent unique situations with respect to wildlife threats. Nevertheless, available techniques for reducing conflicts on airports are similar to those available in urban areas. As such, we consider both situations jointly in this EA. Nationwide, human-deer conflicts are on the rise. A recent issue of the Wildlife Society Bulletin (WSB 1997, volume 25(2)) devoted solely to deer overabundance attests to this point. Iowa is certainly no exception. In 1997, stemming largely fi'om concerns of deer damage;the Iowa Legislature passed a law requiring the Iowa Department of Natural Resources :CIDNR) to establish a depredation program, which required the hiring of two biologists. :Additionally, after previously opposing sharpshooting, the IDNR recently reversed its stance :and!~approved sharpshooting to reduce deer numbers in Iowa City. Furthermore, rio less Force committees are in existence in Iowa's major citie~ (Des Moines, Cedar ~aterlo0, Cedar Rapids, Iowa City, Dubuque). Each Task Force is composed of local stakeh61ders, including individual citizens, representatives from local organizations (e.g., animal welfare groups, Audubon Society, Iowa Bowhunters Assn., County Conservation Boards), and City employees. Each Task Force is charged with defining the problem and evaluating and/or recommending solutions to their urban deer problems. In the past 10 years, the number of deer killed annually on Iowa roadways has increased by 75%, with over 11,000 deer-vehicle collisions in Iowa during 1995 (Iowa Dept. Natural Resources, unpubl. Data). Estimated damage was in excess of $22.5 million. Overabundance of deer in urban areas can also cause damage to vegetation, both landscaping plants and natural vegetation in parks and natural areas. White-tailed deer selectively forage on vegetation (Strole and Anderson 1992), and thus can have substantial impacts on both particular herbaceous and woody species and overall plant community structure (Waller and Alverson 1997). DeCaiesta (1994) found that intermediate canopy-nesting birds declined 37% in abundance and 27% in species diversity at higher deer densities. Five species of birds were found to disappear at densities of 38.1 deer/mile2 and another 2 disappeared at 63.7 deer/mile2. Waller and Alverson (1997) hypothesize that by competing with squirrels and other fruit eating animals for oak mast, deer may further affect many other species of animals and insects. In Iowa, numerous parks and natural areas which traditionally were closed to hunting have been opened for controlled hunts, to, among other things, reduce the impact of overbrowsing on the plant and animal communities therein. Approximately 9 special deer hunts will be conducted this year. Additionally, most of the Deer Task Force committees in Iowa explicitly state that reducing damage to natural vegetation is an important, and in some cases the primary, reason for attempting to reduce deer numbers. Although deer-aircraft collisions have been uncommon in Iowa, the threat exists and the consequences of such a collision can be severe. Many smaller airports do not have adequate perimeter fencing around airfield operations areas, increasing the likelihood of a collision. A recent deer-strike at the Mason City Municipal Airport provides an example that such concerns 2 The cultural carrying capacity, more recently referred to as the Wildlife Acceptance Capacity (WAC), is deemed as the maximum density of a given species that can coexist compatibly with the local humari population (Decker and Purdey 1988). This term is useful because it defines when conflicts with deer have exceeded an acceptable level, and provides managers with a target for establishing management objectives. Certain factors may influence the WAC, such as landscape or vegetation impacts, threats to public safety, the potential for illegal killing of deer, and personal attitudes. WS has always provided technical assistance to landowners, land managers, and airport managers on ways to reduce deer conflicts. Additionally, WS has received increasing reX!ueSts for assistance from urban municipalities, and the likelihood of direct operational assistanCe:in some areas is increasing. Clearly, the need exists to evaluate methods for reducing :these conflicts. METHODS AND ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION The Methods considered in this section summarize the best technology that has evolved from continued development and refinement by professional research and wildlife management biologists. Examples of specific control technologies under each method considered are provided. Alternatives were developed for consideration using the ADC Decision Model as described in Chapter 2 (Section D.2.b), Appendix J (Methods of Control), Appendix N (Examples of ADC Decision Model, and Cost Comparison), and Appendix P (Risk Assessment of Wildlife Damage Control Methods Used by the USDA Animal Damage Control Program) of the Animal Damage Control Program Final F. nvironmental Impact Statement (U.S. Depart. Agri. 1994). The proposed alternative was selected based on the ability of that strategy to efficiently and effectively address and resolve the human/deer conflicts identified in this EA, and on the environmental consequences of each alternative. Methods Considered: Physical Exclusion- Fencing, netting, or other barriers around airports, yards, Parks, individual plants, and high-risk roadways can limit deer access. There are several types of fences that can inhibit deer access (e.g., temporary electric, high tensile electric, woven wire, chain-link, and solid wall fencing). Several types of barriers (e.g., woven wire cylinders) have proven effective in reducing antler-rubbing damage to shrubs and trees. Cultural and Habitat Modifications- Enforcing a "no feeding" policy can help reduce concentrations of deer in urban areas. Modifying or eliminating habitat utilized by deer may change deer behavior and reduce 3 some deer-human conflicts. This could include reducing vegetative cover, forage crops, or utilizing less palatable landscape plants. Frightening Devices- The proper use of frightening devices and harassment techniques including sireus, flashing lights, electronic distress sounds, pyrotechnics, propane exploders, dogs, and rubber projectiles fired from a shotgun could help reduce conflicts. These devices, used alone or in conjunction with one another might keep deer away from conflict areas. Chemical Repellents- : Chemical repellents applied to vegetation (i.e., contact repellents) have ibeen:used to discourage deer from browsing (see, e.g., Mason 1997). Area repellents,'whiehare designed to repel deer by odor alone, could be considered around airport perimeters. Results of commercially available and "home remedy" deer repellents have met with varying success. Area repellents are generally considered less effective, and the effectiveness of contact repellents may depend on deer densities and the availability of alternative food. Supplemental Feeding- Supplemental feeding would involve providing acceptable deer foods (e.g. com or a balanced ration diet) either during certain annual periods when deer browsing on omamental plantings and flowers is most severe, or on a year-round basis. This method could also be used to try and draw deer away from airports. Population Stabilization (contraceptives)- Contraceptives for deer can be grouped into four categories: surgical sterilization, oral contraception, hormone implantation, and immunocontraception (the use of contraceptive vaccines). This technique would require that deer receive either single, multiple, or possibly daily treatment to successfully prevent conception. The use of this method would be subject to approval by Federal and State Agencies. Population Reduction (capture and translocation)- This method would provide for the live capture and translocation of deer to other locations. The application of this method would have to comply with Federal and State regulations pertaining to the relocation or importation of deer. Population Reduction (lethal)- Lethal control methods could be used selectively to remove deer that are creating hazards to safety or causing damage to a facility, and to reinforce other methods of management. Lethal management techniques could include (subject to pertinent regulations) capture with subsequent euthanasia and shooting (including the use of archery and/or firearms). Discussion of Methods Eliminated from Further Consideration Supplemental feeding would be expensive and may even promote an increase in deer density. Deer would still have access to problem areas and might continue to browse native and ornamental vegetation even with supplemental feeding. Therefore, supplemental feeding of the deer herd is not included in any of the alternatives. Contraceptives have proven to be effective in preventing deer reproduction in controlled experiments. However, a number of complications currently limit the effectiveness of this technique on flee-ranging deer (see Kreeger (1997) for an overview of contraceptive methods). Some problems with the use of contraceptives include: frequency of treatment needed, necessity to treat a large percentage of the population, immigration of deer from areas surrounding a treated deer herd, marking of treated deer for identification to prevent repeated treatment, ,effects on nontarget species, legal questions regarding capture of deer, legal questions regarding secondary effects on humans (Warren and Lance 1993), and effects on deer behavior and population dynamics (Mullet et at., 1997). Even in situations where contraceptives could be effectively and economically utilized, it would take several years before a reduction in deer density and associated conflicts with deer could be achieved. The use of contraceptives is regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Adminislration. Presently, there are no contraceptives approved for use on flee-ranging white-tailed deer. Therefore, the use of contraceptives is not considered at this time. Population reduction achieved through capture and relocation is labor intensive, would most likely have to be implemented annually to be effective, and would be costly ($273-$2876/deer) (O'Bryan and McCullough 1985, Bryant and Ishmael 1991). Physiological trauma and deer mortality during capture and transportation would be high and deer mortality after translocation has ranged from 25-89% (Jones and Witham 1990, Mayer et al. 1993). Although tramlocated deer usually do not remm to their location of capture, some do settle in familiar suburban habitats and create nuisance problems for those communities (Bryant and Ishmael 1991 ). The American Veterinary Medical Association, The National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians, and the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists opposes relocation of mammals because of the risk of disease transmission CLI.S. Dept. Agri. 1993). High mortality rates oftranslocated deer, combined with the manner in which many of these animals die, make it difficult to justify translocation as a humane alternative to removal methods (Bryant and Ishmael 1991). Alternatives Considered: No Action This alternative would preclude any management activity by WS directed at preventing or reducing human conflicts with deer. Integrated Deer Damage Management - (Proposed strategy for managing white-tailed deer conflicts in urban areas and on airports in Iowa) This alternative would utilize an integrated damage management program to address conflicts with deer in urban areas and on airports. The utilization of an integrated wildlife damage management approach would provide for the application of practical methods of damage prevention and control to reduce conflicts with deer while minimizing harmful effects of management techniques on humans, other species, and the environment. This alternative would utilize methods 1,2,3,4 and 8 in the "Methods Considered" section. Nonlethal and lethal damage management methods would be used as appropriate. This alternative recognizes nonlethal methods and gives them first consideration in the formulation of each damage control strategy. The steps involved ;in formulating this integrated management process are listed in detail in Volume 2, Chapter 2~!pages. !~37 of the ADC programmatic EIS. ~i ~: i:.:!! ~:~ ~ A number of nonlethal management methods have been implemented at various problem areas within the State. Chemical repellents, harassment, habitat management, exclusion barriers and the prohibition of feeding deer have been utilized; however, alone, and in particular over larger problem areas (e.g., cities), they do not often reduce damage to acceptable levels. Many cities, for example, are implementing various lethal control approaches to complement nonlethal efforts. The effectiveness and acceptability of harassment methods is site-specific, depending on factors such as acceptability of loud noises and flashing lights and the likelihood of deer moving to other areas where they will continue to create problems. In general, the propensity of animals to acclimate to harassment often makes the effectiveness of harassment methods alone short-lived. Additionally, on airports or near highways, there is a coneem that harassing or frightening animals may cause them to nan across runways or roadways. Extreme caution is needed when using these techniques. Nevertheless, in the appropriate situation, harassment techniques can be an effective complement for reducing problem caused by deer. While fencing may provide varying degrees of exclusion, a truly deer-proof fence must be a minimum of eight feet in height to be effective (Craven 1983). Electrical fencing (either temporary or high tensile) in urban areas would be of minimal value because of legal and human safety concems. The cost-effectiveness and aesthetic acceptance of other types of "deer-proof' fences would need to be evaluated for individual problem areas. For example, extensive perimeter fencing may be more logistically and cost-effectively applied to airports. Where deemed appropriate, public officials would be encouraged to reduce speed limits on problem roads to decrease the potential and severity of deer/vehicle collisions. Current research is underway by the Iowa Dept. of Transportation and Iowa State University to better evaluate methods for reducing deer-vehicle collisions. Deer crossing 6 signs and/or visual or physical barriers may be erected along problem roads to help reduce problems. Habitat management to reduce the attractiveness of problem areas to deer would include recommendations for planting of less palatable plant species and/or the removal of foresled areas. However, forested areas provide multiple benefits and their removal would depend on the value of the area to the local public and wildlife. Recommending removal of forested areas would only be considered when deer are creating significant threats to human health and safety, where endangered plants and animals are not present, and when other methods are ineffective. The use of chemical repellents as browsing deterrents has been extensivelystudied and several products are approved by the Environmental Protection Agency for:.~s use. Laboratory and field studies have shown that repellents can be costly, may require frequent reapplication, are not effective in all situations, and may diminish in effectiveness as deer densities increase or deer adapt to them (Palmer et at. 1983, Conover 1984, Matschke et al. 1984, Hygnstrom and Craven 1988, Swihart and Conover 1990, Andelt et at. 1991, Beringer et at. 1994, and Fargione and Richmond 1995). The effectiveness of repellents is generally related to deer density, palatability of the plant species, availability of alternate food sources, season of the year, and weather. Lethal methods would be used, subject to pertinent laws and regulations, to reduce local deer populations to an acceptable density when appropriate. Nonlethal Management This Alternative would utilize methods 1, 2, 3, and 4 identified in the "Methods Considered" section above. No lethal deer damage management methods would be implemented to prevent or reduce conflicts at problem areas. Nonlethal Management Attempted Prior to Lethal Management This Altemative would utilize the nonlethal methods 1, 2, 3, and 4 identified in the "Methods Considered" section above before lethal control measures would be utilized. If these nonlethal methods fail to provide acceptable reduction in conflicts with deer, then method 8 would be implemented. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The WS program evaluated the environmental consequences and cumulative impacts of these management methods in the ADC programmatic EIS. In the development of the EIS, issues conceming biological, economic, sociocultural, and physical impacts for these altematives were identified and results are listed in Volume 2, Chapter 4, Table 4-42 of the EIS. The analysis of environmental effects which could be expected from the alternative actions takes into account WS decision process procedures and the mandates of applicable WS policy directives. 7 Cumulative impacts, as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1508.7), are impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of who undertakes such other actions (U.S. Dept. Agri. 1994). Alternative 1: No Action This alternative would preclude any management activity by WS directed at preventing or reducing conflicts with deer in urban areas or on airports. No action to manage deer problems in affected areas would lead to continued conflicts with deer and the likelihood of increased property damage, deer-vehicle collisions, hazards to aviation, environmental degredation, and increased illegal killing of deer and the associated safety{hazards. Additionally, high deer densities in urban areas might lead to increased risks oflyme: disease transmission to humans. Altemative 1 would not provide the me~iforaffected parties to successfully resolve problems, and is therefore not the preferred alternative. Altemative 2: Integrated Deer Damage Management ffroposed action for management of white-tailed deer conflicts in urban areas and on airports in Iowa) Integrated wildlife management strategies and methods selected for use under this alternative would ensure maximum results with minimal adverse impacts to the environment. This alternative would allow the integration of proven effective management methods and techniques, both lethal and nonlethal, for the reduction of damage and safety hazards caused by deer. WS would not be restricted to any single form of management to address deer damage concerns; instead, an integrated management program would be available to respond to immediate and long-term public safety hazards and property damage. Lethal management would be used to address immediate conflicts when necessary, and the use of other integrated methods would minimize the long-term need for lethal management. Lethal management, used in conjunction with non-lethal methods, would be the most effective and cost efficient management approach. Local population reductions of white-tailed deer in problem areas would have no significant long-term impacts to the regional deer population (W. Suehy, IDNR, pers. comm.). Fencing areas to reduce deer access can substantially reduce threats to human safety, property damage, and damage to natural vegetation. However, fencing may be aesthetically displeasing to certain individuals, may reduce oppommities to view other wildlife excluded by the fence, and may disrupt the natural movements of other wildlife populations. Barriers around individual plants will reduce damage caused by deer, but may reduce an individual's enjoyment of the landscape. The use of tightening devices (e.g., noise makers, flashing lights) to repel deer can be an effective part of a management program designed to reduce deer problems. However, loud noises and/or bright lights can be very displeasing to the public and may, if used for extended periods, detract from the quality of living in an area. The type, quality, and quantity of habitat available has a direct relationship with the diversity of other species of wildlife utilizing an area. If forested areas were recommended for removal to reduce the attractiveness of an area to deer, it would likely have a negative impact on the other species of forest wildlife inhabiting the area, and may reduce recreational opportunities for some individuals. Recommending removal of forested areas would only be considered when deer are creating significant threats to human health and safety and where endangered plants and animals are not present. The use of chemical repellents can reduce damage to landscaping plants and natural vegetation, and may improve the aesthetic and/or ecological value of an area:to people and wildlife. However, the application of repellents alone would not likelyreduce-the presence or density of deer in a problem area and could thus result in additional deer damage to vegetation that is not treated. The selective removal of deer by trained professionals utilizing firearms, archery and/or capture and euthanasia would be successful in reducing damage and safety hazards when . integrated with selected non-lethal methods described above. Meat from such animals would be donated to charitable organizations when feasible, provided that the method of euthanasia did not involve drugs dangerous to humans. In areas where deer have had a negative impact on the vegetative community, population reductions of deer may increase public opportunities to view plants and wildlife negatively affected by high deer densities. Firearms would only be used by trained and approved WS employees and not by the general public. Safety would be the primary concem of these trained professionals, and the discharge of firearms would only take place at pre-determined locations. Rifles may be equipped with a sound suppressor to reduce the noise heard by the community. Management would be conducted in compliance with all applicable local, State, and Federal laws and regulations. Shooting is species-specific, effective, and cost-effective. However, this alternative may not be preferred by some individuals who oppose the use of lethal management to reduce wildlife damage. Oppommities for the public to view deer may be reduced in areas where population reductions occur. Beneficial impacts to be expected would be a reduced safety threat from deer-aircraft collisions, reduced damage to ornamental vegetation and vegetation in parks and natural areas, a reduction in deer-vehicle accidents in problem areas, and a reduced risk of lyme disease transmission in urban areas. Federal and State regulatory wildlife agencies were contacted conceming this alternative and its potential for adverse impacts, including impacts upon threatened and endangered species. No threatened or endangered species are likely to be impacted by implementing the proposed integrated deer damage management alternative (Appendix A). Additionally, as indicated in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 7 Biological Opinion of the ADC program issues on July 28, 1992 CtJ.S. Dept. Agri. 1994), this proposed action would have no effect on threatened or endangered species or critical habitats. The risk assessment of wildlife damage management methods used by WS is provided in Appendix P of the ADC programmarie EIS. This assessment includes potential risks to nontarget animals, WS employees, and the public. The impacts associated with these methods have been identified as low. Alternative 2 is the preferred altemative because it provides a timely and effective response to damage caused by deer with minimal environmental effects, thereby minimizing public safety hazards and reducing property damage. Executive Order on F. nvironmental Justice: Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations requires Federal agencies to analyze disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects of proposed actions on minority and low-income populations. WS has analyzed the effects of the proposed actions and determined that implementation of the preferred alternative would not have adverse human health or environmental impacts on low-income or minority populations. None of the existing problem areas are located near predominately low-income or minority populations. Deer meat (venison) would be donated to needy individuals or charitable organizations for distribution to low-income populations in accordance with all State health regulations. Alternative 3: Nonlethal Management Restricting management methods to only nonlethal techniques would only provide moderate and short-term reductions of safety hazards and property damage, and damage would continue to increase with time. Threats of lyme disease transmission would, at best, only be reduced in the short-term. Although several nonlethal techniques are applicable at problem areas. they alone are not adequate to reduce conflicts caused by deer to an acceptable level. It has been shown that the exclusive use of nonlethal techniques provide, at best, only shortsterm damage reduction (Bomford and O'Brian 1990). Adverse impacts to the deer might include deteriorating health resulting from poor nutrition as populations increase. Other wildlife species would be adversely impacted due to continued and increased competition for food and the resulting habitat degradation lO that comes with deer overpopulation. The risk assessment associatexl with the wildlife damage management methods used in this altemative is identical to that identified in alternative 2 of this document. Nonlethal methods alone have not, and are unlikely to, be effective in reducing conflicts with deer where high deer densities exist. Altemative 3 would not provide the means necessary to reduce conflicts with deer to an acceptable level, and is therefore not the preferred altemative. Altemative 4: Nonlethal Management Attempted Prior to Lethal Management - .The Nonlethal Management Attempted Prior to Lethal Management Alternative is similar to alternative 2, but with the emphasis on attempting nonlethal managementmethods ' prior to lethal techniques. Alternative 2 recognizes nonlethal methods as an important dimension of the ADC Decision Model (U.S. Dept. Agri. 1994). This Decision Model gives nonlethal methods first consideration in the formulation ofeaeh control strategy and uses them when practical before using lethal methods. The important distinction between this alternative and alternative 2 is that this alternative would require that nonlethal methods be tried in all circumstances before any lethal methods are used. A multitude of nonlethal deer damage management methods have been implemented at problem areas and conflicts with deer have nevertheless increased in many areas. Under this altemative, many deer conflicts could not be resolved in a timely manner, and damage would likely continue. Some persons are completely opposed to lethal management and would oppose this alternative. The risk assessment associated with the wildlife damage management methods used in this alternative is identical to that identified in alternative 2 of this EA. Alternative 4 would not provide the means necessary to resolve deer-human conflicts in a timely manner, and to an acceptable level, and is therefore not the preferred alternative. CONSULTATIONS Federal, State, and county agencies, and interested organizations were contacted during preparation of this Environmental Assessment. Polk Co. Deer Task Force Iowa City Deer Task Force Iowa Dept. of Transportation Iowa Farm Bureau Linn County Deer Management Task Force Veto Fish Allen Fan'is Willie Suchy Jerry Bade Kim Bogenshutz Ron Fort Jeff Telleen : Jim Jansen Jim Mertens Hartman Reserve Nature Center · Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources Iowa City Police Department Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources U.S. Dept. of Agriculture 12 APPENDIX A Correspondence with State and Federal Agencies regarding the proposed Alternative for managing white-tailed deer conflicts in urban areas and on airports in the state of Iowa. ~rr41c , :~ I ,Z~o ,o,ar a~e USDA August 3 1, 1998 U.S. Fish & gr~dlife 8errice Attn: Field Supetvisar 4469 48th Ave. Ct- Rock Island, IL 61201 NO Consistent with the provisions of the National Environinertial Policy Act (NBPA), the USDA/APHIS/Wildiife Services Program (hereafter "W8"] is currently preparing an Environmental Assessment (F,a.) far projects in the State of Iowa related to the managemeat of human-deer eonfliets in urban areas and on ~irports. The impetus for preparing this EA stems, in part. from an increase in requests for WS to provide djxect operational assistance in problem areas, ]'he proposed alternative (see below) will serve to guide WS' activities in mw,~ging conflicts when out seawices are. requested. WS' activities are undertaken in compliance with relevant laws, regulations, policies, orders, and procedures, including the Ellda~oered Species Act The proposed alternative utilizes an integrated wildlife thinage management approach to address problems. Speei.fic management techniques in this alternative which WS' employees may employ include: 1. Ffightening Devices- The pwper use of frightening devices and harassment techniques including sirens, flashing lights, electronic distress sounds, pyrotechnies. propane explodeis. dogs, and rubber projcctiles ftred from a shotgun could help reduce conflicts. These devices, used alone or in conjunction' with one another migh~ keep deer away from conflict areas. 2. Chemical Rapelle~ts- Chemical repellents applied to ve~elation (i.e., contact tel~llents) have been used to discourage d~ar from browsing. Area ropellonts, whioh are desi~Bd W repel deer by odo~ alone, could be considered around airport perimeters. Results of commercially availale and "home r~metly' deer repellents have met with varying suecas-s. Axea repellents are generally conside~-d less effective, and the effectiveness of contact repellents may depend on deer densities and the availability of alternative foocL 3. Population Reduction (lethal)- Lethal control methods could be used selectively to remove deer that are cx~:~t.,_'ng hazards to safety or causin_.o damage to a facility, and to reinforce other methods of management-- APHIS-.Ptote~ing An~erican AgficuRu~ Lethal management techniques could include (subject to pertinent regulations) capture with subsequent euthanasia and shooting (including the use of archery and/or firearms). Additionally, the following methods may be discussed with affected parties; however, implementation of such methods would strictly be the responsibility of the appropriate authority. 1. Physical Exclusion- Fencing, netting, or other barriers around airports, yards, Parks, individual plants, and high-risk roadways can limit deer access. There are several types of fences that can inhibit deer access (e.g., temporary electric, high tensile electric, woven wire, chain-link, and solid wall fencing). Several types of barriers (e.g., woven wire cylinders) have proven effective in reducing antler-rubbing damage to shrubs and trees. 2. Cultural and Habitat Modifications- Enforcing a "no feeding" policy can help reduce concentrations of deer in urban areas. Modifying habitat utilized by deer may change deer behavior and reduce some deer- human conflicts. This could include reducing vegetative cover, forage crops, or utilizing less palatable landscape plants. It is our opinion that the proposed alternative (and the methods therein) would not affect any endangered species within the State of Iowa - lethal removal is species-specific; chemical repellents are registered with the EPA; and harassment techniques can be implemented in a species-specific manner, in localized areas, and in a non-lethal manner. I would appreciate your response to my conclusion that the proposed action to reduce safety hazards and property damage caused by deer in urban areas and on airports would not adversely affect endangered species occurring in the State. Due to the need to process this EA in a timely manner, we respectfully request that we receive your agency's written response within 3 weeks of your receipt of this request. If you have any additional questions, please contact me at the numbers listed on the letterhead. Thank you for your time. Sincerely. \ Z// t John Erb Wildlilb Biologist LITERATURE CITED Andelt, W. F., K. P. Bumham, and J. A. Manning. 1991. Relative effectiveness ofrepellents for reducing mule deer damage. J. Wildl. Manage. 55:341-347. Beringer, J., L. P. Hansen, R. A. Heinen. and N. F. Giessman. 1994. Use of dogs to reduce damage by deer to a white-pine plantation. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 22:627-632. Berryman, J. H. 1991. "Biodiversity:...a word of caution." Southeast Assoct'Fish and Wildl. Agencies 45:13 - 18. Bomford, M. and P. H. O'Brian. 1990. Sonic Deterrents in Animal DamageControl:: :AReview of Device Tests and Effectiveness. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 18:411422. ~ ~ ! ~; Bryant, B. K., and W. Ishmael. 1991. Movement and mortality paRems of resident and translocated suburban white-tailed deer. Pages 53-58 in L.W. Adams and D.L. Leedy, eds. Wildlife conservation in metropolitan environments. Natl. Inst. Urban Wildl. Symp. Ser. 2, Columbia, Md. Craven S.R. 1983. Deer. pp. D23-D33 in: Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage. Coop. Ext. Serv. Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln. Conover, M.R. 1984. Effectiveness ofrepellents in reducing deer damage in nurseries. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 12:399-404. DeCalesta, D. 1994. Effect of white-tailed deer on songbirds within managed forests in Pennsylvania. J. Wildl. Manage. 58(4):711-718. Decker, D. J., and K. G. Purdy. 1988. Toward a concept of wildlife acceptance capacity in wildlife management. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 16:53-57. Fargione, M. J. and M. E. Richmond. 1995. Advancing deer repellent performance: Fine-tuning Hinder applications and potential uses for insecticidal soaps. Proc. East. Wildl. Damage Control Conf. 6: 137-144. Hygnstrom, S. E. and S. R. Craven. 1988. Electric fences and commercial repellents for reducing deer damage in cornfields. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 16:291-296. Jones, J. M. and J. H. Witham. 1990. Post-translocation survival and movements of metropolitan white-tailed deer. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 18:434-441. Kreeger, T.J., Editor. 1997. Contraception in wildlife management. USDA Technical Bulletin No. 1853. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 272pp. Leopold, A. S. 1933. Game Management. Charles Scribner's Sons. New York, New York. 481pp. Mason, J.R., Editor. 1997. Repellents in wildlife management. USDA, National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, CO. 447pp. Matschke, G. H., D. S. DeCalesta, and J. D. Harder. 1984. Crop damage and control. pp. 647- 654 in L. K. Halls, ed. White-tailed deer: ecology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 870pp. Mayer, K. E., J. E. DiDonato, and D. R. McCullough. 1993. California urban deer managemere: Two case studies. pp.17-18 in: Urban Deer Symposium. St. Louis, MO 54pp. ! Muller, L. I., R. J. Warren, and D. L. Evans. 1997. Theory and practice of immunoeontraception in wild mammals. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 25:504-514. O'Bryan, M. K. and D. R. McCullough. 1985. Survival of black-tailed deer following relocation in California. J. Wildl. Manage. 49:115-119. Palmer, W. L., R. G. Wingard, and J. L. George. 1983. Evaluation of white.tailed deer repellents. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 11: 164-166. Strole, T.A., and R. C. Anderson. 1992. White-tailed deer browsing: Species preferences and implications for central Illinois forests. Nat. Areas J. 12:139-144. Swihart, R. K. and M. R. Conover. 1990. Reducing deer damage to yews and apple trees: Testing Big Game Repellent, Ro-Pel, and soap as repellents. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 18:156- 162. U. S. Department of Agriculture 1993. Animal Damage Control Policy Manual. Anim. Plant Health Inspection Serv., Anim. Damage Control. Hyattsville, MD. ..... .1994. Animal Damage Control Program, Final Environmental Impact Statement. Anim. Plant Health Inspection Serv., Anim. Damage Control. Hyattsville, MD. Volume 1, 2 & 3. Waller, D. M., and W. S. Alverson. 1997. The white-tailed deer: A keystone herbivore. Wild. Soc. Bull. 25:217-226. Warren, R. J. and W. R. Lance. 1993. Management of urban deer populations with contraceptives: Practicality and agency concerns. pp. 164-170 in J. B. MeAninch ed. Urban Deer: A Manageable Resource. Proc. Symp. 551h Midwest Fish Wildl. Conf. 175pp. Wildlife Society, The. 1990. "Responsible human use of wildlife." The Wildlifer, Issue No. 243. The Wildl. Soc., Washington, D.C. Sun~, Oct. 4, m998 Peninsula O[:i development stirs By Jim Jacobson Gazette Johnson County' Bureau OWA CITY -- In the real estate business, the old saying about success is "location, location, loca- tion." A city-initiated residen- tiaI development has changed that notion. The mantra over the past year for the 70-acre Peninsula development has been, "tradition, tradition, tra- dition." Taking architectural cues from older neighborhoods in Iowa City and throughout the Midwest, and taking its layout scheme from early American settlements, the Penin- sula area essentially will re-create an old- style neighborhood but with today's market- place in mind. That's assruing the city can Fred a development team that not only wants to buy the property but also the neo-~'adi- tional planning concept. The Peninsula property is located off Du- buque Sweet, just south of Interstate 80. The city purchased it for $1.~ million in 1995 as part of a bigger parcel needed for a new wa- ter plant. Last October, city staffers suggested the City Council pattern a new neighborhood on a portion of the land to be sold after the old, charming neighborhoods around town. It was an unprecedented opportunity, staffers said. to influence development and create a working model for future residential growth. Council members excitedly backed the plan for a neighborhood that would have a park as its centerpiece, defined boundaries and public space that received the same at- tention to design as the development's pri- vate space. Opinion is mixed, however, among real es- interest and skepticism tare and development professionals who spoke to The Gazette. Some express serious reservations. Others support the idea. Karin Franklin~ director of the city's Plan- ning and Community Department, expects the city will move ahead with the project de- spite the skepticism. "Given the interest we've had so far, I expect we'H find a devel- oper this time out" To date, the city has received at least two dozen inquiries from its nationwide call for interested developers. The Request for Qn~B- ~cations, as irs called, gives developers dr groups of developers an opportunity to pre- sent their credentials, so the city can select a slate of fmalists. The ~nalists then present fleshed-out ideas for the area and compote to be the one chosen to undertake the project. Development te~m-~ can submit their qualift- cations until Nov. 9. Construction could begin as early as spring, says Bob Miklo, the city's senior ur- ban planner. ~ FLESIIED-OUT ideas from develop- ers will spmg from a vision that Dover, Kohl & Parmen of South Miami, Fla., devel- oped and the council endorsed. "Picture having the feeling of living in a · place apart and yet living in the heart of the city.. '.. Picture living in a walkable tradi- tional neighborhood, with strong bonds of community life .... There is no other place like this," the plan's cover reads. Dover, Kohrs planners, designers and ar- chitects met for a week this spring with var- ious segments of the community, including developers, before devising the plan for this idyllic neighborhood with its mix oI housing types and income levels. The Midwesrs practical architecture will give the neighborhood's expected 300 to 340 homes its classic feel, according to the de- sign plan. For instance, the bungalow has overhanging eaves and a porch that serve practical purposes. The proposed 1'800- square-foot bungalow has three bedrooms and two bathrooms. Its floor plan takes into account how people use their homes on the eve of the 21st century. Suzanne Martinson, the Miami architect Dover, Kohl hired to help with the project, says the floor plans are kitchen-centered with "more visual connection" to allow working parents the ability to watch their children while preparing meals. However, a builder can change the layout based on a buyer's needs. The other home styles in the plan are the ~typical Midwestern four square, the row house, the zero-lot-line cottage and apart- ment buildings. All designs in the plan are meant to serve as a starting point for devel- opers, not as a blueprint of the f'mal product. The cottages are presented as an afford- able option. One side of the building Sits on the property line. Such a configuration en- ables the builder to use a narrower lot, low- ering the cost. Simple details also are expec- tecr to help keep the cost down, according to Dover, Kohl. On the other hand, a person wishing to buy a row house can have a builder erect one that is affordable or one that is far more grand. Miklo says he is unsure how much Penin- sula homes will cost but expects they will re- flect the local housing market. It will, how- ever, offer "a spectrum of prices." For August, the average home in the Iowa City metropolitan area sold for $127,486, accord- ing to the Iowa City Area Association of Re- altors. The one example of an apartment building that the plan shows is based on an older Io- · Turn to 3E: P®alalala Peninsula: Iowa City development stirs interest and skepticism · From page 1E wa City apartment house to show that these kinds of siruc- , tures* need not be generic. Under no circumstances wilt houses have the garage in the front, according to the plan, because that leads to "the place- less garage-scape Of many' subdi- visions." Those kinds Of homes :'kill the street," Martinson says. "Your house loses a sense of humani- ty" ff it has that design. Martin- son's comments make some lo- cal developers, builders and real estate agents bristle. / "WHAT'S WRONG witl~a typical subdivision?" says Mike Gatens of Iowa City. Gatens has developed Highland Park and Glen Oaks in Coralville. Admit- tedly, he has not read the entire design plan nor has he received a copy of the call for qualifica- tions, but he has read and heard 'about the project. Mixing single- family homes and apartments will prove a hard sell to develop- ers and buyers alike, he says. "I've never liked that. if you've got a single-family house, you don't want an apart.ment next to yOU.'; Builders erect what people want, says Rex Brandstatter, a Mixing single-family homes and apartments will prove a hard sell to developers and buyers alike, says Mike Gatens, an Iowa City-area developer. Coralville real estate agent. He also says he is unfamiliar with the plan's details, but based on what he does know about it, it appears to be "an academic ex- ercise" and not a practical plan. PEOPLE WANT attached ga- rages, adds builder Mike Hodge of Hodge Construction in Iowa City. Though "not fully up to speed" on the plan, Hodge says, "I've had some reservations all along." Dover, Kohl and the city are "designing this for the per- son who visits the neighborhood and not the people who live there. ' ' "Old habits die hard," says Victor Dover of Dover, Kohl about the skepticism. He pre- dicts that the developer or a portion of the development team that eventually gets the go- ahead probably will come from out of town. While still a relatively new concept, nee-traditional develop- ments have found market accep- tance all over the country, he says. Developers and their in- vestors have received a "reason- able rate of return" on their investment, he says, although he has no specific figures. Benjamin ChaR, an architect, developer and member of the city's Planning and Zoning Com- mission, has received a request for qualifications and has read the plan. He says he likes neo- traditional neighborhoods be- cause as they grow, the proper- ties become more valuable. THIS IS THE ot~posite of what happens in current subdi- visions. People, he says, move to the first phase of a typical sub- urban subdivision because it is secluded and fairly open. As the subdivision grows, that aspect disappears, he says. Whether the public will buy into a neo-traditional develop- ment "is a tough ques- tion .... There's going to be a degree of risk," Char says. Developer Gary WaRs of Iowa Realty also has received a Copy of the call for credentials. He says neo-traditional planning is "the wave of the future .... It is intriguing." HIS ENTHUSIASM also 'stems from the location of the property. "I think as far as real estate goes, it's a great piece" of land. He estimates the entire project will take any developer five to 10 years to build com- pletely. Meanwhile, Dover cautions city officials to avoid making the bottom line the complete focus. "Take your time and find the right partner," one who will make the plan better than it is now and not a "dumbed down" hybrid of traditional and cur- rent development.' ' Ma~ 2 2 ~999 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE March 19, 1999 The Honorable Mayor and the City Council Civil Service Entrance Examination - PARKING CASHIER We, the undersigned members of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of parking Cashier. Aminata Segui IOWA CITY CIVIL C;~SION i hael Xh ir SERVICE ATTEST: M~Ci~'Clerk~4~ 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET * IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240-'1826 * (,319} 356-5000 * FAX (319) 356-5009 March 12, 1999 TO: RE: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council Civil Service Entrance Examination - Police Officer City We, the undersigned members of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby certify the following named person(s) in the order of their standing as eligible for the position of Police Officer. Colin Fowler William Welch Troy Lorence Joel Marcano Matthew Hansen Paul Bailey Kevin Humiston Jason Johnson Jeffrey Fink Gabriel Cook Terry Tack Demetrius Marlowe Teresa Mercer Rodney Crosser Charles Pollok Michael Barney lOW CITY CI IL SERVICE COMMISSION jiC~~e~~~.CI Ledy Chair L FW Dickerson yra . Susan Dulek ATTEST: Marian Karr, City Clerk 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET · IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240-1'826 · (319) j56-$000 , FAX (.~19) 356-5009 March 25, 1999 Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship opening the doors of Iowa City P. O. Box 1402 Iowa City, IA 52244 (319) 358-9212 Mayor Emie Lehman Civic Center 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Mayor Lehman: I have enclosed a check in the mount of $5,217.25. Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship has agreed to make a voluntary payment in lieu of taxes on an annual basis. This check is for 1998. This amount is based on 10% of our rental income less debt service and utility payments. Please call me at 358-9212 with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Maryann Dennis Executive Director CO: Stephen J. Atkins City Manager Maurice Head Department of Planning and Community Developmere / ~2 6 30 IOWA CITY MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 1801 South Riverside Drive Iowa City, Iowa 52246 Office Phone (319) 356-5045 Memorandum To: From: Date: Re: City Council Ron O'Neil, Airport Manager March 26, 1999 Airport land acquisition project On March 25, 1999, the Airport Commission received a grant offer from the Federal Aviation Administration in the amount of $1,168,271.00. This is $ 648,000.00 more than was originally programmed for Iowa City forthe first halfofFY 1999 and $ 355,571.00 more money than was programmed for Iowa City for the entire year. Because of this, I don't know if we will get any additional ftmdmg in FY 1999 but I'm not shy about asking for more. This particular grant is to reimburse the City for the Terrace Hill Mobile Home Park. That was the mobile home park on Highway 1, near the intersection of Mormon Trek. The 27 mobile home owner-occupants have been relocated and the mobile homes have all been removed from the property. There is a house remaining on the property. It will be sold and removed this summer. An offer has been accepted on the Dyer parcel (Airlane Motel and triplex) and the closing will be sometime in April. Some residents have been relocated from the Iowa City Mobile Home Park and that part of the program is projected to be completed in the next few months. Since September of 1998, we have received $ 2, 190, 169.00 in grants from the FAA for the land acquisition program. That is a significant amount of money for a general aviation airport. It emphasizes the FAA's commitment and acknowledges the importance they place on the Iowa City Airport. Cc: Iowa City Airport Commission Steve Arkins, City Manager Don Yucuis, Finance Director Dennis Mitchell, Assistant City Attorney Page 1 of 3 SHAME FOR IOWA I am speaking to council members not as officials but as citizens of Iowa. My hope is that I can force a few people, some in the audience and even a council member or two, to look at a very ugly fact that is becoming more obvious with every prosecution of a police officer that makes the headlines in this country. Police who take lives without cause are being prosecuted by courageous prosecutors in other states. The shame In this for Iowa is that the circumstances of our son's killing were far more blatantly criminal than the circumstances of these killings where a prosecution has or will be taking place. A quick comparison will prove the point: Our son's killers had no legal right and no practical reason to enter our son's shop with guns drawn, and many very compelling reasons not to - police training manuals make the point very forcefully that by far the most common cause of an open door is that a legitimate person has left it open and that they are likely to be inside - and a search warrant ts required unless there Is evidence of life threatening activity within. The Fonrth Arnondm~nt to the Constttntton Is ~hsolnt~ly clout ~bont this. (For your information the Justice Department refusal to prosecute Gillaspic and Kelsay did not affirm police right to enter without a warrant If they find a door unlocked or open - it just put off the decision. I am appealing the Justice Department failure to uphold the law, and either my appeal or the next killing by police which results from entering without a warrant through an unlocked or open door will force the Justice Department to uphold the Constitution with a prosecution.) In contrast, the officers who are being prosecuted in the two recent cases that have made the national headlines had a legal right to be where they were and to do what they did right up to the point of firing the shots. In the Connecticut case there was a warrant out for the arrest of the victim, and after a chase and after catching the man and throwing him to the ground, the officer shot the man In the back and claimed that the victim had made a movement that made him "think" that he was going for a gun (the victim had no gun, and the testimony of several witnesses flat out contradicts the offlcer's version). In the New York killing three cops on a rape call tried to question a man as he was unlocking the door of his apartment building, and when the man, who had limited understanding of English, did not respond, they fired at him and later said that he had made a movement that made them ~thlnk" that he was going for a gun. While It is obvious to all except police apologists that these officers should be prosecuted for murder, the case for conviction ls nowhere near as compelling as it is for the conviction of our son's murderers. Page 2 of 3 Consider Just a few of the most damming facts of our son's killing: Kelsay and Glllaspie spent only a 2-4 seconds investigating before entering with guns drawn without announcing their entry and without the required search warrant. Our son was sitting talking on the phone facing the door in a well lit room - there was not even a suggestion of danger in what confronted him, yet evidence is overwhelming that Glllasple intentionally fired his gun. He told investigators the night of the murder that he had seen the phone and thought it was a gun and had fired in "self defense", which is of course an intentional shooting. But two weeks later on the advice of his attorney he totally reversed his testimony and claimed that he had not even seen the phone, had not felt 'threatened, that he had ``flinched"- one of the many horrors that I have to live with is the memory of our lawyer telling us the night of the murder that ~Glllasple will claim, on the advice of his lawyer, that he ``flinched", because that is the only ``defense" available to him". This convenient flinch came after Glllaspte had moved to an upright position, raised his gun arm and aimed center mass. This description of Gillasple's movements, given to investigators that night by the third officer present, Zacharias, gives total lie to a flinch - a flinch is an involuntary, uncontrolled tightening of muscles which occurs when one is surprised. Gillaspic testified that he moved through the door in a crouched position with his gun down - if he had flinched his shot would have hit the floor and our son would still be alive. At his news conference White claimed that he accepted Gillaspie's ``flinch", and he used the uncontrolled nature of a flinch as his reason for not prosecuting. But even White could not sustain this lie in the face of the evidence of an intentional firing, and on several later occasions he stated that he had no doubt that Gillaspie intentionally fired his weapon. Even Chief Winkelhake when he was informed in a Prime Time Live lnten?iew that White was now saying that the firing was intentional, said, "then he should have charged him" (this is on tape but did not make it into the program) - an intentional firing of a hollow point bullet center mass is an lntenHonal killing, and since there was no cause, it is murder. Kelsay also told several obvious lies - the most obvious were the "scratches on the door" that no one else could see, and his statement that he did not see Gillaspie's movements at the moment the gun was fired - this statement is just too convenient and too preposterous to be believed - Kelsay was two feet away and acting as Gillaspie's back-up, and had .just seconds earlier motioned impatiently for Gillaspie to go on in after Gillasple hesitated and whispered, "but there are lights on in there" Page 3 of 3 Lies are very close to an admission of guilt, especially blatant lies about the critical aspects of a killing, yet all these lies and others, as well as physical and testimonial evidence, were ignored by Patrick White and the so called "grand" jury. To Iowa's everlasting shame the people of this state were not even mildly upset that a murder went unpunished because the murderers are cops. The Connecticut and the New York killings, and our son's killing, and in fact most unjusti~ed killings by police are a result of police putting their own lives ahead of the citizens' lives they are hired to protect - tocl__o_y's officers are not willing to accept as a part of their duty the risk of holding fire until they can be certain that deadly force is required for their safety, but these same cops ARE willing to risk killtog completely innocent people, or non dangerous suspects by firing before they have seen a weapon and before unmistakable intent to ham them has been demonstrated, with the obvious result that they will kill without cause. There is only one word that descfi!~..s an officer who tn order to gtve htmsolf a slight statistical 0450 ts willlrlg to p,,t other poclple's lives at risk - that word is cowarcl; and there is only one word that describes an officer who has fired before he coHld possibly know for certain that he was in danger and has ktlled a non threatening s,,spect or completely innocent human being - that word is m.rderer. Obviously counctl members are In no position to do anythtng about any of this - you made your decisions long ago on matters within your domain that denied my wife and me some degree of peace In our home town - consider what it means to us to know that two of the men responsible for our son's death are still carrying guns in our son's city (Zachartas is not one of these). My purpose In speaking to you, which Is very personal, even selfish, is not to influence any action, but to ten the truth to those of you who are unbelievers In Justice for cops who murder so that I can rest easy in my mind that I was not afraid to speak out, even in hostile territory, and more important, to speak the truth to a few of you who are believer In J ustlce for all, and by so doing give myself the hope that these truths, which I have come to know at such an overwhelming price, will not die with me. Jay Shaw, father of Eric Shaw Page 1 of 2 THE MURDER, AND THE LIES Our son was murdered by police on August 30, 1996. He was sitting in his brightly lit studio/shop on a low stool facing the door t_a_!king on the phone to his best friend about his friend's business problems - our son had worked in this shop for over 12 years, creating sculptures for the galleries who sold his work, and buildtrig futon frames for his furniture store, most often late Into the night because he ran his business during the day - tt was a hot night, a little before 11:30 - as he had done hundreds of times before, Eric had left the door slightly open for ventilation. This was our son's sanctuary, as much his home as any space on earth, a place where he felt safe. Just on the other side of the door, directly under the building light, only a second away from murder, stood three Iowa City cops with guns drawn, one on either side of the door and one directly in front - they had absolutely no reason at all to be there - there was no report of a crime, not even a hint of criminal activity - this door had been left open hundreds and hundreds of times late into the night over a 12 year period - Iowa police training manuals, as well as common sense, warn very explicitly that the most common cause of an open door is that a legitimate person has left it open and is very likely inside - lights were on in the shop - the door jam was intact, the deadbolt was in, indicating that the door had been opened with a key - these officers had spent no more than 2-3 seconds investigating, they had not looked carefully through the one window through which they could have seen our son, they had not phoned the businesses listed on the front to obtain permission to enter or to gain information about persons who might be legitimately inside, they had not spent the few seconds it would have taken listening at the door to hear my son's voice, they had not called out asking if anyone was Inside, they had not sought the required search warrant - without taking even one precaution and in violaton of our son's Constitutional Rights and without announcing their entry as required by law, the cop in the center, Gillaspic, shoved the door open, took one step inside the shop, startled my son who had ttme to say "what's going on~ as he attempted to rise to his feet - then when Gillaspic saw my son he ltook a step backwards, moved to an upright position, raised his gun arm, aimed and fired center mass. The hollow point bullet struck my son in his chest and ripped open his heart. The phone fell to the floor along side my son. My son's friend heard the shot -heard my son's screams -and the sounds he made as he died. Gillaspic stated to investigating officers that night that he had seen the phone (yellow and dumbbell shaped with a 12 foot coil cord attached), and thinking it was a gun had fired in self defense. Two weeks later, in sworn testimony given to state investigators, this same man stated that he had not seen the phone, had not felt threatened, but had flinched in surprise - the flinch came after he had taken a step backwards, raised his gun arm and aimed center mass. Gillaspic changed lies ~age 2 of 2 because his lawyer convinced him that his first lie was neither believable, nor sufficient grounds for killing in a situation in which he was the illegal intruder and there was obviously nothing to defend himself against. In dispatches and statements to the media that night and for a couple d_~_ys aftenvards police referred to the operation that ended in our son's slaying as an investigation of an open door. A few days after the killing, however, police started calling it an investigation of a "possible burglary,~ which was a BAI.F~ FACED LIE, because an open door is all they had and an open door means almost anything but a possible burglary (burglars don't leave doors open behind them, honest people do). The "possible burglary justification~ immediately entered every media mind and every media computers and every news story and every news broadcast and half the minds in the area. My brother and I had to call every newspaper and every TV station and every radio station in the eastern half of Iowa, usually several times for each one, to get this stopped. We were successful but not before the lie had entered the biased minds of those who prefer making excuses for police murders to seeing justice done. I HOLD THE CHIEF OF POLICE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS LIE. Kelsay, the officer who instigated the entry, told investigators that he had seen scratches on the door that led him to be suspicious. There were no scratches whatsoever on that door, as proven by many photographs and as attested to by the country prosecutor himself. The outright lie about the scratches did not appear until some time after the killing when police began to realize that they needed something real to support the "possible burglary~ story they had concocted. Kelsay also stated that he had not seen Gillaspie's movements at the moment he fired his gun - this in spite of the fact that Kelsay was less than two feet away with his gun drawn and was acting as Gillaspie's back up. The third officer, in training, who had not yet learned that cops lie in such situations, supplied the description of Gillaspie's movements. The night of the murder County Prosecutor White told the news media that they were still looking for the gun (how long does it take to find a gun on a person who has died at your feet?). After a four week investigation the county prosecutor announced that he would file no charges, calling it an accidental killing and giving as his reason that he accepted Gillaspie's flinch testimony. In several subsequent interviews, however, the county prosecutor stated that he had no doubt that Glllaspie intentionally fired his weapon. County Prosecutor White ignored obvious lies from Glllasple and Kelsay and other officers and got caught in at least two lies himself. These are just the worst of the lies and the outright contradictions - there are others. The question that I ask of everyone is this - if no crime was committed why are Glllaspie and Kelsay and other officers and the county attorney telling so many lies? Jay Shaw March 30,1999 CITY OF I0 WA CITY Jonathan Jordahl, Chair Johnson County Board of Supervisors 913 S. Dubuque Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Re: CZ9910. Johnson County Fairgrounds Rezoning Request. Dear Jonathan and Members of the Board: Johnson County has recently received a request from the Johnson County Agricultural Association to rezone its 49.4 acre property located within Fringe Area C at 4265 Oakcrest Hill Road SE from Suburban Residential (RS), Resort (A2), and Highway Commercial (CH) to Highway Commercial- Fairgrounds (CH-F). The Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed this request and has determined that the proposed rezoning is not in conflict with the policies contained in the Fringe Area Agreement for Area C or the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area. The proposed rezoning will help to ensure the continued use of this property as a fairgrounds, which is consistent with the recommendations contained in the current draft of the South Central District Plan. The Commission recommended approval of the proposed rezoning. The City Council concurs with the Planning and Zoning Commission and recommends that the proposed rezoning be approved. Sincerely, Ernest W. Lehman, Mayor Im~ltr~e13-25.doc 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET · IOWA CITY. IOWA 52240-1826 · (319) 356-5000 · FAX (319) 356-5009 March :), 1999 CITY OF CITY Jonathan thl, Chair Johnson Board of Supervisors 913 S. Dubuque Iowa City, Iowa Re: CZ9910. Fairgrounds Rezoning Request. Dear Jonathan and the Board: Johnson County has recently Association to rezone its 49.4 acre Road SE from Suburban Highway Commercial- Fairgrounds has reviewed this request and has the policies contained in the Fringe Area Plan for this area. The proposed rezoning will as a fairgrounds, which is consistent with the the South Central Distdct Plan. The rezoning. a request fro the Johnson County Agdcultural located Fringe Area C at 4265 Oakcrest Hill Resort and Highway Commercial (CH) to The City Planning and Zoning Commission proposed rezoning is not in conflict with for Area C or the City's Comprehensive to ensure the continued use of this property ltions contained in the current draft of recommended approval of the proposed The City Council concurs with the Plant proposed rezoning be approved. and Zoning ';sion and recommends that the Sincerely, Ernest W. Lehman, Mayor ImYtr%e13-25.doc 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET · IOWA CITY. IOWA 52240-1126 · (319) 356-5000 · FAX (319) 3~6-5004) City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: March 12, 1999 (for March 18 meeting) To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Scott Kugler, Associate Planner Re: C79910. County Fairgrounds Rezoning Request. The Johnson County Agricultural Association has submitted a request to rezone the 49.4 acre County fairgrounds property from RS, Suburban Residential, A2, Resort, and CH, Commerdal Highway, to CH-F, Commercial Highway - Fairgrounds. The CH-F zone was recently adopted by the County to address zoning inconsistencies and non-conformities assodated with fairgrounds and the present zoning in place on the property. Many of the activities that take place at the fairgrounds are currently non-conforming uses. The current zoning lines run through buildings on the site, and before the recent amendments a fairgrounds was not a defined use in the Zoning Ordinance. A definition of a fairgrounds has now been added to the Zoning Ordinance, and they are permitted in the CH-F zone along with single-family dwellings for on-site managers and their families. No other uses are permitted in the new zone. Most uses that occur at the fairgrounds are permitted under the new ordinance, while a few activities will require a conditional use permit. Staff has reviewed the rezoning request and can find no conflicts between the proposed rezoning designation and the Fringe Area Agreement for Area B or the draft South Central Distdct Plan. The Fdnge Area Agreement policies for Area B deal specifically with residential development and annexation issues, and do not contain any polides having to do with existing recreational uses. The dr~ ~ South Central Distdct Plan recognizes the existence of the fairgrounds along S. Riverside Ddve ~ .;ncourages the protection and enhancement of the fadlity. Rezoning the property as requested would be consistent with this recommendation. The proposed rezoning should have no impact on the possibility of future annexation of the property if the need arises. Staff can see no detriment associated with granting the rezoning request, and there are obvious benefits to the County and the Agricultural Association in terms of clarifying the current zoning regulations that apply to the property. STAFF RI=COMMFNDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council forward a letter to the Johnson County Board of Supervisors recommending approval of C79910, a request to rezone the 49.4 acre County fairgrounds site at 4265 Oakcrest Hill Road SE from RS, A2, and CH to CH-F. ATTACHMFNTS: Location Map Rezoning Exhibit CH-F Zoning Ordinance Amendments Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development I '% I CITY OF IO~A CITY .--J i I I I I I I i I I I LOCATION MAP: 4265 Oakcrest Hill Road SE CZ991 0 1601' E'L/v \\,- 652' W-LY 1475' W-LY A~ ZONING 645' a-LY 0 30HNSON COUNTY RUDITOR TEL:S19-356-6086 Mar 08,99 '1 . 8:35 No.O01P.01 Amendmne~l, to time Johnson County Z~ning Oral|romance Chapter 8:1.16 C District Use Regulations Adding a new paragraph 8:!. 16C, as follows: 8:1.16C CH-I': Commercial Fighway - Pairgrounds. Premises in |Ira CH-I~ ltighwaylFairgrounds District shall bc useM for the lbllowing pm'i~oscs only: I.~airgroummds. Singl~ Family dwdling(s) for an on-si|e managememml and families. CoJmncrcial An mnendmnen( Io time Johmkson Cmmty 7~nimmg Om'dimmnee Chapler 8: 1.4 l)efinilims or 1'eraIn Adding 1he following deftnil|on: Fairgrounds. m~t limitt:d to: An am'ca of land used for tradilioml county fairs, cxhihitions, end sllows including hut Agricullural related office buildings Animtml shows and judging Carnivals Circuses Community meeting or ree~.alional buildings and usos Concerts Food booths and stands Ridos Rodeos Sales and Auctions Storage Thea|crs. Post-it' Fax Note · ' S'co4'/A"'. PNme# Fix I ~mmm# Fall March 25, 1999 Jonathan Jordahl, Chair Johnson County Board of Supervisors 913 S. Dubuque St. Iowa City, IA 52240 CITY OF I0 WA CITY Dear Jonathan and Members of the Board: An application has been submitted by Steve Schmidt to rezone 22.69 acres from RS-10, Suburban Residential, to RS-5, Suburban Residential. This property is located in Fringe Area C, outside of the City's adopted growth area, in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Highway I West and Landon Avenue. The concept plan submitted with the application indicates the applicant is proposing to create three one-acre residential lots clustered on the west side of Landon Avenue. The applicant is also proposing to set aside 19.33 acres as open space, or 85% of the 22.69 acre property. At its March 18 meeting, the Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission recommended that the City Council forward a comment to the Johnson County Board of Supervisors recommending approval of the proposed rezoning. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the policy for Fringe Area C, which states that rezoning to RS-5 will be considered if 80% of the property is set aside as open space or agricultural use. The 22.69 acre property being proposed for rezoning was split off from an approximate 40 acre property rezoned to RS-10 a few years ago. At the time the approximate 40 acre properly was rezoned to RS-10, the Planning & Zoning Commission noted that the number of access points to Highway 1 West was an issue. There is currently one residential access point to Highway 1 West, and one utility access for power lines which cross the property. While no new access points are being proposed to the Highway at this time, the Planning and Zoning Commission discussed limiting the number of access points to Highway 1 to the existing residential access if further subdivisions are proposed in the future. Limiting the number of access points to arterial streets will be an ongoing concern. The Iowa City City Council recommends that this proposed rezoning be approved. Sincerely, Ernest W. Lehman Mayor Im/ltr/d3-24.doc 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET · IOWA CITY, IOWA S2240-1826 · (319) sS6-S000 · FAX (319) 3'~6-5009 March 25, 1999 CITY OF I0 WA CITY Jonathan Jordahl Chair Johnson Cot Board of Supervisors 91 3 S. Dubuc St. Iowa City, IA Dear Jonathan and bers of the Board: An application has litted by David Yansky to to RS-1 O, Suburban This property is City's adopted growth area, on west side of Lan, north of Highway I West. The ~cept plan sub proposed location for a new farmhouse used to sit.' 10.0 acres from A-l, Rural, Fringe Area C, outside of the Avenue, approximately 0.4 miles with the application shows the be constructed where an old At its March 18 meeting, the Iowa City that the City Council forward a comment recommending approval of the proposed with the policy for Fringe Area C. which The area proposed for rezoning contain= property that is being farmed would and Zoning Commission recommended the Johnson County Board of Supervisors The proposed rezoning is consistent rezonings to RS-10 will be considered. driveway, well, and outbuildings. No for the home site. The City Council acknowledges th~ recently Johnson County Land Use Plan, which contains policies regardi environmental, gricultural/rural, transportation, residential, commercial, and open >ace development. policies encourage preserving the availability of agricultural land Johnson County, aging residential development in areas agricultural in character, and locating residential :lopment where disturbance to natural features in minimal. Based on the policies in the e Area Agreement and the new Johnson County Land Use Plan, most agricultural/rural pro ties would not be eligible for rezoning to suburban residertial. However, because the >perty proposed to be rezoned is the previous site of a t3rmhouse and contains an driveway, well, and outbuildings, the City Council feels a rezoning to RS-IO is appropriate. The City Council recommends that this proposed rezoning be approved. Sincerely, Ernest W. Lehman Mayor 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET · IOWA CITY, IOWA :52240-1826 · (319) 356-5000 · FAX (319) 356-5009 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Re: March 12, 1999 (for March 18 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting) Planning and Zoning Commission John Yapp, Associate Planner CZ9907 Yansky Rezoning Request on Landon Avenue Johnson County has received a request from David Yansky to rezone 10 acres of an approximate 130 acre property located on the west side of Landon Avenue approximately 0.4 miles north of Highway 1 West, from County A-l, Agricultural to County RS-10, Suburban Residential. The concept plan submitted with the application shows the proposed location for a new home site, which would be constructed where an old farmhouse used to sit. The property lies within Fringe Area C, but outside of the City's growth area. The Fringe Area C policy states that rezonings to RS-10 will be considered, and that rezonings to RS-5 will be considered if 80% of the property is set aside for open space or agriculture. In this case, the applicant is not attempting to take advantage of the cluster provisions in the Fringe Area Agreement. The proposed rezoning appears to be consistent with the policies of the Fringe Area Agreement. The proposed home site is the previous location of a farm house, and would be served by an existing well and an existing driveway off of Landon Avenue. No property that is being farmed would be used for the new home site. The area also contains a number of other existing structures, including a machine shed and a corn crib, all accessed off of the existing driveway. Johnson County Land Use Plan The Johnson County Land Use Plan, adopted by the Board of Supervisors in December 1998, contains policies regarding environmental, agricultural/rural, transportation, residential, economic development, and open space. The policies include preserving the availability of agricultural land in Johnson County, and discouraging non-farm development on prime agricultural land. The County's land use plan also states that residential rezoning for non-farm developments essentially agricultural in character should be discouraged, and that residential development should be located where disturbance of natural land features is minimal. Because the proposed home site is the previous location of a farm house, and the site contains an existing driveway, well, and out-buildings, staff can support the rezoning to suburban residential. It appears the area to be built on is not being farmed, and due to the existing infrastructure, is appropriate for a residential property. Staff wants to note, however, that based on the policies in the Fringe Area Agreement and the new Johnson County Land Use Plan, most agricultural/rural properties would not be eligible for rezoning to suburban residential. For properties being farmed on prime agricultural land, staff could not support residential zoning, in keeping with the county land use plan. Staff wishes to note that recommending approval of rezoning this property to RS-10 is based on unique characteristics of the property, and should not set a precedent for other properties in the area. CZ9907 Yansky Rezoning Request(Landon Ave.) March 12,1999 Page 2 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council forward a letter to the Johnson County Board of Supervisors recommending approval of CZ9907, a request to rezone 10 acres of property located west of Landon Avenue, approximately 0.4 miles north of Highway 1 West, from A-l, Agricultural, to RS-10, Suburban Residential. Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development ppdadminknen~yansky.doc CITY OF IOWA CITY //~ ._1 W Q- Z <[ <[ Z ~::1. · ,/ YCAMORE SITE LOCATION: West side of Landon Ave.,north of Hwy. 1CZ9907 March 25, 1999 Jonathan Jordahl Chair Johnson County Board of Supervisors 913 S. Dubuque St. Iowa City, IA 52240 CITY OF I0 WA CITY Dear Jonathan and Members of the Board: An application has been submitted by David Yansky to rezone 10.0 acres from A-l, Rural, to RS-IO, Suburban Residential. This property is located in Fringe Area C, outside of the City's adopted growth area, on the west side of Landon Avenue, approximately 0.4 miles north of Highway 1 West. The concept plan submitted with the application shows the proposed location for a new home site, which would be constructed where an old farmhouse used to sit. At its March 18 meeting, the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the City Council forward a comment to the Johnson County Board of Supervisors recommending approval of the proposed rezoning. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the policy for Fringe Area C, which states that rezonings to RS-10 will be considered. The area proposed for rezoning contains an existing driveway, well,. and outbuildings. No property that is being farmed would be used for the new home site. The City Council acknowledges the recently adopted Johnson County Land Use Plan, which contains policies regarding environmental, agricultural/rural, transportation, residential, commercial, and open space development. The policies encourage preserving the availability of agricultural land in Johnson County, discouraging residential development in areas agricultural in character, and locating residential development where disturbance to natural features in minimal. Based on the policies in the Fringe Area Agreement and the new Johnson County Land Use Plan, most agricultural/rural properties would not be eligible for rezoning to suburban residential. However, because the property proposed to be rezoned is the previous site of a farmhouse and contains an existing driveway, well, and outbuildings, the City Council feels a rezoning to RS-IO is appropriate. The City Council recommends that this proposed rezoning be approved. Sincerely, Ernest W. Lehman Mayor 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET · IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240-1826 · (319) 356-JOOO · FAX (319) 356-J00.9 March 25, 1999 Jonathan Johnson 913 S. Dubuc Iowa Ci~,IA Chair Board of Supervisors CITY OF I0 WA CITY Dear Jonathan and ofthe Boa~: An application has been mitted by Steve Schmid. to rezone 22.69 acres from RS-10, Suburban Residential, to ;uburban Residential. T ~is property is located in Fringe Area C, outside of the City's adopted area, in the no-thwest quadrant of the intersection of Highway 1 West and Landon The concept plar submitted with the application indicates the applicant is proposing to create ~e one-acre res dential lots clustered on the west side of Landon Avenue. The applicant is to set aside 19.33 acres as open space, or 85% of the 22.69 acre property. At its March 18 meeting, the Iowa City & Zoning Commission recommended that the City Council forward a comment to the Board of Supervisors recommending approval of the proposed rezoning. The propose rezoning is consistent with the policy for Fdnge. Area C, which states th. at rezoning to RS-5 w~ be considered if 80% of the property is r rez ng was sp' off from an approximate 40 acre property rezoned to RS-10 a few years ago. At '.he time the ap roximate 40 acre property was rezoned to RS-10, the Planning & Zoning Com nission noted tha he number of access points to Highway 1 West was an issue. There is cur ently one residentia ccess point to Highway 1 West, and one utility access for power lines which cross the prope . While no new access points are being proposed to the Highway at this time, the Planning a d Zoning Commission discussed limiting the number of access points to Highway 1 to the existin residential access if further subdivisions are proposed in the future. Limiting the number of acc s points to arterial street.s will be an ongoing concern. The Iowa City City Council recommends at this proposed Ernest W. Lehman Mayor Im/ltrle13-24.doc 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET · IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240-1826 · (319) 356-5000 · FAX (319) 356-J00t City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Re: March 12, 1999 Planning and Zoning Commission John Yapp, Assistant Transportation Planner CZ9908 Steve Schmidt Rezoning Request on Highway 1 West Johnson County has received a request from Steve Schmidt to razone 22.69 acres from County RS-10 (Suburban Residential, one lot per ten acres) to County RS-5 (Suburban Residential, one lot per five acres). A concept plan submitted with the application indicates the applicant is proposing to create three residential lots clustered on the west side of Landon Avenue. The applicant is also proposing to set aside 19.33 acres as open space, or 85% of the 22.69 acre property. In 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council recommended approval of rezoning this property from County A-l, Agricultural to County RS-10, Suburban Residential, along with a notice that the number of access points to Highway 1 for this property would be limited to one at the time of platting. This property lies within Fringe Area C, but outside the City's currently adopted growth area. The Fringe Area C policy for properly outside of the growth area states that rezonings to RS-10 will be considered, and that rezonings to RS-5 will be considered if 80% of the property is set aside for open space or agricultural use. The cluster incentives in the Fringe Area Agreement encourage the clustering of residential lots to minimize infrastructure and maximize the preservation of open space. The proposed rezoning appears to be consistent with the policies for Fringe Area C. Johnson County Land Use Plan Johnson County recently adopted a land use plan which contains environmental, agricultural/rural, transportation, residential, economic development, and open space policies. Because the area being requested for rezoning to RS-5 is already zoned residential, the residential policies in the Johnson County Land Use Plan apply. These policies include statements that residential development should be located where disturbance to natural features is minimal, residential development near agricultural land uses will provide adequate buffering, and residential development should meet the open space needs to a growing population. A complete list of the Johnson County Land Use Policies is enclosed in the Planning and Zoning Commissioner's packets. Staff feels that rezoning this property to RS-5 and clustering the developable lots off of Landon Avenue is consistent with the County's policies. The lots are located adjacent to Landon Avenue and Highway 1, which minimizes the impact on the natural features of the property, which primarily is slopes. The dedication of 10.33 acres as open space provides buffering between these lots and surrounding agricultural property, and also preserves open space for a growing population. Concept Plan The concept plan submitted with the application indicates that three one-acre lots are to be created. The three lots will be clustered around a looped private drive construded off of the west side of Landon Avenue. About 85% of the property, 22.69 acres, is proposed to be set 2 aside as open space. No new access points to Highway 1 are being proposed, although there are two pre-existing access points which will remain. One of these access points is used as a residential drive to a single home, and the other is used as a field entrance and service access to the power lines that cross the southwest corner of the property. Staff recommends that the western-most drive to Highway 1 not be used for a residential access point in the future. Staff understands the need to keep the access point for an access to the power lines, but recommends that the number of residential access points to Highway 1 be limited to one. The loop street which provides access to the three lots off of Landon Avenue will need to be designed to City rural design standards to conform to the Fringe Area Agreement, which specifies a minimum street surface width of 22 feet with a 6-inch rolled stone base and a 22-foot wide chipseal surface. It appears these design standards can easily be accommodated with the concept plan the applicant has submitted. While the 50-foot radius of the loop street proposed on the concept plan may be desirable as a design statement, staff would support minimizing the pavement necessary. Under City standards, the pavement of a cul de sac may form a loop with a radius of 35 feet. Staff suggests that a narrower loop street or narrower cul-de-sac could be shown to minimize infrastructure expense on the plat when the property owner applies for subdivision approval. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council forward a letter to the Johnson County Board of Supervisors recommending approval of CZ9908, a request to rezone approximately 22.69 acres from RS-10, Suburban Residential to RS-5, Suburban Residential, for property on the north side of Highway 1 and west of Landon Avenue, be approved, with the understanding that there will be only one residential access point to Highway 1 now and in the future. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Concept Plan RobL~ Miklo, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development · plxladmin/mem/schmidt.doc CITY OF IO~A CITY DSAGE W _J 13_ <3:: Z STREET w z W IZAAK RDA~ 81TE LOCATION: Hwy. 1 and Landon Avenue 0Z9908 Crestview second addition