Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-08-24 Public hearingNOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at 7:00 p.m. on the 24th day of August, 1999, in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk; at which hearing the Council will consider an ordinance conditionally changing the zoning designation from Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) to Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDHo 8), and approving a preliminary Planned Development Housing Overlay plan for 24 townhouse-style dwelling units for approximately 7.72 acres located at the northeast corner of Barrington Road and Huntington Drive. Copies of the proposed ordinance are on file for public examination in the office of the City Clerk, Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons wishing to make their views known for Council consideration are encouraged to appear at the above-mentioned time and place. MARlAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK ppdadm/nph-8-24-99,doc Prepared by: Scott Kugler, Assoc, Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5243 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CHAPTER BY CONDITIONALLY CHANGING THE ZONING REGULATIONS OF APPROXIMATELY 7.72 ACRES FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-8), TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY (OPDH- 8), AND APPROVING A PRELIMINARY OPDH PLAN FOR 24 TOWNHOUSE-STYLE DWELLING UNITS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BARRINGTON ROAD AND HUNTINGTON DRIVE. WHEREAS, the applicant, Arlington, L.C.. is owner and legal title holder of approximately 7.72 acres of property located at the northeast corner of Barrington Road and Huntington Drive; and WHEREAS. the applicant has requested the rezoning of approximately 7.72 acres from Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS- 8), to Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-8), and approval of a preliminary OPDH plan to allow 24 townhouse-style dwelling units for property located at the corner of Barrington Road and Huntington Drive; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate conditions ensuring the establishment of a direct means of access from the property to Court Street and proper timing of the development of proposed open space, the proposed rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, and that the proposed preliminary OPDH plan is in technical compliance with all applicable provisions of the City Code; and WH EREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (1999) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs directly caused by the requested change; and WHEREAS, the applicant acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are reasonable to ensure the establishment of direct access to Court Street and the proper timing of the development of open space; and Ordinance No. Page 2 WHEREAS, the applicant has agreed to use this property in accordance with the terms and conditions of a Conditional Zoning Agreement to ensure that the above referenced access and open space development issues directly caused by the requested rezoning are addressed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. APPROVAL. Subject to the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated' herein, the property described below is hereby reclassi~ed from its current designation of Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) to Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-8): COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 5 WEST OF THE 5th P.M. IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, THENCE S00°23'59"E, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER 471.36 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING S00°23'59"E, ALONG SAID LINE, 205.09 FEET; THENCE S89°41'12"W, 558.36 FEET, THENCE S52007'00"W, 127.02 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, 209.39 FEET, ALONG A 863.72 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, WHOSE 208.88 FOOT CHORD BEARS N44049'43"W; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 39.00 FEET, ALONG A 25.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, WHOSE 35.16 FOOT CHORD BEARS N07°05'03"W; THENCE N37036'20"E, 29.87 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY 353.02 FEET, ALONG A 549.20 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, WHOSE 346.97 FOOT CHORD BEARS N22°10'21"E; THENCE N03045'29"E, 93.00 FEET; THENCE N89002'11 "E, 361.67 FEET; THENCE S00°23'59"E, 320.27 FEET; THENCE N89041'12"E, 307.67 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID TRACT OF LAND CONTAINS 6.61 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. SECTION II, VARIATION. The following variation from the requirements of the RS-8 zone has been approved as part of the preliminary OPDH plan: a. The development of six 4-unit townhouse- style residential buildings in lieu of the requirement for single-family detached or duplex residences. SECTION III. ZONING MAP. The Building Ordinance No. Page 3 Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance as provided by law. SECTION IV. CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREFMENT. Following final passage and approval of this Ordinance, the Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to sign, and the City Clerk to attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owners, applicants, and the City. SECTION V, CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, and after execution of the Conditional Zoning Agreement, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and the Conditional Zoning Agreement and to record the same at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, at the owner's expense, all as provided by law. SECTION VI. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION VII. SEVERABILITY, If any section, provision or part of this ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION VIII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as required by law. Passed and approved this __ day of ,1999. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK ppdadmin/orcltoarrhunt.doc Prepared by: Scott Kugler, Assoc. Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319/356-5243 CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a Municipal Corporation (hereina~er "City") and Arlington, L.C., an Iowa Limited Partnership. WHEREAS, the applicant, Arlington, L.C., is owner and legal title holder of approximately 7.72 acres of property located at the northeast corner of Barrington Road and Huntington Drive; and WHEREAS, the applicant has requested the rezoning of approximately 7.72 acres from Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8), to Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-8), and approval of a preliminary OPDH plan to allow 24 townhouse-style dwelling units for property located at the corner of Barrington Road and Huntington Drive; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate conditions ensuring the establishment of a direct means of access from the property to Court Street and proper timing of the development of proposed open space, the proposed rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, and that the proposed preliminary OPDH plan is in technical compliance with all applicable provisions of the City Code; and WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (1999) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs directly caused by the requested change; and WHEREAS, the applicant acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are reasonable to ensure the establishment of direct access to Court Street and the proper timing of the development of open space; and WHEREAS, the applicant has agreed to use this property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Conditional Zoning Agreement to ensure that the above referenced access and open space development issues directly caused by the requested rezoning are addressed. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual promises contained herein, the Parties agree as follows: 1. Arlington, L.C., is the property owner and legal title holder of property located at the northeast corner of Barrington Road and Huntington Drive, which property is more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 5 WEST OF THE 5th P.M. IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, THENCE S00°23'59"E, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER 471.36 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING S00°23'59"E, ALONG SAID LINE, 205.09 FEET; THENCE S89°41'12"W, 558.36 FEET, THENCE S52°07'00"W, 127.02 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, 209.39 FEET, ALONG A 863.72 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, WHOSE 208.88 FOOT CHORD BEARS N44°49'43"W; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 39.00 FEET, ALONG A 25.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, WHOSE 35.16 FOOT CHORD BEARS N07°O5'O3"W; THENCE N37°36'20"E, 29.87 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY 353.02 FEET, ALONG A 549.20 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, WHOSE 346.97 FOOT CHORD BEARS N22°10'21 "E; THENCE N03°45'29"E, 93.00 FEET; THENCE N89°02'11"E, 361.67 FEET; THENCE S00°23'59"E, 320.27 FEET; THENCE N89°41'12"E, 307.67 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID TRACT OF LAND CONTAINS 6.61 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. Applicant acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure the provision of adequate arterial street access to the property and the timely development of proposed open space. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (1999) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs directly caused by the requested change. Therefore, Applicant agrees to certain conditions over and above City regulations as detailed below. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property with variations to the requirements of the underlying zone, the Applicant agrees that development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the Zoning Chapter, as well as the following conditions: a. Applicant agrees and acknowledges that prior to the issuance of a building permit for any residential dwelling on the subject property, both Court Street and Huntington Drive shall be extended and paused to their intersection, and all such improvements shall be opoened to the public and accepted by the City, thereby providing a direct means of access from the subject property to Court Street; and b. Applicant agrees and acknowledges that no building permit for any of the final 12 dwelling units on the subject property shall be issued by the City until such time as the proposed park on Outlot O is fully developed in accordance with the approved final Planned Development Housing Overlay plan for the subject property. The Applicant acknowledges that the conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (1999), and that said conditions satisfy public needs which are directly caused by the requested zoning change. The Applicant acknowledges that in the event the subject property is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement. The Parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant running with the title to the land unless or until released of record by the City. The Padies further acknowledge that this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives and assigns of the Parties. Applicant acknowledges that nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Applicant from complying with all applicable local, state and federal regulations. The Parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the Ordinance rezoning the subject property; and that upon adoption and publication of the Ordinance, this Agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense. Dated this day of ,1999. ARLINGTON, L.C. By: ~G~a~.~a!~ By: CITY OF IOWA CITY Emest W. Lehman, Mayor /'(~,ohnMoreland Attest: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this day of , 19 , before me, , a Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared Emest W. Lehman and Madan K. Karr, to me personally known, and, who, being by me duly swom, did say that they are the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City, Iowa; that the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the corporate seal of the corporation, and that the instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of the corporation, by authority of its City Council, as contained in (Ordinance) (Resolution) No. passed by the City Council, on the day of ,19 , and that Ernest W. Lehman and Marian K. Karr acknowledged the execution of the instrument to be their' voluntary act and deed and the voluntary act and deed of the corporation, by it voluntarily executed. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa My commission expires: STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this 2,..~ day of aid~te,~perso ,19 ~,f, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County, in s II appeared Gary Watts, to me known to be the identical nay persons named in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his voluntary act and deed. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa My commission expires: f/,~.~/(~P 4 STATE OF IOWA ) ) SS: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this ..9. 3 .--a~ day of ~ ,~,~pp'e~'~' 19~1.~ before me, the u'ndersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County, in said State. rsonally appeared Joh'n Moreland, to me known to be the identical persons named in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his voluntary act and deed. ~and for the State of Iowa My commission expires: ppdadmin~agt~barrhunt. doc City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Re: August 18, 1999 City Council Scott Kugle~,Associate Planner REZ99-O007. Windsor Ridge, Part 13 - Summary of Plan Changes Since the initial filing of this rezoning, the proposed development plan has been altered several times. To avoid confusion when looking over the minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings and staff reports for this item, a summary of the plan changes is provided below. Three different site plans have been proposed - all variations of the same basic design. The 1995 concept plan attached to the conditional zoning agreement for this property indicated that the parcel was to contain residential units along the south side of a proposed "town square" open space. The buildings shown on the concept plan were oriented toward the park, forming the southern edge of the town square, with vehicular access to the rear. Since the filing of the 1999 planned development application, the following plans have been considered: The plan initially submitted with the current application illustrated 6 and 8 unit buildings facing the square with vehicular access to the rear. This plan was more consistent with the original concept plan than later versions of the plan. This plan was presented to the PLanning and Zoning Commission at its May 20 meeting. At that time, some Commission members indicated that 6 and 8 unit buildings may be too large for the site. This item was deferred to the June 17 meeting to allow additional public input, and to allow time for the developer to meet with concerned neighborhood residents to discuss the plans for this area. At the June 17 meeting, a revised plan illustrating six 4-unit buildings was presented to the Commission. The use of smaller buildings was suggested by a Commission member at the May 20 meeting. The basic concept of townhouses facing the square remained part of the plan, but the overall number of dwelling units was reduced. Staff recommended approval of the plan, but the item was deferred at the request of the developer to allow an additional meeting with neighborhood residents. At the July 15 meeting, another revision to the plan was presented to the Commission. This plan included five of the previously proposed 4-unit buildings, but the westernmost building was removed from the plan and replaced with two duplexes; one facing west toward Barrington Road, and one at the corner of Huntington Drive and Cardigan Lane. At this meeting, the Commission began referring to the plan containing the six 4-unit buildings as "Plan A," and the plan with the duplexes as "Plan B." Staff continued to recommend Plan A to the Commission, and felt that Plan B was a step back in terms of design quality. Comments received from neighborhood residents regarding Plan B were mixed, with some feeling it was a step back, and some indicating that it was seen as a compromise solution. Ultimately, the Commission recommended approval of Plan A, subject to conditions regarding the timing of the development of the town square open space and the establishment of a direct access to Court Street. Plan A is the plan now before the Council for consideration. STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: REZ99-0007. Windsor Ridge Part 13 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact person: Requested action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing land use and zoning: Surrounding land use and zoning: Comprehensive Plan: Applicable Code requirements: File date: 45-day limitation period: Prepared by: Scott Kugler Date: May 20, 1999 Arlington, L.C. C/O Gary Watts 2346 Mormon Trek Boulevard Iowa City, Iowa 52246 Phone: 351-8811 MMS Consultants 1917 S. Gilbert St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone: 351-8282 Preliminary OPDH-8 plan approval and a rezoning from RS-8 to OPDH-8 To permit the construction of 28 residential units within four townhouse- style buildings. Northeast corner of Barrington Road and Huntington Drive. 7.72 acres Vacant, RS-8 North: Vacant, CN-1; East: Agricultural, A; South: Residential, RS-5; West: Residential RS-5. Neighborhood Center Chapter 14-7, Land Subdivisions May 5, 1999 June 19, 1999 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Arlington, UC. has requested a preliminary Planned Development Housing plan for Windsor Ridge, Part 13, and a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) to Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-8) for approximately 7.72 acres located at the northeast corner of Barrington Road and Huntington Drive. The preliminary OPDH plan illustrates 28 townhouse-style dwelling units within four buildings. This property was rezoned to RS-8 in 1995 subject to the approval of a future Planned Development Housing Overlay rezoning and development plan. The 1995 rezoning application also included a Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) zone immediately north of this parcel, a Low Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) zone farther to the north, and an RS-8 zone to the west along Court Street (Windsor Ridge, Part 12). A conditional zoning agreement attached to that rezoning required that a town square type open space, similar to what was illustrated on a concept plan submitted at that time, be included in the future planned development application for the parcel represented by Part 13. The concept plan illustrated a town square open space, townhouses along its south edge, and commercial development along the north and east sides of the square. Huntington Drive defined the square's western boundary. The concept plan also illustrated Court Street being extended to Taft Avenue. This application would reserve the town square open space and establish the townhouses along the southern edge of the square. The 1995 CZA also required that Court Street be extended to the site prior to the development of the subject parcels (more on this issue below). ANALYSIS: The decision by the City to allow RS-8 density on this parcel was made in 1995 when the property was rezoned. In addition, a concept plan illustrating townhouses in this location was submitted and received a favorable response. Staff feels that the idea of providing a neighborhood center with an area of open space, small-scale commercial and moderate- density residential uses is consistent with the policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan for neighborhood development. The review of this plan should focus mainly on the design of the site relative to its relationship with the surrounding neighborhood, the ability of the current infrastructure to accommodate the development of the subject parcel at this time, and a review of the technical details of the plan with respect to the requirements of the City Code. Preliminary OPDH Plan: The proposed preliminary OPDH plan contains some deficiencies that will need to be addressed prior to the Commission's vote on this item. Staff recommends deferral pending the resolution of these items. It is anticipated that all deficiencies can be addressed prior to the Commission's second public discussion of this item. The development plan illustrates a total of 28 dwelling units located within two 8-unit and two 6-unit buildings. Three of the buildings would overlook the square, while the fourth, easternmost building would be across the street from CN-1 zone property. The fronts of the buildings would face the square and the commercial zone, and be served by a private access drive that will also connect to the commercial development. Parking for visitors, future customers of the commercial zone, and users of the square is provided along this drive. A rear drive is also illustrated, which will provide access to garages located at the rear of the buildings. Staff feels that the proposed rear drive can be narrowed to 18 feet as a means of reducing the amount of paving on the site and increasing the buffer between the proposed development and the single-family homes to the south. Staff has concerns about the proposed parking along the north end of the front drive being proposed. The plan illustrates parking as shown on the 1995 concept plan, but staff feels that an alternative may be better suited for this area. The angled parking would be difficult to access for anyone entering the drive from the west. For visitors of the townhouses, this would be the most traveled route. Staff recommends that the plan be altered such that 90 degree parking is provided along this drive, or parallel parking along both sides of the drive as with a typical street. Staff will work with the applicant in addressing this issue prior to the Commission's second meeting on this item. Building elevations have been submitted which illustrate that the fronts of the buildings will be two stories in height and contain individual entrances to the dwelling units. Variations in the front plane of the buildings and the roofline are also shown. In addition, the plan indicates that for some of the buildings the finished floor elevations of the individual units will change, which may result in additional variations in the roofline. Staff feels that the proposed townhouses will form an attractive southern edge of the square/neighborhood center. However, more detailed elevations should be provided which show six and eight unit buildings, versus the four unit buildings currently shown, building materials, rear elevations, and overall building height. The rear of the proposed buildings will be three stories in height versus the two stories that will be seen at the front. This will accommodate parking in garages under the buildings, which has some benefits in terms of fewer surface parking spaces and less site paving. The rear of the buildings will face the rear yards of single-family homes along Sheffield Place. The applicant has shifted the buildings to the north on the site as far as practical at the request of staff, and is proposing a double row of trees and berming along the south property line to help provide a buffer in this area. The proposed buffer is located at a low point between the buildings, but the landscaping should help to soften the view of the drive and garage entrances from the single-family lots Court Street Access: The 1995 conditional zoning agreement contained the following provision: · Court Street shall be extended eastward to the site from its current terminus at Scott Boulevard prior to the development of the subject parcels. The subject parcels included in that application are the CN-1 zone, the RM-12 zone, and the two RS-8 zones mentioned above and shown on the attached concept plan. Staff believes the intent was that the development of the higher density parcels and the commercial area would need to have direct access to Court Street to avoid an undue traffic burden on the single-family neighborhood to the south. With the recent extension of Court Street, the western RS-8 zone (a.k.a. Part 12) has direct access. The CN-1 and RM-12 zones are both to have frontage on Court Street after it is extended farther east to connect with Taft Avenue. Final plats required for these areas will include provisions for extending Court Street before building permits can be issued. The parcel covered by the current application does not have frontage on Court Street. The most direct route to provide access from this parcel to Court Street is via the extension of Huntington Road north after Court Street is extended further east toward Taft Avenue (see concept plan). The extension of Court Street farther east will require a stream crossing and construction at arterial street standards, and therefore it may be some time before the applicant is ready to construct this portion of Court Street. However, staff feels that it is necessary in order to comply with the 1995 conditional zoning agreement. Taft Avenue Access: The plan includes a drive connection to Taft Avenue. Staff has checked the sight distance at this proposed intersection and has found it to be adequate. Taft Avenue is planned to be a future City arterial street, but it may be some time before it is upgraded to arterial street standards, In the meantime, staff feels that the proposed drive connection will be beneficial, Town Square: The town square open space included on Outlot O is proposed to be dedicated to the City. Staff feels that it is probably reasonable for this to be a public space provided it is developed and landscaped prior to City acceptance. It will be an amenity for the future commercial businesses located around it, and should help to sell nearby residential properties. The Parks and Recreation Commission should review the plat and provide a recommendation on the acceptance of this space prior to City Council consideration. Storm Water Management: Storm water management for this property is provided by existing facilities already constructed in southern portions of the Windsor Ridge Subdivision. No additional storm water management is required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that REZ99-0007 be deferred pending resolution of the deficiencies and discrepancies listed below. Upon resolution of these items, staff recommends that the request for a preliminary OPDH-8 plan to allow 28 dwelling units on 7.72 acres located at the northeast corner of Barrington Road and Huntington Drive be approved, subject to the extension and connection of Huntington Drive to Court Street extended prior to development of the property, DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES: More detailed building elevations are needed. Rear elevation, building materials, building height. Six-unit and eight-unit configurations need to be shown. 2. Parking plan along the front drive needs to be revised. 3. Trees should be extended along Barrington Road. 4. Rear drive should be narrowed to 18 feet in width. 5. Miscellaneous items identified by Public Works Department. 5 ATTACHMENTS: 2. 3. 4. Location Map. Preliminary OPDH-8 Plan. 1995 Concept Plan· Front Building Elevation. Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development III II '11 I',-. C) C) 0 I N < 0 0 ..J c:.-,ol= I o~ 11 / / / The Aspen · Townhouse style living · Two story with lower level · Two bedrooms, 2-1/2 baths · Fireplace in the living room · Open kitchen design with breakfast bar · Lower level workout/office space and laundry area · 2 car garage LIiIIL .,, i/ii!!i it li ! City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Re: May 28, 1999 (for June 3 meeting) Planning and Zoning Commission Scott Kugler, Associate Planner REZ99-O007. Windsor Ridge, Part 13, This item was deferred at the May 20 meeting to allow additional public input. A meeting between the applicant and interested neighboring property owners has been arranged for Tuesday, June 1. The applicant has requested that this item be deferred until the June 17 meeting to allow for time to respond to issues that may be raised and discussed at the neighborhood meeting. Staff recommends deferral. At the May 20 meeting, staff indicated that additional information regarding this application's conformance to the policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan would be provided. Given that this item will not be discussed at the June 3 meeting, staff will provide this information in the packet for the June 17 meeting. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: 'Fo: From: Re: June 11, 1999 (for June 17 meeting) Planning and Zoning Commission Scott Kugler, Associate Planner REZ99-0007. Windsor Ridge, Part 13. This item was deferred at the previous two meetings to allow for a meeting between the applicant and interested neighboring property owners, which occurred on June 1. Attached please find a revised plan submitted by the applicant, as well as a letter and petition submitted by Debora Liddell expressing the concerns of some of the neighborhood residents. Ms. Liddell indicates that signed petitions from the neighborhood will be submitted at the Commission's meeting. The revised plat that has been submitted is being reviewed by staff to ensure technical compliance. At this point staff recommends deferral pending the results of this review. It is anticipated that the plan review will be completed prior to the June 17 meeting. If the plan is in technical compliance, staff recommends approval subject to the extension and connection of both Court Street and Huntington Drive prior to the development of the site, as noted in the May 20 staff report. At the May 20 meeting, staff indicated that additional information regarding this application's conformance to the policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan would be provided. This analysis is provided below, as well as an explanation of the revisions that have been made to the plan and information regarding access to and traffic on Taft Avenue. PLAN REVISIONS: The proposed development plan has been revised in a number of ways. The most substantial change is in the size of the proposed buildings and the overall number of dwelling units. The buildings have been reduced in size from six and eight units per building to four units per building. The overall number of dwelling units has decreased from 28 to 24 as a result. Other changes made to the plan include the addition of berms and landscaping along the corner of Barrington Road and Huntington Drive, the addition of crosswalks at pedestrian crossings leading to the square and the commercial area, the addition of screen porches and brick columns at the rear of the townhouse units, and 90 degree parking along the north side of Cardigan Lane. A cross-section diagram has been provided showing the elevation of the proposed townhouses in relation to the homes that could be built along Sheffield Place. Elevations have been provided for the rear of the buildings, including information regarding the overall building height. The revised plan, elevations, and section are attached. As noted above, this information is being reviewed by staff. At this point staff is recommending deferral, but anticipates that the plan will be ready for a vote on the 17th. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The May 20 staff report regarding this item did not include a full discussion of how this rezoning and development plan fit within the context of the Comprehensive Plan due to staff's assumption that the general land use decisions were already made for this property in 1995 when the parcel was rezoned to RS-8. Based on much of the discussion that occurred at the May 20 meeting, staff feels a review of the 1995 concept plan with respect to the policies and neighborhood design concepts contained in the Comprehensive Plan would be appropriate. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed concept plan reviewed and generally endorsed in 1995 does comply with the policies of the current Comprehensive Plan. The Plan clearly supports the ideas of moderately increasing the overall density of neighborhoods, incorporating a diversity of housing types within neighborhoods, creating neighborhood centers as focal points within neighborhoods, reducing vehicular trips throughout Iowa City by providing opportunities for neighborhood-scale commercial development within neighborhoods, and moderate density housing within and near the neighborhood center. Other policies support the process that was followed in this case. Increased Neighborhood Density: It has been well documented in studies throughout the United States that low-density residential development does not pay for itself in terms of taxes collected versus the cost of providing urban services. Low-density sprawl has also been criticized for its negative impacts on the environment and agricultural areas, as this type of development consumes large areas of land to house a relatively low number of people. As a result, communities throughout the Country are adopting policies to discourage the proliferation of a low-density sprawling development pattern. The neighborhood design concepts contained in the Comprehensive Plan are Iowa City's attempt to address these issues City-wide by encouraging a moderate increase in the overall density of new neighborhoods, while stressing the importance of design in making this increase acceptable within neighborhoods. These policies do not prohibit or discourage the establishment of areas of large-lot single-family detached housing. The key is to integrate these developments into a neighborhood with various types and densities of housing such that housing opportunities are open for a variety of families and individuals, and such that the result will be a modest increase in the overall density of a neighborhood. The City recently extended Court Street from just east of Scott Boulevard to Windsor Ridge. This project was moved up in the Capital Improvements Program due in part to the development being proposed within this area of Windsor Ridge, which staff feels is an obvious step toward meeting the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Would the City have made this investment if only additional low-density single-family detached housing was planned for this area? Probably not. Staff feels that the diversity of housing and the integration of the neighborhood commercial area into the neighborhood were key factors in the City's decision to extend Court Street at this time. (See page 22 of the Comprehensive Plan for discussion. of more efficient and compact design) Neighborhood Commercial Centers: The plan supports the idea of creating several small- scale neighborhood commercial centers within developing neighborhoods throughout Iowa City. As noted on page 21 of the Plan, ...a neighborhood commercial area associated with a public square or park can provide a focal point and gathering place for a neighborhood. The businesses within a neighborhood commercial center should provide shopping opportunities within convenient walking distance for the residents in the immediate area .... The goal of creating neighborhood commercial centers is not simply for the benefit of nearby property owners. Successful implementation of this idea could have community- wide benefits as well. Like most growing communities, traffic issues seem to be at or near the top of the list in terms of problems or complaints expressed by members of the community. As new residential development occurs more traffic is generated (conservatively estimated at 7 - 8 vehicle trips per household per day), resulting in more traffic on existing streets throughout the community. Some of these involve trips to and from work or school, to visit relatives or acquaintances, to a restaurant, to recreation or entertainment facilities, and to shopping areas. The provision of a neighborhood commercial center within a neighborhood will not eliminate all vehicular trips from nearby residences, but if a percentage of these trips can be captured within individual neighborhoods throughout the City it can help to address community-wide traffic issues. In addition, providing a pedestrian-friendly neighborhood commercial zone and a good pedestrian network within a neighborhood can help to address traffic issues within that neighborhood. In short, if a family within Windsor Ridge is able to walk or bike along the neighborhood trail system to a neighborhood commercial center for an ice cream cone and to rent a video, rather than having to drive to the Towncrest area to do so, it is one small positive step toward mitigating community-wide and neighborhood traffic problems. it may not be a huge inconvenience for someone within the neighborhood to make the two-mile trip to Towncrest as described above, but it is a major issue for those individuals who live along the streets in between. It is important to keep a community-wide perspective in mind when considering rezoning and development applications within individual neighborhoods. Whether or not a neighborhood commercial center will increase neighborhood traffic is debatable. The intent of the CN-1 zone, the zone created to allow a neighborhood-scale commercial development, is to provide areas for businesses that primarily serve the immediate neighborhood. It is likely that some of the businesses that locate within a neighborhood commercial area will draw from a wider area, but not to the extent that a community oriented commercial area will (such as Towncrest or the Highway 6/1 corridor). Providing good access to the arterial street system should help to ensure that traffic coming into the neighborhood does not impact local residential streets. In this case, Court Street will provide the most direct access to the commercial area from most of eastern Iowa City. Traffic from the neighborhood to the neighborhood commercial center is presumably not new traffic created by the location of the commercial center, but is traffic that would otherwise have traveled to another commercial area within the City. Neighborhood streets would still have been utilized to get to the arterial streets, to then travel to other commercial destinations. In reality, neighborhood traffic levels likely will increase to some extent as a result of the location of a neighborhood commercial zone, but likely not to the degree that may be feared. There are currently seven CN-1 zones located within Iowa City, and three more are being recommended in the South District and Northeast District Plans. Some are fully developed, but most are only partially developed. Because of their nature, the development of these areas typically lags behind the development of surrounding residential uses. Until there is a neighborhood to serve, it is unlikely that any neighborhood-oriented businesses will choose to locate there. It is not reasonable to expect that the final design and construction of the commercial development be addressed in association with the current application. (See pages 21,41, 45, 47, and 55 for statements and policies that support the creation of neighborhood commercial centers within neighborhoods.) Housing Diversity: The Comprehensive Plan contains a number of policies aimed at ensuring that our future neighborhoods contain housing for a broad range of families, rather than creating large homogenous residential areas that exclude families that do not have the need, the means, or the desire to live in a single-family detached residence. However, the Plan recognizes that design issues are critical in ensuring that this "mix" is provided such that adjacent uses are compatible. Based on input staff ha's received at various neighborhood planning workshops, information contained in recent planning literature, and in looking at potential traffic impacts associated with various densities of development, it is clear that the provision of medium densities is most appropriate along or near arterial streets. Specific input from the public in neighborhood planning sessions has included a desire to avoid creating large apartment complexes within single-family neighborhoods, to ensure that higher density areas have good access to the arterial street system, that townhouses seem to be more compatible with single-family homes than large apartment buildings and thus are better as a buffer between single-family and commercial or higher density areas, and that the areas surrounding neighborhood commercial centers are appropriate areas for increased density housing. Not only is the idea of a mix of housing types within neighborhoods an important component of the Comprehensive Plan, it is also a key component of a neighborhood commercial center. To be successfully integrated into a residential neighborhood, a neighborhood commercial center must contain businesses that primarily serve the immediate neighborhood. This type of business cannot survive without a sufficient neighborhood population - particularly within a reasonable walking distance. The rezonings that have occurred along Court Street in this area were supported by staff, in part, because of their relationship to the future CN-1 zone. Without a neighborhood population sufficient to support neighborhood oriented businesses, it is likely that businesses drawing from a broader area will be the only ones interested in locating there. Medium density residential development around and near a neighborhood commercial center, including the provision of apartment buildings, townhouses, and apartments above commercial businesses, are all concepts that are strongly endorsed by the Comprehensive Plan. It should be noted that the density proposed in this particular case (Part 13) is relatively low. The gross density proposed by the revised plan is approximately 3.1 units per acre including the streets, Cardigan Lane, and the park, or about 7.7 when excluding these areas, (See pages 21, 45, and 47 for statements regarding housing diversity.) Planning Process: The process that was used to rezone parcels along Court Street was questioned by several individuals at the May 20 meeting. They described what appears to be a "catch 22" situation regarding public involvement in this type of a situation, where there is no neighborhood participation in the planning of the neighborhood because the neighborhood has not yet been developed. Yet, how can growth be planned and the neighborhood design concepts of the Comprehensive Plan successfully implemented if many of these decisions are not made ahead of time? Staff views this situation as not necessarily a "catch 22" situation, but rather a difference in opinion as to how public input is considered when planning for the development of a neighborhood. In an area where there is no neighborhood to speak of yet, it is the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, which were established as a result of a public input process, that help to ensure that the goals of the community are considered when planning a neighborhood. "Planning" is essentially making many of the decisions regarding the location of land uses and infrastructure ahead of time, prior to the development of a neighborhood. The policies of a community's comprehensive plan and the physical characteristics of the land under consideration are u~ed as a guide in planning for the development of a neighborhood. Citizen involvement in the development of Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan came at the "visioning" stage, in which citizen task forces were established to create the goals and policies to be incorporated into the Plan, during the public hearings associated with the adoption of the Plan, and at citizen planning workshops associated with the preparation of district plans. The policies that were adopted as a result of these efforts are used as a guideline by developers, staff, City boards and commissions, and the Council in making decisions on items such as the rezonings that occurred within Windsor Ridge over the last several years. To say that all of these decisions need to wait until the rest of the neighborhood develops would be essentially non-planning. Given what staff and the Commission have observed in many other instances where changes are proposed within developed neighborhoods, this would ensure that few things other than detached single- family residences are ever constructed. The best the City can do when planning a future residential neighborhood is work with the developer to ensure that the policies of the Comprehensive Plan are adhered to in laying out the development. This should result in a development that is consistent with the goals of the overall community, as expressed in the plan. It also provides a public record of the potential land uses that could occur within an area, allowing individuals to make informed decisions when purchasing property. In this case, staff was concerned about design with relation to the rest of the neighborhood to the extent that a planned development overlay rezoning was recommended and required by the Commission and City Council, mainly to ensure that what was illustrated on the concept plans in 1995 would be adhered to when the property was developed. One of the reasons for rezoning in 1995 was to get the zoning in place to reflect the development planned in this area so those buying into the neighborhood would know what to expect. Homebuyers often check the Comprehensive Plan and the established zoning in an area before buying a home by calling or stopping at City offices. Generally, establishing the zoning ahead of time is seen as a positive thing, in that a developer is willing to make his or her intentions known for a future development area by establishing a public record through the rezoning process. (See pages 45 and 47 for statements regarding zoning parcels in advance of development and/or at the time of annexation) Summary: In summary, the Plan supports a moderate increase in the overall density of newly developing residential neighborhoods, the creation of neighborhood commercial centers, the provision of higher density residential development in, around and near the neighborhood commercial centers, and the provision of a mix of housing types within neighborhoods, providing housing opportunities for a broad range of individuals and families. In addition, the plan advocates zoning parcels in advance of development to ensure that the goal of providing of a variety of housing types is achievable, and so that the public has an opportunity to make informed decisions when purchasing property within Iowa City. In staff's opinion, the applicant's plans for the development of property near Court Street are consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as was the process used to obtain the current zoning classifications. TAFT AVENUE ISSUESi At the May 20 meeting, and in discussions with staff after that meeting, a few individuals raised questions about the proposed Cardigan Lane access to Taft Avenue and whether it was wise to allow this connection. The Transportation Planning Division has evaluated the proposed access point in terms of sight distance and has found that the proposed intersection would have adequate visibility. A traffic count recorded in 1994 indicated that about 250 vehicles per day were using Taft Avenue between American Legion Road and Lower West Branch Road. A 24ohour count conducted by staff on June 9~10 resulted in a count of 728 vehicles per day (236 northbound, 492 southbound). The increase in traffic is likely due to a number of factors, primarily growth in Windsor Ridge. At this point Taft Avenue is a County road with County maintenance. The developer is responsible for dust control periodically as per an agreement negotiated at the time of annexation. Taft Avenue is included in the City's long-range arterial street plan, and is expected to be reconstructed to City arterial street standards at some point. However, this will likely be well into the future given the limited property east of Taft Avenue within the City's current growth area, and the traffic capacity available on Scott Boulevard, the nearest north-south arterial street. The initial plans for Windsor Ridge included a street connection from Barrington Road out to Taft Avenue farther to the south near Barrington Place, as well as access at Court Street and the subject drive within the neighborhood commercial area. The Barrington Place access was not constructed due to concerns regarding site distance at the potential intersection. At a later point, staff recommended that Sheffield Place, located immediately south of the proposed townhouses, be extended to Taft to replace the connection abandoned earlier. This connection was not made due to difficulties with providing sanitary sewer to the lots that would be located along the street, and the applicant's desire for a cul-de-sac street in this location, In staff's view, these were two opportunities that were missed that could have helped to reduce traffic on the lower portions of Barrington Road. Currently, a motorist traveling from Windsor Ridge to Interstate-80 via Taft Avenue must first travel south along neighborhood streets to American Legion Road. With connections to Taft from within the subdivision, the need to travel along the southern portion of Barrington Road to American Legion Road would be avoided. In staff's opinion, there needs to be some connection to Taft from Windsor Ridge associated with the additional development being proposed. The extension of Court Street from Huntington to Taft will not be required through the subdivision process until the property on either side of Court Street in this area is developed (unless required by the City as a condition attached to a rezoning request). The proposed connection of Cardigan Lane will provide access to Taft from the proposed townhouses as well as single-family lots in the northern portion of Windsor Ridge until Court Street is extended to Taft. This should help to reduce the number of vehicles travelling along the southern portion of Barrington Road on their way to the Interstate via Taft Avenue. Staff recommends that this connection be required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that REZ99-0007 be deferred pending staff review and approval of the recently submitted revised plan. Upon review and approval by staff, staff recommends that the request for a preliminary Planned Development Housing Overlay plan to allow 24 townhouse-style dwellings, and to rezone 7.72 acres from RS-8 to OPDH-8 for property located at the northeast corner of Barrington Road and Huntington Drive, be approved, subject to the extension and connection of Huntington Drive to Court Street extended prior to development of the property. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Revised preliminary OPDH-8 plan. Cross-section view showing the elevation of the proposed townhouses in relation to potential single-family homes along Sheffield Place. 3. Revised building elevations. 4. Letter from Debora L. Liddell with attached petition. 5. Letter from Debora L. LiddelL Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development Q ,/ 0 Z Z Z 0 / / .70 0 i--O0 _ 2 - O0 / FF'~ 771 / / / / 8 g'|// ~ VOLZ 8 9'L/,/~ t' '~9/, 8 £'£9L ~+ 11-00 159 ~ 0-00 _ _SHEEFIELD PLACE _ _ _ 6'£9Z 8 I~ 'ggL + 0'89,' i I City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Re: July 9, 1999 (for July 15 meeting) Planning and Zoning Commission Scott Kugler, Associate Planner REZ99-O007. Windsor Ridge Part 13 This item has been deferred at several recent meetings to allow discussion between the developer and neighborhood residents. In response to concerns and ideas raised at these meetings, the applicant has revised the development plan on two occasions. The most recent change involves the removal of one of the proposed four-unit townhouse buildings, and the addition of two duplexes along Barrington Road and Huntington Drive. The general idea is that the duplexes will be more in scale with the existing single-family homes to the south and west, and would provide more of a transition from the single-family area to the townhouses. As a result of these changes, the rear access drive for the townhouses is now proposed to come off of Cardigan Lane rather than Barrington Road. The duplexes would have individual drive access off of Barrington Road, Huntington Drive, and Cardigan Lane. The establishment of Cardigan Lane as a public street rather than a private drive is also being proposed. Staff feels that the most recent changes are a step back in terms of the quality of the site design and the relationship of the proposed development to the neighborhood center and town square. Although the duplexes are lower in height than the townhouses and would add a bit to the variety of housing options available in the neighborhood, they do not relate well to the square and the proposed neighborhood commercial center. The townhouses do relate well to the square and would visually compliment the commercial development, as depicted on the concept plan. They will be similar in height to a typical two-story single- family home within the neighborhood, and because the individual dwelling units are fairly narrow (19 feet), four-unit buildings will not be excessively large in this location. Staff is concerned that the original concept upon which the rezoning of this property was based is being cornpromised by a series of incremental changes being proposed in response to neighborhood opposition. The end result may be something that not only does not appease the neighboring residents' concerns, but also does not deliver the environment originally envisioned. A decision needs to be made as to whether to support the idea of a town square and neighborhood center within this neighborhood and allow it to be developed as intended, or to go back to the drawing board and work on a new concept plan. Staff continues to recommend approval of the previous plan (attached). If the Commission is inclined to approve the revised plan (with the duplexes), staff recommends that the remaining townhouses be moved slightly westward so that more of them are located in front of the square rather than across from the side of the commercial zone. A 30' to 40' shift should have no impact on the surrounding residences, but will help to complete the southern "wall" to this outdoor space. The applicant perceives a need to move the townhouses as far to the east as possible to separate them from the existing single-family areas. It is staff's opinion that the proposed townhouses and landscaping shown on the previous plan provide an adequate transition, and there is not a great need to extensively "buffer" these residential uses from each other. Staff recommends against the proposal to make Cardigan Lane a public street. In staff's opinion, this lane is part of the internal circulation system and parking lot for the townhouses and neighborhood commercial area. If this drive is developed prior to the extension of Court Street to Taft Avenue, it will likely serve as more than that for a period of time, as some neighborhood residents and construction vehicles will find this to be a convenient route to Herbert Hoover Highway and Interstate 80. However, in the long run it will primarily serve these two developments. Staff feels it would be excessive to have a full City street pavement width in this location, and the additional pavement width would detract from the town square concept. The 24-foot private drive proposed previously is adequate for the purpose this lane is intended to serve. In addition, Public Works does not support the idea of perpendicular parking along a City street. As noted in previous staff reports regarding this application, staff has recommended approval of the previous development plan, subject to the construction of both Huntington Drive and Court Street to the point where they will intersect, providing a direct vehicular route from the proposed townhouses to the arterial street. At the June 17 meeting, the Commission requested information regarding the feasibility of extending Court Street beyond Huntington Drive all of the way to Taft Avenue in some fashion. The City's engineering staff has looked at this issue and has provided rou~lh estimates for extending this roadway, both to City arterial street standards and with a temporary chipseal surface. Without a more detailed look at the design of the roadway and the current profile along Taft Avenue, a rough estimate is all that is possible. The estimate for the extension of the arterial street to Taft Avenue is ~310,000, while the construction of a temporary chipseal roadway is estimated at $180,000. Grading will be needed along Taft Avenue to create an acceptable sight distance at this future intersection. The extent that this will involve grading on adjacent properties and the need for the purchase of construction easements is not known. A cost of ~ 100,000 was used for this component of the overall estimates, but is nothing more than an educated guess at this point. As an alternative, it may be possible to install a temporary drive for construction vehicle access from Taft Avenue to the northern portions of Windsor Ridge, provided that adequate sight distance along Taft Avenue can be achieved. The Commission also asked staff to consider how the timing of the improvements to the "town square" open space should relate to the construction of the townhouses. The provision of usable open space is often one of the amenities gained through the planned development process, and is an important component of a residential development plan. dwelling units are being clustered and attached such that no useable yard area is being created, it is important to have some useable open space nearby. If There is no hard and fast requirement for the timing of the development of an open space area within a planned development of more than two acres. However, there are instances 2 in which this issue has been addressed. In the legal papers for the Silvercrest development at Scott Boulevard and American Legion Road, for instance, there is a requirement for at least 50 percent of the open space being developed prior to an occupancy permit being issued for the development. Staff feels that it would not be unreasonable for the development of the open space area to occur prior to the full development of the property. Perhaps 12 of the 24 dwelling units could be established prior to the development of the park (i.e. the grass being seeded, trees planted, and sidewalks installed). If this were included as a condition, before a permit can be issued for any additional units beyond 12, the park area would have to be established. For public open space, the timing requirements that are in place have to do with the acceptance of the open space by the City. Typically, the City is not interested in accepting the ownership and maintenance responsibilities of a park area until after a significant portion of the surrounding residential lots are developed. This would include the townhouses as well as the single-family lots across the street. Depending on the timing of the development of these lots, if the development of the proposed park is required as mentioned above, it may have to be maintained by the developer or a homeowners association for a period of time until substantial development of adjacent residential lots is completed. Correction: Staff would like to correct an error contained in a previous memorandum regarding this application. In the June 11 staff memorandum, it was reported that a traffic count conducted on June 9-10 resulted in 728 vehicles being recorded over a 24-hour period, in contrast to a 1994 count which indicated that about 250 vehicles per day were using the roadway at that time. Unfortunately, the June 9-10 information reported in the memo was inaccurate. The total number of vehicles recorded within the 24 hour period on June 9-10 was actually 466 (230 southbound and 236 northbound). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Revised preliminary OPDH plan. 2. Previous preliminary OPDH plan. 3. Duplex building elevation and floor plan. Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development 3 ./ t l:jl "jl / / /! o% a'/ I / / /':':j / i111 I { i E The following materials regarding this item were submitted by neighboring property owners or other interested persons. May 30,1999 JUN 0 2, 999 CITY MANAG[t 'S OFFIC[ Stephen Atkins, City Manager 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Stephen Atkins: I am writing to express my concem over zoning proposals that are currently being reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Windsor Ridge Parts 12, 13, and 14 are not healthy considerations for the East Iowa City community since they would result in increased density and traffic. I am in favor of growth; however, this growth should only be with construction of single family dwellings. I strongly o~Dose this plan if it includes construction of multi-family dwellings. I am asking that you only vote in favor of proposals that include construction of single family dwellings (not multi-family dwellings) in the area in question. If you'd like to reach me to discuss this in greater detail, please feel free to contact me at 341-6265. Bill Gilther 4522 Canterbury Ct. Iowa City, IA 52245 CC: John A. Watson, President Windsor Ridge Homeowners Association DEBORA L. LIDDELL 483 1 SOUTHCHASE CT. IOWA CITY, IA 52245 June 10, 1999 Planning & Zoning Commission City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240-1826 RE: Enclosed petition to deny rezoning Dear Commissioners: Enclosed you will fred a copy of a petition for action which is currently being signed by neighbors and will be delivered to you at your upcoming meeting. The focus of the petition is concern over the proposed rezoning for Parts 12 and 13 of Windsor Ridge development. The purpose of this letter is to give you advaneed notice of the petition for your thoughtful consideration. As you know from your May 20 meeting, many neighbors from this area spoke strongly against this application. We were advised by the Commission Chair to meet separately with the developers and express our concerns directly to them. On June 1, approximately 40 people attended a meeting between residents of the Windsor Ridge/Taft area, Marcia Klingaman, and developers Gary Watts and John Moreland. That meeting lasted almost three hours and resulted in this request. In short, there is a wide range of concerns about the neighborhood impact from plans for both the multi-family projects in Parts 12 and 13, as well as the lack of specificity regarding the proposed neighborhood commercial zone (Part' 14). While Part 14 is not currently under consideration, the neighbors are very concemed about the ambiguity of the developers' plans for this area and the subsequent impact of that development on the neighborhoods. On behalf of the concerned neighbors that will be affected by this development, I urge your consideration of and action on this important request. Thank you. Sincerely, Debora L. Liddell PETITION FOR ACTION TO: FROM: DATE: City Council of Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission of Iowa City Neighbors of the Windsor Ridge Area June 10, 1999 As a resident of the Windsor Ridge development and surrounding neighborhoods, we are concerned about the proposed developments of Parts 12, 13, and 14. (These plans includes a 72 multi-family-unit development at the end of Arlington, a 28 multi-family-unit development near the end of Barrington, and an undefined neighborhood commercial development, respectively.) The general concerns for this development include: * inadequate buffer between these projects and the existing neighborhood * increased and invasive lights from the projects * increased and invasive noise from the projects , concern for pedestrian safety, particularly children in the existing neighborhood * increased traffic in the area, especially nonresidential, commercial, and construction traffic , increased safety issues * an increase of construction vehicles on Barrington and Arlington which have become primary construction roadways from Herbert Hoover Highway (via Taft Avenue-American Legion Road) , the lack of a specific plan for the neighborhood commercial zone (Part 14) o these projects do not conform to the purposes of the surrounding neighborhood, ~rmdsor Ridge, a planned community -- in the words of developers "Secludext from the world at large ... a quiet country charm that offers a gorgeous view in a serene, park-like setting" (see attached ad, June 2, 1999). Because there are many concerns about how these parts of the subdivision will be developed, we request the following: 1. The petition to fezone be denied. 2. City staff be directed to meet with residents in the area and the developers to seek a reasonable approach to devdoping this area to address the long-term issues which will affect the quality of life in the surrounding neighborhood. These issues include, but are not limited to, the appropriateness of the current zoning, plans for connecting Court Street to Taft Avenue, and for the upgrading of Taft Avenue to safely handle an anticipated higher volume of traffic. Windsor Ridge has repeatedly, and over time, been described by city staff and developers as the "City's first totally planned community". The thrust of these concerns and requests is to allow the residents of this area to be involved in the future planning of their neighborhood. DEBORA L. I. DDELL 4831 SOUTHCHASE CT. IOWAC~TY, IA 52245 June 10, 1999 Planning & Zoning Commission City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240-1826 RE: Application to rezone/Windsor Ridge Dear Commissioners: Under separate cover you have received correspondence regarding neighborhood concerns about the above- mentioned project. The purpose of this letter is to express my specific concerns about the proposed rezoning of Part 13, currently under consideration by this Commission. · The massive buildings proposed for this project will result in an imposina elevation, impacting the neighbors in undesirable ways through increased traffic, increased noise, and increased lights. The planned buffer between the multi-family and single-family areas is inadequate. There should be much greater distance between the two areas. Buildings designed with lower elevation would have less impact. Consideration should be given to one- story structures (very appropriate for senior residents - the stated target market). Arbor Hills, on Washington Road, is an excellent example of this kind of project. · This project should not be pursued until details are worked out regarding the Neighborhood Commercial Zone. On the one hand, Mr. Watts has said that the purpose of the NCZ is to serve the residents of Windsor Ridge. On the other hand, Mr. Watts has repeatedly been unwilling to make a commitment on the nature of this commerdal area, saying that it is not feasible to develop until the multi-family area has been finished. These two statements would appear to be contradictory in nature. · I an concemed that the single family lots on the north edge of Windsor Ridge will no longer be desirable because they are book-ended by these two large multi-family projects. The long-range effect of these projects may be that they limit (and may ultimately downgrade) the areas that ware always designed as single family. · Taft Avenue and Court Street should be connected prior to further rezoning in this neighborhood. As it is now, construction traffic travels from the interstate to Taft - down American Legion Road - and then through the neighborhood via Barrington. This situation wil only women once construction commences around Court Street. Care must be taken to ensure that construction traff'K: is not routed through the neighborhoods. · Finally, Ithink you can deduce from the May 20 meeting that many of the neighbors who have built homes in this neighborhood have lost confidence in this developer. There are dozens of examples of why this has occurred - all resulting in aloes of credibility in his intentions. Examples cited by neighbors include the neglect of public outlots which were designated active recreational space, the differences in density between concept plans and final plats (see Sheffield Place as one example), and the implid or explicit misinformation provided to many homeowners regarding the future of this area. The fact that 40 people came to the follow-up meeting with the developer is surely evidence of the growing concerns about this project. We are reliant upon the judgment of the Commissioners to protect the interests of the citizens in this community above the finandal interests of developers. l urge you to deny this application because this project is dearly not appropriate for the area and conflicts with what was publicly marketed as Iowa City's "first planned community," Sincerely, Debora L. Liddell DEeon L. LWDELL 4831 SOUTHCHASE CT. IOWA CITY, IA 52245 July 9, 1999 Planning & Zoning Commission City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240-1826 RE: Part 13/llqndsor Ridge Dear Commissioners: I have reviewed the changes to the proposal for Part 13/Windsor Ridge and am writing to you regarding those proposed changes. As you may know, on June 21 several neighbors met with Gary WaRs, John Moreland, their designer, and city staff to try to resolve differences about the Windsor Ridge proposals. That meeting lasted almost three hours and the majority of the discussion focused on Parts 13-14, specifically the townhouses and proposed commercial area. While I appreciate the time that the developers and their designer have invested in meeting with the neighbors, in my opinion, the current proposal neither reflects the suggestions generated that day nor does it alleviate the concerns that have been repeatedly expressed by neighbors. On a micro-level, the changes to the building itself (proposed duplex units) are an improvement--they are more attractive and more consistent with the look of the single-family area. However, on a larger level, the current proposal spreads the effect of the multi-family units in undesirable ways and eliminates the physical barrier that was present. In short, the amended proposal, in my opinion, is less desirable than the previous one. In the spirit of compromise, I would like to make the following suggestions which I believe address most of the expressed concerns of the neighbors, the standards of the city staff, and the wishes of the developer. The townhouses are proposed to be built on one of the highest hll!R in Johnson County. In fact, just last week several neighbors and I walked to this hill to watch ftreworks from five different communities (Hills, Cedar Rapids, Coralville, Iowa City, and east--maybe West Branch). The location provides an unparalleled vista in this area and the two-story townhouse project proposed is even more imposing because of its location. I would like to request that the project be moved at least 100 feet north of the proposed location to protect this ridge. This move uses the topography to advantage neighbors on both sides of it. I believe this accommodation would allay some concerns about the elevation of this building. · One of the concerns of neighbors has been the effect of this project on property values. I would like to request that the developer upgrade the existing units so as to price them in the $140,00-$150,000 range. I believe this accommodation would be consistent with the market the developer has targeted, and would ease o- to some extent -- the concerns about property values. · I would like to see the Cardigan entrance of the pr0iect moved off of Barrington and onto Huntington. Perhaps this can be accomplished by having one common entrance for both the front and back entrances. · We still have unresolved issues regarding the proposed Neighborhood Commercial Zone (Part 14). Mr. Watts has repeatedly said that the purpose of the NCZ is to serve the residents of Windsor Ridge but is unable at this time to commit on the nature of this commercial area. I would like to request that the developers commit to working with a committee of neighbors prior to developing any proposals for Part 14. This committee should work with staff and the developers to assist with a neighborhood marketing study, develop guidelines, and establish covenants for the commercial area. I believe this accommodation would ensure neighborhood investment not only in the physical development of the commercial zone but also in its success. I also believe that this proactive collaboration would prevent future problems like the the ones we've been dealing with. · I still believe strongly that Taft Avenue _and Court Street should be connected prior to inception of any construction in Part 13. Even a construction entrance may be adequate to relieve the neighborhood of heavy, noisy, dangerous, fast- moving truck traffic. I know these suggestions are not perfect. I realize they don't address every neighbor concern, every staff recommendation, nor every developer need. However, I think they are viable and reasonable. While I speak only for myself, I would willingly and publicly endorse the developer's project if the Commission and the developer would agree to these suggestions. Sincerely, DebOt'a L. Liddell C: City Staff Gary Watts From: Jeffrey Martin [jeffgmartin@home.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 1999 11:01 AM To: Sco~_Kugler@iowa-city.org Subject: Windsor Ridge Part 13 Scott, Please forward these comments on the revised proposal for Windsor Ridge, Part 13 to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Thanks. Dear Members of the Commission: I am unable to attend the July 15 meeting and am instead submitting my comments on Windsor Ridge, Pad 13 in writing. At the conclusion of the June 17 discussion on Windsor Ridge, several of you expressed appreciation for the process being entered into between the developers and the Windsor Ridge neighbors. I believe it was your hope that the process would yield a compromise acceptable to all. That certainly was my hope. In fact, I was somewhat optimistic. Subsequently, I was one of several neighbors who met with the developers and city staff at city hall on June 21. That discussion was at times difficult. But when I left near the end I again had hope that a revised proposal we could all support might be forthcoming. In fact, agreement on a proposal is essential. In discussing both Parts 13 and 14, the developers' architect said at the June 21 meeting that the success of a town square development such as is proposed depends upon the enthusiastic support of the neighborhood. In light of all that, I find the revised plans for Part 13 extremely disappointing. And I find it hard to believe that we could proceed from this first step to the development of a town square that gets much of any support from the neighborhood. I agree with staff's assessment that this revision is a step back. I also agree with staffs analysis that the original concept plan is being compromised by a series of incremental steps. But I totally disagree with the staffs recommendation to go forward with the previous plan. To reiterate some of the concerns I raised at the June 17 public hearing: 1. The buildings are a design borrowed from another development and dropped onto a ridge that is one of the highest points in the county. They seem very much out of place both because of their height located on this high point and because of the sharp drop in their value compared to nearby single family houses. There is no "gradual transition" taking place here. 2. The presence of these units may cause the developers to seek rezoning for surrounding single-family lots when they are unable to sell them. Alternatively, and perhaps more likely, the developers will place tract-type houses on those lots, compromising the value of the overall development. We already have evidence of the developers' tendency to compromise on housing standards when they are unable to move lots. Plans for the commercial area are still vague; we don't really have clear idea of how traffic will move in and out of it. While it may not be reasonable to expect the developers to commit to a plan for the commercial area at this point, we should get a firm commitment from them to include a strong measure of neighborhood participation in later planning for this area. Finally, staff's report says that a decision should be made on whether to continue supporting the concept plan for Parts 13 & 14. I agree. But I believe that decision should be to abandon the current plan. A new concept plan, drawn up with the involvement of the developers, neighbors, and city staff should be brought forward. I believe most of the neighbors are prepared to accept that this area will include multiple family housing and some light commercial uses. However, the current plan is flawed. I believe we can do better if everyone involved is prepared to think creatively about how to address all of our interests. Please consider this: Ramming through a development proposal over the seriosu objection of thoughtful neighbors is poor planning, terrible public policy, and even bad business. I urge you to reject the OPDH plan for Part 13 and to defer action on the final plats for Parts 13 & 14. Thank you for your attention and service to the community. Sincerely, Jeff Martin 1015 Barrington Road Iowa City NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT AND ESTIMATED COST FOR JOHNSON STREET SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA TO ALL TAXPAYERS Of THE CITY Of IOWa CITY, IOWA, AND TO OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS: Public notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, will conduct a public hearing on plans, specifications, form of contract and estimated cost for the construction of the Johnson Street Sewer Improvement Project in said City at 7 p.m. on the 24th day of August, 1999, said meeting to be held in the Council Chambers in the Civic Center in said City, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk. Said plans, specifications, form of contract and estimated cost are now on file in the office of the City Clerk in the Civic Center in Iowa City, Iowa, and may be inspected by any interested persons. Any interested persons may appear at said meeting of the City Council for the purpose of making objections to and comments concerning said plans, specifications, contract or the cost of making said improvement. This notice is given by order of the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa and as provided by law. MARlAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK PH-1 DATE: TO: FROM: Fe.' August 17, 1999 City Council Daniel Scott, Civil Engineer i~f~ ~ Johnson Street Sanitary Improvement Project 08-24-99 t z 7 The purpose of this project was to separate a cross-connection of the storm and sanitary sewers at the intersection of Court and Johnson Streets. The project design was substantially complete and a public hearing was set for this project with the intention of finalizing the design before the public hearing. However, during the design completion another sewer cross-connection was located three blocks to the east of the project site on Governor Street. Both cross-connections must be eliminated by this project in order to resolve the problem, but more design work will now be necessary to properly analyze the situation before finalizing a design. A proper design will be completed as soon as possible and another public hearing will be held at that time. 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET * IOWA CITY, IOXYA 52240-1826 * (319) 356-5000 * FAX (319) 356-5009 NOTICE OF MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, ON THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $700,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS (FOR A GENERAL CORPORATE PURPOSE), AND HEARING ON ISSUANCE OF SAID BONDS. Public notice is hereby given that the Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, will hold a public hearing on the 24~ day of August, 1999, at 7 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk, at which meeting the Council proposes to take action for the issuance of not to exceed $700,000 of General Obligation Bonds, bearing interest at the rate of not to exceed 9 per centurn per annum, said bonds to be issued for the purpose of providing funds to pay costs of acquiring land, designing and constructing a mixed use parking facility. This notice is given by order of the Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, as provided by Section 384.26 of the City Code of Iowa. At any time before the date of said meeting, a petition, asking that the question of issuing such bonds be submitted to the legal voters of said City, may be filed with the Clerk of said City in the manner provided by Section 362.4 of the Ci~ Code of Iowa, pursuant to the provisions of Section 384.26 of the City Code of Iowa. Dated at Iowa City, Iowa, this 6 th day of August ,1999. City, Iowa ~nadm/b0nds-go.doc NOTICE OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, ON THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF $3,000,000 PARKING SYSTEM REVENUE BONDS OF SAID CITY, AND THE HEARING ON THE ISSUANCE THEREOF. PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, will hold a public hearing on the 24t" day of August, 1999, at 7 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, Civic Center, in Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk, at which meeting the City Council proposes to take additional action for the issuance of $3,000,000 Parking System Revenue Bonds of said City. Said bonds will not constitute general obligations or be payable in any manner by taxation, but will be payable from and secured by the net revenues of the Municipal Parking System. Said bonds are proposed to be issued for the purpose of paying costs of extending, improving and equipping the parking facilities system of the City, including the construction of a multilevel facility for the parking of vehicles to be located at or near the south side of Iowa Avenue between Linn Street and Gilbert Street. The proceeds of the Parking System Revenue bonds may be applied to pay project costs directly or to pay interim project notes which the City will issue in the approximate amount of $3,000,000 in anticipation of the future receipt of funds or bond proceeds applicable to the foregoing project and purposes. At the above meeting oral or written objections from any resident or property owner of said City to the above action shall be received. After all objections have been received and considered, the Council will at said meeting or at any adjournment thereof, take additional action for the issuance of said bonds or will abandon the proposal to issue said bonds. This notice is given by order of said governing body as provided by Section Dated this 6 of Augus1: , 1999. City, Iowa ~nadm/bonds-I)kg .doc NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT AND ESTIMATED COST FOR THE CHAUNCEY SWAN PARK FOUNTAIN PROJECT IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA TO ALL TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, AND TO OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS: Public notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, will conduct a public hearing on plans, specifications, form of contract and estimated cost for the construction of the Chauncey Swan Park Fountain Project in said City at 7:00 p.m. on the 24th day of August, 1999, said meeting to be held in the Council Chambers in the Civic Center in said City, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk. Said plans, specifications, form of contract and estimated cost are now on file in the office of the City Clerk in the Civic Center in Iowa City, Iowa, and may be inspected by any interested persons. Any interested persons may appear at said meeting of the City Council for the purpose of making objections to and comments concerning said plans, specifications, contract or the cost of making said improvement. This notice is given by order of the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa and as provided by law. MARlAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK pweng\fn~nph.doc NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT AND ESTIMATED COST FOR SOCCER FIELD SANITARY SEWER PROJECT IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA TO ALL TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, AND TO OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS: Public notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, will conduct a public hearing on plans, specifications, form of contract and estimated cost for the construction of the Soccer Field Sanitary Sewer Project in said City at 7:00 p.m. on the 24th day of August, 1999, said meeting to be held in the Council Chambers in .the Civic Center in said City, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk. Said plans, specifications, form of contract and estimated cost are now on file in the office of the City Clerk in the Civic Center in Iowa City, Iowa, and may be inspected by any interested persons. Any interested persons may appear at said meeting of the City Council for the purpose of making objections to and comments concerning said plans, specifications, contract or the cost of making said improvement. This notice is given by order of the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa and as provided by law. MARlAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK pweng\soccer.doc NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT URBAN REVITALIZATION PLAN FOR A PROPOSED URBAN REVITALIZATION AREA IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA. Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at 7:00 p.m. on the 24t' day of August, 1999, in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk; at which hearing the Council will consider adoption of a proposed Central Business District Urban Revitalization Area in Iowa City, Iowa, legally described as: All of Blocks 61-66 and 80-84, Original Town, Iowa City, Iowa. The adoption of the proposed Urban Revitalization Plan and the subsequent designation of this area as an Urban Revitalization Area will permit property tax exemptions on the value added to properties qualified for improvements. A copy of the Plan is on file for public inspection in the office of the City Clerk, Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa. Any person or organization desiring to be heard shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard at such hearing. This notice is given by order of the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, as provided by Section 404.2 of the State Code of Iowa. MARlAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: August 19, 1999 To; From: City Manager & City Council Re: Central Business District Urban Revitalization Plan On August 24, the City Council will be holding a public hearing on the Central Business District (CBD) Urban Revitalization Plan (copy of plan was included in the July 13 Council packet) and be giving first consideration of an ordinance designating the CBD Urban Revitalization Area. (This ordinance would also replace the ordinance designating the Block 62 Urban Renewal Area.) The public hearing is actually on the Plan, which the City Council will consider for adoption at its September 28 meeting along with final adoption of the ordinance designating the CBD Urban Revitalization Area (see attached schedule). The ordinance is scheduled for first consideration to move the process along while at the same time providing ample time for the Council to consider the Plan. Economic Development Guidelines When the Council set the public hearing on the Urban Revitalization Plan, Council discussed the appropriateness of applying the economic development guidelines to projects applying for property tax exemption under the CBD Urban Revitalization Plan. Council directed staff to prepare a memo addressing this issue. The primary objective of the Plan is to encourage the revitalization of commercial activity and the reuse of historic structures in the CBD area. This objective focuses on encouraging capital investment in the downtown area that will revitalize and spur commercial and other activity in the downtown. The focus is not job creation, but capital investment and maintaining the health and vitality of the urban core. Given the focus on encouraging capital investment to spur activity in the downtown, it becomes difficult to determine with each project which entity should be evaluated against the economic development guidelines - the developer/property owner of the project or the business occupying the project. With applying any financial assistance guidelines, it must first be determined to which entity the guidelines should be applied. In applications to date for financial assistance, the business and property owner have been the same. In the downtown, it will be the property owner applying for the abatement. However, it will be the business occupying the building that will actually create the economic activity in the building. In most circumstances it appears most appropriate to evaluate the entity occupying the building not the entity developing the project. In the downtown setting a project may have space for many different tenants, and all of the space may not be leased until sometime after the project is completed. The timing of the application for abatement and the leasing of all of the space makes it difficult to adequately evaluate the project based on the economic development guidelines. Rather than considering the financial assistance guidelines with each application for property tax exemption, staff recommends that Council consider the financial assistance guidelines while making its decision whether or not to approve the Urban Revitalization Plan, The attached summary briefly addresses how designating the central business district an urban revitalization area compares to our financial assistance guidelines. Based upon this review and given that the primary goal of the plan is to encourage revitalization of commercial activity in the downtown area through capital investment, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Central Business District Urban Revitalization Plan, Co-' Marc Moen Bob Burns Sarah Holecek Attachment Proposed Time Schedule - Regular Council Schedule Central Business District Urban Revitalization Plan July 13 · City Council to Consider Resolution of Necessity & Resolution Setting Public Hearing on the Central Business District (CBD) Urban Revitalization Plan for August 24 August 24 · City Council to Hold Public Hearing on the CBD Urban Revitalization Plan. · City Council to Give First Consideration of an Ordinance Designating the Central Business District Urban Revitalization Area Ordinance (This ordinance also replaces the Block 62 Urban Revitalization Area Ordinance). September 14 · Council to Give Second Consideration of an Ordinance Designating the Central Business District Urban Revitalization Area Ordinance. September 28 · Council to hold Second Public Hearing on the CBD Urban Revitalization Plan, if necessary. · Council to Pass and Adopt an Ordinance Designating the Central Business District Urban Revitalization Area · Council to Adopt a Resolution Repealing the Block 62 Urban Revitalization Plan and Approving the Central Business District Urban Revitalization Plan. October 6 · Publication of Ordinance. · After Publication of CDB Ordinance, a Qualified Property Owner May Apply to City for Tax Exemption. F:\downtown\cdbd\ccO824.doc FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE GUIDELINES CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT URBAN REVITALIZATION PLAN PRIVATE FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION AS COMPARED TO PUBLIC ASSISTANCE REQUESTED A greater percentage of contribution by the assisted business; Every qualifying project is eligible to choose from an established set of property tax exemption schedules. Since each schedule is a set percentage of the increased value to a property, the tax benefit received compared to the investment (contribution by the assisted business) will be the same from project to project within the urban revitalization area. A shorter payback period or expiration for financial assistance; Each qualifying nonresidential commercial project can chose either a three year 100% exemption schedule or a ten-year declining percentage property tax exemption schedule for a period of 10 years. Beyond the three-year schedule and the ten-year schedule, the business will pay its full property tax obligation. Given the ten-year partial exemption schedule, the business will actually pay more in property taxes than it will receive in exemption during this ten-year period. The Plan sets the expiration for financial assistance for all projects. · A lower amount of financial assistance per job This will vary project by project and tenant by tenant. CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY Projects not requiring new public capital improvements; With the already planned construction of the Iowa Avenue Streetscape, Tower Place & Parking, and the completion of the Downtown Streetscape Improvements, the City does not foresee any additional significant improvements required for the proposed CBD Urban Revitalization Area. · A greater contribution by the developer for public infrastructure improvements; NA. The proposed area requires no additional public capital improvements. Jobs within industry/technology groups on opportunity list; With each specific qualifying project the types of jobs will vary. Some of the office uses may fall within the City's industry/technology groups, such as, communication services, computer software development; educational services; and insurance services. However, given the character of the downtown, a significant number of businesses will fall within the retail/personal service/restaurant sector of the economy. These business groups are not included on the City's industry/technology groups. · Start-up companies and expansions of existing local operations; CBD Urban Revitalization Plan 1 September 1998 This will vary project by project. Some of the businesses locating in qualifying projects may not be start-up companies or an expansion of an existing local operation. A greater amount of property tax base expansion. As long as a commercial project increases the actual value of the property as of the first year for which an exemption is received by at least fifteen percent (15%) the project will qualify for the exemption. A $200,000 property would only need to increase its value by at least 830,000 to qualify for the property tax exemption, and a 82,000,000 would need to increase its value by at least ~300,000 to qualify. QUALITY OF JOBS TO BE CREATED · Higher wage rates; · Full-time, long-term, non-seasonal positions; · Commitment to a safe workplace; · Contribution to health insurance benefits; · Provision of fringe benefits (e.g. vacation, sick leave, and retirement plans). These will all vary project by project. Retail/personal service/restaurant businesses will predominately pay lower wage rates, provide temporary, part-time positions, and offer few health insurance benefits and fringe benefits. Businesses that fall within the targeted industry/technology groups will tend to pay higher wages, provide full-time, permanent positions, and offer health insurance and fringe benefits. ECONOMIC IMPACT Contribution to diversification of Johnson County economy; Included in the City's economic development policy is a strategy to "continue and enhance downtown revitalization". This strategy is included not only to maintain the economic vitality of a specific commercial core but also due to the importance of maintaining a healthy and vibrant downtown. The health of an entire community is often measured by the health of its downtown. An area with a healthy downtown is much more attractive to expanding or new businesses in an area. In maintaining a healthy downtown will make the area attractive to expanding or new businesses in the area, which will further help with the diversification of the County's economy. Potential for future growth of industry; Based on the premise that the health of the downtown impacts the economic health of the rest of the community, a healthy downtown will encourage the growth of existing and new industries in the community. Builds on the resources, materials, and workforce of the local community. Revitalizing an existing commercial core area builds on the existing resources, investment and workforce of the area. CBD Urban Revitalization Plan 2 September 1998 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The more environmentally sound the company's operation Most retail/office/restaurant establishments allowed in the Central Business District are environmentally benign. The recycling of materials, particularly paper products, is probably the most significant environmental issue that most of the downtown businesses work to address. The more environmentally sound the company's products/services. This will vary from project to project. In the Central Business District, businesses meeting this criterion are most likely to be retail establishments selling "environmentally friendly" products or businesses that provides environmental services. These types of businesses in the downtown are more likely to be the exception than the rule. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Businesses that have a history of contributing to their communities through volunteer work, financial contributions or other means. This will vary from project to project. We do know, however, that when local downtown businesses are healthy, they are better able to financially contribute to community projects. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Every applicant should provide average hourly wages for all new and existing jobs that meet or exceed the average county wage rate by industry. Ninety percent of the project positions should have a wage greater than the federal poverty wage rate for Iowa City (30% of the median income for a four-person household in Iowa City). Under special circumstances, consideration will be given to those companies who cannot meet this requirement. Retail/personal services/restaurant jobs tend to pay lower wages than other jobs. In fact, the average wage for jobs in these sectors tends to be below the federal poverty wage rate. However, the average wage for jobs in the targeted industry/technology groups tends to be well above the federal poverty wage rate. Applicant must have a consistent pattern of compliance with the law and the spirit of the law, including environmental regulations, occupational safety and health laws, fair labor standards, the National Labor Relations Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, in order to eligible for financial assistance. This will vary project by project and tenant by tenant. · Applicant must demonstrate the following in order to eligible for financial assistance: The feasibility of the business venture. The reliability of the job creation and financial estimates. The credit worthiness of the business. CBD Urban Revitalization Plan 3 September 1998 Project would not occur without financial assistance. Given that the objective of the plan is to encourage capital investment and that the financial assistance (property tax exemption) is not granted until after the investment has been made, the project's feasibility and creditworthiness is demonstrated prior to the business receiving the exemption. A contract will be executed for any financial assistance awarded. Applicant will be required to repay all, or a prorated share, of the amount of the financial assistance awarded if the applicant does not fulfill the obligations of the contract. The financial assistance (property tax exemption) provided a business is based upon the amount of capital investment made. The exemption is only granted upon the capital investment made. If the investment is not made, there is no exemption. There is no need for a repayment clause. f:\downtown\cdbg\edguide.doc CBD Urban Revitalization Plan 4 September 1998 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Re: August 19, 1999 City'Council Historic Preservation Commission CBD Urban Revitalization Plan The Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed the proposed CBD Urban Revitalization Plan and would like to offer a few changes with respect to the provisions that deal with historic properties. The Commission is generally pleased with the plan as drafted, and appreciates the consideration being given to retaining the integrity of designated historic properties in the downtown area. However, the Commission is concerned that the Plan does not go far enough to ensure that the proposed tax abatement program is not an incentive for the demolition or significant alteration of historic properties. Also, the Commission feels that the tax abatement program could be made more attractive to downtown property owners by expanding the number of properties that are considered to be "historically or architecturally significant," thus opening more opportunities for them to take advantage of tax abatement for the residential component of their buildings. As currently drafted, tax abatement would not be available to a property owner who demolishes or inappropriately alters a designated historic structure. These properties are identified on pages 3 and 4 of the Plan, and include eight properties that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, six of which are also designated as Iowa City Historic Landmarks. The six properties designated as landmarks are already protected by the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance from unnecessary demolition and inappropriate alteration. As the Plan points out, there are numerous other buildings in the downtown area that, though they have not been designated as such, would be eligible for designation under either program. One of the purposes of the historic/architectural survey of downtown that is now in progress is to identify these individually significant properties. The Plan proposes that if additional designations occur upon completion of the survey, the list of historically or architecturally significant properties will be expanded. Identification and designation of historic properties are different things. It is likely to take many years to designate additional historic properties downtown, and many significant buildings may never be designated. Under the current proposal, the demolition or substantial alteration of potentially significant but undesignated properties, such as the Jefferson Hotel Building or the Englert Theater, could be essentially subsidized by the proposed tax abatement program, to the detriment of downtown's historic character. The Commission recommends that the City use the federal historic preservation program as a model for the proposed tax abatement program. As required by the 1966 Historic Preservation Act, a federally funded or assisted project must be studied to determine if it will impact any historic properties. If historic properties will be impacted, alterations to the plans or mitigation measures may be required. In the case of work being done to an individual building, such as a home being rehabilitated through the City's housing rehabilitation program (funded through CDBG funds), that building needs to be studied to determine its historical significance. If the building is determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, then the proposed alterations must comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Basically, this policy is in place to ensure that the federal government is not inadvertently or unintentionally subsidizing the demolition or inappropriate alteration of historic properties. The Commission is requesting that the determining factor in deciding whether or not a property is treated as a historic structure under the plan be its eligibility rather than its designation. This would ensure that tax abatement is not an incentive to demolish or inappropriately remodel a non-designated, yet historic, building. The survey project currently underway downtown will involve the evaluation of all buildings to determine their eligibility for listing on the National Register. When the survey is complete, this information will be available to assist in determining the eligibility of individual buildings. In the mean time, the Commission could make that determination on a case-by-case basis. In association with the Housing Rehabilitation program, the Commission regularly deals with determinations of eligibility. The determinations for federally assisted projects are reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Officer, as well. There have been few, if any, differences of opinion between the two entities over the last several years regarding eligibility determinations. The specific amendments to the CBD Urban Revitalization Plan being requested by the Historic Preservation Commission includes the replacement of the first full paragraph on page 4 with the following text: In addition to those structures already designated as historic properties, the CBD contains numerous buildings that for reasons of age, history, architecture, or significance are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places or for designation as Iowa City Historic Landmarks. Those properties over 50 years of age that are designated as historic structures, or that are determined to be eligible for designation by the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission, shall be considered "historic or architecturally significant structures" for the purposes of fulfilling the objectives of this CBD Urban Revitalization Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission is in the process of surveying properties within the CBD Area to identify historic resources that are eligible for designation either individually or as part of a historic district. Upon completion of the survey, this information will be available to the Historic Preservation Commission in making its determinations of eligibility. Prior to the completion of the survey, eligibility shall be determined based on the National Register Criteria (36 CFR Part 60) or criteria identified in City Code Section14-4C-2 for determining eligibility of potential Historic Landmarks. These changes would not restrict a property owner from demolishing or altering a non- designated historic structure, but would simply not reward these actions through the abatement of property taxes. Expanding the number of properties that are considered to be historically or architecturally significant would also open more opportunities for property owners to take advantage of tax abatement for the residential components of their buildings, which is only available to historically or architecturally significant properties. The Commission feels that these changes will go a long way toward encouraging the rehabilitation and reuse of historic buildings downtown, while at the same time protecting the historic character of the area. The Commission feels strongly that one of the main assets of the downtown, which cannot be offered at newer suburban shopping areas, is its historic character. This character needs to be protected until the community determines how best to take advantage of it in promoting the downtown area, NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCUSSION Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Iowa City will hold a meeting for public discussion on the 24t" day of August, 1999, in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 410 E Washington Street, at 7:00 p.m. in consideration of the following item: 1. Resolution approving the Iowa City Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan. Persons interested in expressing their views concerning said item, either verbally or in writing, will be given the oppodunity to be heard at the above-mentioned time and place. Prior to the hearing, the following document is available for review at the Iowa City Public Library, the City Clerk's Office, or the City Manager's Office: Iowa City Winter 1999~2000 Deer Management Plan. MARlAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK 8/5/99 Marian Karr From: Sent: To: Subject: dpurdy2@juno.com Monday, August 23, 1999 10:16 PM council@iowa-city.org deer hunt Dear Members of the Council: I am writing with a couple of questions that I hope you or White Buffalo can answer. Since I live next to Hickory Hill Park and also walk my dog in the park around suppertime I was wondering: 1)How close to the park will the shooting be? Since I assume the shooting will be in the property next to the park, I am hoping that several wooded valleys within 250 feet of the east side of the park will not be used. -What time in the evening will the shooting happen? After dark in the wintertime can be 6 p.m. Many other people are also walking their dogs at this time. Also, I am hoping that the state law can be changed regarding silencers. I don't look forward to sleddingwith my 2 year-old son on the hill in front of our house to the sound of gunfire. Sincerely, David Purdy 1434 E. Bloomington Street Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.v~ww.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. 602 ~/ALLL~ dye Z do Aop~ ~A~ 40~ co~L~oZ ov~ 08/23/99 MON 12:34 FAX ~001 facsimile TRANSMITTAL re: date: pages: tO: W~d. tc tailed De~r August23, 1999 5 including this cover shed. PLEASE DELIVER IMMEDIATELY TO: Mayor Lehman & Iowa City Council Members facsimilef: MESSAGE: 319.356.5009 ,-3,P m c:) Dear Mayor and Council Members: The attached. article is the cover story in the September/October issue of Animals' Agenda which came out just today. The 6 page article is very timely considering tomorrow night's agenda regarding sharp shooting deer. (I am forwarding the 4 text pages - pages 22 & 25 are photos). i ask that you read the article as it thoroughly discusses the very issues Iowa City is dealing with: Idiling deer, browse damage, deer/vehicle accidents and lyme disease. Thank-you for your consideration. Please feel free to call me if you have questions! Thank-you, From the desk of... LAURIE C. STONE Phone: 319.365.57q0 Fax: 319.365.8292 0~/23/99 ~0N 12:34 FA~ 002 T ohm some people tell it, white-laHed deer have become the new 'tdtler bees."' a sinister and ever- ericreadying bio|o~ical threat I~ the health and safety of almsban America, The prolifefat~on and/or inaeased ~Ls;~ility of ~eus v/rg/n~nus, paw- ticularly in the Northeast, has many members of the public, local officials, and the medja alamoring for drastic actions that OflNm. fail to solve the perceived conflicts and instead result jn wklespmad slaughter Specifically, deer am being blamed far invading re~dc~dal areas a~d devouring lm~ amovm~s of ~'namental Liofi; preventing fe~s~ rcFjleIztion; causing dang~ous coll/sioBs with vehicle;; and spreading L)an~ di.~ase. Too orc~ tale test~nse to t~e~ concosts i~ to kill the de~ i~ large n~,mhers. Yet huntiag typically fails to redrice whitc-~til tx~pulation~ eliminate complaints about the deer. Allen T. Rmbcrg, P'nJ)., vice president ro~ w~dlife issues at TI~ Hux~ne Society of the Un/te, d Sta~, wri~ ia The 8c~,,nce of Overabundance: Deer Ecology and Popzdaaon ManagemtTtt that '~[t]h~ mos'( visible weakness ths ass~a~ios that hunting is nr, c~ssary to control ac~ populations ~s that it has l~vgel:? failed to do so over th~ last two decadcs.._Tust becaus~ deer an: being killed clmsn't m~an that de~r popnlations ar~'being controlled." Likewise, author, biology professor, and outdoors cohmnL~t Thomas Rveland~ Ph.D., noted at a 1998 lnubli~ Fosentation in Philadelphia that "N q~ick surge in a d~er population can occur if broiling is implemcsted hasn't be~a before," sinc~ ~unriving dccr have .far mo~ food p~r animal snd fo~ supply ~s a kc~j factor in detp_,-mining mproduc~ lion raT~. There are both biological and political facton at work tlxese sitnatiuns. In u~rms of sheer numbers, ~efe ar~ an estimat- ed 15 nai!lion whigtailed dce. r in North Amsrica, comFax~ with 500,000 at all= tin .of the tentory. Too muda btmtiag wipea them o~ De~r managemsn~ programs d~sipsd to boost ;';'-. - :;':i;t;:t>X:t :: ':::'~--:'~-~:Y:~:.::::: :t-}~,'.;-" ;: . -' F :: };':'isi~ win, h~- hbita~o.- ~"?. -'%: ::'-... }..,s ':.~q t;~-.z~-x: 9:~::4:-L~:}'~ :::>.~ :.:?~~ ~ ~e. ~':;{'}'.::~:'T,:~'-~::.~_: .~-:~'¥~-'~,?~.~'{~C~Z~';'~vn. ~ey f~ ~ly ~ ~Wn ~d ~ ~:c.:-:t~:~:.:~t~t:~_,:.::.::;}:%,:;:: ~::~.-~v).~TM. ·~t~ ~::~:, ~V:_t~>)~.,/,3:?~:r:;. :/{:~',: .:. :9;-~: ~:....~~ The decisiou ',:~"2.-): ::".~4~ ::~ '::?~:. }~ .v j: '; :':~'":: ~%c-.:":::~ano~ ~m~ ..... - ..... .. 08/23/99 MO~ ~2:~6 FAX · are usu.ally involved. in instigating a deer kill: n~mbers of the public. ~m local govecament~ the state wildlif~ agency. and the ~ Each has its own funcd.ons, concerns, incentives, lmd m.eth- ads thaz mus[ be understood in e~l~r to prevent nellless ldlling, COMMUNITY COMPLICITY Only a small m:mority of Awedcans have hunting licen,~-s, and surveys show r, ha~ increas- ing majorities of people considc~ apart hunting unethical. But even some who might oppose spoil hunting cm~ be quick to condemn deer when they are inconvenienced. Far from being paragons of responsibility prepared to armIce tough decisions (as some parlay themSelVes), rrmny Civic groUpS avokl responsibility for learn- ing critical infonTlaliOn add defining Fablems accurately so humane saintiotas can be ~tmcl. A quick fix is their inizom~ objective. In 1999 in Montgomery County, Maryland, residenTS sun-oanding an arbor~tum near a large wooded park helped arboratom n~nage.~ insfi- gale a ~ ldll by complaining about car colli- sions, Lyme disease, and flower dmnage. In Phil- adelphia, Frirmds of the Wissahickon, a nonprof- it organization that has worked f~ dccades w maintain the world's largest city parlL paid a consul12nt $40,000 to evaluate "alP. Or impact." All of the mo~t inlpolrtant claims by this irish, who was already well known for nev~ .recommend- ing nonlethal options, are in dispute. But the pazk · cornmi.~sion nevertheless used his ~epott as the basis for a dt~r kill, Local' goy~ttments--town councils, town: ;',d~ip boards, park commissions, public sat~ty committees, and others--often ~ceive com- pLsints about deer tram members at' the public. Some officials are ]Era:disposed to agree that "sometiring must be done" tO reduce the dccr population. Like their conslimcnts, many have read dec-bashing articles ~at have ptoliferated in the last d~ade. In Tl~dyffrin Township, Pennaylvemia, dozens of local residents assembled at an April Township Board meeting wearing large buttons reading "Say Yes to Less" (meaning f~wer deer). Organized by a resident who had already spent years poring bow . htm~g Throu~out the Four main parties am usually involved in instigating a deer kill: members of the public, the local government, the state. 'wildlife agency, and the media. area, many railed against the deer anct wam~ the board membe's nhat ff thl,-y did not vote m allow bow hunting on public property, they would be failing to act in The public interest. Local officials neec~. to appear responshe to residegta' conce, r~s, lest they lose coopera- tion in other matr~S or fail to be r~elcct- ed. They are usually far ~ versed in local spo~, zoniog, and ch,~nber of com- merce ac~viti~ than in wildlife manage- merit, When re.~len-'ts voic~ a concm-n loudly lind consistently, local officials i~clined to acc~e to their demands fithey 'can do so lawfully and without b~g se~n 'aS ca~ating a more serious problem than the on~ th~ are asked to solve. As long as a locullty compli~ with state. wildlife reg- ulations, it can hav~ deer killed. Sore6 stat~s have "sunshine" laws ~e4ttixing lo~al gov¢rning bodies to hold public meetings oa a ranEc of mat~rs They may ~zke up. But me fac~ that officials Ingress a d_as_i__re ~o hear all sides or tv er all of The facts is no indication tl~ Their winds ar~ not ah-eady ~ ~p, A ~oup of animal acti~Asts in Maryland were rd~ed upon findir~ thai a meetin~ publi- cized as officials wantin~ to hear red- denre' views ttned out to be a question- and-answer session about the deer kill the officials had already a1~ovexL One or moz~ membcrs of a ~overnivg body may beli~e avims_ls have zigh~s, or hold odaer humane val,e,s; the vo~e to dc~z oftell is rio[ uDpninlOuS. HOwever, deex-kill proposals ahnost always pass. Those officials who ar~ opposed rarely fi~h~ hard for the deer, choosin~ i~stead to remain silent or try to raise doubts without jeopa~dizinl; their council seats. Often invked by locsl ofiScials or resi- dents pushin~ for a de~: kill, The wikiii.fe agency ~ 'sends an agent to !y to fadlitatg hunting, mid their policies aim to manipulate deer herd sizes through killing and food and habitat '~nanagemeg." Nontethal tacthods for preventing the problems blamexl on deer have not proven efftcciv~ or ineffective for hexzt manage- merit because th6y ar~ I'lln used for herd managetlxent---'1ierd' being the term used by wilctlif~ agP. ncics to de, Dote The entiz~ population within tht.$: j u~isdictiQn, not relad~ly small number of deer in possible &~r'-kitl areas, But' many measures have been used ~o prevent .car collisions, Lymc disease, and plato damage. Lik~se, the wildlife contraceptive PZP (perclue zona peltucicla) has proven effective for px-evem- ing pregnancy in does (s~' "Wildlifo Immunecontraception: Magic Bullet or Pip~ Dream?", re1. 18, No. 2, pp. So why mislead the public by imp].yiag so f~v options exit? Unlike most state a~encie, s, those ~ with overseeing wildlife and administ/mg hunting, and trapping are not usually mnintainecl by the smt~'s general fond rcvt,-nues from Promoting deer !rills also serves wildlife agen- cies' interests by masldng the agencies' own responsi- bility for deer population growth. ~8/23/99 iON 12:37 FAX .. ~004 ..taxks and other ~ources. 'They operate 'on hunting license.fees, voluntary contributions, 'sales of d. mber fi-am "game lands;' and fcdeTal funding under the 52zyc~-old Pittman-Robeoson Act (PRA). To receive PRA funds, each. state lon~ ago passed legislation sfipula~g d~ such. mv~nu~ receive~ by d~ sr~.e can only be used by the wildlife agency. Tht. se feder- al funds go'm The agencies based on each stam's land area and thu number .-.j ::~ ~::_: '.. .- d hEnring lieBUSeS issued. ThEZ is a lmy ~eaon "scientiSt herd manage- mcne' through huutizl~ is t]~ agencies' broad and bUt~. They m.n.ge hez~ no~ to pr~vem problems in residential areas, bm to serve . and rJ~Lt burner coTmtimems. ~oz~ He~ses mus~ be pm. oha~ ~ a ~n~'hut ~:w~ch s~ s~c~es a number of h~f$ ~ed .m ~oo~ ~ ~ a ~c~1~. ~ ~ ~r a lo~ sh~shoo~ ~ by ~e loc~ go~nt. Bu~, ~ P~sylvania Oam~ Cm~ssio~ ~ ~ ~ P~l~e]phia in 1999, w~e a~cies may s~pulate ~ a 1~ii~ may ~e a · ~ ~s~ year ~t must c~nsid~ ~vol~g a.m~mde of ~mn ~ sub- iequem y~. (1998-~), ~ylv~in h~s ~ve ~eS~d 3.9 miHion de~, mum ~ U~ o~r ~e...~ ~ of ~r ~ ~ ~ ~e g~ old ~st ~ ~on ~ ~st ~m ~d popu~on '~ms, ~m is mp~ No ~ h~ m~h ~o~on ~po~s n~e, ~iclas fell~ ~, h~n~ suppo~ ~m sm~ ~c~, obj~tions ~m ~vo~. T~ ~is~ ~ ~ n~s ~ a p~u~ could obi~ w. Th~ basic charge That'deer m'B overpopulating is Rself unduly simplistic. Studies mean[ to dete, n~ine car- tying capacity--The number ar animals who can live .susmhmbly on a certain amount ofhmd~are conducted on "game lands:' not ~ residential :areas with gardenns, arborcrams, parks, 'roads, golf comes, and other places · cle, Lr~l of fores~t and providing edge lands w~th mous deer food supplies. No dam exist to show how many deer r, an live sus- Iainably in a humn n ~uviroament, so c/aims made about "optimal" numbers have no ralevanc~ w the' cOmmuni- ties whcrc deer kills a_re proposed. ff ~h~ local vega'ra- tion wt~ not sufficient to nourish time deer; the'deer would' not be The, or Their numbers would define without human inf. erfemnce. . The~ is also the cn, oneous claim u,v.d by deer-kill advocates that, because human seVaemcnt and develop- ment have eliminated p~edaT. ors who .previously con- mSll~l the de.' poputarion, we'humans must now tifffill That "ua~ral role" using bullets and arrows. However, The elimination of predamrs do~s not account .for larger herds or perceived con~ict~ in residential ar~as. According .to Run Baker, author of The Amer/c~ H~it~g M~&, '~-I~mting, whether in tl~ presence or absence of large predators, is no guaranr~i annual 'cheek' on de~ popula~ons:' Deer-ldll suppox'm~s nmst be reminded tbst natural Vredators ldll mostly ~ sick, old, or weak individuals i~ a herd, not the random (and often large and healThy) .-mlmak most ofmn ta~ert. d by hunters. This is a major distinction That greauy herd size and viabfiity. Also, natural predators eat ma~y oth~ nnimals also p~sent whe, fe deer live, and thus w. auld no~ be likely to significantly reduce urban and sub~h-ban deer populations. ' """' ' "We of'ran'think' pmdators contwl prey,.'lmt That iS rarely The'case;' says Eveland. '?my eontrois predawrs; preda~rs ~shas p~r declines. It is not the cue That .removing Wolves, cougars, and other predators causes de~r tO in~e, ase." Rmbeq~ agrees: "[elaine managers rely on a few specious ecological at~m~m to jus~y hums and other lethal [deer] reductions..Probably most wideIy used of d~se myths is T. tm presettlox~xt The same newspaper that:would 'characterize the killing of a kitten as a cruel and 'shameful act can turn around and treat the mass· slaughter of dozens, or hundreds of deer as a valuable' service that only hysterical . Barnbi-lovers could object to, pOpulations of deer were controlled by predawrs, removal of pzodawrs ~nded natt~tl oOat~}, inK1, conse- queutly, hunmrs are needed to control deer popula- tiuns....[Deet] populations .are mgulatcd through a com- ple, x.imera~on of food awn-Mlity, predators, and ottier variables." Some measures people can take to prevent deear from eating gardens--fencing, stringing nylon cord, using rei~e. llents, and planting only plaots that deex do not favor--may owr timo have Th~ added .ff~,-ct of low- 26 THE ANIMALS' AGENoA SEPTEMBEP,/0CTOBER1999 08/23/99 MON 12:38 FAX exing the local deer population or causin~ cmi~0n'. I-hmane approaches also by definition teach respect for animals and promote tolerance and coexisted.. Wh~ it comes to decr-cnr collisions, which nuta- bet about 500,000 per year according m x]~ National Safety Council, such accidcuts arc part of a much larg- er ~oblem. Urban, slrawl, facili~ed and peq~taa~d Even the American Lyme Disease Foundation has stated that {t does not recommend kiHin9 deer as a way to control Lyeme d{sease. by sociezy's de. pend~ce on cars, is ~ major factor in perceiwd co~fiicm with deer. Widespread clearing d forests for wads, housing developmenls, schools, rualls, office and industrial parks, and othe~ structures creates ~lge lands with enormous mounts of low- growing vegetation, ilmcre. uing deer food supplies and thus r~producfian rates. It is also impol~ant to note that hunling inc~ases' deer-car collisions. Dominant does~the de~r most lile- ly to ke~p Others f~om entering m.adways with cars appro~bin~-arc sometimes killed, and other herd dis-' mixions by hunters may also couuibum W accidents. A 1998 report by Erie IusuraU~, the country's' 5velfth lar~st insurer af private passuJc~ V~hicles, showed that th~ daily oumbcr of deer-related collision clairas in Penosylvania ina duriug mating season (late October-early November) and.hag season (late November-early Deceluber). Last year, Bxie Insurance rec~ed an average of 34 deer claims a 'day; that num- ber increesel] fiVefold on ~e first clay of buck s~ason and d~ season fdr '157 and 160 losses, respectively. On~ way w decreese collisions is for more People to drive less, and anou'~r is to drive moEe slowly in areas knoWn far abuudant det, r.. Activ/sts in Hudson, Obi'o, successfully aver~l a proposed de~ kill by c0m~incing otdals and ,the public that slowinl~ down for 'deer Would meau slowing down far bureau beings, ~oo. They persuaded authorities to cufo,re~ speed liraits more '~trictly and cou- sislently and to install deer wamin~ signs on the main mad in and out of wwn. They also got roadside rdlectors '.mSUdlc/l. Specially' designed to preveut ~ from enterin~ the road betw~u dusk and dawn, whr, a .most collisions .occar, the devices rdlect ~ headiigh~s in a way. tha~ ccive as a physical ban'ier between themselves, aud th~ road, Deer-car col- lisions in Hudson have since declined dramaJ~ally. ' So-called "deer whistles;' Th~ bull~t-she~d, plastic devicas m~unmd on car bumpers and designed to alert de~r,to a~to dang~. through ukra- souic soaud, have received,poor reviews: Accordiug to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, "C-eorgia's Cr, une and l~ish Departmr. nt ~ouud Lhat in hundreds of obr, ervatious from whicles'equipped with deer whistles, ~ didn't mspou&.,.Ac~ to wildlife biologists at the University of Georgia, [dr. er canDor| h~ar ultrasohio sound- Whistie, s blowu by mouth Dear captive deer produce no response:' The spread of Lyme disease is also blamed on deer tumecess~ly.' Although transmittexi by a parasite knowu as a ~ rick, Lyme disea.~ is caxdr, d by rnembe~ of many animal species. Human vi~ance, not deer kills, can preveut and mitigate the illness thTo. Ugh the use of repelleuts and prompt treatments. Bven if deer are killed, ticks' cau find oth~T hosts, includ- ing companion animals, Lik~ deer, many of The other animals tha~ carry ticks are he, foivores; um~oviug the cheer may iucrcase The amount ot food available for smaller anim~Is, causing them to Fwlifen~ and ixovide more potstie3. disease hosts. Ev~ th~ Amcricau Lyme Dise, as~ Formclarion has stated ~hat it does not recomm~d killing de~ as ~ way to coulxol Lyme, disease. The mauer of suburban deer is s. c0mplcx On~ with differut answers for different locafioUs and cimumstanCes. It is critical that rlmsc wishing protect'deer from harm become fumilisr with'the f'~ts and s~e to jt that. other cidzens 'and decision-mak~l-s arc also educated. It is in everyortc's best ioterest to find reasonshie, r. ffective ways to preveut problems befor~ 'they occur, and to protect the well-being of huznaus ucl deer alike. David I. Can~or'is a self-employed consultanz wo'rkin~ for animals full-timg from his horns off~c~ near Philaddphia. SEFTT. MBr.-R/OC'rOBER 1999 THE ANnMAL.S' A~ENoA 27 ~ 0o5 88-2~-99 13:88 KKB CO. ID=3193732019 P.01 August 24. 1999 Iowa City Council Members Iowa City Dear Council Members, I urge the council to reconsider using White Buffalo to manage the deer herd by sharpshooting. The sharpshooting is a short-term solution which is very expensive. Strelter Reflectors,crossing signs. fencing, reduced speed limits and educating the public would reduce and prevent deer/human conflicts. The cost of these abatements are minimal compared to sharpshooting. which would have to be done year after year. For the last two years we have had record deer harvests in Iowa. It looks like hunting only makes the problem worse. Please take the time to look into humane alternatives. Sincerely, Jackie Baumhauer 08-24-99 13:88 KKB CO. ID:3193732019 P.02 DEER TASK FORCE MINUTES - June 10, 1998 - present: Rich H, Larry, hiar~SL_auriel~toe Absent: Harlo (teaching assignment), Rich P, Dave, Fritz, Audrey :~.C) ~' Visitors: Tim Thompson (DNR) and two citizens >~ ~ Meeting catled to order at 6:30 p.m, C)_ C) ~" Gary N provided hm~douts from Rich P: a recommendation letter from Rich, corres'~_~nc~and items eonceming lethal methods. As this night had been set aside for non-tethal discUsSion, l~ara and Laurie voiced their objection as Gary had asked not allowed them to provid~non-l~'ml inIbrmation at lethal meetings. Gary provided the information in spite of the concerns. Larry mentioned that he will be gone the next two meetings and may write up his recommendations, too. Rich H mentioned that he will be in Chicago next Wednesday and that he may submit his recommendations. Someone suggested that we might all want to write up our recomm~dations. One visitor passed around a check from Heritage bank that had "protect our wildlife" and two deer. He asked us to be mind~tl of that message. Dr. Thomas Eveland's videotape with answers to DTF questions was shown: Q: Do hunted deer populations have an increase in reproduction in the spring following a fizll hunt? Yes. This is called maximum sustained ytdd. In hunted populations, does go through winter in healthier condi,.ion because more food is available and have more fawns in the spring. Q: The DNR told the deer task force that 98% of the deer alive today will be alive in a year without hunting. 18 this true? Don't' hunted populations tend to maintain or increase numbers annually because of the post-fall hunt spring reproduc.aon rates? Q.' The DNR told the deer task force that if we do nothing, the deer population will double every 3-4 years. is this true for a non-hunted urban population? For a non-hunted rural population7 The numbers in both questions refer to exponential growth rates. Deer numbers don't increase exponentially. With ideal circumstances a herd will increase and will eventually balance as circumstances change. The herd will fall into waves. A few years the herd will be above the em'ing capacity of the land ~d vegetation will disappear and then there will be y~ars that the herd is below the caring capacity of the land and vegetation will re-establish and grow. Long term non- hunted populations still have vegetation and trees. The DNR needs to back both these statements up with sei~ti~e data. Herd growth has not continued for more than a decade. Humans are not the only thing to control herds. Nature controls herds by: (1) starvation and thirst, (2) pmdators, (3) disease and parasite, (4) hot and cold extremes, and (5) accidents. Wildlife managers view deer killed other than by a hunter as a lost resource. A deer killed by a hunter guarantees that hunter will hum again next year. The Wildlife Management Handbook has 6 pages of names of contributing wildlife managers. Page 248 (he believes) states that deer populations regulate themselves without hunting. Wildlife managers should not force hunting down people's throats where herds have self- regulated. Cedar Rapids may be one of those areas. Q: The DNR told the deer task force that a fawn born last year will have one fawn this year, twins in year 2 and triplets in year8 3,4 and 5. Is this true? F~hat factors govern litter size? Page I of 4 08-~-99 13:09 ~KB CO. ID=319373~019 P.03 These are exponential growth figures again. Litter size is governed by genetics, nutritional value and availability of food, and age of the doe. A healthy 3 or 4 year otd doe shoutd have 2 fawns. Ira hcrct has more adults (non-hunted populations) there will be a rcctuction in Fawning rates. In the Poohones there has bccn no hunting for 35 years. There have been fluctuations ~ deer sightines. Two five year old does killed by cars w~re nccropsied. There were no e~_ryos I~their You could wait to see if the population has balanced. ' ' ' ~ := (~ Q: The DNR tom the deer task force that if we have a deer refuge in the city, the deer population won't control itself FFon 't a non-hunted population self- regulate? Non-hunted populations do self-regulate. With a refuge you have a p0xeel with doer on it surrounded by hunting. During hunting season you will have more deer on the parcel because deer learn it is safe on the parcel- Q: What part does land use planning (includingplanning for wildhfe corridors, green belts and avoiding deer habitat) play in reducing human/deer conflict and increasing tolerance?. Isn't this a key part ofeffecn've deer herd management? Green belts and corridors are good, Cities don't have enough. In the inner city you have cockroaches, rats and pigeons. With green areas you have raccoons, skunk and deer. Who would you rather tivc with? Q: You gave an example of a city that did nothing for one year and complaints about deer decreased. Do you know of other communities that have experienced success in using non-lethal methods.? "Success" defined as resulting in greater tolerance by humans because they're learned what re do to reduce browse and deer/vehicle accidents. State departments have created an "us vs, them" situation, This is not a proper ethical or mt~ral view ofwildlife/human relations. It is "us". Don't take a combative attitude. Animals cat vegetation to cat. It is not intentional or criminal. We have been wrongly conditioned by the State departments to pit humans against animals. After awhile you want all the animals dead. Green corridors do control herds and moverneat. They allow us to condition animals. We san do things with Fences. Fences have conditioncd de~r along Interstate 80 to alter their erossing routes, Deer/vehicle accidents: New York, Pennsylvania and New Jffsey looked at this. The only way to avoid accidents is to eliminate all the deer. You need to get people to drive defensively. People need to know where deer arc crossing. Put deer maps in police stations. Havc police officers put a pin where they saw a deer crossing or a dead deer. You will sec patterns developing. Ira dccr is hit at a certain location, you know deer arc crossing there. Put up signs - deer crossing and speed limits. Publish township maps in the newspaper to let people know where deer arc crossing. Give people a way to deal with the issu=s. You need a muRi-level approach - with or without hunting, Cedar Rapids is a r~fttgc and [t has a green bclt. You must determine if citizen complaints about damage are legitimate. Have public meetings to show how to deal with animals. Show deterrents: chemicals, fencing, netting. Page 2 of 4 08-24-99 13:09 KKB (:;0. ID=319:3732019 P.04 Have v~ndors set up boot~ on a Saturday ~d let ~m sell items. These ~ wil~ais~ community tole~ce. People need to feel they Mvc some~ng to t~e b~k ~d t~ ~ -- You need to have no hunting on some parce~ of i~d for biological rayons W~ sc~om~ non-hunting ~cu ~idc. Wc're dcs~nS ~imals 'genetically by hunting the. ' m ~ There ~ no example of a major area seriously dutroyed by d~r. Deer n~b ~ ~embcr ~c DN~ ~c ~ot rote biolo~sts. ~ey ~e wiMli[e a~cult~alists. T~ill co ' human3 to wfldti~c preston. T~s i~ not ~ ~curate comp~son. ~ildlffc prc~ator~ suC~8 wolves will 1oo~ for ~c w,~ m~bcr ~d ~ll t~at one. ~~ will 1oo~ at the s~c h~d look for ~c bibcat buck. Each h~ ~lled ~ ~m~ but ~ey ~¢ qualitatively 180 dc~ opposi~. The wolf removed the wc~ member. ~c hm~ remov~ the cm~ afthe crop. This is not good genetically. Hum~ h~ters do more ha gcn~c~ly tha good. Bowhunang in State par~ and refuges. Be c~c~i b~ause it may cost ~e w~. You will ~ger a g~a~ nmnbcr of people. Bowh~g is a recreation~ p~uit, not a fore ofhe~ ~n~l. You may ~ock down deer for a ye~ or ~o b~a~e d~r a tree ~d not ~d of people. ~e success rate will drop u deer be~mc a~aid ofhum~. There c~ be i~able dmagc done in the event of ~ inj~ed deer with clfil~en ~or the press. ~e ~age ofbowh~t~g f~ ou~ei~ the baefits ofbowhm~fing hx ~ges, pas ~d cities. ~¢ State depacnts ne~ to be v~ c~e~l where push h~ting pings. A dc~ with a ~w in it may go i/4 to ~ miles before it dies. Bowhunting is not a~t spu~. In ~ Illinois state p~k ~x~g~~ bo~n~~ I~en out 8 were found dead insidc the p~k. This is a ~o to one rat[gY ......... _ ............ . ......_.. ings do~. You don't bavc to m~ a d~ision now. Don't be pr~ss~ ~to a situation. ~imals s. W~fing won't m~ exponenfi~ population growth. Ask ~e D ~ ~oup unanimously a~ed to view the psychiatrist potion of ~c HiSbled Park video. Dr. David Rosenberg: the psyehologic~! effects of hunting. There is no litera~r~ on the effect of ~illing d~ on ~ul~ ~d children. ~e impo~t question here is how we conv~y to you~ we w~t them ~d o~sclv~s to be.. How do we problem solve. We o~en unintentionally convey inFo~ation. Ex~plc of a spider on a play~o~d and one student quite excited ~d bringing ~he t~achcr over ~o help. The t~acher calmly s~d yes ~at is the spid~r's house ~d left it W~ c~ b~ ~cafiv~ wh~ wc ~n't ~g~, ~en't in a hu~ ~d ~n't too pressured. If w~ have pr~s~ to kill, ~ m~sage to ~ds is the ~ick fix ~s bc~er ~ sometMn~ more thou~tful. ~c qmc~ fix won't fix it. ~c quick fix will poise the co~unity. People talk about d~b ~imals ~ d~b ~. Exmple of spid~ ~at ch~gcs its web ~tly to irakate ~hc silhouc~c of a flower t~t a o~fl~n fly l~es. Ira fly is cau~t and escapes, it won't gc~ caught again. Point: ~mals tcm ~om e~h o~er. We must giv~ the m~ssage wc w~t rot ourselves and our childre: b, thoughtful, bc careeel, genius a~d b~ a co~uni~. Review of Eveland's video: I. Deer don't grow exponentially, Herd will balance, Some years above caring capacity of the land and some years below. Site specific considerations arc needed, Long term non-hunted populations still have vegetation and trees Drive d6cr defensively. Page 3 of 4 08-24-99 13:10 KKB CO. ID=31937321D19 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Post maps in P.D. and have police officers pin deer crossing and dead deer locations. Populations found in a refuge may be skewed because deer may use the refuge to escape huntcrs. Publish decr maps. Post deer crossing and speed limit signs. Forums and educational sessions will bring peace to thc community. Sort out lcgitimatc citizen complaints from invalid complaints. Bowhunting is divisivc and ineffective for population conlrol. Need a multi-level approach. Hunting distorts genetics. Hunters take the strong and wildlife predators take the weak. Hcrds arc controlled by nature by: (l) starvation and thirst, (2) prod.tots, (3) disease and parasites, (4) hot and cold extremes, and (5) accidcnts. You have maximum sustained yield in hunted populations.(Nurnbers killed ~ough ~ting are r~placed via reproduction), Eveland is a hunter. Educational Program Discussion - what to educate 'and how WHAT HOW planrings deterrents: repcllents, fencing, netting cxc[osure high deer density areas Idled use planning (corridors, ctc) [ymc disease safe driving - children/adults reporting incidents/accidents control method Driver' s education maps Associations: homebuilders, Realtors, ctc Shows: Home & garden show, etc. Brochure (include in water bill?) Video Newspaper Public service announcements Groups: youth, ere Workshops: nursery, nature center, ere (Including vendor booths) Radio/iv spots Provide speakers bureau Ordinances (nonfeeding, fence heights, builder/realtor disclosure) lnara recommended use of ad hoc committees for educational programs that include DTF members and citizens. lnara showed a map ,using DNR zones and deer numbers, comparing 1996 and 1997 populations. Over half of the zones had a decrease in population. Maps will be distributed June 17Lh. Inara asked Gary if citizens had reported incidents since we gave Dale Todd the Incident Form a month ago. Gary said he calls Dales' office before each meeting and there have been no reports. Laurie and Rich H will mcct with Captain Brceg Friday re stroller lights. Adjourned: 8:40 p.m. Submitted by: Laurie C. Stone Page ~t of 4 88/19/1999 20:04 702-658-8150 PAGE 01 AuguSt 19, 1999 Dear City Council: JZ I!UG CITY This letter is to express my opposition to the slaughter of deer in your city. I'm sure you are aware that lethal deer control is entirely ineffective. Deer populations quickly rebound from slaughter through increased productivity and survival rates. There is no evidence to justify the slaughter of deer in Iowa City. There is no valid information on deer impacts to residents or natural areas, deer/vehicle accidents are relatively low, and Lyme disease is not a problem. Education, not killing, is the most efficient and humane means of addressing wildlife/human conflicts. Though deer/human conflicts are not of significant concern in Iowa City, educating the residents now about the multiple tools available to reduce and prevent deer/human conflicts would be far more cost-effective and humane than promoting and encouraging a deer slaughter. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Debra Steinberg 3328 Buffalo Narrows Circle Las Vegas, NV 89129 Iowa City Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan Contact: City Manager's Office, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5010 Approved by Committee: August 16, 1999 Approved by Council: COMMITTEE MEMBERS Jan Ashman Charlie Duffy Pat Farrant Loren Forbes Ron Fort Misha Goodman-Herbst Lisa Mollenhauer Steve Hendrix Doug Jones Bud Louis Judy Rhodes Nancy Seiberling (City of Coralville - vacant) (Iowa City Resident Living in Area with Deer - vacant) The Committee acknowledges that while we have members who are professionals in some of these fields, we are not a collective body of expert wildlife specialists, biologists, traffic engineers, mathematicians, or politicians. This plan has been formulated taking into consideration documented evidence, review of other communities with similar situations, advice from Iowa Department of Natural l~esources staff, and our belief of what would be most accepted by and effective for our community. We do not believe it is possible for every component of a deer management plan to be accepted by every member of the committee or every resident of Iowa City. This plan contains compromise, respect, and understanding of many different voices. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCE ADVISORS Tim Dorr Jim Jansen Willy Suchy Tim Thompson Joe Wilkinson Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT The 1999 Iowa City/Coralville Deer Management Committee has determined that deer management within the corporate limits is a necessary duty of the City to ensure that the health of the herd is maintained, that plant and other animal life which make up the ecosystems of the natural areas in the city are not irreparably damaged or destroyed, and to ensure the safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the city and prevent major damage to their property by deer. The Committee recognizes that deer management is an ongoing .process which must be continued from year to year. The City should continue gathering information and evaluating its efforts. The Committee affirms the value of the presence of deer as a natural resource within the city limits and encourages individuals to become better educated about ways to coexist with deer. It is not the intent of the Committee to recommend eradication of deer from within the city limits. It is also clear that the size of the herd in numerous parts of the community has reached levels which endanger the lives of the inhabitants (from deer/vehicles accidents), increases the destruction of plantings in people's yards, and ultimately disrupts the ecosystem in the area. In a natural setting, a deer population would eventually stabilize or possibly decrease due to lack of food and/or increased disease. Inside our city limits, deer have an abundant supply of food. Starvation and disease are unlikely to stem the increasing numbers. Widespread damage to our natural areas has been observed and deer/human conflicts will probably increase despite of our efforts to improve our community's tolerance of deer. For these reasons, by unanimous agreement, the Committee determined it will be necessary to kill deer during the winter of 1999/2000. The Committee advises, after careful review of management issues, that the most preferable means to stop the growth and eventually reduce members of the herd is by killing in the form of sharpshooting. HISTORY In 1997, in response to citizen complaints, the City Council established a deer management committee to recommend a management plan. Council appointed members representing the following interests: City of Iowa City staff, Iowa City/Coralville Animal Shelter, Iowa City Police Department, hunters, Project GREEN, residents of area heavily populated with deer, residents of area not heavily populated with deer, animal protection, science/nature/biology, Iowa Wildlife Federation, City of Coralville staff, residents of Coralville, and Johnson County Board of Supervisors. The Committee divided the Iowa City/Coralville community into twenty Deer Management Districts. The districts were determined using natural and man-made barriers as lines of division and taking into consideration the ability to implement management techniques in each district. After reviewing deer population, deer/vehicle accidents, deer management plans from numerous other communities, comments from citizens, and advice from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Committee recommended and Council approved a multi-component management plan. The plan consisted of initiating an education program, use of reflectors/warning signs, consideration of deer when constructing/renovating arterial streets, and the killing of 180 deer by sharpshooting over bait and trap and kill. For deer management purposes, the most commonly-accepted number of deer an urban setting can sustain is 20-25 per square mile. Based on recommendations from the DNR and review of management plans from other communities, the Committee established the following guidelines: 0-24 deer/square mile Educate residents about living with deer. 25-34 deer/square mile Review on a complaint-by-complaint basis. Educational material may be recommended or killing methods implemented depending on the management area, number of complaints, and/or evidence of types of damage. 35+ deer/square mile Reduction must be implemented. At this level, deer pose threat to the ecosystem. Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 2 - Upon initial review of Iowa City's 1997 plan, the of DNR rejected sharpshooting as an option for urban deer management. After comprehensive assessment of Iowa City's situation, state DNR officials concurred that bow and arrow hunting alone would not be effective in reducing the necessary number of deer. DNR staff recommended and, on February 12, 1998, the Natural Resource Commission approved, Iowa City's request to sharpshoot deer. In addition, City officials worked with legislators to amend the State of Iowa Code to allow the use of artificial light over bait for the purpose of urban deer management. There was not enough time remaining in the season to initiate a sharpshooting program for 1997/1998; however, a permit was authorized for September 1, 1998, through February 28, 1999. On October 21, 1998, the Deer Management Committee forwarded an identical plan to the City Council for approval, with the number of deer to be killed increased to 240 due to births since the last recommendation. Council approved the plan on December 1. The City contracted with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to sharpshoot. Nineteen deer were shot on January 20, 1999 (8 adult does, 6 fawn does, and 5 fawn males) and three deer were shot on January 21, 1999 (1 adult doe and 2 fawn males). All adult does were pregnant. On January 20, one deer was shot and dropped immediately. Upon return to collect the animal, USDA officials noted it was gone. No dead deer were reported with a similar injury. Animal rights groups filed a request for an injunction against the USDA in federal court which halted shooting activity until a federal judge could review the points of contention. The request for injunctive relief alleged that the USDA had failed to meet federal procedural requirements before sharpshooting. The window of shooting authorization expired before mediation eventually settled the litigation. The 1999/2000 Deer Management Committee met from April 21, 1999, through August 16, 1999 (minutes included as Attachment A). REVIEW OF DATA POPULATION SURVEYS Two helicopter surveys of the Iowa City/Coralville deer population have been conducted. 1997 & 1999 Deer Helicopter Counts 1997 Deer/ 1999 Deer/ Area Description District Acreage Sq. Mile Deer Sq. Mile Deer Sq. Mile South Peninsula 2 & 3 590 0.922 69 75 154 167 Dubuque Street to Dodge Street 4 & 5 780 1.219 78 64 90 74 Dubuque Street to Hwy 1 (N of 1-80) 6 560 0.875 37 42 60 69 Hickory Hill/ACT 7 1280 2.000 65 33 127 64 Iowa River (S) 12 720 1.125 11 10 15 13 Clear Creek West 15 1510 2.359 49 21 111 47 Clear Creek East 16 890 1.391 49 35 79 57 Willow Creek 17 280 0.438 3 7 0 0 Finkbine 16 (U of I) 370 0.578 6 10 31 54 1-380 to H965 (N) Coralville 2070 3.234 35 11 26 8 H965 to 1st (N) Coralville 1980 3.094 97 31 117 38 H965 to 1st (S) Coralville 1485 2.320 39 17 59 25 12,515 19.555 538 28 869 44 A 62% increase was demonstrated between 1997 and 1999. Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 3 - A 62% increase was demonstrated between 1997 and 1999. Deer count conditions were as follows: January 31, v' Surveyors: v' Navigator: v' Conditions: Technique: Results: 1997 Tim Thompson and Dale Garner (DNR) Ron Fort (Iowa City Police Department) Temperature 45 degrees F, wind 15 to 30 mph SW, sky clear and sunny, snow cover 5" and melting Parallel back and forth flight pattern by management district, counting only deer actually viewed (no estimations) 538 total deer · January 19, 1999 Surveyors: Navigator: Conditions: Technique: Results: Tim Thompson and Dennis Proctor (DNR) Lisa Mollenhauer (City Manager's Office) Temperature 28 degrees F, wind 3-7 mph W, sky clear and sunny, snow cover 1-2" new snow on top of 1 O" old snow Parallel back and forth flight pattern by management district, counting only deer actually viewed (no estimations) 869 total deer The Committee used the following formula to arrive at numbers of deer to be killed. The "minimum" number is approximately 30% of the herd count and represents the number needed to be killed in order to stabilize the deer population. It is a general rule that deer tend to increase in numbers by approximately 30% each year. The "recommended" number takes into consideration how many square miles make up each district and allows for 35 deer per each of those square miles. For example, the Hickory Hill district consists of 2 square miles of land, so up to 70 deer could conceivably live in that area without widespread damage to the ecosystem. There are presently 127 deer there, so 57 need to be killed. Although this is an unscientific method, until we conduct a successful he~d reduction program and begin to reach numbers closer to the desired numbers, the Committee believes a more exacting projection is not needed. The Committee requested that the DNR provide a projection of the number of deer to be killed in order to realize our goal of 35 deer per square mile in each of the affected districts (see Attachment B). The DNR advises 30 deer per square mile to allow a bit of flexibility so the districts are not constantly stressed with the maximum number of deer. Their recommendation indicates the number of does to be killed. Typically in an urban management program, one buck is killed for every three does. The DNR numbers are listed as the "maximum" deer to be killed in each district. The Committee established a range so that we can have a benchmark for success. Many factors are involved in the ability to achieve success such as access to private property, weather conditions at the time of the shoot, and how hungry the deer are. (It would be gratifying to kill the minimum number of deer.) The Committee wishes to avoid use of a sole target number to measure success. It should be emphasized that herd reduction will be an ongoing activity for the city, and the complexities of management require constant evaluation. The Council relies on the Committee for the information needed to make decisions regarding management of the herd. No one can predict exactly how many deer are inside the City limits or how many will die/survive any given year. The variables include weather, traffic volume on streets and roads, available forage, incidence of animal disease, reproductive rates, the success of reduction programs in any given district, the degree of harassment during shoots, development of land, deer movement, and willingness of residents to allow deer reduction to be conducted on their property. We believe that Iowa City can create a successful management program over time. We have attempted to respond to citizen concern for the method of death by choosing to use sharpshooting over any other Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 4 - method. We also recognize that no matter what method is chosen, it may take years before the program is successfully established. Recommendation: Based on the 1999 helicopter population survey, the Committee approved the following deer population reduction guideline: Minimum Recommended Maximum * South~,~PeninsUla : Di~icts 2 ~and3i::iii:ii!: 46 122:: · DubuqUe::Street to :DodgeStreet Districts:::4and!i5 :;:: :27 ::~ :47 Dubuque Street to Hwy I (N of 1-80) District 6 18 29 Hicko~iHill/ACT : District 7 ': 3:8!: 57 Clear Creek West District 15 33 28 Clear Creek East District 16 24 30 Totals 186 313 :120 60 115 70 70 550 * Number of does to kill. Assuming that for every three does killed, one buck will also be removed, then to reach the number of 550 does, 733 deer will need to be killed. The :Committee recommends the City =focus on:Districts 2i: 3, 4, 5, and 7. Deer killed should be processed and distributed free of charge to low- to-moderate income residents. If requested, reproductive autopsies, to increase knowledge of Iowa City's deer herd, should be allowed. DEER-VEHICLE ACCIDENTS (1998 and 1999 To-Date Report - Attachment C) The Iowa City Police Department is responsible for collecting deer/vehicle accident information. Police staff prepared annual maps--1996 through 1999 (to-date)--that indicate locations and dates of reported accidents. Those maps are available for review at the City Clerk's Office and City Manager's Office. Results are as follows: Number Reported# 9 Damage Estimate * Number in Reflector Areast 1996 15 N/A 2 1997 31 932,505 7 1998 50 958,870 4 1999(to-date) 38 937,200 4 # Includes deer reported dead along roadways (vehicle left scene of accident). * Damage estimates performed by police staff, not certified repair personnel. If estimate is over 91,000, claimant and police must file special state report. t Time of accident and reflector position/maintenance influence effectiveness. Reflectors were installed on Dubuque Street (38 posts) in September of 1994 and N. Dodge (152 posts) in the spring of 1997. Construction on N. Dodge initiated in summer of 1998 is temporarily displacing many reflectors. The deer/vehicle accident reporting process was improved beginning with the 1999 report. Each accident is now assigned a reference number and the date, time, location, property damage amount, and miscellaneous comments are included. It appears reflectors are successful .in reducing the number of accidents. It is important to remember that they are only effective during darkness and they are a high maintenance item. Speed reductions along Dubuque Street, North Dodge Street, and Rochester Avenue are not recommended. In a memorandum, Traffic Engineering Planner Doug Ripley summarized results of speed studies on North Dubuque Street and Rochester Avenue. 85th percentlie speeds were measured, which indicate the general comfort level of drivers and is the measurement generally used for determining the appropriate speed limit. The speed a motorist travels is primarily a function of comfort level and not the posted speed limit. Speed limits should be set so there is compliance by most motorists, otherwise they create an enforcement problem for police. Artificially low speed limits not only create enforcement headaches but also general disrespect for speed limits including areas where lower speed limits may be appropriate. On Dubuque Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 5 - Street, the average speed was 39.5 miles per hour in the 35 mph zone and the 85th percentile speeds were 42 mph. On Rochester Avenue, two locations were studied. On the eastern portion, 85th percentile speeds were 33 mph. Further west, 85th percentile speeds were 42 mph. Therefore, the speed limits, based on the information collected, are appropriately set at 35 mph. Reducing them below 35 mph will not reduce actual driving speeds. Defensive driving information compiled by the Committee was forwarded to the local school contact for inclusion in driver education courses in Iowa City. Recommendation: Due to increased numbers of deer/vehicle accidents during 1998 in these areas, the Committee recommends extending the Dubuque Street reflectors south from Foster Road to Kimball Road and installation along Rochester between First Avenue and Scott Boulevard. Also recommended are five deer warning signs - one to be placed at each of the following locations in conjunction with reflectors: southbound Dubuque Street north of Foster Road, northbound N. Dodge Street near Saint Matthias Street, southbound N. Dodge Street near ACT Circle, westbound Rochester Avenue west of Scott Boulevard, and eastbound Rochester Avenue east of First Avenue. Foster Road received consideration for warning signs and/or reflectors but was denied due to renovation projected to occur from mid-July through December 1999. EDUCATION Information regarding Iowa City's approach to deer management, emphasizing methods to assist residents with ways to live with deer, should be available upon request. A brochure outlining the 1998 plan was created and made available. Deer Management information is accessible utilizing Infovision on Government Channel 4. The 1999/2000 Committee published a couple "Living with Deer" paid display ads that ran in the Iowa City Press Citizen. City staff and Committee members, when asked, have participated in classroom discussions, presentations, and radio call-in programs. Recommendation: Committee members recommend publication of a 1999/2000 Deer Management brochure. This brochure should be made available at the Civic Center and Public Library. Information should include the "Living with Deer" series. Committee members also recommend production of an educational video that would be available for check-out from the Iowa City Public Library and would also run periodically on Government Channel 4. As the City's website is developed, the 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan, including the "Living with Deer" information, should be available on-line. POPULATION REDUCTION OPTIONS The most difficult task for the 1999/2000 committee was to determine acceptable methods for herd reduction. The following options were considered. 1. Contraception Because of drug safety issues, FDA approval has yet to be given for general use of immunocontraceptives on free-ranging deer. The Committee reaffirms its interest in the progress and results of tests using immunocontraception. 2. Trap and Relocate The Committee assumed the use of a box trap. Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 6 - · Is it humane? A properly constructed trap is unlikely to injure the deer. If the trap is checked with sufficient frequency, the trapped animal is unlikely to suffer significant trauma from the stay in the trap. To minimize trauma in transport, trapped animals must not be held for long prior to transport. Even with prompt transport, experience with trap and relocate methods suggests that a 4% mortality rate is to be expected during transport, 26% delayed mortality due to stress induced by the experience, and between 58% and 85% mortality in the following months. In summary, while well-intentioned, trap and relocation of deer cannot be considered humane. For this reason, the Committee opposes this method. · Is it safe? Properly managed box traps pose very little risk to people. · Is it effective? No, considering the high mortality rate of transported deer and the fact that few sites in the Midwest have the combination of adequate habitat, low deer population and willing human stewards that this method requires. This method is selective; if only does are to be relocated, bucks caught in a trap may be easily released. Dart and relocate was considered briefly. The cost of trapping by dart is comparable to the cost of sharpshooting. The Committee sees no distinction,between trapping and darting when relocation is used. The results of relocation are the same. The Committee concluded that trap/dart and relocate is neither humane nor effective. · What does it cost? The cost depends on trap placement and deer population. Frequency of trap monitoring adds uncertainty. North Oaks, Minnesota reports a cost per deer capture of 8131. Urban trapping for live release has been reported to cost between $113 and 8800 in Wisconsin and Long Island, respectively; total costs including transport have been reported in the 8300 to 81,000 range. Highland Park, IL reported a cost of $3,074 per deer to relocate 20 deer. Eight months after transport, 11 of the 20 were reported dead. Frequent trips with small numbers of deer are more humane but more expensive. · Is it legal? Currently, the Iowa DNR does not recommend this method for deer, but it is routinely used for dealing with waterfowl and small animals. · Committee Conclusion The Committee does not view trap and relocate as an option due to the high mortality rate, the possible high monetary costs, and the unavailability of areas to relocate deer. 3. Bow Hunting Suggested regulations for bow hunting in urban areas assume that the hunter shoots from a fixed stand, waiting there until the deer comes to the hunter. Stalking or driving deer is not permitted. While the use of elevated stands is common, it is not required. The Committee assumed the imposition of strict hunter education and certification standards such as have been adopted in Waterloo/Cedar Falls in addition to regulations governing hunter behavior. These have a demonstrated track record of directly addressing some of the more severe criticisms of the humanehess and effectiveness of bow hunting. Without these, the Committee's judgment of bow hunting would be more harsh. Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 7 - Some Committee members reject bow hunting under any circumstance, some members do not oppose bow hunting for urban management, and some members view it as the only possible method to kill deer if legal action stops sharpshooting. · Is it humane? Bow hunting rarely leads to instantaneous death. Estimates by hunters indicate that bow hunting cripples more animals than gun hunting. A crippling injury is defined as one which does not kill, and after which the hunter fails to find and kill the injured animal. The Waterloo/Cedar Falls and Dubuque experiences suggest a significant degree of success. Recent studies appear to confirm the notion that crippling rates from bow hunting in relatively cramped settings such as those encountered in urban deer management are indeed lower than the crippling rates reported for bow hunting in general. The only scientific studies the Committee found to review were conducted by bow-hunting advocacy groups or funded by archery-related industries. · Is it safe? All evidence indicates that urban bow hunts are safe. No evidence of injury to individuals appears in any of the programs reviewed. · Is it effective? It can be, assuming that sufficient numbers of hunters are willing to comply with the additional regulations governing hunting within City limits. Last year, hunters killed 74 deer inside Dubuque city limits and an additional 98 were killed in the area surrounding the city. However, in districts where killing of large numbers of deer is recommended, bow and arrow hunting alone would be ineffective in reducing the population. Bow hunting is moderately selective. The hunting season is before the bucks shed their antlers, so gender is fairly easy to determine. Hunting traditions place a high value on killing older bucks - the so- called trophy bucks with large and many-branched antlers. This is of little use if population control is the goal. If bow hunting is to be used as an effective component of a population control plan, hunters must be induced to kill does. · What does it cost? The costs of a DNR-administered hunt are largely borne by the individual hunters who, through license fees, pay for the cost of regulating the hunt. These costs are partially offset by the value of the meat taken. DNR generally relies on individual hunters to police other hunters. The cost to the City is minimal, · Is it legal? Yes, currently bow hunting is the only legal method of urban deer population control allowed by the Iowa DNR. · Committee Conclusion The Committee does not recommend bow hunting as an option for Iowa City because most members view it as inhumane. In addition, the Committee does not regard Iowa City's deer management as a recreational activity or sport for hunters and does not wish to encourage such a concept. The Committee recognizes, however, that bow hunting is a legal option that poses slight- to no-litigation risk, and some members have voiced interest in a bow hunting component in Iowa City's management plan. Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 8 - [The Committee unanimously agreed that archery sharpshooting be allowed if performed by and at the discretion of the professional contractor in areas where rifle sharpshooting would not be recommended. Upon investigation by the Committee, the contractor indicated that if archery-sharpshooting were to be performed by professionals only, the method would be too costly ($500-$600 per deer) and ineffective in reducing large numbers of deer due to their limited staff. Therefore, the Committee decided to omit archery-sharpshooting from the 1999/2000 plan.] 4. Trap and Kill The Committee assumes the use of a baited box trap or modified clover trap. Trapping is typically done in mid- to late-winter. The Committee assumed that trapped animals would be killed by a gunshot to the head. Deer meat acquired by this method of slaughter is suitable for human consumption. · Is it humane? A properly constructed trap is unlikely to injure the deer, and if the trap is checked with sufficient frequency, the trapped animal iS unlikely to suffer significant trauma from the stay in the trap. The killing methods assumed are instantaneous and therefore humane. · Is it safe? Properly managed box traps pose very little risk to people. This method is the only lethal method of deer population control safe enough to use in fully developed urban settings. · Is it effective? Yes, but only to remove small numbers of deer. As with trapping and relocation, this method is selective. Deer may be released if they are not of the desired age and sex. Dart and kill was briefly considered. Cost of darting is approximately the same as sharpshooting. · What does it cost? The cost per deer trapped depends on trap placement, deer population, and weather conditions. The frequency of trap monitoring and the possibility that those who monitor the traps may have other duties between visits to the trap adds complexity. North Oaks, Minnesota reports a cost per deer capture of $131. The cost of carcass disposal or butchering must also be considered. Minnetonka, Minnesota has reported total costs of $209-$214 per deer, including meat processing. · Is it legal? The Iowa DNR has authorized use of box traps for the killing of deer in Iowa City. · Committee Conclusion The Committee does not recommend use of trap and kill. With the high number of deer recommended to be killed, the monetary and staff time costs associated with trap and kill would not justify the number of deer killed. 5. Sharpshooting The Committee assumed the use of trained sharpshooters, shooting high-powered rifles over bait from a blind or other set position at night with the use of artificial light, typically in late fall through the winter so the deer are hungry and easily attracted by bait. The bait must be approximately 50 yards from the sharpshooter to allow accurate shooting without the deer sensing a human presence. Deer meat taken this way is suitable for human consumption. Winter 199912000 Deer Management Plan - 9 - · Is it humane? A high-powered rifle can cause instantaneous death; from the point of view of the individual deer, no method of killing is more humane. Of all weapons for killing at a distance, high-powered rifles are the least likely to inflict an inhumane wound, one that cripples, or kills slowly. The likelihood of such injuries is reduced even more by using trained sharpshooters and a bait station to attract and hold deer for the kill. '· Is it safe? All evidence indicates that urban sharpshooting initiatives are safe. No evidence of injury to individuals appears in any of the programs reviewed. · Is it effective? Assuming there is an appropriate range, yes. This is the method of choice for urban deer population control in Illinois and in some Minnesota and Wisconsin communities. Deer age and sex can be hard to determine at a distance at night, particularly in the winter after the antlers have been shed. Other communities utilizing sharpshooting, however, have determined sex selection to not be a prohibiting factor. Studies have shown, and DNR advisors concurred, that sharpshooting is more effective at reducing larger numbers of deer than bow and arrow hunting, the only current legal method in Iowa. · What does it cost? The City contracted with the USDA in 1998 at a rate of $175 per deer, an amount estimated to cover costs alone. Bloomington, Minnesota has reported average costs of $183-$194 per deer in 1993. Costs as high as $260 have been reported in the Chicago metro area. A report from Wisconsin estimates $74 per deer (excluding processing). The cost of carcass disposal or butchering must also be considered; the Ruzickas Locker in Solon has agreed to charge $35 to grind process a field dressed, transported deer to 1-pound packages. · Is it legal? This method involves night shooting over bait, with lights and high-powered rifles. In the past, the Iowa DNR has approved sharpshooting as a method authorized for the City of Iowa City. · Committee Conclusion The Committee recommends sharpshooting as the most effective, efficient, and humane method for reducing the Iowa City deer population. Private properties should be allowed as sharpshooting sites with the permission of land owners/occupants and adhering to all laws, regulations, and safety concerns. The private contractor would arrange with property owners/occupants for use of their land. Recommendation: Committee members recommend sharpshooting as the method to reduce the population of Iowa City's deer herd. After investigation of private contractors, the Committee recommends White Buffalo, Inc. as the agency of choice for sharpshooting at a cost estimated to be $200-$250 per field- dressed, transported deer. Information on White Buffalo, Inc. is included as Attachment D. Members also recommend that White Buffalo, Inc. assess the feasibility of a deer contraception study in Iowa City. Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 10 - CITIZEN COMMENTS A voice-recorded Deer Line was established to receive comments. Callers were instructed they could make a request, ask a question, record a concern, or make a statement about Iowa City's deer. Comments are arranged by management district. The gray-shaded comments are those from residents in the areas where the Committee is recommending killing of deer. See Attachment E. DISCUSSION Much discussion centered around effects of the litigation that prevented the USDA from carrying out the City of Iowa City's 1998/1999 sharpshooting effort. Members understood that a compromise was reached in formulating the 1998/1999 kill recommendation in that if it was agreed deer needed to be killed, the method most believed to be more humane, sharpshooting, would be the only method selected. Interference with the City's ability to carry out planned sharpshooting activity, leading to no reduction in the ever- increasing deer population, led some members this year to question whether or not sharpshooting should remain as the only option for deer killing. Evidence was produced that demonstrated a first-year urban bow and arrow hunt (City of Dubuque), implemented with little regulation but incentives, could be effective in reducing numbers of deer. However, a majority of members, in a 5-3-1 vote, concurred that a plan indicating sharpshooting as the only kill method be recommended. Attempts should be made to minimize litigation risk including contracting with a private agency that has experience with legal attempts to stop killing and clarifying with the State Attorney General's Office that each component of the authorization and implementation of sharpshooting complies with state and city laws and rules. COMMONLY-ASKED QUESTIONS AND COMMITTEE ANSWERS 1. Don't I have the right to enjoy the deer in my neighborhood or the park I visit? Absolutely yes! It has never been the intent of the Committee to eradicate Iowa City's deer herd. 2. Why do we need to kill deer? Can't you recommend only non-lethal methods of managing the deer to prevent human-deer conflict and let nature take its course? Fortunately, non-lethal methods can assist in minimizing human/deer conflict, although these methods appear to be less effective as the deer population increases. Unfortunately, non-lethal methods do nothing to stop the deer herd from increasing. What most experts -- including animal protection representatives -- tell us is that if we allow nature to take its course, the deer typically die by disease, lack of food, an unusually frigid winter, or stress. While these methods may be "natural," the Committee did not view them as acceptable or humane as a means of population control in an urban setting. Sadly, in an urban setting, traffic accidents become one of the most common methods for a deer's life to end. 3. What gives you the right to kill them? Deer in the State of Iowa do not belong to individual cities or residents. Rather, the State of Iowa has title and ownership of deer pursuant to Section 481A.2, Code of Iowa (1999). In order to kill deer, the City of Iowa City is required to obtain permission from the State of Iowa through the Natural Resource Commission. Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 11 - 4. How can you justify the killing of deer without conducting scientific studies in Iowa City? This is a topic the Committee discussed in length. We could spend the money (estimated to be several tens of thousands of dollars) to demonstrate that a large number of deer will eventually significantly harm natural areas. Evidence exists from scientific studies conducted in other areas of Iowa including Kent Park and the Coralville Reservoir that confirm the detrimental impact of large numbers of deer. We did not believe we would "create new science" in Iowa City; it has been clear from the studies of other areas that results are consistent throughout the Midwest. Deer living in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois,' and Missouri eat approximately the same amount and types of vegetation as deer in Iowa City. In a letter from D.J. Shubert (Wildlife Biologist representing The University of Iowa Animal Rights Coalition), Mr. Shubert writes that "Even if a deer population prevented woody revegetation regrowth for several decades, eventually, in time, the older trees will die from natural causes and fall to the ground. This will permit sunlight to penetrate the forest floor and allow natural succession to begin. Over time, the cycle will constantly repeat." It appears Mr. Shubert is confirming our understanding that high numbers of deer will negatively impact natural vegetation. This cyclic scenario is not something Committee members desire for Iowa City. 5. If you include killing as a part of deer management, aren't you going to have to kill deer every year? The Committee recognizes that deer will most likely need to be killed each year, particularly the first several years. A harsh winter, incidence of disease, or something similar may affect the number of deer to kill. 6. If you kill deer, won't the remaining does just start having more fawns? When a deer population is decreased, there is a more abundant food supply for those remaining. In areas where deer are underfed, this increased food supply leads to a higher birth rate. This is not the case in Iowa which has one of the highest deer reproductive rates in the nation. 70% of first-year fawns become pregnant, most adult does have twins every year, and 10% have triplets. Iowa City's abundant natural and planted vegetation provides ample nutrients to sustain such a birth rate. It is doubtful that killing deer here will lead to a significant increase in the birth rate. 7. Why don't you provide more educational programs and materials? It appears the most cost-effective method of educating the public would be to respond to citizen requests for information by providing items such as a brochure. Information from the 1999/2000 plan will be available at the City's web site. We are also recommending production of an educational video that could be checked out and viewed by classes, neighborhood organizations, and individual residents. Committee members will continue to recommend new and revised educational materials as needs become apparent. The Committee also encourages all those interested in educating the public about ways to live with deer, particularly animal protection organizations, to do so. This effort does not necessarily have to be organized through the City. 8. Can't the peninsula be preserved to provide a refuge for the deer in Iowa City? No. Deer frequently swim across the Iowa River and cross the highways to feed in other areas of town. Creating a safe haven for deer would require the peninsula to be fenced and would eventually result in the decimation of all vegetation on the peninsula. Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 12 - 9. Are you killing deer on the peninsula because of the planned development? The City of Iowa City purchased portions of the peninsula in 1995 for $2m, using general funds ($1.3m) and HUD Supplemental CDBG Flood Relief Funds ($.7m). The lower peninsula, situated in the floodplain, is already designed as a natural woodland, prairie and wetland park as well as wellfield for the City's water supply. In order to reimburse the general fund, the 70-acre upper peninsula is to be sold to a developer for at least $1.3m - creating a unique opportunity for traditional neighborhood development and a model for other future developments in Iowa City. The recommendation to kill deer on the peninsula was made without reference to planned development and, according to City staff, the planned development was made without reference to the deer. The peninsula is the most appropriate area to begin the reduction program because it has the highest number of deer per square mile and it provides several natural sites for sharpshooting. 10. Why aren't you recommending that bow and arrow hunting be included in the plan, particularly since it is cheaper than hiring sharpshooters? A majority of members believe that sharpshooting is the most humane and effective method of reducing Iowa City's large deer herd. In addition, the Committee does not regard deer management as a recreational activity or sport for hunters and does not wish to encourage such a concept. If sharpshooting continues to be stopped due to litigation, bow hunting would probably become the fallback method to kill deer. We recognize that costs are minimal with bow hunting but believe the community will view sharpshooting more favorably than bow hunting. 11. Is sharpshooting safe? Would I hear the sound of gunshots? There is an abundance of evidence that sharpshooting is safe when appropriate regulations and procedures are followed. The Committee has recommended an agency authorized to use sound suppressors to eliminate most of the noise associated with firing of a weapon. 12. What happens if sharpshooting activity frightens deer and they run across a busy street or the interstate, get hit by a vehicle, and someone gets hurt? Deer/vehicle accidents are already occurring. Sharpshooting activity on the peninsula, for example, is a great distance from roadways. The use of suppressors will reduce the chance of deer being so instantaneously frightened from the sound of shooting activity that they would cause such an incident several hundred yards away. In addition, sharpshooting will occur during late evening/early morning hours - a time when traffic volume is greatly decreased. 13. What measures can be taken to prevent litigation efforts from halting another sharpshooting attempt? The Committee has recommended an agency with a great deal of experience in handling litigation attempts. City representatives are meeting with the State Attorney General's Office to review all applicable laws and rules regarding sharpshooting to ensure compliance. We do recognize that sharpshooting remains more susceptible to litigation than bow and arrow hunting because it has not been utilized in the State of Iowa. 14. Why do you think it will make a difference to residents in how many ornamental plants deer eat if you start killing them; after all, it only takes one deer to cause damage to a garden? Taking into account several comments from the Deer Line, many residents have indicated they did not notice the extreme incidents of ornamental and garden plant devastation until the last couple of years when the deer population increased to such high levels. Residents in areas of 0-25 deer per square mile are not complaining that their plants are being eaten. However, residents in areas with 70 deer per square mile are telling us deer are eating through plastic fencing and consuming plants known to be toxic or very undesirable for deer consumption. One deer consumes 7 pounds of vegetation a day, 10 deer eat 70 pounds. It is clear how the impact of deer is magnified as numbers increase. Our goal with the lethal portion of our deer management plan is not to completely eliminate every incidence of human/deer conflict. We do believe the incidence will be reduced if the population is at a lower level. Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 13 - 15. Why aren't you recommending a back-up plan in case sharpshooting is stopped? Timing is the critical factor. The DNR typically sets a timeframe between September 1 and March I for an urban management kill, and the weather can affect the number of days that are actually available for doing the work. Presently, we have three legal methods available for killing deer: sharpshooting, bow hunting, and trap and kill. · Trap and kill would not be an effective method considering the large numbers of deer to be killed. · If bow hunting were to be implemented at a late date, it would be difficult to recruit and train the necessary number of bow hunters to conduct an effective special urban management hunt, since many would have already killed the adequate number of deer for their personal use utilizing the regular State permit. The DNR does not recommend a late-season bow hunt because it most likely would not be effective enough to be viewed successful. It appears that bow hunting is better used as a supplement to sharpshooting, rather than a back-up. The agency the Committee is recommending has been relatively successful with sharpshooting efforts in spite of litigation and, while some members of the Committee voiced interest in incorporating bow hunting in our long-term plan, all agreed to recommend sharpshooting as the method of choice. 16. How have other communities handled deer management? You are likely to find as many different scenarios for deer management as you find communities that have addressed this issue. We have contacted cities in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, and Missouri. A few of the following methods have been tried: · City officials implementing a plan without citizen input. · City officials appointing a citizens' task force to review options and recommend a plan. · Leaving the issue of killing deer up to the citizens via a non-binding referendum (it is interesting to note the residents voted to kill deer and the Council ultimately decided not to kill deer.) · Use of bow hunting only (both extremely regulated and nearly unregulated restrictions). · Use of sharpshooting only (local law enforcement, federal agents, or private contractors). · Use of a combination of methods to kill deer (bow hunting and sharpshooting). The Committee did not locate one community in which' deer were not killed and the population stabilized or decreased naturally. One community in Illinois represented that they did not kill deer and were no longer having a "deer problem;" however, the surrounding communities were actively managing deer using an annual kill. When considering methods of killing deer, the Committee has been guided by three criteria: public safety, community acceptance, and effectiveness in maintaining the desired number of deer. These criteria are why we pursued sharpshooting. Other communities in Iowa have utilized bow hunting as the killing method. Iowa City is the first community in Iowa to receive authorization from the DNR to sharpshoot. Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 14 - SUMMARY OF 1999/2000 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Committee members recommend publication of a 1999/2000 Deer Management brochure. This brochure should be made available at the Civic Center and Public Library. Information should include the "Living with Deer" series. Committee members also recommend production of an educational video that would be available for check-out from the Iowa City Public Library and would also run periodically on Government Channel 4. As the City's website is developed, the 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan, including the "Living with Deer" information, should be available on-line. Due to increased numbers of deer/vehicle accidents during 1998 in these areas, the Committee recommends extending the Dubuque Street reflectors south from Foster Road to Kimball Road and installation along Rochester between First Avenue and Scott Boulevard, Also recommended are five deer warning signs - one to be placed at each of the following locations in conjunction with reflectors: southbound Dubuque Street north of Foster Road, northbound N. Dodge Street near Saint Matthias Street, southbound N. Dodge Street near ACT Circle, westbound Rochester Avenue west of Scott Boulevard, and eastbound Rochester Avenue east of First Avenue. Foster Road received consideration for warning signs and/or reflectors but was denied due to renovation projected to occur from mid-July through December 1999. Based on the 1999 helicopter population survey and carrying capacity recommendations, Committee approved the following deer population reduction guideline: Minimum Recommended Maximum * the South Peninsula ::: : Distdcts~!;i2!iand:3:::i::!::;:!:~: '46: ::: : 3:22: :: :: DubuqU;eiStreet to:Dodge~!S~reet ~ ;:: iDis~i:~S! 4 a~d!~!5 ]~!:!:~:~::i :~: ~27; ~::!:!: :: !: .... Dubuque Street to Hwy I (N of 1-80) District 6 18 29 HiCkory?Hill/ACT ~: :~ ~::. i:: :: ;: :~:;Di:~d~::7:~:!~::i!!:i::=~: :i::::~:!:: ::' 38: ::::: :: ::57 Clear Creek West District 15 33 28 Clear Creek East District 16 24 30 Totals 186 313 1:20 115 60 115 70 70 550 * Number of does to kill. Assuming that for every three does killed, one buck will also be removed, then to reach the number of 550 does, 733 deer will need to be killed. The~6mmi~teeirec~mmendsithe!Ci~y~f~cusi!~ni!!:D~st~!i2~`~;~!4~`~!and 7~ Deer killed should be processed and distributed free of charge to low- to-moderate income residents. If requested, reproductive autopsies, to increase knowledge of Iowa City's deer herd, should be allowed. Committee members recommend sharpshooting as the method to reduce the population of Iowa City's deer herd. After investigation of private contractors, the Committee recommends White Buffalo, Inc. as the agency of choice for sharpshooting at a cost estimated to be $200-~250 per field-dressed, transported deer. Members also recommend that White Buffalo, Inc. assess the feasibility of a deer contraception study in Iowa City. Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 15 - Winter 1999~2000 Deer Management Plan - 16 - 1999/2000 DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN It is the unanimous decision of the 1999 Iowa City/Coralville Deer Management Committee that the City Council of Iowa City resolve that the City Manager is authorized and directed to implement the Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan, that shall include the following elements: The City of Iowa City will continue to assemble educational material that will provide Iowa City residents with information on deer seasonal habits and guidelines for limiting localized deer damage through the use of repellents, screening, alternative planrings, and other techniques. Educational materials will be available at the Civic Center and Public Library along with Government Channel 4 and the City's web site. A video will be produced summarizing Iowa City's Deer Management plan and tips on how humans may best coexist with deer. The City of Iowa City will install additional warning signs and reflectors that may reduce the likelihood of vehicle/deer accidents· In addition, to minimize deer/vehicle conflict, Council will direct appropriate staff to include deer migratory under-passageways in transportation improvement project designs if the project involves an area with more than 35 deer per square mile and cost or other significant factors are not prohibitive. The City of Iowa City will actively work with the State of Iowa Department of Natural Resources to fully understand and support their efforts to control the deer population for which that agency is responsible and which affects the health, safety, and welfare of Iowa City residents. 4. The City of Iowa City will request that White Buffalo, Inc. assess the feasibility of a deer contraception study in Iowa City. The City of Iowa City will immediately apply for permits from the State of Iowa Department of Natural Resources to implement the plan to kill no more than 733 deer within the Iowa City corporate limits utilizing sharpshooting during the winter of 1999/2000. Does will be targeted, but some bucks may be killed. To better our understanding of Iowa City's deer reproductive rates, the City of Iowa City, in cooperation with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, the private sharpshooting agency and/or any selected meat processor, will allow for reproductive autopsies to be performed on deer killed. The City of Iowa City will fully comply with all rules and regulations promulgated by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources governing the killing of deer, will exercise great caution and safety in implementing the program, will utilize the most humane methods available, and will ensure that the deer meat is processed for free distribution to low- to moderate-income residents· The City of Iowa City will continue to compile data on deer management including but not limited to vehicle/deer accident information, citizen comments, and an annual helicopter deer count. In addition, the City Council will convene a meeting of the Iowa City/Coralville Deer Management Committee in the Spring of 2000 to review and recommend a plan. The City of Iowa City will conduct an evaluation of the effectiveness of this Deer Management Plan at the City Council Formal Meeting no later than April 30, 2000. A report will be filed with the State of Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Approved this 16th day of August, 1999, by a vote of 10-0 (Goodman-Herbst and Hendrix absent). Iowa City/Coralville Deer Management Committee Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 17 - Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 18 - FINAL ATTACHMENT A MINUTES IOWA CITY/CORALVILLE DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 1999 - 6:30 P.M. IOWA CITY CIVIC CENTER - COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Jan Ashman, Charlie Duffy, Pat Farrant, Loren Forbes, Dave Froschauer, Steve Hendrix, Misha Goodman-Herbst, Doug Jones, Bud Louis, Lisa Mollenhauer, Tim Thompson, Judy Rhodes Ron Fort, Scott Larson, Nancy Seiberling Dennis Mitchell, Vicki DiBona OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Heller, Chad Gonnerman, Amanda Morgan, Clayton Foley, Shannon Nelson, Florence Boos, Jill Johnston, Linda Tomblin, Elijah McNeish, Robert Berger, Nick Sobocinski, Mike Sobocinski, Mike O'Donnell, Dean Thornberry, Melissa Bailey, Rick Frees, Anne Silander CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Goodman-Herbst called the meeting to order at 6:36 p.m. She suggested that the Committee's meetings be limited to two hours or less. Committee members agreed. REVIEW OF ACTIVITY SINCE DECEMBER 1: Mollenhauer thanked everyone on the Committee for signing up again. She said since December 1, 1998, the USDA was contracted to conduct the sharpshooting component of the 1998-99 plan. She said they did an environmental assessment on December 7 that was signed off on by their regional staff and they began sharpshooting in January 1999. She said there was one night that the shooters reached their maximum limit, the second night cut short due to inclement weather conditions. She said the next Monday the City received word that the USDA was pulling back their sharpshooting efforts due to legal activity. Goodman- Herbst said they did another environmental assessment. Mollenhauer said that the people concerned about the environmental assessment indicated that the USDA carried forward illegally because they did not have a 30-day public comment period, but she said that there is no set time period required by law. She said the public review for this issue was from December 7 to December 31. Mollenhauer said she spoke with Ed Hartin about the issue. She said there are three issues up for mediation with the USDA, one is a 30-day comment period, another is they have agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice which means they could take the case before a judge at any time without filing again and the third is they would like to see a 30-day period between when it is signed off by the regional director and activity would actually begin. She said some of the Living With Deer activity information is available on Channel 4 and she passed out a handout with a sample of something that could be published in a newspaper or magazine for a Living With Deer Series. Rhodes asked if pamphlet Mollenhauer created was still available. Mollenhauer said it is available at the Public Library, the Civic Center and during sharpshooting activity, at the peninsula area. Goodman-Herbst introduced Vicki DiBona, who would be working with animal control for the City. Rhodes asked if any public comment was received during the period in December. Mollenhauer said yes, that information was sent directly to the USDA. She said if they hired local police officers or private people to sharpshoot an assessment would not be required. Ashman said the comment period for animal welfare issues is 30 days. Jones said the information he received from the City Attorney and the Justice Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 19 - Department Attorney was that the public comment is statutorily required on an environmental impact statement, which this was not because this program comes under an umbrella environmental impact statement for deer control activities. He said the environmental assessment is apparently an addendure to an existing environmental impact statement and there is no requirement that the USDA or any other agency has a public comment period for such an addendum, but the USDA has traditionally attempted to create a non-statutorily required public comment period. He said the question is whether the USDA has done that frequently enough for the public to expect it. REVIEW OF HELICOPTER COUNT: Thompson noted the handout of the helicopter count. Mollenhauer said that every deer was counted by either Tim Thompson or Dennis Proctor (DNR) so the numbers are as accurate as possible and not estimates. Thompson said the numbers are minimum and he thought they were seeing at least 90% of the deer. He noted that the numbers increased in most areas, and the 62% increase from 1997 was expected. He said that there were more districts on the map that represented over 35 deer per square mile. He also described some cases of epizoic-hemorrhagic disease/virus that is transmitted to the deer via a biting mite. Forbes said he read where the deer herd in Nebraska was decreased by 30-40% by this disease. Thompson said they received up to 250 reports of this disease before December. Mollenhauer noted that the disease is not transmitted to humans if they eat the deer meat, and said that the meat locker staff would not process the meat if symptoms of the disease are present. Thompson said he did not think that even 10% of the deer in Iowa would be affected by this disease. Goodman-Herbst said the deer-vehicle collision numbers were included in the packet. She said there is a reflector system in place on Dodge Street and one on Dubuque Street between Foster Road and just south and west of the 1-80 entrances. She noted that most of the collisions around Dubuque Street occurred north of the reflector system near 1-80 entrances and exits and closer to Kimball Road. She said that some of the reflectors on Dubuque Street are broken quite often, and they don't work during the day or when they are broken. She said the reflectors in Iowa City would be numbered to help with maintenance. Louis noted that before December I there was a total of $32,505 of damage to cars as a result of collisions with deer. Goodman-Herbst passed out some current reflector information. Jones said he thought the reflectors look like they are doing well in that the rates are staying steady despite the increase in the deer population. He said he thought the intersection of Highway 218 and Melrose Avenue needed the reflectors. Mollenhauer said that the Rochester area is another potential candidate for the reflectors. Goodman-Herbst noted that Cedar Rapids installed many reflectors and she is curious to see those results. Louis said he thought the deer were getting more aggressive. Rhodes asked how much the reflectors cost. Goodman-Herbst said approximately $18 per reflector and that did not include the costs of the post, the hardware or the installation. PRESENTATION BY UNIVERSITY OF ANIMAL RIGHTS COALITION (UIARC): Amanda Morgan said the education part of the plan could use more direction. She said public information meetings needed to be more specific, and she suggested scheduling presentations with companies that manufacture deer repellent, fencing and netting, as well as with horticulturists and landscape architects, to provide demonstrations and hands-on interaction with the public. She said the UIARC is suggesting the formation of a Citizen's Committee for Deer Management, who would organize the how-to's in executing non-lethal deer management. She said some of their projects could include the above speakers, as well as having speakers on the topic of driving in deer areas for high school drivers education students, distributing pamphlets in water bills and informing the public of the vaccination for Lyme disease. Clayton Foley said the plan has some excellent ideas, but there needs to be more detail. He said he thought it was odd that Foster Road had no deer crossing signs on it, and he thought it needed them to make drivers more aware. He said modifying driver behavior is the best way to reduce collisions according to the City's pamphlet. He said the reflectors have been 98% effective in Iowa City. He noted collision statistics from AIlamakee County that were dramatically reduced after the reflectors were installed in that area. He said he thought whatever cost for the reflectors was reasonable because they are easy and inexpensive to maintain, and said he thought they are the perfect long-term solution. He said the suggested Citizen's Committee for Deer Management could deal with the fundraising for the reflectors if necessary. He also suggested getting Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 20 - the community more actively involved by having them call in deer sightings to the Police Department and start a deer migratory map based on that and the collision information. Chad Gonnerman said he focused on points 3 and 4 of the plan. He said he found two basic structural problems with the Committee - the first being the facilitator, which is a representative from the DNR, who provides information and assists the Committee with technical aspects and second inaccurate representation. He said with the first problem the DNR has a certain bias that they bring to the Committee because DNR members are known supporters of the traditional deer management techniques. He noted that the representative is also the provider of opinions and information to the Committee. He said he is not suggesting that DNR employees are corrupt or dishonest, but because of their lethal deer management inclinations and certain air of authority this needs to be considered. He suggested developing a facilitator that is fair, detached and impartial to the outcome and is an expert in group dynamics. Gonnerman said the second problem with the Citizen Task Force Committee is inaccurate representation. He said while the Committee was supposed to have a wide range of representation and while there are differing ideas and opinions among current members, he did not think that the Committee was representative in the sense that it represented the diversity and opinions of the people Iowa City. He noted that the meetings are public, but that only attracts a small portion of the City population. He suggested that the Committee propose to the Council the development of a scientific public survey. He gave an example of the survey done in Rochester, NY, that explored peoples preferences and perceptions of deer in the area. He said the UI Social Science Institute is an organization that would be qualified to perform the survey. Gonnerman said he thought there was a general lack of specific scientific data to justify the Committee's claims. He said in the 1998-99 plan, point 3 states that the maximum deer population density was set at 35 deer per square mile per City designated management district by the City Council. He said this number should be based on the results of studies that determine the abundance and productivity of vegetation in the area and the determination of how much forage is needed in the area to survive, but those studies were not done so the number 35 is nothing more than an arbitrary number for Iowa City. He said the number 35 could represent the cultural carrying capacity or the wildlife acceptance capacity, which reflects the public's willingness to tolerate deer, but he said there was virtually no public input on this number of 35 nor a public survey of the citizens of Iowa City to get their input. He said point 3 suggests that the Iowa City deer population must be reduced to address deer impacts to natural vegetation and wildlife diversity. He said this has reportedly been a major concern of several deer task forces in Iowa, but the plan or the Committee do not have any specific evidence to demonstrate that deer are adversely impacting natural vegetation or wildlife in the Iowa City area. He said that information needed to be gathered. Gonnerman said one option to solve these problems is to hire a public firm that could perform the study or someone from a University to do the study for their thesis. He said that those two could remove the suspicion that the Committee is nothing more than an exercise in design to rationalize a decision that has already been made by City staff on political grounds. He said his suggestion to the Committee is to focus on gathering data and information in order to make decisions. COMMITTEE/UNIVERSITY OF IOWA ANIMAL RIGHTS COALITION QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD: Rhodes said she would like to know how many times the Committee met last year and who was present at those meetings. Louis said he thought the Committee was a bit insulted with the insinuation that they are not representative of the community. He said the reflectors and deer crossing signs do nothing to reduce the current deer population, and he thought that was the bottom line for the Committee and it was time to do something to get at that problem. Goodman-Herbst said it is important for the Committee to remember that they are there to readdress all the topics with this particular issue. Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 21 - Gonnerman said information from the suggested public survey would help. He said some of the other communities did a mailback survey, and since they had a certain number to reach for the information to be considered scientific, they followed up with telephone calls if they did not reach that number with the mailback survey. Mollenhauer asked if that would generate responses mostly from people who feel the strongest about the issue. Rhodes said the Committee discussed doing a survey. Farrant said the Committee has not made any progress on any non-lethal solutions and she thought that needed to happen. Jones said he agreed with the UIARC on some ideas. He said he thought some kind of survey was worthwhile. He said he thought breaking down the survey responses to whether people live in high or low deer areas also needed to be done. He said he also liked the idea of mapping the deer migration paths, and he thought the City needed to consider such things during the design of highway systems. He said he thought when the Committee was created, he assumed they were to convene and back up the bow hunting option, which they were told was the only option. He said he thought the bias was extremely obvious in favor of that in the DNR, but he thought the Committee worked very hard to overcome that bias. He said the DNR was a major facilitator for the Committee, but so was Grace Trifaro, who founded the UIARC. Goodman-Herbst said Trifaro artended one meeting to present information and when she moved out of town no one from UIARC attended the meetings. He said the definition of biological carrying capacity comes from range management, not wildlife management. He said that assumes that deer is the only species consuming the forage, so a different notion of carrying capacity is required for Iowa City. Louis said when this was given to the City Council, the public had three weeks to comment. He asked why they cannot shoot deer in the spring. Mollenhauer said because they are almost ready to give birth. Louis asked why it is better to let the deer have the fawn and shoot both of them in the fall then to get both of them in the spring. Mollenhauer said that is not an option. Rhodes said the Committee discussed both biological carrying capacity and cultural carrying capacity at length. She said the ecological carrying capacity issue revolved around the idea of at what point would the number of deer per square mile begin to erode the ecosystem reducing plant species and habitat for other animals. She said while they did not do any studies in Iowa City they read a lot of information from studies held in other communities and most of those chose the number 25, so they felt they were doing a good thing by expanding that number to 35 for Iowa City. Florence Boos, 1427 Davenport Street said she was speaking in favor of the concept of living with deer. She said are very few deer crossing signs on 1-80, and she thought there needed to be more signs on the interstate ramps and on Foster Road. She said the reflectors seem to work, and suggested that more be put on the interstate ramps and further north. She said she did not think the deer contraception discussion should be completely dropped, and this would be the time to explore and research that option. She said that the deer were not a problem in park areas, and she thought the zoning near Foster Road was bad because there is the City Park where the deer are and next to it there are many houses on small properties. She said she thought some attention needed to be paid to providing buffer zones in such areas. She suggested planning more natural refuges for the deer to go to. She said there could be more education in schools regarding deer and their life cycles and the newspapers could carry inserts about information on deer, such as appropriate plantings. Goodman-Herbst said 1-80 and its ramps are DOT property, She said they have asked Iowa City for the results of its reflector systems to determine if they would put them up in those areas. She said the contraceptive issue would be discussed again because the Committee needs to review all of the options, Jones said the Council asked the Committee to research the feasibility of becoming a study site for the HSUS contraceptive study, and he asked what the result of that was. Goodman-Herbst said communities have to do certain scientific studies to be considered for such studies, and Iowa City has not done that. Jones said the Committee needs to get those studies going. Mollenhauer said the Committee needs to decide if they want to make a recommendation to spend the tax money to have the studies done in Iowa City. She noted that the City does not have a deer biologist on staff. Jones said the Council's approval of this plan was based on the understanding that the Committee would pursue participation in scientific contraception studies, and if there are prerequisites for those studies the Committee needs to find out what they are. Hendrix said that many Committee members were respectfully skeptical of information they received from the DNR. He said he came to the Committee not in favor of the hunting option. He said they dealt with the Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 22 ~ trap and relocate and contraception options in depth. He said regarding the biological carrying capacity, the ecology has changed a great deal in many ways. He said the 35 deer per square mile is a rough figure that was taken from ecosystem studies done in the Midwest, and he thought that figure might be a little high and the Committee wanted that. He said regarding the deer's impact on the biological community, he has spent a lot of time in the woods behind Mayflower dormitory over the years and 20 years ago there was a complete array of spring flora there. He said if one goes out there now there are about a half-dozen species of plants gone, so there have been major changes to the plant community because there are species missing that used to be there. He said there is also no longer a shrub layer out there. He said the Corps of Engineers have erected exclosures out in the Corps land, and after one year he thinks they are going to find a greater number of plant species in the exclosures of the spring flora. He said they are starting to work on the abundances now in the exclosures and the control areas. Louis said he would like to invite Dr. Dick Kennedy, who is a retired veterinarian, to speak at the Committee's next meeting on why contraception does not work for deer and why it has not worked in other states. Mollenhauer said she believed contraception is still not available for free-ranging deer. Thompson noted one contraception study that found if everything went perfectly it took five years to see a decrease in the deer population because all they were doing was stopping births from happening, and the estimated cost for the project was (;500,000 for a herd of 500 deer. Louis asked if the UIARC was part of a national coalition. Morgan said they are part of the University. Rhodes said she joined the Committee because of damage to her yard caused by deer. She said at the time she did not care how they got rid of the deer, she just wanted them to be gone. She had the obligation as a property owner to not hurt anyone else, but also not have something come onto her property and cause damage. She said the Committee made a strong effort for each member to temper their points of view and reach some consensus. She said regarding basing their information on adequate scientific knowledge, she would like documentation of Allamakee County and how they dealt with the deer. Jones asked Mollenhauer to find information on the Huron-Clinton Metro Park District outside Detroit, MI, because they are facing the same kind of decisions regarding deer. Forbes said he did a question survey at a pancake breakfast at the Isaac Walton league that served 1,000 people. He said he received 20 responses. Duffy asked how many active members the UIARC had. Gonnerman said they have about 12 people working on the deer issue, but not everyone in the Animal Coalition is involved with that. PUBLIC COMMENT: Rick Frees, 5654 Landon Avenue, Riverside asked how many total people belong to the UIARC. Morgan said they have 15 active members. Frees suggested that the UIARC should approach other groups about the studies, such as the Humane Society and HSUS, so the taxpayers would not have to be burdened with the cost. Ashman said those groups are the major funtiers of the contraception studies. Frees said he was talking about the environmental assessment. He noted that Thompson's salary is paid through hunting and fishing licenses, so from his perspective a lot of Thompson's time is being taken with issues like this when he could be spending more time dealing with other conservation efforts. He said unfortunately because man has created a haven for the deer, the only predator for the deer is man. Goodman-Herbst said the animal control agencies are there to protect the public from animal-related problems, primarily in a public safety point of view. She said she was not sure if this was totally an animal control issue, that in terms of the reflectors it could be, but probably not in terms of people's gardens. Elijah McNeish, 425 Hawkeye Court read a letter that he wrote to the Committee. He suggested alternatives to shooting, such as live trapping and relocation, deer contraception, installing more deer warning signs and public education. Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 23 - Thompson mentioned a new system of reflectors are being tested that have heat-motion detectors on them that send a warning light to alert motorists that there is something in the way. He noted that deer have to be moving to set off the reflector, if they are standing still the reflector will not activate. DISCUSSION OF 1999/2000 MANAGEMENT PLAN: The Committee tabled this item for their next meeting. Mitchell noted that any plan involving lethal reduction would have to go through the Natural Resource Commission again. Mollenhauer asked the UIARC members to provide information on other communities that have implemented plans to decrease their deer herd without using lethal reduction. Forbes said he received resolutions from the National Wildlife Federation in the mail, and one of the resolutions was that they generally disapprove of contraceptives because they feel there have not been enough studies done. SET AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING: The next meeting was set for May 5 at 6:45 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Minutes submitted by Traci Wagner. Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 24 - FINAL IOWA CITY/CORALVILLE DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 1999, 6:45 P.M. IOWA CITY CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lisa Mollenhauer, Misha Goodman-Herbst, Ron Fort, Judy Rhodes, Bud Louis, Jan Ashman, Doug Jones, Loren Forbes MEMBERS ABSENT: Nancy Seiberling, Pat Farrant, Steve Hendrix, Dave Froschauer, Scott Larson, Charlie Duffy STAFF PRESENT: Doug Ripley, Vicky DiBona OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Dorr (DNR), Willie Suchy (DNR), Tim Thompson (DNR), Mary Lou Bowers, Paul Bowers, Kristin O. Arnold Nagel, Clay Foley, Mandy Morgan, Alan Nagel, Aaron Silander, Janet Forbes, Elijah NcNeish, Rick Frees, Mike O'Donnell, Dean Thornberry, Ernie Lehman CALL TO ORDER: Goodman-Herbst called the meeting to order at 6:50 p.m. Goodman-Herbst first stated that she and Mollenhauer agreed that it is difficult for them as staff to facilitate the meeting and also serve on this Committee. She said that they had discussed the idea of providing input without serving as voting members. When asked for his opinion, Fort said that the other Committee members should make the decision about whether staff should vote. Committee members agreed that they do not mind if staff vote and would like Goodman-Herbst and Mollenhauer to continue as voting members. They said their input is important and their votes have helped the Committee to reach consensus in decision- making. Goodman-Herbst and Mollenhauer said that they would stay on as voting members as the Committee requested. Goodman-Herbst also stated that she thought there was a misunderstanding last week about an issue she brought up. She had previously said that if any Committee member felt uncomfortable with issues that were being discussed or felt that they were not able to work with other members, they should consider removing themselves from the Committee. She said that she was not pointing fingers at anyone and did not mean to offend anyone. Rather, she was simply reminding the Committee of this guideline. The Committee had decided on this guideline the first year that they met and she only wanted to remind them of this decision. Mollenhauer said that it is in the Committee's plan to review current available methods (lethal and non- lethal) for deer management each year, NON-LETHAL MANAGEMENT METHODS Signs Mollenhauer said that staff had asked Doug Ripley, Traffic Engineering Planner for the City, to share his perspectives on the use of signs. She noted that the Committee was considering the possibility of increasing the number of deer crossing signs in areas where there has been an increase in accidents; using more reflectors; using flashing lights or flags, or changing signs during particular seasons. Any of these would be possibilities for a recommendation to Council. Goodman-Herbst added that they discussed adding signs to roads where there has been an increase in activity. Mollenhauer also noted, however, that Neumann Abuissa, a Department of Transportation engineer she spoke with did not think that deer crossing signs are effective as drivers do not slow down when they see real deer on the sides of roadways, let alone signs. Ripley agreed and stated that people tend to ignore signs, especially if they see the sign day after day. Deer crossing signs in particular are ignored because the likelihood of a deer crossing in an area where there is a deer crossing sign is fairly low. He also noted that warning signs are intended to speed up reaction time. Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 25 - He said that normal reaction time is 2.5 seconds and a warning sign can reduce that to 2 seconds. On a low-speed road, the impact is fairly minimal because a person on a low speed road is traveling at a rate of 18 feet within a half a second. He concluded that signs in residential areas tend not to have much of an effect; therefore, the City tries to avoid installing any more than they have to. Mollenhauer asked whether signs would help non-residents. Ripley said that signs might help in that case, especially at entrances to the community. However, he said that warning signs are supposed to be used only in circumstances where the hazard is not apparent. For example, a deer crossing sign would be appropriate in an open area where an unusual number of deer cross. If there is an area of trees, the hazard of deer should be apparent to drivers because this is where deer are likely to cross. He said that he is open to the use of deer signs in certain circumstances, but not to the widespread use of signs. Mollenhauer asked what he thought about special indicators on signs during active times. He said he thought that would be fine because it would provide an extra alert. He discouraged the use of flashing lights because they are high maintenance, can be disruptive to residential areas, and do not have much of an impact if the lights are flashing constantly. Thompson asked if infared motion-detector technology was available on signs. Ripley said that this is an option but it is high maintenance and high cost and does not work well at night. Rhodes asked how many deer crossing signs the City currently has. Ripley said that there is one on Dubuque Street. Rhodes also asked if there is a difference between areas where there are the most deer/vehicle collisions and where deer generally cross. Goodman-Herbst said that there is not a difference in Iowa City. Rhodes also asked about the cost of installation for signs. Ripley said that the cost of installing one sign is approximately ~50 and the sign lasts about seven years. Goodman-Herbst asked about placing flags on signs during active seasons. Ripley said that flags are inexpensive and the only cost is the time for someone to put them up and take them down. He asked if the deer reflectors on Dubuque Street were effective. Goodman-Herbst said that the reflectors have been fairly effective but are difficult to maintain. She said that another problem with reflectors is that they only work in the evening. Thompson said that in one area where reflectors are being tested, at least as many deer as last year have been picked up by the highway department. Mollenhauer said that she had asked Neumann about placing reflectors along the Interstate north of the City. Neumann said that there are DOT studies around the state where they are trying to encourage the deer to cross at underpass areas; however, he does not know the results of the studies. Mollenhauer said she also talked with Neumann about the idea of an adopt-a-reflector program because the reflectors are such high maintenance. The reflectors need to be clean and aligned properly in order to work effectively. Adopt-A-Highway liability forms and applications are being sent to the City to use as a sample. Mollenhauer suggested that they consider this because the City simply does not have the staff time to clean the reflectors each week. Mollenhauer summarized that once the Committee considers these ideas, the Committee will provide feedback to Ripley so that he can possibly make a recommendation to Council. REVIEW OF LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN Louis asked if everyone had seen the opinion piece that appeared in that day's Press-Citizen. Mollenhauer noted that a copy of the article was included with members' packets. Louis said that he thought that the editorial was correct in stating that the bottom line is there are too many deer and something needs to be done about it. He said that rather than going over the management methods again, he thought that the Committee should adopt the program that they had worked on for two years and put it in force. Mollenhauer said that the reason the Committee is reviewing the Long-Term Management Plan is because its contents are now City policy. The Plan contains the recommendations of the Committee that were presented to Council. City Council then voted the Plan in by resolution. The Plan states that each year the Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 26 - Committee is supposed to review the deer management methods to be utilized (including educational material, documentation on effectiveness, etc.). She said that according to the current policy in the Plan, if the deer population in an area is more than 35 deer per square mile, killing is to take place; for areas with 0- 25 deer per square mile, the Plan calls for educating the public; for areas with 25-35 deer per square mile, the Plan states that the Committee will review the area on a complaint-situation basis. She said that if the Committee wants to revise this Plan, members need to make that recommendation to Council and a formal public hearing and consideration of a resolution would need to take place. Rhodes said that in looking over the materials, she believes the Committee adopted a plan that was carefully thought out, that they understood the ethical issues, and that the Committee has an opportunity this year to see if the Plan actually works. She said that what the Committee knows is that their decision to kill deer last year was foiled. She said this does not mean that they need to change the Plan; rather, they need to address the problem. She said there are other things that the Committee can also be doing-such as reviewing the numbers from the helicopter count, asking for input, educating the public, thinking of ways to prevent damage, looking at street signs, and reviewing ways of dealing with overpopulation-without undoing anything in the Plan. She said that she would not want to undo anything the Committee has done, but rather move forward under the Plan while reviewing the new information. Jones said that while he agreed the Plan provided a sound basis for making some decisions, he thought that it was incumbent on them to review the Plan because 1) they are expected to make recommendations for changes to the Plan and 2) there are some elements of the Plan that were not put into place because they did not have time to do the studies. For example, studies to find out the number of deer. He noted that although this is not something the Humane Society of the United States would want to consider, sharpshooting could actually provide information about the number of fawns. He said that the Committee now has the motivation to do some of those studies because: 1) no matter what happens, they will be living with deer for a long time and might as well find out what an appropriate sustainable number of deer should be for the different parts of the City and 2) the Committee needs solid data (evidence) to back up their policies. He agrees that the Committee cannot do a long-term study before taking action because the current overpopulation problem lends credit to taking reasonable population control efforts. He believes that at the same time, the Committee should ask Council to fund the studies that justify their long-term plans. He agreed that they should move forward with the current plan while pursuing studies. Mollenhauer said that she believes gathering the numbers cannot hurt. She added that she does not think that they can put City staff time into that, but perhaps there would be interest from the University. Jones commented that everyone at the UI wants a research grant and he believes the deer situation has reached a point where it is going to demand that the City spend some money. Thompson said that the reproductive rate for sharpshooting was looked at. If a deer was pregnant, they looked at the number of fetuses. Mollenhauer said that she received an offer from the chair of the biology department at Coe College to perform autopsies after the next sharpshooting date to see how many fetuses there were. She thought the College may be interested again in the future. Louis clarified that there could be no sharpshooting until fall. Committee members said that is correct because they have to wait until the deer have no dependents and the meat can be used. Ashman said that she was uncomfortable reinstating the Plan as it is without performing some sort of social science survey. She said that the Committee is supposed to be representing the community and she does not think they can do this just by talking to friends and neighbors; they need to be more scientific. She said that she was impressed with what they received from Cornell University. She said there were problems with some of the questions but that could be worked out. Rhodes agreed with Ashman and noted that Cornell's study found that there is a clear threshold of tolerance. However, if the Committee is going to survey the community, they should not do a blanket survey of the entire community because some areas have never seen deer in their part of the City. Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 27 - Goodman-Herbst asked about surveying the areas on the map that have deer problems separately. Rhodes said that she would agree with this. Goodman-Herbst and Rhodes agreed that the attitudes of people in a neighborhood would be quite different depending on where they lived. People surrounding a park may have purchased the property because they wanted to see deer and may be much more tolerant than people in the middle of a neighborhood away from the park who purchased the property because they like to garden. Rhodes said that she cannot garden even though she's in the middle of a residential area. Mollenhauer asked if the deer would be drawn to the more open areas if the deer population was reduced on the north side. Suchy said that the young would be more likely drawn to open areas. Jones said that if the Committee is going to recommend a survey and if they want to use the results before next year, they need to move quickly. He noted that during the first summer of deer meetings, they had discussed a survey but decided there was not enough time. Now that it is clear that there should be long- term management, a survey seems appropriate. However, he said that the Committee should be very careful about what they recommend based on surveys, and distinguish between high deer count areas vs. low count deer areas, wooded vs. residential, gardeners vs. non-gardeners and other variables. He added that with all of these things complicating the process, the Committee should not count on using the results this year. Mollenhauer commented that they need to be aware of how the questions are worded. Unless people are informed about deer, they may not know much about lethal vs. non-lethal methods. She said that Committee members themselves probably would have given very different answers two years ago than they would today. Rhodes said that if, for example, the survey shows a high level of intolerance in an area where there are few deer, the Committee would know that they need to educate the neighborhood on living with deer. Of course, if all of the deer are in the yards of two people, they have a different problem. Goodman-Herbst said that intolerance is the key issue. She said that the Committee needs to be honest about this because it seems the deer issue has a lot more to do with intolerance by citizens than it does with any biological factors. She noted that the number of deer per square mile that the City is using actually comes from data on what should be normal for rural areas. She said that if the Committee decides to reduce the number of deer because of the impact on neighborhoods, they should say that. They should not say that deer are destroying the environment because they do not have confirming studies. Jones said that they do not have studies but they do have evidence. Goodman-Herbst said that she understands that things are being eaten; however, there are no biological studies in cities across the country regarding this issue. Mollenhauer asked Suchy if it were true that cities are not conducting any studies. Suchy said not traditionally. Jones said that this is fairly new for cities. Goodman-Herbst said that this is not really any different from the other animals they deal with in terms of the animals conflicting with humans in certain ways. She said that she does not think there is any question about how members on the Committee believe the deer population should be reduced. However, they are being questioned about the reason for doing this. She said that some decisions were based on the carrying capacity of the community, such as the number of deer per square mile. Rhodes agreed and noted that the Committee looked at many other communities where the level was 25 deer per square mile; however, in response to their sense of reverence for life, the Committee chose to increase the number to 35 and make people be more tolerant by educating them. She added that many people on the Committee are concerned about the ecological effects of deer on the community. For example, the reduction of spring flowers. The answer for this will depend on who is conducting the study. She said that she is also concerned that each study and survey will only apply to the current year. (Louis left for the airport at 7:45.) Mollenhauer asked if Committee members wanted to see significant changes in the current Long-Term Management Plan. All members present said that they did not, Jones said that the only change that may need to be made is to the basic numbers of the appropriate number of deer per square mile as they receive Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 28 - more data. He said that as they learn and gather data about the appropriate number of deer for park areas vs. urban areas, etc., they will be able to make changes to those numbers. The current numbers in the plan were decided with the information the Committee had available to them at the time. Rhodes said that she does not think science is going to alleviate the problem because this has to do with people's tolerance. Jones replied that he believes they should try to figure out the appropriate number based on reliable data; otherwise the Committee will be challenged that their numbers were simply pulled out of a hat. Goodman-Herbst said that this is fine as long as the Committee does not claim that they are doing studies and surveys for biological reasons. Rhodes read from the Plan that the Deer Management Committee will convene each year to: review educational materials; review deer population numbers (current and projected); review management options; and recommend methods to kill deer. She said this does allow them to have surveys and studies done, including studies for tolerance. Jones said that these possibilities appear in the Plan, but the Committee also needs to initiate them. Mollenhauer again stated that she does not see any harm in gathering data while moving ahead. Rhodes asked if the Committee would like to direct Mollenhauer to explore the options for creating a survey which would be directed area by area in the community. Mollenhauer said that the Committee needs to decide how they want the survey conducted (telephone, mail, door-to-door, etc.). Ashman said that she would be willing to help Mollenhauer find out about determining the survey design. Committee members agreed that a professional opinion is needed because even how the questions are phrased is important. Mollenhauer said, for example, that a person answering a question about how best to deal with the problem may not realize that an option has exorbitant costs. She provided an example that trap and relocate may sound appealing but, based on information via the University of Iowa Animal Rights Coalition, one community spent over $3,000 per deer to move 20 deer. After eight months only nine of those deer were alive. Rhodes summarized the discussion for clarification. She said that the Committee is interested in: · Conducting a survey of the population and their tolerance levels, and · Conducting a scientific study to determine what damage the deer ecologically. are actually causing Mollenhauer said that she will contact the statistics department at the UI and Committee member Steve Hendrix for information. Suchy also suggested contacting Cornell College in Mr. Vernon to see if they have any interest in conducting a study or survey. Mollenhauer asked if, based on the request for surveys and studies, the Committee thought that they needed to revise the Plan. Jones said that the Committee needs to revisit the Plan because they are required to do so. Rhodes agreed that they continue functioning under the current Long-Term Plan. Members agreed that if a future situation dictates changes to the numbers of deer per square mile, the Committee will make a change at that time. Mollenhauer said that information from the Deer-Resistant Landscape Nursery was included in members' packets and asked if they felt the information would be appropriate to place in the newspaper as the first in a series of articles on living with deer. She said that the City forester helped her to make sure that the plants mentioned are in this zone. Rhodes said that she is also reviewing some information in the Living With Deer document and would like to combine some of that information with the articles Mollenhauer has. Suchy said that he could also provide some information. Ashman and Rhodes said that they would work on the articles. Mollenhauer said that she would like to see a complete series on all of the topics that the Committee wishes to educate the public. The series would preferably run throughout the summer. Jones said that he wanted to make sure the Committee has control of the content. Mollenhauer said that Mike Beck was willing to work with them and possibly print some of the articles as a community service. She added that Council is committed to the educational process, even if the information has to be paid for as a display ad. Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 29 - Jones said that he thought the most difficult article in the series would be one about the population reduction methods because it is an uncomfortable topic. Rhodes said that there is also another aspect to this. She said that when she was reading over the Coalition information, she realized that their concept of "humane" and "natural" are linked. She said that by definition, deer dying of disease may be natural but it is not humane. "Humane" implies an ethical concept. Jones agreed and said that perhaps they need an article about the spectrum of what it means for a possible solution to be "humane" and what it means to be "natural." Jones said that he could try to start an article about this but that it would be quite an essay. Regarding the deer-resistant landscape article, Thompson suggested that a botanist review the information because Barberry, for example, is considered invasive. He volunteered to make sure the information is reviewed. DISCUSS 1999/2000 MANAGEMENT PLAN Mollenhauer asked if the Committee wished to save this item for when more members are present. Members agreed that they should save time for public comment instead. OTHER INFORMATION Mollenhauer said that she briefly wished to mention that she gathered information from communities that do not kill deer, as recommended by the University of Iowa Animal Rights Coalition. The notes were included in members' meeting packets. She briefly summarized the information and said that no formal management plans are in effect. Two of the three communities told her that the bordering communities are sharpshooting; that, in turn, has an impact by reducing the deer population in surrounding areas. She noted these may not be good comparisons with the Iowa City situation because they are receiving lethal pressure at their borders. Fort reported that a group of citizens are shooting deer within the city limits. They do not kill the deer so that the deer are able to walk off of the property and die elsewhere. PUBLIC COMMENT Mayor Pro Tem Dean Thornberry, said that he had been asked to find out if the Deer Management Committee had a standardized form that neighbors could fill out to request reduction of deer in the neighborhood. Committee members agreed that a form could appear in the paper and also be available to those who do not subscribe to the paper. The form could request name, address, reason, etc. Mollenhauer said that she would work on this and they could discuss it at the next meeting. Paul Bowers, 704 Whiting Ave, said that he would not have purchased property in the neighborhood where he lives had he known about the deer problem. He said that he has spent several thousand dollars on plantings and trees to make his property look nice. In addition, he had to install a costly 7-foot fence in order to have a garden. He said that he has counted 13 deer in his backyard at one time and is not able to walk in the yard because of the feces. Bowers suggested that if the City is not able to reduce the deer population, perhaps the City should be responsible for some of the cost involved for residents. He also noted that he is appalled at people in the City who feed wild animals. In addition, he was appalled by the condition of the deer because the deer he has seen were quite thin and some were injured. Goodman-Herbst noted that there is a City ordinance against feeding wild animals (it is a misdemeanor) and encouraged anyone to call her if they see someone doing this. Rhodes suggested that they place a reminder of the ordinance in residents' water bills. Mollenhauer said that the Committee has not yet addressed the public health issue with the deer feces. She said that she has received calls from people who literally cannot use their yards or let their children play in them. Jones said that adults should not be at risk because deer are herbivores. Suchy said that the feces do carry parasites that small children should not be exposed to. Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 30 - Rick Frees, 5654 Landon Avenue S.W., Riverside, Iowa, said that he is a hunter safety instructor in Johnson County and belongs to two conservation groups in Johnson County. Frees said that a small group of 15 people have said that lethal methods are not right. Meanwhile, the organizations he belongs to have more than 200 members and the members do support lethal methods. He said that as a hunter safety instructor, the word "humane" applies to a good clean shot. He said that when people start taking the law into their own hands, like those who are injuring deer and allowing them to die elsewhere, the City has a big problem. Mollenhauer said that she went out with the sharpshooters and they were most concerned with a clean shot in order to prevent suffering for the animal and to ensure community safety. She said that if the City goes forward with sharpshooting again, the contract will mandate community safety and appropriate shots. Shannon Nelson, 1601 Aber Avenue,//1, said that she wished to remind the Committee that more than 800 people signed petitions against the killing of deer last year and that three people worked on gathering those signatures. She said that the only way to deal with intolerance is education, not just killing deer. She suggested that the Committee begin to do this and noted that because they have so much on their hands, they may need another committee. Mollenhauer responded that there is nothing preventing the UI Coalition from generating and distributing their own educational materials as an organized group. She said that the Deer Management Committee is willing to work with the UI group. Nelson said that the Coalition does not have the funds that the City does to place ads, etc., but members are willing to help the Deer Management Committee with the educational materials. Mollenhauer thanked Nelson and said that she would be talking with her about how they could assist. Bowers said that he wished to address the Committee again. He said that although there are a large number of students in the community, he hoped that the Committee would view the opinions of property owners with more weight. He added that property owners are directly affected whereas the majority of students are not. Ashman noted that students do have concerns about what goes on in the community and Jones commented that he gardened when he was a student and would have been affected. Rhodes said the one thing she likes about Iowa City is that this is a community where government works. It is an open community where they discuss issues and people actually get involved. She said that as much as the students have the right to express their concerns, they also have an obligation to educate themselves about the way deer affect other people in the community. She noted that the distress people like Paul feel comes from the feeling that students are not taking the time to adequately assess and address the issues of property owners. She summarized that each side needs to listen to the other's point of view. Ashman said that the Committee needs to decide how they are going to deal with tolerance vs. intolerance. Rhodes said that this was where she thought they started two years ago. Ashman said that they need to remember that it is an ongoing process. Mollenhauer said that there would be another meeting in 2 to 3 weeks depending on availability of the room. ADJOURN: The meeting was adjourned at 8:35'p.m. Minutes submitted by Wendy Larive. Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 31 - Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 32 - FINAL MINUTES IOWA CITY/CORALVILLE DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY. MAY 26, 1999 - 6:45 P.M. IOWA CITY CIVIC CENTER - COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Jan Ashman, Pat Farrant, Loren Forbes, Ron Fort, Misha Goodman-Herbst, Steve Hendrix, Doug Jones, Lisa Mollenhauer, Judy Rhodes, Nancy Sieberling MEMBERS ABSENT: Charlie Duffy, Dave Froschauer, Scott Larson, Bud Louis OTHERS PRESENT: Vicki DiBona, Jim Jansen, Chad Gonnerman, Clayton Foley, Elijah McNeish, Aaron Silander, Jill Johnston CALL TO ORDER: Mollenhauer called the meeting to order at 6:52 p.m. REVIEW APRIL 21 AND MAY 5 MEETING MINUTES: Ashman said for the April 21 minutes Judy Rhodes should be listed as present for the meeting. Rhodes said on Page 6 a sentence in the third paragraph should say "she had the obligation as a property owner to not hurt anyone else." (Jones arrived at 6:54 p.m.) Mollenhauer said any typos would be corrected. Ashman said for the May 5 minutes, on Page 4 in the fifth paragraph Cornell College should be Cornell University and social service should be social science survey. Committee members agreed to finalize both sets of minutes as amended. REVIEW COMMENT FORM: Mollenhauer said at the Committee's last meeting Dean Thornberry requested that a standardized comment form be created for citizen's who wanted to express their opinions or concerns about deer in Iowa City, so she drafted a form. She said that the form could be sent to people to call in to the City about the deer, put into the newspaper as a cut out, be handed out at neighborhood meetings, be available at the public library and be placed on the City's web site. Committee members discussed revisions to the form and later determined it would be better to conduct a formal survey. Jones said he encountered a deer carcass in upper Finkbine two weeks ago and asked if anyone else had. REVIEW SCHUBERT LETTER: Mollenhauer said before the Committee reconvened in April she sent a letter and a copy of the Committee's 1998-99 management plan to the national representatives involved in the USDA litigation and asked them to comment. She said the letter from D.J. Schubert is the only formal response received. She said he is a wildlife biologist who has a B.S. in wildlife biology from Arizona State University and has done extensive work through the Peace Corps. Mollenhauer in the third paragraph, Schubert's says "... the 35 deer per square mile management strategy is a legally binding standard which cannot be changed..." She said that number was reviewed at the last meeting and members were informed that if they wanted to change that number they needed to recommend a revised long-term plan to the City Council. Jones said it is binding until the Council votes to change it but the Committee was not recommending a change. Mollenhauer said that Schubert stated that no aspect of the current plan must be retained for future management recommendations. She said the State National Resource Commission required a long-term plan for any type of deer management. Jones said that Schubert Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 33 - is not totally informed that the Committee is the advisory group that proposed the plan. Mollenhauer she thought they had done a fine job with the deer/vehicle accident reporting system. Jones noted those became more detailed after the first round of meetings. Jones said the map data available is crucial for this to show where the accidents are. Goodman-Herbst said she did not know if they could truly know that they are having more accidents now then they have had the past five years because good reports were not kept in the past. Rhodes said she thought Schubert needed to be informed that deer/vehicle accidents was not the primary justification for the deer reduction. She said with the number 35, they wanted to give themselves maximum flexibility and the idea was that each year they could go site-specific and discuss ways to manage the herd with that as a guideline. Ashman questioned if the University had been asked to give their accident reports. Mollenhauer said no, and the City is not collaborating with the County either for that information. Ashman suggested trying to include the accident data that happens within the City. Mollenhauer said she would call the University about deer/vehicle accident information. Rhodes said she like Schubert's suggestion of a hotline where people could call in with deer complaints. Goodman-Herbst said Animal Control did not receive any complaints about deer destroying ornamental planrings. She said they would do site investigations on the damage and keep reports on it. Sieberling said she thought people may not call animal control they relate that office to dogs and cats, not deer. Ashman said the Johnson County Humane Society maintains a help line and they have not received many calls about deer. Rhodes suggested creating an educational presentation for.the neighborhoods on dealing with the deer. Mollenhauer said Marcia Klingaman is asking neighborhood associations if that is a topic they would be interested in, and the idea of creating a video on the same topic has also been discussed. Jansen said he handles deer complaints for a living and he said the complaints are an indication of the landowner's tolerance. He said the best data is the aerial surveys. Mollenhauer said another thing she wanted to point out about Schubert's letter was that he said the deer population would plateau or decrease naturally by disease, starvation or stress. She said she has asked how high the numbers would get by letting nature take its own course, and no one can give her an answer. Jansen said there was a place in southeast Iowa where they had 150 deer per square mile that were healthy. Mollenhauer showed the Committee a plan of the peninsula development. Jones said he wanted to emphasize that the selection of the peninsula for the sharpshooting site last year did not have anything to do with the fact that that area is planned for development. Mollenhauer said the peninsula has the highest number of deer per square mile and it was selected because it was an easy parcel of land and easy to isolate making it a good test site to test the effectiveness of sharpshooting as it was the first year. Rhodes discussed the real estate development process. Mollenhauer gave some background information regarding the peninsula development. Rhodes said the only thing that she understood the Committee agreed upon last year was the health of the deer herd and the ecological impact it had on the environment. Hendrix said it is an ecosystem approach to deer management. Jones said he thought the City needed to back up this assertion with the kind of evidence that Schubert said they did not have. Hendrix gave Mollenhauer a contact person for information regarding the cost of exclosures. He said he was not interested in doing the fieldwork for a project like that. He noted the construction and maintenance costs and time for monitoring for the exclosures. Mollenhauer read an e-mail from Willie Suchy regarding data and research regarding exclosures. Hendrix said he thought there was an abundance of evidence for areas in the Midwest that indicate when you have a certain number of deer or more it will have a certain effect on the vegetation of that area, Jansen noted some data on exclosures from Cedar Falls, but he said the exclosures could be a learning tool for the public education. Sieberling said she thought it was important for the City to do that so people see and understand how important conserving natural resources is. Jones noted a professor named Del Holland who has students that study similar information. The Committee decided no new science would be created in Iowa City if studies were conducted; however, small-scale exclosures might provide beneficial for educational purposes. (Jones left the meeting at 8:17 p.m.) Mollenhauer said the Committee has to decide whether they want to intervene to reduce the population or allow the herds to reduce naturally by disease, starvation or stress. The Committee decided that there Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 34 - should be human intervention. She passed out the next segment for the Living With Deer Series, Defensive Driving. LETHAL MANAGEMENT METHODS: Bow Hunting Fort said that bow hunting is already legal in the County and should be allowed on the outside edges of Iowa City. He said there would be no cost to the City. Hendrix asked how those edges of the City would be designated. Fort said that should come from the City Attorney's office. Jansen gave some information from Cedar Falls and Dubuque, two communities that have used bow hunting as a form of deer management. He said bow hunting offers an advantage to getting at areas that you wouldn't get at with sharpshooting. He said bow hunting is the least expensive of the three lethal options and it is an important tool. He said that Cedar Falls has participated in a hunting program for five years, and last year was the first year that they saw a decrease in the herd in their aerial survey. They recorded the highest harvest (91 deer) in their five years of bow hunting. He said that Dubuque has lower numbers of deer per square mile compared to Iowa City, and at a lower level, bow hunting works very well. He said that bow hunting could not be the only tool that Iowa City should use to effectively reduce deer numbers because the numbers are so large. He said Dubuque's managed hunt was successful because they put very few regulations on the hunters, and he gave some examples.. He noted that there are administrative costs to the City for managing the hunt. He said bow hunts last from October 1 to January 10, but each community can design a managed hunt program to fit their needs. Committee members decided to discuss trap and kill, sharpshooting, and other lethal methods at their next meeting. DISCUSS 1999/2000 MANAGEMENT PLAN: This item was tabled until the Committee's next meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT: Jill Johnston, suggested a deer education line where the questions asked could be recorded or people could leave their name, address and phone number so information could be mailed to the caller. She said that way the City could keep track of what was going on, what people are interested in, and what people are trying to find out. Goodman-Herbst said that would be very similar to the information that they currently hand out. Mollenhauer said she mails out the pamphlet to people who call. Johnston said with the education line they could keep track of the callers and the problems. Elijah McNeish, said he thought sometimes the Committee is just looking at the effectiveness of options, not if the options are humane or safe. He said he thought the Committee should be looking at the issues a little better. He said bow hunting may be effective, but he views it as worse than sharpshooting because it is not as quick of a kill. He said he did not mean that sharpshooting was humane because they die more quickly, but it is more humane than the bow hunting. SET AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING:. The next meeting was set for June 16 at 6:45 p.m. ADJOURN: The meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m. Minutes submitted by Traci Wagner. Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 35 - Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 36 - FINAL MINUTES IOWA CITY/CORALVILLE DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16, 1999 - 6:45 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jan Ashman, Loren Forbes, Ron Fort, Misha Goodman-Herbst, Steve Hendrix, Doug Jones, Bud Louis, Lisa Mollenhauer, Judy Rhodes, Nancy Seiberling MEMBERS ABSENT: Charlie Duffy, Pat Farrant, Scott Larson OTHERS PRESENT: CALL TO ORDER: Ray Hanson, Jerry Hynes, Brian Sharp, Shannon Nelson, Elijah McNeish, Amanda Morgan, Clay Foley, Chad Gonnerman, Jim Jansen, Joe Wilkinson, John Kenyan Chairperson Goodman-Herbst called the meeting to order at 6:50 p.m. DEER LINE: Mollenhauer said the Committee was looking for a way to collect public input. She distributed a sample of possible wording for an Iowa City deer line. Mollenhauer said the public could make comments and request educational information, although it will be necessary for callers to state their names and addresses if they want their comments to be part of the official City record. She said that having the addresses would also help the Committee track where people are having or are not having problems. Mollenhauer said the comments could be transcribed for the Committee and City Council. Louis said he thought a deer line would be a good idea. Mollenhauer said she did not want to bypass a survey but wanted to make sure that if a survey is done, the Committee knows what it will do with the results. She said the City Council has appointed the Committee as representatives of the community to make the recommendations, but it is important to get citizen input to see what kind of perception is in the community. Mollenhauer said she was not sure the Committee would get its money's worth out of a $15,000 survey. She said the Committee could certainly recommend a formal survey, or it could do something like this whereby people comment on their own. Goodman-Herbst asked if cable TV is still doing surveying. Mollenhauer said that was an option, although in that case, the Committee might want to hire someone to formulate the questions properly so that people are not being steered one way or another. Rhodes said that type of cable TV survey presumes that a broad number of people are watching Infovision. Mollenhauer added that addresses could not be tracked through such a system, although phone numbers could be. Ashman said she liked the idea of a deer line as it is neutral, proactive, would not cost a lot, and could be done quickly. Mollenhauer said it would cost about $300 to install the line and about $300 per year to maintain it. She said people could call the line 24 hours a day. Rhodes suggested language changes. Seiberling asked how this would be publicized. Mollenhauer said the government channel could be utilized, and the Committee could put ads in the Press-Citizen, Gazette, and/or the Daily Iowa. She said the City is beginning a monthly two-page publication in the Community News Advertiser, and information could be included in that. Ashman suggested there would not be too much that the Committee could do. Ashman asked if anyone else received a lot of telephone calls after the last meeting. She said she received eight to nine calls referring to information in the newspapers that was inaccurate. Ashman asked if the Committee wanted to distribute its own press releases. Jones said the media coverage had implied that the choice of bow hunting was a done deal. Rhodes said the Press Citizen editorial was misleading and inaccurate. Ashman said she asked the radio station where they got their information, and they said it came from the Iowa Associated Press. Mollenhauer said it is important to remember that it was part of the requirements of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) that the Committee review all legal lethal options every year. She said that because a presentation was made or a topic discussed does not mean that the Committee is leaning toward Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 37 - that option. Rhodes said the long-term management plan for Iowa City also states that the options chosen must meet the three criteria of public safety, community acceptance, and effectiveness in maintaining the desired number of deer in the herd. She said there is a distance to go to say that bow and arrow hunting would meet those criteria, and the likelihood may be that it would not meet two out of the three. The consensus was to implement the deer telephone line. Mollenhauer said she would provide exact transcriptions of the comments. Wilkinson asked how the Committee would tell that the comments all came from Iowa City. Mollenhauer responded that that is why addresses will be required. She said that when the sharpshooting litigation began, information was put out on the internet, and the City received correspondence from all over the country. Mollenhauer said that might be important to receive, but would not necessarily be appropriate as a guiding force in making decisions. Seiberling asked if the Committee has any information from other areas that have had deer problems and have handled them satisfactorily. Mollenhauer said she has talked to other communities and found that the issue is not easy in any community. Ray Hanson asked if the Committee feels the City can never meet the criteria of what is required for bow hunting. Rhodes replied that when the Committee went to the DNR last year to get permission to sharpshoot, it was in the agreement that the Committee would consider all forms every year, and the methods considered need to meet the three criteria. Mollenhauer said the Committee has not discussed this yet. LETHAL MANAGEMENT METHODS: Rhodes said she thought the Committee needed to know how many deer need to be killed before deciding which method to use. Jones agreed with Rhodes. Louis said there was a figure on an earlier report as to how many deer should be in each area of the City when everything is settled. Mollenhauer said that the City cannot financially or reasonably get the numbers down to 35 deer per square mile in only one year. She said the Committee may need to set a reasonable number that the City can afford and reasonably attain. Louis said that two years ago the number of deer for the Peninsula area was estimated at 69 and now it is estimated at 154. He said this shows that the City needs to get moving on this and get something concrete started. Rhodes said the number chosen last year was on a recommendation from the DNR. Mollenhauer said there are some areas with higher numbers where a certain method cannot be used. She said she did not think the Committee should necessarily determine safety issues. Jones said he believes that determination rests solidly with City staff, public safety, the DNR, and whoever ends up implementing the method. Mollenhauer said if the Committee decides there is an area where sharpshooting cannot physically be used but deer need to be killed there, then other options would be considered. Hendrix said the Committee could start off with a recommendation that all other things being equal, this is what the Committee recommends, in general. He asked if it doesn't meet public safety requirements, would the Committee make a recommendation for a second method? Ashman said the Committee should have a backup plan. Louis asked if there were a date this fall to start this. Goodman-Herbst said it depends on what method is used. She said that bow hunting can take place earlier than sharpshooting. Goodman-Herbst said that September 1't would be the earliest possible date for bow hunting. Jones said that population control is almost pointless if you cannot do a break-even. He said there are two definitions of stabilize, one is to not have any new increase and the other is to bring the numbers toward the desired goal. Goodman-Herbst said that most studies done on the places that have done this have not shown great decreases for the first three years. She said the Committee is aware that it will take a number of years to even stabilize the population. Goodman-Herbst asked if the Committee wanted to consider the City as a whole with the 35 deer per square mile in mind or wants to consider each area separately. Jones said it is within the Committee's purview to look area by area and based on that, recommend a total. Rhodes said what the Committee wanted to do was to encourage people to live with deer as much as possible. Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 38 - Rhodes discussed the Finkbine area, saying there were six deer spotted there in 1997 and 31 deer spotted there in 1999, the equivalent of 54 deer per square mile. She said that since Finkbine is located very close to Clear Creek West and Clear Creek East, where there are also large numbers of deer, the likelihood is that if that area where shooting could be done were cleared, nothing would need to be done at Finkbine. Jones said he felt that the original Finkbine count was an undercount, because he was aware of a fairly substantial number of deer there that were easily observed at various times of the year. He said that the deer in that area tend to have fairly frequent movements through the Lincoln School property and down toward the Peninsula. He said they probably go toward the Clear Creek area also. Mollenhauer said the Committee is not specifically charged with making recommendations to the Coralvilla City Council. She said that in looking at the map of counts, the areas the Committee should focus on are the Peninsula, Hickory Hill/ACT, Dubuque to Dodge, and Dubuque to Highway One. Goodman-Herbst suggested that the Committee concentrate on those areas this year. Rhodes said she would agree with that suggestion. Mollenhauer said that in the Peninsula area, sharpshooting can be used. She stated bow and arrow hunting can be done anywhere sharpshooting can. Jim Jansen from the DNR confirmed this. Mollenhauer said that trap and kill can be done in any of these areas. Jansen said bow hunting can also be done in areas where sharpshooting cannot be done. Mollenhauer said that hunting in some of these areas depends on whether the City has the ability to receive authorization from private property owners. She said the City does not own large tracts of land in each of these areas. Ashman asked if the Committee would stay with the number. Rhodes said the reason the Committee made those numbers the way they were was because it was trying to halt ecological damage. She said that in an area where flora is being damaged, if the numbers are not reduced now at the current level, the numbers that will need to be reduced later will be significantly higher and more difficult to do. Jones said there may be some landowners in these areas who would be happy to cooperate. He said it is very clear that having something like this take place on private property would have to be at the request of the landowner, not merely with their consent. Rhodes said that if everyone agrees these are the four areas to examine, the Committee could go area by area to identify what the concerns are in order to help decide what methods to be used and if deer need to be reduced at all in those areas. Starting with the Peninsula, Rhodes said it is the easiest place to sharpshoot and has the largest number of deer with the greatest chance of reducing deer there. She said that that would probably not have much effect on her neighborhood, however. Jansen said the deer will leave an area where they are being bothered. Mollenhauer said there is a great deal of construction going on in the Peninsula already. Jansen said that when deer start to actually be killed, the other deer will sense that and start to leave the area. Jones said that the south Peninsula count is for 167 deer. He said that if half of the deer are female, about 85, with each having one or two fawns a year, the potential new births next spring comes to 100. Jones said that then means that removing 100 deer is just marking time. He said he was somewhat squeamish about such numbers, but if the Committee is serious about reducing the population to something sustainable, it needs to talk about numbers like that. Seiberling asked what a sustainable figure would be. Jones said it is about one square mile, so the Committee would want a population on the order of 30 to 35 deer there. He said that removing 1 O0 deer for break-even would leave 130 to be removed to hit target. Jones said the birth rate of deer is so high that the difference between hitting the stable population and just breaking even is remarkably small. Ashman said that if the Committee were looking at this from a narrow standpoint of effectively killing deer and not looking at any of the moral dilemmas, the best time to reduce deer would be in the spring. Jansen said the deer have fawns in them in the fall when sharpshooting is done also. Regarding the Peninsula and the number that need to be removed, Mollenhauer stated that the City Council has to have some idea what this will cost before people start shooting, and there needs to be a maximum figure. Jones said the City Council needs to be told in blunt language the number that if you take out less Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 39 - than, you'll have to do even more next year. 'He said that reducing over two years requires killing 30% more and over three years requires killing twice as many. Rhodes asked how many deer are reasonably believed to be in the Peninsula. Goodman-Herbst said the Committee goes by the 154. Jones said that if 35 deer is a target population for the Peninsula, then killing 120 deer would result in that 35 figure. He said that 120 is a maximum but if the goal is to maintain 35, it actually is the way to kill the fewest deer, to maintain that goal. Jones said that 120 is the maximum that it would be responsible to kill if you wanted to maintain a steady population at the target level. He said that the minimum you should hope to kill to avoid population growth, 30% of 154, is roughly 50 deer. Jones said that taking out fewer than 50 results in a greater population next year than this year. Regarding the Dubuque to Dodge area, Mollenhauer said the count was for 90 deer. Jones said that was 1.2 square miles, which could support around 40 deer. He said the maximum to be reduced for that area would be 50 deer, and the minimum would be around 30 deer. Jansen said the counts are what the DNR counted at one time in the winter. He said that to be realistic, the City will want to take the deer wherever they can get them, with the sharpshooting. Jansen said the goals will probably not be reached, but if they are, a decision can then be made to stop. He said that if there is shooting only in those areas, there will be many areas around there that are not affected, and the deer will filter back. He said a maximum number can be set and added that sharpshooting cannot be used in all of the areas. Rhodes said she sees only three areas where deer can be killed. She said she sees 227 deer as the maximum to be killed, with 120 in the Peninsula, 57 in the ACT area, and 50 in the Hickory Hill area as maximums. Rhodes said as minimums, she could see 50 deer killed in the Peninsula, 40 deer in the ACT area, and 30 deer in the Hickory Hill area in order to keep the same numbers as the City currently has. Jones said the minimum numbers are important for effectiveness arguments. He said that if the chosen method cannot remove the minimum in the stated period, then the method is not effective. Ashman asked Committee members if the numbers made sense. Hendrix said the numbers did make sense if the 35 deer per square mile were accepted as the target. He said he felt the 30% increase was a safe assumption, as it has been documented. Regarding bow and arrow hunting, Jansen discussed the effectiveness of the Dubuque hunt last year, which was a first year hunt. He showed a map of the area, saying that if any of the areas did not have some type of activity on them, they become a refuge, and the deer all end up there. Jansen said private property owners should have the right to manage deer on their property, and if there are areas of no activity, deer will gravitate to those areas where they are not being harassed. He said he has had two complaints from Iowa City farmers, saying they are having difficulties raising crops because Iowa City is not helping solve the deer problem. Jansen distributed a brochure describing the Dubuque deer management plan, saying that there was no opposition to the plan in Dubuque. He said the Dubuque plan basically lets landowners solve their own problems. Jansen said that last year there was a five-acre minimum and this year a three-acre minimum, so that three landowners with one acre each can get together and harvest deer off their properties to solve their own problems. Jansen said that bow hunting is very good because it gets into areas where nothing else except trap and kill can be used. He said there might be a question of why Dubuque is so liberal when it comes to bow hunting, but what it gets down to is money. Jansen said that bow hunting is a cheap way to solve some problems. He said that Iowa City is in a different category because of the high number of deer and will, therefore, need to use sharpshooting. Jansen said that Iowa City will also need to use bow hunting. He said the City should use everything available, including education, repellents, barriers, and all the lethal means the City can use to meet its objective. Jones said the Dubuque plan specified that people check their deer into the fire station. Jansen confirmed this, saying the deer are checked in to confirm that they are antlerless deer. He said it is an incentive Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 40 - program to try to solve the problem. Jansen said Dubuque's objective is 20 deer per square mile. He said the program worked, with stabilization after one year. Hendrix asked if bow hunting can be effective given the large numbers of deer to be removed in Iowa City. Jansen said that because sharpshooting cannot be used in all areas, there needs to be another method to address those areas. He said that even the activity of having tree stands and hunters walking around will complement the sharpshooting. Jansen said that leaving acres undisturbed will result in the deer taking refuge there, which will only make the job harder. (Hendrix left the meeting at 8:03 p.m.) Mollenhauer asked what this plan cost the City of Dubuque. Jansen did not know actual cost and referred Mollenhauer to Mary Rose in Dubuque. Jansen said there were administrative costs for a class for the hunters. Jansen distributed a progress report for the Cedar Falls deer management plan. He said this is the first year after five years where they have affected the population through bow hunting alone. Mollenhauer asked how long it took to administratively set up the program in Dubuque. Jansen responded that it did not take long; the City held a class for the bow hunters and signed them up. He said that each city can set up the way it wants the program to run, within the guidelines of the bow hunting season, which starts October 1. Jansen said he did not believe bow hunting alone would solve the problem but wanted people to realize that it is an effective tool and is low.cost. Ashman asked if Cedar Falls also had a zone. Jansen said Cedar Falls had several zones. He said the plan was very managed. Jansen said the hunters getting involved in this are proud of the program and proud to be active in deer management. He said they inform the hunters that this is not recreation, that the primary goal is pop. ulation control. Jansen said there will have to be a maintenance program down the road. Louis said he hoped that if the City decided on bow hunting, there was a system of checking to see that the hunters are qualified. Jansen said Dubuque required a ten-hour class to show shooting proficiency and prove accuracy. He added that to say there won't be an incident is wrong, because there probably will be. Jansen said there could also be an incident with sharpshooting, because it is not a perfect world. Mollenhauer said the option of bow hunting was denied by this Committee last time. She said one reason for that denial was because there was evidence from other communities that it was not very effective. Jones agreed, saying that the crippling rates seem to be higher with bow hunting, although any method could have its incidents. Mollenhauer said this brings up the community acceptance criterion. Mollenhauer asked if there is any evidence that bow and arrow hunting demonstrates public safety concern. Rhodes said the studies looked at regarding bow hunting did not turn up any major or minor incidents. Regarding the effectiveness of bow hunting, Jones said the question arises as to what density of bow hunters shooting for how many days does it take to get anywhere. He stated that this is why even the DNR has conceded that the numbers in the Peninsula are simply too large for bow hunting to do the job. Jansen stated that 8 bow hunters got 43 deer in Dubuque. Jones said the eight hunters were scattered around the Dubuque area. He said that eight hunters in the Peninsula would be within hollering distance of each other, and it would be hard to achieve that kind of effectiveness. Jansen said that at Eagle Point Park, the activity of the hunters did have an impact on that park's problem areas. He stated that the Committee has an example in Kent Park as to what can be done to get the numbers at a manageable level. Forbes asked how many years there has been shooting at Kent Park, and Wilkinson said it has been four years. Goodman-Herbst said one of the things that comes into play is that sharpshooting cannot take place everywhere in the City. She said that to effectively deal with numbers of deer in places where another method cannot be used, something has to happen. Jones said he did not see solid evidence in Iowa City for the acceptance of bow hunting. Goodman-Herbst said she did not have a clearcut idea from the public Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 41 - hearings held last year. She said a lot of attendees were hunters from the County. Goodman-Herbst said the Committee is representative of the community, and the Committee is deciding this. Ashman said one of the reasons the Committee didn't think bow hunting would work was that the Committee did not want this to turn into a recreation .hunting event. Mollenhauer said one concern she had was that last year members of the Committee conceded that bow hunting would not be used because they convincingly and appropriately discussed the issue of how quickly the deer die. She said that when the sharpshooting program was stopped, callers were more willing to accept bow and arrow hunting, because the ultimate goal was to reduce the deer population, and the problem was still there. Mollenhauer said there was feedback that if bow hunting is the only option that will not be litigated, the City may have to use it. She said that a lot of people were frustrated that the City did not have a backup plan. She asked if sharpshooting again was to be stopped, does the Committee want bow hunting as a back-up plan. Rhodes said the Committee worked very hard to reach a consensus, and the fact that the choice was foiled leaves the Committee little alternative. She said it was not a success for anyone that the City failed to kill the number of deer that should have been killed last year because now more have to be killed. Rhodes stated that if the City does not have the ability to use the most humane and effective method, deer still need to be killed. She said that although she may not like bow hunting or may not care about it, it is the effective method remains. Rhodes said she is committed to reducing the deer herd because it is logical. Ashman said she agrees to a point, but this is making the assumption that sharpshooting cannot be used as a method, and she is not there yet. Jones said the Committee has to answer the overall question of whether a method should be permitted in any area before looking at whether it should be recommended in a particular area. Mollenhauer said the Committee needs to state whether or not bow and arrow hunting is acceptable. Jones agreed with that statement. Goodman-Herbst said there is a concern that should the Committee approve sharpshooting again and a legal action again take place, the City will again be left unable to do anything about the deer population. She said the question then is should the Committee follow that same line or should the Committee do a number of things and have some other options if something happens. Jones said if the Committee wants bow hunting, it will have to open up the entire season, starting when the bow hunting season begins. He said that only allowing bow hunting late in the season won't do any good at all. Jones said that bow hunting can't be a fallback plan; it has to be something that happens when the season opens so that the mechanisms are put in place. Goodman-Herbst said she was not suggesting that bow hunting be used as a fallback plan; she said it would have to be planned out beforehand. She said the point is that if the Committee came up with a determination on this plan in early August and then a court action took place in August or September to prevent sharpshooting, then there is no reason, if a bow hunting plan were in place, why it could not be used at that point in time. Forbes asked if there would be a backup plan on sharpshooters i.e., if the Department of Agriculture is recommended and that doesn't work, could there be different sharpshooters. Mollenhauer said the U.S. Department of Agriculture was in the plan sent to the City Council, although that does not preclude the City from using private people. She said there is no precedent in the State of Iowa for sharpshooting, so that is why it is a little more susceptible to litigation. Mollenhauer said no one is more susceptible to litigation than the federal government because they have to meet regulations private people do not. She said the possibility of litigation lessens if the federal government is not involved, although it is not excluded. Mollenhauer said an out of state sharpshooting contract may result in dealing with a court system that is not in Iowa, which could result in even more problems and a period of delay. Rhodes said she did not see how that could be overcome, because it is a tactical, political behavior that causes the action to occur. Jones said the only way to make it work is to take the thing and run it right through. He said that if someone raises the case again, the City has to run it through the courts. Jones said if the City is going to do something with sharpshooting, the Committee has to put in place a plan with that as the primary recommendation, and let it come to trial. Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 42 - Ashman said to look at this from the standpoint of people who want it stopped; they are not saying that they don't want sharpshooting but are saying that they don't want dead deer. She said the Committee has decided that there will have to be dead deer and is now concentrating on what is the most humane, moral, and effective way to kill them. Jones said that if the City should lose the case for sharpshooting, it will put the kibosh on the whole idea of sharpshooting in Iowa. He said that if the case is won, it will set a precedent allow something other than bow hunting in Iowa. Rhodes said that if the case is tried outside the State it would be hard to keep it a controlled situation. Jones said if the case is tried outside the State, it means the federal government is involved. Mollenhauer said that if the City uses private contractors outside of Iowa, a case can be filed outside the State. SET DATE FOR NEXT MEETING: Mollenhauer said this plan has to be taken to the Natural Resource Commission. Wilkinson said the agenda for that Commission is set about ten days ahead of time, with the next meeting to be held on August 12. Mollenhauer said that the plan has to be decided and public hearings held, with the recommendations going on to City Council for a vote and more potential public hearings. Goodman-Herbst said that George and Katherine Gay invited Committee members to see what is happening on their property, and she asked members who would be interested to sign up for a visit. Mollenhauer said that since this is an ad hoc committee, it would not be subject to the same open meeting laws when a quorum of members is involved. The next meeting was set for June 23 at 6:45 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ray Hanson asked if there were currently any openings on the Committee. Mollenhauer said there were no current openings, but the City Council appoints members on a yearly basis. Hanson said he was an avid bow hunter. He asked why the Committee thinks the sharpshooting plan will go through again without litigation. Hanson said a bow hunting system could be set up before sharpshooting ever begins so that there could be some reduction before sharpshooting ever becomes an issue. Hanson said he has hunted on the Glasgow property, and there are literally tons of deer there. He said he was surprised no one was killed in an accident with a deer on the interstate this year and suggested that the City might be liable for a serious accident. Shannon Nelson said, regarding the DNR's ideas on bow hunting and the incentive program, that the Committee should look at the incentive program. She said that if the Committee doesn't want to send a message to the public that this is hunting, then it should not recommend bow hunting. Nelson said an incentive program would draw hunters from all over Iowa as well as out of state. Jansen said out of state residents are not allowed to participate in these programs. Nelson urged the Committee to look at the liability issues. She said the USDA has its own liability but asked how it would work with the City. Jansen said the hunters sign a waiver. Ashman asked Nelson which she would choose if she had no choice other than bow hunting or sharpshooting, and Nelson said she would choose sharpshooting. Elijah McNeish commented that the deer line could include answers to frequently asked questions. McNeish asked why the Committee did not review the non-lethal methods. Mollenhauer said those methods have been reviewed at previous meetings. McNeish said he thought the Committee should reconsider education in a more comprehensive way. Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 43 - McNeish asked what basis the Committee has used to determine that lethal methods are needed. Goodman- Herbst said the Committee has determined that the numbers are too high generally in the City and that the numbers need to be reduced. McNeish asked if contraception could be used. Rhodes said contraception is not legal nor effective at this point. McNeish asked about the possibility of the City being part of the contraception study. Goodman-Herbst said that so far, the Humane Society has picked very specific areas to study, areas that are surrounded by water or a land mass that make the area very controlled. Jones said that is done so that people do not end up eating meat from a deer that contained experimental drugs. Mollenhauer said there was an article on defensive driving in the Press-Citizen that included the suggestion that it be incorporated into drivers' education courses. She said she contacted Pat Highland at the school district, who was open to receiving information to include in the local classes. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Winter 1999~2000 Deer Management Plan - 44 - FINAL MINUTES IOWA CITY/CORALVILLE DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 1999 - 6:45 P.M. IOWA CITY CIVIC CENTER - COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Jan Ashman, Charlie Duffy, Pat Farrant, Loren Forbes, Ron Fort, Misha Goodman-Herbst, Steve Hendrix, Doug Jones, Lisa Mollenhauer, Judy Rhodes, Nancy Seiberling MEMBERS ABSENT: Scott Larson, Bud Louis OTHERS PRESENT: Ray Hanson, Stacey Kane, Elijah McNeish, Clay Foley, Florence Boos, Keith Stepanek, Joe Wilkinson, Jim Jansen, Elijah McNiesh CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Goodman-Herbst called the meeting to order at 6:52 p.m. DEER LINE: Goodman-Herbst said the deer line is up and running. Mollenhauer will organize calls by management district because that is how the counts are done and how management techniques are looked at. She said the calls give a good idea of the knowledge people have and what the Committee may need to emphasize in its educational material. Mollenhauer said a press release regarding the deer line went out on Monday. She said it is also run as a sequencer on Government Channel 4. Mollenhauer said the City Community News section will include an update on deer management that she, Rhodes, and Ashman worked on, and the deer line is mentioned in that also. Rhodes said she thought the deer line was a wonderful idea. Mollenhauer said she increased the time limit for the caller's comments from 90 seconds to three (or five) minutes. Mollenhauer distributed an Associated Press article that she has been receiving calls about from all over the country. LETHAL MANAGEMENT METHODS: Mollenhauer distributed a map summarizing the committee's kill numbers by management district decided at its last meeting. Goodman-Herbst said the Committee was still discussing bow hunting at its last meeting. Jones said it is worthwhile to draw out the rationales for and against bow hunting. He said one argument is that there needs to be a fallback position to control the deer problem and that bow hunting is a viable fallback position. He said a second argument is that the threat of bow hunting needs to be held up in order to deter lawsuits, on the theory that bow hunting will be more offensive to the people who might sue than sharpshooting, and having this more offensive method on the table might deter a lawsuit. Jones said the other thing is that having the more offensive method on the table, because there is some precedence for bow hunting in the State, it would be extremely hard to challenge that; therefore, having a sharpshooting plan in place would look perhaps preferable to something that would be very hard to challenge because of the established precedents within the State. Jones said a third argument, which is an anti-bow hunting position, is simply that bow hunting is inhumane by one standard or another. Jones stated that the fourth position is that including bow hunting in the menu of options would almost guarantee that bow hunting would be the only option, simply because all the other options are so easy to challenge. He said that if someone is going to challenge the program, challenging the Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 45 - sharpshooting in courts while bow hunting is in place ends up being much easier because one can argue that there is already a legal option, so why is this additional one needed. Jones said that if the position as a challenger of the plan is to minimize the number of deer killed, allowing a limited bow hunt in City limits, while preventing an efficient sharpshooting plan, could lead to continued ineffective population control, simply because there are so many hundreds of deer in such a limited area. Farrant asked where the discussion of finding an alternative method of sharpshooting went. She said her understanding was that the reason sharpshooting was terminated was that someone figured out USDA's Wildlife Services failed to do necessary environmental impact studies. Jones said that question is still on the table. Farrant said her understanding has been from the beginning that the hunt was halted for administrative reasons. Mollenhauer stated it was based on allowance of public comment. She said people also did not know at the time that for many animal rights activists, Wildlife Services raises a red flag because it is just the renamed Predator Control, which some have found an offensive connection. Farrant asked where the thought of finding an alternative means of doing the sharpshooting is. Mollenhauer said that if the sharpshooting team comes from Connecticut, a suit could be filed in Connecticut. Mollenhauer said that anyone can file any kind of lawsuit they choose. The quotes that came from the people who filed on a federal level last time indicated that if they could not have used the administrative angle, they would have tried something else. Mollenhauer said she had a discussion earlier in the day with Ed Hartin regarding the May 18th mediation. She said there was apparently agreement on some items, including a 30-day comment period, and a compromise to a 15-day period between when activity was signed off by the regional director and when it actually started. Mollenhauer said that right now they are just waiting for the general counsel attorney, Pamela West, to file it. She added that none of the mediation had anything to do specifically with Iowa City. Mollenhauer said Hartin did not have any advice on whether the Committee should look at working with the USDA again. Jones said that if the purpose is to stop the killing of deer, the litigants will look for the cheapest route each time around, which was the procedural route this time around. Mollenhauer said the USDA is more susceptible to lawsuits because it has more hoops to jump through. Jones stated that once they have jumped through those hoops, they may actually be more resistant because they are the federal government. Regarding Farrant's question, Rhodes said the Committee had agreed to review and revisit with the DNR all of the methods for killing deer based on the three criteria: the method had to be effective, accepted by the community, and safe. She said the Committee has started to review the methods. Given what Jones said about the relationship between a choice for bow hunting and the issues surrounding sharpshooting, Rhodes said it may be better for the Committee to look at sharpshooting first and to follow that by looking at the other methods. MOTION: Hendrix moved to start discussion of the lethal methods with sharpshooting. Ashman seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Goodman-Herbst asked Fort if he knew of anyone in Iowa who could be hired to do sharpshooting. Fort said he did not know of any such legal group. Mollenhauer said a group of hobbyists talked to her when USDA sharpshooters were stopped. Rhodes asked about using the Oakdale guards, as had been discussed at one time. Mollenhauer said that again, these people do not have experience in sharpshooting. She said it is important to have people who know what they're doing. Farrant said it would be the same thing with bow hunting. Goodman-Herbst asked who the other groups were who might be available to do this. Mollenhauer said she had received letters from four or five agencies around the country. She said they were wildlife management agencies, private groups who are working for profit. Mollenhauer added that the USDA was charging expenses only. She said the Committee needs to realize that private sharpshooters will be more expensive. Mollenhauer said she had a call in to Jay McAninch, who has knowledge of the private sharpshooting agencies, to get an estimate of the cost per deer. Goodman-Herbst asked if these agencies could be contacted to get a price. Mollenhauer said a lot of them would want to know more about the situation, but she could get estimates from them. Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 46 - Hendrix said the Committee should talk about whether there is some inherent logic or other reasons to use sharpshooting before discussing where the deer are and how much the cost is per deer. He said he has not heard a consensus on whether or not the Committee wants to do sharpshooting. Hendrix said the safety issue is one that the Committee gets assistance and advice on from other people. He said the effectiveness issue has been discussed ad nauseum; from what he has heard, sharpshooting is the most effective way for these large numbers of deer. Regarding acceptance by the community, Hendrix said the Committee needs to demonstrate that the Committee does not look at this as recreation but as reducing large numbers of animals in the most efficient way possible. He said the alternatives to sharpshooting, trapping and contraceptives, are methods that might be acceptable in the future but are not working now. Hendrix said that trap and relocate seems to be a hoax, because so much irreparable damage is done to the animals. He said that some of the things he has heard about bow hunting this year suggest that when the herd sizes get down closer to a maintenance level, bow hunting may be a more feasible option. Mollenhauer said that sharpshooting cannot be done in all areas. She asked if sharpshooting cannot be done in areas four and five because of safety reasons, would the Committee want to offer an alternative. Rhodes said the Committee recognizes that that area is more difficult. She said that bow hunting is probably possible in that area, but if bow hunting is eliminated, trap and kill is the only alternative. Rhodes said trap and kill is very ineffective and will be expensive. Hendrix said that since this is a numbers reduction program, the reduction of deer should be done as effectively, efficiently, and quickly as it can safely be done. He said that if that requires bow hunting in areas four and five, then he is for bow hunting in areas four and five. Ashman said that if it is not humane, she did not want to be doing it. Fort said he thinks the Committee should let the City Council have the option. He said he thought bow hunting should begin October 1, and the sharpshooters should take over if and when the State allows it to be done. Fort said the City Council should have the public hearings to make the determination as to whether the public will accept bow hunting. Farrant asked what happened to the agreement that the Committee did not want any part of this task to be recreational. Rhodes said the animal rights people stopped the process. Farrant said those people caused the problem but asked if the Committee now had to change its behavior because of their actions. Rhodes said there is an effectiveness problem. She said that bow hunting is going to be inhumane by the definitions and the understanding that the Committee had last year. In terms of public acceptance, Jones said it is easy to make the argument that if deer have to be killed, sharpshooting is the most humane alternative. He said that leaves open to political debate the question of whether it has to be done; there will be a lot of people who will argue strongly that it doesn't have to be done. Jones said that if one accepts that numbers of deer have to be killed, sharpshooting comes in as the most humane and probably the most effective method, as long as the safety constraints can be met. Rhodes said the understanding last year was that if the City could get the 240 deer out of the Peninsula, the likelihood would have been that the number of deer in areas four and five would likely have been reduced because they would gravitate over in that direction. Jones said they would gravitate but it would not happen quickly. He thought the population in areas four and five would continue to grow, even if the Peninsula were hunted. Rhodes said she agreed that that was probably true. Jones said that areas four and five have some big empty fields. Rhodes said there is also a big open area behind Shimek School. Hendrix said the question is whether the Committee will recommend bow hunting as a fallback option in areas where sharpshooting is not feasible. Farrant said that it was inserted in the plan at the penultimate moment to get something approved at a meeting that went very late. She said the Committee did not really come to consensus on that but came to as a last resort when it was voted on. Farrant said she abstained from the vote because she felt it was a railroad job. She said she did not feel the Committee came to include bow hunting in the long-term plan at one of last year's meetings by any sort of rationale acceptance but rather by default. Farrant said she thinks that defaulting to it now because it was included at the penultimate moment last year is misrepresenting all of the discussion that went on up to that point, discussion in which the Committee didn't want to include it. She said the Committee would be betraying what it did last year if it did not exhaust every sharpshooting option and any other option. Farrant said she Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 47 - would rather see deer poisoned than have them shot with bow and arrows and have them run around the City with arrows sticking out of them. Jones said the Committee should actually take a vote on one of the methods and should probably consider sharpshooting first. Mollenhauer said she has heard some arguments against sharpshooting. She said one issue is safety; people are still concerned about high-powered rifles being discharged in the City limits. Mollenhauer said that is one reason the Committee wants someone experienced. She said the other argument is cost. People have argued in the past that the City would spend too much money on sharpshooting. Mollenhauer said the cost for sharpshooting could range from $175 to $500 per deer, indicating the cost factor cannot be completely ignored. She said the Committee will need to help the City Council address these issues. Mollenhauer said she could not give exact costs because she did not want to put out requests for proposals until the Committee has a plan approved by the City Council. Goodman-Herbst said that City Council approved the costs last year. Mollenhauer said those were very reasonable costs because the charge was for expenses only. Goodman-Herbst said the Committee should be able to at least get a ballpark figure from some of the contractors. Mollenhauer asked if the cost would affect the decision. Rhodes said it would; Goodman-Herbst said it certainly might, if the difference is from $175 to $500. Hendrix said it always comes back to how many deer the City will be able to eliminate. He said the City Council is going to say that X number can be eliminated due to cost constraints, and the Committee indicates that number is not large enough, an alternative may have to be considered. Mollenhauer said she would call the groups directly to get some idea of what the costs would be. Rhodes said the Committee worked over the humane issue well enough issue last year to know that the consensus was that sharpshooting is the most merciful death. She said that would be her first choice where it is effective and possible, with the understanding that if it turns out to be so expensive as to be ineffective, then the Committee will have to look at alternatives. Rhodes said the Committee is in a position where it probably cannot use USDA people to do this, which was the most cost-effective way. She said it looks different if the City will limit the Committee and not enough deer can be shot, because every year this is let go, the numbers get larger. Mollenhauer said there was an estimate that by having sharpshooting stopped last year, it cost the City an extra $30,000 to just get back to where it would have been had it been allowed to continue. Jones said that every delay ends up arguing for two alternatives - one is to do nothing and allow the urban environment to be trashed, and the other is bow hunting, which is the one that comes in cheap by distributing the cost over the hunters who put in hours and equipment and fees. Forbes said the City could pay for the $10 license expense of the bow hunters, and that would be its only expense. Mollenhauer asked if there were a consensus on sharpshooting. The unanimous decision of the Committee was that at this point, with the information the Committee currently has, sharpshooting is still the number one option for reducing the deer population where it is safe and effective. Duffy said that a $400 or $500 cost per deer would change that. Rhodes said that if the cost is too high, the method would then be ineffective, negating it as the number one option. Farrant asked if the USDA were completely out of the picture with regard to sharpshooting. Mollenhauer said she did not know. She said that Ed Hartin is unwilling to commit to anything right now. Mollenhauer said Hartin cannot guarantee that a sharpshooting plan this year would meet a different fate. Committee members said they knew they could not get a guarantee but asked if Hartin were willing to try. Mollenhauer said she would talk to him. R~garding trap and kill, Fort said he would prefer not to use that method. He said it is not effective. Fort said someone needs to monitor the trap or the deer could be in the trap from 20 minutes to several hours. He said that someone has to kill the animal in the trap, and then someone has to deal with the carcass. Fort added that the traps are heavy. Goodman-Herbst said she was not sure that the net traps the Committee had talked about using would be safe in the neighborhoods where they would need to be used. She stated that box traps are very heavy and Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 48 - cumbersome, and it was decided last year not to use box traps. Rhodes said she thought last year's discussion had gone differently. Goodman-Herbst said that cloverleaf are netted traps, not boxes..Wilkinson said there were discussions last year of cloverleaf dropnet traps, which he believed the Committee settled on to be used if traps had to be used. Goodman-Herbst confirmed this. She said she was concerned about people getting in these traps. Jones said, assuming the monitoring is sufficiently frequent to ensure a reasonable level of humaneness, this should not pose a threat to a person because monitoring sufficient to ensure the safety of deer would do the same thing for people. Fort asked who would monitor the traps. He stated that a type of portable burglar alarm could be used once in a while. Mollenhauer said that when she visited a home with a severe problem in an area where sharpshooting could not be done, the property owners, who were retired, volunteered to monitor the traps. Jansen said the latest research he has read regarding trapping in an area of St. Louis showed a 20% mortality rate due to trap myopathy, the condition in which the deer are so stressed out that even though they are released, they die anyway. Jones asked what the frequency of trap monitoring was in that plan. Jansen said he would get the information regarding that plan to the Committee for the next meeting. He said it was a trap and relocate program and the cost was ~350 per animal, and they got 70 deer. Goodman- Herbst said she did not know how accessible the traps would be, and they might have to be built. Rhodes said the intention at that time was to use the trap and kill method in situations where there is a very localized problem, like along a creek where deer might have caused difficulties. She said the Committee was not thinking of using trap and kill as a method of reducing herd size but just for controlling human/deer conflict in an area where there was a specific problem. Goodman-Herbst said the other way of doing that is to immobilize the animals and euthanize them. She said the deer could then most likely not be used for meat. Goodman-Herbst said someone could be hired to do it, as there are agencies and individuals who do that sort of work. She said she would check on the cost. Mollenhauer questioned whether the DNR would allow something like this. Jansen said he did not know. Wilkinson said that in Waterloo there have been experiments with darting deer from a blind but only in order to put radio collars on them. He said the deer have to be very close to the blind. Mollenhauer suggested it would be the same cost as sharpshooting but could be done in areas where sharpshooting could not. Mollenhauer said the other issue with regard to traps is what should be done if a buck is caught in a trap. Mollenhauer asked if Committee members wanted to pursue the trapping method. Several Committee members said they did not. Ashman said she might be interested in pursuing dart and kill and would like to find out more about it. Goodman-Herbst said that if there is an injured deer in town, Animal Control will dart it and euthanize it. Mollenhauer said that is only for an isolated incident, not population reduction. She said the DNR would need to approve the method for deer population management. Mollenhauer asked for a show of hands from people interested in pursuing trap and kill, and no one was interested. She said that if anyone were interested in pursuing the dart and euthanasia, it would have to go through the Natural Resources Commission. Farrant said the reason the Committee put in trap and kill was for the localized, specific problem area. She asked what would be left if the Committee dumps that out as an option. Fort said the dart method would work better than trapping. Goodman-Herbst said that the animals don't go down right away. She said that when they are darted, they have to be tracked. Goodman-Herbst said the dart would be for immobilization, and then the animal would be killed by a shot to the head or by injection. Fort said this would involve perhaps three deer a year. Goodman-Herbst agreed it would not be many deer. Hendrix said the Committee should be dealing with population control, and there are already methods in place to deal with problem deer. Goodman-Herbst said that in areas like the one where Rhodes lives, there may be more than one deer, and sharpshooting cannot be done there. She said this is an example of an alternative method. Rhodes said that in areas where the deer population was between 25 and 35 and there were significant numbers of complaints from the community, the Committee planned to look at those areas case by case and decide what to do in that area. She said that is when the Committee thought that trap and kill would be the best method to use. Winter 1999~2000 Deer Management Plan - 49 - Mollenhauer said the Committee is not talking about any areas where there are 25 to 35 deer to be killed, so unless the Committee wants to expand the district area, this method would not apply to any of these areas. Rhodes agreed that it would not apply this year. She said that once pressure is applied to the outside areas, some deer will move to the inside areas. Goodman~Herbst said she would get more information about the dart and kill method to see if it is even feasible and would report back to the Committee at the next meeting. Regarding other management methods, Rhodes stated that the Committee rejected the trap and relocate method, and immunocontraceptives cannot yet be used, because they are not legal. Mollenhauer said she is trying to get a definitive statement about that fact from a credible source in order to educate the public, because people continue to raise contraception as an option. Mollenhauer said the use of immunocontraception once it is available is a separate issue from spending money to conduct studies. She said that in the studies she has read, it was animal protection people, Humane Society, etc., that have organized the studies. Mollenhauer said the City would not necessarily have to do that. She said once it is an approved method it should be considered, but questioned if the City should be in the business of conducting scientific studies of drugs. Ashman asked if the Committee would be willing to have someone come here to conduct such studies. Jones said the City would have to underwrite a considerable chunk of the cost. Mollenhauer said she would get a definitive statement about immunocontraception. Wilkinson suggested contacting Allen Rutberg because the Humane Society is using such drugs in isolated places. Mollenhauer said she would contact Allen. Rhodes said that for education purposes, people don't understand that the deer can"t be kept inside a fence, and if a drug that could affect those consuming the meat is shot into a deer, there will be problems. Goodman-Herbst said that is not an issue anymore. She said the Committee needs to give the City Council the criteria for using immunocontraception in a study area, and then the City Council can choose whether or not to spend the money to be a test site. Goodman-Herbst said the Humane Society has not chosen to use Iowa City as a test site, but the City Council could approach the Humane Society. She said that the criteria no longer contain a requirement for a controlled deer herd. She said the testing has just started to be done in a non-controlled way. Regarding bow hunting, Hendrix said that a year ago he was pretty much against bow hunting for a variety of reasons. He didn't think it was particularly effective, and it had the potential to be unsafe if it didn't have pretty strict controls. He said he still has questions about the level of humanity involved in the process. Hendrix stated that he has heard things this year to cause him to reconsider some things, and he is beginning to think that there may be ways to construct a bow hunt that would be safe and somewhat effective. He said the Committee should look at formulating a reasonable plan that might be able to be implemented down the road. Hendrix said it would take a considerable amount of time to hammer through the considerations of what it would take. He said he is at a point where he would at least like to talk about bow hunting more. Hendrix said data from the DNR regarding Dubuque and other areas make it sound like it could be effective. Hendrix said he is a part of the Committee in order to see that the deer are reduced to a level where the natural vegetation is not being completely destroyed, which is what is happening now. He said that if bow hunting can meet the three criteria, he is willing to try to put together a plan to make it happen. Ashman asked if Hendrix wanted to go with a plan whether or not it is humane. Hendrix stated that with good hunters, bow hunting is probably not too much worse than sharpshooting. He thought the animals could be brought down pretty quickly with experienced people, and much of the information suggests that bow hunting is probably not all that much down the scale. Hendrix said there were some concerns last year about the number of deer hit in some of the hunts that remained unaccounted for, and he would like to have more details about that. Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 50 - Farrant said she would be more convinced if there were a report available that was not written by an archery or bow hunting interest but by a reliable third party. Jones stated that the only people who study a subject are the people who are interested in it or the people who are adamantly opposed to it. Mollenhauer asked if there were any statistics kept on the Dubuque hunt, and if so, who kept them. Jansen said the City kept that information. Goodman-Herbst said that a lot of information received by the Committee supported what people already thought, that there was a lot of wounding going on. She said it has been acknowledged in some cases that numbers haven't always been kept very well. Farrant said that of all of the related issues that were addressed and agreed to that allowed even those who don't favor killing of any kind to accept a certain level of killing, a lot of it had to do with not wanting to impose inhumane methods or methods that allow the Committee to appear to be supporting a recreational opportunity. She said she feels the Committee may be drifting back to that without really thinking it through. Jones said the information on the trapping methods is sounding less positive than it did last year and the year before. He said it is now beginning to sound like it would not be impossible to make an argument that bow hunting would be more humane than the various trap and slaughter methods. Jones said he suspected that a trapping program could be run that would be more humane than bow hunting, but it is also pretty clear that the opposite could be done. He said the Committee has said no to trap and kill because of the effectiveness and the new questions about the humanity. Jones said that this time around, the Committee is hearing enough information about both bow hunting and trap and slaughter methods that makes each of them sound sort of questionable. He said that, on average, trapping seems to be no better than bow hunting. Jones said that if 20% of the animals are dying in traps, that isn't a very humane method. He said some people gave the Committee great assurances last year that trapping involved the deer just standing there eating the bait. Jones said if that were true, if the animals show no response to being trapped, it would be an appealing alternative. He said that at this point, the Committee has received mixed messages, and he would like to see more information about trapping. Jones said the Committee should revisit that when it receives some evidence one way or the other. He said he is hearing that bow hunting is not obviously worse than trap and kill methods, and on that basis, he is less negatively inclined than last year but is really not positive. Jones said that when there is a ranking of alternatives and something like bow hunting begins to fall into second place, then it may actually be a viable solution to the low-density deer population control problem in developed areas where sharpshooting cannot take place. He said there is nothing in second piace yet; the Committee has sharpshooting or nothing. Rhodes said she has considered what has changed since last year and why her position may be different. She said she has learned a lot about deer behavior in a year and is much more aware of management concerns in a different way than she was last year. Rhodes said that last year the issue of a humane way to deal with this had to do with morals and community acceptance. She said that at that time, the only people coming to the meetings were people who felt that the killing of deer was inhumane and should not be done. Rhodes stated that since that time she has heard from many people in the community who hold different positions. She said that makes a difference in her mind about community acceptance. Rhodes said she has also learned about numbers and the alarming rate at which deer can increase in an area. She said she knows now much better than last year what devastation those deer can do in an area when their population gets so large. Rhodes said she is still very much in favor of sharpshooting and believes it to be the most humane and most effective way to reduce numbers in the herd. She said she never espoused the whole idea that the Committee had to be totally humane, but the Committee reached a consensus to make a workable plan. Rhodes said she is changing her position because she sees inherent problems in sitting with one idea, and while the Committee talks from an ivory tower about what is humane and what is not, the deer are reproducing. She stated that the 78 deer that were there are now 95 and will be 120. She said that the Committee can talk forever, but it does nothing about the problem. Rhodes said she has to move from abstract discussion to practicality. She said that practicality tells her that her neighborhood, with 78 deer per square mile, is going to be incredibly overrun by next year. Rhodes said she is unwilling to sit in the position of approving sharpshooting and then having it stopped over and over again. She stated that at some point disease and starvation will take the herd. Rhodes said she would rather see Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 51 - bow hunting approved than to have an entire herd die. She asked at what number the Committee would get practical and do something. Farrant said the Committee still keeps straying from the heart of the matter, which is that the plan hit an administrative snag, and a way has to be found to unsnag that. Rhodes asked Farrant if she had a way to undo it. Mollenhauer said it wasn't the Committee's or City's issue but rather a USDA procedural issue. Rhodes said it was entirely out of the Committee's hands. Mollenhauer said it could be again even if private people were hired. Mollenhauer said that since there was only one option and it was out of the City's hands, the Committee may want to have something else to fall back on that is not so susceptible to being stopped. She said the issue is whether the Committee wants the plan to be all one way or nothing, or does it want to have a mixed pot. Rhodes said she would like the Committee to spend time figuring out how to get past those administrative snags. Farrant said that reduced to their smallest terms, it may still be possible to potentially overcome them. She said that if that is the case, the Committee is back to where it started last year with a list of options that most members agreed to. Rhodes said the situation has clearly changed. She said there are more deer and more questions about whether a lawsuit can be overcome. She stated that a lawsuit does not even have to be meaningful to cause the sharpshooting to stop. Rhodes said the process of law goes so slowly that the window of time is gone before anything is resolved. Hendrix said he agreed with Rhodes. He said the numbers have changed to make this a much bigger problem, and he feels that if sharpshooting is put on hold again, he would like another option to move to immediately to make something happen. Hendrix said that is one of the reasons he is willing to consider bow hunting. Jones said another reason to want an alternative is to avoid a guerrilla action, with people going out and shooting on their own. Hendrix said there were rumors to that effect, but he saw no documented evidence of that. Ashman said she continues to think of these animals as individuals. She said the large number of deer is not their fault but is our fault, because of what we have done to this environment. She said the deer were here first, and she prized each of them as individuals. Ashman said that if they are going to die, she would like to see them die in the most humane way possible. She said she did not think that was abstract, and she was not particularly sentimental about this. Ashman said she faces this every day and that people in animal protection make decisions about life and death every day. She said that when one has to make a decision that an animal is going to die, it is usually because there was some stupid human involved. Ashman said she gets the same visceral feeling about this, and that is why she will be a witness for a humane method. Forbes said that as deer multiply, there will be more vehicle accidents involving deer, and they don't die immediately when they get hit by a car. He said that was not even close to being humane, and Ashman agreed. Mollenhauer asked if the Committee wanted to pursue a bow hunting option at all as an alternative, wanted to consider offering it as a supplement along with sharpshooting, or wanted to offer it only in the case that the most humane method the Committee selects is not able to be used. Jones suggested taking public comment before taking a straw poll on the issue. Hendrix said he was not yet ready to eliminate bow hunting. He said he would like to review all the information he has received regarding bow hunting and would like to receive more information about hunts in other cities. Hendrix said he would also like to have public comment first. Before public comment, Mollenhauer reported that she had a call from a farmer in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. She said this farmer raises and feeds deer and does not sell them. Mollenhauer said he wants to capture the fawns in Iowa City because he says it is not inhumane to do so at this age. He said they could be penned at animal control, and once a week he would pick them up and pay the City $25 per deer. Fort said that constituted several violations of State law. Mollenhauer said she knew the DNR was very opposed to putting wild deer in private hands. She said she would tell him that the Committee did not endorse such a plan. Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 52 - EDUCATION COMPONENTS: Mollenhauer asked if Committee members would be in favor of the production of a video on deer management and education methods that could be checked out from the library, run on the government channel, and checked out by schools. She said the content could include whatever member decided. Jones said an educational video really should show pictures of a bow hunting kill and pictures of a sharpshooting kill. Hendrix said it could show the destruction of vegetation behind the Mayflower. Ashman and Rhodes agreed to help Mollenhauer with a video project over the course of the summer, PUBLIC COMMENT: Ray Hanson said he has been a bow hunter for 15 years. He said he was not at the meeting as a bow hunting advocate but was concerned about how this group was handling this situation in its second year. Hanson said he put together a quick survey and distributed it to 38 Iowa City citizens, with about an even mix of women, men, hunters, and non-hunters. He said the first questions was, "Should the City of Iowa City spend thousands of taxpayers' dollars on a deer control plan that the Committee admits will not be successful?" Hanson asked Jansen, to back up the question, if a sharpshooting plan alone would solve the City's problem. Jansen said it would not. Hanson said that 38 out of 38 people said that the City should not spend money on a plan that will not address the problem. Hanson said his second question was, "Which of the following would you like to see the City spend extra tax dollars on annually: City parks, road/pothole repair, deer control, donations to charitable organizations, a new pedestrian mall fountain, or any combination of the above?" Hanson said there was one deer control response, one response for a pedestrian mall fountain, with the rest being combinations or write-ins for tax relief. Hanson said the third question was, "Knowing that the State DNR promotes urban bow hunting for deer control, and if potential bow hunters were required to pass a safety and shooting proficiency test to obtain an urban deer tag, would you object to this method being used in the four problem areas?" He asked Jansen if bow hunting is the only legal tool in Iowa for urban deer control on the books right now. Jansen said it is the legal method, but the City was allowed to sharpshooting last year under special circumstances. Hanson said that 36 out of 38 people polled said they would not object. He said he did his survey where he works and asked the questions only of Iowa City residents. Hanson said he takes personal offense when someone says that the DNR finds bow hunting inhumane. He said that is an untrue statement. Hanson said he also found the statement that poisoning is more humane than bow hunting offensive. Farrant pointed out that that was not an accurate reiteration of what she said. Hanson said it is not accurate to threaten bow hunting as an offensive process. He said he wanted to be an advocate of seeing some good City politics occur. Hanson said the Committee was not taking advantage of informational sources that are sitting right in the same room. He said that there is obviously a group of people who will not endorse bow hunting, but there is a group of people that probably will. Hanson said that if the Committee is going to vote on it, they should vote on it. He said the majority should rule. Goodman-Herbst pointed out that the Committee has a huge notebook full of information, the majority of which came from sources like the DNR and other wildlife/biological sources. Rhodes said that for people who are coming to their first meetings now, it would be difficult to imagine what the Committee went through last year. She said that members came from so many different directions, so that the work done to reach the kind of consensus the Committee came to was really amazing. Stacey Kane, 1010 West Benton Street, said she is a local teacher and has lived in Iowa City for ten years. She said she opposes lethal methods to control the deer population. Kane said she had a great deal of information about why there isn't an overpopulation of deer, which she would provide to Mollenhauer for distribution before the next meeting. Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 53 - Kane said that no matter how many deer are killed, there will still always be deer eating plants or being hit by cars. She said that unless they are all eliminated, there will still be problems, and she asked the Committee to take that into consideration, Elijah McNeish, 425 Hawkeye Court, said he opposes bow hunting because it is very inhumane. He said that he has heard that about 50% of the deer killed by bow hunting are crippled. McNeish said that a lot of the deer aren't found for a long time so that they die a slow death from blood loss. He said that sharpshooting would be better than bow hunting, and he did not think the City should permit bow hunting. Joe Wilkinson said that the term sharpshooting is not interchangeable with the word hunting. He also asked the press to keep in mind that therefore sharpshooters are not hunters and hunters are not sharpshooters. Clay Foley, 612 E. Court Street, said, regarding sharpshooting, he realized there was more discussion to come. He said to the people who are sitting on the fence now, that he would not base his vote on what someone else is willing to possibly do or on other people's actions. He urged Committee members to vote their consciences. Foley said he was speaking for himself and not for the Animal Coalition. Ashman asked Foley if animals have to die would he rather see them die by sharpshooting than by bow hunting. Foley confirmed this. Florence Boos, 1427 Davenport Street, said she was disappointed that the Committee is going ahead with the non-educational and non-constructive parts of the plan. She said she heard a valuable thing in the discussion of a way of participating in the Humane Society contraception studies. Boos said that it might cost the City about $400 per deer to sharpshoot, so we should think about being willing to contribute that to a group that is working on a long-term plan. Boos said she has not heard much about speed control. She said there are not that many places where this problem occurs. Boos said that speeds should be reduced anyway, and with a reduced speed there wouldn't be so many problems. Boos said there should be some part of the plan to address the long-term causes in order to have some kind of balance. She said that when housing subdivisions are suddenly right next to parks, there will be more and more problems. Boos said there are some areas that could be kept as they are with a kind of no growth policy, which would result in fewer problems with the deer. Keith Stepanek, 2254 South Riverside Drive, said that bow hunting should be used as a way to control the deer population, although he is not a bow hunter himself. He said that bow hunting could be one of the best methods, and the people who would do this could be required to take a test. Stepanek said that as a taxpayer, he feels the Committee is spending too much money on these meetings, and as an alternative, could bring some money in by having bow hunters shoot these deer. SET AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING: The next meeting was set for July 7th at 6:45 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 54 - FINAL MINUTES IOWA CITY/CORALVILLE DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, JULY 7, 1999 - 6:45 P.M. IOWA CITY CIVIC CENTER - COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT:' MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Jan Ashman, Pat Farrant, Loren Forbes, Misha Goodman-Herbst, Doug Jones, Lisa Mollenhauer Charlie Duffy, Ron Fort, Steve Hendrix, Scott Larson, Bud Louis, Judy Rhodes, Nancy Seiberling Clayton Foley, Chad Gonnerman, Jim Jansen, John Kenyon, Trevor Maxwell, Elijah McNeish, Amanda Morgan, Shannon Nelson, Keith Stepanik, Joe Wilkinson CALL TO ORDER: Mollenhauer called the meeting to order at 6:55 p.m. REVIEW MAY 26, JUNE 16, AND JUNE 23 MEETING MINUTES: Review of the minutes was tabled due to the lack of a quorum. UNIVERSITY OF IOWA DEER REPORTS: 1999 - April 19, Mormon Trek Mollenhauer said that she contacted the University of Iowa (UI) Public Safety Office and was told that the Office has only had one reported auto accident - Mormon Trek on April 19. The UI Public Safety Office is now reporting incidents to Doug Ripley (City of Iowa City employee). Ripley will share this information with the Committee. Jones asked if the committee had received any information from groundskeepers at the UI. Mollenhauer responded that the City only receives information when Public Safety is involved. REPORT ON SHARPSHOOTING COMPONENTS: Locker Mollenhauer stated that Jeff Ruzicka is willing to help out with packaging the deer meat if the sharpshooting program is used. He has been directed to make 1-pound packages rather than 5-pound because: the meat generally must be combined with another type of meat; it is safer to thaw one pound at a time; and families may not be able to afford five pounds of mixer-meat at once. Jeff will provide the Committee with a quote that may be higher than last year due to the smaller-size packages. He said that he will also be willing to work with the Chair of Coe College in providing a location for the college students to perform reproductive autopsies on some of the deer. Private Contractors Mollenhauer stated that she contacted the contractors and to date has received information from White Buffalo, Inc. (Information was included in members' meeting packets.) The two other contractors requested additional information--such as maps, deer counts, etc.---and she has not heard back from them. In addition, the other companies may not have as much on paper because they appear to be start-up companies. Mollenhauer said that Deborah at White Buffalo told her that White Buffalo has a lot of experience. She said the company provided a long list of references. She talked with one reference, a police officer in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, who provided a glowing review. Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 55 - Jones noted that the organization is not-for-profit and includes litigation costs in its estimates. Mollenhauer said that White Buffalo is prepared to handle litigation because they told her there usually is some type of legal effort to stop sharpshooting programs. Ashman said that this company appears to be credible because it provided a lot of information quickly. Farrant asked if the USDA is at all interested in working with the City again and what they could do to avoid the same situation. Mollenhauer said that the last time she spoke with Ed Hartin from the USDA, he did not provide any reassurance that the City would not end up in the same situation again. Jones said that the complaint last time was based not on content, but on procedure, and that these complaints use traditional delay tactics. Mollenhauer added that the federal government seems to be more susceptible to these situations because they have to follow certain procedural regulations. Although private companies are not immune to litigation, we should look to them for assistance. Farrant asked what the next step should be for the Committee if members agree that the USDA does not seem to be a viable option. Goodman-Herbst said that she would like to hear from one of White Buffalo's references who has been through litigation with the company. Jones said that the Committee knows the company has been involved in litigation in Eden Prairie, Minnesota because they have several pages about the history of the case. Ashman asked if it would help by contacting the Humane Society' of the United States (HSUS). to negotiate an understanding. Mollenhauer said probably not because the HSUS does not want deer to be killed. Jones said that in previous e-mail conversations with the HSUS attorney, it was clear that the HSUS was not aware of all of the work the committee had done. Mollenhauer said that the City and HSUS agree on learning to live with the deer, but do not agree on how to get the deer population under control. She said that putting up reflectors and fences does not bring the population under control. The HSUS seems to want this to happen naturally. Shannon Nelson said that she has spoken with the HSUS. Nelson's opinion was that the Committee has established that the real problems are car accidents and damage to plants. Both the HSUS and the UI Animal Coalition believe killing deer will not solve the problem unless all deer are killed. Therefore, they need to work on building tolerance within the community through education and using routes such as deer reflectors. Jones said that obviously they cannot kill all of the deer and no one is advocating that. Goodman-Herbst asked if the national organizations have been kept apprised of what is going on at these committee meetings. Nelson said that they are. Jones said that it may be good if the national organizations receive copies of the Committee's minutes. Jones replied that the discovery process in a lawsuit can prolong the case; however, the process could be expedited if everything to be discovered is already out on the table. Mollenhauer noted that Gonnerman has, upon request, been given final minutes. Goodman-Herbst also asked if the national organizations take any stance on which is less cruel--bow hunting or sharpshooting. Nelson said that the organization definitely believes bow hunting is crueler but do not advocate either. Jones said he was not sure if that was correct because in one of the court cases he had previously read, sharpshooting was deemed an acceptable short-term solution as long as the community also sought to participate in an immuno-contraception study and find a long-term non-lethal solution. Ashman said that this is why she suggests that they contact all of these groups to find out their preferred method (bow hunting or sharpshooting). Goodman-Herbst asked if bow hunting had ever been stopped by a court case in an agricultural state. Mollenhauer said that the accepted method of urban deer management in the state of Iowa is bow hunting. With bow hunting, The City is not contracting with one agency as with sharpshooting, Goodman-Herbst stated that if sharpshooting was halted, none of the groups would be happy with bow hunting. Farrant said that there is a terrible irony at work here. She said that she belongs to several animal-related groups and it was with great pain that she agreed to sharpshooting because it was a practical solution to an inevitability. She said that as much as she admires the intent of the UI Animal Coalition, the group has "really screwed things up." Now the Committee is stuck with working against an unpleasant alternative to an already awful decision. She said that she does not distrust the Coalition's motives but wishes that they Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 56 - had used a little more perspicacity and thought about the ultimate outcome of what they had started. The Committee is now stuck and will probably end up seeing deer killed in an inhumane way. She said that she feels they are weakening the outcome of what was an extraordinary process last year in which very different groups and ideas came to a consensus. The Committee hit one little snag and they are ready to fall apart. She would like to see the Committee embrace sharpshooting as the most humane option and see whether this can be accomplished with a private organization this time. She said that she does not want the Committee to give up what they worked for last year. Goodman-Herbst said this is why it is good to see that White Buffalo is ready to deal with litigation. Jones suggested that the Committee propose standards for the hiring of a contractor such as experience in an urban setting and experience with court cases, strong safety record, mandatory planning, type of shot, etc. Joe Wilkinson suggested that the Committee use the communication from other communities that have gone through this. Mollenhauer said that the reference in Minnesota is sending her their contract and certification requirements. Goodman-Herbst suggested that once they have gathered information, the Committee should name what they are generally looking for along with an average cost. Jones said that most companies do not want to provide those costs without the City requesting a bid. Goodman-Herbst said that they could remove anything from.the request that will be taken care of by the locker and Coe College. She asked what the costs were for Eden Prairie. Mollenhauer said $125-$150 per deer. She said White Buffalo has used clean head shots to kill approximately 150 deer per year in Eden Prairie. The company shoots in parks and tight places and has no incidents of ricochets. Police officers accompany the shooters in camouflage to make sure no protesters are around. The company is registered with the Federal Government to use sound suppressors. She spoke with the ATF who told her that it should not be a problem to use sound suppressors as long as White Buffalo notifies the government where, when, and why they will be shooting. Mollenhauer added that there is a supplemental program using bow hunting in Eden Prairie. Mollenhauer said that the City would probably again have police and fire personnel accompany the sharpshooters. Wilkinson said the company should provide records 'showing how effective they are (wounding rates, etc.) Ashman asked Mollenhauer to find out more information about this company. Goodman-Herbst suggested that the Committee go with the criteria from last year and see if the company would provide an approximate cost. Mollenhauer said that she could look at the references' contracts to obtain this information. Mollenhauer said that she is concerned about not having a backup plan if the sharpshooting with the private contractor is halted by a lawsuit. She said that there is not a bottomless pit of money if the Committee gets nowhere year after year. Forbes asked if the City had an amount budgeted for this. Mollenhauer said that last year $40,000 was approved. Farrant said that even if the City resorted to bow hunting instead of sharpshooting, that would not take care of the problem and the City may have en masse protests. She added that the people who stopped the sharpshooting have no investment in Iowa City and the Committee should not underestimate the emotional response to bow hunting. She commented that if a young group committed to a cause, but not to Iowa City, can stop this without a whole lot of effort, the Committee needs to look at the fallout of their choices. She does not want the Committee to be pushed into an unacceptable direction. Farrant said that she is impressed with the information Mollenhauer has received and would be willing to assist by calling references. She added that it would be interesting to get different perspectives on the references. Mollenhauer had already spoken with the Eden Prairie, Minnesota reference. Other calls to references were divided by members as follows: · Ashman would call Cleveland, Ohio · Goodman-Herbst would call Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 57 - · Jones would call Dune Acres, Indiana · Farrant would call Northern Indiana Public Service Company and Sikorsky Airport in Connecticut · Forbes would call Long Island, New Hampshire, and Monhegan Island, Maine In order to be consistent, Mollenhauer said that she would e-mail everyone a list of questions to ask--including requesting a sample contract and certification requirements. She asked the Committee if this was too much time spent on one company. Members agreed that it was not. Committee members discussed the curriculum vitae of the President of White Buffalo and agreed that they should ask for further information on the deer contraception studies that the president has been involved with. Mollenhauer asked if members thought that she should start writing a the deer management plan based on what the Committee has discussed. She said that she would like to include commonly asked questions in the report. Members agreed. Jones wished to include on the record that his neighbor maintains two acres of property along the riverbank as a natural area. His neighbor was commended by the Iowa City Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission for the way he maintains the land. However, because a deer gave birth in this natural area, another neighbor has complained under the terms of the Iowa City weed ordinance. Essentially the complaint demands that the area be mowed so that it cannot harbor deer (because the deer are a nuisance). Jones said that he was surprised about the request for the removal of a natural area in order to avoid deer. Jones said that the people are actually the threat--not the deer, but the deer are making people take action. Farrant said that another reason she does not want to see the Committee rush to embrace another form of reduction is because she does not want the Committee or the City to appear to be encouraging this type of hysteric behavior. "Kill them at any cost" is not the City's approach and the Committee does not want to encourage this thinking. She said that the call logs from complaints are showing that people are starting to refer to deer as "vermin" and "nuisances." She said although the Committee cannot change people's attitudes, the Committee should not be pushed towards getting rid of this "nuisance" as if it were a swarm of stinging bees. She said that she was recently at a dinner party where the police were called simply because a deer happened to stop in the yard of the person who was hosting the party. Mollenhauer said that there have been two comments on the deer line about concern for children. One caller said that a deer jumped over a two-year-old's head. The caller was concerned because deer are not typically in their yard. Another caller asked if a buck would attack a child. She said as the deer move further into the City, people are starting to see more in their yards in atypical areas. Jones added that the deer are getting more accustomed to people and are not running away. He said that from year to year, the City is seeing closer interaction between people and deer. USDA Mollenhauer has not yet received any additional information on this topic. PUBLIC COMMENT: Keith Stepanik, asked if something was going to be done about the deer problem this year and if something will be done after a decision is made. Goodman-Herbst said that a decision will be made this year and the hope is that something will be done. Joe Wilkinson, said that he wants to be sure the money is there when something can be done. Goodman- Herbst said that she thinks Council would plan for at least the same amount as was planned for last year. Jones said that they told Council last year that this would not be a one-time expense. Shannon Nelson, requested a copy of the comments from the deer line. Mollenhauer said Nelson could stop by her office. Mollenhauer said the City will make the comments a part of the final plan but she has been continuously updating them as she has time. Until the comments are included in the report, anyone can request them from her. Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 58 - Clayton Foley, said that the Committee will be hearing from the Animal Coalition. He said that he is bothered by the questions surrounding the group's intentions. He said that there will be open communication about how they feel and how the national groups feel. Mollenhauer asked if the Animal Coalition will relay their concerns verbally or in writing. Foley said that he did not know at this time. Mollenhauer said that she had asked members of the Animal Rights Coalition to assist with the City's educational video. Chad Gonnerman said that he would be interested in doing this and would speak with the other members. ADJOURN: The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Minutes submitted by Wendy Larive. Winter 1999~2000 Deer Management Plan - 59 - Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 60 - FINAL IOWA CITY/CORALVILLE DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MONDAY, JULY 12, 1999, 6:45 PM IOWA CITY MAIN LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Lisa Mollenhauer, Misha Goodman-Herbst, Ron Fort, Pat Farrant, Bud Louis, Charlie Duffy, Loren Forbes, Jan Ashman, Judy Rhodes, Doug Jones MEMBERS ABSENT: Nancy Seiberling, Steve Hendrix, Scott Larson OTHERS PRESENT: Tim Thompson (DNR), Jim Jansen (DNR), Shannon Nelson, Ray Hansen, Clay Foley, Jill Johnston, Treyor Maxwell CALL TO ORDER: Goodman-Herbst called the meeting to order at 6:52 p.m. Meeting minutes from May 26, June16 and June 23 were reviewed. Motion to approve by Farrant and seconded by Forbes. LIVING WITH DEER NEWSPAPER SERIES Mollenhauer indicated that the next article that she would like to work on is fencing, repellants and motion sensors. The group agreed that these topics would be appropriate. Rhodes and Ashman will review the article before publication. TIMEFRAME OF GROUP The City Council has a formal meeting on July 27. Mollenhauer suggested the Committee ask the Council to set a public discussion for the August 24 meeting as this being the only meeting held in August. Material for the meeting needs to be prepared for publication for August 18% The suggestion would include holding the discussion and considering the resolution to approve the plan the same evening. The Natural Resource Commission meets September 9 in Cedar Rapids. Ideally, the City should make their presentation at that meeting. If this is not achieved the NRC review would be delayed until their next meeting in October. The Committee agreed to strive for this timeline and recognized that Council can continue the discussion or defer consideration of the plan if necessary. WHITE BUFFALO REFERENCE CHECKS Goodman-Herbst reported that White Buffalo is a non-profit sharpshooting company, which eliminates deer through a couple of different means. It is located in Connecticut. Members ran into a problem with several of the references due to vacations. Forbes did hear from Steve Weber via voice mail. Weber said he would be glad to answer and questions. He spoke highly of White Buffalo stating that they were very professional. In regard Manhegan Island; Forbes was able to speak with Ms. Farrell Henderson who was close to the program. The town has contracted White Buffalo twice over an eight-year period. At this time the town does believe they have a complete eradication. White Buffalo will return in the winter when there is snow to verify. Henderson indicated to Forbes that 15% of the human population of this town has Lymes Disease. The area covers approximately 400 acres and has 15 deer per square mile. The kill took place in April in four-day periods with the use of feeders and electric eyes. During that time, 54 deer were taken with 54 shots. The first effort cost $6K. The goal was to go achieve a zero population in a two-year period with a budget of $16,400. Henderson spoke very highly of White Buffalo. She said Tony of White Buffalo was a very down-to-earth, articulate, and professional man. She also indicated that White Buffalo would not take a questionable shot. Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 61 - Mollenhauer spoke to Tony of White Buffalo for approximately one hour. She had contacted him to get a sample contract. Tony said he would be willing to perform a site assessment and meet with Council on Monday and then be present at Tuesday evening's public hearing to address citizen concerns. Mollenhauer said she spoke to the Mayor, and he said he believed council would give consideration to a recommended private contractor from this committee. Goodman-Herbst raised the question of litigation. Mollenhauer explained that efforts are being taken to ensure that the language is very specific. Mollenhauer went on to say that the ownership of the deer is another issue that has been brought up. Tony from White Buffalo said that a case has never been won where it was claimed that the deer belong to individuals. Iowa Code states that the deer are the common property of the people of the State of Iowa and are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Natural Resources. Tony is willing to work with the City to make sure that everything is in order to cover any possible litigation areas. Rhodes asked about the 91 ,000 per day costs. Mollenhauer said that White Buffalo is willing to assist the City should litigation arise. Jones raised the question of the City's willingness to pay for a site visit and public hearing. Mollenhauer said that this is something the city manager could approve and she would talk with him about the expense being covered by the City prior to a contract being signed. Mollenhauer said she spoke to Tony about the north central area that has been a concern of the committee since it is heavily populated and there is not a large area of public property. Tony said that they have worked in tight areas before and it depends on the restrictions that are imposed on them. The Iowa State law says that you cannot discharge a firearm within 200 yards of an occupied property, residence or building without the owner's consent. Therefore, a permit could be offered to folks in perhaps a three or five acre area. Rhodes asked if we had other sharpshooting organizations to research. Mollenhauer spoke with Urban Wildlife Specialists and they have received the packet of information. They will get information to the committee. This gentleman indicated that they would not be interested in going through any litigation process. LETHAL MANAGEMENT METHODS OF RECOMMENDATION BY DISTRICT The group agreed that sharpshooting is the number one recommendation for killing of deer. Mollenhauer said she spoke with AI Farris about the dart and kill method. As is the case with sharpshooting, it is not an approved method according to administrative rule. Rhodes and Ashman raised the question as to why this method could not be used if firearms are approved. Fort explained that the dart falls under the projectile rule as opposed to firearms. He went on to explain the superiority in distance and accuracy of a firearm over a dart. Goodman-Herbst said the group has determined that is would not be useful for a large kill and that the group had already decided not to consider it as a method for this year. Goodman-Herbst said a request had been made that "bow hunting" be changed to another title. Farrant said this distinction needs to be made so as not to give the suggestion that this is related to recreational activity. The group agreed that the terminology should be changed to "archery kill." Other methods were discussed. Louis explained that a method used is Belize is a rounding up of the animals and then slaughtering after the animals are corralled. The group agreed that this is not an acceptable method for the purpose of this group. The committee agreed that the deer are becoming tamer. The deer line has had calls telling of the deer coming very close to humans as well. Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 62 - Rhodes inquired about a timeline for preparation if a non-professional method is used. Jim Jansen (DNR) said that Dubuque is preparing for training in August. The season starts October 1st. He said Cedar Falls is using the same timeline. Those plans are for the hunters to be approved and tested by October 1. Louis asked why there has to be a kill at a certain time. Goodman-Herbst explained that the DNR does not allow an alternate time. Rhodes then verified that the group is not considering non-contractual archery kill. Jones said the reason is that the group is not able to get this into place in time for the hunting season. Tim Thompson (DNR) pointed out that last year there were six certified trainers for archery. He went on to point out that it should be easier to certify hunters since Fin & Feather has an archery center. Tim also said that finding the area might be more of a hold up than the training. The group concluded that time is not a reason to conclude that non-contractual archery kill (bow hunters) is not an option for this year. Jim Jansen presented information regarding wounding rates. He pointed out that no matter who does the hunting, the method of the killing is the issue. There will be a wounding rate. The group had asked for information regarding Dubuque. Dubuque did not keep records since Black Hawk County observed such a low rate. Farrant asked for an explanation on the term "recovered." Jansen explained that if a deer is hit with an arrow and is found, that is considered "recovered." "Unrecovered" is when the deer is hit and perhaps left a trail but was not recovered. If a good shot was made then a deer should be recovered within 15 minutes to an hour. If a poor shot was made then the deer may survive. Of the 1997 and 1998 figures, fifty percent of those deer hit were seen moving at another time. Fort said that he believed that bow hunters should be allowed within the city limits where nothing would be in place for the people. He also noted that if we do not start with the outside areas, the deer will then move into the areas that have been cleared. Rhodes further clarified this point saying that the fringe hunting would be a way to thin out some of the over population out of the interior and prevent the influx of deer from the rural areas. However, Rhodes said that she believed we should focus on the three areas that were previously identified. The committee voted upon the following issues: Is this committee interested in recommending for 1999-2000 plan bow and arrow hunting anywhere in the city at any time? The group voted on the motion as follows: 5 no, 3 yes, 1 abstain. Do you feel the method of archery should be allowed by the contractor should the contractor deem it the most appropriate method in a particular area? Louis: yes Jones: yes Farrant: yes Ashman: yes Fort: yes Rhodes: yes Forbes: yes Mollenhauer: yes 8 yes, 1 abstain. The group did reiterate that there are caveats to the private archery sharpshooter vote concerning issues such as cost, wounding rates, etc. Jim Jansen and Mollenhauer did point a lot of these issues are based on public perception. Mollenhauer will contact Tony of White Buffalo and AI Farris of the Natural Resources Commission concerning these caveats. Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 63 - Mollenhauer summarized as follows: The committee decided to eliminate bow and arrow hunting from its 1999-2000 plan by a bare majority. The committee also agreed that if positive responses come back from private contractors regarding sharpshooting archery, that method may be used in the identified areas. UPCOMING MEETING The next meeting will be held on July 19th at 6:45 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The group will plan on reviewing a draft of text for the 1999-2000 plan. PUBLIC COMMENT Shannon Nelson Ms. Nelson indicated that last time the Council public hearing was over two hours long and not all of the public got to speak. If everyone does not get to speak then it would not seem appropriate to vote. Mollenhauer pointed out that the Council does have the prerogative to defer the vote. The timeline is simply a recommendation from the Committee. Mollenhauer also stated she hopes any concerns or suggestions would be voiced to the Committee now so they might be addressed and/or incorporated. Ray Hansen Mr. Hansen voiced his concern that he does not like the group recommending only one option. He indicated that something needs to be done to at least stabilize the problem. Hansen said he felt it was hypocritical to say no to the only other option available for two years and then flip flop based on defeat. He said by staying on this course the problem will continue to compound itself. Jill Johnston Ms. Johnston commented on her surprise that the committee believed that an animal rights group could stop the deer kill process. She always thought it was a group of students who worked very hard to make a difference. Ms. Johnston went on to suggest that perhaps if the committee contacted the animal rights groups to work out an agreement that there would be no bow hunting then the sharpshooting would not be stopped. She went on to point out that she believed that there would have to be bow hunting at some point if the elimination process continues to be stopped year after year. Rhodes pointed out that the deer issue is not in local hands anymore. Local people did not bring the litigation against the USDA. D.J. Schubert now has focused on this area and as long as he gets information from this area, he will continue to pursue the issue because he has a national agenda. She indicated that Schubert's agenda does not have to due with local issues, fortunes or values. Goodman-Herbst said that last week the committee asked the animal rights coalition for their perception and for some feedback in this area. The committee has no idea at this point if there are plans by the local Animal Rights Coalition to attempt to stop the kill. Jones pointed out that the Animal Rights Collation did not come to light until approximately October last year. He said he could see a similar group forming again this year. His opinion is that these kinds of groups do have an impact, ADJOURN: The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Minutes submitted by Le Ann Dunne-Tyson Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 64 - FINAL IOWA CITY/CORALVILLE DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MONDAY, JULY 19, 1999, 6:45 PM IOWA CITY CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lisa Mollenhauer, Misha Goodman-Herbst, Ron Fort, Pat Farrant, Bud Louis, Charlie Duffy, Loren Forbes, Jan Ashman, Judy Rhodes, Doug Jones, Steve Hendrix MEMBERS ABSENT: Nancy Seiberling, Dave Froschauer, Scott Larson OTHERS PRESENT: Tim Thompson (DNR), Tim Dorr (DNR), Ray Hartsen, Mark Hansen, Holly Clark, John Kenyon (CR Gazette), Dean Thornberry CALL TO ORDER: Goodman-Herbst called the meeting to order at 6:50 p.m. PRIVATE CONTRACTORS Urban Wildlife Specialists Mollenhauer reported on Urban Wildlife Specialists, Inc.; a private contractor from Wisconsin. Scott Ellarson of Urban Wildlife Specialists called Mollenhauer to provide her with additional information regarding the services they offer. Ellarson stated that if their organization were to become involved in litigation the cost would be $70 per hour for testimony and it would be $700 per day for the delay. Mollenhauer explained that Ellarson has testified in court before; however he has not been involved in litigation regarding wildlife elimination. Ellarson is very willing to help out with this program and also pointed out that since their organization is only three hours away this should be an advantage. His estimated cost is 975 to 9125 per deer removed. Mollenhauer reminded the committee that the cost for White Buffalo was $200 to 9250 per deer. These costs include field dressing and transportation to the meat processor. It should be noted that with Urban Wildlife Specialists, Inc. the city is obligated to procure and prepare bate sites for the shoot. Mollenhauer stated that she felt the city was not prepared to perform that part of the project. Rhodes pointed out that this organization is significantly less expensive. However, Mollenhauer stated that tasks such as baiting do increase the cost. Rhodes also noted the total number of deer killed by Urban Wildlife Specialists, 700, was very low. Goodman-Herbst said it appeared that some of the areas that this group has worked were areas with smaller goals. The staff will do reference checks on the Urban Wildlife Specialists, Inc. and will report to the committee at a later date. White Buffalo Mollenhauer spoke with Tony from White Buffalo (Hamden, CT) regarding the archery kill. He indicated that he would not recommend this method for Iowa City. He said it is typically something used in communities where firearms are prohibited and where the regulation would not be amended. Tony went on to explain that it would take all winter to make any kind of reduction with the staff he has. To increase staff, he would possibly look to using local hunters. The fee for this method would be $500-600 per deer because of the time involved. Tony also explained that the efficiency is very low. Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 65 - The question was raised as to how Dubuque was able to eliminate so many deer. It was explained that it was a local hunt with 122 deer tags issued by the DNR. White Buffalo Reference Checks Steve Weber- Philadelphia Goodman-Herbst reported that this community of 1.5 million residents initially wanted the USDA to conduct two shoots on 1500 acres of woodland located within the city. The USDA had killed deer at three of their city airports. However, the city met opposition from local animal rights groups. The community requested a deer study and spent $30K to make the determination that there was indeed a problem. The plan was to remove 125 deer from one of the areas contracting White Buffalo. Steve said the total expense was $280 per deer. This project, utilizing White Buffalo, was stopped by a court case. The city then turned again to USDA to see if they could do anything to help them. The USDA said they did not think they could help them due to the time factor. The city did go to court and won the ruling. White Buffalo did commence shooting the last week of March. They only had two nights to shoot and killed 43 deer with a total of 44 shots. One was missed because the animal moved. There were no negative aspects of this shoot. Steve went on to say that the court case was very interesting because although national animals rights groups participated, their only involvement was through letters. When the actual case went to court the only people present were the local activists. He said the cases presented were very flimsy. Philadelphia has been to court three different times, winning each time. This year they are going to shoot again and plan to go to court. They will be using White Buffalo again. Steve spoke very highly of White Buffalo. Dune Acres, Indiana Jones spoke to Dusty Stemmer who is the president of the town council. This community is surrounded by federal land, national lakeshore on the south side of Lake Michigan. Initially, the only method the DNR sanctioned was a controlled bow hunt. After receiving authorization to sharpshoot, White Buffalo was contracted. White Buffalo determined that in the one square mile there was a count of 80 deer. White Buffalo was able to kill 50 deer with 50 shots in the three-day period. The cost per deer was $120 to $150. Dusty said that the reason that the quota was not met was due to harassment of the shooters by local citizens. Stemmer said that Tony of White Buffalo was very helpful at a town council meeting. She spoke very highly of him in every aspect. Peitz Wildlife Consulting The company from Arkansas is sending material; however, they are not experts in sharpshooting. They appear to be most interested in managing a bow hunt using local hunters. TIMEFRAMES The public discussion would be held on August 24 and it has been relayed that, in order to meet appropriate timelines, council should consider the resolution approving the plan that evening. If Council approves the resolution, the plan will be to the Natural Resource Commission on September 9. If council delays consideration, the Natural Resource Commission does not meet again until the first week of October. Upon all approvals of the plan, the contract must be approved and other issues have to be dealt with before anyone could begin work. November 1 is a reasonable date to commence if everything is approved in a timely manner. Tim Thompson (DNR) confirmed that the approved dates last year were 9/1/98 - 3/20/99 for the project. Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 66 - Mollenhauer also mentioned that locker availability must be considered. She went on to point out that the council will have to approve no trespassing areas and closing of parks at certain times. She reiterated that there is much work to do once all of the approvals have been granted. AI Farris of the Natural Resource Commission recommended that city personnel join him in meeting with State Attorney General's office to review all applicable laws and rules. This is scheduled for August 17. SUMMARY OF LETHAL MANAGEMENT Jones summarized the plan as follows: Sharpshooting is the preferred method. There will be no trap and kill. Professional archery kill was rejected due to cost and inefficiency. REVIEW OF 1999/2000 MANAGEMENT PLAN Review started with page 12. Page 12- Item 2: The recommendation of warning signs was agreed upon. Goodman-Herbst explained that numbers are being installed this week on the reflector posts. Staff will be responsible for reporting any problem with these posts and the Streets Division will replace or repair signs. If an accident occurs, the number system will more accurately define where the accident took place. Page 12- Item 3: Rhodes and Jones will prepare an additional paragraph explaining how the numbers were arrived at and this will be included in the background information. Page 13- Item 2: Regarding consideration of deer migratory paths. Language needs to be amended to instruct City staff involved in street construction to review feasibility of deer underpasses is the construction/renovation is in a district containing over 35 deer/square mile. Page 11-Item 4 In the line stating "Does will be targeted, although ..... "Changes should be as follows: "Does will be targeted, but some bucks may be killed." The rationale regarding sex will be moved to the section on page 10 in the committee conclusion area. Page 1 l-Item 5 "The" selected meat locker will be changed to "any." Questions and Answer Section The committee agreed that these are classic questions. Goodman-Herbst suggested that questions regarding litigation should be added. Jones suggested adding a question regarding how other communities have dealt with similar issues. Remainder of Plan Committee members will individually review the remainder of the plan and get changes to Mollenhauer by July 28th. Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 67 - PUBLIC COMMENT Thornberry questioned the committee on the number of deer recommended to be killed. The committee explained that in the prior year, all areas of Iowa City were included in the number to be eliminated. Mollenhauer explained that the committee recognizes there are areas with over 35 deer per square mile that they are not being considered for killing. It is important to submit to Council a plan that is reasonable in cost and contains an attainable goal. Thornberry then asked about the committee's back-up plan should the sharpshooting program be stopped with litigation. The committee explain that the Department of Natural Resources recommended that bow and arrow hunting not be included as a back-up plan. The DNR said that if a bow and arrow hunt were to be initiated at a late date, the plan would more likely fail. Hunters need time and appropriate conditions to succeed. Thornberry said that he felt that it is imperative that something must be done to eliminate deer this year. Ray Hanson Hanson confirmed that the quotes of White Buffalo were $220 and Urban Wildlife Specialists, Inc. quote was $75-125. Mollenhauer said it would be safe to assume that the cost per deer would be $115-$250. Hanson did indicate that there is concern within the community regarding the cost of the deer elimination. Mark Hanson Hanson commented on the trap and transport concept. He did not understand why deer would be trapped and transported. Goodman-Herbst said that the original idea of the trap and transport concept was that this might be utilized in areas where sharpshooting was not safe. This method was previously eliminated by the Committee. SET AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING Meeting will be held on August 2,1999, at 6:45 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Minutes submitted by Le Ann Dunne-Tyson Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 68 - FINAL IOWA CITY/CORALVILLE DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MONDAY, AUGUST 2, 1999, 6:45 PM IOWA CITY CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lisa Mollenhauer, Nancy Seiberling, Pat Farrant, Charlie Duffy, Jan Ashman, Judy Rhodes, Doug Jones MEMBERS ABSENT: Misha Goodman-Herbst, Ron Fort, Bud Louis, Loren Forbes, Steve Hendrix STAFF PRESENT: Dennis Mitchell OTHERS PRESENT: Tim Thompson (DNR), John Kenyon (CR Gazette), Marci Kilbane, Elijah McNeish CALL TO ORDER: Mollenhauer called the meeting to order at 6:48 PM Meeting minutes were from July 7, July 12 and July 19 were approved by unanimous consent. URBAN WILDLIFE SPECIALISTS Updated information was presented to the committee. REVIEW OF 1999/2000 MANAGEMENT PLAN The committee reviewed the plan to finalize it. The following points were discussed during the finalization of the plan: The issue of the minimum and maximum number of deer recommended to be killed was discussed. The committee agreed to publish a guideline listing a minimum, recommended, and maximum number of deer to kill in all areas with over thirty-five deer. The "maximum" category will be based on information obtained from the Department of Natural Resources. Mollenhauer confirmed that Ruzicka's Meat Locker in Solon will be doing the processing of the meat into one pound packages for distribution to low-to-moderate income families at a cost of $35 per deer. Mollenhauer asked for volunteers from the committee to speak to community groups if requested. She further indicated that there will be a page relating to deer management added to the Iowa City website. Mollenhauer indicated there is a meeting scheduled with the State Attorney General's Office on Tuesday, August 17, 1999, at 9 a.m. Mollenhauer, Assistant City Attorney Mitchell, and Council Member Vanderhoef will represent the City. PRIVATE CONTRACTOR RECOMMENDATIONS Mollenhauer expressed her concerns regarding Urban Wildlife Specialists, Inc. They were outlined as follows: · The staff has other forms of full-time employment and would tend to be available on weekends. · It does not appear this organization has been directly involved in a litigation process. · While they have applied, this organization does not yet have authorization to use suppressors. · They do not have the experience White Buffalo demonstrates. By unanimous consent, the committee agreed that White Buffalo will be the recommended private contractor. Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 69 - UPCOMING ACTION ON THE PLAN Edits as recommended by the committee will be made and the final approval of the plan by the committee members will be held at a future meeting. The City Manager's office has requested White Buffalo to come to Iowa City. Tony DeNicola will perform site assessments and will be available for Council's August 23 and 24 meetings. Farrant requested that the committee meet with White Buffalo on Sunday. A meeting time was established for Sunday, August 22"d at 11 a.m. for the committee to meet with Tony DeNicola. Mollenhauer encouraged committee members to attend the public discussion on Monday, August 23, 1999, at approximately 7:00 p.m. The formal city council meeting will be on Tuesday, August 24, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT None. The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 PM. Minutes submitted by Le Ann Dunne-Tyson Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 70 - Projected Number of Deer to be Removed by Willie Suchy Wildlife Biologist, IDNR ATTACHMENT B Population simulations can be used to predict the response of a population to proposed management actions. A model requires basic assumptions about the productivity, survival and egress of deer into and out of the area under consideration. The assumptions used for these simulations are listed in the Appendix and have been used at Kent Park with acceptable results. In general, deer in urban areas such as Iowa City have high survival rates, high rates of productivity and significant movement into and out of these areas. The simulations developed here are based upon the number of deer observed during the helicopters surveys conducted in 1997 and 1999. The simulation assumes that about 60% of the number counted were does and about 1/3 of the does were fawns. Dispersal and then reproduction occur and the number of deer present after normal mortality through the end of December are calculated. Removals occur during January and February and are additive to normal mortality. Then the cycle repeats. Table 1 lists the estimated number of does that need to be removed to reach the objective of less than 30 deer per square mile in 1 year. The simulations "fit" the counts observed on the Peninsula, the Hickory Hill/ACT area and the Clear Creek west area fairly well. The simulations for the other areas predicted higher numbers than observed in 1999 if initial numbers were based on the 1997 counts. The simulation model was "fit" to the 1999 counts by lowering the initial number until the simulated numbers were close to what was in 1999. Thus all simulations are closely "aligned" to the most recent results. Removal efforts should target does and removals could logically cease when the desired number of does is removed in a unit. I assume that for every 3 does removed I buck will be removed. In a practical sense, removals could probably continue if the amount of effort to remove deer is still reasonable. I believe that it will be very difficult to remove 40 to 50% of the does in any one year, If this proves to be the case, then removals will need to be made over a number of years reach the desired level. Table 1. The number of deer that would need to be removed this year to reduce simulated populations to less than 30 / square mile. Goal of Number of Deer Sighted 30 deer Does to Area Sq. Miles 1997 1999 per sq. mi. Remove Peninsula 0.92 69 154 27.6 120 Dubuque to Dodge Street 1.22 78 90 36.6 115 Dubuque to Hwy 1 (N of 1-80) 0.88 37 60 26.4 60 Hickory Hill/ACT 2.00 65 127 60 115 Clear Creek (west) 2.36 49 111 70.8 70 Clear Creek (east) 1.39 49 79 41.7 70 Total 8.77 347 621 263 550 Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 71 - Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 72 - ATTACHMENT C To: CC: From: Date: Re: Steve Atkins, City Manager Chief Winkelhake, Animal Control Sgt. Jim Steffen December 31, 1998 Motor vehicle/deer accidents To date, the Iowa City Police Department has investigated 50 motor vehicle/deer accidents. The total property damage estimate resulting from these accidents is $58,870.00. In nine cases, no vehicle was found at the scene so a damage estimate was not given. A breakdown of where the accidents occurred is: · Interstate 80 - Ten accidents, $9000.00 worth of damage. Two vehicles left the scene before the officer arrived. · Highway 218 - Eight accidents, $12,250.00 worth of damage. Two vehicles left the scene before the officer arrived. · 1100 blk. North Dubuque - Nine accidents, 97540.00 worth of damage. Two vehicles left the scene. · Rochester from Rita Lynn to the 3300 blk. - Five accidents, $5200.00 in damage. One vehicle left the scene. · North Dubuque Street near Foster Road - Three accidents, 92500.00 worth of damage. · Foster Road - Two accidents, 91200.00 worth of damage. · Prairie Du Chien - Three accidents, 95000.00 worth of damage. One vehicle left the scene · Bristol - One accident, $2000.00 in damage · Dodge and Governor - One accident, 9300.00 worth of damage · Highway 6 and Riverside Drive - One accident and 9500.00 in damage. · Dubuque Road north of North Dodge Street - Two accidents, 95500.00 worth of damage. · 2100 blk. of Melrose Avenue - One accident and the vehicle left the scene. · Mormon Trek and Melrose Avenue - One accident, $3000.00 worth of damage. · Mormon Trek and Hawkeye Drive - One accident, 93000.00 in damage. · Highway 6 near Bon Aire Mobile Home Court - One accident, 9900 worth of damage. · North Dubuque and Interstate 80 - One accident with 9980.00 worth of damage. These totals are year to date as of 6:00 am on 12-31-98. The Iowa City Police Department investigated 28 motor vehicle/deer accidents during 1997. The total damage estimate is 932,505.00. It is hard to tell, but at the most four motor vehicle/deer accidents occurred in the area where reflectors are in place. Winter 1999/2000 Deer Management Plan - 73 - REF DATE A 01-12-99 B 01-19-99 C 01-24-99 D 01-20-99 E 02-01-99 F 02-03-99 *G 03-01-99 TIME I 5:49 pm 6:32 pm 6:27pm 9:40 pm lO:01pm 6:50 pm Unknown IOWA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT 1999 DEER-VEHICLE COLLISION REPORT LOCATION Foster Road 600 ft west of Laura Rochester & Mt. Vernon Dubuque St. near Taft E.B. Off Ramp 1-80 @ Dubuque Hickory Tr. East of 1 st Ave. JDAMAGE 9500 Unknown 9300 91,200 Unknown Foster Road at Laura Dr. Terrill Mill Park at Dubuque St. 91,200 Unknown H 03-16-99 Unknown Hwy 6 near Newton Rd Unknown I 03-20-99 12:57 pm 1-80 W.bound .1 mile east of 245 92,000 mile marker J 03-28-99 12:45 am Park Road @ N. Riverside Dr. 9900 K 04-11-99 10:21 pm Deer Creek Road .5 mile north of 93,000 L 04-19-99 Unknown Unknown M 05-02-99 Unknown Unknown Melrose Dubuque just north of Foster southbound 1-80 1 O0 yards east of Hwy 1 N 05-05-99 1:30 am Rochester 50 feet west of 93,000 Amhurst O 05-05-99 Unknown Westbound entrance ramp to 1-80 Unknown at Dubuque Street. P 05-08-99 6:09 pm Gilbert at Southgate 91,500 Q 05-10-99 9:02 pm 1-80 eastbound exit ramp @ 9800 8/16/99 COMMENTS Deer not located Deer destroyed-Vehicle involved gone on arrival Deer killed by impact. Deer not located Deer destroyed-Unspecified minor damage to car, owner did not want to make report. Deer killer by impact. Two deer reported killed by unknown vehicle or vehicles-Carcasses found next to roadway. Accident took place sometime in the previous ten hours. Deer destroyed - unknown vehicle. Deer killed by impact. Deer ran off-unknown injuries Deer apparently ran off with unknown injury. Not specified in report. Deer struck and killed by unknown vehicle. Carcass found next to roadway. Deer struck and killed by unknown vehicle. Carcass found next to roadway. Deer killed by impact. (City owned vehicle) Deer struck and killed by unknown vehicle. Carcass found next to roadway. Deer killed by impact. Deer ran off-unknown injuries. * Indicates that an accident report was not taken and there were no other reasons, such as an injured animal, for an officer to be sent to the scene, I I REF I DATE R 05-13-99 S 05-22-99 IOWA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT 1999 DEER-VEHICLE COLLISION REPORT TIME I I DAMAGE T 05-24-99 9:00 pm Unknown U 05-31-99 V 06-01-99 3:10 pm ~900 W 06-06-99 X 06-12-99 LOCATION Dubuque 9:50 pm S. Riverside Dr (921) at entrance $900 to fairgrounds 8:52 pm 1-80 eastbound on ramp @ $5,000 Dubuque 1-80 westbound . 1 mile east of 245 mile marker 12:13 am 1-80 eastbound ~A mile west of $2,500 Hwy 1. Hwy 6 @ Westlawn curve 6:37 pm Dodge @ N. Dubuque Unknown 11:30 am 400 BIk Foster Road Unknown 6:11 am Hwy 1 350 feet east of Sunset $1,000 Y 06-16-99 1-80 @ eastbound 244 off ramp $900 Dubuque St @ Ridge Road $900 Dubuque St @ eastbd exit ramp $500 Melrose 1200 ft w of West High $3,000 Dubuque St 100 ft south of Taft $900 Speedway *EE 07-08-99 Unknown Dubuque St just south of 1-80 Unknown Z 06-20-99 10:08 pm AA 06-26-99 1:30 am BB 06-27-99 9:15 pm CC 07-02-99 2:27 pm DD 07-06-99 9:44 pm 8/16/99 COMMENTS Accident investigation not done at scene- unknown what happened to deer. Deer injured by impact and later destroyed by officer. Deer struck and killed by unknown vehicle. Carcass found laying in traffic lane of interstate Not investigated at scene-unknown injury to deer. Deer died short time later. Driver had minor injuries to his arms but was not transported to hospital. Deer struck and killed by unknown vehicle. Carcass found lying next to roadway. Recent death. Deer struck by unknown vehicle and found injured next to roadway. Deer destroyed by officer. Deer injured by impact and later destroyed by officer. Deer killed by impact. Deer ran away-not located in area. Deer ran away into the woods. Deer killed by impact. Unknown injury to deer-it could not be located. Deer struck and killed by unknown vehicle. Carcass found in median. Recent death. * Indicates that an accident report was not taken and there were no other reasons, such as an injured animal, for an officer to be sent to the scene. IOWA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT 1999 DEER-VEHICLE COLLISION REPORT  REF ~ DATE TIME ~ LOCATION ~ DAMAGE *FF 07-01-99 5:47 pm Rochester @ Amhurst 9500 GG 07-11-99 HH 07-12-99 6:34 pm Dubuque St 1000 Ft N of Foster 92,200 7:30 am 5th Ave &Friendship Unknown 11:28 pm Hwy 11 O0 Ft SW of Prairie Du 91,500 Chien II 07-17-99 JJ 07-19-99 9:00 pm Eastbound 1-80 off ramp at 91,500 Dubuque & 1-80 KK 07-21-99 8:15 am Park @ Hutchinson 9600 *LL 08-04-99 Unknown Dubuque St just south of 1-80 Unknown 8/16~99 COMMENTS Driver reported accident later. Deer could not be located, unknown injury. Unknown injury to deer-it could not be located. Deer struck by unknown vehicle and had to be destroyed by officer due to injuries. Driver stated that he struck deer then lost control of his vehicle. Driver transported to Univ. Hospital with minor injuries. The deer could not be located. Driver reported accident later. Deer could not be located. Unknown injury to deer. German Shepherd chasing two deer collided with vehicle. Deer did not make contact. Dog ran off after deer. Deer struck and killed by unknown vehicle. Carcass found in median. Recent death. * Indicates that an accident report was not taken and there were no other reasons, such as an injured animal, for an officer to be sent to the scene. 54 Grandview Avenue Ham den, CT 06514 ATTACHMENT D Phone: 203-245-3425 Fax: 203-245-7072 wbuffalo@gateway. net 29 June 1999 Lisa Mollenhauer Civic Center 410 East Washington St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 JUL 0 :1999 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE Dear Lisa, Thank you for inquiring about our services. Per your request, please find enclosed literature about our organization. It will be necessary to conduct a site visit to assess the many site-specific variables, before an estimated cost per deer removed can be given. Feel free to call if you have any questions. Please do not hesitate to contact any of the references listed in our business resume. With regard to accessing areas of the city that are fairly developed, I encourage you to call the listed contacts for Eden Prairie, Minnesota and Dune Acres, Indiana. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincere ~y '/'~'~(('~ '. 'Ant~~~'icola, Ph. D. President Encl. AJD:dlc Anthony J. DeNicola, Ph.D. PRESIDENT Ecosystem management through wildlife populahon control 54 Grandwew Avenue Ham den. CT 06514 Phone 203-245-3425 Fax 203-245-7072 wbuffalo@gateway net a nonprofit organization tve American legend tells of the White falo Woman who offered a sacred pipe Dakota tribe, explaining that the pipe :bolized that all things were connected. burpose was to remind people of their !o nature, what nature gives, and what uld be done in return. s our hope that our approach to ystem management and research ~rts will help conserve or enhance our aining natural environments. ~y the four directions of the universe in peace and mutual respect" Secret he White Buffalo C.T. Taylor, 1994. rabundant and nuisance wildlife ulations are posing threats to natural developed environments. Traditional ~agement techniques are not always sible, Therefore, ~,rs non-traditional methods to rested private and public landholders. art of ongoing research, these methods be evaluated for their efficiency and ! effectiveness. Solving Problems While Searching for Solutions ALTERNATIVES INCLUDE Capture and euthanasla/relocation: · Dropnet or Iramobilization with dartin. g equipment for deer · funnel traps/rocket nets for geese · traditional trapping Applied Contraception Research Sharpshooting: · archery · high powered dries, suppressors, night vision equipment Selection of a management option is made by the participating landowner(s) with the assistance of our personnel. If lethal removal is chosen, meat, deemed suitable, will be processed and donated to food shelters. RII work is done in cooperation with state and federal wildlife agencies. Monies generated from [I])DODTI; efforts will act as a source of funding for other conservation related efforts, ~I]]OTFZ [~ []D [F Or f]D IL (]) personnel are licensed nuisance wildlife control operators and certified trappers. In addition, we have eHtensive educational backgrounds in wildlife ecology, management, and policy and several years of field eHpedence. "7 ,,' % ~]O~r{l 0300[~{j]~3 mission is to conserue natlye species and ecosystems. Our goal is to sponsor, support, and conduct scientific research and educational efforts to improue the understanding of natural resources for the purpose of conservation. Our approach is unique, in that we generate 'funding for conseruation causes bU providing management alternatives in non-traditional settings. We manage wildlife populations (native and non- native) through reduction or enhancement, to ensure the sustainability of the existing ecosystem. We also manage natural habitats for the benefit of desired natlye wildlife. FinallU~ me sponsor and support land acquisitions to conserve wildlife habitat. Ecosystem Management through Wildlife Population Control Inquiries and Information to: Anthony J. DeNicola, Ph.D. 54 Grandview Avenue Hamden, CT 86514 or call: (203) 245-3425 wbuffalo(~gateway.net A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION 496 NONTRADITIONAL DEER MANAGEMENT Improvised blind for culling urban deer Nontraditional techniques for management of overabundant deer populations Anthony J. DeNicola, Steven J. Weber, Charles A. Bridges, and Judy L. Stokes There are an increasing number of sites inaccessible to sportsmen where deer (Odocoileus virginianus) herds have become overabundant. This typically oc- curs in either suburban communities or on corporate or government properties. There are 3 primary rea- sons for a lack of deer management in suburban com- munities: (1) real or perceived safety concems, (2) con- flicting social attitudes and perceptions about wildlife, and (3) firearm-discharge ordinances. In contrast, deer populations on corporate or government properties of- ten become overabundant because of liability or pub- lic-relations issues. As a result of the management conflicts in these situations, use of nontraditional tech- niques to reduce deer densities has increased signifi- cantly in the last decade (McAninch 1995). Several nontraditional options have been evaluated in the literature with varying success. Capture and relocation has been demonstrated to be impractical and, in most instances, has resulted in high postre- lease mortality. O'Bryan and McCullough (1985) doc- umented 85% mortality after 1 year for deer captured and relocated in California at a cost of $431 per deer. Other capture and relocation programs have recorded costs ranging from $400 to $2,931 per deer (lshmael and Rongstad 1984, Drummond 1995, Ish- mael et al. 1995, Mayer et al. 1995). Sharpshooting has been used in several locations over the last decade with considerable success (De- blinger et al. 1995, Drummond 1995, Jones and Withan~ 1995, Stradtmann et al. 1995, Ver Steeg et al. 1995). Cost per deer for sharpshooting programs has varied among studies, ranging from $91 to $260 per deer. Another option in sensitive or controversial manage- ment areas is the use of controlled hunts. The use of hunters is typically preferred by wildlife agencies and is often the least expensive means to control deer popula- Address for Anthony J. DeNicola: White Buffalo, Inc., 54 Grandview Avenue, Hamden, CT 06514, USA. Address for Steven I. Weber, Charles A. Bridges, and Judy L. Stokes: New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, 2 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03301, USA. Key words: nontraditional techniques, Odocoileus virginianus, sharpshooting, urban deer management, white-tailed deer Wildlife Society Bulletin 1997, 25(2):496-499 Peer edited · · ;" :' !~ ~' ~ :' NontraditiOnal deer management · DeNicola et al. 497 tions. However, in most nontraditional deer manage- ment areas, when hunters are used, intensive state agency involvement is required. In some cases the cost of using hunters equals or exceeds the costs of sharp- shooting. A few examples include a controlled hunt in Connecticut that cost $160 per deer harvested (Corm. Dep. Environ. Prot. 1996), a hunt at the Watchung Re- serve, New Jersey, that cost $622 per deer (Sigmund and Bemier 1994), and a hunt in Crane Beach, Massachusetts that cost about $200 per deer (Deblinger et al. 1995). Two other management options are (1) capture and euthanasia, and (2) contraception. Programs in which deer are captured with box or Clover traps and subsequently euthanized may be relatively ex- pensive (Jordan et al. 1995). Contraception is still in the early stages of evaluation as a population man- agement tool and in most cases will be cost prohibi- tive (Garrott 1995, Swihart and DeNicola 1995). Regardless of the technique used, management of overabundant deer populations in sensitive areas is rel- atively costly compared to deer management pro- grams statewide. However, nontraditional techniques may be used to complement traditional methods in achieving the objectives of state wildlife agencies. We evaluate the use of nontraditional deer management techniques to state wildlife agencies. We present an example of a cooperative effort between New Hamp- shire Fish and Game Department (NHFG) and a private wildlife research and management organization, and discuss the merits of such an approach. Site description Long Island (about 500 ha, a part of the Town of Moultonborough) is located in Lake Winnipesaukee in east-central New Hampshire. The island is heavily developed with >550 residences, primarily of sea- sonal use. It is about 200 m from the mainland and is accessible by a bridge. Overstory vegetation consists of a mixture of mature northern hardwoods and soft- woods. The understory and ground cover is domi- nated by sedges, grasses, and barberry (Berberis sp.). Management history White-tailed deer hunting on this site was first out- lawed in 1939, then again in 1970. In 1983, NHFG sponsored a trap-and-transfer program that removed 27 deer. The project cost $800 per deer, and capture mortality prior to release was 30%. The program was discontinued after the first year. In 1994, the resi- dents of Long Island asked NHFG to assist again in the management of the deer population. The NHFG formed a task force of interested citizens to: (1) de- fine the problem and (2) recommend a solution for NHFG consideration and implementation. The NHFG provided the task force with a history of past management efforts, a list of acceptable options to consider, an estimate of deer numbers, and the rec- ommended number of deer that the island could sup- port. The NHFG then assumed an advisory and facilitory role for meetings. Island residents were responsible for all direct costs associated with the herd reduction be- cause of their earlier decision to ban hunting. Price, humaneness, and effectiveness were the pri- mary factors used by the task force to determine their recommendation. Subsequent to a legislative change in 1996, which gave NHFG authority to conduct wildlife population control actions on Long Island us- ing whatever methods necessary and appropriate, the task force recommended sharpshooting. Field methods We obtained permission for access to private prop- erty by establishing communications through mem- bers of the Deer Task Force. Once permission was granted, shooting sites were selected and the prop- erty was legally posted to avoid trespassing by those opposed to the project. The use of tree stands was selected in areas inaccessible to vehicles or at loca- tions close to houses. In more remote areas, bait sites were established along private roadsides to allow shooting from a vehicle. We began prebaiting 3 weeks before the start of the herd reduction. The herd reduction was conducted 1-3 November 1996. On afternoons we shot over bait from tree stands or porches. After dark, 1 person shot over bait with a night-vision scope and another shot with the aid of a spotlight from the back of a pickup truck on a pre- determined route. We used suppressed military sniper weapons for precise shot placement and to minimize disturbance to the community. Only head shots were taken to avoid deer dying on adjacent properties. Two NHFG biologists and personnel of White Buf- falo, Inc., assisted in deer transport, evisceration, and data collection. Data collected included eviscerated body weight, age, yearling antler-beam diameter, and reproductive status. Results White Buffalo personnel expended 152 person- hours during the organizational phase of the project before the actual reduction began. We killed 90 deer during 3 days (27 hrs) in the field. One hundred- twelve person-hours were required for the deer har- vest (78 hrs) and processing of carcasses (34 hrs). 498 Forty-five bucks and 45 does were killed. Of the to- tal removed, 20 were male fawns and 10 were female fawns. Twenty-four percent of the bucks killed were >5.5 years old, whereas 71% of the does killed were >5.5 years. Dressed body weights for bucks harvested on Long Island were 30% less than weights of mainland bucks. Dressed weights of does were 27% less than mainland does in the same management unit. Avenge yearling antler-beam diameter for island bucks was 6.8 mm. In comparison, beam diameters for yearling bucks from the adjacent mainland aver- aged 17.3 ram. None of the yearling does on the island showed signs of lactation; by comparison, 25% of yearling does on the mainland did show signs of lactation. Adult does demonstrated comparable !actation rates on the island and the mainland. Approximately 1,900 kg of ground venison were donated to the New Hampshire Food Bank at the con- clusion of the project. Discussion The program proceeded as planned, and all in- volved parties were satisfied with the implementa- tion and results of the project. More importantly, the data collected indicated the herd was overabundant. Landowner cooperation and the assistance and over- sight of NHFG allowed for a successful herd reduc- tion where traditional management was not consid- ered an option. Other factors that led to the success of the program included posting of private properties against trespass, law enforcement support, donation of all deer removed from the island to the New Hampshire Food Bank, and open communication among NHFG, the public, and the press. To preclude interference from animal-rights activists, a range of dates were chosen so that the general public would not know the exact date of removal. We recognize the value of sport hunting in most ar- eas. However, with an increasing number of subur- ban, corporate, and government properties that are not conducive to recreational hunting, alternative management options become important (Garrott 1995). It is not necessarily the lethal aspect of hunt- ing, but public perception of the humaneness and safety of hunting that precludes. its use. There are many people albeit a minority who oppose sport hunting because it is a recreational activity involving the killing of sentient animals. Many urban and sub- urban residents also consider the use of firearms a safety threat. We were able to circumvent the fear of firearms by meeting with cooperating landowners and addressing their individual concerns. A profes- sional approach when discussing deer management also encouraged people to accept the program. Hu- maneness and safety are the primary considerations of the public, and professional sharpshooting can ad- dress both of these concerns. Wildlife problems in suburban communities or other sensitive management areas will become more com- mon in the future, and state agencies will not be able to meet the demand with the present level of staffing. As the demand for alternative management techniques in- creases, the need for objective, dependable, indepen- dent contractors will follow. This approach is widely accepted in many states in the establishment of nui- sance wildlife control programs for other vertebrate species. These programs allow private entities to assist in the management of urban wildlife (May 1988). A comparable approach for managing unhuntable deer populations may offer many benefits to both state agencies and the general public. Independent contractors would allow state agencies to effectively manage deer herds in all environments, particularly urban and suburban areas where management ac- tions would otherwise be constrained. The availabil- ity of private operators also would facilitate the deci- sion-making process by making expert implementa- tion available for an array of management options. Moreover, private management organizations could cooperate with state wildlife agencies by providing options not previously available because of limited man-power and budget constraints. Finally, by in- volving private entities, state agencies could con- tinue to evaluate nontraditional techniques while si- multaneously resolving existing problems. Adaptive deer management progrants, authorized by the state, will help establish trust by the general public. In addition, a statement from an objective, private or- ganization supporting state-agency management rec- ommendations can often strengthen the state's credi- bility with the nonhunting public. Perhaps most im- portant, state agency personnel will have more time to focus on statewide management programs. In conclusion, nontraditional management tech- niques can complement existing deer management. In areas where sport hunting is not an option, the use of sharpshooters or other population control mea- sures is preferable to doing nothing, because it will prevent deer malnutrition, minimize habitat degrada- tion, and reduce conflicts between humans and deer. Acknowledgments. We thank J. B. McAninch and R. K. Swihart for reviewing this manuscript. We also thank the New Hampshire Fish and Game Conserva- tion Law Enforcement Division, the Moultonborough Nontraditional deer management · DeNicola et al. 499 Police Department, all cooperating landowners, and the New Hampshire Food Bank for their cooperation and support. Literature cited CONNE(TrlCtrF DEPARTMENT (}F ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECrON. 1996. A.cr sessment of the 1996 deer reduction plans and future manage- ment at Bluff Point Coastal Reserve, Groton, Connecticut. Wildl. Div., Connecticut Dep. Env. Prot., Hartford. 2Opp. DEIH.INC;ER, R. D., D. W. RIMMER, J. J. VASKE, AND G. M. ~/ECELLIO. 1995. Efficiency of controlled, limited hunting at the Crane Reservation in lpswich, Massachussetts. Pages 82-86 in J. B. McAninch, ed. Urban deer: a manageable resource? Proc. sym- posium 55th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, 12-14 De- cember 1993, St. Louis, Mo. North Cent. Sect., The WildL Soc. DRIIMMOND, F. 1995. lethal and non-lethal deer management at Ry- erson Conservation Area, Northeastern Illinois. Pages 105-109 in J. B. Mc.M~nch, ed Urban deer: a manageable resource? Proc. symposium 55th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, 12-14 December 1993, St. Louis, Mo. North Cent. Sect., The Wildl. Soc. GAnRo-rr, R.A. 1995. Effective management of free-ranging ungu- late populations using contraception. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 23:445-452. ISHMAEL, W. E., D. E. KATSMA, T. A. Is~c, AND B. K. BRYANT. 1995. live-capture and translocation of suburban white-tailed deer in River Hills, Wisconsin. Pages 87-96 inJ. B. McAninch, ed. Ur- ban deer: a manageable resource? Proc. symposium 55th Mid- west Fish and Wildlife Conference, 12-14 December 1993, St. Louis, Mo. North Cent. Sect., The Wildl. Soc. iSltMAEt, W. E., AND O.J. RONGSTAD. 1984. Economics of an urban- deer-removal program. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 12:394-398. JoN~s, J. M., AND J. H. W~TH~M. 1995. Urban deer "problem"-solv- ing in Northeast Illinois: an overview. Pages 58-65 ir~ J. B. McAninch, ed. Urban deer: a manageable resource? Proc. sym- posium 55th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, 12-14 De- cember 1993, St. Louis, Mo. North Cent. Sect., The Wildl. Soc. JORDAN, P. A., R. A. MOEN, E. J. DEG^YNE~, AND W. C. Prrr. 1995. Trap-and-shoot and sharpshooting methods for control of ur- ban deer: the case history of North Oaks, Minnesota. Pages 97-104/n J. B. McAninch, ed. Urban deer: a manageable re- source? Proc. symposium 55th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Con- ference, 12-14 December 1993, St. Louis, Mo. North Cent. Sect., The Wildl. Soc. MAY, D.W. 1988. A state adminstered user-pay program for nui- sance wildlife control. Proc. East. Wildl. Damage Control Colft. 3:89-93. MAYER K. E., J. E. DIDONAT(), AND D. R. MCCuLLouGIt. 1995. Califor- nia urban deer management: two case studies. Pages 51-57 in J. B. Meaninch, ed. Urban deer: a manageable resource? Proc. symposium 55th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, 12-14 December 1993, St. Louis, Mo. North Cent. Sect., The Wildl. Soc. MCAN~NcH,J. B., editor. 1995. Urban deer: a manageable resource? Proc. symposium 55th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, 12-14 December 1993, St. Louis, Mo. North Cent. Sect., The Wildl. Soc. 175pp. O'BRYAN, M. K., AND D. R. MCCt~tLOU(;H. 1985. Survival of black- tailed deer following relocation in California. J. Wildl. Manage. 49:115-119. SI(;MUND, C., Jn., AND D. J. BERNIER. 1994. Deer management pro- gram for Watchung Reservation, Union County, New Jersey: summary and evaluation of the 1994 deer reduction program. Div. Parks and Recreation, Union County, NJ. 13pp. STRADTMANN, M. L.,J. B. MCANINCll, E. P. WI(;(;ERS, ANDJ. M. PARKER. 1995. PoliCe sharpshooting as a method to reduce urban deer populations. Pages 117-122 in J. B. McAninch, ed. Urban deer: a manageable resource? Proc. symposium 55th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, 12-14 December 1993, St. Louis. Mo. North Cent. Sect., The Wildl..~. SWIHART, R. K., AND A. J. DENI<:olA. 1995. Modeling the impacts of contraception on populations of white-tailed deer. Pages 151-163 inJ. B. McAninch, ed. Urban deer: a manageable re- source? Proc. symposium 55th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Con- ference, 12-14 December 1993, St. Louis, Mo. North Cent. Sect., The Wildl. Soc. VER STEE¢;, J. M., J. H. WITHAM, ^ND T. J. BEIsstt.. 1995. Use of bowhunting to control deer in a suburban park in Illinois. Pages 110'116 inJ. B. Meaninch, ed. Urban deer: a manage- able resource? Proc. symposium 55th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, 12-14 December 1993, St. Louis, Mo. North Cent. Sect., The Wildl. Soc. ,/t Anthony (Tony) J. DeNicola (photo) is president of White Buffalo, Inc., a nonprofit research organization dedicated to conserving ecosystems through wildlife population control. He received his B.S. in Biology from Trinity College of Hartford, Connecticut, his M.S. from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, and his Ph.D. in wildlife ecology from Purdue University. He is a member of the National Animal Damage Control Association, the Society for Conservation Biology, and The Wildlife Society. Tony's professional interests are behavioral-ecological approaches to wildlife damage control, wildlife reproductive control and control of introduced ver- tebrate species. StevenJ. Weber is the headquarters program super- visor for the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department (NHFG). He received his B.S. in wildlife management from the University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point, and his M.S. in wildlife ecology from the University of New Hampshire. He is a member of The Wildlife So- ciety and chairman of the Northeast Deer Technical Committee. Steve's professional interests are in population management of big game species. Charles A. Bridges, the supervisor of Habitat and Di- versity Programs at NHFC, received his B.S. in zoology from the Uni- versity of Massachusetts and his M.S. in wildlife ecology from the University of New Hampshire. He is a member of The Wildlife So- ciety. ludy L. Stokes received her B.A. in psychology, cure laude from the University of New Hampshire. She is accredited as a pub- lic relations practitioner and is chief of the Public Affairs Division for NHFG. Judy is the vice-president of the Association for Conservation Information. Her professional interests are in human dimensions of wildlife management, and development of informed consent on nat- ural resources issues. ~ 54 Grandview Avenue Hamden, CT 06514 (203) 245-3425 Dr. Anthony J. DeNicola, President Deborah Cuddy, Secretary Purpose: To conserve native species and ecosystems by sponsoring, supporting, and conducting scientific research and educational efforts to improve the understanding of natural resources for the purpose of conservation. Funding for conservation causes is generated by providing wildlife management alternatives in nontraditional settings. PROJECTS Sharnshootin,, Northern Indiana Public Service Company, Wheatfield, Indiana: We removed 100 of approximately 130 white-tailed deer over 4 days from a 2500 acre enclosed facility. Over 3000 lbs of ground venison were donated to food shelters. March 1996. Long Island, New Hampshire: Ninety white-tailed deer were removed over 3 days from the 2 square mile insular community. 4,000 lbs of ground venison were donated to the NH Food Bank. November 1996. Monhegan Island, Maine: We implemented a population reduction program to control problems associated with an overabundance of deer, in particular Lyme disease, on a one square mile island. Fifty-two of approximately 65 deer were removed over 3 days. 1900 lbs of ground venison were donated. April 1997. Eden Prairie, Minnesota: We implemented a population reduction program to control problems associated with an overabundance of deer, in particular deer/vehicle collisions, in a 36 square mile community. One hundred-sixty deer were removed over 15 days. November 1997. Dune Acres, Indiana: Fifty white-tailed deer were removed over 5 days from the 1 square mile community. 1600 lbs of ground venison were donated to area food shelters. February 1998. Eden Prairie, Minnesota: We implemented a population reduction program to control problems associated with an overabundance of deer for a second consecutive year. One hundred and twenty-four deer were removed over 11 days. November 1998. Monhegan Island, Maine: We completed the eradication of the white-tailed deer population; an additional 27 deer were removed. April 1998 - March 1999. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: We implemented a population reduction program to control problems associated with an overabundance of deer, in particular impacts to native vegetation, in a 3 square mile park. Forty-three deer were removed over 2 days. March 1999. Capture Connecticut College Arboretum: We removed deer completely to prevent damage to native plant collections and research plots. We inspected and repaired the perimeter fence to ensure it was deer-proof. We then captured the 3 remaining deer enclosed in the 100-acre arboretum using darting techniques. Deer were released outside the fence on Connecticut College property. January 1996. George Reserve, Pinckney, Michigan: We captured 25 deer over 3 days using darting techniques for a doctoral research project (University of Michigan). In addition, we trained a doctoral student and technician in deer capture and handling techniques. November 1997. Bedford and Lewisboro, New Yo;k: We captured 8 deer using darting techniques over 3 days to assess the number and distribution of ticks on deer as pan of the USDA-ARS 4- poster Lyme disease research project. May 1998. Bedford and Lewisboro, New York: We captured 12 deer using darting techniques over 3 days to assess the number and distributie. n of ticks on deer as part of the USDA-ARS 4- poster Lyme disease research project. October 1998. Towson, Maryland: We captured 11 deer using darting techniques over 3 days to assess the number and distribution of ticks on deer as part of the USDA-ARS 4-poster Lyme disease research project. November 1998. Carlisle, Massachusetts: We captured 27 deer using darting techniques and applied radiotransmitter collars as part of a state organized research project to assess mortality rates of suburban deer populations in eastern Massachusetts. March 1999. Bridgeport, Connecticut: We captured 18 deer using a combination of drop nets and darting techniques to apply an experimental Amitraz-impregnated collar to control ticks as part ofa CDC Lyme disease research project. March 1999. Old Lyme, Connecticut: We captured 11 deer using darting techniques to apply radiotransmitter collars and to assess the number and distribution of ticks on deer as part of the USDA-ARS 4-poster Lyme disease research project. April 1999. Population Assessment Dune Acres, Indiana: We conducted a white-tailed deer population estimate using spotlighting techniques and consulted with the community regarding the feasibility of implementing a white-tailed deer population reduction program. December 1996. Town and Country, Missouri: We conducted a white-tailed deer population estimate using spotlighting techniques. We also provided an assessment of deer management options for potential implementation in the community. February 1997. Old Lyme and Old Saybrook, Connecticut: We conducted helicopter snow counts to determine deer densities in study sites as part of the USDA-ARS 4-poster Lyme disease research project. February 1999. Kingston, Rhode Island: We conducted helicopter snow counts to determine deer densities in study sites as part of the USDA-ARS 4-poster Lyme disease research project. February 1999. Bedford and Lewisboro, New York: We conducted helicopter snow counts to determine deer densities in study sites as part of the USDA-ARS 4-poster Lyme disease research project. March 1999. Other Research/Mana~,ement Projects Bluff Point/Mumford Cove, Groton, Connecticut: Urban white-tailed deer habitat use and home range study - We volunteered our service and equipment to assist in capturing white-tailed deer as part of a state-conducted research project. Deer were captured using darting equipment. Winter 1995-6. Purdue University: White-tailed deer herd health assessment research project - We coordinated and conducted deer ha.west and capture operations and data collection to assess morphological and physiological parameters as indicators of individual deer condition. These data were then used to assess herd health of deer in hunted versus unhunted areas in Indiana. Research sites included Brown County State Park, Crane Naval Surface Warfare Center, Pigeon River State Fish and Wildlife Area, and Pokagon State Park. March 1996. "Control of the tick, Ixodes scapularis Say, on white-tailed deer at an urban Lyme disease focus", Bridgeport, Connecticut: A collaborative effort between White Buffalo, Inc. and the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station to evaluate a four-poster feeder system to control deer ticks on an enclosed white-tailed deer population. Funding provided by the Center for Disease Control (CDC), $40,600. May 1997 - February 1999. Sikorsky Airport, Stratford, Connecticut: We captured and removed 48 geese, which were creating a bird airstrike hazard, from the airport grounds. We also trained airport personal to properly haze and/or dispatch other bird species creating airstrike hazards. All control and dispersal efforts were authorized by the USFWS and USDA-WS. All carcasses were processed and donated to a local food shelter. June 1997. "Control of the tick, Ixodes scapularis Say, on white-tailed deer at a suburban Lyme disease focus", Old Lyme, Connecticut: A collaborative effort between White Buffalo, Inc., the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, Yale University, and the United States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service to evaluate a four-poster feeder system to control deer ticks on free-ranging white-tailed deer in a suburban community. Funding provided by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), $96,000. August 1997 - June 1999. Galapagos National Park, Ecuador: Participated in an international workshop to design a program for the eradication of feral goats on Isabela Island. September 9-18, 1997. "Infant survival and den site selection of female raccoons following removal and exclusion from residences", Hartford County, Connecticut: A research project designed to assess the management implications of on-site release of female raccoons during the infant-rearing season. Principal investigator. April 1998 - Present. Catalina Island, California: Participated in an island wide feral pig and goat eradication program. Feral goats were captured from the ground and from a helicopter using a net gun and dart rifle to serve as judas goats. Pigs were live-trapped followed by euthanasia. Feral goats and pigs were removed using ground hunting techniques during the day and at night. June - September 1998. Cleveland, Ohio: Designed a deer population reduction program using sharpshooting techniques for the Cleveland Metroparks. Trained park rangers in field methods including shot selection and proper shooting techniques. December/January 1998/9. "Control of the tick, Ixodes scapularis Say, on white-tailed deer at an urban Lyzne disease focus", Bridgeport, Connecticut: A collaborative effort between White Bu~'falo, Inc. and the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station to evaluate an experimental Amitraz-impregnated collar to control ticks on an enclosed white-tailed deer population. Funding provided by the Center for Disease Control (CDC), $20,960. March 1999 - February 2000. Community Consultations Groton Long Point, Connecticut - August 1996 Block Island, Rhode Island - August 1997 Darien, Connecticut - October 1997 Gaithersburg, Maryland - November 1997 Kinnelon, New Jersey - February 1998 Fairmount Park, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - May 1998 Amherst, New York - May 1998 Princeton, New Jersey - September 1998 Reeves-Reed Arboretum, Summit, New Jersey - September 1998 Detroit Metroparks - December 1998 Educational Efforts One day field session with a science class from the Hyde Leadership School. New Haven, Connecticut. Students were taught basic ecological and wildlife management principles followed by field demonstrations. Fall 1995. Visited the 6th grade class at the Bennett Middle School, Manchester, Connecticut to discuss deer biology and management.. Alternative deer management options and techniques were presented and discussed. Spring 1996. - Presented data from Long Island, New Hampshire reduction program at the Southeast Deer Study Group Meeting held in Charleston, South Carolina, March 8-12, 1997. - Presented data from Long Island, New Hampshire deer reduction program at the Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference held in Framingham, Massachusetts, April 27-30, 1997. Presented data from Long Island, New Hampshire, and Monhegan Island, Maine deer reduction programs at the Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, December 7-10, 1997. Presented at the annual National Nuisance Wildlife Control Operator's Conference. Discussed the social and political issues surrounding white-tailed deer population control. Bridgeport, New Jersey, February 1998. Guest lecturer at Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. Discussed the social, biological and political issues involved when managing wildlife populations. New Haven, Connecticut, April 1998. Presented data from Long Island, New Hampshire, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, and Monhegan Island, Maine reduction programs at the 5t" Annual Wildlife Society Conference held in Buffalo, New York. September 22-26, 1998. Participated in the "Status and Future of Wildlife Fertility Control" Workshop and Panel Discussion at the 5'h Annual Wildlife Society Conference held in Buffalo, New York. September 24, 1998. Supervised 2 Yale University graduate students during intemships with White Buffalo Inc. Activities included contraceptive delivery, home range assessment using radio-telemetry equipment, and capture techniques. In addition, 11 deer were captured, radio-collared, and movements monitored as part of the USDA-ARS 4-poster research project in Old Lyme, Connecticut. September 1998 -Present. Taught the wildlife euthanasia portion of the Connecticut Nuisance Wildlife Control Operator's training course. Focused on approved euthanasia techniques for use on nuisance wildlife. Burlington, Connecticut. October 10, 1998. Guest lecturer at Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. Discussed the social, biological and political issues involved when managing wildlife populations. New Haven, Connecticut, April 1999.' REFERENCES Sharpshooting/Population reduction Cleveland Metroparks, Cleveland, Ohio Thomas Stanley. Chief of Natural Resources - (216) 351-6300 ext. 240 Cleveland Metroparks 4101 Fulton Parkway Cleveland, OH 44144 Dune Acres, Indiana Lt. Edward Troche - (219) 879-5710 Indiana Department of Natural Resources Law Enforcement Division 100 West Water Street Michigan City, IN 46360 Dusty Stemer - (219) 787-8865 President, Town Council 46 East Road Dune Acres, IN 46304 Eden Prairie, Minnesota Stuart Fox - (612) 949-8445 Manager of Parks and Natural Resources City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 Sgt Jim Franzen - (612) 949-6200 Eden Prairie Police Department 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 Long Island, New Hampshire Steve Weber, State Deer Biologist New Hampshire Fish and Game Department 2 Hazen Drive Concord, NH 03301 (603) 271-2461 Richard and Betsey Patten HCR 62 Box 415 Center Harbor, NH 03226 (603) 253-6927 Captain JeffM. Gray - (603) 271-3127 New Hampshire Fish and Game Department - Law Enforcement Division 2 Hazen Drive Concord, NH 03301 Monhegan Island, Maine Eugene A. Dumont, Regional Wildlife Biologist - (207) 547-4165 Maine Department Inland Fishcries and Wildlife RR 3, Box 6378 Sidney, ME 04330-9711 Faryl Hendersen - (207) 594-1040 P.O. Box 302 Monhegan, ME 04852 Northern Indiana Public Service Company Tony DiPaolo - (219) 956-5104 R.M. Schahfer Generating Station 2723 East 1500 North Wheatfield, IN 46392 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Fairmount Park Commission Barry Bessler, Chief of Staff- (215) 685-0111 Fairmount Park Commission Memorial Hall West Park Philadelphia, PA 19131-0901 Chris Palmer - (215) 685-2575 Park District Manager Fairmount Park Commission P.O. Box 21601 Philadelphia, PA 19131-0901 Sgt. Christopher McCabe Philadelphia Police Department, Park Division Lincoln Drive and Gypsy Lane Philadelphia, PA 19144 Sikorsky Airport Gary Hudson, Airport Certification Specialist - (203) 576-8162 Sikorsky Memorial Airport 1000 Great Meadow Road Stratford, CT 06497 Capture Bedford, New York Dr. Thomas Danicls - 914-273-3078 Louis Calder Ecology Center, Fordham University 53 Whippoorwill Road Armonk, NY 10504 Bluff Point/Mumford Cove, Groton, Connecticut Howard Kilpatrick, State Deer Biologist - (860) 642-6528 Franklin Wildlife Management Area 391 Route 32 North Franklin, CT 06423 Carlisle, Massachusetts Jotm McDonald, Wildlife Biologist - (508) 792-7270 ext. 121 Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Field Headquarters Westboro, MA 01581 Connecticut College Arboretum Dr. Glenn Dreyer - (860) 439-2144 270 Mohegan Avenue New London, CT 06320-2144 _Research Lyme Disease Research, Bridgeport and Old Lyme, Connecticut Dr. Kirby C. Stafford III- (203) 974-8485 The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station 123 Huntington Street - Box 106 New Haven, CT 06504 Purdue University - White-tailed deer herd-health assessment research project Dr. Robert K. Swihart 1159 Forestry Building - Room 102 Purdue University West Lafayette, IN 47907 (765) 494-3566 Dr. Harmon P. Weeks 1159 Forestry Building Purdue University West Lafayette, IN 47907 (765) 494-3567 54 Grandview Avenue Ham den, CT 06514 (203) 245-3425 Dr. Anthony J. DeNicola, President Deborah Cuddy, Secretary 3 PHASE DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN ORGANIZATIONAL PHASE ($60.00/hour plus expenses) Site assessment Meetings with public, town officials, corporate executives Evaluation of mansgement options - written report* * Report includes an assessment of the feasibility, cost, project duration, and social acceptability of select management options. PRE-IMPLEMENTATION PHASE* ($60.00/hour plus expenses) Attainment of access (private properties) Bait site selection Bait site preparation (total area x 12 sites/square mile x 2 hours/site) Prebaiting *Total to be paid in advance IMPLEMENTATION PHASE (Assessed as cost per deer removed) Removal effort, evisceration, data collection - person-hours/deer Report writing ** Meat processing costs for food shelter donation are separate ** ADDITIONAL COSTS Court testimony -'$1000.00/day plus expenses Cost of delay (e.g., temporary injunctions, animal rights protests) - $1000.00/day Early termination costs (covers time and expense to date of termination) Fees charged are valid until 1 January 2000. SHARPSHOOTING An Urban Deer Population Control Tool Subsequent to a decision by the landowner/s and the state wildlife management agency to implement a controlled deer reduction using White Buffalo, Inc. the following procedures are used: 1) Prior to initiating any field activities the target area/s and surrounding properties are thoroughly surveyed using topographic maps and aerial photographs followed by field confirmation. By knowing the location of every occupied structure, and areas of human use we are better able to work safely and efficiently; 2) Bait sites are selected with the involvement of the landowner/s and the cooperating state agency. Each site is selected based on safety concerns and deer activity; 3) We conduct field cDerations during hours of lowest humen activity. In addition, during the removal operation we search intensively for people and nontarget animals to avoid mishaps; 4) Deer of all ages and sexes are harvested, however, adult does are prioritized. Deer are shot from a vehicle with a rifle during the night with the aid of spotlights. Some deer are shot over bait from a treestand with a rifle during the day or at night. Night-vision equipment and suppressed firearms (only in states where they are legal to possess) are used to expedite field procedures; 5) During suburban deer reductions there will be continuous cpen communication between community members, municipality officials, and White Buffalo, Inc. to keep people well informed regarding field activities to avoid conflicts; 6) All deer carcasses are transported and dressed with the highest degree of discretion; 7) When desired, we are willing to be responsible for the disposal of all by-products and transport of deer carcasses to a USDA inspected facility for processing and subsequent donation to the needy. The following are reasons why White Buffalo, Inc. is on the leading edge of urban deer management: 1) We have the best available equipment with numerous hours of hands-on use to ensure precise shot placement. This results in safe use of equipment and humane treatment of target animals; 2) We have spent the last 7 years committed to improving both technology and techniques to maximize safety and efficiency for the management of white-tailed deer (i.e., ballistics testing, bullet development, baiting techniques, adaptation of other technologies for use in deer management, including night vision scopes and suppressors); 3) we have thoroughly tested and selected bullets, in addition to having developed specialized bullets. As a result of our extensive testing, we have found that no bullet fragments with significant size or inertia exit the target animal; 4) We have extensive experience in both killing (>1000 deer) and capturing deer (>600 deer) in a variety of human occupied environments without incident. We have used our discretion in the selection of shooting sites with complete satisfaction of both state officials and property owners: 5) We collect all pertinent data related to herd health, advancements in management techniques, and other aspects of each removal program which will be included in scientific journals, professional conferences, or written reports submitted to the landowner and cooperating state agency. In conclusion, although safety is the primary issue to be considered when implementing a sharpshoot to reduce deer numbers, with the above precautionary measures and the expertise of White Buffalo, Inc., it need not be a concern. CURRICULUM VITAE Anthony J. DeNicola 54 Grandview Avenue Hamden, CT 06514 (203) 245-3425 Education 1996 Thesis: 1990 1988 1986-87 Ph.D. Purdue University (GPA: 4.0/4.0) "Control of reproduction in overabundant white-tailed deer populations" M.E.S. Yale University School of Forestry (GPA: 3.5/4.0) B.S. Trinity College (GPA: 3.3/4.0) Visiting student, University of Vermont (GPA: 3.2/4.0) Experience 1998-present 1997-present 1997-present 1995-present 1992-96 1995-present 1994 1994 1989-90 1989-present 1987-89 1987-88 1988 1986 Research Associate, University of Illinios Research Affiliate, Yale University Research Associate, Denver Zoological Foundation President, White Buffalo, Inc. Research Assistant, Purdue University Visiting Faculty Member, Trinity College Guest Lecturer, Wildlife Ecology Guest Lecturer, Mammalogy Wildlife Module Instructor, Yale School of Forestry Nuisance Wildlife Control Operator, State of Connecticut Research Assistant, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station Senior Researcher, Trinity College Raptor Handling Intern, Science Museum of Connecticut Wildlife Research Intern, CT Department of Environmental Protection Honors and Awards 1995 The Honor Society of Agriculture, Gamma Sigma Delta 1994 Best Paper Award, Indiana Chapter of The Wildlife Society 1988 J. Wendell Burger Prize, Trinity College award for outstanding achievement/performance in biology Society Affiliations National Animal Damage Control AssOciation The Society of Conservation Biology The Wildlife Society Research Support 1999-2000 E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., "Experimental control of an enclosed suburban population of white-tailed deer using contraception", $29,268, Principal investigator 1999-2000 Center for Disease Control, "Control of the tick, Ixodes scapularis Say, on white-tailed deer at an urban Lyme disease focus", $20,960, Co- principal investigator 1998-1999 Center for Disease Control, "Control of the tick, Ixodes scapularis Say, on white-tailed deer at an urban Lyme disease focus", $20,600, Co- principal investigator 1998-1999 United States Department of Agriculture, "Control of the tick, Ixodes scapularis Say, on white-tailed deer at a suburban Lyme disease focus", $50,000, Co-principal investigator 1997-1998 Center for Disease Control, "Control of the tick, Ixodes scapularis Say, on white-tailed deer at an urban Lyme disease focus", $20,000, Co- principal investigator · 1997-1998 United States Department of Agriculture, "Control of the tick, Ixodes scapularis Say, on white-tailed deer at a suburban Lyme disease focus", $46,000, Co-principal investigator 1995-1999 E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., "Evaluating adjuvants and effects of long-term contraception on female white-tailed deer", $248,888, Co- principal investigator 1993-1996 Northem Indiana Public Service Company, "Efficacy of chemical contraception on female white-tailed deer", $51,236, Co-principal investigator Research Interest Behavioral/Ecological approaches to wildlife damage control Control of introduced vertebrate species Wildlife reproductive control Oral Presentations 1998 The Wildlife Society 5th Annual Conference Connecticut Nuisance Wildlife Control Operator's Euthanasia Training Course 1997 Southeast Deer Study Group Meeting Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference 1996 Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference The Wildlife Society 3rd Annual Conference 1994 Indiana Chapter of The Wildlife Society American Society of Mammalogists, 75th Anniversary Meeting Sycamore Audubon Society Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Deer Advisory Committee 1993 Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference 1992 Northeast Deer Technical Committee Meeting Manuscripts In Print Bertrand, M. R., A. J. DeNicola, S. R. Beissinger, and R. K. Swihart. 1996. Effects of parturition on home-ranges and social affiliations of female white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Management. 60:899-909. DeNicola, A. J., D. J. Kesler, and R. K. Swihart. 1996. Ballistics of a biobullet delivery system. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 24:301-305. DeNicola, A. J., D. J. Kesler, and R. K. Swihart. 1997. Dose determination and efficacy of remotely delivered norgestomet implants on contraception in white-tailed deer. Zoo Biology. 16:31-37. DeNicola, A. J., D. J. Kesler, and R. K. Swihart. 1997. Remotely delivered prostaglandin F2a implants terminate pregnancy in white-tailed deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 25:527-531. DeNicola, A. J., and R. K. Swihart. 1997. Capture-induced stress in white-tailed deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 25:500-503. DeNicola, A. J., R. K. Swihart, and S. R. Beissinger. 1992. Testing secondary metabolites of plants as deer repellents. Transactions of the Northeast Section of the Wildlife Society. 48:120-125. DeNicola, A. J., R. K. Swihart, and D. J. Kesler. 1996. The effect of remotely delivered gonadotropin formulations on reproductive function of white-tailed deer. Drug Development and Industrial Pharmacy. 22:847-850. DeNicola, A. J., S. J. Weber, C. A. Bridges, and J. L. Stokes. 1997. Nontraditional techniques for management of overabundant deer populations. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 25:496-499. Kesler, D. J., D. T. Bechtol, and A. J. DeNicola. 1998. Administration of pharmaceuticals and vaccines via remote delivery in biodegradable, needle-less implants. Large Animal Practice. Kilpatrick, H. J., A. J. DeNicola,'and M. E. Ellingwood. 1996. Efficiency of transmitter darts for capturing white-tailed deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 24:306-310. Kilpatrick, H. J., S. M. Spohr, and A. J. DeNicola. 1997. Darting urban deer: techniques and technology. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 25:542-545. Magnarelli, L. A., A. J. DeNicola, K. C. Stafford III, and J. F. Anderson. 1995. Borrelia burgdorferi in an urban environment: white-tailed deer with infected ticks antibodies. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 33:541-544. Stafford, K. C., III, A. J. DeNicola, and L. A. Magnarelli. 1996. Presence of Ixodiphagus hookeft (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) in two Connecticut populations of Ixodes scapularis (Acari: Ixodidae). Journal of Medical Entomology. 33:183-188. Swihart, R. K., and A. J. DeNicola. 1995. Modeling the impacts of contraceptives on populations of white-tailed deer. Pages 151 - 163 in J. MeAninch, ed. Urban deer a manageable resource? North Central Chapter of The Wildlife Society. Swihart, R. K., and A. J. DeNicola. 1997. Public involvement, science, management, and the overabundance of deer: Can we avoid a hostage crisis? Wildlife Society Bulletin. 25:382-387. Swihan, R. K., P. M. Picone, A. J. DeNicola, and L. Comicelli. 1995. Ecology of urban and suburban white-tailed deer. Pages 35-44 in J. McAninch, ed. Urban deer - a manageable resource? North Central Chapter of The Wildlife Society. Swihart, R. K., H.P. Weeks, Jr., A.L. Easter-Pilcher, and A. J. DeNicola. 1998. Nutritional condition and fertility of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginjanus) from areas with contrasting histories of hunting. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 76:1932-1941. Updated 8/16/99 I 811 1/99 20 7/15~99 20 6/22/99 20 NAME Maria Stock- Mullet Caroline Corson Leslie Hankins ADDRESS Grove Street, 130 Lee Street, 330 Lee Street, 435 PHONE 688-9771 DEER LINE RESPONSE I COMMENTS We have deer who go through the yards here. I don't really have a problem with that except I'm wondering, we just recently moved here, I'm from the Northeast where Lyme Disease is rampant. I'm just wondering what the rate of Lyme Disease is here from the deer tick. It would cedainly affect my feelings about the deer. If someone could give me a call back and let me know the incidence of Lyme Disease here. ATTACHMENT E We live in a wooded area in Manville Heights. I'm calling to share with you the fact that we enjoy the deer that are in our woods. We feed them, we watch them interact and grown. They are graceful, beautiful animals. The fawns are breathtaking. We have made a concerted effort with any new plants to put in things that are deer resistant. Yes they have eaten some of the older plants but the rabbits have done more damage than deer. We understand that there are areas of the city where there are too many deer. One question we have: are there really too many deer or are the deer getting in the way of residential development in those particular areas? Another question: will killing a certain number of deer really decrease the number of deer-car accidents in town? If the deer must be killed, I strongly support sharpshooting. I also believe a piece of the plan must be to educate the public about how we can co-exist with the deer in our town. I oppose bow hunting in any form. I oppose Councilman Thornberry's and the Press Citizen's determination to put bow hunting as a second option, especially to open it to any hunters in town. I hope the animal rights activists realize what their position may do to the plan. I vehemently oppose the plan that I heard Councilman Lehman discussing on KXIC recently when he was talking about harvesting the deer. What a strange term but it is softer, more politically correct than killing the deer - that private property owners could contact Lisa Mollenhauer to arrange to have deer killed on their own property. Has that been presented to the public for their input? I certainly don't want to hear gunshots near my property. I want to applaud the work that the Deer Management Committee has done. The circumstances are very difficult and we appreciate it. Thank you for listening. I wanted to say that I very much do not want the deer killed, and I think that we should set up the peninsula area as a wildlife and bird refuge instead of just developing it like area developing too much of the other area around here. 6/22/99 20 6/22/99 Clarissa Rappoport- Hankins 20 Cliff Rappoport Lee Street, 435 Lee Street, 435 I think that the peninsula should not be developed and I think the deer should be allowed to live there unbothered. Otherwise you're just going to drive them out into the rest of the city because you already see them more in people's backyards than on the peninsula because of the shooting that did go on. I am interested in voicing my opinion that the deer on the peninsula should not be hunted. I would prefer that the peninsula not be developed. I would like it to be a wildlife refuge if that were at all possible. I think that would be a suitable way to use a little bit of land that still is adjoining a river that is a nice natural resource. Hopefully that would make some kind of difference. 8/11/99 20 Rhys Jones McLean Street, 708 I keep hearing a lot of reference to the deer control and the future for the peninsula and the Hickory Hill area. We have a tremendous problem in the Manville Heights area. Again last night, two deer in the middle, well, 5:00 p.m. or 6:00 p.m. in the evening, are walking along Park Road. I've been almost hit by deer several times on Park and Lexington, that area. We have deer that visit every evening in our yard. The Manville Heights area, we've got to get rid of deer in that area. They are too dangerous to have walking around Park Road and that area, Park and Rocky Shore area of town. I would be interested to hear Updated 8/16/99 DATE J DIST 6/25/99 20 7/12/99 20 7/02/99 20 6/22/99 20 NAME Janet Corton Mr. Perkins Evelyn Ocosta- Weirich David Manderscheid ADDRESS Normandy Drive, 539 Park Place, 889 Park Road, 630 Rowland Court, 11 IPHONE 337-6362 354-0941 DEER LINE RESPONSE COMMENTS what's going to happen with the Manville Heights problem. We have been inundated with deer this year. We have four that are living behind us. They have eaten $200 worth of tulips, $200 worth of lilies, $100 worth of roses and various other things including yews which had to be replaced at $500. I would be very happy to see the herd reduced. I don't care how you do it, just do it and soon. I would appreciate a return call. My property backs onto the City Park and we have deer visiting it everyday in evening daylight. They've eaten all my vegetables. All the day lilies are gone and now they are eating the raspberries as well. We would really like something done about it. I have become quite concerned over time with the deer problem. Our property goes from Park Road down on the Flats and many of the properties along Park Road have the same situation. It is all unfenced so there are acres of land. The deer tend to come from the east, I'm assuming over there by the Park View Evangelical Church, sort of make their way across. My concern is that they have gotten so bold now - we've gotten used to the fact that we have deer in our backyard, usually - that when my kids go out, they don't even run away anymore. A couple of times my kids have gone out and surprised deer and the deer stand there or move toward them and my kids have learned to very slowly, cautiously, move back but I'm concerned that one of these times they are going to come across hurt. There is a quite large buck, large antlers, so I'm sure it's pretty mature that's been here just recently. My concern for my kids' safety is growing in alarm. We're trying to figure out how we can make enough noise to move the deer along. It used to be that we would all bark, I know you think this is ridiculous, we would bark, all of us since we didn't have a dog, we would bark our heads off and they would run away and then we could go out into the backyard. Now they don't even do that. We have a dog and they aren't intimidated by the dog. This safety issue of my kids is a real concern to me that it is one thing to lose plants and different things in my garden that I've planted. I can hate it but I live with it because I don't see a solution that I can use and they won't let you guys shoot the deer which I cannot believe. When it comes to my kids then I'm at a whole different level of concern. I would really like to see something done. If you can't use USDA, then use private shooters. We have to reduce the deer population. The fact that they are getting so familiar with the public and they are so bold now that they don't run away terrifies me. Call me if you have a question. Rowland Court is a dead end street in Manville Heights. On one side of the street - just to give you an idea of where the deer are - one side of the street backs up to Hwy 6 the other by the VA Hospital. In fact if I look out my front window, I see the VA Hospital but my house on the other side of the street backs up to a small ravine that empties onto Crandic Railroad and Hwy 6. I've lived in the house 9 years and I've seen deer before, sometimes they come through the neighborhood but this year there are three deer that are actually living in the ravine behind my house. I attribute this to the overpopulation of deer in town. They are expanding their habitat - they don't have as many places to live. They are a nuisance. They eat my plants like my hostas, they aren't afraid of people but they are also a concern to me in terms of running across Hwy 6 because they are very close to Hwy 6. I think it's just an example of why the sharpshooting program would be a good program to have in Iowa City not necessarily have to shoot the deer behind my house but to lower the population so they'll move back into more natural areas that are more appropriate for them. Page 2 FlU Updated 8/16/99 DATE J DIST NAME 6/23/99 19 Doris Walden 6/24/99 19 6/24/99 19 Betty Funk Florence Boos ADDRESS Bloomington Street, E 812 Broadway Street, 1621 Davenport Street, 1427 PHONE 338-4383 DEER LINE RESPONSE COMMENTS I believe that a merciful with sharpshooting should be done to the deer for their own sake and keeping from getting more disease and getting more people killed on the highways. We were on the way to Davenport the other day and there were seven deer killed along the side in various places. I think rather than being hit by cars that we should sharpshoot them. Hey Jan, is that you. I think if they are going to kill the deer, kill them as humanely as can. A gun is better than them poor animals running around with an arrow in their side or wherever. Please, please, please the best way - and I think it's with a gun. I am very concerned that the Iowa City Deer Management Commission is proceeding to think of the killing of many deer. I would like to suggest that we lower the speed limits in the areas most affected. I know that deer are killed by cars in certain areas much more than others. I don't think there has been a serious attempt to force those speed limits down. They are in residential areas in most cases. There's no reason why there can't be a 20 mph speed limit or a 30 mph speed limit. There should be more signs, there should be more reflectors. These aren't that expensive. Most of all, I think we should have some kind of positive attitude towards the deer. We should set up a protected zone or wildlife park. It would make the City much nicer. I was recently out to Macbride Recreation Center and we watched deer who are protected there. It was quite lovely. I don't think that we should slaughter deer right in the middle of the city but we should try to keep some way in which they can be safely preserved. I also note that although deer education programs have been suggested for schools and community centers, they haven't yet been implemented and I think we should do this so people can learn more about the habits or deer and see them in a friendly light not only in schools but for adults in the Library or community center, an education program would be a good idea. Finally, contraception is the only long-range way of controlling deer population. It's an expensive and not necessarily that successful of policy to kill them in city limits. It's also dangerous and a horrible thing to do. Instead we should look into the possibility of contraception and the government programs that would permit this. It's just hard for me to believe that this isn't a possibility in the year 1999, since I know it's physically possible. Finally, I think we should stop permitting high in-roads of population in certain areas of Iowa City. If there weren't so many people in the small region of the peninsula, perhaps this problem wouldn't have occurred. It's overly congested with people. In the future, I think we should try a no- growth policy in Iowa City so there aren't more buildings of centers of population. I think we need a balanced population, no-growth policy for Iowa City so that we can balance the different needs we need in fact less congested streets and we need an ability to live in harmony with some of the members of our natural environment. A no growth policy and concern with keeping the population in Iowa City constant would mean that we wouldn't have these repeated tensions between people and deer in between people in a changed environment and some of the results of that change. In the long run perhaps I should suggest that something has to be done to think of a balance and pleasant environment in Iowa City where we can continue to have a few animals in the city. Deer are very pleasant and gentle creatures. Very beautiful to look at. It's always a pleasure to see one. I think it would be very narrow-minded if we listened only to those who see them as objects of hunting or scurges of lawn plants. As far as lawns, people can use fences if they want to keep deers out of their yard or plant plants that are more resistant to deer or use some of the little baskets around growing plants. If people are warned about the presence of deer as they move into certain areas perhaps they wouldn't respond with such shock and horror as they respond to these pleasant inhabitants. I hope somethin9 can be done to Page 3 FlU Updated 8/16/99 ~" t ~'~ I NAME ADDRESS PHONE DEER LINE RESPONSE COMMENTS the shooting of deer and to set up a long-term contraception and traffic control policy. Page 4 FlU 6/25/99 19 Candice Smith Dubuque Street S., 432 Apt #6 351-7443 I just want to say that I am so opposed to using any lethal methods to control the deer. I think that we should be looking at methods like relocation. There are parts of Iowa that are low on deer population. All these tax propositions that have been going through, I would vote yes for them if some of the money were going toward helping the deer in this way. I am completely opposed to the bow hunting. I think it's just a very bad idea. I just wish the committee would look at other things that are nonlethal. I just really wish it would work out that way. I know it's expensive, but I think people in this town would be willing to pay for it. I think Iowa City is a progressive town and I think we should be looking things besides killing off the deer when it's kind of our fault anyway. We're the ones crawling into the deers' land. 6/22/99 19 Jiani Camito Gilbert Street S., 404 Apt #832 All I have to say is deer were first. If you didn't drive a car, then you would have no problems avoiding hitting deer. 7/02/99 19 Sue Denison Glendale Road, 1831 My home is just down the road from Hickory Hill Park. We now have deer roaming a path through our backyard that we have never had in the 25 years that we have lived in this house. The house is probably about 40 years old, maybe 45, and I'm sure they didn't have deer. So obviously, the deer coming down from Hickory Hill that are hit on Rochester are now making their home a little further down the hill. I really do believe that since we've been an established neighborhood for over 40 years, that the idea of deer roaming freely through our backyards now doesn't come from us just building our houses in the middle of a field and this being a natural occurrence. Obviously, there are too many that have been moved in from outside and now they are finding the inner city to be part of their habitat. This just won't do. It is very upsetting to me that I think the deer are way out of their boundaries and I'm sure they aren't feeling well and healthy by doing this and I'm sure the citizens aren't either. 7/08/99 19 Mrs. Vern Reeder Joyfield Lane, One 337-3852 I have just read about the deer management problem in the Advertiser. I am very much opposed to bow and arrow killing. I think it is cruel, unnecessarily cruel. As to the trapping, I hope they would not expect to use anything like steel traps. It seems to me that sharpshooting is the kindest and most efficient way if you have excellent shooters that would be merciful and quick. I think it is certainly worthwhile looking into the nonlethal method of contraception. It said it has not yet been approved for use free-ranging deer but perhaps some pressure could be put on the Food and Drug Administration for that. That would save a lot of agony all around, literal for the deer and a lot of worry for the people. I would be glad to have your comment on it if you care to call me back. (called right back) I hope I made it clear about the trapping. I don't think any trapping should be done that would be cruel to the deer that would prolong its stress and distress. That would include steel traps of course. I don't know what other types of traps you have mind. In general, I think it would prolong the suffering of the animal where sharpshooting would be fast and over quickly. I think that would be far more humane, far kinder. I wanted to make sure that I am not thrilled with the idea of trapping and certainly not using any metal or steel traps. 7/03/99 19 Carl Armens Juniper Drive, 740 I am completely against the deer hunt. I do not think that they should be killed. There are other ways of doing things about this like putting up more reflectors on the roads and I just don't think it is right to go out and kill these animals. As far as them causing accidents go, many more people are killed on the roads by drunk drivers. The people who do not like Updated 8/16/99 I I "~" ~"' 07/16/99 19 7/02/99 19 7/29/99 19 6/29/99 19 7/22/99 19 NAME Crystal Perkins Gerri Turecek Pare Bleckwenn Pare Bleckwenn Joanne Summerwill ADDRESS N. Governor, 913 Plum Street, 1519 Post Road, 205 PostRoad, 205 Post Road, 329 PHONE 356-5160 338-8144 DEER LINE RESPONSE Page 5 I COMMENTS FlU them coming into their yards, I don't think they have a reasonable right to expect to kill the deer. They can protect their plants in other ways. I am tired of swerving around deer late at night. I was running outside and Dodge Street seems to be their park at night. They cross the street in groups. You cannot see them for some reason until you are right up on them. Then you swerve which scares you half to death because it is going to be you or them but you don't want it to be them but you don't want it to be you either. It is a very discomforting thing to experience. Sometimes one won't be in the pack and he'll be straggling along by himself and before you know it he is right up on you. I've seen them running in singles, galloping literally right past Dodge Street. It is always late at night anywhere from 10:30 on to 2-3 in the morning. I've had them right next to the house outside the patio door. They have scared me to death. I really hope you all do something about them. They are causing a lot of grief. My opinion is that they are hazardous because you have to swerve. It is not safe. It is very uncomfortable and dangerous. I recently heard about the Deer-Line because I work for the City of Iowa city. I had an incident at my house which is not near the normal deer neighborhood. I live at 1519 Plum Street and the backyard is right up to Highway 6 near K-Mart. We had an incident in late April. It was a nice day out. We had my sister's children at our house. We were all in the back yard which is not fenced along the back of the property. There are short evergreens now planted there where a fence used to be. A deer came running along the back of the yard startled by one of the older children, darted into the yard and jumped over a 2-year old's head and knocked down a chain-link fence in an attempt to get out of the yard because he was startled by the children. He knocked the fence completely off of the post and then took off through the neighbor's yard and then across both lanes of the highway. It was just a really close call for a child to be around. We were in our own yard, minding our own business. I just thought this needed to be voiced as a concern about what might have happened to this 2-year old child. We didn't even know the deer was that close. It was a total shock to us all, especially in the area we live. You might just want to make a note that this happened in a different area. The child was OK, not a kick by a hoof through the head but we could have come out of the situation a whole lot worse than just a broken fence. There were six of us in the backyard. One was a three-month old baby in a car seat. No child was left unattended, but it is something of concern. Call me if you have questions. I just encourage you to do something about the deer population. The droppings are mounting up in the garden and the yard and I don't think we can back away from the possibilities that you see facing you. I think something must be done. My concern is that something needs to be done and soon. They are just inundating everywhere here. The next concern is the possibility of carrying Lyme Disease or any other diseases that we would be at risk just using our gardens, which they are demolishing quite rapidly. I live at the corner of Rochester Avenue and Post Road. I have deer in my yard most of the time. It's very disgusting. I have had a bed of hostas for over 15 years and they never have disturbed it very much until this year. There is not a leaf left on them anywhere. It is a bed about probably 15 feet long and they have just destroyed it. I just went out this morning and discovered that my one tomato plant, that I have been Updated 8/16/99 DATE ~ DIST 6/22/99 19 NAME Amy Bluffing ADDRESS Prentiss E, 305 PHONE DEER LINE RESPONSE Page 6 ICOMMENTS FlU has all the tomatoes gone from it this morning. All of my lily buds are gone. They are a terrible nuisance. I certainly hope that you get something done about them. Instead of saying that the deer population has increased in city limits we might say that the human population has increased in the deer territory. Iowa City needs to put a cap on new construction and encourage surrounding cities to do the same. The deer are beautiful animals, and I would hate to see them needlessly slaughtered. As far as problems with deer-car accidents it seems that posting more deer crossing signs, lowered speed limits, and monitoring of speeding in high deer traffic areas is a reasonable solution. There are many options it seems that the City hasn't looked into. Some other more humane options include wildlife quarters, deer birth control, deer whistles, and reflectors. Finally I would like to say that sharpshooting within city limits is dangerous and foolish. I don't care if the shooters are trained professionals, the idea of anyone covertly firing high powered rifles within city limits is chilling. 7/08/99 19 Larry Walberg . Rochester Court, 1811 We are starting to see more and more deer damage in our area as far as our tomatoes, and tilla bushes, lettuce, flowers, and so forth are starting to be eaten. I don't think that learning to live with deer is going to solve the problem. It's only going to get worse as the herd increases. I am in favor of the sharpshooting alternative. 7/15/99 19 Penny Smith Rochester Court, 1817 I believe the City is overdue in addressing its deer problem. The deer problem has gotten progressively worse in my neighborhood over the past five years going from the rare deer sighting to a deer in my garden a couple of times per week. I am fed up with the deer eating my vegetables. They have consumed lettuce, beets, carrots, green beans and tomatoes. I usually can green beans to eat over the winter. This year I'll be lucky if I have enough to eat fresh during the summer. The deer enjoy flowers and shrubs as well as vegetables. Many of my neighbors have also had deer damage in their yards. Nontoxic deer repellents do not work. Toxic repellents are not suitable for use on vegetables. The only reason I still have cucumbers is because I've totally consumed them in chicken wire. This is not a practical solution for the entire garden. I like wildlife as much as anybody does but enough is enough. If I lived in the country, I would expect this type of problem but not in the city. I support the use of sharpshooters. The problems will only get worse if the deer herd continues to increase. The shooting should be done not only in the peninsula area but also at other locations where the deer density is high such as Hickory Hill Park. I have yet to see any of the Living with Deer articles. I don't think they will be much help. I do wonder why so little information has appeared in the Press Citizen. I got this phone number from my neighbor who gets the Advertiser. I have not seen it in the Press Citizen. The deer have taken much enjoyment out of gardening this year. I hope something can be done to reduce the deer herd this winter so that next year's growing season will not be a disaster. 6/26/99 19 Sara Andrews Rundell Street, 832 The only problem I have with using sharpshooters in the herd is that I don't believe in shooting guns anywhere near the city or in the city limits. I think there is too much potential for disaster. 6/24/99 19 Laurie Nelson Seventh Avenue S, 826 I do not live in an area where the deer are a problem but I do have some comments on the issue. I am very much in favor of the City Council doing something to prevent deer-related car accidents; however, I was not in favor of the shooting scheme. As far as preventing deer from damaging bushes and that sort of thing on property, I am not in favor of the City doing anything. I think that's a responsibility of the residents. Let me draw an anah Updated 8/16/99 ~'" I ""~ NAME ADDRESS PHONE DEER LINE RESPONSE ~ COMMENTS my neighborhood, we have a very serious problem with termites that's been ongoing yet that is a part of the residents' own responsibility even though damage to your housing is much more serious damage than damage to shrubbery. Given that analogy when you're talking about animal pests, in the past it's been the residents' responsibility and I think that applies to deer as well. Page 7 FlU 6/22/99 19 Dennis Gaunt Washington Street E, 2917 We had a number of deer in our backyard last winter. They managed to pretty much destroy all of my birdfeeders and did some damage to a dwarf apple tree. I really think something needs to be done to cull this large number of deer. 6/22/99 19 Gregg Redlin Washington Street E, 2950 I've lived in Iowa City at my present address since 1973. I've been in Iowa City since 1970. I've feed the birds probably in the neighborhood of 25 years. Anyhow, the last, I'm gonna guess since about 1995, I've been having a massive influx of deer onto my property. They've devastated my tulips. They are starting to work on my hostas and during the winter they eat my juniper trees which I planted for the cover for birds. It's an arbivitae that they've eaten the total bottom out of it. Something needs to be done about this problem not just on my account. I do enjoy deer. I hunt deer. I have a lot of respect for their uncanny ableness to live with man in close proximity and still survive. But my daughter goes to The University of Iowa and I give her a ride back to school, lives at Mayflower, and crossing in front of me just about every Sunday night is a herd of deer by the sign by Regina School [cut off] 6/22/99 19 Richard Northum Yewell Street, 1325 356-5170 I have a question regarding the deer that are being harvested. What is happening to the meet and to the skins of the deer that are being slaughtered. That is my only question. I just want to make sure we are utilizing these animals to the fullest extent in our community. [Explained the food bank distribution program and the Iocker's right to retain hides. ] 7/12/99 18 Dave Funk Broadway Street, 1621 If we must, and it is quite obvious that we thin out the deer population, I would certainly prefer to use sharpshooters instead of the bow and arrows. I think we would have a much .better chance of a clean shot and less suffering for the animals. 6/25/99 18 Esther Drew California Avenue, 1924 351-9023 I wanted to vote for sharpshooters to control the deer. If you have any questions, feel free to call me. I hope I did this correctly by stating my opinion. 7/28/99 17 Stacy Kane Benton Street W, 1010 I just want to let you know that I ma very much opposed to the deer kill. I know several people that are. They feel that the City Council has already made up their mind and calling would do no good which is very sad. I do know that several people on the Deer Committee have had their friends call in and say that they are in favor of the deer kill which is very sad on that part of the Deer Committee to have people do that. I feel that this is not going to end with the deer kill and it is going to keep on going year after year after year. I am very disappointed that the Committee has already made up their mind yet makes the public feel that they are still welcoming opinions. I just wanted to let you know that I am very much opposed to the deer kill. 6/26/99 07 Dennis Visser Bluffwood Circle, 2624 I would like to record my comments for the Deer Management Committee. There are too many deer, they are very gaunt, and they are very undernourished. I think the population needs to be thinned down. I support using sharpshooters or the bow hunting method. I wish you well in making this decision. Updated 8/16/99 DATE DIST 6/25/99 07 NAME George Karr ADDRESS Bluffwood Drive, 813 PHONE DEER LINE RESPONSE Page 8 I just wanted to express concern that deer constantly eat plants in my garden. i've put tomato plants and I've got a fence around my garden and they reach over and still eat the plants and ruin my garden. 7/05/99 07 Patty Brewer Dodge Street N, 901 I have gone out on the day after the fourth, July 5 and once again found my netting ripped up off my hostas and several more of my hostas eaten to the ground. These are in the front, right next to my house. I look out my back door every day. I see deer running through my yard, deer with broken legs. It's just ridiculous. In other places, where there are natural predators for the deer, there is no problem. Let's just face it, we got rid of all the predators for the deer. It's just like in the city. Cities have rats and they have rat extermination programs. In towns like this and countrysides like ours when we have gotten rid of all the predators, the deer are becoming such a force, they are becoming more of a pest than rats are in the city. I just want to say that I am for the hunt. We need to do something about this. I am sick of having hundreds of dollars of my yard and landscaping go up in smoke every year. I am to the point where I'm at wits end. It is not fair just because you decide to live in the city doesn't mean you should have to live with this kind of devastation every day. I am a gardener. I don't grow vegetables anymore. It's an invitation for everything to move into your yard. I understand that. Now they are eating wildflowers. They are eating everything in my yard. It's just ridiculous. 6/29/99 07 Maryann ZimmermBn Stuart Court, 515 337-4028 I have lots of concerns about the deer. I see three-five-seven deer every day at my home. Today as I was driving out First Avenue, a mother deer and her two fawns walked right out in front of me. Yesterday on my walk one went straight across Rochester and cars screeched behind them. Our plants, our trees, everything are getting eaten. These are the small concerns. Our larger concerns are the value of human life versus the value of these beautiful animals. My car was wrecked in December by the deer and I really think if we would have been on a highway ~ather than Dubuque Street, I probably would be dead. Please call me back. I would like to discuss accidents and I think the public is getting the wrong amount - when the paper quotes the cost in terms of dollars that this has cost the community, I would like to talk with you about that. [Mrs. Zimmerman's concern was the Police estimate of deer-vehicle accident dollar damage. If it looks to be over f~900, paperwork must be filed with the State. Because of that, they estimated her damage to be ~900 - it turned out to be + ~3,000. She wanted people to know the total dollar damage number associated with vehicle accidents is low.] 6128/99 07 Judy Atkins Stuart Court, 539 i am calling to voice my concerns about the overpopulation of the deer and to support the Deer Management Committee in whatever method they choose to select for deer reduction. 6/24/99 05 Donna Friedman Bristol Drive, 1333 We have deer, lots of deer. We moved here 15 years ago and we did not have any problem with deer eating our garden or our flowers. Not a night goes by that we don't have deer in our yard eating things. I've tried to plant tomatoes, we've put cages around them, we've fenced the yard. It is a constant aggravation and nightmare. It is really a shame and for people that you like to garden that you can't do it because the deer are just so awful. I would like to see many of them killed, frankly. I don't care how it is done. I'm just fed up with them. There are just too many and now most of them have twins again. They run through the underbrush. We are seeing herds of 9 or 10 out here. I have no suggestions other than to get rid of them, and get rid of lots of them. 6/25/99 05 Bob Kutcher Bristol Drive, 1334 337-4356 I have a concern about the number of deer that you are trying to kill here in town. If you leave three-quarters of the population still out here running around, you listed the number at Updated 8/16/99 DATE DIST NAME ADDRESS PHONE DEER LINE RESPONSE COMMENTS 200 and some but you need to eliminate a whole bunch of them and possibly that will alleviate problems that are going to be continuing to grow in the future. To set a number, you ought to just shoot every one you can find, every one you can see, until maybe there is not a problem again. Maybe they'll stay out of town if they become extinct in here but also the DNR seems to think they control these things. They take the money for the hunting licenses and they prosecute people who illegally hunt so hopefully they should be more responsible for all the damage that these deer do to homeowners and no one is putting a hand up and saying I'm responsible for it. Rather than a city problem, possibly it's DNR's problem, I realize that it's within the city limits but they seem to control the whole state and control the numbers through the issuance of hunting licenses. They seem to know what they have to have killed to keep the populations up. I think some responsibility should be put on their shoulders also. There's some on the city's shoulders but it would be nice if the DNR could be held responsible for the damage these deer do since they do control the population for the state as a whole and we are in the state of Iowa. Page 9 FlU 6/25/99 05 Marlene Johnson Bristol Drive, 1401 I do have a concern about the deer problem in my neighborhood. They are on the street, in the backyard. I have seen eight in my front yard eating my shrubbery. One almost went through my front window when it got frightened. They've been at my front door. There are lots of deer droppings all over my front porch. The back yard is a big concern because they've come into my back yard and they've eaten all the shrubbery that I use for my hillside to keep the dirt intact. It is over $5000 - I've just gotten an estimate to have them replaced. Lyme Disease is of concern because they are right up to my front door, and I found a tick on myself. I am very concerned about the deer problem and some way of solving it. There should be some way, except all the cars that keep hitting them, some way of resolving the situation. I appreciate anything that you're doing about it and hope that some new ideas will be coming forth. 6/24/99 05 Lois Klein Caroline Court, 35 I am concerned about the deer not only eating our shrubs and plants but we take care of a dog and I'm worried about the ticks. We are getting so many, where are all these deer going to go. I think something should be done about them. 7/14/99 04 Charles Young Kimball Road, 250 337-1130 I have had a deer problem since I moved there. It is really severe now. I raised a wire fence a little bit higher it was 5' and now 10' feet high and I still have problems. They eat up tomato plants, lettuce, peppers and beans. All the garden I had has been destroyed by deer. I would like the deer around but not that many. I wish you could do something about it. 6/28/99 04 Gloria Lacina Kimball Road, 724 I am again calling to report extensive damage to our flowers, etc. although we have fences and all kinds of nets. This is a continuing problem and I hope that something is going to be done about it. 07/18/99 04 Stephanie Brockman N. Dodge Street, 931 354-1987 Last night we saw an accident involving a guy on a motorcycle that hit a deer and about an hour later another lady almost hit another deer in exactly the same spot. I just spoke with the Iowa City Police Department and she told me to give you a call to tell you that this area is heavily populated with deer. I live on the corner of Governor and Dodge and we get them in our backyard all the time. 6/22/99 04 Caroline Oster Oaklawn Avenue, 1437 I really love the deer and they are welcome to eat anything in my yard. We have a lot of them here, and I really enjoy them. I hate the idea of any of them being killed, but I realize the majority opinion is against me on that. Since it appears that some killin~l of deer is Updated 8/16/99 07/19/99 04 NAME Martha Eicher ADDRESS Ridge Road, 1609 PHONE DEER LINE RESPONSE COMMENTS inevitable, I would really like to urge you to do it only with trained sharpshooters because I think bow hunting is very cruel. The deer may not be killed instantly and may suffer for a long time. The quick killing of a trained gunshot seems to me much more merciful and humane way to reduce the population. I think in the past I've made known my concerns about the prevalent number of deer that come through the yard. I feel that I really must call more often. This is my first call. There really is no pleasure anymore in maintaining this year and trying to have plantings and shrubs. The deer are coming so often and eating everything. I actually see two flocks blooming that they have ignored so far. One of the big concerns I have is that you have to look down before you step through the yard on the grass because of their droppings. This was so terrible last fall. I will call and report again. Thank you for taking my call. Page 10 FlU 7/O1/99 04 Louise Murphy Ridge Road, 1692 The deer are still running through our yard. In the morning they are standing in the front yard just looking at you when you get the paper. They are eating everything. They are eating the new little trees if they aren't covered. We just can't live covered by a fence all around us all the time. It seems like we need to have some more attention to the deer problem. They are growing up and getting stronger and eating more. 7/12/99 04 Linda Ostedgaard Ridge Road, 1701 335-6540 My family has lived at this address for 14-15 years. It has only been the last 4-5 years that we have had such a severe problem with the deer. The number of deer and their predation to our yard has increased considerably. In fact, not only do we have a problem with the yard but there is a pathway through the woods near our home that I took twice a day because I walk to work I don't drive. I don't go on that pathway anymore because the deer, there are so many deer and they tend to snort and use their hoofs in a very defensive manner which actually scares me. They are becoming predators in a way. Our yard is about an acre. I spent upwards of 91 ,000 to fence it to keep out the deer. The part that I cannot fence, the deer choose to eat everything. For those who think there are plants you can plant that the deer won't eat, they are wrong. I have tried everything. There are no plants that the deer won't either demolish or just take a few bites of and ruin to decide if they like them. I have a dog. My dog must be kenneled, must be leashed. I must pick up his bowel movements when he is in the street with other people. I have paid to put in an electronic fence for my dog so he has to stay in and a fence to keep the deer out. I have reached a point of such exasperation with the deer problem that I really wish I could bill the City for what it has cost me for what it has cost to live in this place for the last 5-6 years. I guess I don't have anything else to say. That probably takes care of it for me. 7/05/99 04 Helen Oldis Ridgewood Lane, 2 I am calling about the deer again. I put fence up around my hostas and flowers, a plastic fence but they have bent the fence over now and have eaten all my hostas. That is quite an expense. I really would like something done about the deer situation. 6/25/99 04 Helen Oldis Ridgewood Lane, 2 I am in favor of the deer killing because we have too many. It isn't unusual to look out at my yard and see ten deer at a time. 6/25/99 04 Charlene Heinrick Ridgewood Lane, 5 That is in the Ridge Road area north side of Iowa City. We have a great deal of problems with deer both in damaging plants and there is also a problem of course with them in the street. There have been many times that we have had near collisions with the deer. Another concern is kind of a medical one because for the first time, even though we are not a heavily wooded area, we have found deer ticks and with the problem of Lyme Disease, this is a great concern. There is also a concern with the amount of deer droppings that we Updated 8/16/99 NAME ADDRESS PHONE DEER LINE RESPONSE COMMENTS have, There are 9-11 distinct individual deer who I can identify that come through our property on a regular basis and actually that number may have increased because recently I've seen several fawns. Needless to say, with all the deer droppings I worry about the disease aspect of that much manure just flying around outside of the fact that it iS not very pleasant to try to mow your lawn around all the deer droppings. I worry about the disease aspect. I definitely feel that something needs to be done to control the deer. I certainly support sharpshooting. I think that would be the best option. I do not like the idea of bow hunting, and I do not think it would be very effective; however, if that is the only option for this area, I would reluctantly go along with it. I feel they need to be controlled but I would certainly like to have it done in the most humane manner possible. Page 11 FlU 7/09/99 04 SusBn Thatcherteil Samuel Drive, 49 We back up behind Shimek Elementary School. This is not a new neighborhood. It's at least 25 years old and our home has been located here at least 10 years, which have resided the whole time. When we moved here, there was little or no problem with the deer. They may have eaten a few ornamentals but I really don't remember it being a problem. We would sit on the deck and we would watch the deer go through our backyard, but the deer were weary of humans. We have, the developments over the past lOsummers, the deer in our backyards typically have twins each year. The deer are getting smaller. They are not as large as they once were. We have two new fawns in our backyard that you can add to the count. The last two winters all the Cedar trees in our neighborhood were decimated below five feet. It is not disease of the trees that have caused this problem, but starvation of the deer. Our Cedars are located by the garage door. Our hostas are by the front door and they are eaten this year to the ground. The deer are not afraid of us. When they are in our front yard, and our front yard is extremely small, we go outside, we yell, we look like we are about to throw something and they look at us. They do not move. You walk towards them and as you get almost within hitting distance, they will walk away. They do not run from you. This is-a tremendous problem for us at this point and time. Like I said, we love the deer but we are really having a problem. We are animal lovers so this is a real problem for us and we appreciate any efforts the City Council can make to rid of us this problem but still maintain the beautiful animals. I appreciate it. For their sake, they don't need to starve or have problems and that's what's happening. 6/22/99 03 George Entwhistle Laura Drive, 1205 Lot #12 I hit two deer with my car last year, last fall one on North Dubuque Street just south of the interstate and the other one north of the interstate across the river. They are becoming a real traffic menace and I think the herd should be thinned out through sharpshooters. 7/20/99 00 Steve Jackson 643-5436 Call me any time. [Wanted to capture and move deer to private hands. Explained that is not legaL} 07/08/99 00 Pam Terrell (County) Windrum Bluff I have followed the story with interest, and I have to say the only people that are benefitring are the nurseries because they can sell so many more plants. Everybody I talk to, whether they are in the city limits or not, are disgusted that deer are destroying private property. I think it is an issue that the City should look into. I hope that something will be done about it. I thought the sharpshooters idea... although the sharpshooting method has some drawbacks, I think we need to thin the population. I'm all for getting rid of the deer around here as soon as possible. 6/25/99 O0 Michael Hartzen (County ?) Cherokee Trail, 304 First of all, Ashman is ridiculously silly. Deer are not people. They are not individuals. They are animals with deer brains. They don't have human brains. They aren't humans. I think we should eliminate the deer in the most efficient way possible. I think contractin Updated 8/16/99 NAME ADDRESS PHONE DEER LINE RESPONSE COMMENTS people to do sharpshooting is a great idea. That way we can save a little money rather than spending it in ridiculous manners. I would be willing to contract to shoot a few deer. I would even give up the deer to some charitable organization. Do something other than hit them with our cars all the time. Page 12 FlU 6/25/99 O0 Alicia Brown (County) Dry Creek Court NE, 9 I am opposed to the dart method and bow hunting of the deer. Why? I don't think it's safe in concentrated areas. If we do it in the parks, that's something else. I also feel the deer problem is based on our expansion problem. There are too many deer and they need to be limited in order to be healthy but I have seen increased expansion due to development where the deer have nowhere to go, so of course they are going to roam in your backyard. We have at least 13 deer that come through our area and we have established plantings that are not deer-proof but they certainly don't destroy anything. We just anticipate that they are going to be here because we in a home have pushed them out. I would like Iowa City to look at what is happening in terms of planning and development in all these ridge development areas that are presenting us with real problems. 6/25/99 00 Ernie Nicholas (County) Lakeview Drive, 41 I see people are really concerned about the deer situation, and I agree with that. We just have too many, and I believe that the City is on the right track. I think we ought to keep our big nose out of it and let the City handle it. They seem to be doing a good job and had a great plan until some do-gooders, and you can quote me, came in and stuck their nose into it. 6/25/99 O0 Don Smith (County) Sand Road, 4555 I have lived in this town for 47 years and I have yet to see one deer anywhere. I don't know what you guys are talking about. 6/24/99 00 June Helm (County) Sycamore Trail NE, 7034 335-0539 351-8415 I have been watching in the newspaper to find an individual or committee to send information to relating to the use of sterilization of deer by dart. I had an article a few years ago by the AFPCA discussing this option. It has been tried in several places. I want very much to find somebody or some organization that I can find this statement to so they can pursue the question of sterilization rather than {her phone kept cutting out until end of message}. 6/25/99 00 Mrs. Ray Novie Cedar Rapids Featheridge Road, 9209 We've been in the same farm area for almost 40 years. There has been a great increase in the number of deer and the fact that they don't stay away from the house like they used to. They come right up to the house to chew off our plants and chew in the garden and make a mess. There is an increase in the deer, not only in the city but also in the country. 6/25/99 00 Pete Mundy Cedar Rapids E Avenue NE, 2901 384-9956 I work in Iowa City. I'm interested in whether or not deer population could be partially controlled by putting hormones in salt licks that might work like birth control for the females and maybe turn the bucks into steers. Everybody could be fat and happy but not pregnant. I don't know. They were going to try it with AdoIf Hitler - put female hormones into his vegetable garden and make his moustache fall out so if it would work on AdoIf, it might work on bambi and bambi's mother and the king of the forest. 6/22/99 00 Diane Cole Coralville I really don't think they should be killing the deer. The deer were probably here a long time before us. There should probably be something done but I don't think they should just slaughter them. They deserve to live here too. Thanks. 6/25/99 O0 Ernest Dvorksy Coralville Ninth Avenue, 719 351-8762 I'm calling about the people that protect these deer should be responsible for the damage they do. Any damage they do, these people should pay for the damage. If a farmer had Updated 8/16/99 ADDRESS PHONE DEER LINE RESPONSE COMMENTS any animals, wild or tame, would be responsible for the damage if these animals got loose. Page 13 FlU 6/25/99 00 Sharon Hansen Coralville Southridge Drive, 2073 I would just like to make a comment about the bow hunting option. I was up in the Minneapolis - St. Paul area about a year ago. They had a certain area of the city quartered off and they hunted the deer with bow and arrow. The account that I read of it was simply horrific. They told the story of a deer that had been shot and came staggering out with a bow in its side in full view of people there protesting. The people were behind a fence and had to watch this. It doesn't sound like a very humane way of getting rid of the deer. If it has to be done, sharpshooting certainly seems like a more humane method than using a bow and arrow. As far as I'm concerned I wish it didn't have to be done at all if there was some other method of taking care of the deer. I certainly am opposed to deer hunting with a bow and arrow. 6/25/99 O0 Dan Cannon Coralville Westview Drive, 1475 There is too many deer in the area that you're talking about. The federal government and the animal rights people have no business sticking their nose in the people that live in that area's problems. It's another example of big liberal government trying to control everything. Just for the record, PETA stands for People for the Eating of Tasty Animals. They were put here for one reason - for us to eat. Get rid of the deer. Give them to the homeless shelters or whatever. 6/24/99 00 Steven Hill Lone Tree PO Box 371 629-4659 I am in favor of bow hunters for deer - thinning them out with bow. I'm not in favor of firearms because I just don't want to hear the gunshots. I think there is too much of a risk of a human getting hit by a slug or bullet. I would rather see bows. They are quieter. If the hunters used tree stands, they would be shooting down. There is very little chance of anybody getting injured. Furthermore, it wouldn't spook the deer as much as a few gunshots will. As soon as they hear a few gunshots, they are liable to book up for the next county anyway. Besides it's hard to tell the hunters gunfire from the criminals. 6/22/99 00 Tom Carroll North Liberty 3409 Forrest Drive I've lived in the Iowa City area for almost 30 years, and there are stretches of Interstate 80 I'm afraid to drive on at night on my motorcycle because of the deer population. I see nothing wrong with the deer kill the way they had it planned. The way they did it the first time with sharpshooters. These animal activists - I wonder if they could be sued if I hit a deer on the interstate because they were too lenient and afraid to let some deer get shot. I say go for it. 6/25/99 00 Kathie Lindhorst Riverside Boise Street S, 91 648-3283 I am expressing a very deep concern. Although I'm not an Iowa city residents, I work there, have for 25 years at the VA Hospital. I commute back and forth daily. I have in the past lived in Iowa City but I do no longer. I spend most of my paycheck other than my rent in Iowa City. I buy my gasoline there. I buy so many things there as opposed to Riverside. I am livid that bow hunting is even possibly being reconsidered. I agree wholeheartedly with Jan Ashman and the Humane Society. If the animals have to be killed which I guess there is no way of getting out of that, I want it to be in a humane manner. Bow hunting is extremely inhumane. Look at Cedar Rapids. Fine example. People were coming home, finding wounded deer in their yards. Deer that had laid there and agonized and finally had died. I can't believe you would even, even possibly consider that. The deer have to be killed. All right then, let's do it but let's do it humanely. I am extremely upset as you can tell. I will have a very, very sour taste in my stomach regarding Iowa City. I will probably just work there but after that you will get no more of my money. 6/24/99 00 Joyce Wingler Riverside 648-3001 I oppose the bow hunting of the deer. And besides, Iowa City is getting to be nothing but Updated 8/16/99 6/25/99 00 7/15/99 00 6/22/99 00 6/20/99 00 NAME Gretchen Hursmen ADDRESS PO Box 234 West Branch PHONE 643-2175 339-8368 DEER LINE RESPONSE COMMENTS buildings, cement, and the deer have no place to go. I also say in the fall, a deer hunting season with guns and no drinking while shooting. I do a lot of shopping in Iowa City and you know maybe I'm just from Riverside and it doesn't make any difference but it does to me. I can always go to Cedar Rapids WaI-Mart or Washington WaI-Mart and I can just stay away from Iowa City. Page 14 FlU I'm director of the Midwest regional office of In Defense of Animals. I have been reading about the deer controversy in Iowa City and I'm quite concerned. I believe there needs to be alternative methods of animal control here and they certainly have not been studied as far as I can see. I am certainly adamantly opposed to bow hunting. It is extremely inhumane. An animal generally suffers for quite a time after being shot. If it is a fatal shot, it is generally going to be nine minutes of total agony. Many times animals wonder off into residential areas with horrible wounds and die maybe 48 hours later. I think anybody who espouses bow hunting is living in the dark ages. If they do have to be shot, and I do believe there is an adamant feeling in the community that they will be, sharpshooting certainly is the method. It is a horrible, heartbreaking situation. I just wanted to voice my concerns. There are a lot of people in Iowa City that don't want to see the deers killed. I hope they are voicing their concerns. I'm just hoping some alternative contraceptive method can be used in the future. Until now I guess we're just going to have to fight against bow hunting. You've got my vote. I am concerned about the problems that people get from deer ticks. I heard somewhere that there was an immunization for it. I thought it began with "L." It is to prevent Lyme Disease. Can you give me any information on how to get immunization for people in the wooded areas or get near deer a lot. Isn't it just typical that I have to talk about something living to a machine of death. Anyway, never mind the remark, you won't understand it but anyway. To make it very plain, I gave a message to one of your officers about killing these deer. These are living creatures and you do not murder on the planet earth. But you haven't gotten it through your heads. Now, I'm going to be nice and peaceful with this issue. The Indians on the reservations will help you herd them if you ask because they're their creatures too. Do not kill anymore because it belongs to them too. You took from the Indians so don't take away the rest of what God has for you to see. Try to be nice to them. Move them somewhere else where they'll be received. You don't have to kill life to build upon its land - your houses of death that you choose to live in. That's not what God wanted from you. Why don't you live in peace together. But at least save these deer. Don't shoot them because they're eating your ten cent flowers you planted in your front yard to make yourself look pretty. That's pretty petty, don't you think? To take a whole generation of lives away and extinct a species because your flower died in your yard that you thought you planted with your hand? You should think about that one. And if you want my address, you are going to have to ask God for it. Because I'm the true one of Him that you basically didn't see. And go ahead and think I'm crazy .... [cut off} I used to live in Iowa City but this deer population issue is an example of why I moved away because you have a minority tyrannizing the majority of the people with common sense. Hopefully you'll have some courage and common sense and everybody will allow a well-managed, well-regulated, safe bow hunt but I doubt hunters would want to participate due to the controversy [cut off]. FROM: SC~HUBERT & RSSOCIRTES FRX NO,: 160254?853? Rug. 21 1999 11:43RM SCHUBERT & ASSOCIATES P.O. BOX I I 540 GLEN DALE, AZ 853 I 8- 1540 'TELEPHONE:: ('6OZ) 547-8537 'H~I F'FAX; C6.02) 789-e8 I 7 E-HAIL: ~4UBE, RTAZ~AOt..GO~i August 20, 1999 BY TELEFAX AND OVERNIGHT MAlL AUG 2 3 i: :,' !!f ':' CITY MANAGER' Mr. Ernie Lehmsn, Mayor City of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Mr. Stephen J. Atkln-% City Manager Ci,vic Center 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Councilor Dean Thornberry Councilor Conhie Champion Councilor Karen Kubby Councilor Dee Norton Councilor Mike O'Donnell Councilor Dec Vanderhoff Iowa City City Council Civic Center 410 E. Wa~hln~toa Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Mayor Lehman, Mr. Arkins, and Members of the Iowa City City Council: I am writing on behalf of The Fund for Animals (The Fund), Animal Protection Institute (API), and the University of Iowa Animal Rights Coalition (Coalition) to urge you to vote to oppose the deer management phn (Plan) proposed by the Iowa City De~r Task Force (Task Force). This Plan is not only in'anensely controversial but the Task Force has proposed to kill up to 733 deer at a estimated cost of over $180,000 using a private sharpshooting firm even though there is no valid evidence to warrant such an extreme action, My clients' opposition to the proposed plan is not based solely on a philosophical opposition to killing aahna~ but is based on a lack of site-specific data to warrant such a large- scale shughter and potential violations of state and federal law. Furthermore, the process by which the Task Force developed the proposed plan was significantly flawed. Not only did the FROM: SOHUBERT ~ ASSOCIATES FAX NO, : 160254?8537 Augr. 21 1999 11:44AM P3 Task Force fail to sufficiently consider any of the alternative manageraent strategies proposed by my clients, but it apparently relied solely on inaccurate, misleading, and baseless information in promulgating the proposed plan. As an alternative, if you elect not to oppose the proposed plan,. my clients would ask tl~ you delay a vote on the plan pending the preparation of a comprehensive analysis of the proposal for review and comment by interested members of the public. Not only will this ensure that the City Council will base its decision on the best available scientific evidence, but it will provide the citizens of Iowa City, Iowa, and the nation, regardless of their support or opposition for deer killing, an opportunity to critically review and comment on the proposed plan. NoT only is the development of such a plan entirely consistent with democratic principles, but given the controversy surrounding deer management in Iowa City, providing the public with such an opportunity is entirely appropriate and will c, nsur~ that the public has a role in the decision-making process. As Barbara Jordan, a former Iowa Congresswoman and current state legislator, has said, "an enlightened citizen is nn indispensable ingredient of the infrastructure of democracy." ~ Iowa General Assembly web page at www.legis. state. ia. us). In this case, the approval of the deer killing proposal without, at a minimum, requiring the preparation era compr~hemsive plan and providing the citizens with an opportunity to critically evaluate the plan is anLithetical to the wise words of the Honorable Ms. Jordan. The remainder of this letter wiIl describe the scientific and legal'deficiencies inherent in the Task Force proposal. The Deer Task Force has Never Provided Valid Site-Specific Evidence or Data Which Warrants or Justifies the Impkmentation of a Lethal Deer Control Stra~'gy: As the City Council is well aware, The Fun& API, and the Coalition were successful last winter in preveraing the U.S. Department of Agriculmre/Wildlife Services (W~dlif~ Services) division from completing its proposed deer killing program. While the District Court enjoined the program based on procedural issues, it is incox-n~t to claim, as some City officials have don©, that The plaintiffs did not raise substantive concerns regarding the government's deer killing plan. The mere fact that the court did not have to consider the merits of those substantive claims does not mean that they were baseless and inaccurate. To the contrary, not only did the plaintiffs' briefs raise concerns about the sufficiency of the analysis contained in the Draft and Reviscd Environmental Assessxncnt, but the comments generated by or on behalf of my clicnts clearly lay out significant deficiencies in the original Task Force plan and the govemment's environmental documents. A copy of the December 31, 1998 and February g, 1999 comments that I prepared on behalf of The Fund and the Coalition were provided to each of you for your review and consideration. Among the many deficiencies of the environmental documents identified in the comments, the prhssaxy inadequacy w~., and continues to be, the failure of the Task Force or the governmere 2 FROM: S6HU~ERT ~ RSSOCIRTES FRX NO. : ~G025478537 Rug. 2~._~999 ~:45RM P4 _.. to substantiate the need for lethal deer control. Except for data on deer numbers, no site specific evidence has ever been disclosed to document an excessive number of deer/vehicle collisions in Iowa City, excessive impacts of deer to residential properties, adverse impacts of deer to natural vegetation and {riodiversity, or a sudden outbreak of Lyme disease among city residents. Despite this void of information, the Task Force and City and State officials have cominued to rely on these potential conflicts in their ongoing attempts to justify deer killing. This is not to say that these impacts are not occurring in Iowa City, but that little data have been coBected on such impacts, the frequency and severity o f such impacts have not been quantified, and alternatives to ldlHng deer to mitigate, prevent, or eliminate such impacts have not been adequately considered. For example, there were 50 reported deer/vehicle accidents in iowa City in 1998. See_, "New deer plan OK'd," Iowa City Press Citizen, August 17, 1999. In comparison with other communities, this is an exceedingly low number which does not warrant a lethal response. While hitting any animal with an automobile is, for many, a traumatic experience, such accidents rarely result in human injury or death. Indeed, far more residents of Iowa City hit other cars or ~animate objects when driving than the number who hit dcer. Moreover, an increase in tra~c volume resulting from the human population growth in Iowa City would have increased the number of deer/vehicle accidents independent of any increase in the deer population- Though my clients encouraged the City Council and Task Force to evaluate traffic volume data and to collect site specific data on deer/vehicle accidents (i.e., location,. speed of vehicle, time of day/night, atmospheric conditions, etc.) to develop strategies to reduce or prevent such conflicts, no such effort has heen undertaken. The frequency of deer/vehicle accidents should never be used to justify lethal deer control since there are alternatives available to prevent and reduce the number and frequency of such accidents. Iowa City has demonstrated,. for example, that roadside reflector systems are effective in reducing deer/vehicle accidents. In addition, modifying vegetation along roadways, reducing speeds in high-accident areas, and using temporary warning signs all will aid in reducing or preventing such accidents. Other than the roadside reflector program~ there is no evidence that the Task Force has considered, experimented ~ or otherwise implemented any of the other alternatives. Furthermore, the slaughter of deer will not necessarily reduce the frequency or severity of deer/vehicle accidents. As long as deer exist, people continue to drive, and development activities continue to displace deer, deer/vehicle accidents will occur. The frequency of such accidems are best reduced through education, habitat modification, and changes in human and animal behavior, not by killing deer. S;milarly, though nine cases of Lyme disease have been reported in Iohn~n County, it is unknown if any of these originated in Iowa City versus being imported (i.e., the victim contracted the disease elsewhere and was diagnosed in Iowa City). Lyme disease is .~imply not a public health issue in Iowa City. While white-tailed deer rrmy act as a host for the tick that carries the disease, a number of other animals including birds, companion animals, and a variety of wild animals also may act as hosts. The scientific evidence is not conclusive as to whetherr deer density is positively correhted with the incidence of disease. Regardless of the source of the disease, the presence of the disease does not warrant a lethal response considering that there is a host of FROM: SCHUBERT ~ ASSOCIATES FAX NO.: 16025478537 Au9. 21 1999 ll:45AM P5 measures which can be taken by each individual to reduce his or her chances of being exposed to the disease. Again education, not killing, is the solution Though limited site-specific data arc available for deer/vehicle accidents and Lyme disease in Iowa City and John~n County, respectively, no sit~specific data have ever been disclosed which document the frequency or severity of deer cl~'nage to residential properties or the impacts of deer on natural vegetation and biodiversity. Instead of providing such documentation, the Task Force now believes, based on information provided by the Iowa Dcpartrnent of Natural Resourccs, that a deer density in excess of 35 per square mile will adversely impact biodiversity. See, "Iowa City panel gives final OK to kill 733 deer," Cedar Rapids Gazette, August 17, 1999. Yet no studies are cited and no ~eta are provided to substantiate this claim or to demonstrate that it is applicable to the Iowa City area~ Since deer must eat to survive, they may impact ornamental plants, gardens, natural vegetation, and biodiversity. However, if there are no site-specific data to demonstrate th~ these impacts are excessive or that they will result in long-term ecological damage, basing a lethal deer killing program on speculation alone is not appropriate. Even if such data were available, a lethal solution is not the only alternative for addressint~ such impacts. Again, though my clients have suggested strategies which can be implemented to begin to assess these kntmcts, ~ese suggestions have apparently been ignored by the Task Force. Suspiciously, though we are now told that a deer density in excess of 35 per square mile will adversely impact hiediversity, this same density was previously used by the Task Force as the threshold above which the public would not tolerate deer. Not only was this claim not supported by any seientffie study, but neither the Task Force, City Council,. or any other entity has ever attempted to survey the residents of Iowa City to determine their tolerance for deer. While some residents may have registered complaints about deer, this is not indicative of public intolerance for deer. The truth is that few people ever call to express gratitude or appreciation about the opportunity to observe and enjoy deer in an urban environment because there is no kw. gntive to do so. In reality, it is higyy .nTik~Jy that the majority of Iowa CRy residents have ever been adversely impaet~t b~r deer. Furthermore, public tolerance for deer is a dynamic measure which can be increased through educational efforts intended to teach the public about deer biology, behavior, and how to live harmoniously with the species. The only site-specific data which are available for Iowa City are deer count data collected by the lows Fish and Wildlife Division (Division) of the Iowa Department of Natural Resom"ees (Department). Even these data, however, have not been interpreted accurately. An analysis of the data reveals that only 515 of the 869 deer counted in 1999 actually were within the Iowa City City limits and many of those were found in undeveloped portions of the city where their presence was likely causing little conflict. Moreover, no information has ever been provided regarding the methodology used to count the population or the assumptions inherent in that methodology. Remarkably, at the most recem Task Force meeting new information was provided by the Department regardhg the size of the Iowa City deer population. In this ease, according to a 4 FROM: SCHUBERT ~ ASSOCIATES FAX NO.: 16025478537 Aug. 21 1999 ll:4GAM PG August 17 article in the lowa City Press Citizen, the Department conducted a simulation us/ng deer count data and birthing-rate models allegedly demonstrating that an additional 585 deer have been born in certain areas of Iowa City. The type of model and assumptions inherent in the modeling process have never been disclosed and, thus, the accuracy of the analysis cannot be ascertained. Furthermore, this level of production assumes that the current population size is low in relation to habitat quantity and quality when there is simply no evidence to substautiate this contention. As a deer population fills its available habitat, productivity tends to decline. grxthout information about habitat quality or quantity, the physioal condition of the deer, the age and sex structure of the herd, and produotivity data, it is not possible to accurately predict the trend in a population Models do not necessarily predict population trends with compete accuracy. They are only as good as the data used to buiId them. If the data are inadequate then the model is inadequate. The Task Force has not apparently concerned itseft with assessing the accuracy of the information presm~ted to it by the Depa~ui~nt or other experts, preferring to accept any data or evidence which it can use to justify lethal deer control. This is precisely why, at a minimum, a comprehensive management plan must be developed before the City Council approves any deer control strate~,. Given the lock of evidence, my clients remain convinced that the primary motivation for the implementation of a deer killing program in Iowa City is to facilitate development. The two prhnary targets for deer ldlling are the peninsula and Hickory Hill areas of the city. The former area is a lightly devobpod, low human-d~mity area where doer/vehicl~ accidonts, damage to residential properties, and damage to natural vegetation and biodiversity either are unlikely or have not been documented. Thus, there would not appear to be sufficient justification for k~llng deer in this area except for the City Council's short and long-ten development strategies. Hickory Hill is more developed, yet neither the Task Force or City Coun~ has ever produced any data to suggest that deer are causing adverse impa~ in that area. Again, future development of the area appears to be the driving force behind lethal deer control It; as the evidence demonstrates, the City Council advocates deer killing to make way for new homes, it is obligated, at a zmmm to disclose such information to its constituents. The City Council should recognize, however, that continued development will not permit the urban deer population to stabili~e. As development proceeds, deer are forced to find and use alternative areas in order to survive. Many of these areas may be of marginal quality resulting in an increased presence of deer within residential areas. Development, therefore, is a critical component in the management of urban wildlife, particularly deer. Unfortunately, few municipalities, including Iowa City, consider the direct and indirect impacts of development activities when engaging in pla~nlng discussions. If the City Council were interested in developing a comprehensive and humane deer snnna.,oement plan, short and log-term development plans must be subject to critical analysis to determine their imp. act on deer distribution, movemont patterns, and habitat use. FROM: SCHUBERT & ASSOCIATES FAX NO.: 1G025478537 Aug. 21 1999 11:47RM P7 Unfortunately, the Task Force did not a~mpt to obtain valid site-specific evidence to justify ~ts proposal. Nor did i~ endeavor to subject City development plans or information provided to it by the Department and other so-called experts to critical ~aly~b. CHven the evidence, my clients were hopeful that when the Task Force was reconvened to reconsider dc~ managemen~ strategies for Iowa Cb/that it would heve reevaluated the evidence, or lack tlEreof~ to dBtermlne if lethal deer control was necessary. Unforttmatcly, instead of reevaluating the need to kill deer, the Task Force limited its analysis to what methods should be us~ to kill deer.~ The failure of the Task Force to reconsider whether the deer population in Io~va City required lethal control is a reflection of the pro-killing bias inherent in Task Forces established throughout this country to discuss w~lcillfe/human conflicts.2 The Deer Task Forte has not Adequately Considering Public Comment, Critically Evaluated Existing Information, or Prepared a Comprehensive Deer Management Plan in Developing it Proposed Deer Killing Strategy: Upon reconver~ng, the T ask Force requested public input into alternative management strategies for deer in Iowa City. I submittcd extensive comments on behaff of The Fired and the Coalition in response to this inquiry (~;, May 14, 1999 comment letter to Lisa M. Mollenhsuer). This colnnn~t letter rajsed mauy of the issues, including the lack o£ site-specific data, identified in fhi,~ letter and offered several suggestions on how the Tas_~_ Force could obtain relevant data to quantify deer impacts and alternative strategies, particularly education strategies, which could and should b~ implemented to r~duce, prevent, or mitigate deer/human conflicts. Not only did the Task Force completely ignore this information, but the entire process appears to have been a ITo its credit, though the Task Force contemplated the implementation era bow hunting strategy to kill deer it ultimately rejected this option Given the wounding rate and cruelty associated with how hunting as documemed in the litu~ature, under no circumstances should the City Cound] elect to pennit this method for killing deer in Iowa City. This is not to suggest that sharpshooting is more acceptable, since jt too results in wounding and suffering, but the sharpshooting wounding rate is less than that documented for bow hunting. Ideally, the City Council should reject sharpshooting based on a lack of data to warrant lethal deer control and since non-lethal alternatives are available and should be used. 2Indeexl, while efforts are ongoing to collect information about deer managemere strategies employed by other municipalities throughout the country as requested by certain City Council members, the available evidence demonstrates that the majority of cormmmities have ultimately implemen~d lethal strategies to control deer. This is not surpri~ng given that the composition of deer task forces is heavily weighted with lethal deer control advocates. The involvement of animal protection advocates is generally a token gesture to ensure that the municipalky can claim that it considered all perspectives. In addition, lethal control is more likely to he selected because k is generally less expensive, less time-consuming, and requires far less crealive thought than implementing a comprehensive and ultimately more effective non-lethal control program. In the present case, however, given the excessive costs of White Buffalo Inc., to slaughter deer, a non-lethal program would liltely be less expensive to implement. 6 FROM: SCHUBERT & ASSOCIATES FAX NO.: 16025478537 Au9. 21 1999 ll:48AM P8 make-work exercise designed to ensure that the Task Force could clain% albe~t inaccurate/y, that had considered all perspectives in developing ks proposal At no time did the Task Force or any of its members contact me to request additional information about alternative mansgelIgrlt strategies or to request my presence at a Task Force meeting to further elaborate on the non- lethal strategies for deer rr~_nsgerllent. Ironically, after several months of m~etings at which the Task Force discussed bow to kill deer it suddenly expressed interest in "communicat/ng with opposition groups to look for common ground." See, "Deer par~l seeks dialogue with opponents," Cedar Rapicls Gazette, July 9, 1999. To date, it is my understanding that this dialogue has been limited to the Coalition and that no attempt has been made by any Task Force member to contact either API or The Fund. My clients are more than happy to interact extensively with the Task Force and the Iowa City City Co,neil to develop a more msponaibl~, humane, and comprehen~ve de~r managemere plan but only if the Task Force or City Council terminates all deer killing plans and begins the analysis anew. As a result of these deh'berations, the Task Force has proposed that 186 to 733 deer be killed by a private sharpshooting company. Interestingly throughout the majority of its deh~erations, the Task Force contemplated the killinE of no more than 240 deer. Yet, at the very end of the process, as a result of unverified inform~_tlon provided by the Department, the Task Force elected to substantially incr~a.se the number of deer targeted to 733. Not only is there absolutely no evidence to demonstrate that this sudden increase in the numb~ of deer to he killed is warranted or justified, but, as previously stated, there is no valid site-specific evidence to demonstrate that any lethal deer control is necessary. Moreover, instead of obta~ni,~E and critically evaluating all relevant ionnation regarding deer biology, ecology, and impacts in Iowa City, the Task Force' created new masons to kill deer. An alleged increase in deer poachins, for example, was used by some Task Force members to claim that a lack of lethal deer control was resulting in increased threats to public safety due to increased poaching activities. While this claim is erealive, it iS not valid. If poaching incidents have increased within Iowa City this demonstrates a ikilure of law enforcement to identify, arrest, and prosecute those respons~le, and has nothing to do with the existence, or non-existence, era formal deer management program- Furthermore, the Task Force has neglected to evahate the effec~ss of lethal deer control. As indicated in previous connnents, lethal deer control is an ~e strategy for reducing deer/human conflicts. Deer respond to lethal deer control through increased productivity and survival in order to refill previously occupied habitat. Consequently, though lethal control may reduce de~r mnn~rs in the short term, it will not have any effect on long-term numbers unless lethal control is continued indefinitely. Habitat modification and education are the only effective short and long-term strategies to humanely resolve hunxan/deer conflicts. If;. however, the Task Force is convinced that the evidence supports lethal deer control, then= in the interest of democracy and of ensuring that the best decision is made based on the best FROM: SCHUBERT & RSSOCIRTES FRX NO.: ~602547B537 Ru9, 2~ ~999 ~:48~ P9 available scientific evidence, the City Council should request that it prepare a cOmprehensive deer management plan. This plan should include all of the evidence and site-specific data regarding deer/human conflicts which the Task Force must possess given the scope of its proposal To ensure that this plan is as accurate and comprehensive as possible, it should request that both the Department and White Buffalo Inc., assist in the development of this pla~~ Considering the amount of money that the City Council is prepared to pay White Buffalo to kill up to 733 deer and since White Buffalo promotes itself as having scientific expertise in natural resource management (_~.~, Attachment l)., surely the funds axe available to pay White Buffalo to use its so-called scientific ¢xper6se in assisting with the preparation of such a plan. Without Site-Speeilic Data on Deer Impacts in Iowa City, the Natural Resources Commission Cannot Approve the Proposed Deer Killing Plan: Under Iowa law, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources/Fish and Wildlife Division has primary authority forthe management ofwildlife in the state. IAC at 561(I). The operations of the Division with respect to fishcries, wildlife, and law enforcement are directed by the Iowa Natural Resource Commission (Commission). The Commission also promulgates regulations, policies, and other orders to guide the management of fish and wildlife in Iowa, including the development of hunting regulations. The Commission is designated as '~lc sole agency to detgnnine the facts as to whether biological balan~ does or does not exist." IC at §481k39. This deterrnln~Iion, in turn, is used to justify lethal wildlife management regulations and policies. In order to make this determi_nafion ~r Iowa City, the Commission must be presented with site-specific data documenting that a biological balance does not exist. If these data are not available, as is the case for Iowa City, then the Commission cannot legitimately make th/s determination and, therefore, cannot approve the proposed deer slaughter plan? CONCLUSION: The failure of the Iowa City Deer Ta~i~ Force to obtain and analyze site-specific eviden~ 3It should he noted that the goal of White Buffalo is "to sponsor, support, and conduct s~ienti~c research and educational efforts to improve the understanding of natural resources for the purpose of conservation." ~ Attachment 1. Given the controversy surrounding deer management in Iowa City, if White Buffalo has such scientific expertise then instead of h;dng it to kill deer, the City Council should hire it to conduct the necessary scientific analysis and educational efforts to substantiate the alleged need to kill deer and to provide residents with a greater understanding of deer biology, ~ology, behavior, and non-lethal tecbmiques avaHshle to prevent, reduce, or mitigate deer/human conflicts. 4In addition to this potential violation of state law, my clients have be, gun an inquiry to determine if White Buffalo is properly classified as a non-profit organization under federal tax laws. FROM: SgHUBERT & ASSOCIATES FAX NO.: 160254?853? Aug. 21 1999 ll:49AM P10 of deer/human conflicts, its reluctance to critically analyze the information supplied by so-called deer management experts from the Department, and its unwillingness to consider non-lethal deer management options has resulted in the development era deer l~|irXg proposal which is not only extren~ but which caunot be justified. At present, based on the infernOion which has been made available to the public, there simply is no evidence to warrant the slaughter of 186 to 733 deer in Iowa City. This is an unnecessary expenditure era substantial amount of public fimds, not to address public safety issues or damage to landscaped or natural areas, but rather to facilitate development and to placate the few, yet clearly influential, members of the Iowa City comnmnity who have complained about deer. For these reasons, tile proposal should be opposed. The lack of hard evidence and site-specific data to warrant this extreme action should be of considerable coneera to members of the Iowa City City Council. The lack of data and research should, at a mj,,im,,m, compel the Council m~mbers to delay a vote on the killing plan until a comprehensive deer manage~ pla~ is developed and distributed to concerned citizens in Iowa City, Iowa, and the nation for review and comment. Surely, the City Council would not approve the use of a substantial amount of City funds for the planning and construction of a new school without solid evidence that such a new facility was needed. Similarly, the City Council should not approve the expenditure of over $180,000 ~or lethal deer control without reviewing credible evidence that the killing is necessary, determining that no alternative strategy is available, and without providing the public with a formal opportunity to evaluate and comment on a comprehensive plan ~ncapsulating and substantiating the proposed strategy. Based on the foregoing information, my clients respectfury request that you vote to oppose the proposed deer killing program. Alternatively, if you ftrmly believe that lethal management is necessary, my clients ask that you delay approval of the plan tmtil a comprehensive management plan is published and made available for pubic revie~v aud eomt~nt. Only by requiring the development of such a plan. can the City Council improve its ability to make the best management decision poss~le based on full disclosure of all of the relevant information and based on the consideration of the public' s input and desires. Thank you in advance for considering this information. Please contact me at your convenience if you have any questions regarding this letter or my dims' interests in working with the City Council and Task Force in developing a comprehensive, hurtrune, and seientilieally sound deer m.a~gement program ~r Iowa City. Since y, DJ. Sc Wildlife Biologist FROM: SCHUBERT & ASSOC I ATES FROI'I: FRX NO.: 16025478537 FR:.( NO.: Rug. 21 1999 11: 50AM Pll ~T~9. 20 ~.~',~8 08:5~-~1 P~ · S4 Grandvie; .lipell.lie RSmdeo;CT 66514 FROM .' SGHUEIERT & I:tSSOC T I:tTES FROI~ -' FAX NO. : i6025478537 Aus. 21 1999 il:50AM FAX NO.: ~s..,~0 1990 00:~ Pt P12 NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCUSSION Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Iowa City will hold public discussion on the 24th day of August, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Iowa City, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk, to consider an ordinance which would amend Title 8, Chapter 4 of the City Code, entitled "Animal Control." This ordinance would allow for the microchipping of dogs and cats which are redeemed from the Animal Shelter; clarify that "invisible" fences and electronic dog collars are not considered fencing; and clarify that prohibited animals may take part in circuses. Persons interested in expressing their views concerning this matter, either verbally or in writing, will be given the opportunity to be heard at the above-mentioned time and place. dennis.mit\animals\ordinanc.nph