Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2000-05-16 Info Packet of 5/11
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET May 11, 2000 I MAY 15 WORK SESSION ITEMS IP1 Memorandum from Strategic Planning Committee of the Senior Center Commission: Skywalk Construction IP2 Memorandum from Planning & Community Development Director and City Attorney: Group Living for Targeted Populations IP3 Memorandum from Community Development Coordinator: Disposition of South Pointe Lots IP4 Memorandum from City Manager: Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee IP5 Memorandum from Mayor: Evaluations of Staff I MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS I IP6 Letter from Eva Casserly to Council Member O'Donnelh Conflict of Interest IP7 Email from Andrew Schutt to Council Member Pfab: Deer Overpopulation IP8 Memorandum from City Manager: Citizen Committees - Formal and Informal IP9 Memorandum from City Manager: Plaza Vandalism IP10 Memorandum from City Manager: Meeting with Bar Owners IP11 Memorandum from City Manager: Pending Development Issues IP12 Memorandum from Administrative Assistant: Media Release IP13 Memorandum from Assistant City Attorney Matthews: Fines Relating to Cigarette/Tobacco Possession and Sale IP14 Memorandum from City Clerk: April 17 Work Session IP15 Memorandum from City Clerk: Absence IP16 Memorandum from Acting Traffic Engineering Planner to City Manager: City Council Request for Information IP17 Letter from Chair and Vice-Chair of Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission: Commission IP18 Letter from Barbara Endel to Park and Recreation Commission: Dog Park IP19 Memorandum from City Engineer to City Manager: Landfill Site Work Pavement Material Issue May 11, 2000 Information Packet (continued) 2 IP20 Memorandum from Assistant City Engineer: Awards for City Projects IP21 Memorandum from Senior Building Inspector: Deck Brochure IP22 Memorandum from Associate Planner Long to City Manager: Broadway Neighborhood Update IP23 Letter from Finance Director to University Heights Mayor: Fiscal Year 2001 Contract between the City of University Heights and the City of Iowa city for Transit Service IP24 Memorandum from Dianna Furman: Utility Discount Program Statistics by Month- Fiscal Years 99 and 00 IP25 Article: Mixing Housing Types in TNDs IP26 Article: Center Offers Variety to Las Cruces Teens IP27 Release: Grand Opening of Concession Stands IP28 Deer Management Committee Applications Information from Florence Boos regarding Deer. 05-11-00 [ i IP1 Memorandum To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council of Iowa City From: Strategic Planning Committee of the Senior Center 28 South Linn Street Commission: Joanne Hora, Chair; Jay Honohan; Terri Iowa city, Iowa 52240 Miller Chait; Linda Kopping (319) 356-5220 Date: 10 May 2000 Fax (319) 356-5226 Re: Skywalk Construction Following the November 1999 approval of the City Council, the Senior Center Commission's Strategic Planning Committee proceeded with a fundraising drive and grant application to support the construction of a connecting skywalk between the Senior Center and Tower Place parking and retail center. Since that time the Committee has spearheaded a community fundraising drive that has raised approximately $60,000. A request for a Community Block Development Grant in the amount of $120,000 was submitted and subsequently denied. At the present time the fundraising effort has stalled. Members of the Strategic Planning Committee have been told by many potential donors that they are reluctant to make a contribution at this time because of questions concerning the commitment of the City Council. Specifically, people and businesses are reluctant to make a contribution that may not be used to support the construction of the skywalk. Due to their strong belief that a connecting skywalk will provide the safest and most accessible route between the two buildings, the Senior Center Commission remains committed to the construction of a connecting skywalk. On behalf of the Senior Center Commission the Committee is requesting that the City Council approve the skywalk project and direct the City Manager to authorize an architect to draw plans and specifications and form a contract for this project. Throughout the skywalk project the Committee will continue with the community fundraising drive in order to reduce the final cost of the skywalk to the City. Committee members believe a commitment from the Council will enable the fundraising drive to generate additional funds. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: May 3, 2000 To: City Council ney~~/~~~ From: Kann Fran. khn,,D~.rector, P Eleianor Ddk~s (~ty Attor Re: Group living for targeted populations With the recent consideration of the CDBG and HOME allocations, there was some community discussion about the location of group living facilities for targeted populations such as those who are homeless and to what extent the City could or should control the location of these facilities. Necessarily this discussion spills over into Iocational issues for all kinds of residential facilities that serve people with special needs. At their meeting on April 24, the Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) discussed the possibility of location becoming a criteria for the commission's decision-making and assigned a sub-committee to address this issue. They have or will be advised that Iocationai criteria which address the functionality of a facility or agency--issues like proximity to transit or to services--are appropriate, but that Iocational issues which address neighborhood compatibility should not be dealt with by a funding allocation body. Neighborhood or land use compatibility are more appropriately zoning issues and should be dealt with through those processes. At the Council's direction, the staff is prepared to look at the issues surrounding the recent debate concerning transitional and transient housing and the North side neighborhood. These issues include the intent and requirements of the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, Iowa law pertaining to the location of family care facilities, the economics of acquiring property for non-profit human service facilities, the definitions of protected classes of people, the successful missions of human service providers, and the continued health of our older neighborhoods. These issues are all part of the question of whether and how the community through its government enables and controls the location of certain group living facilities in the community. Before we do any work on this item, we would appreciate the Council's direction. cc City Manager Steven Nasby Ls~nem\kf5-3.doc City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: Hay 8, 2000 TO: City Council and City Manager ~__,.,,~ FROH: Steven Nasby, Community Development Coordinator cy RE: Disposition of South Pointe Lots (Swenson and Associates Project) The Swenson and Associates homeownership project was to include the construction of three single-family homes that would be sold to income eligible households. Swenson and Associates used HOME funding to purchase three lots in the South Pointe Subdivision; however, only one home was constructed. Due to delays and non-performance we negotiated an agreement with Swenson and Associates to terminate the HOME Agreement. On March 20 the homebuyer for the one completed home was able to close on the property. Now, we may proceed with closing the Swenson and Associates portion of this project. Our settlement with Swenson and Associates stipulates that the remaining two lots in the South Pointe Subdivision be returned to the City of Iowa City. The disposition of these two vacant lots will require action by the City Council. Since these lots are now City property we are requesting direction from the City Council as to their disposition. A number of options are available which could include selling them on the open market, awarding them to another organization(s) for an affordable housing project, or keeping them for future housing projects (e.g. ADHOP, demonstration projects, etc.). The Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC) recommended that the two lots continue to be used for affordable homeownership opportunities. As such, HCDC requested that staff contact local non-profit organizations working successfully on this type of housing. Staff contacted the Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship, Habitat for Humanity and the Towa City Housing Authority. In response, two applications (Greater zowa City Housing Fellowship and Iowa City Housing Authority) were received by HCDC. At their November :[999 meeting HCDC voted (5- 3) to award Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship the two vacant South Pointe lots. On 3anuary 20 HCDC voted (9-0) to make a formal recommendation to the City Council affirming their November decision. Pending the Council's decision, if the City were to transfer the titles for these lots to a non-City entity we will be required to go through the standard disposition process and conveyance of public property. The mechanics of this disposition will occur at future Council meetings. If you have any questions about the Swenson and Associates project or the disposition of the two lots please call me at 356-5248. ]:n addition, I will be at the May 15 work session should you have additional questions. Cc: Karin Franklin, Director of Planning and Community Development Doug Boothory, Director of Housing and :Inspection Services Maggie Grosvenor, ICHA Housing Administrator Maryann Dennis, Greater Towa City Housing Fellowship City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: May 8, 2000 To: City Council From: City Manager Re: Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee Recently there has been some discussion by the City Council about the formation of a solid waste management advisory committee. Similar discussions have taken place in the past and included the formation of a regional solid waste authority with ownership of the landfill becoming the responsibility of all landfill users in Johnson County not just Iowa City. These discussions did not culminate in the formation of a solid waste authority or an advisory committee. The need for a solid waste management advisory committee is rooted in State legislation established ten years ago. The Legislature set a waste reduction goal of 50% for all landfills in Iowa by the year 2000. The Iowa City Landfill, as well as all landfills in Iowa, has not reached the State Legislature's goal. We have found that this goal is very difficult to attain due to circumstances associated with the cost of recycling, poor markets for recyclables, and the flow of waste to out-of-state landfills. If we are to continue in our waste reduction and recycling efforts, the formation of an advisory committee that studies the issues and makes recommendations could be very valuable to the City Council. We envision a seven to nine member committee made up of Iowa City residents only, at least to begin with, due to the ownership and operation of the landfill being solely Iowa City's responsibility. If the committee feels the need to include members from other communities or the Board of Supervisors, that recommendation could be made to Council at a later date. This advisory committee would make recommendations on waste reduction and recycling issues that would help in reaching the 50% waste reduction goal. The committee would not deal with landfill operation issues. Some of the issues that an advisory committee would need to deal with immediately include: · Downtown refuse collection and recycling · Apartment recycling · Waste leaving Johnson County and other solid waste comprehensive planning issues · Franchising waste and recycling collection in Iowa City · Overall recycling education and promotion There are many other issues that could be dealt with by the advisory committee. These include reviewing grant applications for the Iowa City Landfill's Waste Reduction Grant Program, providing input to area legislators on solid waste legislation, making recommendations on how to deal with small quantity hazardous waste generators in conjunction with the new household hazardous waste collection facility at the landfill (Fall 2000), and providing input on a school chemical disposal and education program. We would envision the committee meeting on an as-needed basis; initially at least quarterly. This committee would be staffed by Brad Neumann of the JCCOG staff. We will schedule this item for a work session discussion. cc: Karin Franklin Jeff Davidson Chuck Schmadeke Dave Elias ~ Rodney Walls ' mgr~memos\swmac.doc City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: May 9, 2000 To: City Council From: Mayor Lehman Re: Evaluations of staff Evaluation of our three employees (City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk) will take place on Wednesday, May 31, 2000. In the years that I have been on Council we have done this in a variety of ways. I would like to suggest the following procedure for this evaluation, and would like your comments at the work session of May 15th. Comments must be limited to procedure and not substance for this is a personnel matter and not open to public discussion. I would suggest that each of our employees give us a brief evaluation of their performance over the last year. This evaluation should be limited to 10-15 minutes. We will leave it to each employees to report to us as they see fit. We will then ask questions or comment on their report. Following our comments, then they will give us an overview of their expectations and concerns for the coming year which will again be followed by our comments. To assist us in preparation for this process, I have gathered a few thoughts which I find helpful in such evaluations. I hope first year Council persons will find this helpful as I found my first attempt at evaluations particularly difficult. The attached evaluation reflect a few suggestions which I have found helpful. Your input at the work session will be appreciated. After that work session a final evaluation form will be prepared to allow room for written comments and distributed prior to each evaluation on the 31 CITY COUNCIL STAFF EVALUATION - 2000 l. Overall impression of employee's performance. Our level of satisfaction and comfort with total performance. This is similar to looking at the forest-not the trees. No forest is composed of all perfect trees but beautiful forests are a treasured asset. 2. Evaluation of the trees A. COMMUNICATION SKILLS With Council With Staff With Media With Other Governmental Units B. EFFECTIVENESS With Council With Staff With Media With Other Governmental Units C. HELPFULNESS With Council With Staff With Media With Other Governmental Units D. ABILITY TO SUPERVISE Quality of Staff Performance of Staff Morale of Staff E. FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY Ability to Stay Within the Budget Advising Council on Consequences of Action F. PROFESSIONALISM Commitment to Job Loyalty Ethical Conduct Responsive to Direction of Council G. LEADERSHIP Within City Organization Community Willingness to Act Rather than React May 2, 2000 To: Mike O'Donnell- Iowa City Council Iowa City, Iowa 52400 From: Eve Casserly 1615 Pine Ridge Court Coralville, Iowa 52241 RE: Conflict of interest? homeowner in east Iowa City today. I've followed the debate about the extension with considerable interest. I believe that the members of the Iowa City Council have voted on items related to the 1't Avenue Extension in the past and that t; ,ey will be doing so again. It was brought to my attention only this morning that an Iowa City Council member, Mr. Steve I, -nner, was soliciting signatures for a petition against the Extension a few days ago while stationed in the lobby of the Ecumenical Towers. An elderly lady who is a long time resident of the Towers told me of the incident this morning. She encountered Mr. Kanner as she was returning to her apartment in the Towers. As he knew her from when he was running for Council and working in the Senior Dining Room, he tried to talk her into going with him while he would go door to door through the Towers seeking additional signatures. There happens to be a rule against solicitation in that Residence hall. The elderly lady refused Mr. Kanner's request and reminded him of the no soliciting rule. To her knowledge, he left and did not go door to door. Now my question is this: If a Council member is seeking signatures for a petition demanding one particular form of action on the part of the Council, how is the tax payer supposed to believe that such council member can approach the situation with an open mind? Is this not a serious conflict of interest? It is my ~mpression that Mr. Kanner is one of two current council people who are dashing about solicitinr~ signatures against the Extension. Seems to me that while a Council person should be available to LISTEN t the views of the citizenry, it is not their place to TELL the citizenry what they themselves F,,~/~eople to think. Seeking signatures from a vulnerable population, and one that is less impacted by this particular issue, strikes me as somewhat like "badgering" of seniors. I question if it is not a conflict of interest, one which should cause the offending party(ies) to remove themselves from voting on the issue. /~/ CORALVII, I,E, IO~,X'A 52241 Marian Karr From: In/in Pfab [ipfab@avalon.net] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 9:29 AM To: In/in Pfab Cc: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Re: Deer overpopulation Andrew, I'd be happy to answer your questions but I'd rather do that in a face to face interview. Let me know when you may have some time, and I'll meet with you. It may be better if you could give me several possible times and then we can work out a place that will work. I appreciate your interest in your community and I will do what I can to help you become a more active citizen. Thanks for taking the time to contact me. Irvin Pfab 505 E. Jefferson St # 1 P. O. Box 2446 Iowa City IA 52244-2446 ipfab@avalon.net (319) 351-4094 ..... Original Message ..... From: "Irvin Pfab" <Irvin_Pfab@iowa-city.org> To: <ipfab@avalon.net> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 7:13 PM Subject: FW: Deer overpopulation> ..... Original Message ..... From: David Schutt [mailto:stampz9@netzero.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 10:19 PM To: ernie_lehman@iowa-city.org; mike odonnell@iowa-city.org; connie_champion@iowa-city.org; irvin~pfab@iowa-city.org; dee_vanderhoef@iowa-city.org; ross_wilburn@iowa-city.org Subject: Deer overpopulation Dear Iowa City City Council Members: I am a sixth grader attending Shimek Elementary School on the north side of Iowa City. I am writing you as part of a class project. I would like to know what actions you plan to take regarding the deer overpopulation problem. Do you support hunting deer again as a solution? If so, are you planning to target only does or only bucks? What other possible solutions do you propose? Thanks for finding the time to answer my questions this issue. If you have any suggestions on how I might help in solving this problem please share them with me. Andrew Schutt 1421 Buresh Avenue Iowa City stampz9@netzero.net City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: May 3, 2000 To: City Council From: City Manager Re: Citizen Committees - Formal and Informal As I am sure you are all aware, one of the longstanding traditions we have in Iowa City is the use of Council appointed citizen boards and commissions. We currently have 21 formally recognized commissions with 149 appointed citizens. In my judgment, these represent the backbone of our citizen involvement in the process of advising the City Council on community issues. We also have a neighborhood association network which also provides for direct citizen involvement in recommending policies, projects and programs to the City Council. Currently there are 28 recognized associations. Their board membership varies. We also have a large group of informal citizen committees that do not report directly to the City Council but are often arranged by the staff and/or the action of a board or commission. I think you will find it interesting to note the number of these informal committees. There are others, but I wanted to show the extent of our citizen participation efforts. cc: Department Directors mg r%memos\comm .doc CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN IOWA CITY GOVERNMENT # OFFICIAL BOARDS/COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEES MEMBERS Adjustment, Board of 5 The Board of Adjustment is empowered through Chapter 414 of the Code of Iowa and Section 14-4B and 14-6W of the Iowa City Code to grant special exceptions as provided in the Zoning Chapter and to hear appeals to decisions made in the enforcement of the Zoning Chapter. Airport Commission 5 The Iowa City Municipal Airport Commission is responsible for formulating policy and directing administration of the Iowa City Municipal Airport as a public facility in accordance with Focal, Iowa Department of Transportation and Federal Aviation Administration regulations. Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment 5 It is the duty of this Board to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there has been an error in any administrative action in the enforcement of the ordinance, and to hear and decide on special exceptions that are specifically provided for in the ordinance and to authorize variances from the terms of the ordinance on appeal in specific cases. Airport Zoning Commission 5 It is the duty of the Commission to advise and make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors and the City Council as to the appropriate zoning requirements and other matters pertaining to the physical development of areas of the county and the city surrounding the Iowa City Municipal Airport, so as to maximize compatibility between airport uses and the uses of the adjacent land. Animal Control Advisory Board 5 The Animal Control Advisory Board provides recommendations and advice as are required by the 28E agreement or as may be requested by the City Council or City Manager of Iowa City or the City Councilor City Administrator of Coralville. Appeals, Board of 7 The responsibility of the Board of Appeals as set by City ordinance is to review the Uniform Building Code, the Uniform Fire Code, the Uniform Plumbing Code, the Uniform Mechanical Code, the National Electrical Code, and the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings and the Uniform Code for Building Conservation and recommend amendments for these regulatory codes; to assist the building official in making interpretations; to hear appeals for any person that is aggrieved by a decision of the building official and pass judgement on that appeal; and to consider alternate materials and methods of construction. Civil Service Commission 3 The Commission establishes and publishes rules relating to examinations for civil service positions, establishes guidelines for conducting such examinations, and certifies lists of persons eligible for appointment to positions. The Commission has jurisdiction to hear appeals and determine all matters involving the rights of employees under civil service law and may affirm, modify or reverse any administrative action on its merits. Historic Preservation Commission 10 The Commission is authorized to conduct studies for the identification and designation of local historic districts, conservation districts and historic landmarks. The Commission furthers the efforts of historic preservation in the City by making recommendations to the City Council and City commissions and boards on preservation issues by encouraging the protection and enhancement of structures, objects, or sites with historical, architectural or cultural value; and by encouraging persons and organizations to become involved in preservation activities. The Commission reviews applications for housing rehabilitation and rental rehabilitation assistance through the Community Development Block Grant Program to evaluate the effects of the proposed projects on properties over 50 years old. Housing and Community Development Commission 9 The purpose of HCDC is to advise the Council on community needs in general and on the use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership program (HOME) funds in particular, from a citizen viewpoint. Human Rights Commission 9 The Iowa City Human Rights Commission enforces the Human Rights Ordinance, Title 2, Iowa City Municipal Code. The Human Rights Ordinance is Iowa City's anti-discrimination law. Library, Board of Trustees 9 The Board's specific list of legal responsibilities includes: determining the goals and objectives of the Library in order to plan and carry out Library services; determining and adopting written policies to govern all aspects of the operation of the Library; preparing an annual budget and having exclusive control of all monies appropriated by the City Council and the Johnson County Board of Supervisors or given to the Library through gifts, bequests, contracts, grants or awards; employing a competent staff to administer its policies and carry out its programs. Parks and Recreation Commission 9 The Parks and Recreation Commission recommends and reviews policies, rules, regulations, ordinances and budgets relating to parks, playgrounds, recreation centers and cultural functions of the City, and makes such reports to the City Council as the Commission deems in the public interest. Planning and Zoning Commission 7 Acts as the Zoning Commission of the City. Directs surveys and studies to be conducted and maps, plans, or plats to be made related to the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations. Recommends amendments and supplements to the City Council for the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Chapter and Subdivision Regulations. Recommends to the City Council on development proposals, such as planned developments, subdivisions, street vacations and annexations. Police Citizens Review Board 5 The Board is to assure that investigations into claims of police misconduct are conducted in a manner which is fair, thorough and accurate, and to assist the Police Chief, the City Manager, and the City Council in evaluating the overall performance of the Police Department. 2 Public Art Advisory Committee 7 The Committee was charged with developing the Iowa City Public Art Program, including by-laws for the Committee and procedures for the commissioning, procurement, maintenance, and deaccessioning of public art. Review, Board of 5 The Board of Review is to equalize assessments by raising or lowering individual assessments as established by the assessor. The Board also makes the final rulings each year on exempt properties. Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission 10 The Iowa City Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission is charged with protecting, preserving and restoring important environmental features of the community, including woodlands, wetlands, waterways, and, especially, the Iowa River and its tributaries. Senior Center Commission 9 The Commission is to serve in an advisory role to the City Council and Board of Supervisors with regard to the needs of the Senior Center; make recommendations with regard to policies and programs of the Senior Center; join staff and other interested persons in seeking adequate financial resources for the operation of the Senior Center; encourage full participation of senior citizens in Senior Center programs and activities; ensure that the Senior Center is effectively integrated into the community and cooperates with organizations with common goals in meeting the needs of senior citizens; serve in an advocacy role with regard to the needs of senior citizens; and assist the City Manager in the evaluation of personnel. Telecommunications Commission 5 The Commission to facilitate and regulate the smooth and effective development and operation of the City's Broadband Telecommunications Network (BTN), the City's cable television system, as well as advise on telecommunications-related matters. 3 AD-HOC COMMITTEES # MEMBERS Apartment Infill Committee 11 Drafted architectural guidelines to help make new apartment buildings fit into the context of older neighborhoods Census Committee 10 Formed to educate citizens of the importance of responding to the 2000 Census. City Plaza Sculpture Selection Panel 8 To chose among entrants, sculptors to design sculptures for the five pads in City Plaza. Deer Management Committee 9 The Committee is to annually recommend to the City Council an updated Deer Management Plan that meets the goals of the Long-Term Plan. F.I.R.S.T. (Friends of the Iowa River Scenic Trails) 9 Volunteer organization which promotes trail development and use throughout Johnson County, particularly trails within the Iowa River corridor. First Ave (CV)/Mormon Trek Subcommittee 12 Research the Mormon Trek and Deer Creek Road projects, prioritize them, and evaluate funding responsibility between JCCOG members. Footliter's Children's Theatre Board 8-16 An affiliate group of the Parks & Recreation Department run by volunteers to provide and promote theatrical opportunities for youth. Housing Inspection Client Advisory Committee 6 Provides customer feedback, generates new ideas, increases customer access to the decision-making process, provides input on ordinance and/or procedural matters and increases innovation and creativity. Iowa Avenue Literary Walk Author Selection Panel 7 To select the 60 authors to be recognized in the literary walk, chose quotes for each, and work on a brochure on the authors. Iowa City Babe Ruth Baseball Board 11 An affiliate group of the Parks & Recreation Department run by volunteers to schedule, operate and promote baseball for boys between the ages of 13 and 18. Iowa City Eels (Swim) Board 13 An affiliate group of the Parks & Recreation Department run by parent volunteers to provide coaching and competitive swim meets for youth outside the school setting. Iowa City Girls Softball Board 9 An affiliate group of the Parks & Recreation Department run by parent volunteers to schedule, operate and promote youth girls' softball, and contribute toward facility development. 4 Iowa City Kickers 11 An affiliate group of the Parks & Recreation Department run by parent volunteers for the purpose of scheduling, operating and promoting youth recreational soccer, and contributing towards facility development. Iowa City Parks and Recreation Foundation 9-14 Exists for the purpose of enhancing the City's parks and recreation opportunities, raising funds to do so when necessary. JCCOG Regional Trails and Bicycling Committee 10 Committee represented county-wide to review and advise local governmental agencies on matters relating to trails and other bicycling interests. Johnson County Safe Kids Coalition 10 The mission of the Johnson County SAFE KIDS Coalition is to prevent unintentional injuries to children ages 0-14. Library Art Advisory Committee 6 Select original art for the Library's lending collection and also advises on permanent art for the building. Library Strategic Planning Committee 18 The committee updated the Library's long range plan, a process which is done about every five years. They were specifically asked to review and modifV as they felt appropriate the Library's mission statement, propose a vision statement, and recommend goals. Police Department Mission Statement Review Committee 6 Review the Police Department Mission Statement. Police/Neighborhood Council Committee (to be initiated in 2000) 10 Advise the Police Department about concerns in different areas of our community. Priorities and Strategies Committee 6 This committee assisted the City by prioritizing listings and making suggestions for changes with the CITY STEPS Plan. Program Coordinating Committee 14 Assists the City by recommending support activities for the Family Self-Sufficiency Program. Project Green 3 Exists to enhance public improvement projects, specifically plantings. Public Housing Residents Committee 10 Provides input to the City concerning public housing (e.g. ClAP projects). Safety Village Board of Directors 12 The Safety Village provides a two-week course of instruction on general safety to children 5, 6 & 7 years of age. SEATS Office Relocation Committee 8 To locate a new office for SEATS. 5 Senior Center - Accreditation Committee 80 The first step in the Senior Center accreditation process is to complete a 9-month assessment of the Center's operation and facility. There are 14 community members and three staff people on the Standing Committee for the assessment. Members of the Standing Committee will work on this throughout the 9-month period. Every three months 18 to 22 community members will join the members of the Standing Committee in order to help with particular areas of the Center's evaluation. A by-product of this process will be the creation of a strategic plan. Anyway, when the entire process is complete, over 80 community members will have participated. Senior Center - Eidercraft Gift Shop - Managers Committee 5 With staff, reviewed and revised procedure for "holding of merchandise" in shop, July 1999 along with reviewed and revised special order procedures in February 1999. Senior Center - Furniture Selection Committee 7 Worked with the design consultants, went on field trips, and gave approval to all selections. Senior Center - Senior of Distinction for 2000 10 Helps to organize the Senior Center picnic. Senior Center - Skywalk Committee 7 Assisted in developing promotional commercials for the skywalk. These have aired on radio and TV. Senior Center Council of Elders 12 Hosts yearly Town Meeting to solicit participant input on Center operations. Senior Center Craft Group 9 Gave suggestions on disbursement of gifts - October 1999 Senior Center Dance Committee 4 With staff, reviewed and revised door price - March 1999. Surveyed dance participants as to kind of music they wanted and how much they were willing to pay - March 1999. Senior Center Holiday Bazaar Committee 2 Advised Coordinator on ending the Holiday Bazaar - September 1999. Senior Center Library 6 With staff, reviewed and made recommendations what to do with the Third Age Library - November 1998. Review shelf space and categories of books to keep/discard - ongoing process. Senior Center Quilters 12 With staff, reviewed and revised guidelines and fees for quilting services in July 1998. Senior Center Trips and Tours 9 With staff support, bid out bus service then decided on new company - September 1999. Meet yearly with bus company rep to choose and plan trips for upcoming year. With staff, reviewed and revised all Trips & Tours policies - Fall 1999. Senior Center TV 10 Recommended equipment needs to submit to CTG (spring of the last 3 years. Formed a committee of SCTV volunteers to plan move and research equipment needs associated with relocation to two new rooms - Spring 2000. 6 Skate Park Planning Task Force 22-50 To plan for developing the new skate park to be constructed in Terrell Mill Park. Tenant Training Committee 7 Assists the City in developing the tenant training program that concentrates on renting successfully. 7 City of Iowa City%,900 MEMORANDUM ' Date: May 8, 2000 To: City Council From: City Manager Re: Plaza Vandalism We are experiencing frequent vandalism problems with three hardscape items (trash receptacles, benches, and fence) in the City Plaza. The receptacles and benches are being knocked over which tears up the brick surface. The decorative/functional fence which is intended to remind people to stay out of the planters is regularly torn apart by breaking the chain and pulling the posts. The CBD Maintenance Staff has used almost an entire 500 foot reel of chain to replace what has been stolen or broken. This repair requires 30 to 60 minutes each morning during the warm weather. Replacing the receptacles and repairing the brick requires 45 to 60 minutes for each occurrence. Twelve receptacles have been toppled since the remodeling last year. Two occurred overnight this past Tuesday. Replacing the benches involves the same amount of time as the receptacles. We have discussed these problems and believe the best solutions are as follows: 1. Cease installing the fence and remove what has already been placed. If we anchor the steel post to the limestone we believe it will create a more expensive vandalism problem by providing the potential means to damage the limestone. We will incur some expense for fence materials already purchased, but we believe it is better to cut our losses now. 2. Cut out an area approximately 2'x2' beneath each receptacle, pour a concrete pad into the excavated areas of the plaza and anchor the receptacle to the pads. There are 65 receptacles in the plaza to be fixed in this manner. Our very rough estimate (until we hear from a contractor) is $300 per pad or approximately $19,500 to complete the work. 3. So far the benches have defied a solution because of their size. Attempting the same procedure as outlined for the receptacles is not reasonable economically or aesthetically because the pad would be so large. I have instructed our maintenance staff to proceed. cc: Department Directors Terry Robinson Rob Winstead David Schoon Ls\mernLsa5-8.doc City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: May 8, 2000 To: City Council From: City Manager Re: Meeting with Bar Owners Following your work session discussion the other evening you indicated your interest in meeting with the bar owners in our community. I believe I understood your interest was generally toward bar owners and not others who possess licenses to sell alcohol for carry-out only. I would encourage you to think about who should be invited to such a meeting. We will need to confirm the Council's specific intent for this meeting. In that we may be inviting up to 149 City holders of liquor licenses I believe you may want to have some idea as to how you would like to see the meeting conducted and what would you like to accomplish. There was also mention of inviting license holders from other towns. The invitation needs to be clear, particularly if it is to be a public hearing of sorts. I believe the bar owners are going to want to know specifically what the "ground rules" are to be and what issues you want them to address. Please give this matter some thought and I will schedule it for our work session on May 15. cc: City Clerk City Attorney Mgr%mem~sa5-4.doc BAR OWNERS' MEETING List of Issues Raised by Council at April 14 Work Session 1. Overconsumption - minor penalties to violators 2. Alcohol accessibility - it's easy 3. Tougher enforcement - current laws 4. External issues, drunk driving, public intoxication 5. Alcohol marketing 6. Draw people from outside the area - availability of alcohol 7. How to make a case against license holders? City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: May 9, 2000 To: City Council From: City Manager Re: Pending Development Issues An application from Thomas Wegman for a preliminary plat of Prairie View Estates, Part 4, a 30.86 acre, 22-1ot residential subdivision located north of Interstate 80, east of Prairie Du Chien Road. An application from Arlington LC to rezone 15.88 acres from Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) to Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) for property located north of Court Street at Arlington Drive. An application submitted by the City of Iowa City to rezone approximately 85 acres from Interim Development Residential (ID-RS) to Sensitive Areas Overlay (OSA-5) to allow the development of the Peninsula Neighborhood, a planned development of up to 400 dwelling units and limited commercial uses located west of Foster Road. Mgr\mem\5-9-00.doc City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: May 9, 2000 To: City Council From: Administrative Assistant Re: Media Releases Kent Bliven, the City's Web Developer, has integrated a program into our system to allow for electronic distribution of City media releases. Previously, each department had separate lists of recipients and distributed releases either via fax or placement in the internal media release boxes. There were difficulties with the old system, particularly Police and Fire, in that some emergency faxed releases would take as long as 2% hours to transmit. The new system automatically sends an electronic version of the release to those who have subscribed via the City's web site (www.iowa-citv.or.q). It also allows for an archived copy of each release to be viewed at any time on the City's site. There are currently 151 subscribers to receive instant releases with more added to the list each week. It appears our longest-distance subscriber lives in Anchorage, Alaska, an individual who indicated they access the City's site an average of two times a week. To subscribe, click on 'media releases' on the City's site and follow the simple instructions. Please contact me if you have any questions. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: May 5, 2000 To: City Council From: Andrew P. Matthews, Assistant City Attorney Re: Fines Relating to Cigarette/Tobacco Possession and Sale In response to an inquiry from a Council member regarding penalties for sale and possession of cigarettes and other tobacco products, I thought I'd take the opportunity to provide an update on the subject, as the State Legislature revised the penalties during their legislative session which just ended. Senate File 2366 was signed by the Governor on April 17, 2000, and it takes effect on July 1, 2000. It toughens up the penalties for minors and retailers involved with illegal possession or sale of tobacco products. However, a more controversial measure which was originally included in the legislation which would have suspended the driver's licenses of minors convicted of possessing tobacco products, was stricken from the bill. Essentially, the new legislation doubles the fines from $25 to $50 for the first offense of possession or purchase of tobacco products by anyone under the age of 18 years. A conviction for a second such offense would result in a $100 fine, and third and subsequent convictions would result in a fine of $250. These fines are specifically categorized as civil penalties. Additionally, the new legislation would allow the court to order violators to perform eight hours of community service work for a first offense, twelve hours of community service work for a second offense, and sixteen hours of community service work for a third or subsequent offense. With respect to employees, for a first offense the legislation establishes a $100 fine for an employee who sells to a minor, $250 for a second offense, and $500 for a third or subsequent offense. These violations are simple misdemeanors and the fines are categorized as criminal penalties. With respect to retailers, the legislation is somewhat similar to the civil or administrative provisions relating to alcohol sales to minors. It provides that if a retailer or employee of a retailer sells tobacco products to minors, the local authority, in addition to the other penalties fixed for such violations, shall assess a penalty for such violations upon notice and hearing, and assess a civil penalty of $300 for a first violation. A second violation within a two year period results in the retailer's permit being suspended for a period of 30 days, and for a third violation within a period of three years, the retailer's permit shall be suspended for a period of 60 days. For a fourth violation within a period of three years, the retailer's permit shall be revoked. Finally, the new legislation makes it a simple misdemeanor punishable by a fine of $100 for a person under the age of eighteen to alter, display or possess a fictitious or fraudulently altered driver's license or nonoperator's identification card and use it to or attempt to purchase tobacco products and requires notification to the Iowa Department of Transportation of such violation. I checked with the Clerk of Court's office and with the Johnson County Attomey's office to review whether the courts are imposing the appropriate fines, and from the information I could gather, it appears that they are imposing the correct fines and sentences. The courts have been imposing a $25 fine for first offense possession, $50 for second offense, and $100 for third or subsequent offense when they are properly charged and second or third offenses. As noted above, these fines will change on July 1, 2000. The courts also seem to be applying the correct fine for employees convicted of selling to minors. Presently, the fine is an unscheduled simple misdemeanor, permitting a fine of between $50-$500 under State Code. Since it is unscheduled fine, a defendant is eligible for a deferred judgment, should the defendant request one and the court determine that he or she is eligible for one. If you have any questions do not hesitate to call me or stop in. cc: Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney Steve Atkins, City Manager Dale Helling, Assistant City Manager Marian Karr, City Clerk R.J. Winkelhake Police Chief City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: February 24, 2000 To: Mayor and City Council From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Re: Council Work Session, April 17, 2000, 6:30 PM in the Council Chambers Council: Lehman, Champion, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Kanner, Wilburn, Pfab (arrived 6:35) Staff: Atkins, Helling, Karr, Dilkes, Franklin, Nasby, Winkelhake, Matthews Tapes: 00-45 Side 2; 00-46 Both Sides A complete transcription is available in the City Clerk's office. Planning & Zonin,q Items PCD Dir. Franklin presented the following items: A. MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MAY 2 ON AN AMENDMENT TO ZONING CHAPTER 14-6D-5G1 REGARDING THE NONCONFORMING PROVISIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION RESIDENTIAL ZONE (RNC-12). B. MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MAY 2 ON AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-5) AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY (OPDH- 5) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY (OPDH-5) AND APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY PLAN FOR VILLAGE GREEN PARTS 18-20, A 19.6-ACRE, 10-LOT, 63-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH ONE OUTLOT LOCATED SOUTH OF VILLAGE ROAD AND WEST OF SCOTT BOULEVARD (REZ00-0002) C. MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MAY 2 ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY (OPDH-5) PLAN, AND APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY FOR VILLAGE GREEN SOUTH PART 5, A RESUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF VILLAGE GREEN SOUTH PART 3A, A 12-LOT, 3.33-ACRE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT WINTERGREEN DRIVE WEST OF SCOTT BOULEVARD REZ00-0009) Council Work Session April 17, 2000 Page 2 D. MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MAY 2 ON AN ORDINANCE VACATING, THE NORTHERNMOST PORTION OF NORTH JAMIE LANE, LOCATED WEST OF SCOTT BOULEVARD (VAC00-0003) E. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 5, BUILDING AND HOUSING, ARTICLE H, SITE PLAN REVIEW, BY ADOPTING CENTRAL PLANNING DISTRICT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND RELATED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 14, CHAPTER 6, ZONING, ARTICLE 1, ZONING TITLE, PURPOSE AND SCOPE. Franklin clarified that no density bonuses were provided in the ordinance which relates to multi-family (3 or more) structures. Mandatory features are outlined for compliance and certain points provide flexibility to the developers. F. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 6, ZONING, ARTICLE 0, SIGN REGULATIONS, TO ALLOW BANNER SIGNS IN CERTAIN COMMERCIAL ZONES UNDER SOME CONDITIONS. Franklin noted a revised ordinance distributed which indicated the spacing must be no closer than 80 feet in CH-1, CO-1, CN-1 and RO-1 zones. G. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM LOW DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM-12) TQ MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-8) FOR PROPERTY SOUTH OF BURLINGTON STREET ALONG THE 300-600 BLOCKS OF GOVERNOR STREET AND A PORTION OF THE 800-900 BLOCKS OF BOWERY STREET. (REZ00-0007) See item H below. H. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM LOW DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM-12) TO NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION RESIDENTIAL ('RNC-12) FOR PROPERTY SOUTH OF BURLINGTON STREET ALONG THE 300-600 BLOCKS OF LUCAS STREET AND A PORTION OF THE 700-800 BLOCKS OF BOWERY STREET. (REZ00-0007) Franklin stated the ordinances being considered for items G and H freezes those streets in terms of any increase of multiple units, noting that with RNC-12 there can be no new construction of multi-family structures unless it is to replace an existing multi-family structure. I. AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 6, ZONING, TO ALLOW WIDE-BASE FREESTANDING SIGNS IN SOME COMMERCIAL ZONES UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS. In response to Council, Franklin stated she would correct the typo in Section IV(B) to read twenty-six feet (26) in one version of the ordinance. J. ORDINANCE VACATING AN UNDEVELOPED PORTION OF WOOLF AVENUE FROM MCLEAN STREET SOUTH FOR A DISTANCE OF 240 FEET. (VAC97-0002) Council Work Session April 17, 2000 Page 3 Franklin requested deferral to allow staff to meet with the neighbors. K. ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM PLANNED HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ('PRM) TO SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY (OSA-PRM) FOR .48 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PRENTISS AND LINN STREETS. (REZ00-0004) (FIRST CONSIDERATION) L. ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 6, ZONING, TO ALLOW MASONRY WALL SIGNS IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (1-1), HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ('1-2), OFFICE RESEARCH PARK (ORP) AND RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT PARK (RDP) ZONES. (FIRST CONSIDERATION) M. ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 6, ZONING, TO ALLOW OVERNIGHT BOARDING OF ANIMALS WITHIN SMALL ANIMAL CLINICS IN THE COMMERCIAL OFFICE (CO-1) ZONE. (FIRST CONSIDERATION) N. ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-8) TO LOW DENSITY MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM-12), FOR 0.82 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF BENTON COURT, NORTH OF BENTON STREET (OAKNOLL), (REZ00-0001) (SECOND CONSIDERATION) O. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST AN ESCROW AGREEMENT FOR LOUIS CONDOMINIUMS, IOWA CITY, IOWA. Franklin indicated that items O and P would likely be deferred to May 2. P. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY (OSA-8) CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT TO ALLOW A DRIVEWAY ACCESS ONTO FOSTER ROAD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 500 FOSTER ROAD. (REZ00-0016) (PASS AND ADOPT) See item O above. Q. RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL PLAT OF WINDSOR RIDGE, PART FIFTEEN, A 40.27 ACRE, TWO-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION WITH TWO OUTLOTS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF COURT STREET AT ITS EASTERN TERMINUS. (SUB00-0004) Franklin indicated the developers are reconsidering the format for the subdivision and will be deferred to May 2. R. RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EXTRATERRITORIAL PRELIMINARY PLAT OF WOODLAND RIDGE, PART THREE, A 22.32-ACRE, 7-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION WITH ONE OUTLOT LOCATED AT THE EAST TERMINUS OF MEADOWVIEW DRIVE. (SUB00-0007) Franklin stated Hills Fire Department will cover the subdivision. Council Work Session April 17, 2000 Page 4 A~enda Items 1. (Consent Calendar 4d(16)(b) "NO PARKING" AT THE INTERSECTION OF WASHINGTON AND JOHNSON STREETS) In response to Council Member Kanner, the City Manager will check on whether trees would remain in the median of Washington and Johnson Streets. Appointments Riverfront & Natural Areas Commission - No applicants, readvertise CDBG/Home Allocations PCD Director Franklin and Community Development Coordinator Nasby presented information. In regards to the Successful Living allocation, Council directed staff to have the map showing group facilities that are in the neighborhood available at the public hearing, information to address the discrepancies in the map prepared by Steve Vanderwoude, and how many additional people will be served at the proposed location. PCD Franklin clarified that the Dodge Street facility is privately owned (D&K) and the owner has not made a decision yet on whether to sell that property. Liquor Issues (IP 2 and IP3 of April 13 info packet) During discussion City Manager Atkins prepared flip charts: Flip Chart #1 Over consumption - minor penalties to violators Accessibility of alcohol - it's easy Enforcement of laws Tougher Enforcement-current laws External Issues - drunk driving, public intox Prevention Initiating How to make a case against a license? Liquor Control Commission local sanctions Flip Chart #2 Responsibilities - (Players) Bar owners-alcohol marketing, specials Personal-individuals, drunkenness University-policing by U of Iowa City Do we draw from outside area? - for reasons other than alcohol? Rest of Johnson County Town Meeting Timetable? Council Work Session April 17, 2000 Page 5 Flip Chart #3 What to do? Meet with bar owners Develop an agenda City perspective - police Other cities assessment of ordinance Town meeting Meet with players Action this Fall Council directed staff to set up a meeting with bar owners and the Police Department to discuss issues, information at that meeting regarding other University communities with ordinances, and an action goal to be in the fall. STAFF ACTION: Memo to Council requesting direction and scheduled for May 15 work session for discussion. (Atkins) Goal Setting Session Council agreed to schedule a goal setting session on Thursday, May 25, 8:00 AM to noon with Tim Shields facilitating and City Mgr. Atkins facilitating from 1:00 PM to 4:30 on City business/goal's. Council agreed to meet in Council Chambers. Council Time 1. Council Member Champion expressed how the new parking facility was really shaping up and that it's going to be gorgeous. 2. Mayor Lehman said if there were any particular things they want to go over at the goal setting session bring them to one of three remaining meetings. 3. Council Member Champion stated she thought it was quite humorous when the Press Citizen editorial reported she was against wanting to put water in the fountain but supportive of Council Member Kanner not wanting to put water in the fountain. 4. Mayor Lehman reported he and Council Member Wilburn attended the "Walk the Walk" rally at the Dental school the week before. 5. Council Member Pfab questioned if the language contained the Fair Housing proclamation on the agenda was broad enough. 6. Council Member O'Donnell supported the need for a dog park. The Mayor stated the matter has been referred to the Animal Control Advisory Board and they will make a recommendation to the Parks & Recreation Commission and then report back to Council. 7. City Attorney Dilkes said she had started the process of working on the Campaign contributions ordinance and was struggling with the limit. She stated the first election it Council Work Session April 17, 2000 Page 6 can apply to is the next City Council election so other things have taken priority recently. Champion requested the matter be decided prior to anyone deciding to run for that election. 8. Council Member Pfab asked if he could read something for about 2 ¼ minutes during Council Time. 9. Mayor Lehman reviewed pending items. After discussion Council removed "commercial use of sidewalks" and "Hickory Hill West" from the pending list items. Kanner requested that a discussion on Deer Management rules and new individual involvement be scheduled. 10. Council Member Vanderhoef requested a letter be sent to State Rep. Dick Myers thanking him for supporting amendments in the state legislature enabling cities the options of utilization of sound suppressors (silencers) and reduction of the 200-yard shooting restriction to 50 yards for state approved deer management plans in an urban setting. Adjourned 9:00 PM Clerk\rain\4-17-00.doc City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: May 9, 2000 TO: City Council FROM: City Clerk ~"~ RE: Absence I will be attending the annual International Institute of Municipal Clerks (IIMC) conference on Thursday, May 18 and will return on Wednesday, May 24. Sue will be available and will have my itinerary. City of Iowa City , MEMORANDUM Date: May 8, 2000 To: Steve Atkins, City Manager From: Jeff Davidson, Acting Traffic Engineering Planner Re: City Council request for information At the May 2 City Council meeting Councilor Pfab requested information pertaining to the City's traffic signal system. In Iowa City we have 78 signalized intersections. By July all traffic controller units will be microprocessor based. So to answer Councilor Pfab's question, all of our traffic controllers will be computerized by July. Approximately 30% of our signalized intersections are interconnected, allowing for the traffic signal system to operate in an even more efficient manner. Interconnecting traffic signals allows intersections in a corridor to be responsive to traffic and pedestrian demand rather than only operate on a time-based system. Let me know if there are any additional questions. cc: Guy Irvin John Sobaski Rick Fosse LsVnem\jdS-5.doc May 3, 2000 Iowa City City Council % ~ Re: Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission Dear Council: The Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission (RNAC) has been experiencing some difficult times recently for various reasons and the commission feels that it is time to discuss this with Council. Planning for the riverfront began back in the 1960's and culminated in the formation of the Iowa River Corridor Committee in 1971. This committee was made up of representatives from the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission with assistance from the Department of Community Development (now Planning and Community Development). This committee developed seven recommendations with the intent being to preserve, control, and beautify the Iowa River Corridor. The first recommendation was to form the Iowa City Riverfront Commission in 1972. The Riverfront Commission served in an advisory capacity making recommendations, conducting studies, and working with staff in recommending programs, and assisting in the preparation of ordinances for regulating activities along and in the Iowa River. Through the 1970's and 1980's, the commission made recommendations on river use restrictions, flood plain management, development issues, and property acquisition issues along the river. The commission also conducted the first Iowa River Corridor Study back in the early 1970's. The work of the commission resulted in a river use restrictions ordinance, a flood plain management ordinance, and policies dealing with property acquisition along the river. Due to the implementation of these ordinances and policies, the Riverfront Commission changed its focus to include natural areas in 1991. Since that time the RNAC has made recommendations on the development of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance and trail plans for the Iowa River Corridor Trail as well as trails throughout Johnson County. Again, the implementation of this ordinance and the trail planning and funding decisions are the responsibility of Planning and Zoning and the Johnson County Council of Governments. Currently the commission is finding it difficult to remain useful to the Council in its present form. Many of the issues that the commission was originally developed to deal with have been completed. The ordinances that have been developed as well as trail planning and funding are now the responsibility of those commissions that originally established the Riverfront Commission. The RNAC had eleven members that included representatives from Iowa City, Johnson County, Coralville, the University of Iowa, and the Parks and Recreation Commission. In 1999 the Parks and Recreation Commission voted to discontinue their representation on the RNAC, and within the last two years we have experienced many resignations and members not wanting to continue their terms to completion. We currently stand at six members with very little interest from the public in filling the remaining four positions. The commission has concluded that a change is appropriate. Everyone on the RNAC is dedicated to enhancing and preserving our environment but we realize that the RNAC has outlived its original charge and usefulness. We have evaluated environmental commissions in other Iowa communities and have found a concept that we would like you to consider. 410 EAST WASHINGTON STP, I'~I~T · IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240-1826 · (319) 356-5000 · FAX (319) ,~56-5009 May 3, 2000 Page 2 We would like to shift the focus to a broader environmental stewardship concept in which the main responsibility for the commission would be to provide an annual report on the condition of the City's natural environment and the progress made toward achieving environmental goals. Called the Environmental Stewardship Commission, this group could work with Council in developing environmental policies based on this report. The report would be broad-based and cover environmental issues such as solid waste and recycling, sensitive areas, water quality, wildlife management, and creek maintenance. In order to produce such a report, the new commission would need funding. (Historically, RNAC never had a budget.) The commission would meet as needed and would be made up of Iowa City residents only. Additional details have not yet been discussed, but we would like your reaction to our proposed concept. All members on the RNAC have endorsed this concept, including membership being limited to Iowa City residents only. Please let us know how you feel about our situation. We as a commission would be happy to discuss this issue with you in more detail. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, 3eft Gillitzer' Lynn Rose Chair, RNAC Vice-Chair, RNAC jw/rnern/bn ~rnac, doc May 1,2000 To: Parks and Recreation Commissioners CC: City of Iowa City Council Members Sue Pearson J~.~5~~n~'~' From: Barbara Endel (Member of the Parks anCt Recreation Commission) Re: Dog Park idea My fellow commissioners: I talked at length with Sue Pearson, a dog owner, dog trainer, and owner of Spot & Co., an excellent dog training school in Iowa City. Sue has over thirteen years of experience working with dogs (and their owners) and has offered and taught dog classes ranging from work with puppies to advanced obedience to agility work. To say the least, Sue is an excellent source of knowledge and is as close to knowing the extent and range of behaviors of dogs and their owners in Iowa City as anyone. In general, Sue expressed cautious support for the concept of a dog park in Iowa City, but I thought I would share with you some of the content of the conversation (as I will not be able to attend the May 10 commission meeting). Provide for separation of small and large dogs It is generally accepted dog training methodology that when dogs are able to move about freely, that fewer problems will result if like-sized dogs are grouped together. Sue suggested that we consider providing either a temporary or permanent sectioning/gated area for small dogs up to 25 pounds (maybe section off an acre within the boundaries of the five acre park). The remainder of the space in the park could be devoted to large dog breeds with ample room to run- in this way large dogs won't be intimidating or running over dogs that are much smaller. Fewer dog (and people) altercations would be expected if smaller dogs were physically separated. If there were no small dogs in their section, then the gate or fence could be opened for additional running room for the large breed dogs. User Fees To help with the cost of the park over the long-term, Sue suggested and I agree, that the majority of dog owners likely to be attracted to the park would gladly pay user fees, Although Sue also mentioned that a dog park would not completely eliminate all of the abuses currently happening at Hickory Hill Park (this we expected). The addition of a dog park would provide a safe alternative for responsible dog owners and many that are going to Hickory Hill Park would surely transition to a fenced dog park. Dog Park Education If a dog park was built, Sue mentioned that "education" and "posted rules" would be essential and that specific wording that is used at other dog parks would be helpful. Apparently there is a very successful dog park in the Berkeley, California community. Our Parks and Recreation Division, together with Animal Control, could creatively develop dog park educational literature that could be handed out to dog owners. The primary purpose of the literature would be a proactive, targeted strategy to placate any problems or issues before they occur- [We discussed at our last meeting the potential for dog bites, dog fights, dog droppings]. Sue stated that she and other community dog trainers would gladly inform their classes of the resouroe. In addition, educational literature could be included in the packet given to new owners with each dog adoption from the shelter, at pet stores, and in the summer and winter edition of the Parks and Recreation Division program schedule, posted on the city web site, linked to other community dog resouroe web sites. Auxiliary Events A value-added feature of the dog park may involve a new ability to schedule or host many different kinds of dog training events. All kinds of auxiliary events and possibilities would now exist for dogs and dog owners in the community. Apparently there is a very significant number of area dog enthusiasts who work with their dogs via clubs with very organized and well attended dog training events such as Frisbee competition, agility competition, dog shows, confirmation events, and fly ball tournaments, among others. The space may accommodate some of these events -which could generate additional revenue to off-set costs- while providing a very valuable leisure opportunity not currently available. After considering the advantages and disadvantages of the dog park concept, I would put full support behind the plan as long as the location would be somewhere other than Hickory Hill Park, and as long as small and large dog areas could be established. If the funds or initial planning for the park could not be realized in the short-term, then I would strongly advocate for the park to be included in the five year master planning process recently charged to the Parks and Recreation Commission. I would like to acknowledge the helpful expertise of Sue Pearson, and I would welcome the opportunity to provide any additional follow-up, as needed, to support this project. Thankyou. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: May 10, 2000 To: Steve Atkins, City Manager From: Rick Fosse, City Engineer ~ Re: Landfill Site Work Pavement Material Issue At the May 2nd City Council Meeting, Chuck Finnegan from L.L. Pelling Company questioned the City's decision to use portland cement concrete for the paving at the new landfill scale house. At the meeting I explained the basis of our decision, so that discussion will not be repeated here. This memo will address the issues raised by the e-mail from L.L. Pelling distributed by Irvin Fab at the meeting. A copy is attached. I will address each paragraph in the order that they appear. Paragraph 1: The City has no prejudice toward full depth asphalt pavement. We have specified it as an alternate on other projects where its use is appropriate. The proven advantages of asphalt pavement presented in the e-mail are open to debate and I would expect a very different answer from the concrete paving industry. Needless to say, we recommend paving materials in accordance with our best engineering judgment for a particular project, and specify alternate materials in appropriate circumstances. Paragraph 2: The maintenance that they discuss addresses only the wearing surface of the pavement. Like concrete pavements, asphalt pavements also require full depth removal and replacement when the structure wears out. It is also important to note that once an asphalt pavement is installed, you are committed to the maintenance activity discussed in their e-mail. Since Iowa City has many miles of asphalt pavement we have bid these services for over 20 years. Last year's project was over $1,000,000.00. For over 20 years the L.L. Pelling Company has been the only bidder. Based on our observations of the asphalt industry, this is unlikely to change. The majority of our concrete pavement maintenance contracts receive multiple bidders. The competitiveness of maintenance activities has not been a factor in pavement material selection; however it appears that perhaps it should. Paragraph 3: The City has used alternate bids on the Willow Street and Foster Road Projects. These projects presented opportunities where asphalt pavement was an appropriate design alternative. These design decisions met with stiff opposition from the concrete paving industry. Many of the arguments sounded much the same as the arguments being made by L.L. Pelling about our decision on the Landfill Scale House Project. We have also used asphalt on a number of trail projects with mixed results. Paragraph 4: As I discussed at the council meeting, asphalt paving is not an appropriate choice to be used around the scale at the landfill. Based on feedback from the paving industries, our best opportunity for low prices was to bid all one product. With these two factors in mind, the judgment made was to bid the project as all portland cement concrete. Paragraph 5: I agree. Paragraph 6: This is a statement that I believe was based on a misunderstanding of our reasons for the decision. Prior to the May 2nd Council Meeting, I had not heard from Chuck Finnegan in over 10 years. I have since encouraged him to call or stop in and visit if he has questions or concerns about how we use asphalt pavement. In summary, the competition between the asphalt and concrete paving industries is intense. Both products have their strengths and weaknesses. Similar competition rages among products used for water mains and sewers. Our staff remains educated on the products available and makes material selections based on a number of factors including initial cost, lifecyle cost, maintenance strategies and ramifications of product failure. Since most components of our infrastructure have an indefinite service life, long-term interests are a driving factor in infrastructure decisions. Cc: Chuck Schmadeke Our first question is why is the city of Iowa City prejudice toward full depth asphalt pavements on their city streets when it is proven to be the most cost effective pavement in life cycle costing because of a lower maintenance cost and quicker to construct because of the short cure time thus less traffic tie-up's to the traveling public. When rehabilitating pavements there is no need to remove the entire street you simply grind off 2" of the surface and place 2" back on the street utilizing the material you grind off by recycling it into the base asphalt. Our top priority is to work with the city to develop alternate bids so that the city taxpayers reap the befits of cost effective streets. I told you last week about the landfill project as being bid in February with asphalt concrete and seal coat. All bids were rejected and later re-bid in April, but this time it was all to be Portland Concrete. When I asked for an alternate bid to place full depth asphalt we were told it was not cost effective to have H. R. Green develop an alternate bid for this project because it would cost to much money. They would get better prices if all was to be concrete and this design would hold up better to heavier traffic. I feel again, all parties would benefit if they would spend a little more seeing that the engineering firm's look at what is best for the city instead of what is easiest for the engineers. ity of Iowa Ci,y MEMORANDUM Date: May 8, 2000 To: Steve Arkins and City Council ~~/,/ From: Denny Gannon -~ Re: Awards for City Projects The Summit Street Bddge and the Riverside Drive/Arts Campus Storm Sewer Project, Phase I have each received the Quality Initiative Structures Award from the Associated General Contractors of Iowa. The Summit Street Bridge has been rated as the best steel beam bridge on the local road system constructed in the State of Iowa in 1999, while the Riverside Drive/Arts Campus Storm Sewer Project, Phase I received the award as the best culvert on the local road system constructed in the State of Iowa in 1999. The awards are based upon innovative design and construction techniques, complexity, quality, and aesthetics. Awards were presented to the contractor, Iowa Bridge and Culvert, Inc. of Washington, Iowa; the designer, NNW, Inc. of Iowa City; and the City of Iowa City. (Coincidentally, both projects were designed by the same engineering consultant and built by the same contractor.) The plaques are in the Engineering Division if you wish to see them. tp4-1dg.doc MEMORANDUM CITY OF I0 WA CITY Date: May 4, 2000 To: City Council From: Tim Hennes, Sr. Building Inspector Re: Deck Brochure Deck projects are in high demand and we hope this new brochure will help answer some of the most commonly asked questions and give the citizens a better understanding of the code requirements when contemplating building a deck. The brochure is designed to aid the citizen in planing their deck project from start to finish. As time permits we hope to develop future brochures explaining screen porches and three season porches. Cc: Steve Atkins, City Manager Doug Boothroy, Director, Housing and Inspection Services City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM ' Date: May 8, 2000 To: Steve Atkins, City Manager From: Steve Long, Associate Planner~ Re: Broadway Neighborhood Update The Broadway Steering Committee, set up by Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County, met for the first time on May 4th at the Broadway Neighborhood Center to discuss issues and concerns of the Pepperwood and Weatherby neighborhoods. At the meeting, the Committee decided to focus on the area bordered by Highway 6 to the north, Taylor Drive to the east, Sandusky Drive to the south and Keokuk Street to the west. The Steering Committee is made up of representatives of several property management companies, business and property owners, neighbors, Neighborhood Centers staff and Planning and Community Development staff. In general, the discussion focused on concerns of the residents, businesses and property owners, immediate neighborhood needs and neighborhood perception issues. Pat Meyer of the Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County will be setting up small focus groups over the next six weeks to discuss issues such as commercial needs, property management issues, neighborhood policing ideas and other neighborhood related needs and issues. These focus groups will bring together property owners and managers, businesses, neighbors and service providers. Although the entire Steering Committee may not be at each focus group, they will be kept informed through weekly email updates. I will keep you updated as the focus groups begin to take shape and as specific goals and strategies are formulated. In the meantime, please feel free to contact me at 356-5250. Cc: Pat Meyer May 4, 2000 ~ CltU Ms. Gloria 3acobson, Mayor City of University Heights 1004 Melrose Avenue Iowa City IA 52246 Re: Fiscal Year 2001 contract between the City of University Heights and the City of Iowa City for transit service Dear Mayor 3acobson: The City of Iowa City proposes continuing the annual contract for transit service to the City of University Heights for Fiscal Year [FY] 2001 starting 3uly 1, 2000. The proposed annual cost is $27,411. This amount is $639 less than the current FY2000 contract amount of $28,050. The amount was changed after discussions with Martin 3ones of the City of University Heights city council about the equity of just using a cost of living adjustment each year. The Qty of Iowa City is proposing to revert to the old formula using the percentage of the City of University Heights population of the combined Iowa City and University Heights populations times the net expenses of Iowa City Transit. If this is acceptable, please let me know at your eadiest convenience and I will have the 3ohnson County Coundl of Governments draft the necessary contract documents. If you have any questions about the Iowa City Transit budget, feel free to contact me at 356-5053. If you have any questions about the operation of Iowa City Transit, feel free to contact Joe Fowler at 356-5156 or Ron Logsden at 356-5154. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, , Kevin O'Malley Finance Director \ltransitXIowa City Transit~uht~20Ol.doc cc: Martin 3ones, City of University Heights 3eft Davidson, 3CCOG 3oe Fowler, Director, Parking And Transit Ron Logsden, Manager, Iowa City Transit City Council City Manager Steve Ballard, City Attorney, City of University Heights 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET * IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240-1826 * (319) 356-5000 · FAX (319) 356-5009 05-11-00 IP24 U ...................... 0 0 0 O0000~OOO~OO ~ ~OOO000~O~ ~ ...................... ~ ._ ............ ~ ............ ~~~o~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ) ~ ~ ~o~~o~o ~ ~~N~o~°~ ~0~ ~ E ~ ~ 0 0 _ NEw URBAN NEWS Mixing housing types and then we can get more complex." of housing types simultaneously is more feasibl Building a balanced neighborhood requires walking a fine DuValle m Louisville, Kentucky, is a s~ik~g example of how line between implementing new urbanist principles and a monolithic public housing project can be replaced by a atiticipatiiig market demaHd. neighborhood of subsidized and market-rate apartments mixed in with a wide range of multifamily units (duplexes, An analysis of the mix of housing types in selected four-plexes, six-plexes) and single homes. The market suc- new urbanist communities highlights two aspects of cess of Park DuValle, particularly in regard to single houses, this crucial element of creating viable neighborhoods. First, a surprised local real estate professionals, although n~arket true mix of apartments, townhouses, and single family homes research by Zinnn~erman/Volk Associates had identified a is emerging in maturing projects such as Kentlands, Fairview fair amount of potential. Village, and Celebration. Second, ~ the initial phases of de- The Park DuValle study is just one of many that velopment, most developers still prefer to gain a foothold in Zimmerman/%lk and other firms have conducted, taking a the market with single-family homes, the housing type both close look at demographic subgroups and predicting their lenders and home buyers are most comfortable with. Notable interest in TND and their potential need for specific types of exceptions to this trend include Vermillion, where housing. Most recently, Zimmerman/Volk suggested the tow~ousesfarou~umbers~gle-familydwell~gs~efirst optimum mix of multifamily and single family housing, phase, and Orenco Station, which has a high number of apart- and attached and detached units on specific sites in the ments. Numbers on both the existh~g mix and estimates of Philadelphia metropolitan area (see March/April issue). the pla~ed mix are fo~d ~ the accompanying tables. In hypothetical studies of housing mix, the firm has sug- New Urban News also found that a number of developers do very limited market research before building, whileoth- Existi~g hOUSing mix in selected NU projects ers consider it essential to gather as much ~formation as Pr0jecUL0cati0n MFR~ MFS~ SFAa SFD~ possible on demographics and market trends. Furthermore, (% 0f total) (% 0f total) (% 0f total) (% 0f total) developers emphasize the importance of having a flexible building plan (see sidebar), and offer solutions for making 1. Aval0n Park 0 0 0 190 Orlando, FL (100%) different housing types compatible in the streetscape. 2. Civan0 0 0 0 85 FINE-GRAINED MIX Tucson, AZ (100%) ~e nearly completed Kentlands ~ Gaithersburg, Ma~- 3. Gelebrati0n 354 0 107 785 land, may offer the best example of a fine-grained mix. On Osce01a C0., FL (28.4%) (8.6%) (63%) some blocks in this community, multifamily units rub up against tow~ouses and s~gle-family homes. Town archi- 4. Fairview Village 56 79 35 110 ' P0aland, OR (20%) (28.2%) (12.5%) (39.3%) tect Mike Watkins notes that the mix has evolved through a balancing act be~een good pla~g and builder respon- 5. Habersham 0 0 0 25 siveness to market demand. Overall, the distribution of for- Beauf0a C0., SC (100%) rent and for-sale apartments and attached and detached homes is very even (see table). 6. Haile Village Center25 0 32 88 Gainesville, FL (17.2%) (22.1%) (60.7%) Fai~iew Village ~ Portland, Oregon, ~ close to a 50-50 split be~een multifamily ~d s~gle-family housing, and ~ 7. Kentlands 354 461 445 501 later phases, com~c~on of apar~ents ~d tow~ouses will Gaithersburg, MD (20.1%) (26.2%) (25.2%) (28.5%) ou~ace the ~owth ~ s~gle-family ~ts. ~e developers 8. N0~hwest Landing 117 235 0 413 and builders have made adjus~ents along the way -- many Dup0nt, WA (15.3%) (30.7%) (54%) apar~ents built as rental hous~g have been converted to condon~iums as the demand became apparent. 9. Orenc0 Station 605 210 120 125 Developers Holt & Haugh began cautiously, however. Hillsb0r0, OR (57.1%) (19.8%) (11.3%) (11.8%) In 1995, a stagnant economy coupled with the fact that vir- 10. Park DuValle 213s 0 0 60 tually no attached housing existed in the area, prompted Louisville, KY (78%) (22%) the company to start with the safest bet -- detached single- 11. Vermilli0n 0 0 108 family homes. Even in the current strong economy, tradi- Huntersville, NC (70.1%) (29.9%) tional neighborhood developments (TNDs) such as Avalon Park (Orlando, Florida), Village of Baxter (Charlotte, North 12. Village 0f Ba~er 0 0 10 50 Carolina), and Civano (Tucson, Arizona) are building al- Charl0~e, NC (16,7%) (83.3%) most exclusively single-family homes at the outset. Says 'MFR=multifamily for-rent, 2MFS=multifamily for-sale, ~SFA=single-family aRached, Lee Rayburn of CDC Partners LLC, Civano's developer: 4SFD=single- family detached. sRental units in Park DuValle include apaaments, duplexes, "In the first phase we wanted to be in the middle of the triplexes, 4-.5-, and6-plexes. as wellas townhouses. MAY * JUNE 2000 10 gested that a ratio of 39 percent rental housing to 61 per- Some start building and then gauge what housing types cent for-sale housing is ideal for an urban infill redevelop- appeal to buyers. men,. In an established suburban area this ratio would In Kentlands, Mike Walkins has seen little evidence of change to 24 percent rental and 76 percent for-sale. For a comprehensive research. "I'm surprised how subjective the greenfield TND, Zin~mern~an/Volk recommends amix of developing business is,' he says. ."One would expect plan- 20 percent rental and 80 percent for-sale. In these analy- ning to be subjective and developing more of a number- ses, the for-sale category was further broken down into crunching, objective business, but that has not been the condominiums, rowhouses, and detached housing, includ- case here." Some builders may have done market studies, ing low, middle, and high-range prices (see table). Watkins says, but mostly they build what they know is One purpose of market research is to demonstrate to selling in the surrounding areas. investors and financiers that potential market demand is The usefulness of such research might be called into sufficient and measurable. Market research also helps in question considering that new urbanis, co~nmunities are refining the master plan - and gives developers and build- still an unknown to most people. "I don't think you carl ers a good sense of what products to offer. have the market tell you what people want, because they have no idea what the offering would be," says Robert THE CASE FOR MARKET RESEARCH Kramer, developer of Haile Village Center the only TND Charles Adams of Celebration Associates says thorough in the Gainesville, Florida, area. market research is essential for deciding the mix of housing PacTrust, the developer of transit-oriented Orenco Sta- types. A former vice president of community development lion in Hillsboro, Oregon, planned for at least half of the with Disney, he oversaw the development of Celebration, project's for-sale product to be attached. The company con- and is now working with his Disney colleague Don Killoren ducted market studies in the Hillsboro area and found that on the clevelopment of the Village of Baxter outside of Char- only two attached housing units had been sold in the pre- lotte, North Carolina. Clear Springs Development, of which Killoren is the CEO, is the developer of record. Planned housing mix in selected NU projects~ The developers' first step was to do a supply and de- Project/Location MFR~ MFS3 SFA4 SFD5 mand assessment, a detailed look at the macro trends af- (% of total) (% of total) (% of total) (% of total) fecting household growth in the Charlotte area. 1. Aval0n Park 640 160 600 2430 "The next step was to break this down to predict at what Orlando, FL (16.7%) (4.2) (15.7%) (63.4%) price points this growth js going to occur," Ariains says. "How many houses will be needed in the $100,000 range 2. Civan0 A maximum of 1,850 units are planned, of which Tucson, AZ appr0x. 300 may be multifamily. versus the $150,000 range?" Next, the developers looked at how homes at various 3. Celebration Appr0x. 5000 units planned, 1660 multifamily and the price points sell in competing projects and identified the Osceola Co., FL remainder t0wnhouses and detached housess area's "best performer." "We typically would not put to- 4. Fairview Village 260 22 125 130 gether a plan that would exceed the absorption rate of the Portland, OR (48.4%) (4.1%) (23.3%) (24.2%) best performer in the market," Adams says. Clear Springs Development did not commission a mar- 5. Habersham 0-350 0-350 0-350 650 ket study but relied on information from secondary sources Beauf0rt Co., SC and also hired locals with know]edge of the real estate mar- 6. Haile Village Center 55 51 32 88 ket. The company also used focus groups of both potential Gainesville, FL (24.3%) (22.6%) (14.2%) (38.9%) buyers and real estate brokers to pinpoint exactly what de- 7. Kentlands Zoned for 1711 residential units, but no specific mix mographic, even psychograhic, groups it wanted to target. Gaithersburg, MD was planned at the outset "We can't assume that what we did in Florida will work here. There are such dramatic differences regionally and 8. Northwest Landing Of 3,500 planned units appr0x. 70% will be single- from year to year in what a buyer wants," Adams says. Oup0nt, WA family and 30% multifamily In Civano, the first market studies were commissioned 9. 0renc0 Station 1406 254 174 by the City of Tucson to measure the appeal of a develop- Hillsbor0, OR (76.7%) (13.8%) (9.5%) ment with a new urbanist layout and energy efficient hous- ing. The developers did further research in an effort to iden- 10. Park DuValle 613~ 0 67 369 Louisville, KY (58.4%) (6.4%) (35.2%) tify their target market, and according to Lee Rayburn, mar- ket research is an on-going concern. CDC Partners surveys 11. Vermilli0n Will include 1500-1700 residential units, the precise both buyers and visitors every quarter and measures the Huntersville, NG mix is not determined sales performance of its homes against similar types in the Tucson area. Civano is required to build 20 percent af- 12. Village of Baxter 300 0 200 970 Charlotte, NC (20.4%) (13.6%) (66%) fordable housing, but the rest of the mix is purely market driven, Rayburn says. 'Numbers represent best available estimates as of 4/1/00. eMFR=multifamily for-rent, Interviews with new urbanist developers, however, in- "MFS=multifamdy for-sale, ~SFA=single4amily attached, 5SFD=single- family detached. sSome future phases of Celebration have no master plan yet. zRental units in Park duValle dicate that many do without systematic market research. include apartments, duplexes, tnplexes, 4-,5-. and 6-plexes, as well as townhouses. MAY · JUNE 2000 11 New Um A_ News Optimutn residential mix hy housing type (hypothetical scenarios) Rental For sale Apartments Rowhouses Detached Site Below median Above median Low-range Mid-range High-range Urban infill 15% 24% 13% 12% 19% 12% 5% Suburban infill 0% 24% 14% 12% 17% 21% 12% Greenfield 0% 20% 11% 9% 21% 24% 15% Source: Zimmerman/I/olk Associates, inc.. from The Technique of Traditional Town Planning. The Seaside Institute, 1996. vious year. The information was of little value and cer- 37 units per acre, and feature underground parking. Be- tainly gave no indication that the first 120 townhomes in cause their quality of design and materials are comparable Orenco Station would sell out as rapidly as they did. to those of single homes, these apartment buildings won't "We've learned that you can't follow the market blindly, bring down the value of surrounding homes, Haugh says. because then you are just following the crowd," says Dick Kentlands and Park DuValle provide more proof that Loffelmacher, director of retail leasing at PacTrust. "But if close integration of housing types have not hurt sales or you do an exceptional job of creating a community, then housing values. But for this kind of intermixing to work, you have created a new market." buildings must share common characteristics, Watkins says. It is especially important for the buildings to have similar C O M PAT I B I L ! TY relationships to the public realm - to have similar setbacks, TND developers must grapple with the question of for example. Use of common building materials will also whether to keep different housing types segregated or help make differing types of dwellings compatible. whether to build them in close proximity to each other. The In Park DuValle, a conscious effort has been made to use conventional wisdom that says homeowners are wary of the same design and quality of materials in both rental and renters living next door still holds some sway. In Avalon for-sale housing, says Charles Cash of the Louisville De- Park and Haile Village Center, for example, rental units will velopment Authority. "We have achieved real diversity; you be concentrated in the commercial town center. Haugh says can't distinguish one from the other from the outside.' multifamily housing provokes concerns primarily because The same approach will guide development in the Vil- most suburban garden apartment complexes are such poor lage of Baxter. In later phases, townhouses and singledam- models. In Fairview Village, the apartments are very dense, ily homes will be built side by side - a step beyond the The importance of maintaining flexibility Writh their variety of housing types, TNDs potentially dwelling units on 210 acres, all within a half-mile radius of the are able to respond to changes in demographics and light rail station. market demand better than conventional subdivisions. With "The result was a radial density formula that had no organiz- that advantage in mind, savvy developers like to keep their ing features other than the station itself," says Mike Mehaffy, plans as flexible as possible. PacTrust's project manager at Orenco Station. "We made the point Vermillion in Huntersville, North Carolina, is a case in point. that we needed flexibility to be able to create a strong neighbor- In the early stages of planning, developer Nate Bowman did not hood design with a sense of place, and that blindly following a expect that public transportation would enter into the dellbera- density formula was a very bad idea." tions. With a light rail link to Charlotte now on the horizon, Ver- Several developers stress the importance of being able to tweak million can support higher density than anticipated. To stay flex- lot sizes to adjust to demand. With the freedom to use fractions ible, Bowman has worked with the town to rezone the property of lots and combine them, Robert Kramer in Haile Xrillage Center and clarify the original plan. has gained enough experience to predict what kinds of lots will Lot lines have been erased and replaced by color coding that be in greatest demand. classffies sections as center, general, and edge neighborhoods. In Avalon Park (Orlando, Florida), developer Beat Kahli says Each type of neighborhood has an upper density limit, but oth- he is continually making small changes in the plans to accom- erwise Bowman is flee to make changes without having to m- modate fluctuations in lot sizes. "Five years ago, buyers wanted zone the property on a regular basis. "I can change products," he square footage," Kahli says, "but now we find that more people says. "I don't want to be locked into lot lines on townhomes and want smaller homes with more options." The first village in then decide I want to use a completely different look.' Avalon Park has an even distribution of lots 45, 50, and 70 In Orenco Station, the zoning of the property resulted from feet wide, but with demand picking up for smaller homes, negotiations between developer PacTrest and several local, re- a full two thirds of the lots in the second village will be 45 gional, and state agencies. PacTrest committed to building 1834 feet wide, Kahli says. · _ MAY · JUNE 2000 12 NEw NEws approach in Celebration, where types only met back to parts of Orenco Station that are strongest are the parts where back, separated by alleys. Such a mix better approximates we paid attention to the creation of a strong neighborhood. the fabric in traditional towns in the area, Adams says. The parts that are weakest are parts where we sold to a na- One street in Fairview Village features apartments and tional multifamily developer, who delivered density with- for-sale duplexes facing each other, and in areas where out a strong response to neighborhood character." townhouses abut a district of single-family homes, the end Mehaffy also notes that PacTrust had difficulty building a units on the townhouses are designed to blend in with the truly varied line of single-family home plans. To keep prices single family homes, Haugh says. In future phases of Haile down in Portland's pricey real estate market, the company Village, Kramer plans to build both townhouses and single needed the economy of scale of repeated plans. However, family houses on a town square because the square accom- with its broad range of housing types, Orenco Station has modates the mixing better than a street. managed to offer homes ranging in price from $79,000 to $429,000, a range few conventional projects can match. A D3 U S T I N G T H E P LA N There is considerable pressure on the New Urbani sm to As builders and developers adjust to market response, prove that viable neighborhoods can be built anew, and one they may also have to make changes in the original master very visible indicator of progress is the successful mixing of plan. In Kentlands, Watkins explains, the principles of the housing types. This sampling of the experiences of TND plan have not changed, even though some areas have developers underscores the fact that time is a crucial factor. changed physically. Some blocks originally planned for A neighborhood with a diverse income population won't townhouses were converted to single-family blocks because spring up overnight. One of TND's chief advantages over builders thought that was what buyers wanted. Then that the monocultural subdivision is its flexibility - it can be built process was reversed on other blocks as demand for in phases and respond to market fluctuations. Good mar- townhouses picked up. "It has worked out fine," Watkins ket research will help developers adjust their plans, but says, "because it adds authenticity." sometimes a healthy dose of skepticism may also be in or- Getting quality multifamily housing into a TND while der. "It's fine to buck the market," says Watkins. "If we maintaining the integrity of the neighborhood is still a chal- didn't, we wouldn't be building TNDs." · lenge. Says PacTrust's Project Manager Mike Mehaffy: "The Developer selected for Peninsula community Project could be the first new urbanist neighborhood to be built in Iozoa -- and one of the ~rst in the nation's heartland. Aftera search of a year and a half, i three sides by the Iowa River. Most of the ~wa City has selected a devel- ~ ~ "' ~ ~' ~ Peninsula is unbuildable lowland which opment team for the Peninsula neigh- 5~"">~: '* the city acquired for flood control and as borhood. The purchase price for the ~ ' .';~ a grotmdwater source. But the parcel also 70-acre site, of which only about 40 ~-. t_ , . ~ includes some prime developable land. $1.3 million. The neighborhood, ~ ~. C !... '11 /"' ,,, ' ' .i !'~ ~ cant problems with sprawl, officials which is expected to be under con- i ' ~ -~~ ~ ~ looked at the parcel as an opportunity struction in 2001, will serve as a model ~""~' ~" "'/" :: ~ ~,'j," i to initiate a model neighborhood. for smart growth in the college town The city hired Dover Kohl, an expe- senior planner in Iowa City. ?X. kL~1 ~.~ ;4 ~' ', ~- .1 ' _ ~om South Miami, Florida, to create the The developer, Peninsula Partners, ! ~ vision for the neighborhood. Beginning includes Terry Staxnper, Peter Katz, in 1998, the city initiated a nationwide GeoffreyFerrell, BarryKemper, andJim ~il ' search for a developer committed to Tischler. Stamper, a Michigan developer smart growth/new urbanist principles. who will oversee the project, and A~rial view af a p0di~n 011h~ P~niasula The planning process included a study Tischler previously worked togetheron plan shows a variety of housing types. by Zimmerman/Volk Associates, a traditional neighborhood develop- which quantified the potential market ment in Monroe, Michigan. Katz is au- acre calculated over the entire site, for this neighborhood. thor of The New Urbanism and former although only about 40 acres are Iowa City is home to the University executive director of the Congress for buildable. A wide range of housing of Iowa, which includes a major medical the New Urbanism. Ferrell is a longtime types, a small amount of commer- center and is the city's largest employer. new urbanist planner. Kemper is a cial, and civic buildings are included. The city also is becoming popular as a builder based in Detroit. The project was initiated by Iowa retirement destination, according to The Peninsula plan, by Dover Kohl City, which acquired 200-plus acres of Stamper. · & Partners, calls for five units to the undeveloped land surrounded on MAY · JUNE 2000 13 CITY IDEAS THAT WORK C Offe VII| iy elllet Is r e : Las Cruces Teens La~ Oru~e,% N.M., wanted to gram~ at ~he ~enLen - do something different with its The center received first teen center when it opened in place in the Christina Mattin 1996. One of a few such centers Arts Awards for Programs attend Club Fusion each ence of Mayors earlier this year. month, taking advantage of a Located in a building once large variety of programs. seized by the federal govern- Club Fusion was designed merit for illegal drug sales, Club and is run by teens. While Fusion gives Las Cruces teens a safe place to practice social skills and a number of avenues to express themselves. DJ Training Schools give the Local business kaa~ ~ ~h~,~ to ~ to b~ ~ disc jockey. Teens can also prac- :,= dolllife tice playing an instrument at nJthing fro ~ .~h~ o~ ~,~ ~ EZl E if/ individualdance. Aninsidewall Local Youth enioy the sounds of a disc jockey at theirtee~ centg Club Fan. cand~t to orth~ ~t~ h.. b~ d~.t~d to a mural project for center mances with anti-drug mes- marketing and advertising the pleased with the program and equipment for ~a~p""~. ~. Pm~m~ ~m ~o- ~.~ ~d ~ ~o~. Th~ ~ ~th .~ ~ o~d. n~d- The "No Confusion Dance grams such as Olympia and Big teen employees produce a die school students have espe- programs Team" uses dance to deliver Brothers/Big Sisters provide a monthly calendar using com- cially been positively impacted ~lgh messages. Its first public perfor-number of resources for the cen-puter sofarare in scheduling by the center, according to thro o~lt the mance addresses teen pregnan~ ter. and graphics to invite their Janise Styling, policy analyst to ~lear. ~y, combining a popular song Several aspects of the corn- peers to center events. Teams Las Cruces Mayor Ruben Smith and stating teen pregnancy munity have become involved work on multimedia campaigns and former manager of the cen- facts with a choreographed rou- with Club Fusion. Local busi- that are submitted to local ter. tine. ness donate everything from media representatives to Club Fusion has an annual Club Fusion also provides candy to equipment for pro- stretch advertising dollars. The budget of $182,000fromtheLas classes, live concerts, special grams throughout the year. The center also uses media in the Cruces Parks and Recreation adults provide supervision, teen events and other programs. center has community partner- local schools to advertise pro- Department. State funding employees and volunteers are Corporations such as Peavey ships for art, music, social and grams and get more teens a second phase of the ~nter h the driving force in the creation have been brought in to provide technical programs. involved. been awarded the past t and implementation of pro- clinics that provide perfor- Teens are responsible for City officials are very years. · Media Release Details ~' " !iiiCalendar !i;~!CUy Code Title: GRAND OPENING OF CONCESSION STUDS ~:~;~ Release Date: 5/8/00 :~CI~ DeHra:enb N~c~ ~M~Unb Contact Person: Te~ Tieblood ?k:~n. Contact Number: 356-5110 ~r~o~Galle. The Iowa City Parks a~d Recreation Department, in conjunction ...... with the Iowa City Kickers, is happy to announce the grand opening of the concession stand building at the Iowa City ~:~f~ha(s N~ Kickers Soccer Park. The ribbon cutting ceremony will be held at 11 a.m. on Saturday, May 13, 2000 at the north concession building. The public is invited to attend, tour the buildings and chat with members of the City Council, Iowa City Kickers Board of Directors and the Parks and Recreation Comission. For more information please contact Terry Trueblood, Director of Parks & Recreation, 356-5110. Return to Home Page Lagenda]l[boards]l[calendar]lfcity code] l[council]l[directory]I [employment] [links] [ [maps] I [news releases] I [photo gallery] I [search] I [what's new] © 2000 City of Iowa City All rights reserved. For Comments or Questions write to webmaster~iowa-city.org. http://www. iowa-city.org/media_releases_detail.asp?id=128 5/8/00 '~ f~D L ~ N E. AD-HOC DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE APPLICATION Individuals serving on the Deer Management Committee play an important role in advising the Council. Applicants must reside within the corporate limits of Iowa City unless the vacancy indicates otherwise. After a vacancy has been announced, the Council reviews all applications during the work session. The appointment is made at the next formal Council meeting. Appointees serve as unpaid volunteers. PLEASE USE A BLACK INK PEN. Return the application to City Manager, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240. THIS APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT AND AS SUCH CAN BE REPRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED FOR THE PUBLIC. Members Nine members representing the following: 1 biologist/scientist, I non-government conservation organization member, 2 animal welfare, I hunter, I Coralville resident, 1 Master Gardener, and 2 At-Large. Duties of Deer Management Committee To annually recommend to the City Council an updated Deer Management Plan that meets the goals of the Long- Term Plan (attached). To that end, members should review data (population count, deer-vehicle accidents, reflector effectiveness, previously-implemented population coptre! programs, herd he.=lth1,. review current and recommend future educational tools, review and consider all non-lethal and lethal management methods and recommend appropriate action. Staff Contacts/Ex-Officio Members: City Manager's Office (1), Animal Shelter (1), Police Department (1) IS YOUR HOME ADDRESS (LISTED ABOVE) WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF IOWA CITY? ~ Yes ~No OCCUPATnON r.he~ r,d &ec~e,~c~ 4 eL~n,.~ PHONE NUMBERS: HOME ~ ~8-~Sfifi BUSINESS EXPERIENCE AND/OR ACTIVITIES WHICH YOU FEEL QUALIFY YOU FOR THIS POSITION ~ +'~ de~'r ~ss~e ciosel~- Z ~., ~(or~..~ L~av¢ also ~cv~ S';~o.~t a~A WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE? t CONTRIBUTIONS DO YOU CAN MAKE TO THE DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (OR WHAT ~ STATE REASON FOR APPLYING)? ~4~' ~ B O~5/~~ SPECIFIC ATTENTION SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO A POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST. PLEASE LIST ANY PRESENT AFFILIATIONS YOU HAVE WITH AGENCIES WHICH MAY APPLY FOR FUNDING FROM THE CITY. AFFILIATION MEANS BEING A BOARD MEMBER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE AGENCY. OTHER TYPES OF AFFILIATION MUST BE EXAMINED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT SECTIONS 362.5 OF THE CODE OF IOWA GENERALLY PROHIBITS, WITH CERTAIN IMPORTANT EXCEPTIONS, A MEMBER OF A CITY BOARD, COMMISSION, OR COMMITTEE FROM HAVING AN INTEREST IN A CITY CONTRACT. A COPY OF SECTION 362.5 IS ATTACHED. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AT 356-5030. IF YOU ARE UNCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTS, PLEASE LIST THE AGENCY AND THEN CONTACT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. IF YOU ARE NOT SELECTED, DO YOU WANT TO BE NOTIFIED7 )< YES __NO DO YOU CURRENTLY SERVE ON ANOTHER IOWA CITY BOARD OF COMMISSION? YES .~/NO (It has been Council policy not to permit an individual to serve on two Boards, Commissions, or Committees at the same time.) Misrepresentations on this application will constitute just cause for removal of an appointee. If you fail to answer all questions on the application, you may not be considered for appointment. AD-HOC DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE APPLICATION Individuals serving on the Deer Management Committee play an important role in advising the Council. Applicants must reside within the corporate limits of Iowa City unless the vacancy indicates otherwise. After a vacancy has been announced, the Council reviews all applications during the work session. The appointment is made at the next formal Council meeting. Appointees serve as unpaid volunteers. PLEASE USE A BLACK INK PEN. Return the application to City Manager, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240. THIS APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT AND AS SUCH CAN BE REPRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED FOR THE PUBLIC. Members Nine members representing the following: 1 biologist/scientist, 1 non-government conservation organization member, 2 animal welfare, I hunter, 1 Coralville resident, 1 Master Gardener, and 2 At-Large. Duties of Deer Management Committee To annually recommend to the City Council an updated Deer Management Plan that meets the goals of the Long- Term Plan (attached). To that end, members should review data (population count, deer-vehicle accidents, reflector effectiveness, previously-implemented population control prcgrams, herd health), review current and recommend future educational tools, review and consider all non-lethal and lethal management methods and recommend appropriate action. Staff Contacts/Ex-Officio Members: City Manager's Office (1), Animal Shelter (1), Police Department (1) NAME ~16-re~... ~, (3-~ HOMEADDRESS )~;L~- ()^~<_~/~,-~ 5~-~t~, ~,~ ~~ IS YOUR HOME ADDRESS (LISTED ABOVE) WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF IOWA CITY? ~ Yes No VACANCY FOR WHICH YOU ARE APPLYING ~ c~~ ~ -~ TERM ~ ~ ~ ~ OCCUPATION u~,~,~ ~.~.~ EMPLOYER U~,~,~ ~ i~ PHONE NUMBERS: HOME ~"~3 BUSINESS ~-e~ ['~L~ ~.F~,, EXPERIENCE AND/OR ACTIVITIES WHICH YOU FEEL QUALIFY YOU FOR THIS POSITION WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE? WHAT CONTRIBUTIONS DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN MAKE TO THE DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (OR STATE REASON FOR APPLYING)? SPECIFIC ATTENTION SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO A POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST. PLEASE LIST ANY PRESENT AFFILIATIONS YOU HAVE WITH AGENCIES WHICH MAY APPLY FOR FUNDING FROM THE CITY. AFFILIATION MEANS BEING A BOARD MEMBER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE AGENCY. OTHER TYPES OF AFFILIATION MUST BE EXAMINED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT SECTIONS 362.5 OF THE CODE OF IOWA GENERALLY PROHIBITS, WITH CERTAIN IMPORTANT EXCEPTIONS, A MEMBER OF A CITY BOARD, COMMISSION, OR COMMITTEE FROM HAVING AN INTEREST IN A CITY CONTRACT. A COPY OF SECTION 362.5 IS ATTACHED. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AT 356-5030. IF YOU ARE UNCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTS, PLEASE LIST THE AGENCY AND THEN CONTACT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. IF YOU ARE NOT SELECTED, DO YOU WANT TO BE NOTIFIED? / YES __NO DO YOU CURRENTLY SERVE ON ANOTHER IOWA CITY BOARD OF COMMISSION? YES / NO (It has been Council policy not to permit an individual to serve on two Boards, Commissions, or Committees at the same time.) Misrepresentations on this application will constitute just cause for removal of an appointee. If you fail to answer all questions on the application, you may not be considered for appointment. AD-HOC DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE APPLICATION Individuals serving on the Deer Management Committee play an important role in advising the Council. Applicants must reside within the corporate limits of Iowa City unless the vacancy indicates otherwise. After a vacancy has been announced, the Council reviews all applications during the work session. The appointment is made at the next formal Council meeting. Appointees serve as unpaid volunteers. PLEASE USE A BLACK INK PEN. Return the application to City Manager, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240. THIS APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT AND AS SUCH CAN BE REPRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED FOR THE PUBLIC. Members Nine members representing the following: 1 biologist/scientist, 1 non-government conservation organization member, 2 animal welfare, I hunter, I Coralville resident, I Master Gardener, and 2 At-Large. Duties of Deer Management Committee To annually recommend to the City Council an updated Deer Management Plan that meets the goals of the Long- Term Plan (attached). To that end, members should review data (population count, deer-vehicle accidents, reflector effectiveness, previously-implemented population control programs, herd health), review current and recommend future educational tools, review and consider all non-lethal and lethal management methods and recommend appropriate action. Staff Contacts/Ex-Officio Members: City Manager's Office (1), Animal Shelter (1), Police Department (1) NAME H~'RR~'~T/L~, I~AviS HOMEADDRESS 7D'7/~'/,/~/~JArLL ALZErA/I-J~- IS YOUR HOME ADDRESS (LISTED ABOVE) WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF IOWA CITY? ~ Yes VACANCY FOR WHICH YOU ARE APPLYING T~-~ T~ TERM AT- L~ ~G ~ OCCUPATION ~/~ ~0 EMPLOYER PHONE NUMBERS: HOME ~3a-/~ E~ BUSINESS EXPERIENCE AND/OR ACTIVITIES WHICH YOU FEEL QUALIFY YOU FOR THIS POSITION WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE? /~rTTE:/v~ D Z) EE~ /4~AA/Ar ~E /vlr_--/v T /~l~r=T/A/cq,~ /qAID P~6L~ lP~ (J C ~ ~ D I AJ c~ ~ C L~ % EE b Y' / A,I ?'ATE WHAT CONTRIBUTIONS DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN MAKE TO THE DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (OR STATE REASON FOR APPLYING)? SPECIFIC ATTENTION SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO A POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST. PLEASE LIST ANY PRESENT AFFILIATIONS YOU HAVE WITH AGENCIES WHICH MAY APPLY FOR FUNDING FROM THE CITY. AFFILIATION MEANS BEING A BOARD MEMBER OR EMPLO'YEE OF THE AGENCY. OTHER TYPES OF AFFILIATION MUST BE EXAMINED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT SECTIONS 362.5 OF THE CODE OF IOWA GENERALLY PROHIBITS, WITH CERTAIN IMPORTANT EXCEPTIONS, A MEMBER OF A CITY BOARD, COMMISSION, OR COMMITTEE FROM ~' Y' pC: RI Et~rc 6- /~}/w'IFr-- A-tvD --'E' LIt/~- lt,} HE~-, f-Fo~C- T~ ~t~fZE.7_k].~_, OA~LyDE~o~w~q2.~- c~T~/VES~T. [ll/~TPrOuT Atqy p~A__..D,/J-Tr-)P-5 AND WITH LF=~4z-- PPDT~c'~/'T6~ T/-t-E_.Y .A-i~.C---TB-&-- C)A/LY' TD HAul- Tlqb'hl WlPe-D OUT Too 5't. dw P,4Y-s'/ cA l--bF T~ 6H46 ~ THe''4'1 °,c'A ThtF'/?f?aP C-,qTY. TI.ILC..-/L(---/qPr5 ?0 B~: A' 5oL, UTla.'v oR Tt-kC--y As ~ 5A t,~ .~AcR~.i} Cat, u~ ~E }+AVb h~OeD FPfu~NS' OuT oF Tl-t~ 5~At-L, To JUflP A/Vb H/out-D iNJU/~ WOubD beL/M!taTO 7H-C- FEMc6. T/-/~ T4bb Tht~rTf/fb/A' ~,ldTde.~5 7",4KE C,~IE6 6F THe,'~ IS Hol~.A/vl. TH-E--/D- ,.,cqcH Thtt~T Tl.'fe Y LOOK 5T.,4't~ dE,D, WE H4 VE 7~9 I A,,iP2ovb- THIS 3 /'TU,4-T'/ dA/ Fdk ~(JT H T[?k,P ,'q A,//Pl/f ANY QUESTIUJ'kI~, I'L'"I:.t.~,- L,u,,~. ~,~ ............................... IF YOU ARE UNCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTS, PLEASE LIST THE AGENCY AND THEN CONTACT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. IF YOU ARE NOT SELECTED, DO YOU WANT TO BE NOTIFIED? X YES NO DO YOU CURRENTLY SERVE ON ANOTHER IOWA CITY BOARD OF COMMISSION? YES ~,, NO (It has been Council policy not to permit an individual to serve on two Boards, Commissions, or Committees at the same time.) Misrepresentations on this application will constitute just cause for removal of an appointee. If you fail to answer all questions on the application, you may not be considered for appointment. AD-HOC DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE APPLICATION Individuals serving on the Deer Management Committee play an important role in advising the Council. Applicants must reside within the corporate limits of Iowa City unless the vacancy indicates otherwise. After a vacancy has been announced, the Council will review applications and make appointment at the specified Work Session. Appointees serve as unpaid volunteers. PLEASE USE A BLACK INK PEN. Return the application to City Manager, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240. THIS APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT AND AS SUCH CAN BE REPRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED FOR THE PUBLIC. Members Nine members representing the following: I biologist/scientist, 1 non-government conservation organization member, 2 animal welfare, I hunter, I Coralville resident, I Master Gardener, and 2 At-Large. Duties of Deer Management Committee To annually recommend to the City Council an updated Deer Management Plan that meets the goals of the Long- Term Plan (attached). To that end, members should review data (population count, deer-vehicle accidents, reflector effectiveness, previously-implemented population control programs, herd health), review current and recommend future educational tools, review and consider all non-lethal and lethal management methods and recommend appropriate action. Staff Contacts/Ex-Officio Members: City Manager's Office (1), Animal Shelter (1), Police Department (1) IS YOUR HOME ADDRESS (LISTED ABOVE) WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF IOWA CITY? //'Yes No VACANCY FOR WHICH YOU ARE APPLYING /~'~--.-~ ~.-;~ TERM PHONE NUMBERS: HOME ,.-'~ * ~ ~ ;- ~' BUSINESS EXPERIENCE AND/OR ACTIVITIES WHICH YOU FEEL QUALIFY YOU FOR THIS POSITION WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE? wH + CON " BGT ONSFEEL YOU CAN MAKE TO THE DEE ' MANAGEMENT SPECIFIC ATTENTION SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO A POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST. PLEASE LIST ANY PRESENT AFFILIATIONS YOU HAVE WITH AGENCIES WHICH MAY APPLY FOR FUNDING FROM THE CITY. AFFILIATION MEANS BEING A BOARD MEMBER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE AGENCY. OTHER TYPES OF AFFILIATION MUST BE EXAMINED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT SECTIONS 362.5 OF THE CODE OF IOWA GENERALLY PROHIBITS, WITH CERTAIN IMPORTANT EXCEPTIONS, A MEMBER OF A CITY BOARD, COMMISSION, OR COMMITTEE FROM HAVING AN INTEREST IN A CITY CONTRACT. A COPY OF SECTION 362.5 IS ATTACHED. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AT 356-5030. IF YOU ARE UNCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTS, PLEASE LIST THE AGENCY AND THEN CONTACT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. IF YOU ARE NOT SELECTED, DO YOU WANT TO BE NOTIFIED? YES V/NO DO YOU CURRENTLY SERVE ON ANOTHER IOWA CITY BOARD OF COMMISSION? YES L NO {It has been Council policy not to permit an individual to serve on two Boards, Commissions, or Committees at the same time.) Misrepresentations on this application will constitute just cause for removal of an appointee. If you fail to answer all questions on the application, you may not be considered for appointment. AD-HOC DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE APPLICATION Individuals serving on the Deer Management Committee play an important role in advising the Council. Applicants must reside within the corporate limits of Iowa City unless the vacancy indicates otherwise. After a vacancy has been announced, the Council will review applications and make appointment at the specified Work Session. Appointees serve as unpaid volunteers. PLEASE USE A BLACK INK PEN. Return the application to City Manager, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240. THIS APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT AND AS SUCH CAN BE REPRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED FOR THE PUBLIC. Members Nine members representing the following: I biologist/scientist, 1 non-government conservation organization member, 2 animal welfare, 1 hunter, 1 Coralville resident, 1 Master Gardener, and 2 At-Large. Duties of Deer Management Committee To annually recommend to the City Council an updated Deer Management Plan that meets the goals of the Long- Term Plan (attached). To that end, members should review data (population count, deer-vehicle accidents, reflector effectiveness, previously-implemented population control programs, herd health), review current and recommend future educational tools, review and consider all non-lethal and lethal management methods and recommend appropriate action. Staff Contacts/Ex-Officio Members: City Manager's Office (1), Animal Shelter (1), Police Department (1) IS YOUR HOME ADDRESS (LISTED ABOVE) WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF IOWA CITY? ___~ Yes __No VACANCY FOR WHICH YOU ARE APPLYING ~Y~'_ ) .m .~,~ TERM ,Z EXPERIENCE AND/OR ACTIVITIES WHICH YOU FEEL QUALIFY YOU FOR THIS POSITION WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE? WHAT CONTRIBUTIONS DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN MAKE TO THE DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (OR STATE REASON FOR APPLYING)? ~ F-e-! 'f-t,,"-,',' v ,' b,, H .r ,,- r SPECIFIC ATTENTION SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO A POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST. PLEASE LIST ANY PRESENT AFFILIATIONS YOU HAVE WITH AGENCIES WHICH MAY APPLY FOR FUNDING FROM THE CITY. AFFILIATION MEANS BEING A BOARD MEMBER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE AGENCY. OTHER TYPES OF AFFILIATION MUST BE EXAMINED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT SECTIONS 362.5 OF THE CODE OF IOWA GENERALLY PROHIBITS, WITH CERTAIN IMPORTANT EXCEPTIONS, A MEMBER OF A CITY BOARD, COMMISSION, OR COMMITTEE FROM HAVING AN INTEREST IN A CITY CONTRACT. A COPY OF SECTION 362.6 IS ATTACHED. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AT 356-5030. IF YOU ARE UNCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTS, PLEASE LIST THE AGENCY AND THEN CONTACT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. IF YOU ARE NOT SELECTED, DO YOU WANT TO BE NOTIFIED? ~ YES NO DO YOU CURRENTLY SERVE ON ANOTHER IOWA CITY BOARD OF COMMISSION? YES ,/~ NO (It has been Council policy not to permit an individual to serve on two Boards, Commissions, or Committees at the same time.) Misrepresentations on this application will constitute just cause for removal of an appointee. If you fail to answer all questions on the application, you may not be considered for appointment. AD-HOC DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE APPLICATION Individuals serving on the Deer Management Committee play an important role in advising the Council. Applicants must reside within the corporate limits of Iowa City unless the vacancy indicates otherwise. After a vacancy has been announced, the Council will review applications and make appointment at the specified Work Session. Appointees serve as unpaid volunteers. PLEASE USE A BLACK INK PEN. Return the application to City Manager, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240. THIS APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT AND AS SUCH CAN BE REPRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED FOR THE PUBLIC. Members Nine members representing the following: 1 biologist/scientist, 1 non-government conservation organization member, 2 animal welfare, I hunter, 1 Coralville resident, I Master Gardener, and 2 At-Large. Duties of Deer Management Committee To annually recommend to the City Council an updated Deer Management Plan that meets the goals of the Long- Term Plan (attached). To that end, members should review data (population count, deer-vehicle accidents, reflector effectiveness, previously-implemented population control programs, herd health), review current and recommend future educational tools, review and consider all non-lethal and lethal management methods and recommend appropriate action. Staff Contacts/Ex-Officio Members: City Manager's Office (1), Animal Shelter (1), Police Department (1) NAME ~)'~P,.Ve.b~ :E. 4'i C.~.SC~ ~/'~ HOME ADDRESS (b ~ G ~C~L~4 6r IS YOUR HOME ADDRESS (LISTED ABOVE) WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF IOWA CITY? ~ Yes __No VACANCY FOR WHICH YOU ARE APPLYING ~.-~ TERM L OCCUPATION Ou~.r ~c~, L %c~,~ EMPLOYER F, ~ ~ ~~' PHONE NUMBERS: HOME ~-'~G~ BUSINESS 3~-' EXPERIENCE AND/OR ACTIVITIES WHICH YOU FEEL QUALIFY YOU FOR THIS POSITION WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE? t WHAT CONTRIBUTIONS DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN MAKE TO THE DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (OR STATE REASON APPLY,NG ? t SPECIFIC ATTENTION SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO A POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST. PLEASE LIST ANY PRESENT AFFILIATIONS YOU HAVE WITH AGENCIES WHICH MAY APPLY FOR FUNDING FROM THE CITY. AFFILIATION MEANS BEING A BOARD MEMBER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE AGENCY. OTHER TYPES OF AFFILIATION MUST BE EXAMINED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT SECTIONS 362.5 OF THE CODE OF IOWA GENERALLY PROHIBITS, WITH CERTAIN IMPORTANT EXCEPTIONS, A MEMBER OF A CITY BOARD, COMMISSION, OR COMMITTEE FROM HAVING AN INTEREST IN A CITY CONTRACT. A COPY OF SECTION 362.5 IS ATTACHED. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AT 356-5030. IF YOU ARE UNCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTS, PLEASE LIST THE AGENCY AND THEN CONTACT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. IF YOU ARE NOT SELECTED, DO YOU WANT TO BE NOTIFIED? 2%~,YES NO DO YOU CURRENTLY SERVE ON ANOTHER IOWA CITY BOARD OF COMMISSION? YES ~,-NO (It has been Council policy not to permit an individual to serve on two Boards, Commissions, or Committees at the same time.) Misrepresentations on this application will constitute just cause for removal of an appointee. If you fail to answer all questions on the application, you may not be considered for appointment. AD-HOC DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE APPLICATION Individuals serving on the Deer Management Committee play an important role in advising the Council. Applicants must reside within the corporate limits of Iowa City unless the vacancy indicates otherwise. After a vacancy has been announced, the Council reviews all applications during the work session. The appointment is made at the next formal Council meeting. Appointees serve as unpaid volunteers. PLEASE USE A BLACK INK PEN. Return the application to City Manager, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240. THIS APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT AND AS SUCH CAN BE REPRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED FOR THE PUBLIC. Members Nine members representing the following: 1 biologist/scientist, I non-government conservation'organization member, 2 animal welf,~re, I hunter, 1 Coralvilla resident, I Master Gardener, and 2 At-Large. Duties of Deer Management Committee To annually recommend to the City Council an updated Deer Management Plan that meets the goals of the Long- Term Plan (attached). To that end, members should review data (population count, deer-vehicle accidents, reflector effectiveness, previously-implemented population control programs, herd health), review current and recommend future educational tools, review and consider all non-lethal and lethal management methods and recommend appropriate action. Staff Contacts/Ex-Officio Members: City Manager's Office (1), Animal Shelter (1), Police Department (1) ADDRESS 53C NAME t'H i UE_, HOME IS YOUR HOME ADDRESS (LISTED ABOVE) WITHIN THE CORPORA ITS OF IOWA CITY? ~Yes _No VACANCY FOR WHICH YOU ARE APPLYING ~ ' LQ.F~ TERM ~ OCCUPATION ~~/~ ~ EMPLOYER ~ V~~7~ EXPERIENCE AND/OR ACTIVITIES WHICH YOU FEEL QUALIFY YOU FOR THIS POSITION STATE REASON FOR APPLYING)? ~ ~n ' SPECIFIC ATTENTION SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO A POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST. PLEASE LIST ANY PRESENT AFFILIATIONS YOU HAVE WITH AGENCIES WHICH MAY APPLY FOR FUNDING FROM THE CITY. AFFILIATION MEANS BEING A BOARD MEMBER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE AGENCY. OTHER TYPES OF AFFILIATION MUST BE EXAMINED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT SECTIONS 362.5 OF THE CODE OF IOWA GENERALLY PROHIBITS, WITH CERTAIN IMPORTANT EXCEPTIONS, A MEMBER OF A CITY BOARD, COMMISSION, OR COMMITTEE FROM HAVING AN INTEREST IN A CITY CONTRACT. A COPY OF SECTION 362.5 IS ATTACHED. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AT 356-5030. IF YOU ARE UNCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTS, PLEASE LIST THE AGENCY AND THEN CONTACT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. IF YOU ARE NOT SELECTED, DO YOU WANT TO BE NOTIFIED? '~ YES __NO DO YOU CURRENTLY SERVE ON ANOTHER IOWA CITY BOARD OF COMMISSION? __YES ~X//NO {It has been Council policy not to permit an individual to serve on two Boards, Commissions, or Committees at the same time.) Misrepresentations on this application will constitute just cause for removal of an appointee. If you fail to answer all questions on the application, you may not be considered for appointment. AD-HOC DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE APPLICATION Individuals serving on the Deer Management Committee play an important role in advising the Council. Applicants must reside within the corporate limits of Iowa City unless the vacancy indicates otherwise. After a vacancy has been announced, the Council will review applications and make appointment at the specified Work Session. Appointees serve as unpaid volunteers. PLEASE USE A BLACK INK PEN. Return the application to City Manager, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240. THIS APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT AND AS SUCH CAN BE REPRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED FOR THE PUBLIC. Members Nine members representing the following: I biologist/scientist, I non-government conservation organization member, 2 animal welfare, 1 hunter, 1 Coralville resident, 1 Master Gardener, and 2 At-Large. Duties of Deer Management Committee To annually recommend to the City Council an updated Deer Management Plan that meets the goals of the Long- Term Plan (attached). To that end, members should review data (population count, deer-vehicle accidents, reflector effectiveness, previously-implemented population control programs, herd health), review current and recommend future educational tools, review and consider all non-lethal and lethal management methods and recommend appropriate action. Staff Contacts/Ex-Officio Members: City Manager's Office (1), Animal Shelter (1), Police Department (1) NAME v o I,:t /v~, o ~ ~ HOME ADDRESS L~ I.A ~' K, i ~ ~ o.. ~ ~ F~ o o,. c~ IS YOUR HOME ADDRESS (LISTED ABOVE) WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF IOWA CITY? ~' Yes __No VACANCY FOR WHICH YOU ARE APPLYING A{' Io,,V'~P~ TERM 2. OCCUPATION PYo~550~ EMPLOYER ~n~v~5;~y PHONE NUMBERS: HOME ~5~O~ BUSINESS EXPERIENCE AND/OR ACTIVITIES WHICH YOU FEEL QUALIFY YOU FOR THIS POSITION ~ 5 ~ ~' ~HAT IS YOUR PRESENT KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE7 WHAT CONTRIBUTIONS DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN MAKE TO THE DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (OR STATE REASON FOR APPLYING)?/~5 So~e_o~e~ u,3Ko {{Ve5 ~ ;~k 10-20 ~es~ · SPECIFIC ATTENTION SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO A POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST. PLEASE LIST ANY PRESENT AFFILIATIONS YOU HAVE WITH AGENCIES WHICH MAY APPLY FOR FUNDING FROM THE CITY. AFFILIATION MEANS BEING A BOARD MEMBER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE AGENCY. OTHER TYPES OF AFFILIATION MUST BE EXAMINED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT SECTIONS 362.5 OF THE CODE OF IOWA GENERALLY PROHIBITS, WITH CERTAIN IMPORTANT EXCEPTIONS, A MEMBER OF A CITY BOARD, COMMISSION, OR COMMITTEE FROM HAVING AN INTEREST IN A CITY CONTRACT. A COPY OF SECTION 362.5 IS ATTACHED. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AT 356-5030. IF YOU ARE UNCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTS, PLEASE LIST THE AGENCY AND THEN CONTACT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. IF YOU ARE NOT SELECTED, DO YOU WANT TO BE NOTIFIED? X YES NO DO YOU CURRENTLY SERVE ON ANOTHER IOWA CITY BOARD OF COMMISSION? __YES )< NO {It has been Council policy not to permit an individual to serve on two Boards, Commissions, or Committees at the same time.) Misrepresentations on this application will constitute just cause for removal of an appointee. If you fail to answer all questions on the application, you may not be considered for appointment. AD,-HOC DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE APPLICATION Individuals serving on the Deer Management Committee play an important role in advising the Council. Applicants must reside within the corporate limits of Iowa City unless the vacancy indicates otherwise. After a vacancy has been announced, the Council reviews all applications during the work session. The appointment is made at the next formal Council meeting. Appointees serve as unpaid volunteers. PLEASE USE A BLACK INK PEN. Return the application to City Manager, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240. THIS APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT AND AS SUCH CAN BE REPRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED FOR THE PUBLIC. Members Nine members representing the following: I biologist/scientist, I non-government conservation organization member, 2 animal welfare, 1 hunter, 1 Coralville resident, I Master Gardener, and 2 At-Large. Duties of Deer Management Committee To annually recommend to the City Council an updated Deer Management Plan that meets the goals of the Long- Term Plan (attached). To that end, members should review data (population count, deer-vehicle accidents, reflector effectiveness, previously-implemented population control programs, herd health), review current and recommend future educational tools, review and consider all non-lethal and lethal management methods and recommend appropriate action. Staff Contacts/Ex-Officio Members: City Manager's Office (1), Animal Shelter (1), Police Department (1) ~__ __ IS YOUR HOME ~DDR~88 {LISTED ~BOVE} ~lTHl~ TH~ GORPORATE LIMIT O~ GITY. /Yos No EXPERIENCE AND/OR ACTIVITIES WHICH YOU FEEL QUALIFY YOU FOR THIS POSITION WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT KNOWLEDGE OF THE D,EER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE? WHAT CONTRIBUTIONS DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN MAKE TO THE DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (OR STATE REASON FOR APPLYING)? Experience and/or activities which you feel qualify you for this position. I am a property owner of a house that includes an extensive and masterfully crafted garden. I am also an instructor of works on nature writers and nature writing at both Kirkwood Community College and the University of Iowa, and have some expertise in environmental issues. What is your present knowledge of the Deer Management Committee7 The Committee provides information about ways to control the deer population in and around Iowa City and has been instrumental in hiring professional sharpshooters from out of state to control what is perceived as an overpopulation of deer in the area. I have attended city council meetings regarding this issue and have been struck by the bias afforded sharpshooting as a way to curb the deer population. What contributions do you feel you can make to the Deer Management Committee? As a gardener and instructor in environmental writings, I'd like to offer another voice to the Committee, and bring my knowledge about alternate methods of deer population control to bear upon Committee decisions. Thank you for your time and consideration. SPECIFIC ATTENTION SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO A POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST. PLEASE LIST ANY PRESENT AFFILIATIONS YOU HAVE WITH AGENCIES WHICH MAY APPLY FOR FUNDING FROM THE CITY. AFFILIATION MEANS BEING A BOARD MEMBER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE AGENCY. OTHER TYPES OF AFFILIATION MUST BE EXAMINED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT SECTIONS 362.5 OF THE CODE OF IOWA GENERALLY PROHIBITS, WITH CERTAIN IMPORTANT EXCEPTIONS, A MEMBER OF A CITY BOARD, COMMISSION, OR COMMITTEE FROM HAVING AN INTEREST IN A CITY CONTRACT. A COPY OF SECTION 362.5 IS ATTACHED. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AT 356~5030. IF YOU ARE UNCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTS, PLEASE LIST THE AGENCY AND THEN CONTACT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. IF YOU ARE NOT SELECTED, DO YOU WANT TO BE NOTIFIED? v'/YES NO DO YOU CURRENTLY SERVE ON ANOTHER IOWA CITY BOARD OF COMMISSION? YES r- NO fit has been Council policy not to permit an individual to serve on two Boards, Commissions, or Committees at the same time.) Misrepresentations on this application will constitute just cause for removal of an appointee. If you fail to answer all questions on the application, you may not be considered for appointment. AD-HOC DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE APPLICATION Individuals serving on the Deer Management Committee play an important role in advising the Council. Applicants must reside within the corporate limits of Iowa City unless the vacancy indicates otherwise. After a vacancy has been announced, the Council reviews all applications during the work session. The appointment is made at the next formal Council meeting. Appointees serve as unpaid volunteers. PLEASE USE A BLACK INK PEN. Return the application to City Manager, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240. THIS APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT AND AS SUCH CAN BE REPRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED FOR THE PUBLIC. Members Nine members representing the following: 1 biologist/scientist, 1 non-government conservation organization member, 2 animal welfare, 1 hunter, 1 Coralvilla resident, 1 Master Gardener, and 2 At-Large. Duties of Deer Management Committee To annually recommend to the City Council an updated Deer Management Plan that meets the goals of the Long- Term Plan (attached). To that end, members should review data (population count, deer-vehicle accidents, reflector effectiveness, previously-implemented population control programs, herd health), review current and recommend future educational tools, review and consider all non-lethal and lethal management methods and recommend appropriate action. Staff Contacts/Ex-Officio Members: City Manager's Office (1), Animal Shelter (1), Police Department (1) IS YOUR HOME ADDRESS (LISTED ABOVE) WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF IOWA CITY? __ Yes ~No VACANCY FOR WHICH YOU ARE APPLYING /'//~/~, ~'~ r TERM OCCUPATION '/'FEE_ 't'r:mmCr -5~,per~ EMPLOYER~P,'~t Trt~ ~FU;C~ PHONE NUMBERS: HOME 3/? ~ ~3~ '/9~ BUSINESS 3/?- ~3b- 1~'~ EXPERIENCE AND/OR ACTIVITIES WHICH YOU FEEL QUALIFY YOU FOR THIS POSITION WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE7 WHAT CONTRIBUTIONS DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN ~AKE TO THE DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (OR STATE REASON FOR APPLYING)7 SPECIFIC ATTENTION SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO A POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST. PLEASE LIST ANY PRESENT AFFILIATIONS YOU HAVE WITH AGENCIES WHICH MAY APPLY FOR FUNDING FROM THE CITY. AFFILIATION MEANS BEING A BOARD MEMBER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE AGENCY. OTHER TYPES OF AFFILIATION MUST BE EXAMINED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT SECTIONS 362.5 OF THE CODE OF IOWA GENERALLY PROHIBITS, WITH CERTAIN IMPORTANT EXCEPTIONS, A MEMBER OF A CITY BOARD, COMMISSION, OR COMMITTEE FROM HAVING AN INTEREST IN A CITY CONTRACT. A COPY OF SECTION 362.5 IS ATTACHED. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AT 356-5030. IF YOU ARE UNCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTS, PLEASE LIST THE AGENCY AND THEN CONTACT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. IF YOU ARE NOT SELECTED, DO YOU WANT TO BE NOTIFIED? .,~ YES NO DO YOU CURRENTLY SERVE ON ANOTHER IOWA CITY BOARD OF COMMISSION7 YES ~(~~ NO (It has been Council policy not to permit an individual to serve on two Boards, Commissions, or Committees at the same time.) Misrepresentations on this application will constitute just cause for removal of an appointee. If you fail to answer all questions on the application, you may not be considered for appointment. AD-HOC DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE APPLICATION Individuals serving on the Deer Management Committee play an important role in advising the Council. Applicants must reside within the corporate limits of Iowa City unless the vacancy indicates otherwise. After a vacancy has been announced, the Council reviews all applications during the work session. The appointment is made at the next formal Council meeting. Appointees serve as unpaid volunteers. PLEASE USE A BLACK INK PEN. Return the application to City Manager, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240. THIS APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT AND AS SUCH CAN BE REPRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED FOR THE PUBLIC. Members Nine members representing the following: 1 biologist/scientist, 1 non-government conservation organization member, 2 animal welfare, 1 hunter, 1 Coral~ille resident, I Master Gardener, and 2 At-Large. Duties of Deer Management Committee To annually recommend to the City Council an updated Deer Management Plan that meets the goals of the Long- Term Plan (attached). To that end, members should review data (population count, deer-vehicle accidents, reflector effectiveness, previously-implemented population control programs, herd health), review current end recommend future educational tools, review and consider all non-lethal and lethal management methods and recommend appropriate action. Staff Contacts/Ex-Officio Members: City Manager's Office (1), Animal Shelter (1), Police Department (1) NAME~/:i~/lqORJJ; k/./"'J~/t..,),,S0/L/HOMEADDRESST-~'~0 C.k~'ZO/ZE~ _.~,L,~, IS YOUR HOME ADDRESS (LISTED ABOVE) WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF IOWA CITY? Jes VACANCY FOR WHICH YOU ARE APPLYING HuPtER 00, ~)]- Lng,,C. rg TERM T'Ct~b OCCUPATION 7~ooL Ee:/~]Efl,. -LE'~/~ ('dr~'?. EMPLOYER i.,,EAI:~ C'c)f~ PHONE NUMBERS: HOME '-:~>lc~ '3'3~' --~ 3 ~' t--I BUSINESS 5 ~ ~" ' ~' 2 c/I EXPERIENCE AND/OR ACTIVITIES WHICH YOU FEEL QUALIFY YOU FOR THIS POSITION ~- ~' WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE?" /h f e-~; ,~ / ) WHAT CONTRIBUTIONS DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN MAKE TO THE DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (OR STATE REASON FOR APPLYING)? .~" 7:'eeL- ~ (ft,tJ t~ f'FP~ /)Ck T&~ TA3 _.f/c/ /~ /uo/..,, --~,~r/~Z-~J A ft../~ fP--o,..d,-./'~r:!./;'(,L, Lo Ay' -- gc/g/u A SPECIFIC ATTENTION SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO A POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST. PLEASE LIST ANY PRESENT AFFILIATIONS YOU HAVE WITH AGENCIES WHICH MAY APPLY FOR FUNDING FROM THE CITY. AFFILIATION MEANS BEING A BOARD MEMBER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE AGENCY. OTHER TYPES OF AFFILIATION MUST BE EXAMINED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT SECTIONS 362.5 OF THE CODE OF IOWA GENERALLY PROHIBITS, WITH CERTAIN IMPORTANT EXCEPTIONS, A MEMBER OF A CITY BOARD, COMMISSION, OR COMMITTEE FROM HAVING AN INTEREST IN A CITY CONTRACT. A COPY OF SECTION 362.5 IS ATTACHED. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AT 356-5030. IF YOU ARE UNCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTS, PLEASE LIST THE AGENCY AND THEN CONTACT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. IF YOU ARE NOT SELECTED, DO YOU WANT TO BE NOTIFIED? V/YES NO DO YOU CURRENTLY SERVE ON ANOTHER IOWA CITY BOARD OF COMMISSION? YES (It has been Council policy not to permit an individual to serve on two Boards, Commissions, or Committees at the same time.) Misrepresentations on this application will constitute just cause for removal of an appointee. If you fail to answer all questions on the application, you may not be considered for appointment. AD-HOC DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE APPLICATION Individuals serving on the Deer Management Committee play an important role in advising the Council. Applicants must reside within the corporate limits of Iowa City unless the vacancy indicates otherwise. After a vacancy has been announced, the Council will review applications and make appointment at the specified Work Session. Appointees serve as unpaid volunteers. PLEASE USE A BLACK INK PEN. Return the application to City Manager, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240. THIS APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT AND AS SUCH CAN BE REPRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED FOR THE PUBLIC. Members Nine members representing the following: I biologist/scientist, I non-government conservation organization member, 2 animal welfare, I hunter, I Coralvilla resident, I Master Gardener, and 2 At-Large. Duties of Deer Management Committee To annually recommend to the City Council an updated Deer Management Plan that meets the goals of the Long- Term Plan (attached). To that end, members should review data (population count, deer-vehicle accidents, reflector effectiveness, previously-implemented population control programs, herd health), review current and recommend future educational tools, review and consider all non-lethal and lethal management methods and recommend appropriate action. Staff Contacts/Ex-Officio Members: City Manager's Office (1), Animal Shelter (1), Police Department (1) NAME T HOME ADDRESS L( 'ZG IS YOUR HOME ADDRESS (LISTED ABOVE) WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF IOWA CITY? ~Yes __No VACANCY FOR WHICH YOU ARE APPLYING OCCUPATION ~ '~. {A~;~c '(~r.,~ st. Re,rE) EMPLOYER PHONE NUMBERS: HOME (~ffi) 3'~q-q~ BUSINESS EXPERIENCE AND/OR ACTIVITIES WHICH YOU FEEL QUALIFY YOU FOR THIS POSITION WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE? WHAT CONTRIBUTIONS DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN MAKE TO THE DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (OR STATE REASON FOR APPLYING)? SPECIFIC ATTENTION SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO A POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST. PLEASE LIST ANY PRESENT AFFILIATIONS YOU HAVE WITH AGENCIES WHICH MAY APPLY FOR FUNDING FROM THE CITY. AFFILIATION MEANS BEING A BOARD MEMBER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE AGENCY. OTHER TYPES OF AFFILIATION MUST BE EXAMINED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT SECTIONS 362.5 OF THE CODE OF IOWA GENERALLY PROHIBITS, WITH CERTAIN IMPORTANT EXCEPTIONS, A MEMBER OF A CITY BOARD, COMMISSION, OR COMMITTEE FROM HAVING AN INTEREST IN A CITY CONTRACT. A COPY OF SECTION 362.5 IS ATTACHED. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AT 356-5030. IF YOU ARE UNCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTS, PLEASE LIST THE AGENCY AND THEN CONTACT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. IF YOU ARE NOT SELECTED, DO YOU WANT TO BE NOTIFIED7 '~' YES NO DO YOU CURRENTLY SERVE ON ANOTHER IOWA CITY BOARD OF COMMISSION? __YES ,~E NO (It has been Council policy not to permit an individual to serve on two Boards, Commissions, or Committees at the same time.) Misrepresentations on this application will constitute just cause for removal of an appointee. If you fail to answer all questions on the application, you may not be considered for appointment. Attachment, Ad Hoc beer Management Committee Application Nancy Manning, 1625 Deforest Avenue, Iowa City, 52240; (319) 339-9408 Experience and/or Activities: Z am a Ph.b. candidate at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, pursuing a joint degree in (a) environmental studies and (b) forest ecology and management. The environmental studies program, in particular, is broadly interdisciplinary, requiring a balanced knowledge of natural sciences, social sciences, and the humanities. Such an interdisciplinary perspective is helpful in understanding and addressing complex, real- world situations such as Iowa City's deer management problem. My dissertation, which I am currently writing, is an exploration of Mormon and Catholic perspectives on national forest management in eastern Arizona. This is qualitative social science research using an ethnographic method. I also have experience with quantitative social science research (primarily survey research), having worked as a staff researcher (two years) and then director (two years) of the Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research at the University of Montana. Thus, I have experience with both conducting and interpreting qualitative and quantitative social science research. Scientific research has clear value in addressing environmental problems. It also has its limitations. Hence, environmental management must often proceed in the midst of scientific uncertainty. In this light, I hold up three years experience working for the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, DC, as instilling an awareness that action must be taken in light of existing knowledge and despite remaining uncertainties. Present Knowledge of Camrail-fee: Having moved to Iowa City in late 1999 (when my partner accepted a job as pastor at Faith United Church of Christ), I watched with interest the Press-Citizen coverage of deer management activities this past winter, including lel-rers to the editor on the issue. I have also read Iowa City's Winter 1999/2000 beer Management Plan, including all al"tached appendices. I have contemplated these events, activities, and responses to discern what they reveal about human-land interactions, social constructions of nature, environmental activism, and environmental ethics. I: have also thought about :Iowa City's situation in the context of Richard Nelson's Cl997) comments on suburban deer management in his book Heart and Blood: Living with beer in America. Contributions/Reasons for Applying: My primary contribution may be an ability to view the deer management issue in all its complexity, applying an interdisciplinary perspective to the problem and its solution (including the process of arriving at that solution). Ultimately, however, my reason for applying is a commitment to participcrre responsibly as a citizen and resident of Iowa City on an issue to which I may bring to bear relevant experience and knowledge. AD-HOC DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE APPLICATION Individuals serving on the Deer Management Committee play an important role in advising the Council. Applicants must reside within the corporate limits of Iowa City unless the vacancy indicates otherwise. After a vacancy has been announced, the Council reviews all applications during the work session. The appointment is made at the next formal Council meeting. Appointees serve as unpaid volunteers. PLEASE USE A BLACK INK PEN. Return the application to City Manager, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240. THIS APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT AND AS SUCH CAN BE REPRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED FOR THE PUBLIC. Members Nine members representing the following: 1 biologist/scientist, I non-government conservation organization member, 2 animal welfare, 1 hunter, 1 Coralville resident, 1 Master Gardener, and 2 At-Large. Duties of Deer Management Committee To annually recommend to the City Council an updated Deer Management Plan that meets the goals of the Long- Term Plan (attached). To that end, members should review data (population count, deer-vehicle accidents, reflector effectiveness, previously-implemented population control programs, herd health), review current and recommend future educational tools, review and consider all non-lethal and lethal management methods and recommend appropriate action. Staff Contacts/Ex-Officio Members: City Manager's Office (1 }, Animal Shelter (1), Police Department (1) IS YOUR HOME ADDRESS (LISTED ABOVE) WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF IOWA CITY? Yes/~No - VACANCY FOR WHICH YOU ARE APPLYING C~_.~/~Z' ~' ~~ TERM ~ ~r~ OCCUPATION ~{~~/[r EMPLOYER ~ PHONE NUMBERS: HOME ~/~- ?m~ BUSINESS ~ EXPERIENCE AND/OR ACTIVITIES WHICH YOU FEEL QUALIFY YOU FOR THIS O ITION~~ .~ P S - ~ STATE REASON FOR APPLYING)? J ~~ ~ g ~~ ~~ ~ ~_ SPECIFIC ATTENTION SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO A POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST. PLEASE LIST ANY PRESENT AFFILIATIONS YOU HAVE WITH AGENCIES WHICH MAY APPLY FOR FUNDING FROM THE CITY. AFFILIATION MEANS BEING A BOARD MEMBER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE AGENCY. OTHER TYPES OF AFFILIATION MUST BE EXAMINED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT SECTIONS 362.5 OF THE CODE OF IOWA GENERALLY PROHIBITS, WITH CERTAIN IMPORTANT EXCEPTIONS, A MEMBER OF A CITY BOARD, COMMISSION, OR COMMITTEE FROM HAVING AN INTEREST IN A CITY CONTRACT. A COPY OF SECTION 362.5 IS ATTACHED. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AT 356-5030. IF YOU ARE UNCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTS, PLEASE LIST THE AGENCY AND THEN CONTACT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. IF YOU ARE NOT SELECTED, DO YOU WANT TO BE NOTIFIED7 YES /~NO DO YOU CURRENTLY SERVE ON ANOTHER IOWA CITY BOARD OF COMMISSION.7 YES (It has been Council policy not to permit an individual to serve on two Boards, Commissions, or Committees at the same time.) Misrepresentations on this application will constitute just cause for removal of an appointee. If you fail to answer all questions on the application, you may not be considered for appointment. AD-HOC DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE APPLICATION Indlvldude serving on the Deer Management Committee pbiy an Important role !n advising the Coundl. Appilr, allts must reside within the carporate timits of Iowa City unieee the vacancy indicates otherwise. After e vacancy has been announced, the Council reviews ell eppllcatlor~ dudrig the work session. The appointment is made ~ the next f=rmal Courtoil meeting. Appointees serve as unpaid volunteers: PLEASE USE A BLACK INK PEN. Return the application to City Manager, 410 E. Wuhlngton Street, Iowa CIty, IA 62240. THIS APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT AND AS SUCH CAN BE REPRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED FOR THE PUBLIC. Member~ Nine members representing the following: 1 biologist/scientist, 1 r~olq-govemment conservation orgalqiz~;on member, 2 animal welfare, 1 hunter, 1 Coralvilla resldertt. 1 Master [3e~ener, and 2 At-Large. DetJes of Deer ManageroaM Committee To ermLmlly reoommend to the city Counr. Ji an updated Deer Management Plan that meets the geeis of the Long- Term Plan (attacheall. To that end, members should review date |population oourrt, deer-vehicle accidents, reflector effectiveness, previously-Implemented population c~nTzol programs~ herd health], review curfeW, .and recommend future educational tgels, review end consider ell non-lethal and lethal management ~__b~thods ,N~d recommend appropriate action, ~i:~ ~ ..~ · ~; , ~taff Cantscts/Ex.,Offi'do Members: "' -- CIty Manager's Office (1), Animal Shelter {1}, Poli~e Department (1) ' ....cn IS YOUR HOME ADDRESS (LISTED ABOVE) WrFHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF IOWA CITY? VACANCY FOR WHICH YOU ARE APPLYING TERM , OCCUPATION g~t ~ ~- ~-~ 6 ~J ~J ~- ~- EMPLOYER -~"~u/N ~ ~ ~v Z~4j~>.s PHONE NUMBERS: HOME ,~5_t- 0,~/- BUSINESS 3~, 7- ;=~/V EXPERIENOE AND/OR ACTIVITIF,5 WHICH YOU FEEL QUALIFY YOU FOR THIS POSITION ~ WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE?. WHAT CONTRIBUTIONS DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN MAKE TO TIlE DEER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (OF STATE REASON FOR APPLYING)? P'z.4,u r KAj o u~.,t. ~: o e ~. SPECIFIC ATTENTION SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO A POSSIBLE CONFUCT OF INTEREST, PLEASE UST ANy PRESENT AFFILIATIONS YOU HAVE WITH AGENCIES WHICH MAY APPLY FOR FUNDING FROM THE CITY. AFFIUATION MEANS BEING A BOARD MEMBER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE AGENCY. OTHER TYPES OF AFFIUATION MUST BE EXAMINED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFRCE. YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT SECTIONS 382,5 OF THE CODE OF IOWA GENERALLY PROHIBITS, WITH CERTAIN IMPORTANT EXCEPTIONS, A MEMBER OF A CITY BOARD, COMMISSION, OR COMMITFEE FROM HAVING AN INTEREST IN A CITY CONTRACT. A COPY OF SECTION 362.5 IS ATTACHED. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AT 356-5030. IF YOU ARE UNCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT A POTENTIAL CONFUCT OF INTEREST EXISTS, PLEASE LIST THE AGENCY AND THEN CONTACT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. IF YOU ARE NOT SELECTED, DO YOU WANT TO BE NOTIFIED? _____YES , ~ NO DO YOU CURRENTLY SERVE ON ANOTHER IOWA CITY BOARD OF COMMISSION? ___YES _X' NO {It has been Counci[ policy not to permit an Individual to serve on two Boards, Commissions, .or Committees st the same time.) MIsrepresentations on this appilcelion will constitute Just cause for removal of an appointee. if you fall to answer all questions on ~e application, you may not be considered for appolntmerrt.. _ _ ~,/£ 'cT 0'~0~ 'oN,G-T_ SOOSeg. L~, :],:IVDSGNV'I .iJ.,I3 V/~IIoLi. r. PZc[[~:~ ,,,,,~O00Z '~I Peaceful Methods of Deer Control: February 2000 Supplementary Materials: 1 an informal memorandum in which Pat McElroy, wildlife p~c'alist of the national S 1 Humane Society, outlined promising results of recent testir.g efforts; 2 "Lessons from the Urban Deer Battlefront: A Plea for Tolerance," an article by Alan Rutberg, staff biologist and principal investigator of contraceptive methods for the ~qr~ Humane Society of the United States (The national Humare Society's number is 301-258-3 147); 3 a letter in which D. I. Schubert, biologist and consultant for the Fund for Animals, critiqued aspects of Iowa City's past deer management piss, proposed alternative measures, and offered to speak to members of the City C!tlncil (His phone number is re.,-,( 602-547-8537); - 4 Living With Deer, an article by Thomas Eveland, and p January 18th. ,,, h~-~,~--2_,~ L /c. /. s/,,/..c ~-,-,.,-/.,.--~.,"h_-..~ The following cities have adopted nonlethal methods for living with their deer: Boulder. Colorado Deer killing is illegal in and near Boulder, a large university town in the foothills of the Rockies. Boulder's wildlife biologist is Carfie Richardson (303-441-3440). Hudson. Ohio The authorities in this exurb of Cleveland seriously considered lethal methods, but rejected them when they found that a majority of Hudson residents liked the presence of the deer. A successful driver-education campaign in the press and other, more routine precautions reduced accidents to a level the city found acceptable. The city's contact-person for its now-disbanded deer commission is Crreg Janik, who has offered to talk with any counc'd member who wishes to speak with him (330-650~2706). Highland Park, Illinois: An official of this suburb north of Chicago expressed distaste that authorities in any town might consider killing its deer. In a video-cassette the city has prepared, police officers and others explain in a panel discussion how the city's policies are implemented. (We have a copy of this cassette, and would be glad to make it available.) Florence Boos ® magine looking out your Uv- suburban safari armed with a camera purchased thousands of acres around lingroom window and seeing and note pad. One large estate had a Boulder, prohibiting hunting. a herd of mule deer quietly herd of about ten deer, including two Biologists. concur that mule deer are chewing their cud. Only a dozen feet young bucks. Rocky Mountain mule attracted to the "wonderful urban' ,. fringe" of garden food and protection C r from mountain liens. There's no O U doubt that suburban living provides refuge from hunters and predators, while providing nutritious forage and abundant shelter. Indeed. Boulder is accommodating to their deer. Certainly, fawns are born in backyards and driveways. And why not? These animals are among the old- a eer's ese and their fawns appear restless. The surreal herd rises to their feet and By Scott Palczak saunters away, vanishing behind a nearby house. deer, or "Muleys," are found from the est natives of the area. Ann Wichmann Your imaginary close encounter western Great Plains westward. They of Boulder Mountain Parks says, "This is reality for people living in Boulder, look very much like whitetail deer but is mule deer winter range and has Colorado 's western edge. While the are on the avenge a trifle larger and been for thousands and thousands of city is not swarming with deer, their tail is tipped with black. years." Many residents told me that they're seen parading through trailer Matriarchal herds contain female deer are seen strolling across busy parks and stamping across residen- fawns that will live for many years streets in the heart of the city. Feeding tial lawns. Saplings are nibbled, gar- with their mother and other does in deer is illegal after a city law was dens are ransacked, and deer sleep the area. Statuesque does lounged in passed in 1987, but it's generally unconcerned. A less compassionate patiently ruminat- '7-EL town would consider Boulder to have ing while survey- · ~ ~ - .... ,-, _ - , .~ , .-; not Boulder. So what does this bas- piercing, obsid- tion of compassion do about their ian-colored eyes. _ ~.,;:.~.E.~.~ ,~_~ ~,,~ ~- ~:?. -. ,- -.. deer dilemma? Apparently nothing. E I d o r a d o ., Long-time deer patrons Tom and State Park man- Sallie Garnett spoke glowingly of their a g e r S t e v e n coexistonce with mule deer. "I don't Mulhouser says. :':"- object to the deer. but [ have to put a however. that --:--.~ ~:.'.-~.~::.~:,.-.':7~;,:~?~::;:-_' :--,-:~-'-~'5-?:C-.:'':-,~, -, ::-'-?-'-':'..~-.*.'~7: fence around my roses - they love every few years 'M~.fC ceexist~with th~Bouldedte~"iShlm~Matda~d~al roses.* says Tom. He continues. some people take deefasdsmaflfequentthesameafeasloffea~ · Basically people enjoy having deer offense to the around and there's even been fawns plethora of deer. but after awhile. the assumed that some people put salt born in backyards." On a warm win- 'animosity subsides. Steve has a *gut blocks in their yards to 'attract deer. ter's atternoon I found Alice McDonald feeling' that hunting pressure in the This may be well intentioned. but mis- jogging past a herd of deer. "Our nearby national forest may be driving guided. because luring deer into the neighbors have seen fawns only a few mule deer into Boulder. But Colorado city is dangerous to the deer who can hours old that could barely walk. and Division of Wildlife biologist Janet cause car collisions which also threaten every spring a doe named "Maggie" George says that hunting has actually human life and property. From 120 to would give birth to twins in their decreased in the last 30 years yard" she revealed. [ continued my because the city and county have Please see Bouldec page21 AHll~ ¢,U,4~01~ ~ 2c.x:x:) 9 Bould~n co.ntinu~d from page 8 · . tO loss of habitat Straggling subdivi- 200 deer are killed annually by cars in ' siena, cattle gra~lng, over-hunting of I}UBLICATIOIq~ AVAILABLE bucks and competition from elk are FR01~ THE DOBIS DAY Boulder, and record keeping indicates depriving the deer of a chance to ANII~IAL ~EAGUE that at least one deer is killed or injured on Boulder's roads each day throughout rebound. To appease hunters, the the year. W'~dlife biologist Janet George Wyoming Game and Fish depar~nent 'No Pet' Housing says that special 'Sware~ex' reflectors are launching an ambitious 'deer Booklet explain~ federal were installed along some roads to management program~ designed to 'warn" deer of oncoming cars, but laws covering persons unfortunately, the expensive reflectors increase herd sizes. Basic strategies have proven ineffective at reducing deer involve burning vegetation, spraying .' ' and car collisions. herbicides, timber cutting, mowing and grazing management. While these Boulder has published brochures $1~50 postage. practices may increase the food supply explaining how to build deer-proof The Holerice Connection for mule deer, the overall quality of the fences, evaluating commercial repel- ecosystem is altered - and damaged. Booklet examining:the link.. lents, and listing plants that deer find in a misguided, simplistic attempt between ~alab~e an(~ other unpalatable. To minimize the irre- to further increase deer populations, violent crimes. sistible lure of suburban vegetation, the Colorado Division of Wildlife is First one free, 'contact the Doris people are allowed to install electric Day Animal Foundation.for fences. I witnessed several lawns for- considering shooting coyotes - who ti~ed with tall, but tastefully fasMoned prey on fawns - from low-flying air- information on large orders. .'- ~ ',- , ..: wrought iron fences - fencing is the planes. But the real problem is not "'~'.: ~ Stando~dS~for: predation from coyotes, but ecological ",~: Main~i~gFeral Cat destruction caused by too many deer. An immunecontraceptive called hunters and loss of habitat. ' . .:. !~eps porcine zona peiludda (PZP) is show- The people of Boulder have ing promise at reducing pregnancies proven that humans can live in har- ~""' such drastic measures distasteful. mony with deer. For eons, the grace- ful mule deer have struggled among Sterilizing the deer with contracep- the incredible highlands of Boulder. ' ?i!j'-'~ First 25 free, $A0 for tives is considered impractical and fencing off neighborhoods is simply Through all those centuries, nature eaCh .additional brochure. has tended to their needs and spared -out of the question. Some years ago, them from extinction. Today, mule Your Boulder conducted a survey showing deer are silent, incarnate wild spirits, that most people want nothing done bringing peace and goodwill to people to the deer .- no bow hunters, no who care to listen. Let's hope this sub- -~'... sharpshooters, or relocation pro- lime and peaceful coexistence will grams. Forget SWAT teams of game stand the test of time. *~* First ' wardens ambushing innocent does. Boulder's philosophy is live and let live. Scott Palczak lives in Longmont, Politically and environmentally Colorado and has been interested in correct, Boulder is a unique city of animals and animal rights for most of 100,000 residents. They're passionate his life. An avid anti-hunter, Scott has about preserving open space .and sav- been studying deer.-hunting, 'and ing prairie dogs. Buddhi.~m, vegetari- wildlife management for two years. : an!rim and animal rights philosophy " are often ingrained in their lifestyle and psyche. As a result, Boulder has maintained a remarkably harmonions relationship with their deer, as few reason, mule deer populations have remained fairly_stable - about 2,000 to 5.000 animals- with minimal dam- age to the ecology. 4uleys. however. are su : vubing Findings and Recommendations Report of the Deer Management Task Force to the Cuyahoga Valley Communities Council November 20, 1996 Executive Summary Chapter I The Task Force and its Activities The Cuyahoga Valley Communities Council created the 11-member task force in 1993 and requested it to report its findings and recommendations within three years. The Council is an advisory organization of local governments, school districts, park units. and counties in the area of the Cuyahoga River valley. The task force has held open monthly meetings, has reviewed relevant studies from throughout the country, and has conducted several surveys of its study area. In October 1995, the task force presented its findings and invited comment at a public Open House attended by 250-300 local residents. Chapter II Deer Characteristics and Growth The northern woodland white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus borealis) which inhabits this area is the largest subspecies of the eastern white-tailed deer and is found throughout North America east of the Rocky Mountains. There has been a dramatic growth in the population of white-tailed deer in this century throughout the eastern United States. In Ohio alone, it is estimated that their numbers grew from 17,000 in 1965 to over 400,000 in 1994. Growth has occurred in suburban as'well as rural areas. From an aerial survey in 1995, the task force esti- mates there were 6,000 deer in its study area. ]t also estimates that the population is growing at the annual rate of 15% and at this rate would double by the year 2000. Chapter III Nature and Extent of Problems In a public opinion survey conducted by the task force in 1994, most of the residents expressed favorable attitudes toward deer. Yet a majority would like to see fewer deer in the area. In the same survey, nearly two-thirds of the residents reported experiencing no damage from deer to gardens and landscaping but one in seven reported sedous damage. In areas where deer are seen more often, one-third of the residents report serious damage. In the farm deer damage survey conducted by the task force in 1995, about three-fourths of the property owners in the area who conduct farming as a business report moderate or extensive deer damage to crops. The number of deer vehicle accidents reported in the study area more than doubled from 1988 through 1995--from 230 to 533. This is a 15% annual rate of increase compared to the statewide 5% annual rate of !ncrease in the same period. In the public opinion survey, about half the residents expressed worry about Lyme disease although only a very few cases have been reported in recent years in the area or even throughout the state. Of the respondents to the public opinion survey who live in areas where deer are more often seen, nearly three-fourths believed deeprelated problems are sufficient to warrant control of the deer population.. About half of all residents expressed this belief. In studies in suburban areas elsewhere in the country it has been found that problems with deer which warrant control occur where the density of the population is anywhere from 10 to 45 deer per square mile. The threshold density depends upon the tolerance levels of each community. In the study area, the density is estimated to have been 34 deer per square mile in 1995 and is projected to double to 68 deer per square mile by the year 2000. Chapter IV Wildlife Management Regulations and Programs The Ohio Division of Wildlife is responsible for wildlife management in the state, and its objective is to provide a deer population for maximum recreational opportunity while minimizing conflicts with human activities. To this end, it establishes and enforces hunting regulations, and issues Deer Damage Control Permits in problem situations. In 1994, the Division instituted a program to permit hunters to take an additional four antledess deer in five designated Urban Deer Zones. The annual statewide harvest from public sport hunting increased nea~y twelvefold from 1975 to 1995 to a total of 179,543 deer. Of this total, about 14% were taken in the five Urban Deer Zones, 5% in the Akron-Cleveland Urban Deer Zone. Also, the Division collects and monitors data on the deer population and condi- tions, and provides technical guidance, publications, and management plans to agen- cies, communities and individuals. The National Park Service is governed by national laws, regulations, policies and guidelines which seek to perpetuate native wildlife in units of the national park system but permit removal of wildlife from federal lands when justified by sufficient information and by specific methods, including destruction by park service personnel or authorized agents. Metropark districts have similar policies but have individual authority to determine the need for and method of population control. All municipalities in the study area have adopted. regulations which prevent public sport hunting, but a few have recently adopted exceptions for nuisance removal under certain conditions. Townships lack statutory authority to enact such regulations. Chapter V Reducing Conflicts with Deer The task force recommends several measures to help reduce conflicts with deer: (1) encouraging residents to refrain from feeding deer;, (2) providing residents with information on landscape materials less attractive to deer, and, also, odor and taste repellents which can help prevent damage to gardens and landscaping; (3) amending zoning regulations to permit, in some areas, adequate fencing to protect plantings; (4) cleadng undergrowth and posting deer crossing signs along sections of roadway with a high incidence of accidents; and (5) amending local regulations to permit nuisance removal by property owners who have a state Deer Damage Control Permit. Chapter VI Controlling the Deer Population The task force recommends deer population control in the study area because (1) measures to reduce conflicts with deer will help but will not be sufficient; (2) the extent of damage to residential gardens and landscaping, farm crops, protected natural resources, and the number of roadway accidents, support such a need; (3) the density of the deer population already exceeds the level at which substantial impacts on natural resources are associated, and it is well within the range at which intolerable conflicts with human activities are associated; (4) public support of such action can be anticipated; and (5) the longer such action is delayed, the larger the deer population will become, the greater will be conflicts, and the more costly such action will become. The task force recommends four methods of deer population control which may be employed where they are legal and otherwise feasible: (1) public sport hunting in areas where practical and safe; (2) specially controlled hunting in isolated land areas of greater than five acres; (3) sharpshooting in-areas where hunting is not feasible or safe; and (4) capture and euthanasia in remaining areas. The task force recommends that each local government and park unit consider and decide which control methods are best for their needs and conditions, and that deer removed by methods other than public sport hunting be processed for distribution to food banks for the needy. Finally, the task force recommends that monitoring activities to update information be coordinated by a continuing organization. Table of Contents Executive Summary ......................... . ................ Preface Chapter ! The Task Force and Its Activities Section I The Council ..................................... 1 Section 2 The Task Force .................................. 2 Section 3 Activities of the Task Force .......................... 4 Chapter II Deer Characteristics and Growth Section 1 Characteristics of Deer ............................ 13 Section 2 Growth of the Deer Population ...................... 18 Section 3 Deer Population in the Study Area ................... 19 Chapter Iil Nature and Extent of Problems Section 1 Attitudes Toward Deer ............................ 23 Section 2 Particular Problems with Deer ....................... 25 Section 3 General Attitudes About Problems with Deer ............ 35 Section 4 Density of Deer as an Indicator of Problems ............ 36 Chapter IV Wildlife Management Regulations and Programs Section 1 Ohio Division of Wildlife ........................... 43 Section 2 National Park Service .............................. 49 Section 3 Metropark Districts ............................... 52 Section 4 Municipalities (Cities and Villages) .................... 53 Section 5 Townships ..................................... 55 Chapter V Reducing Conflicts with Deer Section 1 Evaluation of Measures to Reduce Conflicts ............ 57 Section 2 Recommended Measures to Reduce Conflicts ........... 63 Chapter VI Controlling the Deer Population Section I Reasons for Control ............................. 67 Section 2 Control Objectives ................................ 69 Section 3 Methods of Control ............................... 70 Section 4 Implementation of Control Methods ................... 80 Section 5 Monitoring ..................................... 81 Selected Source Documents ..................................... 85 Appendeces A: Council Resolution Creating the Task Force ~ .................... 91 B: Methodology of Spotlight Monitoring Surveys ................... 93 C: Methodology of Public Opinion Survey ........................ 94 D: Methodology of Aedal Survey .............................. 97 E: Methodology of Farm Deer Damage Survey .................... 98 F: Methodology of Deer Pellet County Survey .................... 100 G: Locations of Reported Deer Vehicle Accidents By Year, 1988-95 . . . 101 Wildlife Management Resource Agencies ......................... 110 Deer Management Task Force .................................. 111 Participating Units and 1996 Members of the Council .............. 112 List of Figures Figure 1: Map of the Study Area ................... · .................. 7 Figure 2: Rate of Deer Population Growth from Spotlight Monitoring Data ...... 20 Figure 3: Rate of Deer Population Growth from Deer-vehicle Accident Data .... 21 Figure 4: Reported Deer-vehicle Accidents by Year, 1988-95 ............... 31 Figure 5: Reported Deer-vehicle Accidents by Month, 1988-95 .............. 32 Figure 6: Locations of Reported DeePvehicle Accidents, 1988-95 ............ 33 Figure 7: Levels of Impact by Ranges of Deer Density .................... 38 Figure 8: Density of Deer Population by 1995 Aedal Survey Section .......... 40 Figure 9: Distribution of Number of Deer Pellet Groups in Winter 1995-96 ..... 41 Figure 10: Deer Harvest from Public Sport Hunting in Ohio, 1955-95 ......... 47 Chapter i The Task Force and Its Activities The Deer Management Task Force was created in 1993 by the Cuyahoga Valley Communities Council to which it was requested to report its findings and recom- mendations within three years. Section 1 The Council · The Cuyahoga Valley Communities Council is an organization of units of government serving the area of the Cuyahoga River valley. The Council is a non-profit corporation whose members are the officially desig- nated representatives of cities, villages, townships, counties, school districts, and metropark districts serving the area within and surrounding the national park; and the National Park Service. These twenty-nine (29) units of govemment participating in the Council and their currently designated representatives are identified on page 112. · In an advisory capacity, the Council addresses matters of common interest to its participating units of government. The Council was organized in 1975 to address matters of common interest among its participating units of government in the development and operation of the national park. In recent years, however, this role has expanded to include matters not solely related to the national park. The Task Force is such an example. The Council addresses matters by providing information and, on occasion, making recommendations. Such information and any recommendations are, however, offered solely for guidance to its participating units of governm.ent in making decisions appropriate to their respective areas of authority and responsibility. · The general activities of the Council are financially supported by voluntary contributions from its participating units of government. General activities include the ongoing functions of the Council as well as activi- ties which do not require supplemental funding. They have included support of the general operations of the Deer Management Task Force. From time to time, certain special projects require supplemental funding which commonly has been secured from foundation grants. Such grants of $5,000 each were secured from The GAR and The George Gund Foundations in 1994-95 to sup- port fact-gathering and analysis activities of the Deer Management Task Force. Section 2 The Task Force Creation of the Task Force · The task force was created in response to a common concem about problems. caused by a growing deer population. By the early 1990's, it was apparent that the deer population was proliferating in and around the Cuyahoga River valley. Deer sightings were becoming common- place. Local governments began to receive an increasing number of complaints from their residents about deer damage to home landscaping. In 1993, there were more reported deer-vehicle accidents in Summit County than in any of the other 87 counties in Ohio; and most of these accidents occurred in the northern portion of the county which includes the area of the Cuyahoga River valley. These problems were identified in a letter dated April 19, 1993, to the President of the Council from the Mayor of Peninsula Village in which he stated: In view of all of the above I believe that the problem of the numbers of deer cannot be solved by one community alone but rather by a community wide approach. Therefore it is suggested that the Community Council place the issue of the deer population on its agenda for a full study. that will recommend actions to be taken. · The purpose, composition, and scope of ~he task force was defined by an advisory group and was reviewed at a public meeting. As a first step, the Council called together an ad hoc advisory group of wildlife managers from Cleveland Metroparks, the Division of Wildlife of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, and the National Park Service for the purpose of exploring the scope of the problem, alternative remedial measures which might be taken. and the information requirements and process of deliberations for determination of acceptable and effective measures. The Council then sponsored a public meeting on the evening of July 29, 1993, at which members of the advisory group gave presentations on growth of the deer population, current management techniques, and future management options. It was proposed to take an approach modelled after that taken in the Minneapolis-SL Paul metropolitan area where the Minnesota Valley Deer Management Task Force over a period of three years made recommendations which gained broad community support. Nearly fifty local officials and other residents attended this meeting, and it was the sense of the meeting that such an approach be taken. · The task force was created for three years by resolution of the Council in 1993. At the Regular Meeting of the Council on September 15, 1993, a resolution was introduced and unanimously approved to create an 11-member Deer Manage- ment Task Force of the Council for a pedod of three years to pursue stated objectives and to be composed of designated categories of representation. A copy of the Council's resolution is presented in the Appendix. Objectives and Composition of the Task Force · The general objectives of the task force have been to identify the nature and extent of problems caused by deer and to recommend any appropriate solutions. The specific objectives of the task force are set forth in the Council resolution. 3 At the outset, there was a general sense among members of the task force of increasing conflicts with deer; but these had not been fully identified or quantified to enable evaluation of the seriousness of any problems. .. Nor was there a predominant view as to any appropriate solution. In fact, the task force deferred conclusive discussion of solutions until a thorough evaluation of the nature and extent of problems had been accomplished. · Members of the 11-member task force represent a variety of view- points. Viewpoints of local governments and residents are represented by elected or other officials of four municipalities in Cuyahoga and Summit Counties and two town- ships in Summit County. Viewpoints of natural resource and recreation agencies are represented by staff members of the metropark districts serving Cuyahoga and Sum- mit Counties, the Ohio Division of Wildlife, and the National Park Service. Viewpoints of farmers are represented by a member of the Ohio Farm Bureau. The specific categories of membership are set forth in the Council resolution, and the members are identified on page 111. · Individual members of the task force also have provided technical expertise. Members of the task force from the metropark districts serving Cuyahoga and Summit Counties, the Ohio Division of Wildlife, and the National Park Service also have brought technical expertise as wildlife managers to the work of the task force. Additionally, other staff members of these agencies have contributed their wildlife management skills and often have attended meetings of the task force as advisers. Section 3 Activities of the Task Force The task force has met regularly and frequently. has reviewed published material from studies of other areas of the country, has conducted surveys and analy- ses of its study area, and has provided public information and sought public involve- ment. Meetings of the Task Force · The task force has conducted meetings nearly every month since its first meeting in November 1993. The task force was appointed on November 15 and held its first meeting on November 30, 1993. There has been a high level of participation in monthly meetings by members of the task force or, sometimes, their designated alternates. VVhile most meetings were for the duration of a morning or an afternoon, a few were for a full day. · Meetings of the task force have been open to the public. All meetings have been open to the public to attend as observers. Interested citizens as well as representatives of the news media often have been present. Review of Studies from Other Areas Deer have been the subject of study by many wildlife research institutions and community organizations such as the task force throughout the 'country over the last two or three decades. These published materials on a wide range of subjects rele- vant to the purposes of the task force were gathered and analyzed by and for the task force. These published materials have included material on the characteristics of white-tailed deer, techniques for reduction of conflicts with deer. measures for control of deer populations, and the criteria used for making deer management decisions. A selected list of these documents begins on page 85. Surveys and Analyses of the Study Area But the principal focus of task force study has been the local area. · An early decision of the task force was to gather and analyze com- prehensive and objective information on which to base its recom- mendations. Despite the recognition of some urgency in addressing the problems with deer, the task force chose not to act precipitately but rather. within the limits of its available 5 time and resources, to gather and analyze sufficient information about the local area to enable the formulation of sound recommendations. · Professional assistance was provided to the task force in the design and conduct of surveys and analyses. For the design and conduct of its special surveys and analyses, professional assistance was provided to the task force by wildlife research and management per- sonnel from agencies participating in the task force as well as by a representative of the Ohio Division of Wildlife's Waterloo Research Station and, also, a representative of the National Biological Service at the State University of New York in Syracuse. Descriptions of survey methods are presented in the Appendix. · A study area was established for the consistent and comparable collection and analysis of information. A study area was defined to encompass a full range of local conditions, includ- ing both urban, newly-developing suburban, and rural land areas, within and surround- ing the Cuyahoga River valley. It includes all or part of twenty-six municipalities and townships in Cuyahoga and Summit Counties and an area of 178.45 square miles. See Figure 1. · Spotlight monitoring surveys of the study area were conducted to provide indicators of changes in the size of the deer population. Spotlight monitoring surveys involve spotting deer along roadways dudng evenings in the fall when deer are most active. Observers spot deer from a slow- moving vehicle which is equipped with an observation platform and spotlights to illumi- nate any deer along the roadway. They are conducted at the same time each year and along the same roadways so that annual counts are comparable. Because only those roadways can be used which safely permit nighttime operation of slow-moving vehicles, roadway segments cannot be randomly distributed nor proportional to the size of adjoining areas, Therefore, the purpose of these sur- veys is to indicate changes in the deer population not, however, to provide either a count of the size of the population or an indication of its distribution. Spotlight monitoring surveys have been conducted annually by the National Park Service along 40 miles of roadway within the national park since 1990. Figure 1: Map of the Study Area (inside shaded area). In 1994 and 1995, these surveys were expanded to include 39 miles of roadway out- side the national park to encompass the task force's entire study area. These expanded surveys were made possible by use of volunteers from Cleveland Metroparks, Metro Parks, Serving Summit County, and Bath and Richfield Townships. · A public opinion survey was conducted to learn public attitudes about deer and, also, the extent of deer damage to property and other deer-related problems. The purpose of this survey was to gain an objective and representative measure of public attitudes about deer; the extent of deer damage to landscaping and gardens; and concern about deer-vehicle accidents and other problems. In August 1994, a mail-back, postage-paid questionnaire was mailed to 1,004 randomly distributed registered voters in the study area, and a second mailing was made to those who had not yet responded. A statistically viable sample of 586 com- pleted questionnaires ultimately were returned. Independent analyses of the respon- ses were performed by wildlife management analysts at the Ohio State University and the University of Texas (the latter had helped design the survey while employed by Cleveland Metroparks). · An aerial survey of the study area was conducted to determine the size and general distribution of the deer population. In February 1995, the Ohio Division of Wildlife conducted an aedal survey of the study area by helicopter to count the number and distribution of observable deer. Viewing conditions were optimum with good weather, snow cover, and lack of decidu- ous foliage. The study area was divided into nine sections which were further divided into transects or flight paths, and counts of observable deer were recorded for each tran- sect. On the basis of experience in conducting such aedal surveys under similar con- ditions elsewhere, it is estimated that, overall, 70% of the actual number of deer in the study area were spotted. This estimate probably would vary from section to section, and from transect to transect. · Records of reported deer-vehicle accidents in the study area were analyzed to determine their locations and other characteristics and, also, to provide an indicator of changes in the size of the deer population. When a deepvehicle accident occurs and a police report is made, a great deal of information Ls recorded including location, date, time of day, and road conditions. Copies of these reports are filed with the Traffic Records Division of the Ohio Depart- ment of Public Safety. Since 1988, the division has compiled in a computerized database the reports of those accidents involving vehicle damage estimated by the reporting officer to cost $150 or more to repair. Extracts from this database for accidents involving deer in Cuyahoga and Sum- mit Counties for each of the years from 1988 through 1995 were obtained from the Division, edited to correct errors and inconsistencies, and examined to identify those accidents within the study area. Data for the study area then were analyzed to deter- mine high incidence locations and also when and under what conditions most acci- dents occur. The annual number of reported deer-vehicle accidents also was used as an indicator of changes in the size of the deer population. · A farm deer damage survey was conducted to determine the extent of problems with deer experienced by those engaged in agricultural activities, and their opinions of preventative measures. More specifically, this survey elicited information on the nature of farming activi- ties in the study area, the extent of damage suffered from deer and other wildlife, the evaluation by farm operators of the effectiveness of damage prevention measures, their opinion of the degree to which the deer population should be controlled, and whether they permit deer hunting on their property. In the fall of 1995, a questionnaire was designed and mailed to 106 owner~ of properties in the study area which are identified by the county auditors as being assessed at current agricultural use value; and a second mailing was later made to those who had not yet responded. A total of 75 completed responses was received and analyzed. A deer pellet count survey was conducted to determine the distri- bution and concentration of the deer population in the study area. This survey involved counting the number of deer pellet groups (droppings) which had accumulated over the 1995-96 winter season at 141 counting stations which were randomly distributed throughout the study area. These counts reflect the number of deer who have passed through the area of the counting station and thus indicate the distribution and concentration of the deer population. The survey was conducted by the National Park Service in accordance with a design prepared by a representative of the National Biological Service. If, as is hoped, this survey can be repeated in successive years, it would also provide an indicator of changes in the size of the deer population. Public Information and Involvement · The task force published and distributed the document Living with White-tailed Deer to provide public information on measures to reduce conflicts with deer. Early in the course of its work, the task force gathered published materials on the subject of measures to reduce conflict with deer (use of odor and taste repellents, fencing, etc.). Rather than wait for completion of its other work, the task force decided to immediately provide this information to the residents of the study area. In April 1994, this information was selected, copied, and distributed under the title Living With White-tailed Deer to thirty-seven local governments and public and school libraries. A supplement was distributed in October 1994. · A public Open House was held to enable the task force to present. its findings to interested residents and to obtain their views. A public Open House was held by the Council in October 1995 for the task force to share its findings and: also, listen to views of participants on problems and possible solutions. Between 250 and 300 residents of the study area participated in this event. All members of the task force plus staff members from agencies participating in the task force manned six stations with tables and displays on vadous topics and engaged participants in discussion. A 30-page booklet containing a concise presentation of the task force's findings was distributed to the participants and was often the focus of conversations. Sixty-five participants submitted wdtten comments on a form which was pro- vided, and copies were distributed to the members of the task force. · The task force regularly has made progress reports at public meetings of the Council. As requested in its creating resolution, the task force has presented quarterly reports of its activities and progress at meetings of the Council. All meetings of the Council are open to the public. Chapter !i Deer Characteristics and Growth Section 1 Characteristics of Deer Species and Distribution Deer are native to North America. They evolved from a more primitive ances- tor approximately 10 million years ago during the Pliocene Period and differentiated into the two major species I million years ago dudng the Pleistocene Pedod. All deer are members of the Cervidae family (antlered animals) which include elk, moose, and caribou. There are two major species of deer in North America, eastern white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and western deer which include the black-tailed and mule deer (Odocoileus hernionus). These spe~:ies are further divided into 30 subspecies of eastern white-tailed deer and 11 subspecies of the western deer. The northern woodland white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus borealis) which occurs in Ohio is the largest subspecies of the eastem white-tailed deer. White-tailed deer are distributed from Hudson Bay in southern Canada to the northern half of South America. Appearance and Size Adult white-tailed deer are reddish brown in color in summer, darker in winter with a white patch on the throat, inside of the legs and stomach. The tail is brown above and white underneath. When a deer is alarmed, the tail is raised and the 13 white underside displayed. Fawn coloration is white spots on reddish brown backgr. ound. This coloration helps the fawn blend in patterns of shade and sun. Fawns' spotted coat is lost when molt occurs in August-September. The average weight of an adult deer (>2.5 years) in Ohio is 106-118 pounds. Deer weights vary seasonally. Bucks generally lose weight from the beginning of the rut until spring, females and fawns begin weight loss in January. Does which rear young do not regain weight until summer, after fawns are weaned. Male deer grow antlers which are composed of true bone that grow from pedi- cels on the frontal bone. Pedicels form buttons which are the only antler growth on fawn bucks. A buck's first set of antlers grows during the yearlings spring/summer, beginning in mid March-April. The size of the antlers depends on age and nutrition. The growing bone is full of blood vessels and nerves and is covered by hairy skin called velvet Antler growth continues through August-September when bone hardens and velvet is sloughed or rubbed off. Antlers are shed in December-January. Behavior Deer are crepuscular, being active primarily at dawn and dusk. From dusk to dawn they generally use open fields. Dudng daylight hours they are found in forest cover. The core of the deer social organization is the female. Most females establish a home range adjacent to and overlapping that of their mother. As each generation of female offspring establishes home ranges overlapping their mother, the population ex- pands out like petals of a rose. Deer are social throughout the year, although the size and composition of the group may change. Females with fawns are relatively solitary during the spdng and summer. As fawns mature, they associate more with their mother. Larger aggrega- tions occur in fall and winter are composed of family units or multifamily unit congrega- tions. The largest groups occur in early spring and fall in open fields. Bucks are more social than does, travelling in groups of 2-3 adults in all months except the rut. Deer are very adaptable as demonstrated by their wide distrib~on throughout different climates, habitats and levels of human alteration. 14 Communication Deer use a vadety of auditory, visual and olfactory communication methods. Deer are known to make a variety of sounds including alarm snorts, alarm foot stomps, agonistic grunts, and contact calls. Males create buck rubs during courtship and breeding periods by debarking stems of shrubs or saplings by rubbing them with their antlers or head. During this period, they also create buck scrapes by breaking twigs or branches 3-6 feet high above the ground and pawing a depression in soil beneath the broken twig. Habitat Deer are generally associated with edge habitat consisting of a mixture of im- mature forest, old growth forest and brushy areas interspersed with open meadows and agricultural land. This type of habitat produces a variety of plant species and stages of growth. Woody vegetation in shrublands and forests provide cover and forage in the form of woody twigs, fruit, nuts, and herbaceous vegetation. Deer are known to survive in areas with less than 10% cover to areas with 100% cover. Urban deer can habituate to human presence and make extensive use of areas within 50 meters of homes. Home Range Home range is the area travelled by an animal on an annual basis. Populations are generally composed of several female family groups, each group encompassing an area of up to 4 square miles. Individual deer summer home ranges vary from 150 to 1300 acres and average 500 acres. Home ranges of males may be 2-3 times the size of females. Home ranges of urban deer are smaller than rural deer. Home range shape varies with distribution of food and cover. Normally it is an irregular ellipse, but may be more linear in human developed areas. Dispersal Dispersal is defined as a movement away from animal'S. original home range. Most females stay near their mother for life. Greater than 80% of the males disperse at 2-3 years of age and establish a home range encompassing the ranges of unrelat- ed females. Approximately 25% of the bucks and 5% of the does disperse annually. Yearling bucks are forced out by does at fawning; yearling does disperse once they have been bred. Dispersal is heaviest in no hunting areas because social pressure from adult bucks force yearling bucks out. Feeding Habits There are over 1000 different plant species eaten by white-tailed deer including agricultural crops, trees, grass, forbs, shrubs and ornamental plants. Deer, like cows, are ruminants and have a 4-chambered stomach which means they are able to digest cellulose. It also allows them to gather food quickly and chew their cud and digest their food later. Reproduction Deer breed from October to December in North America. This season is called the "rut". In Ohio, the rut begins late October and peaks November 3-16. Bucks pursue receptive does and may mate with numerous does dudng the breeding season. Does are in heat for 24 hours every 28 days for 2-3 months. Fawns are born in May or June. Average gestation period is 200-210 days. Fawns weigh approximately 5-8 pounds at birth. They grow quickly and may double in size in 15 days, and increase their size by ten times by 6 months. Fawns attempt to stand 20-30 minutes after birth. Nursing begins 35 minutes after birth. Fawns are able to run in 7 days. Fawns choose their own bedding site. During the first week does pay little attention to fawns in order to keep her scent from fawn's bedding area. Fawns remain sedentary for 1-2 weeks. As fawns get older, they become more mobile; by autumn they constantly accompany the doe. Does can breed as early as 7 months of age, but normally breed at 1.5 years. Males are sexually mature at 1.5 years of age. Does are capable of breeding every year and give birth to 1-2 (sometimes 3) fawns. Older does normally give birth to two fawns, young deer produce one fawn. In Ohio, the average fetus to doe ratio is 1.29 for fawns (less than I year old), 1.87 for yearlings (1.5 years old), and 2.04 for adults (greater than 2 years old). A more recent study in Ohio showed fetus:doe ratio as 1.84 for yearlings (less than 2 years old) and 1.78 for adult does (greater than 2 yea~S old). Reproductive performance is related to food resources, length of growing season, and genetics. Life Span Average potential life span for a deer is 11-12 years. In captivity, some deer have reached 18-20 years of age. In hunted populations, bucks rarely live beyond 2 years of age. In non-hunted areas, does may live 12-16 years. Mortality Deer do not regulate their own population. Populations will increase until food is no longer available. Populations are checked by external forces such as predators and disease. In hunted areas, hunting is the dominant mortality factor. In urban areas, auto- mobile collisions are the dominant cause of deer mortality. Mortality is greatest during the first month of life when up to 30% of the fawns may die due to predation or abandonment. 40-60% of fawns survive to sexual matur- ity. Fawn abandonment may result in mortality when females come into spring with depleted physical reserves and are incapable of nursing their young. Many deer die of starvation in the winter. Dudng a severe winter, as many as 2 million deer may die within the U.S. In VVyoming, big game herds commonly lose ten percent of their members; fifty percent or more can be lost in a severe winter. Over winter survival depends on quality of summer food, food availability, and com- petition. Deer accumulate fat in summer and survive on this reserve in the winter. If there is a drought or frost which decreases food quality or snow restricts access to food, deer may expend more energy than they gain and die of malnutrition. Predators White-tailed deer are preyed upon by a vadety of carnivores under some condi- tions and fed on by: fox, coyote, domestic dog, bobcat, bear, mountain lion, wolf, wol- 17 verine, lynx, fisher, golden eagle, bald eagle, and raven. Only fox, coyote and domes- tic dog currently. occur in the study area. All of the above mentioned carnivores are also scavengers of dead deer. Coyote and bobcat usually sca.venge dead deer rather than kill deer themselves, but they may kill fawns. Domestic dogs usually are ineffective as deer predators. Those caught are usually sick or injured. Exception is in deep snow with frozen crust when dogs can overtake deer and cause direct mortality. Disease Common deer diseases include anaplasmosis, toxoplasmosis, Q fever, infect- ious bovine rhinotiachetis, bovine viral diarrhea, parain~uenza 3, brucellosis (ADFG 1977), tuberculosis, anthrax, listerosis, rabies, tularemia, pseudotuberculosis, erysipe- las, leptospirosis, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, black leg and foot, hemorrahagic ("blue tongue") and mouth disease. Parasites include bot fly, wood tick, meningeal worm and the liver fluke. Section 2 Growth of the Deer Population Overall Trends · There has been dramatic growth in the population of deer through- out the eastern United States during this century. It is estimated that in 1500 there were 23-24 million white-tailed deer in North America. Due to extensive hunting and habitat changes, populations dropped to ap- proximately 1 million in the eady 1900's. Following restocking and conservation ef- forts, populations increased. By the late 1900's it was estimated that there were 12 million white-tailed deer in North America. In Ohio, it is estimated that the deer population surged from only 17,000 in 1965 to over 400,000 in 1994. Causes of Growth in Suburban Areas Deer numbers notably have increased in suburban areas owing to lack of pre- , dators, limitations on hunting, creation of favorable habitat and food sources in de- 18 veloping areas, highway and other barriers to dispersal, and the general adaptability of deer to urban conditions and humans. · While deer are commonly associated wit!~' rural areas, growth in numbers also has occurred in urban areas ospecia!ly in the developing suburbs. Suburban development drives away most of the natural predators of deer. Some types of suburban development, such as homes on large lots and cluster development, may create a favorable habitat for deer who favor open areas with forage materials for browsing and nearby areas of undergrowth for protective cover. This is coupled with the fact that deer are more adaptable to the presence of people than is commonly thought. It is augmented by the residential planting of ornamental plants and gardens with plant materials enjoyed by deer and, also, the artificial feeding of deer intentionally to attract them for viewing. As suburban areas have grown, more and more municipalities have enacted ordinances banning the discharge of firearms' and/or use of archery. These bans prevent sport hunting which traditionally has kept the deer population in check in most areas. Even in suburban or nearby rural areas where hunting is not prevented by such bans, landowners have become less willing to allow hunting on their property. Reduced sport hunting results, too, in an increase in the number of older dc~es who typically have a higher rate of multiple births of fawns than do younger does. Section 3 Deer Population in the Study Area · There were an estimated 6,000 deer in the study area in 1994-95. In the February 1995 aerial survey, 4,230 deer were observed in the study area. As already noted, it is estimated that about seventy (70) percent of the actual number of deer were observed which translates to an estimate of 6,043 deer. This is an estimate of the 1994-95 "winter population" or the population pdor to the 1995 spring birthing season when probably one or two thousand deer were born. But numbers also are reduced each year from deer-vehicle accidents, sport hunting, and natural causes. 19 · The annual rate of growth of the deer population in the study area is estimated to be 1~%. This estimate is based upon trends indicated by the spotlight monitoring survey counts and the records of deer-vehicle accidents. It accounts for population reduction from deer-vehicle accidents, sport hunting, and natural causes since these reductions are reflected in these surveys and records. Estimates of the rate of growth have been made by fitting a curve (trend line) to these data which represents a constant annual rate of change. The annual rate of change derived from the spotlight monitoring survey counts is 14.65%. This is shown by the trend line Figure 2. 300 250 200 · 150 100 50 o ~ 99~o ~ 999~~ 9992~ 9'93~ 9~4~ 9'95 : Years · Actual Number : Trend Line Figure 2: Rate of Deer Population Growth from Spotlight Monitoring Data. Similarly, the annual rate of change derived from the number of reported deer- vehicle accidents is 15.68%. This is shown by the trend line in the Figure 3. 20 Estimated Rate of Deer Population Growth Reported Deer-vehicle Accidents, 1988-95 900 750 600 450 300 150 Years ... [] Actual Number '-' Trend Une Figure 3: Rate of Deer Population Growth from Deer-vehicle Accident Data. The higher annual rate of change derived from reported deer;vehicle accidents probably reflects annual increases in traffic volumes which would tend to increase the number of accidents and. also, the annual rate of change. The similarity of the two estimates nevertheless reinforces the validity of these two trend indicators. But since the spotlight monitoring counts are not significantly influenced as a trend indicator by factors other than the number of deer, the estimate derived from that survey probably is more accurate. For simplicity, it may be rounded to 15%. if the deer population continues to increase at the annual rate of growth of 15%, then it would grow from 6,043 in 1995 to about 12.155 in the year 2000, or about double in five years. 21 Chapter II! Nature and Extent of Problems Deer are among the most loved of wild animals. But they are wild and their activities often are in conflict with human activities. These opposing factors are evi- dent in responses to the public opinion survey and in other surveys and analyses in the study area. Section 1 Attitudes Toward Deer In this and some of the following sections, findings are presented from the public opinion survey. In many findings, the responses of all residents are compared to those who report seeing deer at least weekly on their property and, also, to those who report never seeing deer on their property. These two groups tend to represent the highs and lows of the range of responses. They each comprise about thirty (30) percent of all respondents. · Most residents take pleasure in deer. Eighty-two (82) percent of the survey respondents agreed with the statement: The deer i see brfng me pleasure; nine (9) percent were undecided. Sixty-seven (67) percent of those who see deer at least weekly on their property agreed with this statement; thirteen (13) percent were undecided. Ninety-one (91) percent of those who never see deer on their property agreed with this statement; five (5) percent were undecided. Responses to the statement I enjoy seeing and having deer around were 23 nearly the same. Residents who reported enjoyment in seeing deer in their area have lived in their present home a median of twelve (12) years; those repo~ng not enjoying seeing deer, a median of twenty-four (24) years. · Only a small number of residents have no particular feeling about deer. Twelve (12) percent of the survey respondents agreed with the statement: I have no particular feeling about deer, thirteen (13) percent were undecided. Four- teen (14) percent of those who see deer at least weekly on their property agreed with this statement; ten (10) percent were undecided. Thirteen (13) percent of those who never see deer on their property agreed with this statement; thirteen (13) percent were undecided. · About half the residents would like more opportunities to see deer. Forty-seven (47) percent of the survey respondents agreed with the statement: I wish I had more opportunities to see deer, nineteen (19) percent were undecided. Thirty-two (32) percent of those who see deer at least weekly on their property agreed with this statement; sixteen (16) percent were undecided. Fifty-nine (59) percent of those who never see deer on their property agreed with this statement; twenty (20) percent were undecided. · Some residents would like an increase in the deer population. Eleven (11) percent of the survey respondents agreed with the statement:. I would like to see an increase in the deer population; twenty-two (22) percent were undecided. Eight (8) percent of those who see deer at least weekly on their property agreed with this statement; thirteen (13) percent were undecided. Fourteen (14) percent of those who never see deer on their property agreed with this statement; thirty-two (32) percent were undecided. · · But more residents would like to see fewer deer in their area. Twenty-nine (29) percent of the survey respondents agreed with the statement: I would like to see fewer deer near where ! five; eighteen (18) percent were un- decided. Fifty (50) percent of those who see deer at least weekly on their propert/ 24 agreed with this statement; fourteen ('14) percent were undecided. Fifteen ('15) percent of those who never see deer on their property agreed with this statement; nineteen ('19) percent were undecided. · Favorable attitudes about deer were expressed by several partici- pants in the Open House. Following are some of the comments which were submitted in writing by partici- pants in the Open House: I enjoy the deer very much. That is why I moved here. To enjoy the town and country is what matters most in this area. I take delight in seeing deer in my yard. There is absolutely nothing more beautiful than one. I moved to [community in the study area] because of the wildlife and "town & country atmosphere". Section 2 Particular Problems with Deer The particular problems being experienced with deer in the study are those common in other areas of the country. namely, damage to gardens and landscaping, damage to farm crops, degradation of protected natural resources, the incidence of deer-vehicle accidents; and concern about Lyme disease. Damage to Gardens and Landscaping · Nearly two-thirds of residents experience no property damage from deer, but there is a wide discrepancy among groups. Sixty (60) percent of all respondents to the public opinion survey agreed with the statement i am not aware of any damage deer have caused on my property;, six (6) percent were undecided. Twenty-seven (27) percent of those who see deer at least weekly on their property agreed with this statement; five (5) percent were undecided. Eighty-eight (88) percent of those who never see deer on their property agreed with this statement; five (5) percent were undecided. 25 · About one-third of residents experience some damage, but again there is a wide discrepancy among groups. Thirty-nine (39) percent of the respondents to the public opinion survey agreed with the statement I worry about the damage deer cause to my property;, sixteen (16) percent were undecided. Sixty-four (64) percent of those who see deer at least weekly on their property agreed with this statement; thirteen (13) percent were un- decided. Fifteen (15) percent of those who never see deer on their property agreed with this statement; seventeen (17) percent were undecided. · Few residents suffer serious damage, except in those areas where deer are seen more often. Thirteen (13) percent of the respondents to the public opinion survey agreed with the statement The damage deer inflict on my property is intolerable; ten (10) percent were undecided. Thirty-four (34) percent of those who see deer at least weekly on their proper'b/agreed with this statement; twelve (12) percent were undecided. Three (3) percent of those who never see deer on their property agreed with this statement; six (6) percent were undecided· · Many participants in the Open House expressed concern with pro- perty damage, some giving graphic examples of severe damage. Property damage by deer was a predominant topic in the oral and written com- ments received at the Open House in October 1995. While persons attending such events are not necessarily wholly representative of the entire community, nevertheless these comments give dramatic evidence of the extent of damage which deer may cause on individual properties. Following are some of the comments which were submitted in wdting by partici- pants in the Open House: The deer population in our area has become so severe it is virtually impossible to keep any kind of decorative plantings in our yard. Things that were not touched 2-3 years ago are now chewed and bitten down to the ground and bare branches. No one on our street can have a garden, flowers, new trees or shrubs. My wife planted over 200 tulip and crocus bulbs five years ago and as fast as 26 the bulbs would bloom the deer would eat them down to the ground. The buds and limbs of our fruit trees are also chewed off. If we do have a crop of apples or pears the deer would eat them just as they begin to ripen near the end of August. The deer a/so ate our shrubs on the side of !he house this last winter. The garden is a/so one of their favorite spots to eat through. The deer love the carrots, beets, beans, pumpkins, cabbage, squash as well as the tomatoes. Our 5 acre wooded ravine has been stripped of a// wildflowers and small under- growth by the deer which now roam daily through yards and across the road. They have eaten shrubs in my yard that had been there for more than 20 years. We have found the deer very destructive with the problem getting worse every year. They have eaten some or completely all of the following: 2 newly planted Hemlocks, new growth on 3 other Hemlocks, new growth of our Mountain Laurel, Japonica, Euonymus, several hundred Tulips, Day Lilies, Oriental Lilies, Rhododendrons, Magnolia, even new growth on White Pines, our Roses on several occasions, 2 young Hydrangeas, Iris, both Bearded and Siberium, Dog- wood. They come within 3 feet of the door and have eaten EVERYTHING under 2" in diameter. The deer are doing severe damage to our woods, eating all vegetation from head high down. Over the past 5 years the woods are showing no new growth. Damage to Farm Crops The following findings are from the 1995 farm deer damage survey. · Most farming activities, at least in part, are conducted for business. Eighty-five (85) percent of the respondents indicated they conduct farmirig acti- vities, at least in part, for business: forty-six (46) percent only for business; twenty-' eight (28) percent for business and personal use; ten (10) percent for business, per- sonal use, and as a hobby; and one (1) percent for business and as a hobby. Eight (8) percent indicated they conduct farming activities only for personal use, four (4) percent for personal use and as a hobby, and three (3) percent only as a hobby. 27 · Among those conducting farming activities as a business, there are a variety of farming activities. Of those conducting farming activities as a business, at least in part, the kinds of reported activities were as follows: corn (37%), other vegetables (33%), livestock (30%), orchard (25%), small grain (22%), nursery (16%), and Xmas trees (13%). · Properties on which farming activities are conducted for business comprise about three percent of the study area. The total area reported for properties on which farming activities are conducted for business was 3,573 Acres. This is about three (3) percent of the study area. Property sizes were reported to range from 3 to 500 acres with a median size of thirty-six (36) acres. About sixty (60) percent of the total acreage was reported to be in cultivation in the past year. · Crop damage from wildlife is a major concern of farmers. Thirty-two (32) percent of the respondents indicated damage was extensive; twenty (20) percent moderate; thirty-two (32) percent somewhat; and sixteen (16) per- cent none. Seventy-seven (77) percent of the respondents who conduct activities as a business on properties over 60 Acres report extensive or moderate damage: eighty (80) percent for livestock, eighty-six (86) percent for corn or other vegetables, and one-hundred (100) percent for Xrnas trees. · Farmers have experienced a low level of effectiveness with measures to reduce deer damage. For all respondents giving an answer on this topic (thus having experience with the measure), sixty-eight (68) percent gave an evaluation of not effective for odor and taste repellents, eighty-seven (87) percent for noise or visual scare devices, sixty-nine (69) percent for electric fencing, seventy-two (72) percent for other fencing, seventy- two (72) percent for deer removals under a Deer Damage Control Permit issued by the Ohio Division of Wildlife, and seventy-four (74) percent for other measures. 28 · Farmers opinions were divided nearly equally between reducing or not reducing the number of deer. Of all those responding to this subject, fifty-one i51) percent gave the opinion the number of deer should be reduced; forty-seven (47) percent, unchanged; and one (1) percent, increased. Of the responses from those conducting farming as a business, seventy-seven (77) percent gave the opinion that the number of deer should be reduced. · About three-quarters of those conducting farming for business on larger properties permit hunting on their property. Of all the respondents answering this question, thirty-two (32) percent permit deer hunting on their property; thirty-five (35) percent of those conducting activities for business; twenty-nine (29) percent, for personal use; and nine (9) percent, as a hobby. Of all the respondents answering this question and owning property greater than 60 acres, seventy-one (71) percent permit deer hunting; for property of 41 to 60 acres, forty-two (42) percent permit deer hunting. Of the respondents answering this question, conducting activities for business. and owning property greater than 60 acres, seventy-seven (77) percent permit deer hunting; for property of 41 to 60 acres, forty-six (46) percent permit deer hunting. Respondents reported the taking of 102 deer by hunting in the past year. Degradation of Protected Natural Resources · Park unit managers are becoming more concerned with the adverse effects of deer browsing. Park unit managers are entrusted to protect and conserve all natural resources and, therefore, must be concerned about degradations caused by any single species. Thus, the growth of the deer population in the study area in recent years' has caused the managers of park units to become increasingly concerned with the damage from deer browsing upon these resources. There are two broad categories of such damage: 29 1) The loss of understory plant diversity due to heavy deer browsing will re- duce or eliminate other species of plants and, also, species of wildlife such as song- birds and small mammals. 2) The loss of vegetation also could result in ~ncreased soil erosion, stream siltation, and degradation of aquatic habitat. Studies are currently underway or are proposed in park units in the study area ' which will measure deer impacts on protected natural resources. · Two studies have revealed a significant increase in deer damage in recent years. The preliminary report of a study being sponsored jointly by Cleveland Metro- parks and the National Park Service states as follows: Deer numbers are now at levels where their feec~ng activity is beginning to have a major impact on park vegetation. ContYnued overbrowsing by deer may, over time, affect forest stand composition and reduce forest biodiver~i~ over large areas. It is further' stated: During the past five years, we have observed a steady increase in the utiliza- tion of park vegetation by deer. The browse damage seen durfng the 1995 and 1996 seasons, however, is certainly the worst we have observed over this period. In another study this year, the National Park Service has concluded fiat deer browsing has had a negative impact on white-flowered trillium (Trlllium grandiflorum). Square meter plots were established in late winter in ten study areas within the national park; some were protected with chicken-wire baskets, others were not Upon examination in the spdng, it was found that the stems of plants within the protected plots were significantly taller than those in unprotected plots. Deer-vehicle Accidents The following information about the number of deer-vehicle accidents and the time or conditions of their occurrence is dedved from the reports of local law enforce- ment officers to the Ohio Department of Public Safety. Only those reports in which the 30 officer estimated a cost of $150 or more to repair vehicle damage are included, and not all accidents are reported. Nevertheless, the date can be viewed as representa- tive of all accidents, or at least the more serious accidents. · The annual number of reported deer-vehicle accidents in the study area has more than doubled over the last seven years. The annual number of reported deer-vehicle accidents in the study area has more than doubled in seven years--from 230 in 1988 to 533 in 1995. The accidents which are not reported may be again as many. See Figure 4. Deer Management Task Force - Study Area Reported Deer Vehicle Accidents 6o0 533 500 4/3 475 400 300 228 21 200 1 O0 0 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695. Years Figure 4: Reported Deer-vehicle Accidents by Year, f988-95. Throughout Ohio, reported accidents increased from 17,540 in 1988 to 24,811 in 1995 (a slight decrease from 25,636 in 1994). This is an annual rate of increase of about five (5) percent. In 'the study area, the annual rate of increase ha, s been about fifteen (15) percent (see Chapter II, Section 3). 31 · Most deer-vehicle accidents occur late in the year. More than half the annual number of accidents occur during the breeding season (the "rut") from October into December. See Figure 5: Deer Management Task Force Study Area Percent of Reported Deer Vehicle Accidents bv Month 20 ~D 15.6 'O '~ 15 o 128 O r- 10 o 8.3 8.2 5.2 5.4 4.4 25 24 0 Jan Feb Mar Apt May Jun Jul Aug Sep Ocl~ ' Nov Dec Months Figure 5: Reported Deer-vehicle Accidents by Month, f988-95. · Most deer-vehicle accidents occur early and late in the day. Most accidents occur in early morning (5 to 8 a.m.) and evening (5 to 12 p.m.) when dee~' are most active (but this also reflects periods of rush-hour traffic). · Reported deer-vehicle accidents are widely distributed throughout the study area. Although there are concentrations of accident locations, particularly along high Figure 6: Locations of Reported Deer-vehicle Accidents in Study A~ea, f988-95. volume roadways, accidents are widely distributed throughout the study area. See Figure 6. Because this map is a composite of such maps prepared for each year (see Appendix G), some symbols obscure others; but the overall pattern is essentially true. · Adverse driving conditions do not appear to be responsible for most accidents. Most accidents do not occur during broad daylight conditions, but this reflects the hours of day when deer are most active. The cost of repairing vehicle damage can be high, but only a rela- tively few accidents involve personal injury. It has been estimated by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety that the average cost of repairing vehicle damage from such accidents is $2,000. If insurance claims were filed for all accidents the average presumably would be lower. Of the 3,015 accidents reported in the study area from 1988 through 1995, per- sonal injuries, actual and claimed, occurred in 211 or seven (7) percent. The first fatality occurred in 1996--a motorcyclist on Valley View Road. · Residents are more concerned with deer-vehicle accidents than with any other type of conflict with deer. Eighty-four (84) percent of the respondents to the public opinion survey agreed with the statement I worry about hitting a deer on the road, six (6) percent were undecided. Responses to this statement were similar among all groups. These percentages of "agreed" are higher than those for residents' concerns with property damage or Lyme disease. The percentage for "undecided" also are lower which indicates greater awareness. Lyme Disease First discovered in Lyme, Connecticut, in 1976, Lyme disease produces flu-like and arthritic symptoms and may progress to more serious heart and nervous system abnormalities. Lyme disease is transmitted by the Black-legged Tick in its nymphal stage, largely during the summer months. Once called the Deer Tick, it is actually carried by various host mammals including mice as well as deer. The Black-legged tick now is most prevalent along the East Coast from Massachusetts to Virginia, in Pennsylvania and Illinois, and in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. · Only a few, almost insignificant number of cases of Lyme disease occur in Ohio. No Black-legged ticks were found on 1,183 deer examined in 1994 throughout the state (including Northeast Ohio) by the Ohio Department of Health. During the twelve years from 1984 through 1995, there were 458 cases of Lyme Disease reported throughout Ohio of which 53 were in Cuyahoga and Summit Counties. In 1995 alone, there were 30 cases reported in Ohio of which 9 were in Cuyahoga and Summit Counties. However, only 11 of the 30 statewide cases in 1995 were known to have been infections incurred within the state, the remainder either known to have been incurred out-of-state or at unknown locations. These numbers are too small to clearly indicate any trend, but they do not indi- cate the level of incidence which has been prevalent along the Eastern Seaboard of the United States where Lyme disease first was detected and where it is a sedous problem. . · About one-third of the residents of the study area are worded about Lyme disease, but many are undecided. Thirty-two (32) percent of the respondents to the public opinion survey agreed with the statement I worry that the deer near where I live may spread Lyme disease; twenty-nine (29) percent were undecided. Forty-nine (49) percent of those who see deer at least weekly on their property agreed with this statement; twenty (20) percent were undecided. Twenty (20) percent of those who never see deer on their property agreed with this statement; thirty-four (34) percent were undecided. Section 3 General Attitudes About Problems with Deer · Some residents regard deer as a nuisance. Eighteen (18) percent of the respondents to the public opinion survey agreed 35 with the statement I generally regard deer as a nuisance; fifteen (15) percent were undecided. Thirty-five (35) percent of those who see deer at least weekiy on their property agreed with this statement; seventeen (17) percent were undecided. Eight (8) percent of those who never see deer on their property agreed with this statement; eleven (11) percent were undecided. · More residents believe the number of deer is getting out of hand, Thirty-six (36) percent of the respondents to the public opinion survey agreed with the statement The deer population near where I live is getting out of hand; eighteen (18) percent were undecided. Sixty-four (64) percent of those who see deer at least weekly on their property agreed with this statement; eleven (11) percent were undecided. Seventeen (17) percent of those who never see deer on their property agreed with this statement; eighteen (18) percent were undecided. · A majority of residents believe problems are sufficient to warrant control of deer, Fifty-two (52) percent of the respondents to the public opinion survey agreed with the statement Problems are such that the deer population should be con- trolled; twenty-five (25) percent were undecided. Seventy-one (71) percent of those who see deer at least weekly on their property agreed with this statement; twelve (12) percent were undecided. Thirty-seven (37) percent of those who never see deer on their property agreed with this statement thirty-four (34) percent were undecided. Section 4 Density of Deer as an Indicator of Problems Deer population density levels or ranges can be used to establish management criteria. The decision to implement a specific management action is determined by the density levels at which deer begin to adversely affect natural or cultural resources. These levels can be defined in terms of two types of carrying capacities: biodiversity carrying capacity and cultural carrying capacity. · Biodiversity carrying capacity is the maximum number of deer that can exist without negatively affecting flora and fauna, When deer exceed the biodiversity carrying capacity, they reduce or eliminate plant and animal species. Biodiversity carrying capacity is not a single population den- sity level but rather a population density range, Some species are impacted at lower deer densities than others. For example, at densities of only 10-20 deer/sqL~are mile, some herbaceous and tree seedlings experience reduced height growth due to repeated deer browsing. At greater than 20 deer/square mile, deer browsing causes the decreased abundance or total elimination of some woody and herbaceous species. This loss of results in changes in species composition and decreases in species diversity. Deer browsing also reduces the ability of some plants to flower and reproduce. At greater than 20 deer/square mile, habitat for ground and shrub nesting birds is reduced result- ing in a decrease in the abundance and diversity of songbirds. At densities of greater than 40 deer/square mile, deer browsing have been shown to change the pattern of forest tree succession. Biodiversity carrying capacity can therefore be defined as a density range be- tween 10 and 40 deer/square mile. Local situations will determine the appropriate level at which deer are managed within that range. For example, if protecting a rare plant species is a management objective, it may be appropriate to manage the deer '- population at the Io~ver end of that range. If the type or variety of different plant and animal species is not important, it may be appropriate to manage the deer population at the upper end of that range. ~ · Cultural carrying capacity is the maximum number of deer that can coexist compatibly with local human populations. When deer exceed the Cultural carrying capacity. deer-vehicle accidents, crop depredation, and garden and landscape plant losses become unacceptable. A com- munity's cultural capacity depends on the importance and personal dsks that it associ- ates with these impacts. Because people's perceptions of these impacts are so vari- able, little research is available that defines cultural carrying capacity in terms of a specific deer density. Research in Gettysburg National Historical Park indicates that corn and winter wheat crop yields decrease at deer density levels of greater than 20 deer/square mile. In urban areas experiencing deer related problems, residents began expressing concerns about deer impacts and implementing management actions when deer den- sities ranged between 50 and 87 deer/square mile. 37 Reported deer population goals of urban areas throughout eastem U.S. gener- ally range between 20 and 45 deer/square mile. Local situations will determine the appropriate level at which deer are managed within that range. For example, an agricultural based community may choose to manage at the low end of the range to protect its economic investments. Another community whose economy is not impacted by deer browsing may choose to manage the herd at the upper end of the range. The decision to implement a deer management action and the type of deer managem, ent activity chosen will depend on how the current deer density relates to the carrying capacity ranges. If the deer density is lower than the biodiversity and cultural carrying capacity, a manager may choose to do nothing or initiate actions to prevent possible future conflicts such as developing safe ddving practice programs, installing deer crossing signs, discouraging public feeding of deer, or educating the public on using landscape plants that are less palatable to deer. 81oorv'-r,~sr'tY A,",[O CULTURAL CAgJ~YING CAPACITY LEVELS 50 30 CULTURAL CA.ct~'tlNG CA,oAC,~rY DEER DENStrY 0EF, P,~Q. MILE 20 'r BIODIVER~II'Y CARRYING CA,oACII'~ Figure 7: Levels of Impact by Ranges of Deer Population Density. 38 At the lower end of the carTying capacity ranges (see Figure 7), a manager may take measures which address the impacts but do not control the total deer population such as using taste and odor repellents, fencing or removing nuisance individuals or family groups. At the upper end of the can'ying capacity range, impacts cannot generally be mitigated without controlling the deer population. At this level, management options such as sharp-shooting, public hunting, controlled hunting and capture and euthanasia should be considered. · The overall density of deer in the study area already exceeds biodiversity carrying capacity and is well into the range of cultural carrying capacity. From the aedal survey of the study area the deer population is estimated to be 6,043 in 1994-95. The study area is 178.45 square miles. This is an overall study area density of neady 34 deer per square mile. By the year 2000, it is projected that the deer population will about double (see Chapter II, Section 3) giving an overall density of about 68 deer per square mile. · The deer population is not evenly distributed but is concentrated in certain areas. The aerial survey provided counts of observable deer in nine sections of the study area. See Figure 8. Assuming seventy (70) percent of the deer were observed in each section, which is the estimate for the entire study area, these counts translate into a range of densities from 4 to neady 73 deer per square mile in two sections with a range of 30 to neady 43 deer per square mile in most of the remaining sections. If the projected increase in the deer population were spread evenly over the study area, these densities by aerial survey section would about double. The deer pellet count survey reveals a more defined distribution of the 1995-96 winter deer population. In Figure 9, the concentrations of pellet group counts are shown graphically in seven graduated steps from zero (white areas) to greater than 85 (black area). The greater the concentration of pellet group counts, the greater the pre- sumed density of the deer population. Figure 8: Deer Population Density by f995 Aerial Survey Section. 40 ~ i:.: iL.j;Lj:'i'!?=..::.:::":::"::~"':.'~.-i..,...= i .-::: .: '>..: '::~:..=:~:: i..:.;..;. ~:!,'%,,~. '~' "' ] . ~ ~.. ~l'..x..:~, .. :::.,~., ,~: .. ;:~" .~,, ~' L ....: ~ ~ ' :,. ,.:~'" '~::~.., s"" ."..:: .'.,.:::~:~ ~ .............. . . ;. . . ..~ ~'.~ :..'.. ... ~~ f. ~ : ::'Z?..':',: ........,.,.:...::= : ~. , ..... .,~., · ; ......, ,: .... . ',~ ':,,~ ................ ~ .......~.'~....,~..,~.~. ... ::_:,.~,~ ~'....~...:...~:...,.~.,.,.~: .... - ~ d_ ,... ~ ,...~' ~ '::'--.. ~ ~- ...../ .. ,~ .....~, .. ' : ~ ....'/' ' ~ ~ : S' ! .......~ '~"l ' "" ' ~ , ~ ' %~; I ....: ~ -' ' ,.~ . *~ ': ::::::::::::::::::::::::::'..~:',...,-~-:..-.:/.. .....~'. ..... .:::..:..:..:.,,~.)..., ........ :" : i · I ' ..... ~.~-~ [..::....~ .... :'~ ,:.,'. .... Figure 9: Distribution of Number of Deer Pellet Groups, Winter 1995-96. Chapter IV Wildlife Management Regulations and Programs In the Council's resolution creating the task force. one of the stated objectives is "to inventory federal, state, and local government regulations and programs relating to wildlife management." Wildlife management, as such, is performed in the study area principally by the Ohio Division of Wildlife, the national park, and the metropark districts. However, since public sport hunting is the traditional method of wildlife management--at least for managing the size of a wildlife population--the relevant regulations of local govern- ments are within the scope of such an inventory. Section 1 Ohio Division of Wildlife The Division of Wildlife, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, has authority and responsibility for wildlife management on public and pdvate properties throughout the state. · The State of Ohio has ownership of all wild animals in the state. Section 1531.02 of the Ohio Revised Code provides as follows: The ownership of and title to all wild animals in this state, not legally confined or held by private ownership legally acquired, is in the state, which holds such title in trust for the benefit of aft the people. : z~3 · Individuals may possess or hunt wild animals only with the per- mission of the Ohio Division of Wildlife. Section 1531.02 of the Ohio Revised Code further provides, as follows: IndiVidual possession [of wildlife] shall be obtained only in accordance with the Revised Code or division of wildlife orders. No persons shad at any time of the year take in any manner or possess any number or quantity of wild animals, except such wild animals as the Revised Code or division orders permit to be taken, hunted, killed, or had in possession, and only at such time and place, and in such manner, as the Revised Code or division orders prescribe. · The Division seeks a balance between recreational opportunities and conflicts with human activities. As stated in the Division's brochure entitled Deer Harvest Managemen~ Our deer management goal is to provide a deer population that will allow maximum recreational opportunity while minimizing conflicts between agri- culture, motor travel, and other areas of human endeavor. · The Division determines appropriate deer population levels in each of Ohio's counties. The determination of appropriate deer population levels is made for each of Ohio's eighty-eight counties. The current population in each county iS estimated by a vadety of methods: analysis of hunting harvest results from checking stations, reported deer-vehicle accidents, and snow track and aedal surveys in selected areas. Since 1979, appropriate levels have been determined from periodic surveys of rural land- owners throughout the state and, in twenty-five more urban counties, from rates of deer-vehicle accidents. · The Division establishes and enforces hunting regulations to meet appropriate deer population levels. Public sport hunting traditionally has been the principal means of managing the size of deer populations and remains so in most, especially rural, areas. Vadous types of hunting regulation control the degree of population control. These types of regulations include the time and length of hunting seasons, the areas in which hunting is permitted, the type of hunting device which can be used, and the number and sex of ; deer which can be harvested. Sex is significant because reducing the number of fe- male deer (does) has a greater effect on lowering the rate of population growth than reducing the number of male deer (bucks). Since in the fall hunting seasons all bucks except yearlings have antlers, for ease of hunter obsen/ation regulations may permit harvesting more or only antlerless deer to achieve this effect. For 1996-97, there are four hunting seasons in Ohio, as follows: 1) The Archery Season opens on October 5 and closes on January 31 for all permit holders. Subject to permit limitations (see below) buck or antlerless deer may be taken only by longbow or crossbow throughout the state. 2) The Gun Season opens on December 2 and closes on December 14 ex- cept in the twenty-one counties of northwest Ohio where it closes on December 7 for all permit holders. Subject to permit limitations, buck or antlerless deer may be taken by shotgun with one ball or slug per barrel, muzzleloading rifle, handgun, longbow, or crossbow. 3) The Statewide Primitive Season opens on December 26 and closes on January 2 only for holders of certain types of permits. Subject to permit limitations, buck or antlerless deer may be taken by muzzleloading shotgun or rifle, longbow, or crossbow. 4) The Special Primitive Season opens on October 21 and closes on October 26 for all permit holders but only in special primitive areas at Salt Fork Wildlife Area, Shawnee State Forest, and Wolf Creek Wildlife Area. Only bucks may be taken by muzzleloading shotgun or rifle, longbow, or crossbow. During all of the above seasons, hunting is not permitted on Sundays. Further regulation is exercised through types of hunting permits, as follows: 1) A Deer Huntin.cl Permit is the basic permit required of all hunters. It is valid during any of the hunting seasons and allows the taking of a single deer of either sex except only a buck dudng the special primitive hunting season. 2) A Special Manac~ement Antledess Deer Hunting Permit may be purchased in addition to the Deer Hunting Permit, but not separately. It is valid dudng all but the Special Primitive Hunting Season and allows the taking of a single antiedess deer. This permit may be used in Lucas County during the second week of the Gun Season 45 when the season is otherwise closed to hunting. 3) An Urban Deer Huntincl Permit may be purchased in addition to the Deer Hunting Permit, but not separately. It is valid dudng all but the Special Primitive Hunt- ing Season but only in the five designated Urban Deer Hunting Permit Zones (see be- low). Each Urban Deer Hunting Permit, up to a limit of four in addition to a Deer Hunt- ing Permit or three in addition to a Deer Hunting Permit and a Special Management Antlerless Hunting Permit, allows the taking of a single antlerless deer. Under the above season and permit regulations, a hunter could be permitted to harvest either one antlered and four antledess deer or five antledess deer. · The annual harvest of deer reflects the Division's hunting regula- tions as well as the growing size of the deer population. While the annual sport hunting harvest of deer in Ohio was neady stable dudng the 1950s and 1960s, it began to increase in the 1970s and has increased neady twelvefold to 179,543 deer from 1975 to 1995. This reflects the growing size of the deer population dudng this pedod. See Figure 10. But it also reflects Changes in hunting regulations over this period which have step-by-step permitted greater hunting harvests. As stated in the Division's publication entitled Deer Harvest Mana~Ternenr. In the mid-1960's and early 1970% when deer populations were low, maximum herd growth was achieved through a buck-only hunting regulation. In the fg70's and early 1980% as deer populations began to approach optimum levels, limited antle~ess deer hunting through a permit system resulted in a slower rate of population growth. In the 1980% an unrestricted either-sex regulation was implemented which further slowed herd growth. Recently, the traditional one deer bag limit was increasec~ to include one antlerless deer by limited special permit. This was done in an effort to stabilize or reduce deer numbers and bring county populations more in line with optimum levels. Subsequent changes in hunting regulations have permitted larger harvests. · The Division has instituted an Urban Deer Zone Hunting Permit to allow further deer population reduction in major metropolitan areas. Instituted in 1994, the Urban Deer Hunting Permit allows hunters to take addi- i Ohio Deer Harvest, 1955-95 160 140 ~ '~' 120 ,0 ~ 100 / E ~ ~80 60 20 _-. , '55, '60 '65 '70 '75 '80 '85 '90 '95 Year Figure 1 O: Deer Harvest from Public Sport Hunting in Ohio, 1955-95. tional antlerless deer in those portions of five metropolitan areas which are designated as Urban Deer Zones. All of the study area is within the Cleveland-Akron Urban Deer Zone which includes portions of Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage, Stark, and Summit Counties. The other four zones are in the Cincinnati-Dayton, Columbus, Toledo, and Youngstown areas. The purpose of this new permit is to allow further reduction of the deer popula- tion through public sport hunting in these more urbanized areas where the deer popu- lation has grown to the level of creating conflicts with human activities. In 1995, there were 23,835 deer harvested in the five Urban Deer Zones by hunters holding all types of permits; about two-thirds were antlerless. This was more than thirteen (13) percent of the total statewide harvest in all areas. In the Akron- Cleveland Urban Deer Zone, also in 1995, there were 9,373 deer harvested by hunt- ers holding all types of permits; again, about two-thirds were antlerless. 'This was about thirty-nine (39) percent of the total statewide harvest in all Urban Deer Zones, and was greater than the harvest in any of the other zones. However, the harvest in Cuyahoga and Summit Counties was a small portion of the total in the Akron-Cleveland Urban Deer Zone: 245 in Cuyahoga County (1994) and 756 in Summit County (1994). Antlerless deer taken under a Urban Deer Hunting Permit was still smaller: 38 in Cuyahoga County (1994) and 71 in Summit County (1994). · Written permission of landowners is required for hunting on private property, and landowners are protected by state law from liabilities. The Division requires that hunters obtain the written permission of landowners to hunt on private property, and makes available permission slips for this purpose. Landowners who permit hunting on their property are protected by the state's recreation users law in Section 1533.181 of the Ohio Revised Code, as follows: No owner, lessee, or occupant of premises (1) owes any duty to a recreational user to keep premises safe for entry or use, (2) extends any assurance to a re- creational user, through the act of giving permission, that the premises are safe for entry or use, and (3) assumes responsibility for or incurs liability for any in- jury to person or property caused by any act of a recreational user. · The Division holds special controlled deer hunts in selected areas. The Division holds special controlled deer hunts in the fall months in selected areas both to provide added control of the deer population in these areas and also to provide special hunting opportunities for women and young people. None of these areas are within the study area. · The Division issues Deer Damage Control Permits. On properties with substantial and ongoing problems, and where conditions are otherwise suitable, the Division may issue Deer Damage Control Permits to land- owners to permit them to reduce the number of deer on their property. Such a permit specifies the pedod of time during which action may be taken and the number of deer which may be removed. Standard provisions of each permit also require the permittee to conform with any applicable local government regulations and to attempt to make arrangements for any more than four killed deer to be provided to needy families. ,~8 There currently are fourteen (14) holders of such permits in the study area: twelve (12) in the Summit County portion, two (2) in the Cuyahoga County portion. · The Division analyzes deer population conditions and provides management assistance to local governments and individuals. At its Waterloo Research Station in New Marshfield, the Division collects, monitors, and analyzes data about the deer population and hunting hapvests; and periodically conducts surveys of landowner opinions about the size of the deer population in Ohio's counties. Wildlife management personnel in each of the Division's five wildlife districts are available to provide technical assistance to public agencies, local governments, and individual property owners. Section 2 National Park Service The National Park Service, United States Department of the Interior, adminis- ters the Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area, a unit of the national park system, which was authorized by the Congress in 1974 and formally established in 1975. Its boundaries, also authorized by the Congress, encompass just over 50 square miles in Cuyahoga and Summit Counties. The federal government has acquired about one- third of this area to fulfill the purposes of the national park; much of the remaining area includes metropark reservations, Hale Farm & Village, and the Blossom Music Center and other recreation uses whose ownership, public or private, will remain unchanged as long as they continue as so-called "compatible uses"'. · Wildlife management in the Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area is subject to national laws, regulations, policies and guide- lines. In wildlife management within the national park, the National Park Service is governed by the same national laws, regulations, policies and guidelines that govern other units of the national park system. These are set forth in general laws enacted by the Congress and the rules and regulations which are promulgated by the Secre- tary of the Intedor pursuant to those laws. For some units of the national park system, the specific law enacted by the Congress to authorize the unit may modify the general laws, and the relevant rules and regulations, as they apply to that unit. In the case of 49 the Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area, the authorizing law (Public Law 93- 555, as amended) makes no modifications with respect to wildlife management; and, thus, this unit is subject to the general laws, regulations, policies and guiclelines. Under the supremacy clause in Article VI of the US Constitution,. federal authority overrides the authorities of state and local governments but only in reference to fedorally-owned lands. · The general law governing units of the national park system re- quires the conservation of wildlife. The National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, which i's the general law governing management of all units of the national park system, except as may be modified in the authorizing law for any unit, provides as follows: The Service shaft promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas ... by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose ... to con- serve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. · The objective of the National Park Service is to perpetuate native animals as part of the natural ecosystem. The rules and regulations of the Secretary of the Interior provide as follows: The National Park Service will seek to perpetuate the native animal life (mam- mals, birds, reptiles, fish, insects, worms, crustaceans, etc.) as pad of the na- tural ecosystems of parks. Management emphasis will be on minimizing hu- man impacts on natural animal population dynamics. The native animal life is defined as all animal species that as a result of natural processes occur or oc- curred on lands now designated as a park. Any species that have moved onto park lands directly or indirectly as the result of human activities are not con- .. sidered native. · Native animals shall be protected from human action. Native animal populations will be protected against harvest, removal, destruc- tion, harassment, or harm through human action. Individual animals within a population may be removed only when hunting and trapping are permitted by law; fishing is not specifically prohibited; control of specific animal populations ; 50 is required for park ecosystem maintenance; removal or control of animals is necessary for human safety and health or to protect property or landscaped areas; removal is part of an NPS research project described in an approved resource management p/an or is part of research being conducted by others who have been issued an appropriate collection permit; removal will restore native populations in other parks or cooperating areas without diminishing the viabi/ity of the populations from which the animals are taken. · Natural processes will be relied upon to the greatest possible extent. Natural processes will be relied on to control populations of native species to the greatest extent possible. Unnatural concentrations of native species caus- ed by human activib~s may be controlled if the activities causing the concentra- tions cannot be controlled. Nonnative (exotic) species will not be allowed to displace native species if this displacement can be prevented by management. · Control actions may be taken only if justified by sufficient informat- ion. Animal populations or individuals wi// be controlled in natural, cultural, and de- velopment zones when they present a direct threat to visitor safety and health, and in cutrural and development zones when necessary to protect property or landscaped areas. The decision to initiate a control program will be based on scientifically valid resource information obtained through research. Planning and implementation of control ac~'ons will comply with established planning pro- cedures, including provisions for public review and comment. Where persistent human/animal conflict problems exist, a determination will be made of whether or not curtailing or modifying visitor use and other human activib~s might be a more desirable alternative. The need for, and results of, controlling animal populations will be evaluated and documented by research studies and in the natural resource management p/an. Such studies will assess the impacts of the COn/TO/methods on nontargeted as well as targeted components of the eco- system. · Only certain control measures are permitted. Other management measures that may be used as necessary, separately or to- gether, include live trapping for transplanting elsewhere, gathering of research specimens for NPS and cooperating scientists, public hunting on lands outside the park, habitat management, predator establishment, sterilization, and des- truction by NPS personnel or their authorized agents. In controlling wildlife 51 populations, highest priority will be given to encouraging public hunting outside the parks and live trapping for transplanting elsewhere. Section 3 Metropark Districts Two metropark districts serve portions of the study area: Cleveland Metroparks in Cuyahoga County and Metro Parks, Serving Summit County in that county. These districts are organized under enabling statutes of the State of Ohio found in Chapter 1545 of the Ohio Revised Code. These enabling statutes do not restrict a district"s conduct of wildlife management activities. However, a district is subject to any other applicable state laws and regulations such as those pertaining to and exercised by the Ohio Division of VVildlife. Otherwise, a district may exercise inde- pendent authority in wildlife management. · The metropark districts in the study area have similar policies which generally seek to conserve native wildlife. Cleveland Metroparks has the following policies: 1) Objective is to preserve all the resources of northeast Ohio as part of eco- systems. 2) Natural processes will be relied on to control populations of native animal species to the greatest extent possible. 3) Public hunting is not currently permitted. 4) Individual animals or animal populations will be controlled when they pre- sent a danger to the health and safety of visitors or if unnatural concentrations result in unacceptable damage to other species or the ecosystem as a whole. Metro Parks, Serving Summit County, has the following policies: 1) The objective of the Metro Parks resource management practice is to preserve all the resources of the Park District as part of ecosystems. 2) Natural processes will be relied upon to control populations of plant and animal species. 52 3) However, when natural processes alone cannot be relied upon to protect ecosystems from plant or animal populations then control practices will be used. 4) Control methods to be used will take into con'sideration safety, effective- ness, cost, availability of technology, park uses, surrounding land use patterns and the experience of other resource management agencies in the area. 5) Individual plants and animals or plant and animal populations will be con- trolled when they present a danger to the health or safety of visitors, they reach un- natural concentrations resulting in unacceptable damage to other species or eco- systems, or they create excessive damage to park lands or adjacent pdvate property. Section 4 Municipalities (Cities and Villages) All or a portion of the jurisdictions of twenty-one (21) municipalities (cities and villages) are within the study area. In Cuyahoga County, these include the cities of Bedford, Bedford Heights, Brecksville, Broadview Heights, Brooklyn Heights, Garfield Heights, Independence, Maple Heights, and Seven Hills, and the villages of Oakwood, .. Valley View and Walton Hills. In Summit County, they include the cities of Akron, Cuyahoga Falls, Faidawn, Hudson, and Macedonia, and the villages of Boston Heights, Northfield, Peninsula, and Richfield. Under the "home rule" provisions of Article XVIII, Section 3, of the Ohio Consti- tution, municipalities may enact such regulations as are not in conflict with state laws. · Public sport hunting is prohibited by regulations which have been enacted by all municipalities in the study area. All municipalities in the study area have enacted regulations either explicitly prohibiting hunting or prohibiting the discharge of firearms, use of archery, or other devices used in hunting. With the merger of the City of Cuyahoga Falls and Northampton Township in 1991, the city's regulations were amended to permit hunting in that part of the city formerly under the jurisdiction of the township. 53 The City of Brecksville, under certain conditions, permits hunting by bow and arrow. Huntino requlated. (a) The hunting of animals or fowl within the Municipality is prohibited. No person shall hunt, kill or attempt to kill any animal or fowl by use of firearms. bow and arrow, crossbow, or any other means. (b) Notwithstanding the above subsection, hunting by means of a bow and arrow only, shall be per- mitted within the Municipality provided that a proper permit has been issued by the State of Ohm or other governing authority and the Safety Director of this Municipality, and provided further that such hunting is conducted upon, single parcels of land, five acres in size or greater and with the owner's permission. The Safety Director shall not authorize hunt~bg upon any lands where, in his opinion, such hunting would constitute a potential hazard to the safety of per- sons or property. (c) Whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree. [Section 505.15 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Brecksville, amended November 1, 1994] · The Village of Peninsula permits, under certain conditions, removal of deer when a state Deer Damage Control Permit has been issued. The hunting of animals or fowl within the Municipality is prohibited. No percon shall hunt, kill, or attempt to kill any animal or fowl by the use of firearms or any other means. However, nothing in this section shall be deemed to prohibit the killing of rats or other undesirable rodents authorized to be kifted by the Chief of Police. Furthermore, the Chief may approve the hunting of deer pro- vided: (1) Such hunting is conducted pursuant to a Deer Damage Control Per- mit issued by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of W~ldrd~e, subject to any limitations in said Permit; (2) Such hunting is conducted from tree stands, located at least 175 yards from the boundary of any school proper- ty and by using a crossbow with a draw weight not less than 75 pounds nor more than 200 pounds; (3) No one who has been convicted of a felony shall engage in the hunt; (4) No person shall discharge a crossbow within 300 feet of any private structure and 600 feet from a public structure (school building, etc.) that is not the propert), of the recipient of the Deer Damage Control Per- mit; (5) No person shall discharge a crossbow or engage in hunting during re- gular school hours or at the time of scheduled school activities; (6) All hunters must register with the Peninsula Police and show proof of attending the Ohio Hunter Safety Education Course; (7) The permit holder provides evidence upon request of liability insurance in the amount of $1,000, 000. 00; and (8) The per- mit holder provides evidence upon request that the land upon which the hunt will be conducted comprises 25 acres or more. [Section 618.12(a) of the General Offenses Code of the Village of Peninsula, amended May 13, 1996] 54 : Section 5 Townships All of the jurisdictions of five (5) townships are within the study area. All within Summit County, they are the townships of Bath, Boston: Northfield Center, Richfield, and Sagamore Hills. Ohio townships may enact only such regulations as are explicitly authorized by state law. · Hunting is permitted in all townships within the study area. Ohio townships lack explicit statutory authority to regulate hunting or to prohibit the discharge of firearms or use of archery. As elsewhere. hunting is subject to regu- lations of the Ohio Division of Wildlife and, also, to written permission of the land- OWrleF. 55 ; Chapter V Reducing Conflicts with Deer The question of controlling the size of the deer population as a means of re- ducing conflicts with the human population is considered in Chapter VI. However, as long as any deer remain in the area, they will continue to cause such problems as are described in Chapter III. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider measures for reduction of conflicts for those areas or properties which will continue to experience conflicts with deer. These are evaluated in this chapter and recommendations are made for more effective use of certain measures. Section I Evaluation of Measures to Reduce Conflicts The following summary evaluation of measures to reduce conflicts with deer was drawn from a review of published reports from wildlife research institutions and community organizations such as the task force from throughout the country. This summary was included in the booklet distributed at the Open House. in October 1995. The pros [v'] and cons [X] are presented for each measure. · Refrain from Feedin_Q is not placing feed in yards either. to attract or to provide food for deer. v' Eliminates artificial stimulants to growth in the deer population in the overall areas. 57 Avoids increased numbers and concentration of deer in damage-prone areas. Eliminates food sources which generally do not contribute to health of deer. v' Removes influence which may alter normal deer behavior (travel pat- terns, feeding habits, etc.) Reduces enjoyment of those who enjoy seeing deer. If restricted by local government regulations, enforcement could be diffi- cult. · Selected Plant Materials is the use of plant species which are known to be less attractive to deer. Reduces damage from deer foraging. Lessens need for other protective measures. Few if any plant species are entirely "deer-proof". Attractiveness of plant materials to deer is relative to availability of other food sources. Limits landowners' choice of plant materials. May require replacement of existing plantings. · Roadway Controls include such measures as deer crossing signs, clearance of roadside foliage to improve sight distances, and fenc- ing. Posting of deer crossing signs already is a common practice along roadways at locations with concentrations of deer crossings and a high incidence of deer-vehicle accidents. Clearance of foliage within rights-of-way now is undertaken with some 58 regularity along many roadways. Deer crossing signs are simply cautionary with no associated regula- tions (speed, passing, etc.). Costs of installation of deer crossing signs, periodic inspection of condi- tion, and replacement. Clearance of foliage along roadways with narrow rights-of-way may be insufficient to significantly improve sight distances. Costs of clearance of foliage periodically during growing season. Effective roadway fencing may simply shift locations of deer crossings. High costs Of installing and maintaining effective fencing over long dis- tances. · Safe Ddvinq Practices are practices to avoid hitting deer crossing the roadway and, also, to avoid associated accidents with other vehicles. ' v' Minimal cost of public education to explain simple-to-understand prac- tices (observing deer crossing signs, reducing speed, avoiding abrupt stops or swerving, being alert to additional deer, etc.). Will not prevent all deer/vehicle collisions since deer often appear sud- denly in roadway and move furtively. Not all drivers will adhere to safe practices. · Odor and Taste Repe!ients are materials applied either directly to plant materials or to surrounding areas of substances whose taste or odor is repellent to deer. v' May be helpful in reducing deer damage, especially if used before foraging habits are established. Low-cost and "home-grown" materials (bars of soap, rotten egg mix- 59 tures, etc.) can be used. Commercial materials also are generally available. No special skills or equipment usually required for application. May often reduce but generally does not eliminate deer damage. Requires frequent re-application as plants mature and are washed by rainfall. Usually cost-effective only for small areas or for high-value plantings such as small gardens and ornamental plantings. May be ignored by deer if alternative food sources are scarce, e.g., in winter months or in areas of large deer population. May also repel wanted species. Some repellents may render edible crops unpalatable. · Noise or Visual Scare Deterrents are devices (scarecrows, gas ex- ploders, dogs, etc.) which scare or visually deter deer from enter- ing or staying in an area. Like odor or taste repellents, may be helpful in reducing deer damage, especially if used before foraging habits are established. Can be a useful temporary expedient before more effective measures are taken. Generally more suitable and cost-effective for large areas of agricultural crops. Some devices, especially gas exploders or unleashed dogs, often are not permitted in suburban settings. Type, location and/or noise intervals need to be frequently altered be- 60 cause deer soon become accustomed to situation. x May also drive away wanted animal species such as songbirds. Recent research by the Ohio State Highway Patrol indicates limited effectiveness of high frequency whistles on vehicles to deter deer collisions. Fencincl, normal or electdried, is a measure to exclude deer from selected areas. Probably the single most effective method for protecting selected areas. Can be designed also to exclude other nuisance species. Normal fencing must be at least 8-feet high to be effective and thus may be too costly for large areas or may not be permitted by zoning regulations (or is unsightly) in suburban areas. Etectdc fencing may not be permitted or may be otherwise deemed un- desirable by homeowners in suburban areas. Electric fencing, while less costly to construct, requires frequent main- tenance to remove plant growth or debris from shorting the electric cur- rent; and, of course, requires an uninterrupted source of power to be ef- fective. Shifts and concentrates deer in other areas. · Interceptive Feeding is providing food at strategic locations to di- vert deer from problem areas. May alleviate sedous problems in selected areas. Costs can be high for foodstuffs and manpower for frequent re-stocking at strategic locations. May actually draw more deer into general area. 61 May shift problem to adjoining areas. Concentrates deer at feeding site which can hasten spread of disease or parasites. May improve health and thereby increase deer population. · Drivincl Deer from Problem Areas is driving or chasing deer from an area suffering from deer-related problems. Immediate reduction of problem. v' Low cost for small areas, especially if volunteers are available. Only a temporary solution because deer will return to area. High cost for large areas, especially if volunteers are not available. Inability to conduct in difficult terrain such as dense undercover or steep ravines. Poses danger to drivers either from obstacles in terrain or from reaction of deer. · Nuisance Removal is shooting a limited number of deer on a speci- fic property under a special permit issued upon a finding of serious deer-related damage. v' Such a program already is being administered by the Ohio Division of Wildlife which may issue a Deer Damage Control Permit to property owners suffering substantial damage. Provides immediate relief from deer-related damage. Conditions can be imposed to assure safety and humane treatment (licensed marksmen, "quick and clean" kill, etc.). Application to a single property has limited effectiveness if it is surround- ed by a large deer population. 62 Usually will require repeated use every year. Unsuitable in densely populated areas. May be restricted by local ordinances prohibiting discharge of firearms or use of bow and arrow. Section 2 Recommended Measures to Reduce Conflicts Refrain from Feeding · Property owners should refrain from placing feed in yards either to attract or to provide food for deer. Some property owners who enjoy seeing deer, including some who wish to pro- vide supplementary food for deer, place foodstuffs in their yards for this or these pur- poses. Specially designed commercial products are available which are particularly at- tractive to deer. Even if the 'individual property owner engaging in this practice is willing to risk or suffer the damage the attracted deer may cause to their landscaping and gardens, the same deer often will also be attracted to the property of neighbors who are not so tolerant of such damage. Also, it is doubtful that such supplementary feeding contri- butes significantly to the nutritional needs of deer. A public education program should be undertaken to inform residents of the disadvantages of this practice to themselves and to their neighbors and to discourage its continuance. If voluntary compliance is not successful, some local governments may wish to enact ordinances to prohibit the purposeful feeding of deer. The park units in the study area already prohibit by regulation the feeding of deer. Selected Plant Materials · Information should be made available to property owners about plant materials which are less attractive to deer. 63 Under conditions of natural food shortage, deer will forage on most any plant materials; but, even under normal conditions, deer will seek out certain plant species found in home landscaping and gardens. However, there are plant species which are known to be less attractive to deer and which they will tend to avoid under normal conditions. Use of these less attractive species of plant materials, either in new or replace- ment plantings, will reduce the attraction of deer not only to individual properties but also to neighboring properties. Many landscape nurseries already provide this information. It should also be made available through local governments and public libraries. Odor and Taste Repellents · Similarly, information should be made available to property owners about repeilents and deterrents which help prevent deer damage to plant materials. A variety of odor and taste repellents can help prevent deer damage to plant materials by making them offensive or less attractive to deer. None are totally effec- tive, and, because of rainfall wash-off, most require repeated applications to the plant materials. Still, they can be helpful and are suitable for use in residential as well as agricultural and-commercial situations. There are also several noise and scare devices and techniques, such as scare- crows, gas exploders, and tethered dogs, which may deter deer from approaching a protected area. However, many of these measures themselves create a nuisance and will not all be suitable in residential situations. Many landscape nurseries already provide this information as well as the de- vices, themselves. The information also should be made available through local governments and public libraries. Fencing · Local governments should consider appropriate revisions to zon- ing regulations to permit installation of effective fencing to protect areas from deer damage to plant materials in residential areas. 64 .2 Sturdy, 8-foot high fences and electric fences, if regularly maintained, are effec- tive in keeping deer out of protected areas. Such fences. especially electric fences, will not b:e appropriate in all communi- ties or in all zoning districts within a community. Nor will some individual property owners, even if permitted, wish to install and maintain such fences because of cost or appearance. They are probably most appropriate for large garden plots in rear yards, for example. Yet there are some situations where this form of property protection could be permitted and may be used. Each community and individual property owner can best judge the circumstances. Roadway Controls · Undergrowth should be regularly cleared within rights-of-way or on adjacent public lands at all locations along roadways where there has been a high incidence of deer-vehicle accidents. Many deer-vehicle accidents occur because the driver has little warning of deer entedng the roadway, especially when nearby undergrowth obstructs the ddver's view. Deer warning signs should posted and maintained at all locations along roadways where there has been a high incidence of deer- vehicle accidents. Deer warning signs do not in themselves prevent accidents but do alert the driver to exercise due caution. High incidence locations can be identified from data of reported accidents col- lected by the Ohio Department of Public Safety. From this source, the locations of reported deer-vehicle accidents for the years 1988 through 1995 are shown in Figure 5 in Chapter Ill. Maps of the locations for each of these years are presented in the Appendix. State, county, and local governments should consider installing deer warning signs augmented with reflectors at locations with an especially high incidence of re- ported accidents; and, even, with flashing lights which are activated during the rutting season from October through December when more than half of such accidents nor- mally occur. 65 Nuisance Removal · Municipalities should modify any regulations prohibiting the dis- charge of firearms or use of archery to permit removal of deer on properties for which the owner has obtained a Deer Damage Con- trol Permit from the Ohio Division of Wildlife. The Ohio Division of Wildlife issues Deer Damage Control Permits to land- owners suffering severe deer damage on their property. Such permits impose vadous restrictions including a limit on the number of deer which can be removed in a year. In municipalities where the discharge of firearms or use of archery is prohibited, these permits may not be exercised. In some if not all municipal areas the exercise of such state permits would be safe, although restrictions in addition to those imposed by the state may be appropri- ate to further safeguard residents. The ordinance adopted by the Village of Peninsula to allow the exercise of such permits is presented in Chapter IV. 66 Chapter VI Controlling the Deer Population Controlling the size of the deer population in the study area is recommended for the reasons, toward the objectives, by the methods, and by the process of imple- mentation and monitoring which are presented in this chapter. Section 1 Reasons for Control · Measures to reduce conflicts will not completely solve problems. Measures to reduce conflicts with deer, even strengthened as recommended in Chapter V, will not provide a total solution to problems. The problem of deer damage to residential plantings can be reduced by refrain- ing from feeding, selecting deer-resistant plant materials, and using odor and taste re- pellents; but these measures will not usually eliminate the problem. Adequate fencing can be effective but will not be acceptable in many situations because of appearance and cost. Nuisance removal by shooting, even where permitted by local regulations, has limited application in higher density residential areas owing to consideration of safety. These measures are similarly limited for protection of farm crops. Fencing may be more acceptable if the value of the crop justifies the expense. Nuisance removal can be used safely and effectively on larger properties or cooperatively by adjacent property owners, but its use and associated expense must be periodically repeated. 67 The recommendations presented in Chapter V to strengthen measures to re- duce deer-vehicle accidents will not eliminate the problem. Achieving the desirable objective of reducing such accidents, which usually result in the death of the deer, will have the ironic effect of increasing the size of the deer population and the extent of the other deer-related problems. · The extent of problems supports the need to reduce the deer popu- lation. The findings on the nature and extent of problems are fully presented in Chap- ter III. In summary, they are as follows: 1) A significant number of residents are suffering sedous damage by deer to their home landscaping and gardens. While only thirteen (13) percent of the respond- ents to the public opinion survey reported serious damage, this is not an insignificant number, and the problem certainly is significant to them. And where deer are more prevalent, thirty-four (34) percent reported sedous damage. 2) Crop damage is a major concern of farmers. Fifty-two (52) percent of the respondents to the farm deer damage survey reported extensive or moderate damage. Among those conducting farming on larger properties, the proportion was seventy- seven (77) percent. 3) Park units are beginning to experience serious damage to the natural re- sources they are established to protect. 4) The annual number of reported deer-vehicle accidents has more than doubled since 1988 and perhaps as many more are unreported. Repair costs are high and the first case of death from such an accident has occurred. Eighty-four (84) percent of the respondents to the public opinion survey are concemed with this prob- lem, more than for any other type of deer-related problem. 5) While the incidence of Lyme disease presently is insignificant in this area, thirty-two (32) percent of the respondents to the public opinion survey nevertheless are concerned; forty-nine (49) percent in areas where deer are more prevalent. 6) Deer densities, current and projected, exceed biodiversity carrying capacity and are well above the lower limit of cultural carrying capacity. These are both indicators of problems having reached or gone beyond thresholds of tolerance· · There is public support for deer population control. Most of the residents of this area have favorable attitudes toward deer yet be- lieve they pose a problem. Eighteen (18) percent of th~ respondents to the public opinion survey believe deer are a nuisance; thirty-five (35) percent in areas where deer are more prevalent. Thirty-six (36) believe the population is getting out of hand; sixty-four (64) percent in areas where they are more prevalent. According to tlie public opinion survey, at least a majority of residents in this area agree with a need for deer population control. Fifty-two (52) percent agree that problems warrant control; seventy-one (71) percent in areas of greater deer concentra- tion. It should be noted that in the survey item eliciting this response no method of control was suggested. It may reasonably be assumed that many persons would not support methods of control which are unsafe, inhumane, extreme in amount of reduc- tion, or too costly. · Action should not be delayed. The longer control action is delayed, the larger the deer population will be- come, the greater will be conflicts with human activities, and the more costly such ac- tion will become. Section 2 Control Objectives · A high priority and specific objective should be deer population control in critical problem areas which are readily identifiable. Cdtical problem areas include areas surrounding roadway segments which ex- perience a high incidence of reported deer-vehicle accidents. These segments can be identified from local police records or, annually, from these same records as they are assembled by the Crash Records Division of the Ohio Department of Public Safety. Critical problem areas also include agricultural, residential or commercial areas which regularly experience a sedous degree of deer damage to farm crops, ornament- al landscaping. and other plantings where nuisance removal on individual properties by the property owner, as described in Chapter V, is not sufficient or feasible either because such action needs to be taken on more than a single property to be effective or because of limitations of local regulations. · A general objective over larger areas should be a population of 20- 40 deer per square mile. This objective is based upon the concept of cultural carrying capacity which is a general indicator of problems in an urban area. See the discussion of this concept in Chapter III, Section 4. From the 1995 aerial survey it is estimated that the overall density in the study was 34 deer per square mile. There have since been two breeding seasons which probably have brought this density to over 40 deer per square mile; and it is projected that it could exceed 60 deer per square mile by the year 2000. But the deer population is not evenly distributed, and the 1995 aedal survey in- dicated densities from 40 to 50 deer per square mile in some sections of the study area. The 1995-96 deer pellet count survey suggests even higher densities in some areas. · Park units may wish to pursue the objective of 10-20 deer per square mile. This objective is based upon the concept of biodiversity carrying capacity which is a general indicator of problems in an area devoted to the conservation of natural re- sources. See the discussion of this concept in Chapter III, Section 4. In some local areas, pursuit of this objective by park units may contribute to achievement of the cultural carrying capacity objective of 20-40 deer per square mile in that area, but park unit efforts alone probably would not achieve the latter objective for the study area as a whole. Section 3 Methods of Control Evaluation of Alternative Methods The following summary evaluation of alternative methods to control a deer population was drawn from a review of published reports from wildlife research institu- tions and community organizations such as the task force from throughout the country. See the list of selected source documents beginning on page 85. 70 This summary was included in the booklet distributed at the Open House in October 1995. The pros [~'] and cons IX] are presented for each method. · Reliance on Natural Processes is the meffiod of allowing a deer population to grow to limits of supporting food resources in a given area, i.e., "let Nature take its course". No need for human intervention or incurrence of cost. Deer numbers and associated problems will continue to increase per- haps for many years until maximum population is reached. Deer-related problems even if tolerable during period of population growth may become intolerable at level of maximum population. Sight or awareness of starving, stunted, or dying deer may be unaccept- able to some. Damage to ecosystem will result in reduction and/or loss of other and desirable plant and animal species before maximum deer population is reached. · Re-introduction of Predators is the establishment of once native species which are natural predators of deer, e.g., mountain lion, bear, wolf. Once established, a predator population could become self-sustaining and require no further human intervention. Such reliance on "law of nature" would be more acceptable to many than other methods of reducing the deer population. Most predators pose a threat to other wild but wanted species, to live- stock and domestic pets, and, in rare cases, to humans. Many predator species range over a larger area than deer and would find a populated suburban area an unsuitable habitat. Establishment of predator population is costly and usually suffers a low 71 rate of success. · Habitat Modification is the method of removal, reduction or intro- duction of habitat elements to render an area less attractive to deer. ,/ Provides a natural and humane way of reducing the deer population in a problem area. t/ May be consistent with other resource management objectives. Methods which rely on natural succession of ecosystem will require long time pedods before becoming effective. May be inconsistent with other resource management objectives. May also reduce populations of other and wanted wildlife species. Shifts problem to other areas. Difficult if even possible over a large or regional area. · Capture and Transport is the method of live capture of deer and re- moval to another area. v~ Commonly considered as a humane alternative to lethal methods of re- ducing the number of deer in an area. Effectiveness is immediate with greater effectiveness being achieved with greater numbers of removals. Suitable and not too distant receiving areas may be difficult or impossi- .' ble to find. In fact, no relocation areas currently are approved by the Ohio Division of Wildlife and, therefore, permits are no longer issued. Trapping and transport both are expensive. Trapping becomes less successful as deer become wary. 72 Mortality of deer is high during capture, in transport, and also after re- location. May foster transmission of disease among captured deer which could spread to other species, including livestock, in release area. Deer relocated from urban areas have the tendency to seek similar habitats at or near release area thus shifting problems to a new area. · Reproduction Intervention is the reduction of birth rates among deer by feeding or injection of contraceptive agents, by mechanical birth control devices, or by surgical sterilization. Popularly viewed as a humane alternative to lethal methods of control- ling the deer population. Currently active research offers some hope of more effective and less expensive techniques than currently are available, at least for geo- graphically isolated herds. Feeding of contraceptives (salt blocks, planted bait, etc.) may intervene with other species either directly or through the food chain (the latter could affect humans). Techniques which require capture, such as injection and mechanical or surgical sterilization, are costly and the stress of capture induces high mortality. Most techniques require periodic re-use and are costly. Effectiveness is long-term with reduced rates of birth occurring long be- fore significant reduction of population size. No methods currently are practical or are approved by federal or state authorities for use on free-ranging deer. · Capture and Euthanization is the capture and killing of deer by humane methods. 73 Humane euthanization methods are available which are approved by the American Veterinary Medical Association. k,' Reduction can be specific by age and sex. Immediate reduction of deer population and associated problems. May be employed safely even in some residential areas. Less costly than capture and transport only because transport is not in- volved. May need to be repeated frequently as other deer relocate to area. Relatively high cost for trapping and, also, trained personnel and materi- als for methods of euthanasia and disposal of carcasses. Trapping becomes less successful as deer become wary. · Sharpshooting is the use of selected marksmen with a state permit to shoot a target number of deer in problem areas and out of seasoR, Provides immediate reduction of deer in designated area. Safe and relatively humane ("quick and clean kill") with marksmen trained or selected for skill and judgment. Permits reduction by specific age or sex. Can be undertaken in areas not suitable for other reduction methods, even in some residential areas. v' May be the only effective method in cdsis situations where public safety is threatened, e.g., deer on an airport runway. More time-consuming than hunting especially over large areas because fewer personnel are involved. Will require repeated efforts as deer relocate from other areas. Not generally cost-effective for large areas. · Public Sport Huntina is the hunting of deer by licensed sportsmen with restrictions established by the Ohio Division of Wildlife. Traditional method of deer population control in areas where suitable and permitted. Most cost effective method of deer reduction especially over large areas. Provides such benefits as recreation, food source, and support of local economies (sporting goods, processing plants, etc.). License provisions can be used to control size of harvest, age and sex, safety, and other conditions. Many municipalities prohibit discharge of firearms or even use of bow and' arrow within their jurisdictions. Currently prohibited on some public lands including the Cuyahoga Val- ley National Recreation Area and regional metroparks. In developing areas, there are increasingly fewer areas which are suit- able for reason of safety or where property owners will give permission to hunt. · Specially Controlled Hunting is generally similar to public sport hunting but employed in limited areas at different seasons and with restrictions which foster safety and effectiveness. Generally, the same as public sport hunting. Can be applied to specific problem area. More cost effective for larger areas than other methods of deer reduc- tion (except public sport hunting). 75 Numerous types of controls can render this method more suitable than Public Sport Hunting for some areas. Generally, same as Public Sport Hunting except as may be mitigated or removed by various types of controls. Prohibitive municipal or other Focal restrictions, where applicable, would need to be waived or amended. Recommended Methods of Control There are several methods of deer population control which are feasible and suitable for the study area. · Public Sport Hunting is recommended where practical, feasible, and safe. Public sport hunting involves hunting of deer by licensed sportsmen with shot- " gun, muzzleloader, crossbow, or bow and arrow under restrictions established by the Ohio Division of Wildlife. Such restrictions include permitted types of hunting devices, season and day limits, and number and sex of deer which may be taken. This method should be limited to those areas where the discharge of firearms or use of archery is not prohibited; and, of course, where the pdvate or public land- owner's permission is granted. It will, therefore, be limited as a method for deer re- duction, and probably will become more limited as rural land areas are developed. The study area is located within an Ohio Division of Wildlife designated Urban Deer Zone where hunters are permitted to take up to five deer, four of which must be antlerless which maximizes control of population growth. Since this is an established program involving voluntary sportsmen, no costs would be involved. · Specially Controlled Hunting is recommended in isolated !and areas of greater than five (5) acres. Specially controlled hunting is similar to public hunting but is employed in limit- ed areas at different seasons and with additional restrictions to foster greater safety and effectiveness. Such restrictions may include shooting from fixed positions or elevated stands, limits on the number of hunters in the area, type of hunting device, distance from the perimeter of properties and structures, and required proficiency test- ing and attendance at a pre-hunt orientation meeting. This method could employ the services of voluntary hunters who apply for a permit to remove deer within designated areas. The only cost of this method would be administrative. · Shamshootincl is recommended in areas which are not suitable for public sport hunting or specially controlled hunting. Sharpshooting uses skilled marksmen in a limited and cleady designated area. They may be either voluntary, paid, or agency personnel; and they may employ either firearms, crossbow, or bow and arrow. The method is safe, humane, allows marksmen to selectively remove deer, and can be used even in some residential areas or in areas not suitable for public or controlled hunting. Sharpshooting may be done at fixed stations or from truck mounted elevated platforms, and often is done at night with the aid of a spotlight over bait. Because of the skill of the marksmen, it is a safe and humane technique. It may be used in areas not feasible for public or even specially controlled hunting and thus may be employed in critical areas of high deer density where these other methods would not be feasible. Deer removed by sharpshooting should be taken to meat processors and pack- aged for distribution to food banks or otherwise to the needy. Depending upon personnel and equipment costs, sharpshooting success, and processing and distribution fees, the cost of this method may range from $75 to $400 for each deer removed. · Capture and Euthanization is recommended in developed areas where the other methods are not practical or safe, Capture and euthanization involves trapping deer and employing techniques of euthanization which are approved by the American Veterinary Medicine Association. Both trapping and euthanizing should be done by trained personnel, either agency 77 personnel or others hired for these purposes. This method is very safe and can be used in moderately dense residential areas where public hunting, controlled hunting or sharpshooting] are not practical or safe. As with sharpshooting, deer removed by capture and euthanasia should be taken to meat processors and packaged for distribution to food banks or otherwise to the needy. This is a fairly expensive method with costs typically ranging from $200-$500 per deer. Control Methods Not Recommended Some control methods which are often proposed because they are or appear to be more humane are not recommended. · Introduction of Predators is neither feasible nor safe.' This method is neither feasible nor safe in this area. Deer are preyed upon under some conditions by a wide vadety of camivores; but of these only fox, coyote, and domestic dog are found in our area. They are generally ineffective as deer predators: they usually scavenge dead, injured, or sick deer, although they may kill fawns. Most of deer's other natural predators, such as bear, mountain lion, and wolf, would in themselves present a threat to the safety of our residents. Also, they are more wide-ranging than deer and would be difficult and costly to establish in our area. · Habitat Modification is a long-range method which may create other · problems, is costly, and is not consistent with other objectives. This method involves alteration of the natural propagation or succession of · plant materials to render an area less attractive to deer as an area in which to live and as a source of food. This method produces results only after a long. period of time. It may also re- 78 duce desired populations of wildlife or plant species in the modified area; and, will tend to shift the deer population and related problems to other areas. Thus, it may not be consistent with other natural resource management objectives. Habitat modification would, in any event, be costly if even feasible over large areas. · Capture and Transport is costly, is not feasible, and is not humane. This method involves trapping deer and relocating them to another, perhaps distant, location. It is costly, it almost certainly is not feasible, and it is inhumane. This method is costly not only because of the expense of trapping, which would be similar to the method of capture and euthanize, but also because of the cost of transport, perhaps over a great distance. The feasibility of this method depends upon the availability and suitability of locations to which to relocate the captured deer. There are no relocation areas cur- rently approved by the state which no longer issues permits for this method. The method is inhumane because of the high rate of mortality which can be 40-60% during capture and transport. Mortality continues to be high after relocation. It is also inhumane in the sense that it carries the potential of spreading disease to wildlife or domestic animals, including livestock, in areas of relocation. · Reproduction Intervention techniques are not presently feasible for application to free-ranging deer over a large area. This method involves reduction in the number of births by feeding or injection of contraceptive agents, by insertion of birth control devices. or by surgical sterilization. Techniques which require capture of deer are costly and the stress of capture induces high deer mortality. Contraceptive agents need to be introduced to as much as seventy (70) percent of does with a booster after three weeks and. then, re-intro- duced as often as every two years. If introduced through feeding, agents may acci- dentally also be introduced into other animal species (including humans in areas of hunting activity). While birth control techniques may be feasible for application to small numbers 79 of deer in isolated areas (zoological gardens, fenced-in areas), no methods currently are practical or. in fact, approved by federal or state authorities for use on free-ranging deer populations. Section 4 Implementation of Control Methods · Each local government and park unit should consider and decide which control methods are best for their needs and conditions. This report is made to the Council which, as noted earlier, is an advisory body without authority to undertake methods to control the deer population. Such imple- mentation is within the authority and responsibility of local governments and park units. Target areas for application of recommended control methods should be either areas of concentration of the deer population or areas with the most critical problems. Oftentimes. but not always, these will be the same areas. The deer pellet count survey has defined the major areas of concentration of the current deer population. See the map in Chapter III. These areas have high pri- ority for action if the overall deer population in the study area is to be effectively re- duced. The concentrations of deePvehicle accidents are critical problem areas which should be targeted. It was not feasible within the limit of resources available to the task force to conduct these surveys to the extent that would permit measurements for individual communities or neighborhoods. It may be necessary to expend resources to conduct more extensive surveys, including the use of recently advanced techniques, for com- munity or other areas smaller than the study area. Where concentrations of deer or critical problem areas do not conform to juris- dictional boundaries, it will be more effective for these units to coordinate their efforts, even to join in a common effort. · Use of methods other than public sport hunting is subject to ap- proval by the Ohio Division of Wildlife. As noted in Chapter IV, the Ohio Division of Wildlife has statewide authority over control of wildlife. This authority, however, does not extend to federal lands. 8O In addition to exercising this authority, the Division can provide technical assistance in designing the appropnate deer control method for the area. · Actions should be evaluated for their acfiievement of objectives. Objectives should be set each year for such critical problem areas as those with a high incidence of deer-vehicle accidents for which the objective could be a per- centage reduction in the annual number of accidents. Control efforts each year can then be designed to meet or at least move to- ward such objectives by seeking to remove a certain number of deer. The number of deer to be removed is not so manageable witi~ public sport hunting, or with specially controlled hunting. Even with sharpshooting and capture and euthanization, there will be variables which cannot be managed. But setting objectives will avoid undertaking efforts which are more costly than necessary or, just as important, which achieve a greater number of removals than needed. Annual evaluation of achievement of objectives will permit any appropriate ad- justments in objectives or effort in subsequent years. · Continuing annual efforts may be anticipated. Even when the number of deer in a concentrated area or an area of critical problems is reduced, the remaining population will continue to grow at a rate which currently is estimated to be 15% a year. Thus, even in those areas where an objec- tive has been reached, continuing although perhaps lesser efforts will need to be continued. Section 5 Monitoring The interaction of deer and humans is a dynamic situation which cannot be fully controlled or predicted. The natural rate of growth in the deer population and the pace of suburban development will interact to produce constantly changing conditions. The introduction of measures to reduce deer-vehicle accidents and methods to control the deer population will be additional factors of change. It will be necessary to con- tinually monitor these conditions to permit any appropriate amendments to deer man- agement efforts. 81 Updating Information · Much of the information presented in this repo.rt periodically should be updated. Spotlight monitoring surveys over the study area should be continued annually to provide input for periodic updating of deer population projections. Aerial surveys of the study area should be conducted periodically to provide in- put for periodic updating of deer population projections and to provide input to adjust- ment of deer removal methods. Deer pellet count surveys should be conducted periodically to provide input to adjustment of deer removal methods and target areas. Records of reported deer-vehicle accidents in the study area should be ana- lyzed annually to provide input for periodic updating of deer population projections, and to identify locations where enhanced roadway controls may be needed and cdtical problem areas for deer population control. As noted above, local government and park units should annually evaluate re- suits of control methods they have undertaken. This information should be assembled and assessed for the effectiveness of methods and, also, the impact on overall deer population in the study area. · Projections of the deer population in the study area should be periodically updated. Statistical projections of any kind essentially assume continuation of current trends as may be adjusted by any known future changes. Thus, the longer the projec- tion period, the greater the chance of error. Just as now, in future years it will be useful to know the size of the deer popu- lation in the study area; and, also, any changes in the rate of growth. Such know- ledge would permit making any appropriate amendments in measures to reduce con- flicts or in methods to control the deer population. 82 Continuing Advisory Organization · A continuing advisory organization should be responsible for moni- toring activities. It is recommended that the task force be extended for up to a three-year period as such an organization and, in an advisory capacity, to perform the following func- tions: 1 ) Serve to coordinate and support the conduct of special surveys such as spotlight monitoring surveys, aerial surveys, deer pellet count surveys, or others which provide trend data and updated information of the size and distribution of the deer population in our area. 2) Annually evaluate the effectiveness of the deer population reduction pro- gram and advise on successive stage of implementation, including periodic revisions or refinements in deer population projections. 3) Act as a cleadngh0use of information on measures which are effective in offering protection from deer damage to farm crops, landscaping, and gardens, includ- ing the review and evaluation of new or improved measures. It is anticipated that the extent of these activities would be no more than one- fourth the level of activity of the task force over its initial three years in preparing these findings and recommendations. · It is recommended that the Council provide continuing staff and financial support to the task force for these monitoring activities. Just as it has been appropriate for the Council, as an areawide and advisory organization of governments, to organize and support the task force, so it is appropri- ate for the Council to continue in this role. Also, the Council has developed the resources and capacity for providing such support which could not readily be replaced or transferred. 83 84 Selected Source Documents Anderson, Roger C., and Alan J. Katz. "Recovery of Browse-sensitive Tree Species Following Release from White-tailed Deer Zimmermann Browsing Pressure." Bioloqical Con- servation (63:203-208). 1993. Anonymous. "Birth Control for Bambi?" SCWDS Briefs, Volume 9, Number 1. Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study, College of Veterinary Medicine, The University of Georgia. Apdl 1993. At'will, Lionel. "Bows in the 'Burbs." Field & Stream. September 1994. Balgooyen, C. P. Monitoring Impacts of White-tailed deen Indicators of Grazing and Browsing7 Pressure on the Apostle Island and Ac~acent Mainland. MS Thesis, University Wisconsin, Madison. Wisconsin. 1994. Behrend, D. F., G. F. Mattfeld, W. C. Tierson, and J. E. Wiley, III. "Deer Density Control for Comprehensive Forest Management." Journal of Forestry (68:695-700). 1970. Berry, Richard L. "Update on Lyme Disease in Ohio, 1992." Ohio Vector News. Ohio Department of Health. Columbus, Ohio. August 1992. Black Hawk County (Iowa) Deer Task Force. Progress Report: Fall 1991-Winter 1994. Revised February 1994, Blumig, Cathy. "What's the Answer: Bullets or Birth Control?" Deer & Deer Huntin.cl. September 1995. Bowen, Ezra. "Shoot to Kill: Angry Homeowners are Taking Aim at a White-tailed Nuisance." Outdoor Life. Spdng 1994. Brown County (Indiana) State Park Deer Study Committee. A Report to the Natural Resources ' Commission, Indiana Department of Natural Resources. February 15, 1993. Brush, Catherine C., and David W. Ehrenfeld. "Control of White-tailed Deer in Non-hunted Reserves and Fdnge Areas." Ecolo.cl¥ of Urban Wildlife. Undated. Bryant, Beverly K., and William Ishmael. "Movement and Mortality Patterns of Resident and Translocated Suburban White-tailed Deer." Ecolo.clv of Urban Wildlife. Undated. Cartmill, Matt. "The Bambi Syndrome." Natural Histon/. June 1993. Chinery, David. Annuals, Biennials, Perennials, Groundcovers and Vines Useful When Gardening with Deer. Cornell Cooperative Extension Service. Westchester County, NY. Undated. Clifton, Merritt. "Avoiding Roadkills: Secrets of Animal Behavior that can Save Your Life!" Animal People. November 1992. 85 Clifton, Merdtt. "Deer Overpopulation: Hunters Caused It. What Can We Do About It?" Animal People. October 1993. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Wildlife Division.. (Mark Ellingwood). A Guide to Implementing a Controlled Deer Hunt. Undated. Conover, Michael R., William C. Pitt, Kimberley K. Kessler, Tami J. DuBow, and Wendy A. Sanborn. "Review of Human Injuries, Illnesses, and Economic Losses Caused by Wildlife in the United States." Wildlife Society Bulletin (23(3):407414). 1995, CorniceIll, Louis, Alan WooIf, and John L. Roseberry. Residential Attitudes and Perceptions Toward a Suburban Deer Population in Southern Illinois. Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. Carbondale, Illinois. Undated. CorniceIll, Louis, Alan WooIf, and John L. Rosebern/. White-tailed Deer Use of a Suburban Environment in Southern Illionois. Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. Carbondale, Illinois. Undated. Craven, Scott R. Deer Prevention and Control Methods. Great Plains Agricultural Council, Wildlife Resources Committee; Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Nebraska. Lincoln Nebraska. 1983. Culbertson, W. L., and Robert J. Stoll, Jr. Deer Age, Sex, and Condition Data, f994. Ohio Division of Wildlife, Department of Natural Resources. Inservice Note 702. Apdl 1995. Curtis, Paul D., and Milo E: Richmond. "Future Challenges of Suburban White-tailed Deer Management." Transactions of 57th North Amewrican Wildlife & Natural Resources Conference. 1992. Curtis, Paul D., Rebecca J. Stout, Barbara A. Knuth, Lawrence A. Myers, and Theresa M. Rockwell. "Selecting Deer Management Options in a Suburban Environment: A Case Study from Rochester. New York." Transactions of 58th North American Wildlife & Natural Resources Conference. 1993. DeCalesta, D.S. "Impact of Deer on Intedor Forest Songbirds in Northwestern PA." Journal of Wildlife Manaclement (58:711-718). 1994. Downing, Robert L. Vital Statistics of Animal l~opulations. Chapter 15. Undated. Echelberger, Lynn. "Policy Development Committee Studies Issues for 1994." Buckeye Farm News. Ohio Farm Bureau. November 1993. Fargione, M. J., P. D. Curtis, and M. E. Richmond. Resistance of Woody Ornamental Plants to Deer Damage. Wildlife Damage Management Program, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University. Undated. Forest Preserve Distdct of DuPage County (Illinois). White-tailed Deer and Ecosystem Management. Undated. Forest Preserve District of DuPage County (Illinois). White-tailed Deer and Ecosystem Restoration. Undated. 86 Fund for Animals, The. Living with Deer. Undated. Garrot, Robert A. "Effective Management of Free-ranging Ungulate Populations Using Contraception." Wildlife Society Bulletin (23(3):445-452). 1995. Graham, S.A. "Changes in Northern Michigan Forest from Browsing by Deer." Transactions of the North Amedcan Wildlife Conference (19: 526-533). 1954. Hanback, Michael, and Cathy Blumig. "Now its Deer on the Pill." Outdoor life. July 1993. Healy, W. M. "Influence of Deer on the Development of the Forest Structure and Composition in Central Massachusetts." The Science of Overabundance: The EcoloqV of Unmanacl- ed Deer Populations, Proceedin.Cs. Fort Royal, Virginia. 1994. Hinkle, Robert D. "Too Many Deer - A Point of V~ew." Emerald Necklace. Cleveland Metroparks, Cleveland, Ohio. August 1994. Ishmael, W. E., D. E. Katsma, and T. A. Isaac. "Live-capture and Translocation of Suburban White-tailed Deer in River Hills, Wisconsin: A Case History." 55th Midwest Fish & Wildlife Conference. St. Louis, Missouri. December 11-15, 1993. Jones, Jon M., and James H. Witham. "Post-translocation Survival and Movements of Metropolitan White-tailed Deer." Wildlife Society Bulletin (18:434-441). 1990. Jones, S. B., D. DeCalesta, and S. E. Chunko. "Whitetails Are Changing Our Woodlands." Amedcan Forests (20-25,53-54). November/December, 1993. Kantor, Fred S. "Disarming Lyme Disease." Scientific American. September 1994. Kittredge, D. B. and P. M. S. Ashton. "Impact of Deer Browsing on Regeneration in Mixed Stands in Southern Nebraska." Bulletin of Ecolo.clical Society of Amedca (74:304). 1995. Kourik, Robert. "Strategies for Deer Control." Landscape Architecture. Undated. Ludwig, Daniel R., and Bdan Conkiln. Status of VVhite-tailed Deer W~thin the Forest Preserve Distrfct of DuPage County, Illinois, Forest Preserve Distrfct. PuPage County, Illinois. 1992. Mazur, Samuel. Monitoring White-tailed Deer impacts on Vegetation Vtrithin the Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area. National Park Service and Cleveland Metroparks. 1996. McAnninch, Jay B., and Jon M. Parker. "Urban Deer Management Programs: A Facilitated Approach." Transactions of 56th North Amedcan Wildlife & Natural Resources Confer- ence. 1991. McCullough, Dale R., Don S. Pine, Dale L. Whitmore, Terry M. Mansfield, and Robert H. Decker. "Linked Sex Harvest Strategy for Big Game Management with a Test Case on Black-tailed Deer." Wildlife Mono~lraphs. Undated. 87 Michigan Department of Natural Resources (Langenau, Ed, Edmund J. Tucker, 'Rmothy Payne, and Ernest N. Kafcas). Guidelines for Deer Management on Urban and Suburban Lands in Michigan. Wildlife Division Report No. 3192. November 1993. Missouri Department of Conservation. Guidelines for Management d' White-tailed Deer on Urban Lands in Missouri. February 1993. Ohio Department of Highway Safety. Summary.' Deer VVhistle Study. 1989. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife. Deer Damage Control Publication 138 (R1086). Columbus, Ohio. Undated. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife (Stoll, Robert J., Jr., Robert W. Donohoe, and Patdck M. Ruble). Deer Management. Publication 87 (R587). Undated. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife. Deer Season Results, 1994. Publication 166 (R695), Waterloo Wildlife Research Station, New Marshfield, Ohio. Undated. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife (Steve Miller). Executive Summary of the 1995 General Public Survey. September 14, 1995. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife. Farmer Attitudes Toward Wildlife Issues in Ohio: Farmers from Hill Counties, N. E Metro, Intermediate and Farmland Regions. Survey Results. Abddged Version. Prepared by Responsive Management, Harrisburg, Virginia. August 1995. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife. Farmer Attitudes Toward Wildlife Issues in Ohio: Farmers from Hill Counties, N. E Metro, Intermediate and Farmland Regions. Survey Results. Summary of Survey Responses Statewide. Prepared by Responsive Management, Harrisburg, Virginia. August 1995. Pennsylvania Game Commission. Pennsylvania Deer Management. Harrisburg, PA. Undated. Peters, Sara Jane. "The Urban Deer Zones: Restructudng Tradition." Ohio Township News. January-February, 1996. Petzel, Pat. "The Deer Dilemna." Buckeye Farm News. November 1993. Reeve, Archie F., Stanley H. Anderson. "Ineffectiveness of Sware~ex Retlectors at Reducing Deer-vehicle Collisions." Wildlife ~ocieh' Bulletin (21 (2)). 1993. Roseberry, John L., and Alan WooIf. "A Comparative Evaluation of Techniques for Analyzing White-tailed Deer Harvest Data." Wildlife Mono.~raDhs. Undated. Ross, B. A., J. R. Bray, and W, H. Marshall. "Effects of Long-term Deer Exclusion on a Pinus resinosa Forest in North-central Minnesota." Ecology (51:1088-1093). 1970. Schmidt, Robert H. Why Bad Things Happen to Good Animals. Undated. Schmidt, Robert H. "Why Do We Debate Animal Rights?" Wildlife Society Bulletin. 1990. 88 Southeastern Wisconsin Urban Deer Task Force. Final Report and Recommendations. August 1994. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife (Stoll, Robert J., Jr., William L. Culbertson, and Stephen E. Miller). Rural LandowneF'Attitudes Toward Deer and Deer Populations in Ohio - 1989 Update. Wildlife Inservice Note 642. July 1991. Stout, Rebecca J., Richard C. Stedman, Daniel J. Decker, and Barbara A. Knuth. "Perceptions of Risk from Deer-related Vehicle Accidents: Implications for Public Preferences for Deer Herd Size." Wildlife Society Bulletin. 1993. Stout, Rebecca J., Richard C. Stedman, Daniel J. Decker, and Barbara A. Knuth. Public Involvement in Deer Management Decision-making: Comparison of Three Approaches for SettT~g Deer Population Objectives. Human Dimensions Research Unit, Depart- ment of Natural Resources, Cornell University. HDRU Sedes No. 94-2. Ithaca, NY. . February 1994. Tierson, W. C., E. F. Patdc, and D. F. Behrend. "Influence of White-tailed Deer on the Logged Northern Hardwood Forest." Journal of Forestry (64:801-805). 1966. Tilghman, N. G. "Impacts of White-tailed Deer on Forest Regeneration in Northwestern PA." Journal of Wildlife Manac~ement (53:524-532). 1989. Tzilkowski, Walter M., and Gerald L. Storm. "Detecting Change Using Repeated Measures Analysis: White-tailed Deer Abundance at Gettysburg National Military Park." Wildlife Society Bulletin. 1993. Underwood, H. Bdan, and William F. Porter. '~/alues and Science: White-tailed Deer Management in Eastern National Parks." Transactions of the 56th North Amedcan Wildlife & Natural Resources Conference. 1991. US Interior, National Park Service, Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area. The Effects of Deer Browsing on VVhite-~owered Trfllium in the Cuyahoga Valley National Recretaion Area. Unpublished. 1996. US Interior, National Park Service. Management Policies: Biological Resource Management. 1988. US tntedor, National Park Service (Porter, William F). White-tailed Deer in Eastern Eco- systems: Implications for Management and Research in National Parks. National Resources Report NPS/NRSUNY/NRR-91/05. Denver, Colorado. September 1991. US Interior, National Park Service. Wildlife Management Notes: Nuisance Animal Control. Undated. US Interior, National Park Service. Wildlife Management Notes: White-tailed Deer. Undated. Vecellio, G. M., R. H. Yahner, and G. L. Storm. "Crop Damage by Deer at Gettysburg Park." Wildlife Society Bulletin (22:89-93). 1994 Webb, W. L., R. T. King, and E. F. Patdc. "Effect of White-tailed Deer on a Mature Northern Hardwood Forest." Journal of Forestry (54:391-398). 1956. 89 Warren, Robert J. "Ecological Justification for Controlling Deer Populations in Eastem National Parks." Transactions of 56th North Amedcan Wildlife & Natural Resources Conference. 1991. Whipple, A. B. C. "Chapter 5: Critters". Deer in the Orchard. St. M~rtin's Press, New York. 1994. Whitetails Unlimited, Inc. An Evaluation of Deer Management: Options. Publication No. DR- 11. Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin. 1988. Winner, Cherie. '~'he Grandmother Effect: In Big Game Herds the Effects of Starvation Can Span Generations." VWomin.cl Wildlife. March 1998. Witham, James H., and ~Jon M. Jones. "Chicago Urban Deer Study." The Illinois Natural History Reports (No. 265). Champaign, Illinois. March 1987. Witham, James H., and Jon M. Jones. "White-tailed Deer Abundance on Metropolitan Forest Preserves Dudrig Winter in Northeastern Illinois." Wildlife Sodety Bulletin (18:13-16). 1990. Wdght, R. Gerald. "Wildlife Management in Parks and Suburbs; Alternatives to Sport Hunting." Renewable Resources Journal, Volume 11, Number 4. Winter 1993. 90 : Appendix A: Council Resoulution Creating Task Force Resolution 93-1: CREATION OF DEER MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE WHEREAS. there has been growing concern in the Cuyahoga Valley about the growth in the population of white tailed deer and the problems of deer/people conflict; and WHEREAS, at the Regular Meeting of the Council on April 21, 1993, representatives of the Village of Peninsula requested the Council to address this problem; and WHEREAS, the Council convened a special meeting on July 29, 1993, of concerned local officials and residents of the Cuyahoga Valley to explore the problem and how it might be addressed, and it was the consensus of those attending that an organization be created for this purpose; and WHEREAS, the President appointed an ad hoc committee of elected officials serving the Cuyahoga Valley to make recommendations on the objectives, composition, and nature of such an organization and this committee meeting on August 25, 1993, recommended the creation of a task force of the Council, its objectives and composi- tion as contained in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, it is provided in Article IV, Section 3, of the Code of Regulations of the Council, as follows: Either the Board of Trustees or the Council may from time to time create task forces for the purpose of giving study to specific and limited subjects and making recommendations to the creating body. The President shall appoint the members of such a task force who need not all be members of the Council and shall designate the chairperson who shall be a member of the Council. NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED that the Council hereby creates the Deer Management Task Force under provisions of Article IV, Section 3, of the Code of Regulations for a period of three years with the following objectives: (1) to identify the problems of deer/people conflict, including their type, incidence, and trends (2) to inventory federal, state, and local government regulations and programs relating to wildlife management (3) to evaluate and recommend use of measures by local governments, resource management organizations, and property owners to adapt to the existence of deer (4) to conduct and periodically update a census of the deer population in the area (5) to review and recommend deer population levels with respect to such considerations as natural resource preservation,' highway safety, property damage, and other measures of human tolerance (6) to evaluate and, if deemed necessary, recommend methods for deer population control (7) to formulate and recommend a comprehensive deer management program and to foster its adoption (8) to monitor the effectiveness of the deer management program and to recommend appropriate adjustments and that the Task Force is directed to seek input from persons and organizations with expertise and varying points of view and to report quarterly to the Council on issues under consideration and progress in meeting the above objectives. FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that the President appoint the members of the Deer Management Task Force to achieve the following representation: (1) A representative from each of two of the municipalities in the Cuyahoga Valley within Cuyahoga County (2) A representative from each of two of the municipalities in the Cuyahoga Valley within Summit County (3) A representative from each of two of the townships in the Cuyahoga Valley (4) One representative of the National Park Service (5) A representative of the Cleveland Metroparks System (6) A representative of Metro Parks, Serving Summit County (7') A representative of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. (8) A representative of the Ohio Farm Bureau and that the appointments for categories (1), (2), and (3) be from nominees invited from all of the municipalities and townships participating in the Council. Approved: September 15, 1993 92 ~ Appendix B: Methodology of Spotlight Monitoring Surveys Five full spotlight counts were completed each year during the last two weeks of October and the first week of November. No more than three counts were held per week. Counts were not conducted on nights with rain, fog, high winds or other conditions which would reduce visibility of deer or safety of vehicle operation. Counts began one-half hour after official sunset. Pickup trucks with bed-mounted seating modules for observers were used to facilitate observation of deer in deep grasses. For safety reasons, the vehicle emergency ~ashers were operated during the survey. Data was recorded by the driver. The driver did not assist the observers in spotting deer, except for positioning the vehicle. The spotlight count routes were driven at 10 mph while observers, each shining hand-held spotlights from opposite sides of the vehicles, search for seer. When deer were located, vehicles were stopped, the number of deer counted and the presence of antlers determined. No more than one minute was spent to confirm uncertain sight- ings. The distance of the deer from the vehicle, which side of the road, and the mileage point along the segment also was noted on the data sheet. The odometer was reset to zero at the beginning of each spotlight segment. At one random spot along each segment, the driver would stop and ask the observers for a visibility reading. This is simply an estimate of how far the observers can see with their spotlights. This distance was recorded by the ddver as a visibility reading. Spotlights were not directed at residences or across residential lots in a way which might disturb occupants. Spotlights covered areas up to 100' from either side of occupied dwellings. Spotlights were never be directed at vehicles being operated on the roads or at pedestrians. Survey personnel notified game wardens and local-police pdor to conducting each count. Every effort was made to prevent the possibility of confusing the census effort with illegal night hunting activities. 93 Appendix C: Methodology of Public Opinion Survey Questionnaires were mailed on August 12, 1994, to a sample of 1,004 individuals selected at random from a list of the 62,912 registered voters in the Study Area. A postage-paid, addressed envelope was enclosed for return of the completed questionnaire. Sixty-seven (67) of these mailings were returned as not deliverable for a variety of reasons ("addressee deceased", "insufficient address", etc.). On September 10 a second mailing was made to the 470 members of the sample from which a response had not yet been received or the first mailing returned. Eighteen (18) of these mailings were returned as not deliverable. A total of 595 questionnaires were received, 467 from the first mailing and 128 from the second. However, the second page, which contains the statements to elicit views and opinions and, therefore is the core of the questionnaire, was completed in only 586 received questionnaires, 462 and 124 from the first and second mailings, respectively, to provide a useful response. Each questionnaire bears a code number of which the first three digits correspond to the last three digits of the Zip Code of the respondent's address. This has allowed elimination of duplicate responses as well as providing a geographic location of the respondent. For the latter purpose, also, the database created from the responses contains the political jurisdiction of which each respondent is a resident. A replica of the survey questionnaire in reduced scale is reproduced on the following pages. The original was in the format of 81/2 x 11 inches printed on both sides of a single sheet of paper. The survey questionnaire and methodology was designed with the assistance of Dr. David Scott then a member of the research staff of Cleveland Metroparks and now on the faculty of Texas A&M University. Public Opinion Survey Questionnaire, page 1 Cuyahoga Valley Communities Council - Deer Management Task Force PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY - August 1994 - Code: I. Do you own or rent the place where you live? (check one) [ ] Own (or buying) [ ] Rent [ ] Other: If you do not own the place where you live, please skip to Question 3. 2. About how many acres of land do you own? Acres 3. In what type of home do you live? (ch~ck one) [ ] Single family house [ ] Duplex Or apartment [ ] Mobile home 4. Is any business conducted on your property? [ ] Yes [ ] No 5. How would you characterize the land on which you live? (ch~ck all that apply) [ ] Grass lawn [ ] Planted trees [ ] Natural woods [ ] Flowers/shrubs [ ] Vegetable garden '[ ] Orchard [ ] Nursery [ ] Farm crops [ ] Vineyard [ ] Xmas trees [ ] Pasture [ ] Other (specify): 6. How many years have you lived in your current residence? ~ years 7. Over the past few years, what chang~ have you seen in the de~r population in the area near where you live?. [ ] More d~r now than five years ago [ ] Fewer deer now than five years ago [ ] Same number of de,~r now than five years ago [ ] Not sure 8. How often do you see deer on the property on which you live? [ ] Daily or almost daily [ ] A few times a week [ ] About once a week [ ] A few times a month [ ] About once a month [ ] l. tss than once a month [ ] A few times a year [ ] Never or almost never [ ] Not sure 9. In general, how often do you se~ deer in the area near where you live? [ ] Daily or almost daily [ ] A few times a week [ ] Abo[!t once'a week [ ] A few times a month [ ] About once a month [ ] Less than once a month [ ] A few times a year [ ] Never or almost never [ ] Not sure 95 Public Opinion Survey Questionnaire, page 2 10. To what extent do you agree or disagree wiffi the Following sr, t~ments? (Please circle the response which most closely represents your opinion for each statemenL) SA=Strongly Agree A=Agree U=Undecided D=Disagree SD=Strongly'Disagree I enjoy seeing and having deer around. SA A U D SD I worry about the damage deer cause to my property. SA A U D SD I genera!ly regard deer as a nuisance.. SA A U D SD I wish I had more opportunities to see deer. SA A U D SD The deer population near where I live is getting out of hand. SA A U D SD I have no particular feeling about deer. SA A U D SD I am not aware of any damage deer have caused on my property. SA A U D SD I would like to see fewer deer near where I live. SA A U D SD The damage deer inflict on my property is intolerable. SA A U D SD I would like information about how to keep deer off my property. SA A U D SD I worry about hitting a deer on the road. SA A U D SD The deer I see bring me pleasure. SA A U D SD I worry that the deer near where I live may spread Lyme disease. SA A U D SD I would like to see ~n increase in the deer population. SA A U D SD Problems are such that the deer population should be controlled. SA A U D SD Thank you for t~king He time to complete this questionnaire. If it does not cover things you think are imporm.nt, please feel free to make comments in the space below (please print). Appendix D: Methodology of Aedal Survey From a helicopter, a pilot and two observers from the Ohio Division of Wildlife counted observable white-tailed deer in the 178.45 square mile study area dudng the three days of February 7. 8 and 9. 1995. The helicopter had an all-plexiglass canopy which allowed an unobstructed view forward and to each side. Helicopters are preferred over fixed-winged aircraft for such surveys because of slower air speed, lower cruising altitude, and vertical flight capability. The survey was conducted under nearly ideal conditions of visibility: 100% snow cover with no snow hanging in trees to obstruct ground observations, and cloudy or overcast skies to prevent shadows and glare from the sun. The study area was divided into nine survey sections. Transects were flown on 300 meter intervals over the entire study area. The helicopter flew each transect with observers viewing 150 meters to each side and the pilot viewing the middle. The pilot used an on board computer with navigational capabilities to stay on each transect. All sightings were communicated by intercorn to prevent double counting. The number of deer seen on each transect was recorded. Transects were flown at 100 meters of altitude at 50 m.p.h. 97 Appendix E: Methodology of Farm Deer Damage Survey The Farm Deer Damage Survey was conducted in the fall of 1995 to elicit information on the nature of farming activities in the DMTF Study Area, the extent of problems suffered from deer and other wildlife, the evaluation by farm operators of the effectiveness of damage prevention measures, their opinion of the degree to which the deer population should be controlled, and whether they permit deer hunting on their property. Farm operators were identified as the owners of property which is assessed at Current Agricultural Use Value (CAUV) for the purpose of property taxation. The auditors of Cuyahoga and Summit County provided names and addresses of all such property owners in the Study Area. These numbered one-hundred-and-six (106). It should be noted that some of these property owners may not themselves conduct farming activities on their property but rather may permit by lease or otherwise such use of their property. A survey questionnaire was mailed in October 1995 to the 106 CAUV property owners with a stamped envelope for return. A cover letter explained the purpose of the survey and also requested that the recipient consult with any other individual conducting farming activities in preparing the response. Forty-eight (48) completed questionnaires were returned from this mailing; three mailings (3) could not be delivered. A second mailing was made in November to the fifty-five (55) property owners who had not yet responded. Thirty (30) completed questionnaires were returned from this mailing; one (1) mailing could not be delivered. Thus, seventy-eight (78) completed questionnaires were returned; but on examination of them it was evident that three (3) did not reflect any current farming activity. Therefore, the following findings are based on analyses of responses from seventy-five (75) completed questionnaires. A replica of the survey questionnaire in reduced scale is reproduced on the following pages. The original was in the format of 81/2 x 11 inches pdnted on both sides of a single sheet of paper. 98 Farm Deer Damage Survey Questionnaire Deer Management Task Force, Cuyahoga Valley Communities Cou~cil FARM DEER DA~4AGE SUR~'EY - Code No. 1. What kind of farming activities are conducted on this property? (check all that apply) [ ] Corn [ ] Other vegetable [ ] Small grain [ ] 0rcbard [ ] Xmas trees [ ] Livestock [ ] Nursery [ ] Vineyard [ ] Other (specify): 2. ?~re these activities conducted [ ] as a business, [ ] for personal use of crops, or [ ] as a hobby? (check ~1 that apply) 3. what is the total area of this property? __ Acres What percent was being cultivated this year? __% 4. In the past year, to what extent have any wildlife (raccoons, deer, geese, blackbirds, groundhogs, rabbits, etc.) caused damage? [ ] Extensively [ ] MOderately [ ] Somewhat [ ] None 5. If any damage has been caused by deer, return to item 1. and circle the names of types of crops which have been most damaged. 6. Can you e~timate the value of any such da~ge by deer? $ 7. If you have used any measures to reduce deer damage, how effective have they been? (For any measure, circle one of following: VER=Very, NOD=Moderate, SOM=Somewhat, NOT=Not) Odor or taste repellents ............ VER M0D SON NOT Noise or visual scare devices .......... VER M0D SON NOT Electric fencing ................ VER M0D S0M NOT Other fencing .................. VER M0D SON NOT Deer removal unde~ State Nuisance Permit .... VER NOD S0M NOT Deer removal by Public Sport Hunting ...... VER NOD SON NOT Other (specify) .... VER NOD SON NOT 8. Do you think the number of deer in the general area around this property should be [ ] unchanged [ ] reduced [ ] increased? 9. If it is legal in your community, do you allow deer hunting on your property? [ ] Yes [ ] No If "yes", do you know how many deer were harvested last year? . 10. Any comments? (Use reverse side) 99 Appendix F: Methodology of Deer Pellet Count Survey The purpose of the survey was to determine the distribution of the deer population in the study area. The basic survey method was to count the number of focal pellet groups at randomly located counting stations. Grid lines spaced 0.5 miles apart were drawn on a map of the study area and the grid intersections were consecutively numbered. From a table of random num- bers, 200 intersections were selected and the corresponding sites were evaluated in the field for appropriateness as a counting station. Counting stations were established in the fall at 141 of these sites. Each station consisted of a rectangular plot of 3 x 50 meters at which stakes were located at the middle of each 3-meter side to serve as guides for determining the center line of the plot. In the spring, at each counting station, observers walked along each side of the center line of the plot, which was marked by a tape strung between the stakes, held a 1.5-meter standard perpendicular to the tape, and counted the number of pellet groups between the center line and the opposite end of the standard. Such counts were per- formed dudng two sampling periods. The first was performed in early spdng following a pellet accumulation period of 142 days between leaf-drop in November 1995 and snow melt in March 1996, and after counting the pellet groups were removed. The second count was performed after an accumulation period of about 28 days. The survey methodology was based upon designs provided by Dr. H. Brian Underwood of the National Biological Survey and Dr. Bob Warren of the University of Georgia. 100 Appendix G: Locations of Deer-Vehicle Accidents By Year, 1988-95 Locations of deer-vehicle accidents were identified from records assembled in an electronic data base by the Crash Records Division, Ohio Department of Public Safety. These records are from accident reports submitted by local law enforcement officers, and the data base was established in its present form in 1988. For each reported deer-vehicle accident, the street on which the accident oc- curred is named and its location along the street is identified in reference to a street address, an intersecting street, or a milepost. In about 1% of the records, information was lacking or otherwise insufficient to identify the location. Local law enforcement officers compile accident reports on a standard form provided by the state (Ohio Traffic Accident Report OH-l) on which the officer must indicate whether the severity of vehicle damage is over or under $150 in the officers assessement of the cost of repair. Only those reports indicating "over $150" are included in the data base. Thus some accidents, while reported, are not included. Not all accidents, however severe the damage, are reported. Unless a law enforcement officer is on the scene at the time of the accident or before the vehicle has left the scene, or if the ddver does not notify a law enforcement officer and request an accident report, a report is not made. It may be assumed, however, that the Iocational pattern of reported accidents is reasonably representative of the pattern of all accidents. On the following maps, the locations of reported deer-vehicle accidents in the study area are plotted for each year from 1988 through 1995. 101 Locations of Deer-Vehicle Accidents in Study Area in 1988 ~=. -~'-:':~?'~; ~% ; '%;~;~',~;; --~. .......:..~, ~..~ ~--..~:~ .~::~;~:-:----,:v~--~:~,~ ....................... =========================== ....... ....,: ... , .......:: .'-:~':-7~ ~-~:;~" ~; "-, : ' ~'~;'~""~:~.~' ".::~ '.' :~ ~ : ~ =.. .. -:..,,: .... ~m~e ..-.. ;.-;.~. · ,,~ : ~,' .....; ,,~ ~ I I ....~;u:.· ~ ~ ~,,~.,. ..,.,~ -. ~ ~ ~ .~. . . · . .-~i~',. ,, ~~ ~ ..~ J ~ .; ,..-,;~., ,,~ ~-.~ . -. ".~~'~~' ' ~ ' ,, ~ { ~ · .~,: ~.;~S: ', ~..,~ ~ ,~, :- , ,,.] ~~: '~ · ~ , ;~:...~~,~'~.---..----~, . · ~:i;~.'.:..~{~F ~~.~;' ~ , ~ ........... :"'::=~D'i"~ "X '='~'"" ' "= , ~'~ ,. ~ , I .....J ' ~ ..... I ~ , _ "' ' '~ :' ' ~ I · I I e ~ · .~ il X. ~:~ .; ,, [ , ,.; '- .:' .'~:~ ' . · ....... ~ ................ ~ · ,.. ~ .... ~,,.~"" ~ .......... q · · .~ ~.' :~' '.t' =· ~.~l ~ ~ i'. / ® " I '.,~.'%~, ;~ /. ! ~ ..,. ii~ .. ~: i . i I ~ ~ e', " · . ,.,..: ,:,l;:.__ ~e · .-"l,..,...-: '. ' ,... .....~ . .: ~ ~ i ~ · · ' '?,:,..~,-.~,"'., ~ . . I / 'x " / "' : ....~ .....,_. .....i/".., - ',. .,! ......... ~ · · , " .,I · ~ ~ : ~. ., . ;,- s [ ~ ', '~ ', · · .e ............. ,'.. ,~; .......................... ,.; "~ i Ba:h · ~ .., ~,~~ · .' ..~;~'.I ...........:"~ ........ ""' ~ ......,.- ". ~',=~" ', ~ ,:~-,.""'i"' ' ' _, .. I ' ' ":":~I "; F.t' ...... ~::'..'.~.~,, ,. '~"'~1,1~ ' ' ' -~h:~ , .e~ ..~ · '.' :,'..~[__..;.;: * ., ' :" ';; .:~k: , 2-'~ ......... ~.' · ~t~::~ 102 Locations of Deer-Vehicle Accidents in Study Area in 1989 . . ,:'. ~ ~:,' '%. ~. :. - .. .' ..... '. ~ - .'. ~ .' '~ ,. : .... . . .......~..-;,.~j'~ " ;': . .~ , . ,'"~,,,,, . , ~.- -- :~: :: <~::~-. ...~ .::. ,..:..'...; ..=,~,~..: . . ...........,.:. . :'~...': .,.. ~ ".. . ...... -- :~:::::; .~. ~. 7~.~: ~. - 'L-~:~ .~n ~ "' ~ '::' "~]-~:.~'.~:~:: :.~k,. ':7-.~.:-~ -': ~:~ ;'~t~7'-~j ' ~.~ ~% "'~'~ ..... ~ ~;.,.,~?z~ :,~:.~-'.-:s~:;-~- ...: _: :~ ...(' ,../.-~ ..... : ' ': '~ '?~'~"~'~ '~¥z~~ ""' '~m ...... ~' ~' -. :;:~.:~-:~ . :.: ,:,:~:-:.:~:.~:~-~:~'~-~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ ........ . ............... - ..~ . ::~ 5: =,' ~ .~,/~2 ~ - -.?~:. ~ . .-.:~ ..... t -., :. ,:~ :: ~ :, ..:.,.~: ~ / ~more ~ls .:-. ~ I'~ * I I % ~ . I 103 Locations of Deer-Vehicle Accidents in Study Area in 1990 104 Locations of Deer-Vehicle Accidents in Study Area in 1991 105 Locations of Deer-Vehicle Accidents in Study Area in 1992 106 Locations of Deer-Vehicle Accidents in Study Area in 1993 107 Locations of Deer-Vehicle Accidents in Study Area in 1994 ....... ::'?.~:i::::::~!i~! ~:~:~-:--,~:: .'C: i, ! . .:., .::.,~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::: '..:!_ :~'~::~:~:~-~:.:~.,.-~,~.::~:~.~::.~,~:~:~.::::.~.:~:~:% :.~::: . . ~ ,'~ . ...... .__: :,'.:~._ ~:~....--' ~,, . ~. · .;: ::.· ~ ..: I..~ .,..~, ~ '~ .: . ':"~ '~:,,.. ',.1.. ~.' ~""T';:.: ... -'~:~t'' ~':":~:'::.;'~:,~:-:'~'--; · ..""..' ~ ",.: ............~ ..~,.,J ~'7~.~' ~,, .' .~' '~ .' "' -. }.. -., :-.~ . I'~ ~ ~; ' ..... .. I , f J .~:*-, , ', .....~"T'7~ ~:>",-----.k~~ ~ ,i~ ~ ~ .-,, ,.~ 108 Locations of Deer-Vehicle Accidents in Study Area in 199E; 109 Wildlife Management Resource Agencies Resource personnel from the following agencies can assist local governments in wildlife management. Ohio Division of Wildlife 330-644-2293 District 3 Office 912 Portage Lakes Drive Akron, OH 44319 National Park Service 216-526-5256 Cuyahoga Valley NRA 15610 Vaughn Road Brecksville, OH 44141 Cleveland Metroparks 216-351-6300 4101 Fulton Parkway Cleveland, OH 44144 Metro Parks, Serving Summit County 330-867-5511 975 Treaty Line Road Akron, OH 44313 Deer Management Task Force Members: Daniel O. Emmett, Chair, Trustee, Richfield Township Joel D. Bailey, Executive Assistant to the Mayor, City of Akron John Cossell, Ohio Farm Bureau Federation Jeff Herrick, District 3, Ohio Division of Wildlife Jerry N. Hruby, Mayor, City of Brecksville Edward G. Ruoff. Mayor (retired), Village of Peninsula Keith D. Shy, Motto Parks, Serving Summit County Robert M. Speerbrecher, Trustee, Sagamore Hills Township Thomas Stanley, Chief of Natural Resources, Cleveland Metroparks Edward L. Theftmann, Mayor, Village of Walton Hills Cartee Williamson, Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area Stephen D. Coles, ex officio, CVCC Board of Trustees (1993-94, 1996) James M. Kastelic, ex officio, CVCC Board of Trustees (1995-96) Alternates: Nancy Csonka for Joel D. Bailey Robert Dispenza for Keith Shy Dan Kramer for Jeff Herrick Kathy Neforos for Jerry N. Hruby Jane Nowicki for Edward L. Thellmann John Smith for Jerry N. Hruby Steve Wilcox for Jeff Herrick Advisers: Jonathan Bart, Ohio State University Meg Benke, Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area Anthony Gareau. Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area Brian McHugh, Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area Anne Shafer-Nolan, Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area David Scott, Cleveland Metroparks and Texas A&M University Robert Stoll, Watedoo Research Station, Ohio Division of Wildlife Brian Underwood, National Biological Service Staff: Peter H. Henderson, Executive Director, Cuyahoga Valley Communities Council 111 Participating Units and 1966 Members of the Council Municipalities and Townships Akron City Thomas Long Michael L, McGlinchy Bath Township F_Jaina E. Goodrich Cathy Kepley Boston Township Wesley Bergdorf Martin Gnffith Boston Heights Village Annette Miller Ted Slane Bedford City Robert Hamilton Brecksviile City Michael J. Pasker~ Art Zanutic Cuyahoga Falls City Louis F. Sharpe Gary G. Whidden Faidawn City James A. Butler Hudson City Diane Geeslin Independence City John Calabrese Charles F. Cichocki Northfield Ctr Township Mary K. Catalano William Ford Peninsula Village Michael J. Kaplan Edward J. Ruoff Richfield Township Daniel O, Emmett Richfield Village Robert J. Hooper Sagamore Hills Township James L. Polcen Rose Mary Snell Valley View Village Mary Ann Drobnick David Wingenfeld Walton Hills Village Doris H. Pankratz School Districts Brecksviile-Broadview Hts Daniel L. Apling Fred H. Holman Cuyahoga Heights Robin Bohning-Rogers Dianne M. Toronski Cuy Valley Career Center Russell D. Haas Hudson Kurt Liske Nordonia Hills J. Wayne Blankenship Revere Peter C. Allison Woodridge Marilyn Hansen Park Units Cleveland Metroparks Stephen D. Coles Metro Parks, Serving Sum- .. mit County Thomas J. Shuster Brent A. Wood (alL) National Park Service John P. Debo, Jr. Barbara L. Pollarine \ Counties Cuyahoga County James M. Kastelic Summit County Robert Corlett Daniel A. Keller (alt.) Honorary Member, John F. Seibeding 112