Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCayugaDeer section 1.pdf January 14, 2011 Fellow Ithacans, On November 8, 2010, the trustees of Cayuga Heights released a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) in support of their "Deer Management Plan."Their proposal entails identifying a small number of deer in the village who will be allowed to live, each of whom will be captured, surgically sterilized, and fitted with ear tags and radio-collars. These marked survivors will be the only deer spared when an annual program slaughters all other deer in the village, utilizing either "bait and shoot' or "net and bolt" to be carried out in residential neighborhoods. This document offers 19 statements critical of the deer-killing plan and of the DEIS that supports it, all of which were submitted to the trustees within the State-required comment period, which ended on December 16th. These statements were written by residents from Cayuga Heights as well as from other Ithaca-area municipalities, sometimes from their perspective as concerned citizens, and in many cases, expressing their opinions as trained professionals in one or more relevant areas of expertise. In addition to the 14 citizen statements offered within, there are also statements from four scientific experts who were approached by brLa Dfuyan,,a 3g4wa resident of our,comrrWnjtY and noted author and science educator, who asked each to evaluate and comment upon parts of the DEIS that fell within the realm of their professional expertise. Additionally, the executive director of a national nonprofit organization involved in food and water quality issues contributed her evaluation. None of these experts were paid or compensated in any way for the time they generously devoted to this task. None of these individuals have had previous involvement in the controversy over this plan.And as is also true of all the included citizen statements, their opinions stand on their own, and the inclusion of their statements in this document does not imply an endorsement of any particular individual, organization or point of view. Home addresses and signatures have been redacted. Header information identifying the statement authors' last names and page numbers have been added. Otherwise the content of all statements appear in the document as they were submitted to the Village of Cayuga Heights. An online version of this document can be found at: http://tinyurl.com/deerplan response For more information on the rationale being put forth for the deer-killing plan, see the draft environmental impact statement published by the Cayuga Heights trustees, available at: www.timmillerassociates.com/publicreview/cayugaheights Thank you, The Ithaca-area residents whose statements are included in this document The printing of and postage for this mailing was paid for entirely through contributions from all of the local residents whose statements are included in this document and whose names appear in the table of contents on the pages that follow. Any correspondence sent by postal mail or e-mail will be forwarded to each of these individuals, who will reply at their own discretion: DEIS Response, c% Charlene Temple, PO Box 0954, Ithaca, NY 14851; Email:cayugaheightsdeerplonresponse@gmail.com Table of Contents for DEIS response INDEPENDENT EXPERT RESPONSE: Allen T. Rutberg, PhD, of the Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts............................P. 1-2 Assistant Director, Center for Animals and Public Policy • Plan focuses on numbers of deer, rather than their impacts• DEIS lacks site-specific data, as well as target figures for lessening deer impacts • Adding 10%per year increase to the last deer count from 2006 is not a sound basis for estimating the current population • DEIS does not consider less invasive methods of deer population control • Sterilizing a sub-population of deer and killing the rest is a disturbing model that does not bode well for the coexistence of people and wildlife. Oswald J. Schmitz, PhD, of Yale University School of Forestry& Environmental Studies..............p. 3-4 Oastler Professor of Population & Community Ecology •The claim that the deer population is still prodigiously growing reflects an incomplete understanding about the population dynamics on this landscape • Insufficient evidence to support the assertion that a deer population size reduction will lessen impacts on habitat and vegetation,or that the management effort will achieve its stated objective deer population size of 15 per square mile • Culled deer could be rapidly replaced by deer from the surrounding landscape • DEIS needs to consider that deer populations may be the consequence of human impacts on the landscape rather than a cause of impacts to humans. Richard Ostfeld, PhD, of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies.......................................................p. 5-6 Senior Scientist;Author of Lyme Disease: The Ecology of a Complex System (2010: Oxford Univ. Press) • DEIS incorrectly states that linear correlations exist between deer and ticks • No scientific data support the existence of a deer density threshold below which ticks decline to low numbers • Deer actually reduce the prevalence of Lyme infection in tick populations •Adult blacklegged ticks feed on at least 27 mammal species, not just deer• It's misleading for DEIS to use Monehgan Island study to predict what will happen in Cayuga Heights. Tamara Awerbuch, PhD, of the Harvard School of Public Health........................................................p. 7-9 Instructor, Department of Population and International Health • Incorrect assumptions are made in DEIS about the relationship between deer and"deer ticks',which have no basis in science •There is no linear correlation between killing deer and the tick population • White-footed mice,and not deer, are the carriers of the agent of Lyme disease • In Ipswich, MA,Lyme disease kept growing following deer-killing program • "there is NO scientific justification for a deer killing program in your community". Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food &Water Watch (Washington, DC)......................P. 10-11 • "It is far from clear that deer are the primary source of any runoff contamination" • USDA data shows that dairy cows in Tompkins County"produce 145 million pounds of untreated manure every year" • "Determining the existence and source of any manure or wildlife waste runoff must be the first step in developing an appropriate policy to mitigate the risk of water contamination." tgq E, r;h9 M44 + codditiy'tvv, -Town COMMUNITY RESPONSE: 14A V GN Sherry Colb, Michael Dorf, Robert Hackett, Steve Shiffrin, Laura Underkuffler.........................p. 12-14 Local citizens, Cornell Law School Professors • DEIS lists alternatives, but in violation of state law,fails to seriously considerthose alternatives • Goal is defined as reducing deer population, rather than reducing deer-human conflict,sidestepping the need to analyze and quantify the conflict as well as proposed solutions • DEIS fails to consider impact on the deer themselves;the plan is inherently cruel • Potential trauma to residents is dismissed as"community controversy",when it should be objectively assessed as a "human health"impact,which is expressly included in SEQRA's definition of"environment" • Locations of the killings are not to be disclosed, preventing people in the vicinity to adequately protect themselves and their loved ones • "Should a legal challenge become necessary,we will lend our support to it." I l GarY�el! Wink C- -`wawa? ) Town (�ellt Slnarrv�arw� StuartStein...........................................................................................................................................p. 15-19 Local citizen, Emeritus Professor of City and Regional Planning, Cornell University • DEIS"completely fails to address or assess potentially significant impacts on the wider Ithaca community" • Residents in neighboring municipalities"should not be expected to remain silent if Village officials propose a plan that could damage them or the character of the larger community" •The lack of consideration of the concerns of residents in neighboring municipalities is contributing to an inter-municipal resentment that is uncharacteristic of Ithaca • DEIS does not seriously consider fencing and other alternatives that will not have as severe negative impacts on community • An annual deer-killing program could damage the image of this community,which is valued as a tourist destination for its"peaceful ambience," and which is also growing in popularity as a place to retire,relocate and raise children. vGK Dominick LaCapra (co-signed by Jane Pedersen)...............................................................................p. 20-27 Local citizen, Bowmar Professor and Prof. of History, Cornell University • Provides overview of the Cayuga Heights deer controversy and its evolution over the last decade • Hostility between neighbors is already apparent,before deer-killing program has even begun • No recent poll validates claims that majority of residents support the plan •The"normalization of systematized mass killing"will negatively change the character of the community,as will exposing children and other vulnerable witnesses to the risk of seeing and hearing the slaughter, or injured deer fleeing the scene •The questionable process which produced this expensive and controversial plan,as well as the lack of hard data used to support it,foster distrust and division in the village. rw5 W CharleneTemple, MSW, LCSW..............................................................................................................p. 28-29 Local citizen, Psychotherapist • DEIS fails to consider negative impacts on the mental health of individuals not just in Cayuga Heights, but in the wider Ithaca community,as well as alternatives with a lower potential for harm • Deer-killing program is likely to cause psychological trauma in a number of residents, especially those who enjoy the deer in their yard, and those who might witness sights/sounds of the killing or of deer scrambling in a panic • Even just knowing the killing is taking place could trigger symptoms in those with pre-existing trauma, as well as aggravate conditions of anxiety and depression • "I hope the trustees of Cayuga Heights would not knowingly introduce trauma into our community when there is a choice not to" lowt-1, t1 t C*ttly �INw CJ4 rdt Hazel Brampton, MS p. 30 31 ............................................................................................................................ Local citizen, Retired Psychotherapist • DEIS admits the deer-killing program will have a significant impact on the"social conscience"of a portion of the community, but dismisses this as a form of"community controversy,"when in fact, it is also a matter of mental health • "As a mental health professional, I am deeply concerned about the impact of this killing program on children...It continues the myth that violence is the answer to problems,and it will certainly cast a shadow on their still developing inner lives" • Some people are so disturbed by just the thought of this killing program,that they are already considering moving—"how can this not be considered significant by the trustees of Cayuga Heights?" 201 E UG41 SandipTiwan............................................................................................................................................p. 32-36 Local citizen, Charles N. Mellowes Professor in Engineering, Cornell University • DEIS has little that stands up to even the most basic scientific scrutiny,and almost nothing in way of verified factual information • Simple changes, like adjusting the fencing ordinance,would protect homeowners' properties from deer damage while also likely reduce the deer population by reducing their available food supply •There is no data expressing the will of the people,eg: do residents really want a mass-killing of deer in our backyards by net and bolt,do they want deer to be made infertile,or do they want them left alone? Do they want killing and a divided community,or fences and a community at peace? • Residents will depart Cayuga Heights based on ethical objections to the deer-killing program,and that is certain to change the character of the community. \{LN Mary&Guy Tabacchi..............................................................................................................................p. 77-79 Local citizens • 33 years ago,we purchased our home on a two acre wooded plot,with a pond and waterfall,from John Muir's niece and have preserved its character as an informal wildlife sanctuary for many species •We have not noticed a loss of native plants or birds since acquiring the property three decades ago • We have never encountered an aggressive deer• Our concerns,and those of many others opposed to the program,have not been given adequate consideration or respect • Basic questions posed at public meetings about the financing of the killing program have been ignored •Advocates of the killing program "have created a climate of intimidation in the village',silencing many who oppose it but fear they will be mistreated or marginalized if they speak out •The annual mass killing of animals whom we have bonded with and even named will cause pain and a great loss, and a continuing divide among neighbors who for years were friends. -row'A AlexandraGiordano......................................................................................................................................p. 80 Local citizen • Enjoys the deer in her yard, knows their personalities and family groups, has taken over 8,000 photos of them and named several • Lives just over the border of Cayuga Heights and will be devastated if the deer she knows and cares about are baited into the village and killed •At a public meeting,she"offered the village$10,000 from my small family foundation toward an alternative method of controlling the deer population. I know they have received at least one other similar offer. But... I never heard back from the mayor or any of the trustees,and I don't see these offers discussed anywhere in the DEIS." • Lives across from an elementary school and is also concerned about shots being fired in the area. ICatherine Stein...........................................................................................................................................p. 81-82 Local citizen • Chose to return to this community where she grew up so that her two young children could experience"the culture and environment I value so dearly",characterized by peaceful co-existence, creative problem solving, respectful listening,and working together to create a better community• Concerned about trauma to children and others who care about the deer when these animals are rounded up and shot in their vicinity • "I cannot imagine any environmental impact more threatening to a community than the imposition of violence,trauma,fear,and distrust;imbuing its constituency with a feeling of complete powerlessness,as the village officials carry out this violent,trauma-causing,and highly disputed plan against the wishes of a substantial portion of its constituency". Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS:Independent Expert Response Allen Rutberg, PhD(p. 1-2)-Page 1 TuftsSC114101 Of Vc[cn12<tn 110dicinc • ...l 1 ,% 1 t t. It h l 1' t 15 December 2010 Village of Cayuga Heights Trustees 836 Hanshaw Road Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Draft Deer Management Environmental Impact Statement Dear Trustees: I am a scientist with 20 years' experience dealing with urban deer issues and carrying out research into non-lethal methods of suburban deer population control. I have several concerns and comments regarding the information that the Trustees are using to make decisions about a deer management plan for the Village. In building a case for taking action, the DEIS makes clear that it is the impacts of the deer, rather than their numbers, that should shape management actions. However, the objectives of the proposed management effort are expressed only in terms of deer numbers. No targets are set for reductions in deer-vehicle collisions, reductions in impacts on ornamental plantings, reduction in Lyme disease rates, or restoration of biodiversity. Indeed, because the Village appears to have no information at all on deer impacts on ornamental plantings or on biodiversity that are specific to the Village itself(or even plant inventories within the Village's small natural areas), such targets are currently impossible to set. Likewise, although the DEIS waves the Lyme disease flag, it presents no site-specific data related to Lyme disease incidence or risk, and consequently concedes any prospect for measuring reduction in disease risk associated with the proposed deer management action. In my view, accurate deer population numbers are important for the development of management plans mostly because they define the scope of deer population management. Because there has been no population assessment for four years, there remains much uncertainty about the number of deer present, and hence about the outcome of any deer reduction effort. Extrapolation of wildlife population growth rates into the future is purely speculative, and the further into the future one extrapolates, the more speculative it is. In Cayuga Heights, where deer population estimates apparently were stable between 2002 and 2006, there is certainly no sound basis to postulate a 10% increase over the four years that followed. Tufts Center far Animals and Public Policy 200 Westboro Road North Grafton, Massachusetts, 01536 Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS:Independent Expert Response Allen Rutberg, PhD(p. 1-2)-Page 2 From a population management perspective, the DEIS commits a serious oversight in completely omitting any reference to less invasive methods of controlling fertility in deer. There are two injectable immunocontraceptive vaccines that have been shown to be effective in deer: the I and my collaborators have been working on for porcine zona pellucida (PZP) vaccine, which more than 20 years, and GonaCon Is, an EPA-registered vaccine that was developed by the USDA's National Wildlife Research Center. Safety, effectiveness, and population impacts in suburban deer have been extensively documented for PZP in particular, and recent technological advances have eliminated the need for annual retreatments (see especially Turner et al., "Controlled-release components of PZP contraceptive vaccine extend duration of infertility Wildlife Research 35:555-562 (2008); Rutberg and Naugle, "Population-level effects of immunocontraception in white-tailed deer," Wildlife Research 35:494-501 (2008): and Rutberg and Naugle, "Deer-vehicle collision trends at a suburban immunocontraception site," Human- Wildlifi Conflicts 2:60-67 (2008)). There may ultimately be reasons for not choosing to employ either of these vaccines, but both deserve serious consideration in a legitimate EIS. Finally, as a trained ecologist who values wildlife as wildlife, I find myself extremely disturbed by the proposal to capture and sterilize a subpopulation of wild deer and exterminate the rest. With this management model, the Village of Cayuga Heights aspires to reduce its wild deer population to a state of semi-domestication. I do not see much of a future for the coexistence of people and wildlife if even as progressive a community as Cayuga Heights cannot tolerate wildlife within its boundaries. I strongly recommend that the Trustees take a harder look at the proposed management plan, better define their objectives to meet the community's legitimate concerns with deer, and further consider less invasive means for managing the Village's conflict with deer. Sincerely, Allen T. Rutberg, Ph.D. Assistant Director Center for Animals and Public Policy Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University 508-887-4769 sllCn.nuhera_ic to I1S.C(ln Tufts Center'lnr Animals and Public Polio. 200 Westboro Road North Grafton, Massachusetts, 01536 Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DENS:Independent Expert Response Oswald Shmitz, PhD(p. 3-4)-Page 3 YALE UNIVERSITY School of Forestry & Environmental Studies 14 December 2010 Greeley Lab 370 Prospect Street Board of Trustees New Haven, CT 06511 Cayuga Heights NY oswald.schmitz(Oyale.edu Dear Trustees, 1 am,herewith, commenting on the plan to control white-tailed deer within the town limits of the Village of Cayuga Heights. In providing this comment, I wish to affirm that I am not being paid by anyone for this service. 1 am providing feedback in my capacity as an ecologist who has studied white-tailed deer for my PhD dissertation and subsequent research. I have published 6 peer-reviewed papers and book chapters dealing with white-tailed deer ecology and population management. I have looked at all of the documents provided at the website for the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) hap:. %N�c��.tiinnuilrrusocimes.conrpublierccic%t cavupllckjut . I am working under the understanding that this is the official document for which comment is request. Below I identify specific informational content in the documents and offer subsequent comment. In the document 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION the proposed deer population control effort in the Village of Cayuga Heights(VCH) is based on the following premises. (1) Many studies in the past 20-25 years suggest that high deer densities affect plant species composition,biodiversity and forest regeneration(pages 2-2,2-3). (2)A substantial deer density can significantly influence wildlife habitat and deer foraging can compromise the ability of an ecosystem to recover, leading to alteration of forest composition and structure(page 2-3). (3) Deer populations above 10 deer per square mile are undesirable if the management goal is to achieve maximum biodiversity(page 2-3). (4)To minimize losses of animal and plant diversity, the management target should be 30 deer or fewer within VCH,or a density of 15 deer per square mile or fewer(Page 2-4). Conancnr Re: (1)The document is correct in stating that research over the past 20-25 years has examined how deer can affect species composition, biodiversity and forest regeneration. However, many of these studies are in a single location and could thus be conflated by human land use type and land-use history so that deer cannot be concluded to be a leading factor determining the impact in any one of these studies(see Rutherford and Schmitz 2010,Journal of Wildlife Management 76:1257-126 3). Indeed, such conflation of land use on deer populations has been alluded to in 2.3 Project Background... which claims that agricultural practices and forest management has improved and expanded deer habitat and suburbanization of landscapes has created edge habitats preferred by deer(page 2-2). Re: (2) It is correct that high deer densities can significantly influence habitat and forest composition and structure. However,our research(Rutherford and Schmitz 2010), conducted in a similar landscape as VCH, and includes several replicated town sites,again shows that these damage levels are unrelated to deer density per se across a wide range of deer densities. This means that lowering deer densities will not by itself lessen deer impacts on habitat and vegetation. Furthermore, the DEIS never provides criteria for quantifying and assessing damage levels that are acceptable or unacceptable. Hence, there are no a priori criteria to judge success of management aimed at lessening"damage". Re: (3 &4)The document is correct that deer densities above 10-15 per square mile can be quite damaging in some areas. But, again, there is wide variation in damage levels, meaning that t0-15 is not a damage threshold,as implied by the document. Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS:Independent Expert Response Oswald Shmitz,PhD(p. 3-4)-Page 4 The document identifies several management goals including(5) VCH should adopt a cultural carrying capacity goal of 15 doer per square mile(page 2-7). (6)VCH should begin a Phased Options Approach(POA)beginning with sterilization of 20-60 does and subsequent culling of unsterilized does(Page 2-7). (7) POA must be implemented in each of the first 5 years of the management program(Page 2-8)and may require continuous implementation in perpetuity(Page 2-9). Comment Re: (5) 1 see no evidence that this population size goal is attainable for 2 reasons. First, the document itself states that deer population (sizes] are difficult to ascertain accurately due to daily and seasonal movements(page 2-4). Thus,there is no evidence provided that accurate estimates of deer will be obtainable to judge the success of the management. Second,because of the acknowledged daily and seasonal movements,the deer population in VCH may not be closed— meaning deer may not be confined within the town boundaries,but may enter and leave VCH. There is further evidence to suggest that VCH does not have a closed population. The current reported deer population sizes(Letter to VCH Trustees from Paul Curtis Dated 12/9/2009--Appendix A) indicates that the deer population size(presumably within VCH boundaries —the exact area of the population estimate is not specified) is very high by deer population standards. However, the population was only sampled in the spring(according to the letter) so the seasonal movement of deer remains unclear. One might expect that under such high abundances,that deer birth rates would slow because of competition for food (called density-dependent feedback). The claim that the deer population is still growing prodigiously(according to the letter)means there is incomplete understanding about the population dynamics on this landscape. One possibility is that deer are moving seasonally into and out of the VCH from the surrounding landscape, are highly abundant seasonally,but are not resident within the VCH. The fact that this alternative cannot be ruled out has implications for(6)and(7). Re: (6)Sterilization, if it works at all,will only work for a closed population. The fact that the DEIS has not provided evidence that the VCH deer population is a closed population means that sterilization, and hence a PDA as defined in the document could be altogether untenable. Furthermore, if the population is open,then it will be difficult to reach a target "stable"population size of 15 deer per square mile,even within a single culling period. Because culled deer could be rapidly replaced by deer from the landscape surrounding VCH,there is a likelihood that even a 5 year time horizon will be insufficient to reach a target population size. it may never be reached with an open population and culling efforts focused only on a small part of the greater landscape. Re: (7)The document is correct in suspecting that the POA will need to be implemented in perpetuity, especially if the VCH deer population is not a closed population. In summary,there is insufficient evidence provided in the documentation to show that the management effort will achieve its stated objective deer population size of 15 per square mile within VCI1. Evidence to support the assertion that a deer population size reduction will lessen impacts on ecosystems(habitat and vegetation)within VCH is also insufficient. Furthermore,the DEIS needs to consider the conflating effects of human land use as a driver of deer movements and population growth on this landscape. That is, deer populations may be the consequence of human impacts on the landscape rather than a cause of impacts to humans. Sincerely, Oswald J. Schmitz, PhD Oastler Professor of Population& Community Ecology Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DENS:Independent Expert Response Richard Ostfeld, PhD(p.5-6)Page-5 Cary institute Box Ali.2801 SAan.r;Tompike Mdlhn.,k.Nm York 12545-0124 Telephone 845-677-5341 FAY 645-e77-5976 f rlephone(dimci did)8.5-n77.7600,ekt l�g [+nail` _.. steno,&-'ent/Il Rw+x l S.Osticid, Ph D. 6 December 2010 To: Village of Cayuga Heights Board of Trustees Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan I am a research scientist who has devoted much of the past twenty years to understanding the ecology of Lyme disease and other tick-borne infections(set! ). I have carefully read all sections of your DEIS pertaining to the potential impacts of management options on ticks and tick-ix)me disease. The DEIS contains many inaccurate and unsupported statements about relationships between deer, blacklegged ticks (incorrectly called "deer ticks"), and Lyme disease for example, page 2-10 incorrectly states that linear correlations exist between deer and ticks. A comprehensive review of the scientific literature on the relationship between numbers of deer and numbers ut ticks reveals that the majority of studies find no statistical correlation at all (see- Ostfeld, R-S. 2011. Lyme disease: the ecology of a complex system. Oxford University Press, New York.). The lack of a correlation derives from the following facts: (1) deer do not infect ticks with Lyme bacteria, and actually reduce the infection prevalence in tick populations; (2) adult blacklegged ticks feed on at least 27 different species of mammals and are not specialists on white-tailed deer; (3) when deer populations are culled, ticks crowd onto the remaining deer, resulting in similar total numbers of tick meals; and (4)even when deer affect the number of eggs laid by adult ticks and resulting abundance of larvae. numbers of larvae do not predict numbers of nymphs(nymphs are resl%onsible for transmitting Lyme disease to people). On page 3-5 the document cites the Monhegan Island fMafne) study to protect what might happen in Cayuga Heights. This is misleading. On Monhegan Island, the deer herd was hunted from 100 to zuro individuals. No other host animals for the adult stage of the tick were present on the island. 'Therefore, with no other host on which to Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DENS:Independent Expert Response Richard Ostfeld,PhD(p.5-6)Page-6 complete their life cycle, the blacklegged ticks declined dramatically. But when deer have bmn culled on mainland sites, management never achieves extirpation of deer, and the remaining deer plus many other hosts suplwrt adult ticks. Iherefore, control of ticks is weak to nonexistent. Moreover, although mention is made of deer thresholds in the non-peer-reviewed literature, no scientific data support the existence of a deer density threshold below which ticks decline to low numbers. Scientific literature on which my statements are based can be found in the book cited above. I refrain from commenting on other arguments concerning the benefits of culling deer. However, to the extent that the justification is based on the notion that reduced Lyme disease incidence will result,the document is deeply flawed. I would be happy to address questions should any arise. Sincereiv, Richard S. 0stfeld, PhD Senior Scientist Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS:Independent Expert Response Tamara Awerbuch, PhD(p.7-9)Page- 7 HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH Department of Global Health and Population To: Village of Cayuga Heights Board of Trustees December 14, 2010 Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement — Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan Dear Board of Trustees, I am a scientist and teacher at the Harvard School of Public Health in the Department of Global Health and Population. http://www hsph harvard edu/research/tamaraawerbuchfriedlander/in dex.html. One of my main contributions to science is my research on the ecology of the vector that transmits the Lyme disease bacteria, which appeared in peer reviewed publications in scientific journals. The essence of my findings is also described in the home page of my school: http //www hsph harvard edu/news/features/features/kiling-deer-not- answer-red ucing-Iyme-disease.html. After reading your DEIS pertaining to potential outcomes of management programs to reduce tick populations by killing deer, I was surprised at the lack of a scientific basis, moreover at the incorrect assumptions about the relationship between deer and the so called "deer tick"; the scientific name of blacklegged ticks is Ixodes dammini, the name given by Dr. Andrew Spielman, a colleague in our school, who discovered that this is the vector of the disease. The life cycle of the tick is quite complex, it is only The adult tick that takes a blood meal from deer, lays eggs and then dies. Deer do not carry the agent of Lyme disease; the white-footed mice do. In Crane Beach [in Ipswich, MA], where I conducted my study, people thought that if they killed deer they would reduce the number of ticks, and thereby control Lyme disease. Deer were reduced [from around 400 in 1983 to just over 100 in 1991], but Lyme disease kept Department of Global Health and Population Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS:Independent Expert Response Tamara Awerhuch, PhD(p.7-9)Page-8 growing. The question was why? We killed deer but people still got Lyme disease. So I did a study using a mathematical model to capture the life cycle of the tick. Because the ecology of Lyme disease is so complex, it is very hard to look at deer and tick, mouse and tick, one by one. You have to link all the factors together in a way that lends itself to mathematical analysis. The following figure shows the reduction in deer number throughout the years, and the line shows the increase in larvae ticks in Ipswich, Mass. Larval fl7iB i0ns1 Soo r n � ta0 zoo IF r/ t 2C 100 30o r � &0 I 200 x J 6C lao 1c0 20 o J tSB: '.98= t385 79d6 t98' 1988 1989 '<990 ;997 -- Larvae (Sap) oter I The larvae pick up the infection from infected mice, and those that do not die, molt into infected nymphs which are the ones that transmit the infection. Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS:Independent Expert Response Tamara Awerbuch. PhD(p.7-9)Page-9 So there is NO LINEAR correlation between killing deer and the tick population. On Monhegan Island it was possible to get totally rid of the tick population because ALL deer were killed and no other animals were there to take over the empty niche left by the deer to support the adult tick. So in summary, there is NO scientific justification for a deer killing program in your community of Cayuga Heights, NY. There are certainly alternative ways for reducing the risk of Lyme disease. As we saw using data from Ipswich Mass. where there was an attempt to reduce the risk of Lyme disease by killing deer over a period of about ten years , I was able to show with a mathematical model why this intervention did not work. Dr. Tamara Awerbuch Department of Population and International Health, Harvard School of Public Health 655 Huntington Ave Boston MA 02115 Phone: 617-432-2505 Fax. 617- 432-6733 Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS:Independent Expert Response Wenonah Hauter(p. 1 o-11)-Page 10 o"Ift watch ttt.d 6 Water WStth • to 16 P St. NW, Suite 70O • W.,hingtoll, OC 20036 Village of Cayuga Heights, New York Deer Remediation Advisory Committee Marcham Hall 836 Hanshaw Road Ithaca, NY 14850 December 16, 20I0 Dear Madam or Sir: The Village of Cayuga Heights has recently proposed an aggressive deer population control program in response to an increased deer population. The proposal is justified in part by the purported public health risk from runoff tainted with deer waste.[ I am the executive director of Food & Water Watch, a national consumer organization that studies both municipal water systems and the impact of large livestock operations on the environment. Food & Water Watch has written extensively on the damage that excessive animal waste can have on local watersheds and the concomitant impact on clean municipal drinking water. Certainly animal waste can pose risks to drinking water supplies, but the slight risks posed by waste from wild deer can be easily mitigated by less aggressive, less risky and less expensive approaches than the net-and-bolt strategy currently favored by the Deer Remediation Advisory Committee. First, the focus on deer as the key source of microbiological contamination risk may be misplaced. It is far from clear that deer are the primary source of any runoff contamination. Some localities have found that waterfowl were the primary source of wildlife waste runoff.' Using U.S. Department of Agriculture data, Food & Water Watch recently reported that Tompkins County contains nearly 3,600 dairy cows on the largest class of farms that produce 145 million pounds of untreated manure every year. Determining the existence and source of any manure or wildlife waste runoff must be the first step in developing an appropriate policy to mitigate the risk of water contamination. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recommends tracking the bacterial source of non-point microbiological contamination before putting a plan in place. Inexpensive alternatives to assess the source of any runoff pollution include antibiotic resistance analysis that can pinpoint the risk from deer.` Until native deer are determined to be the source of any waterborne bacteriological Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS. November 1,2010, at Existing Conditions page 3-4. ' US Environmental Protection Agency. Notional Management Measures Guidance to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution fium Urban Areas. EPA-841-B-05-004. November 2005,at 2-15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Risk Assessment Evaluation for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations." F.PA/600/R-04/042. May 2004 at 9. see Food& Water Watch. "Factory Fann Nation." November 2010. US Environmental Protection Agency.Ncr[ionu/Management Measurer Guidance to Contra/Nonpoint Source Pollution lFom Urban Arens. FPA-941-B-05-004. November 2005, at 2-13. Ibid.at 2-15. Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DENS:Independent Expert Response Wenonah Hauter(p. 10-11)-Page 11 contamination, it would be ill advised to pursue an expensive and dangerous program to limit the deer population. If wild native deer are determined to be the source of any runoff contamination, there are many less expensive, less dangerous and more effective policies that can provide greater protection to municipal water sources. The most effective strategies to reducing contamination from runoff are to improve the grade, contour, buffer and foliage surrounding waterways to provide natural filtration and reduce the speed of water runoff. The New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission recommends habitat modification (including landscape changes and tree branch pruning), preventing human feeding of wildlife (especially waterfowl), monitoring wildlife populations in and around water supplies, deterring wildlife from vulnerable watershed areas and reducing available food sources." These strategies have the added advantage of addressing the extant deer population but also any future deer that may enter the community and repopulate the area after any short-term deer population control strategies. There are a host of additional legitimate criticisms to the proposed strategy to control the native deer population. The proposal includes a waiver from New York state rules to use "net-and-bolt" methods that are usually banned because they are inhumane.7 It would be expensive, intrusive and potentially dangerous to local citizens and pets to deploy explosive nets within the village residential areas. Short-term population control mechanisms over native deer only address the current deer, not the long-term existence of whitetail deer in Western New York. Although the current deer might be controlled, more deer will likely come to the village. It is especially disingenuous to use the legitimate concern of water contamination to justify a policy that is considerably more draconian than necessary to protect the village water supply. There are a host of more affordable, more effective, and less dangerous and aggressive policies to protect the village's water supply than the proposed net-and-bolt so-called strategy offered by the Deer Remediation Advisory Committee. Stopping the spread of dangerous pathogens and chemicals in Our water is a legitimate concern for all governments. But using those concerns as a scare tactic neither serves the people of Cayuga Heights nor protects the water resources of the area. Sincerely, Wenonah Hauler Executive Director Food & Water Watch " New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission. What do you know chow inicrohiul conannination? Available online at I III�_ whaiJoyOntl<nuwabwa u . np. Accessed December,2010. Cummings, Anne Maric. "Deer control method sparks debate." Tomkins Weekk. November 22,2010. 2 Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS:Community Response Michael Dorf, at at(p. 12-14)-Page 12 Village of Cayuga Heights Board of Trustees Cayuga Heights Ithaca, NY 14850 December 13, 2010 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Regarding Deer Population Control We are five members of the faculty of Cornell Law School and all residents of Ithaca, two of us living in Cayuga Heights. We write in our individual capacities as citizens, informed by our knowledge of the law. We wish to express dismay with the draft environmental impact statement ("DEIS") regarding the current plan to slaughter most of the deer in Cayuga Heights. New York law requires that an environmental impact statement"must analyze the significant adverse impacts and evaluate all reasonable alternatives" [6 NYCRR 617.9(b)(1)]. For four chief reasons, we believe that the DEIS fails this basic requirement. 1. The DEIS parades assertions but does not provide adequate support on such vital matters as the determination of the current deer population of Cayuga Heights based on a reliable field study, the acquisition of community-specific biodiversity data, the analysis of the likelihood that deer will migrate into Cayuga Heights from surrounding areas, or the likely impact of contraception with vaccine or surgical sterilization, relaxing the fencing ordinance, or the combination of these and other non- lethal alternative methods of reducing the level of deer-human impact. The EIS thus lists alternatives, but in violation of state law, it fails seriously to consider those alternatives. Further, the very choice to define the goal of the action itself as being to reduce the deer population, rather than to reduce the impact of deer-human conflict, appears to be a device used to avoid responsibility for taking a "hard look" at the numerous non-lethal alternatives, some of which, such as a more flexible fencing ordinance, are being successfully used in neighboring municipalities. In the Environmental Assessment Form (Appendix A of the DEIS), the examination of viable alternatives with demonstrably lower negative impacts is repeatedly circumvented by the circular declaration that "any modification of the plan would result in not lowering the deer population, which is the goal of the action." With due respect, the issue at hand is not a widespread objection amongst the citizenry to the very existence of the deer, but to the impact caused by conflicts with the deer. By reducing the alleged problem to "too many deer," the DEIS opens the door to sidestepping the need to analyze and quantify the various dimensions of deer-human conflict and of proposed solutions. Doing so would lead to a more realistic understanding of the issue, a more meaningful evaluation of alternatives, and a more effective evaluation of the success or failure of the program, all of which would serve the underlying purposes of our state's environmental laws and the best interests of the community. Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS:Community Response Michael Dorf,at at(p. 12-14)-Page 13 Statement of Five Cornell Law Professors Page 2 2. The DEIS nowhere considers the impact on the deer themselves. It calls the "net and bolt" method of slaughter a form of"euthanasia," a particularly odd term to describe the killing of healthy animals. As for the method itself, even those who practice it admit that it causes great suffering and therefore cannot plausibly be termed "humane." The DEIS does not consider the evidence that captive bolts fired at netted deer frequently miss their target, causing prolonged deaths. Moreover, the plan is inherently cruel, both to those animals targeted for unnecessary slaughter and to those marked for survival who will be forced to watch their herd-mates systematically massacred in front of them, whether the killing is carried out with firearms or captive-bolt devices. Exacerbating this cruelty is the fact that it will be repeated, year after year, and will thus subject large numbers of gentle living beings to terrible physical pain, emotional agony, and death. 3. Numerous people in our community have publicly expressed the pain and anxiety that they feel at the prospect of individual deer whom they have come to know being violently killed. Some of the people likely to be traumatized by the violent plan will be children. Others may be those with pre-existing mental health conditions connected to previous exposure to violence that could be exacerbated through inadvertent witnessing the sights or sounds of the killing process or even by knowledge of being in close proximity to locations where mass killing is being carried out. The DEIS callously dismisses such actual traumatization as mere "community controversy," which, it states "is not a criteria [sic] for determining significance." Yet the emotional wellbeing of community residents is an aspect of"human health" that must be specifically and objectively assessed in the DEIS. "Human health" is expressly included in SEQRA's definition of"environment." [See 6 NYCRR 6I7.2(1).] Additionally, "the creation of a hazard to human health" is listed in the SEQR regulations as an "indicator of significant adverse impacts on the environment." [See 6 NYCRR 617/7(c)(1)(vii).] 4. Discharging deadly weapons in close proximity to homes and roadways— as the deer-killing plan entails—poses danger to the people of our community. It is impossible to eliminate this danger completely, and it will affect more people than those who reside in the village, including those who live in neighboring municipalities as well as those who drive through the village's many roadways. The precise location of the killing will apparently remain undisclosed; the DEIS lists it as the entire Village of Cayuga Heights. Thus, people in the vicinity will be unable to protect themselves and their loved ones—both human and nonhuman—from potential harm. A bullet meant for an innocent deer can foreseeably wound and kill an innocent human, dog, cat, or other fellow inhabitant of this generally peaceful village, town, and city. Hence, we encourage the trustees to step back and reassess the likely Iona term effects of the proposed deer-slaughter plan on both Cayuga Heights and the larger Ithaca community. The trustees have a final opportunity now to bring us all together with a creative, non-violent solution, and we hope they take it. Should the trustees proceed with implementing the currently proposed plan, we Dorf, et al(p. 12-14)-Page 14 Cayuga Heights Deer Management Plan DEIS:Community Response MichaelPage 3 Statement of Five Cornell Law Prgfessors will continue to express our opposition and encourage others to do the same. Should a legal challenge become necessary, we will lend our support to it. The current deer- slaughter plan would damage our community for many years to come. There is still time to reconsider, and in doing so, preserve the good will and sense of unity our community will doubtless need in the challenging times ahead. Respectfully, Sherry F. Colb Professor of Law and Charles Evans Hughes Scholar, Cornell University* Michael C. Dorf , Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law, Cornell University Robert C. Hockett Professor of Law, Cornell University* Steven H. Shiffrin Charles Frank Reavis Sr. Professor of Law, Cornell University* Laura Underkuftler I DuPratt White Professor of Law, Cornell University* .Titles and affiliation listed for identification purposes only.