Community Example: Cedar Rapids, Iowa

Key facts

Citizens raised concerns about deer-vehicle collisions and damage to landscaping
Annual monitoring includes aerial surveys, on-the-ground inventories, and police records on deer-vehicle collisions
A 40% reduction in deer-vehicle collisions has occurred since program initiation

Community Size: Large city (50,000 to 500,000 people)

Region: Midwest

Plan established in 2007

Cedar Rapids is the second largest city in Iowa. The primary problems with the local deer population included vehicular collisions and intrusion of deer on private gardens. To address these concerns, the City created a Deer Management program in 2005 and began its implementation in 2006. After many attempts, Cedar Rapids’ deer management program finally received approval for funding in 2012 and continues to be annually funded. The program includes regulated hunting by licensed hunters during permitted seasons and education of community residents—especially with regard to road safety concerns due to the large deer population. Annual monitoring is a routine part of deer management in Cedar Rapids.

Location

Phase 1. Problem Definition

Residents of Cedar Rapids were facing problems relating to increasing deer numbers, such as damage to gardens and landscaping. The situation reached a tipping point when the number of deer-vehicle collisions surpassed a socially acceptable threshold. In response, Community Leaders created a local committee to work on deer management in the area. This Committee comprised representatives of the City of Cedar Rapids, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and other community leaders. To assess the extent of the damage done by the deer, the committee reached out to experts. The contacted the police for records on vehicular collisions and scientists to assess the damage done to forests. They also requested deer population estimates from Iowa DNR wildlife managers.

Phase 2. Decision-making

Cedar Rapids acquired and synthesized information from wildlife agencies, other communities and local stakeholders to determine the cost, feasibility and acceptability of various alternatives. Regulated hunting by licensed hunters during permitted seasons emerged from this process as the primary strategy for deer management. A number of educational strategies were also identified, including driving tips for avoiding deer-vehicle collisions and options for minimizing deer impacts to gardens—for example through the application of repellants. During this phase, the deer management committee was sensitive to the importance of community buy-in. They held multiple public meetings to air all concerns.

Phase 3. Implementation

Implementation of the Cedar Rapids deer management plan began in 2006. The ongoing program includes annual training, issuing hunting permits and education. Deer management responsibilities were absorbed into the City’s existing administrative structure, rather than creating new positions or hiring an external contractor. Cedar Rapids did however, reach out to the state wildlife agency for guidance and support. The City budgets $10,000 annually for ongoing implementation costs as well as for evaluation.

Phase 4. Evaluation and Adaptation Phase

The City of Cedar Rapids conducted several baseline surveys to establish the size of the community’s deer herd and associated impacts on quality of life. A combination of aerial surveys, ground monitoring and police records on deer-vehicle collisions was used to characterize baseline conditions. The community faced several challenges with the baseline assessment. For example, snow prevented several aerial surveys from being performed as scheduled. Inconsistencies in reporting road accidents related to deer occurred across the area. Program funding was unavailable until 2013, following a recommendation by the City Manager and approval by the City Council for an annual budget of $10,000 covering both implementation and monitoring costs. In the end the obstacles were worth overcoming. Cedar Rapids now has a successful deer management plan and has seen a 41% reduction in deer-car collisions.

Community Survey

Survey completed by a local government representative

Phase 1: Problem Definition

Initial discussion about deer as a community issue

Which parties initiated the original discussion about the possibility of a local deer management program?

Formal (elected or appointed) community leaders (e.g., town supervisor, town council)

Issue Drivers

What deer-related concerns were the main drivers of the original discussion about need for local deer management?

Deer damage to gardens and plantings around homes; Deer-related vehicle accidents

Any particular impact/event that was a tipping point for your community’s decision to develop a deer management program?

Increase in deer-vehicle accidents, or a particular collision with human injuries

Gathering Information

What process was used to define the deer management problem(s) in the community?

A local deer committee charged with defining the problem held discussions, but the committee did not have an outside facilitator

Phase 2: Decision-Making

Information Gathering

What information sources were consulted by the community group that made decisions about deer management action alternatives?

Content experts from wildlife agency, Community opinion presented by stakeholder groups, Deer management plans from other communities

How were different types of information used?

Content experts from wildlife agency:

To determine cost, To determine feasibility, To determine acceptability of action alternatives

Content experts from other organizations:

To determine cost, To determine feasibility, To determine acceptability of action alternatives

Community opinion presented by stakeholder groups:

To determine feasibility, To determine acceptability of action alternatives

Research reports or papers:

Was not used

Deer management plans from other communities:

To determine cost, To determine feasibility, To determine acceptability of action alternatives

Other source (identified above):

Was not used

Program Goals

What specific long-term goals were identified for this community’s deer management program?

Reduction in car vs. deer collisions

When were goals for the community-based deer management identified?

Prior to discussion about action alternatives

Selecting Management Actions

Special Challenges

Describe the two or three most important challenges the community faced during the decision-making phase.

Challenge:

Community buy-in

Community response to challenge:

Community meetings held to obtain buy in

Phase 3: Implementation

Key characteristics of the management program

Have any actions already been taken with respect to your deer management program?

Currently successful and continuing

What is/was the annual budget for your community's deer management program?

10000.00

For how many years has the program been funded?

3.00

Did your community create any new positions to assist in implementing the deer management program?

None, deer management duties were assigned to an existing position

What partners, if any, has the community engaged in to help implement the effort?

State wildlife management agency

Phase 4: Evaluation and Adaptation

The community's approach to outcome assessment

Did the community develop an assessment plan for measuring progress towards deer management goals?

Yes

What kinds of baseline information did your community collect before implementing the deer management program?

Deer population or deer density

Aerial surveys to estimate deer population or deer density

Damage to gardens and landscape plantings

Monitor Department of Natural Resources or Cooperative Extension reports of residential damage

Deer-vehicle collisions

Collecting police reports on number of deer-related vehicle accidents in community, Estimate rate of deer-related vehicle accidents per miles traveled in problem areas, Ask municipal agencies to monitor and report road kills in the community

Residents’ perceptions

Create a system that allows residents to report complaints, and monitor change in number and type of complaints submitted to the system

If an assessment plan was created, what indicators are used for measuring outcomes of management actions?

Deer population or deer density

Aerial surveys to estimate deer population or deer density

Damage to gardens and landscape plantings

Monitor Department of Natural Resources or Cooperative Extension reports of residential damage

Deer-vehicle collisions

Collecting police reports on number of deer-related vehicle accidents in community, Monitor deer-related vehicle accidents in areas where reflectors are installed on roadside, Estimate rate of deer-related vehicle accidents per miles traveled in problem areas

How program implementation has been adapted over time

What, if any, changes have been made to the deer management program since its initial implementation?

Change:

None

Special challenges at this phase

Describe any challenges your community faced in evaluating your deer management program.

Challenge:

Funding

Community response to the challenge:

City of Cedar Rapids created a budget line

Challenge:

Inconsistency of collision counts

Community response to the challenge:

None

Challenge:

Aerial Survey Feasability

Community response to the challenge:

Unable to facilitate due to snow conditions on many occasions

Assessment of program success overall

Does the community consider its CBDM program to be successful in achieving its objectives? Why or why not?

Yes, 41% reduction of car vs. deer collisions has been realized