The Ad Hoc Tick Borne Disease Action Committee held a meeting on Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at the C.H. Booth Library, Main Street, Newtown, Connecticut
Attendance – Present: Mark Alexander, Kirk Blanchard, Pat Boily, Neil Chaudhary, David Delia, Robert Grossman, Kim Harrison, Peter Licht, Michele McLeod, Mary Gaudet-Wilson, Maggie Shaw, and George Miller. Also Present: David Shugarts, Kendra Bobowick from The Newtown Bee, Craig LeMoult, Reporter from WSHU Public Radio, and two members of the public.
Approval of Minutes – Dr. Grossman asked for comments of the minutes of December 15, 2009. The minutes were approved with two changes; under Public Comment, change “Lymes” to “Lyme” and under Final Comments, change “decrease” to “increase”.
Dr. Grossman called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. said suggested that the committee review some of the information received and to determine what the committee still need. He said there are still a number of things that the committee has to do and hear about. He asked for small groups to get together to review what has been discussed and come to an agreement or disagreement on various issues.
Dr. McLeod suggested a sub-committee review all the information from other towns and present to the committee the salient points from each. She also suggested they take into account the years they were completed since there are newer options available.
Dr. Grossman will forward to the committee a deer management memo received from Georgina Scholl from the Fairfield County Municipal Deer Management to discuss at a future meeting.
Ms. Harrison said that it is important to have a summary of information gathered from the speakers. Dr. McLeod suggested that a transcript is more beneficial than a summary since a summary can be interpreted differently. Ms. Harrison said that her summary can be reviewed by committee members for their input.
Rob Sibley, Deputy Director of Land Use Agency, was present to answer questions and explained that his expertise lies in the care and well being of the town’s open space and the interaction of it in the community.
Dr. McLeod asked whether stipulations or conditions that are placed on open space parcels can be changed or overlooked. Mr. Sibley explained that open space and town-owned land is received several ways; through donations, conservation easements, as part of a condition/requirement of the development of a subdivision, or as land purchased through the town open space program. He noted that within the last five years, the open space program has purchased close to 400 acres and that each parcel has it’s own separate legal description with conditions carried over in the transaction. Any stipulations in the deed are carried over in perpetuity and cannot be changed. Each parcel is unique and would need to be researched for conditions and possibilities. The Conservation Commission has a list of
basic restrictions on open space parcels and the police have rules that guide their enforcement.
Mr. Sibley was asked for data on deer population in the open space. He said this information is provided by the DEP.
Ms. Harrison asked if Mr. Sibley has assessed damage done by the deer with over-browsing, such as loss of new growth, and said that the Audubon Society has information about the interference with nesting birds, plants, and insects. Mr. Sibley explained that most town-owned parcels had previously gone through an agricultural process within the last few hundred years, have been part of a larger farm that held herds or where plowed, and what is currently there is at least at a second or third growth generation since colonization some 300 or 400 years ago. There are invasive characteristics which are described as anything that has arrived within the last few hundred years and have outcompeted natural habitat. Browsing or over population by specific species has been encouraged by developments. Invasive
plants or animals have been pressured to go into native areas that open space protects. He stated that in the five years of being here he has seen a steady increase, biologically overall, of non-native species marching towards a higher pressure on the native species. This includes loss of habitats for birds, animals and native plants. Any animal that has any possibility of pressure has a major impact on the eco system.
Dr. McLeod asked if the animals include humans. Mr. Sibley said yes and that the largest impact - with invasives - is human population. He discussed lot clearing creates a loss of habitat and that chipped areas around gardens are detrimental to natural habitat which effect the symbiotic environment.
Mr. Sibley was asked if he had data on tick populations in open space. He said the town has not sponsored this and that he receives his information from the DEP and the Department of Health.
Mr. Sibley was asked if the town has looked into deer exclosures. He noted there he has not seen a sponsorship for this and explained that when he was the manager of the Greenwich Audubon, they had a deer exclosure area but found they were difficult to maintain. He agreed there is always a benefit to this study and that nothing excludes this opportunity in open space, but that volunteers would be needed.
Dr. McLeod asked Mr. Sibley if he was aware of any impact or studies in terms of changes in soil quality, such as acid rain impacting natural habitats. She said that one study on the loss of Trillium from deer grazing was done in Pennsylvania by a professor who was also a hunter. He expected to find the Trillium disappearing due to deer grazing but found that the deer only grazed on certain types of Trillium. His hypotheses included that the loss could also be caused by acid rain and changes in soil. Mr. Sibley said it was an interesting hypothesis and explained that Connecticut has very finite types of soil. There is a particular group of soils very helpful in buffering acid, but explained that quick runoff from site developments does not allow soil to treat the run off. Rain itself
has a typical ph level of between 5.7 and 5.8 and in the atmosphere it reacts to different gases as it is pulled down and strikes the ground. The soil it meets buffers this characteristic. Near rivers and streams with direct run-off there is a higher level than ground water in its buffering capacity. It has a change in the ph level when it starts to percolate down through the ground water. He said that within the last 3½ years, he has not seen any degradation in ph level in his water quality analyses.
A committee member said that one speaker said that eco system engineers have talked about radical changes in the forest and discussed run off is caused from paths and impaction. Mr. Sibley explained that a compaction of soil layer changes infiltration and foot paths or travel paths by animals over time will become compacted. Water will follow the compaction instead of infiltrating naturally. He provided an analogy where the forest floor feels like a sponge and lawns feel like basketball courts. He explained the infiltration characteristics of bacteria, fungus and root systems that a forest affords, but compacted soil changes where water flows. Water follows direction, which causes changes in the nutrients and nutrients that flow into the lakes and streams. He can see that as a
possibility, along with anything animals contribute such as droppings or browsing. He feels compaction is the number one enemy of runoff.
Ms. Harrison said DEP shows that Newtown has a deer population of 70 deer per square mile and that in order to reduce tick borne disease, the numbers should be in the 10 to 12 deer per square mile range - and then to have a healthy eco system, it should be reduced to 15 to 20 deer per square mile. She noted this was an alarming statistic.
Mr. Sibley said that it would be assumed if you have overpopulation you would have a reduction in rebound as a result of the overpopulation, but because of human interference and edge habitat creation, the ability for deer to be preserved at a higher than artificial level is one of the reasons for a higher population.
Ms. Harrison asked Mr. Sibley about deer disbursing exotic and invasive seeds in greater distances, as discussed by Dr. Jeff Ward from the CT Agricultural Experiment Station. Mr. Sibley said there are several vectors for how plants spread their seeds, through wind and water and scarification or going through a gullet and being reproduced in the ground. As long as the seed is preserved, plants benefit from the process. He said he was not sure whether deer are specifically suited to break down the process since the plants they eat are poor in nutrition and it moves through the gullet quickly.
Ms. McLeod added “as well as birds that travel long distances.” She agrees that in order to reduce tick born disease the deer population would need to be reduced to 10 to 12 deer per square mile and feels that anything more than that would not work; that reduction is extremely difficult to achieve. She said those successful have been isolated communities or certain residential communities with a killing deer strategy. She feels an open community is something almost over the top to achieve. Others in the group disagreed.
Mr. Sibley stated that the Conservation Commission has been attempting to connect the open space areas and that there are parcels large enough, but they would have to be studied parcel by parcel. He noted the town owns 3,000 acres of open lands, but that that includes schools, etc. The committee would need to research parcels on a case by case basis. The state land may already have hunting programs.
Mr. Sibley was asked if he had any concept on the average number of reduction in deer. He said it’s difficult to determine since you may have an acre of open space with a herd of 40 strong or a 40 acre parcel with the same population of deer. Firearm restrictions would need to be researched and that there are different impacts with different hunting techniques.
A member of the committee asked him his estimate of the number of reduction of deer per square mile one could attain. Mr. Sibley said he can’t see it impacting more than a reduction of 10 to 15 deer. He noted that larger tracts of land such as Fairfield Hills that have huge herds, but that parcel falls under the Fairfield Hills Authority. He said there may be some parcels that can be hunted, but research would need to be done. He explained that out of all the parcels, half have restrictions, and half of those restrict hunting, half of those are next to a state parcel. He estimated approximately a tenth of the town parcels could be hunted, which would provide a possibility of a 10% of reduction.
Kim said the Greenwich Audubon allows hunting because the thing you’re trying to protect is being destroyed. Mr. Sibley stated that restrictions are through a covenant with the original owner and that the Town cannot take it away, it’s there forever. He also discussed firearm or hunting laws and that the Town does not have anything on the books specifying hunting. The CT State Statutes for subdivisions would need to be researched.
Ms. Harrison asked if Mr. Sibley would be willing to talk with neighboring towns that have done deer management. Mr. Sibley said he attended a Redding Conservation Commission meeting and heard a report specific to parcels that were hunted. He said they identified six large parcels and to mimic their program that the same characteristics would be needed to even begin the journey.
Ms. Harrison asked if he could look at what other towns have done. Mr. Sibley said he can review what the committee has already received from other towns.
Dr. McLeod said the difference between this committee and other towns is that this committee was set up to address tick borne disease whereas other towns labeled themselves deer management or had the word Deer in the title. She asked if there were restrictions on the use of sprays in open space and said there was a fungicidal spray that when ingested by ticks, it kills some and makes others less potent in subsequent generations, therefore reducing tick populations.
Mr. Sibley said that open space conditions are shared between two commissions, the Conservation Commission who oversees the usage of open space and Parks and Rec. Dept. that play a part in care of open space. The committee would have to look at least two commissions to approve any activity.
Mr. Sibley was asked if there are currently any remediation efforts in the open space. He said no, but that signs describing ticks are placed along the park edges.
Mr. Sibley was asked was his assessment is of the forest. He said that there are some very healthy as well as some very impaired woodlands, forest and streams and explained they are currently doing a good job of looking at what resources Newtown has. He said the amount of disturbance through residential development has slowed but that the incredible fragmentation of habitat has had incredible impacts on the natural resources of Newtown. He explained that surface and ground water quality has remained the same and that there are habitats surrounding the town that act as a buffer, including the state lands north and south, the Aquarian property on the other side of town, that Fairfield Hills property anchors the center and that these large tracks of lands have benefited the forests. He explained that
he grew up in eastern Newtown/ Easton border, and that the habitats are still very vibrant in many ways, but the more fractional and developed areas have extreme pressures and he has seen a degradation of forests at catastrophic levels.
Mr. Sibley was asked about visual corridors in the forest. He said it depends on the area and that some forests have a visual corridor but that others are easy to get lost in and would require a machete to get through. He said that surveyors would say the same thing.
He was asked that if there was a town owned parcel where people around it would want it to be hunted, what would be involved to make it happen. Mr. Sibley said you’d need a need petition from an agency, then confirm it with the commissions that are responsible for it’s care and upkeep, then research the parcel to make sure there are no deed restrictions associated with property. Also you would need to confirm state statutes and check with DEP on hunting regulations.
He was asked how many town owned parcels there are with 50 or more acres. Mr. Sibley said there are approximately 50 parcels with 50 or more acres.
Ms. Gaudet-Wilson said when getting to the point of recommendations, would a study of the forest help. Mr. Sibley said if you recommend an open space parcel, you would need to check on the deed restrictions, the CT State Statutes, and he would suggest it should be where it is believed the population is the highest and where the impact would be greatest. Each parcel will take a lot of time and energy in researching. A population impact would be the recommendation. She then asked if there could be a study on forests that have less than healthy conditions. Mr. Sibley said to look at all parcels over 30 acres, study those and determine which one poses the largest threat or would have the biggest impact. He said that many parcels have had previous studies done on them by interns, students, or
subdivisions. Use their information as a baseline.
Mr. Sibley explained his role within the Land Use Agency and as staff supporting the Conservation Commission and Inland Wetlands Commission. He explained the Town’s GIS system capability and said that although it’s not 100% accurate, it has defined about 60 square miles of town owned property. This town-owned land also includes roads, schools, parks, etc. Behind the map is a database, which would need to be researched. Also, most environmental impact studies come from subdivisions and these parcels are usually a previously healthy habitat. Mr. Sibley was thanked for attending the meeting.
The committee discussed the information from Mr. Sibley. Dr. Grossman said it would be important that if hunting was recommended, the public would need to be given information regarding data and safety factors, perhaps through the Bee.
Lynn Garfinkle from “No Arrows or Bullets” stated that the committee needs to be careful about the formulation of a report and discussed the issue that Fairfield is having with their fact findings. She encouraged that what is written or what recommendation it must be about Newtown specifically. They started a process to Stop hunting in Fairfield.
| 
