| 1 | Thank you for the opportunity to review your scoping document and participate in the agency scoping meeting on April 20, 2004 regarding the proposed Creekside Town Center development. The design appears well thought out and we are pleased that Chester Creek will be restored to a more natural state through this process.Our local wildlife biologist had an opportunity to review your proposal and would like to provide some site specific resource information and offer some suggestions. First, the proposed design is for "wide landscaped strips" adjacent to and between the roads. Because moose are frequently attracted by certain types of vegetation, we'd recommend that you avoid the use of ornamental plants such as non-native pines (particularly Mugo), crabapples, and mountain ash. Second, black bears are frequently attracted into neighborhoods east of Muldoon Road, and occasionally cross the road in the area proposed for this development. Moose are also common in the Muldoon area. Both bears and moose are learning to take advantage of edible garbage. As a result, we'd recommend that bear and moose resistant containers be installed to manage solid waste and avoid creating nuisance, and potentially dangerous bear and moose problems.Third, beaver are abundant in Chester Creek east of Muldoon Road and downstream of the proposed town center. With the rehabilitation of the creek, beavers will probably expand their use of the area. There is some concern that these beavers could build dams in Chester Creek if suitable forage and trees are planted. Landscape architects may want to consider planting conifers along the creek or using low barriers around larger tree trunks. The creek also provides a migration corridor for a number of small mammals including beavers, muskrats and probably other semi-aquatic mammals such as mink. By rehabilitating Chester Creek and preserving an undeveloped riparian buffer zone along its course, should protect this important function.Again, thank you for the opportunity to participate in this review. |
| 2 | The Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Office of Habitat Management and Permitting (OHMP) has reviewed the subject request for scoping comments on road improvement to Debarr and Muldoon roads for the Creekside Town Center. The redesign of Chester Creek as part of this project will be an improvement of fish habitat within the project area. Part of the Creekside Town Center is a major restoration of Chester Creek. In the scoping meeting of April 20, 2000 it was noted that the existing plan for stream restoration of Chester Creek ends at the culverts that are under Muldoon Road. In the future there may be an opportunity to replace the culverts under Muldoon Road with a bridge. Chester Creek as the only anadromous stream within the project area. Chester Creek supports rearing coho salmon and resident Dolly Varden in the project area. OHMP would like to have roadway runoff channeled so that it has the least impact on Chester Creek. This would also pertain to placement of snow when it is removed from the roads in the winter. Stream buffers along the corridor of the stream should provide vegetation that will help filter runoff before it enters the creek. OHMP would recommend the use of woody vegetation to provide shade and protection for fish.For any work that would be below ordinary high water of Chester Creek, a Fish Habitat Permit would be required.We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposal at the early stages of project development. |
| 3 | Please
accept this e-mail as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) current
scoping comments on this project. These comments are based on our understanding
of the project as presented at the April 2004 agency scoping meeting,
the Dowl Engineers webpage on Creekside Town Center Road Improvements
(updated March 8, 2004), and in the January 2003 Master Plan document
on the Creekside Town Center website. If more current project plans exist,
please let me know so that we may modify our comments if necessary. We would like you to be aware of the following concerns, and to incorporate them and your responses into your project plans. As indicated in our previous e-mail: (1) You are advised of the need to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)(16 U.S.C. 703). Under the MBTA, it is illegal to "take" migratory birds, their eggs, feathers or nests. Take includes by any means or in any manner, any attempt at hunting, pursuing, wounding, killing, possessing or transporting any migratory bird, nest, egg, or part thereof. The MBTA does not distinguish between intentional and unintentional take. In Alaska, all native birds except grouse and ptarmigan (which are protected by the State of Alaska) are protected under the MBTA.Clearing of vegetation for the project during the nesting period is likely to destroy migratory bird nests, in violation of the MBTA. For your information, you are also advised that in Alaska, numerous species of birds, including song birds such as orange-crowned warbler and dark-eyed junco, regularly nest not in trees but on or near the ground. These birds are therefore vulnerable to disturbance and incidental take caused by some construction activities other than clearing.Furthermore, some of our local breeding birds, including semipalmated plover, will nest on open, unvegetated (i.e., previously cleared) ground, including the former trailer court site planned for some of your road construction. Therefore, for that portion of your project site that occurs within the old trailer court or other areas that may have been cleared and then left relatively undisturbed, (i.e., allowing birds to come in and nest), we recommend that IF you plan to do nesting-season construction in those areas, a nesting survey by a qualified professional, and operating under a pre-determined study plan that we would like the opportunity to review, be conducted prior to beginning any construction activities, including mobilization of equipment, building materials, or vehicles at the site. In addition, you may also consider planning and conducting a hazing program prior to and during the nesting season to prevent birds from nesting on the site. This latter recommendation is not appropriate or efficacious, however, for sites that are wooded or contain dense shrub covering, such as the woodland site proposed for the north portion of the Creekside Parkway.In summary: we recommend that for vegetated sites, all construction activities be conducted outside of the local bird nesting period, which is approximately May 1 to July 15. For the trailer park portion of the project area, and any other unvegetated but otherwise little-disturbed sites that may attract breeding birds, we recommend that a nest survey (conducted by a qualified person and according to a protocol to be approved by the USFWS) be conducted prior to any planned breeding-season construction activities. If any nests are located, immediately contact the USFWS. We will then make an on-site determination of how much of the surrounding area should be exempted from construction activities until the nesting is complete and the birds fledge. You may also wish to consider developing a hazing program to be initiated priorto the nesting season to prevent birds from initiating nesting in such open areas. This latter suggestion, however, is only an option for your consideration, and a survey should still be conducted to ensure that the hazing has been successful.We would be happy to discuss this matter with you further and help you develop your plans for meeting your MBTA responsibilities. For example, it may be helpful to you if, using current aerial photography, we map out which portions of your project area are recommended to simply be excluded from construction activities during the nesting window, versus which are the areas where birds should be adequately protected by preventative hazing and a pre-construction survey to determine the existence of any nests (which would then be excluded from construction activities, along with whatever surrounding portion of land - i.e., bird nesting territory - is deemed necessary to protect the nest, until the young birds fledge).It is recommended you contact the USFWS for assistance and guidance on survey needs, and other compliance issues under the MBTA. While the USFWS can recommend methods (such as surveys and timing windows) to avoid unintentional take, responsibility for compliance with the MBTA rests with the project sponsor.(2) We recommend that as much of the existing vegetation as possible be retained within your project area. Existing, native vegetation is generally more viable than plantings installed after clearing, requires less maintenance (e.g., watering), and provides greater wildlife benefits. If you must clear land that is intended for future landscaping, please consider a planting scheme that includes native vegetation, as well as high density plantings of a diverse plant assemblage, including plants of various heights (i.e., shrubbery as well as trees and ground cover). Relatively dense vegetation composed of a diversity of native plants would mimic local natural conditions and provide substantially more protective cover for small wildlife such as songbirds. Please also consider letting us assist you in the development of re-planting schemes.(3) We greatly appreciate the emphasis that you are putting on restoration and protection of Chester Creek and its associated riparian corridor. It appears that you are planning your creek crossings carefully in order to cause the least possible negative impact to the creek, and we certainly support such actions. Wherever possible, we recommend that the road be sufficiently elevated above the creek and riparian corridor, as well as any pocket parks, to allow safe movement of large and small wildlife. We recommend that you continue to carefully consider and incorporate design features and appropriate speed limits that will minimize wildlife crossings that may be unnecessarily dangerous to humans, or large or small wildlife. We also recommend the incorporation of any practicable design features (such as bio-filtration swales to filter road runoff) that can help protect fish and wildlife habitat from untreated stormwater runoff or debris commonly associated with vehicles and roadways. Finally, we recommend the incorporation of any practicable design features that can help protect habitat from the unnecessary development of informal pedestrian trails; in other words, that trails, driveways, parking areas, and other vehicle and pedestrian areas be carefully sited and designed so as to discourage people from inadvertently damaging adjacent fish and wildlife habitat by creating their own informal trails, access points, or user-areas that may cause damage).Thank you for requesting and considering our comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about these comments and recommendations, or would like to engage in further discussion. |
| 4 | PDF of comment 4 |
Webdesigner. March 2004
