# Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Final EnvironmentalAssessment and Finding of 

# No Significant Impact

November 

## 2000

Prepared for: 

## U.S. Department of Energy Golden Field Office 1617 

### Cole Blvd. Golden, 

## CO 80401
Prepared by: 

### Battelle Memorial Institute 505 

### King Avenue Columbus, 

## OH 43201Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project



# Finding of

# No 

# Significant ImpactNome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project



### FINDING 

### OF

### NOSIGNIFICANTIMPACT

SUMMARY 

### TheU.S. 

### Department of Energy (DOE) 

### has prepared this EnvironmentalAssessment (EA) 

### to provideDOE and otherpublic agency 

### decisionmakers witb tbe environmental documentation requiredto

### take informed discretionaryaction onthe proposed Nome, Alaska, 

### Wind Turbine Demonstration Project (DOE/EA-1280). 

### The EA 

### assessesthe potential environmental impacts 

### and cumulative 

### impactsthat would result from thejnstallation and 

### operation ofwind turbines in Nome, Alaska DOE'S role in

### the proposed action wouldbe 

### limitedto 

### providing ,$ding assistance for 

### a portion ofthe construction and demonstration of

### wind energytechnology

### in the challengingarctic environment. Although

### DOE would review project activities, DOE would havenoresponsibilitiesforconstruction supervisionorfacilityoperations. Further, DOE would have no responsibilitiesfor the day-today managementofthe facility once itbecomes operational. TheNome Joint 

### Utility System wouldhave sole responsibility forconstructionmdoperations.

Based 

### on the 

### information in the 

### EA, 

### whch analyzesthe 

### relevant environmental issues, DOE 

### finds thatno significantimpact

### would result from implementingthe proposed action to build and operateup to two wind 

### turbines on Anvil Mountain, Nome, Alaska. 

### The proposed action does not constitute a

### major Federal action significantly affectingthe quality ofthe 

### human orphysical environment within the meaning oftheNational Environmental Policy Act, therefore, implementation ofthe proposed action doesnotrequire the preparation of an 

### environmental impact statement. Issued 

### in Golden, Colorado, this 8' day 

### ofNovember, 2000. /'



# - Frank M. 

### Stewart, Manager U.S. 

### DepartmentofEnergy, 

### Golden Field OfficeNome, Alaska, Wind TurbineDemonstration Project



# Final Environmental AssessmentNome. Alaska. Wind Turbine Demonstration Project


### TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section


# . Page



# .............................................................................................................. 1.0 

### INTRODUCTION 1



## ....................................... 1.1 National Environmental Policy Act and Related Procedures 1



## ................................................................................................................... 1.2 Background 3 1.3 Scoping



## .......................................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Purpose and Need



## ......................................................................................................... 4



## ................................................................................................ 1.5 Organization of this EA 5 2.0 

### PROPOSED ACTION 

### AND ALTERNATIVES

# ............................................................6 2.1 Proposed Action



## ........................................................................................................... 6



### ........................................................................................ 2.2 Constructionand Installation 7 2.3 

### Operations



### ..................................................................................................................... 8



## ....................................................................................................... 2.4 Decommissioning 10



## ................................................................................................. 2.5 No Action Alternative 10 3.0 

### AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

# ....................................................................................... 11



## .................................................................................................. 3.1 Biological Resources 11 3.2 LandUse



## .....................................................................................................................12



## ................................................................................................................ 3.3 Meteorology 14 3.4 Cultural Resources



## ................................................................................................... 14 3.5 Noise



## ......................................................................................................................... 15



## ............................................................................................... 3.6 VisuaVAesthetic Value 15



## ............................................................................................................... 3.7 Infrastructure 15 3.0 

### ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS


# .................................................................................. 18



## .......................................................................................................... 4.1 Proposed Action 18



## .............................................................. ....................... 4.1



## .1 BiologicalResources ; 

### 18 4.1.2 LandUse



### ...................................................................................................... 19



## ...................................................................................................... 4.1.3 Air Quality 

### 19



## .......................................................................................... 4.1.4 Cultural Resources 19



### ............................................................................................................... 4.1.5 Noise 19 4.1.6 VisuaVAesthetic Impacts



## ................................................................................ 20



## ................................................................................................... 4.1.7 Infrastructure 20 4.2 No Action Alternative



### ............................................................................................. 20



## ............................................................................................ 4.3 ComparativeAssessment 2 1 5.0 

### CUMULATIVEIMPACTS

# ...........................................................................................23 

### 6.0 

### SHORT-TERM USES AND 

### COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES


# ............................. 24



## ................................................................................................................. 7.0 

### REFERENCES 25


### APPENDIX A

. 

### SCOPING


# ...................................................................................................... A-1 

### APPENDIX 

### B



## . FAA CORRESPONDENCE

# ........................................................................ B-1 APPENDM C 

# -BERING LAND BRIDGE NATIONAL PRESERVE BIRD CHECKLIST

### AND FWS CORRESPONDENCE

# ..........................C-1



# ............................................................... APPENDM D 

# -WETLAND CONSULTATIONS D-1



# .................................................................... APPENDM E - 

### COMMENTS ON DRAJ!T EA ElNome, Alaska, Wind TurbineDemonstration Project


### LIST OF TABLES 

### Table 

### 1. Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Potential Options for 225 kW to 750 kW of GeneratingCapacity



## .................................................................... 7 Table 2. Comparative Impacts of Wind Turbine Power Alternatives



## ......................................... 22

LIST OFFIGURES 

### Figure 

### 1. ProposedAnvil Mountain Site



## ....................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Anvil Mountain Access



## ................................................................................................. 9 

### Figure 3. 

### Anvil Mountain Wetlands



### ........................................................................................... 13 

### Figure 4. 

### White Alice AntennaArrays Atop Anvil Mountain



### ....................................................... 16 

### Figure 5. White Alice AntennaArrays



## ........................................................................................ 17Name, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project


### ACRONYMSAND ABBREVIATIONS CEQ 

### dB DEW DOE EA FAA FWS FY IE A kW MOU mph NEPA NWI PCB 

### SHPO WACS Council on Environmental Quality decibel Distant Early Warning 

### U.S. Department ofEnergy environmentalassessment Federal Aviation Administration 

### U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service fiscal year InternationalEnergy Agency kilowatt Memorandum of Understanding miles per hour National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

### National Wetlands Inventory polychlorinated biphenyl StateHistoricPreservation Off~cer 

### White Alice Communication System

### Nome, Alaska, Wind 

### Turbine Demonstration Project


### 1.0 INTRODUCTION The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the State of Alaska are proposing tojointly fund a project that is intended to demonstrate and evaluate the feasibility of wind turbinegenerated power in the challenging Alaskan environment. Several sites in Naknek, Unalaska, and Nome, Alaska, underwent an initial evaluationto determine their potential suitability for the proposed wind turbineproject. Through an iterative screeningprocess involving Federal, State, and local agency input, one potentially acceptable site in the Nome area was selected for more detailed evaluation in this 

### final environmental assessment (EA). The site being consideredis located atop Anvil Mountain (Figure 1). Theproposed site is approximately 

### 6to 

### 8 kilometers (4 to 5 miles) north ofthe town ofNome, adjacent to a decommissioned U.S. Air Force radar station that was an element of the Alaska CommunicationsSystem ("White Alice Communication System" [WACS]) and the Distant Early Warning (DEW) line. Thepower generation levels of the proposed project are tied directlyto site suitability and the availability of Federal, State, local, and nongovernmentalhding. To evaluate the potential environmental impactsthat could occur from the installation and operationof wind turbines at the site, a range ofrepresentativeoperating levels is evaluated in this final EA. It is currently estimated that the State or other non-Federal entities would provide sufficient cost share funding for 225 to 750 kilowatts 

### (kW) of wind turbine-generatedelectrical power at the proposed site. Therefore, to ensurethat the full range of foreseeable technical alternativesis assessed, one or two utility-scale turbines, with a generation capacity of 225 kW to 750 kW, are considered in this final EA. This final EA has been prepared under DOE's regulations and guidelines for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. It is being distributed to interested members of the public, Federal, State, and local agencies, and potentially affectedTribal organizations for review and comment prior to any final decisions by DOE and the State on the proposed project.


### 1.1 National EnvironmentalPolicy Act and Related Procedures The NEPA as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the procedural provisions ofNEPA (40 CFR 1500-1 508), and DOE's implementing procedures for compliancewith NEPA (1 0 CFR 1021) require that DOE, as a Federal agency: Assess the environmental impacts of its proposed actions Identify any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposed actionbe implemented Evaluate alternativesto the proposed action, including a no action alternative Describetherelationshipbetween local short-term uses ofthe environmentand the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity Characterize any irreversibleand irretrievable commitments ofresourcesthat would be involved should the proposed action be implementedNome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project

- .. Anvil 

### MountainSummit



### Figure 

### 1. Proposed 

### Anvil Mountain SiteNome, 

### Alaska, Wind 

### TurbineDemonstration Project These provisions must be addressed before a final decisionis made to proceed with any proposed Federal action that could cause impacts to the human environment. This EA evaluated the potential individual and cumulative effects of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative on thephysical, human, and natural environment. TheEA is intendedto 

### (1) meet DOE'S regulatory requirementsunder NEPA, and (2) provide DOE, the Stateof Alaska, and other agency decision-makers with the informationthey need to make informed decisions in connection with the proposed project.
1.2 

### Background
In fiscal year 

### (FY) 1999,the DOE budget included funding for the demonstration ofup to 100 kW of wind turbine power 

### in Alaska. DOE and the State of Alaska began working together to identify viable sites for the Proposed Action. Critical to the initial site selection was an 

### expectation that suitable wind resources would exist at a site. Optimum wind turbine performance is achieved between 28 and 30 miles per hour (mph). Regionally available data identified the west coast of Alaska and the Aleutian Islands aspotentially viable fiom a wind resource perspective (DOE, 1986). Within these areas, several utilities were contacted to determine their capability to operate and maintain 

### wind turbines and integrate wind turbine power into their existing generation system. Through interactions with these utilities, it became apparent that 100kW of wind-generating capacity would be insufficient to generate the revenues needed to operate and maintain the wind turbine equipment. As a result of 

### these interactions, the State ofAlaska is identifjing additional funding sourcesto develop commercial-scale wind turbine capacity between 225 kW and 750 kW. Geographic considerations such as, 

### but not limited to, topography, distance to the existing transmission grid, road access, and land availabilitywere also considered because they would affect not only the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action but also the relative costs involved in its constructionand operation. The combination of wind resources, utility capability, and geographic constraintsled to the identification of multiple sites in Unalaska and Naknek. In the spring of 1999,these potential sites underwent additional sitespecific characterization (Dames & 

### Moore, 1999). Due tothe potential for wind turbines to impact avian species,the 

### U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) also was contactedfor its expertise regarding the potential occurrence ofprotected avian speciesat these sites.
As the layers of wind resource viability, utility capability, geographic constraints, and avian protection were compiled,many initially identified siteshad to be dropped from further considerationbecause they were deemed no longer viable based on one or more siting criteria. In this initial screening, all sites in Naknek, and all but two sites in Unalaska, were deemed unacceptable either because available information suggested potentially significant environmental concerns, or because the 

### available funding could not support the cost, in time and 

### dollm, required for evaluating a site in more detail.
As a result ofthe initial eliminationof sites, a potential site 

### in Nome was added to the preliminary site-screeningtask. Site visits were made in October 1999to view the proposed sites and to meet with local, Federal, and State agencies 

### in Nome and Unalaska and with regional agency offices in Anchorage. Subsequent to the site visits, the formal scoping process prescribed under NEPA was 

### initiated.

### Nome, Alaska, Wind 

### TurbineDemonstration Project
1.3 

### Scoping Federal, State, and local agenciesand Tribal organizations were sent scoping letters concerningthe Proposed Action to assist DOE and the State in identifying potential issues that should be evaluated in this EA. Scoping notices also were sent to Nome and Unalaska libraries, newspapers, and television and radio stations to infonn the public of the Proposed Action and solicit their input to the process. Appendix A contains the text 

### of the scoping letter, the list of recipients, and the written comments received. During the scopingperiod, DOE and the State spent several months working closely with various State and Federal agencies and local utilities to assessthe sites for their technical, environmental, and economicviability. Extensive discussions

### with the FWS and its avian experts with site-specificknowledge led to a determination that the coastal Unalaska site would be unacceptable for wind turbine development at this time due to the potential for unacceptable impacts to numerous Federal and State protected avian species. An upland Unalaska site might have proven acceptablefiom an avian perspective; however, numerous physical limitations for the site were discovered during scoping. Snow depths over the site's access road exceeded 7.6 

### meters (25 feet) during the winter of 1999 

### -2000. Estimated costs to extend the existing transmission lines to the site exceeded $1 million. Finally, wind speed records at the Unalaska airport have recorded gusts greater than 190 mph, which would well exceed the design basis for most commercial wind turbines. 

### As a result of these site-specificlimitations, both sites at Unalaska were eliminated fiom detailed evaluation in this EA, leavingonly the Nome site on Anvil Mountain for detailed assessment and comparison to the No Action Alternative. 

### 1.4 Purposeand Need
It is a mission of DOE to assist in advancingthe development and commercializationof energy efficiency and renewable energy technologiessuch as wind-generated power (see the Energy Policy Act of 1992, 

## 8 2.1.1.1). To demonstrate a cost-effective and clean source of electricity that reduces diesel fuel dependence and air emissions, DOE and the State of Alaska propose to fund the implementation of commercial-scale wind turbine-produced electricity at Nome. Information gained through this demonstration would be used as a basis for gauging the benefits of replacing or supplementing diesel-generatedpower with wind power. Upon a determination of the acceptability of this project, DOE would provide its share of the total project costs to the Alaska Energy Authority, which in turn 

### would secure the balance of necessary bdingand subsequently contract with the Nome Joint Utility System for project construction and operations. DOE and the Statebegan a wind turbine program in Alaska by erecting three 50-kW 

### wind turbines in Kotzebuein 1997. The purposes ofthis program were to (1) demonstrate the viability of wind turbine-generated power and the capabilitiesof commercially availablewind turbines in extreme arctic conditions,and (2) evaluate turbine performance and reliability under a wide range oftemperatures, precipitationevents, and strong arctic winds. The proposed wind turbine project for Nome, ifimplemented, would provide similar information for larger 250-kW to 

### 750-kW wind turbines, which 

### are of greater commercial interest to existing utilities.Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project


### If successful, this project could lead to greater application of wind turbine-generated powerto meet the electricalneeds ofrural Alaska. 1.5 

### Organization of

### this 

### EA The EA is structuredin accordance

### with the standards set forth 

### in DOE'S NEPA implementing regulations and guidelines. Section 2.0 describes the Proposed Action and alternatives

### in sufficient detail to allowthe reader an understanding ofthe actionsthat would take place during construction,operation, 

### and decommissioning ofthe proposed wind turbine(s). It also identifiesthe specific location proposed for the wind turbine installation. Section 3.0 

### characterizesthe existing environment at the proposed site fiom 

### a biological, physical, cultural, and social perspective. Section4.0 assessesthe impactsthat could occur shouldthe Proposed Action be implemented. Section 

### 5.0 describesthe cumulativeimpactsthat might occur fiom the Proposed Action when combined with otherrelated activities. Section 6.0 

### addresses short-term uses ofthe environment and the effect on long-term productivity, and the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources shouldthe Proposed Action be implemented.Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project


### 2.0 

### PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES This section describes the Proposed Action and the No Action Altemative. It characterizes the site location and describesboth general and site-specific activities that would be required for the construction,operation, and decommissioning of up to two wind turbines under the Proposed Action. 

### It also characterizesthe No Action Altemative, 

### as required under NEPA. Other alternatives considered but eliminated hm further evaluation are discussed in Section 1.2, Background, and Section 1.3, Scoping. 

### 2.1 

### Proposed Action DOE and the State of Alaska are consideringproviding financial assistance for the acquisition, installation, and operationofone or two commercially available wind turbines at one site in Alaska, generatingbetween 225 kW and 750 kW ofpower. The proposed project would reduce future consumption ofpetroleum-based fuels by harnessing wind energy as an additional source ofpower production. Becausetheproposedproject would represent less than 10 percent of existing demand, existing diesel generators would continueto operate. Because final funding allocationshave not been determined at this time, a range in turbine size and capacity is evaluated in this EA. This allows the decision-makers a 

### full understandingofthe differences among the commercially available turbines that could meet the project's needs. The range ofturbine capacities evaluated in this EA is as follows:
One 225-kW turbine
Two 225-kW turbines
One 550-kW turbine
One 225-kW turbine and one 550-kW turbine
One 750-kW turbine The physical dimensions of a representative range of turbine options are summarized in Table 1.
For the purposes ofthis action, the Nome site has been determined, through a screening process summarizedin Section 1.2,to be potentially viable for wind turbine-generated power. The proposed wind turbine site lies atop Anvil Mountain, approximately 7.2 kilometers (4.5 miles) north of Nome (Figure 1). The site is between 300 and 335 meters (1,000 and 1,100 feet) above mean sea level. It is adjacent to four rectangular, concave antenna arrays that were part of a decommissioned U.S. 

### Air Force radar station. The station was part of the Alaska Communications System (WACS) and the DEW line. A gravel road leads to the proposed site; gravel and a concrete pad lie between the antennas. The concretepad is all that remains of the buildings that housed the supportingequipment for the WACSDEW line system. The proposedNome, Alaska,Wind Turbine Demonstration Project


### Table 

### 1. Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Potential Options for 225 kW to 750 kW of Generating Capacity 

# I Specifications Representative Turbines 

### '

b. Metric conversions: 1 foot = 0.3048 meter; 1 square foot = 0.0929 square meter. c. Rotor width x number ofunits 

### + five rotor widths between each unit. 

### ApproximateLinear

### Footprint

wind turbine site would be adjacentto the DEW line site on ground that is partially disturbed from previous activity. The ground is mostly exposed rock with some native tundra vegetation. The SitnasuakNative Corporation currently owns the land. 

### 2.2 Construction and Installation a. Turbine dimensions are re~resentative ofcommercially available wind turbines. 882 

### ft

Assuming a decision to proceed is reached, the State would initiate site preparation and begin turbineprocurementduringthe summer of2001, hoping to complete installation before the winter of 2001 -

### 2002. Sitepreparationswould require less than 4,000 square meters (less than 1 acre), regardless ofturbine option, and would entail a limited amount of grading to establish a 

### level site for foundation installation and provide a working surface for crane installation of the turbine(s). Due to the surface exposure ofbedrock at the site, a concretepad or ring requiring 150to 230 cubic meters (200 to 300 cubic yards) of concretewould 

### be the most likely foundation structure. Sitepreparation would require one bulldozer and one loader. Installation of the turbine(s) could require one or two 165-to 225-ton cranes. The 225-kW and 550-kW turbines would require the smaller cranes, which are available locally; however,the 750-kW turbine models would likely require the largercrane, which is not currently availablein Nome and would have to be brought in specifically for this project. Estimated construction and installation time would be 6 weeks and would requirethree to six workers. With the exception 150 

### ftNome, 

### Alaska, Wind 

### TurbineDemonstration Project
of ajob foreman experienced in wind turbine construction, the workers would be hired from the local work force. The existingroad between Nome and the Anvil Mountain site is gravel. Approximately 2 kilometers (1 to 1.5 miles) of the roadbed ascending Anvil Mountain may require some minor grading to supportthe movement of large cranes to the sites. The Nome Joint Utility System may be extending the existing transmission system 

### furthernorth through Hotel Gulch even ifthe proposed wind turbine project is not implemented (Figure 2). Even without the extension, the transmission systemswould be accessiblevia transmissionpoles that currently come within 3 kilometers (2 miles) ofthe Anvil Mountain site. New transmission lines would cover the 3 kilometers (2 miles) between the proposed turbine site and existing transmission lines. The new lines would be constructed on 12-meter (38-foot) poles drilled into the ground at 76-meter (250-foot) intervals. Based on this spacing,it is estimated that 75 to 90 new poles would be required. A small amount ofpower would be supplied to the site for facility lighting, if needed, and to power de-icing features of the turbine(s). The Anvil Mountain site is located approximately 7:2 kilometers (4.5 miles) from the Nome airport. Therefore, consultationswere held with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regardingthe need for lighting on any ofthe turbines. 

### In January 2000, the Nome Joint Utility System submitteda Notice of Proposed Construction (FAA 

### Form 7460-1) to the FAA in accordance with the agency's regulations (14 CFR Part 77), and conservatively estimated that the maximum height of any wind turbine(s)placed on Anvil Mountain for the purpose and need of this project would not exceed 122 meters (400 feet). 

### In February 2000, the FAA determined that at 122 meters (400 feet) above ground level and 468 meters (1,534 feet) above mean sea level, the proposed turbine(s) would

"

### ...exceed obstruction standards but would not be a hazardto air navigation provided the following condition(s),ifany, is (are) met: As a condition to this determination, the structure should be marked and/or lighted in accordance with 

### FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-lJ, ObstructionMarking and Lighting, Chapters 4, 

### 5 (Red)." 

### (AppendixB) Should a decisionbe reached to proceed with the Proposed Action at the Anvil Mountain site, the turbine(s) would be marked and lighted in accordance with the FAA requirements of Circular 7017460-lK, which took effect March 1,2000. 2.3 

### Operations Wind turbines are designed to convert rotational energy, resulting from wind energy on the rotor blades, into electricitythrough the use of 

### a generator. Typical design features of today's commercially availablewind turbines include wood-epoxy or fiberglass blades, redundant braking systems,the ability to rotate with the prevailing wind direction, and a design life of at least 20 years. 

### All alternatives considered for this project would have a closed tubular tower to supporttheturbine and rotor.Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project

3000 0 3000 

# I-* Powerto be extended 

# 1 Sitnasuak Native Corporation Land 

# ----------- F- 

# B

City Land



### Figure 

### 2. 

### Anvil Mountain AccessNome. Alaska. Wind Turbine Demonstration Proiect 

### Operationally, the wind turbine(s)would be computer-controlled for optimum performance

### as well 

### as for safety shutdown when wind speeds exceeded design operations. Typically, turbines start spinning (called the "cut-in speed") at approximately 16 kilometers per hour 

### (km/hr) (10 mph), while the speed at which they shut down (the "cut-out speed") is between 81 and 113

### km/hr(50 and 70 mph). Most turbine systems are designed to withstand hurricane-forcewinds. Existingutility company technical 

### staffwould integratewind turbinepower with the power grid. Other than an 

### annual gearbox inspectionand oil filterreplacement, wind turbines require little routine maintenance. Gearbox oil requiresreplacement only every 

### 7to 10years. Dependingon the turbinemodel, each oil change would require between 150and 190 liters (40 and 50 gallons). Currently, Nome has a waste oil burner that could dispose of the waste oil. Operational safety considerations include turbine destructionfrom excess winds and damage to the turbine or nearby facilities from icing conditions. Ongoingtesting programs confirm the ability of turbine components, especiallyrotors, to meet or exceed manufacturer specifications. Any selected turbine would have design specifications that exceed the maximum anticipated wind speed for a selected site. Icing would not be a concern to either turbine operations or nearby facilities because all turbine models under considerationhave anti-icing design features. 

### 2.4 Decommissioning 

### The expected operating life for commercially availablewind turbines is currently estimated to be 

### 20 years. At the end of the useful operating life, the turbine(s) would be removed and recycled. All lubricatingfluids would be nonhazardous wastes that could be disposed of in a waste oil burner. Concrete pads could be recycled or disposed of at a solid waste landfill. 

### 2.5 No Action Alternative 

### Under the No Action Alternative,no Federal fundingwould be made available, and therefore,wind turbine capacity would not be added to the proposed Anvil Mountain site. No road upgrades would be required, and no new transmission lineswould be added to the proposed site. Under the No Action Alternative, dieselpower generationand related air emissions would continue at current rates. Potential reductions in diesel fuel consumption and air emissions would not occur.

### Nome, Alaska, Wind 

### TurbineDemonstration Project


### 3.0 AFFECTED 

### ENVIRONMENT The Maleiut, Kauweramiut, and Unalikmiut Eskimos originally inhabited Nome. Gold discoveriesare 

### recorded as 

### farback as 1865, but it was a gold strike on Anvil Creek in 1898 that started a gold rush that expanded Nome's population to more than 20,000. Since the first strike, the gold fields have yielded more than $136 million. Today, a few commercial operations and several individuals are actively seeking gold in the inland streambeds and the coastal beaches. As of 1999, Nome's population was 3,615. As the center ofthe Bering StraitISewardPeninsula region, government services provide the majority ofemployment in Nome (DCED, 2000). Consistentwith CEQ and 

### DOE NEPA guidance,this section characterizes only those elements of the environment at the site that are relevant to the assessment of impact.potentially occurring from the installationand operation of up to two wind turbines. For example, because the proposed wind turbine(s) would have no air releases or surface water discharges,this section does not attemptto characterize the current air quality in the area or existing stream flow, aquatic biology, or water quality. As stated in Section 1.4, Purpose and Need, information gained throughthis demonstrationwould be used as a basis for gaugingthe benefits ofreplacing or supplementingdiesel-generated power with wind power. Those elements ofthe environment that could be affectedby the Proposed Action are biota; noise; visual and aesthetic character; cultural, historic, and archaeological resources; and land use. The proposed wind turbine site on top ofAnvil Mountain is adjacent to the WACS, which was deactivated by the Air Force 

### in 1979. Structureshave been demolished and removed, and contaminated soilshave been removed. However, fourblack concave antennas measuring approximately 18 meters (60 feet) wide and 24 meters (80 feet) tall, and 

### 15 meters (50 feet) deep remain. The antennas serve as both a hstoric remnant ofthe Cold War 

### and a navigational aid to local people who fish and hunt at sea (Air Force, 1996). The mountaintopis generally disturbed ground fiom the White Alice site remediation with 

### one large concretepad remaining, which may be removed. Scattered aroundthe mountaintop are various concrete footers apd pipes; these served as anchorpoints or footers for structures that have been removed. Undisturbed areas are characterized by alpine tundra and 

### exposed rock. 3.1 

### Biological Resources The proposed sitehas a very thin mantle of soil coveringbare rock. In undisturbed areas, grasses, sedges, forbs, lichens, mosses, and some low shrubs exist. Farther downslope from the proposed site is moist tundra consisting of low shrubs-mostly dwarf birch, willows, labrador tea, bog cranberry, lingonberry and bog blueberry, and 

### cotton grass tussocks and sedges (Air 

### Force, 1996). This lower-elevationhabitat would be traversed by powerline poles placed every 

### 50 to 

### 60rneters (150to 200 feet) to connectthe siteto the existingtransmission grid located approxiq&ly 

### 3 kilometers 

### (2 miles) fiomthe top of Anvil Mountain. No threatened or endangered

### p!a+ speciesor criticalhabitats are known to exist in the area.

J 

### Using high-altitude 

### aerial photography, theNational Wetlands Inventory 

### (NWI) has identified 

### an area of wetlands on the south side ofAnvil Mountain, approximately 2.4 kilometers

### Nome, Alaska, Wind 

### TurbineDemonstration Project (1.5 miles) fiom the proposed wind turbines site (FWS, 1991). The existing accessroad passes through the approximatecenter of the wetland (Figure 3). 

### Based on the aerial photographic interpretation,the wetland has been classified as a Palustrine System,which includes all nontidal wetlands dominatedby trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, and emergent mosses or lichens. The wetland is further classified by the 

### NWI by two subsystems, Persistent Emergent and Broadleaved Scrub-Shrub, and is characterizedby a saturated water regime.
Nome lies on the southern edge of an area known as the Seward Peninsula. This area extendswestward fiom the Alaskan mainland. The SewardPeninsulais bounded on the south by Norton Sound, on the north by Kotezbue Sound, and on the west by the Bering Sea. A diverse mammalian community exists on the Seward Peninsula, including grizzly and polar bears, gray wolf, caribou, domestic reindeer, musk ox, moose, red fox, arctic fox, muskrat, arctic ground squirrel, weasels, shrews, mice, voles, lemmings, arctic hare, river otter, beaver, wolverine, lynx, and porcupine (Interior, 1999). Three ecosystemsexist on the Seward Peninsula: marinelestuarine, tundra, and boreal forest. This complexity supports a great diversity of avian species 

### in the region. More 

### than 170 avian species have been recorded 

### in the region, with more than 100 species identifiedin the Nome area. Many species sighted during the brief spring and summer seasonsin the Nome area are shorebirds or pelagic species (living in 

### the open ocean); however, a variety of passerines (perching and song birds such as sparrows, swallows, robins, and warblers), grouse, ptarmigan, and raptors such as rough-legged hawks, golden eagles, shorteared owls, gyrfalcons,peregrine falcons, and snowy owls are known to occur in the inland tundra habitats (Interior, 1996). Appendix C 

### provides apartial list of species identifiedby the Department of the Interior as occurring in the Bering Land Bridge National Preserve located north ofNome. Because the proposed site at Anvil Mountain is located approximately 7 

### kilometers (4.5 

### miles) inland, shorebirds, pelagic species, ducks, and other waterfowl have been excluded fiomAppendix 

### C because they are unlikely to occur at the proposed project site. Two avian species,the spectacled eider (Somateriafischeri)and Stellar's eider (Polysticta stelleri), are listed as threatened under the Endangered SpeciesAct and are anticipated to occur in the Nome region. However, the FWS has determined that wind turbine operations at the Anvil Mountain site would not likely adversely affect these listed species (Appendix C). One additional avian species, the bristle-thighed curlew (Numenius tahitiensis), is a candidate species for listing under the Endangered Species Act and is known to occur in the Nome area. However, accordingto the FWS, this species is likely to be found farther inland than Anvil Mountain, and local observations of its movements have noted that the species uses valleys as opposed to mountaintops when moving inland (Wheeler, 1999).
3.2 

### Land Use 

### The proposed site is located on lands owned by the Sitnasuak Native Corporation (see Figure 

### 2). Other 

### than the remnants ofthe White Alice Station, there are no other facilities atop Anvil Mountain. The City ofNome's water supply is drawn fiom a shallow groundwater source at Moonlight Springs,located at the base of Anvil Mountain approximately 1.6kilometers



# . (1 mile) fiom the proposed site. The proximity of this water source was a principal factor in the 

### Air Force's decision to remediate asbestos and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination from the White Alice site 

### (AirForce, 1996).Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project

,-.'-'?d, 

# ,. , 

# . Palustrine EmergentIScrub-Shrub

-- ..- 

### .1


# . Persistent road-~eaved DeciduousSaturated



### Figure

### 3. 

### Anvil MountainWetlandsNome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project


### Below Anvil Mountain, 2 to 3 kilometers (1 to 2 miles) to the west, is a small placer gold mine working 

### in the streambed. Farther to the north, a few scattered residences are found along the existing roadways. There 

### are no residences or commercial facilities within a mile of the proposed Anvil Mountain site. 

### In the areabetween the base ofAnvil Mountain and Nome, there is little development other

### than numerous gravel quarries and the remnants of past gold dredging operations. 3.3 Meteorology As recorded at the airport in the last 30 to 50 years of observation, Nome temperatures range from a 

### high of 30°C (86°F) 

### in July to a low of47°C(-54°F) in January; temperatures average -3.2"C (26.2"F). Winds averaged 1 6.9 

### km/hr (10.5 mph) 

### with a maximum sustained speed of 89 

### km/hr (55 mph) and a peak gust of 106

### km/hr (66 mph). Total precipitation averages 38 centimeters (15 inches) per year, with the average annual snowfall around 140 centimeters (55 inches) (DOC, 1997). The Wind Energy Resource Atlas ofthe United States rates areas around Nome as Wind Power Class of 3 to 7, depending upon location (DOE, 1986). Wind power classes are an analytical tool that combineswind speed and air density to measure the power of the prevailing winds for a given area. The higher the wind power class, the higher the wind power density and, therefore, the potential for wind turbine-generated power. Coastal.areas immediately north of Nome are mapped as Wind Power Class 7, while adjacentinland areas are mapped as Wind Power Class 3. Areas farther inland are rated as Wind Power Class 2. The State of Alaska and the Nome Joint Utility System are currently operating a wind-monitoring system to determine the precise winds at the proposed Anvil Mountain site. This site-specific information will be available to decision-makersprior to any decisionsto proceed at this site. 3.4 Cultural Resources 

### The Seward Peninsulawas not covered during the Wisconsin glaciation; therefore, the prehistoric record of human activity in the region is considerable. Chipped stone implements such as microblades and harpoons have been found that date between 2,000 and 5,000 years ago. The historic record marks the existence of Inupiaq groups living on the Peninsula at the time of European exploration in the region. More recent records noted the surge of gold miners during 1898,which saw Nome's population swell to more than 20,000 in 1900. The Sitnasuak Native Corporation identified a cultural use ofAnvil Mountain as a lookout for Native people to determine the location of ice during hunting activities in Norton Sound, but it noted that there was no known religious value for the site (Air Force, 1996).
A military presence in 

### the area began during the gold rush years. The U.S. Air Force used Nome as a base during World War I1 and introduced the WACS in the 1950s. There are several historic structures inNome and the surroundingarea. The White Alice site atop Anvil Mountain

### has been reviewed and foundto be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. As a result of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among the Alaskan Air Command, the Alaska State HistoricPreservationOfficer (SHPO), and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the four antennas will remain on the site. 

### The Air Force reviewed State and local records for other cultural resources that could be affectedby their proposed demolition and found no cultural resources listed in the project area 

### (Air Force, 1996).Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project


### 3.5 Noise Noise measurementswere not availablefor the 

### area; however, the area would be characterized ashaving a natural background level. There are no sensitive noise receptors such as residences, schools, and hospitals, or noise sources within a mile of the site. 3.6 

### VisuaUAestheticValue The view fiom atopAnvil ~o&tain providesa 360-degree perspective of ocean, coastal plain, alpine 

### tundra,rolling foothills, and interiormountains for many miles. When viewed from Nome, the black concavebillboard-like antennas are notable and are generally silhouetted againstthe skyline (Figures4 and 5). This feature distinguishesAnvil Mountain fiom all other ridges immediately inland fromNome; some view the antennasas an 

### asset to offshore navigation by local fishermen and sea mammal hunters (Air Force, 1996). The area around Anvil Mountain is characterizedby gravel roads traversingmost valley bottoms, scattered remnants of past gold-mining activities, gravel quarries, transmissionlines, and widely spaced residential homes. Althoughmost of the region is covered with native vegetation, the coastal plain between Anvil Mountain a& 

### Nome shows the effects of significant surface disturbance from past gold-mining operations in 

### ponded quarries and mounded spoilpiles. 

### 3.7 Infrastructure Well-maintained gravel roads exist to the base of Anvil Mountain and carry year-round traffic. From the well-maintained road, a narrow gravel road that is maintained in the winter extends up 

### and over Anvil Mountain (see Figure 

### 2). Approximately 

### 2 to 3 

### kilometers (1 to 2 

### miles) of this road may require some minor widening and grading to accommodate the oversized cranes that could be needed to install the wind turbine(s). Transmission lines currently extend to within approximately 3 kilometers

### (2 miles) of the Anvil Mountain site and may be extended higher if current utility expansion plans are implemented. Assuming spacing of 76 

### meters (250 feet) between poles, it is conservatively estimated that 75 to 90 new poles would be required to extend power to the proposed Anvil Mountain site. No water, sewer, or gas lines extend to the top ofAnvil Mountain, and none would be needed for the Proposed Action. The Nome Joint Utility System provides city water and sewer services to Nome residents and also supplies a peak demand of approximately 4,900 

### kW of diesel-generated electrical power.Norne, Alaska, Wind TurbineDemonstration ProjectNome, Alaska, Wind TurbineDemonstration ProjectNome, Alaska, Wind TurbineDemonstration Project
4.0 

### ENVIRONMENTAL 

### IMPACTS Impacts fiom the Proposed Action are described

### in Section4.1; impacts under the No Action Alternative are described in Section4.2. Section4.3 compares the impacts for the range of turbine power alternativesidentified in Section

### 2.1. 

### 4.1 Proposed Action The impactsto the affected environment fiom the construction and operation of the wind turbine(s) atopAnvil Mountain are described

### in this section. 

### 4.1.1 Biological Resources The installation of the wind turbine(s) would use the existing road system for access to Anvil Mountain. Minor widening or grading of the road bed may be needed to facilitate oversized crane access. This action would disturb a few feet along the shoulders ofthe existing road, resulting in little or no loss ofnative vegetation. The installation of the turbine(s) atop Anvil Mountain could temporarily disturb up to 4,000 square meters (1 acre) of native vegetation and rock; however, the area of impact could be much smaller if construction can be accomplishedwithin the area already disturbed by the operation and cleanup of the White Alice Station. Thehabitat that would be impacted is moist tundra dominated by mosses and lichen. This habitat type is not rare or unique in the area and is not criticalhabitat for any listed threatened or endangered species. Transmission lines to the site would be installed, requiring approximately 3 

### kilometers (2 miles) installed on 

### 75 to 90 

### new poles. Poles would be located immediately off the existing roadway; installation would disturb only the area required for each pole. Approximately six poles would be installed inthe wetland area identified on the south side of Anvil Mountain. The local utility would apply for a permit to construct in a wetland fiom the Army Corps of Engineers, should a decisionbe reached to proceed with the Proposed Action. Based on construction authorizationin 1999from the Corps for extendingtransmission lines through the valley below Anvil Mountain (Appendix 

### D), it is anticipated that Corps authorization would be granted for an 

### extensionto the proposed site. Wind turbine operations would have the potential for avian impacts through habitat loss and collision with the turbine blades. Becausevery littlehabitat would be lost by construction of the proposed 

### wind turbine, this impact is expected to be negligible. Any birds nesting in the area would likely be displacedby the proposed activitiesbut would likely use adjacent habitats. Bird collisions have been documented at various wind turbine locations throughout the world but because of the location of the Anvil Mountain site, avian impacts are expected to be infrequent. As describedin Section 

### 3.1, the large populations of avian species in the Nome area are shorebirds and pelagic species that do not fkquent the Anvil Mountain area. Local observation ofthe Bristle-thighed Curlew, a candidate species for listing under the Endangered Species Act, suggestsmoi;ement patterns throughvalleys and not over mountaintops; therefore, no impacts to this species 

### ire anticipated (Wheeler, 

### 1999). Raptors such

### as rough-legged hawks, golden eagles, short-eared owls, gyrfalcons, peregrine falcons, and snowy owls are known 

### to occur in the inland 

### tundra habitats ofthe Seward Peninsulaand may be impacted through collisions with the wind turbine(s). However, 

### as noted 

### in Appendix C, raptors arerelatively uncommon to rare

### Nome, Alaska, Wind 

### TurbineDemonstrationProject
in the SewardPeninsula, and collisions with the wind turbine blades are anticipatedto be unlikely, Impacts to mammalian specieswould be minor due to the small habitat lossesfiom construction activities required for the Proposed Action. Wind turbine operations would have littleto no effect on mammalian species.
4.1.2 

### Land Use The Proposed Action would convert less than 4,000 square meters (1 acre) of disturbed 

### tundra habitat to use for the wind turbine(s). Extension ofthe existing transmission lineswould not alter any existing land uses. Site access has been negotiated through a Land Use Permit fiom the Sitnasuak Native Corporation (Appendix E). Two wind monitoring towers have been installed on Anvil Mountain under a temporary permit granted to the Nome Joint Utility System by the Sitnasuak Native Corporation. 4.1.3 

### Air 

### Quality The ProposedAction would have no 

### air emissions;therefore, there would be no direct negative impacts to air quality. Because the proposed power produced by the wind turbine(s) would replace existing diesel-generatedpower, there likely would bea direct reduction in diesel emissions. 

### Ifthe wind turbinepower demonstration were successful, the Proposed Action could reduce or eliminate the air 

### emissionsfromthe generation of250 to 750 kW ofdiesel power. 

### 4.1.4 Cultural Resources There 

### are no known cultural or archaeological resources on the Anvil Mountain proposed site or along the route proposed for the transmission line extension. Based on the Air Force's experiencewhen it remediated the Anvil Mountain site, it is not anticipated that construction for the Proposed Action would uncover any such resources. Theproposed construction and operation of the Andturbine(s) would have no impact on the WACS antennas that remain on the site. These structures were found to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places in an 

### MOU among the Alaskan Air Command, the Alaska SHPO, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Air Force, 1996). 4.1.5 

### Noise The remoteness of the Anvil Mountain site fiom any noise receptors virtually eliminates any potential impacts from noise generated during construction or operations. The nearest receptors are approximately 1.6kilometers (1 mile) west of Anvil Mountain. Construction noise would be limited to noise generated fiom heavy equipment needed to prepare the site and install the turbine(s). Construction activity would be of short duration and would occur only during normal daytime working hours. The limited duration and equipment utilized for construction, combined with the distancesto the nearest receptor,would preclude impacts from construction noise. Operationally,wind turbines do generate aerodynamic noise fromthe movement ofthe rotor blades and the mechanical noise fiom the movement ofthe turbine. Noise is measured by a decibels 

### (dB) scale that spans the range fiomthe threshold of hearing, 0 &(A), to the thresholdNome, Alaska, Wind TurbineDemonstration Project 

### of pain, 140dB(A). To account for the way humans perceive sound,the (A) scale in decibels, &(A) is used. The (A) scale ignoresthose fkquencies humans can't hear and emphasizes those that are most discernible. The &(A) scale is logarithmicand not linear. For this project, the logarithmic'scalemeans that installingtwo turbines instead of one would only increasethe noise level by'3 dB over that noise generatedby a singleturbine. A 3-dB change is the smallest change most people can detect. 

### In the 1970s, wind turbines ofthe sizeproposed for this project generated noise in the range of 95 to 115&(A) at the turbine (Gipe,1995). Although improved rotor designs and slower operating speeds have resulted in lower noise levels from today's wind turbines, this range will be used to be conservative. Using a common noise propagation model developed by the International Energy Agency (IEA), 95 to 115&(A) fiom a turbine would be reduced to 45 &(A) within 100 to 250 meters (330to 820 feet) from the turbine site (Gipe, 1995). To put 45 &(A) intoperspective, the averagehome has a sound pressure level of 50 dB(A) and a light wind through a forest has a level of 

### 55 dB(A). Sincethe nearest receptors would be more than 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) away, noise fiom the proposed wind turbine(s) would not be discernible above ambient background noise, regardless of whether one or two turbines were operated atop Anvil Mountain. Coincidentally, although much smallerin capacity 

### than those proposed for this project, personal wind turbines are operatedby several ofthe nearest residencesto the Anvil Mountain site. 

### 4.1.6 VisuaYAesthetic Impacts The additionalwind turbine(s)would be visible fromNome. In part, their visibility would depend upon the final color choice: the commercial standard of off-white or, to aid in preventing ice formation, black. The existing four White Alice antennas are painted black and are significantlymore massive than the proposed wind turbine(s), which would be narrow linear structures. Therefore, the wind turbine(s)would not appreciably change the view of Anvil Mountain from other locationsin the area. The addition of lights to the wind turbine(s) required by the FAA (red at night and perhaps white during daylight hours) would introduce a new visual effect to Anvil Mountain. Such lighting is not uncommon in the Nome area; numerous radio antennas are also sufficiently high to warrant FAA-required lighting. Some may view the addition of the wind turbine(s) as a negativevisual impact, but otherswho have requested that the Air Force leave the White Alice antennas intact may view the wind turbines and the FAArequired lighting as 

### aids to navigation for those who fish and hunt at sea (Air Force, 1996). 

### 4.1.7 Infrastructure The proposed wind turbine project would requireno water, sewer, or natural gas. The project would require a minimal amount ofpower to maintain FAA lighting and perhaps to operate heating systemsto prevent ice buildup. Construction and operation of the wind turbine(s) would be performed by local residents; therefore, no new serviceswould be required for employees. If successful,the project could reduce the potential need to expand the existing power system and add more diesel generators. 

### 4.2 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the wind turbine project would not occur at Nome. The minor loss ofnatural habitat under the Proposed Action would not occur. There would be no , ' i i 

# 1, !

- 

# 1

- 

# I' r: 

# i 

# 1

I 

# 1..

. 

# I., 

# r; I-... iNome, 

### Alaska, Wind 

### Turbine DemonstrationProject
increased potential for avian or visdaesthetic impacts. A reduction in 

### air emissions that could be a direct effect of the Proposed Action would not be realized under theNo Action Alternative. 4.3 ComparativeAssessment


### To support agency decision-making regarding theproject size, Table 

### 2 compares anticipated impacts among the turbine options defined in Section 2.1. Table 

### 2 shows that the only discernible differences among the power options identified for the Proposed Action are driven by the number ofturbines. Two wind turbines would require a larger footpirint 

### than a single

### unit, whether two 250-kW turbines, or one 250- and one 500-kW turbine. As a result, there would be a slightly increased impactto biological resources and land use for the two-turbine options. Although avian impacts are anticipatedto be small, intuitively there could be more impacts from either two turbines or from taller turbines. The state of scientific knowledge on avian impactswith wind turbines does not provide a more definitive conclusion regarding this potential impact area at this time. Under no combinationofturbine powers would there be direct negative impacts to 

### air quality; however, if wind turbine operationswere effective in this area, there likely would be a reduction in air emissions fiom diesel-generatedpower. Logically, the higher the turbine power choice for this Proposed Action, the higher the potential reduction in future emissions. This impact reduction would be relative to the power level and would not depend on the number of turbines. Because cultural and archaeological resources are not known to occur on the proposed site, there is no potential for impacts under a one- or two-turbine operating scenario.Similarly, there would be no potential impactto the historicnature of the White Alice System atop Anvil Mountain. There would be no noise impacts Gder any combination of turbine power and numbers. Visual or aesthetic impacts, whether regarded as negative or positive, would be slightly increased for power options involving two turbines. The existing infrastructure would be unaffected by any turbine power combinations. However, as was noted for air emissions, successful demonstration of wind turbine-generated power could reduce diesel demand and, therefore, alter the make-up of Nome's futurepower supply system.

### Table 

### 2. Comparative Impacts of 

### Wind Turbine Power Alternatives
Wind Turbine Power Alternatives

of habitat loss; slight potential for avian collisions

One 250-kW Impact Area

Land Use Less than 1acre of natural habitat converted for 

# 1 turbine turbines Less than

Two 250-kW Biological 

## I Less than 1acre 

### 2 acres of habitat loss; slight potential for avian collisions Lessthan One 500-kW

2 acres of natural habitat convertedfor turbine 

# I kW turbine Lessthan 1acre 

## I Less than 2 acres One250-kW and One500- One 750-kW

of natural habitat converted for of habitat loss; slight potential for avian collisions turbine Less than 

### 1acre of habitat loss; slight potential for avian collisions of habitatloss; slightpotential for avian collisions
Less than 

### 1acre of natural habitat 

### 1 converted for wind

turbine use No Action

Air Quality

Cultural Resources Noise VisuaYAesthetic Infrastructure the slight for avian collisions would not occur No change in land 

# ---i

wind turbine use Likely reduction of diesel emissions No direct effects
No direct effects Minor effect No direct effect use

diesel emissions wind turbine use Likely reduction of diesel emissions No direct effects
No direct effects Minor effect No direct effect in diesel-generated power 

# I wind turbine use Likely reduction of diesel emissions No direct effects
No direct effects Minor effect No direct effect Likely reduction of diesel emissions No direct effects
No direct effects Minor effect No direct effect Likely reduction of diesel emissions No direct effects
No direct effects Minor effect No direct effect

### Nome, Alaska, Wind 

### TurbineDemonstration Project
5.0 

### CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The proposed additionof one ortwo wind turbines to Anvil Mountain, as 

### describedin Section2.1, would have a cumulativeeffect on visudaesthetic impactswhen viewed with the existing White'Alice antenna arrays. For some viewers, the wind turbine(s) might be seen as 

### an expandednegativeimpact on the existing ridgeline. For other viewers, the additionof wind turbines and associatedlighting may be a positive supplementto the antenna arrays in aiding offshore~navigation for winter hunting and summer fishing 

### (Air Force, 1996). The additional transmission poles required to extend the current line to the top ofAnvil Mountain would contribute additional cumulative visual impacts to the area when combined with the line extensionsplanned by the local utility. There areno other actions in 

### the Anvil Mountain area that, when combined with the Proposed Action, would result in 

### cumulativeeffects. Should a 

### decision be made to proceed with this demonstrationproject, and should wind-turbine generated power be successfully demonstrated in Nome, increased wind turbine use may be reasonablyforeseeable in the future. However, such an 

### event is beyond the scope ofthe action being proposed here; therefore, the cumulative consequences of additional turbines are not the responsibility ofthis EA but could be the subjectof futureNEPA documentation under Federal regulations or other permitting requirements under Stateregulations.

### Nome, Alaska, Wind 

### TurbineDemonstration Project
6.0 

### SHORT-TERM USES 

### AND COMMITMENT OFRESOURCES As identified in Section 1.1,NEPA requires Federal agencies to (1) describethe relationship between local short-term uses ofthe environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and 

### (2) characterize any irreversibleand irretrievable commitments ofresources that would be involved shouldthe Proposed Action be implemented. The Proposed Action would commit less than 

### 4,000 square meters (1 acre) ofpreviously disturbed tundra atop Anvil Mountain to theproduction of250 

### kW to 

### 750 

### kW of wind-generated electricalpower. As a result ofthis action, Nome's dependency on diesel power could be reduced, leadingto a reduction 

### in air emissions. Such a reduction, although not significant on a national or global scale, would contribute to the reduction in greenhouse gases and 

### thus contribute to the enhancement of long-term productivity. The Proposed Action could result in 

### the irreversible commitment of small quantities of steel, fiberglass,and concrete upon decommissioning of the turbine(s). Due to Nome's remoteness, recycling ofthese materials would be unlikely; therefore, landfill disposal is likely, malung the commitment irreversible.Nome, 

### Alaska, Wind 

### TurbineDemonstrationProject
7.0 

### REFERENCES 

### Air Force (U.S. Department ofthe 

### Air Force), 1996. EnvironmentalAssessment, AnvilMountain Khite Alice CommunicationsSystem Demolition,Nome, Alaska, 61 1" Civil Engineering Squadron,Elmendorf

### Air Force Base, AK, 

### July. Dames & 

### Moore, 1999. WindEnergyFeasibilityStudyNaknek and Unalaska, Alaska, for the Stateof

### Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs Division ofEnergy. DCED, 2000. Nome Community Overview, Alaska Department of Community and Regional Mairs, DCRA Community Database,

### http://www.comregaf.state.akus. DOC (U.S. Department of Commerce), 1997. Local ClimatologicalData -

### Nome, Alaska, Prepared by the National Climatic Data Center. DOE (U.S. Department ofEnergy), 1986. Wind Energy ResourceAtlas of the United States, DOEICH 10093-4. FWS 

### (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 1991. National Wetlantis Inventory 

## -Nome (C-I) Alaska, prepared by the National Wetlands Inventory. Gipe, P., 1995. Wind Energy Comes ofAge, published by John Wiley & 

### Sons,Inc. Interior(U.S. Department of Interior), 1999. Mammals of Bering Land Bridge National Preserve,National Park Service,Bering Land Bridge National Preserve. Interior (U.S. Department of Interior), 1996. Birding on the Seward Peninsula,National Park 

### Service,Bering Land Bridge National Preserve. Wheeler, Gary, 1999. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Anchorage, Alaska, personal communication,September 27, 1999.Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project



### Departmentof 

### Energy Golden Field Office 

# I 1617Cole Boulevard Odden. Cob& 80401-3393

DISTRlBUTIONLIST

,- 

### SUBJECT: NOTICE 

### OF SCOPING

# -ENVIROIWEWAL 

### ASSESSMENTFOR PROPOSED

### WIND TURBINEPROJECT, NOME

### AND UNALASKA, 

### ALASKA The U.S. Depamnent of

### Energy

### OE) and the State ofAlaska are examining sitesforthe construction and operationofa proposed wind turbineproject. The proposed project would generate between225 and 750 kilowatts 

### (kW)of electricalpower. Nominal operating life of the turbinds) would be appmximatdy 20 years afterwhich 

### time theywould be removed. Sites are currently being emmined near the Akkan communitiesofUnalaska and Nome. It is DOE'S policyto imegrate

### cammunityand public cancernsinto its decisionmakingprocess. Accordii, prior to uadertdhg any action on the proposedproject, DOE is solicitingpublic and agency inputs to aid in the iddcationof issues warrantingmore detailed evaluationin an EnvironmentalAssessment(FA) preparedunder theNational FhironmentalPolicy Act (NEPA). During Octoberofthisyear, repmemtaiivesofDOE conductedsitevisits and met with reprtsadativesofFederal, State,and local agencies. Thughthe inputoftheU.S. 

### Fish & WildlifeService, the

### U.S. Corps ofEngineaq andthat ofthelocal utilities, combiedwith the wind characteristicsat each site, our fistofpotential sites for detailed characterizationhas been narrowed to: Unalaska

# - The sites under considerationare located southoftown, off CaptainsBay, inPyramid Valley. Two sites arecurrentlybeing considered in this area, oneat the mouth of Pyramid 

### Valley on the coastline, and the other within the valley 114to 314 mile &omthe coast. Figure 1.
Nome 

## - One site is being consideredin theNome area. The proposed siteis located atop Anvil Mountain, approximately four to five miles inland 6om Nome adjacent to a decommissioned U.S. Air Force radar station that was an element ofthe Alaska CommunicationsSystem("White Alice System") and the Distant Early Warning PEW) lie. Figure 2.
Consbuctionat any ofthe proposed siteswd involve installation ofconcretsfootasplaced on bedrock to supportthe wind turbinetows), and would disturb less than an acre. At the proposed Nome site approximately two milesof above ground transmission linewould be required to connect 

### with the existing eledrical grid. At the Unalaska sites existing underground conduitswould beutilized to connect to the electricalgrid. The proposed site. are not withinjurisdictional wetlands; therefore, the compliance requirements of 10 CFR Part 1022 pertahhgto ffoodplains and wetlands are not implicated.

# I i 

# I 

# I I

i 

# 1

> 

# I.. 1- 

# I Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

### Thesizeofthepropodaction,withr~tokWcapacitytobe~hasyettobe iinahed. 

### Becausethe 

### capacity decisionwill 

### be based 

### on 

### available

### Fedcad, State

### and local fundin& 

### utility

### neads, andcn- impact considerations, a

### range 

### in capacitywili 

### be evabted

### in 

### theEA

### to 

### supportdecision-making. To 

### assure an 

### assessmentof

### thefull range of foreseeableteshical

### alternatives,one or two utility scale

### turbines, 

### with agenemion of capacity

### of 

### 225kW to 

### 750kW,will be 

### considered m

### the

## EA The specifications

### for 

### each turbine

### aternative at three operatinglevels 

### are 

### summarized on Table 1. 

### Please

### note that 

### the turbiies 

### dimemionsidded

### arerepresentativeofcommerciaUy available

### Wies. 

### Final turbinenmdicturer selection

### would involve a fbmal 

### competitivebidding process if 

### a site

### is selected

### and a final decisionto

### proceed 

### is

### reached. Please directany 

### comments, questions, or concerns you

### may have regardingthis 

### proposal to: 

### Ms. Joyce

### Beck,NEPA Document Manager,

### U.S. Department ofEnergy, 

### Golden Field 

### OfEce, 1617

### ColeBoulevard, Golden 

### Colorado 80401-3393; 

### telephone number 1-8OM44-6735; 

### orto 

### electronicmail 

### address joyce-beck@xtrel.gov. The 

### draft 

### EA documentwill be provided to btemted

### parties for review 

### and comment

### upon its 

### completion. Comments, questions, or concerns 

### &ed by 

### January 21,2000 will 

### be 

### consideredpriorto

### DOE reaching a final 

### decision regadkg

### fimding of

### theproposed project.

Enclosure As stated CC: 

## D. Hooker, GO J. 

### Btck, GO 

### T. Howell, GO 

### T. 

### Andesson, BMI Sincerely,

Timothy 

### S.

# HOP / 

### ActingNEPA 

### ompliance Officer GoldenField 

### OfficeNome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project

SCALE 125000 1 5 0 

### rJ~ms' 2 0 UmEs Ian 2m0

,u-- . -*- -z,2...25r___L 

### -- - %--- 

## .-- 7-L-Z MiLLS 

### - - FEEl COlYrOUI~QOm 

# I FIGURE 1

# -Udb SitesNome, Alaska, Wind TurbineDemonstration Project

QlWrOUl~Y)FEET-ULT

### FIGURE2

# - Nomc SiteNome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project



### SCOPING DISTRIBUTION LIST Sigmund Gronich Department ofEnergy EE-13, Forrestal Bldg 1000 Independence Avenue S. W. Washington, DC 20585
Thomas Hall Department ofEnergy EE- 11, Forrestal Bldg 1000Independence Avenue S. W. Washington, DC 20585
Neil Rossmiessl Department ofEnergy EE- 13, Forrestal Bldg 1000 Independence Avenue S. W. Washington, DC 20585
Richard Smith Department ofEnergy EE- 10, Forrestal Bldg 1000Independence Avenue S. W. Washington, DC 20585 Douglas Hooker Project Manager Golden Field Ofice 161 7 Cole Blvd Golden, CO 80233
David Lockard Project Manager Alaska Division ofEnergy 333 W. 4th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 9950 1-2341 Harley Heaton SRT Group Inc. 6349 Yates Ford Rd Manassas, VA 20 1 1 1-26 17
Robin Parker SRTGroup Inc. 3250 Mary St. Miami, FL 33133 U.S. Bureau ofLand Management Alaska State Office 222 W. 7th Avenue, # 13 Anchorage, Alaska 995 13-7599
U.S. Bureau ofLand Management Anchorage Field Office 6881 Abbott Loop Road Anchorage, 

### AK 99507-2599 Rick Albright, Director Alaska Operations U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 222 west 7' Avenue, Room 537 Anchorage, 

### AK 995 13-7588 Patrick Galvin, Director Alaska Coastal Management Program 550 West 7th Ave., Ste. 1660 Anchorage, AK 99501 James Kenworthy, Executive Director Alaska Science and Technology Foundation 4500 Diplomacy Drive, Suite 5 15 Anchorage,

### AK 99508-5918
Mr. Ronald J. Moms Western Alaska Office Supervisor Protective Resources Mgt Division U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service 222 W 7th Avenue, #43 Anchorage, AK 995 13-7577 Ann Rappoport Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Anchorage Field Office 605 West 4' Avenue, Room G-62 Anchorage,

### AK 9950 1-2231 Faye Heit. U.S. Corps ofEngineers Alaska District P.O. Box 898 Anchorage, 

### AK 99506-0898Nome, Alaska, Wind TurbineDemonstration Project Leroy Phillips U.S. Corps ofEngineers Alaska District P.O. Box 898 Anchorage, 

### AK 99506-0898
Judith E. Bittner, Chief of the Office ofHistory and Archaeology StateHistoric Preservation Officer Alaska Division ofParks and Outdoor Recreation 3601 

### "C" Street, Suite 1278 Anchorage, 

### AK 99503-5921
Alaska Department ofEnvironmental Conservation Compliance Assistance Office 555 Cordova Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501
South Central Alaska Office Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 555 Cordova Anchorage, 

### AK 99501
iMr. Randall H. Hagenstein Associate State Director Alaska Field Office TheNature Conservancy 421 West First Avenue Suite 200 Anchorage, AK 9950 1
Mr. Jack Hession Alaska Representative Alaska Office Sierra Club 201 Barrow St. Suite 101 Anchorage,AK 99501-2429
Mr. John Schoen Executive Director Alaska State Office National Audubon Society 308 G Street Suite

### 217 Anchorage, AK 99501 The Denali Commission C/O Jeffrey B. Staser, Federal Co-Chair 5 10 "L" Street, Suite41 0 Anchorage, AK 99501 

### Art Weiner, ExecutiveDirector, Alaskan Natural Resource Conservation & Development Bijard 3601 "C" Street, Suite 980 Anchorage, 

### AK 99503-592

### 1
AlaskaNewspapers, Incorporated 3 01 Calista Ct. #B Anchorage, AK 995 19-3028
UnalaskarnutchHarbor Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 920833 Dutch Harbor,AK 99692
The Dutch Harbor Fisherman P.O. Box 920472 Dutch Harbor, AK 99692
U.S. Bureau ofLand Management Northern District Office 

### 1 150University Avenue Fairbanks, AK 99709-3899
Northern Alaska Office Alaska Department ofEnvironmental Conservation 6 10University Ave. Fairbanks,AK 99709-3643
Gunter 

### E. Weller Center for Global Change and Arctic System Research University ofAlaska 

## - Fairbanks P.O. Box 757740 Fairbanks, AK 99775-7740
The Honorable Tony Knowles Governor of Alaska P.O. Box 1 10001 Juneau,

### AK 998 11-0001 Andy Ebona Special StaffAssistant on Rural Affairs Ofice ofthe Governor P.O. Box 

### 1 10001 Juneau, 

### AK 998

### 1 1-000

### 1Nome, Alaska, Wind TurbineDemonstration Project
Ms. Diane Mayer, Director, Division ofEnvironmental Coordination Office ofthe Governor P.O. Box 1 10030 Juneau, AK 998 11-0030
Officeofthe Governor OfficeofManagement and Budget Division of Governmental Coordination 240 Main, Suite 500 P.O. Box 1 10030 Juneau,AK 9981 1-0030
State of Alaska Department ofFish and Game P.O. Box 25526 Juneau, AK 99802
State of Alaska Department ofNatural Resources 400 Willoughby, 5& Floor Juneau, 

### AK 99801
Leo Rasmussen, Mayor P.O. Box 281 Nome, AK 99762
Mike Janez, City Manager P.O. Box 281 Nome, AK 99762
Nome Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 250 Nome, AK 99762 John Handeland, General Manager Nome Joint Utility System P.O. Box 70 Nome, 

### AK 99762 Nancy Mendenhall Acting Director University of Alaska -Fairbanks Northwest Campus Pouch 400 Nome, AK 99762 

### King Island Native Community Attn: Environmental Director P.O. Box 997 Nome, 

### AK 99762 Native Village Council Attn: Environmental Director P.O. Box 2050 Nome, AK 99762
Nome Eskimo Community Attn: Environmental Director P.O. Box 1090 Nome, AK 99762
Soloman Traditional Council Attn: Environmental Director P.O. Box 2053 Nome, 

### AK 99762 Jerry A. Steiger Meteorologist-In-Charge National Weather Service Nome Weather Service Office P.O. Box 1 170 Nome, 

### AK 99762 Kegoayah Kozga Public Library City ofNome Nome, AK 99762
KICY AM/FM Radio P.O. Box 820 Nome, AK 99762
KNOM AM Radio P.O. Box 988 Nome, AK 99762
Nome Public Radio P.O. box 1770 Nome, AK 99762
Nome Nugget Newspaper P.O.Box 610 Nome, AK 99762
Karen Blue City of Unalaska Department ofPublic Works P.O. Box 610 Unalaska, 

### AK 99685-06 10
Mike Golat, Director ofPublic Utilities City ofUnalaska P.O. Box 610 Unalaska,AK 99685-0610Nome, Alaska, Wind TurbineDemonstrationProject

Scott Seabury, City Manager City ofUnalaska P.O. box 610 Unalaska, 

### AK 99685 Qawalingin

### Tribe of Unalaska C/o Harriet Berikoff, President 205 west Broadway P.O. Box 334 Unalaska,

### AK 99685
OunalashkaCorporation 400 Salmon Way P.O. Box 149 Unalaska, AK 99685-0149
Jim Paulin,News Director Unalaska Community Broadcasting P.O. Box 181 Unalaska,

### AK 99685 University of Alaska -Fairbanks Interior Aleutians Campus P.O. Box 248 Unalaska,

### AK 99685
Unalaska Public Library P.O. Box 1370 Unalaska,

### AK 99685
Mr. Willie R. Taylor, Director Office of EnvironmentalPolicy and Compliance U.S. Departmentofthe Interior 1849

### C Street, NW Room 2340 Washington, DC 20240
Ms. Ann M. Hooker Environmental SpecialistNEPALiaison Officeof Energy and Environment Federal Aviation Administration U.S. Department of Transportation AEE300 

### -- Room 902 800 IndependenceAvenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 

### Mr. Daniel Kirshner Senior Analyst West Coast Office Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. 5655 College Avenue Suite 304 Oakland, CA 94618
Clean Water Action 

## - CWA 23 Grant Avenue, 3d Floor SanFrancisco, CA 94108
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Attn: Office of Ecosystems and Communities Region 10 Office 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98 101-9797
Irene Anderson Land Manager Sitnasuak Native Corporation 

### P. 0. Box 905 Nome, 

### AK 99762 

### Mr. Pat Poe, Regional Manager AK Regional Ofice Air Traffic Division, AAL-530 222 West 7hAvenue Anchorage,

### AK 99513
Jack Schommer AK Regional Office Air TrafficDivision, AAL-530 222 West 7' Avenue Anchorage, AK 99513
Federal Aviation Administration John Lovett 222 West 7h Avenue Box 14, AAL-612D Anchorage, AK 995 13
Federal Aviation Administration Matt Freeman 222 West 7" Avenue BOX 14, AAL-532 Anchorage,

### AK 99513Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project



## States Department of the

FISHAND WIWUFE SERVICE Ecological ServiccsAnchorage 605Wea 4thAvenue. Rmm 62 Ancharage,Alaska 99501-2249 WAES



### Ms JoyceBeck 

### NEPA DocumentManager U.S. Department of Energy Golden Field Office Golden, Colorado 80401

DearMs. Beck: 

## Interior -" '"--7.q ~G&>&.G&

Thank you for yourrequestfor scoping informationregarding the possible installation of wind turbines at Unalaska and Nome. We have provided previous commentson the potential for this project to affect threatened and endangered species. Thepurpose of this letter is to make you aware ofrelatively large concentrations of bald eagles at and near the Westward Seafood processing facility. This facilityis on Captain's Bay in close proximity to Pyramid Creek. Wintering bald eagleshistorically concentratedat the Unalaska landfillprior to its recent 

## I conversion to a baling operation. Since that time, the eagles stillreturn to Unalaska duringthe winter, but have dispersed to less concentratedfood sources. During a site \isit to Captain's Bay January 10-14,2000,between 50 and 75 bald eagles were consistently observed at Westward Seafoods.
We are concerned that a wind turbine located on the Captain's Bay coastline near Pyramid Creek would result in blade-shikesto wintering bald eaglesand other birds. Bud use is substantially greateralong the coast compared to inland sites,especiallyduringthe winter. For this reasonwe recommend that the turbine be located at the inland location where the risk of injury to birds is smaller than the coastal site. We would have serious concerns about locating the turbine on the coastline of Captain's Bay near Pyramid Creek.
Pleasetelephone Mark Schroeder,Fish and Wildlife Biologist, at (907) 271-2797 if you have any questions. Sincerely, 

## I

Field ~upesi&r cc: ADFG:W. @lezal 

### i i 

### I 

# I

: 

# I: 

# I. I... iNome, Alaska, Wind TurbineDemonstration Project

-TONYKNOWLES, GOVERNOR

. . . - . .. . -. -

. 

### DEPARTMENT OF FISHAND 

### GAME P.O. BOX 25526 JUNEAUAULSKA 99842-5516 ME 

### (son 46!%1aY4125 HABITAT AND RESTORAlWN DlVlSlON FAX: (907) 4654759 January27,2000
Mr. Timothy S. Howell ActingNEPA Compliance Officer Golden Field Office U.S. Department of Energy 1617 ColeBoulevard Golden, CO 80401-3393

DearMr. Howell:

The AlaskaDepartment of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has brief1 y reviewed the U.S. Department ofEnergy's proposal to generate electrical power using wind turbinesnear Unalaska and Nome, Alaska We did not identify any significant fish and wildlife issues related near Nome. Comments on the Unalaska site follows.
Two sites are identified askingunder consideration near Unalaska. figurt 1 of the December 17. 1999comspondence shows one site is located nearthe ocean about 0.5 miles east-nonheast of Obemoi Point in the SE%NW% Sec IS,T 73 S,R 118 W, Seward Meridian. This location is very near Westward Seafds processingplant and associatedhousing complex. However. per a telephone conversation with Mr. Mike Golat, Director of Public Utilities for the City of Unalaska, the site is not found at this location. It is his understanding that the site under consideration is supposed tobe about 0.5 miles southwestof Obemoi Point on the south side of the lower reach of Pyramid Creek in the SW%SE% Sec 16,T 73 S,R 118 W, S.M. This site is very near the Crowley Maritime industrial complex. The second siteis found at about the 250 foot elevation in the SE%NE% Sec 21 and the SWViNWVi Sec 22, T 73 S,R I18 W, S.M. where the East Fork Pyramid Cmkand Icy Creek merge to form the rnainstem of Pyramid Creek. This site is very near the City of Unalaska water storage reservoir and water treatment facility. Several species of fish and wildlife are found in the vicinity. Along the coast, avian species of particular concern include the spectacled eider (Sornateriafischeri) and Steller's eider (Polysticm stellen3both listed as threatened species on the endangered species list. In addition, other speciesof concern include emperor geese (Chen cmgica) and bald eagles (Haliaeems eucocephalus) that congregate in the area during the winter. The lower reach (approximately 1,600 feet) of Pyramid Creek supports pink salmon (O~lcorhynchus gorbuscha) and coho salmon (Oncorhvnchuskisttfch), as well as Dolly Varden (Salvelinlts malma). Pink salmon are known to spawn in the stream and coho salmon rear in it. .Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project



### Mr. Timothy Howell 2 January 27,2000
Resident Dolly Varden are found above a barrier waterfall on 

### the mainstem of Pymnid 

### Creek They are 

### also found in both Icy 

### Creek and 

### theEastFork Pyramid 

### Creek Any proposal for wind turbines along the coast and close to sea level raises concern forbird strike mortality. 

### The site near Crowley Maritime complex is such a location. To prevent potential injury to thnatened species and wintering waterfowl andbald eagles this site shouldbe eliminated 

### from consideration. The 

### proposal for a site away

### from the coastline and at 

### higher elevations raises fewer concerns forbird strike. However. &velopm&t of upland sites including access and facilities constructionmust be accomplishedin a manner that prevents short and longterm soil erosion and that maintains waterquality in Icy Creek, East Fork Pyrarmd Creek. and Pyramid 

### Creek.
We appreciate the opportunitytocomment. Shouldyou have any questions please contact

### Mr. Wayne Dolezal of my Anchorage staff, at (907)267-2333.



## sy+- Ken Taylor
Director

cc: 

### R. Momson, 

### ADF&G M. Golat, 

### City of Unalaska 

### G.Wheeler, USFWS W. Dolezal, ADF&G M. McLean, ADF&G 

# I
I I. 

# 1 

# I

' 

## f 

# j i 

# I. 

# I, I... 

# I.Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project
.-



### APPENDIX 

## B 

# -FAA CORRESPONDENCENome, Alaska, Wind Turbine DemonstrationProject

Federal Aviation Administration - i- ?vr- AERONAUTICAt STWDY Alaskan Region, AAt-530 -:=*O: 00-AAL-0023-OB 222 West 7th Avenue, #I4 ..?=\r=I

. L-..~. ,Anchorage,AK 99513-7987 

### FEE 5 J 

### 2CS ISSUED DATE: 02/24/00 JOHN HANDEWIND HAND EL IS:.^^.: 

### .;t E;.;EF2z?' NOME JOm UTILITY SYSTEM 70 POWERPLANT Dm, P.O. BOX 70 NOME, -#A 99762

++ D~INATION OF Nu HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ++ The Federal Aviation Adminiatration has campleted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and, if applicable, Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Description: WIND TURBINE(S) Location: NOME AK Latitude : 64-33-49.24 NAD 83 Longitude: 165-22-27.37 Heights : 400 feet abm ground level (AQII) 1534 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical stud revealed that the structure dam exceed obet-tion standards gut would not be a hazard to air navigation prwided the following condition(a), if any, is(-) met: -As a condition to this-determination, the.structure should be.marked ,and/or lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-lJ, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, Chapters 4, S(Red1,
-It is re red that the enclosed FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual ColutructE ox Alteration, be completed and returned to this office any time the project is abandoned or:



### -At least LO days prior to start of conetruction x(7460-2, Part I) Within 5 daya after construction reaches its greatest height

(7460-2, Part XI) -It is required that the FAR be notified at least 48 business hours prjor to the temporary structure being erected and again when tho structure la removed from the site. Notification should be made to this office during our core business hours (Monday through Friday, 9:00 am to 3:00 pm) via telephone at 907-271-5903. Notification is necessary so that aeronautical procedures can be temporarily modified to accommodate the structure. This determination expires on 08/24/01 unless: (a) extended, revised or terminated by the issuing office,or (b) the construction is subject to the licensing authority.of

.. .

. the Federal Conmunications Codssion (FCC) and an a lication for a comt,ruction permit has been filed, as sequirepby the FCC, within 6.monthfi 

### vf 

### tht 

## date 

## of this 

## determlmtion. In 

## such 

## case the determination expires on the date prescribed b the FCC for completion of construction or on the date =he FCC xenies the application. 

## O~Q 

## kiq. X, 

# cc: Rl2.gNome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project



### m: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EPFECTIVE PEXIOD OF THIS DGTgRHINATIOK WST BE POS- OR DgLJYlWD TO IXIS OETICE AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO TRE EXPIRATION DATE. 

## 1 -As a result of this structure king critical to flight safet it is

r-red that tho FAA be k t apprised as to the status of tdk project. Failure to re& to periodic PUinquiriee could Invalidate thie determination.

I +s determination iabased, in part, on the fo description which

rncludea specific coordinates, heights, enX3 ad-r. 

### my ages in mordinates. heigtits, fregucn&%81 or we ot greater pnrr wi31 void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase In heights, power, or the addition of other transarftters, requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination does inelude temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., orhich may be used duri actual construction of the structure!. However, this ecuimz~t sha8 me exceed the overall hei ts as indicated a+ove. Equipriknf: which has a height greater than the StIlgd StN&UX€9 ZOq'tU.TPS SepMfe Il~tiFe to the FAA. This detarrainatian cancezna the affect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable air ce by aircraft and does not relieve the spormot: 

### of compliance responsi%ities relating to auy law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or 

### local gavlernment body. of this determination will be forwarded to the Federal Communications if the structure is subject to their licensing authority. 

### rf we can be of f-er assistance, please contact our office at ~907-271-5903. On any future comespondence concerning this mtter, please refer to Aemnautical Study Number 00-AAL-0023-OXS.

7460-2 AttachedNome, Alaska, Wind TurbineDemonstration Project



### APPENDIX C 

## -BERING 

### LAND BRIDGE NATIONAL PRESERVE BIRD CHECKLIST
AND 

### FWS CORRESPONDENCENome, Alaska, Wind TurbineDemonstration Project 

### Bering Land Bridge National Preserve Bird Checklist Common Name 

# I June 

### ( July 

### ( August 

### Golden Eagle 

## 1 

# u 1 

# u 1 IT 

### I Northern Hanier 

### I 

# u 1 

# u I 

# u 1 

# I Rough-legged Hawk 

# / C 

# 1 

# c ( 

# c 1

I Merlin 

### 1 R 

### I R 

### I R 

### i

Osprey



### 1 PeremheFalcon 

### 1 U 

### 1 U 

### 1 U 

### I

Short-eared Owl U 

### American Kestrel

. 

### R R R 

# 1 R



# 1 Homed Lark 

## 1 

# u I

# u I 

# u R

Great Homed Owl Snowy Owl Northern Hawk Owl 

### 1 Tree Swallow 

### 1 R

--- 

### I Northern Wheatear 

## 1 

# u 1 

## u 117 

### I R R R

Yellow-rumped Warbler 

## I U 

# 1 U 

# I U 

### Wilson's Warbler 

## I 

# c 1 

## c 

## 1 

# c 1 

### R R R

Bluethroat SiberianRubythroat Northern Shrike

Northern Waterthrush 

# I C 

# 1 C 

### ( C Savannah 

### S~arrow 

## 1 

# c 1 

# c I 

# c R U U

U 1 

### U 

### U 

## * U U 

## * UNome, 

### Alaska, Wind 

### TurbineDemonstration Project



### A -Abundant, normally present in numbers, and several should be seen most days. 

### C 

## -Common, normally present, and should be seen most days with a little work. 

### U -

### Uncommon, normally present,but hard to find. 

### R -

### Rare,-presentmost years, but hard to find. 

### 1- 

### Speciesis an infrequent visitor to the Seward Peninsula, but can be found 

### 3 to 6 years out of 

### 10. 

## * -

### Insufficientinformation availablefiom the road system to estimate the chancesof seeing this species.


### Source: Interior, 1996.Nome, Alaska, Wind TurbineDemonstration Project



# United States

## Department

# ofthe 

## Interior FlSHAND~~SBRVIcE

### EodolCialw6QSW~t4tbkwnrRoom62



### SEP 6m



## We nceivadyour 

### Eetta rqwstkg

### indbmration

### onthe potentialprtsawx

### ofFbdcral tfneateDcd

### or ~rspccies,mwea~ry~orybints,atdpottmialprojeusites 

### mle€terwas ~byusonAugilst 12,1999. Asstatdinyourktter,thcp~ppojccthvoohostlle 

### wmtmctknandoperatiDn

### ofan qmkmtal

### fird 

### alhhd

### turbine 

### Thepotential sites

### ideoaified 

### inyor~ ktter

### areNabsdr, Onaksita,

### andNome. 

### We qpwiatcdtbe

### early txmcbtbtt

### onthe part 

### of

### the Deparhnent

### ofEnergy and 

### its consllhtlntwith regards to thisprojects potential 

### cfExts on 

### aatural resources. Thefo~whg 

### informationisprovidedfor ux:in phming 

### thc project. It 

### sho~be~onsidardasIne;timiaaryWtrponowcumzltfarowledge,but~~tthebeaefitof 

### having

### visited 

### tbesites oramsubd

### with all

### species 

# ~~ I Based

### on nvicw

### ofoar inhmthn, the

### spectacled eider(Somateria fwkQ 

### and SttWs

### eider (powicta S~=IIW~, .rr

### thc twoiista~ apeohi nticipstod

### to 

### omr in vicinityofthe 

### I projed

### sites However, 

### dueto 

### its bcation, 

### tbepotential

### for cowtion and operation

### of 

### tbe 

### wiadnxrbinctohannthcscspeciesappearstobehighestatNakaek-S~e1. Tbepotemiaisitesat Unalaska

# - Site 9and

### Nom (Anvil Mountain)

### are locatedsuchtbat, upon

### initial 

### review, operation ofa wind tu&ii would

### mt IWy

### advPscfyafht

### tbestfisted species. 

### Asfbrotberaviaaspacies,alIoftbesitesposcsomrisk, Tbeoperationvfthewind~at 

### Naknck, especially during adverse

### climttic conditions (e.g., 

### fog) could

### aku impact 

### several

### othet spits 

### ofducks and geese. 

### In addition, bald eagles, 

### otherraptors, and 

### othermigratory bid may 

### also be harmed

### hugh its 

### opera?ion Consequently, ofthe three sites evahiaW 

### the potential 

### for 

### tmpactsto 

### migratory birds

### appears 

### to & greatestat this site. 

### The

### operation

### ofth: 

### wiDd

### tmbintat

## u- 

# - Site 9, because

### ofits location,woukl appear 

### kestliLe)yto~~dgaese,kbJtinmqyharm~andpesPeriDesusingtheMUy 

### andasso&tddgc Ibcopaatioadawind*atNomqAnvjW*mridcsto raptors,bristlethigkdanlew(Ntonurius~),anbother~birds. 

### Thepotcntid ~lo~~alrkw~~gilfultbis~ appa~artdecIh#.

# I Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project



### Therefore, based 

### on reviewof

### prclimhuyinfbdon, 

### Unalaska

# - Site 9 wouM appear 

### to constitute

### the least risk 

### tomigratory birds.
Inregardsto 

### evaluatingthe 

### potential 

### dB- in total area swept 

### by the 

### rotors and its 

### ultimate &t 

### on avian impacts,

### we 

### fecoxninend a completion of

### a thorough

### hrature search. 

### Rased on a 

### prelimhyreview of

### litemhue, Howell (1

### 9971 

### didn't dctcct a

### dBxencc m

### bid strikesdueto cli&mxes 

### in the 

### size of

### areas swept by

### a

### rotor, and that tbe mnnber

### of

### units 

### ratherthan the 

### area swept by each

### unit appeared

### to be 

### the more important 

### War the 

### numberofbird 

### strikes 

### It is 

### important 

### to note

### that 

### he did record 

### mortality 

### ofhawks, 

### falcons, owls, ducks 

### (malbrd), herons 

### (blackcrowned night heron), dove, 

### and various passcrinesduring 

### their study. In contrast, 

### Wmkleman (1985), 

### didn't record anymortality 

### dueto the 

### operation ofmedium-sized wind turbines 

### inthe Netherlands. 

### Based on ourreview 

### of these two papers, we 

### think that a 

### number of 

### -rent species

### would ultimately be 

### impacted.


### We 

### have 

### enclosed the two refd 

### papers foryour 

### reviewand 

### we 

### look

### hd to fUrther coordination on this 

### issue. 

### Ifyou have 

### any questionsregardingthis 

### letter, please contactArt 

### Davenport at 

### (907)271-2781(E1~langered 

### Species) or

### Gary Wheekr at 

### (907) 271-2780(Habitat Conservation). Sincerely,

- 

# w5?7?+--

Ann G.Rappoport 

### Field Supehr
Endosure

cc: 

### David Lockard

# - DCRA

## Di.of

### Energy 

### ADFG-Wayne 

### Dolezal



### - Al Ott 

### TomAnderson 

## - Battelle 

### Memorial InstituteNome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project



### APPENDIX D 

## -WETLAND CONSULTATIONSNome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

# I

11 

# @$ N,ODlE 

# JOINT UTILITY SYSTEM
P.R. 13ox 70 NC~I~IC, Al:~sl;a99761 ; (907) 43-NJUS Fax (907) 44-13-6336 August 26,1999



### Don R~CG; Unit C~oniinator 

### Norlh Section 

## - Regulatory 

### Brarch U.S. 

### ARMY CORPS 

### OF ENGINEEGS P.O. l3ox '808 Anchorage, AK 99506 

### Dear Mr. Rice:



### ~e are 

### planning extension of 

### our electrical grid in 

### three diiferent directions as 

### indicated 

### on the 

### attached copy of 

### the Nome 

### area USGS 

### quad 

## map. All extensions are 

### continrlatlonsof 

### existing ovorhead 

### sl~ctrical service 

### lines mounted 

### on poles. OpLlorl 

### one 

### is 

### a thrco and 

### one-half mile extension of an 

### existing line located 

### a! 

### thc int~rscctian of the Center Creok 

### Road with 

### the Nome-Teller Highway 

### near 

### tho 

### Nolne-B4tz High School 

### camplex within 

### !ha Alaska OOTIPF right-of-way to the 

### Snake 

### niver to serve 

### Iho Snake River 2nd 

### Sunrise Subdivision community. The route begins 

### in 

### Township 11 

### South, Ranger 34 

### West, Kateel River Meridian, 

### Section 11 

### and co~itlnuqs 

### ~estward through Sections 10, 3,4 

### and 5. 

### This route 

### is across perrnafrostial 

### soils 

### wt~ich arc 

### most likely 

### watlznds. Option two is R onc 

### and one-haif mile extension of 

### an existing line located near 

### tho intersilction of tlle Da'xter 

### Road with 

### the 

### Nome-Teller Highway

### to Hotel Gulch on the west fl;ltik 

### of Newtnn 

### Peak for 

### tho purpose 

### of 

### sarving the Panorama 

### Bench, Morning Star i~nd 

### Dry 

### Crack Subdivision community. The route 

### beings in

### T 11 S, 

### R 34 

### W, KRM, Soc. 13, 

### cqn:intrcs nortl~ 

### across Scc. 12 and into Sec. 7 

### of 

### T 1 1 S, R 33 W, 

### KRM, This 

### route 

### is 

### across tailings 

### naturally thawed soils 

### which 

### are probably not

### wetlands. 

### Option three 

### is on eleven mile 

### extension of 

### an existing line located 

### at the 

### Nome Municipal i-andfill aloilg the Beam Road 

### and continuing within 

### the AK DOTJPF right-ofway 

### trortl~ward to thc Nome River 

### Bridge 

### for the 

### purposo of serving the Triple Creek, 

### Osbom, Dexter and 

### Banner Creek corrirnurlities. The route 

### begins in 

### T 11 S, R 

### 33 W, 

### l<fllM, Scc. 21 and 

### continusti norll~ward 

### through Scc. 16, 15, 10, 9, 

### 2, 3 

### and 

### 4, and 

### through T 10 

### S, R 33 W, KREA, Sec. 

### 33, 28, 21, 20, 17, 8, 9 and 4. This 

### route 

### is over mostly natirnlly 

### thawed soils 

### with occasional 

### discontinuous areas of permafrost 

### This roirte 

### may 

### cross 

### intermiltent wetlands. 

### Wolrld 

### yotr please deterrnir~c whether 

### you 

### have jurisdiction 

### over any excavation 

### or fillir~g WGJ 

### may do during placement ot 

### power poles along these 

### three proposed 

### rau!os. 

### Would 

### you also dctcnnino if 

### our 

### filli~rg or excavation would be 

### covet@d 

### underNome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project



### U.S. 

### my Corps of 

### Engineors/Don Ri August 26,1999 

### Paga 2 

# I any existing nationwide 

### permits

## or if we 

### need 

## to make 

### kendiiual applimons 

### fw any of 

### me* lmos. 

### Tlw three

### proposed lineextensions are

### for primary

### distfiiutlon

### and 

### do not 

### indude 

### secondary dlsttfbution 

### systems to 

### irididual residents 

### within any 

### of the 

### existing communities. We 

### wiil 

### address those 

### situalions 

## In Ihe future 

## on an as-needed basis. It 

### is 

### anticipated 

### that a wetlands permit 

### may be 

### needed 

### in the Snake 

### River 

### and Sunrise 

### Subdivisions 

### at tile 

### end of proposed routo 

### number 

### one. However, 

### If 

### electrical utility extensions 

### there 

### are also 

### covered under a 

### nationwide permit, we 

### would 

### like to 

### be so 

### inbrmcd, AII comrnunica1'm 

### regording wetlands jurisdictianai 

### determinations, permits 

### and public 

### notili~ations 

### should be 

### addressed to 

## me as the 

### contact person for the Ubiity, 

### I can 

## be reached 

## directly at (907) 

### 443-6302, should you 

### require additional 

### information or 

### ~l~ficatfon,



### John 

## K. Handeland, 

### General Man 

## NOMEJOINT 

### UTlUTY 

### SYSTEMNome, Alaska, Wind TurbineDemonstration Project

DEPARTMENT

### OF

### ME ARMY U*%VARLfY M(IWJEER-, ALASKA P.O. Bo)(B)e PWolUce,&-A 99-

Yr, Joirrr K. Handllancl Genacal Kinnqer Nwo J~AIIL0tLliL.y System Post Of Pist: BOA '10 Mom, Al.tski~ 99762-0370 kar Mr. Eazdtlan3: Yol;r tb+test oi Augtlilr 26, 1999, for a Dvpjctmcnt of che Army (DA) jurisdictional,dct@rmfr&ttlon to sew if your pMj+=t for the three pzopossd utility line axtonrrlonrr could tall und9r Nntlonwidt Pezmlt authotiration near Ncmc, Alaekd usbuon rarssivcd. It has boen sroigncd 9-391067. Snaku Ri~er, which shhotald bu roforrcd to In oJ1 iutute correrpondence with this affica.
Wo llavc Ltntu-rtninca C~AC n?nrc infomation is essential before we can respond t.0 your reqwrst.. Plaaseprovide the follawinq infomatian:
I, P~avida a typical plan vi~w and crass scction olyour proposed llnc worki Na5ionwlcle Poxatit 12 J'icrr not cover Zoundation work-ju3t utility linc t ronrdlitrg, tcmporafy .srocrrpilinq of material, and re-tilling tho trench with rnvcqctdctrrn. Peponding 

### on how you ptan doing any fou~dation work, nnather narlonvrida pathtic m~y d~fi~off~o thht wrk. If not, an Individual permit may b~ raquirgd.
? ,~!::c chzc:ked ro tee if you; projcct rntqht fall under General Pornit 9I:-1M 4or the City or' Nome. Iitcording Co the map we.roceit-cd, none of tho projdr:t; wo.ald be in bacndsticts sit. up for the Ccactaf Pemic.
b. Wl13 tho origln?l tItiLlty liar work pcrmittcd?

I:. from thrr ~aae c.: your cunyay, am asswrlnq that it is jalntiy owned Joint+y aw1i.,11 i?y whcm?
I .im catclrnir.(r a cosy of yuuc :u~p chat will show where the wetland areas a?.c,Inc.~:-~d. All thrc* I.O\I~QS 90 throu~h rotland ar-eas. 7lcn~e keep in nine', also, ~hdt, ally dis~karqi? of ILll mttrial bolaw the ordlnary high water mark of A u.~cczrbodywill nocd aurhoriz.ltion too.



### 1 ?he terra- anei condLtians oC hWF 13, which roy authorize your proposed work, zwl*;Lccs a nutlIlc.$cl~a to SBto'ArCC agencies within the Stat4 at ~Ljsk,~. :lpon raculpt oC tho 1aquascM1 in~~~mation, we will begin tho nnt t f i cntioo rJL'oh-.sNome, Alaska, Wind TurbineDemonstration Project

Enclomd 

### la a copy aC our 

### Regulatory 

### Program 

### Applicant Infoauntfor. 

### PmphLcL, ir\clndirrp a 

### p.zmlt apalicaLion. ThiJ 

### pemphlot is designad to assisfz* you $n applying &L a ibh:pe~it and pr~vfdos general 

### fnfomtion and pidnncc oat 

### how kn compl~tc th+'pemit application. Your prompt 

### att+nl:ion to tt:is mttcr 

### will oxpedite pmc~saiagyortvJrcf. I: ym ha70 r.6~ pao\ldedthe requited 

### information within 30 days of tho dare hi thiz llattor, we will close your file. CLodurs of your tilo at such t:m~ 

### wirr nor. pcccluris, you Ctm re-owning the eilc at a later dato sliottlrf you WLsh to da so.
Wc appreciate your coopczarion with tke Corps af Engineers' Hequlatory Progr~un. Flcrrua rc;i!cr to (!lo numhez 9-991067, Snake River, ia future curroa;~ndeoco 

### ar it 

### you hnvo any quostions concerning this letter. If you have atly qilastiorts, plc~sc 

### contact NC aL tS.e letterhead pddzess, by telephone at. (907) 753-2716, 

### or 

### toll. 

### frcc in Alaska at (8001 479-2712. Sincerely, 

# aVC- 

# iid-&.

Faye 

# .. EeiCzNome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project

U?LAAYTemrNEER~tMIISI(A RO.BOXmUICHaflA04hLm

# novmsa I 

## o 

# ~mEbgulatory branch

Mr. John K. linndsland GanoraI. UaMgcz Nomc Joint: Utility Syrtrm Post Ofticu POX 70 Ho:re, Alapka 99762-0070 Dear Mr. 1i;mdQiand: This is in rnrponsb FO your latter of SeptPAer 22, 1999, canca:ning yo.= proposal to dischez~e approxi~tcly 440 cubic yards of aatfto and irPported fillmnterlal into appcoxisutcly 0.03 acres of wotlandr to construct chrea power l tncs ir. sectiofis 11, 20, 3, 4, 3, 12, 13, T. 11 S., R. 34 W.; srrctlocs 21, 16, 15, 20, 9, 2, 3, 4, T. 11 S., R. 33 W.; and sections 35, 28, 21, 20* 17, 8, 3, anC 4, T, 20 S,, R. 33 W., Suwrrd Meridian, in rnd near NOW, Alaska. Wc have dstannintd that your project can be authorized under #ac20nw>lda Pccmit 4 12.
A Oqartment of thu Xrmy nationwide pernit (NW?) has been issued pursuanq ts thd? Decanb~r.13, 1996, Fedorhl Rcgiatcr, 'in31 Nocice of Issuzncc, Reissuance, 8r.d &lcdific~tion of Ndtlonulde Pe~ni~s 161 kX 65874). which authcrirss:
"f2. Ur:Li:y Line D1scha:gcs. D~schsrgos of dredged or fiZl material associated witb exc-qvation. hnckfill or beddiq Lor u:ilify linoa, including outfalL i~d intakc EtruCtUres, providcd thara ia no cbange in prscenscructfor. contour.rr.. A wocL.lity line" is defind a3 any pipe or pipalbo for the transporthtiaa of 3r.y qascous, !.?quid, Liqucfiabl,a, or slurry subscanco, for oopy purpo-c, aru! any ~lblc, lin,?, or wire for the cransocttsion for any Furpose of elecrirfai wllergy, t~lophano and telegraph messages, and radio and tolcvlsio~~ caoa~rnLc~tian.Thc terxi *utility lln~* doos not inclcda REE!VIF:O~ ~hkh C&O~ WaFFF OC the UnL;;od St3t21, such as drai~ta~e tile; howavo*, it cbao apply to pipes convnyinp drainage Srom anothar araa. This HKP ~utho=t:os mchanlzcd landclaating necessary tor Cfra installation of utility linas, including ovcrhcad utility LlneS, p~ovided the cleared arcs is kc-,: th thc rriinlacl? n?ceSsd cy SAC< prd~ol?~tru~tion cantours are maintained. Hous-.v,:r, accass raad3. temporary or per~ranenc,or Po~m&tiona associated with ovorhcaci utility liner nzc not nu~hori~ad by this NWP. Hatcrial resulting ,F:o~n trench oxc~vation rruy be tsa~rarily sid>wac (up to three months) into waters of th4 Uhrtcd Stnros, providcd that the ndrrerral fs not placed in such n manner that Lt 13 dlq?arsed by currents or othez forces. The DE may excend tna prriotl of tcm??rxzy did3 ~asticq noc to OXCQO~ 3 total of 180 days, where nppropria~o. TI:@ drva of uatcrr of the Waited States that is disturbed must be lirP$tod to tho minirruai Eoorssary to consfruct the UtiLity linc. In wctlmds, tho top GL LO 12. ot the trench shou1.d generaily bo backfFllcd with i 

### f 

# I- 

# I

+ 

# I.. I INome, Alaska, Wind TurbineDemonstration Project

-2-

top~oi? from Lh3 ~rznc?~. EXCOSC material nust be removod to upland arcas fmcdlaLc11 y upon cornplorion of construction. Any exposed slopes and stream t~afiks 

### must be seahtlf

# reJ F:oncdiately upon conpletion of thc utility lino. (Sac 33 CFR Part 322)

# ."

EioL'JfLcatioi: Tho pcrnrdtt.c.c must notify the district engineer in accarclance with che 'Notific~tion"qencrnl conckticn, if any of tho following criLori:? arc ~et: a) Machani zed la1~5cle6cing in a lorestad watland; L1 P. Scctlon 10 pc--.it is :aq!!ircd for r;hc utilit!~ ling; q) The utiii.ty lin~ in rstars or tho Unitnd States exceeds 500 feet1 or, d) Thc util3.t~ line is pj:lcod within a. jurisdrctional area (i.~. 

### , a vatox of tho Unitcd States) 

### , and it r~75 porallal to a skaeambad #at is within that jurirdrational area. (S@cti,ans LO and 404) Kc consitier tn? ~lotificmtion of T~Q district engineer for this proposal satisfied by the sriLrnissl~n of your original letter dated September 22, 1999, ~a.? letcsr c;ntalning addi:ion;ll lnfornatfon d~zed October 26, 1989. Plsasc r.occ. that the Corps of Et~~ln.:crs his c~~oplcted General Condition 13, Notific~tior., on your behalf.
7't.r: proposad uark may br done undbr cha authority of the above hi? prcvicled It conforms to tho general condi~ions shown cr, Enclosure 1 and to the rogicnsl condltion(~!, which haw bccn established for various NWPs in ?,las%-..1 i.;tnd brlni~. Rcgional Conditions C, E acd G apply to NWP 612. Rcg~~t~ill Condition C: A plan om?loyinq the techniques listed below shall be L~lcmcnttd to avoFd or n!trimiza disturbancc to wacland vegatacion and to ra;cstabl tsh s;xb vsqcszrian c;):?n Cisturbance canno: be bvoidod. Areas disturbed during project construction must be revegetated as soon as p~ssible,prcf=rebly in the anmb groriing season as the disturbance. Erosion pr3t~ction shall tz ~ZoVlclc-d~zd r~zzin in placu uncil the soil is p;rrrnencntly s~ni>ilizcd. Iivnidance &;Id uin~mization rcchniques may vary with site conditions arid inclpde, hut iiza not limifad to, the follouing: Planning carrstructFcn access and scheduling work to avoid or minimize damag5 to watland vegetation. Cpcxatinr~ equipnent in Log or cmcrgent watlands cn frozen ground to minirnizc dcstruccion of the natsral ~eget ;c ive ma=. Using cram mattirig Qr suitable gootextils material to pzCCSCt vogatntiorr from Amago by hoavy rqulpmant.

. .Nome, Alaska, Wind TurbineDemonstration Project

hcvcgclhl l on 

### tschnicpus lnny vary with site conditions and include, but are not ljnit~d to the followfog:

. 

### * Sccding, plsncir.~,ruplncecfint of reserved ground cover, andJor fertll lzing oi r o-c0n:ourt.d q: cund to promote re-establishment of nafural plalrt 

### cowunitirs. Species to be used fcs seeding and planting xhould follow this oxd+r of ~rfferencc: 1) species nativo to the site: 1) ::pcci+a nativa to tl~e erta: 3) spc~ies native to the state: and 4) non-natjve species. Noter non-nativiz spacics should be used only wi1+:1 th~ nce oi n:~tivc spccics. is nor: avoiLabln,.
In pear wetiands, syste~raticillly removing the ~aturrl vtgscative mat (wLth root rnss~eS in~cct) ~rior to consfruction, storing it in a rnncntr to zwi's.in viability !\rs~ral ly Frozen or hyd:atcdj, then toglacing iz ntecz re-;oz:oozj ng :ho grouad foliowing consrructlon, wfth finel contours r~itkfn one foot of a5jtcenc uadfrzuxbad vcgcta;ive cover aicer an* grzulnq ,u.?rrcn nnrl 8r.e frltt?ze/rhaw cycle. For 

### nincr utility projeors whrra rto iaported badding or backfill material is used (a.q., uplnwac! in" CahlvJ or sinall uciliry lincs installed with ditchwjri-hrs), siiplc rcstor~tica to prc-work contours and appropriate rsvegacstion (sae above] sh.ilJ suffice. Rcgicnal Condi=ion E: Srojoct limits of autborizcd sites shall bc clearly idnntifi+d in the ficid prior to cluaring s9d construction to ensurs thac inpaccs to cdtc:lrs o: rhe U,S. cze iiqiaida;l beyond project fcot?rints 

### (-.o., staking, fl;c~g.iiig, ziit ienci~g, use of buoys, existing foctprinc tor rnaintannccn ec~ivitiss, OLC, ) 

# . Regional Condition G: Far utility 

### lines in peat soils, specific mcrsures must t~e jnc!uded 

### in tbe projcct c!esrri~;tion eo ensure that excaviition will nor disrunt the jntc?rlty of the suhjoct wetland hydrology. Such 

### aaasures c~ight includa I~~rizontal itch/xranch blocks or .~crtical backfill blocks to address an? ni~i~oiza cut migration or groundwater, either as subsurfacv ;!rajr~aqe fros zdjactnt wetlands ;s to preveRt utility line bedding from ticring as 

### a conduit channel for ~rcundvstcr. fittached wi~h the gdneral conditions cn E;r:closurc 1 is a list of ather requircd Sthta, Federal, snd local auchorizaticnr the :;tcte of Alcaka uoxld ll kn to cmphualze. plcac note Ger~cral Ccndition 14 ir? Enclosure I, which reads: "Every p~nittse wlm hm recrivud a n~tlcnwid? psmft scriiication frcm the Corps wilL nr~bmit a sfvjnsdcartifirstion ragarding tha conploced wozk and any rcqnirc!d ni1tigc;tFon." F~lcllosure2 is tho fo-n y3u need to send us once your projcc1 5 3 t;omplctc.
This NWF vetlEication will be valid for two years from the data of this 1~tt er, unless the NHP aurlrorfzatian io aodif ied, reissued, or revoked.Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project

Xf .mataXoptlud anad-nr 

### fish stro=s aua croorod ui- an 

### all-track vwhf do, 

### an Alaska Drpvraaat of Fitb md litla 16 Pormit nrrdn to k ~ltd 

### for.


### In an effort to 

### ~tcrdne the 

### love1 

### ut customer setisfaction with the 

### crervlcro provided to 

### you, 

### tha R~gula~o~y Branch 

### asks that you take a few aantlntt to 

### prorride 

### us viLh axby oonstn!ctiao cawaMnts yorr feel 8ze appropriate by 

### tilling ouc the tnclaoacl 

### questionnaire. Our interarc is to sea how wc can continue ta 

### improve our 

### ssrvLhr to 

### you, our 

### customer, and 

### how beat to achieve rhcscl 

### tmprovcmcnts. Additional coma.?ts 

### may be 

### provldcd through 

### the use of 

### an orel exit 

### interview, which 53 available to you upon request. Your efforts 

### and intorcat. 

### in cviiluating 

### the rcqulatsry program arb such appreciated. 

### tiuLhing xn thfs 

### letter 

### shall be consxrdcd as excusing you 

### from compliance wit9 

### other 

### Fedoral, Srsrc, or 

### local statutsa, 

### ordfnancer, 

### or tegulations that cry affoet this 

### wnrk. 

### Ploose centact mo ar the let

### tatbond address,' at f 9071 713-2716, 

### toll-free Ston 

### wtthin Alaska at (800) 478-2712, 

### or by FAX at (907) 753-5567, if you hov~ oddit

### iawl qucst

### ion3

# .

Faye 

### E. Bdtz 

### Replatory SpccialittNome, Alaska, Wind TurbineDemonstration Project

The follnwing yeneral conditfons must be folloued in order for any nuthorizaCion by a NIiP to be valid; 

# 1

1. Nnvigaticn. No &ctivitymay cause more than ;I minimal odvcrse effect on navigation. 

# -. 2. Proper nafntenanco. Pny struct~lrc or f$ll authorized shall be Froporly msintrirrsd, fnzLudlng min:cnancc to ensure public safety.
3. Erosion'aad siltation controls. Appropriate erosion and siltation controls cust ba used and usintsincd in effective 0peratir.g condition during conettuctlcn, and all oxporzd soil nnd other fills, as well rs any work boloii thc ortfinszy high tratcr =ark or high tido ling, nc.st be permanently statilizad at the enrLlcst prac:ici?blc &its. 

### ..'\.., 4. Aquatic life,rnovemon:s. No activity nay substantially disrupt the novcnent of those sgitcj~s of zquatic life indigsnws tc :he cr7aterbody, including th.>as Epecie*r u3tch noraally migrate through the srsa, ucless tha uctivity's ptjeary purpmr 1s to inpaund water.

. 

# . 5. fyuipmant

# . Ilcavy eqsripmcnt working in wetlands must be placed on mats, or ott~crr messureo must bq take3 t3 minhfza soil disturbance.
6. Rcgisncl and casc by csss conditions. Tho activity must conply w!th any rcyional conditions which may I~ave been zdded by the Division Engincar (see 31 CPn 330.4.1e)l and.uith any cease specific csnditfons added by the Corps or by thn, state. or trj.hc in its section 401 watw pality certification.
7. Wild znd Sccnic Rivcrs. tlo 6ctivity nay occur ir. 3 conp0ner.t of the National wild acd Scenic River Syztcn; or in a river officially designated by Congross ns r. "study rivcrn.Car possible inclusion in the syetcm, rhilf: the river is in sn officfal study status; unless the cppropriatc Fedsral ZGcncy, vlrrh direct ciar.agencnt reg;$r.sibilify 101: such river, has determined in writlrlg tha: thc propchad acii:.ity ill not riv%rsely effect =he Wild and Scenic kivor dasignarion, or study stzrtus. Xnror~ation on Wild and Scenic Rivers fihy b* o3trincd f~oa cht appxog:i~te Ftdsrel land nena2?ms?t agency In tlla zrc8 (e.q., National Fark Sc-rvicc, U.S. Forest Service, Sxreau as Land M.>nsgcnenr, U.S. Fish and FiJ ldli Ec Service. ) 8. Tribal rights. ND 2ctlvity or its operation my impair rczerved tribal rjght.?, including, but not lfmirad to, rescrved w~tct rights cnd treaty fishir,g ond t1:ntir.g ~:ip!lrs.
9. k?ater q:l;?lity certification. In certain s:atcs, an individual Secti.cn 101 wstcr qr?slity cartificacjon nus: be obtnincd or waived (see 33 CPR 3.70.4!s)).
10. Coastal ronc nanageioent. In cortain stater;, an individucl state coastal zonc rnt1nage;r.enr: consistcricy ccncurrence n~ust 14 ebteined or krzived (scc ' Section 330.4'(<1T). 11. Endangarcd Spccios. (a1 No activity is authorized undar any NWP which is likely to jeopardize the continued exLytencu of a threatened or cndangercd species or a species proposocl for such daaiymtion, as identified undar the Federal Endangered spicies Ast, or which is likely to destroy or~~advcraely modify the czitical haLitar ot such specics. Nan federal penittees sh&ll notLfy the DistrictNome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project

Enqinc~r it any listcd sprcics or critical habitat might be affected or is in thc vi~lnfty of tho project, and shall not begin work on the activity until notificd by tho Dhtrict Lngfnocr that tha raqu.ircments of the Endangered Spccies Act have hecn satisfied and that the activity is authorized. (b) Authorlza:ion of an activity by a nationwide permit does not suthorizc the ''take" of a threatened or endangered species as defined under the Federal Endangered Spccics qct, In thn absence of separate authorf ration (6-g., an FSA 

### seation 10 Permit, n Biolqgical Opinion with "incidental take" pcovisian?~, stc; ) fzor; Lhc U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Htlrine Nshstles Service, both lethal and non-lethal "takesw of protected spocics 3x0 in violation oP the Zndanqsrcd Species 8-ct. Infomtion on the location of tl~rcrrtsnod and andangored species and thair critical habitat can Lo abtain'cd dLrectLy from tbc~offices oC the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service and Naticnal Marine Fishcrios .Service or their world wide uob pages at http://Wwsr.fw?.gov/-r9antlsgp/endspp.html and ~~:tpt//kioqiish.spp.mnfs~g~v/tnsintyr/porehtlES and Recovery, rsspcctivcly.
32. Htscnric p:.cgorcies. No ~c:ivity,.which mry affect historic propertics listed, or eligible far lfsting, in the Rational Register of Eistoric Places is a?lthorizsd, until tho DB has compliad with the provisions or 33 CFR Part 325, Agqtendix C. Tna prospactivs pcrrmittcc must notify tha District Eogincer if tha rrutt~arizcd cctivity may affect any historic properties listed, detcmtnqd to ba eligible, a: which the prospective permittee has rcason to bclieva mJy be eligible for 1:stfr:g an the Nstionai Register of Historic



### . Plncss, and shall not hcgirr tnc activity untfl notified by the Dfstrict Bnginacr Ehst the requireacnts of ths Nationnl Ristoric Preservatioc Act have heon anCir,tCad and that tkc activity is authorized. Infornatioa on the location and cxistoncc of historic resources can be obtained fran the State iustoriu ereserv~tian Office and che trationiil Rogiste; of Historic Places (see 33 CF3 330.4 (gl ). Fa 

# i

13. Notificaticn. Ti~is ycnetkl condition pertains to notification tequircncnca for cart,] in NWPs 'ukich, if nccdcd for this vcrif icatioa, has aLtandy bccn completed and satisfi6r.t.
14. Co~lisnce certtficat:p,oo. Every po,-c.Lttao who has re=eivad a Netionwide peruic variticatiaa frgm thc Corps will submit a signed crrtificatica regarding tho conplcted c~tk snci any .required raitlgacio.?. The certification will bo farw~~dad by tho Corp3 uLth thc nuthorization letter rnd \fill if~cludr~: o. h y;.;tcncnt that tho authorized ciork wzs done i~ accordance with tho Corps authorization, including any genczal or specific coaditions: b. A :;tact-mont tiar. a~y r.-quir~d mLtLgaCion ras ca?.platec! in ac:orlirncl~ wich thc permit conditions; c, Tire 3ip1:AtucO of the perrnitteo cartifyikg tlrci ~ospiuticn of the \:ark and mititptian. 15. Hilltiple use ef Natianr.ridc pcrnits. In eny case where zny NWP nuder 12 through 40 is coi?>incd with any cthcr Ntq? nuahcr 12 through 53, as part of a si~iglc and co!?.pl\?tu projccc, thc ycrrnlctea must notify the District Enqinccr in accarc!zinaa with paragraphs a, h, and c on tho lHotificrlticn'' General C~l!di~.if~it n~,nrier 13. Any tl3P nu&:r L through 11 may bc coinbincd with any ochar tl!W withmi: notification to the Corps, unless notific~tion is otherwise rcquircd by the term3 of tho tIWPs. As provided at 33 CFR 330,6(c) two or moro rliSfurrnt WPs can bc combined to authorize a ninglc and complete project. Huuevor, th*; yam MYP CJMOC bd uand more than ones for a single and comgleta pzo)*ct.Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

# 1 SECTION 404 ONLY CONDifIONS: 

# 1
In addition to 

### th~ Gz~?ex*l C~nditions, the following conditions apply only to activitfes that involve ths discharg* of dredged or Fill material into waters of thn U.S., and mst bc followed in order for authorization by the hWPs to ba. vnlfJa 1. Hator supply intakes. No discharge of dredged or fill macarial m cay occur in tho proxlmitg of a public watnr supply intake except whore thc discharge ia Lor repair of tha public wstcr supply intalc structure3 or adjacent bank scabllizotlon. 

## .'
2. ShsllPish produ)ction. No discharge of dredged or fill material may occur In atoss of concantratcd shallfish production, unless the discharge is dl.roctly re1c:ad to a shellfish hazvcsting activity authorized by UUP 4.
-3. Scitablc ri~tecial. tfo direhtrqs of drcdg~d or fill material nay consist of unztricablc mntcrial (o.q., trash, dobris, car bcdics, ~sphclt, etc., ) and naccrial aischrrgud must be fro3 frOrn.:t~kic pollutznts in tcxic amounts (see 5ac:ion 307 of tl~s Clean Water r.ct1- 4, I.'.itigat.ica. Oisci~nrgs~ of drecgcd or fill natcrial into h'ctars of fhc 

### United States mu3t tr. irinimizcci o: avoided to the raxinun.extsnt practicrble at tho project site (i.e., cn-site), unlcss tkc District Englaear approves a c~m:mpc.nsa~icn pLsn thac tlla CtistrLcr Enqineer determinos is core beneficial to thc enviroraient then on-site miniuiization or avoidancc measures. 5. Spakn1ir:g ircaa. Discharges in s?tw;ling axcas during s~ewning seasons nust b~ avoided to th2 naxiu.um extant practicable. 

# I

6. Oirrrtru~tiohof i~iq:;f1o;is. Tc the maxinun gutent prtetfceble, discharges must nat pornznently restrict or j.nled~ thc passage of normal or expected high florfs or cauzc thc rulocnticn of the waror (unless the primary purpcsc o: ths fill. is to in?ound waters).
7. krfvcr9. cficcts fron im~oundaonts. If tile dlscharce crcatfs an ic?oandxtcn: clE ttatar, ~d~/ar~s e:Eczts on the aqu;tic systacl crtlsed by C~C accelnrc~t.e4 p3553~c of rnccr &nd/oi the xostriczion of its flow shall bc rniniaized to the ~taxfmunextent practiciiblc,


### e. Pl~t~rCo~i brnodinq arc~s. Discharqcs into breeding orc=s for nigretory raturfowl r,ssc tq nvoided t3 thc traxinum cxtcnt practicable.
9. Rcro~al of reatporary fills, Any tcnporary fills must bo removed in their cntirrky and thn ~ffected ar8ag I-ot-urncd to tlieir pre~!xistinj elevation. 

# I

* 

# r I I

ij 

# I

: 

# I;' 

# I-.. INome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

# I OTHER REQUIRT0 STATS,--<EPPilAL, AX0 MCAL AUTHORIZATIONS 

# I

As GCJrod at 33 CPR 330.1(a!: "It is important to rcmcder that tho naticnwids permits (hiPs) Only rq~thorizc activities fron the perspective of thb Corps of Engincars rcyulatcry authorities and that other Federal, State, or local porm.(Cs, appravals, nt atttharieations nay also be req~ired.~ Ucordingly, 13 CFR 330ft) i21 specifies: "NHPs do not obviate the need to obtain other Fedcral, State, or local authorizations rcqukred by law," Nthaugh any and/or all of tha NW,Ps nay require other authorizations, the State of Alaska uo~ld like to emphasize tho following potentiel requirements: WdPs 1-23, 25-33, and 35-3@: Work in a designated anadremous fish stream 

# --.. or othar fish-bearing waters is subject to ruthorization from the Alaska Dzpartmcnt of Fish 6nd Garcc. Placeaent of Cross-channel structure, draintgr, structures, or dLversLor~s in stream that cantair. either anadron?us or resident fish is subject to clrthorizotion fro3 the klaska Depzrtmcnt of Fioh ar,d Ganc.
EiWP 

## c: Survay ectivities arc subj~qt to surface management requletians of 

# - tho Alaska Dcpartccnl. of NaLr;ral Rilacurcos and/or thc Ninarals Kanagenent S~tvico end those r~itigat2nq scasures pertaining ta State and Federal oil and gas 26asa sales.
P 1 3 1-15. I8-2Q,-?;S, 30, 31, 33, 35, end 36-26: York in laqiolativcly-dssiynw Statc rofnyss, sanctuaries, or critical habitat ar@s:x Is subject to sl~thoriration froa tho Alaska DepartEant of Fish and Goal:.
NW? 7: Ihc cpplicnnc oust obtain a "Non-donestic Wrstewater Discharge 

# -"- CLsn i,pp:ova:," or wsLvcr of r~proval, frcn the Alaska Depzrtment of Etrviruaarntrl Ccnservdtion pricr to constroC;fion of a stormcqa2er outfall.

t 1 h snail, zedsonal doc?. n;.y rcqulrc r fish habitar, Fernit from cha 

# ---,. . ~loskn Dcp3rtnent cf Flsh tn3 GZGC and/or a laase agreement frot.i the hleska ikpsrtnant of Natu.r.j.L Resourcn,s.
K122 

### --...---. 12: Ti~:ir~q,siting,, zozd accsss, dasign, and consLrcccion nctnods'oP uriljty liz?a arc zubjr.~cc to auth~ri~rtions cL Federal an6 ~tafe agencies with raqtllstory rcapan3fhlli: y Egr such projoccs.



### . 1lc:tr 13. IF, 3r1d 26: ?lac~r.:;.t a,' fill cjn Scatc-owed I:.-' is 5uSjecL tc .....-... 

### -,..------,.--..-. c:irnoritatiaz fron tt,a S~QL~.

, 9 9 : Hang arces OK the stnto ale coipcred by Fedzrcl E%v?cy-?ncy E:xncgr.mcni A2onr;y (iEXA) -tpprosrcci f loadjlain rcqulalions, loc.11 land-r;?a p1ar.a anb requlatlor.s, and othsr ordincnccs an= cmguiaticnr related to dovalcgzlant. These restrictio?~ must b+ sdhtst3 to in che developncnt of a :esidsw:c or! a fill pernitted by a HHP.
A11 NXPz within A .... 

### .

# - the

.,- 

### -- Kexi 

## - P~!t~imu:a Borou~h Coastal District: Dredging or flllinrj ulthin nrc-ls defined .=r flondplainr by thc Federal Err.crgcncy l?ar..???mant Aqency iFEl<A), and within tho 50-foot setback fzom thc Kcnai Rivnz i.s sui~jcct to loc~l regulations.
dI3 in?olviny the Kenai River nnd tributaries within thc Kmai 

### b4.G I-&--.-. Pnni!iisnla Borough Coastal Djstrict3 : Kcmi.Peninsula Borough 

# ----.

# -..------ ~~onn~to/spprovals, izs well as. a fish habitat pemit fro~ the Alaska Dep!rtn?nf af Fish etld Glmt? and t park use ycrnit fzora the DeparLner~tof trat~iral Resocrccs, r.ty be wcostary for your activtty. Please contact the Knnai Mver Center at 260-4882.Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project

M1 NHPs vichin the Hstarlu5ka-SUJ~ tna Coastal ~irrtrict : Within tho 

# ---- 75-foot sharcline setback, all araar not azcupiod by allowed davelopmcnt must ~1inimi7.m distorblrnce of natural vagetlrtion. STATE POLXCY SEGARCTNG-ESSION MDSILTATION CONTROLS 

# ------- 1n'addtCton to authorization roquiron+nts, activities authorized by Nati~n~iJe Perraita must meet State Water quality Standards. Nationwide Perdt Geacral Condition t3 provider Lor Erosion and Siltation Controls. In rcgard to tticuo issues, the Gtntc of Aleskapresents the following advisory info--tion:

'Y~~~YS 3-7, 12-23,g-27. 29-JQt-and 36-3B: Tha Alaska Water Quality ' Statidards, 1B AAC 70, ost~blioh strict limits on the amount of sediment and turbidity that may br introduced into frcsh and marine waters, lncllidilrg nctlands. Recausc activities a\!thorLzed by section 404 tlatlomtido Ptrmitrr ~~rually involva excavation and/or placement oS fill, thcrc is consjdcrablc potentiel for tho ganeration of sadinanc end turbidity. In concart with tho raqpiresents of Nationwide Permit Goneral Concitian 3, Erosion ar,d Siltation Contrala, the Alaska Department of ' Environmental Canrotvation poltcy is as follaws. Silt and scdtnont trorr. orsavatian and fill activities.ahould nct enter wat1ai;ds or w~t~rb~tiies oc:sid~ the project foatprint, haera prccticable, fig1 material should bo frde from fine material that is subjcct to erosion; and zuspcnsion. Excavation and fill activities should be conducted ta prcsclnt, ninid.zo, and contain the croaion and suspanaion of finc material tliac could ba carriod off-slta by surface runoff. If suspended matorial is cvidon: outvfdc tho projoct footprint, sppropr2ace coa::ol ncasurcs should be aypliod. These measures ozy include slope stcbllization; filter fabric fcncos, straw hlcs, or other harriw: fiber ratting; settling ponds; dcainage conczol; trancbos and water bars; waterproof covers aver rr;Jtsrlal nilcs and cxposod so.tls; avoiding activity duricq heavy precipitation; rer~egct2tlo1i; and other mnasures.

.l?cbruauy 28, 1937 5Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project

US hrmy C0rp.s of En~oocrs Cvcka District Fkrmit Number: 0- S41CC?, Snekc Rivzr 

# I

Nanc of Pernittoe: Noma Joint Ucility SystErn 

# I nsr:e(~~ xsua~xe: 

## NOVEMBER 101999.

. - ~903 e<,~>lttlcn of r.ne ;cCi;'lcy au:r.ozit~c! by this permit and any mitigarion rr-quir-~d by ths yvr;.it, sign Chis certification and return it to =he following ~Cdrzss: U.S. Prny Corps of Engineers "1-- C-GL ka D1scti~lr Regulatory Branch PQ~K O~~CC 30% 898 Anchorage, Alaska 99506-0898

:'lease ~otc that yoor yer~:.ittcc! ..-ctivity is subject to a compliacce inspuccion by un U.S. Army Co~ps of Engineers representative. If you fail to c~tnyly with this permit you are subject to permit suspension, modification, cr rcv~cacion

. I harcby c5rrify chat: Chu work authorizod by tila above-racerenced permit has hzen cor;.plt?ted in nccordancc! wit tl thh terms and condi~fons of tho saidNome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project



### APPENDIX E - 

### COMMENTS ON 

### DRAFT EANome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project


# Sitnasuak 

# Native Corporation

Steve Blazek, Department of Energy NEPA Compliance Officer Golden Field Office 161

### 7 Cole Blvd. Golden. Colorado 80401 Dear 

### Mr. Blazek: Post Office Box 905 Nome. Alaska 99762 , Ceo7) 443-2632 Fax (907) 443-3063 September 28,2000

The Sitnasuak Native Corporation's Land Committee reviewed the DraR Nome, Alaska Wind TurbineDemonstration Project. EnvironmentalAssessment

### (DOUEA 1280). Thedocurnent providedvaluable information, primarilyon landowned bythis Corporation. We support the wind turbine project as a alternate source of the diesel-generated power used locally. Our diesel is'barged up the coast from California 

### as we are located too far west to be able to access fuel from the Transalaska Pipeline. The Nome Joint Utility System has obtained a Land Use Permit from Sitnasuakfor this pilot project. 

### Of interestto us, was the first paragraph in 

### Section 3.0, 

### Affected Environment This isthe first document that we have seen that said: 'The Maleiut, Kauweramiut, and Unalikmiut Eskimos originally inhabitedNome.

### " Thank yourfor your recognitionof our first people. Respectfully,

Homer. 

### E. Hoogendom Chairman