Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

Final Environmental Assessment 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 43201 
Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

Finding of No Significant Impact 
Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 

SUMMARY 

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared this Environmental Assessment 

(EA) to provide DOE and other public agency decision makers witb tbe 

environmental documentation required to take informed discretionary action on the 

proposed Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project (DOE/EA-1280). The 

EA assesses the potential environmental impacts and cumulative impacts that would 

result from the jnstallation and operation of wind turbines in Nome, Alaska DOE'S 

role in the proposed action would be limited to providing ,$ding assistance for a 

portion of the construction and demonstration of wind energy technology in the 

challenging arctic environment. Although DOE would review project activities, DOE 

would have no responsibilities for construction supervision or facility operations. 

Further, DOE would have no responsibilities for the day-today management of the 

facility once it becomes operational. The Nome Joint Utility System would have sole 

responsibility for construction md operations. 

Based on the information in the EA, whch analyzes the relevant environmental 

issues, DOE finds that no significant impact would result from implementing the 

proposed action to build and operate up to two wind turbines on Anvil Mountain, 

Nome, Alaska. The proposed action does not constitute a major Federal action 

significantly affecting the quality of the human or physical environment within the 

meaning ofthe National Environmental Policy Act, therefore, implementation of the 

proposed action does not require the preparation of an environmental impact 

statement. 

Issued in Golden, Colorado, this 8' day of November, 2000. 

/' 

- 

Frank M. Stewart, Manager 

U. S. Department of Energy, Golden Field Office 
Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

Final Environmental Assessment 
Nome. 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 Construction and 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 Biological Resources ....................... ; .............................................................. 18 

4.1.2 LandUse ...................................................................................................... 19 

4.1.3 Air Quality ...................................................................................................... 1 9 

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 Comparative Assessment ............................................................................................ 2 1 

5.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ........................................................................................... 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 .................................................................... El 
Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Potential Options for 

225 kW to 750 kW of Generating Capacity .................................................................... 7 

Table 2. Comparative Impacts of Wind Turbine Power Alternatives ......................................... 22 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Proposed Anvil Mountain Site ....................................................................................... 2 

Figure 2. Anvil Mountain Access ................................................................................................. 9 

Figure 3. Anvil Mountain Wetlands ........................................................................................... 13 

Figure 4. White Alice Antenna Arrays Atop Anvil Mountain ....................................................... 16 

Figure 5. White Alice Antenna Arrays ........................................................................................ 17 
Name, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

ACRONYMS AND 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 of Energy 

environmental assessment 

Federal Aviation Administration 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

fiscal year 

International Energy Agency 

kilowatt 

Memorandum of Understanding 

miles per hour 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

National Wetlands Inventory 

polychlorinated biphenyl 

State Historic Preservation 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 to jointly 

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 evaluation to determine their potential suitability for the 

proposed wind turbine project. Through an iterative screening process 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 considered is 

located atop Anvil Mountain (Figure 1). The proposed site is approximately 6 to 8 kilometers 

(4 to 5 miles) north of the town of Nome, adjacent to a decommissioned U.S. Air Force radar 

station that was an element of the Alaska Communications System ("White Alice 

Communication System" [WACS]) and the Distant Early Warning (DEW) line. 

The power generation levels of the proposed project are tied directly to site suitability and 

the availability of Federal, State, local, and nongovernmental hding. To evaluate the potential 

environmental impacts that could occur from the installation and operation of wind turbines at 

the site, a range of representative operating 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-generated electrical power at the proposed site. 

Therefore, to ensure that the full range of foreseeable technical alternatives is 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 affected Tribal 

organizations for review and comment prior to any final decisions by DOE and the State on the 

proposed project. 

1.1 National Environmental Policy 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 of NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1 508), 

and DOE's implementing procedures for compliance with NEPA (1 0 CFR 102 1) 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 action be implemented 

Evaluate alternatives to the proposed action, including a no action alternative 

Describe the relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the 

maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity 

Characterize any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would 

be involved should the proposed action be implemented 
Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

- .. 

Anvil Mountain Summit 

Figure 1. Proposed Anvil Mountain Site 
Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

These provisions must be addressed before a final decision is 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 the physical, human, and natural environment. The EA is intended to (1) meet 

DOE'S regulatory requirements under NEPA, and (2) provide DOE, the State of Alaska, and 

other agency decision-makers with the information they 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 of up 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 as potentially 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 100 kW 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 of Alaska is identifjing additional funding sources to 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 availability were also considered because they 

would affect not only the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action but also the 

relative costs involved in its construction and operation. The combination of wind resources, 

utility capability, and geographic constraints led 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 to the potential for wind turbines to 

impact avian species, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) also was contacted for its 

expertise regarding the potential occurrence of protected avian species at these sites. 

As the layers of wind resource viability, utility capability, geographic constraints, and 

avian protection were compiled, many initially identified sites had to be dropped from further 

consideration because 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 of the initial elimination of sites, a potential site in Nome was added to the 

preliminary site-screening task. Site visits were made in October 1999 to 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 Turbine Demonstration Project 

1.3 Scoping 

Federal, State, and local agencies and Tribal organizations were sent scoping letters 

concerning the 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 scoping period, DOE and the State spent several months working closely with 

various State and Federal agencies and local utilities to assess the sites for their technical, 

environmental, and economic viability. Extensive discussions with the FWS and its avian 

experts with site-specific knowledge 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 acceptable fiom 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-specific limitations, both sites at Unalaska were eliminated fiom 

detailed evaluation in this EA, leaving only the Nome site on Anvil Mountain for detailed 

assessment and comparison to the No Action Alternative. 

1.4 Purpose and Need 

It is a mission of DOE to assist in advancing the development and commercialization of 

energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies such 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-generated power 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 bding and subsequently contract with the Nome Joint Utility System for project 

construction and operations. 

DOE and the State began a wind turbine program in Alaska by erecting three 50-kW 

wind turbines in Kotzebue in 1997. The purposes of this program were to (1) demonstrate the 

viability of wind turbine-generated power and the capabilities of commercially available wind 

turbines in extreme arctic conditions, and (2) evaluate turbine performance and reliability under a 

wide range of temperatures, precipitation events, and strong arctic winds. The proposed wind 

turbine project for Nome, if implemented, 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 power to 

meet the electrical needs of rural Alaska. 

1.5 Organization of this EA 

The EA is structured in 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 allow the reader an understanding of the actions that would 

take place during construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed wind turbine(s). 

It also identifies the specific location proposed for the wind turbine installation. Section 3.0 

characterizes the existing environment at the proposed site fiom a biological, physical, cultural, 

and social perspective. Section 4.0 assesses the impacts that could occur should the Proposed 

Action be implemented. Section 5.0 describes the cumulative impacts that might occur fiom the 

Proposed Action when combined with other related activities. Section 6.0 addresses short-term 

uses of the environment and the effect on long-term productivity, and the irreversible and 

irretrievable commitment of resources should the 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 describes both 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 characterizes the 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 considering providing financial assistance for the 

acquisition, installation, and operation of one or two commercially available wind turbines at one 

site in Alaska, generating between 225 kW and 750 kW of power. The proposed project would 

reduce future consumption of petroleum-based fuels by harnessing wind energy as an additional 

source of power production. Because the proposed project would represent less than 10 percent 

of existing demand, existing diesel generators would continue to operate. 

Because final funding allocations have 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 

understanding of the differences among the commercially available turbines that could meet the 

project's needs. The range of turbine 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 of this action, the Nome site has been determined, through a screening 

process summarized in 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 concrete pad is all that remains of the 

buildings that housed the supporting equipment for the WACSDEW line system. The proposed 
Nome, 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 of units + five rotor widths between each unit. 

Approximate Linear Footprint 

wind turbine site would be adjacent to 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 Sitnasuak Native Corporation currently owns the land. 

2.2 Construction and Installation 

a. Turbine dimensions are re~resentative of commercially available wind turbines. 

882 ft 

Assuming a decision to proceed is reached, the State would initiate site preparation and 

begin turbine procurement during the summer of 2001, hoping to complete installation before the 

winter of 2001 - 2002. Site preparations would require less than 4,000 square meters (less than 

1 acre), regardless of turbine 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 of bedrock at the site, a concrete pad or ring requiring 

150 to 230 cubic meters (200 to 300 cubic yards) of concrete would be the most likely 

foundation structure. Site preparation 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 larger crane, which is not currently available in Nome 

and would have to be brought in specifically for this project. Estimated construction and 

installation time would be 6 weeks and would require three to six workers. With the exception 

150 ft 
Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

of a job foreman experienced in wind turbine construction, the workers would be hired from the 

local work force. 

The existing road 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 support the movement of large cranes to the sites. The Nome Joint Utility System 

may be extending the existing transmission system further north through Hotel Gulch even if the 

proposed wind turbine project is not implemented (Figure 2). Even without the extension, the 

transmission systems would be accessible via transmission poles that currently come within 

3 kilometers (2 miles) of the 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 of power 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, consultations were held with the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) regarding the need for lighting on any of the turbines. In January 2000, the Nome Joint 

Utility System submitted a 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 hazard to 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, 

Obstruction Marking and Lighting, Chapters 4, 5 (Red). " (Appendix B) 

Should a decision be 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 electricity through the use of a generator. Typical design features of today's 

commercially available wind 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 

support the turbine and rotor. 
Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

3000 0 3000 

I-* Power to be extended 1 Sitnasuak Native 

Corporation Land 

----------- F- B 

City Land 

Figure 2. Anvil Mountain Access 
Nome. 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 1 13 km/hr (50 and 70 mph). Most turbine systems are designed to withstand 

hurricane-force winds. 

Existing utility company technical staff would integrate wind turbine power with the 

power grid. Other than an annual gearbox inspection and oil filter replacement, wind turbines 

require little routine maintenance. Gearbox oil requires replacement only every 7 to 10 years. 

Depending on the turbine model, each oil change would require between 150 and 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 destruction from excess winds and 

damage to the turbine or nearby facilities from icing conditions. Ongoing testing programs 

confirm the ability of turbine components, especially rotors, 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 consideration have anti-icing 

design features. 

2.4 Decommissioning 

The expected operating life for commercially available wind 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 lubricating fluids 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 funding would 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 lines would be added to the proposed 

site. Under the No Action Alternative, diesel power generation and related air emissions would 

continue at current rates. Potential reductions in diesel fuel consumption and air emissions 

would not occur. 
Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

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

discoveries are recorded as far back 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 of the Bering StraitISeward Peninsula 

region, government services provide the majority of employment in Nome (DCED, 2000). 

Consistent with 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 installation and 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 attempt to 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 

through this demonstration would be used as a basis for gauging the benefits of replacing or 

supplementing diesel-generated power with wind power. Those elements of the environment 

that could be affected by 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 of Anvil Mountain is adjacent to the WACS, 

which was deactivated by the Air Force in 1979. Structures have been demolished and removed, 

and contaminated soils have been removed. However, four black 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 of the Cold War and a navigational aid to 

local people who fish and hunt at sea (Air Force, 1996). 

The mountaintop is generally disturbed ground fiom the White Alice site remediation 

with one large concrete pad remaining, which may be removed. Scattered around the 

mountaintop are various concrete footers apd pipes; these served as anchor points or footers for 

structures that have been removed. Undisturbed areas are characterized by alpine tundra and 

exposed rock. 

3.1 Biological Resources 

The proposed site has a very thin mantle of soil covering bare 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-elevation habitat would be traversed by powerline poles placed every 

50 to 60 rneters (150 to 200 feet) to connect the site to the existing transmission grid located 

approxiq&ly 3 kilometers (2 miles) fiom the top of Anvil Mountain. No threatened or 

endangered p!a+ species or critical habitats are known to exist in the area. 

J 

Using high-altitude aerial photography, the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) has 

identified an area of wetlands on the south side of Anvil Mountain, approximately 2.4 kilometers 
Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

(1.5 miles) fiom the proposed wind turbines site (FWS, 1991). The existing access road passes 

through the approximate center 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 dominated by 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 characterized by a saturated water regime. 

Nome lies on the southern edge of an area known as the Seward Peninsula. This area 

extends westward fiom the Alaskan mainland. The Seward Peninsula is 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 ecosystems exist 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 identified in the Nome area. Many species sighted during the brief spring and 

summer seasons in 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 a partial list of species identified by the 

Department of the Interior as occurring in the Bering Land Bridge National Preserve located 

north of Nome. 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 fiom Appendix 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 Species Act 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, according to 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 of the White Alice Station, there are no other facilities atop 

Anvil Mountain. The City of Nome's water supply is drawn fiom a shallow groundwater source 

at Moonlight Springs, located at the base of Anvil Mountain approximately 1.6 kilometers 

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

,-.'-'?d, 

, . , . Palustrine EmergentIScrub-Shrub -- ..- . 1 . Persistent road-~eaved Deciduous Saturated 

Figure 3. Anvil Mountain Wetlands 
Nome, 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 area between the base of Anvil 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 of 47°C (-54°F) in January; temperatures 

average -3.2"C (26.2"F). Winds averaged 1 6.9 km/hr (1 0.5 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 (1 5 inches) per year, with the average annual snowfall around 140 centimeters 

(55 inches) (DOC, 1997). 

The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the 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 combines wind 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 adjacent inland 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-makers prior to any decisions to proceed at this site. 

3.4 Cultural Resources 

The Seward Peninsula was 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 of Anvil 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 in Nome and the surrounding area. The White Alice site atop Anvil 

Mountain has been reviewed and found to 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 Historic Preservation Officer (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 affected by 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 measurements were not available for the area; however, the area would be 

characterized as having 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 VisuaUAesthetic Value 

The view fiom atop Anvil ~o&tain provides a 360-degree perspective of ocean, coastal 

plain, alpine tundra, rolling foothills, and interior mountains for many miles. When viewed from 

Nome, the black concave billboard-like antennas are notable and are generally silhouetted 

against the skyline (Figures 4 and 5). This feature distinguishes Anvil Mountain fiom all other 

ridges immediately inland from Nome; some view the antennas as an asset to offshore navigation 

by local fishermen and sea mammal hunters (Air Force, 1996). The area around Anvil Mountain 

is characterized by gravel roads traversing most valley bottoms, scattered remnants of past 

gold-mining activities, gravel quarries, transmission lines, and widely spaced residential homes. 

Although most 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 spoil piles. 

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 of Anvil 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 Turbine Demonstration Project 
Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 
Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

Impacts fiom the Proposed Action are described in Section 4.1; impacts under the No 

Action Alternative are described in Section 4.2. Section 4.3 compares the impacts for the range 

of turbine power alternatives identified in Section 2.1. 

4.1 Proposed Action 

The impacts to the affected environment fiom the construction and operation of the wind 

turbine(s) atop Anvil 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 of the existing 

road, resulting in little or no loss of native 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 

accomplished within the area already disturbed by the operation and cleanup of the White Alice 

Station. The habitat 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 critical habitat 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 in the 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 decision be reached to proceed with the Proposed Action. Based on construction 

authorization in 1999 from the Corps for extending transmission lines through the valley below 

Anvil Mountain (Appendix D), it is anticipated that Corps authorization would be granted for an 

extension to the proposed site. 

Wind turbine operations would have the potential for avian impacts through habitat loss 

and collision with the turbine blades. Because very little habitat 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 displaced by the proposed activities but 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 described in 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 

of the Bristle-thighed Curlew, a candidate species for listing under the Endangered Species Act, 

suggests moi;ement patterns through valleys 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 of the Seward Peninsula and may be impacted through collisions with 

the wind turbine(s). However, as noted in Appendix C, raptors are relatively uncommon to rare 
Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

in the Seward Peninsula, and collisions with the wind turbine blades are anticipated to be 

unlikely, 

Impacts to mammalian species would be minor due to the small habitat losses fiom 

construction activities required for the Proposed Action. Wind turbine operations would have 

little to 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 of the existing transmission lines would 

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 Proposed Action 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-generated power, there likely would bea direct reduction in diesel 

emissions. If the wind turbine power demonstration were successful, the Proposed Action could 

reduce or eliminate the air emissions from the generation of 250 to 750 kW of diesel 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 

experience when it remediated the Anvil Mountain site, it is not anticipated that construction for 

the Proposed Action would uncover any such resources. The proposed construction and 

operation of the And turbine(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 1.6 kilometers (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 distances to the nearest receptor, would preclude impacts from construction 

noise. 

Operationally, wind turbines do generate aerodynamic noise from the movement of the 

rotor blades and the mechanical noise fiom the movement of the turbine. Noise is measured by a 

decibels (dB) scale that spans the range fiom the threshold of hearing, 0 &(A), to the threshold 
Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

of pain, 140 dB(A). To account for the way humans perceive sound, the (A) scale in decibels, 

&(A) is used. The (A) scale ignores those fkquencies humans can't hear and emphasizes those 

that are most discernible. The &(A) scale is logarithmic and not linear. For this project, the 

logarithmic' scale means that installing two turbines instead of one would only increase the noise 

level by'3 dB over that noise generated by a single turbine. A 3-dB change is the smallest 

change most people can detect. In the 1970s, wind turbines of the size proposed for this project 

generated noise in the range of 95 to 1 15 &(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 1 15 &(A) fiom a turbine would be 

reduced to 45 &(A) within 100 to 250 meters (330 to 820 feet) from the turbine site (Gipe, 

1995). To put 45 &(A) into perspective, the average home has a sound pressure level of 

50 dB(A) and a light wind through a forest has a level of 55 dB(A). Since the 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 smaller in capacity 

than those proposed for this project, personal wind turbines are operated by several of the nearest 

residences to the Anvil Mountain site. 

4.1.6 VisuaYAesthetic Impacts 

The additional wind turbine(s) would be visible from Nome. 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 significantly more 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 locations in 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 negative visual impact, but others who 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 require no water, sewer, or natural gas. The 

project would require a minimal amount of power to maintain FAA lighting and perhaps to 

operate heating systems to prevent ice buildup. Construction and operation of the wind 

turbine(s) would be performed by local residents; therefore, no new services would 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 of natural 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-... 

i 
Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

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 the No Action Alternative. 

4.3 Comparative Assessment 

To support agency decision-making regarding the project 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 of turbines. 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 impact to biological resources and land use for the 

two-turbine options. Although avian impacts are anticipated to be small, intuitively there could 

be more impacts from either two turbines or from taller turbines. The state of scientific 

knowledge on avian impacts with wind turbines does not provide a more definitive conclusion 

regarding this potential impact area at this time. 

Under no combination of turbine powers would there be direct negative impacts to air 

quality; however, if wind turbine operations were effective in this area, there likely would be a 

reduction in air emissions fiom diesel-generated power. 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 impact to the historic nature 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 future power 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 1 acre 

of natural 

habitat 1 converted for 

turbine turbines 

Less than 

Two 250-kW 

Biological I Less than 1 acre 

2 acres of 

habitat loss; 

slight potential 

for avian 

collisions 

Less than 

One 500-kW 

2 acres of 

natural habitat 

converted for 

turbine I kW turbine 

Less than 1 acre I Less than 2 acres 

One 250-kW 

and One 500- One 750-kW 

of natural habitat 

converted for 

of habitat loss; 

slight potential 

for avian 

collisions 

turbine 

Less than 1 acre of 

habitat loss; slight 

potential for avian 

collisions 

of habitat loss; 

slight potential 

for avian 

collisions 

Less than 1 acre 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 

---i No change in land 

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 Turbine Demonstration Project 

5.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

The proposed addition of one or two wind turbines to Anvil Mountain, as described in 

Section 2.1, would have a cumulative effect on visudaesthetic impacts when viewed with the 

existing White' Alice antenna arrays. For some viewers, the wind turbine(s) might be seen as an 

expandednegative impact on the existing ridgeline. For other viewers, the addition of wind 

turbines and associated lighting may be a positive supplement to 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 of Anvil Mountain would 

contribute additional cumulative visual impacts to the area when combined with the line 

extensions planned by the local utility. There are no other actions in the Anvil Mountain area 

that, when combined with the Proposed Action, would result in cumulative effects. 

Should a decision be made to proceed with this demonstration project, and should 

wind-turbine generated power be successfully demonstrated in Nome, increased wind turbine use 

may be reasonably foreseeable in the future. However, such an event is beyond the scope of the 

action being proposed here; therefore, the cumulative consequences of additional turbines are not 

the responsibility of this EA but could be the subject of future NEPA documentation under 

Federal regulations or other permitting requirements under State regulations. 
Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

6.0 SHORT-TERM USES AND COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 

As identified in Section 1.1, NEPA requires Federal agencies to (1) describe the 

relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity, and (2) characterize any irreversible and irretrievable 

commitments of resources that would be involved should the Proposed Action be implemented. 

The Proposed Action would commit less than 4,000 square meters (1 acre) of previously 

disturbed tundra atop Anvil Mountain to the production of 250 kW to 750 kW of wind-generated 

electrical power. As a result of this action, Nome's dependency on diesel power could be 

reduced, leading to 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 of these materials would be unlikely; therefore, landfill disposal is likely, 

malung the commitment irreversible. 
Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

7.0 REFERENCES 

Air Force (U.S. Department of the Air Force), 1996. Environmental Assessment, Anvil Mountain 

Khite Alice Communications System Demolition, Nome, Alaska, 61 1" Civil Engineering 

Squadron, Elmendorf Air Force Base, AK, July. 

Dames & Moore, 1999. Wind Energy Feasibility Study Naknek and Unalaska, Alaska, for the 

State of Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs Division of Energy. 

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 Climatological Data - Nome, Alaska, 

Prepared by the National Climatic Data Center. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1986. Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States, 

DOEICH 10093-4. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 199 1. 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 

Department of Energy 

Golden Field Office I 

161 7 Cole Boulevard 

Odden. Cob& 80401 -3393 

DISTRlBUTION LIST ,- 

SUBJECT: NOTICE OF SCOPING - ENVIROIWEWAL ASSESSMENT FOR 

PROPOSED WIND TURBINE PROJECT, NOME AND UNALASKA, 

ALASKA 

The U.S. Depamnent of Energy OE) and the State of Alaska are examining sites for the 

construction and operation of a proposed wind turbine project. The proposed project would 

generate between 225 and 750 kilowatts (kW) of electrical power. Nominal operating life of 

the turbinds) would be appmximatdy 20 years after which time they would be removed. 

Sites are currently being emmined near the Akkan communities of Unalaska and Nome. It is 

DOE'S policy to imegrate cammunity and public cancerns into its decision making process. 

Accordii, prior to uadertdhg any action on the proposed project, DOE is soliciting public 

and agency inputs to aid in the iddcation of issues warranting more detailed evaluation in 

an Environmental Assessment (FA) prepared under the National Fhironmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). 

During October of this year, repmemtaiives of DOE conducted site visits and met with 

reprtsadatives of Federal, State, and local agencies. Thugh the input of the U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service, the U.S. Corps ofEngineaq and that of the local utilities, combied with the 

wind characteristics at each site, our fist of potential sites for detailed characterization has 

been narrowed to: 

Unalaska - The sites under consideration are located south of town, off Captains Bay, 

in Pyramid Valley. Two sites are currently being considered in this area, one at the 

mouth of Pyramid Valley on the coastline, and the other within the valley 114 to 314 

mile &om the coast. Figure 1. 

Nome - One site is being considered in the Nome area. The proposed site is 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 

Communications System ("White Alice System") and the Distant Early Warning 

PEW) lie. Figure 2. 

Consbuction at any of the proposed sites wd involve installation of concrets footas placed 

on bedrock to support the wind turbine tows), and would disturb less than an acre. At the 

proposed Nome site approximately two miles of above ground transmission line would be 

required to connect with the existing eledrical grid. At the Unalaska sites existing 

underground conduits would be utilized to connect to the electrical grid. The proposed site. 

are not within jurisdictional wetlands; therefore, the compliance requirements of 10 CFR Part 

1022 pertahhg to ff oodplains 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. Because the capacity decision will be based on available Fedcad, State and local 

fundin& utility neads, and cn- impact considerations, a range in capacity wili be 

evabted in the EA to support decision-making. To assure an assessment of the full range of 

foreseeable teshical alternatives, one or two utility scale turbines, with a genemion of 

capacity of 225kW to 750kW, will be considered m the EA The specifications for each 

turbine aternative at three operating levels are summarized on Table 1. Please note that the 

turbiies dimemions idded are representative of commerciaUy available Wies. Final 

turbine nmdicturer selection would involve a fbmal competitive bidding process if a site is 

selected and a final decision to proceed is reached. 

Please direct any comments, questions, or concerns you may have regarding this proposal to: 

Ms. Joyce Beck, NEPA Document Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, Golden 

Field OfEce, 1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden Colorado 80401-3393; telephone 

number 1-8OM44-6735; or to electronic mail address joyce-beck@xtrel.gov. 

The draft EA document will be provided to btemted parties for review and comment upon 

its completion. Comments, questions, or concerns &ed by January 21,2000 will be 

considered prior to DOE reaching a final decision regadkg fimding of the proposed project. 

Enclosure 

As stated 

CC: 

D. Hooker, GO 

J. Btck, GO 

T. Howell, GO 

T. Andesson, BMI 

Sincerely, 

Timothy S. HOP / 

Acting NEPA ompliance Officer 

Golden Field Office 
Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

SCALE 125 000 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 Sites 
Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

QlWrOUl~Y)FEET -ULTFIGURE 2 - Nomc Site 
Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

SCOPING DISTRIBUTION LIST 

Sigmund Gronich 

Department of Energy 

EE-13, Forrestal Bldg 

1000 Independence Avenue S. W. 

Washington, DC 20585 

Thomas Hall 

Department of Energy 

EE- 1 1, Forrestal Bldg 

1000 Independence Avenue S. W. 

Washington, DC 20585 

Neil Rossmiessl 

Department of Energy 

EE- 13, Forrestal Bldg 

1000 Independence Avenue S. W. 

Washington, DC 20585 

Richard Smith 

Department of Energy 

EE- 10, Forrestal Bldg 

1000 Independence 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 of Energy 

333 W. 4th Avenue 

Anchorage, Alaska 9950 1-234 1 

Harley Heaton 

SRT Group Inc. 

6349 Yates Ford Rd 

Manassas, VA 20 1 1 1-26 17 

Robin Parker 

SRT Group Inc. 

3250 Mary St. 

Miami, FL 33 133 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

Alaska State Office 

222 W. 7th Avenue, # 13 

Anchorage, Alaska 995 13-7599 

U.S. Bureau of Land 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 99508-591 8 

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 1-223 1 

Faye Heit. 

U.S. Corps of Engineers 

Alaska District 

P.O. Box 898 

Anchorage, AK 99506-0898 
Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

Leroy Phillips 

U.S. Corps of Engineers 

Alaska District 

P.O. Box 898 

Anchorage, AK 99506-0898 

Judith E. Bittner, 

Chief of the Office of History and Archaeology 

State Historic Preservation Officer 

Alaska Division of Parks and Outdoor 

Recreation 

3601 "C" Street, Suite 1278 

Anchorage, AK 99503-592 1 

Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation 

Compliance Assistance Office 

555 Cordova Street 

Anchorage, Alaska 99501 

South Central Alaska Office 

Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation 

555 Cordova 

Anchorage, AK 9950 1 

iMr. Randall H. Hagenstein 

Associate State Director 

Alaska Field Office 

The Nature Conservancy 

42 1 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 2 17 

Anchorage, AK 99501 

The Denali Commission 

C/O Jeffrey B. Staser, Federal Co-Chair 

5 10 "L" Street, Suite 41 0 

Anchorage, AK 99501 

Art Weiner, Executive Director, 

Alaskan Natural Resource Conservation & 

Development Bijard 

3601 "C" Street, Suite 980 

Anchorage, AK 99503-592 1 

Alaska Newspapers, Incorporated 

3 0 1 Calista Ct. #B 

Anchorage, AK 995 19-3028 

Unalaskarnutch Harbor 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 of Land Management 

Northern District Office 

1 150 University Avenue 

Fairbanks, AK 99709-3 899 

Northern Alaska Office 

Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation 

6 10 University Ave. 

Fairbanks, AK 99709-3643 

Gunter E. Weller 

Center for Global Change and Arctic System 

Research 

University of Alaska - Fairbanks 

P.O. Box 757740 

Fairbanks, AK 99775-7740 

The Honorable Tony Knowles 

Governor of Alaska 

P.O. Box 1 10001 

Juneau, AK 998 1 1-0001 

Andy Ebona 

Special Staff Assistant on Rural Affairs 

Ofice of the Governor 

P.O. Box 1 10001 

Juneau, AK 998 1 1-000 1 
Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

Ms. Diane Mayer, Director, 

Division of Environmental Coordination 

Office of the Governor 

P.O. Box 1 10030 

Juneau, AK 998 1 1-0030 

Office of the Governor 

Office of Management and Budget 

Division of Governmental Coordination 

240 Main, Suite 500 

P.O. Box 1 10030 

Juneau, AK 9981 1-0030 

State of Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game 

P.O. Box 25526 

Juneau, AK 99802 

State of Alaska 

Department of Natural 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 of Nome 

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 of Public Works 

P.O. Box 6 10 

Unalaska, AK 99685-06 10 

Mike Golat, Director of Public Utilities 

City of Unalaska 

P.O. Box 610 

Unalaska, AK 99685-0610 
Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

Scott Seabury, City Manager 

City of Unalaska 

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 

Ounalashka Corporation 

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 Environmental Policy and Compliance 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

1849 C Street, NW 

Room 2340 

Washington, DC 20240 

Ms. Ann M. Hooker 

Environmental SpecialistNEPA Liaison 

Office of Energy and Environment 

Federal Aviation Administration 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

AEE300 -- Room 902 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Mr. Daniel Kirshner 

Senior Analyst 

West Coast Office 

Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. 

5655 College Avenue 

Suite 304 

Oakland, CA 946 18 

Clean Water Action - CWA 

23 Grant Avenue, 3d Floor 

San Francisco, 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 7h Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 995 13 

Jack Schommer 

AK Regional Office 

Air Traffic Division, AAL-530 

222 West 7' Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 995 13 

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 99513 
Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

States Department of the 

FISH AND WI WUFE SERVICE 

Ecological Serviccs Anchorage 

605 Wea 4thAvenue. Rmm 62 

Ancharage, Alaska 99501-2249 

WAES 

Ms Joyce Beck 

NEPA Document Manager 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Golden Field Office 

Golden, Colorado 80401 

Dear Ms. Beck: 

Interior 

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

Thank you for your request for scoping information regarding the possible installation of wind 

turbines at Unalaska and Nome. We have provided previous comments on the potential for this 

project to affect threatened and endangered species. The purpose of this letter is to make you 

aware of relatively large concentrations of bald eagles at and near the Westward Seafood 

processing facility. This facility is on Captain's Bay in close proximity to Pyramid Creek. 

Wintering bald eagles historically concentrated at the Unalaska landfill prior to its recent I 

conversion to a baling operation. Since that time, the eagles still return to Unalaska during the 

winter, but have dispersed to less concentrated food 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-shikes to wintering bald eagles and other birds. Bud use is substantially 

greater along the coast compared to inland sites, especially during the winter. For this reason we 

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. 

Please telephone 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... 

i 
Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

-TONY KNOWLES, GOVERNOR 

. . . - . . . . -. - 

. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME P.O. BOX 25526 

JUNEAU AULSKA 99842-5516 

ME (son 46!%1aY4125 

HABITAT AND RESTORAlWN DlVlSlON FAX: (907) 4654759 

January 27,2000 

Mr. Timothy S. Howell 

Acting NEPA Compliance Officer 

Golden Field Office 

U.S. Department of Energy 

16 17 Cole Boulevard 

Golden, CO 8040 1-3393 

Dear Mr. Howell: 

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has brief1 y reviewed the U.S. Department 

of Energy's proposal to generate electrical power using wind turbines near 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 as king under consideration near Unalaska. figurt 1 of the December 

17. 1999 comspondence shows one site is located near the 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 processing plant and associated housing 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 to be about 0.5 miles southwest of 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 site is 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 Cmk and 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 

stellen3 both listed as threatened species on the endangered species list. In addition, other 

species of 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 (Oncorhvnchus kisttfch), 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 the East Fork Pyramid Creek 

Any proposal for wind turbines along the coast and close to sea level raises concern for bird 

strike mortality. The site near Crowley Maritime complex is such a location. To prevent 

potential injury to thnatened species and wintering waterfowl and bald eagles this site should be 

eliminated from consideration. The proposal for a site away from the coastline and at higher 

elevations raises fewer concerns for bird strike. However. &velopm&t of upland sites including 

access and facilities construction must be accomplished in a manner that prevents short and longterm soil erosion and that maintains water quality in Icy Creek, East Fork Pyrarmd Creek. and 

Pyramid Creek. 

We appreciate the opportunity to comment. Should you 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 CORRESPONDENCE 
Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

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.g 
Nome, 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 PU inquiriee could Invalidate thie determination. 

I +s determination ia based, 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 Attached 

Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

APPENDIX C - BERING LAND BRIDGE NATIONAL PRESERVE BIRD CHECKLIST 

AND FWS CORRESPONDENCE 
Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration 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 Peremhe Falcon 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 

Siberian Rubythroat 

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 * 

U 
Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration 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,-present most years, but hard to find. 

1 - Species is an infrequent visitor to the Seward Peninsula, 

but can be found 3 to 6 years out of 10. 

* - Insufficient information available fiom the road system to 

estimate the chances of seeing this species. 

Source: Interior, 1996. 
Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

United States Department of the Interior 

FlSHAND~~SBRVIcE 

EodolCialw6QSW~t4tbkwnrRoom62 

SEP 6m 

We nceivad your Eetta rqwstkg indbmration on the potential prtsawx ofFbdcral tfneateDcd or 

~rspccies,mwea~ry~orybints,atdpottmialprojeusites mle€terwas 

~byusonAugilst 12,1999. Asstatdinyourktter,thcp~ppojccthvoohostlle 

wmtmctkn and operatiDn of an qmkmtal fird alhhd turbine The potential sites ideoaified 

in yor~ ktter are Nabsdr, Onaksita, and Nome. We qpwiatcd tbe early txmcbtbtt on the 

part of the Deparhnent of Energy and its consllhtlnt with regards to this projects potential cfExts 

on aatural resources. The fo~whg information is provided for ux: in phming thc project. It 

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

having visited tbe sites or amsubd with all species ~~ 

I Based on nvicw of oar inhmthn, the spectacled eider (Somateria fwkQ and SttWs eider 

(powicta S~=IIW~, .rr thc two iista~ apeohi nticipstod to omr in vicinity ofthe 

I projed sites However, due to its bcation, tbe potential for cowtion and operation of tbe 

wiadnxrbinctohannthcscspeciesappearstobehighestatNakaek-S~e1. Tbepotemiaisitesat 

Unalaska - Site 9 and Nom (Anvil Mountain) are located such tbat, upon initial review, operation 

of a wind tu&ii would mt IWy advPscfy afht tbest fisted species. 

Asfbrotberaviaaspacies,alIoftbesitesposcsomrisk, Tbeoperationvfthewind~at 

Naknck, especially during adverse climttic conditions (e.g., fog) could aku impact several othet 

spits of ducks and geese. In addition, bald eagles, other raptors, and other migratory bid may 

also be harmed hugh its opera?ion Consequently, of the three sites evahiaW the potential for 

tmpacts to migratory birds appears to & greatest at this site. 

The operation of th: wiDd tmbint at u- - Site 9, because of its 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 review of prclimhuy infbdon, Unalaska - Site 9 wouM appear to 

constitute the least risk to migratory birds. 

In regards to evaluating the 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 

prelimhy review of litemhue, Howell (1 9971 didn't dctcct a dBxencc m bid strikes due to 

cli&mxes in the size of areas swept by a rotor, and that tbe mnnber of units rather than the area 

swept by each unit appeared to be the more important War the number of bird strikes 

It is important to note that he did record mortality of hawks, falcons, owls, ducks (malbrd), 

herons (blackcrowned night heron), dove, and various passcrines during their study. In contrast, 

Wmkleman (1985), didn't record any mortality due to the operation of medium-sized wind 

turbines in the Netherlands. Based on our review of these two papers, we think that a number of 

-rent species would ultimately be impacted. 

We have enclosed the two refd papers for your review and we look hd to fUrther 

coordination on this issue. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Art 

Davenport at (907) 271-2781(E1~langered Species) or Gary Wheekr at (907) 271-2780 (Habitat 

Conservation). 

Sincerely, 

- 

Ann 

w5?7?+-

G. Rappoport 

Field Supehr 

Endosure 

cc: David Lockard - DCRA Di. of Energy 

ADFG- Wayne Dolezal 

- Al Ott 

Tom Anderson - Battelle Memorial Institute 

Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

APPENDIX D - WETLAND CONSULTATIONS 
Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project I 

@$ 11 N,ODlE JOINT UTILITY SYSTEM 

P.R. 13ox 70 NC~I~IC, Al:~sl;a 99761 ; (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 

continrlatlons of 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 under 
Nome, 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 line extensions 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 

NOME JOINT UTlUTY SYSTEM 
Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

DEPARTMENT OF ME ARMY 

U*%VARLfY M(IWJEER-, ALASKA 

P.O. Bo)( B)e 

PWolUce, &-A 99- 

Yr, Joirrr K. Handllancl 

Genaca l Kinnqer 

Nwo J~AIIL 0tLliL.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 us buon 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 ol your 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 

pro jdr: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.~cczrbody will 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-.s 
Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration 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~saiag yortvJrcf. I: ym ha70 r.6~ pao\lded the 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 .. EeiCz 
Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

U?LAAYTemrNEER~tMIISI(A 

RO.BOXm 

UICHaflA04hLmnovmsa I o ~mEbgula tory branch 

Mr. John K. linndsland 

Ganora I. 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 

fill mnterlal 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 I 
Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration 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=rebl y 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 

min irnizc 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 Turbine Demonstration 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 

fert ll lzing oi r o-c0n:ourt.d q: cund to promote re-establishment of 

naf ural 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.i n viability !\rs~ral ly Frozen or hyd:atcdj, then toglacing iz 

ntecz re-;oz:oozj ng :ho grouad f oliowing consrructlon, wf th 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, f l;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~~rizontalitch/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 sfvjnsd cartifirstion ragarding tha conploced wozk and any 

rcqnirc!d ni1tigc;tFon." F~lcllosure 2 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 aurlrorf zatian 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-f ree 

Ston wtthin Alaska at (800) 478-2712, or by FAX at (907) 753-5567, if you 

h ov~ oddit iawl qucs t i on3 . 

Faye E. Bdtz 

Replatory Spccialitt 
Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

The follnwing yeneral conditfons must be folloued in order for any 

nuthorizaCion by a NIiP to be valid; 1 

1. Nnvigaticn. No &ctivity may 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 

f ishir,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 District 
Nome, 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 mit itptian. 

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. vnlf J a 

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~tioh of 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 ~taxfmun extent 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-.. 

I 
Nome, 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 

Etrviruaarnt rl Ccnservdtion pricr to constroC;fion of a stormcqa2er outf all. 

---,. t 1 h snail, zedsonal doc?. n;.y rcqulrc r fish habi tar, 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 raqtlls tory 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. 

b4.G dI3 in?olviny the Kenai River nnd tributaries within thc Kmai I-&--.-. 

- Pnni!iisnla Borough Coastal Dj strict3 : 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~t of 

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 MD SILTATION 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 

5 
Nome, 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?t ed in nccordancc! wit tl thh terms and condi~fons of tho said 

Nome, Alaska, Wind Turbine Demonstration Project 

APPENDIX E - COMMENTS ON DRAFT EA 
Nome, 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 Turbine Demonstration Project. Environmental Assessment (DOUEA 1280). 

Thedocurnent provided valuable information, primarily on land owned by this 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 Sitnasuak for this pilot project. 

Of interest to us, was the first paragraph in Section 3.0, Affected Environment 

This is the first document that we have seen that said: 'The Maleiut, Kauweramiut, and 

Unalikmiut Eskimos originally inhabited Nome. " Thank your for your recognition of our first 

people. 

Respectfully, 

Homer. E. Hoogendom 

Chairman