Final Environmental Assessment 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project 

Sand Point, Alaska 

DOE/EA -1584 

U.S. Department of Energy Golden Field Office 

1617 Cole Boulevard Golden, Colorado 80401-3305 

September 2009





TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT AND RELATED 

PROCEDURES....................................................................................................... 1 

1.2 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................... 1 

1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED.......................................................................................... 2 

1.4 PUBLIC SCOPING AND CONSULTATION....................................................... 3 

1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ............................................................................. 4 

1.6 CONSIDERATIONS NOT CARRIED FORWARD FOR ANALYSIS................ 4 

2.0 ALTERNATIVES............................................................................................................... 7 

2.1 PROPOSED ACTION............................................................................................ 7 

2.1.1 Project Location.......................................................................................... 7 

2.1.2 Existing TDX Sand Point Generating Operations .................................... 11 

2.1.3 Integration of Wind Power with Existing Diesel Power........................... 11 

2.1.4 Construction and Installation .................................................................... 12 

2.1.5 Wind Turbine Operation........................................................................... 14 

2.2 PERMITS AND AUTHORIZATIONS................................................................ 14 

2.2.1 Air Safety Determination.......................................................................... 14 

2.3 No Action Alternative........................................................................................... 15 

2.4 Applicant Committed Measures ........................................................................... 15 

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .......... 17 

3.1 LAND USE........................................................................................................... 17 

3.1.1 Affected Environment............................................................................... 17 

3.1.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................... 17 

3.2 COASTAL ZONE RESOURCES ........................................................................ 18 

3.2.1 Affected Environment............................................................................... 18 

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................... 18 

3.3 VEGETATION AND SOILS ............................................................................... 19 

3.3.1 Affected Environment............................................................................... 19 

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................... 19 

3.4 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES.............................................. 20 

3.4.1 Affected Environment............................................................................... 20 

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................... 21 

3.5 BIRDS................................................................................................................... 21 

3.5.1 Affected Environment............................................................................... 21 

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................... 22 

3.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................. 25 

3.6.1 Affected Environment............................................................................... 25 

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................... 26 

3.7 NOISE................................................................................................................... 26 

3.7.1 Affected Environment............................................................................... 26 

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................... 27 

3.8 VISUAL ENVIRONMENT.................................................................................. 29 

3.8.1 Affected Environment............................................................................... 29 

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................... 30 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Final Environmental Assessment i 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

Page 

3.9 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE 

ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF 

LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY ........................................................................ 33 

3.10 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF 

RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 33 

3.11 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS............................................................ 33 

4.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS .............................................................................................. 35 

5.0 REFERENCES CITED..................................................................................................... 37 

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS..................................................................................................... 39 

TABLES 

Table 1-1. Required agency permits and approval types. 

Table 3-1. Summary of bird observations from the proposed wind turbine site by season 

FIGURES 

Figure 2-1. Location of proposed wind turbines in Sand Point, Alaska 

Figure 2-2. Proposed project location map and wind turbine locations 

Figure 2-3. Proposed locations for Turbines 1 and 2. 

Figure 2-4. TDX electrical integration schematic 

Figure 3-1. Locations of the proposed turbines (1 and 2), the representative receptor sites, 

and projected sound levels under typical operating conditions 

Figure 3-2. Locations of the proposed wind turbines and the viewpoints used in the visual 

impacts study 

Figure 3-3. Photo simulation from the southwest corner of the school 

Figure 3-4. Photo simulation from the south side of the pump house pond 

Figure 3-5. Photo simulation from power pole #43 

Figure 3-6. Photo simulation from the SDP Fisheries building 

Figure 3-7. Photo simulation from residential area southwest of the turbine site 

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix A – Sand Point wind data 

Appendix B – Agency contact list 

Appendix C – Public comments 

Appendix D– Agency scoping comments and consultation 

Appendix E – Avian and bat monitoring studies and mitigation 

Appendix F – Visual and sound report 

Appendix G – Photo simulations and sound impact analysis for Sand Point Wind Power Project, 

Global Energy Concepts. 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Final Environmental Assessment ii 
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

ACMA Alaska Coastal Management Act 

ACMP Alaska Coastal Management Program 

AEA Alaska Energy Authority 

AEB Aleutians East Borough 

AEBCMP Aleutians East Borough Coastal Management Plan 

agl above ground level 

ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

APIA Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association 

AWE Aleutian Wind Energy 

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BMP Best Management Practices 

CCDP Comprehensive Community Development Plan 

CEC/CDFG California Energy Commission and California Department of Fish and Game 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act 

dB decibel 

dBA A-weighted decibel scale 

DEC Department of Environmental Conservation 

DOD Department of Defense 

DOE Department of Energy 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EERE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

ft feet 

ft2

 square feet 

ft/s feet per second 

GEC Global Energy Concepts 

GPS global positioning system 

kW (h) Kilowatt (hour) 

lbs pounds 

LED light emitting kiode 

m meter 

m2 square meter 

MET meteorologic station 

m/s meters per second 

mph miles per hour 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Final Environmental Assessment iii 
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Continued) 

MW Megawatt 

MWh Megawatt hour 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NWI National Wetlands Inventory 

PCE Power Cost Equalization Program 

RFFA reasonably foreseeable future action 

RSA rotor sweep area 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Protection Plan 

TDX Tanadgusix Corporation 

TSPG TDX Sand Point Generating 

U.S. United States 

U.S.C. United States Code 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

W/ft2

 watt per square feet 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Final Environmental Assessment iv 
1.0 INTRODUCTION 

Based on an action by the U.S Congress, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has funding available to 

support the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)’s Alaska Wind Energy Program. AEA is dedicated to 

support design and construction of wind energy power plants, wind feasibility demonstration, and 

methods necessary for widespread adoption of alternative energy systems in rural Alaska (AEA, 2009). 

AEA proposes to provide funding received from DOE to Aleutian Wind Energy, LLC (AWE) to support 

the installation of a wind power generation system at the existing Tanadgusix Corporation (TDX) Power 

generation facility in Sand Point, Alaska. The funding of this project constitutes a major federal action, 

therefore, DOE is required to evaluate the potential environmental impacts in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), and the DOE 

NEPA implementing regulations. In compliance with NEPA (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] § 4321 et 

seq.) and the DOE’s NEPA implementing regulations (10 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 1021) 

and procedures, this Environmental Assessment (EA) examines the potential environmental impacts of 

DOE’s Proposed Action, No Action Alternative, Applicant Committed Measures, and Residual Impacts. 

1.1 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT AND RELATED PROCEDURES 

In accordance with the DOE NEPA implementing regulations, DOE is required to evaluate the potential 

environmental impacts of DOE facilities, operations, and related funding decisions. In compliance with 

these implementing regulations and procedures, this EA: 

• Examines the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, as well as a No Action 

Alternative; 

• Identifies unavoidable adverse environmental effects of the Proposed Action; 

• Describes the relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the 

maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and 

• Characterizes any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be 

involved should the proposed action be implemented. 

These requirements must be met before a final decision is made to proceed with any proposed Federal 

Action that could cause adverse impacts to human health or the environment. This EA is intended to 

meet DOE’s regulatory requirements under NEPA and provide DOE with the information needed to 

make an informed decision associated with the installation of the proposed wind-diesel hybrid power 

generation system. 

This EA evaluates the potential individual and cumulative effects of the Proposed Action. No other 

action alternatives are analyzed. For purposes of comparison, this EA also evaluates the impacts that 

would occur if DOE did not provide funding to support the installation of the wind power generation 

system (the No Action Alternative). 

1.2 BACKGROUND 

AEA’s Wind Energy Program provides information and technical assistance, wind-monitoring equipment, 

and educational opportunities for Alaskans interested in wind power. AEA issued a competitive 

solicitation for wind development projects in Alaska and has selected a proposal from TDX Sand Point 

Generating (TSPG) as a potential recipient of the DOE funding. TSPG is a wholly owned subsidiary of 

TDX Power. TDX Power has experience installing and operating a “high penetration” wind power system 

in rural Alaska (Saint Paul Island, AK). A high penetration wind power system is one that is capable of 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 1 
generating a large proportion of the electrical demand for the local electrical grid relative to the existing 

generation capacity. As of the date of this document, TSPG has assigned all of its rights, title and interest, 

and any amendments and supplements, to AWE. AWE would be responsible for the installation of two 

wind turbines and the integration of these machines with the balance of the Sand Point power system. 

Sand Point currently operates on electricity produced from diesel-powered generators. The cost of 

electricity is subsidized by the State of Alaska through the Power Cost Equalization Program (PCE). 

However, despite the subsidy, the rising cost of imported diesel is economically affecting communities 

throughout Alaska. In an effort to find a cost-effective solution to the unpredictable future price and 

availability of diesel, AWE and the AEA have collaborated to develop a wind power project in Sand 

Point. Information such as total power consumption in Sand Point, future changes in Sand Point power 

requirements, equipment operations and output, and economics were considered in determining the 

proposed need for the wind system specifications. TDX’s proposed high penetration wind turbine project 

involves the installation of two 500 kilowatt (kW) Vestas V39 wind turbines. Adding the two 500 kW 

wind turbines to the existing Sand Point diesel plant would significantly reduce the amount of diesel used 

to produce electricity in the area. 

TDX determined the cost effectiveness of this proposed project based on wind speed data supplied by the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Wind resources are expressed in wind power classes 

ranging from Class 1 to Class 7, with each class representing a range of mean wind power density (watt 

per square foot [W/ft2

]) or equivalent mean speed (feet per second [ft/s]) at 165 feet above the ground. 

The measured annualized average wind speed (@ 61 feet [ft] [20 meters (m)] above ground level [agl]) is 

21 ft (6.8 m)/s. Using a shear of 0.14 this gives a 152 ft (50 m) average wind speed of 23.5 ft (7.7 m)/s. 

This is between Class 5 and Class 6, which would be a very good wind source (T. Jimenez, NREL, 

National Wind Technology Center, personal communication with B. Wright, Aleutian Pribilof Islands 

Association [APIA] 2009) (Appendix A). The DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) 

Wind Program website states that areas designated Class 4 or greater are suitable for wind power 

production using currently available wind turbine technology (DOE, 2009). 

1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED 

The DOE’s Wind & Hydropower Technologies Program is managed in accordance with the National 

Energy Policy. The U.S Congress and DOE’s Wind and Hydropower Technologies Program supports 

wind power in an effort to stimulate rural economic development, displace harmful emissions created by 

traditional fuels, diversify the Nation’s options for low-cost electricity generation, and increase energy 

and national security. The Proposed Action and the decision to provide federal funding for AWE’s wind 

turbine installation project are intended to support the National Energy Policy and to continue deployment 

of wind generated power in rural Alaska. 

The Proposed Action would provide a cost effective and clean source of electricity, reduce overall diesel 

fuel consumption, and decrease air emissions associated with the consumption of diesel fuel. TDX 

projects that the Proposed Action would produce 1 megawatt (MW) of renewable power, which would 

decrease diesel fuel consumption by an estimated 130,000 gallons/year under normal operating 

conditions. As recent prices of diesel in Sand Point have fluctuated between $4 and $5 per gallon, such a 

decrease in consumption would result in reduced fuel costs of $520,000 - $650,000 per year. The 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that one gallon of diesel can produce 22.2 pounds 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 2 
(lbs) of carbon dioxide (CO2); hence about 1,443 tons of CO2 emissions per year would be avoided if the 

Proposed Action is implemented. 

1.4 PUBLIC SCOPING AND CONSULTATION 

Federal, state, municipal, borough, tribal, and regional organizations have been contacted regarding the 

Proposed Action and DOE’s NEPA review process via e-mail, hard copy, telephone, and/or by face-toface meetings (Appendix B). Individuals and organizations contacted were provided with proposed 

project information and an opportunity to comment. 

The APIA, with funding from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), has conducted elements of the scoping 

process on behalf of DOE. Representatives from APIA visited Sand Point between December 4 and 7, 

2006, to view the proposed site and meet with community members and leaders. Information regarding 

the Proposed Action and EA process was presented to the public via door-to-door visits and public 

information meetings (Appendix C). Prior to visiting Sand Point, notifications with simulated photos of 

the wind turbine installation and information pertaining to the upcoming visit and community meeting 

were displayed in various locations. Posters referencing the Proposed Action were first displayed 

December 1, 2006. These posters were located at the Sand Point City Airport, the Sand Point City Office 

Building (which also serves as the offices for the Qagan Tayagungin Tribe and the Pauloff Harbor Tribe), 

the Sand Point Post Office, the health clinic, Sand Point Electric, Shumagin Corporation, Shumagin Pub, 

Alaska Commercial Store, the Aleutian China Restaurant, Sand Point School, and the Aleutians East 

Borough Offices. An initial radio announcement concerning the upcoming visit and community meeting 

was made on the local Sand Point radio station (KSDP) December 1, 2006. Regular KSDP 

announcements continued. 

Representatives of APIA visited offices and places of business in Sand Point, including the Alaska 

Commercial Store, Aleutians East Borough, the Aleutians East School District Offices, and the Sand 

Point City Offices between December 5 and 7, 2006. Information about the proposed project and the EA 

process was presented at public meetings including a Sand Point Community Meeting on December 6, 

2006 and an APIA Board of Directors meeting on December 9, 2006. Fifty-three comments were 

collected during the scoping process (Appendix C). As reflected by the comments collected from 

residents, businesses, Tribes, and borough and municipal leaders, there is strong public support for the 

Proposed Action. 

In addition, DOE has consulted with federal and state agencies regarding the potential environmental 

impacts associated with the Proposed Action (Appendix D). Specifically, DOE sent consultation letters to 

the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) of 

Alaska, and the Department of Defense (DOD), including the Department of the Air Force, the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA), and the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (regarding the Alaska 

Coastal Management Program [ACMP]). Copies of the correspondence received from these agencies are 

included in Appendix E. 

Issues raised by government organizations and the public that are addressed in this EA include, but are 

not limited to: 

• potential avian impacts (e.g., impacts to bald eagles and threatened Steller’s eiders); 

• potential hazards to air navigation; and 

• potential socioeconomic impacts. 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 3 
1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

In 1994, the President issued an Executive Order to focus federal attention on the environmental and 

human health conditions in minority and low income communities with the goal of achieving 

environmental justice. The purpose of environmental justice is to ensure that no segment of the 

population, regardless of race, ethnicity, or income, bears disproportionately high and adverse 

environmental effects. 

The total population of Sand Point in 2000 was 952, with a density per square mile of 122. The estimated 

population in 2007 was 893, an approximate 6% decrease. The highest percentage of Sand Point residents 

is Alaskan Natives at 42.3%, followed by white at 27.7%, Asian at 23.2%, and Hispanic or Latino at 

3.6%. African American, Pacific Islanders, and other races or mixes of races and ethnicities make up the 

remaining 3.2% of the population in the community. At the time of the 2000 census, the per capita 

income in Sand Point was $21,954 as compared with $21,587 nationally. 

The proposed project would not have any adverse effects with regard to environmental justice issues. 

Conversely, the project would lead to a decrease in the consumption of diesel fuel and would ideally keep 

electricity costs from escalating. The potential benefits from the proposed project would be distributed 

equally to all Sand Point residents. The proposed project is not expected to result in unfair or unequal 

treatment of any low income or impoverished communities or populations. 

1.6 CONSIDERATIONS NOT CARRIED FORWARD FOR ANALYSIS 

The following issues are commonly discussed in EAs for various DOE projects. However, for the reasons 

discussed below, the proposed project is not expected to have any measurable effects on the given 

resources and have not been carried forward for analysis of effects in Chapter 3. 

• Air quality 

The proposed construction of the wind power system would result in some exhaust emissions 

from construction equipment and fugitive dust from exposed soils during the short construction 

phase of the project. This temporary source of air emissions would not require any permits or 

affect the ability of Sand Point to meet all clean air standards. Sand Point is currently in 

attainment for all EPA criteria pollutants (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 

[DEC], 2009). Fugitive dust would be minimized by watering the exposed bare solid surface of 

the construction site during periods of dry weather. The Proposed Action would decrease diesel 

fuel consumption by an estimated 130,000 gallons/year under normal operating conditions and 

therefore reduce emissions proportionally. Air quality was not identified as an issue during the 

scoping process. 

• Climate 

The operation of the wind turbines would result in less greenhouse gas emissions due to the 

displacement of diesel fuel by renewable wind energy. Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions 

could potentially have a positive residual impact on the regional climate. However, the potential 

impact of an incremental change in emissions from one point source is likely to be negligible and 

cannot be estimated at this time. 

• Water resources (including wetlands) 

There are no surface water sources such as streams or drainage channels that are located on the 

proposed project site or that could be affected by the construction and operation of the wind 

turbines. The proposed project would have no components that could alter or affect groundwater 

flows or quality. 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 4 
The USFWS, National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps of the area were consulted and no 

wetlands or surface water bodies were identified on or near the two proposed sites. A subsequent 

wetlands site visit found no wetland indicators on either of the two proposed sites and classified 

them as upland sites (B. Wright, APIA, Senior Scientist, personal communication). There would 

be no placement of fill in jurisdictional wetland on either of the two turbine sites or their access 

roads. 

• Geologic Resources 

Geology of Popof Island is comprised of primarily igneous rock of volcanic origin and the 

bedrock near Sand Point consists of tertiary extrusions of dacitic or andesitic rock (Richle, 1999). 

Weathered bedrock underlies much of the area. There is no permafrost in this region. No issues 

were identified for geology during the scoping process. 

• Essential Fish Habitat 

There are no anadromous fish streams near the proposed project site and there are no components 

of the project that would require alterations to, or crossings of, water bodies that affect 

anadromous fish streams. There are also no components of the project that would affect intertidal 

or marine habitats that could be essential fish habitat. 

• Mammals 

There are a number of terrestrial mammals that occur on Popof Island, including introduced bison 

and native populations of smaller species. Domestic dogs and cats may play a potential role in 

scavenging birds that collide with the wind turbines, thus making it more difficult for an avian 

monitoring program to evaluate collision mortality (if it occurs). However, habitat loss due to the 

project would be negligible for all mammal species based on the small area affected and 

abundance of similar habitat in the vicinity of Sand Point and on Popof Island. No further adverse 

effects are likely from the construction and operation of the wind turbines. However, there have 

been documented mortalities of bats from turbine collisions in other parts of the country but there 

is only one species of bat in Southwestern Alaska, the little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus), and it is 

not known to occur regularly in the Sand Point area, if at all. There are a number of marine 

mammal species in the waters around Sand Point but there is no marine component of the project 

and therefore no mechanism for potential effects on marine mammals. 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 5 
This page intentionally left blank. 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 6 
2.0 ALTERNATIVES 

2.1 PROPOSED ACTION 

DOE is proposing to provide funding to support the installation of a high penetration wind system at the 

TSPG power plant in Sand Point, Alaska. Two 500 kW Vestas V39 wind turbines would be installed if 

the Proposed Action is implemented (Figure 2-1). 

The proposed turbine sites are at similar elevation of approximately 164 ft and are approximately 1/3 mile 

from marine waters. Each wind turbine would be mounted on a 131 ft (40 m), free-standing, monopole 

unsupported by guy wires (Figure 2-2). The towers would be approximately 335 ft apart. Each turbine has 

three blades with a rotor diameter of 128 ft (39 m), producing a rotor-swept area of 12,852 square feet 

(ft2

) (1,194 square meters [m2]). The wind turbines would be integrated with the existing diesel generator 

into the power distribution system so no new power transmission lines or other support structures would 

be needed. 

2.1.1 Project Location 

Sand Point, Alaska is situated on the northwestern shore of Popof Island, south of the Alaska Peninsula, 

on a hilly peninsula adjacent to Popof Strait and Humboldt Harbor, approximately 570 air miles 

southwest of Anchorage. Sand Point lies at approximately 55° 20' N Latitude, 160° 30' W Longitude, 

within Section 08, Township 56 South, Range 73 West of the Seward Meridian. Sand Point has a 

maritime climate with cool summers and mild winters. Mean monthly summer temperatures range from 

45.5o to 55.7o F. Mean monthly temperatures in winter range from 29.1 to 36.6o F. Mean annual 

precipitation is 44.7 inches per year. 

The existing power plant and proposed wind energy project are located in the Industrial Subdivision No.2, 

Lots 1, 2A, and 3, Plat No. 85-1, Aleutian Island Recording District (Figure 2-3). The Proposed Project 

location is adjacent to Sand Point residential and commercial areas, approximately 1/3 mile from coastal 

waters, and 2.1 miles north of the Sand Point airport. This location is accessible via the Sand Point local 

service road. 

The Proposed Project would have Turbine 1 located in a vacant lot currently owned by Trident Seafoods 

(Lot 3). TDX Power has negotiated a lease agreement with Trident for use of the vacant lot. Turbine 2 

would be located in Lot 1, approximately 335 ft southeast of Turbine 1. The global positioning system 

(GPS) coordinates for Turbine 1 would be 55° 20’ 42.84” N, 160° 29’ 25.34” W and 55° 20’ 38.00” N, 

160° 29’ 21.00” W for Turbine 2. 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 7 
Figure 2-1. Location of project area and proposed wind turbine sites in Sand Point, Alaska. 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 8 
Figure 2-2. Schematic of a wind turbine of similar size to the proposed Vestas 39. 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 9 
Turbine #1 

Lat. 55o 20’ 42” N 

Long. 160o29’ 25” W 

Figure 2-3. Proposed locations for Turbines 1 and 2. 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 10 
2.1.2 Existing TDX Sand Point Generating Operations 

TSPG and Sand Point electrical systems are isolated grid power systems. Fiscal year generation 

requirements in Sand Point amounted to 4,136 megawatt hours (MWh) in 2005 and 4,059 MWh in 2007. 

With additional load from the recently completed health clinic and the potential addition of Trident 

Seafoods to the grid, annual generation requirements are projected to increase to 4,779 MWh. Spread over 

8,760 operational hours in a year, average projected generation requirements would be 546 kW per hour. 

The peak hourly demand in 2005 was 776.9 kW.

The existing power plant is a pre-designed insulated building made of structural steel. The power plant 

has a 480-volt switchgear that includes a breaker for each diesel-powered generator unit and a breaker for 

each of the outgoing feeder lines to the distribution system. The power plant also includes five generator 

sets that are mechanically installed and connected to a common bus. The generator set control system 

consists of seven cubicles of automated control assemblies. The diesel tank farm is situated 35 ft from the 

southwest corner of the structure and consists of two above-ground, double-wall steel tanks with underground feed and overflow return lines. The fuel transfer system consists of a 500-gallon steel day tank 

situated inside the power plant. The main fuel header feeds the day tank from an automatic float control. 

The secondary fuel header branches off to feed the engine/generator set. Diesel fuel for the power 

generating system is trucked 1.5 miles to the facility from a nearby seafood processing plant. 

A plate and frame heat exchanger/heat recovery circuit is incorporated into the existing power generation 

system to provide space heat and domestic hot water for the adjacent office/apartment building. A 

conventional oil-fired boiler is located in the office/apartment building to act as a standby to the heat 

recovery system. Piping from the power generation system to the office building is underground. 

2.1.3 Integration of Wind Power with Existing Diesel Power 

AWE proposes to integrate a high penetration wind power production system with the existing Sand Point 

diesel-generator power plant. Since wind velocities are variable over time, power produced by wind 

turbines may fluctuate substantially over short periods. Wind-diesel hybrid systems therefore require 

active system controls to increase or reduce diesel-generated power quickly to accommodate the changes 

in wind power and keep power levels consistent. Without such active controls, wind-generated power 

could potentially exceed the load demand at high wind speeds, causing the engines to be back-driven and 

the power distribution system to become unstable. 

The proposed power system would operate in diesel mode during periods of no wind, in wind-diesel 

parallel mode during moderate wind speed periods, and in full diesel-off, wind-only mode during high 

wind periods. When the diesel generator is shut off, a synchronous condenser provides reactive power to 

the grid to maintain voltage stability. Because the diesel generators cannot absorb significant excess wind 

turbine power, power control requires the addition of an active load element, herein defined as a 

secondary load tank (a hot water storage system). During wind-only operating mode, the secondary load 

tank acts as a load-shedding sink for all excess-to-load wind energy as it occurs during high wind 

conditions. Typically heated to 170-190°F, the fluid mixture of water and additives can then be pumped 

from the power house through a radiator network, reducing or in some cases eliminating the need for 

furnace fuel. 

To apply this design in Sand Point, AWE would use two fully reconditioned 500 kW Vestas V39 wind 

turbines, the existing Caterpillar 3512 diesel generator currently in service, and a new Caterpillar 3456 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 11 
diesel generator. The power plant switchgear was upgraded in 2004, so only minor modifications to the 

control system would be required. The addition of two V39 wind turbines into the existing facility would 

require the integration of several hardware components and control cabinets inside the power plant. Space 

would be required for the synchronous condenser and controller, a wind system controller, and the 

secondary load tank. One Caterpillar 379 standby diesel generator from the power plant would be 

removed to make room for this equipment. The control cabinets would be located in an enclosed area in 

close proximity to the wire trough, engines, and synchronous condenser. In addition, the secondary load 

tank would be located close to the power plant to ensure a quick response between the tank and the 

secondary load controller. 

The proposed power system would consist of the following components (Figure 2-4): 

• two 500 kW Vestas V39 wind turbines; 

• one low load, high efficiency Caterpillar D-3456 diesel generator; 

• one synchronous compensator to provide reactive power support; 

• one demand device and automated load control; 

• one thermal tank secondary load control and binary load control for the power plant; and 

• one supervisory management control. 

2.1.4 Construction and Installation 

The construction and installation phase of the Proposed Action would begin after all required 

authorizations are obtained from DOE and any other federal, state, or local regulatory agencies. The 

turbines have been purchased by AWE and are waiting for a retrofit prior to final installation. The wind 

turbine installation, including site preparation, erection, and final commissioning, power plant systems 

upgrades, new generator installation, and overall systems tie-in and start-up is planned to be completed 

within four months of project start. Final project close out and operator training would be expected to be 

completed within one month of the wind turbine installation. 

Each proposed turbine site would require 64 ft2

 for the turbine foundations and would require some 

clearing of vegetation prior to installation. A single access road less than 1/4 mile long would cross the lot 

owned by TSPG and lead to both turbines. Turbine 1 would be constructed on Lot 3, which is currently 

vacant and leased by TDX. This location is approximately 335 ft away from the Turbine 2 site, which has 

previously been partially cleared for the installation of an anemometer tower. Turbine 2 would be placed 

on the existing anemometer location. The total site area that would be affected by the construction and 

installation phase is approximately two acres. 

TDX would use a construction crane to remove two old, non-functioning wind turbines and their support 

towers (known as the Harry Foster towers) on adjacent property. As these towers are often used by 

perching birds, including bald eagles, their removal would help mitigate potential bird collisions and 

improve safety considerations at the site (see Section 3.5). 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 12 
Figure 2-4. TDX electrical integration schematic

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 13 
2.1.5 Wind Turbine Operation 

As verified by TDX Power’s Saint Paul Island project, the high penetration design has been demonstrated 

to function with utility grade reliability and efficiency. Experience shows equipment failure is most likely 

to occur during initial start-up through to the end of the first year of operation. Operations through the 

second and third years typically involve scheduled component changes, which would follow the 

recommended protocol specified by the manufacturer. Often for new generation facilities, the most 

critical period for equipment maintenance occurs in the fourth and fifth year of operation. During this 

period, the AWE would adjust parts inventory to address local experience and historical failure trends. 

The long-term operation and maintenance required for the wind component addition in Sand Point would 

create a critical new consideration for the utility. Without a systematic maintenance regime performed by 

knowledgeable technicians, total system performance would rapidly degrade. In addition to ongoing 

training and support programs, AWE would maintain a full inventory of spare parts. 

AWE signed a turbine purchase contract that includes: 

• installation according to manufacturer guidelines; 

• on-site start-up performed by turbine vendor, which includes testing and configuration of all 

turbine sensors, motors, generators, and controllers; and 

• regularly-scheduled maintenance. 

2.2 PERMITS AND AUTHORIZATIONS 

Prior to construction, the AWE/TXD would ensure compliance with all required federal and state permits 

and approvals (Table 1-1). 

Table 1-1. Required agency permits and approval types 

Agency Permit/Approval Type 

Federal 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Endangered Species Act (ESA), Section 7 

Consultation 

 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) FAA Aeronautical Determination

 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) Construction General Permit 

State 

 ADNR, State Historical Preservation Office 

(SHPO) 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Section 

106 Review 

 Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Stormwater Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP)

2.2.1 Air Safety Determination 

Due to the proximity of the local airport, the FAA and the DOD were contacted for comments and 

approvals (Appendix D). 

The FAA made a “Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation” for the installation of Turbine 1. The 

aeronautical study revealed, “The structure would have no substantial effect on the safe and efficient 

utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities.” This 

determination was made provisional based on the conditions that the turbine be painted white and 

equipped with synchronized red lights in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1K, 

Obstruction Marking and Lighting (Chapters 4, 12, and 13), which specifies that each tower would have 

two bright red lights located at the top of the tower that flash 40-60 times per minute at night and during 

low light conditions. After subsequent review and consultation, it was determined that the additional 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 14 
proposed Turbine 2 would not interfere with air traffic as long as the same paint and lighting conditions 

specified for Turbine 1 are implemented. Both of these determinations are according to an Obstruction 

Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis, located on the Internet at https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/ 

portal.jsp. The determinations for Turbine 1 and Turbine 2 were completed on April 12, 2007 and May 

17, 2007, respectively. Extensions for these determinations were granted on October 21, 2008. 

The U.S. Air Force has coordinated a review of the proposed installation of one 500 kW wind turbine in 

the community of Sand Point. As a part of this review, the DOD consulted the Air Force’s Headquarters 

Range and Air Space Division, which concluded that the proposed installation would have no impact on 

military training conducted by DOD components. Because the DOD reviewed only Turbine 2 during the 

initial consultations, a review of Turbine 1’s potential impacts on military training would be completed 

within the 30-day review period for this EA. 

2.3 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, AWE/TDX would continue to produce electricity from the existing 

diesel generators and therefore the potential fuel and economic savings associated with the wind-diesel 

hybrid system would not be realized. AWE/TDX would explore alternative energy technologies when 

funds become available. 

2.4 Applicant Committed Measures 

The applicant has made commitments to avoid or minimize impacts to the environment in constructing 

and operating the proposed project including: 

• Areas of bare soil would be revegetated with native plant materials after construction to minimize 

soil erosion. Silt fences would be used as necessary to prevent runoff from disturbed areas from 

affecting adjacent areas. 

• TDX will conduct post-construction surveys to assess the potential for bird collisions with the 

wind turbines and notify the USFWS immediately if any Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed 

species are found during the post-construction mortality surveys and will consult with them 

regarding the need for any additional applicant committed measures. 

• Anti-perching devices will be placed on each turbine nacelle (if necessary) to discourage perching 

or nesting on the turbines, which would greatly increase the potential for bird collisions. 

• Anti-perching devices will be installed on electric poles in adjacent areas to discourage perching 

and reduce the potential for electrocution, especially for bald eagles. 

• The turbine towers will not have external ladders or other structures that would allow birds to 

perch anywhere near the turbine blades. 

• TDX would remove the old Harry Foster towers at the time of construction, thus removing one of 

the most well-used perches for bald eagles and other resident birds in the area. 

• Structures with guy wires will be avoided. The turbine towers will be self-supporting monopoles. 

• Electric transmission lines from the wind turbines to the TDX power plant will be buried below 

ground. 

• Lighting on the turbine towers will be limited to what is necessary for aviation safety, as 

determined by the FAA. 

• A post-construction monitoring plan will be implemented for one year, starting immediately after 

construction, to determine if birds are killed by collisions with the turbines. 

• If any historical or cultural resources are identified which have potential conflicts with the 

project, applicant committed measures will be developed to minimizing the potential impacts. 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 15 
• All construction operations would occur during normal working hours. 

• The construction and operation of the Proposed Action will comply with all required regulatory 

statutes set forth by federal, state, and local regulatory agencies, including FAA Advisory circular 

70/7460-1K. 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 16 
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

3.1 LAND USE 

3.1.1 Affected Environment 

The Aleutians East Borough (AEB), of which Sand Point is the Borough Seat, includes approximately 

15,000 square miles of the lower Alaska Peninsula and islands, and six communities within the Aleutian 

Islands chain. The year-round population of the AEB is approximately 2,500 with a seasonal influx for 

seafood processing. Commercial fishing provides the backbone of the AEB economy. 

Land ownership on Popof Island is a mix of City, Alaska Native Corporation, and private. The Shumagin 

Corporation (the village Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [ANCSA] Corporation) is the primary 

landowner in Sand Point. Sand Point’s overall land use pattern has been shaped by its origins as a fishing 

community. 

The existing power plant and proposed wind energy project sites are located in the Industrial Subdivision 

No.2, Lots 1, 2A, and 3, Plat No. 85-1, Aleutian Island Recording District. This location is accessible via 

the Sand Point local service road. The proposed wind turbines are located approximately two miles north 

of the Sand Point airport.

3.1.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.1.2.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, DOE would not provide the funding to AWE/TDX for the Sand Point 

Wind Project and it would not be built as a part of a Federal Action. There would be no additional 

impacts to existing land uses as a result of the No Action Alternative. 

3.1.2.2 Proposed Action 

In assessing land use impact, the Proposed Action was evaluated for consistency with land use plans and 

guidance, and compatibility with current and future land uses. The goal of this project was deemed 

consistent with the “City of Sand Point Comprehensive Community Development Plan (CCDP)” of 

September 2004, where Goal C is to, “Develop efficient and alternative energy supply and distribution 

systems” (URS Corp., 2004: 12). 

Applicant Committed Measures 

The Proposed Action would begin after all required authorizations are obtained from DOE and other 

federal, state, and local regulatory agencies. Each agency may require land use applicant committed 

measures as conditions of their authorizations or permits. No additional applicant committed measures or 

monitoring is recommended.

Residual Impacts 

A total of two acres would be disturbed during the construction phase of the Proposed Action. Because 

the installation of the Proposed Action corresponds with the goals set forth by the CCDP there would be 

no residual impacts to land use and community development planning for the City of Sand Point.

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 17 
3.2 COASTAL ZONE RESOURCES 

3.2.1 Affected Environment 

In 1972, the United States Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) to promote the 

orderly development and protection of the country's coastal resources. The CZMA established a voluntary 

partnership among the federal government, coastal states, and local governments to develop individual 

state programs for managing coastal resources. In 1977, the State of Alaska passed the Alaska Coastal 

Management Act (ACMA) and joined the partnership envisioned by the CZMA. 

Sand Point is within the Port Moller district in the Southwest Region of the Alaska Coastal Zone. The 

coastal resources of Sand Point have been identified and analyzed in the Aleutians East Borough Coastal 

Management Plan (AEBCMP). The AEBCMP was developed in 1985 and was most recently updated in 

2005 (AEB, 2005). 

The AEBCMP includes a resource inventory and a resource analysis encompassing Sand Point’s coastal 

resources. The resource inventory describes major land and water uses, natural resources, cultural 

resources, and land ownership. The resource analysis also includes a discussion of demands on coastal 

resources and habitats, conflicting uses, and sensitivity of uses and resources to development impacts. 

The AEBCMP resource inventory addresses energy resources that exist in the coastal zone and 

specifically addresses wind power generation. It further identifies potential barriers to the development of 

wind energy in the coastal district that include anticipated conflicts with migratory birds and endangered 

species and their designated Critical Habitat (see Sections 3.4 and 3.5). The Proposed Action site is not 

designated in the AEBCMP as important habitat, critical habitat, refuge, or sanctuary.

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.2.2.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, DOE would not provide the funding to AWE/TDX for the Sand Point 

Wind Project and it would not be built as a part of a Federal Action. There would be no additional 

impacts to coastal zone resources as a result of the No Action Alternative. 

3.2.2.2 Proposed Action 

An ACMP Coastal Project Questionnaire and a Certification Statement were submitted to the State of 

Alaska Department of Natural Resources April 4, 2007. A reply letter dated April 20, 2007, states that, 

“Based upon the information you have supplied, your proposed project does not require a State review for 

consistency with the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP).” 

Applicant Committed Measures 

The construction and operation of the proposed wind system will be consistent with the AEBCMP. No 

additional applicant committed measures or monitoring is recommended at this time.

Residual Impacts 

The construction and operation of the Proposed Action would not result in residual impacts to coastal 

resources. 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 18 
3.3 VEGETATION AND SOILS 

3.3.1 Affected Environment 

The majority of the vegetation found on Popof Island in the Sand Point area is heath or dry shrub tundra. 

This is mainly composed of low and dwarf shrubs such as crowberry (Empetrum nigrum.), Labrador tea 

(Ledum palustre), and kinnikinnick berry (Arctostaphylos uvi-ursa). Taller shrubs include Sitka alder 

(Alnus sinuate), and several species of willows (Salix spp.). Sedges (Family Cyperaceae), mosses, 

lichens, and a variety of native and non-native grasses grow throughout the area and provide ground 

cover. Except for a few Sitka spruce trees (Picea sitchensis), Popof Island is essentially treeless. Areas 

along the shoreline contain beach rye grass (Loliumn arenaria), beach arnica shrubs (Arnica 

unalaschcensis), alders (Alnus spp.), and low/prostrate willows (Salix polaris) (URS Corp., 2004). 

The proposed site is located in a coastal tundra upland area. It consists mainly of low-growing alder 

thickets and a variety of grasses and forbs. These may include tufted hair grass (Deschampsia caespitosa), 

Wainwright slender wheatgrass (Agropyron pauciflorum), and alpine bluegrass (Poa alpina) with an 

additional mix of non-native plant species. Alder thickets are prevalent within the project site location and 

are typically found in the Alaska Peninsula coastal upland areas. Alders are sturdy and fast growing, even 

in acidic and disturbed sites. 

Surficial soils are classified as dystric cryandepts and are typically located on hilly to steep terrain (Reiger 

et al., 1979). These are well-drained, thixotrophic (becoming fluid when disturbed) ashy soils consisting 

of deep to moderately-deep volcanic ash over glacial till or cinders. A thin layer of organic material of 

decomposed alder leaves and grass typically covers the surface.

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.3.2.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, DOE would not provide funding for the Sand Point Wind Project and 

the project would not be built as a Federal Action. There would be no additional impacts to vegetation or 

soils at the proposed turbine sites as a result of the No Action Alternative. 

3.3.2.2 Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, approximately two acres would be cleared of vegetation or disturbed by the 

construction and installation of the two wind turbines. The shrub-tundra habitat that would be affected by 

this action is neither rare nor unique to the area and does not contain any critical habitat for any federallylisted threatened or endangered species. The area affected by the turbine foundations would be 64 ft2

 for 

each turbine. Access roads to the turbines would result in a permanent loss of approximately 0.2 acres of 

native vegetation, a portion of which has been previously disturbed. 

Potential effects on the soil would include the increased erosion from loss of vegetation from clearing the 

site for the construction of the foundations and access road. However, the relatively low gradient of the 

sites would preclude soil erosion as a major issue and the potential for adverse effect on the soils is low. 

Applicant Committed Measures 

The operation and construction of the Proposed Action will comply with all required regulatory statutes 

set forth by DOE and other federal, state, and local regulatory agencies. Best Management Practices 

(BMPs) would be used as appropriate. Areas of bare soil will be revegetated with native plant materials 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 19 
after construction to minimize soil erosion. Silt fences would be used as necessary to prevent runoff from 

disturbed areas from affecting adjacent areas. No additional applicant committed measures or monitoring 

is recommended at this time. 

Residual Impacts 

Although portions of the sites would likely revegetate, the area affected by the turbine foundations and 

the access road would result in a permanent loss of approximately 0.2 acres. The remainder of the 

affected area would be maintained by mechanical cutting of brush to keep vegetation in a relatively low 

stature to facilitate documentation of bird collision mortality. 

With the use of BMPs during construction and revegetation of the exposed soil following construction, 

impacts to the native soils in the area would be minor. 

3.4 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

3.4.1 Affected Environment 

The ESA protects federally-listed threatened and endangered plant and animal species and their critical 

habitats. Endangered species are those that are in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of their range. Threatened species are those that are likely to become endangered in the near 

future throughout all or a significant portion of their range. There are several marine bird and mammal 

species that are protected under the ESA that occur in the Sand Point area. 

Steller’s eider (Polysticta stelleri) (Alaska breeding population) is currently listed as threatened. They are 

highly dependant on the health of lagoons and bays that promote the growth of eelgrass beds. Eelgrass 

communities are among the most diverse and productive in the world, providing food and nursery areas 

for fish, crabs, and many other invertebrates. The invertebrates, in turn, provide an essential food base for 

Steller's eider and other species (USFWS, 2009). The Consultation Guide for Alaska’s Threatened and 

Endangered Species (USFWS, 2004) states that Sand Point is located in a molting and wintering range for 

Steller’s eider and that more than 1,000 eiders may winter in the marine waters surrounding Popof Island 

in any given year. Sand Point is not in designated critical habitat for Steller’s eider, although the Nelson 

Lagoon critical habitat area is located approximately 50 miles from Sand Point on the north side of the 

Alaska Peninsula (USFWS, 2004). 

The short-tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus), is listed as endangered under the ESA. Although the 

short-tailed albatross has been seen along the Gulf of Alaska shelf south of Popof Island, it is a highly 

pelagic species that occurs almost exclusively in open waters well away from the coast (USFWS, 2004). 

Several species of ESA-listed marine mammals occur in the waters surrounding Sand Point. The waters 

around Sand Point are designated critical habitat for the western stock of Steller sea lions (Eumetopias 

jubatus), which is listed as endangered (NMFS, 1993). Several species of endangered whales could also 

occur, although there are no designated critical habitats for these species near Sand Point. The southwest 

stock of northern sea otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni), is listed as threatened. The USFWS has proposed 

critical habitat for this population in nearshore waters, including Humboldt Harbor adjacent to Sand Point 

(USFWS, 2008). The USFWS would review public and other agency comments on the proposal before 

finalizing the critical habitat designation. 

The USFWS has oversight responsibility for ESA-listed birds and sea otters. The National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) has oversight responsibility for ESA-listed Steller sea lions and whales. 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 20 
3.4.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.4.2.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, DOE would not provide funding for the Sand Point Wind Project and 

the project would not be built as a Federal Action; therefore, there would be no impacts to ESA-listed 

species or their critical habitat as a result of the No Action Alternative. 

3.4.2.2 Proposed Action 

The proposed wind turbine installation site is at an elevation of 164 ft and approximately 1/4 mile from 

the closest marine waters; there is no marine component to the project. The project would therefore be 

unlikely to have any effects on any ESA-listed marine mammals or their critical habitats. 

The two listed bird species are also marine species and rarely, if ever, fly over land except during the 

nesting season. Short-tailed albatross nest in Japan, while Steller’s eiders nest in tundra on Alaska’s 

northern coast and Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta as well as northern Russia (USFWS, 2004). It is therefore 

unlikely that either species would collide with inland/upland structures in Sand Point, including the 

proposed wind turbines. 

In fulfillment of their obligations under Section 7 of the ESA, DOE initiated informal consultation with 

the USFWS regarding the potential impacts of the proposed project on listed species. In a letter dated 

March 10, 2009, DOE described the proposed project and assessed the potential effects on listed species. 

In their reply, dated March 11, 2009, USFWS concurred that the proposed project was “not likely to 

adversely affect” Steller’s eiders or their critical habitat and “would have no adverse affect” on any other 

listed species (Appendix D). 

Applicant Committed Measures 

The USFWS has recommended that TDX conduct post-construction surveys to assess the potential for 

bird collisions with the wind turbines (see Section 3.5). These surveys would help reduce uncertainty 

regarding potential adverse effects to listed species. TDX would notify the USFWS immediately if any 

ESA-listed species are found during the post-construction mortality surveys and would consult with them 

regarding the need for any additional applicant committed measures. 

Residual Impacts 

The proposed project is not expected to have any residual impacts on any ESA-listed species.

3.5 BIRDS 

3.5.1 Affected Environment 

In response to public scoping, including recommendations of the USFWS (E. Lance, personal 

communication, April 14, 2007), and in compliance with DOE procedures, an avian monitoring program 

was implemented during the pre-construction phase of the Proposed Action. The program includes 

observations of all bird species near the proposed turbine sites, with particular concern regarding the 

vulnerability of bald eagles to potential turbine strikes, and a search for bird carcasses near the existing 

meteorological station (MET) tower. The pre-construction surveys are designed to determine the 

prevalence and behavior of birds, including bald eagles, in the immediate vicinity of the proposed turbine 

locations. This program is intended to help the project avoid violating the provisions prohibits bird 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 21 
mortality (“take”) in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712) and the Bald and Golden 

Eagle Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c). 

Trained avian monitoring technicians have been responsible for making avian and carcass/scavenger 

observations as established in the avian monitoring program protocol (Appendix E). Table 3-1 

summarizes the results of observations made from December 6, 2006 through August 17, 2007 and from 

October 20, 2008 through March 25, 2009.

Table 3-1. Summary of bird observations1 from the proposed wind turbine site by season2. 

Species Winter (n=23) Spring (n=9) Summer (n=8) Fall (n=10) 

Bald eagle 1.48 0.89 0.75 0.50 

Black-billed magpie 0.70 0.44 0.38 0.60 

Common raven 0.26 0.22 0 0.10 

Northwest crow 1.17 0 0 0 

Passerine spp. 0.09 0 1.00 0.60 

Gull spp. 0 0.22 0.13 0 

Note: Data are mean numbers of birds seen per observation period during each season 1 This table includes all observations up to March 25, 2009 2 Winter = November through March, Spring = April through May, Summer = June and July, Fall = August through October 

n = number of observation periods 

The marine waters off Popof Island support a variety of marine birds such as loons, grebes, alcids, gulls, 

and sea ducks. With the exception of gulls, these species rarely, if ever, fly over land except at their 

nesting grounds. 

Bald eagles are common residents of the Sand Point area and are protected under the Bald and Golden 

Eagle Protection Act. This act prohibits anyone, except under permit from the Secretary of the Interior, 

from “taking” bald eagles, their eggs, nests, or any other parts of the birds. The Act defines “take” as “to 

pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest, or disturb.” Because of the 

absence of trees in this region, bald eagles are ground-nesters and nest along the coast using rock 

pinnacles (sea stacks) and other area inaccessible to land predators. Because the project site is inland from 

the coast and within a developed area, nesting bald eagles are not a concern for this project. 

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.5.2.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, DOE would not provide funding for the Sand Point Wind Project and 

the project would not be built as a Federal Action. There would be no additional impacts to birds as a 

result of the No Action Alternative. 

3.5.2.2 Proposed Action 

The avian monitoring program results indicate that very few species of birds appear to use the proposed 

installation site on a regular basis. Bald eagles have been seen in small numbers in the area, usually 

perched on the old, dysfunctional, wind turbines across the road from the proposed installation site 

(known as the Harry Foster towers or Foster windmills). Black-billed magpies, northwestern crows, and 

common ravens were often observed landing on the ground at the proposed installation site or on the 

anemometer tower guy wires. No bird or bat mortalities were documented near the MET from the carcass 

searches during the pre-construction avian monitoring program. The avian monitoring program did not 

produce sufficient data to characterize flight patterns (elevations and directions) for any species in the 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 22 
project area. However, all of the observed species are common residents in populated areas throughout 

Alaska and antidotal observations suggest they generally habituate to and avoid collisions with various 

human structures, such as communication towers and electric power lines. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) recently completed a Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement on wind power development in the western states, excluding Alaska (BLM, 2005). No similar 

document has been prepared for Alaska. The BLM document compared bird abundance and postconstruction mortality studies at numerous existing wind farms across the country and found that there 

was little correlation between species that are present in an area and those that are killed in collisions with 

wind turbines. The document concluded that not all species are prone to collisions at wind farms, 

probably through a combination of their typical flight patterns, their abilities to perceive the turbines, and 

their abilities to avoid the turbines. The BLM document notes that no bald eagles have been reported to be 

killed at any wind power farm in the western states. Corvids (ravens, crows, and magpies) are also 

apparently able to avoid collisions judging by their common frequency of occurrence versus their rare 

frequency of mortality. Erickson et al. (2001) also compared bird mortality rates at various wind 

developments and found a similar pattern: no bald eagles killed and relatively few ravens killed. 

The proposed turbine site is approximately 1/3 mile from coastal waters and sits at an elevation of 164 ft, 

making it unlikely for any marine species to use the area near the turbine sites. No waterfowl or seabird 

species were observed at the proposed project site during the avian monitoring program. The proposed 

turbine sites are not within a major migration corridor and there are no major waterfowl staging areas 

nearby. 

Wind turbines are known to cause some degree of mortality to individual birds. The national average 

collision-related mortality for birds at wind farms is low (<3 birds/turbine/yr; Erickson et al., 2001). 

Collision mortality rate for birds based on rotor sweep area (RSA) for western and Midwestern wind 

farms is 1.1 to 5.6 birds/3,000 m2

 and as measured by MW of the turbines, the collision mortality rate 

ranges from 0.9 to 4.7 birds/MW (Erickson, 2003). The two Vestas 39 wind turbines are rated at 500 kW 

and have a RSA of 12,863 ft2

 (1,195 m2), therefore the mortality rate would be expected to be between 0.5 

and 2 birds /turbine/year base on the RSA and between 0.5 and 2.4 birds/turbine/year based on MW. 

Based on the location of these two turbines inland from the coast and at a higher elevation, the low 

occurrence of birds in the general area from the avian monitoring program, and the low susceptibility to 

collision-related morality for the common birds that use the area (i.e. bald eagles and corvids), avian 

collision mortality as a result of the Proposed Action is expected to be low and not adversely affect any 

local bird populations. 

Applicant Committed Measures 

The USFWS has published interim guidelines for wind power projects to minimize the potential risks of 

bird fatalities due to collisions (USFWS, 2003). Many of these guidelines pertain to siting considerations 

and are more pertinent to much larger projects. However, the following recommendations would be 

implemented: 

• Anti-perching devices would be placed on each turbine nacelle (if necessary) to discourage 

perching or nesting on the turbines, which would greatly increase the potential for bird collisions. 

• Anti-perching devices would be installed on electric poles in adjacent areas to discourage 

perching and reduce the potential for electrocution, especially for bald eagles. 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 23 
• The turbine towers would not have external ladders or other structures that would allow birds to 

perch anywhere near the turbine blades. 

• TDX would remove the old Harry Foster towers at the time of construction, thus removing one of 

the most well-used perches for bald eagles and other resident birds in the area. 

• Structures with guy wires would be avoided. The turbine towers would be self-supporting 

monopoles. 

• Electric transmission lines from the wind turbines to the TDX power plant would be buried below 

ground. 

• Lighting on the turbine towers would be limited to what is necessary for aviation safety, as 

determined by the FAA. 

• A post-construction monitoring plan would be implemented for one year, starting immediately 

after construction, to determine if birds are killed by collisions with the turbines. 

The post-construction monitoring plan would sample for potential seasonal variations in bird collisions, 

with an emphasis on the fall and spring migration seasons when bird activity is expected to be highest. 

Searches would be conducted at a frequency that minimizes the potential for bias from scavengers. The 

following elements would be incorporated into the post-construction monitoring plan: 

• Surveys would be conducted two times per week in three consecutive weeks during spring and 

fall sampling periods and one time per week in four consecutive weeks during winter and summer 

sampling periods. 

• The spring sampling period would consist of six surveys during the main migration season 

(~April 15 to ~May 31). 

• The summer sampling period would consist of four surveys during the main breeding season 

(~June 1 to ~August 10). 

• The fall sampling period would consist of six surveys during the main migration season (~August 

11 to ~October 10). 

• The winter sampling period would consist of four surveys during the non-breeding season 

(~October 11 to ~April 14). 

• Surveys would be conducted by trained observers who would record their name, date, time, and 

standard weather variables. 

• Each survey would include a search for dead or injured birds beneath each turbine tower, 

conducted on foot by slowly walking transect lines approximately 25-30 ft apart, looking about 

12-15 ft on both sides of the transect line. Each set of transects would cover a search area defined 

as one-half of the maximal height of the rotor-swept area (California Energy Commission and 

California Department of Fish and Game [CEC/CDFG], 2007), which is about a 100 ft radius 

around each tower (tower height is about 130 ft agl and the turbine blades are about 130 ft in 

diameter, thus putting the upper reach of the turbine blades at 195 ft agl). This search pattern is 

estimated to require about 40 minutes for each tower. 

• If any bird is found, data would be collected on its position relative to the tower, species (if 

possible), condition of the carcass, and evidence of scavenging. AWE/TDX would establish a file 

for all search results, including records for searches when no birds were found. 

Residual Impacts 

The USFWS recognizes that there may be some bird collisions with wind turbines even if all of their 

recommended applicant committed measures are followed (USFWS, 2003). Given the relatively low 

numbers of species and birds that have been observed to use the project area, the potential for future bird 

fatalities as a result of the Proposed action is considered to be very low. The actual level of collisionrelated mortalities would be monitored by conducting a post-construction monitoring study at the wind 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 24 
turbines to determine the numbers and species of birds killed by collisions with the wind turbines or 

towers. If post-construction monitoring indicates that bird collision rates are higher than expected or 

occur under particular conditions or seasons, additional applicant committed measures would be taken to 

reduce residual effects. 

3.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

3.6.1 Affected Environment 

Cultural resources are the nonrenewable physical remains of past human activity and are protected under 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, the Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act of 1978, as amended, and other laws and regulations. Section 106 of the NHPA 

requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on “historic properties”, 

which include those cultural resources (prehistoric, historic, and ethno-historic) that are listed in or 

eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 

The majority of the known archaeological resources of the Alaska Region date between roughly 11,500 

years before present and the arrival of the Russians and Europeans (circa AD 1750). Prehistoric 

interactions during this period are characterized by sites reflecting the movement of people, ideas, and 

goods back and forth across the Bering Strait. The area that is now Sand Point was influenced by this 

cultural exchange. 

The Aleuts subsisted by open-water hunting and fishing and occupied a large area ranging from the tip of 

the Alaska Peninsula westward throughout the Aleutian Islands. The Aleut Tradition of maritime hunters 

developed over time and remained strong until the invading Russians disrupted many Native communities 

in the late 18th century. Historic and ethno-historic settlements of the Native peoples of Alaska are part of 

a remembered past and often have traditional cultural value to Native Alaskans. Many traditional 

lifestyles, with various modifications, continue today. 

For this proposed project, tribes and/or individuals were contacted and their comments were solicited 

regarding any potential conflicts with historical and cultural resources. Connie Fredenberg and Bruce 

Wright, both of APIA, visited all three tribal offices in this region and spoke with Council Presidents, 

Tribal Administrators, and Environmental Coordinators on December 5, 2006. The proposed project has 

been discussed at APIA board meetings for over two years. All of the Tribes that may have concerns are 

represented on the APIA board. One response has been received as a result of these contacts. 

The President of the local Qagan Tayagungin Tribe commented that the area is not considered to possess 

any unique ethnic cultural value and is not used for subsistence or religious purposes. This is the only 

Tribe in the area that is originally from Sand Point. The Pauloff Harbor Tribe is originally from Sanak 

Island and the Unga Tribe is from the Shumagin Islands. 

A Class I records search was conducted by APIA at the Alaska Office of History and Archaeology to 

determine the nature and extent of prior archaeological investigations in the Sand Point area. An area 

within two miles of three different potential turbine sites (all within the community of Sand Point) was 

examined. Extensive land surveys have been undertaken near the project area for road and housing 

construction and one historic property, outside the project area by nearly 1/2 mile, was noted. The 

property is a Russian Orthodox Church, which was listed in the National Register as part of a Thematic 

Nomination for the Russian Orthodox Church on June 6, 1980. There is also a dilapidated modern cabin 

on the north side of Mud Bay, more than one mile away from the chosen site, which was recorded in 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 25 
1989. There are other reported archaeological sites on Popof Island, but they are located a minimum of 

four miles from the proposed project area. 

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.6.2.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, DOE would not provide funding for the Sand Point Wind Project and 

the project would not be built as a Federal Action. There would be no ground disturbance at the site and, 

therefore, no impacts to any cultural resources as a result of the No Action Alternative. 

3.6.2.2 Proposed Action 

Cultural resource concerns specific to the proposed project area were discussed in a meeting between 

APIA and Ms. Joan Dale, staff archaeologist with the Alaska Office of History and Archaeology, in 

September 2006. Ms. Dale stated that the proposed project area is likely devoid of any unrecorded historic 

properties and is considered low in cultural resource sensitivity. This opinion is based upon the disturbed 

nature of the area and the lack of findings from previous cultural resource studies in the project vicinity.

On February 1, 2007, DOE sent a letter to Ms. Judith E. Bittner, Alaska SHPO requesting concurrence 

with a Finding of No Historic Properties Affected for the proposed project site. This request was based on 

the findings of the Class I records search and the other consultations described above. A response from 

the SHPO was received on March 9, 2007, stating concurrence with DOE’s recommendation (File 3130-

1R Dept. Energy).

Applicant Committed Measures 

With respect to resources of Native Alaskan traditional cultural significance, the Native Alaskan 

community has been informed of the project during the scoping process and their input has been solicited, 

as described above. DOE is making this EA available to the individual Tribes on the APIA board that 

may have concerns, along with a request for formal consultation regarding this project. DOE expects a 

response within the 30-day review period for this EA. If any historical or cultural resources are identified 

which have potential conflicts with the project, applicant committed measures will be developed to 

minimizing the potential impacts. 

The operation and construction of the Proposed Action would comply with the regulatory statutes set 

forth under NHPA to protect cultural resources; no additional applicant committed measures or 

monitoring is recommended at this time.

Residual Impacts 

At this time, the Proposed Action is not anticipated to result in any unavoidable adverse residual impacts 

to identified cultural resources.

3.7 NOISE 

3.7.1 Affected Environment 

The most common unit of measure used to describe the magnitude of sound levels is the decibel (dB). 

Sound levels are often stated in terms of decibels on the A-weighted scale (dBA), which is weighted to 

reflect the sound frequency range of human hearing. 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 26 
The dBA scale is used extensively in the United States (U.S.) to measure community and transportation 

sound levels, which decrease with distance from the source. Typical sound levels include about 110 dBA 

for construction noise, 90 dBA for a heavy truck accelerating, 60 dBA for a conversation, and 50 dBA for 

a quiet office. 

Global Energy Concepts (GEC) was contracted to perform a visual and sound impact analysis report for 

the proposed project (GEC, 2006, Appendix F). Since background noise measurements had not been 

taken at the turbine site, GEC modeled three background levels: 40 dBA, 50 dBA, and 60 dBA. Both low 

wind speed and high wind speed impacts were modeled using wind speeds of 4.0 meters per second (m/s) 

(9 miles per hour [mph]) and 8.0 m/s (18 mph), respectively, at a height of 10 m (33 ft) agl. 

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.7.2.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, DOE would not provide funding for the Sand Point Wind Project and 

the project would not be built as a Federal Action. There would be no additional noise impacts at the 

project site as a result of the No Action Alternative. 

3.7.2.2 Proposed Action 

During construction of the turbine towers, sound frequencies and levels would depend on the specific 

construction equipment used, the amount of equipment operating simultaneously, and hours of operation. 

It is anticipated that typical construction equipment would be used and that the hours of operation would 

occur only during normal working hours. In addition, it is anticipated that the construction activities 

would occur over a relatively short period. 

The GEC report states that when operating, wind turbines produce a “swishing” or “whooshing” sound as 

their rotating blades encounter turbulence in the passing air, as well as some sounds from the mechanical 

parts such as the gearbox, generator, and cooling fans. At a distance of approximately 600 to 900 feet, the 

sounds generated by a wind turbine are frequently masked by the “background noise” of winds blowing 

through alders and brush or moving around obstacles. Wind turbines are typically quiet enough for people 

to hold a normal conversation while standing at the base of the tower (GEC, 2006). 

The GEC report identified three representative receptor sites (structures or areas where people are often or 

consistently gathered and that may be affected by chronic sound levels) that would have potential impacts 

from the Proposed Action. One site is the local schoolhouse (H1) and the other two (H2 and H3) are 

private residential properties (Figure 3-1). The closest receptor site location is identified as H2 and is 

approximately 1/4 mile from the project location. 

The findings of the sound impact analysis indicate that the wind turbines would produce sound levels of 

no more than 60 dBA at the project boundaries. The study also evaluated expected changes in sound level 

at the three receptor sites and concluded that the change to the background sound levels at these locations 

would be minimal. However, due to its close proximity to the wind turbines, the H2 receptor has the 

potential to be impacted by sounds from the wind turbines, depending on existing background noise 

conditions. If background sound power levels are 40 dBA, the H2 receptor would experience a 6 dBA 

increase in sound pressure level due to the wind turbines, which could represent a “noticeable difference” 

to the homeowner. Whether or not this difference is considered an annoyance is subjective. However, if 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 27 
the background sound of the wind, diesel power plant, or other community activities is 50 dBA, the 

additional sound from the wind turbines would not be perceptible. 

Community sentiment (Appendix C) was gauged regarding the expected noise level of wind turbines at 

the Sand Point Electric Utility site. Opinion was unanimously in favor of installing the turbines.

Applicant Committed Measures 

Manufactures of construction equipment are required to adhere to noise standards. These standards make 

it unlikely that excessive noise would be generated from the construction operations. All construction 

operations would occur during normal working hours. No other applicant committed measures are 

recommended at this time.

Residual Impacts 

Daily turbine operation is expected to generate residual noise impacts. However, based on the GEC sound 

analysis report, the noise levels would be low to potential receptor sites (GEC, 2006) and would be 

considered to have minor impact. 

Figure 3-1. Locations of the proposed turbines (1 and 2), the representative receptor sites (H1 – 

H3), and projected sound levels under typical operating conditions. At the base of each turbine, 

sound levels are projected to reach approximately 58 dBA. The solid red circles indicate the distances 

from the turbines where the sound levels would attenuate to 50 dBA and 40 dBA. 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 28 
3.8 VISUAL ENVIRONMENT 

3.8.1 Affected Environment 

The proposed wind turbines would be located on a relatively high point (164 ft elevation) and the view 

from the site generally provides a 360-degree perspective of portions of the City of Sand Point, Humboldt 

Harbor, and the nearby mountains. This tower would have a hub height of 131 ft and the rotors would be 

128 ft in diameter, therefore, the height at the top of the blade (top of the sweep area) would be 

approximately 195 ft agl. Both turbines would be visible from most of the area surrounding Sand Point 

and add a strong vertical element to the landscape. There are no existing functioning wind turbines in 

Sand Point but an anemometer is present on the TDX property nearby. In addition, there are two old wind 

generator towers on the property of Harry Foster near the proposed site locations. 

GEC was contracted to perform a visual impact analysis report for the proposed project (GEC, 2006). 

Photographs taken from various reference points throughout Sand Point (Figure 3-2) were used to create 

photo simulations of the proposed turbine installation from various viewpoints and oriented toward the 

proposed turbine site (Figures 3-3 to 3-7). 

 

Figure 3-2. Locations of the proposed wind turbines and the viewpoints used in the visual impacts 

study (GEC, 2006).

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 29 
3.8.2 Environmental Consequences 

3.8.2.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, DOE would not provide funding for the Sand Point Wind Project and 

the project would not be built as a Federal Action. There would be no additional visual impacts to the 

project site as a result of the No Action Alternative.

3.8.2.2 Proposed Action 

The wind turbines would be visible from much of the area surrounding the Sand Point community. Visual 

simulations from five viewpoints around the community are presented in Figures 3-2 though Figure 3-7. 

The wind turbine’s visibility could be influenced by the color choice, which at this point would be the 

commercial standard off-white. However, only one turbine of the two turbines is visible from a residential 

area, located less than 1/4 mile southwest of the proposed turbine sites because this area is slightly below 

the hill on which the turbines would be located. The furthest viewpoint, (view 3) a little over 1/2 mile to 

the northeast at the school, shows both turbines would be clearly visible from this distance. No photo 

simulations were created from viewpoints west, northwest, and north of the proposed turbine locations 

because these areas are uninhabited.

Figure 3-3. Photo simulation from the southwest corner of the school looking southwest (View 1)

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 30 
Figure 3-4. Photo simulation from the south side of the pump house pond looking northwest 

(View 2)

Figure 3-5. Photo simulation from power pole #43 looking north (View 3)

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 31 
Figure 3-6. Photo simulation from the SDP Fisheries building looking west (View 4)

Figure 3-7. Photo simulation from residential area southwest of the turbine site looking northeast

(View 5)

Both towers would also comply with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1K, Obstruction Marking and 

Lighting, which recommends air-safety markings and lighting schemes for structures such as wind 

turbines. The FAA has determined that both towers should be white and have synchronous flashing red 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 32 
lights to make them easily visible to local aircraft. This would also increase visibility of the turbines from 

all viewpoints, especially at night and during inclement weather. 

Applicant Committed Measures 

The construction and operation of the Proposed Action would comply with all required regulatory statutes 

set forth by federal, state, and local regulatory agencies, including FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1K. 

No additional applicant committed measures or monitoring is recommended at this time.

Residual Impacts 

The wind turbines would create residual visible impacts from numerous points in the community. 

Community sentiment was gauged regarding the visual impacts of wind turbines at the Sand Point electric 

utility site and no issues were raised (see Appendix C). Public opinion was unanimously in favor of 

installing the turbines. The residual visual impacts are therefore considered minimal. 

3.9 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE 

ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM 

PRODUCTIVITY 

Short-term use of the environment, as used here, is that used during the life of the project, whereas longterm productivity refers to the period of time after the project as been decommissioned, the equipment 

removed, and the land reclaimed and stabilized. The short-term use of the project area for the Proposed 

Action would not affect the long-term productivity of the area. If it is decided at some time in the future 

that the project has reached its useful life, the turbines, towers, and foundations could be decommissioned 

and removed, and the sites reclaimed and revegetated to resemble a similar habitat to the pre-disturbance 

conditions. The installation of wind turbines at these two sites would not preclude using the land for 

purposes that were suitable prior to this project. 

3.10 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

An irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources is defined as a permanent reduction or loss of a 

resource that, once lost, cannot be regained. The primary irretrievable and irreversible commitment of 

resources for the Proposed Action would be the labor, materials, and energy expended in clearing the site 

and constructing the two wind turbines. Other commitments include the loss of productivity of the sites 

(primary production and wildlife habitat) and the loss of an unknown number of birds due to collision 

with the turbines. These commitments of resources would extend for the duration of the project. 

3.11 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

Unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the Proposed Action include: 

• Long-term loss of approximately 0.2 acres of vegetation resulting from the construction of two 

tower foundations and the access road to the sites. 

• Increase in noise levels during construction of the foundations and erecting of the wind towers. 

• Increase in noise levels to residents living close to the turbine sites. 

• Addition of two dominant vertical elements into the existing Sand Point viewshed. 

• Potential direct impact to birds from collision with the wind turbine. 

These impacts are both temporary, in the case of the construction noise, and long-term in regards to the 

visual impacts and the impact to birds from collisions. Overall, impacts of the Proposed Action on the 

environment are considered negligible. 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 33 
This page intentionally left blank. 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 34 
4.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impacts of an action that is added to other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions (RFFAs), regardless of who is responsible for such actions. 

Cumulative impacts may result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions occurring 

over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7). The process of assessing cumulative effects therefore requires the 

agency to put the potential impacts of the proposed project into the context of the existing baseline 

conditions and projected impacts from other RFFAs. The baseline conditions in Sand Point and the 

potential impacts of the project are described in Chapters 1, 2, and 3 of this document. Past and present 

actions that have contributed to effects on birds have included the 200-ft tall former U.S. Navy 

communication towers north of town, and the local KSDP Radio Station tower (K. Ketherington, KDSP 

Radio, personal communication, 2009). The KSDP tower is a 200-ft guyed lattice AM transmitter tower 

and is illuminated in the evenings and during foul weather conditions with a newly installed light emitting 

diode (LED) beacon at the top of the tower and three mid-level LED sidelights. Two relatively small, 

single wind generators, referred to as “Harry Foster’s Windmills” are the only previously installed wind 

generators in the area. These towers are not currently functioning and would be taken down as applicant 

committed measure for the Proposed Action. 

RFFAs are defined as those projects or actions that have progressed beyond the speculative stage, 

generally including only those projects that are listed in official planning documents, have funding 

secured, initiated permitting processes, or begun implementation. According to the AEB website (AEB, 

2009), there are several major construction projects that have recently been completed in Sand Point, 

including a new medical/dental clinic, a runway extension at the airport, a harbor expansion and new 

wharf, and a new water treatment plant. According to Paul Day, City Administrator for Sand Point (P. 

Day, City of Sand Point, personal communication, 2009) RFFAs in Sand Point include a new proposed 

seafood processing plant and planned installation of cell towers for wireless service for the area. The 

website for the Shumagin Corporation (Shumagin Corporation, 2009), the local Alaska Native 

Corporation that is the primary landowner on the island, describes ongoing shareholder activities and 

commercial use of their stone quarries but does not list any future projects that are proceeding toward 

development. The Local Radio station, KSDP, is proposing to install a small 10 kW wind turbine, 

mounted on a 78 ft guyed pole tower, to generate capacity sufficient to sustain the radio station 

requirements. This would be located near the radio tower (http://apradio.org/combination-powergeneration-and-back-up-system/). DOE is unaware of any other RFFAs within the general project area 

that could contribute to any cumulative impacts. 

The analysis of environmental consequences in Chapter 3 indicates that, relative to the existing baseline 

conditions, the proposed project would have minimal impacts on land use, coastal zone resources, 

vegetation and soils, threatened and endangered species, noise, and the visual landscape. The Proposed 

Action would have negligible contribution to the overall cumulative effect. 

Past and present actions that have contributed to collision hazards for bird include the old communication 

towers and the KSDP towers, and Foster’s wind generators. The only RFFA that would contribute to the 

some risk of collision mortality is a proposed 10 kW wind generator project for the local radio station. 

The Proposed Action would contribute to the cumulative effect on bird collision mortality; however, the 

overall cumulative effect would be nominal. 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 35 
This page intentionally left blank. 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 36 
5.0 REFERENCES CITED 

Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), 2009. Alternative Energy and Energy Efficiency Assistant Plan, p. 3. 

Available online: http://www.akenergyauthority.org/programsalternative(2).html 

Aleutians East Borough (AEB). 2005. Aleutians East Borough Coastal Management Plan, Public Review 

Draft, Sand Point, AK. 

Bureau of Land Management. 2005. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind 

Energy Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the Western United States. Prepared by 

Argonne National Laboratory for BLM, Washington, D.C., 

CEC/CDFG (California Energy Commission and California Department of Fish and Game). 2007. 

California guidelines for reducing impacts to birds and bats from wind energy development. 

California Energy Commission and California Department of Fish and Game, Report No. CEC700-2007-08-CTF. 125 pp. 

Day, P., City of Sand Point, personal communication with D. Erikson, URS April, 2009. 

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), 2009. Air Non-Point and Mobile Services. 

Available online: www.dec.state.ak.us/air/anpms/comm/comm.htm 

Erickson, W.P., G.D. Johnson, M.D. Strickland, D.P. Young, K.J. Sernka, and R.E. Good, 2001. Avian 

Collisions with Wind Turbines: A Summary of Existing Studies and Comparisons to Other 

Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States. prepared by Western EcoSystems 

Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyo., for the National Wind Coordinating Committee, Washington, 

D.C. 

Erickson, W.P., 2003. Updated information regarding bird and bat mortality and risk at new generation 

wind projects in the west and Midwest. Presentation to the National Wind Coordination 

Committee meeting, “How is Biological Significance determined when Assessing Possible 

Impact?” Washington, D.C. November 17-18, 2003. 

Global Energy Concepts (GEC). 2006. Photo Simulations and Sound Impact Analysis for Sand Point 

Wind Power Project. Prepared for Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association, Anchorage, AK. 

Jimenez, T. NREL, National Wind Technology Center, personal communication with B. Wright, APIA 

2009. 

Ketherington, K., KDSP Radio, personal communication with D. Erikson, URS April, 2009. 

Lance, E. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, personal communication with Bruce Wright, Aleutians Pribilof 

Island Association. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 1993. Federal Register, Aug. 27, 1993. Designated Critical 

Habitat for Steller Sea Lion; Final Rule. 58 FR 45269-45285. 

Reiger, S., D.B. Schoephorster, and C.E. Furbush. 1979. Exploratory soil survey of Alaska.. U.S. Dept. of 

Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. 

Riehle, J., 1999. Geology of Unga Island and the norhtwestern part of Popof Island: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-file Report 99-136, 20p. 

Shumagin Corporation. 2009. Construction Activity in ongoing shareholder activities and commercial 

use of their stone quarries . http://www.shumagin.com/Pages/Rock.html

URS Corporation (URS Corp.). 2004. City of Sand Point Comprehensive Community Development Plan. 

Prepared by URS Corp., Anchorage, AK for the City of Sand Point, AK. 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 37 
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2009. Izembek National Wildlife Refuge website: 

www.fws.gov/refuges/profiles/WildHabitat. 

USFWS, 2008. Federal Register, Dec. 16, 2008. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Designation of Critical Habitat for the Southwest Alaska Distinct Population Segment of the 

Northern Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni); Proposed Rule. 73 FR 76453-76469. 

USFWS, 2004. Alaska’s Threatened and Endangered Species. Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Field Office, 

Anchorage, Alaska. 63 pp. Available online: 

http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/consultation_guide.htm 

USFWS, 2003. Interim guidelines to avoid and minimize wildlife impacts from wind turbines. 

Memorandum to the USFWS regional directors from the Deputy Director, 13 May 2003. 

Available online at: 

http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/Service%20Interim%20Guidelines.pdf 

Wright, B. Aleutian Pribilof Island Association, Senior Scientist. personal communication on wetland site 

visit, 2007. 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 38 
6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 

The following persons were primarily responsible for preparation of this EA: 

Steve Blazek, DOE NEPA Compliance Officer 

Kristin Kerwin, DOE NEPA Documents Manager 

Laura A. Margason, NEPA Specialist, DOE Golden Field Office (Navarro Research and Engineering, 

Inc., support contractor) 

Lori E. Rhodes, Sr. NEPA Specialist, DOE Golden Field Office (Navarro Research and Engineering, Inc., 

support contractor) 

Constance Fredenberg, Community Development Program Manager, APIA 

Bruce Wright, Senior Scientist, APIA 

Karen Pletnikoff, Community Environment & Safety Manager, APIA 

Martina Dabo, NEPA Contractor Project Manager, AEA 

Nick Goodman, Recipient Project Manager, TDX Power, Sand Point Generating 

Mia Devine, Consultant for Sight & Sound Analysis, Global Energy Concepts 

Dave Erikson, Senior Biologist, URS Corporation, Anchorage, Alaska. 

Rich Kleinleder, Senior Biologist/Certified Ecologist, URS Corporation, Anchorage, Alaska. 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 39 
This page intentionally left blank. 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project Environmental Assessment 40 
APPENDIX A 

SAND POINT WIND DATA
Appendix A. Sand Point Wind Data 

Figure A-1. Meteo data report wind speed, height: 66.0 Feet. 
 Figure A-2. Meteo data report turbulence, height: 66.0 Feet.
Figure A-3. Meteo data report wind frequency, height: 66.0 Feet.
APPENDIX B 

AGENCY CONTACT 
Sand Point Wind Installation Project Contact List 

Sand Point Community 

City - City of Sand Point, Mayor Glen Gardner 

P.O. Box 249 

Sand Point, AK 99661 

Phone 907-383-2696 

Fax 907-383-2698 

E-mail sptcity@arctic.net

Electric Utility - TDX Power, CEO Nick Goodman 

4300 B Street, Suite 402 

Anchorage, AK 99503-5946 

Phone 907-278-2312 

Fax 907-278-2316 

E-mail ngoodman@tdxpower.com

Village Corporation - Shumagin Corporation 

P.O. Box 189 

Sand Point, AK 99661 

Phone 907-383-3525 

Fax 907-383-5356 

E-mail rweller@arctic.net

Village Council - Qagan Tayagungin Tribe of Sand Point, President Dorothy McCallum 

P.O. Box 447 

Sand Point, AK 99661-0447 

Phone 907-383-5616 

Fax 907-383-5814 

E-mail qttadmin@arctic.net

Pauloff Harbor Tribe, President William Dushkin 

PO Box 97 

Sand Point, AK 99661 

Phone 907-383-6075 

Fax 907-383-6094 

E-mail pauloff@arctic.net

Unga Tribe, President Bruce Foster 

PO Box 508 

Sand Point, AK 99661 

Phone 907-383-2415 

Fax 907-383-5553 

E-mail ungatribe@arctic.net
Regional Organizations 

Borough - Aleutians East Borough, Mayor Stanley Mack 

3380 C Street, Suite 205 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

Phone 907-274-7555 

Fax 907-276-7569 

E-mail developmentdirector@aleutianseast.org, admin@aleutianseast.org

Web http://www.aleutianseast.org

Regional Native Corporation - Aleut Corporation 

4000 Old Seward Hwy., Suite 300 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

Phone 907-561-4300 

Fax 907-563-4328 

E-mail info@aleutcorp.com

Web http://www.aleutcorp.com

Regional Native Health Corporation - Eastern Aleutian Tribe 

3380 C Street, Suite 100 

Anchorage, AK 99503-3949 

Phone 907-277-1440 

Fax 907-277-1446 

E-mail lcdevlin@gci.net

Web http://easternaleutiantribes.org

Native Housing Authority - Aleutian Housing Authority 

4000 Old Seward Hwy. #202 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

Phone 907-563-2146 

Fax 907-563-3105 

E-mail jacques@aleutian-housing.com

Regional Development - Southwest Alaska Muni. Conf. 

3300 Arctic Blvd. #203 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

Phone 907-562-7380 

Fax 907-562-0438 

E-mail wayers@swamc.org

Web http://www.southwestalaska.com

State Agencies 

Judith Bittner 

State Historical Preservation Office 

550 W. 7th Ave, Suite 1310 

Anchorage, Ak, 00501-3565 
Federal Agencies 

Ellen Lance, 

Endangered Species Biologist 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Endangered Species Division 

605 W. 4th Avenue 

Anchorage Ak, 99501 

E-mail Ellen.lance@fws.gov

901 271-1467 

Tim Langer, Ph.D. 

Endangered Species Biologist 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Endangered Species Division 

605 W. 4th Avenue 

Anchorage AK, 99501 

E-mail Tim.langer@fws.gov 

901 271-3063 

Clare R. Mendelsohn 

Regional Coordinator – Region 10 

Department of the Air Force. 

Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence 

Regional Environmental Office 

50 Freedmont St. Suite 2450 

San Franciisco, CA 

William Marritt 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Air Traffic Air Space Branch – ASW 520 

2601 Meacham Blvd. 

For Worth, TX 26137-0520 

william.marritt@faa.gov 

718 553-2560 

Rob Van Haastert 

Federal Aviatiion Administration 

Air Traffic Air Space Branch – ASW 520 

2601 Meacham Blvd. 

For Worth, TX 26137-0520 

E-mail Robert.van-haastert@faa.gov

Earl Newalu 

Specialist 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Air Traffic Air Space Branch – ASW 520 

2601 Meacham Blvd. 

For Worth, TX 26137-0520 

E-mail earl.newalu@faa.gov

770 909-4401 
APPENDIX C 

PUBLIC COMMENTS 
Sand Point, Alaska 

Public Comments Regarding Proposed Wind Turbine Installation 

December 5 - 9, 2006 

Summary of Methods 

Bruce Wright, Senior Scientist with Aleutians Pribilof Island Association, Inc. conducted 

a series of meetings in Sand Point, Alaska, to solicit comments on the proposed between 

December 5 through 9, 2006. 

Informational bulletins were posted by a local representative with simulated photos of the 

installation and information regarding the visit and community meeting. Posters were 

places December 1, 2006 at The Airport, City Office Building (which also is the offices 

for Qagan Tayagungin Tribe and Pauloff Harbor Tribe), Post Office, Clinic, Sand Point 

Electric, Shumagin Corporation, the Shumagin Pub, Alaska Commercial Store, Chinese 

Restaurant, Sand Point School and Aleutians East Borough Offices. 

Regular announcements regarding the upcoming visit and community meeting were made 

on KSDP radio in Sand Point beginning December 1, 2006. Over the course of the next 3 

days, the following information was presented to community members on behalf of the 

USDOE: 

TDX Power intends to install two 500kW Vestas Wind Turbines near the existing 

diesel generating plant in Sand Point. The Alaska Energy Authority/ AEA 

awarded TDX a grant towards the installation. The funding to AEA will be 

provided by USDOE, a federal agency. Federal funding triggers the National 

Environmental Policy Act/ NEPA. One requirement of NEPA is for the public to 

be informed of the plan and given the opportunity to comment on the plan. 

The Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association/ APIA, with funding from the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, will assist USDOE with the NEPA process. Because these wind 

turbines are the largest to be installed in Alaska to date, APIA has contracted 

with Global Energy Concepts/ GEC for a “Sight and Sound Analysis” of the 

proposed installation to allow residents to “see” exactly how these turbines will 

look in the community. The sound analysis describes the level of noise to be 

expected from the installation. 

Comments on the proposed wind generation project were solicited on several occasions: 

• December 5 - Alaska Commercial Store and various offices and places of 

business in Sand Point. 

• December 6 - Community Meeting on the project was held at the Sand Point City 

Chambers, 

• December 7 - Aleutians East Borough, Aleutians East School District Offices and 

Sand Point City Office 

• December 9 - APIA Board of Directors Meeting 
On these occasions, a total of 53 residents of Sand Point were presented with the five 

simulated photos, animations of the five photos, and a description of the sound analysis. 

Included in these residents are: Glen Gardner, Mayor of the City of Sand Point; Stanley 

Mack, Mayor of Aleutians East Borough; David Osterback, President of the Qagan 

Tayagungin Tribe; Bruce Foster, President of the Unga Tribe; Arlene Gundersen, 

Administrator of the Pauloff Harbor Tribe. 

Copies of the GEC report “Photo Simulations and Sound Impact Analysis for Sand Point 

Wind Power Project” were made available to any residents who requested a copy and 

copies were left with The City of Sand Point, Qagan Tayagungin Tribal Office, Pauloff 

Harbor Tribal Office, Unga Tribal Office, Aleutians East Borough Office, Aleutians East 

Borough School District Office, and the Sand Point Medical Clinic. 

A summary of comments received on the Sand Point Wind Installation Project from Sand 

Point Residents are provided below: 

Opinions Collected from Visiting Offices and Places of Business 

12/5/06 

1. Put ‘em up! 

Wayne Hodges, Hodges B&B 

PO Box 247 

Sand Point, AK 99661 

2. I agree. Put ‘em up. It sounds like money in my pocket. 

Edie Hodges, Hodges B&B 

PO Box 247 

Sand Point, AK 99661 

3. I’m all for wind energy. 

Kathleen Harper, High School Teacher 

PO Box 192 

Sand Point, AK 99661 

4. I’m all for them. 

Nellie Roehl, Secretary for Pauloff Harbor Tribe 

PO Box 424 

Sand Point, AK 99661 

5. I wouldn’t mind looking at them. 

Ilene Dushkin, Environmental Assistant for Pauloff Harbor Tribe 

PO Box 382 

Sand Point, AK 99661 
6. I don’t mind at all! 

Michael Kochuten, Air Quality Technician for Pauloff Harbor Tribe 

PO Box 13 

Sand Point, AK 99661 

7. I’m all for it, but hope that the savings get passed on to the customer and not just 

make TDX richer. 

Anne Morris, Environmental Coordinator for the Pauloff Harbor Tribe 

PO Box 382 

Sand Point, AK 99661 

8. I think they will be a small inconvenience for the benefit they will provide to the 

community. 

Arlene Gundersen, Administrator for the Pauloff Harbor Tribe 

PO Box 51 

Sand Point, AK 99661 

9. I’m all for it. 

Jay Moon, Fisherman 

PO Box 263 

Sand Point, AK 99661 

10. They should’ve been here yesterday. 

Charles Jackson, Fisherman 

PO Box 54 

Sand Point, AK 99661 

11. Order 10 more of them. 

Representative Carl Moses 

PO Box 389 

Sand Point, AK 99661 

12. I’d like to see them. 

Laresa Moses, Business Owner 

PO Box 389 

Sand Point, AK 99661 

13. They should look at putting some up by the school, too. It’s a good wind spot. 

Insulate the wires so they (eagles) don’t get electrocuted. If they could make the dump so 

the eagles couldn’t eat from it, there would be less eagles. During the peak fishing time 

in June and July, there’s a lot of birds down by the fish plant. 

Andrew Gilbert, Janitor 

PO Box 395 

Sand Point, AK 99661 
14. I think it’s a great idea. Energy costs are outrageous – it’s a great thing to do. 

Lucinda McGlashan, Administrator Qagan Tayagungin Tribe 

PO Box 394 

Sand Point, AK 99661 

15. I think it’s a great idea, especially if they can reduce the price of our electricity. 

Dana Osterback, Environmental Coordinator for Qagan Tayagungin Tribe 

PO Box 144 

Sand Point, AK 99661 

16. I’m for anything that lowers the price of energy. 

Michael Gundersen 

PO Box 115 

Sand Point, AK 99661 

17. I’ve always wondered why they didn’t have them here in the first place. Great idea. 

Jim Newman, Clinic Director 

PO Box 107 

Sand Point, AK 99661 

18. Finally, somebody using their brains and making a future my children and 

grandchildren. I thank you and my son thanks you. 

Angel Bravo, self-employed welder 

PO Box 228 

Sand Point, AK 99661 

19. Good idea. They look good, definitely not an eyesore. 

Dustin Stroud, Bartender 

PO Box 37 

Sand Point, AK 99661 

20. Thumbs up. Good idea. 

David Cabot 

PO Box 361 

Sand Point, AK 99661 

21. I have no problem with them. I’m all for them. I’ve seen wind farms in England and 

they look fine and aren’t too noisy. 

Jenny Wood 

PO Box 212 

Sand Point, AK 99661 
22. I’m all for them. I think it’s a good thing. 

Nick Skyles 

PO Box 212 

Sand Point, AK 99661 

Opinions Collected from the Alaska Commercial Store, 4pm – 5:30 pm 

12/6/06 

In Favor: 

23. Fritz Bjornstad 

24. Gloria Gronholdt 

25. Robert Dushkin 

26. Bruce Lee 

27. Taylor Lundgren 

28. Jessica Nunez 

29. Joanna Ludvick 

30. Edee Jacobsen 

31. Diana Holmberg 

32. Leonard Holmberg 

33. Paula Cabot 

34. Andrew Gundersen 

35. Joe Ludvick 

36. Rayette McGlashan 

37. Dennis McGlashan, Jr. 

38. Carmen Holmberg 

39. Lou Kuchenoff 

40. I can’t wait. They should’ve done this back in the 1980’s! 

Jason Bjornstad 

PO Box 58 

Sand Point, AK 99661 

41. I’m surprised there aren’t more of these in rural Alaska. 

Robbie Gilmour 

PO Box 296 

Sand Point, AK 99661 

Opinions Collected from Community Meeting 

Sand Point City Chambers 

December 6, 2006 

The meeting was attended by 7 residents, 5 of whom had already commented. 

42. I want to see the savings passed on to the consumer. Commercial users should be 

included in the tariff. Or credit the profit from the commercial users to the residential 

consumers. The local people don’t benefit from the commercial users. 
Dick Jacobsen, Aleut Corporation Board Member 

Sand Point, AK 99661 

43. It’s a good thing – good for the community. The cost of energy needs to go down. 

The money is well spent. 

Kells Hetherington, General Manager KSDP Radio 

Sand Point, AK 99661 

Opinions Collected Aleutians East Borough, Aleutians East School District Offices 

and Sand Point City Office 

December 7, 2006 

44. Anything that uses less diesel is a good thing out there. I like the benefit to the Clinic 

and the Rec Center with heat. 

Tina Anderson, Aleutians East Borough Clerk 

Sand Point, AK 99661 

45. I am all in favor of developing our wind resource. We certainly have an abundant 

supply. 

Stanley Mack, Mayor of Aleutians East Borough 

Sand Point, AK 99661 

46. I am for it and don’t see a huge problem with noise. As for an eyesore, if it reduces 

the price of electricity – no problem. 

Cherilyn Lundgren, AEB School District 

PO Box 216 

Sand Point, AK 99661 

47. I think they look good and that the community is looking ahead. We have all kinds of 

towers, these aren’t going to be a problem. And if we can save money, everyone will see 

money when they see them. 

Bill Burr, AEB School District 

PO Box 63 

Sand Point, AK 99661 

48. It’s a good idea. Let’s bring the cost of electricity down. 

Glen Gardner, Mayor City of Sand Point 

PO Box 444 

Sand Point, AK 99661 

49. They look fine. 

Krista Galvin, Administrative Assistant City of Sand Point 

PO Box 171 

Sand Point, AK 99661 
50. I think it’s a great idea. I help my grandma pay her electric bill. 

John Gardner IV 

Sand Point, AK 99661 

51. I think it’s a great idea. 

Patricia Curtis 

PO Box 464 

Sand Point, AK 99661 

Opinions Collected at APIA Board of Directors Meeting 

December 9, 2006 

52. It’s a good idea. We’ve got to do something about the price of electricity. 

David Osterback, President Qagan Tayagungin Tribe 

Sand Point, AK 99661 

53. I’m all for it. We’ve had them in Sand Point before, I just hope these ones work. 

Bruce Foster, President Unga Tribe 

Sand Point, AK 99661 
APPENDIX D 

AGENCY SCOPOING COMMENTS AND CONSULTATION 
This page intentionally left blank.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7 Consultation 







Figure 1. Location of project area and proposed wind turbine sites in Sand Point, Alaska. 
Figure 2. Schematic of a wind turbine of similar size to the proposed Vestas 39. 
 United States Department of the Interior

 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

 Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Field Office 

 605 West 4th Avenue, Room G-61 

 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2249 

in reply refer to AFWFO 

 March 11, 2009 

Bruce Wright 

Aleutian Pribilof Island Association, Inc. 

1131 E. International Airport Road 

Anchorage, Alaska 99518-1408 

Re: Sand Point Wind Energy Project (Consultation number 2009-0057) 

 

Dear Mr. Wright, 

On March 2, 2009, we received your letter requesting informal Section 7 consultation on the 

proposed Sand Point Wind Energy Project in Sand Point, Alaska. The US Department of Energy 

(DOE) has provided funding to the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) Alaska Wind Energy 

Project. AEA proposes to provide funding received from DOE to Aleutian Wind Energy, LLC 

(AWE) to support the installation of a wind power generation system. The proposed system is 

two 500 kW Vestas V39 wind turbines located at the existing TDX Power generation facility in 

Sand Point, 164 feet above sea level and approximately 1/3 mile from marine waters. 

As stated in your biological evaluation, North American breeding Steller’s eiders (Polysticta 

stelleri), listed as threatened in 1997, are found in the action area. Sand Point is located in a 

molting and wintering range for Steller’s eiders and more than 1,000 may winter in the marine 

waters surrounding Popof Island in any given year. Sand Point is not in designated critical 

habitat, but critical habitat at Nelson Lagoon is located 50 miles from Sand Point on the north 

side of the Alaska Peninsula. In response to public scoping, including recommendations of the 

Service, an avian monitoring program for the proposed site was implemented from 12/6/06 to 

8/17/07 and 10/20/08 to present. No waterfowl or any other marine bird species have been 

recorded at the proposed installation site during these observations periods. 

Your letter also mentioned northern sea otters (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) and short-tailed albatross 

(Phoebastria albatrus). Because proposed critical habitat for sea otters is nearshore maritime 

waters up to 20 meters deep (11 fathoms, 66 feet), and short-tailed albatross is a highly pelagic 

species that occurs almost exclusively in open U.S. waters well away from the coast, we expect 

no adverse effects as a result of this proposed project for either species. 

On March 5, 2009, we discussed the project during a conference call with Ellen Lance (USFWS) 

and David Erikson (URS Corporation). We discussed the post-monitoring program, which will 

include regular walking surveys around the towers and surrounding areas to look for 

carcasses/feathers and signs of scavenging that may mask collision mortalities. Also, because 

bird collisions are more likely during periods of limited visibility (e.g., foggy weather or at 

night), the surveys will be conducted in the morning and/or after periods of inclement weather. 

We understand that the proposed monitoring period is once per week for 3 weeks. We 

recommended that a scavenging trial is done with specific pathogen free quail and that the 

survey intervals are appropriate given the removal rates observed during this study. Once the 

survey interval is determined, you offered that surveys should be done in consecutive days at the 

beginning to verify trial results. 
Mr. Bruce Wright 

2

We also discussed the old decommissioned turbines in the action area that may be used as perch 

sites. You replied in an email later that day that the old wind towers near the site would likely be 

dismantled while the large crane is in town for the erection of the new wind towers. Furthermore, 

you indicated that local residents have expressed a desire to have the old towers removed. We 

discussed what would happen to the two new turbines that are proposed to be constructed. You 

also responded later that day via email that the turbines would be used for their operational life 

and at that time would be reconditioned or repaired to continue operating. When new technology 

comes along, the older model turbines would be replaced with the new ones. 

As stated in your letter, if any potential eider collisions are detected during the surveys, TDX 

Sand Point Generating (TSPG) will notify my office immediately (907-271-2778) and consult on 

the appropriate level of response. Since you have built measures into your proposed work to 

avoid the risk of Steller’s eiders colliding with turbines, and because of your post-construction 

monitoring and reporting program, we believe the probability that this action will result in the 

taking of listed species is discountable. As a result, the Service concurs with your determination 

that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or adversely modify 

critical habitat. Preparation of a biological assessment or further consultation under section 7 of 

the ESA is not necessary at this time. In view of this, requirements of section 7 have been 

satisfied. However, obligations under the ESA must be reconsidered if new information reveals 

project impacts that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously 

considered, if this action is subsequently modified in a manner which was not considered in this 

assessment, or if a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by 

the identified action. 

This letter relates only to federally listed or proposed species, and/or designated or proposed 

critical habitat, under our jurisdiction; namely, the Aleutian shield fern (Polystichum aleuticum, 

listed as endangered in 1988), spectacled eider (Somateria fischeri, listed as threatened in 1993), 

North American breeding Steller’s eider (Polysticta stelleri, listed as threatened in 1997), the 

southwest distinct population segment of northern sea otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni, listed as 

threatened in 2005), short-tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus, listed as endangered in 2000), 

polar bear (Ursus maritimus, listed as threatened in 2008), and Kittlitz’s murrelet 

(Brachyramphus brevirostris, listed as a candidate species in 2005). This letter does not address 

species under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service, or other legislation or 

responsibilities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Clean Water Act, National 

Environmental Policy Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, or Bald 

and Golden Eagle Protection Act. 

Thank you for your cooperation in meeting our joint responsibilities under section 7 of the ESA. 

If you have any questions, please contact me at (907) 271-3063 and refer to consultation number 

2009-0057. 

 Sincerely, 

 

 Tim Langer, Ph.D. 

 Endangered Species Biologist 

T:\s7\2009 sec 7\NLAA\20090057 s7 letter.pdf 
Federal Aviation Administration 

Correspondence 


Federal Aviation Administration

Air Traffic Airspace Branch, ASW-520

2601 Meacham Blvd.

Fort Worth, TX 76137-0520

Aeronautical Study No.

2006-AAL-563-OE

Page 1 of 6

Issued Date: 04/12/2007

Nicholas Goodman

Aleutian Wind Energy, LLC

4300 B Street, #402

Anchorage, AK 99503

** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION **

The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted 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:

Structure: Wind Turbine AWE #1

Location: Sand Point, AK

Latitude: 55-20-42.84 N NAD 83

Longitude: 160-29-25.34 W

Heights: 120 feet above ground level (AGL)

280 feet above mean sea level (AMSL)

This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe

and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities.

Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the structure would not be a

hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s) is(are) met:

As a condition to this Determination, the structure is marked and/or lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory

circular 70/7460-1 K Change 2, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, white paint/synchronized red lights -

Chapters 4,12&13(Turbines).

It is required that the enclosed FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be completed

and returned to this office any time the project is abandoned or:

_____ At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part I)

__X__ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part II)

See attachment for additional condition(s) or information.

This determination expires on 10/12/2008 unless:

(a) extended, revised or terminated by the issuing office.

(b) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission

(FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within

6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date

prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application.
Page 2 of 6

NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION

MUST BE POSTMARKED OR DELIVERED TO THIS OFFICE AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE

EXPIRATION DATE.

This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition that is received by the FAA on or

before May 12, 2007. In the event a petition for review is filed, it must contain a full statement of the basis

upon which it is made and be submitted in triplicate to the Manager, Airspace and Rules Division - Room 423,

Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave., Washington, D.C. 20591.

This determination becomes final on May 22, 2007 unless a petition is timely filed. In which case, this

determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the

grant of any review. For any questions regarding your petition, please contact Office of Airspace and Rules via

telephone -- 202-267-8783 - or facsimile 202-267-9328.

This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights,

frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will

void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the

addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA.

This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be

used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as

indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the

FAA.

This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace

by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or

regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body.

This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and

en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact

on all existing and planned public-use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative

impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed

structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air

navigation.

An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA during the study (if any), and the

basis for the FAA's decision in this matter can be found on the following page(s).

A copy of this determination will be forwarded to the Federal Communications Commission if the structure is

subject to their licensing authority.

If we can be of further assistance, please contact William Merritt, at (718)553-2560. On any future

correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2006-AAL-563-OE.
Page 3 of 6

Signature Control No: 492326-100014847 (DNH)

Kevin P. Haggerty

Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Service

Attachment(s)

Additional Information

Map(s)

7460-2 Attached
Page 4 of 6

Aditional information for ASN 2006-AAL-563-OE

Aeronautical study number 2006-AAL-563-OE 

Proposal: To construct a wind turbine to a height of 120 feet above ground level (AGL), 280 feet above mean

 sea level (AMSL). 

Location: The proposed structure would be located 2.14 nautical miles (NM), north of Sand Point Airport

 (SDP), Sand Point, Alaska. 

Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Obstruction Standards Exceeded: 

 Section 77.23(a)(5) airport surfaces, by penetrating... 

 Section 77.25(b) SDP conical surface by 11 feet, a height that exceeds the takeoff or landing area of an airport,

 as applied to SDP. 

Negotiation: Negotiation was attempted with the proponent, but site availability and wind patterns dictated this

 specific location and height. 

Circularized: This aeronautical study was given public notice on February 25, 2007. 

Aeronautical Objections Received: None were received. 

Aeronautical Study Results: 

Sand Point Airport is a publicly owned, public use airport, located 2 miles southwest of Sand Point, Alaska,

 on the Alaska Peninsula. The airport has a single hard-surfaced runway. Runway 13/31 is 5,213 feet in

 length and lighted with medium intensity runway lights and Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI) lights.

 An NDB/DME non precision instrument approach is available to Runway 31. Runway 13 has an NDB,

 NDB/DME and RNAV(GPS) non precision instrument approach procedure. Special IFR alternate minimums

 apply on all procedures. Special takeoff minimums are applicable to each runway with a departure procedure

 for each runway. The six single engine aircraft based at the airport account for 40 percent of the airport's 39

 average weekly operations. Air taxi and commuter operations account for slightly for than 40 percent of this

 total, while transient general aviation account for the remainder. 

The wind turbine would not adversely impact any plan on file for Sand Point Airport. 

The proposed structure would adversely impact the Sand Point Airport traffic pattern airspace. FAA Handbook

 7400.2E, Procedure for Handling Airspace Matters, Chapter 6, paragraph 6-3-8d, state that any structure

 that would exceed a Part 77 obstruction standard is considered to have an adverse effect on the airport traffic

 pattern airspace. There would be substantial adverse effect if a significant volume of VFR aeronautical

 operations were affected. A standard left-hand traffic pattern is flown to Runway 31. A nonstandard

 right-hand traffic pattern is flown to Runway 13, thus keeping aircraft over water and away from the higher

 terrain inland and east of the airport. This proposed structure nearly two nautical miles east of the Runway 13

 final approach course is well beyond the dimensions of any Category A, B, C and D type aircraft traffic pattern

 airspace. When properly obstruction marked and lighted this wind turbine will be able to be seen and avoided. 

 There would not be a substantial adverse effect to VFR operations at Sand Point Airport. 
Page 5 of 6

The structure would not adversely impact any present or future VFR or IFR terminal procedure. Runway 31

 departures climb via 314 bearing from the Borland (HBT) NDB/DME to 1,800 feet before then making a

 climbing right turn - well above this proposed wind turbine. 

The proposed structure would not impact any VFR or IFR en route procedure. 

The structure would not have a cumulative impact on any existing or planned airport. 

The structure would exceed obstruction standards and should be obstruction lighted in accordance with FAA

 AC 70/7460-1K, Change 2, Chapters 4, 12 and 13, white paint/red obstruction light system. 
Page 6 of 6

Sectional Map for ASN 2006-AAL-563-OE
Federal Aviation Administration

Air Traffic Airspace Branch, ASW-520

2601 Meacham Blvd.

Fort Worth, TX 76137-0520

Aeronautical Study No.

2006-AAL-563-OE

Page 1 of 2

Issued Date: 10/21/2008

Nicholas Goodman

Aleutian Wind Energy, LLC

4300 B Street, #402

Anchorage, AK 99503

** Extension **

A Determination was issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) concerning:

Structure: Wind Turbine AWE #1

Location: Sand Point, AK

Latitude: 55-20-42.84N NAD 83

Longitude: 160-29-25.34W

Heights: 120 feet above ground level (AGL)

280 feet above mean sea level (AMSL)

In response to your request for an extension of the effective period of the determination, the FAA has reviewed

the aeronautical study in light of current aeronautical operations in the area of the structure and finds that no

significant aeronautical changes have occurred which would alter the determination issued for this structure.

This extension is subject to review if an interested party files a petition on or before November 20, 2008. In the

event a petition for review is filed, it must contain a full statement of the basis upon which it is made and should

be submitted in triplicate to the Manager, Airspace Branch, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence

Ave SW, Washington, D.C. 20591.

This extension becomes final on November 30, 2008 unless a petition is timely filed. If so, this extension

will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the grant of any

review.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the effective period of the determination issued under

the above cited aeronautical study number is hereby extended and will expire on 04/21/2010 unless otherwise

extended, revised, or terminated by this office.

This extension issued in accordance with 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and, if applicable, Title 14 of the Code

of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerns the effect of the structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable

airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law,

ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body.

A copy of this extension will be forwarded to the Federal Communications Commission if the structure is

subject to their licensing authority.
Page 2 of 2

If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (770) 909-4401. On any future correspondence

concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2006-AAL-563-OE.

Signature Control No: 492326-103458448 (EXT)

Earl Newalu

Specialist
Federal Aviation Administration

Air Traffic Airspace Branch, ASW-520

2601 Meacham Blvd.

Fort Worth, TX 76137-0520

Aeronautical Study No.

2007-AAL-66-OE

Prior Study No.

2006-AAL-564-OE

Page 1 of 6

Issued Date: 05/17/2007

Nicholas Goodman

Aleutian Wind Energy, LLC

4300 B Street, #402

Anchorage, AK 99503

** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION **

The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted 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:

Structure: Wind Turbine AWE #2 REVISED

Location: Sand Point, AK

Latitude: 55-20-38.00 N NAD 83

Longitude: 160-29-21.00 W

Heights: 120 feet above ground level (AGL)

284 feet above mean sea level (AMSL)

This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe

and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities.

Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the structure would not be a

hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s) is(are) met:

As a condition to this Determination, the structure is marked and/or lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory

circular 70/7460-1 K Change 2, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, white paint/synchronized red lights -

Chapters 4,12&13(Turbines).

It is required that the enclosed FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be completed

and returned to this office any time the project is abandoned or:

_____ At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part I)

__X__ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part II)

See attachment for additional condition(s) or information.

This determination expires on 11/17/2008 unless:

(a) extended, revised or terminated by the issuing office.

(b) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission

(FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within

6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date

prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application.
Page 2 of 6

NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION

MUST BE POSTMARKED OR DELIVERED TO THIS OFFICE AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE

EXPIRATION DATE.

This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition that is received by the FAA on or

before June 16, 2007. In the event a petition for review is filed, it must contain a full statement of the basis

upon which it is made and be submitted in triplicate to the Manager, Airspace and Rules Division - Room 423,

Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave., Washington, D.C. 20591.

This determination becomes final on June 26, 2007 unless a petition is timely filed. In which case, this

determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the

grant of any review. For any questions regarding your petition, please contact Office of Airspace and Rules via

telephone -- 202-267-8783 - or facsimile 202-267-9328.

This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights,

frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will

void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the

addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA.

This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be

used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as

indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the

FAA.

This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace

by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or

regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body.

This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and

en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact

on all existing and planned public-use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative

impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed

structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air

navigation.

An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA during the study (if any), and the

basis for the FAA's decision in this matter can be found on the following page(s).

A copy of this determination will be forwarded to the Federal Communications Commission if the structure is

subject to their licensing authority.

If we can be of further assistance, please contact William Merritt, at (718)553-2560. On any future

correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2007-AAL-66-OE.
Page 3 of 6

Signature Control No: 505775-100527735 (DNH)

Kevin P. Haggerty

Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Service

Attachment(s)

Additional Information

Map(s)

7460-2 Attached
Page 4 of 6

Aditional information for ASN 2007-AAL-66-OE

Aeronautical study number 2007-AAL-66-OE 

Proposal: To construct a wind turbine to a height of 120 feet above ground level (AGL), 284 feet above mean

 sea level (AMSL). 

Location: The proposed structure would be located 2.1 nautical miles (NM), north of Sand Point Airport (SDP),

 Sand Point, Alaska. 

Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Obstruction Standards Exceeded: 

 Section 77.23(a)(5) airport surfaces, by penetrating... 

 Section 77.25(b) SDP conical surface by 28 feet, a height that exceeds the takeoff or landing area of an airport,

 as applied to SDP. 

Negotiation: Negotiation was attempted with the proponent, but site availability and wind patterns dictated this

 specific location and height. 

Circularized: This aeronautical study was given public notice on April 5, 2007. 

Aeronautical Objections Received: None were received. 

Aeronautical Study Results: 

Sand Point Airport is a publicly owned, public use airport, located 2 miles southwest of Sand Point, Alaska,

 on the Alaska Peninsula. The airport has a single hard-surfaced runway. Runway 13/31 is 5,213 feet in

 length and lighted with medium intensity runway lights and Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI) lights.

 An NDB/DME non precision instrument approach is available to Runway 31. Runway 13 has an NDB,

 NDB/DME and RNAV(GPS) non precision instrument approach procedure. Special IFR alternate minimums

 apply on all procedures. Special takeoff minimums are applicable to each runway with a departure procedure

 for each runway. The six single engine aircraft based at the airport account for 40 percent of the airport's 39

 average weekly operations. Air taxi and commuter operations account for slightly for than 40 percent of this

 total, while transient general aviation account for the remainder. 

The wind turbine would not adversely impact any plan on file for Sand Point Airport. 

The proposed structure would adversely impact the Sand Point Airport traffic pattern airspace. FAA Handbook

 7400.2E, Procedure for Handling Airspace Matters, Chapter 6, paragraph 6-3-8d, state that any structure

 that would exceed a Part 77 obstruction standard is considered to have an adverse effect on the airport traffic

 pattern airspace. There would be substantial adverse effect if a significant volume of VFR aeronautical

 operations were affected. A standard left-hand traffic pattern is flown to Runway 31. A nonstandard

 right-hand traffic pattern is flown to Runway 13, thus keeping aircraft over water and away from the higher

 terrain inland and east of the airport. This proposed structure nearly two nautical miles east of the Runway 13

 final approach course is well beyond the dimensions of any Category A, B, C and D type aircraft traffic pattern

 airspace. When properly obstruction marked and lighted this wind turbine will be able to be seen and avoided. 

 There would not be a substantial adverse effect to VFR operations at Sand Point Airport. 
Page 5 of 6

The structure would not adversely impact any present or future VFR or IFR terminal procedure. Runway 31

 departures climb via 314 bearing from the Borland (HBT) NDB/DME to 1,800 feet before then making a

 climbing right turn -well above this proposed wind turbine. 

The proposed structure would not impact any VFR or IFR en route procedure. 

The structure would not have a cumulative impact on any existing or planned airport. 

The structure would exceed obstruction standards and should be obstruction lighted in accordance with FAA

 AC 70/7460-1K, Change 2, Chapters 4, 12 and 13, white paint/red obstruction light system.
Page 6 of 6

Sectional Map for ASN 2007-AAL-66-OE
Federal Aviation Administration

Air Traffic Airspace Branch, ASW-520

2601 Meacham Blvd.

Fort Worth, TX 76137-0520

Aeronautical Study No.

2007-AAL-66-OE

Prior Study No.

2006-AAL-564-OE

Page 1 of 2

Issued Date: 10/21/2008

Nicholas Goodman

Aleutian Wind Energy, LLC

4300 B Street, #402

Anchorage, AK 99503

** Extension **

A Determination was issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) concerning:

Structure: Wind Turbine AWE #2 REVISED

Location: Sand Point, AK

Latitude: 55-20-38.00N NAD 83

Longitude: 160-29-21.00W

Heights: 120 feet above ground level (AGL)

284 feet above mean sea level (AMSL)

In response to your request for an extension of the effective period of the determination, the FAA has reviewed

the aeronautical study in light of current aeronautical operations in the area of the structure and finds that no

significant aeronautical changes have occurred which would alter the determination issued for this structure.

This extension is subject to review if an interested party files a petition on or before November 20, 2008. In the

event a petition for review is filed, it must contain a full statement of the basis upon which it is made and should

be submitted in triplicate to the Manager, Airspace Branch, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence

Ave SW, Washington, D.C. 20591.

This extension becomes final on November 30, 2008 unless a petition is timely filed. If so, this extension

will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the grant of any

review.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the effective period of the determination issued under

the above cited aeronautical study number is hereby extended and will expire on 04/21/2010 unless otherwise

extended, revised, or terminated by this office.

This extension issued in accordance with 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and, if applicable, Title 14 of the Code

of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerns the effect of the structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable

airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law,

ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body.

A copy of this extension will be forwarded to the Federal Communications Commission if the structure is

subject to their licensing authority.
Page 2 of 2

If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (770) 909-4401. On any future correspondence

concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2007-AAL-66-OE.

Signature Control No: 505775-103458386 (EXT)

Earl Newalu

Specialist
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) 

Correspondence 
This page intentionally left blank.




)If>M B L 3t30-'rL b¥f~~

Department of Energy

Golden Field Office

1617 Cole Boulevard

Golden, Colorado 80401-3393

February 1,2007

RECEIVED

FEB1 2 2007

OHA

Ms. Judith E. Bittner

State Historical Preservation Office

Alaska Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation

550 W. 7thAvenue, Suite 1310

Anchorage, AK 99501-3565

No Historic PropertiesAffected

AlaskaStateHistoric PreservationOfficer

Date..0- ~- Ol-CJCJ7

FileNo.: 3' :30- (te- Dept. ~ 1lf"k1{S1JL

Dear Ms. Bittner:

SUBJECT: Department of Energy Environmental Assessment of the Proposed Installation of

a High Penetration Wind Diesel Hybrid System at the TDX Inc. Power

Generation Facility in Sand Point, Alaska (DOE/EA-1584)

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is proposing to provide financial assistance to TDX Inc.

through the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) to support the installation of a high penetration wind

diesel hybrid system in Sand Point, AK. Pursuant to the requirements ofthe National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for

implementing the procedural provisions ofNEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and DOE's

implementing procedures for compliance with NEPA (10 CFR Part 1021),DOE is preparing a

draft Environmental Assessment (EA) to:

. Identify any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should this

proposed action be implemented.

Evaluate viable 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 this proposed action be implemented.

DOE is the lead agency for this EA, and is inviting other federal, state, and local agencies to

participate in the environmental documentation process. DOE is requesting input on the proposed

NEP A process, proposed action, alternatives, and the environmental issues to be addressed in the

EA.

TDX's proposed high penetration wind turbine installation project, consisting of two 500 kW

Vestas V39 wind turbines and an upgrade ofthe existing power generation facility, would reduce

the diesel fuel consumption of the power generating system by 130,000 gallons per year. The

wind turbines would be located at the existing TDX power generation facility in Sand Point, AK.

Sand Point is located on Humboldt Harbor on PopofIsland, off the Alaska Peninsula, 570 air

miles from Anchorage. Sand Point lies at approximately 55° 20' N Latitude, 160° 30' W

Longitude, within Section 08, Township 56 South, Range 73 West ofthe Seward Meridian.

Attachment 1provides project site location maps. The existing power plant and the proposed

FederalRecyclingProgram*Printed on Recycled Paper
wind diesel energy project site are located in the Industrial Subdivision No.3, Lot 2A and Lot 3,

Plat No. 85-1, Aleutian Island Recording District, AK (See Attachment 1 Figures 2 and 4).

Ms. Constance Fredenberg, Natural Resources Coordinator with the Aleutian/PribilofIslands

Association (APIA), has begun collecting information and consulting with state and federal

agencies regarding this project. DOE intends to incorporate her work into a DOE EA.

As Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires federal agencies to take

into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, Connie Fredenberg, APIA, on

behalf of DOE, and assisted by Joan Dale at the State Historical Preservation Office, conducted a

record search on September 12,2006 to determine the nature and extent of prior archaeological

investigations in the area of the proposed project site. That record search indicated that extensive

research has been done in the area of the proposed site and found that no archaeological sites

exist within the proposed project site. Based on the records search, DOE is requesting your

concurrence with a Finding of No Historic Properties Affected for the proposed project site.

Your response is necessary for the u.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) compliance with Section

106.

The EA will provide a detailed project description and site location maps as well as analyze the

potential environmental impacts associated with this project. When it is available, the Draft EA

will be posted for review in the DOE Golden Field Office Public Reading Room online:

http://www.eere.energy.gov/golden/reading room.aspx.

Sincerely,

~ ;;;;5~

Steve Blazek

NEP A Compliance Officer

DOE Golden Field Office

1617 Cole Blvd.

Golden, CO 80401

1.303.275.4723

1.800.275.6735 Extension 4723

Steve.B lazek@go.doe.gov

Enclosure

J

Due to the high volume of reviews, our office is no longer writing letters of concurrence

in cases where there are no historic properties affected by a given project. Instead, the

cover letter is being stamped with "No historic properties affected" and being returned

to the applicant. The stamp will serve as evidence of consultation with the State Historic

Preservation Office as required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

We will continue writing letters in situations where there are historic properties that may

be affected by a given project.

\

Department of the Air Force 

Correspondence 

Tribal Corespondence 









APPENDIX E 

BIRD AND BAT MONITORING STUDIES 
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix E 

Avian and Bat Monitoring Studies 

and Proposed Mitigation 

Sand Point Wind Installation Project 

Pre-Construction Monitoring 

Survey Protocols 

A pre-construction avian monitoring program was conducted from December 6, 2006 through August 17, 

2007 and again from October 20, 2008 through March 25, 2009. The purpose of this study was to collect 

baseline data on the level of bird use in the area and to determine if the site was an appropriate area for 

siting wind turbines. The avian monitoring program employed several residents familiar with local bird 

species to make observations at or near the proposed wind turbine sites using the following general 

protocol. Emphasis was placed on observations of bald eagles since they have special status under the 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C 668, as amended). 

(1) Observations were made weekly if possible throughout the year; include spring and fall migration 

periods, and at different times of day. The observer recorded the date, time of observations, observer's 

name, weather conditions, and visibility. 

(2) The site was approached in a vehicle and stopped about 100 meters (m) from the guyed 

meteorological (met) tower; the observer spent 30 minutes in vehicle and record any birds, predators, or 

scavengers seen. Data on animals was collected to determine the scavenging of carcasses of birds killed 

by the tower. 

(3) All birds sighting were recorded during the observation period(s), including numbers, approximate 

flight altitudes, and flight behaviors in relation to the met tower and proposed wind turbine site. 

(4) After the 1⁄2-hour observation period was finished, and the observer exited the auto and walked the 

area under the MET tower (proposed location of Turbine 1) up to 50 m (150 feet) from MET tower or as 

permitted by thick vegetation to search for dead birds and evidence of scavenging; noting any tracks in 

the snow or dirt, including snowshoe hare, dog tracks, and any other signs of predators (e.g., scat). Bird 

observations were also recorded as outlined above. 

(5) All observations of dead or downed birds would have been recorded and their location recorded on an 

area map. Photographs of the dead bird(s) would have been taken to help determine the cause of death, 

and the location would have been revisited daily to determine when/if it was scavenged. 

Results 

Pre-construction monitoring will continue until the wind turbines are erected. Results will be regularly 

sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Table 1 tabulates the numbers of different species 

recorded for all observation periods. A summary of results by season is presented in Table 2. 
Table 1. Observation data from the pre-construction avian monitoring program. 

Date Bald 

eagle 

Black-billed 

magpie 

Common 

raven 

Northwestern 

crow 

Gull 

spp. 

Passerine 

spp. 

12/6/2006 3 6 

2/26/2007 2 

3/28/2007 1 1 

3/28/2007 1 

5/15/2007 2 

5/15/2007 2 1 2 

5/16/2007 

5/17/2007 1 

5/24/2007 

5/24/2007 3 2 

5/29/2007 

5/29/2007 1 

5/29/2007 2 

7/17/2007 2 

7/18/2007 1 

7/18/2007 2 

7/18/2007 1 1 1 2 

7/20/2007 

7/23/2007 1 

7/24/2007 2 

7/30/2007 2 3 

8/2/2007 1 

8/3/2007 

8/6/2007 

8/8/2007 

8/10/2007 3 

8/14/2007 1 

8/15/2007 2 

8/17/2007 
Date Bald 

eagle 

Black-billed 

magpie 

Common 

raven 

Northwestern 

crow 

Gull 

spp. 

Passerine 

spp. 

Break in observations 

10/20/2008 

10/27/2008 4 1 6 

11/4/2008 1 1 

11/12/2008 2 1 

11/18/2008 1 7 

11/26/2008 1 

12/5/2008 

12/12/2008 1 2 

12/16/2008 

12/24/2008 1 

12/31/2008 1 8 

1/9/2009 3 

1/16/2009 1 

1/22/2009 

2/6/2009 1 

2/13/2009 1 1 

2/19/2009 3 1 

2/27/2009 7 1 2 

3/6/2009 1 

3/20/2009 1 1 

3/25/2009 2 1 2 2 

Note: Multiple records for the same day indicate observations were made at different times of day. 

Cells with no numbers are 0 by default. 
Table 2. Summary of pre-construction bird observations1 from the proposed wind turbine sites by 

season2

. 

Species Winter 

(n=23) 

Spring 

(n=9) 

Summer 

(n=8) 

Fall 

(n=10) 

Bald eagle 1.48 0.89 0.75 0.50 

Black-billed magpie 0.70 0.44 0.38 0.60 

Common raven 0.26 0.22 0 0.10 

Northwest crow 1.17 0 0 0 

Passerine spp. 0.09 0 1.00 0.60 

Gull spp. 0 0.22 0.13 0 

Note: Data are mean numbers of birds seen per observation period during each season 

1 This table includes all observations up to March 25, 2009 

2 Winter = November through March, Spring = April through May, Summer = June and July, Fall = 

August through October 

n = number of observation periods 

Proposed Mitigation 

The USFWS has published interim guidelines for wind power projects to minimize the potential risks of 

bird fatalities due to collisions (USFWS 2003). Many of these guidelines pertain to siting considerations 

and are more pertinent to much larger projects. However, the following recommendations will be 

implemented: 

• Anti-perching devices will be placed on each turbine nacelle (if necessary) to discourage perching 

or nesting on the turbines, which would greatly increase the potential for bird collisions. 

• Anti-perching devices will be installed on electric poles in adjacent areas to discourage perching 

and reduce the potential for electrocution, especially for bald eagles. 

• The turbine towers will not have external ladders or other structures that would allow birds to 

perch anywhere near the turbine blades. 

• AWE/TDX will remove the old Harry Foster towers at the time of construction, thus removing 

one of the most well-used perches for bald eagles and other resident birds in the area. 

• The turbine towers will be self-supporting monopoles. 

• Electric transmission lines from the wind turbines to the TDX power plant will be buried below 

ground. 

• Lighting on the turbine towers will be limited to what is necessary for aviation safety, as 

determined by the FAA. 

• A post-construction monitoring plan will be implemented for one year to determine if any birds 

are killed by collisions with the turbines. 
Post-Construction Monitoring 

The post-construction monitoring plan was developed to document avian and bat mortality related to the 

operation of the two wind turbines. Because birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 

U.S.C 703-712) post-construction studies will be conducted to quantify the number and types of birds (or 

bats) killed by the two wind turbines. If fatality rates from the wind turbines are greater than anticipated, 

or if high number of fatalities occur under conditions such as fog, heavy rain, high winds, or during 

specific season, these data can be used to modify operation of the wind turbines to reduce incidence of 

collisions. This information will capture an example of collision-mortality rates of wind turbines in a 

northern coastal environment, such as Sand Point. 

Schedule

Post-construction monitoring will be initiated following installation and testing of the wind turbines when 

they are under normal operation. Aleutian Wind Energy, LLC (AWE) and TDX Power (TDX), the 

proponents of the Sand Point Wind project, will retain a professional Avian Contractor to oversee the 

implementation of the Post-Construction Monitoring Plan (Plan) and will hire and train local observers to 

conduct the field work. This Plan will sample for potential seasonal variations in bird collisions, with an 

emphasis on the fall and spring migration seasons when bird activity is expected to be highest. Surveys 

will be conducted two times per week for three consecutive weeks during the spring and fall sampling 

periods, and one time per week for four consecutive weeks during winter and summer sampling periods. 

Post-construction monitoring will be conducted for one calendar year. 

Observation and Survey Protocols 

Observation will be conducted by trained observers and the observer name, date, time, and standard 

weather variables will be recorded. Observations will be a minimum of one hour duration from a blind. 

An automobile may be used. Following the observation period, a bird strike and predator/scavenger 

survey will be conducted. Each survey will include a search for dead or injured birds (or bats) beneath 

each turbine tower. The surveys will be conducted on foot by slowly walking transect lines 

approximately 25 to 30 feet apart, and looking about 12 to 15 feet on both sides of the transect line. Each 

set of transects will cover a search area defined as one-half of the maximal height of the rotor-swept area 

(California Energy Commission and California Department of Fish and Game [CEC/CDFG] 2007) or a 

radius of about 100 feet around each tower. The tower height is about 130 feet above ground level (agl) 

and the turbine blades are about 130 feet in diameter, thus putting the upper reach of the turbine blades at 

195 feet agl. This search pattern is estimated to take about 40 minutes to complete for each tower. 

Searches will be conducted at a frequency that minimizes the potential for bias from carcasses lost to 

scavengers. 

Standard data collected during each survey will include: 

• Survey date 

• Weather during observation and the previous 24 hours 

• Observer name 

• Start and stop times 

• Turbine number and activity (turbine speed, direction of hub) 

• Search area conditions (i.e. ice, snow, bare ground, green vegetation) 
If any bird or bat carcass is found, the following data will be collected. 

• Position relative to the wind tower, including distance, and location on the sample grid 

• Species (if identifiable), condition of the carcass, injury type, and evidence of scavenging 

• Cause of death (i.e. killed by the turbine) and evidence of cause of death 

• Approximate length of time the carcass has been there (i.e. days, weeks, months) 

Carcasses will be collected, labeled, bagged, and placed in a freezer for later analysis. Some of the 

carcasses each season will be left in place to determine how long the carcass remains and to ascertain the 

scavenging rate, which would then be applied to the overall mortality rate. No carcasses will be brought 

in (i.e frozen feeder quail) to conduct the scavenging study as this may promote scavenger habituation 

and potential for additional bird strikes. 

If a carcass of protected species, such as a bald eagle or Steller’s eider is found, a call will be made to the 

USFWS in Anchorage within one business day to report the incident. 

AWE/TDX will establish a file on site for all of the raw data sheets from searches and scavenging studies. 

Data sheets will be sent monthly to the Avian Contractor. 

Spring 

Spring migration sampling is an important time period for collision studies because birds are migrating 

from wintering areas to nesting grounds and bird numbers are more concentrated than at other times of 

the year. The spring sampling period will consist of six surveys during the main migration season 

(approximately April 15 to May 31). 

Summer 

During the breeding season, birds are generally oriented to the specific breeding areas. Local breeders 

move between feeding areas and nest sites. Young inexperienced birds are leaving the nest and are 

thought to be more susceptible to collisions than adults. The summer sampling period will consist of four 

surveys during the main breeding season (approximately June 1 to August 10). 

Fall 

Fall migration is generally more protracted in time than spring migrations because of the migration timing 

of the different species in this region of Alaska. Shorebirds and songbirds tend to migrate earlier than 

waterfowl and seabirds. Fall migration typically has higher numbers of migrants due to the addition of 

young-of-the-year to the population. The fall sampling period will consist of six surveys during the main 

migration season (approximately August 11 to October 10). 

Winter 

The winter season represent the period of lowest bird activity for species and numbers. The winter 

sampling period will consist of four surveys during the non-breeding season (approximately October 11 

to April 14). 

Reporting 

The Avian Contractor will submit a letter report at the end of each seasonal sampling effort. This report 

will present the survey data and the sample effort for that period including the species and number of 

carcasses found and disposition of the samples. 
At the end of the last seasonal survey event, a summary report will be developed reporting on all survey 

effort. This report will be submitted to AWE/TDX for review and comment. The final report will be sent 

to the Department of Energy (DOE) and USFWS for review and comment on the draft report. Comments 

responses will be formulated, and a final report submitted to DOE and USFWS. 

Mitigation 

If bird mortality from collisions with the wind turbines is greater than the highest recorded mortality rate 

for wind farms, 4.45 birds per turbine per year (BLM 2005). Mitigation measures would be implemented 

to try and reduce the mortality rate. Some possible mitigation measure would include: 

• Clearing brush or planting additional vegetation (such as grasses) around the towers, which every 

is appropriate to discourage bird use of the immediate area 

• Changing the turbine lighting with FAA approval to make them less of an attractant 

• Adding white strobe light to make the towers more visible under low light conditions and during 

adverse weather. 

• Feathering the rotors to slow the turbine speed during critical periods 

• Idling the turbines during certain specific critical time periods demonstrated to have high 

collision rate 

• Idling the turbines during seasonal periods such as spring migrations if major mortality events 

are documented 

Mitigation measures will depends on the results of the mortality study, the species most affected, the 

season, and the site specific weather conditions contributing to mortality. Coordination with the 

USFWS and DOE will be initiated prior to implementing any mitigation measure. 

Mitigation measures will be sequential with the most severe (feathering and idling) being used as a last 

resort. If migration measures are implemented, additional mortality monitoring will need to be conducted 

to determine if the measures are effective in lowering the mortality rate. 

References 

Bureau of Land Management. 2005. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind 

Energy Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the Western United States. Prepared by 

Argonne National Laboratory for BLM, Washington, D.C.. 

CEC/CDFG (California Energy Commission and California Department of Fish and Game). 2007. 

California guidelines for reducing impacts to birds and bats from wind energy development. 

California Energy Commission and California Department of Fish and Game, Report No. CEC700-2007-08-CTF. 125 pp. 

USFWS, 2003. Interim guidelines to avoid and minimize wildlife impacts from wind turbines. 

Memorandum to the USFWS regional directors from the Deputy Director, 13 May 2003. 

Available online at: 

http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/Service%20Interim%20Guidelines.pdf 
APPENDIX F 

VISUAL AND SOUND REPORT 
This page intentionally left blank.
1809 7th Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101 

Phone: (206) 387-4200 Fax: (206) 387-4201 

www.globalenergyconcepts.com

Photo Simulations and Sound Impact 

Analysis for 

Sand Point Wind Power Project 

APIA1-001 

CONFIDENTIAL 

November 30, 2006 

Prepared for: 

Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association 

201 East 3rd Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99501 
Visual and Sound Impact Analysis for Sand Point Wind Power Project APIA1-001 

Global Energy Concepts, LLC i November 30, 2006 

Approvals 

Mia Devine November 30, 2006 

Prepared by Mia Devine Date 

Kevin J. Smith November 30, 2006 

Reviewed by Kevin J. Smith Date 

Revision Block 

Revision Release Date Summary of Changes 

Original November 30, 2006 

 
Visual and Sound Impact Analysis for Sand Point Wind Power Project APIA1-001 

Global Energy Concepts, LLC ii November 30, 2006 

Table of Contents 

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1

PHOTO SIMULATIONS............................................................................................................. 1

SOUND IMPACT ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 6

ACOUSTIC MODELING...................................................................................................................... 7 

IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY........................................................................................................... 8 

IMPACTS ON IDENTIFIED RECEPTORS ............................................................................................... 9 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Map of Wind Farm Site and Viewpoints from Which the Photos Were Taken.............. 2 

Figure 2. Photo Simulation from the Southwest Corner of the School (View 1) ........................... 3 

Figure 3. Photo Simulation from the South Side of the Pump House Pond (View 2).................... 3 

Figure 4. Photo Simulation from Power Pole #43 (View 3)........................................................... 4 

Figure 5. Photo Simulation from the SDP Fisheries Building (View 4) ........................................ 4 

Figure 6. Photo Simulation from the SDP Fisheries Building (View 4) ........................................ 5 

Figure 7. Photo Simulation from Housing to the Southwest of the Wind Farm Site (View 5) ...... 5 

Figure 8. Range of Sound Pressure Levels from Common Sources............................................... 6 

Figure 9. Sound Contour Map for Sand Point Project Area at Reference Conditions: 

8 m/s Wind Speed at 10-m Height.......................................................................................... 8 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Coordinates of Proposed Wind Turbines in Sand Point, Alaska ...................................... 1 

Table 2. Perception of Changes in Sound Pressure Level .............................................................. 7 

Table 3. Sound Impacts for Varying Background Noise Levels and Wind Speeds ....................... 9 
Visual and Sound Impact Analysis for Sand Point Wind Power Project APIA1-001 

Global Energy Concepts, LLC 1 November 20, 2006 

Introduction 

The Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association (APIA) contracted with Global Energy Concepts, LLC 

(GEC) to create photo simulations and perform a sound impact analysis for the proposed Sand 

Point wind power project located in the East Aleutian Borough of Alaska. The proposed wind 

power project consists of two Vestas V39 500 kW wind turbines that will be installed on 40-m 

tubular towers. This report presents five photo simulations and findings from the sound impact 

analysis. 

The findings of the sound impact analysis indicate that the wind turbines will produce sound 

levels of no more than 60 decibels on the A-weighed scale (dBA) at the project boundaries. The 

study also evaluated expected changes in sound level at nearby locations, and concluded that at 

these locations the change to the background sound levels would be minimal. 

Photo Simulations 

The proposed wind turbine coordinates, photographs, and GPS coordinates of various reference 

points throughout Sand Point were provided by TDX Power and were used to create photo 

simulations of the proposed wind farm from various vantage points throughout the community. 

GEC has not visited the site. 

WindFarm Version 4.0.2.3 software by ReSoft Ltd. was used to create all photo simulations. The 

following information was taken into account when creating the photo simulations: 

• Wind direction data from the meteorological tower in Sand Point indicate two primary 

wind directions: north-northwest and south-southwest. Therefore, the wind turbines in 

each photo are oriented to the north-northwest. 

• The angle of rotation of the blades for each turbine is random (i.e., the tips of the blades 

of all turbines are not pointed straight up at the same time). This more closely matches 

reality as there is a low probability that the rotation of the blades would be synchronized. 

• The angle of the sun, light intensity level, and shadows on the turbines were adjusted to 

most closely match the local conditions at the time the photo was taken. 

Coordinates of the proposed wind turbines are listed in Table 1. If the final turbine locations are 

modified from these original coordinates, the photo simulations may no longer be valid. 

Table 1. Coordinates of Proposed Wind Turbines in Sand Point, Alaska 

UTM Zone 4, NAD83 

Description Easting Northing Elevation (m) 

Turbine #1 405490 6134190 56 

Turbine #2 405560 6134074 59 
Visual and Sound Impact Analysis for Sand Point Wind Power Project APIA1-001 

Global Energy Concepts, LLC 2 November 20, 2006 

Figure 1 illustrates where each photo was taken with respect to the proposed wind project 

location. The five photo simulations are provided in Figure 2 through Figure 7. The JPEG 

images as well as animations of each image will be provided to APIA electronically. 

Figure 1. Map of Wind Farm Site and Viewpoints from Which the Photos Were Taken 
Visual and Sound Impact Analysis for Sand Point Wind Power Project APIA1-001 

Global Energy Concepts, LLC 3 November 20, 2006 

Figure 2. Photo Simulation from the Southwest Corner of the School (View 1) 

Figure 3. Photo Simulation from the South Side of the Pump House Pond (View 2) 
Visual and Sound Impact Analysis for Sand Point Wind Power Project APIA1-001 

Global Energy Concepts, LLC 4 November 20, 2006 

Figure 4. Photo Simulation from Power Pole #43 (View 3) 

Figure 5. Photo Simulation from the SDP Fisheries Building (View 4) 
Visual and Sound Impact Analysis for Sand Point Wind Power Project APIA1-001 

Global Energy Concepts, LLC 5 November 20, 2006 

Figure 6. Photo Simulation from the SDP Fisheries Building (View 4) 

Figure 7. Photo Simulation from Housing to the Southwest of the Wind Farm Site (View 5) 
Visual and Sound Impact Analysis for Sand Point Wind Power Project APIA1-001 

Global Energy Concepts, LLC 6 November 20, 2006 

Sound Impact Analysis 

Sound moves through air as waves of pressure fluctuations caused by vibrations. As sounds 

move away from their source, the sound pressures decrease because the sound is spread over an 

increasing area and attenuated (dissipated) by obstructions, obstacles, and the atmosphere. The 

most common unit of measure used to describe the magnitude of sound levels is the decibel (dB). 

Sound levels are often stated in terms of decibels on the A-weighted decibel scale (dBA), which 

is weighted to reflect the response of the human ear by attenuating, or discounting, some of the 

noise in the low- and high-frequency ranges to which the human ear is less responsive. 

Sound pressure levels differ from sound power levels. Sound power levels are characteristic of a 

sound source. This sound power rating is a property of the equipment and is not dependent on 

distance from the source or environmental factors. 

Sound pressure levels are what is perceived by the human ear and vary with distance from the 

source. Typical sound pressure levels include about 110 dBA for construction noise, 90 dBA for 

a heavy truck accelerating, 60 dBA for a conversation, and 50 dBA for a quiet office. Figure 8 

illustrates sound pressure levels of common noise sources. 

(Source: Bruel & Kjaer Instruments) 

Figure 8. Range of Sound Pressure Levels from Common Sources 

The dBA scale is logarithmic, so individual dBA ratings for different sources cannot be added 

directly to calculate the sound level for combined sources. For example, two sources, each 

producing 50 dBA will, when added together logarithmically, produce a combined sound level of 

53 dBA. In typical situations, a 3 dBA change in sound level is considered a just-perceivable 

difference, while a 10 dBA change is considered an approximate doubling of perceived loudness. 
Visual and Sound Impact Analysis for Sand Point Wind Power Project APIA1-001 

Global Energy Concepts, LLC 7 November 20, 2006 

Table 2. Perception of Changes in Sound Pressure Level 

Change in 

Sound Level (dB) 

Change in 

Perceived Loudness 

1 Cannot be perceived 

3 Just perceptible 

5 Noticeable difference 

10 Twice (or 1⁄2) as loud 

15 Large change 

20 Four times (or 1⁄4) as loud 

(Source: Bruel & Kjaer Instruments) 

When operating, wind turbines produce a “swishing” or “whooshing” sound as their rotating 

blades encounter turbulence in the passing air, as well as some sounds from the mechanical parts 

such as the gearbox, generator, and cooling fans. At a distance of several hundred meters 

(approximately 600 to 900 ft), the sounds generated by a wind turbine are frequently masked by 

the “background noise” of winds blowing through trees or moving around obstacles. Wind 

turbines are typically quiet enough for people to hold a normal conversation while standing at the 

base of the tower. If mechanical sounds are significant, it usually means something in the nacelle 

needs maintenance or repair. 

Acoustic Modeling 

Wind turbines are often rated at a particular sound power level which is calculated from 

measurements performed according to a standard (such as International Electrotechnical 

Commission Standard IEC 61400-11). The acoustic reference conditions for the IEC 61400-11 

standard are when the wind speed is 8.0 m/s (18 mph) measured at a height of 10 m (33 ft) above 

ground level. Assuming a site average vertical wind shear coefficient of 0.14, the reference 

condition is equivalent to a wind speed of 9.7 m/s (22 mph) at a 40-m turbine hub height. At 

higher wind speeds, sounds from the wind turbine become less noticeable because background 

noise associated with the wind itself increases and tends to cover or mask that being generated by 

the turbine. 

The WindFarm software was used for the sound impact analysis. This software contains a 

database of various wind turbine models and technical specifications for each. It also allows the 

user to modify any default specifications. According to the WindFarm database, the Vestas V39 

wind turbine produces a sound power level of 101 dBA during the acoustic reference conditions 

defined by the IEC 61400-11 standards. It should be noted, however, that the wind turbines to be 

installed in Sand Point have already been in operation at another location for a number of years. 

It is unknown how the aging of the turbine or the remanufacturing process might affect the sound 

rating of these turbines. Results from field measurements performed in 1995 were provided by 

the turbine supplier and indicate a sound power level of 97.8 dBA at the IEC 61400-11 reference 

conditions. The sound power level of a turbine is usually warranted by the manufacturer not to 

exceed a maximum level of 104 dBA at the reference conditions. Therefore, for this analysis, 

GEC assumes that 101 dBA is a reasonable estimate of the sound power level of these turbines. 
Visual and Sound Impact Analysis for Sand Point Wind Power Project APIA1-001 

Global Energy Concepts, LLC 8 November 20, 2006 

In the sound analysis model, the generated sound is represented as a point source at the wind 

turbine’s hub, which is consistent with how the turbine sound power level ratings are typically 

defined. This approximates the sound pressure waves produced by the blades over their entire 

path of travel. Sound will decrease over distance due to other factors such as atmospheric 

damping, terrain absorption, and interference of obstacles; however, the primary mechanism for 

the decrease of sound is distance attenuation. There is no assumed change of sound due to 

vegetation, obstacles, or sound being propagated by the wind. Background noise is not taken into 

account in the model. The model assumes an attenuation coefficient of 0.005 dBA/m. This is 

equivalent to typical sound attenuation with distance due to the divergence of sound energy 

(about 6-8 dBA per doubling of distance) up to a distance of 400 m (1300 ft) from a turbine. 

Impact on the Community 

As described above, GEC performed sound impact modeling based on the rated turbine sound 

power level of 101 dBA at the acoustic reference conditions. Figure 9 represents the resulting 

sound contour map of the project area. 

Figure 9. Sound Contour Map for Sand Point Project Area at Reference Conditions: 

8 m/s Wind Speed at 10-m Height 

As shown, when standing 400 to 500 ft away from either turbine, the calculated sound pressure 

level is 50 dBA, equivalent to a quiet office setting. When standing immediately beneath the 

turbines, the maximum sound pressure level is 58 dBA. 

 Sound Receptor 

40, 50 dBA Contours 

 2 dBA Contour Intervals

 Wind Turbine 
Visual and Sound Impact Analysis for Sand Point Wind Power Project APIA1-001 

Global Energy Concepts, LLC 9 November 20, 2006 

Impacts on Identified Receptors 

In addition to modeling the expected sound levels from the turbines, GEC analyzed the 

incremental change in sound levels that is expected to be perceived by observers at nearby 

locations around Sand Point. Three sound receptors are shown on the map in Figure 9. H1 

represents the location of the school while H2 and H3 represent different housing areas. 

Both background noise and turbine noise will vary with wind speed. Noise from a wind turbine 

will likely be most noticeable at low wind speeds (8-10 mph) during which the wind turbines are 

just beginning to operate and the background noise is at the lowest levels. At higher wind speeds, 

turbine noise tends to be masked by the sound generated by the wind. Both low wind speed and 

high wind speed impacts were modeled using wind speeds of 4.0 m/s (9 mph) and 8.0 m/s (18 

mph), respectively, at a height of 10 m (33 ft) above ground level. 

Since background noise measurements have not been taken at the site, GEC modeled three 

different background levels: 40 dBA, 50 dBA, and 60 dBA. The sound impact due to the wind 

turbines on each receptor was combined with the background noise levels to provide an estimate 

of the total sound level at each receptor for both the 4 m/s and 8 m/s wind speed conditions. The 

results are shown in Table 3. 

Table 3. Sound Impacts for Varying Background Noise Levels and Wind Speeds 

4 m/s Wind Speed (10-m height) 8 m/s Wind Speed (10-m height) 

Receptor 

ID 

Background 

Sound 

Levels 

(dBA) 

Turbine 

Sound 

Impact 

(dBA) 

Turbines and 

Background 

Combined 

(dBA) 

Background 

Sound 

Levels 

(dBA) 

Turbine 

Sound 

Impact 

(dBA) 

Turbines and 

Background 

Combined 

(dBA) 

40 27 40 40 29 40 

H1 50 27 50 50 29 50 

60 27 60 60 29 60 

40 44 46 40 46 47 

H2 50 44 51 50 46 52 

60 44 60 60 46 60 

40 32 41 40 34 41 

H3 50 32 50 50 34 50 

60 32 60 60 34 60 

These results show that the change to the background noise levels at the H1 and H3 receptors 

would not be significant across the range of operating wind speeds. However, due to its close 

proximity to the wind turbines, the H2 receptor has the potential to be impacted by sounds from 

the wind turbines, depending on existing background noise conditions. If background sound 

power levels are 40 dBA, the H2 receptor would experience a 6 dBA increase in sound pressure 

level due to the wind turbines, which could be a “noticeable difference” to the homeowner. 

Whether or not this difference is considered an annoyance is subjective. However, if the 

background sound of the wind, diesel power plant, or other community activities is 50 dBA, the 

additional sound from the wind turbines would not be perceptible.