Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnalakleet Wind Farm Permitting Documents 2009Unalakleet Wind Farm Permitting Documents wi | Prepared for: STG, Inc. 11820 So. Gambell Street Anchorage, Alaska 99515 Prepared by: Hattenburg Dilley & Linnell, LLC 3335 Arctic Blvd., Suite 100 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 “J HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL Engineering Consultants Table of Contents 1 Project Description 2 Project Correspondence 3 Permitting SHPO Documents 4 Unalakleet Wind COE Farm (STG) 5 CPQ 6 FAA 7 FWS 8 Additional Information Project Description The community of Unalakleet is located at the mouth of the Unalakleet River, 148 miles southeast of Nome and 395 miles northwest of Anchorage. The population of the community consists of 87.7% Alaska Native or part Native. The local economy is the most active in Norton Sound, along with a traditional Unaligmiut Eskimo subsistence lifestyle. The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) was granted funds by the State of Alaska for renewable energy projects. This project is one of the first to be processed. This project proposes the construction of six Northwind-100 wind turbines on a hill to the north of Unalakleet with a transmission line located to the west side of the road. This line will tie into the existing power line. This location was selected as the preferred turbine location in the Feasibility Study for Unalakleet Wind Energy Project prepared by Global Energy Concepts because of its class 5 wind resource and year-round access is maintained in the immediate vicinity. The majority of the land that will be affected by the wind turbine and transmission line is owned by the local native corporation. There will be no changes to the current land or water use as a result of this project. Wind turbines could offer a much-needed source of renewable electrical energy where fossil fuels are difficult and expensive to deliver. lakleet Wind Farm (STG)\CAD\DRAWINGS\09605—FIGO1—VIC, 1=1, 06/01/09 at 14:58 H:\jobs\09-6( LAYOUT: FIGURe. Arctic Ocean Borrow PROJECT : se LOCATION apoE mS v he So, jethel : anchorage te Dillinghorn Coe / 4 feo PO i - EXISTING BOWER “LINE : ~ HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL Engineering Consultants VICINITY MAP + ENGINEERING STG, INC. + EARTH SCIENCE UNALAKLEET, ALASKA PROJECT MANAGEMENT ae 5/29/09 -_ PLANNING SNE nor To scave [EK 8 rm [208 NO 09-605 Scott Hattenburg, PE ~~ Dilley, PE/CPG — ..$ Linnell, PE David Lundin, PE a De DILLEY & LINNELL Engineering Consultants August 27, 2009 File: 09-605 Clinton White STG, Inc. 11820 South Gambell Street Anchorage, Alaska 99515 RE: Permit Update Unalakleet Wind Power Project Dear Mr. White: The purpose of this letter is to provide you with an update regarding the environmental permitting for the Unalakleet Wind Power Project. At this time all required permits and concurrences have been received with the exception of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) “Determination of No Hazard” for each tower. HDL has prepared a State of Alaska Environmental Checklist to accompany the permits/concurrences for submittal to Alaska Energy Authority to ensure compliance with NEPA requirements on this project. The project has experienced repeated delays during the FAA process. The FAA regulates the building of any structure within proximity to an airstrip. The project site is well within the 5 mile radius requiring a study be performed to determine that it is of no hazard to air traffic. In 2007, a “Determination of No Hazard” was issued for towers on this parcel. These determinations had expired prompting STG to file again. Initially HDL submitted the 7460- 1’s for all six towers using survey data provided by STG. This enabled the FAA to have confidence in the information gathered for this study and allowed for a timely evaluation. Every airport has an Airport Layout Plan identifying the approach surface for each runway. Obstructions cannot penetrate this imaginary surface. This is known as a FAR Part 77. In Unalakleet on the east side of the airport the topography rises quickly. The land on the east side penetrates the FAR Part 77. Due to this, the air traffic pattern is to use the west side to land or take off. When doing the analysis for the tower locations, the FAA found that the towers penetrate the FAR Part 77 because the land they are located on penetrates the airspace. In June 2009, the towers were put out for public notice with the exception of Tower 6. Tower 6 was in the FAR Part 77 but was “Determined to be a Presumed Hazard” to aircraft due to its location in the missed approach plane as well. After discussions with the FAA it was decided to move the location of all 6 towers slightly. Beverly Tulip with the FAA Technical Operations was consulted to find a location to the north that remained on the land parcel but brought all six towers out of the missed approach plane. This keeps the towers in the 3335 Arctic Boulevard Suite 100 , Anchorage Alaska 99503 , Phone: . Fax: 907.564.21 907.564.2120 22 202 W. Elmwood Suite 1 . Palmer Alaska 99645 , Phone: ~ Fax: 907.746.52 Avenue 907.746.5230 31 105 Trading Bay Unit 101 | Kenai Alaska 99611 | Phone: . Fax: 907.564.21 907.283.2051 22 RE: Unalakleet Wind Tower Project August 27, 2009 Page 2 of 3 proper configuration needed to run effectively. The 7460-1’s were then re-submitted for the six locations on June 15, 2009. As of July 8, 2009, seven of the eight required agency responses had been received by the FAA. The agencies are given a 15-day review time for these responses. All eight are necessary for the FAA to put the towers out for the public circularization that was still required due to the FAR Part 77 issue. HDL has been working with Earl Newalu in FAA’s Atlanta, Georgia office. He is the evaluator for all FAA wind related permitting requests for the western United States, including Alaska. In discussing the Unalakleet project, he explained that because the airspace is mandated to be available to the public and the project penetrates this airspace, the FAA is required to circulate these 7460-1 requests to the public. The intent is to find out if a member of the public utilizes this airspace. On August 7, 2009, Mr. Newalu called to advise HDL that he had just received the eighth response from FAA's Airways Facilities office. As a result of this delayed response by this particular office, the 15 day interagency review period took 53 days to complete. Mr. Newalu responded by implementing the next step in the permitting process by putting all six towers out to public circularization that same day. The process is now in a 37-day public review time at the end of which the FAA willhwait five (5) more working days to allow for any public comments that were mailed: on that 37” day to arrive and be input into their system. Mr. Newalu has indicated that he will issue a determination to respond to whatever public comment may come in as soon as possible after this 5" working day. At this time, FAA will issue a declaration based on their internal review and public comments that are received. Another 30-day public petition period begins immediately following the FAA's issuance of a determination during which anyone who objects to the FAA’s decision can state objections. Mr. Newalu said in a phone conversation on June 2, 2009 that aircraft are not able to approach the airport from this area or take off in that direction since the ground penetrates the airspace. Any citizen who responds to this public circulation of the 7460-1’s would have to prove to Mr. Newalu that they utilize this airspace despite the air traffic pattern and the ground elevation in the project area. During the 2007 submittal process, there were no difficulties during this period. Due to the lack of response from the Airways Facility group and the inflexibility of FAA to shorten any of the public process periods, although regulations state that FAA has the authority to do so based on the precedence of prior studies completed at the project site, Senator Murkowski’s office was contacted for assistance in furthering this process. After review of the prior determinations and this specific case, the Senator sent a letter to Mr. J.R. Babbitt, Administrator of the FAA, requesting a “Determination of No Hazard” be issued for this project. A copy of Senator Murkowski’s letter is attached. The 37 —day period for public notice is up on September 18, 2009 and Mr. Newalu has stated that he will issue a “Determination of No Hazard” this same day, provided there are minimal to no public comments that will need to be addressed. HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL s Engineering Consultants RE: Unalakleet Wind Tower Project August 27, 2009 Page 3 of 3 Sincerely, HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL a | eee eee ae Terri Mitchell Environmental Manager Attachment: Letter to Mr. J.R. Babbitt HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL Engineering Consultants LISA MURKOWSKI ALASKA COMMITTEES: ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES an nari Wnited States Senate APPROPRIATIONS: HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, WASHINGTON, DC 20510-0203 (202) 224-6666 510 L Street, Sure 560 Ancnonace, AK 99501-1956 (907) 271-3735 101 127 AVENUE, Room 216 Famaanxs, AK 99701-6278 (907) 466-0233 4073 TONGASS AVENUE, SuITE 204 KETOMKAN, AK 99901-5526 (907) 228-6880 851 East WestPowr Dave, Surte 307 AND PENSIONS (202) 224-6301 FAX August 20, 2009 Wasna, AK 99654-7142 17) 376-7 INDIAN AFFAIRS, (907) 665 Mr. J. R. Babbitt Administrator Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20591-0001 Dear Administrator Babbitt: Iam writing you concerning a request of determination of no hazard to air navigation filed on behalf of the Unalakleet Valley Electric Cooperative. I appreciate your attention to this matter. The Cooperative is in the process of constructing a six turbine wind farm just outside the village of Unalakleet, Alaska. In 2007, the project was granted a determination of no hazard to air navigation. The determination expired before the project could be completed. A new request has been submitted and is currently open for public comment. Nothing is more important than aviation safety, especially in villages like Unalakleet that are not connected to the road system. I am concerned, however, that the current review period will extend beyond the short Alaskan construction season. A delay until next summer would be unfortunate for the people of Unalakleet, as the village is currently dependent on costly diesel fuel to power the community. A renewable energy source could greatly reduce costs for local residents. I respectfully ask that the FAA complete the review process as quickly as possible consistent with all applicable laws, statutes and regulations. Also, please provide me with a brief update on the status of the request. Again, thank you for your time. Sincerely, eee Lisa Murkowski United States Senator HOME PAGE AND WEB MAIL MURKOWSKLSENATE.GOV Unalakleet Wind Turbine Installation BREIFING FOR SENATOR MURKOWSKI’S STAFF July 28, 2009 Project Overview Unalakleet Valley Electric Cooperative (UVEC) is in the process of installing a six turbine project located approximately two miles from the village along the community’s landfill road. The project consists of six NorthWind 100 turbines (100 KW each x 6 = 600 KW total project size) manufactured by Northern Power. The project will be connected to city’s existing distribution system through the installation of a new distribution line which will run from the project site, along the landfill road and eventually connect into an existing FAA distribution line located in proximity to the city’s tank farm. The length of the new line that is currently being installed this summer is approximately 1.5 miles. Fiber optic cables will be installed between the turbines and UVEC’s power house, This communication system will allow operators to both monitor and control the turbines from the Unalakleet powerhouse. Two local technicians traveled to Vermont last month (Northern Power’s headquarters) to learn skills that will allow them to perform basic O/M procedures and semi-annual service routines. This knowledge will support the development of village based skill sets relevant to the project’s ongoing operation. The UVEC wind project is funded through a $4 million grant awarded through the State of Alaska’s Renewable Energy Fund in January 2009, a $1 million contribution from Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation and additional contributions from the Unalakleet Native Corporation. Led by STG Incorporated, the project is scheduled to be operational by the close of 2009 and is supported through the partnership of Alaska’s most experienced wind energy professionals. Problem Our project team is experiencing significant delays due to FAA’s inability to process applications in a timely, and pre-define application timeline. These delays are not only resulting in elevated project costs, but threaten our team’s work to implement the project as proposed during the remainder of Unalakleet’s short construction season. Essentially, FAA’s inability to review submitted project applications in a timely manner will jeopardize our ability to have the project operational this year. If this occurs, the community will incur approximately $300,000 of fuel costs that could have been avoided through the completed wind power installation. Request We believe that our project team has been subjected to unjustified delays from the FAA and request that the Senator’s office consider offering support to this project directly by: 1. Communicating directly with the FAA and other federal agencies responsible for the review of outstanding permit applications. 2. Communicating the impacts these avoidable delays are having on the project team and community of Unalakleet, 3. Communicating with the FAA about the need for an expedited and shortened public review period due to the legacy of approved and existing public review of wind turbines developments for this exact same location. Moreover, the project is located in an area the FAA has itself determined to be a no fly zone due to the existing topography at the site (see Airport Airspace Obstructions map). FAA Permitting Timeline 9/18/2007: FAA “Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation” issued for the installation of a 250’ tall turbine within the boundaries of the project site. The approximate location for this approved location is marked on the map dated 5/1/2009. 2/26/2009: FAA denies request to extend the determination of no hazard and the permit expires one month later. According to internal sources at FAA, extension denials were issued for all unused permits issued by the specific individual who approved the original request. 5/5/2009: Individual permit applications were resubmitted for six turbines at the project site. Each turbine would be 161’ above ground level, approximately 90’ shorter and within 300’ of the site that had received previous approval. The original locations for each of the six towers are noted on the map dated 5/1/2009. 6/4/2009: FAA informs us that the most southern tower is 10’ inside of a particular boundary. FAA determines that objects within the boundary have the potential of causing radio interference (not an air hazard). Application for the sixth tower is denied and the remaining five turbines are approved through internal review. The project team decides to move the entire project approximately 50’ Northwest to maintain better access to prominent winds as opposed to having tower six (the tower that was denied) either doglegged to the other five towers or removed all together. Due to this decision, all permits (even the ones that have been approved) are canceled and prepared for resubmission to the FAA. 6/15/2009: Permits applications for all six towers are resubmitted after they are pre-screened with the office who flagged the last application. Permits enter the internal review period when all federal agencies are given an opportunity to review and state concerns with proposed tower installations (according to FAA this is a 15 work day period). The new locations for all of these towers in on the attached map dated 6/25/2009. The current status of one of the six permits is attached. 7/20/2009: We learn from the FAA that the Air Force has yet to respond to the FAA’s request for a response. Until this is granted, the permitting request cannot be moved into the public review period, a 37 day period constituting the final step of the approval process. The Air Force’s Western Technical Operations Office is responsible for making this submission. FAA Contact Earl P. Newalu Jr. FAA Obstruction Evaluation Services Wind Turbines - Western U.S. Ofc: (404) 305-7082 Supporting Documentation 1. FAA Project Related Declarations 2. Project Maps Scott Hattenburg, PE Lorie Dilley, PE/CPG nnis Linnell, PE avid Lundin, PE wa SN HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL Engineering Consultants June 30, 2009 File: 09-605 Clinton White STG, Inc. 11820 South Gambell Street Anchorage, Alaska 99515 RE: Permit Update Unalakleet Wind Power Project Dear Mr. White: The purpose of this letter is to provide you with an update regarding the environmental permitting for the Unalakleet Wind Power Project. At this time we have consultations ongoing for the following: Threatened and Endangered Species. Consultation is ongoing with the US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), Fairbanks Field Office. Sarah Conn has notified us that we should be receiving a letter from her office this week regarding our project. Cultural and Historical Properties. Initial research into the Alaska Historical Resource Survey (AHRS) did not identify any known cultural or historical properties in the area of this project. Letters to the local and regional tribes have been sent out requesting any knowledge that they may have that is not recorded in the AHRS. They were asked to respond within 30 days of the letter. The 30 day notice expires July 3, 2009. A representative of Kawerak, Inc, Mr. Roy Ashenfelter, called HDL on June 9, 2009 to respond to the letter he had received. He stated that since Kawerak does not keep records that pertain to historical or cultural sites they would not be responding to this request for information. On June 10, 2009 HDL received a letter from the Native Village of Unalakleet stating that there are no sites of traditional, religious, or cultural importance within the Area of Potential Effect as illustrated by the map that we provided. We do not anticipate receiving any further correspondence in this matter. The Alaska Energy Authority can submit a letter to the State Historical Preservation Office requesting their concurrence that “no historical properties will be affected”. This letter will need to come from the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) as the state entity requesting the consultation. The letter is attached for their use. FAA Determination of No Hazard. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates the building of any structure within proximity to an airstrip. The project site is well within the 5 3335 Arctic Boulevard Suite 100 . Anchorage Alaska 99503 . Phone: «Fax: 907,564.21 907.564.2120 22 202 W. Elmwood Suite 1 . Palmer Alaska 99645 | Phone: ~ Fax: 907.746.52 Avenue 907.746.5230 31 105 Trading Bay Unit 101 | Kenai Alaska 99611 | Phone: . Fax: 907,564.21 907.283.2051 22 RE: Unalakleet Wind Tower Project June 30, 2009 Page 2 of 3 mile radius requiring a study be performed to determine that it is of no hazard to air traffic. HDL submitted the 7460-1’s for all six towers using survey data provided by STG. This enabled the FAA to have confidence in the information gathered for this study and allowed for a timely evaluation. Every airport has an Airport Layout Plan (ALP) identifying the approach surface for each runway. Obstructions cannot penetrate this imaginary surface. This is known as a FAR Part 77. In Unalakleet on the east side of the airport the topography rises quickly. The land on the east side penetrates the FAR Part 77. Due to this the air traffic pattern is to use the west side to land or take off. When doing the analysis for the tower locations the FAA found that the towers penetrate the FAR Part 77 because the land they are located on penetrates the airspace. The process to eliminate this concern was begun for Towers 1-5. Tower 6 was in the FAR Part 77 but was “Determined to be a Presumed Hazard” to aircraft due to its location in the missed approach plane as well. After discussions with the FAA it was decided to move the location of all 6 towers slightly. Beverly Tulip with the FAA , Technical Operations was consulted to find a location to the north that remained on the land parcel but brought all six towers out of the missed approach plane. This keeps the towers in the proper configuration needed to run effectively. The 7460-1’s were then re-submitted for the six locations and are now in agency review. Once all the agencies respond to the request for information Mr. Newalu, the evaluator at the FAA’s Atlanta office, will finalize his evaluation on the locations and issue the determinations. Ms Tulip has notified us that she has submitted her review to Mr Newalu. Sincerely, HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL Terri Mitchell Environmental Manager Attachment: Letter requesting SHPO concurrence BDL HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL Engineering Consultants Scott Hattenburg, PE Dilley, PE/CPG L wd Linnell, PE David Lundin, PE % ~}HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL » Engineering Consultants June 2, 2009 File: 09-605 Clinton White STG, Inc. 11820 South Gambell Street Anchorage, Alaska 99515 RE: Permit Update Unalakleet Wind Power Project Dear Mr. White: The purpose of this letter is to provide you with an update regarding the environmental permitting for the Unalakleet Wind Power Project. At this time we have consultations ongoing for the following: Threatened and Endangered Species. Consultation is ongoing with the US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), Fairbanks Field Office. Sarah Conn from that office is looking into any existing telemetry information regarding the flight patterns for the Spectacled eiders. Offshore from Unalakleet is the Eastern Norton Sound Critical Habitat Area. The eiders come in via the coast, molt offshore, then leave via the coast. Eiders typically fly 30-35 feet high according the USFWS. It is highly unlikely that the transmission line or towers will be in the flight path. Cultural and Historical Properties. Initial research into the Alaska Historical Resource Survey (AHRS) did not identify any known cultural or historical properties in the area of this project. Letters to the local and regional tribes have been sent out requesting any knowledge that they may have that is not recorded in the AHRS. Once any responses are received the letter to the State Historical Preservation Office can be submitted for their concurrence that “no historical properties will be affected”. This letter will need to come from the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) as the state entity requesting the consultation. HDL will compile the information necessary and compose the letter that we will provide to AEA for this consultation. FAA Determination of No Hazard. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates the building of any structure within proximity to an airstrip. The project site is well within the 5 mile radius requiring a study be performed to determine that it is of no hazard to air traffic. HDL submitted the 7460-1’s for all six towers using survey data provided by STG. This enabled the FAA to have confidence in the information gathered for this study and allowed for a timely evaluation. Every airport has an Airport Layout Plan (ALP) identifying the approach surface for each runway. Obstructions cannot penetrate this imaginary surface. This is known as a FAR Part 77. In Unalakleet on the east side of the airport the topography rises quickly. The land 3335 Arctic Boulevard Suite 100 . Anchorage Alaska 99503 , Phone: Fax: 907.564.21 907.564.2120 . 22 202 W. Elmwood Suite 1 . Palmer Alaska 99645 | Phone: ~ Fax: 907.746.52 Avenue 907.746.5230 31 105 Trading Bay Unit 101. Kenai Alaska 99611 , Phone: Fax: 907.564.21 907.283.2051 . 22 Scott Hattenburg, PE Dilley, PE/CPG oy wk Linnell, PE David Lundin, PE 4% “\HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL , Engineering Consultants June 2, 2009 File: 09-605 Clinton White STG, Inc. 11820 South Gambell Street Anchorage, Alaska 99515 RE: Permit Update Unalakleet Wind Power Project Dear Mr. White: The purpose of this letter is to provide you with an update regarding the environmental permitting for the Unalakleet Wind Power Project. At this time we have consultations ongoing for the following: Threatened and Endangered Species. Consultation is ongoing with the US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), Fairbanks Field Office. Sarah Conn from that office is looking into any existing telemetry information regarding the flight patterns for the Spectacled eiders. Offshore from Unalakleet is the Eastern Norton Sound Critical Habitat Area. The eiders come in via the coast, molt offshore, then leave via the coast. Eiders typically fly 30-35 feet high according the USFWS. It is highly unlikely that the transmission line or towers will be in the flight path. Cultural and Historical Properties. Initial research into the Alaska Historical Resource Survey (AHRS) did not identify any known cultural or historical properties in the area of this project. Letters to the local and regional tribes have been sent out requesting any knowledge that they may have that is not recorded in the AHRS. Once any responses are received the letter to the State Historical Preservation Office can be submitted for their concurrence that “no historical properties will be affected”. This letter will need to come from the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) as the state entity requesting the consultation. HDL will compile the information necessary and compose the letter that we will provide to AEA for this consultation. FAA Determination of No Hazard. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates the building of any structure within proximity to an airstrip. The project site is well within the 5 mile radius requiring a study be performed to determine that it is of no hazard to air traffic. HDL submitted the 7460-1’s for all six towers using survey data provided by STG. This enabled the FAA to have confidence in the information gathered for this study and allowed for a timely evaluation. Every airport has an Airport Layout Plan (ALP) identifying the approach surface for each runway. Obstructions cannot penetrate this imaginary surface. This is known as a FAR Part 77. In Unalakleet on the east side of the airport the topography rises quickly. The land 3335 Arctic Boulevard Suite 100 . Anchorage Alaska 99503 , Phone: . Fax: 907.564.21 907.564.2120 22 202 W. Elmwood Suite 1 . Palmer Alaska 99645 , Phone: . Fax: 907.746.52 Avenue 907.746.5230 31 105 Trading Bay Unit 101 | Kenai Alaska 99611 , Phone: . Fax: 907.564.21 907.283.2051 22 RE: Unalakleet Wind Tower Project June 2, 2009 Page 2 of 2 on the east side penetrates the FAR Part 77. (See attached ALP Sheet 6). Due to this the air traffic pattern is to use the west side to land or take off. When doing the analysis for the tower locations the FAA found that the towers penetrate the FAR Part 77 because the land they are located on penetrates the airspace. HDL has been working with Earl Newalu in the Atlanta, Georgia office. He is the evaluator for this region. In discussing this project he explained that because the airspace is mandated to be available to the public and the project penetrates this airspace, the FAA is now required to circulate these 7460-1 requests to the public. The intent is to find out if a member of the public utilizes this airspace. He said in a phone conversation on June 2, 2009 that aircraft are not able to approach the airport from this area or take off in that direction since the ground penetrates the airspace. Any citizen who responds to this public circulation of the 7460-1’s would have to prove to Mr. Newalu that they utilize this airspace despite the air traffic pattern and the ground elevation in the project area. It was his thought that it is a matter of procedure to put these out for public review and there would be no concerns brought forward from it. He did mention that he will request lighting for the towers on the end and the one in the middle. Sincerely, HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL UuasBEe: ZZ ACL aa ee Terri Mitchell Environmental Manager Attachment: Unalakleet ALP Sheet 6 Save file, then right-click to update the field below with the file path, move to the bottom of the last page and delete this text Document2 SDL eee DILLEY & LINNELL Engineering Consullants U:\Avi\ TALP\UNALAKLEET\ UNA1—ALP6: 2 \\WANC Ha KS NOTE: REFER TO THE INNER PORTION OF THE APPROACH SURFACE PLAN VIEW DETAILS FOR CLOSE—IN OBSTRUCTIONS. REVISIONS AIRPORT AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTIONS SCALE: 1 INCH = 2000 FT., CONTOUR INTERVAL: 50 FEET MAXIMUM AIRSPACE PENETRATION: 240 FEET MAPPING CONSISTS OF U.S.G.S. QUAD D-4, UNALAKLEET, ALASKA FOUO K-17, KATEEL RIVER MERIDIAN STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES NORTHERN REGION APP Ln Cndie in Littl, oate _ 12/29/05 PATRICIA D. MILLER, P.E. DESIGN GROUP CHIEF bec ma 77 AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN APPROVED BY LETTER pATED:__(/8/2006 John J. Love AIRPORTS OMSION, ALASKAN REGION, AAL—601 AIRSPACE REVIEWS 200SAAL~186NRA\ pee ney tiiiiti APPROACH 26 COMPOSITE PROFILE Hl SERERESECEEEEEES APPROACH 14 COMPOSITE PROFILE Bee # 8 8 8 8 Piiiiiiinih APPROACH 32 COMPOSITE PROFILE UNALAKLEET AIRPORT AIRSPACE AND APPROACH COMPOSITE PROFILES D LATITUDE: 6 LONGITUDE: SCALE: Oe He, i PEAK 450 WIND FARM PRELIMINARY DESIGN STG, INC. 1”=500' DATE: 5/1/2009 Te BRO-UC AOA * * “AIDEN. /=ALASKA (QED ENERGY AUTHORITY AUG 1 1 2009 July 21, 2009 AIDEA RECEIVED Ms. Judith E. Bittner AEA State Historic Preservation Officer QuL 2 2 2003 Alaska Office of History and Archaeology 550 West 7" Ave., Suite 1310 OHA Anchorage, Alaska 99510-3565 Re: Unalakleet Wind Farm Project Initiation of National Historic Preservation Act Consultation pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3 & Finding of No Historic Properties Affected Pursuant to National Historic Preservation Act and 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1) Dear Ms. Bittner, Hattenburg Dilley & Linnell (HDL) is assisting STG, Inc. in the environmental documentation required for the Unalakleet Wind Farm Project. This letter is to provide you with the necessary information needed for your review of the above listed project. | have included a vicinity and project location map that clearly shows the location of our project (Figure 1). For the purposes of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are initiating this consultation and requesting your concurrence of “No Historic Properties Affected” pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3. Tribal consultation was initiated for the project on June 3° 2009 via letters to Unalakleet Native Corporation, Bering Straits Native Corporation, Kawerak, Inc., and the Native Village of Unalakleet A representative of Kawerak, Inc, Mr. Roy Ashenfelter, called HDL on June 9, 2009 to respond to the letter he had received. He stated that since Kawerak does not keep records that pertain to historical or cultural sites they would not be responding to this request for information. On June 10, 2009 HDL received a letter from the Native Village of Unalakleet stating that there are no sites of traditional, religious, or cultural importance within the Area of Potential Effect as illustrated by the map that we provided. The community of Unalakleet is located at the mouth of the Unalakleet River, 148 miles southeast of Nome and 395 miles northwest of Anchorage. The population of the community consists of 87.7% Alaska Native or part Native. The local economy is the most active in Norton Sound, along with a traditional Unaligmiut Eskimo subsistence lifestyle. 813 West Northem Lights Boulevard « Anchorage, Alaska 99503-2495 www.aidea.org ¢ 907/771-3000 ¢ FAX 907/771-3044 « Toll Free (Alaska Only) 888/300-8534 © www.akenergyauthority.org This project proposes the construction of six Northwind-100 wind turbines on a hill to the north of Unalakleet. This location was selected as the preferred turbine location in the Feasibility Study for Unalakleet Wind Energy Project prepared by Global Energy Concepts because of it's class 5 wind resource and year- round access is maintained in the immediate vicinity. The majority of the land that will be affected by the wind turbine and transmission line is owned by the local native corporation. There will be no changes to the current land or water use as a result of this project. Wind turbines could offer a much-needed source of renewable electrical energy where fossil fuels are difficult and expensive to deliver. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) as shown on the attached figure (Figure 2). A search of the Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS) files at the Alaska Office of History and Archaeology (OHA) did not identify any sites located in the project area. Therefore, we are requesting concurrence from the State Historic Preservation Office that “no historic properties would be affected” by the proposed project. If you wish to discuss the project, please contact myself or Terri Mitchell at HDL. Ms. Mitchell can be reached at 907-564-2120 or via e-mail at tmitchell@hdlalaska.com. We respectfully request that you respond within 30 days of your receipt of this correspondence. Your timely response will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, } Ne (Tl to:'> Peonerties Affected ‘TET Alaska State Historie boc. S Date, ¥|4(04 lames Jensen Wind Program Manager Pile No.i% 0-21 fr. DED. Alaska Energy Authority 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 proje stead, the cover letter is being, stamped with “No historic properties affected” and being returned to the applicant. The stamp wil] serve as evidence of consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer 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 If the project design is altered in any way, we will need to review the undertaking again If cultural resources are inadvertently discovered as a result of ground altering activities, work that may disturb these resources should be stopped immediately. The State Historic Preservation Office (907-269-8721) should be consulted regarding significance of the find and appropriate actions to be taken. DATE ##, 2009 Ms. Judith E. Bittner State Historic Preservation Officer Alaska Office of History and Archaeology 550 West 7" Ave., Suite 1310 Anchorage, Alaska 99510-3565 Re: Unalakleet Wind Farm Project Initiation of National Historic Preservation Act Consultation pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3 & Finding of No Historic Properties Affected Pursuant to National Historic Preservation Act and 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1) Dear Ms. Bittner, Hattenburg Dilley & Linnell (HDL) is assisting STG, Inc. in the environmental documentation required for the Unalakleet Wind Farm Project. This letter is to provide you with the necessary information needed for your review of the above listed project. | have included a vicinity and project location map that clearly shows the location of our project (Figure 1). For the purposes of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are initiating this consultation and requesting your concurrence of “No Historic Properties Affected” pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3. Tribal consultation was initiated for the project on June 3” 2009 via letters to Unalakleet Native Corporation, Bering Straits Native Corporation, Kawerak, Inc., and the Native Village of Unalakleet. A representative of Kawerak, Inc, Mr. Roy Ashenfelter, called HDL on June 9, 2009 to respond to the letter he had received. He stated that since Kawerak does not keep records that pertain to historical or cultural sites they would not be responding to this request for information. On June 10, 2009 HDL received a letter from the Native Village of Unalakleet stating that there are no sites of traditional, religious, or cultural importance within the Area of Potential Effect as illustrated by the map that we provided. The community of Unalakleet is located at the mouth of the Unalakleet River, 148 miles southeast of Nome and 395 miles northwest of Anchorage. The population of the community consists of 87.7% Alaska Native or part Native. The local economy is the most active in Norton Sound, along with a traditional Unaligmiut Eskimo subsistence lifestyle. This project proposes the construction of six Northwind-100 wind turbines on a hill to the north of Unalakleet. This location was selected as the preferred turbine location in the Feasibility Study for Unalakleet Wind Energy Project prepared by Global Energy Concepts because of it’s class 5 wind resource and year-round access is maintained in the immediate vicinity. The majority of the land that will be affected by the wind turbine and transmission line is owned by the local native corporation. There will be no changes to the current land or water use as a result of this project. Wind turbines could offer a much-needed source of renewable electrical energy where fossil fuels are difficult and expensive to deliver. The Area of Potential Affect (APE) as shown on the attached figure (Figure 2). A search of the Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS) files at the Alaska Office of History and Archaeology (OHA) did not identify any sites located in the project area. Therefore, we are requesting concurrence from the State Historic Preservation Office that “no historic properties would be affected” by the proposed project. If you wish to discuss the project, | can be reached at 907-564-2120 or via e-mail at tmitchell@hdlalaska.com. We respectfully request that you respond within 30 days of your receipt of this correspondence. Your timely response will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Alaska Energy Authority Attachments: Figure 1 Area Map Figure 2 Area of Potential Effect (APE) Native Village of Unalakleet Box 270 Unalakleet, Alaska 99684 Ph no. 907 624 3622 Fax no. 907 624 3621 Email: wivanoff_unk@yahoo.com June 10, 2009 Hattenburg Dilley and Linnel Terri Mitchell, Environmental Manager 3335 Arctic Boulevard, suite 100 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Re: Unalakleet Wind Farm Project Dear Terri Mitchell: This is in response to your letter dated June 2, 2009 regarding comments from the Native Village of Unalakleet on the environmental documentation required for the Unalakleet Wind Farm Project. In the immediate vicinity of the wind farm and proposed transmission lines located on the west side of the road, as outlined in the map you provided identifying farm and lines, there are no sites of traditional, religious or cultural importance within the Area of Potential Effect. Although berries and willow greens grow alongside the road, subsistence harvesters choose other sites for gathering because of the dust accumulation on the plants from the gravel road. Therefore, there is no negative impact to the people who gather plants for food. Sincer R. Weavef Ivanoff General Manager nip Native Village of Unalakleet 04248007 1053 Pe J o $0.44= = 06/ 10/09 . Mailed From99684", 4 neopost™ E Q oO a a 2 P.O.Box 270 Unalakleet, AK 99684-0270 Hattenburg Dilley and Linnel Terri Mitchell, Environmental Manager HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL 3335 Arctic Boulevard, Suite 100 JUN 11 2009 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 RECEIVED SSCS ho OcebS Hisbsbbossdelslbardssbebbbdilbssscabsdsddalll Serr G13 ey HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL Engineering Consultants June 2, 2009 Unalakleet Native Corporation P.O. Box 100 Unalakleet, AK 98684 Re: Unalakleet Wind Farm Project Initiation of National Historic Preservation Act Consultation pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3 To Whom It May Concern: Hattenburg Dilley & Linnell (HDL) is assisting STG, Incorporated in the environmental documentation required for the Unalakleet Wind Farm Project. This letter is to provide you with the necessary information needed for your review of the above listed project. | have included a vicinity and project location map that clearly shows the location of our project (Figure 1). For purposes of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), we are initiating this consultation pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3 and are seeking input from the Unalakleet Native Corporation in identifying places that may be of traditional, religious or cultural importance. Please note that we are requesting information only on such places that you believe may be within the area of potential affect as shown on Figure 2. We are available to discuss project details and any confidentiality concerns you may have. The community of Unalakleet is located at the mouth of the Unalakleet River, 148 miles southeast of Nome and 395 miles northwest of Anchorage. The population of the community consists of 87.7% Alaska Native or part Native. The local economy is the most active in Norton Sound, along with a traditional Unaligmiut Eskimo subsistence lifestyle. The community is only accessible by air or water and is dependent on diesel fuel for the generation of electricity and as a primary heating source. The proposed system is designed to use wind energy to significantly reduce dependency on diesel fuel used to generate electricity. This project proposes the construction of six Northwind-100 wind turbines on a hill north of Unalakleet with a transmission line located to the west side of the road. This line will tie into the existing power line. This location was selected as the preferred turbine location in the Feasibility Study for Unalakleet Wind Energy Project prepared by Global Energy Concepts because of its class 5 wind resource and because year- round access is maintained in the immediate vicinity (Sanitation Road). Wind turbines could offer a much-needed source of renewable electrical energy where fossil fuels are difficult and expensive to deliver. A search of the Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS) files at the Alaska Office Scott Hattenburg, PE. Of History and Archaeology (OHA) did not identify any sites located on the hill site. We are seeking comments from the Unalakleet Native Corporation on sites of ‘e Dilley, PEICPG traditional, religious or cultural importance within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) nis Linnell, PE David Lundin, PE 3335 Arctic Boulevard Suite 100 + Anchorage Alaska 99503 + Phone: 907.564.2120 + Fax: 907.564.2122. 202 W. Elmwood Avenue Suite 1 * Palmer Alaska 99645 »* Phone: 907.746.5230 © Fax: 907.746.5231 105 Trading Bay Unit 101 * Kenai Alaska 99611 * Phone: 907.283.2051 © Fax: 907.564.2122 RE: Unalakleet Wind Farm Project Date: June 2, 2009 Page 2 of 2 depicted on the attached Figure 2. We respectfully request your comments within 30 days. Please let me know if you have any more questions or need additional information. You may contact me at (907)564-2107, email at tmitchell@hdlalaska.com or FAX at (907)564-2122. We have also sent this request to the Native Village of Unalakleet, Bering Straits Native Corporation, and Kawerak, Incorporated. Sincerely, HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL, LLC DP ytittten Terri L. Mitchell Environmental Manager Attachments HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL Engineering Consultants Arctic Ocean PROJECT r——X, Foirbones LOCATION "jogs Pow 2 athe Me orage Bering Sea Dillinghom Ce > ey aes ee EXISTING POWER ‘LINE aa | ss Radio ~, \CAD\ DRAWINGS\09605~FIGO1=VIC, 1=1, 06/01/09 ot 14:58 by COB (STG) VICINITY MAP STG, INC. UNALAKLEET, ALASKA = 5/29/09 =e FIGURE 1 SCALE: NOT TO SCALE | CHECKED BY: TM }¥08 No. 09-605 H:\jobs\09-605 Unoalakleet Wind Farm LAYOUT: FIGURE 1 DE: 63°54'34.33% DE: —160°46'14.6 LANDFILL ROAD ea AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT. _ "54'26.233 : —160°46'1 UNALAKLEET WIND FARM PROJECT PROJECT LOCATION MAP STG, INC. UNALAKLEET, ALASKA Gaz 5/29/09 secu FIGURE 2 SCALE! NOT TO SCALE ogo 09-605 H:\jobs\09~-605 Unolokleet Wind Form (STG)\CAD\DRAWINGS\09605-FIGO1—VIC, 1=1, 06/01/09 at 14:58 by CDB LAYOUT: FIGURE 2 (2) Sav G13 SOW es DILLEY & LINNELL Engineering Consultants June 2, 2009 Native Village of Unalakleet P.O. Box 270 Unalakleet, AK 98684 Re: Unalakleet Wind Farm Project Initiation of National Historic Preservation Act Consultation pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3 To Whom It May Concern: Hattenburg Dilley & Linnell (HDL) is assisting STG, Incorporated in the environmental documentation required for the Unalakleet Wind Farm Project. This letter is to provide you with the necessary information needed for your review of the above listed project. | have included a vicinity and project location map that clearly shows the location of our project (Figure 1). For purposes of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), we are initiating this consultation pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3 and are seeking input from the Unalakleet Native Corporation in identifying places that may.be of traditional, religious or cultural importance. Please note that we are requesting information only on such places that ) you believe may be within the area of potential affect as shown on Figure 2. We are available to discuss project details and any confidentiality concerns you may have. The community of Unalakleet is located at the mouth of the Unalakleet River, 148 miles southeast of Nome and 395 miles northwest of Anchorage. The population of the community consists of 87.7% Alaska Native or part Native. The local economy is the most active in Norton Sound, along with a traditional Unaligmiut Eskimo subsistence lifestyle. The community is only accessible by air or water and is dependent on diesel fuel for the generation of electricity and as a primary heating source. The proposed system is designed to use wind energy to significantly reduce dependency on diesel fuel used to generate electricity. This project proposes the construction of six Northwind-100 wind turbines on a hill north of Unalakleet with a transmission line located to the west side of the road. This line will tie into the existing power line. This location was selected as the preferred turbine location in the Feasibility Study for Unalakleet Wind Energy Project prepared by Global Energy Concepts because of its class 5 wind resource and because year- round access is maintained in the immediate vicinity (Sanitation Road). Wind turbines could offer a much-needed source of renewable electrical energy where fossil fuels are difficult and expensive to deliver. A search of the Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS) files at the Alaska Office Scott Hattenburg, PE Of History and Archaeology (OHA) did not identify any sites located on the hill site. We are seeking comments from the Native Village of Unalakleet (IRA) on sites of ‘erie Dilley, PEICPG traditional, religious or cultural importance within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) dive Linnell, PE David Lundin, PE 3335 Arctic Boulevard Suite 100 * Anchorage Alaska 99503 * Phone: 907.564.2120 © Fax: 907.564.2122 202 W. Elmwood Avenue Suite 1 * Palmer Alaska 99645 * Phone: 907.746.5230 ¢ Fax: 907.746.5231 105 Trading Bay Unit 101 Kenai Alaska 99611 * Phone: 907.283.2051 © Fax: 907.564.2122 RE: Unalakleet Wind Farm Project Date: June 2, 2009 Page 2 of 2 depicted on the attached Figure 2. We respectfully request your comments within 30 days. Please let me know if you have any more questions or need additional information. You may contact me at (907)564-2107, email at tmitchell@hdlalaska.com or FAX at (907)564-2122. We have also sent this request to the Unalakleet Native Corporation, Bering Straits Native Corporation, and Kawerak, Incorporated. Sincerely, HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL, LLC S Bien Terri L. Mitchell Environmental Manager Attachments BDL HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL Arctic Ocean Borrow Canada PROJECT eNome aN WK, Foirbonks LOCATION Pie ree | 8 a at 5 BS Bethel Anchorage ering Se: Dillinghort Cie a 2 o a 3 s ry nid + 3. 2 S S ~S o 3 Sa eee Z EXISTING POWER LINE LEM = ~~ SS Radio. thin © me: a in UNALAKLEET WIND FARM PROJECT VICINITY MAP + ENGINEERING STG, INC. + EARTH SCIENCE UNALAKLEET, ALASKA + PROJECT MANAGEMENT os spizaraea (Pee | I eter FIGURE 1 «PLANNING SCALE: NOT TO SCALE ee 09-605 Lf )\CAD\\DRAWINGS\09605—FIGO1~VIC, 1=1, H:\jobs\09-605 Unalakleet Wind Farm (' LAYOUT: FIGURE 1 (STG)\CAD\ DRAWINGS\09605—FIGO1—VIC, 1=1, 06/01/09 at 14:58 by COB H:\jobs\09-605 Unalokleet Wind Farm LAYOUT: FIGURE 2 (2) LANDFILL PROPOSED AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT __ PUDE: 63°54'34. 33% TUDE: —160°46'14. : 54'26.2330 ITUDE: —160°461 UNALAKLEET WIND FARM PROJECT PROJECT LOCATION MAP STG, INC. UNALAKLEET, ALASKA 7 SAE ROT 70 scaue [ORS tw [709-605 Sent 613 eure DILLEY & LINNELL ; Engineering Consultants June 2, 2009 Kawerak, Inc. P.O. Box 948 Nome, AK 99762 Re: Unalakleet Wind Farm Project Initiation of National Historic Preservation Act Consultation pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3 To Whom It May Concern: Hattenburg Dilley & Linnell (HDL) is assisting STG, Incorporated in the environmental documentation required for the Unalakleet Wind Farm Project. This letter is to provide you with the necessary information needed for your review of the above listed project. | have included a vicinity and project location map that clearly shows the location of our project (Figure 1). For purposes of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), we are initiating this consultation pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3 and are seeking input from the Unalakleet Native Corporation in identifying places that may.be of traditional, religious or cultural importance. Please note that we are requesting information only on such places that: ) you believe may be within the area of potential affect as shown on Figure 2. We are available to discuss project details and any confidentiality concerns you may have. The community of Unalakleet is located at the mouth of the Unalakleet River, 148 miles southeast of Nome and 395 miles northwest of Anchorage. The population of the community consists of 87.7% Alaska Native or part Native. The local economy is the most active in Norton Sound, along with a traditional Unaligmiut Eskimo subsistence lifestyle. The community is only accessible by air or water and is dependent on diesel fuel for the generation of electricity and as a primary heating source. The proposed system is designed to use wind energy to significantly reduce dependency on diesel fuel used to generate electricity. This project proposes the construction of six Northwind-100 wind turbines on a hill north of Unalakleet with a transmission line located to the west side of the road. This line will tie into the existing power line. This location was selected as the preferred turbine location in the Feasibility Study for Unalakleet Wind Energy Project prepared by Global Energy Concepts because of its class 5 wind resource and because year- round access is maintained in the immediate vicinity (Sanitation Road). Wind turbines could offer a much-needed source of renewable electrical energy where fossil fuels are difficult and expensive to deliver. A search of the Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS) files at the Alaska Office Scott Hattenburg, PE Of History and Archaeology (OHA) did not identify any sites located on the hill site. We are seeking comments from the Kawerak, Inc. on sites of traditional, religious or cultural importance within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) depicted on the attached ee Linnell, PE Figure 2. We respectfully request your comments within 30 days. ! orie Dilley, PE/CPG David Lundin, PE 3335 Arctic Boulevard = Suite 100 * Anchorage Alaska 99503 © Phone: 907.564.2120 © Fax: 907.564.2122 202 W. Elmwood Avenue Suite 1 * Palmer Alaska 99645 »* Phone: 907.746.5230 ¢ Fax: 907.746.5231 105 Trading Bay Unit 101 * Kenai Alaska 99611 © Phone: 907.283.2051 © Fax: 907.564.2122 RE: Unalakleet Wind Farm Project Date: June 2, 2009 Page 2 of 2 Please let me know if you have any more questions or need additional information. You may contact me at (907)564-2107, email at tmitchell@hdlalaska.com or FAX at (907)564-2122. We have also sent this request to the Unalakleet Native Corporation, Native Village of Unalakleet, and Bering Straits Native Corporation. Sincerely, HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL, LLC DZwateel Terri L. Mitchell Environmental Manager Attachments BDL HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL Engineering Consultants Arctic Ocean Borrow PROJECT LOCATION s a BS Bethel lAnchoroge mene ee Dillinghar 06/01/09 ot 14:58 by COB i ( Le Nar A ; Fe ec Ne tery EXISTING’ POWER ‘LINE (— —~ Thos Radio — / hi \\CAD\ DRAWINGS\ 09605-FIGO1—VIC, 1=1, UNALAKLEET WIND FARM PROJECT VICINITY MAP STG, INC. UNALAKLEET, ALASKA 2277 a Ta ERE Nor 10 scaue [rw PET 09-605 H:\jobs\09~-605 Unalakleet Wind Farm (STC LAYOUT: FIGURE 1 F63'54'37.0. : —160°46 PUDE: 63°54'34. 35% DE: —160°46'14.6 LANDFILL OF POTENTIAL EFFECT 53°54’ 26.2335 : —160°46'1 UNALAKLEET WIND FARM PROJECT PROJECT LOCATION MAP STG, INC. UNALAKLEET, ALASKA sik 5/29/09 pula FIGURE 2 SCAE! NOT TO_SCALE pe we 09-605 fi \fobs\o9- 808 Unalakleet Wind. Farm (STG)\CAD\DRAWINGS\09605~FIGO1—VIC, 1=1, 06/01/09 ot 14:58 by CDB LAYOUT: FIGURE 2 (2) Ser O13 HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL Engineering Consultants June 2, 2009 Bering Straits Native Corporation P.O. Box 1008 Nome, AK 99762 Re: Unalakleet Wind Farm Project Initiation of National Historic Preservation Act Consultation pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3 To Whom It May Concern: Hattenburg Dilley & Linnell (HDL) is assisting STG, Incorporated in the environmental documentation required for the Unalakleet Wind Farm Project. This letter is to provide you with the necessary information needed for your review of the above listed project. | have included a vicinity and project location map that clearly shows the location of our project (Figure 1). For purposes of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), we are initiating this consultation pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3 and are seeking input from the Unalakleet Native Corporation in identifying places that may be of traditional, religious or cultural importance. Please note that we are requesting information only on such places that ) you believe may be within the area of potential affect as shown on Figure 2. We are available to discuss project details and any confidentiality concerns you may have. The community of Unalakleet is located at the mouth of the Unalakleet River, 148 miles southeast of Nome and 395 miles northwest of Anchorage. The population of the community consists of 87.7% Alaska Native or part Native. The local economy is the most active in Norton Sound, along with a traditional Unaligmiut Eskimo subsistence lifestyle. The community is only accessible by air or water and is dependent on diesel fuel for the generation of electricity and as a primary heating source. The proposed system is designed to use wind energy to significantly reduce dependency on diesel fuel used to generate electricity. This project proposes the construction of six Northwind-100 wind turbines on a hill north of Unalakleet with a transmission line located to the west side of the road. This line will tie into the existing power line. This location was selected as the preferred turbine location in the Feasibility Study for Unalakleet Wind Energy Project prepared by Global Energy Concepts because of its class 5 wind resource and because year- round access is maintained in the immediate vicinity (Sanitation Road). Wind turbines could offer a much-needed source of renewable electrical energy where fossil fuels are difficult and expensive to deliver. A search of the Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS) files at the Alaska Office Scott Hattenburg, PE Of History and Archaeology (OHA) did not identify any sites located on the hill site. te ee We are seeking comments from the Bering Straits Native Corporation on sites of Us traditional, religious or cultural importance within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) dints Linnell, PE David Lundin, PE 3335 Arctic Boulevard § Suite 100 * Anchorage Alaska 99503 »* Phone: 907.564.2120 © Fax: 907.564.2122 202 W. Elmwood Avenue Suite 1 —* Palmer Alaska 99645 * Phone: 907.746.5230 © Fax: 907.746.5231 105 Trading Bay Unit 101 * Kenai Alaska 99611 »* Phone: 907.283.2051 © Fax: 907.564.2122 RE: Unalakleet Wind Farm Project Date: June 2, 2009 Page 2 of 2 depicted on the attached Figure 2. We respectfully request your comments within 30 days. Please let me know if you have any more questions or need additional information. You may contact me at (907)564-2107, email at tmitchell@hdlalaska.com or FAX at (907)564-2122. We have also sent this request to the Unalakleet Native Corporation, Native Village of Unalakleet, and Kawerak, Incorporated. Sincerely, HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL, LLC DZ tte Terri L. Mitchell Environmental Manager Attachments A aes oy nee, s Engineering Consultants Arctic Ocean Borrow aa PROJECT pee NW ree ee LOCATION ippeal eee ree BS ethel Anchorage eee puingnonl, Se* re Pacific Ocean ma Ue EXISTING’ POWER ‘LINE ~ Tt rr zy Radio ~ CAD\DRAWINGS\09605-FIGO1~—VIC, 1=1, 06/01/09 at 14:58 by CDB Farm (STG)\ UNALAKLEET WIND FARM PROJECT VICINITY MAP STG, INC. UNALAKLEET, ALASKA DONTE 5/29/09 | DRAWN BY. CpB | SHEET: FIGURE 1 SCALE: NOT TO SCALE CHECKED BY. ™M JOB NO. 09-605 H:\jobs\09-805 Unolakleet Wind LAYOUT: FIGURE 1 FUDE: 63°54'34. 33% : —160°46'14.6 LANDFILL ROAD PROPOSED AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT _ 54'26.233% : —160°461 UNALAKLEET WIND FARM PROJECT PROJECT LOCATION MAP STG, INC. UNALAKLEET, ALASKA oe 5/29/09 cee FIGURE 2 ‘SCALE: NOT TO SCALE CHECKED BY: ™ JOB NO.: 09-605 H:\jobs\09-895 Unalakleet Wind Form (STG)\CAD\DRAWINGS\09605-FIGO!—VIC, 11, 06/01/09 at 14:58 by"CbB tANur FIGURE 2 (2) j ai i. y il eg if — DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA REGULATORY DIVISION P.O. BOX 6898 REPLY TO ELMENDORF AFB, ALASKA 99506-0898 ATTENTION OF: Regulatory Division SEP te 2009 POA-2009-747 Ms. Terri Mitchell Hattenburg Dilley & Linnell 3335 Arctic Blvd, Suite 100 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Dear Ms. Mitchell: This letter responds to your request for a Department of the Army (DA) jurisdictional determination for your proposed Unalakleet Wind Farm Project. The project site is located within sections 23 and 26, T. 18 S., R. 11 W., Kateel River Meridian; USGS Quad Map Unalakleet D-4; Latitude 63.9093° N., Longitude -160.7707° W.; 2 miles north of Unalakleet, Alaska. It has been assigned number POA-2009-747, Norton Sound, which should be referred to in all correspondence with us. Based on our review of the information you provided, we have determined the subject property does not contain waters of the United States (U.S.) under Corps jurisdiction. Therefore, a DA permit is not required. This is a Preliminary jurisdictional determination. Please contact us if you decide to alter the method, scope, or location of your proposed activity. Nothing in this letter excuses you from compliance with other Federal, State, or local statutes, ordinances, or regulations. You may contact me via email at robert.w.jobson@usace.army.mil, by mail at the address above, by phone at (907) 753-2787, or toll free from within Alaska at (800) 478-2712, if you have questions. For additional information about our Regulatory Program, visit our web site at www.poa.usace.army.mil/reg. Sincerely, 2 pager 4 — Robert W. Jobson, Jr. Project Manager DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT ALASKA PO BOX 6898 CEPOA-RD ELMENDOREF AFB AK 99506 OFFICIAL BUSINESS 02 1M $ 00.44° Betis BF 0004219174 SEP15 2009 PEASE PAEAM’ MAILED FROM ZIPCODE 99506 MS TERRI MITCHELL HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL 3335 ARCTIC BLVD SUITE 100 ANCHORAGE ALASKA 99503 cal ae ri 2 s* 4 4S VidasdeluccdaDelDssvcedbusbesdeleedssfllsneddeldeeedil aunt ut ei a wd ad ois uel FOL: G DILLEY & LINNELL Engineering Consultants June 30, 2009 Robert Jobson U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch PO Box 898 Anchorage, Alaska 99506-0898 RE: Request for Concurrence Unalakleet Wind Farm Project Dear Mr. Jobson: Hattenburg Dilley & Linnell (HDL) is assisting STG, Inc. in the environmental documentation required for the Unalakleet Wind Farm Project. This letter is to provide you with the necessary information needed for your review of the above listed project. | have included»a-vicinity and project location map that clearly shows the location of our’project (Figure 1). ) The community of Unalakleet is located at the mouth of the Unalakleet River, 148 miles southeast of Nome and 395 miles northwest of Anchorage. The population of the community consists of 87.7% Alaska Native or part Native. The local economy is the most active in Norton Sound, along with a traditional Unaligmiut Eskimo subsistence lifestyle. This project proposes the construction of six Northwind-100 wind turbines on a hill to the north of Unalakleet with a transmission line located to the west side of the existing landfill road. This line will tie into the existing power line. This location was selected as the preferred turbine location in the Feasibility Study for Unalakleet Wind Energy Project prepared by Global Energy Concepts because of its class 5 wind resource and year-round access is maintained in the immediate vicinity. The majority of the land that will be affected by the wind turbine and transmission line is owned by the local native corporation. Wind turbines could offer a much-needed source of renewable electrical energy where fossil fuels are difficult and expensive to deliver. The project site (Figure 2) sits on a ridge that rises to approximately 450 feet above sea level. The parcel the towers will be located on slopes from 394 feet to 425 feet. Soils in the area have been classified as cryaquepts and cryumbrepts according to the test pits dug for the Archaeological Survey of Scott Hattenburg, pe tN Unalakleet Sanitation Road done in 2005. The area has rock outcroppings Leieiiie Pele with shallow soil and thin vegetative cover over bedrock. dee Linnell, PE David Lundin, PE 3335 Arctic Boulevard © Suite 100 * Anchorage Alaska 99603 * Phone: 907.564.2120 © Fax: 907.564.2122 202 W. Eimwood Avenue Suite1 —* Palmer Alaska 99645 * Phone: 907.746.5230 ¢ Fax: 907.746.5231 105 Trading Bay Unit 101 © Kenai Alaska 99611 * Phone: 907.283.2051 »* Fax: 907.564.2122 RE: Unalakleet Wind Farm Project Date: June 30, 2009 Page 2 of 2 Attached are photos illustrating this area as well as figures showing where the photos were taken from. The meterological tower that appears in several is at the proposed project location. We are requesting your concurrence that this area is not wetlands and as such the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers does not have jurisdiction. Site Control. The land proposed for these facilities is owned by the Unalakleet Native Corporation. Construction Schedule. Construction of this project is anticipated to begin fall 2009. | hope that the above information has provided you with enough data to complete your review of the proposed project. Please let me know if you have any more questions or need additional information. You may contact me at (907)564-2107, email at tmit di . or FAX at (907)564- 2122. Sincerely, HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL, LLC ee oe a Terri L. Mitchell Environmental Manager rn Real Yl HATTER Oey aL te Engineering Consultants CAD\ DRAWINGS. 09605-—FIGOI-VIC, tI, 66/01/09 ot 14:58 by COB (ST6)\ H\jobs\0$-605 Unolokleet Wind Farm LAYOUT: FIGURE 7 PROJECT LOCATION % OL HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL ~~ Engineering Consultants — » ENGINEERING + BARTH SCIENCE + PROJECT MANAGEMENT ) POWE} f Bea aN, Nae EXISTING POWER LINE ~ +S Radio—_ VICINITY MAP STG, INC, UNALAKLEET, ALASKA es Beau SCALE: NOT TO SCALE see Mit WIUDE:_ 63°54°30.508 IDE: —160°4612.603" Upemen Vexeno ee PEAK 450 WIND FARM PRELIMINARY DESIGN STG, INC. FievrRe 2 DATE: 6/25/2009 09-605 Unalakleet Wind Farm Photos April ‘09 Photo A: From landfill looking down on site. Photo B: From landfill road looking east. Page | of 4 09-605 Unalakleet Wind Farm Photos April ‘09 Photo C: Taken from elevated ridge where project will stand. Photo D: Intersection on landfill road facing south towards village. Page 2 of 4 09-605 Unalakleet Wind Farm Photos April ‘09 Photo E: Intersection of landfill road facing north towards ation op a em en = ——— ~~ ~ Photo F: From landfill road facing sough — power line on right side of road. Page 3 of 4 09-605 Unalakleet Wind Farm Photos April ‘09 Photo: Tundra Photo A NPP Photo C Ld telcen 3 care | 2 ee By Photo Reference Page 4 of 4 SUATE OF AUNSIN 7 nme sommen DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF COASTAL AND OCEAN MANAGEMENT http://www. alaskacoast. state.ak.us 2 SOUTHCENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE OQ CENTRAL OFFICE @ PIPELINE COORDINATOR'S OFFICE 550 W 7" AVENUE SUITE 705 P.O. Box 111030 411 WEST 4™ AVENUE, SUITE 2C ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811-1030 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 PH: (907) 269-7470 FAX: (907) 269-3981 PH: (907) 465-3562 FAX: (907) 465-3075 PH: (907) 2857-1351 FAX: (907) 272-3829 July 30, 2009 Hattenburg Dilley & Linnell, LLC Attn: Terri Mitchell 3335 Arctic Blvd., Suite 100 Anchorage, AK 99503 For: STG, Inc. Attn: Clinton White 11820 S Gambell Street Anchorage, AK 99515 SUBJECT: ACMP REVIEW NOT REQUIRED AT THIS TIME Unalakleet Wind Farm 1D2009-0735AA Dear Ms. Mitchell: The Division of Coastal & Ocean Management (DCOM) has reviewed the Coastal Project Questionnaire (CPQ) and other pertinent information regarding the above referenced project. 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), because it does not require permits subject to the ACMP. You are not relieved from obtaining required permits and approvals from state, federal or local agencies before you begin the proposed work. Nothing in this letter excuses you from compliance with other statutes, ordinances, or regulations that may affect any proposed work. This decision is ONLY for the proposed project as described. If there are any changes to the proposed project, including its intended use, prior to or during its siting, construction, or operation, contact this office immediately to determine if further review and approval of the revised project is necessary. Thank you for your cooperation with the ACMP. “Develop, Conserve, and Enhance Natural Resources for Present and Future Alaskans.” enc: ce: CPQ, page 1&2 Alexander Wait, DNR/DMLW David Gann, DNR/DCOM Ellen Simpson, ADFG/Habitat Fran Roche, DEC - JNU Frank Maxwell, DNR/DMLW Jeanne Proulx, DNR/DMLW Kellie Westphal, DNR/DMLW Mac McLean, ADFG/Habitat Roselynn Ressa, DNR/DMLW Sean Palmer, DEC - ANC SHPO, DNR/SHPO USACE Regulatory Branch Sincerely, PU We IY Peter Boyer Project Review Coordinator Coastal Project Questionnaire and Certification Statement The Coastal Project Questionnaire (CPQ) is a diagnostic tool that will identify the state and federal permit requirements for your pret that are _— to a consistency review, You must answer all questions. If you answer “Yes” to any of the questions, please g your application. You can find an agency contact list alin at iesiebooleanneee state ak. us/ s/Contacts! PRCregcont.html. A complete project packet includes accurate maps and plan drawings at scales large enough to show details, copies of your state and federal permit applications, your answers to this questionnaire, and a complete consistency evaluation. DCOM will notify you within 21 days of receipt if the packet is incomplete and what information is still required. For additional information or assistance, you may call or email the Juneau Project Review at (907) 465-2142, or the Anchorage Project Review at (907) 269-7478. This CPQ document contains numerous hyperlinks (underlined text that has a connection to an intemet web page) and is best viewed on-line. Additional instructions are available at http://www.alaskacoast.state.ak.us/Projects/pepg. btm @ APPLICANT INFORMATION 1, STG attn: Clinton White 2. Hattenburg Dilley & Linnell, LLC Name of Applicant ai Agent (or responsible party if other than applicant) 11820 So. Gambell Street 3335 Arctic Blvd. Suite 100 Address Address Anchorage, Alaska 99515 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 City/State/Zip City/State/Zip I 7 907-644-4664 907-564-2120 Daytime Phone Daytime Phone 907-644-4666 907-564-2122 _ tmitchell@hdlalaska.com FaxNumber E-mailAddress —(‘ésS™~™S “Fax Number E-mail Address ® PROJECT INFORMATION Yes No 1. This activity is a: [) new project [] modification or addition to an existing project 2. If this is a modification or an addition, do you currently have any State, federal or local approvals for this activity? ta NOTE; Approval means any form of authorization. If "yes," please list below: Approval Type Approval# = Issuance Date ____ Expiration Date 4 | et |} 4 | | | | | | | | 3. If this is a modification, was this sea project | reviewed for consistency with the Alaska Coastal Management Previous ACMP 1D. ‘Number: fexample: AK 0706-0SAA or ID2004-0505JJ) Previous Project Name: : __ Previous Project Applicant: ® PROJECT DESCRIPTION Attach a complete and detailed narrative description of your new project or of your modification/addition including ALL associated facilities and changes to the current land or water use (if not already attached as part of an agency application) Clearly delineate the project boundaries and all property owners, including owners of adjacent land, on the site plan. The scale of the maps and plan drawings must be large enough (o show pertinent details. Identify your proposed footprint or CPQ Revised 8/15/2008 Page 1 of 18 State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management disturbed area. If this project is a modification to an approved project, identify existing facilities and proposed changes on the site plan. Proposed starting date for project: Aug 1, 2009 Proposed ending date for project: July 1, 2010 ® PROJECT LOCATION and LAND OWNERSHIP Yes No 4, Describe/identify the project location on a map (Including nearest community, the name of the nearest land feature or body of water, and other legal description such as a survey or lot number.). Township 018S Range 0ILW Section 23&26 Meridian Kateel River __ Latitude/Longitude 63°54’28"N / 160°46'14” (specify Decimal Degrees or Degrees, Minutes, Seconds) USGS Quad Map Unalakleet D-4 5. The project is located on: (C) State land or water* [7] Federal land) Private land [J Municipal land (Check all that apply) ( Mental Health Trust land ([] University of Alaska land Contact the applicable landowner(s) to obtain necessary authorization. State land ownership can be verified using Alaska Mapper. *State land can be uplands, tidelands or submerged lands to 3 miles offshore. 6. Is the project within or associated with the Trans Alaska Pipeline Corridor? ......:cssssssssssesssssesessassessessnesassnseesssceesnnseceanensens O BW ® COASTAL DISTRICT Yes No 7. Is the project located in a coastal district? .. . & O If yes, identify the applicable coastal district(s) ‘Northwest Bering Straits CRSA and contact ‘them tc to ensure your project conforms with district policies and zoning requirements. Coastal districts are a municipality or borough, home rule or first class city, second class municipality with planning powers, or coastal resource service area. A coastal district is a participant in the State's consistency review process. Early interaction with the district can benefit you significantly; — contact the district representative fisted on the contact list at ®@ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR) APPROVALS . OF MINING, L & WATER- Dd Yes No 1. Is the proposed project on State-owned land or water or will you need to crass State-owned land for access? (NOTE State land includes the land below the ordinary high water line of navigable streams, rivers and lakes, and in marine waters, below the mean high tide line seaward for three miles. Staie land does not include Alaska Mental Health Trust SE MED AE AIMEE ME) oo 5 5 0s vc cownynvcsavons ceed deiaueivertaesyesesseeesisolcuescddey seessses dues 2. If you answered yes to the question above, indicate the person you contacted at the appropriate Division Land and Water regional office for information. a) Name/date of Contact: Paar b) Is an application required for the proposed activily? .........cccccccssesesssssssesseeeesessesssaneessssusesonssnsseneeeeevansssnsesareensenseeee oO Qa c) If“YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed application to the DCOM. If “No”, explain why an application isn’t required, Explanation: DNR DIVISION OF MINING, LAND & WATER- MATERIALS SECTION Yes No 3. Do you plan to dredge or otherwise excavate or remove materials such as rock, sand, gravel, peat, or overburden from any land regardless of ownership? ... i sc tbsgr condo Seep sted suamedersnncaaece inbavcserectensentctans seit ls coeecacaae & a) Location of excavation site if different than the rece site: Township Range Section Meridian _ 4. At any one site (regardless of land ownership), do you plan any of the following? .........cccsssssesesssecessseseernesessnecensasenssneeces O W CD Excavate five or more acres over a year’s time (J Excavate 50,000 cubic yards or more of materials (rock, sand, gravel, soil, peat, overburden, etc.) over a year’s time C Have a cumulative, un-reclaimed, excavated area of five or more acres 5. Do you plan to place fill or excavated material on State-owned land? .......cccceceeennnnneen LD a) Location of fill or material disposal site if different than the project site: Township Range ____ Section ___— Meridian CPQ Revised 8/15/2008 Page 2 of 18 DL DILLEY & LINNELL Engineering Consultants July 20, 2009 Division of Coastal and Ocean Management 550 West 7" Avenue, Suite 705 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 RE: Coastal Project Questionnaire Unalakleet Wind Farm Project To Whom It May Concern: Hattenburg Dilley & Linnell (HDL) is assisting STG, Incorporated in the environmental documentation required for the Unalakleet Wind Farm Project. This letter is to provide you with the necessary information needed for your review of the above listed project. | have included a completed Coastal Project Questionnaire for your review. The community of Unalakleet is located at the mouth of the Unalakleet River, 148 miles southeast of Nome and 395 miles northwest of Anchorage. The population of the community consists of 87.7% Alaska Native or part Native. The local economy is the most active in Norton Sound, along with a traditional Unaligmiut Eskimo ) subsistence lifestyle. The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) was granted funds by the State of Alaska for renewable energy projects. This project is one of the first to be processed. The project proposes the construction of six Northwind-100 wind turbines on a hill to the north of Unalakleet with a transmission line located to the west side of the road. This line will tie into the existing power line. This location was selected as the preferred turbine location in the Feasibility Study for Unalakleet Wind Energy Project prepared by Global Energy Concepts because of its class 5 wind resource and year-round access is maintained in the immediate vicinity. The majority of the land that will be affected by the wind turbine and transmission line is owned by the local native corporation. There will be no changes to the current land or water use as a result of this project. Wind turbines could offer a much-needed source of renewable electrical energy where fossil fuels are difficult and expensive to deliver. | hope that the included information provides you with enough data to complete your review of the proposed project. Please let me know if you have any more questions or need additional information. You may contact me at (907)564-2107, e-mail at tmitchell@hdlalaska.com or FAX at (907)564-2122. Sincerely, HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL, LLC Scott Hattenburg, PE Ss Lorie Dilley, PE/CPG al eer ee aca te| Rel Terri L. Mitchell Dennis Linnell, PE ks Environmental Manager David Lundin, PE 3335 Arctic Boulevard Suite 100 * Anchorage Alaska 99503 ¢ Phone: 907.564.2120 ¢ Fax: 907.564.2122. 202 W. Elmwood Avenue Suite 1 * Palmer Alaska 99645 © Phone: 907.746.5230 ¢ Fax: 907.746.5231 105 Trading Bay Unit 101 * Kenai Alaska 99611 © Phone: 907.283.2051 ¢ Fax: 907.564.2122 State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management — a Coastal Project Questionnaire and Certification Statement The Coastal Project Questionnaire (CPQ) is a diagnostic tool that will identify the state and federal permit requirements for your project that are subject to a consistency review. You must answer all questions. If you answer “Yes” to any of the questions, please call that specific department for further instructions to avoid delay in processing your application. You can find an agency contact list online at http://alaskacoast.state.ak.us/Contacts/PRCregcont.html. A complete project packet includes accurate maps and plan drawings at scales large enough to show details, copies of your state and federal permit applications, your answers to this questionnaire, and a complete consistency evaluation. DCOM will notify you within 21 days of receipt if the packet is incomplete and what information is still required. For additional information or assistance, you may call or email the Juneau Project Review at (907) 465-2142, or the Anchorage Project Review at (907) 269-7478. This CPQ document contains numerous hyperlinks (underlined text that has a connection to an internet web page) and is best viewed on-line. Additional instructions are available at http://www.alaskacoast.state.ak.us/Projects/pcpg.html @ APPLICANT INFORMATION 1. STG attn: Clinton White 2. Hattenburg Dilley & Linnell, LLC Name of Applicant Agent (or responsible party if other than applicant) 11820 So. Gambell Street 3335 Arctic Blvd. Suite 100 Address Address Anchorage, Alaska 99515 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 City/State/Zip City/State/Zip 907-644-4664 907-564-2120 Daytime Phone Daytime Phone 907-644-4666 907-564-2122 tmitchell@hdlalaska.com Fax Number —_ E-mail Address. Fax Number —_ E-mail Address @ PROJECT INFORMATION Yes No 1. This activity is a: new project (] modification or addition to an existing project 2. If this is a modification or an addition, do you currently have any State, federal or local approvals for this activity? oO NOTE: Approval means any form of authorization. If "yes," please list below: Approval Type Approval # Issuance Date Expiration Date 3. If this is a modification, was this original project reviewed for consistency with the Alaska Coastal Management IPrOPYAIN?, soccccsssvereccrasccossereaeeeeess Previous ACMP I.D. Number: __ (example: AK 0706-05AA or ID2004-0505JJ) Previous Project Name: Previous Project Applicant: @ PROJECT DESCRIPTION Attach a complete and detailed narrative description of your new project or of your modification/addition including ALL associated facilities and changes to the current land or water use (if not already attached as part of an agency application). Clearly delineate the project boundaries and all property owners, including owners of adjacent land, on the site plan. The scale of the maps and plan drawings must be large enough to show pertinent details. Identify your proposed footprint or CPQ Revised 8/15/2008 Page 1 of 18 State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management disturbed area. If this project is a modification to an approved project, identify existing facilities and proposed changes on the site plan. Proposed starting date for project: Aug 1, 2009 Proposed ending date for project: July 1, 2010 @ PROJECT LOCATION and LAND OWNERSHIP Yes No 4. Describe/identify the project location on a map (Including nearest community, the name of the nearest land feature or body of water, and other legal description such as a survey or lot number.). Township 018S Range 011W Section 23&26 Meridian Kateel River Latitude/Longitude 63°54’28”N / 160°46°14” (specify Decimal Degrees or Degrees, Minutes, Seconds) USGS Quad Map Unalakleet D-4 5. The project is located on: State land or water* ((] Federal land {XJ Private land [[] Municipal land (Check all that apply) () Mental Health Trust land ([] University of Alaska land Contact the applicable landowner(s) to obtain necessary authorization. State land ownership can be verified using Alaska Mapper. *State land can be uplands, tidelands or submerged lands to 3 miles offshore. 6. Is the project within or associated with the Trans Alaska Pipeline Corridor? ...........:ssssssssssssseesssesesesssecssneecneeeneensees O Ww @ COASTAL DISTRICT Yes No (is the project located in'a coastal Gistei 7, secctssatee scores cceeceaveoreveere rer cee cesar ae rere ete erates eee era e eateries &) If yes, identify the applicable coastal district(s) Northwest —Bering Straits CRSA and contact them to ensure your project conforms with district policies and zoning requirements. Coastal districts are a municipality or borough, home rule or first class city, second class municipality with planning powers, or coastal resource service area. A coastal district is a participant in the State's consistency review process. Early interaction with the district can benefit you significantly; please contact the district representative listed on the contact list at http://www. alaskacoast. state. ak.us/Contacts/PRCregcont.html @ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR) APPROVALS DNR DIVISION OF MINING, LAND & WATER- LAND SECTION Yes No 1. Is the proposed project on State-owned land or water or will you need to cross State-owned land for access? (NOTE: State land includes the land below the ordinary high water line of navigable streams, rivers and lakes, and in marine waters, below the mean high tide line seaward for three miles. State land does not include Alaska Mental Health Trust ame a mR a ia Tid ch pact eteed ep eee ea RS UAE ld po nti om lll rales ei 4] 2. If you answered yes to the question above, indicate the person you contacted at the appropriate Division of Mining, Land and Water regional office for information. a) Name/date of Contact: b) Is an application required for the proposed activity? ...........cccccsssscssesesesecesssesesseenesssescscsussessesesatsnsseseaesnsaeecseseeseneseaeaeeees c) If “YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed application to the DCOM. If “No”, explain why an application isn’t required. Explanation: DNR DIVISION OF MINING, LAND & WATER- MATERIALS SECTION Yes No 3. Do you plan to dredge or otherwise excavate or remove materials such as rock, sand, gravel, peat, or overburden from any land regardless Of Ownership? ttor-.+..sasaceaccercrsereeses cores senceatecucerg sera sgeer erect retoe tee ot rehoasesectetaeeeat cuted eires ea rests eens eeeteeee x] a) Location of excavation site if different than the project site: Township Range Section Meridian 4. At any one site (regardless of land ownership), do you plan any of the following? ...........:.cscccessseeseeesseseeesesencaeseeeseneneene Xx Excavate five or more acres over a year’s time Excavate 50,000 cubic yards or more of materials (rock, sand, gravel, soil, peat, overburden, etc.) over a year’s time [-] Have a cumulative, un-reclaimed, excavated area of five or more acres 5. Do you plan to place fill or excavated material on State-owned land? ..0...........cccesseesseseeeeseee a) Location of fill or material disposal site if different than the project site: Township Range Section Meridian CPQ Revised 8/15/2008 Page 2 of 18 State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management 6. If you answered yes to any question above, indicate the person you contacted at the appropriate Division of Mining, Land and Water regional office for information. a) Name/date of Contact: b) Is an application required for the proposed activity? .........csessssessecessseesesssesseessessecsnsseneenesnsseseeneeaesuesesenseenssnesnsseeneensees oO c) If “YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed application to the DCOM. If “No”, explain why an application isn’t required. Explanation: DNR DIVISION OF MINING, LAND & WATER- MINING SECTION Yes 7. Do you plan to mine for locatable minerals such as silver, gold, or copper? 8. Do you plan to explore for or extract coal 9. If you answered yes to any question above, indicate the person you contacted at the appropriate Division of Mining, Land and Water regional office for information. a) Name/date of Contact: b) Is an application required for the proposed activity? ........ccssssssssssssssesssssssssssssessssesssssesssssssuesesesssnnuussesseceeessnsesseeeeeseannees 0 c) If “YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed application to the DCOM. If “No”, explain why an application isn’t required. Explanation: DNR DIVISION OF MINING, LAND & WATER- WATER SECTION Yes 10. Will this project or development divert, impound, withdraw, or use any fresh water (regardless of land ownership)? (NOTE: If you know of other water users who withdraw from the same source or any potential conflicts affecting this use of water, contact the Water Section. If you are obtaining water exclusively from either an existing Public Water Supply or from a rainwater catchment system, you are not required to contact the DNR Water Section regional office.) ...........00+0000000 a) Check all points-of-withdrawal or water sources that apply: Public Water system (name): C Stream or Lake (name): Well |_} Rain catchment system OO Other: b) Intended use(s) of water: c) Amount (maximum daily, not average, in gallons per day): d) Is the point of water withdrawal on property you own? .......... 11. Do you plan to build or alter a dam (regardless of land ownership)? ... ieee 12. If you answered yes to any question above, indicate the person you contacted at the appropriate Division of Mining. Land and Water regional office for information. a) Name/date of Contact: WW S No iw b) Is an application required for the proposed activity? ........ccccssesesesesesesscecsesesesssescsesnssesrsssscseececscsesesessssesesesasesseeeeeseeesesees c) If “YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed application to the DCOM. If “No”, explain why an application isn’t required. Explanation: DNR DIVISION OF FORESTRY Yes 13. Does your operation meet both of the following criteria on any land, regardless of ownership? a) The project will commercially harvest timber on 10 or more acres, or commercially harvest timber that intersects, encompasses, or borders on surface waters, and b) The project involves one or more of the following: site preparation, thinning, slash treatment, construction and maintenance of roads associated with a commercial timber harvest, or any other activity leading to or connected to a commercial timber harvest operation 14. If you answered yes to any question above, indicate the person you contacted at the appropriate Division of Forestry regional office for information. a) Name/date of Contact: No b) Is an application required for the proposed activity? ... - c) If “YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed application to o the DCOM. Tf “No” "explain why ai an Napplicntion isn’t required. Explanation: CPQ Revised 8/15/2008 Page 3 of 18 State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management DNR DIVISION OF OIL & GAS Yes 15. a) Will you be exploring for or producing oil and/or gas? ..............000eceeeeeeeeseeeeee b) Will you conduct surface use activities on/within an oil and gas lease or unit? . If yes, please specify: 16. Do you plan to drill a geothermal well (regardless of land ownership)? ............0..ccccceeeeeeeeceeceeeeeeeeeeneeeeceeeeeeees 17. If you answered yes to any question above, indicate the person you contacted at the appropriate Division of Oil & Gas office for information. a) Name/date of Contact: b) Is an application required for the proposed activity? .. c) If “YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed application to the DCOM. If “No”, explain why an application isn’t required. Explanation: Visit the Division of Oil & Gas website for application forms and additional information. DNR OFFICE OF HISTORY & ARCHAEOLOGY Yes 18. Will you investigate, remove, or impact historical, archaeological or paleontological resources (anything over 50 years (old) on'State-owned land?) 2.1.1. iotanevasosestomeranencesna se sae awanne Ines se sen neha dab eldinvsises ndeairee tea nite sasetabneeetaaecasoees 19, If you answered yes to the question above, indicate the person you contacted at the State Historic Preservation Office for information. a) Name/date of Contact: DNR DIVISION OF GEOLOGICAL & GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS Yes 20. Is the proposed project located within a natural hazard area designated by a coastal district in the approved district plan? (Refer to the district plan or contact the coastal district Office.) .............ceeecceseeeececeeeecueceecueeeseueaeeeeeeenenes O a) If “yes”, describe the measures you will take in the siting, design, construction, and operation of the proposed activity to protect public safety, services, and the environment from potential damage caused by the designated natural hazard(s) in the Natural Hazards portion of the attached Coastal Consistency Evaluation (11 AAC 112.210). 21. If you have contacted someone, please indicate the person you contacted at the Coastal District or the State for information. The Division of Geological & Geophysical Survey may have additional information on hazards for the area, a) Name/date of Contact: DNR DIVISION OF PARKS & OUTDOOR RECREATION Yes 22. Is the proposed project located in a unit of the Alaska State Park System including navigable waters, tidelands or pubmerged lands|to three miles Offshore 72.1. - cose cve eres scare sees eee ratonersneeserdanenessestsestanarsccacsetcesereoncctseecsce 23. If you answered yes to any question above, indicate the person you contacted at the appropriate DNR Division of Parks & Recreation office for information. a) Name/date of Contact: b) Is an application required for the proposed activity? .................ssscccccsssorsevceceecnsosesccevcecccnsctccaescccsoscoreceses Rk F & No No c) If “YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed application to the DCOM. If‘‘No”, explain why an application isn’t required. Explanation: DNR APPROVALS List the Department of Natural Resources permits or authorizations required for your project below: Types of project approvals or permits needed, ___Date application submitted @ DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (DFG) APPROVALS Yes 1. Is your project located in a designated State Game Refuge, Critical Habitat Area or State Game Sanctuary? ............... CPQ Revised 8/15/2008 Page 4 of 18 State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management 2. Does your project include construction/operation of a salmon hatchery? ... 3. Does your project affect, or is it related to, a previously permitted salmon hatchery? . 4. Does your project include construction of an aquatic farm? .............0.ceeeeeeeeeees ees 5. Will you work in, remove water or material from, or place anything in, a stream, river or lake? (NOTE: This includes work or activities below the ordinary high water mark or on ice, in the active flood plain, on islands, in or on the face of the banks, or, for streams entering or flowing through tidelands, above the level of mean lower low tide. If the proposed project is located within a special flood hazard area, a municipal floodplain development permit may be required. Contact the affected city or borough planning department for additional information and a floodplain determination.) ... a) If yes, name of waterbody: 6. If you answered yes to any questions above, indicate the person you contacted at the appropriate Department of Fish and Game office for information. (For projects involving Hatcheries or Aquatic Farms, please contact the Division of Commercial Fisheries. Other projects should contact the Division of Habitat.) a) Name/date of Contact: b) Is an application required for the proposed activity? .. c) If “YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed application to the DCOM. If “No”, explain why an application isn’t required. Explanation: DFG APPROVALS List the Department of Fish and Game permits or authorizations required for your project below: Types of project approvals or permits needed. Date application submitted @ DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) APPROVALS DEC DIVISION OF WATER 1 a) Will a discharge of non-domestic wastewater to lands, waters, or the subsurface of the state occur? (NOTE: Non- domestic wastewater includes wastewater from commercial or industrial facilities, excavation projects, wastewater from man-made containers or containment areas, or any other non-domestic wastewater disposal activities see 18 AAG 72.990 for depnslions:)\iwccssassuvan sci vyeseesieoescacessdestwssseweeseu sore diavnnira eps esees IRN OMe T PEW PETA ener oecee sence b) Will a discharge of domestic wastewater or septage to lands, waters or the subsurface of the state occur? (see 18 AAC T2990 JO EPRVH ORS): Saves s pope e.0 fa esa tens CUES STs ide dinasot cao vecos+oacctessauessqaesereetetsersqsis ted satel Taras ea eeets c) Will the wastewater disposal activity require a mixing zone or zone of deposit to meet Water Quality Standards (WQS)? (Many disposal activities require a mixing zone to meet WQS, contact DEC if unsure.) ...............c00eeee eens d) Will the project include a stormwater collection/discharge system? ... e) Will the project include placing fill in wetlands? ...............0...0..022 eas aes f) Is the surrounding area inundated with water at any time of the year? ............. 00. cccccececeeeeeceeeueeeeeeeeecseeeueeeness g) Do you intend to construct, install, modify or use any part of a domestic or non-domestic wastewater treatment or disposal: system? !xs....--<co--ca0scsan- soeesescien ery euePsoesmen seach veesta dances ecevmcenvoecs uses uecupevees sPstestaeseeve ose eouaene Sy 2. Does your project qualify for a general permit for wastewater? ...............ccceeceeececeeceeeeeceeceeeeeeeceeeeteeteeees 3. If you answered yes to any questions above, indicate the person you contacted at the DEC-Di n_of Water for information. a) Name/date of Contact: b) Is an application required for the proposed activity? ............:cccccceeeeseceeeseeeeceueseneececeseeaueeseueeeeeueceeueeseen ents c) If “YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed application to the DCOM. If “No”, explain why an application isn’t required. Explanation: CPQ Revised 8/15/2008 Page 5 of 18 O00 Ree O Yes O KW Ww hk wee State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management DEC DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 4 a) Will your project result in construction, modification, or operation of a facility for solid waste disposal? (NOTE: Solid waste means drilling wastes, household garbage, refuse, sludge, construction or demolition wastes, industrial solid waste, asbestos, and other discarded, abandoned, or unwanted solid or semi-solid material, whether or not subject to decomposition, originating from any source. Disposal means placement of solid waste on land.) .......... b) Will your project result in treatment of solid waste at the site? (Examples of treatment methods include, but are not limited to: incineration, open burning, baling, and composting.) .......... c) Will your project result in storage or transfer of solid waste at the site? .. d) Will the project result in storage of more than 50 tons of materials for reuse, recycling, or resource recovery? ..... e) Will any sewage solids or biosolids be disposed of or land-applied to the site? (NOTE: Sewage solids include wastes that have been removed from a wastewater treatment plant system, such as a septic tank lagoon dredge, or wastewater treatment sludge that contain no free liquids. Biosolids are the solid, semi- solid or liquid residues produced during the treatment of domestic septage in a treatment works which are land applied for beneficial use.) .. 5. Will your project require application of oil, pesticides, and/or any other broadcast chemicals? .......................2000008 6. Does your project qualify for a general permit for solid waste? ...............ccccseeceee 7. If you answered yes to any question above, indicate the person you contacted at the DEC- Division of Environmental Health for information. a) Name/date of Contact: b) Is an application required for the proposed activity? ...........scccceceeceuseeececeeeeceeeueeeceeeeeecceeaeeeeueeseeseueeceennane c) If “YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed application to the DCOM. If “No”, explain why an application isn’t required. Explanation: DEC DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY 8 a) Will you have an asphalt plant designed to process no less than five tons per hour of product? ...............ceceeeee eee b) Will you have a thermal remediation unit with a rated capacity of at least five tons per hours of untreated material? .. c) Will you have a rock crusher with a rated capacity of at least five tons per hour? ..............0..s0ececeeeeeeeeeeeeee d) Will you have one or more incinerators with a cumulative rated capacity of 1,000 pounds or more per hour? . e) Will you have a coal preparation plant? .................. f) Will you have a Port of Anchorage stationary source? . a g) Will you have a facility with the potential to emit no less than 100 tons per year of any regulated air contaminant?... h) Will you have a facility with the potential to emit no less than 10 tons per year of any hazardous air contaminant or 25 tons per year of all hazardous air contaminants? i) Will you be constructing a new stationary source with a potential to emit greater than: (CZ 15 tons per year (tpy) of PM-10 CD 40 tpy of nitrogen oxides 40 tpy of sulfur dioxide 0.6 tpy of lead; or 100 tpy of CO within 10 km of a nonattainment area j) Will you be commencing construction, or (if not already authorized under 18 AAC 50) relocating a portable oil and gas operation? (answer “yes” unless you will comply with an existing operating permit developed for the portable oil and gas operation at the permitted location; or you will operate as allowed under AS 46.14.275 without an operating TPCT IAS) Toe r eo doers ae Cec te Care ea CRM U Ue ee wae TES PICE De Stes Sess omiomm osname oS W 5 Soe oes PSUS EDAAW EES TSAOCS AMGNSS EON TIGiitsaTenioeess<s0 k) Will you be commencing construction or (if not already authorized under 18 AAC 50) relocating an emission unit with a rated capacity of 10 million Btu or more per hour in a sulfur dioxide special protection area established under TBYAAC S00 2S Were c ccrom ec cio slac ser deen gies Sua see wa eoaelese ais Peo oIas steele doe ek asinw evar =wienies cede treiee suas dou Sarma eoviews cue ceases 1) Will you be commencing a physical change to or a change in the method of construction of an existing stationary source with a potential to emit an air pollutant greater than an amount listed in g) that will cause for that pollutant an emission increase (calculated at your discretion) as either an increase in potential to emit that is greater than: (2 10 tpy of PM-10 CJ 10 tpy of sulfur dioxide (J 10 tpy of nitrogen oxides; or (2) 100 tpy of CO within 10 km of a nonattainment area; or CPQ Revised 8/15/2008 Page 6 of 18 Yes O Yes O00 OOOOooOo0O BR AWNR RR 4 ) State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management actual emissions and a net emissions increase greater than: () 10 tpy of PM-10 C1 10 tpy of sulfur dioxide (1 10 tpy of nitrogen oxides; or C) 100 tpy of CO within 10 km of a nonattainment area m) Will you be commencing construction or making a major modification of a Prevention of Significant Deterioration stationaty:source wnder:18 AAC 50/306? vccc-csseccscssesscccccccesesccce-asvcedoussecswsaes00 sususs Ss estetuseeo steeaeoccnesdee rere n) Will you be commencing construction or making a major modification of a nonattainment area major stationary source under 18 AAC 50.311?... 0) Will you be commencing construction or reconstructing a major stationary source under 18 AAC 50.316, for hazardous air pollutants? Definition of Regulated Air Pollutants can be found at http://www.epa. gov/ttn/oarpg/t5/memoranda/rapdef.pdf 9. If you answered yes to any questions above, indicate the person you contacted at the DEC- Division of Air Quality for information. a) Name/date of Contact: b) Is an application required for the proposed activity? .............ccccceeccceceeeecenecceeauueeeseeseeecessaueeesseueeceesaueeeeees od c) If “YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed application to the DCOM. If “No”, explain why an application isn’t required. Explanation: bs) DEC DIVISION OF SPILL PREVENTION AND RESPONSE Yes No 10 a) Will your project involve the operation of waterborne tank vessels or oil barges that carry crude or non crude oil as bulk cargo, or the transfer of oil or other petroleum products to or from such a vessel or a pipeline system? .. . &) b) Will your project require or include onshore or offshore oil facilities with an effective aggregate storage capacity ote greater than 5,000 barrels of crude oil or greater than 10,000 barrels of non-crude Oil? .....................0eceeeeeseeeeeees O ®f c) Will you operate facilities on land or water for exploration or production of hydrocarbons? ..................0000eee00000 O Ww 11. If you answered yes to any questions above, indicate the person you contacted at the DEC-Division of Spill Prevention and Response office for information. a) Name/date of Contact: b) Is a plan required for the proposed activity? .............sccccecccceecceecceseceueeeeesecessecsuecueceucessaseaneeeuess oO c) If “YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed Oil Discharge Prevention & Contingency Plan to the DCOM. If “No”, explain why an application isn’t required. Explanation: DEC APPROVALS List the Department of Environmental Conservation permits or authorizations required for your project below: _ Types of plan approvals or permits needed Date application submitted @ FEDERAL APPROVALS U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (USACE) Yes No 1. Will you discharge dredged and/or fill material or perform dredging activities in waters of the U.S? Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires that a Department of the Army permit be obtained for the placement or discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands (33 U.S.C. 1344). (Your application to the USACE would also serve as application for DEC Water Quality Certification.) ........660.ccccceeccvecceeseeseeeeeees & 2. Will you place fill or structures or perform work in waters of the U.S? Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 requires that a Department of the Army permit be obtained for structures or work in or affecting navigable waters of the U.S. (33 U.S.C. 403) (Waters of the U.S. include marine waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, rivers, streams, lakes tributaries, and wetlands. If you are not certain whether your proposed project is located within a wetland, contact the USACE Regulatory Division to request a wetlands determination. For additional information about the Regulatory Program, visit www.pod.usace.arMy.Mil/Feg) ..... 600. ccccseceecesecececcan ene eceeeeeueenes oO &) CPQ Revised 8/15/2008 Page 7 of 18 State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management 3. If you answered yes to the question above, indicate the person you contacted at the US Army Corps of Engineers for information. a) Name/date of Contact: COE letter requesting jurisdictional determination sent 6/30/09 b) Is an application required for the proposed activity? ..............ccccccseeeeececseseeceeececeeceeeeeseeeeceeceeeeeeeuuuaaeneeenes c) If “YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed application to the DCOM. If “No”, explain why an application isn’t required. Explanation: Request is pending but there are no wetlands at the project site. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM) 4. Is the proposed project located on BLM land, or will you need to cross BLM land for access? .............:cseeeeeeeeeeeeees 5. If you answered yes to the question above, indicate the person you contacted at the Bureau of Land Management for information. a) Name/date of Contact: ib) Istan/application required for the proposed activity? <-c00.11--220c0-saechasseceocess sccaacseceastseespeccrssseoosss weeseseone sare c) If “YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed application to the DCOM. If “No”, explain why an application isn’t required. Explanation: U.S. COAST GUARD (USCG) 6 a) Do you plan to construct a bridge or causeway over tidal (ocean) waters, or navigable rivers, streams or lakes? . b) Does your project involve building an access to an island? ................seeceesseseceeeceeeceeeueeeeeeceeeceeeeeneeeees Ere c) Do you plan to site, construct, or operate a deepwater port? .............cccecceceseeeceeceeeceeueeeeeeeeseeceueeeeeeeeceteeees 7. If you answered yes to any question above, indicate the person you contacted at the appropriate US Coast Guard office for information. a) Name/date of Contact: b) Is an application required for the proposed activity? ..............ccseceeeecesseecesnneeeeeeeeeceeeuuueeeeeauueeeeuaeeeauaeeesenee c) If “YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed application to the DCOM. If No”, explain why an application isn’t required. Explanation: U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) 8 a) Will the proposed project have a discharge to any waters? ........... 00. 0ccceseeesceeeeeeceeeeeceaueeeueeeeeeeeueeeueeeeeeeeeeeen ib) Willi vou dispose'Of sewage SIUdG0?: cctrcccccsacs.: cose cab ectacn cut evedesesan nse tsmngravenssecr SOsusserega test tuseeveccreccsceecstes c) Will construction of your project expose 1 or more acres of soil? (NOTE: This applies to the total amount of land disturbed, even if disturbance is distributed over more than one season, and also applies to areas that are part of a larger. common plan'of developmentior SGl€.) ics, cstecuceccostescs cuss sacar ce ocnsestcoaeee cvstea tensor savecnue vremaveeaseeaeeeeeets d) Is your project an industrial facility that will have stormwater discharge directly related to manufacturing, processing, or raw materials storage areas at an industrial plant? If you answered yes to c) or d), your project may require an NPDES Stormwater permit eastrertesea stot conconeotconetetcnntonese scetcal a ighccneusteeasescuseateenau tor tetacus cn tas tneeeae eta Teey 9. If you answered yes to any question above, indicate the person you contacted at the US Environmental Protection Agency for information. a) Name/date of Contact: b) Is an application required for the proposed activity? .. c) If “YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed application to the DCOM. If “No Necoiaia why an application isn’t required. Explanation: A SWPPP will be provided by the contractor. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) 10 a) Is your project located within five miles of any public airport? ............. 0.2.00. ceceeceeeeeeeeeeeee ee b) Will you have a waste discharge that is likely to decay within 5,000 feet of any public airport? .. : 11. If you answered yes to the question above, indicate the person you contacted at the Federal Aviation Administration for information. a) Name/date of Contact: Chris Cody FAA 5/6 CPQ Revised 8/15/2008 Page 8 of 18 O Yes O oO [i] Yes QO Oo & Oo WH 4 B® O Bw O No State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (FERC) 12 a) Does the project include any of the following: ..............ccccccccccecceceeseeeeseeeuseeesesueesseceeteeeseceeeeeeeseeeeeneneees 1) a non-federal hydroelectric project on any navigable body of water 2) locating a hydro project on federal land (including transmission lines) 3) using surplus water from any federal government dam for a hydro project b) Does the project include construction and operation, or abandonment of interstate natural gas pipeline facilities under sections 7 (b) and (c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA)? .........ccccceceeeeeceeeeeeeeceecueeeceeeeeeneceeeaauereeeeaeeees c) Does the project include construction and operation of natural gas or liquefied natural gas importation or exportation facilities under section 3 of the NGA? d) Does the project include construction for physical interconnection of electric transmission facilities under section 202i(b) Of the HRA? mscrcr2.-sccoccocecusveccsvossesscecneatasesseeance:psossevedacnresets ssucsceccancetacessecesrcaccenecnrnscereesenes 13. If you answered yes to any question above, indicate the person you contacted at the appropriate Federal Energy Regulatory Commission office for information. a) Name/date of Contact: b) Is an application required for the proposed activity? .............ccscsececeeeeeeceeeeeeeeceeeeeccesseueceeeeeeeeeeuaeeeesaeees c) If “YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed application to the DCOM. If “No”, explain why an application isn’t required. Explanation: U.S. FOREST SERVICE (USFS) 14 a) Does the proposed project involve construction on USFS land? ...............0eccecceseeeeeceeeeeeeceeeeeeecuaeeeeeeeeeeeeaes b) Does the proposed project involve the crossing of USFS land with a water line? «22.0... ........ cece eeeeceeeeeeneeeeeeneenes c) The current list of Forest Service permits that require ACMP consistency review are online at ) http://alaskacoast.state.ak.us/Clawhome/handbook/pdf/11_ AAC _110.pdf in Article 4, 11 AAC 110.400, pages 28-30. Does your proposed project include any of Forest Service authorizations found on pages 28-30 of the ACMP HANG DOOKT) 5 sxe. 0. cine cs strate ates ss vo ener atsea slow see wees OS WASEE TEES Has ENSURE BE Dee sn colle e selon ais siete oe Wes Hos Ua UNs ese eeeseTOSEAeS 15. If you answered yes to any question above, indicate the person you contacted at United States Forest Service for information. a) Name/date of Contact: b) Is an application required for the proposed activity? .............ccccecccceeeceeceeeeeeeceeeeeeeeeeuseeeeeesseeeseeeuteeeeceneees c) If “YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed application to the DCOM. If “No”, explain why an application isn’t required. Explanation: U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS) 16 a) Is your proposed project on land managed by the USFWS? ............0..cceceecceecceceeeeeeeeeeeeeneeeee b) Does your project require a Right of Way from the USFWS under 50 C.F.R. 29 and 50 C.F.R 36? . 17. If you answered yes to any question above, indicate the person you contacted at the US Fish and Wildlife Service for information. a) Name/date of Contact: b) Is an application required for the proposed activity? ..... c) If“YES” then submit a signed copy of the completed application to the DCOM. If “No”, explain why an application isn’t required. Explanation: __ OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY APPROVALS 18 a) Other Federal agencies with authorizations reviewable under the Alaska Coastal Management Program are posted online at http://alaskacoast.state.ak.us/Clawhome/handbook/pdf/11_AAC 110.pdf in Article 4, 11 AAC 110.400, pages 28-30. Does your proposed project include any of the Federal agency authorizations found on pages 28-30 of thoy ACMP Handbook? ..,..-sccsuessnasesse sees cwecess snc s0r8 605 she csuce onsen ccmsoise ounevensaess ees s¥osWoesssegunsesaesesgeeos 6255 Ovi b) If yes, which federal authorizations? CPQ Revised 8/15/2008 Page 9 of 18 Yes No & O ®f O W & OO Yes No O fw O WwW X & Yes No O fw & Yes No QO State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management 19, Have you applied for any other federal permits or authorizations? .........0..0.cccccccscccccccceceecceseceueeseceeececseesseueeess (fa Agency Approval Type Date Submitted Note: The Coastal Project Questionnaire (CPQ) identifies state and federal permits subject to a consistency review. You may need additional permits from other agencies or the affected city and borough government to proceed with your activity. Attach the documentation requested under the Project Description. ACMP Consistency Evaluation & Certification Statement Pursuant to 11 AAC 110.215 (a)(1)(c), the applicant shall submit an evaluation of how the proposed project is consistent with the statewide standards at 11 AAC 112.200 - 11 AAC 112.990 and with the applicable district enforceable policies, sufficient to support the consistency certification. Evaluate your project against each section of the state standards and applicable district enforceable policies using the template below or by submitting a narrative description in letter or report form. District enforceable policies are available on the ACMP website at http://www.alaskacoast.state.ak.us. Definitions of key terms can be found at: 11 AAC 110.990, 11 AAC 112.990 and 11 AAC 114.990. If you need more space for an adequate explanation of any of the applicable standards, please attach additional pages to the end of this document. Be sure to include references to the specific sections and subsections that you are evaluating. STATEWIDE STANDARDS 11 AAC 112.200. Coastal Development Standard: (a) In planning for and approving development in or adjacent to coastal waters, districts and state agencies shall manage coastal land and water uses in such a manner that those uses that are economically or physically dependent on a coastal location are given higher priority when compared to uses that do not economically or physically require a coastal location. (b) Districts and state agencies shall give, in the following order, priority to (1) water-dependent uses and activities; (2) water-related uses and activities; and (3) uses and activities that are neither water-dependent nor water-related for which there is no practicable inland alternative to meet the public need for the use or activity. (c) The placement of structures and the discharge of dredged or fill material into coastal water must, at a minimum, comply with the standards contained in 33 CFR Parts 320 - 323, revised as of July 1, 2003. Evaluation: (a) How is your project economically or physically dependent on a coastal location? Why are you proposing to place the project at the selected location? The coastal location is the best wind resource and it the preferred turbine location because year-round access is maintained in the immediate vicinity. (b) Evaluation of development priority. (1) How is the proposed project water-dependent? Explain. (2) How is the proposed project water-related? Explain. (3) Ifthe proposed project is neither water-dependent nor water-related, please explain why there is not a practicable inland alternative that meets the public need for the use or activity. Explain. A site further inland would not have the same class of wind and would require extra power line and related electrical components to connect the turbine to the diesel generator. (c) DCOM defers to the United States Corps of Engineers (USACE) to interpret compliance with the referenced standards. If you plan to discharge or fill waters of the US, have you applied to the Corps of Engineers for the appropriate authorization? N/A CPQ Revised 8/15/2008 Page 10 of 18 State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management 11 AAC 112.210. Natural hazard areas. Standard: (a) In addition to those identified in 11 AAC 112.990, the department, or a district in a district plan, may designate other natural processes or adverse conditions that present a threat to life or property in the coastal area as natural hazards. Such designations must provide the scientific basis for designating the natural process or adverse condition as a natural hazard in the coastal area, along with supporting scientific evidence for the designation. (b) Areas likely to be affected by the occurrence of a natural hazard may be designated as natural hazard areas by a state agency or, under 11 AAC 114.250(b), by a district. (c) Development in a natural hazard area may not be found consistent unless the applicant has taken appropriate measures in the siting, design, construction, and operation of the proposed activity to protect public safety, services, and the environment from potential damage caused by known natural hazards. (d) For purposes of (c) of this section, "appropriate measures in the siting, design, construction, and operation of the proposed activity" means those measures that, in the judgment of the coordinating agency, in consultation with the department’s division of geological and geophysical surveys, the Department of Community and Economic Development as state coordinating agency for the National Flood Insurance Program under 44 C.F.R. 60.25, and other local and state agencies with expertise, (1) satisfy relevant codes and safety standards; or (2) in the absence of such codes and standards; (A) the project plans are approved by an engineer who is registered in the state and has engineering experience concerning the specific natural hazard; or (B) the level of risk presented by the design of the project is low and appropriately addressed by the project plans. Evaluation: (a) Describe the natural hazards designated in the district plan as they affect this site. (b) Describe how the proposed project is designed to accommodate the designated hazards. How will you use site design and operate the proposed activity to protect public safety, services and the environment from potential damaged caused by known natural hazards? No known hazards exist that will affect the site. (d)(1) Describe the measures you will take to meet relevant codes and safety standards in the siting, design, construction and operation of the proposed activity. (d)(2)(A) If your project is located in an area without codes and safety standards, how is your project engineered for the specific natural hazard? Give the name of the appropriately qualified registered engineer who will approve the plans for protecting public safety, services, and the environment from damage caused by hazards OR (d)(2)(B) If the level of risk presented by the design of the project is low, how do the project plans and project design address the potential natural hazard? 11 AAC 112.220. Coastal access. Standard: Districts and state agencies shall ensure that projects maintain and, where appropriate, increase public access to, from, and along coastal water. Evaluation: Please explain how the proposed project will maintain and, where appropriate, increase public access to, from and along coastal water. The project will not restrict current access to the coast for any member of the community. 11 AAC 112.230. Energy facilities. Standard: (a) The siting and approval of major energy facilities by districts and state agencies must be based, to the extent practicable, on the following standards: (1) site facilities so as to minimize adverse environmental and social effects while satisfying industrial requirements; Consistency Evaluation 8/15/2008 Page 11 of 18 State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management (2) site facilities so as to be compatible with existing and subsequent adjacent uses and projected community needs; (3) consolidate facilities; (4) consider the concurrent use of facilities for public or economic reasons; (5) cooperate with landowners, developers, and federal agencies in the development of facilities; (6) select sites with sufficient acreage to allow for reasonable expansion of facilities; (7) site facilities where existing infrastructure, including roads, docks, and airstrips, is capable of satisfying industrial requirements; (8) select harbors and shipping routes with least exposure to reefs, shoals, drift ice, and other obstructions; (9) encourage the use of vessel traffic control and collision avoidance systems; (10) select sites where development will require minimal site clearing, dredging, and construction; (11) site facilities so as to minimize the probability, along shipping routes, of spills or other forms of contamination that would affect fishing grounds, spawning grounds, and other biologically productive or vulnerable habitats, including marine mammal rookeries and hauling out grounds and waterfowl nesting areas; (12) site facilities so that design and construction of those facilities and support infrastructures in coastal areas will allow for the free passage and movement of fish and wildlife with due consideration for historic migratory patterns; (13) site facilities so that areas of particular scenic, recreational, environmental, or cultural value, identified in district plans, will be protected; (14) site facilities in areas of least biological productivity, diversity, and vulnerability and where effluents and spills can be controlled or contained; (15) site facilities where winds and air currents disperse airborne emissions that cannot be captured before escape into the atmosphere; (16) site facilities so that associated vessel operations or activities will not result in overcrowded harbors or interfere with fishing operations and equipment. (b) The uses authorized by the issuance of state and federal leases, easements, contracts, rights-of-way, or permits for mineral and petroleum resource extraction are uses of state concern. Evaluation: (a) If this standard applies to your project, please describe in detail how the proposed project is designed to meet each applicable section of this standard: (I)N/A 2) G3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11), (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (b) List the authorizations for state and federal leases, easements, contracts, rights-of-way, water rights, or permits for mineral and petroleum resource extraction you have applied for or received. 11 AAC 112.240. Utility routes and facilities. Standard: (a) Utility routes and facilities must be sited inland from beaches and shorelines unless (1) the route or facility is water-dependent or water related; or Consistency Evaluation 8/15/2008 Page 12 of 18 State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management (2) no practicable inland alternative exists to meet the public need for the route or facility. (b) Utility routes and facilities along the coast must avoid, minimize, or mitigate (1) alterations in surface and ground water drainage patterns; (2) disruption in known or reasonably foreseeable wildlife transit; (3) blockage of existing or traditional access. Evaluation: (a) If the proposed utility route or facility is sited adjacent to beaches or shorelines, explain how the route or facility is water dependent water related or why no practical inland alternative exits. N/A (b) If the proposed utility route or facility is sited along the coast, explain how you will avoid, minimize or mitigate: (1) alterations in surface and ground water drainage patterns; N/A (2) disruption in known or reasonably foreseeable wildlife transit, None. (3) blockage of existing or traditional access. None. 11 AAC 112.250. Timber harvest and processing. Standard: AS 41.17 (Forest Resources and Practices Act) and the regulations adopted under that chapter with respect to the harvest and processing of timber are incorporated into the program and constitute the components of the program with respect to those purposes. Evaluation: Does your activity involve harvesting or processing of timber? Yes NoX If yes, please explain how your proposed project meets the standards of the State Forest Resources and Practices Act. 11 AAC 112.260. Sand and gravel extraction. Standard: Sand and gravel may be extracted from coastal waters, intertidal areas, barrier islands, and spits if there is no practicable alternative to coastal extraction that will meet the public need for the sand or gravel. Evaluation: If your proposed project includes extracting sand or gravel from coastal waters, intertidal areas, barrier islands or spits, please explain why there is no practicable alternative to coastal extraction that meets the public need for sand or gravel. N/A 11 AAC 112.270. Subsistence. Standard: (a) A project within a subsistence use area designated by the department or under 11 AAC 114.250(g) must avoid or minimize impacts to subsistence uses of coastal resources. (b) For a project within a subsistence use area designated under 11 AAC 114.250(g), the applicant shall submit an analysis or evaluation of reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts of the project on subsistence use as part of (1) a consistency review packet submitted under 11 AAC 110.215; and (2) a consistency evaluation under 15 C.F.R. 930.39, 15 C.F.R. 930.58, or 15 C.F.R. 930.76. Consistency Evaluation 8/15/2008 Page 13 of 18 State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management (c) Repealed 10/29//2004, Register 172. (d) Except in nonsubsistence areas identified under AS 16.05.258, the department may, after consultation with the appropriate district, federally recognized Indian tribes, Native corporations, and other appropriate persons or groups, designate areas in which a subsistence use is an important use of coastal resources as demonstrated by local usage. (e) For purposes of this section, "federally recognized Indian tribe," "local usage", and "Native corporation" have the meanings given in 11 AAC 114.990. Evaluation: (a) Is your proposed project located within a subsistence use area designated by a coastal district? Yes X No If yes, please describe how the proposed project is designed to “avoid or minimize impacts to subsistence uses of coastal resources:” No impacts are anticipated to subsistence uses of coastal resources. (b) If your project is located in a subsistence use area designated by the coastal district, provide an analysis or evaluation of its reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts to the subsistence uses. (c) No response required. (d) If your project is not located in a designated subsistence use area, please describe any subsistence uses of coastal resources within the project area. Please be advised that subsistence use areas may be designated by the department during a review. (e) No response required. 11 AAC 112.280. Transportation routes and facilities. Standard: Transportation routes and facilities must avoid, minimize, or mitigate (1) alterations in surface and ground water drainage patterns; (2) disruption in known or reasonably foreseeable wildlife transit; and (3) blockage of existing or traditional access. Evaluation: If your proposed project includes transportation routes or facilities, describe how it avoids, minimizes, or mitigates (1) alterations in surface and ground water drainage patterns; No impact or change to existing drainage is anticipated. (2) disruption in known or reasonably foreseeable wildlife transit; and There will be no reasonably foreseeable disruption in wildlife transit as a result of this project. (3) blockage of existing or traditional access. N/A 11 AAC 112.300. Habitats. Standard: (a) Habitats in the coastal area that are subject to the program are Consistency Evaluation 8/15/2008 Page 14 of 18 State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management (1) offshore areas; (2) estuaries; (3) wetlands; (4) tideflats; (5) rocky islands and sea cliffs; (6) barrier islands and lagoons; (7) exposed high-energy coasts; (8) rivers, streams, and lakes and the active floodplains and riparian management areas of those rivers, streams, and lakes; and (9) important habitat. (b) The following standards apply to the management of the habitats identified in (a) of this section: (1) offshore areas must be managed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant adverse impacts to competing uses such as commercial, recreational, or subsistence fishing, to the extent that those uses are determined to be in competition with the proposed use; (2) estuaries must be managed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant adverse impacts to (A) adequate water flow and natural water circulation patterns; and (B) competing uses such as commercial, recreational, or subsistence fishing, to the extent that those uses are determined to be in competition with the proposed use; (3) wetlands must be managed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant adverse impacts to water flow and natural drainage patterns; (4) tideflats must be managed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant adverse impacts to (A) water flow and natural drainage patterns; and (B) competing uses such as commercial, recreational, or subsistence uses, to the extent that those uses are determined to be in competition with the proposed use; (5) rocky islands and sea cliffs must be managed to (A) avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant adverse impacts to habitat used by coastal species; and (B) avoid the introduction of competing or destructive species and predators; (6) barrier islands and lagoons must be managed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant adverse impacts (A) to flows of sediments and water; (B) from the alteration or redirection of wave energy or marine currents that would lead to the filling in of lagoons or the erosion of barrier islands; and (C) from activities that would decrease the use of barrier islands by coastal species, including polar bears and nesting birds; (7) exposed high-energy coasts must be managed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant adverse impacts (A) to the mix and transport of sediments; and (B) from redirection of transport processes and wave energy; (8) rivers, streams, and lakes must be managed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant adverse impacts to (A) natural water flow; (B) active floodplains; and (C) natural vegetation within riparian management areas; and (9) important habitat (A) designated under 11 AAC 114.250(h) must be managed for the special productivity of the habitat in accordance with district enforceable policies adopted under 11 AAC 114.270(g); or (B) identified under (c)(1)(B) or (C) of this section must be managed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant adverse impacts to the special productivity of the habitat. (c) For purposes of this section, (1) "important habitat" means habitats listed in (a)(1) — (8) of this section and other habitats in the coastal area that are (A) designated under 11 AAC 114.250(h); (B) identified by the department as a habitat (i) the use of which has a direct and significant impact on coastal water; and (ii) that is shown by written scientific evidence to be biologically and significantly productive; or (C) identified as state game refuges, state game sanctuaries, state range areas, or fish and game critical habitat areas under AS 16.20; (2) "riparian management area" means the area along or around a waterbody within the following distances, measured Consistency Evaluation 8/15/2008 Page 15 of 18 State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management from the outermost extent of the ordinary high water mark of the waterbody: (A) for the braided portions of a river or stream, 500 feet on either side of the waterbody; (B) for split channel portions of a river or stream, 200 feet on either side of the waterbody; (C) for single channel portions of a river or stream, 100 feet on either side of the waterbody; (D) for a lake, 100 feet of the waterbody. Evaluation: (a) List the habitats from (a) above that are within your proposed project area or that could be affected by your proposed project. None. (b) Describe how the proposed project avoids, minimizes, or mitigates impacts to each of the identified habitat(s) in section (a) above. (c) No response required. 11 AAC 112.310. Air, land and water quality Standard: Not withstanding any other provision of this chapter, the statutes and regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation with respect to the protection of air, land, and water quality identified in AS 46.40.040(b) are incorporated into the program and, as administered by that department, constitute the exclusive components of the program with respect to those purposes. Evaluation: No response required. 11 AAC 112.320. Historic, prehistoric, and archeological resources. Standard: (a) The department will designate areas of the coastal zone that are important to the study, understanding, or illustration of national, state, or local history or prehistory, including natural processes. (b) A project within an area designated under (a) of this section shall comply with the applicable requirements of AS 41.35.010 — 41.35.240 and 11 AAC 16.010 — 11 AAC 16.900. Evaluation: (a) Have you contacted the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to see if your project is in a designated area of the coastal zone that is important to the study, understanding, or illustration of national, state, or local history or prehistory, including natural processes? No sites found when we checked the AHRS sites - SHPO clearance pending (b) If your project is within an area designated under (a) of this section, how will you comply with the applicable requirements in the statutes and regulations listed in (b)? Consistency Evaluation 8/15/2008 Page 16 of 18 State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management Affected Coastal District Enforceable Policies Evaluate each applicable district enforceable policy using a format similar to the one you completed above for the State Standards. District enforceable policies are available at http://alaskacoast.state.ak.us/. If you need more space for an adequate explanation of any of the applicable district enforceable policies, please attach additional pages to the end of this document. Applicable District Plan(s) Enforceable Policy: Evaluation: Enforceable Policy: Evaluation: Enforceable Policy: Evaluation: Certification Statement The information contained herein is true and complete to the best of my knowledge. | certify that the proposed activity complies with, and will be conducted in a manner consistent with, the Alaska Coastal Management Program. Z 2272740 Yrafe 4 Signature of Applicant or Agent Note: Federal agencies conducting an activity that will affect the coastal zone are required to submit a federal consistency determination, per 15 CFR 930, Subpart C, rather than this certification statement. ACMP has developed a guide to assist federal agencies with this requirement. Contact ACMP to obtain a copy. This certification statement will not be complete until all required State and federal authorization requests have been submitted to the appropriate agencies. Consistency Evaluation 8/15/2008 Page 17 of 18 State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management Project Description: Please provide or attach a brief description of your project including the planned work, any effects to coastal uses and resources and how your project is being designed to avoid, minimize and mitigate those effects. The community of Unalakleet is located at the mouth of the Unalakleet River, 148 miles southeast of Nome and 395 miles northwest of Anchorage. The population of the community consists of 87.7% Alaska Native or part Native. The local economy is the most active in Norton Sound, along with a traditional Unaligmiut Eskimo subsistence lifestyle. This project proposes the construction of six Northwind-100 wind turbines on a hill to the north of Unalakleet with a transmission line located to the west side of the road. This line will tie into the existing power line. This location was selected as the preferred turbine location in the Feasibility Study for Unalakleet Wind Energy Project prepared by Global Energy Concepts because of its class 5 wind resource and year-round access is maintained in the immediate vicinity. The majority of the land that will be affected by the wind turbine and transmission line is owned by the local native corporation. There will be no changes to the current land or water use as a result of this project. Wind turbines could offer a much-needed source of renewable electrical energy where fossil fuels are difficult and expensive to deliver. Project Area: Please provide or attach a map of your project location and your proposed work. (Including nearest community, the name of the nearest land feature or body of water, and other legal description such as a survey or lot number.) Nearest Community: Unalakleet Nearest Waterbody: Kouwegok Slough/Norton Sound Legal Survey Description: Not Available Consistency Evaluation 8/15/2008 Page 18 of 18 Site Maps PROJECT LOCATION v whi ~ EXISTING Mower URE a ry (STG)\CAD\DRAWINGS\09605-FIGO1-VIC, 1=1, 06/01/09 at 14:58 by COB UNALAKLEET WIND FARM PROJECT VICINITY MAP STG, INC. UNALAKLEET, ALASKA mE ——“Frayos FRE Nor To scaue [PEE tw PE 09-605 H:\jobs\09-605 Unalokleet Wind Farm LAYOUT: FIGURE 1 * *., ewe ee meray A y ( ODE: 63°54'351908" NGITUDE: ~160346'12.603 ROUND ELEVATION = 408 | (ATITUDE: 6354'33.209" LONGITUDE: _=160°46'12.603' GROUND ELEVATION, = 408 ATUDE: 63°54'30.508 : -160°46'12.60. VATION = 409° . 63 "809% tl —160°46'12.603' GROUND ELEVATION = 394° oe oeke ke as hf a (| _ (| a ( s_ ( eS el PEAK 450 WIND FARM PRELIMINARY DESIGN STG, INC. SCALE: 1"=500' DATE: 6/25/2009 Agency Contact Engineering Consultants June 2, 2009 Bering Straits Native Corporation P.O. Box 1008 Nome, AK 99762 Re: Unalakleet Wind Farm Project Initiation of National Historic Preservation Act Consultation pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3 To Whom It May Concern: Hattenburg Dilley & Linnell (HDL) is assisting STG, Incorporated in the environmental documentation required for the Unalakleet Wind Farm Project. This letter is to provide you with the necessary information needed for your review of the above listed project. | have included a vicinity and project location map that clearly shows the location of our project (Figure 1). For purposes of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), we are initiating this consultation pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3 and are seeking input from the Unalakleet Native Corporation in identifying places that may be of traditional, religious or cultural importance. Please note that we are requesting information only on such places that you believe may be within the area of potential affect as shown on Figure 2. We are available to discuss project details and any confidentiality concerns you may have. The community of Unalakleet is located at the mouth of the Unalakleet River, 148 miles southeast of Nome and 395 miles northwest of Anchorage. The population of the community consists of 87.7% Alaska Native or part Native. The local economy is the most active in Norton Sound, along with a traditional Unaligmiut Eskimo subsistence lifestyle. The community is only accessible by air or water and is dependent on diesel fuel for the generation of electricity and as a primary heating source. The proposed system is designed to use wind energy to significantly reduce dependency on diesel fuel used to generate electricity. This project proposes the construction of six Northwind-100 wind turbines on a hill north of Unalakleet with a transmission line located to the west side of the road. This line will tie into the existing power line. This location was selected as the preferred turbine location in the Feasibility Study for Unalakleet Wind Energy Project prepared by Global Energy Concepts because of its class 5 wind resource and because year- round access is maintained in the immediate vicinity (Sanitation Road). Wind turbines could offer a much-needed source of renewable electrical energy where fossil fuels are difficult and expensive to deliver. A search of the Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS) files at the Alaska Office Scott Hattenburg, PE Of History and Archaeology (OHA) did not identify any sites located on the hill site. We are seeking comments from the Bering Straits Native Corporation on sites of Lorie Dilley, PE/CPG traditional, religious or cultural importance within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) Dennis Linnell, PE David Lundin, PE 3335 Arctic Boulevard Suite 100 * Anchorage Alaska 99503 ° Phone: 907.564.2120 © Fax: 907.564.2122 202 W. Elmwood Avenue Suite 1 * Palmer Alaska 99645 © Phone: 907.746.5230 © Fax: 907.746.5231 105 Trading Bay Unit 101 + Kenai Alaska 99611 © Phone: 907.283.2051 » Fax: 907.564.2122 RE: Unalakleet Wind Farm Project Date: June 2, 2009 Page 2 of 2 depicted on the attached Figure 2. We respectfully request your comments within 30 days. Please let me know if you have any more questions or need additional information. You may contact me at (907)564-2107, email at tmitchell@hdlalaska.com or FAX at (907)564-2122. We have also sent this request to the Unalakleet Native Corporation, Native Village of Unalakleet, and Kawerak, Incorporated. Sincerely, HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL, LLC DZ te” Terri L. Mitchell Environmental Manager Attachments CAMP AERO A ARAN RAR mR AT TAT TE RO ANA Re eA \ HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL Engineering Consullanis PROJECT LOCATION Q as a TH Al a '. _ A ese NW ie. ie ef IN (STG)\CAD\ DRAWINGS\09605-FIGO1—VIC, 1=1, 06/01/09 at 14:58 by COB HDD TTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL UNALAKLEET WIND FARM PROJECT ~~ Engineering Consultants _ VICINITY MAP - ENGINEERING STG, INC. + EARTH SCIENCE UNALAKLEET, ALASKA DATE 5/29/09 |ORAWN BY: cog {SHEET FIGURE 1 wwinwiiekocom [SCE WOT TO SCALE | CHECKED BY ride eos S 09-605 H:\jobs\09-605 Unolakleet Wind Form LAYOUT: FIGURE 1 “\HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL ; Engineering Consultants June 30, 2009 Robert Jobson U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch PO Box 898 Anchorage, Alaska 99506-0898 RE: Request for Concurrence Unalakleet Wind Farm Project Dear Mr. Jobson: Hattenburg Dilley & Linnell (HDL) is assisting STG, Inc. in the environmental documentation required for the Unalakleet Wind Farm Project. This letter is to provide you with the necessary information needed for your review of the above listed project. | have included a vicinity and project location map that clearly shows the location of our project (Figure 1). The community of Unalakleet is located at the mouth of the Unalakleet River, 148 miles southeast of Nome and 395 miles northwest of Anchorage. The population of the community consists of 87.7% Alaska Native or part Native. The local economy is the most active in Norton Sound, along with a traditional Unaligmiut Eskimo subsistence lifestyle. This project proposes the construction of six Northwind-100 wind turbines on a hill to the north of Unalakleet with a transmission line located to the west side of the existing landfill road. This line will tie into the existing power line. This location was selected as the preferred turbine location in the Feasibility Study for Unalakleet Wind Energy Project prepared by Global Energy Concepts because of its class 5 wind resource and year-round access is maintained in the immediate vicinity. The majority of the land that will be affected by the wind turbine and transmission line is owned by the local native corporation. Wind turbines could offer a much-needed source of renewable electrical energy where fossil fuels are difficult and expensive to deliver. The project site (Figure 2) sits on a ridge that rises to approximately 450 feet above sea level. The parcel the towers will be located on slopes from 394 feet to 425 feet. Soils in the area have been classified as cryaquepts and cryumbrepts according to the test pits dug for the Archaeological Survey of Scout Hattenburg, pe Ne Unalakleet Sanitation Road done in 2005. The area has rock outcroppings . ae with shallow soil and thin vegetative cover over bedrock. orie Dilley, PEs Cennis Linnell, PE Cavid Lundin, PE 3335 Arctic Boulevard Suite 100 * Anchorage Alaska 99503 + Phone: 907.564.2120 * Fax: 907.564.2122 202 W. Elmwocd Avenue Suite 1 * Pelmer Alaska 99645 * Phone: 907.746.5230 ¢ Fax: 907.746.6231 105 Trading Bay Unit 101 * Kenai Alaska 99611 + Phone: 907.283.2051 © Fax: 907.564.2122 RE; Unalakleet Wind Farm Project Date: June 30, 2009 Page 2 of 2 Attached are photos illustrating this area as well as figures showing where the photos were taken from. The meterctogical tower that appears in several is at the proposed project location. We are requesting your concurrence that this area is not wetlands and as such the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers does not have jurisdiction. Site Control. The land proposed for these facilities is owned by the Unalakleet Native Corporation. Construction Schedule. Construction of this project is anticipated to begin fall 2009. | hope that the above information has provided you with enough data to complete your review of the proposed project. Please let me know if you have any more questions or need additional information. You may contact me at (907)564-2107, email at tmitchell@hdlalaska.com or FAX at (907)564- 2122. Sincerely, HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL, LLC DF PEG ae Terri L. Mitchell Environmental Manager ~e \ HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL Engineering Corsunanis PROJECT LOCATION & poe en \y ee EXISTING POWER LINE ~ 0 Radio ~ z z= ¢ ; % é 8 7 ¥ ; 4 8 2 8 6 Z & g 9 g 5 Form VICINITY MAP STG, INC. UNALAKLEET, ALASKA snmaage Pa waraomanacom [SC NOT TO SCALE 108 NO 09-605 S Unoiokieet Wind oo Sew ae * t PEAK 450 WIND FARM PRELIMINARY DESIGN STG, INC. FiewrRe 2 DATE: 6/25/2009 09-605 Unalakleet Wind Farm Photos April ‘09 a iM / a Photo B: From landfill road looking east. Page | of 4 09-605 Unalakleet Wind Farm Photos April ‘09 Photo C: Taken from elevated ridge where project will stand, Photo D: Intersection on landfill road facing south towards village. Page 2 of 4 09-605 Unalakleet Wind Farm Photos April ‘09 Photo E: Intersection of landfill road facing north towards ime ~ ~ Photo F: From landfill road facing sough — power line on right side of road. Page 3 of 4 09-605 Unalakleet Wind Farm Photos April ‘09 Photo: Tundra Lg | Video A sips a Photo B Photo Reference Page 4 of 4 Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration - Off Airport ) | of 2 https://oeaaa. faa. gov/oeaaa/external/eFiling/locationAction.jsp?action... Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration - Off Airport | Project Name: STG-000121710-09 Structure Wind Turbine 6 Work In Progress 2009-WTW-3429-OE Wind Turbine 5 Work In Progress 2009-WTW-3428-OE Wind Turbine 1 Work In Progress 2009-WTW-3424-OE Wind Turbine 3 Work In Progress 2009-WTW-3426-OE Wind Turbine 2 Work In Progress 2009-WTW-3425-OE Wind Turbine 4 Work In Progress 2009-WTW-3427-0F Sponsor: STG Project Summary : STG-000121710-09 City, State Unalakleet, AK Unalakleet, AK Unalakleet, AK Unalakleet, AK Unalakleet, AK Unalakleet, AK Lat/Long 63° 54' 27.80" N 160° 46' 12.60" W 63° 54' 30.50" N 160° 46' 12.60" W 63° 54' 41.31" N 160° 46' 12.60" W 63° 54' 35.90" N 160° 46' 12.60" W 63° 54' 38.61" N 160° 46' 12.60" W 63° 54' 33.20" N 160° 46' 12.60" W Gg Show Map gG Show Map Gg Show Map Actions Create Fax Cover Upload a PDF Create Fax Cover Upload a PDF Create Fax Cover Upload a PDF Create Fax Cover Upload a PDF Create Fax Cover Upload a PDF Create Fax Cover Upload a PDF Latest Letter 7/20/2009 10:36 AM Sapp) arena eva Lie 5 Engineering Consultants June 3, 2009 Ted Swem Branch Chief, Endangered Species U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Fairbanks Field Office 101 12" Avenue, Room 110 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Initiation of Section 7 Consultation Unalakleet Wind Farm Project Unalakleet, Alaska Hattenburg Dilley & Linnell (HDL) is providing professional environmental services to STG for the Unalakleet Wind Farm Project. This letter is to provide you with the necessary information needed for your review of the above listed project. | have included a vicinity and project location map that clearly shows the location of our project (Figure 1). The community of Unalakleet is located at the mouth of the Unalakleet River, 148 miles southeast of Nome and 395 miles northwest of Anchorage. The population of the community consists of 87.7% Alaska Native or part Native. The local economy is the most active in Norton Sound, along with a traditional Unaligmiut Eskimo subsistence lifestyle. This project proposes the construction of six Northwind-100 wind turbines on a hill to the north of Unalakleet with a transmission line located to the west side of the road. This line will tie into the existing power line. This location was selected as the preferred turbine location in the Feasibility Study for Unalakleet Wind Energy Project prepared by Global Energy Concepts because of it’s class 5 wind resource and year-round access is maintained in the immediate vicinity. The majority of the land that will be affected by the wind turbine and transmission line is owned by the local native corporation. Wind turbines could offer a much-needed source of renewable electrical energy where fossil fuels are difficult and expensive to deliver. Scott Hattenburg, PE. Spectacled eiders are found in the project area. Unalakleet is adjacent to the Eastern Norton Sound Critical Habitat Unit molting area. The road that the transmission line would parallel follows the topography up a hill to the rise which is approximately 429 feet in elevation. Assuming David Lundin, PE 3335 Arctic Boulevard Suite 100° Lorie Dilley, PE/CPG Dennis Linnell, PE * Anchorage Alaska 99503 ~ Phone: 907.564.2120 © Fax: 907.564.2122 202 W. Elmwood Avenue Suite 1 * Palmer Alaska 99645 Phone: 907.746.5230 © Fax: 907.746.5231 105 Trading Bay Unit 101 * Kenai Alaska 99611 Phone: 907.283.2051 © Fax: 907.564.2122 RE: Unalakleet Wind Farm Project Date: June 3, 2009 Page 2 of 2 the eiders generally remain near the molting area and follow the coastline to arrive and depart the area it is our understanding that this project will have minimal effect on them. It is our opinion that the proposed Unalakleet Wind Farm Project is “not likely’ to impact endangered species. We are seeking your concurrence. If you have any additional questions or concerns about these proposed projects please let me know. You may contact me at (907)564-2127, or FAX at (907)564-2122, or e-mail at tmitchell@hdlalaska.com. We look forward to your review and response. Sincerely, HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL, LLC BZ Terri Mitchell Environmental Manager ee Attachments: Figure 1 Figure 2 ceeereeantrerenesinin nee Pe A - SEE HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL Engineering Consultants PROJECT LOCATION % 2 8 B 8 = 3 g S$ = 8 2 g S i 8 @ » 3 8 eo z 3 5 z 8 2 + ENGINEERING + EARTH SCIENCE *» PROJECT MANAGEMENT H:\jobs\09-605 Unalakleet Wind Farm LAYOUT: FIGURE 1 ) \CAD\ DRAWINGS\09605-FIGO!—VIC, 1=1, 06/01/09 at 14:58 by COB H:\jobs\09-605 Unalakieet Wind Farm (STG) LAYOUT: FIGURE 2 (2) DE: 63°54'39.73N 4 BE: -160'46'14)618" 63°54'37. 0397 \ E: —160°46'14.616 LANDFILL / } "54'S1.633" ROAD LATITUDE: 63°5 LONGITUDE: —160 ~~ LATITUDE OS'S428.933" LONGITUDE: —160;46'14.616 UDEW63'54'26.2337" INGITUDE: —160°46'149616 POD" DILLEY & LINNELL UNALAKLEET WIND FARM PROJECT Engineering Consultants PROJECT LOCATION MAP STG, INC. UNALAKLEET, ALASKA FAA History e 9/25/09 7460-2 Part Il completed w/survey e 9/21/09 Determined o Determination of No Hazard (DNH) for all 6 e 8/07/09 Moved to Circularization e 6/15/09 New Cases Accepted e 6/10/09 New Tower Locations Chosen (moved ~60’ NE) e 6/15/09 All Aeronautical Studies Terminated e 6/5/09 Circularization o NPH for all except #6 e 6/2/09 Determined o Notice of Presumed Hazard (NPH) for all 6 towers e 5/5/09 Cases Accepted FAA 2-C SURVEY CERTIFICATION Applicant: STG, Inc. 11820 S. Gambell St. Anchorage, Alaska 99515 Site Name: Unalakleet Wind Farm Site Location: Aeronautical Study Unalakleet, Alaska Numbers: 2009-WTW-3424-OE, 2009-WTW-3425-OE, 2009-WTW-3426-OE, 2009- WTW-3427-OE, 2009-WTW-3428-OE, 2009-WTW-3429-OE Horizontal Datum Source (select all that apply): (] Ground survey [GPS survey EXJNAD 83 NAD 27 Vertical Datum Source (select all that apply): (JGround survey [J GPS survey ] NAVD 88 (J NAVD (J NGVD 29 Structure Type (select one): &] New Tower [J Existing Tower [Roof Top Water Tank (CD Smokestack (Other (describe): oe Unalakleet Wind Tower Locations: Finish Grade Max Structure . , Tower Elevation (ft) Elevation (ft) Latitude Longitude | ft 425 586 63° 54’ 41.31" 160° 46' 12.60" 2 419 580 63° 54' 38.61" 160° 46' 12.60" | 3 408 569 63° 54' 35.90" 160° 46' 12.60" 4 408 569 63° 54' 33.20" 160° 46' 12.60" 5 409 570 63° 54’ 30.50" 160° 46' 12.60" 6 394 555 63° 54’ 27.80" 160° 46' 12.60" | Tower locations are shown on the attached drawing. CERTIFICATION: | certify that the latitudes and longitudes presented in the above table are accurate to within +/- 50 feet horizontally, and that fhe site elevations presented in the above table are accurate to within +/- 20 feet vertically. The horizontal datum (coordinates) are based on the NAD83 Datum and are expressed in degrees, minutes and seconds to the nearest hundredth of a second. The vertical datum (elevations) are based on the NAVD88 Datum and are determined to the nearest foot. Surveyor Signature/Seal: Printed Name: Paul D. Farmer Professional Surveyor Number: 10192 Company: STG, Inc. Phone: 907 522-9012 Date: 9/25/2009 Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Study No. Air Traffic Airspace Branch, ASW-520 2009-WTW-3424-OE 2601 Meacham Blvd. Fort Worth, TX 76137-0520 Issued Date: 09/21/2009 Clinton White STG 11820 So. Gambell Street Anchorage, AK 99515 ** 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 Wind Turbine | Location: Unalakleet, AK Latitude: 63-54-41.31N NAD 83 Longitude: 160-46-12.60W Heights: 161 feet above ground level (AGL) 586 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 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 09/21/2011 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 | of 4 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 October 21, 2009. 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 October 31, 2009 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). If we can be of further assistance, please contact Earl Newalu, at (404) 305-7082. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2009-WTW-3424-OE. Signature Control No: 638274-118787791 ( DNH -WT ) Sheri Edgett-Baron Acting Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Service ) Attachment(s) Page 2 of 4 Additional Information Page 3 of 4 Additional information for ASN 2009-WTW-3424-OE ‘ Proposal: To construct a(n) Wind Turbine to a height of 161 feet above ground level, 586 feet above mean sea ' evel. Location: The structure will be located 1.62 nautical miles northeast of UNK Airport reference point. Part 77 Obstruction Standard(s) Exceeded: Section 77.23 (a) (5) a height that affects an Airport Surface by penetrating Section 77.25 (a) Horizontal Surface by 415 feet as applied to UNK. Details of the proposed structure were circularized for public comment. There were no letters of objection received during the comment period. The proposed structure proximity to the airport was considered and found to be acceptable. The impact on arrival, departure and en route procedures for aircraft operating under VFR/IFR conditions at existing and planned public use and military airports, as well as aeronautical facilities, was considered during the analysis of this structure. The aeronautical study disclosed that the structure, at a height of 586 feet above mean sea level (AMSL), would have no adverse effect upon any terminal or en route instrument procedure or altitude. The cumulative impact (IFR/VFR) resulting for the structure, when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed structures was considered and found to be acceptable Therefore, it is determined that the proposed structure would not have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any navigation facility and would not be a hazard to air navigation. MIMNTEND OF COMMENTS //////// Page 4 of 4 Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Study No. Air Traffic Airspace Branch, ASW-520 2009-WTW-3425-OE 2601 Meacham Blvd. Fort Worth, TX 76137-0520 Issued Date: 09/21/2009 Clinton White STG 11820 So. Gambell Street Anchorage, AK 99515 ** 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 Wind Turbine 2 Location: Unalakleet, AK Latitude: 63-54-38.61N NAD 83 Longitude: 160-46-12.60W Heights: 161 feet above ground level (AGL) 580 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 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 09/21/2011 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 1 of 4 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 October 21, 2009. 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 October 31, 2009 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 , tegulation 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). If we can be of further assistance, please contact Earl Newalu, at (404) 305-7082. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2009-WTW-3425-OE. Signature Control No: 638275-118787865 (DNH -WT ) Sheri Edgett-Baron Acting Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Service ) Attachment(s) Page 2 of 4 Additional Information Page 3 of 4 Additional information for ASN 2009-WTW-3425-OE ’ Proposal: To construct a(n) Wind Turbine to a height of 161 feet above ground level, 580 feet above mean sea level. Location: The structure will be located 1.58 nautical miles northeast of UNK Airport reference point. Part 77 Obstruction Standard(s) Exceeded: Section 77.23 (a) (5) a height that affects an Airport Surface by penetrating Section 77.25 (a) Horizontal Surface by 409 feet as applied to UNK. Details of the proposed structure were circularized for public comment. There were no letters of objection received during the comment period. The proposed structure proximity to the airport was considered and found to be acceptable. The impact on arrival, departure and en route procedures for aircraft operating under VFR/IFR conditions at existing and planned public use and military airports, as well as aeronautical facilities, was considered during the analysis of this structure. The aeronautical study disclosed that the structure, at a height of 580 feet above mean sea level (AMSL), would have no adverse effect upon any terminal or en route instrument procedure or altitude. The cumulative impact (IFR/VFR) resulting for the structure, when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed structures was considered and found to be acceptable Therefore, it is determined that the proposed structure would not have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any navigation facility and would not be a hazard to air navigation. /MMNTEND OF COMMENTS //////// Page 4 of 4 Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Study No. Air Traffic Airspace Branch, ASW-520 2009-WTW-3426-OE 2601 Meacham Blvd. Fort Worth, TX 76137-0520 Issued Date: 09/21/2009 Clinton White STG 11820 So. Gambell Street Anchorage, AK 99515 ** 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 Wind Turbine 3 Location: Unalakleet, AK Latitude: 63-54-35.90N NAD 83 Longitude: 160-46-12.60W Heights: 161 feet above ground level (AGL) 569 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 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 09/21/2011 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 1 of 4 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 October 21, 2009. 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 October 31, 2009 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). If we can be of further assistance, please contact Earl Newalu, at (404) 305-7082. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2009-WTW-3426-OE. Signature Control No: 638276-118787975 (DNH -WT ) Sheri Edgett-Baron Acting Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Service Attachment(s) Page 2 of 4 Additional Information Page 3 of 4 Additional information for ASN 2009-WTW-3426-OE Proposal: To construct a(n) Wind Turbine to a height of 161 feet above ground level, 569 feet above mean sea level. Location: The structure will be located 1.55 nautical miles northeast of UNK Airport reference point. Part 77 Obstruction Standard(s) Exceeded: Section 77.23 (a) (5) a height that affects an Airport Surface by penetrating Section 77.25 (a) Horizontal Surface by 398 feet as applied to UNK. Details of the proposed structure were circularized for public comment. There were no letters of objection received during the comment period. The proposed structure proximity to the airport was considered and found to be acceptable. The impact on arrival, departure and en route procedures for aircraft operating under VFR/IFR conditions at existing and planned public use and military airports, as well as aeronautical facilities, was considered during the analysis of this structure. The aeronautical study disclosed that the structure, at a height of 569 feet above mean sea level (AMSL), would have no adverse effect upon any terminal or en route instrument procedure or altitude. The cumulative impact (IFR/VFR) resulting for the structure, when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed structures was considered and found to be acceptable Therefore, it is determined that the proposed structure would not have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any navigation facility and would not be a hazard to air navigation. /IMI/TEND OF COMMENTS//////// Page 4 of 4 Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Study No. Air Traffic Airspace Branch, ASW-5S20 2009-WTW-3427-OE 2601 Meacham Blvd. Fort Worth, TX 76137-0520 Issued Date: 09/21/2009 Clinton White STG 11820 So. Gambell Street Anchorage, AK 99515 ** 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 Wind Turbine 4 Location: Unalakleet, AK Latitude: 63-54-33.20N NAD 83 Longitude: 160-46-12.60W Heights: 161 feet above ground level (AGL) 569 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 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 09/21/2011 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 1 of 4 ) 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 October 21, 2009. 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 October 31, 2009 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). If we can be of further assistance, please contact Earl Newalu, at (404) 305-7082. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2009-WTW-3427-OE. Signature Control No: 638277-118788058 (DNH -WT ) Sheri Edgett-Baron Acting Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Service Attachment(s) Page 2 of 4 Additional Information Page 3 of 4 Additional information for ASN 2009-WTW-3427-OE Proposal: To construct a(n) Wind Turbine to a height of 161 feet above ground level, 569 feet above mean sea level. Location: The structure will be located 1.51 nautical miles northeast of UNK Airport reference point. Part 77 Obstruction Standard(s) Exceeded: Section 77.23 (a) (5) a height that affects an Airport Surface by penetrating Section 77.25 (a) Horizontal Surface by 398 feet as applied to UNK. Details of the proposed structure were circularized for public comment. There were no letters of objection received during the comment period. The proposed structure proximity to the airport was considered and found to be acceptable. The impact on arrival, departure and en route procedures for aircraft operating under VFR/IFR conditions at existing and planned public use and military airports, as well as aeronautical facilities, was considered during the analysis of this structure. The aeronautical study disclosed that the structure, at a height of 569 feet above mean sea level (AMSL), would have no adverse effect upon any terminal or en route instrument procedure or altitude. The cumulative impact (IFR/VFR) resulting for the structure, when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed structures was considered and found to be acceptable Therefore, it is determined that the proposed structure would not have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any navigation facility and would not be a hazard to air navigation. MINNTEND OF COMMENTS //////// Page 4 of 4 Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Study No. Air Traffic Airspace Branch, ASW-520 2009-WT W-3428-OE 2601 Meacham Blvd. Fort Worth, TX 76137-0520 Issued Date: 09/21/2009 Clinton White STG 11820 So. Gambell Street Anchorage, AK 99515 ** 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 Wind Turbine 5 Location: Unalakleet, AK Latitude: 63-54-30.50N NAD 83 Longitude: 160-46-12.60W Heights: 161 feet above ground level (AGL) 570 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 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 09/21/2011 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 1 of 4 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 October 21, 2009. 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 October 31, 2009 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). If we can be of further assistance, please contact Earl Newalu, at (404) 305-7082. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2009-WTW-3428-OE. Signature Control No: 638278-118788140 ( DNH -WT ) Sheri Edgett-Baron Acting Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Service Attachment(s) Page 2 of 4 Additional Information Page 3 of 4 Additional information for ASN 2009-WTW-3428-OE Proposal: To construct a(n) Wind Turbine to a height of 161 feet above ground level, 570 feet above mean sea level. Location: The structure will be located 1.47 nautical miles northeast of UNK Airport reference point. Part 77 Obstruction Standard(s) Exceeded: Section 77.23 (a) (5) a height that affects an Airport Surface by penetrating Section 77.25 (a) Horizontal Surface by 399 feet as applied to UNK. Details of the proposed structure were circularized for public comment. There were no letters of objection received during the comment period. The proposed structure proximity to the airport was considered and found to be acceptable. The impact on arrival, departure and en route procedures for aircraft operating under VFR/IFR conditions at existing and planned public use and military airports, as well as aeronautical facilities, was considered during the analysis of this structure. The aeronautical study disclosed that the structure, at a height of 570 feet above mean sea level (AMSL), would have no adverse effect upon any terminal or en route instrument procedure or altitude. The cumulative impact (IFR/VFR) resulting for the structure, when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed structures was considered and found to be acceptable Therefore, it is determined that the proposed structure would not have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any navigation facility and would not be a hazard to air navigation. MIMMNITEND OF COMMENTS //////// Page 4 of 4 Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Study No. Air Traffic Airspace Branch, ASW-520 2009-WTW-3429-OE 2601 Meacham Blvd. Fort Worth, TX 76137-0520 Issued Date: 09/21/2009 Clinton White STG 11820 So. Gambell Street Anchorage, AK 99515 ** 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 Wind Turbine 6 Location: Unalakleet, AK Latitude: 63-54-27.80N NAD 83 Longitude: 160-46-12.60W Heights: 161 feet above ground level (AGL) 555 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 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 1) __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 09/21/2011 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 | of 4 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 October 21, 2009. 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 October 31, 2009 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). If we can be of further assistance, please contact Earl Newalu, at (404) 305-7082. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2009-WTW-3429-OE. Signature Control No: 638279-118788263 (DNH -WT ) Sheri Edgett-Baron Acting Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Service Attachment(s) Page 2 of 4 Additional Information Page 3 of 4 Additional information for ASN 2009-WTW-3429-OE Proposal: To construct a(n) Wind Turbine to a height of 161 feet above ground level, 555 feet above mean sea level. Location: The structure will be located 1.43 nautical miles northeast of UNK Airport reference point. Part 77 Obstruction Standard(s) Exceeded: Section 77.23 (a) (5) a height that affects an Airport Surface by penetrating Section 77.25 (a) Horizontal Surface by 384 feet as applied to UNK. Details of the proposed structure were circularized for public comment. There were no letters of objection received during the comment period. The proposed structure proximity to the airport was considered and found to be acceptable. The impact on arrival, departure and en route procedures for aircraft operating under VFR/IFR conditions at existing and planned public use and military airports, as well as aeronautical facilities, was considered during the analysis of this structure. The aeronautical study disclosed that the structure, at a height of 555 feet above mean sea level (AMSL), would have no adverse effect upon any terminal or en route instrument procedure or altitude. The cumulative impact (IFR/VFR) resulting for the structure, when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed structures was considered and found to be acceptable Therefore, it is determined that the proposed structure would not have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any navigation facility and would not be a hazard to air navigation. MHIITEND OF COMMENTS//////// Page 4 of 4 Ht Om, yy ** * ® * * ® + ae 6¥54'33.209" ’ 0°46'12.603” ATI S LONGITUDE: —160°46'12. ROUND ELEVATION = PEAK 450 WIND_FARM PRELIMINARY DESIGN STG, INC. DATE: 6/25/2009 DOT CL MONUMENT GPS#1 N 63°54’53.76246” W 160°46’00.88905” NAD 83 ELEV=437.95° Pym |LATITUDE: 63°54°41.311" Wf. LONGITUDE: -160°46'12.604" Hf, GROUND ELEVATION = 425' Mg (LATITUDE: 63°54'38.610" ONGITUDE: —160°46'12.603” ROUND ELEVATION = 408' fe | LONGITUDE: _—160°46'12.603" LATITUDE: 63°54'33.209" LONGITUDE: —160°46'12.603” ROUND ELEVATION = 408° ES SALATITUDE: 63°54'30.508" S Re —160°46'12.603 QUND ELEVATION = 409 ceed FEE EGU OS FLFo Wi | SS ) :_—160* fs pide Grovel SSSS$ GROUND ELEVATION = 394" \ PEAK 450 WIND FARM PRELIMINARY DESIGN STG, INC. SCALE: —_1"=500" DATE: 6/25/2009 Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Study No. Air Traffic Airspace Branch, ASW-520 2009-WTW-3424-OE 2601 Meacham Blvd. Fort Worth, TX 76137-0520 Issued Date: 08/07/2009 Clinton White STG 11820 So. Gambell Street Anchorage, AK 99515 ** PUBLIC NOTICE ** The Federal Aviation Administration is conducting an aeronautical study concerning the following: Structure: Wind Turbine Wind Turbine 1 Location: Unalakleet, AK Latitude: 63-54-41.31N NAD 83 Longitude: 160-46-12.60W Heights: 161 feet above ground level (AGL) 586 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) The structure above exceeds obstruction standards. To determine its effect upon the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and on the operation of air navigation facilities, the FAA is conducting 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. ** SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ** In the study, consideration will be given to all facts relevant to the effect of the structure on existing and planned airspace use, air navigation facilities, airports, aircraft operations, procedures and minimum flight altitudes, and the air traffic control system. Interested persons are invited to participate in the aeronautical study by submitting comments to the above FAA address or through the electronic notification system. To be eligible for consideration, comments must be relevant to the effect the structure would have on aviation, must provide sufficient detail to permit a clear understanding, must contain the aeronautical study number printed in the upper right hand corner of this notice, and must be received on or before 09/13/2009. This notice may be reproduced and circulated by any interested person. Airport managers are encouraged to post this notice. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (404) 305-7082. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2009-WTW-3424-OE. Page | of S Signature Control No: 638274-117609171 (CIR -WT ) Earl Newalu Specialist Attachment(s) Part 77 Additional Information Map(s) Page 2 of 5 Additional Information for ASN 2009-WTW-3424-OE Proposal: To construct a(n) Wind Turbine to a height of 161 feet above ground level, 586 feet above mean sea level. Location: The structure will be located 1.62 nautical miles northeast of UNK Airport reference point. Part 77 Obstruction Standard(s) Exceeded: Section 77.23 (a) (5) a height that affects an Airport Surface by penetrating Section 77.25 (a) Horizontal Surface by 415 feet as applied to UNK. Page 3 of 5 Additional information for ASN 2009-WTW-3424-OE The terrain itself penetrates the horizontal surface at this location. The proposal exceeds by it's entire proposed height. Page 4 of 5 Map for ASN 2009-WTW-3424-OE Page 5 of 5 Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Study No. Air Traffic Airspace Branch, ASW-520 2009-WTW-3425-OE 2601 Meacham Blvd. Fort Worth, TX 76137-0520 Issued Date: 08/07/2009 Clinton White STG 11820 So. Gambell Street Anchorage, AK 99515 ** PUBLIC NOTICE ** The Federal Aviation Administration is conducting an aeronautical study concerning the following: Structure: Wind Turbine Wind Turbine 2 Location: Unalakleet, AK Latitude: 63-54-38.61N NAD 83 Longitude: 160-46-12.60W Heights: 161 feet above ground level (AGL) 580 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) The structure above exceeds obstruction standards. To determine its effect upon the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and on the operation of air navigation facilities, the FAA is conducting 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. ** SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ** In the study, consideration will be given to all facts relevant to the effect of the structure on existing and planned airspace use, air navigation facilities, airports, aircraft operations, procedures and minimum flight altitudes, and the air traffic control system. Interested persons are invited to participate in the aeronautical study by submitting comments to the above FAA address or through the electronic notification system. To be eligible for consideration, comments must be relevant to the effect the structure would have on aviation, must provide sufficient detail to permit a clear understanding, must contain the aeronautical study number printed in the upper right hand corner of this notice, and must be received on or before 09/13/2009. This notice may be reproduced and circulated by any interested person. Airport managers are encouraged to post this notice. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (404) 305-7082. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2009-WTW-3425-OE. Page 1 of 5 Signature Control No: 638275-117609396 (CIR -WT ) Earl Newalu Specialist Attachment(s) Part 77 Additional Information Map(s) Page 2 of 5 Additional Information for ASN 2009-WTW-3425-OE Proposal: To construct a(n) Wind Turbine to a height of 161 feet above ground level, 580 feet above mean sea level. Location: The structure will be located 1.58 nautical miles northeast of UNK Airport reference point. Part 77 Obstruction Standard(s) Exceeded: Section 77.23 (a) (5) a height that affects an Airport Surface by penetrating Section 77.25 (a) Horizontal Surface by 409 feet as applied to UNK. Page 3 of 5 Additional information for ASN 2009-WTW-3425-OE The terrain itself penetrates the horizontal surface at this location. The proposal exceeds by it's entire proposed height. Page 4 of 5 Map for ASN 2009-WTW-3425-OE We : \a AS Es | Page 5 of 5 Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Study No. Air Traffic Airspace Branch, ASW-520 2009-WTW-3426-OE 2601 Meacham Blvd. Fort Worth, TX 76137-0520 Issued Date: 08/07/2009 Clinton White STG 11820 So. Gambell Street Anchorage, AK 99515 ** PUBLIC NOTICE ** The Federal Aviation Administration is conducting an aeronautical study concerning the following: Structure: Wind Turbine Wind Turbine 3 Location: Unalakleet, AK Latitude: 63-54-35.90N NAD 83 Longitude: 160-46-12.60W Heights: 161 feet above ground level (AGL) 569 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) The structure above exceeds obstruction standards. To determine its effect upon the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and on the operation of air navigation facilities, the FAA is conducting 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. ** SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ** In the study, consideration will be given to all facts relevant to the effect of the structure on existing and planned airspace use, air navigation facilities, airports, aircraft operations, procedures and minimum flight altitudes, and the air traffic control system. Interested persons are invited to participate in the aeronautical study by submitting comments to the above FAA address or through the electronic notification system. To be eligible for consideration, comments must be relevant to the effect the structure would have on aviation, must provide sufficient detail to permit a clear understanding, must contain the aeronautical study number printed in the upper right hand corner of this notice, and must be received on or before 09/13/2009. This notice may be reproduced and circulated by any interested person. Airport managers are encouraged to post this notice. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (404) 305-7082. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2009-WTW-3426-OE. Page | of 5 Signature Control No: 638276-117609600 (CIR -WT ) Earl Newalu Specialist Attachment(s) Part 77 Additional Information Map(s) Page 2 of 5 Additional Information for ASN 2009-WTW-3426-OE Proposal: To construct a(n) Wind Turbine to a height of 161 feet above ground level, 569 feet above mean sea level. Location: The structure will be located 1.55 nautical miles northeast of UNK Airport reference point. Part 77 Obstruction Standard(s) Exceeded: Section 77.23 (a) (5) a height that affects an Airport Surface by penetrating Section 77.25 (a) Horizontal Surface by 398 feet as applied to UNK. Page 3 of 5 Additional information for ASN 2009-WTW-3426-OE The terrain itself penetrates the horizontal surface at this location. The proposal exceeds by it's entire proposed height. Page 4 of 5 Map for ASN 2009-WTW-3426-OE Page 5 of 5 Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Study No. Air Traffic Airspace Branch, ASW-520 2009-WTW-3427-OE 2601 Meacham Blvd. Fort Worth, TX 76137-0520 Issued Date: 08/07/2009 Clinton White STG 11820 So. Gambell Street Anchorage, AK 99515 ** PUBLIC NOTICE ** The Federal Aviation Administration is conducting an aeronautical study concerning the following: Structure: Wind Turbine Wind Turbine 4 Location: Unalakleet, AK Latitude: 63-54-33.20N NAD 83 Longitude: 160-46-12.60W Heights: 161 feet above ground level (AGL) 569 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) The structure above exceeds obstruction standards. To determine its effect upon the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and on the operation of air navigation facilities, the FAA is conducting 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. ** SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ** In the study, consideration will be given to all facts relevant to the effect of the structure on existing and planned airspace use, air navigation facilities, airports, aircraft operations, procedures and minimum flight altitudes, and the air traffic control system. Interested persons are invited to participate in the aeronautical study by submitting comments to the above FAA address or through the electronic notification system. To be eligible for consideration, comments must be relevant to the effect the structure would have on aviation, must provide sufficient detail to permit a clear understanding, must contain the aeronautical study number printed in the upper right hand corner of this notice, and must be received on or before 09/13/2009. This notice may be reproduced and circulated by any interested person. Airport managers are encouraged to post this notice. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (404) 305-7082. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2009-WTW-3427-OE. Page | of 5 Signature Control No: 638277-117609724 (CIR -WT ) Earl Newalu Specialist Attachment(s) Part 77 Additional Information Map(s) Page 2 of 5 Additional Information for ASN 2009-WTW-3427-OE Proposal: To construct a(n) Wind Turbine to a height of 161 feet above ground level, 569 feet above mean sea level. Location: The structure will be located 1.51 nautical miles northeast of UNK Airport reference point. Part 77 Obstruction Standard(s) Exceeded: Section 77.23 (a) (5) a height that affects an Airport Surface by penetrating Section 77.25 (a) Horizontal Surface by 398 feet as applied to UNK. Page 3 of 5 Additional information for ASN 2009-WTW-3427-OE The terrain itself penetrates the horizontal surface at this location. The proposal exceeds by it's entire proposed height. Page 4 of 5 Map for ASN 2009-WTW-3427-OE Pon} é 3 Sy \i Page 5 of 5 Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Study No. Air Traffic Airspace Branch, ASW-520 2009-WTW-3428-OE 2601 Meacham Blvd. Fort Worth, TX 76137-0520 Issued Date: 08/07/2009 Clinton White STG 11820 So. Gambell Street Anchorage, AK 99515 ** PUBLIC NOTICE ** The Federal Aviation Administration is conducting an aeronautical study concerning the following: Structure: Wind Turbine Wind Turbine 5 Location: Unalakleet, AK Latitude: 63-54-30.50N NAD 83 Longitude: 160-46-12.60W Heights: 161 feet above ground level (AGL) 570 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) The structure above exceeds obstruction standards. To determine its effect upon the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and on the operation of air navigation facilities, the FAA is conducting 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. ** SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ** In the study, consideration will be given to all facts relevant to the effect of the structure on existing and planned airspace use, air navigation facilities, airports, aircraft operations, procedures and minimum flight altitudes, and the air traffic control system. Interested persons are invited to participate in the aeronautical study by submitting comments to the above FAA address or through the electronic notification system. To be eligible for consideration, comments must be relevant to the effect the structure would have on aviation, must provide sufficient detail to permit a clear understanding, must contain the aeronautical study number printed in the upper right hand corner of this notice, and must be received on or before 09/13/2009. This notice may be reproduced and circulated by any interested person. Airport managers are encouraged to post this notice. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (404) 305-7082. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2009-WTW-3428-OE. Page | of 5 Signature Control No: 638278-117609843 (CIR -WT ) Earl Newalu Specialist Attachment(s) Part 77 Additional Information Map(s) Page 2 of 5 Additional Information for ASN 2009-WTW-3428-OE Proposal: To construct a(n) Wind Turbine to a height of 161 feet above ground level, 570 feet above mean sea level. Location: The structure will be located 1.47 nautical miles northeast of UNK Airport reference point. Part 77 Obstruction Standard(s) Exceeded: Section 77.23 (a) (5) a height that affects an Airport Surface by penetrating Section 77.25 (a) Horizontal Surface by 399 feet as applied to UNK. Page 3 of 5 Additional information for ASN 2009-WTW-3428-OE The terrain itself penetrates the horizontal surface at this location. The proposal exceeds by it's entire proposed height. Page 4 of 5 Map for ASN 2009-WTW-3428-OE eG ‘ " axa ee Page 5 of 5 Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Study No. Air Traffic Airspace Branch, ASW-520 2009-WTW-3429-OE 2601 Meacham Blvd. Fort Worth, TX 76137-0520 Issued Date: 08/07/2009 Clinton White STG 11820 So. Gambell Street Anchorage, AK 99515 ** PUBLIC NOTICE ** The Federal Aviation Administration is conducting an aeronautical study concerning the following: Structure: Wind Turbine Wind Turbine 6 Location: Unalakleet, AK Latitude: 63-54-27.80N NAD 83 Longitude: 160-46-12.60W Heights: 161 feet above ground level (AGL) 555 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) The structure above exceeds obstruction standards. To determine its effect upon the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and on the operation of air navigation facilities, the FAA is conducting 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. ** SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ** In the study, consideration will be given to all facts relevant to the effect of the structure on existing and planned airspace use, air navigation facilities, airports, aircraft operations, procedures and minimum flight altitudes, and the air traffic control system. Interested persons are invited to participate in the aeronautical study by submitting comments to the above FAA address or through the electronic notification system. To be eligible for consideration, comments must be relevant to the effect the structure would have on aviation, must provide sufficient detail to permit a clear understanding, must contain the aeronautical study number printed in the upper right hand corner of this notice, and must be received on or before 09/13/2009. This notice may be reproduced and circulated by any interested person. Airport managers are encouraged to post this notice. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (404) 305-7082. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2009-WTW-3429-OE. Page | of 5 Signature Control No: 638279-117609972 (CIR -WT ) Earl Newalu Specialist Attachment(s) Part 77 Additional Information Map(s) Page 2 of 5 Additional Information for ASN 2009-WTW-3429-OE Proposal: To construct a(n) Wind Turbine to a height of 161 feet above ground level, 555 feet above mean sea level. Location: The structure will be located 1.43 nautical miles northeast of UNK Airport reference point. Part 77 Obstruction Standard(s) Exceeded: Section 77.23 (a) (5) a height that affects an Airport Surface by penetrating Section 77.25 (a) Horizontal Surface by 384 feet as applied to UNK. Page 3 of 5 Additional information for ASN 2009-WTW-3429-OE The terrain itself penetrates the horizontal surface at this location. The proposal exceeds by it's entire proposed height. Page 4 of 5 Map for ASN 2009-WTW-3429-OE Page 5 of 5 Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Study No. Air Traffic Airspace Branch, ASW-520 2009-WTW-2798-OE 2601 Meacham Blvd. Fort Worth, TX 76137-0520 Issued Date: 06/02/2009 Clinton White STG 11820 So. Gambell Street Anchorage, AK 99515 ** NOTICE OF PRESUMED HAZARD ** 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 Wind Turbine 1 Location: Unalakleet, AK Latitude: 63-54-39.73N NAD 83 Longitude: 160-46-14.61W Heights: 161 feet above ground level (AGL) 590 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) Initial findings of this study indicate that the structure as described exceeds obstruction standards and/or would have an adverse physical or electromagnetic interference effect upon navigable airspace or air navigation facilities. Pending resolution of the issues described below, the structure is presumed to be a hazard to air navigation. If the structure were reduced in height so as not to exceed 0 feet above ground level (429 feet above mean sea level), it would not exceed obstruction standards and a favorable determination could subsequently be issued. To pursue a favorable determination at the originally submitted height, further study would be necessary. Further study entails distribution to the public for comment, and may extend the study period up to 120 days. The outcome cannot be predicted prior to public circularization. If you would like the FAA to conduct further study, you must make the request within 60 days from the date of issuance of this letter. See Attachment for Additional information. NOTE: PENDING RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE(S) DESCRIBED ABOVE, THE STRUCTURE IS PRESUMED TO BE A HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION. THIS LETTER DOES NOT AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STRUCTURE EVEN AT A REDUCED HEIGHT. ANY RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE(S) DESCRIBED ABOVE MUST BE COMMUNICATED TO THE FAA SO THAT A FAVORABLE DETERMINATION CAN SUBSEQUENTLY BE ISSUED. Page | of 3 IF MORE THAN 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER HAS ELAPSED WITHOUT ATTEMPTED RESOLUTION, IT WILL BE NECESSARY FOR YOU TO REACTIVATE THE STUDY BY FILING A NEW FAA FORM 7460-1, NOTICE OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (404) 305-7082. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2009-WTW-2798-OE. Signature Control No: 631804-109565632 (NPH -WT ) Earl Newalu Specialist Attachment(s) Additional Information Page 2 of 3 / Additional information for ASN 2009-WTW-2798-OE Proposal exceeds the horizontal surface to the Unalakleet Airport by it's entire proposed height. Page 3 of 3 Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Study No. Air Traffic Airspace Branch, ASW-520 2009-WTW-2799-OE 2601 Meacham Blvd. Fort Worth, TX 76137-0520 Issued Date: 06/02/2009 Clinton White STG 11820 So. Gambell Street Anchorage, AK 99515 ** NOTICE OF PRESUMED HAZARD ** 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 Wind Turbine 2 Location: Unalakleet, AK Latitude: 63-54-37.03N NAD 83 Longitude: 160-46-14.61W Heights: 161 feet above ground level (AGL) 586 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) Initial findings of this study indicate that the structure as described exceeds obstruction standards and/or would have an adverse physical or electromagnetic interference effect upon navigable airspace or air navigation facilities. Pending resolution of the issues described below, the structure is presumed to be a hazard to air navigation. If the structure were reduced in height so as not to exceed 161 feet above ground level (586 feet above mean sea level), it would not exceed obstruction standards and a favorable determination could subsequently be issued. To pursue a favorable determination at the originally submitted height, further study would be necessary. Further study entails distribution to the public for comment, and may extend the study period up to 120 days. The outcome cannot be predicted prior to public circularization. If you would like the FAA to conduct further study, you must make the request within 60 days from the date of issuance of this letter. See Attachment for Additional information. NOTE: PENDING RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE(S) DESCRIBED ABOVE, THE STRUCTURE IS PRESUMED TO BE A HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION. THIS LETTER DOES NOT AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STRUCTURE EVEN AT A REDUCED HEIGHT. ANY RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE(S) DESCRIBED ABOVE MUST BE COMMUNICATED TO THE FAA SO THAT A FAVORABLE DETERMINATION CAN SUBSEQUENTLY BE ISSUED. Page 1 of 3 IF MORE THAN 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER HAS ELAPSED WITHOUT ATTEMPTED RESOLUTION, IT WILL BE NECESSARY FOR YOU TO REACTIVATE THE STUDY BY FILING A NEW FAA FORM 7460-1, NOTICE OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (404) 305-7082. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2009-WTW-2799-OE. Signature Control No: 631805-109565633 (NPH -WT ) Earl Newalu Specialist Attachment(s) Additional Information Page 2 of 3 Additional information for ASN 2009-WTW-2799-OE Proposal exceeds the horizontal surface to the Unalakleet Airport by it's entire proposed height. Page 3 of 3 Net Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Study No. Air Traffic Airspace Branch, ASW-520 2009-WTW-2800-OE 2601 Meacham Blvd. Fort Worth, TX 76137-0520 Issued Date: 06/02/2009 Clinton White STG 11820 So. Gambell Street Anchorage, AK 99515 ** NOTICE OF PRESUMED HAZARD ** 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 Wind Turbine 3 Location: Unalakleet, AK Latitude: 63-54-34.33N NAD 83 Longitude: 160-46-14.61W Heights: 161 feet above ground level (AGL) 573 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) Initial findings of this study indicate that the structure as described exceeds obstruction standards and/or would have an adverse physical or electromagnetic interference effect upon navigable airspace or air navigation facilities. Pending resolution of the issues described below, the structure is presumed to be a hazard to air navigation. If the structure were reduced in height so as not to exceed 161 feet above ground level (573 feet above mean sea level), it would not exceed obstruction standards and a favorable determination could subsequently be issued. To pursue a favorable determination at the originally submitted height, further study would be necessary. Further study entails distribution to the public for comment, and may extend the study period up to 120 days. The outcome cannot be predicted prior to public circularization. If you would like the FAA to conduct further study, you must make the request within 60 days from the date of issuance of this letter. See Attachment for Additional information. NOTE: PENDING RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE(S) DESCRIBED ABOVE, THE STRUCTURE IS PRESUMED TO BE A HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION. THIS LETTER DOES NOT AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STRUCTURE EVEN AT A REDUCED HEIGHT. ANY RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE(S) DESCRIBED ABOVE MUST BE COMMUNICATED TO THE FAA SO THAT A FAVORABLE DETERMINATION CAN SUBSEQUENTLY BE ISSUED. Page | of 3 IF MORE THAN 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER HAS ELAPSED WITHOUT ATTEMPTED RESOLUTION, IT WILL BE NECESSARY FOR YOU TO REACTIVATE THE STUDY BY FILING A NEW FAA FORM 7460-1, NOTICE OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (404) 305-7082. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2009-WTW-2800-OE. Signature Control No: 631806-109565634 (NPH -WT ) Earl Newalu Specialist Attachment(s) Additional Information Page 2 of 3 Additional information for ASN 2009-WTW-2800-OE Proposal exceeds the horizontal surface to the Unalakleet Airport by it's entire proposed height. Page 3 of 3 Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Study No. Air Traffic Airspace Branch, ASW-520 2009-WTW-2801-OE 2601 Meacham Blvd. Fort Worth, TX 76137-0520 Issued Date: 06/02/2009 Clinton White STG 11820 So. Gambell Street Anchorage, AK 99515 ** NOTICE OF PRESUMED HAZARD ** 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 Wind Turbine 4 Location: Unalakleet, AK Latitude: 63-54-31.63N NAD 83 Longitude: 160-46-14.61W Heights: 161 feet above ground level (AGL) 573 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) Initial findings of this study indicate that the structure as described exceeds obstruction standards and/or would have an adverse physical or electromagnetic interference effect upon navigable airspace or air navigation facilities. Pending resolution of the issues described below, the structure is presumed to be a hazard to air navigation. If the structure were reduced in height so as not to exceed 161 feet above ground level (573 feet above mean sea level), it would not exceed obstruction standards and a favorable determination could subsequently be issued. To pursue a favorable determination at the originally submitted height, further study would be necessary. Further study entails distribution to the public for comment, and may extend the study period up to 120 days. The outcome cannot be predicted prior to public circularization. If you would like the FAA to conduct further study, you must make the request within 60 days from the date of issuance of this letter. See Attachment for Additional information. NOTE: PENDING RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE(S) DESCRIBED ABOVE, THE STRUCTURE IS PRESUMED TO BE A HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION. THIS LETTER DOES NOT AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STRUCTURE EVEN AT A REDUCED HEIGHT. ANY RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE(S) DESCRIBED ABOVE MUST BE COMMUNICATED TO THE FAA SO THAT A FAVORABLE DETERMINATION CAN SUBSEQUENTLY BE ISSUED. Page 1 of 3 IF MORE THAN 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER HAS ELAPSED WITHOUT ATTEMPTED RESOLUTION, IT WILL BE NECESSARY FOR YOU TO REACTIVATE THE STUDY BY FILING A NEW FAA FORM 7460-1, NOTICE OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (404) 305-7082. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2009-WTW-2801-OE. Signature Control No: 631807-109565635 ( NPH -WT ) Earl Newalu Specialist Attachment(s) Additional Information Page 2 of 3 Additional information for ASN 2009-WTW-2801-OE Proposal exceeds the horizontal surface to the Unalakleet Airport by it's entire proposed height. Page 3 of 3 Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Study No. Air Traffic Airspace Branch, ASW-520 2009-WTW-2802-OE 2601 Meacham Blvd. Fort Worth, TX 76137-0520 Issued Date: 06/02/2009 Clinton White STG 11820 So. Gambell Street Anchorage, AK 99515 ** NOTICE OF PRESUMED HAZARD ** 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 Wind Turbine 5 Location: Unalakleet, AK Latitude: 63-54-28.93N NAD 83 Longitude: 160-46-14.61W Heights: 161 feet above ground level (AGL) 573 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) Initial findings of this study indicate that the structure as described exceeds obstruction standards and/or would have an adverse physical or electromagnetic interference effect upon navigable airspace or air navigation facilities. Pending resolution of the issues described below, the structure is presumed to be a hazard to air navigation. Ifthe structure were reduced in height so as not to exceed 161 feet above ground level (573 feet above mean sea level), it would not exceed obstruction standards and a favorable determination could subsequently be issued. To pursue a favorable determination at the originally submitted height, further study would be necessary. Further study entails distribution to the public for comment, and may extend the study period up to 120 days. The outcome cannot be predicted prior to public circularization. If you would like the FAA to conduct further study, you must make the request within 60 days from the date of issuance of this letter. See Attachment for Additional information. NOTE: PENDING RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE(S) DESCRIBED ABOVE, THE STRUCTURE IS PRESUMED TO BE A HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION. THIS LETTER DOES NOT AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STRUCTURE EVEN AT A REDUCED HEIGHT. ANY RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE(S) DESCRIBED ABOVE MUST BE COMMUNICATED TO THE FAA SO THAT A FAVORABLE DETERMINATION CAN SUBSEQUENTLY BE ISSUED. Page | of 3 IF MORE THAN 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER HAS ELAPSED WITHOUT ATTEMPTED RESOLUTION, IT WILL BE NECESSARY FOR YOU TO REACTIVATE THE STUDY BY FILING A NEW FAA FORM 7460-1, NOTICE OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (404) 305-7082. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2009-WTW-2802-OE. Signature Control No: 631808-109565631 (NPH -WT ) Earl Newalu Specialist Attachment(s) Additional Information Page 2 of 3 Additional information for ASN 2009-WTW-2802-OE Proposal exceeds the horizontal surface to the Unalakleet Airport by it's entire proposed height. Page 3 of 3 Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Study No. Air Traffic Airspace Branch, ASW-520 2009-WTW-2803-OE 2601 Meacham Blvd. Fort Worth, TX 76137-0520 Issued Date: 06/04/2009 Clinton White STG 11820 So. Gambell Street Anchorage, AK 99515 ** NOTICE OF PRESUMED HAZARD ** 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 Wind Turbine 6 Location: Unalakleet, AK Latitude: 63-54-26.23N NAD 83 Longitude: 160-46-14.61W Heights: 161 feet above ground level (AGL) 561 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) Initial findings of this study indicate that the structure as described exceeds obstruction standards and/or would have an adverse physical or electromagnetic interference effect upon navigable airspace or air navigation facilities. Pending resolution of the issues described below, the structure is presumed to be a hazard to air navigation. Any height exceeding 72 feet above ground level (472 feet above mean sea level), will result in a substantial adverse effect and would warrant a Determination of Hazard to Air Navigation. See Attachment for Additional information. NOTE: PENDING RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE(S) DESCRIBED ABOVE, THE STRUCTURE IS. PRESUMED TO BE A HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION. THIS LETTER DOES NOT AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STRUCTURE EVEN AT A REDUCED HEIGHT. ANY RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE(S) DESCRIBED ABOVE MUST BE COMMUNICATED TO THE FAA SO THAT A FAVORABLE DETERMINATION CAN SUBSEQUENTLY BE ISSUED. IF MORE THAN 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER HAS ELAPSED WITHOUT ATTEMPTED RESOLUTION, IT WILL BE NECESSARY FOR YOU TO REACTIVATE THE STUDY BY FILING A NEW FAA FORM 7460-1, NOTICE OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (404) 305-7082. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2009-WTW-2803-OE. Page | of 3 Signature Control No: 631809-109597420 Earl Newalu Specialist Attachment(s) Additional Information Page 2 of 3 (NPH -WT ) Additional information for ASN 2009-WTW-2803-OE Proposed Wind Turbine has the following IFR Effect at UNALAKLEET (UNK) (PAUN), AK: y Missed approach penetration raises the proposed RNAV (GPS) RWY 33 LNAV MDA from 520 to 620 (4D) with 2C accuracy raised to 560. No Effect Height is 472 feet AMSL as filed or 522 feet AMSL if a 2C survey is provided. Page 3 of 3 Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Study No. Air Traffic Airspace Branch, ASW-520 2007-AAL-77-OE 2601 Meacham Blvd. Fort Worth, TX 76137-0520 Issued Date: 02/26/2009 James Jensen Alaska Energy Authority 813 West Northern Lights Blvd Anchorage, AK 99503 ** Extension Denied ** A Determination was issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) concerning: Structure: Wind Turbine Unalakleet Wind Turbine Location: Unalakleet, AK Latitude: 63-54-33.50N NAD 83 Longitude: 160-46-16.80W Heights: 250 feet above ground level (AGL) 670 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. Due to age of this study and/or ongoing changes to airspace usage, we have determined that an extension to the determination would not be in the best interests of aviation. Therefore, the determination issued under the above cited aeronautical study number will expire on 03/18/2009. 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-77-OE. Signature Control No: 507415-108436126 ( EXT -WT ) Earl Newalu Specialist Page | of 1 United States Department of the Interior U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office 101 12" Avenue, Room 110 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 July 30, 2009 Ms. Terri Mitchell Environmental Manager HDL Engineering Consultants 3335 Arctic Blvd Anchorage, AK 99503 RE: Unalakleet Wind Farm Project Dear Ms. Mitchell: Thank you for your letter requesting the Service’s concurrence, pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), that installation of a proposed wind farm at Unalakleet would have no adverse effect on threatened or endangered species. The six Northwind-100 wind turbines would be installed on a ridge approximately 1.8 kilometers from the coast. The free-standing monopole turbines have a hub height of 37 m, rotor diameter of 21 m, and maximum rotation speed of 59 rpm. A transmission line would be constructed from the wind farm along the east side of the landfill road and would tie into an existing power line northeast of town. Two species listed as threatened under the Act occur in the area, the Spectacled eider (Somateria fischeri), and the Steller’s eider (Polysticta stelleri). Both species are migratory, moving from their wintering areas in the Bering Sea to breeding areas on Alaska’s Arctic Coastal Plain, and Russia. We do not believe that either species nests in the area; however, the nearshore waters of Norton Sound are designated as critical habitat for molting spectacled eiders. Two other species, the yellow-billed loon (Gavia adamsii) and Kittlitz’s murrelet (Brachyramphus brevirostris), are candidates for listing under the ESA. Both species breed on the Seward Pennisula and may migrate in the vicinity of Unalakleet. In addition to these listed and candidate species, many other migratory birds breed in the vicinity of Unalakleet and/or migrate through the area; these species are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Many species are thought to follow the coastline during migration, potentially putting them at risk of collision with structures on or near the coast. In some places, migratory birds suffer considerable mortality from collisions with man- made structures, especially during periods of inclement weather. Of particular concern are towers, power lines, and wind turbines (Manville 2004). We are pleased the proposed project will utilize free-standing monopole towers, thereby eliminating the collision risk associated with guy wires to migratory birds. The proposed power line, however, may pose a threat to birds moving through the area. Marking power lines to increase their visibility to birds can reduce collision risk significantly. Studies of a variety of species in different habitat types have shown that collision frequency and related avian mortality can be reduced dramatically (45% - 89%) by making wires more visible via installation of bird diverters (Brown &-Drewien 1995, Alonso et al. 1994, Beaulaurier 1981). Therefore, we recommend the power line associated with the proposed wind farm be marked with bird diverters to reduce collision risk to migratory birds, including listed and candidate species. The type and color of lights used to illuminate structures also may increase the potential for bird collisions. The Service recommends the use of blinking, non-red lights when possible. Although portions of Norton Sound are designated as critical habitat for spectacled eiders, the Service concludes that based on the offshore migration route of listed eiders, this project is not likely to adversely affect listed species. The likelihood of potential impacts can be further reduced by the installation of diverters on the proposed power line. Diverters also will minimize the risk of collision by other migratory bird species, thereby reducing the likelihood of violating the Migratory Bird Treat Act. Preparation of a Biological Assessment or further consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act regarding this project is not necessary at this time. Should new information become available, the Service may re-initiate consultation to ensure that the applicant remains in compliance with the Act. The Service supports the development of clean energy, such as wind, and seeks to assist in the deployment of this technology by providing the best possible information to minimize the impacts of wind power projects on wildlife in Alaska. We are enclosing a copy of the Service’s Guidelines for Building and Operating Wind Energy Facilities in Alaska for your use in the design and operation of the Unalakleet Wind Farm. We appreciate your cooperation in meeting our joint responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. If you need further assistance regarding listed or candidate species please contact Nora Rojek of our Endangered Species Branch at (907) 456-0276 or Nora_Rojek@fws.gov. For additional information on Service recommendations regarding the siting, installation, and operation of wind turbines, please contact Louise Smith, Conservation Planning Assistance, at (907) 456-0306 or Louise_Smith@fws.gov. 2 Vay Deborah 7. Field Supervisor Literature Cited Alonso, J.C., J.A. Alonso, and R. Mufioz-Pulido. 1994. Mitigation of bird collisions with transmission lines through groundwire marking. Biological Conservation 67:129-134. Beaulaurier, D.L. 1981. Mitigation of bird collisions with transmission lines. Bonneville Power Admin., Portland, Oregon. 82pp. Brown, W.M. and R.C. Drewien. 1995. Evaluation of two power line markers to reduce crane and waterfowl collision mortality. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 23:217-227. Manville, A.M., I. 2004. Bird Strikes and electrocutions at power lines, communication towers, and wind turbines; State of the art and state of the science — next steps towards mitigation. Proceedings 3™ International Partners in Flight Conference, March 20-24, 2002, Asilomar Conference Grounds, CA. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191. 25pp. emel2Aa 4/5 /G9 HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL ) Engineering Consultants June 3, 2009 Ted Swem Branch Chief, Endangered Species U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Fairbanks Field Office 101 12" Avenue, Room 110 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Initiation of Section 7 Consultation Unalakleet Wind Farm Project Unalakleet, Alaska Hattenburg Dilley & Linnell (HDL) is providing professional environmental services to STG for the Unalakleet Wind Farm Project. This letter is to provide you with the necessary information needed for your review of the above listed project. | have included a vicinity and _ project location map that clearly.shows the location of our project ) (Figure 1). The community of Unalakleet is located at the mouth of the Unalakleet River, 148 miles southeast of Nome and 395 miles northwest of Anchorage. The population of the community consists of 87.7% Alaska Native or part Native. The local economy is the most active in Norton Sound, along with a traditional Unaligmiut Eskimo subsistence lifestyle. This project proposes the construction of six Northwind-100 wind turbines on a hill to the north of Unalakleet with a transmission line located to the west side of the road. This line will tie into the existing power line. This location was selected as the preferred turbine location in the Feasibility Study for Unalakleet Wind Energy Project prepared by Global Energy Concepts because of it’s class 5 wind resource and year-round access is maintained in the immediate vicinity. The majority of the land that will be affected by the wind turbine and transmission line is owned by the local native corporation. Wind turbines could offer a much-needed source of renewable electrical energy where fossil fuels are difficult and expensive to deliver. Scott Hattenburg, PE Spectacled eiders are found in the project area. Unalakleet is adjacent to the Eastern Norton Sound Critical Habitat Unit molting area. The road that the transmission line would parallel follows the topography up a hill to the rise which is approximately 429 feet in elevation. Assuming David Lundin, PE 3335 Arctic Boulevard Suite 100 * Anchorage Alaska 99503 * Phone: 907.564.2120 © Fax: 907.564.2122 202 W. Elmwood Avenue Suite 1 * Palmer Alaska 99645 * Phone: 907.746.5230 ¢ Fax: 907.746.5231 105 Trading Bay Unit 101 + Kenai Alaska 99611 © Phone: 907.283.2051 © Fax: 907.564.2122 pre Dilley, PE/CPG Vennis Linnell, PE RE: Unalakleet Wind Farm Project Date: June 3, 2009 Page 2 of 2 the eiders generally remain near the molting area and follow the coastline to arrive and depart the area it is our understanding that this project will have minimal effect on them. It is our opinion that the proposed Unalakleet Wind Farm Project is “not likely” to impact endangered species. We are seeking your concurrence. If you have any additional questions or concerns about these proposed projects please let me know. You may contact me at (907)564-2127, or FAX at (907)564-2122, or e-mail at tmitchell@hdlalaska.com. We look forward to your review and response. Sincerely, HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL, LLC BZ Terri Mitchell Environmental Manager Attachments: Figure 1 Figure 2 BDL HATTENBURG DILLEY & LINNELL 5 Engineering Consultants Arctic Ocean Borrow PROJECT : oe eS LOCATION bata? oS Jf cr A Bethel illingham Se ‘J HG rel pO Bh £ \' UNALAKLEET~* pres \_3 ae Pacific Ocean 1=1, 06/01/09 at 14:58 by CDB 01-VIC, aN ees EXISTING’ POWER “LINE ~ —*, Radio ~ CAD\\DRAWINGS\09605—Fi TC Engineering Consultants VICINITY MAP + ENGINEERING STG, INC. + EARTH SCIENCE UNALAKLEET, ALASKA + PROJECT MANAGEMENT (oor) 504-2120 DATE: 5/29/09 _|ORAWN BY cop | SHEET: FIGURE 1 + PLANNING www.hdlalaska.com SCALE: NOT TO SCALE | CHECKED By TM. [ee RO 09-605 H:\jobs\09-605 Unalakleet Wind Farm LAYOUT: FIGURE 1 H:\jobs\09-605 Unalakleet Wind Farm (STG)\CAD\DRAWINGS\09605-FIGO1—VIC, 1=1, 06/01/09 at 14:58 by CDB LAYOUT: FIGURE 2 (2) JUDE: 63°54'34.. TUDE: —160°46 LANDFILL ROAD UNALAKLEET WIND FARM PROJECT PROJECT LOCATION MAP STG, INC. UNALAKLEET, ALASKA DATE: 5/29/09 DRAWN BY: HEET: FIGURE 2 ‘SCALE: NOT TO SCALE CHECKED BY: JOB NO.: 09-605