Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREPORT - ENV & PERMITTING - murphy dome - Stantec_Environmental_Screening_AKRenewables_4.23.21Memo To: Matthew Perkins From: Sara Lindberg Alaska Renewables, LLC Stantec Date: April 23, 2021 Reference: Environmental Screening and Permitting Plan Alaska Renewables Win d Project Sites Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) conducted a preliminary desktop assessment of natural and cultural resources in the vicinity of two potential wind project sites in interior Alaska: Murphy Dome (Figure 1) and Walker Dome (Figure 4). The purpose of this assessment is to identify environmental issues that could present risks in the development or permitting of each project. An issue is considered a high-risk level if project development could affect a resource in a manner that state or federal regulators may not permit the project or may result in significant project delays . No high-risk level issues have been identified for either project. We identified, reviewed, and analyzed issues presenting potential risk for the two sites and provide recommendations on next steps. This assessment considers regulated natural and cultural resources located in the vicinity of the two project sites and identified those resources that could be affected by each project. This review was based on the .kmz files for the two projects provided by Alaska Renewables on April 14, 2021. The assessment for the sites included a review of publicly available GIS and background data from various state and federal agencies, as well as other readily available sources. We reviewed the following resources: 1) Wetlands, waterbodies, and natural communities within the preliminary site areas; 2) Wildlife and fisheries resources within the preliminary site areas, as well as known wildlife resources within 10 miles ; 3) Parcel data within 2 miles; 4) Resource Protection Areas and Conservation lands within 10 miles; 5) Cultural and scenic resources within 10 miles; 6) Airspace and communications constraints within 10 miles. Results of the assessment are presented below by each site and summarized in the attached tables. These tables are not complete lists of potential considerations or issues that may affect the projects, but rather lists of issues that coincide with the requested environmental considerations listed above. Each table contains the low- and medium-risk level issues outlined in this memo. Medium-risk items are those that may be cause for agency or public concern and will require further study to identify potential impacts and options for avoidance and/or mitigation. Low-risk level issues are for those resources that do not occur or can be avoided and are likely to be non- issues during project development. Some low -risk issues will need to be evaluated during the project development process but are not likely to cause obstacles for project development. Recommendations for each issue category are also provided in the tables. April 23, 2021 Matthew Perkins Page 2 of 6 Reference: Environmental Screening and Permitting Plan Alaska Renewables Wind Project Sites Additionally, a permitting schedule is provided that forecasts each study and approval anticipated to support construction and operation of the project. We assume construction of the project will take two years and a target Commercial Operation Date (COD) in 2025; therefore, we have developed the schedule to have all studies completed and permits (if needed) in hand by December 2022 with construction starting in January 2023. To meet this expedited timeline, some of the anticipated surveys will need to begin in the fall of 2021. To minimize and mitigate for impacts to air quality during project construction, as well as minimize the carbon footprint associated with the production and transportation of materials and equipment to the site, we suggest limiting the construction of the project to two seasons . The work will also take place during the summer months when construction vehicle traffic will be greatest. If feasible, we also suggest sourcing local construction material to reduce travel distance for construction vehicles. Placement of turbine pads, transmission, access roads, and other facilities, will utilize existing infrastructure wherever possible to minimize the disturbance footprint. Following construction, vehicle traffic will be minimal and include a small number of operations and maintenance staff driving to the project site each day. Both sites are located on state lands, and do not coincide or overlap with any state or federally protected lands or habitats of concern. There are no threatened, endangered, or species under consideration for federal protection within 10 miles of either site. Bird surveys conducted at the sites will help account for state and federal species of concern, federally protected migratory birds and eagles, but also species that may be of interest, such as swans and owls, but are not formally protected in Alaska. There are no known records of threatened or endangered plants within either project area. However , the Alaska Center for Conservation Science maintains a list of rare plants for the state. Precise locations of collection records are not available but lists for the regions around a project area can be produced. These lists are not specific to habitat, therefore a characterization of potential rare plants for each project site may also be required depending on the potential for occurrence of state protected status plants Murphy Dome Site We identified two medium-risk level issues that require further evaluation to determine effects to project development/design and/or present risk during permitting (Table 1). These issues are discussed below. 1) Proximity to Cultural, Scenic, and Recreation Resources is a medium -risk level issue that could affect project design. The site boundary is approximately 9 miles east of the Minto Flats State Game Refuge (Figure 1). Additional scenic resources within 10 miles of the site include the Alaska Railroad which is used by tourists during summer months. The general area is heavily used for recreation by local residents and the existing access road being proposed to the turbine array leads to April 23, 2021 Matthew Perkins Page 3 of 6 Reference: Environmental Screening and Permitting Plan Alaska Renewables Wind Project Sites recreational cabins and river access along the Chatanika River. Various cultural sites have been id entified near the project area associated with historic mining activities. Specific cultural and historic resource surveys for the site location have not been conducted. A preliminary viewshed analysis should be completed for scenic resources within 10 miles of the site. Impacts to recreation resources are likely to be minimal except for temporary impacts during construction. A cultural survey will be required within the area of potential effect to evaluate impacts to cultural and historic resources. Agency consultation should be conducted prior to implementing surveys. 2) Proximity to bird habitat for state Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and travel corridors for other species of interest within the site area is a medium-risk level issue that could require careful siting of turbines or operational controls to avoid/minimize risk. As with any land-based wind energy project, it is recommended that the project consult with state and federal wildlife agencies at the point of conception to determine potential wildlife resource concerns, conduct field surveys if necessary, and site and operate the project to avoid and minimize impacts. The USFWS Land Based Wind Energy Guidelines (WEG’s), 1 and Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance (ECP)2 details the standard approach to evaluating potential impacts from a project. The analysis below is consistent with Tier 1, Preliminary Site Evaluation of the WEG’s. Murphy Dome sits at 2,930-foot elevation; the Minto Flats to the west are approximately 400-foot elevation (Fa irbanks is 445, Nenana to the south is 351). Based on a desktop review, the project area is at the subalpine zone; ericaceous low shrubs, alder and willow are the dominant the vegetation. Black spruce trees are scattered in the subalpine, becoming the dominant tree species on the north facing slopes, while white spruce and birch form mixed forest on drier slopes and swales. Near the lower elevations, black spruce wetlands, and open shrub wetlands exist. The Chatanika River runs along the northern base of the mountain. Much of the area burned in 2009; shrubs and grasses are revegetating the area. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) tool was reviewed for records of species of concer n within 10 miles of the site area. This review identified 2 USFWS BCCs potentially occurring within 10 miles, and include lesser yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes) and rusty blackbird (Euphagus carolinus). These two species are of concern thoughout their range in the US. Both of these species are strongly associated with wetlands found at lower elevations but could pass through the project during migration. Rusty blackbirds use most wetland vegetation types, but tend to avoid low shrub habitats. Lesser Yellowlegs are found in boreal forest wetlands, nesting on the ground and using nearby trees as observation posts. The wetlands near Murphy Dome are up to 2,000 feet lower in elevation than the proposed project (Figure 3). 1 WEG_final.pdf (fws.gov) 2 Microsoft Word - ECPG Wind 4 -18-13_final -rap -4-25-13-2 (fws.gov) April 23, 2021 Matthew Perkins Page 4 of 6 Reference: Environmental Screening and Permitting Plan Alaska Renewables Wind Project Sites There are no state or federally listed bat species known to occur in the project area. The little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus) is the only know bat species found north of the Alaska Range (mountains). The Alaska Department of Fish and Game considers the bat widespread in Interior, but in low numbers. There is an absence of baseline data on population sizes and trends. They are managed by the state as ‘unclassified game’; there are no hunting seasons or bag limits. They can only be killed or harassed under the terms of a wildlife nuisance permit. While listed bats are not known to occur based on the IPaC database bats are known to be susceptible to collision with wind turbines during migration. Impacts to bats, while not regulated, may require additional survey to confirm species presence/probable absence, we recommend a Site Characterization consistent wi th Tier 2 of the WEG’s to assess habitat and potential for occurrence of bird and bat species of concern which will guide potential need and type of field surveys that may be required. Depending on agency consult, nocturnal radar migration or acoustic bat surveys may also be recommended to document potential nocturnal movement patterns in areas proposed for turbines . Agency consultation should be conducted prior to implementing surveys. Walker Dome Site We identified two medium-risk level issues that r equire further evaluation to determine effects to project development/design and/or present risk during permitting (Table 2). These issues are discussed below. 1) Proximity to scenic resources is a medium-risk level issue that could require careful siting of turbines. The project site may be visible from National Park lands 10 miles away and would be visible from the Parks Highway, the primary tourism corridor in the region (Figure 4 and 5). The Parks Highway south of Healy was designated an Alaska State Scenic Byway in 1998; the road north of Healy was designated in 2008. The p roject site may be used recreationally by residents of nearby communities. Hunting, berry picking, and travel to private cabins takes place in the greater area. The wider region is known for the earliest known archaeological sites in Alaska. There are at least 12 prehistoric sites known west and south of the project area. The project site has not been previously surveyed and encountering prehistoric sites is likely. Other scenic resources within 10 miles of the site include the Alaska Railroad which is used heavily for tourism. We recommend conducting a preliminary viewshed analysis for scenic resources within 10 miles of the site. A detailed visual assessment of high use scenic resources may also be required. A cultural survey will be required within the area of potential effect to evaluate impacts to cultural and prehistoric resources. Agency consultation should be conducted prior to implementing surveys. April 23, 2021 Matthew Perkins Page 5 of 6 Reference: Environmental Screening and Permitting Plan Alaska Renewables Wind Project Sites 3) Proximity to bird habitat for state BCCs and travel corridors for other species of interest within the site area is a medium-risk level issue that could require careful siting of turbines or operational controls to avoid/minimize risk. As with any land-ba sed wind energy project, it is recommended that the project consult with state and federal wildlife agencies at the point of conception to determine potential wildlife resource concerns, conduct field surveys if necessary, and site and operate the project to avoid and minimize impacts. As stated above, the analysis presented i s consistent with Tier 1, Preliminary Site Evaluation of the WEG’s. Walker Dome sits at 3,950-foot elevation. The Nenana River to the west is approximately 1,100-foot elevation, and Healy to the southwest is approximately 1,490-foot elevation. Vegetation communities immediately around the project site are characterized by low and dwarf shrubs, lichens, mosses, and bare ground. Some areas of tall shrub may also be present. In lower elevations, forest and woodland habitats are present, characterized by white spruce and deciduous tree species. Low and tall shrub types are also common. At the base of slopes, concave areas may have wetland communities characterized by black spruce and mixed shrub-tussock tundra, while convex areas continue to be characterized by white spruce and deciduous tree woodlands and forests. Wetlands are mapped extensively by the National Wetland Inventory within the project site (Figure 5); however this mapping is typically not correct for these elevations and habitat types. Field verification of wetlands in the project area is recommended and much of the area will likely be mapped as uplands. Wetland habitats that do occur in the area are found around river and stream floodplains , which based on their small size don’t provide much habitat for birds. Larger wetlands found to the north and west of the project site provide much more valuable habitat for wetland focused birds discussed below. USFWS IPaC website lists Bald and Golden Eagles as BCCs in the site area. Rocky outcrops visible on aerial imagery exist within the project site that may be suitable for nesting golden eagles and other raptor species. The USFWS maintains the Alaska Bald Eagle Nest Atlas, but it is currently unavailable. An image of the nest locations shows the atlas is focused on areas south of the Alaska Range. Golden Eagle nesting surveys are conducted in Denali National Park in late April. The Mentasta Mountains near the Tok Highway Cutoff is an important migration corridor for the golden eagle. The IPaC tool identifies 4 additional BCC species potentially occurring within 10 miles of the site area, including lesser yellowlegs, rusty blackbirds, Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), and Wimbrel (Numenius phaeopus). As noted previously, Rusty blackbirds use most wetland vegetation types, but tend to avoid low shrub habitats. Lesser Yellowlegs are found in boreal forest wetlands, nesting on the ground and using nearby trees as observation posts. Olive side flycatchers are also found near open water, using habitats with standing dead trees and spruce forests. Whimbrels breed in alpine tundra, in drier upland ericaceous berry producing shrubs. Although alpine habitats are used, they are more likely found in wetter lowlands. April 23, 2021 Matthew Perkins Page 6 of 6 Reference: Environmental Screening and Permitting Plan Alaska Renewables Wind Project Sites We recommend conducting a Breeding bird survey If suitable habitat is present, consultation with ADF&G regarding surveys would be the recommended next step. Impacts to bats, while not regulated, may require additional survey to confirm species presence/probable absence, we recommend a Site Characterization consistent with Tier 2 of the WEG’s to assess habitat and potential for occurrence of bird and bat species of concern which will guide potential need and type of field surveys that may be required. Depending on agency consult, nocturnal radar migration or acoustic bat surveys may also be recommended to document potential nocturnal movement patterns in areas proposed for turbines. Agency consultation should be conducted prior to implementing surveys. Please let us know if you have any questions about the information presented in this memo. Sincerely, STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. Adam Gravel Principal Phone: (207) 406-5458 adam.gravel@stantec.com Sara Lindberg Project Manager Phone: (907) 328-9622 sara.lindberg@stantec.com Attachments: Table 1 – Summary of Issues for Murphy Dome Site Table 2 – Summary of Issues for Walker Dome Site Table 3 – Murphy Dome Site- Potential Natural Resource Studies, Permits, and Anticipated Timeframes Table 4 - Walker Dome Site- Potential Natural Resource Studies, Permits, and Anticipated Timeframes Figure 1 – Murphy Dome Overview Figure 2 – Murphy Dome Land Ownership Figure 3 – Murphy Dome Wetlands and Waters Figure 4 – Wal ker Dome Overview Figure 5 – Walker Dome Land ownership Figure 6 – Walker Dome Wetlands and Waters Reference: Environmental Screening and Permitting Plan, Alaska Renewables Wind Project Sites Table 1. Summary of Potential Issues for Murphy Dome Site Issue Risk Level Comments Recommendations High Medium Low Conservation Lands X The site is approximately 9 miles east of the Minto Flats State Game Refuge which is conserved/protected by the State of Alaska. Outreach to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game will occur during project planning to identify any potential concerns with wildlife corridors that may be associated with the refuge. No impacts anticipated. Cultural and Scenic/Recreation Resources X Heavily used recreation area near Fairbanks. Hunting, berry picking, travel to private cabins, travel to Chatanika River takes place in the greater area and along identified access road for the project. Various cultural sites identified near the project area associated with mining activities. No cultural resource surveys have been conducted in the area in the last 10 years. Other s cenic resources within 10 miles of the site include the Alaska Railroad which is used tourism. A preliminary viewshed analysis should be completed for scenic resources within 10 miles of the site. Impacts to recreation resources are likely to be minimal except for temporary impacts during construction. A cultural survey will be required within the area of potential effect to evaluate impacts to cultural and historic resources. Potential Raptor Habitat X Some rocky outcrops exist within the project site, but not suitable habitat for raptors. No issues anticipated. High Value Wildlife Habitat X No critical wildlife habitat occurs within 10 miles of the project area, with the exception of the Minto Flat s State Game Refuge to the west. No USFWS designated Threatened or Endangered wildlife species occur within 10 miles of the project site. No high value wildlife habitat impacts are expected as part of the project . Reference: Environmental Screening and Permitting Plan, Alaska Renewables Wind Project Sites Table 1. Summary of Potential Issues for Murphy Dome Site Issue Risk Level Comments Recommendations High Medium Low Birds and Bats X Several bird and bat species use and travel through the project area from adjacent habitats. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) tool identified 2 Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) species potentially occurring within 10 miles of the site area. Conduct breeding bird surveys. Nocturnal radar and acoustical bat surveys may also be recommended by agencies during project planning. Wetlands and Waterbodies X National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data depicts limited wetlands and streams within the site area. Minimal or no wetlands occur within project area. Conduct field verification for the project area when a preliminary layout is available. Airports X Fairbanks International Airport is located ~20 miles southeast of the project area. Minto airport is ~28 miles northwest of the project area. Small planes for travel and recreation use the airspace in the project vicinity. Consultation with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will be required after turbine locations are determined. Structures X A structure analysis has not been performed. There are radar towers and electrical communications structures 2 miles east of the project area associated with the Murphy Dome control center . Perform a desktop structure analysis for the area within 2 miles of proposed turbines . No impacts anticipated. Reference: Environmental Screening and Permitting Plan, Alaska Renewables Wind Project Sites Table 2. Summary of Potential Issues for Walker Dome Site Issue Risk Level Comments Recommendations High Medium Low Conservation Lands X The site is approximately 9 miles east of Denali National Park and Preserve which is managed by the National Park Service. Consultation with the National park Service will occur during project planning to incorporate any potential concerns with visual resource impacts (see below). Impacts to conservation lands not anticipated. Cultural and Scenic/Recreation Resources X The project site may be visible from National Park lands, and would be visible from the Parks Highway, the primary tourism corridor in the region. Project site is used recreationally by residents of nearby communities . Hunting, berry picking, and travel to private cabins takes place in the greater area. The wider region is known for the earliest known archaeological sites in Alaska. There are at least 12 prehistoric sites known west and south of the project area. The project site has not been previously surveyed and encountering prehistoric sites is likely. Other s cenic resources within 10 miles of the site include the Alaska Railroad which is used heavily for tourism. A preliminary viewshed analysis should be completed for scenic resources within 10 miles of the site. Impacts to recreation resources are likely to be minimal except for temporary impacts during construction. A cultural resource survey will be required within the area of potential effect to evaluate impacts to cultural, historic, and prehistoric resources. While encountering sites is likely within the project footprint, these sites may not have enough integrity to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and siting the project to avoid impacts will likely be attainable. Potential Raptor Habitat X Rocky outcrops visible on aerial imagery exist within the project site that may be suitable for nesting raptors. Aerial Eagle nest surveys will likely be required. Reference: Environmental Screening and Permitting Plan, Alaska Renewables Wind Project Sites Table 2. Summary of Potential Issues for Walker Dome Site Issue Risk Level Comments Recommendations High Medium Low High Value Wildlife Habitat X No critical wildlife habitat occurs within 10 miles of the project area. No USFWS designated Threatened or Endangered wildlife species occur within 10 miles of the project site. No high value wildlife habitat impacts are expected as part of the project . Birds and Bats X Several bird and bat species use and travel through the project area from adjacent habitats. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) tool identified 6 Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC ) species potentially occurring within 10 miles of the site area, including Bald and Golden Eagles . Conduct breeding bird surveys and raptor migration surveys. Nocturnal radar and acoustical bat surveys may also be recommended by agencies during project planning. Wetlands and Waterbodies X The project site is mapped extensively as wetlands by National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data . However this data is likely in error and minimal or no wetlands and waters are anticipated within the site area. Minimal or no wetlands and water impacts are anticipated. Current mapping is likely in error and Field verification to re-map the area correctly will be needed once a preliminary layout is available. Airports X Healy River Airport is located ~7 miles south of the turbine area. project area. Small planes for travel, flight seeing, and recreation use the airspace in the project vicinity. Consultation with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will be required after turbine locations are determined. Structures X A structure analysis has not been performed. Perform a desktop structure analysis for the area within 2 miles of proposed turbines . No impacts anticipated. Reference: Environmental Screening and Permitting Plan, Alaska Renewables Wind Project Sites Table 3: Alaska Renewables Murphy Dome Site - Potential Natural Resource Studies and Anticipated Permits and Timeframes PROJECT TASK 2021 2022 Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Project Planning Workplan and Agency Meetings 1 Wildlife Surveys Avian Migration Studies Nocturnal Radar Surveys Acoustic Bat Surveys 2 Breeding Bird Surveys 3 Terrestrial surveys Wetlands and waters Cultural surveys Historic and Pre-Historic Survey Sound and flicker Survey4 Visual Survey5 Permits/Consultation SHPO Consultation USACE 404 Permit 6 NOTES: 1. Agency involvement will be ongoing throughout the planning and permitting process. Anticipated agencies involved include ADEC, ADF&G, ADOT, FAA, NMFS, SHPO, USACE, USFWS, FNSB , ADNR 2. Acoustic bat surveys may not be needed to address potential USFWS and ADF&G concerns. 3. ADF&G may indicate concern for rusty blackbirds in this area, which may require a breeding season investigation for occurrence of the species. This will be decided from outcome of agency meetings. 4. Sound and flicker survey not anticipated given the remote nature of these projects. However, the findings of a dwelling survey would help determine if a survey would be needed. Reference: Environmental Screening and Permitting Plan, Alaska Renewables Wind Project Sites 5. Visual survey would occur during leaf off and leaf on periods. Leaf on may not be needed but will but will be determined during agency consultation. 6. USACE permit probably not needed. 7. Assumes Jan 1, 2025 in service date and 2 years of construction. 8. As sumes the following permits will be pursued by Alaska Renewables: FAA Form 7460-1 (Notice of Proposed Construction); ADNR DMLW Entry Authorization; FNSB Utility Permits; ADOT Utility ROW and letter of non-objection. 9. Does not include permits that would t ypically be obtained by the construction contractor such as APDES CGP coverage, ADNR DMLW Material Sales Agreement and Reclamation Plan, and ADEC Temporary Water Use Permits. 10. Assumes a tiered approach to avoid impacts to migratory birds and no take permits will be required. Reference: Environmental Screening and Permitting Plan, Alaska Renewables Wind Project Sites Table 4: Alaska Renewables Walker Dome Site - Potential Natural Resource Studies and Anticipated Permits and Timeframes PROJECT TASK 2021 2022 Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Project Planning Workplan and Agency Meetings 1 Wildlife Surveys Eagle Point Count Surveys 2 Aerial Eagle Nest Surveys 2 Avian Migration Studies Nocturnal Radar Surveys Acoustic Bat Surveys 3 Breeding Bird Surveys 4 Terrestrial surveys Wetlands and waters Cultural surveys Historic and Pre-Historic Survey Sound and flicker Survey5 Visual Survey6 Permits/Consultation SHPO Consultation USACE 404 Permit 7 NOTES: 1. Agency involvement will be ongoing throughout the planning and permitting process. Anticipated agencies involved include ADEC, ADF&G, ADOT&PF, FAA, NMFS, SHPO, USACE, USFWS, FNSB , ADNR. Reference: Environmental Screening and Permitting Plan, Alaska Renewables Wind Project Sites 2. Final USFWS Eagle Rule outlines a voluntary process and includes up to 2 years of surveys. 1-yr minimum for permitting. Scheduled for 1 year but if permits are desired surveys can continue beyond start of construction. 3. Acoustic bat surveys may not be needed to address potential USFWS and ADF&G concerns. 4. ADF&G ma y indicate concern for rusty blackbirds in this area, which may require a breeding season investigation for occurrence of the species. This will be decided from outcome of agency meetings. 5. Sound and flicker survey not anticipated given the remote nature of these projects. However, the findings of a dwelling survey would help determine if a survey would be needed. 6. Visual survey would occur during leaf off and leaf on periods. Leaf on may not be needed but will but will be determined during agency consultation. 7. USACE permit probably not needed. 8. Assumes Jan 1, 2025 in service date and 2 years of construction. 9. Assumes the following permits will be pursued by Alaska Renewables: FAA Form 7460-1 (Notice of Proposed Construction); ADNR DMLW Entry Authorization; FNSB Utility Permits; ADOT Utility ROW and letter of non-objection. 10. Does not include permits that would typically be obtained by the construction contractor such as APDES CGP covera ge, ADNR DMLW Material Sales Agreement and Reclamation Plan, and ADEC Temporary Water Use Permits. 11. Assumes a tiered approach to avoid impacts to migratory birds and no take permits will be required. o o Fairbanks International Airport 0 4 82Miles ¯ 10 Mile Turbine Centroid Buffer o Public Airport Project Component AccessRoad Existing Transmission Line New Transmission Line Turbine Pad YardMinto Flat State Game RefugeFig 1. - Murphy Dome Wind Project Overview 0 4 82Miles ¯ 10 Mile Turbine Centroid Buffer Project Component AccessRoad Existing Transmission Line New Transmission Line Turbine Pad Yard Land Ownership Alaska Railroad BLM Major Military Native Private or Municipal State State and NativeMinto Flat State Game RefugeFig 2. - Murphy Dome Wind Project Land Ownership LincolnCreek ShovelCr e e k Str a i g h t Cre e k SpinachCreek M u r p h y Cr e e k F o r t u n e C r e e k Hard Luck Creek Cach eC r ee k D a w s o n Creek GoldstreamCreek NuggetCreek BaldryCreekKeystoneCreekChatanikaRiver McCl oud Creek SpierCr e e k Service Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed 0 1.5 30.75 Miles ¯ Project Component AccessRoad Existing Transmission Line New Transmission Line Turbine Pad Yard NHD Flowline NWI Wetland Type Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond Riverine Fig 3. - Murphy Dome Wind Project Wetlands and Waters o o Healy River Apt 0 4 82Miles ¯ 10 Mile Turbine Centroid Buffer o Public Airport Project Component Access Road Existing Transmission Line New Transmission Line AMHTA Exclusion AMHTA Parcel Substation Option 1 Turbine Pad YardDenali National ParkDenali National Park Fig. 4 - Walker Dome Wind Project Overview 0 4 82Miles ¯ 10 Mile Facility Buffer Project Component Access Road Existing Transmission Line New Transmission Line AMHTA Exclusion AMHTA Parcel Substation Option 1 Turbine Pad Yard Land Ownership Alaska Railroad BLM National Park Service Native Private or Municipal StateDenali National ParkDenali National Park Fig. 5 - Walker Dome Wind Project Land Ownership D r y C r eek D ora C r eekLignite C r e e k SuntranaCreekAl askaCreekLittlePanguing u e CreekPoker Creek Marguerite Creek E ls ie C r e e kLittleMooseCreek Eva Creek He a l y C r e e k NenanaRiv e r LouiseCreekGagnon Creek Cody Cre e k Moose Creek Wilson CreekPanguingueCreekFrancesCreekEmma CreekPopovitchCr e ek W a l k e r C r e ek 0 1.5 30.75 Miles ¯ Project Component Access Road Existing Transmission Line New Transmission Line Substation Option 1 Turbine Pad Yard NHD Flowline NWI Wetland Type Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond Lake Riverine Fig. 6 - Walker Dome Wind Project Wetlands and Waters Area mapped by NWI as wetland but expected to be upland after field verification