HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnviroment Anal
DOE/EA‐1759
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional
Geothermal Energy Project
Naknek, Alaska
May 2010
U.S. Department of Energy
Golden Field Office
1617 Cole Boulevard
Golden, Colorado 80401
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE/EA-1759 i May 2010
Rev. 2
Table of Contents Page
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................... v
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 National Environmental Policy Act and Related Procedures ............................................. 1
1.2 Background ......................................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Scoping ............................................................................................................................... 5
1.3.1 Agency Consultation .............................................................................................. 6
1.4 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................... 6
1.5 Organization of this EA ...................................................................................................... 6
2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................ 7
2.1 Proposed Action .................................................................................................................. 7
2.2 Overview ............................................................................................................................. 7
2.3 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 7
2.4 Existing Facilities ............................................................................................................... 7
2.5 Water Sources ................................................................................................................... 11
2.6 Infrastructure Improvements ............................................................................................. 11
2.7 Evaluation of Geothermal Resource for Commercial Power Production ......................... 15
2.7.1 Characterize the Existing Geothermal Resource ................................................. 15
2.7.2 Possible Enhancement of the Geothermal Resource............................................ 17
2.7.3 Determine Whether Enhanced Geothermal System Is Adequate for
Commercial Power Production ............................................................................ 17
2.8 Operations ......................................................................................................................... 22
2.9 Decommissioning ............................................................................................................. 23
2.10 No Action Alternative ....................................................................................................... 23
2.11 Applicant Committed Measures ....................................................................................... 23
2.12 Reserve Tank and Waste Disposal .................................................................................... 23
2.13 Stormwater Collection ...................................................................................................... 23
2.14 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 24
2.15 Noise ................................................................................................................................. 24
2.16 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................ 24
2.17 Seismicity.......................................................................................................................... 25
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ....................... 25
3.1 Physical Environment ....................................................................................................... 25
3.1.1 Meteorology ......................................................................................................... 25
3.1.2 Air Quality ........................................................................................................... 26
3.1.3 Geology ................................................................................................................ 29
3.1.4 Soils ..................................................................................................................... 29
3.1.5 Seismicity ............................................................................................................ 30
3.2 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................ 31
3.2.1 Birds and Waterfowl ............................................................................................ 31
3.2.2 Terrestrial Mammals ............................................................................................ 35
3.2.3 Fisheries Resources .............................................................................................. 39
3.2.4 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................... 40
3.2.5 Vegetation and Wetlands ..................................................................................... 42
3.3 Water Resources ............................................................................................................... 42
3.3.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................................... 42
3.3.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................. 43
3.4 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 43
3.4.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................................... 44
3.4.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................. 45
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE/EA-1759 ii May 2010
Rev. 2
3.5 Land Use ........................................................................................................................... 45
3.5.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................................... 45
3.5.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................. 46
3.6 Noise ................................................................................................................................. 46
3.6.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................................... 46
3.6.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................. 46
3.7 Infrastructure ..................................................................................................................... 49
3.7.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................................... 49
3.7.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................. 50
3.8 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................... 50
3.8.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................................... 50
3.8.2 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................. 50
3.9 Socioeconomics ................................................................................................................ 51
3.9.1 Community Profiles ............................................................................................. 51
3.9.2 Subsistence .......................................................................................................... 53
3.9.3 Environmental Justice .......................................................................................... 54
3.9.4 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................. 55
3.10 Intentional Destructive Acts ............................................................................................. 55
4.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ........................................................................................................... 55
4.1 Evaluation and Summary .................................................................................................. 55
4.2 Meteorology and Air Quality ............................................................................................ 56
4.3 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity ......................................................................................... 56
4.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................ 57
4.4.1 Birds and Waterfowl ............................................................................................ 57
4.4.2 Terrestrial Mammals ............................................................................................ 57
4.4.3 Fisheries Resources .............................................................................................. 57
4.4.4 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................... 57
4.4.5 Vegetation and Wetlands ..................................................................................... 57
4.5 Water Resources ............................................................................................................... 58
4.6 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 58
4.7 Land Use ........................................................................................................................... 58
4.8 Noise ................................................................................................................................. 58
4.9 Visual and Aesthetic Resources ........................................................................................ 59
4.10 Energy Source and Needs ................................................................................................. 59
4.11 Socioeconomics ................................................................................................................ 59
4.12 Assessment........................................................................................................................ 60
5.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES ....................... 61
5.1 Irreversible Commitment of Resources ............................................................................ 61
6.0 AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED ............................................................................... 62
7.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 63
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE/EA-1759 iii May 2010
Rev. 2
List of Tables
Table 3.1.1-1 Average Seasonal Conditions in Bristol Bay Borough .................................................. 25
Table 3.1.2-1 National and Alaska Ambient Air Quality Standards .................................................... 27
Table 3.1.2-2 Emissions Calculations for Southwest Alaska Geothermal Project ............................... 28
Table 3.2.1-1 Peak Migration and Breeding Periods of Select Waterfowl, Land Birds, and
Shorebirds Potentially Found in the Project Area .......................................................... 32
Table 3.2.3-1 Pacific Salmon Phases of Occupation in Freshwater and Marine Environments ........... 40
Table 3.9.1-1 Employment Demographics of Bristol Bay Borough .................................................... 52
Table 4.12-1 Cumulative Effects Assessment ..................................................................................... 60
Table 7.0-1 Agencies and Persons Consulted .................................................................................... 62
List of Figures
Figure 1.0-1 Location Map ...................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2.4-1 Proposed Project Site Layout, Northernmost Gravel Pad ................................................... 9
Figure 2.4-2 Aerial Photograph of the NEA Geothermal Project Site, September 2009 ...................... 11
Figure 2.4-3 Proposed Project Site Layout, Southernmost Gravel Pad ................................................. 13
Figure 2.7.1-1 Location of Proposed Well G2 Relative to Existing Well G1 .......................................... 16
Figure 2.7.2-1 Schematic of Enhanced Geothermal System .................................................................... 18
Figure 2.7.3-1 Naknek G2 Well Design ................................................................................................... 21
Figure 2.7.3-2 Drilling Days versus Depth for Naknek G2 ...................................................................... 22
Figure 3.5.1-1 Local Land Use and Zoning .............................................................................................. 47
Figure 3.9.1-1 Average Price per Pound of Sockeye Salmon Paid to Commercial Fisherman in Bristol
Bay Borough 1994–2009 .................................................................................................. 51
List of Appendices
Appendix A Scoping Newsletter and Public Comments
Appendix B Wetlands Report
Appendix C Agency Consultation Letters
Appendix D Induced Seismicity Report
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE/EA-1759 iv May 2010
Rev. 2
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE/EA-1759 v May 2010
Rev. 2
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
°C degrees Celsius
°F degrees Fahrenheit
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
AAAQS Alaska Ambient Air Quality Standards
ACFEC Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
ADCCED Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development
ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish & Game
ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources
AES AK ASRC Energy Services Alaska, Inc.
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BLM Bureau of Land Management
BMP Best Management Practice
CAA Clean Air Act
CEA Cumulative Effects Assessment
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cm centimeter
CO carbon monoxide
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibel(s)
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
EA Environmental Assessment
EGS Enhanced Geothermal System
EO Executive Order
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
ft foot, feet
gal gallon(s)
GHG greenhouse gas
GHG Greenhouse gases
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE/EA-1759 vi May 2010
Rev. 2
GMU Game Management Unit
HDR HDR Alaska, Inc.
IEA International Energy Agency
km kilometer(s)
m Meter
MCH Mulchatna Caribou Herd
MEQ microearthquake
mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter
mi Mile
ML local magnitude
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NEA Naknek Electrical Association
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NH3 ammonia
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NPCH Northern Peninsula Caribou Herd
O3 Ozone
OHA Office of History & Archaeology
OSHA U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Pb Lead
PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter
PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter
ppm parts per million
PSA Public Service Announcement
psig pounds per square inch, gauge
SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
SO2 sulfur dioxide
sq ft square foot/feet
sq km square kilometers
sq m square meter(s)
sq mi square miles
std standard
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE/EA-1759 vii May 2010
Rev. 2
TEEIC Tribal Energy and Environmental Information Clearinghouse
tpy tons per year
TWUP Temporary Water Use Permit
U.S.C. U.S. Code
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
WRCC Western Regional Climate Center
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE/EA-1759 viii May 2010
Rev. 2
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE/EA-1759 1 May 2010
Rev. 2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is proposing an action (the Proposed Action) to fund the
construction, operation, drilling, well logging, completion, installation of a seismic monitoring network,
and testing of two of the exploratory geothermal wells (G2 and G3) and stimulation of one well (G1, G2,
or G3), if feasible, on a 49-hectare (120-acre) parcel of land in southwest Alaska. The Naknek Electric
Association (NEA) owned land is approximately 8 kilometers (km) (5 miles [mi]) northeast of King
Salmon (Figure 1.0-1). Existing infrastructure includes a gravel road to the project area, two gravel pads
connected by a gravel road, and a single exploratory geothermal well (G1), currently being drilled.
Geothermal conditions are being investigated at various depth intervals to evaluate the potential for
commercial production of geothermal fluids by conventional means (i.e., by self-flow or pumping without
special stimulation of the rock formation). The permeability of the rock formation in a conventional
geothermal reservoir is typically high enough to allow hot, trapped water (heated by the rock formation)
to flow naturally to the surface during drilling.
If the geothermal resource should exist in the form of hot, dry rock, Enhanced Geothermal System (EGS)
techniques would be used to stimulate the rock formation and permeability so that it can successfully
serve as a geothermal reservoir. Stimulation of G1 and drilling additional geothermal wells (G2, G3)
would establish the components to set up a production-injection doublet and form a convective
hydrothermal system. Using hydraulic stimulation to fracture the rock formations between wells would
create flow paths between them through which water could be circulated and heated.
In accordance with DOE and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing regulations,
DOE is required to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of DOE facilities, operations, and related
funding decisions. The decision to use federal funds for this Proposed Action requires that DOE address
NEPA requirements and related environmental documentation and permitting requirements.
1.1 National Environmental Policy Act and Related Procedures
The regulatory framework of this Proposed Action, with federal funding, is defined by National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) oversees
implementation of NEPA. The procedural provisions of NEPA (Code of Federal Regulations [CFR],
40 CFR Parts 1500–1508) and DOE’s implementing procedures for compliance with NEPA
(10 CFR Part 1021) require that DOE, as a federal agency:
Assess the environmental impacts of its Proposed Actions.
Identify any adverse environmental impacts that cannot be avoided should a Proposed Action be
implemented.
Evaluate alternatives to the Proposed Action, including a “No Action alternative”.
Describe the relationship between local, short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance
and enhancement of long-term productivity.
Characterize any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved
should the Proposed Action be implemented.
These requirements were met before a final decision was made to proceed with any proposed federal
action that could cause significant impacts to human health or the environment. This Final Environmental
Assessment (EA) is intended to meet DOE’s regulatory requirements under the NEPA process, providing
the public, tribes, State of Alaska, and other agencies information to make comments on the draft EA.
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE/EA-1759 2 May 2010
Rev. 2
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
N a knek R i v e rK v i c h a k B a y
NEA 120Acre Parcel
Naknek
KingSalmon
SouthNaknek
NAD 83, Alaska State Plane Zone 06
AES-RTS: 10-004B-001.mxd, 05/05/10, R00
SCALE:FIGURE:
0 2 41 Miles
Town Road
LOCATION MAPNaknek Electric AssociationEnvironmental Assessment
1.0-1
Naknek Electric AssociationHomer
Egegik
Kodiak
DillinghamKing Salmon
Environmental Assessment Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska DOE/EA-1759 4 May 2010 Rev. 2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE/EA-1759 5 May 2010
Rev. 2
1.2 Background
In an effort to provide reliable and affordable electricity, NEA discovered the possibility of local
geothermal resources as an alternative to diesel-fueled power generation and researched the potential for
project development in 2000. NEA was able to narrow site selection to Pike’s Ridge, one of three
potential drill areas originally chosen. Drilling the Naknek G1 well began in 2009 and completed in April
2010. While NEA has funded a large portion of preliminary research, other funding was received from
Alaska’s Denali Commission (2007) and the Federal 2009 Omnibus Bill (energy and water legislation).
NEPA was not required as a prerequisite to NEA’s receiving Alaska’s Denali Commission and Omnibus
Bill funding.
NEA services a member-owned cooperative that provides electric power to the communities of the Bristol
Bay Borough, including Naknek, South Naknek, and King Salmon (Figure 1.0-1). There are
approximately 1,029 services on 143 km (89 mi) of transmission line providing electricity to 628
residential units and 285 commercial units. Consumer density is approximately 7.2 per km (11.6 per mi).
These communities are a business and industrial hub for Alaska’s Bristol Bay region. This project would
decrease and stabilize energy costs, benefiting the public sector (e.g., schools, municipalities, and
utilities) and the private sector (e.g., industry and private energy users). By decreasing and stabilizing
energy costs, this project would foster economic development in the region, such as commercial fishing
and natural resource development. Tourism and service section employment opportunities would also
likely grow because the funds that currently are dedicated to heat and electricity generation would be
available for development of other projects.
1.3 Scoping
The provisions of NEPA provide the public an opportunity to participate in the environmental review
process. DOE has taken measures to maximize public consultation and input during the preparation of
this EA. This section describes the steps taken to document public interest in this EA.
On February 19, 2010, DOE/NEA sent out a special edition scoping newsletter to inform the public
(within the NEA service area described in section 1.2) of the Proposed Actions and to request comments
from the public sector as part of the development of the EA. The comment period was open for
two weeks. The scoping newsletter identified the geothermal project overview and benefits, proposed
activities, stimulation techniques, and NEPA process. Households, businesses, and public agencies
receiving electricity from NEA in Bristol Bay received a scoping newsletter. The newsletter was sent to a
total of 628 members. No public comments were received, see Appendix A for a copy of the newsletter.
The draft DOE/EA-1759 was posted for public review, on March 19, 2010 on DOE’s Golden Field Office
Public Reading Room website and the NEA project website (www.naknekgeothermalproject.com).
Copies of the “Notice of Availability” issued for DOE/EA-1759 were made available to the public at the
U.S. Post Office branches in Naknek, South Naknek, and King Salmon. Additional “Notice of
Availability” postings were posted at the Bristol Bay Borough Building, and NEA and DOE project
websites. A Public Service Announcement (PSA) was aired March 19, 22, and 23, 2010 on two local
radio stations, KDLG (670 AM) and KAKN (100.9 FM). Both KDLG and KAKN radio stations
broadcast to communities of Naknek, King Salmon, and South Naknek, reaching all 628 NEA members.
The draft DOE/EA-1759 public comment period closed April 2, 2010. No comments were received. The
“Notice of Availability” and PSA announcements featured a U.S. Mail and an email address for the public
to provide their comments.
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE/EA-1759 6 May 2010
Rev. 2
1.3.1 Agency Consultation
To evaluate potential impacts to threatened and endangered birds and cultural resources within the
proposed project area, agency consultation occurred through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
and Alaska State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), respectively. DOE received agency concurrence
from USFWS, April 8, 2010. In the USFWS review of the Proposed Actions and project impacts, the
proposed actions were determined to have no effect on listed species within the project area. The
requirements for Section 7 of the ESA (Endangered Species Act) were met.
DOE received agency concurrence from SHPO on April 9, 2010. In their review of the Area of Potential
Effect (APE), they determined that no Historic Properties would be affected. Both USFWS and SHPO
letters are provided in Appendix C.
1.4 Purpose and Need
The Proposed Action supports and advances DOE’s research and development mission in the area of
energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. The goal of this mission is to improve the nation’s
overall economic strength and competitiveness, energy security, and environmental stewardship through
the development, demonstration, and deployment of clean, competitive, and reliable power technologies.
The Proposed Action would contribute to achieving this mission. Specifically, the purpose and need of
the Proposed Action are to fund the construction, operation, drilling, well logging, completion,
installation of a seismic monitoring network, and testing of two of the exploratory geothermal wells (G2
and G3) and stimulation of one well (G1, G2, or G3), if feasible. The Proposed Action is necessary in
developing the geothermal resource, which may lead to providing electric power to the NEA service area
in the future. If development of the geothermal resource is sufficient to develop a generation facility, the
project may expand infrastructure to include a power plant, switch yard, and a tie-in to the current NEA
energy grid. Development of the power plant and associated facilities would provide power to the NEA
service area at a greatly reduced cost.
The Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 encouraged geothermal development as a means of diversifying
energy supplies in the United States. The proposed project would help Southwest Alaska and the United
States reach their goals by reducing the Bristol Bay Borough’s need for non-renewable energy sources
that produce greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, by decreasing and stabilizing energy costs, this
project would foster economic development in the region.
1.5 Organization of this EA
The Proposed Action is described in Section 2. The affected environment within which these actions
would occur is characterized in Section 3. The cumulative impacts of these actions and others are
assessed in Section 4, and the commitment of resources is discussed in Section 5. Section 6 lists the
agencies consulted. Section 7 of this EA lists references cited.
Additionally there are four appendices providing information pertaining to the requirements of the NEPA
process:
Appendix A–Scoping Newsletter,
Appendix B–Wetlands Report, with findings from the wetlands determination study performed
within the project area
Appendix C–Agency Consultation Letters
Appendix D–Induced Seismicity Report
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE/EA-1759 7 May 2010
Rev. 2
2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives were evaluated in the EA: the Proposed Action and the No Action alternative.
2.1 Proposed Action
The Proposed Action would include the construction, operation, drilling, well logging, completion,
installation of a seismic monitoring network, and drilling of two wells (G2 and G3 on an existing gravel
pad) to a depth of approximately 3,658 meters (m) (12,000 feet [ft]) below ground surface. If data from
the wells indicate it is necessary, one well (G1, G2, or G3) would be stimulated to fracture the rock and
increase permeability within the rock structure. Stimulation protocol would utilize EGS and would
increase the potential of the field to produce energy.
2.2 Overview
As discussed previously, DOE proposes to fund NEA’s drilling and testing of up to two geothermal
production wells, a seismic monitoring network, and stimulation of one of the wells (G1, G2, or G3) as
described below. The proposed project site is located on a 49-hectare (120-acre) private land parcel
owned by NEA, approximately 8 km (5 mi) east-northeast of King Salmon (Figure 1.0-1). The existing
infrastructure and recent site improvements would assist with continuing the geothermal resource
exploration and constructing the production system.
2.3 Project Location
The NEA parcel resides within the Bristol Bay Borough Coastal District in Township 17S, Range 44 W,
Seward Meridian; Section 14, E½ SW¼; and Section 23, NE¼ NW¼. The site is located on an upland
area approximately 32 km (20 mi) from the coastline and 6.5 km (4 mi) from the Naknek River
(Figure 1.0-1).
2.4 Existing Facilities
The project area is located near the existing port at Naknek, the King Salmon Airport, and the existing
road network surrounding King Salmon, all of which may accommodate proposed activities. Entry to the
site is provided by a gravel road connected to the Lake Camp Road that local residents use to access the
Lake Camp Recreation site dockage and boat launch at the Naknek River, typically between the months
of April and September. Figure 2.4-1 shows the northernmost gravel pad (one of two pads) located on the
project site. Figure 2.4-2 is a photo of the site as of September 2009.
NEA has completed or is in the process of completing the following site preparation activities:
Construction of a 5.5 m (18 ft) wide gravel road approximately 3 km (1.8 mi) in length, from
Lake Camp Road to the project site
Construction of two gravel pads, each approximately 90 m by 110 m (300 ft by 350 ft)
G1 completed drilling April 2010 and was drilled to approximately 3,050 m–4,270 m
(10,000 ft–14, 000 ft) in depth on the northernmost gravel pad (N58° 41' 56", W156° 30' 14").
A laydown and storage area has been developed on the southernmost gravel pad (Figure 2.4-3).
Construction of an inert waste monofill, a drilling fluid storage cell, two temporary cuttings
storage areas, and a freshwater storage cell.
A project office and work area with electricity, heat, and facilities to support drilling efforts.
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE/EA-1759 8 May 2010
Rev. 2
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
SCALE:FIGURE:
2.4-1
G1
G2
Approx. 60'Fresh WaterStorageFresh WaterStorage
DrillingFluidsStorage
Temp.CuttingsStorage
Temp.CuttingsStorage
Inert WasteMonofill
2
7
0
275280 285295290255300 2602653052
5
0
305
25526530
0
26527026529
0
2
8
029
5
2602
7
5
28
5
265265
AES-RTS: 10-004B-004.mxd, 05/05/10, R00
0 80 16040Feet
Naknek Electric Association
PROPOSED PROJECT SITE LAYOUTNorthernmost Gravel PadNaknek Electric AssociationEnvironmental Assessment
NAD 83, Alaska State Plane Zone 06
Drill Rig & Supporting Equipment
Storage Cells For Fresh Water Drilling Fluids & Cuttings
Road & Drill Pad Limits
Elevation Contour
Environmental Assessment Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska DOE/EA-1759 10 May 2010 Rev. 2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
Naknek Electric Association 11 May 2010
15333-01-10-001/10-004 Rev. 2
Figure 2.4-2 Aerial Photograph of the NEA Geothermal Project Site, September 2009
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Notes: Existing infrastructure and equipment include NEA’s Drill Rig 7, with supporting equipment and water and drilling fuel storage cells on northern gravel pad;
laydown and storage area on the southernmost gravel pad (not pictured in this photograph; see Figure 2.4-3); inert waste monofill (upper left); a heated project
office; other heavy equipment and passenger trucks. The gravel road exiting the site (bottom-left corner of photo) connects with Lake Camp Road.
2.5 Water Sources
The water required to support temporary drilling operations would be obtained from an approved surface
source, which is a small lake located on the southeast corner of the NEA parcel (N58° 41' 34.706";
W 1560 30' 2.786") (Figure 2.4-3). It may be supplemented by water taken from a water-supply well that
would be drilled adjacent to the G1 pad. The lake does not support a resident fish population, according
to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). While the State of Alaska, Temporary Water Use
Permit (TWUP) A2009 54 allows for up to a total 12 million gallons (gal) to be withdrawn for G1 and
G2. Water needs for drilling of G1 required a total of 2.5 million gal of water, water requirements for the
drilling of G2 and G3 can be expected to be comparable. Ultimately, the project is likely to use less water
than has been permitted by the State of Alaska.
2.6 Infrastructure Improvements
To accommodate exploration activities, NEA would extend the existing southern gravel pad by 20 m
(60 ft) in the north-south direction a total of no more than 1,672 square meters (sq m) (18,000 square feet
[sq ft]), or 0.16 hectares (0.4 acres).
These activities would occur while NEA continues to evaluate the geothermal resource from the results of
drilling and testing G1. The equipment, materials, and approved stormwater collection and control
measures to complete the proposed infrastructure improvements are on-site.
As an exploratory geothermal project, it is difficult to anticipate what type of geothermal system may
exist at this point. The following section outlines the exploration and construction activities anticipated
for evaluating the proposed geothermal resource for commercial production.
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
Naknek Electric Association 12 May 2010
15333-01-10-001/10-004 Rev. 2
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
SCALE:FIGURE:
2.4-3
Temporary WaterUse SourceWaterPump
265
260
2
5
5
2
5
0
2
4
5
240235270230275280 230240260255270245235265260245270255250240
250
2
6
5
260AES-RTS: 10-004b-005.mxd, 05/05/10, R00
0 120 24060Feet
Naknek Electric Association
PROPOSED PROJECT SITE LAYOUTSouthernmost Gravel PadNaknek Electric AssociationEnvironmental Assessment
NAD 83, Alaska State Plane Zone 06
NEA 120 Acre Parcel
Road and Storage Pad
Fresh Water Line Elevation Contour
Environmental Assessment Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska Naknek Electric Association 14 May 2010 15333-01-10-001/10-004 Rev. 2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
Naknek Electric Association 15 May 2010
15333-01-10-001/10-004 Rev. 2
2.7 Evaluation of Geothermal Resource for Commercial Power Production
To evaluate the commercial geothermal power production capacity and sustainability in the project area,
NEA proposes to complete the following steps:
1. Characterize the existing geothermal resource.
2. Develop the geothermal resource with EGS techniques, if deemed necessary as defined by the
International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Protocol for Induced Seismicity Associated with Enhanced
Geothermal Systems
3. Determine whether the enhanced geothermal resource is sufficient for commercial power
production.
2.7.1 Characterize the Existing Geothermal Resource
NEA will complete drilling, well logging, and testing of G1 to determine whether the rock formation is a
conventional hydrothermal reservoir or whether it has low permeability that requires enhancement to
create a viable productive reservoir. NEA has completed drilling G1 in April 2010 and will analyze all
data currently available, including geology, seismology, core samples, and wellbore logs, to characterize
the geothermal resource at the site. Drilling of G1 is not part of the proposed action and was financed
largely by NEA, with additional funding received through Alaska’s Denali Commission and the federal
2009 Omnibus Bill (energy and water legislation).
Geothermal conditions are being investigated at various depth intervals in G1 to evaluate the potential for
commercial production of geothermal fluids by conventional means (i.e., by self-flow or pumping without
special stimulation of the rock formation). The permeability of the rock formation in a conventional
geothermal reservoir is typically high enough to allow hot, trapped water, heated by the rock formation, to
flow naturally to the surface during drilling. The temperature of the heated water as it comes to the
surface is one indication of the potential for the doublet to generate electricity. Temperatures higher than
150 degrees Celsius (°C) (300 degrees Fahrenheit [°F]) are generally required to generate electricity.
2.7.1.1 Drilling the Second Geothermal Well
The second deep exploration well, G2, would be a deviated well reaching a maximum total vertical depth
of 3,658 m (12,000 ft). The surface collar would be located 18 m (60 ft) north of the G1 well collar and
would deviate to the south-southeast, kicking off at the 762 m (2,500 ft) depth level, and reach a
maximum hole angle of 11.0 degrees. The bottom-hole location would be approximately 550 m (1,800 ft)
south-southeast of the surface location and would reside within the bounds of the NEA parcel
(Figure 2.7.1-1).
2.7.1.2 Overview
G2 would be a new, full-diameter well with total depth projected between 3,048–3,658 m (10,000–
12,000 ft). The well would be cased to a depth of 2,440 m (8,000 ft) and cemented to the surface. Hung
casing strings would be cemented throughout the liner lap. The well design would completely isolate
geothermal and drilling fluids from contaminating fresh-water aquifers.
2.7.1.3 Equipment and Drilling Process
NEA plans to drill G2 with their NEA Rig 7, which has a National 1320 drawworks, or hoisting
mechanism that is essentially a large winch controlling the drilling line raising or lowering the drill stem
and bit. The drawworks has a rated capacity of 2,000-horsepower. A pile driver would be used to install
the 76-centimeter (cm) (30-inch) conductor pipe to an approximate depth of 30 m (100 ft).
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
Naknek Electric Association 16 May 2010
15333-01-10-001/10-004 Rev. 2
Figure 2.7.1-1 Location of Proposed Well G2 Relative to Existing Well G1
Notes: Surface collar of G2 is located 18.3 m (60 ft) north of G1, and the hole bottom of G2 is located approximately 549 m (1,800 ft) south-southeast from the
surface, as depicted by the projected drill trace.
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
Naknek Electric Association 17 May 2010
15333-01-10-001/10-004 Rev. 2
Blow-out prevention equipment would be in use on the well at all times, and all casing would be
cemented back to the surface, isolating fresh water aquifers from contact with the activities and fluids in
the wellbore.
The drilling and casing procedure to be employed would expedite the process and ensure safety in the
presence of unstable formations. The well installation process would be guided by a steering system to
drill near vertical, with the borehole staying within permitted property boundaries. The well would be
drilled to a depth sufficient to allow for evaluation of reservoir conditions. It is not anticipated that the
total well depth would exceed 3,658 m (12,000 ft). Drill data for well G1 indicate the bottom-hole
pressures are not anticipated to exceed 5,000 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) (352 kilograms per
square cm).
2.7.1.4 Winter Drilling
Drilling of G2 and future wells as needed would likely extend into the winter season (October though
April). During this time, extra insulation would be added to barricade heat inside the drilling operation.
The engine room, substructures, and mud pits and pumps would remain enclosed and heated by 15 steam
systems fed through from the boiler room. Insulated well walls would assist to keep these locations
within a desirable temperature range. NEA personnel would be required to dress accordingly to the
winter weather conditions. Personnel would avoid prolonged exposure of face, hands, head, wrists, and
feet to extreme cold.
2.7.2 Possible Enhancement of the Geothermal Resource
After the drilling and evaluation of G1, G2 would be drilled in order to evaluate another portion of the
geothermal reservoir. If G1 and G2 exhibit a permeable hydrothermal reservoir that is adequate for
geothermal energy production, then there would be no need to stimulate. If the geothermal resource
exists in the form of a low-permeability reservoir with sufficient temperature in G1 and/or G2, NEA may
use the technique of hydraulic stimulation to increase the permeability within the reservoir.
To further evaluate the commercial geothermal resource capacity in the project area, NEA proposes to
drill a third geothermal well (G3) to be used either with G1 or G2 to construct a production-injection
doublet. This doublet would be constructed between two wells and would undergo extensive testing.
Prolonged testing, on the order of several months, of the doublets is necessary to model and predict the
future reservoir behavior, including the feasibility of its generating the desired power output.
The stimulated rock formation creates fractures (flowpaths) between the geothermal wells through which
water can be circulated to capture heat. The wells are then connected to form a production-injection
doublet, which would essentially serve as a convective hydrothermal system (i.e., EGS [Figure 2.7.2-1).
Prior to stimulation, a seismic monitoring network would be designed and installed to track the reservoir
growth induced by stimulation and determine the need for additional wells.
2.7.3 Determine Whether Enhanced Geothermal System Is Adequate for
Commercial Power Production
NEA plans to use the data collected during the drilling of G1, G2, and G3 (if necessary) and the testing of
the resultant production-injection doublets to determine whether the geothermal resource in the area is
sufficient to generate geothermal power.
If deemed feasible, NEA intends to maximize the commercial potential of the geothermal resource and
plan for development. This scenario is analyzed in Section 4.0, Cumulative Impacts.
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
Naknek Electric Association 18 May 2010
15333-01-10-001/10-004 Rev. 2
Figure 2.7.2-1 Schematic of Enhanced Geothermal System
Notes: Hydraulic stimulation is used to create an engineered fracture system in the injection well. The production well is drilled into the stimulated zone of the
injection well and undergoes hydraulic stimulation to increase the size of the fracture system. The two wells are connected to create a production-injection
doublet, which would be used to generate electricity in the energy conversion plant. Multiple production wells can be drilled and connected to the injection
doublet to increase the flow of geothermal fluid.
2.7.3.1 Stimulation of the First Geothermal Well
In the absence of a naturally flowing hydrothermal system with sufficient permeability, NEA would
develop a stimulation design and a seismic monitoring network (as identified in the IEA Protocol for
Induced Seismicity Associated with Enhanced Geothermal Systems for G1 or G2 prior to stimulation.
Effective stimulation involves identifying target zones by analyzing wellbore data to determine the stress-
field orientation and the dominant mode of faulting in the area. The wellbore data would be analyzed to
determine the distribution and orientation of natural fractures and borehole failure phenomena
encountered during drilling (tensile fractures and breakouts).
These analyses are used to identify the most prospective zones (areas most susceptible to fracturing under
increased pressure) for the stimulation process, including an initial mini-fracture procedure. The mini-
fracture involves injecting water into the well at relatively low pressures to increase the pore pressure in
the well, creating a network of small fractures due to shear failure.
During the stimulation process, a seismic monitoring network would be designed and installed to assist
with tracking new fractures, determining the modes and sense of failures, and characterizing the stress
cycles associated with stimulation.
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
Naknek Electric Association 19 May 2010
15333-01-10-001/10-004 Rev. 2
2.7.3.2 Drilling the Third Geothermal Well, if Necessary
If G1 and G2 are low-permeability wells that require stimulation, a third deep exploration well, G3,
would be a deviated well reaching a maximum total vertical depth of approximately 3,658 m (12,000 ft),
designed to intersect the stimulated fracture zone created by the stimulation described in Section 3.1.5.
The surface collar would be located approximately 18.3 m (60 ft) from both the G1 and G2 well collars
and would deviate to an angle and depth to be determined by the results and analysis of G2.
Overview
G3 would be a new, full-diameter well with total depth projected between 3,048 m–3,658 m
(10,000 ft–12,000 ft). The well would be cased to a depth of 2,438 m (8,000 ft) and cemented to
the surface. Hung casing strings would be cemented throughout the liner lap. The well design
would completely isolate geothermal and drilling fluids from contaminating fresh-water aquifers.
Equipment and Drilling Process
NEA plans to drill G3 with NEA Rig 7. A pile driver would be used to install the 76-cm
(30-inch) conductor pipe to an approximate depth of 31 m (100 ft). Blow-out prevention
equipment would be in use on the well at all times, and all casing would be cemented back to the
surface, isolating fresh-water aquifers from contact with the activities and fluids in the wellbore.
The well installation process would be guided by a steering system to drill the borehole within
permitted property boundaries. The well would be drilled to a depth sufficient to allow for
evaluation of reservoir conditions. It is not anticipated that the total well depth would exceed
3,658 m (12,000 ft). Drill data for well G1 indicate the bottom-hole pressures are not anticipated
to exceed 5,000 psig.
The present casing design calls for the well to be drilled in several stages of different diameters,
so that the open-hole interval would not exceed 1,500 m (5,000 ft) at any stage of drilling. This
design would allow the well to be drilled more quickly and more safely in the presence of any
severe losses of circulation or unstable formations; the upper portion of the hole would still be
completed with a large enough casing diameter to minimize pressure losses due to friction during
production. The larger-diameter completion in the upper portion of the well would also allow a
large, shaft-driven pump to be installed, in the event that it is desirable to produce the well by
pumping.
NEA received a Permit to Drill for G1 from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources
(ADNR) and anticipates permit approval to drill for G2 prior to spud. The well design and
drilling procedures and specifications are included in these permits and are proprietary
information.
Well Completion
Well configuration for G2 and G3 (if drilled) will include the following components (G2 well
design is shown in Figure 2.7.3-1).
76-cm (30-inch) conductor pipe driven to 30 m (100 ft)
51-cm (20-inch) surface casing at 122 m–213 m (400 ft–700 ft)
33.7-cm (13 3/8-inch) casing cemented to surface inside a 44.5-cm (17 ½-inch) hole at
914 m (3,000 ft)
24.5-cm (9 5/8-inch) casing hung inside the 33.7-cm (13 3/8-inch) casing with a 900-m
(300-ft) liner tap and cemented inside a 31.1-cm (12 ¼-inch) hole from 823 m–2,438 m
(2,700 ft–8,000 ft)
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
Naknek Electric Association 20 May 2010
15333-01-10-001/10-004 Rev. 2
19.5-cm (7 5/8-inch) combination of slotted and blank liner, hung inside the 24.5-cm
(9 5/8-inch) casing with a 30-m (100-ft) lap to total depth
21.6-cm (8 ½-inch) open hole drilled to 3,658 m (12,000 ft)
The well head design includes:
30.5-cm (12-inch) master valve
34.6-cm by 30.5-cm (13 5/8-inch by 12-inch) expansion spool
33.7-cm by 34.6-cm (13 3/8-inch by 13 5/8-inch) casing head
Well Testing and Logging
After well completion, each well would be tested to evaluate geothermal reservoir characteristics.
Typically, the geothermal fluids are pumped from the well through on-site test equipment,
including standard flow metering, recording, and sampling apparatus, to determine flow
characteristics. The pressure and temperature at various depths in the wellbore would also be
analyzed to determine whether the geothermal resource is sufficient for electricity generation.
Additionally, core samples and wellbore logs would be analyzed to characterize the reservoir by
mapping open/flowing zones and measuring the permeability within these zones.
2.7.3.3 Construction Crew and Schedule
During drilling of G1, peak hire included 36 employees in November of 2009; 18 of those employees
were local residents. Currently, it is anticipated drilling G2 and G3 would require a total of up to
36 employees. Drilling operations would run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for a duration of 72 days.
Figure 2.7.3-1 shows the G2 well design. Figure 2.7.3-2 graphs drilling activity associated with depth
and days 1 through 72.
Based on the current schedule, G1 was drilled to final depth in April 2010 and testing and well
completion are in progress. The drill rig and other resources would remain on-site and be available to
begin work on G2.
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
Naknek Electric Association 21 May 2010
15333-01-10-001/10-004 Rev. 2
Figure 2.7.3-1 Naknek G2 Well Design
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
Naknek Electric Association 22 May 2010
15333-01-10-001/10-004 Rev. 2
Figure 2.7.3-2 Drilling Days versus Depth for Naknek G2
Note: Drilling is expected to take 72 days from spud, May 2010, to completion, July 2010.
2.8 Operations
The viability of geothermal resources in the proposed project area would ultimately determine the
project’s operational plan. The results from drilling the first exploratory well, G1, would narrow the
engineering scope and may determine what type of geothermal system exists. It is not known whether a
conventional geothermal system exists or whether the geothermal resource requires enhancement to
develop a geothermal system.
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
Naknek Electric Association 23 May 2010
15333-01-10-001/10-004 Rev. 2
The results of G1 testing would indicate the reservoir type and provide initial hydrologic data. The
resulting geothermal system (conventional or enhanced) would only be tested in this exploratory phase of
the project. The test findings would assist in planning the production and operational phase of this
project.
2.9 Decommissioning
It is not anticipated that any wells would be decommissioned during exploration and testing of geothermal
resources. G1 would be completed and would undergo extensive testing to characterize the geothermal
resource and reservoir rock. G2 and G3 would be drilled, completed, and tested similarly to G1. Well
decommissioning (abandonment) involves plugging, capping, and reclaiming the well site. When
necessary, decommissioning procedures would comply with American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) International D5299. Decommissioning options would be compatible with all applicable
federal, state, and local requirements.
2.10 No Action Alternative
If the No Action alternative is implemented, expansion of the existing well system would not occur.
Because this is a necessary precursor step to evaluation of geothermal resources and development of these
resources, the need for economical, low-cost electricity within the NEA service area would not be met,
and benefits from the low-cost energy would not be realized.
2.11 Applicant Committed Measures
The applicant committed measures will mitigate potential effects associated with the reserve tank and
waste disposal, stormwater collection, air quality, noise, biological resources, and seismicity. The
Proposed Actions will be implemented throughout the life of the project.
2.12 Reserve Tank and Waste Disposal
Three containment areas for waste have been constructed:
An inert waste monofill—waste that is neither chemically nor biologically reactive would be
disposed of here.
A drilling fluids storage cell—36 m by 21 m by 4 m (117 ft by 70 ft by 14 ft) (300,000 gal).
Drilling fluids are estimated to be less than 250,000 gal and would be stored here until they can
be pumped back down the well into a lost circulation zone.
A temporary cuttings storage area—drill cuttings are estimated to be 914 cubic m (1,000 cubic
yards) per well and would be stored here until approved for disposal through beneficial reuse or
in the inert waste monofill.
2.13 Stormwater Collection
Ground disturbance would be kept to a minimum to help prevent soil erosion during construction. The
following Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be implemented for erosion protection:
Preserve vegetation where possible.
Compact and seed topsoil on the perimeters of the drill pad and monofill and on the down-slope
side of the access road.
Five culverts would be used to control stormwater flowing through the project area.
Silt fences would be installed to protect wetlands and drainages as described below:
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
Naknek Electric Association 24 May 2010
15333-01-10-001/10-004 Rev. 2
– At the toe of the slope where the road crosses through any poorly drained areas
– At the north end of the drill pad to prevent sediment from contaminating the mapped wetland
to the north. Sediment would be removed and taken to the inert waste monofill when it has
reached 23 cm (9 inches) of accumulation
2.14 Air Quality
To control the generation of dust on-site, the following BMPs would be implemented:
Soils, material stockpiles, and other surfaces would be watered as necessary to reduce dust
emissions.
Roadways, laydown areas, storage areas, and gravel surfaces would be kept in clean condition.
2.15 Noise
It is not anticipated that noise levels, associated only with temporary drilling activities, would be high
enough to affect any biological resources in the area. Noise levels generated by exploration activities are
expected to dissipate to a range of 60-80 decibels (dB) approximately 8 km (5 mi) from the project area.
The typical office has about 50 dB of background noise. The area is fairly isolated and the drilling of G1
has not produced any unwanted effects. Efforts to control noise emissions would include installing the
appropriate mufflers and noise abatement equipment, as necessary.
2.16 Biological Resources
Measures within the project design would be utilized to avoid and minimize impacts. Mitigation
measures like BMPs include the following actions:
Temporary water use of a nearby pond is permitted through ADNR. Additionally, no impacts to
fish would occur because project activities are not occurring near fish streams, rivers, or lakes and
activities would not disrupt sensitive periods of fish or their life cycle (e.g., spawning).
Workers would be instructed to avoid disturbances to terrestrial mammals as much as practical.
Hazing, if necessary, would be performed only by designated personnel. Vehicles would not be
used to haze wildlife.
Minimize the amount of land disturbance and develop and implement stringent erosion and dust
control practices.
Reduce habitat disturbance by keeping vehicles on established access roads or well pads and by
minimizing foot traffic in undisturbed areas.
Develop a spill management plan.
Locate well pads outside of the 100-year floodplain.
Report observations of potential wildlife problems, including wildlife mortality, to the
appropriate wildlife agency.
On-site facilities would be maintained in a sanitary manner to prevent attracting wildlife. Any
food and putrescible waste would be stored so that it cannot be accessed by wildlife.
Erosion-control measures would be installed around any area that is disturbed during construction
to minimize erosion and sedimentation flowing into waterways.
Vegetation that is cleared for construction activities would be allowed to grow back to a natural
state.
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
Naknek Electric Association 25 May 2010
15333-01-10-001/10-004 Rev. 2
2.17 Seismicity
NEA is committed to follow the IEA Protocol for Induced Seismicity Associated with Enhanced
Geothermal Systems to minimize impacts that may cause seismic events. This includes the following
steps:
Review laws and regulations
Assess natural seismic hazard potential
Assess Induced Seismicity Potential
Establish a dialogue with Regional Authority
Educate Stakeholders
Establish Microseismic Monitoring Network
Interact with Stakeholders
Implement Procedure for Evaluating Damage
An Induced Seismicity Report has been produced for this project and is presented in Appendix D. More
details can be found at: http://www.iea-gia.org/documents/ProtocolforInducedSeismicityEGS-
GIADoc25Feb09.pdf.
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSEQUENCES
This section describes the existing environmental, social, and economic conditions of the project area and
the potential environmental effects that could result from implementation of the Proposed Action or No
Action Alternative.
3.1 Physical Environment
The physical environment section provides an overview of the affected environment and environmental
consequences associated the naturally occurring features located around and within the project area. The
physical environment section includes: meteorology, air quality, geology, soils, and seismicity.
3.1.1 Meteorology
3.1.1.1 Affected Environment
The Bristol Bay climate is classified as a maritime continental zone. Summer temperatures are influenced
by the open waters of the Bering Sea. Winter temperatures are more continental due to the presence of
sea ice buildup in the coastal zones during the coldest months of the year (Western Regional Climate
Center [WRCC] 2009). Average temperatures in Bristol Bay (near King Salmon) typically remain above
freezing for most of the year. King Salmon experiences the greatest precipitation during July–November
(Table 3.1.1-1). King Salmon is 8 km (5 mi) southwest of NEA’s proposed project area and has average
conditions representative of the project area.
TABLE 3.1.1-1 Average Seasonal Conditions in Bristol Bay Borough
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Average Temperature (°F) 16.7 16.8 23.3 32.4 42.7 50.6 55.2 54.2 47.4 34.4 24.9 19.0
Average Precipitation (inches) 1.54 1.12 1.16 1.19 1.38 1.67 2.33 3.46 3.38 2.61 2.11 1.89
Mean Snowfall (inches) 0.50 5.90 6.10 4.40 0.80 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 6.50 9.60
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
Naknek Electric Association 26 May 2010
15333-01-10-001/10-004 Rev. 2
3.1.1.2 Environmental Consequences
The effects of drilling and the production of injection wells would have no effect on the meteorology of
the area. Meteorology of an area is based on long-term averages and the size and scope of the project
indicate that it would not contribute to short-term, and certainly not long-term, changes in King Salmon
or Bristol Bay meteorology.
3.1.2 Air Quality
3.1.2.1 Affected Environment
The air resources within the Bristol Bay area are generally considered pristine or of very good quality.
Winds and weather systems tend to repeatedly shift as air masses continually change.
Air quality may be affected by natural or human-related activities. During the summer, wildfires may
increase the airborne particulates and degrade air quality. Human-related causes of degraded air quality
stem from emissions, primarily from electrical power-generating facilities that run on diesel fuel in
nearby towns such as Naknek, New Stuyahok, and Dillingham. Small amounts of pollutants are also
emitted from vehicles, aircraft, power boats, and heavy construction equipment within the Bristol Bay
area. The region is sparsely populated, however, and effects on air quality are generally localized and
temporary.
Air quality within the project area is subject to federal and state regulations. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has transferred much responsibility to the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC), Division of Air Quality. These responsibilities include monitoring, permitting,
and enforcement to ensure that air quality remains within standards.
The Clean Air Act (CAA) has established a framework for modern air pollution control. National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been established by the EPA and include:
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
Small-diameter particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10)
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
Carbon monoxide (CO)
Lead (Pb)
Ozone (O3)
The State of Alaska has adopted the federal NAAQS and has added controls on:
Reduced sulfur compounds (measured as SO2)
Ammonia (NH3)
There are primary and secondary air quality standards. Primary standards protect human health, including
the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards
protect public welfare, including protection against reduced visibility and damage to crops, vegetation,
animals, and buildings. National and State of Alaska Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAAQS) are
summarized in Table 3.1.2-1.
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
Naknek Electric Association 27 May 2010
15333-01-10-001/10-004 Rev. 2
TABLE 3.1.2-1 National and Alaska Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Period NAAQS(a) AAAQS(b)
NO2
Annual (arithmetic mean) 100 µg/m3
(0.053 ppm) (c) 100 µg/m3
1-hour (a) 100 ppb –
PM2.5 24-hour (e) 35 µg/m3 (c) –
Annual (Arithmetic Mean) 15 µg/m3 (c) –
PM10
24-hour (f) 150 µg/m3 (c) 150 µg/m3
Annual (arithmetic mean) – 50 µg/m3
SO2
3-hour (g) 1,300 µg/m3 (d)
(0.5 ppm) (d) 1,300 µg/m3
24-hour (g) 365 µg/m3
(0.14 ppm) 365 µg/m3
Annual (arithmetic mean) 80 µg/m3
0.03 ppm 80 µg/m3
CO
1-hour (g) 40,000 µg/m3
(35 ppm) 40 mg/m3
8-hour (g) 10,000 µg/m3
(9 ppm) 10 mg/m3
Pb Rolling 3-month 0.15 µg/m3 (c) –
Quarterly (arithmetic mean) 1.5 µg/m3 (c) 1.5 µg/m3
O3
1-hour (h) 0.12 ppm (c)
(235 µg/m3) 235 µg/m3
8-hour 2008 std (i) 0.075 ppm (c)
(147 ug/m3) –
8-hour 1997 std (j) 0.08 ppm (c) –
Reduced sulfur
compounds measured
as SO2
30-minute (g) – 50 µg/m3
NH3 8-hour (g) – 2.1 mg/m3
a = National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards, 40 CFR Part 50, July 1, 2009
b = State of Alaska Ambient Air Quality Standards, 18 AAC 50.010, November 4, 2009
c = primary standard is the same as secondary standard
d = secondary standard
e = To obtain this standard, the 3-year average of the weighted annual mean PM2.5 concentrations from single or multiple community-oriented
monitors must not exceed 15.0 µg/m3.
f = Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years
g = Not to be exceeded more than once per year
h = EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard in all areas, although some areas have continuing obligations under that standard (“anti-backsliding”).
i = To obtain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each
monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.075 ppm.
j = To obtain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each
monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm.
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter std = standard
CO = carbon monoxide
mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter
NH3 = ammonia
NO2 = nitrogen dioxide
O3 = ozone
Pb = lead
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter
ppm = parts per million
SO2 = sulfur dioxide
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
Naknek Electric Association 28 May 2010
15333-01-10-001/10-004 Rev. 2
An area that does not meet the national air quality standard for one or more criteria pollutants is
designated a nonattainment area, and a regulatory process is applied in accordance with the CAA to
develop a strategy and timeline for the area to return to compliance by a designated date. There are
currently three nonattainment areas in Alaska. The community of Eagle River located approximately 486
km (302 mi) from King Salmon in Southcentral Alaska and the Mendenhall Valley located near Juneau
1,867 km (1,160 mi) from King Salmon are PM10 nonattainment areas, and a portion of the Fairbanks
North Star Borough near Fairbanks approximately 1,070 km (666 mi) from King Salmon, is a PM2.5
nonattainment area. All attainment areas are located at such a substantial distance from the project area,
it is unlikely that they will have an effect on or be affected by the Proposed Actions.
The ADEC completed an in-depth study of Alaska’s sources of greenhouse gasses (GHG). Carbon
dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and synthetic hydrocarbons (chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, halons, and sulphur hexafluoride) are the gasses typically referred to as GHGs. The
United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change linked a steep rise in the atmospheric
concentrations of these gasses to climate change (ADEC 2008). In Alaska, industrial source refinements,
or “Alaska’s oil and gas companies and the energy utilities providing power to Alaskan households,” are
shown to have the highest GHG emissions, totaling 29 percent (ADEC 2008).
3.1.2.2 Environmental Consequences
Under State of Alaska regulations, 18 AAC 50.502(c)(1)(C), the drilling, completion, and testing of well
will not require an Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Air Quality Control Minor Permit.
The air emissions expected during drilling, completion, and testing of wells include exhaust from
vehicular traffic and drill rigs, and dust from traffic on unpaved roads. The emissions calculations based
on AP-42 emission factors for NO2, SO2, Pb and PM10 are shown in Table 3.1.2-2. Project actual
emissions are expected to be much less than the calculated emissions shown below.
TABLE 3.1.2-2 Emissions Calculations for Southwest Alaska Geothermal Project
Total Calculated
Emissions NO2 (tpy) SO2 (tpy) PM10 (tpy) Pb (tpy)
Total 964.9 161.8 29.1 0.00033
Note: tpy – tons per year
Additional emissions may arise in the release of geothermal fluid vapors (especially hydrogen sulfide,
carbon dioxide, mercury, arsenic, and boron, if present in the reservoir). Most construction activities,
such as site clearing and grading, road construction, well pad development, and sump pit construction,
have been completed.
Drilling of production and injection wells would have more intense exhaust-related emissions over a
period of 1–5 years. Ultimately, the environmental consequences would depend upon the amount,
duration, location, and characteristics of the emissions and the meteorological conditions (e.g., wind
speed and direction, precipitation, and relative humidity). Emissions during this phase would not have a
measurable effect on climate change.
The emissions categories that geothermal energy would affect are electricity production and residential
and commercial usage. Combined, these GHGs total 13 percent of Alaska’s GHG emissions (ADEC
2008). Geothermal proactively reduces dependence on carbon-based fuel used to heat homes. Compared
to oil and gas, geothermal energy emits little or no GHGs and has the potential to reduce commercial and
residential emissions to near zero. Naknek is a relatively small community. The impact would not have a
substantial effect on air quality, but rather may prove a method to improve air emissions.
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
Naknek Electric Association 29 May 2010
15333-01-10-001/10-004 Rev. 2
3.1.3 Geology
3.1.3.1 Affected Environment
The project area falls within the ecological sub-region of southwestern Alaska called the Bristol Bay-
Nushagak Lowlands (McNab and Avers 1994). These lowlands are characterized by a flat-to-rolling
landscape dotted with glacial moraine and thaw lakes. The moraine and outwash-mantled area has a local
relief of 15 m–76 m (50 ft–250 ft); at the inner boundaries, the elevation reaches 91 m–152 m
(300 ft–500 ft).
The Bristol Bay-Nushagak Lowlands were glaciated in the Pleistocene epoch and are underlain by
hundreds of feet of resulting outwash and morainal deposits mantled by silt and peat. Outwash resulting
from the period of glaciations is coarse near the mountains to the east and north and graduates to fine sand
near the coast to the south. Surrounding mountains have a thin Quaternary deposit along their base
(McNab and Avers 1994; Wahrhaftig 1965).
3.1.3.2 Environmental Consequences
Locally, should EGS methodology be implemented, the geology would be affected due to the creation of
additional cracks and fissures in rock layers from increased water pressure. Geologic resources in the
immediate area of the project would also be unavailable for the life of the project, though this would have
no direct effect on the geology itself. There would be no effect to the geology of the Nushagak Lowlands
as a whole, however. Additional cracking and fissuring at depths required by an EGS have the potential
to create geologic hazards and induce minor seismic events and, as such, have the potential to further
affect local geology. This is covered more in Section 3.1.5.2.
3.1.4 Soils
3.1.4.1 Affected Environment
The soil taxonomy of this region is dominated by Typic Haplocryands, Fluvaquentic Cryofibrists, Typic
Vitricryands, Histic Pergelic Cryaquepts, Pergelic Cryaquepts, and Typic Crochrepts. These soil types
were formed from ash deposits from nearby volcanoes with gravelly glacial till, outwash deposits, or silty
alluvium beneath (Gallant et al. 1995).
In the immediate project area, 0.5 m–0.6 m (1.5 ft–2.0 ft) of topsoils and silt are typically found over sand
and gravel. According to the project’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, the soils range from sandy
gravels to gravelly sands and are generally well-sorted, containing minimal amounts of silt. While silt
content is usually less than five percent, the soil under the northern portion of the drill pad contains more
persistent silt lenses (Alaska Earth Sciences 2009).
Wetlands can be found to the north and northeast of the project area. These, along with suspected
wetlands along the access road, are protected with silt fencing. Silt fencing has been installed at the toe of
the drill pad and along five culverts adjacent to the access road and would control storm water flowing
through the project area. Any topsoil that has been stripped in this process or that would be stripped with
the construction of geothermal wells would be compacted and seeded to prevent erosion. Topsoil on the
perimeter of the drill pad and monofill on the down slope of the access road has been track-compacted
and seeded to prevent erosion (Alaska Earth Sciences 2009).
3.1.4.2 Environmental Consequences
During construction, ground disturbance would be as minimal as possible to prevent erosion and
vegetation would be preserved as much as possible (Alaska Earth Sciences 2009). While there is
potential for ground disturbance, all disturbances would be mitigated with stabilization and revegetation
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
Naknek Electric Association 30 May 2010
15333-01-10-001/10-004 Rev. 2
techniques. There would be minimal permanent disturbance in addition to the preliminary construction
that has been completed.
Soil compaction may reduce aeration, permeability, and water-holding capacities of the soils; this leaves
the possibility for additional runoff and erosion. Also, disturbing and relaying soil may result in mixing
of soil characteristics and types and has the potential to also affect permeability and water-holding
capacity by integrating structures, textures, and rock content. Additionally, future vegetation may also be
affected by soil compaction, which makes it harder for vegetation to root in the soil because of increased
density.
Implementing stimulation techniques to well G1 and drilling wells G2 and G3 would result in minimal
ground disturbance and would have a minimal effect on soils. After construction, all areas not necessary
for daily operations would be stabilized and revegetated. Additionally, there would be no effect on
mineral resources from this project.
3.1.5 Seismicity
3.1.5.1 Affected Environment
The project area is situated in a moderately active seismic area. The last activity to occur in the area was
on February 5, 2010, at 10:45 p.m., centered 63 km (39 mi) from King Salmon (the community closest to
the project area). The magnitude of this event was 3.1, and the depth was 197.9 km (123 mi). The Alaska
Volcano Observatory is located in King Salmon and monitors seismicity in the area closely.
During the process of creating an underground heat exchanger by opening permeable space in the rock
using EGS, or during subsequent circulation of water to recover the heat, stress patterns in the rock may
change and produce microearthquakes (MEQs) or induced seismicity. In almost all cases, these events in
the deep reservoir have been of such low magnitude—and had so little energy relative to natural
earthquakes—that they pass unnoticed.
Normally, EGS systems fracture previously unfractured, or unfaulted, rock to produce a new reservoir or
open old fracture systems. But if a pre-stress fault exists near the well that is close to failure, it is possible
to induce/trigger a larger event on that fault, as the EGS system is changing the local stress environment
in the area.
The difference between microseismic events created directly by fluid injection and a natural earthquake is
significant: to the extent that they are sometimes felt, induced seismicity usually falls into the category of
a nuisance, like a pneumatic hammer or the passing of a train or large truck, whereas a natural earthquake
may cause extensive damage. For example, experience and scientific data indicate that the vibration at
depth from an MEQ related to fluid injection is unlikely to cause any damage to modern buildings. A
more detailed assessment of seismicity is presented in the Induced Seismicity report, Appendix D.
3.1.5.2 Environmental Consequences
Given the location and depth of injection for this EGS well, seismologists anticipate the risk to people and
structures is low, and there is only a perceived danger, as people are not used to feeling MEQs.
Seismologists providing expertise to NEA have assessed that there is a northwest to southeast trending
fault near the G1well site that can be influenced by the EGS stimulation process. NEA expects most of
the events (multiple MEQs) that may result from the stimulation process would be small (i.e., less than a
local magnitude (ML) of 3.1) and located within 10 km.
NEA would complete the following activities to assess the possibility of induced seismicity due to
geothermal exploration according to the IEA Protocol for Induced Seismicity Associated with Enhanced
Geothermal Systems:
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
Naknek Electric Association 31 May 2010
15333-01-10-001/10-004 Rev. 2
Run sonic logs in G1 to develop a velocity model for the area.
Deploy a passive seismic array to collect baseline seismic data, calibrate the seismic velocity
model, and prepare for later stimulation.
Conduct stress modeling by analyzing principal tensile stress, sonic, density, and wellbore image
logs jointly with certain critical drilling parameters (mud weights, etc.) to estimate the orientation
and perhaps some of the magnitudes of the principal stresses in the area.
Design and install a seismic monitoring system, including preparation of an Induced Seismicity
Protocol, to monitor ground movements.
Pre-stimulate G1 and incorporate results into planning for the full stimulation.
Monitor the seismic network before, during, and after the full stimulation.
A temporary, surface-based seismic array would be deployed to collect baseline seismic data, calibrate the
seismic velocity model, and prepare for later stimulation. An initial seismic velocity model would be
developed for locating events, using available geophysical and geological information. The primary
focus would be on MEQs from the immediate vicinity of the site, but regional earthquakes and possibly
ambient noise would also be evaluated to provide additional information on velocity structure. These
analyses can provide detailed information on the seismic response to stimulation, local fault geometries,
the local velocity structure, and state of stress surrounding the site, which would be used to develop the
seismic monitoring system.
The seismic monitoring plan would include measures for monitoring induced seismicity before, during,
and after stimulation, as well as the IEA Protocol for Induced Seismicity Associated with Enhanced
Geothermal Systems for the project. The main objectives of the on-site injection seismic monitoring
would record continuous data and provide NEA as much on-site data analysis as possible, with the
primary efforts going into event recording, location, and magnitude estimation.
3.2 Biological Resources
The following is a description of the affected biological environment found or potentially found in the
vicinity of the Proposed Action area. Each section describes both the affected biological environment and
potential environmental consequences of the proposed action within the project area. Topics include:
Birds and waterfowl
Terrestrial mammals
Fisheries resources
Threatened and endangered species
Vegetation and wetlands
Water resources
Cultural resources
3.2.1 Birds and Waterfowl
3.2.1.1 Affected Environment
The proposed project would be located within or near breeding grounds, staging grounds, and migratory
corridors for many species of land birds, waterfowl, shorebirds, and seabirds. Many of the species
potentially found in the area winter in the contiguous United States or Central and South America.
Table 3.2.1-1 lists species that are potentially found in or near the project area and their migration and
breeding times. For a more complete list of birds in the area, see Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
The Bay Proposed Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
Naknek Electric Association 32 May 2010
15333-01-10-001/10-004 Rev. 2
TABLE 3.2.1-1 Peak Migration and Breeding Periods of Select Waterfowl, Land Birds, and Shorebirds Potentially
Found in the Project Area
Species Migration1 Breeding2
Brant Mid-Feb–Mid-May
Early Sept–Late Nov
Late May–Mid-July
Cackling Goose Mid-Apr–Mid-May
Late Sept–Early Nov
Late May–Early Aug
Tundra Swan Mid-Mar–Early May
Early Sept–Late Nov
Mid-May–Mid-Sept
Mallard Mid-Feb–Late Mar
Early Sept–Early Dec
Mid-Apr–Early Sept
Northern Pintail Mid-Feb–Late Mar
Early Sept–Mid-Nov
Early Apr–Late July
Common Loon Late Apr–Mid-May
Late Sept–Mid-Nov
Late May–Early Oct
Steller’s Eider Early May–Mid-June
Mid-Aug–Mid-Oct
Mid-June–Early Aug
Pacific Golden Plover Late Apr–Mid-May
Early Aug–Early Sept and
Early Oct–Early Nov3
Early June–Early Aug
Solitary Sandpiper Mid-Apr–Early May
Early Aug–Mid-Aug
Late May–Mid-July
Western Sandpiper Mid-Apr–Early June
Late June–Mid-Oct
Late May–Late July
Rusty Blackbird Early Mar–Mid-May
Mid-Sept–Late Nov
Early July–Early Sept
Alder Flycatcher Early Mar–Early June
Aug
Late June–Late July
Myrtle Warbler Mid-Apr–Mid-May
Mid-Sept–Early Nov
Late May–Early Aug
Yellow Warbler Mid-Apr–Mid-May
Mid-Aug–Mid-Sept
Late May–Early Aug
Fox Sparrow Mid-Apr–Early May
Late Sept–Early Dec
Mid-May–Early Aug
Notes:
1. Top line represents migration into breeding grounds; bottom line represents migration out of breeding grounds.
2. Breeding includes nest construction, mating, egg incubation, and care for young.
3. Juveniles migrate later than adults.
Life History
Land birds
In general, land birds including songbirds and raptors migrate into or near the project area in
May. Male songbirds establish a territory and sing almost constantly to attract a mate and defend
their nesting territory (Handel 1997). Both male and female attend to the nest and the young,
usually switching roles throughout the season. Unlike waterfowl, land birds molt their flight
feathers in stages in order to remain capable of flight all year.
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
Naknek Electric Association 33 May 2010
15333-01-10-001/10-004 Rev. 2
Feeding habits vary widely between evolutionary groups. For example, warblers glean insects
from the leaves of hardwood trees, sparrows consume seeds from trees off the forest floor, and
thrushes feed primarily on berries (Handel 1997).
Waterfowl
Geese, swans, and ducks migrate to or through the project area in April (Dau and Mallek 2007),
as lakes and streams thaw. Geese generally mate for life and do not breed until age 2 or 3. Mates
establish a territory to nest and produce four to five eggs. Later in the summer, geese families
often join and defend their young together. During this time, juveniles are growing their first
flight feathers, while the adults molt and regrow their flight feathers (Bellrose 1976).
Swans reach breeding age during their fifth year of life; at this time, they typically find a partner
and remain monogamous for life. Nests are large, 2 m–4 m (6 ft–12 ft) in diameter and are
constructed on the margins of large ponds or lakes. On average, the female lays four eggs, which
incubate for 31–35 days. Over a period of 11 to 15 weeks, the adult female would molt her flight
feathers as the young grow and fledge in preparation for migration in September or October. The
adult male is also present to help guard the young during this time (Bellrose 1976).
Many duck species begin migrating into the project area as pairs in March or April (Dau and
Mallek 2007). A nest is usually constructed near a pond or lake, but species such as the Mallard
often place the nest in upland tundra to conceal it from predators. Shortly after, breeding males
leave the nest and the female is left to lay the eggs and raise the ducklings. The number of eggs
produced varies by species, but can be as many as 15. There is, however, a high juvenile
mortality rate. Both males and females molt their flight feathers after breeding and before
migration begins in the late fall (Bellrose 1976).
Shorebirds
There are many shorebirds that stage or breed in or near the project area (Table 3.2.1-1). These
species are known for flying long distances without rest, only stopping to feed and rest as they
near the breeding grounds (Alerstam 1993). These staging areas are known to be very important
to the migratory success of many shorebird species (Iverson et al. 1996).
Typically, shorebird females arrive on the breeding grounds a few days prior to the males to
establish territories near feeding areas (Oring and Reed 1997). The male and female construct a
nest together, either on a rocky shore or in a marsh along a coastline or other water source.
Shorebirds usually produce a clutch of three to five eggs, though in some species a female may
have several clutches with other mates over the course of the breeding season (Hays 1972).
Seabirds
Seabirds found in or near the project area include auklets, murres, murrelets, gulls, and
cormorants. Gulls often nest in colonies found on tussocks, lake islands, river bars, coastal areas,
and cliffs (Johnson and Herter 1989). Nests consist of shallow depressions where one to three
eggs are laid. Fledging occurs in late August, though the juveniles are still vigorously defended
by the adults (Roseneau and Herter 1984). Gulls are scavengers as well as predators, feeding on
anything from marine mammal feces to fish, invertebrates, or bird carcasses and eggs (Swartz
1966; Roseneau and Herter 1984).
Distribution
Land birds
Songbirds and raptors found in the project area mostly inhabit forested areas and have relatively
small home ranges. Songbirds are likely to be common throughout the project area, while raptors
such as eagles would be common near fish streams, lakes, and cliffs.
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
Naknek Electric Association 34 May 2010
15333-01-10-001/10-004 Rev. 2
Waterfowl
Breeding waterfowl are likely to be common throughout the project area, though coastal and
upland areas would have different species compositions. Recent waterfowl surveys have
determined that diving ducks, such as scaup and scoters, are found continuously throughout the
coastal area, while dabbling ducks such as mallards and northern pintail are distributed in distinct
patches (Platte and Butler 1995).
Shorebirds
The Bristol Bay coastline provides productive shorebird habitat for replenishing fat reserves after
breeding and prior to migration. According to the BLM (2007), Kvichak Bay is a well-known
staging ground for shorebirds that breed in the Arctic.
Seabirds
Gulls are the primary seabird found in the project area. Within the project area, they would likely
nest in tussocks, lake islands, and river bars.
Abundance
Land birds
There are no reliable estimates available for land bird abundance in the project area. It is
expected that songbird populations are not substantial due to the relatively unforested landscape.
Raptors are likely to be found in large numbers near the mountainous areas surrounding the
lowlands because of the abundance of fish streams and lakes.
Waterfowl
Recent surveys of the Emperor goose, Steller’s eider, and Pacific brant populations in
southwestern Alaska have shown a continuing decline in numbers. This may be attributed to the
illegal harvest of these species in Alaska (Dau and Mallek 2007). Current estimates of waterfowl
near the immediate project area are not available, but the Bristol Bay Lowlands are thought to
make up 10 percent of all duck production in Alaska (USFWS 2008).
Shorebirds
Abundance data for shorebirds are sparse for the project area. The Western Hemisphere
Shorebird Reserve Network recently designated Nushagak Bay as a Regional Shorebird Reserve
due to its importance as a shorebird wintering, migration, and breeding habitat.
Seabirds
Seabird abundance information is lacking for the project area. The Togiak National Wildlife
Refuge has conducted surveys of seabird populations on the refuge since 1990 and has recorded a
negative trend in numbers of black-legged kittiwakes and common murres (USFWS 2008).
3.2.1.2 Environmental Consequences
Potential effects on birds and waterfowl from the proposed project are expected to be temporary and
minimal. Not all species listed in Table 3.2.1-1 would be affected by the proposed project, but they are
included due to their potential presence in the project area.
Disturbance and Displacement
The activities associated with the Proposed Action that have the greatest potential to cause
disturbance and displacement effects would be conducted during the winter or early spring, when
most birds that breed in the project area are on their wintering grounds. This would greatly
reduce or eliminate the human disturbance or displacement of nesting birds, which has been
shown to have significant negative effects during breeding season (Carney and Sydeman 1999).
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
Naknek Electric Association 35 May 2010
15333-01-10-001/10-004 Rev. 2
Habitat Loss or Alteration
Habitat loss from the proposed geothermal exploration and production would be minimal due to
the small area that the facilities require. Expansion of the drill pad and the anthropogenic noise
generated by exploration and production activities may increase the amount of habitat affected.
However, in general, this noise is above background levels only in the immediate vicinity of the
project area. Activities such as pile-driving the conductor casing into the geothermic well are
much louder but would be completed prior to spring migration of birds into the area. Overall, the
portion of habitat lost or altered would be very small in relation to the amount of suitable habitat
still available.
Population Impacts
At this time, it is not possible to completely assess the impacts of the proposed geothermal
exploration and production project on bird populations in the project area. Studies have shown
that species with large bodies and relatively small wing profiles are more likely to strike power
lines and other structures due to their diminished ability to make rapid flight path changes
(Bevanger 1998; Bevanger and Brøseth 2004). Waterfowl are the most likely birds to be present
in the project area and are, therefore, assumed to be potentially affected more than other bird
groups. However, death and wounding caused by bird strikes are not expected to result in
measureable effects on the population level.
3.2.2 Terrestrial Mammals
3.2.2.1 Affected Environment
Large terrestrial mammals such as moose, caribou, and brown bear use the Alaska Peninsula area
extensively. These species are an important subsistence resource for local communities and are hunted
for sport. Sport hunting for large game provides economic value by employing guides, lodge personnel,
and other personnel who provide additional support services. The project area is within Game
Management Unit (GMU) 9. The ADF&G manages terrestrial mammals found within the area.
Life History
Moose
Wintering and calving moose make seasonal movements up to 100 km (60 mi) between their
rutting, calving, and wintering areas, with breeding taking place during the fall rut (Rausch and
Gassaway 1994). The peak of the rut occurs at the end of September and early October. By the
time the rut is over, males have depleted much of their fat reserves and resume feeding in late fall.
Calves develop during the winter and are born in the spring, from mid-May to early June.
Maternal moose become solitary in early spring and find secluded areas for giving birth
(Cederlund et al. 1987; MacCracken et al. 1997). Twinning may occur when habitat conditions
provide adequate forage and the cow is nutritionally fit. When cows are nutritionally stressed,
single calves are more common (Franzmann and Schwartz 1985). When selecting birth sites, cow
moose may select for forage, visibility, southerly exposures, and relatively high elevations in an
attempt to have adequate forage nearby and avoid predators (Bowyer et al. 1999). After birth,
cow moose may remain near the birth site for several weeks (Addison et al. 1990).
Winter use concentration areas may be sensitive habitat because moose can be low on fat reserves
and forage limited. Moose lose body mass during winter (Schwartz 1997) and experience more
starvation and predator-related mortality than during other times of the year. The cause of moose
mortality is often winter severity (Ballard et al. 1991). Moose are restrictive in their movements,
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
Naknek Electric Association 36 May 2010
15333-01-10-001/10-004 Rev. 2
particularly during late winter when snow can be deep (Peek 1997). They often winter in river
valleys containing shrub riparian vegetation (Rausch and Gassaway 1994).
Caribou
Caribou have distinct phases of activities that include wintering and calving. Wintering and
calving occur in different areas, which allow the caribou to keep moving, enabling them to cover
large areas and find food (Valkenberg 1999).
Distinct caribou herds are distinguished by their traditional calving grounds (Cameron et al.
1979). Calving occurs in mid- to late-May. After calving, caribou aggregate to avoid predators.
Caribou use high mountains to escape inland predators, avoid biting insects, and escape the
summer heat (Cameron and Smith 1992; Pollard and Noel 1994; Valkenberg 1999).
Migration routes used for many years may suddenly be abandoned in favor of movements to new
areas with more food (Valkenberg 1999). Therefore, caribou distributions change periodically.
Brown Bear
Brown bears consume a wide variety of food that includes vegetation, salmon, moose, and
caribou (Eide et al. 1994). In the winter, most brown bears enter dens and hibernate. Brown
bears may spend 5–7½ months within their dens. Denning frequently occurs in snow-
accumulating areas of moderate to high relief, such as riverbanks, lake basins, dunes, and gullies,
often with southern exposures (MMS 2002).
Distribution
Moose
Moose are relatively new inhabitants of the Bristol Bay area (Woolington 2008). Until recently,
few were found within the project area primarily inhabited the Nushagak-Mulchatna River
(Woolington 2008). Moose are now relatively common throughout the project area.
Caribou
Two distinct caribou herds are found within the project area: the Mulchatna Caribou Herd (MCH)
and Northern Peninsula Caribou Herd (NPCH). The MCH has changed much of its wintering,
calving, and post-calving areas. In the 1980s and early 1990s, the MCH wintered along the north
and west side of Iliamna Lake, north of the Kvichak River. Starting in the late 1980s and early
1990s, the MCH moved its winter range southwest of this area and by the mid-1990s, the MCH
began wintering south of the Kuskokwim River in increasing numbers. MCH caribou calving
areas have dramatically changed over the years. Calving areas have spread northward and are
now spread through a vast area from just outside Dillingham, north to the confluence of the
Holitna and Hoholitna Rivers (Woolington 2007a).
The NPCH winters in the same vicinity as the MCH, between the Naknek River and Lake
Illiamna. Traditionally, the NPCH’s primary calving grounds are in the Bering Sea flats between
the Cinder and Bear rivers. Now a greater portion of the herd calves in mountainous terrain
between the Meshik River and Katmai National Park (Butler 2007a).
Caribou from both the MCH and the NPCH may be found within the project area. During the
winter months, calving caribou may be found in the western portion of the project area.
Brown Bear
The Alaska Peninsula, including Bristol Bay and the project area, is a premier area for large
brown bears and supports a guiding industry for big game hunters and support services for bear
viewing.
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
Naknek Electric Association 37 May 2010
15333-01-10-001/10-004 Rev. 2
Brown bears are widely distributed and commonly found within the project area. Brown bear
distributions are influenced by a combination of factors, which includes food concentrations of
fish and caribou. Brown bears are common throughout the northern Bristol Bay area and are
seasonally abundant along salmon spawning areas such as the Nushagak, Mulchatna, Togiak, and
Kulukak drainages and the Wood/Tikchik Lakes. Brown bears can also be found along the
Kvichak, Alagnak, and Naknek drainages. Occasionally, brown bears can also be found near
caribou aggregations (Woolington 2007b).
Abundance
Moose
Surveys indicate that moose populations in Game Management Unit (GMU) 9 have been
relatively stable over the past 28 years and densities remained low. Subunits 9B and 9C, areas
that include a portion of the project area, had an estimated population of 2,000 and 800 moose,
respectively (Butler 2008). In the last three decades, however, moose have expanded into GMU
17 and increased substantially in numbers. An estimate of moose populations for subunit 17C
north of the Igushik River, an area where the project is to occur, is 3,670 individuals (Woolington
2008).
Caribou
The MCH dramatically increased from 20,618 animals in 1981 to 200,000 animals in 1996, likely
due to a succession of mild winters, movements into previously unused range, relatively low
predation rates, and a harvest rate of less than 5 percent since the late 1970s (Woolington 2007a).
No herd information was available from 1996 to 1999, but the population probably peaked in
1996 or 1997 and has declined since (Woolington 2007a). Based on a 2006 survey, the
population estimate was 45,000 animals.
The overall population of the NPCH has decreased over the years. The estimated population of
the NPCH has ranged from 20,000 in 1984 to an estimated low of 2,500 in 2005 (Butler 2007a).
Brown Bear
Brown bear densities vary within GMU 9, with lower densities in the western section of Unit 9B
and the Bristol Bay coastal plain. Not including national park lands or McNeil State Game
Sanctuary, surveys have indicated that densities in 1991 were at one bear per 10.7 sq km
(4.13 sq mi), for an estimated population of 5,679 bears. Surveys flown between 1999 and 2005
suggest that the overall bear density in GMU 9 is closer to one bear per 9.1 sq km (3.5 sq mi), for
an estimated population of 6,000–6,800 bears. This estimate is low due to lack of information
about certain parts of GMU 9, where 1991 densities are assumed (Butler 2007b).
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
Naknek Electric Association 38 May 2010
15333-01-10-001/10-004 Rev. 2
3.2.2.2 Environmental Consequences
The development and existence of the proposed geothermal exploration and production facilities are not
anticipated to have an effect on terrestrial mammals and would not obstruct movements. The activities
associated with the project could potentially lead to temporary disturbance and displacement and habitat
loss or alteration.
Disturbance and Displacement
Disturbance and displacement of terrestrial mammals due to human activities are anticipated to be
temporary, localized, and minor. During construction, terrestrial mammals may encounter
various types of disturbances that include machinery traffic and human foot traffic, which may
lead to displacement.
Displacement of terrestrial mammals may result from activities associated with expansion of the
workpad and ongoing geothermal exploration and production. Displacement can potentially
increase mortality, increase stress, and result in group composition changes when disturbances are
frequent and intense. Overall, disturbances and displacement are expected to be few and minor,
particularly because workers would not be permitted to harass wildlife.
A study of moose in Norway concluded that they responded to human foot traffic more than to
mechanical disturbance (Anderson et al. 1996). Human disturbances caused flight responses that
occurred at greater distances than mechanical disturbances. Anderson et al. (1996) suggested
that moose reacted to fear of hunters and were becoming habituated to nonthreatening vehicles.
Moose in Wyoming that were bedded within 300 m (1,000 ft) and feeding within 150 m (500 ft)
of snowmachines altered their behavior in response (Colescott and Gillingham 1998). Although
moose within 300 m (1,000 ft) of the snowmachine trail were displaced to less favorable habitats,
Colescott and Gillingham (1998) concluded that snowmachine traffic did not appear to
significantly alter moose activity.
Much research has been conducted on the effects of disturbance and displacement on caribou.
Concern has arisen over industrial activity displacing calving caribou to less preferable habitat.
Researchers have drawn contradictory and controversial conclusions about whether and how
many caribou are affected by industrial development on the North Slope of Alaska, where many
industrial activities have occurred. Several studies suggest that pregnant cows and cows with
newborn calves avoid areas disturbed by industrial activities (Dau and Cameron 1986; Cameron
and Smith 1992; Nellemann and Cameron 1996). As development of industrial infrastructure
occurred near the Prudhoe Bay area, calving areas shifted southward away from the development
(Lawhead and Johnson 2000; Wolfe 2000). Other studies have indicated that bull caribou and
barren cows tolerate some levels of disturbance, especially once habituated to those disturbances
(Murphy and Curatolo 1987; Pollard et al. 1996; Cronin et al. 1998).
Caribou distribution has been found to be correlated with indices of terrain ruggedness; caribou
preferred areas dominated by fine-textured, rugged terrain and avoided areas with flatter terrain
(Nellemann and Cameron 1996). Displacement on the North Slope may have reduced the use of
rugged terrain by 52 percent. Caribou appeared to be displaced away from developed areas that
had terrain ruggedness. This displacement, which is positively correlated with forage quality and
biomass availability, may result in underuse and overuse of habitat, which can potentially
compromise nutrition of lactating females, body condition, and subsequent reproductive success.
Moving vehicles are the most frequent form of disturbance. Disturbances within 600 m (1,969 ft)
from a road with moderate to heavy traffic have resulted in considerable reductions in the amount
of time caribou spent lying down (Murphy and Curatolo 1987). Habituation has been
documented due to repeated exposure to human activities on a regular basis in predictable and
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
Naknek Electric Association 39 May 2010
15333-01-10-001/10-004 Rev. 2
nonthreatening environments (Miller et al. 1972; Vilmo 1975; Roby 1978; Davis et al. 1985;
Valkenburg and Davis 1985; Cronin et al. 1994).
Large predators such as brown bears and black bears generally occur in low densities.
Disturbances and displacement may occur to some extent if maintenance was needed during the
summer months of the operation phase. Some studies have indicated that brown bears have been
locally displaced from roads (Mattson 1988; McLellan 1988; Archibald et. al 1987; Harting
1987). The strongest responses were to the presence of humans on foot in open areas of low
human use (McLellan and Shackleton 1989). Few of these predatory species are likely to be
encountered.
Disturbance and displacement effects could occur as a result of the Proposed Action, but effects
would likely be temporary, localized, and minor to individuals and populations of terrestrial
mammals.
Habitat Loss or Alteration
The Proposed Action will occur within the existing project area, 3.5 hectares (8.75 acres). The
proposed actions will not result in habitat or alteration that may impact wildlife. Wildlife will be
able to pass freely around the pads and structures. The activities associated with the Proposed
Action and the existence of the geothermal exploration and production site are not anticipated to
lead to mortality of terrestrial wildlife. Workers would be subject to Alaska state laws and not
permitted to harass wildlife. Terrestrial wildlife mortality due to project activities is not
anticipated.
3.2.3 Fisheries Resources
3.2.3.1 Affected Environment
The Bristol Bay region is home to the world’s largest sockeye salmon run. The major salmon producer
near the project is the Naknek River. The Naknek watershed, which is the closest and largest waterbody
to the project, is world-renowned for its rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and salmon
(Oncorhynchus spp.) fishing in the river proper and lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush), Arctic char (S.
alpines), Dolly Varden (S. malma), and northern pike (Esox lucius) fishing in Naknek Lake. Smaller
tributaries include King Salmon and Eskimo creeks. The closest the Naknek River comes to the project
site is approximately 4.0 km (2.5 mi), and the closest tributary, the Eskimo Creek, is approximately
2.1 km (1.3 mi) from the project site. King Salmon Creek is farther away than Eskimo Creek.
Life History
Pacific salmon are anadromous, inhabiting freshwater after egg emergence, then traveling to the
sea for variable amounts of time. After their seaward migration, they return to their natal stream
to spawn as mature adults. The salmon die shortly after spawning (Mecklenberg et al. 2002).
Each of the five Pacific salmon species vary in their freshwater residency and time spent in
marine waters (Table 3.2.3.-1). The rainbow trout, Arctic char, Dolly Varden, and northern pike
reside their entire life in the Naknek River system.
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
Naknek Electric Association 40 May 2010
15333-01-10-001/10-004 Rev. 2
TABLE 3.2.3-1 Pacific Salmon Phases of Occupation in Freshwater and Marine Environments
Common Name Freshwater Residency Duration at Sea
Sockeye 1–2 years 3–4 years
Chum 0 years 3–5 years
Coho 1 year; up to 4 years 2–3 years
Pink 0 years 18 months
Chinook 3 months–2 years 1–5 years
Reference: Mecklenberg et al. 2002.
Distribution
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anadromous Waters Catalog fisheries distribution
database lists all five Pacific salmon species, Arctic char, and Dolly Varden in the Naknek River.
Chum, coho, Chinook, and pink salmon are found to spawn in King Salmon Creek. Coho and
Chinook salmon rear in Eskimo creek.
Abundance
Sockeye salmon dominate fish abundance in the Naknek River. Methods typically used to
determine abundance occur through seasonal escapement and commercial and subsistence catch
records. Most sockeye bound for their natal rivers are harvested by commercial and subsistence
users. Under ADF&G management principles, a sustainable number of sockeye salmon must
escape and return to their natal stream each year. Despite a large annual migration of chum,
Chinook, coho, and pink salmon, abundance monitoring in most Bristol Bay Rivers region targets
sockeye salmon.
3.2.3.2 Environmental Consequences
The proposed drilling sites are located away from any water sources, except for two unamed small lakes.
The two lakes are approximately 150 m–200 m (492 ft–656 ft) from the G2 drill site. There are no fish in
either lake in proximity to the drill sites. There are no anadromous salmon streams within the project
area. While the Naknek River supports a large quantity of salmon, and Eskimo Creek has rearing coho
and Chinook salmon, the proposed project site would not cross any part of the Naknek River, Eskimo
Creek, or their riparian zones. The construction and existence of the proposed drilling sites would not
have any effects on fish or fish habitat in the area because there are no fish present in the project area.
3.2.4 Threatened and Endangered Species
3.2.4.1 Affected Environment
No threatened and endangered species are found in the immediate vicinity of the project area. Steller’s
eider, however, use the coastal and marine environment near the project area or around the vicinity of
King Salmon.
The Alaska breeding population of Steller’s eiders was listed as a threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act on June 11, 1997. This was a result of an apparent long-term decline in numbers
and a restriction in breeding range. Causes of the decline are unknown but may have included increased
predation pressure on the North Slope and Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta breeding grounds, subsistence
harvest, ingestion of lead shot, and exposure to contaminants (Henny et al. 1995). Critical habitat has
been designated for the Steller’s eider in breeding areas on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, staging areas in
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
Naknek Electric Association 41 May 2010
15333-01-10-001/10-004 Rev. 2
the Kuskokwim Shoals, and molting areas near the Seal Islands, Nelson Lagoon, and Izembek Lagoon on
the Alaska Peninsula (USFWS 2005). There is no designated critical habitat within the project area.
Life History
The smallest of the four eider species, Steller’s eiders breed only once every few years. Steller’s
eiders nest near tundra ponds or in drained lake basins but occupy marine waters during the
remainder of the year. After nesting, they move into the nearshore marine waters of southwest
and southcentral Alaska and mix with the Russian Pacific eider population. They molt in autumn
in lagoons along the north side of the Alaska Peninsula. Important habitat for Steller’s eiders
includes the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta nesting areas and the Kuskokwim Shoals fall molting and
spring staging areas (USFWS 2005).
Distribution
Coastal and offshore areas provide habitat for Steller’s eiders. The Alaska breeding population is
primarily confined to the Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska’s North Slope. Some birds winter near
the molting areas, while others winter off the south side of the Alaska Peninsula, eastern Aleutian
Islands, Kodiak Archipelago, and southern Cook Inlet. In spring, Steller’s eiders concentrate in
the Kuskokwim River and Bristol Bay areas, waiting for the ice to recede before migrating to
nesting areas. Steller’s eiders can be found near or within Kvichak Bay where they molt
(USFWS 2005).
Abundance
Today, the Alaska breeding population is primarily confined to the Arctic Coastal Plain in low
densities and is extremely scarce in western Alaska. The threatened Alaska breeding population
is thought to be in the hundreds or low thousands on the Arctic Coastal Plain and in the dozens on
the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta (USFWS 2005).
3.2.4.2 Environmental Consequences
The construction and existence of the proposed transmission line is not anticipated to have an effect on
threatened and endangered species because the project area is not habitat for any threatened or
endangered species. The USFWS concurred the requirements of section 7 of the ESA have been satisfied
and the USFWS concurs with the determination that the Proposed Action will have no effect on listed
species, see Appendix C for USFWS concurrence letter.
Disturbance and Displacement
No disturbances or displacement of Steller’s eiders are anticipated to occur. In the rare event that
Steller’s eiders occur within the project area, disturbance and displacement would not occur
because most activities take place during the winter when water bodies are frozen.
Habitat Loss or Alteration
No habitat loss or alteration would occur because Steller’s eiders are not expected to use the
habitat within the project area. As described earlier, Steller’s eider habitat use is restricted to
coastal and marine waters during the non-breeding season.
Mortality
Since no Steller’s eiders are anticipated to occur within the project area, mortality is not an issue.
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
Naknek Electric Association 42 May 2010
15333-01-10-001/10-004 Rev. 2
3.2.5 Vegetation and Wetlands
3.2.5.1 Affected Environment
The purpose of this subsection is to evaluate and summarize the results of the office-based Wetland
Determination Report (HDR Alaska, Inc. [HDR] 2009) and the follow-up supplemental field
investigation completed on April 17, 2009, for the proposed road corridor and geothermal well pads near
King Salmon, Alaska.
It is understood that the field investigations were completed outside of the growing season, limiting direct
observation of wetland indicators, according to the 2007 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Regional Supplement (USACE 2007). Growing season is estimated as the time from the onset of
vegetation green-up in the spring until the time in late fall when woody deciduous species lose their
leaves and the last herbaceous plants cease flowering and their leaves become dry or brown. The
accuracy of the field determination is based on the confirmation of winter season ground truthing and may
need to be confirmed during the growing season.
As identified in the April 3, 2009, report, five cover types identified in the project area include mixed
broadleaf/needleleaf, woodland lichen tundra, stunted needleleaf scrub/shrub, shrub/sedge wet meadow,
and broadleaf scrub/shrub thickets. In an effort to include areas of wetland impacts that otherwise may
not be included, the field determination conservatively included potential areas that appeared to be
wetland. Overall, 17 sites were ground-truthed, of which five sites had preliminary wetland
determination forms completed. It is possible that areas mapped as uplands may be wetland and subject
to the regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Areas near the north pad site are
mapped as wetlands and confirmed as wetlands with ground-truthing.
The mapped wetlands occur in persistent, emergent vegetation in depressions with concave surfaces.
Soils in the mapped wetlands were poorly drained, with thick organic mats. Mapped wetlands were
saturated with water or flooded. The wetlands shown in Appendix B are the areas that may be subject to
USACE jurisdiction. Placement of dredged or fill material within them, or grading of soil within them,
might be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the CWA.
3.2.5.2 Environmental Consequences
A review of the wetland determination prepared by HDR, dated April 2009, shows wetlands within the
vicinity of the Proposed Action. However, the Proposed Action does not involve placing fill in
previously undisturbed areas, therefore, no impacts to wetlands or vegetation are expected. Since no fill
is being placed in wetlands, the Proposed Action does not require a Section 404 permit. If the gravel pads
are expanded in the future, it is recommended that efforts be taken to avoid, minimize, and mitigate to the
maximum extent practicable all wetland impacts in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
3.3 Water Resources
3.3.1 Affected Environment
The Naknek River drainage area is approximately 9,583 sq km (3,700 sq mi). The watershed includes
seven interconnecting lakes. Naknek Lake collects runoff from the volcanoes and mountains to the east,
west, and south. The 35-km (22-mi) Naknek River drains Naknek Lake into Kvichak Bay. The Naknek
River is tidally influenced from the mouth to King Salmon. The diurnal range (average difference
between mean higher high water and mean lower low water) is 6.9 m (22.6 ft) at the mouth and 1 m
(3.2 ft) near King Salmon (National Climatic Data Center 1988). Many small streams and creeks feed
into the Naknek River.
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
Naknek Electric Association 43 May 2010
15333-01-10-001/10-004 Rev. 2
Although minimal water quality information is available on most waterbodies in the area, the surface
water in these watersheds is thought to be of good quality. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has
established stations to conduct water quantity and quality monitoring in some of the drainages.
The USGS gauged Eskimo Creek (located near the King Salmon airport) from 1973–1984. During those
years, daily stream flow averaged 0.5–150 cubic feet per second, with highs occurring during spring and
fall, and lows occurring during mid-winter. In 1996, the State of Alaska placed King Salmon Creek,
Eskimo Creek, and the Naknek River on the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) listing for
impairments by petroleum hydrocarbons and oil and grease. With federal remediation efforts, all three
waterbodies were removed from the impaired waters list in 2003.
3.3.2 Environmental Consequences
The activities associated with proposed geothermal exploration are not expected to have any direct effects
on water resources within the proposed project area. In general, the proposed project area is a small
footprint. Effects on water resources during the exploration and drilling phase are expected to remain
negligible. Survey activities would have little or no impact on surface water or groundwater. Exploration
drilling would involve some ground-disturbing activities that could lead to increased surface runoff.
Drilling into the reservoir can create pathways for geothermal fluids (which are under high pressure) to
rise and mix with shallower groundwater. Effects of these pathways may include the alteration of natural
circulation of geothermal fluids and the usefulness of the resource. Geothermal fluids may also degrade
the quality of shallow aquifers. The stormwater pollution prevention requirements and other industry
guidelines would ensure that soil erosion and surface runoff are controlled. Proper drilling practices and
closure and capping of wells can reduce the potential for drilling-related effects.
All geothermal fluids would be appropriately contained in an on-site reserve tank and waste disposal
areas (see section 2.6). Temporary effects on surface water may also occur as a result of the release of
geothermal fluids during well testing, if they are not contained. Geothermal fluids are hot and highly
mineralized and if released to surface water could cause thermal changes and changes in water quality.
Accidental spills of geothermal fluids could occur due to well blowouts during drilling, leaks in piping or
well heads, or overflow from sump pits. Proper well casing and drilling techniques, however, mitigate
these risks. Overall compliance with state and federal regulations would protect water quality and the
limitations of water rights as issued.
3.4 Cultural Resources
Cultural resources are physical resources associated with people, a society, or multiple societies. They
are both built and natural parts of the physical environment and have some cultural value to one or more
sociocultural groups (King 1998). They include historic sites, archaeological sites, cultural landscapes,
historic documents, spiritual places, Native cultural items, historic and archaeological artifacts, and
community values.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) requires that impacts on
cultural resources be considered prior to the commencement of any project with federal involvement,
including federal funding or permits. This is further defined in the implementing regulations,
36 CFR 800.
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
Naknek Electric Association 44 May 2010
15333-01-10-001/10-004 Rev. 2
3.4.1 Affected Environment
3.4.1.1 Central Yup’ik and Alutiiq Cultural History
At the time of European contact, the study area was occupied by two culturally and linguistically
distinct groups: the Central Yup’ik and the Alutiiq. The Central Yup’ik inhabited the northern
shore of Bristol Bay, as well as the eastern shore as far south as Egegik Bay. The Alutiiq people
generally occupied the upper Alaska Peninsula east of King Salmon and Kodiak Island (BLM
2007). Today, both cultures persist in the region, and people continue to participate in traditional
cultural activities. This section, however, focuses on the past.
3.4.1.2 Prehistory
The earliest archaeological sites in the Central Yup’ik Bristol Bay region date to approximately
6,000–8,000 BC. These oldest sites, belonging to a period known as the Paleoarctic, are located
along the upper Ugashik drainage. The people who left these sites focused primarily on hunting
large land mammals, especially caribou, with a blade technology (BLM 2007). Following the
Paleoarctic period, the Bristol Bay region was occupied from the north by people assigned to the
Northern Archaic tradition (circa 3,000 BC) and Arctic Small Tool tradition (2,000–1,000 BC).
These groups all maintained a focus on the hunting of large land mammals, caribou in particular
(BLM 2007).
From the Alaska Peninsula to the south, the Ocean Bay tradition was the first cultural group in the
region to demonstrate a maritime adaptation, specializing in fishing and hunting marine
mammals. The Katchemak tradition developed subsequent to Ocean Bay, appearing in the
archaeological record around 2,000 BC. It was during this period that material culture became
increasingly complex, with more elaborate and decorative hunting implements and the use of
ground stone slate tools and lamps. A more sedentary lifestyle during this period is evidenced by
larger, more permanent houses (BLM 2007).
Upper Bristol Bay groups became more heavily focused on marine resources somewhat later,
concurrent with their shift to more permanent settlements seen in the Norton tradition between
approximately 300–1,000 AD. The earliest remains of pottery come from Norton sites, as well as
the earliest constructed houses and net sinkers used for catching salmon. Ground stone tools, in
contrast to chipped stone technology in use in the region prior to the Norton tradition, appear
around this time as well (BLM 2007).
Archaeologists generally agree that the Alutiiq were descendants of the prehistoric people
belonging to the Katchemak Tradition. Alutiiq sites along the Naknek and Savonovski rivers date
back approximately 4,500 years, the first 500 of which were focused on hunting caribou and other
large land mammals. Around 4,000 years ago, people switched to an emphasis on fishing (BLM
2007).
During the late prehistoric, the Alutiiq who had migrated toward the coast were most likely
displaced by Central Yup'ik populations moving south and east from the other side of Bristol
Bay. By the time of contact, Alutiiq people living near the project area were living around
Naknek Lake and the Savonoski drainage (BLM 2007). Salmon continued to be an important
subsistence resource and on the coast people increasingly relied upon sea mammals. Further
inland, large land mammals were the subsistence staple. Both coastal and inland groups
supplemented subsistence resources seasonally with birds, fresh water fish, furbearers, and berries
(BLM 2007).
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
Naknek Electric Association 45 May 2010
15333-01-10-001/10-004 Rev. 2
3.4.1.3 Historical Period
The first Russian exploration in the Bristol Bay region was that of Admiral Nageav in 1767.
Subsequent expeditions in the area were sporadic. The first permanent Russian presence in the
study area was a Russian American Company trading post constructed at the mouth of the
Nushagak River in 1818 and called the Novo-Alexandrovsky Redoubt. Missionaries with the
Russian Orthodox Church soon followed, building schools at fur trading posts and converting the
Native inhabitants in the area to Orthodoxy. Russians remained a significant presence in the area
until the sale of Alaska in 1867. Russian men married Native women, and their children—called
creoles—were given Russian citizenship and the protection of the Russian government (BLM
2007).
Americans were slow to take interest in the region, with the exception of the missionaries, who
began arriving in the late 1880s. The 1912 eruption of Novarupta was a significant event in the
region, forcing the relocation of at least one village, Savonoski. The resulting tephra provides a
secure stratigraphic identifier for undisturbed sites in the vicinity (BLM 2007).
The driving force behind the eventual influx of outsiders to the Bristol Bay region was salmon.
The first cannery was established on Nushagak Bay in 1883 at Kanulik. It was only the first of
many. Within a period of 25 years, there were ten canneries in Nushagak Bay, and by the 1920s
there were 25 canneries operating within Bristol Bay, including floating canneries, a recent
innovation at the time (BLM 2007). The region was quickly over-fished, and in an effort to save
what remained of the fishery, stream guards were located on major streams by the Bureau of
Fisheries (BLM 2007).
3.4.2 Environmental Consequences
While numerous archaeological sites have been identified in the broader Naknek River drainage, no
known or potential cultural resources or archeological sites were identified within 3.2 km (2 mi) of the
geothermal project area (ADNR Office of History and Archaeology [OHA] 2010). Prior research
describes site locations in the Naknek River drainage as occupying river bluffs, with some use of
substantial perennial water source margins and high overlooks (e.g., Dumond 1987, 2003; Harritt 1987).
NEA’s geothermal project area comprises undulating, fairly wet ground amidst black spruce, and three
small ponds lie on the APE Effect margins. The project area thus contains none of the landform features
associated with a moderately high archaeological probability for the Naknek River vicinity.
3.5 Land Use
3.5.1 Affected Environment
The project site is situated within a section of remote land with little infrastructure. The land is used
primarily by local Native residents from Naknek, King Salmon, and South Naknek for recreation and
subsistence purposes. Subsistence and recreational fishing occurs mostly in the summer months, while
hunting takes place during fall and winter. Fishing is conducted out of the Naknek River tributaries, such
as the northward flowing Smelt and Chimenchun Creeks. Hunting areas are accessed by navigable waters
in the summer and frozen rivers and tundra during the winter. The project site is not currently used as an
area where residents obtain subsistence resources. Currently, the project site is connected to the existing
road system via Lake Camp Road. This is a maintained dirt road providing access from King Salmon and
Naknek. Lake Camp road also provides access to Naknek Lake, which is under ownership of the U.S.
Park Service.
The surface acreage surrounding the NEA parcel is owned by Paug-Vik Inc., Ltd., a village corporation
with subsurface rights retained by Bristol Bay Native Corporation. NEA has a 100-ft easement to access
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
Naknek Electric Association 46 May 2010
15333-01-10-001/10-004 Rev. 2
the site with a road and utility corridor. Bristol Bay Borough and the State of Alaska have no jurisdiction
over the land or the geothermal resource. Most of the land in the Bristol Bay Borough is Native-owned
(Figure 3.5.1-1).
3.5.2 Environmental Consequences
Proposed activities would occur within the existing 49-hectare (120-acre) project area. The existing
project area holds no special land use designation. The location is not identified as an area critical to
biological resources or local residents for subsistence use. Proposed activities are expected to disturb
only the immediate vicinity of the existing surveying or drilling site. Exploration activities are unlikely to
affect aviation, subsistence, aesthetics, or general use on surrounding lands.
3.6 Noise
3.6.1 Affected Environment
NEA is currently conducting drilling and construction activities in their project area. King Salmon is the
nearest community to the project area and is located approximately 8 km (5 mi) southwest of NEA’s
project site. Noise from NEA’s project area is not expected to carry to King Salmon. The only noise
receptors expected to be in the project vicinity would be NEA employees and subcontractors, bird and
wildlife species, and perhaps subsistence hunters.
3.6.2 Environmental Consequences
Drilling and construction activities are already occurring at NEA’s project site. The additional activities
described in this EA would likely increase the noise level at the project site by a small amount, but
probably not enough to affect the environment.
NEA’s proposed project would include the use of one drill rig, pile drivers, and typical construction site
equipment for the pad expansion and widening of the access road. There would also be an increase in
noise associated with additional vehicle traffic along the widened access road.
Area uses that have the potential to be negatively affected by high noise levels are considered “noise-
sensitive” land uses. Examples of effects that arise from loud noises are sleep disturbance, annoyance,
displacement of local wildlife, and disturbance or interference with subsistence activities. Since King
Salmon is the nearest community to the project site and is located approximately 8 km (5 mi) southwest
of NEA’s project site, the majority of residents in the community center are not expected to be affected by
noise generated from drilling and construction activities.
The majority of loud sounds at the project area would be generated by the drill rig and pile drivers.
Sounds produced during geothermal drilling by typical drill rigs, such as the rig used by NEA, range from
about 80–115 dB (Tribal Energy and Environmental Information Clearinghouse [TEEIC] 2010). Pile
drivers typically emit sounds ranging from 82–105 dB acoustic (Eaton 2000). NEA plans to continue
following U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) noise regulations and guidelines
for worker exposure. There are no noise ordinances that encompass the project site.
N a knek R i v e rK v i c h a k B a y
NEA 120Acre Parcel
Naknek
KingSalmon
SouthNaknek
NAD 83, Alaska State Plane Zone 06
AES-RTS: 10-004B-003.mxd, 05/06/10, R00
SCALE:FIGURE:
0 2 41 Miles
LOCAL LAND USE AND ZONINGNaknek Electric AssociationEnvironmental Assessment
3.5.1-1
Naknek Electric AssociationHomer
Egegik
Kodiak
DillinghamKing Salmon
Land Status:BLMNativePrivate or MunicipalState
State and NativeU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Park ServiceWild and Scenic Rivers Management
TownRoad
Environmental Assessment Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska Naknek Electric Association 48 May 2010 15333-01-10-001/10-004 Rev. 2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE/EA-1759 49 May 2010
Rev. 2
3.7 Infrastructure
3.7.1 Affected Environment
3.7.1.1 Transportation
The Bristol Bay Borough and entire Bristol Bay Region are limited to intercommunity travel
primarily by air or water. There are no roads connecting the majority of villages throughout the
region. Severe seasonal weather conditions, inadequate marine facilities, limited roads, and the
lack of bridges impede the movement of people and goods. The Bristol Bay Borough is located
between the city of Dillingham and the Lake and Peninsula Borough. Naknek and King Salmon
are connected by a 25-km (16-mi) asphalt-surfaced road. Access to air service is available at the
regional hub of King Salmon, as well as the nearby world-class Bristol Bay commercial fishing
grounds.
3.7.1.2 Utilities
The utilities sector includes water treatment and distribution systems, sewer, wastewater, solid
waste treatment and disposal, and bulk fuel storage for power, heating, and transportation. Clean
water and safe sanitation systems are essential to the Bristol Bay Borough economy, especially
for seafood processing. Also important is availability, safe storage, and timely distribution of
bulk fuel used to power electrical facilities that run water pumps and sanitation systems in area
communities. The Borough operates a piped sewage system and a piped drinking water system
for about 90 percent of households.
3.7.1.3 Energy
NEA imports about 1.5 million gal of diesel each year to generate power for the Naknek-King
Salmon grid. NEA’s power plant uses excess heat from diesel generation to warm the Borough’s
elementary and high schools, a clinic, the school superintendent’s office, a swimming pool, an
emergency building, the utility’s building, and five homes.
3.7.1.4 Geothermal Project Infrastructure
The NEA Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project was created to evaluate and
develop geothermal resources within the Bristol Bay Borough in Alaska. As part of this project,
the following activities have been performed and infrastructure has been developed:
A 2.9-km (1.8-mi) long gravel road from Lake Camp Road to the project site has been
constructed.
Two gravel pads, each approximately 91 m by 107 m (300 ft by 350 ft) have been
constructed.
– A geothermal evaluation well, G1, is currently being drilled to approximately
3,048 m–4,267 m (10,000 ft–14,000 ft) in depth on the northern gravel pad.
– A laydown and storage area has been developed on the southern gravel pad.
Three containment areas for waste have been developed: an inert monofill, a drilling
waste monofill, and a temporary waste storage area.
A small pond has been developed and permitted as a water source, with a permitted
withdrawal rate of up to 12 million gal over a 2-year period.
A project office and work area supplied with electricity, heat, and other necessary
facilities have been established to support drilling efforts.
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE/EA-1759 50 May 2010
Rev. 2
Based upon the current schedule, well G1 would be drilled to final depth in February 2010, and
testing and well completion would be performed in March 2010. The drill rig and other resources
would be available to begin work on well G2 in April 2010.
3.7.2 Environmental Consequences
Should geothermal power eventually prove viable, the most dramatic impacts would be the delivery of
reduced-cost energy. Ultimately this project may decrease and stabilize energy costs, benefiting the
public sector (e.g., schools, municipalities, and utilities) and the private sector (e.g., industry and private
energy users). Outside the primary village boundaries, the project area is remote with little or no
infrastructure. While the long-term outcome of the Proposed Action may not lead to a large increase in
transportation and utilities, the project would likely have a positive outcome on energy resources within
the region.
3.8 Aesthetics
3.8.1 Affected Environment
The visual character, or aesthetics, of a particular area is subjective and depends upon the viewer. The
aesthetic value placed on NEA’s project area is dependent upon a combination of the visual character,
visual quality, and the opinion of the viewer.
A large portion of the project area is relatively undeveloped and undisturbed by human influence and, in
some areas, could be characterized as open space. The project area is approximately 2.43 km (1.51 mi)
from the Katmai National Park boundary and approximately 14.1 km (8.76 mi) from the Becharof
National Wildlife Refuge boundary. Each land type is managed according to agency mandates or
guidelines that involve some level of protection from development. The project would not intersect any
of these state or federally recognized lands.
3.8.2 Environmental Consequences
The aesthetic value of NEA’s project area is not likely to be greatly affected by proposed project
development. The aesthetic value of a natural scenic area diminishes to varying degrees with the addition
or increase of manmade developments or facilities. Due to the existing drill pad and access road, the
change in landscape would be minimal with 0.4 hectares (1 acre) of additional surface disturbance.
Expanding the northernmost gravel pad (Figure 2.4-1) 18 m (60 ft) to the north would increase the project
footprint and, in turn, slightly decrease the aesthetic value of the project area. However, the ratio of the
project area to the surrounding landscape is such that the overall aesthetic value of the area would be
minimally affected.
The drilling of an additional well in NEA’s project area would no more than slightly affect the visual
quality of the landscape. The components of the activity that would have the greatest effects are drilling
crews and equipment and they would be present only temporarily, restoring preconstruction views upon
their exit.
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE/EA-1759 51 May 2010
Rev. 2
3.9 Socioeconomics
Socioeconomic resources within the project area that could be affected by the proposed installation of a
new transmission line are identified and reviewed in this section, including:
Community profiles
Subsistence
Environmental Justice issues
3.9.1 Community Profiles
NEA member communities King Salmon, Naknek, and South Naknek are governed under the Bristol Bay
Borough. Incorporated in 1962 as the state’s first borough, today it is considered a regional hub for
several communities. King Salmon, the site of a former U.S. Air Force Base, provides a fully operational
airport, regularly scheduled aircraft service, and cargo travel to and from Anchorage.
Commercial fishing is a vital part of the economy. In 2008, total inshore return to the Naknek-Kvichak
commercial fishing district of Bristol Bay was approximately 17.80 million sockeye salmon. The total
commercial catch totaled more than 10.39 million sockeye salmon. Compared to sockeye salmon
commercial catches, other salmon species—Chinook, chum, coho, or pink salmon—in the Naknek-
Kvichak system are relatively small. Restrictions require mesh to target sockeye salmon. The most
popular periods for commercial fishing occur between the last two weeks of June and typically last about
six weeks. The steady decline in price per pound for sockeye has lowered the annual price paid to Bristol
Bay fisherman from 1994–2009 (Figure 3.9-1).
Figure 3.9.1-1 Average Price per Pound of Sockeye Salmon Paid to Commercial Fisherman in
Bristol Bay Borough 1994–2009
Source: ADF&G 2009
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Price (U.S. Dollars)
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE/EA-1759 52 May 2010
Rev. 2
Decreasing fish prices have contributed to higher unemployment rates and the percent of residents living
below the poverty line. Because there is little governmental infrastructure in South Naknek, residents are
more reliant on commercial fishing jobs than adults residing in Naknek and King Salmon. As a result, the
declining price of salmon has resulted in more than a fourth of the community living below the poverty
line (Table 3.9-1).
TABLE 3.9.1-1 Employment Demographics of Bristol Bay Borough
Community Total Population Unemployment Rate
Percent of Adults
Not in Workforce
Percent of
Residents Living
Below Poverty
Level
King Salmon 409* 8.86 28.61 12.42
Naknek 552* 9.38 35.56 3.73
South Naknek 68* 24.14 60.71 27.08
Reference: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development (ADCCED). 2009. Community Database Online. Available online at
http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_BLOCK.htm. Accessed February 19, 2010.
* Estimated population (not certified)
3.9.1.1 King Salmon
King Salmon, on the north bank of the Naknek River, is located on the Alaska Peninsula,
approximately 457 km (284 mi) southwest of Anchorage. Demographically, the community is
somewhat unique in the region, with a Native population consisting of Aleuts, Athabascans, and
Yup'ik Eskimos. This is a result of several factors, including the historical boundary between the
three groups, the 1912 Mount Katmai eruption, the commercial salmon fishery, and the growing
importance of the community in the mid-20th century (ADCCED 2009).
As of 2009, 48 residents held commercial fishing permits (Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission [ACFEC] 2009). Considered a transportation hub for the region, King Salmon is
also a departure point for the Katmai National Park and Preserve. Fishing is one of the main
tourist attractions for the area and access to bear viewing and outdoor adventure activities, such as
rafting and hiking in the park, are also available (ADCCED 2009).
The state-owned airport in King Salmon has regularly scheduled jet service from Anchorage and
the Aleutians. A seaplane base is located nearby at Lake Brooks. A 24-km (15-mi) road
connecting King Salmon to Naknek allows goods barged to Naknek to be taken by truck to King
Salmon year-round. There is no school in King Salmon. Children attend the school in Naknek.
There is one health clinic (ADCCED 2009).
3.9.1.2 Naknek
The community of Naknek is located on the north bank of the Naknek River. It is approximately
478 km (297 mi) southwest of Anchorage. The overall economy is based on government
employment and salmon fishing and processing. Naknek functions on a cyclic economy, with
several thousand seasonal employees arriving each summer to work in the commercial and sport
fishing industries. One hundred twenty Naknek residents hold commercial fishing permits
(ADCCED 2009). The overwhelming majority of those are set or drift net permits for salmon,
although a combined total of six permits issued to Naknek residents are for halibut, herring, king
crab, and sablefish (ACFEC 2009). Millions of pounds of salmon are processed each year and
sent to domestic and international markets. Trident Seafoods, North Pacific Processors, Ocean
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE/EA-1759 53 May 2010
Rev. 2
Beauty, and other fish processors operate facilities in Naknek. Naknek is also the seat of the
Bristol Bay Borough.
The first inhabitants in Naknek and the surrounding region were Yup'ik Eskimos and Athabascan
Indians. Russian settlers and fur trappers eventually moved in, and the first salmon cannery
opened on the Naknek River in 1890. With continued fishing success, there were approximately
twelve canneries in Bristol Bay by 1900. Over the years, Naknek has developed as a major
fishery center (ADCCED 2009).
Naknek has a population of approximately 552 people. A total of 47.1 percent of the population
is Alaska Native or of Alaska Native descent and are represented by the Naknek Village Council,
a federally recognized tribe. In general, Naknek is made up of non-Natives, Yup'ik Eskimos,
Alutiiq, and Athabascans.
Naknek has two separate, lighted, gravel runways—the privately owned, Tibbetts airstrip, and the
state-owned Naknek airport. The Naknek airport is located near a lake suitable for landing float
planes. Jet services are available at King Salmon, which is connected to Naknek by a road. The
Bristol Bay Borough operates the cargo dock at Naknek, which is the Port of Bristol Bay. No
commercial docking facilities are available at the canneries, although the development of a
fishermen’s dock, freight dock, and industrial park are regional priorities. Pickup trucks and cars
are common, and taxis are available (ADCCED 2009).
3.9.1.3 South Naknek
South Naknek is located opposite Naknek on the south bank of the Naknek River. Much smaller
than Naknek, with a population of approximately 68 individuals in 2008, it is closely tied to the
larger community. The two communities also share a common prehistory and history, with some
minor differences. Like Naknek, South Naknek was permanently settled as a result of the salmon
canneries around the turn of the 20th century and was historically occupied seasonally by the
Sugpiaq Aleuts (ADCCED 2009).
South Naknek has its own federally recognized tribe, the South Naknek Village. Approximately
84 percent of the residents are Alaska Native or Alaska Native descendants. The community
maintains a traditional subsistence lifestyle, which focuses heavily on fishing and hunting and is
augmented by a cash economy (ADCCED 2009). Thirty-three residents held commercial fishing
permits for the drift or set net salmon fishery in 2009 (ACFEC 2009).
South Naknek has its own small health clinic, but Camai Medical Center in Naknek offers
supplemental services. Children go to school in Naknek, as there is no school in South Naknek
(ADCCED 2009).
3.9.2 Subsistence
Subsistence is defined as the “customary and traditional uses by rural Alaska residents of wild, renewable
resources for direct personal or family consumption as food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools, or
transportation” (U.S. Code [USC] Title 16, Section 3113 [16 U.S.C. § 3113]). Subsistence is a
fundamental part of life in rural Alaska. It continues to hold significant cultural importance among
Alaska Native communities and plays a large economic role as well. The majority of rural Alaskan
communities participate in a mixed-cash, or mixed, subsistence/market economy, including those within
the study area (Wolfe 2000).
Historically, the proposed project area was occupied by two cultural groups: the Central Yup’ik and the
Alutiiq. Though there have been many changes to the traditional lifestyles practiced by the Yup’ik and
the Alutiiq people in the area, many people in the region continue to rely heavily on subsistence
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE/EA-1759 54 May 2010
Rev. 2
resources. The resources most heavily relied upon in the region are fish, caribou, and moose.
Additionally, upland game, bears, furbearers, and waterfowl are important supplemental resources (BLM
2007).
Subsistence is an important aspect of cultural and economic life within Bristol Bay communities.
Subsistence resources provide the majority of food that some households within the project area consume
in a given year, as well as provide a valuable source of trade and bartering items. Subsistence resources
are also widely shared among family and friends within and between communities (Krieg et al. 2009).
Resources that are only regionally available, such as seal oil on the coast, are traded for resources more
commonly available inland. Resources can also be traded for cash or non-food items, a practice that has
become more accepted in recent years (Kreig et al. 2009).
Community-wide harvest estimates are not available for all of the communities within the project area, as
systematic surveys have not been conducted for all locations in recent years. The ADF&G conducted
many surveys in the 1980s and has more recently been updating information for some communities.
More recent studies have also focused on a sample of certain communities: their levels of participation in
harvesting and the use of wild resources, which resources are used in those communities, areas used for
subsistence purposes, and the sharing and receipt of wild resources (Krieg et al. 2009).
3.9.3 Environmental Justice
Executive Order (EO) 12898, passed into law in 1994, was created to take into account potential
environmental effects of federal projects on minority and low-income populations. According to the CEQ
1997 guidance, the main principles of EO 12898 address the following:
Consider the composition of the affected area to determine whether minority populations,
low-income populations, or Indian tribes are present in the area affected by the Proposed Action,
and, if so, whether there may be disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, or Indian tribes;
Consider relevant public health data and industry data concerning the potential for multiple or
cumulative exposure to human health or environmental hazards, to the extent such information is
reasonably available;
Recognize the interrelated cultural, social, occupational, historical, or economic factors that may
amplify the natural and physical environmental effects of the proposed agency action;
Develop effective public participation strategies acknowledging and seeking to overcome
linguistic, cultural, institutional, geographic, and other barriers to meaningful participation;
ensure meaningful community representation in the NEPA process; and
Seek tribal representation in the process in a manner that is consistent with the government-to-
government relationship between the United States and tribal governments, the federal
government’s trust responsibility to federally recognized tribes, and any treaty rights.
The predominant minority populations in the communities of the Bristol Bay Borough are Alaska
Natives, Yup’ik’ and Alutiiq in particular. All of the communities in the study area have high Native
populations and minority populations in excess of 50 percent, with the exceptions of King Salmon
(29 percent minority population) and Naknek (45.3 percent minority population). Many of the members
of these communities live a mixed subsistence lifestyle, relying heavily on subsistence resources. Based
upon these factors, the residents of the communities to be served by the proposed project are targets of
EO 12898.
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE/EA-1759 55 May 2010
Rev. 2
3.9.4 Environmental Consequences
Should drilling of geothermal wells G2 and G3 result in successful energy prospects, the long-term
socioeconomic effect would result in power delivery to Bristol Bay Borough communities at a greatly
reduced rate. The proposed project could result in a reduced cost for residential consumers of an
estimated $35.30 to $58.85 per month. Commercial, state, and federal consumers, as well as public
schools, can expect to see a reduction in monthly costs of between $111.40 and $137.90 per 500 kilowatt-
hour used.
3.10 Intentional Destructive Acts
In December 2006, the DOE Office of General Counsel issued interim guidance stipulating that NEPA
documents completed for DOE actions and projects should explicitly consider intentional destructive acts
(i.e., acts of sabotage or terrorism). Drilling, construction, and operation of exploratory geothermal wells
would not involve the transportation, storage, or use of radioactive, explosive, or toxic materials.
Consequently, it is highly unlikely that construction or operation of the geothermal project would be
viewed as a potential target by saboteurs or terrorists. The project location is not near any national
defense infrastructure or in the immediate vicinity of a major inland port, container terminal, freight
trains, or nuclear power plants. The Proposed Action would not offer any targets of opportunity for
terrorists or saboteurs to inflict adverse impacts to human life, health, or safety.
4.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
For the purposes of this study, cumulative effects are defined as effects that are incremental in nature and
occur from a Proposed Action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions (DOE 2008). Cumulative effects are often referred to as “nibbling” effects (The Cumulative
Effects Assessment [CEA] Working Group 1999). Approaches used to perform cumulative effects
assessments are numerous and vary significantly based on many factors, including but not limited to the
footprint of the Proposed Action, persistence of the Proposed Action and scope of activities associated
with the Proposed Action. This cumulative effects assessment takes a project screening approach (CEA
Working Group 1999) because the Proposed Action is considered a small action. The assessment
incorporates key components considered essential for any cumulative impacts assessment, including
scoping, analysis, evaluation and summary (physical environment, biological resources, and
socioeconomic/community resources), and future considerations (Smith 2006).
4.1 Evaluation and Summary
This cumulative effects assessment evaluated the combined effects of past activities directly related to the
Proposed Action, the Proposed Action alternative, and reasonably foreseeable future actions associated
with the Proposed Action. Because the Proposed Action is one step in a multi-step process for the
exploration, evaluation, and development of geothermal resources, the cumulative impacts assessment is a
particularly important part of the EA.
The Proposed Action is a part of the NEA Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project. Parts
of the Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project that have already been completed or are
ongoing include construction of a 2.9-km (1.8-mi) long by 5.5 m (18 ft) wide gravel road from Lake
Camp Road to the project site, construction of two gravel pads connected by a gravel road [Total
disturbance 4.9 hectares (12.2 acres)], and drilling of a single exploratory geothermal well. More specific
information on the existing infrastructure is included in Section 2.4.
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE/EA-1759 56 May 2010
Rev. 2
The Proposed Action discussed in Section 2.0 includes drilling, logging and testing of two geothermal
wells (G2 and G3) and the possible stimulation of an exploratory well (G1, G2, or G3). Reasonably
foreseeable actions include the possible drilling of up to three more wells (G4 through G6).
If the Proposed Action is carried out and the geothermal resource is determined to be of sufficient size
and temperature to allow the development of a geothermal power generation facility, a reasonably
foreseeable future action is the construction of the Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy
Project. This includes construction of a 25-megawatt power plant, a switch yard, and a tie-in to the
current NEA energy grid via a 2.9-km (1.8-mi) power line. This project would also provide electric
power to the entire NEA service area.
4.2 Meteorology and Air Quality
Past actions have had no effect on regional meteorology and temporary and local effects on air quality.
Air quality effects were associated with the construction of the gravel road and pad, predominately from
dust emissions. Periodic effects from dust are expected from vehicle traffic along the gravel road and
pads. These effects are extremely localized and temporary.
The Proposed Action is not likely to have any effect on meteorology and air quality, with the exception of
effects associated with expansion of existing gravel pads and widening of the existing gravel access road.
These effects are expected to be temporary and localized, associated only with construction activities.
After construction activities are completed, the effect of the Proposed Action is expected to be limited to
dust from vehicle traffic along the gravel road and pads and would be the same as those from past actions.
Construction and operation of the Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project would have a
temporary and localized negative effect on air quality during the construction phase due to use of the
existing gravel pads and the access road (dust) and performance of construction activities (emissions from
diesel- and gasoline-fired engines). However, the long-term effects are expected to be positive. The
operation of the Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project would result in the closure of the
existing NEA diesel-fired generation facility and reduction of 1.5 million gal of diesel fuel currently used
to generate power for the NEA service area. This would result in the reduction of 33.3 million pounds of
GHGs, primarily carbon dioxide, not entering the atmosphere (EPA–
http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05001.htm accessed 2/23/2010). In addition, the availability of
lower-cost electricity could result in industrial users by freeing up more capital.
4.3 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Past actions have included the ground-disturbing activities of gravel pad and gravel access road
construction. These activities have localized but permanent effects on soil compaction and permeability
in the areas of pad and road construction. Current activities include drilling and completion of G1, which
are not expected to have a significant effect on the geology of the area.
The Proposed Action would result in some ground-disturbing activities because of the expansion of
existing gravel pads and widening of the existing gravel access road. These effects would be limited to
the actual pad and road expansion areas. These activities have localized but permanent effects on soil
compaction and permeability in the areas of pad and road construction.
The Proposed Action also includes drilling and completion of wells G2 and G3 and possible stimulation
of one well. Further, reasonably foreseeable actions include the drilling of additional wells (G4-G6).
Drilling of wells is not expected to significantly affect the geology of the area. However, stimulation of
one of the geothermal wells through EGS may have a permanent effect on geology in the immediate area
of the project. EGS would create additional cracks and fissures in rock layers from increased water
pressure. Additional cracking and fissuring at depths required by an EGS have the potential to induce
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE/EA-1759 57 May 2010
Rev. 2
minor seismic events and, as such, have the potential to further affect local geology. An Evaluation of the
Environmental Impacts of Induced Seismicity at the Naknek Geothermal Project is provided in Appendix
D. NEA is committed to following the IEA Protocol for Induced Seismicity Associated with Enhanced
Geothermal Systems to minimize possible induced seismic events.
Except for the drilling and completion of the geothermal wells, reasonably foreseeable future actions are
expected to have no effect on geology, soils, or seismicity (as, the geothermal activities would follow the
IEA protocol).
4.4 Biological Resources
4.4.1 Birds and Waterfowl
The direct effects of past actions on birds and waterfowl are expected to be temporary and minimal, with
the most likely effects being injuries of bird strikes on the drill rig mast. These effects are temporary and
localized. Indirect effects include loss of habitat on areas where the pads and road have been constructed.
Although these effects are permanent, because of the large amount of undeveloped land in the vicinity of
the project, loss of habitat due to pad and road construction is likely to have a minimal effect.
4.4.2 Terrestrial Mammals
Past actions, the Proposed Action, and reasonably foreseeable actions are not expected to have an effect
on terrestrial mammals due to the large amount of undeveloped land in the vicinity of the project area.
4.4.3 Fisheries Resources
The project area is located away from any water sources, except for two small lakes, which do not contain
fish. Past actions, the Proposed Action, and reasonably foreseeable actions are not expected to have any
effects on fish or fish habitat in the area because there are no fish present in the project area.
4.4.4 Threatened and Endangered Species
Past actions, the Proposed Action, and reasonably foreseeable actions are not expected to have an effect
on any listed threatened or endangered species. The presence of threatened or endangered species would
be incidental, and no important nesting or staging habitat has been identified in the project area.
4.4.5 Vegetation and Wetlands
Effects of past activities on vegetation are small and limited to where ground-disturbing activities have
occurred (i.e., gravel pad and gravel access road). These activities have localized but permanent effects
on the vegetation in these areas. Based upon the wetland determination, wetlands were not disturbed
during gravel pad and road construction activities; therefore, there were no effects on wetlands.
Effects from the Proposed Action on vegetation are small and limited to where ground-disturbing
activities have occurred (i.e., gravel pad and gravel access road). These activities have localized, but
permanent, effects on the vegetation in these areas. Based upon the wetland determination, wetlands are
not likely to be disturbed during proposed drilling activities.
The effects of reasonably foreseeable future actions on vegetation and wetlands are expected to be
minimal and only due to construction of a power line to connect the proposed geothermal power plant to
the NEA grid. All other activities associated with the construction and operation of the power plant and
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE/EA-1759 58 May 2010
Rev. 2
switch yard are expected to have no effect on vegetation and wetlands because they would take place on
the existing or expanded gravel pads.
4.5 Water Resources
The project area is located away from all surface water resources, except for two unnamed, non-fish
bearing lakes. One of these lakes, approximately 76 m (250 ft) in depth, is the water source used to
support drilling activities. Water withdrawal of up to 12 million gal over 2 years has been approved via a
TWUP from the ADNR (ADNR 2009). While the designated permit does not establish a water right, it
provides room for water extraction and a recharge period so that the resource is maintained. Permit
conditions require permittees to follow measures ensuring water quality is not degraded in the process of
withdrawal. Water discharged shall not be discharged at a rate resulting in sedimentation, erosion, or
other disruptions to the bed and banks of the above waters. Gas, fuel, or petroleum products are not
permitted near the lake surface or ground waters.
Future development within the project site may include the implementation of a water supply well.
Should the well be developed, a Class C drinking well would likely be drilled adjacent to the G1 pad.
4.6 Cultural Resources
A review of cultural and archaeological resources did not locate any cultural resources in the project area.
Therefore, any activities within the project are not expected to contribute to cumulative effects on cultural
resources.
4.7 Land Use
The Proposed Action is located in an undeveloped area that is predominately used for recreation and
subsistence purposes by local Native residents from the nearby communities of Naknek, South Naknek,
and King Salmon. The past actions have likely reduced the level of recreation and subsistence use
activities in the vicinity of the project because the project area would be avoided by recreational and
subsistence users. The Proposed Action is not likely to have additional effects on land use in the area.
Because of the large amount of undeveloped land in the vicinity of the project, removal of the project
lands from recreational and subsistence use is likely to have minimal effect. Reasonably foreseeable
future actions are not likely to have any additional effects on land use.
4.8 Noise
Past and ongoing actions, primarily construction and drilling activities, have produced and would
continue to produce noise at the project site. The Proposed Action would produce noise for the
foreseeable future at the project site at a similar level as past construction and drilling activities. OSHA
noise regulations and guidelines would be followed for workers. The nearest community, King Salmon,
is located 8 km (5 mi) away from the project site. Because of the distance of the project site from King
Salmon, no effects on local residents are expected.
Reasonably foreseeable future actions are likely to produce similar amounts of noise (i.e., construction of
the proposed power plant) or less noise (i.e., operation of the proposed power plant) than past actions or
the Proposed Action. Because of the distance of the project site from King Salmon, no effects on local
residents are expected.
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE/EA-1759 59 May 2010
Rev. 2
4.9 Visual and Aesthetic Resources
The project is located in a relatively undeveloped portion of the Bristol Bay Borough. Past and ongoing
actions, primarily construction and drilling activities, break up the undeveloped landscape with obvious
human development (e.g., gravel pad, road, and drill rig). The landscape is not within a special use area
and has not been designated as scenic; therefore, although there has been an effect, the visual and
aesthetic value of the project area has not been significantly degraded.
The aesthetic value of the project area is not likely to be greatly affected by the Proposed Action or
reasonably foreseeable future actions. The aesthetic value of a natural scenic area diminishes to varying
degrees with the addition or increase of manmade developments or facilities. Since there is already an
existing drill pad and access road, the change in landscape would not be great.
4.10 Energy Source and Needs
Past actions have had no effect on Bristol Bay Borough energy sources. Past and ongoing actions have
required the use of diesel-powered equipment (e.g., drill rig) and gasoline-powered equipment (vehicles).
However, the energy used is minimal when compared to the petroleum-based products that are currently
used within the NEA service area. It is expected that the Proposed Action would have similar effects on
energy sources and needs as past actions.
Completion of the NEA Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project would dramatically
improve the availability and decrease the cost of energy within the NEA service area.
4.11 Socioeconomics
Past and ongoing activities have had a positive effect on the economy of the NEA service area. Thirty-six
local Bristol Bay Borough residents, of whom 18 are Alaska Natives, were employed during the peak
employment period in November 2009. Local vendors, including hotel, food service, and hardware
suppliers, have benefited from spending to support past and ongoing project activities.
The Proposed Action is expected to have a positive effect on the economy of the NEA service area. It is
anticipated that up to 36 local Bristol Bay Borough residents would be employed as part of the Proposed
Action, for up to 72 days. Of the local hires, a number of them are expected to be Alaska Natives.
Typically, the winter and early spring is a time of higher unemployment for the region since a large
portion of the Bristol Bay economy is based on the seasonal fishery that runs from mid-summer to late
fall. Because the project is anticipated for early spring 2010, the availability of jobs during the off-season
would provide much needed economic stimulus to the region. In addition, the Proposed Action would
result in additional spending at local businesses in support of project activities.
A reasonably foreseeable future action is the completion of the NEA Southwest Alaska Regional
Geothermal Energy Project. Construction and operation of the project would have a temporary, positive
effect on the local Bristol Bay Borough economy during the construction phase. Construction activities
are likely to employ a significant number of local residents, including Alaska Natives. Upon completion
of the project, the availability of lower-cost electricity to the NEA service area would benefit local
residents by increasing their disposable income, thereby improving their quality of life, and would benefit
local businesses by freeing up more capital.
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE/EA-1759 60 May 2010
Rev. 2
4.12 Assessment
Cumulative effects assessments require an analysis of resources potentially affected in relation to the
major components of the Proposed Action. The analysis approach is inherently subjective but is based on
professional judgment and collaboration amongst an interdisciplinary team. The tabular analysis tool
provided in Table 4.12-1 shows anticipated effects of past actions, proposed actions, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions. An evaluation of this analysis is provided in Section 4.1, along with an
explanation and rationale for using this approach.
TABLE 4.12-1 Cumulative Effects Assessment
Past Present Future
Potentially Impacted Resources Pad and Road Construction Drilling and Testing Well G1 Drilling and Testing Wells G2 and G3 Hydraulic Stimulation/ Fracturing Expansion of Pads and Road Drilling and Testing Wells G4 – G6 Construction of Power Plant, Switch Yard and Power Line Connect to NEA Grid Cumulative Effects Meteorology and Air Quality m t l n/a n/a n/a m t l n/a c p c p
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity s t l m t l m t l m t l s t l m t l n/a s t l
Biological Resources s t l s t s t n/a s t l s t s t l s t l
Birds and Waterfowl s t l s t s t n/a s t l s t s t l s t l
Terrestrial Mammals n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Fisheries Resources n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Threatened and Endangered
Species
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Vegetation and Wetlands s l n/a n/a n/a s l n/a s l s l
Water Resources n/a s l t s l t s l t n/a s l t n/a s l t
Cultural Resources n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Land Use s l s l s l s l s l s l s l s l
Noise s t l s t l s t l n/a s t l s t l s t l s l
Visual and Aesthetic Resources s l s t l s t l n/a n/a s t l s l s l
Energy Sources and Needs s t l s t l s t l s t l s t l s t l c p c p
Socioeconomics s l t s l t s l t s l t s l t s l t m p l c p l
Note: Cumulative impact score is based on a subjective review of each resource and assignment of possible ratings based upon the size of the effect and type
of effect.
Size of Effect
s = small
m = moderate
c = considerable
Type of Effect
n/a = no effect anticipated
p = positive
t = temporary
l = local
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE/EA-1759 61 May 2010
Rev. 2
5.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF
RESOURCES
The CEQ’s NEPA Guidelines (40 CFR 1502.16) require the discussion of any irreversible or irretrievable
commitments of resources that would be involved with the Proposed Actions. The purpose of this section
is to identify irreversible and irretrievable commitments of environmental resources required to execute
the Proposed Action.
5.1 Irreversible Commitment of Resources
The irreversible commitment of resources is described as the “loss of future options.” It applies primarily
to non-renewable resources, such as cultural resources, or resources that are renewable after a
regeneration period, such as soil productivity. The term may also apply to the loss of an experience as an
indirect effect of a “permanent” change in the nature or character of the land. An irretrievable
commitment of resources is defined as the loss of production, harvest, or use of natural resources. The
amount of production foregone is irretrievable, but the action is not irreversible.
The resource resulting from the Proposed Action could include a small impact to wetlands near the
project area with BMPs minimizing impacts to the wetlands. These wetland resources, however, are
expected to regenerate after the construction activities are stabilized with vegetation. Overall direct
disturbance of the project site is to approximately 49 hectares (120 acres) of land. Cumulatively, water
needs for drilling another five wells would require about 12.5 million gal of water (based on the
previously drilled G1 well). The temporary, reversible commitment of resources associated with the
project lifespan include temporary use of water resources from a nearby pond, as well as land, and soil.
No endangered species are expected to be affected.
Induced Seismicity is assessed further in Appendix D. NEA would follow the IEA Protocol For Induced
Seismicity Associated with Enhanced Geothermal Systems to minimize induced seismic events.
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE/EA-1759 62 May 2010
Rev. 2
6.0 AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED
TABLE 7.0-1 Agencies and Persons Consulted
Contact Position Affiliation
Joanne Slemons Petroleum Land Manager Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Matt Rader Natural Resource Spec V Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Department of Oil
and Gas
Michael Walton Natural Resource Specialist Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Diving of Mining,
Land, and Water
Jodi Delgado-
Plikat
Project Review Coordinator Alaska Department of Natural Resources, OPM/Division of
Ocean and Coastal Management
Mike Daigneault Habitat Biologist Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Department of Habitat
Adele Lee Natural Resource Spec III Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Department of Oil
and Gas
Chris Nahorney Natural Resource Spec II Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Diving of Mining,
Land, and Water
Kellie Westphal Natural Resource Mgr II Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Diving of Mining,
Land, and Water
Dan Seamount Commissioner Alaska Department of Administration-Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission
Jim Bales Habitat Biologist II Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Department of Habitat
Ellen Simpson Habitat Biologist IV Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Linda Markham Office Assistant II Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
Fran Roche Environ Program Spec III State of Alaska Environmental Conservation-Division of Water
Sharmon
Stambaugh
Environ Program Manager
III
State of Alaska Environmental Conservation-Water Quality
Programs
Sally Ryan Environmental Engineer
Associate II
State of Alaska Environmental Conservation-Air Permits
Program
Stephanie Mann Environ Program Spec III State of Alaska Environmental Conservation-Solid Waste
Christine Ballard Natural Resource Spec I Alaska Department of Natural Resources, OPM/ Division of
Ocean and Coastal Management
Judith E. Bittner Chief, Office of History and
Archaeology, and State
Historic Preservation Officer
Alaska State Historic Preservation Office
Susan Savage Wildlife Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Alan Skinner Regulatory Specialist U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District
James Whitlock Natural Resource Specialist U.S. Department of Interior BLM, Anchorage Field Office
Rosie Fay Community Development
Coordinator
Bristol Bay Borough
Marv Smith Borough Manager Bristol Bay Borough
Ellen Lance Wildlife Biologist–
Endangered Species
Department
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE/EA-1759 63 May 2010
Rev. 2
7.0 REFERENCES
ADCCED. 2009. Community Database Online. Available online at:
http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_BLOCK.htm. Accessed August 2009.
Addison, E. M., W. L. Wilton, R. F. McLaughlin, and M. E. Buss. 1990. Calving sites of moose in
Central Ontario. Alces 26:142–153.
ADEC (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation) 2008. Summary Report of Improvements to
the Alaska Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory. Draft. January 2008.
ADNR (Alaska Department of Natural Resources). 2009. Temporary Water Use Authorization (TWUP)
A2009-54. Permit issued to Naknek Electric Association, Inc. by ADNR, Division of Mining, Land, and
Water – Water Resources Section, Anchorage, Alaska.
Alaska Climate Research Center. 2009. Accessed August 2009. http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/
Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (ACFEC). 2009. Public permits database, permit
search. Available online at: http://www.cfec.state.ak.us/publook/publook.jsp. Accessed August 2009.
Alaska Earth Sciences 2009. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for: Naknek Geothermal Project King
Salmon, AK. Anchorage, AK.
Alerstam, T. 1993. Bird Migration. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. 420 pp.
Anderson, R., J. D. C. Linnell, and R. Langvatn. 1996. Short term behavioural and physiological
response of moose (Alces alces) to military disturbance in Norway. Biological Conservation 77:169–176.
Archibald, W.R., R. Ellis, and A. N. Hamilton. 1987. Responses of grizzly bears to logging truck
traffic in the Kimsquit River Valley, British Columbia. International Conference on Bear Research and
Management 7: 251–257.
Ballard, W. B., J. S. Whitman, and D. J. Reed. 1991. Population of moose in south-central Alaska.
Wildlife Monographs 114:1–49.
Bellrose, F. C. 1976. Ducks, Geese and Swans of North America. Stackpole Books. Harrisburg, PA.
Bevanger, K. 1998. Biological and conservation aspects of bird mortality caused by electricity power
lines: a review. Biological Conservation 86: 67–76.
Bevanger, K. and H. Brøseth. 2004. Impact of power lines of bird mortality in a subalpine area.
Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 27: 67–77.
BLM. 2007. The Bay Proposed Resource Management Plan – Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Bowyer, R. T., V. V. Ballenberghe, J. G., Kie, and J. A. K. Maier. 1999. Birth-site selection by
Alaskan moose: strategies for coping with a risky environment. Journal of Mammalogy 80:1070–1083.
Butler, L. B. 2007a. Units 9C & 9E caribou management report. Pages 33–4232 in P. Harper, editor.
Caribou management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2004-30 June 2006. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska.
Butler, L. B. 2007b. Unit 9 brown bear. Pages 109-120 in P. Harper, editor. Brown bear management
report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2004-30 June 2006. Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Juneau, Alaska.
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE/EA-1759 64 May 2010
Rev. 2
Butler, L. B. 2008. Unit 9 moose management report. Pages 116–124 in P. Harper, editor. Moose
management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2003-30 June 2005. Alaska Department of
Fish and Game. Project 1.0. Juneau.
Cameron, R. D. and W. T. Smith. 1992. Distribution and productivity of the Central Arctic Herd in
relation to petroleum development: case history studies with a nutritional perspective. Research Progress
Report. Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Cameron, R.D., K.R. Whitten, W.T. Smith, and D. D. Roby. 1979. Caribou distribution and group
composition associated with construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Can. Field-Natur. 93:155-162.
Carney, K. M. and W. J. Sydeman. 1999. A review of human disturbance effects on nesting colonial
waterbirds. Waterbirds 22: 68–79.
CEA (The Cumulative Effects Assessment [CEA] Working Group). 1999. Cumulative Effects
Assessment Practitioners Guide. Quebec: AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. And CEA Working
Group.
Cederlund, G., R. Sandergren, and K. Larsson. 1987. Summer movements of female moose and
dispersal of their offspring. Journal of Wildlife Management 51: 342–352.
Colescott J. H. and M. P. Gillingham. 1998. Reactions of moose (Alces alces) to snowmobile traffic
in the Greys River Valley, Wyoming. Alces 34: 329–338
Cronin, M. A., S. C. Amstrup, G. M. Durner, L. E. Noel, T. L. McDonald, and W. B. Ballard.
1998. Caribou Distribution During the Post-Calving Period in Relation to Infrastructure in the Prudhoe
Bay Oil Field, Alaska. Arctic 51: 85–93
Cronin, M. A., W. B. Ballard, J. Truett, R. Pollard. 1994. Mitigation of the Effects of Oil Field
Development and Transportation Corridors on Caribou. Final Report to the Alaska Caribou Steering
Committee. LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc. Anchorage, Alaska. D.C.: 52pp. with map.
Dau, C. and E.J. Mallek. 2007. Aerial survey of emperor geese and other waterbirds in southwestern
Alaska, spring 2007. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management. Anchorage.
Dau, J. R., and R. D. Cameron. 1986. Effects of a road system on caribou distribution during calving.
Rangifer Special Issue 1: 95-101.
Davis, J. L., P. Valkenburg, and R. D. Boertje. 1985. Disturbance and the Delta Caribou Herd. Pp.
2–6 in A. M. Martell and D. E. Russell, eds. Caribou and Human Activity. Proc. 1st North America
Caribou Workshop, Whitehorse, Yukon. Canada Wildlife Service Special Publication, Ottawa. edition,
Stackpole Books, 540 pp.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2008. Final Supplement to Final Site-wide Environmental
Assessment of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s South Table Mountain Complex, Proposed
Construction and Operation of: Research Support Facilities, Infrastructure Improvements (Phase I),
Upgrades to the Thermochemical User Facility and Addition of the Thermochemical BioRefinery Pilot
Plant. DOE/EA-1440-S-1. May.
Dumond, D.E. 1987. The Eskimos and Aleuts. 2nd ed. New York: Thames and Hudson Inc.
Dumond, D. E. 2003. Archaeology on the Alaska Peninsula: The Leader Creek Site and its Context.
University of Oregon Anthropological Papers no. 60. Dept. of Anthropology and Museum of Natural
History, University of Oregon, Eugene.
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE/EA-1759 65 May 2010
Rev. 2
Eaton, Stuart. 2000. Construction Noise. Workers’ Compensation Board of BC. Engineering Section
Report. Vancouver, BC.
Eide, S., S. Miller, and H. Reynolds. 1994. Brown Bear. ADF&G Wildlife Notebook Series. Juneau,
AK. <http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/biggame/brnbear.php>. Accessed December 11, 2008.
Franzmann, A. W. and C. C. Schwartz. 1985. Moose twinning rates: a possible population condition
assessment. Journal of Wildlife Management 2: 394–396.
Gallant, A., E.F. Binnian, J.M. Omernik, and M.B Shasby. 1995. Ecological regions of Alaska. U.S.
Handel, C. M. 1997. Boreal Partners in Flight: Working Together to Build a Regional Research and
Monitoring Program. Alaska Biological Science Center BRD. USGS. Anchorage, Alaska.
R.K. Harritt, 1987, The Late Prehistory of Brooks River, Alaska: A Model for Analysis of Late
Prehistoric Occupations of the Naknek Region, Southwest Alaska, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Oregon.
Harting, A. L. 1987. Road, highway, aircraft, and garbage impacts. Pages 69–74 in M. N. LeFranc, M.
B. Moss, K. A. Patnode, and W. C. Sugg (eds.). Grizzly Bear Compendium. Sponsored by the
Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee.
Hays, H. 1972. Polyandry in the Spotted Sandpiper. Living Bird 11: 43–57.
HDR. 2009. Proposed Road Corridor and Naknek Electric Association Property Wetland Determination,
Geothermal Project —King Salmon, Alaska. Prepared for Alaska Earth Sciences by HDR Alaska.
Henny, C. J., D. D. Rudis, T. J. Roffe, and E. Robinson-Wilson. 1995. Contaminants and sea ducks
in Alaska and the circumpolar region. Environmental Health Perspectives 103:(Suppl. 4). 41–49
Iverson, G. C., S. E. Warnock, R. W. Butler, M. A. Bishop, and N. Warnock. 1996. Spring
migration of Western Sandpipers along the Pacific coast of North America: a telemetry study. The
Condor 98: 10–21.
Johnson, S.R. and D.R. Herter. 1989. The Birds of the Beaufort Sea. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.,
Anchorage, AK.
King, Thomas F. 1998. Cultural Resource Law & Practice: An Introductory Guide. Heritage Resource
Management Series. Series editor: Don Fowler. Altamira Press. New York, NY.
Krieg, Theodore M., Davin Holen and David Koster. 2009. Subsistence Harvests and Uses of Wild
Resources in Igiugig, Kokhanok, Koliganek, Levelock, and New Stuyahok, Alaska, 2005. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Technical Paper No. 322.
Lawhead, B. E. and C. B. Johnson 2000. Surveys of caribou and muskoxen in the Kuparuk-Colville
Region, Alaska, 1999, with a summary of caribou calving distribution since 1993. Final report to
PHILLIPS Alaska, Inc. and Kuparuk River Unit, Anchorage, Alaska by ABR, Inc., Fairbanks, Alaska,
USA.
MacCracken, J.G., V. Van Ballenberche, and J.M. Peek. 1997. Habitat relationships of moose on the
Copper River Delta in coastal south-central Alaska. Wildlife Monographs 136: 1–52.
Mattson, D. J. 1988. Human impacts on bear habitat use. International conference on bear research and
management. 8: 33–56.
McLellan, B. N. 1988. Relationship between human industrial activity and grizzly bears. International
Conference on Bear Research and Management. 8: 57–64.
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE/EA-1759 66 May 2010
Rev. 2
McLellan, B. N. and D. M. Shackleton. 1989. Immediate reactions of grizzly bears to human
activities. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17: 269–274.
McNab, BW. NH and P.E. Avers 1994. Relationship between human industrial activity and grizzly
bears. International Conference on Bear Research and Management Ecological Subregions of the United
States: Section Descriptions. USDA Forest Service WO WSA-5.. 8 :57-64Washington, DC.
Mecklenburg, C.W., T.A. Mecklenburg, and L.K. Thorsteinson. 2002. Fishes of Alaska. Bethesda.
MD: American Fisheries Society.
Miller, F. L., C. J. Jonkel, and G. D. Tessier. 1972. Group Cohesion and Leadership Response by
Barren-Ground Caribou to Man-Made Barriers. Arctic 25: 193–202.
MMS. 2002. Liberty Development and Production Plan, Final Environmental Impact Statement. OCS
EIS/EA, MMS 2002-019. Anchorage, AK: MMS 2008A, MMS, Alaska OCS Region, 3 Vols.
Murphy, S. M. and J. A. Curatolo. 1987. Activity Budgets and Movement Rates of Caribou
Encountering Pipelines, Road, and Traffic in Northern Alaska. Canadian Journal of Zoology 65: 2483–
2490.
National Climatic Data Center, 1988. Climatic Atlas of the Outer Continental Shelf Waters and Coastal
Regions of Alaska. Volume II: Bering Sea. USDOI Mineral
Nellemann, C. and R. D. Cameron. 1996. Effects of Petroleum Development on Terrain Preferences of
Calving Caribou. Arctic 49: 23–28.
OHA (Office of History & Archaeology). 2010. AHRS (Alaska Heritage Resource Survey) Database.
Reviewed January 2010. Anchorage, AK.
Oring, L. E. and G. J. Reed. 1997. Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macularia). Pp. 1–32 in A. Poole, F.
Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, Vol. 289. Philadelphia, PA: The Academy of Natural Sciences,
and Washington, DC: The American Ornithologists Union.
Peek, J.M. 1997. Habitat relationships. In Ecology and management of the North American moose.
Edited by A.W. Franzmann and C.C. Schwartz. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D.C. pp.
351–375.
Platte, R. M. and W. I. Butler Jr. 1995. Water bird abundance and distribution in the Bristol Bay
region, Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Migratory Bird Management Project. Anchorage, Alaska.
Pollard, R. H. and L. E. Noel. 1994. Caribou distribution and parasitic insect abundance in the
Prudhoe Bay oil field, summer 1993. Northern Alaska research studies. Prepared for BP Exploration
(Alaska) Inc. by LGL, Ltd. Anchorage, AK.
Pollard, R. H., W. B. Ballard, L. E. Noel, and M. A. Cronin. 1996. Summer Distribution of Caribou,
Rangifer tarandus granti, in the Area of the Prudhoe Bay Oil Field, Alaska, 1990-1994. Canadian Field-
Naturalist 110:659-674.
Rausch, R.A. and Gasaway, B. 1994. Wildlife notebook series: moose. Prepared for the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska. Accessed November 11, 2008 at
<http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/biggame/moose.php>.
Roby, D. D. 1978. Behavioral Patterns of Barren-Ground Caribou of the Central Arctic Herd Adjacent
to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. M.S. thesis, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. 200 pp.
Roseneau, D. G. and D. R. Herter. 1984. Marine and coastal birds. Pp. 81–115 in Proceedings of a
Synthesis Meeting: The Barrow Arch Environment and Possible Consequences of Planned Offshore Oil
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE/EA-1759 67 May 2010
Rev. 2
and Gas Development, J. C. Truett, ed. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/ Outer
Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program, Anchorage, Alaska.
Schwartz, C.C. 1997. Reproduction, natality and growth. In Ecology and management of the North
American moose. Edited by A. W. Franzmann and C. C. Schwartz. Smithsonian Institute Press,
Washington, D.C. pp. 351–375.
Smith, M. 2006. Cumulative Impact Assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act: An
Analysis of Recent Case Law. Environmental Practice, 8 (4): 228–240.
Swartz, L. G. 1966. Sea-cliff birds. Chap. 23, pp. In: Environment of the Cape Thompson Region,
Alaska. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Oak Ridge. 611–678.
The Tribal Energy and Environmental Information Clearinghouse (TEEIC). 2010. Geothermal Energy
Development: Potential Impacts. http://teeic.anl.gov/er/geothermal/impact/siteeval/index.cfm. Accessed
on February 4, 2010.
TEEIC. (n.d.). Geothermal Energy: Resource Exploration and Drilling Impacts. Retrieved February 8,
2010, from http://teeic.anl.gov/er/geothermal/impact/siteeval/index.cfm
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2007. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Alaska Region (Version 2.0). ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.
Noble. ERDC/EL TR-07-24. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, MS.
(USFWS). 2005. Alaska’s Threatened and Endangered Species. Unpublished report, Anchorage Fish
and Wildlife Field Office, Anchorage, Alaska. March 2005.
USFWS. 2008. Migratory Bird Management—Waterfowl. Accessed August 9, 2009.
<http://alaska.fws.gov/mbsp/mbm/waterfowl/waterfowl.htm>.
Valkenberg, P. 1999. Wildlife notebook series: caribou. Prepared for the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game. Juneau, Alaska. Accessed November 11, 2008 at
<http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/biggame/caribou.php>.
Valkenburg, P. and J. L. Davis. 1985. The Reaction of Caribou to Aircraft: A Comparison of Two Herds.
Pp. 7–9 in A. M. Martell and D. E. Russell, eds. Caribou and Human Activity. Proc. 1st N. Am. Caribou
Workshop, Whitehorse, Yukon, 28–29 September 1983. Canada Wildlife Service Special Publication,
Ottawa.
Vilmo, L. 1975. The Scandinavian Viewpoint. Pp. 4–9 in J. R. Luick, P. C. Lent, D. R. Klein, and
R. G. White, eds. Proc. 1st int. reindeer/caribou symp., Fairbanks, Alaska, 1972. Biol. Pap. Univ.
Alaska, Spec. Rep. No. 1. 551 pp.
Wahrhaftig, Clyde 1965. Physiographic Divisions of Alaska. Geological Survey Professional Paper 482:
A classification and brief description with a discussion of high-latitude physiographic processes. United
States Government Printing Office, Washington.
Wolfe, R. J. 2000. Subsistence in Alaska: A Year 2000 Update. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Division of Subsistence. Available online at:
<http://subsistence.adfg.state.ak.us/geninfo/publctns/articles.cfm#SUBSISTENCE_2000>.
Woolington, J. D. 2007a. Mulchatna caribou management report, Units 9B, 17 18 south, 19A & 19B.
Pages 14–32 in P. Harper, editor. Caribou management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July
2004–30 June 2006. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska.
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE/EA-1759 68 May 2010
Rev. 2
Woolington, J. D. 2007b. Unit 17 brown bear management report. Pages 175–186 32 in P. Harper,
editor. Brown bear management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2004–30 June 2006.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska.
Woolington, J. D. 2008. Unit 17 moose management report. Pages 246–268 in P. Harper, editor.
Moose management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2003–30 June 2005. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game. Project 1.0. Juneau.
WRCC (Western Regional Climate Center). 2009. Accessed, August 2009 http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE/EA-1759 May 2010
Rev. 2
Appendix A
Scoping Newsletter
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE/EA-1759 May 2010
Rev. 2
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
Naknek Electric News
February 19, 2010
Volume 1, Issue 5
Naknek Electric
Association, Inc.
One School Rd.
Post Office Box 118
Naknek, AK 99633
(907) 246-4261
(907) 246-6242
neaservice@nea.coop
www.nea.coop
Board of Directors
President………………...Tom Deck
Vice President………..Dale Peters
Secretary/
Treasurer………….Stephen Jones
Director………….………….Pete Hill
Director…………..…David Jedlicka
Director………..…Herbert Mitchell
Director……….Nanci Morris-Lyon
The Board meets the last
Monday of each month at 7:30
p.m. in the headquarters
building in Naknek
Staff
General
Manager…………….Donna Vukich
Plant
Foreman………..Darrell Aspelund
Office Manager………Peggy Saia
Line Foreman…….Kevin Cossairt
Mission Statement
Naknek Electric Association is
committed to the mission of
providing superior electric
service, accomplished through
the efforts of a highly skilled,
motivated and safety
conscious work force with the
support services, technologies
and facilities to ensure the
association’s members enjoy
its benefits at the lowest price
consistent with sound
management.
Special Edition
resource could stabilize electric rates in Naknek, King Salmon and South Naknek by displacing up
to 5.4 million gallons of diesel fuel currently used for electricity and space heating, potentially
avoiding over $15,000,000 per year in fuel costs. In support of its goals to develop geothermal
power, NEA and DOE in a cost sharing arrangement will drill up to two deep, full-diameter wells
via Congressionally Directed Project (CDP) funds and competitively awarded ARRA EGS funds.
EGS incorporates stimulation techniques to increase the productivity of a low-permeability
geothermal reservoir.
Stimulation Techniques
If natural permeability is not sufficient for commercial production, water may be injected into the
well to open micro-fractures and allow greater quantities of water to circulate through the hot rock.
During the process of creating an underground heat exchanger by opening permeable space in
the rock or during subsequent circulation of water to recover the heat, stress patterns in the rock
may change and produce microseismic events (known as induced seismicity). In almost all cases,
these events in the deep reservoir have been of such low magnitude and have so little energy
relative to natural earthquakes that they pass unnoticed.
The difference between microseismic events created directly by fluid injection and a natural
earthquake is significant: To the extent that they are sometimes felt, induced seismicity usually
falls into the category of a nuisance, like a pneumatic hammer or the passing of a train or large
truck, whereas a natural earthquake may cause extensive damage. For example, experience and
scientific data indicate that the vibration at depth from a micro earthquake related to fluid injection
is unlikely to cause any damage to modern buildings. However, large induced seismic events
have occurred. In particular, a series of induced seismic events resulting from an EGS program in
Basel, Switzerland led to the project’s cancellation after a seismic hazard evaluation was
performed. Additional information regarding induced seismicity can be located from the Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory at
http://esd.lbl.gov/research/projects/induced_seismicity/
EGS Project Overview and
Benefits / Scoping for
Environmental Assessment (EA)
This is part of NEA’s Southwest Alaska
Regional Geothermal Energy Project which is
designed to provide a sustainable, affordable
and clean alternative to the rising costs of
diesel generated electricity. A geothermal
Call for Comments for Naknek Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS)
Project with the US Department of Energy (DOE)
DOE requires EGS awardees to collect stress data, background
seismicity, and geologic data prior to actual field stimulation. Once the
data are collected, the awardee should use predictive stimulation
models to estimate and forecast potential induced seismicity magnitude
and potential radius of seismicity. Information submitted by awardees is used to develop site
specific risk mitigation strategies.
A DOE team of experts will review these results as part of a go/no-go decision point. If judged
satisfactory, awardees will be given the go-ahead to conduct field work with adequate permits
from local authorities. Otherwise, they will be asked to gather more data and conduct more
analysis.
In addition, DOE requires awardees to implement special conditions of approval for
stimulations (if necessary) including: placement of ground motion sensors, monitoring and
reporting of operational data and events, and instituting procedures for mitigating emerging
seismic events up to complete shutdown, if necessary.
DOE requires adherence to induced seismicity protocol detailed in the “PROTOCOL FOR
INDUCED SEISMICITY ASSOCIATED WITH ENHANCED GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS”
established by the International Energy Agency-Geothermal Implementing Agreement. An array
of seismographs surrounding the drill site will be established to detect the response of the
formation, including possible micro-earthquakes due to the EGS stimulation. This array will allow
EGS to be safely managed. Properly monitored and analyzed, EGS has been valuable in the
development of geothermal resources around the world.
http://www.iea-gia.org/documents/ProtocolforInducedSeismicityEGS-GIADoc25Feb09.pdf
U.S. Department of Energy Funding and National Environmental Policy
For More Information
Please go to the following websites to find more information:
http://www.nea.coop/about/geothermal.shtml OR
http://www.eere.energy.gov/golden/Reading_Room.aspx
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal
RATES
RESIDENTIAL:
Consumer Charge $15.00
First 1000 kwh .18
Over 1000 kwh .165
COMMERCIAL:
Consumer Charge $30.00
Consumer 3 Phase $60.00
First 1000 kwh .18
Over 1000 kwh .165
LARGE POWER Year-Round:
Consumer Charge $100.00
Demand per kw 10.00
All kwh .15
LARGE POWER Seasonal:
Consumer Charge $200.00
Demand per kw 12.00
All kwh .135
WHOLESALE:
Minimum Bill $15,000.00
All kwh .1363
FUEL SURCHARGE:
All KWH/ All Members .191
February 2010
Volume 1, Issue 5
SPECIAL EDITION
RATES
RESIDENTIAL:
Consumer Charge $15.00
First 1000 kwh .18
Over 1000 kwh .165
COMMERCIAL:
Consumer Charge $30.00
Consumer 3 Phase $60.00
First 1000 kwh .18
Over 1000 kwh .165
LARGE POWER Year-Round:
Consumer Charge $100.00
Demand per kw 10.00
All kwh .15
LARGE POWER Seasonal:
Consumer Charge $200.00
Demand per kw 12.00
All kwh .135
WHOLESALE:
Minimum Bill $15,000.00
All kwh .1363
FUEL SURCHARGE:
All KWH/ All Members .191
METER READING SAFETY
Every NEA Member shares in the
responsibility of preserving the safety of
NEA’s line crew. In order to fulfill this
responsibility, members need to make
sure that meters are easily accessible
during days of NEA meter reading.
Clear brush or clutter to allow for
access to electrical meters for
reading
Ensure pets are secured on days
of meter readings
Naknek Electric Association conducts
meter readings either the last two or
first two days of each month. If you
need to know a specific month’s meter
reading schedule for planning purposes,
please feel free to contact NEA’s office
staff which is always happy to be of
assistance. Safety of NEA Employees
is a first priority of the utmost
importance. NEA’s Membership effort
to ensure employee safety is sincerely
appreciated.
DOE has conditionally awarded $12,376,000 to NEA for a competitive ARRA award to use EGS
technologies to develop a geothermal resource on Pikes Ridge. Before releasing the funds, the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an Environmental Assessment (EA) to be
conducted to evaluate any potential environmental impacts, including induced seismicity. In
addition, NEA will receive CDP funds totaling $5,354,500 federal funds which will be cost shared.
Opportunities to comment
As part of the EA, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is requesting scoping comments
regarding the proposed Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project from people and
entities that are likely to be impacted by the project. Your feedback is welcome – if you have any
concerns or questions, the DOE wants to hear from you.
THERE ARE TWO OPPORTUNITIES TO COMMENT – NOW (comments must
be received by March 5, 2010) and LATER (comments on the Draft EA – date
TBD).
Comments regarding the project and this Special Edition Newsletter may be sent to:
ASRC Energy Services Alaska, Inc.
ATTN: Naknek Geothermal Project
2700 Gambell Street, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
response@naknekgeothermalproject.com
OR www.naknekgeothermalproject.com
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE-EA-1759 May 2010
Rev. 2
Appendix B
Wetlands Report
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE-EA-1759 May 2010
Rev. 2
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
Geothermal Project
King Salmon, Alaska
Proposed Road Corridor and Naknek Electrical Association Property
Wetland Determination
April 2009
Prepared for:
Alaska Earth Sciences
11401 Olive Lane
Anchorage, AK 99515
Prepared by:
HDR Alaska, Inc.
2525 C Street, Suite 305
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Geothermal Project, King Salmon, Alaska
Wetland Determination
HDR Alaska, Inc. Page 2
1.0 Introduction and Purpose
The purpose of this report is to identify and describe wetlands at a location approximately 5 miles
northeast of King Salmon, Alaska. The general location of the site is in southwestern Alaska, near the
northeastern end of Bristol Bay on the north side of the Naknek River, between King Salmon and Naknek
Lake. Approximately 154 acres of Naknek Electrical Association (NEA) property is proposed for
geothermal exploration. The site includes a proposed 100-foot-wide road corridor beginning at
approximately 3 miles west along an unimproved road from Naknek II Recreation Camp (also known as
Lake Camp) on Naknek Lake. The road corridor extends north and northeast approximately to the NEA
property. The NEA property boundary and the proposed 100-foot road corridor are shown on Figure 1.
Both the NEA property and the proposed road corridor are within the following land survey sections:
Sections 14, 26, and 23 of Township 17S, Range 44W, Seward Meridian.
This report describes locations within each area that may be subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) under authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. By federal law
(Clean Water Act) and associated policy, it is necessary to avoid project impacts to wetlands wherever
practicable, minimize impact where impact is not avoidable, and in some cases compensate for the
impact.
This office-based Wetland Determination (WD) describes the wetland identification process and
describes the findings of an analysis of aerial photography and existing mapping resources. The focus of
this document is on identification of wetlands; project design and impacts are not discussed in this report.
Wetlands, Waters of the U.S., and uplands (non-wetlands), as referenced in this report, are defined as:
Wetlands: “Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 Code of Federal Regulations
[CFR] Part 328.3(b)). Wetlands are a subset of “waters of the U.S.” Note that the “wetlands”
definition does not include unvegetated areas such as streams and ponds.
As described in the 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual and in the Alaska Regional Supplement to the
1987 Wetland Delineation Manual (USACE 1987, USACE 2007), wetlands must possess the following
three characteristics:
1. Hydrophytic Vegetation: Vegetation community dominated by plant species that are typically
adapted for life in saturated soils.
2. Wetland Hydrology: Inundation or saturation of the soil during the growing season.
3. Hydric Soils: Soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing
season to develop anaerobic conditions.
Waters of the U.S: Waters of the U.S. include other waterbodies regulated by the USACE, including
navigable waters, lakes, ponds, and streams, in addition to wetlands.
Uplands: Non-water and non-wetland areas are called uplands.
Geothermal Project, King Salmon, Alaska
Wetland Determination
HDR Alaska, Inc. Page 3
2.0 Methods
The area of investigation, hereafter referenced as the project area, includes the NEA property and a 600-
foot-wide corridor centered on the 100-foot proposed access road easement. This WD is office-based.
Aerial photographs and existing mapping and documentation were reviewed to determine the presence or
absence of wetlands; no field verification of wetland areas was conducted. The following datasets were
reviewed to identify potential wetlands and other waters of the U.S. occurring within the project area:
U.S. Geological Survey topographic map Naknek (C-2) at a scale of 1:63,360 (Figure 1).
Color digital orthophoto taken on September 27, 2008 at 1-foot pixel resolution.
Color stereoscopic pairs of aerial photographs taken on September 27, 2008.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping
for USGS topographic map Naknek (C-2) at a scale of 1:60,000 (Figure 2).
Aerial photographs were analyzed under a stereoscope to identify topographic features (i.e., depressions
and steepness of slopes) that may support or inhibit wetlands from occurring. Delineating wetlands from
aerial photography includes using the following methods:
Vegetation clues: On aerial photography, scientists look for saturation-adapted vegetation
communities such as those dominated by shrub or herbaceous vegetation, stunted plant growth
forms, and presence of plant species known to tolerate saturated soils.
Evidence of soil saturation: Visible evidence of wetland hydrology is sought, including surface
water, channel features, and darker areas of photos indicating surface saturation. A site’s
elevation relative to streams, open water, and marshes may indicate shallow subsurface water.
Topography: Evidence of topographic high points and sloped surfaces that would allow soils to
drain is used to support classifying those areas as upland. Topographic depressions, toes of
slopes, and flat topography serve as indicators of potentially poor soil drainage. Geomorphic
features may also give clues about the substrate’s drainage characteristics.
Wetland boundaries were then digitized into a GIS database on the orthorectified aerial photograph.
Wetland polygons were drawn in GIS within the project area. NWI mapping codes were assigned to
wetland polygons based on the USFWS “Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the
United States” (Cowardin et al., 1979).
Additional information used to identify potential wetlands and waters of the U.S. included local soil
reports and site photos taken in the winter. No soil survey maps have been completed for the vicinity. Soil
data from the report “Soils of the King Salmon-Naknek Area, Alaska,” (Furbush and Wiedenfeld, 1970)
covering the area between Naknek and King Salmon, 5 miles to the east, was interpreted for the purposes
of this WD. Vegetation descriptions were based on “The Alaska Vegetation Classification” (Viereck et
al., 1979) and the “User’s Guide for Bristol Bay Land Cover Maps” (Wibbenmeyer et al., 1982).
Individual plant species’ wetland indicator status is listed in “1988 National List of Plant Species that
Occur in Wetlands Alaska” (USFWS, 1988).
3.0 Summary of Wetland Indicators
The vegetation, soil, and hydrology conditions gathered from existing datasets, aerial photography
interpretation, and site photos are summarized for each mapped area below.
Geothermal Project, King Salmon, Alaska
Wetland Determination
HDR Alaska, Inc. Page 4
Vegetation
Five cover types occur in the project area. These include mixed broadleaf/needleleaf woodland, lichen
tundra, stunted needleleaf scrub/shrub, shrub/sedge wet meadow, and broadleaf scrub/shrub thickets.
Vegetation types were recognizable on aerial imagery and contact prints by evaluating vegetation
signatures for color, plant height, texture, and pattern. Despite the winter conditions in site photos,
vegetation was easily observed because snow cover was light.
Mixed broadleaf/needleleaf woodland and lichen tundra are found on low rises and ridges in the project
area. Mixed broadleaf/needleleaf woodland occurs mainly on high areas and is typically dominated by a
mixed overstory of paper birch (Betula papyrifera – FACU), balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera –
FACU), and white spruce (Picea glauca – FACU). Mixed broadleaf/needleleaf forest is generally not
dominated by hydrophytes and is recorded to occur on moderately well-drained soils (Wibbenmeyer et
al., 1982). Lichen tundra occurs on higher areas and ridges and is dominated by white lichen (Cladonia
spp., Cladina spp. – NL), scattered willows (Salix sp.), and white spruce. Bare ground or exposed gravel
was observed throughout the project area and has a vegetation signature similar to lichen tundra. These
cover types typically do not indicate saturated soil conditions.
Stunted needleleaf scrub/shrub and shrub/sedge wet meadow are found in depressional areas and drained
lake beds typical of wetlands in the project area. The overstory of stunted needleleaf scrub/shrub is
typically dominated by stunted black spruce (Picea mariana – FACW). The small size of spruce trees is
often a result of suppressed growth in response to the saturated soils (Viereck et al., 1992; Post, 1996).
The understory of stunted needle leaf scrub/shrub is comprised of dwarf birch (Betula nana – FAC), other
ericaceous shrubs (Ledum decumbens – FACW, Vaccinium uliginosum – FAC, and Empetrum nigrum –
FAC), and sphagnum moss (Sphagnum sp. – NL). Shrub/sedge wet meadow is typically dominated by
sedges (Carex sp. – OBL or FACW), sphagnum moss, and ericaceous shrubs and occurs on very poorly
drained organic soils (Wibbenmeyer et al., 1982). Both of these plant community types are generally
dominated by hydrophytes.
Broadleaf scrub/shrub thicket is scattered throughout the project area and commonly occurs in moderately
well-drained areas (Wibbenmeyer et al., 1982). Broadleaf scrub/shrub thicket is dominated by an
overstory of willow (Salix sp.) and green alder (Alnus sinuata – FAC). This plant community type is also
generally dominated by hydrophytes.
Soils
The closest soil survey to the area is of the King Salmon-Naknek area, 5 miles to the east (Furbush and
Wiedenfeld, 1970). Soils of the project area are likely either well drained, upland soils similar to the
Kvichak Series or poorly drained wetland soils similar to the Nk Series. The soil survey of the King
Salmon-Naknek area describes those soils series as:
Kvichak series: consists of well drained soils formed in volcanic ash over strata of loam, sandy
loam, and sand. A typical profile has a thin layer of comparatively recent volcanic ash at the
surface, thick dark upper horizons, and a dark grayish brown to dark reddish brown stratified
subsoil. The soils occur on terraces, on some low hills and areas bordering small lakes. Slopes
range from 0 to 30 percent, but are dominantly less than 7 percent. Vegetation consists of a sparse
forest of spindly white spruce, willows, and alder, and ground cover of dwarf birch, ericaceous
shrubs, sedges, mosses, and lichens.
Nk Series: The Nk series consists of poorly drained mottled brown and olive gray loam, sandy
loam, and silt loam. The soils have at most a very thin organic mat at the surface. They are
Geothermal Project, King Salmon, Alaska
Wetland Determination
HDR Alaska, Inc. Page 5
strongly acidic. They are probably perennially frozen at depths greater than 42 inches but,
because of the absence of a thick surface mat of organic material, thaw to at least that depth in the
summer. The Nk soils occupy the beds of naturally drained thaw lakes. Slope gradients are
generally less than 1 percent. Vegetation is dominantly sedges, willows, and small patches of
grass.
Based on their descriptions as well drained or poorly drained, the Kvichak series would be non-hydric
soils, and the Nk series would be hydric.
Soils similar to those described in the soil survey likely occur within the project area, and have similar
associations with certain vegetation types, geographical position, topography, and slope. Soils similar to
the Kvichak series are typically non-hydric, and are likely associated with broadleaf/needleleaf woodland,
lichen tundra, and broadleaf scrub/shrub thicket in high areas. Soils similar to the Nk Series are typically
hydric and are likely associated with needleleaf scrub/shrub and shrub/sedge wet meadow in low areas.
Hydrology
In general, landforms such as ridges tend to shed water downslope where it may pool at toeslopes and in
depressions. Between topographic highs and depressions are flat areas with subtle changes in elevation
that may be well drained or hold water depending on the soil type.
The project area is located on a terminal moraine known as Pike Ridge, suggesting glacial activity has
contributed to the topography and drainage of the area (Mancuso, 2009). Terminal moraines consist of
unsorted, coarsely graded material that is typically less compacted than those areas covered by the glacier,
resulting in higher permeability and better soil drainage. Landforms of the area with well-drained soils
include ridges and low rises which are remnant glacial features associated with the terminal moraine.
Kettles – formed when blocks of glacial ice remain in the terminal moraine, melting later and leaving a
steep hole – leave behind depressions where water may accumulate, or where the ground surface may
intersect the water table. These depressions may be poorly-drained or may be poorly drained only in the
spring but then well drained after the seasonal frost dissipates.
No stream channels are visible on the aerial photography in the mapped area. There is no visible ponding,
and no exposed soils that appear dark, which might indicate saturation. To the contrary, there may be
substantial areas of exposed soil, implying excessive drainage.
The project area is not likely within a region of discontinuous permafrost (USDOI, BLM, 2007). In areas
with shallow (less than two feet below the surface) frozen soils, wetland hydrology may be present
because the frozen layer acts as a restrictive layer, perching water upon it. No detailed permafrost
mapping exists for the area, but a local surveyor did not report permafrost being found during exploratory
sampling conducted at the area (Mancuso, 2009).
In summary, the high areas and low rises are likely to be well drained; the low areas at toeslopes or
concave areas are likely to be poorly drained. Flat areas may be either well drained or poorly drained.
4.0 Mapping and Classification Results
Wetlands
After stereoscopic evaluation of the aerial photography and review of the NWI mapping, areas most likely to
contain hydrophytic vegetation, hydrologic indicators, and hydric soils were mapped as wetlands. These are
displayed in Figure 3. Table 1 summarizes the types of wetlands identified in this office-based WD. Since
no field work was completed in conjunction with this WD, wetlands were mapped conservatively with the
Geothermal Project, King Salmon, Alaska
Wetland Determination
HDR Alaska, Inc. Page 6
intent to include a greater wetland area than might be determined by field investigations, rather than
exclude areas that may actually be wetlands.
Table 1. Wetland Summary
Proposed Road Corridor and NEA Property
Mapping
Code Description Landform
PSS1B
Saturated broadleaved deciduous
scrub/shrub wetland
Depression, Flat,
Toeslope
PSS1/EM1B
Saturated broadleaved deciduous
scrub/shrub/persistent emergent wetland Flat, Toeslope
PEM1B Saturated persistent emergent wetland Depression, Toeslope
PEM1C
Seasonally flooded persistent emergent
wetland Depression
PEM1/SS1B
Saturated persistent
emergent/broadleaved deciduous
scrub/shrub wetland
Depression, Flat,
Toeslope
PUBH Permanently flooded waterbody Depression
Throughout the project area, vegetation types indicating wetlands are typically stunted needleleaf
scrub/shrub and shrub/sedge wet meadow. These vegetation types typically occur in depressions, on flats,
and on toeslopes. Some broadleaf scrub/shrub thickets were also mapped as wetlands where they occur on
toeslopes and flats. Soils in the mapped wetlands are assumed to be poorly drained soils similar to the Nk
series. Hydrology indicators for mapped wetlands are likely present as saturation and seasonal or
permanent inundation. Two waterbodies exist in the project, which are waters of the U.S., but not strictly
“wetlands.” The mapped wetlands and waterbodies shown in this conservative delineation are the areas
that may be subject to Corps of Engineers jurisdiction. Placement of dredged or fill material within them,
or grading of soil within them, might be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
There is some discrepancy between the existing large-scale NWI mapping (Figure 2) and the wetlands
mapping presented in this WD (Figure 3). In some places, NWI mapping has indicated wetlands in areas
that this WD has considered to be uplands and vice versa. It is important to note that NWI mapping shown
on Figure 2 was completed using late 1970s 1:60,000-scale aerial photography and limited ground-truthing.
Wetland mapping shown on Figure 3 used detailed topographic mapping and aerial photographs printed at a
1:14,400 scale, and gives in-depth consideration to variations in vegetation aerial signature and the complex
topography.
Uplands
Areas not mapped as wetlands in the project area are assumed to be uplands because vegetation, soil, or
hydrology lacks wetland indicators. Vegetation types of uplands are mainly mixed broadleaf/needleleaf
woodland, broadleaf scrub/shrub thicket, and lichen tundra. These are found on ridges and low rises.
Soils in uplands are presumably well-drained and similar to the Kvichak Series. These areas would not be
subject to the Corps of Engineers’ jurisdiction.
Office-Based Determination Made By:
Ann Claerbout
Wetland Scientist
HDR Alaska, Inc.
Date: April 3, 2009
Geothermal Project, King Salmon, Alaska
Wetland Determination
HDR Alaska, Inc. Page 7
5.0 References
Cowardin L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services,
Washington, D.C.
Furbush, C. E. and C.C. Wiedenfeld. 1970. Soils of the King Salmon-Naknek Area, Alaska. Soil
Conservation Service and U.S. Department of Agriculture. Palmer.
Mancuso, Ralph. April 31, 2009. Coastal Surveyors, LLC, Naknek, AK, personal communication.
Post, R.A. 1996. Functional Profile of Black Spruce Wetlands in Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish
and Game, Fairbanks, Alaska. Report EPA910/R-96-006 prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. p. 143.
U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI), Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2007. Bay Proposed
Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement. Available at:
http://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/planning/bay_rmp_eis_home_page/bay_feis_documents.html
(Accessed April 1, 2009).
U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI), Soil Conservation Service (SCS). n.d. Soils of the King
Salmon-Naknek Area, Alaska.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988 National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands Alaska
(Region A). U.S. Department of the Interior. Biological Report 88 (26.11).
Viereck L. A., C. T. Dyrness, A.R. Batten, and K.J. Wenzlick. 1992. The Alaska Vegetation
Classification. U. S. Department of Agriculture.
Wibbenmeyer, M., J. Grunblatt, and L. Shea. 1982. User’s Guide for Bristol Bay Land Cover Maps.
Bristol Bay Cooperative Management Plan. Alaska Department of Natural Resources and Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, AK.
Proposed Road Corridor and NEA Property
Geothermal Project near King Salmon, Alaska
Alaska Earth Sciences
Vicinity Map
Wetland Determination
FIGURE 1
LEGEND
Project Area
010.5
Miles
MAP NOTES:
1. Wetland mapping is based on an office study.
No field verification has occurred.
2. Mapping is shown in Alaska State Plane (feet) 6,
North American Datum of 1983, feet.
3. USGS Quad 1:63,360 Naknek C-2
Project Area
Geothermal Project near King Salmon, AlaskaAlaska Earth Sciences
Existing N WI Map
Wetland DeterminationFIGURE 2
LEGEND
Geothermal Project
King Salmon, Alaska
Proposed Road Corridor and Naknek Electric Association Property
Amendment to April 3, 2009 Office-based Wetlands
Determination
April 22, 2009
Prepared for:
Alaska Earth Sciences
11401 Olive Lane
Anchorage, AK 99515
Prepared by:
HDR Alaska, Inc.
2525 C Street, Suite 305
1.0 Introduction and Purpose
The purpose of this amendment is to incorporate the results of field investigations completed on
April 17, 2009 as a supplement to the office-based wetlands determination (HDR, April 3, 2009)
for the proposed road corridor and geothermal well pads near King Salmon, Alaska. The
proposed project area of visited during field investigations includes Rev 1 of the road alignment
and north and south pads, which was sent to HDR on April 15, 2009 from Steve Roland at Recon
LLC.
The field investigations were completed outside of the growing season, which limits the
observation of some wetland indicators, according to the 2007 USACE Regional supplement
(USACE, 2007). Growing season is estimated as the time from the onset of vegetation green-up
in the spring until the time in late fall when woody deciduous species lose their leaves and/or the
last herbaceous plants cease flowering and their leaves become dry or brown. Since these field
investigations were completed in April before the vegetation green-up had occurred, wetland
determinations were limited by winter vegetation, hydrologic, and soil conditions.
2.0 Methods
Study Site Selection
Aerial photographs and HDR’s office-based wetland mapping and report were reviewed to
determine which areas had been mapped as wetlands based on office-available information.
Aerial photographs were analyzed in GIS to identify vegetation clues, evidence of soil saturation,
and topographic features that may support or inhibit wetlands from occurring. Areas of potential
wetlands and other waters of the U.S. were selected prior to the field visit as field targets for
ground truthing. Additional field targets were identified on-site as time allowed.
Data Collection Methods
On April 17, 2009, HDR investigators visited the study area for ground truthing of field targets.
Investigators accessed study area by ATV and collected information on vegetation, hydrology,
and soil at pre-determined field targets and additional sites selected by investigators on the
ground. Vegetation was observed in areas where snow had been blown clear or where snow was
scraped away with a shovel. Hydrologic characteristics of the site were observed in the field by
walking the perimeter of a 1/10 acre study plot. Soils characteristics were observed from soil pits
dug by a backhoe to a depth of at least 36 inches. Plot locations were recorded with a Garmin
Etrex GPS unit with an accuracy of 10 feet. Digital photos of each site were recorded.
3.0 Summary of Wetland and Upland Indicators
Overall, 17 sites were verified with ground truthing. At five sites, wetland determination forms
were completed. All sites were documented with digital photos and field notes describing
presence or absence of wetland indicators. Most study sites were covered in 12-36 inches of snow
with soils frozen to at least 12 inches, but vegetation, soils, and hydrology indicators were still
observable. Vegetation was observed at all sites by identifying winter characters of vegetation
above snow cover and in areas cleared of snow. Hydrologic characteristics, such as geomorphic
position, inundation, and soil saturation were observed at all sites. At sites where soil pits were
dug, soil profile descriptions were completed to include the descriptions of depth of organic mat,
soil color and textures. Field investigations confirmed the wetland indicators discussed in the
April 3, 2009 wetland delineation.
4.0 Mapping and Classification Results
The accuracy of this determination is limited since this field work was completed outside of the
growing season with snow cover and frozen ground. Although, HDR has made the most accurate
determination that they can based on available information and winter ground truthing,
determinations of wetlands and uplands should really be based on field data gathered during the
growing season. HDR is confident in their wetland mapping of the project area based on the
given information, but it is possible that circumstances during the growing season could produce
evidence that areas mapped as uplands are subject to the regulation under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act.
Wetlands
After field investigations, evaluation of the aerial photography and review of the NWI mapping,
areas most likely to contain hydrophytic vegetation, hydrologic indicators, and hydric soils were
mapped as wetlands. These are displayed in Figure 3. Areas near the north pad site previously
mapped as wetlands and assumed to be unmistakable in the field were confirmed as wetlands
with ground truthing. Table 1 summarizes the types of wetlands identified in the refined wetlands
mapping displayed in Figure 1.
Table 1. Mapped wetlands for the proposed road corridor and geothermal drill pads near
King Salmon, AK.
Wetland Types for the Proposed Road Corridor (Rev1) and Drill Pad Sites
Wetland
Type Description Landform
PEM1B Saturated persistent emergent wetland Depression, Toeslope
The mapped wetlands occur in persistent emergent vegetation in depressions with concave
surfaces. Soils in the mapped wetlands were poorly drained with thick organic mats. Mapped
wetlands were saturated with water or flooded. The mapped wetlands shown are the areas that
may be subject to Corps of Engineers jurisdiction. Placement of dredged or fill material within
them, or grading of soil within them, might be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act.
Uplands
Areas not mapped as wetlands in the project area are assumed to be uplands because vegetation,
soil, or hydrology lacks wetland indicators. Vegetation types of uplands are mainly mixed
broadleaf/needleleaf woodland, broadleaf scrub/shrub thicket, and lichen tundra. These are found
on ridges and terraces. Soils in uplands are well-drained, moderately well-drained, and somewhat
poorly drained with thin organic mats.
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE-EA-1759 May 2010
Rev. 2
Appendix C
Agency Consultation Letters
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE-EA-1759 May 2010
Rev. 2
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Anchorage Fish & Wildlife Field Office
605 West 4th Avenue, Room G-61
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2249
In reply refer to:
AFWFO
April 8, 2009
Steve Blazek
Dept of Energy, Golden Field Office
1617 Cole Blvd
Golden, CO 80401
Re: Naknek Electric Association Geothermal Project (Consultation number 2010-0081)
Dear Mr. Blazek,
On March 19, 2010 we received a request for concurrence with your determination that a
proposed exploratory geothermal project located approximately on private property five miles
northeast of King Salmon will have no effect on species listed under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., as amended, ESA). The Department of Energy (DOE) is
proposing to fund this geothermal exploration project. If approved, Naknek Electric Association
(NEA) will drill up to five wells to evaluate geothermal resources. The project will utilize
existing infrastructure, including a gravel road to the area, two gravel pads, and an existing
exploratory geothermal well, currently being drilled. The proposed exploration activities include
site clearing, drilling, and testing of up to five additional wells. Geothermal conditions will be
investigated at various depth intervals to evaluate the potential for commercial production of
geothermal fluids by conventional means. If the geothermal resources are adequate, Enhanced
Geothermal System (EGS) techniques will be used to stimulate the rock formation to create flow
paths between wells through which water can be circulated and heated. Stimulation of one well
and drilling of up to five additional geothermal wells will establish the components to set up a
convective hydrothermal system.
If the geothermal resource is determined to be of sufficient size and temperature to make a
generation facility feasible, the project will ultimately expand to include a power plant, switch
yard, and a tie into the current NEA energy grid. The current proposal includes only well drilling
and stimulation and does not include development of the power plant, transmission lines, and
other associated facilities. Impacts to ESA-listed species from development of energy production
facilities will be evaluated after energy generation has been determined to be feasible.
Our records indicate that the following species, listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., as amended), may be found in the vicinity of the project area: the North
American breeding Steller’s eiders (Polysticta stelleri, listed as threatened in 1997); spectacled
eider (Somateria fischeri, listed as threatened in 1993); Kittlitz’s murrelet (Brachyramphus
brevirostris listed as a candidate species in 2004); and the yellow-billed loon (Gavia adamsii,
listed as a candidate species in 2009). Steller's eiders winter in south-central and southwestern
Alaska and they breed in northern Alaska. These birds migrate through Bristol Bay en route to
and from breeding and wintering grounds, and can be found in coastal marine areas near Naknek
and King Salmon during migration and molting in spring and fall. They do not use upland habitat
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE-EA-1759 May 2010
Rev. 2
Appendix D
Induced Seismicity Report
Environmental Assessment
Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Naknek, Alaska
DOE-EA-1759 May 2010
Rev. 2
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK