Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Pillar Mountain Wind Project App
Alaska I Renewable Energy Ft Grant Applicati qL •r Rn F " a 10 _ ,elms Kodiak Electric dissociation, Inc. PO Box 787 Kodiak, AK 99615 0 Alaska Energy Authority AEA-09-004 Renewable Energy Grant Application 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard Anchorage, AK 99503 RE: KEA Alaska Renewable Energy Grant Application Dear Mr. White: Kodiak Electric Association, Inc., (KEA) respectfully requests Renewable Energy Grant funds, as outlined in the enclosed application. As per the application instructions, the following documents are enclosed: • AEA 09-004 Grant Application • RFA AEA 08-004 Application Cost Worksheet (revised version) • RFA AEA 098-004 Budget Form • Electronic version of the application in PDF KEA is an eligible applicant and this project meets the definition of an eligible project. A copy of the authorization board resolution is attached to this letter and included in the application under Exhibit F. If you are in need of additional information or clarification on any of the information submitted in our application, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your continued support and consideration Sincerely, KoblAK-ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. Darron Scott President/CEO Enclosures: rZALASKA Renewable Energy Fund = ENERGYAUTHORITY Grant Application Application Forms and Instructions The following forms and instructions are provided for preparing your application for a Renewable Energy Fund Grant. An electronic version of the Request for Applications (RFA) and the forms are available online at httc=llwww-akenercyauthority_or,gi E Fund.htm[ The following application forms are required to be submitted for a grant recommendation: Grant Application GrantApp.doc Application form in MS Word that includes an outline of Form information required to submit a complete application. Applicants should use the form to assure all information is provide d and attach additional information as required. Application Cost Costworksheet.doc Summary of Cost information that should be addressed Worksheet by applicants in preparing their application. Grant Budget GrantBudget.xls A detailed grant budget that includes a breakdown of Form costs by task and a summary of funds available and requested to complete the work for which funds are being requested. Grant Budget GrantBudgetlnstr.pdf Instructions for completing the above grant budget form. Form Instructions • If you are applying for grants for more than one project, provide separate application forms for each project. • Multiple phases for the same project may be submitted as one application. • If you are applying for grant funding for more than one phase of a project, provide a plan and grant budget for completion of each phase. • If some work has already been completed on your project and you are requesting funding for an advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding phases are satisfied and funding for an advanced phase is warranted. • If you have additional information or reports you would like the Authority to consider in reviewing your application, either provide an electronic version of the document with your submission or reference a web link where it can be downloaded or reviewed. REMINDER: • Alaska Energy Authority is subject to the Public Records Act, AS 40.25 and materials submitted to the Authority may be subject to disclosure requirements under the act if no statutory exemptions apply. • All applications received will be posted on the Authority web site after final recommendations are made to the legislature. AEA 09-004 Grant Application Pagel of 24 9/2/2008 ALASORITY OE-7-D ENERGYHKA Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application SEC nI ON I — APPLICANT INFORMAT#ON Name (Name of utility, IPP, or govemment entity submitting proposal) Kodiak Electric Association, Inc. (KEA) Type of Entity: Member owned rural electric cooperative providing generation, transmission and distribution services to the residents on Kodiak Island. Mailing Address Physical Address PO Box 787 515 East Marine Way Kodiak, AK 99615 Kodiak AK 99615 Telephone Fax Email 907.486.7700 907.486.7720 dscotta kodlak.coop 1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT Name Title Darron Scott President/CEO Mailing Address PO Box 787 Kodiak, AK 99615 Telephone Fax Email 907.486.7739 907.486.7720 dscott2 kodia€c.coop 1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENT rat ase check as-appropfiite. If you do not to meet the minimum 6pp1ic6nt requirements, your application -will be rejec#ed. 1.2_1 AS an AppiiCant we are; (put an Xin the appropriate box) � X An elactric utility holding a certificate of public convenience a nd riecessity under A ? n or An. ind ependent power producer. or ' A local gpvernment, or A g ove;-nm enta I entity (vvhich Includes tribal councils and housing -authorities), Yes 1- .2- Attached to this application is formal approval and end orsemerit for its projecx ` by its :boa rd of directors, executive management, or other governing aut.horityr, If -a collaborative grouping, a formal approval from each parti ipant's overning authority is necessary. {Indicate Yes or Edo in the box } I Yes I {. , - As an applicant, we have administrative and financial management sy lerls and follow procurement standards that oornply with the slarid ards set forth in i the grant agreement - Yes 1 If awarded the grant, a car: comply with all terms. -and oonditions of the j attached grant farm, (Any exceptions should be clearly rioted and SUbmitted with the application] � AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 2 of 24 9/3/2008 rliAALASKA Renewable Energy Fund ENERGYAUTHORSTY Grant Application SECTION 2 - PROJECT SUMMARY Provide a ,brief 1-2 page overview of yourproject, 2.1 PROJECT TYPE Describe the type of project .you are proposing, {Reconnalssance; Resource Assessmentl' Feasibility Analysfsl orrceptual Design Final Design and Permitting; andlor Construction) as. eve0 as tho kind of renewable. r er Y Yo+� lnterrd to use. Refer to.Section 1. 5 of RFA. I Kodiak Electric Association, Inc. (KEA) is requesting grant funds for the purpose of completing construction of the Pillar Mountain Wind Project. This project is eligible for a grant recommendation as per Section 1.5.2 of the RFA "A project that generates energy from or involves the direct use of wind". The Pillar Mountain Wind project is not in operation at this time, and it is not an addition to an existing project made after August 20, 2008. KEA's Pillar Mountain Wind Project is to construct and install three (3) General Electric (GE) 1.5 MW SLE wind turbines atop Pillar Mountain in Kodiak Alaska. This project will be the first large industrial wind turbines to operate in the State of Alaska. The project will also work in conjunction with our existing hydroelectric plant as an integrated renewal resource where the hydroelectric reservoir will be utilized as an energy storage system for the variability of the wind power. For perspective on the project, the following photograph is a computer simulated image of the Pillar Mountain Project created by Migratory Films. Pillar Mountain reaches 1,200 feet above sea level. AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 3 of 24 9/3/2008 AENERGY AUTHORITY Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application The Pillar Mountain Wind Project will provide clean, cost-effective renewable power to the community of Kodiak. Based upon the wind resource assessment data and the wind turbines performance specifications, within one year the wind generated will displace 1,202,775 gallons of diesel fuel annually and provide reliable, renewable electric energy to the community of Kodiak. Annual production is anticipated to be 15.6 million kWh's with total capacity of 4.5 MW. The economic benefits to our community for developing wind generation when compared to diesel fuel are high; first they will see a lower cost of power, second the community will have a cleaner source of power and finally, our community will have a more cost stable source of power. KEA is dedicated to provide the Kodiak community with cost-effective renewable power and our community strongly supports this project to move toward self-reliance obtained by reducing the dependence on fossil fuels. In August 2005 KEA initially commissioned the wind studies on Pillar Mountain. Upon completion of the wind analysis, this location was classified as a "superb" wind resource with Class 7 winds indicating an exceptional strong wind resource at this site. The Wind Resource Report was completed by V3 Energy LLC and can be found in the Appendix— Exhibit A. KEA began the critical issues analysis and preliminary engineering assessment of the site in February 2006. The analysis provided environmental issues on vegetation, soils, wildlife, land use and permitting guidelines. The assessment also consisted of geologic and seismic hazard reports, topographic maps and site history. KEA has been diligent in ensuring the project meets all federal, state and local regulations. The geotechnical investigation verified the suitability of the mountain ridge top for supporting the turbine foundations. The study determined six (6) turbine foundations could fit along the Pillar Mountain ridgeline. The Engineering Feasibility Assessment Report and Critical Issues Analysis was completed by Tetra Tech EC, Inc. and GEO-Marine, Inc and is attached in the Appendix — Exhibit B. KEA voluntarily undertook a year -long avian use survey at the Pillar Mountain Wind Project area to examine the usage of that airspace by local and migratory bird populations. The Avian Use Study was provided to the US Fish and Wildlife Service for` their review. This study is attached in the Appendix— Exhibit C. In March 2006 KEA applied for a $7 million Clean Renewal Energy Bond (CREB) through the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for obtaining financing for this wind facility. The CREB application was successful and approved by the IRS in December 2006. The CREB financing option provided by the IRS bestows cooperatives a low interest rate for renewable power solutions. Next, KEA was confronted with was to find the right turbine for Kodiak's extreme weather conditions and a credible supplier with technical expertise. Due to the small size of our project and the high demand in the lower-48 for large wind farm development, this was an extreme challenge. KEA and General Electric Company reached an agreement and negotiated the contract of services in May 2007. KEA selected the GE 1.5 SLE wind turbine as shown in the Appendix — Exhibit D. As KEA's project continued to evolve it was apparent that due to our unique location and environment we were experiencing significant surcharges to traditional wind projects. In June 2007 KEA applied for a second CREB through the IRS for an additional $5 million. KEA received approval on the second CREB allocation in December 2007. The total CREB allocation to this project is $12 million. The Cooperative Finance Corporation (NRUCFC) will be administering the CREB bonds for AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 4 of 24 9/3/2008 /tL ALASKA Renewable Energy Fund PC7) ENERGY AUTHORITY Grant Application KEA. KEA will receive $11.4 million of the total CREB allocation. In July 2007 KEA was awarded a $1 million state grant "FY2008 Designated Legislative Grant" for work on this project. In June 2008 KEA advanced the final reimbursement from AEA on these grant funds. KEA awarded Tetra Tech EC, Inc. the contract for geotechnical engineering studies. The purpose of this study was to provide site specific design parameters for the wind turbine foundations, and road design. Upgrades to the road leading to the construction site are necessary for transporting the equipment. The wind turbines have a hub height of 261 feet and rotor diameter of 126 feet. In early 2008 KEA finalized a contract with Tetra Tech EC, Inc for the construction design and engineering work on the Pillar Mountain Wind Project and GE continued to analyze the wind inclination angle issues. GE completed the "Mechanical Loads Analysis" and the turbines were approved for the Pillar Mountain site. This analysis has been included in the Appendix— Exhibit I. The cost of fuel continued to rise and so did transportation costs in May 2007 KEA paid $2.10 per gallon for diesel and in May 2008 KEA paid $3.90 per gallon of diesel. Based on this issue and the maturity of the project, in May 2008 the KEA Board of Directors approved a third turbine to be added to the Pillar Mountain Wind Project. Two factors had changed since the original grid stability study. First, the governors at the Terror Lake hydroelectric plant have been updated to a digital system. Second, there is a better understanding of the GE controls that allow for better stability and control of the wind turbines. Therefore, KEA will be able to generate more power on an annual basis than originally thought. Other advantages to the third turbine include shared transportation costs and lower cost per KW installed. Summer 2008 has been a successful season. The civil road work is nearing completion as is the construction for the turbine foundations. KEA personnel have been working on building the power line from High Substation to the turbine sites and the substation civil engineering work has begun. I One of the greatest aspects of this project is that it is "community wind" and with that, KEA has emphasized local contractors. So far, the majority of the labor has come from Alaska, mainly from Kodiak. Pictures depicting the progress on the mountain have been included in the Appendix — Exhibit E. KEA has completed a significant amount of the infrastructure for this project and is requesting funding to help complete the construction portion of the project. If awarded grant funds for this project our membership would benefit from a lower cost of power. The KEA Board of Director's Resolution #636-08 "Authorization for President/CEO to represent KEA and apply for a Renewable Energy Fund Grant through the Alaska Energy Authority" demonstrating formal approval and endorsement of this project is found in the Appendix— Exhibit F. 2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION a or}e paragraph desorption of your project_ rnmmurrr` it s to be served. and veho will be involved in the i At a mhu imurn include the project location. The Pillar Mountain Wind Project is KEA's next step to achieve its Vision Statement "Endeavor to produce 95% of energy sales with cost effective renewable power solutions by the year 2020. This AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 5 of 24 9/3/2008 ALASKA Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application renewable energy project will consist of three 1.5 MW General Electric (GE) SLE wind turbines. It is estimated that this project will produce 15.6 million kWh's annually and thereby eliminate over 1.2 million gallons of diesel each year. The wind project will utilize the 20 MW Terror Lake Hydroelectric facility as an energy storage system to mitigate the fluctuations of wind power. Wind and water will work in concert together to produce an estimated 91% of our current power generation needs. This renewable energy project will benefit the City of Kodiak; United States Coast Guard Integrated Support Command Kodiak, Bells Flats and Russian Creek area, as well as the villages of Chiniak, Pasagshak and Port Lions. There are numerous people involved in making this project a reality. These groups of individuals are mainly Alaskans, primarily from Kodiak. ILEA is proud to be helping our community lower is dependence on diesel and very thankful for the overwhelming community support for this project. Pillar Mountain is located directly southwest of the City of Kodiak. Attached is a survey map depicting the land ownership of the area and the portion of land where the wind turbines will be located. A topographical map illustrating the six (6) turbine sites is also attached. This phase of the wind project KEA will be developing three of the six sites depicted on the map. These maps are found in the Appendix — Exhibit G. The many different contractors involved in this project have been listed in Section 3.4. - 2.3 PROJECT BUDGET OVERVIEW Briefly djseusc th8 amount of trends needed_ the an6--ipated sources offs wds, and the nature and source � of other contributions to the project. Incfude a project cost summary that Includes arr estimated Iotaf cost t ,rorrgr: conslmctioo. The Pillar Mountain Wind Project is estimated to cost $23.3 million. This grant request is for $9.65 million. To date, KEA has received $1 million in Alaska State Grant Funds. In September 2008, KEA was approved by LB&A, based on recommendation by AEA, for an additional $1 million in Alaska State Grant Funds. The remaining project costs will be funded by the KEA membership through the electric rate structures. KEA has been successful in securing $11.4 million in Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs) which allows us to borrow at very low interest rates. The cost estimate for the project is as follows: ` Wind Turbines/Transportation $ 12,249,354 Civil (Roads, Foundations, etc.) $ 5,147,450 Turbine Erection $ 1,230,847 Permanent Meteorological Tower $ 303,935 Transmission Line $ 1,646,340 Substation $ 1,934,113 Engineering/Studies/Permitting $ 807,500 Total $ 23,319,539 .4 € ROJEGT BENEFIT Driofly ctlscuss the f nanoial banefrts that Mfi rasa)t from this project, inoludfng art estimate of ec000mr o benefits (such as r---duced fuel casts) and a descriotron of other ber)6fits to the Alaskan oubllc, The estimated benefit (savings) to our community is enormous. It is estimated over the 20 year life of this project the NPV, savings to the Kodiak Community as compared to diesel generation will be AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 6 of 24 9/3/2008 /WL--) ALASM Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application $77,018,434.56. The cost savings the first year of the project is calculated at $4,190,542.09. The economic analysis considers the fuel cost savings, as well as the other operational costs of diesel generation. Savings to our community that the economic analysis does not consider, is the cost stability of renewable power as a savings to the community versus the variability of diesel fuel. The economic analysis included in Section 4.4.6 provides detailed information on the calculations and assumptions used to develop the financial benefits of this project. The public benefit itemized below, centers on displacing 1,202,755 gallons of diesel per year. The price of the displaced fuel is $4.04 per gallon for an annual benefit of $4,859,211. The life of the wind turbines is estimated at 20 years, providing a $97,182,604 total public benefit. The numbers do not include the emission savings from operating with clean renewable power. Additional public benefit that cannot be quantified includes KEA's efforts in breaking the barrier with large wind, and making great headway utilizing wind on an isolated grid. KEA can be a model for renewable energy for the State of Alaska. The following information should also be considered when calculating overall public benefits: Consuming 1,202,775 gallons of diesel (@ 137,259 BTUs) would generate: • 263.36 tons of NOX • 25.38 tons of SOX • 81,642 tons of CO2 This is equivalent to: • 13,565 passenger car emission for one year • 9,810 home emissions for one year • CO2 from 3,086,000 home propane BBQs • Green House gas emissions saved by recycling 25,539 tons of waste To absorb this amount of CO2 it would take: • 1,899,077 tree seedlings ten years • 16,833 acres of coniferous forest one year 2.5 PROJi-CT COST AND BENEFIT SUMARY inchide a sumn7ary of yo�jr prgj�dt's-tOfc�l< O�sfS and b ei7efits below.. 2.5.1 Total Project Cost $23,319,539 (including estimates through con strt, tAr nj_ f $9,650,000 . 2.6.2 Grant Funds Requested in this application. J II- .S.3 Other Funds to be provided (Project match) $2,000,000 1 2.5.4 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.5.2 and 2.5.3) $11,650,000 2.6.6 Estimated SenefK (Savings) $4,190,542.09 (base year) $77,018,434.56 NPV over 20 years ( life of project) 2.5.6 Public Ben Rt (if you cart caloulate the benefit in terms of $ 4,859,211 Annually - dollars please provide that number here and explain how you ca$culated that number 1n your application.} $ 97,182,604 (20 years) AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 7 of 24 9/3/2008 fi� ALASHKA Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application SECTION 3 — PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN Describe whe will be responsible for managing the project and provide a plan for suc essfufry completing the project within the scope, schedule and budget proposers in the application. 1 y.1 Project Manager Tell us who will be managing the project for the Grantee and include a resume and references for the manager(s). If the appiicant does not Dave a project rn an aq er indicate how you intend to zelicit project managernent Support If the applicant expects project management assistance from AEA or anaiher gaveFnment errty, qt to that in this section. I Darron Scott, President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Kodiak Electric Association will continue managing the Pillar Mountain Wind Project. Darron earned a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering from Texas A&M in 1990, and began his career in 1987 as an engineer at Ingersoll-Rand Pump Group. He worked his way up through the ranks and was promoted to production superintendent at Texas Utilities/TU Electric, a steam production plant in Monahans, Texas. After nine years with Texas Utilities, Darron and his wife Carol looked north to Alaska, and Darron was chosen by the KEA Board of Directors to oversee KEA's employees and stand-alone generation, transmission and distribution electrical grid. Darron was on board for a year before the State of Alaska divested the Four Dam Pool projects to the communities they serve. He has been a Director on the Joint Action Agency governing body for these four hydroelectric projects, and has been a driving force in KEA's long-term goal of purchasing the Terror Lake Hydroelectric project that produces the majority of our cooperative's power. In 2007, Darron was instrumental in creating KEA's vision statement: KEA shall endeavor to produce 95% of energy sales with cost effective renewable power solutions by the year 2020, and in bringing this vision statement to fruition by planning and developing a state of the art wind farm underway in Kodiak, scheduled to be operational in the fall of 2009. Darron has been KEA's President/CEO for the past eight years and has been recognized as a leader by the Alaskan utility industry with the Alaska's Top 40 under 40 Award by the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce and the Director's Corporate Stewardship Award by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Alice Job is the Manager of Finance and Administration for Kodiak Electric Association a position she has held for over five years. Alice and her husband Mark relocated to Kodiak in 2003 from Black Hills Electric Cooperative in Custer, South Dakota, where she was the Manager of Office Services. Her background includes 24 years of experience with rural electric cooperatives, numerous NRECA and USDA financial courses, and continuing education with Black Hills State University and the University of Alaska. Alice is firmly committed to the cooperative philosophy, and she has developed and maintains outstanding relationships with CFC, RUS, NISC, and other electric industry affiliations. Bob Coates is the Manager of Operations and Engineering for Kodiak Electric Association a position he has held for a year. He relocated to Kodiak from Prineville, Oregon, where he was the Operations Manager for Pacific Power. Bob "grew up" in substations, and brought 36 years of experience managing electric utility systems to KEA, including his previous positions as the Account Executive/Principle Consultant for Computer Sciences Corporation, Senior Director for Enron Energy Services, Vice President of Technical Services for Si3, and Project Manager of Special Projects for Portland General Electric. Bob's outstanding focus on safety embraces all facets of utility work and is an outstanding complement to his expertise in technical areas, including the line department, substation construction and maintenance, switching operations, revenue metering systems, automatic meter reading systems, fixed network communication systems, and customer service projects. Jim Devlin, P.E. is the Engineering Manager for Kodiak Electric Association. He earned his B.S. AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 8 of 24 9/3/2008 fio`�ALASKAENERG Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application in electrical engineering from Portland State University in 1982 before he and his wife Lynn began their life adventure in Alaska in 1983. Jim joined the team at KEA in 1986 as a Staff Engineer, and after earning his State of Alaska professional engineer's license in electrical engineering in 1992, was respectively promoted to the positions of Engineering Superintendent and Engineering Manager. Jim has been in his current position as Engineering Manager for 7 years, and a KEA employee for 22 years. His comprehensive knowledge of RUS construction specifications, National Electrical Safety Code and National Electrical Code, combined with his attention to precise details of complicated projects and his hands-on knowledge of KEA's land surveying, staking, engineering, and inspection needs, provide valuable facets to KEA's plans for the future, and the design and maintenance of our electrical transmission and distribution systems to ensure safe reliable power on demand for our members. information on the following other key project administrators and contractors is located in the Appendix— Exhibit H : • Mr. Ronald E. Versaw, PE and Senior Consulting Project Manager • Mr. John S. Hueston, Remediation Senior Project Manager • Mr. Aron J. Anderson, Principle Estimator • Tetra Tech - wind energy environmental engineering and construction firm KEA does not expect project management assistance from AEA or another government entity. 3.2 Proj ct S chedule include a -scheduIe for the proposed work that w i I I be funded by this grant. (You may include a ch art or table atta hrn6rit. witht.a summary of gates below,} Substation Civil Work September 2008 Substation Erection November 2008 Underground Transmission October 2008 Overhead Transmission September 2008 SCADA Installation April 2009 Turbine Manufacture April 2009 Turbine Delivery June 2009 Turbine Installation July 2009 Turbine Release to System September 2009 3.3 Project Milestones I Define kev tasks and de iE n Doints in your aroiect and a schedule for achfevina them KEA has defined the following key tasks and completion dates for this project: TASK COMPLETION 1. Substations September 2008 2. Powerline October 2008 3. Foundations September 2008 4. Wind Turbine Generator (WTG) Island Transport June 2009 S. WTG Erection July 2009 6. WTG Tower Wiring July 2009 7. Transformer Low Voltage Work July 2009 S. Meteorological Tower July 2009 9. Wind Turbines & Other Turbine Costs September 2009 10. Project Site Roads and Surveying June 2009 AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 9 of 24 9/3/2008 ALASKA Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application 11. Supervision and Field Office Continuous 12. Crane Pads and Erection Areas June 2009 13. Island Transportation Road Work June 2009 14. Engineering, Permitting and Studies Continuous The scheduled completion for this project is September 2009. The majority of the key decisions for the project have already been made as the project is well underway. The major pieces that require future decisions are as follows. 1. Finalize Transportation Contract — ATS Wind — November 2008 2. Finalize Crane Contract —January 2009 3. Distribution and Transmission Relay Protection Scheme Design — February 2009 4. Finalize and Purchase Spare Parts for GE Turbines— March 2009 5. Finalize O&M Agreement with GE — March 2009 3.4 Project Resources � bescribe the personnel, contractors, equipment. and services you will use to accomplish the project, Inolude any partnerships or commitrnents with other entities you have or anticipate will be needed to complete your project. Describe any existing contracts and the selection process you may use for major equipment purchases or contracts_ Inolude brief resumes and references j for known, €cev Personnel, contractors, and suppliers as an attachment to Your application, l ➢ Tetra Tech EC, Inc. is the engineering and construction firm involved in the design for the civil infrastructure as well as the erection of the turbines. (Detail information on Tetra Tech can be found in Exhibit H). ➢ Electric Power Systems, Inc./Dryden & LaRue Inc. (Alaska Contractor) is the engineering firm involved in the design of the substation, the relay protection and the grid stability study. ➢ KEA is the lead for the transmission and distribution design and installation. ➢ Anderson Construction (Local Contractor) is the construction company involved in the civil works. ➢ Belarde Concrete (Local Contractor) poured the concrete. ➢ Brechan Enterprise (Local Contractor) supplied the concrete. ➢ Alcan Electric (Alaska Contractor) installed the turbine grounding. ➢ City Electric (Alaska Contractor) and KEA employees are installing the substation upgrades. ➢ Anderson Transport Services (ATS) is the turbine transport company. ➢ General Electric (GE) is the turbine supplier as well as the commissioning crew. ➢ Virginia Transformer and Ermco are the transformer suppliers. ➢ Mitsubishi is the substation breaker supplier. ➢ St. Denny Surveying (Local Contractor) is the surveyor. ➢ JD Steel (Alaska Contractor) is the rebar provider and installer. ➢ Crane provider yet to be determined. ➢ GEO Marine, Inc coordinated the early environmental studies .5 Project Communications I r i �sss how Vou plan to monitor the project and keep the A;.ithority informed of the status. AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 10 of 24 9/3/2008 /L3 ALASKA Renewable Energy Fund 9..3 ENERGY AUTHORITY Grant Application As previously stated, KEA has already made significant progress on this project and has implemented a successful project status monitoring process throughout the project thus far. Management will continue to utilize this process throughout the project completion. From a construction standpoint, KEA has implemented weekly meetings with the contract construction managers for the various aspects of the project. There are continuous economic updates and discussions in our project monitoring process. Management updates the KEA Board of Directors monthly on the project status. The Kodiak Community is also updated on the project status through the monthly newsletter KEA NewsL ne and KEA's web site at www.kadiak.electric.com. The project accounting has tracking numbers assigned and the costs associated with the various components of the project are tracked to the budget monthly. KEA will provide quarterly reports and updates on the status of the construction of the project to AEA. The quarterly updates would include construction achievements, timelines, cost updates and technical data that can be shared to assist other utilities in Alaska incorporate wind. KEA would also welcome and encourage site visits to the project. KEA will follow all provisions outlined by AEA in the Renewable Energy Fund Grant Agreement. 3.6 Project Risk _Di s potential roblems and how you would address them. KEA is prepared for challenges that we have not yet considered, but the known potential risks to this wind project, are as follows: => Wind Turbine Manufacture Delay — If we miss the summer 2009 window it will delay construction until 2010. In the GE contract there are penalty clauses to help stimulate the effort to make the appropriate schedule. Also, there have been no concerns from GE about the shipping schedule. => Transportation Accident — KEA and its subcontractors will carry adequate insurance for any transportation loss that could be incurred. => Erection Accident — KEA and its subcontractor$ will carry adequate insurance for any type of erection incident/loss. => Weather Delays — The wind turbines can only be erected under good weather conditions. In the transportation contract we will have contingencies built in to deal with the probable delays that could be experienced due to Kodiak weather conditions. Long weather delays could become very expensive and it is a risk that we will have to compensate for appropriately. Our plan is to construct during the most favorable Kodiak weather season, but this will not mitigate all of the weather risk. => Wind Turbine Startup Failure — Covered by GE warranty. => Grid Control Issues — There may be times where the variability of the wind power could cause grid frequency instabilities. If that is the case, there is dampening and power curtailment functions within the wind turbine control system. The utilization of the control system to correct the grid instabilities could potentially lower the amount of power provided. SECTION 4— PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TASKS Toff ors what the project is and how you will meet the mquirements, outfined in ,Section .2 of the RFA_ The level of information will vary according to phase. of the project you propose to undertake with grant funds. = if ypu ire app_j&2 for pmnt funding. for more than one prase of o pr21&cf provide a pik .arrd AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 11 of 24 9/3/2008 ALASKA Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application grant budget for completion of each prase. If some work has already beer? completed or? your project and you are requesting funding for ar? advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding phases are satisfied and funding for an advanced {phase i �warrarrted. 4.1 Proposed Energy Resource Des&ibe the potential e.xtent/amounf of the energy resource that is available. Di -cLu33 the pros and corns of your proposed energy resource vs_ other alternatives that may be availabie for the market to be served by your project. The Pillar Mountain Wind Project has the potential to produce 15.6 million kWh's annually with the wind regime at this location. The wind data indicates "superb" class 7 wind speeds at this location. (Exhibit A). The capacity factor is derived from the wind data from the site, and the availability factor is derived from GE calculations and information. There are only two other practical energy sources for the Kodiak community — diesel and hydro generation. Diesel power has only one pro over the wind power and that is, it is there when you need it. You can not count on the wind being available. All other factors for using diesel as an energy resource are negative as compared to wind. Diesel has no cost stability and has emission issues with a negative impact on the environment. Hydroelectric generation is a viable resource for the community of Kodiak and we are continuing to investigate more hydro options. Kodiak has a large hydroelectric facility that operates well for the community. However, we need to provide additional renewable power other than just our current hydro facility and this wind project to continue to meet the needs of our community. KEA will sill need to operate with a significant amount of diesel to meet our community's electric needs. One of the large negatives of additional hydro facilities is the extended lead time to start up a plant. KEA is currently doing studies for hydro sites, but none of the sites are near the operational readiness of wind power. Wind power can start reducing our dependency on diesel power consumption now. 4.2 Existing Energy System 4.2A Basic configuration of Existing Energy System Briefly discuss the basic configuration of:the existing �!neigy systern_ Include information about the j number, size, age, efficiency, 'and type of Qaneratiori. KEA operates an isolated electrical grid. The main power source comes from Terror Lake, a remote hydroelectric facility. KEA also operates and maintains four independent diesel power generation stations; Kodiak Generating Station, Nyman Power Plant, Swampy Acres Plant and Port Lions. KEA uses a mixture of generation; hydroelectric, diesel reciprocating engines and a diesel fired combined cycle unit. The table below details KEA's generation resources. The capacity numbers used are high end nominal for the machines. This is a point where the machines can be operated on a high end for a period of time, but does not reflect total potential due to the detrimental effects of full load operations on diesel engines. Also, please note the efficiencies are for the load points mentioned at ideal conditions. For example, the Nyman Combined Cycle Solar Taurus 60 has peak efficiency of 14.2 kWh/gallon, but over its history of r different load points, maintenance status and inlet air temperature, its average efficiency is 12.97. The l Nyman plant is a base load operation and its operation is what is assumed to be mitigated by the use of wind power. The other diesels will be utilized, but their load is somewhat restricted due to air emission limits. AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 12 of 24 9/3/2008 /jAALASKA Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application KEA carries a large amount of generation capacity for its peak load. This excess generation capacity also serves to backup the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Facility. As an emergency precaution, KEA must be able to operate its system even when Terror Lake is unavailable. 11 12.2 kWh/gal Del-aval DSRS-12-3 1976 1.80 MW 15.6 kWh/gal Caterpillar 3616 2005 5.00 MW 15.6 kWh/gal Caterpillar 3616 2005 5.00 MW 14.4 kWh/gal DeLaval DSRS-16-4 1980 5.80 MW Kodiak Generating Station Total 17.60 MW 13.8 kWh/gal DeLaval DSR-48 1978 2.50 MW 14.2 kWh/gal Solar Taurus 60-T7301S, SoLoNOx 1999 6.50 MW Nyman Power Plant Total 9.00 MW 10.5 kWh/gal Fairbanks Morse 38TD-8 1/8 1968 1.50 MW 10.5 kWh/gal Fairbanks Morse 38TD-81/8 1968 1.50 MW 13.2 kWh/gal Caterpillar 3516B 2002 1.80 MW 13.2 kWh/gal Caterpillar 3516E 2002 1.80 MW Swampy Acres Plant Total 6.60 MW Fuji VT1R6N Turbine with Mitsubishi Generator 1984 10.00 MW Fuji VT1R6N Turbine with Mitsubishi Generator 1984 10.00 MW Terror Lake Hydroelectric Facility Total 20.00 MW 11.3 kWh/gal Waukesha 28950 1968 0.24 MW 11.5 kWh/gal Waukesha 28950 1979 0.24 MW 11.5 kWh/gal Caterpillar 3406 1970 0.14 MW 11.5 kWh/gal Caterpillar 343 1970 0.14 MW Port Lions Total 0.75 MW KEA Generating Capacity Total 53.95 MW KEA has 29 miles of transmission lines and 322 miles of distribution lines. KEA's six (6) substations are itemized below: AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 13 of 24 9/3/2008 � ALASKA Renewable Energy Fund If (r-) ENERGY AUTHORITY Grant Application Terror Lake Substation 11.25MVA 13.8 kV/138 kV 11.25MVA 13.8 kV/138 kV 750KVA 13.8 kV/12.47 kV Airport Substation 10 MVA 138 kV/12.47 kV Swampy Acres 20 MVA 138 kV/67 kV/12.47 kV 7.5 MVA 67 kV/12.47 winding 7.5 MVA 4.16 kV/67 kV Hartman Substation 10 MVA 4.16 kV/12.47 kV/67 kV 10 MVA 4.16 kV/12.47 kV/67 kV High Substation 10 MVA 67 kV/2.4 kV/12.47 kV Nyman Substation 10 MVA 67 kV/12.47 kV/13.8 kV Approximately 20% of KEA's generation needs come from expensive diesel generation — which is why it is necessary to look for alternative sources of generation to sustainably meet the communities' energy needs. 4.2.2 Existing Energy Resowces Used Briefly discuss your understanding of the existing energy resources. Include a brief discussion of agy irnPaact the project may have on existing energy infrastructure and resources. The existing energy resources for KEA, as itemized above, are a 20 MW hydroelectric facility, a variety of diesel generators and one diesel fired combined cycle combustion turbine. The impact of the Pillar Mountain Wind Project will have a positive effect on the existing resources. The plan is for the hydroelectric plant's lake (Terror Lake) to act as an energy reservoir or battery for the wind. When the wind is elevated we will use less water, and when the wind is in short supply we will use more water. KEA's current operations utilize the maximum hydro available from the Terror Lake facility, which on average will generate 80% of the annual power needs of our community. KEA currently depends on diesel generation for the other 20% of power used within our community. The wind project will offset the diesel production. With the wind project, KEA's operations will become 80% hydro, 11% wind, and 9% diesel, which is a much more attractive, long-term viable solution for the Kodiak Community. One critical component of the operation of the wind project is that in no way will the wind power be considered capacity — only energy. It will only offset water utilized by the Terror Lake Hydro facility, so the hydro plant will be operated with spinning reserve to react to the wind variations. The efficiency curve for the hydro units is fairly flat from 40% load to top end, so there will be no significant loss in efficiency due to this operation. Due to our isolated grid environment, the spinning reserve is a necessity. 4.2.3 Existing Energy Market Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy j customers. The community of Kodiak utilizes approximately 138,000,000 kWh's annually of electric energy. The membership base consists of 4,650 residential accounts that consume approximately 7,072 kWh's each, per year. KEA historically experiences a small annual growth in the number of residential services. The residential services also continue to show a slight increase in usage each year. The total annual energy AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 14 of 24 9/3/2008 ALASKA Renewable Energy Fund � D ENERGY AUTHORITY Grant Application usage of the large power consumers, and subsequently the energy usage of the entire system as a whole, is largely dependent on the fishing industry and thus very volatile. Seafood -processing accounts for approximately 20% of KEA's electric consumption annually. KEA completed a 10 year load forecast in 2005. This forecast predicts a continual increase in peak loads (capacity) and total sales (energy). The continual growth on the Island will put pressure on KEA's existing capacity to cover peak loads. It will also cause increased price and environmental pressure if the utilization of diesel fuel is used to keep up with total sales. The wind project will impact our customers in three significant ways. First and foremost, through lower power costs. Second, the project will provide stability in the cost of power. Mitigating the use of highly unpredictable diesel fuel in our energy mix will allow KEA's cost of power to stabilize allowing customers to plan and budget power costs. Diesel cost volatility from month to month makes it difficult for the business community to plan future development or predict cost of future operations. The third impact is more complicated than the other two, and not as attractive to some of our customer base. Wind power will bring variations in frequency and voltage that will be matched by our hydroelectric plant. To minimize the impact of these variations on our system prior to the arrival of the wind turbines, KEA has taken the following two steps; First, as mentioned in Section 4.3.1, KEA has installed a new governor system in our hydroelectric plant that will significantly minimize the frequency issues. Second, KEA's system power factor needs to be improved. Therefore, we are adding a significant amount of capacitance to the system. This capacitance will be added primarily at the step down transformers to some of customers who have a very poor power factor. To pay for the power factor corrective equipment, KEA will be applying the power factor adjustment within the applicable rates schedules for each one percent by which the average power factor is less than ninety percent (90%) lagging. 4.3 Proposed System Inciude information necessary to describe the system you are intending to develop and address potential system design, land ownership, permits, and environmental issues. System Design mvide the following infOFination for the proposed renewebi� energy system: e A description of renewable energy technology specific to project location Optimum installed capacity Is Anti oipate d capacity factor i o Anticipated annual generation I - Anticipated barriers o Basic integration concept e Delivery methods KEA's Pillar Mountain Wind Project is to construct and install three (3) General Electric (GE) 1.5 MW SLE wind turbines (Exhibit D) atop Pillar Mountain In Kodiak Alaska. This project will be the first large industrial wind turbines to operate in the state of Alaska; providing our community clean, cost- effective renewable power. The project will work in conjunction with our existing hydroelectric as an integrated renewable resource where the hydro electric reservoir will be utilized as a energy storage system for the variability of the wind power. AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 15 of 24 9/3/2008 ALASM Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Based upon the wind resource assessment data and the wind turbines performance specifications, the wind generated will displace approximately 1,202,775 gallons of fuel annually. Annual production is anticipated to be 15.6 million kWh's with total capacity of 4.5 MW and a capacity factor of 40.4%. There are a few anticipated barriers; the first major one being weather condition extremes. We anticipate potential icing issues which have been factored into the above capacity factor. The icing factors utilized are derived from data acquired at the site over the past two years. Weather could also play into the future repair times. It will be difficult in the winter months to repair large maintenance items at this location. The second barrier revolves around our isolated, remote location. When failures do occur, it may be difficult to get large component replacement parts quickly. This barrier could lower the generation output. However, GE turbines have proven to be very reliable and KEA's turbines will be installed with the cold weather extreme options. Neither of these barriers is insurmountable, but they do make wind as a renewable solution more difficult and costly than a wind site in the lower 48. There is also the grid control issues mentioned in section 3.6. The basic integration concept and delivery method is to have the 4.5 MW plant installed on Pillar Mountain tied into the electrical grid via a 1.76 mile 25 KV transmission line which will connect to our existing High Substation. At High Substation the power will be stepped up to 69 KV. The basic control - integration will utilize the 20 MW Terror Lake Hydroelectric plant control system frequency to allow for the wind turbine power to fluctuate. This will act as a battery of sorts; as the wind power increases KEA will use less water, and as the wind diminishes KEA will use more water. The governors at Terror Lake were recently changed out to a digital framework to provide for greater control and integration. The new governors automated control system (ACS) has increased stability, performance and response j time. 4,3.2 Land Ownership - Identify potential :and ownership. issues, including whether site owners have agreed to the 1 project or t qw you intend tq appro.aeh land ownership and access issues_ KEA has not experienced any land ownership issues. The land owners involved in this project are the City of Kodiak and the State of Alaska. The City of Kodiak owns the land that provides access to the wind turbine site and the land where the permanent meteorological tower will be installed. The State of Alaska owns the wind turbine sites. We have all the permissions, easements and leases necessary from the City of Kodiak. In August 2006, we made application for a land lease from the State of Alaska. Thus far, the State has provided KEA an "Early Entry Authorization". It is anticipated that KEA will be receiving the final land lease from the state in the near future. Throughout the application process there have been no negative comments, but as this is the first lease of this type with the State of Alaska, it has been a long process. KEA has approached the access issue to the top of Pillar Mountain with extensive road redesign. Major civil construction was required to the road up Pillar Mountain to accommodate transportation equipment hauling turbines with a hub height of 261 feet and rotor diameter of 126 feet. Pillar Mountain reaches 1,200 feet above sea level. Summer 2008 saw the completion of extensive upgrades to the road leading to the construction site. Generally, the road to Pillar Mountain is closed throughout the winter months. To perform the necessary operations and maintenance on the wind turbines KEA will need to utilize a snow tract vehicle for access up the mountain to the turbine sites. AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 16 of 24 9/3/2008 �® ALASKA MCD ENERGY AUTHORITY Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application 4.3.3 Permits Provide the following information is it may relate to perm itt!ng and brow you intend to address I out fari6n� permit: issues. List of applicable perriiita • Anticipated aermittinq tirn :iIne Identify and di cus7sioh of cotential barriers KEA has been diligent in ensuring that the Pillar Mountain Wind Project meets all federal, state, and local regulations. KEA has received the following permit approvals: ✓ US Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Clean Water Act Nationwide Permit ✓ Federal Aviation Administration Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation ✓ State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources' Division of Mining, Land and Water Final Consistency Determination with the Alaska Coastal Management Program (Exhibit J) ✓ Kodiak Island Borough Planning and Zoning Commission Conditional Use Permit ✓ Kodiak Island Borough Zoning Compliance Permit ✓ Kodiak Island Borough Building Permit ✓ City of Kodiak Ordinance #1273 —An Ordinance of the Council of the City of Kodiak Authorizing the use of Pillar Mountain by the Kodiak Electric Association for support Activities Related to their Wind Generation Project ✓ City of Kodiak Land Lease— Lease No.133457 Other permitting issues: ✓ Tetra Tech and ATS Wind will be coordinating transport related permits including DOT permits and Port of Entry Permits for the delivery of the turbines. The final permit that KEA is waiting to receive (as previously addressed) is the land lease from the State of Alaska from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The land for the site is undeveloped, fairly remote land owned by the State of Alaska. KEA's Early Entry Authorization (EEA) will expire in May 2009. Upon receipt of the final decision by DNRsadditional land surveys and appraisals will be required for determination of lease payments. The State of Alaska requires reappraisal every 5 years. KEA will continue to work with the state and local governments to ensure that all necessary permits are acquired in order to meet future construction schedules. Upon installation of the turbines, KEA must submit the FAA Form 7460-2 so that the FAA can perform a certified site survey. Also, once the metrological tower has been installed KEA will need to officially survey the tower and inform FAA of the additional permanent structure on the ridgeline. 4.3.4 Environmental Address whether the following e9vironmenta] and land use issues a0ply, and if so how they will Threatened or Endangered species Habitat issues + Wetlands 6nd other protected areas • Archaeological and historical resources # Land development constraints Telecornmunications interference + Avialion 66nsideraiions O Vi ual. aestheti inn AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 17 of 24 1'7191JR1I4r 3 ,o ALASKA Renewable Energy Fund W:D ENERGY AUTHORITY Grant Application o Identify and discuss other potential barriers W - The Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) Final Consistency Determination also confirms that the project complies with all the environmental guidelines set forth in the ACMP program. There are no historic, prehistoric or archeological resources known in the region the wind turbines will be located. If any cultural or paleontological resources are revealed, KEA will immediately contact the State Historic Preservation Office, US Army Corps of Engineers and the Alaska State Troopers so that consultation per section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act may proceed. KEA voluntarily undertook a year -long avian use survey at the Pillar Mountain Wind Project area to examine the usage of that airspace by local and migratory bird populations. The completed Avian Use Study was provided to the US Fish and Wildlife Service for their review. (Exhibit C) A microwave radio path obstruction analysis was conducted by New Horizons Telecom to verify that the wind farm clears all communication paths. The map with microwave radio information can be found in the Appendix — Exhibit K. In reference to other telecommunication interference, the FAA has confirmed that the turbines clear their microwave path to the Kodiak Air Traffic Control Tower. Geo-Marine, Inc. initially performed a critical issues analysis to address any potential environmental impacts of the project and then completed an Avian, Vegetation, Wetland and Habitat Survey that has been forwarded to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in relation to the proposed wind project. (Exhibit B and Exhibit Q. There have been no land development constraints. The geotechnical investigation performed by Tetra Tech EC, Inc. verifies the suitability of the mountain ridge top for supporting the turbine foundations. This study determined six turbine foundations could fit along the Pillar Mountain ridgeline. The Kodiak Community has been supportive of this project. Atop Pillar Mountain is a breathtaking view of the Island and a popular tourist destination as well as a playground for Kodiak. Snowmobiling, 4-wheeling and berry picking are popular activities enjoyed at this location by our community. The Kodiak Island Borough Assembly has expressed their support of the Pillar Mountain Wind Project by adopting Resolution No. FY2007-25 A Resolution of the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Urging the Alaska State Legislature and Governor to Secure Grant Funding for Kodiak Electric Association's Pillar Mountain Wind Project, dated February 15, 2007. A copy of this resolution has been included in the Appendix — Exhibit L. KEA has been diligent in providing the community information as to the impact of the turbines atop Pillar Mountain. The enormous support within the community continues. The strong support of this project indicates our community's commitment to move toward self-reliance obtained by reducing our dependence on fossil fuels supports the Vision Statement adopted by the Board of Directors in February 2007 "KEA shall endeavor to produce 9596 of energy sales with cost effective renewable power solutions by the year 2020". 4.4 Proposed New System Golfs (Total Estimated Costs and proposed Revenues) The level of cost information provided will vary accordlrrg to the phase of funding requested and any previous work the applicant may have done or) the. project. Applicants must reference the source of their cost data. For example- ple App�ic n s Records or Analysis, Industry Standards, �vorssultant or Manufacturer's estimates. AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 18 of 24 9/3/2008 �� ALASKA Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application 4.4.1 project Development Cost Provide detailed project cost information based on your current knowledge and understanding of the project. Cost €nformat€on should include the following; a Total anticipated project cost, and oost for this prase O Requested grant funding O Applicant rn atc h Ing funds — €oans, capllal contributions, in -kind * Identifioation of other funding sources * Projected capital cost of proposed renewable energy system _4� Projected development 4�ostrof proposed renewable an +system KEA's wind project has continued to evolve. At this time, the total anticipated project cost is $23.3 million. As of August 31, 2008, KEA has expended and/or accrued expenses of $6.89 million. The remaining dollars needed to complete this project is $26.425 million. With this Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application, KEA is requesting $9.65 million in grant funding. In July 2007, KEA was awarded a $1 million state grant "FY2008 Designated Legislative Grant". Also, $1 million was just approved by LB&A through recommendations by AEA for this project (September 2008). If this grant application was funded, that would make a total of $11.65 million in grants for this $23.3 million project. The KEA membership will be funding the remainder of the project. At this time, KEA has been approved for $12 million in Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CRES). The Cooperative Finance Corporation (CFC) is administering the CREB loan for KEA. Of the amount approved, KEA will actually only receive $11.4 million. it is anticipated that the CREBs will be issued at a very low interest rate. However, as the bonds will not be issued until late October 2008, KEA does not yet know the actual interest rate for the CREB loan. The following chart indicates dollars spent on the various portions of the wind project as of August 2008. This information is based on KEA's tracking system - work order number designation, utilized within the accounting department. KEA Pillar Mountain Wind Project 08/31/2008 Substation Work Completed WO 7845 $106,742.86 Distribution Work Completed WO 7846 $787,590.91 Generation Work Completed WO 7847 $2,602,036.30 Project Infrastructure WIND $1,687,122.91 Total Dollars Expended: $5,183,492.98 Payments in progress - $1,711,040.65 Sub -Total $6,894,533.63 Grant Funds Applied $1,000,000.00 TOTAL $5,894,533.63 4.4.2 Project Operating and Maintenance Costs include anticipated O&M costs for now facilities constructed and how these would be f u -n ded the applicant. Total anticipated project cost for this phase , Reg uested merit ftjnding — — - — It is estimated that the annual operation and maintenance expense for the wind generation will be AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 19 of 24 9/3/2008 WE- ALASHKA Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application approximately $274,000 per year. This is a conservative estimate based off a study utilizing national wind data. We anticipate our annual O& M will be slightly higher due to our remote location. KEA is not requesting any grant funds to subsidize operation and maintenance costs for the wind project. KEXs operations and maintenance costs for wind generation will be much lower than the operation and maintenance costs associated with the diesel generation units. 4.4.3 Power Purchaselale The power purcha elsale information should include the following: Identification of potential power buy&I's)lcustomer(s) * Potential power purchase sales price - at a minimum indicate a price range o Proposed fate of return ffom orant-funded oroiect KEA is the local utility in Kodiak and there will be no power purchase agreements. The power generated from this wind project will go straight into the KEA grid. The project savings will also go straight to the members of the cooperative in the form of lower electric costs. The rate of return on this project is not an appropriate calculation for the overall benefit of the membership. The community will experience lower cost of power from decreased diesel fuel consumption. 4.4.4 Cost Worksheet Complete the cost workshee* form which provides summary info€matior that will be considered in evaluating the project. The complete cost worksheet form is found at the end of this grant application on pages 25-30. 4.4.5 Business Plan Discuss your plan for operating the completed project so that it will be sustainable. Include at a lfti ilim Jm proposed business stFucture(s) and concepts that may be considered. As shown in the economic analysis in Section 4.4.6 the,fuel savings from this project far exceeds the cost of debt and the operations and maintenance cost for the wind project. KEA will perform the routine maintenance required on the wind turbines. KEA is training three (3) employees by sending them to an extensive three (3) week GE Wind Turbine School. Upon completion of these classes, our technicians will be trained at the level of Commission Technicians for wind turbines. This on Island expertise will provide KEA a great benefit in the operation and maintenance costs of the wind generation. KEA will also be establishing a maintenance agreement with GE for constant monitoring of the wind turbines via the Wind Turbine SCADA network. This maintenance agreement will provide round the clock operational checks by GE personnel. From these checks, we will be provided guidance on appropriate maintenance required for optimal operation of the turbines. GE will complete all the major overhaul requirements for these units. KEA's business plan is summed up in our vision statement. Our long-term financial goal is to lower the burden that the price of fuel puts on all of us. KEA is a not -for -profit electric cooperative, owned by the members served. The goal of the wind project and the entire business plan is to maximize the use of the power generated by the wind plant to offset the use of diesel power generation in our community. 4,4.6 Analysis and Recommendations Provide information about the economic analysis and. the,. proposed proj!�Ct. Discuss your recommendation for additional proiecl development work. AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 20 of 24 9/3/2008 J ENERGY AUTHORITY A Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application Principle $ 11,400,000 $ 269,539 Total Grants Depreciation Interest 0.800% 6.000% Interest 11,669,539 periods 16 20 20 years Pmt $761,914.88 $23,499.62 1 % CREB Financing of 11.4 Million Rem aining to Finance Total Total Cash 20 Year Year Principle Interest Principle Interest Interest Depreciation 2008 $670,714.88 $91,200A0 $7,327.29 $18,172.33 $107,372.33 $785,414.50 + $583,476.94 2009 $676,080.60 $85,834.28 $7,766.93 $15,732.69 $101,566.97 $785,414.60 + $683,476.94 2010 $681,489.25 $80,425.64 $8232.95 $15,266.67 $95,692.31 $786,414.60 + $583,476.94 2011 $686,941.16 $74,973.72 $8,726.92 $14,772.70 $89,746.42 $785,414.50 + $583,476.94 2012 $692,436.69 $69,478.19 $9,250.54 $14,249.08 $83,727.27 $785,414.50 + $583,476.94 2013 $697,976.18 $63,938.70 $9,805.57 $13,694.05 $77,632.75 $785414.50 + $583,476.94 2014 $703,559.99 $58,354.89 $10,393.90 $13,105.71 $71,460.60 $785,414.50 + $583,476.94 2015 $709,188.47 $52,726.41 $11,017.54 $12,482.08 $65,208.49 $785,414.50 + $583,476.94 2016 $714,861.98 $47,052.90 $11,678.59 $11,821.03 $58,873.93 $785,414.50 + $583,476.94 2017 $720,580.88 $41,334.01 $12,379.31 $11,120.31 $52,454.32 $785,414.50 + $583,476.94 2018 $726,345.52 $35,569.36 $13,122.06 $10,377.55 $45,946.91 $785,414.50 + $583,476.94 2019 $732,156.29 $29,758.60 $13,909.39 $9,590.23 $39,348.83 $785,414.50 + $583,476.94 2020 $738,013.54 $23,901.34 $14,743.95 $8,755.67 $32,657.01 $785,414.50 + $583,476.94 2021 $743,917.65 $17,997.24 $15,628.59 $7,871.03 $25,868.27 $785,414.50 + $583,476.94 2022 $749,868.99 $12,045.90 $16,566.30 $6,933.31 $18,979.21 $785,414.50 + $583,476.94 2023 $756,867.94 $6,046.94 $17,560.28 $6,939.34 $11,986.28 $785,414.50 + $583,476.94 2024 $0.00 $0.00 $18,613.90 $4,885.72 $4,885.72 $23,499.62 + $583,476.94 2025 $0.00 $0.00 $19,730.73 $3,768.89 $3,768,89 $23A99.62 + $583,476.94 2026 $0.00 $0.00 $20,914.58 $2,585.04 $2,585.04 $23A99.62 + $583,476.94 2027 1 $0.00 $0.00 1 $22,169.45 $1,330.171 $1,330.171 $23,499.62 + 1 $583,476.94 Year Cost per KWH Wind Capital Cost Wind Operational Cost Cash Tot Total Wind Cost Total Diesel Cost Total Cost Savings ofWind 1 $0.05 $0.044 $0.018 $0.068 $0.062 $0.330 -$4,190,542.087 2 $0.05 $0.044 $0.018 $0.069 $0.062 $0.344 -$4,391,603.097 3 $0.05 $0.044 $0.019 $0.069 $0.062 $0.357 -$4,600,543.638 4 $0.05 $0.043 $0.020 $0.070 $0.063 $0.372 -$4,817,678.044 5 $0.05 $0.043 $0.021 $0.071 $0.063 $0.386 -$5,043,333.244 6 $0.05 $0.042 $0.021 $0.072 $0.064 $0.402 -$5,277,849.268 7 $0.05 $0.042 $0.022 $0.073 $0.064 $0.418 -$5,521,579.770 8 $0.05 $0.042 $0.023 $0.073 $0.065 $0.435 -$5,774,892.577 9 $0.05 $0.041 $0.024 $0.074 1$0.065 $0.452 -$6,038,170.257 10 $0.05 $0.041 $0.025 $0.075 $0.066 $0.470 -$6,311,810.713 11 $0.05 $0.040 $0.026 $0.076 $0.066 $0.489 -$6,596,227.797 12 $0.05 $0.040 $0.027 $0.077 $0.067 $0.509 -$6,891,851.951 13 $0.05 $0.039 $0.028 $0.078 $0.068 $0.529 -$7,199,130.873 14 $0.05 $0.039 $0.029 $0.080 $0.068 $0.550 -$7,518,530.212 15 $0.05 $0.039 $0.030 $0.081 $0.069 $0.572 -$7,850,534.285 16 $0.05 $0.038 $0.032 $0.082 $0.070 $0.595 -$8,195,646.832 17 $0.00 $0.038 $0.033 $0,034 $0.071 $0.619 -$8,554,391.794 18 $0.00 $0.038 $0.034 $0.036 $0.072 $0.643 -$8,921,218.806 19 $0.00 $0.038 $0.036 $0,037 $0.073 $0.669 -$9,302,741.236 20 $0.00 $0.037 $0.037 $0.038 $0.074 $0.696 -$9,699,548.239 Average: $0.0667 Total :-$132,697,824.721 NPV ($77,018,434.56) The savings for the Pillar Mountain Wind Project are enormous for the communities served by KEA. It is estimated over the 20 year life of this project the NPV as compared to diesel power will be over $77 million. The base year savings is $4,190,542. Our community will be saving 26.2 cents per kWh from this project in the first year of operation. The above data shows that in the final years of the project the Kodiak community will be saving almost 60 cents per kWh on the power produced by wind. This savings projection is based on the continual increase in fuel costs versus the stability of the renewable power resource. AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 21 of 24 9/3/2008 1 ALASKA Renewable Energy Fund VC-D ENERGY AUTHORITY Grant Application The above analysis calculates a cost of wind power on a per kWh basis. It computes the difference between the wind power cost and the cost of power from the Nyman Combined Cycle Plant, which will be supplanted by the wind power. Utilizing actual data from the Nyman plant operations between 2000 and 2006, the efficiency was 12.97 kWh/gal. Combined with the actual maintenance cost of this plant the cost per kWh calculates out at 33 cents each with a fuel cost of $4.04 per gallon. In the NPV calculation all costs are estimated to increase at a 4% inflation rate. The wind costs within this analysis are derived from the following factors • Annual Production • Operations and maintenance cost • Depreciation • The cost of debt The annual production is based off a wind capacity factor of 40.4% with a 98% availability rate as previously discussed in this application. The operation and maintenance costs for wind are based on $274,000 per year. The fixed wind costs are built from the total project cost of $23.3 million, minus the $2 million in State grants KEA has been allocated, minus the $9.65 million applied for in this application. The CREB loan funds of $11.4 million are calculated at an estimated interest rate of .8%. This rate may come in higher than expected due to current market conditions. The remaining debt in the calculation is estimated to cost the membership approximately 6%. The above NPV calculations take all of these factors and calculate a wind cost per kWh. The average cost over the life of the project calculates out to be 6.67 cents per kWh. The "Total Cost Savings from Wind" reflects the difference based on annual production, between the wind power per kWh cost and the Nyman Plant (diesel) per kWh cost. The savings are calculated on the amount of power generated from the wind plant. The attached Cost Worksheet discusses the project benefit cost ratio and payback. This basic economic analysis information corresponds directly back to the above economic analysis. The proposed business plan for the Pillar Mountain Wind Project also includes aggressively pursing the additional three (3) turbines sited for Pillar Mountain. Due to grid stability issues, the Pillar Mountain Wind Project has been divided into two phases. A feasibility study will be commissioned to determine the most efficient integration solution for up to nine (9) MW of wind power and the high penetration rates that accompany it. A third turbine at the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Facility would provide for more wind power to be integrated into the system grid and maximize the benefits of wind power. An additional turbine at Terror Lake also makes the system inherently more stable. In 2007 KEA completed a Power Generation Study, that study evaluated KEA's current capacity and expected peak load growth by analyzing system stability and the potential for any generation unit loss. KEA's peak load is expected to steadily increase over time. if a third turbine in not installed at Terror Lake, diesel fuel would be consumed to provide for the needed capacity for peak loads. Fortunately, the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Facility was originally designed and built for the addition of a third turbine so this is a feasible project. AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 22 of 24 9/3/2008 r:j�ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application I SECTION PROJECT BENEFIT -- Explain the econornic and public bone% its of your project. how the people of Alaska will benefit from the project. include direct cost savings, an,4 The benefits information should inc€urge thi�*6110 ing- Potential annual fuel displacerr!ent (gal and $) over the lif6,time of he evaluated renewable energy project !I • Anticipated annual revenue (based on i.e. a Proposed Power Purchase Agreement price, ROA tariff.. or avoided cost of Ownership) + Potential additional annual incentives (i.e. tax credits) • Potential additional annual revenue streams (i.e. green tag sales or other renewable energy subsidies or progj'ams that might be avaHable) • Discuss the non -economic public benefits to Alaskans over the I Ifetime of the project The major economic benefit of this project is the savings from fuel costs and emissions. Annually, KEA will utilize 1,202,775 less gallons of diesel fuel to generate electric energy. This savings in diesel equates to 263.36 tons of NOX, 25.38 tons of SOX and 81,642 tons of CO2. The project life is estimated at 20 years. Over 20 years, 24,055,500 less gallons of diesel will be used by KEA to generate electric energy for the community of Kodiak. The base yearly savings in direct power cost to our community is $4,095,977. KEA is not a taxable entity and therefore will not be provided any tax credit incentives for this project from the federal government. The CREB loan opportunity is an offset for tax credits provided to the `` investor owned utilities. KEA is not currently planning on selling green tags, but we are discussing other 1 viable options for our community. The following list itemizes some of the non -economic benefits to the State of Alaska: • First project to utilize large industrial size turbines in the State of Alaska. • First electric utility in the State of Alaska to convince General Electric (GE) Alaska was their last frontier. ' • First electric utility in the State of Alaska to study and implement the integration of large wind on an isolated electric grid. • First electric utility to research and implement wind power connectivity to hydro power. • Lowering air pollution from diesel generation is a major benefit to Kodiak, Alaska and our nation. • KEA has been discussing the potential of providing green tags to USCG for "President's Initiative". • KEA has also been discussing with the fish processing facilities the benefit of green tags to fish production for product enhancement and marketability. SECTION 6 — GRANT BUDGET Tell us how much your total project costs_ Include any Ove tments to date and funding sources. how arch is requested in 9rant FUnds, al7d additional investments you will make as an applicant_ inciude an estimate of bird 2t costs by tasks using the form - raP Budget. is The attached Grant Budget itemizes out the total remaining project costs, KEA's investment to date, and the previously received State Grant Funds. The Grant Budget is found on page 31-32 at the end of this application. This grant application is requesting $9,650,000 in grant funds. The match provided by KEA is $11,669,538.76. AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 23 of 24 9/3/2008 ALASKA 4= ENERGY AUTHORITY Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application SECTION 7 - ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WITH YOUR APPLICATION: A. Resumes of Applicant's Project Manager, key staff, partners, consultants, and suppliers per application form Section 3.1 and 3.4 B. Cost Worksheet per application form Section 4.4.4 C. Grant Budget Form per application form Section 6. D. An electronic version of the entire application per RFA Section 1.6 E. Governing Body Resolution per RFA Section 1.4 Enclose a copy of the resolution or other formal action taken by the applicant's governing body or management that: - authorizes this application for project funding at the match amounts indicated in the application authorizes the individual named as point of contact to represent the applicant for purposes of this application - states the applicant is in compliance with all federal state, and local, laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations. F. CERTIFICATION The undersigned certifies that this application for a renewable energy grant is truthful and correct, and that the applicant is in compliance with, and will continue to comply with, all federal and state laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations. Print Name Darron Scott Title i PresidentlCEO October 6, 2008 Mate AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 24 of 24 9/3/2008 ALASKA Renewable Energy Fund ®�� ENERGY AUTHORITY g Application Cost Worksheet Please note that some fields might not he applicable for all technologies or all project phases. Level of information detail varies according to phase requirements. 1. Renewable Energy Source The Applicant should demonstrate that the renewable energy resource is available on a sustainable basis. The KEA Pillar Mountain Wind Project is to install three GE 1.5 MW SLE wind turbines on Pillar Mountain to produce approximately 15.6 million kWh's annually. The project will be sustainable on a continual basis for the following reasons: ® A two year wind- study was conducted at the site with two independent meteorological towers. The data was analyzed for its viability. Not only was the capacity factor excellent, but the other wind factors were highly favorable with very low wind shear (.0181) and lower than standard turbulence characteristics. Please see Exhibit A • The turbine chosen is the industry standard for North America and one of the most used turbines in the world. The GE SLE 1.5 is a proven machine with availabilities of 98%. Please see Exhibit D. • GE has analyzed all of the wind data mentioned above through a Mechanical Loads Analysis and verified their turbines for the site. Please see Exhibit I. • GE will be available to provide 24/7 monitoring of the equipment through the SCADA system KEA is purchasing. • Currently, three KEA personnel are undergoing GE Wind Turbine Commissioning Training to insure proper routine maintenance of the equipment. • KEA owns and operates the electric grid for the community, so there will be no purchase power agreement difficulties. , S The wind resource at Pillar Mountain coupled with the reliable GE wind turbines and proper upkeep of the units between KEA and GE will provide a continual source of renewable energy to mitigate the use of diesel for many years to come. Annual average resource availability. 40.4%(Wind Capacity Factor) 98%Turbine Availability Unit depends on pTje1 t ty-e (e.G. indspeed�h► id �' � er WO.Ut, bf6rriasss fuel) 2. Existing Energy Generation The following table itemizes KEA's existing generation mix. The capacity and efficiency numbers used are high - end nominal for the machines. The units have a mixture of age, some being very new, while others are very old. The system is centered on supporting Terror Lake as the primary generation source. First, there is a large amount of backup in case the hydro facility is unavailable. Also, there is diesel reciprocating engines to cover peak loads or for storm system protection. Finally, there is a combined cycle plant that is used for longer generation uses for lake level augmentation. The goals of the system are two -fold, system reliability and supporting terror Lake for its low cost power. REA AEA 09-004 Application Cost Worksheet revised 9/26/08 Page 1 W ALASKA Renewable Energy Fund & ENERGY AUTHORITY r 1.80 MW 5.00 MW 5.00 MW 5.80 MW 17.60 MW 2.50 MW 6.50 MW 9.00 MW 1.50 MW 1.50 MW 1.80 MW 1.80 MW 6.60 MW 10.00 MW 10.00 MW 20.00 MW 0.24 MW 0.24 MW 0.14 MW 0.14 MW 0.75 MW 53.95 MW aj BQsic -nnfiourMion (if ystem is park of the I aiTheIt' grid, leave this section blank) L rummer of g0ner�terslboilerslothee 16 H. Rat capacify of generatorslboilersl6the.r 53.95 MW (Detail per unit listed in above table.) i i L Generntcriboilerslather type iv. Age of generatorsJboilerslcther Efficiency of generatorslboilerslother (Detail per unit listed in above table.) (Detail per unit listed in above table.) (Detail above for peak efficiency.) 1 The Railbelt grid -connects all customers of Chugach Electric Associ�ttior1, Romer Electric Associatlon, Golder, j Valley Electric Association, the City of Seward Electrir- N�Pairtment, MatanL;ska Electric Associallorr ar d Anchorage MuricipaI Light andP6mm RFA AEA 09-004 Application Cost Worksheet revised 9126108 Page 2 26 ®� ENERGY Renewable Energy Fund b) Annual O&M c;oM (ff system is part of the Rail: J4 g3 id, ieave this Section blank) 1. Ann ua10&M cost -for labor $3,410,787.43 (2007 actual) ii, Annual O&M Est for non -labor $2,627,487.35 (2007 actual, does not include fuel costs) c) Annual eleetftity produOon and fuel usage (fill in as applicable) ('if system is part of the Railbelt arid; leave 'his section blank) i. Electridty [kWh] 140,351,438 kWh (2007 actual) ii- i=uvi usao 1)16sel rgall 4,012,680.80 gallons of diesel consumed (2007 actual) Othr�- iik Peak Load 25 MW iv. Average toad 17.11 MW v, Minimum Load 10.5 MW vi- Efficiency 12.97 kWh/gal for Nyman Combined Cycle Plant in Operation vii. Future trends _ PEAK SYSTEM DEMAND 27 2s 25- 24 23 A, I rt - 2t + PRECfC710N ( — 20 19 18 ;-- - 17--r 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2091 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Years The abode chart reflects KEXs historical peak system demand as well as the predicted peak system demand through Year 2015. This forecast indicates a continual increase in peak loads and total sales. This growth will put pressure on KEXs existing capacity to cover peak loads. It will also cause increased price and environmental pressure from the increased utilization of diesel fuel to keep up with total sales. Capacity and energy solutions will both continue to be studied in parallel to determine the best mix of operations for KEA generation. d) Annual Pleating fuel usage -(fill in -a.s appIicabfe) i- L)ieseI [gal or MMBtu] N/A R. Electricity [Mh] N/A — — — lia, Propane (gal of DAMBUil N/A iv. Coal (ions dr M M Btu] N/A v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons] N/A — — RFA AEA 09-004 Application Cost Worksheet revised 9126108 27 Page 3 c-.4)ALASKA Renewable Energy Fund �k --_' EN4ERGY AUTHORITY vi. Other N/A 3. Proposed System Design a) inelaleed Capacity 4.5 MW b) Annual renewable electricity generation i, Diesel gal Or Rk+lAriltu] ii, Eled(i.dty [kWhj 15,600,000 kWh annually Hi. Propane [gal or fU MBtu] iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu] v. Woad [cords, green tons, dry tons] {ether aj T otaI capital Cost of nevvi system $ 23,319,539 b) Development Cost Development costs have been included in the total capital costs above. c; Annual O&M cost of. -new system $ 274,000 dj Annual fuel cost N/A S. Project Benefits a) amount ad fuel displaced `oi- L Electricity 1,202,775 gallons annually (Plant life = 20 years) Total diesel displaced during life of project = 24,055,500 gallons. ii. Heal Transportation b} Price o#.displaced fuel 1,202,775 gallons x $4.04 per gallon = $4,859,211 annually cj -Other economic benefits The cost stability of renewable power has a tremendous savings to the community versus the variability of diesel fuel. For example, in June 2007 the membership paid $2.2286 per gallon of diesel fuel consumed; in June 2008 the price per gallon of diesel consumed was $4.0416 -- an 81% increase in a 12 month period. There are many economic benefits provided by the Pillar Mountain Wind Project that cannot be quantified. What is the price of reduced diesel emission, a diversified RFA AEA 09-004 Application Cost Worksheet revised 9126108 Page 4 tAASKA Renewable Energy Fund generation portfolio, the progressing towards renewable energy, and laying the foundation for future wind projects throughout the State of Alaska? While there is not a specific dollar amount associated with these benefits, they significantly enhance the value of this project. KEA will also be able to supply renewable energy to the USCG Base to help meet their nation-wide renewable energy goals. Therefore we will be providing added value to our largest customer. KEA may also be able to do the same for the fishing industry. d) Ar ouni of Alaska public benefits Alaska Public Benefit includes; 1,202,775 gallons of diesel not utilized for power generation annually. To quantify this benefit to Alaska; 1,202,755 gallons * 20 years * $4.04 per gallon = $97,182,604. KEA is breaking the barrier with large wind, and also making great headway utilizing wind on an isolated grid. KEXs wind project is a model for the entire State of Alaska and can help move our communities to be more self- reliant by reducing our dependency on fossil fuels. 6. Power Purchase/Sales Price a) Price for power purchaselsale N/A 7. Project Analysis a �} Basic Economic Analysis Project beroetk€lcot ratio Payback 5.69 (Detailed in the Renewable Energy Fund Application in the Economic Analysis Section 4.4.6 where the total cost savings is divided by the total capital cost) Simple Payback on this project is just over 5 years. (Detailed explanations on all the assumptions used in the model can be found in the Renewable Energy Fund Application in the Economic Analysis Section 4.4.6.) RFA AEA 09-004 Application Cost Worksheet revised 9/25/08 29 Page 5 �ALASKA Renewable EnergyFund if C ENERGY AUTHORITY I"rrui�rjaasix Wind Project Capacity Factor 0.404 Wind Project Availability Factor 0.98 Wind Project Annual Generation kwh's 15,607,166 Wind Project O&M Base Costs $/kwh 0.0176 Interest hate on Remaining Debt less CREB 6% Lie of Project 20 Grants Received $ 11,650,000 Inflation Rate 4.0% Nyman Operating Base Costs $ 5,155,313 Base Fuel Cost $/gal $ 4.04 Pas6'Yeilr l3tfferenTfai Cost /kWh s (4'-?s ti I13aseYear Savings 1 $ (4,190,542)1 F+let prf sent V81Ue — $ 7 *,e a4.E.6 ' m RFA AEA 09-004 Application Cost Worksheet revised 9126108 30 Page 6 H O + # O Ln 00 Ln LD a -I N G1 N [� r- O O(D r. w o rn cr m m ct 0 0 e-4 m c l r� 4 0 0 0 o0 c+m N Q1 N r4 Ln N V• mr Lfl ri O Ln E• N ri r\ r-! O m N ri Lp Lrri DO o0 N a N a O 00 M m N N 01 LG 00 LD KT ch O m 00 r•i N m n r, r` 0 N O O n Ln 0 m L0 Ol c I w(3) r•I [V O 00 N e q riZFlp n w M en m r•1 m N ro r-1 Ln O O to N eh ri Ll L � U LS7 .� � C M L41 M O Lj- qt D Q Lto � d� •C U s ri m Ol ri m m V m r` rri LO N Lp 4H O M r� O N V CO 00 in ri LLf) ri JLL C 'P/ O y � V} o a o 0 0 0 a a 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 LL C] O Lf) O O CD Ln Ln i00li 44 i!F re � ri N i ( ii?tn <h r•I �. C 3 LLL R 4i QJ 1L C i GJ 00 00 e•i O O C (U L Y CN co tm to • 0 0 00 Z i — H 7 E "' w w w O 0C ice+ E N U CL 3 u o m m cc � = cu m C o O_ �" 0! CO F O o of bB •a O p c C a °' 3 l a h o o +, M `n T � , w a 4 'j �° o v c c to C M @ R a ?� O O~ O i a v) U I u E E C 4 o. � r P- N � � Y G Q] ri N m � Ln L0 h MO O� rr q r-I a-1 aY 31 ,� h O1 Ln n O r- a a N o m m O m F10 Ld) LD Ln ai Ln �h I. o rn C] �► C7 a L o CO e 00 o Di " o qt 0 m� o Ln d d M I- Ln M V/ - Cr) O 0) N O O c� Ln � c -� rn O O L,D en Ln O L I� CL1 L 4J N' 00 O Q M' a rr'i f� rl Lrj 3 v} m 6. LLL L a rq m Ln a)Orn O 0 Ln N U tr} n � to �t H t0- ti} tNrF `� cD t4 N L� Cl) O0 Lr) 0 O Cl OO1 N M � NN O U `� r-I e-4 iJ} N Lp Cfl Ln rV N w 00 N cu n m n 0) C2 3 (U � n t6 V) L!? ire 5C rl � LnCD f6 .O l0 LD �N en m O rn a c fN y 0 LD L,D U m •� Ol Ql O H m F- LD LSD m 000 000 tn. to 0 = Ln r-I Ln Ln N O O O N 4N M 0 � on 06 00 O C)C)i [B Cli O IZ C m en!- � CD O Ca O w O •V'f t? 0 M 06 0 D 0 a 0 o 0 0 0 O 0 a 0 O 0 O O Ln O Ln 0 q r1 01 Ol 'a O O ti cu 0 0 ro o a o o m L v ry ni o Lr) C) L° r1 0 Ln AA N O tf} Ln 0 N 3: rt 00 n Ln en y O O N LD O 00 O f4� p 'T al n LD 00 O 00 N 0 O ri N Lr] Lr1 Lri oil r 14 N' LI] 00 C6 ° DO 00 N 00 N Ln C'f N 4+ r1 O d CO N LU +' 7 m m } try v to try to c E4, N yr to a° +r tmr� to # N 00 w L C � Li N r LT O O o Ln a et rL Ln UD rl o r1 N L Ln Ln O O O rI O I` L ® o S O -a L,D N N O ° 0 n r�i o DO ko o Ln E OD o co O C14 O CD -0 C rri r i {� ry ++ 00 rV O O n Ln M L ++ -lC LD e-1 00 O �L 00 Cn LD It OJ + f, I� Lr) Ln CD CD m 4 O � L ° rn 0 rC ++ O L ° m o W 0 a v o w ka r!i Ln i^- m I, r1 cp �o il} 0 r-I L.ri. tf} rL M La iJ� i/S ri C C V LU O m z 0 V) w !� Ln w 0 V) w w N to Q.1 0 L/'1 w � C: L N LA 0!cc u CC w m (U41 L]. U 6Nj an Q ii Co L3. U •U L!'L a = no 0. U •u H Q U Q O 2' W O V U` O L' 07 O V C7 O i w 0 V a r0 y ) N V r Q r r0 ) EA U �w' a vi Ln V) U Q ara L c 3 ° U c ° Qr L La r ° d w U� W J m L L O w J m L 0 Q (> J c N L] rr d LLI +`+ Lin Q1 — ` aL-' L w Q O L r0 'a 0 N m C > •=6 ++ Ln p w L 7 O O ++ O O = R �- 4 O Y m Q F-- w Ln U U 0 F- m o F- w Ln U V 0 m L� Ln V V 0 ° O LL. r+ m m 0 O A O W a a LL t� 32 Kodiak Electric Association, Inc. Renewable Energy Fund Grant List of Appendix Description Exhibit # V3 Energy LLC Wind Resource Report A Tetra Tech EC, Inc. - Engineering Feasibility Assessment and B Geo-Marine, Inc. "Critical Issues Analysis" Avian Use Survey C GE 1.5 MW Wind Turbine D Pillar Mountain Wind Project — summer 2008 E Board Authorization Resolution #636-08 F Wind Turbine Lease Site Survey Maps G Resumes for Project Management H • John S. Hueston • Ronald E. Versaw, PE • Aron J. Anderson • Tetra Tech, EC Inc. Mechanical Load Analysis I State of Alaska — Final Consistency Determination J Microwave Map K Kodiak Island Borough Resolution #FY2007-25 L i Exhibit A V3 Energy LL Wind Resource Report Kodiak, Alaska Site 2 Wind Resource Report Report written by: Douglas Vaught, P.E., V3 Energy LLC, Eagle River, AK Date of report: March 16, 2007 U Summary Information Pillar Mountain has superb potential for wind power development with a Class 7 rating, very low wind shear, seasonally directional winds, and low turbulence. A significant construction advantage of this site is that the underlying ground is mostly solid rock. V3 Energy LLC 1 of 24 Kodiak, Alaska Site 2 Wind resource Report Meteorological Tower Data Synopsis Wind power class (measured to date) Average wind speed (30 meters) Average wind speed (60 meters) Maximum wind speed (2 sec average) Mean wind power density (50 meters) Mean wind power density (30 meters) Roughness Class Power law exponent Turbulence Intensity (30 meters) Data start date Most recent data date Community Profile Class 7 — Superb 8.25 m/s (measured) 8.36 m/s (predicted) 52.0 m/s, 3/8/06 (30 rn level) 943 W/m2 (predicted) 917 W/m2 0.00 (description: smooth) 0.023 (extremely low wind shear) 0.120 November 4, 2005 February 27, 2007 Current Population: 6,088 (2006 State Demographer est.) Pro;iune.iaVonl0ther Names: (K®H-dee-ack); includes Shoonaq' 3/16/2007 Incorporation Type: Home Rule City Boroogh Lcocated In. Kodiak Island Borough School District. Kodiak Island Borough School District Regional Native Cor'poraVOI., Koniag, Incorporated r 1_ocatfon.. Kodiak is located near the north eastern tip of Kodiak Island in the Gulf of Alaska. Kodiak Island, 'the emerald isle," is the largest island in Alaska, and is second only to Hawaii in the U.S. Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge encompasses nearly 1.9 million acres on Kodiak and Afognak Islands. It is 252 air miles south of Anchorage, a 45-minute flight, and is a 4-hour flight from Seattle. It lies at approximately 57.7888900 North Latitude and-152.4019000 West Longitude. (Sec. 32, T027S, R019W, Seward Meridian.) Kodiak is located in the Kodiak Recording District. The area encompasses 3.5 sq. miles of land and 1.4 sq. miles of water. History: The Island has been inhabited for the past 8,000 years. The first non -Native contacts were in 1763, by the Russian Stephen Glotov, and in 1792 by Alexander Baranov, a Russian fur trapper. Sea otter pelts were the primary incentive for Russian exploration, and a settlement was established at Chiniak Bay, the site of present-day Kodiak. At that time, there were over 6,500 Sugpiaqs (Koniags) in the area and the Island was called "Kikhtak." It later was known as "Kadiak," the Inuit word for island. Kodiak became the first capital of Russian Alaska, and Russian colonization had a devastating effect on the local Native population. By the time Alaska became a U.S. Territory in 1867, the Koniag region Eskimos had almost disappeared as a viable culture. Alutiiq (Russian -Aleut) is the present-day Native language. Sea otter fur harvesting was the major commercial enterprise, and eventually led to the near extinction of the species. However, in 1882 a fish cannery opened at the Karluk spit. This sparked the development of commercial fishing in the area. The "Town of Kodiak" was incorporated in 1940. During the Aleutian Campaign of World War li, the Navy and the Army built bases on the Island. Fort Abercrombie was constructed in 1939, and later became the first secret radar installation in Alaska. Development continued, and the 1960s brought growth in commercial fisheries and fish processing. The 1964 earthquake and subsequent tidal wave virtually leveled downtown Kodiak. The fishing fleet, processing plant, canneries, and 158 homes were destroyed - $30 million in damage. The infrastructure was rebuilt, and by 1968, Kodiak had become the largest fishing port in the U.S., in terms of dollar value. The Magnusson Act in 1976 extended V3 Energy LLC 2 of 24 Kodiak, Alaska Site 2 Wind Resource Report 3/16/2007 the U.S. jurisdiction of marine resources to 200 miles offshore, which reduced competition from the foreign fleet, and over time, allowed Kodiak to develop a groundfish processing industry. Culture'. The local culture surrounds commercial and subsistence fishing activities. The Coast Guard comprises a significant portion of the community, and there is a large seasonal population. Kodiak is primarily non - Native, and the majority of the [Native population are Aiutiiq. Filipinos are a large subculture in Kodiak due to their work in the canneries. A Russian Orthodox Church seminary is based in Kodiak, one of two existing seminaries in the U.S. The Shoonaq' Tribe of Kodiak was federally recognized in January 2001. A branch of the University of Alaska Anchorage, Kodiak College is located in the City of Kodiak. l=oonorny: The Kodiak economy is based on fishing, seafood processing, retail services and government. Adaptability and diversification in a variety of fisheries has enabled the Kodiak economy to develop and stabilize. 665 area residents hold commercial fishing permits, and numerous fish processing companies operate here year-round. The largest processors include Trident, Ocean Beauty, North Pacific, and Western Processors. The hospital and City also rank among the top employers. The largest U.S. Coast Guard station lies just south of the city. The Kodiak Launch Complex, a $38 million low -Earth orbit launch facility on 27 acres, was recently completed at Cape Narrow near Chiniak. The Kodiak Launch Complex, -- operated by the Alaska Aerospace Dev. Corp., is the only commercial launch range in the U.S. that is not co -located with a federal facility. The KLC launched its first payload in November 1998, In August 2003, Alaska Aerospace Dev. Corp. was awarded an $8 million contract to handle two or three Missile Defense Agency launches in 2003-2004. The Kodiak -launched missiles will be targets, not interceptors. With similar launches planned annually over the next five years, the contract could be worth up to $40 million. The Kodiak Chamber of Commerce provides economic development services to the area (www.kodiak.org). Facilities... Pillar Creek and Monashka Creek Reservoirs provide water, which is stored and distributed by pipe throughout the area. Piped sewage is processed in a treatment plant. All homes are fully plumbed. The piped system has been expanded to Miller Point and Spruce Cape, to replace individual wells and septic tanks in those areas. Refuse collection services are provided by the Borough. The landfill is located 6 miles north of the City, at Monashka Bay. Kodiak Electric Association, a cooperative utility, operates and purchases power from the Four Dam Pool -owned Terror Lpke Hydroelectric Facility. It also operates a Coast Guard -owned plant, and owns three additional diesel -powered plants at Swampy Acres, Kodiak and Port Lions. Transportation.:. Kodiak is accessible by air and sea. The State-owned Kodiak Airport provides three asphalt runways. These runways measure: 7,562' long by 1 60'wide; 5,398' long by 150' wide; and, 5,011' long by 150' wide. Kodiak Municipal Airport offers a 2,475' long by 40' wide paved runway. Three scheduled airlines serve Kodiak with several daily flights, and a number of air taxi services provide flights to other communities on the Island. City -owned seaplane bases at Trident Basin and Lilly Lake serve fioatplane traffic. The Alaska Marine Highway System operates a ferry service to and from Seward and Homer. Travel time to Homer by ferry is 12 hours. The Port of Kodiak includes two boat harbors with 600 boat slips and three commercial piers - the ferry dock, city dock and container terminal. Boat launch ramps and vessel haul -outs are also available. A $20 million breakwater on Near Island provides another 60 acres of mooring space at St. Herman Harbor. The replacement of the 32-year-old float system at the St. Paul Inner Harbor downtown was completed in 2000. Approximately 140 miles of state roads connect island communities on the east side of the island. Climate - The climate of the Kodiak Islands has a strong marine influence. There is little or no freezing weather, moderate precipitation, occasional high winds, and frequent cloud cover and fog. Severe storms are V3 Enemy LLC 3 of 24 Kodiak, Alaska Site 2 Wind Resource Report 3/ 16/2007 common from December through February. Annual rainfall is 67 inches, and snowfall averages 78 inches. January temperatures range from 14 to 46 F; July temperatures vary from 39 to 76 F. (Above information from State of Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development website, w vAced.,gate.ak�cs). Site Information and Location Site number 7357 Site Description Kodiak, Alaska, Pillar Mountain ridgeiine Latitude/longitude N 057' 47.257'; W 1520 26.394' Site elevation 390 meters Datalogger type NRG Symphonie Tower type NRG 50 meter Tall Tower, replaced with NRG 30 meter Tall Tower [ • PY �� � � 0� J �r •y P �, �n;'' Koh' fl.,...p. L3� %A%jiP afft d Met Tower Sensor Information A 50 meter NRG Tall Tower was installed at Site 2 on November 4, 2005 with channels 1, 2, 3, and 4 instrumented with anemometers, channels 7 and 8 with wind vanes, and channel 12 with a temperature sensor. On March 30, this tower collapsed due to an accumulation of rime ice and accompanying high winds. A 30 meter replacement tower was installed on May 12 with channels 4 (30 meter level anemometer) and 12 (temperature) as common channels between the V3 Energy LLC 4 of 24 Kodiak, Alaska Site 2 Mind Resource Deport 3/16/2007 two towers. New anemometer channels 5 and 6 and new wind vane channel 9 were added. Previously used channels 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 in use on the 50 meter tower are not in use on the 30 meter tower. Channel Sensor type Height Multiplier Offset Orientation Charnel now active? 1 NRG #40 50 m (A) 0.765 0.35 0700 T No anemometer 2 NRG IceFree I1I 50 m (B) 0.572 1.0 160" T No anemometer 3 NRG #40 40 in 0.765 0.35 070" T No anemometer 4 NRG #40 30 in (A) 0.765 0.35 West Yes anemometer 5 NRG #40 30 m (B) 0.765 0.35 East Yes anemometer 6 NRG #40 20 in 0.765 0.35 West Yes anemometer 7 NRG IceFree III 50 in 0.351 255 ENE No wind vane 8 NRG #200P wind 40 in 0.351 180 North No vane 9 NRG #200P wind 30 m 0.351 000 South Yes vane 12 NRG #110S Temp 2 m 0.138 -86.393 N/A yes C Data Quality Control Summary The only common channel, besides temperature, of the, original 50 meter tower and the replacement 30 meter tower is Channel 4, the 30 meter (A) channel. Because of the complications and inherent data error risk of synthesizing a large amount of data, it was decided to restrict the data analysis to the original Channel 4 data from November 4, 2005 through tower collapse on March 30, 2006 and then all the operating channels of the replacement tower beginning on May 12, 2006. Once data was filtered to remove ice events, the data was synthesized to create complete data sets of the anemometer channels now in use, Channels 4, 5 and 6. For the wind vane channels, data was synthesized for all three wind vane channels, even though the 50 meter and 40 meter sensors (Channels 7 and 8) are no longer in use. For ease of review of data relevant to the hub height of a 1500 kW turbine, a 60 meter (virtual) anemometer was synthesized and added to the data set. V3 Energy LLC 5 of 24 Kodiak, Alaska Site 2 Wind resource Report .Measured Wind Speeds 3/16/2007 The 30 meter (A) anemometer wind speed average for the reporting period is 8.25 m/s, the 30 meter (B) anemometer wind speed average is 8.22 m/s, and the 20 meter anemometer wind speed average is 8.14 m/s. The wind speed average for the 60-meter height synthesized anemometer level (a virtual anemometer) is 8.36 m/s. Because of the extremely low shear at this site, the 60 m average (virtual) wind speed is scarcely any greater than at 30 meters. Wind Speed Summary 60 m virtual speed 30 m (A) speed 30 m (B) speed 20 m speed Month Mean Max Mean Max Mean Max Mean Max Lm sJ_ -- (m/sj (m/s) - _(m/s) (MIS) (m/s) (m/s) (M/s} Jan 8.74 32.4 8.67 31.8 8.58 31.8 8.50 31.4 Feb 9.16 28.2 9.08 27.4 9.02 27.4 8.97 26.9 Mar 10.47 39.9 10.25 39.1 10.25 39.1 10.13 38.6 Apr 9.73 28.9 9.53 28.3 9.53 28.3 9.41 27.9 May 5.19 18.8 5.14 18.4 5.12 18.4 6.11 18.4 Jun 7.05 23.0 6.99 22.2 6.92 22.3 6.86 21.3 Jul 6.48 24.5 6.42 23.4 6.34 23.7 6.25 22.8 Aug 5.38 24.2 5.31 23.6 5.31 23.9 5.24 23.5 Sep 7.65 26.3 7.61 25.4 7.53 25.5 7.50 24.7 Oct 9.63 28.7 9.50 28.7 9.52 28.7 9.41 28.9 Nov 10.28 27.6 10.14 27.4 10.14 27.6 10.07 27.6 Dec 10.53 33.9 10.37 34.3 10.35 33.9 10.26 35.1 Annual 8.36 39.9 8.25 39.1 8.22 39.1 8.14 38.6 4 f 0 ........ ..... . ... .. . . ........'-................ . - ... ...,..,.. -.._. ......... -. .. ... _ n..... .. ......... . .... � .In Fah Al.r Aor MMv Jun Jul .Wn Sao OM RYw A 8m V3 Energy LLC 6 of 24 Kodiak, Alaska Site 2 Wind resource Report 3/16/2007 Daily wind profile The daily wind profile indicates that the lowest wind speeds of the day occur in the morning hours of 2 to 11 a.m. and the highest wind speeds of the day occur during the evening hours of 9 to 12 p.m. The daily variation of wind speed is quite minimal on an annual basis, but as shown, more pronounced on a monthly basis. )0 B 12 18 21 H" erase' i 1 Avarap OaibrProf is i 10 �L 1 4 4 8 8 12 18 24 0 8 12 18 24 12 Od 12 Ilse 10 4 0 8 12 18 24 0 B 12 18 24 waF..r SyrM--d BD m Spend 30 m (B) =5pwd 30 m (P) m+Spesd 20 m Syr"siaed 81 Speed 30 m (8, Sysed 30 m (A; e Speed 20 m V3 Energy LLC 7 of 24 Kodiak, Alaska. Site 2 Wind resource Report Time Series of Wind Speed Monthly Averages 3/16/2007 As expected, the highest winds occurred during the fall through spring months with relatively light winds during the summer months of May through August. The unusually love winds measured in January 2006 were due to a persistent high pressure system over Alaska that month that resulted in relatively calm winds and extremely cold temperatures Statewide. Note that measured winds during winter 2006/2007 are notably higher than during winter 2005/2006. Speed 30 m (A) Speed 30 m (8) ® Speed 20 m Syrdhesized 64 m lw 200fir - V ... " 'Y' "T uwi2016wi Mw app vuL IVOY VBG J21R 2007 reo Excess wind speed Most wind turbines have a cut-out speed of 25 m/s, or more precisely, cut-out when the 10 minute average wind speed exceeds 25 m/s. Given the powerful wind resources on Pillar Mountain, one could expect occasional high wind speed shut downs of turbines. During a 455 day period (November 4, 2005 to February 2, 2007), there were 596 ten minute periods or 99.3 hours where predicted wind speeds at 60 meters elevation (using the virtual anemometer) exceeded 25 m/s. This represents 0.91 percent of the time. Note however that turbines will not immediately restart once ten minute average wind speeds dip below 25 m/s and hence the lost production time due to high winds would be higher than the calculated 0.91 percent. This should be discussed with turbine manufacturers. V3 Energy LLC 8 of 24 Kodiak, Alaska Site 2 Wind resource Report Wind Shear Profile 3/16/2007 The average power law exponent was calculated at 0.023, indicating extraordinarily low wind shear at Site 2. The practical application of this information is that a low turbine tower height is advisable as there is very little marginal gain in average wind speed with height. Other graphs show the variability of wind shear by direction and seasonal and daily variability. This variability is not particularly significant at this site given the very low average shear value. M VerticW Wltnd Smear Profile i i 3 E E � Average Wind Speed(mAs] 3 i 9 I M.Sl.iB� ,• I I M-O.10w�'O6 00 2 4 6 a 10 Wend Speed im.�al 0 Log law fit (ZD - 0.00000000000000000 sn} Power I aw fit (a I Pha - 0.0230) Measured data V3 Energy LLC 9 of 24 Kodiak, Alaska Site 2 Wind Resource Report 270• 2r Power Low Exponent By Direction o• 330° 36° 210• 0.066 19• 160° 60 120' 70• 3/16/2007 V3 Energy LLC 10 of 24 Kodiak, Alaska Site 2 Wind Resource Report Probability Distribution Function 3/1 b/2007 The probability distribution function provides a visual indication of measured wind speeds in one meter per second "bins". dote that most wind turbines do not begin to generate power until the wind speed at hub height reaches 3.5 to 4 m/s, also known as the "cut -in" wind speed. The black line in the graph is a best fit Weibull distribution. At the 30 meter level, Weibull parameters are k = 1.53 (indicates a broad distribution of wind speeds) and c = 9.48 m/s (scale factor for the Weibull distribution) for the measurement period of 11/4/2005 to 2/27/2007. spwu 39 m (A) Pnn) AchW dda m Beat -fit tlphi ipF1 (1MS53, ce9A8 nde) a SWO.&W 86 m Sp.d3m%l — Spead 30 m W e speed 20 m V3 Energy LLC 11 of 24 Kodiak, Alaska Site 2 Wind Resource Report WindRoses 3/16/2007 Kodiak Site 2 winds are strongly directional; the 30 meter wind frequency rose (green) indicates predominately northwest winds with a lesser component of south-southeast winds. This data observation is even stronger when one considers the power density rose (yellow). The practical application of this information is that several turbines can potentially be spaced closely together perpendicular to the prevailing ITV and SSE winds. The frequency of calm winds, shown in the upper right quadrant of the frequency roses, is defined as the percent of time that winds exceed a selected threshold value, in this case 3.5 m/s. Wind frequency rose — 30 meters Wind Flegeeecy Rase sm° ap- affi° ;p° a~ SIO° pp° M. 70° a3p° alp° 0p° 21° 100. apo• up° alp• ]ao° ®' l 3 atp• 4sY 16V 170° 160° kpp° 130° t7p° 13p° 140° V3 Energy LLC 12 of 24 Kodiak, Alaska Site 2 Wind Resource Report Power density rose — 30 meters Total of Speed 30 m (A) Power 8enutp 36D° 0° 10• 350° 20- 330° 30° 320• 90' 710° 60° 300• B6' yam. S14 AO• 200° //> i gp• 270° 200° . > 90° 260° aex 100• ti0° 2q0. 1L1° 64% 230° 130° 220• 1a6° 210° B.ax 160° 200° 100° IBO• I90° 170° Wind frequency rose — 50 meters (11104105 through 3130106) Vald Frequency Hose 300• °" 10. 20-4*akn 330° 3p• a /a° 300° 310• 60• 00° � ��� 200° i0• �x P00° f:�� � 00• 100° V k ' 260• 3.an� 110° 170• Sao° e.ax lil° 220• 140' 213• Sex 197" a70• fW° 190° 100• 170° 3/16/2007 V3 Energy LLC 13 of 24 Kodiak, Alaska Site 2 Wind resource Report 3/16/2007 Power density rose — 50 meters (11104105 through 3130106) Total of Speed 50 in A Powe1 Dwmiy IV 20' 330° 3Q" 323° 10• 210° ,0• 330° Bp• 700° k� 7p• x NO' 03° x gp• 103° 0.07% 300° 110° 210• 120° 13.3% 200° 133° 223° 140° 210° 2BI I0• l 100• I00° 170° } Wind Power Density Rose by Month (50 meters) Note: only actual measured data months in 2005 and 2006 are shown (November 4, 2005 through March 30, 2006). Scale of graphs is common.. Nov Dec Jeri 3300 30' 330° 30' 330, 30, 300' 50' 3001 so" 300' eu° 70, $0. 70, 00470, $0° 1ex lex 161C 240° 32% 120' 240° 32% 120° 240° 32% 120° 48% 48% 48% 210' 150° 210' 150° 210' 150, 180, 180, 180, V3 Energy LLC 14 of 24 Kodiak, Alaska Site 2 Wind Resource Report 3/16/2007 Feb Mar 0° 0° 330' 30, 330, 30' 30A° 60, 300' 6D° 713° 90' 70' 90, 1696 10% o ° 120' 24a 32�4 2�' 32�4 48% 48% 210' i5D° 210' 15A' 180, 180' Wind Power Density Rose by Month (30 meters) Note: only actual measured data months in 2006 without a synthesis overlap are shown (May 12 through October 31, 2006. Scale of graphs is common. May Jun Jul a° 0' a° 330' 30' 330' 30' 330' 30° 300, BA° 300, BD' 300' 60' 70° 9a' 7A° 90° 70° 90' sx 8% sx 2400 96 120' 240' 16 % 120' 240° 16 % 120' 24% 24% 24% 2100 150, 210' 160, 210' 1500 180° lea, 180° Aug Sep act 0° D' 0° 330' 30, 330' 30, 330' 302 3000 00, 300, 000 300' 50° 7D° 9A° 7D° 90' 70' 9D' 81� 8�4 81G 240° 16�4 120' 240° 1 120° 240' 161� 120' It 24% 24% 24% 210' 1600 210' 150° 2100 15a° 180° 180' 180" V3 Energy LLC 15 of 24 Kodiak, Alaska Site 2 Wind Resource Report 3/16/2007 Turbulence Intensity The Kodiak Site 2 turbulence intensity remains extremely favorable with a mean of 0.109 at 50 meters (five months data) and a mean of 0.120 (A channel) and 0.110 (B channel) at 30 meters. Turbulence intensity is calculated for each time step as the standard deviation of the wind speed divided by the mean of the wind speed. 30 meter vane — 30 meter (A) Turbulence Intensity (Mean = 0.120) Tue wkwa IMmmily By Dilacdon D° a3o' w° «•• 'lam-; 220° 24' l20° 1^ A10• 0.16 1CO' IId' 50 meter vane — 50 meter (A) Turbulence Intensity (Mean=1.109), 1114105 through 3130106 A 8 Tur6alanca tw*nflay By Uke.%on 0° 33V s0• �a0• 21- W. 210, 0.18 190° IBD° DO• in, ES V3 Energy LLC 16 of 24 Kodiak, Alaska Site 2 Wind Resource Report 3/16/2007 International Energy Agency turbulence standard comparisons As indicated, turbulence is within International Energy Agency (IEA) Category A and B standards for all wind directions and at all measured wind speeds. 30 meter vane — 30 meter (A) speed 50 meter vane — 50 meter (A) speed V3 Energy LLC 17 of 24 Kodiak, Alaska Site 2 Wind Resource Report Turbulence Tables 3/ 16/2007 Turbulence Table 50 m A speed - 50 m vane (11/04/06 to 3/30/06), threshold 4 m/s Bin Standard Standard .' Bin Endpoints Records Deviation Mean Deviation Characteristic Midpoint Lower Upper In of Wind Speed Turbulence of Turbulence Turbulence (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) Bin (m/s) Intensity Intensity Intensity 1 0.5 1.5 746 0.371 0.400 0.207 0.607 2 1.5 2.5 1089 0.396 0.203 0.136 0.339 3 2.5 3.5 1168 0.474 0.160 0.102 0.262 4 3.5 4.5 1290 0.522 0.132 0.079 0.211 5 4,5 5.5 1421 0.624 0.126 0.076 0.202 6 6.6 6.5 1478 0.695 0.117 0.063 0.180 7 6.5 7.5 1536 0.780 0.112 0.060 0.172 8 7.5 8.5 1456 0.865 0.109 0.059 0.167 9 8.5 9.5 1480 0.966 0.108 0.055 0.163 10 9.5 10.5 1356 1.103 0.111 0.052 0.163 11 10.5 11.5 1129 1.193, 0.109 0.048 0.157 12 11.5 12.5 991 1.280 0.107 0.046 0.153 13 12.5 13.5 862 1.359 0.105 0.043 0.148 14 13.5 14.5 739 1.466 0.105 0.045 0.150 15 14.5 15.5 687 1.486 0.099 0.044 0.143 16 15.5 16.5 667 1.569 0.098 0.043 0.141 17 16.5 17.5 597 1.656 0.098 0.038 0.135 18 17.5 18.5 433 1.724 0.096 0.038 0.134 19 18.5 19.5 343 1.850 0.098 0.036 0.134 20 19.5 20.5 279 1.831 0.092 0.033 0.125 21 20.5 21.5 205 2.000 0.095 0.031 0.126 22 21.5 22.5 166 2.044 0.093 0.032 0.125 23 22,5 23.5 147 2.016 0.088 0.023 0.111 24 23.5 24.5 99 2.038 0.085 0.021 0.106 25 24.5 25.5 41 2.239 0.090 0.024 0.114 26 25.5 26.5 41 2.390 0.092 0.020 0.112 27 26.5 27.5 33 2.561 0.095 0.028 0.123 28 27.5 28.5 17 2.800 0.093 0.019 0.112 29 28.5 29.5 18 2.822 0.098 0.021 0.119 30 29.5 30.5 18 2.961 0.099 0.021 0.120 V3 Energy LLC 18 of 24 Kodiak, Alaska Site 2 Wind Resource Report 3/ 16/2007 31 30.5 31.5 31 2.974 0.096 0.019 0.115 32 31.5 32.5 41 2.932 0.092 0.024 0.116 33 32.5 33.5 21 2.805 0.085 0.021 0.106 34 33.5 34.5 12 3.192 0.094 0.022 0.116 35 34.5 35.5 12 3.325 0.095 0.014 0.109 36 35.5 36.5 8 3.325 0.092 0.010 0.102 37 36.5 37.5 5 3.240 0.087 0.012 0.100 38 37.5 38.5 2 3.350 0.088 0.004 0.093 39 38.5 39.5 1 4.000 0.104 0.000 0.104 Turbulence Table 50 m B speed - 50 m vane (11/04/05 to 3/30/06), threshold 4 m/s Bin Standard Standard Bin Endpoints Records Deviation Mean Deviation Characteristic Midpoint Lower Upper In of Wind Speed Turbulence of Turbulence Turbulence (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) Bin (m/s) Intensity Intensity Intensity 1 0.5 1.5 917 0.100 0.081 0.113 0.194 2 1.5 2.5 1090 0.353 0.181 0.104 0.285 3 2.5 3.5 1094 0.423 0.144 0.098 0.242 -� 4 3.5 4.5 1296 0.487 0.124 0.083 0.206 5 4.5 5.5 1397 0.604 0.121 0.072 0.193 6 5.5 6.5 1637 0.687 0.116 0.064 0.180 7 6.5 7.5 1562 0.774 0.112 0.062 0.173 8 7.5 8.5 1558 0.867 0.109 0.060 0.169 9 8.5 9.5 1517 0.927 0.104 0.060 0.164 10 9.5 10.5 1347 1.049 0.106 0.056 0.162 11 10.5 11.5 1099 1.161 0.106 0.054 0.180 12 11.5 12.5 968 1.215 0.102 0.052 0.154 13 12.5 13.5 816 1.281 0.099 0.050 0.149 14 13.5 14.5 732 1.405 0.101 0.045 0.146 15 14.5 15.5 697 1.514 0.101 0.044 0.145 16 15.5 16.5 657 1.565 0.098 0.040 0.138 17 16.5 17.5 629 1.647, ' 0.097 0.037 0.135 18 17.5 18.5 458 1.712 0.095 0.038 0.134 19 18.5 19.5 309 1.771 0.094 0.039 0.133 20 19.5 20.5 274 1.719 0.086 0.036 0.123 21 20.5 21.5 205 1.902 0.091 0.031 0.122 22 21.5 22.5 173 1.917 0.087 0.032 0.119 23 22.5 23.5 143 2.072 0.090 0.043 0.134 24 23.5 24.5 96 2.003 0.084 0.022 0.105 25 24.5 25.5 65 2.192 0.088 0.023 0.111 26 25.5 26.5 39 2.210 0.085 0.021 0.106 27 26.5 27.5 31 2.665 0.099 0.026 0.125 28 27.5 28.5 16 2.631 0.094 0.021 0.115 29 28.5 29.5 21 3.043 0.105 0.023 0.128 30 29.5 30.5 13 2.831 0.095 0.026 0.120 31 30.5 31.5 11 3.555 0.115 0.023 0.139 32 31.5 32.5 27 3.511 0.110 0.033 0.142 33 32.5 33.5 26 3.585 0.109 0.027 0.136 34 33.5 34.5 29 4.190 0.123 0.031 0.154 35 34.5 35.5 12 4.233 0.121 0.031 0.152 V3 Energy LLC 19 of 24 Kodiak, Alaska Site 2 Wind Resource Report 3/16/2007 36 35.5 36.6 13 4.200 0.117 0.029 0.146 37 36.5 37.5 5 4,680 0.127 0.015 0.142 38 37.5 38.5 7 5.329 0.141 0.021 0.163 39 38.5 39.5 6 4.700 0.121 0.013 0.134 40 39.5 40.5 5 5.420 0.136 0.004 0.140 41 40.5 41.5 5 5.540 0.136 0.006 0.141 42 41.5 42.5 4 5.175 0.123 0.015 0.138 43 42.5 43.5 2 5.300 0.123 0.003 0.126 44 43.5 44.5 1 6.200 0.140 0.000 0.140 45 44.5 45.5 0 6.200 0.140 0.000 0.140 Turbulence Table 40 m speed - 40 m vane (11104/05 to 3/30/06), threshold 4 mis Bin Standard Standard Bin Endpoints Records Deviation Mean Deviation Characteristic Midpoint Lower Upper In of Wind Speed Turbulence of Turbulence Turbulence (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) Bin (m/s) Intensity Intensity Intensity 1 0.5 1.5 825 0.383 0.413 0.215 0.628 2 1.5 2.5 1014 0.426 0.221 0.148 _ 0.369 3 2.5 3.5 1179 0.485 0.163 0.107 0.270 4 3.5 4.5 1303 0.541 0.137 0.081 0.218 5 4.5 5.5 1418 0.641 0.129 0.073 0.202 6 5.5 6.5 1464 0.721 0.121 0.063 0.184 7 6.5 7.5 1493 0.802 0.115 0.061 0.176 8 7.5 8.5 1463 0.885 0.111 0.057 0.168 9 8.5 9.5 1525 0.992 0.111 0.054 0.164 10 9.5 10.5 1283 1.142 0.115 0.060 0.165 11 10.5 11.5 1164 1.234 0.113 0.047 0.160 12 11.5 12.5 1021 1.295 0.108 0.045 0.154 13 12.5 13.5 833 1.425 0.110 0.044 0.154 14 13.5 14.5 738 1.517 0,109 0.044 0.152 15 14.5 15.5 707 1.574 0.105 0.042 0.147 16 15.5 16.5 653 1.5861 " 0.100 0.041 0.140 17 16.5 17.5 563 1.690 0.100 0.039 0.139 18 17.5 18.5 400 1.768 0.099 0.037 0.135 19 18.5 19.5 312 1.873 0.099 0.035 0.134 20 19.5 20.5 271 1.849 0.093 0.033 0.126 21 20.5 21.5 201 2.083 0.100 0.042 0.142 22 21.5 22.5 175 2.044 0.093 0.029 0.122 23 22.5 23.5 145 2.034 0.089 0.025 0.113 24 23.5 24.5 81 2.048 0.086 0.026 0.112 25 24.5 25.5 38 2.276 0.091 0.018 0.109 26 25.5 26.5 42 2.579 0.100 0.026 0.126 27 26.5 27.5 30 2.463 0.091 0.026 0.118 28 27.5 28.5 17 2,829 0.102 0.016 0.117 29 28.5 29.5 20 2.970 0.103 0.023 0.126 30 29.5 30.5 16 2,919 0.097 0.017 0.114 31 30.5 31.5 34 3.035 0.098 0.021 0.119 32 31.5 32.5 40 3.007 0.094 0.023 0.117 33 32.5 33.5 19 2.958 0.090 0.022 0.112 34 33.5 34.5 12 3.275 0.097 0.025 0.122 V3 Energy LLC 20 of 24 Kodiak, Alaska Site 2 Mind Resource Report 3/16/2007 35 34.5 35.5 11 3.264 0.093 0.011 0.104 36 35.5 36.5 8 3.425 0.095 0.008 0.104 37 36.5 37.5 5 3.220 0.087 0.010 0.097 38 37.5 38.5 2 3.750 0.098 0.009 0.107 39 38.5 39.5 0 3.750 0.098 0.009 0.107 Turbulence Table 30 m A speed - 30 m vane (11/04/05 to 2/27/07), threshold 3.5 m/s Standard Standard Bin Bin Endpoints Records Deviation Mean Deviation Characteristic Midpoint Rower Upper In of Wind Speed Turbulence of Turbulence Turbulence _ (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) Bin (m/s) Intensity Intensity Intensity 1 0.5 1.5 3182 0.482 0.521 0.331 0.852 2 1.5 2.6 4598 0.511 0.264 0.164 0.428 3 2.5 3.5 4973 0.556 0.190 0.125 0.315 4 3.5 4.5 4729 0.644 0.163 0.104 0.267 5 4.5 5.5 4751 0.708 0.143 0.079 0.222 6 5.5 6.5 4871 0.806 0.135 0.071 0.206 7 6.5 7.5 4916 0.879 0.126 0,062 0.188 8 7.5 8.5 4839 0.946 0.119 0.057 0.176 9 8.5 9.5 4628 1.052 0.117 0.053 0.171 10 9.5 10.5 3959 1.139 0.115 0.050 0.165 11 10.5 11.5 3570 1.224 0.112 0.049 0.161 12 11.5 12.5 3153 1.286 0.108 0.046 0.154 13 12.5 13.5 2711 1.395 0.108 0.045 0.163 14 13.5 14.5 2320 1.504 0.108 0.047 0.155 15 14.5 15.5 1994 1.581 0.106 0.046 0.152 16 15.5 16.5 1745 1.634 0.102 0.046 0.149 17 16.5 17.5 1599 1.677 0.099 0.045 0.144 18 17.5 18.5 1258 1.748 00.097 0.043 0.141 19 18.5 19.5 984 1.842 0.097 0.042 0.139 20 19.5 20.5 764 1.876 0.094 0.039 0.133 21 20.5 21.5 639 1.975 0.094 0.042 0.136 22 21.5 22.5 459 1.929 0.088 0.038 0.126 23 22.5 23.5 344 1.961 0.086 0.034 0.120 24 23.5 24.5 223 2.045 0.086 0.038 0.124 25 24.5 25.5 148 1.914 0.077 0.036 0.113 26 25.5 26.5 130 2.243 0.087 0.041 0.127 27 26.5 27.5 80 2.333 0.087 0.040 0.127 28 27.5 28.5 46 2.453 0.088 0.038 0.126 29 28.5 29.5 36 3.006 0.104 0.034 0.138 30 29.5 30.5 22 3.316 0.111 0.035 0.146 31 30.5 31.5 35 3.180 0.103 0.019 0.121 32 31.5 32.5 46 3.363 0.105 0.023 0.128 33 32.5 33.5 24 3.325 0.101 0.023 0.124 34 33.5 34.6 15 3.507 0.103 0.026 0.130 35 34.5 35.5 12 3.275 0.094 0.014 0.108 36 35.5 36.5 12 3.533 0.098 0.010 0.108 37 36.5 37.5 5 3.360 0.091 0.006 0.096 38 37.5 38.5 4 3.500 0.092 0.010 0.102 39 38.5 39.5 2 3.850 0.099 0.009 0.107 V3 Energy LLC 21 of 24 Kodiak, AIaska Site 2 Mind Resource Report 40 39.5 40.5 0 3.850 0.099 3/16/2007 0.009 0.107 Turbulence Table 30 m B speed - 30 m vane (11/04105 to 2/27107), threshold 3.5 mis Bin Standard Standard Bin Endpoints Records Deviation Mean Deviation Characteristic Midpoint Lower Upper In of Wind Speed Turbulence of Turbulence Turbulence (m/s)_ - (MIS) (m/s) Bin (m/s) Intensity Intensity Intensity 1 0.5 1.5 3335 0.549 0.592 0.436 1.029 2 1.5 2.5 4600 0.579 0.300 0.194 0.494 3 2.5 3.5 4878 0.603 0.205 0.129 0.334 4 3.5 4.5 4706 0.661 0.167 0.103 0.270 5 4.5 5.5 4794 0.719 0.146 0.081 0.226 6 5.5 6.5 4918 0.790 0.132 0.069 0.201 7 6.5 7.5 5035 0.850 0.122 0.061 0.183 8 7.5 8.5 4750 0.908 0.114 0.056 0.170 9 8.5 9.5 4608 0.965 0.108 0.053 0.161 10 9.5 10.5 3880 1.009 0.101 0.062 0.153 11 10.5 11.5 3570 1.055 0.096 0.060 0.147 12 11.5 12.5 3148 1.123 0.094 0.049 0.143 13 12.5 13.5 2787 1.182 0.091 0.048 0.139 14 13.5 14.5 2313 1.258 0.090 0.049 0.140 15 14.5 15.5 1948 1.250 0.084 0.050 0.134 16 15.5 16.5 1748 1.269 0.080 0.050 0.129 17 16.5 17.5 1560 1.301 0.077 0.047 0.124 18 17.5 18.5 1204 1.344 0.075 0.048 0.123 19 13.5 19.5 975 1.410 0.074 0.046 0.120 20 19.5 20.5 733 1.436 0.072 0.046 0.118 21 20.5 21.5 621 1.419 0.068 0.045 0.113 22 21.5 22.5 454 1.443 0.066 0.045 0.111 23 22.5 23.6 335 1.301 0.057 0.042 0.099 24 23.5 24.5 226 1.433 0.060 0.045 0.104 25 24.5 25.5 156 1.606 0.064 0.044 0.1.08 26 25.5 26.5 131 1.596 0.062 0.045 0.107 27 26.5 27.5 82 1.446 0.054 0.045 0.099 28 27.5 28.5 49 1.457 0.052 0.045 0.098 29 28.5 29.5 39 1.649 0.057 0.054 0.110 30 29.5 30.5 19 1.366 0.045 0.050 0.095 31 30.5 31.5 40 1.417 0.046 0.046 0.091 32 31.6 32.5 43 1.278 0.040 0.040 0.080 33 32.5 33.5 24 0.937 0.028 0.024 0.052 34 33.5 34.5 15 0.848 0.025 0.032 0.057 35 34.5 35.5 12 0.721 0.021 0.012 0.033 36 35.5 36.5 12 0.865 0.024 0.015 0.039 37 36.5 37.5 5 1.185 0.032 0.008 0.040 38 37.5 38.5 4 0.557 0.015 0.007 0.022 39 38.5 39.5 2 0.686 0.018 0.006 0.023 40 39.5 40.5 0 0.686 0.018 0.006 0.023 V3 Energy LLC 22 of 24 Kodiak, .Alaska Site 2 Wind resource Report Air Temperature and Density 3/16/2007 Over the reporting period, Kodiak Site 2 had an average temperature of 4.8° C. The minimum recorded temperature during the measurement period was -17.0' C and the maximum temperature was 25.6° C, indicating a cool temperate operating environment for wind turbine operations. Consequent to Kodiak's cool temperatures, but counterbalanced by Site 2's elevation of 390 meters, the average air density of 1.214 kg/m3 is approximately three percent higher than the standard air density of 1.1798 kg/m3 (at 12.50 C and 96.7 kPa) at this elevation. Density variance from standard is accounted for in turbine performance predictions. Temperature Air Density Std. Month Mean Min Max Dev. Mean Min Max °C °C °C °C k /ms (kg/Mg k /m$ Jan -3.1 -17.0 4.0 5.494 1.249 1.216 1.316 Feb -1.0 -15.2 6.1 4.052 1.239 1.207 1.307 Mar -0.5 44 7.3 2,595 1.236 1.202 1.278 Apr 4.3 -1.3 12.4 2.461 1.216 1.180 1.240 May 9.5 0.6 25.6 5.265 1.193 1.128 1.232 Jun 9.6 5.1 18.7 2.792 1.192 1.155 1.211 Jul 11.9 7.3 21.6 2.947 1.182 1.143 1.202 Aug 12.6 8.7 20.5 2.373 1.180 1.148 1.196 Sep 9.7 4.8 16.7 1.866 1.192 1.163 1.213 Oct 6.0 -2.2 13.0 2.956 1.207 1.178 1.244 Nov -2.1 -13.3 7.3 4.021 1.244 1.202 1.297 Dec 0.3 -11.1 6.2 3.835 1.233 1.206 1.286 All data 4.8 -17.0 25.6 6.764 1.214 1.128 1.316 � ,e,� rweuwe : 1 J IE! i E j I . I E I E.. E I f 3 A 10 1 201 ,len Feb Mw Apr May SW Od N- Ilwrt arv, V3 Energy LLC 23 of 24 Kodiak, Alaska Site 2 Mind Resource Deport 3/16/2007 Air Density DMap The DMap is a visual indication of the daily and seasonal variations of air density (and hence temperature). Air densities higher than standard will yield higher turbine power than predicted by turbine power curves (which are calibrated for a sea level temperature of 15' C, air pressure of 10 1. 3 kPa, and air density of 1.225 kg/m3, while densities lower than standard will yield lower turbine power than predicted by the power curves. NOV - Vac - Jon - FW - Mar - Apr May Jun Jul Aug ' Sep i 7 � Oct Nov ' D®c ' Jan ' Fab V3 Energy LLC 24 of 24 Exhibit B Tetra Tech E , Inc. gineering Feasibility Assessment -Marine, Inc. Critical Issues Analysis -7 TETRA TECH h -1 February 22, 2006 Ms. Paula Trent Geo-Marine, Inc, 550 East 15th Street Plano, Texas 75074 Mr. Darron Scott, President and CEO Kodiak Electric Association, Inc. 515 Marine flay P® Box 797 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Subject. Deport of Preliminary Engineering Feasibility Assessment, Proposed Pillar Mountain Wind Turbine Development by Kodiak Electric Association, Kodiak, Alaska I lixt>ii{°<mdlll a ien This letter report summarizes the findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on Tetra Tech EC, Inc.'s (TtEC's) preliminary engineering assessment of the proposed Pillar Mountain wind turbine development by Kodiak Electric Association (KEA). The assessment consisted of performing a desk top review of readily available wind turbine generator (WTG) data, geologic and seismic hazards reports, topographic maps, site history, and transportation information; followed by a site reconnaissance visit. TtEC staff, Icon Versaw, P.E., and Kim Hatfield, Ecologist, visited the site on February 14, 2006, escorted'by Darron Scott of KEA. The reconnaissance included the port facility where equipment would be off-loaded, the roads through the City of Kodiak up Pillar fountain to the area between the 50- and 30-meter meteorological towers, and to the main highway (see Figure 1). On February 14, lion Versaw and Marron Scott interviewed Dr. Gary Carver, an expert in local seismic geology and other geologic hazards on Kodiak Island and Alaska in general. An important aspect of this preliminary engineering feasibility assessment is that KEA is currently completing an Application for Bond Limitation Allocation, Clean renewable Energy Projects through the National Dural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation. The application is due no later than March 1, 2006, and it requires a licensed engineer's certification that states "To the best of my knowledge, information and belief the project is technically viable.99 The "Engineer's Certificate" is Exhibit D of the application, and a signed copy is attached to this letter report. 1020 SWTaylor Street, Suite 530, Portland, OR 97205 .r -4 503.222,4536 : 503.228.8631 Page 1 www.tteckom Exhibit A, Reference 4 I Irk TETRA TECH _�q In summary, we believe the proposed project is technically feasible. however, there are significant concerns relative to transporting the WTG equipment through the City of Kodiak and up Pillar Mountain. Equipment selection will be critical because not all commercially available WTGs are structurally capable of the likely design wind and seismic loads for the proposed site. The remainder of this letter report summarizes our findings and observations, and provides reco=endations and conclusions with respect to our preliminary engineering feasibility assessment. C®m ettructa bEty iF,%doi°s TtEC evaluated a number of constructability factors that relate to the proposed WTG development project. These include transportation of the equipment to the port at Kodiak Island, transportation from the port up Pillar Mountain, acquisition of the required support equipment, local availability of construction equipment, availability of suitable construction laydown areas, maintenance access, and alternative helicopter transport of the WTG blades. WTGs will need to be shipped via an ocean-going barge from their point of origin to Kodiak Island. The available port facility in Woman's Bay is part of the U.S. Coast Guard facility (see Photograph 1). The port facility is approximately 8 miles from Kodiak, adequate in size, and readily accessible to Chiniak Road, which leads into the City of Kodiak. KEG will need to coordinate with the U.S. Coast Guard to obtain permission to use their port. The WTGs will have to be transported through the City of Kodiak on their way up to Pillar Mountain. Large support equipment, including a crane in the 500-tan class and truck/trailer rigs capable of hauling the heavy (approximately 40 tons for the Nacelle unit) and long (up to 130-foot) turbine blades, will have to be transported to Kodiak by barge as well. It is our understanding, based on the information obtained to date, that it is unlikely that either the crane or truck/trailer rigs are available in Alaska. They will most likely have to be barged from Seattle or elsewhere on the west coast. Ocean-going barges regularly transport large equipment and cargo; therefore, this is only a matter of planning and coordination but not technically difficult. Most of the other common construction equipment needed for road construction, assembly of the large crane, towing loads up Pillar Mountain, constructing laydown areas, and excavating WTG foundations is locally available on Kodiak Island. Before the project starts, KEA or their representative should verify what construction equipment will be required, and ensure that equipment will be available at the necessary times. This may be critical because there is a relatively short construction season in Alaska, and the available heavy construction equipment may be in demand from other projects. Otherwise, this equipment may need to be barged in from Anchorage. This is also a matter of planning and coordination but not technically difficult. The major constructability problem and a major project concern that must be addressed in detail is the exact transportation route from the U.S. Coast Guard port to project site near the top of r" 1020 SW Taylor Street, Suite 530, Portland, OR 97203 a n= 503.222,4536 i -c: 503.228.8631 Page 2 www.tteci.com Exhibit A, Reference 4 TETRATECH Millar Mountain. The proposed route is shown on Figure 2. The entire route needs to be thoroughly inspected by a representative of the VV7G vendor prior to making an equipment selection. The grades, teams, laydown areas, and related factors could impact the size of equipment that could be transported to this site. The relevant characteristics of the main sections of the likely transportation route are described below. o Chiniak road leads directly into Kodiak. It is a wide two-lane paved road with wide turns and minimal grades (see photograph 2). The one major bridge along Chiniak Road is at Buskin River. The Buskin River Bridge is a relatively new concrete and steel girder bridge. According to Mr. Scott, this bridge has been crossed by much heavier loads (diesel generators for KEA) than the anticipated WTG loads. Numerous minor drainage crossings with relatively small culverts also occur along Chiniak road. These smaller culverts are located well below the highway surface and will not be impacted by heavy, long truck loads. This section should not be technically difficult. o At the southwest edge of Kodiak, Chiniak Load becomes Rezanof Drive West. Rezanof Drive West leads into Kodiak to an intersection with Center Avenue and Dill Bay Road. The preferred route will take Mill Bay Road and continue approximately 1.9 miles northeast through town. This road is wide and the curves and grades are moderate. The main obstacle in this section is likely to be the overhead lines that may need to be temporarily moved. This is true on all of the City roads. o The first of three 90-degree turns is at the intersection of Mill Bay Road and Von Scheele Way (see Photograph 3). This corner will almost certainly have to be widened to accommodate the turning radius of the long trnck/trailers. There is undeveloped land on the southwest side of the Mill Bay RoadNon Scheele Way intersection, which is at the end of the municipal airport. Mr. Scott believes REA can have the required changes made to accommodate the trailers at this intersection and the next two intersections described below. p The second 90-degree turn is about 0.2 mile further at the intersection of Von Scheele Way and Selief Lane (see Photograph 4). This intersection is generally open, and although the current configuration would not likely be adequate, there appears to be room available to widen and upgrade this intersection. 6 The third 90-degree turn is about 1.1 miles southwest along Selief Lane where it meets Maple Avenue (see Photographs 5 and 6). There is a Nazarene Church located on this corner. It is likely a portion of the church's parking lot would be required to widen this turn to accommodate the long trailers. Some utility poles, curbs, and other similar items would also require at least temporary relocation and reconstruction. o It is a short distance from. Maple Avenue to the start of Pillar Mountain Road (PMR). The improvements at the intersection of Selief Lane and Maple Avenue should allow access to PMR as well. P\ Page 3 Exhibit A, Reference 4 1020 SWTaylor Street, Suite 530. Portland, OR 97205 503.222.4536 503.228.8631 www,tted,rom Imimt) TETRATECH o It is approximately 2 males from the start of PMR to the top of Pillar Mountain, The average grade over this distance is approximately 10 percent. In the steeper sections of PMR, trucks may require the assistance of a rubber -tired loader or similar vehicle. At the time of the site visit, the road was covered in snow. We were unable to observe the road surface, but it seemed likely that it is rutted and gullied and will need upgrading from bottom to top. o The lower part of PMR is maintained and graveled for only a short distance (see Photograph 7). Overall, the lower road portion is narrow with heavy vegetation on either side in places; it will need widening and straightening and some overhead lines may need to be relocated. o Approximately 1.5 miles up PMR there is a switchback (see Photograph 8) that truck/trailers will not be able to negotiate. Major realignment and grading work will be necessary in this area, and grading may make this section steeper, Faking this realigned and regarded section as straight and wide as possible will be necessary because towing will most likely be necessary in this section and possibly all the way to the top of Pillar Mountain. In addition, this section and most of PMR to the top and over to the 30-meter tower are located in or adjacent to the Kodiak drinking water supply watershed. Construction within the watershed will require strict erosion control measures to protect water quality. o At the top of Pillar Fountain near the 50-meter tower, there is room to widen and flatten the road. There is a relatively steep down -grade from the 50-meter tower to a level approximately 200 feet lower in elevation along the crest where the WTGs will most likely be situated (see Photograph 9). It will be necessary to straighten and widen this section, Construction equipment will also be needed to assist the truck/trailers down this grade. )[he trailers that haul the blades are too long to allow them to negotiate sudden changes in alignment or grade, and it may be necessary to substantially regrade the top of Pillar Mountain to accommodate these long loads. o Eased on verbal communication with Darron Scott and data obtained from TtEC's desk top review, Pillar Fountain has been extensively used for communications systems since the 1950s when the White Alice Communications System (WACS) was completed. Prior to that, the site was used for military observation because of its commanding view of the Kodiak shoreline and bay area. All that is left of the early military use that could be observed during the February 14 site visit were a series of fence posts. If anything else is left it was covered by snow at the time of our visit. Some foundations still left from the WACS were located on the high point near the 50-meter tower, but all other buildings, above- and below -ground fuel tanks, antennas and PCB- impacted soil and concrete were removed are 1997. Some PCE- and petroleum -impacted media remain in the fracwred bedrock; however, these areas are covered by at least 18 inches of soil. The locations of these areas have been recorded and institutional controls established in September 1020 5W Taylor Street, Suite 530, Portland, OR 97205 503.222.4536 : 503.228.8631 Page 4 wwwtteci.com Exhibit A, Reference 4 TETRA TECH 2005 that restrict digging in capped areas associated with the remaining contamination. This should not impact the proposed WTG locations since they are approximately 0.5 mile away near the 30-meter tower. However, the access road upgrades could be impacted by contamination from the WAGS or other prior site apses. This needs to be evaluated prior to design and construction activity. o The tentative preferred location for the WTGs is on both sides of the 30-meter tower and near the crest of pillar Mountain (see ]photograph 10). The crest is not flat, but with adequate grading, laydown areas for the WTG equipment can be constructed. Some of the bedrock excavated for the foundations may be use.UL for site grading and leveling. Although the ridge top was covered by snow during the site visit, -the terrain and vegetation along the ridge suggests that wet areas may be present. 'These should be avoided to the extent possible and/or adequate drainage provided to avoid ponding water. If jurisdictional wetlands or waters are present and must either be altered or cannot be avoided, a 404 permit may be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. o The upgraded access route through town and up Pillar Mountain should be maintained for long-term maintenance accessibility. o A possible alternative to the transportation of the blades through town and up PMR is to use a heavy lift helicopter. According to Mr. Robert Zdebski, Business Development Manager for Vestas Americas (personal communication, February 16, 2006), they 66have investigated using helicopters and have verified that it can be done. Cost of course is the real issue." Seismic and Geologic Hazards As noted by Randall Updike (Geologic Report 57, Survdy-Monitoring System, Pillar Mountain Landslide Area, Kodiak, Alaska, Fairbanks, .Alaska 1983), the bedrock at Pillar Mountain consists of dark gray interbedded phyllite and graywacke (essentially a sandy shale -like rock) of the Kodiak Formation of Cretaceous age. The bedding dips steeply to the northwest and multiple joint sets penetrate the bedding. At least two thrust faults strike east-northeast across the mountain slope, dipping to the northwest. The top of Pillar Mountain was covered with snow during our site visit, but a few outcrops were visible and verified the steeply dipping bedrock that is well indurated but also distinctly bedded with multiple joints. Reportedly and based on observation during the site visit, it appears that the rock can likely be ripped and excavated with conventional heavy construction equipment of the type available on Kodiak Island (see Photograph 11). The most significant natural hazard with respect to the proposed project is earthquakes. Kodiak Island is located in the most seismically active region in the United States. In 1964, one of the largest earthquakes ever recorded took place near Anchorage. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps of Alaska, Open -File report 99-36, 1999, p. 9 of 14), "In general, (seismic) hazard in the higher hazard regions of Alaska is comparable to Page 5 Exhibit A, Reference 4 1020 SW7ay or Street, Suite 530, Portland, OR 97205 503.222.4536 ;',A-: 503.228.8631 www,tteci.com areas of higher hazard in. California." In the same paper the USGS further states "Alaska has some of the areas of highest seismic hazard in the United States. In contrast to California where most of the regions of highest hazard occur in relatively narrow zones and are often associated with nearly vertical faults, most of the Hazardous regions in Alaska, occur in association with relatively shallow dipping faults leading to much larrger affected areas. The principal sources of seismic hazard in Alaska are the Alaska-Aleutim megathrust ..." Ail analysis of the probable design earthquake for the Pillar Mountain site is beyond the scope of this preliminary engineering feasibility assessment. Nevertheless, it is critical that the structural requirements for major earthquake events be considered in the IVTG equipment selection. process. This process should be similar to that used in selecting WTGs for seismically active areas of California. The number of models of WTGs that are suitable for use at Pillar Mountain may thus be reduced, and shorter turbine heights may be favored. However, we understand from Mr. Scott that the wind resource is excellent at relatively lower heights above ground. According to Dr. Gary Carver (personal communication, February 14, 2006), another seismic phenomenon may be located on Pillar Mountain. This is earthquake -induced ridge top spreading scarps known as sackungen. Dr. Carver said, "They have not been snapped or investigated as to their age or activity, but are post -glacial (Holocene) and thus fall within the temporal definition of active from an earthquake standpoint and represent a seismic hazard in your site area,." At other locations these features resemble miniature grabens. As part of an overall seismic risk site assessment, these features should be snapped and investigated as to their potential activity. If they are found to exist in the preferred WTG locations, an assessment of their impact on foundation design and location will be necessary before final specific sites are selected. A major active landslide, known as the Pillar Mountain Landslide, is located on the steep south slope of Pillar Mountain (see Figure 1 and Photograph f2). The approximate location of the top scarp of the landslide is situated below the 50-meter tower and shown on Figure 1. The landslide has been investigated by several parties because it impacts the main highway along the Kodiak harbor just to the southwest of Kodiak and the harbor itself. From the available literature, the landslide does not extend to the top of the ridge line on Pillar Mountain. It is not located where it could impact the proposed WTG sites on either side of the 30-meter tower. Foundation Condifieng The proposed VV7G locations are all located in competent shale -like bedrock as noted previously (see Photograph 11). Gene'-311y9 massive mat foundations that are large in areal extent, or deep Patrick & Henderson foundations, are used to support WTGs. Because of the difficulty of excavating deeper foundations and the competent bedrock at the surface, it is likely that the structural eagiraecr/designer will select mat foundations. The bearing capacity of the bedrock will far exceed any load conditions from wind or seismic events. Bedrock is generally a superior v. �\ 1020 SW Taylor Street, Suite 530, Portland, OR 97205 503.222,4536 503.229.8631 Page 6 www.tted,com Exhibit A, Reference 4 "MJ%rt TETRA TECH .= foundation condition over soil from earthquake impact and resultant design conditions. In short, the foundation conditions at the site are favorable. The actual location of the WTG foundations will be dependent on wind resource issues and possibly on the presence of residual contamination or sackungen as described earlier. There may be wet areas along the crest of Millar Mountain. Although it may not possible to avoid wet areas altogether, positive drainage should be provided for all foundations and laydown areas. The area where WTGs are proposed is at the top of the Kodiak watershed; therefore, it will be necessary to provide silt fences, berms, or other erosion control features to prevent erosion of sediment into the watershed. Wind Taub ine Genea°0air Equimrameatt SclecflGia Although an evaluation of the wind regime is ongoing at the Millar fountain 50- and 30-meter towers, the information TtEC obtained from the Vestas Americas )WTG manufacturer's representative indicates that Kodiak will be considered an IEC Class I wind regime. That is consistent with the preliminary findings by KEA. The effect of the Class I (most severe wind velocities and gusts) wind regime is that the selection of WTGs will be limited to only those that are rated for that wind regime. Another selection factor, as described previously in the seismic hazards section, is the structural capability of the WTG to resist the high design earthquake loads that will be required for this site. TtEC does not have information as to the specific earthquake design conditions, nor do we have manufacturers' certification of the loading conditions for which each WTG model is designed. However, the earthquake design conditions will likely limit the models that are or can be modified to meet the earthquake requirements. S KEA prefers several smaller WTGs over one or two large capacity WTGs because of the relatively small size of KEAs power generating system. If one turbine suddenly goes of line, it would have less impact if it were one of four approximately 750-kilowatt (kW) turbines as opposed to one of two 1.5-megawatt (1V W) turbines. In general, from the constructability standpoint, smaller WTGs are preferable because the components (especially the blade length that is most critical to transportation) are smaller. Therefore, with the restrictive transport conditions at Kodiak, smaller WTGs will be less difficult to install. TtEC obtained information from three vendors. Vestas Americas, General Electric (GE), and Mitsubishi. Of the three, only Mitsubishi currently manufactures WTGs of less than approximately 1.5-MW capacity; although there may be other vendors that manufacture smaller turbines. The apparent low availability of WTGs with less than 1.5 MW capacity may significantly impact the selection and decision on the number and capacity rsting of WTGs for the KEA project, especially considering the wind regime and seismic conditions. 1020 SW Taylor Street, Suite 530, Portland, OR 97205 503.22145 36 : 503.228,8631 Page 7 www,tteci.com Exhibit A, Reference 4 fit)TETR ` ECH A related consideration in Carbine selection is the cost of transportation. All of WTG components will have to be shipped via an ocean-going barge. The cost of shipping is expected to be a significant component of the overall project cost. Shipping costs for two large WTGs may be substantially less than that for a larger number of smaller units. ConcluRaAei s vied R, ecorrmmaim&flaim Based on the information reviewed during our preliminary engineering feasibility assessment, T"tEC believes the proposed pillar fountain wind development is feasible from a constructability and engineering point of view. However, the cost of the project will be substantially higher than for a typical project in the coudguous United States for the following reasons: o remote location and associated high transportation costs; o the large crane and truck/trailer equipment needed is not locally available on Kodiak or Anchorage and will have to be banged in from Seattle or Portland; o required upgrades and improvements of existing roads through Kodiak, up Pillar Mountain Road and across the crest to the preferred locations near the 30-meter tower; o wind loading conditions and seismic design criteria may dictate more expensive or even specially designed WTG components; © the limited construction season falls during the height of constriction elsewhere, which may increase costs; and o if required and feasible, helicopter costs will be significant. TtEC recommendations, based on the preliminary engineering feasibility assessment, are given below. It will be necessary to develop site -specific seis4& design parameters before the final locations for the towers can be confirmed, and to ensure that the WTG components are structurally sound. In conjunction with this evaluation, the crest and adjacent slopes of Pillar fountain need to be mapped to locate any features such as sackungen, faulting, rock slides, or landslide(s) that could impact site locations. This work should be completed as soon as possible so the information will be available for WTG selection in 2007. 2. Due to the nature and extent of access route construction that will be required, contacts and necessary arrangements for right-of-way access with applicable Borough, State, utility, churches, home owners, and other impacted entities should be made well in advance. This is particularly critical for the property at the three intersections that require significant widening and access off the existing road way. 3. Contamination associated with the former WAGS and other communications and military activities at the top on Pillar fountain is present. A fmzl notice of No Purrther Remedial Action Planned (NPRAAP) has been issued and institutional controls implemented to restrict digging in several areas where PCB- and petrolcum-impacted soil and bedrock 1. Y� 1020 SW Taylor Street, Suite 530, Portland, OR 97205 u r': 503.222.4536 :=: - 503.228,8631 Page 9 www.tteci.com Exhibit A, Reference 4 TETFLA TECH remains. At the time this letter report was prepared, TtEC does riot have the locations of the remaining contamination and restricted excavation. However, this contamination could possibly impact any new construction activity such as upgrading the road near the 50-meter tower. On this basis, TtEC recommends that KEA have this situation thoroughly reviewed prior to any design or construction activity, especially along the crest of Pillar Mountain. The exact locations of the restricted areas will have to be included in the design to ensure that the required access road upgrades, laydown areas, and WTG foundations can be located and constructed without interfering with the restricted areas. 4. KEA should require that representatives of potential WTG vendors visit the site to assess transportation, erection., and set up of the WTGs as part of their bidding process. Vendor observation and understanding of the challenges of this particular site should determine how they bid the project. Due to the uniquely challenging aspects of this project, TtEC recommends KEA consider having the work performed on a turn -key design, procure, and construct basis, and therefore have the contractor take full responsibility for its successful completion. TtEC appreciates the opportunity to prepare this preliminary engineering feasibility assessment for Cleo -Marine and KEA. We would be pleased to assist in the future development of this project. If you have any questions regarding this letter report or any of our findings and recommendations, please contact lbs. Lynn Sharp at 503-222-4546 or me at 303-980-3707. Sincerely, Ron `lersaw, P.E. Attachments: Engineer's Certificate Figure 1 — Site Topography Figure 2 — Proposed Transportation Route through Kodiak Site Photographs 1020 SW Taylor Street, Suite 530, Portland, OR 97205 I 5 .- ' ! 503.222.4536 503.228,8631 Page 9 www,ttedcam Exhibit A, Reference 4 �M� N i W, ZM'zt, ITO L Exhibit A, Reference 4 Exhibit I Re 4 I u aaw�sar�a u oan P, U.a. uuast kyuara Port mculty at V' oulaWs Bay. Exhibit A, Reference 4 intersection o%Miii k%ay Koad (foreground) and Von Scheele Way. Area behind duck will have to be graded to allow for a wider turning radius. n®��g��ls�m a•a mtersectmn oY Von Scheele Way (foreground) with Selief Ise. Area behind stop sign will have to be graded, to allow for a wider turning radius. Exhibit A, Reference 4 Ykaeogimph 5e Intersection of Belief Lave and Maple Avenue (foreground) looping east from start of Pillar Mountain Road. Iftstoumpt 6. Intersection of Belief lane (foreground) and Maple Avenue. Maple Avenue becomes the start of Pillar Mountain Road around the curve in the photo. Note utilities that will require temporary relocation. Access will cross grass/gravel parking area for the Nazarene Church to right of stop sign. Exhibit A, Reference 4 lftotogm pt 7. Stara of Pillar Mountain Road above Maple Avenue. Area wiii require widening and removal of overhead obstructions. Miofugraph V. Switchback on Pillar Mountain Road will require straightening and widening. Exhibit A, Reference 4 10 II II LIM!- jC �JAL-1--re: LIL 1b i -9. Vje* lookjLF nOr[hC.ggt from near 30-meter tower to 50-meter tower (on high point). Shows terrain at precmed W-T--G locations and steep downgrade below the 50-meter tower. - - . - - - -- •-- ---, -- - - — — 11 — — — FzUzlvu qv vu locations Exhibit A, Reference 4 Photogrmph 11. mock outcrop on Pillar Mountain near 30ameter tower. Fraotagre h 12. St Paul Harbor with pillar Mountain landslide -shown on steep lower slope of Pillar fountain.. Exhibit A, Reference 4 1 PJLLAR MOUNTAN MD RESOURCE AREA CMCAL 93SUES ANALV303 Prepared for Kodiak Eiedrio Association, Inc. K©ftk, AK, 99615aM7 Prepared by. qw-1- 02, Geo-Marine, Inc, 550 East 15th Street Plano, TX 75074 TETRAT£Cli [` 1020 SIB Taylor, Suite 530 Portland, OR 97205 503-223-5383 Februaiy 2000 Exhibit A, Reference 5 Pillar Mountain Wind Resource Area Critical Issues Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS Eme- EXECUTIVESUMMARY........................................................................................................................ ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................1 2.0 METHODS...........................................................................................................................................1 3.0 ENVIROHMENTAL SETTING ........................................... ................................................................. 1 3.1 PILLAR MOUNTAIN WRA SITE DESCRIPTION................................................................................. 1 3.2 REGIONAL SETTING...................................................................................................................... 1 3.3 VEGETATION AND SOILS............................................................................................................... 3 3.3.1 Plant Communities....................................................................................................... 3 3.3.2 Federal and State Protected Species........................................................................... 3 3.3.3 Other Species of Conservation Concern...................................................................... 4 3.3.4 Wetland and Riparian Habitat...................................................................................... 4 3.3.5 Soils.............................................................................................................................. 6 _ 3.3.6 Impact Assessment and Recommendations................................................................ 6 3.4 WILDLIFE.....................................................................................................................................6 3.4.1 Federal and State Protected Species........................................................................... 7 3.4.2 Other Species of Conservation Concern...................................................................... 7 3A.3 Raptors.....................................................................................................................•--.7 3.4.4 Bats........ 7 3.4.5 Avian Migration...............................................................................•-----......................11 3.4.6 Big Game..........................................................................•---•---.................................. I I 3.4.7 Compliance with Regulations ....................... ..11 3.4.8 Impact Assessment and Recommendations..............................................................11 4.0 LAND USE AND PERMITTING...........................................................................................---..........12 4.1 PERMITS, PLANS, AND APPROVALS............................................................................................. 12 4.1.1 Federal Permits Highly Likely to be Necessary for the Wind Farm ............................12 4,1.2 Federal Permits Moderately Likely to be Necessary for the Wind Farm ....................14 4.1.3 Federal Permits with a Low Likelihood of Necessity for the Wind Farm ....................15 4.1.4 State Permits or Approvals Highly Likely to be Necessary for the Wind Farm ..........15 4.1.5 State Permits Moderately Likely to be Necessary for the Wind Farm........................15 4.1.6 State Permits with a Low Likelihood of Necessity for the Wind Farm ........................15 4.2 KODIAK BOROUGH PERMITTING.................................................................................................. 15 4.3 CITY OF KODIAK PERMITTING..................................................................................................... 16 4.4 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................. 16 5.0 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................20 Appendix A Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, Candidate, and Delisted Species in Alaska, February 2006 Appendix B Email from Ellen Lance, USFWS, Anchorage, March 1, 2006 Exhibit A, Reference 5 Pillar Mountain Wind Resource Area Critical Issues LOST OF FIGURES No. Pam 3.1 Pillar Mountain WRA Vicinity Map.........................................................•------................................... 2 3.2 Pillar Mountain WRA Wetlands Map................................................................................................ 5 4.1 Land Ownership and Land Use, Pillar Mountain, Kodiak Island, Alaska.......................................13 LOST OF TABLES No. page ES.1 Critical Issues Summary ............................................................................................................ES-Hi 3.1 Federal or State Designated Plant Species Documented Within a 5-Mile Radius of the PillarMountain WRA..................................................................................................... 4 3.2 Special Status Species Documented Within the Vicinity of the WRA.............................................. S 4.1 Pillar Mountain Wind Farm: Summary of Potential Permits and Approvals...................................17 Exhibit A, Reference 5 Pillar Mountain Wind Resource Area Critical Issues Ana LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ADES Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ADFG Alaska Department of Fish and Game ADOTPF Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities ANHP Alaska Natural Heritage Program APP Avian Protection Plan CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIA Critical Issues Analysis EPA Eagle Protection Act ESA Endangered Species Act FAA Federal Aviation Administration GIS Geographic Information System GMI Geo-Marine, Inc. KEA Kodiak Electric Association KIB Kodiak Island Borough MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act NO[ Notice of Intent NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NWI National Wetland Inventory SWPPP Stormwrater Pollution Prevention Plan TESS Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species U.S. United States U.S.C. United States Code UAA University of Alaska —Anchorage USACE United States Army Corp of Engineers USCG United States Coast Guard USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service WRA Wind Resource Area Exhibit A, Reference 5 r-i 0 -8 6 f a >1 mLUECh Exhibit A, Reference 5 O 2 @J O (D C 0 cu Q Cl) 0) 00 ? E � Caen S Lu t� (D 0 u �L� CL ® ® C O -U E ® U9 > ®E 2 0 ® O, rf� 4) W ' LD+� (D = C �.L 0 0sv � Q �3 � O <92 &, t6 y 0 E 0 0,0 � = 0 0 ® '� O F C� 3 m C W v 8 E s U m �� U> 9 E g� � �� Q O C �� � m G [fik� Cu1V ? LMw C® 2 c6 pt8 c cC C C M�Ct� .C ' U��p®���y;cc a w�y���� m q MA 116 .. C7 +r C �: V C ^� �_ C ui �0,®O0 C �O� n�0co)CL as C E Lu �® C �°CD M��ao � � Lu vj ' aj pp �.to mom' �— F u� � et t� � � �s -� C �� ICE !) F .� � � O R9 C7 O0cp U C7 00 pECchiA F � 'D �C � � � � �. .-. X X X X 0.0 � � ® 0 q co L]�ii•. �' d) E U) 1ZZ � w 20 Z(L<0 rl 00 0 Exhibit A, Reference 5 Pillar Mountain Wind Resource Area Critical Issues 1.0 ONTRODUCTI®N Kodiak Electric Association (KEA) is planning to develop a wind energy facility on Pillar Mountain near the city of Kodiak, Alaska. Under current regulations, consultation with federal and state wildlife and management agencies will be required. Geo-Marine, Inc. (GW) and Tetra Tech EC, Inc. (GMI Team) conducted a desktop study and field reconnaissance to identify potential key biological and land use issues that could impact cost and schedule for obtaining required permits and approvals to build and operate the facility. Utilizing readily available information, this report evaluates current environmental conditions and offers a high-level evaluation of potential impacts on sensitive biological resources within the proposed Pillar Mountain wind resource area (WRA). It also evaluates applicable land uses and zoning, and identifies the types of permits, plans, and approvals that would likely be required for project development. Additional investigations that may help assess the potential effects of the project are presented for consideration. 2A METHODS Evaluation of sensitive resources within the WRA is based on a review of relevant databases and reports, readily available GIS data, communication with government agencies, and a one -day field reconnaissance on February 14, 2005. Literature and GIS data were compiled through in-house sources and through available agency and internet sources. Additionally, existing literature and other information related to sensitive species distributions, migration pathways, collisions with wind turbines and other structures, zoning, and public planning requirements were reviewed for relevance to permitting the proposed project. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This section summarizes existing environmental conditions within the WRA. Information presented describes potentially affected habitats (i.e., wetlands, riparian corridors, and general plant communities), wildlife, and plant species (including potentially -occurring threatened, endangered, and rare species), and soils. Environmental resource information presented in this section will be used to identify permits needed, assist in micro -siting of project facilities (e.g., turbines, roads, substation, transmission line), and help determine if additional preconstruction surveys are needed. 3.1 PILLAR MOUNTAIN WRA SITE DwcmpTioN The Pillar Mountain WRA is located on state and privately owned lands in the Borough of Kodiak. Alaska near the Kodiak city limits (Figure 3.1). Access to the WRA can be made by an unpaved road that leads to established communication sites on the top of Pillar Mountain. 3.2 REGIONAL SETTING The Pillar Mountain WRA is located in the Pacific Gulf Coastal Forest —Meadow Province. Bailey, 1995, summarizes the province's characteristics. The Alexander Archipelago, comprising hundreds of islands and formed by the partly submerged western foothills of the Coast Range, makes up most of this province. The larger islands have mountains 3,000 to 5,000 ft high, with slopes covered by dense forest where they are not too steep. Long, narrow bays carved into the mountains by glaciers create extremely irregular coastlines. Northward, at Prince William Sound and Kodiak Island, the foothills are mixed with coastal lowlands consisting of alluvial fans, uplifted estuaries, morainal deposits, dunes, and river deltas and terraces. The dominant vegetation found within the Pacific Gulf Coastal Forest —Meadow Province consists of coastal rainforest formed by Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla). In poorly drained areas, a wetland vegetation of sphagnum mosses, -sedges (Carex sp.), and willows (Salix sp.) fosters peatland development. Alder (Alnus sp.), cottonwood (Ponulus balsamifera), and birch (Batula sp.) are found in low-lying areas and along major river channels. 1 Exhibit A, Reference 5 Pillar Mountain Wind Resource Area Critical Issues Analysis Large mammals characteristic of Kodiak are the Sitka black-talied deer (®docoileus hemionus sitkensis) and the Kodiak brown bear (Ursus arctos). A conspicuous and characteristic bird is the Alaska bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). Water birds are well represented, including loons (Gavia sp.) and there are many gulls (Lanus sp.) and other shore birds. A number of sub -species of Canada goose (Dranta canadensis) are known to occur within this province. 3.3 VEGETATIaH AMD SOILS This section provides a summary of plant and wetland communities expected to occur within the Pillar Mountain WRA based on available literature data. The GMI Team reviewed available literature and data to determine the types of vegetative communities present within the WRA, as well as to identify potentially sensitive plant species and habitat communities. The identification of native plant communities within the WRA is essential to identifying wildlife -habitat relationships. Delineating vegetation types will provide an indication as to the types of species that may utilize the WRA. Due to the varied topography within the Pillar Mountain WRA, a variety of plant communities exists. The WRA is composed of native plant communities, which consist of a gradation from forest at the lower portion of Pillar Mountain Road, into shrubland and sparsely vegetated tundra at the top of the mountain. 3.3.1 Plant Communities A plant community is a combination of different plants growing together. Each plant community has a unique structure and appearance, which is determined by the proportions of the species growing in it. The composition of a plant community type, such as perennial grassland, changes from place to place due to the physical environment. This is because each species has certain limits as to where it will grow and survive. Species with similar limits often are found growing together; hence, they become a loosely assembled plant community. Gap vegetation data were not available for the WRA. However, information from US Forest Service (McNab and Avers 1994) and personal observation during site reconnaissance, determined that in general, the area is dominated by alpine tundra heath meadows or barrens with very few low windswept Sitka spruce and at lower elevations, moist sedge meadows. Shrub thickets primarily populated with willows and alder occur along some drainages. Tree species that may occur in the area include Sitka spruce, willow, cottonwood, and alder. Annual herbs such as wild geranium (Geranium sp.), shooting star (Dodecatheon sp.), columbine (Aguilegia sp.), fireweed (Chamerion angustifollum), and goldenrod (Solidago sp.), may also be present, along with commonly found shrubs such as, red alder (Alnus rubra), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), cranberry (Viburnum spp.), and elderberry (5arribucus sp.). 3.3.2 Federal and State Protected Species A combined search of the United States (U.S.) Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species (TESS) and the University of Alaska —Anchorage (UAA) Natural Heritage Program (ANHP) databases determined that there are no federal threatened or endangered plant species known to occur within the WRA; however, the Alaska pretty shooting -star (Dodecatheon pulchellum esp. alaskan), listed as "State imperiled," has been identified to occur within the Pillar Mountain WRA (Table 3.1). The data used for this analysis are limited and cannot provide a definitive statement as to the presence, absence, or condition of special species, natural communities, or other significant features in any area. These data also cannot substitute for on -site evaluation by qualified biologists. Further inquiries with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) and ANHP will be needed to determine if the Alaskan pretty shooting -star requires any special management provisions that may impede permitting of the wind facility. 3 Exhibit A, Reference 5 Pillar Mountain Wind Resource Area Critical Issues Analysis Table 3A Federal or State Designated Plant Species Documented Within a 5-Mile Radius of the Pillar Mountain WRA Alaskan pretty shooting -star has been documented to occur within the Pillar Mountain WRA (ANHP). This species in known to occur in damp meadows and Alaskan adjacent edges from Alaska and Yukon Dodecatheon pretty to Durango, Mexico, eastward to the pulchellum shooting- S2 NA High western edge of the Great Plains from ssp. alaskan star North Dakota to eastern Arizona and New Mexico mostly below 9000 feet elevation. Flowering from April -August; fruiting through August. The var, alaskanum is a coastal expression that occurs from Alaska to Oreaon. * (82) Imperiled in state 3.3.3 Other Spac w of Conzervadon Concern State and federally fisted plant species known to occur within Alaska but outside of the Borough of Kodiak are listed in Appeadis� A. 3.3.4 Weiland sand Riparian Habitat The GMI Team conducted a review of several state and federal databases to evaluate the presence of wetland and riparian habitat within the Pillar Mountain WRA. Wetlands are unique because of their hydrologic conditions and their role as ecotones between terrestrial and aquatic systems (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). Impacts to wetland communities have come under increasingly greater scrutiny as their importance to wildlife, fish, water quality, and flood protectioQ have been realized. Wetlands have many distinguishing features, the most notable of which are the presence of standing water or saturated soils, hydric soils, and vegetation adapted to or tolerant of saturated soils. There are many definitions and terms describing wetlands. The legal definition of a wetland, as outlined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (USAGE 1997), is as follows: The term "wetlands" means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water 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. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas (33 Code of Federal Regulations [CFRj 328.3(b) 1994). Numerous federal, state, and local regulations currently affect construction and other activities in wetlands. Principal federal laws affecting wetlands and streams are Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act. Section 404 (regulation of discharge of dredge/fill materials into wetlands) is implemented by the USACE. The GMI Team evaluated several literature sources that provide information regarding the presence of wetland soils and vegetation and riparian areas. The USFWS' National Wetland Inventory (NWI) database indicates the general proximity of wetland habitat based on changes in vegetation patterns as observed from satellite and aerial photo imagery. This database is used as a preliminary indicator of wetland habitats because the satellite and aerial photo images are -not precise; wetlands identified in this database require field verification. Following a search of the NWI-database, it was determined that there are five small wetlands may occur within the Pillar Mountain WRA (Figure 3.2). The identified wetlands 4 Exhibit A, Reference 5 Fr {• 1 ` � t r� Figure 3.2 Rohr Mountain W Wetlands Map Legend Pillar Mountain WRA Met Tower City of Kodiak Watershed Protection Arep = Freshwater Pond Kodiak City Boundary Freshwater Emergent Wetland LJ Lake Rivers and Streams Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Reservoir 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles . Exhibit A, Reterence 5 Pillar Mountain Wind Resource Area Critical Issues are classified as Freshwater Emergent Wetland, Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland, and Lake NWI wetland types (NWI database). Available literature data indicate that wetlands may be present within the WRA; additionally small ephemeral wetlands may be present near springs, seeps, and along ephemeral stream corridors, not indicated by the NWI data. Further surveys conducted by a qualified scientist during the growing season will need to occur to establish the presence of wetlands within the WRA. 3.3.5 8011a Soils of west Kodiak Island are dominated by typic haplocryands and typic vitricryands. Most of the glacial deposits are mantled with ejecta from the 1912 eruption of Mount Katmai and Novarupta. These soils tend to be shallow on mountain peaks, rock escarpments, and colluvial slopes, with some depressions being filled with fibrous peat (McNab and Avery 1994). The GMI Team contacted the MRCS for soil survey information for Kodiak Borough. To date, no soil surveys have been conducted for the Borough (NRCS 2000). 3.3.6 Impact Assessment and Recommendations A review of the available literature indicates that the development of a wind energy facility in the Pillar Mountain WRA would have a low likelihood of impacting listed or sensitive plant species. One sensitive plant species, Alaskan pretty shooting -star, has been documented within the WRA (ANHP 2006). Further inquiries with the ADFG will be needed to determine if the Alaskan pretty shooting -star requires any special management provisions that may impede permitting of the wind facility. Field surveys, by a qualified biologist, are recommended to occur during late in the spring to mid -summer, in conjunction with i additional wetland investigation to ensure minimal impact to sensitive plant species during wind facility construction and operation. Site reconnaissance and NWI data indicate that there is a moderate likelihood of project facilities encountering wetlands or Waters of the U.S. within the WRA due to topographic features. Turbine arrays will likely be located on high points in upland habitat, and any wetlands present within the WRA are likely located in topographic depressions and along small streams associated with riparian corridors. The greatest potential for encountering wetlands land Waters of the U.S. would be in cases where construction access, new operations and maintenance access roads, or road improvements are constructed across drainages or streams. It is recommended that a wetlands and Waters determination be conducted as part of the botanical field studies performed for the project. The wetland determination will also facilitate the micro -siting of project facilities (i.e., turbine pads, roads, operations building, substation, transmission line facilities, etc.). if the project schedule allows, the -wetland and Waters determinations should be conducted during the early part of the growing season, typically late May through July, depending on the site conditions. 3.4 WILDLIFE This section identifies sensitive wildlife species known to occur or that potentially occur within the WRA. Based on issues identified at other wind generation facilities throughout the U.S., those species of greatest concern are federally or state protected avian species and bats, Other species of conservation concern are those directly associated with sensitive or unique habitats. The GMi Team conducted a review of the USFWS TESS database and the UAA ANHP database to identify state and federal special status species that could potentially occur within the WRA. 1 6 Exhibit A, Reference 5 Pillar Mountain Wind Resource Area Critical Issues Analysis 3.4. 1 Federal and State Protacted Species Table 3.2 summarizes the available data on protected species that occur or potentially occur within the vicinity of the WRA. A combined search of the USFWS and the UAA databases revealed that there are no federally listed species known to occur within the WRA. However, several species with State designation have been documented as occurring within the WRA. Of these, four have a high likelihood of occurrence within the WRA. These flour species are "rare or uncommon in state," or apparently secure in state, but with cause for long-term concern." According to information received from ANHP, several of the species documented may be listed as a result of being endemics of the Kodiak Island Archipelago, not due to their overall rarity within the State of Alaska (ANHP 2006). The data used for this analysis are limited and cannot provide a definitive statement as to the presence, absence, or condition of special species, natural communities, or other significant features in any area. These data also cannot substitute for on -site evaluation by qualified biologists. 3.4.2 other Spocles of conseryffloon concaFn State and federally listed wildlife species known to occur within Alaska but outside of the Borough of Kodiak are listed in Appendix A. 3.4.3 Reptors Raptor use of the WRA may increase during fall and in early spring as raptors move to and from wintering areas. Other raptors that may occur within the WRA either as breeding residents or throughout the year include the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), Steller's sea eagle (Haliaeetus pelagicus), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), sharp -shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), northern goshawk (Accipiter endles), rough -legged hawk (Buteo lagopus), gyrfalcon (Falco rusticolus), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), and golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). In addition several owl species may occur within the WRA such as short -eared owl (Asio flammeus), and boreal owl (Aegolius funereus). Eagles may occasionally fly over the Pillar Mountain site, although there is little potential food for eagles available in the area where turbines are proposed (and where communication towers are already present). Ellen Lance of the USFWS (Anchorage, email dated March 1, 2006, Appendix S) stated that Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge personnel estimate that the landslide area of Pillar Mountain up to approximately 1,000 feet above sea level is used by roosti9d bald eagles which congregate around the harbor during the winter. 3.4.4 Sais Bat casualties have been reported from most wind power facilities where post -construction fatality monitoring data are available. Estimates of bat mortality range from 0.07 to 10.0 per turbine per year in the continental United States (Johnson 2004). The Foote Creek Rim Wind Energy Facility in southeastern Wyoming determined a rate of 1.04 fatalities per turbine per year (Johnson 2004). Due to the scarcity of bat4urbine interaction studies, bat mortality as a result of wind energy facility development has been difficult to assess. Although the WRA is not located near any known bat colonies or hibernacula, potential roosting habitat is present in stands of trees scattered throughout the WRA. Although six different species of bats are listed as occurring in the state, they are not found in abundance here. Their distribution is generally limited to Southeast Alaska, a few scattered locales in south central Alaska, and as far north as the Yukon River in the Interior. The most common and wide ranging bat in the state is the little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus). Three other myotis species occur in Alaska: the long-legged bat (k4. volans), Kean's bat (k4. keenit), and California bat (RSV, califomicus). No aggregations of hibernating bats have been found in the interior of Alaska, although little brown bats have been found on Kodiak Island in February. 7 Exhibit A, Reference 5 l� v; CD -®��(� rn ® 0 C m M r -Co _� � a ��mCa a m J 0Z(9r- Z v Co C C ILI y12 CU �3 15 'D at E v 'D Co (D cim .m � W� �� �®� aim w� w ® a � 0 ®� cn � � ® 1 C Cm ® ® � � •U_ �-�®a� ea w C r Q. LU Lli L a) .Co 0 Exhibit A, Reference 5 o as ^ I?W LA CO L C, w o -J v z (a W CV U) EE w Exhibit A, Reference 5 I '� O�tl e • eq/ 0.9 b/ W IL r� •� O S M _� '(a 0 Pa�C tl/ /A w 0 [�' V .A ® C� , r r o-Dos a-o—eS m E m O r� •— �1 RS ❑ ® C - (n mom ao .� Exhibit A, Reference 5 Pillar Mountain Wind Resource Area Critical Issues Analysis Due to the lack of information concerning bat migration habits, it is not possible to predict whether the proposed project area is located within a bat migration corridor. However, with the presence of bats in the area and the availability of suitable habitat, bat numbers may increase during migration periods. Subsequently, potential bat casualties may increase during migration periods, as has bean the case for those western wind projects at which fatality monitoring has taken place. 3.4.5 Avl& e if4lgiVio a The Pillar Mountain WRA lies within the path of the Pacific Migration Flyway, a general route followed by migratory birds. As a result, migrating waterfowl, waterbirds, shorebirds, raptors, and passerines may pass through the WRA during fall and spring migrations. The Chiniak Bay area may be used as stopover habitat for migrating waterfowl. Ellen Lance of the USFWS (Anchorage) indicated that Steller's eiders, passerines and shorebirds may migrate over Pillar Mountain (pens, coma. 2006, email dated March 1, 2006, Appandix E). Previous observations and interviews with local ornithologists in 2003 indicate that a number of avian species, particularly passerines and shorebirds including species such as Pacific golden plovers (Pluvialls fulva), water pipits (Anthus spinoletta), and Lapland longspurs (Calcarius lapponicus) are known to migrate over or near Pillar Mountain to reach more suitable habitats in the interior of Kodiak Island (Sharp and Kronner 2003). Based on observation at the time, migrating storm petrels, albatross, marbled murrelets and fulmars encountering low visibility conditions in the area occasionally mistakenly land on wet pavement areas in Kodiak. Lapland longspurs and Pacific golden plovers are night migrants. Although migrating longspurs and neotropical migrants have occasionally been killed in large numbers by collisions with very tall (over 500-foot) lighted communication towers, no similar events have ever been recorded for wind turbines (NWCC 2004), and the turbine lighting required by the FAA is not the same as that on the very tall communication towers. In North America, the birds most commonly observed to collide with wind turbines are songbirds (Kingsley and Whittam 2003). Many species of songbirds migrate at night and may collide with tall, man-made structures. Factors such as topography, turbine lighting, and numbers of birds moving through an area during migration can influence the number of collisions observed at a facility. Studies have shown that weather conditions, such as fog, are also important factors in the potential for collisions. 3.4.6 Big Game w Big game information obtained from the ADFG indicates the Pillar Mountain WRA is located within a Kodiak brown bear hunting unit. According to communications with the ADFG, there are no big game species present in the vicinity of the WRA requiring special management consideration. 3.4.7 Compliance with Regulations The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), Eagle Protection Act (EPA), and Endangered Species Act (ESA) all prohibit the illegal killing or otherwise 'taking" of native migratory birds and bald and golden eagles, respectively. There is no provision for incidental take under the MBTA or EPA. The ESA protects listed species from take, but incidental take permits can be issued. To date, there have not been any prosecutions of wind projects under any of these laws, although fatalities do occur at most wind projects. The USFWS prefers to wort: cooperatively with wind developers in siting and monitoring projects. 3.4.6 Impact Assessment and Recommendations �a�tma�ary Based on the available literature describing habitat within the WRA, it is anticipated that impacts to wildlife species (particularly birds and bats) would be low. A review of the.ANHP database documented that two federally listed species, black scoter and Steller's eider, may occur in Chiniak Ray near Pillar Mountain and may occasionally be present within the project area. Potentially suitable nesting habitat for Kitiltz's 19 Exhibit A, Reference 5 Pillar Mountain Wind Resource Area Critical Issues murrelet (a candidate or potential candidate according to Lance (pars. comm. 2006) may exist in the WRA. The WRA is located within the Pacific Migration Flyway and local ornithologists indicate that a number of avian species, particularly raptors and song -birds, are known to migrate over or near Pillar Mountain to reach more suitable habitats in the interior of Kodiak Island. The construction of turbine pads, access roads, underground electrical collection system, overhead transmission line, substation, and operations and management building would result in temporary, construction -related, and minor long-term loss of habitat in the native tundra and Sitka spruce habitat that comprises a majority of the WRA. In addition, activities such as road construction and tree clearing can destroy or disrupt habitats and allow for the introduction of unwanted plant species. Portions of the site are currently in use for communications towers and are visited frequently which likely has displaced or disturbed existing wildlife on Pillar Mountain. Wildlife would also be temporarily displaced from the WRA during construction. Displaced wildlife would likely relocate to nearby unaffected areas. From a bird use standpoint, it appears that the risk to birds at this site would be relatively low since the number of turbines proposed for this site, two to four in total, is very low. Recommendations While the information obtained to date indicates that the project site likely poses only low to moderate risk to wildlife species, the GMI Team recommends conducting several focused wildlife surveys to ensure the facility is sited in a manner that provides the most cost-effective permit process feasible while minimizing potential adverse effects to sensitive habitats and wildlife species. Specifically, the GMI Team recommends conducting wildlife surveys within the vicinity of proposed project facilities. Avian use surveys, both diurnal visual and nocturnal radar studies, are recommended to assess resident avian usage and migration of avian species within and through the project area, respectively. USFWS generally recommends monitoring of avian use and occurrence in appropriate seasons prior to project construction. Point counts of avian use in areas near the proposed development would document species' presence and use prior to construction, and possibly assist in identifying sites with elevated potential for avian and turbine interaction. The GMI Team recommends that draft wildlife survey protocols be developed and provided to the USFWS and ADFG for review and comment. In this manner`, KEA can direct the scope of work for the respective surveys, which will ensure that project costs are kept to a minimum. While concerns regarding special status species are fairly obvious, there may be other concerns that are less obvious. For example, TtEC recently permitted a project where the movement of big game species was an issue. The concern was that installation of wind turbines would affect big game migratory patterns. Thus, it is Important to ensure that all potential issues are identified so management strategies can be developed. Where overhead lines are constructed, the USFWS recommends that potential for bird electrocutions and bird strikes be reduced through implementation of measures outlined in the Avian Protection Plan (APP) Guidelines (APLIC and USFWS 2005), Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines (Edison Electric 1996), and Mitigating Bird Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1994 (Edison Electric 1994). Use of guy wires on meteorological towers and transmission line poles should be avoided whenever feasible. 4.0 LAND USE AND PERMITTING 4.t PERMITS, PLANS, AND APPROVAI-8 GMI conducted an evaluation of existing land uses for the WRA. The WRA proposed pad sites are located on state land (Figure 4.1) within the Kodiak Island Borough. The results of this evaluation were used to identify the likelihood of local, state, and federal permlgg, approvals, and plans required for construction of the wind farm. 12 Exhibit A, Reference 5 0 4) 0 1 0 Lail <.R, j W C C M Exhibit A, Reference 5 Pillar Mountain Mind Resource Area Critical issues 4.1.1 Federal Permits Highly Likely to he Necessary for the Wind Farm This section identifies federal permits and approvals potentially required for construction of the KEA wind farm. This section indicates the likelihood of the federal permits being required based on the proposed locations of the wind farm and its associated ancillary facilities. NOV09 Of Pr POWd Alteration Or Construction. The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) authority to promote the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace is predominantly derived from 49 U.S. Code (U.S.C.), Section 44718, and Title 14, CFR, Part 77. The primary objective of an evaluation under Part 77 is to erasure the safety of air navigation and efficient utilization of navigable airspace by aircraft. Under Part 77, the sponsor has the responsibility to notify the FAA of proposed construction of any structure with a height greater than 200 feet above ground that may affect the protected areas/airspace, commonly referred to as Part 77. This notification is accomplished by the submission of an FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration. One 7460-1 Form will be required for each wind turbine. Upon completion of the in-house evaluations, the FAA will either issue a Determination of No Hazard or attempt negotiations with the sponsor. The entire evaluation process lasts from three to six months following the receipt of a complete and accurate 7460-1 Form. NPDES Stormwater general Discharge Permit for Construction. A National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater General Discharge Permit for Construction will be required for stormwater management associated with wind farm construction. The EPA stormwater regulations require that stormwater discharges associated with construction activities, clearing, grading, and excavation, that disturb one or more acres of land, must obtain a NPDES Stormwater Discharge General Permit. This permit, issued under authority of the Federal Dater Pollution Control Act, requires approval of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), containing erosion control measures. The approval process typically takes less than three months from the time of fling the Notice of Intent (N®I). Currently EPA issues NPDES permits however, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) will submit a primacy application to EPA for their approval before July 1, 2006 4.1.2 Federal Permits Moderately Likely to he Necessary for the Wind Farm Clean Water Act, Section 404. Prior to discharging dredged or fill material into the "waters of the U.S." approval is required by the USAGE. Typical activities requiring Section 404 permits are: depositing of fill or dredged material in waters of the U.S. or adjacent wetlands, and site development fill for developments. Although the probability of needing a 404 permit for the wind turbines themselves is unlikely, transmission line corridors and access road creation or improvement could trigger Section 404 if development of these ancillary facilities impact wetland or waters of the U.S. During the on -site survey, the land on the ridge was blanketed by snow, which did not allow the field surveyors to get an overview of the area. However, the terrain and vegetation along the ridge suggests that wet areas may be present. As previously stated, the GMI Team recommends that a wetlands and Waters determination be conducted as part of the botanical field studies performed forr the project. The wetland determination will also facilitate the micro -siting of project facilities (i.e., turbine pads, roads, operations building, substation, transmission line facilities, etc.). If the project schedule allows, the wetland and Waters determinations should be conducted during the early part of the growing season, typically late May through July, depending on the site conditions. Areas determined to be wetlands or Waters of the U.S. should be avoided to the extent possible. Additionally adequate drainage and erosion control should be provided during construction to avoid discharge of construction run-off into the wetland areas. If jurisdictional wetlands or waters are present and must either be altered or cannot be avoided, a 404 permit maybe required from the USAGE. 14 Exhibit A, Reference 5 Pillar Mountain Wind Resource Area Criticai Issues 4.1.3 Federal Permits with a Lori Likelihood of Necessity for the Wind Farrar Endangered Species Act, Section 7 Consultation. If it is determined that a federal permit or action is required for the project, such as the FERC Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, ESA Section 7 consultation could be triggered. Section 7 requires a Letter of Consultation with the USFWS regarding the project. Only if there are potential conflicts to a special status species, would a Biological Assessment and Biological Opinion be required. Consultation with USFWS and ADFG is suggested to determine if it is necessary to conduct any plant and/or animal surveys. The Eagle Piratection Act. This federal act provides for the protection of the bald eagle (Hallaestus leucocephalus), including the Alaska populations excluded by the ESA and the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaefos) by prohibiting, except under certain specified conditions, the taking, possession and commerce of such birds, with limited exceptions. The Migratory Bird Act. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act protects migratory birds listed in the corresponding regulations from any pursuit, killing, or possession except as permitted by regulation or permit. The USFWS is responsible for enforcing this statute. The WRA is located within the Pacific Flyway and may provide migratory or stopover habitat for raptors, shorebirds, passerines, and waterfowl. Point counts in areas near the proposed development would document species' presence and use prior to construction, and possibly assist in identifying sites with elevated potential for avian and turbine interaction. Nocturnal radar studies would document use by night migrants. 4.1.4 State Permits or Approvals Highly Likely to be Necessary for the Wind Farm Oversize and Overweight Permit. This permit is required by Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOTPF) to transport materials on state roads and highways. Fees assessed based on size and weight of load. An application is available online. Port of Entry Permit. Coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) will be required Woman's Bay port. Port Entry Applications should be submitted by the vessel's agent directly to USCG Headquarters. TELEX or FAX messages are preferred. Port Entry Applications will not be accepted by local or regional Coast Guard commands for this location. 4.1.6 State Permits Moderately Likely to be Necessary for the Wind Farms Using the CWA Section 401 authority, ADEC reviews the federal 404 permit application, looking closely at potential water quality impacts (ADEC 2006). When warranted, the states grant "Section 401 certification," which is needed before a Section 404 permit can be issued by the USACE. The State does charge a fee for this. 4.1.6 State Permits with a Low Likelihood of Necessity for the Wind Farm A temporary water use authorization may be needed if the amount of water to be used is a significant amount, the use continues for less than five consecutive years, and the water to be used is not appropriated (ADNR 2006). This authorization does not establish a water right but will avoid conflicts with fisheries and existing water right holders. The application fee for a temporary water use authorization is $350 for all uses of water from up to five water sources. No state permit requirements with a low likelihood necessity were found. 4.2 I ODM BOROUGH FF_R9r i9WG Coast Development Permit. This permit is associated with 1�bdiak Island Borough (KIB) Coastal Management Program -Enforceable Policy and to the extent feasible and prudent, major energy facilities 15 Exhibit A, Reference 5 Millar Mountain Wind Resource Area Critical Issues shall be developed in accordance with the KIB Coastal Management policy. Approval is a requirement for getting permits from FERC and USACE. 4.3 CITY OF KODIAK PERM9 TlIi G POrMIR f®r CONS&UCVan within the Watershed Boundary. A portion of the WRA is located on the City of Kodiak's Watershed Protection Area and therefore would require construction permit (Fagure 3.2). According to the City of Kodiak Code, no person in a watershed shall construct or erect any building or structure of whatever mind, whether permanent or temporary in character, or run or string any public service utility into, upon, or across such lands, except on special, written permit issued therefore. (Ord. 399 §3(3), 1973) (City of Kodiak 2006). 4.4 A®®I-WHAL C®RISIDERATIONs AND REC®RAMEP DA-nows The potential exists for additional permit requirements regarding the transportation of the unit once the unit type and route are determined. It is recommended that the KEA consult City of Kodiak and ABOTPF. In addition, there is a possibility that the KEA footprint would fall within a conservation zone designated by the Kodiak Island Borough. Deed restrictions need to be identified for the area located on or near the former White Alice Communications Systems. Some PCB- and petroleum -impacted media remain in the fractured bedrock. The locations of these areas have been recorded and institutional controls established; digging in capped areas associated with the remaining contamination would be restricted. This needs to be evaluated prior to design and construction activity Table 4.1 provides a list of the permits, approvals, and plans potentially required for the development of the wind farm. The following analysis details a preliminary study of the land use issues that could have cost and schedule impacts on obtaining required permits to build and operate the proposed Millar Mountain wind energy facility. 96 Exhibit A, Reference 5 Surrey PREPARED FOR and KODIAK ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION M September 2007 Executive Summary Kodiak Electric Association, Inc. (KEA) has undertaken year long avian use surveys at the proposed Pillar Mountain Wind Resource Area (WRA) in Kodiak Borough, Alaska. KEA is proposing to construct and operate two wind turbines at the WRA. The turbine proposed for this project is the GE 1.5-MW turbine which has a hub height of 80 meters (m) and a rotor diameter of 77 m. The rotor swept area (RSA) of the GE 1.5-MW turbine proposed for this project extends from 41.5 to 118.5 m above ground level (AGL). This report provides the results of the surveys that were conducted for a year from .Tune 26, 2006 to June 26, 2007. During this year of study, 125 fixed-point count surveys were conducted at one circular plot, 800 m in diameter, centrally located within the proposed WRA. Each survey lasted 30 minutes. A total of 21 species consisting of 1,045 birds in 467 observations (single birds or flocks) were detected during the surveys. In addition, 22 additional 30-minute surveys were conducted at dawn, dusk, and at night during the spring and fall to listen and watch for potential night migration activity. Only one flock of migrating geese was observed flying above the RSA during these dawn/dusk/night point count surveys. Overall, mean use of the WRA was 8.4 birds per 30 minutes (min), including raptors. Among large birds, the common raven and bald eagle had the highest mean use; the fox sparrow, unidentified sparrows, and savannah sparrow had the highest mean use among small birds. Seven raptor species were detected during surveys, resulting in collective mean use of 1.02 raptors/30 min over the year of surveys. The vast majority of the raptor use was recorded during the spring and during spring bald eagles were the only raptor observed. Overall, bald eagles comprised 11.6 % of all of the birds observed during the study, and raptors comprised 12.3 %. Passerines comprised 22.5 %, and common ravens comprised 63.6 % of all birds observed. Mean raptor use at the Pillar Mountain WRA for su' nmer, fall, and winter surveys ranged from 0.21 to 0.69 birds/30 min, lower than reported by most other published surveys. Mean use of raptors during spring, however, bald eagle use was 2.57 birds/30 min, which is at the high end of raptor use found at other wind facilities. The high use during spring is likely a result of spring migration of eagles through the area. For non -raptors, no birds flew above the RSA; 66 % flew below, and 34 % flew within the RSA. The common raven had the highest exposure risk ranging by season from 7.54 birds/30 min flying within the RSA during winter, to 1.45 birds/30 min in the RSA in summer. Ravens appear to only rarely collide with turbines, based on the available fatality monitoring studies to date. For raptors, 4 % flew above the RSA, 52 % below, and 44 % flew within the RSA. The raptor species with the greatest relative risk of collision based on mean use and flight characteristics was the bald eagle, with 0.94 birds/30 min in the RSA in spring, 0.12 in summer, 0.34 in fall, and 0.05 in winter. When only those birds observed to cross over Pillar Mountain in flight, the bald eagle had an exposure risk of 0.46 birds/30 min flying { within the RSA during spring, 0.03 during summer, 0.09 during fall, and 0.04 during \ . winter. ES-1 Given that bald eagles have been documented to fly within the RSA a potential exists for bald eagles to collide with wind turbines, especially in the spring when use is highest. Bald eagles have never been recorded as a fatality at the numerous communications towers at the top of Pillar Mountain and we consider it likely that eagles will avoid the wind turbines. We propose that avian surveys resume after construction -of turbines at Pillar Mountain, to document the behavior of the eagles in the presence of the turbines, and that carcass searches be conducted to determine whether fatalities occur. ES-2 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION METHODS ES-1 DIURNAL FIXED-POINT AND IN -TRANSIT AVIAN USE SURVEYS Fixed-point Surveys Incidental/In-transit Observations Data Quality Assurance/Quality Control ANALYSIS Avian Use of the WRA Flight Behavior Risk Index RESULTS SPECIES COMPOSITION AVIAN USE FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE BALD EAGLE FLIGHT PATHS FLIGHT HEIGHT AND EXPOSURE RISK .FLIGHT DIRECTION DAWN -DUSK -NIGHT SURVEYS IN -TRANSIT SURVEYS 4 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS AVIAN USE EXPOSURE RISK POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO AVIAN SPECIES RECOMMENDATIONS REFERENCES 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 (� 5 5 i 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 8 9 ES-3 List of Tables Table 1. Pillar Mountain point count survey dates 06/26/2006 — 06/26/2007 Table 2. Number and composition of birds observed during point count surveys at the Pillar Mountain wind resource area Table 3. Avian mean use and frequency observed during point counts at Pillar Mountain Wind Resource Area Table 4. Summary of avian flight heights (includes flying birds only) in relation to the turbine rotor swept area (RSA) during point count surveys at the Pillar Mountain wind resource area Table 5a. Avian flight height characteristics of all birds in relation to the turbine rotor swept area (RSA) for species at risk of collision at the Pillar Mountain Wind Resource Area during spring surveys Table 5b. Avian flight height characteristics of all birds in relation to the turbine rotor swept area (RSA) for species at risk of collision at the Pillar Mountain Wind Resource Area during summer surveys Table 5c. Avian flight height characteristics of all birds in relation to the turbine rotor swept area (RSA) for species at risk of collision at the Pillar Mountain Wind Resource Area during winter surveys Table 5d. Avian flight height characteristics of all birds in relation to the turbine rotor swept area (RSA) for species at risk of collision at the Pillar Mountain Wind Resource Area during fall surveys Table 6a. Avian flight height characteristics of birds crossing over Pillar Mountain in relation to the turbine rotor swept area (RSA) for species at risk of collision at the Pillar Mountain Wind Resource Area during spring surveys Table 6b. Avian flight height characteristics of birds crossing over Pillar Mountain in relation to the turbine rotor swept area (RSA) for species at risk of collision at the Pillar Mountain Wind Resource Area during summer surveys Table 6c. Avian flight height characteristics of birds crossing over Pillar Mountain in relation to the turbine rotor swept area (RSA) for species at risk of collision at the Pillar Mountain Wind Resource Area during winter surveys Table 6d. Avian flight height characteristics of birds crossing over Pillar Mountain in relations to the turbine rotor swept area (RSA) for species at risk of collision at the Pillar Mountain Wind Resource Area during fall surveys Table 7a. Flight directions of birds observed during spring point count surveys at the Pillar Mountain wind resource area Table 7b. Flight directions of birds observed during summer point count surveys at the Pillar Mountain wind resource area Table 7c. Flight directions of birds observed during winter point count surveys at the Pillar Mountain wind resource area Table 7d. Flight directions of birds observed during fall point count surveys at the Pillar Mountain wind resource area Table 8 Results of Dawn -busk Avian Surveys at the Pillar Mountain Wind Resource Area during August - October 2006 and April - June 2007. Table 9. Comparison of mean use at the Pillar Mountain Wind Resource Area to existing WRAs P:13244. KEAIAvian SurveylAvian Survey Deport 20077inal reportTinal Pillar Mt. Avian Report 101507.doe TTEC-VMS-2007- 035 11 List of Figures Figure 1. Vicinity neap Figure 2. Potential turbine locations Figure 3. Photographs of the area where turbines would be installed Figure 4. Avian point count map Figure S. Bald eagle flight paths M3244. KEA1Avian SurveylAvian Survey Report 2007Tinal reportTinal Pillar Mt. Avian Report 101507.doc TTEC-PTLD-2007- 035 iii 2006-2007 Avian Use Stervey Pillar Mt !Wind Resource Area Kodiak Electric Association, Inc., (KEA) is planning to develop a wind energy conversion facility located primarily on state-owned lands in the Kodiak Borough east of Kodiak, Alaska near the city limits (Figure 1). The project is in the initial development stage and many details of the project design have not yet been determined. The proposed project would include two turbines in an east -west array oriented to take into consideration available land, topography, and minimize interference with existing adjacent communication towers. The proposed turbines for the project are GE 1.5-MW turbines which have an 80-meter (m) hub height and a rotor diameter of 77 m, resulting in a rotor swept area (RSA) of 41.5 to 118.5 meters (m) above ground level. The topography of the region consists of steep mountains leading to narrow valleys surrounded by inlets and bays. The Pillar Mountain WRA is located in the Pacific Gulf Coastal Forest —Meadow Province. Bailey (1995) summarizes the province's characteristics. The Alexander Archipelago, comprising hundreds of islands and formed by the partly submerged western foothills of the Coast Range makes up most of this province. The larger islands have mountains 900 — 1,500 m high, with slopes covered by dense forest where they are not too steep. Long, narrow bays carved into the mountains by glaciers create extremely irregular coastlines. Northward, at Prince William Sound and Kodiak Island, the foothills are mixed with coastal lowlands consisting of alluvial fans, uplifted estuaries, morainal deposits, dunes, and river deltas and terraces. The Pillar Mountain WRA includes the access road up to and the top of the mountain. The area where turbines are proposed is tundra. Figure 2 shows the potential turbine locations. Although Figure 2 shows five turbine locations, only two are proposed for the project, but the sites of the two have not been selected. Figure 3 provides photographs of Pillar Mountain from Kodiak, and of the area where turbines would be sited. The Pillar Mountain WRA lies within the Pacific Flyway, a general route followed by migratory birds. As a result, migrating waterfowl, waterbirds, shorebirds, raptors, and passerines may pass through the WRA during fall and spring migrations. The Chiniak Bay area may be used as stopover habitat by migrating waterfowl. Geo-Marine, Inc. (GMI) contracted with Tetra Tech EC to conduct pre -construction avian fixed point -count surveys at the Pillar Mountain WRA in 2006 in support of the proposed project for KEA. This report provides the results of those surveys. METHODS Diurnal Fixed-point and Ira -Transit Avian Use Turveys Avian use point count surveys were conducted to evaluate avian abundance and behavior during the year of study at the WRA. Fixed-point surveys (described below) were conducted at one circular plot centrally located in the study area, with in -transit observations of birds made while traveling to the survey point, as well as incidental observations made before or after the specified survey time. Surveys were conducted P:13244. KEAIAvian SurveylAviau Survey Report 20071Final reportTinal Pillar Mt. Avian Report 101507.doe TTEC-PTLD-2007- 035 1 2006-2007Avian Use Survey Pillar Mt Wind Resource Area during daylight hours. The protocol for this study is similar to protocols used at the Condon, Wildhorse, Stateline, and Vansycle wind projects in Oregon and Washington, the Buffalo Ridge wind project in southwest Minnesota, and the Foote Creek Rim wind project in Wyoming (Johnson et al. 2000a, Johnson et al. 2000b, URS Corporation and Northwest Wildlife Consultants 2001, URS Corporation and WEST, Inc. 2001, Erickson et al. 2003). Fixed-point Surveys One observation point was established in the proposed WRA (Figure 4). A single survey point was adequate for this site as the WRA is small and the point provided the necessary view required for surveying the entire area where turbines would be constructed. Avian observations were focused on recording all birds within and beyond an 800-m radius centered on the observation point location. Surveys at each point lasted for 30 minutes (min), during which the observer continuously scanned the area around the observation point visually and with binoculars. The data that were recorded during each 30-min survey included date, observer, start/end time, visibility, wind direction, wind speed, point number, number of individuals, sex and age class, distance from observer, behavior, flight height, flight direction, and habitat over which the bird flew (or was observed either perched above on the ground). Behaviors recorded included perching, soaring, level flight/flapping, circle soaring, r hunting, and other. Habitats included willow/alder brush and barren/tundra. In addition, '•, a habitat category called "off ridge" was used to identify those birds that were observed in flight but which never crossed the top of Pillar Mountain, since it was noticed early that many of the eagles and ravens observed during the surveys never crossed Pillar Mountain, instead, they flew along the sides. Flight paths were mapped on the field data sheets. Flight heights and distances from the observer were estimated by experienced field ornithologists, who had existing met towers, 1pt;al transmission lines, and topographic maps available for reference. The survey dates are listed in Table 1. A total of 126 surveys were conducted at the single survey plot during the year of study. Incidental/In-transit Observations Incidental observations were recorded while observers were traveling to and from the observation point. These observations were recorded on separate data sheets to provide additional information on avian use of the WRA, and were not used for statistical analysis. Data Quality Assurance/Quality Control QA/QC measures were implemented during all stages of data collection, analysis, and report preparation. The observers, local biologists with the ability to identify all birds observed, were trained in the field data collection method by an experienced Tetra Tech EC field biologist familiar with the protocol. To ensure legibility and clarity of data sheets before entry into a database, each observer reviewed and corrected all of their data sheets before submitting them for data entry by Tetra Tech. Tetra Tech staff entered the data into a Filemakefm database for data storage and analysis. Any questions that arose P:13244. KEA1Avian SurveylAvian Survey Report 20071Final reportTinal Pillar Mt. Avian Report 101507.doc ITEC-PTLD-2007- 035 2 2006-2007 Avian Use Survey Pillar Mt Wind Resource Area were directed toward and answered by field personnel. Prior to analysis, an independent reviewer conducted a 100 % quality review of the database entries. Analysis Avian Use of the WRA Avian use of the WRA was derived by calculating the average number of birds observed per point per 30-min survey period. The number of birds seen during each point count survey was standardized to a unit area and a unit time surveyed. The standardized unit of time was 30 min and the standardized unit area was 2.01 km2 (800-m radius viewshed for the station). For the standardized avian use estimate, only observations of birds detected within 800 m of the observer were used. To evaluate the diversity and composition of avian species using the WRA, the number of species observed per point per 30-min survey period, and species occurrence during the surveys, were calculated. For analysis purposes, an observation was a single bird or discrete flock of birds observed flying within 800 m of the observation point. Flight Behavior Flight behavior was evaluated by calculating the proportion of birds, for which flight information was recorded, that occurred below, within, or above the turbine RSA. Of the birds observed, 84.1% were observed flying. The anticipated turbine RSA in the proposed Pillar Mountain project ranges from 41.5 to 118.5 in AGL. A bird or discrete flock of birds was considered to have flown within the RSA if its range of flight heights (low to high flight heights recorded in the field) overlapped this area. In some instances only one flight height was recorded in the field. Relationship to the anticipated RSA for these birds was accordingly based on this single flight height. Risk Index S To estimate the relative risk of collision for each species, the following equation was applied: R = A *Pf*Pt where A is the mean relative use of the WRA for a species (mean number of birds observed per 30-minute survey); Pf is the proportion of all activity observations of species i that were observed flying; and Pt is the proportion of species i that were . observed flying within the turbine RSA. The single observation point provided coverage for the locations of the proposed turbine (Figure 2). Although Figure 2 shows five turbine locations, only two are proposed for this project; the actual sites of turbines will be chosen later in the project. The field data sheet was modified to include information on whether birds were observed crossing over Pillar Mountain. A second analysis of risk was performed, which only included those birds that were observed crossing Pillar Mountain within the survey area where turbines P:13244. KEAIAvian SurveylAvian Survey Report 20071Final reportTinal Pillar M€. Avian Report 101507.doc TTEC-PTLD-2007- 035 3 2006-2007Avian Use Survey Pillar Mt Wind Resource Area would be located, as the analysis that included all birds may overestimate collision risk at this particular site. RESULTS Approximately 0.77 square miles (mil) (2.01 square kilometers [km2]) of the Pillar Mountain WRA were surveyed during spring point count surveys. Species Composition During the year of study, a total of 1,045 birds in 467 observations were recorded during 125 fixed-point count surveys (Table 2). A total of 21 species were recorded plus 6 groups that could not be identified to species (e.g., unidentified passerine). Since individual birds were not marked, these counts do not distinguish individual birds and are therefore meant to provide an estimate of use. Therefore, use of the terms `abundant' or `abundance' represent use estimates, and do not indicate absolute density or number of individuals. The most common species were the common raven (63.3 % of observations), followed by bald eagle (11.6 % of observations), fox sparrow (5.7 %), unidentified passerine (5.6 %), savannah sparrow (3.8 %), Lapland longspur (2.2 %), and golden -crowned sparrow (2 % of observations) (Table 2). All other species comprised less than. 2 % of the total number of birds observed. As expected, species abundance varied by season. During the spring, bald eagles comprised nearly one quarter of all birds observed, and were far less common during the summer, fall and winter when they represented between 2.2 and 7.4 % of the birds observed (Table 2). During the summer, passerines comprised 70 % of all birds observed. Avian Use Mean avian use estimates (number of birds/30 min5 were calculated for each species and summarized by taxonomic group (Table 3). Over the year, mean use by all birds was 8.4 birds/30 min. Among large birds, mean use during all seasons was highest for the common raven. Use by ravens varied from a low of 1.45 birds/30 min during summer and was consistently higher, in the 5.03 to 7.54 birds/30 min range during the spring, fall, and winter. Raven use was highest during the winter. The bald eagle was the second most abundant species, exhibiting a mean use of 0.95 bird/30 min over the year of study, which varied by season from 2.57 birds/30 min during the spring, and from 0.28 to 0.51 birds/30 min during the summer, fall, and winter (Table 3). A high proportion (75 %) of the bald eagles observed flew along the ridge rather than crossing it and birds would not encounter turbines on those flight paths. Among small birds, over the year, mean use was highest for the fox sparrow (0.5 birds/30 min), unidentified passerines (0.5 birds/30 min, savannah sparrow (0.3 birds/30 min), Lapland longspur (0.18 birds/30 min), golden -crowned sparrow (0.17 birds/30 min); mean use for all other small species was less than 0.1 birds/30 min or less. Passerine use P:13244. KFAIAvian SurveylAvian Survey Report 20071Finai reportTinal Pillar Mt. Avian Repots 101507.doc TTRC-PTLD-2007- 035 4 2006-2007 Avian Use Survey Pillar Mt Wand Resource Area during winter was nearly absent; during the summer breeding season, a number of passerines were consistently present and likely breeding, including the fox sparrow, golden -crowned sparrow, hermit thrush, savannah sparrow, and Wilson's warbler (Table 3). Frequency of Occurrence Bald eagles were observed during 63 % of surveys during the spring, and between 14 and 20 % of surveys during the summer, fall, and winter (Table 3). Common ravens were the most frequently observed species, and were detected during 48 % of surveys during the summer and between 64 and 74 % of surveys during the spring, fall, and winter (Table 3). Among small birds, occurrence during the summer was greatest for the unidentified passerine (38 %), fox sparrow (34 %), savannah sparrow (28 %), golden -crowned sparrow (28 %), and hermit thrush (24 %). Four of the raptor species observed — the merlin, northern harrier, rough -legged hawk, and sharp -shinned hawk — were only observed during the fall and were likely migrants. A golden eagle and short -eared owl were observed once each, respectively, during the summer and. winter. Bald Eagle Flight Paths Larger birds, which were nearly all bald eagles and common ravens, were frequently observed using updrafts along the sides of Pillar Mountain for soaring without actually crossing over the area where turbines would be located. Figure 5 shows the flight paths of bald eagles that were mapped in the field. Flight paths were not mapped for all of the eagles observed. Approximately 75% of the eagles observed did not cross over the ridge top where the turbines would be located. Flight Height and Exposure Risk Of the birds observed, 84 % were observed flying. Approximately 34 % of flying non - raptors for which flight height data were collected were within the anticipated RSA; 66 % flew below the anticipated RSA (Table 4). No non -raptors were recorded above the anticipated RSA. For raptors, 4 % were observed flying above the RSA, 44 % within the RSA, and 52 % were below the RSA (Table 4). Tables 5a through 5d summarize seasonal flight height data of all flying birds, regardless of whether they flew across Pillar Mountain within the 800-m radius plot, and provide one estimate of potential exposure risk for species observed during the surveys. This estimate of risk was calculated by multiplying mean use, proportion of birds observed flying, and proportion of birds that occurred within the anticipated RSA, for species observed within the RSA during the surveys. The common raven had the greatest relative risk (4 birds/30 min flying within the RSA in winter, 2 birds/30 min in fall, 0.3 in summer, and 1.5 in spring). The bald eagle had the second -highest potential exposure risk, which consisted of 0.9 birds/30 min in the RSA in spring, 0.1 in summer, 0.3 in fall, and 0.05 in winter. Only a very few other species were observed flying within the RSA and thus their risk is considered to be very low. Tables 6a through 6d present the seasonal results of the potential exposure risk calculations using only those birds observed to cross over Pillar Mountain in the area P:13244. KEA1Avian SurveylAvian Survey Report 20071Final reportTinal Pillar Mt. Avian Report 101507.doe TfEC-PTLD-2007- 035 5 2006-2007 Avian Use Survey Pillar Mt Wind Resource Area where turbines are proposed. The common raven exposure using this analysis was 0.77 birds/30 min in the RSA in spring, 0.24 in summer, 1.48 in fall, and 3.8 in winter. Bald eagle use for just those birds observed crossing over Pillar Mountain, however, was 0.24 birds/30 min over the year of study, and the exposure risk for the bald eagle was 0.46 birds/30 min in the RSA in spring, 0.03 in summer, 0.09 in fall, and 0.04 in winter. These eagle exposure risk estimates are half or less than half of the estimates generated using all birds observed. Flight Direction Tables 7a through 7d summarize flight directions during the four seasons of study. During spring, predominant flight directions were to the E and SW. During fall, predominant directions of flight tended to follow the ridge (NE and SW). Direction of flight was evenly distributed during summer, and during winter ravens dominated the observations and mostly flew SW, W, and in variable directions. Dawn -Dusk -Night Surveys The results of the dawn, dusk, and night surveys are presented in Table 8. Only one flock of geese was detected during these surveys, and these birds were flying at 200 in above the ridge. A single short -eared owl was also detected during these surveys, flying at 30 m AGL. In -transit Surveys Species recorded during in -transit surveys included the rough -legged hawk, northern harrier, bald eagle, gray -crowned rosy finch, Bohemian waxwing, snow bunting, merlin, unidentified ptarmigan, and common raven. The three passerine species and the ptarmigan had not been observed during the point counts; the remaining species had been observed. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Vivian Use Table 9 provides a means of comparing the bird use observed at Pillar Mountain with other wind power projects that were studied using the same field methods and data analysis. For this table, mean bird use was converted to number of birds/20 minutes, as the duration of the point counts in these other studies varied from 10 to 40 minutes. Mean annual raptor use (0.68 birds/20 min) observed at the Pillar Mountain WRA was sixth highest among the 20 use estimates from wind sites throughout the lower 48 United States that used comparable methods (Table 9). Mean raptor use in spring at Pillar Mountain was comparatively high; 1.72 birds/20 min and comprised of only bald eagles, which was unexpected given the relatively low bald eagle use that had been observed during the other three seasons, which ranged from 0.14 to 0.46 birds/20 ruin. Bald eagles tended to be observed in larger groups during the spring (Table 2) and the birds observed may have been migrating. Mean use by all other birds at the Pillar Mountain WRA (4.94 birds/20 min in the RSA) was among the lowest of other wind facilities studied in the U.S. \ P:13244. KEAIAvian SurveylAvian Survey Report 2007Tinal reportTinal Pillar Mt. Avian Report 101507.doc TTEC-PTLD-2007- 035 6 2006-2007,4vian Use Survey Pillar Mt Wind Resource Area Exposure Risk Relative risk indices, based on mean use (number birds per survey), proportion of birds flying, and the proportion of flight heights within the anticipated RSA, were calculated for all species. However, these indices do not account for the fact that most birds avoid turbines. Common ravens were the most abundant species observed during the surveys and also had the highest calculated exposure risk. Ravens are only rarely found as casualties at modern wind power projects (Erickson et al. 2002) and appear to be able to avoid turbines. Exposure risk for all bald eagles observed ranged from a high of 0.9 birds/30 min in the RSA in spring to 0.46 in fall and 0.14 in winter. The actual collision risk is likely to be lower, since when only bald eagles that crossed Pillar Mountain were included in the same analysis, the risks were half or less than these calculated for all birds. The remaining species for which flight information was recorded had very low relative risk because they primarily flew below the anticipated RSA during spring surveys. Although the exposure index does provide some insight as to what species may be most at risk, an index value of zero does not indicate that there would be no risk associated with the construction and operation of wind turbines at the Pillar Mountain WRA. Potential Impacts to Avian .species The most likely impacts to avian species that could result from the construction and operation of the Pillar Mountain WRA are direct morality and injury from collisions with turbines or guy wires, habitat loss, and displacement of birds from habitats near turbines. Raptor mortality at newer generation wind projects has generally been very low (Strickland and Johnson 2006) and most likely would be low at the Pillar Mountain WRA during the summer, fall, and winter, given the very low level of raptor use during those times. However, bald eagle collision risk could be higher during the spring when use is higher. Habitat loss at this project site is likely to be very small, since there are only two turbines proposed, and similar habitat in the area is extensive. Avian displacement associated with wind power development has been documented at other wind plants, much of which is attributed to the direct loss of habitat or habitat effectiveness near the turbine for the turbine pad and associated roads (WEST and NWC, 2003)a For example, at the Buffalo Ridge WRA, densities of male songbirds were significantly lower in CRP grasslands containing turbines than in CRP grasslands without turbines. This pattern has been attributed to avoidance of turbine noise and maintenance activities, and reduced habitat effectiveness due to the presence of access roads and large gravel pads surrounding the turbines (teddy et al. 1999). Likewise, the abundance of shorebirds, waterfowl, upland gamebirds, woodpeckers, and several groups of passerines was found to be lower in areas with turbines than without (Johnson et al. 2000a). However, the habitat within the Pillar Mountain WRA is different from those where previous studies have occurred, and it is unknown exactly what impacts may occur to the P:13244. KEAIAvian Survey\Avian Survey Report 20071Fina1 reportTinal Pillar Mt. Avian Report 101507.doe TTEC-PTLD-2007- 035 7 2006-200 7 Avian UseSYrrvey Pillar -Mt Wind Resotirce Area local avian population due to habitat loss. Nonetheless, the extent of reduced use will likely be limited to those areas within 100 meters of turbines and is unlikely to cause significant permanent disturbance to local breeding populations. Recommendations The following are recommended measures to mitigate impacts to birds and other wildlife from the construction and operation of the Pillar Mountain WRA. ® Conduct avian surveys using the same methods as this study after turbines are constructed to document the reaction of common ravens, bald eagles, and any other species observed, to the turbines. These studies should include mapping of flight paths and behavior to see whether bald eagles avoid turbines. • Conduct carcass searches for fatalities for one year after the turbines are constructed. The frequency of these searches should be determined by the results of trials to determine the rate at which carcasses are scavenged at the site. Given the high raven use, scavenging rates may be relatively high. Provide this report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for their review and information. P:13244. KEA1Avian surveylAvian Survey Report 20071Final reportTinal Pillar Mt. Avian Report 101507.doc TTEC-PTLD-2007- 035 8 2006-2007 Avian Use Survey Pillar Mt Wind Resource Area References Bailey, R. G. 1995. Description of Ecological Regions of the United States. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC. Erickson, W., G. Johnson, D. Young, D. Strickland, R. Good, M. Bourassa, K. Bay, K. Sernka. 2002. Synthesis and comparison of baseline avian and bat use, raptor nesting and mortality information from proposed and existing wind developments. Technical report prepared by WEST, Inc., for Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. Erickson, W., D. Young, G. Johnson, J. Jeffrey, K. Bay, R. Good, and H. Sawyer. 2003. Wildlife Baseline Study for the Wild Horse Wind Project, Summary of Results from 2002-2003 Wildlife Surveys. Prepared for Zilkha Renewable Energy, Portland, OR. 75 p. Erickson, W., G. Johnson, D. Young, D. Strickland, R. Good, M. Bourassa, K. Bay, K. Sernka. 2002. Synthesis and comparison of baseline avian and bat use, raptor nesting and mortality information from proposed and existing wind. developments. Technical report prepared by WEST, Inc., for Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. Johnson, G. D., W. P Erickson, M. D. Strickland, M. F. Shepherd, and D. A. Shepherd. 2000a. Avian monitoring studies at the Buffalo Ridge Wind Resource Area, Minnesota: Results of a 4-year study. Technical report prepared for Northern States Power Co., Minneapolis, Minnesota. S Johnson, G. D., D. P. Young Jr., W. P. Erickson, CC. E. Derby, M. D. Strickland, and R. E. Good. 2000b. Wildlife monitoring studies, SeaWest Windpower Project, Carbon County, Wyoming. 1995-1999. Technical Report prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., for SeaWest Energy Corporation and Bureau of Land Management. Johnson, G. D., W. P Erickson, and J. D. Jeffrey. 2006. Analysis of potential wildlife impacts from the Windy Point wind energy project, Klickitat County, Washington. Technical Report prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., for Ecology and Environment, Portland, Oregon. Kerlinger, P., L. Culp, and R. Curry. 2005. Post -construction avian monitoring study for the High Winds Wind Power Project, Solano County, California. Prepared by Curry & Kerlinger LLC for High Winds, LLC, FPL Energy. 70 p. Leddy, K. L., K. F. Higgins, and D. E. Naugle. 1999. Effects of wind turbines on upland nesting birds in CRP grasslands. Wilson Bulletin 111:100-104, P:\3244. KEA1Avian SurveylAvian Survey Report 20071Final reportTinal Pillar Mt. Avian Report 101507.doo TTEC-PTLD-2007- 035 9 2006-2007 Avian Use Survey Pillar Mt Wind Resource Area f Orloff, S., and A. Flannery. 1992. Wind turbine effects on avian activity, habitat use, and mortality in Altamont Pass and Solano County Wind Resource Areas, 1989- 1991. Final report prepared by Biosystems Analysis, Inc. for Alameda, Contra Costa, and Solano Counties and the California Energy Commission. Strickland, M.D. and D. Johnson. 2006. Overview of what we know about avian/wind interaction. National Wind Coordinating Collaborative, Wildlife Work Group Research Results Meeting VI, San Antonio, Texas, November 14-16, 2006. http: //www.nationalwind. org/events/wildlife/2006-3/presentations/default.htm URS Corporation, WEST, Inc., and Northwest Wildlife Consultants. 2001. Final Report — Ecological Baseline Study for the Condon Wind Project. Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration and SeaWest Windpower, Inc. URS Corporation and WEST, Inc. 2001. Avian Baseline Study for the Stateline Project, Vansycle Ridge, Oregon and Washington. Prepared for ESI Vansycle Partners, L.P. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Twin Falls District, Burley Field Office (USDI). 2005. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Cotterel Wind Power Project and Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment, Burley, Cassia County, Idaho. Western EcoSystems Technology Inc. (WEST). 2004. Population level survey of golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in the western United States. Prepared for U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virginia. Westerm EcoSystems Technology Inc. (WEST). 2005. Wildlife and habitat baseline study for the proposed Biglow Canyon wind `power project, Sherman County, Oregon. Prepared for Orion Energy LLC. 66 p. Westerm EcoSystems Technology'Inc. (WEST) and Northwest Wildlife Consultants, Inc (NWC). 2004. Stateline wind project wildlife monitoring final report: July 2001- December 2003. Prepared for FPL Energy, Stateline Technical Advisory Committee, and Oregon Department of Energy. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST). 2005. Wildlife and Habitat Baseline Study for the proposed Biglow Canyon wind power project, Sherman County, Oregon. Prepared for Orion Energy LLC. 66 p. Young, D., W. Erickson, K. Bay, R. Good, and K Kronner. 2002. Baseline avian studies for the proposed Maiden Wind Farm, Yakima and Benton Counties, Washington. Final Report prepared for Bonneville Power Administration. PA3244. KEAIAvian SurveylAvian Survey Report 20071Final reportTinal Pillar Mt. Avian Report 101507.doc TTEC-PTLD-2007- 035 10 2006-2007 Avian Use Survey Pillar Mt Wind Resource Area FABLES Table 1. Pillar Mountain point count survey dates 06/26/2006-06/26/2007 Spring 4 6/26/2006 7/1/2006 7/4/2006 7/7/2006 7/ 12/2006 7/12/2006 7/26/2006 7/28/2006 8/4/2006 8/4/2006 8/6/2006 8/9/2006 8/11/2006 8/14/2006 8/15/2006 8/16/2006 8/ 1712006 8/22/2006 8/23/2006 8/25/2006 8/31/2006 8/31 /2006 6/3/2007 6/7/2007 6/8/2007 6/ 11/2007 6/ 15/2007 6/21/2007 6/26/2007 9/l/2006 12/1/2006 3/3/2007 9/6/2006 12/2/2006 3/6/2007 9/6/2006 12/11/2006 3/8/2007 9/12/2006 12/12/2006 3/17/2007 9/12/2006 12/13/2006 3/17/2007 9/17/2006 12/15/2006 3/18/2007 9/19/2006 12/18/2006 3/19/2007 9/19/2006 12/21/2006 3/29/2007 9/20/2006 12/26/2006 3/30/2007 9/20/2006 12/26/2006 4/9/2007 9/24/2006 1/2/2007 4/11/2007 9/27/2006 1/2/2007 4/11/2007 9/29/2006 1/8/2007 4/13/2007 10/4/2006 1/8/2007 4/13/2007 10/5/2006 1/15/2007 4/14/2007 10/6/2006 1/19/2007 4/16/2007 10/10/2006 1/24/2007 4/16/2007 10/11/2006 1/24/2007 4/16/2007 10/13/2006 2/12/2007 4/26/2007 10/17/2006 2/12/2007 4/29/2007 10/20/2006 2/15/2007 5/2/2007 10/20/2006 2/15/2007 5/4/2007 10/20/2006 2/15/2007 5/5/2007 10/23/2006 2/16/2007 5/5/2007 10/25/2006 2/18/2007 5/7/2007 10/26/2006 2/21/2007 5/15/2007 ll/l/2006 2/22/2007 5/18/2007 11/3/2006 2/24/2007 5/18/2007 11/8/2006 5/18/2007 11/11/2006 5/19/2007 11 /18/2006 5/20/2007 11/18/2006 5/20/2007 11/23/2006 5/21/2007 11 /23/2006 5/27/2007 11/28/2006 5/28/2007 N N.. OC+op—, -. v-i N 'R—-. M cT @: T M`"•' Crpy Q 0 Q Q „may 0 0 O «w O O O N 0 0 0 Q Q O 0 0 G O O G O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 O n dm' -. ; ,ll _4 W --i N --o --� --� •--� --� M m --� CT M N N � O 0 0 0 G O Q O O O O O 0 0 0� 0 0 0 N N ,OD N R+ N m vQ'i aw .-, .. V'i m .. tV — — — — — - N w �D tD ti M m 0 09 r V R M oa CDr r rn cvio ' Y1 "D w r 1 O M I -I h \D r r o- zi 4 .-, 00 ?1 m r O N O 0 0 0 O 0 d O O r Z 06 01 oa r ...i .M-� N r, 0 0 R 0 O� O O r 0 0 -- N m CZ r N -m -mtp -: yj r rn m .-r r M O m r m r� O � N O O O r , rC� Oh 0, r 0 0 0 r Q r r O O r 0 0 0 r 0 N r r r I I d y p^p .�Ly� Vp�l V�l rp 41 A O CIO, F N lot ,� �1J p cDi W bD01 � ¢. m a 0 9 7F L7 bD[} El R m o'On Z% Y c� d 7� � ram+ p tQi � b S' ad 0 0 0 o d d o 0 0 0 0 o c o o o cm d a o o I o o o 0 0 N n c2 N P` 'Q rn rn N N M M O, n N 7 O Q O V �'R . q m� O O p 0� O O O a 0 D G p 0 O O O O N O C C O 000 GC C Oo O p,--� OOOOOC Goy QQ OCO O vi n M 10 m N Y_ �i O Q C C C n n N tV N , N N i , [ h n N ellvi jjj <R C C OOC 4 COOC CC oC Cwi V-s I\ i 00 3 �- N N N M d. - �f oop C o.-+-�0 o0er o0 t C CC o p0 N lrs N Im D �D m -D C, O r O N , I p C , O r , 4's vn1 h G � O ocC O N N C C Cab �D I � 3 3 � 34 o15, --- d o A % > � r 7 § \ � k r � I 2 = k � « 7 � k 2 ¥ k .q \ �. ) al , m � § \ � f � 2 ® j tIL § / � 7 2� ( c � � ® � k � 2 ] + k§ �} a= \� %k �R � Tm m22 § § f f /'nlu /// kf � � \ \ < : \ J : � < , ƒ J � 2 � \ / m R g o g g R o g o 2x �� � f , /® ƒ, R - k{ � 2a �« 9 o R c q / \ \ / £f3 - 7 2 2 aJt 22f 2� $ E $ Cl @ Q G q f ? 2 2 e w o o a e a c a s 2 �•A = ew2, : � \� m k 7 @ \ ? f \ $ 3 $ $ o J �$\� G ®•c � � \EL .© \%/ § 5 7 2 2 _ 2 \ § . - 2 / H 2 * 91 8/§§§ \ \ . ƒ �$ � ]_ �o o§ g o o c g q c o R 2 q c c _ § � d2 R @ @ @ \ 7 / \ k @ @ S / - k/ a' ILP 2\ � +� [# t/ § g�n o R o c r g o r, M R ci r o w / e o d 4 6 e 6 e e c e k d q= E g o_ c o 2 t o n -o � - Nƒ� 2 a I§ \ g 2 Q g§$ g q o 3 @ k g@ o o__ c d d �•c d a \�\I � t § 5�2 ° �Ba o§ q a n o 0 (a) CD c o o c a)o c o \ § �� � m CD / $ 2 $ $ $ / ka� ul Q$§ •� u .� & / .§ / / 7 / 2 ; \ � \ 7 § § k \ 4 § � ©E .$ m x , §4 \ 2 i a a � r 2 q o q 0 r- 3 3 : ( A \ � 2 3/d k O a k \ ƒ bf, cu g. � qn\E {\/ I 75 �Ak k 2 i § k \ ® ¥ Ln E 2 k 5 \. | \ � 2 < � � f : ƒ / m 2 .7 \ m o c c o 0 g c g 9 c R R t � • 2 7 � / � ] � x 3q « / f \ 0 / \ 0 \ / 0 / \ 3 3 A ƒ/ m@ R c\§ o R CD CD o 0= c d� d d m« Q CDo c 2 0 0 o c o 3 0 - - - - - - \2\: q Q 0 $ % $ 2 @ q $ $ @ f 6 % W�'a� 224. \2) � §�k / ° 7 $ 2 f $ $ @ \ 7 E @ @ \ $ �44 d�k k1! 0' \)2 $ i g t t § u 2 2 "Z� •§ � EN B\ 2§ d d§ 28$ j/ f \ g h g§ R R R g R 9 g i c m o o c o 0 0 o c o ƒ i « c� \ \ \ � 7 g o g m g o c g R o c \ / � c d \ C= m \ \ / / t 7\ G q@ q§$\ q I t 2 E k g E\ E\?$? 7 4 , \ 8 � _ a 2 2 2 } \ S m ƒ 8 -0 § \ § 2 'E 1 a 3 2 \ /. \. � 5CdR A g R 9 g c g q R c R§ R R � \! ƒ �I g q q§ R R q g o 0 0 2. R/ d c c c o 0 o c o d d d 2 ¢ en - - � 2 � / � � � \ /§■ r d e o d c o= d c o c o o d 2© 3« 3 3 3 a a 3 3 3 3 § % 2 \ 5 2 / k oC-4 g_ c § e 4 U k k$$ g k% - ps >{§ C. k�� ~ $ t/. c c o o c a d d o k / � Cd mB4 0 § \\\ k\ u k? 2 2 2+\\ 7 7 /t 4 \ / / 2 / ® I / u \ / �E r� o 0 0 0 0© o o a Q o 0 0 ® f � I kn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M n OQ 0 O O O C O O O C O o I Vt o 0 0 0 o O Q O o 0 0 0 a to O 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 4 2.0 M 0 Q o v1 O o 0 0 o a, a o c Q o o o© o o CS Q o a co a o 0 a I M O O G C O O C p O 0 G s � I I ti O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 C7 C O au C r g o 2 0 o c@ o &% o/ d a o d r o o co R q§« e// a c e d o % § j o � \ § i n - - z a 7 f ® \ � a a = c a s g a 9 u f o �n �eq eq � 7 � §I k� k p \ R 0 Q r.. z 6 - M Q Q Q O 0 0 0 0 0 0 � flQ ri � I rl �� � o o �•, O O O O O O O n N 't D O M O o �O O C O O r M M N N — rr 'J ob }-. M fP! r. 61 P1 M kn llq 00 n w�l SO rf i+ B d � cn r� O O O O O O O r O Q O O N r O O O Q M O O O O �17 N O O O O O O N +/s O O d O O :+ O O O O C1 Q O O O O O O O O O Q V'1 W C j ci P a� O v O G 01,1 en -A i ON b b O q q q O O O O O O i =Y+ O0 O N O b b Q Q O O O O O 3 N O N N 6 6 6 O 6 6 O O 3 r" o O O O O N O O 6 O 6 6 6 O C + R,a t O � }i ,Q M tiD 01 tiD N N 4 � i 01 00 N N N , , , � a ,sue 00 N 41 2006-2007 Avian Use Survey Pillar Mt Wind Resource Area Table 8. Results of dawn -dusk avian surreys at the Pillar Mountain Wind Resource Area during August - October 2006 and April - June 2007. at — ; i'i`ri�{� flh rvaFiatiz v€ iiyeAtlflg Birds 08/04/06 23:10-' :30 08/06/06 23:05-23:25 08/ 17/06 05:22-05:42 08/23/06 05:39-05:59 08/31 /06 21:49-22:09 09/09/06 06:30-06:50 09/17/06 21:05-21:25 09/20/06 06:44-07:04 09/29/06 . 06:55-07:15 10/06/06 07:21-07:41 10/13/06 19:42-20.02 Short -eared owl at 30 m 10/20/06 19:32-19:52 10/23/06 08:00-08:20 04/13/07 19:57-20:17 04/16/07 22:00-22:20 04/26/07 21:45-22:05 Flock of 32 geese fl in at 20Q m 05/02/07 22:06-22:26 05/04/07 05:50-06:10 05/07/07 22:00-22:20 05/18/07 22:33-22:53 05/21 /07 22:40-23:00 06/04/07 01:31-01:51 d ti �s Q+ � i- M N co N b N o N 0 tn M Q U I ycz O^ C= N O N 7, jO N N N a U N N N N p N .N. o O N I �" � —,4 is •� �• o r w b id ca +� cd ,4 ,�., V) vi G ra Cy U a� N r dA `� O O O cd G 2 rO� vO� rO� U rOy� O N N U �� O ftS U U `�Nwwwwwr 3 3� @ E p - o O o® o® o p 0 Co 0 0 0 o p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 o0 00 00 00 00 00 �0 00 oa o0 o 0 0® o 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 •� N N rf' N � N N N N N N M 3 i r4 d v, 1,101 Z 00 1fi M a1 M M I� [� -•+ 00 to 7 N Nt l O M kn M W) M 10 P a, t 00 L N I %cl M d; p [- M [� — kn V'1 �O ti0 O N i O M O N C vt O O O p O O O CD O O O C O O O � 4 � W O.a�..t0 ID Nt V's U't � °� �° M 00 N 0o 00 M --i M O N •-� d, N tip p O p N M 6� ID e1' dl N -t ( h O D ;q 0�0 !^R N Wn H1 Ci ,I: Kf rq li M '+ 0 M �--� CD.--� p O O O O O O C O CDO 0 0 ,� o M o\ --{ e� "o 0 a, al 0 a, O 00 00 n w n o fl 0 w o py o w 0 � ID u, 04 x I y ® Q ^ W Ki ¢c�a�3ww v�l�pa3 uaa�a�" 2006-2007 Avian Use Survey Pillar Mt Wind ,Resource Area FIGURES K d f Kodiak Station Y Women Say w� •;� .� lL ;t. I Chiniak Bay Figure 1. Pillar Mountain Vicinity Map Aik � ® Met Tower - Pillar Mountain WRA Major Road 2108107 -Local Road 0 1 2 - Rivers and Streams Miles Project) Populated Areas Source: ESRI, Delorme Area Z U JJ T— - ® W O IL y i a .bL - ` x (y w fn � N N Q"' wLLI r �ar7 f M }�1 1y ay O a _W 2 mnoo w Z w Lu J N U ^s s Z Z CO \ SL$ d �, LL ix F 1 i x � E ®� wUU � w Oc LU Z in .. . jn .. C Ie 3 •' Y 5 (6 ~® L'w. -. � . � '"� # - �,,,+R 1� � �`� � ter•• 4 ` C e a 04 O 2006-2007 Avian Use Survey Pillar Mt Wind Resource Area Figure 3. Photos of Pillar Mountain View of Pillar Mountain from the Kodiak harbor area 17 2006-2007Avian Use Survey Pillar Mt Wind Resource Area Figure 3 continued Top of Pillar Mountain where tur*cs are proposed In 2006-2007 Aviary Use Survey Pillar Mt Wind Resource Area Figure 3 continued Top of Pillar Mountain where turbines are proposed, in winter 19 Exhibit E 1.5 M Wind Turbine Energy 1.5mw Wind Turbine o product of arrmainatin- imagination at work w The industry workhorse ti i'i-.° gy d:"i-,bi'td ug ..,.Ag of .i yM i f.lt �':� �.}I-..�.i�,1C'= l,.-t. .}r��l•�. ,r ��:••��'�I'1Ci.li,�� t.h' 1"..-�f� reeds �-'.} �..�)�'.. S+.J�'p of Mum II.!`l'l_Il.- �[. ,F.+AF .'y�li*.i� i-j �'15.`Cl:y' 'r7C (01,`?tmuL tc cut"-s; Iyle `k'Ir d 'F! 1 ,I..'^ s.=t'r1olrtr y J r! .�� r or of � or 1, r e a ix; !' sf g p �"'{ nNo F 1 �x� .r�, ,a- � � ��_ . ! � power f �. G � a �. !1 I h�.y . �;.,- ��� � ., Cl f`bine-- ati -, ! Lis Vie rr1dusPy :i Pme , Pi<'f'i,•p' cn."--a 0 .Od. cr�O og c, + Tr ter f product stCaiegy i,3 I`,l'"tt se`d an r, sults rhos contnbuho to Oust' aistvt'; ei,s, s".--cess, Every inti dve. we p1..Umabaors Dv <_1ncornpr(:,fii' icing commitment [.J C.tualIF� t rd inf ov;L tion, {, nd our f?p=bon tv exce%ience cal 'Iw e -seen In, .v� �,0, Global footprint oti-� r� '-'r 1"! &1 -4. i jy pkor -� .A: �-a1ti-3ns cib oguol gm ;Vnwnr�%d S'Ni.W b4gay ono odwr njumnAw Wds wi p.,)r,, �!f GF. md DA I Gas rv, zleone, o'!v- - �0 GE Fay "w ahm nnd cNembo WVN*i�� in SPNO W! Ond tPe Unied 6610ties Ore% t-'-' !;"C. )001200D and our VAScn povudo'; �xx vKh ;jUOH; munance L cj.cked. ,)V Itc-.-.cwcmqih, 0!ZI, 4Nt� -,lPO.d pcvv�- vrMl be an ioteq; Of pxi 00ie v,;,o,, ij &eigy fr.ix fnre .J$j Cerit:jry Clod uj',,� pro CoMntqed r,4eigi1 cjn: for cu,StQnl,.r 5UPPOrt Ceft?vr 3-': "UnIJc:-ft.jc) Asse.m.1.11y W vw e C emqt DV Wind . A Pc-4 OpeMbOnSGemcr r4cmohis. Tennt:wL T" Voihai %—#mke.r "m;owe, in, MonvOm"wil�j Reseorch Center Si cw.� ; uI Proven technology fi. n,i.i gfi f)P-f :i ur Lam;{ fl.YV� r?icv!1.i ii'r `y] '!� 17+.�. 3x'�I f 1 fi P ins ::•�� h f3":, i�`�� r%t�Ull'i^� �'zi: �'}fiC1�';!�+� frL Viif'4.�:}`°!'1.i�.:P F,� �Y1 �k�+; ��[j€-f''S off}.Fr �4r:j f1v.�ICJ�}i r,��; '•:;�'r .. �:t li� 11�, .�: I�i� �.i �l'�iP�� z!1+!#wti'-`l.''d F�} �n ;:Ir� IY;:}st WAS ly taped v.Okl !urbirles i-L 1.Y1 wor'J C�Bro�+n7 f'rJT:1 . Rated Capacity: 1,500 M 1,500 kW TemperatureRange:- Operation:-30'C-+40'C -30'C-+40'C {wim CofdWm[hn Elt-11"I"911 Survival: -40'C-+50°C -40'C-+50'C Cut -in Wind Speed: �- _ 3.5 mis 3.5 m/s Cut-out Wind Speed 110 min dvg,l: 25 m/s 20 mis Rated Wind Speed: 14 mis 115 mIs WindClass -IEC IlaNe50-55m1s IIIbIVe50-52.5m/s Vare-8,5 mm V�-8.0 m/el ir.leLcunml lei6 flc a -----. requenc 50160 Hz 5-0160 Hz Voltage 690V 590V - fit] ( Rotor Diameter: W 77 m 82.5 m Swept Area: 4657 m2 5346 m2 rO4l2t Hub Heights: 65180 m 80 m Pow pe Con V.D Active Blade Active Blade Pitch Control P1tch Control t,,VJ 4 ,1 V.Z I I I l�l I i i i -77 GE 1.5xie � GE 1.5sle I_5x10 .R. Alft;l On the iilCt2x5 0{ mf Sslp, plozfo.rr, r�t;�ry' rr;vip l:n rf.�,..:, •: y � C� r9�tP. n c r . DrMng perr'bf !l ance P',-i Ils'.71�"iFyi l lr}'r` !'I"T r`I!jOven Pei- T—'_y'7 I , .il1 L� Y',Nl _.l J LY, {sic M8,rl l" l lis-1 r i "Ne 1 iV '!fi'tafi:.fiiiY;;siC1.5°tnifaf 2"!Lf 717r r y r 3 r�x {.`?.�'r�F:ir perfoIY'M1ti; i1:F-;71 loll -'or! Lei improves rf ;7 e1f'h +qf. 1.5sle modef year availability i I 2005 2007 i Performance and reliability Uf, in ,�e :r I j' r,, viS -,q n S.�, i = �ijr mQ r. ijk:uU, e s.nnd fj r bi r es (hp pee tcrm nci"—.Pj -.h-_ , E in r S I �nf ;-j cu.,, to r,%..er %f a! tie nri-� in. Our� Ong Oing 6?'vei,aper ent."S i r-i �+ ;pC, thO Ar,,xf ou�in- L-:-:,� i ri 2 002. G.'ior3;iwevted i�ver.5750 rrlllior: dndrivingiAcio:,L�-ond effizo�rltt L I jr .,I 'A.*! c'. 4 klod, A'! Designed for . 6 +:�'� �'� i� �.�f7"f"YY�+ �hj�•'} r�Qi� �r�!f :' `i�+�f�?� Rtv��3.'.?i�C71 i s rCh1 h � Pn 'h C rrer +Ore 48 hno? , y nor i'lwre �r,,Yr; �ti+7 ��*or�, Qr`:Cf i5 {�;.ua�+� �r� ��v�l����� �r����fih�:•�:��k� • I Wrbire shipped. every 3 hours • As of June 2008. more than 8,500 ,tiroines prein opero#ion wof Id�vide e 19 countri.es 115+ million Operating fours 70,000f aWb POduced E infrastructure Energy * Controls, materiois, power electronics • Fulfillment & logistics capobility ■ Efficient supply chain managernent Aviation Aerodynamic and oero-acoustic modeling expertise Gearbox a.nd -drive tra.in t chnologies E Global Research • Energy conversion • Matetiol sciences ■ Smart grids Optimized wind power plant performance raIvloml'mw-,C:.K; K a I NOW NO: in Ight 0' )Jd in in Atka iv Me hdvvylerfd,�r ir� e-1- I/ .U)P2 1:r')i10je"8 OF !Pt7.140CIT100(:,�?- Or od FEATURE MCRIPTON Wjjn,dj 30 f-THRVQ YjQORHUQQ TUAMa Qpnrat.Qn- t Waugh K6 System A. 1 104knie Otis Xvigh BENEFITS ,Suppor il! -1 1'� !'74 ch� C 1 "'� (W d er; f t � �:�: - CAME PowerRogwouan Q hop SNAPS power til SW vaqwxy systorm ReAm 807 mj Remtvp power`s it!llh System Oil The h-)r f1r."d, i6r1J�i)(vQy.-!!0('!1:S !'4-L� I ' r,.r,� � Iair �- : .1 rvj �06v.r tcr r q oor -�l ;'Y �,i ". of Duel gennson g r no a MPS 1) P154TV god 4%A L jj['-r ' Jjj.-,ril!{fj..,7!-Jfj System 8 Project execution ate AWAn ond oo We deoxy me chAd soon vuvosE at D and yrqea,p imam MY me oteeMeFh% for �.DS�O.ot--mion on d W, gin Q rQu I wor Regord!evy of late's "wd twbwe co"Tanonlaw dewspe? GE's oto r�!tpoflsib&;y fb; hs wim SWP UNIN the GE Cregy War Ai er A= our eykeering and sulp" ch= laams o,-o:,,t#cidy lo f LO CLrly _ceCtfi--01 i4jje00r.S Zh.Ot My 065e. As. or,,ft, .0 the woi id:s larges; pov.,y, plcrWmaw pm6day GE as -jri9tiely postion�d !G prov;rle CU15tonllf pplut monogorhent sC! ut;i�os, UVkh offi�,es !I �,orp.h .5.rref 'c4j, Europe, and AM6, ourWd claFs Pols..,er picW, SystEF.-L.S. dfivFsicjn d&!:ad es of f;, if own e, ?. ?e, -up 4nd Combined C y,, 4. ri? Id A�ff.; pl i r-lS, H, erq-, ore �_orne exa rnpies c-t i5 E vvork-d vyj t: i e:;j sitorrier� to -so: v,° project Ch alie nqes'ond f hio Lig h. ph-vrne. Cl we.t'y a r)d a dcmq-ed. I �igj G:c 60 (;je� . ChaHenge: 3 it3 TM Jote ,.id evo0abiNty d Q. a GE's solutiom. on, -;;lte 6.rd pn�-r.orni A-Ah."Uk 4rk ked. p0ve-( 00tonner beneNt; wlce grid b Challenge. G SO&& IA (;l.;J.ed Ck7om vqj r,!l Cu4tar6er benefit- i'4)re Fi(!O fit--NP)dlty 7 17 World -clasp customer service 11 ana of ow fawt qyn% ond bew F'o W15 in it) wme� Ate 0 a SAMN no 0 *sup spond py*vmn%-.. 24X7 Cdstomer Support C-Es 'o tho LA. 1 1; -P I -f.' 0i.4c, ljr Is 'd of vvi")d mbli"es ox-ound I-J, ?4 ho�.,ir3 a day, 165 dop ;: yeoT The cwbonme." 5jat"uwt ":00er'-' "i"0u+ck;.� oorfo.-M wnRXIwer 250 Mae Yjant 1 Coe Of tiv rrxx,'�. 0 WN resets slystrood aveN experts. Technical Skills and In-dep'Ji Product Knowledge W Wod Womam suppom Carter, Nve jed'ved looms V) Ispatch W Unubipshoohn, repok nnd siNnArnice, askonk V huff a do, 365 Sys c ;wt Mv modO enwas We Cwyxcrge;)F turt-Likle YlrrF wt1.-;A tr �-,:qTrprorrq��,013 ler-hnicnl x . PMdal w1o."'Ied;V'or re�,olution of many iS130H. CKE U-S!flg 'i "hwh When wyna.hred do wMaquM loan ge fnschaqin POW dowsponarl. Venodons and Maintenonce Support r DNFn Uvio hkj'il AllteOwod Use m1he daymIng 1AMaNeMmy �.300 LS iv!Wwnjtu-.-'bir=5,;5 of wvToej I.0-jla(ed I I a riee�-'S Of yo-x w7nd o,5-s' sow oN-r!nq,,i ongs kom lecWhaS adWyny tinnesm tonal sarvegs and 'cj fitIl otjoyite Parts Offerings CIE � host I I i I G?.'A. Or, E�xrensoPt%ir t.i R�?ihjrbI?.�i et. tz'xper OF4,s, Fnergy bit 5i;-Lesc; 'to E-34n.[Jrsl 1 '7. 11 cA' U1. for 4."Ind po03 opemt3rz 04 Mrd puts ralourls,xv Orgond Lprcrwide 0 .j41 - z •"g'� c" g .' f.:', r o rl.C107Ven.OKV kit'$0��j "Eovu r"Llr"S' 71 r '�emk' Widl cl.-? qe0to"te!j voe for r FAMh=Qr-- I 101 ji� 1,.rj� - . 'i . " U1. mj c�.; 111.; L� "J e d pv Dre.; thQ P.. rLIGg C;e�� or":q�S 0' ti. GE. �h,Ind PCf rs LI.-Ij r:nfi jj-a-icl �.'T the yOqii�rl PJ2. PQ311 "%106'10-5sutr�. capiqln! Ocirts Cori ver.,sb ns, Plodifications arid Upreabes (CM01) eol�orM'rof ^5. ;0�e '. [-LJju- '[h� 0 gs Ll.Ao? -,j f �smenrce"o fire d � T, I g 'o [Mplrov, rellObilitV OfId OVOIiObt_IrTV. or -id 0--,re-lae orld mprov*, grid intogrolan Long -Term Asset Management Supporit GF-is fur pcjr!,I�r Q� '30,ve W b[LIdd with wQrijger,; litr1q.ing our Stfer)gsf),S, -.vL- c,�n -Co-,icie pnrtolu if:? , fLelj. v-onIrAon Ond 'uistornel-. ��nd� vd? rcrq?.-Fp&cI-?Ld s�rvicwrnp!met Environmental Health and Safety, a GE commitment h En',.A M r! Mf�7�1 TV HeO 1 (1) 0 n EHSJ stan.00`1�_ more thori Sim-piv rj qocd busiresA piuctrce- it is p lurdbmen! ol rVSpOf�sIb!11 Ly L:.-, it erryil ioyPbtf cQSt'nMen, C.4)mrdcrOS, (irld Che. (R is core miagn v., &,;afie 4vork eiwironment. we, in.;x)rporuw N;`„t v,,,ilies 4qtr, OVV'r! jW)dLK.T., and pror,PK dhvirq hi'qhl�:5k.,,,�ohdard;, Powering the world...responsibly. FOF- More Ir(Of-frOljOr). plegSe V!5i k .g - n rgy, %wind ` Mark, WindCONTROLO, WindFREE®, WindRIDE-THRUO and WindSCADAO are registered trcdemnrks of General Electric Company. 02008, General Electric Company. All rights reserved. ® Printed an recycled paper_ GEA-14954A I061081 Exhibit E Pillar Mountain Wind Project Summer 2008 � '� `� - - • r' _ '-r'- � 5 . fir. f i Yyr iy. M .,yy - } - 1 ,_�4x�+--:Tay'•'"'., �' .. - � _ r'+ - •+may-R�`�.' ��y�r„ �� - - � �. ,�. _�'`: Y � may" �� =i �;-�y•".'""��`; ..:-•�:�°*`t�: _ - � - � �-, . � } � x-j{JjI ' � - �=5�_ „w,. i�w f. � ��_4 �Ji_ � � - _ - hrf _ :�`. #'���, �{"h.' .• ; .,� - ;. -�'�"..:�# �' tic .S'� _ Exhibit F Board Authorization Resolution #,D KODIAK ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. RESOLUTION 636-08 AUTHORIZATION FOR PRESIDENTICEO TO REPRESENT KEA AND APPLY FOR A RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND GRANT THROUGH THE ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY WHEREAS, Kodiak Electric Association, Inc. (KEA) was organized and exists under the laws of the State of Alaska and is a certificated electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS 42.05; WHEREAS, KEA is an established non-profit Rural Utilities Service member -owned rural electric cooperative serving members located on Kodiak Island; the City of Kodiak, United States Coast Guard Integrated Support Command Kodiak, Bells Flats/Russian Creek area, ChiniaklPasagshak, and Port Lions; WHEREAS, KEA is in compliance with all federal, state and local laws including existing credit and federal tax obligations, and will continue to comply with all federal and state laws, including existing credit and federal tax obligations: WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the Cooperative membership to seek to secure grant funds by applying for funding through the "Renewable Energy Fund" for the construction of the Pillar Mountain Wind Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the KEA Board of Directors do publicly, by resolution, endorse the Pillar Mountain Wind Project at an estimated cost of $23,319,539 and authorize President/CEO Darron Scott to submit an application for a $9,650,000 Renewable Energy Fund Grant through the Alaska Energy Authority, and further appoint Dacron Scott as Project Manager to represent Kodiak Electric Association, Inc. in the construction and application process. CERTIFICATION I, Stosh Anderson, do hereby certify that I am elected Secretary of Kodiak Electric Association, Inc., an electrical non-profit cooperative membership corporation organized and existing under laws of the State of Alaska; that the foregoing is a complete and correct copy adopted at a meeting of the Board of Directors of this corporation, duly and properly called and held on the 250 day of September, 2008; that a quorum was present at the meeting; that the resolution is set forth in the minutes of the meeting and has not been rescinded or modified. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the seal of this co oration this 25'n day of September, 2008. Secretary Exhibit Wnd Turbine Lease Site Surrey alas r / f V SEC. 55 5 EC . 3c ot, lll"� 't B. L. M. TRACT 37 0� fL - ✓ l r_� .. DW1V6'/1. State P&fen/ 110. §p-L7-Oo77 WIND MIROBVE ,0.6 �J LBEASL a 1711 �,� dN . � T. 2.7 .6. &'jo �g �''1i�GE` friVE 7ppr0U ,4 T 28.5, gr &42.5¢ -T °P rGw • ovips U. S. 5z UCY 5 — �' OWIVER.' 5tefL- o{ A/a5ks ` 65 ,44 - A97 l'4k. 7.4. As. In" 0 U. S. 5uRV=-Y 1673 5Q Pe L 5T' APPLE NT KoOJAK EZ-EC7171C Assoc/ATIO", INC. 515 C. Marine Wa y , Ifocliak , Alo-5ka, .59615 V` INP TUROdNG: L.EA5E SITE: wirwml t.or 43, a.s szlR'vaY 25o ,OWP f3• L.JH MACr.F7 40CAr,9-CI W/rH/iV RR,;7-R lCrFV -SEC. 3G, Tr Z7S, R. ZO ,w � .5'EC. /, T. ze5., R. ZC W. 5r Al SCA Le . /"° �000 ' DAME' Exhibit H Resumes for Project Management Page 3 of 3 101 Page 4 of 4 O STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS WIND ENERGY SERVICES mwo TETRA TECH Tr3tre'i ieLYl '€:'., t5£s iiisk i:rUi' x;9J enjneering, and corsstruction firms !u the s°uai;i-ry. vvi�hr.n <� a A Few }Fears, Tetra !'-:cti .11.as ,AmrliFd' `.in rl1£)ie ti l in 200 w nd ;li4:1F'h Lu in 34 staZess tL== aIin? 1[5,000 O;r-.!: O_ tha?". ..00 '+; o geriera ion is in uperaiion o ` *chocoied ',o y3!. i �,o. ;� ci opi-- : f su�,poa t L�, e`f the o':, � �r.n�.. �. ; prcje�- �-e,rc.,�,�� � �.."i owr,^Is irr the I.J3. Tetra Teal is the nu Aber one pmvider ct 4ron er c? vry oe .., tie US, w'nd Indt,,tn!, it -, also lfiav : (-�Pr£-!i'17;E°..',^ s;f�.i?i x" _ t. i ,i��'• r.:.^.?d{;r'. We are cunCindy wovicing or t`Pvc prov:dec; ;".�:isl:s Y€.4 `+`.f'`:°, ;i53•Y•:>r:::;'s `:.. clients, or '18 prgjects, toialira rr)c"re tiori 1.500 MVV, i.ii` £tl�l8i'Se f'3rvlec:t.�`.:''.::rlrylj:;z''. G't¥"tafG' �'`�i$o�•:�''1'e'! i.`�yit>€`". 1.i1'fu ;t•i: unkl ue ilisues assecialer.1" :vial w-in3d i7roi= --Jt ..:)?lr jl—pJi ci; givas us via ab!i+td t. `'e Spw --d to each un':r-jje tine challenge, Tetra Tech, provkies a full si eoLrurn of mild entry aevviI =ti — frcrr iniba,l siting truough ;csource, studiespc i ir'g :;rim¢ ry< ri i�o procurement. m--struct.7n: operations, r;i "JeC1 ol" t.urbir;es, The Ygt?a °tfCl". farnil,',y of c:cinpacies k arid)1 g .h:' targoa-' Sri--: lutist geogsap`n: wily dverse w nU energy ze!,: r;z prexv egg — svEt -r: broadest tsi: iiL'c i a!ld projec expeYi@rl£;e, tinanui8i S'L l" ility, and a depth of re. oumes rs.A fou- id in any olher nrrn. PERFOFtNTANOEHIGHU H"ITS' " Lxb#$nCefront rnoie tkran 60wimI pmj&,5 in 3rfiti;r5, k(ll#ffHSgmore'ti}t�r1 15,00'iYJof v+'111rJ ger,er�uco;1--000 MW fS irs opera Lion or sv;7edtl9ed of asrl+Ck10i1 Flovi{luiq- cunoorl to :S0 of ul� tole 25 wrnd pOv:cr 6bled,,[ tlleyedoper-� anii Qwr)o(s In Uu: U ,. rein Tebl) sofa wwo coo Gif icAed.orart%aa1ll'e2f)tly walking on consri acliDn pro''MCtB for 18 clieiv' s- taWlIng over.l,:)U#) Mw prok+.ldor or from t_ncl fic; vIC,',S to the US. wind ' IIl(tuStr we hi'sC r�t4'�cseii Sllrn k�t1YICOI1rrrLni?Il, :Ipd+dsrrgliieeringservlcea on n,orc I1. r) 160 projects F fJc�pt{i Orid breadEb of fesouaces wilt) more thou i 8;5�O.emgloyees Ir.';t-1 nfhces +vartd�'flUe t Flrrsndf l stral: ttf to Stalnd tretund I.irne enkuiccr, i # roCuie, arrd mnvwi (i PPC), njahem or vil jIst;6C1R}, i m I A othdi const;uctioY, pfokect3, WRIT ^n't:55 NO in i i"ii$s 4 f +,.. — -- ---._. - -. , -_. ...-•_-,...__, .,..—_---- -,..a. fro v, le,p#ss6:n# rr, �x*a�trs�r3 rr�uti�a�` g O 1= tiligclie a. F'4ei hi'!�r ;'.irtg ', � G�ogr�;:I''•s_e e `r:rnYrtl£?l systems (a�i5} ki' li k'rl ill a7v.t Da',"3 Man.•agernent " CUIt€�P'I 7ulC� :i Lies ::'sCe1�'`�l'seCi:C t;: �;C?SS!'t1oE iL5 c. ri3rl.�zl;6i'B[i.df1 and Pe,-ITllzting I, s `aYtl7Q�' e$t1� cuncuy;ons, Electrical .GeOec _"cal -;)d ie!s;ill.. CYIIUI S any Design f ° !u,El in! Tep"'yra,31!yr Trarisp +,:at r+..:F'_Gd:us,''lann ng, aiid Permitting - �:.rli'Lol1i'it4;t1ic'll CiE-i7t�.?li�arlC;e Har,,�gement and •� 1-_ry ii"ev!"IrY iablll'It:f.71 Review,•; I fFid Se.'Vir,e y Response to Requ:sis for rleid )ge '�eque > = vla„age:i)ent of t`;Or35,."!.i{:;.foi' 'fir,;; Lie!;igr Changes Rrwiew of SubcorLii- ctv. am =erndrlr ® Rs Built Drawings [. onacruC kin r'ield .st3tR-ikl " EFC BOP * Procurement Proje t Mar�ager"�rnn" c Cnngii`uG$3,1s'i taxal 3i,ruri�aili. r. fiaSK,:y o ar,rii:ag and ",r ini:;n +' 'oSl :.'Jrib_ru .ili:Ci LlVwni!'!'iltal 'tAofikcjrblg an:: Cornpliande iaAgfIr,"ring Closeout + S,!ppteFnental Frigi'leering < f;%ani.f:rlanG£?.�.l,;l)k7i]rt F it f.';, aivir Up made xrn�e-'n and of ancrIt aWwOmM vkd nper:-s 1;'l fle RE Ut'Y LIUMS & 00 ='� capsaW and Hat eyerence A to wounalli d wl fam, am ewl swge AAq mwKwiisntal, peraii-ttirig, a?rgm�—,Ing WO'k hove a umquelx Ciizor3�,'lg Teva.Tec�. early corisioe i 1 cj co; ut"Al-d iLv, A."; s;';'l' s scheduhs, and on app.,ecial�cqi fcr tSA and c�)eraflonal ojectivc�. (OleubvzIy Inst5!i, and mlnthn sul wino snc.gy onjesm that genqra;�' c;.n cvigoing Y'4" �ife pfovil to kip, �o' k'ld--3�'U.'y ir'�wl�nV h'OVA�r'g tke kql��401q epwahg mod II` .'a aps 2 1 project — IT'(? fir'st power pu�cfta5r, agycens �v-4'i 7 �IS L Boonert dklg*'a VV4u,Ie' 4'.�Il ilrgf-St wind S;. FPL Ef u�"'Ty 'H'ws�F IRAI(3u' ;aygest C�PeraVr�g W-Mid ftibn� "r� zhe );Z. R wwwAefrAtech.com Rccf'ruscrn a0ve. arl.# Kim TEM As wated ni Mon Umn 200 find pqeos. ('t OLA'seleG',ed is hq�,orq'!l At Mmk WM0 TV-iIer, LLG: Nflap�e Ric" ge Wind Rrt rr ri, * FK Epergy, Vprio!.), 7rdei.-'s, NoIh Dakota New TO - Mblr---cl�a Powe3l7a��)r.Ao V�idg,, j 'ILIF C PvVin r., ,y Elite IMM Omek Enely LLQ Wilmw Crcek'wirds Pfqjecji, Oregoi lrb;-ine&.-Aa� :i AO""'-av' Ee("�'Vic �'.Ss: ;J.Aion, Inc., "IiFay MamBM Md Poo,%c, (tole, hn,Yrml VON Fern, Hawaii ii O.6 , Rem= WMA 0mg; LAVBAcou and Bmwj LUCI, RMK MW Tho &Fn'Per.miylvania - IndmN Ok jowqwHe Why Fam New Y&k - NaWe EnlwiowAal Swon Noble CQui WKd Pas, New Tork vy'lricj LL.C, Delay,,Fre Offshore rami wewwx,.,, * Pacq-K'srp, -!Wq loco Milo HM and Gwnmc�� w1d Farr's VQOMQ' * Granite LAX, Wind Farm, Qa4ornia vV;nd I-ax as "'4nd �;af-- 'V�� P�' Developmont srivvlves IEN V I OR, 11� "WITIN -V I, E Dos UP Wamut At We Ach. we Know As o our ,:iems ,.4w Portfolios: 0.", cor"parlies, to t,"!2 cArengtrls Fwd of pmpmed vmrom, 0ul Maid ':OWWO pre.Arkiiiiary 6 lithlo Fart the ea%st Mages & pyau dukamst too Oct, can assist our Nev.:; �� r h--M;W by rmatirg N,rojea' -nao awNtAg 54 CnAmmeril Ghr-,GkJiSt,G_ S&,C-ClL1leS, and Wpm: and pahmixg pshOm wvjron,r.P,ntF!l, krenf,.,mmon, a in scomogs, SeqVapWo IdermwVon SyMns I1315) Appft.ltivil Wild Data Manammem, Wind energy dev-slopmenk reju-.rec :.nt?,,pd acquisk0r, and permitting ct - iploys GIS te,,1h:Vogy m as,� ist i-; -t 11 nTz, swd Own an mm.i ag -.o01!3 a I t:=w U, a "'C' ix,'-mr? n C'7 V14 Andly dosNn wuppmt Qa!uAqg gerem! Aided Draftiiigand 'Design rjermitiing and r mamageme;,, jprojeat poitfo!!os in conji w-Vion sorvices, and Vie) n-iap"V MMAN Gwjp EuT apd Wme.-- Nup swoms-) U ra Congtealot Mirippir,60 Ulc'� c3)" be lonate,,3nt a Site- L asa, of OPP= A Ues a A CHIMPS N a bog to mpg d qmm—; thmalt Mapfing Service i"; re.-dily available GIS data. ConavaN Mapping is a maN me,-) In crNIL, F: possible, cr2tfC4,4f Nskvf.5 krajy%,N I Succ'essfu i sit! rg a I'd PP ng gag "Vil L10 enlr on the FNlily to address criical sves. m aTi conducting critical issues seal. sis, Me Ach has mycludat rime - 00 -c�iecls r" — " .han, I . studies for Mnd pi , it) over 30 exann�11' % , is-soes involving bm!c.g, cal ,esourol!� bir ,z and cEjl f l and ,arld u,�e milay Wen awtion routes, -:xomn),nic-at.i0msi`i?? ,Fu. nth;e, aQ oW cmAAW Wly mN Mcmnh mbuRm of We conditions saves our ,,,,;iewos *iie and money and r .0 oomi-nunioatQ- rJ!,,� V,3sije it) lnvest-w$; f)oirrantlal hu,,, rs. and WAS mm"g 011 lroposaI8 for Power Pj.mrhas'�, Agreements Teira Tech s prijcess is modular, afflt)Wiqg us to look at "e or a nm%m of 1,y v ?a to, e 01 new Ohm mvmnN parmit Acq*od eiQlof,J.c;-.4 Rnsourco!Ruaipas I L"' 'ze U I gge-st 0 il I h8:igc,3 wln� crieq�,,� fo! Dminhow WAM uk .3rjd Svrows, WSOV. -'re-lue"I ink rewwww R rs, -if un � cita:jeogi,{ to uriderstand Wch soules ape neened wo won Nz studes V) to O&SOUCan t go&s' i:" "Fra fo!�:--ftui'. 6"id frx�'.-S�J inlo, "--l-l"Jon relvevos and fidd pro:moi_ !� fo, scrvze� ci _,n E-,,rYip;mKs n M; and ban ansh 0 je assesF;m.eqts,. _ u� S exomt Al al i'>$IIAIMOSI Wor'101V tt!;2i� 4-Lin," capable botan1l no wMA blnys W: puTmod memton mudles and dehwaMd WAnd bamImM art aujalo resoumes Dn Pmews M all Wn Amtkyr Q� raw% C.&UMg MCMMKO apnmcms to Pli"MI arr" cost MOM MY -Wr env ONe 6 60 eyel enCe ai Id eynai3Xlt" "Yo: �CIl g i i�:^ am, and Kdowl raghMms (ulwwd M Te MwAWN YK;.n, agnndes recd;,f-,,- oijr vw,-,,rk. ,r,,,, Jr.1.2i,al Stitt tvli") i Yi, xAv� rap,�,$y .o u �ss rr, e. r, Z-,,, Cultural REC.230urce StLAC.-I -e'?i -,z are, 11 ec� rtiS;O"t' ric a-iy pr�zct a2--e- O)W MWA."Is &Coe J. OG oi KHAKc Fla senadon, Act i,YAT %:ia(('!� 'or CFi tr;e �':tenor, ai!,TLWng us to provide ancl it and nrmitahons, MOAC NeseNahon (Ave ant Noma HISH WrW Assessm?ct (�Azti:x)al :-nvararwnouqn,; �m'd ie w5r--;3srnent cf 'Mnj tu, C bi nr--',-gr-'-)'rate%l f3 C; 11 1 ntegrai CwWonew a sWe Wd iuc:al 'Ielra lech's engineers and MmUss wcm chsey wah WrAs dUM, to deogn Mmse to M Tme-ArnamMal and pre,;€sion Ime 1 sund Wwv�i4 rraasure! �enl We am aht) able, to address -hz oniqwn of ponanted athhora wind rrjaO amlopmeW RAm h0i Ms a thorough urlr'eestarru Ig Of anoi_stiC CJrepia un,:ei the ma"ne tvlamrnal SrW,(,,ies Act, and by qw Mmial Oceaf!w arLrl ion Nabonal MeNe Mems WW3 4Vofic, is vaboy of rMed enonsering sa� i vicet nc,e�jd ng �',is aI'o ',(a : i Ial '�Q un-d sul r';eys! wit 16 acou!sd:- %la, rr,w�'�E[;a1 0,1'r), and experk votmlii-i S !T.q dow F I ic k c i, Ao' ,A,inl* fas Tetra itch uses UAndPra to eva�uFte pot-� ent� impacts froani the turoinat at S€A,ro wi d i n g ,ire (4a,, , h 0 usesjT(A>"l 1 moipwas onVe makomAgbal den kra Me %W"m unaVAn to ca 1cu la "p the re,a " e fre,-; i)--ry ?he 1,� f �{ il, ir' U a., ,�x. vrv-."wi g ig", (} ion -calm hours), f,;-,qj iric'; tlie afe i?A aw hcWm We= and ih-e 1%r5kori,:vj pd-or ioFef,, Tours in the projeCA SiJCd ajr(:iir W &Taa& The pmdked presented paphially as shown. Coo uNQ an oWembe. thcrou;,!,, - i,.; cesounne assessment a a cots comporam ol , wwvw4 fmbk remu"s eon am Ate NO: provi&D.s state-of--Jie-�;it &sw! hMaw cwdM wyR tachntal av,,,J procedura! nee0s,- of lilastrcitlCi to S�aWN,�deg -; 'lcnk, d "!es it vvia i,,e Visi"iIe ")Lii- Verse"! in the app��Ca',Ior nlf,.J-,uai f, deal salendys such :)" th5 c:f 1-i.ncl V,8 raprnq,r,'I.. "J"t"r s Own 00pothl and WeAWWn 0 K" AMMONS and, travel rctta'3 of bc-186.ki,e ill olng EMU :,nrl�"L.t(;r erziU i-Jul Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Lighting Plans Pam, an devdopwn L t:;f wi:v' erne.-Z; prof ec.,,-s =1ust 1.1dude, �r ,.r,id'araftr,;i :;.f 1 LL�,,IlIE! av:aVun Key pok6es indu," "'l:'je w nolit? -he FAA otU,.,e prl;posaj of ;,ry slmdure'chal rylay mfect the W guWnws ko markng and ijhtng Lt �',co,.L)ho ,)I evina en.crgy serv-.-ces '�,wy 11?.f 'it.ing is,,.. Or wind pajecM Mai ovnp1,,,, wQ Ins FAA wann ard2burs 11 io 2i IN lVe ktv0v-%'i al,10 pfif'.410(ka AX TeVe Tent We eXar- - fxr'.;ce,L, '.fir �. kww ;it b€ &Kama da"Ns pqyc, for a owner to bud the OeAp thi�,r will bF avtt:e rR iapsord resource AM, and m; urtarnwnd Te AnyAnt AWImnns & Somientwier anb rnhgAun yequM kV yaduw� an-d loccl; pennRing ageloes We are tam= wW; Me wKe gwVr6p�tical rerw1(lvig an we an %MNU WWI we rehhl�7,r,-. OIu IV VICS waked A evev SM, 4 WWO Aw pwor fnwaml OewupeM we pride ck,,rselves iPo tzr ifyi, tg 1 rrl�Sz WA-L:fFi dunt d,-,.ve. Icip-en I Pubfic Invol4eirant Lack of pubic and grwerrimem 3cceMFURy has 0srKNA projects Tetra Tech's .Vaff..s Pxperiric-s -d iii i;3si-sitlig, erca gWw, "s Cr1ltronn3en,a! atle uWaNeawnt penonly! ari Pao 01 Ole pnjay own envogdo: ps%e nlessNe,,� are incorporated, as much 3s possiblE% in-:e, ow SO= dewemaka VA wwk Mm our dums U ww"i'v Neo WaRNakwm wA ky law% mo we OW so tw&MT,, !Mm& bus, taurs. open �vd oti k�.t Anows ar Jui,-,Iog,ve Vve de."L�Iop 3 ��,AeNIy 1; �fec-Np Rdu"atinilal rims inienractv& art dKrAWeb sReF* han6f, media ve[,Oort$: and sec,ere,'T Statt. afle I= C 3gei:,,y repref�eniaiives. Wd wargy r��=eo'.oe of enoneenig is W UMAN s1wat on wwwavirnowN way mid jwWwrig N -1co-. z ec ( 'project layC.LV!_1 -.- i-,?, ;lie pro? et,:, Nn.o Yf �mm j", e t"(Y j and sonuUng to penWUQcFewnWsd I consAwKe W1 pmejl�. T,,J-a Tech's PnOrle�!'s tc'-il.'§A k. (N acceK.- roa6s-' the everancal ;"'Id 'etLitl'ies. ar,d We wwMtsk dayMpAub dQua walm, a rno-e foi NUM 000go , Rwdq WwWwwo% Structural/Foundation Engineering AN AM Wnd ku,','olre knmdalov Mgt Mundatlen UnKnemys 5 r;L: COPUe"W, 5itMtUral cemcwte. WlwemmA, wd WML Ns well as the Ions "oaring and arichchng my ombeclde� Ir. the foui-idation As pat a (5ADL ilia led; P-wpaic,'/p _aft .' Civil Site Engineering ,e P!Vn.r ie': rT C damwern. "E, fo!I�wirg: des'gn';Jf rr)%j verlical aMnmeMQ and of gra,;ng plans fix erect*n areas 3'4;',"ocjared ea�'h torbine S'bF- cut and fit! rda'1 ",.YpiGal se. t:("na Yfcf turb{cie radlideMiN and requVed W Man ntal,,3 arid. pel'%'niL� eiosion arisejimeid cci)6oi piar anj ��.rrrJV,�,ng,- ard' iraragemei t;---rtrol aA dek30,,i. Electrical Collection System Engineering Pt r-a I e-; 11 ")'rav i "' e4 e 1 ect r i r, � I c'i1 'il? n e e 1, �';'a -'� E% r v i (; as f c n d 6Y wUj&;'.--i. L ii -u"O ingl he u)ff I p qt.e e'Ner.,rii ca I ei i gi ree, r rig w! - esign 40 Pra - Qu amrl Mwbon Ivan wW pwiwig sMAWn, so 00 and 9pec4ratijns (c!-Ie-itrie Wawbgs for rc-Hf k;-. lon and , fibei'rpt€c systerfis, eKc.). SAMalln adnwAg MlYnes all jdans and spectc&ons hor Be w1kWon, indi;cilIayC7!it diagrarns,specification of kNew eptmay controi schernaijc and WAM MX7m% and imntml house sped0stims. In addWon, ow pyam UAMQS 4 We SVeimwry CN-iiV-.roi awl Daa Ac.,,-,jWaK"edne w1h We pdrnaq pArN of jp?o'eolnica! r�',Sislivity data to develop groj,nciing des�ris poor they gp.nerator control panel, padwwwWed ums"mu, nQ uWeWoud MaJon azrid wart $PMA. uietiteclink;il oml. 601&.mic SWflics apAd OuNiglin a!, "Veli as or w'si effective! roar !>c;ss sectiois, Tee ano daboratory .:;L., �surlmanzes &AifloWe mbanvOon needed b devVop this rnlzk co(-afftjrjnt and Wng progmnj Ills allows un 1.j Powe on Asks At!) t)design c"a':a olly ioi. t'oe SQUWU dmNn d we Wind WrhIq foijno�!bt)')S' L)lj.t ad wid gedoglo nece.�;S7!vy!:o i.'Ne wind, I= It mms mWF.. Enci:.axy fotmdzilons, Tranzipol tntion ,,tDd Porfn .. anki play -inirg are ?Wy in fie de5gn phase, T,';i study jr.co,;de,,' moodws woh -1t-1d ilejg) me' !3, bridges AIN& cmmob" we stljd�os. id Me umcus anums lb corJuicdmi ............ -*ZrIII �r Cont',MwlabMty Rffivi,�w Tr 'ra Tec�heips cu., to deve0c"p w-inld cost -efficiently ay", a1a it) because. vir c "Pv;! -t--i if'.0-9,5 0%� vi:tl; ouf onrlsluuct�ml tew., il."3.lr project stlte and pr,.-pos8_-" -_e.vei.np,,nervl: in -,xlel' v, enswe that the p§"an?kali�V7 co,,t, ainl I y - 11 L) u i f t inow Cie p r (I%j e f,,41- 1,?-Yao " I t felt rs c; 7 1 r , Concoptual.armf Rual inn Schodiflos. f&`,fa Cedi'S prcjvkiirg s23p ni,-,,,,elf. .!, T)tlyq,,",i. Cli�nt3 LlSe " E_13w tJ i S _O _SULrkl!! PrCje-!:l VAN- tilanning ard E,-r nownr.-,�l J, 'I- --.-w,� IL J -- A WWW.tE�tFAtelDb_OlOM wl ride(i 6 rMfC��A(O-clxom Constructiun Services R.F kl� V� A 6 1, C E N � 1,V V VV 1 V M. ---------- .......... EmkonmentM Opnv%nv� Wmagpmmvot and SAM recules to prAde envizm1m1'ud 17r and Mspeadon dunngcorAru('&)i, - ',is-- pn' anf'e cer 1p-aCl P.Womdetra p��rmiZ anj otfier COIJAWCU VIAS to keep mmolln " Stowe mo W, W bmfel. We son emytmaol um% Pmea mm." aw aNnq� ard proAde on 'Lih('-grojr.-d . -,n� , mir,,Oon rrew�, tu. Jrfl*e rS1'r!ey envjro,-me,--,,.ad Irn"Is, '.'etm. _2z?dh umcrj.(,J: mar mWM Me mOM E P-'! fE NAB Vdoju�WNIIAbLn p4oll-7. cor-biret!"'n 0, �elro Tecri's wd c.�,iE:,n St,-J("Jon exp,^ ;eiyx 1HOWS us to ;Why cur Ckism loth xhs rnast cost -affective AS comparq am 'Madq me PgA jenH iou? consu"JOUC-1 to alo"!v a ilr raoesZ,v Aodbday duhng execW)n, bill wJh s(. Yicenz&-Dzzi!,, of', t'lkc, Spec M 0 tea twes 0 1 U le "".Lr I, c 1 ;) a-; ��,jt4l e.,per'ience to pnov;de 49 client's with e-jvR Site work 1,gva,6]f!V, eA.x,,,ess -sm'.'ro -.P,;z,.-;-,y�r vt et!_! stwows dwig-; for vvi;1c, bu,'-bir,s: gFne.,a--oi a'c' olectrical cornpcmens Nyvxrn -av,7." >ransrnissinr, llnss) for wind pr-,jo,?t;, ImWnktai R*,VWW�i Tec!,0oal specificabons oe,!el ,med foe mqWre M sAmAW: 0 qm0l maWa,;, infor;na,tion fot revew ',ardor b) accepovve for design ar qirid cWr of vM Id f the empertke t;'Y revievy Jhe.Es er_ .Ii"= awWmet wd xsQrs ON ** bK9.5smW �--v n I Celt 1Exjk,.remo; Its of b, I �-; I" Wd U! aces eitlar accepoice or &ppinal. In addAhn. Wn Me need arzas for Tara -.-c. l-ixo rkl�zZA subcon1vaGE11, _o pl'vvide Spec& engnse(ng SeWr-es,irk WONS Mocuse engneer!ngs staff dr.afle--J and reviews of the Mgm damareM pmawo j, W5,i s u b,,onlractors ,, rior ILo js& iing any ,i ocuo,5nts, Vor ,;o, 1',-, Fietd Seirvrv-6#r 7eDa Tech engineem Ave W -,�xpe6 ence to provic:e vayiCus aspaiA2 eng�re&r�cg in Zhe deve�-�pm�mtof a Project, 4e�.!W rapvsarUbves prMAWf i rxp.vi6w .A aqd 314epall vvind AS act e A& we waNd voibe A,, geotechnicDl of tLi!3 (ji a ins acrcEiSs till propose'-.1, ioua,Ivl is WAh a and Me cur swoblMy d M pmymd an Ws 4 q uk—I coft,pon'� nt of tt have i air' s thet A dM Wind The Second aspe& 4 M wavles is fie W h.p.G., oversigN Q Wra EWE: !P)gn �;z sginesring iewn. :;ervicevs include site -ia rificabon to r;,-xi,-', i -jrr;" i-1 n n-uu. i lIes acid rrconn i nen ua tol Is rot me ficatons or ciiety; basY an ilia conaNions. a is imponant W We agal;'i -.,riodt --eir,n,"Fech a,,i Exper'enCed deNgnMid &Wnecr, and Lonstruci [EPCJ) Ami, witidi Mg W b=dK A eri, ine4ring and corstrucAjon experts who 1-five Wo;,:iC-." h' ptoJ(;k)F, cilerils a complete Ieam and i?cvsPQnd to Rvc.pw.ts for MFIa) aiod field 0"0 1 PMd tMOMK "dt"ril Me Wwwwt =ei (imiay oc, U-IcIeFr, Ara can rev.£-.,w ci f"Dr,iion, vq'ift'h. ai;cwVII7 L� ImOkwe -oAKgW Som w IS -cm, s lags ON W nowbmM engkiaers can pryvk�c r3sp,)Pzej wAyIny, p �'c�")C;�, FCP�- are olft�,n mq,dr,�-J. P�Opl mammkg W bdOni.nor cal'( rniajor A m-.4 ;Y, Joes rot affect The inIzent of -die arig!;-iol dk ,Igo, (.;V. CaFe, !-etr:< Tr,:�h :„7:l Tg 1,1C', tn,' rfq I",. e,* I -,I a;haf;gO Ra mad W Te oQkal desip., m.-Avd°r» Laqjipmj,�,-r,*j .,.or SIri Vu e ftji -tton; bech 77n the Engmee7 of Rvacord k i rpripondiriA to When nonswicr and n desigoha.oges are rewireu fiiriOga pr",jea P�'Lra ".ech`s experEe;-wed erigiriem ere., CAW WCA Imuly �i.lh Eris Icarn, and dovr,!�p ,er sory de.igp fiockI nts ard i epc!1.5 fo; the (,�Wrlgt, F...a -och's .%),preriernfe ;r- toth eilginee!irig .5nj AMRAmcdon sUaws IM I.c ocrcur !n an enmmeW eqdwn, annner and ensures -6-at our ciisnisa recx, ive the amp: cost- r i Iec',Ive and COnS;Wd3�;ie oesip cor)f-,Uuctior. ilocurnents. Mr kOA Or4%r4e4.� A ps4ems Were Teba Teciin ;s and Tetra AW s pQwAwM swff h :hQ t-,j t and. cipa bi 1 ity to P,-(;Vjde 'c S. V. "', "sgzl i"Gr to",C9 Pr,:".jci.J7 ti i i,li: it provide, informa,icn. or, t,ow the pr,-je c, was. ?I);! show. the f 1 nai condWons upon prjecm tvj",Irwe� to �hc? T�.,e process cof desiody qvirts wiih T;ia fir&id eng neeing servocas LtaV, -who would Lc drawiilg& cluring tha caneVuQlan prcwss We mmkMon so msQ, These, MaGM11P dOWAdS R'�"..;r*I-MI. I!VtUtlhd t:-'Tevi a Tech's Whouse erig�nsarin�'d-ag,,,L tearv) ',:iv icr Us 60A. C1,14AN S7 R.0 WSW= OWN! f--,qoo4;af a Wa m 4 M a wW A of reseti rcssTc-x ",'i i vviod t gnemm. amns Ova itch camr$ i4- swOces and resources "under one rucf If wwced pnQewC emecubm ova can addtssu any �,w {'Ircljghout all phases uVf -W.mP.�LJL,05liel"a na I gq,0, i nown, OUr wind energy �,,c ; -A, Cm of Che Deloney Gfoup! �;, vieV �G,adcr in c,onstiuction, has enFiN.7,6' Tretra Lo beco,--w. poOdmot w4d exie!�y Qv- congtructio, i experien-,e , ariges ftorri rva,, wEi turcine projects to The more. com-plex 2�00 wMd Mw& V& We o c Led j(D0, wnd WM,, q generitors &,id over 20,' milos of f0i Fhe fete 'Oct to co"pr�sed of ,W:,]� E-Inel,gy �:z-o, wind co' isirud,Q M&MAUUML MW 00"NM Tvr,i Tecl' oiet:rs the t,repiAi of--,esour2es, exyerii'-ov.qrd S�.rei [�aj, J ail;:; o Tei Ses k: vt-;ry of MORI W wnt GM road emmoUm. ayt cu.70!(,,J ,and to Yho compike deadcal Khasip uchm, �.,-FAstatons- nind wul IN wMAM0 WWI 1�)� inch,cing t,-,1 binez.' corriphation. '-N3 seiVceandi anc, c,,A(Aon Mwrkm and grawskWai A,- oar! insoli afr� owwwowk we OAMNA Wool SOOMWq CWOA am Data 'and u,,)d operatiorl� and txnd'atsr *ISea iiiPmaynani trl wetlan(,,fi arv:� lon(! tea. Qu: wasiushwiNs of eaWlopig vow snoneely and,' safety ,,no w-hy mow rVY&EMBM's. cov rvf"% - Toro Fach is one A t!ne fevv ftnc. th-Ilt -22n, Q! sc'rvi':e" iw !he' Wr'..Cl AMY Fmm enymemog, dmwn 6'oroug�) prk)c; �,enent, dolevemL and emnon cmamum and bud get oorV'ol that erlsx- ,_s oor f7lienthave tve p.a.'(U ':F.uide t�'ie succf.7f;sful starc w finistl W pys"t wind PnAerad'evelopers W�d- Oe up-fronif pevlljtiJ�W, Qlimg our con; Vuafun staff to help rcfin3 the over 11 ovj,' YmY d-J, QM the 9OFfl of mMu"g Me apr W Ng Nhg "Ne otfer both preliminai'j eng;jii;nir.,,g �:,nd asstst clurinq zbe,!.eSAF�'i wi,,J A?s Nhe final engineering in cxn&tructioi-i Mama & ow eVertme <mnexcallenl reputation fc.,L, q,.,afliy Fetrq Tech to secure tli,7? crjrnmit;"�(! mwircez equipmer! and induct y prtneish%.,s needed tO cf yow- w'ld prijert. F�n.'Aly' our decFcles a' experience in ccn"jwti.x. roariage.7oirZ. ni,vil (.AontrkxiO,.q, winfj -,tlrbrje gejerelov :z nd othev comvjmki� expf,jlence ensure a seamless inlegratioii UVQL]ghC=Ut III PhOfle.3 :)f Y;'-,Ur wind p.OjF-Ttr UurcHents beneft from ar axeNald -Nawe and imcmased return oo immstment, SOP Servict's haka Tch pnAdes M conswobm Ngh Ang, and eiec, C-orlBtfuation, and w.,Uie forwlrid pv We am Mete per `orrn thase Fi",,vicer, bon,'eo to@Aher or mdivi,Alafly, acco""Jingio he conVa!J m.del p>efened by m.ir ,!fents,Tetra. Tern -iaF �ucessfufiy ccmstrkxter; ij ;n ,,-oamte Y,,jg4,1ed versk, and axserw wwaWer condAons 0Ui ozwstru.cttc,-, eAne,-,itn,-P in..iAldes brnoei ':novai, cQwK cempaclJon, ai)d large cuVM! imLalancal aH Me VUr B01 si�rvices (,'�--,30np. ar.,d gradog Randway,5 CM M PMS Md Pw h:. E ctrical constriction I'lower and Panels Interco n nectjcor3i m u n i .rFion Sob"tation 0whead Mms0slon Mas Tw N ne m eclkn O&M WA&M MBWWbn lridusiry, tiley '.,?.I i pnlng anrd oel ivery temi,� on aH rrajor wiri� farm -,Aje offer a fJI dre of KNUMg PMMMMent Stroogy, preparaticr) cr ,jr !' ul0osa.,'`xope of VVOrk pwkap,,, evausbon of widw PoPr--S;D15, :IegoiV�tiorl, Coordil-Di"Con, coi'ti'ac! eAfAnNb% U&M. quMy aspwanGe and qualily iI iJ ol ale , ; ';A, 14n . (kd ,,! -)n1��ab' a Fech oai 1 Q requ..11 I if}, SUMOMM A WOV am COK Nww�: C4waruvoiL4an Nian a gem.unt ConsUuMM ManagwnePi,:)ei,,J,,*s, generaiowi!.ract supek= in iho excctitinn c}f P, prirrary DO tw; Am;N PAN slog as we owmC�, CTcN 1z"vur-lion actkYizics. CNr ac ;C ior'-Lv <t qk�'alt!y progran-1, projec- co`,-iv,:k7. Ior,-, a i-,cms, w I a pus" and MaNe neMod A rnwagbg mawbals, equprnIe.,It, '3V-z, 6aOr y s i m § 5 E i oLl)er program at Tara_ Tper? — it is hurt of owe, —aL4c and Ir1i;GrpfJ owl !lief;- all U n we da As a °'nsut we lam :a MAN heath and safety reoori, F,acc ,, program rYic?lf1-, gpr nas uitirnale rf,'si on,,,P);Lty for sire Satety mt 5 .`iiHl)lSwAd N a dediCaled fif:W safety e.'smlos" iional and SiiN Superv''SGPy Suit .ui ccc focL,s is scifety flmt. Ail field an^:wlcyees n4cee ve.. thorOUgaI,, traii`iWg on W'`-,i-.y lE sms al i= K;IOCtWUm. A .,ally sa ety .,i a-yi nieefiri & st i�3 rein`.orcod that no to-si?'e jGb is to ne ^'vr7oi-ric4 ' 3.1, s` m,'r{kmll ,es i.i'o;' aMfAlzy of ,,;Iy .'Vorker, C:O- a A.846.580-�785 . www,#otra#oc�,conti Win(ipri6Fgyatto ;i,Com ----- ------- -------------- Operation Servic6s EMPO - WiNd ENWAVOMMMIM Omm Rol Mrs a rUll post prolpf'J ds, W, "i�,w ixn,opip3e �yd teanis aveilab�, .,) a c,p` Prptiomal iGsup a wind il1igW a��wind are connpl�ne,,,nrm�t canikhrs, a kaw� prcvisi ons after rc.11 re, th' ,�, p'yh-orl p 10 n r3 - 'c -min 'F-? -)e m�wJWed Lo,,�'Lei F� G� Mifll� Jil Z, theac wal erviroomeiita€ ',ffiipzut of np(-.irabm"j-,-" post-oorstruoticri ,&,eilimd_ to hi?d i; mom,&& emuve Nw,- succr?F�F,3,; rp�ipfifIE trd efffoi fetra Ted; also QWHA nwnRuwg DMWOVS7 nmNWMg TW h WWn requond fm qwAng aw pnted& El - .580,876-u rk IN I WIND ENERGY G PROJECT EXPERIENCE Arcadia* 1 Daliam County Wind Project j TX i AES Wind Generation Daggett Ridge Wind Farm CA AES Wind Generation 1 Sand Ridge Wind Farm CA American Win- d Energy T Wind Energy Siting Handbook US Association 1 Biuewater Wind LLC Biuewater Delaware Offshore Wind i DE �♦y', ■3 ■ _ Farm Biuewater Wind I_LC Various Sites US ! r. _. _ ._ _._ _ _ gY J Bonneville Power Wmdfarm Wind Ener Project 1_..._ OR ■ Administration BP A€ternative Energy Edom Hill Wind Repower Project CA BP Alternative Energy North Yaponcha Wind Resource Area CA I America Inc. Al Northe-_..r- P n lains Wind- -Resource-._. Energy _ w.._._ .._--.. BP Alternative North N_ ,.... D _�, America Inc. Area BP Alternative Energy North Fowler Ridge Wind Farm IN America Inc. i BP Alternative Energy North Golden Hills Wind Farm OR America Inc. BP Alternative . . ative Energy North gy 'Rolling Thunder Wind Energy ' SD America Inc. Facility BP Alternative Energy North Great Republic Wind Resource TX America Inc. Area BP Alternative Energy North ' Sherbino Mesa Wind Resource TX America Inc. Area BP Alternative Energy North Silver Star Wind Resource Area TX America Inc./Clipper - Cast€e &Cooke, Inc. Lanai Wind Farm I HI Catamount Energy Searchlight WRA NV Catamount Energy Various US Catamount Energy Site Prospecting US Clipper Win dpawer Carrol County Wind Project AR Development ComqRany Clipper Wmdpower Prototype Wind Energy Project CA Development Company Clipper Windpawer Silver Creek WRA Development Company Clipper Windpower Monarch Wind Energy Project Development Company Clipper Windpower Middlebrook WRA Development Company Clipper Windpower Endeavor Wind Energy Project Development Company Clipper Windpower Victory Wind Energy Project Development Company._... CA CO CO IA IA ■Iz A I D i w 1■ i - — rIM � ■I � � j Clipper Windpower Intrepid Wind Energy Project IA ' Develo ment _I PCompany-.. i Clipper Windpower Eclipse WRA IA 1... I - , Development Company j Clipper Windpower Century IA Development Company :'. Clipper Windpower Prairie WRA IN Development Company _ I_ Clipper Windpower Crossroads WRA IN i Development Company - ` Clipper Windpower Polaris WRA MI Development Company Clipper Windpower Aurora WRA MNOR i Development Company Clipper Windpower Northern Light Wind Power ND Development Company Development Project Clipper Windpower Northern Light WRA ND.:Development Company Clipper Windpower Paragon Wind Energy Project } NY' _ �I A ■. i Development Company cli er Wind wer ee [� McAndrews WRA NY (- Development Company I I Clipper Windpower Electra WRA OK Development Company Clipper Windpower Celestial WRA SID - Development Company Clipper Windpower Silver Star Wind Energy Project TX Development Co./BP Alternative Energy -.... Clipper Windpower Panhandle WRA TX I — — Development Company I _ Clipper Windpower Gulf Coast TX I Development Company CIiPeerWndpower _ — Confidential Projects US + — Development Company ;. Clipper Windpower Zephyr Wind Energy Project UT Development _ Company —UT _ ee Windpower Snow Ridge WRA .- i.. ; I I Development Company —W i —. I_ CClliiper Windower Liberty Wind Energy Project Y i � i I Development Company per Wind wer Antelope WRA WY ' _. .._ — Development Company 1 1r Confidential Client * Springfield Mrid Project — CO a — ! Confidential Timber Confidential Wind Energy Project CA ! , i Company - CPV e wable Ener Keenan Wind Energy Project OK t f�' 7 r i ` ■ Company, LLC -- i CPV Renewable Energy Cimarron Wind Energy Project j ; KS I I Company, LLC Desert Claim Wind Power, Desert Claim Wind Power Project ' WA ■ 'i M ? ■ i' LLC/enXco,Inc.* Effective Energy Corporation Confidential Wind Energy Project 'WA Enel Smokey Hills Wind Farm KS L : Energy Northwest Bateman Wind Energy Project WA f Energy Northwest Nine Canyon Wind Energy Project WA I ■ Energy Northwest* Reardan Wind Energy Project WA —'— — Energy Northwest* Zintel Canyon Wind Energy Project WA ■ enXco Columbia County WRA WA . Eurus Energy America Combine Hills Turbine Ranch Wind OR I ■ Corporation Energy Project EverPower Renewables Confidential Projects OR, ■ I ■ ■: ■ r`. ■ WA Flat Rook Wind Power, LLC Maple Ridge Wind Energy Project NY r ■, ■ ■: ■ ■ ■ FPL Energy Cowboy Wind Phases 1 and 2 OK • M, FPL Energy* Altamont Pass Wind Energy Project CA r ■ FPL Energy* San Gorgonio Wind Energy Projects! CA it FPL Energy Sky River Wind Energy Project CA ■ FPL Energy West Fry Mountain Wind Energy CA ■ Project FPL Energy Adams County Wind Energy Project CO A* : ■ * ■ ■ FPL Energy Cape aCanaveral Wind Energy FL ■ ■ ■' ■ � � 4 u � � �I — ep FPL Energy Crystal Lake Wind Energy Project IA ■ ■ FPL Energy Story County Wind Energy Project IA ■ ■ 1 I I FPL Energy* Hancock and Cerro Gordo Wind IA ■ Energy Project I FPL Energy* Confidential Wind Energy Project KS ■ FPL Energy & Horizon Wind High Prairie Wind Farm I & II ! MN ■ I— I ■ Energy — — FPL Energy Mountain Iron WRA MN ■ ' FPL Energy 2 Confidential Projects MO r FPL Ener gy Otter Bride Wind Energy Project g gY 1 ND � � � - j ■ I FPL Energy * Confidential Wind Energy Projects . ND :, w �, I — FPL Energy Langdon Wind Energy Center . ND ■ FPL Energy New Mexico Wind Energy Center NM I FPL Energy* Oklahoma Wind Energy Center OK' ( I FPL Energy* Confidential Wind Energy Projects OK IR ■ FPL Energy* ...... Weatherford Wind Energy Project OK N ■ [ s. _ ■ ... FPL Energy* Woodward Wind Energy Center OK M ■ ■ ■ ■ FPL Energy Bed#or-Blair Windpower Project -- PA ■ * ■ ■ ■ ■ gY .. FPL Ener * Me ersdale Wind Energy Project y � PA —. - ! HF-%l VVMI 1: LNkKY AN I&N..0 FPL Energy Highmore Wind Energy Project SD ■ ti FPL Energy Confidential Projects TX Nr ■ # FPL Energy* Callahan Divide TX FPL Energy Horse Hollow Wind Project TX # ■ ■ — — FPL Energy Confidential Projects TX ■ i A FPL Energy Capricorn Ridge Wind Energy TX f Project FPL Energy Red Canyon Wind Energy Center TX ■ FPL Energy Various Confidential Wind TX Resource Areas FPL Energy* Mountaineer Wind Energy Project WV; FPL Energy* Uinta Wind Energy Project WY Freedom Wind Energy Confidential Wind Energy Project NY # ■ ! I Freedom Wind Energy, Rock Run Wind Farm PA LLC/Babcock and Brawn, ■ ■ in ■ ! f ■ 1M LLC Gamesa Energy USA Nescopek Wind Project PA R— Gamesa Energy USA Pine Grove Wind Project PA ■ i Gamesa Energy USA Shaer Mountain Wind Project PA f # # ■ Granite Energy,LLC Granite Mountain Wind Farm CA # E # ■ Granite Energy, LLC China Mountain Wind Energy ID I ■ ` # Project Granite Energy, LLC Dayton Wind Project Expansion I WA I ■ ■ in ■' Horizon Wind Energy Cloud County Wind Project l KS I r ~ I _ Horizon Wind Ener Energy .. :Alabama Ledge Wind Farm — I NY. ■ ; � � 'i N 1! ' f ; ■ ! — a in Horizon Wind Energy Jericho Rise Wind Farm NY r, # # ',, ■ j S # Horizon Wind Energy Machias Wind Farm , NY ■ ; I Horizon Wind Energy Marble River Wind Farm NY ■ ' # iM # 0. N a. r `. Horizon Wind Energy Pioneer Prairie lv{N Horizon Wind Energy New Grange Wind Farm NY ; #', * # � ; � * , f ■ � I iJ l I Horizon Wind Energy fop Crop Blackstone IL Horizon Wind Energy Confidential Memorandum US IAGWSP Wind Projects, Various Wind Energy Projects MA `, ■ MMRi— Iberdrola USA Locust Ridge II Wind Farm PA Iberdrola USA Crescent Ridge 2 Wind Farm IL r Ibe€drola USA Jordanville Wind Farm NY I Invener Wind, LLC gJ' Confidential Wind Ener Project gy J WV ■ i ■ i Invener Wind, LLC High Sheldon Wind Farm— NY I ` _ � N , A ; Invener Wind LLC gY , Various Projects J CA �• ', I � I i i ' Invenergy Wand, LLC Confidential Project _ NM is 1 Invenergy Wind, LLC Moresviiie Wind Energy Project NY 1 iA ■ ■ ■ Invenergy Wind, LLC Vantage Wind Energy Project WA y ■ j M , Island Wind Island Wind Energy Project NJ ■ ■: Kodiak Electric Association, Pillar Mountain Wind Project Inc. AK ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Lamar Light and Power* Lamar Municipal Wind Turbine CO i ■ # Project Martinsdale Wind Farm LLC Martinsdale Wind Power Project MT �I ■ ■, ii ■ # Mesa Wind Mesa Texas Panhandle TX ,,;r ■ ■ ■', ■, ; w Minnesota Power Taconite I Ridge Wind Energy MN:: ■ M. Center - Noble Environmental Power. Altona Wind Park NY i.. ■ Noble Environmental Power; Chateaugay Wind Park NY I ■ Noble Environmental Power': Noble Clinton Wind Park NY I ■; Noble Environmental Power Ellenburg Wind Park NY Noble Environmental Power. , Flat Hill I Wind Park MN 0; r . y ' ■ ! ! ; ■ Noble Environmental Power. Rat Hill Ii Wind Park MN Q. j Northwest Wind Partners Miller Ranch Wind Project WA. ■ ; ■, # ■ ■ ■ ■ W ■ (enXco JV) Northwest Wind Partners Goodnoe/Hoctor Ridge Wind WA i * ■ ; ■ ■. ■ ■ (enXco JV) Project _ Northwest Wind Partners Linden Ranch Wind Project WA f M ■ (enXco JV) Padoma Wind Power LLC Elbow Creek WEnd Project TX ■ # ■ ; * 1 I Padoma Wind Power LLC Whistler Ridge Wind Project TX ■ PacifiCorp Rolling Hills Wind Farm WY PacifiCorp Seven Mile Hill Wind Farm WY I ■ PacifiCorp Gienrock Wind Farm WY' t ■ # Power Procurement Group Liberty County Wind Energy Project MT ■ Power Procurement Group Chester WRA MT j ■ PPM Energy Tule Wind Energy Project CA # # ' I ■ ■ PPM Energy Dillon Wind Energy Project CA PPM Energy* Colorado Green Wind Project CO . ■ . ■ * PPM Energy Elk River Wind Farm KS.:I r r PPM Energy* Moraine Wind Farm MN [ ! r PPM Energy* Klondike II Wind Farm OR i . PPM Energy* Leaning Juniper Wind Farm . OR ■ I - _ ..__.. .... PPM Energy* Big Horn Wind Farm WA ._ _ ■ Public Utility District #1 of Withrow Wind Energy Project . WA ■ ■ ■ ■ I Douglas County I Red Top Wind, LLC Red Top Wind Farm NM ; ■ ■ # ■ ; # (♦ ■ ■ Ridgeline Energy LLC Black Rock Wind Energy Project AZ ■ ; j 1hK%VAr,LVkN1;kCY 0 WiNg, Ridgeline Energy LLC Kern County Wind Energy Project CA - 0 i■ Ridgeline' Ene-rg-'y- LLC Confidential "Projects' CA IN Ridgeline Energy LLC American Falls Wind Energy Pirpjectj� ID ■ Ridgeline Energy LLC/BP Goshen North Wind Energy Project ID Alternative Energy Ridgeline Energy LLC Goshen South Wind Energy Facility 11) a Ridgeline Energy LLC, Wolverine Creek Wind Energy ID Airtricity & Invenergy Wind, Project LLC Ridgeline Energy LLC Granite Wind Energy- Project NV Ridgeline Energy LLC Grass Mountain Wind Energy NV Project Ridgeline Energy LLC Pah Ran Wind Energy Project NV: g Ridgeline Energy LLC Sahwave Wind Energy Project NV ■ Rid aline e-- Ener g-y -LL-C- Virginia --Mountains WRA NV Ridgeline Energy LLC Various Sites OR N Ridgeline Energy lud GlS Services — Ridgeline Energy LLC Laramie Wind Project WY i'm St. Lawrence Windpower, St. Lawrence Windpower Project NY LLC (Acciona) Suez Energy North America Confidential Due Diligence for FA, (SENA) Proposed Acquisition of Four Wind OH,I r.I Energy Projects NY . Sustainable Energy Fund of Confidential Wind Energy Project PA Central Eastern Pennsylvania* I. Sweetwater Windpower Sweetwater II TX LLC* fereslan Carmelites mount Saint Joseph Wind Farm - MA■ Third Planet Wind Multiple Sites us I it R UPC Wind Management, Imperial County Wind Energy CA LLC Project - Met Towers C Wind anagement, San Bernardino County Wind CA LLC Energy Project - Met Towers UPC Wind managem- ent, Stetson Wind Engergy Project ME: LLC 0c Wind Management, Bloody Run Hills Wind Energy NV: LLC Project UPC Wind Management, Winnemucca WRA LLC UP Wind Management, C Cohocton Wind Project NY: ■ LLC UPC Wind Management, Cascade Wind Energy Project OR ■■■i LLC _UK and Management, Warner Rim Wind Energy Project LLC I"d r,FWfitit♦r,khleiNlai' 0 4`JiNI) UPC Wind Management, Mile High Ranch Wind Energy 1 TX i r i ; ■ ' LLC Project UPC Wind Management, Google Earth Compilation 1 US/- LLC . Car UPC Wind Management, Various Wind Energy Project U5 ■.I I I ' LLC [� UPC Wind Management, Milford Wind Energy Project UT ■ _ r LLC UPC Wind Managemert, Sheffield Wind Energy Project VT LLC West Hill Wmdpower LLC West Hill Wind Farm NY Willow Creek Energy LLC Willow Creek Winds Project OR : ■ # ■', ■: Winds Over Washington : Winds Over Washington Wind Farm; WA ■ ■ ■ i ' ■ # Wind Solutions, Inc. i Flattery Wind Energy Project I OR ■ * - Projects completed by Tetra Tech staff prior to joining Tetra Tech. 0 Tetra Tech, teamed with Nixon Peabody LLP, was selected by AWEA to develop its Wind Energy Siting Handbook. This on-line handbook serves as a siting guidance tool for the wind energy industry, including developers, regulatory agencies, and other interested parties. The handbook focuses on environmental siting issues relevant to land - based, commercial scale wind energy project development in the U.S. The handbook is full of live external links to relevant web sites that expand upon the information presented in the document, such as links to regulations, on-line application forms, and other key resources. Tetra Tech's expert staff researched and designed each section of the handbook. Tetra Tech also coordinated with Nixon Peabody to address legal issues associated with the siting process. Authors from Tetra Tech and Nixon Peabody drafted and cross -reviewed the various components of the handbook and compiled the pieces into a cohesive, user-friendly document. Tetra Tech's skilled publications team created the web -based format of the guide to ensure universal accessibility and the ability for readers to link to external web resources. Working closely with members of the AWEA Siting Committee, Tetra Tech and Nixon Peabody launched the completed handbook in February 2008 at the AWEA Wind Energy Siting Workshop in Austin, Texas. The Wind Energy Siting Handbook is available online at: www.awea.org/sitinghandbook PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS Our team's high level of expertise ensured all information was accurate and cutting edge Developed content with sufficient breadth and depth to ensure the handbook would be useful to many different audiences with varying levels of interest and experience } • Met the client's schedule and budget • Worked closely with members of the AWEA Siting Committee to ensure diverse views were incorporated into the handbook Tetra Tech is supporting Bluewater Wind LLC (Bluewater Wind) to develop the first utility -scale offshore wind park in the U.S. Tetra Tech has been involved in all aspects of Bluewater Wind's proposal for a 450 megawatt (MW) offshore wind park, which won a competitive bid to provide new energy resources in Delaware. Tetra Tech conducted the route selection for a 138 kilovolt (kV) submarine/underground cable and preliminary environmental resource analysis from three alternate offshore wind park locations in Delaware Bay and in the Atlantic Ocean off the Delaware shore. Considerations in selecting and evaluating the routes and site locations included: navigation areas; cultural resource sites (mostly shipwrecks); dump sites; unexploded ordnance; cable crossings; commercial and recreational fishing areas, and environmental resources such as oyster beds, marine mammals, and significant marine habitats. We also evaluated onshore constraints such as visual impact and the construction of transmission facilities in order to avoid a national wildlife preserve, residential development, agricultural areas, wetlands and historic sites. To confirm areas of potential impact, Tetra Tech staff met with State of Delaware agencies and federal agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Minerals Management Service (MMS), is PEI r' �y MANCE iiyy YYr+� LIGHTS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service '+ (USFWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG).' ' Tetra Tech also drafted the site nomination and application for a MMS lease for the placement of a meteorological data — collection facility on the Outer Continental Shelf and has initiated comprehensive seasonal offshore avian surveys in the proposed wind park project site. Tetra Tech's support of the Bluewater Delaware Offshore Wind Park effort will continue through the MMS National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental permitting process. Tetra Tech is providing full environmental support services to assist Bluewater Wind LLC in its efforts to build the first large-scale offshore utility - scale wind park in the U.S. • Submitted a proposal for a 450 MW wind park off the Atlantic coast of Delaware — which may become the first utility scale offshore wind park in the U.S. • Prepared MMS Permit application for a meteorological data collection facility at the wind park site -- the first MMS permit I application under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 • Successfully initiated offshore avian surveys in the proposed wind park project site —the first comprehensive offshore wind park avian study to be conducted in federal waters off the coast of Delaware • Consulted with State of Delaware agencies and federal agencies, such as the USACE, MMS, USFWS, NMFS, and the USCG Tetra Tech provided a wide range of environmental support services to Granite Energy, LLC for the Granite Mountain Wind Project, a 62 to 81 megawatt (MW) wind energy project located 14 miles east of Victorville in San Bernardino County, California. Granite Energy, LLC is a subsidiary of Sierra Renewables, LLC, which is a joint venture between Renewable Energy Systems and L.H. Renewables, LLC. Tetra Tech worked closely with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to ensure potential impacts to natural resources were addressed. Our staff conducted the biological resource surveys necessary to evaluate environmental impacts to the area, including surveys for species of concern such as the desert tortoise and Bendire's thrasher. Other environmental surveys included raptor nest searches, avian point count surveys, turkey vulture and raptor migration surveys, habitat and waters surveys, botanical surveys, and acoustical bat surveys and analysis. For the bat surveys and analysis, Tetra Tech successfully installed two Anabat detectors on the meteorological tower that will collect bat calls for one year. Data collected will be analyzed to determine bat activity in the project area and impacts of the turbines on the migrating and resident bat populations. ICE: r Vui LL C CNi- 0 0 WIND These surveys were part of our comprehensive environmental assessment of the potential impacts arising from the project development in accordance with requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act. Tetra Tech prepared detailed reports summarizing the findings of each survey and analyzed the potential impacts of the proposed project on local species and resources. To summarize and compile the biological resource survey results and provide a comprehensive evaluation of the environmental conditions of the site, Tetra Tech produced a general biological report for the client and the BLM. The results of our comprehensive effort will be used to write the environmental impact statement/environmental impact report and the Biological Assessment for consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. PMFIDRIMANCE HIGHLIGHTS • Supplemented the avian point count surveys by conducting migration surveys to monitor large fall and spring turkey vulture and white pelican migrations is • Established a good working relationship with the BLM and addressed all natural resources of concern • Worked closely with regulatory agencies to monitor raptor nests, including golden eagles, within one mile of the project area It {tt:`rJ r 1 F' a[ E�' 'x` i k�f!N0 IDrdanville Wind Farm HERKIMER COUW. NEWYORK Tetra Tech provided foundation design engineering services for Iberdrola USA's proposed Jordanville Wind Farm in Herkimer County, New York, which consists of 75 proposed Gamesa G87 2 megawatt (MW) wind turbine generators, each standing at 78 meters high, with an 87- meter rotor diameter. After evaluation of site geotechnical parameters at each of the 78 proposed turbine locations, Tetra Tech sized and _ designed a reinforced concrete foundation based on global stability, soil parameters, and �. structural requirements. The •mot foundation structural .='•. design was performed .A V ° in accordance with applicable American Concrete Institute (ACi) and American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) guidelines, while fulfilling all turbine manufacturer requirements. + Cost-effective design accomplished via finite element modeling Tetra Tech produced a cost-effective design through the use of foundation finite element modeling to accurately determine soil bearing pressures and minimize foundation size. The use of foundation models allowed Tetra Tech to produce a single typical foundation design applicable to most turbine locations, despite varying site parameters. To ensure conformity and quality, Tetra Tech engineers complied with Tetra Tech project requirements and conducted vendor consultation and internal constructability reviews. These quality measures have provided fundamental input and reduced the field effort required for construction of turbine foundations. To adhere to demanding project schedules and ensure client satisfaction, Tetra Tech maintained constant contact with Iberdrola. Our commitment to client satisfaction included providing timely submittals for client review throughout the project. [ • Foundation structural design in accordance with ACI and AISC engineering and construction requirements Tetra Tech is currently providing comprehensive environmental and engineering services, as well as preliminary construction support, to CPV Renewable Energy Company, LLC (CPV) for the Keenan Wind Energy Project. The project is located in Woodward County in northwest Oklahoma. Phase 1 of the project will include up to 44 Siemens 2.3 megawatt (M ) turbines for a total generating capacity of more than 100 MW and is anticipated to be on-line in late 2009. Tetra Tech performed a detailed Critical Issues Analysis of the proposed project site to identify potential fatal flaws, determine applicable permitting requirements, and establish next steps for successful project development. Tetra Tech has completed a number of additional environmental studies to support successful development and minimize impacts and project costs including the following: noise impact assessment; bat risk assessment; whooping crane risk assessment; lesser prairie -chicken lek survey; cultural resource file review at the State Historic Preservation Office, Oklahoma Archeological Survey, and Woodward County offices; Unanticipated Discoveries Plan for historical remains; I Vk M; t 1. _ i PIr'} A 0 loyll:'d Tetra Tech Is actively and successfully using environmental data to guide project engineering design and to limit project impacts, and thus permit requirements. This reduces the number of iterations to the project layout, saving time and money during the development phase. i • Saved the client time and money on application preparation and agency/public reviews • Tetra Tech successfully reduced wetland impacts below the permitting threshold through project design in combination with biological studies • Prepared avian & bat desktop risk assessments with the support of interested agencies and avoided more costly, long-term spring and falIf ield studies Effectively designed project layout to reduce environmental and community impacts, while providing significant construction cost savings to the client Phase I Environmental Site Assessment; and numerous geographic information system and mapping efforts. Tetra Tech was also hired to conduct wetlands investigation and delineation in conjunction with design of the final project layout. Protected resources have been identified and avoided to the extent possible in order to minimize impacts, permitting requirements, and associated costs. Tetra Tech performed a construct@bility/feast bility assessment during a site visit and geotechnical studies were conducted to evaluate the need for improvements to local roads. n Tetra Tech engineers and wind construction experts have provided alternative designs of the underground electrical collection system, proposed substation, transmission line, and access/haul roads based on the turbine layouts provided by CPV's meteorologist. Rough order of magnitude balance of plant estimates and more detailed projections have been developed by Tetra Tech estimators for each revised layout so that CPV can best assess the potential production costs and level of effort associated with the project design. Tetra Tech has been granted the full engineering, procurement, and construction contract to support this project through operation. Tetra Tech is in the process of assisting the Kodiak Electric Association, Inc. (KFA), located on Kodiak Island, Alaska, in developing a small turbine wind power project. The facility will consist of three General Electric 1.5 megawatt (MW) wind turbines. The project site is located on Pillar Mountain, which overlooks the City of Kodiak. This project presents a number of challenges unique to Alaska. The existing gravel road to the top of Pillar Mountain passes near a number of wetlands and waterways and is too narrow to accommodate construction traffic and wind turbine delivery. Project access will require significant rerouting and reconstruction of this road to accommodate transport of heavy turbine components and equipment to the site. In addition, bald eagles are very common and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has expressed concern about the risk of eagles colliding with turbines. PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHT:" • Tetra Tech's 404 permit submittal received prompt agency approval r • Tetra Tech provided narrative and engineering plans in support of the 404 permit application for wetland protection and on - site erosion and sediment control S 1 • Tetra Tech performed road and turbine siting and mapping and turbine micrositing • Tetra Tech developed a full project schedule, inclusive of construction, and a rough order of magnitude construction cost analysis • Tetra Tech prepared design drawings and supporting engineering analyses for the civil, foundation and electrical aspects of the wind turbine project including evaluation of the effects of the severe seismic potential and high winds on foundation design; and transportation in steep, mountainous terrain • Tetra Tech continues to provide construction management support including detailed project cost estimating; coordination of .' transportation including ocean going barges required to bring in not only the turbine components but also the specialized trucking and crane required for construction; subcontracting of all construction aspects; and construction management during construction in 2008 and 2009 To date, Tetra Tech has: 1) prepared a critical issues analysis report, which identified development challenges and recommended areas in need of further study; 2) prepared an engineering feasibility report addressing the issue of how turbines could be transported to the top of Pillar Mountain and how the project could be constructed; 3) designed and implemented a year -long field study of avian use and trained qualified, local subcontractors to address USFWS concerns; 4) conducted an on -site wetland delineation; 5) prepared a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit application, including engineering n drawings, for unavoidable impacts to roadside drainages; B) prepared engineering analyses and design drawings for civil, structural and electrical scopes of work to support pre -construction, building permits, construction and project closeout documentation; 7) initiated construction budgets and proposals for civil, foundations, collection trenching, turbine transport, tower erection, tower wiring and met tower construction using the talents of many local subcontractor and material suppliers; and 8) developed a construction schedule to ensure timely delivery during the 2008 and 2009 construction seasons. Tetra Tech provided environmental construction compliance, Phase 1a and 2 permitting, value and design engineering, and civil construction services to Flat Rock Windpower, LLC (composed of Horizon Wind Energy and Iberdrola Renewables (formerly PPM Energy)) for the Maple Ridge Wind Farm in Lewis County, New York. The completed project consists of 195 Vestas 1.65 megawatt (MW) turbines with a 12- mile 230 kilovolt (kV) Article VI I transmission line. In less than 4 weeks, Tetra Tech reviewed 38 environmental permits and dissected them for any construction -related environmental compliance measures. Working side by side with our client, we developed a program to meet all environmental construction requirements in the most efficient manner 0 PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHT lioiY�.Y4 t:il��•7++1_a4w:r ■ iiflrv6-i possible. We presented the compliance program, the first ever done in New York for a wind farm, to the enthusiastic approval of the New York State Department of Public Service, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets. We trained 450 construction workers, agency personnel, and owner personnel in how to use the environmental compliance tools we created. And, most importantly, Tetra Tech obtained every preconstruction clearance that was part of our scope of work two days ahead of schedule. • Presented first ever wind farm construction compliance program with approval from several state agencies • Provided value engineering for Phase 1 and full civil engineering design for Phase 1a and Phase 2 • Project featured 400 acres of clearing and grubbing, more than 40 miles of access roads and more than 300 acres of restoration • Completed project within the aggressive schedule desired by the client Tetra Tech provided environmental construction inspection services throughout construction, keepingthe project in compliance and construction moving forward. These services included construction observation, environmental training, obtaining regulatory approval for project changes, and environmental reporting. Tetra Tech also provided value civil engineering for Maple Ridge Phase 1, right -designing culverts, stormwater management features, roadways, bridges, and foundations. Tetra Tech conducted final civil engineering design and prepared construction drawings for Phase la and Phase 2 of the project. Tetra Tech also coordinated new Department of Transportation permits and federal and state wetland permit modifications resultingfrom changes between conceptual engineering design and the final design. The Delaney Group, a Tetra Tech subsidiary, provided civil construction services, including clearing and grubbing, drainage pipe installation, access road construction and crane pad construction. In addition to this work, the Delaney Group completed 15 miles of public road widening and reconstruction projects and was responsible for project -wide installation of environmental controls and performance of environmental and agricultural restoration tasks. The Delaney Group was very successful in working with other trades to help maintain an on -time schedule. n i .. i '4 wl-N_p Due to both the large scope of environmental controls and strict environmental regulations, the Delaney Group was responsible for implementation of many project rules designed to protect the environment and agricultural yield. Throughout the project, the Delaney Group maintained an excellent compliance record with such agencies as U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York Public Service Commission, New York Department of Agriculture and Markets, and the Lewis County Soil and Water Conservation District. � A geotextile grid was used to stabilize subsoil for wind turbine access roads. The photo shows topsoil segregation, as required by the New York Department of Agriculture and Markets. h'P4f: �Y i.i-• ��Iti�;i�{sY � 'll�r.i:5 In addition to civil construction, the Delaney Group was asked to provide an environmental controls crew to ensure National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) requirements, Department of Agriculture and Markets Agricultural Protection Measures and other project rules were complied.with throughout the entire project. Our environmental controls team has worked with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation representatives to help the project stay in compliance. if The Delaney Group Inc. (Delaney Group, a subsidiary of Tetra Tech) constructed turbine access roads for Noble Environmental Power on its 67-turbine Noble Clinton Wind Park, located in Clinton County, New York. Delaney Group was responsible for 80,885 feet of access roads. The Delaney Group performed clearing and grubbing of 23.5 acres, road construction, reclamation, and all associated environmental controls. New access road construction started at the edge of the public road and continued to the turbine site. The required scope included 2,318 linear feet of hedge row stone wall removal, drainage pipe installation, and aggregate placement. The project was completed in conjunction with the Ellenburg Wind Park in the required 11 week schedule. 0 PERFC}RIh ANCE HIGHLIGHTS i • 80,885 feet of access roads 4 • 23.5 acres of clearing and grubbing + 2,318 linear feet of hedge row stone wall removal Tetra Tech has worked with FPL Energy's wind energy development team since 2004 to complete environmental due diligence and resource studies, permitting, and micrositing on several potential wind projects in North Dakota. Tetra Tech has prepared North Dakota Public Service Commission (PSG) permit applications on behalf of FPL Energy for five wind energy centers, including applications for a 200 megawatt (MW) wind farm and corridor/route permits for a 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line. In support of these North Dakota PSG permit applications, Tetra Tech has prepared a Section 10 river crossing permit (Missouri River) '—'L; =, and Section 404 - Nationwide wetland permit applications; I prepared environmental n assessments; performed cultural and biological field studies; participated in scoping meetings to determine permit requirements and critical path milestones; and participated in tribal consultation meetings. The cultural and biological field studies included avian/sharp-tailed grouse lek surveys, raptor nest surveys, wetland surveys/prairie mapping, a Class I archaeology records search, and a Class III cultural pedestrian survey. Tetra Tech successfully fast -tracked the permitting of the Langdon Wind Energy Center, the biggest wind -powered electrical -generating facility in forth Dakota, consisting of 106 GE 1.6 MW series turbines. PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS, • Worked with construction personnel to successfully reduce wetland impacts at many of the projects in order to qualify for the reduced requirements of Nationwide permits • Provided testimony to the North Dakota PSG to support multiple permit application requests and worked closely with the North Dakota PSC to expedite these permits to ensure timely receipt. Permits were received in record time which made it possible to start construction in time to meet aggressive commissioning schedule • Worked closely with engineers to recommend changes to project layout to avoid and reduce impacts to archeological sites Tetra Tech provides permitting support to Northwest Wind Partners (NWWP) for seven wind energy projects in Klickitat County, Washington. These projects range in size from approximately 50 megawatts (MW) to more than 300 MWs. Tetra Tech works as a team with NWWP interfacing with Klickitat County, in coordination with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and other regulatory agencies, to obtain environmental permit approval for these projects. Tetra Tech assists NWWP to ensure adherence with the expedited project schedule, while providing the level of quality required to obtain the necessary permits. Tetra Tech oversees all aspects of the permitting process. In addition to performing studies and preparing the permit applications, Tetra Tech also provides project management of the client's subcontractors for civil design and the biological studies. Tetra Tech provides NWWP with a dedicated project coordinator who is responsible for overall integration of the projects and meeting the project objectives; staying within the approved scope and budget; and meeting the aggressive development schedule. Tetra Tech also provides a project manager for each NWWP wind energy project to manage the technical support and prepare permit applications. Ftt:fUi:1Y ail t �i �isf=iY f trilYi) "Miller Ranch Wind Farm EAZ and SEPA Applications are In. l Just wanted to take a moment to thank Tetra Tech and their staff... from all of us at NWWP. Tetra Tech has entered the Miller Ranch Permit Application into the County today, and also they are on schedule for another submittal into the County with tower lmrie. As project manager, I have been very, very Impressed by the effort to stay on schedules, the ability to organize contractors and others, and I am always amazed with your abilities to speak the same language as the county and state officials. Thank you for a good job submitting the Miller Ranch ' Application.,' Chad Ross, NWWP i • Prepared the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Checklist and Energy Overlay Zone Application for the Miller Ranch Wind Energy Project, meeting the client's expedited schedule needs • Provided NWWP with Geographic Information System (GIS)-based constraints analysis of permitted wind energy projects to aid in the site selection process 0 Supported the permitting strategy approach taken to meet the needs of the client and the regulatory agencies Tetra Tech conducts environmental surveys and analysis, performs archeological investigations, conducts site wetlands reconnaissance and delineations, develops and implements the permit strategies, and prepares permit applications and environmental documentations for each project. This one -stop shop approach ensures these technically dynamic, fast -paced projects can receive both the project management and cross -resource data management necessary to ensure the entire development team remains on the same page. Tetra Tech's GIS analysts prepare comprehensive constraint maps depicting the currently identified environmental, land use, and engineering constraints to aid NWWP in their micro -siting efforts. The GIS constraints analysis reflects the areas of avoidance, enhancing the client's micro -siting process, reducing the level of effort for this activity, and decreasing the corresponding costs and schedule. Tetra Tech works closely with NWWP and stakeholders to identify the best approach to permitting each wind energy project. By identifying and using existing data, updated as appropriate for the project, Tetra Tech has been able to expedite permit preparation, reducing project costs and schedule. n Tetra Tech biologists delineated all waters of the U.S., including wetlands, within the project areas in accordance with the 1987 USACE methods and identified jurisdictional water bodies within the areas proposed for project components. Additionally, our biologists identified sensitive habitat areas within the project boundaries. These findings, along with the information provided by NWWP's environmental subcontractor were categorized and consolidated by Tetra Tech to prepare the constraints analysis. Based on these findings, the areas of avoidance were identified, resulting in optimal layout modifications to avoid wetlands, sensitive habitat, and other environmental impacts. Tetra Tech supported mitigation strategy development, working in conjunction with NWWP, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Klickitat County, to identify a mutually acceptable approach. These efforts have resulted in the approval of the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance. "...1 have been very impressed with the movement forward on progress, so thank you." Chats Ross, NWWP Tetra Tech was retained by Rock Run Wind Farm LLC, a joint venture between Freedom Wind Energy, LLC and Babcock and Brown, LLC, to provide engineering services for developing a 65 to 70 megawatt (MW) wind farm with 30 2.3 MW wind turbines. The 5,000-acre project area is located in an area of previous surface and subsurface mining in western Pennsylvania. In addition to the wind park, the county -owned land is being used for recreational purposes as an All Terrain Vehicle park. Tetra Tech performed a desktop geotechnical evaluation of the project area to provide information for our engineers to develop a conceptual design for turbines, access roads, an operation and maintenance building, laydown areas, and construction entrances. During development of the conceptual design, Tetra Tech took great care to prepare a project layout that made sense from a constructability standpoint and also avoided impacts to recreation. The conceptual design consisted of laying out project facilities based on a preliminary turbine location plan prepared by a third party. The scope of work included locating historic gas wells and associated underground piping systems on the site. The design was prepared to scale using assumed impacts of facilities to the landscape CAMBR.iA.WLJNly, PENNSYLVAf' IA (e.g., a 32-foot access road footprint and 200-foot turbine pad and laydown area) and to help in determination of the need for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 wetlands permitting. Preliminary layout included on -site ground truth ing with a Tetra Tech engineer and wetlands biologist to verify the location of facilities and to minimize disturbance of wetlands/streams. The conceptual design was based on digital elevation data. Tetra Tech's engineers visited the site and walked all facilities with the design uploaded into hand-held global positioning system (GPS) units to verify design constructability. PERT :HmANCE HIGHLIGHTS I • Completed a geotechnical desktop study for engineering to develop a conceptual design for project facilities R• Gathered information identifying previously unknown underground deep mines beneath the project site to guide facility siting I' • Conducted Phase I Environmental Site Assessment using ASTM AAI standards + Conducted wildlife, avian, and bat assessments to determine potential project impacts to these species, including state - listed species • Conducted a Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) of the project that included non -participant structures to verify that the project would operate within noise limits set forth by local ordinance I The desktop geotechnical evaluation included review of previously published geotechnical information pertinent to siting a wind project and made recommendations to support detailed design investigations. Feasibility and anticipated construction requirements were addressed to facilitate improved construction cost estimates based on site -specific issues. This evaluation was critical because a large portion of the project area consisted of a reclaimed strip mine. Tetra Tech engineers contacted both state mining offices and the Mining Map Repository in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to gather information to determine the extent of mining operations. Through this research, Tetra Tech identified several underground deep mines that traversed the project site. These mines had not been known to the developer. Our determination of the extent and reclamation of these formerly mined areas was critical for project facility siting. Based upon review and documentation of available information, Tetra Tech categorized turbines into several different groups based on potential geological hazards. We then recommended future geotechnical field studies specific to each of these groups. In addition to engineering support, Tetra Tech prepared wildlife, avian, and bat assessments that addressed potential project -related impacts to mammals, local birds, eagles/raptors, migrant birds, bat, and state -listed species; coordinated with agencies including Pennsylvania Game Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Cambria County officials; and conducted a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment of the proposed 6,000-acre project site in accordance American Society for Testing and Materials (2005) standards. Tetra Tech also performed a NIA using sound power and frequency data, as provided by the turbine manufacturer/vendor, to model wind turbine generator acoustic propagation using a Computer Aided Noise Abatement (CadnaA) program to verify that the project would operate within noise limits set forth by local ordinance. Tetra Tech provided a wide range of regulatory, environmental, and micro -siting services to Minnesota Power, an investor -owned utility headquartered in Duluth, Minnesota, successfully obtaining a Site Permit and Certificate of Need from the Public Utilities Commission for its 25 megawatt (MW) wind energy project. The facility is located in central St. Louis County on property owned by United States Steel Corporation (US Steel) at its Minntac Mine in the City of Mt. Iron. The project represents the first commercial wind energy facility in northeastern Minnesota. For this effort, Tetra Tech conducted environmental surveys and analyses, completed archeological investigations, delineated site wetlands, developed and implemented a permit strategy, and prepared permit applications and environmental documentation. Tetra Tech performed a comprehensive environmental assessment of the potential impacts arising from the project development and prepared the Site Permit PERFORMANCE MGHLIGHTS Application for the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission in accordance with Minnesota State law. Tetra Tech conducted an in-depth operational noise impact assessment of the project and confirmed that project operation would comply with the Minnesota Noise Rules. The noise contour map was used at the Site Permit Public Hearing to demonstrate that noise rules were not exceeded at any residential properties. Tetra Tech met with the Minnesota Department of Commerce and the Public Utilities Commission In the initial phases of project development. This early coordination, as well as continuous agency 1 dialog throughout the project, earned the project a Site Permit and Certificate of Need from the Public Utilities Commission within four months. Successfully reduced wetland impacts and qualified the project for the reduced requirements of a Nationwide permit • Adjusted the turbine layout to resolve a conflict with a microwave beam path + Effectively redesigned project layout to reduce impacts to archeological sites Tetra Tech provided regulatory, environmental, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), engineering, and construction management services for Willow Creek Energy LLC's Willow Creek Winds Project in Morrow and Gilliam Counties, Oregon. Willow Creek is a subsidiary of Invenergy Wind, LLC. The construction of 48 General Electric 1.5 megawatt (MW) wind turbines, which will generate 72 MW of power, began in February 2008. Prior to construction, Tetra Tech conducted biological and cultural resources field surveys. We designed a bridge required for project access. Tetra Tech also performed a Phase I ASTM AAI environmental site assessment (ESA) to assess the potential for the presence of hazardous waste within the project area. We successfully coordinated with federal agencies during the design engineering phase to address permitting issues early. Throughout the project, Tetra Tech served as liaison between local government, stakeholders, subcontractors, and Willow Creek Energy. During construction, Tetra Tech provided construction oversight for the project for a period of months. n During the permitting phase, our biologists performed a reconnaissance survey of the proposed project area to identify jurisdictional wetlands and waters, examine stream crossings where bridge replacements are proposed, and determine permit requirements. We performed cultural resources studies to identify archeological sites and to identify areas that may have archeological sensitivity. We provided a cultural resources monitor during construction in areas sensitive for cultural resources. Prior to construction, Tetra Tech biologists and engineers conducted a site visit with representatives from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Oregon Division of State Lands, National Marine Fisheries Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine 1) the types of permits and approvals that would be required for bridge replacement, if any, and 2) a realistic schedule for obtaining the required permits and approvals. We identified a bridge / replacement engineering design that avoided work within l wetlands and waters of the U.S. Thus, the agencies determined on site that wetland permits likely would not be required. This determination resulted in both cost and schedule savings for Willow Creek Energy LLC. • Identified bridge replacement engineering design that avoided the need for wetland permits and resulted in cost and schedule savings for the client • Conducted a reconnaissance survey of the proposed project area to identify jurisdictional wetlands and waters • Performed cultural resources reconnaissance survey and cultural resources monitoring services during construction • Completed an ESA • During construction, provided construction management on behalf of Willow Creek Energy LLC 0 TETRATECH ?.8Q{,a8.0.376 M WWW-TETRA-TCCII.COM ■ WtMDENfRGY@T-TECI.COM. VI august. 200s, CQpyflo,p 2QR$ Tatra Tech FC, Im Exhibit I Mechanical Load Analysis MECHANICAL LOADS ANALYSIS PILLAR MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT / USA GE 1.5SLE / 80m 160Hz GE Energy BEC, John F. Welch Technology Center EPIP, phase 2, Hoodi Village, White field road Bangalore, India - 560 066 T(+91)80-2-841-2050 F(+91)80-2-841-3113 Gepower,com Visit us at www.gewindenergy.com l + imagination at work 0 2008 GE Energy. All rights reserved GE Energy The results of this analysis are subject to change with ongoing technical development. Copyright and patent rights This document is to be treated confidentially. It may only be made accessible to authorized people and made available only to third parties with the expressed written consent of GE Energy. All documents are copyrighted according to the Copyright Act. The transmission and reproduction of the documents, also in extracts, as well as the exploitation and communication of the contents are not allowed without express written consent from GE. Contraventions are liable to prosecution and compensation for damage. We reserve all rights for the exercise of commercial patent rights ©2008 GE Energy. All rights reserved. REVISION HISTORY Document Rev. Release Dote lyyyy/mm/ddl Affected Pages Change MLA -Pillar Mountain Wind Project —GE 1,5sle-8OmHH—revl 01 2008-08-22 All Layout MLA_Pillar_Mountair}_Wind_Project_ll 5sle_80mh H_RevO 00 2007-10-26 All Original release CO. - imagination a work 0 2008 GE Energy. All rights reserved GE Energy TABLE OF CONTENTS 1, 2, 3. Executive Summary Introduction Project Information 3.1. Wind Rose and Wind Speed Distributio 3.2. Turbulence Intensity 3.3. Flow Inclination Angle 3.4. Extreme Wind Conditions 3.5. Wind Shear Profile 3.6. Air Density 3.7, Wind Farm Layout 4. 4. 4. 4. 5. Site Specific Loads Assessment 1. Fatigue Loads Analysis 2. Extreme Loads Analysis 3. Turbine Suitability Conclusions 4 5 6 6 7 7 7 8 _8 -8 10 10 11 12 13 Page.- 3 of 15 CONFIDENTIAL - Proprietary Informatian. DO NOT COPY without written consent from GE Energy. Document MLA -Pillar ® 2008 GE Energy. All rights reserved Mountain wind Project —GE 1 5s1e-80mHH revl.doc I Energy 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In order to determine the suitability of the GE 1.5sle wind turbine with a hub height of 80m for the Pillar Mountain Wind Project in USA, a mechanical loads analysis was performed. This analysis considered both fatigue and extreme loads. Based on the site information and wind conditions provided by the customer, Kodiak Electric Association, the analysis results indicate the GE 1.5sle wind turbine with a hub height of 80m is suitable for the Pillar Mountain Wind Project. This conclusion applies only to the input data considered in the analysis and is contingent to the accuracy of the data provided by the customer. Page.- 4 of 15 CONFIDENTIAL - Proprietary Informaftn. DO NOT COPY without written consent from GE Energy. Document MLA -Pillar ® 2008 GE Energy. All rights reserved Mountain Wind Project —GE 1 5sle-80mHH revl.doc GE Energy 2ATIRODUCTEON The installation of 3 GE 1.5sle wind turbines with a hub height of 80m at the site of the Pillar Mountain Wind Project project in USA is being considered by Kodiak Electric Association. This report describes the mechanical loads analysis of the proposed wind turbines based on the site information and wind conditions provided by the customer, Kodiak Electric Association. Page.- 5 of 15 CONFIDENTIAL - Proprietary Information. DO NOT COPY without written consent from GE Energy, Document MLA -Pillar ® 2008 GE Energy. All rights reserved Mountain wind Project —GE 1 5sle-80mHH revi.doc GE Energy 3. PROJECT INFORMATION This section documents the inputs to the mechanical loads analysis. The site conditions described in this section were provided by the customer, Kodiak Electric Association. 3.1. WIND ROSE AND WIND SPEED DISTRIBUTION As depicted in figure 1, the main wind direction at the turbine position with the highest weibull scale factor at hub height is NNE. k �l gp 16p [�] Figure 1: Wind rose for Pillar Mountain Wind Project. The wind speed distribution for the some turbine position is,shown in figure 2. Weibull Distribution 900 Boo 700 — u-A ---a: 600 = 500tk.. o400j Z 300-- 200 + a. O Wind Speed Imis) Figure 2: Wind speed distribution for Pillar Mountain Wind Project Page.- 6 of 15 CONFIDENTIAL - Proprietary Information, DO NOT COPY without written consent from GE Energy. Document MLA -Pillar 2008 GE Energy. Al rights reserved Mountain Wind Project GE 1 5sie-80mHH revl.doc GE Energy The average wind speed at the most energetic position for the site is 8.0m/s at the hub height of 80m [Appendix 11. The provided weibull wind parameters for the most energetic turbine location at hub height are used in the mechanical loads analysis. 3.2.TURBULENCE INTENSITY Turbulence increases the mechanical loads on a wind turbine and the characteristic turbulence intensity is used in the loads analysis as a representative value for the lifetime of the turbine. The characteristic turbulence intensity is defined by the IEC standard [1] as the mean value of the turbulence intensity plus one standard deviation. The characteristic turbulence intensity distribution at the site is shown in figure 3. This figure also depicts the IEC T01a (Ve50=55m/s) wind class for which the GE 1.5sle was designed [Appendix 11. Turbulence Intensity distribution 45.00 , 40.00 35,00 -�- —"— IEC p 30.00 CTI-Mast A!- 25.00 - 20.00 . F 15.00 10.00 5.00 ' — 0,00 '. UUInd 5peed(mis) 11 Figure 3: Turbulence intensity distribution 3.3. FLOW INCLINATION ANGLE The slope of the terrain influences the approach angle of the wind with respect to the wind turbine rotor and influences the mechanical loads on the wind turbine. The maximum flow inclination angle is 8.96 degrees, as provided by the customer [Appendix 11. 3.4. EXTREME WIND CONDITIONS The extreme wind conditions are expressed in terms of gust speeds at hub height having a recurrence period of 5o years [1]. Gust speeds having an averaging period of 3 seconds (Ve5o) and 10 minutes (Vref) are required for the assessment of the extreme loads. Page.- 7 of 15 CONFIDENTIAL- Proprietary Information. DO NOT COPY without written consent from GE Energy. Document MLA -Pillar ® 2008 GE Energy. All rights reserved Mountain wind Project —GE 1 5s1e-80mHH rev1.doc GE Energy The maximum Vref and Ve50 for the turbine layout shown in figure 4 are 43.6 m/s and 54.7 m/s, respectively [Appendix 11. 3.5. WIND SHEAR PROFILE The vertical variation of the wind VO is defined using a wind shear exponent lot) and the power low. V2 _ fzlVi(Z2i )a ` J Z Knowing the hub height Zs and the wind speed at that height Vz, the velocity at height Z can be determined. The worst -case vertical wind shear exponent (alfa) across the rotor is 0.0181 [Appendix 11. 3.6. AiR DENSITY The annual average air density for the site was determined to be 1.217 kg/m3 [Appendix 11. 3.7. WIND FARM LAYOUT The turbine positions for the Pillar Mountain Wind Project project are shown in the figure 4 and the turbine coordinates are given in Appendix 1. The minimum spacing between any pair of wind turbine is 165 meters. No other' wind turbine has been considered for this analysis. Page.- 8 of 15 CONFIDENTIAL - Proprietary Information, DO NOT COPY without written consent from GE Energy, Document MLA -Pillar ® 2008 GE Energy. All rights reserved Mountain Wind Project —GE 1 5s1e-80mHH rev1.doc GE Energy 300 250 200 N C 150 tf 0 z 100 50 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Easti•ngs Figure 4.- Wind farm layout Page.- 9 of 15 CONFIDENTIAL- Proprietary Information, 00 NOT COPY without wrftten consent from GE Energy, Document MLA -Pillar ® 2008 GE Energy. All rights reserved Mountain Wind Project _GE 1 Ssle-80mHH revl.doc GE Energy 4. SITE SPECIFIC LOADS ASSESSMENT 4.1. FATIGUE LOADS ANALYSIS The initial step of the fatigue loads analysis is to determine the most highly loaded turbine or turbines in the wind farm. This is done using a computer model called TBONTB, which uses as input the turbine positions, ambient characteristic turbulence intensity distribution and wind rose of each turbine position or the most energetic turbine position. TBONTB first calculates the relative spacing and orientation of all turbines, then calculates the sector width, frequency and wake -induced turbulence per direction sector for each turbine using the Sten Frandsen method (2]. Then, the following Damage Equivalent Loads (DELsI for all turbines are calculated through the use of a fatigue loads database contained within TBONTB: MyB1: Flapwise Moment Blade Root MzB1: Edgewise Moment Blade Root FyRO: Shearing Force Hub MyRO: Nodding Moment Hub MzRO: Torque Drive Train FzK2: Thrust Tower Tap MxK2: Torsion Tower Top MyK2: Nodding Tower Top The DELs depend on the S-N curve slope of the material. The results are compared for SN-Slope 4 and 10 to the design loads envelope certified by Germanischer Lloyd [3] for the turbine type considered. The certified loads correspond to an equivalent 20-year life of the turbine. The DEL margin for each component considered is calculated using the following equation: , t Margin= 1_ Site Specific Loads I00% Envelope Loads The DELs were compared and the most highly loaded turbine was found to be turbine 5. As standard practice, the results from TBONTB are used only for relative ranking of the turbines and the final DELs are obtained from a more detailed analysis using an aero-elastic wind turbine simulation program called Flex5, in the FIexS analysis, the following Damage Equivalent Loads (DELs) are calculated: MyB1: Flapwise Moment Blade Root MZB1: Edgewise Moment Blade Root MyRO: Nodding Moment Hub, rotation MzRO: Torque Drive Train, rotation MXR1: Yawing Moment Hub, fixed MyR1: Nodding Moment Hub, fixed Page.- 10 of 15 CONFIDENTIAL - Proprietary Information. DO NOT COPY without written consent from GE Energy. Document MLA -Pillar m 2008 GE Energy. All rights reserved Mountain wind Project —GE 1 Ssle-80mHH rev1.doc GE Energy MyK2: Nodding Tower Top MyTB: Nodding Tower Base The FIex5 results for turbine 5 when compared with the loading level deemed acceptable based on the design loads envelope certified by Germanischer Lloyd for a 20-yr turbine life and changes in calculation methods since the certification was issued, indicated that a review by the GE component design team was necessary to approve the loads for the MyB1, MxR1 and MyR1 sensors. The GE component design team deemed the fatigue loads acceptable. Note that the differences in the DELs considered in TBONTB and FIex5 do not impact the selection of the most highly loaded turbine(sl. 4.2. EXTREME LOADS ANALYSIS An extreme loads analysis is required if one or several of the following factors at the site exceed the IEC [11 certification limits of the turbine of interest although compensation between these factors can negate the need for an extreme loads analysis. IEC TC I I a (Ve50=55m/s) ■ 50-yr, 10-min gust ■ 50-yr, 3 second gust ■ Maximum flow inclination angle ■ Maximum vertical wind shear ■ Annual average air density Site conditions ■ 50-yr, 10-min gust ■ 50-yr, 3 second gust ■ Maximum flow inclination angle ■ Maximum vertical wind shear ■ Annual average air density 39.3 m/s 55 m/s 8 degrees 0.2 for gust & fault load case, 0.11 for storm load cases 1.225 kg/m3 43.6 m/s 54.7 m/s 8.9 degrees 0,0181 1.217 kg/m3 The margins provided by the shear exponent and annual average air density can compensate the exceedence of maximum flow angle over IEC regulation value for gust & fault load cases. Hence extreme gust & fault load cases are not performed for the site. As the maximum 50-yr, 10-min gust at several turbine locations at the site are higher than corresponding IEC regulations an extreme loads analysis for storm load cases is performed for the site. The extreme fatigue design load case (DLC 1.1) with the site worst -case conditions is performed along with the following design load cases: Page.- 11 of 15 CONFIDENTIAL- Proprietary Information. DO NOT COPY without written Consent from GE Energy. Document MLA -Pillar 0 2008 GE Energy. All rights reserved Mountain wind Project _GE 1 5s1e-80mHH revl.doc GE Energy Considered Extreme Storm Load Case Load Case Operating Conditions External Conditions Di Rotor - Turbine State position Wind Speed Vhub Wind Wind Model Direction Vdi. Numb. Description [misl [deg] Wind Event Simulations [deg] Idling Starting pitch angie 6.1 85°; turbine pitches to 89° i 0.0 Site value -8.0...+8.0 50-year gust in turbulent turbulent for gusts>40m/s ink Lobel: 43.6 Delta 8.0 w ,Hind Turbulence Intensity 30 L61 of 11% IEWMI Idling Starting pitch angle 165-1.50 50 year gust in turbulent 6.2 85°; turbine pitches to 89° 0'0 Site value .0... +15.0...+180 0 wind after grid failure 240 turbulent for gusts>40m/s int. Label- '. 43.6 Delta 15.0 Turbulence Intensity of L62 11% (1 270 Table 1.- List of Extreme Design Load Cases considered in Pillar Mountain Wind Project wind farm In the FlexS analysis, the loads on following sensors are calculated: MyB: Fiopwise Moment Blade Root MzB: Edgewise Moment Blade Root MzRO: Torque Drive Train, rotation MrRO: Resultant Moment Hub, rotation MxR1: Yawing Moment Hub, fixed MyR1: Nodding Moment Hub, fixed Myi Nodding Tower Top MrTB: Resultant Moment Tower Base The Flex5 results for site worst case conditions indicate that the extreme loads from storm load cases are within the certified loads of Germanischer Lloyd, but extreme loads from normal operation for the MyB sensor are exceeding the certified loads of Germanischer Lloyd for several turbine positions. The extreme loading level for the MyB sensor is approved by GE, however, on the basis that waked turbulence was considered in the analysis, which goes beyond the requirements of reference [31 and the safety factor of 1.35 [31 imposed on extreme loads calculations for normal operation. UJURBINE SUITABILITY The results from the loads analysis show that 3 wind turbines GE 1.5sle with 80m-hub height tower are suitable for the Pillar Mountain Wind Project. Page.- 12 of 15 CONFIDENTIAL - Proprietary Information. DO NOT COPY wAhout written consent from GE Energy. Document MLA -Pillar ® 2008 GE Energy, All rights reserved Mountoin wind Project —GE 1 5s1e-80mHH revl.do; GE Energy 5. CONCLUSIONS The fatigue loads of the GE 1.5sle wind turbines with 80-hub height at the Pillar Mountain Wind Project site are within the loading level deemed acceptable based on the design loads envelope certified by Germanischer Lloyd for a 20-yr turbine life and changes in calculation methods since the certification was issued or deemed acceptable by GE as mentioned at the end of section 4.1. For the extreme loads, the conditions at the Pillar Mountain Wind Project site lead to a loading level that is within the design loads envelope of the GE 1.5sle wind turbine with 80m-hub height certified by Germanischer Lloyd or approved by GE as per the information given in section 4.2. The installation and operation of the GE 1.5sle wind turbine at this project's site is approved based on current calculation methods. This conclusion applies only to the input data considered in the analysis and is contingent to the accuracy of data provided by the customer. Any change to the data provided by the customer must be reviewed by GE to determine if there is a change in turbine suitability. DISCLAIMER This analysis is provided for reference only, to compare predicted site loads based on customer provided data, with the predicted design loads envelope of the wind turbine of interest. It is by no means to be interpreted as a warranty or guarantee of performance. The Contract Special Conditions set forth the exclusive remedies for all claims based on failure of or defect in the Equipment and Services provided under any Contract, whether the failure or defect arises before or during the Warranty Period and whether a claim, however instituted, is based on contract, indemnity, warranty, tort (including negligence), strict liability or otherwise. The warranties in the Contract Special Conditions are exclusive and are in lieu of all other warranties and guarantees whether written, oral, implied or statutory. No implied statutory warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particwlar purpose shall apply. a Page.- 13 of 15 CONFIDENTIAL - Proprietary Information, Do NOT COPY without written consent from GE Energy, Document MLA -Pillar ® 2008 GE Energy. All rights reserved Mountain wind Project —GE 1 5sle-80mH1-1rev1doc GE Energy REFERENCES 1. IEC 61400-1 standard, 'Wind turbine generator systems, IPart1: Safety requirements', Edition 2, 1999, including Common Modifications 2003 2. Frandsen, S., and Thogersen, M., 'Integrated Fatigue Loading for Wind Turbines in Wind Farms by combining Ambient Turbulence and Wakes', Wind Engineering, Volume 23 No. 6 1999 3. Germanischer Lloyd, 'Guideline for the Certification of Wind Turbines', Edition 2003 with supplement 2004 4. GE modified WFF, "GE_Project_form_for_Site_2—Kodiak_80_m_hub12_6 july_8_GE_Modified" 24/7/2008 APPENDICES APPENDIX I.- CUSTOMER PROVIDED SITE COND{TIONS (WIND FARM FORM) e Page.- 14 of 15 CONFIDENTIAL - Proprietary Information. DO NOT COPY without written consent from GE Energy. Document MLA -Pillar 0 2008 GE Energy. All rights reserved Mountain Wind Project _GE 1 5s1e-80mHH rev1.doc GE Energy APPENDIX I.- CUSTOMER PROVIDED SITE CONDITIONS (GE PROJECT FORM_FOR SITE_2_KODIAK 80-M-HUB12 5 JULY_8.XLS) Page.- 15 of 15 CON FIDENThAL - Proprietary Information. DO NOT COPY without written consent from GE Energy. Document MLA -Pillar V 2008 GE Energy. All rights reserved Mountain Wind Project GE 1 5sle-80mHH rev1.doc GE Wind Farm Form Revision 13.4, December 7th, 2006 Please note that all requested items in worksheets 1 through 7 must be supplied, unless noted otherwise. Fields requiring input or action are highlighted in yellow: example Complete this field first: For a preliminary judgment of turbine suitability, when turbin coordinates or detailed site data are not yet available, please select "Preliminary" from Full the drop -down list to the right. Otherwise, select "Full." Project Name: Pillar Mountain Wind Project Owner: Kodiak Electric Association Name and organization of person completing this form: Doug Vaught, V3 Energy, LLC Proposed hub height (m): go Annual average hub height air density for the proposed turbine location having the greatest air density (kg/m3): 1.217 Annual average power law vertical wind shear exponent (a) applicable across the rotor swept area for the turbine with the highest shear: p o181 Maximum wind u flow angle for any turbine location and wind direction (°): 8.96 Please provide WAsPMAsP Eng. compatible digital elevation model (DEM) or topographic map of 10m (or 25ft) or finer contour line spacing, with clearly labeled contours and legend including scale, in PDF, JPG, GIF, or GIF format, showing Please send with this form locations of turbines, measurement masts. If possible, the map should also show roads, buildings, transmission corridors and public areas. EXCEPTIONS: If any item in this form is not completed fully, or according to directions, please note and describe all exceptions here: Density calculated from temperature measured at 400 meter elevation. Wind upflow is at 320 deg. l 3 'WL`Ll�L•I�y�� Please answer the questions in the order they appear. Before changing any answer, first clear ansu a) Is it possible to provide wind roses at hub height in Weibull format at all turbine locations? (GE preferenc b) Is it possible to provide a wind rose at hub height at the most energetic turbine location? c) Specify whether the wind rose will be provided in Weibull or tabular format. d) Please select wind rose number of sectors. If Weibull was select above please check the warning ---->> Provide the wind rose in the table shown below. e) Describe the source of the wind rose. Provide the name(s) of the measurement towers(s) used, the mee the length of the data collection eriod s , the percent data recovery, and any correlation ands Site 2 data, 30 m anemometer, 30 m wind vane. Data period 818/06 to 8/8/07. Data extrapola Nub height Weibull wind rose at the most energetic turbine location Annual average, representative of 20 years Turbine ID: Direction (0) 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 Please enter decimal frequency values. Ex: 1 %, enter 0.01 (345-15) (15-45) (45-75) (75-105) (105-135) (135-165) (165-195) (195-225) (225-255) (255-285) (285-315) 315-345 Scale parameter, A m/s Shape parameter, k Annual frequency (should sum to 1.00 Average wind speed mis 8.20 1.85 0.061 8.78 1.58 0.081 6.96 1.34 0.067 8.64 1.79 0.069 6.88 1.19 0.097 9.89 1.45 0.116 8.36 1.49 0.105 5.01 1.45 0.034 3.36 0.95 0.015 6.29 1.72 0.051 11.04 1.85. 0.141 11.49 1.91 0.163 7.28 7.88 6.39 7.69 6.48 8.96 7.55 4.55 3.43 5.61 9.80 10.19 1.00 3 c 8 0 W J 0) m A W N i 0 Q U) ? W N�i O C4 W J LT A W N -i O A WN O(p Oo 7I�CTA WN--�O SOP V�CnAW r- P (n (J� to Cn Cn f7� Cy1 Cn W OF C31 U[ C31 Ul fJl Cn � � � fS1 (h 07 (h (n Cn � NN NNNN C(]po V O6nA W N.�+.G 0 l" A W N O CD W V d1 U) A W N i Cn C3) Cn v v v Ul Ol Vt Ul Vl Ut Ol Vl U) V7 (.h V7 Ch C31 ()1 •.� �-' •.� `� -- � rn 000000000000000000000000� C) s i (0000000i i i i-+�-+nJNw?�I A J O7 cn M NU w co Ois?(Jt W W cn Jw mO mNmm W 0 � a � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o cD 0 o a 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o W W W W W W 4A A AA J A.b. cn cn cn Qsm JcD N V _1 ,�.,a C74 07 W OD J 0 W Vf O W A W a� Ol CO O LT N O A UT N 0) V d' m � a n CNN W W _I V Cli fD 00 ao ONA OD La O) V J[pO V [hm W NOo mCJ NN • O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 C G 0 0 a`aa�a°a°a�a�a�a�a'a�a�a'a�a�a'a°a'a�aEa�a�a� a�ap � = y G 3 IT C CL m 3 O c m C y. w (D W CD1. CL m °e. 0 m a m m oaCL 3 � yCL O A DS O C � lD O co ( co <� SaD fD � (D m cc �) (p (OO N (D 3v m 3 d CO O. 0 D a CL y 0-0 aro CL CD a c. o m O N 7 O y 3 �CD C N O fD y � 7 (D [D m c v � � v C Q CD Am) N W fD fD (D C CL 0 Zn-n 30 W z O m O O q Q 6, Z G ' 6 =O (D W O !D 07 CD O Cr O7 0 E j m roDmCD 0 M CD � � om OD E y c���.S�y`� N m Q a' o ff aCD 3vCD m Q CD W �{ N O- n N v m 9 0- n. oc 0 Q cD m m 3 w 4 Z y CD y Er re 0 N CL (D o 5- 0) �' m� T 1 W 5-0) g�.w o moo { iO2 0 r �. 3 0 4 o 1D O S ry @ 3 (D .C. m¢1 (D0=) .�. ID W o ClID a i/ CL CL C) 3 (Q O ya 0 Er CD (D o. (D a o• a w C o. °a N C m �m m (D Z (D 3 (D G) O R O it a O O po O O M ;E N O = 3 (D N d. 3 - cfl N (� n 0 3 v CD .-. C m cn n) 3? G N A 7 io a in m w o O �» 3 a QC CD o y y v (D N O 0 3 (p (Q � R Turbine Coordinates a) Please fill out Table 1. b) If there are existing turbines within a distance of 10 rotor diameters from any proposed turbine location, please also fill out Table 2. c) Identify the city or town that is nearest to the project: F Kodiak and the state or province: Alaska and the country: USA Table 1 Proposed turbine coordinates in UTM format UTM Datum: NAD83 Table 2 Existing turbine coordinates in UTM format - if applicable UTM Datum must be the same as in Table t EXTREME WINDS: Is the project located in Canada? Select from this drop -down box: No For non -Canadian projects: Complete Table 1. If it is not possible to provide the data for each turbine location, then please provide the extreme wind speed data for the turbir -NOTE: If data is provided for only one turbine location, GE will make the conservative assumption that this data applies to GE's review may then show that the site conditions exceed all turbines' design limits, when in reality they are acceptable fi It is the responsibility of the person filling out this form, to determine the level of conservatism in extreme wind speed data Please consider this before choosing whether or not to provide data only for the turbine with the highest extreme wind spe Please oescrlbe the metnoa used to determine the values in Table 1. What was the source of the data, and what method wa: Table 1: Extreme wind speeds per turbine location at Hub Height (HH). Provide both the 3-sec AND the 10-min averag 50-year recurrence, 50-year recurrence, 3-sec average wind 10-min average wind 3-sec. average typically is 40% higher than 10-min. average 3-sec, average typicaily is 40% higher than 10-min. average 3-sec, average typically is 40% higher than 10-min. average used for E )s. iska A rmination V V U a SARAH PALIN, GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 550 WEST 71" AVENUE, SUITE 900C DIVISION OF MINING, LAND AND WATER ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501-3577 SOUTHCENTRAL REGION LAND OFFICE (907) 269-8913 Fax November 19, 2007 Kodiak Electric Association, Inc. P.O. Box 787 Kodiak, AK 99615 Attn: Jenifer Richcreek Subject: Pillar Mountain Wind Project — Land Lease ADL: 229859 Final Consistency Determination Dear Ms. Jenifer Richcreek: Nov 2 s 2007 r PRESIDENTYCEO'S OFFICE The Division of Mining, Land and Water (DMLW),;�buthcentral Region, Land Office has completed coordinating the State's review of your proposed project for consistency with the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP). DMLW has developed the attached final consistency response based on reviewers' comments. Based on an evaluation of your project by the Alaska Departments of Environmental Conservation, Fish and Game, and Natural Resources and the Kodiak Island Borough, DMLW concurs with your certification that the project is consistent with the ACMP and affected coastal district's enforceable policies. This is the final consistency decision for your project. This consistency response is only for the project as described. If you propose any changes to the approved project, including its intended use, prior to or during its siting, construction, or operation, you must contact this office immediately to determine if further review and approval of the revised project is necessary. If you have any questions regarding this process, please contact me at 907-269-8479 or email adele.lee@alaska.gov. Enclosures Cc DISTRIBUTION LIST ADL 229859 Sincerely, Adele Lee Project Review Coordinator I FINAL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION- CONCURRENCE PAGE 2 DISTRIBUTION LIST ADL 229859 Enclosure: Project Information Sheet (Backup Material) William Ashton, DEC, Anchorage Fran Roche, DEC, Juneau Christine Ballard, DNR, OPMP, Anchorage Linda Markham, ADOT/PF, Anchorage Margie Goatley, DNR/SHPO, Anchorage Scott Maclean, DNR/OHMP, Anchorage Mark. Fink, DFG, Anchorage Ellen Simpson, DFG, Anchorage Jenifer Richcreek, Kodiak Electric Association Inc., Kodiak Enclosure: Project Information Sheet (Backup Material on Request) Will Anderson, President, Koniag, Inc., Anchorage Charlie Powers, Vice -President, Koniag, Inc. Gary Porter, Bald Mountain Exploring, Homer Glen Yankus, NPS, Anchorage Lisa Fox, NPS, Anchorage Rita Stevens, President, Kodiak Area Native Association, Kodiak Andy Tueber, Kodiak Area Native Association, Kodiak Kevin Murphy, DNR/DPOR, Kodiak G. Kevin VanHatten, Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Bud Cassidy, Kodiak Island Borough USACE Regulatory Branch, EImendorf AFB Michele Powdrill, DNR/OPMP, Juneau Janet Herr, NMFS, Anchorage Carolyn Heitman, Kodiak Pam Foreman, KLCAG, Kodiak Pat Ladner, AADC, Anchorage Stacy Studebaker, KRLIG, Kodiak FINAL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION- CONCURRENCE PAGE 3 ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FINAL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION CONCURRENCE DATE ISSUED: NOVEMBER 19, 2007 PROJECT TITLE: PILLAR MOUNTAIN WIND FARM ADL 229859 AFFECTED COASTAL RESOURCE DISTRICT(S): KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project located within Township 27 South, Range 20 West, Section 36, of the Seward Meridian will be to construct and operate a 3 — 5 megawatt wind farm utilizing 4 — 8 wind turbines on Pillar Mountain. It will involve installation of the wind turbines, upgrades and/or alterations to the current road, and installation of the appropriate electrical distribution system to connect to the adjacent 69 kilovolt electrical line. SCOPE OF THE PROJECT SUBJECT TO CONSISTENCY REVIEW: The project subject to this consistency review is the application to lease 80 acres of state owned land to construct and operate a 3 — 5 megawatt wind farm utilizing 4 — 8 wind turbines. r' CONSISTENCY STATEMENT: DMLW concurs with the consistency certification submitted by Kodiak Electric Association, Inc. AUTHORIZATIONS: The project must be found consistent with the ACMP before the following State authorization may be issued: Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Division of Mining, Land and Water Public and Charitable Use Lease ADL 229859 The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) will review any activities subject to DEC permits, certifications, approvals, and authorizations for consistency with 11 AAC 112.310. The issuance of the permits, certifications, approvals, and authorizations by DEC establishes consistency with 11 AAC 112.310 for those specific activities. Please note that, in addition to their consistency review, DMLW will evaluate this proposed project according to their specific permitting authorities. DMLW will issue permits and authorizations only if they find the proposed project complies with their statutes and regulations in addition to being consistent with the coastal program. A DMLW permit or authorization may be denied even though the State concurs with the ACMP. Authorities outside the ACMP may result in additional permit/lease conditions. If a requirement set out in the project description (per 11 AAC 110.260) is more or less restrictive than a similar requirement in a resource agency FINAL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION- CONCURRENCE PAGE 4 authorization, the applicant shall comply with the more restrictive requirement. Applicants may not use any State land or water without Department of Natural Resources (DNR) authorization. APPEAL: This final consistency response is a final administrative order and decision under the ACMP and for purposes of Alaska Appellate Rules 601-612. Any appeal from this decision to the superior court of Alaska must be made within thirty (30) days of the date this determination is issued. ENFORCEMENT: Pursuant to 11 AAC 110.260(e) and 110.445(e), if after receiving this final consistency response, the applicant fails to implement an adopted alternative measure, or if the applicant undertakes a project modification not incorporated into the final determination and not reviewed under 11 AAC 110.800-11 AAC 110.820, State resource agency may take enforcement action according to the resource agency's statutory and regulatory authorities, priorities, available resources, and preferred methods. ADVISORIES: Please be advised that although the DMLW concurs with your certification that the project is consistent with the ACMP, you are still required to meet all applicable State and federal laws and regulations. This consistency finding may include reference to specific laws and regulations, but this in no way precludes your responsibility to comply with other applicable laws and regulations. If the proposed activities reveal cultural or paleontological resources, please stop any work that would disturb such resources and immediately contact the State Historic Preservation Office (907-269-8720) so that consultation per section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act may proceed. Final Consistency Determination Prepared By: , Adele Lee, Project Review Coordinator 550 W. 7`" Ave., Suite 1660 Anchorage, AK 99501 (907)269-8479 Adele Lee It li,9l NOVEMBER 1g, 20 7 FINAL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION- CONCURRENCE PAGE 5 ACMP CONSISTENCY EVALUATION Pursuant to the following evaluation, the project as proposed is consistent with applicable ACMP statewide and affected coastal resource district enforceable policies (copies of the policies are available on the ACMP web site at http://www.alaskacoast.state.ak.us), STATEWIDE ENFORCEABLE POLICIES 11 AAC 112.200. Coastal development a) In planning for and approving development in or adjacent to coastal waters, districts and state agencies shall manage coastal land and water uses in such a manner that those uses that are economically or physically dependent on a coastal location are given higher priority when compared to uses that do not economically or physically require a coastal location. (b) Districts and state agencies shall give, in the following order, priority to (1) water -dependent uses and activities; (2) water -related uses and activities; and (3) uses and activities that are neither water -dependent nor water -related for which there is no practicable inland alternative to meet the public need for the use or activity Evaluation: The proposed project's uses and activities are neither water -dependent nor water -related. 11 AAC 112.210. Natural hazard areas Evaluation: The DNR has not designated the proposed project site as a natural hazard area. 11 AAC 112.220. Coastal access Evaluation: This project, as proposed and described, meets the intent of this standard. 11 AAC 112.230. Energy facilities (a) The siting and approval of major energy facilities by districts and state agencies trust be based, to the extent practicable, on the following standards: (1) site facilities so as to minimize adverse environmental and social effects while satisfying industrial requirements. ' Evaluation: This project, as proposed and described, meets the intent of this standard. 11 AAC 112.240. Utility routes and facilities Evaluation: This project, as proposed and described, meets the intent of this standard. 11 AAC 112.250. Timber harvest and processing Evaluation: This standard does not apply to the project as proposed. 11 AAC 112.260. Sand and gravel extraction Evaluation: This standard does not apply to the project as proposed. 11 AAC 112.270. Subsistence Evaluation: The DNR has not designated any subsistence areas at this site. 11 AAC 112.280. Transportation routes and facilities Evaluation: This project, as proposed and described, meets the intent of this standard. FINAL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION - CONCURRENCE PAGE 6 11 AAC 112.300. Habitats The Habitat Standard requires that habitats in the coastal area be managed so as to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant adverse impacts to habitat. Evaluation: This project, as proposed and described, meets the intent of this standard. 11 AAC 112.310. Air, land, and water quality, Evaluation: Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the statutes and regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation with respect to the protection of air, land, and water quality identified in AS 46.40.040(b) are incorporated into the program and, as administered by that department, constitute the exclusive components of the program with respect to those purposes. (Eff. 7/1/2004, Register 170) 11 AAC 112.320. Historic, prehistoric, and archeolo 'cal resources. Evaluation: Comments from the district and the State did not identify the proposed project location as an area which is important to the study, understanding, or illustration of national, state, or local history or prehistory. The applicant has been advised to contact DNR/SHPO and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Alaska State Troopers should a site of cultural or historical significance be suspected or revealed and to stop any work that would disturb any resources. AFFECTED COASTAL RESOURCE DISTRICT ENFORCEABLE POLICIES Policy D-5: Wind Generation and Bird Habitat a. The applicant shall incorporate measures into the project description regarding the siting of wind generation projects to minimize mortality to birds. These measures shall include, but are not limited to . installation of turbines on the tallest towers practicable for the site, configuration of towers to reduce the likelihood of bird strikes, and use of tubular towers, fully enclosed nacelles or other appropriate technology that has been demonstrated to reduce bird mortality from wind turbines. b. This policy applies to uses and activities related to the Energy Facilities Standard 11 AAC 112.230. Evaluation: This project, as proposed and described, meets the intent of this standard. 3L FINAL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION - CONCURRENCE PAGE 7 Exhibit Microwave Map a Q Q Ld Y bit L rid Borough Resolution #FY2007-25 Introduced by: Requested by: Drafted by: Introduced: Adopted: KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH RESOLUTION NO, FY2007-25 Manager Gifford Kodiak Electric Kodiak Electric 02/15/2007 02/15/2007 A RESOLUTION OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ASSEMBLY URGING THE ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE AND GOVERNOR TO SECURE GRANT FUNDING FOR KODIAK ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION'S PILLAR MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECT WHEREAS, safe, reliable electric energy is an essential service for every resident within the state; and WHEREAS, renewable power provides for sustainable future power and cost stability; and WHEREAS, renewable power is crucial for the environmental health of the state; and WHEREAS, renewable power projects are in need of capital project funding to move them to the forefront of future power generation; and WHEREAS, volatile electric rates have hindered the economic development of many areas of the state; and WHEREAS, the development of renewable energy projects in Alaska such as this promotes Alaska's position in the growing economic market of renewable energy by encouraging in -state expertise and experience in a field that promises long-term global growth; and WHEREAS, the State of Alaska has a need to support the development and enhancement of its renewable power to promote future expansions, for the benefit of all Alaskans; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE, ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH THAT the Governor and the Legislature are urged to support a grant for $5,000,000 to Kodiak Electric Association, Inc. for the Pillar Mountain Wind Project. ADOPTED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH THIS FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2007 ATTEST: Nova U. Javier, CMC, B rough Clerk KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH J me M. Selby, or Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska Resolution No. FY2007-25 Page 1 of 1