# Stipulation — United States v. Alaska > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385013_0163%3A05 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Stipulation - **Published:** January 1, 1992 - **Citation:** 503 U.S. 569 ## Text . FILED U SEP G 99) No. 118, Original < n FE a4 | pitice QF THE” GLél | Iu the Supreme Court of the United States OCTOBER TERM, 1991 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF Uv. STATE OF ALASKA ON BILL OF COMPLAINT JOINT STIPULATION OF FACTS CHARLES E. CoLe KENNETH W. STARR Attorney General Solicitor General State of Alaska Department of Justice JOHN G. GISSBERG Washington, D.C. 20530 Assistant Attorney General (#02) 514-2217 P.O. Box K Counsel for the United States Juneau, Alaska 99811 (907 ) 465-3600 Counsel for the State of Alaska ——_—_—_——— Stipulation TABLE OF CONTENTS ITI ITIL 1h cadet ceanineisctpieahlinatineneeiedeenaniindathednntteneaummntae Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Te Jasmsiinisiasinashanies Appendix Appendix Appendix _ Appendix Si sete heisiaineaiaieihilaliiactelithesebieaneninsbiaiainanici RR ae en ee Appendix Appendix (1) In the Supreme Court of the United States OCTOBER TERM, 1991 No. 118, Original UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF v. STATE OF ALASKA ON BILL OF COMPLAINT JOINT STIPULATION OF FACTS On January 7, 1991, the United States requested leave of this Court to commence an original action to resolve a dispute between the United States and the State of Alaska concerning ownership of certain sub- merged lands beneath Norton Sound, near Nome, Alaska. See Motion of the United States for Leave to File Complaint, Complaint, and Brief in Support of Motion, No. 118, Orig. (O.T. 1990). Alaska did not object to the commencement of such an action. See Memorandum of the State of Alaska, No. 118, Orig. (O.T. 1990). On April 1, 1991, the Court granted the United States’ motion for leave to file a bill of complaint, and on May 31, 1991, Alaska filed its answer. On June 28, 1991, the Court invited the United States and Alaska to file a stipulation of facts relevant to a decision in this action. The United States and the State of Alaska jointly stipulate as follows: (1) 2 1. On August 25, 1982, the City of Nome, Alaska, filed an application with the Department of the Army, Alaska District Corps of Engineers (the Corps), for a federal permit, under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 403, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1344, to construct port facilities, including a causeway with road, a breakwater, and an offshore terminal area facility extending into Norton Sound. See App., infra, la-10a. 2. On October 20, 1982, the Corps issued a Public Notice of Application for Permit and invited inter- ested persons to provide comments on whether the permit should be granted. See App., infra, 1la-l6a. 3. On November 22, 1982, the Alaska OCS Region of the Minerals Management Service, United States Department of the Interior, filed an objection to the issuance of a Department of the Army permit on the ground that the City of Nome’s construction of the port facilities would constitute an artificial accre- tion to the legal coast line. It requested that before issuing any permit, the Corps require Alaska to waive any future claims under the Submerged Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1301 et seg., based on the construction of the causeway. See App., infra, 17a-19a. 4. On April 4, 1983, the Corps requested comments from the Office of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior, pursuant to 33 C.F.R. 320.4(f), concerning the effect of the Nome project on the coast line. See App., infra, 20a-21a. 5. On May 16, 1983, the Solicitor responded that construction of the Nome facility would “move Alas- ka’s coastline or baseline seaward of its present loca- tion” and that “[f]ederal mineral leasing offshore Alaska would be affected because the state-federal boundary, as well as international boundaries, are 3 measured from the coastline or baseline.” See App., infra, 22a. The Solicitor recommended that “approval of the permit application be conditioned upon Alaska executing an agreement or a quit claim deed pre- serving the coastline and the state-federal boundary.” Ibid. 6. On July 1, 1983, the Corps transmitted the Solicitor’s letter to the Alaska Department of Nat- ural Resources and stated that “in accordance with the attached letter from thé Office of the Solicitor * * * a [Department of the Army] permit will not be issued until * * * a waiver or quit claim deed has been issued preserving the coastline and the State-Federal boundary.” See App., infra, 24a. 7. On May 9, 1984, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources submitted a conditional disclaimer of rights to additional submerged lands that could be claimed by Alaska as a result of the construction of the Nome port facility. See App., infra, 26a-31a. The disclaimer provides in pertinent part: 1. Subject to paragraph 4 below, the State of Alaska agrees that the coast line and the bound- aries of the State of Alaska are not to be deemed to be in any way affected by the con- struction, maintenance, or operations of the Nome port facility. This document should be construed as a binding disclaimer by the State of Alaska to the effect that tue state does not, and will not, treat the Nome port development as extending its coast line for:purposes of the Sub- merged Lands Act, again subject to paragraph 4 below. 2. This disclaimer is executed solely for the purpose of complying with the conditions recom- mended by the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior and the Attorney General and main- 4 tains the status quo of the baseline and the state- federal boundary. It does not affect property or claims to which Alaska is now entitled. It is not an admission by the State of Alaska or by the United States as to the present location of the shoreline, coast line, or the boundaries of the State of Alaska, and is without prejudice to any contention that any party may now or hereafter make regarding such present location. 3. This disclaimer is entered without prejudice to Alaska’s right to file an appropriate action leading to a determination whether the Corps of Engineers has the legal authority to require such a disclaimer before issuing a permit for a project which might affect the coast line. 4. This disclaimer becomes ineffective and with- out force and effect upon a final determination by a court of competent jurisdiction in any appropriate action that the Corps of Engineers does not have the legal authority to require such a disclaimer before issuing a permit for a proj- ect which might affect the coast line. Id. at 30a-31a. 8. By Ictter dated June 15, 1984, the Depart- ment of Justice informed the Corps that the dis- claimer satisfied any objections that the Department of Justice and the Department of the Interior might have to the issuance of a Department of the Army permit. See App., infra, 32a. 9. On July 9, 1984, the Corps issued a statement of findings supporting the issuance of a Department of the Army permit for the Nome facility. See App., infra, 33a-37a. On the same date, the Corps sent a non-validated permit to the City of Nome for sig- nature. See id. at 38a. The City Manager of Nome signed and returned the permit, and the Corps issued 5 the validated permit on July 25, 1984. See id. at 39a-49a. 10. The Department of the Army permit has been modified in certain respects since its issuance to re- flect changes in the Nome project. See App., infra, 50a-51la. As originally permitted, the project was to include a causeway, approximately 85 feet wide, ex- tending approximately 3575 feet seaward from the coast line into Norton Sound. As constructed, the causeway extends approximately 2700 feet seaward from the coast line into Norton Sound. See id. at 62a (diagram). 11. On March 11, 1988, the Minerals Manage- ment Service of the United States Department of the Interior published a “Request for Comments and Nominations for a Lease Sale in Norton Sound and Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Im- pact Statement,” which solicited public comment on the Minerals Management Service’s proposed lease sale for hard-rock minerals, including gold, in the Norton Sound near Nome, Alaska. 53 Fed. Reg. 8134. 12. On April 11, 1988, the State of Alaska sub- mitted comments stating, among other things, that the proposed Norton Sound Lease Sale involved sub- merged lands subject to its Nome project disclaimer (see para. 7, supra) and that the State intended to file a legal action, in accordance with the disclaimer, challenging the Corps’ authority to require a waiver of rights to submerged lands. See App., infra, 52a- 54a. Alaska also requested that the Minerals Man- agement Service delete the disputed acreage from the proposed lease sale. See id. at 54a. The Minerals Management Service, meanwhile, prepared environ- mental analyses and circulated a proposed leasing 6 notice. See 53 Fed. Reg. 48,045 (1988) ; 55 Fed? Reg. 24,330 (1990). 13. On May 22, 1990, the State of Alaska pro- vided notice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2409a(m), that it intended to file a lawsuit to quiet title to-the sub- merged lands in Norton Sound that are more than three miles from the natural shoreline but within three miles of the low water line of the constructed, solid-fill Nome causeway. See App., infra, 55a-59a. In an attachment to the letter, Alaska described the ap- proximately 730-acre area associated with the 2700 foot causeway as the “Port of Nome” tract. See id. at 60a-61a. Alaska suggested that the United States either delete the disputed acreage from the proposed lease sale or enter into an agreement, pursuant to Section 7 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. 1336, and Alaska Stat. § 38.05.027 (1990), that would direct the revenues from the disputed acreage into an escrow account pending final resolution of the ownership issue. See id. at 58a. 14. Thereafter, on January 7, 1991, the United States requested leave of this Court to commence this action. The Court granted the United States’ motion for leave to file a bill of complaint on April 1, 1991. 15. On June 21, 1991, the Minerals Management Service published a final leasing notice soliciting bids for the Norton Sound Lease Sale. 56 Fed. Reg. 28,656 (1991). On July 23, 1991, the United States and the State of Alaska entered into an agreement, pursuant to Section 7 ofthe Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1336, and Alaska Stat. § 38.05.137 (1990), directing the revenues from the disputed acreage into an escrow account for payment to the United States or to Alaska, depending on the outcome of this action. The bidding period closed 7 and no bids were received. The United States and Alaska agree, however, that a live controversy re- mains in light of their continuing disagreement as to the location of the federal-state boundary and the prospect of future lease sales in the area. 16. In at least nine other ipstances, prior to issu- ing a permit for construction of artificial additions to the coast line, the Corps has sought and obtained from a State a disclaimer or other agreement waiv- ing the State’s claim to additional submerged lands based on the additions to the coast line. In at least two other instances, the Corps has issued a permit for construction of similar artificial additions to the coast line without obtaining such a disclaimer. A compila- tion of such permits and disclaimers will be lodged with the Clerk of the Court. Respectfully submitted. CHARLES E. CoLe KENNETH W. STARR Attorney Genera! Solicitor General State of Alaska Counsel for the United States JOHN G. GISSBERG Assistant Attorney General Counsel for the State & Alaska SEPTEMBER 1991 APPENDIX A APPLICATION FOR A DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT For use of this form, see EP 1145-2-1 The Department of the Army permit program is au- thorized by Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 404 of P.L. 92-500 and Section 103 of P.L. 92-532. These laws require permits authoriz- ing structures and work in or affecting navigable waters of the United States, the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, and the transportation of dredged material for the pur- pose of dumping it into ocean waters. Information provided in ENG Form 4345 will be used in evaluat- ing the application for a permit. Information in the application i is made a matter of public record through issuance of a public notice. Disclosure of the infor- mation requested is voluntary ; however, the data re- quested are necessary in order to commun:cate with the applicant and to evaluate the permit application. If necessary information is not provided, the permit application cannot be processed nor can a permit be issued. One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this applica- tion (see sample drawings and check list) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdic- tion over the location of the proposed activity. An application that is not completed in full will be re- turned. ‘la) 2a . Application number (To be assigned by Corps) JDM Norton Sound 36 071-0 Y D-2-820546 . Date 25 8 82 Day Mo. Yr. . For Corps use only. Received Aug. 25, 1982 7 Sept. ’82 . Name and address of applicant. City of Nome P.O. Box 281 Nome, Alaska 99762 Attn: Ivan Widom, City Manager Telephone no. during business hours A/C (907) 443-5242 A/C() . Name, address and title of authorized agent. Telephone no. during business hours A/C( ) A/C () . Describe in detail the proposed activity, its pur- pose and intended use (private, public, commer- cial or other) including description of the type of structures, if any to be erected on fills, or pile or float-supported platforms, the type, composi- tion and quantity of materials to be discharged or dumped and means of conveyance, and the source of discharge or fill material. If additional space is needed, use Block 14. 38a This application supercedes 071-OYD-2-800311 and addresses comments regarding that applica- tion. SUMMARY The proposed port facilities include phase I construction of 2 3575’ causeway to reach the 30 foot water depth, a breakwater and 250’ x 800’, 4.6 acre offshore terminal area for short term cargo storage with an 800’ dock structure for barge berths, and a 10 acre upland long term cargo storage area with a maintenance shop and container freight station for cargo handling. 700,000 cubic yards of core materials for the causeway and offshore terminal will be dredge tailings trucked from upland pits within 3 miles of Nome, placed by end dumping. 300,000 cubic yards of filter ma- terial and 254,000 cubic yards of armor rock will be quarried at Cape Nome, ap- proximately 15 miles from the project. This material will probably be trucked, using a new by-pass road to be constructed by Alaska DOT/PF* (or alternatively over the sea ice in winter), although the armor rock might be barged if a loading facility at Cape Nome is completed. The filter material will be placed by end dumping. The armor rock will be placed by crane. The dock structure consists of 30’ diameter concrete caissions 31’ on center with grouted connections, sup- porting a concrete dock wall. Two forklift ramps are provided for dry cargo transfer. Two fuel discharge manifolds, each having * North Sound 35 +071-OYD-4-820435. 4a two 8” diameter and four 6” diameter pipes, are provided for transfer of diesel and gasoline fuels to an upland tank farm. An 8” water line with a 3” recirculation line from the city water supply provides potable water and fire protection. Sewage will be transferred from vessel holding tanks to the city system by pump truck. Portable toilets will be provided at the offshore ter- minal. A breach in the causeway with a 98’ long prestressed concrete bridge is provided at the 8’ water depth. The bridged opening has been requested by the Alaska Depart- ment of ‘ish and Game to permit migration of juvenile fish along the shoreline. A sec- ondary benefit of this breach is the shoreline accessibility provided for small boats with- out the hazard of rounding the head in deeper water. The opening is_located at the most accept- able depth to meet Alaska Department of Fish and Game requirements and also mini- mize maintenance dredging from littoral beach accumulation. Phase II construction consists of a 100’ x 400’ mashalling yard with two 400’ x 60’ piers to provide 8 berths for oil rig service vessels. 220,000 cubic yards of dredge tail- ings from upland sites would be placed by end dumping. The pier structure consists of 57’ diameter steel sheet pipe cells 63’ on center, supporting concrete dock walls. Cathodic protection and epoxy coating cor- rosion protection are provided for the steel 5a piling. Water, fuel, and electrical services will be provided. NEED FOR PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The City of Nome, Alaska, serves as a trade, service, and transportation center for much of northwest Alaska. According to the 1980 census, approximately 11,200 peo- ple live within the Nome service region, with a population of over 3200 in the im- mediate Nome area. Due to its remote location (over 500 air miles from Anchorage or Fairbanks), the city is heavily dependent on waterborne shipments of consumable and durable goods, construction materials and equipment, and gasoline, heating oil, and other petroleum products. Cargoes destined for Nome are currently barged in during the five month (June to October) ice-free season. The existing port facility is located at the mouth of the Snake River within the Nome city limits. Built and maintained by the Corps of Engineers in the estuary of the Snake River, the harbor is characterized by a seventy-five foot wide entrance channel and a two-hundred-fifty foot by six-hundred foot turning basin. The entrance channel and turning basin require annual dredging by the Corps to maintain an operating depth of approximately eight feet. The north revetment of the turning basin cur- 6a rently functions as the only dock in Nome Harbor. Due to the shallow draft and limited width of the entrance channel and turning basin, the existing port can only accommodate rela- tively small barges and tugs. Ocean-going vessels currently anchor in forty to fifty feet of water one mile from shore, and cargo is lightered to the protected harbor. The lack of adequate port facilities rep- resents a major deterrent to development of the region. The extra handling required to lighter cargoes adds significantly to the costs of transporting cargoes to Nome. The proposed project would greatly reduce these costs, as well as play a major role in the economic development of Northwest Alaska. The location and type of structure proposed in this application have been analyzed dur- ing separate prefeasibility and feasibility studies. Alternatives considered and even- tually rejected included: (1) expansion of existing harbor basin; (2) a causeway sit- uated at Cape Nome; (3) a causeway fur- ther west of the city; (4) a shorter cause- way with dredged channel. CONSTRUCTION ON PERMAFROST Onshore storage areas situated on perma- frost will be constructed over a pad of nine foot fill consisting of dredge tailings, de- signed to provide a thermal blanket. A 24- foot wide roadway on a 32-28-foot wide em- 7a bankment will connect the causeway to the onshore facilities and existing city roads. Where necessary due to permafrost condi- tions, road construction will include excava- tion and backfilling with dredge tailings as described above. OIL SPILL PROTECTION Fuel discharge manifolds at the barge dock will have sumps sized to meet Coast Guard and ADEC regulations. Pipelines (two 8” and four 6”) will be buried within the causeway and road embankment. Design flow rate for an 8” line is 2000 gpm and for a 6” line is 1000 gpm. At the bridge (high point in the pipeline), a 6000 gallon contain- ment vessel will be suspended between gird- ers under the pipelines. A sensor triggering an adudible alarm at the pumps would be activated by a float in the event of a break during pumping. Prior to operation of the facility, an oil spill con- tingency plan will be filed with ADEC. [Diagrams omitted] 7. Names, addresses and telephone numbers of ad- joining property owners, lessees, etc., whose prop- erty also adjoins the waterway. Alaska Gold Co., P.O. Box 640, Nome, AK 99762 Att’n: Dennis Campion Tel. (907) 443-5272 Bureau of Indian Affairs, P.O. Box 1108, Nome, AK 99762 Att’n: Paul Sterling Tel. (907) 443- 2284 8a 8. Location where property activity exists or will 10. 11. 12. occur. Address: End of West Limit Street Street, road or other descriptive location None In or near city or town Alaska 99762 County State Zip Code Tax Assessors Description: (If known) Map. No. Subdiv. No. Lot No. 26-27 118 34W Sec. Twp. Rge. Name of waterway at location of the activity. Norton Sound Date activity is proposed to commence. June 1988 ' Date activity is expected to be completed. Octo- ber 1986 Is any portion of the activity for which authori- zation is sought now complete? (| YES NO If answer is “Yes” give reasons in the remark section. Month and year the activity was com- pleted . Indicate the existing work on the drawings. List all approvals or certifications required by other federal, interstate, state or local agencies for any structures, construction, discharges, de- 13. 14. 15. 9a posits or other activities described in this ap- plication. Issuing Agency Type Approval Identification No. Date of Application Date of Approval Has any agency denied approval for the activity described herein or for any activity directly re- lated to the activity described herein? 0 Yes No (If “Yes” explain in re- marks) Remarks (Checklist, Appendix H for additional information required for certain activities). Application is hereby made for a permit or per- mits to authorize the activities described herein. I certify that I am familiar with the information contained in this application, and that to the best of my knowledge and belief such information is true, complete, and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the proposed activities. /8/ Ivan L. Widom Signature of Applicant or Authorized Agent The application must be signed by the appli- cant; however, it may be signed by a duly au- thorized agent (named in Item 5) if this form is accompanied by a statement by the applicant designating the agent and agreeing to furnish 10a upon request, supplemental information in sup- port of the application. 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Who- ever, in any manner [sic] within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of The United States knowingly and wiHfully_falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or device a mate- rial fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudu- lent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. Do not send a permit processing fee with this application. The appropriate fee will be assessed when a permit is issued. lla APPENDIX PUBLIC NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR PERMIT [Logo] US Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District Alaska District Regulatory Functions Branch P.O. Box 7002 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Public Notice Date: 20 October 1982 Expiration Date: 22 November 1982 Reference Number: 071-OY D-2-820546 Waterway Number: Norton Sound 36 Interested parties are hereby notified that an appli- cation hes been received for a Department of the Army permit for certain work in waters of the United States, as described below and shown on the attached plan. APPLICANT: City of Nome, P.O. Box 281, Nome, Alaska 99762 LOCATION: Sections 26, 27, T. 11 S., R. 34 W., K.R.M., Nome, Alaska WORK: To place approximately 1,477,000 cubic yards of fill to construct an offshore storage area and roadway system, an offshore storage area-barge berthing facility, and an earth-filled pier connecting the onshore and offshore facilities. 12a Approximate dimensions for the proposed structures are as follows: a. A 3,575’ long x 85’ wide (crown) x 16’ above sealevel (ranging from 16’ to approximately 50’ deep) pier, which would be protected with approximately 10-15’ of armor rock; side slopes would be 1.5:1; b. a 250’ wide x 800’ long x 40’ deep general cargo storage that would be constructed at the seaward terminus of the pier; a 15’ layer of armor rock would protect the 1.5:1 side slopes, the dock structure would consist of 30’ diameter concrete caisons, 31’ on center with grated connections; ce. a 520’ long x 100’ wide marshalling yard would connect the proposed barge docking facility and a fu- ture phase II oil rig service marshalling area adja- cent to “b” above; d. a 1200’ long x. 450’ x 9’ deep (10 acre) onshore storage pad west of the pier road; a 26’ crown width road, with 4:) side slopes would surround the stor- age pads; and e. a 2400’ long x 52’ wide x 9’ to 16’ (variable) deep road system would connect the offshore storage area to the pier; the following aompenente comprise this road system ; 1. The western spur would be approximately 260’ long x 16’ wide x 8’-11’ (variable) deep, with 4:1 side slopes; 2. the northeastern spur would be approximately 530’ long x 40’ wide x 6’ deep with 2:1 side slopes; this spur would run from the NE Terminus to a cen- tral tangent point; 3. a 140’ long x 16’ wide x 6’ deep spur, with 2:1 side slopes, running SE from the NE spur (in “2” above) to the beach; iasieaceeaiaeeanemenaennaiiee| 13a 4. a 400’ long x 52’ wide x 4’-10’ (variable) deep road, with 4:1 side slopes, from the shoreline to the SE corner of the proposed onsiore storage pac; and 5. a 800’ long x 52’ wide x 4’-10’ (variable) deep read with 4:1 side slopes, running north of the junc- ture point (in “4” above) along the east side of the storage pad approximately 370’ past the NE corner of that pad. Breakdown of the fill types and quantities are as follows: a. Dredge tailings for the pier and terminal facili- ties core—700,000 cubic yards; b. 300,000 cy of quarry rock for the pier and ter- minal facilities filter; ce. 254,000 cy quarry rock for the pier and ter- minal facilities armor slope protection ; d. 63,000 cy of dredge tailings for the road system between the onshore storage pad and the pier; e. 93,000 cy non-frost susceptible dredge tailings for the onshore storage pad; f. 24,000 cy of dredge tailings for the road system between the onshore storage pad and the pier; and g. 10,000 cy of non-frost susceptible dredge tail- ings for the onshore road system. Possible future construction would consist of an ex- pansion of the onshore storage area with a pad ap- proximately 500’x400’ to the west of the original proposed pad and a pad approximately 1800’x40’x 1800’x800’ to the north of the original proposed pad. PURPOSE: To provide needed waterborne barge and marine vessel docking and port facilities for Nome, whose remoteness requires most goods to be received via air freight or barge. The existing Corps l4a of Engineers’ dock in Nome can only handle shallow draft vessels. To accommodate these vessels annual dredging of the dock area is required. Ocean going vessels must anchor a mile offshore to find adequate water depth. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: A breach in the causeway approximately 400’ offshore, and in 8’ of water, would be provided to aid salmon migration. AUTHORITY: This permit will be issued or denied under the following authorities: (X) Perform work in or affecting navigable waters of the United States Section 10, River and Harbor Act 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403). (X) Discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States Section 404, Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION: A permit for the described work will not be issued until a cer- tification or waiver of certification as required under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (Public Law 95- 217), has been received from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT CERTI- FICATION: Section_307(c) (3) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended by 16 U.S.C. 1456(c) (3), requires the applicant to certify that the described activity affecting land or water uses in the Coastal Zone complies with the Alaska Coastal Man- agement Program. A permit will not be issued until the Division of Policy Development and Planning has concurred with the applicant’s certification. l5a EIS DETERMINATION: A preliminary deter- mination has been made that an environmental im- pact statement is not currently required for the de- scribed work. PUBLIC HEARING: Any person may request, in writing, within the comment period specified in this notice, that a public hearing be held to consider this application. Requests for public hearings shall state, with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing. CULTURAL RESOURCES: The property described is not a registered or eligible property in the latest published version of the National Register of His- toric Places. ENDANGERED SPECIES: Preliminarily, this de- scribed activity will not affect endangered species, or their critical habitat designated as endangered or threatened, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (87 Stat. 844). Formal consultation under Sec- tion 7 of the Act is not required for the described activity. FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT: Evaluation of the described activity will include conformance with appropriate State o[r] local flood plain standards; consideration of alternative sites and methods of ac- complishment; and weighing of the positive, concen- trated and dispersed, and short and long-term im- pacts on the flood plain. EVALUATION: The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impact including cumulative impacts of the proposed activity on the public interest. That decision will re- flect the national concern for both protection and l6a utilization ef important resources. The benefit which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the pro- posals must be balanced against its reasonably fore- seeable detriments. All factors which may be relevant to the proposal will be considered including the cumu- lative effects thereof; among these are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, flood plain values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety production and, in general, the needs and wel- fare of the people. Comments on the described work, with the reference number, should reach this office no later than the ex- piration date of this Public Notice to become part of the record and be considered in the decision. If fur- ther information is desired concerning this notice, contact Jerome Madden at (907) 552-4942 or 279-4123. FOR THE DISTRICT ENGINEER: /s/ Jack L. Ferrise JACK FERRISE b __. Acting Chief, Interior Permit Processing Section Regulatory Functions Branch 3 Incl 1. Plan 2. ACMP Notice 3. 401 Notice [ Enclosures omitted ] 17a APPENDIX C UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE Alaska OCS Region [SEAL] Offshore Leasing Offshore Operations & Evaluations P.O. Box 1159 800 A Street, Suite 201 Anchorage, AK 99510 Anchorage, AK 99501 Ph: 907-276-2955 Ph: 907-271-4304 Colonel Lee R. Nunn November 22, 1982 District Engineer Corps of Engineers Department of the Army Alaska District P.O. Box 7002 Anchorage, AK. 99510 Re: Public Notice 071-OY D-2-820546 Dead Colonel Nunn: The Minerals Management Service’s (MMS) objec- tion to issuance of a permit for the Nome dock ex- pansion still remains. The principle followed by the federal Government in matters such as this was enun- ciated by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. California, S. Ct. No. 5, Original. The Court adopted the report of the Special Master regarding the effect of artificial accretions on the legal “‘coast- line,” stating The Special Master ruled that lands so enclosed or filled belonged to California because such arti- ficial changes were clearly recognized by inter- national law to change the coastline. Further- 18a - more, the Special Master recognized that the United States, through its control over naviga- ble waters, had power to protect its interests from encroachment by unwanted artificial struc- tures, and the effect of any future changes could thus be the subject of agreement between the parties. * * * + Arguments based on the inequity to the United States of allowing California to effect changes in the goundary between Federal and State sub- merged lands by making future artificial changes in the coastline are met, as the Special Master pointed out, by the ability of the United States to protect itself through its power over navigable waters. 381 U.S. 139, 177 (1965). The Interior Department consistently follows a policy of protecting the rights of the United States in all cases of artificial coastline accretion that come to its attention. In keeping with the Supreme Court opin- ion, we do this primarly through the Federal Gov- ernment’s control over navigable waters, which is ex- ercised through the Corps of Engineers permitting process. In this case, the MMS is simply following the ap- parent suggestion of the Supreme Court in seeking an agreement from the State regarding the effect of a future change in the coastline. We are attempting to do nothing more than preserve the status quo by pro- tecting property rights to which the United States is now clearly entitled. On the other hand, by agreeing not to assert a future claim based upon the dock ex- tension, as other States have done in similar situa- tions, the State of Alaska would give up absolutely 19a nothing in the way of property or claims to which it is now entitled. It would simply give up a possible © future claim to a windfall gain at the expense of the Federal Government. I should also point out that any territorial claim which Alaska might make based upon the Nome cause- way would not be dependent upon the U.S. v. Alaska boundary litigation now pending before the Supreme Court. The United States has conceded that an arti- ficial extension of the coastline, if constructed in full compliance with applicable Federal regulations, can extend a State’s submerged lands. By requesting that you require a waiver before permits are issued, we are trying to avoid a situation like the ARCO pier extension that resulted in litigation. If more information is needed please free to call. You may also wish to contact the Solicitor’s Office on 343-4325. Sincerely yours, /s/ Esther C. Wunnicke ESTHER C. WUNNICKE Acting Regional Manager 20a APPENDIX D DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ALASKA DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99506 April 4, 1983 Regulatory Functions Branch Interior Permit Processing Mr. William H. Coldiron Office of Solicitor Department of Interior 18th and “C” N.W. Washington, DC 20240 Dear Mr. Coldiron: This refers to the enclosed permit application pub- lic notice involving structures affecting coastal water that may modify the coast line or base line from which the territorial sea is measured. This is being sent to you for comment as prescribed in 33 CFR Section 320.4(f). The enclosed public notice number 071-OYD- 2-820646, Norton Sound 36, causeway/barge berthing facilities, Nome, Alaska, should provide adequate de- scriptions of the proposed activity. The Alaska District Corps of Engineers solicits your comments regarding this proposal. A copy of the public notice and plans are enclosed. Sincerely, /s/ Colonel Neil E. Saling NEIL E. SALING Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer — 2la Enclosure Copies Furnished : Mr. John Allen Regional Solicitor, Department of Interior 840 C Street, Suite 100 Anchorage, Alaska 99506 [Enclosure Omitted } 22a APPENDIX E UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR WASHINGTON DC 20240 [SEAL ] May 16, 1983 Colonel Neil E. Saling District Engineer Corps of Engineers Department of the Army Alaska District, Pouch 898 Anchorage, Alaska 99506 Dear Colonel Saling: This responds to your request for comments concern- ing Nome’s application for a permit “to place approx- imately 1,477,000 cubic yards of fill to construct an offshore storage area and readway system,.. . barge berthing facility, and an earth filled pier.” (Refer- ence number 071-OY D-2-820546. ) The proposed construction would move Alaska’s coast- line or baseline seaward of its present location. Fed- eral mineral leasing offshore Alaska would be affected because the state-federal boundary, as well as inter- national boundaries, are measured from the coastline or baseline. To prevent modification of the outer Continental Shelf rights of the United States, we recommend that ap- proval of the permit application be conditioned upon Alaska executing an agreement or a quit claim deed preserving the coastline and the state-federal bound- ary. Such agreements have been encouraged by the 23a Supreme Court, and have been entered into by other states as well as Alaska. See, e.g., United States v. California, 381 U.S. 139, 176 (1965). The agree- ment or quit claim deed would simply maintain the status quo; it would not affect property or claims to which Alaska is now entitled. Should Alaska exe- cute the agreement or quit claim deed, so that the Nome project would not be construed as moving the baseline or state-federal boundary, we would have no objection to approval of the Nome project. Please advise us of your action on this permit ap- plication. Sincerely, /s/ Jean Kingry For Solicitor 24a APPENDIX F DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ALASKA DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS ANCHORAGE, ALASKA, 99506 July 1, 1983 Regulatory Functions Branch Interior Permit Processing Section Ms. Sharon Barton Alaska Department of Natural Resources Pouch M Juneau, Alaska 99811 Dear Ms. Barton: In regard to the City of Nome’s application for a Department of the Army (DA) permit, file number 071-OY D-2-820546, Norton Sound 36, to place fill material to construct a port facility in Nome, Alaska. This is tc inform you that in accordance with the attached letter from the Office of the Solicitor, dated May 16, 1983 a DA permit will not be issued until an agreement has been reached between the Alaska De- partment of Natural Resources and the City of Nome, and a waiver or quit claim deed has been issued preserving the coastline and the State-Federal bound- ary. As per the telephone conversation between Mrs. Georgina Akers and yourself, we will expect your decision on this matter by July 20, 1983. If you have any further questions, please contact Mrs. Georgina Akers of my staff at the address above, or call (907) 279-1123. 25a Sincerely, /8/ David B. Barrows Chief | Regulatory Functions Branch Enclosure Copies Furnished: Ivan Widom, City Manager City of Nome P.O. 281 Nome, Alaska 99762 Mr. Michael Marten TAMAS Engineers 4791 Business Park Blvd., Suite 1 Anchorage, Alaska 99083 [Enclosure Omitted] 26a APPENDIX G STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER Colonel Neil Saling May 9, 1984 U.S. Corps of Engineers District Engineer Pouch 898 Anchorage, Alaska 99506 Dear Colonel Saling: Enclosed is the State of Alaska’s disclaimer to addi- tional submerged lands based on construction of the Nome port facility. It is our understanding that it has been approved as to form by representatives of both the United States Attorney General and the Solicitor of the United States Department of the Interior. We hope the submission of this disclaimer will enable the Corps of Engineers to issue the permit for construction of the Nome port facility without further delay. If we can do anything more in this regard, please contact us at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, /s/ Esther C. Wunnicke ESTHER C. WUNNICKE Commissioner ECW :CTK:djc Enclosure ec: Louis F. Claiborne, Esq. Lawrence J. Jensen, Esq. Lyle Carson R. Eldridge Hicks 27a DISCLAIMER WHEREAS, the City of Nome (‘“Nome’’) has ap- plied to the United States Army Corps of Engineers for a permit to construct a port facility at Nome; WHEREAS, the project for which Nome is seeking the Corps of Engineers permit is fundamental to eco- nomic development in Northwestern Alaska; WHEREAS, both statewide and nationwide bene- fits will be derived from the proposed Nome port facility through increased employment, increased rev- enue generated, and enhanced economic opportunities in Northwestern Alaska and the adjacent outer con- tinental shelf; WHEREAS, under the Submerged Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1301 et seq., construction of such a facility might affect the location of the coast line boundary of the State of Alaska, including the offshore bound- ary between the outer continental shelf and state- owned lands beneath navigable water WHEREAS, under 33 C.F.R. § 320.4(f), the Corps of Engineers is required to consult with the United States Attorney General and the Solicitor of the De- partment of the Interior if a project for which a per- mit is sought might affect the coast line; WHEREAS, the Corps of Engineers has consulted the Attorney General and the Solicitor pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 320.4 (f) ; WHEREAS, the Corps of Engineers has been re- quested by the Attorney General and the Solicitor te withhold approval of Nome’s permit application be- cause of the potential effect on Alaska’s coast line; 28a WHEREAS, the Corps of Engineers has deter- mined that it will not issue such a permit over the Attorney General’s and the Solicitor’s objections on this ground; WHEREAS, the Attorney General’s and the So- licitor’s objections to the permit application on this ground would be removed if a binding disclaimer is entered by the State of Alaska to the effect that Alaska does not, and will not, treat the facility as extending its coast line for purposes of the Submerged Lands Act; WHEREAS, the Alaska Attorney General, in a formal opinion dated October 29, 1980, concluded that the Alaska Commissioner of Natural Resources has the power to issue such a disclaimer; WHEREAS, Alaska would enter such a disclaimer without objection if the Corps of Engineers has the legal authority to require the state to enter such a disclaimer before issuing such a permit; WHEREAS, Alaska and the United States dis- agree as to whether the Corps of Engineers has the legal authority to require the state to enter such a disclaimer before issuing such a permit; WHEREAS, Alaska would not enter such a dis- claimer but for the Corps of Engineers’ determination that it will not issue the permit unless such a dis- claimer is entered, thereby removing the Attorney General’s and the Solicitor’s objections to issuance of the permit; WHEREAS, it is neither in the United States in- terest nor in Alaska’s interest to delay construction of the Nome port facility while the question of the Corps 29a of Engineers’ legal authority to require such a dis- claimer is resolved; WHEREAS, this disclaimer is entered without prejudice to Alaska’s right to file an appropriate ac- tion to determine whether the Corps of Engineers has the legal authority to require such a disclaimer prior to issuing such a permit; WHEREAS, this disclaimer is fully effective and binding upon the State of Alaska, but becomes inef- fective and without force and effect upon a final de- termination by a court of competent jurisdiction that the Corps of Engineers does not have of the legal authority to require such a disclaimer prior to issuing such a permit; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of both the United States and Alaska that this disclaimer remove: the Attorney General’s and the Solicitor’s objections to issuance of the permit for construction of the Nome port facility, thereby allowing the construction to pro- ceed, while at the same time preserving both the United States’ legitimate interest is not having Alaska’s coast line extended if the Corps of Engineers has the legal authority to require such a disclaimer prior to issuing such a permit and Alaska’s interest in not being bound by such a disclaimer if the Corps of Engineers does not have such legal authority; THEREFORE, the State of Alaska, acting by and through the Commissioner of Natural Resources, pur- suant to the authority granted to the commissioner by art. VIII, sec. 1 of the Alaska Constitution, AS 38.05.020(b), AS 38.05.027(a), AS 38.05.035(a) (14), and AS 38.05.0315(a), declares and agrees as follows: 30a 1. Subject to paragraph 4 below, the State of Alaska agrees that the coast line and the boundaries of the State of Alaska are not to be deemed to be in any way affected by the construction, maintenance, or operations of the Nome port facility. This document should be construed as a binding disclaimer by the State of Alaska to the effect that the state does not, and will not, treat the Nome port development as extending its coast line for purposes of the Sub- merged Lands Act, again subject to paragraph 4 below. 2. This disclaimer is executed solely for the pur- pose of complying with the conditions recommended by the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior and the Attorney General and maintains the status quo of the baseline and the state-federal boundary. It does not affect property or claims to which Alaska is now entitled. It is not an admission by the State of Alaska or by the United States as to the present loca- tion of the shoreline, coast line, or the boundaries of the State of Alaska, and is without prejudice to any contention that any party may now or hereafter make regarding such present location. 3. This disclaimer is entered without prejudice to Alaska’s right to file an appropriate action leading to a determination whether the Corps of Engineers has the legal! authority to require such a disclaimer before issuing a permit for a project which might affect the coast line. 4, This disclaimer becomes ineffective and without force and effect upon a final determination by a court of competent jurisdiction in any appropriate action that the Corps of Engineers does not have the legal authority to require such a disclaimer before issuing 8la a permit for a project which might affect the coast line. DATED: May 9, 1984 STATE OF ALASKA /8/ Esther C. Wunnicke ESTHER WUNNICKE, Commissioner Department of Natural Resources 32a APPENDIX H U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL Washington, D.C. 20530 June 15, 1984 Colonel Neil Saling District Engineer United States Army Corps of Engineers Pouch 898 Anchorage, Alaska 99506 Dear Colonel Saling: Re: Artificial coastline construction in the area of Nome, Alaska. The State of Alaska has now disclaimed any Sub- merged Land Act consequence of the proposed jetty for Nome. That disclaimer satisfies any objection which the Department of Justice might otherwise have interposed to the issuance of a permit for that jetty. We have been advised by the Office of the Solicitor, United States Department of the Interior, that the disclaimer has likewise satisfied any possible Submerged Lands Act concern of that Department. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review the application. Sincerely, /s/ Louis F. Claiborne Louis F. CLAIBORNE Deputy Solicitor General 33a APPENDIX I SECTIONS 10 & 404 STATEMENT OF FINDINGS This concerns the decision to issue a Department of the Army permit under Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 3 March 1899 (30 Stat. 1151; 33 U.S.C. 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Public Law 95-217) to place approximately 1,477,000 cubie yards of fill to construct an onshore storage area and roadway system, an offshore storage area- barge berthing facility, and an earth-filled pier con- necting the onshore and offshore facilities. 1. I have reviewed and evaluated, in light of the overall public interest, the documents and factors concerning the permit application, as well as the stated views of other interested Federal and non- federal agencies and the concerned public relative to the proposed work in waters of the United States. 2. The possible consequences of this proposed work have been evaluated and the work is in accordance with regulations published in 33 CFR, Parts 322 and 323. Factors bearing on my review include conserva- tion, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, flood plain values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recrea- tion, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, min- eral needs, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. 3. In evaluation of this work and consideration of comments received from coordination of Public No- tice NPACO No. 071-OYD-2-820546 dated October 20, 1982 the following points are considered pertinent: 34a a. Federal Agencies: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had concerns and requested one special con- dition. The concerns were resolved by modification of the applicant’s proposal (causeway breach). The recommended special condition is incorporated in the ADEC certification. The National Marine Fisheries Service requested two special conditions. The first condition (monitoring program) was incorporated into the applicant’s proposal. The second condition was included on the permit. The Environmental Protection Agency requested one condition (monitor- ing program). This condition was incorporated into the applicant’s proposal and referred to in the special conditioning of this permit. The Department of the Interior objected to the issuance of the permit unless an agreement was signed by the State of Alaska to waive its rights to any additional submerged lands created by the construction of this project. This agreement has been signed by the State of Alaska and approved by the Office of the Solicitor. The U.S. Coast Guard had no objections to the proposed work, and informed the applicant of the requirements neces- sary for this type of project. b. State & Local Agencies: The Alaska Depart- ment of Fish and Game had no objection to the pro- posed project and did not request that any special conditions be included in the permit. The Alaska Department of Natural Resources, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation concurred with this office that the proposed project would not adversely affect the two historical sites located within the area. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conserva- tion (ADEC) issued a Certificate of Reasonable As- surance pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and in accordance with the Alaska Water Quality Standards with seven stipulations. In accordance 35a with 33 U.S.C. 1341, all conditions of the ADEC cer- tification are incorporated as part of the DE permit; therefore, they are not listed as special conditions. The Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination certified that the proposed work is consistent with the Alaska Coastal Management Program with the same stipulations that were included on the ADEC 401 certification. It is presumed from the comments received from the State of Alaska and the lack of response from local agencies that the proposed work conforms with ap- plicable local laws, regulations, and codes, and is in keeping with similar activities found in Alaskan waters. ce. Individuals or Organized Groups: No individ- uals or organized groups commented on the proposed work. The work is not considered to be contrary to the general public interest. d. Other Considerations: An ecological evaluation as required by Section 404(b) (1) of the Clean Water Act has been made following the evaluation guidance in 40 CFR 230.4, in conjunction with the evaluation considerations in 40 CFR 230.5. The proposal was found to comply with the 404(b) (1) guidelines with inclusion of the following three special conditions: (1) That the permittee shall dredge the breach and entrances to the design depth (8 feet below MLLW), when deposition has reduced the design depth to a depth of 3 feet below MLLW. The permittee shall contact the District Engineer (D.E.) prior to per- forming any dredging of the breach and entrances. The dredged material shall be placed at a Bite ap- proved by the D.E. The breach and entrances shall be kept open or maintained over the life of the project. 36a (2) That the permittee shall implement the ap- proved Littoral Drift Monitoring program prior to the construction of the causeway or any related struc- ture. This monitoring program shall continue for the life of the project, unless determined otherwise by the D.E. (3) That siiould the D.E. determine, through the monitoring program, that significant shoreline ero- sion is occurring the permittee shall be required to develop and implement a shoreline protection pro- gram to the satisfaction of the D.E. These conditions were included. 4. I find that issuance of the Department of the Army permit as prescribed by regulations published in 33 CFR, Part 322 and 323 and with scope of work as described in the introduction to this docu- ment, and in accordance with the drawings attached to Public Notice NAPCO No. 071-OYD-2-820546 dated October 20, 1982 is based on thorough analysis and evaluation of the various factors enumerated above; that there are no reasonable alternatives avail- able to the applicant that will achieve the purposes for which the work is being conducted; that the pro- posed work is in accordance with the overall desires of the public as reflected in the comments of State and local agencies and the general public; that the proposed work is deemed to comply with established State and local laws, regulations, and codes; that there have been no identified significant adverse en- vironmental effects related to the work; that the is- suance of this permit is consonant with national pol- icy, statutes, and administrative directives; and that on balance, the total public interest would best be 37a served by the issuance of a Department of the Army permit to the city of Nome for the proposed work. FOR THE DISTRICT ENGINEER: /s/ David B. Barrows Davip B. BARROWS Chief, Regulatory Branch Date 9 Jul 84 38a APPENDIX J DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ALASKA DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99506 Regulatory Branch 9 JUL 1984 Permit Processing Section Lyle Larson, City Manager Post Office Box 281 Nome, Alaska 99762 Dear Mr. Larson: Enclosed are the original and one copy of the De- partment of the Army permit, file number 071-OYD- 2-820546, Norton Sound 36, to place fill material to construct an earth filled pier connection onshore and offshore facilities, near Nome, Alaska. Please sign, date, and return both copies to this office for valida- tion. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conser- vation has issued a Certificate of Reasonable Assur- ance pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act for your project and they have found it to be in ac- cordance with the Alaska Water Quality Standards. In addition, the Alaska Division of Environmental Coordination has certified that your project is con- sistent with the Alaska Coastal Management Pro- gram. It should be understood that this is not an author- ization to commence construction. No work is to be performed in the waterway or adjacent wetlands until you have received a validated copy of the permit. Sincerely, DAvipD A. BARROWS Chief, Regulatory Branch [Enclosure Omitted] 39a APPENDIX K Application No. 071-OYD-2-820546 Name of Applicant City of Nome Effective Date 25 July 1984 Expiration Date (/f applicable) File No. Norton Sound 36 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT Referring to written request dated August 25, 1982 for a permit to: (X) Perform work in or affecting navigable waters of the United States, upon the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) ; (X) Discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States upon the issuance of a permit from the Secretary of the Army acting through the Chief of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344); ( ) Transport dredged material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters upon the issuance of a permit from the Secretary of the Army acting through the Chief of Engineers pursuant to Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanc- tuaries Act of 1972 (86 Stat. 1052; P.L. 92-532); City of Nome Post Office Box 281 Nome, Alaska 99762 is hereby authorized by the Secretary of the Army: to place approximately 1,477,000 cubic yards (cy) 40a of fill to construct an onshore storage area and road- way system, an offshore storage area-barge berthing facility, an earth-filled pier connecting the onshore and offshore facilities, and to monitor the project in accordance with the attached monitoring program. Approximate dimensions for the structures are as follows: a. A 3,575’ long x 85’ wide (crown) x 16’ above sea level (ranging from 16’ to approximately 50’ deep) fill for a pier, which will be protected with ap- proximately 10-15’ of armor rock; side slopes would be 1.5:1; b. a 250’ wide x 800’ long x 40’ deep fill for a general cargo storage area will be constructed at the seaward terminus of the pier; a 15’ layer of armor rock will protect the 1.5:1 side slopes, the dock struc- ture will consist of 30’ diameter concrete caisons, 31’ on center with grated connections ; ce. a 520’ lof x 100’ wide marshalling yard will connect the proposed barge docking facility and a future phase II oil rig service marshalling area ad- jacent to “‘b” above; d. a 1,200’ long x 450’ x 9’ deep fill for an onshore storage pad west of the pier road; a 26’ crown width road, with 4:1 side slopes will surround the storage pads; and = e. a 2,400’ long x 52’ x 9’ to 16’ (variable) deep fill for a road system will connect the offshore storage area to the pier; the following components comprise this road system; 1. The western spur will be an approximately 260’ long x 16’ wide x 8’-11’ (variable) deep fill, with 4:1 side slopes; 2. the northeastern spur will be an approximately 530’ long x 40’ wide x 6’ deep fill with 2:1 side slopes; 4la this spur will run from the northeast terminus to a central tangent point; 3. a 140’ long x 16’ x 6’ deep spur, with 2:1 side slopes, running southeast from the northeast spur (in “‘2” above) to the beach; 4. a 400’ long x 52’ wide x 4’-10’ (variable) deep fill for a road, with 4:1 side slopes, from the shore- line to the southeast corner of the onshore storage pad; and 5. an 800’ long x 52’ x 4’-10’ (variable) deep fill for a road with 4:1 side slopes, running north of the juncture point (in “4” above) along the east side of the storage pad approximately 370’ past the northeast corner of that pad. Breakdown of the fill types and quantities are as follows: a. Dredge tailings for the pier and terminal facili- ties core—700,000 cy; b. 300,000 cy of quarry rock for the pier and termial facilities filter; ec. 254,000 cy quarry rock for the pier and termi- nal facilities armor slope protection; d. 63,000 cy of dredge tailings for the road system between the onshore storage pad and the pier; e. 93,000 cy non-frost susceptible dredge tailings for the onshore storage pad; f. 24,000 cy of dredge tailings for the road system between the onshore storage pad and the pier; and g. 10,000 cy of non-frost susceptible dredge tail- ings for the onshore road system. in Norton Sound, sections 26 and 27, T. 11 S., R. 34 W., K.R.M. at Nome, Alaska in accordance with the plans and drawings attached hereto which are in- corporated in and made a part of this permit (on drawings, give file number or other definite identifi- cation marks. ) 42a “PROPOSED: CONSTRUCT PORT FACILITIES; IN: NORTON SOUND; AT: NOME, ALASKA; APPLICATION BY: CITY OF NOME; DATED: OCTOBER 2, 1982; 7 SHEETS; PORT OF NOME LITTORAL DRIFT MONITORING AND SHORE PROTECTION PROGRAM, MAY 4, 1984; ALSO SUBJECT TO ADEC SPECIAL CONDITIONS.” subject to the following conditions: I. General Conditions: a. That all activities identified and_ authorized herein shall be consistent with the terms and condi- tions of this permit; and that any activities not spe- cifically identified and authorized herein shall con- stitute a violation of the terms and conditiogs of this permit which may result in the modification, suspen- sion or revocation of this permit, in whole or in part, as set forth more specifically in General Conditions j or k hereto, and in the institution of such legal pro- ceedings as the United States Government may con- sider appropriate, whether or not this permit has been previously modified, suspended or revoked in whole or in part. b. That all activities authorized herein shall, if they involve, during their construction or operation, any discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States or ocean waters, be at all times consistent with applicable water quality standards, effluent limita- tions and standards of performance, prohibitions, pre- treatment standards and management practices es- tablished pursuant to the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), the Marine Protection, Research and Sanc- tuaries Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-532, 86 Stat. 1052), or or pursuant to applicable State and local law. 48a ec. That when the activity authorized herein in- volves a discharge during its construction or opera- tion, or any pollutant (including dredged or fill mate- rial), into waters of the United States, the author- ized activity shall, if applicable water quality stand- ards are revised or modified during the term of this permit, be modified, if necessary, to conform with such revised or modified water quality standards within 6 months of the effective date of any revision or modification of water quality standards, or as di- rected by an implementation plan contained in such revised or modified standards, or within such longer period of time as the District Engineer, in consulta- tion with the Regional Administrator of the Environ- mental Protection Agency, may determine to be rea- sonable under the circumstances. d. That the discharge will not destroy a threat- ened or endangered species as identified under the Endangered Species Act, or endanger the critical habitat of such species. e. That the permittee agrees to make every reason- able effort to prosecute the construction or operation of the work authorized herein in a manner so as to minimize any adverse impact on fish, wildlife, and natural environmental values. f. That the permittee agrees that he will prose- cute the construction or work authorized in a manner so as to minimize any degradation of water quality. g. That the permittee shall allow the District En- gineer or his authorized representative(s) or desig- nee(s) to make periodic inspections at any time neces- sary in order to assure that the activity being per- formed under authority of this permit is in accord- ance with the terms and conditions prescribed herein. h. That the permittee shall maintain the structure or work authorized herein in good condition and in 44a reasonable accordance with the plans and drawings attached hereto. i. That this permit does not convey any property rights, either in real estate or material, or any exclu- sive privileges; and that it does not authorize any injury to property or invasion of rights or any in- fringement of Federal, State, or local laws or regu- lations. j. That this permit does not obviate the require- ment to obtain state or local assent required by law for the activity authorized herein. k. That this permit may be either modified, sus- pended or revoked in whole or in part pursuant to the policies and procedures of 33 CFR 325.7. l. That in issuing this permit, the Government has relied on the information and data which the per- mittee has provided in connection with his permit application. If, subsequent to the issuance of this per- mit, such information and data prove to be mate- rially incomplete or inaccurate, this permit may be modified, suspended or revoked, in whole or in part, and/or the Government may, in addition, institute apropriate legal proceedings. m. That any modification, suspension, or revoca- tion of this permit shall not be the basis for any claim for damages against the United States. n. That the permittee shali notify the District Engineer at what time the activity authorized herein will be commenced, as far in advance of the time of commencement as the District Engineer may specify, and of any suspension of work, if for a period of more than one week, resumption of work and its completion. o. That if the activity authorized herein is not completed on or before day of , 19 . (three years from the date of issuance of this permit 45a unless otherwise specified) this permit, if not pre- viously revoked or specifically extended, shall auto- matically expire. p. That this permit does not authorize or approve the construction of particular structures, the author- ization or approval of which may require authoriza- tion by the Congress or other agencies of the Federal Government. q. That if and when the permittee desires to aban- don the activity authorized herein, unless such aban- donment is part of a transfer procedure by which the permittee is transferring his interests herein to a third party pursuant to General Conditions hereof, he must restore the area to a condition satisfactory to the District Engineer. r. That if the recording of this permit is possible under applicable State or local law, the permittee shall take such action as may be necessary to record this permit with the Register of Deeds or other ap- propriate official charged with the responsibility for maintaining records of title to and interests in real property. s. That there shall be no unreasonable interference with navigation by the existence or use of the activity authorized herein. t. That this permit may not be transferred to a third party without prior written notice to the Dis- trict Engineer, either by the transferee’s written agreement to comply with all terms and conditions of this permit or by the transferee subscribing to this permit in the space provided below and thereby agree- ing to comply with all terms and conditions of this permit. In addition, if the permittee transfers the interests authorized herein by conveyance of realty, the deed shall reference this permit and the terms 46a and conditions specified herein and this permit shall be recorded along with the deed with the Register of Deeds or other appropriate official. u. That if the permittee during prosecution of the work authorized herein, encounters a previously un- identified archeological or other cultural resource within the area subject to Department of the Army jurisdiction that might be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, he shall imme- diately notify the district engineer. II. Special Conditions: (Here list conditions relating specifically to the proposed structure or work author- ized by this permit) : a. That the permittee shall dredge the breach and entrances to the design depth (8 feet below MLLW), when deposition has reduced the design depth to a depth of 3 feet below MLLW. The permittee shall contact the District Engineer (D.E.) prior to per- forming any dredging of the breach and entrances. The dredged material shall be placed at a site ap- proved by the D.E. . The breach and entrances shall be kept open or maintained over the life of the project. b. That the permittee shall implement the ap- proved Littoral Drift Monitoring program prior to the construction of the causeway or any related struc- ture. This monitoring program shall continue for the life of the project, unless determined otherwise by the D.E. . ce. That should the D.E. determine, through the monitoring program, that a significant shoreline ero- sion is occurring the permittee shail be required to develop and implement a shoreline protection program to the satisfaction of the D.E. . 47a The following Special Conditions will be applicable when appropriate: STRUCTURES IN OR AFFECTING NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES: a. That this permit does not authorize the inter- ference with any existing or proposed Federal proj- ect and that the permittee shall not be entitled to compensation for damage or injury to the structures or work authorized herein which may be caused by or result from existing or future operations under- taken by the United States in the public interest. b. That no attempt shall be made by the permittee to prevent the full and free use by the public of all navigable waters at or adjacent to the activity au- thorized by this permit. ce. That if the display of lights and signals on any structure work authorized herein is not otherwise provided for by law, such lights and signals as may be prescribed by the United States Coast Guard shall be installed and maintained by and at the expense of the permittee. d. That the permittee, upon receipt of a notice of revocation of this permit or upon its expiration be- fore completion of the authorized structure or work, shall, without expense to the United States in such time and manner as the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative may direct, restore the waterway to its former conditions. If the permittee fails to comply with the direction of the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative, the Secre- tary or his designee may restore the waterway to its former condition, by contract or otherwise, and re- cover the cost thereof from the permittee. e. Structure for Small Boats: That permittee hereby recognizes the possibility that the structure 48a permitted herein may be subject to damage by wave wash from passing vessels. The issua.ice of this permit does not relieve the permittee from taking all proper steps to insure the integrity of the structure permitted herein and the safety of boats moored thereto from damage by wave wash and the permittee shall not hold the United States liable for any such damage. MAINTENANCE DREDGING: a. That when the work authorized herein includes maintenance dredging, it may be performed under this permit for years from the date of issu- ance of this permit (ten years unless otherwise indi- cated ) ; b. That the permittee will advise the District En- gineer in writing at least two weeks before he intends to undertake any maintenance dredging. DISCHARGES OF DREDGED OR FILL MATE- RIAL INTO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES: a. That the discharge will be carried out in con- formity with the goals and objectives of the EPA Guidelines establishd pursuant to Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act and published in 40 CFR 230; b. That the discharge will consist of suitable ma- terial free from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts. ce. That the fill created by the discharge will be properly maintained to prevent erosion and other non- point sources of pollution. DISPOSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL INTO OCEAN WATER: a. That the disposal will be carried out in con- formity with the goals, objectives, and requirements 49a of the EPA criteria established pursuant to Section 102 of the Marine Pyotection, Research and Sanc- tuaries Act of 1972, published in 40 CFR 220-228. b. That the permittee shall place a copy of this permit in a conspicuous place in the vessel to be used for the transportation and/or disposal of the dredged material as authorized herein. This permit shall become effective on the date of the District Engineer’s signature. Permittee hereby accepts and agrees to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. /8/ Larry L. Larson 7 7/16/84 City Manager Permittee & Title BY AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY: /s/ John R. Staser 7/25/84 JOHN R. STASER CPT, Corps of Engineers, Acting Chief, Regulatory Branch FOR: DISTRICT ENGINEER, U.S. ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, Colonel Neil E. Saling Transferee hereby agrees to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. TRANSFEREE DATE 50a APPENDIX L DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ALASKA DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS ANCHORAGE, ALASKA, 99506 Regulatory Branch Permit Processing Section PERMITTEE: City of Nome ~ EFFECTIVE DATE: Sept. 13, 1990 REFERENCE NO. Q-820546 Norton Sound 36 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT MODIFICATION Department of the Army (DA) permit No. 2- 820546, Norton Sound 36, was issued to the City of Nome on July 25, 1984, and subsequently modified on October 28, 1987, October 26, 1988, September 8, 1989, and October 27, 1989, for the placement of fill material to construct a causeway at Nome, Alaska. The permit is hereby modified to include the follow- ing additional work: “place a 10-inch-diameter, effluent outfall line in the causeway. The outfall diffuser would be located 400 linear feet south and east of the causeway terminus.” If the activity authorized herein is not completed within 3 years of the date of this letter, the authori- zation of this modification, if not previously revoked or specifically extended, shall automatically expire. All other terms and conditions of the original per- mit remain in full force and effect. 5la This authorization and the enclosed modified plans should be attached to the original permit. Plan sheets 1, 4, and 6 of 11 of DA permit No. 2-890302, Norton Sound 57 (attached), are hereby incorporated by reference into this modification. By Authority of the Secretary of the Army: /s/ Timothy R. Jennings TIMOTHY R. JENNINGS Chief, Northern Unit Permit Processing Section Enclosure [Enclosure Omitted ] 52a APPENDIX M STATE OF ALASKA OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR Office of Management and Budget Division of Governmental Coordination April 11, 1988 Steve Cowper, Governor Central Office P.O. Box AW Juneau, Alaska 99811-0165 Phone: (907) 465-3562 Southcentral Regional Office 2600 Denali Street Suite 700 Anchorage, Alaska 99503-2795 Phone: (907) 274-1581 Mr. Alan Powers Regional Manager Alaska OCS Region Southeast Regional Office 431 North Franklin P.O. Box AW, Suite 101 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0155 Phone: (907) 465-3562 Northern Regional Office 675 Seventh Avenue Station H Fairbanks, Alaska 99701-4596 Phone (907) 456-3084 Minerals Management Service 949 East 36th Avenue Anchorage, AK 99508-4302 Dear Mr. Powers: The State of Alaska has reviewed the Minerals Man- agement Service’s (MMS) request for comments and nominations for a mining lease sale in Norton Sound. The state is actively participating in the federal-state- local coordination team effort to help prepare the Norton Sound lease sale Environmental Impact State- ment (EIS). Accordingly, the state will be submit- ting information and reviewing the EIS at several stages during its development. 53a Available Data and Literature The state has submitted (or will shortly) the follow- ing information for MMS’s use during EIS prepara- tion: [Document List Omitted] Assumptions for EIS Modeling The state has also reviewed the assumptions MMS is using for the EIS. These were distributed at the first coordination team meeting. We recommend changes to the assumptions regarding dredge size and pre- dicted area of disturbance. It is probable that either smaller or larger dredge(s) than those stated in the MMS assumptions will be utilized for mining. MMS also assumes that the area dredge each year will be 60 acres year per dredge. This assumption however is based on current nearshore operations (BIMA) and does not fully consider that aerial disturbance will be a function of both dredge size and the depth dredge. It is probable that in future years a 120 acre/year per dredge disturbance may occur. (Addi- tionally, please note that this is a permit imposed limitation.) The state recommends that MMS prepare mining scenarios with both “low” and “high” as- sumptions regarding dredge size and bottom disturb- ance. A model should be developed for a low, high and mid-point dredge size and bottom disturbance scenario. We also recommend that in addition to estimating bottom disturbance in terms of acres, that the amount of cubic yardage disturbed and the depth of disturb- ance be noted. These two additional parameters will aid in estimating potential mining related impacts. 54a Proposed Lease Sale Deletions Subsequent to the construction of the Nome causeway, the State of Alaska executed a waiver of claims to additional submerged lands based on the use of cause- ways to delimit Alaska’s seaward boundary, unless a court of competent jurisdiction finds that the U.S. does not have’ the legal authority to require such a waiver. The state intends to file an appropriate ac- tion to resolve this issue, and in the meantime, re- spectfully requests MMS to delete the disputed acre- age from the lease sale. The enclosed protraction sheets delineate the disputed 1082.16 acres. Conclusion The state looks forward to continued cooperation with MMS ‘*rough the coordination team process. We will continue to provide MMS with information and re- view of the lease sale EIS, based upon our knowledge and experience with the offshore mining industry. Please call me or Barbara Sheinberg at 465-3562 if you have any questions regarding the state’s com- ments or recommendations. Sincerely, /s/ Robert L. Grogan ROBERT L. GROGAN Director Enclosure ec: Members of Alaska-OCS Mining Program Coordination Team [Enclosure Omitted] 55a APPENDIX N STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF LAW Office of the Attorney General Steve Cowper, Governor REPLY TO: O) 1031 W 4th Avenue Suite 200 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1994 Phone: (907) 276-3550 FAX: (907) 276-3697 OO 1st National Center 100 Cushman St. Suite 400 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701-4679 Phone: (907) 452-1568 FAX: (907) 456-1317 Y¥ P.O. Box K—State Capitol Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300 Phone: (907) 465-3600 FAX: (907) 463-5295 May 22, 1990 Honorable Donald P. Hodel Secretary of the Interior Department of the Interior C & 18th Streets, N.W. Washington, D.C. 2-0249-0000 Re: Notice of intent to file suit Dear Secretary Hodel: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §$ 2409a(m), the State of Alaska hereby gives notice that it intends to file suit to quiet title to a tract of submerged land in North- west Alaska. For ease of reference, the tract is re- ferred to as the “Port of Nome tract.” A full legal description of the tract is enclosed as Exhibit A, and 56a the tract is generally depicted on the enclosed terri- torial sea boundary diagram, Exhibit B. In general terms, the Port of Nome tract consists of the submerged lands which are more than three miles from the natural shore line but within three miles of the low water line on a solid fill causeway which serves as a dock for the City of Nome. Such a causeway ordinarily constitutes an extension of a state’s coast line “or delimiting that state’s three-mile grant under the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1301 et seq. See, eg., United Sfiates v. Louisiana, 389 U.S. 155, 158 (1967). Because of objections by the United States Attor- ney General and the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior, however, the Corps of Engineers refused to issue a permit for construction of the causeway until the State of Alaska waived any claims to addi- tional submerged lands which it might make as a result of the causeway’s construction. On May 9, 1984, the state filed a conditional disclaimer to addi- tional submerged lands to satisfy the Attorney Gen- eral’s and Solicitor’s objections, a copy of which is enclosed as Exhibit C. At the same time, Alaska contended that the Corps of Engineers did not have the legal authority to re- quire such a disclaimer as a condition precedent to the issuance of a permit and, in the absence of such a dis- claimer, to deny a permit solely on the basis of the Attorney General’s and the Solicitor’s objections. See 1980 Inf. Op. Att’y Gen. (Oct. 30; 663-80-0477), a copy of which is enclosed as Exhibit D. Any dispute over submerged land ownership which might arise as a result of causeway construction is not one of the factors which the Corps of Engineers is to consider as part of its public interest review process. Indeed, 33 57a C.F.R. 320.4(g) provides in part: “The dispute over property ownership will not be a factor in the Corps public interest decision.” (Emphasis added.) Also see Mall Properties, Inc. v. Marsh, 672 F. Supp. 561, 566-71 (D. Mass. 1987), appeal dismissed 841 F.2d 440 (lst Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. City of New Haven v. Mass., 109 S. Ct. 128 (1988) (the Corps of Engineers’ authority to consider economic impacts in its public interest review is limited to those economic effects caused by the project’s impacts on the physical environment); Missouri Coalition for the Environ- ment v. Corps of Engineers, 678 F. Supp. 790, 802 (E.D. Mo. 1988), aff’d 866 F.2d 1025, 1033-34 (8th Cir. 1989) (the Corps of Engineers is not to make political decisions as to which entity’s economic in- terests ought to be preferred, citing Mall Properties, Ine.). As a result, the disclaimer filed by the state pro- vided in part: “This disclaimer becomes ineffective and without force and effect upon a final determina- tion by a court of competent jurisdiction in any ap- propriate action that the Corps of Engineers does not have the legal authority to require a disclaimer before issuing a permit for a project which might affect the coastline.” Alaska intends to seek such a determina- tion in a quiet title action with respect to the Port of Nome tract. Having notified you of Alaska’s intention to file suit and the basis therefore, and having provided you with a description of the lands to be included in the suit, we have satisfied the notice requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(m) for filing a quiet title action 180 days after you receive this letter. This notice is not intended to delay or otherwise adversely affect the proposed offshore mining lease 58a sale near Nome, and preparation for that sale should continue. The Port of Nome tract, however, should either be deleted from any proposed offshore mining lease sale pending resolution of the ownership ques- tion or be the subject of an agreement under section 7 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. § 1336, and Alaska Statute 38.05.027. This would allow the tract to be leased with the revenues placed in escrow pending final resolution of the ownership issue. We naturally would like to resolve these matters without resort to litigation. If you or members of your staff have any suggestions for resolution without litigation, please contact us at your convenience. Sincerely yours, Douglas B. Baily Attorney General By: /s/ G. Thomas Koester G. THOMAS KOESTER Assistant Attorney General GTK :tg Enclosures [4] ee w/encls. : Allen D. Powers, Regional Director Alaska OCS Region U.S. Army Engineer, Alaska District OCS Survey Group MD 625 P.O. Box 25165 Denver, Colorado 80225 . . ‘ \ ; ; ) 59a Michael W. Reed, Attorney General Litigation Section United States Department of Justice Lennie Gorsuch, Commissioner Department of Natural Resources John Katz, Special Counsel State/Federal Relations Robert Grogan, Director Div. of Governmental Coordination Jim Spargo Coastal Boundary Section, DNR/ANC John Briscoe, Esq. [Enclosures B-D Omitted ] 60a PORT OF NOME A tract of tide and submerged land described by Uni- versal Transverse Mercator (U.T.M.), NAD 1927, grid bearings and distances, located within Township 12 South, Range 34 West, Sections 8, 14, 15, 16 and 17, Kateel River Meridian, Alaska, as generally de- picted on the State of Alaska Territorial Sea Bound- ary Diagram for said township and range and more particularly described as follows: Beginning for reference at the unmonumented north- east corner of protracted Township 12 South, Range 34 West, thence South 25°26'40” West 4863.394 meters to the true point of beginning for this descrip- tion, thence 2601.530 meters along a curve concave to the north with a radius of 5556 meters, and a radius point at U.T.M. coordinates North 7,151,924.352 East 478,970.694, thence 3254.734 meters along a curve concave to the north with a radius of 5556 meters, and a radius point at North 7,151,927.511 East 478,955.925, thence South 76°10'59” East 90.108 meters, thence South 75°11’42” East 540.049 meters, thence South 73°56'35” East 330.015 meters to a curve, thence 347.774 meters along said curve being coneave to the north with a radius of 5556 meters, and a radius point at U.T.M. coordinates North 7,- 153,125.790 East 477,452.600, thence South 75°44’11” East 347.717 meters, thence South 77°31'46” East 770.826 meters to a curve, thence 2.936 meters along said curve being concave to the north with a radius of 5556 meters, and a radius point at U.T.M. coor- dinates North 7,152,959.340 East 478,205.240, thence South 77°33'34” East 525.560 meters, thence South 75 32'35” East 157.259 meters to a curve, thence 1920.311 meters along said curve being concave to a ln 6la the north with a radius of 5556 meters, and a radius point at U.T.M. coordinates North 7,152,345.360 East 480,169.310, thence 112.647 meters along a curve concave to the north with a radius of 5556 meters, and a radius point at U.T.M. coordinates North 7,152,338.830 East 480,221.320, thence South 71°03'10” East 69.696 meters, thence South 70 °30'29” East 445.587 meters to a curve, thence 69.950 meters along said curve being concave to the north with a radius of 5556 meters, and a radius point at U.T.M. coordinates North 7,151,882.300 East 481,954.850, thence South 71°09’28” East 230.294 meters to the true point of beginning. This tract contains 2,953,085.62 square meters (ap- proximately 730 acres) more or less. Exhibit A Page 1 of 1 (“Port of Nome’’) 62a APPENDIX O CAUSEWAY 3 MILE GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARY WITHOUT NOME CAUSEWAY 3 MILE GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARY WITH NOME CAUSEWAY 262061 45039 WY wv. &. Goveewmenr roimtine orice, 1991 iz Laie alll ie ' Se aw ae cae FES TOES ay 5 AD bait i ee Y ory Bae eh - 7 . y 4 ’ * "ri , --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385013_0163%3A05. Public record. Not legal advice.