HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnalaska Wind Power Development Phase II report
City of Unalaska Wind Power Development
and Integration Assessment Project,
Phase II Report
Douglas Vaught photo
August 6, 2018
Douglas Vaught, P.E.
V3 Energy LLC
Anchorage, Alaska
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 1
Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4
Power System Configuration Review (Task 1) .............................................................................................. 4
City of Unalaska Power System ................................................................................................................. 4
Electric Loads ............................................................................................................................................ 5
Power Quality Requirements .................................................................................................................... 5
Wind‐Diesel Generation Basic Concepts ................................................................................................... 6
Special Issues with the Unalaska Powerplant ........................................................................................... 9
Wind Turbine Options ............................................................................................................................... 9
EWT ..................................................................................................................................................... 10
Utility‐scale Wind Turbines ................................................................................................................. 11
Review of Historical Reports and Background Data (Task 2) ...................................................................... 12
Historical Reports .................................................................................................................................... 12
Wind Energy Feasibility Study, Naknek and Unalaska, 1999 .............................................................. 12
Wind Integration Assessment Phase I Report, 2005........................................................................... 13
Background Regional Climate ................................................................................................................. 13
Unalaska Wind Characteristics ................................................................................................................ 18
Long‐term Wind Speed Variation ........................................................................................................... 19
Seasonal Variation .................................................................................................................................. 19
Diurnal Variation ..................................................................................................................................... 20
Site Visits (Tasks 3 and 5) ............................................................................................................................ 20
Site Selection and Permitting (Task 6) ........................................................................................................ 21
Met Tower Site Options .......................................................................................................................... 22
Pyramid Valley .................................................................................................................................... 23
Hog Island............................................................................................................................................ 25
Ptarmigan Road ................................................................................................................................... 26
Airport Golf Balls ................................................................................................................................. 27
Little South America ............................................................................................................................ 28
Ballyhoo .............................................................................................................................................. 29
Rejected Sites ...................................................................................................................................... 31
Site Permitting for Met Towers .............................................................................................................. 32
Met Tower Equipment Selection (Task 7) ................................................................................................... 32
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 2
Option 1: Upper Pyramid, Lower Pyramid, LSA ...................................................................................... 32
Option 2: Upper Pyramid, Lower Pyramid, LSA, Hog Island Road .......................................................... 32
Option 3: Upper Pyramid, Lower Pyramid, LSA, Hog Island Beach, Hog Island Central ......................... 33
Wind Monitoring Program ...................................................................................................................... 33
Wind Speed ......................................................................................................................................... 33
Direction .............................................................................................................................................. 33
Temperature ....................................................................................................................................... 34
Pressure .............................................................................................................................................. 34
Wind Shear .......................................................................................................................................... 34
Turbulence .......................................................................................................................................... 34
Extreme Wind ..................................................................................................................................... 34
IEC Classification ................................................................................................................................. 35
Icing ..................................................................................................................................................... 35
Data Usage for Wind Power Development ............................................................................................. 35
Environmental and Cultural Review (Task 4) .............................................................................................. 36
Environmental Review ............................................................................................................................ 36
Cultural and Historic Review ................................................................................................................... 37
Appendix A – Environmental Review Full Report ....................................................................................... 38
Appendix B – Cultural and Historic Review Full Report .............................................................................. 39
Appendix C – National Park Service Approval of LSA Met Tower ............................................................... 40
Figure 1: Unalaska electric load profile ......................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2: EWT DW52‐900 wind turbines in Kotzebue, Alaska .................................................................... 11
Figure 3: Eastern Aleutian Islands, Unalaska Island to Alaska Peninsula, view northwest ........................ 14
Figure 4: Cold Bay inter‐annual wind speed variation ................................................................................ 15
Figure 5: Cold Bay upper air data, 1987‐2017, 850 mb level ...................................................................... 15
Figure 6: Cold Bay upper air wind rose ....................................................................................................... 16
Figure 7: Seasonal variation of wind direction, Cold Bay upper air data .................................................... 16
Figure 8: Topographic map of Unalaska (scale 1:63,360), USGS ................................................................ 17
Figure 9: Unalaska oblique view from Icy Lake, project area bounded in yellow, view north ................... 18
Figure 10: Dutch Harbor Airport frequency wind rose ............................................................................... 18
Figure 11: Cold Bay and Dutch Harbor Airport long‐term wind speed comparison ................................... 19
Figure 12: Dutch Harbor Airport inter‐annual wind speed variation ......................................................... 20
Figure 13: Dutch Harbor Airport diurnal and seasonal wind speed variation ............................................ 20
Figure 14: Conceptual Venn diagram .......................................................................................................... 21
Figure 15: Icy Lake weather station wind rose ........................................................................................... 24
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 3
Figure 16: Lower Pyramid Valley (orange line is power distribution, 3Φ to the water tank, 1Φ further up
valley), view north ....................................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 17: Upper Pyramid Valley (Icy Creek Reservoir north, Icy Lake south edge), view north ............... 25
Figure 18: Hog Island, view east ................................................................................................................. 26
Figure 19: Ptarmigan Road site area in Iliuliuk Valley, view northwest ...................................................... 27
Figure 20: Dutch Harbor Airports; radar “golf balls” indicated by yellow arrow; site area in vicinity, view
north ........................................................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 21: Little South America, view west ................................................................................................. 29
Figure 22: Ballyhoo on Amaknak Island, view north .................................................................................. 31
Table 1: AEA penetration categories of wind‐diesel system configuration .................................................. 7
Table 2: Revised penetration categories of wind‐diesel system configuration ............................................ 8
Table 3: Wind Power Penetration Categories at Increasing Turbine Capacities .......................................... 8
Table 4: Site Information ............................................................................................................................ 30
Table 5: IEC 61400‐1, 3rd edition basic parameters for wind turbine classification ................................... 35
Equation 1: Power and wind speed relationship ........................................................................................ 33
Equation 2: Density, pressure and temperature relationship .................................................................... 34
Equation 3: Wind shear relationship .......................................................................................................... 34
Equation 4: Turbulence intensity ................................................................................................................ 34
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 4
Introduction
With high sustained winds, Unalaska Island, home of City of Unalaska and Dutch Harbor, has long been
considered an optimal location for wind energy, but there are only a few preliminary wind studies and
analyses on record. In 1999, a Wind Energy Feasibility Study of Naknek and Unalaska was completed
Dames and Moore, Inc. for the Alaska Energy Authority. In 2000, the Battelle Memorial Institute,
working for the U.S. Department of Energy, prepared an environmental assessment for Nome and
Unalaska as both at the time were thought potential sites for future wind power development.
Unalaska was dismissed due to a perceived potential for excessively high winds, but Nome now has over
2,000 kW of installed wind turbine capacity. A draft Wind Integration Assessment Phase I Report was
written in 2005 for the City of Unalaska by Northern Power Systems, a wind turbine manufacturer based
in Vermont, with the intent to quickly proceed to Phase II. The Phase I report, however, was not
finalized and Phase II of the wind development project was postponed until 2017 when the project was
revived by City of Unalaska leadership.
In late 2017 V3 Energy LLC of Anchorage, Alaska was awarded a contract for Phase II of the Unalaska
wind power development project. The project team includes:
Electric Power Systems, Inc. of Anchorage for power system configuration and integration
overview
John Wade Wind Consultant LLC of Portland, Oregon for background wind analysis and site
selection
Solstice Alaska Consulting, Inc. of Anchorage for review of environmental resources and related
permitting requirements of the prospective met tower/wind turbine sites
Cultural Resource Consultants LLC of Anchorage for review of cultural, historical and
archaeological resources and related permitting requirements of the prospective met
tower/wind turbine sites
Bering Straits Development Co. of Nome for assistance with Phase III cost estimating.
Power System Configuration Review (Task 1)
For the project, Electric Power Systems, Inc. (EPS) of Anchorage, given their extensive experience with
the design of the new Unalaska powerplant and the power distribution system, aided with a power
systems configuration review.
City of Unalaska Power System
The City of Unalaska uses high efficiency diesel generators for power generation. These generators are
two each of identical 5.2 MW Wartsila and 4.4 MW Caterpillar units. Wartsila and Caterpillar generators
provide good response to power quality (frequency and voltage) requirements but a limitation of the
Caterpillar units is that they are sensitive to prolonged operation below 50% load, which City of
Unalaska tries to avoid because of maintenance and environmental concerns.
Specifically, the City of Unalaska power system is comprised of the following generation units:
Unit 10: Wartsila 12V32 – 5.2 MW
Unit 11: Wartsila 12V32 – 5.2 MW
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 5
Unit 12: Caterpillar C280‐16 – 4.4 MW
Unit 13: Caterpillar C280‐16 – 4.4 MW
Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC)1 generators – 3 units – 50 kW each
Electric Loads
In many ways, Unalaska differs from much of rural Alaska. As the largest fisheries port in the United
States in terms of fish volume processed, the utility (City of Unalaska) serves many large industrial
customers. At present, electric load demand served by City of Unalaska’s Department of Public Utilities
Administrative (DPUA) averages 6.1 MW with a peak load of approximately 12.5 MW and a minimum
load of approximately 4.0 MW. Fuel efficiency is an admirable 15.8 kWh/gallon.2 Average system load
demand has been relatively stable over the past several years, but it does not reflect Unalaska’s total
load demand as not all local shore‐based seafood processors buy power from the City of Unalaska.
Instead, a few processors generate their own electric power. The City of Unalaska stated that one large
seafood processor likely will abandon self‐generation in late 2018 and purchase power from the DPUA.
This will increase peak generation to approximately 15.0 MW.
Unalaska’s electric load profile, because of its significant seafood processing‐related industrial base,
peaks in February and March and again in August (see Figure 1). This reflects the demands of industrial
seafood processors, not the more seasonally cyclic (winter high, summer low) loads of residential,
commercial, school and government customers.
Figure 1: Unalaska electric load profile
Power Quality Requirements
Industrial customers are more sensitive to voltage and frequency fluctuations than residential and
commercial loads. This is especially relevant during periods of high load demand when large industrial
machinery and control equipment are in use. To maintain acceptable frequency and voltage control for
1 See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_Rankine_cycle for an explanation of the organic rankine cycle
2 Alaska Energy Authority Power Cost Equalization (PCE) 2016 report
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 6
these key loads and to maintain minimum spinning reserve, the City parallels (load‐shares) two or more
generators.
To protect and prioritize power supply to key industrial customers, the City employs a progressive load
shedding program to reduce the risk of a system‐wide outage. With this program, residential and low
sensitivity loads are shed first, and industrial and more sensitive loads are shed last. Load shedding is
automatically initiated when system under‐frequency occurs due to a fault or other problem.
Unlike most rural Alaskan systems where power quality standards are less rigorous, the Unalaska system
maintains frequency within +/‐ 0.15‐0.20 Hz during normal operation. This provides a sufficient spread
between nominal and trip frequencies to insure adequate system control without shedding lower‐
priority customers too often.
Excellent power quality, i.e., very stable voltage and frequency, arguably is more important to industrial
users than residential and commercials customers. Seafood processors, with a need to maintain cold
rooms to preserve expensive product, are sensitive to potential disruption and may self‐generate and
not be willing to connect to the City power system, often though with generation equipment less
efficient and less reliable than the City of Unalaska generators. Ultimately this is undesirable for both
self‐generating processors and the DPUA. The City of Unalaska loses revenue and self‐generating
seafood processors must task staff with non‐profit making work and incur higher expenses than if tied to
the DPUA system.
Wind‐Diesel Generation Basic Concepts
Wind‐diesel power system configurations are categorized by AEA based on their average penetration
levels, or the overall proportion of wind‐generated energy compared to the total amount of electrical
energy generated. AEA’s categories of wind‐diesel penetration levels are very low, low, medium, and
high and are roughly equivalent to the amount of diesel fuel displaced by wind power. Refer to Table 1
for a detailed explanation.
Related to wind‐diesel system design, secondary loads refer to non‐electric demand such as thermal
loads, which can include district heat loop‐connected (recovered heat system) and remote node
hydronic systems. A typical isolated grid district heat loop carries jacket water heat from the diesel
generators to off‐powerplant receivers before routing back to the cooling radiators. A remote node
hydronic system is a hot water heat system that is not connected to the district heat loop. For use as a
secondary thermal load for wind‐diesel operations, a remote node typically will be a large structure such
as a school or hospital.
During periods where the electric load demand is met but winds are such that excess wind power is
available, excess energy can be diverted to secondary loads to partially or fully replace lost heat from
lower diesel generator loading in a district heat loop and/or heating fuel usage in remote node hydronic
systems. If secondary loads are not connected, not available, or do not require heat, wind turbines can
be curtailed (secured or power output reduced through pitch control) and/or excess energy can be
dissipated through an electric boiler in the diesel generator jacket water cooling system and to the
atmosphere via the radiators.
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 7
Table 1: AEA penetration categories of wind‐diesel system configuration
Penetration
Category
Wind Penetration Level
Operating Characteristics and System RequirementsInstantaneous Average
Very Low <60% <8% Diesel generators run full time
Wind power reduces net load on diesel
All wind energy serves primary load
No supervisory control system
Low 60 to 120% 8 to 20% Diesel generators run full time
Secondary loads or wind turbine curtailment to
ensure sufficient diesel loading
Relatively simple supervisory control system
Medium 120 to 300% 20 to 50% Diesel generators run full time
Secondary loads or wind turbine curtailment to
ensure sufficient diesel loading
At high wind power levels, complex secondary load
control system to avoid over‐saturation of heat loads
Sophisticated supervisory control system
High
(Diesels‐off
Capable)
300+% 50 to
150+%
Diesels‐off capability
Auxiliary components required to regulate voltage
and frequency
Energy storage (typically)
Highly sophisticated supervisory control system
Medium penetration is often considered a good compromise between fuel use offset and relatively
minimal system complexity and is the system configuration in most Alaska village wind‐diesel systems.
This choice though, while initially attractive in achieving high wind penetration for relatively minimal
cost, has sometimes proven difficult to manage in practice as it combines high instantaneous wind input
with a control strategy not always sufficient to manage the process.
Many wind‐diesel experts, recognizing the limitations of the medium penetration configuration design,
collapse the wind‐diesel categories to just two: low and high (see Table 2). This reflects the essential
nature of wind‐diesel power quality and system management. At low penetration, instantaneous wind
turbine power input is too low to significantly influence diesel loading and power quality, hence control
measures are minimal. At high penetration, instantaneous wind turbine input is sufficient to
significantly impact diesel engine loading and power quality, hence control measures must be
sophisticated and robust. To avoid turbine curtailment and/or excessive diesel generator spinning
reserve during periods of high wind penetration (i.e., a second diesel generator online to provide
reserve capacity in event of turbine fault), large secondary loads are needed, battery electrical storage
may be necessary, a flywheel or ultracapacitors could be required, or all could be employed.
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 8
Table 2: Revised penetration categories of wind‐diesel system configuration
Penetration
Category
Wind Penetration Level
Operating Characteristics and System RequirementsInstantaneous Average
Low 60 to 120% 8 to 20% Diesel generators run full time
Secondary loads or wind turbine curtailment to
ensure sufficient diesel loading
Relatively simple supervisory control system
High
(Diesels‐off
Capable)
120 to
300+%
20 to
150+%
Diesels‐off capability
Auxiliary components required to regulate voltage
and frequency
Energy storage (typically)
Highly sophisticated supervisory control system
With respect to the penetration levels discussed in Table 1 and Table 2, and average, minimum and
maximum load demands of 6.1 MW, 4.0 MW and 12.5 MW respectively, Table 3 demonstrates wind
power capacities that achieve very low, low, medium and high penetrations. Although there is not
necessarily a 1:1 wind kW‐to‐diesel kW fuel savings when replacing diesel‐generated power with wind‐
generated power, the ratio is equal to or near unity in most situations and for the purposes of Table 3
will be considered as 1:1. Note in Table 3 that wind power at 35% capacity factor3 refers to anticipated
net annual energy production of wind turbines in Unalaska.
Table 3: Wind Power Penetration Categories at Increasing Turbine Capacities
As observable in Table 3, to achieve meaningful annual fuel savings – more than approximately 25
percent – medium to high wind penetration is necessary. This requires at least 4,000 kW of wind power
capacity and integration and control features in the powerhouse to augment the frequency regulation
capabilities of the diesel generators. This can include a flywheel, a battery energy storage system (BESS)
with an accompanying grid‐forming converter, ultra‐capacitors, or a combination of these elements.
3 Capacity factor is mean power (or energy production) divided by rated power (or energy production at rated
power)
Wind Turbine
Capacity (kW)
Wind at 35%
Capacity
Factor (kW)
Average
Penet. (%)
Wind Turbine
Instant Power
(kW)
Min Load
Instant
Penet. (%)
Max Load
Instant
Penet. (%)
AEA
Penet.
Category
‐ ‐ 0 ‐ 0% 0% n/a
500 175 2.9% 500 13% 4% very low
1,000 350 5.7% 1,000 25% 8% very low
1,500 525 8.6% 1,500 38% 12% very low
2,000 700 11.5% 2,000 50% 16% low
3,000 1,050 17.2% 3,000 75% 24% low
4,000 1,400 23.0% 4,000 100% 32% medium
5,000 1,750 28.7% 5,000 125% 40% medium
6,000 2,100 34.4% 6,000 150% 48% medium
8,000 2,800 45.9% 8,000 200% 64% high
10,000 3,500 57.4% 10,000 250% 80% high
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 9
Note however, that the control features that enable medium wind penetration (without curtailment of
the wind turbines as a means of control) also include some elements to enable high penetration. With a
full integration package, which for Unalaska could require a remote node secondary load and controller
(to augment a hydronic heat system), flywheel and BESS, which may allow for diesels‐off operations,
very significant fuel savings would be possible.
Special Issues with the Unalaska Powerplant
EPS notes several issues of importance and relevance for Unalaska as it considers fuel savings and wind
penetration goals for a possible wind power project. Wartsila, manufacturer of the two 5.2 MW capacity
12V32 diesel generators in the powerhouse, claims there are no long‐term effects when their diesel
generators are used for frequency regulation when paired with wind turbines. Industry experience
though suggests that increased maintenance costs may be expected. The smaller 4.4 MW capacity
Caterpillar C280 diesel generators in the powerhouse are more sensitive and increased costs for
increased frequency regulation associated with wind turbines are likely.
The ramp rates4 in net load demand served by the Unalaska power plant that would be created by
inclusion of wind power in the system are manageable, assuming wind turbines are in low penetration
mode. However, due to required frequency regulation and the 50% minimum loading limit on the
Caterpillar diesel generators, additional maintenance costs should be expected when these units are on‐
line. To negate that need, additional regulation resources will be required.
As an option, for the high frequency, short duration ramps associated with wind power that increase
diesel generator maintenance, flywheel‐type regulation is recommended. For longer‐duration ramps,
battery storage should be considered.
The City serves the dock loading crane. Its cyclical loads have caused power quality issues on the power
system and to counter those issues, the City has planned for the installation of a flywheel in its long‐
range plan. The flywheel should be capable of providing frequency control for both the crane operation
and the high‐frequency wind ramps created by wind turbines. But, the flywheel will not be capable of
countering the long‐duration ramps expected from wind turbines in medium or high penetration
configuration and hence recommendation of battery storage.
The ORC generators are essentially free energy devices, making use of the captured heat from the
operating diesel unit exhaust. If two of the diesels are operating at 75% or higher loadings, two of the
three ORCS can produce power from the waste heat. If the units drop to 50% rated power, both ORCs
may go off‐line due to the reduction in available waste heat. This is an area where the wind turbines
could directly compete with waste heat recovery of the diesel power generation system and should be
evaluated in detail with an energy modeling exercise.
Wind Turbine Options
The City of Unalaska Request for Proposals for this project referenced interest in 500 kW capacity wind
turbines, but it should be noted that there are no new‐manufacture 500 kW wind turbines on the world
market. The 500 kW Vestas V39, of which there are two presently operational in Alaska (both in
Sandpoint on the Alaska Peninsula), meets this criterion, but the project team would like City of
4 Ramp rate is defined as rate of change of load demand with respect to time, or 𝑑𝑃𝑑𝑡ൗ
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 10
Unalaska to be aware that this turbine is no longer manufactured and cannot be purchased new. It is,
however, obtainable as a remanufactured unit from Halus Power Systems in San Leandro, California.
Availability is subject to supply from wind farm re‐development projects in Denmark or elsewhere in
northern Europe where most Vestas turbines were installed.
If considering only new manufacture wind turbines, models of approximately 1,000 to perhaps as high
as 2,000 kW capacity would be suitable for Unalaska. Turbines in this range are available from well‐
known and highly regarded manufacturers who provide excellent warranties and support. These are
large machines though, with blade tip heights from 75 to 120 meters (250 to 395 ft.) above ground level.
EWT
Emergya Wind Technologies (EWT), based in Amersfoort, The Netherlands, manufactures an excellent
turbine and is recommended for consideration. At 900 to 1,000 kW capacity, the EWT is an optimal
capacity wind turbine for Alaskan hub communities.5 The EWT is pitch‐controlled, direct‐drive, variable
speed available with 52, 54, 61 and soon also 58‐meter diameter rotors. Because the turbine is a direct‐
drive design with a permanent magnet, synchronous generator, there is no gearbox. This simplifies the
mechanical complexity of the machine with fewer rotating components than standard asynchronous
(induction) generator, gear box, reduction drive‐type turbines.
EWT notes in their product literature that the turbine is optimized for weak grids and micro‐grids with
use of a back‐to‐back, full power converter which can control real and reactive power output. This
enables the converter to control power factor and voltage output. If desired to help balance wind
energy production with diesel generator output and load demand, non‐optimal turbine power output
(by comparison to the power curve at a given wind speed) can be achieved by pitch control to as low as
250 kW.6
Six EWT wind turbines are presently operational in Alaska, with two in Delta Junction between Fairbanks
and Tok, and two each in Kotzebue and Nome on Alaska’s northwest coast (refer to Figure 2 for a
photograph of the EWT turbines in Kotzebue). An additional two EWT wind turbine installations are
slated for installation in Alaska in 2018, one in Bethel and one in Saint Mary’s on the lower Yukon River.
The EWT turbine can be ordered with a cold climate package enabling continuous operation to
temperatures as low as ‐40°C. Although necessary at EWT’s six existing and two new installations in
Alaska, a cold climate package should not be necessary in Unalaska’s much more moderate maritime
environment. Of more importance for wind turbine operations in Unalaska is salt water intrusion from
high onshore winds. The author of this report is not aware of water intrusion problems with EWT’s
existing turbine installations in Alaska, but Unalaska would be a unique installation for the turbine and
hence this issue should be discussed at length with the manufacturer prior to considering an EWT for
use in Unalaska. This recommendation, in fact, applies to any wind turbine contemplated for use in
Unalaska.
EWT is developing de‐icing capability for their turbines that would involve securing the turbine, rotating
blades sequentially to the six‐o’clock position (pointed straight down) and directing hot air into the
5 EWT’s legacy IEC 61400‐1, 2nd edition‐certified models are 900 kW capacity; new 61400‐1, 3rd edition‐certified
models will be 1,000 kW capacity
6 See http://www.ewtdirectwind.com/ for additional information
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 11
blade core until the ice detaches. This intervention requires on‐site operator involvement. Wind data
collected during Phase III of this project will determine whether turbine blade de‐icing capability is
necessary but given the near sea‐level elevations of the primary sites of interest – lower Pyramid Valley
and Hog Island – this is an unlikely requirement.
Figure 2: EWT DW52‐900 wind turbines in Kotzebue, Alaska
Utility‐scale Wind Turbines
Table 3 demonstrates that 6,000 kW of wind power capacity will be necessary to achieve approximately
33% fuel savings, assuming a 35 percent turbine capacity factor. Should City of Unalaska implement a
project with 33% or higher wind penetration goal, a larger wind turbine model may be desired to reduce
a wind farm footprint compared to the 900‐1,000 kW capacity EWT models. At about 2 MW capacity,
wind turbines are considered utility scale.
For a high penetration wind project, City of Unalaska may want to consider General Electric (GE) wind
turbines as their models are well represented in Alaska with eleven units presently on Fire Island in
Anchorage and six units in Kodiak. The Fire Island units are 1.5 MW capacity and the Kodiak units are a
mix of 1.5 and 1.6 MW capacity models. Time moves on however and the wind industry continues to
evolve with production of ever larger capacity models. At present, the smallest capacity GE wind
turbine likely suitable for Unalaska is the GE 1.85‐87, rated at 1.85 MW with an 87‐meter diameter
rotor. Hub height is 80 meters, resulting in a tip height of 124 meters (407 ft.) above ground level. GE
manufactures an even more robust version of this turbine, with a 1.85 MW capacity, 82.5‐meter rotor,
and a lower 65‐meter tower.7 More information can be found at
https://www.ge.com/renewableenergy/wind‐energy/turbines.
Other utility‐scale wind turbines are manufactured by very highly regarded Denmark‐based Vestas or
Germany‐based Siemens. Vestas for instance offers the V90‐2.0 MW model which is optimized for
robust wind regimes, as expected in Unalaska. The V90 has been offered for many years and has an
7 Robust in this context means a wind turbine optimized for higher wind speeds, higher extreme wind events
and/or higher turbulence.
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 12
outstanding track record of performance. One consideration though regarding Vestas and Siemens, or
another utility‐scale wind turbine manufacturer such as Enercon (Germany) is that, except for several
remanufactured legacy Vestas units, Vestas, Siemens and Enercon have no new turbines in Alaska and
hence no existing support network.
Review of Historical Reports and Background Data (Task 2)
There are two prior (historical) wind power‐related reports of highest interest to the current (Phase II)
project. They are Wind Energy Feasibility Study, Naknek and Unalaska (May 1999) by Dames and
Moore, Inc. of Anchorage and Wind Integration Assessment Phase 1 (February 2005) by Northern Power
Systems of Barre, Vermont.
Further background reference for the current project is review and analysis of upper air data collected in
Cold Bay for use as meso‐scale reference for wind direction and intensity. Cold Bay was chosen as upper
air data is not collected in Unalaska and Cold Bay is the nearest location where it is.
Historical Reports
In reviewing the 1999 Feasibility and 2005 Phase I reports, several sites are qualitatively identified and
discussed, including City Landfill, Mount Ballyhoo, Pyramid Valley, the Spit, Strawberry Hill, wastewater
treatment plant, and west of UniSea. Unfortunately, neither report includes a good reference map,
which would have been helpful. Both reports though are consistent with note to the sparse availability
of high quality wind data, upon which a wind power project for Unalaska depends.
Wind Energy Feasibility Study, Naknek and Unalaska, 1999
Dames and Moore’s 1999 Feasibility Study site recommendations for Unalaska were as follows: “The
preferred site in Unalaska, based solely on land use and ownership and available wind resources, is City
Landfill. …the site has industrial use and is leased by the City. …some sites in Unalaska may be excluded
due to turbulence and high wind gusts. For this reason, sites closest to the water would be preferable to
inland or upland sites. The landfill site has open water in the predominant wind direction and is not
expected to experience excessive turbulence.”
The feasibility study further notes, “Alternative sites that are acceptable from a wind resource
perspective include Haystack Hill, the spit, the wastewater treatment plant, and Pyramid Valley.
However, Haystack Hill would require relocating the existing communications towers… The Ounalashka
Corporation was contacted regarding the spit site. It is generally believed that the potential cultural
value of the midden site and the visual impact of a wind turbine in this exposed area eliminates the spit
from consideration.”
Regarding measured wind data, the study states: “Very little data was available regarding average
annual wind speed in the Unalaska area. The Steiger’s Corporation collected data as part of the
permitting effort for the Pyramid Valley Hydroelectric Project from July 1995 through June 1996. The
anemometer was located at an elevation of 517 ft (158 m) with a tower height of 20 ft (6.1 m). As part
of this same effort, data was collected near Rocky Point at an elevation of 100 ft (30 m) with a tower
height of 30 ft (9 m). The two monitoring efforts resulted in an average wind speed of 5.2 m/s at
Pyramid Valley and 5.7 m/s at Rocky Point. Considering that the Unalaska area is located within an area
reported to have Class 7 wind power density, these results are lower than expected and likely represent
data from a somewhat sheltered area.”
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 13
Extrapolating the measured data to 60 meters at both locations with a reasonable and conservative
wind shear coefficient (α) of 0.14, the Pyramid Valley wind speed is 7.1 m/s and the Rocky Point wind
speed is 7.4 m/s. These are not undesirable results; albeit not Class 7 winds, which generally are too
strong for wind power development anyway, but > 7 m/s mean annual wind speeds at or near hub
height are good. Neither the Pyramid Valley or Rocky Point location was precisely identified, but
presumably the Pyramid Valley site was near the Upper Pyramid site identified later in this report. Rocky
Point is very near the Dutch Harbor Airport Runway 31 threshold and hence completely unacceptable
for wind power development. No information was given in the 1999 Feasibility Study regarding specifics
of the Steiger Corporation study and hence validation or assessment of the reported wind speed is not
possible. They are reported here as stated in the 1999 report.
The 1999 Feasibility Study is useful and informative but was written before modeling resources such as
AWS Truepower Windnavigator wind resource software was available to indicate likely wind class
variability in the Unalaska area. As such, the expectation of a readily development wind power site in
Unalaska with an extraordinarily strong (at or near Class 7) wind resource is unrealistic.
Wind Integration Assessment Phase I Report, 2005
Northern Power Systems’ Phase I wind integration report was written to “provide City of Unalaska with
a “go/no‐go” determination of the basic feasibility of pursuing a wind project.” Northern notes that
“the available data to determine feasibility is limited; no specific wind resource data has been
collected… The other significant factor is the availability and suitability of sites for wind turbines.”
Further, “The wind resource in Unalaska is good, and more energetic than sites that already have wind
projects. Northern estimates an annual average of a least 7 m/s. Unalaska’s resource is more limited by
topography than the available wind blowing through. …Unalaska and Dutch Harbor have complex
terrain, sharp hills and narrow valleys – conditions that cause turbulent winds. The winds can have gust
factors and angular components that induce uneven loads on wind turbines.
The Phase I report notes, “Prime wind farm sites identified are: Pyramid Valley, Strawberry Hill, and Spit
Road. These areas possess a wind resource with an estimated annual average wind speed of at least 7
m/s, the basic infrastructure, access, land use integration and permitting potential…”
Northern Power’s report is highly informative, but is oriented toward wind turbine options, power
system integration requirements, permitting and economics and not turbine site identification. For the
latter, Northern’s report essentially repeats information presented in the 1999 Dames and Moore
feasibility study.
Background Regional Climate
The area of interest for Phase II of City of Unalaska’s wind power development and integration
assessment project is bounded by Ballyhoo to the northeast, Iliuliuk Valley to the southeast, Icy Lake to
the southwest and Hog Island to the northwest. Interesting wind resource site options exist beyond
these confines, but those site areas are considered at present as undevelopable from an access/cost
perspective.
From a mesoscale meteorological point of view and considering that wind data was not collected during
Phase I (2005) of this project, reference to upper air data is necessary. The nearest upper air collection
point to Unalaska is Cold Bay, located 175 miles northeast of Unalaska (see Figure 3).
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 14
Figure 3: Eastern Aleutian Islands, Unalaska Island to Alaska Peninsula, view northwest
The wind resource along the Alaska Peninsula and the Aleutian Islands west of Cold Bay is generally
outstanding but topography presents an important influence. Locations blocked by local topography,
such as confined bays, may have only a poor to fair wind resource. Conversely, nearby mountain tops
and ridges may be violently windy. Neither a confined bay or a mountain top represents an acceptable
site option for wind power development. Instead, sites of interest lie between the two extremes.
Storms traverse the Gulf of Alaska from west to east but also move north towards the Bering Sea. Cold
Bay Airport upper air data was selected to examine general wind flow patterns on Unalaska Island.8 An
850 millibar level (approximately 4,500 feet AMSL) was chosen because high pressure/lower elevation
winds would be unduly affected by terrain.
Figure 4 shows the seasonal variation of the wind at Cold Bay with pronounced October through
February high wind speeds and June and July markedly lower wind speeds. This data covers a 31‐year
period and demonstrates a mean of 11.1 m/s (approx. 25 mph). The mean wind speed at the surface at
Cold Bay is a robust 7.6 m/s (16.9 mph).
8 National Weather Service does not collect upper air data in Unalaska/Dutch Harbor.
Unalaska Cold Bay
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 15
Figure 4: Cold Bay inter‐annual wind speed variation
The coefficient of variation (year‐to‐year variability) in the Cold Bay upper air dataset is 0.055 or 5.5%,
which is normal in a location where the strongest winds result from storms originating in the Northern
Pacific Ocean. Figure 5 shows the year‐to‐year variation at Cold Bay and an apparent decrease in the
winds over the last four years compared to the 30‐year average.
Figure 5: Cold Bay upper air data, 1987‐2017, 850 mb level
Figure 6 shows an annual wind rose for Cold Bay that suggests a bimodal distribution on an SE – NW
axis.
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 16
Figure 6: Cold Bay upper air wind rose
On a seasonal basis, Figure 7 indicates summer winds are predominately SSE and north with perhaps the
broadest distribution of wind directions. The spring months appear to be a double‐humped distribution
of southeast and northwest winds. The fall winds are predominantly northwesterly. Winter winds also
have a double‐humped distribution of southeasterly and northwesterly winds.
Figure 7: Seasonal variation of wind direction, Cold Bay upper air data
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 17
Figure 8 presents a topographic map of the study area. The interaction of the local terrain and
mesoscale or large area winds has a pronounced effect on the strength and direction of the local area
winds. The upper air data shows that the predominant wind directions are southeast and northwest.
Locations with good exposure to these directions would have the best wind resource because the upper
level flow would be supporting and amplifying the local wind patterns. Ideal terrain would be long
valleys with SE‐NW orientation and ridges with NW‐SE orientation perpendicular to the prevailing wind
directions to take advantage of the topographic enhancement of wind as it flows over terrain oriented
at right angles to the prevailing direction.
Figure 8: Topographic map of Unalaska (scale 1:63,360), USGS
Figure 9 is an oblique view to visualize how terrain might affect the wind patterns discussed above. The
terrain near Pyramid Valley is oriented north‐south while Iliuliuk and Dutch Harbor Airport are oriented
southeast‐northwest. For Hog Island and Ballyhoo Mountain (Amaknak Island), the most exposed
directions are southwest‐northeast but in general both are rather open in all directions. Little South
America shares Pyramid Valley’s orientation restrictions to the south but is well exposed to the north,
except for some shadowing effect from Amaknak Island to the northeast.
Pyramid Valley
Hog Island
Iliuliuk Valley
Little South America
Dutch Harbor Airport
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 18
Figure 9: Unalaska oblique view from Icy Lake, project area bounded in yellow, view north
Unalaska Wind Characteristics
The Dutch Harbor Airport wind rose measured by the ASOS (automatic surface observing system) is
shown in Figure 10. Only winds greater than 7 mph (2.1 m/s) are included to lessen the white noise of
light and variable winds. There are similarities between Figure 6 and Figure 10, however the local terrain
near the ASOS shelters it from northeast and southerly winds.
Figure 10: Dutch Harbor Airport frequency wind rose
Pyramid Valley
Little South America
Hog Island
Iliuliuk Valley
Dutch Harbor Airport
Ballyhoo Mtn./Amaknak Is.
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 19
Long‐term Wind Speed Variation
Figure 5 showed the long‐term wind speed over 30 years at Cold Bay and Figure 11 compares the long‐
term variation at Cold Bay and the Dutch Harbor (PADU) Airport. The winds at the two locations
somewhat track each other. However, the correlation coefficient (R) is 0.51 and coefficient of
determination (R2)9 is just 0.26, meaning that only 26% of the variation at the airport is explained by the
upper air trends. This is expected as the surface winds at the airport, as one can see, are strongly
affected by local terrain. Note in Figure 11 that winds in 2002, 2004, 2008 and 2017 were lower than
normal and winds from 2010 to 2012 were stronger than normal.
Figure 11: Cold Bay and Dutch Harbor Airport long‐term wind speed comparison
Seasonal Variation
Figure 12 (units of miles per hour) presents the local monthly mean wind speeds at Dutch Harbor
Airport. Note the seasonal variation is slightly different but in general very similar to that at Cold Bay
(see Figure 4, units of meters per second) with high winter wind speeds and lower summer wind speeds.
9 Proportion of variance in the dependent variable predicted by the independent variable; see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_determination for further explanation
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 20
Figure 12: Dutch Harbor Airport inter‐annual wind speed variation
Diurnal Variation
Figure 13 presents the diurnal wind variation by season and the most variation is between winter and
summer. Summer winds present a strong diurnal variation with a late afternoon peak. Winter winds
have minimal diurnal variation. Spring and fall have similar diurnal variation as the summer, but with
less amplitude.
Figure 13: Dutch Harbor Airport diurnal and seasonal wind speed variation
Site Visits (Tasks 3 and 5)
Douglas Vaught of V3 Energy LLC made an initial project site visit to Unalaska on December 12 to 14,
2017, working principally with Robert Lund, City Engineer. Highlights of daily activities:
Dec. 12: Traveled to Unalaska on morning flight. Visited with Ounalashka Corp. personnel
(Sandra Moller and others) to discuss wind project. Douglas Vaught and Robert Lund toured by
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 21
car and on foot Strawberry Hill, Iliuliuk Bay Spit, Lower Pyramid Valley and general layout of
Unalaska. Weather partly cloudy and breezy with no snow.
Dec. 13: Toured powerhouse and discussed plant operations, City weather stations and wind
project goals and options with Matthew Scott. Douglas Vaught and Robert Lund toured by car
and on foot Upper Ptarmigan Road (Skibowl Road) site area, Ballyhoo (National Historic Area),
Iliuliuk Spit again, Landfill, Summer Lake area near the shoreline, Lower Pyramid, Little South
America summit. Weather cold, clear and mostly calm with several inches of snow on ground
from overnight snowfall.
Dec. 14: Morning meeting with Public Works personnel (Robert Lund, Dan Winters, Tom
Cohenour and Mark Morrow) to discuss site tour observations and project objectives. Weather
rainy and windy. Returned to Anchorage on noon flight.
Douglas Vaught of V3 Energy LLC made a second site visit to Unalaska on March 20 to 23, 2018, again
working principally with Robert Lund, City Engineer. Highlights of daily activities:
Mar. 20: Traveled to Unalaska on morning flight. Discussion at Public Works regarding project
progress and objectives of site visit. Douglas Vaught and Robert Lund toured Upper (Icy Lake
Reservoir), Airport Golf Ball, Lower Pyramid and Ptarmigan sites; discussed options for summer
met tower installation work. Weather clear, warm and calm with no snow.
Mar. 21: Visited high school freshman science classes to discuss wind power and project plans.
Met with Public Works (Robert Lund, Mark Morrow and Tom Roufos) and Ounalashka Corp.
(Sandra Moller) personnel to discuss pros and cons of each site option, preferred met tower
sites, access and land use requirements and project timeline. Discussed merits of Hog Island as a
site option and made plans to visit following day. Weather clear, warm and calm.
Mar. 22: Visited Icy Lake weather station and Upper Pyramid Valley with Matt Scott of Public
Works and returned to Powerhouse for discussion of weather stations and integration issues.
Visited Hog Island by zodiac boat transport with Public Works personnel (Robert Lund, Mark
Morrow and Tom Roufos) and identified prospective met tower sites. Morning weather rainy
changing to sunny and breezy by afternoon. Returned to Anchorage on evening flight.
Site Selection and Permitting (Task 6)
There are many criteria to consider with wind prospecting in Unalaska, well beyond the wind resource
itself. Consider a Venn diagram (see Figure 14) where each site selection criterion is a circle of the
diagram.
Figure 14: Conceptual Venn diagram
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 22
A developable location for wind power in Unalaska is one where all circles, or criteria, overlap. These
criteria include at a minimum:
Wind resource: high (but not too high) mean wind speed, normal or near normal Weibull
distribution, low‐to‐moderate turbulence (steady wind flow), acceptable extreme wind behavior,
and unimodal or bimodal wind direction distribution
Power distribution infrastructure: proximity to existing (or planned) distribution lines with
sufficient amperage capacity to accept input from planned wind farm, including expansion
potential
Roads/access: proximity to existing roads, or reasonable cost to develop or improve access
Site size: large enough to host a wind turbine array that meets project goals, such as
sufficient capacity for medium or high penetration
Land use; available for development (ownership, easement restrictions, lease rates, etc.)
Airspace: FAA restrictions for airport flight operations related to VFR circling traffic and
instrument approach areas
Terrestrial wildlife and avian species: minimize impacts to critical habitat, flyways, etc.
Wetlands, parks and other high‐value environments: no insurmountable restrictions and/or
acceptable mitigation requirements
Noise, shadow flicker (turbine blades passing between the sun and an observer) and
aesthetics: minimal impact to residents
Rime icing environment and/or ice throw risk: minimal risk and/or acceptable mitigating
measures possible
Met Tower Site Options
Met tower locations are chosen for their proximity to the prospective wind farm, their
representativeness for IEC 61400‐1 evaluation, their suitability for wind flow modeling, and as a
reference point for mesoscale wind pattern comparison.
From background research and the December 2017 and March 2018 site visits, several wind power/met
tower site options were identified, discussed and considered. More wind power sites exist in Unalaska,
but the focus of the search was principally on developability for wind power or use of a site as a
reference location for modeling purposes. In current order of interest for wind power development,
sites that were identified are:
1. Pyramid Valley
2. Hog Island
3. Ptarmigan Road
4. Little South America (LSA)
5. Airport Golf Balls
6. Ballyhoo
7. Strawberry Hill
8. Landfill
9. Iliuliuk Bay Spit
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 23
10. Summer Bay
Of these ten site references, the strongest candidate for potential wind power development is Pyramid
Valley, as described below. A high potential but more difficult to access site than Pyramid Valley is Hog
Island. Sites of moderate development potential are Ptarmigan Road and Little South America. The
remaining sites were investigated but at present are considered low potential for wind power
development.
Pyramid Valley
Pyramid Valley, source of Unalaska’s water supply, is the most promising location in Unalaska for a wind
power project. Hence, a met tower to comprehensively assess with wind resource in Pyramid is
essential. As noted previously, Pyramid Valley was recognized in the earlier 1999 and 2005 wind
assessment studies as high potential, but data specifically intended for wind power development has
not been collected in the valley. An exception is two 30 meter met towers installed by Dick Peck in 2009
on Westward Seafood property and subsequently on Ounalashka property on the plateau at the
extreme lower portion of Pyramid Valley.
The intent of Mr. Peck’s study was to assess potential for installation of vertical axis wind turbines,
which was the focus of a report and PowerPoint presentation. The report and PowerPoint did not
describe the wind resource itself, other than a reference in the PowerPoint presentation to 12.7 mph
and Class 4 winds, but the met tower location for this data is not noted. Unfortunately, the original met
tower data reportedly has been lost and hence reevaluation of it for the present study is not possible.
With reference to the Cold Bay upper air data, Pyramid Valley is fortuitously aligned with the SE‐NW
upper level flow in the lower valley and with a more N‐S orientation in the upper valley (see Figure 15,
the Icy Lake weather station wind rose which shows north‐northwesterly to southerly winds recorded
November 2017 thru February 2018). It is accessed by a wide, well‐maintained gravel road, contains no
development other than the community water supply system, and of considerable importance, is served
by a buried high capacity, three‐phase power distribution line that is only minimally loaded at present.
The plateau area that comprises lower Pyramid Valley is large enough to contain several megawatts of
wind power capacity. Should the lower valley be unsuitable for some reason, excellent terrain for wind
power development exists up the entire valley to Icy Lake. A disadvantage of up‐valley however is the
lack of existing power infrastructure, which would significantly increase development costs and winter
access challenges. Upper and lower Pyramid Valley are distant from Dutch Harbor Airport and well
away from the traffic patterns and normal air traffic routing.
Given that Pyramid Valley is of high interest and considering its development potential, upper and lower
valley are discussed separately for met tower considerations.
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 24
Figure 15: Icy Lake weather station wind rose
Lower Pyramid Valley
Lower Pyramid Valley is the most promising location in Unalaska for wind turbines and hence a 60‐
meter height met tower is recommended to obtain high above‐ground‐level data necessary to evaluate
the wind resource for turbines likely most suitable for a wind power project. Two site locations at Lower
Pyramid suitable for installation of a 60‐meter tower were identified and are noted as Lower Pyramid
Valley 1 (near Veronica Lake) and Lower Pyramid Valley 2 (near Westward Seafoods); see Figure 16.
Lower Pyramid 1 is partially on City of Unalaska property and easier to access from the road, hence is
recommended over Lower Pyramid 2. Both locations model with AWS Truepower Windnavigator
software at approximately 7.0 m/s mean wind speed at the 60‐meter level. See Table 4 for additional
information.
Figure 16: Lower Pyramid Valley (orange line is power distribution, 3Φ to the water tank, 1Φ further up valley), view north
Lower Pyramid 1 (Veronica Lake)
Lower Pyramid 2 (Westward)
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 25
Upper Pyramid Valley
Upper Pyramid Valley is from Icy Creek Reservoir to Icy Lake at the top of the valley. Although of
secondary interest for wind power development given the advantages of lower valley, upper valley may
be more promising should the Lower Pyramid Valley wind resource not be as robust as desired and/or
wind power development in the lower valley not be feasible for other reasons. See Table 4 for
additional information.
Given the lower likelihood of wind power development in Upper Pyramid Valley compared to lower
valley, a 34‐meter met tower is proposed for installation at a site just uphill from Icy Creek Reservoir.
Besides data to characterize upper valley, for wind farm design a wind flow model of lower Pyramid
Valley, making use of the 60‐meter met tower for its data source, will be needed. A met tower in upper
Pyramid Valley can serve as a control or check point for the model to ensure accuracy.
Figure 17: Upper Pyramid Valley (Icy Creek Reservoir north, Icy Lake south edge), view north
Hog Island
Hog Island represents a unique site option in that it is further from potentially turbulence‐inducing
mountain terrain than the other sites. But, because of steep topography on the northern half of the
island and boundaries of the instrument approach area to Runway 13, likely only the southern half of
the island is developable for wind power.
Hog Island is only accessible by boat or helicopter and has no existing power distribution, making wind
power development expensive. On the other hand, according to City of Unalaska Public Works
personnel, Hog Island may be less expensive to develop than the Ptarmigan Road site area in Iliuliuk
Valley. This is due to the nature of power distribution in Iliuliuk Valley compared the relatively straight‐
forward requirement to route approximately 1.25 miles of power distribution from a substation near the
airport across the bay to the island. See Table 4 for additional information.
Icy Lake Weather Station
Icy Lake Reservoir Met Tower Site
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 26
A 60‐meter met tower is recommended for the Hog Island Road site location on the island. This will be
an excellent reference point for a wind flow model to address wind variation across the entire southern
portion of the island. Should the FAA not allow a met tower at this spot, an alternative location on Hog
Island for a 60‐meter met tower is the south beach flat. Wind flow modeling from this point though is
less certain and hence a 34‐meter met tower near the preferred “Hog Island Road” site is
recommended. This will enable validation of a wind flow model.
Figure 18: Hog Island, view east
Ptarmigan Road
This site area is past the turnout of Upper Ptarmigan Road after it turns north and away from Ski Bowl
Road. AWS Windnavigator software predicts a very good wind resource in this area due to its high
elevation (690 ft. vs. 305 ft. at Lower Pyramid 1). Ptarmigan Road consists of two sites, one near the end
of the access road and well downhill and beyond it (see Figure 19).
Access to the site area is reasonably good on a well‐maintained road. Drawbacks however include lack
of high voltage service in Iliuliuk Valley which would be expensive to upgrade, location within a marked
instrument approach area to Runway 31 (although this approach is never used and likely could be
successfully challenged), nearness to development with the potential for noise and shadow flicker
problems. See Table 4 for additional information.
Airport Golf Balls is not recommended for a met tower at present but is a primary alternate site area
option should Pyramid Valley and possibly Hog Island prove unsuitable for wind power development.
Hog Island Road
Hog Island Beach
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 27
Figure 19: Ptarmigan Road site area in Iliuliuk Valley, view northwest
Airport Golf Balls
Airport Golf Balls refers to the two radar dome structures immediately northeast and uphill of the Dutch
Harbor Airport that resemble giant golf balls at a distance. AWS Windnavigator projects an excellent
wind resource in this site area (see Figure 20). This site area appeared more promising by reference to
the AWS model and Google Earth imagery than in person. FAA considerations of airspace restrictions
aside, FAA property ownership precludes use of more desirable flatter terrain in the site area. Outside
FAA land ownership, the terrain is steeply sloped, offers few options for met tower placement, and
would be difficult to develop for wind turbine placement perpendicular to the SE‐NNW prevailing winds.
See Table 4 for additional information.
Airport Golf Balls is not recommended at present for a met tower present but could be reconsidered
should the primary sites prove unsuitable for wind power development.
Ptarmigan Road 2
Ptarmigan Road 1
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 28
Figure 20: Dutch Harbor Airports; radar “golf balls” indicated by yellow arrow; site area in vicinity, view north
Little South America
Figure 21 shows the Little South America (LSA) sites. LSA is well exposed to prevailing SE‐NW winds on
the most exposed areas. However, the hilly terrain could result in turbulence and large variations in
wind speed. The difference in the wind speeds predicated by AWS Truepower Windnavigator for LSA 1
and LSA 2 shows that confidence in the resource is only moderate at present. As a site for wind turbines,
even though the wind resource on LSA may be good, road access to the summit is would difficult and
expensive to improve. Further, due to significant war usage with many historical features, nearly all LSA
is administered by the National Park Service as the Aleutian World War II National Historic Area.
But, a meso‐scale reference point to validate the area‐wide wind rose as demonstrated in the Cold Bay
upper air data would be a valuable addition to the project, especially if the wind flow measured in
Pyramid is less or different than anticipated. Two candidate sites – LSA and Ballyhoo – can serve this
purpose. In some respects, Ballyhoo may be preferable to the summit of LSA because it is twice the
elevation and hence better exposed, but the location of LSA between the main prospective met tower
sites – Lower Pyramid Valley and Hog Island – make it the better choice. For this, a 10‐meter met tower
is recommended for the summit of LSA. See Table 4 for additional information.
Airport Golf Balls
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 29
Figure 21: Little South America, view west
Ballyhoo
AWS Windnavigator predicts exceptionally strong winds on Ballyhoo, more than 9 m/s even at low
elevation above ground level. Although at first glance this seems desirable, it is likely indicative of
violently strong storm winds, probably exceeding IEC limitations for a Class I wind resource. Excessively
high winds aside, Ballyhoo is within the Aleutian World War II National Historic Area administered by the
U.S. National Park Service. There is no power distribution to the top of the mountain and the access
road is very steep with tight switchbacks. See Table 4 for additional information.
The Ballyhoo site though would be interesting as a meso‐scale wind rose reference point because it is so
high and well‐exposed. But, even though Ballyhoo has some advantages compared to Little South
America for meso‐scale reference, the latter is preferred given its proximity to Pyramid Valley and Hog
Island.
LSA 3
LSA 2, summit
LSA 1
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 30
Table 4: Site Information
Site Name GPS data
Elev.
(m)
AWS Wind
Speed,
60m level
(m/s)
Estimated
EWT DW
52‐900
(MWh/y)
Land
Owner
Distance
to road
access (ft)
Distributio
n Line
Nearby
Distance
to Dist.
Line (ft)
Lower Pyramid Valley 1
(Veronica Lake)
N 53‐50.963
W 166‐33.747 88 6.95 2,590
OC and
City 675 yes 650
Lower Pyramid Valley 2
(above Westward)
N 53‐51.131
W 166‐33.745 87 6.98 2,611 OC 975 yes 1,400
Upper Pyramid Valley (Icy
Creek Reservoir)
N 53‐49.768
W 166‐33.080 168
not
calculated
not
calculated OC 200 yes 560
Hog Island Road
N 53‐54.151
W 166‐34.532 30 7.09 2,635 OC n/a no 8,700
Hog Island Beach
N 53‐53.848
W 166‐34.384 4
not
calculated
not
calculated OC n/a no 7,000
Upper Ptarmigan Rd. 1
N 53‐52.153
W 166‐30.348 204 7.42 2,998 OC 870 no 2,000
Upper Ptarmigan Rd. 2
N 53‐52.175
W 166‐30.559 170 7.38 2,955 OC 1550 no 1,350
Airport Golfballs (approx.
site location)
N 53‐54.291
W 166‐32.786 72 7.30 2,810
OC/ NPS
admin 210 yes 200
Little South America 1
(LSA 1)
N 53‐52.419
W 166‐33.185 50 7.21 2,804
OC/ NPS
admin 160 no 700
Little South America 2
(LSA 2)
N 53‐52.541
W 166‐33.489 87 7.82 3,158
OC/ NPS
admin 75 no 650
Little South America 3
(LSA 3)
N 53‐52.032
W 166‐33.410 5 no data no data OC 245 yes 250
Ballyhoo
N 53‐54.929
W 166‐30.911 211 9.34
Exceeds
IEC2 limit
OC/ NPS
admin 0no 1,800
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 31
Figure 22: Ballyhoo on Amaknak Island, view north
Rejected Sites
The four sites referenced in this section were visited during the site visits but rejected as areas of
interest for possible wind power development. They are listed here given mention in previous reports
and for documentation purposes.
Strawberry Hill
This site was examined by site visits in December and March but is not considered viable for wind power
due proximity to the airport, location within the instrument approach area of Runway 31, a significant
bald eagle nesting population on the hill and proximity to existing infrastructure.
Landfill
The landfill is city‐owned property and hence of initial interest due to ease of development, but this
location is strongly shadowed by Amaknak Island to the north and Mount Newhall to the south. AWS
Truepower Windnavigator software predicts a low wind resource in this location. Additionally, the
landfill is highly constrained for space with little room for wind turbines, is frequented by large numbers
of bald eagles and is near the approach route for Runway 31 of Dutch Harbor Airport. It is not
considered a viable location for wind power development.
Iliuliuk Bay Spit
The spit has an advantage of easy access with existing power distribution, but it is very narrow with few
development options except at the tip. The spit tip though is nearly directly below approach and
departures paths to nearby Dutch Harbor airport.
Summer Bay Area
The Summer Bay area has several interesting and likely good wind site options, and although the access
road is in relatively good condition, it is very narrow and winding and closely hugs a coastal cliff, hence it
Ballyhoo
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 32
would be difficult to route power distribution. Unless the other sites are unsuitable for some reason,
Summer Bay is a not recommended at present for monitoring.
Site Permitting for Met Towers
Permits and/or approvals of most relevance and time constraint for met tower installations are FAA’s
obstruction evaluation process and landowner permission. For FAA, all sites of possible interest were
checked with FAA’s notice criteria tool. This tool enables one to insert latitude, longitude, site elevation
and obstruction height information and determine whether FAA requires one to apply and request
formal review.
The four (or five if a second Hog Island met tower is needed) recommended met tower sites all require
obstruction evaluation and “cases” were submitted for evaluation in April 2018. It is probable that
Upper and Lower Pyramid met towers (34 and 60 meters respectively) will be approved without
complication and approval of a 10‐meter tower on Little South America is likely although additional
marking may be required. FAA approval of met towers on Hog Island is less certain. Should FAA decline
the requests, decisions can be appealed with a request for circularization (public comment) and further
study.
Met Tower Equipment Selection (Task 7)
All met towers and related equipment recommended for Phase III of the Unalaska wind development
project are provided by NRG Systems, Inc. of Hinesburg, Vermont. NRG is the world’s leading supplier of
wind measurement equipment and both V3 Energy LLC and BSDC are very familiar with their products.
All met towers would be ordered as complete “NOW” packages which include the tower itself, data
logger, weather box, a standard suite of sensors and associated sensor wires. Not included by
recommended are modems to automatically communicate wind data daily. See
https://www.nrgsystems.com/products/complete‐met‐systems for more information on NRG Systems,
Inc. NOW products.
Option 1: Upper Pyramid, Lower Pyramid, LSA
Option 1 focuses attention exclusively on Pyramid Valley with LSA as a reference point for comparison to
a meso‐scale wind pattern. A 60‐meter met tower would be installed in Lower Pyramid Valley at the
marked site nearest the water tank (also known as the Veronica Lake site), a 34‐meter met tower near
Icy Creek Reservoir in Upper Pyramid Valley, and a 10‐meter met tower on the summit of LSA. Lower
Pyramid Valley and LSA summit have strong cellular signal reception and the NRG 3G communication
modem should work fine. Upper Pyramid Valley does not have cellular signal reception, at least not
with GCI, and an Iridium satellite modem would be necessary. This modem is more expensive to
purchase and operate than the 3G modem but works flawlessly in any location.
Option 2: Upper Pyramid, Lower Pyramid, LSA, Hog Island Road
Option 2 retains the met towers recommended in Option 1 and adds a 60‐meter met tower in the
central area of Hog Island, at the location referenced as Hog Island Road. Hog Island has good cellular
signal reception and use of a 3G communications modem should be fine for data transmission.
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 33
Option 3: Upper Pyramid, Lower Pyramid, LSA, Hog Island Beach, Hog Island Central
Option 3 retains the met towers recommended in Option 1 and adds a 60‐meter met tower on the south
beach flats of Hog Island and a 34‐meter met tower in the south‐central part of the island. Option 3 is a
variation of Option 2 and only recommended if FAA does not approve a 60‐meter met tower at the Hog
Island Road site.
Wind Monitoring Program
The purpose of a met tower(s) is to collect one year or more of data pertinent and necessary to develop
a wind power project. At a minimum, this includes wind speed, wind direction, temperature, and in
some circumstances relative humidity. Other sensors, such as solar insolation and atmospheric
pressure, may also be considered depending on project objectives.
For the Unalaska wind power development, the following data will be collected or calculated:
Wind Speed
Wind speed is the most important wind characteristic measured at a potential development site. It can
vary widely across the landscape and generally increases with elevation above ground level. At sites
with significant topographic relief, vertical wind flow may be important, and measurement of both
horizontal and vertical wind speed allows one to calculate a wind flow vector.
The power in the wind is proportional to the cube of the wind speed (see Equation 1). This means that a
20 m/s wind has eight times more inherent power than a 10 m/s wind, although by theory10 and the
practicalities of engineering design not all wind power can be converted to wind turbine power. This
will be discussed in much greater detail in the project Phase III report following wind data collection.
Equation 1: Power and wind speed relationship
𝑃ൌଵ
ଶ 𝜌𝑉ଷ (units of power: Watts/m2)
Direction
Direction of the wind is important for turbine siting and performance. A wind resource that is unimodal
or bimodal (with prevailing directions 180 degrees apart) are the most optimal as this will minimize
wake interference between turbines. If a unimodal or 180 degrees bimodal wind resource, the turbines
can be spaced very close together (e.g., as near as two turbine rotor blade diameter separation). On the
other hand, if the resource has a multimodal wind direction, wind turbines are likely to require a
minimum 4‐to‐5 blade rotor diameter spacing.
Cold Bay upper air data predicts near‐180‐degree bimodal wind directions at Unalaska, which three
months of Icy Lake weather station appears to confirm for upper Pyramid Valley at least. It is less clear
if strongly bimodal winds will predominate in more open areas such as LSA and Hog Island.
10 Betz’s Law, published in 1919 by the German physicist Albert Betz, demonstrates that the maximum power that
can be extracted from the wind in open flow, independent of turbine design, is 16/27 (59.3%) of the kinetic energy
of the wind (energy is the product of power and time). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betz%27s_law for a
detailed explanation.
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 34
Temperature
Temperature is directly measured with a sensor mounted to the met tower. Equation 1 shows that the
power of the wind is directly proportional to the air density (ρ). Density and temperature are related by
a derivation of the ideal gas law where: where P is site air pressure and R is the specific gas constant
(287.04 Joules/kg, expressed in degrees Kelvin), as shown in Equation 2.
Equation 2: Density, pressure and temperature relationship
𝜌ൌ𝑃𝑅𝑇ൗ (units of density: kg/m3)
Pressure
Pressure is a variable of Equation 2. If pressure is not directly measured it can be estimated to within
0.2% per reference to measured temperature and site elevation.
Wind Shear
Shear is the change in wind velocity with height. This is important because a large variation in wind
speed with height can result in excessive load differential between top and bottom of the rotor which
results in poor turbine performance and increased blade fatigue. The wind shear power law exponent,
α, used to extrapolate wind speed above the upper measurement height of the met tower, is a
logarithmic relationship of wind speeds measured at two or more anemometer heights on the tower. α
is non‐dimensional and typically varies from 0.1 to 0.5. If multi‐height wind speed is not available, α =
0.14 is assumed because it adequately describes wind shear in terrain with low surface roughness, such
as the grassy tundra of Unalaska. The general form for wind shear is shown in Equation 3 where U is
wind speed, z1 is a selected height on the met tower, z2 is another selected height on the met tower and
α is the power law exponent.
Equation 3: Wind shear relationship
𝑈௭భ
𝑈௭మ
ൌ ൬𝑧ଵ
𝑧ଶ
൰
ఈ
Turbulence
Turbulence Intensity is characterized by the standard deviation of 2‐second wind speed data in a 10‐
minute sampling interval divided by the mean wind speed during that interval as shown in Equation 4
where I is turbulence intensity, σ is standard deviation, U is wind speed and I refers to a specific time
step. Refer to IEC Classification and Table 5 for a discussion of acceptable levels of turbulence intensity
for wind turbine operations.
Equation 4: Turbulence intensity
𝐼ൌ𝜎 𝑈ൗ (dimensionless)
Extreme Wind
The extreme wind speed, or Vref, is the highest ten‐minute average wind speed in a 50‐year return
period. Because much less than 50 years of wind data is collected for a wind power project, Vref must be
calculated as a probability. This is accomplished with a Gumbel distribution, the explanation of which is
quite complex. The interested reader is directed to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gumbel_distribution
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 35
for a detailed explanation. Refer to IEC Classification and Table 5 for discussion of acceptable levels of
extreme wind for wind turbine operations.
IEC Classification
Standard 61400‐1 of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), a Switzerland‐based technical
standards organization, forms the basis of evaluation of turbulence intensity and extreme wind. The 3rd
edition was released in 2005, is the most recent and differs in some respects from the 2nd edition which
was released in 1999. Per IEC 61400‐1, 2nd and 3rd editions, wind turbines are classified by extreme wind
probability, or Vref, and turbulence intensity, hence the importance of calculating this information from
site wind data collected by the met towers.
Classification is a matrix of extreme wind (Classes I, II, and III) and turbulence intensity (Categories A, B
and C) as shown in Table 5. Class IA represents the most extreme wind behavior for wind turbines and
Class IIIC the most well‐behaved wind behavior.
Note that IEC classification is different from wind power classification (class 1‐poor to class 7‐superb)!
Although generally a wind power class 1 site will be IEC Class IIIC and a wind power class 7 site will be
IEC Class IA, this rule of thumb does not always hold true. Most desirable is a high wind power
classification with a low IEC classification.
Table 5: IEC 61400‐1, 3rd edition basic parameters for wind turbine classification
Vref Class
I II III S
(‐)/m/s 50.0 42.5 37.5 Values
specified
by the
designer Iref Category A 0.16
B 0.14
C 0.12
Icing
Icing can affect the performance of a wind turbine. Information gleaned from wind speed and direction
data is frequency of occurrence which can be translated to frequency and degree of impact to wind
turbine performance, the latter of which is not an exact science but reference to Scandinavian wind
industry methodology and experience has proven useful.
Data Usage for Wind Power Development
There are two basic and primary uses of wind data for wind power development. First is calculation of
annual energy production (AEP) for a turbine(s) of interest with suitable deduction for wake, electrical,
O&M, soiling and other losses. Net AEP data is used to model economic benefit of a wind power
project.
The second sue of wind data is the IEC classification as that dictates turbine models that are suitable for
a site. A Class IA wind turbine for instance may be employed in a Class IIIC wind regime, but not vice
versa. Wind turbine manufacturers require IEC classification of a site to ensure that the proposed
turbine model is suitable, and that warranty coverage is valid. Financial institutions and/or partners
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 36
require proper site IEC classification to ensure that their wind turbine investment is appropriate and can
be expected to perform throughout its planned service life.
Environmental and Cultural Review (Task 4)
For the project, Solstice Alaska Consulting Inc. of Anchorage was retained to provide an overview of
environmental conditions and permitting needs and Cultural Resources Consultants LLC of Anchorage
was retained to evaluate archaeological, cultural and historic resources of concern.
Environmental Review
This section summarizes the environmental conditions and permitting needs of ten potential
meteorological (met) station sites under consideration. The full interim report (a field visit is pending) is
presented in Appendix A.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation website (IPaC)
indicates that there are 35 species of migratory birds that could be present at most of the proposed met
station locations. Of the 35 potential migratory birds found in the areas, 9 are listed as Birds of
Conservation Concern (USFWS 2018a). There are also Bald Eagle nests near Little South America sites 1,
2, and 3 (Southeast Alaska GIS Library 2018).
According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) Fish Resource Monitor Mapper there
are no anadromous streams that would intersect any of the potential met station sites (ADF&G 2018).
The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) does not have wetlands data for Unalaska (USFWS
2018). Without wetlands mapping it is uncertain if a site is located within wetlands, but based on aerial
photography, it is likely that wetlands are located at most sites. Additionally, any new power line,
including an underwater line to Hog Island, may have wetlands impacts that need to be considered.
A search of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Map Rate Map (FIRM) and the
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) flood data map reveals that there are no available floodplain maps
or flood information for Unalaska (USACE 2018; FEMA 2018). Most potential met sites are likely outside
flood zones.
According to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) all the potential wind sites,
except those on Hog Island, have three or more contaminated sites within a one‐mile radius. However,
only Little South America sites 1 and 2 contain contaminated sites that are close enough (0.05 miles) to
be affected by the installation of a met station (ADEC 2018).
Unalaska was inhabited by the Unangan people for thousands of years before entering Russian control
in the 1760’s. During WWII, Unalaska was occupied by U.S. armed forces and artifacts from the Unangan
people and WWII can be found across Unalaska. Six out of the ten proposed met station sites are
located on or in proximity to documented archaeological sites (Airport Golf Ball; Little South America
1,2, and 3; Hog Island Road and Beach) (CRC 2018). The potential for cultural or historic resources at
other sites varies and my need further investigation
The potential met station sites are located on land owned by the local Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act (ANCSA) corporation, Ounalashka Corporation (ADNR 2018). The corporation requires the purchase
of land permits to access their lands for recreational purposes and has no short‐term plans to make land
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 37
available for sale (Ounalashka Corporation 2018). Consultation with Ounalashka Corporation will be
needed as this project moves forward.
It is likely that the following permits may be needed to develop wind projects at some or all the sites:
USACE Wetlands (Section 404/10) Permit and a ADEC Construction General Permit, if more than 1 acre
of land disturbing activities. Federal permits or funding could prompt consideration of the project under
the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Endangered Species
Act, and other federal regulations.
Cultural and Historic Review
CRC conducted a literature review of ten possible Unalaska met station locations, using its library of
reports and site information from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Office of History and
Archaeology (OHA), Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS). Four of the met tower locations—Lower
Pyramid Valley 1 and 2, and Upper Ptarmigan Road 1 and 2—are on Unalaska Island. Two locations—
Hog Island Road Site and Hog Island Beach Site—are on Hog Island, which is offshore west of Amaknak
Island and the Unalaska Airport. The remaining four locations—Airport Golf Ball, Little South America 1
and 2, and Ballyhoo—are within the Dutch Harbor Naval Operating Base and Fort Mears, U.S. Army
National Historic Landmark (NHL), which encompasses all of Amaknak Island.
There are no previously reported AHRS sites in the immediate vicinity of the two proposed Lower
Pyramid met stations. There are also no previously reported cultural resources near the proposed
Upper Ptarmigan Road 1 and 2 stations. There are three previously reported sites near the proposed
Hog Island Road and Hog Island Beach Site met stations: the Hog Island Flake Site (UNL‐00115), the Oiled
Blade Site (UNL‐00318), and the Hog Island South Site (UNL‐00058). UNL‐00115 and UNL‐00318 date to
the Early Anangula tradition, the earliest known occupation of the Aleutian Islands. Much of UNL‐
00058, the location of a former village, was damaged by World War II military operations.
There is one reported archaeological site roughly 500 feet north/northwest of the proposed Airport Golf
Ball met station location. This site, like others on nearby Hog Island, represents the earliest period of
human occupation of the region. Little South America 1 and 2 are within the Hill 400 Defenses site
(UNL‐00122), a contributing property of the NHL. The two proposed met station locations are in areas
that could contain World War II features. This proposed Ballyhoo met tower is within Fort Schwatka
(UNL‐00119), which is also part of the NHL and a National Historic Area administered by the National
Park Service.
The proposed Little South America, Ballyhoo, Airport Golf Ball, and Hog Island met tower locations all
have potential historical or archaeological conflicts. Little South America, Ballyhoo, Airport Golf Ball
locations are within the NHL and, additionally, Fort Schwatka is a National Historic Area. While the
installation of a met station might not necessarily affect any World War II remains, the proximity of
known archaeological sites to some of these proposed sites suggests that they are in an area of higher
concern for cultural resources.
Janet Clemens, a National Park Service historian based in Anchorage, who was contacted on May 1,
2018 for a consultation regarding installation of a 10‐meter met tower at LSA 2, or the summit of Little
South America. Her approval is contained in the body of an email sent to Michael Yarbrough of CRC,
included in Appendix C of this report.
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 38
Appendix A – Environmental Review Full Report
Unalaska Potential Meteorological Station Site
Environmental Information
Prepared for:
V3 Energy, LLC.
Prepared by:
Solstice Alaska Consulting, Inc.
2607 Fairbanks Street, Suite B
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Analysis of the City of Unalaska Wind Power Development and Integration Assessment Project – Phase II
April 2018
Page i
Table of Contents
Lower Pyramid Valley 1 ................................................................................................................................. 1
Lower Pyramid Valley 2 ................................................................................................................................. 4
Airport Golf Ball Site ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Upper Ptarmigan Road Site 1 ........................................................................................................................ 9
Upper Ptarmigan Rd. Site 2 ......................................................................................................................... 11
Little South America Site 1 .......................................................................................................................... 13
Little S. America Summit 2 .......................................................................................................................... 15
Little S. America Summit 3 .......................................................................................................................... 17
Hog Island Road Site ................................................................................................................................... 19
Hog Island Beach Site .................................................................................................................................. 21
References .................................................................................................................................................. 23
Figures
Figure 1. Overview of Lower Pyramid Valley Site 1 ...................................................................................... 1
Figure 2. Overview of Lower Pyramid Valley Site 2 ...................................................................................... 4
Figure 3. Overview of Airport Golf Ball Site .................................................................................................. 6
Figure 4. Overview of Upper Ptarmigan Road Site 1 .................................................................................... 9
Figure 5. Overview of Upper Ptarmigan Road Site 2 .................................................................................. 11
Figure 6. Overview of Little South America Site 1 ...................................................................................... 13
Figure 7. Overview of Little South America Site 2 ...................................................................................... 15
Figure 8. Overview of Little South America Site 3 ...................................................................................... 17
Figure 9. Overview of Hog Island Road Site ................................................................................................ 19
Figure 10. Overview of Hog Island Beach Site ............................................................................................ 21
Tables
Table 1. Lower Pyramid Valley Site 1 Contaminated Sites ........................................................................... 2
Table 2. Lower Pyramid Valley Site 2 Contaminated Sites ........................................................................... 5
Table 3. Airport Golf Ball Site Contaminated Sites ....................................................................................... 7
Table 4. Little South America Site 1 Contaminated Sites ............................................................................ 14
Table 5. Little South America Site 2 Contaminated Sites ............................................................................ 16
Table 6. Little South America Site 3 Contaminated Sites ............................................................................ 18
Analysis of the City of Unalaska Wind Power Development and Integration Assessment Project – Phase II
April 2018
Page 1
Introduction
Unalaska is an optimal location for wind energy due to consistent wind speeds. However, the remote
location and environmental challenges make the construction of a wind site a tedious task that requires
careful planning. This report summarizes environmental conditions at 10 potential meteorological
station sites to aid in the planning process.
Lower Pyramid Valley Site 1 (53.849383, ‐166.56245)
The Lower Pyramid Valley Site 1 is generally located at the end of the existing Lower Pyramid Creek
Road (Figure 1). The closest electrical line runs up Pyramid Valley in close proximity to the site and
provides easy access to a tie‐in; therefore, few impacts would result from connecting to the existing
power system.
Figure 1. Overview of Lower Pyramid Valley Site 1
Biological Resources
Migratory Birds
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) indicates
that there are 35 species of migratory birds that could be present near the Lower Pyramid Valley Site 1
and much of Unalaska. Of the 35 potential migratory birds 9 are listed as Birds of Conservation Concern
(BCC) (USFWS 2018a).
Analysis of the City of Unalaska Wind Power Development and Integration Assessment Project – Phase II
April 2018
Page 2
Bald Eagle Nests
There are no Bald Eagle nests in the immediate area of the proposed site. The closest nest is located
approximately 1.10 miles north of the proposed site (Figure 1; Southeast Alaska GIS Library 2018).
Anadromous Streams
There are no anadromous streams that intersect the Lower Pyramid Valley Site 1. The site is located 0.2
miles to the east of an anadromous stream (AWC Code: 302‐31‐10600) that contains coho salmon
(rearing) and pink salmon (present). The next closest anadromous streams are the Iliuliuk River (AWC
Code: 302‐31‐10500; 2.0 miles to the northeast) and the Shaishnikof River (AWC Code: 302‐31‐10700;
2.5 miles to the southwest) (Figure 1; ADF&G 2018).
Wetlands
The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) does not have wetlands data for Unalaska (USFWS
2018). A 1996 Exxon‐Valdez Restoration funding request from the State of Alaska for site cleanup,
wetlands preservation, watershed restoration, and improved fish passage in the Unalaska Lake
watershed notes that the wetland habitat in the area has been substantially degraded due to military
activities during World War II and recent industrial and residential activities (State of Alaska 1996). A
2004 Environmental Impact Statement for navigation improvements (construction of a protected harbor
for long‐term mooring) completed in Unalaska mentions wetlands in the Unalaska Lake watershed and a
tract of wetlands at the head of Unalaska Lake that is vital habitat for aquatic and avian species (USACE
2004). The Lower Pyramid Valley Site 1 is not located at the head of Unalaska Lake, but without
wetlands mapping or a field visit it is uncertain if it is located in a wetland.
Contaminated Sites
There are three contaminated sites within a 1‐mile radius of Lower Pyramid Valley Site 1; however, none
of them would be impacted if this site were chosen. See the table below for more information about the
contaminated sites (Figure 1 and Table 1; ADEC 2018).
Table 1. Lower Pyramid Valley Site 1 Contaminated Sites
Site File Number Status Distance from
Site
Lat/Long Nature of
contamination
2542.38.017 Open 0.2 miles NW of
the site
53.851670, ‐
166.559090
Diesel
2542.38.017 Open 0.4 miles W of the
site
53.850000, ‐
166.552778
Diesel and
Underground
Storage Tanks
(USTs)
2542.38.017 Open 0.5 miles E of the
site
53.8490000, ‐
166.574105
Diesel,
Chromium,
and arsenic
(ADEC 2018)
Analysis of the City of Unalaska Wind Power Development and Integration Assessment Project – Phase II
April 2018
Page 3
Floodplains
A search of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Map Rate Map (FIRM) and the
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) revealed that there are no available floodplain maps for Unalaska
(USACE 2018; FEMA 2018).
Visual and Noise Impacts
Lower Pyramid Valley Site 1 is located in a relatively isolated area. There are no visually sensitive or
noise sensitive areas near the proposed site. The closest establishments are a series of industrial sites,
including Westward Seafood, Inc. (approximately 0.60 miles east) and a residential area (approximately
0.2 miles east) (City of Unalaska 2014). This site could potentially be visible from the industrial sites,
from vessels in Captains Bay, and from the residential area. There would be minimal noise impacts from
construction or operation due to the distance.
Land Use/Ownership
This site is located in marine related industrial zoned land (City of Unalaska 2014a). The Ounalashka
Corporation owns a majority of the land in and around Unalaska including this site. The corporation
requires land use permits to access the land for recreational and subsistence activities, but further
action would need to occur to develop the land (Ounalashka Corporation 2018).
Cultural and Historic Sites
A literature review completed by Cultural Resource Consultants, LLC. for the Unalaska wind project
indicates that all of Amaknak Island is within the Dutch Harbor Naval Operating Base and Fort Mears,
U.S. Army National Historic Landmark (NHL), Rec Hall 5265 (UNL‐00575), is located approximately 1,200
feet to the northeast of this site (CRC 2018). Rec Hall is not eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places.
Analysis of the City of Unalaska Wind Power Development and Integration Assessment Project – Phase II
April 2018
Page 4
Lower Pyramid Valley Site 2 (53.852183, ‐166.562416)
Lower Pyramid Valley Site 2 is generally located at the end of the existing Lower Pyramid Creek Road
(Figure 2). The closest electrical line runs up Pyramid Valley in close proximity to the site and provides
easy access to a tie‐in; therefore, few impacts would result from connecting to the existing power
system.
Figure 2. Overview of Lower Pyramid Valley Site 2
Biological Resources
Migratory Birds
The USFWS IPaC indicated that there are 35 species of migratory birds that could be present and 9 are
listed as BCC at this location (USFWS 2018a).
Bald Eagle Nests
Bald Eagle nests are not present in the immediate area. The closest nest is approximately 0.90 miles
north of the proposed site (Figure 2; Southeast Alaska GIS Library 2018).
Analysis of the City of Unalaska Wind Power Development and Integration Assessment Project – Phase II
April 2018
Page 5
Anadromous Streams
Lower Pyramid Valley Site 2 is not intersected by any anadromous streams. The closest anadromous
stream (AWC Code: 302‐31‐10600) is 0.4 miles to the east of the site and contains coho salmon (rearing)
and pink salmon (present) (Figure 2; ADF&G 2018).
Wetlands
There is no existing wetlands data for Unalaska (USFWS 2018). Wetlands mapping or a field visit would
need to occur in order to determine if the Airport Golf Ball site is located within a wetland.
Contaminated Sites
There are 3 contaminated sites within a 1‐mile radius of Lower Pyramid Valley Site 2; however, none of
them would be impacted if this site were chosen. See the table below for more information about the
contaminated sites (Figure 2 and Table 2; ADEC 2018).
Table 2. Lower Pyramid Valley Site 2 Contaminated Sites
Site File Number* Status Distance from Site Lat/Long Nature of
contamination
2542.38.017 Open 0.15 miles W of
the site
53.851670, ‐
166.559090
Diesel
2542.38.017 Open 0.4 miles SW of
the site
53.850000, ‐
166.552778
Diesel and
USTs
2542.38.017 Open 0.5 miles SE of the
site
53.8490000, ‐
166.574105
Diesel,
chromium,
and arsenic
(ADEC 2018)
Floodplains
Floodplain maps are not available for Unalaska (USACE 2018; FEMA 2018).
Visual and Noise Impacts
Lower Pyramid Valley 2 site is located in a relatively isolated area. There are no visually sensitive or
noise sensitive areas near the proposed site. Westward Seafood, Inc. (approximately 0.50 miles away)
and vessels in Captains Bay could potentially see the Pyramid Valley 2 site, but there would be minimal
noise impacts from construction or operation due to the distance.
Land Use/Ownership
This site is located in marine related industrial zoned land (City of Unalaska 2014a). The Ounalashka
Corporation owns the land where the Lower Pyramid Valley 2 site is located. Further consultation with
Ounalashka Corporation would need to occur to develop the land (Ounalashka Corporation 2018).
Cultural and Historic Sites
There are no known or previously reported AHRS sites immediate adjacent to the site. The closest site,
Rec Hall 5265 (UNL‐00575), is located approximately 1,200 feet to the northeast (CRC 2018).
Analysis of the City of Unalaska Wind Power Development and Integration Assessment Project – Phase II
April 2018
Page 6
Airport Golf Ball Site (53.90485, ‐166.5464361)
The Airport Golf Ball Site is located near the airport at the end of Tundra Drive (Figure 3). The site is
within an industrial zoned area north of the airport at the base of Ballyhoo Mountain.
Figure 3. Overview of Airport Golf Ball Site
Biological Resources
Migratory Birds
Similar to other sites in Unalaska, the USFWS IPaC indicates that there are 35 species of migratory birds
(9 BCCs) that could be present (USFWS 2018a).
Bald Eagle Nests
The closest Bald Eagle nests to the Airport Golf Ball Site are located approximately 1.0 miles east and
approximately 1.15 miles south (Figure 3; Southeast Alaska GIS Library 2018).
Anadromous Streams
Airport Golf ball Site is not intersected by an anadromous stream. Iliuliuk River (AWC Code: 302‐31‐
10500; 1.9 miles to the south) is the closest stream and it contains coho salmon (spawning), pink salmon
(spawning), sockeye salmon (spawning), and Dolly Varden (present) (Figure 3; ADF&G 2018).
Analysis of the City of Unalaska Wind Power Development and Integration Assessment Project – Phase II
April 2018
Page 7
Wetlands
There is no existing wetlands data for Unalaska (USFWS 2018). Wetlands mapping or a field visit would
need to occur in order to determine if the Airport Golf Ball site is located within a wetland.
Contaminated Sites
There are 11 contaminated sites within a 1‐mile radius of the Airport Golf Ball Site. All except for three
of the contaminated sites have an “open” status, but due to the closest one being 0.6 miles to the south
of the site no contaminated sites would be impacted. See the table below for more information about
the contaminated sites (Figure 3 and Table 3; ADEC 2018).
Table 3. Airport Golf Ball Site Contaminated Sites
Site File
Number*
Status Distance from Site Lat/Long Nature of
Contamination
2542.26.001 Cleanup Complete 0.5 miles south of the
site
53.898335,
‐166.542793
Jet fuel
2661.38.016 Open 0.5 miles south of the
site
53.898400,
‐166.542300
Diesel
2661.38.004 Open 0.6 miles S of the site 53.897058,
‐166.539561
Diesel
2661.38.011 Open 0.6 miles S of the site 53.897097,
‐166.538628
Heating Oil
and Diesel
2542.38.010 Open 0.75 miles SE of the site 53.894701,
‐166.540614
Diesel and
Lead
2542.38.029 Open 0.75 miles S of the site 58.894847,
‐166.539999
UST and Diesel
2542.38.029 Open 0.75 miles S of the site 53.894777,
‐166.539400
Mercury,
arsenic, and
chromium
2542.38.011 Open 0.8 miles S of the site 53.894264,
‐166.538554
Diesel and Jet
Fuel
2542.38.007 Cleanup Complete:
Institutional
Controls
0.9 miles south of the
site
53.893056,
‐166.537222
Petroleum
2542.38.004 Cleanup Complete 0.9 miles southeast of
the site
53.894436,
‐166.533794
UST
2542.38.016 Open 1.0 miles south of the
site
53.891604,
‐166.537916
Diesel
(ADEC 2018)
Floodplains
Floodplain maps are not available for Unalaska (USACE 2018; FEMA 2018).
Visual and Noise Impacts
The Airport Golf Ball Site is not immediately located near visually sensitive or noise sensitive areas. The
closest establishments are Unalaska Airport (approximately 0.4 miles southwest), the Port of Dutch
Analysis of the City of Unalaska Wind Power Development and Integration Assessment Project – Phase II
April 2018
Page 8
Harbor (approximately 0.8 miles east), and Aleutian WWII Visitor Center (approximately 0.75 miles
south) (City of Unalaska 2014).
Land Use/Ownership
This site is located on marine related industrial zoned land (City of Unalaska 2014a).The Airport Golf Ball
site is located on Ounalashka Corporation owned land and further coordination with the corporation
would need to occur if this site were chosen (Ounalashka Corporation 2018).
Cultural and Historic Sites
There is one NHL site, Ballyhoo Antenna Site (UNL‐00316), approximately 500 feet north/northwest of
the Airport Golf Ball Site. This site is within the U.S. Army National Historic Landmark (NHL) (CRC 2018).
Analysis of the City of Unalaska Wind Power Development and Integration Assessment Project – Phase II
April 2018
Page 9
Upper Ptarmigan Road Site 1 (53.86921, ‐166.5058)
The Upper Ptarmigan Road site is generally located at the end of the existing Ptarmigan Road (Figure 4).
The site is near a residential area and at the base of Mount Newhall.
Figure 4. Overview of Upper Ptarmigan Road Site 1
Biological Resources
Migratory Birds
The USFWS reports that 35 species of migratory birds (9 BCC) are present in Unalaska near Upper
Ptarmigan Road Site 1 (USFWS 2018a).
Bald Eagle Nests
There are two Bald Eagle nests that are located along the Iliuliuk River approximately 1.2 miles
northwest of the site, but none are present in the immediate vicinity of the Upper Ptarmigan Road Site 1
(Figure 4; Southeast Alaska GIS Library 2018).
Anadromous Streams
The closest anadromous streams to Upper Ptarmigan Road Site 1 are the Iliuliuk River and one of its
tributaries (AWC Code: 302‐31‐10500). The waterways are approximately 0.7 miles to the west and
Analysis of the City of Unalaska Wind Power Development and Integration Assessment Project – Phase II
April 2018
Page 10
contain coho salmon (spawning), pink salmon (spawning), Sockeye salmon (spawning), and Dolly Varden
(present) (Figure 4; ADF&G 2018).
Wetlands
There is no existing wetlands data for Unalaska (USFWS 2018). Wetlands mapping or a field visit would
need to occur in order to determine if Upper Ptarmigan Road Site 1 is located within a wetland.
Contaminated Sites
There are 20 contaminated sites with a 1 mile radius of Upper Ptarmigan Road Site 1 with the closest
site approximately 0.2 miles to the south. A majority of these sites have an “open” status and are mostly
the result of USTs and Diesel contamination. Due to the distance from the proposed site no
contaminated sites are expected to be impacted (Figure 4; ADEC 2018).
Floodplains
Floodplain maps are not available for Unalaska (USACE 2018; FEMA 2018).
Visual and Noise Impacts
The closest visual or noise sensitive areas to Upper Ptarmigan Road Site 1 are a residential area
(approximately 0.5 miles west of the site), Unalaska Elementary School (approximately 0.5 miles west of
the site), and Unalaska Memorial Park (approximately 0.8 miles west of the site) (City of Unalaska 2014).
A structure at this site may be visible from the above mention locations; however noise from
construction and operation would be negligible.
Land Use/Ownership
This site is located in a holding zone and the immediate area surrounding the site is currently
undeveloped (City of Unalaska 2014a). Consultation with The Ounalashka Corporation (landowner)
would need to occur if this site were chosen (Ounalashka Corporation 2018).
Cultural and Historic Sites
A literature review for this project indicates that there are no known or reported sites near Upper
Ptarmigan Road Site 1 (CRC 2018)
Analysis of the City of Unalaska Wind Power Development and Integration Assessment Project – Phase II
April 2018
Page 11
Upper Ptarmigan Rd. Site 2 (53.869583, ‐166.509316)
The Upper Ptarmigan Road site is generally located at the end of the existing Ptarmigan Road (Figure 5).
The site is close to a residential area and within a holding zone to the east of Unalaska Lake.
Figure 5. Overview of Upper Ptarmigan Road Site 2
Biological Resources
Migratory Birds
Migratory birds (35 species) are present throughout Unalaska including at Upper Ptarmigan Road Site 2
(USFWS 2018a).
Bald Eagle Nests
Bald Eagles are not present in the immediate vicinity of this site and the closest nests are located along
the Iliuliuk River approximately 1.1 miles northwest of the proposed site (Figure 5; Southeast Alaska GIS
Library 2018).
Anadromous Streams
Iliuliuk River and one of its tributaries (AWC Code: 302‐31‐10500) are the closest anadromous streams
(approximately 0.8 miles to the west) and they contain coho salmon (spawning), pink salmon
(spawning), Sockeye salmon (spawning), and Dolly Varden (present) (Figure 5; ADF&G 2018).
Analysis of the City of Unalaska Wind Power Development and Integration Assessment Project – Phase II
April 2018
Page 12
Wetlands
There is no existing wetlands data for Unalaska (USFWS 2018). Wetlands mapping or a field visit would
need to occur in order to determine if the Upper Ptarmigan Road Site 2 is located within a wetland.
Contaminated Sites
There are 20 contaminated sites with a 1‐mile radius of Upper Ptarmigan Road Site 2. A majority of
these sites have an “open” status and are the result of USTs and diesel fuel contamination. It is unlikely
that the contaminated sites in the area would be impacted due to their distance from the proposed site
(at least approximately 0.2 miles south) (Figure 5; ADEC 2018).
Floodplains
Floodplain maps are not available for Unalaska (USACE 2018; FEMA 2018).
Visual and Noise Impacts
Upper Ptarmigan Road Site 2 is located in an undeveloped area. A residential area (approximately 0.4
miles west of the site), Unalaska Elementary School (approximately 0.6 miles west of the site), and
Unalaska Memorial Park (approximately 0.7 miles west of the site) (City of Unalaska 2014) are the
closest visually sensitive or noise sensitive areas. Noise from construction and operation would be
negligible; however, a structure at this site may be visible from the listed areas.
Land Use/Ownership
The immediate area surrounding the site is currently undeveloped and it is located in a holding zone,
meaning the community has not reached a final decision on how the land should be rezoned (City of
Unalaska 2014a). Coordination with the Ounalashka Corporation would need to occur if the Upper
Ptarmigan Road Site 2 is chosen (Ounalashka Corporation 2018).
Cultural and Historic Sites
There are no known or reported sites in the vicinity (CRC 2018).
Analysis of the City of Unalaska Wind Power Development and Integration Assessment Project – Phase II
April 2018
Page 13
Little South America Site 1 (53.87365, ‐166.553083)
The Little South America Site 1 is generally located at the end of the existing Airport Beach Road and
within an industrial zoned area (Figure 6).
Figure 6. Overview of Little South America Site 1
Biological Resources
Migratory Birds
There are 35 species of migratory birds that could be present near Little South America Site 1 (USFWS
2018a).
Bald Eagle Nests
There are 9 Bald Eagle nests within 1 mile of the proposed site. The closest nest is approximately 0.1
miles southeast and the farthest is 0.9 miles to the north (Figure 6; Southeast Alaska GIS Library 2018).
Anadromous Streams
Little South America Site 1 does not interfere with any anadromous streams. Iliuliuk River (AWC Code:
302‐31‐10500) is the closest stream at approximately 0.6 miles to the southeast and contains coho
salmon (spawning), pink salmon (spawning), Sockeye salmon (spawning), and Dolly Varden (present)
(Figure 6; ADF&G 2018).
Analysis of the City of Unalaska Wind Power Development and Integration Assessment Project – Phase II
April 2018
Page 14
Wetlands
There is no existing wetlands data for Unalaska (USFWS 2018). Wetlands mapping or a field visit would
need to occur in order to determine if the Little South America Site 1 is located within a wetland.
Contaminated Sites
There are 4 contaminated sites within a 0.5 mile radius of Little South America Summit 1. The closest
site is 0.05 miles from the potential site (Figure 6 and Table 4; ADEC 2018). See the table below for
information on the contaminated sites.
Table 4. Little South America Site 1 Contaminated Sites
Site File Number* Status Distance from Site Lat/Long Nature of
Contamination
2661.38.009 Open 0.3 miles NW of
the site
53.875278, ‐
166.546667
Diesel
2542.38.032 Open 0.05 miles SW of
the site
53.873235, ‐
166.553979
Diesel and UST
2542.38.032 Open 0.2 miles SE of the
site
53.874414, ‐
166.558677
5 rusted 55
gallon drums
2542.39.032 Open 0.25 miles NW of
the site
53.875054, ‐
166.558885
Diesel and UST
(ADEC 2018)
Floodplains
Floodplain maps are not available for Unalaska (USACE 2018; FEMA 2018).
Visual and Noise Impacts
Due to the distance from developed areas and the industrial nature of the area noise impacts would be
negligible; however, Little South America Site 1 would likely be visible from Carl E. Moses Boat Harbor
(approximately 0.25 miles to the southwest), Expedition Island Park (approximately 0.25 miles to the
northeast) and Iliuliuk Bay (City of Unalaska 2014).
Land Use/Ownership
Little South America Site 1 is located on marine related industrial zoned land that is owned by the
Ounalashka Corporation (City of Unalaska 2014a; Ounalashka Corporation 2018). The Ounalashka
Corporation requires land use permits to access the land for recreational and subsistence activities, but
further action would need to occur to develop the land (Ounalashka Corporation 2018).
Cultural and Historic Sites
This site is located on the eastern side of the Hill 400 slope. The Hill 400 Defense site (UNL‐00122) is a
contributing property of the NHL.
Analysis of the City of Unalaska Wind Power Development and Integration Assessment Project – Phase II
April 2018
Page 15
Little S. America Site 2 (53.87568, ‐166.55815)
Little South America Site 2 is generally located within an industrial zoned area at the end of the existing
Airport Beach Road (Figure 7).
Figure 7. Overview of Little South America Site 2
Biological Resources
Migratory Birds
Little South America Site 2 is in an area that is frequented by 35 species of migratory birds (9 BCC)
(USFWS 2018a).
Bald Eagle Nests
There are 7 Bald Eagle nests within 1 mile of the proposed site with the closest nest approximately 0.1
miles north and the farthest is 0.8 miles to the south (Figure 7; Southeast Alaska GIS Library 2018).
Anadromous Streams
Little S. America Site 2 is not intersected by any anadromous streams. The closest anadromous stream is
across Iliuliuk Bay (approximately 0.7 miles to the southeast). Iliuliuk River (AWC Code: 302‐31‐10500)
contains coho salmon (spawning), pink salmon (spawning), Sockeye salmon (spawning), and Dolly
Varden (present) (Figure 7; ADF&G 2018).
Analysis of the City of Unalaska Wind Power Development and Integration Assessment Project – Phase II
April 2018
Page 16
Wetlands
There is no existing wetlands data for Unalaska (USFWS 2018). Wetlands mapping or a field visit would
need to occur in order to determine if the Little South America Site 1 is located within a wetland.
Contaminated Sites
There are 5 contaminated sites near Little S. America 2 site. The closest site is 0.05 miles to the west of
Little South America Site 2 (Figure 7 and Table 5; ADEC 2018).
Table 5. Little South America Site 2 Contaminated Sites
Site File Number* Status Distance from Site Lat/Long
2542.38.029 Open 0.37 miles NE of the
site
53.881, ‐166.56
2542.39.032 Open 0.05 miles W of the
site
53.8751, ‐166.559
2542.38.032 Open 0.7 miles SW of the
site
53.8744, ‐166.559
2542.38.032 Open 0.25 miles SW of the
site
53.8751, ‐166.559
2661.38.009 Open 0.5 miles SE of the site 53.8753, ‐166.547
(ADEC 2018)
Floodplains
Floodplain maps are not available for Unalaska (USACE 2018; FEMA 2018).
Visual and Noise Impacts
Carl E. Moses Boat Harbor (approximately 0.4 miles southwest of the site) and Expedition Island Park
(approximately 0.3 miles northeast of the site) are the closest establishments near the proposed sites.
Due to the distance from developed areas and the industrial nature of the area noise impacts would be
negligible; however, this site would likely be visible from the areas listed above and Iliuliuk Bay (City of
Unalaska 2014).
Land Use/Ownership
This site is located on marine related industrial zoned land (City of Unalaska 2014a). The Ounalashka
Corporation owns the land that the proposed site is located on. Consultation with the corporation would
need to occur to develop the land (Ounalashka Corporation 2018).
Cultural and Historic Sites
Little South America Site 2 is located near the top of Hill 400 Defense site (UNL‐00122) and it is a
contributing property of the NHL (CRC 2018). .
Analysis of the City of Unalaska Wind Power Development and Integration Assessment Project – Phase II
April 2018
Page 17
Little S. America Site 3 (53.8672, ‐166.55683)
The Little South America Site 3 is located in an industrial zoned are near the Carl E. Moses Boat Harbor
at the end of Airport Beach Road (Figure 8).
Figure 8. Overview of Little South America Site 3
Biological Resources:
Migratory Birds
Migratory birds (35 species) are present in and around Little South America Site 3 (USFWS 2018a).
Bald Eagle Nests
There are 5 Bald Eagle nests within in 1 mile of the proposed site. The closest nest is approximately 0.06
miles west of the site and the farthest is approximately 0.8 miles northwest of the site (Figure 8;
Southeast Alaska GIS Library 2018).
Anadromous Streams
The closest anadromous stream to the site is No Name (AWC Code: 302‐31‐10600). It is approximately
0.6 miles to the southwest and contains coho salmon (rearing) and pink salmon (present) (Figure 8;
ADF&G 2018).
Analysis of the City of Unalaska Wind Power Development and Integration Assessment Project – Phase II
April 2018
Page 18
Wetlands
Wetlands maps are not currently available for Unalaska (USFWS 2018). A field visit would need to occur
to determine if Little South America Site 3 is located within a wetland.
Contaminated Sites
There are two contaminated sites near Little S. America Site 3. The closest site is 0.4 miles to the
northeast of the proposed site (Figure 8 and Table 6; ADEC 2018).
Table 6. Little South America Site 3 Contaminated Sites
Site File Number* Status Distance from Site Lat/Long
2542.38.032 (mess hall) Open 0.4 miles northeast of
the site
53.873235, ‐
166.553979
2542.38.032 (drums) Open 0.5 miles north of the
site
53.874414, ‐
166.558677
(ADEC 2018)
Floodplains
Floodplain maps are not available for Unalaska (USACE 2018; FEMA 2018).
Visual and Noise Impacts
The Little S. America Site 3 is located in an industrial area with the closest sensitive area (Carl E. Moses
Boat Harbor) approximately 0.1 miles to the east. A public park, Expedition Island Park, is approximately
0.7 miles northeast of the site. The distance of the site from the harbor and park in conjunction with the
nature of the area would make noise impacts negligible; however, this site would likely be visible from
the areas listed above (City of Unalaska 2014).
Land Use/Ownership
Like many of the other sites Little South America Site 3 is located on industrial zoned land and land
owned by Ounalashka Corporation. Before development of this site consultation with the corporation
would need to occur (Ounalashka Corporation 2018; City of Unalaska 2014a).
Analysis of the City of Unalaska Wind Power Development and Integration Assessment Project – Phase II
April 2018
Page 19
Hog Island Road Site (53.902511, ‐166.575531)
The Hog Island Road site is located on Hog Island, approximately 0.8 miles west of Amaknak Island
(Figure 9).
Figure 9. Overview of Hog Island Road Site
Biological Resources:
Migratory Birds
The area on and around the Hog Island Road Site provides suitable habitat for 35 species of migratory
birds (USFWS 2018a).
Bald Eagle Nests
There are no Bald Eagle nests in the immediate vicinity and the closest nest is approximately 1.6 miles
east of the site (Figure 9; Southeast Alaska GIS Library 2018).
Anadromous Streams
Hog Island does not have any anadromous streams. The closest anadromous stream would be Iliuliuk
River (AWC Code: 302‐31‐10500) approximately 2.1 miles to the southeast and contains coho salmon
(spawning), pink salmon (spawning), sockeye salmon (spawning), and Dolly Varden (present) (Figure 9;
ADF&G 2018).
Analysis of the City of Unalaska Wind Power Development and Integration Assessment Project – Phase II
April 2018
Page 20
Wetlands
Wetlands maps are not currently available for Unalaska (USFWS 2018). A field visit would need to occur
to determine if Hog Island Road Site is located within a wetland.
Contaminated Sites
There are no known contaminated sites on Hog Island (Figure9; ADEC 2018).
Floodplains
Floodplain maps are not available for Unalaska (USACE 2018; FEMA 2018).
Visual and Noise Impacts
The Hog Island Road Site is geographically isolated from the rest of town; therefore, noise impacts from
construction or operation would be negligible. This site would likely be visible from the public and
industrial areas on the western most side of Amaknak Island (City of Unalaska 2014).
Land Use/Ownership
Hog Island is within the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge (AMNWR) and on Ounlalashka
Corporation owned land (BLM 2018; Ounalashka Corporation 2018). The Ounalashka Corporation along
with USFWS would need to be consulted if this site were chosen.
Cultural and Historic Sites
There are at least two sites, Hog Island Flake Site (UNL‐00115) and Oiled Blade Site (UNL‐00318), in
proximity to the Hog Island Road Site. Due to the proximity to known archaeological sites this area is of
higher cultural resource concern (CRC 2018).
Analysis of the City of Unalaska Wind Power Development and Integration Assessment Project – Phase II
April 2018
Page 21
Hog Island Beach Site (53.897469, ‐166.573061)
The Hog Island Beach site is located on the southern tip of Hog Island, approximately 0.8 miles west of
Amaknak Island (Figure 10).
Figure 10. Overview of Hog Island Beach Site
Biological Resources:
Migratory Birds
There could be 35 species of migratory birds present in and around the Hog Island Beach Site (USFWS
2018a).
Bald Eagle Nests
The closest Bald Eagle nest is approximately 1.4 miles east of the site (Figure 10; Southeast Alaska GIS
Library 2018).
Anadromous Streams
Iliuliuk River (AWC Code: 302‐31‐10500) is the closest anadromous stream to the Hog Island Beach Site
and it is approximately 2.1 miles to the southeast. The river contains coho salmon (spawning), pink
salmon (spawning), sockeye salmon (spawning), and Dolly Varden (present) (Figure 10; ADF&G 2018).
Analysis of the City of Unalaska Wind Power Development and Integration Assessment Project – Phase II
April 2018
Page 22
Wetlands
Wetlands maps are not currently available for Unalaska (USFWS 2018). A field visit would need to occur
to determine if Hog Island Beach Site is located within a wetland.
Contaminated Sites
There are no known contaminated sites near the Hog Island Beach Site (Figure 10; ADEC 2018).
Floodplains
Floodplain maps are not available for Unalaska (USACE 2018; FEMA 2018).
Visual and Noise Impacts
The distance from Hog Island Beach Site to Amaknak Island would make noise from construction or
operation negligible; however, establishments on the western most side of Amaknak may be able to see
a structure installed at this site (City of Unalaska 2014).
Land Use/Ownership
Due to Hog Island Beach Sites location within the AMNWR and on Ounalashka Corporation owned land
consultation with the Corporation and USFWS would need to occur before moving forward (BLM 2018;
Ounalashka Corporation 2018).
Cultural and Historic Sites
Hog Island Flake Site (UNL‐00115) and Oiled Blade Site (UNL‐00318) are two known sites that are in
proximity to the Hog Island Beach Site. As a result, this area is of higher cultural resource concern (CRC
2018).
Permitting Requirements
USACE Nationwide Permit
USFWS ESA Section 7 and/or 10
USACE 404 Permit
USFWS Eagle Take Permit
Federal Communications Commission and Federal Aviation Administration construction
notification/permit
Land Use Permit
Section 106
City of Unalaska Building Permit for Commercial Wind Structures (17.36.010)
USCG
Analysis of the City of Unalaska Wind Power Development and Integration Assessment Project – Phase II
April 2018
Page 23
References
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). 2018. Contaminated Sites Database.
Accessed from
http://dec.alaska.gov/Applications/SPAR/PublicMVC/CSP/Search?Search=True&TotalCount=0&S
iteName=&ArchivedReckey=&HazardID=&LUSTEventID=&Status=&SiteTypeID=&Address=&City
Name=Unalaska&ZipCodeID=&BoroughID=&FileNumber=&LUSTOnly=false on February 22,
2018.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. 2018. Division of Water: Alaska’s Wetlands.
Accessed from http://dec.alaska.gov/water/wwdp/wetlands/index.htm on February 27, 2018.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 2018. Fish Resource Monitor Mapper. Accessed from
http://extra.sf.ADF&G.state.ak.us/FishResourceMonitor/?mode=awc on February 22, 2018.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). 2018. Alaska Mapper: Landownership. Accessed from
http://dnr.alaska.gov/mapper/controller?do=view&view=map#map=13/‐
18538076.61/7147122.56 on April 19, 2018.
Alaska Public Media. 2015. Unalaska Hears on Community‐driven Brownfield Reclamation. Accessed
from https://www.alaskapublic.org/2015/11/18/community‐group‐envisions‐transformation‐of‐
contaminated‐lands/ on February 27, 2018.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2018. Alaska Spatial Data Management System. Accessed from
https://sdms.ak.blm.gov/isdms/imf.jsp?site=sdms on April 19, 2018.
City of Unalaska. 2014. Landmarks and Locations Map. Accessed from
http://ci.unalaska.ak.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/Planning/page/839/landmarkslocati
onsmapsinaddresses.pdf on February 27, 2018.
City of Unalaska. 2014a. Zoning Map. Accessed from
http://ci.unalaska.ak.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/Planning/page/839/zoning_map_06‐
05‐14.pdf on February 27, 2018.
Cultural Resources Consultants, LLC. 2018. Literature Review for the Unalaska Wind Project. Completed
for Solstice Alaska Consulting, Inc. on March 1, 2018.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2018. Flood Map Service Center. Accessed from
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=Unalaska%2C%20AK#searchresultsanchor
on February 27, 2018.
Ounalashka Corporation. 2018. Land Use. Accessed from https://www.ounalashka.com/land‐use/ on
April 19, 2018.
Qawalangin Tribe of Unalaska. 2018. Tribal Response Program. Accessed from
https://www.theqawalangintribe.com/trp on February 27, 2018.
Southeast Alaska GIS Library. 2018. WESPAK‐SE and NATAK‐SE Module: Bald Eagle Nest Layer. Accessed
from http://seakgis.alaska.edu/flex/wetlands/ on February 28, 2018.
Analysis of the City of Unalaska Wind Power Development and Integration Assessment Project – Phase II
April 2018
Page 24
State of Alaska. 1996. Request for Exxon‐Valdez Restoration Funding: Unalaska Lake Watershed
Restoration and Memorandum. Accessed from
file:///C:/Users/robin/Downloads/unalaska_notes.pdf on February 27, 2018.
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE). 2004. 2004 Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental
Impact Statement for Navigation Improvements in Unalaska, Alaska. Accessed from
https://books.google.com/books?id=G_4yAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=Wetlands+in+U
nalaska,+Alaska&source=bl&ots=UnWSAM0rAn&sig=FfHj‐
d4McYEcU47NxUYNEkcI4Bo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjl4qnn6MbZAhUKwFQKHbQlBRoQ6AEI
bDAM#v=onepage&q&f=false on February 27, 2018.
USACE. 2018. POA Corps Map. Accessed from
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/cm2.cm2.map?map=POA on February 27, 2018.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2018. National Wetlands Inventory Mapper. Accessed from
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html on February 27, 2018.
USFWS. 2018a. Information for Planning and Consultation. Accessed from
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/7NHXBDYQQFF4BEPTPHXATFJOI4/resources#migratory‐birds
on February 20, 2018.
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 39
Appendix B – Cultural and Historic Review Full Report
CULTURAL RESOURCE CONSULTANTS LLC
3504 East 67th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
(907) 349-3445
April 23, 2018
Literature Review for the Unalaska Wind Project
Introduction
The following is a cultural resources literature review for the Analysis of the City of Unalaska
Wind Power Development and Integration Assessment Project. This project will complete an
earlier wind feasibility study for Unalaska. CRC conducted a literature review of the possible
Meteorological (Met) Station locations, utilizing our library of previous reports, as well as site
information from the Office of History and Archaeology’s (OHA) Alaska Heritage Resources
Survey (AHRS).
Possible Met Station Locations
This literature review addresses areas within and adjacent to currently considered, possible
locations of met stations (Table 1). The proposed Airport Golfball, Little South American, and
Ballyhoo met station locations are within the Dutch Harbor Naval Operating Base and Fort
Mears, U.S. Army National Historic Landmark (NHL), which encompasses all of Amaknak
Island.
Lower Pyramid Valley Sites
There are no previously reported AHRS sites in the immediate vicinity of the two proposed
Lower Pyramid met stations. The nearest site, Rec Hall 5265 (UNL-00575), located roughly
1,200 feet to the northeast, is the concrete foundation of a World War II officer’s recreation hall.
The foundation has mistakenly been designated as a contributing feature of the NHL, although
the site is outside the NHL’s boundaries. A 1999 programmatic agreement regarding the
environmental restoration of formerly used defense sites on Amaknak and Unalaska islands 1
listed this area as not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
1 Programmatic Agreement Among the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer,
U.S. National Park Service, Ounalashka Corporation, Qawalangin Tribe of Unalaska, Unalaska Historical
Commission, Museum of the Aleutians, and The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the
Environmental Restoration of Dutch Harbor/Unalaska Under the Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) Program
Table 1. Possible Met Tower Locations.
Site Name GPS data Elevation (from Google Earth) (ft)
Lower Pyramid Valley 1
N 53.84930
W -166.56245 305
Lower Pyramid Valley 2
N 53.84930
W -166.56245 314
Airport Golfball (approx.
site location)
N 53.90444
W -166.54501 250
Upper Ptarmigan Rd. 1
N 53.86922
W -166.50580 691
Upper Ptarmigan Rd. 2
N 53.86922
W -166.50580 607
Little South America 1
N 53.87365
W -166.55308 266
Little South America 2
N 53.87568
W -166.55815 362
Ballyhoo
N 53.91548
W -166.51518 728
Hog Island Road
N 53.902511
W -166.575531 130
Hog Island Beach
N 53.897469
W -166.573061 22
Airport Golfball Site
There is one reported archaeological site roughly 500 feet north/northwest of the proposed
Airport Golfball met station location. The Ballyhoo Antenna Site (UNL-00316) is a scatter of
prehistoric lithic artifacts in a blowout within an antenna field. The flakes and blades seem to be
eroding from soil associated with an 8,000 to 9,000 year old pyroclastic flow from Mt.
Makushin. This site, like others on nearby Hog Island (see below), may represent the earliest
period of occupation of the region. This proposed met station is also within the NHL.
Upper Ptarmigan Road 1 and 2 Sites
There are no previously reported cultural resources in the vicinity of the proposed Upper
Ptarmigan Road 1 and 2 met stations.
Little South America 1 and 2 Sites
Little South America 1 and 2 are within the Hill 400 Defenses site (UNL-00122), a contributing
property of the NHL. This area contains ammunition magazines, a two-level concrete battery
commander station, the remains of a wood frame fire station, four 155mm gun emplacements,
and the ruins of Quonset huts and frame buildings.
The two proposed met station locations are in areas that could contain World War II features.
Little South America 1 is on the eastern side of the Hill 400 slope, but still well within the
historic site’s boundaries. Little South America 2 is near the top of the hill where many of the
military features are located.
Ballyhoo Site
This proposed met tower is within Fort Schwatka (UNL-00119), which is also part of the NHL.
Fort Schwatka, located on Ulakta Head, at the northern end of Amaknak Island, contains the
remains of an extensive coastal defense installation. Fort Schwatka is about five and one half
miles long and ranges in width from a few hundred yards to a mile. The remains of the fort
include an 8-inch gun battery, two 155mm gun emplacements, a concrete battery command post,
two fire control stations, a joint Army and Navy harbor entrance control post and harbor defense
command post, eight igloo and elephant-type ammunition magazines, several frame barracks and
storehouses, and numerous Quonset huts. Fort Schwatka is a National Historic Area
administered by the National Park Service.
Hog Island Road Site and Hog Island Beach Site
There are three previously reported sites near the proposed Hog Island Road and Hog Island
Beach Site met stations: UNL-00115, UNL-00318, and UNL-00058 (Figure 1).
The Hog Island Flake Site (UNL-00115) is roughly 950 feet southeast of the proposed Hog
Island Road met station and approximately 1100 feet north/northeast of the proposed Hog Island
Beach met station, in an area with several large radio antennas. The site consists of artifacts
scattered across the surface of several large blowouts and a buried cultural layer containing
blades, microblades, microblade cores, burins, ochre grinders, and lithic debitage. With an
uncalibrated radiocarbon age of 7960±90 years BP, this site dates to the Early Anangula
tradition, the earliest known occupation of the Aleutian Islands.
The Oiled Blade Site (UNL-00318) is roughly 1200 feet southeast of the proposed Hog Island
Road met station and 850 feet north/northeast of the proposed Hog Island Beach Site. It is also
an Early Anangula tradition site, dating to 8400 to 7900 years BP. The site is roughly 35 meters
above mean sea level and capped by thick tephra deposits. The collection from the
archaeological site includes an oil lamp, grooved cobble net sinkers, microblades, several burins
and burin spalls. This site is also one of the earliest known archaeological sites in the Aleutian
Islands.
The Hog Island South Site (UNL-00058) is located at the southern tip of Hog Island, roughly
100 feet east of the proposed Hog Island Beach met station. This site is the remains of a shell
midden and former village. Much of the site was damaged by World War II military operations.
There is also some uncertainty regarding the site’s location, due to slightly differing information
provided by early researchers.
Figure 1. Proposed Hog Island met stations and their relation to previously reported
archaeological sites.
Recommendations
The proposed Little South America, Ballyhoo, Airport Golfball, and Hog Island met station
locations all have potential historic or archaeological conflicts. The Little South America,
Ballyhoo, and Airport Golfball locations are within the NHL and, additionally, Fort Schwatka is
a National Historic Area. While the installation of a met station might not necessarily affect any
World War II remains, permitting a tower within the NHL would require consultation with the
National Park Service.
The Golfball and Hog Island locations are in the vicinity of known prehistoric sites. The
proximity of known archaeological sites to the proposed met station sites suggests that are in an
area of higher concern for cultural resources.
City of Unalaska Wind Power Phase II Report Page | 40
Appendix C – National Park Service Approval of LSA Met Tower
From:Michael Yarborough
To:Doug Vaught
Subject:Fwd: [Met Tower on Amaknak Island (Little South America) - within WWII NHL
Date:Wednesday, May 02, 2018 11:35:23
Attachments:Portable_Met_Tower_Assembly_Guide.pdf
Doug
Here is Janet's response. Valerie is another Park Service historian. In
essence, if the tower isn't located on any WWII remains, or you don't have
to drive over any to get the selected site, you're "good" with the Park
Service.
Mike
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Clemens, Janet <janet_clemens@nps.gov>
Date: Wed, May 2, 2018 at 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Met Tower on Amaknak Island (Little South America) - within WWII NHL
To: Michael Yarborough <salvagerecovery@gmail.com>
Cc: Valerie Gomez <Valerie_gomez@nps.gov>
Hi Mike,
Valerie and I took a look at the project, and also found some information about 10-meter Met towers (see attached)
to get a better visual understanding (assuming it is what is shown in the guide). Hill 400 does have numerous
WWII resources. Our initial response is that as long as the one tower installation and its subsequent removal avoids
harm to the WWII resources on Hill 400, because it is temporary it can be considered reversible. If, of course, there
was a proposed project for something more permanent or substantial in scale or numbers we would be interested in
further consultation.
Thanks,
Janet
Janet Clemens, Historian
National Park Service
Alaska Region
240 W. 5th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
t. 907/644-3461
f. 907/644-3811
--
Michael R. Yarborough
Senior Archeologist
Cultural Resource Consultants LLC
3504 E. 67th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99507